Affective Early Childhood Pedagogy for Infant-Toddlers (Policy and Pedagogy with Under-three Year Olds: Cross-disciplinary Insights and Innovations, 3) [1st ed. 2021] 3030735265, 9783030735265

Citation preview

Policy and Pedagogy with Under-three Year Olds: Cross-disciplinary Insights and Innovations 3

Gloria Quiñones Liang Li Avis Ridgway

Affective Early Childhood Pedagogy for Infant-Toddlers

Policy and Pedagogy with Under-three Year Olds: Cross-disciplinary Insights and Innovations Volume 3

Series Editors E. Jayne White, University of Canterbury, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand Carmen Dalli, Institute for Early Childhood Studies, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand

The last two decades have witnessed an explosion of research that links traditional child development knowledge on optimal development of very young children to insights from a range of other disciplines, including neurological science, early childhood pedagogy, health studies and critical psychology. At the same time growing numbers of children in the Western world are spending significant periods of their earliest years beyond the traditional domain of the home, creating a new reality of shared education and care that draws across disciplines in expounding a pedagogical encounter with the very young. This series aims to bring together the range of contemporary theoretical, methodological, disciplinary and creative approaches to understanding this new reality for very young children in group-­ based infant and toddler settings. It will generate texts that incorporate comprehensive state of the art reviews of research to inform policy and pedagogy as well as promote and provoke innovative directions across disciplines. By bringing different disciplines to bear on the educational experience of the very young, this series will showcase new methodologies and theoretical approaches to understanding the very early years of life, pose theoretical challenges as well as opportunities, and assert the importance of multiple and dynamic perspectives. More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/13629

Gloria Quiñones • Liang Li • Avis Ridgway

Affective Early Childhood Pedagogy for Infant-Toddlers

Gloria Quiñones Faculty of Education Monash University Frankston, VIC, Australia

Liang Li Faculty of Education Monash University Frankston, VIC, Australia

Avis Ridgway Faculty of Education Monash University Frankston, VIC, Australia

ISSN 2509-6680     ISSN 2509-6699 (electronic) Policy and Pedagogy with Under-three Year Olds: Cross-disciplinary Insights and Innovations ISBN 978-3-030-73526-5    ISBN 978-3-030-73527-2 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73527-2 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Foreword

How do you find words to describe, understand, and create research-based pedagogy for very small children, who are embodied and prelinguistic, and whose worlds are full of moods, emotions, and affective tones of interaction? In their passionate and eminently important book, Affective Early Childhood Pedagogy for Infant-Toddlers, Gloria Quiñones, Liang Li, and Avis Ridgway make a case for three under-researched and undertheorized phenomena of early childhood education: infant-toddlers, affective worlds, and pedagogy. Taking a cultural historical wholeness approach, the authors demonstrate and analyze infant-toddlers’ and their educators’ affective relations in a broad range of activity settings. This book exposes the complex and dynamic environments in which infant-toddlers and their educators build relationships, and invites the reader to think and re-think what infant-toddler pedagogy encompasses. As a professor of early childhood education, who shares the authors’ interest in exploring emotional worlds and pedagogy, I warmly welcome this significant contribution. It is no exaggeration to say that infant-toddlers have been the invisible children in early childhood education research. Their experiences and worlds have been studied far less than the lives of older children. One major reason for the marginalization of research and discussion of infant-toddlers may be the difficulty of reaching and conceptualizing the worlds of young children. These worlds are loaded with a variety of moods, emotions, and affects. Interestingly, the early childhood research community has given little attention to how affective worlds are constructed, enacted, and negotiated in naturalistic social interactions, and how pedagogical practices contribute to and can build on affective dimensions of interaction. Infant-­ toddlers are also often overlooked in early childhood pedagogical practices and policies. In the daily flow of activities in institutional day care, many things go almost unnoticed: a passing feeling, relating and responding affectively, or something caught at a glance, an act of responsiveness and closeness, are all part of the everyday routines, and as such easily occur without any special attention and exploration. This book makes an exception to that rule. Accurately and with a gentle touch, it records in words and pictures infant-toddlers’ perspectives, experiences, v

vi

Foreword

perceptions, and understandings of their institutional life-worlds. With screenshots taken from video observation, and through rich interpretations, the authors vividly illustrate the interactions and relations between infant-toddlers and their educators, demonstrating the multiple ways in which the educators generate affective pedagogical practices. In doing so, the book offers vibrant methodological (visual narratives) and theoretical material for researchers and for practitioners alike. The focus is on the child as subject, not object, in their own world. Infant-­ toddlers’ perspective is always expressed in the children’s own images, bodily expression, words, and images capturing what is meaningful for them. In doing so, the book recognizes the absolute value of a small children, and their educators’ unique ways of building affective relations, closeness, and caring, which underlies the very constitution of interpersonal relationships, indeed humanity. For infant-­ toddlers, affective relations are a fundamental social structure through which they interact with their environment and build experiences of connection with other people. In setting up a collaborative forum, the authors forge relationships between practitioners and academics to enhance and cultivate scholarly dialogue; this better aligns the research and practice communities. Creating research-based pedagogy for and professionalizing this still underdeveloped area is extremely important, as it advances our scientific understanding of infant-toddlers. This book should be of interest to researchers, practitioners, and decision-makers. It gives us hope that the early childhood research community is starting to recognize that we can no longer ignore the role of infant-toddlers and their affects in ECE. Hopefully, interest in infant-toddlers and affective pedagogies will continue to grow. We are only just beginning to understand all the educational and research uses and consequences of affective pedagogies in early childhood settings. Professor of Early Childhood Education, Faculty of Educational Sciences University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

Lasse Lipponen

Acknowledgements

We dedicate this book to infant-toddler educators whose affective and specialized professionalism helps to form the foundation of educational systems everywhere. Our particular appreciation is given to Springer’s Astrid Noordemeer and Nick Melchior who invited a proposal to write our infant-toddler research into book form. Co-authors Gloria Quinones, Liang Li and Avis Ridgway acknowledge from previous experiences of co-research and co-authorship their formation of a dynamic creative team process. We appreciate the shared good will, knowledge and collaboration extended to each another throughout preparation of this book led by Gloria. We extend our grateful thanks to our families for unconditional support. Revisions of the manuscript took place during COVID-19 pandemic lockdown period, which made us more reflective about affective pedagogies and the relationships between educators and infant-toddlers, when times of social and physical distancing were required. We acknowledge the support of Monash University for time and space for writing. Gloria and Liang received support from the Advancing Women’s Research Success Grant, Monash University. Thank you to Cynthia Lopez Valenzuela for reliable and sensitive field research assistance and Dr Victoria Minson for some data transcription. We reserve a special thank you to the participating infant-toddlers, educators and centre directors who were generous with their time, trust and ideas. Their valuable perspectives found in this book inspired the theorization of affective pedagogies. We are most appreciative of the provocations and constructive comments from reviewers and editors, Professor Jayne White and Professor Carmen Dalli, which helped strengthen and streamline this book. We greatly appreciate the foreword written by Professor Lasse Lipponen.

vii

Contents

1 Introduction to Affective Pedagogies������������������������������������������������������    1 1.1 Introduction��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    1 1.1.1 Why Pedagogy?��������������������������������������������������������������������    2 1.2 Cultural–Historical Theory ��������������������������������������������������������������    5 1.2.1 Affect and Social Situation of Development: Advancing the Concept of Affective Pedagogies������������������    5 1.3 Wholeness Approach������������������������������������������������������������������������    7 1.3.1 Societal Perspective��������������������������������������������������������������    8 1.3.2 Institutional Perspective: Long Day Care Settings ��������������    9 1.3.3 Activity Settings: Beyond Routines��������������������������������������    9 1.3.4 Personal Perspectives������������������������������������������������������������   10 1.4 Visual Methodology��������������������������������������������������������������������������   12 1.4.1 Project 1: Studying Babies and Toddlers: Cultural Worlds and Transitory Relationships������������������������������������   13 1.4.2 Project 2: Educators of Infant and Toddlers: Developing a Culture of Critical Reflection ������������������������   13 1.4.3 Visual Methods ��������������������������������������������������������������������   14 1.4.4 Affective Pedagogies: Activity settings��������������������������������   16 1.5 Conclusion����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   17 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   18 2 Affective Relationships in Flow of Time and Space������������������������������   23 2.1 Introduction��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   23 2.1.1 Mealtimes as a Specialized Pedagogical Space��������������������   23 2.1.2 Mealtimes as a Social Space for Fostering Relationships������������������������������������������������������������������������   24 2.1.3 Mealtimes a Social Space to Communicate��������������������������   25 2.2 Mealtimes as an Activity Setting ������������������������������������������������������   25 2.2.1 Affective Relationships��������������������������������������������������������   26 2.2.2 Affective Dialogue����������������������������������������������������������������   27 2.3 Analysis of Affective Moments During Mealtimes��������������������������   28 ix

x

Contents

2.4 Case Example: Activity Setting of Mealtimes����������������������������������   28 2.4.1 Affective Moment: Setting the Time and Space for Affective Relations����������������������������������������������������������   29 2.4.2 Affective Moments: Emergence of Silent Dialogues to Meet Demands������������������������������������������������������������������   33 2.4.3 Affective Moment: Development of Affective Encouragement ��������������������������������������������������������������������   35 2.5 Conclusion����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   40 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   41 3 Pedagogical Awareness of Being Responsive ����������������������������������������   43 3.1 Introduction��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   43 3.1.1 Pedagogical Awareness of Responsivity������������������������������   44 3.2 Responsive Communication ������������������������������������������������������������   45 3.2.1 Communicative Responsivity Over Time ����������������������������   46 3.2.2 Responsive Awareness: Wholeness Perspectives������������������   46 3.3 Analysis of Pedagogical Awareness��������������������������������������������������   47 3.3.1 Case Example: Nappy Change����������������������������������������������   47 3.3.2 Inside Bathroom Nappy Change and Toilet Time����������������   51 3.4 Institutional Responsivity: Collaborative Pedagogical Awareness with Co-Educator Peta����������������������������������������������������   55 3.5 Conclusion����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   57 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   58 4 Pedagogical Knowledge of Transitory Moments����������������������������������   61 4.1 Introduction��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   61 4.1.1 Transitions and Transitory Moments������������������������������������   62 4.2 Cultural-Historical Approach for the Study of Infant-­Toddlers’ Play and Learning in Transitory Moments���������������������������������������   62 4.2.1 Transitory Moments��������������������������������������������������������������   64 4.3 Analysis of Affective Pedagogy During Transitory Moments����������   65 4.4 Case Example: Sandbox Play ����������������������������������������������������������   66 4.4.1 Transitory Moment: Pedagogical Demands of Turn-Taking����������������������������������������������������������������������   66 4.4.2 Transitory Moment: Infants Developing Motives in Sandbox Play��������������������������������������������������������������������   68 4.4.3 Transitory Moment: Sand Play Exploration ������������������������   70 4.5 Conclusion����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   73 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   74 5 Affective Positioning in Infant-Toddlers’ Play��������������������������������������   77 5.1 Introduction��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   77 5.2 Cultural–Historical Concept of Play������������������������������������������������   78 5.2.1 The Role of Educators in Children’s Play����������������������������   79 5.2.2 Double Subjectivity in Children’s Play��������������������������������   79 5.3 Case Example: Bathing a Doll����������������������������������������������������������   81

Contents

xi

5.3.1 Inviting Toddlers to Enter the Imaginary Situation��������������   81 5.3.2 Modelling How to Bath the Doll������������������������������������������   83 5.3.3 Guiding Children to Bathe the Doll��������������������������������������   85 5.4 Educators’ Invitational Play Actions and Affective Positioning ������   89 5.5 Conclusion����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   90 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   92 6 Closeness as an Affective Pedagogy��������������������������������������������������������   95 6.1 Introduction��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   95 6.1.1 Relational Pedagogies����������������������������������������������������������   96 6.1.2 Affective Pedagogies of Closeness in Infant-Toddler Education������������������������������������������������������������������������������   97 6.2 Affect in Approaching Pedagogy������������������������������������������������������   99 6.3 Analysis of Closeness ����������������������������������������������������������������������  100 6.3.1 Case Example: How Close Is Too Close? ����������������������������  101 6.3.2 Affective Closeness in Feeding��������������������������������������������  105 6.4 Collaborative Forum: Expansive Dialogue ��������������������������������������  107 6.5 Conclusion����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  109 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  110 7 Educator’s Generation of Affective Pedagogical Practices������������������  113 7.1 Introduction��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  113 7.1.1 Going Beyond Critical Reflection����������������������������������������  114 7.2 Subjectivity ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  115 7.2.1 Subjectivity from a Cultural-Historical Perspective ������������  115 7.2.2 Relational Expertise, Common Knowledge and Relational Agency����������������������������������������������������������  117 7.3 Generative Paths for Configuration of Expert Practices ������������������  118 7.4 Aligning Paths of Configuration ������������������������������������������������������  118 7.4.1 Educator’s Growing Awareness of Effective and Affective Pedagogical Practices ������������������������������������  119 7.4.2 Generating Effective and Affective Expertise����������������������  121 7.4.3 Expansive Paths of Configuration: New Common Knowledge����������������������������������������������������������������������������  122 7.5 Affective Configurations: An Effective and Affective Educator������  125 7.6 Conclusion����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  127 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  128 8 Affective Pedagogies for Infant-Toddlers’ Education and Care����������  131 8.1 Introduction��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  131 8.2 Emotions and Imagination����������������������������������������������������������������  133 8.3 Educators’ Creative Futures��������������������������������������������������������������  134 8.3.1 Educators’ Imagined Affective Pedagogies��������������������������  135 8.3.2 Educators’ Awareness of Uncertainty ����������������������������������  137 8.3.3 Educators’ Awareness of Stress��������������������������������������������  139 8.4 Educators’ Affect and Social Situation of Development������������������  140

xii

Contents

8.5 Expanding Educators’ Affective Pedagogies������������������������������������  141 8.6 Conclusion����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  142 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  143 Glossary������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  145

Chapter 1

Introduction to Affective Pedagogies

Abstract  The aim of this chapter is to introduce cultural–historical theory used throughout this book for theoretical and empirical conceptualization of affective pedagogies. What do we mean by affective pedagogies? In relation to our research, it became apparent that affective pedagogies are integral to the work of infant-­ toddler educators. We therefore make explicit and accessible, the eloquence and benevolence of affective pedagogies by using Hedegaard’s (Cultural-historical approaches to studying learning and development: perspectives in cultural-­historical research, Singapore, Springer, pp 23–41: 2019) wholeness approach to the study of children birth-to-three (infant-toddlers) and educators’ pedagogical practices. We discuss two research projects undertaken in three different long day care settings in Victoria, Australia, revealing diverse visual narratives of affective pedagogies and their specialized nature. Our vision for this book is to conceptualize vibrant affective pedagogies and generate new knowledge of infant-toddler education and care.

1.1  Introduction As those at the heart of the interpersonal lives of infants and toddlers in groups, infant/toddler teachers are well-positioned to become informers of new theories on early care and education and their voices should be heard in the creation of new understandings about the field (Recchia & Fincham, 2019, p. 21).

Recchia and Fincham (2019), who undertook infant-toddler research in the United States, suggest that when theorising infant-toddler education and care, we need to not only hear, but also acknowledge, the voices of educators. Therefore in this book, we provide empirical examples of educators’ everyday experiences in long day care (LDC) centres, needed to conceptualize affective pedagogies. As a whole, this book aims to build scholarly research of infant-toddler pedagogy. We unpack the affective relationships formed with infant-toddlers that are deeply embedded in the pedagogy. In particular, we examine infant-toddler educators’ perspectives to help awaken and inform new theorizations of affective pedagogies. © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 G. Quiñones et al., Affective Early Childhood Pedagogy for Infant-Toddlers, Policy and Pedagogy with Under-three Year Olds: Cross-disciplinary Insights and Innovations 3, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73527-2_1

1

2

1  Introduction to Affective Pedagogies

Throughout the book, we offer visual narratives, to expand interpretations and invite readers to think and re-think what infant-toddler pedagogy encompasses. As Elwick et al. (2014a) suggest we remain respectful and embrace the uncertainty of interpreting infant-toddler experiences. We use a cultural-historical approach to the concept of ‘perspectives’ for focusing on the relational encounters between educators, researchers and children. Dalli and White (2017) suggest the unique experiences of infant-toddlers deeply affect educator’s pedagogical work. Multiple perspectives and voices are needed (White & Redder, 2019) for understanding infant-toddlers, and their specialized learning. For this book, we draw on cultural–historical theory and the idea of everyday activity settings, to unravel the distinctive affective and reciprocal relationships that exist between infant-toddlers and educators and by so doing, we advance greater understanding of infant-toddler educator’s specialized pedagogies.

1.1.1  Why Pedagogy? To provide a richer understanding of the specialized nature of infant-toddler pedagogies that may inform policy, Dalli and White (2017) ask the question ‘why pedagogy?’ (p. 5). To position our research, we explore this important question by close examination of reciprocal relationships within everyday pedagogical practices. Through means of visual and written text, this book presents case examples of infant-toddler pedagogy in Australia’s multicultural society. The conceptualization of affective pedagogies aims to support Australian early childhood education and care policy agendas, in relation to educators’ current social and physical working conditions. Policy informs practice and seeks to improve quality by offering educators alternative ideas (Dalli & White, 2017). Providing time and space to generate pedagogical ideas around practice is part of an important reflective process for educators (Quiñones, Li, & Ridgway, 2018a, b). Discursive, provocative and collaborative explorations are integral to the theorization of affective pedagogies. The following section provides a review of international research on infant-toddler pedagogical practices that complement affective pedagogies. 1.1.1.1  Infant-Toddler Pedagogical Practices Global perceptions of infant-toddler educators suggests they are framed as “babysitters” (Beck, 2013, p. 20). Similarly, in Australia, infant-toddler educators are positioned as having a lack of status because of the age of the children they educate, which denies full recognition of their professional role (Davis, Torr, & Degotardi, 2015). Their professional practice remains poorly recognized, suggesting that greater attention be given to the complexity of infant-toddler educator’s professional work (Cumming & Sumsion, 2014; Davis & Duhn, 2019). Giving greater

1.1 Introduction

3

attention can lead to further understanding the pedagogical practices and intentions of infant-toddler educators and what specifically matters to them. The following table (see Table 1.1) shows international research on infant-­toddler pedagogy complementary to our particular theorization of affective pedagogies. While some research is based on theoretical understandings and interviews with educators, in this book we contribute by offering empirical examples of affective pedagogies intentionally developed through reciprocal relationships. These researchers advocate for recognition of loving relationships (Recchia, et al., 2018), professional love (Page, 2014, 2017) and care and love (Bussey & Hill, 2017; Dalli, 2006, 2013; Rouse and Hadley, 2018; Rutanen & Hännikäinen, 2017) Table 1.1  International research on infant-toddler pedagogy Snapshot of pedagogical concepts Love, care, affective and relational pedagogies Professional love focuses on close attachment relationships between infant-toddlers and educators. From interviews with educators’ it was found to be a significant place for embracing love and intimacy in infant-toddler pedagogy (Page, 2014, 2017). Babies viewed as competent and importance given to educator’s close emotional attachments and relationships with them (Elfer & Page, 2015). Love and care involves educator’s emotional support, keeping children safe, and catering to social, emotional and educational needs according to their environment (Rouse & Hadley, 2018). Care remains undertheorized in the everyday work of infanttoddler educators’ (Bussey & Hill, 2017; Dalli, 2006, 2013). Care as part of infant-toddler educators’ professional identity and practice (Dalli, 2002; Davis & Degotardi, 2015). Relationships are the key to infant and toddler pedagogy. Relationships involve respect and opportunities for exploration. Ethics of care for infant-toddlers involves getting to know children, being attentive and providing guidance. (Dalli, Rockel, Duhn, Craw, 2011). Care, upbringing and teaching form an important part of holistic pedagogy in Finnish early childhood education and care (Rutanen & Hännikäinen, 2017). Affective and relational pedagogy involves affective engagement with toddlers through the use of soft voice, touch, gesture, encouraging and mutual dialogue and intimacy developed in joint play (Ridgway, et al., 2020). Educators’ sensitivity and awareness of the whole group is important when affective relationships are created between infants and educators (Ridgway, et al., 2016). Relationship-based approach for working reciprocally with infants that provides increased engagement in understanding infant needs (Recchia, et al., 2015). Love, intimacy and emotional connections with infants is an important component of developing meaningful relationships (Recchia, et al., 2018). Care and reciprocity an important pedagogical aspect, especially when mentoring pre-service teachers in modelling and guiding how to care for infants (Shin, 2015).

Scholars UK (Elfer & Page, 2015; Page, 2014; 2017) New Zealand (Bussey & Hill, 2017; Dalli, 2006, 2013; Dalli, Rockel, Duhn, Craw, 2011) Australia (Davis, Torr & Degotardi, 2015; Ridgway, Li & Quiñones, 2016b; Ridgway, Quiñones, Li, 2020; Rose & Hadley, 2018) United States (Recchia, Shin & Snaider, 2018; Recchia, Yeon Lee & Shin, 2015; Shin, 2015) Finland (Rutanen & Hännikäinen, 2017)

(continued)

4

1  Introduction to Affective Pedagogies

Table 1.1 (continued) Snapshot of pedagogical concepts Play and affective relationships Educators that aligned themselves with an emotional and playful stance are able to create joint play with toddlers. It’s important for educators to jointly coordinate their emotional stance when responding to toddlers. By taking an emotional and playful stance they are able to attune with children in play and show empathic concern, which creates shared understanding in joint play (Pursi & Lipponen, 2018) Educators’ affective engagement in play is vital for building shared knowledge in play. Affective engagement and reciprocity is created by the educator and toddlers’ new knowledge and shared imaginary play can be developed (Li et al., 2016). Toddlers’ affective values in play need to be acknowledged when adults enter the imaginary play (Li, et al., 2021). Affective values involve toddlers encouraging and sustaining their own intentions and motives in play (Li, et al., 2021). Supportive and affective spaces provided for toddlers who socially reference them and for exploration of affective moments of toddlers’ play (Quinones, et al., 2017). Educators building on a sense of group togetherness is important for infant-toddler learning. Playfulness supports children’s agency and the ability of educators to co-construct meaning together Physical proximity encourages a stronger quality of interaction and higher level of engagement between infant-toddler and educators (Singer, et al., 2014). Dialogues and language to support infant-toddler learning Educators may use commanding language such as guiding children in everyday routines (e.g. hand-washing). However, this restricts infant’s experiences in their further learning of complex language. (Hu et al., 2019). Educator’s responses to infant-toddlers and to the use of actions such as demonstrating and offering, is also noted (White, 2019). Infant-toddlers respond to educators who use a combination of verbal and non-verbal language (White, et al., 2015) Dialogues play a significant role in supporting toddlers’ learning experiences (White & Redder, 2015). Silence can be considered part of non-verbal communication when toddlers participate and engage together in joint activities.

Scholars Finland (Pursi & Lipponen,) 2018 Australia (Li, Quiñones& Ridgway, 2016; Li, Ridgway & Quiñones, 2021; Quiñones, Li & Ridgway, 2017) The Netherlands (Singer, 2017; Singer, et al. 2014)

Australia, New Zealand (Degotardi & Gill, 2019; Hu, et al., 2019; White, 2019; White & Redder, 2015; White et al., 2015) Sweden (Kultti, 2015)

which becomes a significant part of the educators’ everyday discourses and practices. Our contribution focuses on the vibrant and affective relationships embedded in educators’ pedagogical practices and how these affective relationships support infant-toddlers initiatives and explorations in different activity settings. In this book, we draw upon cultural-historical theory, to foreground infant-­ toddler educators’ roles in infant-toddler’s education and care. We extend current knowledge of educators’ love and care, and highlight the teaching role in supporting infant-toddlers development and learning through affective pedagogies. Familiarity

1.2 Cultural–Historical Theory

5

with cultural–historical theory encourages us to provide complex and comprehensive detail of educators’ perspectives. Therefore, this book contributes to a greater international understanding of infant-toddler affective pedagogical practices that can be considered in different cultural contexts.

1.2  Cultural–Historical Theory The child’s changing relationships between affect and intellect were at the center of Vygotsky’s (1993) theory of psychological development. This neglected aspect of his theory is now receiving attention from cultural–historical researchers (Fleer, González Rey, & Veresov, 2017; Roth, 2008). The theorization of affective pedagogies aims to advance the concept of affect from a cultural–historical perspective. Affect is highly significant for infant-toddlers’ learning and is present in the development of human relationships. To capture the complexity of affect as a concept, we engage with extending this theoretical view of affective pedagogies.

1.2.1  A  ffect and Social Situation of Development: Advancing the Concept of Affective Pedagogies We aim to advance infant-toddler pedagogy by using the new concept of affective pedagogies. In the search to find a theoretical concept that complements affect as important in the pedagogical work of educators, we use a cultural-historical approach. The concept of affect is not divided from intellect but is reflected in the dynamic unity of a person within their social environment, that shows intellect (cognition) and affect (emotion) as a whole system (Bozhovich, 2009; Vygotsky, 1998). In this dynamic system, affect is present, by understanding the unity of environment and the child’s experience. In order to understand exactly what effect the environment has on children, and, consequently, how it affects the course of their development, the nature of children’s experience must be understood, the nature of their affective relationship to the environment (Bozhovich, 2009, p.66).

The environment is a social one that involves the relationships a child has with adults. Adults and infant-toddlers develop affective relations as part of their dynamic social environment. Therefore, such affective relationships involve the emotional and thoughtful relationships educators provide for infant-toddlers. The social environment contributes to a child’s learning and development and importantly to their social situation of development. In this book, we expand the explanation of the concept of social situation of development. We suggest expansive layers are contained within the concept of social situation of development.

6

1  Introduction to Affective Pedagogies

They: • Portray infant-toddlers’ social situation of development; • Focus on affective relationships between infant-toddlers, educators, and their social environment that includes physical and social conditions; • Illustrate educator’s social situation of development through professional development (e.g. Collaborative forums) that offered unique conditions for generation of affective pedagogies. 1.2.1.1  The Social Situation of Development for Infant-Toddlers The social situation of development involves the unity of internal developmental processes and external conditions. These exist in a dynamic relationship that results in new qualitative changes and transformations in the infant-toddlers development (Vygotsky, 1998). We must admit that at the beginning of each age period, there develops a completely original, exclusive, single and unique relation, specific to a given age, between the child and reality, mainly social reality, which surrounds him. We call this relation the social situation of development at the given age. (Vygotsky, 1998, p. 198).

Vygotsky’s conception of development does not relate to the biological age, but focuses on the child’s cultural age (Fleer, 2019). The child is part of a social environment and part of social situations. The changing relationships and interactions support the development of new motives and competencies (Fleer, 2019). The adults’ interactions with the child are an important aspect of the infant-toddlers social situation of development. The social situation of development relates to how the child orients him/herself to the world, as they meet demands and participate in different institutional settings (Hedegaard, 2020). The infant-toddlers’ surrounding world, their environment, and the activities in which they participate, are important and help to enrich our understandings of how educators relate affectively with infant-toddlers. 1.2.1.2  Affective Relationships Vygotsky (1998) pointed out that, during the age period of infant-toddlers, their communication with adults is complex because “the social situation of development leads to the child’s developing a very great, complex, and multifaceted need to communicate with adults” (p.  248). The communicative nature of relationships with infant-toddlers involves a deep understanding on the part of the adults. In particular the social situation of development of preschool children, involves the child’s attitude towards an event or situation (Fleer, 2019), and foregrounds a “special combination of cultural conditions in which the child is participating” (Fleer, 2019, p. 57). Therefore, we devote attention to the material and cultural conditions that educators

1.3 Wholeness Approach

7

create for infant-toddlers learning and development, and in turn, we focus on the educators’ animation, compassion and vitality. Fleer’s (2019) recent theorization of the collective social situation of development includes the attunement of adults in specific contexts of play. The adult relates and attunes to children’s social situation of development, providing developmental conditions for their learning in collective play (Fleer, 2019). This informs the relationships the educator develops with infant-toddlers in their participation in specific environments and the conditions offered to infant-toddlers in different activity settings. Throughout the chapters, we focus on activity settings such as mealtimes (Chap. 2), nappy change (Chap. 3), play (Chaps. 4 and 5) and bottle feeding (Chap. 6) as we locate everyday activity settings and situations where educators are always in a reciprocal relationship with infant-toddlers. By doing this, we can conceptualize educators’ personal and collective affective pedagogies. Vygotsky’s concept of social situation of development was theorised in relation to children and their relationships. We expand this concept to incorporate the collaborative work of infant-toddler educators. In collaboration, researchers provided an innovation to professional development with a group of educators. As a result, collective reflection guided by educators and researchers, provided a means of generating common knowledge of the specialized nature of infant-toddler affective pedagogy, (see Chap. 6, 7 and 8). Project two discussed later in the chapter, contributed to greater understanding of educators’ generation of affective pedagogies. The professional development offered in Collaborative forums provided a space to interrogate and imagine pedagogical practices and expand the infant-toddler research agenda (Quiñones, Ridgway & Li, 2019a). The educator’s social situation of development in a forum group supported their learning and expanded their awareness of affective pedagogies., Discussion of the process of educator’s professional development in the forums is provided in the chapters and includes the generation of affective pedagogical practices discussed in Chaps. 6, 7 and 8. In the next section, Hedegaard’s (2008, 2019) seminal work guides the analyses of specific aspects of societal, institutional perspectives and activity settings that are used to unravel educators’ personal and collaborative pedagogies.

1.3  Wholeness Approach …our research and [the] theorizing that arises through it should help enrich the lifeworlds of the children we study and the people who work with them. (Hedegaard, 2019, p. 39)

A wholeness approach allows us to focus on both educators and children’s everyday life. Everyday activities occur in different institutions and in the society in which children live (Hedegaard, 2008). Hedegaard’s (2019) model of a wholeness approach

8

1  Introduction to Affective Pedagogies

to children’s learning and development includes their participation across different institutional settings. Her model shows perspectives of analysis for the study of societal perspective, institutional practices, activity settings and personal perspectives (Edwards, Fleer, & Bøttcher, 2019).

1.3.1  Societal Perspective In taking a societal perspective, infant-toddlers and adults live in various societies and spend their lives in different institutions. Societal traditions involve laws and regulations that provide the conditions for an institution (Hedegaard & Fleer, 2013). The case examples in this book occur in Australia. Australia is a vast island and a Commonwealth country with a Federation of six states and two territories (Richards, Garvis, & Phillipson, 2018). It is one of the most culturally and linguistically diverse countries in the world (Nuttall & Grieshaber, 2017; Richards et al., 2018). Significant for infant-toddler education and care is the fact that they are now spending considerable time in long day care (LDC) centres (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2014). To give some context, in Australia, approximately 48% of young children attend long day care centres (LDC), and 98% of the early childhood education sector is female (Peers, 2017). Added to the complexity of the early childhood field in Australia, educators who work with infant-toddlers in LDC settings are frequently the least professionally qualified (Cheeseman, Sumsion, & Press, 2015). In Australia, educators hold a Certificate III qualification (6 months) or a diploma qualification (1 year), compared with educators of older children, who require a four-year bachelor degree (Clark & Baylis, 2012; Davis et al., 2015). In addition, the national early years learning framework for Australian children aged birth to 5  years (DEEWR, 2009), lacks visibility of infant-toddlers, which acknowledges the need to continue to advocate for the specialized work of infant-­ toddler educators (see Davis, Torr & Degotardi, 2015). The Victorian Early Years Learning and Development Framework (VEYLDF) is a state mandated curriculum (Department of Education & Training [DET], 2016). The VEYLDF lists practice principles for children’s learning and development that suggest respectful relationships and responsive engagement (DET, 2016). In these relationships, educators should promote emotional security, demonstrate sensitivity, and create warm and trusting reciprocal relationships with children. Educators demonstrate respect towards infant-toddlers by interacting with them and being attuned to their cues and communication (DET, 2016). In alignment with the VEYLDF, in our research, we pay special attention to reciprocal and intentional relationships and how these relationships lay the foundations for children’s learning and development in the context of infant-toddler pedagogies. Educators who have a responsive relationship can stimulate infant-toddlers’ learning and active engagement in their environment (DET, 2016).

1.3 Wholeness Approach

9

Furthermore, National Quality Framework of the Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA, 2011) is a quality process that aims to deliver “high-quality and nationally consistent early childhood education” (Grieshaber, 2017). Quality area 5 focuses on relationships with children and specifies the promotion of responsive and respectful relationships (ACECQA, 2011). These societal policies set up the demands for the educators and educators need to develop their pedagogical knowledge in promoting responsive relationships with infant-toddlers. In order to meet the societal demands, this book pays special attention to the investigation of infant-toddlers educators’ relational pedagogies. Recent research in Australia suggests the importance of making visible and giving recognition to infant-toddler educators’ professional work (Davis & Dunn, 2019). Infant-toddler educators’ everyday work involves having greater awareness of the emotional complexity of relationships between infants and educators, such as being mindful and providing affection (Salamon, Sumsion, & Harrison, 2017). The qualities of relationships have important pedagogical implications. When we examine pedagogical practices formed in the institutions in which educators’ work, we found that their affective relations such as having a responsive awareness of infant-­ toddlers are developed through intentional teaching.

1.3.2  Institutional Perspective: Long Day Care Settings A cultural–historical perspective accounts for a wholeness approach as infant-­ toddlers participate across different institutions (e.g. home, preschool and school communities) (Hedegaard & Fleer, 2013). The institutional perspective includes cultural practices located in an institution, such as a preschool, school or LDC center (Hedegaard, 2008). Institutional practices are in a dynamic relationship with the child’s development: “the environment and the child’s activities are seen in connection, creating a child’s social situation of development” (Hedegaard, 2008, p. 34). In our examination of institutional perspectives, LDC settings create social situations, dynamic environments and varied activities. The child’s social situation changes as the child enters a new institution that possesses its own values and traditions (Hedegaard, 2009). In this book, we focus on the institution of Long Day Care (LDC) and the activity settings traditionally found there.

1.3.3  Activity Settings: Beyond Routines Institutional perspectives involve different activity settings. Adults and children are engaged in activity settings, represented for example by playtime, lunchtime, outdoor play and bedtime (Hedegaard & Fleer, 2013). Routines are considered part of everyday activities with their own practice traditions. The bedtime routine at home

10

1  Introduction to Affective Pedagogies

is also an activity setting, where an adult prepares the child for sleep (Hedegaard & Fleer, 2013). Bedtime routines at home where parents build on “intimate relatedness” are considered central to relationships (Hedegaard & Fleer, 2013, p. 149). The activity setting shapes pedagogy, including the way adults relate to children. In the institution of LDC, there are many traditions and routines in the activity settings. The activity settings create new demands, motives and intentions for children as they enter new institutions. When examining these, it is important to devote attention to the changing relations and the child’s intentions towards others (Hedegaard & Fleer, 2013). When taking the child’s perspective, a central consideration is which factors contribute to different practice traditions. Dynamic factors that occur in these social situations are the child’s motives, interests, engagements and situated motivations (Hedegaard, 2019). These activity settings exist in a dynamic relationship (Edwards et al., 2019). Therefore, we devote attention to how the child/infant toddler and adult engage in activity settings within institutional practices (Edwards et al., 2019).

1.3.4  Personal Perspectives The ‘child’s perspective’ is used to “gain knowledge about how the child understands the world…his or her intentional orientation to the world” (Hedegaard, 2020, p.1). These intentional orientations refer to the child’s interactions with others, as the child meets demands created by educators for his or her learning and development (Hedegaard, 2020). Hedegaard’s (2008) personal perspective centers on the child’s social situation. The child also meets demands of educators in specific practice traditions of institutions. A child’s social situation depends on the traditions that are present in different activity settings (Hedegaard, 2019). A child’s and educators’ orientation to the world involves their motives and engagements in specific activity settings (Hedegaard, 2019). The concept of motive accounts for the person’s (child and educator) orientation to an activity and the actions taken in different practice traditions (Hedegaard, 2019). From a personal perspective, it is necessary to acknowledge that children respond to educator’s demands and vice versa. Such demands contribute to the child’s development while they participate in institutional practices. In relation to the educator’s perspective, awareness of motives, competencies and conditions created in activity settings is important (Hedegaard, 2019). By using visual narrative methodology and the wholeness approach, we give close attention to the learning environment as the child/infant-toddler meets demands in different activity settings. The individual and collective perspectives of educators include their consideration of infant-toddlers’ motives, interests and levels of engagement. Meanwhile, educators’ affective pedagogies also include diverse reciprocal ways of interacting with, and relating to, infant-toddlers. Therefore, their pedagogical relations demand engagement with infant-toddlers’ learning in specific

1.3 Wholeness Approach

11

activity settings. Further, when adults are attuned to infant-toddlers, they become a positive force for learning and development (Fleer, 2019). 1.3.4.1  Capture of Infant-toddler’s Perspectives Different discourses have emerged in relation to children’s voices and their participation in society. For example, the United Nations Conventions on the Rights of Child (UNCROC) highlights the right for children to participate in matters that concern them (Johansson, 2013). One concern is how these rights and voices are sufficiently represented in research, and the complexity of capturing infant-toddlers perspectives and experiences (Johansson, 2013; White, 2013). As such the importance is in “trying to recognize the complexity whilst drawing important conclusions about infants and toddlers in order to facilitate understandings” (White, 2013, p.188). These remain of delicate importance, as researchers embrace the complexity and uncertainty of capturing infant-toddlers perspectives. It is suggested that in order to understand infant-toddlers’ perspectives, researchers listen openly to the infant-toddlers meanings. For example, infant-toddlers diverse choices of communication (Stepheson, 2013); how they might think and feel (Quiñones & Fleer, 2013) and how they embrace infant-toddler’s embodied actions (Quiñones & Pursi, 2020; Løkken, 2011). The importance of establishing ongoing dialogues between researchers and educators to understand infant-toddlers everyday experiences remains an important pedagogical task (Elicker, Ruprecht & Anderson, 2014; Quiñones, et al., 2018a, b). According to Elwick and Sumsion (2013), the concept of infant perspectives elicits several issues. For example, the uncertainty of knowing and representing what infant’s experiences are (Elwick & Sumsion, 2013; Elwick, Bradley & Sumsion, 2014a, b). Some of these concerns relate to use of traditional methods of researching infants “as object of researchers” interpretations (Elwick & Sumsion, 2013, p. 340). In their study, they suggest the use of video images can also affect researchers. Researchers hold ethical responsibility in their portrayal of infants. Infant research encounters provide an opportunity to look closely and collaboratively at video data for interpretation of captured images (Elwick & Sumsion, 2013). In their research, they advise video data as an alternative to the “encounter between research and infants as it unfolds and develops in practice” (Elwick, et al. 2014b, p.875). Ethical reflection and caution are needed in this process of “being conscious of the impossibilities of knowing with certainty what meaning they [infant-toddlers] may be making of those experiences” (Elwick, Bradley & Sumsion, 2014b p.201–211). As a collective team of three diverse researchers, we wonder what affective pedagogy might be. As Elwick (2020b, p.156) reminds us “learning to see the complex entanglements comprising that co-production and participation in the research and pedagogical moments we share with others”, is a challenge. Salamon’s (2015) notion of “ethical symmetry” grounded on the notion of engaging respectfully with the ‘other’ reminds us of the power imbalances that can

12

1  Introduction to Affective Pedagogies

be created in research. It also involves reciprocal and authentic relationships with infants participating in research. In researching with infants, researchers’ attitudes to ethical symmetry involving the establishment of respectful relationships and acknowledgement of infants’ rights, orients our study. Through the use of visual documentation, infants’ perspectives are realized in the research process including their verbal and non-verbal languages, the gestures, body movements etc. The chapters in this book provide a glimpse of new understandings of pedagogy and infant-toddlers’ learning. We unravel entanglements of relationships made visible through visual methodology and try to gain a sense of the relational social situations of infant-toddlers’ participation in everyday activity settings. In addition, through discussion with the participating educators and directors in relation to selected video data of infant-toddlers’ interaction, we are able to achieve the collective views of infant-toddlers’ perspectives to increase the research accountabilities. In our research, we focus on how educators “follow the child’s initiatives, supporting the child’s explorations” (Hedegaard, 2020, p.4). The infant-toddler’s explorations and engagements with educators as they interact in their everyday activity settings, is part of our deliberate focus of attention. We use this wholeness approach to provide a wider view of infant-toddlers’ perspectives. We remain cautious about how we make meaning of these experiences in a collaborative effort, as researchers and with a group of six educators in two projects. We remain open and thoughtful in relation to these social situations and experiences, which might be just a small representation of the lively experiences of infant-­ toddlers. In doing this, we make a further step towards an understanding of affective pedagogies.

