Title: Sociocultural Processes of Learning in Art Among Early Years Learners

Author: Flanagan, Maryann.

Title: Sociocultural processes of learning in art among early years learners

Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference,

University of Glamorgan, 14-17 September 2005

Abstract:

This paper is titled “The Socio-cultural Processes of Learning in Art among Early Years Learners”, and as such it explores learning and teaching in art based on theories centred on Vygotsky’s views of child development. Other relevant neo- Vygotskian theorists considered are Cole, Kozulin, Lave and Wenger and Rogoff. The rationale for this investigation is founded on my belief that learning and teaching in art is aligned with a situated perspective and emphasises continuity with children’s wider social life. The main aim of the research is to enunciate a pedagogy for the delivery of the art and design curriculum in the Foundation Stage of the Revised Northern Ireland Curriculum. A key objective is to offer experiential and explorative activities that enable children to be active, enquiring and creative learners. As context is recognized as a fundamental element of this approach due consideration is therefore given to the organization of the physical environment of the classroom or nursery. Consequently particular attention is given to learning relationships and collaboration in the classroom. In the attempt to provide appropriate art activities and experiences for young children, associated approaches such as scaffolding (Wood, Bruner and Ross 1976), guided participation (Rogoff 1990) and assisted performance (Tharp and Gallimore 1991) are considered as teaching strategies.

Document Type: Conference Paper presented at BERA on 16th September 2005

Key terms: Art, Early Years, Sociocultural, Teaching Strategies.

1 The Sociocultural Processes of Learning in Art among Early Years Learners

2 INTRODUCTION

In recent years major developments have been made in the provision of early years’ education and care to meet the demands of society, of different family backgrounds and of the changing fabric of the workforce. In Northern Ireland this has led to a review of The Northern Ireland Primary Curriculum and the Revised Curriculum for

Key Stages 1 and 2 has recently been released. A major change to the curriculum is the introduction of a Foundation Stage to incorporate the pre-school year or nursery as well as primary 1 and primary 2. An independent initiative by early years’ practitioners in East Belfast has been extended and is now leading the way for educational developments. This initiative is called ‘The Enriched Curriculum’.

The structure of the Northern Ireland curriculum has also changed dramatically with a shift away from individual subjects to six areas of learning, including The Arts. This area of learning incorporates Art and Design, Music and Drama. My intention is to work within the parameters of Foundation Stage, specifically in the delivery of art and design in the nursery or primary 1 classroom.

I am strongly of the opinion that effective teaching in art and design reflects a sociocultural or situated perspective, and furthermore I believe that the very nature of the subject is aligned with a situated or culturalist view of mind. The reason for my claim is that the artist – including the early years’ learner, is always active or agentive in the creative process and invariably learns from mistakes, and from finding solutions to problems and dilemmas that arise naturally as part of the creative process. The learner acts or reacts with the environment rather than on it, and human knowledge

3 and interaction are seen as inseparable from the world, in other words, they are situated within a context.

In light of the current educational situation in Northern Ireland, this therefore seems to be an opportune if not an imperative time to reflect on teaching strategies in the early years, and even more specifically to clarify a pedagogy that is current and is built upon sound theoretical foundations while at the same time meeting the demands of the new curriculum. In order to do this I have planned a programme of research that is progressive in that the evaluation and analysis of the initial stages of fieldwork will inform the planning of subsequent study. This approach replicates the spiralling process introduced by Bruner, mentioned in Moore (2000). My intentions are that this empirical research will involve the planning and delivery of series of art activities informed by sociocultural theory and grounded in the principles of a situated approach to learning.

This paper presents the theoretical underpinnings of the research and outlines the practical implications for the classroom.

Main Aim and objectives of the Research

1. Main Aim:

The general purpose of this research is to enunciate a pedagogy for the

delivery of the art and design curriculum in the Foundation Stage of

the Revised Northern Ireland Curriculum.

