Constructing Ideas and Theories About Quality: the Accounts of Young Children in Two Early Childhood Classrooms in Singapore

CONSTRUCTING IDEAS AND THEORIES ABOUT QUALITY: THE ACCOUNTS OF YOUNG CHILDREN IN TWO EARLY CHILDHOOD CLASSROOMS IN SINGAPORE

Deborah Sue Harcourt DipT (SACAE), BEd (UniSA), MEd (UniSA)

A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Centre for Learning Innovation Faculty of Education Queensland University of Technology Australia March 2008

Key words

Quality, socio-cultural theory, children’s accounts, new sociology of childhood, United

Nations Convention on the Rights Of the Child (UNCROC), early childhood education,

Singapore.

Abstract

Early childhood research and policy are focusing increasingly on issues of ‘quality’ in early childhood education. Much of the focus, however, has been on adult-generated notions of quality, with little attention being devoted to children’s own views of their experience in early childhood settings. Conducted in the context of early childhood education in Singapore, this research breaks new ground by contributing children’s own insights into their experience in two early childhood classrooms in Singapore. Informed by the sociology of childhood conceptualisation of child competence (James & James,

2004), the research methodology drew on the mosaic approach to researching with children used by Clark and Moss (2001), whereby children’s photography, mapping and conversations were used by them to consider their early childhood settings.

The findings of this study were generated, beginning with the understanding that young children have the competence to articulate their ideas using a range of symbolic literacies.

They formed views and constructed theories about their preschool experiences, in particular about the teachers, the curriculum, the physical environment and friends, and gave a clear indication of what constitutes good quality in those domains. When offered a platform to discuss the issue of quality in early childhood settings, the children articulated ideas about their own best interests.

This study calls for those engaged with children, to act upon the contributions offered by this group of children to our understanding of quality.

Contents

Key words i Abstract ii Table of contents iii List of tables vi List of figures vi List of plates vi Certificate of authorship and originality viii Acknowledgements ix

Chapter One: Introduction to the thesis 2 1.1 Introduction 2 1.2 Purpose of the study 6 1.3 Background to the study 8 1.3.1 The educational context of Singapore 1.3.2 Quality in early childhood education 1.3.3 A mandate for change 1.4 Research question 14 1.5 Research design and methodology 1.5.1 Participants and their accounts 1.5.3 Data analysis 1.6 Structure of the thesis 21

Chapter Two: Literature review 23 2.1 Introduction 23 2.2 The policy landscape of early childhood education in Singapore 24 2.2.1 The historical background 2.2.2 Teacher education 2.2.3 Licensing instruments: Ministry of Community Development and Sport 2.2.4 Kindergarten curriculum framework: Ministry of Education 2.3 The measurement of quality 32 2.3.1 Aspects of quality 2.3.2 The early childhood environment 2.3.3 Parent perceptions 2.3.4 Teacher qualifications 2.4 Situating Singapore in the global context 38 2.4.1 Developmental psychology paradigms 2.4.2 Didactic learning environments and direct instruction 2.5 Acknowledging children 45 2.5.1 Children’s right to be heard 2.5.2 The new sociology of childhood 2.5.3 Starting from children’s prior knowledge 2.5.4 Early childhood education as a social context for dialogue, debate and co-construction

iii

2.6 Including children in the research conversation 58 2.6.1 The child standpoint on quality 2.6.2 Children as research participants

Chapter Three: Conceptual framework and methodology 65 3.1 Introduction 65 3.2 Research design 67 3.4 Research methodology 69 3.5 Sample 77 3.5.1 Research sites 3.5.2 Participants 3.6 Data collection 82 3.7 Data analysis 83 3.8 Phases of the study 87 3.6.1 Phase One 3.6.2 Phase Two 3.6.3 Phase Three 3.6.4 Phase Four

Chapter Four: The data and its analysis 100 4.1 Introduction 100 4.2 The questions 101 4.3 The teacher 111 4.3.1 Teachers and children 4.3.2 The teacher’s teaching 4.3.3 Summary 4.4 The school 127 4.4.1 Centre B 4.4.2 Centre A 4.4.3 Summary 4.5 Learning 145 4.5.1 Summary 4.6 Friends 169 4.6.1 Summary 4.7 The children’s summaries: A good school and a bad school 177

Chapter Five: The findings and conclusions 188 5.1 Introduction 188 5.2 The teacher 191 5.3 The school 197 5.4 Learning 210 5.5 Friends 207 5.6 Implications 209 5.6.1 The teacher 5.6.2 The school 5.6.3 Learning 5.6.4 Friends 5.6.5 Children in research

5.6.6 In summary 5.7 Limitations 217 5.8 Conclusion 218

References 222

Appendices Appendix 1 Letter of approval from UHREC Appendix 2 Research information sheet Appendix 3 Consent to participate

List of tables

Table 1 Parental views on preschool education Table 2 Four phases of data collection and analysis, 2002 Table 3 Preliminary themes drawn from children’s questions (Centre A) Table 4 Preliminary themes drawn from children’s questions (Centre B) Table 5 Kindergarten 2 timetable (Centre B)

List of figures

Figure 4.1 K2 classroom at Centre B Figure 4.2 K2 classroom at Centre A

List of plates

Plate 3.1 Daily sharing at school Centre A Centre B Plate 3.2 Questions and response: Celine and Jei Le Plate 4.1 Beatrix’s list of 20 questions Plate 4.2 Children and teacher at Centre A editing a story line Plate 4.3 Renee’s drawing and narrative of a school that is not very good Plate 4.4 The grasshopper project: Alan, You Joh, Jesalin, and Jia Yue working together Plate 4.5 Teacher BE (and her notebook) discussing work plans with Riggs and Xue Wei Plate 4.6 Examples of children’s planning and recording in two languages on the Insect project Plate 4.7 Jie Le’s design for a preschool Plate 4.8 Hui Min’s design for a preschool Plate 4.9 Julia’s design for a preschool Plate 4.10 Renee’s photographs of the “new look” classroom Plate 4.11 Renee’s photograph of the dress-up corner Plate 4.12 Renee’s photograph of one of the computer desks Plate 4.13 Renee’s photographs of one of the book areas Plate 4.14 Renee’s design for a preschool classroom Plate 4.15 Example of solitary play in Centre B Plate 4.16 Example of solitary play in Centre A Plate 4.17 Example of group play in Centre B Plate 4.18 Example of group play in Centre A Plate 4.19 Benjamin: The most important things to do at preschool Plate 4.20 Riggs: The most important things to do at preschool Plate 4.21 Hui Min: The most important things to do at preschool

Plate 4.22 Alan: Pictorial narrative about play and work Plate 4.23 Hui Min: Pictorial narrative about play and work Plate 4.24 Jesalin: Pictorial narrative about play and work Plate 4.25 Julia: Pictorial narrative about play and work Plate 4.26 Riggs’ daily timetable Plate 4.27 Jie Le’s daily timetable Plate 4.28 Alan’s drawing and narrative of a good school Plate 4.29 Amanda’s drawing and narrative of a good school Plate 4.30 Li Bing’s drawing and narrative about a bad school Plate 4.31 Beatrix’s drawing and narrative about a bad school Plate 4.32 Alan’s drawing and narrative about a bad school Plate 4.25 Renee’s photographs of her school

vii

Certificate of authorship and originality

I certify that this thesis has been written by me. Any help that I have received in undertaking this research, and all sources used, have been acknowledged in the thesis.

I also certify that this research has not previously been submitted for a degree at any other higher education institution.

Signed:

Date:

viii

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge and sincerely thank the following people for the support, inspiration, and guidance offered to me throughout the journey that is this thesis.

To Dr Barbara Piscitelli for the encouragement and faith in me to undertake this project in the first place, and for her guidance (and friendship) in the first four years of its development.

To Professor Ann Farrell and Dr Felcity McArdle for their rigorous critiques, and long distance telephone discussions throughout the last two years of writing.

To Professor Lilian Katz for her guidance and feedback, and her persistent nagging to get this project completed.

To the children, staff, and parents who welcomed me into their lives, without whom this project would not have been realised.

To my colleagues and friends who have not seen much of me in the last six years, I have now returned!

And finally, to my partner John, and children Samuel, Hunter, Hugh, and Maya, thank you, from the bottom of my heart for always being there for me.

Deborah Harcourt

If you want to know if you are going to a good kindergarten, this is what you should do. If your parent has been to that school, ask them if it is good. If they don’t know, ask them to ask the teachers weather (sic) it is good. If they won’t, then, when you go to that school, you will know weather (sic) it is good enough. If it isn’t, talk to your parents about it. Then ask them to talk to the teachers. Another way is to tell your teachers about it. If the teachers don’t listen, then don’t go to that school anymore, ask your parents to register for another school. And if it is good, then, stay at the school. by Renee

Written by Renee1, aged 6. Centre A, Singapore July, 2002

1 The children in this project have asked for their real names to be used because they indicated that using their real name says who they really are.

Chapter One: Introduction to the thesis

Introduction

The issue of quality in early childhood services has been a focus of global socio-political discourse in recent decades. The United Nation’s Convention on the Rights of the Child

(UNCROC, 1989), for example, has provided a significant platform from which to include children’s views on issues that impact on their lives. Through the ratification of the UNCROC (1989) mandates, it is becoming increasingly apparent that many countries are acknowledging the rights of children within the socio-political arena. This may afford children increased opportunities to be heard in matters that concern them. In the context of children’s rights, this study offers a unique contribution to the early childhood field by seeking children’s own accounts of quality in the early childhood services in which they participate.

As a teacher educator in Singapore since 2000, I2 have worked, in various capacities, with over three hundred early childhood services. As my interactions with young children and their teachers became more frequent and relationships deepened, I saw the

UNCROC (1989) as providing researchers, teachers, and children, with a mandate for advocacy and action around the views of young children. The UNCROC (1989) document has opened up a multiplicity of possibilities for looking into issues that may concern children. One of these possibilities was the inclusion of the accounts offered by

2 Use of the first person to present this research is an act of taking and acknowledging responsibility for the content of this study, and also to highlight that I have been an active part of the research process, not a voyeur in its development. There are precedents for such a position (e.g., McArdle, 2001; Greenfield, 2005).

young Singaporean children, and their constructs around the issue of quality in their early childhood services.

Work that seeks young children’s understanding and learning is timely. As part of earlier investigations I had led as part of my work in teacher education in Singapore, early childhood student teachers were invited to engage with young children in extended discussion on topics chosen and justified by the students. With the children’s consent, the students recorded children’s ideas, and their subsequent expanded theories, by using a range of narrative tools (e.g., videos, photographs, drawings, artefacts, and texts). The data were then analysed and presented to community audiences. The aim of these projects was for student teachers to be provided with a space in which the ideas of their younger research collaborators could be “made visible and therefore possible” (Guidici,

Rinaldi, & Krechevsky, 2001, p.17). Not unexpectedly, audiences, particularly early childhood professionals, were surprised by the sophistication of the accounts and the depth of ideas offered by young children.

Similarly, reactions to Renee’s text about a good school were also of surprise (e.g.,

Harcourt, 2005b). A good school demonstrates that young children are capable of articulating a position about matters that concern them. Given the recognition, opportunity and support to use a variety of representational tools, children are able to demonstrate their competence in articulating their understandings, theories, and ideas

(Malaguzzi, 1998). While not everything a child (or adult) says indicates wisdom or complex thinking, children’s representations (as shown here by Renee) can indeed do so.

It is also possible that children may critique the things that concern them, as the children

in this study demonstrated. In turn, such critiques may challenge adult understandings of young children and their competencies.

This study conceptualises young children as “sophisticated thinkers and communicators”

(Harcourt & Conroy, 2005, p.567), who are capable of reporting on important issues in their everyday encounters of an early childhood setting, where teachers and groups of children engage in a program of learning. As an example of the competence children demonstrate in this study, Renee has provided an insightful account that gives advice to other children on how another person would know they were going to a good school.

Renee has presented the possibility of a child providing multiple viewpoints on the quality of a school; the experience of a parent, the child’s own experience, and the willingness of the teacher to engage the child and parent in the assessment of a good school. There is evidence of the child’s power to make a decision, in this case, from a child standpoint (Mayall, 2000). Here Renee provided several alternatives for judging quality.

Renee’s use of a traditional literacy medium (i.e., writing) provides an example of a documentary tool commonly employed by the children in the study. My experience with children of the same age in early childhood settings in Australia had not afforded encounters with environments where there was an explicit educational emphasis on fluency in literacy. In contrast, children in Singapore start on this journey, in a bilingual context, at a very young age (sometimes at two-and-a-half years). Thus, this educational phenomenon opened new possibilities for the study. The high rate of academic instruction at many levels of early childhood education in Singapore had, indeed, given

the participating children, at the age of 5 and 6 years, the capacity to skilfully produce accounts that use communication tools easily understood by any literate adult.

This study was informed by a new sociology of childhood, where children and childhood are being conceptualised as provocateurs in social relations. Mayall (2002) suggested that this new sociology seeks acknowledgment of children as social actors in their own right. Parallels can be drawn with (e.g., Oakley, 1994) who sought similar recognition of women as a unique social group. Mayall (2002) pointed out that this framework for theorising childhood is still tentative, but does allow for the possibility of examining and theorising a few children’s accounts, so that links can be made to a broader understanding of a child’s standpoint. Reflecting on limited understandings of children’s everyday lives and how their social position may be improved, researchers are now placing a significant emphasis on gaining children’s views and ways to give recognition to their competence (Corsaro, 1997; Mayall, 1999; Prout & James, 1997). In the current research, young children’s accounts have been generated and analysed in order to begin to understand their lived experience and to support their rights as a unique social group.

This study is situated within the broader notions of quality in Singapore. It is a documentation and analysis of accounts that 25 young Singaporean children have constructed around the issues of quality in their everyday preschool encounters. It is anticipated that, as an outcome of this study, others may recognise and acknowledge the competence of these young children. This involves the pedagogical and research practice

referred to by some researchers as the “pedagogy of listening” (Dahlberg & Moss, 2005, p. 32; Rinaldi, 2001, p. 29).

Purpose of the study

There is a significant gap in research that documents the ideas and opinions young children have constructed about the issue of quality, in the context of their everyday encounters of life in early childhood settings. This is particularly pronounced in the case of Singapore. Grau and Walsh (1998) and Wiltz and Klein (2001) suggested that the research literature is yet to offer substantial insight into children’s views of their preschool experiences. While this is beginning to be redressed by researchers in the

United Kingdom (e.g., Clarke & Moss, 2001), and Australia e.g., (Dockett & Perry,

2005; Jones & Tannock, 2000), there has been little focus in the research literature on children’s own accounts of quality. This study, therefore, provides a scholarly analysis of children’s own accounts of their experiences in an early childhood service. As such, it stands to make a significant contribution to the body of research around quality in early childhood settings.

Various guidelines issued by the early childhood education arbiters in Singapore, the

Ministry of Education (MOE) (Ministry of Education, 2003) and the Ministry of

Community Development and Sport (MCDS) (Ministry of Community Development and Sport, 2003), allude to active and participatory ideals and approaches to early childhood education. These include the notions of agency (e.g., children contributing to curriculum-decision making) and collaboration (e.g., project work). The British

researcher Moss (2001b) suggested that quality criteria using universal standards are often used to judge pedagogical work. This study uses the child’s standpoint (Mayall,

1999; 2000) to explore the pedagogical work being done in the early childhood settings the children attend. The multiplicity of views on quality should not be limited to those of managerialism, partisan politics, or bureaucratic structures (Moss, 2001b). Rather, the views of those who have direct experience of the service should be included. From New

Zealand, Greenfield (2005) argued that ‘the best’ is a combination of many perspectives where difference of opinion should be expressed and negotiated. It may be that adult views of what constitutes a child’s best interest have provided a distorted or biased lens on quality, dependant on the adults’ vested interest in advancing their particular perspective.

This study, therefore, focuses on children as contributors to understandings of quality.

Twenty-five children were invited to offer their opinions on what particular criteria denoted good quality experiences for young children at preschool. The children used representations such as drawings, written texts, conversations, and photography to document their understandings of quality. Collected in the context of their everyday lives in the classroom, the study aimed to bring these opinions in from the margins and, to situate them as adding vital and valid contributions to the national discourse on quality. The thesis presents and discusses the children’s accounts of quality, situated within their experiences of particular early childhood settings.

The children’s accounts are firmly embedded in their experiences of the diversity that is

Singapore. Social, cultural, and political diversity is acknowledged, as is the notion that researching one culture can help us to see others differently and, to ask new questions

(Tobin, Wu, & Davidson, 1989). In addition, the use of research tools that are socially and culturally appropriate and that acknowledge the children’s competence can enable other researchers, both from early childhood and beyond, to use similar approaches to generate children’s accounts of their lives.

Background to the study

The educational context of Singapore

Singapore is an island nation of some 4 million people, where academic achievement and financial independence are highly valued and competitively sought. In a National

University of Singapore (NUS) study, prominent educational researchers Tan,

Gopinathan, and Ho (1997) claimed that education has long been considered the “spring source of the nation” (p. xiii). The education system has been purported by the government to promote the national core issues of political and social identity, equality of treatment, meritocracy, and economic transformation in the context of a multi-cultural milieu (Tan, Gopinathan, & Ho, 1997).

Since the 1970s Singaporean school curricula have focused on bilingualism, values education, and numerical-scientific literacy. In another NUS study, sociologist Chew

(1997) suggested that the national education system is consciously and “intimately involved” (p. 75) in nation building and the evolution of a Singaporean identity. Schools are mandated to implement educational policies that have been developed to achieve national cultural, economic, and political priorities. This is not fundamentally different from other developed countries, yet unique in prescription in Singapore because of the socio-political and socio-cultural contextual complexities of the country.

In studies conducted by Singapore’s National Institute of Education (NIE) Early

Childhood and Special Needs Education Cluster, early childhood classrooms in

Singapore were seen by parents, teachers, and the broader community to be dominated by a didactic pedagogy (Retas & Kwan, 2000; Sharpe, 2000). This was reinforced by a common curriculum and frequent assessment commencing in the early years. There had been a clear expectation for early childhood education to prepare young children for the academic rigour of the first year of compulsory schooling in Primary One (7-year-olds) and to ensure the acquisition of both mother tongue and English language proficiencies, alongside those of literacy and numeracy.

In Singapore, there is a common view among early childhood observers that even very young children can be pre-occupied by academic achievement. Young children are aware of what lies ahead at primary school, through the experiences of siblings, relatives, or friends. A survey of registered psychologists conducted by the Straits Times

(2001) and released in the heavily censored national press, reported an estimated 22,000 children, under the age of 6 years, undergoing some form of counselling for stress related malaise which, in turn, attributed to stressful learning environments in the home and preschool. This kind of data needs to be scrutinised in any discourse around quality in Singapore, particularly when considering the ‘best interests of the child’.

Quality in early childhood education

Issues of quality are endemic in most facets of professional practice and the question of quality early childhood education is no exception (Dahlberg, Moss, & Pence, 1999;

Ebbeck & Waniganayake, 2004; Moss & Pence, 1994). Historically, quality in early

childhood has primarily been viewed from two major perspectives. One is the systematic study of quality structures involving the application of licensing instruments and rating scales (e.g., Harms & Clifford, 1980; Phillips & Howes, 1987). The second focuses on contextual processes, such as curriculum frameworks (e.g., Cryer, 1999; Helburn &

Howes, 1996; Love, 1997; Love, Schochet, & Meckstroth, 1996). Patten and Ricks

(2000) suggested there is an element common to both approaches. Whether structural or process driven, both have the capacity to measure certain desirable outcomes for children’s development. Around the same time, there was also evidence put forward in discussion on quality (Cross, 1995; Goffin & Day, 1994) that considered the symbiotic relationship between the level of skill and knowledge of child development theories held by practitioners, and the ability to implement high quality early childhood programs, being part of the process factors of quality. In support of this earlier evidence, Edwards and Fleer (2003) have since noted:

Providing children with anything less than a conception of curriculum based on

an understanding of their likely intellectual progress and an understanding of the

processes involved in knowledge construction, risked the provision of an

educational experience that could possibly minimise cognitive growth, and in

doing so inadvertently affect the acquisition of knowledge (p. 13).

Tayler (2000) also warned, “It is a myth to believe that a set of guidelines can assure the quality of programs relevant to a post modern world” (p. 259). Indicators of quality must be appropriate to particular contexts not just with respect to theoretical positions, and of necessity, quality cannot be translated wholesale from one setting to another.

Criteria denoting quality in the Singaporean context have been applied to early childhood settings, largely using quantitative survey methods. Kwan (2000) evaluated learning environments using Harms and Clifford’s (1980) Early Childhood Environment

Rating Scale (ECERS). Fan-Eng and Sharpe (2000) explored parent perceptions, and

Retas and Kwan (2000) surveyed teacher qualifications. MCDS uses its licensing instrument (Ministry of Community Development and Sport, 2003) to monitor acceptable standards of quality childcare provision in the local context. There is also a self appraisal tool (Ministry of Education, nd) Pursuing excellence at kindergartens

(Peak) which links to the MOE’s desired outcomes for education and which will be discussed in Chapter Two. While compliance with the MCDS licensing tool is mandatory in order to operate a service, the MOE appraisal is voluntary. Both employ checklists as the measurement tool for quality.

A mandate for change

In an attempt to address issues around quality, the governing authorities have asked both teachers and parents, most of whom have been educated within a strict academic-success focused framework, to make an apparent paradigm shift. This is part of a general trend toward child-responsive/learner-focused early childhood education. These ideas have been put forward through mandates such as the Ministry of Education (2003) Nuturing young learners: A framework for kindergarten curriculum in Singapore and, the

Ministry of Community Development and Sport (2002) Best interests of the child.

While there is little local or regional early childhood research to call upon, government- mandated change in education is not an unfamiliar scenario for Singaporean teachers of young children. Twenty years ago, the Reading and English Acquisition Program

(REAP) was implemented as an integrated approach to teaching reading and language in early years classrooms. Studies evaluating the effectiveness of this program (Khoo &

Ng, 1985; Ng, 1985; Phung, 1988) found teachers’ support of the changes affected by the different methodologies and strategies proposed by REAP.

While the above success in changing mindsets of teachers may seem promising, parents may be less receptive to change. The government is asking parents to support a shift away from academic teacher-directed programs to play-orientated, child-centred programs (e.g., Ministry of Education (2003) Nuturing young learners: A framework for kindergarten curriculum in Singapore). This may be without an understanding or clear explanation of the potential benefits of these environments for children’s learning outcomes. An illustration of parent views can be seen in Table 1, which shows the results of an open-ended survey of 425 preschool parents conducted and published by the Straits Times (daily broadsheet newspaper) in March 2000, as the new ministerial framework was being discussed.

Table 1

Parental views on preschool education (Straits Times, 2000, p. 69)

Preschool content Percentage

Be given worksheets in class 80 Homework 50+ Examinations and tests 44 Discipline 25 Reading and writing 19 Ability to interact 19 Love for learning 17 Respect for elders 11 Creative thinking 8

This survey appears to support the observations made earlier in relation to discrete outcomes-driven early childhood education. The trend that parents have shown here suggests favouring academic instruction that is supported with homework, and where learning is evaluated through formal quantitative measures such as tests and examinations in a preschool environment. This would fit with the historical position in

Singapore, where early childhood settings have positioned themselves in terms of a didactic methodology for teaching and learning. This approach was identified by Khoo and Ng (1985) and Ng (1985) prior to the REAP program around teaching literacy.

Studies conducted by Retas and Kwan (2000) and Sharpe (2000) also reported similar findings. Should the Straits Times conduct a similar survey now (2007) would it yield any significant changes to parents’ opinions in relation to play and the outcomes for their children’s learning? No follow-up studies have been noted since the inception of the ministerial mandates.

An inquiry into quality in early childhood settings must recognise the expectations and views expressed by the various stakeholders. In its quest to raise the standard of early childhood education, Singapore has relied heavily on advice and research from educators and academics from abroad. An examination of the websites of teacher education institutions (e.g., http://www.nie.edu.sg; http://www.eec.edu.sg) provided evidence of a significant proportion of Australian, British, and North American expatriate staff on early childhood teaching faculties of government (e.g., National

Institute of Education) and non-government (e.g., EtonHouse Education Centre) organisations. Both of these examples currently (2007) have an Australian citizen as

Head of School. There is also considerable acknowledgement of overseas consultants in

government publications (e.g., Ministry of Education, 2003; Ministry of Community

Development and Sport, 2004). While the republic embraces many of the ideals of other developed nations, it aims to uphold its traditional core of educational structure and academic rigour (Ministry of Education, 2005). It also represents a primarily Asian culture with few natural resources other than its people (Ching-Kwan, 2003). An accurate description of the Singaporean education mandate, including early childhood, is offered by child rights advocate Bennett (1996) who described children often being viewed as “future guarantors of nationhood” (p. 48) and schools as the platforms for the forging of units of human resources into a disciplined workforce.

Research question

The primary research question posed by this study is: What aspects of preschool are seen by young children to be important, and what do their accounts tell us about notions of quality in early childhood services in Singapore? This thesis demonstrates that the ensuing research process provided children with opportunities to use their unique competence, in ethnographic research encounters. This process affirms children’s views as contributing to the discourse around quality in Singapore. As a professional committed to social justice and equity in early childhood services, I hold to the notion that the research question, and indeed the research project, should seek to produce benefits for children and the worlds in which they live. This resonates with feminist sociological theory and research which has, to some extent, gained public recognition for women as a unique social group (Mayall, 2003).

The research question is embedded within the socio-cultural and socio-political context of Singapore. In order to conduct such an inquiry, it was necessary to identify a set of organizers:

1. What are the social, cultural, and political influences in Singapore’s

implementation of early childhood practices and what does the existing literature

tell us about quality, children’s experiences, and children’s best interests?

2. What new understandings could inform an inquiry into young children’s theories

about quality?

3. What sites would be suitable for conducting such an inquiry?

4. How could such a study be best designed to enable young children’s accounts to

be accessed and analysed?

5. What would the findings contribute to the work of teachers, parents, policy

makers and other professionals who work with young children and their

families?

The scholarly literature, as well as the popular literature, abounds with constructs of children and childhood that are imbued with historical and philosophical meanings. It must be noted that constructs of childhood that have been taken up in childhood research are predominately Western (for a full discussion see Lloyd-Smith & Tarr, 2000, pp. 63-

70). From a sociological framework, Jenkins’ (1993) contractions of the constructs of childhood are worthy of our consideration here. There are those who view children as possessions, those who view children as subjects, those who view children as participants and, those who acknowledge children as citizens. The current study proposes the construct of the child as research participant, as discussed by Lloyd-Smith

and Tarr (2000), with a view to encouraging children to speak with an adult about their opinions and have those views responded to. This is consistent with the general participatory principles of the UNCROC (1989). Particularly, it acknowledges Articles 2,

3, 6, and 12 which call for the protection of the child’s right to have their views respected, the child’s right to not be discriminated against and, that which is in the child’s best interest to be paramount.

Research design and methodology

While the research design and methodology will be discussed in detail in Chapter Three, this section now provides a brief overview. Acknowledging children as research participants, this study used a research design and methodology enabling a collaborative effort with children rather than an examination on children (Robbins, 2003). Analysis and reflection are based on the inclusion of the participating children’s ideas, alongside those of the researcher. These reflections and analyses may foreground possibilities for others to look critically at the data and to offer pathways to challenge, to affirm, or to change understandings of children and their early childhood experiences.

Research which investigates children’s direct experience of their everyday lives is beginning to emerge in research (Lewis & Lindsay, 2000). In order to introduce children’s involvement in “critical conversations” (Cook-Sather, 2002, p. 3) which acknowledge them as social participants, researchers are exploring a variety of participatory methodologies. Recent studies such as those undertaken by Clark (2005a),

Dockett and Perry (2005), Einarsdottir (2005), Greene and Hill (2005), and Schiller

(2005) have used frameworks which invite young children’s active involvement in documenting their experiences. Millikan (2003) suggested that both researcher and research participant can benefit from active involvement and opportunities to share ideas and views.

This study adopted an ethnographic approach in order to form shared understandings of a particular phenomenon or set of practices (Wenger, 1998). Historically, ethnographies such as those of Lubeck (1985) and Paley (1986, 1995) have enabled practitioners to document their engagement with children over extended periods of time. Such studies describe, implicitly and/or explicitly, the development of relationships while issues or questions are being explored. Children have been positioned as research participants in the generation of ethnographic accounts in several studies (Christensen & James, 2000;

Graue & Walsh, 1998: Mayall, 2000; Qvortrup, 2001). While the current study calls on such previous research, it adds originality through the direct narratives offered by children’s written texts (including those attached to drawings), photographs, and verbatim audio-recorded conversations throughout the research relationship. It continues on from the early work of Lubeck (1985) and Paley (1986, 1995) by using an analytical approach to examining the data generated by the children themselves (Silverman, 1998).

The ethnographic approach allows for the use of documentary methods which are more likely to naturally capture the children’s views on their experiences. Together, the research participants can navigate the realm of possibilities for recording data that best engage the children’s current competencies within the preschool setting. In the United

Kingdom, Clark’s (2001, 2004, 2005b) studies, in particular, view children as having

unique knowledge to exchange and debate with others, and as having the competence to contribute to the data collection process. In each of the studies, which were undertaken in early childhood settings with three- and four-year-old children, Clark (2001) and her colleagues (who included classroom teachers) used a mosaic approach over a period of months. This approach brought together the traditional research tools of observation and interviews, along with children’s photography and mapping of their settings. This participatory approach allowed for the children’s competence to be made visible, while contexualised within the researchers’ observations. It also supported the notions of children as experts in their own lives (Langstead, 1994), as skilful communicators

(Edwards, Gandini, & Forman, 1998), as sophisticated thinkers (Harcourt & Conroy,

2005), and as researchers and explorers (MacNaughton, 2003).

The current study is presented, therefore, as an ethnographic account. It uses traditional and non-traditional narrative research tools over an extended period of time, to document and put forward the accounts offered by the participants (the children and myself) about quality in their early childhood settings.

Participants and their accounts

Through previously established professional relationships, firstly through hosting student teachers on practicum and later consultancies, two early childhood centres

(Centre A and Centre B) consented to participate in the research. The research parameters were explored and agreed upon with the Principals of each setting, through informal and formal meetings at the end of 2001. These meetings were also used to establish a shared understanding of the purpose of the research, and to discuss the

specific educational contexts with which the children were engaging, such as their approaches to teaching and learning, and the roles of the children and adults.

While engagement with the parents and teachers, through formal and informal encounters, continued throughout the study, the primary focus for an entire school year was working alongside 25 five- and six-year-old children (13 in Centre A and 12 in

Centre B). After obtaining consent from the adults, the informed consent process was explained to the children. Several visits were used to discuss the research project with the children on how understandings of quality might be sought, who could best provide the information, how this information might be collected, what might happen to it and, who might see it. The children were then invited to ‘sign’ their consent in the research journals, writing their name and yes or no. During subsequent discussions both assent and dissent were reaffirmed with the children, so as to ascertain their continuing willingness to participate.

Both groups of children then began to unpack the idea of what a good school might be.

In whole group meetings, we talked about some of the ideas that adults had proposed.

The children in Centre A suggested that we ask the children in Centre B about their preschool and we could use their answers to decide what a good school might be. Using the ideas and the later expanded theories proposed by the children, we constructed many possible indicators of a good school. Small group discussions became more frequent, in and around the normal preschool day and, toward the end of the data collection, one-on- one sessions were held to further clarify the children’s ideas.

While the report of this study primarily uses four children as leaders of the conversation,

Renee (who was introduced earlier), Celine, and Beatrix from Centre A, and Alan from

Centre B, many other children’s accounts also give insight into life at preschool in

Singapore. These accounts were analysed in collaboration with the children, and have provided an opportunity to hear directly from young children about the quality of preschool life. Many of the participating children’s accounts have been woven around the stories constructed by Renee, Celine, Beatrix, Alan, and myself about quality. These are presented as a narrative around four themes in Chapter Four.

Data analysis

The approach to analysis of the data draws on earlier ethnographic accounts, such as those of Lubeck (1985) and Paley (1986; 1995), in order to examine how the research participants constructed understandings about aspects of quality young children consider important (Robbins, 2003).

The analysis was based on the ideas and themes that emerge through the data generated by the children’s representations and our shared understanding and validation of those ideas through the discussions. No specific categories or assumptions for analysis were predetermined prior to data generation and analysis (Spindler & Hammond, 2000). As ideas and theories emerged from the children’s accounts, new questions were posed in order to seek authentic understanding (Silverman, 2001). Ideas put forward by the children, such as their thinking about what makes for a good teacher, were discussed.

Through this process, examination, discussion, and re-examination of the texts (oral and written) and artifacts (drawings, photographs, and videos), opportunities were provided

for ideas and theories to emerge and be validated by the conversation partners. The analytical lenses were continually reframed to account for new understandings and to acknowledge that these ideas and theories are inextricably linked to the context in which they were constructed (Robbins, 2003; Silverman, 2001). Chapter Four discusses the themes that emerged from the data.

Structure of the thesis

Chapter Two makes the case for the study by providing a review of the literature that details what key theorists are reporting about the issues of quality in early childhood education, both locally and internationally. Beginning with an analysis of the

Singaporean educational landscape, publicly available documents from the ministerial arbiters of early childhood education are examined. The chapter then examines the literature with respect to frameworks that seek to define quality. This section locates the study within the theoretical framework of a new sociology of childhood and in the context of the UNCROC (1989) and its mandate in Singapore

Chapter Three outlines the research design and methodology. The chapter details the research processes in the two early childhood settings, and describes the ways in which opportunities for representing and documenting ideas were decided on by the participants. It also details decisions made about the analysis and how the data were managed, analysed, and interpreted.

Chapter Four introduces the children’s accounts, leading with representations of Renee,

Celine, Beatrix, and Alan about their experiences in preschool. It also weaves in accounts offered by other children from both sites through texts, drawings, transcribed conversations, and photography. Life in the two early childhood settings is described through an interwoven narrative, which includes the contextual narrative, and the children’s accounts of their experience which provide the lived narrative. Constructs of quality are evident in these children’s accounts and begin to emerge as a phenomenon is shared between children attending the two different services. The chapter then examines issues of quality identified by the children, seeking themes that have been raised by the children themselves. The discussion briefly includes adult perspectives (i.e., teachers, parents, and government) in order to further explore the children’s indicators of quality.

Chapter Five summarises the research and makes recommendations for further inquiry into children’s ideas. It presents possibilities for including children in the construction of indices for quality in early childhood education.

Chapter Two: Literature review

Introduction

Over the past two decades, the field of early childhood education has seen a theoretical shift towards foregrounding the socio-cultural aspects of learning and development

(Anning, Cullen, & Fleer, 2004). This shift, as such, provides a crucial conceptual backcloth for this study. This chapter provides a framework and rationale for the study by reviewing the international literature, discussing some of the tensions arising from the shift in thinking, specifically focussed on the Singaporean context. It begins by examining research and government policy documents that have influenced centre-based practice in Singapore and abroad. Mapping the landscape of early childhood education historically and conceptually, the chapter goes on to examine issues around aspects of quality. Children’s demonstrated competence in making a contribution to conversations about quality is discussed, alongside a consideration of their position as stakeholders.

Finally, the chapter considers possibilities for including children in the current research conversation.

The policy landscape of early childhood education in Singapore

The historical background

Beginning in 1942, kindergarten education in Singapore was offered by the People’s

Action Party (PAP) as a service to the community and as a means to recruit parents to the country’s only officially recognised political party (Honig & Lim, 1998). While now under the purview of the Ministry of Education (MOE), kindergartens do not form part of the official compulsory education system that encompasses Primary One to Primary

Six. Rather, kindergarten is part of the non-compulsory school system, which also includes secondary school and junior college. In the latest survey available (Sharpe,

2002), the MOE was responsible for 318 non-profit and 115 for-profit kindergartens serving almost 100,000 children.

In 1947, the Ministry of Social Welfare, in collaboration with voluntary organisations, opened the first child care setting, predominantly to offer custodial care for children whose families were dislocated after World War II. Renamed the Ministry of

Community Development and Sport (MCDS) (and again, in 2004, as Ministry of

Community Development, Youth, and Sport [MCYS]) by 1980 it was responsible for 18 child care centres serving 100 children. In 2007 there were more than 650 centres serving over 50,000 children (Retrieved 14 April, 2007 from http://app.mcys.gov.sg/web/faml_nurture_childcarectr.asp). Ching-Kwan (2003), a respected early childhood commentator in Singapore, offered an explanation as to the possible reasons for this dramatic expansion. She noted that, in order to develop and sustain a people-resourced economy, the expansion was underpinned by government efforts to provide support services to families. This then enabled more female participation in the workforce, and encouraged increased birth rates in line with the government’s population policy. It was also linked to the government’s push to develop the young ‘effectively’, particularly through financial incentives such as the establishment of childcare rebates for families and funding for teacher education.

Since the early 1990s, much of the expansion in child care has been driven by private enterprise and the rise of ‘branded’ early childhood education (e.g., Kinderland,

Kinderworld, Modern Montessori, Pat’s Schoolhouse, Little School House, Cherie

Hearts, Carpe Diem, Learning Vision, Chiltern House, and Cambridge Early Learning).

These settings offer externally developed curricula for their branches where a

‘curriculum writer’ generates a generic program for each school term for children in

Nursery 1, Nursery 2, Kindergarten 1, and Kindergarten 23. These types of programs are, predominately, in line with government mandates for “developmentally appropriate practice” (Bredekamp, 1987; Bredekamp & Copple, 1997), which will be discussed later in this chapter.

In Singapore, early childhood programs focus on covering ‘subject-based’ lessons, within a timetable of generally 30 minute time slots. Subjects would include mathematics, English, formal literacy (reading and writing), art and craft, and a strong emphasis on mother tongue language acquisition as will be discussed later. This approach to delivery could be seen as problematic if the notion of developing curriculum based on young children’s competence as learners is acknowledged. Fisher (2002), in reference to research in the United Kingdom, suggested external agendas for early years curriculum “inevitably puts pressure on teachers to cover the curriculum” (p.38), rather than inviting the children to, in Katz’s (1998) words, uncover the curriculum.