1.4  Visual Methodology It is not just the research tools we use that determines what might be possible to capture as part of the research process, but importantly, it is the theoretical gaze we adopt that shapes how research process, but importantly, it is the theoretical gaze we adopt that shape how researchers make sense and interpret the data (Quiñones & Fleer, 2013, p.107).

Visual methodologies used in early childhood allow researchers to pay attention to the plurality of the eye “beyond any singular sayings about what is seen by the researcher alone, our seeing eye/I.” (White, 2020, p. 6). As three researchers, we purposefully and in mutual dialogue, encountered visual data in the “all-embracing perspectives” (Ridgway, Quiñones & Li, 2020, p.177). Video research provides many possibilities, configurations and implications for pedagogical practice (Elwick, 2020a). The video camera might capture infant-toddler’s affective perspective through actions, gestures, non-verbal and verbal language (Ridgway, et al., 2020). A wholeness approach provides us with a rich methodological opportunity to gather multiple perspectives of researchers, educators, infant-toddlers and the relationships in between moments of pedagogical action.

1.4 Visual Methodology

13

The following two ethically approved research projects studied infant-toddlers in Victoria, Australia. Ethical consents and permissions were sought and agreed to, by participants, educators and infant-toddler families.

1.4.1  P  roject 1: Studying Babies and Toddlers: Cultural Worlds and Transitory Relationships The first project involved infant-toddlers’ transitory relationships across institutions, families and LDC centres, and was titled ‘Studying Babies and Toddlers: Cultural Worlds and Transitory Relationships’ (Monash University Human Ethical Committee Project ID: CF14/2789—2014001543 and Department of Education and Early Childhood Development Project ID: 2014_002500). The aim of this project was to examine babies and toddlers’ cultural worlds and transitory relationships to find out how they develop and learn through their everyday life (see Li, Quiñones & Ridgway, 2016). Educators were interviewed individually using video clips to prompt reflection about their practice. For example, educator discussions about a play scenario shown in a video clip of LDC educator Julio, indicated the importance of collective knowledge created by toddlers with an educator (Li et al., 2016). We continued our research by conceptualizing a drama pedagogy using an individual interview with educator Cassie. Prompted by showing her a small video clip, the dramatic quality of Cassie’s verbal exchange with toddlers was discussed. We titled this exchange a dialogue commentary, which helped form the dramatic narratives created in infant-toddler relationships (Quiñones, et al., 2019b).

1.4.2  P  roject 2: Educators of Infant and Toddlers: Developing a Culture of Critical Reflection The second project extended the first to a new project titled ‘Educators of Babies and Toddlers: Developing a Culture of Critical Reflection’. This project sought to build awareness of infant-toddler educators’ professional practices through processes of critical reflection. The second project aimed to move from educator’s individual interviews to a collective sharing and discussion using video clips, images and the creation of drawings (Quiñones et al., 2018b). Participants involved a group of six paired LDC educators who reflected on one another’s pedagogy. Over a six-month period, three Collaborative forums were held at the university. The Collaborative forum was a professional space where trust was created for educators that enabled sharing of their pedagogical practices (Quiñones et  al., 2018a, b). Through the forum process, we developed a new awareness of infant-toddler pedagogy among project participants (Quiñones et al., 2018a, b).

14

1  Introduction to Affective Pedagogies

1.4.2.1  Participants The researchers approached three centre directors who agreed to participate in a briefing at the university. An overview of the participating educators and centres is presented in Table 1.2. All chapters in this book are based on project 2, with the exception of Chap. 2. The researchers had an established long-standing relationship with Site 1. In Project 1, the participating educators were Elsa and Beth. In Project 2, the educators were intentionally paired, and included Jane and Sophie (Site 1), Peta and Jo (Site 2) and Roma and Anne (Site 3). Pseudonyms are used for the participants.

1.4.3  Visual Methods The following sections describe the methods used in the book, video observations, Collaborative forums and visual narratives. Table 1.2  Overview of research sites and participants Research sites Site 1: Independent non-profit organization offering community inclusion services for children; offers childcare, family day care and early childhood interventions, located in an urban community

Site 2: Centre offering multicultural municipal government services for non-profit (maternal health, LDC, playgroups), located in a suburban area with higher levels of migrant families and children

Site 3: Private franchise early learning Centre (LDC and kindergarten), located in a suburban metropolitan area

Educators Project 1: Non-paired educators Elsa: Toddlers group (two-year-­ old room), diploma-qualified, mid-thirties Beth: Toddlers group (two-year-­ old room), diploma-qualified, mid-thirties Project 2: Paired educators Jane: Infants group (birth to one-year-old room), diploma-­ qualified, late twenties Sophie: Toddlers group (one- to three-year-old room), diploma-­ qualified, late twenties Project 2: Paired educators Peta: Infants group (birth to one-year-old room), diploma-­ qualified, mature Jo: Toddlers group (one- to three-year-old room), diploma-­ qualified, mature Project 2: Paired educators Roma: Infants group (birth to one-year-old room), diploma-­ qualified, mature Anne: Toddlers group (one- to three-year-old room), master’s qualification, late twenties

1.4 Visual Methodology

15

1.4.3.1  Video Observations In Project 1, seven visits were made to two long day care centres, lasting 5–8 h. The project generated a total of 60.5 h of video observations and 11 h of interview data (Li, et al., 2016). This involved eight educators at two long day care centres and six focus families. Participant educators and each family were interviewed using a video clip as a prompt. The interviews lasted about 30–45 min at the long day care centre and in the homes respectively (Li, et al., 2016). The interviews were videotaped and professionally transcribed. In Project 2, three researchers and one research assistant visited each center to explain the research and invite paired educators from the infant-toddler rooms who were willing to participate. The three researchers each undertook management of research at one site. Times were made for each researcher and research assistant to video-record (8 h per educator) at allocated site. The researchers, who collected data for later preparation of still screen shots and small video clips for Collaborative forums, used video cameras unobtrusively. Educators and parental endorsement to video observe infant-toddlers was given. Two researchers present at each site focused video cameras on infant-toddlers (Camera 1) and on the wider environment of each activity setting (Camera 2). Devoting attention to transformations in the smallest detail of the infant-toddlers’ and educators’ activity only became possible by working with both effective and affective visual capture methods. 1.4.3.2  Collaborative Forums In project 2, three Collaborative forums (6  h each) were videoed and later transcribed. As qualitative researchers, we remained mindful of the role played by the affective elements of time and place in motivating educators’ desire to participate in the Collaborative forums. These elements included anticipatory time for educators to feel calm and ready for confident participation in the forums. Drawing upon a cultural-historical approach, the aim is to respectfully and ethically analyze infant-toddlers and educators’ perspectives. The researcher ‘deserves respect and recognition, in the research situation’ (Sørensen, 2019, p. 291). Through maintaining a respectful and ethical approach towards the participants, we created Collaborative forums as a safe and healthy space where recognition of the work of infant-toddler educators was given. The study was intentionally designed to encourage conversational dialogue around educators’ specific professional practices in the forums, and subsequently paired the infant-toddler educators according to their work sites and videoed them in action. By doing so, the educators as a pair, have the chance to continue generating ideas in their workplace. In the third Collaborative forum, the educators were pair-interviewed through conversational dialogue in relation to their infant-toddler pedagogical practices.

16

1  Introduction to Affective Pedagogies

1.4.3.3  Visual Narratives Visual narrative unifies visual data (video and screen capture images) with a storied commentary (dialogue) to capture the selected data as ‘wholly as possible’ (Ridgway, Li, & Quiñones, 2016a, p. 94). Visual narrative methodology expands interpretations as the researchers share the visual data analysis (Ridgway, Li, & Quiñones, 2016b). The research team created a dialogue commentary, which involved our shared discussions to understand the videoed experiences to generate interpretations of the visual data (Ridgway et al., 2016b). Dialogue commentary involves multiple perspectives, visualization and mutual dialogue around video clips selected for analysis (Ridgway, et al., 2020). Dialogue commentary also provides the opportunity for researchers to engage in “open-­ minded collaborative experimentation” as it helps the researchers to interpret and reinterpret different activity settings in infant-toddler education and care (Ridgway, et al., 2020, p. 190).

1.4.4  Affective Pedagogies: Activity settings A wholeness approach as a new way of studying infant-toddlers educators’ pedagogy, helps us devote our attention to the everyday work of educators, who not only work alongside the infant-toddlers, but also affectively relate through provision of emotional support. Affective pedagogies are situated in everyday activity settings involving many affective dimensions such relating and responding affectively with infant-toddlers, that reveal educators’ intentional efforts towards infant-toddlers’ learning and development. We extend examination of activity settings by foregrounding educators’ affective pedagogical approaches to infant-toddlers. Activity setting is a useful concept that incorporates the following: –– Technology that enables the researchers to capture, analyze and conceptualize infant-toddlers in their activity settings. We also examine the traditions of each institution (e.g., research sites). The activity settings all exist in a social situation where the educators place demands on infant-toddlers and, at the same time, acknowledge the values that operate in the institutions. –– Educators shape pedagogy in the activity settings as they relate affectively to infant-toddlers. We place our attention on the educators’ and infant-toddlers’ perspectives and the development of reciprocal relationships. Table 1.3 provides an overview of the activity settings we examine in the chapters; the participating educators; and dimensions of affective pedagogies explored in the book. From these activity settings, captured on video, we present the educators and infant-toddlers participation in affective relations (Chap. 2) and the educators’ growing awareness of being responsive to infant-toddler groups (Chap. 3). Chapter

1.5 Conclusion

17

Table 1.3  Activity settings and identified affective pedagogies Activity settings Mealtimes (Chap. 2)

Educator(s) Beth (site 1) Elsa (site 1) Nappy change (Chap. 3) Jo (site 2) Sandbox play (Chap. 4) Jane (site 1)

Affective pedagogies Affective relations

Doll play (Chap. 5) Feeding (Chap. 6)

Affective responsiveness Pedagogical awareness of motives in transitory moments Affective positioning and questioning Closeness as an affective pedagogy

Jo (site 2) Peta (site 2)

4 explores the educators’ pedagogical awareness of infant-toddlers’ motives in order to capture transitory moments that foster the possibilities for their learning in a community of explorers. A doll play activity setting is foregrounded in Chap. 5. In this setting, educator Jo, affectively positions herself by moving inside and outside imaginary situations shared with infant-toddlers to stimulate their play engagement and learning potential. In Chap. 6, the activity setting of an exemplary educator feeding an infant, illustrates a pedagogy of closeness. The Collaborative forums generated affective pedagogical ideas in relation to the educators’ pedagogy of closeness. Chapter 7 presents the educators’ discussions of being effective and affective in the Collaborative forums and in Chap. 8; imagined and future specialized practices are proposed.

1.5  Conclusion Throughout this book, many different activity settings traditionally present in Australian LDC settings are revealed. The unique contribution of this book is the insight provided by using a wholeness approach to researching the everyday work of educators and infant-toddlers, as they participate in varied activity settings within different institutions. This book uses cultural-historical concepts as tools to explore affective pedagogies that are considered central to the specialized nature of infant-­ toddler educators’ professional work. An important role for researchers is to recognize the professional status of infant-­ toddler educators (Dali, 2017; Davis & Dunn, 2019). In this book, we illustrate and acknowledge the valuable role of infant-toddler professionals. By defining affective pedagogies, our ultimate goal is to demonstrate that infant-toddler educators’ perspectives are specialized, vibrant, compassionate and worthy of research. Some limitations in this book need to be acknowledged. Firstly, the case examples are only from three sites and therefore the findings cannot be generalized to other early childhood settings. The educators represent a small sample however; they gave consent and were willing to share their insights in relation to their pedagogical practice. The educators in this book are unlikely to represent educators working in long day care centers however, the activity settings (routines with value

18

1  Introduction to Affective Pedagogies

traditions) selected for the book will be familiar to infant-toddler educators. The visual narrative methodology provides rich examples of practice, highlighting the recognition of the specialized roles infant-toddler educators have in their everyday relationships. With great respect and admiration, we ascribe to educators their creation of affective pedagogies and theorize these pedagogies empirically to advance knowledge of the specialized and affective nature of educators’ relationships with infant-toddlers.

References ACECQA. (2011). Quality area 5—Relationships with children. Retrieved from http://www. acecqa.gov.au/Relationships-­with-­children Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2014). Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved from: http://www. abs.gov.au/ Beck, L. M. (2013). Fieldwork with infants: What preservice teachers can learn from taking care of babies. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 34(1), 7–22. Bozhovich, L. I. (2009). The social situation of child development. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 47(4), 59–86. Bussey, K., & Hill, D. (2017). Care as curriculum: Investigating teachers’ views on the learning in care. Early Child Development and Care, 187(1), 128–137. Cheeseman, S., Sumsion, J., & Press, F. (2015). Infants of the productivity agenda: Learning from birth or waiting to learn? Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 40(3), 38–45. Clark, R. M., & Baylis, S. (2012). ‘Wasted down there’: Policy and practice with under threes. Early Years: An International Journal of Research and Development, 32(2), 229–242. Cumming, T., & Sumsion, J. (2014). A politics of imperceptibilities, possibilities and early childhood practice. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 15(4), 368–377. Dalli, C. (2002). Being an early childhood teacher: Images of professional practice and professional identity during the experience of starting childcare. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 37(1), 77–85. Dalli, C. (2006). Re-visioning love and care in early childhood: Constructing the future of our profession. The First Years: NZ Journal of Infant and Toddler Education, 8(1), 5–11. Dalli, C. (2013). Kjӕrlighet og omsorg I barneagepedagogikken: Mot et helhetlig teoretisk perspektiv. (Love and professionalism in early childhood education: Theoretical perspectives). Barnehagefolk, 3, 99–102. Dalli, C. (2017). Tensions and challenges in professional practice with under-threes: A New Zealand reflection on early childhood professionalism as a systemic phenomenon. In E. J. White & C. Dalli (Eds.), Under-three years olds in policy and practice (pp. 115–129). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Dalli, C., Rockel, J., Duhn, I., Craw, J. with Doyle, K. (2011). What’s special about teaching and learning in the first years? Investigating the “what, hows and whys” of relational pedagogy with infants and toddlers. . New Zealand Council for Educational Research (NZCER). Teaching & Learning Research Initiative (TLRI). Wellington. Retrieved from: http://www.tlri.org.nz/tlri-­research/research-­completed/ece-­sector/ what’s-­special-­about-­teaching-­and-­learning-­first-­years Dalli, C., & White, E. J. (2017). Policy and pedagogy for birth-to-three years old. In E. J. White & C. Dalli (Eds.), Under-three years olds in policy and practice (pp. 1–16). Singapore: Springer. Davis, B., & Dunn, R. (2019). Professional identity in the infant room. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 44(3), 1–13.

References

19

Davis, B., Torr, J., & Degotardi, S. (2015). Infants and toddlers: How visible are they in the early years learning framework? International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, 9(12), 1–14. Department of Education and Training [DET]. (2016). Victorian early years learning and development framework: For all children from birth to eight years. East Melbourne, Australia: DET. Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR). (2009). Belonging, being & becoming the early years learning framework for Australia. Canberra. Degotardi, A., & Gill, A. (2019). Infant educators’ beliefs about infant language development in long day care settings. Early Years: An International Research Journal, 39(1), 97–113. Edwards, A., Fleer, M., & Bøttcher, L. (2019). Cultural-historical approaches to studying learning and development: Societal, institutional and personal perspectives. In A. Edwards, M. Fleer, & L. Bøttcher (Eds.), Cultural-historical approaches to studying learning and development: Perspectives in cultural-historical research (pp. 23–41). Singapore: Springer. Elfer, P., & Page, J. (2015). Pedagogy with babies: Perspectives of eight nursery managers. Early Child Development and Care, 185(11–12), 1762–1782. Elicker, J., Ruprecht, K. M., & Anderson, T. (2014). Observing infants’ and toddlers’ relationships and interactions in group care. In E.  Johansson & E.  J. White (Eds.), Educational research with our youngest. Voices of infants and toddlers (pp. 131–145). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Elwick, S. (2020a). Reaching beyond the ‘visual givens’ through philosophical-empirical inquiry video, depth and epiphany. In J.  White (Ed.), Seeing the world thought Children’s eyes (pp. 41–54). Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill. Elwick, S. (2020b). Merleau-Ponty’s ‘wild being’: Tangling with the entanglements of research with the very young. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 52(2), 149–158. Elwick, S., Bradley, B., & Sumsion, J. (2014a). Creating space for infants to influence ECEC practice: The encounter, ecart, reversibility and ethical reflection. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 46(8), 873–885. Elwick, S., Bradley, B., & Sumsion, J. (2014b). Infants as others: Uncertainties, difficulties and (im)possibilities in researching infants’ lives. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 27(2), 196–213. Elwick, S., & Sumsion, J. (2013). Moving beyond utilitarian perspectives of infant participation in participatory research: Film-mediated research encounters. International Journal of Early Years Education, 21(4), 336–347. Fleer, M. (2019). A collective social situation of development for understanding play in families. In A.  Edwards, M.  Fleer, & L.  Bøttcher (Eds.), Cultural-historical approaches to studying learning and development: Perspectives in cultural-historical research (pp. 53–67). Singapore: Springer. Fleer, M., González Rey, F., & Veresov, N. (2017). Perezhivanie, emotions and subjectivity: Setting the stage. In M. Fleer, F. González Rey, & N. Veresov (Eds.), Perezhivanie, emotions and subjectivity: Advancing Vygotsky’s legacy (pp. 1–18). Singapore: Springer. Grieshaber, S. (2017). Developments in curriculum and assessment in the early years in Australia. In M. Fleer & V. Oers (Eds.), International handbook of early childhood education (pp. 1211–1226). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Hedegaard, M. (2008). Developing a dialectic approach to researching children’s development. In M.  Hedegaard & M.  Fleer (Eds.), Studying children: A cultural–historical approach (pp. 30–45). Berkshire, UK: Open University Press. Hedegaard, M. (2009). Children’s development from a cultural-historical approach: Children’s activities in everyday local settings as foundation for their development. Mind, Culture and Activity, 16(1), 64–82. Hedegaard, M. (2019). Children’s perspectives and institutional practices as keys in a wholeness approach to children’s social situations of development. In A. Edwards, M. Fleer, & L. Bøttcher (Eds.), Cultural-historical approaches to studying learning and development: Perspectives in cultural-historical research (pp. 23–41). Singapore: Springer.

20

1  Introduction to Affective Pedagogies

Hedegaard, M. (2020). Children’s perspectives and institutional practices as keys in a wholeness approach to children’s social situations of development. Learning, Culture and Social interactions, 26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2018.04.008 Hedegaard, M., & Fleer, M. (2013). Play, learning and children’s development: Everyday life in families and transition to school. New York: Cambridge University Press. Hu, J., Torr, J., Degotardi, S., & Han, F. (2019). Educators’ use of commanding language to direct infants’ behaviour: Relationship to educators’ qualifications and implications for language learning opportunities. Early Years: An International Research Journal, 39(2), 190–204. Johansson, E. (2013). Introduction: Giving words to Children’s voices in research. In E. Johansson & E. J. White (Eds.), Educational research with our youngest. Voices of infants and toddlers (pp. 1–13). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Kultti, A. (2015). Adding learning resources: A study of two toddlers’ modes and trajectories of participation in early childhood education. International Journal of Early Years Education, 23(2), 209–221. Li, L., Quiñones, G., & Ridgway, A. (2016). Noisy neighbours: A construction of collective knowledge in toddlers’ shared play space. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 41(4), 64–71. Li, L., Ridgway, A., & Quinones, G. (2021). Moral imagination: Creating affective values through toddlers’ joint play. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. lcsi.2020.100435 Løkken, G. (2011). Lived experience as an observer among toddlers. In E. Johansson & E. J. White (Eds.), Educational research with our youngest: Voices of infants and toddlers (pp. 161–184). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Nuttall, J., & Grieshaber, S. (2017). The historical emergence of early childhood education research in Australia. In M. Fleer & B. van Oers (Eds.), International handbook of early childhood education (pp. 511–530). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Page, J. (2014). Developing professional love in early childhood settings. In L.  J. Harrison & J. Sumsion (Eds.), Lived spaces of infant-toddler education and care: Exploring diverse perspectives on theory, research and practice (pp. 119–130). Dordrecht: Springer. Page, J. (2017). Reframing infant-toddler pedagogy through lens of professional love: Exploring narratives of professional practice in early childhood settings in England. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 18(4), 387–399. Peers, C. (2017). Policy analysis and document research. In M.  Fleer & B. van Oers (Eds.), International handbook of early childhood education (pp.  203–224). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Pursi, A. (2019). Play in adult-child interaction: Institutional multi-party interaction and pedagogical practice in a toddler classroom. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 21, 136–150. Pursi, A., & Lipponen, L. (2018). Constituting play connection with very young children: Adults’ active participation in play. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 17, 21–37. Pursi, A., Lipponen, L., & Sajaniemi, N. K. (2018). Emotional and playful stance taking in joint play between adults and very young children. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 18, 28–45. Quiñones, G., & Fleer, M. (2013). “Visual Vivencias”: A cultural- historical tool for understanding the lived experiences of young Children’s everyday lives. In E. Johansson & E. J. White (Eds.), Educational research with our youngest. Voices of infants and toddlers (pp. 107–129). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Quiñones, G., Li, L., & Ridgway, A. (2018a). Transitory moments as “affective moments of action” in toddler play. In L. Li, G. Quiñones, & A. Ridgway (Eds.), Studying babies and toddlers (pp. 175–192). Singapore: Springer. Quiñones, G., Li, L., & Ridgway, A. (2018b). Collaborative forum: An affective space for infant-toddler educators’ collective reflections. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 43(3), 25–33. Quiñones, G., & Pursi, A. (2020). Playful qualities of toddling style in adult-child interaction. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 28(4), 475–489.

References

21

Quiñones, G., Ridgway, A., & Li, L. (2019a). Collaborative drawing: A creative tool for examination of infant-toddler pedagogical practices. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 44(3), 1–14. Quiñones, G., Ridgway, A., & Li, L. (2019b). Developing a drama pedagogy for toddler education. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 17(2), 140–156. Recchia, S. L., Seung, Y. L., & Minsun, S. (2015). Preparing early childhood professionals for relationship-based work with infants. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 36(2), 100–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2015.1030523 Recchia, S.  L., Shin, M., & Snider, C. (2018). Where is love? Developing loving relationships as an essential component of professional infant care. International Journal of Early Years Education, 26(2), 142–158. Recchia, S. L., & Fincham, E. N. (2019). The significance of infant/toddler care and education a call to unite research, policy and practice. In C. Brown & M. B. McMullen (Eds.), Handbook of early childhood care and education (pp. 197–218). Newark, NJ: Wiley. Richards, G., Garvis, S., & Phillipson, S. (2018). Early childhood education and care in Australia: A historical and current perspective for a way forward. In S. Garvis, S. Phillipson, & Harju-­ Luukkainen (Eds.), International perspectives on early childhood education and care: Early childhood education in the 21st century (pp. 6–19). New York: Routledge. Ridgway, A., Li, L., & Quiñones, G. (2016a). Transitory moments in infant/toddler play: Agentic imagination. International Research in Early Childhood Education, 7(2), 91–110. Ridgway, A., Li, L., & Quiñones, G. (2016b). Visual narrative methodology in educational research with babies: Triadic play in babies’ room. Video Journal of Education and Pedagogy, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40990-­016-­0005-­0 Ridgway, A., Quiñones, G., & Li, L. (2020). Visual methodology processing relational pedagogy. In J. White (Ed.), Seeing the world thought Children’s eyes (pp. 177–192). Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill Sense. Roth, W.-M. (2008). Knowing, participative thinking, emoting. Mind, Culture and Activity, 15(1), 2–7. Rouse, E., & Hadley, F. (2018). Where did love and care get lost? Educators and parents’ perceptions of early childhood practice. International Journal of Early Years Education, 26(2), 159–172. Rutanen, N., & Hännikäinen, M. (2017). Care, upbringing and teaching in ‘horizontal’ transitions in toddler day-care groups. In E. J. White & C. Dalli (Eds.), Under-three years olds in policy and practice (pp. 73–86). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Salamon, A. (2015). Ethical symmetry in participatory research with infants. Early Child Development and Care, 185(6), 1016–1030. Salamon, A., Sumsion, J., & Harrison, L. (2017). Infants draw on ‘emotional capital’ in early childhood education contexts: A new paradigm. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 18(4), 362–374. Shin, M. (2015). Enacting caring pedagogy in the infant classroom. Early Child Development and Care, 185(3), 496–508. Singer, E., Nederend, M., Pennix, L., Tajik, M., & Boom, J. (2014). The teacher’s role in supporting young children’s level of play engagement. Early Child Development and Care, 184(8), 1233–1249. https://doi.org/10.1080/0304430.2012.862530 Singer, E. (2017). Emotional security and play engagement of young children in Dutch child entres: A story of explorative research, experiments and educators testing hypotheses. In L. Li, G. Quiñones, & A. Ridgway (Eds.), Studying babies and toddlers: Relationships in cultural contexts (pp. 207–224). Singapore: Springer Nature. Sørensen, H. V. (2019). Studying children’s friendship activities ethically using the interaction-­ based observation. In A.  Edwards, M.  Fleer, & L.  Bøttcher (Eds.), Cultural-historical approaches to studying learning and development: Perspectives in cultural-historical research (pp. 279–292). Singapore: Springer.

22

1  Introduction to Affective Pedagogies

Stephenson, A. (2013). Taking a “generous” approach in research with young Children. In E. Johansson & E. J. White (Eds.), Educational research with our youngest. Voices of infants and toddlers (pp. 135–156). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Vygotsky, L. S. (1993). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: Vol. 2—The fundamentals of defectology. New York: Plenum Publishers. Vygotsky, L.  S. (1998). The collected works of L.  S. Vygotsky: Volume 5—Child psychology (M. J. Hall, Trans.). New York: Plenum Press. White, J. (2013). Summary: Lesions learnt and future provocations. In E. Johansson & E. J. White (Eds.), Educational research with our youngest. Voices of infants and toddlers (pp. 185–201). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. White, E. J. (2019). Teacher-infant dialogue. Entry to Encylopedia of Teacher Education: Springer. White, J. (2020). The work of the eye/I in ‘seeing’ Children: Visual methodologies for the early years. In J.  White (Ed.), Seeing the world thought Children’s eyes (pp.  1–24). Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill Sense. White, E. J., & Redder, B. (2015). Proximity with under two year-olds in early childhood education: A silent pedagogical encounter. Early Child Development and Care, 185(11–12), 1783–1800. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2015.1028386 White, E.  J., Redder, B., & Peter, M. (2015). The work of the eye in infant pedagogy: A dialogic encounter of ‘seeing’ in an education and care setting. International Journal of Early Childhood, 47(2), 283–229. White, J. & Redder, B. (2019). Age-responsive pedagogies: ‘preschool’ teachers interrogate their dialogues with and about 2-year-olds. New Zealand Council for Educational Research (NZCER). Teaching & Learning Research Initiative (TLRI). Wellington. Retrieved from: http://www.tlri.org.nz/sites/default/files/projects/TLRI%20Summary_White%26Redder.pdf

Chapter 2

Affective Relationships in Flow of Time and Space

Abstract  The aim of this chapter is to explore affective pedagogy that unfolds during a mealtime activity setting in a long day care (LDC) centre. Mealtimes are an important activity setting in early childhood education and care and they offer opportunities for educator’s development of affective relationships with infant-­ toddlers. Findings indicate that educators’ create an affective atmosphere within the flow of time and space of the mealtime activity. Often overlooked, flow and time, are also important components of educators’ affective relationships. Pedagogical strategies such as affective dialogues and encouragement involve educator’s guiding, modelling and encouraging toddlers to taste new foods and helping with cleaning tasks. Mealtimes provide a social environment for affective relationships and connections to be fostered.

2.1  Introduction The approach of activity setting (see Chap. 1) is taken to foreground the social situations of infant-toddlers and their educators. Everyday practices such as mealtimes create possibilities for educators to communicate and learn with infant-toddlers. The focus of this chapter is on mealtime as an activity setting, where we pay attention to the unfolding affective relationships between infant-toddlers and educators. Our research question asks how affective pedagogies develop in a mealtime activity setting. We notice unfolding moments created by educators that reveal affective pedagogies.

2.1.1  Mealtimes as a Specialized Pedagogical Space Current literature on mealtimes provides an overview on important dimensions of environment and the role of educators. Childcare routines such as mealtimes create possibilities for provision of a nurturing environment (e.g., Maalouf, Connel Evers, Griffin, & Rodney, 2013; Neelon, Vaughn, Ball, McWilliams, & Ward, 2012; Ramsay, Branen, Fletcher, Price, Johnson, & Sigman-Grant, 2010). Mealtimes can © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 G. Quiñones et al., Affective Early Childhood Pedagogy for Infant-Toddlers, Policy and Pedagogy with Under-three Year Olds: Cross-disciplinary Insights and Innovations 3, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73527-2_2

23

24

2  Affective Relationships in Flow of Time and Space

become an enjoyable social space when children do not feel pressure from adults to eat certain foods (Lynch & Batal, 2012). Some educators’ might adopt restrictive strategies to encourage children to eat, with comments like ‘no treats before eating lunch’ (Sigman-Grant et al., 2011). Understanding mealtimes as social spaces for learning, requires recognition of specialized pedagogies. This includes the educators’ ability to promote positive practices in relation to mealtimes (Sigman-Grant et al., 2011). Other research examines how educators verbally communicate with children during mealtimes (Lynch & Batal, 2012; Ramsay et al., 2010). A common phrase used by educators to evaluate children’s hunger is “are you done?” (Ramsay et al., 2010, p.  268). Another pedagogical strategy is to sit down with children during mealtimes (Maalouf et  al., 2013). Mealtime activity brings the highest level of engagement between children and educators, and therefore requires highly skilled educators because of the effort necessary to remain actively involved with infant-­ toddlers (Hooper & Hallam, 2017).

2.1.2  Mealtimes as a Social Space for Fostering Relationships Anthropologists have noted the significance of mealtimes as a space for socializing and food sharing (Ochs & Shohet, 2006). Mealtimes in the infant-toddler context are often overlooked as an important event for relationship building (Degotardi, 2010; Hallam, Fouts, Bargreen, & Perkins, 2016). Mealtimes embrace activities such as food sharing and eating together that are important everyday routines (Johansson & Berthelsen, 2014; Sumsion, Stratigos & Bradley, 2014). Lunchtime routines involve a flow of movement with toddler’s bodies that incorporate constant readjustments to their (biological) rhythms (Rutanen, 2017). Mealtimes represent an important ritual in which toddlers can exercise their own agency through playful bodily actions, and influence the peer group culture (Mortlock, 2015; Rutanen, 2017). Routines also enhance toddlers’ peer cultures and friendships, as toddlers communicate their interests through joyful repetition and laughter (Løkken, 2009). Mealtimes afford an opportunity for peers to create a sense of togetherness (e.g., cooperation, common goals and actions); therefore, educators’ ability to respond sensitively is important (Mortlock, 2015). Mapping mealtimes of infant-toddlers encompasses multiple dimensions such as social relations, for example fostering friendships between infant- toddlers, materiality (e.g. highchairs, drinking bottles) and temporality (Sumsion, et al., 2014).

2.2 Mealtimes as an Activity Setting

25

2.1.3  Mealtimes a Social Space to Communicate Infant-toddlers develop social interactions and communicate meanings that provide opportunities for teacher interaction (Johansson & Berthelsen, 2014). Mealtimes as a democratic and dialogical space, position infant-toddlers where “Responding to this [policies and practices] democratic call may require attitudinal adjustments towards a view of very young children as agentic and capable, and associated pedagogies that provide as much opportunity for freedom and flexibility as possible” (White, 2017, p.92). By taking a dialogic democratic agenda, White (2017) points out voices are heard and negotiated in a complex social space, such as mealtimes. Educators and infant-toddler communication and interactions are a combination of verbal and non-verbal communication, highlighting the complex nature of infant-­ toddler pedagogies (White & Redder, 2015a). Similar, Sumsion, et al. (2014, p.55) suggest we pay attention to mealtime spaces in a “more experimental way”. To extend our views on mealtimes as a social space and embrace the complexity and experimentation, Csikszentmihalyi and Rathunde’s (2014) concept of flow is accounted for. The flow concept suggests that “in flow, a person is fully concentrated on the task at hand … what needs to be done one moment to the next; goals are clearly ordered and sequenced” (Csikszentmihalyi & Rathunde, 2014, p. 24). When flow occurs, actions and practices become enjoyable, as the person and their environment are in a dynamic comfortable time and space where there is “synchrony of self with environment” (Csikszentmihalyi & Rathunde, 2014, p.  32). These ideas are useful for thinking about ways educators provide the conditions for flow and synchrony between infant- toddlers and the environment of their mealtime space.

2.2  Mealtimes as an Activity Setting Site 1 educators Elsa and Beth participate in mealtimes activity settings with a group of toddlers. This mealtime is an activity setting where there is potential for individual and peer group learning. Identifying the activity setting is important for the expansion of affective pedagogies. Hedegaard (2012) explained that activity settings are located in institutional settings that embody certain traditions, surrounded by societal conditions. The activity settings (e.g., mealtimes) is a social situation that create demands and motives for toddlers and educators who are situated within specific institutional values (e.g., LDC centres) (Hedegaard & Fleer, 2019). Toddlers and educators participate in LDC settings and their specific practices are part of this setting. In this chapter, affective pedagogical practices are analyzed in relation to how educators pedagogically act in these activity settings, and how toddlers develop intentional actions towards mealtimes. Such traditions in Site 1 involve children sitting down in a group and practices around helping with cleaning to foster independent learning.

26

2  Affective Relationships in Flow of Time and Space

As explained in Chap. 1, routine practices have values, and examining mealtimes as an activity setting involves social situations with potential for learning (Hedegaard, 2012). We can thus focus on toddlers’ activities, self-development, and educators’ provision of the material conditions that shape the activity setting, while also investigating toddlers’ development of intentional actions and competences that occur during mealtimes. Adding to the institutional settings, we devote attention to the concept of flow elaborated by Csikszentmihalyi and Rathunde (2014). The flow concept suggests that “in flow, a person is fully concentrated on the task at hand … what needs to be done one moment to the next; goals are clearly ordered and sequenced” (Csikszentmihalyi & Rathunde, 2014, p. 24). Further to this flow, actions, practices or routines become enjoyable, as the person and their environment are in a dynamic and comfortable time and space where there is “synchrony of self with environment” (Csikszentmihalyi & Rathunde, 2014, p.  32). These ideas are useful for thinking about how educators provide the conditions for flow and synchrony between toddlers and the spaces of the mealtime’s environment.

2.2.1  Affective Relationships Infant-toddler relationships involve affectionate caregiving, intimacy and care (Page, 2017; Recchia, Shin & Snaider, 2018). Professional love, Page (2017) suggests, involves close relations and secure attachments between educators and infant-­ toddlers. The development of loving relationships is considered an important component of infant-toddler education and care (Recchia, et al., 2018). Loving care relates to both how infant-toddlers might feel, and those teachable moments where “intimacy and strong connections” are fostered (Recchia, et al., 2018). In our approach to cultural-historical theory, affective relationships are connected to social environment including adults and how this is perceived as a form of intuitive response. Vygotsky (1998) argues infant-toddlers learn and develop by forming special relationships through experiencing close proximity and intimacy with adults. The infant perceives a unique form of relationship through their field of vision—what the infant sees—which is connected to affect (Vygotsky, 1998). Bozhovich (2009) extends Vygotsky’s original work on the social environment. She emphasizes the importance of the position the child holds among the people whom the child has relationships with. She referred to this position, which is represented subjectively, as an affective relationship with reality. Social relations involve symbolic-­affective relations in which subsequent emotions emerge. Such emotions and symbolic processes are produced subjectively in actions or practices (González Rey, 2017). Infant-toddlers and adults form affective connections subjectively produced through adults’ demonstrations of affective actions with them. Affective actions produced subjectively for infant-toddlers might include gaze, gesture, non-verbal touch and tone of voice (Quiñones, 2016). As relationships develop between the

2.2 Mealtimes as an Activity Setting

27

infant-toddler and adult, time and space foster affective connections. The affective character of children’s experiences are important for pedagogical relationships to flourish because there is an affective attitude that influences these affective relationships (Bozhovich, 2009). The affective relationship the child has in social relations depends on the educator’s affective attitude towards a given situation (Bozhovich, 2009). Adults affectively position or place children in a system of social relations that include the adult’s aspirations and needs for the child. The influence that other people have over the child can subsequently affect their emotional wellbeing (Bozhovich, 2009).

2.2.2  Affective Dialogue Dialogues have been researched from different theoretical perspectives. In a dialogic pedagogy context of infant-toddler research it is suggested that “meaning is created” (White & Redder, 2015a, p. 34). Educators’ roles are seen as vital in connecting verbal and non-verbal language to imbue meaning for co-participants (White & Redder, 2017). From a dialogical Bakhtinian perspective, language is a social polyphonic-multi-­ voiced event (White & Redder, 2015a). Infant-toddler’s embodied language (e.g. body gestures) are primary forms of communication (White & Redder, 2015a). Educators respond to infant-toddler’s familiar forms of communication through embodied language rather than verbal response, the preferred communicative use of educators (White & Redder, 2015a). Thus, giving future research attention to the incidental orientations in language and exploration of meaningful dialogues that play a significant role in supporting infant-toddler learning experiences (White & Redder, 2015a). This chapter two, chapter six and seven of the book, dialogues are theorized from a cultural-historical perspective. From the perspective of subjectivity, dialogue is considered a subjective process through which subjects actively generate meaning (González Rey, 2017). Dialogues are part of the creative expression through which social communication occurs. (González Rey, 2017). Therefore, dialogue forms a generative process that is the “most complex process of the social condition of individuals” (González Rey, 2017, p. 188). Less attention however, has been devoted to research on emotion and its emergence in the process of dialogue. In early childhood, young children seek emotional comfort from adults, and this need produces an important facet of the development of subjectivity (González Rey, 2017). Human communication is a complex expression of culture, present in the social lives of human beings (González Rey, 2017). In schools, classrooms become spaces for dialogue and it is in these spaces where subjective productions and senses are configured differently through varied learning activities. It is therefore important to study social relations and the development of

28

2  Affective Relationships in Flow of Time and Space

affection and communication in these spaces to better understand communication processes (González Rey, 2017). We use dialogue as a creative form of communication and, in this process, emotions emerge subjectively in actions, in communication, in verbal and non-verbal language, and the subjective forms present in time and space of activity settings.

2.3  Analysis of Affective Moments During Mealtimes The mealtime organized by educators Beth and Elsa (Site 1) lasted for 15 minutes. Three affective moments were selected from our video data, where reciprocal and affective relationships were present between educators and toddlers. The affective moments were chosen chronologically, to foreground the flow and pace of activity. The case example focuses on affective moments in order to analyse the toddlers’ relationships with educators. By indicating how an affective pedagogy unfolds, affective moments are discussed: Affective moment of setting time and pace for relationships: The analysis focuses on how educators Elsa and Beth set the pace for development of affective relations, while they sit and wait for lunch. The affective atmosphere developed and the group sense of belonging, are analysed. Affective moment of emergence of affective dialogues: This analysis focuses on Beth and Johnny’s affective dialogues. Johnny finished his food and was supported by Beth. Opportunities for developing competences, such as learning to self-help by cleaning up afterwards, are analyzed. Affective moment for development of affective encouragement: The analysis here focuses on Beth’s affective encouragement of Silvia to eat healthy foods.

2.4  Case Example: Activity Setting of Mealtimes The activity setting was organized into five table groups, with six toddlers in each group. In this case example, two different age groups (infants aged 1–2 years and toddlers aged 2–3 years) were having lunch. The toddlers (aged two to three) used forks to eat a lunch of creamy pasta with broccoli served in china bowls. This case example focuses on educators, Beth and Elsa, who transition the two-­ year-­old group from their classroom to the tables in the lunchtime space. They transitioned the toddlers in small groups after their activity setting of hand washing. The focus toddlers were Silvia who wears pink, and Johnny, who wears a yellow shirt. The other peers are Esteban, wearing an orange bib, and Seth in a blue bib, next to Silvia. Elsa and Beth wore a blue shirt and black shirt, respectively. Silvia’s group were the last to join the rest of the already seated toddlers.