2. Objectives:

 To consider how sociocultural theories of child development can

inform better practice in teaching and learning in art and design in

early childhood settings

4  To remediate pupils’ art experiences on the grounds of theoretical and

empirical research

 To direct pedagogic practice informed by sociocultural theory

 To provide an environment where children can participate fully in

culturally regulated experiences through actively engaging in creative,

expressive and imaginative activities

A particular source of inspiration for this idea has been the Reggio Emilia approach to early years’ education that has developed in northern Italy since the 1940s. Each school in Reggio has a resident artist who works with the teachers to devise and deliver inspiring programmes of work. The Reggio Emilia approach has informed the formulation of some of my ideas and my initial research proposal as the adult – child relationship is regarded as fundamental to the success of the programme. In Reggio according to Edwards, Gandini and Forman (1998) ‘The children’s roles in the relationships were more as apprentices than as the targets of instruction.’ As a result of further reading and consideration of the Reggio Emilia approach I have become intrigued by the climate that is established there within which a curriculum with art as the central element is actively promoted, and creativity and imagination are valued as important and essential to children’s development and education. By contrast, despite creativity having been given some prominence in the new curriculum proposals in

Northern Ireland, I do not believe that this reflects the ethnotheories of most parents, teachers and indeed the educational priorities for much of Northern Irish society. In fact many early years’ teachers have expressed concerns to me over a lack of expertise within the creative and expressive areas, as well as uncertainty about the role it plays in the curriculum.

5 At this juncture I feel it is important to clarify some fundamental differences in the

Reggio Emilia approach to learning and teaching and that which is in place in

Northern Ireland. One basic difference is the fact that art is centrally placed in the

Reggio curriculum, as is demonstrated for example by the resident artist in each school, mentioned above. I have been impressed by the vision Loris Malaguzzi and the founders of the Reggio Emilia pre-school teaching approach have shown in recognising the learning potential that arise from giving children the opportunity to develop their ‘graphic languages’ (Edwards, Gandini and Forman, 1998). This in keeping with Dewey’s demand (cited in Lim, 2004) for what he describes as an ‘arts- based curriculum’, as a central element promoting, encouraging and providing a source for learning. In Northern Ireland on the other hand, although now identified as one of six key areas of learning in the curriculum, I believe that art is still sidelined in deference to literacy and numeracy. What the designers of the new curriculum for

Northern Ireland have failed to recognise are the valuable opportunities for cross- curricular development and learning, including of course literacy and numeracy, which arise quite naturally out of art activities. As Lilian Katz observes

“ In American schools, children’s graphic representations may be treated as mere decorative products to be taken home at the end of the day, most likely never to be discussed or looked at again. In Reggio Emilia, graphic representations serve as resources for further exploration and deepening knowledge of the topic.” (Katz 1998)

Soler and Miller (2003) discuss and compare three early childhood curricula, specifically, the English Foundation Stage, Te Whariki - the National Curriculum

Framework for early childhood in New Zealand, and Reggio Emilia. This paper identifies some interesting theoretical bases and determining principles of each, including the perceptions held of children as learners, the goals and aspirations for

6 these children and the value placed on knowledge development in each context. Their conclusion claims that the English early years’ curriculum (which has many similarities and parallels with the Northern Ireland Common Curriculum) is based on the ‘view of the child as a future pupil’, and therefore is designed to prepare young children for entry into primary school via an approach that places precedence on knowledge of a curriculum that focuses on distinct subjects. Learning and teaching in this context is restricted by a ‘centralised, competency-oriented curriculum’ (Soler and Miller 2003) where learning targets are pre-determined. By complete contrast the

Reggio Emilia approach recognises the young learner as a ‘powerful partner’ in the learning process and as such it has been designed from the point of view of the child.

It is based on sociocultural principles as Malaguzzi cites Dewey, Bronfenbrenner and

Vygotsky as key influences.

7 This leads me to think about the values we hold paramount when regarding education and our views of what constitutes knowledge. In particular, how we view the nature of knowledge in art has implications for what and how we teach the subject. As I have already stated I am firmly of the belief that learning in art is synonymous with engagement in practical activity, as in a situated or culturalist point of view. The key word to the promotion of learning here is of course ‘activity’. This can not be left to chance and as Kozulin (1998) states “should be organized and transformed in order to produce genuine learning activity in the child.” (p157) However I feel that much classroom practice in art and design reflects what Cole and Cole (2001) describe as

‘an information-processing account of drawing’ rather than ‘a cultural-context account’ that stresses the teacher-pupil interaction as key to the development. This account also places emphasis on the experiences provided for the children, the opportunities to ‘observe, make choices and decisions, investigate, problem solve and talk about their own and others work, including the work of real artists, designers and craft-workers.’ (CCEA 2003) I strongly believe that learning in art depends on an emphasis being directed on the processes such as those just mentioned. Product oriented activities, I believe lose sight of the value of the subject as a vehicle for learning and development and relegate it to a supporting role in the curriculum, used to illustrate other subjects and topics, or simply an opportunity to decorate classrooms and schools. This is another reason why practitioners need a pedagogy to inform their practice.

