Finnish Early Childhood Education and Care: A Multi-theoretical perspective on research and practice (Early Childhood Research and Education: An Inter-theoretical Focus, 1) [1st ed. 2022] 9783030955113, 9783030955120, 3030955117

Citation preview

Early Childhood Research and Education: An Inter-theoretical Focus 1

Heidi Harju-Luukkainen Jonna Kangas Susanne Garvis Editors

Finnish Early Childhood Education and Care A Multi-theoretical perspective on research and practice

Early Childhood Research and Education: An Inter-theoretical Focus Volume 1

Series Editors Joseph Agbenyega, Peninsula Campus, Monash University Peninsula Campus, Frankston, Australia Marie Hammer, Fac of Educ, Peninsula Campus, Monash University Fac of Educ, Peninsula Campus, Frankston, VIC, Australia Nikolai Veresov, Faculty of Education, Monash University Faculty of Education, Frankston, Australia

This series addresses inter-disciplinary critical components in early childhood education such as: Relationships: Movements/Transitions; Community and contexts; Leadership; Ethics are driven by a range of theories. It brings depth and breadth to the application of different theories to these components both in the research and its practical applications in early childhood education. In-depth discussion of theoretical lenses and their application to research and practice provides insights into the complexities and dynamics of Early Childhood education and practice. This series is designed to explore the application of a range of theories to open up and analyse sets of data. Each volume will explore multiple age periods of early childhood and will interrogate common data sets. The notion of theoretical coherence as a methodological principle will underpin the approach across each of the volumes.

Heidi Harju-Luukkainen  •  Jonna Kangas Susanne Garvis Editors

Finnish Early Childhood Education and Care A Multi-theoretical perspective on research and practice

Editors Heidi Harju-Luukkainen University of Jyväskylä Jyväskylä, Finland

Jonna Kangas University of Helsinki Helsinki, Finland

Nord University Bodø, Norway Tampere University Tampere, Finland Susanne Garvis Swinburne University of Technology Melbourne, VIC, Australia

Early Childhood Research and Education: An Inter-theoretical Focus ISBN 978-3-030-95511-3    ISBN 978-3-030-95512-0 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95512-0 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed 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

Contents

1 Introduction to Early Childhood Education System’s Policies and Practices in Finland������������������������������������������������������������    1 Heidi Harju-Luukkainen, Jonna Kangas, and Susanne Garvis Part I Multi-theoretical Teacher Training and Professional Approach 2 A Contemporary Dialogue of Finnish Early Childhood Education and Care – Pedagogical Leadership in Early Childhood Education Teachers’ Work ��������������������������������������������������   13 Johanna Heikka, Katja Suhonen, and Sanni Kahila 3 Critical Compassion in Finnish Early Childhood Educators’ Responses to Challenges of Acting Compassionately ��������������������������   27 Antti Rajala, Anna Pauliina Rainio, Lasse Lipponen, Jaakko Hilppö, and Emma Kurenlahti 4 Widening Text Worlds in Finnish Early Childhood Education ����������   41 Alexandra Nordström, Heidi Sairanen, Jenny Byman, Jenny Renlund, and Sara Sintonen 5 Developing Praxeological Understanding in Teacher Education: A Case of Worldview Education in Finnish ECEC������������������������������   55 Saila Poulter, Arniika Kuusisto, and Silja Lamminmäki-Vartia 6 Media Education in Finnish Early Childhood Teacher Education: A Curricular Analysis������������������������������������������������������������������������������   69 Saara Salomaa and Pekka Mertala 7 ‘Too Little Attention Is Paid to Children Who Require Specialised Support.’: In-Service and Pre-service Teachers’ Views on Policy and Practice in Early Childhood Teacher Education in Finland ������������������������������������������������������������������������������   85 Mari Saha and Henri Pesonen

v

vi

Contents

Part II Children and Families in ECEC 8 Teachers’ Understanding of Children’s Right to Participation in Finnish Early Childhood Education and Care ��������������������������������  101 Marina Lundkvist 9 Promoting Participatory Learning and Creative Thinking in Finnish ECEC – A Review of Five Arts Pedagogical Case Studies����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  115 Inkeri Ruokonen 10 North Sámi Language Nests in Northern Finland: A Case Study of Sámi Early Childhood Education and Care ������������  133 Rauni Äärelä-Vihriälä and Tuija Turunen 11 My Story, Your Story, Our Story: Reciprocal Listening and Participation Through Storycrafting in Early Childhood Education and Care��������������������������������������������������������������  147 Anna-Leena Lastikka and Liisa Karlsson 12 Observed Reading Sessions Between 08:00–16:00 Hours in Finnish Early Childhood Education��������������������������������������������������  165 Jyrki Reunamo 13 Early Skills as Predictors for Later Educational Outcome in Mathematics and Science in Finland and Sweden – A Further Analysis on TIMSS 2015 Data����������������������  181 Heidi Harju-Luukkainen, Kari Nissinen, and Jouni Vettenranta Part III Towards Finnish Pedagogy 14 Creating a Theoretical Framework for Playful Learning and Pedagogy – The Finnish Perspective����������������������������������������������  195 Jonna Kangas and Heidi Harju-Luukkainen 15 Practices of Planning as a Reflection of Teaching and Learning Concepts in ECEC: The Cases of Finland and Slovenia����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  209 Sonja Rutar, Tuulikki Ukkonen-Mikkola, Tina Štemberger, and Sonja Čotar Konrad 16 Leadership in the Changing Context of Finnish Early Childhood Education ������������������������������������������������������������������������������  227 Eeva Hujala and Kirsi Alila

Contents

vii

17 A Quilt of Practices: Sustainability Education in Finnish Early Childhood and Care����������������������������������������������������������������������  241 Ann-Christin Furu 18 Elements of the Pedagogical Process in Finnish Early Childhood Education��������������������������������������������������������������������  257 Kirsi Alila, Tuulikki Ukkonen-Mikkola, and Jonna Kangas 19 Conclusion and Orientation to the Future��������������������������������������������  275 Jonna Kangas, Heidi Harju-Luukkainen, and Susanne Garvis

About the Contributors

Rauni Äärelä-Vihriälä is an associate professor at Sámi Allaskuvla, Norway. She completed her doctoral dissertation in a unique study of Sámi language nest activities in 2016 from the University of Lapland. Professor Äärelä-Vihriälä’s work at Sámi Allaskuvla focuses on the Sámi teacher education and the Sámi educational field of research. Her research focuses on Sámi language immersion.  

Kirsi Alila holds a PhD in education. She is working as a senior ministerial adviser in educational affairs in the Ministry of Education and Culture in Finland. As working in the Ministry, she is responsible for the strategic and developmental tasks on early childhood education care in national and international level of work. Her research focus is on mainly on quality, steering system, legislation, training, pedagogy, and leadership in ECEC.  

Jenny Byman is a future PhD student in the school, education, society, and culture doctoral program at the University of Helsinki. Jenny’s current research project is digital mediation of children’s interactions with the more-than-human world, funded by ARC.  Her research interests include children’s emotional relationships with nature, interaction, and multiliteracies.  

Ann-Christin  Furu is currently affiliated with the Åbo Akademi University in Finland as researcher of sustainability matters in early childhood education and care. Her research is directed towards sustainability education, with a special focus on how resilience can be supported through relational perspectives in teacher education. She adopts collaborative, narrative, and arts-based approaches to professional development and research within the field of sustainability education in early childhood. Furu is a member of national as well as international research groups and networks on sustainability in early childhood, and she is one of the convenors of the EECERA SIG for sustainability in early childhood education.  

Susanne  Garvis is Professor of Education and the chair of the Department of Education at Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne. She has worked in  

ix

x

About the Contributors

Sweden as well as Australia within early childhood education. Her research in early childhood policy and quality is world leading and has informed numerous policy initiatives and professional learning practices with early childhood teachers and young children. Heidi  Harju-Luukkainen Professor (Univeristy of Jyväskylä, Tampere University, Finland, and Nord university, Norway), holds a PhD in education, special education teacher qualification, and a qualification in leadership and management from Finland. She has published more than 200 international books, journal articles, and reports as well as worked in more than 30 projects globally. Harju-­ Luukkainen has worked at top-ranked universities in the USA, such as UCLA and USC, as well as in many Nordic research universities. She has developed education programs for universities, been a PI of PISA sub-assessments in Finland, and functioned as board professional. Her research areas are early childhood education, justice in education, special education, and international student assessment.  

Johanna  Heikka PhD, works as a university lecturer in the School of Applied Educational Science and Teacher Education at the University of Eastern Finland. Her research interests focus on leadership, quality, and pedagogical development in early childhood education. She is a leader and/or member of leadership research groups and development projects in Finland and abroad.  

Jaakko Hilppö is a university lecturer in the Faculty of Educational Sciences at the University of Helsinki. His research focuses on children’s projects as manifestations of their agency and the learning taking place within them. Hilppö is a lazy high baritone and has tossed a dwarf.  

Eeva  Hujala is Professor Emeritus of Early Childhood Education. She has been working as a professor at many universities in Finland and abroad as well as in university administration, for example, as dean of the Faculty of Education. Her research areas include leadership and teachers’ professionalism in ECEC as well as quality evaluation. Recently, her research orientation has been in cross-cultural comparisons. She is the founder of “International Leadership Research Forum” and the Journal of Early Childhood Education Research.  

Sanni  Kahila is a doctoral candidate and a project researcher in the School of Applied Educational Science and Teacher Education at the University of Eastern Finland. Her research interests include teacher leadership and multi-professional teamwork in early childhood education. She is interested in the professional learning of teacher students.  

Jonna Kangas is an adjunct professor and has a PhD in education. She holds positions of university lecturer and joint research member in the Playful Learning Center, Faculty of Education Science, University of Helsinki. Her research focus is on play-based pedagogy. She seeks to understand children’s learning processes  

About the Contributors

xi

through joy and participation, and she uses her findings for designing innovative teacher training and mentoring programs in Finland and developing countries. She is a director of blended teacher training program at the University of Helsinki. https://researchportal.helsinki.fi/en/persons/jonna-­kangas. Liisa Karlsson (PhD), Adjunct Professor, University of Helsinki, has been Professor at the University of Eastern Finland. Her research interests focus on educational sciences, educational psychology, childhood studies, early childhood education, studies of child perspectives, well-being, participation, reciprocity, empowerment, child culture, interculturality, learning, pedagogy, study enjoyment, interaction, methodologies (e.g. storycrafting method). She is a Member of the Board of Nordic Child Cultural Research Network and Finnish Society for Childhood Studies.  

Sonja Čotar Konrad PhD, is Associate Professor in Psychology in the Faculty of Education at the University of Primorska. Her research interest is in educational and developmental psychology. Her research work covers the topic of socio-emotional development of preschool children, supporting professional development of preschool teachers, and cooperation between kindergarten and parents. She is also interested in questions of teacher competence, teacher educators, and relations between students and teachers at university level.  

Emma Kurenlahti is a doctoral student in the Faculty of Educational Sciences at the University of Helsinki. Her research focuses on the construction of evil in educational context amidst the age of sustainability crises. She is also the chair of the board of The Foundation of Environmental Education FEE Finland.  

Arniika  Kuusisto is Professor of Child and Youth Studies, especially Early Childhood Education and Care, at Stockholm University, Sweden. She is also a research director for an Academy of Finland–funded (2018–2022) project, “Growing up radical? The role of educational institutions in guiding young people’s worldview construction,” in the Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Helsinki (https://www.helsinki.fi/en/researchgroups/growing-­up-­radical/people), as well as honorary research fellow in the Department of Education, University of Oxford, UK. Her research interests include children and youths’ value learning trajectories and personal ontologies, their negotiations on values and memberships across social contexts, and the teaching and learning related to values, religions, and worldviews in different formal and informal settings.  

Silja Lamminmäki-Vartia (Master of Theology, Bachelor of Education, Early Childhood Education Teacher) is working as a project planner at the University of Helsinki in the project of Creating Spaces for Diversity of Worldviews in Early Childhood Education (https://blogs.helsinki.fi/monikatsomukselliset-­tilat-­ varhaiskasvatuksessa/). She is a student in the doctoral program of the School, Education, Society and Culture. Her study examines the topical question of implementation of worldview education in Finnish early childhood education and care.  

xii

About the Contributors

Anna-Leena Lastikka is a licentiate in education from the University of Helsinki in the field of early childhood education and care. Anna-Leena is particularly interested in researching and developing the participation and inclusion of children and families of diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds, as well as the methods supporting the participation and dialogical learning in early years pedagogy.  

Lasse Lipponen is Professor of Education, with special reference to early childhood education, in the Faculty of Educational Sciences at the University of Helsinki. His research work is directed to emotions and emotional practices in ECE from sociocultural perspective.  

Marina Lundkvist holds a PhD in education, a teacher qualification, and qualification in leadership from Finland. She works as a university lecturer at the University of Helsinki, Finland. She has a solid and extensive experience and knowledge of ECEC in Finland, partly through development and research work within the university world and partly in close connection with pedagogical activities in ECEC.  

Pekka Mertala is Assistant Professor of Multiliteracies and Digital Literacies in the Faculty of Education and Psychology at the University of Jyväskylä. His research focuses mainly on young children’s and early years teachers’ relationships with digital technologies.  

Kari Nissinen PhD in statistics, is a senior researcher at the Finnish Institute for Educational Research, University of Jyväskylä. He has a long experience in statistical analyses of large-scale assessment data, and his expertise areas are linear and generalized linear models, multilevel and mixed models, multivariate statistics, and survey methodology.  

Alexandra Nordström is a PhD student in the school, education, society, and culture doctoral program at the University of Helsinki. She is a member of the Playful Learning Center in the Faculty of Educational Sciences. Her research interests include young children’s emotion and affect, interaction, and educational theory.  

Henri Pesonen is a researcher in the Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Helsinki, Finland. Dr. Pesonen’s research interests include sense of belonging, special educational needs in higher education, and transitions, with a particular focus on students with autism spectrum disorder.  

Saila Poulter (PhD, Adjunct Professor) works as a university lecturer in religious education in the Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Helsinki. Her research interest concerns religious and worldview education, secularism, and intercultural and citizenship education. Currently, she is doing research on values and worldviews in early childhood education, and she is PI in the project Creating Spaces for Diversity of Worldviews in Early Childhood Education (https://blogs. helsinki.fi/monikatsomukselliset-­tilat-­varhaiskasvatuksessa/).  

About the Contributors

xiii

Anna Pauliina Rainio is a senior lecturer at the Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Helsinki, Finland. Her long-term ethnographic and intervention research focuses on developing adult-child joint play, engagement, and agency in early childhood education settings. She is currently a vice chair of the Finnish Society for Childhood Studies.  

Antti  Rajala is Academy of Finland postdoctoral researcher in the Faculty of Education, University of Oulu. He is also affiliated to the University of Helsinki. He has done many years of research on cultures of compassion in early childhood education and care settings.  

Jenny Renlund is a PhD student in the school, education, society, and culture doctoral program at the University of Helsinki. Her research interests include multiliteracies, children’s aesthetic experiences, and arts-based methods. Jenny’s current project is digital mediation of children’s interactions with the more than human world, funded by ARC.  

Jyrki Reunamo PhD, is a principal investigator, docent, and university lecturer at the University of Helsinki, Finland. He is the founder of early education research and development project Progressive Feedback (https://blogs.helsinki.fi/orientate/), which focuses on research-based quality improvement. Reunamo’s research interests include evaluation, research methods, comparative research, and learning environment.  

Inkeri Ruokonen Professor of Early Childhood Education, works as a vice dean in Faculty of Education, University of Turku. Her main research interests are early childhood arts education, creative learning environments, and teacher education. She has published over 160 scientific articles and edited several scientific publications.  

Sonja Rutar PhD, is an associate professor at the University of Primorska, Faculty of Eduaction. Her teaching and research work is dedicated to ensuring access, equal opportunity, and quality in education from ECEC to higher education. She focuses on children’s participation in education, inclusion, and social cohesion. She participates in numerous national and international projects aimed to provide a supportive learning environment to increase academic achievement of children from deprived socio-economic environments, with emphasis on development of pre-literacy skills and early literacy as well as creation of a bilingual learning environment.  

Mari Saha is Assistant Professor of Early Childhood Education in the Faculty of Education and Culture at Tampere University. Her main research interests are diverse needs, children’s stress regulation and well-being, as well as early childhood professionals’ occupational well-being in kindergarten settings.  

xiv

About the Contributors

Heidi Sairanen is a university teacher and a researcher at the University of Helsinki, Faculty of Educational Sciences. She serves on the advisory board of Playful Learning Center and is a member of DigiChild  – Nordic Research Network on Digitalizing Childhoods. Her research interests include early years pedagogy, multiliteracies including digital literacies, and agency.  

Saara Salomaa works as a senior advisor and media education team leader in the Finnish National Audiovisual Institute, a governmental agency legally obligated for promoting media education in Finland. She is also conducting her PhD research at Tampere University, focusing on media education in the context of early childhood education. Salomaa’s other research interests include media literacy policies and children’s relations with digital media.  

Sara Sintonen works at the University of Helsinki, Faculty of Education Sciences, as a senior lecturer. She holds positions of adjunct professor on media education (University of Helsinki) and on children’s digital cultures (University of Turku). Publications and other research activities can be found on: https://researchportal. helsinki.fi/en/persons/sara-­sintonen.  

Tina Štemberger PhD, is an associate professor in the field of educational research methodology in the Faculty of Education at the University of Primorska. Her main research interests are predominantly trends in current research methodology challenges, doing research by actively involving children, and linking research with educational practice. Her research work also covers such topics as inclusive education, teacher competence, teacher development, teacher educators, ICT in education, and entrepreneurial competences.  

Katja  Suhonen MEd, works as a project researcher at the University of Eastern Finland. Her research interests in this topic focus on leadership and quality in ECE. In addition, her work and interests focus on children’s socioemotional skills and ECE staff’s pedagogical group sensitivity.  

Tuija Turunen holds is dean of the Faculty of Education, University of Lapland, Finland. She is a leader of the teacher education program. She also leads UArctic Thematic Network on Teacher Education for Social Justice and Diversity and UNESCO/UNITWIN Network on Teacher Education for Social Justice and Diversity. Professor Turunen is an internationally recognized expert, has published widely, and leads several national and international projects. Her current research interests focus on teacher education, professional development in higher education, educational transitions, indigenous pedagogies, and preventive school welfare work.  

Tuulikki Ukkonen-Mikkola works as a lecturer in the Faculty of Education and Psychology, Department of Education, University of Jyväskylä. She holds a Doctor of Education degree (with majors in early childhood education and care) and the  

About the Contributors

xv

qualifications of pre-school and ECEC teacher professions. Her research interests are the pedagogy of ECEC, ECEC teachers’ pedagogical expertise, cooperation and development work with the working life, academic teacher training, and professional agency. Jouni Vettenranta DSc, is a senior researcher at the Finnish Institute for Educational Research, University of Jyväskylä. He has a long experience in statistical modeling, and his expertise areas are simulation and optimization models, decision-making models, and analyses of large-scale assessment data.  

Chapter 1

Introduction to Early Childhood Education System’s Policies and Practices in Finland Heidi Harju-Luukkainen, Jonna Kangas

, and Susanne Garvis

Abstract  The political and social attention on Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) has increased over the past decade, with many countries undertaking educational reforms that are still ongoing. In Finland ECEC is seen as an investment into the future. The ECEC system of the country is one of the most equal in the world and understood through its holistic and multi-theoretical foundation combining education and care through EduCare approach. ECEC in Finland is a unique combination of international influences and local intents to put each child and family into the centre of the services. In this chapter we will give our readers an overall understanding of the Finnish policies as well as practices of the early childhood education system. After that we will move on in describing the content of this book closer.

1.1  Introduction The political and social attention on Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) has increased over the past decade, with many countries undertaking educational reforms that are still ongoing (see closer Garvis et al., 2018). Children’s access to preschool provision has been broadened across the world because policymakers have recognised the benefits of good quality early childhood education and care on children’s learning and development (OECD, 2012). However, still after these H. Harju-Luukkainen (*) University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland Nord university, Bodø, Norway Tampere University, Tampere, Finland e-mail: [email protected] J. Kangas University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland S. Garvis Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, VIC, Australia © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 H. Harju-Luukkainen et al. (eds.), Finnish Early Childhood Education and Care, Early Childhood Research and Education: An Inter-theoretical Focus 1, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95512-0_1

1

2

H. Harju-Luukkainen et al.

reforms according to Unicef (2019) only half of all pre-primary-age children around the world are enrolled in preschool, teachers lack good quality training and there is a worldwide shortage of ECEC teachers. Good quality early education including high-level special education support helps with school readiness by ensuring that the transition to school is a seamless experience. This seamless experience exists, only if quality early education and care are implemented by achieving targets around quality goals and regulations of delivering early education and care (OECD, 2015). Governments globally are therefore increasingly recognising that good quality ECEC plays a crucial role in developing their country’s social and economic potential in the future. In Finland ECEC is seen as an investment into the future. The ECEC system of the country is one of the most equal in the world and understood through its holistic and multi-theoretical foundation combining education and care through EduCare approach. ECEC in Finland is a unique combination of international influences and local intents to put each child and family into the centre of the services. The systematic and goal oriented ECEC consists of upbringing, education and care where pedagogy is emphasised in order to produce excellence for the future. ECEC is based on wide selection of scientifical understandings about education through developmental psychology, sociology, democratic theories, sustainable development, inclusion, pedagogy, management, organisational psychology, and wellbeing. National curriculum and laws for early education have gone through significant reforms during the last decade, where the quality, practices and teachers’ competences are defined in order to support children’s future learning skills. The early childhood teacher training lies on a multi-theoretical foundation, where each teacher has to find their own personal theoretical approach to teaching: Teachers organise their everyday interaction, teaching, and care actions based on wide understanding of the development, learning, agency, and wellbeing of children. It is also seen as important that this high-quality education would be available in both private and public sectors. ECEC in Finland is a unique combination of international influences and local intents to put each child and family into the centre of the services. It’s a systematic and goal oriented ECEC consists of upbringing, education and care where pedagogy is emphasised in order to produce excellence for the future. It’s overall planning, guidance and monitoring system is one of a kind. In the next section we will give our readers an overall understanding of the Finnish policies as well as practices of the early childhood education system. After that we will move on in describing the content of our book closer.

1.2  F  innish ECE Is Based on International and National Policy Documents In Finland there are several policy documents steering the ECE provision. At the national level, ECE is a responsibility of the Ministry of Education and Culture and the national expert agency for ECE is the Finnish National Agency of Education.

1  Introduction to Early Childhood Education System’s Policies and Practices in Finland

3

The Ministry of Education designs the acts and the Finnish National Agency of Education develops tools to put them into practice. There are also international, national, and local policy documents governing ECE in Finland. On the international level, the guiding documents come from European Commission (1996), the United Nations (1989, 2006), and the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) (1994). Further, the content of ECE is guided by the national curriculum for ECE (Finnish Agency of Education, 2018) and the national curriculum for preschool education. Further, the law of early childhood education (Finnish law of early childhood education 540/2018) declares the child-­ teacher ratios and a maximum number of children per class (12 toddlers or 21 3 to 5 years old). Further, also other Acts and policy documents are guiding the work in ECE settings but with a smaller impact regarding the everyday pedagogical work. The Finnish ECE working teams are multi-professional, consisting of professionals with a varying combination of qualifications. The teams consist of at least one teacher with an academic bachelor’s degree and two assistant teachers with lower educational degrees. In Finland children have a subjective right to ECE as well as basic education. The main principle is that all people must have equal access to high-quality education and training. Education is free of charge at all levels from pre-primary to higher education. For ECE for 0–5-year olds, parents pay little according to their incomes and very low-income families have free service in ECE (Kangas et  al., 2015). Practically this means that when a child needs early childhood education the municipality needs to organise these services and allocate a place in an ECEC facility. Even though this seems like a particularly easy system from the parent’s perspective, it is not necessarily so. For instance, in Finland children participate less in ECEC, compared to the other Nordic countries with similar systems (see further Garvis et al., 2019).

1.3  High Quality as the Basis of Finnish ECEC Practices All practitioners in the Finnish ECEC have to follow the national quality indicators. These indicators lay a foundation for consistent practices and principles on the national level. These indicators are described in the FINEEC (2018; 2019) guidelines and recommendations for evaluating the quality of early childhood education. According to this document there are two factors of quality; structural and process related. Structural factors of quality are related to the conditions of organising ECEC. They include the curriculum that is the steering document, personnel training, working time structures, the structure and size of child groups and the physical facilities where the early childhood and education is organised. Process-related factors of quality describe the unit’s pedagogical and operating culture. This is in its turn then linked with other outcomes like children’s experiences. The process-­ related factors are leadership, planning, implementation, evaluation and development of pedagogy as well as different person’s experiences about the ECEC (see

4

H. Harju-Luukkainen et al.

closer FINEEC 2019, 7). Further these quality factors (structural and processrelated) and the three levels where they exist (national, local and pedagogical activity level) are linked to the impact of ECEC. In other words, the process-related factors describe how the objectives and content specified for early childhood education are realised in practice. Here the focus can be for instance on following topics: • On positive, caring, encouraging and gentle interaction. • On reciprocal interaction between professionals and children and is it done in a manner compatible with the children’s developmental, interests and learning capabilities. • On sensitive staff, taking notice of the children’s initiatives and responding to them in a manner that supports the children’s participation and agency. Pedagogical planning, documentation, evaluation and development in early childhood education and care lay the foundation for the delivery of high-quality early childhood education and care. Pedagogical interaction, activities and knowhow are essential aspects of the quality behind the Finnish ECE (Kangas et  al., 2019). Pedagogically well-planned, diverse, and creative operating methods and learning environment challenge and inspire children to learn. Pedagogical documentation of early childhood education and care is a process through which the activities are made visible and can be evaluated together with the staff and children as following: • ECEC activities are meaningful and inspiring for the children and challenge them to learn. • The staff and the children carry out versatile pedagogical activities based on play, physical activity, arts and cultural heritage that offer positive learning experiences for the children. • The activities promote the achievement of objectives set for different areas of learning and transversal competence. • The pedagogical learning environment planned and built together by the staff and the children encourages the children to play, be physically active, explore, create and express. • The learning environment is assessed and modified regularly as indicated by the children’s needs and interests, ensuring that it challenges and inspires the children to learn. Further, in Finland the teachers have a great responsibility and decision-making power over the class-based curriculum, pedagogical activities and assessment and documentation practices in everyday education. Teachers’ tasks as well as their responsibilities of the everyday pedagogical activities as well as holistic and systematic delivery of education have been redefined during the reform of Finnish ECE (see Harju-Luukkainen & Kangas, forthcoming). The teachers’ pedagogical role is also described in the process-oriented factors closer. The teachers need to pay attention to following aspects:

1  Introduction to Early Childhood Education System’s Policies and Practices in Finland

5

• At the level of pedagogical activities, an ECEC teacher is responsible for classroom pedagogy: its planning, goal-oriented implementation and evaluation. • The staff observe and document the children’s daily experiences systematically in order to understand the child’s perspectives and views. • Information produced together with the children and using diverse methods is used in the planning, implementation, evaluation and development of the activities In the next section we will describe the content of this book closer. In this book, each of the chapters are connected with the above described policies and practices of ECEC of Finland (see closer OECD, 2018).

1.4  Description of the Content of this Book We hope that the chapters of this book will be appealing to an international audience as they showcase the breadth and depth of contemporary issues of the Finnish model within the field of ECEC. The chapters of this book are divided into three sections. The content of chapters in the first part is connected with teacher training and professional approach, chapters in the second part are connected with children and families in ECEC and in the third part the focus will be turned towards Finnish pedagogy. All of the chapters in this book are a balance of multiple theoretical perspectives and empirical data. Each of the book chapters highlight following aspects, • • • •

research on the field of Early Childhood Education in Finland country’s policies and/or practices connected to this are of research theory and empirical data connected to this area of research critical perspectives and possible developmental objects are highlighted.

The chapters of this book comprise authors from different universities in Finland, from the Ministry of Education and Culture and municipalities in order to give a width in the perspectives of the system as well as of contemporary research issues. It also compares top-level researchers from abroad with a profound understanding of the Finnish ECEC, in order to give an external perspective on the policies, practices and contemporary research issues.

1.5  P  art I: Multi-theoretical Teacher Training and Professional Approach The part of this book starts with chapter number two, and it is authored by Johanna Heikka, Katja Suhonen and Sanni Kahila. This chapter investigates the pedagogical leadership of ECE teachers in Finland and introduces concepts like distributed pedagogical leadership and teacher leadership. The findings of this study will

6

H. Harju-Luukkainen et al.

promote the implementation of pedagogical leadership as well as support the preparation of teacher graduates as well as the continuing professional development of all ECE staff working on the field of ECE.  The third chapter is authored by Antti Rajala, Anna Pauliina Rainio, Lasse Lipponen, Jaakko Hilppö and Emma Kurenlahti. In this chapter the authors discuss the critical compassion in Finnish ECE educators’ responses to challenges of acting compassionately. The aim of this chapter is to advance a holistic conceptualisation for researching and promoting care and compassion as an aspect of early childhood educators’ professional activity. In the chapter the authors build on a novel, cultural-historical approach in order to investigate compassion and care as well as offer and discuss a nuanced conceptualisation of compassion in ECEC settings that posits compassion as both constituted in and constitutive of social activity. In the fourth chapter Alexandra Nordström, Heidi Sairanen, Jenny Byman, Jenny Renlund and Sara Sintonen explore the concept of widening text worlds in the Finnish early childhood education. In this chapter the concept of multiliteracies refers to an understanding of multiple texts (both analogue and digital) in multiple platforms with multiple contexts. In this chapter, the following questions are explored: How can we find a good balance in widening text worlds? How can we decide what texts to use in an early childhood education context, and how can we develop a pedagogy of multiliteracies? At the end of this chapter some pedagogical principles that can be applied to early childhood education in order to support young children’s multiliteracies thinking and practices will be presented. In the fifth chapter Saila Poulter, Arniika Kuusisto and Silja Lamminmäki presents a case of worldview education in Finnish ECEC. They investigate the relevance of praxis and practice-based learning processes as a part of professional knowledge formation through the case of worldview education in ECEC teacher education. The chapter suggests that the annexation of elements connected to practical wisdom cultivated as a more systematic part of professional knowledge construction in ECEC teacher training is, according to learner experience, valuable in supporting the development of ECEC teacher student professionalism. Furthermore, the findings designate an understanding of professional reflection as a shared meaning-making and understanding generating activity. In the sixth chapter we turn towards media education in the Finnish early childhood teacher education. This chapter is authored by Saara Salomaa and Pekka Mertala. By analysing all Finnish teacher education curricula they came to the conclusion that media education has been a marginal topic in Finnish ECEC teacher education programs. Media education and information and communications technology (ICT) were mostly taught separately, which seems peculiar in today’s media culture. Among the general ECEC professional competencies, contextual and pedagogical ones were emphasised, whereas care competencies were neglected. Further, compulsory media education course literature was scarce and partly outdated. The findings raise a question if we at all can expect high-quality media competence from practitioners with little professional training on the topic. In Chap. 7 we turn our attention towards in-service and pre-service teachers’ views on policy and practice in early childhood teacher education in Finland. This chapter ends our first section and it is authored by Mari Saha and Henri Pesonen. In this chapter the authors

1  Introduction to Early Childhood Education System’s Policies and Practices in Finland

7

describe the context of inclusive Finnish ECEC after the most recent change in policy and legislation in 2018. By summarising the research findings, the aim of the authors is to illustrate the challenges in- and pre-service teachers face in encountering children with diverse needs and backgrounds, as well as their views on how to improve the current teacher education. Further, they also discuss how teacher education programmes can respond to these challenges by providing suggestions for policy and practice.

1.6  Part II: Children and Families around ECEC The second part of this book concentrates on topics around children and families in ECEC in Finland. It starts with chapter number eight and is authored by Marina Lundqvist. The topic of the chapter is teachers’ understanding of children’s right to participation in Finnish ECEC. This study examines in detail the views of 10 early childhood education teachers on important aspects of children’s right to participation in early learning environments in Finland. The data used in this chapter is based on interviews with early childhood education teachers in ECEC. With the help of content analysis key themes in teachers’ understanding of children’s rights to participation in ECEC was identified. The results indicate that teachers are aware of the importance of the curriculum and the idea of children’s participation, but that the concept of rights generally needs to be deepened in pedagogical activities. Chapter 9 takes a closer look at five arts pedagogical case studies and how participatory learning and creative thinking is promoted in Finnish ECE. This chapter is authored by Inkeri Ruokonen. This chapter presents research-based arts pedagogical learning projects. It also discusses the challenges and future recommendations of early childhood education and care arts pedagogy regarding the core curriculum learning area of diverse forms and expression. The purpose of this chapter is to examine the perceived challenges concerning the early childhood arts pedagogy and to make recommendations based on a reflective review of five case studies. Chapter 10 discusses North Sámi language nests in Northern Finland. This chapter is authored by Rauni Äärelä-Vihriälä and Tuija Turunen. This study is framed by an indigenous research paradigm, which focuses on the community as well as entails a strong awareness of context and respect for traditional knowledge. The purpose of this article is to introduce the special characteristics of Sámi language immersion through a language nest approach in early childhood education and care in northern Finland, the Sámi home district. It aims to develop Sámi language immersion as Sámi languages spoken in Finland are endangered and require urgent recovery measures. The concept of a language nest pedagogy provides insight into Sámi language pedagogical practices. Further, the results imply that language nests not only provide language education but also strengthen the Sámi culture and way of life. Chapter 11 is authored by Anna-Leena Lastikka and Liisa Karlsson. This chapter describes participation through storycrafting in early childhood education and care. According to the ECEC legislation and the Core Curriculum, children’s initiatives

8

H. Harju-Luukkainen et al.

and interests need to be considered. However, children’s potential to affect decision-­ making and pedagogical processes is scarce. Therefore, according to the authors, there is a need to develop reciprocal listening and participation in ECEC. The objective for this study is to explore the benefits of the Storycrafting Method, a Finnish narrative method, for children and ECEC personnel. In the next chapter, Chap. 12, the focus is on reading sessions in early childhood. This chapter is authored by Jyrki Reunamo. Reading sessions are a part of the ‘rich world of language’ learning topics in the Finnish ECEC curriculum. This paper describes the situation in reading sessions in early childhood education in Finland. The research method is observation and the data has been systematically sampled (n = 49,645). According to results of this chapter, children attend reading sessions on average 24 min a day. According to the author it is important that the teacher welcomes children’s ideas when children can learn that their ideas are valued and that their ideas can be used for the benefit of the whole group. Reading sessions can be processes, where children and adults can create and share their ideas. Children can learn to develop these ideas further together with others. In Chap. 13, authored by Heidi Harju-­ Luukkainen, Kari Nissinen and Jouni Vettenranta, they take a closer look at early skills as predictors for later educational outcome. As data they use TIMSS data sets from Finland and Sweden. The authors point out that family-related factors, like parent’s educational level, expectations and socio-economic variables have a significant impact on students’ educational outcomes. The aim of the study is to examine how parental attitudes and the socioeconomic status of a student’s family are related to student’s early literacy and numeracy skills and, further, to student’s performance in mathematics and science in the TIMSS assessment. The results of this study highlight the importance of high-quality early childhood environments on students’ later educational outcomes.