2.4 Case Example: Activity Setting of Mealtimes

29

2.4.1  A  ffective Moment: Setting the Time and Space for Affective Relations After hand washing, the last group of toddlers (including Silvia) walk towards the mealtime space. Educator Elsa directs them to their table. Elsa (singing): ‘Walking, walking’. Silvia (running and then walking slowly towards the table): ‘Okay’. Elsa (looks at Silvia): ‘Silvia, sit here’. Elsa waits for Silvia to sit. Silvia sits on the indicated chair. Cassie (the other teacher): ‘Hello, Silvia, hello, Silvia’. Silvia looks for the person who is talking to her; however, she does not look back to Cassie. Elsa puts on Silvia’s bib and suggests that she place her dummy on the table in front of her. Elsa says ‘here we go’, and signals where the dummy should be placed (on the table). Elsa continues to put bibs on the toddlers. Silvia and her peers wait for the bowls of pasta to arrive and while waiting, Silvia laughs loudly and Esteban looks at her. Silvia drums the table (Fig. 2.1) and her peers respond by laughing and drumming the table as well. Silvia makes a drumming sound on the table and her peers smile in excitement (Fig. 2.1). While drumming on the table, Silvia’s dummy falls to the floor and she looks for help. Silvia indicates to Beth that her dummy is on the floor and Beth picks it up, washes it and returns the dummy to Silvia. Beth later sits next to Silvia and eats lunch with her. Beth models how to blow the pasta to cool it and looks at Silvia, who is the last child to receive a bowl. Time passes as the toddlers eat their lunch together and look at each other. Some conversations occur about the tasty pasta. The toddlers seem happy eating their

Fig. 2.1  Elsa pointing to where Silvia can sit

30

2  Affective Relationships in Flow of Time and Space

Fig. 2.2  Silvia and her peers drumming on the table

lunch and ask Beth when they need more water or a fork. Silvia looks at Beth and Beth smiles back and says to her ‘we are eating together’ (Fig. 2.2.). 2.4.1.1  Affective Atmosphere Mealtimes are an activity setting that foster practice traditions (Hedegaard & Fleer, 2019). The practice traditions at the LDC Site 1 include mealtimes where the toddlers eat and share lunch together. Mealtimes provided a group social situation for toddlers and educators. Social situations involved demands, motives and values that operate in the activity setting and contribute to children’s social situation of development (Hedegaard & Fleer, 2013). In this example, institutional practices and values foregrounded are the conditions created through the physical space structured around the toddlers who are sitting together (Fig. 2.1). The mealtime space afforded a flow of interactions between peers and educators (Fig. 2.2). From the educators’ perspectives, mealtimes fostered demands for the infant-toddlers and educators to sit down together to eat their lunch. The educators paced the flow of mealtimes as they guided the infant-toddlers. The synchronicity of demands and expectations were well received by the toddlers and educators, who were organized to sit and move around at mealtimes to support the infant- toddlers. Mealtimes provide the time and space for encouraging close relations between peers. As Løkken (2009) suggested, toddlers’ peer culture involves repetition and laughter. Silvia initiated drumming on the table while waiting for lunch to be served (Fig. 2.1). Her peers followed with repetitive and intentional actions and these, in turn, created intentional and playful actions while the group waited for lunch to arrive at the table. In relation to the educators, this mealtime activity setting also shaped their pedagogy. Adult pedagogy exists in a social situation where demands, motives and values are foregrounded (Hedegaard & Fleer, 2019). In this moment, the practice

2.4 Case Example: Activity Setting of Mealtimes

31

tradition of sitting at a round table for lunch involved educators sitting with a group of six toddlers — Cassie from the infant group (Fig. 2.1) and Beth from the toddler group (Fig. 2.3). As advised by Singer, Nederend, Pennix, Tajik, and Boom (2013), sitting down with toddlers in an organised social and physical environment is important for group interaction. Likewise, White & Redder (2015a, b) point out close proximity as necessary for educator and infant-toddler relationships and peer engagement, because of educators’ tendency to be physically close when involved in these relationships. At this time, infant-toddlers are more likely to trust educators who are positioned in close proximity to them. This practice tradition provided opportunities for educators to develop specialized pedagogical ways of communicating, and sitting close together created a sense of comfort and belonging. We found Beth’s explicit comment to the toddlers ‘we are sitting together’ a reflection on the affective atmosphere. From the toddler’s perspective, sitting down creates demands, impositions and bodily physical adjustments. Rutanen (2017) found that toddlers’ bodies adjust to specific biological rhythms of hunger, and an example of one such imposition is sitting at a table. Educators imposed and placed demands on toddlers to sit, such as when Elsa indicated to Silvia where to sit. There is a constant readjustment of intentional actions between the infant-toddlers and adults. The infant-toddlers were familiar with mealtimes and met institutional demands by readily adjusting their bodies. Meanwhile, infant-toddlers’ intentional actions were developed in the group by being in close proximity to their peers, creating joyful drumming, and laughing together (Fig. 2.1). An affective atmosphere was created around the table because of the synchronous flow (synchronicity) of the physical and social arrangements in the mealtime activity. Peers and educators sitting down and sharing lunchtime allowed their togetherness. The synchronicity of the space and time permitted the close proximity of infant-toddlers and educators. The pedagogical structure of the space was visible

Fig. 2.3  Beth gazing encouragingly at Silvia

32

2  Affective Relationships in Flow of Time and Space

in the ways that table spaces for the infant-toddlers, enabled close dialogue, interaction and the building of relationships. Coordinated pedagogical roles were created in the mealtimes. Beth and Elsa, the toddler educators, displayed coordinated actions and had distinctive pedagogical roles during mealtimes. Singer et al. (2013) explain that educators in a fixed space and in joint activity are able to support infant toddlers affectively. In the case study, these coordinated actions contributed to an affective atmosphere for the infant-­ toddlers’ mealtimes. Elsa moved around the tables to provide meals for the toddlers, while Beth’s initial engagement with the toddlers involved positioning herself to sit with them (Fig. 2.3). Rutanen (2017) described lunchtimes as providing a social space with opportunities to be playful with peers. In the case example, Silvia brought her own personality and energy to the group as she drummed on the table while waiting for lunch. This unexpected action in the activity setting demanded a response from others. Silvia was able to take a risk with Beth, whom she trusted. Johansson and Berthelsen (2014) also emphasized that mealtimes can provide wonderful opportunities for a multitude of social interactions with responsive meanings. Sitting together helps to shape a sense and feeling of group belonging. Social relations consist of symbolic-affective relations that are subjectively produced with others (González Rey, 2017; Quiñones, 2016). In relation to developing an affective pedagogy, it is important to note how Beth and Elsa used affective actions and symbolic-affective relations to communicate their intentions and expectations of the infant-toddlers. Elsa’s symbolic-affective relations towards Silvia for example, included squatting at the child’s level and instructing Silvia where to sit by pointing to her chair (Fig.  2.1). Beth encouraged Silvia with a gaze and smile (Fig. 2.2). These symbolic-affective relations and actions, taken from the educators, offered opportunity for affective connection with Silvia. The educators showed affective awareness and encouragement, giving time and space for development of their relationship with Silvia. Beth generated an active dialogue and expressed her individual affection towards Silvia. Beth’s effort to create an affective dialogue was important for development of specialized pedagogies used in her symbolic-affective relations. The affective moments discussed in the next section indicate the growth of institutional values in the infant-toddlers, who helped clean up by following the educators’ affective demonstration of expectations during mealtimes. This demonstration provided the infant-toddlers with an example of intentional actions and self-help competence expected during mealtimes.

2.4 Case Example: Activity Setting of Mealtimes

33

2.4.2  A  ffective Moments: Emergence of Silent Dialogues to Meet Demands When toddlers had finished their lunch, they helped to clean up with Beth by placing their bowls in the trolley. The trolley had two levels—the higher level held the pasta container and a jug of water, while the second level held two containers—a pink one for scraps and a yellow one for dishes and cutlery. Beth who had served food into bowls now stood by, while Johnny walked towards her and the kitchen trolley. Beth explained in a form of dialogue using silent gestures how and where to place the utensils, and then signaled to Johnny to go to the yellow container: ‘Johnny, put it [dishes] here’. Johnny observed and continued to scrape his bowl into the pink container and then placed it in the yellow container. He was unsure where to place the fork. Beth stood beside him and again suggested ‘put it there’, referring to the orange container. Beth knelt down to Johnny’s level, making keen and direct eye contact with him, and asked, ‘What else do we need to do before we go and play?’ Beth used gestural language to demonstrate that Johnny needed to clean his face (Fig. 2.3a). Johnny observed what Beth was doing. Beth waited and Johnny walked closer to the face wipes. Beth smiled and both of them took the wipes at the same time. Beth celebrated Johnny’s accomplishment with a smile and hands-up gesture (Fig. 2.3b). In the meantime, another teacher noticed that Johnny was always the first to finish lunch and guided him over to an area where toddlers could sit and quietly read books. 2.4.2.1  Self-Help Competency The activity setting of mealtimes provided opportunities for infant-toddlers to develop intentional actions towards helping by cleaning up after they had finished their lunch. As discussed by Hedegaard (2012), the activity setting provides the potential for individual learning and for actions and individual engagement. Motives and intentions arise from the demands placed on the infant-toddler in the activity setting, such as finishing lunch and placing one’s bowls on the trolley. This LDC centre valued the toddlers’ cooperation in learning to clean away their used bowls. Beth supported Johnny by showing him where he could place his empty bowl and fork. Johnny developed intentional actions and engaged in this practice. The way that Beth related to, prompted and responded to Johnny, displayed emotional comfort (González Rey, 2017). Johnny committed himself to attending very closely to the task given. He intuitively responded to Beth’s gestural communication (Fig. 2.3a—hand movement to clean face) and verbal instruction: ‘Johnny, put it here’ and ‘what else do we need to do before we go and play?’ In shaping the affective conditions for Johnny, he subjectively sensed these instructions through contemplating, immersing and keenly observing, before undertaking his intentional actions. He then carefully placed his food bowl and fork where Beth had suggested

34

2  Affective Relationships in Flow of Time and Space

and wiped his face clean. These intentional actions provided greater potential for learning competencies reflected in Johnny’s ability to cooperate in this activity setting. Further, the institutional practice was well organized. It unfolded at the child’s level, where Johnny could easily place scraps in the pink container and bowls in the orange container, and then later clean up by using wipes. The flow of time and space was synchronized with the toddler’s pace and level, where an encouraging educator such as Beth could foster the value of independence and self-help. 2.4.2.2  Affective Dialogue In the affective moment discussed above, Beth related to both her own needs and Johnny’s envisaged needs. She was in close proximity to Johnny, so he could see her and connect with her. Beth and Johnny related affectively and displayed symbolic-­ affective relations, where non-verbal communication, waiting time and silence, were subjectively experienced. In the close relations between Beth and Johnny, an affective attitude towards the demand was created. As Bozhovich (2009) argued, the adult’s aspirations have a direct influence on the child. Beth affectively related to a situation that created cooperation, and together, in a cadence of understanding, the affective moment was defined. Beth affectively demonstrated to Johnny where to place his bowl and, in concert, Johnny had the competency to be able to do so. However, for these demands to be met and organized there occurred a logical sequence of actions, as objects were carefully organized on the trolley into pink and orange containers at the child’s level. Beth’s dialogue was actively generated by the demands and intentional actions directed towards Johnny. In such intentional actions, subjects actively generate dialogue through creative expression of their emotions (González Rey, 2017). In affective relationships, dialogues are generated in complex forms. These may be verbal (‘what else do we need to do before we go and play?’) or given through gestural expressions and symbolic actions (‘wipe your face’—Fig. 2.3a) and in sensitive responses, such as Johnny gazing at Beth. The educator generates the affective dialogue, with affection emerging through Beth showing different forms of communication so Johnny could better understand what was required. Affection emerges in the process of dialogue (González Rey, 2017). Beth’s responsiveness to Johnny continued with her smiles and physical gestures of celebration (Fig.  2.3b) of the task being completed. Johnny’s subjective sense of the social situation developed in dialogue with Beth, where she affectively related, communicated and co-produced her intentions with Johnny. There was an affective synchrony within the dynamics of the activity setting, where flow of actions was present.

2.4 Case Example: Activity Setting of Mealtimes

35

2.4.3  A  ffective Moment: Development of Affective Encouragement Five minutes after Beth encouraged Johnny, she moved on to offering sliced cucumber and tomato to the toddlers. Seth (repeats): ‘More’. Silvia (repeats after him): ‘More’. Silvia places her dummy into her mouth as if she is preparing to move from her seat. Beth (hears the toddlers and comes closer): ‘Silvia, do you want some cucumber?’ Silvia closes her eyes, makes a noise, then seems to change her mind and nods. Beth: ‘Does that mean yes?’ Silvia takes the cucumber (Fig. 2.4). Beth (offers cucumber to the other toddler, Seth): ‘Do you want some tomato?’ Silvia keeps the cucumber in her hand and looks back at what Beth is doing. Beth gives tomato to Seth. Beth also offers tomato to Silvia. Beth: ‘Does Silvia want tomato?’ Silvia seems to want to return her cucumber to the bowl, so she moves it closer to the bowl. However, Beth encourages Silvia with a signalling gesture (pointing to the bowl using tongs) to place it in her bowl. Beth: ‘You keep it—put it in your bowl’. Silvia looks at the bowl and appears unsure what her decision will be. She keeps the cucumber in her hand and takes the tomato. Beth: ‘Yum’. Beth looks at Silvia, and Silvia looks back at her. Silvia shakes the tomato in excitement (Figs. 2.5a and b). Beth demonstrates by eating the tomato. Beth looks back at Silvia and says: ‘Yes, it’s yum!’ Beth smiles and Silvia smiles back, still holding the tomato. Beth places it in the bowl and models eating the tomato to Silvia: ‘Silvia, watch’. Beth takes a bite of the tomato (Fig. 2.6).

Fig. 2.4  Beth demonstrating and explaining to Johnny where to place the utensils

36

2  Affective Relationships in Flow of Time and Space

Fig. 2.5  Beth showing Johnny that he needed to clean his face

Fig. 2.6  Johnny wiping his face and Beth smiling

Beth nods appreciatively: ‘Mmm’. Silvia stares at Seth, who also eats a tomato. Beth: ‘You take out your dummy [points and touches the dummy, and then points to tomato] and have some’. Beth (asking Silvia): ‘Are you finished?’ Silvia looks at her bowl and does not respond to Beth. She then looks at the other side of the room, still holding her tomato and cucumber. Beth moves and offers the cucumber and tomato to the other toddlers. Soon after she moves, Silvia places her tomato in her bowl. Silvia looks at the cucumber and makes a noise of discomfort. Beth: ‘It’s okay!’ Beth continues to offer food to the other toddlers. Silvia takes her dummy out and tastes the tomato that she placed on the table, while still holding her cucumber in the other hand (Fig. 2.6).

2.4 Case Example: Activity Setting of Mealtimes

37

Silvia makes a gesture as she tries the tomato. Beth comes closer to Silvia and Silvia looks back at her. Beth pats Silvia gently on the head while she eats her tomato. Silvia looks at Seth while they both eat tomato. Beth makes an insightful comment: ‘I need to know how to read your body language, I suppose’. Silvia stands up from the table and starts playing a gesture game with another teacher. Beth interrupts this game and asks Silvia, touching her gently: ‘Have you finished? Yes, you have to put all away [signals the trolley] in the trolley’. Silvia returns to the table and collects her bowl and cup. Beth walks with her to the trolley. She explains to Silvia where she needs to put everything, kneeling down as she did with Johnny. After they finish lunch, the toddlers transition to their rooms for their naptime. 2.4.3.1  Affective Encouragement Beth affectively encouraged Silvia to eat healthy foods, cucumber and tomato, and did not pressure her to eat certain foods, which contrasts with what the literature has suggested (see Lynch & Batal, 2012; Sigman-Grant et al., 2011). Beth’s encouragement to eat healthy food involved affectively encouraging Silvia through the symbolic actions of smiling, squatting at her level and being present for the interaction to develop. Beth took time and allowed Silvia the space to think about eating the foods. Beth and Silvia interacted closely and together, their subjective dialogues emerged to create a sense of uncertainty between Silvia’s intentional actions towards food and Beth’s balancing act of affective encouragement. Beth’s use of verbal and gestural strategies encouraged and responded to Silvia’s intentional actions, thereby subjectively creating affective connections. The dialogue directed to each other built emotions and symbolic processes that emerged in the path of Beth affectively encouraging Silvia. Beth’s symbolic-affective relations and Silvia’s emerging emotions created this affective path of encouraging Silvia to try healthy foods. González Rey (2017) explained how the path of subjectivity is generated in social relations, actions and practices that all contain emotion and symbolic processes. Beth’s affective encouragement involved a multiplicity of affective practices. Beth verbally encouraged Silvia: ‘Silvia, do you want some cucumber’ (Figs. 2.7, 2.8 and 2.9); ‘does Silvia want tomato?’; ‘Silvia wants?’ and ‘you take out your dummy and have some’ (Fig. 2.10). However, it was not always easy for Beth to make sense of Silvia’s intentional actions; she wondered about the ways Silvia communicated as she realized: ‘I need to know how to read your body language, I suppose’. More than just noticing Silvia’s body language, Beth was making sense of the symbolic-affective resources that Silvia used, such as her facial gestures and actions. Developing affective encouragement takes patience during mealtimes, and Beth’s pedagogies were affective and embedded in the patient way she noticed Silvia’s affective-symbolic actions.

38

2  Affective Relationships in Flow of Time and Space

Fig. 2.7  Beth offering cucumber to Silvia

Fig. 2.8  Silvia grabbing the cucumber

Silvia’s symbolic-affective actions generated in response to Beth’s encouragement contained emotions that were subjectively noticed by Beth and even us, as the researchers. When Beth offered cucumber (Fig. 2.5b), Silvia’s gestures showed that she was unsure when she closed her eyes to the cucumber. Beth placed the cucumber close to Silvia’s hand and Silvia took it (Fig. 2.5a and b). Similarly, Silvia’s peer Seth, also took a tomato and Silvia keenly watched his actions. Then, when offering the tomato, Beth smiled at Silvia (Fig. 2.5b), who took the tomato and eventually tried it. Beth suggested placing the cucumber in her bowl; however, Silvia maintained her intention and motive by holding on to it. This symbolic-affective action suggests that time was needed and she was unsure about trying the cucumber. Silvia placed the cucumber in her bowl, perhaps trying to please Beth (Fig. 2.11). We think that Beth could sense Silvia’s uncertainty about trying new foods. Beth modelled and demonstrated to Silvia by eating a piece of cucumber herself, and Silvia’s symbolic-affective actions then changed towards Beth and turned into a smile (Fig.  2.9). Eventually, after much encouragement, Silvia tried the tomato (Fig. 2.12) and Beth gently patted Silvia’s head as a sign of approval. Silvia was a

2.4 Case Example: Activity Setting of Mealtimes

39

Fig. 2.9  Silvia and Beth returning smiles

Fig. 2.10  Beth modelling and Silvia watching

Fig. 2.11  Silvia looking at her tomato and then her cucumber, and Beth smiling back

keen observer—she observed Beth and her peer, Seth. Silvia observed Seth takes the tomato after her and then eats with Silvia. Mealtimes provide opportunities for toddlers to learn to communicate and understand through subjective dialogues, using qualities that encourage, such as those shown by Beth with Silvia. These paths also enable the building of affective connections with each other. This implies that by accepting in a sensitive manner and

40

2  Affective Relationships in Flow of Time and Space

Fig. 2.12  Silvia eating her tomato

affectively encouraging toddlers to try new things (such as food), affective pedagogical practices are worth fostering.

2.5  Conclusion This chapter contributes to the scholarship of mealtimes in infant-toddler education and care. We have presented evidence that mealtimes provide opportunities for social interactions and relationship building (Degotardi, 2010; Johansson & Berthelsen, 2014; Mortlock, 2015). This chapter highlights affective pedagogical strategies such as educators’ affective dialogues employing a repertoire of verbal and non-verbal communication strategies, such as smiling, gesturing and pointing in synchrony with the environment and institutional demands. Mealtimes provided infant-toddlers growing wellbeing through educators ensuring a safe environment with warm and trusting relationships (DEEWR, 2009). Mealtimes provide learning opportunities, for example, infant-toddler’s competence and a growing ability to help and contribute to mealtimes. The activity setting of mealtimes influences the intentional actions of infant-toddlers by their very participation with peers and educators all sitting around the circular tables. The structure and rituals of mealtimes are pragmatically and institutionally motivated, with expectations of trying new foods and building community. The educators’ everyday affective pedagogies include the creation of an affective atmosphere for peer relations to develop, and affective symbolic encouragement and communication with infant- toddlers. These affective pedagogical practices involve a patient educator who considers the course of affective relations that can only emerge with the flow of time and space, and are in stark contrast to the approach often suggested in the literature, where toddlers are rushed during mealtimes. The flow of time and space is an all-­ encompassing element in affective pedagogical practices. Mealtime activity evolves

References

41

in the moment-to-moment anticipation of envisaged practices that can fulfil the achievement of outcomes, desires and hopes, and foster the creation of affective pedagogical strategies. Through celebrating infant-toddlers’ active life at mealtimes and through educators’ affective encouragement to eat as an act of giving hope, communal mealtimes can be wonderfully authentic learning moments.

References Bozhovich, L. I. (2009). The social situation of child development. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 47(4), 59–86. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Rathunde, K. (2014). The development of the person: An experiential perspective on the ontogenesis of psychological complexity. In M.  Csikszentmihalyi (Ed.), Applications of flow in human development and education. The collected works of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (pp. 7–79). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Degotardi, S. (2010). High-quality interactions with infants: Relationships with early-childhood practitioners’ interpretations and qualification levels in play and routine contexts. International Journal of Early Years Education, 18(1), 27–41. Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR). (2009). Belonging, being & becoming the early years learning framework for Australia. Canberra. González Rey, F. (2017). Advances in subjectivity from a cultural–historical perspective: Unfolding and consequences for cultural studies today. In M.  Fleer, F.  González Rey, & N.  Veresov (Eds.), Perezhivanie, emotions and subjectivity: Advancing Vygotsky’s legacy (pp. 173–194). Singapore: Springer. Hallam, R. A., Fouts, H., Bargreen, K. N., & Perkins, K. (2016). Teacher–child interactions during mealtimes: Observations of toddlers in high subsidy child care settings. Early Childhood Education Journal, 44(1), 51–59. Hedegaard, M. (2012). The dynamic aspects in children’s learning and development. In M. Hedegaard, A. Edwards, & M. Fleer (Eds.), Motives in children’s development: Cultural– historical approaches (pp. 9–27). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Hedegaard, M., & Fleer, M. (2013). Play, learning, and children’s development everyday life in families and transition to school. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Hedegaard, M., & Fleer, M. (2019). Children’s transitions in everyday life and institutions: New conceptions and understandings of transitions. In M. Hedegaard & M. Fleer (Eds.), Children’s transitions in everyday life and institutions (pp. 1–20). London: Bloomsbury Academic. Hooper, A., & Hallam, R. (2017). Exploring the relationship between global quality and group engagement in toddler child care classrooms. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 31(2), 215–226. Johansson, E., & Berthelsen, D. (2014). The birthday cake: Social relations and professional practices around mealtimes with toddlers in child care. In L. Harrison & J. Sumsion (Eds.), Lived spaces of infant-toddler education and care: International perspectives on early childhood education and development (pp. 75–88). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Løkken, G. (2009). The construction of ‘toddler’ in early childhood pedagogy. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 10(1), 35–42. Lynch, M., & Batal, M. (2012). Child care providers’ strategies for supporting healthy eating: A qualitative approach. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 26(1), 107–121. Maalouf, J., Connel Evers, S., Griffin, M., & Rodney, L. (2013). Assessment of mealtime environments and nutrition practices in child care centres in Georgia. Childhood Obesity, 9(5), 437–445. Mortlock, A. (2015). Toddlers’ use of peer rituals at mealtime: Symbols of togetherness and otherness. International Journal of Early Years Education, 23(4), 426–435.

42

2  Affective Relationships in Flow of Time and Space

Neelon, S. E., Vaughn, A., Ball, S. C., McWilliams, C., & Ward, D. S. (2012). Nutrition practices and mealtime environments of North Carolina child care centres. Childhood Obesity, 8(3), 216–223. Ochs, E., & Shohet, M. (2006). The cultural structuring of mealtime socialization. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 111, 35–48. https://doi.org/10.1002/cad Page, J. (2017). Reframing infant-toddler pedagogy through lens of professional love: Exploring narratives of professional practice in early childhood settings in England. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 18(4), 387–399. Quiñones, G. (2016). ‘Visual Vivencias’ to understand subjectivity and affective connection in young children. Video Journal of Education and Pedagogy, 1, 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/ s40990-­016-­0004-­1 Ramsay, S. A., Branen, L. J., Fletcher, J., Price, E., Johnson, S. L., & Sigman-Grant, M. (2010). ‘Are you done?’ Child care providers’ verbal communication at mealtimes that reinforce or hinder children’s internal cues of hunger and satiation. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 42(4), 265–270. Recchia, S.  L., Shin, M., & Snider, C. (2018). Where is love? Developing loving relationships as an essential component of professional infant care. International Journal of Early Years Education, 26(2), 142–158. Rutanen, N. (2017). Spatial perspective on everyday transitions within a toddler group care setting. In L. Li, G. Quiñones, & A. Ridgway (Eds.), Studying babies and toddlers: Relationships in cultural contexts (pp. 49–62). Singapore: Springer. Sigman-Grant, M., Christiansen, C., Fernandez, G., Fletcher, J., Branen, L., Price, B. A., et al. (2011). Child care provider training and a supportive feeding environment in child care settings in 4 states. Preventive Chronic Disease, 8(5) Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ pmc/articles/PMC3181186/ Singer, E., Nederend, M., Pennix, L., Tajik, M., & Boom, J. (2013). The teacher’s role in supporting children’s level of play engagement. Early Child Development and Care. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/03004430.2013.862530 Sumsion, J., Stratigos, T., & Bradley, B. (2014). Babies in space. In L. Harrison & J. Sumsion (Eds.), Lived spaces of infant-toddler education and care: International perspectives on early childhood education and development (pp. 43–58). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Vygotsky, L. S. (1998). Volume 5: Child psychology. New York: Plenum Press. White, E. J., & Redder, B. (2015a). Proximity with under two year-olds in early childhood education: A silent encounter. Early Child Development and Care, 185(11–12), 1783–1800. White, J. E., & Redder, M. P. (2015b). Infant and teacher dialogue in education and care: A pedagogical imperative. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 20, 160–173. White, E. J., & Redder, B. (2017). A dialogic approach to understanding infant interactions. In A. Gunn & C. A. Hruska (Eds.), Interactions in early childhood education. Recent research and emergent concepts (pp. 81–98). Singapore: Springer. White, J. E. (2017). A feast of fools: Mealtimes as democratic acts of resistance and collusion in early childhood education. Knowledge Cultures, 5(3), 84–96.

Chapter 3

Pedagogical Awareness of Being Responsive

Abstract  This chapter focuses on infant-toddler long day care educators’ pedagogical awareness of responsivity with toddlers in a nappy-change activity setting. Research suggests that educators who are attuned to infant-toddlers and develop trusting relations, show affective engagement. Educators’ personal awareness of being affectively responsive, when collaborating with co-educators is discussed. A nappy-change activity setting is analyzed as an encounter that transforms understandings about being pedagogically responsive. The findings indicate that affective responsivity involves educators’ awareness of, and sensitivity to, their institutional demands, which we call institutional responsivity.

3.1  Introduction Two visual narratives are discussed: (i) Jo’s responsive pedagogical awareness with infant-toddlers in a nappy-change activity setting and (ii) co-educators Jo and Peta’s philosophical insight into their institutional practice (Site 2). How do educators become pedagogically responsive to infant-toddlers at personal and institutional levels? The narratives presented illustrate improvised, imaginative and expansive ways that two educators became pedagogically aware and professionally responsive to infant-toddlers and one another. In research attempting to capture the complexity of long day care (LDC) educators’ professionalism, Davis and Dunn (2019) found that “working with infants is shaped by multiple and shifting agendas the teacher has to reconcile” (p. 2). This chapter explores the complexity of multiple and shifting agendas of LDC infant-­ toddler educators. Articulation of educators’ pedagogical awareness, revealed in their relationships with infant-toddlers, offers us a research challenge and opportunity. Data from a short video clip of a toddlers’ nappy change, exemplify the educators’ responsive awareness of personal and institutional practices with infant - toddlers.

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 G. Quiñones et al., Affective Early Childhood Pedagogy for Infant-Toddlers, Policy and Pedagogy with Under-three Year Olds: Cross-disciplinary Insights and Innovations 3, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73527-2_3

43

44

3  Pedagogical Awareness of Being Responsive

Nappy change activity involves varied experiences: “every human encounter and action are always novel, repeatable and creative” (Stetsenko & Arievitch, 2014, p. 217). Articulating an example of educators’ pedagogical awareness in the toddler age group, as White (2014) discovered, is “highly complex” (p.  222), and yet is considered an important task for understanding the building of quality relationships with toddlers (Pursi & Lipponen, 2017).

3.1.1  Pedagogical Awareness of Responsivity The theory and practice of early childhood educators’ awareness and responsivity has concerned many qualitative researchers over a long period (Dalli, White, Rockel, & Duhn, 2011; Durlak, Domitrovich, & Weissberg, 2015; Fleer, 2014; Hjalmarsson, 2018; Holodynski, 2009; Kirschner, 2013; Lipponen, 2019; Rinaldi, 2006; Siraj Blatchford, 2007; Vygotsky, 2004). This breadth of interpretative possibilities and contemporary awakenings expands opportunities to explore what pedagogical awareness of being responsive can mean for educators and infant-toddlers situated in LDC settings (Shotter, 2012). Meanings of pedagogical awareness and being responsive continue to be elaborated in the literature, often in terms of quality, dialogue, affectivity, empathy and compassion. We address the question of pedagogical awareness and responsivity through the personal realization that dialogue can transform a relationship and “therefore, in a certain way, our professional and group identities” (Rinaldi, 2006, p. 76). Dalli et al.’s (2011) literature review on quality early childhood education and care for infant-toddlers in New Zealand, highlighted the need for LDC educators to engage in responsive interaction. Responsive interactions are considered in the literature to be foundational for continuity of care between the institutional setting and home. Educators, whose practices are interactive and attuned to provision of opportunities for joint attention, use everyday routines, such as nappy changing, to encourage feelings of trust in infant-toddlers. Effective practices were fully detailed in Dalli et al.’s (2011) literature review; however, it was Dahlberg, Moss, and Pence (1999) who brought the early childhood field’s attention to using a postmodern perspective. A postmodern perspective broadens horizons and goes beyond the notion of quality in early childhood education and care to draw upon “a growing awareness of context, complexity, plurality and subjectivity” (Dahlberg et  al., 1999, p.  5) and thereby create an affective, social and cultural construction of early childhood. In the early childhood field, a growing awareness of social, emotional and more dynamic subjective perspectives slowly changed the landscape of early childhood education and care for educators. Educators were encouraged to go beyond preconceived notions of quality to encompass “a subjective, value-based, relative and dynamic concept” (Dahlberg et  al., 1999, p.  5). This suggested to us that understandings of responsive practices need to be expanded. The relationships,

3.2  Responsive Communication

45

subjectivity and affective practices of educators in LDC for infant-toddlers are discussed in the following section.

3.2  Responsive Communication Intersubjective communication, a living pedagogical practice of affective attunement, includes having awareness and responsivity both to, and with, others. Intersubjectivity’s presence is recognized when relating with empathy, and is evident in educator’s intensely compassionate communication, in video clip data of a nappy change activity setting. González Rey’s (2018) perspective on recognition of subjectivity is acknowledged: …despite subjectivity not appearing in Vygotsky’s words he pointed out its main characteristic; subjectivity allows the transcending of the objective constraints that constantly emerge throughout human life. Subjectivity always represents a way to transcend what is objectively given; it is the way experiences are lived (p. 221).

Taking a pedagogical practice perspective to video clip data, we can observe how responsive and dynamic relationships are constructed between toddlers and educator through emerging and evolving interactions of participants in their different cultural contexts (Lipponen, 2016). Responsive, dynamic communication is present in educators’ relationships for example, when they are attuned to toddlers’ current interests and aware of surroundings in which toddlers can feel safe and comfortable. Trevarthen (2011) suggests ‘human social worlds’ that depend on communicative forms are characterized by intimacy and intuition and are “spontaneously negotiated”, where, from the prenatal stages of life, “common sense in responsive companionship grows” (p. 176). When applying a practice perspective to responsivity, Lipponen (2019) proposed building cultures of compassion, especially in places where social change occurs due to immigration and refugee activity. He suggested asking: can we help you somehow? In such situations, the differences among toddlers and their family lives, may challenge staff in institutional settings, to finding new ways to collaborate, communicate and be responsively aware of constructing new interactions and shared intentions. When educators engage in collective reflections, they also expand practical wisdom and compassion by creating space for shared conversations about concerns, worries, sufferings and troubles (Hilppö, Rajala, Lipponen, Pursi, & Abdulhamed, 2019b). The concept of compassion brings a social and affective dimension to human activities alleviating inequality and suffering. A compassionate early childhood professional can “validate love and care whilst also advocating for greater social justice and equality” (Taggart, 2019, p.225). However, further research is needed to understand the varied ways in which compassionate acts are manifested in early childhood settings (Hilppö, Rajala & Lipponen, 2019a; Hilppö, et al., 2019b).

46

3  Pedagogical Awareness of Being Responsive

3.2.1  Communicative Responsivity Over Time Historically, Lave and Wenger’s (1991) concept of situated learning provided new meaning for thinking more carefully about pedagogical practices. Their theoretical work showed that learning comes through social participation, cultural apprenticeship and communities of practice; concepts all found in our research on relationships between the infant-toddlers’ LDC group and educators. In ideal circumstances for learning, the educator can establish, over time, interactive and responsive relationships with toddlers in their particular shared places. The educators’ knowledgeable awareness and understanding of infant-toddlers’ interests in their situated perspectives build over time—that is, they are temporally dynamic. As Lave and Wenger (1991) acknowledged, it is no easy task to build multiple ways of knowing, nor can it be assumed to be part of educators’ knowledge. Odegaard (2019) considered the notion of the ongoing engagement between educators and young children as worthy of inclusion in her work. This notion provides a holistic perspective of pedagogical practices—an ideal where the educator manoeuvers between mandated hegemonic standardised rules and routines, and the young child’s perspectives and interests. This sophisticated form of responsive awareness requires researchers to engage in a careful review of how research data act as a research tool for communicative engagement.

3.2.2  Responsive Awareness: Wholeness Perspectives As discussed in Chap. 1, a cultural–historical theoretical approach (Vygotsky, 1998) and Hedegaard’s (2019) ‘wholeness approach’ usefully support meaningful consideration of case examples. Hedegaard, Edwards, and Fleer (2012) argued that “responsible and responsive practice with children involves attention to working on and with the knowledge to be found in professional practices” (p.  6), which is important when working relationally with others. Working relationally and learning with others, Edwards (2012, p.X) suggested can strengthen our knowledge about practice, “motives in practices should be seen intertwined with the knowledge that matters for each profession”. The dynamic aspects and wholeness nature of educators’ responsive awareness can be found within the professionalism of an institutional practices setting that may include educator’s social and personal perspectives, values, interests and intentional actions (Hedegaard, 2019). Exploring responsive relations in professional practice may show why having responsive pedagogy is meaningful and necessary for producing quality engagement between educators and toddlers. To do this, we focus on a LDC centre activity setting of nappy changing. The activity setting has potential for individual learning and places demands on those in the activity setting (Edwards, Fleer, & Bøttcher, 2019). The child’s perspective, their motive orientations and feelings, also influence the activity setting. Activity

3.3  Analysis of Pedagogical Awareness

47

settings located in school and preschool practices, are situated within different institutional practice traditions (Hedegaard, 2012). For example, in the LDC centre identified in this chapter are institutional pedagogical practices that might influence the practice of toddlers’ nappy change. An activity setting encompasses frequent events that influence practice and reflects tradition in an institutional practice (Hedegaard, 2012). Importantly, in any given activity setting, there are societal traditions that are part of institutional practices. Activity settings can have different social situations, demands and child-­ initiated activities. These theoretical ideas are used to analyze different moments of pedagogical awareness in the activity setting of a nappy change.

3.3  Analysis of Pedagogical Awareness We endeavored to determine how educators link infant-toddlers’ child-initiated activities and perspectives by responsively and dynamically providing pedagogical opportunities, that offer quality relationships for learning. This process led to the building of a living narrative around the affective relationships present in the data. The concept of affective responsivity is discussed in relation to nappy changing in a toddler group. First, a case example is presented by focusing on LDC educator Jo’s personal responsive awareness, shown when taking her time and including the child, Ollie, who was crying. Jo provided an instructive, responsive and relational pedagogical approach. We discuss how Jo—an educator positioned in an outdoor flow to indoor bathroom space—transformed nappy changing through her affective responsivity. In this case, the affective responsivity was twofold and included the educator’s intention of changing a nappy, while having a compassionate understanding of the toddler’s intentions. Second, Peta and Jo worked together at Site 2, with Peta in the infant room and Jo in the toddler room. A sliding door separated the adjacent infant and toddler rooms; however, both groups often shared the outdoor space. A discussion between Jo and Peta is presented around responsivity. We elaborate on the concept of institutional responsivity present in the nappy-changing scenario, and extend it to Peta and Jo’s discussion. Jo and Peta’s awareness of their own responsive pedagogy towards infant-toddlers and working collaboratively with each other influenced their affective pedagogies.

3.3.1  Case Example: Nappy Change To illustrate professional and responsive pedagogical practices, we use visual narrative methodology (Fleer & Ridgway, 2014). A visual narrative created from video clip data is extrapolated in the following case example. The nappy change at the Site

48

3  Pedagogical Awareness of Being Responsive

2 LDC centre lasted for 15 minutes. A visual narrative shows the activity setting located in the outdoor playground and the bathroom. 3.3.1.1  Outdoor Playground Nappy Change Jo was outside locating toddlers for nappy change. She took time to play responsively with the toddlers and, as shown in Figs. 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3, used their inclinations and interests, as well as her particular repertoire of cultural practices, to display affective responsivity towards the toddlers. Jo sat on the end of a flat-topped log at the toddlers’ level (Fig. 3.1). Her pedagogically responsive positioning at toddler eye level offered them trust, comfort and her availability (Singer, 2017). She was visible and alert to the toddlers, who chose to relate to and play with her. Jo asked Alex: ‘Does Daddy drive a truck like that?’. Another toddler (Ollie) cried and Jo went over to him, saying, ‘Would you like to have a walk over there?’. The toddler cried louder and Jo said in a gentle voice: “come on, let’s go … I’ll show you”. Jo played with toddler Alex and in time, raised her own agenda: “Are you ready to change nappy?”. Alex rolled the truck over to Jo, who said she liked the truck. Jo asked Alex directly: “Change your nappy? Not yet … Soon?”. Alex rolled the truck and Jo said again: “I like that truck—it goes “brrrrr”’. Another child cried in the background. Jo still sat where she could watch over the whole play area. Jo

Fig. 3.1  Jo displaying responsive awareness—taking time

3.3  Analysis of Pedagogical Awareness

Fig. 3.2  Jo extends her hand to Ollie

Fig. 3.3  Jo displays responsivity—singing

49

50

3  Pedagogical Awareness of Being Responsive

deliberately encouraged the toddlers to move closer to Ollie (who was still crying) and the other toddlers joined the game she initiated. She clapped a rhythm with the words ‘ring-a-ring a rosie’. She asked the toddlers: “do you know this game?”. Slowly, with smiles of compassion and being patient, Jo achieved inclusion of the crying toddler, Ollie, and enthusiastically told the others: “he’s coming”. Ollie had begun to notice Jo’s activity. She had shared her hope for inclusive encouragement with her small toddler group: “Let’s do it over here, so Ollie might come. “Ring-a-­ ring a rosie, a pocket full of posy, a-tishoo, a-tishoo, we all fall down. More Ring-a-­ Ring a Rosie”? Jo said: “Ollie … come on, he is hiding there, isn’t he? Do you want to come over this side? Now, rock-a-bye baby over here … he is coming back”. Jo gestured clearly to include Ollie and then moved to create a game of Ring-a-Ring a Rosie (Fig. 3.2). Jo’s movements included gentle encounters. Her gaze, soft voice and extended hand (Fig. 3.2) elicited the toddlers’ participation through using time at a respectful pace. Two boy toddlers had been running toy trucks up and down the flat log and pushing them towards Jo to engage her in their activity. They appeared to anticipate a response from Jo. Her responsive awareness was shown in gentle ways that involved not disrupting toddlers’ personal interactions. Jo’s pedagogical awareness of how to encourage individual toddlers into a collective relationship was evident in the way she initiated a playful singing game that enticed group participation. Jo’s activity resulted in a collective performance. She was open to the toddlers’ actions, and drew on affective responsivity to nurture a shared performance that used nursery rhyme songs (Fig. 3.3) from Jo’s English tradition. 3.3.1.2  Affective Responsivity Through Meeting Institutional Demands The challenge of being responsively aware within an institutional setting draws attention to what pedagogical strategies Jo employed. To accommodate different activity settings in this LDC (e.g. lunchtime), Jo brought a calm fluidity to the nappy-change routine which led into lunchtime preparations. Jo had simultaneously responded to the demands of the toddlers’ nappy change in a workable indoor and outdoor play space, within the institutional context of her whole workplace system. As Hedegaard (2012) argued, institutional practices bring demands to activity settings, such as undertaking the nappy changes before lunchtime. Time acknowledgement is a demand in LDC centres and influenced Jo’s pedagogy. Noticeably, the data show that Jo did not rush, but instead remained a playful presence for the toddlers, staying patient and calm. In this manner, Jo was responsively aware of where the toddler group were all playing, whilst also being sensitive to the events that happened around her. Hedegaard (2012) explained that the activity settings surrounding events also influence pedagogy. Jo responded to the environmental influence with sensitivity. She centrally positioned herself in the outdoor area between the outside play space and an open door to the adjacent bathroom area, where the nappy changes would occur. Jo’s class of toddlers (approximately 12 present on this day) were all given a

3.3  Analysis of Pedagogical Awareness

51

nappy change before lunchtime during the outdoor play period. Jo’s nappy-change activity was undertaken fluidly in a continuous flow, without any upset or disruption to the toddlers’ play. 3.3.1.3  Affective Responsivity Through Singing and Relations Jo’s affective responsivity, evident in Figs. 3.2 and 3.3, show joint activity of educator and toddlers that involved the closeness of touch when holding hands. Jo began singing and gathering the toddlers together to participate in an action game known as ‘Ring-a-Ring a Rosie’. Jo drew on her extensive repertoire of songs and regularly sang traditional English rhymes and songs for the toddlers. These traditional rhymes sung in English bring a layered communicative pedagogy to the multicultural LDC activity setting. Her embodiment of song and language in the toddlers’ movement and play activity not only reflected Jo’s skills, but also indicated her caring relationships that were open to taking any opportunity to relate to and learn from one another. Jo positioned herself intentionally and valued communicative relational purpose. For example, she sat or knelt at the toddlers’ level in the yard (Fig. 3.1) and, when she undertook a nappy change indoors, she leant over each toddler to be in a face-­ to-­face position with them. Educator Jo’s patience, persistence, timing and routine agenda were enablers of affective practice. Embedded in Jo’s awareness of supervisory responsibilities and careful positioning practices, she achieved meaningful interactions and wholehearted engagement with the toddlers. For example, when in conversation with another staff member, Jo watched upset toddler Ollie hiding under a table. Meanwhile, when another toddler cried because of being stuck under a table, Jo asked him directly “are you stuck?”, and moved to help him. Her affective responsivity found in her awareness of, and sensitivity to, the toddlers’ relationships, interests and activity, reflected compassion and the professional values of the LDC centre workplace.