Upward mobility in Singapore’s education system is dependent on language proficiency where performance in English (first language) and the mother tongue language

(Mandarin, Tamil, or Bahasa Malay) are publicly examined at Primary Four (10-year- olds), Primary Six (12-year-olds), and Secondary Four (16-year-olds). Primary Six

3 Nursery 1: 2-3 years; Nursery 2: 3-4 years; Kindergarten 1: 4-5 years; Kindergarten 2: 5-6 years

students also undergo the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE), the results of which impact on the entrance to the ‘right’ secondary school. Ching-Kwan (J. Ching-

Kwan, personal communication, 2 September, 2003) observed from her own experiences that parents, mothers particularly, often reduce working hours or cease employment completely to coach their children through this year to ensure academic success.

The notions of striving for academic success and recognition by significant others

(parents, peers, and community members) are strong in Singapore. This is seemingly in response to the government’s push for a knowledge-based economy (Teo, 2002) and, to broaden the notion of talent and make special provision for it (Sharpe, 2002). The

Ministry of Community Development and Sport Status report on the best interests of the child (26 November, 2002) stated that, “Compulsory education will provide Singaporean children with a common core of knowledge and skills to prepare them for further education and the knowledge-based economy” (p. 4). Dahlberg, Moss, and Pence (1999) have suggested that, generally, government policy makers view early childhood as the first step in producing stable, productive citizens. Along with this is the sizeable investment of policy on early childhood services. With its support for early childhood service provision through rebates on school fees for parents and, generous funding (up to

90%) allowances for teacher training, the Singapore government has made and, continues to make, significant monetary investments in the field.

Teacher education

By the end of 2000, early childhood education in Singapore was at a crossroad, both from the centre-based program implementation and teacher education perspectives.

Several papers by the Senior Minister of the MOE and a Minister of the MCDS stated the importance for Singaporean pre-school teachers to shift their focus from school readiness to a more ‘holistic’ approach (Tarmugi, 2000; Wong, 1997; 1999a; 1999b;

2000a; 2000b). In an address to graduating early childhood teachers Wong (2000b),

Senior Minister of State for Education, noted her government's prescribed outcomes for early childhood education. She hoped that teachers would plan ‘good quality’ programs that focus on age appropriate learning activities rather than academic achievements or head-start learning. This directive may have been asking teachers to embrace teaching philosophies and strategies with which they were unfamiliar.

Early childhood teacher education has only been available in Singapore since 1969 and as Sharpe (2000) suggested, it has been of questionable quality since its inception, particularly around course entry requirements and academic rigour. When the Teachers

Training College (later to become the National Institute of Education) took responsibility for teacher education in 1977, it offered MOE accredited early childhood programs from a basic course (120 hours), to an intermediate course (210 hours) and, followed by, an advanced course (120 hours) with no prerequisite requirements. It was, in fact, possible for a person to teach in a kindergarten, preschool, or childcare centre with no qualifications other than Ordinary Level (year 10) secondary schooling. This was the rule rather than the exception.

These training courses remained in place until November 2000 when the Preschool

Qualification Accreditation Committee (PQAC) was established as a joint accreditation authority from MOE and MCDS. As a result of the ensuing PQAC guidelines (2000,

2004), Singapore had undertaken a commitment to upgrading early childhood teacher qualifications. By the end of 2006 all Supervisors / Principals were to hold a Diploma of

Preschool Education- Leadership (540 hours) and at least one teacher in each centre was to hold a Diploma of Preschool Education-Teaching (700 hours). All other teaching staff must hold a minimum of the new Certificate in Preschool Teaching (460 hours) by

January 2008.

Licensing instruments: Ministry of Community Development and Sport

MCDS conducts an Assessment of licensing standards in child care centres (Ministry of

Community Development and Sport, 2003) in Singapore and, issues a license which is dependent upon the service meeting criteria, which are rated as: Not Met (1 point); Fully

Met (2 points); or Commendable (3 points). Should a centre meet all requirements, it will be issued with a 24-month license. A 12-month license will be issued should a service have only minor infringements. A 6-month license is issued when a service only partially meets conditions and requirements.

The assessment tool is divided into five Dimensions being: Physical Environment Indoor and Outdoor (1.1-1.5 [For centres without outdoor space, the rating is based on the indoor gross motor equipment]), Safety/Health/Hygiene/Nutrition (2.1-2.10), Staff

Training/Qualifications and Staffing Requirements (3.1-3.5), Programme and

Curriculum (4.1-4.9), and Administration (5.1-5.8).

As the regulatory parameters for quality in early childhood environments, these dimensions identify aspects of the services deemed necessary to meet the MCDS

standards. For example, according to requirement 1.4, a good learning environment is one that is cosy and homely, where judgement is based on whether 75% of the displays in the classroom relate to the current theme including individual children’s work and, whether special features such as sound absorption has been installed. Yet, in terms of teaching qualifications and staff requirements, it is still possible for a centre to have

29% or more untrained staff (3.4) and, child-staff ratio recommendations (3.5) of 1:25 for 4 year olds and 1:15 for 3 year olds. In terms of good quality program planning and implementation (4.3), the requirements are that it involves multiculturalism, has many small group and individual experiences, involves “external programmes arranged regularly” (known in Singapore as ‘Enrichment Programs’), has Information

Technology as part of the curriculum and, accommodates children with special needs.

There is no publicly available data to ascertain an overview of the licensing terms issued to services in Singapore. It is difficult to see how, apart from health and hygiene for which Kwan (2000) found evidence of high quality, a standard of high quality can be met given the above recommendations under the licensing requirements and the training level of teachers. In contrast, the MOE has taken a broader approach to defining quality.

Kindergarten curriculum framework: Ministry of Education

The establishment of the Kindergarten curriculum framework for Singapore (Ministry of Education, 2003) has been viewed as a significant milestone for early childhood education in Singapore. Ho Peng, Director, Education Programmes Division, stated that the document proclaims MOE’s views on what makes for quality kindergarten education

(Ministry of Education, 2003). This has been substantiated by Tharman Shanmugartnam,

Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry, and Education, who said that the framework highlighted “key principles of a quality preschool education…integral to our broader efforts in education” (Ministry of Education, 2003, Book I, p. 7).

Throughout the MOE document, reference is made to the role of kindergarten education as preparation for the development of “a thinking nation and life-long learning”

(Ministry of Education, 2003, Book I, p. 12), where young children are given opportunities to develop personal and social skills. Statements such as, “This framework includes the principles for effective education in the kindergarten, which forms the basis for life-long learning” (Book I, p. 5); “it would help set the child on a journey of life- long learning” (Book I, p. 9) and; “has a headstart on the journey of life-long learning”

(Book I, p. 11), are indicative of the spirit of the document. The document goes on to outline the desired outcomes of education in kindergarten (e.g., Know what is right and what is wrong; Be able to listen and speak with understanding), which are in line with those outcomes expected of the primary school system (see Ministry of Education, 2003,

Book I, p. 12).

Without any reference to research, the document tells the reader that the critical features of a quality kindergarten curriculum are drawn from and, evident in, principles of “good and effective practice in early years settings” (Ministry of Education, 2003, Book, I, p.

14). While these features, entrenched in the Piagetian practice of a child-centred environment are not in dispute, the rhetoric around the importance of early childhood permeates the Singapore government’s agenda on education. But, as Tayler (2000) has

cautioned, “It is a myth to believe that a set of guidelines can assure the quality of a program” (p. 259). In the context of the Singaporean early childhood educational system, the child could be reduced to becoming rather than being (Smith, Taylor, &

Gollop, 2000), permitting the child to develop into the kind of adult deemed suitable for this particular community.

To acknowledge that the education process itself is a form of “moral persuasion, embodying values, promoting ways of being and teaching ethical behaviour” (Silin,

1988, p. 127) where children’s integrity is submerged, gives rise to the validation of empirical law rather than the rigour of pedagogical discourse. If early childhood education is as Wu (1992) suggested, “ninety percent politics and ten percent pedagogy”, the political and social agenda of Singapore’s government is firmly entrenched in the Kindergarten curriculum framework for Singapore and, MCDS’s licensing framework. The children have become the instrument of this society’s need to improve itself (Hatch, 1995).

The various guidelines issued by MOE and MCDS, the most influential decision-makers in Singapore’s early childhood community, allude through the choice of language used, to a stronger focus on children as competent social actors. However, as part of their statutory obligations, education services for young children are mandated to produce, as efficiently and precisely as possible, outcomes for children that have been predetermined by adults. Services will be assessed and judged based on these outcomes through measurement tools, such as the MCDS licensing instrument (Ministry of Community

Development and Sport, 2003). The plausibility of the rhetoric in the government

guidelines could be challenging for practitioners who hold to the notion of the competent and skilful child.

The measurement of quality in Singapore

Aspects of quality

As introduced in Chapter One, quality in early childhood, in an historical sense, has been considered from two major perspectives. One is the systematic study using tools such as licensing instruments and rating scales (e.g. Phillips & Howes, 1987; Harms & Clifford,

1980). The second focuses on contextual features (e.g. Love, 1997; Love et al. 1996;

Cryer, 1999; Helburn & Howes, 1996). It has been suggested by Patten and Ricks (2000) that the common element of these two perspectives (i.e., structural and process) is their ability to contribute to certain desirable outcomes for children’s development. However, consideration of quality through engaging children’s direct experiences in early childhood settings, using interviews and detailed observations, is less common (Wiltz &

Klein, 2001).

The MCDS uses its licensing instrument Assessment of licensing standards in child care centres (Ministry of Community Development and Sport, 2003). This reflects acceptable standards of quality childcare provision in the local context, with 35% of the total score allocated to Programs and Curriculum. The MOE Kindergarten curriculum framework for Singapore (Ministry of Education, 2003) outlines the views of the Ministry on what constitutes quality kindergarten education. Reflecting the spirit of this document, Honig

and Lim (1998) discussed quality childcare as “an essential way to create a Singapore community of citizens given the multicultural backgrounds of families” (p. 1).

With little published academic material available in Singapore, the research perspectives used in the measurement of quality, in relation to the Singaporean context, have been limited. As will be discussed below, what is currently available focuses on: early childhood environments (Kwan, 2000); parent perceptions (Fan-Eng & Sharpe, 2000); and teacher qualifications (Retas & Kwan, 2000). To date, little has been documented about children's accounts on their education, and nothing appears to exist in Singapore where quality has been assessed from children’s standpoints.

The early childhood environment

Many investigations conducted in the United States into structural and process variables in early childhood settings, have examined pre-determined quality indicators associated with a stimulating classroom environment and positive outcomes for young children

(e.g., Helburn et al., 1995; Howes et al., 1995; Whitebook et al. 1990 ). In Singapore,

NIE academic Kwan (2000) also examined the quality of local early childhood environments and their influence on children’s verbal fluency (traditional value) and creative behaviour (contemporary). The findings suggested that most centres were rated within the minimal standard provision on the Early Childhood Environment Rating

Scale (ECERS) (Harms & Clifford, 1980), which was used as the measurement tool.

They did not, however, meet the minimum standards in the areas of furnishings/displays, language-reasoning experiences, and social development (Kwan, 2000, p. 45). In contrast, centres scored highly for personal care and routines, suggesting the strict and

non-negotiable adherence to the physical and domestic standards required by MCDS guidelines. For Kwan, it appeared that centres rarely scored exceptional ratings overall, as rich and extended adult–child interactions were absent in most of the settings. Kwan suggested that programs should encourage children to learn and play in small groups

“where there is a social structure that facilitates more dialogue between peers that gives them opportunities to express, argue, defend, appreciate each other’s ideas and plans”

(Kwan, 2000, p. 48). It must also be noted that ECERS, which was designed to assess group programs for children two-and-a-half to 5-years of age in the United States, was developed, revised, and validated against the views of experts in the early childhood field from the United States, Canada, and Europe (Retrieved on 15 April, 2007 from http://www.fpg.unc.edu/~ecers/), so can only be seen as place specific, rather than universally applicable.

Parent perceptions

The research of Singapore-based British academic Matthews (2002) suggested that local parents have become consumers of an education product. The advent and proliferation of

‘branded education’ in Singapore, indeed, attests to Matthews’ position. American researchers Galinsky, Howes, Kontos, and Shinn (1994), in their study on how parents select child care settings, found that 65% of parents believed they had little choice among child care options and that high quality child care was in short supply. In discussing the relationship between parental values and quality, Brophy and Statham

(1994) suggested certain parental rights should also be considered in moves to define quality. If the parents are indeed consumers of an educational project as Matthews

suggested, then as such consumers, employing their rights may provide parents with an avenue to influence the nature of their child’s educational environment.

Fan-Eng and Sharpe (2000) conducted a study in Singapore that focused on parent perceptions of quality in selected child care centres, looking at process characteristics

(i.e., quality of caregivers, children’s time for interactions with peers, and quality of children’s activities) and structural characteristics (i.e., staff-child ratios, centre’s location, fees, and operation hours). The researchers found that parents were becoming more discerning in the type of educational programs offered and the kind of teachers being employed (aspects of quality identified by the study), rather than just reviewing the convenience and cost of the programs. According to the authors, parents were aware of what contributes to a good child care centre because “they know that their preschoolers need good quality caregivers to provide good quality programmes for children” (Fan-Eng & Sharpe, 2003, p. 79).

There was no quantification in the Fan-Eng and Sharpe (2000) study on what constitutes the quality of children’s activities yet the authors used this element as an indication that parents were aware of good quality programs. To ascertain parents’ understanding of quality, they were asked if they were satisfied with particular elements, but were not asked to elaborate. This quantitative study did not ask parents any questions that related directly to their perception of their child’s experience at the centre (i.e., what they enjoyed or disliked), how their child may benefit from such a ‘quality program’ or even to explain what they understood about the program content. Clearly, the indicators of

quality here were framed to give credence to a socially constructed concept of quality embedded in current methods of governance (e.g., licensing) of such programs.

Teacher qualifications

The issue of educating teachers has been identified by many countries, including the

United States and Great Britain, as being the highest priority by those who regulate the preparation and certification of early childhood educators (Rodd & Savage, 1997).

Howes (1997) suggested that research consistently shows that training is an important predication of involved, sensitive teacher-child interactions. For instance, in the Chicago

(Illinois) area, Clarke-Stewart (1987) found that children who were cared for by less knowledgeable teachers, fared less well on both cognitive and social competence.

Phillips and Howe’s study (cited in Fan-Eng & Sharpe, 2000) reported that specialised caregiver training emerged as one of the most potent predicators of positive classroom dynamics and child outcomes. Indeed, Retas and Kwan (2000) found evidence in

Singapore to support the notion that “higher quality centres had staff who were better educated, better trained and earned high wages” (p. 62). This study was undertaken prior to the implementation of the new training guidelines under the PQAC (November 2000) and the highest level of training available would have been the advanced course (see page 28).

Australian researcher Fleer (1997) asserted a correlation between teacher education programs and the guarantee of the quality of early childhood programs. Yet, concern is raised in the literature regarding the low competency level of early childhood teachers in

Singapore (Fan-Eng & Sharpe, 2000). This is due, in part, to the low entry level

requirements, even under the new guidelines. At Certificate level a candidate must hold

3 Ordinary Levels (equivalent to 3 passed subjects in Year 10) and at Diploma level hold

5 Ordinary Levels (equivalent to 5 passed subjects in Year 10). Diploma of Preschool

Education-Teaching is the entry to Diploma of Preschool Education-Leadership, with certain credit transfers available at all levels depending on previous study. Experience is not accepted as a credit factor.

With the low entry levels and limited academic rigour in the teaching qualifications, many teachers in Singapore have relied on scripts from teaching materials to guide the implementation of pre-selected activities for children. The resulting interactions between the children and the teacher tend to alternate between the teacher’s questions and the expected answers from the children, restricting involvement to rote, repetitive drill and, the memorization of facts. This is contrary to what one teacher in the United States noted 12 years ago in Berk and Winsler (1995) about child talk, stating that “talking is probably the most important thing we do here, because you learn the most when you can talk while you work” (p. 117). From the New Zealand context, Hedges (2000) suggested teachers need to use strategies, within a meaningful child-focused context, that facilitate and extend children’s learning and support their growing competence. Wong’s (2002) findings in Singapore confirmed impressions that programs for young children were too academic, structured, and achievement orientated. Respondents to Wong’s study also concurred that there was a need for a greater variety in approaches to teacher education and that there was a lack of understanding regarding evaluation of curriculum that went beyond licensing requirements.

Teachers in Singapore are generally products of a traditional didactic education system.

More recently, if trained as a teacher, they may have undergone “three levels of training designed to follow a sequential route” (Sharpe, 1998, p. 132) focusing on lesson plans and child management. In a later study, Sharpe (2000) suggested that children would only benefit from trained teachers who provide a “high level of responsiveness ... who are able to facilitate a high level of interaction in learner orientated activities” (p.80). In the United States, Spodek (1991a) supported this line of argument stating that the greater the knowledge an early childhood teacher has about the practical application of research and theory, the better educator they will become.

While research would appear to support the notion of a measure of quality that can be equated with the level of teacher education, few studies are able to unequivocally state that a highly qualified teacher causes positive effects and better outcomes for children.

Research in Singapore needs to be directed toward how qualifications impact the role of the teacher and the teacher-child relationships that exist in environments such as early childhood classrooms. In turn, research should be framed within the context of the social and cultural practices of the particular learning setting. This has not yet been the case for early childhood education in Singapore.

Situating early childhood education in Singapore

Developmental psychology paradigms

One “grand system” (Walsh, 2005, p. 43) embraced by the field of early childhood education, including that of Singapore, has been encapsulated by the National

Association for the Education of Young Children’s (NAEYC) position statement,

Developmentally appropriate practices (DAP) in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8 (Bredekamp, 1987; Bredekamp & Copple, 1997).

In Singaporean context, the MCDS requires all early childhood curricula to be

“age/developmentally appropriate” (MCDS, 2003, p. 21). The Ministry suggested that,

“Developmentally-appropriate plans should provide a wide variety of learning experiences and cater to individual and small/large group needs” (MCDS, 2003, p.25).

Prescriptive in nature, the guidelines ask in addition that, each classroom should have three learning centres (activity area or interest corner), with clearly delineated physical boundaries for specific types of play in which “teachers should mediate children’s learning” (MCDS, 2003, p. 25). Child care settings are also advised to make developmental assessment of children’s progress and achievement on a six-monthly basis. This information should then be used “to plan the curriculum according to children’s needs” (MCDS, 2003, p. 28).

Founded in a developmental psychology paradigm, and privileging theories such as those of Piaget (1952) and Erikson (1965), the DAP model proposes to define and promote high quality, developmentally appropriate programs in the best interests of all children and their families. The statement emphasises practitioner knowledge of the general predicators of development within an age range, so that which is being offered to young children is achievable and challenging.

There are many critiques available on this position. Walsh (2005) suggested DAP presents an assumption that the quality of early childhood practice can be determined by knowledge of child development. Silin (1995) also argued that an over emphasis on child development theory may result in inappropriate planning for children and called for other ways of knowing the child, perhaps drawing on the arts, literature and, philosophy rather than just scientific knowledge. Some consider the NAEYC statement as representing a romantic view of childhood, “reflecting a maturational view of development even though it is couched in constructivist terms” (Spodek & Saracho,

1999, p. 12). Australian researchers, Yelland and Kilderry (2005) argued that DAP does not adequately address the diverse qualities of children and families within a “global context” (p. 5), thus ignoring culture. So too, Mayall (2003) from the United Kingdom, suggested such positions are “future orientated” (p. 22) or becoming, commonly focusing on the individual and localized interactions. DAP proposes a model that focuses on children’s needs, which Finnish researcher Alanen (1992) suggested, had been “uncritically accepted” (p. 32).

It is difficult to ascertain how the NAEYC statement addresses criteria for high quality programs, other than by a focus on developmental appropriateness. There is a gap in discussion on evaluating if and when learning has taken place. The assumption may be that evaluation takes place through measurement against the predicators of development, given the theoretical focus. Australian early childhood researcher MacNaughton (2003) proposed that, the danger in this assumption is that ‘developmental assessment’ of young children can result in “simplistic views of who the child is and who they are becoming”

(p. 150). In New Zealand, Carr (2005) suggested that assessment, as proposed by the

DAP model, is often seen as being about normalisation. Carr counter-proposed that assessment should be identity-referenced and clearly make a statement about who the child is, focussing on current competence, interests and dispositions.

Developmental psychological paradigms, such as those espoused by the DAP model, focus on children’s path toward adulthood or becoming rather than being (Prout &

James, 1997). In the United States, Branscombe, Castle, Dorsey, Surbeck, and Taylor

(2000) maintained that any curricula that measured children on standardised tests and,

Piagetian notions of the child who was taking steps toward maturity, only reinforced an image of the pre-Industrial Revolution child as a miniature adult, thus becoming someone, not already being someone. Cannella (2005) noted Russian psychologist

Vygotsky’s (1962, 1978) proposal that there is not one form of human development and that developmental change can be seen as both multidirectional and cultural. Mayall

(1999) discussed the possibilities for reconsidering the universality of child development theories, perhaps by turning to Vygotsky’s argument for the intersections between social contexts and children’s learning. The socio-cultural position would seem to suggest that the most effective curriculum for young children is where their learning is supported through engaging with people, places, and things as they “actively develop their individual and group capability” (Anning, Cullen, & Fleer, 2004, p. 141). For young children in Singapore, it would appear the literature identifies that becoming drives the learning experiences offered.

Didactic learning environments and direct instruction

British researchers Siraj-Blatchford and Sylva (1999) argued that exemplary practices they identified in early childhood education were all strongly influenced by Vygotskian social-constructivist thinking. The authors cited examples such as Reggio Emilia (Italy),

Te Whariki (New Zealand) and High/Scope (USA). Siraj-Blatchford and Sylva found children attending those settings exhibited a high degree of intrinsic motivation and involvement. The MOE/MCDS (2001) guidelines clearly state, as do most local centres, that early childhood education should instil a love for learning that is not motivated by extrinsic rewards: “The education system seeks to develop students’ creative potential and equip them with the desires and skills for continuous learning” (Retrieved 22

November, 2001 from http://www.mita.gov.sg/bksedu.htm). In contrast, some commentators in Singapore have suggested as children’s lived experience, young children may obsess with academic achievement, with many parents applying pressure on early childhood settings to ensure this success. This has led to stressful environments for many young children, as reported earlier.

An emphasis on academic achievement and the resulting stress for children has been the subject of research for at least 20 years. American theorist David Elkind (1987) discussed the relationship between achievement and stress in young children. He suggested that young children had become the unwilling, unintended victims of overwhelming stress due to governmental and parental expectations. Further studies in the United States (Hyson, Hirsh-Vasilek, & Resccorla, 1990; Burts, Hart, Charlesworth,

& DeWolf, 1993) continued to document young children exhibiting more stress (such as negative attitudes toward self and feigned illness) in didactic learning environments,

than child-initiated environments. In their comparative study on teachers’ instructional beliefs in early childhood classrooms, Burts, Hart, Charlesworth, and Kirk (1990) saw significant increases in stress/anxiety behaviours in children as a result of direct instruction. Other studies in early childhood settings, such as that undertaken in the

United Kingdom by Nabuco and Sylva (1996), have demonstrated that overly formal approaches to teaching young children are counterproductive, generating higher anxiety levels and lower self esteem. Schweinhart and Weikart’s (1997) longitudinal study of children in the High Scope/Perry Preschool Project found little difference in academic performance as a result of direct instruction. More importantly, Schweinhart and

Weikart found the direct instruction approach to teaching led to more emotional impairment and disturbance, in turn, leading to the necessity of learning support provisions. Certainly in Singapore, there is a thriving market in academic services which offer language, maths, and literacy tuition as learning support to children’s formal schooling.

In contrast, a variety of studies conducted over the past three decades indicate that a didactic approach to teaching is not pivotal for children's acquisition of academic skills.

In the United Kingdom, Sylva, Roy, and Painter (1980) found that young children in early childhood centres, who spent the majority of time in structured play and less in didactic teaching, engaged in purposeful play experiences and were more ready for formal schooling. In another study, Sylva and Wiltshire (1993) argued that, “the most important learning in preschool concerns aspirations, task commitment, social skills and responsibility, and feelings of efficacy” (p. 37). In the United States, Schweinhart,

Weikhart, and Larner (1986) found that children exhibited more pro-social skills in

classrooms that had both teacher and child-initiated experiences. So too, Hyson et al.

(1990) found children in child-initiated classrooms scored higher on measurements of creativity (divergent thinking) than children in academically orientated classrooms. In a doctoral thesis conducted in Portugal, Nabuco (1997) found that, more literacy activity, pretend play, informal conversations in pairs, and problem solving experiences led to better performance in reading, writing, and a positive self-esteem. From Harvard

University, Amabile (1999) drew attention to the importance of intrinsic motivation and claimed that if children have opportunities to explore and investigate their world in a secure environment, they will accumulate capital on which to draw in later life. As a strong proponent of children as decision makers in the curriculum, Anglo-American researcher Katz (1993) claimed that the acquisition of knowledge and skills does not guarantee that they will be used and applied, but that the disposition to investigate, experiment, explore, and inquire should be that which is actively encouraged.

An environment that makes provision for authentic opportunities for learning may provide children with a higher quality preschool experience and may also increase children’s chances for independent success at a later stage in life. Should children be offered the possibilities to be “contributors to a participant democracy and active citizenship” (Dahlberg, Moss, & Pence, 1999, p. 7), perhaps the classroom could be one where there is a culture of transactions and transformation. Classrooms might emphasise participatory activity and discourse rather than position children as passive recipients of curricula.

Acknowledging children

Children’s right to be heard

The UNCROC (1989) is widely regarded by the international community as perhaps the most comprehensive statement on children's rights and a foundation for developing policies and making decisions about children. It resonates with the emerging sociology of childhood where children are seen as social actors, with the agency to actively participate in their society, and where children contribute valid opinions. However, to be effective in upholding the mandates offered, the UNCROC (1989) document requires a firm commitment on behalf of all the ratifying nations (now including all but Somalia and the United States) to legislate implementation strategies in line with the spirit of the

Articles.

Some international and national laws and policies accord children the right to express themselves and participate in decisions that concern them, and to receive care and protection from adults (e.g., Asquith & Hill, 1994; Franklin, 1995). In countries such as the United Kingdom, Denmark, and New Zealand, children are now offered opportunities to participate and be heard in areas such as education, health and welfare, and the legal system (Gilbert, Heneghan, & Osborne, 1997; Langstead, 1994 ). Limter and Flekkoy (1995) suggested that by being given opportunities to be heard in matters concerning them, young children develop feelings of self-esteem and competence, which, in turn, are contributors to citizenship in a democracy. The position taken by

Eekelaar (1992) in the United Kingdom was that, “Hearing what children say must…lie at the root of an elaboration of children’s rights” (p. 20). This was also the position taken

in the Seen and Heard Report (1997) on children’s participation in the legal process in

Australia. The assumption made by the Articles in the UNCROC (1989) is that

“children’s meaningful participation is inherently protective” (Neale, 2004, p. 115) of their right to be heard when adults are making decisions about their best interests.

With its commitment to the UNCROC (1989) mandates, government ministries in

Singapore have offered several examples of their subsequent action on children’s rights.

MCDS, for example, used a forum for childcare practitioners titled “Best Interests of the

Child: Turning Principles into Practice” (26 November 2002), to focus on Article 3.1 of the UNCROC (1989) document. Launched at the forum was a single page précis from the Status report on the best interests of the child (Ministry of Community Development and Sport, 2002) entitled: “Best interests of the child statement: Children have rights.

Give them the respect and dignity they deserve”. The précis stated in part:

In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social

welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative

bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.

With further reading, the Status Report elaborated on the central ideas proposed in the excerpt, including a “Vision for Singapore’s Children”, where it is difficult to identify the connection to its focus on children’s rights. For example:

Singapore’s vision for her children and youth is for them to be attuned to the

world’s heartbeat, yet anchored with strong emotional ties to the family

community at home in Singapore. These two attributes, however, have to be

nurtured in children from a tender age (original emphasis, p. 2).

Gold (1998), in a discussion on children’s participation in the Family Courts in New

Zealand, cited children's evolving capacities as recognized in the UNCROC (1989), being overshadowed by adult assumptions about what is in a child’s ‘best interest’.

Different cultures permit children different powers and levels of social participation.

Legal and educational systems, particularly, acknowledge a child’s rights usually in accordance with their age (e.g., right to vote, age of consent, compulsory schooling, and so on). In all cases, this reflects the notions of adult power, which, in turn, determines children's ability to access and employ their rights and responsibilities. In its Status

Report MCDS (2002) states that, it “wants to inform children about the principles and values expounded by the CRC (sic), such as the right to freedom of expression, and the right to dream” (original emphasis, p. 4). When this is more fully explored, parameters around these freedoms are identified as needing to shape “a generation of moral and civic-minded Singaporeans” (p. 6). This exposes the limitations that the government is placing on children’s right to freedom of expression and participation in activities relating to their own futures. When examined, the statement by Mr. Chan Soo

Sen, Singapore’s Minister for State for Prime Minister's Office and Community

Development and Sport, to the United Nations General Assembly Special Session on

Children, New York, 8-10 May 2002 (Retrieved 25 June 2002 from http//www.mcds.gov.sg/HTML/home.mos.us.html) one finds protecting children is at the forefront, rather than the participation of children (see Farrell (2004) for a discussion on the notion of protective rights vs. participatory rights issues). Yet, according to the

Minister,, with accession to UNCROC in October 1995, Singapore reaffirmed a strong commitment to the well being of children and to protecting their rights. The examples he

quoted on legislation, community efforts, health programs, and the education system all focused on these two issues.

Discrepancies in the ability to acknowledge the validity of children’s participatory engagement with legal, welfare, education, and health processes are clearly evident. The current study hopes to counter this, and offer a contribution to professionals working with young children, by providing evidence of their competence as thinkers and communicators in order to be heard. A similar outcome has been trialled for the legal profession in New Zealand. Gilbert, Heneghan, and Osborne (1997) reported an example of the production of a training video for legal professionals, where children’s views are given on how to involve them in the decision-making processes in court proceedings. In the video, a young person stated, “When I speak Maori (as opposed to English) it makes me feel like I am being myself instead of trying to be someone I’m not” (p. 182).

Further, an accompanying workbook of policy procedural information outlines the different ways children communicate, with suggestions for enhancing adult-child interactions. It is interesting to note that in New Zealand a 10-year-old child can be tried before a judge for murder, yet another 10-year-old, with views about matters that affect him/her such as parental custody, may not be accepted as a valid witness (Gold, 1998).

By ratifying the UNCROC (1989), a country undertakes legal obligations to accord children their rights. With a commitment to involve children in the decision-making and policy environment, a community can provide the structure and procedures that enable their participation, should it view the child as a competent and capable contributor. It is this commitment that shapes the ideas the community has about children. The wish to

listen to, and involve children, originates within this context and leads to structures and procedures that can support the involvement of children (Langstead, 1994).

The new sociology of childhood

In the context of the UNCROC (1989) the notion of the young child as capable and competent has been emerging in the early childhood literature. Corsaro’s (1997) seminal work acknowledged the child who “appropriates and reproduces aspects of their culture through interactions with others” (p. 31). From Australia, researchers Danby and Baker

(1998) and Woodrow (1999) use the notion of the “agentic child” (p. 10) who possesses the capabilities and competence to meet new challenges with curiosity and motivation.

In Britain, Wyness (2000) suggested a feature of the new sociology of childhood was the exploration of the child as an “active and competent member of society” (p. 25) who is capable of making sense of their social world. Prout and James (1997) considered children as being actively involved in shaping their social identities. Within such considerations of children and childhood, adults who work with the child can be viewed as co-constructors (with children) who negotiate, challenge, and guide in the context of their own socio-cultural histories and professional experience.

Prominent in theorising a new sociology of childhood has been British social researcher

Mayall (1999, 2000, 2001, 2002). While still a tentative proposition, Mayall (2002) has suggested a framework for thinking about children as participatory agents in social relationships. In Mayall’s (2002) view, the feminist body of work has provided a useful critique of “social order” (p. 24). Mayall suggested that some of the social issues discussed by feminist thinkers such as Mitchell, (1971), Oakley (1972), Ribbens (1994),

and Smith (1988) have contributed to the recognition and acknowledgement of women as a distinct social group. The feminist work allows us to consider “giving due attention to people’s experiences as a basis for analysing their social condition” (Mayall, 2002, p.

112) and likewise for children.

From the child standpoint, Cannella (1997) argued that parallels can be drawn with the feminist literature. Even children from a ‘privileged’ background are placed on the margins of society as “inexperienced, immature, innocent, and needing protection from the real world” (p. 162). This says nothing of those who are exposed to poverty, violence, and assaults on their family and culture. While the socio-political enterprise of feminism focuses on different issues than those faced by children, it has offered the possibility of exploring and theorising a standpoint for children, situating their accounts within the social contexts in which they are experienced. The feminist and sociology writers have therefore provided new ways of making visible the lived experiences of marginalised groups such as women and young children.

Recognition of children as a distinct social group involves acknowledgement of their experiential knowledge. Mayall’s (2002) research in Britain indicates that children in preschool and school settings have identified themselves in a “subordinate position” (p.

135) in their relationships with adults (teachers and parents) and an imbalance between their own and adults’ social status. Other studies on schooling in the United Kingdom, such as those conducted by Young and Whitty (1977) and Meighan and Siraj-Blatchford

(1997), have identified that many children encounter educational institutions that propose to ‘train’ them to become contributors to the socio-economic interest of the

state, indicating that children’s participatory rights as a social group are not recognized.

Wyness (2000) suggested that children and childhood in the United Kingdom have been overshadowed by more “socially significant institutions” (p. 25) such as the family or schools, amplifying their lack of social status. Neale (2004) offered the provocation that

“we often act as if children are not there” (p. 98) and that schools have mostly become places where parents are defined as the clientele or users of the service which render children as passive recipients. Children then have no opportunity to offer their views and do not experience invitations to engage in any socio-political/economic representation or play any influential role in decision making processes.

Prominent Italian researcher Rinaldi (2005a) suggested that the new sociology of childhood, which seeks an acknowledgment of the presence of children and their accounts of life, is an essential element to understanding their social worlds. It challenges the traditional notions of developmental psychology that children become someone. Mayall (2002) suggested that by studying some children’s lives, we may be able to develop a greater understanding of children’s lives more generally. Mayall’s

(2002) Childhood Study, in which she documented young people’s accounts of childhood, found children, themselves, subscribed to the socialisation thesis. They acknowledged that childhood is part preparation, a journey in which one learns, but they also ascribed themselves as agents and social actors in their own socialisation.

Rather than children and childhood being excluded from sociological consideration

(childhood as a preparatory stage rather than a participatory activity), the new sociology offers possibilities to focus on the child as an agent. It positions the child as a social

actor who participates in constructing knowledge through their daily experiences. Neale

(2004) advocates for young children as capable citizens. In turn this recognition gives rise to benefits to society as a whole. It is highly possible, however, that the way children experience childhood, and how adults perceive it to be experienced, may result in a disjunction between the actual and the expected.

Starting from children’s prior knowledge

Fleet, Patterson, and Robison (2006) suggested that, in technical models for education, there is the notion that progress can be measured and standardized, thus ensuring quality outcomes for young children. A modernist view of continuous progress and improvement sees the child as an incomplete adult. The same view positions children an investment in the future. This is a ‘tag’ used by both the MOE (2003) and the MCDS

(2002). The licensing guidelines put forward by MCDS (2003) appear to underestimate the vast repertoire of knowledge and learning that young children bring to the early childhood setting. In the MCDS measurement of quality, it is not overtly apparent that early childhood educators are being asked to acknowledge the competence of young children as a beginning point in their professional relationships with the children. When documenting ‘observations’, teachers are expected to assess children’s needs within the developmental psychology framework, rather than to collate fundamental knowledge about who the child is. Over 20 years ago Lubeck (1985) in her critique of DAP suggested American society appeared to see education as place specific (a child learns in school) and knowledge specific (children must learn specific skills and facts). Children’s prior knowledge, ideas, opinions, and views are quite likely to be eclipsed under the governance of authorities in their quest to regulate the fostering of the ‘age appropriate

development’ of young children. These beliefs which still influence much of the western world’s educational practice are being challenged globally as issues of power and social justice come to the fore.

In comparison to the MCDS (2003) guidelines, Nurturing early learners: A framework for a kindergarten curriculum in Singapore (Ministry of Education, 2003) has asked teachers to “start from the child”, theoretically positioning children as competent learners when they arrive at the early childhood setting. In developing an early childhood curriculum, Fisher (2002) suggested the key task for the educator is to

“identify precisely what it is that children already know and can do to build on their existing competencies” (p. 19). Dahlberg et al. (1999), Katz (1993), and Moss (2001b), have focused on understanding the knowledge, skills, and experiences that a child brings to the early childhood setting. This construct of the teacher’s role recognises that it is a complex one, no longer just as a transmitter of knowledge but a more “knowledgeable

‘other’ in the educational endeavour” (Fleet, Patterson, & Robison, 2006, p. 6). This positions the adult as learner and co-constructor, in a curriculum that recognises children’s personal learning histories.

British writer Peter Moss (2001b) argued that socio-cultural theories are providing new understandings of children and childhood. Dahlberg, Moss, and Pence (1999) noted that post-modern thought promotes the idea of the child as an active creator of ideas and theories and that quality indicators be determined through the intersections of multiple viewpoints. Dahlberg et al.(1999) referred to the notion of children who are worth listening to, having dialogue with and who also have the courage to think and act

autonomously. In an impassioned keynote address in support of these notions, Laevers

(2004) spoke of the early childhood field’s responsibility to be aware of “the full reality of the child before you”. In turn, the measurement of the quality and effectiveness of early childhood practice from this standpoint recognises the child’s well-being, engagement, and sense of agency. These notions open up possibilities for contemporary early childhood education.

Early childhood education as a social context for dialogue, debate and co- construction

If differing standpoints on experiences for young children are to be considered, it bodes well to ensure that any evaluation is related to each particular context and those goals and values that are important to that community. The socio-cultural approaches to early childhood education that originated with Vygotsky (1978), and further built upon by internationally diverse writers such as Bruner and Haste (1987), Rogoff (1990, 1998),

Smith (1996), MacNaughton (1995), and Edwards (2000), emphasised the importance of the relationships between people, their actions and meanings, contexts, communities, and cultural histories. It can be argued that children’s development and learning are culturally constructed (Rogoff, 1990) where individual development can be considered as contributing to, and constituted by, the socio-cultural experiences in which those particular children participate.

