Reggio Emilia As Cultural Activity Theory in Practice

Home , Parma, Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia approach

THEORY INTO PRACTICE, 46(1), 5–13

Rebecca S. New Reggio Emilia As Cultural Activity Theory in Practice

This article situates Reggio Emilia’s municipally Oregono? Reggio What? funded early childhood program within the city’s And Who Is Emilia? cultural traditions of resistance and collaboration and considers what it is about this highly localized VER THE PAST 2 DECADES, the name of this program that is appealing and useful to contempo- OItalian city has become, for many, the gold rary school reform initiatives. Five features of standard for quality early childhood education. Reggio Emilia’s approach to early education are Reggio Emilia, long associated with the famous described: an interpretation of teachers as re- cheese it produces with its neighbor Parma, is now searchers, curriculum as long-term projects, the a moniker for its equally famous municipal pro- role of symbolic languages in child development gram for children ages 0 to 6. The words Reggio and advocacy, the role of the environment, and an Emilia represent more, however, than a symbol of interpretation of parents as partners in the educa- status and quality. Even as it has joined other name tional enterprise. Other features of the city’s hard brand approaches to an early childhood curricu- work—specifically, its capacity to make ideas visi- lum (Montessori, Bank Street, High Scope), the ble and its emphasis on relations among adults as nickname Reggio has become a catalyst for con- well as children—are identified as central to Reg- versations about a society’s responsibility to its gio Emilia’s continued influence on the field. The youngest citizens. For some, the city’s rapid rise to article concludes with a proposal to consider schools acclaim represents an unwelcome and increas- as cites where reform initiatives can be informed by ingly globalized hegemony regarding children’s principles and practices from Reggio Emilia. early care and education. For others, the city’s servizi per l’infanzia (early childhood services) highlight previously unimagined and rarely real- Rebecca S. New is Associate Professor of Child De- ized potentials of children and teachers to learn to- velopment and Early Childhood Education in the gether, the rights of families to participate, and the Eliot-Pearson Department of Child Development at responsibilities of a community to support such Tufts University. Correspondence should be addressed to Rebecca collaborative engagement. Beyond this, Reggio S. New, Eliot-Pearson Department of Child Develop- Emilia demonstrates the power of creative and ment, Tufts University, 105 College Avenue, Medford, critical thinking, especially when helped along by MA 02155. E-mail: [email protected] courage, charisma, and good timing.