3.3.2  Inside Bathroom Nappy Change and Toilet Time The LDC building design enabled Jo’s nappy-change practice, as the bathroom door opened into the outdoor yard and remained open during outdoor play. Slowly and within the toddlers’ playtime, Jo pre-empted each nappy-change moment. While outdoors, she said to one toddler, “nappy time—I’ll hold your ball until you finish”. Again, her hand gently extended and Alex took it. They moved together indoors to the bathroom, where the toilets, nappy-change table, small basins and child-friendly taps were arranged (Fig. 3.4). Jo provided an instructional commentary in an encouraging tone of voice, as if they were going on an adventure: “Come on … up the steps to the change mat he

52

3  Pedagogical Awareness of Being Responsive

Fig. 3.4  Jo with Alex for his nappy change

goes. Careful”. The toddler lay on the changing table and, as he looked up, he pointed to some Blu-Tac on the glass window above his head. Jo explained: “it’s stuck on the other side of the glass”. Jo used her normal voice to explain and confirm that it was Blu-Tac, and then instructed the toddler as he moved back down the steps to the floor: “now, wash your hands”. Jo wiped the change mattress clean, put her glasses on and wrote in the record book that Alex had received a nappy change (Fig. 3.5). Jo called another toddler in from outdoors for the next nappy change (Fig. 3.6). Jo spoke to the toddler who used the toilet independently: “press the button, flush the toilet and then wash hands … Take your time … do you need some paper?”. The toddler listened and acted according to Jo’s instruction. Later, he placed the paper towel in the bin (Fig. 3.7). 3.3.2.1  Affective Responsivity: Systematic Thinking Educator Jo’s practices are understood as a simultaneous fusion of her care and knowledge. She brought to the nappy-change moment a specialized responsive and expanded practice. In her nappy-change practice, Jo exhibited an affective responsivity shared between her and the toddlers. Jo’s moments of intimate personal exchange with the toddlers existed in an atmosphere of single-minded concentration. Yet it is evident from our video data that she simultaneously embraced the whole system of her working space around the nappy-change table area. Jo knew what she wanted to do. Each day, her systemic understanding involved the children’s nappy-change routine. She participated in this routine as it took its own course. She interacted within her workplace systems and showed, with her

3.3  Analysis of Pedagogical Awareness

Fig. 3.5  Institutional practices: Jo records nappy change

Fig. 3.6  Jo begins the next nappy change

53

54

3  Pedagogical Awareness of Being Responsive

Fig. 3.7  Jo’s instructive pedagogical approach

smiles, vocalizations and movement, a sense of satisfaction in her demeanor. She engaged with systemic thinking. As Shotter (2012) stated, systemic thinking involves thinking “[i]n a kind of inner dialogue with a felt sense” (p. 3). Shotter’s (2012) work builds awareness of experiential “withness thinking” (p. 3) on behalf of the educator. The notion of systemic thinking asserts the value of noticing, sensing what is present, and what is not. Generating stories of noticed examples of ‘withness thinking’ supports our research on educators’ specialized practices. As one example, Jo’s gaze embraced the changing tables, the toilet cubicles, the washbasins and a view through the window glass to the inner classroom and through the door to the outdoor play space. Jo was ‘with’ all that surrounded her and this formed part of the flow of her holistic pedagogical activity. She gazed widely and related to any distractions by working any disruptions into part of her original intention. For example, the challenge of another toddler entering the bathroom while she changed a nappy was met with calm guidance. She spoke to the other toddler: ‘don’t forget to wash your hands, okay?’. The toddler having his nappy changed was set down and Jo said to him, “flush the button, then wash hands”, while she sprayed, disinfected and wiped clean the changing table. This suggests an example of the ‘withness thinking’ to which Shotter (2012) referred. Further, Jo was responsively aware of using compassionate dialogue and caring about the toddlers’ wellbeing. For example, she stated ‘be careful’ and positioned herself by kneeling at the toddlers’ eye level. We reiterate that these were compassionate acts (Hilppö et al., 2019b) created by Jo as she provided a space for conversations that advocated for the toddlers’ wellbeing, and took the time to help the individual toddlers in intimate toileting activities. These activity settings require

3.4  Institutional Responsivity: Collaborative Pedagogical Awareness with…

55

systematic thinking and institutional responsivity, where noticing and sensing in a compassionate and responsive manner are vital for all the participants.

3.4  I nstitutional Responsivity: Collaborative Pedagogical Awareness with Co-Educator Peta A selection of data from educators Jo and Peta is now presented to foreground an understanding of their collaboration while working in the adjoining infant and toddler rooms. The relationships of educators with toddlers were institutionally encouraged by the LDC centre director through thoughtful modelling. In addition, further responsive awareness was expressed through the ‘promises’ made by the educators. Jo was observant of the ‘promises’ (Fig. 3.8) given by educators to the families of the toddlers. These promises were displayed on the workplace walls to remind the educators and families that positive responses support affective relationships. The promise made by educator Jo related to celebrating and respecting infant-­ toddlers’ uniqueness (‘who you are and the person you can be’). It also involved valuing independence and the impressions of toddler’s so that the educators could gain trust in their relationship with the toddlers and their families. Such promises were visible in Jo’s nappy-change activity setting. These promises also foregrounded the institutional practices in Site 2, which had value positions and cultural traditions (Fleer & Hedegaard, 2010). Having promises displayed on the wall is a familiar institutional practice that is honored and valued by educators such as Jo. Peta and Jo’s comments in the paired interview were dynamic and thoughtfully considered in relation to the social and institutional reality of their practice activity. In González Rey’s (2016) words, any specific character of communication’ that advances an expansive view of the educators’ relational practices is “continuously renewed and re-invented” (p. 179). The renewal and reinvention of educators’ practices can occur in a momentary fashion, yet sometimes may slowly emerge over a longer period.

Fig. 3.8  Educator promises displayed on wall

56

3  Pedagogical Awareness of Being Responsive

The communication times and living practices with which educator Jo engaged are “configured”, according to González Rey (2016, p. 179). They are configured in the sense that the educator’s responsive dialogue is produced with the subject (infant-toddler) in the course of undertaking an activity, in the present moment and over time. Educator Peta commented on the production of present-moment activity: ‘asking Jo’s opinion if something is going wrong’. Moreover, we found in the interview transcript that Jo’s pedagogical awareness towards educator Peta (who worked in the adjoining infants’ room) was both compassionate and sensitive: Jo: And like, even though we do not work in the same room, we work, like, I can pick up … if Peta’s getting really stressed, like, I can pick up. So I will often go up and say, ‘Can I have a hold?’, or I will just go in there and sing or something … you can tell when support is needed.

Jo and Peta’s comments reflected their responsive and dynamic relationship in the institutional setting of Site 2. These infant and toddler educators’ comments indicated subjectivity in the experiences lived in Site 2. Peta’s comments about ‘asking Jo’s opinion if something is going wrong’ and Jo’s awareness of being supportive towards Jo’s feelings portray the importance of collaborative pedagogical awareness. Endorsing Jo’s comments about supporting each other, Peta responded: ‘Good support—she’s, yeah, we support each other’. Jo then concluded: ‘So I think that’s important … I think it’s important to really support each other and to know them [infant-toddlers] as well’. This exchange of dialogue reflected the educators’ growing awareness of being responsive not only to the toddlers, but also to one another. Jo and Peta were in a partnership in which their collaborative work was deeper than planning, as it had the LDC aims and processes in mind. This exchange showed their responsive awareness of practices, both individually and collectively. In the research process, it became possible to uncover the educators’ skillful, responsive and relational practice knowledge. In turn, this demonstrated the educators’ growing awareness of being responsive, which, in this case, emerged through detailed discussion of the case example of a nappy-change activity setting. Jo used a wholeness approach and considered the infant-toddler perspective (Hedegaard, 2019) by being unfailingly responsive, affective and inclusive with her group of multicultural infant-toddlers. During her interview, she stated: ‘You’ve got to take [the multiculturalism] into consideration because I can say something, but someone may interpret that completely different because of their background’. Institutional practices are dynamic. Children’s development is seen in connection with practice activities (Hedegaard, 2019). Activity settings bring demands to children [infant-toddlers], and other social situations are dynamic through their engagements and interests (Hedegaard, 2019). The multicultural nature of children attending institutional Site 2 highlights Jo’s valuable contribution by supporting toddlers’ learning of English and her careful consideration of toddlers’ diverse social situations as they participated in the centre. It was helpful that Jo’s manner was process oriented, intentional and instructive. She was responsive and pedagogically aware of the many ways that toddlers influence their family life and how they, in fact, support and open up new ways of learning for their families and

3.5 Conclusion

57

communities. Jo’s pedagogy was personal and influenced by the societal and institutional cultural practices experienced at Site 2. Hedegaard (2019) discussed how adults create interventions for a good life and for the future of children. Therefore, the promises made by educators and their configurations at Site 2 related to responding to toddlers and each other. The concept of institutional responsivity involves responsive pedagogies enacted by educators, including personal perspectives and institutional values. Institutional values made visible by the displayed promises are future interactions for a good life and the future wellbeing of the toddlers. Jo made these values visible in her affective approach, where she took the time to converse and build trusting relationships with the toddlers. Further, the co-educators displayed compassionate pedagogies by supporting and helping each other, and asking ‘can we help you somehow?’, as proposed by Lipponen (2019). Peta and Jo’s comments indicated their collaborative support of each other, the infant-toddlers and their families, so they did not misinterpret intentions. We propose that affective, responsive and compassionate acts in the nappy-­ change activity setting involved a wholeness approach that considered personal and institutional perspectives. This increases our understanding of responsive awareness in the pedagogical work of infant-toddler educators.

3.5  Conclusion This chapter has contributed to understanding the highly complex nature of responsive pedagogies in the toddler age group. The discussion of a nappy-change activity setting involved a temporal dynamic during 14 minutes of continuous video filming of the educator Jo, being constantly followed and videoed. In the video, the fun-­ loving active dynamism present in Jo’s multiple outdoor and indoor interactions with the toddlers became evident. The case example has brought into focus the idea of affective responsivity. In the nappy-change activity setting, undertaken daily before the toddlers’ lunchtime, Jo demonstrated her affective responsivity within an outdoor play activity. Educator Jo attended to the practicalities of having responsive relations with the toddlers in her care, while also being spontaneously and sensitively aware of the toddlers’ feelings. In the video of Jo’s pedagogical practice activity, we observed affective responsivity when she clearly gave time and was responsive and compassionate towards the toddler group. Affective responsivity is defined as the educator being spontaneously sensitive to and responsively aware of toddlers’ feelings and intentions. The educator’s affective pedagogical practice of being responsive related to trying to be aware of the toddlers’ motives and intentions, and affectively encouraging the toddlers to have their nappy change. As suggested by Hedegaard (2019), professionals need to evaluate children and be aware of their own motives as they encourage children. Institutional responsivity

58

3  Pedagogical Awareness of Being Responsive

at research Site 2 involved the educators’ institutional values of supporting immigrant families and toddlers who were part of the work environment in which reciprocal collaborative relations could be developed. The activity setting of nappy change is an everyday frequent event in LDC centres. Importantly, the practice traditions and institutional conditions and values are embraced when educators such as Jo influence their practice. Educators participate in institutional settings that bring demands to themselves and toddlers. In this chapter, affective responsivity helped build our understanding of holistic quality relationships with toddlers, as the educators developed a responsive and compassionate pedagogical approach, supported by personal actions and institutional values.

References Dahlberg, G., Moss, P., & Pence, A. (1999). Beyond quality in early childhood education and care postmodern perspectives. London/Philadelphia, PA: Falmer Press Taylor/Francis Group. Dalli, C., White, E. J., Rockel, J., & Duhn, I. (with Buchanan, E., Davidson, S., Ganly, S., Kus, L., & Wang, B.). (2011). Quality early childhood education for under-two-year-olds: What should it look like? A literature review for University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand. Report to the Ministry of Education, New Zealand. Davis, B., & Dunn, R. (2019). Professional identity in the infant room. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 44(3), 244–256. Durlak, J. A., Domitrovich, C. E., & Weissberg, R. P. (2015). Handbook of social and emotional learning: Research and practice. New York: The Guildford Press. Edwards, A. (2012). Expertise in the children’s workforce: Knowledge and motivation in engagement with children. In M. Hedegaard, A. Edwards, & M. Fleer (Eds.), Motives in children’s development: Cultural-historical approaches (pp.  173–190). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Edwards, A., Fleer, M., & Bøttcher, L. (2019). Cultural-historical approaches to studying learning and development: Societal, institutional and personal perspectives. In A. Edwards, M. Fleer, & L. Bøttcher (Eds.), Cultural-historical approaches to studying learning and development: Perspectives in cultural-historical research (pp. 23–41). Singapore: Springer. Fleer, M. (2014). The demands and motives afforded through digital play in early childhood activity settings. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 3, 202–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. lcsi.2014.02.012 Fleer, M., & Hedegaard, M. (2010). Children’s development as participation in everyday practices across different institutions. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 17, 149–168. Fleer, M., & Ridgway, A. (Eds.). (2014). Visual methodologies and digital tools for researching with young children transforming visuality. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. González Rey, F. (2016). Advancing the topics of social reality, culture, and subjectivity from a cultural-historical standpoint: Moments, paths, and contradictions. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 36(3), 175–189. González Rey, F. (2018). Subjectivity in debate: Some reconstructed philosophical premises to advance its discussion in psychology. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 49(2), 212–234. Hedegaard, M. (2012). Analyzing children’s learning and development in everyday settings from a cultural-historical wholeness approach. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 19(2), 127–138. Hedegaard, M. (2019). Children’s perspectives and institutional practices as keys in a wholeness approach to children’s social situations of development. In A. Edwards, M. Fleer, & L. Bottcher

References

59

(Eds.), Cultural-historical approaches to studying learning and development: Societal, institutional and personal perspectives (pp. 23–41). Singapore: Springer. Hedegaard, M., Edwards, A., & Fleer, M. (2012). Introduction. In M. Hedegaard, A. Edwards, & M. Fleer (Eds.), Motives in children’s development: Cultural-historical approaches (pp. 1–8). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Hilppö, J., Rajala, A., & Lipponen, L. (2019a). Compassion is children’s peer culture. In G. Barton & S. Garvis (Eds.), Compassion and empathy in educational contexts (pp. 79–95). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Hilppö, J. A., Rajala, A. J., Lipponen, L. T., Pursi, A., & Abdulhamed, R. K. (2019b). Studying compassion in the work of ECEC educators in Finland: A sociocultural approach to practical wisdom in early childhood education settings. In S. Phillipson & S. Garvis (Eds.), Teachers and families perspectives in early childhood education and care: Early childhood education and care in the 21st century: Vol. II—Evolving families (pp. 64–75). Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Hjalmarsson, M. (2018). Leisure-time teachers’ reflections on systematic quality work: Approaches and challenges. Early Child Development and Care, 189(13), 2197–2205. Holodynski, M. (2009). Milestones and mechanisms of emotional development. In B.  Rottger-­ Rossler & H.  J. Markowitsch (Eds.), Emotions as bio-cultural processes (pp.  139–163). New York: Springer. Kirschner, S. R. (2013). The many challenges of theorizing subjectivity. Culture & Psychology, 19(2), 225–236. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Lipponen, L. (2016, August–September). Happiness wellbeing and difficult emotions. Paper presented at the 26th Annual EECERA Conference: Happiness, Relationships, Emotion and Deep Level Learning, Dublin, Ireland. Lipponen, L. (2019, May). Exploring compassion organisation in early childhood education. Paper presented at CHACDOC: Cultural Historical Approaches to Children’s Development and Childhood, Bergen, Norway. Odegaard, E. (2019, May). Cultural-historical approaches to children’s development and childhood. Paper presented at CHACDOC, Bergen, Norway. Pursi, A., & Lipponen, L. (2017). Constituting play connection with very young children: Adults’ active participation in play. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 17, 21–37. Rinaldi, C. (2006). In dialogue with Reggio Emilia: Listening, researching and learning. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Shotter, J. (2012). More than cool reason: ‘Withness–thinking’ or ‘systematic thinking’ and ‘thinking about systems’. International Journal of Collaborative Practices, 3(1), 1–13. Singer, E. (2017). Emotional security and play engagement of young children in Dutch child centres: A story of explorative research, experiments and educators testing hypotheses. In L. Li, G.  Quiñones, & A.  Ridgway (Eds.), Studying babies and toddlers relationships in cultural contexts (pp. 207–224). Singapore: Springer. Siraj-Blatchford, I. (2007). Creativity, communication and collaboration: The identification of pedagogic progression in sustained shared thinking. Asia Pacific Journal of Research in Early Childhood Education, 1(2), 3–23. Stetsenko, A., & Arievitch, I. M. (2014). Vygotskian collaborative project of social transformation: History, politics, and practice in knowledge construction. In A. Blunden (Ed.), Collaborative projects: An interdisciplinary study (pp. 217–238). Leiden, UK: Brill. Taggart, G. (2019). Early childhood education: From maternal care to social compassion. In G. Barton & S. Garvis (Eds.), Compassion and empathy in educational contexts (pp. 213–230). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Trevarthen, C. (2011). What young children give to their learning, making education work to sustain a community and its culture. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 19(2), 173–193.

60

3  Pedagogical Awareness of Being Responsive

Vygotsky, L.  S. (1998). The collected works of L.S.  Vygotsky: Volume 5, Child psychology (R.W. Rieber (Ed. English Translation) & M. J. Hall, Trans.). New York: Plenum Press. Vygotsky, L.  S. (2004). Imagination and creativity in childhood. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 42(1), 7–97. White, E. J. (2014). A dialogic space in early childhood education: Chronotopic encounters with people, places and things. In L. Harrison & J. Sumsion (Eds.), Lived spaces of infant-toddler education and care—Exploring diverse perspectives on theory, research, practice and policy (pp. 211–224). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Chapter 4

Pedagogical Knowledge of Transitory Moments

Abstract  This chapter draws attention to the importance of educators’ affective pedagogy in transitory moments. The chapter uses a case example to uncover the importance of transitory moments that are often invisible to educators. Educators’ awareness of transitory moments contributes to educators’ affective pedagogies. Discussion of a case example includes educators’ acknowledgment of motives when affectively engaging a small group of infant-toddlers in sandpit play. The educators’ engagement/motivation pursues affective creation of group togetherness through encouragement with a ‘gentle push’ in a sandbox play activity setting. When educators acknowledge infant-toddlers’ motives, and capture the transitory moments, they are able to offer a ‘gentle push’ through affective actions to motivate infant-­ toddlers play exploration and group learning.

4.1  Introduction Transitory moments, often embedded in continuous movement, are worthy of closer examination in order to build pedagogical awareness in early childhood long day care settings and in other places experienced by babies and toddlers. (Ridgway, Li, & Quiñones, 2016a, 2016b, p. 92)

This chapter aims to examine more closely what happens during infant-toddlers’ innumerable transitory moments and to what extent they are acknowledged and informed by educators. The recognition of transitory moments can help to unravel lived moments of intense experiences (Quiñones, Li, & Ridgway, 2017). Transitory moments are briefly defined as continuous movements and child-initiated moments. Very little is written about infant-toddlers’ transitory relationships in current early childhood settings (such as long day care). Duhn (2011) reported that educators being present and in the moment with infant-toddlers should be part of a pedagogical intention to support learning together. Therefore, we ask the research question: How do educators understand and use transitory moments as part of an affective pedagogy to motivate infant-toddlers’ play, exploration and learning together? Through examples this chapter identifies infant-toddlers’ experience of critical transitory moments of play and learning, to conceptualize educators’ affective pedagogy. © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 G. Quiñones et al., Affective Early Childhood Pedagogy for Infant-Toddlers, Policy and Pedagogy with Under-three Year Olds: Cross-disciplinary Insights and Innovations 3, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73527-2_4

61

62

4  Pedagogical Knowledge of Transitory Moments

4.1.1  Transitions and Transitory Moments Most research in transitions has focused on preschoolers (aged 3–5  years) and school transitions (Dockett, 2016). This research includes topics of literacy learning between school educators and families, to support the transition to school (Alatalo, Meier, & Frank, 2017); reflections on transitions to school (Dockett, 2016); consideration of biological wellbeing and care efforts (Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000), and scaffolding strategies for parents and educators coping with adjustments from preschool to school (Wong, 2016). The most recent research relates to infant-toddler transitions from family to early childhood educational settings undertaken by White et al. (2020). This emphasizes the trust relationship between teacher and family as being critical to the creation of a positive experience for supporting infant-toddler transitions to an early childhood educational setting. However, in the present literature there is an absence of research on infant-toddlers and associated affective pedagogies in relation to transitions within the same activity settings. Further, much existing research focuses on consideration of children’s experience (Christensen, 2004; Einarsdottir, 2007) including transitions and changes that occur among young children and their families (Hedegaard & Fleer, 2013) and the horizontal moment-to-moment transitions that offer rich learning opportunities (Rutanen, 2017). Friends and peers are a main concern for children while transitioning to school (Winther-Lindqvist, 2012). Thus, it becomes important for adults to understand the children’s experience of belonging to a peer group, especially during transition times, and how this might influence children’s learning (Winther-­ Lindqvist, 2012). Infant-toddler research on transition times has been conceptualized as smaller transitory moments; as ‘moments of self-awareness, change and affective actions’, in which shared meaning and imagined actions are created among peers and adults (Quiñones et  al., 2017). While there is little acknowledgment of transitions in research literature, a few studies have focused on micro-transitions in different activity settings and the development of motives from the perspective of a cultural– historical approach.

4.2  Cultural-Historical Approach for the Study of Infant-­Toddlers’ Play and Learning in Transitory Moments Hedegaard and Fleer (2013) applied a wholeness approach to research children’s everyday lives participated across different institutions (e.g., school and family). They noted that: Children’s learning can be seen as change in their relation to another person and activities in specific settings, and children’s development can be seen as qualitative changes across different settings in their relation to other persons and activities in general. Development

4.2  Cultural-Historical Approach for the Study of Infant-Toddlers’ Play and Learning…

63

also involves a change in a child’s leading motive orientation (Hedegaard & Fleer, 2013, p. 191).

In considering the significance of transitions between different institutions, it becomes important to research pedagogical practices and activities and how qualitative changes, conceptualized here as transitory moments in the activity setting, occur for infant-toddlers. As Hedegaard (2012a) argued, ‘learning occurs when there is a qualitative shift in the child’s participation in an activity setting and thereby in his or her relations to other persons’ (p. 136). However, limited research has been directed at the unique qualities of transitions in infant-toddlers’ everyday life. Drawing on Vygotsky and Leontiev’s cultural–historical and activity theories, Hedegaard (2012b) theorized “motives as something which exist in institutional practices that a person confronts through the activity settings in his/her everyday life” (p.  15). When researching and interpreting children’s learning and development, it is necessary to focus on the activity settings where adults place demands and motivate children to meet these demands in a social situation. Table 4.1 presents Hedegaard’s (2012b, p. 19) wholeness approach to studying children, developed by taking different planes of analysis (See more detail in Chap. 1). Here, we draw on the concepts of transition, motives and demands. The societal plane of analysis emphasises the traditions, cultural values, policies and regulations in the studied societal contexts, to explain the social demands made on children’s learning and development. The institutional plane of analysis investigates the daily routines, transitions, philosophies, values of the kindergartens, long day care centres, as well as family beliefs, values, and demands on their children’s learning. The activity setting plane of analysis focuses on the social situation of toddler’s learning, as in sandbox play, mealtimes, nappy changes or cooking activities. The interpretation of the activity setting through use of visual narrative methodology (see Chap. 1), might allow us to capture infant-toddlers’ motives and educators’ demands in a social situation. In this way, affective pedagogy may be identified, in ways that educators capture transitory moments, and value children’s motives through creation of conditions to support play and learning together. This chapter explores transitory moments in relation to indoor sandbox play and a feeding activity setting for investigation of educators’ affective pedagogy. The personal plane of analysis refers to the child’s actions and positions, which are influenced by social demands of people around them. The child not only makes sense of the demands they have to meet, but also contributes to the changes of the institutional setting in which they participate. Bozhovich (2009) states: Table 4.1  Hedegaard’s (2019, p. 19) planes of analysis Structure Society Institution Activity setting Person

Process Tradition Practice Social situation Activity

Dynamic Societal conditions and demands Value-motive/objectives/demands Motivation/engagement/demands Motives/intentions/motive orientations

64

4  Pedagogical Knowledge of Transitory Moments Children’s positions are determined by two conditions, first by the demands of the social environments that have developed historically and are placed on children of a particular age … second by the demands that people around them place on children based on their individual developmental features of a particular child and on the specific circumstances for the family (p. 78).

The social environment provides conditions for children to develop. People around the child, such as educators and peers, create demands according to the social situation in which the child is positioned. As Chaiklin (2012) discussed, “motive is both an individual and collective concept. Individuals can have motives, but the individuality of motives is always within the fabric of societal practices” (p. 219). That is, children’s motives develop while they engage in the activities with others. Thinking pedagogically, while children enter the activity setting, they can show their motive orientation through their intentional actions that might or might not meet the demands educators placed on them for that particular activity. However, when educators understand and align their actions with children’s motive orientation in the activity settings, children’s new motive development can be achieved (Li, 2019). Children’s motives are culturally and socially determined, only acquired through their participation in activities in an institution (Hedegaard, 2012a, 2012b). During this process, children’s relations within the environment might be changed. We considered these changes to be transitory moments (explanation next section). Hence, when researching pedagogical practices of transitory moments within activity settings, it becomes important to deliberate on the child’s motive orientation. As suggested by Hedegaard (2012a), educators who follow the child’s motive orientation are able to motivate the child to act, while aligning with the institutional values in their activity settings. In this chapter, we explore the educator’s interactions with a small group of infant-toddlers to understand how the transitionary moments are captured and the conditions created to motivate their play activity. The focus activity setting is sandbox play, which provides interactions between peers and the educator. By investigating this setting, we are able to devote special attention to the transitory moments experienced by the infant-toddlers. In relation to value-laden demands, this chapter examines the educators’ affective pedagogy through affective engagement with infant-toddlers.

4.2.1  Transitory Moments Fleer (2014) conceptualized the micro-transitions within an activity setting as ‘microgenetic movements’ (p.  207). She investigated preschoolers’ transitions between real and imagined digital play, and explained: “these microgenetic movements can be conceptualized as flickering in and out of imaginary situations, flickering between individual and collective activity, and flickering between concrete objects and virtual representations” (Fleer, 2014, p.  207). Fleer’s concept of

4.3  Analysis of Affective Pedagogy During Transitory Moments

65

micro-­genetic movement is considered while we investigate the small transitions within one activity setting, and identify this idea in our research as “transitory moments” (Quiñones et al., 2017, p. 175). Transitory moments are defined as different affective moments of action in which peers share a space and negotiate decisions (Quiñones et al., 2017). Through affectively relating with one another, infant-toddlers communicate through bodily expressions, gestures and coordinated movements, to become socially aware. Thus, transitory moments in play also provide an understanding of one another and demonstrate exploration of infant- toddler’s agency. This indicates a clear need to devote attention to many minor changes, transformations, movements and transitions in infant-toddlers’ everyday lives. In this chapter, we extend the concept of transitory moments, characterized by short-term, spontaneous, child-initiated changes that relate to micro-changes and challenges. Transitory moments are meaningful and affective for the child, as they can change the child’s relationship with the environment (including peers and educators). The transitory moments presented in an activity setting, when acknowledged by educators, can help educators create the conditions for motivating infant-toddlers’ play and learning together. We explore educators’ affective awareness of transitory moments in infant-toddler’s play and learning.

4.3  A  nalysis of Affective Pedagogy During Transitory Moments Through identifying infant-toddlers’ experience of transitory moments of learning as momentary and child initiated, this chapter’s aim is to conceptualize educators’ affective pedagogy while engaging and motivating infant-toddlers peer play in a sandbox. Thus, this chapter raises awareness of how educators need to recognise and use these transitory moments to support infant-toddlers’ play and learning together. The analysis focuses on transitory moments within an activity setting that involves feeding and sandbox play to make togetherness visible. Therefore, to capture infant-toddlers’ transitory moments in concrete activity settings, we draw on Hedegaard’s (2012a) work on motives and demands in children’s learning and development, to make visible the way infant-toddler’s experience transitory moments and the way educators affectively relate in those transitory moments. Transitory moments elaborated in the following case example involve: Pedagogical demands of turn-taking, where educators call infant-toddlers by their names to encourage group belonging and provide affective attention to transitory moments. Infants developing motives in sandbox play, where educators offer a ‘gentle push’ to encourage infants.

66

4  Pedagogical Knowledge of Transitory Moments

Playful togetherness, where educators show affective sensitivity by observing, listening to and responding to infant-toddlers’ actions.

4.4  Case Example: Sandbox Play The case example occurred in a sandbox activity setting, videoed at Site 1, with educator Jane. The video captures play in the sandbox corner, with infant-toddlers aged from 5 weeks to 11 months of age. Educator Jane was with four infants: Amy (with purple pants—a newcomer), Shae (pink striped jumpsuit), Andy (boy in striped top) and Tom (baby on Jane’s lap). Their sandbox play lasted for around 15 min. The video observation involved Jane preparing to feed Tom, after changing Amy’s nappy. Jane sat on the floor, leaning against the wall, and feeding Tom a bottle of milk. Tom sat on Jane’s lap, facing away from her, but in a position where Tom could still see children in the sandbox. With one hand, Jane held the bottle and with the other hand, she picked up a funnel as she continued to play with the other infant-toddlers.

4.4.1  T  ransitory Moment: Pedagogical Demands of Turn-Taking Shae hitches one leg up on the side of the sandbox and pulls herself into a position where she straddles the sandbox. Once in this position, Shae manages to move her other leg over the top of the ledge and pulls herself into the sandbox by stretching out onto her stomach into a crawling position (Fig. 4.1). Meanwhile, Tom continues feeding, while watching Jane pour sand. Andy is outside the sandbox, further away, but also watching the situation. Jane gestures the funnel towards Amy (next to Jane) and says, ‘Amy, try?’. Shae (pink striped jumpsuit) moves quickly forward from the crawling position then reaches one arm out towards the funnel being gestured towards Amy. Jane moves the funnel away from Shae, who is reaching for it. Jane states ‘for Amy, for Amy, not for Shae’. Shae called out a ‘maaaaa’ noise. Jane states, ‘For Amy … your name is Shae’, and moves the funnel away from Shae’s grasp. Shae continues to reach for the funnel. Amy watches the funnel being moved between Shae and Jane. Shae makes a very small grasping movement/opening of her hand towards the funnel, just as the educator scooped up some sand. As Jane holds up the funnel for the sand to run out, Shae grasps the funnel. Jane relinquishes the funnel to Shae, saying ‘okay, Shae’s turn’. Amy watches Shae take the funnel (Fig. 4.2). Jane looks down at Tom to quickly check on him. She then picks up a small blue bucket that has holes in the bottom and scooped up some sand, holding it up to Amy

4.4  Case Example: Sandbox Play

67

Fig. 4.1  Shae and Amy move into the sandbox

as the sand ran through, saying, ‘Whheeee’. Educator Jane repeats this action a few times. Amy, Shae and Tom watch the sand running through the bucket holes. This transitory moment suggested that Shae displayed an affective action through moving into the sandbox (see Fig. 4.1.). Shae intentionally crawled into the sandbox area and saw the educator playing with the funnel with Amy, another child. A series of affective actions and movements ignited Shae’s motives and intentions to play with her peers, Amy and educator Jane. Jane’s interactive play with Amy created the conditions for engagement and motivated infants, such as Shae, to move into the sandbox. Jane sat down and played with Amy, which attracted Shae to join the play. As Hedegaard (2012a) argued, “an activity can be motivating if it relates to children’s already-developed motives” (p.  134). In responding to Shae’s motives in sandbox play with others, Jane might be aware that this transitory moment meant changing the actions of Shae. Through her affective pedagogical approach, Jane was able to create play togetherness between Amy and Shae, who were interested in the funnel and sand. Jane demonstrated to Shae and Amy the concept and meaning of turn-taking with the funnel. Evidence of this was noted when Jane emphasized that the funnel was for Amy, as Shae reached for the funnel (see Fig.  4.2). Jane patiently waited for Shae to understand the turn-taking concept by emphasizing, ‘for Amy, for Amy, not for Shae’. Jane, who expected to wait for a turn, placed the demand on Shae that she had to wait. Shae’s motive orientation was to play with the funnel while Jane played with Amy. Jane realized Shae’s motive orientation in this sandbox play activity setting by explaining to her what it meant to take turns. It was very important that she

68

4  Pedagogical Knowledge of Transitory Moments

Fig. 4.2  Shae touches the funnel

emphasized their names, ‘For Amy … your name is Shae’ as this supports young infants’ sense of agency and autonomy. The affective attention shown in this transitory moment helped the infants’ self-awareness of one another (Quiñones et  al., 2017). In the end Jane passed this funnel to Shae and emphasised that by saying “okay, Shae’s turn”. The sandbox play activity setting was used pedagogically through Jane’s acknowledgement of Shae’s motive orientations by helping her understand the concept of playful turn-taking.

4.4.2  T  ransitory Moment: Infants Developing Motives in Sandbox Play The sandbox play continued and Amy had her nappy changed. Amy stood outside the sandbox and looked inside the sandbox at Shae. After standing a while, Jane picked up Amy and placed her inside the sandbox. Amy sat on the edge of the sandbox. Jane also sat down and continued feeding Tom, while she played with Amy. Jane continued to scoop sand with a blue bucket and pour it out. Amy quietly observed how Jane poured sand through the funnel. Shae moved to the sandbox and took the funnel from the educator. Shae scooped sand with the funnel in one hand and reached for a red pan with her other hand. Jane says ‘weee’ (still scooping sand with the bucket in close proximity to Amy). As the sand runs through the bucket, Amy slowly takes the bucket from the educator. Amy now holds the bucket with one hand and brings it closer to her face to look

4.4  Case Example: Sandbox Play

69

inside. Jane states: ‘Amy, try … See the holes in the bucket?’. Jane points to the holes on the outside of the bucket, and then sings: ‘There is a hole in my bucket, Eliza, Eliza, there’s a hole in my bucket, dear Eliza, a hole … Then fix it, dear Henry’. Jane continues singing while she scoops up sand with the red pan, and then pours it out. Tom looks up at Jane while she sings (see Fig. 4.3). Jane continues to scoop with the red pan, continues her song and feeds Tom. She sings: ‘Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry, then fix it, dear Henry, dear Henry, fix it’. Shae scoops sand with her funnel and then places the funnel in her mouth, and Amy continues to hold the blue bucket while watching Shae. Through the analysis of the selected snapshots, we see that Amy very quietly joined the sandbox play. She spent most of the time observing her peers’ interaction and the educator. Jane realized Amy’s interest in the sandbox play and used her play actions to encourage Amy’s engagement in play. When she said, ‘Amy, try?’ or responded to Shae ‘it is for Amy, for Amy’, Jane placed a demand on Amy, as to who plays with a funnel. It was very important that Jane did not choose to give Amy the funnel directly, but instead used her own play actions to invite Amy’s play engagement. When Amy showed interest in the play (see Fig. 4.3), Jane slowly passed it to her. This action indicated two things. Firstly, Amy showed her motive orientation in playing with the bucket. Secondly, we noticed Jane’s awareness of this affective transitory moment to help Amy move into the sandbox play. Meanwhile, Amy also made a demand of the play situation- that she needed to know how to play with the bucket. Jane explained this through her singing and play movements, which helped smooth the young infants’ engagement in the play. Jane’s affective pedagogy was demonstrated through her respect for Amy’s choice and gentle encouragement to try new things. As argued by Shin and Partyka (2017), ‘some infants may need a gentle push to try new things and thus expand their

Fig. 4.3  Amy turns her head towards the blue bucket

70

4  Pedagogical Knowledge of Transitory Moments

horizons’ (p. 139). In this case, Amy was the new infant in the room who quietly observed what happened around her. Jane acknowledged Amy’s motive orientation to play in the sandbox by capturing Amy’s series of actions that included “observing how to pour the sand through the funnel”, “moving to the sandbox”, “taking the funnel”, and “scooping sand with the funnel”. Jane created the conditions to motivate Amy to try different play tools such as the bucket. Jane asked “Amy, try… see the holes in the bucket?”. Then she sang the song to motivate Amy’s continued engagement “There is a hole in my bucket, Eliza, Eliza, there’s a hole in my bucket, dear Eliza, a hole … Then fix it, dear Henry’”. We considered Jane’s affective pedagogy as a ‘gentle push’, which affectively responded to Amy’s motive orientation and motivated her to act and explore.

4.4.3  Transitory Moment: Sand Play Exploration The educator continues to hold Tom in her lap and with the other hand, scoops and pours sand. While these actions are realized, Jane sings (Fig. 4.4): ‘the sand comes down, down, down, down, down; the sand comes down, down, down’. All infants are engaged in this joint activity, with Tom observing and Amy, Shae and Andy playing in the sandbox. Amy sits on the edge of the sandbox watching the educator pour sand, while holding a blue bucket. Shae scoops sand with a funnel. Andy holds a red pan. Tom rests on the educator’s lap. As the sand pours out of the educator’s bowl, Jane sings: ‘the sand comes down, down, down, as above’. Andy crawls over to feel the sand. He first reaches out and touches the sand, and then proceeds to put his head under it. The educator keeps pouring the sand, and it falls on Andy’s head like a waterfall (Fig. 4.4). As Andy touches the sand, he makes a noise: ‘ahhh’. Amy says, ‘Ohhh … ohhhh’, while the educator mimics Andy’s noise: ‘Ohhh … you are going to get sand in your hair … you are going to get sand’ (heightened intonation) (Fig. 4.5).