A pivotal issue that has been discussed in studies such as that of Zhang and Sigel (1994) was how young children’s standpoints of their preschool experiences can be influenced by the social and cultural expectations of those around them, and certainly those who are

predominant in the immediate social context. This has been highlighted in studies that focus on children’s accounts on work and play. In the cross-cultural (North America and

China) study of Zhang and Sigel (1994), North American children emphasized the importance of enjoying preschool, whereas the Chinese children stressed that learning was paramount. This study provided an important reflection for the current study, given that the participating children are from the same ethnic group (Singaporean Chinese), whose families generally place great import on academic learning.

Thorpe et al. (2005) found in their study with children in Queensland (Australia) settings, which offered both a preparatory program and a Year One program, that children in a predominantly mono-culture also identified a distinction between work and play. The younger children in this study described days filled with aspects of play

(painting, drawing, games, etc.), references to which were mainly positive. The older children recounted days filled with aspects of work (handwriting, maths, etc.), references to which were not always positive. While early childhood professionals pursue the advocacy of play-based curricula in settings for young children, the children in both studies may well have been reflecting the broader community’s distinction between work and play and the role of school. A casual observer would find a similar distinction in Singaporean society.

As part of the discussion on the social activity of learning, Rogoff (1990) highlighted the way in which adults structure children’s environments according to their perceived goals for children’s development, and their own expectations about children’s active

participation in community experiences. Rogoff (1990) has suggested that placing children’s development within local goals and valued skills, allowed for “multiple directions and courses of growth” (p. 57). So too it could be argued that these same local goals influence the way young children see their different early childhood experiences.

The notion of the child standpoint has also been used as a conceptual idea in other works. Respected theorist and Russian psychologist, Lev Vygotsky (1978) believed that if adults engaged children in collaborative dialogues through community tasks, children would learn to think and behave in ways that reflect their community’s culture. As a classroom practitioner and proponent of Vygotskian thinking, Blasi (1996) asserted that the way to show children their thinking is valued is by encouraging collaborative dialogue. She stated:

By valuing talk in the classroom, we enrich our curriculum with children’s

thoughts, raise learning activities to more sophisticated levels and build strong,

supportive relationships that, in turn, help our children grow into independent

thinkers, lifelong learners and socio-economic individuals (p. 131).

From the United Kingdom, early childhood writer Julie Fisher (2002) supported this notion, suggesting conversations with children also provide evidence of the actual learning outcomes, not the intended, thus offering the child standpoint on what has been experienced. Child-adult dialogue allows children’s competence as thinkers and communicators to be evidenced and can be a “critical moment in the cycle of teaching and learning” (p. 21).

Italian academic Rinaldi (2001) has argued that listening to children begins an important relationship between the child and adult. It is the on-going relationships between the protagonists that then form the corner-stone of an effective preschool community. From a European/North American standpoint Dahlberg, Moss, and Pence (1999) emphasised the importance of young children’s early education being based on relationships between child and child, child and adult, and adult and adult. In early childhood settings, these relationships may be found to be easy, warm, and congenial, or difficult, contentious, and fraught with tensions, yet they are all the legitimate relationships of everyday preschool life. Dunn, Goncu, and Stone (1998) suggested collaborative engagement with others required conditions of a close relationship and understanding such as between close friends, siblings, or parent and child. Verba (1994) went further:

The relative equality of partners with respect to competence and social power in

peer interaction allows processes of co-construction to emerge that differ from

those characterising adult-child interactions (p. 126).

The classroom can be seen, therefore, as a site for social interaction and engagement in the everyday experiences by the key players, children and adults (Berk & Winsler, 1995;

Brown, Ash, Rutherford, Nakagawa, Gordon, & Campione, 1993; Rogoff, 1990;

Vygotsky, 1978; Wenger, 1998). Classrooms offer a socio-cultural system that is created by its social players (practitioners and children) and supported by interaction within the social context (parents, significant others, centre management, government policy).

Through these complex and dynamic exchanges between children and children, and adults and children, different standpoints can be documented. Inferences can then be

made about what the protagonists might be feeling and thinking, and used as a basis for understanding how and what children learn in this social setting (Mayall, 1999).

Including children in the research conversation

The child standpoint on quality

It is important to recognise that there can be multiple perspectives on quality in early childhood programs, with each contributing to an understanding of what good quality looks and feels like. A fair and just evaluation of services for young children and their families needs to incorporate a combination of accounts given by children, their families and their teachers, situated within the socio-cultural context in which the experiences occur. Brophy and Staham (1994) stated that the extent to which a setting supports children’s rights, where quality is defined in terms of a child’s experience within the service, should be the determining factor. Katz (1992) also suggested that the ultimate test should be from the child's perspective, or what she referred to as the “bottom-up” perspective (Katz, 1992, p. 68). Carr, May, and Podmore (2002) suggested an holistic approach that “empowers the learner and communicates to families” (p. 152).

Of particular interest to this study is the child standpoint on quality. A body of rich research acknowledging children’s contributions to our understanding of their preschool and/or school experience has been offered (e.g., Clark, 2004; Clark & Moss, 2001;

Einarsdottir, 2005; Farrell et al., 2002; James, 2005; Thorpe et al., 2005). The outcomes of these studies however, have not sought to provide the criteria for which we may measure quality from the child’s standpoint.

Two key research projects have attempted to identify and measure quality from the child standpoint in relation to criteria for judgment. In the first, Katz (1993) posed a series of questions based on theories of learning and development, and applied certain criteria of quality across a continuum. The more positive the responses from children, the more the program could be said to deserve their participation. From a child’s standpoint, if a program is intellectually stimulating, socially engaging, and provides a sense of satisfaction, it could be said to have the “hallmarks of good quality” (Katz, 1993, p. 2).

Katz proposed these indices as critical components in providing adults and policy makers with evidence of the child’s experience. In the second, New Zealand researchers

Carr, May, and Podmore (2002) used the child’s perspective to provide a springboard for centres to evaluate their practice in reference to the Te Whariki curriculum guidelines.

The authors suggested that, if practitioners are to assess and evaluate their programs effectively, the indicators of quality must be seen from the child’s standpoint.

A reasonable inference about the quality of a program from the child’s standpoint is:

‘What does it feel like to be a child in this particular early childhood environment?’

Katz (1993) suggested that this approach could be used to seek responses from children around their experiences of preschool. This might include posing questions such as: ‘Do

I usually feel welcome rather than captured?’ or, ‘Am I usually addressed seriously and respectfully, rather than as someone who is “precious” or “cute”?’ (Katz, 1993, p. 1).

Carr, May, and Podmore (2002) also proposed a child questions approach to evaluating quality. Their child questions are linked to the strands of the national curriculum of

New Zealand, Te Whariki, aiming to give practitioners a tool for “critical reflection and a clearer focus on children” (p. 153). Developed initially from ethnographic studies in

early childhood settings (Podmore & May, 1998) they ask, ‘Do you invite me to communicate and respond to my own particular efforts?’ and, ‘Do you appreciate and understand my interests and abilities and those of my family?’ (Carr et al., 2002, p.

119).

Both of these proposals for engaging the child perspective on the quality of the early childhood setting and its program are linked to guidelines that are framed by adults’ views. From the United States, Katz (1993) has long been associated with the DAP school of thought of learning and development. Her views on the child’s perspective could be critiqued by detractors as being constructed from that position, while subtly assuming the universality of the questions. With strong links to Te Whariki, which is underpinned by the socio-cultural perspective and diversity that is the New Zealand context, the child questions proposed by Carr et al. (2002) are inextricably and directly linked to the national curriculum strands (see Carr et al., 2004, p. 153). Neither approach has identified that children themselves had been directly consulted in the design of the questions. Both Katz (1993) and Carr et al. (2002) proposed the notion of consultation and participation; however neither has established that the questions were co-constructed with children. Once again, without the consultative processes with young children overtly in place, adults alone interpret what is in the child’s best interests (Neale, 2004).

The current study seeks to redress this situation by proposing child-constructed questions. The research was conducted in a context in which the questions were framed, but not with reference to a specific theoretical or governmental guideline for the

measurement of quality. Rather they were constructed from the child’s own experience of preschool.

Children as research participants

A further focus of this study is engaging children’s active participation in the research.

The theoretical basis of such participation has been outlined earlier in relation to the sociology of childhood perspective.

Singapore has a socio-political context that appears to not encourage the individual’s voice to be heard, as demonstrated by a one party parliament and a ban on individuals being permitted to speak in public places without prior approval. Looking to other nations, the social importance of listening to young children has been embedded in legislation by parliament, particularly in the Scandinavian region, United Kingdom, and

New Zealand (David, 1992). Neale and Smart (1998) suggested, from the family law standpoint in the United Kingdom, that part of the attraction of this response to the sociological importance of children, raised primarily by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), is that it offers a bottom-up perspective, an

“empirically grounded view of young children which privileges their agency and accords them respect” (Neale & Smart, 1998, p. 37).

In 1998, United States authors Graue and Walsh (1998) argued that the literature offered little insight into children’s accounts of their experiences in early childhood settings.

However, Klein and Goncu (2001) found that there was a growing body of research

around children’s views about their preschool experiences, citing North American examples such as Pianta (1992; 1997; 1999), Stipek, Feiler, Daniels, and Milburn

(1995), and Wiltz and Klein (1994). It stands then, that as more research emerges in early childhood literature regarding children’s views, a legitimate area for study is that which includes the complex relationships between children’s lives, early childhood services, and the standpoints of those involved. This would enable a more holistic and balanced view of children’s encounters with their early childhood settings, a notion supported by other more recent studies such as those conducted in Australia by Farrell,

Tayler, Tennent, and Gahan (2002) and Thorpe et al. (2005). Galinsky (1999) argued that children’s views on their education and care can fill identified gaps between what children really think about their experiences and what researchers may have already studied.

In their study on children’s views on starting school, Australian researchers Dockett and

Perry (2003) remarked that, including children in dialogue on their direct experiences had the potential to inform adults of the implications and outcomes of these experiences for young children themselves. By engaging children in these conversations, adults are regarding children as “competent and interpretive social participants” (Dockett & Perry,

2003, p. 12). In Singapore, Yeo and Clarke (2005) also reported on young children’s perspectives on starting school. This study used a questionnaire that the researchers had developed which was then given to researcher-trained older children in order to interview the new school children, and which addressed the inclusion of young children’s standpoints in an Asian context. Farrell et al. (2002) stated that listening to children is imperative, as children’s “own accounts give voice to their distinctive

experience in the service” (p. 28). Thorpe et al. (2005) acknowledged children’s reports of their experiences as credible information that can then “be used to advance knowledge of children’s everyday practices, relevant for policy and research directions in education and child advocacy” (p. 117).

It has been proposed that significant knowledge about children’s lives can result when children’s active participation in the research enterprise is deliberately solicited and where their ideas, perspectives, and feelings are accepted as genuine and valid data

(Prout & James, 1997; Woodhead & Faulkner, 2000). Castelle (1990) stated that when the researcher listens to children as part of this enterprise, it acknowledges the human rights of children to actively participate in relevant social processes. Cannella (1997) wrote:

The most critical voices that are silent in our constructions of early childhood

education are the children with whom we work. Our constructions of research

have not fostered methods that facilitate hearing that voice (p. 10).

The notion of the agentic child (Danby & Baker, 1998, Woodrow, 1999), the competent social actor in his/her own right, is consistent with the notion of the child as a reliable informant in the research process. This flies in the face of previous notions identified by

Dockett and Perry (2003) that children cannot provide reliable information and invites opportunity for children to provide the “missing perspectives of those who experience the effects of existing educational policies-in-practice” (Cook-Sather, 2002, p. 3). As argued earlier, being heard can generate feelings of self-esteem, competence, and relatedness (Limter & Flekkoy, 1995) and may also help children to cope with stressful

situations (Flekkoy & Kaufman, 1997), important components of democratic citizenship.

Democracy calls for participation (Bogles, 1995). According to Pence and Brenner’s

(2000) research, a democratic ecology involves ‘doing with’ rather than ‘doing on’, creating links not walls and engaging in dialogue that focuses on strengths and assets. If children find themselves in positions of passivity in the research process, it is questionable as to how they become active participators in matters that affect them.

Designing the research process to include children as active research participants and collaborators recognises the inherent competence that children can offer (Blasi, 1996).

Children can transform and elaborate upon their experiences, through intentional symbolic representation of their experiences and allow the researcher to generate ideas and construct theories with the child.

With a collaborative and dialogic involvement of adults and children working together within this current research enterprise, a rich context for ideas and theories regarding quality in early childhood settings may begin to emerge. Chapter Three presents the conceptual framework and methodology that underpinned the study, in order to foreground the selected data that was generated over a school year with young children from the two early childhood settings in Singapore.

Chapter Three: Conceptual framework and methodology

Introduction

This study sought to provide a research space for the active participation of children in generating accounts of their everyday lives in an early childhood program. As argued in

Chapter Two, a review of the international literature has established that young children’s ideas about quality are only just beginning to be researched. The research corollary is that an empirical investigation of children’s views of their preschool experiences was both timely and conceptually sound. This study presents children as contributors to analysis of quality in two early childhood services in Singapore, and profiles their views as being legitimate and, indeed, central to an understanding of the phenomenon. It is therefore anticipated that inclusion of children’s views, will contribute to understandings of quality. This chapter locates the research design and methodology within the conceptual framework of the study and details the research sites, research participants and methods used for generating the data, and the analysis.

As noted in Chapter One, the 1970s saw the generation of a new sociology for women, particularly around the respect for and recognition of women’s rights as a discrete social group. In turn, feminist thinkers argued their position by including personal accounts of women’s own experiences (Meyers, 1997; Millet, 1969; Mitchell, 1971; Oakley, 1972).

Many of these accounts were gender-based and focussed on differential recognition given to the roles of men and women in society. The narratives of the women about important issues in their lives offered insights into women’s lives more generally. It follows, therefore, that using the precedents of such feminist thinkers, those of us who

are researching with young children may find it possible to also look toward the inclusion of young children’s accounts to illuminate our understanding of young children’s lives more generally. This personal experiential knowledge can then be situated alongside other (research) knowledge about children’s lives for analysis and debate.

Drawing on the feminist literature, seminal work such as that of Smith (1988) suggest that the side-by-side positioning of ideas may result in what has been termed

“disjunctions” (p.10). The differences, or disjunctions, between the lived experiences and those documented as observed experiences, have been noted by several studies.

Wiltz and Klein (2001), in their study on quality curricula, cited an example about the noteworthiness of excursions (p. 230) that highlighted such disjunctions. Here, parents and teachers reported the trips as positive educational experiences, whereas the children were more interested in the bus ride or had nothing to report. British sociologist Mayall

(2000) also identified disjunctions in several studies (e.g., health care; adulthood and citizenship; community participation) with young children. Mayall stressed the

“usefulness of the idea of a child standpoint” (Mayall, 2000, p. 25) in socio-political discussions around a new sociology of children and childhood. By using the child standpoint, the current study recognises the disjunctions between what adults know and understand about children and childhood, and what young children experience.

This study has taken account of children’s experiences in order to establish what aspects of preschool are seen to be important to young children themselves. It will also be theorised, in Chapter Five, how these opinions may be introduced in a meaningful and

respectful way so as to impact on the “critical conversations” (Cook-Sather, 2002, p. 3) around quality, as outlined in the review of the literature in Chapter Two.

Research design

The research design is based on some key assumptions. First, it recognises that the

UNCROC (1989) has provided a framework for children’s right to have their views heard and acted upon, irrespective of their age or developmental capabilities. Second, the study draws on the theories of young children as competent thinkers and communicators (Edwards, Gandini, & Forman, 1998; Harcourt & Conroy, 2005) who are capable of making powerful and persuasive contributions to our knowledge about their worlds (Langstead, 1994). As noted in Chapter Two, Clarke (2001, 2004, 2005a) demonstrated the merit of the child standpoint for exchange and debate about issues that affect children. Finally, the research assumes that early childhood services are familiar everyday places for the young children in this study. That these settings are everyday spaces for children adds weight to the veracity of the research. These are the naturalistic settings in which children offer accounts as primary informants on their own experiences. It follows, therefore, that by locating the research in such settings, the rigour and trustworthiness of the study may be strengthened more than if the study were to be undertaken in unfamiliar surroundings (Langston, Abbott, Lewis, & Kellet, 2004).

The naturalistic setting of the classroom can also give rise to opportunities for the research participants to form social solidarity or for partnerships to be established

(Smith, Taylor, & Gollop, 2000; Clark, McQuail, & Moss, 2003). Here is the space where work in common takes place (Solberg, 1996).

Position of the researcher

Tobin, Wu, and Davidson (1989), in reflecting on their research in Japan, China, and the

United States, provided a rich discussion on the collision of cultures that can occur when one group of participants is invited to comment on those in another cultural setting.

These collisions were celebrated by the authors as adding to rigorous debate around practice. In terms of the cultural context of this study (i.e., Singapore) and my own ethnicity (i.e., Australian), consideration had to be given to cross-cultural understandings inherent in research such as this. This study was informed also by an alternate view to prevailing cultural understandings in Singapore. A teacher educator (i.e., my profession) in Singapore is not permitted to supervise a student teacher undertaking practicum until they have been resident in Singapore for a minimum of two years (MOE-MCYS

Preschool Qualifications Accreditation Committee, 2004). It is argued that they may not understand the culture of preschool practices in Singapore and may, therefore, make undue criticism of early childhood programs. A counter argument made by expatriate early childhood educators was that best teaching practice from a global perspective was the focus of student teacher supervision, rather than a critique of local practice.

Collisions such as these can be welcomed or avoided, or in my case, can become a context in which to work. In this study, significant care was taken to include a sensitive yet rigorous critique of both the context of the study and the available local research base.

Research methodology

As was indicated in the introductory chapter, this study adopted an ethnographic approach in order to support shared understandings about children’s standpoints on quality. Such an approach would support the development of relationships, implicitly and/or explicitly, as the phenomenon is being examined. Wiltz and Klien (2001) suggested using participant observation across a continuum, from passive outsider observation to a participant role. Erikson (1979), in discussing ethnographic approaches, proposed that a continuum could lead eventually to full engagement. This continuum approach was relevant to the study’s context, in order to establish an accepted and successful active presence in the classrooms and to avoid unnecessary discomfort or disruption to the services involved. The study began with familiarisation and gaining consent from the gatekeepers (centre leaders and parents), and the informed assent of the children (Alderson, 2004; Armistead & Harcourt, 2005; Flewitt, 2005; Harcourt &

Conroy, 2005; Hill, 2005). Consent and assent will be dealt with in more detail later in this chapter, but suffice to say here that the processes of familiarising and informing were an integral part of establishing trust in the research relationship with the children, parents, and teachers (Solberg, 1996).

The active participation of children described in Clark and Moss’s (2001) mosaic approach provided a starting point for the methodological approach of the current study.

Clark (2005) describes the mosaic approach as a “strength-based framework for viewing children as competent, active, meaning makers and explorers” (p. 29). It combines a range of tools for listening to young children’s ideas and opinions. The traditional

observational and interview data collection methods have been complemented with child participatory tools such as children’s photography, drawings and map-making. Two core elements of the mosaic approach provided a sound philosophical foundation from which to develop the research tools for the current study, and for acknowledging that children use different ‘languages’ to communicate their understandings, ideas, and opinions, and the participatory nature of the approach.

By observing the children’s representational competence during the initial phase of the current study, I noted their preferred media for documentation. This was evident in children’s everyday encounters in preschool, particularly in their project work, where writing and drawing with narratives and conversations were the most common methods the children used to share their experiences. These preferences departed from the methods used by similar aged children in the mosaic approach whereby, children’s written texts appear to have had limited usage in presenting accounts of the views. James and Prout (1998) suggested that, while children’s immaturity may be a biological fact, the way in which this immaturity is understood as different and made meaningful is culturally bound. While Clark and Moss (2001) may have recognised certain competencies which enabled very young children in the United Kingdom to participate in their study, through photography, drawing and mapping, the participating group of children in Singapore demonstrated additional competence not yet explored by these authors, namely, the ability to write.

Some researchers have argued that, when researching children’s views, methodologies for data collection work best when combined. Silverman (2001) suggested that

combined methodologies add to the validity of the data, helping to ensure that the views being presented are indeed being interpreted accurately. Here again, this is evident in the mosaic approach used by Clarke and Moss (2001). Children’s drawings of maps and photography of their physical environments were employed in Clark and Moss’s research, alongside the traditional tools of anecdotal observation and interviews.

Einarsdottir’s Icelandic studies (2004, 2005) and Armistead’s British study (2003) have also established the use of children’s photography to support their observations of young children in preschool settings. In Singapore, arts researcher John Matthews (2002) pioneered children’s video recordings of their child care setting, along with his own observations of children’s emergent art symbols. Goldman-Segall (1989) suggested that,

“Video is finding increasing use as a transcription medium in many fields because it arguably provides the richest record (the thickest description) of the events of interests”

(p. 82). In her own early childhood classroom in Canada, Brooks (nd) successfully used a combination of photographs, video, and children’s drawings. These data collecting tools formed part of the multi-media methods used in her doctoral thesis Drawing to learn (Retrieved 22 April, 2004 from http://www.une.edu.au/Drawing/main.html).

Brooks suggested that these methods allowed for the collection of a broader range of experiential data, which, in turn, acknowledged the context of the setting as well as the actual material artefacts.

While not the only way to conduct research about young children’s lives, Silverman

(2001) suggested that methods such as interviews, analysis of text and documents, recording and transcribing audio- and video-recordings, and anecdotal observations have become preferred options for many social researchers. Lewis and Linsday (2000)

proposed that data collection can involve the use of direct and indirect techniques by which to elicit young children’s ideas. In their view, direct techniques refer to tools such as interviews and conversations. These tools were seen by the authors as productive when the topic of the conversation or interview between adults and children is embedded within each child’s experience (Smith, 1998). The current study used conversations, but has added children’s original written texts of their personal experiences to Lewis and

Lindsay’s (2000) direct techniques. Indirect techniques, as suggested by Lewis and

Lindsay, may include drawings, photographs, constructions, and role plays. The adult/researcher then seeks to interpret and understand the child’s meaning as represented in a particular artifact.

In this study, initial standpoints merged to become shared understandings. This proved a complex process and much of the meaning sought was implicit and learned slowly.

Wenger (1998) suggested that when people work and live together for extended periods of time, such as when generating an ethnographic record, they eventually come to have mutual understandings of the everyday experiences shared. Rogoff (1990) referred to this notion as “intersubjectivity” (p. 71). She saw this shared understanding as occurring through active communication, as participants elicit and share information with others.

Participants’ standpoints are adjusted as they communicate and discuss ideas, reaching a common ground or mutual understanding of the experience shared. Mis-interpreting or over-interpreting can challenge research reliability (Dockrell, Lewis, & Linsday, 2000).

If a shared meaning between the child and interpreter has not been reached, it leaves open the possibility for children’s competence to be hidden. Clark (2004) suggested that interpretation of meaning depends on “the lens the researcher may use to give voice to

children and childhood” (p. 1). Hudson (1998) stated that much of the literature that claims to represent listening to children may indeed be just rhetoric. The current study has acknowledged the different representations children use to arrange their ideas so as to share with others, and to recognise who and what particular approaches to methodological choices are being privileged. Kellet, Robinson, and Burr (2004) suggested that “children in their own right have remained largely invisible” (p. 33) in most sociological discourse. Wherever possible, children in this study were invited to create a space in which to provide direct narrative by using their own ‘voice’ through written texts, drawings, conversations, etc. This was balanced with the indirect narrative

(i.e., interpretation/co-constructed understanding) I provided as the researcher.

Consideration was then given to how invitations to construct these representations might be offered.

In their study of children’s understanding of death and bereavement, Jones and Tannock

(2000) gave careful consideration to the selection of data collection methods that would best document children’s views. In their study, Jones discounted group interviews (often suggested as providing social support) as an option, arguing that they may not give rise to personal accounts. Instead, she focused on children’s writing as a means of gathering data. Her research partner Tannock, on the other hand, used small group encounters, arguing that they were part of the children’s everyday experiences at school and, thus, provided the least disruption to the classroom environment.

In the current study, focus groups similar to those identified by Silverman (2000) and

Tannock (in Jones & Tannock, 2000) were used to discuss issues, such as the initial

discussions on quality. Focus group discussions provided children with social support, particularly in the familiarisation stages of the study, where the research relationship was being established and ideas were being explored by the participants. The focus here was on conversations rather than interviews. Smith, Taylor, and Gollop (2000) suggested that it is conversations which provide the context for children’s ideas and opinions to be heard.

Children’s hand-written narratives, drawings, and sketches were then used to support these conversations in subsequent sessions. As ideas were being presented and represented, I recorded individual children’s accompanying verbal responses in my research journal or on the back of their work. There were only 25 children taking part in this study, which, in practical terms, allowed me to spend more time in active engagement with individuals and small groups (Miller, 1997) than would have been possible with a larger cohort of participants. As a result, close relationships developed between the children and myself. Silverman (2000) noted that having a small sample is often reflective of the more personal relationship between the researcher and the participants.

In seeking the children’s engagement in the study, consideration was given to issues such as the timing and logistics of the data collection. Allowances were made for children being tired, unwell, stressed, or other factors that may impact on their participation on any given day. These considerations gave rise to the necessity of a longer-term commitment to the data collection process. Children were seen as competent and unique participants who set the pace and direction of the data collection, so that, to a

certain extent, time constraints did not unduly dominate the research process (Clark et al., 2003).

Participant observations and conversations with children, therefore, assisted me to understand the children’s accounts of their everyday experiences (Cook-Gomez et al.,

1986; Graue & Walsh, 1998). Ethnographies and teacher studies, such as those undertaken by Lubeck (1985), Paley (1986; 1995), and Yonemura (1986), provided examples of researchers successfully using longer-term participant observation with young children. Participant observation that develops across the passive to active continuum can enable greater exploration of the cultural contexts that structure children’s lives, providing the contextual data in which the material was generated

(Christensen & James, 2000). This was an important notion considering my cultural background and that of the children with whom I worked and the length of time we were able to spend working together.

The methodology for this study generated ethnographic accounts using child- participatory approaches, including children’s written texts, artefacts, photography, video-recordings, and audio-recordings. The methodological approach drew, to varying degrees, on the theoretical orientations and the field work of respected researchers.

Notably, Clark (2001, 2004), Einarsdottir (2004, 2005), Lewis and Lindsay (2000),

Lubeck (1985), Matthews (2002), and Paley (1986, 1995) have provided justifications for child-participatory data collection methods. The study was also informed by the theoretical positions on working with young children as respected research participants

as generated by early childhood researchers such as Dahlberg, Moss, and Pence (1999),

Mayall (1994, 2000), Qvortrup (1994), and Rinaldi (2001, 2005b); research methodology experts such as Christensen and James (2000), Denzin and Lincoln (1994,

2005), and Silverman (2001); and legal commentators such as Gold (1998).

The current research is presented as a reflective narrative and describes the constructions that 25 young children, in two early childhood settings, have built about quality. The ideas young children have shared are presented as a synthesis of that which occurred in weekly encounters over a school year. Beginning with an initial unpacking of what a good school might be, direct narratives from conversation leaders such as Renee,

Celine, Beatrix, and Alan, and later, other conversation partners from both settings, are overlaid by my indirect (or contextual) narratives. Much of the data was generated concurrently by dividing my time between the two settings each week and with the individual participants. This resulted in an extensive corpus of data for analysis.

The challenges of this process will be discussed in Chapter Five so as to ensure that data which has been omitted from this thesis is, in no way, dismissed as less important or diminished in value. Nor should omission be seen as contrary to that which has been offered to evidence the child’s standpoint. The role I played and the relationships I developed with the research participants, as informed persons, will also be examined later in this chapter. So too, will the dialogue that underpinned the sharing of the participants’ conclusions about the documentation.

The following section provides detail on the participants.

The sample

In my experience as a practicum supervisor of student teachers undertaking early childhood courses and as a consultant on classroom pedagogy, I had the opportunity to visit and/or work with over 300 early childhood services in Singapore. Among this group, there were a small number of settings that, on the face of it, were approaching curriculum development based on children’s ideas and interests. In these settings, teachers were moving from a thematic-based curriculum model, to one where the children had more active engagement with curriculum development. I had also observed that children’s ideas were given some consideration in everyday matters at preschool.

This approach was reflective of what was then being discussed around proposed ministerial mandates to later be published as Nurturing young learners: A framework for a kindergarten curriculum in Singapore (Ministry of Education, 2003) and The status report on the best interest of the child (Ministry of Community Development and Sport,

2002). Through my previous experience in both settings, the children were likely to be somewhat familiar with my presence, and this was important to the collaborative style of research I undertook.

Wiersma (2000) referred to “purposeful sampling” (p. 83), or seeking specific features, when recruiting research participants. Many of the educators in the small group of early childhood services referred to above, had studied or were studying at overseas universities (predominantly Australian). This offered us some commonalities in

experience in that they had undertaken practicum in Australia, yet worked in the

Singaporean context. It also offered some common ground in that, as educators, their studies were underpinned by constructivist theory rather than developmental psychology. They were engaging in dialogue about change with each other as staff teams, often including me, particularly around the notion of starting with the child as a basis for curriculum development (Fisher, 2002). Through invitations to consult on pedagogical practice and attend staff meetings, my relationships with the principals and classroom teachers were also developing. Another key factor in sample selection was that English was widely spoken in these settings by both the children and the adults. As my Mandarin was very limited, this provided a common spoken language for the research.

Through informal conversations during practicum supervision visits in 2001, three of the early childhood settings I visited regularly that were exploring child-focussed curriculum, expressed an interest in being involved in the research. I followed up on the initial interest through email and telephone conversations and met with each Principal to go over the research proposal that was granted University ethical approval in September

2001. The study was to be conducted in tandem with my full time employment and, upon the advice of the University PhD Confirmation Panel, I narrowed the sites from three to two. I invited two of the centres to participate, based solely on their proximity to the route between my workplace and home (and compounded by the fact that I needed to use public transport). The study then took place over the 2002 January to December school year in two early childhood settings (one community based and one privately operated). Within the service, both offered a Kindergarten program for five- and six-

year-old children (13 in one and 12 in the other). As these children would be attending primary school the following year, they had had the longest experience with an early childhood setting.

Research sites and teachers

Centre A was a privately owned centre in a middle-class neighbourhood. It had one teacher and 13 children in Kindergarten Two (five- and six-year-olds). The English medium teacher, Teacher A (who spoke only English to the children) was Chinese

Singaporean with 15 years of experience working with young children, nine years at this setting. She held a degree in early childhood from a university in Western Australia and was studying for a Master’s degree through a university in Victoria, Australia. Teacher

A was also the principal and one of the owners of Centre A. All of the children at the centre were Singaporean citizens, with English being spoken as a home language in approximately ninety percent of the families.

Centre B was a church-sponsored and faith-based, community-based centre with two teachers and 12 children in Kindergarten Two. The English language speaking teacher,

Teacher BE, was a Singaporean national with 15 years of experience working with young children, held a Certificate in Preschool Management and Administration, and has since completed a Diploma in Preschool Education-Teaching (2005). She had been at this centre for five years. The Chinese language speaking teacher, Teacher BC (who only spoke Mandarin Chinese to the children), was a People’s Republic of China national, holding an Advanced level early childhood qualification and had been working with young children for 15 years, with four years at this centre. Both Teacher BE and

BC had previously been supervisors of early childhood settings in Singapore before coming to Centre B. The centre’s non-teaching Principal completed a Masters degree in early childhood through a Western Australian university in 2005. All children were

Singaporean nationals, with English being spoken as a home language in approximately half of the families.

The sites were chosen not because of their typicality, but because the programs in which the children and teachers were engaged were atypical for Singapore. The teacher in

Centre A held qualifications that were advanced in terms of Ministry requirements. She described the curriculum as child-centred and project-based, inspired by the Reggio

Emilia Educational Projects (Edwards, Gandini, & Forman, 1998) and had traveled outside of Singapore to visit early childhood settings abroad (e.g., Reggio Emilia Study

Group, Reggio Emilia, Italy in January 2002). The teachers in Centre B described their curriculum as a project approach, based on the work of Katz and Chard (1997), which had been part of their in-service professional development undertaken in 2001 and 2002.

At the time of the data collection, both Centre A and Centre B principals were engaged in post-graduate study, which they subsequently completed. Unique to Centre B’s approach to curriculum was that it was offered in an immersion bilingual context.

Normally, Mandarin Chinese or any second language is taught in Singaporean early childhood settings as a separate subject (as was the case in Centre A). Yet, Centre B worked with two teachers in the classroom, one speaking English and one speaking

Mandarin Chinese, around topics of interest in the two languages concurrently.

Participants

Across the two centres, the majority of children were members of Singapore’s predominant ethnic group (Chinese), spoke the official language of education (English) fluently, and were regular attendees throughout the year of the study (other than for short periods of illness). All children demonstrated a strong command of literacy skills in

Mandarin Chinese (the mother tongue language taught in both settings) as well as

English.

While data were collected from all 25 children, several children became ‘conversational leaders’. Renee and Celine from Centre A demonstrated a particular interest and voracity for engaging with the research topic. These five-year-olds were adept at using the range of representational media offered, with preference for the video camera, still camera, writing, and drawing. They were also articulate and persuasive conversational partners, as will be discussed in Chapter Four. The other children in Centre A, Juliana, Beatrix,

Jeanie, Rickson, Xin Rong, Anderton, Li Bing, Alyson, Amanda, Natasha, and Claire provided additional representational and verbal contributions, many of which have been included in the analysis.

Alan, a six-year-old boy from Centre B was very keen to share his views, and would normally be the first to greet me upon arrival and to express the ideas he had been contemplating between visits. Alan provided particular provocation in terms of the stressful environment that preschool might offer young children. His peers at Centre B,

Jesalin, Jia Yue, Julia, Jei Le, Christel, Riggs, You Joh, Xue Wei, Benjamin, Joshua, and

Hui Min supported Alan’s position through their drawings, writing, and group conversations. Some of their contributions will also be discussed in Chapter Four.

Data collection

A combination of traditional and non-traditional data collection methods was used, building on the mosaic approach (Clarke & Moss, 2001) and direct and indirect narratives (Lewis & Lindsay, 2002). The traditional tool of anecdotal observation was used, initially as non-participant observer, and later, as the children became more familiar and at ease with my presence, as participant observer. These observations were used through all phases of the study, recorded in my research journals (a separate set for each centre) and used in data analysis. Initial observations were used to establish data collection methods that would respect children’s competencies, and that would provide opportunities for the children to generate data. Subsequent observations were used to provide contextual data for the written and oral texts offered by the children. These, in turn, are analysed and discussed in Chapters Four and Five.

Children’s photography (Armistead, 2003; Clarke, 2004; Einarsdottir, 2004) and video- recordings (Brooks, nd; Matthews, 2002) were used to provide visual representation of what a good school might look like. This provided children with other languages

(Malaguzzi, 1998) in which to represent their ideas (see also Chapter Four). Verbatim transcriptions of conversations between the children and myself are used when conversational text is referred to in this thesis. Although Strauss and Corbin (1999) suggested it may only be necessary to transcribe as much as needed, I fully transcribed

all recorded conversations verbatim in order to maintain the integrity of the conversational episodes. These, along with the children’s written texts and narrative descriptions of their own drawings, were to become powerful pieces of data.

The data collected, and subsequent analyses, were stored as hard copies in dedicated files and folders, and as scanned or word processed soft copies on my computer and two external hard drives. Particular emphasis was made to store the children’s drawings and photography out of direct sunlight to preserve the original condition. The recordings of conversations with the children were transcribed within 3 to 5 days of collection, and both hard copies and soft copies of the transcriptions were kept in my home office.

Data analysis

The analytical approach used in this study relied on the cyclical analysis of the children’s representations of their ideas. The agreed-upon descriptors for these themes then became the framework for the discussion presented in Chapter Four.

No specific categories or assumption for analysis were predetermined (Spindler &

Hammond, 2000). Sole use of traditional analytic frames such as those preferred by developmental psychology (e.g., age-stage paradigms), would not allow for young children’s competence in logical reasoning to be acknowledged. Donaldson (1978) demonstrated that children’s competencies are only revealed in situations that make sense to them. Therefore, the reliability and rigour of the analysis required a shared

understanding demonstrated between the research participants about the phenomena under scrutiny.

Jones (2004) suggested that children’s voices can be easily marginalised in the research enterprise, once the data have been collected. This study sought to profile the children’s ideas throughout the research process and to not render their contribution passive

(Lloyd-Smith & Tarr, 2000) once the artefacts had been generated. This included children being actively involved from the beginning as informed participants, to the generation and analysis of the data and finally, to reflections on the findings.

As themes emerged from the children’s accounts, ideas that appeared to be recurrent were identified by me and re-presented to the children. For example, friends were a common theme in the children’s conversations and texts. When reviewing the data, I had an idea that friendships as a form of social security were important to the children. I had used this notion to invite children to bring a friend with them when we discussed their data in Phase Four. However, when we reflected on what they were saying about friends, the children had a version which challenged mine. For the children, friends were identified as people with whom to play and have fun. On the other hand, work partners, who may or may not be an intimate friend, were important to discuss things with and to be a part of their project teams. Their focus was contextualized by their personal experiences with the curriculum in their preschool setting, rather than just a more general view on friendship. My analysis, then, could only be seen as “potentially accurate” (Silverman, 2001, p. 114) until validated by the author/s and verified in their responses (Vulliamy & Webb, 1991).

Ideas put forward by the children, such as their thinking about what makes a good teacher, were discussed, with children having differences of opinion at times. I used questions for clarification and analysis to remain sensitive to the children’s accounts so that they were not overridden by my interpretation (Silverman, 1998). For example:

What do you think of that idea?

Can you tell me what that means?

What ideas do you have?

Is it this way all the time?

Are all teachers like that?

When would it be OK for the teacher to say/do that?

Given the sociological underpinnings of the methodological approach, analysis revolved around the child’s standpoint (Tiller, 1988). This underscores the key notion of the research design being conducted with the children rather than on the children.