For those unfamiliar with the city and its work, nicipal preschool in 1963 and played a leadership this issue serves as an invitation to join conversa- role in the establishment, in 1968, of Italy’s na- tionsthathavebeenongoingintheUnitedStatesfor tional system of early childhood services. thepast2decades1 aboutwhatReggioEmiliahasto Over the next decade, as they worked closely offer to the theory and practice of early childhood with colleagues in other municipalities committed education. For those already familiar with this to public early childhood services, the Reggiani Italian approach to early childhood education, (citizens of Reggio Emilia) remained focused on there is more to contemplate; this special issue de- their goal of creating a never-before-imagined en- scribes explorations of Reggio-Emilian principles vironment for children. Inspired by a belief in the and practices that have generated new insights into need to design a new kind of school for a new kind the means and meanings of collaborative inquiry of future, Reggio Emilia citizens engaged in regu- and ethical praxis. This article begins by mov- lar debates about the need for community-wide ing quickly beyond the celebrity status of Reggio collaboration and innovation. The results of their Emilia’s name to consider its epistemological ori- efforts can be found in the qualities now associ- ginsandtoponderhowitisthatsuchhighlyparticu- ated with Reggio Emilia’s approach to early child- larized ideas could grow and develop in one setting hood education. The quantity of services also ex- and then be dispersed around the world where they panded; by the late 1970s, more than a dozen have taken root and flourished in diverse but hospi- municipally funded preschools as well as infant– tablesoils.Thearticleconcludeswithsomeconjec- toddler centers were scattered across the city. To- tures about how lessons from Reggio Emilia might day, Reggio Emilia has more than three dozen inform our understanding of and improve our ef- scuole (preprimary schools) and nidi (infant–tod- forts at school reform. dler centers) serving approximately half the city’s population of young children. It is no surprise to those familiar with the city that one of their schools Reggio Emilia: Small Town, Big Ideas would be selected as “the best in the world” (“The 10 Best Schools in the World,” 1991). Even as The groundwork for what is now referred to as most Italians decried the hyperbole, they also ac- “the Reggio Emilia approach” (Edwards, Gandini, knowledge Reggio Emilia’s reputation of putting & Forman, 1993, 1998) is deeply rooted in the its best efforts into its initiatives. As pointedly town’s long history of resistance to social injustice noted by a school administrator in the neighbor and its alliance with Italy’s socialist and commu- city of Parma, the citizens of Reggio Emilia can be nist parties (New, 1993). The more obvious ori- remarkably persistent—sono proprio tosti! (“they gins can be traced back to a time shortly after are really stubborn!”)—when they come up with World War II, when working parents claimed what they consider a good idea. Reggio Emilia had abandoned buildings and petitioned the city to more than one good idea, and they wanted to share help them build new schools for their young chil- their understandings with others. dren. Wanting more than the traditional custodial Of the many features of Reggio Emilia’s work care, parents found an eloquent spokesman in the that have attracted attention and challenged con- form of Loris Malaguzzi, who was inspired by temporary interpretations of early childhood ed- their strong sense of purpose and soon joined their ucation, five are central to their success. The efforts. Parents declared their desire for schools following brief description situates these charac- where children were taken seriously and where teristics within their Italian context and highlights even the youngest could acquire the skills and val- their affinity to central tenets of sociocultural ac- ues of collaboration and critical thinking neces- tivity theory: the concept of teachers as learn- sary to a free and democratic society. Aided by ers, progettazione (long-term project work) as a Malaguzzi’s vision of childhood as rich with unre- curriculum vehicle, children’s multiple symbolic alized potentials and building on collaborative tra- languages as culturally constructed modes of dis- ditions, Reggio Emilia opened the city’s first mu- course, the physical environment as a develop-

6 New Reggio Emilia As Cultural Activity Theory in Practice mental niche, and parental involvement as a form with children’s efforts to understand something of civic engagement. about the physical or social worlds (“How does the fountain work?”), address a practical proposition (“Let’s make a water wheel!”), or explore a philo- Teachers As Learners sophical dilemma (“Can an enemy become a The 1968 Italian law proclaiming preschool as friend?”). As hypotheses are posed, teachers cre- a right for 3- to 5-year-old children also described ate conditions in which children can explore and these environments as “laboratories for teachers.” test those ideas, and frame new hypotheses. As a In part due to the absence of any preservice way of keeping everyone, adults as well as chil- teacher education for teachers of young children dren, alert to the processes and discoveries of this in Italy,2 this notion of schools as learning envi- sort of learning experience, teachers document— ronments for adults was translated by Reggio that is, they collect and analyze extensive data, in- Emilia into a form of professional development including artifacts of children’s work, transcripts of extricable from other key elements of their early conversations, and images of children’s activities. childhood services. Throughout the early period Such an integration of curriculum content and of program evolution, Reggio Emilian teachers pedagogical inquiry illustrates the Vygotskian explored the ideas of American philosophers principle that learning leads development, and Dewey and Hawkins, among others, as they con- highlights the potentials of conditions in which tributed to a pedagogy of collaborative inquiry in- children engage in problem solving “under adult volving children as well as adults. Along with col- guidance or in collaboration with more capable leagues in other Italian cities, educators in Reggio peers” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86). To those who mar- Emilia have since explored Italian traditions of vel at the sophisticated understandings children documentation and discussione (conversations demonstrate in their project work, it is clear that characterized by debate and negotiation)—in the cultural activity of proggettazione functions as which teachers observe, record, share, analyze, a zone of proximal development where “children and debate their emerging understandings of chil- grow into the intellectual life of those around them dren’s ways of thinking and learning and then and develop the culturally organized psychologi- share these understandings with others. This com- cal functions” of importance to their sociocultural bination of philosophically and practically derived context (Mistry, 2007). understandings of epistemology represents a highly particularized invention of teaching (Davis, Symbolic Forms of Knowledge 2004) that can be traced back to Socratic traditions Representation of doubt and inquiry. To support teachers’ efforts to learn about the children’s ways of thinking, atelieriste (artists) Pedagogy of Collaborative Inquiry– were hired to provide alternative perspectives on For Children and Adults children’s creative and communicative potentials. Malaguzzi was outspoken in his belief that tra- These artists-in-residence developed unconven- ditional Italian early childhood programs failed to tional partnerships with classroom teachers, and, recognize, much less support, children’s social with the support of new laboratory spaces known and intellectual competencies. The need to learn as atelier, worked together to promote children’s more about children so as to better teach them developing ability to symbolically represent their resulted in a pedagogical approach to curricu- ideas with clay, constructions, drawings, and lum that includes teacher curiosities as well as paintings. Atelieriste made sure that children had those expressed by children themselves within the both the tools and the need to communicate their context of long-term open-ended projects or prog- understandings through various media. Over time gettazione. Although the starting point of such these symbolic representations, typically regard- a problem-based curriculum varies, many begin ed as art activities, were reconceptualized by