Fig. 4.4  Andy displays interest in falling sand

4.4  Case Example: Sandbox Play

71

Tom still leans back on the educator’s lap, resting. At this point, when the educator speaks to Andy, Tom looks up at the educator. Amy and Shae watch as the sand falls on Andy’s head. Andy lets the sand fall on his head for a few seconds, and then reverses out of the falling sand by crawling backwards. Andy moves back into a sitting position, and picks up a red pan. The educator helps Andy brush the sand off his head. The educator picks up the bowl and then begins to pour the sand out slowly, saying, “It’s like a shower … a shower of sand”. At this moment, Amy begins to slide off the ledge of the sandbox and into the sand for the first time (see Fig. 4.6). Jane playfully covers Amy’s feet with sand and asks, ‘Where is your foot?’. Jane covers Amy’s feet with sand by pouring sand out of the bowl. Jane leans into the sandbox and then helps Amy’s feet come to the surface, stating: ‘where’s your foot, Amy? … where is it? … it’s here!’. When the educator Jane finds Amy’s foot, she brushes off the sand then readjusts Amy’s position, stabilising her sitting position by placing her legs in a V-shape. The educator brushes the sand off Amy’s legs and feet again. As she does so, she says, ‘Ah, now the other side … one foot, two feet’. Jane notices other objects buried in the sand where Amy is sitting, and starts digging, saying in a playful way: ‘Oh, there are more things under here … what’s under here?’. Thus, Amy begins exploring the sand toys. Analysis of the above vignette illustrates the educators’ affective sensitivity to the transitory moment. Andy displayed interest in the falling sand. Jane’s slow pouring of the sand drew Andy’s attention and he started moving closer to the falling sand with his hand, and then his head. His active movements and close observation explained his motive orientation towards the falling sand. The transitory moment for Andy was Jane’s dramatic singing: ‘the sand comes down, down, down, as above’. Jane’s playful movements encouraged the infants to observe her. She followed the

Fig. 4.5  Andy explores the sand shower

72

4  Pedagogical Knowledge of Transitory Moments

Fig. 4.6  Educator Jane plays with Amy’s feet

infants’ motive orientation in the sand play with a playfulness that attracted and motivated them towards playing in new ways with the sand. Jane respectfully listened to the infants and read their emotional cues, changing her responses accordingly to benefit their learning. Hännikäinen and Munter (2019) argued a sensitive educator should be reflective in observing and responding to children’s actions. Jane was reflective, sensitive and affective as she emotionally responded to Amy’s actions. She appreciated that during Amy’s first day at the centre, support was needed to bring the small group of infants together in their sandbox play. Jane’s dramatic voices also promoted the infants’ intentions: ‘you’re going to get sand on your hair … you’re going to get sand’ (stated quite loudly), when Andy wished to experience the falling sand. She then brought the other infants into the imaginary situation by saying, ‘It’s like a shower … a shower of sand’. Amy and baby Tom closely watched what happened. Amy then started moving slowly into the sandbox. This small group of infants came together under the support of educator Jane via her playful actions and dramatic affective voices. As suggested by Degotardi, Han, and Torr (2018), the interaction between a talk-­ rich educator and infants offers great opportunities that afford high-quality learning experiences. Jane’s affective pedagogies included being sensitive towards the infants’ acts, being positioned closely, reflectively changing her responses to each infant, and singing dramatically to motivate the infants’ sand play exploration and engagement together. This echoes White and White and Redder’s (2015) argument that infants’ play engagement is deeply influenced by the relationship between infant and educator. In addition, after observing and staying in the sandbox for 8 min, Amy finally showed her affective acts by exploring the sand toys (see Fig. 4.6). Jane continually captured transitory moments through the new experience. She used dramatic voices to support wondering about: ‘Ah, now the other side … one foot, two feet’. Jane’s playfulness drove Amy’s attention into further exploration of the sandbox. We argue that a ‘gentle push’ requires the educator’s affective engagement. Jane’s playful actions, dramatic speech, singing and sounds provided prompt, responsive and

4.5 Conclusion

73

affective engagement. The ‘gentle push’ helped Amy generate new motives in exploring the toys buried in the sand. This aligns with comments made by Jane in the Collaborative forum: It turned into a very social experience. The little one [Amy] that was standing that I initially helped into the sandpit, she is very new to the service and it was only early in that day that we had started to really get a connection and she was looking like, she was looking for more and I could not just leave her hanging while I was feeding.

Jane’s generative ideas indicated her teaching methodology. She affectively responded to the infants’ social experience and demands, even though she had to devote more attention to feeding Tom. Her intentional teaching made this feeding activity social, as she was also aware of Amy’s interests in the sandbox. The ‘gentle push’ with playful action extended Amy’s further exploration of the sand toys. Meanwhile, Tom also watched his peers play and felt happy throughout the activity. As Jane commented in the paired interview, ‘I build the trust … they [infants] can come together and they are glued’. We found that Jane had applied her affective pedagogy to build a trusting relationship with Amy and helped her join the group play. It is clear that Jane’s dramatic singing, playful actions and gestures played an important role in this practice, with her pedagogical role affectively positioned to capture the transitory moments. She then created affective conditions by singing and using dramatic and playful actions to motivate the infants to create a community of players and explorers.

4.5  Conclusion This chapter drew upon Hedegaard’s (2012a) wholeness model of children’s learning and development to explore the importance of transitory moments in interactions between one educator and four infants in sandbox play. Transitory moments were explored through investigating the demands, motives and motive orientation in the activity setting of sandbox play, where the educator’s affective play engagement with infant-toddlers was promoted. We argued that infant-toddler educators can foster positive attitudes towards learning and play when their awareness of transitory moments is present. Educators’ acknowledgment of infants’ motive orientation and respect for their thinking processes and play engagement may be seen in Jane’s affective pedagogy. Her sensitivity was displayed towards each infant (Shae, Amy, Andy and Tom) in the activity setting of sandbox play. Amy, being a newcomer to the LDC centre needed support to belong to the group and engage in play with her peers. To do this Jane multitasked while feeding baby Tom. While educators usually acknowledge infant-toddlers’ motives to capture transitory moments, an affective ‘gentle push’ may need to be promoted to support exploration of new things. This ‘gentle push’ should be a playful and mindful transitory moment. In the case of Jane’s ‘gentle push’, she engaged with the group of infant-­ toddlers together, bringing dramatic voice and singing as part of her affective

74

4  Pedagogical Knowledge of Transitory Moments

pedagogy. In Amy’s case, the ‘gentle push’ was not about the educators’ agenda, but about Amy’s active movements as she entered into the sandbox. Jane placed sand over Amy’s feet and playfully invited her to find her feet. This gave Amy ideas about finding the sand toys Jane had buried. Shin and Partyka (2017) and Jung and Recchia (2013) suggested infants need an educators’ ‘gentle push’ without imposing their own agenda, but through realization of infant-toddlers’ motives. As Hedegaard (2012b) stated, “[i]n an educational situation it is important to be aware of the child’s motive orientation as well as directing the introduced activities toward supporting new motives” (p. 135). Therefore, we have argued that educators need to be emotionally and affectively attuned to infants-toddlers’ motive orientation in their social interaction; thus enabling educators to capture transitory moments and provide related affective responses. A ‘gentle push’ with playful actions can support infants’ new motives in play exploration and learning together. Educators’ affective pedagogy appears to be culturally situated and aligned with the infants’ motives in play. Educators’ affective engagement through understanding infants’ transitory moments, can develop togetherness by achieving a community of learners. The educator Jane’s playfulness was present in her responses to the infants’ motives and motive orientation. This also indicated that Jane valued group togetherness by devoting attention to the exploration of the infants’ personal motives and shared endeavours (Hännikäinen, 2005). Educators’ participation maintained joint play activity and exploration, which in this case, was located in the contained space of sandbox play. This expands research on preschoolers’ togetherness (Hännikäinen, 2001) in infants’ play, where the educator plays an important role in encouraging and being self-aware of many small transitory moments. The case example discussed in this chapter indicated that the educator’s affective pedagogical approach was genuine and playful, as it motivated the infants to play and explore together. The notion of affective pedagogy when working with infant-toddlers allows us to capture the transitory moments through acknowledgement of infants’ motives and motive orientation during play and engagement, and foster the possibilities for their learning by the use of an affective and intentional ‘gentle push’.

References Alatalo, T., Meier, J., & Frank, E. (2017). Information sharing on children’s literacy learning in the transition from Swedish preschool to school. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 31(2), 240–254. Bozhovich, L. I. (2009). The social situation of child development. Journal of Russian and Eastern European Psychology, 47(4), 59–86. Chaiklin, S. (2012). A conceptual perspective for investigating motive in cultural-historical theory. In M. Hedegaard, A. Edwards, & M. Fleer (Eds.), Motives in children’s development (pp. 209–224). New York: Cambridge University. Christensen, P. H. (2004). Children’s participation in ethnographic research: Issues of power and representation. Children and Society, 18(2), 65–176.

References

75

Degotardi, S., Han, F., & Torr, J. (2018). Infants’ experience with ‘near and clear’ educator talk: Individual variation and its relationship to indicators of quality. International Journal of Early Years Education, 26(3), 278–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2018.1479632 Dockett, S. (2016). Reflecting on transition to school. Bedrock, 21(2), 18. Retrieved from http:// ieu-­docapp.formwork5.com/bedrock5/article-­2/reflecting-­transition-­school/ Duhn, I. (2011). Being a community: A relationship-focused pedagogy for infants and toddlers. The First Years: Nga Tau Tuatahi—New Zealand Journal of Infant and Toddlers Education, 13(2), 24–28. Einarsdottir, J. (2007). Research with children: Methodological and ethical challenges. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 15(2), 197–211. Fleer, M. (2014). The demands and motives afforded through digital play in early childhood activity settings. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 3, 202–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. lcsi.2014.02.012 Hännikäinen, M. (2001). Playful actions as a sign of togetherness in day care centres. International Journal of Early Years Education, 9(2), 125–134. Hännikäinen, M. (2005). Rules and agreements—And becoming a preschool community of learners. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 13(1), 97–110. Hännikäinen, M., & Munter, H. (2019). Toddlers’ play in early childhood education settings. In P. K. Smith & J. L. Roopnarine (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of play: Developmental and disciplinary perspectives (pp. 491–510). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Hedegaard, M. (2012a). The dynamic aspects in children’s learning and development. In M. Hedegaard, A. Edwards, & M. Fleer (Eds.), Motives in children’s development: Cultural-­ historical approaches (pp. 9–27). New York: Cambridge University Press. Hedegaard, M. (2012b). Analysing children’s learning and development in everyday settings from a cultural-historical wholeness approach. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 19(2), 127–138. Hedegaard, M. (2019). Children’s perspectives and institutional practices as keys in a wholeness approach to children’s social situations of development. In A. Edwards, M. Fleer, & L. Bottcher (Eds.), Cultural-historical approaches to studying learning and development: Societal, institutional and personal perspectives (pp. 23–41). Singapore: Springer Nature. Hedegaard, M., & Fleer, M. (2013). Play, learning, and children’s development: Everyday life in families and transition to school. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Jung, J., & Recchia, S. L. (2013). Scaffolding infants’ play through empowering and individualizing teaching practices. Early Education and Development, 24(6), 829–850. Li, L. (2019). Supporting heritage language development through adults’ participation in activity settings. In A.  Edwards, M.  Fleer, & L.  Bottcher (Eds.), Cultural-historical approaches to studying learning and development: Societal, institutional and personal perspectives (pp. 85–199).Singapore: Springer. Quiñones, G., Li, L., & Ridgway, A. (2017). Transitory moments as ‘affective moments of action’ in toddler play. In L. Li, G. Quiñones, & A. Ridgway (Eds.), Studying babies and toddlers— Relationships in cultural contexts (pp. 175–192). Singapore: Springer. Ridgway, A., Li, L., & Quiñones, G. (2016a). Visual narrative methodology in educational research with babies: Triadic play in babies’ room. Video Journal of Education and Pedagogy, 1(1), 1–18. Ridgway, A., Li, L., & Quiñones, G. (2016b). Transitory moments in infant/toddler play: Agentic imagination. International Research in Early Childhood Education, 7(2), 91–110. Rutanen, N. (2017). Spatial perspective on everyday transitions within a toddler group care setting. In L. Li, G. Quinones, & A. Ridgway (Eds.), Studying babies and toddlers: Relationships in cultural contexts (pp. 49–62). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Shin, M., & Partyka, T. (2017). Empowering infants through responsive and intentional play activities. International Journal of Early Years Education, 25(2), 127–142. https://doi.org/10.108 0/09669760.2017.1291331 Shonkoff, J. P., & Phillips, D. (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

76

4  Pedagogical Knowledge of Transitory Moments

White, E. J., & Redder, B. (2015). Proximity with under two year-olds in early childhood education: A silent pedagogical encounter. Early Child Development and Care, 185(11–12), 1783–1800. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2015.1028386 White, E. J., Rutanen, N., Marwick, H., Amorim, K. S., Karagiannidou, E., & Herod, L. K. M. (2020). Expectations and emotions concerning infant transitions to ECEC: International dialogues with parents and teachers. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 28(3), 363–374. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2020.1755495 Winther-Lindqvist, D. (2012). Developing social identities and motives in school transitions. In M.  Hedegaard, A.  Edwards, & M.  Fleer (Eds.), Motives in children’s development (pp. 115–132). New York: Cambridge University Press. Wong, M. (2016). A longitudinal study of children’s voices in regard to stress and coping during the transition to school. Early Child Development and Care, 186(6), 927–946.

Chapter 5

Affective Positioning in Infant-Toddlers’ Play

Abstract  This chapter draws on the cultural-historical concept of double subjectivity in play. The educators’ affective positioning in infant-toddlers’ play is explored and how educators affectively engage young children in play is discussed. A case example given in relation to infant-toddlers’ interests and motives, reveals the effectiveness of affective positioning in play. We argue that educators can apply affective pedagogical positions, while engaged in infant-toddlers’ play. This can support the development of educators’ dynamic reciprocal interactions with infant-toddlers, to achieve deep-level learning. We highlight the need to better understand pedagogical questioning in play activity settings where educators interact with infant-toddlers.

5.1  Introduction Double-subjectivity in play allows players to orient both towards their own selves and towards the character they are playing … in total these two sides of play—the player’s consciousness of himself [herself] as a player and at the same as a non-player—represent the subject of play. (Kravtsova, 2010a, p. 25)

This chapter aims to gain a better understanding of how educators pedagogically position themselves while engaging in toddlers’ play. This can help reveal the importance of affective relations created by educators and infant-toddlers in play to support learning potentials. The research question explored in this chapter is: how do educators affectively position themselves in children’s play to enhance toddlers’ learning and play development? There is a large body of research on play and interactions between adults and children (Fleer, 2015; Lobman, 2006; Pursi & Lipponen, 2017; Singer, Nederend, Penninx, Tajik, & Boom, 2014; van Oers, 2013; White et al., 2009). Most reviewed studies focused on close proximity and joint attention between adults and children in play. Less attention however, has been directed to educators’ affective pedagogical positioning in infant-toddlers’ play, as in affective responses given to interests and needs. Singer et al. (2014) found that close and continuous proximity of the teacher/educator had a strong positive effect on infants-toddlers’ play engagement. In their research, Singer et  al. (2014) noticed that Dutch infant-toddler teachers spent significant amounts of time roaming the classroom, focusing on individual © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 G. Quiñones et al., Affective Early Childhood Pedagogy for Infant-Toddlers, Policy and Pedagogy with Under-three Year Olds: Cross-disciplinary Insights and Innovations 3, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73527-2_5

77

78

5  Affective Positioning in Infant-Toddlers’ Play

children, supervising, and maintaining control of the environment. They proposed that, when working with children aged less than 3  years, infant-toddler teachers should find a new way of developing reciprocal interactions that “involves an active role for children” (Singer et al., 2014, p. 1247). Cooper and Quinones (2020) explain how a pedagogy of care involves affective and responsive infant-toddler teachers who are able to follow infant-toddler initiatives. Relevant to this chapter on affective positioning, they detail how infant-toddlers co-create and co-author their own culturally specific meanings of one-caring for objects (e.g. dolls). More research is needed to investigate how infant-toddlers negotiate care play possibilities. Educators may be a support by taking an active role when interacting with infant-toddlers in-­ group play contexts to support their play engagement. In this chapter, we draw upon cultural–historical concepts of play and double subjectivity to analyze one example of an educator active positioning in play with a group of toddlers bathing dolls.

5.2  Cultural–Historical Concept of Play Most play theories are based on a biological deterministic view of play development (Elkonin, 2005). This view conceptualises play according to stages of development that all children progress through in sequence and over time (e.g., Grusec & Lytton, 1988; Parten, 1932; Smilansky, 1968). Examples of play defined through stages are solitary play (infants), parallel play (toddlers) and cooperative play (preschoolers) (Parten, 1932). However, these theories have yet to demonstrate what may occur when they are applied across a whole community of players in contemporary care and education settings (Fleer, 2013). Play is not chronologically determined, but a complex and dynamic process explaining the social relations between children and their surroundings (Fleer, 2013). In establishing criteria for distinguishing a child’s play activity from other forms of activity, Vygotsky (1966) concluded that “in play a child creates an imaginary situation” (p. 8) in which children take on the roles of adults and act them out in a play situation they have created. In play, children change the meaning of the object and actions while they imagine and act adults’ social roles and social rules. Additionally, as pointed out by Vygotsky (1966), “play is not the predominant form of activity, but is, in a certain sense, the leading source of development in preschool years” (p. 62). Imaginary play helps children appropriate a given imagined situation and enables them to practice adult roles for future reference (Goncu, 1998). Therefore, play is considered “the source of development” (Vygotsky, 1966, p. 76). Challenging the traditional theories and approaches to play, in this chapter, we apply a cultural deterministic view of young children’s interactions within a long day care environment, and with educators and peers in play, and explore the specialized pedagogical approach applied by educators while they play with a group of toddlers.

5.2  Cultural–Historical Concept of Play

79

5.2.1  The Role of Educators in Children’s Play A very well-known study conducted by Lindqvist (1995) emphasises the importance of adults to children’s play. Lindqvist (1995) argued that, while educators take the play role in sharing an imaginary world, educators are play partners in children’s eyes, instead of being educators who hold authority with their pedagogical agenda. Further, we argue that being play partners also enables educators to build pedagogical awareness of the children’s motives and interests in play, in alignment with their teaching agenda (discussed later in this chapter). This view explains why the pedagogical role of educators is quite distinctive from the generally assumed expectations about not intervening in children’s play exploration (Hedges, 2014). Through sequential analysis of joint play between adults and a group of toddlers, Pursi and Lipponen (2017) found that adults are able to initiate and develop play interaction and sustain co-participation in play with very young children when they are willing to meet children’s responses. While emphasizing adults’ active role in participating children’s play, Hännikäinen and Munter (2019) highlighted that educators should be mindful, be flexible and step aside from their ideas when the child expresses his or her own ideas and actions meaningful for that child. They also indicated that educators’ participation in toddlers’ play involves having multiple roles. By reviewing the empirical studies, they concluded that educators can be “material, emotional, and physical supporters, commentators and interpreters, facilitators and leaders and play partners” (Hännikäinen & Munter, 2019, p.  502). However, how do educators affectively engage with toddlers’ play by assuming these multiple pedagogical roles? In this chapter, we devote our attention to this question by drawing upon the concept of Kravtsov and Kravtsova’s (2010) double subjectivity in children’s play.

5.2.2  Double Subjectivity in Children’s Play The concept of double subjectivity in play is developed through further understanding of Vygotsky’s play and explaining that the basic criterion of play is the imaginary situation, otherwise defined as the space between the real (optical) and sense (imaginary) fields (Kravtsov & Kravtsova, 2010; Kravtsova, 2010a). For instance, when playing as a patient, the individual must be in pain as a player inside the play, while also taking pleasure as a player outside the play. Similarly, “to understand and create this a player must be simultaneously inside and outside of the play” (Kravtsov & Kravtsova, 2010, p. 29). For example, when children create an imagined cooking space, they are simultaneously inside the role of a chef and outside the imaginary situation to gather cooking ingredients. Imagination supports children to act out perceptions independently and perform in their sense field, as they interact with the surrounding environment (Ridgway, Quiñones, & Li, 2015). As stated by Fleer (2010), during play:

80

5  Affective Positioning in Infant-Toddlers’ Play two kinds of subjectivities appear in which, initially, the child imbues objects (optical field) with new meaning (sense field) and through this are enabled to consciously know their feelings of happiness while playing out the character who is expressing quite different emotions. (p. 127)

This double subjectivity in play allows children to take on a role, with learning occurring through their engagement in the play. These two sides of play support players to orient and control themselves as a player inside the imaginary situation, while, simultaneously, as a non-player, consciously realise their own real characteristics and relations with the surrounding world (Kravtsova, 2010a). The concept of double subjectivity not only explains the child’s positions in the imagined situation (e.g., Schousboe & Winther-Lindqvist, 2013), but also orients the educator’s engagement in play (e.g., Fleer, 2015; Li, 2012). The educator’s role evolves from a teacher to a player in the eyes of the child, which can promote a shared affectiveness (Lindqvist, 2003). This chapter will establish how educators position themselves while interacting with toddlers in play, and how this contributes to children’s play engagement and development. We aim to identify the pedagogical roles and strategies for effective and affective play interaction. Through evidence-based research, Fleer (2015) drew upon the concept of subject positioning to conduct research with nine preschool teachers interacting with children at preschool age (3.3–5.5 years). She identified five categories that showed a typology of play pedagogy, including “the teacher proximity to children’s play; teacher intent is in parallel with children’s intent; teacher is following the children’s play; teacher is engaged in sustained collective play; and teacher is inside the children’s imaginary play” (Fleer, 2015, p. 1801). Her research indicates that preschool teachers different pedagogical positions when playing with children can influence children’s learning. She argued that learning goals in curriculum could be used to extend and support play development in the imaginary situations, when the preschool teachers are inside the imaginary play being play partners with young children. Further research needs to be undertaken regarding this aspect of adults being inside the play with children, and how educators actively respond to children’s action in order to engage children in play activities (Fleer, 2015; Pursi & Lipponen, 2017). Furthermore, Li, Quinones, and Ridgway (2016)’s cultural-historical study of the educator and toddlers’ joint play at one long day care centre, argued that educators’ affective engagement in toddlers’ play enriches the play narrative and widens the collective knowledge of the toddlers. Therefore, these studies suggest that it is important to explore educators’ role and pedagogical positioning in play pedagogy. This chapter examines a case example of toddlers’ play with their educators to explore how educators play with toddlers by taking different pedagogical positioning, and why educators’ pedagogical positioning is important to infant-toddlers’ learning and development in play.

5.3  Case Example: Bathing a Doll

81

5.3  Case Example: Bathing a Doll In this case example, we explore the activity setting of bathing a doll among three toddlers and two educators (the room leader, Jo, and the assistant educator, Sue). We focus on how the educators affectively position themselves in the toddlers’ play to support the children’s learning and play development. Three dimensions of affective positioning are analysed to explain the educators’ affective pedagogical positioning, including inviting the toddlers to enter the imaginary situation, modelling how to bathe the doll, and guiding the children to bathe the doll. The case example shows focus educator, Jo, playing with a small group of three toddlers during free playtime. These three toddlers held the baby dolls and wandered around the doll area. The educators noticed this moment and helped the toddlers’ transition to the activity setting of bathing the doll. The three toddlers are Sally, with brown hair and a pink striped hoodie; Georgia, wearing a light pink hoodie and blue tracksuit pants; and Isla, wearing a blue top with white dots.

5.3.1  Inviting Toddlers to Enter the Imaginary Situation The educators walk over to a group of three children who were playing in the doll area. The doll play space is a mess, with all the items scattered over the floor. The assistant educator, Sue, states to Sally: ‘we need to tidy up the mess! Sally, you need to pick all these up because someone is going to stand on them!’. The three girls (Sally, Georgia and Isla) hold their dolls and watch the educator as she begins to collect the items from the floor. Educator Jo comes over to help. She kneels on the floor and helps pick up the items. Jo states, ‘The babies might start crying because their home becomes a mess!’. Sally walks over to the assistant educator and shows the educator her baby, saying ‘I’ve got a baby!’. Jo positions the doll’s bath on the table, and calls out to Georgia: ‘Georgia, Georgia, watch, I will show you— come here’. Georgia walks over to educator Jo, who is holding the baby doll. Sally repeats Georgia’s name, calling out, ‘Georgia, Georgia!’. After Jo readies the bath, she says to Georgia: ‘Are you ready? Now we are going to bath the dolly with this—ready?’. Georgia, Sally and Isla walk to the bath table area, holding their baby dolls. In this vignette, the two educators recognized that the toddlers were wandering around holding their dolls. They encouraged the children to start cleaning up in a playful manner. Jo said, ‘The babies might start crying because their home becomes a mess!’, which activated the toddlers to start thinking of their play (Fig. 5.1). Jo positioned herself through inviting the toddlers to enter the shared imaginary situation, and offered a new situation to motivate the toddlers to pack up. However, the toddlers still wondered what they should do, as they walked around following Jo. When Sally stated, ‘I’ve got a baby’, Jo captured this affective transitory moment (see Chap. 4) and invited the toddlers to the play activity setting as she created the

82

5  Affective Positioning in Infant-Toddlers’ Play

Fig. 5.1  Messy doll play space

Fig. 5.2  Bathing the doll

imaginary situation of bathing a doll. This provided a new affective offer by valuing the toddlers’ interests in dolls and relations (with other peers) in the imaginary situation (Li, Ridgway, & Quinones, 2020; Vadeboncoeur, 2019). The educator’s pedagogical role is to motivate and encourage children to start play. That is, when educators enter the shared imaginary situation, they have more flexibility to meet toddlers’ interests and address their own teaching agenda. Jo invited Georgia and the other toddlers to dramatically engage in the bathing doll activity setting by using a dramatic voice and creative actions. The dramatic narrative in the bathing doll play was begun with Jo’s inviting questions (see Fig. 5.2), such as ‘the babies might start crying because their home is a mess!’. The toddlers also moved into the bathing doll in the play space, as shown by Sally calling out to Georgia to join the play. As educator Jo transited herself from outside the

5.3  Case Example: Bathing a Doll

83

play to be inside the imaginary situation of bathing dolls, she acted as an adult bathing a baby, which enabled her to dramatically invite the toddlers to actively engage in the bathing doll play, instead of wandering around. Quiñones, Ridgway, and Li (2019) argued that educators should be aware of “creating an inquiry stance for dramatic interaction with toddlers to co-construct the narrative” (p.  154). The inquiry that Jo created, invited the toddlers to enter the shared imaginary situation of bathing dolls.

5.3.2  Modelling How to Bath the Doll As Jo and the toddlers enter the shared bathing doll play, Jo begins to bathe the doll and makes a ‘ssssss-ing’ (mimicking the sound of the shower head). Jo hovers the showerhead over the doll, and the toddlers giggle. Jo then picks up a flannel and says, ‘Oh, we need to wash her … ready? [emphasis] Ssssssss’. Jo pretends to shower the doll with one hand and uses a flannel to wash the doll with another hand (See Fig. 5.3). Jo rubs the flannel over the doll’s body. As she does so, she names the doll’s body parts: ‘And wash her tummy … and wash her hands … oh, are you ready? We have to wash her face. Will she close her eyes? Say it won’t hurt! It doesn’t sting! Close your eyes!’. As Jo gently dabs the flannel on the doll’s face, she playfully says: ‘Beep, beep, beep, beep … dab, dab, dab, dab’. The toddlers watch the educator’s actions as she baths the doll. Jo then asks the children a question: ‘Will we wash baby’s hair?’. Sally quickly responds: ‘Yes!’. Jo responds by pretending to talk to the doll: ‘Okay … don’t cry baby, the water won’t go in your eyes’. Jo moves the showerhead closely over the doll’s hair and uses her hands to wash it (See Fig. 5.4), stating, ‘Now I’ve got to wash … wash with the shampoo [emphasis

Fig. 5.3  Educator Jo bathing the doll

84

5  Affective Positioning in Infant-Toddlers’ Play

Fig. 5.4  Jo demonstrates how to wash the doll’s hair

Fig. 5.5  Sally laughs as Jo washes the doll’s hair

in voice] … wash it out with the water … all the water is coming out’. Jo points to where the water comes out from the showerhead and shows this by moving her fingers like water coming out. She continues to hover the showerhead over the doll’s hair, making a ‘sssss-ing’ sound. Sally laughs again (Fig. 5.5). Jo picks up the flannel again and continues to wash the doll: ‘Wash her face … and her toes … oh, we need to wash her toes … here … and this one’. Sally leans over and watches what Jo is doing in the bath. Jo then stops washing the doll and says: ‘There, she is all clean?’. Sally then helps Jo take the clean doll out of the bath and gives it to Georgia. In the analysis of this part of bathing doll play, it can be noticed that educator Jo affectively positioned herself as an adult who looked after the baby while entering the play by bathing the doll. In the toddlers’ eyes, she was not a teacher to them, but an adult caring for a baby. Jo was inside the play by being the play partner. This offered the possibility for her to model bathing a baby (see Figs. 5.3 and 5.4). This

5.3  Case Example: Bathing a Doll

85

scenario was important for pedagogical relations with the toddlers, as their positions changed, and they were now play partners. Jo transited from her real role as a teacher to a role of being a play partner. As Kravtsov and Kravtsova (2010) elaborated, this dual positioning in children’s play involved children being in the imaginary situation as players and as non-players in “controlling play at will” (p. 32). Jo entered the imaginary situation of bathing the doll by being the play partner, while also taking the pedagogical role as an educator (non-player) in teaching the toddlers how to bathe the doll and name the different body parts of the doll. In other words, educators were inside and outside the play at the same time, and consequently engaged in two positions simultaneously (Kravtsova, 2010b). The two sides of the play enabled the educator to be the subject of the play as a play partner, and the educator as a non-player who controls and extends the play by meeting their teaching agenda. The double subjectivity of Jo in this case explains the power of active play engagement with toddlers. As a play partner, Jo bathed the doll and played with toddlers; meanwhile, as an educator, she modelled how to bathe the doll and named the body parts to teach the children body concepts, including face, hair, eye, tummy and toes. As discussed by Hedges and Cooper (2018), in play, educators should show their “thoughtful engagement with conceptual ideas in ways relevant and authentic to each child and episode” (p. 380). Jo intentionally introduced the concept of body parts while noting the toddlers’ interests in the baby dolls and modelling how to bathe the doll. We argue that educators affectively position themselves by being inside the shared imaginary situation with toddlers. They are then able to provide an authentic conceptual learning opportunity related to children’s motivations and interests. In addition, Jo’s dramatic voices, such as ‘ssssss-ing’, and playful actions indicated her affective engagement to motivate the toddlers’ active observation. The new demands on toddlers changed from packing up to bathing the doll when Jo entered the imaginary situation. This helped the toddlers’ later active participation in the emerging play, which will be explored in the next section on bathing the doll play.

5.3.3  Guiding Children to Bathe the Doll Educator Jo and the three toddlers start bathing the baby doll using real water. Jo models the process of bathing the doll and invites Isla to bathe her baby doll. Isla passes her doll to Jo. Jo states: ‘This dolly? You want to bathe her? Oh, my goodness, she does need a bath!’. Jo notices that the doll had some marks on it, and speaks to Isla: ‘Will we put some real water in here? Should we put some water in here?’. Jo looks at Isla, waiting for her to respond. Isla nods in agreement. Jo states: ‘Okay, well let’s roll our sleeves up … roll the sleeves up … roll them up so they don’t get wet!’. Jo helps Isla roll up her sleeves. Jo then takes the plastic bath to the nearby tap to fill it with water. Isla picks up her dolls and follows Jo, holding the

86

5  Affective Positioning in Infant-Toddlers’ Play

dolls down beside her, as Jo fills the bath. Jo states: ‘Putting some warm water in here’ (Fig. 5.6). The two other girls come over to join Isla and watch the educator. The three children congregate around Jo, interacting with each other and showing their dolls to each other. When the bath is full, Jo takes it back to the table: ‘Okay, are you ready … we need a towel’. Jo continues to prepare the play activity. While Isla and Sally walk back to the table, Georgia waits for Jo, who looks inside the cupboards for a towel. Sally and Isla come back and watch what Jo is doing. As Jo carries the bath over to the table, the children follow her closely. Jo places the bath and towel on the table and arranges the items (See Fig. 5.7): ‘Now, first of all, we will move this over here and put the towel down, so when the baby gets out, we can dry her’. Georgia looks into the bath and says ‘water’. Jo looks for Isla: ‘Where is Isla? Isla?’. During this time, Georgia holds her doll up to Jo. Jo states: ‘Wait a minute, your doll still has her nappy on … look, she has got a nappy—you will need to take her nappy off first’. Jo hands the baby doll back to Georgia, and turns back to Isla: ‘Okay, ready Isla, to put your baby in? Is this your baby brother? Is this your baby brother …? Let’s put him in the water. Is this too high for you?’. Isla holds two dolls in her hands, and tries to put them both in the bath. Jo guides Isla to put one doll in, and leaves the other doll sitting beside the bath. Jo picks up the flannel and starts to wash the baby doll, stating: ‘So, you want to give her … give him a bath? He is very dirty!’. As Jo washes the doll, she says in a singing voice, ‘Water … Water’. Isla watches Jo washing the doll, and Jo notices this and says to Isla: ‘Do you want to have a turn? You have a turn?’. Isla quietly responds ‘yeah’. Isla reaches over into the bath. Jo encourages her, saying, ‘Can you reach?’. Jo then decides to place the

Fig. 5.6  Jo demonstrates filling the bath

5.3  Case Example: Bathing a Doll

87

Fig. 5.7  Jo pointing to the towel

Fig. 5.8  Isla washing the doll’s face

bath on the floor: ‘Maybe we pop it down here’. Georgia and Sally also try to have a turn bathing the doll, but Jo reminds them to wait: ‘Wait a minute—Isla is going to clean! Isla come and clean your baby!’. Isla pauses for a moment before crouching down and beginning to wash the doll’s face with the flannel (See Fig. 5.8). Isla still holds the second baby doll in one hand. As Isla washes the doll, the other children watch. Jo states: ‘Just like your baby brother having a bath?’. Jo clears the water out of the doll’s eyes, as Isla continues washing the doll’s face. Sally and Georgia squat down and closely watch as Isla bathes her baby doll. Jo speaks to Georgia and Sally while observing Isla: ‘Are you going to bathe your dolly after?’. Georgia nods to express agreement. At this stage, Isla stops washing the doll. Jo takes over and continues washing the doll. Jo

88

5  Affective Positioning in Infant-Toddlers’ Play

pretends to shower the doll with the showerhead, making the ‘ssssss-ing’ sound: ‘Clean? Rinse, rinse … sssssss’. Sally sits beside the educator and watches her actions. Sally holds her doll. Jo asks Sally: ‘Do you want to bathe your doll?’ (Fig. 5.9). Sally moves her doll away to express that she does not want to bathe her doll, which might have been because her doll wears clothes. During this time, Isla stands and places the other doll in her hand onto the towel. Jo takes the doll out of the bath water and asks Isla: ‘Should we dry this dolly? Should we put this dolly up there to dry?’. Isla moves the doll on the towel out of the way, making room for Jo to place the wet doll on the towel (See Fig. 5.10). Isla places the baby doll to the side and begins to dry it. Georgia takes her turn to bathe the baby doll. The interpretation of this part of play explains how Jo positioned herself as an affective driver by using pedagogical questioning. Following Jo’s affective modelling, the three toddlers clearly indicated interest in bathing the dolls themselves. Jo acknowledged the toddlers’ interests and motives in playing with bathing the dolls, and invited them to join this imaginary situation by positioning herself as a resource provider, facilitator and observer. Jo’s pedagogical questioning had an explicit teaching purpose—to position the toddlers as conversational partners. For example, to explain the use of water to bathe the doll, Jo stated, ‘Will we put some real water in here? Should we put some water in here?’. Further, to make connections with Isla’s real-life experience, Jo asked Isla, ‘Okay, ready Isla, to put your baby in? Is this your baby brother? Is this your baby brother? Let’s put him in the water’. Further, to highlight the procedure of drying the baby after a bath (See Fig. 5.10),

Fig. 5.9  Jo inviting Sally to bath the doll

5.4  Educators’ Invitational Play Actions and Affective Positioning

89

Fig. 5.10  Jo inviting Isla to dry the doll

she stated ‘Should we dry this dolly? Should we put this dolly up there to dry?’. Jo used these closed questions to elicit responses from the toddlers’ experience and guide them in learning about real-life experience. Jo’s exploratory talk and closed questions modelled the use of complex language for toddlers. Her subjective positioning by using closed questions, offered the children possibilities to engage in baby doll bath play. In response to Jo, Isla, Georgia and Sally were excited to see the real water in the bath and responded to Jo with ‘water … water’. Jo’s affective responsiveness was evident as she positioned herself intentionally at the toddlers’ level (as discussed in Chap. 3). This affective responsiveness involved being aware of toddlers’ relationships with each other and included an educator being sensitive to toddlers’ interests and perspectives. In this case example, Jo was an affective driver who guided the toddlers with closed questions, positioned them as conversational partners and responded to their interests.

5.4  E  ducators’ Invitational Play Actions and Affective Positioning The sequence of play actions indicated educator Jo’s affective participation and intentional teaching (See Figs. 5.1–5.5). When Isla passed her doll to Jo, she recognised Isla’s intention in bathing her doll. Jo used a playful and affective tone of voice to confirm this idea: ‘This dolly? You want to bathe her? Oh, my goodness, she does need a bath!’. She carefully looked and pointed to where the doll had marks, and then offered the suggestion to use the real water to bathe the baby doll. The three toddlers were quite excited about this and followed Jo to access the water, expressing their delight: ‘water … water’. Their giggles, gazes and movements indicated their excitement about and agreement with using real water. Their joint attention was now directed to the use of real water to bathe the doll. The sequence of play

90

5  Affective Positioning in Infant-Toddlers’ Play

actions, embodied and affective expressions, and dramatic voices were applied by educator Jo, who invited the toddlers to actively engage in the play. Pursi and Lipponen (2017) argued that “early childhood education should also recognise the image of a playing adult—playfully available [infant-toddler] teachers … who engage in reciprocal play activities, express play signals and skillfully build co-participation with individual child and with the group of children” (p. 34). Jo’s gestures, use of soft and dramatic voices, and her embodied movements as invitational play signals invited the toddlers’ active engagement in play and actively created joint play. Jo also helped the toddlers to understand the intentions of other children and this too, encouraged the creation of joint play. For instance, when Georgia and Sally tried to bathe their dolls first, Jo reminded them to be patient by saying, ‘Wait a minute—Isla is going to clean! Isla, come and clean your baby!’. In this example, Jo carefully positioned herself at the children’s level, thereby showing her affective participation in the toddlers’ bath play. She squatted down and considered the toddlers’ position to reset the play space and give opportunities for the toddlers to move freely. As Jo positioned herself in the shared imaginary situation with the toddlers, she stayed physically and thoughtfully closely to the toddlers’ perspectives. For example, Isla closely watched how Jo bathed the doll indicating her interests; Sally and Georgia squatted down and closely watched as Isla bathed her baby doll. Jo was able to extend the bath play by using guiding steps for the children to learn about bathing the baby, such as washing with water, cleaning, rinsing and drying the baby. This finding expanded Emilson and Samuelsson (2014)’s argument on closeness to children’s perspectives considered as a characteristic of quality early-childhood education, and argues that the creation of the motivating and inviting conditions to orient children to join and extend the play, might be another characteristic of quality play pedagogy.