1.7  Part III: Towards Finnish Pedagogy Chapter 14 starts our final and third part called towards Finnish pedagogy. This chapter is authored by Sonja Rutar, Tuulikki Ukkonen-Mikkola, Tina Štemberger and Sonja Čotar Konrad. This chapter has a comparative perspective on Finnish pedagogy, closer planning practices as a reflection of teaching and learning concepts in ECEC. The aim of the chapter is to identify pedagogical planning practices and thus recognise the prevailing teaching and learning concepts in ECEC in Finland and Slovenia. Pedagogical planning is one of the key elements of quality for ECEC in both countries. As a result three learning and teaching concepts were recognised (i) transmissive pedagogy; (ii) constructivist-developmentalism, with a transmissive notion of the aim of education; and (iii) participatory pedagogy. Chapter 15 is authored by Jonna Kangas and Heidi Harju-Luukkainen are creating a theoretical framework for playful learning and pedagogy and moving towards a so-called Finnish perspective with the topic. The Finnish curriculum for ECE play is considered essential for learning and is supported with a systematic and goal-oriented

1  Introduction to Early Childhood Education System’s Policies and Practices in Finland

9

approach to scaffold children into engaging in learning opportunities. Therefore, teachers create good preconditions for play, supervise it in a suitable way and ensure that each child gets an opportunity to participate in play according to their skills and capabilities. At the end of this chapter the authors present a theoretical framework for playful learning and pedagogy. This model is conducted through a meta-analysis of learning theories, theories of play and of the recent research literature. It is a tool for teachers and researchers to reflect their playful practices and contextualize the concept of play in the context of education. In the next chapter (Chap. 16) authors Eeva Hujala and Kirsi Alila discuss leadership in the changing context of Finnish early childhood education. This paper focuses on the importance of leadership in a changing context of Finnish early childhood education and care (ECEC). Leadership is perceived to be embedded in the context of ECEC and defined as an integral part of the mission and core tasks defined in legal and administrative premises. This paper also introduces the Finnish framework for leadership in ECEC. This framework consists of several intertwined reforms that have been introduced into Finnish ECEC during the last few years. These are ECEC legislation renewing, curriculum reform, new guidelines concerning evaluation policy, and reforms in staff’s qualifications. The authors conclude that factors supported by growing research in ECEC leadership have a significant impact on conducting leadership and its working culture. Chapter 17 takes a closer look on Sustainability Education in Finnish Early Childhood and Care and it is authored by Christin Furu. According to the author, in recent years, there has been a major shift in how sustainability issues are addressed in Finnish early childhood education and care policy and research. Sustainability education has come to the fore through changes in legislation and national core curricula. This chapter aims to provide a glimpse into how practitioners understand and address sustainability education. The chapter ends with a provocation to enhance future dialogue between different stakeholders in order to overcome the gaps between policy, research, and practice and thereby facilitate urgent change towards a sustainable world. Chapter 18 describes elements of the pedagogical process in finnish early childhood education. This chapter is authored by Kirsi Alila, Tuulikki Ukkonen-Mikkola and Jonna Kangas. This chapter introduces the Finnish Pedagogical Process as a central element of the educational system of early childhood education. A conceptual definition and shared understanding and interpretation of the educational process are essential for the high-quality pedagogical practices of ECE.  The authors aim to create a conceptual framework of the Pedagogical Process through a theoretical analysis of different aspects of the process. Through this framework, the authors provide and promote the evaluation and development debate of current pedagogical practices as well as provide tools to identify, structure, phase, and clarify the process as a management system. The final chapter of this book, Chap. 19 concludes this book. This chapter is authored by Jonna Kangas, Heidi Harju-Luukkainen and Susanne Garvis. It highlights the similarities and differences between the different chapters of this book and critically examines the Finnish ECEC system. It takes an outlook for the future and highlights potential pitfalls but also success factors of policies and

10

H. Harju-Luukkainen et al.

practices. It critically examines the contemporary research issues and provides future direction and guidelines for researchers in order to develop the system further.

References Early Childhood Education and Care Act. (540/2018). set in Helsinki 13th of July, 2018. European Commission. Directorate-General XXII, & Youth. (1996). Teaching and learning: Towards the learning society (Vol. 42). Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Finnish Education Evaluation Centre. (2019). Quality indicators for early childhood education and care. Summaries 16: 2019. Retrieved from https://karvi.fi/app/uploads/ 2020/03/Quality-­indicators-­for-­ECEC_summary-­2019.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1fvm6v1CSab_ pbl8u1smjw0c_tvzGyIayH-­Ef4LBsvOYwsdhWXvT_ObVI Finnish National Agency for Education (FNAE). (2018). Finnish national core-curriculum of early childhood education and care. Määräykset ja ohjeet 2018: 17. Retrieved from https://www.oph. fi/sites/default/files/documents/varhaiskasvatussuunnitelman_perusteet.pdf Garvis, S., Philipsson, S., & Harju-Luukkainen, H. (2018). Volume I: Early childhood education in the 21st century. In International teaching, family and policy perspectives. Routledge. Garvis, S., Harju-Luukkainen, H., Sheridan, S., & Williams, P. (2019). Nordic families, children and early childhood Education. Palgrave Macmillan. Harju-Luukkainen, H., & Kangas, J. (forthcoming). The role of early childhood teachers in Finnish policy documents: Training teachers for the future? In W. Boyd & S. Garvis (Eds.), International perspectives on early childhood teacher Education in the 21st century. Springer. Kangas, J., Ojala, M., & Venninen, T. (2015). Children’s self-regulation in the context of participatory pedagogy in early childhood Education. Early Education and Development, 26(5–6), 847–870. Kangas, J., Harju-Luukkainen, H., Brotherus, A., Kuusisto, A., & Gearon, L. (2019). Playing to learn in Finland: Early childhood curricular and operational context. In S. Garvis & S. Phillipson (Eds.), Policification of early childhood Education and care: Early childhood Education in the 21st century volume III (Evolving families) (pp. 71–85). Routledge. OECD. (2012). Starting strong III: A quality toolbox for early childhood education and care. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264123564-­en OECD. (2015). Starting strong IV: Monitoring quality in early childhood education and care. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264233515-­en OECD. (2018). Providing quality early childhood education and care: Results from the starting strong survey 2018. Retrieved from https://www.oecd-­ilibrary.org/sites/301005d1-­en/1/1/2/ index.html?itemId=/content/publication/301005d1-­en&_csp_=d5ed60fb5c4d257bbb6358 fc7741a521&itemIGO=oecd&itemContentType=book Unicef. (2019). An unfair start: Inequality in children’s education in rich countries. United Nations. United Nations. (1989). Convention on the rights of the child. Retrieved from http://www.unicef. org/crc/ United Nations. (2006). Convention on rights of people with disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (1994). The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. UNESCO.

Part I

Multi-theoretical Teacher Training and Professional Approach

Chapter 2

A Contemporary Dialogue of Finnish Early Childhood Education and Care – Pedagogical Leadership in Early Childhood Education Teachers’ Work Johanna Heikka, Katja Suhonen, and Sanni Kahila

Abstract  In this chapter we investigate the pedagogical leadership of ECE teachers in Finland. Theoretically, this research was anchored under the concepts of distributed pedagogical leadership and teacher leadership. The research in this area has shown that teachers share leadership responsibilities with ECE centre directors, lead their staff teams, and are considered responsible for the pedagogy of their child groups. Qualitative shadowing and individual interviews were employed to investigate the enactment and perceptions of the three ECE teachers on pedagogical leadership in selected settings. The analysis of findings suggested that the teachers lead the planning, assessment, and development of pedagogy in their multi-professional staff teams. The study also showed how personal dispositions of the teachers influence the enactment of pedagogical leadership in ECE practice. The findings of this study can inform and promote the implementation of pedagogical leadership and can enhance the preparation of teacher graduates as well as the continuing professional development of all ECE staff in ECE settings.

2.1  Introduction In Finland, an early childhood education (ECE) teacher has the pedagogical responsibility: they are charged with planning, assessing, and developing pedagogical activities. Their role in the ECE team is to show that pedagogy is realised in a child group and to ensure that team members understand the goals of pedagogy and how to achieve these goals. Because of this status, teachers are expected to act as J. Heikka (*) · K. Suhonen · S. Kahila University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, Finland e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 H. Harju-Luukkainen et al. (eds.), Finnish Early Childhood Education and Care, Early Childhood Research and Education: An Inter-theoretical Focus 1, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95512-0_2

13

14

J. Heikka et al.

pedagogical leaders and professionals who are committed to the implementation of the national curriculum and to the development of ECE pedagogy in their child groups (Act on Early Childhood Education and Care, 540/2018; Finnish National Agency for Education, 2018). The significance of this research arises from the growing importance of investigating ECE teachers’ involvement in leadership (Aubrey, 2016; Douglass, 2019; Waniganayake et  al., 2017). ECE as a public service has to accomplish societal effectiveness and meet the political and societal goals of each country (Aubrey et al., 2012; Harris, 2003; York-Barr & Duke, 2004). By shifting the focus away from centre directors to teachers, this study also provides new knowledge about leadership by indicating how it is enacted within child groups, involving professionals from diverse backgrounds and expecting teachers to lead pedagogy in their teams, which are made up of staff with little or no ECE training. This research will help teachers to better prepare by informing the development of ECE teacher education courses at universities. The findings can also influence the professional development of ECE staff so that it can strengthen teachers’ capabilities to lead small teams focusing on pedagogy and curriculum design. Leadership is a contextual phenomenon and is highly influenced by societal and local regulations and conditions. Also, from the perspective of the Finnish early childhood education context, due to political changes and increased expectations of teachers for pedagogical leadership (Karila et al., 2017), this study addresses a topical and important research topic. Not much is known about teachers’ pedagogical leadership and how it is enacted in daily practice in ECE. By utilising a shadowing methodology and through individual interviews with the ECE teachers, this study investigates pedagogical leadership enacted by ECE teachers. The research question was, “How can the pedagogical leadership of ECE teachers be characterised in ECE settings in Finland?”

2.2  O  verview of Educational Policies and Theoretical Background Early childhood education (ECE) policies have recently undergone significant changes in Finland. Along with these changes, ECE legislative and policy regulations (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2018; Act on Early Childhood Education and Care, 540/2018) emphasise pedagogy and ECE teachers’ responsibilities for pedagogy and leadership of multi-professional teams within ECE centres. According to the Act (540/2018, 37§), teams must include one childcare nurse, at least one ECE teacher, and either one social educator specialising in ECE or ECE teacher. The Act on Early Childhood Education and Care (540/2018) in Finland aims to clarify the roles of each professional group based on their educational competencies, highlighting the pedagogical skills and leadership roles of ECE teachers and breaking away from the traditional so called ‘everyone does everything’

2  A Contemporary Dialogue of Finnish Early Childhood Education and Care…

15

culture. Together, ECE professionals aim to fulfil education and care that is high quality and that advances children’s holistic well-being. New policies have concretely influenced the education system, too: since 2019, a social educator student can no longer be qualified as an ECE teacher (Act on Early Childhood Education and Care, 540/2018, 75§). Hence, graduating from a university with a three-year Bachelor of Education degree is the only way to qualify ECE teachers. Leadership is a key factor in influencing the quality of ECE. Distributed forms of leadership can assist in reaching the goals set for ECE by enhancing the professional development of educators and supporting pedagogical development in child groups, thereby improving pedagogical functioning of multi-professional staff teams (Heikka et al., 2013; Waniganayake et al., 2015). Findings from diverse countries (Aubrey, 2016; Ho, 2011; Waniganayake et al., 2017) indicate that leadership challenges are connected with co-operation between leaders and teachers and teachers’ skills and dispositions in enacting pedagogical leadership. Research shows that ECE teachers are typically not well prepared to lead pedagogical change in their teams (Heikka et al., 2016; Waniganayake et al., 2015). Global observation of the phenomenon indicates that teachers’ involvement in centre-based leadership has been developed in many countries (Strehmel et al., 2019). In recent years, the discussion around the concept of distributed pedagogical leadership has intensified (Bøe & Hognestad, 2017; Fonsèn, 2014; Male & Palaiologou, 2017; Sims et al., 2015). However, this discussion sometimes ignores the theoretical roots of the concept and therefore misses the core elements in distributed pedagogical leadership. In distributed pedagogical leadership, leadership is enacted by formal and informal leaders separately but interdependently, and leadership is distributed over the organisation by people and contexts (Spillane et  al., 2001; Spillane, 2006). Interdependence between the leadership enactments by different leadership stakeholders is crucial for leaders and teachers to achieve common goals. The distributed pedagogical leadership approach creates interdependence between leadership stakeholders through shared construction and the enactment of visions and strategies (Heikka, 2014). Teacher leadership means that the ECE teacher performs the functions and responsibilities expected of a leader (Harris, 2003). The enactment of leadership by ECE teachers in Finland involves leading their staff teams, usually with educators with little or no ECE disciplinary knowledge (Heikka et al., 2016; Heikka, 2014). Teacher leadership functions and responsibilities discussed in global early childhood education research studies include leading curriculum and pedagogy; leading pedagogical and professional change and development; leading and organising teamwork and working culture; and engaging both children and team members in pedagogical planning, assessment, and development (Colmer et al., 2015; Heikka et  al., 2018; Ho, 2011; Hognestad & Bøe, 2014, 2015; Kahila et  al., 2020). Pedagogical leadership is considered to be one aspect of teacher leadership, focusing especially on leading pedagogical planning, assessment, and development in the staff teams (Kahila et al., 2020). In pedagogical leadership, a key is to take care of continuous development based on pedagogical documentation. Pedagogical documentation is a process, where observations, and documents and their reflection

16

J. Heikka et al.

formulate a basis for pedagogical improvement in the staff teams (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2018). In addition to the responsibility of ECE teachers to lead their team members towards pedagogical goals, teachers co-operate and participate in decision-making at the centre level with the centre director and teachers from other child groups (Heikka et al., 2018; Li, 2015).

2.3  Methods Qualitative shadowing and individual interviews were employed as methods to investigate the enactment of pedagogical leadership by ECE teachers. Qualitative shadowing is an observation method where the researcher follows an individual in his/her everyday work (Czarniawska, 2007; Gill et al., 2014). In this study, the target persons were three ECE teachers from different ECE centres. Each teacher was shadowed for three days to capture the enactment of pedagogical leadership in its ‘natural’ environment. The shadowing method was supported by individual interviews. The interviews aimed to reach the teachers’ thoughts, perceptions, and experiences of the phenomenon under study; therefore, they were compared to the observations made by an external observer to provide a deeper and different perspective for the study (Edwards & Holland, 2013; Rowley, 2012).

2.3.1  Participants The study involved three ECE teachers from three different municipalities in Eastern Finland. All three teachers were women, university-qualified (bachelor of education), and had several years’ experience working as ECE teachers. They all worked in municipal ECE centres, which included two to nine child groups. Two of the teachers worked full-time, but one teacher worked part-time, about five hours per day. One teacher fell ill during the shadowing period, so for her part, the shadowing data were only received for two days. One teacher, instead, had to leave work in the middle of the third shadowing day, and therefore, the third day was shorter than planned. The combination of ECE teachers’ teams also varied. One teacher worked in a team which included herself, another ECE teacher with a bachelor of social services, and a childcare nurse. The second team, in addition to the teacher in the study, consisted of another teacher (bachelor of social services) and two childcare nurses. The third team included the teacher in the study, three childcare nurses, and one personal assistant. During the data collection, there was a student-teacher completing her practicum on the third team. Shadowing in these teams required all team members to permit the study.

2  A Contemporary Dialogue of Finnish Early Childhood Education and Care…

17

2.3.2  Procedure of the Data Collection The data were collected from all participants in the autumn semester of 2018. Data collection began with a three-day shadowing of the teacher during their shift. While determining the length of data collection, it is important to acknowledge that a long-­ lasting shadowing can bring ethical challenges of conducting research (Bøe et al., 2016). In this study, it was considered that three-day lasting data collection provides enough data and is reasonable to both participants and researchers, but there is no time to create relationship between them, which could have an effect on their behavior and making notes and analyses. A video camera and notes were used as data collection tools. At the beginning of the first shadowing day, the video recording was introduced to the children and the personnel of the team to create a safe atmosphere for them and an understanding of the researcher’s goals. The purpose of the introduction was also to contribute to the researcher’s ability to conduct video recording in peace, with minimal interaction between the researcher and the children and personnel. While recording, the researcher kept distance from the teacher and tried not to influence her actions. In some cases, the researcher asked the teacher to explain her activities, for example, when the teacher was working alone at a computer and it was unclear what she was doing. The whole shadowing process, including preparations and study after the actual field research, requires sensitivity and ethical consideration (see Johnson, 2014; Bøe et al., 2016). The researcher must be sensitive of whether it is appropriate to record in different situations or be present in the situation at all. For example, when there were confidential matters or situations involved people who were not allowed to be recorded, the researcher turned off the video camera and continued the observation just by making written notes. In the beginning of shadowing, the process was explained to participants. Even thought the researcher stayed at the background, participants could make questions and take contact if they felt like it. As an intensive data collection method, shadowing can be stressful for the participant (Johnson, 2014) and therefore, the researchers constantly observed the gestures and expressions of the participants. In some situations, the researchers might ask how the recording felt and whether it was appropriate to continue recording. In the following week of shadowing, the teacher was interviewed about her perceptions and experiences of pedagogical leadership. The interview was conducted as a semi-structured interview in which pre-conceived themes served as the frame for the interview, but otherwise, the interview proceeded conversationally (Edwards & Holland, 2013). The purpose was to give space for the ECE teacher’s initiatives so that the interview could touch on the teacher’s own thoughts, perceptions, and experiences (see Rowley, 2012). The themes of the interview considered the significance, goals, and tasks of leadership, the enactment of leadership, and the factors influencing leadership. The interviews were recorded and transcribed. In total, the data consisted of 27 hours and 10 minutes of video material, notes written in 24 Word documents, and 3 hours and 42 minutes of interview data.

18

J. Heikka et al.

2.3.3  Analysis of the Data The shadowing and interview data were analysed using inductive qualitative content analysis (Krippendorff, 2013). In qualitative content analysis, the theoretical concepts and conclusions are generated through the interpretation and inference of participants’ original expressions and actions. The shadowing and interview data were first analysed separately. Analysis of the shadowing data consisted of three phases. In seeking to answer the research question of this study, the context categories were defined as an episode presenting a pedagogical leadership act. In the first step of the analysis, relevant video clips were selected as demonstrations of these practices. For example, one episode was a conversation between the team members or guidance given to a team member during the daily activities. Each episode ended when the nature of the action transformed into another act. After the relevant episodes were identified among the whole shadowing data, they were then transcribed and condensed based on the content of the leadership act in the second step of the analysis. In the third phase, the condensed episodes were clustered based on the types of the leadership acts. The interview data was first coded by utilising the categories formulated in the analysis of the shadowing data. Because the interview data consisted of contents that did not clearly exist in the shadowing data, for example the dispositions of the teachers towards leading and the co-operation between the teachers, the findings formulated new categories alongside the previous ones. In this way, the different data completed each other to get a more valid picture of the phenomenon being studied. To support the credibility of the study, some excerpts from the data are included in this paper. The final categories were formulated at the end of this phase by condensing and adjusting the categories to fit in the whole data set. As a result, this study identified four main characteristics that describe the pedagogical leadership of the teachers: social responsibility for pedagogically focused early childhood education, leading multi-professional teamwork towards pedagogical goals, collegial support for pedagogical leadership, and varying dispositions and approaches of the teachers for leading their teams. The findings of the study are organised according to the main categories.

2.4  Findings The findings revealed that the pedagogical leadership of ECE teachers was based on responsibility for pedagogy and pedagogical expertise. Pedagogical leadership was enacted by leading the multi-professional staff teams towards high-quality pedagogy and enhancing the participation of the team members in pedagogical development. However, the study revealed the varying disposition of the teachers in leadership and their need for collegial support.

2  A Contemporary Dialogue of Finnish Early Childhood Education and Care…

19

2.4.1  S  ocial Responsibility for Pedagogically Focused Early Childhood Education The teachers participating in the study were well aware of their social responsibilities as pedagogically qualified early childhood education professionals. ECE teachers considered that their pedagogical expertise and their role as pedagogical leaders formulated a strong basis for enacting the laws and regulations of early childhood education at different levels of curriculum processes. One of the studied teachers also emphasised the teachers’ responsibility to work as a public service provider for the children and the parents as municipality residents. Teacher leadership was also seen as a duty to enact ECE regulations of the pedagogically emphasised entity of education, teaching, and care, and taking care of the pedagogically implemented practices of early childhood education. Teacher leadership includes such a planned and purposeful wholeness of education, teaching, and care. And especially, then, in this education, teaching, and care from the ECE teacher’s perspective, pedagogy is emphasised. It’s our responsibility. T2. Pedagogical leadership was also understood as a responsibility of the teachers to take care of the goal-oriented and planned ECE pedagogy in their child groups and to guide their ECE staff teams to develop pedagogy. The fundamental aim of these leadership responsibilities was to ensure the goal-oriented work in the staff teams. The teachers emphasised the meaning of pedagogical leadership in ensuring that the daily practices were in line with the goals set in the national core curriculum. Also, ensuring that the goals set for pedagogy in the individual plans of children were realised in the whole child groups was considered as one of the core responsibilities of the teachers. Well, it starts from those team meetings where the pedagogical activities are planned—that they take care that the pedagogical activities are versatile and follow the contents of the national core curriculum. But then, of course, also the children’s individual pedagogical plans and the goals set in them, such as what kind of activities were planned for the children…and then in the assessment to assess how the goals are being met and how the children have developed. T1.

2.4.2  L  eading Multi-professional Teams Towards Pedagogical Goals The enactment of responsibility for pedagogy, according to the teachers, required teachers to lead planning, assessment, and development processes in the multi-­ professional staff teams in line with the nested curricula as an integrated whole. Leading pedagogical planning, assessment, and development in the staff teams was identified as a key leadership responsibility of the teachers in this study. The teachers emphasised the participation of the whole staff team in planning, assessment,

20

J. Heikka et al.

and development, and these activities were mentioned to take place mainly in the weekly team meetings. In the shadowing data, it could be seen that the teachers initiated and enhanced the reflection of the daily practices among the team members during the team meetings. When enhancing reflection, the teachers brought topics they considered to be important into the discussion with the team members. For example, one teacher facilitated a pedagogical discussion about long-lasting play by asking questions and facilitating thinking about possibilities to extend play opportunities for children. In the interviews, the teachers noted that it was important that they make pre-plans of the discussion topics before the team meetings. They also felt it was significant to ensure that all team members participate in reflection and planning and that each team member is heard in the decisions. But all team members participate, and all will be heard. And everyone’s ideas and thoughts will be taken into account, that I strive for equal action. T2. The teachers also developed and enhanced the discussion of pedagogical documentation among the teams. In the episode of shadowing data from the team meeting, the teacher led a discussion about how pedagogical documentation was employed in the child group by the team members. She also directly provided information for the childcare nurses about the purposes and goals of pedagogical documentation. Within this discussion, she reminded the team about the importance of reflecting on the documents together. Leading pedagogical documentation in the staff teams was also widely discussed in the teachers’ interviews. The teachers mentioned that they developed different kinds of documentation practices and tools for their staff teams. When asked more specifically about the tools, it was noted that the documentation tools were usually forms developed by the teachers themselves for observing individual children’s learning and development. However, documentation of the pedagogical practices of the educators still remained unsystematic and undocumented, which could be seen in the following discussion between the teacher and the interviewer: T1: I bring topics to the assessment discussion. For example, ‘Hey, do you realise that the transitions are really restless and so stressful for everyone…and what is the reason for why it doesn’t work and why? I: Do you have a systematic way of documenting and assessing, or is it, like, that the idea arises and you’ll need to think about it? T1: No [laughter], yes, we talk pretty much right away, as soon as I get the feeling that something doesn’t work and we have to do something, we talk a lot in teams. Well, we have some documentation forms for the kids. Based on the study findings, it can be interpreted that the teachers led the assessment and development of the pedagogical practices based mainly on their free observations. However, the systematic documentation–based development of practices remained undeveloped in the teams in this study. The teachers considered leading the multi-professional teamwork as an important aspect of characterising ECE teachers’ pedagogical leadership. The main goal of leading multi-professional teams was to create a secure environment for the

2  A Contemporary Dialogue of Finnish Early Childhood Education and Care…

21

children’s holistic development. The leadership of the multi-professional teams was considered as taking responsibility for goal-oriented teamwork. According to the teachers, that meant making pedagogical goals visible in the planning and practices of the team members. This included, for example, verbal expression of the goals in the team discussions and the teams’ effective co-operation. In the shadowing data, it could be seen that the teachers actively listened and appreciated the nurses’ ideas during the team meetings. It was common for the nurses to bring up issues in the discussions. The childcare nurses, for example, brought up accurate observations about the children’s skills. The teachers usually listened carefully and continued the discussion by asking further questions and providing suggestions for the nurses about how to continue supporting individual children. In this way, the teachers led the pedagogical reflection in the teams and contributed to the development of practices. The findings, however, indicated that the teachers had varying dispositions and approaches in leadership that may influence their capabilities to enhance pedagogical development in the teams.

2.4.3  V  arying Dispositions and Approaches for Teachers to Lead Their Teams The interview findings indicated that the teachers were self-conscious about their leadership responsibilities but that it was considered a huge task. The teachers reported that they do not have sufficient dispositions to take on such a big responsibility. They were also a little vigilant about taking leadership positions in their teams, fearing that it would establish a hierarchy. The shadowing data, however, showed that the teachers actively led their child groups and guided and supported the team members during the daily pedagogical activities. In the interviews, the teachers’ feelings against taking a leadership role in their staff teams, especially in leading learning and expertise of the team members, varied. One of the teachers reported feeling difficulties in guiding her team members. She characterised herself as too timid to provide direct guidance for her teammates: But I’m sure that everyone can use their own skills; it’s not easy to go and guide. I wouldn’t praise myself much—I’m probably really timid. T3. The teachers have developed different approaches in leading. Instead of direct guiding, one of the teachers counted on doing the work to the best of her ability. All the teachers considered themselves as role models for the team members: At the moment, it doesn’t feel like my own thing. I do my own work as well as I can, then I hope that it will, in that way, bring fruit there. T3. The shadowing data showed that, despite the insecurity some teachers felt in leading their teams, all the teachers brought up issues that were not consistent with the pedagogical goals of their team. In these discussions, the teachers provided their views and reasons for why the practices were not in line with the goals, and they guided

22

J. Heikka et al.

the nurses in how to meet pedagogical goals in their practices. One of the teachers even directly questioned the practices of the childcare nurses. They also usually directly stated their own opinions, even if they were opposite to the nurses’ actions. One teacher reported feeling secure in expressing her views to the team members. She emphasised the meaning of trust and humor in the team and felt that there was good team spirit: Personally, I strive for openness, that we talk openly about things, discuss, exchange ideas, and that everyone is listened to. And that all would be heard. And we try; personally, I try to listen carefully, and I have been glad that we say things directly, and we can talk about it. I think we have a good team and team spirit. It helps us in the work. And the fact that confidentiality is a terribly important thing, and humor. T2. The findings indicated that the teachers received assistance and support for their leadership from the other teachers at the centre. This support was considered essential for their work and for themselves.

2.4.4  Collegial Support for Pedagogical Leadership The findings revealed that the teachers formulate strong collegial support within their ECE centres. The support received from the other teachers for pedagogical leadership was emphasised even more than that provided by the ECE centre directors. The teachers especially emphasised the meaning of the pedagogical development working groups, which consisted of all ECE teachers within one centre: If something is in my mind, I bring it to the pedagogical working group so that we could bring this issue up, that I’d like to discuss this issue. T3. The teachers also expressed the need for stronger professional support from the ECE centre directors. The teachers especially needed more discussions of pedagogical practices and mutual alignment of practices and the operational culture of the ECE centre. In addition to collegial support received from the other teachers from the other child groups, the teachers anticipated that the co-operation and support provided from the other teacher in the same child group is significant for taking care of leadership responsibilities. These teachers were qualified as bachelors of social service, and they provided a different perspective in pedagogical issues in the child group. Responsibility for pedagogy was perceived as a huge task, and the other teachers were considered to alleviate the workload: Even though we are making the plans together as a team and implementing them together, and all of us take care of our own responsibilities, some tasks are left to Laura, as I do not have time to do them. One example is updating the portfolios of the children. Those we have updated at least once a week. T2.

2  A Contemporary Dialogue of Finnish Early Childhood Education and Care…

23

The other teachers also provided support by participating in the discussion and planning of pedagogy with other teachers. One of the teachers did not have a bachelor of social service in her team, and she was reporting a lack of support because of it. This finding was not evident in the shadowing data, even though it was significantly displayed in the interviews.

2.5  Discussion and Implications This research presents characteristics of pedagogical leadership enacted by ECE teachers in the Finnish early childhood education context, where the development of teachers’ pedagogical leadership has become topical in recent years due to political changes. Based on the teachers’ shadowing and interview data, ECE teachers’ pedagogical leadership was manifested mainly as a responsibility for the pedagogy, and it was enacted by leading a multi-professional team towards pedagogical goals. The findings also revealed that teachers were aware of their pedagogical responsibilities, but at the same time, they experienced uncertainty about pedagogical leadership, especially concerning leading their team members. Collaboration with the director, and especially between teachers in the ECE centre, was presented as an important and desired support for pedagogical leadership. The findings of this study reflect how teachers are seen to have a clear responsibility for pedagogy as well as an obligation to lead pedagogy in a team. Despite this, teachers feel insecure about leading. Parallel findings related to ECE teachers’ reluctance towards leadership has also been found in earlier studies (e.g., Heikka et al., 2018; Li, 2015). In Finland, teachers’ uncertainty about leadership may partly reflect the fact that, in a relatively short period of time, pedagogy and teachers’ pedagogical responsibility have been emphasised, and expectations for teachers’ pedagogical leadership have been significantly intensified. At the same time, the operating culture of early childhood education, especially the job descriptions of ECE team members, have recently been re-forming, and the multi-professional teamwork has seemed unstructured and unclear, and therefore, it has appeared as a developmental need (e.g., Karila et al., 2017). These contemporary factors can contribute to challenges and increased feelings of uncertainty about leadership for teachers. ECE teachers’ uncertainty about taking on the role of a pedagogical leader in their teams is difficult from the perspective of pedagogical development. An international review indicated that teacher leaders face similar challenges in Nordic countries. Teachers must position themselves as leaders of pedagogical development in their staff teams, negotiating between multiple tasks as well as internal and external expectations (Heikka et al., 2020). This is why teachers need support to implement pedagogical leadership and take responsibility for it. According to this study, teachers feel that their ECE director’s support is important, but other teachers’ support is considered even more important. Concerning this, it would be

24

J. Heikka et al.

beneficial to promote teachers’ collegial support in order to enhance teachers’ skills and their professional identity to fulfil their responsibilities as pedagogical leaders. The teachers in this study were self-conscious about leading pedagogy in multi-­ professional teams. Still, this study showed that there are areas that need development, especially pedagogical documentation. Teachers themselves felt that involving other team members in planning, evaluation, and development was important. Therefore, it would be necessary to further develop the pedagogical documentation, especially from the team members’ perspective. Documentation relating to the actions of team members could promote and reassert their involvement. Both the observation and the interviews served a rich and diverse combination of data by providing information from different perspectives. For example, without the interviews, teachers’ feelings could have been left out. Based on the observational data, their actions seemed fairly certain, but the interviews brought up feelings and experiences of uncertainty. This kind of study, which investigates pedagogical leadership from the perspectives of ECE teachers themselves, provides important information for developing pedagogical leadership and leadership skills both at the university and in the working life. The participants in this study were experienced teachers. Consequently, future studies could focus on teachers in the early stages of their careers and investigate how newly qualified teachers experience their role as pedagogical leaders and what kind of support they need to implement pedagogical responsibilities. One possibility to take these issues into consideration is the development of ECE teacher education, such as pedagogical documentation and leadership skills, so ECE teachers could be better prepared to act as pedagogical leaders in their future teams. In summary, the main implications of this study relate to the strengthening of ECE teachers’ professional identity as pedagogical leaders as well as of their leadership skills. This study revealed that teachers are aware of their pedagogical responsibilities and implement pedagogical leadership in their teams. Nonetheless, their professional self-esteem and confidence in their role as the team’s pedagogical leaders and the knowledge of good and appropriate team leadership methods need reinforcement. Therefore, it is important to continue raising awareness of teachers’ pedagogical responsibility and leadership throughout the whole ECE staff. According to this study, it is especially necessary to acknowledge and develop the collaboration between teachers as a support for their leadership responsibilities. By supporting the development of professional identity and leadership skills and competencies of both ECE teachers and teacher students, the realisation of well-­ managed, high-quality early childhood education can be promoted.

2  A Contemporary Dialogue of Finnish Early Childhood Education and Care…

25

References Act on Early Childhood Education and Care 2018. (Act 540/2018). https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ alkup/2018/20180540 Aubrey, C. (2016). Leadership in early childhood. In D. Couchenour & J. Kent Chrisman (Eds.), The sage encyclopedia of contemporary early childhood education (pp.  808–810). Sage Publications. Aubrey, C., Godfrey, R., & Harris, A. (2012). How do they manage? An investigation of early childhood leadership. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 41(1), 5–29. Bøe, M., & Hognestad, K. (2017). Directing and facilitating distributed pedagogical leadership: Best practices in early childhood education. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 20(2), 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2015.1059488 Bøe, M., Hognestad, K., & Waniganayake, M. (2016). Qualitative shadowing as a research methodology for exploring early childhood leadership in practice. Educational Management, Administration & Leadership, 45(4), 605–620. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143216636116 Colmer, K., Waniganayake, M., & Field, L. (2015). Implementing curriculum reform: Insights on how Australian early childhood directors view professional development and learning. Professional Development in Education -Special Issue: The Professional Development of Early Years Educators, 41(2), 203–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2014.986815 Czarniawska, B. (2007). Shadowing and other techniques for doing fieldwork in modern societies. Liber. Douglass, L. A. (2019). Leadership for quality early childhood education and care. OECD education working papers no. 211. https://doi.org/10.1787/6e563bae-­en. Edwards, R., & Holland, J. (2013). What is qualitative interviewing? Bloomsbury. Finnish National Agency for Education. (2018). Finnish national core curriculum for early childhood education and care, 2018. Fonsèn, E. (2014). Pedagoginen johtajuus varhaiskasvatuksessa. [pedagogical leadership in early childhood education]. (doctoral dissertation). Acta Universitatis Tamperensis 1914. Tampere University Press. Gill, R., Barbour, J., & Dean, M. (2014). Shadowing in/as work. Ten recommendations for shadowing fieldwork practice. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management, 9(1), 69–89. Harris, A. (2003). Teacher leadership as distributed leadership: Heresy, fantasy or possibility. School Leadership & Management, 23(3), 313–324. Heikka, J. (2014). Distributed pedagogical leadership in early childhood education. (doctoral dissertation). Acta electronica Universitatis Tamperensis 1392. Tampere University Press. Heikka, J., Halttunen, L., & Waniganayake, M. (2016). Investigating teacher leadership in ECE centres in Finland. Journal of Early Childhood Education Research, 5(2), 289–309. Heikka, J., Halttunen, L., & Waniganayake, M. (2018). Perceptions of early childhood education professionals on teacher leadership in Finland. Early Child Development and Care, 188(2), 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2016.1207066 Heikka, J., Hognestad, K., Kettukangas, T., Boe, M. & Ranta, S. (2020). Reviewing early childhood education teachers as leaders in Finland and Norway – Governance and professionalism. In M. Schroder (Ed.), Early childhood teachers: Global practices, Challenges and Prospects (pp. 39–84). Nova Science Publishers. Heikka, J., Waniganayake, M., & Hujala, E. (2013). Contextualizing distributed leadership within early childhood education: Current understandings, research evidence and future challenges. Educational Management, Administration & Leadership, 41(4), 30–44. Ho, D. C. W. (2011). Identifying leadership roles for quality in early childhood education programmes. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 14(1), 47–57. https://doi. org/10.1080/13603120903387561 Hognestad, K., & Bøe, M. (2014). Knowledge development through hybrid leadership practices. Nordisk Barnehageforskning, 8(6), 1–14.