Through examination, discussion, and re-examination of the texts (oral and written) and artifacts (drawings, writings, photographs, and video-recordings), opportunities were provided for recurring themes to emerge and be validated by the children partners. This analytical approach searched for themes that the children themselves had determined through our discussions of ‘important things’. These were noted in my journals and later raised in recorded conversations with the children. We would often use a child-generated text or drawing as a provocation or catalyst for these discussions, in support of the themes I was highlighting to the children. The analytical lenses were continually reframed to account for new understandings, such as the example of friends described

earlier. The children’s ideas and expanded theories were inextricably linked to the context in which they were constructed and analysed (Robbins, 2003; Silverman, 2001).

The children were viewed consistently as the primary informants and data generators

(Silverman, 1998). The children’s initial responses to the question, I wonder what a good school would be like began the process of the children informing and shaping the research. As has been discussed earlier, the children constructed questions to find out about the quality of a school. These questions provided a pivot for subsequent discussions, where children’s ideas were expanded upon. Children were then invited to represent their understandings of the initial themes that were emerging from the data through drawings and texts, photographs or video-recordings.

Each representation was carefully examined, firstly, by me (after being scanned into my computer), at times physically sorted into themed piles. They were then taken back to the children for small group sessions for further examination. For example, a question such as Celine’s, Does your teacher be kind to you or your teacher be bat (sic) to you? was explored in a conversation with Celine and Renee to find out what this meant to them, and whether we should explore the idea further. Renee then independently recorded her views in a drawing offered to me the following week. We discussed that drawing which led to further discussion. The children’s questions, their responses, and further artifacts such as drawings and subsequent conversations were aligned. This helped to identify the progression and expansion of ideas into what I considered to be a theory the child/children were developing, such as those which will be shared about teachers in Chapter Four. In this way, a deliberate attempt was made to elicit children’s contribution to the analytical process and to accept those contributions as genuine and

valid research offerings (Woodhead & Faulkner, 2000). This theoretical stance placed the children as “sophisticated judges” (Purdy, 1992, p. 164) of their own ideas and opinions.

Phases of the study

Broadly marked by half-day encounters each week in the two classrooms, the data collection and analysis progressed through four phases as identified in Table 2 and expanded upon in the sections that follow.

Table 2 Four phases of data collection and analysis, 2002

PHASE PARTICIPANTS ACTIVITY Centre A & B 1. Phase One Centre principals • Agreement to conduct January through April Parents (both centres) research (For details see p. 91) Children (both centres) • Informed consent processes Researcher • Informed assent processes • Familiarisation

2. Phase Two Whole group discussions with all children • What does quality mean? April through July and researcher • Experimenting with (For details see p.96) recording devices • Child generated questions and answers 3. Phase Three Self-selected children and the researcher in • Taped conversations and July through September small group sessions each week dialogues (For details see p. 100) • Child representations using cameras • Concurrent data collection and analysis 4. Phase Four Predominantly the conversational leaders • Generation of texts and September through December (Renee, Beatrix, Celine, and Alan) and the drawings (For details see p. 102) researcher in individual interactions each • Taped conversations that week were responding to themes • Analysis both with the children’s involvement and without

Phase One: Familiarisation and informed consent/assent

As described earlier, when invited to participate, in-principle agreement was given by the two centres at the end of 2001. As part of becoming familiar with each other

(researcher and research participants) the principal of Centre B, at the beginning of

2002, requested a workshop to discuss the project with the parents. The purpose of the study was described and I detailed the participatory role I envisaged for the children. I explained what I hoped to achieve in relation to eliciting children’s opinions about quality, and referred parents to the UNCROC (1989). The Principal was very thorough in her approach to parent consent, and requested that parent concerns be addressed before they gave their approval for the project to take place. This process was prior to consenting for their individual child to participate. As this type of participatory research is reportedly rare in local early childhood settings, and it was a community-based organisation, parents were offered a place in the decision-making and approval process undertaken by the Principal and senior management team.

Centre A’s approach was more informal than was that of Centre B. Although a formal discussion time was offered to both settings as part of the familiarization process, the

Principal and parents of Centre A preferred to speak to me individually on an ad hoc basis. On a positive note, this provided me with an opportunity to contextualize individual parental expectations of the early childhood settings, and to establish more personal relationships with many families. Like the more formal process in Centre B, these encounters were part of the familiarization and informed consent process, recognizing parents and management as the primary gatekeepers in terms of the establishment and continuation of my relationships with the children in the research.

Following these discussions, each group of parents received a Research Information

Sheet and Consent to Participate Form in March 2002 (See Appendices 2 & 3 for

Information Sheet and Consent Form) which were distributed and collected by the

Principals in each setting. Parents and Principals were able to pose questions and raise concerns based on the face-to-face contact they had with me as the researcher. I took hand-written field notes (Sanjek, 1990) throughout this process (and throughout the entire data collection period) which were kept in research journals. The parents were interested in the length of time I would spend in the centre, and whether I was also advising the principal on the curriculum content. In some cases parents requested a

“report” on their child’s progress. Through discussion I found parents had made the

(fair) assumption that my research referred to a study on their children, rather than with the children. We were able to use these and subsequent encounters to move to a shared understanding about the work being undertaken in the settings. Regular discussion sessions of a general nature were also held with the Principals, who both then updated parents through their monthly newsletter.

Conversely, it is often a struggle to ascertain whether young children have been empowered by their understanding of similar information in order to make an informed decision on whether or not to participate in the research. In another aspect of my work, I had been exploring informed assent4 as a vital part of conducting ethical research with children (Harcourt & Conroy, 2005). My colleague and I affirmed the notion that it is essential to ensure that the aims and the purpose of the research are fully explored with young children. These are often reaffirmed in subsequent encounters, prior to engaging in data collection. Thoughtful consideration must be given to the language, or other

4 Under Singapore law, a person under 21 years of age may not give consent. Legal responsibility for consent falls under the purview of a legally recognised parent or guardian (Women’s Charter, 1961, Chapter 353, section 122).

forms of communication, which will be used to support the child’s decision-making.

Researchers may unconsciously use a language of power, which implies that the child will participate. Phrasing requests to participate such as, I have come to get your permission or, I have come to get you to sign saying you agree to be involved in my research may have the intention to seek permission, but the request is posed as an already negotiated agreement. Children may then find it difficult or challenging to decline the researcher’s request.

In the initial sessions with the children, I talked about the research proposal with the class group in their classrooms. Both groups of children were informed that I was also working with another group of Kindergarten 2 children in Singapore. Discussion then focused on what research was and what a researcher might do. Given that both settings employed, to different degrees, a project-based approach to curriculum, the children were familiar with the words research and investigate. This made it easier to explain the project (another word familiar to the children) and to establish a shared understanding about what I might be doing. The use of familiar language assisted in the development of the research relationship, as we were using terminology already part of classroom language culture.

Over several sessions we discussed the word quality, a new word for consideration, and one which the children made an association with the word good. We then sought ideas on how I might find out about a good school since I was quite old and had forgotten what it was like to be in a kindergarten class. I asked, I wonder how I might find out about a good school? You see, I am quite old now and have forgotten what it is like to

go to kindergarten. Since we know each other a little bit, maybe you could help me?

Many of the children were enthusiastic, and others more reticent in their responses, listening rather than contributing verbally to the conversations. In later discussions, we talked about how I might collect this information (e.g., Maybe we could write or draw for you?) and what might happen to it once I have it (e.g., I need to show it people at the

University where I study. Sometimes I will share your ideas with other teachers who work with children.). We also discussed what a child might do if they had something to share about someone or something that was not so kind or good. I needed to know when it would be OK to use it in my project, or they could tell me when it was not and I would not write it down or record it.

I showed the children the forms that parents might sign as examples of how an adult might record their permission. I considered these forms as providing the children with a reference point and another connection to familiar classroom practices. According to the teachers in both settings, children were familiar with excursion permission forms as part of the ritual of going out of the centre. They were invited to think of ways that they might record their permission. Since my journal had already become a familiar part of my activity in their classrooms, Hui Min (from Centre B) suggested it was the best place to write their permission (initially she was one of the dissenters). While all the others in her group agreed, I offered the same suggestion to the children in Centre A. The children were invited to record their names to indicate yes or no (as assent or dissent) in my journal. All 13 children from Centre A wrote their names and yes (15 April 2002). Nine children (one was away) from Centre B wrote their names and yes (9 April 2002). Three wrote their names and no. One, Alan, changed his mind that day (But I might change it

back to no if I get tired). Each visit for several weeks was then begun with a confirmation of assent or dissent. In the week following initial assent, another child from

Centre B who wrote no crossed it out and wrote yes (16 April 2002). Four weeks later, the third dissenter (Hui Min) also changed her no to a yes (12 May 2002). In discussing the dissenters with the Principal, she expressed her surprise at the dissentions. She identified a possible explanation through the Chinese tradition in negotiation, where yes can mean no and, no can mean yes. She suggested that perhaps Hui Min wanted me to dissuade her from a negative response. The child actually tried to persuade others to say no. While it is beyond the scope of this thesis to focus, in depth, on the informed assent process, it would make for interesting future research. The assent in this project, which was reaffirmed at the beginning of each session with the children, then stood for the duration.

Phase two: Whole group sessions

Subsequent whole group sessions focussed on the idea of a good school, which the children had raised in response to our earlier discussion around the word ‘quality’. I kept anecdotal notes on these discussions to help remind children of previous discussions and to provide a background for any subsequent data, such as drawings and texts, that may be generated by the children. In a semi-structured group discussion, we talked about how a child would know if they were going to a good school and the kinds of things they might look for. The whole group session was used here as a way of bringing all participants together at the beginning and made more intimate by the group sizes of 13 and 12 respectively. These numbers were relatively small, given that many government- funded early childhood settings in Singapore have a ratio of 36 children to one teacher.

A contributing factor in this decision to use a whole group discussion was that, in the familiarisation observations, I noted and had taken photographs of each teacher leading daily sharing times with the children (as seen below). In Centre A the children discussed their work and plans for future work during these sessions. In Centre B, the faith-based aspects of the curriculum were discussed with the children in a circle time, where each had an active role to play (e.g., writing date on board, noting and predicting the day’s weather, role playing the day’s religious story). It was possible to approach the whole group discussions as a forum for individual participation as, in these two contexts, there was an already established atmosphere that allowed personal opinions to be expressed and respected as discussed by Miller (1997).

Plate 3.1 Daily sharing at school

Centre A Centre B

At the same time, children were experimenting with the still camera, the micro-recorder, and the video camera. While I had noted that the teachers in both centres used still cameras (digital and analogue) and video cameras often, the children were not actively

encouraged to use them as a representational tool. There was a greater focus in both centres to record ideas and opinions through more traditional representations such as drawing and writing text (hand written and computer processed). I introduced the cameras and recorder in the hope of broadening the range of media the children could use to represent their ideas about their preschool experiences.

Since we had previously raised the notion that I was interested in what children thought about their settings, and how I might best access this information, the children in Centre

A, led by Renee, decided that it would be appropriate to generate a list of questions to ask the children at Centre B. We could write a list of questions and you could take them to (Centre B). Then you will know what we all think. Each child in Centre A then generated a list of questions over two of my weekly sessions with them (see example below). At the children’s request, these were to be later posed by me to the children in

Centre B.

In contrast Alan, from Centre B, suggested, It is too tiring all of us to do so long list, lah

(Chinese slang). It appeared that the children in Centre B were seemingly less enthusiastic about the additional ‘work’ required. Through a process of consensus, the children invited me to co-construct a class question list. All agreed that they would dictate the questions and I would write them down.

Over several weeks, I randomly gave the individual lists of questions compiled by the children in Centre A to a ‘question partner’ in Centre B. The partner responded to the questions using the corresponding number (i.e., Question 1: Response 1) on a separate

piece of paper. As an example, the questions and responses constructed by Celine and

Jie Le can be seen in Plate 3.2.

Similarly, the class question list constructed by the children in Centre B (and written by me) was given to the children in Centre A as a whole group. We discussed the questions together and I wrote the answers in my journal to give feedback to the children in Centre

B. At this point, data gathering and data analysis became concurrent, as tentative themes in the children’s work were identified. For example, comments on the physical environment, friends, teachers, lessons, and projects were recurrent in the questions both groups of children wished to ask of the others in the study. Once back in my home office, I examined the children’s questions and identified tentative themes. Initially these were grouped according to themes such as the physical environment, adults, children, and curriculum. The subsequent responses to the children’s questions, by their counterparts in the other centre, were treated in the same way, searching for emerging themes. These initial themes were then used as the basis for further discussions with the children during small group discussions in Phase Three.

Plate 3.2 Questions and response: Celine and Jei Le

Phase Three: Small groups and new tools

I was in the two classrooms during the regular Kindergarten 2 program day, working with self-selected groups of usually 3 or 4 children in discussion sessions. These small group discussions focussed on the emerging themes offered by the questions the children had posed and the responses they had received from the children at the other centre. The

teachers were not engaged in the research process at all, other than inquiring about how the day had progressed and if I was happy with the children’s participation.

Some of these sessions were audio-taped at the discretion of the children involved. The children had become familiar with the technical aspects of the micro-recorder and video camera during my earlier visits, using them to record songs, dialogue, and group times.

They had also become comfortable with their own, and their classmates’ voices and images being played back. In the small group sessions, the children were invited to begin or end the conversation whenever they wished, by being in control of the recording device. We often sat together to listen to these conversations, but this was not always the case due to time restrictions. I did, however, replay passages to children when I was not sure of their meanings or when the recording was not clear enough for me to be assured of an accurate transcription. At the same time, I used my journal to record contextual information such as who was there, non-verbal interactions, and timing of these conversations. Respectful of the children’s right to privacy and confidentiality (Alderson, 2004), the times children did not wish to have our conversations (or images) recorded remained ‘off the record’, as part of the agreed-upon conditions of the research.

Other representational media were chosen by the children in order to clarify or provide a richer description of the ideas children were putting forward. For example, when we were discussing the physical environment of the setting, children chose cameras (video and still) for their representations. Many children suggested that it was too hard to draw the classroom exactly as it was, but were quite happy to draw when they were putting

forward new and improved design ideas. I was instructed by children on several occasions to take a photograph of a particular tableau. Here, the author of an idea wanted to be included in the record. When the children were using the video camera, I walked with them around the room, enabling me to capture both our voices. When a child took a photograph (using a still camera), they would make a record of it in my journal (their name and the title of the photograph) alongside notes I had been taking that day. Both the video footage and the still photos were later viewed and discussed by their authors.

In this way we began to develop a shared understanding of the meaning and purpose of the data. This helped to shape the intersubjectivity, which Rogoff (1998) had referred to as an important part of working with young children in research and assisted in shaping the lens for data analysis discussed in the next section.

Phase Four: Individual interactions, texts and drawings

Once the children began representing their own ideas through individual pieces of work such as written texts and drawings, I engaged with them in conversations one-on-one, or as Mayall (1999) had suggested, sometimes with a partner/friend for support. These helped me to understand or expand on the ideas being proposed in the data. These interactions were audio-taped, if that was acceptable to the child, and later analysed alongside the text or drawing. Some children, such as Renee, Beatrix, Celine, and Alan were prolific writers and drawers. Renee, in particular, also requested a private chat on more than one occasion, which would, at her suggestion, be held on the waiting chairs outside.

The following chapter presents the children’s accounts (and my narration as co- researcher) of their preschool experiences.

Chapter Four: The data and its analysis

Introduction

Centre A, July 16 2002

Six children gather around a storybook, one child reading a story to the

others. The child narrator sits on a chair as the others kneel or stand close

by her. Unlike the traditional situation of the teacher at story time, who

faces the children holding up the story-book reading to the children, this

child narrator uses the more intimate pose that a parent might take when

reading with their child, perhaps at bed time. When a word seems to be too

difficult or the narrator stumbles, the other children, in unison, offer

support by helping to read, as if there is an unwritten pact that the children

have made to help each other. Renee says, See, this is how friends should

work together at school.

This observation from my research journal demonstrates that children are active learners, working in social settings to construct views about their everyday experience in preschool. This chapter focuses on selected data, drawn from an extensive corpus of data, to demonstrate that young children’s accounts of their experience in preschool are legitimate representations of their experience. The research activities offered children opportunities to generate, with the researcher, and the use of a variety of media, a research record that renders the children visible. This chapter applies an analytic lens to the data in order to illuminate the children’s own accounts of events and experiences that are seen to be important to them.

100

The 25 young children attending the two early childhood centres in Singapore were key participants in the early childhood settings and legitimate informants of their own experiences of preschool life. From my initial discussion with the children, four major themes emerged. These were generated via a process of collaborative decision-making involving the children and myself. The terms used to describe the themes are those expressed by the children. The four themes are: (i) the teacher; (ii) the school (the title chosen by the children to refer to what I had termed the “physical environment”); (iii) learning (the title chosen by the children to refer to what I had termed the “curriculum”); and (iv) friends (play and work partners). These themes arose from questions generated by the children, which were later explored through whole group, small group, and one- on-one discussions.

The questions

As outlined in Chapter Three, over several weeks during the familiarization and consent/assent processes, whole group discussions were held in both Centre A and

Centre B. These sessions had been prearranged with the class teachers and subsequently accommodated within the usual preschool days’ events. The discussions initially began with establishing a shared understanding of the terms that I was using when discussing my work with the children. I sought to make explicit links between my research agenda and the children’s everyday experiences in preschool. For example, I referred to the work I was doing with them as ‘my project’. I knew that the children in both centres undertook long-term ‘projects’ and tried to help them see that I, like them, had a project.

When discussing the time a project takes Alan [Centre B] said:

101

Oh yeh. Our projects can take a long time. Too long sometimes.

When we talked about what you learned and the depth of understanding gained Renee

[Centre A] said:

We actually learn quite a lot when we do projects you know.

These notions appeared familiar to the children. In describing what I was seeking to find out, the term ‘quality’ did not appear to be within their own lexicon or vocabulary.

Renee asked:

Do you mean Singapore Quality Class? My father says that means a good place to buy things.

The attempt to bridge the semantics of the academic world, and that which the children inhabited, became an important step. As an example, after mulling over the term

‘quality’ as a group, the children in Centre A decided that the words ‘good’ and ‘bad’ were going to be the words we used when describing things that were referring to quality. Renee stated,

You know, I think it’s better if we used good. We know what that is. Yeh, and we can also use bad too.

Celine offered:

Good and bad.

At each step in the research process, the children were offered opportunities to proffer their own terms or words to describe their experience.

Once we felt satisfied that we had a shared understanding of the key terms (i.e., quality, projects, research, etc.), we began to discuss what makes a school, a good school (or its counterpart). I guided the whole group discussions to a focus on quality criteria the

102

children might provide for a good school or kindergarten, and the importance the children might attach to these criteria. The very first responses (from Centre A) to my question, I wonder what a good school is? were audio-recorded. Children raised their hands (as is usual practice in the centre) and offered the following responses:

Renee: Your mother and father choose it Beatrix: Your sister goes there so you can go too. Like when my sister came here and now I do Natasha: Coz the school is important Renee: When the school is popular Claire: If you go to a special school they will teach you more things and you will be clever Hui Min: Because it’s beautiful Xin Rong: When they teach you everything Celine: When your mummy and daddy pay you can go to the special school

Some of these ideas seemed to be derived from and referenced to the standpoints of others (i.e., parents, siblings, and the broader community). I proposed to both groups

(Centre A first) that it would be helpful if they could provide a guide to the types of questions that could be posed to children in order to find out if they were attending a good school. By rephrasing some of the initial ideas into questions, I anticipated that the children would begin to reference quality in terms of their own standpoints, rather than those of others. I was attempting to explore what it was that the children themselves saw as criteria for quality. By shaping their initial ideas into questions, an avenue might be provided for children to explore their own ideas about preschool. When the children’s ideas were formulated into a question, they were recorded in my research journal. Where time and the children’s interest permitted, the questions were then discussed in more detail during subsequent conversations in small group sessions. I saw these as opportunities to explore different accounts provided by the children, as well as to clarify

103

meaning. The children used them to share ideas. For example, an excerpt from one small group conversation at Centre A went like this:

DH: So, what else could I ask children to find out about their school? Natasha: You need to ask something about friends. Xin Rong: Yeh, whether their friends are kind or not. Celine: I want to know do they scold their friends or not? Rickson: Yeh, and how do their friends treat them? DH: Why are these questions important? Renee: Because if you don’t have friends then you would feel lonely. Li Bing: And it would also be boring. DH: Yes, that’s probably true. Renee: Yes and you would have to play all by yourself.

Conversations such as this enabled me to explore the rationale behind the statements, but

I also saw the children gaining confidence in knowing that others had similar ideas (e.g.,

Xin Rong and Rickson’s use of, Yeh, and…). A social support network was evident, as had appeared in the opening story when friends worked together to read difficult words.

Their already established network made it tenable for me to work with the children in small groups.

The children in Centre A were asked how best we could share these questions with the children at Centre B. Beatrix said:

We could visit with them. Do you know where they stay?

Renee countered:

No. Just write them down and you can take them over to [Centre B].

The children at Centre A then decided that each child should write their own questions and 11 children (two refrained) offered their independently handwritten questions, with instructions for me to give them to just one child at the other site. I offered no suggestions about how many questions to ask, just that they could ask what they felt was

104

important. As an example, Beatrix’s 20 questions can be seen below. Her list identified many commonalities that were evident across the questions that the other children also proposed.

Plate 4.1

Beatrix’s list of 20 questions

From the 11 lists of questions generated in Centre A, the children made reference to several ideas that proved to be common across all of the lists. Table 3 highlights that some themes (e.g., the teachers, the curriculum, the physical environment) were of common interest to the children. All 11 children were interested in establishing what the other children learned (e.g., Do you do maths? What projects do you do? Do you learn

105

Chinese?). Seven questions were posed about friends (e.g., Do you share with your friends? Are your friends nice to you? Do you have lots of friends?). Aspects of the physical environment were mentioned, but without establishing a consensus on any particular focus (e.g., What is the colour of your school? Do you have a fire escape?

Does your school looks (sic) nice?). However, and not surprisingly, it was around the teacher that most questions (24) were generated from this group. Some children asked for specific details (e.g., What is your teachers (sic) name? What does your teacher look like? Where your teacher come from?). Others referred to the teacher as an authority figure (e.g., Is your teacher fierce? Does your teacher scold you and your friends? Is your teacher kind to you and your friends or does she scolds (sic) you and be bad?).

Many were interested in the teaching (e.g., Does your teacher teach you a lot? Does your teacher do fun things? Does your teacher take you to the cinema?), while some asked for an opinion (e.g., Is your teachers (sic) good or not? Do you love your teacher?

Is your teacher the best teacher in the school?).

There were other questions provided by individual children. Some children wanted to know about the kind of food eaten by children in the other centre (both centres offered meals), while other children wanted to know if the others had pets at school (they had a rabbit and a goldfish), and Natasha wrote, Do you love your school? There were also some questions related to being in Primary One (Claire: If you are p one if you took things form [sic] the casher [sic] the police will cash [sic] you and, Li Bing: When you is p1 you can ton [sic] grow hair). As outlined in Table 3, the children’s individual lists of questions generated 82 separate questions, which I then grouped around nine initial themes based on recurrent ideas.

106

Table 3 Preliminary themes drawn from children’s questions (Centre A)

Topic Number of Questions The teacher 24 The curriculum 19 The physical environment 10 Friends 9 Seeking opinions 7 Primary School 5 Pets 4 Transport to school 2 Food 2 Total 82

The process at Centre B was somewhat different. The familiarisation/consent process took longer, possibly due to the fact that I was not as well known by the children and the centre generally. It was important that we spent time getting to know each other and for an element of trust to be established before we could proceed further with the research. I found these children to have definite opinions on how they might begin to participate in the research. I followed a similar process in terms of clarifying key terms (i.e., quality, project, research, etc.) and what it might mean to participate. General agreement was forthcoming, and the children were always interested in hearing what the children from

Centre A had decided/said. In comparison to the initial responses given by Centre A, this group did not even wait for me to pose a question. Alan and Benjamin led this group discussion, calling out their responses:

DH: Last time I was here, we were talking about my project and trying to find out what children think a good school is like. Benjamin: Well, here we have to keep changing clothes all the time! DH: Oh? Alan: Yes, and that is tiring when you have to do that all the time. DH: Oh?

107

Benjamin: Well, it’s just non-stop when you come to school. Always busy. DH: Oh I see. You are busy all the time? Alan: Well, you have to wake up at 6.30 and I get very tired. DH: Oh? So do you understand that I want to ask children about going to a good school? What would you want to ask them Alan? Alan: (in a raised voice) Whether it’s tiring or not!! DH: Whether it’s tiring or not? Alan: (shouting) Yes, I want to see if they are tired or not.

A minute or so later while discussing what they do at preschool… DH: Tell me about when you are working on your projects. Alan: Oh…that is very tiring. DH: Why is that? Benjamin: Because you need to work hard and sometimes you can’t even have time to go to the toilet. It’s just non-stop work. DH: So tell me then. When you are working on your projects, do you start in the morning and work all the way through to the afternoon? You Joh: No, we stop for lunch. But it’s still tiring. DH: So let me recap. You would like to know if other children find school tiring. Alan: Yes and I want to know if they have to wake up early…oh, and if they get to lay down.

The following week I shared with the children that their counterparts at Centre A were writing individual questionnaires for the children at Centre B. During a group time, I made an inquiry as to whether the children at Centre B would like to record their questions in a similar fashion.

DH: The (Centre A) children are writing list of questions for you to answer. I wonder if that is how you would like to put your questions to them? Alan: All of the children have done us questions? DH: Yes. Jesalin: Oh no, that will take so long to answer. DH: But you only have to answer one child’s questions. Jia Yue: And you want us to each write a list of our questions for them? DH: Well, that’s what I am asking. Is that what you would like to do? The same as the other children, or do you have any other ideas? Alan: Couldn’t you just write up one list with all of our questions on it? Jesalin: Oh yes. That is a very good idea Alan. DH: You mean one list of questions from all of the children at (Centre B)?

108

Alan: If we each have to write a list of questions it would take too long and it would be too tiring. That’s too much work for us.

So, over two weeks the twelve children at Centre B and I worked in a group to discuss what questions to ask the children at Centre A. I asked the children, What do you think we could ask the children at Centre A to find out if they are going to a good school?

How would we know if they are going to a good school?

The children offered ideas as a group. A list of 21 questions were generated, and agreed upon by the children to represent the group’s ideas. These questions were scribed by me on the whiteboard and transferred to my journal. There were seven questions around the physical environment (e.g., Do you have computers? Do you have aircon?), and six around curriculum (e.g., Do you have art and craft in your school? Do your school have

Hanyu Pingyin on Saturday?). There were three about the teacher (What is your teacher’s name? [requesting details] Is your teacher kind or not? [authority] Do you go out with your teacher? [teaching]). One was specific to this setting, Do you know God?

A summary of these can be seen in Table 4.

Table 4 Preliminary themes drawn from children’s questions (Centre B)

Topic Number of questions The physical environment 7 The curriculum 6 The teacher 3 Friends 2 Food 1 God 1 School uniforms 1 Total 21

109

When the children in Centre B decided to contribute questions in a group context, a different approach to that of Centre A, there was evidence that individual children were active participants in the discussion. Alan and Jesalin acted as the arbiters, calling for consensus. For example, the children agreed that they should ask the other children whether the teacher is kind or not (with a show of hands) when Alan said:

Put your hand up if you want that one in.

When Alan wanted to include the question about God, I asked if that would be OK.

Jesalin said:

They might not have God at (Centre A) but he can still ask that, lah (Chinese

slang). Put your hand up if you say yes.

Everyone agreed. Thus, individual as well as shared contributions were evident in this episode.

The children in both centres were then invited to review their questions as a whole. We discussed the recurrence of particular themes (e.g., DH, You know, you asked 24 questions just about the teacher?) and an inquiry as to why they might have been asked so many times. Renee said:

Well…the children mean they are important things to ask.

I then asked the children to give the themes a name. After reading some of the questions from the lists to the children, as a whole group at both centres, I asked:

What would be the best name for these questions? What do you think they are about? The children offered their opinions. For example:

DH: These questions ask about books and decorations and things like that. What should we call this group? Jesalin: Oh that’s about the school.

110

DH: Is that what we should call it then? Alan: Put up your hand if you say yes.

It was through this process that the titles for the themes were decided.

The themes that are discussed below, of the teacher, the school, learning and friends, do not present any particular ranking or order of priority. For example, there is no intention to downplay the importance of the physical environment to the children at Centre B (see

Table 4), nor give greater credence to the questions about the teacher by the children at

Centre A (see Table 3). Rather, there is evidence of the teacher being the pivotal link between children, their environment, and learning. The following section now focuses on the teacher.

The Teacher

It was indicated through the children’s questions that there were two lines of thought under the theme of the teacher. The first seemed to focus on the relationship between the teacher and the children. This highlighted the way children should be treated by the teacher. The second aspect revealed questions that focused on the way, and what, the teacher taught the children

Teachers and children

The children in Centre A engage in collaborative story making and have been working on a new class storybook similar to the one they self-published earlier in the year. This one has a trumpeting elephant, a hidden green anaconda that bites and a ‘pourring’ (sic) cheetah who helps the jungle animals triumph over a gun-toting hunter. Sitting with the

111

children on the floor, the children’s English teacher (Teacher A), helps them to refine the story, and discusses sections that might need illustrations. Twelve children sit or crouch close to the one metre long paper storyboard to which each of them has contributed. Celine kneels at the rear of the group with her fists firmly shoved inside the back of her shorts. She alternates her attention from Teacher A’s questions and suggestions, to her best friend, Renee, who is standing slightly away from the group. As the teacher talks about editing techniques, Renee bends her head to the side, listening intently, but somewhat removed from the constant exchange of ideas. She seems clearly interested in the proceedings, but at this point, does not contribute verbally.

Plate 4.2

Children and teacher at Centre A editing a storyline

The children move away from their editing meeting to begin the task of illustrating the story. Renee waits until the others have finished reconfirming their ideas with Teacher A and are settled in their work, before approaching the teacher. Sitting down on child sized

112

chairs, they have a long discussion where Renee summarizes what she understands took place at the class meeting. Teacher A leans forward, nodding and smiling as Renee speaks. Later Renee and I have a conversation about what I had observed, in part, about

Teacher A.

DH: What is it like having a teacher who listens to your ideas? Renee: Well, it’s like, it’s like, talking to someone in concert. DH: In concert? What does that mean? Renee: It means…well…it’s a bit like being in a concert. Like talking with family and friends. DH: What is it like for you when adults listen to your ideas? Renee: Well basically…well… DH: Can you describe it? Renee: Well…half happy and half nervous. DH: Oh? Why would you feel half happy and half nervous? Renee: Because sometimes I get nervous because sometimes I don’t really know if they are really listening to me or not. DH: How can you tell when someone is listening? Renee: Well, they open their eyes. DH: Yes, what else? Renee: When they are looking at you. Their eyes focus on you. DH: How can you tell when (Teacher A) is listening to your ideas? Renee: She looks at me and sometimes she also tells me my ideas are good or not so good.

Renee shares her experience as an active participant in her preschool class and her understanding of interactions with her teacher. She expresses both the verbal and non- verbal communication strategies involved in listening and its effect on her as a contributor of ideas. Renee’s description of Teacher A’s active listening is corroborated in observations by both the children and myself. Renee’s comments here point to an interactional relationship involving teacher and child.

Following the discussion on the themes raised by the group’s questions, the children at

Centre A are offered the still camera and the video camera to document the good things

113

about their preschool setting. Celine uses the video camera to record her account of what makes for a good school. The footage she takes focuses on some of the aspects (i.e., physical environment, friends, and the teacher) we had been discussing through the lists of questions. Scanning the room with the camera to her eye (even though it has a screen), she chats about the children and the resources that are available in the classroom. The camera rests on the teacher (Teacher A) who has been moving from one group of children to another, offering words of encouragement and, at one time, sitting patiently with two children at the computer assisting with word processing the class story. I walked with Celine as she used the camera.

Celine: Oh. Here she is. (Teacher A) is one of my favourite things in this school. DH: Why is that? Celine: She is such a good teacher. DH: And what makes her a good teacher? Celine: She is interesting. DH: Oh? What makes her interesting? Celine: Well, she teaches not just phonics, but she teaches us all about lots of things and not even homework. She is also kind.

As can be seen by the transcript above, Celine noted that Teacher A was kind. The children talked frequently about teachers, and the relationships they should have with children. The focus of some of the children’s questions was a teacher’s behaviour toward children.

Li Bing (Centre A) asked, When you is naughty your principal was angry and she going to canae (sic) and you will cry?

When Alan (Centre B) read Li Bing’s question he responded, Why would she do that?

NO!

114

Natasha (Centre A) asked, Does your teacher be kind to you or your teacher be bat (sic) to you?

Kind, Hiu Min wrote in response.

Beatrix (Centre A) wanted to know, Is your teacher kind to you all the time?

Yes, said Julia (Centre B).

The questions and responses as seen in the examples above, and the follow-up discussions (much of which the children asked to be kept private) demonstrated the interactional competence of the children. The demeanour the teacher displayed as the authority figure in the preschool experience arose as the subject of many subsequent conversations. For example, a conversation took place (at Renee’s invitation), while sitting outside in the parents’ waiting area. In part, she spoke about the theme of a teacher as an authority figure:

Renee: Sometimes, if the teacher is not kind, then the new children may not settle into their new school. Like N1 (Nursery 1). But when teachers are too kind, the children might start quarrelling. The children will think the teachers are too nice and well…well…the children might hit each other and the teachers will not punish them. DH: So how do you see this? What kinds of things could a teacher do to be just the right kind of teacher? Renee: Well, sometimes…she would need to scold a child if they misbehave so they behave. And sometimes if children behave then she could say something kind as well. DH: So what kinds of things would you consider to be bad behaviour? Renee: Running around in class and hitting people.

Renee’s account here provides a thoughtful provocation about the teacher. It alludes to a balance of the security and guidance that young children may need in order to settle into a new setting. Renee returned to this theme during my next visit to her centre.

115

Elaborating on her previous ideas, Renee provides a graphic representation of a school that is not very good.

Plate 4.3 Renee’s drawing and narrative of a school that is not very good

Almost all the people are quarrelling, they just won’t settle. The boy is threatening to hit the girl with the chair and the teacher only says, “Stop”, but never threatens to do anything else because she is a girl and girls don’t fight. A school which is not very good would normally have bad teachers who cannot control the children and they would probably learn what they already know. But I think most schools are OK.

Similarly, many of the questions Celine (Centre A) had constructed were also around the teacher’s demeanour (e.g., Is your teacher nice to you all the time; Is your prinsaple

(sic) fierce to you?). While the other children were working on their projects indoors, I invited Celine and Renee to join me on the seats outside. The commonality of their ideas prompted me to follow up with a conversation.

116

DH: Celine, you asked, “Did your teacher always scold you and your other friends?” Why do you want to know about that? Celine: I want to know if when the teachers scold them do they cry. DH: Then would that be a good school in your opinion? Celine: Not if it happened everyday. DH: Has that happened to you? Celine: Well…when I was smaller, I would cry when the teacher scolded me. DH: And what happens now you are bigger? Celine: I don’t cry. DH: Do you still get scolded? Celine: Yes. DH: What kinds of things do you get scolded about? Celine: When we are learning things and people make noise, you will get punished. Renee: And when people play with water in the bathroom when everyone else is asleep. DH: Now let me see if I have this right. If it is a good school, the teachers only scold you sometimes. Celine: Yes. Renee: When you behave you won’t get scolded. But if you don’t want to behave, then you will get scolded.

I was puzzled as to where or how the children had referenced a picture of a fierce unkind teacher. I had observed Teacher A using strategies with the children such as using a quiet voice and talking to them individually about behaviour not sanctioned by the centre. The teacher listened and discussed ideas with the children. She often took the children out in smaller groups to the local shops to purchase supplies for the kitchen, as a mother might do with her own children. She spoke in a soft voice, smiled often, and was openly affectionate towards the children. The children described her as beautiful and kind. One child said, She has a sporty look and sharp eyes to see things with. Yet, the children were referencing their ideas about a good school to the kind of teacher children might encounter. “Scolding” young children until they cried, seemed (from my observations) to be out of character for Teacher A. Factors such as what the children may have heard from others, experienced themselves in different situations or been

117

exposed to from the media, may have contributed to the children’s view of Teacher A being just the right kind of teacher.

Over at Centre B the children had also posed the question, Is your teacher kind or not?

There, Teacher BE was reported by the children as patient, interested, and genuinely focused on engaging the children in their learning. She often shared personal anecdotes of her life with the children (e.g., as a provocation for a discussion, her honeymoon on the Gold Coast, Australia), and the children also shared their experiences with her. They listened attentively and respectfully to each other. The children were frequently taken out, as a whole group, on visits into the community. They worked in small project groups in class, supported by both Teacher BE and Teacher BC. When guiding the children’s behaviour, Teacher BE stated her expectations clearly (e.g., It is important for us all to work together as the K1’s are having a lesson and we must try to keep the noise down. or, I know that you are very excited and have a lot to say, but we must work together.). Her voice was never raised in my presence, and I viewed her as a ‘kind but firm’ teacher. Teacher BC may have been brusquer in her manner, perhaps at times a little curt in her interactions with the children (e.g., by leaving off “please” and “thank you” when using English and speaking sharply in Mandarin). This may have been the subtle evidence of a cultural difference around appropriate relationships between adults and children from the traditional Chinese standpoint where a younger person must be acquiescent (without question) to an elder person. It may also just have been Teacher

BC’s idiosyncratic manner to address children using this approach. I asked the children at Centre B to clarify what makes a good teacher.

118

DH: What about the teachers? What could I ask the children? Julia: Whether they are good. DH: What makes a good teacher? Riggs: Whether children have the power. DH: Oh? What does that mean? Julia: You know. The ideas and stuff. Joshua: And they don’t scold. DH: Oh? Why would the teacher scold? Joshua: Because they have naughty children. Julia: That means they love you. DH: Oh? Why they scold you means they love you? Julia: Yes. That’s what the Lord says. DH: What about when you are working really hard? What should the teacher do? Alan: They could say, “Good job” Julia: Yeh and, “You did a good job” Joshua: Well, they could just smile at you.

Riggs proposes that the children have power in the classroom when their ideas are heard and acted upon. This proposal resonates with Renee’s earlier remarks around having a teacher who listens to ideas. It raises the notion of a reciprocal relationship and of young children being active and respected participants in the classroom.