5.5  Conclusion By drawing on a cultural–historical view of play, this chapter sought to better understand the pedagogical positioning of educators’ roles in toddlers’ play, and how educators’ expertise and affective engagement can enhance toddlers’ learning and play development. By closely examining the doll bath play between the educator and three toddlers, this chapter contributes to the pedagogical analysis and discussion of educators’ positioning in play. As an active and affective co-player to enter the imaginary situation, the educator can apply pedagogical strategies to encourage toddlers’ exploration of everyday experience in play. We argue that educators who hold dynamic pedagogical positioning while engaging in infant-toddlers’ play can help develop dynamic reciprocal interactions with infant-toddlers, and achieve infant-toddlers’ deep-level learning. This chapter confirms Singer et al.’s (2014) argument that the educator’s continuous close proximity to young children, can increase the high level of children’s play

5.5 Conclusion

91

engagement. In this case, Jo assumed an active role as a play partner with toddlers in bathing the doll play. Her affective positioning as being inside the play enhanced the toddlers’ play engagement and helped them transit from wandering around to playing at the bath area. Three toddlers closely observed how to bathe the doll, actively bathed the doll, and affectively interacted with the educator and peers. This chapter further suggests that, besides the closeness of play engagement with toddlers (Singer et al., 2014), educators play a central role in developing reciprocal relationships with infant-toddlers, not just when they are physically close to the children, but also when they affectively position themselves towards infant-­toddlers’ needs and interests in play. In the case of Jo’s bath play with three toddlers, Jo recognized the toddlers’ interest in the dolls, as they held their dolls while wandering around. She then affectively responded to them by entering the imaginary situation of bathing the doll as an adult, and extended the bath doll play by using real water. This enriched the toddlers’ concept of learning about how to bathe babies and supported group play development. Kravtsov and Kravtsova (2010) argued that, during early age periods, particular physical conditions (such as activities with objects) and offers of support and help from adults and peers are necessary to help young children enter into play, and create the foundation for children’s imagination and play development. In this case example, Jo created the play conditions and offered support to bathe the doll. Her affective interaction and guidance through using gestures, playful actions and dramatic voices supported the toddlers to enter the imaginary situation of bathing the doll. This aligns with Li (2020)’s research on adults’ role in play with toddlers, and arguments on educators’ affective engagement as the key to develop a powerful collective play environment. Jo affectively positioned herself in relation to the toddlers’ interests and motives in the doll bath play. This chapter also highlights the need for better understanding of pedagogical questioning in play activity settings where educators interact with toddlers. There are numerous studies showing the effectiveness of using open questions to stimulate children’s thinking and engagement (Carr, 2011; Siraj & Asani, 2015); however, these studies have mainly focused on interactions with preschoolers or older children. This study expands Davis and Torr (2016)’s research on educators’ pedagogical questioning in conversations with infant-toddlers by using closed questions, and reveals that closed questioning can also create motivating conditions for young children’s play and learning. As a conversational partner, Jo applied a series of closed questions to explain how to bathe the baby doll and name the body parts. This supported the toddlers’ play engagement, conceptual thinking and language development. It also indicated that educators can use questioning as a pedagogical strategy to encourage conversational exchanges and build affective relationships with infant-­ toddlers (Degotardi, Torr, & Han, 2018). In addition, the educator Jo, not only used closed questions to motivate toddlers’ active play engagement, but also applied a variety of pedagogical strategies such as narrating, suggesting, and modelling to respond to toddlers’ actions. This finding supports the argument by White (2019), that educators appreciate the verbal and nonverbal strategies including “narrating, demonstrating instructing, suggesting, or offering, with combinations of each

92

5  Affective Positioning in Infant-Toddlers’ Play

deployed strategically-dependent on the dialogue context”, to adjust their own language to respond to the toddlers (p. 4). The concept of affective positioning during play with infant-toddlers enables educators to build reciprocal relationships, extend children’s learning and play development, and create motivating conditions by use of pedagogical questioning and explorative talk. An educator who affectively relates can extend children’s play engagement and stimulate learning potential, as discussed in this chapter.

References Carr, M. (2011). Young children reflecting on their learning: Teachers’ conversation strategies. Early Years, 31(3), 257–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2011.613805 Cooper, M., & Quinones, G. (2020). Toddlers as the one-caring: Co-authoring play narratives and identities of care. Early Child Development and Care. https://doi.org/10.1080/0300443 0.2020.1826465 Davis, B., & Torr, J. (2016). Educators’ use of questioning as a pedagogical strategy in long day care nurseries. Early Years, 36(1), 97–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2015.1087974 Degotardi, S., Torr, J., & Han, F. (2018). Infant educators’ use of pedagogical questioning: Relationships with the context of interaction and educators’ qualifications. Early Education and Development, 29(8), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2018.1499000 Elkonin, D. B. (2005). Chapter 2: On the historical origin of role play. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 43(1), 49–89. Emilson, A., & Samuelsson, I.  P. (2014). Documentation and communication in Swedish preschools. Early Years, 24(2), 175–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2014.880664 Fleer, M. (2010). Early learning and development: Cultural-historical concepts in play. Melbourne, VIC: Cambridge University Press. Fleer, M. (2013). Theorising play in the early years. New York: Cambridge University Press. Fleer, M. (2015). Pedagogical positioning in play-teachers being inside and outside of children’s imaginary play. Early Child Development and Care, 185(11–12), 1801–1814. Goncu, A. (1998). Development of intersubjectivity in social pretend play. In M.  Woodhead, D. Faulkner, & K. Littleton (Eds.), Cultural worlds of early childhood (pp. 117–132). London: Routledge. Grusec, J. E., & Lytton, H. (1988). Social development: History, theory, and research. New York: Springer. Hännikäinen, M., & Munter, H. (2019). Toddlers’ play in early childhood education settings. In P. K. Smith & J. L. Roopnarine (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of play: Developmental and disciplinary perspective (pp. 491–510). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Hedges, H. (2014). Children’s content learning in play provision: Competing tensions and future possibilities. In L. Brooker, M. Blaise, & S. Edwards (Eds.), The Sage handbook of play and learning in early childhood (pp. 192–203). London: Sage. Hedges, H., & Cooper, M. (2018). Relational play-based pedagogy: Theorising a core practice in early childhood education. Teachers and Teaching, 24(4), 369–383. https://doi.org/10.108 0/13540602.2018.1430564 Kravtsov, G. G., & Kravtsova, E. E. (2010). Play in L. S. Vygotsky’s nonclassical psychology. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 48(4), 25–41. Kravtsova, E. E. (2010a). Play in the non-classical psychology of L. S. Vygotsky. In L. Brooker, M. Blaise, & S. Edwards (Eds.), The Sage handbook of play and learning in early childhood (pp. 21–30). London/New Delhi, India/Los Angeles/Singapore: Sage.

References

93

Kravtsova, E. E. (2010b). Vygotsky’s nonclassical psychology: The dual nature of the position of the subject. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 48(4), 17–24. Li, L. (2012). How do immigrant parents support preschoolers’ bilingual heritage language development in a role play context? Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 37(1), 142–151. Li, L. (2020). Developing a pedagogy of play: Toddlers’ conceptual learning in a PlayWorld. Early Years: An International Research Journal. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2020.1739002 Li, L., Quinones, G., & Ridgway, A. (2016). Noisy neighbours: A construction of collective knowledge in toddler’s shared play space. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 41(4), 64–71. Li, L., Ridgway, A., & Quinones, G. (2020). Moral imagination: Creating affective values through toddlers’ joint play. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction. Lindqvist, G. (1995). The aesthetics of play: A didactic study of play and cultural in preschools. Uppsala, Sweden: Acta universitatis Upsaliensis. Lindqvist, G. (2003). The dramatic and narrative patterns of play. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 11(1), 69–78. Lobman, C. L. (2006). Improvisation: An analytic tool for examining teacher-child interaction in the early childhood classroom. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21, 455–470. Parten, M. (1932). Social participation among preschool children. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 28, 136–147. Pursi, A., & Lipponen, L. (2017). Constituting play connection with very young children: Adults’ active participation in play. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 17, 21–37. Quiñones, G., Ridgway, A., & Li, L. (2019). Developing a drama pedagogy for toddler education. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 17(2), 140–156. Ridgway, A., Quiñones, G., & Li, L. (2015). Early childhood pedagogical play: A cultural-­ historical interpretation using visual methodology. Singapore: Springer. Schousboe, I., & Winther-Lindqvist, D. (2013). Children’s play and development: Cultural historical perspectives. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Singer, E., Nederend, M., Penninx, L., Tajik, M., & Boom, J. (2014). The teacher’s role in supporting young children’s level of play engagement. Early Child Development and Care, 184(8), 1233–1249. Siraj, I., & Asani, R. (2015). The role of sustained shared thinking, play and metacognition in young children’s learning. In S. Robson & S. Quinn (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of young children’s thinking and understanding (pp. 403–415). Oxford, UK: Routledge. Smilansky, S. (1968). The effects of sociodramatic play on disadvantaged preschool children. New York: Wiley. Vadeboncoeur, J.  A. (2019). Moral imagining through transitions within, between and from imaginative play: Changing demands as developmental opportunities. In M.  Hedegaard & M. Fleer (Eds.), Children’s transitions in everyday life and institutions (pp. 227–246). London: Bloomsbury. van Oers, B. (2013). Is it play? Towards a reconceptualisation of role play from an activity theory perspective. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 21(2), 185–198. Vygotsky, L. S. (1966). Play and its role in the mental development of the child. Voprosy Psikhologii (Psychology Issues), 12(6), 62–76. White, E. (2019). Teacher-infant dialogue as pedagogy. In M. A. Peters (Ed.), Encyclopedia of teacher education (pp. 1–5). Singapore: Springer. White, J., Ellis, F., O’Malley, A., Rockel, J., Stover, S., & Toso, M. (2009). Play and learning in Aotearoa New Zealand early childhood education. In I. Pramling-Samuelsson & M. Fleer (Eds.), Play and learning in early childhood settings: International perspectives (pp. 51–80). Singapore: Springer.

Chapter 6

Closeness as an Affective Pedagogy

Abstract  The aim of this chapter is to discuss an affective pedagogy of closeness. Closeness brings attention to relational and affective pedagogies created by educators. A case example of feeding a baby as an activity setting is discussed. The focus educator, Peta identifies this activity as a respectful and mindful approach to infant-­ toddlers. Peta provides the question of how close is too close? This question was further extended by the notion of closeness in the Collaborative forum. The educators’ expansive discussions extend the notion of closeness as and affective pedagogy. For example, the educators commented on Peta’s creation of a social and affective environment during feeding. Closeness is a special moment and intimate relationship between an educator and infant.

6.1  Introduction The emotional security in the educator-child relationship is highly influenced by the educator’s pedagogical behaviour and interaction skills. (Singer, 2017, p. 209)

This chapter aims to highlight the pedagogical practice of closeness as an affective pedagogy for infant-toddler education and care. A visual narrative, presented in an infant-toddler room, shows educator Peta (Site 2) demonstrating closeness with an infant. Closeness is seen as an embodied, intimate quality that resided in her interpersonal exchanges with infant-toddlers. Through a series of Collaborative forums (see Chap. 1), we experience the educators’ enriched discussions on closeness, especially around Peta’s feeding example. These discussions indicate how a group of six long day care (LDC) educators affectively produced specialized professional practices with infant-toddlers. This chapter’s research question is: How do educators enact an affective pedagogy of closeness?

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 G. Quiñones et al., Affective Early Childhood Pedagogy for Infant-Toddlers, Policy and Pedagogy with Under-three Year Olds: Cross-disciplinary Insights and Innovations 3, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73527-2_6

95

96

6  Closeness as an Affective Pedagogy

6.1.1  Relational Pedagogies Collaborative discussion on everyday pedagogical practices of infant-toddlers in their homes, communities and institutional settings expands research understanding when under the scrutiny of continual review (Hedegaard, 2019; Recchia, Shin, & Snaider, 2018). We take the infant-toddler educator’s perspective, where relational pedagogy involves being present. This is considered highly significant for quality learning in early childhood education and care (Lipponen, Rajala, & Hilppö, 2016). Naturalistic methods provide an understanding of infant-toddlers minds, showing how they participate in different social interactions, and in turn how infant-­ toddler educators support and guide learning and development. Degotardi and Dockett (2003) theory of mind focuses on children’s awareness, understanding, and expressions of their mind in everyday social interactions. A cultural-historical approach, considers not only the mind (intellect) and affect are in unity rather than in separation (see Chap. 1), therefore we pay close attention to the affective elements of pedagogy. Relational pedagogies in infant-toddler education and care yield rich reciprocal exchanges of responsive trust and emotional sharing (Edwards & Raikes, 2002; Ghirotto & Mazzoni, 2013). Over time, increased knowledge and awareness of the power of caring relationships for infant-toddler learning and wellbeing, have transformed educators’ knowledge and supported new constructions of family, community and educator interrelationships in LDC working environments. In particular, the generative ways that educators build communicative capacity, cognition and affective sensibilities, are at times difficult to recognize; however, when critiqued in the scientific experiments in the Reggio Emilia project, they are made visible (Rinaldi, 2006). The provocation and challenges that questioned the project’s dominant discourses, shaped educators’ thoughts and governed their actions, and entered the early childhood education and care field decades ago (Edwards, Gandini, & Forman, 1998; Gandini & Edwards, 2001; Giudici, Rinaldi, & Barchi, 2001; Malaguzzi, 1993). A slow revolution had occurred in the LDC educators’ role as one of being involved, strong, and emotionally engaged. Gandini and Edwards (2001, p.  29), described this role as “delicate and complex”. The times in which an infant-toddler educator “forms an individualised relationship aimed at opening the child up to the group” (Gandini & Edwards, 2001, p. 29), were viewed as a pedagogical expectation. The significance of engaging with relational pedagogy as highlighted by Gandini and Edwards (2001) and Lipponen et al. (2016), helps validate the educators’ daily life interactions observed and enacted in the LDC centre in our research study.

6.1 Introduction

97

6.1.2  A  ffective Pedagogies of Closeness in Infant-Toddler Education Rare in early childhood education literature, is a focus given to the presence of shared affective relations in collaborative and relational pedagogical activity of infant-toddler educators (Degotardi, Torr, & Han, 2018). Increasingly, international attention is directed towards better understanding how educators value and enact affective pedagogical exchanges in the care and emotional wellbeing of infant-toddlers (Johansson & Berthelsen, 2014). Historically, research discourses on love and care in early childhood retreated from favour, yet these have now reappeared in literature on infant-toddler activity (Lipponen & Hilppö, 2019; Recchia et al., 2018; Ridgway, 2018). Relational pedagogy continues to be the subject of ongoing and collective international research interest (Lipponen & Hilppö, 2019; Van Manen, 2015; Vygotsky, 1978). Professionalism in the context of infant-toddler education and care rests on the perspectives, beliefs and values of the educator. The educator’s beliefs may not always underpin their practices, as Brownlee and Berthelsen (2006) purported. Current awareness of the practices of infant-toddler educators is under regular scrutiny. For example, Page (2018) discussed an evolutionary cultivation by educators of “professional love in early childhood care and education” (p. 125). Page (2018) developed a philosophical construction for “professional love” (p. 136) as practiced in an infant-toddler educator’s role. According to Page, each early childhood education and care setting and context, with its own policies, practices and curriculums, complicates and challenges infant-toddler educators’ efforts to bring closeness into repute as a desired characteristic of professionalism. Uhlenberg (2016) discussed the quality of professionalism among infant-toddler educators, and argued for the need to further examine the contexts of the lived experiences of educators. While reflective practices and effective curriculum content in professional development have been thoroughly discussed in relation to the educators of infant-toddlers, Uhlenberg (2016) acknowledged an unfortunate mediocrity in the quality of educators’ responsive engagement with infant-toddlers, and urged researchers to examine what “effective and productive” professional development strategies might be (p. 256). In efforts to improve quality, the affective dimensions of what educators might do to improve quality communication, are an important consideration. Affective pedagogical exchanges are generally observed as being characterized by feelings of otherness, reciprocity and eagerness to collaborate (Hedges & Cooper, 2018; Recchia et al., 2018; Svinth, 2018). Educators’ use of affectionate and comforting touch can provide closeness during intimate and compassionate practices with young children (Cekaite & Bergnehr, 2018). As a physical contact resource, touch can build trustful and caring relationships (Cekaite & Bergnehr, 2018). Svinth (2018) found that, when educators draw sensitively on relational pedagogy, the ensuing nuanced and responsive engagement has transformative potential. Svinth (2018) identified transformative potential as important for infant-toddlers’ learning and emotional wellbeing, and noted the

98

6  Closeness as an Affective Pedagogy

affective and specialized nature of educators’ comforting and affective touch practices. In their work on cultures of compassion in early childhood and care settings, Rajala and Lipponen (2018) argued that compassion involved the design of inclusive spaces where children feel safe, recognised and accepted. Compassion is an important component of social relations. To provide, give and receive support can help to create a culture of compassion in early childhood practice (Rajala & Lipponen, 2018). Compassion as a concept has “both sociological and psychological connotations” (Taggart, 2016, p. 173). Practice relationships, for example, where listening is encouraged (Dahlberg, Moss, & Pence, 2008), can deliver intense ethical care, significant for socially produced emotional quality. Early in her infant-toddler research, Lindqvist (1996) questioned why the preschool tradition in her Swedish context had not devoted full attention to cultural and aesthetic approaches to pedagogy. Lindqvist (1996) suggested that, “according to Vygotsky, our consciousness is dynamic, reflecting the surrounding culture both in form and content” (p. 6). Little has been written on educators’ shared affective relations and the common knowledge and contradictions that can “inform scholarly discourse” (Jornet & Steier, 2015, p. 129). Holmes (2015) raised questions about how educators and those participating in community discourse, “should respond to affective reactions” and ask “[h]ow much discomfort is too much?” (p.  49). Discomfort brings cognitive dissonance to the educator, and affective reactions made in moments of pedagogical crisis, inform future encounters and interactions. Pedagogical repositioning draws on conceptual reciprocity (Ridgway, Quiñones, & Li, 2015) in moments of crisis response. Educators and children closely hold to affective relations for reassurance, trust and empathetic understanding (Brownlee & Berthelsen, 2006). Cekaite and Holm (2017) examined the regulation of children’s crying distress, particularly through educators’ communicative embodied use of responsive touch, that brings “haptic soothing” (p. 6) and togetherness. The cultivation of an infant-toddler room’s “local culture” (Hviid, 2019, p. 11) is found when sociality and closeness, such as stroking, tapping, patting and holding, are present in the educator’s pedagogical practices. Further discussion on early childhood education and care discourses around practicing affection (Recchia et al., 2018) mention Goldstein’s (1998) concept of teacherly love and Page’s (2018) concept of professional love, as being integral to provision of quality early childhood education and care. Degotardi et al.’s (2018) research highlighted educator talk that indicated how close interaction between educators and infants emphasizes the importance of early language vocalizations in infant pedagogy; less however, is known about the affective qualities of toddler talk such as that used in dialogue commentary. Dialogue commentary involves affective engagement through gestures and verbal and non-verbal language. The educator provides questions for co-­ construction of a narrative, thereby developing an enquiry stance towards toddlers and a “special form of conversational narrative” (Quiñones, Ridgway, & Li, 2019, p. 152).

6.2  Affect in Approaching Pedagogy

99

Based on the aims and context of this research, the chapter defines closeness as an affective and specialized pedagogy. In the research discussed, we note an emerging gap in relation to affective pedagogies. This gap encompasses aspects of responsive engagement and relationships, affective touch, and dialogues.

6.2  Affect in Approaching Pedagogy Using cultural–historical theory, the concept of social environment as a source of children’s development is of importance (Veresov, 2017). The concept of a social situation of development involves a dynamic change that occurs in the child, when the child interacts with others as an individual (Vygotsky, 1998). Veresov (2017) extended this idea, by explaining that the social situation of development is a “dynamic system of relations and interactions of a child and social environments … the influence of a social reality on a child’s development … what a child brings to the social environment” (p. 52). The social environment affects the trajectories of individuals and, as argued by Veresov (2017), the individual actively participates in the social environment by “acting, interacting, interpreting, understanding, recreating and redesigning” (p. 58). Through taking a cultural–historical approach, we can also focus on the dynamics of the social environment. The atmosphere created by the educator for example, is an important element, as well as the effect this social environment has on the infant-toddlers and educators. Vygotsky (1998) searched for a ‘unit’ or ‘whole’ by using the concept of social situation of development. Bozhovich (2009) extended Vygotsky’s work on emotional experience, by acknowledgment of the child’s affective relationship with the environment. We use the concept of affective relationship with the environment when focusing on feeding as an activity setting. As discussed in Chap. 1, an activity setting illustrates pedagogies enacted through development of close relationships (Hedegaard & Fleer, 2013). In relation to pedagogy, children’s affective attitude towards everyday experiences involve emotions (Bozhovich, 2009). The nature of children’s emotions influences their experiences: “experiences once they have taken place and formed a complex system of feelings, affects, and moods, begin to take on significance for people in and of themselves” (Bozhovich, 2009, p. 74). Therefore, experiences contain a complex interplay of feelings and affects that become significant to the individual. The nature of these affects or emotions depends on children’s position in the relationships with themselves and others (Bozhovich, 2009). In these relationships, young children meet demands that influence their affective and motivational attitude towards learning (Bozhovich, 2009). The affective attitude determines the nature of the learning experience for young children and those around them. To understand the position a child takes, the relations between the child and social environment must be included in any discussion. Among very young children (infancy), Vygotsky (1998) recognized the important role of individuals. For example, he described the expressive role of people

100

6  Closeness as an Affective Pedagogy

around the infant, by suggesting, “the child reacts differently to the different affective colour of the human voice and to changes in facial expressions” (p. 235). Infant-­ toddlers develop an affective desire and feelings towards people and objects through expressive vocal use (Vygotsky, 1998). Vygotsky (1998) drew on concepts such as affective colouring, affective attitude and emotional responses, to more fully encompass infant-toddler’s ability to develop their will – a system comprised of needs, intentions and desires. It is thus important to view teaching and upbringing as being in unity, rather than as being separate. Kravtsov and Kravtsova (2009, p. 205) discussed this problem by eliminating ‘alienation’ between family and school pedagogy as being separate and bringing them into unity. Therefore, we argue that the development of infant-toddler emotions and affect in relation to adults should not be considered distinctive or mutually exclusive (family-parents and/or long day care settings- educators) but unified. For example, sharing a bond with parents can be an emotion and an affective attitude developed in the work of infant-toddler educators as the child “initially reacts not to stimuli as such but to the expression of the faces of living people he [she] sees” (Vygotsky, 1998, p. 235). When infant-toddlers enter the LDC settings, educators are their main source of care and nurture. The educators play and interact with them so an affective relationship with the educators can be promoted. It is not our intention to oversimplify the use of concepts that have been extensively discussed by cultural–historical researchers but rather, the aim of identifying these concepts is to further understand the notions of ‘affective relationship’ and ‘affective positioning’ that are developed in close social relationships.

6.3  Analysis of Closeness This chapter has expanded discussion and given an explicit visual review of the data to provide greater recognition of closeness and acknowledgement of nuanced and sensitive aspects of affectionate enactment in infant-toddler pedagogy. Our discussion extends to affective positioning in pedagogical practices of an infant-toddler educator, Peta, who asked the question ‘how close is too close?’ From a four-minute video clip, we seek to illustrate the closeness of the relationship between Peta and infant Ron. Our focus is on feeding as an activity setting, situated within Site 2’s specific institutional values. The affective atmosphere created by Peta with infant Ron is an important aspect of the focus example. Data analysis begins with a visual narrative that illustrates Peta’s closeness when feeding Ron. This is followed by a discussion of the educators who, from their perspective after viewing Peta’s four-minute video clip, begin to develop a meaningful conceptualization of affective pedagogies. Educator Peta’s personal attunement to closeness with the infants was identified in the project’s field observations and captured in the video data. The researchers’ detailed field notes and interviews shared and discussed together, became crucial data for generation of a holistic conceptualization of educator Peta’s use of affective positioning of closeness in pedagogical care. The following case example illustrates

6.3  Analysis of Closeness

101

the way that closeness involves affective relations as a professional function (Molla & Nolan, 2019) created through reciprocity of educator and infant.

6.3.1  Case Example: How Close Is Too Close? Educator Peta’s seated position in the corner of the room, closely holding infant Ron, (Fig. 6.1) meant the whole room and outside hallway were visible to her. The importance of providing comfort to infant Ron is evident in the soft, low, non-glary lighting and in the way that sleeping mats are purposefully and closely arranged around the edges of the room, with blankets and infant’s special toys placed on them. From another aesthetic dimension—that of sound—the educator uses a CD player to play lullaby music that gently and fully embraces the room with calm and reassuring tones. The lullaby is used worldwide as a settling and comforting vocal tool (Custodero & Johnson-Green, 2003). The aesthetic atmosphere in a room helps create a point of close and intense convergence (Braidotti, 2008). In this case, our video observation captured the morning’s feeding, sleeping and settling time as a time of coordinated coherence (Trevarthen, 2011). Peta holds baby Ron after warming his milk. She walks and talks to him, saying, ‘This—you want this one? Come on! Ohhh’. Ron sees the milk bottle and uses his hands to hold the bottle. As Ron gulps milk, from the bottle, Peta says, ‘Hang on, hang on! You are going to have a pain in your tummy!’. When Peta sits down, Ron starts crying, and Peta holds him, saying ‘okay’ (Fig. 6.1). While this occurs, Peta moves her arms and hands to a comfortable position. Peta holds Ron closely, cradling him in her arms and softly saying ‘hello’ to him as she gives him his bottle. Peta says ‘thank you’ to him and delicately brings the teat of the bottle closer to his mouth (Fig. 6.2).

Fig. 6.1  Ron crying as Peta positions herself

102

6  Closeness as an Affective Pedagogy

Fig. 6.2  Affective gaze while feeding

Fig. 6.3  Peta softly kisses Ron’s hand and smiles

Peta holds baby Ron’s gaze intently and positions him closer to her body to continue with the intimacy established in the bottle-feeding activity. Ron moves his hands and Peta says, ‘you were a thirsty boy, a hungry boy! … good job … slow down, you are going pretty fast!’ Ron moves his hand reaching up for Peta. Peta kisses Ron on the cheek, making a kissing sound and smiling at him (Fig. 6.3). As the music changes, Peta follows the sound of the music and gently touches Ron’s hands. Peta follows Ron’s eye movements. He looks up at the roof and Peta looks at the roof too. Peta says, ‘what can you see?’ Ron stops feeding and there is a pause. Peta says, ‘hungry … mmmhhh … yes bib, so if you dribble [places bib] … it can be a bit itchy’ (Fig. 6.4).

6.3  Analysis of Closeness

103

Fig. 6.4  Peta talks softly to Ron

Fig. 6.5  Peta gazes and talks with Ron while feeding him

Ron makes an ‘mmm’ noise. Peta responds: ‘mmm’. Ron continues: ‘mmm’. Peta asks, ‘you’re doing all right?’, and nods her head. Ron makes a sound: ‘mmm’. Peta responds: ‘yeah’ (Fig. 6.5). Ron continues mumbling. He moves and looks at the roof. Peta mumbles ‘mmm’. Peta asks, ‘you’re going to put it [the bottle] out?’ Ron responds with ‘mmm’. Peta looks around at what is happening in the room and comments to a staff member going to lunch: ‘enjoy your lunch, darling’. Ron continues mumbling. Peta responds with a nod and says: ‘mmm … you still have a bit more milk’. Ron responds and mumbles ‘mmm’. Peta says, ‘yes, anything else?’ Ron’s mumble continues. Ron shakes his head and Peta removes the bottle from his mouth, and then gently cleans his neck where milk has dribbled down. Peta asks, ‘You need a break, or more?’ Ron responds with a different ‘mmm’, as though making an emphasis. Peta takes

104

6  Closeness as an Affective Pedagogy

Fig. 6.6  Peta raises her eyebrows when responding to Ron’s ‘ahh’

Fig. 6.7  Peta’s wide smile

the bottle out and says, ‘Yes’. Ron makes ‘aahhh’ noises. Peta says, ‘you want more?’ lifting her eyebrows. She places the bottle back in Ron’s mouth (Fig. 6.6). Ron continues mumbling, and Peta replies ‘is that true? Mmhh’. Peta smiles widely (Fig. 6.7). Ron continues mumbling, and Peta says, ‘is it serious?’. Ron responds with ‘ahhh, ahhh’. Peta removes the bottle from his mouth, and says, ‘Did that happen? Is that okay now?’. She shows him the bottle and asks ‘more’. Ron mumbled. Peta says, ‘okay, no more, okay, more milk’. [The video clip ends].

6.3  Analysis of Closeness

105

6.3.2  Affective Closeness in Feeding The social environment actively influenced social interactions (Veresov, 2017). The affective relationship to the environment involved multiple affective attitudes. In particular, feeding as an activity setting involved physical and affective closeness. The pedagogical practice of feeding involved nurturing Ron and expanding this relationship unfolded though multiple affective forms, enacted by Peta in reciprocal response to Ron. Ron was an active participant throughout Peta’s feeding. Peta’s closeness, sensitivity and affinity with infant Ron can be seen in Figs. 6.1 to 6.7. In trying to capture the expression of Peta’s form of sociality as affective closeness, our attention may be directed to the intuitive and personalized quality of her relationships. Peta could mobilize her energy and physically embody feeding with infants and her surroundings (Cekaite & Holm, 2017). Examining the video of educator Peta with infant-toddler Ron revealed Peta’s focus on closeness and use of the concept of pedagogical positioning. Peta’s enactment of pedagogical positioning with care and forethought involved an affective attitude and engagement of both subjects within their physical, material and social environment. In a qualitative and quantitative exploration of relationships in a Dutch early childhood centre, researchers Singer, Nederend, Penninx, Tajik, and Boom (2014) found in a LDC setting similar to that of Peta, that educators maximized wellbeing through close attunement to individuals, whilst also devoting attention to the whole group. In further experimental testing in relation to emotional security, Singer (2017) reinforced the notion that educators’ affective closeness exists in the sensitivity that characterizes their relationships with young children, peers and other educators. She emphasized that sensitivity was a characteristic of a relationship, rather than a behavior: “sensitivity should not be defined as a characteristic of the educator’s behavior towards one child, but as characteristic of the relationship between educator, child and peers” (Singer, 2017, p. 207). Peta’s development of an affective relation with infant Ron involved giving close attention to her relationship with him. As discussed by Vygotsky (1998), infants are more likely to respond to the affective colouring of human voice and gestural expressions. In the case example of infant Ron, the affective colouring of this relationship was seen in Peta’s affective expressions and language, affective touch and affective soft vocalisation. Peta’s affective use of expressions and communication formed part of her pedagogy of closeness. Peta’s affective use of facial expressions, noticeable in her smile (Fig. 6.7) and raised eyebrows (Fig. 6.6), showed her responsivity to Ron’s sounds. Peta’s affective communication was established through a dialogue commentary with Ron where she developed an affective repertoire of verbal dialogue with Ron. This dialogue was reciprocal in every verbal comment made by Peta. Ron responded with ‘mmm’ sounds and changed intonations in his mumbles, and moved his head when he needed a pause from drinking the milk. Peta not only created a dialogue commentary, but also sustained the dialogue. Peta’s use of language was important, as Ron was able to respond so they were able

106

6  Closeness as an Affective Pedagogy

to hold a responsive conversation. Peta’s affective communication involved a dialogue commentary that included Peta’s comments, questions, wonderings and responses to infant Ron’s sounds. Peta commented, ‘you’re a thirsty, hungry boy’, and Ron responded by mumbling. Peta questioned Ron’s mumbling—‘you want more?’—and Ron responded with a head movement. Further, Peta was playful in her language and commented: ‘Is that true? Is it serious?’. This orients Ron to be communicative and make responses by sounds. This interactive experience showed learning relations, as it offered a pedagogical opportunity to establish a conversation with a young infant who was actively, affectively and effectively communicating in a close and intimate conversation with educator Peta. Peta’s generation of specialized and affective practices was particularly associated with her ways of using gentle touch with infant-toddlers. The micro-viewing of Peta’s hands and her responsive comforting touch were captured on video. Close eye contact was evident as affective practice (Figs. 6.1 to 6.7) especially when it was accompanied by Peta’s gentle finger touch of baby Ron’s cheek (Fig.  6.4). The research video data of educator Peta’s spontaneous interactive experiences illustrated her ‘multidirectional’, ongoing and deeply affectionate handling of infant-­ toddlers (Cekaite & Bergnehr, 2018, p.  953). Peta’s professional practices also extended to her flow and enactment of compassionate and sensitive “embodied intimacy” (Cekaite & Bergnehr, 2018, p. 940). Conceptualising the use of embodied intimacy of closeness as an affective practice was realised through generation of a detailed analysis of Peta’s pedagogical approach to feeding infant Ron. The video observation indicated Peta’s affective touch, soft vocalisations and peaceful and slow process as she lifted, nursed, carried, fed, comforted and calmed the infants in her care. These ways of gently handling infant-toddlers reflected Peta’s awareness of others in general, and in particular, indicated her capacity to understand the positive effect and affect of embedding soothing tactile dimensions in all her social interactions (Cekaite & Bergnehr, 2018). Also, infant Ron appears to be active and responsive because of Peta’s affective response and touch. This finding is in the line with the argument by White, Peter, and Redder (2015), that “infants were more likely to respond to teachers when teacher initiations were comprised of verbal and non-verbal combinations” (p.169). Peta produced a culture of closeness as an embodied, intimate quality that resided in her interpersonal exchanges with Ron. Therefore, we argue that comforting, affectionate and responsive practices generate a form of reciprocity when the subjects are both interactive and pedagogically affective. This is a wholly affective form of reciprocity that we term conceptual reciprocity. Conceptual reciprocity describes a pedagogical approach for supporting young children’s learning through joint interaction (Ridgway et al., 2015).

6.4  Collaborative Forum: Expansive Dialogue

107

6.4  Collaborative Forum: Expansive Dialogue Peta feeding Ron reflected Braidotti’s (2008) idea of closeness as being in a state of intense convergence and Trevarthen’s (2011) notion of coordinated coherence. A rich discussion on closeness emerged between the researchers and educators during the Collaborative forum. The forum discussion on affective pedagogical practices expanded personally and collectively from the participants’ shared ideas and life experiences. Vygotsky (1998) proposed, “experience is affected by the extent to which all my properties and how they came about in the course of development, participate here at a given moment” (p. 294). The researchers anticipated building an informed scholarly discourse around the development of affective relations through establishing the educators’ common knowledge of practice (Ridgway, 2018; White & Redder, 2017). A four-minute video observation clip was shown to the educators as a prompt for further reflection in the Collaborative forum (see Chap. 1). The discussions with educators aimed to expand on Peta’s enactment of affective pedagogy. Underlined are the affective qualities of Peta’s sensitive relationship with infants. To extend our knowledge of affective pedagogical practices in the Collaborative forum, Peta, Jane, Roma, Anne, Jo, Sophie and the researchers contributed to the discussion, which helped reveal Peta’s affective pedagogy. In the case example shown to the educators in the Collaborative forum, we explored how they understood closeness as a pedagogical approach, as achieved and enacted between Peta and infant Ron. The comment in Fig. 6.8 was hand-written by Peta, who had been thinking about this close relationship with Ron. After watching herself on the short video shown in the research interview, educator Peta expressed her own feelings about closeness to infant Ron by wondering, how close is too close? The researcher stated: ‘A week ago or so, I filmed a most beautiful moment of Peta nursing a very young baby’. The researcher then opened the forum discussion, and Peta stated that she: …quite enjoyed … watching it. I got a little bit emotional … [it] made me realize we do get those moments sometimes … Ron’s full-time, you know. You know, that is the eye contact with him, he just … how important it is for them to have a one-on-one relationship with an educator, as their time and then as they change and grow and are introduced to new people as well. Other people do care for them—it is not just solely me—but it is just about the bond and the relationship.

Fig. 6.8  Peta’s hand-written comment

108

6  Closeness as an Affective Pedagogy

Peta commented on the importance of creating affective and one-on-one relationships with infants. By doing so, the educator can create a bond, or—as Vygotsky (1998) explained—a special relation of close proximity and intimacy. Temporal aspects were important for educator Peta, who mentioned appreciating the present moment, as infants will change and grow. Further, Educator Jane commented on the social environment and drew attention to the tactility present in Peta’s affective practices: Touch, yes—you were creating a scenario similar to, say, how Mum would have fed the baby, which makes him calm and relaxed, and you’re creating that—having that special moment which is precious and responding to him.

Like Peta, Jane recognized the importance of having those special moments using affective touch as an intimate relationship, such as a mother might do. This pedagogical aspect is important (creating closeness like a mother). This finding expands Trevarthen (1993) and his colleagues (Kokkinaki, Vasdekis, Koufaki, & Trevathen, 2017) argument that the infant-mother affective dialogic engagement requires the mother’s interest and emotional response correlated with her infant’s facial expression and exemplifies that this affective dialogue can be reflected in infant-teacher interaction in long day care centers. We argue for the importance of not separating affective relationships exclusive to the use of mothers, as for educators like Peta it is important to have a similar affective pedagogical approach with infant Ron. These ‘special moments’ are important and the educator’s creation of a calm and relaxed environment was noticed by Jane. Meanwhile, Roma commented on the communication through gestural language between infant Ron and Peta, including kissing fingers and the intimate gaze developed in that interaction. Educator Roma contributed the following to the forum discussion: She’s responding … to the baby’s, like, communicating—[the] baby’s communicating in non-verbal language with her, so, when baby raised his hand, she kissed fingers and then he looked up and thought … Peta as well, she looked up there.

As discussed, affective touch involved Peta kissing Ron’s fingers as he reached towards her. Their intersubjective emotional connection has been noticed. Peta affectively communicated and created a dialogue commentary, as noticed by educator Roma. Meanwhile, Peta’s eye contact with Ron attracted educator Anne’s attention: Yeah, you can see Peta’s eye contact is very warm, like a mum, and the baby looks very trust[ing of] her, so he is trying to hold her.

Like Jane, Anne noticed that Peta responded as a mother might do, with a warm and trusting affective relationship. Anne observed affective expressions, such as Peta’s gaze and sustained eye contact that happened throughout the infant-toddler and educator interaction. The Collaborative forum discussions and responses gradually built on one another. Jo also saw warmth and trust in Peta’s gentle approach, and stated:

6.5 Conclusion

109

what I’ve noticed in that moment it’s, like, very soft and gentle and caring, I got from all that, and it was lovely because to get that quiet space and your voice came down it was, yeah, gentle.

Jo particularly noticed Peta’s gentle soft voice and, as discussed above, the soft vocalization of Peta’s affective pedagogy. All these detailed aspects of Peta’s affective pedagogy are presented in the educators’ own words (see Table 6.1). Peta’s affective pedagogy of closeness involved an intimate interplay of intimacy through the creation of a social and affective environment, use of affective language and expression (gaze, gestures and dialogue commentary) and gentle use of voice, which in turn created a trusting relationship with the infant. This definition is both empirical and theoretical, accounting for the educator’s perspectives to expand the concept of affective pedagogies and the importance of creating special moments where closeness is valued.

6.5  Conclusion In this chapter, an affective pedagogy of closeness was identified in educator Peta’s activity, and expanded in the Collaborative forum discussions by a group of educators. Affective pedagogies in the context of infant-toddler education and care are now reappearing in ECEC research (Lipponen & Hilppö, 2019). We add to this research by conceptualising from a cultural-historical perspective and from the educator’s point of view, fresh theorisation of affective pedagogies. We identify closeness as an educator’s pedagogical approach to a feeding activity setting that involved learning and teaching relationships between the educator and infant. As reflected upon by Peta, her personal affective pedagogies were made visible when in dialogue with a group of educators and researchers. Affective pedagogy involves other specialized approaches also discussed in the literature. For example, compassion involves a safe place where giving and supporting infants is created in an inclusive space (Rajala & Lipponen, 2018). This was the

Table 6.1  Educators’ collaborative reflection on Peta’s affective closeness Peta and Ron’s relational closeness Eye contact One-on-one relationship Creating an intersubjective emotional bond Responsive exchange Trust

Social environment Quiet space Creation of calm and relaxed environment

Peta’s affective pedagogy of closeness Respectful and mindful Warm and caring Gentle use of voice Gestural communication Intimate touch (like a mother) Kissing fingers

110

6  Closeness as an Affective Pedagogy

case with Peta, who wrote about respectful and mindful approaches regarding ‘how close is too close?’ This was evident during feeding as an affective pedagogical practice, where the educator actively and intentionally fostered respect and learning. More research is necessary to further understand how affective relations unfold. For Peta, this involved the use of affective practice as a mindful and respectful approach to closeness in an activity setting of infant feeding. The pedagogical practice of an educator’s soft vocalisations and gentle touch are embodied and embracing for infants. Infant-toddler educators’ pedagogical practice of closeness lend support to development of affective pedagogies. Closeness encompasses this special relationship between infant-toddlers and educators and can be cultivated, learned and valued.