26

J. Heikka et al.

Hognestad, K., & Bøe, M. (2015). Leading site-based knowledge development: A mission impossible? Insights from a study from Norway. In M. Waniganayake, J. Rodd, & L. Gibbs (Eds.), Thinking and learning about leadership. Early childhood research from Australia, Finland and Norway (pp. 210–228). Community childcare Cooperative NSW. Johnson, B. (2014). Ethical issues in shadowing research. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management, 9(1), 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1108/qrom-­09-­2012-­1099 Kahila, S. K., Heikka, J., & Sajaniemi, N. (2020). Teacher leadership in the context of early childhood education: Concepts, characteristics and enactment. Southeast Asia Early Childhood Journal, 9(1), 28–43. https://ejournal.upsi.edu.my/index.php/SAECJ/article/view/3301 Karila, K., Kosonen, T., & Järvenkallas, S. (2017). Varhaiskasvatuksen kehittämisen tiekartta vuosille 2017–2030: Suuntaviivat varhaiskasvatuksen osallistumisasteen nostamiseen sekä päiväkotien henkilöstön osaamisen, henkilöstörakenteen ja koulutuksen kehittämiseen. [Roadmap on the development of early childhood education for 2017–2030. Guidelines for increasing the degree of participation in early childhood education, and for the development of the skills of daycare centre staff, personnel structure and training]. Opetus- ja kulttuuriministeriön julkaisuja 2017:30. Helsinki: Opetus- ja kulttuuriministeriö. http://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/80221/okm30.pdf Krippendorff, K. (2013). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (3rd ed.). Sage Publications. Li, Y. L. (2015). The culture of teacher leadership: A survey of teachers’ views in Hong Kong early childhood settings. Early Childhood Education Journal 43(5), 435–445. ­https://doi. org/10.1007/s10643-014-0674-1 Male, T., & Palaiologou, I. (2017). Pedagogical leadership in action: Two case studies in English schools. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 20(6), 733–748. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/13603124.2016.1174310 Rowley, J. (2012). Conducting research interviews. Management Research Review, 35(3–4), 260–271. Sims, M., Forrest, R., Semann, A., & Slattery, C. (2015). Conceptions of early childhood leadership: Driving new professionalism? International Journal of Leadership in Education, 18(2), 149–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2014.962101 Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. Jossey-Bass. Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23–28. Strehmel, P., Heikka, J., Hujala, E., Rodd, J., & Waniganayake, M. (Eds.). (2019). Leadership in early education in times of change. Research from five continents. Verlag Barbara Budrich. Waniganayake, M., Cheeseman, S., Fenech, M., Hadley, F., & Shepherd, W. (2017). Leadership: Contexts and complexities in early childhood education (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. Waniganayake, M., Rodd, J., & Gibbs, L. (Eds.). (2015). Thinking and learning about leadership: Early childhood research from Australia, Finland and Norway. Research monograph No.2. Community Child Care Cooperative NSW. York-Barr, J., & Duke, K. (2004). What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings from two decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research, 74, 255–316.

Chapter 3

Critical Compassion in Finnish Early Childhood Educators’ Responses to Challenges of Acting Compassionately Antti Rajala, Anna Pauliina Rainio, Lasse Lipponen, Jaakko Hilppö, and Emma Kurenlahti

Abstract  Although the importance of caring in the work of early childhood educators is widely recognised, commonly held and simplistic conceptions of care hide the complexity of the emotional and relational demands that constitute educational activity. The aim of this chapter is to advance a holistic conceptualisation for researching and promoting care and compassion as an aspect of early childhood educators’ professional activity. Building on a novel, cultural-historical approach for investigating compassion and care, we offer and discuss a nuanced conceptualisation of compassion in ECEC settings that posits compassion as both constituted in and constitutive of social activity. In this perspective, compassion is conceptualised as a caring response to others’ unmet needs. This may involve not only alleviating the immediate suffering, but also acting to transform the social circumstances that damage people or cause them distress. Drawing from an ethnographic study of compassion in Finnish kindergartens, we provide an analysis of accounts by Finnish ECEC educators which will serve to illustrate our conceptualisation of the critical and transformative aspects of compassion.

A. Rajala (*) University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland e-mail: [email protected] A. P. Rainio · L. Lipponen · J. Hilppö · E. Kurenlahti University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 H. Harju-Luukkainen et al. (eds.), Finnish Early Childhood Education and Care, Early Childhood Research and Education: An Inter-theoretical Focus 1, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95512-0_3

27

28

A. Rajala et al.

3.1  Introduction In Finland, the National Core Curriculum for Early Childhood Education and Care (2018) outlines a holistic approach which emphasises relationships, interaction, play and curiosity and resists the “school preparation approach” (Jensen, 2009; Karila, 2012). This document has been prepared in collaboration with multiple groups of professional experts. The curriculum dictates the composition and execution of the curricula both at the municipal and kindergarten levels. Furthermore, the Finnish approach to early childhood education and care (ECEC) – as outlined in the national core curriculum  – involves a caring and compassionate ethos, which is exemplified in the emphasis on sensitivity to children’s various needs and initiatives. Other policies, such as the recently passed law securing multi-professional teams as the core unit carrying out the curriculum in Finnish kindergartens (Finnish National Agency of Education, 2018), aim to enable the creation of diverse ECEC learning environments in which respect, care and empathy are the norms. However, at the same time, there is an increase in management-by-results types of governance (Sihvola, 2020), which may undermine the child-centred, caring approach outlined in the curriculum documents (see also Paananen, 2017). In fact, as we will show in this chapter, building compassionate environments in ECEC requires a critical and a transformative approach, something not fully recognised and promoted currently. Although the importance of caring in the work of early childhood educators is widely recognised, commonly held and simplistic conceptions of care sometimes reduce it to “gentle smiles and warm hugs” and thus hide the complexity of the emotional and relational demands that constitute educational activity (Goldstein, 1998). A persistent, problematic assumption in the field of education is to associate the capacity for care and compassion to gender-related qualities of individuals (see Taggart, 2019). Moreover, educational care should arguably be seen as an aspect of professional work ethics rather than as a type of customer care that can be bought from the market (Taggart, 2016). Furthermore, in educational and psychological research, there is a tendency to conceptualise compassion as an individual disposition or trait (Hoffman, 2009; Goetz et al., 2010), for example, in terms of educators’ pedagogical sensitivity (Nislin et al., 2016). Although there are undoubtedly individual differences in capacity for compassion, exclusive framing of compassion in terms of individual properties obscures how institutional practices and organisational culture shape opportunities and obstacles to give and receive care and protection (Lipponen et al., 2018; Broadfoot & Pascal, 2020). Overall, care and compassion are not simply benign and innocent concepts, but they are embedded in affective relations that constitute social practice, which is often characterised by inequalities and exploitation (Lynch et al., 2016). The aim of this chapter is to advance a holistic conceptualisation for researching and promoting care and compassion as an aspect of early childhood educators’ professional activity. Building on a novel, cultural-historical approach for investigating compassion and care (Lipponen et al., 2018), we offer and discuss a nuanced conceptualisation of compassion in ECEC settings that posits compassion as both

3  Critical Compassion in Finnish Early Childhood Educators’ Responses…

29

constituted in and constitutive of social activity. In this perspective, compassion is conceptualised as a caring response to others’ unmet needs (see also Taggart, 2016). This may involve not only alleviating the immediate suffering, but also acting to transform the social circumstances that damage people or cause them distress. In this respect, we have relied on research that locates compassion in its socio-political context (for an overview, see Ure & Frost, 2014). That is, we see compassion as a contested phenomenon that potentially involves balancing and finding ways to deal with different agendas and interests. To this end, we first outline our perspective for researching compassion in ECEC settings and discuss some emerging research from this perspective. We then explain our ethnographic approach to studying compassion in Finnish kindergartens and provide an analysis of accounts by Finnish ECEC educators which will serve to illustrate our conceptualisation of the critical and transformative aspects of compassion. The accounts have been drawn from interviews and observations we conducted, and documents we collected as part of a long-term ethnography in a kindergarten in Helsinki. Using the examples, we illustrate our theoretical claims and also seek to argue for the relevance of our theoretical conceptualisations for research of compassion in ECEC settings. The chapter concludes with a discussion of practical implications for developing ECEC practices based on our analysis.

3.2  Compassion in ECEC Settings Compassion is not just an individual capability. Work organisations can also develop a collective capability for compassion. This means the capability of the work community and its members to notice others’ hardships and unmet needs reliably and repeatedly, feel empathic concern, and act to improve others’ situations (Lilius et al., 2008, 2011). This collective capability for compassion is based on practices, rules and routines that together constitute the operating culture of a given institution. Research in workplaces such as a hospital or a university has shown that compassion increases positive emotions and commitment to work (Frost et al., 2000; Lilius et al., 2008). Receiving – or being denied – compassion when in need also plays a significant role in how people regard themselves, their colleagues, as well as commit to their work. In ECEC settings, similar findings were found in a study by Rajala and Lipponen (2018) that analysed the narratives of early childhood education student teachers. Lilius et  al.’ (2011) study of a hospital billing unit that was known for being exceptionally compassionate is a good example of the forms of collective capability for compassion possible in workplaces. Their study identified everyday practices that supported compassion in the unit. These practices included recognition of everyone’s contributions, dealing with problems and conflicts immediately, it being possible to have fun during working hours, informal chats and collective decision making about the social life in the unit, and paying attention to others’ needs and offering help. Taken together, these practices created reciprocal and lasting bonds

30

A. Rajala et al.

among the workers, which helped them to notice others’ hardships from the smallest of cues and choose appropriate ways to offer help. Furthermore, these practices contributed to an atmosphere in which the workers felt it appropriate to discuss their non-work-related worries. However, it was also important that they could speak directly to each other and knew how to draw boundaries to take care that the worries did not disrupt the work too much. Within research on ECEC, there is an emerging line of investigation by our group and others that examines compassion as an integral aspect of the daily practices and relationships. Lipponen’s (2018) study sheds light on the formation of compassion with regards to how its expression is governed by rules. The study showed that in the preschool curriculum, there were clear indications of rules that supported compassion, which were clearly adhered to in the daily work, although it was not common to make explicit reference to these rules. The most common compassion-related rule that was identified in the curriculum was ‘including’, which probably implies that the community valued the creation of inclusive spaces in which everybody is accepted, and everyone’s needs are recognised. In a similar vein, Rajala et al. (2019) examined the acts of soothing in the everyday conduct of a kindergarten and how the kindergarten community responded to children’s distress. The study showed that the observed acts of soothing could not be explained by reference only to individual properties. In contrast, they were partly socially determined and often the outcome of collaborative action. The findings point to a division of labour – perhaps implicit – between the personnel and children: Often personnel were the ones to be expected to show compassion to children. Only on some occasions were the children expected to do this but they could instead even be forbidden from consoling each other. Hilppö et al. (2019) further demonstrated how ECEC practitioners’ acts of compassion could be conceptualised with the Aristotelian notion of phronesis, practical wisdom. Their work shed light on how adult acts of compassion are tightly tied with their social and material settings. Broadfoot and Pascal (2020) showed how compassion was experienced as a “multifaceted supportive mechanism” in the daily rhythms of an early childhood community. This mechanism was comprised of acknowledgement and acceptance, security and protection, as well as facilitation and enablement. Secondly, we argue that compassion should operate beyond the individual emotions and relationship of the sufferer and the one who is trying to alleviate the pain or respond to a need. Addressing institutional suffering requires a more political interpretation of compassion. Drawing on Whitebrook (2014), we define critical compassion as acts that identify systemic or institutional causes of suffering and then act to remove or dismantle these causes. Identifying structures or institutional causes of social suffering and acting against them requires exploring and understanding the historical development of these institutions, or systems, and their practices. These systems are shaped and transformed over long periods of time. Their problems and capacity to develop into something new in the future can only be understood against their history (Engeström, 2007). In its critical form, compassion is associated with agency, which we define here as the realised capacity of people to act on and transform their activities and social and material circumstances (Rainio, 2008; Lipponen & Kumpulainen, 2011; Rajala, 2016). Agency accounts for a

3  Critical Compassion in Finnish Early Childhood Educators’ Responses…

31

bottom-­up process of social transformation and is hence necessary for critical compassion that seeks to address and change the conditions that create obstacles for wellbeing and flourishing.

3.3  Setting and Data 3.3.1  Setting In recent years, Finnish early childhood education and care has undergone several large-scale reforms. Previously the role of ECEC had merely been to enable parents to work and support families in the upbringing of their children, now the focus has changed to children’s right to high-quality ECEC.  Currently, Finnish ECEC is guided by two national-level documents prepared by multi-professional expert groups consisting of administrators, researchers and trade union representatives: the National Core Curriculum for Early Childhood Education and Care (2018) and the National Core Curriculum for Pre-Primary Education (2014). These documents serve as a basis for the curricula devised at the municipality and kindergarten levels. Early childhood education staff are responsible for drafting unit-specific curricula. Early childhood education and care, pre-primary education that is part of it and basic education, form an entity proceeding consistently in relation to the child’s growth and learning and build a foundation for life-long learning. The municipalities are responsible for arranging the ECEC services, as well as for their quality and supervision. At the national level, ECEC is the responsibility of the Ministry of Education and Culture. Furthermore, Finnish ECEC is characterised by a multi-professional work community with a varying combination of professional qualification levels and job descriptions, as well as cooperation with professionals in other sectors. The cooperative work is usually organised in multi-professional teams. The ECEC staff responsible for children must have appropriate training. One-in-three in ECEC centres must have a higher education degree. Other staff in ECEC centres are expected to have at least a vocational upper-secondary qualification in the field of social welfare and health care. Finnish early childhood education teachers are considered to be autonomous professionals who are committed to continuous personal development and are assumed to have an inquiry-oriented approach to uphold the quality of their work. Over the course of several studies (e.g., Lipponen, 2018; Rajala et al., 2019), we have been engaged in developing an ethnographic approach specifically tuned to understanding and uncovering the ways in which compassion manifests itself in the everyday life of Finnish kindergartens. The examples of this paper have been drawn from a 2-year collaboration with a kindergarten, from August 2018. It is a public kindergarten located in a culturally and linguistically diverse area. The kindergarten receives ‘positive discrimination funding’. Finnish officials use the term ‘positive discrimination funding’ to refer to allowances paid to kindergartens based on the educational status and income level of children’s parents and the number of

32

A. Rajala et al.

immigrant families in the area. This funding has been used to increase the number of ECEC staff, especially the proportion of ECEC teachers and the recruitment of special education teachers.

3.3.2  Data Collection As part of our long-term ethnography, we have collected data in a number of ways. Firstly, we engaged in extensive participant observation (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2007) in the various kindergarten groups. In short, we have been observing and recording activities in the groups from the moment the first ECEC practitioners and children arrive in the morning and when the last ones have left. We’ve taken part in morning circles, naptime, played with the children outside in the yard, talked with them during lunch and snack times, and been on field trips with them. We have also sat in on weekly staff meetings as well as smaller meetings with personnel working in the same kindergarten group and collected copies of the documents used, written extensive field notes, taken photographs and drawn images as part of our fieldwork. In addition, we have engaged with the staff in daily, informal conversations about life in the kindergarten and their work and in a similar fashion, engaged with the parents of the children during drop-offs and pick-ups. In addition, we conducted thematic interviews with all educational staff members at the beginning of our fieldwork and about half of them at the end of the fieldwork. Our main intention with the interviews was gaining an in-depth perspective on how the staff experienced their work and especially their perspective of compassion as part of their work. To this end, we had drafted an interview guide which we used in the interviews but did not adhere to strictly if other relevant themes emerged during the interview. The interviews lasted between 30 to 90 minutes and were done during the workday and on the kindergarten’s premises. In our research, we are committed to adhering to the ethical standards of scientific research of the University of Helsinki and the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity. Participation in the research project was voluntary and the participants (and the parents of the children) were informed about the project and how the research data will be used and asked for their consent. We made a considerable effort in informing the parents about the research, many of whom did not understand Finnish. For example, the project descriptions and consent forms were translated into several different languages.

3.3.3  Data Analysis To advance a nuanced and political understanding of compassion we analysed the data to identify situations in which the early childhood educators had difficulties in acting with compassion due to their unfavourable work conditions. Our analysis is

3  Critical Compassion in Finnish Early Childhood Educators’ Responses…

33

theory-driven (Miles & Huberman, 1994) and informed by the conceptualization of compassion described above. The vignettes drawn on in the next section are from the observation notes, interviews, and documents we have collected. They have been purposefully selected because of their illustrative and contrastive power to shed light on the richness of the phenomenon under investigation (Patton, 1990).

3.4  T  hree Ways of Solving Challenges of Acting with Compassion in the Workplace In this section, we have analysed and discussed three vignettes that illustrate the diverse ways in which early childhood educators respond to situations when their work conditions are not favourable to acting with compassion, although all the three teachers shared a strong work ethic of caring for the children.

3.4.1  Excerpt 1 The first excerpt is from a teacher’s letter that she spontaneously wrote to one of us. The teacher had earlier told us that she is fed up with her situation and wanted to change her career. This is how she describes her double bind situation in her work, related to compassion: For me, working in Kindergarten has been very rewarding and I feel that it has in part been just the right place and way for me. I am very lively and creative, and in my own way I am childlike, so I have enjoyed it. I am also very sensitive as well as intuitive and have empathy in a special way. I easily sense emotional climate and feelings, about spaces, people and animals. For me, it is just best to do and tinker with children and none of the days is the same. I get a contact with the children and a relationship which is really rewarding, and I feel I am influencing a small person’s life in a positive way. I enjoy taking responsibility and being taken seriously: taking responsibility for noticing in time if something is not quite right, or if support does not arrive in time, or if the child or the family needs something more than what has been done so far. Sometimes I do not have time nor resources for that, and it presses on me and it is difficult when you have done your best and you have to state that no more is coming. Responsibility for implementing goals given by others and following standards set by others, it sometimes brings me a feeling of not being enough. I have not set those goals, but I am still assessed against them and my bonus salary is based on reaching them. I am a person who is present at the moment and sometimes it is heavy when you realize it is not your main job but instead your work is assessed on the basis of whether you have done all the documentation or if you have reached the externally-set goals… Even then I know myself and notice that the children’s group in question where I work, they need something else and especially they need me just being present, setting borders, kindness. It doesn’t matter how fancy goals have been set (because goals have to be set for each age group, so that early childhood education can be described as equal and of high quality) if there are no resources and opportunities for reaching them. The reason can simply be that the children have various needs or, for example, that they do not have enough Finnish language skill and conceptual understanding to even have a basic idea of what we are talking

34

A. Rajala et al. about. And for another matter, it can well be that the child has challenges in the mental capacity to act at the level at which the goals have been set. In these situations, as a good educator, I shape my goals and take into account the fact that I work with a very diverse group with multiple levels of capabilities (both language capacity and overall capacity). [It is not pleasant] to hear my colleagues and leadership claim how tedious it is that the agreed issues are not in use and that I do not have things quite under control.

Above the teacher describes that she would like to support the children in her own way, to be with them and be present for them, but she is forced to comply with the goals that others impose on her activity and have to spend a lot of time in documenting what she has done, which is away from her actual time with the children. In effect, she is confronted with a double bind that annoys her, that is, a situation in which she receives two messages which negate each other (Bateson et al., 1956). On the one hand, if she does her job as she thinks the children need, she will get scolding from her colleagues and leadership. On the other hand, if she adheres to the rules, she gets a bad conscience of leaving the children on their own. Her response to this double bind situation was something as extreme as trying to leave the field and change a career, which she, however, described enjoying and being competent at. This account makes visible the complexity of institutional care work. Here, what matters is not so much the teacher’s capacity to notice the children’s needs or to feel empathic concern. On the contrary, the teacher communicates a self-understanding of being especially sensitive to noticing emotional climates and children’s needs. She also expresses a strongly-felt empathic concern for the children’s welfare. This emotion is felt to the extent that it becomes an unbearable contradiction that forces her to seek an alternative career. Instead, part of what is at stake is that the work conditions do not allow her the time and the resources to be in immediate social interaction with the children, which she feels is necessary for her to notice the needs of the children and their families and to support them when they need it. Underlying this situation appears to be contradictory views about how the work of education and care is to be organised and divided in the work community. The conflict between the teacher and the leadership of the unit related to documenting the activity, implementation of collectively agreed arrangements, as well as reaching of the goals and quality standards that were posed to achieve equal quality of education and care for every child. The teacher objects to the collective and standardized approach, which conflicts with her preferred way of working, and creates a perceived obstacle to addressing the children’s needs appropriately in the way that she understands them. In this conflict, we can hear echoes of several contradictory historical layers of the activity. The teacher seems to have a relatively traditional understanding of her job. The staff members we interviewed at the kindergarten still remember the time in which they were solely responsible for their own group of children and spent much of their time in direct social interaction with them. The division of labour between the nurse and the teacher was relatively undifferentiated. This used to be a common division of labour among the staff members of kindergartens in Finland,

3  Critical Compassion in Finnish Early Childhood Educators’ Responses…

35

often characterised as the “everyone does everything” principle (Kinos, 1997; Onnismaa et al., 2017). However, several convergent changes in the Finnish ECEC system and policy have contributed to the conditions in which this teacher appears to be struggling with the contradictory demands of her work. Firstly, the new early childhood education legislation and the binding National core curriculum guide the contents and activity of ECEC in a more specific and goal-oriented manner than before (Karila, 2016). At the same time, there is an increase in management-by-­ results types of governance (Sihvola, 2020). These changes contribute to the increased demands felt by the teacher to produce varied documentation regarding the activity and the children, as well as to adhere to external quality standards (see also Karila, 2016; Paananen, 2017). Secondly, there has been a significant change in the division of labour between the staff members in the direction of it being more differentiated and hierarchical. The new Finnish Act on Early Childhood Education and Care changed the staff qualification requirements, imposing more liabilities and duties on ECEC teachers. The teachers have more responsibility for the documentation of the activity and children’s education plans as well as for organising and attending to various meetings with the parents and other professionals regarding the special needs of children. Consequently, they may have less time than the nurses to be in direct social interaction with the children. Especially in this kindergarten, many children had needs that required organisation and reporting of multi-professional meetings, which added to the teachers’ workload. It is beyond the scope of this chapter to offer an in-depth discussion of the positive or negative consequences of the changes in ECEC policies for the care of children. However, we hope that our analysis makes clear the limitations of an exclusive focus on individual educators’ capacity for caring and compassion and evidences the need to examine care and compassion as integral aspects of the collective organisation of the activity in its cultural-historical context. For the teacher in this example, the challenges and obstacles for acting compassionately appeared to be primarily at the collective and not at the individual level of the activity. The analysis also sheds light on the agency of the teacher in her attempts to break out of the double bind situation she felt she was in. However, the lack of support that she experienced resulted in directing her agency to seek to exit the stressful and apparently hopeless situation, rather than solving it in a constructive manner. We argue that a constructive solution would require collective engagement with the historical contradictions of the activity and negotiations about the organisation of the work.

3.4.2  Excerpt 2 The second example offers a nurse’s perspective, in which she explains the nature-­ related pedagogical arrangements she had planned in her leisure time for the children at the kindergarten.

36

A. Rajala et al. Nurse: We have gone to nature. It is not easy, but we have done it. A pity we have had to cancel it a couple of times. I would have liked to take the children to my father’s garden, but we can’t go there because of the weather. It is still too cold. I would like to show the children the miracle of growth. I called the city garden and asked if they could give us seeds and onions so that the children could see them grow. They also had seedlings of violets and she asked if we want them. She brought them there and we carried them here, the children carried them. And I asked about getting seeds for all the pre-schoolers, without talking about it with anyone here, and I thought that it might fail. But it succeeded better than expected. I called them to ask if they also had pots and they had, and I used my own money to buy the soil. I did not want to wait to get approval from the leaders, I would have had to talk with them to get the funds to buy the soil. So, I just got the pots, I used my own car to get them … Interviewer: Why do you want to do this? Nurse: I want to do it for the children, they are happy when it succeeds… There is no time to plan here, especially because I am not a teacher. This was planned with Jaana [another nurse], although we don’t have time for planning, we don’t have time to meet, we have been given nothing.

In the interview, the nurse explains that she does a lot of planning and invests her own time and even money to do things with children to address their pedagogical needs. She complains in the excerpt that the teachers get all the planning time and as her role is to nurse, no time is allocated to her for planning and organising. Nevertheless, she explains that she wants to use her own resources to do that to see the joy in children. She does that almost secretly. Here we have another example of an ECEC professional acting compassionately with children (by offering them experiences she feels they love) by stretching the boundaries of her work position and by making personal sacrifices. Interestingly, here too, these acts of compassion take place as the teacher’s individual agentive efforts, almost on the side if not against her organisation. These challenges relate to a newly arrived historical arrangement of the ECEC work that we discussed above: recently the nurses’ and teachers’ work requirements have been differentiated. As suggested in this example and the previous one, this has left some kindergartens in an unclear situation because the division of labour between different professional groups is not clear or is contested. The challenge in the above example from the perspective of care and compassion is that if organisational support is not available or is unclear for different groups, acting compassionately may remain an individual choice. Making individual sacrifices can be draining and the cost of personal investment and acting alone – sometimes even secretly from the rest of the community – may be an increased level of stress and compassion fatigue. In sum, this example suggests lost opportunities to offer flexible support on an as-needed basis and to build a collective capability for compassion in the organisation (Lilius et al., 2008, 2011).

3  Critical Compassion in Finnish Early Childhood Educators’ Responses…

37

3.4.3  Excerpt 3 The final example is from the observation notes of one of the researchers. It is a discussion with the vice-director of the kindergarten who also worked there as a teacher. Prior to the discussion, the researcher had just observed a spontaneous session in which the teacher explained to children what was going to happen to them the following year, as they were to move from pre-school to school). She had particularly wanted to explain this to one of the children, Ndricim, who had been informed that he would not be starting school the following year as planned. The teacher tells me that she did this session because Ndricim was told in December that he would need to do another pre-school year (and not yet go to school as planned). Ndricim had difficulties understanding this as they had already talked about him attending school. The teacher tells me that she wanted to make the thing definite with the help of pictures, so that the boy could understand it. Before lunch, the teacher had told me that she had some vice-director tasks to do but now she tells me that she could not get to do them because she thought it was more important to deal with Ndricim. They were going to visit the school and she did not want to take Ndricim there because he was now denied the opportunity to go to school next year. The teacher explains to me that she felt it important to be able to explain the issue to Ndricim before the others went on the school visit. The teacher tells me that she is upset that she does not have enough time to do the vice director tasks but she also tells me that when she agreed to take the role of the vice director, she said she did it on the condition that she could prioritise the children’s needs.

From these notes, we can infer that in rearranging the schedules and organising the mini session for the children, the teacher engaged in an act of compassion out of concern of Ndricim’s well-being. There was a sense of urgency to help Ndricim to understand and accept the decision to postpone his school start, which was potentially a great disappointment that would destroy his enthusiasm to start the school next year. In contrast to the first example, we can see a sense of empowerment in this account. The teacher appears to feel entitled to make flexible rearrangements and negotiate the various demands, in effect exercising transformative agency in creating the conditions needed for the compassionate act. In contrast to the second example, this teacher construed this deviation from the plans as an explicit part of her job, and feels entitled to alter her work time openly and flexibly to prioritise the children’s emergent needs. Through enacting agency in rechannelling resources and repurposing the situation, the teacher engages in an instance of critical compassion, which appeared to be essential to create a supportive and safe learning environment for the children.

3.5  Discussion We have seen that compassion is a dynamic process that is constructed relationally through multiple interactions within a cultural context, involving ongoing transformations of both the community and the self (Lipponen et al., 2018; Broadfoot &

38

A. Rajala et al.

Pascal, 2020). Furthermore, it is through interactions that compassion is contested, negotiated and re-negotiated. Although it is likely that compassion always manifests itself in educational institutions, it is argued that these institutions seldom systematically harness social practices that support compassion (see Peterson, 2016). In our vignettes, all three interviewees described how a compassionate and caring orientation to children is at the heart of their activity and professional identity. These examples support and add to Geoff Taggart’s (2016) contention that acting compassionately is at the heart of ECEC practitioners’ ethical professionalism. However, in all three of these vignettes, we also see ECEC professionals working to solve dilemmas they face in relation to their priority of acting compassionately in their daily work, which calls for a political interpretation of compassion (Whitebrook, 2014). All three of them described a situation in which compassion as a value is partly in conflict with the other organisational requirements of their work positions or challenging to fulfil. The ways in which these professionals responded to the challenges of caring and compassion are different but they all end up stretching the boundaries of their professional conduct in their response to the situation. In this respect, the examples point to – we dare to say – typical situations in the field of ECEC, in which individual professionals are at the risk of leaving, becoming cynical or burning themselves out. The study of Paananen and Tammi (2017) gives support to this interpretation. The ECEC staff from various kindergartens whom they interviewed experienced tensions between the needs of the management and the needs of the children, with negative implications for their work-related wellbeing and opportunities for responding to children’s initiatives. In short, the increasingly managerial ways of governing ECEC in Finland appear not to fit easily together with the child-centred manner of understanding the ECEC work (Paananen, 2017). In our vignettes, compassion and care appeared not always to be the first priority from the organisational perspective but rather were realised through individuals making conscious decisions, sometimes even against the organisational culture, to respond to the children’s needs. To conclude, we propose some practical implications for the work in ECEC. Creating conditions for caring and compassion in a kindergarten requires supportive organisational structures – or otherwise, it may mean regularly bending rules or requirements of one’s work with possible negative consequences for one’s health and well-being. Thus, there is a need for a collective process of critical compassion that involves questioning and analysing taken-for-granted ways of organising work as well as envisioning and implementing new models of the activity to remove systemic and institutional obstacles for well-being and flourishing (see also Lipponen et al., 2018; Engeström, 2007). As the examples analysed and discussed in this chapter show, these obstacles often originate in the historical contradictions within the field of ECEC. To deal with these contradictions, the work community needs to come together to share examples of problems, analyse them together, as well as envision, design and experiment with new ways of organizing work. For example, ‘change laboratory’ is a method that can support such collaborative learning in and transformation of work activities (Virkkunen & Newnham, 2013). In all,

3  Critical Compassion in Finnish Early Childhood Educators’ Responses…

39

it is not sufficient to develop individual ECEC professionals’ sensitivity to children’s needs and caring orientation. In this chapter, we have argued that it is important to ask what makes an ECEC organization collectively capable of compassion. Acknowledgements  The research reported in this article was funded by the Academy of Finland (the project no. 299191). This paper is partly stimulated by the ongoing discussions and collaborative activities of a diverse group of scholars as part of the Re-generating CHAT research network, www.re-­generatingchat.com.

References Bateson, G., Jackson, D. D., Haley, J., & Weakland, J. (1956). Toward a theory of schizophrenia. Behavioral Science, 1, 251–264. Broadfoot, H., & Pascal, C. (2020). Exploring experiences of compassion in the daily rhythms of one early childhood community. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 28, 457–474. Engeström, Y. (2007). Putting Vygotsky to work: The change laboratory as an application of double stimulation. In H. Daniels, M. Cole, & J. V. Wertsch (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky (pp. 363–382). Cambridge University Press. Finnish National Agency for Education. (2018). National Core Curriculum for Early Childhood Education and Care. Frost, P. J., Dutton, J. E., Worline, M. C., & Wilson, A. (2000). Narratives of compassion in organizations. In S. Fineman (Ed.), Emotions in organizations (pp. 25–45). Sage Publications. Goetz, L., Keltner, D., & Simon-Thomas, E. (2010). Compassion: An evolutionary analysis and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin, 36, 351–374. Goldstein, L. S. (1998). More than gentle smiles and warm hugs: Applying the ethic of care to early childhood education. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 12(2), 244–261. Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (2007). Ethnography: Principles in practice. Routledge. Hilppö, J., Rajala, A., Lipponen, L., Pursi, A., & Abdulhamed, R. (2019). 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 (Vol. 2, pp. 64–75). Routledge. Hoffman, D. (2009). Reflecting on social emotional learning: A critical perspective on trends in the United States. Review of Educational Research, 79, 533–556. Jensen, B. (2009). A Nordic approach to early childhood education (ECE) and socially endangered children. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 17, 7–21. Karila, K. (2012). A Nordic perspective on early childhood education and care policy. European Journal of Education, 47(4), 584–595. Karila, K. (2016). Vaikuttava varhaiskasvatus [impactful early childhood education]. Raportit ja selvitykset, 2016, 6. Available at: http://www.oph.fi/download/176638_vaikuttava_varhaiskasvatus.pdf Kinos, J. (1997). Päiväkoti ammattikuntien kamppailujen kenttänä. [Kindergarten as a field of struggle for professions]. University of Turrku. Lilius, J., Worline, M., Maitlis, S., Kanov, J., Dutton, J., & Frost, P. (2008). The contours and consequences of compassion at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 193–218. Lilius, J., Worline, M., Dutton, J., Kanov, J., & Maitlis, S. (2011). Understanding compassion capability. Human Relations, 64, 873–899. Lipponen, L., & Kumpulainen, K. (2011). Acting as accountable authors: Creating interactional spaces for agency work in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(5), 812–819.

40

A. Rajala et al.

Lipponen, L. (2018). Constituting cultures of compassion in early childhood educational settings. In S. Garvis & E. E. Ødegaard (Eds.), Nordic dialogue on children and families (pp. 39–50). Routledge. Lipponen, L., Rajala, A., & Hilppö, J. (2018). Compassion and emotional worlds in early childhood education. In C. Pascal, T. Bertram, & M. Veisson (Eds.), Early childhood education and change in diverse cultural contexts (pp. 168–178). Routledge. Lynch, K., Baker, J., Lyons, M., Feeley, M., Hanlon, N., Walsh, J., & Cantillon, S. (2016). Affective equality: Love, care and injustice. Springer. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage Publications. Nislin, M.  A., Sajaniemi, N.  K., Sims, M., Suhonen, E., Maldonado Montero, E.  F., Hirvonen, A., & Hyttinen, S. (2016). Pedagogical work, stress regulation and work-related Well-being among early childhood professionals in integrated special day-care groups. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 31(1), 27–43. Onnismaa, E.-L., Kalliala, M., & Tahkokallio, L. (2017). Koulutuspoliittisten paradoksien jäljillä – Miten varhaiskasvatus muotoutui sosiaalialan koulutuksia suosivaksi [tracing paradoxes of educational policy – How was early childhood education shaped to give preference to qualifications in social work]. Kasvatus & Aika, 11(3), 4–20. Paananen, M. (2017). Imaginaries of early childhood education: Societal roles of early childhood education in an era of accountability. Doctoral dissertation. University of Helsinki. Paananen, M., & Tammi, T. (2017). Työn kuormittavuuden kokemusten, työn tehostamisen ja sairauspoissaolojen moni-ulotteiset yhteydet lastentarhanopettajan työssä. [the multidimensional connections betweeen teachers’ experiences of stress, intensification measures and the amount of sick leaves in the work of early childhood educators]. Journal of Early Childhood Education Research, 6(1), 43–60. Peterson, A. (2016). Compassion and education: Cultivating compassionate children, schools and communities. Springer. Rainio, A. P. (2008). From resistance to involvement: Examining agency and control in a playworld activity. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 15(2), 115–140. Rajala, A. (2016). Toward an agency-centered pedagogy: A teacher's journey of expanding the context of school learning. Doctoral dissertation. University of Helsinki. Rajala, A., Kontiola, H., Hilppö, J., & Lipponen, L. (2019). Lohdutustilanteet ja myötätuntokulttuuri alle kolmivuotiaiden päiväkotiryhmässä [soothing situations and culture of compassion in a kindergarten group of below three-years-olds]. Kasvatus, 4, 314–326. Rajala, A., & Lipponen, L. (2018). Early childhood education and Care in Finland: Compassion in narrations of early childhood education student teachers. In S.  Garvis, S.  Phillipson, & H. Harju-Luukkainen (Eds.), Early childhood education in the 21st century: An international perspective, Volume I (pp. 64–75). Routledge. Taggart, G. (2016). Compassionate pedagogy: The ethics of care in early childhood professionalism. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 24, 173–185. Taggart, G. (2019). From mothering to social compassion: The ethical context of early childhood education. In G. Barton & S. Garvis (Eds.), Learning, teaching and theorizing compassion and empathy in education (pp. 120–135). Palgrave. Ure, M., & Frost, M. (Eds.). (2014). The politics of compassion. Routledge. Virkkunen, J., & Newnham, D. S. (2013). The change laboratory: A tool for collaborative development of work and education. Sense Publishers. Whitebrook, M. (2014). Love and anger as political virtues. In M. Ure & M. Frost (Eds.), The politics of compassion (pp. 21–36). Routledge.

Chapter 4

Widening Text Worlds in Finnish Early Childhood Education Alexandra Nordström, Heidi Sairanen, Jenny Byman, Jenny Renlund, and Sara Sintonen

Abstract  The focus of this chapter is on multiliteracies and widening text worlds in early childhood education (ECE) in Finland. The concept of multiliteracies refers to an understanding of multiple texts (both analogue and digital) in multiple platforms with multiple contexts. In this chapter, the following questions are explored: How can we find a good balance in widening text worlds? How can we decide what texts to use in an early childhood education context, and how can we develop a pedagogy of multiliteracies? In the Finnish ECE perspective, multiliteracies are considered to promote educational equality among children. This chapter clarifies the concept of multiliteracies in ECE and construes how and why it will widen the text worlds and promote equality in early childhood education learning. Based on this understanding, some of the pedagogical principles that can be applied to early childhood education in support of young children’s multiliteracies thinking and practices will be presented at the end of this chapter.