I believe that in order to consider fully how sociocultural theory can inform learning and teaching in the early years’ classroom, it is necessary to look at distinct areas set against the curriculum.

(i) sociocultural theory and

8 (ii) contextual activities.

SOCIOCULTURAL THEORY

Vygotsky argued that human beings, even the youngest infants, are comprehensively social organisms, and it is only through interaction with others that young children begin to develop a sense of self. Furthermore development according to Vygotsky proceeds from the social to the individual. The significance of this for education cannot be ignored. In light of this argument it follows that these interactions with others are in fact central to all learning and development, and therefore all relationships within a classroom are potential learning and teaching situations. These interactions with others are imbedded in the society and culture of the time and place in which the interactions occur.

Vygotsky defined the distance between that which a child can do with assistance, and what he/she can do unaided as the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD).

“ The actual developmental level characterises mental development retrospectively, while the zone of proximal development characterises mental development prospectively.” (Vygotsky 1978) I am keen to explore this concept as a tool to advance learning and development during art activities with young children.

Socioculturalists cite co-operation as an intrinsic element of learning, and argue that the learner employs the joint decision making process within the learning process.

Lave and Wenger (1999) delve deeper into this notion and in doing so argue that acceptance of a situated or culturalist view of mind indicates approval for their legitimate peripheral participation theory. This theory examines the concepts of interaction and collaboration and proposes that we must regard learners as novices or

‘apprentices’ within the community of practice. I believe that the implications for teaching are that the teacher assumes the role of the more skilled and more

9 knowledgeable partner in a joint problem solving activity. It is therefore the duty of this partner to guide the learner from what he/she already knows or understands to achieve the unknown. What is clear from both accounts is that the teacher or more skilled partner, who is already imbued with cultural ethnotheories and practices, is a crucial component in the process.

Consideration of this discussion however has led me to question what knowledge is and in particular, what constitutes knowledge in art and design? It is first of all necessary to differentiate between knowledge specified by the curriculum and knowledge as it is appropriated in the wider social experience of the child. To help clarify this I return to key exponents of sociocultural theory. Knowledge, according to

Lave and Wenger, is synonymous with participation within a community of practice and learning involves “both absorbing and being absorbed in – the ‘culture of practice’” (p22). Knowledge is therefore not only sociocultural but it is intrinsically linked to physical action and activity. As the learner gradually moves towards fuller participation within the community, actively engaging in productive activity, knowledge is developed as he/she becomes increasingly more experienced in the aspiration to be an expert within the domain. From an art and design point of view I take this to mean that knowledge is linked to problem solving, to interaction with other artists and to participation in an activity that has been immersed in cultural beliefs for centuries. The implications for the classroom are that interaction, collaboration and engagement in activity ought to be the key tools for teaching, as I believe this is when true learning occurs. The development of certain skills, both generic and transferable skills, and subject specific skills cannot be overlooked however. Such skills of course are imbued with the cultural-historic meaning and significance of the immediate social context.

10 In order to begin to consider the classroom as a highly creative context, I need to address the role of the teacher as a mediator of cultural contexts thereby enabling the children to begin to assume some control of their creative process. Daniels (2001) points out that mediation was at the centre of Vygotskian theory and if I accept a situated approach to learning and development, in which knowledge and interaction are seen as inseparable, it surely follows that due consideration must be given to the concept of mediation. Kozulin (1998) argues that there are ‘three classes of mediators: material tools, psychological tools and other human beings.’ This is of course highly relevant considering that the learner not only reacts with the environment that has been shaped by culturally organised practices but is at the same time acted upon by these same practices. With reference to learning and development in art in an early years’ situation, the implications are many. For instance, let us consider the diverse range of materials and tools with which young children should explore and experiment. Typical art tools and materials include brushes, paints, pencils, charcoal, pastels, pens, all varieties of paper, card, fabrics and clay. By acknowledging these as cultural mediators, such tools are infused with socio-historical meaning and significance having been used by artists and designers for centuries. In contrast to these technical tools, psychological tools according to Vygotsky (1978), ‘serve as the conductor of human influence’ (p55). Relevant examples of psychological tools include all genres of artworks and language, oral, written and indeed visual language.