References Bozhovich, L. I. (2009). The social situation of child development. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 47(4), 59–86. Braidotti, R. (2008). Intensive genre and the demise of gender. ANGELAKI Journal of the Theoretical Humanities, 13(2), 45–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/09697250802432112 Brownlee, J., & Berthelsen, D. (2006). Personal epistemology and relational pedagogy in early childhood teacher education programs. Early Years, 26(1), 17–19. Cekaite, A., & Bergnehr, D. (2018). Affectionate touch and care: Embodied intimacy, compassion and control in early childhood education. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 26(6), 940–955. Cekaite, A., & Holm, M. K. (2017). The comforting touch: Tactile intimacy and talk in managing children’s distress. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 50(2), 109–127. Custodero, L. A., & Johnson-Green, E. A. (2003). Passing the cultural torch: Musical experience and musical parenting of infants. Journal of Research in Music Education, 51(2), 102–144. Dahlberg, G., Moss, P., & Pence, A. (2008). Beyond quality in early childhood education and care—Languages of evaluation. New Zealand Journal of Teachers’ Work, 5(1), 3–12. Degotardi, S., & Dockett, S. (2003). Getting to know what they’re doing: Observing children’s use of their understanding of mind suring social interactions. In C. Tan-Niam (Ed.), MINDS@ PLAY: Intersubjectivity, theory of mind and social competence in children’s interactions (pp. 46–60). Nanyang, Singapore: Nanyang Technological University. Degotardi, S., Torr, J., & Han, F. (2018). Infant educators’ use of pedagogical questioning: Relationships with the context of interaction and educators’ qualifications. Early Education and Development, 29(8), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2018.1499000 Edwards, C., Gandini, L., & Forman, G. (1998). The hundred languages of children. The Reggio Emilia approach—Advanced reflections (2nd ed.). Westport, CT/London: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Edwards, C.  P., & Raikes, H. (2002). Extending the dance: Relationships based approaches to infant/toddler care and education. Young Children, 57(4), 10–17. Gandini, L., & Edwards, P. C. (Eds.). (2001). Bambini: The Italian approach to infant/toddler care. New York: Teacher’s College Press, Columbia University. Ghirotto, L., & Mazzoni, V. (2013). Being part, being involved: The adult’s role and child participation in an early childhood learning context. International Journal of Early Years Education, 21(4), 300–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2013.867166 Giudici, C., Rinaldi, C., & Barchi, P. (2001). Making learning visible: Children as individual and group learners. Cambridge, MA: Project zero, Harvard Graduate School of Education.

References

111

Goldstein, L.  S. (1998). Teacherly love: Intimacy commitment and passion in classroom life. Journal of Educational Thought, 32(3), 257–272. Hedegaard, M. (2019). Children’s perspectives and institutional practices as keys in a wholeness approach to children’s social situations of development. In A. Edwards, M. Fleer, & L. Bøttcher (Eds.), Cultural-historical approaches to studying learning and development: Perspectives in cultural-historical research (pp. 23–41). Singapore: Springer. Hedegaard, M., & Fleer, M. (2013). Play, learning and children’s development: Everyday life in families and transition to school. New York: Cambridge University Press. Hedges, M., & Cooper, C. (2018). Relational play-based pedagogy: Theorising a core practice in early childhood education. Teachers and Teaching Theory and Practice, 24(4), 369–383. Holmes, A. (2015). Transformative learning, affect, and reciprocal care in community engagement. Community Literacy Journal, 9(2), 48–67. Hviid, P. (2019). Educational play-supervision: Playing and promoting Children’s development of meaning. In D. Whitebread, V. Grau, K. Kumoulainen, M. McClelland, N. Perry, & D. Pino-­ Pasternak (Eds.), The Sage handbook of developmental psychology and early childhood education (pp. 257–271). London: Sage. Johansson, E., & Berthelsen, D. (2014). The birthday cake: Social relations and professional practices around mealtimes with toddlers in child care. In L. Harrison & J. Sumsion (Eds.), Lived spaces of infant-toddler education and care: International perspectives on early childhood education and development (pp. 75–88). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Jornet, A., & Steier, R. (2015). The matter of space: Bodily performances and the emergence of boundary object during multidisciplinary design meetings. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 22(2), 129–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2015.1024794 Kokkinaki, T. S., Vasdekis, V. G. S., Koufaki, Z. E., & Trevathen, C. B. (2017). Coordination of emotions in mother-infant dialogues. Infant and Child Development, 26, 1–25. Kravtsova, E.  E., & Kravtsov, G.  G. (2009). Cultural–historical psychology in the practice of education. In M. Fleer, M. Hedegaard, & J. Tudge (Eds.), Childhood studies and the impact of globalization: Policies and practices at global and local levels (pp. 202–212). New York: Taylor & Francis. Lindqvist, G. (1996). The aesthetics of play: A didactic study of play and culture in preschools. Early Years, 17(1), 6–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/0957514960170102 Lipponen, L., & Hilppö, J. (2019, May). Exploring compassion organisation in early childhood education. Cultures of Compassion. Paper presented at CHACDOC ISCAR conference, Bergen, Norway. Lipponen, L., Rajala, A., & Hilppö, J. (2016). Emotional worlds and compassion in early childhood education. In C. Pascal, A. Bertram, & M. Veisson (Eds.), Early childhood education and change in diverse cultural contexts (pp. 168–178). London/New York: Routledge. Malaguzzi, L. (1993). 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 (pp. 41–90). Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing. Molla, T., & Nolan, A. (2019). Identifying professional functionings of early childhood educators. Professional Development in Education, 45(4), 551–566. https://doi.org/10.1080/1941525 7.2018.1449006 Page, J. (2018). Characterising the principles of professional love in early childhood care and education. International Journal of Early Years and Education, 26(2), 125–141. Quiñones, G., Ridgway, A., & Li, L. (2019). Developing a drama pedagogy for toddler education. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 17(2), 140–156. Rajala, A., & Lipponen, L. (2018). Early childhood education and care in Finland: Compassion in narrations of early childhood student teachers. In S.  Garvis, S.  Phillipson, & H.  Harhu-­ Luukkainen (Eds.), International perspectives on early childhood education and care: Early childhood education in the 21st century (Vol. 1, pp. 64–75). New York: Routledge. Recchia, S., Shin, M., & Snaider, C. (2018). Where is the love? Developing loving relationships as an essential component of professional infant care. International Journal of Early Years Education, 26(2), 142–158.

112

6  Closeness as an Affective Pedagogy

Ridgway, A. (2018). Video capture of symbolic activity in toddler initiated play. Video Journal of Education and Pedagogy, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40990-­017-­0013-­8 Ridgway, A., Quiñones, G., & Li, L. (2015). Early childhood pedagogical play: A cultural-­ historical interpretation using visual methodology. Singapore: Springer. Rinaldi, C. (2006). In dialogue with Reggio Emilia listening, researching and learning. London and New York: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group. Singer, E. (2017). Emotional security and play engagement of young children in Dutch child centres: A story of explorative research, experiments and educators testing hypotheses. In L. Li, G. Quiñones, & A. Ridgway (Eds.), Studying babies and toddlers: Relationships in cultural contexts (pp. 207–224). Singapore: Springer. Singer, E., Nederend, M., Penninx, L., Tajik, M., & Boom, J. (2014). The teacher’s role in supporting young children’s level of play engagement. Early Child Development and Care, 184(8), 1233–1249. Svinth, L. (2018). Being touched—The transformative potential of nurturing touch practices in relation to toddlers’ learning and emotional well being. Early Childhood Development and Care, 188(7), 924–936. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2018.1446428 Taggart, G. (2016). Compassionate pedagogy: The ethics of care in early childhood professionalism. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 24(2), 173–185. Trevarthen, C. (1993). The function of emotions in early infant communication and development. In J.  Nadel & L.  Camaioni (Eds.), New perspectives in early communicative development (pp. 48–81). London: Routledge. Trevarthen, C. (2011). What young children give to their learning, making education work to sustain a community and its culture. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 19(2), 173–193. Uhlenberg, J. (2016). The four roles of a master toddler teacher. Early Education and Development, 27(2), 240–258. Veresov, N. (2017). The concept of perezhivanie: A quest for a critical review. In M.  Fleer, F.  González Rey, & N.  Veresov (Eds.), Perezhivanie, emotions and subjectivity. Advancing Vygotsky’s legacy (pp. 47–70). Singapore: Springer. Van Manen, M. (2015). Pedagogical tact: Knowing what to do when you Don’t know what to do (Phenomemology of practice series). Walnut Creek California USA: Left Coast Press. Vygotsky, L.  S. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. In M.  Cole, V.  John-­ Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in society: The development of higher psychological functions (pp. 79–91). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1998). Collected works: Child psychology (Vol. 5). New York: Kluwer Academic Plenum Publishers. White, E. J., Peter, M., & Redder, B. (2015). Infant and teacher dialogue in education and care: A pedagogical imperative. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 30, 160–173. White, E.  J., & Redder, B. (2017). A dialogic approach to understanding infant interactions. Interactions in Early Childhood Education, 1(7), 81–98.

Chapter 7

Educator’s Generation of Affective Pedagogical Practices

Abstract  This chapter aims to generate fresh understanding of a group of educator’s affective pedagogical practices. The chapter pays attention to educator’s generation of affective pedagogical practice. We draw on cultural–historical theory and visual methodological tools to unravel the common knowledge and expertise of infant-toddler educators. Through the data analysis, we identify educators’ expert practice through their effective and affective generation, production, configuration and development of diverse intercultural pedagogical knowledge. Configuration of specialized pedagogical practices present in our findings on relationships with infant-toddlers, account for the affective integration of trust, welcoming, and settling in. The educator’s perspective of what makes affective pedagogical practices contributes to literature on quality relationships with infant-toddlers.

7.1  Introduction Educators bring new insights in the open and new questions that have to be addressed … Educators, just like any other human being, need respect for their expertise. (Singer, 2017, p. 222)

This chapter argues that infant-toddler education is a developing field, and it is essential to seek guidance to unravel the factors that help specify infant-toddler education as a growing expert field. The findings from our collaborative study with six long day care (LDC) educators form the basis of our argument. Shared discussions were held and generated in an affective space that we named a Collaborative forum (see Chaps. 1 and 6) (Quiñones, Li, & Ridgway, 2018). Collaborative forums served to support infant-toddler educators’ generation of pedagogical practices with various visual tools used as prompts (e.g. image). Images were selected by educators to expand and generate further discussions together. The discussion with educators led to the question of: How do educators generate affective and specialized pedagogies? We are influenced by cultural–historical theory, specifically, Edward’s (2010, 2012) concept of common knowledge and relational agency, and González Rey’s work on subjectivity (2019a, 2019b, 2019c). Through the process of participating in collaborative discussions, we found educators created multiple subjective © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 G. Quiñones et al., Affective Early Childhood Pedagogy for Infant-Toddlers, Policy and Pedagogy with Under-three Year Olds: Cross-disciplinary Insights and Innovations 3, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73527-2_7

113

114

7  Educator’s Generation of Affective Pedagogical Practices

configurations and productions of knowledge. Following exploration of their pedagogical practice, we aim to unravel how educators create common knowledge. Initially in our research, we use the concept of critical reflection to refer to educators’ thinking about their practice (Elfer, 2014; Quiñones et al., 2018). In addition, using cultural–historical concepts of subjective productions and configuration, we generate common knowledge, embrace educators’ relational expertise, thereby directing our views beyond reflection. We begin this chapter with a discussion around the importance of critical reflection given in current Australian early childhood curriculum, and follow up with a theoretical discussion of cultural–historical theory.

7.1.1  Going Beyond Critical Reflection Critical reflection has a long tradition in education. The term ‘dialogic’ if taken from a Bakhtinian perspective, involves multi-voicedness as a process of meaning making from accounts of different perspectives (Lampert-Shepel, 2008). This is considered important in the advancement of the concept of critical reflection. Through dialogues, educators can exchange knowledge of their pedagogical choices as they encounter their everyday contexts with infants and toddlers (White, 2014). McLaughlin (2016) suggests the embracing of reflection in a community of practice, where commonality and commitment can be nourished. From a cultural–historical perspective, teacher reflection and learning is a social practice that is mediated by language and culture (Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles, & Lopez-­ Torres, 2003) and reflection should be studied as part of human action (Lampert-­ Shepel, 2008). Hoffman-Kipp et  al. (2003) suggested that critical practice is a movement between experience as action and reflection through sense-making. Teacher reflection as a social practice helps collaborative enquiry; an active learning with others (Hoffman-Kipp et al., 2003). Other cultural–historical researchers have found that reflection can be richer when various mediational means are used, including reflective dialogue (Lampert-Shepel, 2008). In our study, we use the concept of critical reflection to think about pedagogical practices within a group of infant-toddler educators. Critical reflection is an integral part of the early childhood learning framework mandated for Australian early childhood educators. In particular, the framework suggests: Critical reflection involves closely examining all aspects of events and experiences from different perspectives. Educators often frame their reflective practice within a set of overarching questions, developing more specific questions for particular areas of enquiry. (Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations, 2009, p. 14)

The open-ended nature of this statement acknowledges the role of critical reflection in educator’s reflective practice. The specific examination of pedagogical experience from different perspectives and areas of enquiry, is encouraged. Further,

7.2 Subjectivity

115

specific guiding questions are proposed for reflection: (e.g. How might educators understand children; what issues raise curiosity; or what factors challenge practice?) The National Quality Standards (NQS) are the national authority referenced in Australia for early childhood education and care (ACECQA, 2011). In the NQS standards, critical reflection on children’s learning and development, program planning, and implementation of all the above are included. Other information resources for educators include being reflective in relation to processes of changing practices that may improve children’s outcomes, and be shared in a team (ACECQA, n.d.) such as in our Collaborative forums. In the current ECEC context, critical reflection is valued as an important practice principal. The focus of our investigation was directed towards enquiry into infant-­ toddler educators’ current affective pedagogical practices, in multi-cultural settings and with different visual tools. This process aimed to generate information about educators’ specialized practices. Enabling reflective practice with infant-toddler educators from diverse centres was a rare opportunity for our research, as it was essential to generate new knowledge about their varied thoughts and feelings in different contexts.

7.2  Subjectivity The term subjectivity provides the idea of wholeness of an individual subject as a relational and reflective person (Rinaldi, 2006). Rinaldi’s work in Reggio Emilia schools, directs our attention to subjectivity as a contextual and holistic concept encompassing the educator and child and their emerging relationships. In particular, when educators observe, they attempt to “allow the subjectivity of each child and each teacher to emerge in relation to his or her relationships with others” (Rinaldi, 2006, p.109). Taguchi (2005) has taken post-human perspectives, and used the concept of subjectivity. Subjectivity is part of relationships between early childhood student teachers and teacher educators’ relationships. In our study, we draw upon the cultural-historical concept of subjectivity to reveal the participating educators’ paths to generate the common knowledge of what matters for their infant-toddlers pedagogy. Therefore, subjectivity emerges in relation to others in a context.

7.2.1  Subjectivity from a Cultural-Historical Perspective As explained in Chaps. 2 and 3, we use a cultural-historical perspective in relation to the concept of subjectivity. In Chap. 2, dialogues are considered an unique subjective (rather than objective) expression of culture, and in the process of dialogue, individuals subjectively produced meanings that are actively generated. In Chap. 3, discussion is given to the ways subjectivity transcends objectivity and emerges

116

7  Educator’s Generation of Affective Pedagogical Practices

through everyday experiences in life (González Rey, 2018). In our research, we used González Rey’s (2018) concept of subjectivity to explore the generation of optional paths in relation to production of specialized pedagogical practice. We keep in mind that educators work in institutions that create options for them. As researchers, we sought to create an affective, warm, and trusting space (e.g. Collaborative forum) in which the participating educators could generate new knowledge. In this chapter, we focus on infant-toddler educators and the process of subjective generation of their new specialized knowledge. 7.2.1.1  Generation and Production of Specialized Pedagogical Practices The fact that subjectivity is a production and not a reflection implies that each individual, group or institution is capable of generating options within the immediate broader social systems within which they emerge. (González Rey, 2019c, p. 191)

Subjectivity as a new qualitative human phenomenon involves united symbolic-­ emotional processes (González Rey, 2017). Emotions and intellect (thinking) are subjective and dynamic (González Rey, 2019a, 2019b, 2019c). These symbolic-­ emotional processes produced through subjective configurations weave together social and individual representations, expressed through narratives or discourses (González Rey, 2017). That is, the subjective configuration is a process of psychological development, which generates a new subjective sense by configuring the dynamic nature of the living human experience. Individuals configure their social experiences in an active, generative and creative manner (González Rey, 2017). Their social experiences become subjective, as the individual’s subjective sense is experienced. In this manner, individuals, groups and institutions generate and produce complex perspectives of their actual experiences (González Rey, 2017). By configuring their living pedagogical experience through the Collaborative forums, the educators generated pedagogical knowledge that related meaningfully to infant-­ toddlers’ learning and development. The educators’ generated together, new sense and meaning in their educational contexts (Subero, 2020). Subjective senses of a determined experience have a momentary, fleeting character. New subjective paths (decisions or plans) open up to the emergence of subjective senses. These subjective senses evoke emotions and the imagining of new paths and configurations that offer new actions and new living experiences for individuals (González Rey, 2017, 2019a). In this study, the creation of a Collaborative forum provides space for educators’ dialogue that can generate new paths for infant-­ toddlers’ education and care. In this chapter, educators acted as co-researcher and brought images for active discussion in Collaborative forum. This aligns with the argument by Patino and Goulart (2016) that research participants (educators) should not be passive, but “passionate…active, curious, restless and recursive” as “the active role of the person, as well as subject, is central to the production of ideas” (p. 171). Subjective configurations contain historical and social experiences (González Rey, 2016, 2017, 2019b). The subjects’ actions involve social networks of

7.2 Subjectivity

117

communication and relationships. In these social networks, participating individuals are configured through the actions, feelings, thinking and imagining with others (González Rey, 2017). Thus, subjective configurations are a constellation of individual and social motivations present in experiences, where unexpected paths might emerge (González Rey, 2019a; Santos & Mitjáns Martínez, 2019). In this study, a group of educators creatively produced common knowledge in a resourceful and imaginative manner.

7.2.2  R  elational Expertise, Common Knowledge and Relational Agency Edwards (2012) presented cultural–historical theory with a metaphoric interpretation of gardening tools as analytical resources. We chose to adopt three of these analytical tools in order to unravel the pedagogical practices of infant-toddler educators. Common knowledge involves shared understanding; questioning the “whys” of practice to elicit knowledge of what matters for all the collaborators. (Edwards, 2012, p. 27). Relational expertise involves recognition of what captivates others by taking their perspectives and aligning motives (Edwards, 2012). Through this process, common knowledge is gained. Professionals’ common knowledge involves reflection on ‘what matters’, so they can align their common knowledge, and, in turn, generate new knowledge (Edwards, 2012). To develop this in our research, we used visual means; discussed later in the chapter. From this common (and new) knowledge, relational expertise is important, as, in this case, it revealed the language used by the educators in a group. Becoming an expert requires not only knowing, but also expanding on what we do know. Nowotny (as cited in Edwards, 2012, p. 24) suggested that experts know their specialist field and need to integrate what others know or should know. Edward’s (2012) idea of relational expertise involves sharing expert knowledge by “recognizing what others can offer, a shared enterprise and why they offer it, and being able to work with what others offer while also making visible and accessible what matters for you” (p. 26). Our collaboration enabled participating educators to share their expertise in pedagogical matters. In our case, the sharing of knowledge helped reveal to us their specialized practices with infant-toddlers. Rai (2019) also suggests, “common knowledge is a resource for engaging with what matters for participants in different practices” (p.  165). Therefore, educators’ selecting images for discussion also revealed what matters for them in their practice. Relational expertise develops through engagement with others by aligning one’s own motives, intentions and what matters in one’s profession (Edwards, 2012). Moreover, relational expertise involves working together to understand what makes common knowledge. Relational agency requires collaboration with others to align with them and contribute to the generation of common knowledge (Edwards, 2012).

118

7  Educator’s Generation of Affective Pedagogical Practices

Relational agency expands professional expertise (Edwards, 2012). In our study, the six participating educators exercised relational agency in joint discussion related to their pedagogical practices with infant-toddlers that revealed motives and understanding of what matters to them.

7.3  Generative Paths for Configuration of Expert Practices This study’s data analysis focused on three generative and dynamic paths to reach configuration of common knowledge: We aligned paths of configuration, when we used Collaborative forums to build common knowledge. We prompted research discussions about the practice of ‘sitting down’ to foreground an affective and responsive pedagogical approach. Researchers selected an image to begin with, in the second Collaborative forum. The expansive paths of configuration occurred when one educator’s new knowledge extended to other colleagues in their centre. The image selected by educator Jane was used for further discussion with the educators group. Affective paths of configuration, related to educators’ relational expertise, promoted discussion on being effective and affective infant-toddler educators. The Collaborative forums as a methodological approach, nurtured the educators’ common knowledge, relational agency and professional expertise. The forums engaged everyone present in rich discussions. The visual tools used to guide this chapter are video observations and images. These generated dialogue about specialized pedagogical practices of infant-toddler educators.

7.4  Aligning Paths of Configuration Our research project, ‘Educators of Babies and Toddlers: Developing a Culture of Critical Reflection’ involved video observation of six LDC educators in their centres, undertaken before their participation in the Collaborative forums. Our first phase of analysis of video observations sought to locate moments where we found educators ‘sitting down’ with infant-toddlers for long periods. Singer, Nederend, Pennix, Tajik, and Boom’s (2014) research with children aged 2 and 3 years in Dutch kindergartens suggested that, when educators sit on the floor at the child’s level, their play engagement increases, in comparison with educators who walk around. Further, Singer’s (2017) research suggested that educator availability strongly influences the quality of interactions with infant-toddlers, as it provides a more secure learning environment. Infant-toddlers socially reference available educators when they stay in one place, rather than following them around and walking with them.

7.4  Aligning Paths of Configuration

119

In the first Collaborative forum, the researchers brought awareness to different aspects of the educator’s practice of ‘sitting down’. Our aim was to generate educators’ discussion and make visible how this practice was important to infant-toddlers. Further, we aimed to align educators’ common knowledge through educator enquiry about the whys of the practice of sitting down (Edwards, 2012).

7.4.1  E  ducator’s Growing Awareness of Effective and Affective Pedagogical Practices In the first Collaborative forum, everyday examples of educators sitting down with infants were shown to the educators. A growing awareness developed in discussions that this was an important aspect of their practice. Visual images were shown to each educator about personal examples of their “sitting down” practices. The researchers carefully selected positive images for further discussion. In the Collaborative forum, educators were asked to respond to the images shown, through writing down five words on a Post-it Note. Each educator then explained her ideas to the forum group (Fig. 7.1). Our discussions recorded the written words expressed on post-it notes by the educators. Jane’s words were: ‘stressful’, ‘engaged’, ‘successful’, ‘relationships’ and ‘community’. The group’s words were also recorded: ‘engaged’, ‘supported’, ‘being’, ‘observing’, ‘involved’, ‘trust’ and ‘together’.

The visual images opened new paths for configuration of the educators’ Collaborative forum experiences within the group. They supported alignment of

Fig. 7.1  Jane ‘sitting down’

120

7  Educator’s Generation of Affective Pedagogical Practices

their common knowledge in relation to Jane’s pedagogical practices of being engaged and involved through warm relationships with infant-toddlers. After each educators’ comments were read to the group, Jane’s awareness grew around the effect and affect that her ‘sitting down’ action had caused, both on her, and on the infant-toddlers in her care. Jane explained that for her sitting down alone with a group of four infants was stressful. Jane was also being watched by a mother observing her daughter (new to the group), who was interacting with the two other toddlers. In this situation, Jane explained how she was doing her best to relate to all the infants in her care. The baby she was trying to put to sleep liked to be rocked but meanwhile, the other infants were actively playing. In the following dialogue, Jane used her five words (see in italics) to describe this situation. Jane: So I was trying to engage the children [toddlers]. They are all involved in something, but, at the same time, I’m trying to build that relationship and engage with that child [girl in the middle] to keep her happy and calm, and keep the Mum happy. While trying to do this I ignore this little one [baby in Jane’s arms] to put her to sleep. Multitasking. It was a stressful situation. Researcher: You achieved what you wanted somehow. Jane: Yeah it was successful. And it’s successful that, without meaning to, they all sort of came together in one spot. Researcher: Why would that be, I wonder? Jane: Because I was sitting down on the ground. Researcher: But also smiling and [being] gentle and lovely.

In this scenario, we find that Jane indicated the subjective nature of the practice of ‘sitting down’. Jane made subjective sense of her experiences and evoked different emotions with regard to her pedagogy (González Rey, 2017). Jane’s experience related to engaging with a group of infant-toddlers, while putting one infant to sleep. Jane’s subjective configuration of this experience created new paths such as the complex nature of sitting down and supporting each infant-toddler. The emergence of emotions was observed as a stressful situation because of Jane’s pedagogical role in trying to support everyone. Jane’s actual experience was subjectively configured and provided a complex perspective of what ‘sitting down’ on the floor with a toddler on her lap means, whilst being engaged with others. Jane’s configuration of this experience related to what mattered for this group of infant-toddlers. As an educator, Jane used responsive pedagogies by being engaged and affectively supportive of the infants by sitting in close proximity to them and supporting the emotions of a new mother and toddler. For Jane however, this experience was more about managing infants and being aware of engaging each infant-toddler with their peers. The other educators looking at the video clip, expanded the experience by offering Jane a new configuration of her pedagogy—that of being involved, being supportive, being trusting, being together and being observant. As Singer et al. (2014) suggested, being close to children is an indicator of high-quality ECEC relations. Further, it is generally agreed that most children love educators being near them where they can feel included and more connected (Singer, 2017). We see resonance in Singer’s research with Jane’s discussion—that this was a ‘successful’ experience and ‘it all came together’

7.4  Aligning Paths of Configuration

121

because she was ‘sitting down’ with the infant-toddlers. This aspect is important as educators realize that they develop their own relational expertise about infant-­ toddler pedagogy. Educator Jane has also shown relational expertise in her effective and affective interactions with infant-toddlers at a group level. This newly configured path offers opportunities for Jane’s pedagogy through her recognition of what matters professionally. In the second Collaborative forum, Jane and the educator group continued to grow their relational expertise of what matters when working with infants and toddlers.

7.4.2  Generating Effective and Affective Expertise In the second Collaborative forum, researchers asked educators what they had previously learnt. There was a month’s gap between the first and second Collaborative forums, and researchers hoped to determine what effect if any, these forums may have had on educators’ learning through generation of new paths of knowledge. Our aim to generate common knowledge and unravel what mattered to infant-toddler educators, continued (Edwards, 2012). We found the Collaborative forums had generated relational expertise, by supporting educators’ confidence to become more expert through expansion of what they already knew (Edwards, 2012). The relational expertise identified in the first Collaborative forum started with the educators’ discussion on the practice of ‘sitting down’ and making visible their responsive pedagogies. We discovered that educators of infant-toddlers were deeply involved through playful engagement, warm-hearted support, and meaningful exchanges with infant-toddlers. The educators’ relational agency in practice not only aligned with their common knowledge, but also indicated what mattered to them in the development of their expertise. In the second Collaborative forum, our research expanded to the educator’s pedagogical awareness of being at the toddler’s level. Educator’s Jane (Site 1) and Peta (Site 2) provided excerpts to indicate continuous engagement of collaborative alignment with their own motives in relation to “sitting down”, meaning “being at the child’s level”: Jane: I noticed I was taking what we had learnt back to the team, sharing with the rest of the team at our service. I found that I was reflecting more on how I was spending my time, how my co-educators were spending the time and were they getting down to the children’s level; were they doing the things that we sort of found our common thread in that created those moments. Peta: I was kind of the same too—that we were all down on the same level with the children to watch how the relationship builds actually from the ground up. As educators that we are all doing the same as each other. It being down to the child’s level, getting the interaction with them, as this brings comfort to them. If we are down [at their level], they can get closer to us, instead of being up here over the top of everybody and it is more important … for the younger ones.

122

7  Educator’s Generation of Affective Pedagogical Practices

Jane and Peta had subjectively configured their experiences to extend and align their collective knowledge about ‘sitting down’ as ‘being down to the child’s level’. Jane expressed that spending time with infants by moving down to their level offered her an effective practice. Peta extended Jane’s view by offering an affective view of their practices and being emotionally available: ‘bringing comfort’ and ‘getting closer’ to infants. As explained by Singer (2017), availability of the educator offered comfort and security to infant-toddlers. Therefore, effectively, the educator can be at the infant-­ toddler’s level and be available to them. The educator shows affectivity by being in a position to give comfort to the infant-toddlers. Peta and Jane’s relational agency and expertise aligned these two different matters, identified as the ‘effective’ and ‘affective’ roles of an infant-toddler professional. Educator Sophie added to the complexity of being effectively available to infant-­ toddlers by ‘sitting down’ and completing an activity, while Jo added to the affective practice of educators by being calm and offering the opportunity for infant-toddlers to socially, reference educators in the background (see Chap. 3): Sophie: The main thing I got was how important it is to take a moment, sit, and do an activity. Jo (replying to Sophie): Yep, but—and it is just as sometimes you don’t even have to do it [an activity], just getting, sitting down when they are calm and form something. Then you’re still there, but you’re in the background and they still—even, that is, I find really good because then you can really see what they’re doing, but again if you got up and moved away, it’s gone.

These new configurations have added to the developing expertise of the infant-­ toddler educators. Their common knowledge was made visible in the practice of ‘sitting down’. Being at the toddler’s level involved both effective and affective practices, and exemplified what matters in the infant-toddler educators’ specialized profession.

7.4.3  E  xpansive Paths of Configuration: New Common Knowledge In our second Collaborative forum, the researchers positioned the six educators as co-researchers. The educators had been invited to bring visual material from their workplace to share and reflect on. This visual material could include images, video clips or reflective notes. In the second Collaborative forum, the idea of affective connections, and how they are created was introduced (Quiñones, 2016). Affective connections involve affective moments of intensity, affective exchanges and action. In these moments, adults/educators can create a close relationship and affectively relate to infant-toddlers. Moreover, it is helpful to remember that adults communicate silently when using multiple emotions, such as love, to develop their relationship. These are subjectively expressed with gestures, affective voice, non-verbal communication and various postures.

7.4  Aligning Paths of Configuration

123

In the educator’s conversations, Jane expanded her understanding of the practice of ‘sitting down’ to another stressful situation that she experienced with co-educator Natalie. Jane: Yeah, this was another sort of ‘a-ha’ reflective moment that I had. From that forum, after discussing with the colleagues about what we thought, sitting down, creating those moments. So, the children were not happy at all—it was meltdown central and my lovely co-educator, Natalie, and myself were quite stressed and at our wits’ end. So, we opened the door and went ‘just go play—be outside’, because we’ve found that that has worked in the past and this group of children love being outside. I cannot tell you exactly how it happened, but I think it started with my co-educator just sitting down and Sally [child], who was probably the most emotional out of them all, found her way over to her.

Jane continued her description of this situation: They just started playing with the tanbark because Sally was playing with it. They just sat quietly, they were just being, and then I don’t know if you can see because of the light and the angle, but the little one has actually put her hand, making that contact with my co-­ educator’s [Natalie’s] knee, and then just continued sitting, sifting through the bark, just calming down, which then allowed for more affective moments. From this, I had a chat to her about this situation and she, my co-educator, did not realize that going through the tanbark she was calming herself down as well, which then made the children feel that she was more accessible, because we had gotten to a quite heightened point in the room. And it just created calmness. Moving, creating the calmness that is only about five steps away from our door, so we did not have to go far. That little girl almost looks like she is saying— as you can almost read her saying, ‘it’s okay, you’re okay’. It does look like she [has] her head down for quite a while, but it is not—her head was not down for that long moment. I try to keep a very calm atmosphere; I try to be very low—sometimes I guess very sloth-like. I feel that sometimes brings the room down, or the children down. I notice when I have an educator with a more vibrant personality or an educator that comes in and you think can you please just go away and then you’re like, okay, can we just be calm?

In this narrative, Jane generated many subjective productions and configurations. Jane took a new pedagogical path by documenting a stressful situation that led to co-educator Natalie’s practice of ‘sitting down’ (see Fig. 7.2). This experience indicated how the emergence of emotions (stress, meltdown central, and wits’ end) had created new actions in the educators, such as moving to play outdoors. Jane’s relational expertise of the knowledge learnt from the first Collaborative forum, she indicated that the position of ‘sitting down’ is effective. This time, Jane aligned her new knowledge with other professionals (Edwards, 2012). Jane

Fig. 7.2  Natalie practiced ‘sitting down’. (Photograph taken by educator Jane)

124

7  Educator’s Generation of Affective Pedagogical Practices

mentioned the importance of not only ‘sitting down’, but also referred to the pedagogical practice of the educator’s creation of these moments. Jane’s reflection provided an opportunity to share her expert knowledge with co-educator Natalie. Edwards (2012) discussed the importance of making visible what matters to others. The images in Fig. 7.2 indicate the effect on Jane of learning about what matters that aligned with her growing pedagogical awareness of new paths to generate affective knowledge in relation to her role. This affective role involved the creation of an affective moment between Natalie and Sally. Through playing an affective role, Jane’s actions made everyone aware of the importance of ‘being, calming down, creating calmness, calm atmosphere’, so the educator could be more available to the infant-toddlers. Jane focused on the educator’s feeling and her affective creation of this moment. She acknowledged the children in this experience and mentioned the close relationships being developed in this ‘affective moment’. She explained that the focus child was able to silently place her hands and communicate her closeness, helping to calm the educator. Jane interprets that the toddler is saying to Natalie, ‘it’s okay, you’re okay’. As Singer (2017) suggested, availability and sensitive responsiveness provide a secure base for children to explore their environment. The focus toddler in this example explored playing with tanbark, where she could socially reference Natalie while also exploring the surrounding natural materials. The educator’s group provided a new expert standpoint to this situation. Their relational expertise as a group, continued to develop. Peta commented that feeling calm should be about children and not about staff. Peta: It should be about the children, not staff issues in the spaces. The discussion however, eventually came to focus on collaborating with co-educators in an effective manner: Researcher: It should be about children. Peta: Yeah. Researcher: The learning space should be about the children, not the educator. Peta: Yeah. Researcher: Okay. Jane: I think it helps when the staff can be very flexible to know what’s going on, but be flexible to have that, I think it’s just—it helps when you can have those relationships with them, sorry, with your co-workers, where you don’t have to ask them to do things, things just— Peta: They are supportive, you support each other. Jane: I know multiple occasions I will turn around to try to do a task … but it’s already done because you— Peta: You are a team. Jane: Well, yeah, you are a team. They have seen ‘okay, there’s x-y-z needs to happen, you’re focused on that, so I’m going to pick up the slack’. And it just helps when you’ve got that relationship, it doesn’t—you don’t have to be best friends. Jo: No. Peta: No. Jane: You just have to have an understanding in common that you are there for the children.

In this conversation between the researcher and educators Jane, Peta and Jo, the division of tasks between colleagues was discussed as an important element in being an effective educator. Although Jane focused more on being flexible and in

7.5  Affective Configurations: An Effective and Affective Educator

125

implicit agreement with co-educators, this involved tasks being done effectively without the need to ask educators to do things (as Jane expressed). Relational agency relates to individuals who can recognize their motives and appreciate what matters professionally (Edwards, 2012; Edwards, Chan, & Desmond, 2020). This is an example of how infant-toddler educators develop effective collaboration as a ‘team’, able to ‘support each other’, as Peta said. Peta agreed with Jane when Jane added ‘you’re a team’. This common finding shows the importance of working as a team in infant-toddler education and care. Collaboration is so important and supportive. For educators to become more aware of the expertise and the specialized role they play with infant-toddlers, it is in collaboration that they can best generate their common knowledge of working with others.

7.5  Affective Configurations: An Effective and Affective Educator Discussions continued in the second Collaborative forum. As researchers we were now making the idea of being affective and effective more explicit. Important distinctions and differences between the concept of effective and affective infant-­ toddler educator roles were explored. These configurations aimed to add to the educators’ growing relational expertise, and continued to help them align to what mattered in their practice and therefore making it more explicit (Edwards, 2012). Table 7.1. Summarizes the educators’ comments, beginning with Sophie, and then Jane, Peta, Roma and Anne. At the end, Jo provides the final comment. All the educators recognized the importance of being an affective educator, and how, by being affective had led them to be more effective. These configurations aligned their common knowledge with their specialist and expert work with infant-toddlers. As presented in Table 7.1, Sophie was quick to explain with certainty that she needed to be effective, and provided the example of planning an activity with infant-­ toddlers. Effective pedagogy is defined as the ability of an educator to be task-­ driven by planning activities and achieving a result. However, as the educators began to recognize their shared matters of why it was important to be affective, Sophie reconfigured her path towards being more affective. This showed a strong transformational moment for Sophie, as she listened to the group and their ideas. She realized that being an affective educator related to being effective. The group of six educators’ new subjective paths were configured through their developing ideas, aligned with their thinking and feeling about being affective educators. From Site 2, Peta and Jo’s configurations and common knowledge of being affective educators showed that with infant-toddlers, it is necessary to build a relationship by understanding infant-toddler cues and developing trust. Meanwhile, Roma and Anne from Site 3 discussed their common concern of meeting parents’

126

7  Educator’s Generation of Affective Pedagogical Practices

Table 7.1  Configurations of affective and effective educators Effective Sophie ‘Planning for that particular child and we want to make sure that—or, if we actually come in on the day and go, ‘okay, we want to achieve this with this child’, so to try and be more effective, you may set up an experience.’

Jane

Peta

Roma

Anne

Jo

Affective ‘I would rather be affective than effective when it comes to the children because, for me, you can have all the activities set up and have all these ideas of what you want to do with the children, but if the children aren’t settled, if they’re upset, they’re not going to do anything and it’s just going to make a really long day even longer. So, for me, I would rather spend however long that child needs just sitting with them if they need cuddles and then once they’re calm, I introduce an activity or something so that, even while you’re trying to be affective, you can try and be effective at the same time, but I would prefer to go affective.’ ‘Personally I don’t think I consciously recognise it— you just have that instinct of knowing, okay, this child is upset, so for me to get the effect—the effect of them to be calm—they might be a bit emotional and vulnerable and I need to give them my emotional support.’ ‘Affect, yeah, that’s with the younger ones, that’s more affective … we have to know them, understand their cues and then, yeah, build that relationship, then we can be affective’. ‘Sometimes in the morning, when the parents drop them and that separation time, so they are emotional, like the parents as well, when the children are crying, so, for me, when I give them a cuddle, to babies somehow they settle, so I think that’s the affective connection for me for the babies. So after giving the cuddles, sitting with them for some time and later they calm down and they start playing.’ ‘It is more affective every single time … when the parents came to our room, especially for the new babies; the parents ask a question, “Are they happy today?” Affective leads to effective.’ ‘I think it’s just about trusting them—getting their trust and both ways to be able to be affective. Yeah, I think it’s just being, getting, being—everything that we’ve talked about, I think, to get that effective, affective.’

needs. They both described affectiveness as being aware of the emotions of infant-­ toddlers, particularly when they arrive and separate from their parents, and when parents collect them and ask about their emotions: ‘were they happy?’ Sophie and Roma stated that being affective was about giving cuddles, while Peta and Jo provided a more complex knowledge of being affective—being in reciprocal relationships, rather than one-sided provision of affection. Jane included her emotions and vulnerability in her views of an affective educator, providing emotional support if an infant-toddler is upset. Therefore, an affective educator also

7.6 Conclusion

127

involves reciprocal relationships with infant-toddlers, depending on the situation in which the educator might be. These subjective configurations created new paths of relational expertise and common knowledge about being an infant-toddler educator, where being affective leads to effectiveness when collaborating with co-educators in shared activities.

7.6  Conclusion Critical reflection involves a careful examination of events and experiences form different perspectives (Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations, 2009). Providing the space and time is important to carefully examine infant-toddlers educators’ perspectives. In this chapter, educators were resourceful, creative and collaborative about their experiences and generated affective pedagogical practices. The Collaborative forums enabled development of relational agency as the infant-toddler educators recognized what mattered to them as educators. It was important to identify the different paths of configuration necessary for the researchers to support the educators in aligning, expanding and locating the affective paths of relational expertise with each other. Through these identified paths, the educators generated new configurations about relational expert pedagogical practice, such as the realization that the position of ‘sitting down’ engages the educator in a more complex role. The affective practices developed by the practice of ‘sitting down’ generated comfort and a calm environment for both infant-toddlers and educators. Singer (2017) suggested that the emotional security of children is dependent on educators who manage the group. This common knowledge of managing children can be referred to as an ‘effective role’. However, providing emotional security or support can be referred as an ‘affective’ role. In an affective role, educators enact with sensitive and affectionate responses towards infant-toddlers. The effective and affective practices identified in this chapter contribute to the knowledge of quality relationships in infant-toddler pedagogies. Quality practices in infant-toddler pedagogy have been found to have lasting effects (Elicker, Ruprecht, & Anderson, 2014). Emotional wellbeing is important, as quality relationships enhance infant-toddlers’ positive futures (Loizou & Demetriou, 2019). Therefore, we and other researchers are encouraged to devote greater attention to those effective (achieving a result or outcome) and affective (emotions, trust, connection) relationships that occur in infant-toddler education and care.