4.1  M  ultiliteracies and the Finnish Core Curriculum for ECE Finland is ranked as the world’s most literate nation (Miller & McKenna, 2016). However, research shows that Finnish children and young people do not enjoy reading, their interest in print-based literacy is declining, and there is growing inequality in young people’s reading habits and multiliteracies skills as well as in access to technology (Kaarakainen & Kaarakainen, 2018; Mullis et al., 2017). Our focus in this chapter is on multiliteracies and widening text worlds in Finnish ECE. The concept of multiliteracy refers to an understanding of multiple texts in multiple platforms with multiple contexts, and with widening text worlds we refer A. Nordström (*) · H. Sairanen · J. Byman · J. Renlund · S. Sintonen University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 H. Harju-Luukkainen et al. (eds.), Finnish Early Childhood Education and Care, Early Childhood Research and Education: An Inter-theoretical Focus 1, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95512-0_4

41

42

A. Nordström et al.

to the expanding dispositions of meaning-making and communication. The concept of multiliteracies is discussed in this chapter, and we have construed how and why multiliteracies can widen the text worlds and promote equality in ECE. The Finnish national core curriculum for ECE has been implemented at every early childhood education centre. All cities and municipalities create their own curriculum which follows the national core curriculum, but they have added their own characteristics into the curriculum. In Finland, the core curricula are subjected to reform in approximately 10 years cycles (Välijärvi & Sulkunen, 2016). In the latest Finnish curricular reform, which took place from 2014 to 2016, especially the national core curriculum for ECE was revised. The curriculum for ECE underwent changes in at least two significant ways. First, the curriculum for ECE changed from a recommendation to a binding document as the curricula in pre-primary and basic education had already been. Second, the curriculum was devised distinctively more consistent with pre-primary and basic education, thus the consistency of the curricula aims to promote a continuous educational path from early years to secondary level (FNAE, 2018, pp. 19, 24). Further, considerable development in the reform throughout all national core curricula was the introduction of transversal competencies, coherent from ECE to basic education and into upper secondary school. The curricula state that transversal competencies are needed in a changing world to ensure the individual child’s opportunities and abilities for participation in the social and cultural communities of democratic societies. According to the national core curriculum for ECE, multiliteracy (combined with ICT skills) as a transversal competence “is required in the everyday lives of children and families, interaction between people and participation in the society. Multiliteracy [...] promotes children’s equality in education” (FNAE, 2018, pp. 43–44). In addition, multiliteracy should be promoted across the activities; It is not a subject nor an area of learning but high-quality pedagogical activities and learning environments which support children’s learning and well-being across learning areas (FNAE, 2018, p. 36). The curricula aim to provide equal rights to every child for high-quality education. Throughout the curricula, pedagogies are based on ideals of equal opportunity, diversity and valuing the uniqueness of each individual child. (2014b, FNAE, 2014a, 2018). However, educational equality shows signs of decline as the Finnish educational system has found it to be difficult to respond to challenges in pupils’ declining reading literacy motivation and families’ increasing socioeconomic differences (Välijärvi & Sulkunen, 2016).

4.2  Toward Multiliteracies and Widening Text Worlds In this chapter, we discuss Finnish early childhood education policy and practices from the point of view of contemporary literacy resources and children’s meaning-­ making potential with multimodal texts. Following this line of thinking, it is relevant to ask: How can we find a good balance in widening text worlds? How can we

4  Widening Text Worlds in Finnish Early Childhood Education

43

decide what texts to use in an early childhood education context, and how can we develop a pedagogy of multiliteracies? By emphasising and exploring widening literacy resources, we point out the pedagogical relevance of understanding the role and meaning of multimodality in children’s textual orientations. According to Kress (1997) children tend to extend and enhance meanings by moving signs across modalities. There is a need to improve understanding of the multimodal nature of young children’s meaning-­ making and communicative practices (see also Kress, 1997; Larson & Marsh, 2013). In the research literature, the aim of multiliteracy (or multiliteracies as we have preferred in our chapter (see e.g. Serafini & Gee, 2017)), is to widen the notion of reading and texts more broadly rephrasing the meaning to include a variety of textual modalities under the concept, such as written, oral, audio-visual, printed and digital, as well as various combinations of modalities, and emphasising the production of the texts next to reading and understanding (Kumpulainen et  al., 2018; Välijärvi & Sulkunen, 2016). The national core curriculum for early childhood education and care emphasises interaction and interpreting of culturally complex forms of messages as crucial components in the pedagogy of multiliteracy (FNAE, 2018, p. 26). The curriculum underscores that children should be encouraged to explore, produce and use various messages in both analogue and digital environments (FNAE, 2018, p. 26). Promoting children’s active exploring and curiosity together with personnel and other children are important aspects of multiliteracy in the ECE national core curriculum (FNAE, 2018, p. 26). The curriculum states that learning should take place in a rich textual environment, including culture produced by and for children, such as stories/storytelling (traditional and digital), rhymes and poems, everyday verbalisation and conversation, TV programmes and films and music or drama. Therefore, the notion of multiliteracies presented in the curriculum entails a broad definition of text, in which a text can be made up of several modalities, such as written text, images, symbols, facial expressions, gestures, sounds and combinations of these, and can be both digital and analogue (see also Kress, 1997; Kumpulainen, Sairanen, & Nordström, 2020b). Hence, a broad conceptualisation of text implies that a text can be written, spoken, audio-visual and digital, or a combination of these. We address young children’s literacy practices as fluid, nonlinear (Burnett & Merchant, 2020; Leander & Boldt, 2013), interactive (Kress, 1997) and dynamic (Burnett & Merchant, 2020; Cope & Kalantzis, 2009). In this chapter, we use four case examples to illuminate how multimodal and playful joint activities have been carried out as a part of further developing a pedagogy of multiliteracies within the context of Finnish ECE. The four case examples were carried out as projects which aimed to promote multiliteracies as a part of the Finnish national research and development programme The joy of learning multiliteracies (www.monilukutaito. com/en) at the Playful Learning Center (www.plchelsinki.fi) of the Faculty of Educational Sciences at the University of Helsinki. We examine the material and environmental prerequisites, the pedagogical solutions and the texts utilised in these examples. In summary, we investigate young children’s widening text worlds in Finnish ECE.

44

A. Nordström et al.

4.3  C  onceptual Framing of Multiliteracies and Young Children’s Literacy Practices The background to the definition of multiliteracies lays in the seminal work by the New London Group (1996, Cope & Kalantzis, 2009) in which the authors asked several critical questions: why is there a need to focus on literacy practices?; what should learning include?; and how should learning take place in the modern society that is characterised by linguistic and cultural diversity? The groundwork by the New London Group has further influenced books, journals and the new literacies movement (Leander & Boldt, 2013; Serafini & Gee, 2017). One aim of the pedagogy of multiliteracies advocated by the New London Group was to create a broader understanding of literacy practices and new modes of communication in contemporary society. Research conducted by the New London Group was initially focusing on sociocultural perspectives on literacy practices but was further developed in the field of new literacy studies to include, for instance digital literacy (Boyd & Brock, 2015; Serafini & Gee, 2017). In its original conceptualisation, multiliteracy was not defined as different skills, but rather as a pedagogical approach to literacy, dividing different ways of meaning-making into situated practice, overt instructions, critical framing and transformed practice. Situated practice focuses on children’s learning through emphasising the children’s own knowledge, experiences and interests in learning (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009). Overt instruction draws focus on developing a specific metalanguage to express the design and modes of meaning. Critical framing refers to interpreting and reflecting on texts from a contextual perspective. Transformative practices approach a pedagogy in which children are supported in becoming active learners, which further supports learning in new and challenging contexts or situations (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009; New London Group, 1996). The pedagogy of multiliteracy argues that to be included in extended communities and lifeworld’s, the individual needs the ability to navigate through multiple literacy practices. The New London Group emphasised that the pedagogy of multiliteracy should consider social, cultural and linguistic diversity and a diversity of multimodal texts (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009). Therefore, literacy practices in contemporary society are “fundamentally different ways of knowing and learning the world’‘ (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009, p. 180). Cope and Kalantzis (2009) present literacies through different modalities of meaning-making, further developing the pedagogy of multiliteracy created by the New London Group. Multimodality refers to different modes of meaning-making which individuals use to interpret the world. The different modes include written and oral language, visual, audio, tactile, gestural and spatial representation, and these modalities can occur separately and/or as parallels with each other in meaning-making processes. This framing emphasises the notion of multiliteracies as a multitude of literacies and social practices (e.g. Serafini & Gee, 2017). Leander and Boldt (2013) offer some critical notions concerning the pedagogy of multiliteracy in its original form. They state that literacy practices occur in the “ongoing present, forming relations and connections across signs, objects, and bodies in often unexpected ways” (Leander & Boldt, 2013,

4  Widening Text Worlds in Finnish Early Childhood Education

45

p. 26), suggesting we recognize for example movement and sensations in literacy activities. That is, literacy practices are not projected toward a defined textual end point but are emergent and relational. Positioning and defining multiliteracies in the Finnish core curriculum differ somewhat from the original notion of multiliteracies put forth by the New London Group. The semiotic and textual understanding of multiliteracies in the Finnish core curriculum does not encompass dimensions of equality and social justice to the same extent as the New London Group’s original framing of the concept (Mertala, 2018; Palsa & Ruokamo, 2015). In the Finnish core curricula, multiliteracy is defined as competencies related to texts, and not as a pedagogical approach to literacy as emphasised in the original concept (Mertala, 2018; Palsa & Ruokamo, 2015). However, the transversal competencies, and the national core curricula as a whole, include ideals of diversity and equality that are similar to the ones in the original conception of multiliteracies (Mertala, 2018). Drawing on new literacy studies and sociocultural theorising, we approach young children’s literacy practices as socially situated practices, embedded in cultural and historical contexts, also recognising the various modalities of communication and meaning making (Kress, 2011; Larson & Marsh, 2013; Street, 1984). Building on sociocultural theorising informed by the affective and material turns in educational sciences (see Hackett et al., 2020; Leander & Ehret, 2019), we address young children’s multimodal literacy practices and meaning-making as being deeply entwined with the material dimension (Burnett & Merchant, 2018, 2020; Hackett & Rautio, 2019). We do not understand materials (that is, tools, technologies, bodies, actions, objects, texts and discourses) solely as mediational, but also as entangled in children’s text worlds (Fenwick et al., 2011). Hence, we consider what relational and material perspectives might add to the discussion on children’s widening text worlds, in which young children’s literacy practices are ongoing in the present, forming dynamic relations and connections across signs and bodies (Leander & Boldt, 2013). Focusing on the material aspects of children’s meaning-making and text worlds, taking into consideration the physical, temporal and spatial aspects, enable a comprehensive investigation into young children’s literacy practices in situ (Burnett et  al., 2020; Fenwick et  al., 2011; Kuby & Rowsell, 2017; Leander & Ehret, 2019). Using this perspective illuminates how children create ways of communicating, knowing, being and doing, emphasising the contextual nature of (children’s) literacy practices. It also acknowledges children’s own interests and experiences (Burnett et  al., 2014; Leander & Boldt, 2013). From this perspective, understanding children’s widened text worlds entails directing attention to the material requirements, children’s creation and remixing of multimodal texts as well as the pedagogical solutions and interaction in situ. According to our reading of the Finnish national core curriculum for ECE, it clearly advocates utilising and exploring various modalities and contexts, which draws attention to social interaction and pedagogy and emphasises rich textual environments drawing on children’s interests and experiences, proposing that young children’s widening text worlds be considered in everyday practices in ECE.

46

A. Nordström et al.

4.4  P  romoting Multiliteracies Through Widening Text Worlds Finnish early childhood education has a long tradition of child-centred pedagogy that emphasises children’s initiatives and agency in and for pedagogical activities and consequent learning opportunities (Kumpulainen, 2018; see also Pramling Samuelsson & Asplund Carlsson, 2008). Characteristic of Finnish ECE is to have pedagogical activities indoors or outdoors, combining children-led activities, free play and teacher-led activities. Researchers have long identified play as a vital component in the development of a child (e.g. Bergen, 2002; Garvey, 1993; Vygotsky, 1976), and dynamic literacy practices also occur in children’s digitally enriched play activities, whereby children seemingly weave and merge online and offline play together (Marsh, 2010; Plowman et al., 2012). In the technological and cultural contexts of the past two decades, the movement towards on-print and print-mixed texts has accelerated because of access to digital affordances for creating and mixing print, images, sounds, video and music. The ongoing trend towards multimodality is global and multigenerational. The swing in the landscape of communication from linear print to spatial images prompts the creation of many print-mixed texts (Kress, 2003, 2010). In Finnish education, one way to respond to these aforementioned challenges has been to include multiliteracy as a transversal competence across all core curricula. Furthermore, an aim of Joy of Learning Multiliteracies, the national research and development programme, is to promote young children’s multiliteracies, considering the pedagogy of multiliteracy advocated by the New London Group, along with a dynamic multiliteracy model formed by the research group, building on Green’s (1988) dynamic literacy theory. In the pedagogical model of dynamic multiliteracies (Kumpulainen et  al., 2018) four intertwined practices are presented. First, Interpretation of texts refers to children’s ability to understand the rules, concepts and symbols in various texts. It also entails children’s ability to analyse and interpret a variety of texts, while understanding the objective, operational culture, values and ideologies behind a text. Second, Production of texts focuses on skills in using different types of texts and tools to create information and to make and share meanings. This includes taking responsibility in one’s production and communication of texts. Third, Enculturation refers to a child’s ability to grow into, participate in and influence existing cultures of practice by learning to use tools and texts in culturally appropriate ways. Fourth, Imagination highlights children’s right to imagine and play with texts and culture. By using their imagination children can actively participate in the creation of new meanings, cultural products and information. (Kumpulainen et al., 2018).

4  Widening Text Worlds in Finnish Early Childhood Education

47

4.4.1  R  eflecting Dynamic Multiliteracies Through Four Case Examples We reflect children’s widening text worlds upon the dimensions of the dynamic multiliteracy model (Kumpulainen et al., 2018) through the four Finnish multiliteracy cases on which we have recently been working. In our adaption of a framework synthesis method (Barnett-Page & Thomas, 2009), we considered the following aspects of widening text worlds; (1). The material and environmental requirements and conditions (resources), (2). The kinds of pedagogy represented (teachers’ pedagogical choices), and (3). Ownership and utilisation of texts (children’s agency). Examining these three aspects provides a better understanding of the potential of children’s meaning-making with multimodal texts in widening text worlds. Nordström et  al. (2019) examined how young (6-year-old) children’s positive affect is evoked when children are creating, making, and sharing texts and interests during their multimodal and playful multiliteracies project called The Spirits of the forest (inspired by the digital material Whisper of the Spirit, which is pedagogical open-ended resource based on Finnish myths and nature). The material and environmental conditions promoted and supported creativity, multimodal play and social relations. The project was carried out in literacy-rich environments created for and by children, i.e. in the classroom, the local library and the nearby forest. The project was planned by the teachers and children together and was based on the children’s interests, such as elves and figures in Finnish nature and myths, including Santa Claus and his elves. They searched for information about elves by googling on a tablet and by reading stories recommended by librarians, and they attended a play about elves. The children made their own spirits of the forest out of natural materials, such as cones and twigs, and materials found in the ECE centre, such as newspapers and leftover cardboard. When visiting the forest and choosing their materials, the children experienced different materials through different senses, such as smell and taste. The children created a backstory for their own spirit as written text and as a voice recording behind a QR code, and the artefacts together with stories were then exhibited at the local library (Nordström et al., 2019). Sairanen et  al. (2019) described teachers’ sense-making of multiliteracies and the study illuminates the four Finnish teachers’ use of the pedagogical resource called Whisper of the Spirit. All the teachers were applying the same material in unique ways across their teaching. Two ECE teachers and two pre-primary teachers implemented the material in various ways using it outdoors and indoors together with the children and took advantage of material affordances of their own learning environments. Hands-on activities were connected to children’s digital production and remixing. In their own story creation, children used digital tools, brought artistic elements and applied nature materials and also materials provided by the ECE centre. The teachers recognised that children’s interest and curiosity developed as

48

A. Nordström et al.

the result of the activities, their ability to imagine and produce meaningful multimodal content. Stories and tales were emphasised as well as children’s imaginary play. Teachers emphasised digital production but also offered activities in which children could produce without digital devices (Sairanen et al., 2019). Kumpulainen, Byman, et al. (2020a) investigated children’s (N = 62, aged 7–9) storying of nature with and through MyARJulle, an augmented reality application. The application has been developed to be used with young children. Instead of learning about nature, the aim was to promote imaginative and explorative interacting with the environment through digital storying, with a focus on children’s imagination, wonder, and multimodal and embodied interactions with nature. The study was conducted in a Finnish elementary school and the nearby outdoor surroundings. The school was situated in an urban environment, surrounded by a natural landscape with forest and hills. As an introduction, the children listened to a story about forest elves included in the application and received instructions and guidance from teachers and researchers on how to use the application. The children used tablet computers to take pictures outdoors and to explore, imagine and create their own stories about Julle, the forest elf, in nature. After exploring the outdoor surroundings of the school with Julle, the children’s photographs and stories were shared and discussed in small groups of children and researchers. The children were given space to express their thoughts and values about nature and to be part of creating and voicing relational entanglements of augmented reality, digital devices, humans and nature (Kumpulainen, Byman, et al., 2020a). Sairanen et al. (2020) investigated children’s agency and teacher-child interaction during a multiliteracies project. Using video data, the researchers observed the actions of eight five-year-old Finnish children and two ECE practitioners (an ECE teacher and a child carer) in a project called “The Spirit”, which was based on Whisper of the Spirit. The project lasted three months and it included mainly teacher-designed activities which were carried out once or twice per week. During the project, children discussed the topic and stories, read about spirits and gnomes, moulded spirit characters for animation, designed and crafted homes for them, and created and produced digital animations. During the project, the materials they used included modelling clay, recycled cardboard and materials from nature from the local environment. (Sairanen et al., 2020). Next, we will summarise these case examples (in chronological order following publication date). The following table assembles the key elements from the material, pedagogical and textual points of view (Table 4.1). From a multiliteracies point of view, in these cases, the Finnish early education and its pedagogy encompasses a full range of such communicative settings, in which children can use a variety of representative forms of expression and modes of meaning-making with equal dignity and importance. Using a range of multimodal texts can operate as the analytical lens that leads our attention to other areas where meanings emerge, beyond that of language. Rich, textual environments that encourage children to investigate, conceptualise, produce, share and make meaning are at the heart of supporting children’s engagements with and learning about

4  Widening Text Worlds in Finnish Early Childhood Education

49

Table 4.1  Aspects of widening text worlds through multiliteracies policy and practices The case (article) Nordström et al. (2019)

Sairanen et al. (2019)

Kumpulainen, Byman, et al. (2020a)

Sairanen et al. (2020)

Material and environmental requirements Indoors, outdoors, their “own” forest nearby, natural materials (which were experienced through different senses), “trash”, tablet Indoors and outdoors, analogue materials for creation and making, digital tools mainly for documentation Outdoors, the schoolyard and nearby forest, augmented storying with the augmented reality application MyAR Julle

Indoors and outdoors, various materials for creation and making, digital tools mainly for animation

Pedagogical solutions Teacher leading the activities, joint planning of project with the children, children creating, making, and sharing their texts Teachers as facilitators, storytellers, children as storytellers, artistic creators, co-teachers, players Teachers and researchers guiding and supporting the children, children’s individual and collective exploring of the surroundings through digital storytelling, sharing stories. Teacher leading the activities, joint planning of creations with the children. Children creating, making, and sharing their texts.

Text ownership Children’s artefacts: Paintings, mythical creatures, stories, digital material whisper of the Spirit Teacher produced and curated, children re-produced, children produced and curated Children’s photographs and digital stories intertwined with ready-made augmented reality characters, introduction story in the digital application Various ready-made information sources, pedagogical resources for teachers to adapt, related artefacts and digital animation produced by children

multiliteracies. Multiliteracies reach above and beyond traditional text appreciation, notation reading and writing on paper, and towards individual and shared meaningmaking as well as playful activities and processes.

4.5  Discussion and Conclusions In this chapter, we focussed on how to find balance in a widening text world, how to decide what texts to use in an early childhood education context, and how to develop a pedagogy of multiliteracies. The aim of this chapter was to discuss the educational importance of multiliteracies and to recognise the meaning of widening text worlds in early childhood education. We seek to attract the attention of early educators and policy makers to the potential contribution of multimodal texts to the enhancement of multiliteracies learning, creation and communication processes in general and for young children in particular (see also Larson & Marsh, 2013). Understanding young children’s widening text worlds is also relevant from the viewpoint of learners who

50

A. Nordström et al.

are not proficient in the local language or children with learning challenges in their development of academic skills (see also Boyd & Brock, 2015; Hackett et al., 2020). In Finland, teachers are autonomous in their work and they can have an impact and can make individual choices concerning their teaching and materials. The most qualified early education teachers are trained in university teacher education programs, which are highly research-oriented (e.g. Niemi & Nevgi, 2014). According to Niemi and Nevgi (2014), teachers who are trained at the universities, are capable of thinking themselves as knowledge creators instead of being simply receivers of knowledge. We suggest that it is the teachers’ obligation to find an appropriate balance in widening text worlds, contingent on the needs and interests of the children. The teachers should, together with the children, decide the manner and sorts of utilised texts. In addition to teacher ability of adaptation, we have emphasised the importance of material fluidness (Burnett & Merchant, 2020) in developing a pedagogy of multiliteracies. As we noted earlier, dynamic, multimodal resources also stimulate teachers’ imagination and will work as a starting point for the pedagogical design of activities aimed at enhancing multiliteracies (Sairanen et al., 2019). As shown in our framework synthesis, multiliteracies can operate as the analytical lens that leads our attention to other areas in which various meanings emerge. This complexity offers multiple pathways into text worlds by giving children a choice of features and materials to notice, also through their own production and seeing others’ solutions (see also Hull & Nelson, 2005). These processes also help participants to become aware of and effectively communicate what they already know, which is important to recognise in early childhood education (Larson & Marsh, 2013). Allowing children to construct knowledge of multimodal communication within widening text worlds from their own perspective is another exciting move and interesting pedagogical outcome. In conclusion, Finnish early childhood education and care is based on each child having an equal right to take part in high-quality education. The national core curriculum for ECE states that transversal competencies, such as multiliteracies, are the way for every child to have an opportunity to increase their own potential in a changing world. Also, it highlights the equal opportunity for social and cultural participation (FNAE, 2018, pp.  24–25), even though the equality aspect is not described as a part of multiliteracies in the core curricula. We also acknowledge the need for conceptual clarification and contextualisation, that is, support for implementation from policy to practice as suggested by Palsa and Mertala (2019). However, we believe that the Finnish way and the evolving multiliteracies processes towards widening text worlds indicate the forward-looking policy and practices of early childhood education.

4  Widening Text Worlds in Finnish Early Childhood Education

51

4.6  R  ecommendations for Early Childhood Education Practices We have summarised some practical advice and pedagogical principles based on the pedagogical development work we have been conducting in the Finnish early childhood education context. The aim of our practical advice and pedagogical principles is to promote young children’s multiliteracies and to pay attention to widening text worlds. In light of the synthesis presented in this chapter, we propose the following recommendations as a guidance for policymakers and early education practitioners: • As a teacher, consider your own role and the text model you provide. • Use a wide range of modalities and materials in using and creating diverse texts with children. • Show interest and take part in children’s own text worlds and existing cultures. • Learn about different texts and modalities (both analogue and digital), and allow the children to frequently take the role of the expert. • Inspire and encourage children to create their own texts and meanings with various modalities and materials. • Show your interest and be excited about the content and texts children are producing. • Emphasise the process of creation as being equally meaningful as the final texts. • Plan pedagogical open-ended activities drawing on children’s interests and experiences with the children. • Present appropriate challenges and feedback, and try to avoid potentially demeaning assessment. • Explore and widen text worlds - your own and the children’s.

References Barnett-Page, E., & Thomas, J. (2009). Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: A critical review. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 9(59). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-­2288-­9-­59 Bergen, D. (2002). The role of pretend play in children’s cognitive development. Early Childhood Research and Practice, 4, 1–12. Boyd, F., & Brock, C. (2015). Social diversity within multiliteracies: Complexity in teaching and learning. Routledge. Burnett, C., & Merchant, G. (2018). Affective encounters: Enchantment and the possibility of reading for pleasure. Literacy, 52(2), 62–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/lit.12144 Burnett, C., & Merchant, G. (2020). Literacy-as-event: Accounting for relationality in literacy research. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 41(1), 45–56. https://doi. org/10.1080/01596306.2018.1460318 Burnett, C., Merchant, G., & Neumann, M. M. (2020). Closing the gap? Overcoming limitations in sociomaterial accounts of early literacy. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 20(1), 111–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798419896067

52

A. Nordström et al.

Burnett, C., Merchant, G., Pahl, K., & Rowsell, J. (2014). The (im)materiality of literacy: The significance of subjectivity to new literacies research. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 35(1), 90–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2012.739469 Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). “Multiliteracies”: New literacies, new learning. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 4(3), 164–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/15544800903076044 Fenwick, T., Edwards, R., & Sawchuk, P. (2011). Emerging approaches to educational research: Tracing the sociomaterial. Routledge. Finnish National Agency for Education (FNAE). (2014a). Esiopetuksen opetussuunnitelman perusteet 2014. [National Core Curriculum for Pre-Primary Education 2014]. Finnish National Agency for Education (FNAE). (2014b). Perusopetuksen opetussuunnitelman perusteet 2014 [National Core Curriculum for Basic Education 2014]. Finnish National Agency for Education (FNAE). (2018). Varhaiskasvatussuunnitelman perusteet. Määräykset ja ohjeet 2018:3a [National Core Curriculum for Early Childhood Education and Care 2018]. Garvey, C. (1993). Play. Harvard University Press. Green, B. (1988). Subject-specific literacy and school learning: A focus on writing. Australian Journal of Education, 32(2), 156–179. Hackett, A., MacLure, M., & Pahl, K. (2020). Literacy and language as material practices: Re-thinking social inequality in young children’s literacies. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 20(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798420904909 Hackett, A., & Rautio, P. (2019). Answering the world: Young children’s running and rolling as more-than-human multimodal meaning making. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 32(8), 1019–1031. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2019.1635282 Hull, G.  A., & Nelson, M.  E. (2005). Locating the semiotic power of multimodality. Written Communication, 22(2), 224–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088304274170 Kaarakainen, S.-S., & Kaarakainen, M.-T. (2018). Tulevaisuuden toivot – Digitaalisten medioiden käyttö nuorten osallisuuden ja osaamisen lähteenä. Media & Viestintä, 41(4). https://doi. org/10.23983/mv.77458 Kress, G. (1997). Before writing: Rethinking the paths to literacy. Routledge. Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. Routledge Falmer. Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality. A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. RoutledgeFalmer. Kress, G. (2011). Multimodal discourse analysis. In The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis. Routledge. Kuby, C., & Rowsell, J. (2017). Early literacy and the posthuman: Pedagogies and methodologies. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 17(3), 285–296. https://doi. org/10.1177/1468798417715720 Kumpulainen, K. (2018). A principled, personalised, trusting and child-centric ECEC system in Finland. In S. L. Kagan (Ed.), The early advantage 1: Early childhood systems that Lead by example (pp. 72–98). Teachers College Press. Kumpulainen, K., Byman, J., Renlund, J., & Wong, C. C. (2020a). Children's augmented storying in, with and for nature. Education Sciences, 10(6), 149. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10060149 Kumpulainen, K., Sairanen, H., & Nordström, A. (2020b). Young children’s digital literacy practices in the sociocultural contexts of their homes. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1468798420925116 Kumpulainen, K., Sintonen, S., Vartiainen, J., Sairanen, H., Nordström, A., Byman, J., & Renlund, J. (2018). Playful parts: The joy of learning multiliteracies. Helsinki. Larson, J., & Marsh, J. (2013). Preface. In J. Larson & J. Marsh (Eds.), The sage handbook of early childhood literacy (pp. xxix–xxxi). Sage. Leander, K., & Boldt, G. (2013). Rereading “a pedagogy of multiliteracies”: Bodies, texts, and emergence. Journal of Literacy Research, 45, 22–46. Leander, K., & Ehret, C. (2019). Affect in literacy learning and teaching: Pedagogies, politics and coming to know. Routledge.

4  Widening Text Worlds in Finnish Early Childhood Education

53

Marsh, J. (2010). Young children’s play in online virtual worlds. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 8(1), 23–39. Mertala, P. (2018). Lost in translation? Huomioita suomalaisten opetussuunnitelmien monilukutaito-­ käsitteen tutkimuksellisista ja pedagogisista haasteista. Media & viestintä, 41(1), 107–116. https://journal.fi/mediaviestinta/article/view/69921 Miller, J. W., & McKenna, M. C. (2016). World literacy: How countries rank and why it matters. Routledge. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Hooper, M. (2017). PIRLS 2016 international results in Reading. TIMSS & PIRLS international study center, Boston College. Retrieved from: http:// timssandpirls.bc.edu/pirls2016/international-­ results/. New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–93. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.66.1.17370n67v22j160u Niemi, H., & Nevgi, A. (2014). Research studies and active learning promoting professional competences in Finnish teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 43, 131–142. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.07.006 Nordström, A., Kumpulainen, K., & Potter, J. (2019). Positive affect in young children’s multiliteracies learning endeavours. In K. Kumpulainen & J. Sefton-Green (Eds.), Multiliteracies and early years innovation: Perspectives from Finland and beyond. Routledge research in early childhood education (pp. 166–182). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429432668-­10 Palsa, L., & Mertala, P. (2019). Multiliteracies in local curricula: Conceptual contextualizations of transversal competence in the Finnish curricular framework. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 5(2), 114–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2019.1635845 Palsa, L., & Ruokamo, H. (2015). Behind the concepts of multiliteracies and media literacy in the renewed Finnish core curriculum: A systematic literature review of peer-reviewed research. seminar.net, 11(2) Retrieved from https://journals.hioa.no/index.php/seminar/article/view/2354 Plowman, L., McPake, J., & Stephen, C. (2012). Extending opportunities for learning: The role of digital media in early education. In S. Suggate & E. Reese (Eds.), Contemporary debates in child development and education (pp. 95–104). Routledge. Pramling Samuelsson, I., & Asplund Carlsson, M. (2008). The playing learning child: Towards a pedagogy of early childhood. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 52(6), 623–641. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313830802497265 Sairanen, H., Kangas, J., & Sintonen, S. (2019). Finnish teachers making sense of and promoting multiliteracies in early years education. In K.  Kumpulainen & J.  Sefton-Green (Eds.), Multiliteracies and early years innovation: Perspectives from Finland and beyond (pp. 42–60). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429432668 Sairanen, H., Kumpulainen, K., & Kajamaa, A. (2020). An investigation into children's agency: children's initiatives and practitioners’ responses in Finnish early childhood education. Early Child Development and Care. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2020.1739030 Serafini, F., & Gee, E. (2017). Remixing multiliteracies. Theory and practice from New London to new times. Teachers College Press. Street, B. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice. Cambridge University Press. Vygotsky, L.  S. (1976). Play and its role in the mental development of the child. In J.  Bruner, A.  Jolly, & K.  Sylva (Eds.), Play: Its role in development and evolution (pp.  76–99). Basic Books. Välijärvi, J., & Sulkunen, S. (2016). Finnish school in international comparison. In H.  Niemi, A. Toom, & A. Kallioniemi (Eds.), Miracle of education. The principles and practices of teaching and learning in Finnish schools (pp. 3–23). Sense Publishers.

Chapter 5

Developing Praxeological Understanding in Teacher Education: A Case of Worldview Education in Finnish ECEC Saila Poulter, Arniika Kuusisto, and Silja Lamminmäki-Vartia

Abstract  This study investigates the relevance of praxis and practice-based learning processes as a part of professional knowledge formation through the case of worldview education in ECEC teacher education. Drawing theoretically and methodologically from praxeological research tradition, the study aims to explore how student teachers experience participatory learning and the role of practical implementation of worldview education as part of their professional knowledge formation. The data analysed here consist of in-depth interviews and learning diaries of seven Finnish ECEC student teachers who participated in a six-month participatory group learning process as a part of their degree studies, together with six more experienced in-service teachers. The results indicate that students consider it important to have a social space for shared professional knowledge construction. Students also considered that their learning process contributed to a deeper understanding of ECEC praxis as an essential part of professional knowledge. The study suggests that the annexation of elements connected to practical wisdom cultivated as a more systematic part of professional knowledge construction in ECEC teacher training is, according to learner experience, valuable in supporting the development of ECEC teacher student professionalism. Furthermore, the findings designate an understanding of professional reflection as a shared meaning-making and understanding generating activity.

S. Poulter (*) · S. Lamminmäki-Vartia University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland e-mail: [email protected] A. Kuusisto University of Helsinki, Finland and Stockholm University, Helsinki, Sweden © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 H. Harju-Luukkainen et al. (eds.), Finnish Early Childhood Education and Care, Early Childhood Research and Education: An Inter-theoretical Focus 1, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95512-0_5

55

56

S. Poulter et al.

5.1  Introduction This study takes a praxeological approach to investigating ECEC teacher training, with a particular focus on the producing of professional knowledge and developing professionalism, here through the case of ECEC worldview education. Worldview here refers inclusively to both religious and secular—and, indeed, often hybrid, drawing elements from both, and other sources—ontological, epistemological and ethical orientations, be these held by individuals or shared within groups or organized/institutional entities. A worldview, as a value-laden way of looking at the world, presents a vision and a way of life which, when to an extent shared with others, contains a great deal of heterogeneity and diversity inside specific worldview traditions (Åhs et al., 2019; Newman & Leggett, 2019; van der Kooij et al., 2017). Also, individual worldviews are compounded of a ‘mosaic’ drawn from various sources, and thereby can further be seen as diverse within themselves. Constructing an understanding on cultural, linguistic and worldview diversity is a part of the Finnish National Core Curriculum for ECEC (Finnish National Agency of Education, 2018). Religions and worldviews are included also as a specific learning content area in the National Core Curriculum, where worldview education is set to cover the exploration of both religious and non-religious worldview traditions. The curriculum sets criteria for both pedagogical contents—which should be non-­ confessional and non-binding—and for ECEC teachers to act as role models for positive encountering of diversity. Lived worldviews present in the particular group through children’s backgrounds are set as the foundation for implementing worldview education. The curriculum expects ECEC staff to take worldview diversity into account in educational partnership with parents (Finnish National Agency of Education, 2018). Worldview education is based on positive recognition of all worldviews, a spirit stemming from the Act on Freedom of Religion (2003). The Finnish Act on Early Childhood Education and Care (2018) also requires that ECEC “help children develop their capacity to understand and respect the general cultural heritage and each child’s linguistic, cultural, religious, and ideological background”. However, recent national evaluation reports on the quality of ECEC education show that educators lack the pedagogical tools for implementing worldview education. Furthermore, the locally set curricula typically lack concrete means for achieving the national curricular standards (Tainio et al., 2019; Repo et al., 2018, 113–114). Thereby, it is important to examine how ECEC teacher education programmes and in-service training could better facilitate professional learning in this area. This study derives from the praxeological paradigm, rooted in a participatory and action research approach to professional development (Formosinho & Oliveira-­ Formosinho, 2012; Pascal & Bertram, 2012). At the heart of praxeological understanding is a view that besides academic elites, the multiple perspectives of practitioners also hold important knowledge. As can be seen from the above-cited national ECEC quality evaluation reports, it is evident that there is an unclosed gap

5  Developing Praxeological Understanding in Teacher Education: A Case…

57

between disciplinary knowledge, national and local policy documents, and ECEC praxis regarding worldview education in Finnish ECEC.