By visual language I mean, line, colour, tone, pattern, texture, form, shape and space; the elements by which all artworks are composed and also the language by which all artworks are described. I readily accept Vygotsky’s premise that psychological tools exert influence on the attitudes and behaviour of those who interact with them, and indeed it is my opinion that ‘art’, psychological tools such as those I mentioned above

11 possess a particularly strong capacity to affect behaviour. My rationale for making this claim is that we are in fact surrounded by the visual elements in the form of fashion and furniture design, architecture and many other aspects of our daily lives that have been shaped by social, historical and cultural factors. In addition to this, one cannot ignore the influence of art on popular culture via media, music and film.

Sociocultural teaching strategies

I would like to turn my attention to sociocultural teaching strategies at this stage, and consider how these might be operationalised through art and design activities with very young learners. Since I recognise the significance of Vygotsky’s ZPD in a sociocultural approach, I feel that I need to explore teaching strategies to guide young children through the ZPD during art activities. Accordingly, I am aware that teaching strategies must not only reflect a sociocultural approach but importantly must facilitate the achievement of the aims of art and design within the early years setting and be conducive to the attainment of learning objectives in art derived from the curriculum. Despite my assertion expressed earlier of the parallels between sociocultural theory and the nature of art and design, I am concerned with the need to design a series of activities or a scheme of work that sufficiently reflects the former while being completely relevant to the latter. Several major exponents of sociocultural theory have identified the type of teaching strategy they believe is conducive to furthering development and learning. Given the sociocultural common denominator, these strategies are grounded within learning relationships. In 1976 Wood, Bruner and

Ross first used the metaphor of a scaffold to describe the teaching device employed by the teacher during the interaction with the learner when the teacher provides support for the learner, gradually removing it as the learner becomes more competent and independent. In much writing this strategy is closely linked with Vygotsky’s ZPD

12 – discussed above, as the term is a metaphor for the interactions between an adult and child during which the adult helps the child to perform at an activity that is in advance of his or her independent performance. The parallel with ZPD is clear. However,

Addison Stone (1993) says that Wood et al ‘did not draw explicitly on Vygotsky’s work when formulating their ideas concerning scaffolding’ (p170). Kruger and

Tomasello (1998) discuss three educational styles and the corresponding adult approaches. A sociocultural approach to learning that recognises the dual roles of learner and teacher in an activity is consistent with Kruger and Tomasello’s guided learning style and requires adult involvement through scaffolding. Addison Stone’s critique of scaffolding highlights certain limitations of the metaphor however, primarily the efficiency of the means of interaction and communication, and the relationship between the participants.

Regardless of these arguments however, I am not convinced at this stage that scaffolding is an appropriate strategy for learning and teaching in art. It seems to me that scaffolding is useful in the development of skills, in promoting children’s task mastery (Berk and Winsler 2002) or understanding of subject specific knowledge. As

Chaiklin (2003) explains

“It seems more appropriate to ………………………….. find other terms (e.g.,

assisted instruction, scaffolding ) to refer to practices such as teaching a

specific subject matter concept, skill, and so forth.”

Scaffolding could indeed be very useful to help a young learner acquire a particular artistic skill, such as making a monoprint or joining clay, but of course learning in art involves so much more than simply acquiring such skills. In fact it is what young

13 children do once they have acquired a skill, and how they use it, that is most meaningful.

As stated earlier a situated or culturalist view of knowledge in art places emphasis on problem solving, interaction with others and participation in activities. I feel this is in keeping with the Attainment Targets in the NICC Programmes of Study for Art and

Design. They cover four distinct areas for assessment that are: responses to stimuli; use of materials, tools and processes; talk and discussion; and the visual elements.

These areas indicate that engagement in artistic or creative activity is central to the curriculum. My question now is ‘what teaching strategies are appropriate in the promotion of this type of learning?’