On my third visit to Centre B, I arrive to find the children actively engaged in a variety of activities related to their current project on insects. Teacher BE is sitting on the floor with a group of three children, jotting notes down in a journal. Other children are sitting in mini project groups (3 or 4 children) focusing on different insects, depending on what interest area they had chosen. Alan and three friends are at a table for four (see Plate

4.4). Alan, with marker in hand, has what looks like a mind map in front of him. They are referring to this map as they discuss a series of pictures from a book. I move closer to the group.

119

Plate 4.4 The grasshopper project: Alan, You Joh, Jesalin, and Jia Yue working together

After general discussion about the work in hand I asked:

Alan, how does (Teacher BE) help you?

He replied:

Oh she writes things down and then closes her book. It reminds us what we are doing.

Teacher BE had moved to sit on the floor with Riggs and Xue Wei, who were recounting their work to her (see Plate 4.5). She talked to them about how they might share what they know with the other children in class and responded to their ideas by referring to the notebook she had in her lap, sharing what she understood was their previous plan and recorded their current ideas. I saw, in this episode, the children as active partners in the adult-child relationship, where children’s ideas and stuff, as discussed by Riggs, were being acknowledged and taken seriously. I also noted that each project group kept

120

a vigilant eye on where Teacher BE was, as if mindful of her role in keeping them on track, as Alan had suggested. Quick, here she comes! was heard more than once. Riggs’s notion of power in this classroom appeared to still favour the adult.

Plate 4.5 Teacher BE (and her notebook) discussing work plans with Riggs and Xue Wei

Teacher BE and her notebook left Riggs and Xue Wei and moved on to Alan’s group. In order to not intrude on their discussion, I moved away to support another group. Teacher

BE spent about 20 minutes with Alan’s group and, when she had finished working with them, I moved back to the group.

DH: Tell me what you are up to. Alan: Webbing what we know about grasshoppers now. DH: So how are you deciding who writes? Jia Yue: Well, we start with Alan, then Jes, then You Joh, then me. We go around in a circle. Alan: We are also discussing. Important to discuss. DH: What was (Teacher BE) talking to you about? Alan: Oh, just about what we have written. We actually know more than what we wrote but she wants us to write it all down. DH: Really? Alan: (sighs) Yes, and this is just our first draft!

Following this remark, Jesalin seems to be agitated.

121

Jesalin: What are you doing You Joh? Only Alan seems to be writing. What are you going to do? Excuse me, if you don’t write you will not come to my real birthday. You’ll be in trouble.

But what trouble would You Joh be in? I had not observed any behaviour from Teacher

BE that would indicate trouble as I envisaged it might manifest, through a scolding by the teacher. However, I was only in the classroom one day per week. Maybe it was not being able to attend the real birthday or a threat that was referenced to some other personal experience. Beatrix and Celine expand on this:

DH: You asked about the teacher being nice all the time. You said, “Is your teacher nice to you all the time?” Why is it important for the teacher to be nice to the children all the time? Beatrix: Well…you can make the teacher happy and they will never scold. DH: What about the children? How do you think they would feel if the teacher was nice all the time? Beatrix: Happy! DH: Why is that? Beatrix: Because they don’t scold us. DH: How do you feel when they scold? Beatrix: Sad…and sometimes scary. DH: Oh? Why is that? Beatrix: Well…because her voice goes very loud. DH: Celine, you had a question that said, “Does the teacher be kind to you?” Can you tell me more about that question? Celine: If the teachers are very angry, it would not be good. If the teacher is not kind to you and is mad with you, you would cry and feel scared.

The theories that many of these children had constructed around quality, in terms of the teacher, or the authority figure in the classroom, appeared to indicate that the children had constructed an image based on various possible sources such as their own experience or that of their friends or siblings. They were suggesting that the right way for a teacher to work with young children is to be kind, but within set boundaries. The children accepted that, at times, they may not be doing the right thing, or have stepped

122

outside acceptable behaviour, such as playing in the bathroom when others are sleeping, or making a noise and not listening when someone has something to say. Beatrix said that using a loud voice and looking fierce is scary and upsetting for children. Renee advised that new children will settle in more quickly to preschool life, if the teacher takes charge of the situation, and sets the boundaries for behaviours that are reasonable.

They established that it is also important for the teacher to listen to the children, using appropriate body language. For example, Renee suggested that the teacher should have opened eyes, focusing on the child and looking and Joshua suggested that the teacher should smile. The children also wanted the teacher to respond with words. Renee suggested saying something kind and giving feedback on your ideas was appropriate and, both Alan and Jesalin suggested telling you that you have done a good job. Clearly, quality in terms of the right kind of teacher for young children is where there is a mixture of respectful, interpersonal relationships with considered leadership, security, kindness, and care.

The demeanour of the teacher and the relationship they established with the children was one aspect of an image of a good teacher the children shared. The other was the way in which, and what, the teacher taught.

The teacher’s teaching

DH: Then in a bad school what happens? Renee: A bad school would be where they teach you things you already know.

123

Renee’s comment appeared to reveal her theory of how curriculum should be approached. We talked further about how she views this process.

DH: So how would the teacher find out if you already know something? Renee: If the teacher teaches you something and you say, “Teacher, I already know that”, then she will know that you already know that and she should teach you something different. DH: So is it up the teacher or you? Renee: Both really. DH: What about you Celine? How would a teacher find out what you already know? Celine: I guess they could ask your mother what she has already taught you. DH: Does anyone else teach you things apart from your parents and teachers? Renee: Well, last year one of my friends taught me about yellow. But that’s about it.

It is clear here that there is a shared starting point for teaching. Both children have acknowledged that there are a couple of possibilities. It could be a matter of trial and error (e.g., If the teacher teaches you something and you say, ‘Teacher I already know that’…) or, it could be gained from information gathered from parents about the child’s experiences outside of school (e.g., …ask your mother…). The notion that it is important to ascertain what a child already knows, and can do, and what their experiences have been, appear to be important for Renee and Celine.

Both centres had daily contact with a language teacher. The children at Centre A had formal Mandarin lessons with Lao Shu (Chinese teacher). Chinese lessons were held each day for about 60 minutes. They were predominantly didactic in nature, using repetition and rote learning. They were held in a small classroom adjoining the children’s home classroom and common play area. The children were often slow in

124

getting settled into the lesson. It seemed to disrupt the flow of their day, especially their engagement in their long-term projects. Renee again shares her thoughts.

DH: Do your parents ask you a lot of questions about school? Renee: Yes. DH: Like what? Renee: Whether it is nice or whether it is boring. DH: Are the classes ever boring? Renee: Oh, sometimes. DH: Can you give me an example? Renee: Oh, once I nearly fell asleep. Lao Shu (Chinese teacher) was talking so much that I nearly fell asleep. She does that. Talk, talk, talk. But I managed to stay awake. DH: Any other examples? Renee: No, just when they talk too much. Children don’t like that.

In contrast, at Centre B, the Chinese language was taught in tandem with English, and the teachers worked together to share the same content using both languages. For example, when Teacher BE told the children about her honeymoon vacation experience on the Gold Coast, the discussion turned to the different customs, superstitions, and traditions the Chinese have for weddings. While Teacher BE explained these customs in

English, Teacher BC conversed with the children in Chinese. With an overlapping teaching roster (Teacher BE worked from 7.30am to 4.00pm and Teacher BC worked from 10.30am to 6.30pm), the teachers had an opportunity to work together with the children each day in a bilingual context. The project work that was being undertaken by the children and Teacher BE, was followed through in the afternoons with Teacher BC.

The formal side of learning Mandarin, such as stroke formation, was always taught in the context of the project topic. The children in Centre B had a mainly positive attitude to learning Chinese (which I have found, after 7 years of working with young children in this context, is unusual in Singapore).

125

The way the Chinese language was approached appeared to have an impact on the children’s views of the teaching. General observations in both settings highlighted the differential engagement of each group of children. A didactic approach used in Centre A seemed to result in the children being restless and disinterested and evidence of the

Chinese language and culture was limited to the room in which it was taught. The dual language approach used in Centre B, where documentation in both English and Chinese

(as seen in Plate 4.6) around the children’s projects appeared to place value on the practical use of bilingualism by the centre.

Plate 4.6 Examples of children’s planning and recording in two languages on the Insect project

126

Further discussion with the children revealed the children’s views on how to teach.

DH: You had a question about, “Is your school good?” What did you mean by good? Can you give me some suggestions? Beatrix: Well…does the teacher take good care of them? DH: Yes. Anything else? Beatrix: The teacher teaches them new things and teachers let them play. DH: What is the difference between playing and your projects? Beatrix: Because projects you have fun and playing you have fun also. DH: But what’s the difference? Beatrix: Well…when you are doing a project you have to be serious or the teacher will scold you. DH: Oh, really? What sort of serious things do you have to do? Beatrix: Well…don’t laugh.

Summary

The children’s accounts here point to a teaching approach that should be interesting and allow for some fun (as in projects). Renee advises that, at times, teachers can be boring.

This is especially so when they talk too much, and that, Children don’t like that. Beatrix notes that teachers should teach new things and let children play. In this way, children can have fun and learn things at the same time. Teaching should start with finding out about each other, and recognise that children have ideas and prior knowledge to contribute to learning. In the view of Renee and Celine, being taught things you already know is not good teaching. According to the children, teachers need to refer to the children and their families in order to ascertain where to begin and, in this way, there may be opportunities for learning new and interesting things.

The School (Physical Environment)

Of four major themes, the second theme to be discussed here is what the children chose to term “The school”. It has been indicated (see Tables 3 & 4) that the children placed

127

importance on what I had referred to as the “physical environment”. While examination of the previous theme around “the teacher” used predominantly conversation and discussion groups, exploration of “the school” relied more on other artifacts, which drew on children’s competence of drawing, photography, and written or spoken narrative. The children were able to give visibility to their ideas through these media. This section begins with an examination of the quality of “the school” by the children at Centre B.

Centre B

Centre B is set in a typical Singaporean neighbourhood, serving the families who live in the surrounding high rise apartments known as HDB flats (Housing Development

Board). Using the void deck space (i.e., the open space on the ground floor level), it has an unassuming entrance with a low wooden fence and gate, and a rack where entrants must place their shoes. It is customary to leave street shoes outside, slipping into indoor shoes, or as visitors normally do, continue inside barefoot.

The centre is one large open space that has been divided into four teaching spaces for each age group (N1, N2, K1, K2). There is a dining area that doubles as an art space, a communal “home corner”, and a computer lab (see Figure 4.1). Various dividing systems such as low benches, high shelves, and cubbies delineate the classroom boundaries. Kitchen and staff rooms are at one end of the space, administrative offices and a movement space are next door, and children’s bathrooms open on to a common corridor. It is sparsely furnished and clean, with many ‘hard’ surfaces. The layout of the centre and, in particular, the K2 space (measuring approximately 6 metres x 3 metres), did not change over the year I spent in the classroom (apart from when they celebrated

128

projects with displays of all of the work children had done for parents to see, which may have been over a few days at most).

Open common corridor

Puzzles Manipulatives Art & craft

Library & Dis resource books White board p la y boards Writing Writing materials

Drink bottles Project books Workbook storage

Figure 4.1 K2 classroom at Centre B

The children in Centre B had posed a series of questions around the physical environment (e.g., Do you have a music room? Is your school clean and tidy? Do you decorate your classroom with your teachers?). Using these questions as an indication of the children’s interest in the physical environment, we held small group discussions on the kinds of things we should have for children in preschools.

129

Group 1: Benjamin, Xie Wei, Jesalin, Hui Min

DH: Tell me about the kinds of things a preschool should have for children. Benjamin: Toys, like a train set Xie Wei: Materials. DH: Oh? Xie Wei: Yes. Like boxes and paper and things to draw with. Jesalin: You need grassy area for children to play sport. Hui Min: And books to learn things from. Benjamin: And difficult science things. But for younger kids children need to have easy peasy stuff. Jesalin: And making things. Junk stuff to make things with. But not dangerous things. Benjamin: And we need refreshments too. Xie Wei: Paints are good.

Group 2: Alan, Riggs, You Joh, Joshua, Christel

DH: I talked with the other group about the kinds of things children should have at preschool. What do you think? Alan: Computers. Coz you can use a computer like a dictionary. Riggs: Toys. They are fun to play with. You Joh: Must have books so you can learn words. Christel: Paper for drawing and for projects. Joshua: You need to have your own shelf so you can put your things on. Alan: Yeh, and a place for project stuff. You Joh: Games too. You can learn like Monopoly. It helps you learn. Christel: And materials. Like toilet rolls and boxes to make things.

Over the following weeks the children were invited to explore these ideas through design drawings (i.e., drawing the design of the classroom and its resources). I had noted that the children were interested in examining ideas for their projects, not only through the group discussions, but also by using detailed drawings. I decided to connect this demonstrated competence and interest in drawing with the research we were doing, in order to invite the use of communication tools the children were familiar with. During my visits, a dedicated space that could accommodate two children at a time, was offered and included a folder of photographs of their centre that they had taken, large pieces of

130

paper, and copies of our conversations. Of those who chose to design a preschool/classroom, many made label notations on the drawings (e.g., decorations, papers, cupbehole [sic]). Each design was unique, with complex ideas and suggestions.

The children were then invited to share their ideas with me in one-on-one conversations, where I scribed the explanations they offered to accompany their drawings.

Acknowledging that children may not be able to draw (or chose not to) all they know or seek to communicate, the supporting narratives gave the children an opportunity to expand on the ideas presented in the drawings.

Unlike the group discussions, these particular artifacts were generated as individual pieces and the children did not specifically refer to one another as they developed their ideas. The one-on-one conversations that followed allowed the children to offer their narratives (either in own writing or scribed by me). None of the children appeared to seek the social support of peers that had been evident in the initial group discussions.

This may indicate their level of trust and security in working with me, and/or the familiarity of the representational media. The three drawings that have been included here are diverse, yet have elements of commonality, from the practical to the fantastic.

131

Plate 4.7

Jie Le’s design for a preschool

There are two yellow stages for children to stand. The door (top on the right) is a magic door. If you go out it will take you any place. This door (on the left), if you open, you can see a Christmas Tree and Santa Claus. The door in the middle, that’s when you open, you can wish something and by tomorrow you will see. The door (bottom left) you go to Singapore and everything is all free. The door (bottom right), see you take the key and it can open any door. All the children are so lucky to have all these doors, otherwise it would be so boring. These are books (brown shelf) and when you open, the picture falls on to the floor but disappears in five seconds. These are magic books. There is a shelf for shoes (bottom left). The classroom is on wheels then when you want to go somewhere it is like a school bus. This classroom is called the Green Room.

132

Plate 4.8 Hui Min’s design for a preschool

The classroom must have projects so children can play and work. My classroom’s got the calendar (left centre) so then when you forget what’s the day you can look. The classroom must have birthday cakes so that when people’s birthdays come, you can all celebrate. You must give happy birthday cards (bottom left) to our friends. You should have drawings of the teacher and yourself and your friends (top) so that other adults would know who was in the class. There is a big room for resting when you are very, very tired; when you just have no strength.

133

Plate 4.9 Julia’s design for a preschool

The classroom has the date because we need to know that date for each year and each month and when it stops (to left of main frame). Then it would have books that are very difficult so that they can learn all the words and then they would have lots of dictionaries that will help them know words that start with the letter top, centre of frame). They have Monopoly for them to learn like how to go from step to step. They have food, if not they would starve. They are doing a lot of hard work and they go to PE, so they need strength. The food gives them that. The outside of the school has angel wings with shining glitter. You can just press the purple buttons then draws (drawers) will come out with the things you want. There is a fake jewellery shop because the children went to a jewellery shop and they went to explore all the jewellery (the children have just begun a project on jewellery). They have a TV (bottom right) because they want to know all about sports (their last project). They go out to music class and have a swing (top left) so they can go out to exercise. They have a drawer for shoes and they have hearts so they know it is an angel school.

Each child offered their views on an ideal classroom for K2 children. There were elements of surprise (for me) in each, as well as practical suggestions, that are worthy of consideration. The magic doors in Jie Le’s drawings could be seen as offering a

134

whimsical environment for children, one that might alleviate boredom and routine, yet one that still has the practicalities of a place for shoes. It creates an image of happy smiling children, who encounter all manner of fantastic scenes (e.g., a stage for dramatization, pictures that fall from books and disappear, a classroom on wheels). We are then brought back to earth by Hui Min. The tired children (with no strength), that

Alan recounted earlier, have resurfaced through Hui Min’s accompanying narration of her drawing. Perhaps Jie Le’s fantasy land has collided with the realities of attending school for these children.

In response to Hui Min’s drawing, I was prompted stay on and make an observation of rest time. Rest time saw the children lying close together on the floor, on bare vinyl mattresses. As the centre was designed as an open-plan space, noise traveled during this period. There were no soft elements, such as cushions or mats, to absorb the noise. The intercom phone rang regularly and, with the level of security offered at the entrance, a doorbell rang each time someone needed to enter the school. With the main thoroughfare right next to the classroom space, adult activity levels reached fever pitch as teachers made the most of rest time for preparation and meetings. Hiu Min had proposed that a bigger space would be more conducive to a proper rest time, particularly since they were so tired. This child had considered a living space as well as learning places, where children’s physical comfort is considered alongside the support for more academic pursuits. Hui Min also recommended making the teacher and children more visible, through drawings for visitors and others to see who is in the class. This resonates with a sense of belonging and makes a statement about who inhabits the spaces in the centre.

135

Julia has offered a design with elements somewhere in between Jie Le and Hui Min.

Certainly she has acknowledged Alan’s notion of a group of children working very hard, needing sustenance to keep going. With the research that is required for their projects, I noted the children referring constantly to reference materials. These children were adept at using dictionaries, and Julia suggests it is a good idea to have multiple copies of them in the classroom. She also adds glittering and sparkling angel wings to her design, which contrast with Hui Min’s ideas of other more traditional elements connected to “learning” such as the dictionaries and word/number games.

Centre A

Centre A uses a landed property (bungalow style) to house the preschool. As would be expected in accommodating 45 (license capacity) children, six teachers, and an “aunty” in a normal sized three-bedroom house, it can be quite cramped. Learning centres (i.e., home corner, library, blocks, math manipulatives, puzzles and four computers) are featured in the common area playroom next to the K2 classroom (see Figure 4.2). A wide variety of materials and resources to support children’s project work are freely available on low open shelves in the classroom. The walls are used to display project work, children’s paintings, word walls, and explanations of learning corners. A former garage has been divided in two, adjacent to the playroom. The smaller front section is used as the Chinese language classroom and a larger back section is an arts studio. The kitchen is in the centre of the building where the children’s meals are prepared by

“aunty” (Teacher A’s mother-in-law). In addition, two regular sized home bathrooms have been converted to accommodate two child-sized toilets, with a hand-held shower and one washbasin each.

136

Figure 4.2 K2 classroom in Centre A

Kitchen N2

Display boards Math Dramatic Books Meeting mat materials play

Puzzles Chinese classroom Art studio Art classroom Chinese Books Art materials

Blocks Computers Bathroom Toddlers (N1)

Teacher A was noted to actively engage the children in regular discussions on how the

classroom would work best for them. Children’s opinions were included in decisions

made about matters such as where work should be displayed, what would best represent

the things they had done in the classroom, how to use the spaces effectively, and what

books to put in the library. There were several weeks during my visits when the children

seemed to be arguing more than usual, fighting over materials and complaining of being

all squashed up.

137

Noting these challenges, the teacher and children subsequently brainstormed ideas on how to make everyone’s lives more pleasant. Renee’s confident use of the still camera offers an opportunity to view the classroom from her standpoint after the changes were made. She provides photographic examples of children’s ideas having been implemented when reconfiguring the physical (and social) environment to be more user-friendly.

Plate 4.10 Renee’s photographs of the “new look” classroom

138

Renee: We changed it around a bit. Now children can move around and not bump into people like before.

While Renee begins to photograph the dress up corner, four girls are seen playing in the corner: tulle skirts, chiffon scarves and tiaras glittering and swaying as they negotiate and construct a story line around three princesses and a forlorn-looking handmaiden. At intervals, the mirror provides reconfirmation of the princess’s fantastic beauty and sense of style, while the handmaiden holds her hands out in gestures of servility. See how the ideas come from the photos? says Renee. Renee tells me that they (the children and

Teacher A) think it would be a good idea to take photos of children playing in the dress ups and display them so that children would know what other children had played.

Sometimes you need a few ideas, she said.

139

Plate 4.11 Renee’s photograph of the dress-up corner

Renee: We took some photos of us to help the children know what to play in dress ups. Before it was just a mess.

The computer stations had been previously in a row of four. When several children were working on one monitor (editing or researching), which they did on a daily basis, it became quite confining and physically uncomfortable. It was also quite noisy for those who wished to pursue individual work on the computer. The children asked Teacher A if the stations could be not so close together.

140

Plate 4.12 Renee’s photograph of one of the computer desks

Renee: Now you can even work on the computer on your own, without a neighbour like before. This way you can concentrate.

Renee then moved the camera to a tableau a few feet away. Two girls were sitting on the same child-sized chair, heads locked together as they scrutinised a page in the book 365

Things to do and make. Behind them, four girls in various positions, read aloud from books they have selected from the library.

141

Plate 4.13 Renee’s photograph of one of the book areas

Renee: Remember how I told you before that books are important Deborah? We put the books where everyone can see.

Around the same time as the children and I were discussing and documenting aspects of

‘The school’, Teacher A had invited an architect to work with the children on what was to be their final project at preschool before moving on to Primary One. It was about famous buildings of the world. Proudly, Renee and Natasha showed me their completed representation of the Taj Mahal, along with the plans that they had drawn. I had not been at the centre for several weeks, so much of this project was new to me. Renee had written a very poignant narrative, for the presentation of the construction to the class, of

142

the poor king whose beautiful wife had died and how he suffered from a broken heart after that day.

Renee: Deborah, did you know that my Uncle William came to school? He is an architect and he lives in London. He helped us with design. DH: Oh? Renee: Well, you know, it is important to think about the interior design, as well as what you can see on the outside.

Renee and I discussed Uncle William’s visit and the point she had raised about interior design. As the focus for this group in earlier discussion had been more about the teacher and her demeanour, this classroom interest enabled me to propose a conversation that focused on what a good school might look like if Renee used the ideas that Uncle

William had shared.

Plate 4.12 Renee’s design for a preschool classroom

143

DH: What can you tell me about your design? Renee: I have made (Centre A) quite spacious, so that there would be more room so that children could run around and exercise. There are three centres, art, library and picnic play. DH: Why are there centres? Renee: Art so that the children would be more creative in the future because some of them might want to be an artist. A library so they can read and learn. There’s picnic play because children like to have picnics and children like to imagine what it is like. There is a table and mats. DH: Why no chairs? Renee: Well, I decided on a Japanese style of seating. DH: Oh? Why is that? Renee: Most schools have tables and chairs. I want (Centre A) to be different. I will keep the curtain closed most of the time so it doesn’t let in too much light because children don’t like light in their eyes. I included a white board because our classroom already has a whiteboard. The exit door leads to the playground where the children would go everyday.

Renee’s drawing is very sophisticated in relation to spatial concepts and the use of perspective, which is probably something she has picked up f rom viewing the drawings of her relative who is an architect. The drawing and her narrative suggest she wants to create an environment that is less institutionalised. According to Katz (2001), preschools around the world are looking all the same, from Thailand to the United States, China to

Spain. A localised ambience, a reflection of local culture or history, appear to be absent.

Renee’s account here may indicate that she wants her preschool to be different from others. She suggested it needed to reflect consideration to children’s well being (i.e., shading from bright light) and interests (i.e., picnic play), yet be unique (i.e., Japanese seating). Her narrative expressed the connection between the environment and supporting children’s potentials (e.g., becoming an artist), yet conceded some of the practicalities of her current classroom, such as the whiteboard, were worthy of inclusion.

144

Summary

While some of the ideas that were offered by the children, for example by Jie Le, may be impractical and fanciful, they offer an insight into a world of imagination (such as the classroom on wheels in Plate 4.7). Other children, such as Hui Min, Julia and Renee, provide ideas that are practical and mostly achievable. Conversations with the children have shown they have ideas for materials and resources for play and work. In their view toys and games, junk materials, books, computers, and paper are needed. The children also include aspects of everyday life with the celebration of birthdays and adequate space to rest and play sport. Renee’s photographs allow us to see how children’s ideas have been sought and respected in her classroom, with clear evidence that their ideas are popular (e.g., in dress ups). Her sophisticated design drawing and narration make visible the possibilities and potential for young children to be consulted on fundamental elements of classroom design, particularly when they have been so richly informed as

Renee’s have been.

Learning (The Curriculum)

The third of the four themes to be examined was initially identified through the children’s questions on what I had termed “the curriculum”, which the children later labeled “Learning”. The initial lists of questions that the children had generated around this theme related to specific curriculum areas (e.g., Do you do maths? Do you learn

Chinese?). However, as the exploration of this theme unfolded, it became more of a discussion on work and play, with a focus on the projects in which the children engaged.

145

This section leads with a discussion on the context in which I observed learning taking place in both settings, followed by the children’s own accounts of their experiences.

On my first visit to Centre B, I arrive at 10.30 in the morning, to find the centre unexpectedly quiet. From my own teaching experience, and visiting many centres in

Singapore, I anticipate a hive of activity. Teacher BE and 12 children, who are dressed in white uniforms, are engaged in circle time and listening to a story of morality from the Bible. The weather chart is then checked. A child who is monitor for the day, identifiable by the yellow star around her neck, records the day and the date on the whiteboard. The teacher checks with the other children to see if this is correct. They then move on to a planning meeting.

As an invited participant in this and subsequent meetings, I establish that they could be up to an hour and a half in duration each morning. After the faith-based curriculum and daily routines are covered, Teacher BC focuses on aspects of current long-term projects the children were working on in smaller groups. During these daily sessions the teachers

(and I) at times engage in one-on-one discussion with a child about an idea raised, while the others talk among themselves, supposedly about the topic under discussion. As individual interactions with the teacher are concluded, the children are drawn back to a whole group discussion.

From time to time in these extended sessions, the children become restless. The teacher responds to the children’s lagging interest by asking if they wish to end the session. She does, however, remind them of work that needs to be done, asking them to be mindful

146

that some children may have not had an opportunity to share their current and proposed project work. I reflect upon the children’s (particularly Alan’s) insistence, in our initial discussions and their questions, that:

• their days were long (e.g., Do you have half day?) or,

• tiring (e.g., Do you have a nap?), or

• mentally tedious (e.g., Yes, and this is just our first draft).

In the Centre B teacher’s commitment to a rigorous bi-lingual curriculum in preparation for Primary One (as outlined in Chapter Two), children’s views on the curriculum were perhaps not considered by the adults. Combining my observations and the children’s representations of their life at school, I was able to view these experiences from the children’s standpoint. For many weeks my visits focused on the non-stop work which seemed to preoccupy Alan, and his words and actions began to shape the way I saw his life at school. I needed to find out just how the children saw the curriculum, and my observations uncovered that project work was sustained and intense.

Through the initial questions around what makes a good school, both groups of children had expressed an interest in finding out what others learned at school (e.g., Do you have

Hanyu Pingyin [Chinese dialect] on Saturday? What subject is your favourite?). Both

Teacher A and the Principal of Centre B went to great lengths, in our (informal) discussions about curriculum, to talk about their approaches to teaching and learning as being firmly based in children’s engagement with play. My own observations indicated that the ‘core curriculum’ in both settings was based on Katz and Chard’s (1997) project

147

approach. Centre A, in addition to projects, offered the children extended time to engage in uninterrupted play in “learning centres”. Centre B’s play time was offered after project time and would include board games, reference books, and puzzles on a small mat, but not dramatic play, use of art materials, story books or manipulatives. The photographs below (see Plates 4.15 - 4.18) illustrate the diversity in presenting play experiences in both centres.

Plate 4.15 Example of solitary play experiences in Centre B

148

Plate 4.16 Example of solitary play experience in Centre A

Figure 4.17 Example of group play experiences in Centre B

149

Plate 4.17 Example of group play experiences in Centre A

While Alan and his friends at Centre B bemoaned their experience of long tiring days, I was interested to see if the children at Centre A encountered similar challenges. I noticed that, each day the children were given blocks of unhurried time to work on different projects, but there were also more formal teacher-directed activities throughout the day.

On my next visit, I observed the children at Centre A for 90 minutes during the morning session. They were continuing on with a class book that was an on-going part of their literacy program. I saw children working on illustrations in small groups, chatting, offering advice to each other, as their drawings began to tell the storyline of the section of the book they were working on. I noticed Renee diligently working on her drawing for the book, while overseeing the work of those around her. By some previously understood arrangement, it appeared to be part of this classroom’s culture of collaboration, small-group leaders emerged during the work on the illustrations. The

150

leaders seemed to draw together the ideas of others so that these ideas took shape in a spoken form and then were transformed into drawings. On this occasion, rarely did the children seek solutions to artistic design problems from their teacher.

One possible interpretation here is that the children seemed to understand that they can access ideas and support for what they are doing from each other, as well as from the adult. I asked Renee, I am wondering what you thought about project work?

Renee: Well, it’s fun. DH: Why is that? Renee: You can get more information about things when you are doing a project. DH: What do you do if you have some problems in the group, say someone isn’t doing the work they should be? Renee: Oh, then you would have a discussion about working more or lesser. DH: And is there a leader? Renee: Yes, like I was the leader in the Cat project. DH: What responsibility do they have? Renee: That’s the one who makes sure you do all the jobs you have to do properly. DH: And what is (Teacher A’s) role when you are doing projects? What is her responsibility? Renee: Well, when you get stuck, say if you are writing on the computer, she will help you.

Renee responds that, indeed it is possible to find solutions as a group of learners, provided there is some leadership. When the going gets too tough, the teacher can be relied upon to give assistance. The roles of both the children and the teacher in project work appear to be clearly defined by Renee and her peers. The day drew to a close and

Renee’s mother collected her from school. In parting I said to Renee, You have some really great ideas and I have enjoyed talking to you very much. Thanks, she replied, I find talking to you most refreshing.

151

I went back to Centre B to explore their life at preschool in more depth. To establish that the children and I held a shared meaning around curriculum issues, we began the next whole group discussion by talking about what learning was. After making some links to earlier discussions about the questions children were asking, we began to focus on the term ‘learning’.

DH: I am wondering if you could tell me about learning. What does learning mean to you? Christel: Well, when you don’t know how to do something and then you try to do something and then if you know the word then it means you have learnt. Alan: You don’t know what it is, like “touch”, so you ask the teacher, then you know, then you learning. Jia Yue: Well, last time you didn’t know. That was before you came to school. So it is your first time at school and so you go to school and your teacher will explain and then you know. DH: Oh, so it happens at school? Julia: So you don’t know something so you say, “What’s that?” and the teacher will explain to you. You Joh: Learning means when you want to know about things. You must read books and listen to the teacher. Hui Min: But you cannot ask people. You need to think carefully and see if you can learn. You won’t learn if you keep asking people. Julia: Yes you can. You can ask people how to do things. You can also teach yourself. Jeslin: Look, it means you need to be patient. If you want to learn things, it is your first time, so you are learning. Benjamin: It takes time. You have to be extremely patient. DH: I am sure it does. But how do you know how much time? How do you know when you have learned something? Julia: If you listen carefully and the person teaches you and you are paying attention you will learn. Jie Le: You need to be thinking. Hiu Min: If you look and then you can do and then you can show others. Benjamin: It means you translate for others, correct? Christel: It’s because you know something already, because the teacher tells you, you know that you learnt a new thing. Alan: It means you have remembered what you learnt, last time you don’t know, and the teacher told you so you know already. Jia Yue: The teacher teaches so you know Julia: Because you go to school, so you know. You Joh: You check inside your folder and then you will know what you have learnt.

152

DH: Oh, so you can check? Alan: Well, if you look in your folder and if you can read what is in the folder that means you have learnt to read. So if you can’t read what’s in your folder it means you’re not learning. Jia Yue: Yes, reading knows that you know how to learn.

This was a difficult question and the children took the time to explore the ideas related to learning. This was moving away from the children’s initial questions about

‘curriculum’ and more toward what learning means. My intention was to lead the children toward a discussion around the ‘subject-based’ inquiry (i.e., maths, Chinese, etc.) of their list of questions, once we had established the meaning of learning (since this is what the children had decided to call this theme). This line of discussion seemed to capture the children’s interest and I was more than willing to follow their lead. Many references were made to personal experiences. For some children, asking questions and listening (paying attention) to the teacher, provided the framework for learning to occur.

One child indicated some autonomy in learning (not asking others), but generally it was understood that once you have been told something, by another, you have learned.

Children’s understanding of their role in the learning process here was described as being primarily that of a listener. The passivity of the listening role would appear to be in conflict with the premise of project work as investigation and co-construction of knowledge. Alan explained that if you can not read what is in your folder you have not learned.

This may indicate that the children understood that evidence of learning is kept in some manner. Decisions about what is learned, and what is kept in ‘your folder’, may also be

153

part of this teacher’s decision-making rather than that of the child. In a smaller group later that day, we talked about how a new project might emerge.

DH: I can see that all of your work is gone. (The classroom displays had been dismantled, books shelves emptied, no evidence of current works in progress.) What will you work on now your Insect project is finished? Jesalin: I think travelling. (Teacher BE) decided on that. DH: Oh? And what do you think about that? Benjamin: I am angry because I like Creepy Crawlies (his last project). You Joh: I like travelling so it is good. On September 20th I am going to China. Alan: I am happy because I travel a lot. I have been to Hong Kong and Japan a lot. You Joh: I also go to Hong Kong and Malaysia a lot. Joshua: I go to Malaysia. I would like to travel to Australia next time. I have been two times already. Jesalin: I am not interested in traveling. DH: What would you rather do? Jesalin: I would like to look at flying. DH: So would that be OK for you to do? Jesalin: I would have to ask Teacher BE.

Clearly there was some dissention in this small group about future directions for the curriculum (i.e., what will be learnt). While some children expressed a connection with the new project topic to their own travelling experiences, two did not. Conversations with Benjamin (the angry child) often revealed his disengagement with the curriculum.

The provocation for the “Traveling Project” Teacher BE had offered, through sharing her honeymoon to the Gold Coast, failed to engage many of the children. Jesalin and

Joshua remained silent throughout initial discussions, and Benjamin was hostile to the idea, despite efforts by both Teacher BE and BC to draw them all into the conversation.

These children referred to their last project (on Insects), which seemed to be unsatisfactorily finished in their minds. Major curriculum choices (the topic) and timing for the learning frameworks were in the hands of the teachers.

154

As Teacher BE’s approach to project work had been observed to revolve around smaller mini-projects, I wondered how grouping decisions were made. This appeared to be where children were offered some autonomy and decisions for ‘partners’ appeared to be made based on their prior small group experiences.

DH: I see you have celebrated your insect projects. Alan: Yes, now it is Term 4 so we change partners and start a new project. DH: Why do you change partners? Alan: Because it is Term 4! DH: But why is it necessary? Why can’t you work with the same partners? Joshua: Because the old partners were not much fun. Jesalin: My old partner had no expression and no reason to help us. Benjamin: JL always bothered me and scolded me. Alan: Well, I really have no idea about that but Riggs keeps saying, “Partner, partner, partner”, so I guess I will partner him.

I explored similar ideas at Centre A with Renee.

DH: Can you tell me where the ideas come from for the projects? Renee: You can suggest. DH: Oh? Renee: If you have an idea, Teacher A will turn to the others and ask if it is a good idea. And if they want to do it together with you. Like the animal project. DH: Oh? That was your idea? Renee: Yes. DH: And how did you feel about that? Renee: Quite good actually. DH: How do you choose who to work with? How does that happen? Renee: Well, actually, Teacher A chooses. DH: What happens if you don’t want to work with the people Teacher A chooses? Then what happens? Renee: Oh, you can switch. DH: Oh, you can switch? What do you say? Renee: Well, you just ask Teacher A. That’s all. Switch.

Renee’s comments indicate that, while the teacher may select, or have a greater decision-making role than the children, children exercise autonomy to effect changes

155

when they see the necessity. This is also evident in other aspects of their preschool life at

Centre A, as was seen in the discussion on “The school”. Here it is evident in decisions around curriculum choices.

In the earlier conversation (reported on p. 154) with the children at Centre B, we had explored the notion of ‘learning’ and what it might mean to the children. Returning to this notion, I was interested in finding out what the children considered important content for learning when at preschool. The same group of children was present.

DH: You had some interesting things to say about learning when we were talking the other day. I wonder if we could talk some more about it? Alan: Will this take long? We are busy you know. DH: You can leave our discussion whenever you like Alan but I did check with Teacher BE to see if it was OK for us to talk. DH: What would you consider to be the most important things to do at school? Alan: Well, morning circle is important. DH: Oh? Alan: That’s where you learn about Jesus. Hui Min: No, projects are the most important. You can learn about many different things to show your parents. Jia Yue: I think you should obey your teacher. You Joh: Yeh, and listen. Then you will know how to do things. Xue Wei: Learn Chinese. You have to know Chinese to go to Primary School. Jie Le: Learn English. If you play all day you will never learn English. Benjamin: Play. I say play. Julia: Learn. Like phonics. That helps you to sound out words and spell words. Christel: I think science so you can learn to be a scientist. DH: Ben, your idea about play. Can we talk about that? Julia: Oh, you don’t learn anything when you play. Alan: Look, you will never learn anything if you just go to the playground. You will only think about playing and never think about anything else. Hui Min: Yes, and if you keep playing you will never learn. Christel: It’s just not important because you don’t learn. Xue Wei: No. You can learn sport when you play.

156

Jie Le: It is NOT a subject at Primary One, but you can learn a bit. Like if you play board games you can learn to spell like Scrabble but you don’t learn anything from violent games. Benjamin: Well, that’s it. I say play (and walks off)

In this conversation the children put forward several ideas. Alan suggests that the faith- based content of morning circle is important. The children have also noted projects, languages, science, and phonics as appropriate, with a rationale as to why these might be useful (e.g., You have to know Chinese to go to Primary school; Then you will know how to do things). These suggested ideas appear to fall within an academic approach to curriculum.

What is also interesting in this conversation is that most of the children propose the notion that play holds no benefit to them as learners, and for the most part, has been associated with the playground facility used by the centre (a fixed set of structures shared by approximately 350 families living in the HDB). Benjamin, who had previously demonstrated his growing dissatisfaction with the curriculum, defends play as appropriate. The other children however, are not supportive of this position (e.g., …you don’t learn anything when you play; …if you keep playing you will never learn). This was the first time we had begun to explore ideas around play and, as is it was raised and debated by the children, it is worthy of further discussion.