5.2  Aim of the Study Previous studies of ECEC teacher professionalism or professional knowledge are very scarce. We aim towards contributing to a further understanding of professional knowledge and professional epistemologies (Campbell-Barr, 2019; Urban, 2008, 2010). Secondly, we want to contribute to the field with the implementation of this particular perspective, as there is, to our knowledge, no prior research based on understanding praxis as a part of professional knowledge in the literature on ECEC worldview education. Participatory and practice-led research is increasingly used by and with teachers to counter discourses and policies of top-down standardization, by contributing to knowledge in ECEC research (Kultti & Pramling Samuelsson, 2017; Newman & Leggett, 2019; Pascal & Bertram, 2012). Aiming for transformation in pedagogical praxis and educational contexts is important in praxeological research and constructs new knowledge about complex educational realities (Formosinho & Oliveira-Formosinho, 2012). Although this study is set in a particular national context, thus presenting merely a context-based exploration of a small group of Finnish ECEC student teachers, we aim to generate an explorative foundation for further methodological and theoretical examinations for practice-based knowledge formation. We aim to provoke problematizing on where, how and by whom the ‘right’ professional knowledge is produced. Praxeology aims at empowering students to seek transformation through finding ways to solve problems using their own knowledge (Pascal & Bertram, 2012). Searching for relevant knowledge for building teacher professionalism thereby also aims to loosen the dichotomy between theory and practice. This ‘new’ epistemology is then used to inform teaching and learning also in teacher education. In this study, we are interested in searching the relevance of practice and practice-­ based learning processes in the development of professional knowledge on ECEC worldview education. We analyse the ways in which students experience the role of the participatory group process both with other students and with more experienced in-service teachers. Moreover, we investigate the importance of praxis in ECEC knowledge production, and the relevance given by students to pedagogical engagement with children in ECEC. Our research questions are: 1. According to these Finnish ECEC teacher students, what is the role of praxeological learning in supporting their professional knowledge formation in ECEC worldview education? 2. According to the Finnish ECEC teacher students, how does practical and pedagogical engagement affect their professional knowledge and ideas of worldview education?

58

S. Poulter et al.

5.3  Conceptual Underpinnings of the Study Professionalism is here based on previous conceptualizations of professional knowledge, some of them much debated. Urban (2008) sees practice as a sphere where professional knowledge is produced, as questions arise from the situations practitioners are involved in, especially in interaction with children. Furthermore, we understand professional knowledges in ECEC as plural (e.g. Campbell-Barr, 2019). The still relatively recent transition of ECEC teacher education from practice-based, vocational education to an academic study has increased the role of science-based knowledge (Havnes, 2018). This has enhanced the division of those who talk and those who are talked about. The idea of epistemological hierarchy illustrates the distinct layers where professional knowledge is produced, transferred and applied (Urban, 2008). Havnes (2018) introduces the idea of observing professionalism “from above” vs. “from within” to challenge the epistemological hierarchy in ECEC, and to defend teacher autonomy and the role teachers play in creating relevant professional knowledge. The discourse on ECEC professionalism in policy documents can also reveal a specific way of talking about professionalism (Urban, 2008). The question remains whether such discourse actually benefits those at the bottom level of the epistemological hierarchy, or whether it treats them as objects but does not hear their voice. To understand praxis as more than ‘doing’ is essential in this study. We follow Formosinho and Oliveira-Formosinho’s (2012) definition of praxis as “a grounded and reasoned, situated and contextualised practice” infused with “beliefs and values, based on educational theories and situated in specific contexts with specific educators and for specific beneficiaries, thus including power relationships”. The concept of praxis between context-dependent and context-independent knowledges addresses special epistemological issues of investigation. Biesta (2014, 134) argues that what makes education educational lies in the domain of praxis involving wisdom for good action. Formosinho and Oliveira-Formosinho (2012) describe pedagogical praxis as “a triangulation of practices, beliefs and theories infused with feelings and ethics aiming to grounded, principled and deontological pedagogical action”—practical wisdom or phronesis. Phronesis is an Aristotelian philosophical concept, one of Aristotle’s three forms of knowledge: episteme (pure knowledge), techne (skills), and phronesis (practical wisdom). Episteme deals with recognized expertise, while techne represents more vocational knowledge or technical skills (Campbell-Barr, 2019). Phronesis is more difficult to explain and has been translated as “practical reasoning”, “practical judgment” and “practical wisdom” (Jope, 2018). Jope (2018) refers to Aristotle (2004, 1109a26–29) in linking phronesis to the right person acting in the right way, for the right reasons, at the right time and to the right extent as “phronesis involves reasoning about what is good and what is bad in particular educational situations, making judgments about what to do, and taking appropriate action.” As Campbell-Barr (2019) succinctly puts it, “Phronesis is not a question of responding to a child, but of how to respond to a child”. We attach to the definition of phronesis the moral

5  Developing Praxeological Understanding in Teacher Education: A Case…

59

disposition “to act wisely, truly and justly; with goals always open to review” (Kemmis & Smith, 2008, 23), which is “a situated awareness of ethical values in action that is not separate from other forms of knowing” and is central in bringing together different forms of knowledges of ECEC (Jope, 2018). Phronesis cannot necessarily be ‘taught’; still, we believe there may be means to enhance and support the development of certain abilities contributing to phronesis in teacher education. Biesta (2014, 135) discusses teachers’ professional development as something that is always about professional socialization—and also professional subjectification. Biesta sees (1) that teacher training should be concerned with formation as whole person, that teacher education concerns the transformation of the person in making educationally wise decisions. Also (2), he sees that making wise judgements can be learned through providing a space for practising the formation of educational judgements, which further relates to the continuous possibility to engage with the question of educational purpose in practical contexts and situations. Finally (3), Biesta regards the role of salient examples as important in learning to make educationally wise judgements, occurring in observations or conversations with more experienced, practically wise teachers (Biesta, 2014, 135–136). The importance of the processes of educational judgement, ethical reflection and contextual meaning-making (Bakker, 2016; Biesta, 2014; Urban, 2008) is also regarded as critical in this study. Morally ‘right’ actions, not merely ‘the right techniques’, relates to understanding professional knowledge as multiple forms of knowledges (Campbell-Barr, 2019). This highlights the importance of looking at the ‘sites’ of professional subjectification and socialization in relation to phronesis. Professionalism, from this perspective, highlights its relational and dialogical nature, also challenging the view of professional development as linear and ‘neat’ (Lamminmäki-Vartia et al., 2020). Meaning-making for professional development is thus also always contextual and collaborative (Formosinho & Oliveira-­ Formosinho, 2012). Therefore, the contents and contexts are central in investigating professional development (Fochi, 2019).

5.4  Methodological Framework Wenger (1999) understands learning as social participation. Inspired by Wenger’s (1999) idea of a community of practice, our research design entails a platform for professional learning facilitating a safe place to share and learn. In this study, seven ECEC student teachers and six more experienced practitioners were brought together into a six-month practice-based process. This involved lectures, group meetings, site visits with children, and observing and planning pedagogical activities. The students and teachers were paired with each other as “critical friends” in order to work more closely together on the planning and implementing worldview education pedagogy in ECEC. To emphasize the critical ecology of early childhood profession (Urban, 2008), it was here considered important to highlight collective

60

S. Poulter et al.

knowledge production, close connection to praxis, local ECEC units, and peer-­ learning—all with dialogical and critical awareness of the context in which the students were becoming ECEC teachers. In this “series of pulses”, the teachers and teacher students came together to discuss, work with children, process events in writing in their reflective learning diaries, and then return for further group reflection. Such an activity of creating understandings together relates to the hermeneutical idea of knowledge creation through a dialogical process (Urban, 2008). At the end of the process, the students reflected on the process in individual interviews. The researchers were committed to a deep involvement “in the real world” which was studied, while keeping instructor input to a minimum (Pascal & Bertram, 2012; Winterbottom & Mazzocco, 2014. Praxeological learning is participatory (students), democratic (through choice) and collaborative practice (with the community, here in-service teachers). Pascal and Bertram (2012) argue that early childhood is best practised—both in pedagogy and in theory—by those who are actually close to the world of small children. The situatedness of praxeological learning embraces localism. Education typically takes place in the company of peers: students produce knowledge through interactions and relationships, and the idea of praxeology is to empower students to use their voice and ultimately, to seek change in education: It is research that is done with people in context and NOT to people, and it is always done in the company of others, seeing the social world of practice as dependent on relationships and interactions. It uses and generates theories of action to reveal the underlying assumptions we have about our work – to discover why we do what we do. (Pascal & Bertram, 2012, 485).

The fundamental principles of participatory research, then, is to provide an open and safe space to facilitate communication (Bergold & Thomas, 2012). In this study, the informants were not treated as objects of the study but as valued research partners whose voice was heard in different phases in implementing the process. Another key element in participatory research is continual self-reflection and reflective dialogue (Marshall & Reason, 2007) which can happen at many levels, for example as personal and epistemological reflexivity. In this study, following the elements suggested by Bergold & Thomas (2012), the participants were asked to use (1) reflection on personal and biographical attributes and dispositions, through the forms of learning diaries, questionnaires and interviews, (2) reflection on the social relationships among the research partners, as both peers more generally and the particular “critical friends” in the ECEC teacher student and ECEC practitioner teacher dyads, as well as the broader group meetings as a platform for critical reflection, (3) structural reflection on the social field of the research project in the form of the previous empirical and theoretical literature on education as related to religions and worldviews, and the structural embeddedness of educational processes in the related societal frameworks and worldview landscapes, and (4) reflection on the praxeological process, which was a particular issue discussed in the research interviews, the accounts from which were here analysed alongside with the participants’ reflective learning diaries.

5  Developing Praxeological Understanding in Teacher Education: A Case…

61

As Winterbottom and Mazzocco (2014) and Pascal and Bertram (2012) remind us, what makes things praxeological, reflection and action needs elements of power, politics, values and ethics in all thinking and actions. For them, the participatory paradigm is equated with understanding in which reflection and action done in conjunction with others, “needs to be immersed within a much more astute awareness about power (politics) and a sharpened focus on values (ethics) in all of our thinking and actions” (Pascal & Bertram, 2012, 480). Praxeological learning grounds itself in real-world situations trying to see the complexity of a situation as a whole and to capture the reality of its ‘messiness’ and ‘chaos’ but in a systematic and rigorous way.

5.4.1  Data The data of this study consists of students’ accounts from the in-depth interviews as well as the corresponding reflective learning diaries. The data were analysed with qualitative content analysis (Cohen et  al., 2018). The initial analysing stage of a data-driven thematization (see also Lamminmäki-Vartia et al., 2020) illuminated the participants’ experiences on the significance of praxis, which we considered important to take further with a closer investigation. Thereby, the aim here is to look closer at the transcribed interview accounts and learning diaries from the perspective of praxis and praxeological processes, using a theory-driven approach for the more thorough content analysis. We favour the idea of thinking with a theory process methodology where the role of theory has meant a constant conversation with the key concepts and the data rather than proceeding rigid empirical stages of method (Jackson & Mazzei, 2012). The actual analysis was carried out by labelling the data according to the ideas as units or pieces of information related to the key theoretical concepts utilized in this study. The analysis proceeded by identifying the key elements in each student’s data that, in the further stages of the analysis, would eventually cluster into the more consolidated entities of findings that we will introduce in the next section. The design of the project adhered strictly to the guidelines given by the Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity on research in the social sciences (Finnish Advisory Board, 2012). Informed consent was acquired, and particular care and sensitivity was applied in all processing of data and in reporting findings, and strict measures were taken to avoid participant recognizability. Pseudonyms were assigned to each participant. The sample was a small but in notable ways very heterogeneous group of seven ECEC teacher students. Some did not have much prior knowledge on either ECEC or education on worldviews. Others had some knowledge on either or both, and there were also those with an extensive knowledge of either the subject matter and pedagogical practice or both. Also in terms of the participants’ personally upheld worldviews, there was a wide variance in their self-identifications, from atheist to Christian, and agnostic to religious. Due to the often-perceived personal nature of

62

S. Poulter et al.

the topic, and in order to safeguard participant anonymity, we will not provide any more detailed information of the participants, nor disclose any more distinguishable features of their accounts here. Rather, we focus on general themes directly related to the focus of the article at hand. The student name plus the number one at the end of the data excerpts refers to the learning diaries data set, whereas student name plus the number two presents examples from the interview account material.

5.5  Results All students experienced the professional learning process analysed here as personally rewarding and described it in positive terms. Especially the group meetings were regarded as having a special importance for providing emotional support and knowledge through listening to each other. The students reported that the learning process offered them a holistic platform to consider their developing teacher professionalism as the formation of the whole person (Biesta, 2014). They appreciated the opportunities to (re-)consider the elements that related to professional subjectification and socialization and to practical wisdom as part of their professional knowledge. The teacher students reported that participating in the process offered them a collaborative form of learning through both the group meetings and through working with the “critical friend” in the teacher student–practitioner teacher dyad. The process was perceived as a kind of ground for negotiation for professionalism, where the students discussed together with their peers, providing important insights into their own professional position about their professional strengths and needs. The group functioned as an empowering sphere where the students were able to relate to each other. They regarded it as important to have such a space for a holistic and intensive process and valued the recurrence of the discussions and the encounters with people holding views different from their own. The group meetings were experienced as a safe place where they were heard, could express their views, including their doubts and reservations. I enjoyed the chats in the group meetings so much…it was like an open and safe space and then we can talk about matters. Bertha, 2. It has felt like being cared for…It has been possible to share openly one’s own emotions in the group without fear of being lynched! Rachel, 1.

The students reported having gained new knowledge from the group discussions, from other students and teachers. Observing good examples, hearing experiences of others was particularly beneficial. For their professional reflection, learning from salient examples was seen as important, as was hearing about different ways of thinking and doing (see Biesta, 2014). Students highlighted that the most significant part of the process was the joint reflection with the teachers and the group. They also appreciated the sharing of pedagogical ideas, the problematizing of practical incidents, and finding multiple perspectives to the same phenomenon.

5  Developing Praxeological Understanding in Teacher Education: A Case…

63

It has been interesting to observe the working of the in-service teachers and discussions, the process of the fellow students and also to participate in the group meetings. Iris, 1. When there were different students and teachers from different ECEC centres, those discussions brought up new perspectives. Natalie, 2.

In-service teachers played an important role as role models for students in their professional socialization. Students reported that they particularly liked learning from the peer-teacher with knowledge “from real life”. They valued the practical experience that the teachers had, and the direct contact with children in ECEC centres, helping them to concretize the theoretical knowledge and implement pedagogical plans together. Especially one of the experienced teachers played a significant role as the role model of a confident teacher to the entire group. Throughout the learning process, she demonstrated verbally and through positive examples how worldview education relates to the broader horizon of education, which made her an ideal teacher in the eyes of many of the students. Working with the ECEC teacher helped me to pay attention to the realities in the ECE and also to reflect on the change of the visibility of worldview education in the field. Bertha, 1. Working with the peer [the teacher] and with the group has helped me to reflect on the matter from multiple perspectives. However, working with Aino [the teacher] has been a central part in this process. She knew the children best. Eva, 1.

Teachers brought a broader understanding of the ECEC context in the group and gave voice to professionalism “from within” (Havnes, 2018). That helped students to integrate scientific knowledge with practical wisdom. Often at the university, when students plan together, everything is so idealistic and utopian. Then you talk with a person who is in the everyday reality. And then we bring these [perspectives] together. So there two worlds are encountered. Natalie, 2. It was nice to listen to these teachers who have a long experience in the field when I don’t have any experience yet; it was nice to hear those concrete examples. Carol, 2.

Students considered the practice in worldview education more than just the practicalities. Knowledge was reasoned and situated, which also helped them to understand that there are not necessarily simple solutions in worldview education. Students described how engagement with the practical reality of ECEC, especially working with children, helped them to formulate knowledge on worldview education in a way that was meaningful to them and empowered them to see it as part of their professional knowledge. The encounters with children were perceived as very meaningful, as focusing on the child made students reflect deeply on the implementation of the aims of worldview education within the wider educational horizon. How to make the subject knowledge available to a child? This forced them to contextualize knowledge and to imagine building knowledge horizontally with the children. Children often pulled them directly into the core issues of worldviews with their questions. This learning with children, that you are also there learning, on the other hand you have the role of a teacher. But at the same time, it is not like that I go there and teach, instead we learn together, we learn from each other, we think together. Eva, 2. I had a cheeky pre-schooler there and we had good talks straight away. He told me that he doesn’t believe in anything so we had a chat. That was very concrete. Natalie, 2.

64

S. Poulter et al.

The strong connections to ECEC practice were experienced as exceptional in their academic studies. Through practical engagements they reported a deepening knowledge of praxis in ECEC, professionalism in worldview education, and their role as a teacher. They regarded practical wisdom as a ‘real’ professional skill in ECEC teacherhood. Methods (techne) were considered to be tools in the teacher’s tool box, which can be understood as something instrumental. On the other hand, students felt that by using these tools they knew better how to implement their conceptual (episteme) knowledge. On the other hand, tools were also perceived as a means to gain new subject knowledge when students and children co-constructed meanings together. They [the child group] had visited the Jehovah’s Witnesses, all possible [places of worship], I got the feeling like wow, I was almost like I would like to copy that… would dare, dare to grasp more of these things. Carol, 2. It was lovely to see these projects, where they had implemented the knowledge provided. It somehow opened locks in me, so to speak, like oh yes, I could also do that. Rachel, 2.

As a part of their professional subjectification, the students reported that the process directed them towards a personal transformation in which they had to clarify their personal views in relation to gaining professional understandings. Developing one’s own thinking was enhanced by the presence of others, which forced them to confront their personal worldview: Now I’ve been forced to face myself and my thinking and it has been possible to proceed further in my thinking. To go through the longer-term process has been very important to me, because I have had time to think and process thoughts in peace. Rachel, 1. There is ‘Jesus-mocking’ in our ECEC unit and school yard…it has been where I have noticed that I wonder how should I respond to that…because I’m a Christian myself. Iris, 2.

From the perspective of professional socialization, the students positioned themselves as novices in relation to the teachers, but at times they also regarded themselves as having knowledge, skills or attitudes that the qualified teachers lacked. Many students felt themselves to be equals as learners with their dyad teacher, or they even positioned themselves as more competent either due to up-to-date knowledge, a more constructive attitude, or more ambition in pedagogical planning. I think that for [the peer-teacher] it was a new thing, that she started it with an open mind. But it kind of looked like it was a new thing where she needed some tools. Eva, 2. It somehow frustrated me a little that it kind of felt that we were underachieving…I would have liked to do so much more. Carol, 2. Well, Samantha had a much stronger objection [towards worldview education] because she was so worried, she had had those troubles in her group. Natalie, 2.

A few students recognized themselves as having more knowledge or experience in worldview education than other students, where the process did not give much new theoretical knowledge but still deepened their practical understanding. All students also had some particular key experiences, as special practical cases that functioned as significant learning moments that forced them to combine different forms of knowledges and practice educationally wise decision-making. For some these stemmed from pedagogical practice, while for others it was, for instance, an unexpected reaction from the children, teachers or parents. Such experiences

5  Developing Praxeological Understanding in Teacher Education: A Case…

65

were seen to have helped in understanding their role as ECEC professionals and to provoke ethical reflections, also offering a useful reason to problematize their educational key goals. Recalling such incidents and the ways in which the student teacher had resolved them was crucial in building their self-confidence and awareness of ethical responsibility and power relations. Educational decisions here were value judgements, not just technical judgements, such as something that needs to be done in order to bring about something regarded as educationally desirable (Biesta, 2014, 134). I started kind of panicking that how should I proceed…like how to explain or what is right, how can this be solved. But then the children themselves started to talk and I just observed that, like wow, so great! If I was [a teacher] there for a longer period something could emerge from these things. Rachel, 2. I constantly saw that these children do not understand this thing now, this is too abstract or something. How should I make this more concrete and how do I elicit children’s thoughts or memories about this; it was very challenging. But you had to somehow grasp what is relevant for a child. Ada, 2.

When epistemic and technical knowledges were attached to practical knowledge, it called for reflection on professional subjectification, as one’s own values, beliefs and educational principles were forced into action. Successful pedagogical implementation—but also failures—provoked internal dialogue about one’s skills, attitudes, and values. Therefore, such practice was a means to measure the students’ level of professional knowledge and professionalism. Developing the students’ practical wisdom was central in bringing together different forms of knowledges of ECEC (Jope, 2018): When [the practical implication] comes close to you…this is no longer a thing on a paper or information received at the lecture. Ada, 2. My greatest realization has been that to do worldview education…small things are enough for children. Bertha, 1. It has been very interesting to dive deeper into the world of worldview education in the ECEC context and I have noticed that I have now seized those moments when there has been a chance. Iris, 1.

The process helped students to understand their professional position realistically, and this was experienced as empowering. To face things together gave me a feeling that one doesn’t need to be perfect when entering the field: the growth in professionalism continues all the time. Rachel, 1. Perhaps it is also as a student, when you go there [ECEC], you learn to rely on your professional skills, that you truly have them. This was a concrete thing for me. Iris, 2.

5.6  Discussion The findings of this study correspond with the dimension of ECEC professional knowledges that extends beyond the episteme and the techne. What makes investigating phronesis challenging relates to its nature as a mixture of practices, theoretical knowledge, methodological skills, together with values, emotions and ethical

66

S. Poulter et al.

reflection (Formosinho & Oliveira-Formosinho, 2012). The results illustrate how phronesis is located between the individual and the universal, taking into account both the context and the interpersonal relationship between the teacher, the student and the child (Campbell-Barr, 2019). The collective knowledge production, close connection to praxis, local ECEC units, dialogical peer-learning together with theoretical and critical awareness of the context in which students become teachers, were all central elements in this process. Undoubtedly, the role of salient examples was very important for the students’ learning and helped them make educationally wise judgements. For student teachers, educational judgements were not just technical they were also value judgements, as they aimed to comprehend what needs to be done regarding “the educationally desirable” (Biesta, 2014, 134). Therefore, phronesis related to a certain personal quality, to character and to holistic professional formation. The study highlights the contextual and collaborative nature of professional development (Formosinho & Oliveira-Formosinho, 2012). To study the importance of social relations in specific situations is central in helping student teachers understand their professional development (Fochi, 2019). As found in our previous study (Lamminmäki-Vartia et al., 2020), the professional learning process is often filled with complex simultaneous, overlapping and ‘messy’ negotiations actualized through tensions and questions, and to engage in an open conversation with ECEC praxis can help in ‘making sense’ of one’s professional identity.

5.7  Conclusion Praxeological learning provides a theoretical framework with the potential to improve teacher education programmes (Winterbottom & Mazzocco, 2014). The central challenge relates to perceiving theory and practice not as dichotomous, but rather as two constituting sides of the same knowledge process (Kultti & Pramling Samuelsson, 2017, 36). However, the praxeological framework is influenced by the locality of the specific context and therefore does not aim to demonstrate causalities or to support comparisons or predictions; hence, it is sometimes considered to hold less utility for policy (Winterbottom & Mazzocco, 2014). Consequently, further research is needed in this area. However, the approach does hold clear strengths in its close involvement with practice, helping to identify needs and directions in order to develop educational practice. Through collaborative learning, it also demonstrates the usefulness of theoretical ideas in practice. Although the transferability of the results of this study to teacher training is affected by locality, some of the presented ECEC teacher student insights might well be useful in informing teacher education in different contexts, for instance in provoking the empowering of students in understanding their role in professional knowledge contribution. Loosening the dichotomy between theory and practice can also inform teaching and learning in different contexts.

5  Developing Praxeological Understanding in Teacher Education: A Case…

67

We can tentatively conclude that the model of praxeological learning implemented here can have a positive impact on students’ practical wisdom, phronesis. It is important to practice the entwined processes of developing educational judgement, ethical reflection and contextual meaning-making in all their complexity during teacher education (Bakker, 2016; Biesta, 2014; Urban, 2008). As suggested by Kultti and Pramling Samuelsson (2017, 42), dialogues on pedagogical issues need to be recognized as a new practice for those who work with children. Students need a space to discuss challenging issues, disagree and critically reflect in safe contexts. We also follow Winterbottom and Mazzocco’s (2014) idea that ECEC teacher education should reconceptualize their epistemology to inform future teachers by implementing praxeological learning with students. To make changes in ECEC practice, more has to be done to make the curricular goals an educational reality. ECE units would need to be safe places for dialogues on pedagogical matters concerning worldviews, which are often experienced as sensitive and challenging. To enhance collaborative learning between teacher training units and local ECEC centres in creating innovative solutions for learning is a key aim in fostering worldview education in the future.

References Act on Early Childhood Education and Care. (740/13) (2018). [Varhaiskasvatuslaki]. https://www. finlex.fi/fi/laki/alkup/2018/20180540. Accessed 5 May, 2020. Act on Freedom of Religion. (2003). [Uskonnonvapauslaki]. https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/2003/20030453. Accessed 5 May, 2020. Aristotle. (2004). The Nicomachean ethics. Penguin Books. Bakker, C. (2016). Professionalization and the quest how to deal with complexity. In C. Bakker & M.  N. Montesano (Eds.), Complexity in education: From horror to passion (pp.  9–30). SensePublishers. Bergold, J., & Thomas, S. (2012). Participatory research methods: A methodological approach in motion. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 13(1). Available at: http://nbn-­resolving.de/ urn:nbn:de:0114-­fqs1201302 Biesta, G. (2014). The beautiful risk of education. Paradigm Publishers. Campbell-Barr, V. (2019). Professional knowledges for early childhood education and care. Journal of Childhood Studies, 44(1), 134–146. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education. Routledge. Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity. (2012). https://www.tenk.fi/sites/tenk.fi/files/HTK_ ohje_2012.pdf. Finnish National Agency for Education. (2018). National Core Curriculum for Early Childhood Education and Care 2018. Regulations and guidelines 2018:3c. https://www.oph.fi/sites/ default/files/documents/varhaiskasvatussuunnitelman_perusteet.pdf. Accessed 7 May, 2020. Fochi, P. (2019). Pedagogical documentation as a strategy to develop praxeological knowledge: The case of the observatory of childhood culture. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 27(3), 334–345. Formosinho, J., & Oliveira-Formosinho, J. (2012). Towards a social science of the social: The contribution of praxeological research. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 20(4), 591–606.

68

S. Poulter et al.

Havnes, A. (2018). ECEC professionalization – Challenges of developing professional standards. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 26(5), 657–673. Jackson, A., & Mazzei, L. (2012). Thinking with theory in qualitative research: Viewing data among multiple perspectives. Routledge. Jope, G. (2018). Becoming ethically responsive in initial teacher education. Research in Education, 100(1), 65–82. van der Kooij, J. C., Ruyter, D., & Miedema, S. (2017). The merits of using “worldview” in religious education. Religious Education, 112(2), 172–184. Kemmis, S., & Smith, T. (2008). Personal praxis. In S. Kemmis & T. J. Smith (Eds.), Enabling praxis: Challenges for education (pp. 15–35). Sense Publishers. Kultti, A., & Pramling Samuelsson, I. (2017). Changing patterns of communication for the facilitation of inclusion, collaboration and democracy: A review of a praxis-oriented research approach. In A. Hellman & K. Lauritsen (Eds.), Diversity and social justice in early childhood education: Nordic perspectives (pp. 30–45). Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Lamminmäki-Vartia, S., Poulter, S., & Kuusisto, A. (2020). Learning trajectory of emerging professionalism: Finnish student teacher negotiating worldview education and ECEC superdiversity. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood Education. Marshall, J., & Reason, P. (2007). Quality in research as “taking an attitude of inquiry”. Management Research News, 30(5), 368–380. https://doi.org/10.1108/01409170710746364 Newman, L., & Leggett, N. (2019). Practitioner research: With intent. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 27(1), 120–137. Pascal, C., & Bertram, T. (2012). Praxis, ethics and power: Developing praxeology as a participatory paradigm for early childhood research. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 20(4), 477–492. Repo, L., Paananen, M., Mattila, V., Lerkkanen, M-K., Eskelinen, M., Gammelgård, L., Ulvinen, J., Hjelt, H., & Marjanen, J. (2018). Varhaiskasvatussuunnitelman perusteiden 2016 toimeenpanon arviointi: Varhaiskasvatussuunnitelmien käyttöönotto ja sisällöt. Kansallinen koulutuksen arviointikeskus. https://karvi.fi/app/uploads/2018/08/ Varhaiskasvatussuunnitelman-­toimeenpanon-­arviointi_2018.pdf. Tainio, L., Kallioniemi, A., Hotulainen, R., et  al. (2019). Koulujen monet kielet ja uskonnot: Selvitys vähemmistöäidinkielten ja -uskontojen sekä suomi ja ruotsi toisena kielenä -opetuksen tilanteesta eri koulutusasteilla. Valtioneuvoston selvitys- ja tutkimustoiminnan julkaisusarja, 11/2019. Helsinki. Urban, M. (2008). Dealing with uncertainty: Challenges and possibilities for the early childhood profession. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 16(2), 135–152. Urban, M. (2010). Rethinking professionalism in early childhood: Untested feasibilities and critical ecologies. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 11(1), 1–7. Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge University Press. Winterbottom, C., & Mazzocco, P. J. (2014). Reconstructing teacher education: A praxeological approach to pre-service teacher education. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal. Åhs, V., Poulter, S., & Kallioniemi, A. (2019). Pupils and worldview expression in an integrative classroom context. Journal of Religious Education, 67, 203–221.

Chapter 6

Media Education in Finnish Early Childhood Teacher Education: A Curricular Analysis Saara Salomaa and Pekka Mertala

Abstract  In this chapter, we discuss the results of the media education (ME) study focusing on Finnish early childhood teacher education curricula. The research interest evolved from a specific time in the history of Finnish early childhood education and care (ECEC): the first mandatory national core curriculum became effective in 2017 and it also included ME. How was the new teacher generation prepared for this new professional demand? We analysed the curricular texts and mandatory course literature of all seven Finnish university bachelor’s degree programmes that provide teacher qualifications for ECEC, to answer the following research questions: (1) How was media education positioned in early childhood teacher education programmes’ curricula during the academic year 2014–2015? (2) How did the media education related competencies articulated in the curricula fall into the common ECEC professional competence categories? The findings suggest that ME has been marginal topic in Finnish ECEC teacher education. Media education and information and communications technology (ICT) were mostly taught separately, which seems peculiar in today’s media culture. Among the general ECEC professional competencies, contextual and pedagogical ones were emphasised, whereas care competencies were neglected. Additionally, compulsory ME course literature was scarce and partly outdated. The findings raise the question of whether it is possible to expect high-quality media pedagogies from practitioners with little professional training on the topic. We conclude by providing implications for teacher education.

S. Salomaa (*) Finnish National Audiovisual Institute, Helsinki, Finland Tampere University, Tampere, Finland e-mail: [email protected] P. Mertala University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 H. Harju-Luukkainen et al. (eds.), Finnish Early Childhood Education and Care, Early Childhood Research and Education: An Inter-theoretical Focus 1, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95512-0_6

69

70

S. Salomaa and P. Mertala

6.1  U  niversity-Level ECEC Teacher Education and the National Core Curriculum Guidelines for ECEC in Finland According to the Finnish Act on ECEC (540/2018, section 26) the basic qualification criterion for the ECEC teacher is at least a bachelor’s degree in education, which includes studies that give professional skills for tasks in ECEC. ECEC teacher education, with bachelor’s and master’s degree programmes offered, exists in seven Finnish universities.1 At the bachelor’s level, the education programmes consists of 180 European Transfer Credit System (ETCS) credits, including: (1) educational science as a major subject (75 credits), (2) studies providing professional skills for early childhood and preschool education (60 credits), (3) studies in minor subjects (25 credits) and (4) language and communication studies (20 credits). In addition, all the programmes’ curriculum documents include descriptions of the educational objectives, the specific objectives, content, teaching methods and evaluation scale of the courses and the teaching material and literature used (Karila et al., 2013). The contents of the studies vary from one university to another since universities have the academic freedom of choosing the contents and methods of teaching. Legally, according to the Universities Act (558/2009), all universities providing ECEC teacher qualification are under the remit of the Ministry of Education and Culture (MoEC). Overall planning, steering and supervision of ECEC are also the responsibility of the MoEC (540/2018, section 51). This includes support for developing professionals’ education. To provide an example, the MoEC appointed a development forum of ECEC professional education programmes for the years 2019–2020 (MoEC, 2019). The national core curriculum guidelines are prepared by the Finnish Agency for Education (FNAE, 2018), a governmental agency subordinate to the MoEC, in cooperative processes involving academia and other stakeholders. The national ECEC curricula have been, for the first time, normative in their nature: they have been in effect since 2016 in pre-primary education and since 2017 in all ECEC. ME has a clear position in the curricula. According to the core curriculum for ECEC, the objective of ME is to support children’s opportunities to be active and to express themselves in their communities. ME pedagogy is discussed as such, and media literacy is also included as part of a cross-curricular transversal competence area of ‘multiliteracy’. Children are to be familiarised with different types of media and they must have opportunities to experiment with and produce media in a playful manner in a safe environment. ICT and its importance in everyday life is observed with children. Media content related to children’s lives and its veracity are reflected with children to support the emergent media criticism. Playing, drawing and drama are named as examples of child-centred methods for

1  It is also possible to graduate for a teaching position in ECEC with a degree from a university of applied science, but this practitioner’s title is, according to the Act on ECEC (540/2018, section 27), social pedagogue in ECEC. Additionally, since only university degrees provide qualifications to work as a teacher in whole ECEC (including pre-primary education), this study focuses on university-level teacher education.

6  Media Education in Finnish Early Childhood Teacher Education: A Curricular…

71

exploring media-related themes. Whereas the curricula are not setting any measurable learning objectives for children, they establish an obligatory framework for education providers (FNAE, 2018).

6.2  Media Education as a Part of Professional ECEC ME has been conceptualised in several ways in the research literature (Palsa & Ruokamo, 2015). A rough division can be made between conceptions that consider teaching with media as ME and conceptions that consider teaching about media as ME (Buckingham, 2015). Our definition draws from the latter viewpoint, inspired by Kupiainen and Sintonen (2009), who described ME as a ‘goal-oriented interaction involving the educator, the learner and media culture. The outcome of this process is media literacy’ (p. 31). As the concept of media culture also includes values, cultures, tastes and relationships related to media, in this interpretation media are not approached only as devices and applications one should master. Accordingly, the use of the term ‘media literacy’ connotes a humanistic conception (Buckingham, 2015) that includes critical thinking as well as ethics, self-expression and cultural and social dispositions in the context of media culture (Kupiainen & Sintonen, 2009), alongside operational skills and the ability to use media devices (Marsh, 2017). The use of the term ‘media culture’ also emphasises that ME needs to acknowledge the context where it is being conducted. To draw on Palsa and Ruokamo (2015), contextualisation clarifies the meaning and purposes of multidimensional media literacy, thus allowing it to be meaningfully promoted in practice. Hence when developing early years’ ME, it is important to ensure that a strong connection is created between the common educational objectives and principles of ECEC and ME (Salomaa & Mertala, 2019). This applies also to the core competencies required from teachers. Consequently, ECEC teachers’ ME competencies refer to abilities to recognise how media culture intertwines with different dimensions of ECEC as well as to the practical capability to operationalise these notions into meaningful pedagogical activities in ECEC. Karila and Nummenmaa (2001; see also Karila, 2008) have defined the central knowledge and competency areas and the core competencies for ECEC as follows: (1) Contexts of ECEC—this competence area includes awareness of the societal and cultural environment of ECEC, such as understanding families’ everyday lives or the normative frameworks of institutional ECEC; (2) ECEC, including educational, caring and pedagogical competencies—here, education refers to a process through which an individual becomes both a functional member of society ‘as is’ and a unique subject who is able to criticise the prevalent societal structures and be an agent of change in his or her own right as he or she contributes to the development of a society that ‘might be’ (Biesta et al., 2015, p. 634). Pedagogy, in turn, is about supporting children’s learning of new knowledge and skills, and when approached as care, the task of ECEC is ensuring children’s holistic wellbeing (Karila & Nummenmaa, 2001, pp. 31–32); (3) Cooperation and interaction knowledge and

72

S. Salomaa and P. Mertala

competencies—cooperation competencies are those that are needed for smooth collaboration between parents, other staff members and other key partners (Karila et al., 2017). Interaction competencies can be approached as sensitivity to children’s efforts at interaction (Holkeri-Rinkinen, 2009, p. 228) as well as the ability to interact with children using various and multimodal forms of expression (i.e. verbal interaction or gestures; Ledin & Samuelsson, 2017); and (4) Continuous development, including reflective competencies and knowledge management —reflective competencies refer to the ability to evaluate one’s own work, whereas knowledge management is about skills related to retrieving and processing knowledge in a critical manner (Karila et al., 2017). When integrated with ME perspective, contextual competence could mean, for example, that a teacher understands media culture as one of the meaningful lifeworlds of children, whereas competencies in caring could refer to knowledge about audio-visual media’s age restrictions (psychological and emotional wellbeing) and ergonomic ways of using digital media (physical wellbeing), to provide some examples. Based on a survey conducted in 2007, only a small minority of ECEC professionals had studied ME as a part of their pre-service education; however, ME had been a part of university studies more frequently in the 2000s than in the 1990s (Suoninen, 2008). Regardless of this development, the inadequacy of ME teaching in ECEC degree programmes has been recognised again in the 2010s via quality assessments (Karila et  al., 2013) and a student survey (Salomaa et  al., 2017). However, there have been no previous studies into how ME has been positioned in Finnish ECEC teacher education curricula.