A key reading in helping me to reconcile sociocultural teaching strategies with art teaching was ‘The Project Approach Framework for Teacher Education: A Case for

Collaborative Learning and Reflective Practice’ by Moran (1998). In this article

Moran highlights that two theoretical perspectives operating in sync must be considered: ‘the tenets of social constructivism and the image of the teacher.’ This notion of the role of the teacher I now believe is crucial to the application of sociocultural theory in art particularly in the early years’ setting. Given the salient position that interaction between pupil and teacher holds from a sociocultural perspective, it follows that the role of the teacher must be that of co-participant and collaborator. However Moran suggests that the teacher is also a learner. Of course this is something that we are very aware of, as we are encouraged to regularly critically reflect on our performance as teachers so as to ensure professional development continues – indeed we espouse the principle of continued and lifelong learning.

Adopting the role of learner in the classroom is a different matter though. Lave and

Wenger (1999) talk of communities of practice and legitimate peripheral

14 participation. Knowledge according to Lave and Wenger, is synonymous with participation within this community of practice and learning involves “both absorbing and being absorbed in – the ‘culture of practice’” (p22) In light of Moran’s point I would argue that the classroom is also a community of learners, where pupils and teachers work side by side exploring and experimenting, talking and discussing, and learning together. To establish a community of practice of artists in the classroom, the children must see the teacher engaging in artwork, working alongside them, using tools and exploring the properties of materials. Together teacher and pupils should identify and solve problems. As the children participate on the periphery of this community of practice of artists as novices, they begin to develop their identities as artists also.

Barbara Rogoff (1990) meanwhile talks of cognitive development as an

‘apprenticeship’, and the process of teaching and learning as ‘guided participation’.

In the creative process, she says that ‘information and skills are not transmitted but are transformed in the process of appropriation. Social activity serves not as a template for individual participation but as a stepping stone, guiding the path taken but not determining it.’ (p197) Furthermore Rogoff claims that working within the context of a community of artists actively promotes the development of individual creativity. Ji-

Hi Bae (2004) dealing specifically with the teacher’s role during art lessons in the early years’ setting described three approaches to art education. I am particularly interested in Bresler’s (1993, cited in Bae) guided-exploration orientation as teachers adopting this approach ‘provide guidelines that help children observe things carefully, use their sensitivities, and express their ideas when they create artwork.’ (p248)

Although in his discussion of the role of the teacher Bae emphasises guiding, or reacting to the children rather than providing explicit direction, he has not considered

15 the notion of community of practice, and the teacher’s active involvement does not seem to extend beyond ‘discussions and demonstrations.’ (p253)

CONTEXT

A further implication of my alliance with a sociocultural approach to education is that

I provide a context that is conducive to such meaningful interaction, collaboration and engagement. Sociocultural theory emphasises the person – environment interaction while linking the interaction to culturally organised practices, thereby highlighting the crucial place of context in the theory. What do I mean by context? Cole (2003) suggests that we think of context as ‘that which weaves together’, and he proceeds to observe that within the context of behaviour it is the ‘goals, tools and setting

(including other people and what Lave, 1988, terms “arena”)’ that are woven together.

(p. 137) I would further expand on this argument and suggest that from a culturalist or situated perspective, context is entwined with knowledge, that they are inextricably woven together. It is important to distinguish at this stage between context and setting.

Goodnow (1993) asks us to consider what distinguishes a classroom from other settings. As I have endeavoured to do exactly this, it has become increasingly more apparent that the context for learning and teaching is much more than simply the setting, situation or environment where learning takes place. Magnusson and Stattin

(1998) describe context as ‘The total, integrated, and organized system, of which the individual forms a part’. This highlights two important points for me. One is that consideration must be given to the way in which the classroom is organised and especially how this reflects our views of education and our beliefs about learners. The second point is that the individual learner is an active element in this culturally organised system. Interesting though this is, I believe that it does not comprehensively explain context. Whereas the classroom setting is the physical environment within