A short discussion with the (non-teaching) Principal in Centre B revealed disappointment about the dichotomy the children seemed to be constructing between work and play. She indicated that this highlighted a gap between what the teachers understand the children to be doing (play) and what children understand they are doing

157

(working). The teachers seemed to value play as an important mode of learning, yet the children seemed to value work. They may indeed have been describing the same activity

(hands-on learning), the teachers calling it learning through play and the children calling it work.

So, if play was not on the children’s agenda at all for learning (or maybe just a little bit), how did the children view the content of their days in terms of what it should be? I asked the same group of children if it would be possible for them to help me understand this difference of opinion. We discussed the importance of things to learn at preschool and I asked if they could list them, with the most important being number one and maybe they could think of five things.

Plate 4.19 Benjamin: The most important things to do at preschool

158

Plate 4.20 Riggs: The most important things to do at preschool

Plate 4.21 Hui Min: The most important things to do at preschool

159

As these children drew up their lists, projects (the centre’s primary curriculum focus) secured a position of priority for learning at preschool. The children appeared to still hold firmly to the notion that there was a difference between learning and play (i.e., separating projects and play). When asked to list what was important to do at school, each child suggested that play would have a part, as can be seen by the examples above.

Hui Min (see Plate 4.21) has given it a lower priority than Riggs (see Plate 4.20) or

Benjamin (see Plate 4.19), but it still rated a mention. I wanted to explore the role of projects and learning, but following the discussion with the principal, returned to the emerging dichotomy she (and the children) raised between work and play.

DH: You know, I am very interested in something we were talking about this morning. I am a bit confused about the difference between work and play. Can you help me? Xue Wei: Well, play is to have fun and work is something to be serious about. Jie Le: Play means not learning, just having fun. Work you learn more things like reading, for the future. Benjamin: Work is boring because you just write. That’s all. Play is interesting because you can learn to do things.

For Xue Wei and Jie Le, the serious business of learning did not equate with playing.

However, Benjamin continued to insist that play was meaningful, and that you did learn things while playing. I asked the children if they would document this difference for me so I could continue to reflect on their ideas. Alan began with a piece of paper folded down the middle and drew a line. The others saw this and followed suit. These acts, physically, put work and play in different fields. Some wrote their own descriptions, others talked to me about the differences and others did both. Their drawings and narratives provided me with further insight into the difference the children saw between learning and play.

160

Plate 4. 22 Alan: Pictorial narrative about play and work

Alan told me about work: You MUST be serious. When you do work you cannot play with your pencil or pencil case because by the time it is time to go home you cannot because you haven’t finished your work. And about play: If you want to be a playful boy now you can be playful. You don’t have to be serious anymore.

Plate 4.23 Hui Min: Pictorial narrative about play and work

Hui Min told me about work: Work is good because you learn more things. She wrote: Work at school. Work is important because is good. She told me about play: Play is not working. She wrote: Play at school. Play is not important it is not good.

161

Plate 4.24 Jesalin: Pictorial narratives about play and work

Jesalin wrote about work: Work. Work means you will learn things from your teacher. Work is something serious. And about play: Play. Play is to have fun. Play is to let you exercise.

Plate 4.25 Julia: Pictorial narrative about play and work

Julia wrote about work: Work. Work is for you to be seris (sic) and not for you to play. And about play: Play. When you play you won’t learn anything.

162

These artefacts were collected and given careful consideration in preparation for our next meeting. Discussion at the next session centred on the ideas generated about important things to do at preschool. While it was evident from the children’s ideas that a child goes to school to learn/work, they had not discounted play from what should happen at preschool. For Benjamin, who was often at odds with the others (and the curriculum), play was central to his day. Riggs was also suggesting a greater emphasis on play (in the playground). I asked the children how they proposed the time should be divided up amongst these important things by posing the question, What should children spend most of their time on at school?

Alan: Projects of course. You learn a lot so you can show your mother and father. You Joh: Yeh, I think projects. If you could spend longer on it then you will learn more. Jesalin: Projects. You see its fun and you learn so much and so people don’t say, “Oh this school doesn’t do any homework” because you need to do stuff at school AND at home. Riggs: Uh, uh. I say the playground. You should spend most time playing with friends.

I suggested to the children that it could be helpful for adults if children could give some idea on how the day should be timetabled. In small groups, we held discussions before the children went off to develop their own version of a timetable.

DH: Maybe we could talk about a timetable? You Joh: You mean 1 times 2 equals 2? Jesalin: No, she means where you put crosses in. Alan: Oh no, you two. You write, then follow the time. DH: Thanks Alan. So what would you need to do at school? Alan: Work on projects. You Joh: Then make something, like 2D. Jesalin: Then draw and decorate the classroom. Alan: Of course, AND you would have to clean the school. DH: What would you enjoy doing at school? Julia: Projects and reading. You Joh: Go on excursions.

163

Benjamin: Playing with toys. Alan: Games are OK but not toys.

Plate 4.26 Riggs’ daily timetable

164

Plate 4.27 Jie Le’s daily timetable

165

When referencing the children’s ideas to the actual timetable (see Table 5 below) for the

K2 classroom, many close connections and similarities are evident with the children’s everyday experience. Referred to as Creation time in the K2 timetable, the children spent

75 minutes in the morning and one hour in the afternoon working on some aspect of project work. This would seem to satisfy the criteria the children have developed with respect to how time should be spent throughout the day. As examples of the children’s ideas about the allocation of time for things at preschool, both Riggs (Plate 4.26) and Jie

Le (Plate 4.27) have balanced aspects of work and play. Both children have included time for projects and playing with toys, something that was a general trend among the children. While play may not have been seen as an important aspect of learning for these children, they have acknowledged a place for play.

Table 5 Kindergarten 2 timetable (Centre B)

Time Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri 8.20 BREAKFAST 9.00 OUTDOORS PE OUTDOORS 9.45 ASSEMBLY MORNING CIRCLE 10.15 MORNING CIRCLE CREATION (ENGLISH LANGUAGE) 11.45 SHOWER 12.30 LUNCH 1.00 LANGUAGE MATH FREE CHOICE 2.00 NAP TIME 3.00 TEA BREAK 3.15 CREATION (CHINESE LANGUAGE) 4.15 CHINESE LANGUAGE SPEECH & DRAMA MUSIC APPRECIATION ART APPRECIATION 5.05 FAREWELL FREE CHOICE

These on-going conversations and documenting sessions at Centre B were taking place at the same time as the children at Centre A were constructing ideas about the physical environment. While not wishing to diverge too much from their focus of interest, and

166

given it was an integral part of what they were doing in their projects on famous buildings, I did want to ask how these children felt about work and play, and how their projects fitted in to their lives at preschool. Renee had already a view of decision- making in projects, so this problem was opened up to the whole group. This discussion was held with the children going around in a circle offering their views.

DH: I wonder what would be the most important things for children to do at preschool? Children are telling me different things and I wonder what your thoughts are? I need some help here. 1: Lessons 2: Learn maths, English and Chinese 3: Spelling 4: Learn the things you have not leant 5: Science 6: To pay attention 7: Listening 8: Projects 9: Do your journals 10: Learn the school rules 11: Listen to the teacher 12: The rules DH: And what would be the least important to do? 1: Play because you don’t learn much 2: No, outdoors. That’s playing too. 3: Colouring in. 4: Watching TV. 5: Going outdoors. DH: But can you learn anything from play? 1: No. You don’t learn anything. 2: But you learn in outdoor play. It’s healthy and gives you exercise. 3: No. That’s not learning. 4: You won’t know anything if you always play. 5: You won’t learn anything at the learning centres either. 6: Play learns nothing. 7: You can learn sharing from play, but that’s not much.

Later, I asked Renee if she could explain a little further.

DH: Renee, how do you see the difference between work and play? Renee: When you play you laugh and when you work you are solemn. Well, that’s how I am. DH: Then how do you know when you have learned something?

167

Renee: If you are listening carefully, then you know you have learned something. DH: But how would you check? Renee: By trying to remember and think about what your teacher told you.

Renee and her classmates had suggested very similar ideas to those offered by the children at Centre B. Like the Principal there, Teacher A was very disappointed when I shared the children’s views with her. She had hoped the children would have made connections between play and learning. She said she had spent a great deal of time working with the children on establishing the learning centres, and talking about the kinds of things you can do and learn when you play there. While “learning centre time” and working on projects (and the more formal Chinese and maths lessons) were separate events in the preschool day, she thought they had understood they were all about learning. There was evidence again that a gap existed between the adults’ understanding of play (and its value) and what the children themselves were expressing about learning and play.

Summary

Both groups of children have expressed the notion of learning as distinct from playing and is an example of where parental views may have been reflected in children’s views.

The children’s descriptions of themselves as behaving in a solemn and serious manner when learning are mostly passive, and indicate the learning of content through transmission from the teacher to the child. This is in contrast to being playful and laughing while playing with toys or in the playground. The children seemed to accept that, at times, you needed to concentrate, pay attention and listen to the teacher, as that

168

was how to learn. However, for the Centre B children, it was evident that, at times, preschool was stressful. Many complained of being tired through spending large amounts of time in intense engagement with the curriculum (project work). In Alan’s words it was …all work, work, work.

The children at Centre A reported on learning via their experience of a schedule that allocated time for play, both indoors and outdoors as well as formal and informal learning periods. A shared play space enabled all children at the centre to spend some time together at various times during the day. The atmosphere was unhurried, sometimes chaotic. Both groups of children had many opportunities to make decisions and support each other.

Friends

The final theme to be examined in this chapter is that of “friends”. During the compiling of the initial lists, the children proposed questions such as, Who is your best friend? Do you like playing with your friends? Do you do projects together with your friends?

While not evident through these questions, we eventually explored friendships on two levels. One involved friends as playmates and the other involved friends as workmates.

Over the time of the research, the children became competent in using the digital video recorder, and it was often used to document and share their classroom experiences.

Children sometimes worked in pairs, with one child holding the camera and another ensuring safe passage for both the cameraperson and the camera. On one occasion

169

toward the end of the year, the children were exploring ‘friends’ with the recorder. After scanning the room under Renee’s guidance, Celine settled the video-recorder on the round face of a child who smiled in a seemingly shy fashion, and who twisted her body away from the camera in a demure gesture. The camera rested there for a few quiet moments. Look at Lee Bing, isn’t she beautiful? Show that. Those children, broke in

Renee. The camera swung over to a group of children, boys and girls, engaged in animated discussion about who should be doing what for the block construction underway in front of them. Alison…Alison…Alllissson! Here’s Alison, Xin Rong…hey

Xin Rong! Amanda, Anderton. There’s Christina (student teacher). These are friends working together, says Celine.

Having moved from this scene to filming some action in the dress up corner, Celine and her technical assistant Renee then went and sat down outside with me (their preferred place for discussion: Not so many voices, Renee once suggested). By this time the children were quite familiar with the way we worked together (i.e., documentation/representation followed by a meeting). The girls spent some time talking about their recording and I tried to help them make a connection to a previous discussion.

DH: Do you remember a few weeks ago we were talking about what makes a good school? Can you remember that conversation? Renee: Yes. DH: So I wonder if we could talk again about what makes a good school and how would we know if someone was going to a good school or kindergarten. Renee: It would be where everybody loved one another. DH: Why would that be so important? Renee: Well, it’s just like a family. If you fight then everyone is sad, so it is best that you love everybody instead.

170

Celine: (Centre A) is the best school because it has lots of toys and we have lots of fun. DH: Why is it important to have fun? Celine: That means you have lots of friends. Renee: See, when you are having fun, you can actually make friends without really knowing it! DH: So how does that happen? Renee: See, when you are playing, someone might say, “Do you want this?” and if you say, “Yes”, well then you have made a friend without really knowing it. Celine: Yes, like just now when those friends were building. DH: Does this happen often at kindergarten? Renee: Well, I don’t really know because I already have lots of friends but I guess it would happen often.

Many of the children, in both groups, had expressed interest in friendships through the questions they had constructed. Renee and Celine, as evidenced in their representations using the video-recorder and the follow-up discussion, made visible their connections between friendships, play, and solidarity. The girls reported on friends working together on shared tasks, as in the block play scene. Renee made a suggestion that the relationship between friends at preschool should be similar to those in a family. Strong feelings bind people together (e.g., …where everybody loved each other) so that they can happily function as a group, as does a family. The two girls also acknowledged that it is through play and having fun that friendships are developed, even without really knowing it. This particular group of children has been together for some years. Renee’s remark about friendships forming through play often demonstrates her understanding of how a relationship might be initiated. While this strategy may not apply to her at the moment, she does imply that her friendships were formed some time ago, and remain intact throughout her kindergarten year (i.e., …I already have lots of friends but I guess it would happen often). Notions around how relationships are formed and have been sustained are evident through both Celine and Renee’s representations. This provides

171

evidence of socially competent children working and living together in the preschool classroom.

Using Beatrix’s 20 questions (see Plate 4.1) as an indicator of interest from all children about friends, I met with her to further discuss the questions she had proposed and why they might be of interest to her. In this conversation, she also highlighted the idea of fun and getting along together. This appears to support the notions of friendships that Renee and Celine had also shared.

DH: Beatrix, I noticed you wanted to ask, “Who is your best friend?” Why is it important to have a best friend at school? Beatrix: Then you won’t be lonely. And you can play with them. DH: Is there anything else you can do with a best friend? Beatrix: Oh yes! You can have fun. DH: Why is it important to have fun at school? Beatrix: Because then you will have lots of friends. DH: What sort of things do you do when you have fun? Beatrix: Can play with our friends. DH: You have a question about friends being nice. What is important about friends being nice to you? Beatrix: Well…if they are not nice, then the teacher will scold my friends and if they scold my friends it will cause more trouble. DH: How do you feel when the teacher scolds your friends? Beatrix: Sad.

The reports shared by the children above, were fairly typical of the preschool activities I observed in Centre A over the school year. Upon examining the children’s standpoints on work and play, and how they viewed friendships and their association with fun and happiness, I wondered how relationships occurred when children were engaged in

‘work’. The selection of working partners for the various projects that occurred in the classroom seemed more serious (e.g., through the negotiation skills used; the allocation of roles and responsibilities) than the friendships observed at play. This observation led

172

to an exploration of project groupings. When discussing curriculum choices, these children said that sometimes Teacher A chose the groups (reported in a previous conversation with Renee on p. 155), and sometimes they said that they made the decisions, as Renee and Celine describe below.

DH: Renee, how are those (project) groups decided on? Renee: We all decided. DH: So how do you decide which group to work in? Renee: Mmm…me and Natasha decided to work together on the Building Project. DH: How did you decide to work with Natasha? Renee: Because we both like the same things. Celine: I decided on the Great Wall of China would be best. DH: And why did you decide on that topic? Celine: Coz it’s the longest of all and three more people wanted to join. I drew the picture first, then they came over because they liked the idea. DH: So you drew the design and the others decided that they wanted to work with you? Celine: Yes. DH: And were you happy about the people who decided to work in your group? Celine: Yes. The people were Jeannie, Rickson, Clare, me. There were four persons. DH: And how did you get along as a group? Celine: Well…we discussed about stuff that we know and how to build the Great Wall of China and what we need to find out about that. DH: So, you did lots of discussions on how you might build the Great Wall of China. So, did everyone get along? Did you have any problems? Celine: No. Not really. DH: That’s great. Was there a leader in the group or was everyone equal? Celine: Yes. Rickson was. DH: How did you choose him? Celine: Everybody chose him. DH: Why did you choose Rickson? Celine: (Teacher A) said we had to have a leader, so we chose him. Rickson. DH: And what does a leader have to do? Celine: Decide some things and stuff like that.

173

Celine’s reason for working with a group was defined a little differently to Renee’s, but the association still emerged as being based on a common interest. It also involved the democratic election of a leader. These types of negotiation skills and decision-making efforts indicated a high level of social competence.

In a reflective conversation, Teacher A shared her thoughts with me regarding empowering children to make choices about who to work with in project groups. She was concerned about a group of four children, Renee and Natasha being two of the children, who, when working with others, tended to do most of the work for the whole group. She decided to put these four children together on a project (the Building

Project), based on their advanced competencies in drawing and mapping, and their precocity, to see how they would work together socially. She stated that this was the first time she had chosen for the children, as project groups were typically self-selected, as had been suggested by Renee. A noteworthy point here was that Renee saw this particular project group, again as her own choice, yet Teacher A saw it as a teacher decision.

In reflecting on the Teacher A’s advanced (in the Singapore context) academic qualifications and her experiential background in working with children on long term projects, I had observed her skill at knowing when and how to provide an appropriate environment in which ‘planned’ grouping choices could occur. She had carefully considered many aspects of the children’s engagement with the curriculum, and had acknowledged the importance of social competence as an outcome of children working together. Her decision-making as the educator still provided opportunities for the

174

children in her class to feel they have a role to play in constructing their social learning environment.

The children at Centre B were also indicating similar views on how working relationships were formed. What was thought provoking in this particular conversation was the commitment to negotiating the group work in the context. Alan indicates that his team discusses things so that the group can get their work done in order to move on to other non-work activities.

DH: How did the four of you decide to work together? Benjamin: I had the idea about grasshoppers, then Jeslin and Yoh Joh also wanted to work on grasshoppers. DH: Why did you choose grasshoppers? Benjamin: Well, I already knew about grasshoppers and I liked the way they jumped. DH: What is it like working together with these friends? Alan: I like the way we discuss things. Because if you don’t discuss things first then it’s just fight, fight, fight. You see if you work together with others you can work faster and you can do other things except work. That makes me happy.

This exchange of ideas was at the beginning of what was to be 75 minutes of constant negotiation and problem solving between the children on their project work. Ideas were promoted and either rejected or agreed upon (Since Alan can do good writing, he can do that bit.). Conflicts were aired and generally amicably resolved without adult intervention (Look, I always have to do this. I think it’s your turn now. OK?). Time limits for using resources were negotiated (You can have the scotch tape to get four pieces then she must have it.). Help or assistance was sought from work partners (Maybe when you have finished that bit you can help me?) and from the adults present (Deborah, this is so difficult, could you help me.). There was one 15 minute break following 75

175

minutes of intense project work. Teacher BE told the children to go to the toilet, have some water, read or rest, then there was to be a group sharing session on their project work so far.

Summary

In the episodes described above, it was evident that both groups of children viewed friendship as an integral part of enjoying life at preschool. These relationships (and while some were observed to not be close or particularly intimate) appeared to give the children an opportunity to develop the skills used in sustaining relationships (e.g., conflict resolution, turn taking, problem solving). These skills were then transferred to the more intense working relationships that developed around intellectual interests, when

‘minds-on’ work was required in project groups. The children at Centre B needed to be competent in engaging in sustained working encounters for long periods of time, every day. While there appeared to be little opportunity to develop friendships through play, their solidarity with each other to keep to the tasks at hand (e.g., through discussion and problem solving) had many elements of mature working relationships. The children at

Centre A were offered extended periods of time to engage in play, yet play partners were not necessarily those with whom the children worked on with projects. Shared interest was the primary criteria in making decisions about project work groupings, with a little support from the teacher.

As the end of the kindergarten year drew to a close, these children anticipated experiencing a new social environment. With the impending move to Primary One for all 25 children, my conversations with them and their teachers revealed that almost all of

176

the children would become separated. There was not a culture of feeder schools (i.e., the preschool serving one or two primary schools), and these children would be attending 20 different schools. Many of these children had been together for four, even five years. I felt sad for the children that these strong relationships would possibly not be sustained as they moved on to primary school. Renee shared her feelings about friends and the prospect of a new environment.

Renee: Did you know that in Primary One there are 40 children in the class. That’s a lot. DH: Is that a good number? Renee: I don’t know. If there are too many… DH: What would happen if there are too many? Renee: I would feel nervous. DH: Why is that? Renee: I don’t know. My parents are also not there so I would feel lonely. DH: What would you do to make yourself feel not so lonely? Renee: Make friends. DH: How would you do that? Renee: Oh, find someone new. DH: What would you say to them? Renee: Oh, I don’t know. DH: Would you say, “Hello, my name is Renee?” Renee: No, I don’t think so. DH: Well, what would you say? Renee: I don’t know. I would just have to wait and see. DH: Oh, it depends on the situation? Renee: Of course.

The children’s summaries: A good school and a bad school

For these young children, the quality of a school had many elements. This chapter has examined the provocations offered by the children around four themes that were raised through their lists of questions: the teacher, the school, learning, and friends. The evidence provided here contributes to analysis of life at preschool from the child’s

177

standpoint. As students attending preschool in Singapore, these young children were confronted with rigorous curricula around project work which, for some, was balanced with other aspects of childhood, such as play and having fun with friends. For others it appeared a more arduous undertaking, with a stronger focus on “work”, perhaps in preparation of what may lie ahead at Primary School. In order to draw the research to a close, the children were invited to contribute a final piece of documentation that offered their opinions on a good school and a bad school.

The children offered their opinions and ideas, in an aspirational sense, about what a good school should be. Many of the children’s drawings and narratives reveal something of their own experiences of preschool. The two examples shown below appear to indicate a relationship between the children’s criteria for a good school and that which they attended. These children seem to be suggesting that the preschool that they encountered, on a daily basis, was really just the right kind of school. Alan (see Plate

4.22), who struggled with the rigours of preschool life, had put the name of the preschool he attended on his drawing of a good school and wrote: I love my school.

178

Plate 4.28 Alan’s drawing and narrative of a good school

Did you know that God is a strong tower to protect you? If not then later dangerous things and if you don’t know God nobody will help you. A good school knows God. Now, when the sun comes out you can tell the teacher you want to go out to play. You would have lots of friends in school who play with you. If you don’t have friends then you would have to play by yourself then it is boring and if you don’t ever have friends it would be boring forever. A good school has lots of friends. The teacher is good because she teaches you a lot of things that are good, like manners…and Jesus.

179

Plate 4.29 Julia’s drawing and narrative of a good school

God makes a good school and if you don’t learn about God, next time you will be the devil. You must study good things like how an insect’s body looks like and go to church for Children’s Day. You must learn about rules like if you run you will fall down and if you talk you will interrupt. You can perform and you can act out how to be animals and a lot of other things. Your teacher must bring you out to study like all the different kinds of trees. If you don’t go out then next time you won’t know about trees. You need to eat healthy things like vegetables, because if you don’t the children won’t grow. It is good to have Chinese class so that you can write Chinese because next time you wouldn’t know how to speak and write Chinese. If you can’t then the children wouldn’t be able to go to China.

Julia has also identified her own school and writes: This is our school. It is a good school. Because you can learn about God. The things she spoke about her drawing were representative of the things I had observed the children doing over the year I spent with

180

them. Julia’s ideas about what makes a good school appear to underscore her own experiences in preschool, and it could be that she sees it as being of good quality.

Amanda (see Plate 4.29) at Centre A has also referenced a good school to her own experiences, but has acknowledged the relative ‘freedom’ these children had to engage in play.

The children had also been able to construct an image of a school that was not very good. Renee’s view of a bad school was quite striking with its focus on the curriculum.

It would be a place Where they teach you things you already know (reported on p. 123).

She was not the only child to forward this opinion. Li Bing, Beatrix, and Alan have made reference to the same notion (see Plates 4.30, 4.31, 4.32). As they describe a bad school through their drawings and narratives, these children have also referred to the range of issues previously discussed in this chapter. The opposite notions that support the children’s criteria for a good school (e.g., you must do work at school to learn; that play should not be the focus; the teacher should be kind; children should be included in decisions; and children need friends) are reported in the narratives below.

181

Plate 4.29 Amanda’s drawing and narrative of a good school

This is a good school because the teachers are very friendly and you must learn Chinese and English and Maths and Arts and making things. Making dolls, painting, playing paper dolls, making paper flowers, playing outdoors, games and construction. You could even make posters.

182

Plate 4.30 Li Bing’s drawing and narrative about a bad school

Well, there would be no playing. Everybody would know everything and the teacher doesn’t give any homework then you cannot improve your English. The children wouldn’t know anything when they went back home. This would be bad.

183

Plate 4.31 Beatrix’s drawing and narrative about a bad school

In a bad school children quarrel over the toys. The teacher is teaching bad things, like stuff the children can do. The teacher bullies the children and sometimes she kicks them. They have bad lessons like playing because you just don’t get to learn anything by playing. The teacher only decorates the classroom by herself. She never asks the children to help. The teacher also didn’t get the children to do homework because if you don’t do homework you just won’t learn. And they play the whole day. That’s a bad school to go to.

184

Plate 4.32 Alan’s drawing and narrative about a bad school

The school is very dirty. The children cannot change even or shower even so they have to wear the same shirt every time. The playground was one time very nice but now it is crumpled because they crumpled it. The teacher cannot go in because it is very scary, so the children have no lessons, so everyday go to playground. Children don’t do anything lah, everyday they come to school play, play, play in the playground then go home. No need to shower. They don’t think of shower just think of play, play, play. The children are allowed to climb on the school and the teacher would not scold them. They cannot draw, everyday they sit (if they don’t want to go to the playground) with their arms crossed and look around. They can’t do projects either. And there are no tables and chairs. If the teacher teaches it is just boring stuff. The children would know all the stuff. These are schools for bad boys, no girls. Girls cannot go in. Girls would just run away when they see all the bad boys.

The children’s views of their preschool experiences appear as a serious consideration on quality, given their capabilities to articulate and elucidate their understandings of that which happens in their everyday lives. They tell of being actors, not spectators, in the context in which they spend a great deal of time. There are many “emotionally interesting” (Giudici, Rinaldi, & Krechevsky, 2001, p. 102) standpoints in the children’s representations, places requiring reflection, particularly on the relationship between

185

children and teachers. Their opinions on relationships with peers and their teachers are profound. Their understanding of the curriculum, and the distinct dichotomy raised by the children between work (including homework) and play, invites us to rethink attitudes toward what teachers value (e.g., play) and how this might be interpreted by children and, possibly, their families. These children have challenged us to go beyond positioning young children as incapable of profound theory building, and prompt us to recognise their competencies as authorities on their own experiences. The following chapter will focus on the implications that can be drawn from the evidence presented in Chapter

Four.

In conclusion, Renee asked me to include the following photographs and comments at the end of what she called, When you have talked about the children’s stuff. We had spent some time reviewing the work samples, stories, and photographs during my last days at Centre A. As part of the ongoing affirmation of their participation in the research, I reminded the children regularly of what I might do with all of the information

I had collected for my project. I told Renee that some of the people who might see and hear her ideas do not live in Singapore. She felt it would be appropriate to show the following photos, which were taken around the time of National Day (9th August).

186

Plate 4.23 Renee’s photographs of her school

I am proud to be Singaporean but I am also proud of our school. See it’s very nice. We have lots of books where you can get information. People should know that about our school. (Still photographs taken by Renee, August 30, 2002)

187

Chapter Five: The findings, implications, and conclusions

Introduction

This study has explored the criteria for identifying quality in early childhood services generated by a group of five- and six- year old children in Singapore. Based on the mandates for respecting young children’s views under the principles of the UNCROC

(1989) document, and informed by a new sociology of childhood as discussed in

Chapter Two (e.g., Mayall, 2002), young children in this study are acknowledged as both provocateurs and contributors to the examination of issues around quality in early childhood services. The study has addressed the research question, What aspects of preschool are seen as important to young children, and what do their accounts tell us about quality in early childhood services in Singapore? In addition, it established a platform for the inclusion of young children’s views, beyond those used traditionally in the adult-generated measures of quality.

Following a review of the scholarly literature on quality in early childhood services in

Chapter Two, the contemporary landscape of early childhood education both in

Singapore and beyond was examined. Particular emphasis was given to issues of the measurement, or indicators, of quality. It was argued that a critical gap existed in the discussion of quality in early childhood education and care which precluded young children’s views in relation to the quality of their early childhood settings. It was noted that young children were beginning to be acknowledged as research participants, through studies such as those undertaken by Clark (2004), Einarsdottir (2005), Farrell et al. (2002), James (2005), and Thorpe et al. (2005). Such research on children’s views is

188

framed by the adult-child relations and by the decision-making processes in early childhood settings. While some of these studies have resulted in affirmative action such as the design of outdoor play areas (Clark, 2004) and policy change (Thorpe, et al.,

2005), evidence is yet to emerge that young children’s views are being acted upon more widely. In addition, what previous approaches to quality measurement proposing the child standpoint (e.g., Katz, 1993; Carr, May, & Podmore, 2002) failed to offer was the criterion for which we may measure quality from the child’s standpoint, using actual accounts offered by young children. That is, the child perspective had been taken, as in

Katz’s “bottom-up” perspective (1992, p. 68), but there was a lack of evidence that such a perspective was provided by young children themselves.

The current study, therefore, generated young children’s views on quality, from their own standpoint, as active participants in early childhood services. Their views serve to shed light on the on-going consideration of quality.

Several key assumptions framed this research. The study was underpinned by the

UNCROC (1989) which articulates young children’s right to have their views heard and acted upon. The study also recognised that young children are competent thinkers and communicators, capable of making persuasive contributions to adult knowledge

(Edwards, Gandini, & Forman, 1998; Harcourt & Conroy, 2005; Langstead, 1994), and whose opinions are worthy of debate and discussion (Clark, 2001, 2004, 2005a). The research also assumed that early childhood settings are naturalistic everyday spaces in which to work with young children. Thus, in order to work alongside children in studies that endeavour to explore aspects of their everyday lives, such as that of attending

189

preschool, it is imperative that children are seen as competent contributors and that the context in which the study is conducted is familiar to them.

The context in which this study was undertaken has been explained, with detailed information on the sites and participants. The ethnographic approaches to data collection and analysis, building on the mosaic approach (Clark & Moss, 2001) have been discussed. As noted in Chapter Three, the body of data was generated and analysed with

25 children over one school year. Four main protagonists, Renee, Beatrix, Celine, and

Alan led much of the discussion in Chapter Four, which was complemented by the views of other children. Their conversations, drawings, writings, and photography, demonstrate that young children’s accounts of their preschool experience are, in fact, legitimate representations of their experience. The children’s representational competence, particularly as drawers and writers, provided a faithful record of the children’s ideas and reduced the likelihood of the data being mis-interpreted or over- interpreted by the adult researcher (Dockrell, Lewis, & Lindsay, 2000).

Four major themes emerged from the data: the teacher, the school, learning, and friends.

The key findings from each of these themes are discussed, in turn, in this chapter.

Examples of the multiple literacies and representational tools the children used to express their views on the quality of preschool life are considered, using each theme as an organising frame. Anning, Cullen, and Fleer (2004) cautioned that there is no decisive formula for determining quality provision in early childhood services. Smith,

Grima, Gaffney, Powell, Masse, and Barnett (2000) also remind that, when deliberating quality, “…good things go together” (p. 49). The children in this study have taken a

190

similar position by demonstrating that there is not an isolated or single indicator of quality, but rather a series of ‘good things’ that interrelate to describe a good school.

While the children explored a range of topics, the data set generated the four inter- related themes.

Using these collaboratively-designated themes, this chapter discusses the findings, and the implications for practice and further study. In addition, this chapter introduces ways of including young children’s opinions in respectful and meaningful ways, so as to impact on the “critical conversations” in early childhood as discussed by Cook-Sather

(2002, p. 3). Descriptions of quality were, therefore, proposed through a series of questions that were co-constructed between the children and myself as researcher. This process can be seen to support the democratic ecology of doing research with children, rather than doing it on children (Pence & Brenner, 2000).

In Chapter Four, it is the teacher who is the pivotal link between the children and their learning and living environments in preschool. As Siraj-Blatchford (2004) suggested, the teacher plays a seminal role in children’s experiences of the early childhood service. On this premise is the ensuing discussion of the theme “the teacher”.

The teacher

The key findings emerging from the children’s representations being reported here are based on both the frequency in which they arose and those which then generated the

191

most rigorous discussion between the research participants. Within the theme of the teacher, these findings can be summarised as:

• Some children expressed fear of teachers

• Children sought ‘kind’ teachers who established positive relationships with them

• Children identified boundaries of acceptable teacher behaviour

• Some children indicated that the right kind of teacher is one who listens to

children

• Teachers can provide children with a sense of security using both verbal and

non-verbal communication

• It can be inferred that children should have the power to make some of the

curriculum decisions based on what they already know

• Children suggested that engagement with the curriculum should be a shared

responsibility between teachers and children

Two aspects of quality within the theme of the teacher were identified by the children - personal relationships and the teaching/learning relationship. The first aspect related to the more personal relationship between the children and the teacher. The children’s representations generated many “emotionally interesting” (Guidici, Rinaldi, &

Krechevsky, 2001, p. 102) moments. Australian researchers Dockett and Perry (2003) and Singapore’s Yeo and Clarke (2005) have referred to the importance of sensitive relationships between young children and their teachers. Of particular interest to the current study, Yeo and Clarke (2005) identified young children (making the transition from preschool to Primary One in Singapore) who reported experiencing fear of being

192

scolded by their (new) teachers. The children in the current study drew on their own past experiences (i.e., both personal and those witnessed) of being scolded by teachers (and principals) which, in turn, resulted in their being scared and/or reduced to tears. Christel reported that an angry teacher who is mad with a child diminishes them to a state of anxiety and fear (…you would cry and feel scared). Li Bing asked a question that involved finding out if children were caned by the principal, which clearly shocked the child respondent, Alan (No! Why would she do that?). Celine asked, Is your prinsaple

(sic) fierce to you? and proposed that, … if the teachers are very angry, it would not be good. Almost unanimously, Is your teacher kind to you? was a refrain heard from the children when posing questions around a good school, in terms of the way teachers responded to young children.

The children acknowledged the authoritative position the teacher holds, with the responsibility of ensuring the children stay within acceptable boundaries of behaviour, such as listening to each other and the teacher, and not disturbing others. These boundaries may well provide the children with a sense of security. For example, according to Renee, younger children would settle into preschool life more readily if the teacher takes control, and allows the classroom to operate in a harmonious manner.

Renee’s illustrated narrative of a classroom that is in disarray (see Plate 4.3) gives a clear indication of what the alternative might be (e.g., quarrelling children and a teacher in the passive role). The children clearly look to the teacher to take an appropriate authoritative role in classroom life.

193

The children demonstrated an understanding of where the boundaries of acceptable teacher behaviour. They drew the line at young children being shouted at or intimidated by a ‘fierce’ demeanor. In a range of opinions offered by the children, using ‘scolding’ as a means of guiding young children’s behaviour should not be an everyday occurrence and, if it is, the children indicated that this is inappropriate. Their idea of the right kind of teacher was one who supports the children’s developing social competence by providing clear boundaries and using a sensitive approach to guiding behaviour; being firm when necessary but also offering words of encouragement (e.g., They could say,

“Good job”), being benevolent (e.g., … she could say something kind as well) and giving non-verbal acknowledgement (e.g., Well, they could just smile at you).

The UNCROC (1989) mandates that young children have the right to be treated with dignity and respect. Practitioners who value children’s emotional wellbeing, in relationships with both adults and children, can offer young children the potential to thrive in a safe and secure social and intellectual environment. Threatening teacher behaviours, such as those identified by the children as using a loud voice or demeaning words, were seen by children to undermine children’s abilities to function with any semblance of security.

The second aspect discussed by the children, within the theme of “the teacher”, related to the teaching/learning relationship. According to the children, the right kind of teacher was also one who listens to children and, wherever possible as Alan suggested, give children the power to make some decisions about of the curriculum … ideas and stuff. It can be argued that children being acknowledged as co-contributors to classroom life,

194

guided by the more extensive experience and knowledge of the teacher, and the provocations offered by the children themselves, contribute to the backdrop for a high quality learning environment. From a socio-cultural standpoint, such as that proposed by

Wenger (1998), such conditions are characteristic of a community of learners.

Renee’s notion of a bad school being a place where they teach you things you already know underscores the importance of recognising and catering for children’s current competence in planning future classroom experiences. Fisher (2002) referred early childhood practitioners to the importance of collecting historical knowledge of the child, as a beginning point in the teaching and learning cycle. The accounts of Renee and

Celine highlighted the importance of talking with the child and parents in order to find out what children already know, and/or to make observations of children at play,.

Podmore (2004) argued that quality curriculum planning can only be demonstrated when practitioners start from the children’s standpoints, a notion suggested by the girls.

Millikan (2003) identified such a stance as advocated in Reggio Emilia’s emergent curriculum.

The children in this study were actively engaged with the curriculum and many saw their engagement as a shared responsibility. While the children did not identify the teachers as co-learners, they did acknowledge the role teachers played in supporting learning.

Conversations that encouraged the generation of ideas and possibilities for further investigation or discussion can provide opportunities for children and teachers to work together. Teachers and children, who actively and genuinely listen to each other, establish the reciprocity needed to engage with the curriculum. Blasi (1996) suggested

195

that conversations such as these are ways of demonstrating to children that their contributions are acknowledged as being of value.

The cognitive conflicts, or intellectual arguments, that arise when working through new or challenging ideas, provide potential for both teacher (to learn about the child) and for the child (to learn about the concept under discussion) (Fleet, 2006). From a socio- cultural framework (see Anning, Cullen, & Fleer, 2004; Dahlberg, Moss, & Pence,

1999; Vygotsky, 1978) these kinds of mutually supportive relationships allow children to develop the competence necessary to function as both an individual and a group participant in the classroom’s learning and living community. These relationships also position the teacher as a contributor to “sustained shared thinking” (Siraj-Blatchford &

Sylva, 2004, p. 147) episodes, which are indicative of communities of learners working together in meaningful and thoughtful ways. By teaching young children things they already know, teachers may disregard their competence in being participants in shaping their own identity as learners, and may quell their interest in proactive engagement with the curriculum.

Prout and James (1997) proposed that children are capable of shaping their social identities when offered authentic opportunities to contribute to society. Rinaldi (2005a) asked for certain sensitivity toward the presence of children. In underestimating the repertoire of knowledge and experience that young children bring to the early childhood setting, some early childhood practitioners are shaping the child’s identity as a learner as one steeped in John Locke’s (1632-1704) tabula rasa; knowing nothing. By acknowledging the possibility that young children bring a body of knowledge and

196

experience to the early childhood setting, we begin to help them shape their learning identity by establishing a relationship with them that acknowledges their competence as co-contributors to the teaching/learning relationship. Central to this position is a respectful and sincere relationship that lays the foundation for learning in a secure and stable environment. Singaporean early childhood researcher Kwan (2000) noted that rich and extended relationships between the adult and child were absent in many

Singaporean settings. The children in the current study, however, identified a positive relationship between children and the teacher as an important consideration, and offered descriptions that should be included in any future discussion of what makes a good teacher.