7 Reggio Emilia

Malaguzzi as among the “hundred languages of furniture as well as reading material are available children.” As teachers collected and contemplated for parents who decide to stay for a while. Docu- transcripts of children’s conversations and de- mentation of children’s ongoing and prior work is tailed renderings of their developing understand- ample, revealing the rich nature of the learning en- ings, they, too, began to refine their own form of vironment and reminding viewers that each school symbolic representation. Their elegant and com- has its own history. Holes in walls invite children pelling forms of documentation represent their un- to peek through and find their friends or make new derstandings about children’s learning, their ques- ones. Dress-up clothes are housed in a central tions about their own teaching, and their advocacy space so children from different classrooms can for more sincere and reciprocal adult–adult and assist with buttons and zippers and play together. adult–child conversations. The use of images, text, Reggio Emilia teachers describe the environment and samples of children’s work illustrate and ex- as “a third teacher,” deserving of attention and re- pand on Vygotskian notions of the role of lan- spect. Teachers in Reggio Emilia have maximized guage in cognition. Over time, documentation be- the environment’s potential as a developmental came integral to classroom life, illustrating the niche where children acquire the skills and under- principle that culturally constructed ways of life standings that enable them to successfully par- (eventually) depend on “shared modes of dis- ticipate in their cultural community (Super & course for negotiating differences in meaning and Harkness, 1986). interpretation” (Bruner, 1990, p. 13). Families and Citizens As Partners The Physical Environment The philosophy of school as a system of relations is perhaps the least visible feature of Reggio Few fail to notice the aesthetic sensibility that Emilia’s early childhood program, and yet it is permeates the Italian culture, whether in the color- surely the foundation, both philosophically and ful array of vegetables in the market, the carefully practically,ofitsapproach.TheItalianemphasison pressed jeans of even the most casually dressed shared governance and long-standing traditions of teenager, or the importance of design and detail collaboration among small businesses and farmers evident in Italian homes and businesses. This at- is fundamental to the daily operations of Reggio tention to ambience and the importance of bella Emilia’smunicipalservizidel’infanzia.Theprinci- figura (putting one’s best self forward) is perhaps ple of collaboration is expressed in a myriad of the most obvious and provocative feature of class- ways,beginningwiththeinsistencebyteachersthat rooms in Reggio Emilia. Teachers want the chil- they are not substitutes for parents, but rather, share dren to learn to notice and appreciate colors, tex- with parents the challenge and responsibility of ed- tures, and design. They also want them to make ucating their children. This orientation to adult re- friends, they want parents to feel welcome, and lations is more than a question of sharing responsi- they want an environment that supports their own bility; it is also an Italian interpretation of children relational, aesthetic, and intellectual needs as well. as catalysts for adult relations (New & Mallory, Teachers also have advocacy goals in mind, so that 2005). It also expands on principles of attachment anyone who enters these environments for young theory so that the child’s relationships with non- children will recognize that something of impor- familial adults are mediated by those with whom tance and value is going on. Thus the classrooms she has an initial attachment (Bove, 1999). and hallways in Reggio Emilia’s municipal programs for young children are sparkling clean, with a palpable absence of clutter. Far from sterile, Reggio Emilia as Catalyst for Reflection plants and natural light are in abundance, as are and New Relations displays of found objects, whether rose petals or colored stones, presented in ways to draw atten- This brief description serves as a primer for un- tion to their common and distinct features. Adult derstanding what it is about Reggio Emilia that