128

7  Educator’s Generation of Affective Pedagogical Practices

References ACECQA. (2011). National quality framework. Retrieved from https://www.acecqa.gov.au ACECQA. (n.d.). Viewing excellence as a process, not a result. Retrieved from https://wehearyou. acecqa.gov.au/2015/08/04/the-­journey-­towards-­critical-­reflection/ Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations. (2009). Belonging, being and becoming the early years learning framework for Australia. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth Government of Australia. Edwards, A. (2010). Being an expert professional practitioner: The relational turn in expertise. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Edwards, A. (2012). The role of common knowledge in achieving collaboration across practices. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1, 22–32. Edwards, A., Chan, J., & Desmond, T. (2020). Motive orientation and the exercise of agency: Responding to recurrent demands in practices. In I. A. Edwards, M. Fleer, & L. Bottcher (Eds.), Cultural-historical approaches to studying learning and development: Societal, institutional and personal perspectives (pp. 201–168). Singapore: Springer. Elfer, P. (2014). Facilitating intimate and thoughtful attention to infants and toddlers in nursery. In L. J. Harrison & J. Sumsion (Eds.), Lives spaces of infant-toddler education and care (pp. 103–118). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Elicker, J., Ruprecht, K. M., & Anderson, T. (2014). Observing infants’ and toddlers’ relationships and interactions in group care. In L. J. Harrison & J. Sumsion (Eds.), Lived spaces of infant toddler education and care: Exploring diverse perspectives on theory, research and practice (pp. 131–145). London: Springer. González Rey, F. (2017). The topic of subjectivity in psychology: Contradictions, paths and new alternatives. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 47, 502–521. González Rey, F. (2018). Subjectivity in debate: Some reconstructed philosophical premises to advance its discussion in psychology. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 49(2), 212–234. González Rey, F. (2019a). Subjectivity in debate: Some reconstructed philosophical premises to advance its discussion in psychology. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 49(2), 212–234. González Rey, F. (2019b). Subjectivity as a new theoretical, epistemological, and methodological pathway within cultural-historical psychology. In F.  González Rey, A.  Mitjans Martínez, & D. Magálhaes Goulart (Eds.), Subjectivity within cultural-historical approach theory, methodology and research (pp. 21–36). Singapore: Springer. González Rey, F. (2019c). Subjectivity and discourse: Complementary topics for a critical psychology. Culture & Psychology, 25(2), 178–194. González Rey, G. (2016). Advancing the topics of social reality, culture, and subjectivity from a cultural-historical standpoint: Moments, paths, and contradictions. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 36(3), 175–189. Hoffman-Kipp, P., Artiles, A. J., & Lopez-Torres, L. (2003). Beyond reflection: Teacher learning as praxis. Theory in Practice, 42(3), 248–254. Lampert-Shepel, E. (2008). The dialogic nature of reflective praxis: A cross-cultural study of teachers’ reflective actions in Russian and American Dewey schools. International Journal of Case Method Research & Application, XX(2), 211–227. Loizou, E., & Demetriou, M. (2019). Infancy pedagogy and praxis. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 27(4), 436–453. McLaughlin, T.  H. (2016). Beyond the reflective teacher. In M.  A. Peters & M.  Tesar (Eds.), In search of subjectivities: An educational philosophy and theory teacher education reader (pp. 94–111). Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Patino, J. F., & Goulart, D. M. (2016). Qualitative epistemology: A scientific platform for the study of subjectivity from a cultural-historical approach. International Research in Early Childhood Education, 7(1), 161–181.

References

129

Quiñones, G. (2016). ‘Visual Vivencias’ to understand subjectivity and affective connection in young children. Video Journal of Education and Pedagogy, 1(3). https://doi.org/10.1186/ s40990-­016-­004-­1 Quiñones, G., Li, L., & Ridgway, A. (2018). Collaborative forum: An affective space for infant-­ toddler educators’ collective reflections. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 43(3), 25–33. Rai, P. C. (2019). Building and using common knowledge as a tool for pedagogic actions: A dialectical interactive approach for researching teaching. In I. A. Edwards, M. Fleer, & L. Bottcher (Eds.), Cultural-historical approaches to studying learning and development: Societal, institutional and personal perspectives (pp. 151–168). Singapore: Springer. Rinaldi, C. (2006). In dialogue with Reggio Emilia: Listening, researching and learning. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Santos, G. C. S., & Mitjáns Martínez, A. (2019). Changes in teacher subjectivity in the context of inclusive education. In F.  González Rey, A.  Mitjáns Martínez, & D.  Magalhães Goulart (Eds.), Subjectivity within cultural-historical approach: Theory, methodology and research (pp. 117–132). Singapore: Springer. Singer, E. (2017). Emotional security and play engagement of young children in Dutch child centres: A story of explorative research, experiments and educators testing hypotheses. In L. Li, G.  Quiñones, & A.  Ridgway (Eds.), Studying babies and toddlers relationships in cultural contexts (pp. 207–224). Singapore: Springer. Singer, E., Nederend, M., Pennix, L., Tajik, M., & Boom, J. (2014). The teacher’s role in supporting young children’s level of play engagement. Early Child Development and Care, 184(8), 1233–1249. https://doi.org/10.1080/0304430.2012.862530 Subero, D. (2020). Funds of identity and subjectivity: Finding new paths and alternatives for a productive dialogue. Studies in Psychology, 41(1), 74–94. Taguchi, H. L. (2005). Getting personal: How early childhood teacher education troubles students’ and teacher educators’ identities regarding subjectivity and feminism. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 6(3), 245–255. White, J. (2014). A dialogic space in early childhood education: Chronotopic encoutners with people, places and things. In L. J. Harrison & J. Sumsion (Eds.), Lives spaces of infant-toddler education and care (pp. 211–223). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Chapter 8

Affective Pedagogies for Infant-Toddlers’ Education and Care

Abstract  This final chapter begins with a discussion on infant-toddler educators’ imagined futures for education and care. A cultural–historical discussion on dialogues, imagination and emotions provides a theoretical framework for analysis of educators’ affective pedagogies. Data from educator’s paired interviews provide opportunities to continue expansion of educators’ affective pedagogical practices. Our findings reveal that some educators continue to use collaborative drawing (Quiñones G, Ridgway A, Li L, Aust J Early Childhood 44(3):25–33. https://doi. org/10.1177/1836939119855219, 2019) as a tool to generate pedagogical ideas about professional work. Educators’ ability to imagine futures is a significant aspect of their work and comprises awareness and appreciation of their own emotions and those of the infant-toddlers in their care. To conclude our book, a model that aims to show educators’ paths of transformative experiences for generation of affective pedagogies is presented.

8.1  Introduction …specialized training for work with this age-group, regular professional development, and opportunities for active self-reflection—do make a difference to professional practice. (Dalli, 2017, p. 126)

Around the world, there is an urgent call for recognition of the specialized practices of infant-toddler educators. For example, in New Zealand, Dalli (2017) argued for a systematic approach to specialized infant-toddler educator preparation. This approach involved multiple levels of supportive infrastructure that included individual and local levels of policy. In the search for a definition of what it is to be a specialized educator of early childhood education, Molla and Nolan (2019) suggested that educator expertise is a standard of professional functioning of educators who must have the “specialist knowledge and skills [that are] required in the profession” (p. 552). They further remind us that we need to recognise the diversity of educators’ abilities, and transform these into achievements. Professional recognition from the community is desirable, as it involves “educators [that] are valued and respected for their professional work” (Molla & Nolan, 2019, p. 558). This is a call

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 G. Quiñones et al., Affective Early Childhood Pedagogy for Infant-Toddlers, Policy and Pedagogy with Under-three Year Olds: Cross-disciplinary Insights and Innovations 3, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73527-2_8

131

132

8  Affective Pedagogies for Infant-Toddlers’ Education and Care

for recognition of the specialized knowledge and skills to which we add the affective nature of early childhood educators’ professional work. In contemporary Australian society, both parents often engage in paid employment, and more infant-toddlers attend long day care centres and family day care than ever before (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2014). This provides one important reason to better understand and make transparent the infant-toddler educators’ professional knowledge. Infant-toddler pedagogy usually encompasses education and care in which educators follow a routine-like structure. However, recent research suggests we should give recognition and attention to affective relationships (Goouch & Powell, 2017). Important pedagogical aspects of the infant-toddler curriculum involve full recognition of routines and the development of affective relationships (Davis & Dunn, 2018). The term ‘specialized infant-toddler education’ refers to educators who possess “specialized competencies” (Chazzan-Coher, Vallotton, Harewood, & Buell, 2017, p.  173). These competencies comprise the individual and relational aspects that accumulate when working with infant-toddlers and their families (Chazzan-Coher et al., 2017). Infant-toddler and educator relationships include an understanding of care and respect; however, as noted by Dalli (2017), educators find difficulty in articulating such relationships, thus making critical reflection on their pedagogical practices necessary. Finding time for critical reflection continues to be a complex situation for educators, as the availability, accessibility and affordability of professional development is often limited (Vandenbroeck & Bauters, 2017). Educator’s pedagogical knowledge is important, a significant exercise is to reflect on daily practices and provide awareness of the complexity of the educators’ everyday practices (Rutanen & Hännikäinen, 2017). In our research with six educators (see Chap. 1), Collaborative forums provided an affective space to generate collective reflections (Quiñones, Li, & Ridgway, 2018). In the Collaborative forums, infant-toddler educators expressed greater awareness of their pedagogical practices. The forums acted as a professional learning space that helped support educators unravel their specialized pedagogies as being affective (Quiñones et al., 2018). Through the forums, we experimented with different visual methodologies, including collaborative drawing, which was used as a creative tool to help educators expand and imagine their professional pedagogical agendas (Quiñones, Ridgway, & Li, 2019). Collaborative drawing can capture educators’ deep thinking, values, in ways that everybody feels included to share an and express their views (Knight et al., 2016). The act of drawing collaboratively became a creative process where the educators imagined future relationships with infant-­ toddlers (Quiñones et al., 2019). In this chapter, we devote special attention to the educators’ own imagined and affective pedagogical work.

8.2  Emotions and Imagination

133

8.2  Emotions and Imagination The development of a creative individual, one who strives for the future, is enabled by creative imagination embodied in the present. (Vygotsky, 2004, p. 88)

Vygotsky’s (2004) seminal work on imagination and creativity provoked discussion on how human acts are creative and closely connected to experiences, emotions and previous impressions. Vygotsky’s first law of imagination involves previous experiences combined into a new reality. Imagination has the power to alter present reality, when past elements are combined to orient actions towards the future (Vygotsky, 2004). In Vygotsky’s second law of imagination, new combinations are created, and images, ideas and experiences combine with emotions and feelings. A full cycle of imagination is thereby created through embodied or crystallised material form. For example, the act of drawing cultivates creative imagination and transforms educators’ understandings of affective pedagogies (Quiñones et al., 2018). To study imagination in adults, temporality is an important aspect, as past and present inform the future (Zittoun & Sato, 2017). When drawing from experiences, adults can imagine new alternatives and futures to improve their lives (Zittoun & Sato, 2017). Imagination is generated by specific events and activities, and is developed throughout the life course (Zittoun & Sato, 2017). Vygotsky (2004) also agreed that creative acts are oriented towards the future. Imagination is central to all human processes and thinking (Valsiner, 2017). According to Valsiner (2017), imagination operates in a dynamic timeline, with the past, present and future united. The present is irreversible and the future is unpredictable. The future is an important aspect of imagination, “looming future and makes the power of imagination central as the bridge between what was and what is not yet” (Valsiner, 2017, p. 57). It is through human imagination that the future is created, which ties together the past and present (Tanggard & Brinkmann, 2017; Valsiner, 2017). González Rey (2016) studied subjectivity to advance Vygotsky’s cultural–historical approach, dialogical processes, emotions and imagination in human social activity. It is in different dialogical scenarios, where dialogue generates a fluid process and unexpected positions can arise. Through dialogue, people act together and new situations, ideas and subjective senses can appear (González Rey, 2016, 2019). Therefore, dialogue “does not reduce to discourse nor to language; it always involves emotions, which are based on the imaginary character of subjective process” (González Rey, 2019, p.  2). When individuals associate with one another, active creation of new, often transitory and ephemeral dialogue can emerge. In this process, subjective senses and configurations are generated affectively in the process of dialogue (González Rey, 2017). Emotions attain a symbolic character beyond the control and intention of individuals and groups (González Rey, 2019). In line with González Rey’s work, Subero (2020) suggests researchers focus on “the understanding of subjective process as symbolic-emotional units is expressed so that the symbolic operation is a generator of emotion, in a process in which imagination, feeling and fantasy are inseparable

134

8  Affective Pedagogies for Infant-Toddlers’ Education and Care

from intellectual realisation, appearing as the same subjectively configured process” (p. 82). In our study, we look at the educators’ emotions and imagination in dynamic subjective configurations that occur in individuals, groups and institutions to create their own imagined worlds. Within this new theoretical perspective, subjectivity has both generative and imaginative forms (González Rey, 2019). Subjectivity focuses on the notion that “individuals are actively engaged through multiple and simultaneous networks of communication” (González Rey, 2019, p. 14). This is where subjective productions and configurations emerge in affective dialogue. This also reminds us that Adams and Fleer’s (2017) argument on the psychological process of subjective configuration highlights the importance of focusing on “concrete situations” (p. 356). In the Collaborative forums, educators shared their subjective sense; their emotions embedded in the everyday work with infant-toddlers. We see this process as part of educators’ subjective configurations. As individuals engage in daily communication and activities, their subjective senses and configurations become self-generative, existing together through specific experiences (González Rey, 2017). This leads us to study the configuration of the symbolic process within the social contexts e.g. educators’ collaborative dialogue in this case (Fleer, 2020). The self-generative character of subjective configurations results in dynamic emotions (González Rey, 2019). Through the collaborative drawing and dialogue at the forum, we captured educators’ subjectivities in a collective way. Subjective configurations embodied through actions, emotions and feelings, are subjectively configured in life experiences (González Rey, 2019). Active mutual dialogue forms part of the individual’s affective engagement with diverse, culturally varied systems of communication and networks of social relations (Ridgway, Quiñones, & Li, 2020). The affective dialogues presented in this chapter offer paths to educators’ affective pedagogies. We begin our analysis by discussing the educators’ emotions and imagination made visible in their mutual dialogues.

8.3  Educators’ Creative Futures In the Collaborative forums, we gathered visual and textual data. Collaborative drawing with the six educators generated ideas about pedagogy (see Quiñones et al., 2018). In the final Collaborative forum, paired interviews were planned, in which the paired educators freely expressed their personal, relational, practical, emotional and philosophical moments, which deepened possibilities for critical and reflective analysis. For this chapter, the rich data selected, represent the educators’ individual, paired and collective participation as they generated ideas about affective pedagogical practices. In particular, Site 2 educators Jo and Peta revealed their continued use of collaborative drawing, discussed earlier in their paired interview. Peta and Jo chose to make visible the active, generative and creative character of the educator’s future

8.3  Educators’ Creative Futures

135

in infant-toddler education and care. The paired dialogues from the educators revealed a growing awareness of the emotions and emotional demands placed on them. The following section presents the educators’ paired dialogues as they imagined future affective pedagogies.

8.3.1  Educators’ Imagined Affective Pedagogies Peta and Jo’s paired interview revealed metaphoric engagement with making a drawing together. Their poetic dialogue, interwoven with shared intentions and deliberate action, was expressed in the use of symbolic representations (such as clouds, rain and a rainbow). They used material and non-human terms (e.g., birds, rainbows, a pot of gold, colour, action, tears and rain) to express the powerful presence of strong emotional elements in their affective pedagogical practices. We observed their unity of purpose. In the paired interview, when Peta and Jo were asked about their interpretation of the collaborative drawing, they would finish each other’s sentences and described their poem as a verse, composed through poetic and expressive dialogue. The mutual dialogue presented here as a poem, reflects the way Peta and Jo discussed their drawing. The drawing is presented in Fig. 8.1, while their emotional and imaginative expressions are highlighted (italics) in the poem.

Fig. 8.1  Peta and Jo’s drawing of emotions and imagination

136

8  Affective Pedagogies for Infant-Toddlers’ Education and Care

The waves, the sand, the beach, the feel rain, clouds, some days are a bit sad they are grey and the rain, the tears. Some days, you just want to cry, which waters the flowers again. There is always good that comes out of something. You know your day can be really tumbled and everything, but it comes out. Birds are free, with the children out, you can just be free. They can grow and be free to be … who they are and what they would like to be. Peace, joy and beautiful rainbow, at the end of the rainbow, there is always a pot of gold. We notice the smaller things, the little things that if you are caught up and busy with the day. Now I just look at what, oh, that is a little moment, just have that time. Oh, realise it is a moment! What is the pot of gold? It is a smile from a child, it is our hug, and it is the twinkle. It is from your everyday, there’s out of all this craziness, all the swirl and the blues and the greys and, but, at the end of every day, there’s always a pot of gold at the bottom of the rainbow, and that’s the children. There is always one thing; you can always get that smile, that hug, regardless of all the craziness of the day, and the tears.

Reading this poem and viewing their collaborative drawing (Fig. 8.1) illustrate how Peta and Jo’s emotions and imagination were central thoughts for their present, past and future work. This temporal thinking is an important aspect of adults’ imagination (Valsiner, 2017; Zittoun & Sato, 2017). In this case, from the poem, the temporal aspects are “everyday, smaller things, little moments, the little things that if you are caught up and busy with the day”. Their created dialogue in the poem directs attention to Jo and Peta’s subjective processes and affective productions that emerged in their mutual dialogue while drawing together. Subjective configurations embodied through actions, emotions and feelings are subjectively configured in life experiences (González Rey, 2019). Jo and Peta’s experiences were subjectively configured and embodied in their emotions, (e.g. crying), in the poetic dialogue. The drawing illustrates the emotion of sadness as illustrated in colours, blue, grey, the water and the tears—all in conjunction with the craziest and busiest times of the day, represented in swirls and blues. Their everyday feelings involved a constellation of emotions, such as peace and joy, represented in the rainbow and pot of gold. Such joy also involved noticing small moments of exchange in the day when they gave hugs and smiles. The symbolic elements subjectively configured in mutual dialogue, were expressed and embodied through the educators’ emotions and feelings (González Rey, 2019). Affective pedagogies involved moments of joy, peace and happiness, as expressed by Peta and Jo. The imagined future, the “not yet” (Valsiner, 2017, p. 57), has ties with the past and present. As infant-toddler educators, Peta and Jo generated a dynamic picture of their affective work, where the importance of noticing the future in the small, everyday joyful moments was evident. During those moments, they realised that, even though the day was ‘busy’, ‘crazy’ or ‘tumbled’, in the end (indicating the future), they believed that the infant-toddlers needed to be ‘free’. Peta and Jo imagined a new alternative for their future work (Zittoun & Sato, 2017). They subjectively

8.3  Educators’ Creative Futures

137

configured and explicitly discussed their shared personal emotions, and future oriented their affective pedagogical work through the hope of infant-toddler freedom. At the heart of these dialogues and symbolic representations were the affective relationships that educators have with infant-toddlers. Peta and Jo recognised the emotional work involved in relating affectively to infant-toddlers. Their affective pedagogies involved embodied actions and emotions configured in present, past, and future relationships. Collaborative drawing involved the use of a creative methodological tool that helped the educators become aware of their feelings (italics below) and, in turn, provided the opportunity to reflect on practice, as undertaken by educator Jo: Everyone puts in how they are feeling in their drawing, like how we did, and then we can reflect on that, saying, ‘well, how come this happened? My goodness, why did I feel that way?’. Then, in-group conversations, well, how can we make it work better or, you know, whatever reason?

Jo’s affective relationship with colleague Peta was seen in the way she finished sentences for her. Together, they generated a new future-oriented idea for their workplace. Peta: And then say to other educators, ‘look, this can be something you can actually do for yourself without even realising you are doing it’, and reflecting on how you’re feeling, what’s happening around you, and what’s going on in the environment—just doing these drawings. Jo: That is what we initially thought afterwards—we thought what a great way of reflecting.

As the dialogue continued, Jo and Peta first perceived collaborative drawing as a tool for reflection, then Peta added as a way to express your feelings, ‘reflecting on how you’re feeling, what’s happening around you’. Emotions are beyond the control of individuals and groups (González Rey, 2019). Therefore, when reflecting on affective pedagogies, the appearance of subjective senses as feelings and emotions was evident. The imagined future—the ‘not yet’ of infant-toddler affective pedagogies involves awareness of educators’ emotions and feelings. Educators’ emotions are always present, yet not always conscious. In the next section, we continue to show educators awareness of emotions. For example, the educators at Site 1 (Jane and Sophie) and Site 3 (Anne and Roma) discussed the feeling of uncertainty. These discussions helped them realise that emotions are part of their affective pedagogies.

8.3.2  Educators’ Awareness of Uncertainty Emotions are incoherent and imagined, and, in the process of mutual dialogue, the paired educators began to unravel their feelings. The future orientation of their practices was recognised as uncertain. For educator Jane (Site 1), this uncertainty was expressed as not knowing how her day would unfold:

138

8  Affective Pedagogies for Infant-Toddlers’ Education and Care

I know my—I go to work and I think, ‘okay, I’ve got child A, B, C, D. How’s this day going to work?’ It is not going to be a good day—oh, no, I cannot really tell, or I cannot even go, ‘it is going to be a good day!’ It will be what it will be and … when things do not happen to plan and if you somewhat just let it go, you are not fixating on it. Therefore, if you do fixate on it, the time goes a lot faster, but only if you do not fixate on it and you are not as stressed.

In this excerpt, Jane explained the unpredictability of everyday work and the unexpected emotion of letting go and not fixating. Jane’s emotional process involved acknowledging that, even when planning a day, the approaching future, the “not yet” (Valsiner, 2017, p. 57) can still be uncertain. In contrast to Jane, Sophie’s (Site 1) approach was to be certain about the present. She related to fixing problems and began to question her perception of the problem. However, through the process of collaborative dialogue, Sophie became more uncertain. She became spontaneous and thought more about celebrating what the children [infant-toddlers] could accomplish, rather than the outcomes of an activity: So when faced with a problem, we would be like, okay, what can I do? What is it that I need to do to fix this problem? Whereas now we sort of see a situation and go, okay, is it actually a problem or is it just how we perceive it? Is it something that—because now it is more about the experiences that the children are having than the outcome or the routine. It is, okay, so I can see that this child is actually doing this and then, through talking, we can come up with solutions. Or it is like, hey, this is cool what the child is doing now? It may have nothing to do with the experiences that we set up, but it’s, yeah, it is that collaborative reflection. I think we are, sort of, we are celebrating more what the children are accomplishing, I feel, rather than what we are being able to help the children to accomplish.

Sophie subjectively configured her actions, emotions and feelings (González Rey, 2019) in relation to complex situations where she could not control establishment of the experience. As with Peta and Jo (Site 2) educators, Sophie recognised the need to acknowledge the infant-toddlers’ freedom and accomplishments, as evident in the dialogues created in the paired interviews. Dialogues involve not only discourses or language used, but also emotions and dynamic, imagined worlds (González Rey, 2017). Educator Roma’s (Site 3) statements in her paired interview resonated with Sophie’s previous statement: I do not worry about the outcomes, as we discussed today—I enjoy the process. Even with my children, I just—I do not expect anything from them, but I see how they’re working hard, so that’s the—they’re learning, so I’m … learning from them too.

As with Sophie, Roma explained how she had begun focusing on the children’s learning, rather than the expected outcomes. Sophie and Roma’s newly focused situations were configured to listen more carefully to infant-toddlers. These affective pedagogies involved embracing uncertainty and learning about the infant-­ toddlers’ experiences. We concur with Rutanen and Hännikäinen (2017) that it is important for educators to reflect on their day-to-day practices because this provides a picture of the complexity of infant-toddler educators’ work. The paired dialogues and three Collaborative forums held over a period of 6 months generated educators’ affective

8.3  Educators’ Creative Futures

139

knowledge. The paired interviews (mutual dialogue) became a space for generation of ideas about everyday affective work. The educators’ affective pedagogies embraced a multiplicity of emotional actions and thoughts, with feelings of uncertainty indicating the educators’ affective awareness of the infant-toddlers in their care.

8.3.3  Educators’ Awareness of Stress The concept of activity settings involves social situations that include practice traditions in different institutions (LDC). Institutions place demands and motives on infant-toddler educators to meet specific practice traditions. One such practice tradition in infant-toddler education is the nappy change and mealtimes, as discussed by Jane. Jane commented about the nature of these activity settings being important aspects of working with infant-toddlers: It should be about the children and not us. If that means we’re a little bit more stressed or—generally it doesn’t though—but if we are a little bit more worried about something or stressed about something not going right, you look back on the children and go, well, no, they’re okay, they’re happy, they’re achieving or they’re settling or what they’re learning, that’s okay. I can put that pressure back on me because I am older, I am—I can deal with it. They cannot—not that they cannot, but it is not their place to worry about being hungry or being stressed about having to have their nappy changed.

Jane’s awareness of emotions reflected idealism for the infant-toddlers’ happiness in stressful situations. Jane discussed the subjective sense of being competent in dealing with emotions when she stated ‘more worried about something or stressed about something … I can put that pressure back … not their [infant-toddlers’] place to worry’. In this subjective configuration, Jane affirmed her affective pedagogy by placing infant-toddlers at the centre of her thinking: ‘it should be about the children and not us’. She demonstrated affective pedagogies of care (Goouch & Powell, 2017) through her awareness of the infant-toddlers’ emotions, such as happiness: ‘they’re happy’. These subjective emotions (e.g., stress, worry, happiness) are embodied in the act of caring and in social situations in which infant-toddlers feel hungry or require a nappy change. Further, Sophie and Anne explained their subjective emotions when managing routines. In their mutual dialogues, emotions appeared to become part of their affective knowledge. Sophie (Site 1): Sometimes you are caught in the routine base, but it has to be a conscious thing. Sometime you are not aware [routines], a lot of it is being conscious of talking back to yourself. You then go back to this state of mind of trying not to stress about things, looking deeply. You do have moments where you have added pressure and they are just like, ah! Then, you do—you can go back to that place, to the positive, the more reflective place. Anne (Site 3): It provides me with the ability to look [at] things from different perspectives and it is very helpful for me to reflect, if someone else does this activity, what else can we add, how can we handle some issues and from different, trying different ways? …

140

8  Affective Pedagogies for Infant-Toddlers’ Education and Care Listening [to] other opinions is quite helpful because we—usually, if we only work by ourselves, it is very hard to improve our pedagogical practice. You can hear different opinions, and it really helps, as it pushes you to improve yourself as well.

Imagination provides new alternatives to improve future lives (Zittoun & Sato, 2017). Sophie and Anne oriented their actions and emotions towards being in a reflective space by listening to others. Emotions have a symbolic character beyond the control and intention of individuals (González Rey, 2017). The dialogues encompassed awareness of stress that became part of the educators’ affective knowledge of infant-toddler education and care. Sophie and Roma’s emotions and the demands of stress were constantly changing according to their social situations. Demands created extra pressures, as Sophie explained; however, through trying to be aware of these pressures, Sophie returned to a reflective place to look more deeply. Anne commented that viewing practices from different perspectives and opinions, such as those exchanged in the Collaborative forums, helped her reflect on possible issues or added pressures, such as those mentioned by Jane.

8.4  Educators’ Affect and Social Situation of Development Vygotsky (1993) searched in his cultural-historical theory for a dynamic system of intellect and affect (see Chap. 1). In this final chapter, we emphasise affect and emotions as part of the everyday work of educators. Emotions are part of educator’s collaborative reflections and Peta and Jill, through the provision of a space were able to imagine emotions poetically. Embodied emotions like sadness, craziness, busyness, stress and uncertainty are all encompassing elements of affective pedagogies. Collaborative forum created the demands for educators to collectively think about their specialised pedagogy with other infant-toddlers’ educators. Each educator was motivated to develop their professional development in relation to their affective pedagogy. This dynamic relationship has resulted in new qualitative changes in their professional development as shown in their collective reflections. In order to generate affective pedagogies, a special form of professional development is needed to raise awareness of the specialized nature of infant-toddler education and care. The Collaborative forum, a special form of professional development, provided a space for generation and awareness of educators’ emotions that were transformed through understanding their social situations of development. The provision of an affective space, allowed educators explore their emotions through listening to others.

8.5  Expanding Educators’ Affective Pedagogies

141

8.5  Expanding Educators’ Affective Pedagogies Singer (2017) argued that we must respect educators’ expertise to bring new insights to infant-toddler education and care. In undertaking this task respectfully, Edwards’ (2012) concept of relational expertise helped us think further about the affective work of infant-toddler educators. Placing a diverse group of educators in mutual dialogue created opportunities to grow relational expertise. This involved aligning the educators’ motives of what mattered to them and was revealed as their common knowledge unfolded (Edwards, 2012). Common knowledge involves participants’ engagement with pedagogical knowledge (Rai, 2019). In this book, we have aligned educators’ common knowledge and found that affective pedagogies involved unravelling infant-toddler educator’s knowledge. Collaborative forums provided the space for active self-reflection (generation) with a group of six educators. As shown throughout the chapters, the educators’ mutual dialogues enabled expansion of their knowledge of affective pedagogical practices. Educators’ recognition of relational expertise and common knowledge required expansive paths for affective pedagogies that were not always visible to educators. In the Collaborative forums, the researchers worked together with the educators to create the common knowledge that expanded educators’ understandings of relational expertise and affective pedagogies. These expansive paths included awareness of emotions (e.g., stress, uncertainty, and happiness), imagining futures and common knowledge to generate affective pedagogies (Fig. 8.2). The paths of awareness of emotions and imagining futures, discussed earlier in this chapter, related to the educators’ awareness of their emotions. This awareness

Fig. 8.2  Paths for generation and expansion of affective pedagogies

142

8  Affective Pedagogies for Infant-Toddlers’ Education and Care

was made possible through mutual dialogues, in which the educators configured their emotions, feelings and actions. In relation to imagining futures, the educators had the possibility to imagine their feelings in the current demands of their everyday work. Reflection on affective pedagogies also involved imagining the ‘not yet’—the uncertainty of what they had planned for the infant-toddlers. The educators’ affective pedagogies demanded that they ‘let go’ of their emotions to focus on everyday work. Imagining futures included realising the importance of celebrating the infant-toddlers’ accomplishments and appreciating their efforts and interests. The educators’ validation of shared emotions helped their imagination of the past, present and future. The Collaborative forum provided a space for revealing common knowledge (see Chaps. 6 and 7). The paths of creating the common knowledge included aligning the educators’ affective pedagogies. For example, discussion on the affective pedagogical practice of ‘sitting down’ revealed the physical and affective closeness needed when being with infant-toddlers and affective and effective pedagogical practices (see Chap. 7) and closeness (see Chap. 6). The model in Fig. 8.2 provides scholarly theorisation of infant-toddler education and care, and includes the diverse voices of educators. We emphasize in the model that affective pedagogy involves infant-toddler educators in the dynamic process of continuation, expansion and acknowledgement of their professional work. Dalli (2017) suggested implications for policy should include recognition of the assorted complexities that orchestrate infant-toddler educators’ pedagogical work. As a group of professionals, infant-toddler educators require institutionally supportive infrastructure for bringing critical reflection into their pedagogical practices. Supportive workplace infrastructure begins with provision of an affective meeting space for educators to generate dialogues around pedagogical practice. Affective discussion is possible when imagination about what matters for infant-toddler educators in all cultures, forms the basis of enquiry.

8.6  Conclusion We began this book by quoting Recchia and Fincham (2019) who suggested that educators are well positioned to inform new theories and create new understandings of the infant-toddler field. Throughout this book, our aim was to advance affective infant-toddler pedagogy through careful selection of empirical examples that reflect new understandings. As shown throughout the book’s chapters, affective pedagogies can be many things: intimate, personal, warm, trustful, compassionate, emotional and reciprocal. We believe that in using affective pedagogies, each educator develops an affective relationship with infant-toddlers. Taking a wholeness approach enabled us to study long day care centre educators’ perspectives of their institutional practices in traditional activity settings. We found these activity settings shaped educators’ pedagogy.

References

143

This book is offered as a provocation for educators, researchers and policymakers. We present a fresh stance for educators of infant-toddlers to consider, and orient our agendas toward inclusion of affective pedagogies because specialized professional pedagogies matter for quality relationships. In our advocacy for affective education and care for infant-toddlers, we are re-thinking the varied and dynamic forms of professional pedagogies.

References Adams, A., & Fleer, M. (2017). International transitions: Generating subjective sense and subjective configuration in relation to the development of identity. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 24(4), 353–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2017.1346686 Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2014). Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved from: http://www. abs.gov.au/ Chazzan-Coher, R., Vallotton, C., Harewood, T., & Buell, M. (2017). Influences on US higher education programs education infant-toddler workforce. In E. J. White & C. Dalli (Eds.), Under-­ three years olds in policy and practice (pp. 159–176). Singapore: Springer. Dalli, C. (2017). Tensions and challenges in professional practice with under-threes: A New Zealand reflection on early childhood professionalism as a systemic phenomenon. In E. J. White & C.  Dalli (Eds.), Under-three years olds in policy and practice (pp.  115–130). Singapore: Springer. Davis, B., & Dunn, R. (2018). Making the personal visible: Emotion in the nursery. Early Child Development and Care, 188(7), 905–923. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2018.1439487 Edwards, A. (2012). Expertise in the children’s workforce: Knowledge and motivation in engagement with children. In M. Hedegaard, A. Edwards, & M. Fleer (Eds.), Motives in children’s development: Cultural-historical approaches (pp.  173–190). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Fleer, M. (2020). The legacy of González Rey’s concept of subjectivity continues to inform and inspire: A study of imagination in STEM and imagination in play. Studies in Psychology, 41(1), 203–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/02109395.2019.1710986 González Rey, F. (2016). Advancing the topics of social reality, culture, and subjectivity from a cultural–historical standpoint: Moments, paths, and contradictions. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 3, 175–189. González Rey, F. (2017). Advances in subjectivity from a cultural–historical perspective: Unfolding and consequences for cultural studies today. In M.  Fleer, F.  González Rey, & N.  Veresov (Eds.), Perezhivanie, emotions and subjectivity: Advancing Vygotsky’s legacy (pp. 173–194). Singapore: Springer. González Rey, F. (2019). Subjectivity and discourse: Complementary topics for a critical psychology. Culture & Psychology, 25(2), 178–194. Goouch, K., & Powell, S. (2017). Babyroom workers: Care in practice. In E. J. White & C. Dalli (Eds.), Under-three years olds in policy and practice (pp. 141–158). Singapore: Springer. Knight, L., Zollo, L., McArdle, F., Cumming, T., Bone, J., Ridgway, A., et al. (2016). Drawing out critical thinking: Testing the methodological value of drawing collaboratively. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 24(2), 320–337. https://doi.org/10.108 0/1350293X.2016.1143270 Molla, T., & Nolan, A. (2019). Identifying professional functionings of early childhood educators. Professional Development in Education, 45(4), 551–566. https://doi.org/10.1080/1941525 7.2018.1449006

144

8  Affective Pedagogies for Infant-Toddlers’ Education and Care

Quiñones, G., Li, L., & Ridgway, A. (2018). Collaborative forum: An affective space for infant-­ toddler educators’ collective reflections. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 43(3), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.23965/AJEC.43.3.03 Quiñones, G., Ridgway, A., & Li, L. (2019). Collaborative drawing: A creative tool for examination of infant-toddler pedagogical practices. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 44(3), 25–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1836939119855219 Rai, P. C. (2019). Building and using common knowledge as a tool for pedagogic action: A dialectical interactive approach for researching teaching. In A. Edwards, M. Fleer, & L. Bøttcher (Eds.), Cultural-historical approaches to studying learning and development: Societal, institutional and personal perspectives. Singapore: Springer. Recchia, S. L., & Fincham, E. N. (2019). The significance of infant/toddler care and education: A call to unite research, policy and practice. In C. Brown & M. B. McMullen (Eds.), Handbook of early childhood care and education (pp. 197–218). New York: Wiley. Ridgway, A., Quiñones, G., & Li, L. (2020). Visual methodology: Processing relational pedagogy. In J. White (Ed.), Seeing the world through children’s eyes. Visual methodologies and approaches to research in the early years (pp. 176–191). Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill Sense. Rutanen, N., & Hännikäinen, M. (2017). Care, upbringing and teaching in ‘horizontal’ transitions in toddler day-care groups. In E. J. White & C. Dalli (Eds.), Under-three years olds in policy and practice (pp. 57–72). Singapore: Springer. Singer, E. (2017). Emotional security and play engagement of young children in Dutch child centres: A story of explorative research, experiments and educators testing hypotheses. In L. Li, G.  Quiñones, & A.  Ridgway (Eds.), Studying babies and toddlers relationships in cultural contexts (pp. 207–223). Singapore: Springer. Subero, D. (2020). Funds of identity and subjectivity: Finding new paths and alternatives for a productive dialogue. Studies in Psychology, 41(1), 74–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/0210939 5.2019.1710799 Tanggard, L., & Brinkmann, S. (2017). Methodological implications of imagination. In T. Zittoun & V. Glaveanu (Eds.), Handbook of imagination and culture (pp. 88–106). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190468712.003.0003 Valsiner, J. (2017). Roots of creativity. In T. Zittoun & V. Glaveanu (Eds.), Handbook of imagination and culture (pp. 47–60). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/ oso/9780190468712.003.0003 Vandenbroeck, M., & Bauters, V. (2017). Family day care: The trilemma of professionalisation, sustainability and fairness in Flanders, France and Germany. In E. J. White & C. Dalli (Eds.), Under-three years olds in policy and practice (pp. 177–190). Singapore: Springer. Vygotsky, L. S. (1993).The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky: Vol. 2: The fundamentals of defectology. New York, NY: Plenum Publishers. Vygotsky, L.  S. (2004). Imagination and creativity in childhood. Journal of Russian & East European Psychology, 42(1), 7–97. Zittoun, T., & Sato, T. (2017). Imagination in adults and the aging person: Possible futures and actual past. In T. Zittoun & V. Glaveanu (Eds.), Handbook of imagination and culture (pp. 187–208). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190468712.001.0001

Glossary

Affective atmosphere  educators’ creation of a synchronous flow of time and space (physical and social arrangements) for close proximity, close dialogues and relationships between infant-toddlers and educators. Affective dialogues­  educator employing a repertoire of verbal and non-­verbal communication strategies, such as smiling, gesturing and pointing in synchrony with the environment and institutional demands. Affective relationships responsive and affectionate (warm, close and intimate) relationships between educators and infant-toddlers. Affective responsiveness  affective awareness of infant-toddlers, educator encouragement and provision of time and space for the development of their relationship. Activity settings  everyday activities with their own practice traditions. Affective touch  a responsive, embodied and embracing gentle touch between educator and infant. Affective positioning  during play with infant-toddlers enables educators to build reciprocal relationships, extend children’s learning and play development, and create motivating conditions by the use of pedagogical questioning and explorative talk. Double subjectivity  in play allows children to take on a role, with learning occurring through their engagement in play through that role. Closeness a special moment and intimate relationship between an educator and infant. Collaborative forum  an affective space for generation of affective pedagogies and recognition of infant-toddlers’ educator’s work. Collaborative drawing  a creative tool to help a group of educators expand and imagine their professional pedagogical agendas. Gentle push  requires the educator’s affective engagement and playful actions that can support infants’ new motives in play exploration and learning together.

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 G. Quiñones et al., Affective Early Childhood Pedagogy for Infant-Toddlers, Policy and Pedagogy with Under-three Year Olds: Cross-disciplinary Insights and Innovations 3, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73527-2

145

146

Glossary

Infant-toddler’s perspectives  representation of the lively experiences of infanttoddlers. Infant-toddler’s explorations and engagements with educators as they interact in their everyday activity settings. Pedagogical questioning  creates motivating conditions for understanding affective play and learning. Social situation of development  relates to how the child orients him/herself to the world, as they meet demands and participate in different institutional settings. Subjectivity  educators subjectively produced meanings that are actively generated with others. Subjectivity transcends objectivity and emerges through educator’s everyday life and experiences. Subjective senses  relates to educators experiences and how these evoke different emotions with regard to their pedagogical practice. Transitory moments  as different affective moments of action in which peers and educators share a space and negotiate decisions and ideas. Visual narrative  unifies visual data (video and screen capture images) with a storied commentary (dialogue).