The school

Hart, Iltus, and Beecher’s (in press) study focussed on a group of children, under the age of 9 years, in the design of a community garden on Long Island (Hunter’s Point). In an interview in relation to this work, Hart (Retrieved on 20 April, 2007 from http://www.licweb.com/hpcc/v4n1/roger.html) argued that, by giving children the right medium with which to work, they are given a voice. When young children engage with a medium with which they are familiar, and are articulate in using, the opportunity is provided for adults to be involved in a dialogue with children on their design work (such as the community garden design above). The children in the current study were provided with representational tools that they were both familiar with and, had demonstrated competence in using. This provided many of them with the occasion to propose ideas for

197

a new preschool environment. The key findings (again based on frequency and ensuing discussion) that emerged from the data in this theme were that:

• Preschool is a place for living and learning

• Children made links between the physical environment and learning potentials

• Children carefully considered design elements

• Children proposed ideas for ‘de-stressing’ the environment

• Children acknowledged the potential for the environment to speak to others of

the unique, not the generic

One of the established indicators of quality in early childhood settings has been to provide a stimulating physical environment (see Whitebook et al., 1990). While Kwan

(2000) found many Singaporean classrooms rated in the minimal standard provision, her findings appeared to focus on the relationship between the physical environment and learning outcomes for children (e.g., the impact of the environment on verbal fluency).

In the current study, the children made reference to the physical environment, raised here as the second theme for discussion entitled “the school”. What departed from

Kwan’s study was that the children raised the notion of the school being a place for both living and learning. Living, in the children’s experience, related to matters such as curtains for keeping the sun out of their eyes, having a comfortable and conducive place to rest, and promoting a sense of identity.

The children identified a number of factors relating to the physical environment of the school, some of which may be found in measurement instruments such as ECERS

198

(Harms & Clifford, 1980). Discussion covered resources and equipment for the support of learning (e.g., toys, books, and games) and learning areas (e.g., art area, library, and dramatic play). Many children made a link between the physical environment and learning potential. For example, Renee saw possibilities for children to engage with and explore art media, perhaps to become an artist one day. Both Renee and Julia, as had other children, highlighted the need for books, even difficult ones, which helped them to learn. Julia reported that games such as Monopoly support learning sequences and Hui

Min suggested work and play areas for projects. These connections demonstrate the children’s clear understanding of the physical environment as a teaching and learning context, one which they suggest should be well resourced.

In addition, children such as Renee, proposed design elements for the support of living in the centre (e.g., comfort in relation to space, furniture, and light). Some children took their ideas ‘outside of the box’, including the magical (e.g., doors that make wishes come true), the mystical (e.g., the sparkling angel wings), and the innovative (e.g.,

Japanese style of seating). The elements of surprise or fantasy offered by the children provide insight into their experiences of school life.

The children at Centre B reported a school life that was quite hectic and stressful where, in Alan’s words, …sometimes you can’t even have time to go to the toilet. It’s just non- stop work. So too, children offered ideas for an environment that helps them move away from some of the stresses they face, to one that offers opportunity for ‘other world’ experiences. While these ideas may be offered and received, with a sense of humour and the knowledge that perhaps some ideas (e.g., magic doors) are not really possible, it is

199

important to recognise that they may be offered to temper, or as a direct alternative, to that which is experienced.

In turn, practical life issues were identified by the children. Hui Min raised the important matter of young children being tired and needing an adequate and comfortable place of rest. Renee recommended that curtains be placed over the windows to keep the sun out of children’s eyes, telling us this was something children did not like. She also demonstrated the importance of having enough space to move around without bumping into friends, which included an appropriate space for computer work. Julia referred to the need for food for strength for mind and body. Perhaps these are not as carefully considered by the teachers, as learning environment matters, as being just as important to children as having enough toys and books. The issues of food, rest, and space, having been raised by the children themselves as helping to create a conducive living and learning environment, indicates young children’s competence in discussing design considerations.

Reminding the reader of Katz’s (2001) comments about ubiquitous and generic preschool environments, Renee’s proposed Japanese seating arrangements reveals something of her aspiration for the preschool setting to be unique, having distinctive elements which set it apart from others by not having traditional chairs and tables. This may tell something of her sense of a cultural or historical identity: perhaps a sense of community. Hui Min’s idea of giving more visibility to the inhabitants, something that denotes who belongs in the school or the classroom, demonstrates children’s understanding and desire for ownership and identity. Both Renee and Hui Min have

200

acknowledged the potential for the environment to speak to others about the idiosyncratic (not generic) life of the preschool. They seem to suggest that the physical space needs to be responsive and make connections to their everyday lives through their preschool life.

Learning

Another theme generated by the children related to issues around learning. The findings which will be reported on in this section are that:

• You don’t learn anything through play

• There is a tension between teacher’s and children’s views on how children learn

• Learning is hard work, sometimes stressful and often sustained over long periods

• For some children, learning can sometimes be incomplete when curriculum

decisions are solely at the teacher’s discretion

Two key themes recurred within this data set that can substantiate the usefulness of the child standpoint in discussions around children and childhood, as proposed by Mayall

(2000) in her work on the new sociology of childhood. Firstly, from the children’s standpoint there appeared a repeated view that they did not learn anything through play

(e.g., Look, you will never learn anything if you just go to the playground. You will only think about playing and never think about anything else). This was in direct contrast to the standpoint of the adults involved, in terms of the curriculum’s intention to promote learning through play (e.g., I am disappointed he said that. I have spent so much time talking to the children about what they learn [in play]). Secondly, many of the children,

201

particularly at Centre B, saw learning as hard work, stressful, and all consuming (e.g.,

Well, it’s just non-stop when you come to school. Always busy). These children’s days were filled with a focus on sustained and intense academic work. This provides evidence of the disjunctions suggested in Chapter Three by Smith (1988) and Mayall (2000).

When the child standpoint was situated side by side with the adult position, a difference in understanding was highlighted between what adults took to be the children’s play experiences, and that which was being reported by children themselves. This apparent dichotomy raised by the children in relation to work and play is not an unusual one.

Zhang and Sigel (1994) noted that the Chinese children in their study stressed the importance of academic learning. Research by Thorpe et al. (2005) also suggested that

Australian children identified a distinction between work and play. While not directly established by the current research, it could be said that that the children in all of these studies may reflect the broader community’s distinction between work and play, and the perceived role of educational facilities as sites primarily for academic learning.

When examining the children’s representations and discussions on work and play, both

Teachers A and BE, and Centre B’s Principal, were disturbed by the children’s lack of acknowledgement of play as a context for learning. This exemplifies the notion of adult and child standpoints not necessarily being aligned. Teacher A suggested she had spent considerable time working with the children on the purpose and meaning of the learning corners, where the children were allocated ‘play-time’. The principal of Centre B, who equated project work with playing, suggested the centre would have to do more work on the value of play with the children. However, when the children were invited to structure their days into what they felt was an appropriate division of time, they suggested some

202

time should be allocated to play. Many children looked upon play as an important element to a child’s day at preschool, which could (and should) be balanced with ‘work’

(see Plates 4.22-4.25). The children at Centre A appeared to enjoy the time spent engaging with project work as well as the time spent in the learning corners (e.g., dress ups) and outdoors. They proposed, however, that there was very little that was learned through play in learning corners or the outdoors. The children at Centre B (except for

Benjamin) were more adamant than the children at Centre A that play was of no use.

Commonly expressed comments were, When you play you won’t learn anything and,

Play is not important, it is not good. If the teachers were planning curriculum outcomes linked to play (e.g., learning corners; outdoor play) in addition to other aspects of the curriculum (i.e., project work), then they would be seen to be effectively meeting their curriculum objectives. How this is considered in light of the children’s understandings of play, within the framework of ‘learning’, is something that is worthy of further consideration.

Another consideration, particularly in the Singaporean context, is the general community perception of play and play’s relevance to educational outcomes for young children. As has been highlighted in previous chapters, the children themselves may be reflecting the views of their family (e.g., see Table 1) and community in relation to the value and importance placed on play. It has been suggested in Chapter Two that children’s learning and development should be placed within local goals and valued skills. Taking this position, in turn, provides opportunities for multiple pathways for learning and development to occur. Unfortunately, as has been indicated above, the tension between what many in the early childhood pedagogical community believe is in the best interests

203

of the child (i.e., play as the primary learning tool), and what the broader community believes (i.e., a focus on the acquisition of academic skill and knowledge), continues.

The point to consider here is how the two seemingly dissonant standpoints can be supported as being different views on the same phenomenon. The children in the current study acknowledged the dichotomy between work and play and are, themselves, imbued with the values and belief systems held by family and community members. Vygotsky’s

(1978) notion of transaction and transformation of ideas requires adults to engage children in collaborative dialogues, and engage with each other in pursuit of understandings (i.e., intersubjectivity) of the pedagogical and community notions of learning and development. It could be therefore suggested that perhaps “play” is not an accurate term to describe the activity being referred to. It may be that ‘hands-on’ or

‘active learning’ might be more appropriate terminology in this context and while this is speculative, it is likely to have been supported by teachers’ impressions of parents’ views.

The second aspect the children raised in relation to learning was the intensity of a preschool day. From the children’s representations and my observations, Centre B’s curriculum appeared to be very demanding of the children. The children engaged in long periods of teacher-led discussion, followed by sustained project work in smaller groups and with limited resources. The topics of investigation were generated by the teacher, with little initial decision-making from the children. The timetable offered large blocks of time for projects, yet designated time for sustained play was not evident.

204

Centre A’s curriculum also centred on project work and the children appeared to have some ownership over what was to be investigated, with the teachers giving consideration to equity in decision-making. Centre A’s timetable allowed for designated periods for play in learning corners and, while evidently enjoyed by the children, these were seen as distinct from the ‘learning’ curriculum.

Some of the Centre B children also explored the idea of a sense of incompleteness, or an unsatisfactory ending to a previous unit of work. As a new provocation for learning was offered to the children by Teacher BE, there was obvious dissention as to the direction of the learning. Some of the children felt the need to continue with the previous topic on

‘Insects’, while others were not interested in the current proposal on ‘Travelling’; rather, wanting to examine other topics of their choice. The previous topic had been drawn to a close because it was the end of term and the new term demanded a new topic of investigation. However, according to the notion Alan put forward earlier of children having the power, the pedagogical practice of listening to children with authenticity appeared to be absent in this classroom. If, as Katz (1992) suggested, preschool is to be measured by the child’s standpoint of what is a satisfactory experience, it would appear that the children have indicated certain dissatisfaction with the curriculum. They have sought a voice in the negotiation of the curriculum.

Generating curriculum based on the children’s interest and ideas requires the teacher to allow for flexibility and multiple pathways for learning. Alan’s ideas of children being involved in genuine opportunities to be decision-makers and contributors to the learning curriculum, is consistent with the pursuit of agency for children. As was evident at

205

Centre A, the children were invited to be active participants in many aspects of the learning curriculum and appeared to have a positive attitude toward the ‘working’ life of preschool. This may be as a result of Teacher A’s knowledge and skills about young children’s learning and development acquired through her early childhood training and, her experience of early childhood settings outside of Singapore. This assumption may well support studies that conclude that teacher qualifications are important predicators for positive classroom dynamics and child outcomes (e.g., Fan-Eng & Sharpe, 2000).

In light of the previous discussion of “the teacher”, teacher qualifications have been linked to the type of interactions reported between teachers and children. In addition,

Rodd and Savage (1997) identified the issue of early childhood teacher education as being given the highest priority in many countries. While the Singaporean authorities have been moving toward raising the qualification benchmark since late 2000, concerns must still be raised in 2007. Of particular issue are low entry levels (3 or 5 Ordinary

Levels: three or five Year 10 subject passes), and the length of study required in obtaining a qualification (e.g., the Diploma of Preschool Education - Teaching level remains at 700 hours). The current study points to the need for further research around what happens in a classroom and the training and experience of the teacher. Future studies in Singapore may focus on establishing a stronger link between entry requirements, length and rigour of teacher education programs, and the ability for early childhood teachers to provide high quality learning environments for young children based on sensitive relationships.

206

Friends

The fourth and final theme for critical reflection in the study is that of “friends”. While the discussions on this theme between the children and myself did not generate as much data as other themes, it is worthy to highlight the key discussion points. The findings indicate that:

• Friends make preschool interesting and enjoyable

• Friendships are made via play

• Sustained friendships enabled small groups of children to work over long periods

of time on ‘work’

• There was evidence of high level co-operation and collaboration with the

emergence of leadership and active team membership

The research conversations, representations, and observations pointed to two elements within the theme: playmates and workmates. Firstly, there were friendships that were made via play, sometimes without even knowing you had made a friend! Friends were seen as people with whom children had fun and who made life at preschool more interesting and enjoyable. Having friends meant that children would not be lonely and, friends were empathetic when you were in trouble with the teachers. Friends were reported by children as people admired for their beauty and for the support they gave.

These sentiments were evident from the children at Centre A. The children in Centre B were just as enthusiastic about friendships; particularly in the sense of friends making preschool more interesting (It would be boring without any friends).

207

Secondly, it appeared that friendships, often sustained over several years, made it possible for small groups of children being able to engage in rigorous ‘work’ for long periods of time. The children at Centre A not only worked in self-selected project groups

(most of the time) but also had the opportunity to elect a project leader who was seen to have the skills to keep the group on track. The children at Centre B demonstrated a high level of co-operation and collaboration in what were extended periods of time, on a daily basis, devoted to working together in small project interest groups. These working partnerships of friends were evident in both centres as serious intellectual endeavours.

These collaborations and co-operatives allowed for friendships to further develop and the acceptance of emerging leadership and active team membership as children worked together.

The examination and discussion of the four themes generated by this research have provided evidence of the competence these children in Singapore. It has been shown that these children were able to raise and articulate their views about a range of issues pertaining to indicators of quality. This has given adults a unique opportunity to hear the child standpoint on an aspect of young children’s lives (attending preschool) that has become a rite of passage for most children in developed countries. The evidence provided, thus far, leads logically to a series of implications for those who work with young children.

208

Implications

It has been proposed in this study that a high quality early childhood setting is one where the rights and responsibilities of young children as participatory members of a preschool community are both respected and supported. This notion has been evident in the views that have been offered by the young children attending two preschools in Singapore. The implications for the early childhood community in Singapore, and beyond, will be discussed in this section, and can be summarised as:

The teacher:

• Teachers are key players in promoting the rights and responsibilities of children

in early childhood settings

• There are social justice issues in Singapore for teachers in terms of the

establishment of sensitive relationships with children

• A teacher’s sound understanding of how young children learn and develop and

who possess the confidence to support children’s agency is pivotal to a

meaningful preschool experience

The school:

• A high quality early childhood environment is one where children live and learn

• Belonging and ownership are important considerations for young children

Learning:

• Children should be offered opportunities for exercising agency in curriculum

decision-making

209

Friends:

• Children should be offered opportunities to engage in relationships with other

children and adults, over time

Children in research:

• The image of the child should inform the design and development of the research

enterprise

• The research should be conducted over a longer period of time

• A particular emphasis on the notion of “child-friendly” research tools is

unnecessary

The teacher

The teacher has arguably been considered as central to the examination of young children’s rights and responsibilities. Early childhood practitioners have been seen to view their relationships and interactions with young children as crucial to effective pedagogical practice. The children in this study, in turn, have repeatedly focused on the way they are treated by the teacher, highlighting both positive and negative aspects. It has been established that teacher sensitivity is required to develop relationships that are based on mutual respect and equity.

The social justice implications for Singapore are compelling. Both the current study and that of Yeo and Clarke (2005) have reported children’s apparent fear of being punished by their teachers. While this may not be unique to Singapore, it points to an issue that is both relevant to, and has been raised in, this particular context. It is broadly accepted

210

that the social or interactional context as well as the physical environment is important in supporting young children’s learning. Practitioners in Singapore can be reminded that what the adult says and does in relation to the child can have a significant impact on the child as a learner. Interactions and relationships between adults and children are relevant irrespective of the age group of the children. Expectations for classroom interactions can be negotiated and agreed upon, particularly between the teachers and the children. Some educators may need to focus on developing skills around building, refining, and supporting young children’s social competence, rather than resorting to punitive guidance strategies as reported by the children.

A high quality early childhood programme is designed and implemented by a teacher who has the skills and knowledge to enter into a learning partnership with the children.

A sound understanding of how young children learn and develop and the confidence to support children’s agency in the classroom seem pivotal to a meaningful preschool experience for young children. There is some evidence in this study to suggest that a teacher’s working experience alone (e.g., Teacher BE and Teacher BC had 15 years experience each) is not an indicator that the programme will be a satisfactory experience for young children. Howes (1997) suggested that research indicated that the level and standard of teacher training is an important predictor of involved, sensitive teacher-child interactions. The teacher in this study with the university education in early childhood, plus the commitment to post graduate studies and many years of experience, had been able to work in a programme characterised by intellectual vitality, a sense of community and meaningful relationships. The current study provided an opportunity to further

211

develop understandings about young children, early childhood educators, and early childhood pedagogical practice.

School

A high quality early childhood environment also takes into account that young children not only learn in preschool, but they spend a great deal of time living in preschool.

Human activities such as eating, toileting, washing, and sleeping all occur in this context, alongside the more formal engagement with a curriculum. The children highlighted the importance of the living environment, even to the fine detail concerning the discomfort of glare. In high quality early childhood settings, educators are aware of young children’s comfort in a physically amenable setting. This may include attention to matters such as adequate bedding, an environment that is conducive to rest, and the time to do so.

Children also commented on the aesthetics of the setting, providing suggestions on design elements that set their preschool apart from others. Some children suggested environmental elements that denote the inhabitants of the particular space and make it unique, alongside those which support learning. High quality early childhood settings can make a statement about belonging and ownership. They situate the setting within its cultural and historical context, reflecting the lives of those who attend the service.

Learning

The children in this study appear to reiterate the value of academic ‘work’ in preschool.

This study does not propose that familial and societal values in relation to early

212

childhood education in Singapore are misinformed or misplaced. Both the scholarly literature which has been examined, and the opinions of the educators involved in this study, promote play as a critical context for learning. It has also been proposed that young children are sophisticated thinkers and communicators, being able to make or contribute to decisions about curriculum. High quality early childhood education should provide children with opportunities to develop and refine their critical thinking skills.

Being active co-contributors and co-constructors of the learning curriculum, for example, allows children to begin to set the pace of what is to be learned and how that learning may unfold. Smith et al. (2000) stated that children’s standpoints were vital to the teaching and learning process. Offering children agency in what drives the learning curriculum is an essential ingredient in helping children become “sophisticated judges”

(Funder, 1996, p.165) of their own and others’ ideas.

Friends

Building friendships has been noted by the children in this study as occurring through spontaneous play contexts. In a high quality early childhood program, young children have opportunity to live as participating and contributing members of the preschool community. A high quality early childhood program will focus on the provision of opportunities for young children to develop and sustain relationships with a broad cross- section of their preschool community. Some of the children indicated that play time enabled friendships. These play relationships can then be applied to a more intellectual relationship, which is necessary when one works on investigations, as has been evident in the project work. Authentic working relationships can be established by young children who, in this study, have demonstrated the capacity to make decisions and

213

monitor their long term commitment to a unit of study. In high quality early childhood programmes, educators can provide children with opportunities to develop the skills and competence to take control of their learning in ways that promote collaboration, commitment, and continuity.

Children in research

The study has also considered methodologies and methodological approaches to research with young children. It is important to reflect on how children and childhood were being viewed in this research study. The image of the child can be identified through choice of topic and the nature and design of the methodology and as well as the active engagement of the participants (Robinson & Kellet, 2004). This study included young children in the conversation around quality in early childhood settings. The topic of quality is on the international agenda and any discussion that does not include all relevant participants in early childhood education does a disservice to those whose views are being omitted, or worse, ignored. Malaguzzi (1998) argued that “things about children and for children are only learned from children” (p. 51). While some may not agree with Malaguzzi, this study established that a great deal can be learned about quality by engaging with the views of young children who encounter early childhood services as part of their everyday lives, alongside the views and opinions established in the research literature and publicly available documents.

The ethnographic approach to conducting this study allowed for close relationships to develop, between the research participants, over an extended period of time. Neale

(2004) suggested that any person wishing to fully explore young children’s views needs

214

to consult with them over time. The children in this study were given the time that was needed to begin to generate ideas, and later representations of those ideas, as they became more at ease with me and some of the less familiar research tools (i.e., video and audio recorders). In recognition of young children as competent participants in the research, the project was designed so that the children were able to set the pace and direction.

The element of time (in this case, one year) is a critical factor in developing authentic, reciprocal relationships. As aspects of quality in early childhood education centre around relationships, extended periods of time for any study with young children in preschool settings allow for the researcher to observe the everyday relationships being developed and sustained. Importantly the research relationships need also to be established, so as to achieve a level of trust and security. In turn, it is essential to allow time for young children to explore the ideas they put forward. This may involve many revisits, so that the participants can begin to see each other’s standpoint and to develop a shared understanding of the activity. A less hurried approach may give young children scope to use many different ways of articulating their ideas, experimenting and exploring with an array of representational media.

Punch (2002) raised a question regarding the notion of using ‘child friendly’ data collection tools. If we take the position that children are sophisticated thinkers and communicators, as attested by the children in this study, the tools used to generate the data can be a “negotiated compromise” (Fraser et al, 2004, p. 25) with participants exercising choice in research. A methodological corollary could be that the tools

215

employed in data collection in any research study could well be chosen by any participant, whether child, young person, or adult.

In summary

In this study it was within the context of the children’s questions that children generated their accounts of their experience at preschool. Positioning the children as the active seekers of information, instead of merely the generators of information, was conceptually significant. While Katz (1992) proposed a bottom-up perspective for the assessment of quality, she generated her indices based on her experiences of early childhood settings as she might see it from the child’s perspective. Carr et al. (2002) developed a series of questions purporting a child’s standpoint to evaluate early childhood programs yet, again, using an adult standpoint. Even though Yeo and Clarke

(2005) had older children interview younger children on their experiences of transitioning from preschool to Primary One, their questions were developed by adults

(not children), using themes adults thought might be relevant to young children.

Thus, the current study can be distinguished from such research by its adoption of a child standpoint theory, with children themselves, developing their own set of questions or criteria about the preschool setting. These questions served three key purposes. First, they were child-generated and provided first-hand evidence of young children’s views on what are important quality criteria. Second, the repeated themes in the questions enabled the analysis process to begin. By using commonalities among the children’s opinions, an initial analytical framework was established that was further refined as the children and I examined each of the themes in more detail. Third, the children’s initial

216

ideas, which formed the basis for detailed discussion and examination between the children and myself, were developed into a set of evaluation questions using the child standpoint (with adult support) from which the quality of an early childhood service was considered.

Limitations

The ideas that the children generated were inextricably linked to the context in which they operated. Their views were formed and shaped by their encounters with both their preschool settings and the broader community values in a Singaporean context. This is a small island nation that relies heavily on its multi-cultural human wealth. It is also governed by a one party government that has been in power since becoming an independent republic in 1965. These parameters bring unique socio-cultural and socio- political implications. Whether the children’s views in the current study would be relevant in, or transferable to, another context is open to consideration and further study.

This study was undertaken with a small group of 25 children with only a relatively small number of the total participants having their detailed views included in the research. It was also undertaken in two sites that were atypical of services in Singapore. However, it must be said that the ability to articulate through written work is typically indicative of young children attending preschool in Singapore.

A larger scale study could be undertaken, including a variety of cultural settings and approaches to curriculum, a larger number of children and a wider socio-economic

217

representation, in order to ascertain whether the views of young children, as presented in the current study, are indeed indicative of the broader opinions of young children in

Singapore. This could also be taken beyond Singapore and would provide interesting comparative data across international borders.

At the time of the data collection, I was still a relative newcomer to an Asian culture, even though I had extensive exposure to early childhood settings in a range of contexts. I was also a member of an initial wave of academics who became involved in the private sector in Singapore. As a response to the growing number of foreigners coming to

Singapore to work in early childhood teacher education, the Preschool Qualification

Accreditation Committee (MOE and MCDS) began to put caveats on the type of work that could be engaged in. This included a two year ban on “new foreign recruits” being able to supervise student teachers on practicum. These factors may have impacted on the way the children, teachers and parents responded to me. After seven years in Singapore and having held permanent residency here for the last five years, I recognise and acknowledge that I am still a part of a minority group in this country, along with other non-Chinese residents and citizens, and seek to include this dimension into my research identity.

Conclusion

While preschools purport to exist for the benefit of children, children’s views on preschool, teachers, and the curriculum are rarely sought by researchers. This research has generated, with children, their own accounts of how preschool life is actually

218

experienced, rather than how we, as adults, think it might be experienced. With quality so much a part of the international agenda in early childhood education, it is imperative that considerations of quality necessarily take account of young children’s standpoints.

Moreover, the field must address the children’s lived experiences in early childhood services as part of its ethical commitment to the UNCROC (1989).

Moss (2001b) reminded us that defining quality should be seen as a dynamic and continuous process, involving regular review and never reaching a final objective statement. The indicators of quality that these young children have proposed are based on their own experiences of preschool education in Singapore. Gathering young children’s accounts of life at preschool and, in particular, how they see quality needs to be an ongoing process. The conversation around quality will continue to be refined and reviewed, but should never exclude the voices of those whom quality affects the most.

As such, it provides a challenge to those who question underlying values, assumptions, and prejudices around young children’s capacity for theory building (Neale, 2004).

When researching with children, it is important that they are not just seen as sources of information for the researcher, but as active participants in the research process. Any tools that we select to be employed in the research should have the children’s ideas included as to the direction and focus of the research enterprise.

In the broader context, this research has implications for health, welfare, legal, and broader educational settings where young children need to be included as articulate contributors to matters that concern them. It is evident from the international literature that participation of young children in matters that concern them is receiving growing

219

popularity. The new sociology of childhood asks us to consider the presence of children

(Rinaldi, 2005a) and to seek their accounts of life in order to understand their worlds.

Mayall (2002) proposed that, by studying some children’s lives we may gain a greater understanding of children’s lives generally. This study has given us a window into the lives of a small group of children in Singapore which, in turn, may shed light on the lives of young children in other situations.

There is, however, a note of caution. Acting upon what children have to offer is still largely the province of the adult world. Taking positive and proactive steps toward such action should be a focus of studies conducted with young children. This study has clearly established young children as articulate research partners. They have raised issues and concerns that have the potential to be extremely uncomfortable for adults for their forthrightness and content, particularly around teachers’ demeanour towards young children. Some early childhood learning environments in Singapore have been identified as a matter for national concern (see also Yeo & Clarke, 2005). The onus is now on the early childhood community here, and those who govern the sector, to respond to the views of this particular group of informants.

The current study has already generated interest from those who work with young children and their families, with several invitations to present and conduct further research. OMEP Singapore has convened a special interest seminar to focus on children’s views in research. The Ministry of Community, Youth and Sport has expressed interest in the study being presented to members of the child care branch for consideration. A new medical school being established in Singapore by a renowned US

220

university has proposed a collaborative effort in assisting medical practitioners and nursing staff in communicating effectively with children and young people. Discussion is currently underway in seeking children’s opinions around medical procedures including the administration of medication and surgery. These are indeed exciting events for the early childhood community in Singapore.

In sum, the research has generated, with children, their own accounts of their everyday lives at preschool. Dahlberg and Moss (2005) argued that adults must now take responsibility for what has already been implemented in institutions for children and that we must “look critically at the conditions that we are creating for childhood” (p.3). The children in this study have provided considerable insight into preschool education in

Singapore. It is now our responsibility as early childhood educators or representatives of government authorities, to ensure that these standpoints are acted upon. We need to pursue ongoing opportunities for young children to be consulted in matters that concern them and to act ethically and purposefully on their views.

221

References

Alanen, L. (1992). Modern childhood? Exploring the child question in sociology. Jyvaskyla, Finland: Kasvalustieteiden Tutkimuslaitos.

Alderson, P. (2004). Ethics. In S. Fraser, V. Lewis, S. Ding, M. Kellet, & C. Robinson. (Eds.), Doing research with children and young people (pp. 97-112). London: Sage.

Amabile, T. (1999). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review on Breakthrough Thinking. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Anning, A., Cullen, J., & Fleer, M. (2004). Early childhood education: Society and culture. London: Sage Publications.

Armistead, J. (2003, September). And what about the children? Consulting with three and four year olds in preschool. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Conference, Edinborough.

Armistead, J., & Harcourt, D. (2005, August). Informed assent: Children’s participation in research projects. Paper presented at European Early Childhood Research Association Conference, Dublin.

Asquith, S., & Hill, M. (Eds.). (1994). Justice for children. Dordecht: Martinus Nijhoff.

Atkinson, P., & Hammersley, M. (1994). Ethnology and participant observation. In N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook on qualitative research (pp. 248-261). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Australian Law Reform Commission. (1997). Seen and heard: Priority for children in the legal process (ALRC Report 84). Canberra, Australia: Author.

Bennett, J. (1996). Supporting family responsibility for the rights of the child: An educational viewpoint. International Journal of Children’s Rights, 4, 45-56.

Berk, L. & Winsler, A. (1995). Scaffolding children's learning: Vygotsky and early childhood education. Washington, DC: NAEYC.

Blasi, M. J. (1996). Pedagogy: Passivity or possibility. Childhood Education, 72(3), 130-132.

Bogles, D. (1995). The corporate takeover of American schools. The Humanist, 55, 20- 24.

Branscombe, N. A., Castle, K., Dorsey, A. G., Surbeck, E., & Taylor, J. B. (2000). Early childhood education: A constructivist approach. Boston, MA: Mifflin Company.

222

Bringing Reggio Emilia Home. (January 24, 2003). Straits Times, p. 29.

Bredekamp, S. (Ed.) (1987). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children form birth through age 8. Washington, DC: NAEYC.

Bredekamp, S., & Copple, C. (1997). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8. (2nd Ed) Washington, DC: NAEYC.

Brown, A., Ash. D., Rutherford, M., Nakagawa, K. Gordon, A., & Campione, J. (1993). Distributed expertise in the classroom. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp.188-228). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Brophy, J., & Statham, J. (1994). Measure for measure: Values, quality and evaluation. In P. Moss & A. Pence (Eds.), Valuing quality in early childhood services (pp. 61-75). London: Paul Chapman.

Bruner, J. (1983). Child's talk: Learning to use language. New York: Norton.

Bruner, J., & Haste, H. (Eds.) (1987). Making sense: The child’s construction of the world. London: Methuen.

Burts, D., Hart, C., Charlesworth, R., & DeWolf, D. (1993). Developmental appropriateness of kindergarten programs and academic outcomes in first grade. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 8(1), 23-31.

Burts, D., Hart, C., Charlesworth, R., & Kirk, L. (1990). A comparison of frequency of stress behaviours observed in kindergarten children in classrooms with developmentally appropriate versus developmentally inappropriate instructional practices. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 5, 407-423.

Candy, J. & Butterworth, D. (1998). Through children's eyes: The experience of migration to Australia. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 23(3), 20-25.

Cannella, G. S. (1997). Deconstructing early childhood education. Social justice and revolution. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.

Cannella, G. S. (2005). Reconceptualizing early care and education. In N. Yelland (Ed.), Critical issues on early childhood education (pp. 17-39). Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.

Carr, M. (2005, July). Assessment for learning. Keynote address presented at R.E. Provocations Conference, Auckland, New Zealand. July 12-15.

223

Carr, M., May, H., & Podmore, V. (2002). Learning and teaching stories: Action research on evaluation in early childhood in Aotearoa-New Zealand. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 10(2), 115-126.

Castelle, K. (1990). In the child's best interest: A primer on the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. East Greenwich, R.I.: Plan International.

Chapman, J. (1994, January). Values and characteristics of a good school. Paper presented at International Congress on School Effectiveness, Australian Education Union. January 3-6.

Chew Oon Ai, Joyce. (1997). Schooling for Singaporeans: The Interactions of Singapore culture and values in the school. In J. Tan, S. Gopinathan & W.K. Ho (Eds.), Education in Singapore (pp. 75-92). Singapore: Prentice Hall.

Ching-Kwan, J. (2003). Early childhood in Singapore. Lecture notes. Early Childhood Program, Ngee Ann Polytechnic, Singapore.

Christensen, P., & James, A. (Eds.). (2000). Research with children: Perspectives and practices. New York: Falmer Press.

Clark, A. (2001). How to listen to very young children: The mosaic approach. Child Care in Practice, 7(4), 333-341.

Clark, A. (2004, September). Spaces to play: Gathering children’s experience of outdoor provision. Paper presented to Early Childhood Education Research Association Conference, Malta. September 1- 4.

Clark, A. (2005a). Listening to and involving young children: A review of research and practice. Early Child Development and Care, 175(6), 489-505.

Clark, A. (2005b, September). Through the viewfinder: Young children using cameras to explore their perspectives. Paper presented to Early Childhood Education Research Committee Conference, Dublin. August 31- September 3.

Clark, A. (2005c). Ways of seeing: Mosaic approach to listen to young children’s perspectives. In A. Clark, A. T. Kjørholt, & P. Moss (Eds.), Beyond listening (pp. 29-49). Bristol, UK: The Policy Press.

Clark, A., McQuail, S., & Moss, P. (2003). Exploring the field of listening to and consulting with young children. Research Report No. 45. Thomas Corman Research Unit, London: Queen’s Printers.

Clark, A., & Moss, P. (2001). Listening to children: The mosaic approach. London: National Children’s Bureau.

224

Clarke-Stewart, A. (1987). Predicting child development from child care forms and features: The Chicago study. In D. Phillips (Ed.), Quality in child care: What does research tell us? Research Monographs of the NAEYC, 1, 23-42.

Clyde, M. (1996). Early childhood: No best age. Directions in Education, (13), 1.

Connolly, P. (1997). In search of authenticity: Researching young children's perspectives. In A. Pollard, D. Thiessen & A. Filer (Eds.), Children and their curriculum: The perspectives of primary and elementary children (pp. 162-183). London: Falmer Press.

Cook-Gomez, J., Corsaro, W. & Streeck, J. (Eds.). (1986). Children’s worlds and children’s language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Cook-Sather, A. (2002). Authorising students’ perspectives: Toward trust, dialogue, and change in education. Educational Researcher, 31(4), 3-14.

Corsaro, W. (1997). The sociology of childhood. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

Costa, A., & Liebmann, R. (1995). Process is as important as content. Educational Leadership, March, 23-24.

Cross, T. (1995). The early childhood curriculum debate. In M. Fleer (Ed.), DAPcentrism: Challenging early childhood practice (pp. 88-108). Watson, ACT: Australian Early Childhood Association.

Cryer, D. (1999). Defining and assessing early childhood program quality. In S. Helburn (Ed.), The silent crisis in U.S. child care (Special issue). Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 563, 39-55.

Dahlberg, G., & Moss, P. (2005). Ethics and politics in early childhood education. London: Routledge Falmer.

Dahlberg, G., Moss, P., & Pence, A. (1999). Beyond quality in early childhood education and care. London: Falmer Press.

Danby, S. & Baker, C. (1998). ‘What’s the problem?’ Restoring social order in the preschool classroom. In I. Hutchby & J. Moran-Ellis (Eds.), Children and social competence: Arenas of action (pp. 157-186). London: Falmer Press.

David, T. (1992). Do we have to do this? The Children Act 1989 and obtaining children’s views in early childhood settings. Children and Society, 6(3), 204-211.

Davie, R., Upton, G., & Varma, V. (Eds.). (1996). The voice of the child. Washington, DC: Falmer Press.

225

Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (Eds). (1994). Handbook on qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (Eds). (2005). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

De Vires, R., & Kohlberg, L. (1987). Constructivist early education: Overview and comparison with other programs. Washington, DC: NAEYC.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.

Dockett, S. (1998). Play and pedagogy in early childhood. Sydney: Harcourt Brace.

Dockett, S., & Perry, B. (2003). Children’s views and children’s voices in starting school. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 28(1), March, 12-17.

Dockett, S., & Perry, B. (2005). “You need to know how to play safe”: Children’s experiences in starting school. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 6(1), 4- 18.

Dockrell, J., Lewis, A., & Lindsay, G. (2000). Researching children’s perspectives: A sociological dimension. In A. Lewis & G. Lindsay (Eds.), Researching children’s perspectives (pp. 46-58). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Do more for preschool education. (2000, March 15). Straits Times, p. 69.

Donaldson, M. (1978). Children’s minds. London: Fontana.

Dunn, L., Goncu, A. & Stone, A. (1998). In M. Woodhead, D. Faulkner & K. Littleton (Eds.), Cultural worlds of early childhood (p. 9). New York: Routledge.

Dunn, L., & Kontos, S. (1997). Research in Review: What have we learned about developmentally appropriate practice? Young Children, 52(5), 4-13.

Durkeim, E. (1956). In S.D. Fox (Ed.), Education and sociology. New York: Free Press.

Dyson, A. H. (1990). Symbol makers, symbol weavers: How children link play, pictures and print. Young Children, January, 50-7.

Ebbeck, M. (1990). Early childhood education. Melbourne: Longman Chesire.

Ebbeck, M. & Waniganayake, M. (2004). Early childhood professionals: Leading today and tomorrow. Sydney: MacLennan and Petty.

Edwards, A. (2000). Research and practice: Is there a dialogue? In H. Penn (Ed.), Early childhood services: Theory, policy and practice (pp. 184-199). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

226

Edwards, S., & Fleer, M. (2003, January). The theoretical informants of early childhood curriculum: A historical view. Paper presented at the Australian Research in Early Childhood Education Conference, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. January 23-25.

Edwards, C., Gandini, L., & Forman, G. (Eds.). (1998). The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia approach to early childhood education. (5th Ed.) Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Eekelaar, J. (1992). The importance of thinking that children have rights. International Journal of Law and the Family, 16(1), 221-235.

Egan, K. (1999). Children's minds talking rabbits and clockwork oranges. New York: Teachers College Press.

Einarsdottir, J. (2004, September). Playschool in pictures: Children’s photographs as a research methodology. Initial findings. Paper presented to European early Childhood Research Committee Conference, Malta. September 1-4.