8 New Reggio Emilia As Cultural Activity Theory in Practice others are so eager to learn. Given the cultural clarity of Reggio Emilia’s message at a time when roots of what remains a highly localized program people were looking for guidance as well as of services for Italian children and their families, it inspiration. is worth considering how it is that Reggio Emilia’s It was not just early childhood educators who ideas and practices have been welcomed with such were thinking deeply about appropriate pedagogy fervor in a society with an altogether different his- for young children. In great part due to the grow- tory, not to mention present day interpretation of ing body of brain research that reconfirmed the early care and education. The next part of this arti- importance of the early years, the National Re- cle considers how it is that Reggio Emilia has search Council responded with its own document managed to capture and retain the attention of on new understandings of how children learn early childhood educators, particularly in the (Bowman, Donovan, & Burns, 2001). Reggio United States, and what this Italian provocation Emilia capitalized on this newly recognized im- might contribute to school reform initiatives in di- portance assigned to the period of early childhood, verse sociocultural settings. expanding on its means of dissemination through When U.S. early childhood educators first be- increased delegations to Reggio Emilia, new Eng- gan to hear about Reggio Emilia in the late 1980s, lish-language publications, and collaborative they were immersed in a growing debate about the U.S.-based conferences, often linked to its travel- nature of early childhood as distinct from that of ing exhibition. The congruence of these initiatives formal elementary schooling. Amid renewed in- was instrumental in establishing Reggio Emilia as terest in the “Project Approach” (Katz & Chard, something to be reckoned with, and word about 1989), Reggio Emilia’s practices resonated with Reggio Emilia spread. The news media was an the premises and promise of progressive educa- increasingly willing participant, as evidenced by tion. They also provided visible challenges to key articles in such prestigious publications as theoretical premises of The National Association Newsweek and Education Week and several PBS for the Education of Young Children’s publication programs. Within this context, Reggio Emilia had outlining guidelines for developmentally appro- much to offer to the discourse on the “what” and priate practice (Bredekamp, 1987). In particular, the “how” of an early childhood education. examples from Reggio Emilia problematized a Beyond its broad appeal, ample publicity, and Piagetian interpretation of the child-as-solitary resonance with contemporary issues, Reggio learner, and instead, demonstrated principles of Emilian educators played a major role in the city’s socially constructed knowledge as children and growing reputation—they did not just talk about teachers worked collaboratively on projects of their work; they demonstrated how and why they their own making. It was within this context that did what they did. They did not just promote the specially prepared English-language version the idea of relationships as indispensable to learn- of Reggio Emilia’s traveling exhibition, “The ing; they helped to create new partnerships and Hundred Languages of Children,” arrived in the supportive environments for teachers and other United States. As developmentally appropriate adults. practice (DAP) guidelines gained new advocates as well as critics (Mallory & New, 1994), the trav- Seeing Is Believing eling exhibition and associated conferences put forth alternative views about an early childhood Surely the most obvious contribution to its pedagogy—one that was fascinating and joyful as global status is the city’s willingness to go public well as intellectually rich—for children as well as with both the practical and ideological dimensions adults. That Reggio Emilia is now interspersed of their work. The ability to articulate and dem- throughout the revised developmentally appropri- onstrate “the what and the why” (New, 1998) of ate practice guidelines (Bredekamp & Copple, their work was expressed first through the exhibi- 1997) is testimony to the complex relationship be- tion and soon thereafter by the words and ac- tween these two orientations, and to the power and tions of the Italians themselves. Malaguzzi did not