16 which the learning activity takes places, the context on the other hand is much broader. As well as the physical setting, it encompasses the teacher and learners, their interactions, their reactions with the environment, the tools through which these interactions and reactions are mediated, as well as the purposes and aspirations of the activity. From this it is evident that the context within which an activity occurs is undoubtedly fundamental to the success of the activity. Hala (1997) remarked that ‘a change in the context in which a problem is embedded can lead to significant improvements in subjects’ performance’ (p79). Moll and Whitmore (1993) discuss how the classroom can be manipulated and structured to promote language development. I would like to draw an analogy with their exposition as I ponder the notion of the classroom as a highly creative environment. Florence Beetlestone (1998) provides helpful guidelines for analysing the classroom as an appropriate climate for encouraging originality. She identifies

1. The physical climate

2. The intellectual climate, and

3. The emotional climate

This prompts me to ask certain questions. For example:

 How does the organisation of the classroom promote creative activity

and foster creative thinking?

 Do the experiences we offer young children challenge them to operate

at progressively higher standards?

 In what ways do we provide the security, support and encouragement

that young children need in order to partake effectively in creative

activities?

17 These are important questions as they indicate the ways in which I will begin to deal with the contextual or classroom issues, since while emerging from sociocultural theory as a basic principle, context also makes an important attachment to the curriculum.

In order to begin to consider these questions I intend to reflect on the components of context as mentioned above, in the next section ‘Design of Schemes of Work’.

Design of schemes of work

The problem is how to design a scheme of work for art that reflects sociocultural theories as discussed above. From my understanding of sociocultural theory I recognise that this means more than integrating sociocultural teaching strategies into lessons and activities, important though this would be. My first consideration therefore is the creation of an appropriate climate or context to promote and enhance learning such as that described by Beetlestone cited earlier. Key tools for teaching should be interaction, collaboration and engagement. A concept that has been useful implementing these into planning has been that of the activity setting (Tharp, 1993).

I believe it is essential to consider the environment within which the activities take place and also the interactions that form part of the activity, as central elements of the learning and teaching situation. As such therefore these can not be left to chance but have to be planned and organised to promote learning. It is also important to ensure that these spaces are adequately equipped and resourced for learning, and that the environment is conducive to interaction among the participants, including adults.

Materials, tools and resources as primary artefacts are extremely important in any art lessons or activities, and should be prepared and selected with care. Visual and tactile stimuli have the capacity to motivate and inspire children in their creative endeavours.

18 It is important that the activity is designed specifically to promote collaboration between learners through group-work, and that learning is arrived at through the resultant cooperative industry. This must be apparent from the learning outcomes right through to the activities.

Teaching strategies as discussed earlier should be employed during individual and group tasks and whole class activities. They include as and when appropriate: scaffolding; guided exploration orientation; joint problem solving; group discussions.

Valerie Mercilliott Hewitt (2001) discusses the image and the role of the child within the Reggio Emilia approach, and I feel that it is important that there is a real understanding of this tenet. The first thing to recognise is that the child is primarily a social being and communication and interaction are fundamental to learning and development. The role of the young child in the learning activity according to

Mercilliott Hewitt is as researcher and as an active constructor of knowledge in collaboration with others. As a consequence of this, art learning activities must be specifically designed to facilitate investigation, experimentation, exploration, discussion, problem solving and other experiential situations. However, in order for learning to continue and to progress in these situations there must be reflection, on the part of both the teacher and indeed the children. Teachers must operate a teaching cycle that involves listening, observing, reflecting and revisiting, and so on. Similarly the children must be given the time and encouragement to evaluate what they have achieved. It is important to point out that this may involve the consideration of the use of materials or processes, and not necessarily the production of a final piece.

One of the main things that struck me about the Reggio Emilia approach was the emphasis placed on simply listening to the children. Resultant interactions between pupils and teacher should be better informed with a greater chance of achieving

19 shared understanding, or intersubjectivity. Within a climate of mutual understanding teachers ought to be able to offer support and guidance that enables children to observe with sensitivity; to express their feelings, emotions and ideas; and to communicate using the visual elements.

Finally I wish to reiterate that this research is ongoing and is at an early yet crucial stage of development. Sociocultural schemes of work will be trialled by teachers in the classroom and their feedback will be used in the evaluation and the subsequent preparation of the next stage of the fieldwork. Looking ahead therefore, I think my immediate concerns are the refinement of ideas and careful consideration of the practical implications of theory for delivery in the classroom.