Einarsdottir, J. (2005). Playschool in pictures: Children’s photographs as a research methodology. Early Child Development and Care, 175(6), 523-541.

Elicher, J., & Fortner Wood, C. (1995). Adult-child relationships in early childhood settings. Research in review. Young Children, 51, (1), 69-78.

Elkind, D. (1987). Miseducation: Preschoolers at risk. New York: Knopf.

Elkind, D. (1988). The hurried child. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.

Erikson, E. (1965). Childhood and society. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.

Erikson, F. (1979). Mere ethnography: Some problems in its use in educational practice. Anthropology and Educational Quarterly, 10, 3, Fall, 182-7.

Evans, P. & Fuller, M. (1998a). Children's perceptions on their nursery education. International Journal of Early Years Education, 6 (1), 59-74.

Evans, R. (Ed.). (1998). Early childhood development and care. Singapore Childcare and Early Education, 144.

Fan-Eng, M., & Sharpe, P. (2000). Characteristics of preschool environments and teacher effectiveness in selected child care centers. In C. Tan-Niam & M-L. Quah (Eds.), Investing in our future: The early years (pp. 66-84). Singapore: McGraw Hill.

Farrell, A. (2004, July). Child protection policy perspectives and reform of Australian legislation. Child Abuse Review. 13(4), 234-245.

227

Farrell, A., & Danby, S. (2005). Opening the research conversation. In A. Farrell (Ed.), Ethical research with children (pp. 49-67). Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill.

Farrell, A., Tayler, C., & Tennent, L. (2002). Early childhood services: What can children tell us? Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 27(3), 12-17.

Farrell, A., Tayler, C., Tennent, L., & Gahan, D. (2002). Listening to children: A study of child and family services. Early Years, 22(1), 27-38.

Fasoli, L., (2003). Reflections on doing research with young children. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 28(1), March, 7-11.

Finder, K. (Ed.). (1996). Citizen child. Melbourne, Victoria: Australian Institute of Family Studies.

Fine, G., & Sandstrom, K. (1988). Knowing children: Participant observation with minors. Newbury Park, UK: Sage.

Fisher, J. (2002). Starting with the child. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.

Fleer, M. (1997). Guidelines for early childhood professionals. Education Review. December.

Fleer, M., Anning, A., & Cullen, J. (Eds.). (2004). Early childhood education: Society and culture. London: Sage.

Fleet, A. (2006, May). Observing and documenting children’s learning. Workshop presentation to EtonHouse Education Centre. Singapore. May 25.

Fleet, A., Patterson, C., & Robison, J. (2006). Insights: Behind early childhood pedagogical documentation. Castle Hill, NSW: Pademelon Press.

Flekkoy, M., & Kaufman, H. (1997). The participation rights of the child: Rights and responsibilities in family and society. London: Jessica Kingsley.

Flewitt, R. (2005). Conducting research with young children: Some ethical considerations. Early child development and care. 175(6), August, 553-565.

Francis, H. (1993). Teacher's listening to learner's voices. British Psychological Society Education Section, Leicester: BPS.

Franklin, B. (Ed.). (1995). The handbook of children's rights. London: Routledge.

Fraser, S., Lewis, V., Ding, S., Kellet, M., & Robinson, C. (Eds.). (2004). Doing research with children and young people. London: Sage.

228

Freeny, S. (Ed.). (1990). Early childhood education in Asia and the Pacific. New York: Garland Publishing.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: McGraw Hill.

Funder, K. (Ed). (1996). Citizen child. Victoria, Australia: Australian Institute of Family Studies.

Galinsky, E. (1999). Ask the children: What American children really think about working parents. New York: William Morrow.

Galinsky, E., Howes, C., Kontos, S., & Shinn, M.B. (1994). The study of children in family child care and relative care: Key findings and policy recommendations. Young Children, 50(1), 58-61.

Gardner, H. (1993). Creating minds. New York: Basic Books.

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.

Genishi, C. & Dyson, A. H. (1984). Language assessment in the early years. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Gold, M. (1998). The voice of children in Family Court. In N.J. Taylor and A.B. Smith (Eds.), Enhancing children's potential: Minimising risk and maximizing resiliency. University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand: Children's Issues Centre.

Goldman-Segall, V. (1998). Points of viewing children’s thinking: A digital ethnographer’s journey. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum.

Goldschmied, E., & Jackson, S. (1994). People under three: Young children in day care. London: Routledge.

Goffin, S., & Day, D. (Eds.). (1994). New perspectives in early childhood teacher education: Brining practitioners into the debate. New York: Teachers College Press.

Goodwin, W., & Goodwin, L. (1996). Understanding quantitative and qualitative research in early childhood education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Gilbert, L., Heneghan, R., & Orsborne, E. (1997). Seen but not heard: A training video and workbook for the legal profession. Wellington, New Zealand: Legal Resources Trust.

Graue, M. E., & Walsh, D. J. (1998). Studying children in context: Theories, methods and ethics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

229

Greene, S., & Hill, M. (2005). Researching children’s experience: Methods and methodological issues. In S. Green & D. Hogan. (Eds.), Researching children’s experience (pp. 1-21). London: Sage.

Greenfield, C. (2005, July). Enabling children’s voices to be heard: The story of one researcher’s experience. Paper presented to R.E. Provocations Conference, Auckland. July 12-15.

Grieg, A., & Taylor, J. (2004). Doing research with children. London: Sage.

Guidici, C., Rinaldi, C., & Krechevsky, M. (Eds). (2001). Making learning visible: Children as individual and group learners. Cambridge, MA: Project Zero, Harvard Graduate School.

Halliwell, G. (1990). Infusing pedagogy into early childhood teacher education? A response to Battersby. Unicorn, 6(1), 47-51.

Harcourt, D. (2001). Course co-ordinator review. Report to external examiner Dr Pamela Sharpe, NgeeAnn Polytechnic, Singapore.

Harcourt, D. (2003). Diploma in Early Childhood Leadership. Unpublished curriculum document, International Centre for Early Childhood, Singapore.

Harcourt, D. (2005a). Diploma in Early Childhood Education- Leadership. Unpublished curriculum document, EtonHouse Education Centre, Singapore.

Harcourt, D. (2005b, September). Renee’s story. Paper presented at European Early Childhood Research Association Conference, Dublin, August 31 – September 3.

Harcourt, D., & Conroy, H. (2005). Informed assent. Early Child Development and Care. 175, 6, August, 567-577.

Harms, T., & Clifford, R.M. (1980). Early childhood environments rating scale. New York: Teachers College Press.

Hart, R., Iltus, S., & Beeton, P. (in press). Undesigning for children: Creating spaces for freeplay and informal learning in community gardens. New York: Design Trust for Public Spaces.

Hatch, J. A. (1990). Young children as informants in classroom studies. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 5, 251-264.

Hatch, J. A. (1995). Qualitative research in early childhood settings. Westport, Connecticut, NE: Praeger.

230

Hedges, H. (2000). Teaching in early childhood: Time to merge constructivist views so learning through play equals teaching through play. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 25(4),

Helburn, S. W., Culkin, M., Howes, C., Bryant, D., Clifford, R., Cryer, D., et al. (1995). Cost, quality and child outcomes in child care centers. Executive summary. Denver, CO: University of Denver.

Helburn, S. W., & Howes, C. (1996). Child care cost and quality. Future of children, 6(2), 62-82.

Helm, J., & Katz, L. (2001). Young investigators. The project approach in the early years. New York: Teachers College Press.

Heshusius, L. (1995). Listening to children: “What could we possibly have in common?” From concerns with self to participatory consciousness. Theory into Practice, 34(2), 117-123.

Hill, D. (2005, July). Transforming early childhood. Paper presented to Reggio Emilia Provocations Conference, Auckland, New Zealand. July 12-15.

Hill, M., Laybourn, A., & Borland, M. (1996). Engaging with primary aged children about their emotions and well being: Methodological considerations. Children and Society, 10, 129-44.

Holmes, R. M. (1991). Play during snack time. Play and Culture, 5, 295-304.

Honig, A., & Lim, S. E. A. (1998). Singapore childcare and early education. In R. Evans (Ed.), Early Child Development and Care, 144, 1-4.

Hopkins, D. (1989). Identifying INSET needs: A school improvement perspective. In R. McBride (Ed.), The inservice training of teachers (pp. 17-27). Lewes, UK: Falmer Press.

Howes, C. (1997). Children’s experiences in center-based child care as a function of teacher background and adult-child ratio. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 43(3), 404- 425.

Howes, C., Smith, E., & Galinsky, E. (1995). The Florida child care quality improvement study. New York: Families and Work Institute.

Hudson, C. (1998, March). Time: A neglected dimension in field work? Paper presented to Ethnography in Education Conference, University of Warwick, UK. March 29-31.

231

Hutt, S. J. (1979). Play in the under fives: Form, development and function. In J.G.Howell, (Ed.), Modern perspectives in the psychiatry of infancy (pp. 19-23). New York: Marcel.

Hyson, M., Hirsh-Vaslek, K., & Resccorla, L. (Eds.). (1990). Academic instruction in early childhood: Challenge or pressure? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

James, A. (1995, July). Methodologies of competence for a competent methodology. Paper presented to Children and Social Competence Conference. University of Surrey, Guilford, UK. July 5-7.

James, A. (2005). Life times: children's perspectives on age, agency and memory across the life course. In J. Qvortrup. Studies in modern childhood: Society, agency, culture (pp. 248-266). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

James, A., & Prout, A. (Eds.). (1997). Constructing and reconstructing childhood. London: Falmer Press.

Jenkins, P. (1993). Children’s rights: A participative exercise for learning about children’s rights in England and Wales. London: Longman.

Jones, A. (2004). Involving children and young people as researchers. In S.Fraser, V. Lewis, S. Ding, M. Kellet & C. Robinson (Eds.), Doing research with children and young people (pp. 113-130). London: Sage.

Jones, C., & Tannock, J. (2000). A matter of life and death: A reflective account of two examples of practitioner research into children’s understanding and experience of death and bereavement. In A. Lewis & G. Lindsay (Eds.), Researching children’s perspectives (pp. 86-97). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Katz, L. (1991). Pedagogical issues in early childhood. In S. C. Kagan (Ed.), The care and education of America's young children: Obstacles and opportunities (pp.50- 68). Ninetieth yearbook of the National Society for the study of education, Part 1. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Katz, L. (1992). Early childhood programs: Multiple perspectives on quality. Childhood Education, Winter, 66-71.

Katz, L. (1993). Dispositions: Definitions and implications for early childhood practices. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education.

Katz, L. (1998, June). Enhancing the formative years. Paper presented to the NAEIAC, Oxford, UK.

Katz, L. (personal communication, September 21, 2001).

232

Katz, L., & Chard, S. (1996). The contribution of documentation to the quality of early childhood education. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education.

Katz, L., & Chard, S. (1997). Engaging children's minds. The project approach. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Kellet, M., Robinson, C., & Barr, R. (2004). Images of childhood. In S. Fraser, V. Lewis, S. Ding, M. Kellet, & C. Robinson (Eds.), Doing research with children and young people (pp. 27-42). London: Sage.

Khoo, M., & Ng, S. M. (1985). Reading instruction in lower primary classes: A second observational study. Singapore Journal of Education, 7, 55-64.

Kids stress in preschool. (2001, June 20). Straits Times, p.13.

Kim, S. (1993). From prop box to resource room. NYSAEYC Reporter, 39 (3), Spring/Summer, 1-5.

Klein, E., & Goncu, A. (Eds.). (2001). Children in play, story and school. New York: Guilford Press.

Kliebard, H. (1992). Curriculum history. In M. Alkin (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of educational research (pp.264-267). New York: Macmillan.

Kontos, S., Howes, C., Shinn, B. & Galinsky, E. (1994). Quality in family childcare and relative care. New York: Teachers College Press.

Kontos, S., & Wilcox-Herzog, A. (1997). Teacher's interactions with children: Why are they so important? Research in review. Young Children, January.

Kwan, C. (2000). Using the early childhood environment rating scale in Singapore. In C. Tan-Niam & M-L. Quah (Eds.), Investing in our future: The Early years (pp. 40- 51). Singapore: McGraw-Hill.

Laevers, F. (2004, September). Using curriculum to inform quality. Keynote address presented at the European Early Childhood Education Research Association Conference, Malta. September 1- 4.

Langston, A., Abbott, L., Lewis, V., & Kellett, M. (2004). Early Childhood. In S. Fraser, V. Lewis, S. Ding, M. Kellet, & C. Robinson. (Eds.), Doing research with children and young people (pp. 147-160). London: Sage.

Langstead, O. (1994). Looking at quality from a child’s perspective In P. Moss & A. Pence. (Eds.), Valuing quality in early childhood services (pp.28-42). London: Paul Chapman.

233

Lamb, M. E. (1998). Non parental childcare: Content, quality, correlates and consequences. In W. Damon, I.E. Sigel & K.A. Renninger (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, (pp.73-133), (5th Edition). Vol 4. New York: Wiley.

Lambert, B., & Clyde, M. (2000). Rethinking early childhood theory and practice. Katoomba, NSW: Social Science Press.

Landsdown, G. (1995). Taking part: Children's participation in decision making. London: Institute for Public Policy Research.

Leach, P. (1994). Children first. London: Michael Joseph.

Lehr, S. (1991). The child's developing sense of theme. New York: Teachers College Press.

Lewis, A., & Lindsay, G. (Eds.). (2000). Researching children’s perspectives. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Limter, S. & Flekkoy, M. (1995). The UN convention on the rights of the child: Its relevance for social scientists. Social Policy for the Society for Research in Child Development, 9(2), 1-15.

Lloyd-Smith, M., & Tarr. J. (2000). Researching children’s perspectives: A sociological dimension. In A. Lewis & G. Lindsay (Eds.), Researching children’s perspectives (pp. 59-70). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Love, J. M. (1997). Quality in child care centers. Early Childhood Research and Policy Briefs, 1(1). ED417 827.

Love, J., Schochet, P., & Meckstroth, A. (1996). Are they in any real danger? What research does-and doesn’t-tell us about child care quality and children’s wellbeing. Plainsboro, NJ: Mathematics Policy Research. ED415 030.

Lubeck, S. (1985). Sandbox society. Philadelphia, PA: Falmer Press.

McArdle, F. (2001). Art in early childhood: The discourse of ‘proper’ teaching. Unpublished PhD thesis. Brisbane, Australia: Queensland University of Technology.

Macmillan, A. (2001). Collaborative frameworks for early numeracy: The house that Josh built. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 26, 3.

MacNaughton, G. (1995). The power of mum!: Power and gender at play. Watson, ACT: Australian Early Childhood Association.

MacNaughton, G. (2003). Shaping early childhood: Learners, curriculum and contexts. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.

234

MacNaughton, G., Rolfe, S. A., & Siraj-Blatchford, I. (2001). Doing early childhood research. Crows Nest, Australia: Allen & Unwin.

Malaguzzi, L. (1998). History, ideas, and basic philosophy. In C. Edwards, L. Gandini, & G. Forman (Eds.), The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia approach to early childhood education (5th Ed., pp. 49-98). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Martello, J. (1999). In their own words: Children's perceptions of learning to write. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 24, 3, 32-37.

Matthews, J. (2002, February). Art and the young child. Paper presented to Ngee Ann Polytechnic Centre for Early Childhood, Singapore. February 12.

Mauthner, M. (1997). Methodological aspects of collecting data form children: Lessons from three research projects. Children and Society. 11, 16-28.

Mayall, B. (Ed.). (1994). Children's childhoods observed and experienced. Philadelphia, PA: Falmer Press.

Mayall, B. (1996). Children, health and the social order. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Mayall, B. (1999). Children and childhood. In S. Hood, B. Mayall, & S. Oliver (Eds.), Critical issues on social research: Power and prejudice (pp. 11-24). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Mayall, B. (2000). Conversations with children: Working with generational issues. In P. Christensen & A. James (Eds.), Research with children: Perspectives and practices (pp. 120-135). London: Falmer Press.

Mayall, B. (2001). Understanding childhoods: A London study. In L. Alanen and B. Mayall (Eds.), Conceptualizing child-adult relations (pp. 114-128). London: Falmer Press.

Mayall, B. (2002). Towards a sociology of childhood. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.

Meadows, S., & Cashdan, A. (1988). Helping children learn: Contributions to a cognitive curriculum. London: David Fulton.

Meighan, R., & Siraj-Blatchford, I. (1997). A sociology of educating. London: Casell.

Meyers, D. T. (1997). Feminist social thought: A reader. New York: Avon Books.

Millikan, J. (2003). Reflections: Reggio Emilia principles within Australian contexts. Castle Hill, New South Wales: Pademelon Press.

235

Miller, J. (1997). Never too young: How young children can take responsibility and make decisions. London: National Early Years/ Save the Children.

Millet, K. (1969). Sexual politics. New York: Avon Books.

Mills, J., & Mills, R. (2000). Childhood studies: A reader in perspectives of childhood. London: Routledge.

Ministry of Community Development and Sport (2002). The status report on the best interest of the child. Singapore: MCDS.

Ministry of Community Development and Sport (2003). Assessment of licensing standards in child care centres. Singapore: MCDS.

Ministry of Community Development and Sport (2004). Guidelines for centre based infant/toddler care services. Singapore: MCDS.

Ministry of Education (2003). Nurturing young learners: A framework for a kindergarten curriculum in Singapore. Singapore: Pre-School Education Unit, MOE.

Ministry of Education (2006). Standards for kindergartens: Pursuing excellence at kindergartens. Singapore: MOE.

Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education-Ministry of Community Youth and Sport Pre-School Qualification Accreditation Committee (2004). Accreditation standards for pre-school teacher training courses. Singapore: MOE-MCYS.

Minturn, L., & Lambert, W. (1964). Mothers in six cultures-antecedents of child rearing. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Mitchell, J. (1971). Women’s estate. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.

Montessori, M. (1965). Dr. Montessori’s own handbook: A short guide to her ideas and materials. New York: Schocken Books.

Moss, P. (2001a, July). Making space for ethics. Keynote presentation at the Australian Early Childhood Association Conference, Sydney, Australia. July18-21.

Moss, P. (2001b, July). Getting beyond the problem with quality. Paper presented at the Australian Early Childhood Association Conference, Sydney, Australia. July 18- 21.

Moss, P., & Pence, A. (Eds.). (1994). Valuing quality in early childhood services. London: Paul Chapman.

236

Murfin, B., & Butterworth, D. (1999). Researching children: The woes and joys of observing and interviewing four year olds. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 24(2), 6-9.

Nabuco, E., and Sylva, K. (1997, August). The effects of three early childhood curricula on children’s progress in the first year of primary school. Paper presented at the ISSBD conference, Quebec, Canada. August 16-19.

Nabuco, E. (1997). The effects of three early childhood curricula in Portugal on children's progress in the first year of primary school. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. London: Institute of Education, University of London.

Neale, B. (Ed.). (2004). Young children’s citizenship. York, UK: Joseph Rountree Foundation.

Neale, B., & Smart, C. (1998). Agents or dependants? Struggling to listen to children and families in Family Law and Family Research. Working paper 3, Centre for Research on Family, Kinship and Childhood. University of Leeds, UK.

New, R. (1997). Reggio Emilia's commitment to children and community: A reconceptualisation of quality and DAP. Canadian Children, Spring, 7-12.

Ng, S. M. (1985, April). Implementation strategies for an integrative approach to teaching reading and language. Paper presented at the RELC Regional Seminar on Language across the curriculum, Singapore.

Ngeow, K. Y. (1998). Enhancing student thinking through collaborative learning. Bloomington, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading, English and Communication.

Nicholls, J., & Hazzard, R. (1993). Education as an adventure: Lessons from the second grade. New York: Teachers College Press.

Nicholls, J., & Thorkildsen, T. (1995). Reasons for learning: Expanding the conversation on student-teacher collaboration. New York: Teachers College Press.

Oakley, A. (1972). Sex, gender and society. London: Temple Smith.

Oakley, A. (1994). Women and children first and last: Parallels and differences between children’s and women’s studies. In B. Mayall (Ed.), Children’s childhoods: Observed and experienced (pp.15-20). London: Falmer.

Oldfather, P. (1992, December). Sharing the ownership of knowing. A constructivist concept of motivation for literacy learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, San Antonio, TX. December 2-5.

237

Oldfather, P., & West, J. (1999). Learning through children’s eyes. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

O’Quigley, A. (2000). Listening to children’s views: The findings and recommendations of recent research. York, UK: Joseph Rountree Foundation.

Page, J. (2000). Reframing the early childhood curriculum: Educational imperatives for the future. London: Routledge/Falmer.

Paley, V. G. (1986). Mollie is three: Growing up in school. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Paley, V. G. (1995). Kwanzaa and me: A teacher's story. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Parker, J. C., & Rubin, L. J. (1966). Process as content: Curriculum design and the application of knowledge. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally & Co.

Patten, P., & Ricks, B. (2000). Child care quality: An overview for parents. Eric Digest. December. Champaign, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education.

Pence, A., & Brenner, A. (2000). British Columbia’s Ministry for Children and Families: A case study in progress. In J. Hayden (Ed.), Landscapes in early childhood education (pp. 427- 441). New York: Peter Lang.

Phillips, D., & Howes, C. (1987). Indicators of quality of childcare: Review of research. In D. Phillips (Ed.). Quality in childcare: What does research tell us? Research Monographs of the NAEYC, Vol. 1, pp. 1-19. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Phung, A. J. (1988, June). Implementing the Reading and English Acquisition Program (REAP) in Beatty Primary School. Unpublished paper presented at the Schools Council, Ministry of Education, Singapore. June 10.

Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York: International Universities Press.

Pianta, R. (Ed.). (1992) Beyond the parent: The role of other adults in children's lives. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Pianta, R. (1997). Adult-child relationships processes and early schooling. Early Education and Development, 8, 11-23.

Pianta, R. (1999). Enhancing relationships between teachers and children. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

238

Podmore, V. (2004). Questioning evaluation quality in early childhood. In A. Anning, J. Cullen, & M. Fleer (Eds.), Early childhood education: Society and culture (pp.149-158). London: Sage.

Podmore, V., & May, H., with Mara, D. (1998). Evaluating early childhood programmes using the stands and goals of Te Whariki, the national early childhood curriculum. Final report on phases one and two to the Ministry of Education. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Council for Educational Research and Ministry for Education.

Prout, A., & James, A. (1997). Constructing and reconstructing childhood. Contemporary issues in the sociological study of childhood (2nd ed.). London: Falmer Press.

Pugh, G., & Selleck, D. (1996). Listening to and communicating with young children. In R. Davie, G. Upton, & V. Varma (Eds.), The voice of the child (pp.120-136). London: Falmer Press.

Punch, S. (2002). Research with children: The same or different from research with adults? Childhood, 9(3), 321-341.

Purdy, L. (1992). In their best interests? London: Cornell University Press.

Qvortrup, J. (1994). Childhood matters - an introduction. In J. Qvortrup, M. Bordy, G. Sgritta & H. Lumtersberger (Eds.), Childhood matters: Social theory, practice and politics (pp. 1-24). Aldershot, UK: Auebury Press.

Qvortrup, J. (2001). Childhood as a social phenomenon. In M. du Bois-Reymond, H. Sünker, & H. Krüger. (Eds.), Childhood in Europe: Approaches, trends, findings (pp. 215-242). New York: Peter Lang.

Retas, S., & Kwan, C. (2000). Preschool quality and staff characteristics in Singapore. In C. Tan-Niam and M. L. Quah (Eds.), Investing in our future: The early years (pp. 53-65). Singapore: McGraw Hill Book Co.

Ribbens, J. (1994). Mothers and their children: A feminist sociology of childrearing. London: Sage.

Rinaldi, C. (2001). A pedagogy of listening: A perspective of listening from Reggio Emilia. Children in Europe, 1, 2-5.

Rinaldi, C. (2005a, July) Citizenship. Keynote address presented to Reggio Emilia Provocations Conference, Auckland, New Zealand. July 12-15.

Rinaldi, C. (2005b, July). Pedagogy of listening. Keynote address presented to Reggio Emilia Provocations Conference, Auckland, New Zealand. July 12-15.

239

Robbins, J. (2003). The more he looked inside the more Piglet wasn’t there: What adopting a socio-cultural perspective can help us see. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 28(2), 1-7.

Robinson, C., & Kellett, M. (2004). Power. In S. Fraser, V. Lewis, S. Ding. M. Kellett & C. Robinson (Eds.), Doing research with children and young people (pp.81-96). London: Sage.

Rodd, J., & Savage, J. (1997). A different pathway for the professional preparation of early childhood teachers in Britain. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12, 281-303.

Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.

Rogoff, B. (1998). Cognition as a collaborative process. In W. Damon (Chief Ed.) and D. Kuhn & R. S. Siegler (Volume Eds.), Cognition, perceptions and language (5th ed.) Handbook of Child Psychology. New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc.

Rouse, D. (1992). The Italian experience. Paper presented to National Children's Bureau, London.

Sapkota, P., & Sharma, J. (1996). Participatory interactions with street children in Nepal, Special Issue on Children's Participation, PLA notes 25, London: 11ED.

Schaffer, H. (1990). Making decisions about children: Psychological questions and answers. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Schiller, W. (2005). Children’s perceptions of live arts performances: A longitudinal study. Early Child Development and Care 175(6), 543-552.

Schweinhart, L., & Weikart, D. (1997). The High/Scope preschool curriculum comparison through age 23. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12, 117-143.

Schweinhart, L., Weikart, D., & Larner, M. (1986). Consequences of 3 preschool curriculum models through age 15. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 1(15), 15-45.

Sharpe, P. (1996). Determinants of preschool quality in Singapore: An investigation of the effects on teachers, of parents’ involvement. International Journal of Early Childhood, 4(1), 47-63.

Sharpe, P. (1998, November). The relationship between counting practices and performance on addition and subtraction tasks: Some implications for kindergarten teachers. Paper presented at the ERA Conference, Singapore. November 23-25.

240

Sharpe, P. (2000). Features of preschool education in Singapore. In C. Tan-Niam & M.L. Quah (Eds.), Investing in our future: The early years (pp. 123-128). Singapore: McGraw Hill Book Co.

Sharpe, P. (2002). School days in Singapore: Young children’s experiences and opportunities during a typical school day. Childhood Education. Fall 2002, pp. 44-47.

Shor, I. (1992). Empowering education. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Silin, J. (1988). On becoming a knowledgeable professional. In O. Saracho & D. Peters, (Eds.), Professionalism in the early childhood practitioner (pp. 257-274). New York: Teachers College Press.

Silin, J. (1995). Sex, death and the education of children: Our passion for ignorance in the age of AIDS. New York: Teachers College Press.

Silverman, D. (1998). Harvey Sacks: Social science and conversational analysis. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.

Silverman, D. (2001). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook. London: Sage.

Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Sylva, K. (1999). Technical report 6a: Characteristics of preschool environments. Institute of Education / DfEE.

Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Sylva, K. (2004). Researching Pedagogy in English Preschools British Educational Research Journal, 30(5), 713-730.

Smith, A. (1996). The early childhood curriculum from a socio-cultural perspective. Early Childhood Development and Care, 115, 51-64.

Smith, A. (1998). Understanding children’s development. Wellington, New Zealand: Bridget Williams Books.

Smith, A. B., Grima, G., Gaffney, M., Powell, K., Masse, L., and Barnett, S. (2000). Strategic research initiative literature review: Early childhood education. Wellington, New Zealand: Research Division, Ministry of Education.

Smith, A., Taylor, N., & Gollop, M. (2000). Children's voices: Research, policy and practice. Wellington, New Zealand: Pearson Education.

Smith, D. (1988). The everyday world as problematic: Toward a feminist sociology. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.

Solberg, A. (1996). The challenge in child research: from “being” to “doing”. In J. Brannen & M. O'Brien (Eds.), Children in families: Research and policy (pp. 53- 65). London: Falmer Press.

241

Sorin, R. (2003) Research with children: A rich glimpse into the world of childhood. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 28(1), March, 31-35.

Spencer, J. R. (1990). Persuading courts to listen to children. In A. Bannister, Barret, K. & E. Shearer (Eds.), Listening to children: The professional response to hearing the abused child. London: Longman.

Spindler, G., & Hammond, L. (2000). The use of anthropological methods in educational research: Two perspectives. Harvard Educational Review, 70(1), 39- 48.

Spodek, B. (1991a). Early childhood teacher training: Linking theory and practice. In S. Kagan (Ed.), The care and education of America’s young children: Obstacles and opportunities (pp. 110-130). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Spodek, B., & Saracho, O. (1999). Issues in early childhood curriculum. Troy, NY: Educators International Press.

Sprod, T., & Jones, B. L. (1997). “The sun can’t bounce off a bird”: Young children and their understanding of vision. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 22(2), 29- 33.

Stepans, J., & Kuehn, C. (1985). What research says: Children’s conceptions of weather. Science and Children, 23(1), 44-47.

Stipek, D., Feiler, R., Daniels, D., & Milburn, S. (1995). Effects of different instructional approaches on young children's achievement and motivation. Child Development, 66, 209-223.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1999). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. London: Sage.

Sumsion, J. (2003). Researching with children: Lessons in humility, reciprocity, and community. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 28(1), March, 18-23.

Sylva, K., Roy, C., & Painter, M. (1980). Child watching at playgroup and nursery school. Oxford preschool project. London: Grant McIntyre Ltd.

Sylva, K., & Wiltshire, J. (1993). The impact of early learning on later development. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 1(1), 17-40.

Schweinhart, L., & Weikart, D. (1997). High/Scope Perry preschool program. In G.Albee & T.Gullota (Eds), Primary prevention works (pp. 146-166). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

242

Schweinhart, L., Weikart, D., & Larner, M. (1986). Consequences of three preschool curriculum models through age 15. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 1(10), 15-46.

Tan, J., Gopinathan, S., & Ho, W. K. (Eds.). (1997). Education in Singapore. Singapore: Prentice Hall.

Tarmugi, A. (2000, November). Minister for Community Development and Sport's speech at opening ceremony, Child Care Seminar 2000, Singapore. November 11.

Tarmugi, A. (2000, May). Minister for Community Development and Sport's speech at opening ceremony, World Forum on Early Childhood Education, Singapore. May 16-19.

Tayler, C. (2000). Preparing the early childhood profession: An Australian analysis. In J. Hayden (Ed.), Landscapes in early childhood education (pp. 253-270). New York: Peter Lang.

Tedlock, B. (1985). Ethnography and ethnographic representation. In R. Burgess, (Ed.), Strategies of educational research: Qualitative methods. London: Falmer Press.

Teo, Chee Hean (2002, February). Minister of Education’s speech at the launch of the Singapore Millennium Foundation and Singapore Millennium Scholarships, Raffles Hotel, Singapore. February 21.

The importance of being listened to. (1995, June 9). Time Magazine, p. 26.

Thorpe, K., Tayler, C., Bridgstock, R., Greishaber, S., Skoien, P., Danby, S., & Petriwkyj, A. (2005). Preparing for school. Report of the Queensland preparing for school trials 2003/2004. Brisbane, Australia: School of Early Childhood, Queensland University of Technology.

Tiller, P. (1988). Children as reliable sources of information. In M. Jensen. (Ed.), Interviews with children. Copenhagen, Denmark: National Institute of Social Research

Tobin, J., Wu, D., & Davidson, D. (1989). Preschool in three cultures: Japan, China and the United States. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

United Nations (1989). The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. New York: UNICEF.

Verba, M. (1994). The beginnings of collaboration in peer interaction. Human Development, 37, 125-137.

243

Vulliamy, G., & Webb, R. (1991). Teacher research and educational change: An empirical study. British Educational Research Journal, 17(3), 219-36.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Walsh, B. J., Tobin, J. J., & Grave, M. E. (1993). The interpretive voice: Qualitative research in early childhood education. In B. Spodek, (Ed.), Handbook of research on the education of young children (pp. 464-76). New York: MacMillan.

Walsh, D. (2005). Developmental theory. In N. Yelland (Ed.), Critical issues on early childhood education (pp. 40-48). Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.

Watson, L. (1997). Children’s misconceptions and conceptual change. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 22(2), 12-16.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning and meaning identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Whitebook, M., Howes, C., & Phillips, D. (1990). Who cares? Child care teachers and the quality of care in America: Final report. National Child Care Staffing Study. Berkeley, CA: Child Care Employee Project.

Wien, C. (1995). Developmentally appropriate practice and the practical knowledge of day care teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Halifax, Canada: Dalhousie University.

Wiltz, N. W., & Klein, E. L. (1996). Children’s perceptions about the structure of and preference for activities in child care. Proceedings of the 3rd National Head Start Research Conference, 614. June 20-23.

Wiltz, N. W., & Klein, E. L. (2001). What do children do in childcare? Children’s perceptions of high and low quality. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 16, 209-236.

Wiersma, W. (2000). Research methods in education: An introduction. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Williamson, H., & Butler, I. (1996). No one ever listens to us. In C. Cloke and M. Davies (Eds.), Participation and empowerment in child protection (pp. 140-153). London: Pitman.

Wilson, B., & Wyn, J. (1987). Shaping futures: Youth action for livelihood. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

244

Wong, A. (1997a, March). Senior Minister of State for Education's speech at Commencement Ceremony, RTRC Asia-Wheelock College, Singapore.

Wong, A. (1999b, April). Senior Minister of State for Education's speech at Annual Dinner and Dance, NTUC Childcare Co-operative, Singapore.

Wong, A. (1999c, August). Senior Minister of State for Education's speech at RTRC Asia Graduation Ceremony, Singapore.

Wong, A. (2000a, March). Parliamentary response to questions on pre-school education, Parliament House, Singapore.

Wong, A. (2000b, June). Senior Minister of State for Education's speech at RTRC Asia- Wheelock College 2000 Commencement Ceremony, Singapore.

Wong, L. (2002). Accreditation and quality for children of 2010. Paper presented at World Forum, Retrieved 21/10/2002 from http://www.ccie.com/wf/presentations/wong.cfm.

Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, 17(2), 89-100.

Woodhead, M. (1985). Preschool education has long-term effects: But can they be generalised? Oxford Review of Education, 11(2), 133-55.

Woodhead, M. (2000). Towards a global paradigm for research into early childhood. In H. Penn (Ed.), Early childhood services: Theory, policy and practice. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Woodhead, M., & Faulkner, D. (2000). Subjects, objects or participants? In P. Christensen and A. James (Eds.), Research with children: Perspectives and practices (pp.9-35). London: Falmer Press.

Woodhead, M., Faulkner, D., & Littleton, K. (Eds.). (1998). Cultural worlds of childhood. New York: Routledge.

Woodrow, C. (1999). Revisiting images of the child in early childhood education: Reflections and considerations. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 24(4), 7- 12.

Wright, S. (1987). In search of creativity. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 4, 1- 17.

Wu, D. (1992). Early childhood education in China. In S. Freeney (Ed.), Early childhood education in Asia and the Pacific. A source book (pp. 1-26). New York: Garland Publishing Inc.

245

Wylie, R. (1989). Measures of self concept. Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska Press.

Wyness, M. (2000). Contesting childhood. London: Falmer Press.

Yelland, N., & Kilderry, A. (2005). Against the tide. In N. Yelland (Ed.), Critical issues on early childhood education (pp. 1-13). Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.

Yeo, L. S., & Clarke, C. (2005). Staring school: A Singapore story told by children. Australian Journal of Early Childhood. 30(3), 1-8.

Young, M., & Whitty, G. (Eds.). (1977). Society, state and schooling. Lewes, UK: Falmer.

Yonemura, M. (1986). A teacher at work: Professional development and the early childhood educator. New York: Teachers College Press.

Zhang, X. & Sigel, I. (1994, May). Two kindergarten programs and children’s perceptions of school: A cross cultural study. Paper presented at the annual meeting for AERA, New Orleans, USA (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 370682).

246

Appendix 1 Letter of approval from UHREC

247

Appendix 2 Research information sheet

Office of Research

Research Information Sheet

Research Project: Co-construction of knowledge: the lived experiences of young children in two Singaporean early childhood classrooms. The purpose of this research study is to document the experiences, ideas, views and understandings of young children, teachers and parents in 3 collaborative classroom environments in Singapore. Significant knowledge can be added to the field of early childhood research when children are active participants in the research process, where their views, opinions and feelings are deliberately solicited and accepted as valid and genuine evidence. This study aims to place children's voices alongside parents, teacher and policy makers.

The researcher will be engaged in collecting information using field notes, photography, video and audio recordings, collections of children's work, interviews and discussion with children, teachers and parents from July to December, 2002 for a maximum of one day per week.

Participation in this project is purely voluntary and you may withdraw at any time.

While pseudonyms may be used for participant's names in the project, children and teachers may be identified through the use of photography and video recordings. Should any person not wish to be identified for whatever reason, it is important to be aware of this factor. All data that may identify this person will be treated with confidentiality in order to protect their identity. Initially, the results of the study will form an unpublished doctoral thesis, but it is possible that a revised version may be published in educational journals or as conference papers as part of the researcher's contribution to knowledge about teaching and learning. Video recordings, photographs and audio transcriptions may be used as part of instructional/support materials at the conclusion of the project.

It is not expected that there will be any direct benefit to the participants in this study, however the early childhood community in Singapore may benefit through the consideration of collaborative learning models.

For any questions/issues regarding the project please do not hesitate to contact either the researcher or the research supervisor.

This project is being conducted as part of a PhD study by the researcher at the Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.

Contact for Researcher: Contact for Supervisor: Ms Deborah Harcourt Dr. Barbara Piscitelli International Centre for Early Childhood School of Early Childhood 6 Raffles Blvd. #04-207 Marina Square Queensland University of Technology Singapore 039594 Kelvin Grove, Queensland, Australia Ph. (65) 63318427 Ph. (61) 7 38643567 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

248

Appendix 3 Consent to participate

Office of Research

Consent to Participate

Research Project: Co-construction of knowledge: the lived experiences of young children in two Singaporean early childhood classrooms.

By signing below, you are indicating that you:

• Have read an understood the information sheet about this project; • Have had any questions answered to your satisfaction; • Understand that if you have any additional questions you can contact the researcher and/or supervisor; • Understand that you are free to withdraw at any time, without comment or penalty; • Understand that you can contact the Secretary of the University Human Research Ethics Committee on (61) 7 38642902 if you have any concerns about the ethical conduct of the project; and • Agree to participate in the project.

Centre's Name:

Principal:

Date:

249