9 Reggio Emilia mince words when he talked about his wish to plan due to a new discovery of their own, or in- change the culture of childhood. Not confident in viting parents into a more collaborative and the typical forms of scholarly dissemination, he reciprocal partnership convinced the city to support the creation of an enormous (100 meters long) exhibition to travel The Role of Relationships throughout Western Europe. The exhibition was in Teaching and Learning hugely successful in attracting the attention of educators in other nations, notably Germany and Many of the ideas that Reggio Emilia educators Sweden, and in 1987 an English-language version demonstrated in their own classrooms and eventu- arrived in the United States. The exhibition has ally brought to the United States were consistent since been translated into several other languages with, or extensions of, previously held ideals of a and has by now traveled across oceans to nations progressive early childhood education. Although as diverse and distant as Australia, Brazil, and some of those ideals were dramatically elaborated Japan. on—particularly children’s newly realized com- This “making visible” occurred through other petencies at their multiple symbolic languages— means as well, including experiences that were perhaps none carried as much eventual weight as even more powerful and personal. The notion of the implicit message of what Reggio Emilia sym- study tours or delegations was a new experience bolized: a reconceptualization of an early child- for many teachers and academics. This firsthand hood education that nurtures and challenges adults approach to learning about another culture’s edu- as well as children. Although the image of chil- cational practices quickly caught on, and thou- dren has been what has most inspired U.S. educa- sands of non-Italian educators have since seen for tors, it is the image of teachers that has likely sus- themselves “what all the talk is about.” These first- tained their interest and commitment. At a time hand experiences in Reggio Emilia played a major when teachers in the United States have become role in convincing skeptics that activities and increasingly subject to critique and control, learning depicted in the exhibit and described in Reggio Emilia offers an entirely different vision of journal articles were, in fact, legitimate represen- a professional early childhood educator—one tations of ongoing classroom practices. The expe- with a deep respect for and curiosity about chil- riences of observing and discussing activities dren, an unquenchable curiosity about the teach- within the real-life contexts of the schools and ing–learning process, and a capacity for explor- classrooms gave some participants the confidence ation and innovation that could be sustained to come home and explore these new ideas and as- through collaborative relationships with other sociated practices in their own settings. For those adults. This image of the teacher has proven to be who wished to have more support in translat- both enticing and challenging to American edu- ing Reggio Emilia’s work into U.S. classrooms, cators, many of whom have found permission, the increased availability of master teachers from through Reggio Emilia’s example, to speak out Italy also helped to make visible the processes of against practices they view as contrary to chil- this work with children and adults. Not only did dren’s best interests. For those weary of the low the new partnerships provide essential support esteem assigned to the work with young children, for teachers attempting to rethink their roles Reggio Emilia proposed a working environment in children’s early learning, they also demon- responsive to their intelligence and creativity. For strated, by example, yet another feature that con- others, Reggio Emilia provided a new vocabulary tinues to play out in American discourse: the need with which to describe their work with children, to reconsider conditions for adult learning, and and, in fact, phrases such as “the image of the especially the powerful role of relationships in child” and “children’s symbolic languages” are supporting the risk-taking essential to shifting par- now part of the discourse and the thinking of many adigms, whether that risk entails allowing children U.S. educators. For those tired of conflicts with to veer away from a predetermined curriculum children’s parents, Reggio Emilia offered a new