6.3  Research Design When conducting research on curriculum, it is essential to distinguish the written, intended curriculum from the implemented curriculum. Whereas written curriculum describes the intended and the desirable, the implemented curriculum is a result of teachers’ interpretation of the written curriculum. The third aspect is the learnt curriculum—the knowledge and competences that students achieve via education (Luoto & Lappalainen, 2006, pp.  14–15). This study focused on official written curricular documents, whereas in the present chapter we adapt Levin’s (2008, p. 8) definition of the written curriculum as ‘an official statement of what students are expected to know and be able to do’. The official teacher education curriculum can be seen as providing a perspective on the central aims and the image of the ideal teacher (Krzywacki, 2009, p. 102). When scrutinising the results, it is vital to remember that a study on concise curricular texts cannot reveal the implemented, actualised contents of teaching and it can reveal still less about what has been learnt. We are aware of such ME course design and teaching practises that have taken place (e.g. Mertala, 2020), but would remain invisible in curricular analysis. However, based on the findings reported in

6  Media Education in Finnish Early Childhood Teacher Education: A Curricular…

73

this study, such a course design would have been an outcome of an individual teacher’s interest instead of curricular demands.

6.3.1  Data Collection and Analysis The data consist of the curricular texts of seven Finnish early childhood teacher education bachelor’s-level programmes. As our interest was to explore the education provided for the cohort entering the work field when the new core curriculum for ECEC became effective, the analysed curricula—collected from the universities’ webpages—were chosen to be those effective during the academic year of 2014–2015. Even though teacher education curricula are subject to change every few years, students mainly study according to the curriculum they began their studies with. We did not include master’s degree curricula because it is not mandatory for qualification as an ECEC teacher. We only studied the mandatory courses to determine what all the teacher candidates were supposed to be studying.2 Altogether, 301 mandatory course descriptions were included in the data. Figure 6.1 summarises the

Fig. 6.1  An overview of the data collection and analysis process (The distinction between media education and ICT in the open coding phase was done with respect to the nature of the data. Further details are provided in the first paragraph of the ‘Findings and discussion’ section)

 It is also possible to study ME as minor subject or take individual voluntary courses on the topic. However, according to the survey conducted in 2017, only 7% of pre-service ECEC teachers had studied any non-mandatory ME courses (https://www.mediataitokoulu.fi/liiteselvitykseen/#2) 2

74

S. Salomaa and P. Mertala

Table 6.1  Categorisation matrix for curricular positions of ME and ICT Position Visible

Description Subject is found in at least two different courses, either in the course name, or as goals or contents Recognisable Subject is the main topic of one specific course, or the subject is mentioned in at least two courses’ goals and/or contents, among others Traceable Subject is mentioned only in one course’s goals and/or contents among many other themes and/or included in the literature Adapted from Korhonen and Rantala (2007)

data collection and analysis process of the study. A more detailed analysis description is offered below. The analysis followed the principles of qualitative content analysis (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008). In the preparation phase, the unit of analysis was defined to be the course description. Knowing that terminology within the field of ME is unsettled (Palsa & Ruokamo, 2015), we searched for terms explicitly or implicitly referring to ME.  Examples of implicit references were ‘media literacy’, ‘digital media’, ‘media culture’ and ‘information and communication technology’. It was not necessary for the course to focus only on ME—any reference was enough to merit further analysis. We found 22 courses containing ME headlines, goals and/or content. Some of these courses included mandatory reading that was also taken into consideration. To achieve a conceptual clarification through organizing the data, distinctions were made between observations. In the reporting phase, we abstracted the categorisations to move further from the descriptive level of the organisation phase. The previous curricula analysis work conducted by Korhonen and Rantala (2007) was used as a categorisation matrix (Table 6.1) to describe the positions of ME and ICT in training programmes. The positioning described the depth and extent of the subject in the curricula. Karila and Nummenmaa’s (2001) description of central knowledge and competence areas, specifically the core competencies, provided the starting point for our analysis of the ME competencies. This definition was chosen for its continuous relevance for Finnish ECEC policies. It has, with only minor modifications, been recently included as part of the roadmap for the development process of the Finnish early childhood education system (Karila et  al., 2017); this, in turn, formed a basis for the current development forum of ECEC professional education programmes (MoEC, 2019, 2). Furthermore, a competence description provides a lens to scrutinise the data from the perspective of the different targeted competences expressed in curricular texts. We categorised and allocated the learning objectives explicated in the texts, answering the question, ‘Is this core competence addressed in the text and how?’ One course description could address several different competencies.

6  Media Education in Finnish Early Childhood Teacher Education: A Curricular…

75

6.4  Findings and Discussion We present our findings in two subsections, the first of which focuses on how ME and ICT were positioned in the curricula. This distinction was made during the analysis phase since it became clear that course descriptions addressing ICT seldom mentioned media, considered ICT as a socio-cultural phenomenon or aimed to provide competencies to teach and learn about media. Instead, they focused on teaching other subjects with ICT or learning operational ICT skills. An illustrative example was a course on ICT in which attendance could be substituted with technical skills demonstrations. Given that the operational dimension is a fundamental part of media literacy (Marsh, 2017), we chose not to omit these courses from the analysis. Instead, we created two different categories—ME and ICT. The second subsection concentrates on the distribution of competencies in the curricula. When interpreting these results, it is worth highlighting that even though the units of analysis are called ‘ME/ICT courses’ for clarity’s sake, often the courses discussed the topics alongside several different subjects. As an example, in one course worth five ETCS credits, ‘media culture’ was mentioned alongside as many as 12 other content areas. Consequently, the targeted competencies were seldom connected only to ME/ICT content; they were more often presented as general learning objectives instead.

6.4.1  Positions of ME and ICT in Curricula Altogether, 22 of the 301 mandatory courses included ME/ICT themes. Eleven (11) courses included goals, content and/or literacy that paid specific attention to ME and 16 courses were focused on ICT. Usually ME and ICT were discussed separately since only five (5) of the 22 analysed course descriptions included both ME and ICT goals, content or literature. Previous research has implied that ME terminology is seldom included in Finnish studies scrutinising ICT in education (Pekkala et al., 2013); this seems to mutually apply to universities’ curricula. Of the 16 ICT courses, seven (7) focused solely on ICT, whereas only two (2) of the 11 ME courses were solely devoted to media cultural issues. When integrated as a minor theme of the course, ME and ICT were parts of courses discussing a variety of different subjects, such as arts education, literacy education, societal issues and the pedagogical or systemic planning of ECEC. The 22 course descriptions contributing to ME and/or ICT mentioned 29 mandatory books or articles. The total number of reading materials was higher, but we only analysed the ones obligatory for all students. However, a closer look into the literature revealed that only four (4) of the 29 mandatory pieces of literature discussed media-related issues even as a subtheme. Additionally, two of the four books discussing children’s media usage and ME were from the 1990s. It is worth mentioning that all analysed reading materials were from ME or ME/ICT courses. None of the

76

S. Salomaa and P. Mertala

courses focusing solely on ICT included any required, specified course literature. One possible reason for the scarcity of mandatory reading was that the lecturer had the academic freedom to choose the course literature. This, however, does not explain why, in some cases, students were required to read books in which the media cultural landscape was outdated. For example, one book from 1990s discussed pedagogical use of VHS tapes. The position of ME and ICT in Finnish ECEC teacher training varied significantly between the curricula. The position of ME was recognisable in four curricula and traceable in two curricula. The visible position was found in one curriculum. The most common position for ICT was visible, in four curricula. In the three remaining curricula, ICT was in a recognised position. The difference between the positions is partly explained by our inclusion of three basic, operational ICT courses in the data.

6.4.2  Targeted Competencies in ME and ICT Courses In order to study the targeted ME and ICT competencies of ECEC teacher candidates, we scrutinised the curricular texts of ME and ICT courses from the viewpoint of common categories of ECEC professional competencies (Karila & Nummenmaa, 2001; see also Karila, 2008). The objective was to investigate whether the curricula aimed to provide students with the same kind of competencies within ME/ICT courses that are considered important in ECEC in general. Table 6.2 summarises the distribution of the eight core competencies of ECEC. As can be seen, pedagogical and contextual competencies were strongly emphasised, whereas competencies in caring were not regarded in any of the course descriptions. A more detailed account of the course contents is provided below. The competencies targeted most often in ME course descriptions were contextual competencies, addressed in 22 courses. An example of data addressing contextual competencies is: ‘the student will gain information about … children’s own culture and the impacts of media on childhood’ (University1). Table 6.2  Early childhood education competencies addressed in curricula texts of ME and ICT course descriptions Central knowledge and competence areas Contexts of early childhood education Early childhood education

Cooperation and interaction Continuous development

Core competencies Contextual competencies Educational competencies Competencies in caring Pedagogical competencies Interaction competencies Cooperation competencies Reflective competencies Knowledge management

ME 10 2 – 9 1 4 4 2

ICT 12 1 – 11 2 5 6 8

6  Media Education in Finnish Early Childhood Teacher Education: A Curricular…

77

Competencies related to teaching and fostering learning, pedagogy, were addressed in a total of 20 course descriptions. The following learning goal was set in courses addressing pedagogical competencies: ‘students have gained knowledge of how different media can be used to stimulate and promote children’s learning’ (University7). Reflective competencies and knowledge management competencies were both targeted in ten course descriptions. Regarding reflective competencies, one course stated that the ‘student is able to utilise ICT and reflect on one’s own working and learning’ (University2). As a knowledge management-related goal, one course description aimed that ‘the student masters the basics of information retrieval’ (University3). Cooperation competencies were addressed in nine courses. In one course description, the cooperation-related learning goal was framed as teamwork: ‘[the student] can utilise ICT in individual work and community-based teamwork’ (University4). Competencies for education and interaction were both targeted in three course descriptions. An example of educational goal setting can be found in the following description: ‘ … the student will gain understanding of … art as a language of education and is able to apply art and cultural practices as producers of joy and prosperity and as a promoter of intellectual development’ (University2). Interaction can be found in the following: ‘[the student] knows how to promote children’s language development and to prevent linguistic problems with both the means of verbal and non-verbal interaction’ (University6). The last two data excerpts also illustrate how ME competencies were often not specifically mentioned as learning goals in courses that included ME content; instead, only more general learning goals were set. The strong emphasis on contextual and pedagogical competencies appears logical in teacher training; this, however, is not the case with the shortage of educational competencies. This competence area only appeared in two ME course descriptions and one ICT course, which was surprising for a programme providing a bachelor’s degree in education. This might be partly explained by the structure of the curricula as only three of the analysed courses were offered as part of the education sciences (master’s subject studies); of these three, two course descriptions targeted educational competencies. The rest of the courses were located either in professional skills studies or communication studies, and among these 19 course descriptions, only one targeted educational competency. Another problematic notion was the absence of competencies in care (e.g. discussing and fostering children’s wellbeing in relation to media). On the one hand, it can be argued that in multi-professional working communities of ECEC the competencies in care would be the responsibility of childminders instead of teachers. On the other hand, there is a body of research indicating that care is an indistinguishable part of being (and becoming) a teacher (Kemp & Reupert, 2012; O’Connor, 2008). Care—alongside teaching and education—is one of the cornerstones of the Nordic model of ECEC (Karila, 2012). Previous research also suggests that Finnish pre-­ service ECEC teachers’ concerns regarding ICT use and ME are predominantly care-related; they believe that children’s physical and mental health are endangered

78

S. Salomaa and P. Mertala

by media and technology. These anxieties are associated with beliefs about children’s use of ICT at home being extensive and unregulated, and pre-service teachers have expressed mainly negative attitudes towards parents’ capabilities in child rearing in relation to digital technologies (Mertala, 2019). As these exaggerated beliefs are not supported by empirical research on Finnish children’s media and technology use (Chaudron, 2015; Suoninen, 2014), they form a rather uninformed and negative basis for ME. Thus, it can justifiably be argued that teacher education should aim to provide teacher candidates with research-based information about children’s wellbeing and media as well as how to enhance critical self-reflection, in order to challenge anytheir (negative) preconceptions. Botturi (2019), for example, has reported pre-service teachers’ attitudes shifting from purely protective towards more comprehensive critical literacy after studying a digital and media literacy course. However as only a few of the analysed course descriptions in the present study included goals or content providing competencies for reflection, cooperation and interaction, it is questionable whether these issues were at all addressed in relation to ME and ICT. This is also in contrast to the expectations of practising equal and respectful educational cooperation with parents (FNAfE, 2018; MoEC, 2013). An additional interesting finding is that practising ME and ICT with children during the studies was seldom mentioned in the curricular texts. The analysed course descriptions did not include projects to be conducted with children, nor were these subjects explicitly included as part of the internship periods’ descriptions. Three courses linked to internships were all courses in which ME/ICT held minor positions (e.g. were included only in pieces of course literature). Similarly, in Germany, Friedrichs-Liesenkötter (2015) identified a shortage of possibilities for students to develop their ME competencies with children and considered it a problem for professional development. In contrast, in Norway the pre-school teacher education curriculum expected students to design working methods for using digital media in children’s groups (Bølgan, 2012). The literature also identifies cases in which popular media culture and kindergarten projects were integrated in early years education courses (Mertala, 2020; Souto-Manning & Price-Dennis, 2012). We argue that these integrative approaches would align with the holistic nature of the pedagogy of ECEC.

6.5  Conclusions This study used curricular analysis to explore how ME has been included in Finnish ECEC teacher education programmes during the academic year 2014–2015. An additional research interest was to study how these contents were aligned with the framework outlined by Karila and Nummenmaa (2001) for the general core competencies of ECEC professionals. This part of the study underlines the importance of a holistic approach in developing ME competencies for ECEC. Curriculum design is not only about how much but very much about what and how.

6  Media Education in Finnish Early Childhood Teacher Education: A Curricular…

79

The analysis revealed that ME and ICT have been parts of all Finnish university-­ level ECEC teacher education curricula during the years just before the first mandatory ECEC curriculum. However, the position of ME and ICT as well as the competencies targeted in curricula, varied between universities. Hence, the newly graduating ECEC professionals have potentially had very different levels and understanding of ME competencies when entering the work field in which they were, for the first time, equally obligated to carry out ME with children. ICT and especially ME appeared as relatively marginal contents of studies. ME was in a visible position in only one curriculum. ICT was in a visible position in four curricula. Based on our analysis, pedagogical and contextual competencies were highly emphasised in course descriptions. Whilst they are both crucial in the teaching profession, more balanced and versatile perspectives could be beneficial in building ECEC professionalism and consciousness about the goals, value basis and prerequisites of education and educational cooperation. Based on both empirical research on children’s everyday lives (e.g. Chaudron, 2015) and the Finnish ECEC curriculum, media literacy and ICT skills are not just entities to be taught about or with, but are ultimately related to twenty-first-century interaction, societal issues, everyday practices and human growth. The finding that no course description included practicing ME with children casts doubts on the level of concreteness of the pedagogical competence provided. This, combined with marginal positioning and merging with other subjects, can explain why only 51% of pre-service early childhood teachers have reported that ME (ICT included) appeared in their mandatory studies—even though it should have been provided for all (Salomaa et al., 2017). However, the findings of the present study also question the theoretical depth of ME and ICT courses: the reading materials were sparse and the ICT courses contained no specified mandatory reading. The risk of such a superficial approach is that students are learning quickly outdated technological tricks instead of adaptive competences. Whist we recognise that low technological self-efficacy builds barriers to ME (Kupiainen et al., 2006), operational competence is not a guarantee of pedagogically justified practices if the decisions of why and how to implement digital media in early childhood education are built on uninformed grounds.

6.6  Implications for Teacher Education The present study indicates that while Finland is often used as a ‘showpiece country’ of ME in international comparisons (Celot, 2009; Tomljenović, 2019), there is already a need to provide in-service training for those ECEC teachers’ cohorts that have graduated quite recently. Additionally, it is at least equally needed for previously graduated cohorts whose studies seem to have included even less ME. That said, we understand that the mere addition of ME content in pre-service teacher education curricula would be an oversimplified answer to a complex question. In a

80

S. Salomaa and P. Mertala

constantly changing media culture, professional ME competency building can be seen as a career-long endeavour. One way to strengthen the role of ME within the existing framework of pre-­ service teacher education and also in in-service training would be to dispense with the dichotomic stance of providing ICT courses and ME courses separately. As Kotilainen and Ruokamo (2017, p. 39) argued, the conceptual boundaries between ICT and media literacy are artificial as, in the end, the core of both is a pedagogical perspective on technology-mediated interaction between human beings. Also, Buckingham (2015) has argued that digital media can no longer be regarded simply as matters of ‘information’ or ‘technology’ but must be seen as cultural forms. Thus, any form of digital media should neither be regarded as a neutral means of delivering information nor used in a merely functional or instrumental way. Furthermore, ‘education about the media should be seen as an indispensable prerequisite for education with or through the media’ (Buckingham, 2015, p. 21 [italics original]). Consequently, including ME perspectives in ICT courses (and vice versa) would, to paraphrase Buckingham (2015, p.  21), develop more effective connections between children’s/pre-service teachers’ experiences of technology outside of kindergarten/university and their experiences in the classroom. Such a symbiotic and inclusive approach is indeed much closer to how young children conceptualise ICT and media culture. Children, for example, do not approach computers as information technology or as a didactic tool, but as one way of carrying out media cultural interests and preferences (Mertala, 2016). However, the potential sparks for child-­ initiated ME pedagogies may remain neglected if the teachers have not learned to carry out ME from a wider educational perspective or are not even aware of either their educational value or children’s digital media cultures and interests. We, in turn, are aware that universities’ curricula can be seen as ‘dynamic force fields’ (Luoto & Lappalainen, 2006, 14). In these fields, traditional and several new contents, such as ME, multiculturalism or sustainable development are competing to gain visibility in space framed by degree programmes’ limited boundaries. If the subject is not visibly and widely included in the curriculum, there is a risk each time that the subject can fade away when the contents of the curriculum are negotiated (Korhonen & Rantala, 2007, pp.  457–458). Consequently, there is a recognised need for strengthening the position of ME in Finnish teacher education curricula. It could also be beneficial to invest in course design. This could, in practice, mean ensuring that compulsory reading would be up-to-date and that all ME courses would also include explicit ME learning goals. Additionally, already existing ME content may need more visibility in teacher education. Our main concern is that ME as a cross-curricular subject can be invisible to pre-service teachers if the scattered incentives of developing ME competencies are not meaningfully explicated and connected as multi-dimensional learning paths. It is also worth noticing when designing in-service courses, that while ECEC professionals’ inadequate digital competencies are often discussed in public (e.g. Gillen et al., 2018), they still may have received significantly more initial education for operational ICT competencies than for culturally orientated ME or theoretical understanding of ICT pedagogies.

6  Media Education in Finnish Early Childhood Teacher Education: A Curricular…

81

References Biesta, G., Priestley, M., & Robinson. S. (2015). The role of beliefs in teacher agency. Teachers and Teaching, 21(6), 624–640. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2015.1044325 Bølgan, N. (2012). From IT to Tablet: Current use and future needs in kindergartens. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 7(3), 154–171. https://doi.org/10.18261/ISSN1891-­943X-­ 2012-­03-­02 Botturi, L. (2019). Digital and media literacy in pre-service teacher education. A case study from Switzerland. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 14(3–4), 147–163. https://doi.org/10.18261/ issn.1891-­943x-­2019-­03-­04-­05 Buckingham, D. (2015). Defining digital literacy. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 10(5), 21–35. https://www.idunn.no/dk/2006/04/defining_digital_literacy_-­_ what_do_young_people_ need_to_know_about_digital Celot, P. (2009). Study on assessment criteria for media literacy. EAVI. https://ec.europa.eu/ assets/eac/culture/library/studies/literacy-criteria-report_en.pdf Chaudron, S. (2015). Young children (0–8) and digital technology. A qualitative exploratory study across seven countries. Joint Research Centre. https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/ handle/JRC93239 Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-­2648.2007.04569.x Finnish National Agency for Education (FNAE). (2018). Varhaiskasvatussuunnitelman perusteet 2018. [National core curriculum for early childhood education 2018]. Finnish National Agency for Education: Regulation and Guidelines 3a. https://www.oph.fi/sites/default/files/documents/ varhaiskasvatussuunnitelman_perusteet.pdf Friedrichs-Liesenkötter, H. (2015). Media-educational habitus of future educators in the context of education in day-care centers. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 7(1), 18–34. Gillen, J., Arnott, L., Marsh, J. Bus, A., Castro, T., Dardanou, M., Duncan, P., EnriquezGibson, J., Flewitt, R., Gray, C., Holloway, D., Jernes, M., Kontovourki , S., Kucirkova, N., Kumpulainen, K., March-Boehnck, G, Mascheroni, G., Nagy, K., O’Connor, J., O’Neill, B., …, & Tafa, E. (2018). Digital literacy and young children: Towards better understandings of the benefits and challenges of digital technologies in homes and early years settings. DigiLitEY COST action IS1410 and the digital childhoods SIG of the European early childhood research association. https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/65712/ Holkeri-Rinkinen, L. (2009). Aikuinen ja lapsi vuorovaikutusta rakentamassa: Diskurssianalyyttinen tutkimus päiväkodin arjesta [adult and child construction interaction: A discourse analytical study on early childhood education]. Tampere, Finland: Tampereen Yliopistopaino. Karila, K. (2008). A Finnish viewpoint on professionalism in early childhood education. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 16(2), 210–223. https://doi. org/10.1080/13502930802141634 Karila, K. (2012). A Nordic perspective on early childhood education and care policy. European Journal of Education, 47(4), 584–595. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12007 Karila, K., Harju-Luukkainen, H., Juntunen, A., Kainulainen, S., Kaulio-Kuikka, K., Mattila, V.,Rantala, K., Ropponen, M., Rouhiainen-Valo, T., Siren-Aura, M., Goman, J., Mustonen, K., & Smeds-Nylund, A.-S. (2013). Varhaiskasvatuksen koulutus Suomessa. Arviointi koulutuksen tilasta ja kehittämistarpeista. [Evaluation of the ECEC degree programmes in Finland]. https:// karvi.fi/app/uploads/2014/09/KKA_0713.pdf Karila, K., Kosonen, T., & Järvenkallas, S. (2017). Varhaiskasvatuksen kehittämisen tiekartta vuosille 2017–2030 [Roadmap for developing early childhood education 2017–2030]. Publications by the Ministry of Education and Culture: 30. https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/ bitstream/handle/10024/80221/okm30.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Karila, K., & Nummenmaa, A.  R. (2001). Matkalla moniammatillisuuteen. Kuvauskohteena päiväkoti. [Towards multiprofessionalism in early childhood education]. WSOY.

82

S. Salomaa and P. Mertala

Kemp, H. R., & Reupert, A. (2012). ‘There’s no big book on how to care’: Primary pre-service teachers’ experiences of caring. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(9), 114–127. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2012v37n9.5 Korhonen, V., & Rantala, L. (2007). Opettajankoulutus—mediakasvatuksen autiomaa? Mediakasvatus opettajankoulutuksen opetussuunnitelmateksteissä [Teacher training—a ME desert? ME in teacher training curricular texts]. Kasvatus, 38(5), 454–467. Kotilainen, S., & Ruokamo, H. (2017). Haloo opettajankoulutus: TVT ja medialukutaidot yhteisopinnoiksi [Hello teacher education: integrate ICT and media literacy]. In S. Salomaa, L. Palsa, & V. Malinen (Eds.), Opettajaopiskelijat ja mediakasvatus 2017. [Teacher students and ME 2017] (pp. 38–41). Kansallisen audiovisuaalisen instituutin julkaisuja 1. Krzywacki, H. (2009). Becoming a teacher: Emerging teacher identity in mathematics teacher education. University of Helsinki. Faculty of Behavioural Sciences. Department of Applied Sciences of education. Research report 308. Kupiainen, R., Niinistö, H., Pohjola, K., & Kotilainen, S. (2006). Mediakasvatusta alle 8-­vuotiaille. Keväällä 2006 toteutetun Mediamuffinssi-kokeilun arviointia. [ME for under 8-year-olds. Evaluation of the Mediamuffin initiative]. : Tampereen yliopisto. Kupiainen, R., & Sintonen, S. (2009). Medialukutaidot, osallisuus, mediakasvatus [Media literacies, participation, ME]. Helsinki University Press. Ledin, P., & Samuelsson, R. (2017). Play and imitation: Multimodal interaction and second-­ language development in preschool. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 24(1), 18–31. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/10749039.2016.1247868 Levin, B. (2008). Curriculum policy and the politics of what should be learned in schools. In F. M. Connelly, M. F. He, & J. Phillion (Eds.), The sage handbook of curriculum and instruction (pp. 7–24). Sage. Luoto, L., & Lappalainen, M. (2006). Opetussuunnitelmaprosessit yliopistoissa. [Curriculum processes in universities]. Korkeakoulujen arviointineuvoston julkaisuja 10. https://karvi.fi/app/ uploads/2015/01/KKA_1006.pdf Marsh, J. (2017). Introduction. In J. Marsh, K. Kumpulainen, B. Nisha, A. Velicu, A. Blum-Ross, D. Hyatt, Jónsdóttir, S.R., Levy, R., Little, S., Marusteru, G., Ólafsdóttir, M.E., Sandvik, K., Scott, F., Thestrup, K., Arnseth, H.C., Dýrfjörð, K., Jornet, A., …, & G. Thorsteinsson (Eds.), Makerspaces in the early years: A literature review (pp. 6–11). University of Sheffield. http:// makeyproject.eu/wp-­content/uploads/2017/02/Makey_Literature_Review.pdf Mertala, P. (2016). Fun and games – Finnish children’s ideas for the use of digital media in preschool. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 11(04), 207–226. Mertala, P. (2019). Wonder children and victimizing parents – Preservice early childhood teachers’ beliefs about children and technology at home. Early Child Development and Care, 189(3), 392–404. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2017.1324434 Mertala, P. (2020). Misunderstanding child-centeredness: The case of “child 2.0” and media education. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 12(1), 26–41. https://doi.org/10.23860/ JMLE-­2020-­12-­1-­3. Ministry of Education and Culture. (2013). Mediakasvatus kuntien varhaiskasvatuksessa. [ME in municipal early childhood education]. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-­952-­263-­216-­6 Ministry of Education and Culture. (2019). Asettamispäätös [Appointment decision] OKM/69/040/2019. O’Connor, K.  E. (2008). “You choose to care”: Teachers, emotions and professional identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 117–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.11.008 Palsa, L., & Ruokamo, H. (2015). Behind the concepts of multiliteracies and media literacy in the renewed Finnish core curriculum: A systematic literature review of peer-reviewed research. International Journal of Media, Technology and Lifelong Learning, 11(2), 1–19. https://journals.hioa.no/index.php/seminar/article/view/2354 Pekkala, L., Pääjärvi, S., Palsa, L., Korva, S., & Löfgren, A. (2013). ME research in Finland: A literature review. Finnish Centre for ME and Audiovisual Media. https://kavi.fi/sites/default/ files/documents/kirjallisuuskatsaus_en.pdf

6  Media Education in Finnish Early Childhood Teacher Education: A Curricular…

83

Salomaa, S., & Mertala, P. (2019). An education-centred approach to early-years digital ME. In I. Palaiologou & C. Gray (Eds.), Early learning at digital age. Sage. Salomaa, S., Palsa, L., & Malinen, V. (Eds.). (2017). Opettajaopiskelijat ja mediakasvatus 2017. [Teacher students and ME 2017]. KAVI http://www.mediataitokoulu.fi/opettajaopiskelijat.pdf Souto-Manning, M., & Price-Dennis, D. (2012). Critically redefining and repositioning media texts in early childhood teacher education: What if? And why? Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 33(4), 304–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2012.732669 Suoninen, A. (2008). Mediakasvatus päiväkodissa ja esiopetuksessa. [ME in kindergarten and preschool]. Mediamuffinssi-hanke ja Jyväskylän yliopiston nykykulttuurin tutkimuskeskus. Retrieved from https://staff.jyu.fi/Members/kuilju/mediakasvatus_paivakodissa_raportti.pdf Suoninen, A. (2014). Lasten mediabarometri 2013. [Children’s media barometer 2013]. Nuorisotutkimusseura. http://www.nuorisotutkimusseura.fi/julkaisuja/lastenmediabarometri2013.pdf Tomljenović, R. (2019). Regulatory authorities for electronic media and media literacy  – Comparative analysis of the best European practices. Council of Europe. https://rm.coe.int/ regulatory-­authorities-­for-­electronic-­media/1680903a2a

Chapter 7

‘Too Little Attention Is Paid to Children Who Require Specialised Support.’: In-Service and Pre-service Teachers’ Views on Policy and Practice in Early Childhood Teacher Education in Finland Mari Saha and Henri Pesonen

Abstract  There have been moves towards more integrative and inclusive early childhood education settings. This can be seen in policy documents as well as in the everyday life in kindergartens. Inclusive early childhood education and care (ECEC) requires self-reflection from teachers in relation to the extent they perceive themselves to be skilful and competent to engage with children with special educational needs (e.g. developmental disabilities, learning difficulties) or various backgrounds (e.g. children who are maltreated or neglected, children from LGBT families). Teacher education has a significant role in educating qualified and competent future teachers in the field of early childhood education. In this chapter, our aim is to describe the context of inclusive Finnish ECEC after the most recent change in policy and legislation in 2018. By summarising the research findings, our aim is to illustrate the challenges in- and pre-service teachers face in encountering children with diverse needs and backgrounds, as well as their views on how to improve the current teacher education. Further, we also discuss how teacher education programmes can respond to these challenges by providing suggestions for policy and practice.

M. Saha (*) University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland e-mail: [email protected] H. Pesonen University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 H. Harju-Luukkainen et al. (eds.), Finnish Early Childhood Education and Care, Early Childhood Research and Education: An Inter-theoretical Focus 1, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95512-0_7

85

86

M. Saha and H. Pesonen

7.1  Introduction Early childhood education and care in supporting children with diverse needs and backgrounds. Internationally, the field of education has moved towards more inclusive arrangements in recent decades. Efforts have been made to reduce segregation by placing all children together and dismantling special arrangements (e.g., Ferguson, 2008; Savolainen, 2009; Pesonen et al., 2015), and education is organised in accordance with international agreements, such as the Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994) and United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (The United Nations, 2006), that have been designed to ensure fair and equal treatment for all. The goal has been to meet the needs of all learners regardless of their skill, disability or background (Foreman & Arthur-Kelly, 2017). Finnish education is committed to these agreements at all levels, from early childhood education to higher education. High-quality early childhood education and care (ECEC) is an effective means of providing support to children with diverse needs and backgrounds (Moss & Dahlberg, 2008; Melhuish et al., 2019). A report by Finnish Education Evaluation Center (Vlasov et al., 2018) states that the quality indicators in Finnish ECEC have been derived from the Act on Early Childhood Education and Care, the National Core Curriculum for Early Childhood Education and Care (Finnish National Agency of Education, 2018), and based on the ‘quality’ factors presented in national and international research. These guidelines offer suggestions for policy and practice at national and local levels by covering structural indicators (e.g. teacher qualifications, group-size, adult-child ratio) and process quality indicators (e.g. adult-child interaction, instructional support, educational cooperation). Previous research on the role of early childhood education in supporting children’s development and learning has shown that good-quality early childhood education can significantly strengthen children’s positive development (Sylva et  al., 2004; Hall et  al., 2013; Sylva, 2014). In particular, children with support needs, such as those with various developmental risk factors (e.g., learning difficulties, unfavourable growth environments, poverty, neurological issues), benefit from the quality pedagogy and care they receive in their early years (Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation, 2014). It is essential that children’s developmental delays or learning difficulties are detected at the earliest possible stage and that support is offered to children and their families. Such support is intended to reduce or prevent the accumulation of problems (Guralnick & Bruder, 2019). However, even though support is recommended, its availability and quality vary among early childhood education providers in Finland (Pihlaja & Neitola, 2017; Alijoki & Pihlaja, 2011).

7  ‘Too Little Attention Is Paid to Children Who Require Specialised Support.’…

87

7.2  Inclusive ECEC in Finland In Finland, early childhood education is based on the principle of inclusion, and its aim is to offer all children equal opportunities for quality education and care. Inclusion can be seen in values and ideology, and it actualises in pedagogical actions (Booth, 2011; Viitala, 2018). In inclusive early childhood education, the children with special needs are taken into account and diversity is valued (Pihlaja, 2018; Viljamaa et al., 2018). Support does not only mean special arrangements; rather, basic, high-quality education and care should be considered to be the primary forms of support. In Finnish ECEC, special educational support is called support for development and learning (Finnish National Agency for Education 2018). This support covers the general and more intensive special education support offered in kindergarten settings. The aim is to implement early childhood education in such a way that all children have an equal right to quality education and care regardless of their individual support needs or background. The aim is to arrange the child’s early childhood education services in a regular classroom so that all children are together. It is critical to note that support services are delivered in the classroom; the child is not taken to them (Alijoki & Pihlaja, 2011; Turja, 2017; Pihlaja & Neitola, 2017). The most visible change towards inclusion in early childhood education services has been the significant reduction in the number of special groups and integrated special groups (Pihlaja & Neitola, 2017; Viljamaa & Takala, 2017). In accordance with the principles of Finnish inclusive early childhood education, children with special needs are placed in regular kindergarten groups instead of into special groups. In inclusive early childhood education, support is provided by an early childhood education teacher and a special education teacher, and there are also services provided by a multidisciplinary team that is structured according to the child’s needs (e.g., speech therapy, neuropsychological rehabilitation/training). The aim is to increase the availability of support by allocating special educational resources in a more inclusive way. In Finland, the accessibility of support in ECEC is not dependent on a child’s diagnosis; rather, it is based on ECEC teachers’ and special teachers’ pedagogical observations and assessments of the child’s needs made by ECEC teachers and special teachers (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2018; Heiskanen, 2018). In Finland’s national ECEC curriculum (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2018), a child’s support needs are not described using diagnoses or labels. Instead, by adopting the concept of support for development and learning, various diverse needs are covered. Finland’s ECEC curriculum highlights both individual and environmental factors in determining support needs. If a child’s need for support is due to severe developmental delays, disability, illness or socio-emotional development challenges, the child may need full-time and more intensive support. In this case, special group arrangements are considered but placements are flexible and monitored regularly. The support arrangements are planned and implemented by multidisciplinary teams in conjunction with parents (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2018).