REFERENCES

Addison Stone, C. (1993) ‘What is missing in the Metaphor of Scaffolding?’ In Forman, E.A., Minick, N. and Addison Stone, C. (Eds) Contexts for Learning. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Bae, J.H. (2004) ‘Learning to Teach Visual Arts in an Early Childhood Classroom: The Teacher’s Role as a Guide’ in Early Childhood Education Journal, Vol. 31, No. 4, Summer 2004

Beetlestone, F. (1998) Creative Children, Imaginative Teaching. Buckingham, Open University Press

20 Berk, L. and Winsler, A. (2002) Scaffolding Children’s Learning: Vygotsky and early Childhood Education. Washington, DC, National Association for the Education of Young Children.

CCEA (2003) The Revised Northern Ireland Primary Curriculum Foundation Stage Draft. Belfast.

Chaiklin, S. (2003) ‘The Zone of Proximal Development in Vygotsky’s Analysis of Learning and Instruction’ in Kozulin, A., Gindis , B., Ageyev, V.S. and Miller, S.M. (Eds) Vygotsky’s Educational Theory in Cultural Context. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Cole, M. (2003) Cultural Psychology A One and Future Discipline. London, The Belknap press of Harvard University Press

Cole, M. and Cole, S. (2001) The Development of Children. New York, Worth Publishers

Daniels, H. (2004) Vygotsky and Pedagogy. London, Routledge Falmer

DENI (1996) Northern Ireland Programme of Study for Art at key Stage 1

Edwards, C., Gandini, L. and Forman, G. (eds) (1998) The Hundred Languages of Children. London, JAI Press Ltd.

Goodnow, J. (1993) ‘Direction of Post-Vygotskian Research’ in Forman, E.A., Minick, N. and Addison Stone, C. (eds) Contexts For Learning Oxford, Oxford University Press

Hala, S. (ed) (1997) The Development of Social Cognition. East Sussex, Psychology Press.

21 Kozulin, A. (1998) Psychological Tools A Sociocultural Approach to Education. London, Harvard University Press

Kruger, A.C. and Tomasello, M. (1998) ‘Cultural Learning and Learning Culture’ in Olson, D. R. and Torrance, N. (eds) The Handbook of Education and Human Development Oxford, Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Lim, B. (2004) ‘Aesthetic Discourses in Early Childhood: Dewey, Steiner, and Vygotsky’ in Early Child Development and Care Vol. 174 (5) pp 473-486

Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1999) ‘Legitimate Peripheral Participation’ in Murphy, P. (ed) Learners, Learning & Assessment. London, Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd.

Magnusson, D. and Stattin, H. (1998) ‘Person-Context Interaction Theories’ in Damon, W. and Lerner, R.M. (eds) Handbook of Child Psychology Fifth Edition, Volume One Theoretical Models of Human Development Chichester, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Mercilliott Hewett, V. (2001) ‘Examining the Reggio Emilia Approach to Early Childhood Education’ in Early Childhood Education Journal Vol29, No2

Moll, L.C. and Whitmore, K.F. ‘Vygotsky in Classroom Practice: Moving from Individual transmission to Social Transaction’ in Forman, E.A., Minick, N. and Addison Stone, C. (eds) Contexts For Learning Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Moore, A. (2000) Teaching and Learning Pedagogy, Curriculum and Culture. London, Routledge Falmer.

Moran, M.J. (1998) in Edwards, C., Gandini, L. and Forman, G. (Eds) The Hundred Languages of Children The Project Approach Framework for Teacher Education: A Case for Collaborative Learning and Reflective Practice. London, Ablex Publishing Corporation.

22 Rogoff, B. (1990) Apprenticeship in Thinking Cognitive Development in Social Context. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Soler, J. and Miller, L. (2003) ‘The Struggle for Early Childhood Curricula: a Comparison of the English Foundation Stage Curriculum, Te Whariki and Reggio Emilia’ in International Journal of Early Years Education, Vol. 11, No. 1, 2003

Tharp, R. (1993) ‘Institutional and Social Context of Educational Practice and Reform’ in Forman, E.A., Minick, N. and Addison Stone, C. (eds) Contexts For Learning Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) ‘Interaction Between learning and Development’ in Cole, M., John-Steiner, V., Scribner, S. and Souberman, E. (eds) Mind in Society London, Harvard University Press.