10 New Reggio Emilia As Cultural Activity Theory in Practice way of thinking about the home–school relation- collaborative inquiry in constructing meaningful ship (New & Mallory, 2005). Of all of the sugges- interpretations of a quality education (New, 2005). tions that Reggio Emilia has put forth to improve The city’s commitment to its early childhood ser- the working and learning conditions of teachers, vices also demonstrates the importance of public the role of relationships embedded within the talk about schools and schooling (Fennimore, practice of collaborative inquiry has been the most 2000). Indeed, Reggio Emilia’s own story is all the profound. more inspiring because it so clearly illustrates the reciprocal dynamics of conflict, social development, and cultural change—in schools and in soci- Schools As Zones ety (Turiel, 1999). of Proximal Development These characteristics—a sense of optimism, pride, support, and an openness to experimenta- The aims of this article have been twofold: (a) tion and innovation—derive directly from the lo- to describe Reggio Emilia and its municipal early cal features of Reggio Emilia’s servizi per childhood program as part of a particular cultural l’infanzia but respond to needs that know no cul- place, and (b) to examine the phenomenon of tural boundaries. Indeed, they are fundamental to its transportability into other cultural settings as inspired and inspiring learning environments. it might inform school reform agenda. Reggio That so many teachers have found these qualities Emilia has become known around the world pri- missing in their work environments is surely a ma- marily due to its accessibility and the visibility of jor part of Reggio Emilia’s attraction; this under- its practices, its multiple methods of representing standing offers new insights into conditions for knowledge, and its advocacy for the often unrec- educational reform initiatives. That so many edu- ognized and unrealized competencies of chil- cators have been inspired to engender these quali- dren. But there are other reasons why Reggio ties in other settings around the world illustrates Emilia has inspired change in so many schools what it might mean to consider schools as zones of and teachers. proximal development for adults as well as chil- A vast majority of U.S. reform initiatives are dren. Such an interpretation of a zone is not in ref- based on opinions about what is wrong with erence to a child’s potential, or even the possibil- schools, classrooms, teachers, children, and fami- ities realized when a child and teacher work lies. In contrast, Reggio Emilia portrays optimistic together, but rather, refers to a set of conditions rather than deficit views of both the people and the represented by the larger sociocultural environ- potentials of educational institutions, and has cap- ment within which learning and development take italized on the sense of personal pride and respon- place (Mistry, 2007). We have much to learn sibility associated with other Italian local ini- from environments beyond Reggio Emilia where tiatives in the design and operation of servizi people are responsive to current interests and del’infanzia. Reggio Emilia’s preschools and in- emerging understandings, supportive of relation- fant–toddler centers are guided by the principle of ships and provocations, and characterized by col- schools as “systems of relations,” in which the laborative activity—and many are described in the needs and interests of children and families are articles written by authors in this issue of Theory linked to and dependent on the needs and interests Into Practice. Whether a statewide project in Ver- of teachers, parents, and community members. mont, a citywide Head Start initiative in Chicago, This principle is not only theoretically grounded; or a laboratory school in New Hampshire, adults it is also politically savvy and surely attributes to in these cultural environments have created and the high level of fiscal and community support utilized what Vygotsky referred to as cultural- provided to the schools and teachers. Reggio ly constituted mediational means to accomplish Emilia is a living and breathing example of the goals particular to local circumstances. Italian tradition of experimentation and innova- The descriptions of learning and development tion, and the benefits of hard work, courage, and in children—including those with special needs,