88

M. Saha and H. Pesonen

7.3  T  eacher Education Responding to Policy and Practice: Teachers’ Competence and Attitudes Towards Diverse Needs and Inclusive Education Identifying support needs and planning effective practices requires teachers to have special educational knowledge and pedagogical expertise. Because of inclusive arrangements for dealing with children with special needs, teachers face increasingly complicated challenges regarding children’s diverse needs in their learning, development and well-being in regular classrooms (Florian, 2017). Individual support needs may be due to a child’s individual factors (e.g., developmental delays, neurological causes) or environmental factors (e.g. neglected care, poverty) (Nislin & Pesonen, 2019). Therefore, the range of support needs that teachers face in their daily work is wide. Teachers are required to have competencies that enable them to address the needs of all students (Paju et al., 2016). However, internationally, criticism has been directed at teacher education, stating that it is inadequate in meeting the current professional needs of teachers (Ashman, 2010; Symeonidou & Phtiaka, 2009). Even though inclusion has been the leading ideology in education, there has been little change in teacher education to improve coverage of this content (Nislin & Pesonen, 2019; Forlin, 2010). Courses focusing on special educational content are often separate instead of being integrated within the regular curriculum. This may be harmful for inclusion and could reinforce the idea that educating children with special needs requires a specialist (Forlin, 2010). Whatever the delivery mode of special educational content is, inclusion should be seen as a shared ideology, and courses covering the contents of inclusion should prepare teachers with critical skills and knowledge to dismantle the barriers to education for all (Slee, 2010). In Finland, ECEC teachers are highly educated compared to those in many other countries (see e.g. Sims & Waniganayake, 2015; OECD, 2006; 2012) and staff qualifications are defined in law (Law 540/2018). ECEC teachers are required to have a university-level bachelor’s degree in education which includes pedagogical and professional studies in ECEC. Social pedagogues in ECEC hold a bachelor’s degree in the social sciences from a university of applied sciences (the other sector in Finland’s binary higher education system), which include either 60 credits in ECEC or social pedagogy. Nursery nurses hold a vocational upper secondary education qualification in social welfare and health care or another suitable programmes that include study focusing on the education and care of young children. For ECEC special teachers there is additional training in special education, or they should have a master’s degree in education with a major in special education. According to the law, at least one of three team members should have qualification as an ECEC teacher. Teacher education programmes in ECEC have a significant task to ensure that in-service and pre-service teachers are equipped with the skills and knowledge needed to work with children with diverse needs and backgrounds. In our previous study (Nislin & Pesonen, 2019), we found that students find it challenging to encounter children with more intensive diverse needs, such as a developmental disability or an autism spectrum disorder. Problems related to children’s socio-emotional

7  ‘Too Little Attention Is Paid to Children Who Require Specialised Support.’…

89

development were also perceived as challenging. On the other hand, students found themselves to be more competent in working with children with religious backgrounds or from families with drug abuse issues. We found that only age and work experience in teaching were correlated with self-perceived competence, not the number of credits from special education studies. These findings are in line with previous studies examining ECEC professionals (Nislin et al., 2015) and primary and secondary school teachers’ attitudes and competence (Ojala, 2017; Kokko et al., 2014; Kontu et al., 2017; Nislin & Pesonen, 2019). Also, a report by the Finnish Educational Assessment Centre highlighted shortcomings in teachers’ ability to identify support needs and implement supportive practices and there are delays in accessing support services early enough (Repo et  al., 2018). Similarly, a report commissioned by the Ministry of Education (Eskelinen & Hjelt, 2017) raised concerns about the adequacy of resources in implementing early childhood education for children with special needs. Studies have identified challenges in the realisation of inclusion, such as teachers’ attitudes to children with more intensive support needs (Mulhivill et al., 2002) and their awareness of diverse needs and competence in catering to them (Kiyini & Desai, 2007). In this chapter, we have focused on in-service and pre-service ECEC teachers’ views on special education course content in encountering diverse needs and backgrounds in university level teacher education. We further investigated their aspirations on how to improve current teacher education. It is important to understand what students gain during their studies and what they perceive to be the shortcomings of their education in order to improve teacher training programmes so that they better cater to the demands of ECEC teachers’ practical work (see also e.g. Repo et al., 2018).

7.4  Methods 7.4.1  Participants The research presented in this chapter is part of a broader international comparative study comparing Finland and Hong Kong aimed at finding out about student teachers’ perceptions of inclusion and their ability to encounter diversity in 2017–2018. In this Finnish sub-study, we focused on examining the expectations and needs of in-service and pre-service early childhood education teachers in relation to the themes of inclusive education. Participants in this sub-study were from the University of Helsinki. The participant data were drawn from pre-service teachers in the early childhood education programme and in-service ECEC teachers attending a special education qualification programme. They all attended a mandatory special education course targeted at all students in the faculty. The main study included students from several programmes (including classroom teacher education, special education, subject teacher education). In this sub-study we focused on

90

M. Saha and H. Pesonen

only early childhood education students. There were ten in-service and 26 pre-­ service teachers. Participants (all female) were 21–56 (M = 31.7, SD = 0.7) years old. Students attending the special education qualification programme were in-­ service early childhood education teachers who had already earned a bachelor’s degree, with a minor in special education (25 credit points), teacher qualification studies and working experience in teaching.

7.4.2  Survey Data were collected with online questionnaire on pre- and in-service teachers’ background characteristics and with open-ended questions on their perceptions of and expectations for teacher education training. The survey also included items related to students’ study well-being and burnout, sense of belonging and self-assessed competence in encountering children with diverse needs and backgrounds. Those results were reported in our previous study (please see Nislin & Pesonen, 2019). The open-ended questions used in our current study were: 1. Please, describe how the current teacher education programme develops your abilities to encounter children with diverse needs and backgrounds? 2. What expectations do you have for special education studies, and how do you think you will benefit from them working in the ECEC? Answers to the open-ended questions were received from 35 participants. All the required information was given prior to the agreement to participate, emphasising that participation is fully voluntary. Written consent was received from the participants. The anonymity of the participants was guaranteed, and they were informed of their right to withdraw at any time during the study.

7.4.3  Data Analysis Data were analysed using an inductive content analysis technique (Schreier, 2012). Such an approach is effective when addressing specific research objectives and questions (Thomas, 2006). Inductive content analysis consists of five steps: (1) the data are prepared for analysis; (2) familiarisation of the raw data; (3) coding and categorising, from which key themes are identified; (4) recognising a thematic framework based on these key themes; and (5) revision and refinement of the emerged themes using the thematic framework (Thomas, 2006). The literature further suggests that the analysis should produce three to eight main themes so that it can be considered a complete inductive content analysis; more than eight major themes is considered to mean incomplete inductive coding (Schreier, 2012; Thomas, 2006).

7  ‘Too Little Attention Is Paid to Children Who Require Specialised Support.’…

91

First, the qualitative survey responses were placed into a Microsoft Word document from the Excel file. The word document consisted of six pages, with 35 open ended answers with an average length of 37 words, that were imported into Atlas.ti 8 Software. The capabilities of the software (coding and grouping the codes) were used as a tool for analysis. After preparing the data for analysis, the raw material was read multiple times to get a general understanding of the data. Next in the analysis, the research questions were initially used in categorising the data and identifying emerging themes (e.g. respondents experienced difficulties in encountering special needs, theoretical knowledge on diverse needs, children’s support needs, aspirations for practical training, and training for milder learning difficulties, etc.), which was followed by recognising a thematic framework. This was followed by revision and refinement of the themes (codes and code groups in Atlas) that led to three main themes (Thomas, 2006). For the purposes of ensuring trustworthiness, researcher triangulation (Patton, 2015) was utilised throughout the analysis to discuss the codes and themes. The authors held four data validation meetings (Given, 2008) at which the themes were discussed until consensus among the authors was reached.

7.5  Findings Analysis of the open-ended survey answers resulted in six subthemes, which were divided into three main themes: (1) education on diverse needs and backgrounds, (2) aspirations for knowledge building and (3) expectations for practical training. The first main theme of education on diverse needs and backgrounds was related to the two other main themes related to expectations for improving the current teacher education on its theoretical and practical contents. The main themes and subthemes are presented in Fig. 7.1. Data extracts can be identified from the codes “PRE(n)” for pre-service and “IN(n)” for in-service teachers.

7.5.1  Education on Diverse Needs and Backgrounds 7.5.1.1  Encountering Diversity The survey responses showed that an aim of teacher education was to shape students’ attitudes to be more accepting and understanding towards the learners with diverse needs and backgrounds. Such attitude education was perceived as helping to encounter all children no matter what their support needs were. For example, the respondents considered that during their teacher education, that students are “encouraged to reflect” (PRE33) and “critically assess” (PRE2) their personal prejudices and attitudes [about diverse learners]” (x), which enhances students “to become accepting” (PRE12) early childhood education teachers.

92

M. Saha and H. Pesonen

Fig. 7.1  Survey respondents’ views on the teacher education and aspirations for improvement

The responses further indicated that the teacher training gave a “wide spectrum of ways to ponder and engage with things” (PRE22), which was also believed “...to help to encounter children and adults in a new way, more professional way” (IN31) and overall learn to “...encounter different kinds of people” (PRE28), as well as “gain respect” (IN32). Furthermore, the respondents appreciated how the education helped them “perceive diverse needs as being ‘usual’ and ‘normal’, and not something that is different from the ordinary” (PRE3). The participants also recognised how important it is to be “truly present” (IN7) when working with children with diverse needs and backgrounds The following extract especially demonstrates this: During my studying, I have been able to reinforcing my views about how it is best to engage with a child as an individual, who has individual needs, but at the same time see children’s similarities/combining factors. It is important that the educator creates a safe environment, in which everyone can accept their own and others’ diversity (all children are special and diverse!). (PRE12). 7.5.1.2  Mild Support Needs Although some said that the education provides a solid foundation for future profession, most of the survey responses indicated that currently the teachers being trained in early childhood education gave students only basic information about diverse

7  ‘Too Little Attention Is Paid to Children Who Require Specialised Support.’…

93

learning needs and there was really “only one course about diverse learning needs and backgrounds” (PRE14) if students do not independently take an extra course about special educational needs. For example, the respondents mentioned that the teacher training “focuses mainly on [mild] learning difficulties” (PRE18) with “very little special educational needs” (PRE10) (e.g. disabilities), which therefore does not “provide enough readiness to confront children with special support needs (children with IEPs)” (PRE26). Overall, the survey responses indicated that not having received enough education on various children’s support needs was challenging for the respondents, as they were not prepared to meet children with more demanding special educational needs.

7.5.2  Aspirations for Knowledge Building 7.5.2.1  Recognising and Naming Challenges Since the open-ended answers demonstrated that the degree programme gave basic information about diverse needs, the survey responses further indicated aspirations for more content about recognising and naming the existing challenges. For example, the respondents mentioned that the teacher training just touched the surface of issues that were considered important: “There is too little attention paid to children who require specialised support. This should be resourced a lot more, as the number of these children is constantly increasing.” (IN29) The survey responses further indicated that the teacher education appeared to be based on the ethos of not identifying any children according to their diagnosis (see ECEC curriculum, Finnish National Agency of Education, 2018), which was perceived as not supporting students in their future professions. For example: “Studies about special educational needs are scarce, so...there are too few professional skills in recognising them.” (PRE16), and further some mentioned: “I hope to get more information about children’s specific learning needs” (PRE34). 7.5.2.2  Significant Support Needs The respondents further expressed how important it would be to have information about significant support needs during the degree programme. As mentioned earlier, it appeared that the programme did not prepare future teachers enough about such support needs that refer to “traumatised children” (PRE18) and “social problems (substance abuse etc.)” (PRE4). The survey answers showed that the respondents specifically aspired to have content about issues related to children’s mental health and well-being, as overall “[early childhood education] children groups are rather challenging these days, in which wide understanding of special needs is required” (IN32).

94

M. Saha and H. Pesonen

7.5.3  Expectations About Practicality 7.5.3.1  Tools and Materials Although the survey respondents expressed how they appreciated sharing practical ideas based on discussion during small group teaching instead of during big lectures, the respondents would have preferred to have more practical tools and materials during their programme. The responses showed that the students wished to learn more about real-life practices instead of learning theory about diverse learning needs and backgrounds; for example: “I wish to gain tangible ‘tools’ to face different kinds of support needs…” (IN19). At the moment, the students had to “...independently search and gather” (IN23) information on practicalities used in assessing and teaching children. 7.5.3.2  Practicums Students recognised the importance of teaching practicums for learning about everyday practices from qualified early childhood educators about confronting all children. For example: “The practicum gives the best preparedness at the moment for encountering diversity and backgrounds.” (IN25). Although students expressed how useful the practicums were, yet they also wished that: “...in my opinion the practicum period could be longer.” (IN30) Overall, the subtheme of practicums was not discussed as much in the survey data as the practical tools and materials subtheme.

7.6  Discussion The globally increased inclusive early childhood education arrangements have also challenged the practical work in the field and teacher education programmes. In this chapter, we were specifically interested in examining the current state of inclusive early childhood education and care, and how the Finnish teacher education responds to the actual professional needs of teachers. To illustrate this, we studied in- and pre-service teachers’ perceptions on the current teacher education and how it could be improved. Our findings showed that teacher education provided a general understanding of diverse needs and backgrounds and provided a basis for professional growth and acquiring accepting attitudes. Despite the respondents being generally satisfied, our findings demonstrated that teacher education could benefit from more specific special education content and practical training. Although respondents were both in- and pre-service teachers, it was apparent across the entire sample that teacher education mainly focuses on educating about milder diverse needs. However, more severe support needs such as mental health issues and diverse family backgrounds should be covered more, which is in line with previous findings (Ojala, 2017; Kontu et al., 2017; Nislin & Pesonen, 2019). Based on the findings, it appeared that inclusive early childhood education is challenging teachers’ competence as the needs and demands of children differ from what the training currently provides. Therefore, it appears that achieving inclusion could be problematic if teachers are not

7  ‘Too Little Attention Is Paid to Children Who Require Specialised Support.’…

95

well-enough trained for identifying and recognising the wide spectrum of diverse needs (see also Kontu et al., 2017). Previous research has shown that teachers’ competence in catering for the needs of diverse learners (Kiyini & Desai, 2007) and attitudes to children with more severe support needs (Mulhivill et al., 2002) are crucial for inclusion. Perhaps the teacher education with its lack of content on a range of disabilities and social problems and almost “the culture of not labelling” any children does not provide enough competencies to foster inclusion, which at the same time is stated to be one of the main goals in national and international policy documents. Further, it is possible that teacher education should place more emphasis on strengthening the teachers’ professional development by a providing realistic view of the nature of the work and the challenges. This was also apparent in our findings, as the respondents would have liked more practical tools, as well as extended practicums. This would allow students to recognise the roles relevant for their profession more. In Finnish inclusive ECEC, support for development and learning is organised in multi-professional teams (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2018). This means, that special educational expertise and consultation are available to ECEC teachers in regular classrooms. Although it is evident in the results that the respondents who acquire more special educational expertise, it is not solely an individual teacher’s responsibility to have all the knowledge and skills to cater needs of all learners (including those with severe support needs). Teacher training should include a stronger emphasis on the content on multi-professional collaboration. For instance, the students should be provided with more opportunities to share their views on what it means to collaborate and what their professional qualities are, as students need time to reflect on what their responsibilities and expertise in inclusive ECEC are (see also Pesonen et al., 2020). This could lead to students recognising that it is not necessary to be a specialist in all support needs, instead sharing responsibility and knowledge should be encouraged and appreciated. This study has its limitations. The reader must be cautious when reading the results: making generalisations is not recommended, as the study has a small data set that was collected from students at a single university. Furthermore, the participants had a range of backgrounds and expertise in ECEC, and this needs to be acknowledged when interpreting the results. However, this did not interfere with the findings. One limitation is also that this study is only based on the views of students and no data were collected from lecturers and professors nor were curricula documents investigated, for example. These matters should be addressed in future studies. Also, data should be collected from several universities. Furthermore, data in the form of interviews with students and university teachers could lead to more generalisable results.

7.6.1  I mplications for Policy and Practice in University-Level ECEC Teacher Education In this chapter, we shed light on the current state of Finnish inclusive ECEC and addressed the teachers’ challenges in encountering the needs of diverse learners. We demonstrated that ensuring inclusion in ECEC is a multidimensional process in which continuous collaboration and dialogue should be encouraged between

96

M. Saha and H. Pesonen

students, faculty and the kindergartens. It is also important to foster students with lifelong learning skills as it is not the sole responsibility of universities to prepare students for life in the workforce. The need for improving the current state of support services in ECEC and teacher competencies in catering for children with diverse needs have also been raised in previous policy reports commissioned by the Ministry of Education and Culture (Eskelinen & Hjelt, 2017) and the Finnish Education Evaluation Center (Repo et al., 2018).This requires ECEC teacher education to consist of more content on multi-­ professional teamwork. For example, during teacher education it is important to familiarise students with perspectives on effective teamwork. This would equip students for working as ECEC expert members in multi-professional teams (that include psychologists and therapists, for instance) in kindergartens. Teamwork will also include co-teaching with ECEC special teachers to guarantee quality early childhood education for all children. Furthermore, collaboration with parents in early identification and intervention for children with diverse needs should be emphasised throughout the teacher training, and specifically during practicums. Although our study has its limitations and future studies are unquestionably needed, it is clear that training for encountering children who require specialised support (e.g. significant disabilities and mental health problems) should be more recognised and emphasised in the courses taught in university-level ECEC (see also Nilsin & Pesonen, 2019). Such content would not only benefit current and future teachers, but it would also create opportunities to improve multidisciplinary collaboration and the inclusion of all children.

References Alijoki, A., & Pihlaja, P. (2011). Pedagogiset rakenteet ja ratkaisut lasten erityisten tuen tarpeiden näkökulmasta [Pedagogical structures and solutions from the perspective of children with diverse needs]. In E. Hujala & L. Turja, (Eds.), Varhaiskasvatuksen käsikirja [Handbook of early childhood education] (pp. 260–273). PS-kustannus. Ashman, A. (2010). Modelling inclusive practices in postgraduate tertiary education courses. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(7), 667–680. https://doi. org/10.1080/13603111003778429 Booth, T. (2011). The name of the rose: Inclusive values into action in teacher education. Prospects. Quarterly Review of Comparative Education, 41(3), 303–318. Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation. (2014). Children with disability in inclusive early childhood education and care: Literature review. Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation. New South Wale Department of Education and Communities: Sydney, Australia. Available: https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/media/downloads/our-­services/children-­and-­youth/ ecec/funding/community-­preschool-­funding/LiteratureReview-­ PDSP.PDF Eskelinen, M., & Hjelt, H. (2017). Varhaiskasvatuksen henkilöstö ja lapsen tuen toteuttaminen [Early childhood professionals and implementation of the support of children]. Valtakunnallinen selvitys [National report of Ministry of Education and Culture]. Opetus-ja kulttuuriministeriön julkaisuja, 39. Ferguson, D. L. (2008). International trends in inclusive education: The continuing challenge teach each one and everyone. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 23, 109–120. Finnish National Agency for Education (FNAE). (2018). National core curriculum for early childhood education and care.

7  ‘Too Little Attention Is Paid to Children Who Require Specialised Support.’…

97

Florian, L. (2017). The heart of inclusive education is collaboration. Pedagogy, 126, 28–253. Foreman, P., & Arthur-Kelly, M. (2017). Introducing inclusion in education. In P. Foreman (Ed.), c (5th ed., pp. 2–41). Cengage. Forlin, C. (2010). Reframing teacher education for inclusion. In C. Forlin (Ed.), Teacher education for inclusion (pp. 3–12). Routledge. Given, L. M. (2008). The SAGE encyclopaedia of qualitative research methods. SAGE Publications. Guralnick, M.  J., & Bruder, M.  B. (2019). Early intervention. In Handbook of intellectual disabilities (pp. 717–741). Springer. Hall, J. S., Sylva, K., Sammons, P., Melhuish, E., Sirja Blatchford, I., & Taggart, B. (2013). Can preschool protect young children’s cognitive and social development? Variation by center quality and duration of attendance. School Effectiveness & School Improvement, 24(2), 155–176. Heiskanen, N. (2018). Tuen prosessit ja lähtökohdat [Support processes and principles]. In P.  Pihlaja & R.  Viitala (Eds.) Varhaiserityiskasvatus [Early childhood special education]. (pp. 95–118) Jyväskylä: PS-kustannus, 95–118. Kokko, T., Pesonen, H., Polet, J., Kontu, E., Ojala, T., & Pirttimaa, R. (2014). Erityinen tuki perusopetuksen oppilaille, joilla on tuen tarpeen taustalla vakavia psyykkisiä ongelmia, kehitysvamma-­ tai autismin kirjon diagnoosi. VETURI-hankkeen kartoitus 2013 [Special support support for students with social-emotional problems, profound or severe disabilities, or autism. VETURI-project survey results 2013]. University of Helsinki & University of Jyväskylä, Finland: Yliopistopaino. Kontu, E., Ojala, T., Pesonen, H., Kokko, T., & Pirttimaa, R. (2017). “Vaativan erityisen tuen käsite ja tutkimustuloksia” (VETURI-hanke 2011–2015). [The concept of significant support needs and research results]. In Vaativa erityinen tuki esi- ja perusopetuksessa. Kehittämisryhmän loppuraportti. [significant support needs in pre- and basic education. The final report by the development group]. Finnish ministry of education and culture's publications 2017:34: Helsinki. Kuyini, A. B., & Desai, I. (2007). Principals’ and teachers’ attitudes and knowledge of inclusive education as predictors of effective teaching practices in Ghana. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 7(2), 104–113. Melhuish, E., Barnes, J., Gardiner, J., Siraj, I., Sammons, P., Sylva, K., & Taggart, B. (2019). A study of the longterm influence of early childhood education and care on the risk for developing special educational needs. Exceptionality Education International, 29(3), 22–41. Mulvihill, B. A., Shearer, D., & Van Horn, M. L. (2002). Training, experience, and child care providers’ perceptions of inclusion. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17(2), 197–215. Moss, P., & Dahlberg, G. (2008). Beyond quality in early childhood education and care languages of evaluation. New Zealand Journal of Teachers’ Work, 5(1), 3–12. Nislin, M. A., Paananen, M., Repo, L., Sajaniemi, N., & Sims, M. (2015). Working with children with special needs in Finnish kindergartens: Professionals and/or specialists? South African Journal of Childhood Education, 5(3), 1–10. Nislin, M., & Pesonen, H. (2019). Associations of self-perceived competence, well-being and sense of belonging among pre-and in-service teachers encountering children with diverse needs. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 34(4), 424–440. OECD. (2006). Starting strong II: Early childhood education and care. OECD Publishing. OECD. (2012). Starting strong III – A quality toolbox for early childhood education and care. OECD Publishing. Ojala, T. (2017). “When pupils have emotional and behavioral disorders in comprehensive school – Teachers experiences.” Doctoral dissertation. Jyväskylä University Printing House: Jyväskylä. Paju, B., Räty, L., Pirttimaa, R., & Kontu, E. (2016). The school staff’s perception of their ability to teach special educational needs pupils in inclusive settings in Finland. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 20(8), 801–815. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. SAGE. Pesonen, H. V., Rytivaara, A., Palmu, I., & Wallin, A. (2020). Teachers’ stories on sense of belonging in co-teaching relationship. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research. https://doi. org/10.1080/00313831.2019.1705902

98

M. Saha and H. Pesonen

Pesonen, H., Itkonen, T., Jahnukainen, M., Kontu, E., Kokko, T., Ojala, T., & Pirttimaa, R. (2015). The implementation of new special education legislation in Finland. Educational Policy, 29(1), 162–178. Pihlaja, P. (2018). Ryhmä erilaisten lasten kasvun paikkana [Development of diverse children in social groups]. In P. Pihlaja & R. Viitala (Eds.), Varhaiserityiskasvatus (pp. 79–93). PS-kustannus. Pihlaja, P., & Neitola, M. (2017). Varhaiserityiskasvatus muuttuvassa varhaiskasvatuksen kentässä [Early childhood special education in change]. Kasvatus ja Aika, 11(3), 80–91. Repo, L., Paananen, M., Mattila, V., Lerkkanen, M.  K., Eskelinen, M., Gammelgård, L., ..., & Marjanen, J. (2018). Varhaiskasvatussuunnitelman perusteiden 2016 toimeenpanon arviointi: varhaiskasvatussuunnitelmien käyttöönotto ja sisällöt [Implementation evaluation of the 2016 national core curriculum for early childhood education and care – Deployment and contents of early childhood education and care curricula (2018)]. Julkaisut/Kansallinen koulutuksen arviointikeskus [Report of Finnish Education Evaluation Center], (2018, 16). Savolainen, H. (2009). Responding to diversity and striving for excellence: The case of Finland. Prospects, 39, 281–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-­009-­9125-­y Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. SAGE. Sims, M., & Waniganayake, M. (2015). The role of staff in quality improvement in early childhood. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 3(5), 187–194. Slee, R. (2010). Political economy, inclusive education and teacher education. In C. Forlin (Ed.), Teacher education for inclusion (pp. 39–48). Routledge. Sylva, K. (2014). The role of families and pre-school in educational disadvantage. Oxford Review of Education, 40, 680–695. Sylva, K., Melhuish, E. C., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Taggart, B. (2004). The effective provision of pre- school education (EPPE) project. Effective pre-school education. DfES / Institute of Education, University of London. Symeonidou, S., & Phtiaka, H. (2009). Using teachers’ prior knowledge, attitudes and beliefs to develop in-service teacher education courses for inclusion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(4), 543–550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.02.001 The United Nations. (2006). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Treaty Series, 2515, 3. Thomas, D.  R. (2006). A general inductive approach for Analysing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214005283748 Turja, L. (2017). Lasten osallisuus varhaiskasvatuksessa [Children’s participation in early childhood education]. In E. Hujala & L. Turja (Eds.) Varhaiskasvatuksen käsikirja (Handbook of early childhood education] (4th ed) Jyväskylä: PS-Kustannus. UNESCO and Ministry of Education and Science Spain. (1994). The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. UNESCO. Viitala, R. (2018). Inkluusio ja inklusiivinen varhaiskasvatus [inclusion and inclusive early childhood education]. In P. Pihlaja & R. Viitala (Eds.), Varhaiserityiskasvatus (pp. 51–77) PS-kustannus. Viljamaa, E., & Takala, M. (2017). Varhaiserityisopettajien ajatuksia työhön kohdistuneista muutoksista [Early childhood special teachers’ perceptions on changes in their work]. Varhaiskasvatuksen Tiedelehti — JECER, 6(2), 207–229. Viljamaa, E., Juutinen, J., Estola, E., & Puroila, A.-M. (2018). Puhuvaksi puhuvien pariin: kommunikaatiomaisema (inklusiivisessa) päiväkotiryhmässä [Learning communication: Verbal skills in inclusive ECEC]. In P. Granö, M. Hiltunen, & T. Jokela (Eds.), Suhteessa maailmaan. Ympäristöt oppimisen avaajina (pp. 251–268). Lapland University Press. Vlasov, J., Salminen, J., Repo, L., Karila, K., Kinnunen, S., Mattila, V., Nukarinen, T., Parrila, S. & Sulonen, H. (2018). Varhaiskasvatuksen laadun arvioinnin perusteet ja suositukset [National guidelines and recommendations for early childhood education assessment]. Kansallinen koulutuksen arviointikeskus, Julkaisut; No. 24: 2018.

Part II

Children and Families in ECEC

Chapter 8

Teachers’ Understanding of Children’s Right to Participation in Finnish Early Childhood Education and Care Marina Lundkvist

Abstract  Every child has rights, not only as a human being but also as a participant in early childhood education and care (ECE). The rights of children are well documented in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and in Finnish steering documents for ECE. This paper specifically focuses on children’s participation as one of the key rights in Finnish ECE. In a previous study (Mansikka and Lundkvist, Nordisk tidsskrift for pedagogikk & kritikk 5:111–129, 2019), it became clear that the focus of current Finnish ECE is more oriented towards learning than nursery care, more towards children’s participation than simply teacher-oriented activities and more towards children’s own perspectives and rights. This study examines in detail the views of 10 early childhood education teachers on important aspects of children’s right to participation in early learning environments in Finland. The data used in this paper is based on interviews with early childhood education teachers in ECE. Content analysis was performed on this empirical data to identify key themes in teachers’ understanding of children’s rights to participation in ECE. The results indicate that teachers are aware of the importance of the curriculum and the idea of children’s participation, but that the concept of rights generally needs to be deepened in pedagogical activities.

8.1  Introduction The last decade has seen an increase in studies indicating the importance of young children’s right to participation, not only as members of society but also as unique individuals who are active in their own life in ECE and school. According to UNICEF (2007), for example, all kinds of education undoubtedly play an important M. Lundkvist (*) Nord university, Bodø, Norway University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 H. Harju-Luukkainen et al. (eds.), Finnish Early Childhood Education and Care, Early Childhood Research and Education: An Inter-theoretical Focus 1, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95512-0_8

101

102

M. Lundkvist

role in mediating and implementing children’s rights. Nevertheless, as seen in various studies (for example, Brownlee, 2009; Berthelsen, 2009; Mansikka & Lundkvist, 2019; Leinonen et  al., 2014; Kangas, 2016), the educational dimensions of children’s rights have often been eclipsed by political or juridical questions. On the other hand, over the last decade, increasing interest has been directed at children’s right to participation in the Finnish context (see, in particular, Mansikka & Lundkvist, 2019; also, Turja & Vuorisalo, 2017; Kangas et  al., 2018). One key framework, at least for Finnish and Scandinavian research in the field of Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC), has been participatory learning. This paradigm emphasizes the child’s own perspectives and children as active agents of their own learning and explicitly refers to a holistic understanding of children’s participation in ECE (Dahlberg et al., 2013; Sommer et al., 2009). A study by Kangas (2016) concerning educators’ perspectives on and conceptions of children’s participation in everyday pedagogic practices found that children’s voices were considered important by educators. The results also showed that even though children’s right to make independent choices and take initiatives was acknowledged, their real chances of participating in decision-making processes and pedagogical processes were weak. The main reason for this was that both children’s competencies and educators’ professional skills were seen to inhibit such participation. Another study (Mansikka & Lundkvist, 2019) on the role of children’s perspectives and children’s participation in recent Finnish steering documents, such as the National Core Curriculum for Early Childhood Education and Care (FNAE, 2018) and the previous curriculum from 2005, revealed that greater emphasis is now placed on the rights of the child, the child’s own perspective, and participation as a new ideological orientation of ECEC. However, in this context, it has also become clear that incorporation of children’s perspectives and children’s participation into the culture of ECEC has been relatively slow in Finland compared to other Nordic countries (Einarsdottir et al., 2015). Steering documents are policy documents, guidelines, and recommendations, not handbooks for how a child’s right to participation should be realized in ECEC.  According to research (Kronqvist et  al., 2020; Mansikka & Lundkvist, 2019) a gap exists between the theoretical understanding of children’s rights to participation within the ECEC literature and teachers’ understanding of, as well as their willingness and ability to design, educational activities based on the principle of participation. Therefore, it is important to increase understanding of the interconnection between children’s rights and education and of the perceptions of teachers and staff working in ECEC on children’s rights as general principles and as a value base for educational activities. Based on these premises, I wished to focus on teachers who had quite recently graduated and discuss their understanding of children’s right to participation in ECEC. The study’s research questions were “What do early childhood education teachers consider to be children’s right to participation in early childhood education?” and “how do teachers understand children’s rights to participation related to daily life in early childhood education?” In this paper, the analysis of teachers’ understanding is related to Finnish policy documents, such as the national core

8  Teachers’ Understanding of Children’s Right to Participation in Finnish Early…

103

curriculum, and research primarily situated within the field of early childhood education.

8.2  C  hildren’s Right to Participation – The Finnish ECEC Context Finland has witnessed considerable reforms in ECEC in recent years, and the national steering system of early childhood education and care has undergone major changes. Today, several documents guide ECEC work in Finland. At the highest level, such work is guided by the Early Childhood Education and Care Act (540/2018) and the Child Welfare Act (417/2007). These acts, especially the Early Childhood Education and Care Act, are based on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989). In turn, two steering documents guide the practical work of the ECEC sector: (1) the Finnish National Core Curriculum for Early Childhood Education and Care (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2018) and (2) the Finnish National Core Curriculum for Pre-Primary Education (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2016). The first document guides the work for children under the age of six and the latter the work with children during their pre-primary year (Lundkvist & Harju-Luukkainen, 2021). According to the Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (Vlasov et  al., 2019, p.18), the reformed Act on Early Childhood Education and Care and a mandatory National Core Curriculum for Early Childhood Education and Care “now inform the development of ECEC content in greater detail and a more goal-oriented manner than before”. This means, for example, that children’s right to participation is connected to the concept of learning, and the national core curriculum has shifted towards a stronger learning framework than in previous iterations. This considerable turn towards emphasizing education, and, in the most recent curriculum, the stronger emphasis on children’s learning, rights, and participation, in many ways indicates a paradigm shift in Finnish ECEC. In turn, such a shift might result in a certain re-orientation of the daily work with children (Karila, 2016; Mansikka & Lundkvist, 2019). According to the National Core Curriculum for Early Childhood Education and Care (2018, 31–32), all activities in ECEC should be based on children’s rights. At the same time, an all-inclusive operational culture promotes participation, equality, and equity in all activities in ECEC. In the core curriculum, this is more precisely expressed, as the following extract demonstrates. The initiatives, views and opinions of children, personnel and guardians are respected. This requires conscious development of structures and practices that promote participation. Children develop their understanding of the community, rights, responsibility, and consequences of choices through participation. Participation is strengthened when the children are encountered sensitively and when they experience that they are seen and heard. The involvement of children and guardians in planning, implementing, and assessing the activities promotes their participation. Each member of the personnel is an important part of the community. (2018, 31–32).

104

M. Lundkvist

Finnish early childhood education and care stresses the promotion of every child’s best interest. According to Vlasov et al. (2019, p. 41), all children have the right to receive support for their holistic growth, learning and wellbeing. Moreover, when. defining ECEC quality, a view of the intrinsic value of childhood, according to which each child is unique and valuable just as he or she is, takes centre stage. These values are based on the child’s rights, and they are realised from the perspective of the principles of full membership in community and inclusion, among other things (Emilson & Johansson, 2018). As demonstrated, this understanding of children’s rights and participation is in accordance with, for example, the national core curriculum for ECEC, and is based on a socio-cultural curriculum tradition that takes a broad and holistic view of the child. This is a common feature throughout the Nordic countries (Rogoff, 2008; Garvis et al., 2019). In Finnish core curriculums, concepts such as democracy and influence are hardly mentioned, while participation, children’s rights and their own perspectives have gained increasing visibility (Mansikka & Lundkvist, 2019).

8.3  P  articipation – A Key Aspect of Democracy and Children’s Rights The Finnish educational system, including ECEC, is based on general principles and democratic values, such as the equal value of all human beings, the inviolability of human life, equality, respect, tolerance and solidarity, and these principles are expressed in ECEC steering documents (Vlasov et  al., 2019). Johansson et  al. (2018) assert that ECEC values should be translated into visible and concrete goals that guide activities in ECEC. Moreover, this should extend from the national level down to the level of pedagogical activities. According to the Finnish national core curriculum (FNAE, 2018, p. 27) “active and responsible participation and involvement create [the] foundation for a democratic and sustainable future, which requires skills and desire in the individual to participate in different activities and trust in their own possibilities of making differences”. Active and responsible participation also requires the implementation of childrens’ right to be heard and to express themselves, their opinions, and their thoughts. Emilson and Johansson (2009, p. 68) and Lansdown (2011, p. 9) emphasize that participation is a dimension of values pertaining to democracy and can be both collectively and individually oriented. Because ECEC is an important arena for the practical implementation of children’s rights, it is important that professionals working with children are aware of and understand these rights, both in theory and practice (Heinonen et al., 2016, 142; Turja & Vuorisalo, 2017; Venninen & Leinonen, 2013). Practical work in ECEC is guided by national policy documents, which create the framework for educational activity. Curriculums provide values, principles, and theoretical perspectives to guide the daily life of ECEC.  Furthermore, they help teachers become more

8  Teachers’ Understanding of Children’s Right to Participation in Finnish Early…

105

purposeful when planning, assessing, and reflecting on their work with children’s right to participation and encourage working methods that favour children’s development and democratic thinking (Herczog, 2012; Smith, 2016, 54). Dewey (1916) argued that the goal of educational activities was not to prepare the child for the future; instead, it was the “here and now” experiences of the child that were essential. According to Quennerstedt and Quennerstedt (2014), this indicates a view of education that highlights the child’s opportunities to gain different experiences in the daily learning environment and that these experiences are crucial for the child’s continued growth. According to Vlasov et al. (2019, 24), ECEC-pedagogy overall refers to a methodical and goal-oriented entity comprising education, instruction, and care, which finds its concrete expression in staff-child interaction, the operation culture of ECEC community, the learning environments, and staff’s professional work practices. Participatory learning could be interpreted as a pedagogy which includes active listening, arguing, discussion and reflection as well as interpretation that supports children’s involvement and participation, aspects which are strongly connected with the notion of the competent child and issues of the quality of education (Dahlberg & Moss, 2005; Dahlberg et al., 2013). The concepts of participation and influence are relational, which means that they are also linked to power in terms of whose voice is heard and when and how this is permitted (see Dolk, 2013). When children are involved and have influence, they also possess real opportunities to affect both the discussion and implementation of the activities in which they participate. They can thus become co-actors when, for example, thematic activities are planned. However, this presupposes that preschool teachers are interested in involving the children. UNICEF’s rights-based conceptual framework for all education, including ECEC (2007, 28), “highlights the need for a holistic approach to education, reflecting the universality and indivisibility of all human rights”. In this paradigm, it is clearly stated that a rights-based framework requires and addresses the right of access to education, the right to quality education and respect for human rights in education. According to UNICEF (2007, 28), “these dimensions are interdependent and interlinked, and a rights-based education necessitates the realization of all three”. The central elements to be addressed in each of the three dimensions – the right to access to education, the right to quality education and the right to respect in educational learning environments – are the following: • Access to education – education throughout all stages of childhood and beyond, availability and accessibility of education and equality of opportunity • The right to quality education  – a broad, relevant, and inclusive curriculum, rights-based learning and assessment, child-friendly, safe, and healthy environments • The right to respect in the learning environment – respect for identity, participation rights and integrity (UNICEF, 2007, 28) In ECEC, teachers’ obligation and responsibility are not only to help children understand the meaning of democracy but also to develop their democratic thinking.