11 Reggio Emilia adults, schools, and entire communities—that are eight (Rev. ed.). Washington, DC: National Associa- described in the following pages, are consistent tion for the Education of Young Children. with Rogoff’s (2003) reconceptualization of hu- Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: man development as the process of “people’s Harvard University Press. changing participation in the sociocultural activi- Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ties of their communities” (p. 52). They also illus- Davis, B. (2004). Inventions of teaching: A genealogy. trate the particular relationship between culture Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. and education (Bruner, 1996) by reminding us of Edwards, C., Gandini, L., & Forman, G. (Eds.). (1993). the dynamic nature of culture itself. Each of these The hundred languages of children: The Reggio stories, and many yet to be told, show that change Emilia approach. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. is possible when people in particular places decide Edwards, C., Gandini, L., & Forman, G. (Eds.). (1998). to work hard together in a way that is mutually The hundred languages of children: The Reggio supportive and open to a new image not just of Emilia approach—Advanced reflections (2nd ed.). children, but of schools and communities and a Greenwich, CT: Ablex. more just society. That is the sort of school reform Fennimore, B. S. (2000). Talk matters: Refocusing the that Dewey dreamed of, that Malaguzzi fought for, language of public schooling. New York: Teachers and that the 21st century desperately needs. College Press. Katz, L., & Chard, S. (1989). Engaging children’s minds: The project approach. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Mallory, B., & New, R. (1994). Diversity and develop- Notes mentally appropriate practices. New York: Teachers College Press. 1. Reggio Emilia has been a focus of interest and Mistry, J. (2007). Sociocultural theory. In R. New & M. inquiry in some Western European nations for at Cochran (Eds.), Early childhood education: An in- least twice as long. ternational encyclopedia (Vol. 3). Westport, CT: 2. A new law mandating university preservice teach- Greenwood. er education for Italian early childhood and ele- New, R. (1993). Italy. In M. Cochran (Ed.), Interna- mentary teachers was passed in 1998 and it is only tional handbook on child care policies and programs recently that graduates of those programs have (pp. 291–311). Westport, CT: Greenwood. sought employment in these programs, work- New, R. (1998). Theory and praxis in Reggio Emilia: ing alongside other teachers whose training has They know what they are doing, and why. In C. Ed- come almost entirely in the form of in-service wards, L. Gandini, & G. Forman (Eds.), The hun- experiences. dred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia approach—Advanced reflections (2nd ed., pp. 261–284). Greenwich, CT: Ablex. References New, R. (2005). Legitimizing quality as quest and question. Early Education and Development, 16, Bove, C. (1999). L’inserimento del bambino al nido 421–436. [Welcoming the child into childcare]: Perspectives New, R., & Mallory, B. (2005). Children as catalysts for from Italy. Young Children, 54(2), 32–34. adult relations: New perspectives from Italian early Bowman, B., Donovan, M., & Burns, M. (Eds.). (2001). childhood education. In O. N. Saracho & B. Spodek Eager to learn: Educating our preschoolers. Wash- (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on families, ington, DC: National Academy Press. communities and schools in early childhood edu- Bredekamp, S. (1987). Developmentally appropriate cation (pp. 163–179). Greenwich, CT: Information practice for early childhood programs serving chil- Age Publishers. dren from birth through age eight. Washington, DC: Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human devel- National Association for the Education of Young opment. New York: Oxford University Press. Children. Super, C., & Harkness, S. (1986). The developmental Bredekamp, S., & Copple, C. (Eds.). (1997). Develop- niche: A conceptualization at the interface of child mentally appropriate practice for early childhood and culture. International Journal of Behavioral De- programs serving children from birth through age velopment, 9, 545–569.

12 New Reggio Emilia As Cultural Activity Theory in Practice

The 10 best schools in the world and what we can learn cultural change: Reciprocal processes (pp. 77–92). from them. (1991, December 2). Newsweek, 50–59. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Turiel, E. (1999). Conflict, social development, and cul- Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The develop- tural change. In E. Turiel (Ed.), Development and ment of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.