106

M. Lundkvist

Although children can acquire the prerequisites for developing democratic thinking by learning about democracy, this can be achieved even more effectively by participating in an ECEC environment that is characterized by children and personnel relating democratically to each other (Biesta, 2011; Hadler Olsen, 2009). In the everyday life of ECEC, children and personnel express values that are democratic and that are important for children’s ability to develop into democratically thinking people. A basic prerequisite is to be seen and heard and to be involved and have influence (Lundkvist, 2020).

8.4  Data The data for this study was collected through semi-structured qualitative interviews with 10 early childhood education teachers who had been in work at least 2 years since graduation from the ECEC teacher-training programme at either the University of Helsinki or Åbo Akademi University in Finland. ECEC teachers were asked if they wished to participate in the study, and, of those who expressed a desire to take part, 10 informants were randomly chosen. The criteria for participation was that graduation had occurred between 2 and 5 years prior to commencement of the study. The teachers were asked to answer open-ended questions, such as “According to the core curriculum of ECEC, what do you consider to be quality in ECEC?”, “What do you think about children’s rights in ECEC?” and “According to the core curriculum of ECEC, every child has the right to participate in the daily life of ECEC – what do you think about this as a teacher?” All the interviews were recorded and transcribed and were approximately one hour in length. The textual data from the teachers’ answers was then analysed and interpreted.

8.5  Methods This paper utilizes content analysis to analyse the interview data. First, the data was anonymized, and teachers were assigned codes (Teacher T1, Teacher T2, etc.). Then, the text was thematized based on the code words “quality”, “the child’s rights”, and “the child’s right to participation”. According to Krippendorff (2019, 47), “content analysis is a research technique for making replicable and valid inferences from texts (or other meaningful matter) to the contexts of their use”. In turn, Leedy and Omrod (2001, 155) describe content analysis as “a detailed and systematic examination of the content of a particular body of material for the purpose of identifying patterns, themes or biases”. Such research is thus inductive, exploratory, and empirically driven. In the present study, the main categories were thematized further, with eight subcategories regarding children’s rights to participation emerging from the data. These categories were then discussed and agreed upon, and names that best expressed their content were assigned to them.

8  Teachers’ Understanding of Children’s Right to Participation in Finnish Early…

107

As regards ethical considerations, this study adheres to the national guidelines for research ethics set by the Finnish advisory board on research ethics (2012). The study provided its participants with adequate information on the purpose of the research, access to the information, the intended use of the results, and the consequences of the research project. The participants were also made aware of their informed consent and their right to withdraw from the project. This research also respected participants’ autonomy, integrity, freedom and right to co-determination. The data was processed in such a way that personal matters and information remained confidential (Tjora, 2019).

8.6  Results The study explored the questions “What do early childhood education teachers consider to be children’s right to participation in early childhood education?” and “How do teachers understand children’s rights to participation related to daily life in early childhood education” . In the content analysis of the open-ended questions, two main categories emerged regarding teachers’ views of children’s right to participation. These main categories, “Children’s rights are related to underlying values and aspects of quality” and “Children’s rights to participation are related to aspects within the ECEC-context”, consisted of eight subcategories. Below, each category is exemplified by translated extracts from the interviews. The translations aim to provide as close a match as possible to the informants’ original statements.

8.6.1  C  hildren’s Rights Are Related to Underlying Values and Aspects of Quality The teachers interviewed in this study were asked questions about children’s rights in ECEC related to the national core curriculum (FNAE, 2018) and their ways of understanding quality. Their answers highlighted underlying values, such as the right to be seen, heard, and treated with respect, as central aspects of their understanding of children’s right to participation.

8.6.2  C  hildren’s Perspectives Are an Essential Educational Goal Almost all teachers emphasized the importance of the child’s right to be seen and heard. According to one teacher (T6), the perspective of the child should constitute a continuous topic of discussion among staff. Children’s views and opinions form

108

M. Lundkvist

an important aspect of the values and work within ECEC. Children’s own perspectives are a pedagogical goal and are related to general principles and democratic values. It can actually look a little different from unit to unit, and it important that the team get an common idea of what the child view is, and of course accept that we do not have to have exactly the same view, but I feel that the child’s perspective has to the be the goal for pedagogical activities … then we can have many different procedures and different ways of working so that we try to achieve it. (Teacher T6)

8.6.3  C  hildren’s Rights Are About the Possibility to Be Seen and Heard Most of the teachers in this study returned in one way or another to the child’s right to be seen and heard. For instance, Teacher T5 believed that not all children automatically wanted to be involved, and thus it was the teacher’s responsibility to help those children participate in the community with other children. The rights of the child in early childhood education are about children having the right to be in early childhood education and being allowed to be themselves, and that they are seen and heard in their own way and that everyone is allowed to participate in the activities together with other children and personnel… there are always children who do not want to be part of anything and who can feel left out … as an teacher you must take into account all the children and make sure that everyone is well and that everyone is happy. (Teacher T2)

Participation is of course that everyone should be heard and seen and be part of the daily life in ECEC and feel like it has value to be here and be able to influence their surroundings. (Teacher T9).

8.6.4  P  articipation Requires Responsible and Respectable Teachers Even though children should be allowed to participate and influence their everyday life in the ECE center, teacher T4 emphasized that personnel must take responsibility, as grown-ups and educators, for pedagogical activities. What we have discussed a lot is that it is a very important thing that, it is completely obvious, that the children should be allowed to participate in their everyday life at the ECE center and influence the activities, but it is also very important that we teachesrs dare to take responsibility and realize that the children cannot take responsibility for the activity and that we cannot demand from them that they themselves take responsibility for everything that concerns them and to, for example, ask a one-year-old if he wants to stay in or go out, so we feel it’s a lot to put on these kids. (Teacher T6)

8  Teachers’ Understanding of Children’s Right to Participation in Finnish Early…

109

According to teacher T7, children’s right to participation also included the possibility to be heard and seen, which required responsible teachers who seriously took children’s views into account. I consider as perhaps the most important [thing], that children feel that their voices are heard and that there are opportunities to say what they want and that someone takes their question seriously. (Teacher T7).

8.6.5  C  hildren’s Right to Participation Is Related to Aspects of the ECEC-Context The teachers were asked to reflect on the question about the national core curriculum of ECEC (FNAE, 2018) and on their opinion of the statement that every child had the right to participation in the daily life of ECEC. The central aspects of the teachers’ answers concerned children’s rights to be part of a relational community and the prioritization of children’s rights over the needs of teacher. In this context, well-trained staff is a prerequisite for realizing children’s right to participation.

8.6.6  I ndividual Rights in a Welcoming Relational Environment Teacher T3 emphasized that while every child had rights as an individual, they also had the right to engage in social interaction with other children and personnel. A child’s rights were relational in several respects, and in a safe, warm, and welcoming ECEC environment, the child could develop and learn. I think that the child has the right to a safe early childhood education, a place where they feel safe, well-treated, welcomed and where we care about them. They have the right to have their needs met, get food, go to the toilet, develop, practice social relationships and yes practice their skills before life and school, just play and enjoy life and yes and develop. (Teacher T3)

8.6.7  D  aily ECEC Life Based More on Children’s Perspectives Than Personnel’s Needs Teacher T4 also highlighted the rights of the child, emphasizing the superiority of those rights over the needs and wishes of personnel. This teacher had also adopted the idea of the importance of children’s own perspectives as a fundamental principle of modern ECEC, at least at a conceptual level.

110

M. Lundkvist I think there is a lot of discussion, there is a lot of material now available, so I hope that it is a development we are moving towards that they also start working based on the child’s rights, the children’s perspective, rather than the personnel’s needs, what personnel wants. (Teacher T4)

8.6.8  C  hange of Perspective Among Staff Regarding Children’s Participation According to teacher T4, ECEC staff of different ages viewed both the children themselves and educational activities differently, which potentially affected their opinions on children’s right to participation in daily activities. It is starting to appear more and more, and I think it was a pretty big change for many who have worked for a long time in ECEC, and they were authoritarian and adult-oriented activities … I feel that there was perhaps a lot of searching for how you as a teacher could consider the children in the planning and how the children could participate with their opinions … it is one of those things that has been very much on the agenda now and a lot of work has been done to find an approach for how to let the children participate and how they actually can participate. (Teacher T4). In the same way, teacher T4 mentions the large number of discussions in their work team on the meaning of children’s participation everyday life.

8.6.9  C  hallenging to Have Time to Do All That Is Required of a Teacher Some of the teachers, for example Teacher T7, stated that one of the main criteria for effective ECEC was for personnel to have the capability and time to be present in daily activities with children. This teacher underlined that although such presence concerned respect for each child, the large number of tasks that constituted a teacher’s daily work limited their ability to devote the necessary attention to children. This lack of time was a serious problem in ECEC according to most of the teachers interviewed for this study. Children have the right to the best education possible, but one problem is when you as a teacher face reality and feel that you do not really manage to always give the very best because of a lack of time … so often. I have found it frustrating when you sit with your plans and fix things and want to write things down and document, and, in that way, it has a very important role, but at the same time there’s still the realization that something is suffering anyway and that you may at some stage also have to find a suitable balance. (Teacher T7)

8  Teachers’ Understanding of Children’s Right to Participation in Finnish Early…

111

8.6.10  Well-Educated and Trained Staff To develop high-quality pedagogical activities, teachers must evaluate pedagogical strategies in accordance with the ECEC curriculum. Teacher T2 emphasized that this required well-educated and trained staff with strong pedagogical knowledge and the ability to plan, design and renew educational activities for children. All children should have an opportunity for as good an early childhood education as possible. Hopefully, the staff has such strong pedagogical knowledge for planning activities, evaluating and renewing them in a way that helps the children to develop … there are very many children who have a need for early childhood education, as not everyone’s parents are able to set boundaries. The children also learn group dynamics, and much of this the children do not learn at home; instead, it can be better taught in the ECE center. (Teacher T5)

8.7  Conclusions The aim of this paper was to explore teachers’ understanding of children’s right to participation in ECEC in terms of the substance of that right and its manifestation in the daily life of ECEC. This understanding was analysed with the help of content analysis. Because the number of respondents in this study was small, the possibility to generalise the results is somewhat limited. Nevertheless, the study provides an overall picture of how quite recently graduated teachers view children’s participation in ECEC. One of the clearest results was that teachers generally seem to be highly aware of the importance of the curriculum as the basis for all pedagogical activities in ECEC.  Moreover, most informants referred to basic values and the need to take children’s right to participation into consideration as a guideline for their pedagogical work. What, on the other hand, proved more problematic for the teachers was to describe and provide examples of children’s right to participation in more concrete terms. Johansson et al. (2018) recommend that ECEC values be translated into visible and concrete goals that guide the activities in ECEC. Furthermore, these underlying values should be manifested as the guiding principles of actions and measures extending from the national level down to the level of pedagogical activities (Turja & Vuorisalo, 2017). Another study (Mansikka & Lundkvist, 2019) demonstrated the gap between the theoretical understanding of children’s right to participation in the education literature and teachers’ understanding of educational activities based on this right. Consequently, there is a need for both more research and further education on how children’s right to participation can be more clearly anchored in educational activities and become a natural part of early childhood education and care. Simultaneously, a certain level of uncertainty is evident among all teachers when expressing their thoughts on pedagogical activities and children’s right to participation in terms of quality. While thinking about quality clearly occurs, the choice of

112

M. Lundkvist

words and concepts for expressing this understanding is more ambiguous. It is clear, according to Finnish steering documents (FNAE, 2018), that all children have the right to high quality early childhood education, and no teacher would dispute such a right. Participation is defined as one of the central qualities and process-related factors in Finnish early childhood education and care (Lundkvist & Harju-­ Luukkainen, 2021). Nevertheless, all the teachers in this study emphasized, in one way or another, that quality was intrinsically linked to the availability of well-­ educated and trained staff with solid overall pedagogical knowledge and, more precisely, expertise in children’s development and learning. This can be interpreted as a natural consequence of the increased prominence not only of quality as a concept but also of the evaluation of pedagogical ECEC activities in Finland in recent years. According to Mansikka and Lundkvist (2019), this, in turn, is a result of children’s participation being the norm in Finnish early childhood education today. Some of the teachers interviewed for this study discussed children’s participation in relation to time, more precisely the lack of it. Such a shortage of time gives rise to ethical dilemmas, and hence stress and anxiety, when fundamental values such as the child’s right to participation clash with the increasing demands of everyday life. In this respect, education and training are required to help teachers transform abstract thoughts into concrete action models and make children’s rights to participation feasible. The concept of participatory learning (see, e.g., Kangas, 2016) or a human rights-based strategy for education (see UNICEF, 2007) could be possible ways to increase children’s right to participation in early childhood education.

References Berthelsen, D. (2009). Participatory learning. Issues for research and practice. In D. Berthelsen, J. Brownlee, & E. Johansson (Eds.), Participatory learning n early years. Routledge. Biesta, G. (2011). Learning democracy in school and society Education, lifelong learning, and the politics of citizenship. Sense Publishers. Brownlee, J. (2009). Contexts, pedagogy and participatory learning: A way forward. In D.  Berthelsen, J.  Brownlee, & E.  Johansson (Eds.), Participatory learning in early years. Routledge. Dahlberg, G., & Moss, P. (2005). Ethics and politics in early childhood Education. Routledge Falmer. Dahlberg, G., Moss, P., & Pence, A. (2013). Beyond quality in early childhood Education and care. Routledge. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education. Free Press. Dolk, K. (2013). Bångstyriga barn: Makt, normer och delaktighet i förskolan. Ordfront förlag. Einarsdottir, J., Purola, A.-M., Johansson, E. M., Broström, S., & Emilson, A. (2015). Democrazy, caring and competence: Values perspectives in ECEC curricula in the Nordic countries. International Journal of Early Years Education, 23(1), 97–114. Emilson, A., & Johansson, E. (2009). The desirable toddler in preschool. Values communicated in teacher and child interactions. In D.  Berthelsen, J.  Brownlee, & E.  Johansson (Eds.), Participatory learning n early years. Research and Pedagogy. Routledge. Emilson, A., & Johansson, E. (2018). Values in Nordic early childhood Education – Democracy and the Child’s perspective. In M. Fleer & B. van Oers (Eds.), International handbook on early childhood Education and development. Springer.

8  Teachers’ Understanding of Children’s Right to Participation in Finnish Early…

113

Early Childhood Education and Care Act (540/2018) set in Helsinki 13th of July 2018. Finnish Advisory Board on Research Ethics. (2012). Good scientific practice and procedures for handling misconduct and fraud in science. Finnish Advisory Board on Research Ethics. www. tenk.fi/sites/tenk.fi/files/HTK_ohje_2012.pdf Finnish National Agency for Education (FNAE). (2018). Finnish national core curriculum of early childhood education and care. Määräykset ja ohjeet 2018: 17. Finnish National Agency for Education (FNAE). (2016). Finnish National Core Curriculum for pre-primary Education. Määräykset ja ohjeet 2016:1. Garvis, S., Harju-Luukkainen, H., Sheridan, S., & Williams, P. (2019). Nordic families, children and early childhood Education. Palgrave Macmillan. Hadler-Olsen, S. (2009). Democrazy in Norwegian kindergartens. In B.  U. Wilhelmsen & B. Hadler-Olsen (Eds.), Democracy in Education. Bergen University College Journal, 2. Heinonen, H., Iivonen, E., Korhonen, M., Lahtinen, N., Muuronen, K., Semi, R., & Siimes, U. (2016). Lasten oikeudet ja aikuisten vastuut varhaiskasvatuksessa. PS-kustannus. Herczog, M. (2012). Rights of the child and early childhood Education and Care in Europe. European Journal of Education, 47(4), 542–555. Johansson, E., Emilson, A., & Puroila, A.-M. (2018). Mapping the field: What are values and values education about? In E. Johansson, A.-M. Puroila, & A. Emilson (Eds.), Value education in early childhood settings; concepts, approaches, and practice (pp. 13–31). Springer. Kangas, J. (2016). Enhancing children’s participation in early childhood education through the participatory pedagogy. (Diss.). Helsinki: University of Helsinki. Kangas, J., Vlasov, J., Fonsén, E., & Heikka, J. (2018). Osallisuuden pedagogiikkaa varhaiskasvatuksessa 2: Suunnittelu, toteutus ja kehittäminen. Suomen varhaiskasvatus. Karila, K. (2016). Vaikuttava varhaiskasvatus. Tilannekatsaus toukokuu 2016. Finnish National Agency for Education publications 2016:6. Krippendorff, K. (2019). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage. Kronqvist, C., Schaffar Kronqvist, B., & Lundkvist, M. (2020). The difficulty of thinking. Listening to the voices of kindergarten teachers to be. In Journal of Philosophy in Schools, 7(1), 68–85. Lansdown, G. (2011). Every Child’s right to be heard: A resource guide on the UN Committee on the rights of the child general comment no.12. UNICEF/save the children. Tillgänglig: http:// www.unicef.org/french/adolescence/file/Every_Childs_Right_to_be_Heard.pdf Leedy, P., & Ormrod, J. (2001). Practical research: Planning and design (7th ed.). Merrill Prentice Hall. SAGE Publications. Leinonen, J., Brotherus, A., & Venninen, T. (2014). Children’s participation in Finnish pre-school education – Identifying, describing and documenting Children’s participation. Nordisk barnehageforskning, 7(8), 1–16. Lundkvist, M. (2020).” Jag var ju också här”- Om delaktighet och inflytande ur ett didaktiskt perspektiv. I C. Björklund & I. Pramling Samuelsson (Red.), Innehållets didaktik i förskolan (s. 127–134). Stockholm. Lundkvist, M. & Harju-Luukkainen, H. (2021). Perspectives on quality in EDEC in Finland – A content analysis on first year teacher students views. In S. Garvis et al (Eds.), Quality improvement in early childhood. Palgrave. Mansikka, J.-E., & Lundkvist, M. (2019). Barns perspektiv och delaktighet som ideologisk orientering för småbarnspedagogiken i Finland. Nordisk tidsskrift for pedagogikk & kritikk, 5, 111–129. Quennerstedt, A., & Quennerstedt, M. (2014). Researching children’s rights in education: Sociology of childhood encountering educational theory. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 35(1), 115–132. Rogoff, B. (2008). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: Participatory appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship. In K. Hall, P. Murphy, & J. Soler (Eds.), Pedagogy and practice: Culture and identities (pp. 58–74). Sage. Sommer, D., Pramling Samuelsson, I., & Hundeide, K. (2009). Child perspectives and Children’s perspectives in theory and practice. Springer.

114

M. Lundkvist

Smith, A. (2016). Children’s rights: Towards social justice. Momentum Press. Tjora, A. (2019). Qualitative research as stepwise-deductive induction. Routledge. Turja, L., & Vuorisalo, M. (2017). Lasten oikeudet, toimijuus ja osallisuus oppimisessa. In M.  Koivula, A.  Siippainen, & P.  Eerola-Pennanen (Eds.), Valloittava varhaiskasvatus. Oppimista, osallisuutta ja hyvinvointia (pp. 36–55). Vastapaino. UN Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989. UNICEF. (2007). A human rights-based approach to Education for all: A framework for the realization of children’s right to education and rights within education. Tillgänglig. http://unesdoc. unesco.org/images/0015/001548/154861e.pdf Venninen, T., & Leinonen, J. (2013). Developing children’s participation through research and reflective practices. Asia-Pacific Journal of Research in Early Childhood Education, 7(1), 31–49. Vlasov, J., Salminen, J., Repo, L., Karila, K., Kinnunen, S., Mattila, V., Nukarinen, R., Parrila, S., & Sulonen, H. (2019). Guidelines and recommendations for evaluating the quality of early childhood Education and care. (FINECC). Finnish Education Evaluation Centre Publications 5:2019. Retrieved from https://karvi.fi/en/early-­childhood-­education/guidelines-­and-­ recommendations-­for-­evaluating-­the-­quality-­of-­early-­childhood-­education-­and-­care/

Chapter 9

Promoting Participatory Learning and Creative Thinking in Finnish ECEC – A Review of Five Arts Pedagogical Case Studies Inkeri Ruokonen

Abstract  Chapter presents research-based arts pedagogical learning projects and discusses the challenges and future recommendations of Finnish education system, early childhood education and care (ECEC) arts pedagogy on the core curriculum learning area of diverse forms and expression in early childhood teacher education. The purpose of this chapter is to examine the perceived challenges concerning the early childhood arts pedagogy and to make recommendations based on a reflective review of five case studies related to the topic. Five case studies are reviewed to promote new trends in the arts and creativity education of Finnish early childhood pedagogy and teacher education. According to results “Design learning” approach seem to be working well in practice and offering space for community-based creativity in arts pedagogical studies. Early childhood teacher education programmes should promote creative arts pedagogical studies that use collaborative, participatory and playful learning methods. There is also a need for specialization in and in-service training studies of early childhood arts education.

9.1  I ntroduction to the Arts Education Policies in Finnish ECEC In the Finnish ECEC is rooted in the Act on Early Childhood Education and Care (540/2018) and the values of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989). Pursuant to this, the Finnish National Agency for Education (2018) published the National Core Curriculum for Early Childhood Education and Care. Pre-primary education is guided by the National Core Curriculum for Pre-Primary I. Ruokonen (*) University of Turku, Turku, Finland e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 H. Harju-Luukkainen et al. (eds.), Finnish Early Childhood Education and Care, Early Childhood Research and Education: An Inter-theoretical Focus 1, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95512-0_9

115

116

I. Ruokonen

Education (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2016), which is based on the Basic Education Act (628/1998) and Basic Education Decree (852/1998). In both core curricula, arts education belongs to the learning area known as diverse forms and expression. I added arts to Alila’ and Ukkonen-Mikkola’ (2018) definition of early childhood pedagogy for introducing the concept of arts pedagogy in Finnish ECEC: Early childhood arts pedagogy is planned and goal-oriented institutional and professional activity based on the interaction between the educator and the child, which consciously seeks to influence the child’s development, learning and well-being. The arts pedagogy of early childhood education is implemented in the educational community on a science and research basis through the goals, contents, methods and learning environments of early childhood education, as well as through the observation, documentation and continuous developmental evaluation. The arts pedagogy of early childhood education is implemented with emphasis on play, the child’s participation and inclusion, in collaboration with parents and other arts educational experts. (pp. 75–81). The learning area “diverse forms and expression” is holistic in its contents and aims to support the development of children’s musical, visual, verbal and physical expression in a goal-oriented manner as well as to familiarize children with their cultural heritage and different forms of art. Both the National Core Curriculum for Early Childhood Education and Care (FNAE, 2018) and National Core Curriculum for Pre-Primary Education (FNAE, 2016) aim to offer versatile learning experiences for children in different learning areas. According to National Core Curriculum for Early Childhood Education and Care (FNAE, 2018), these learning areas are (a) rich world of languages; (b) diverse forms of expression; (c) me and our community; (d) exploring and integrating with my environment; and (e) I grow, move and develop. The learning area of diverse forms and expression combines children’s interests, areas of learning and transversal skills to support children’s learning. The concept of transversal competences consists of knowledge, skills, values, attitudes and will. Regarding Finnish ECEC, these transversal competences include (a) thinking and learning, (b) cultural competence, (c) interaction and self-expression, (d) taking care of oneself and managing daily life, (e) multiliteracy and competence in information and communication technology and (f) participation and involvement (FNAE, 2018). These are all important skills for living in an increasingly diverse world and can be developed through the arts pedagogy.

9.1.1  The Learning Area of ‘Diverse Forms of Expression’ Finnish ECEC encourages children to experience and become familiar with the arts, music and other diverse cultures. Different forms of expression allow children to think creatively, express their emotions and engage in play (Ruokonen, 2020). Cultural experiences are important for the development of children’s identities. In

9  Promoting Participatory Learning and Creative Thinking in Finnish ECEC…

117

the arts, there is space for individual and shared interpretations, imagination and empathy. Arts are part of children’s cultural heritage, basis of new knowledge, skills development and creativity (Ruokonen, 2020). The holistic approaches of the Finnish core curricula (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2016, 2018) consist of creative combinations of different forms of art and provide versatile possibilities for children to express their emotions and use their creative thinking. The arts give children the possibility to imagine and evoke mental images that are also key to their ethical thinking. Children learn to understand the value of the arts and the meaning of their cultural heritage. Different forms of arts and expression also strengthen children’s competence in creative thinking, multiliteracy, participation and involvement (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2018).

9.2  Challenges in Implementing the Arts Education The decreased focus on art subjects in teacher education as well as the lack of ECEC teachers has affected the quality of arts education in kindergartens for many years (Ruokonen, 2009; Rusanen, 2007). Furthermore, studies have demonstrated the importance of arts education, creative activities and play-based learning for children’s overall development and learning (Kangas et  al., 2019; Linnavalli, 2019; Reunamo et al., 2014; Nikkola et al., 2020; Ruokonen et al., 2021). There are many studies which promotes the role of arts and creativity education in curriculum and learning environmental planning, embodied experience, knowledge production (e.g. Ward, 2013; Bautista et al., 2018; Knutson et al., 2020), and teachers understanding about creative capacity in the classroom (see Olafsson, 2020). Between 2017 and 2019, the Finnish Education Evaluation Centre implemented the evaluation project Every Day Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care: ECEC Curriculum Implementation at ECEC Centres and in Family Day Care, which examined ECEC curricula as instruments to support the provision and implementation of ECEC as well as these curricula in daily ECEC (Repo et al., 2020). The project was implemented using self-evaluation of staff to highlight their opinions of developmental needs regarding ECEC daily practices and activities. The results of the evaluation showed that the ECEC core curriculum as a whole directs ECEC pedagogy and provides generally good guidelines for the implementation of high-quality ECEC, but the quality of some content-related objectives of the core curriculum vary between different kindergartens (Repo et al., 2020). According to the report, there are serious concerns regarding the quality and shortcomings of pedagogical activities, especially in pedagogy focusing on children under 3 years of age. Pedagogical shortcomings were found in the contents of arts, expression, music, physical activity, literacy skills and multiliteracy skills. According to the evaluation, arts education was not a sufficient part of the daily work in ECEC. In ECEC, learning areas should be implemented in a way that enables integrative broad-based examination and exploration of matters and phenomena in learning activities. Children’s interests and questions should serve as a key premise for learning

118

I. Ruokonen

activities. Early childhood education promotes holistic phenomenon-based learning. According to Lonka (2018) childhood is a period of life when everything is possible through play and that’s why phenomenon-based learning is the best way to learn. It is a multistage learning process with several learning environments and creative collaborative problem-solving in a free and student-centered setting (Lonka, 2018). Multiliteracy is closely connected to thinking and learning skills. It is important to note that most of the staff who participated in this evaluation and who are working in the field of ECEC had no academic teaching background, which may affect the results of the evaluation (Repo et al., 2020). In this chapter, some research-­based educational studies, including arts pedagogical concepts, are presented and reflected upon to further the discussion on future teacher education and ECEC arts pedagogy.

9.3  Research Design In this chapter, five case studies are reviewed and reflected, upon to promote new trends in the arts and creativity education of Finnish early childhood pedagogy and teacher education. The aim of this article is to make an integrative review and introduce these five integrative arts educational studies as the examples of the Finnish teacher education for synthesising some new knowledge from topic (Torraco, 2016). The research designs of these five case studies are introduced in Table 9.1. In first tree case studies (Bridges of Joy, Musical Surface and Circus with children) the common research aim was to find out how the design learning method was used and how design processes developed and how diverse forms of expression and new technological tools were used in the arts education and communication with children. The participants were student teachers planning and implementing their integrative and interactive arts educational project altogether with 1- to 8-year-old children. The qualitative data consisted of writings, observations, interviews and group conversations in a closed fb -project group. The qualitative research methods included content analyses of interviews and descriptions of observations as well as students’ reflective and evaluative writings about their creative learning processes. The fourth and fifth case studies focused on creative music learning through composing. In Group composing with 5-string kanteles (4. case), participants were 5–6-year-old children. The composing process and performances were videotaped, observations were written down in a form pedagogical diary and sessions were content analyzed by using qualitative theory-based methods in classification. Research material was analyzed and the most typical episode descriptions were written to describe the different orientations found in the composing sessions. For better reliability, the two observers were used in the classroom for observing and analyzing the data. In the fifth case study Composing children’s songs student teachers were composing children’s songs in groups in an international student group and in blended learning environment. In both of these cases the common issue was to study creative group composing process which was in both cases analysed by using ­qualitative content analysis.

9  Promoting Participatory Learning and Creative Thinking in Finnish ECEC…

119

Table 9.1  Research design of five case studies reviewed Case study 1.Bridges of joy

Main research questions How design learning process developed to build bridges between preschools and hospitalized children and how new technological tools were used in arts education with children? 2.Musical How student teachers’ surface design-learning process developed and what types of pedagogical learning they encountered when working together with children through musical storytelling? 3.Circus How the integrative arts with children educational learning process developed and how diverse forms of expression were used with children?

4.Group composing with 5-string kanteles

5. Composing children’s songs

Participants and data 14 student teachers (arts project participants were 45 pre- primary and primary school children and hospitalized children) writings, observations, interviews and group conversations in a closed fb -project group

Analysis methods Qualitative content analyses

12 student teachers’ reflective and evaluative writings about the creative design-learning process and descriptions of video-documented observations of the arts pedagogical sessions

Qualitative content analysis

11 student teachers (arts project participants were 32 1 to 6 year old children of one kindergarten)

Qualitative theory-based (Soininen’s i-model, 1995) content analysis, the results were reflectively discussed and evaluated with the participants and the and feedback from ECE children was gathered for the common discussion Data was qualitatively theory-based content analyzed by using the McPherson model (1994) of five aspects of musical performance

Six 5–6-year-old children in one kindergarten, observations (videotaped) of children’s composing situations and group discussions with the children after group composing sessions. Observations were written down into pedagogical diary. Which kind of learning 16 student teachers group interviews and reflective experiences student teachers had in studying writings (student group was international) music, especially during group composing in a blended learning environment?

Which aspects of creative thinking and musical learning and improvisation can be seen when children compose a song or a melody with a 5-string kantele?

Data was qualitatively and theory based content analysed by using Amabile’s (1983) componential model of small groups’ creative process

120

I. Ruokonen

9.4  Results In this chapter the contents and main results of these five arts educational projects are introduced. After integrative review analysis the case studies 1, 2 and 3 promoted especially participatory educational design-based learning, and case studies 4 and 5 promoted especially creativity through group composing both with children and the personnel.

9.4.1  Participatory Design-Based Learning in the Arts First, second and third case studies promote participatory design-based learning in the arts pedagogy of early childhood teacher education. These studies are examples of Finnish research-based teacher education and the arts pedagogy of student teachers pursuing their minor studies in arts and skills education. In both of these cases, the pedagogical approach used was participative design-based learning. Participative design-based learning is an innovative process of inquiry in which new ideas are collaboratively created (Bereiter, 2014; Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, 2011). Constructive and participatory learning encourage the active role of students and children by supporting their creativity and autonomy, which are essential in the arts pedagogy (e.g., Eisner, 2002; Räsänen, 2008; Ruokonen, 2016). 9.4.1.1  Case 1: Bridges of Joy Ruokonen and Ruismäki (2013) conducted a qualitative study of the design-­learning process in the arts educational projects of 14 student teachers. The purpose of the study was to explore the student teachers’ design process of an arts pedagogical project for pre-school and school pupils and children at a children’s hospital. The student teachers guided the schoolchildren to create animated films for the hospitalized children and vice versa. The student teachers named this project ‘Bridges of Joy’ because the purpose was to bring joy through artistic expression and to connect children from different learning environments. Participatory design-learning is focused on creating new solutions for future learning environments (Hedges & Cullen, 2012; Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, 2011; Wang et al., 2010). The student teachers worked with the children and used playful methods to create the stories and animated films together. Their work was goal-­ oriented and collaborative, and it helped the children to make connections with various artistic materials, the visual arts, sound, colour and new technology. The aim of this study was to reveal the student teachers’ experiences with design-­ learning approach and their opinions on how new technology can be used in arts education and interaction. The results showed that participatory, creative and collaborative design-learning approach and new technology provide tools that helped

9  Promoting Participatory Learning and Creative Thinking in Finnish ECEC…

121

student teachers to think and act when encountering new, uncertain or problematic pedagogical learning environments and situations. Project helped student teachers to find creative solutions for their and the children’s creative intentions and play in the artistic project. The design-learning process used in this study included an arts pedagogical model comprised of planning, implementation, results and reflective evaluation. According to results participatory, playful and collaborative design-learning process can increased students’ engagement in learning arts pedagogy and improved their ability to offer children a space for their voice and artistic imagination. All of the children’s animations are available on the faculty’s Vimeo page: https://vimeo. com/channels/ilonsillat (Ruokonen, 2013). 9.4.1.2  Case 2: Musical Surface Student teachers implemented the project, entitled ‘Musical Surface’, in collaboration with the Ateneum Art Museum as part of the Sibelius and the World of Art exhibition and workshops. Student teachers introduced children to Finnish national composer Jean Sibelius’s music and the works of art created by his contemporaries, whom he inspired (Ruokonen & Othman, 2016). Arts educational researchers (e.g., Eisner, 2002; Paatela-Nieminen, 2016; Räsänen, 2008; Ruokonen, 2016) have focused on constructive and integrative design learning strategies that encourage the active role of children by supporting their creativity and autonomy. In this interactive design-learning project, new solutions for future learning environments were developed. The collaborative design-­ learning approach, which is based on progressive inquiry, provides tools that help student teachers think and act in new, uncertain or problematic situations and find creative solutions or new technologies for their intentions (Kangas, 2014; Lahti & Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, 2014; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2014; Seitamaa-Hakkarainen et al., 2010). The student teachers had high expectations for promoting their own creativity in the arts and assisting children in their artistic expression. The students designed drama-based museum tours for the children in which they met Sibelius, a violinist and a group of Kalevala singers who performed with five-string kanteles; they could also join in singing the Finlandia Hymn. Student teachers created augmented realities to introduce the paintings to the children in a more playful manner. They began their guided tours for the children before the museum was open to the public, and this special arrangement allowed them to use live music (playing instruments, singing and using computer voices) and drama in the exhibition halls, which would not have been possible during regular museum hours. After the experiential tour of the exhibition, the children participated in the arts workshops, in which the tone colours, rhythms, melodies, keys and shapes they had experienced were transformed into visual works of art that the children then composed. The workshop participants moved on a ‘surface’ from music to image and vice versa. The children explored the connections between images and music as

122

I. Ruokonen

well as the overall audio-visual effect. Children created their visual expressions in groups while the music played, and after that, they used their imaginations to make up stories about what they had experienced. They added ‘sound colours’, rhythms and melodies to their visual stories and improvised their own group compositions. Visual thinking strategies were used in the arts pedagogical discussions by asking questions such as ‘What is going on in this picture?’ and ‘What do you see that makes you say that?’ Children were encouraged to share their feelings and interpretations. The results showed that integration of the arts with interactive pedagogy that combines children’s natural curiosity, inquisitiveness and creativity strengthens learning in, about and through the arts. The analysis of observation showed that collaborative and participatory learning fit well into integrated arts educational studies and that interactive pedagogy and creative workshops are useful tools for engaging with children in an art museum environment. Mobile devices and applications offered new possibilities in arts education. Innovative approaches using augmented reality technology was implemented in early childhood pedagogy. The video of the project is available on the faculty’s Vimeo page: https://vimeo.com/130703389 (Ruokonen, 2015). 9.4.1.3  Case 3: Circus with Children Ruokonen and Ruismäki (2012) conducted a qualitative case study of an integrative arts educational project wherein 11 student teachers designed an arts pedagogical learning environment for a project aimed at 1- to 7-year-old children. The theoretical background of this case study was the writings of Dewey (1938, 1948, 1934/2005), D. A. Kolb (1984), Hakkarainen (1993) and Soininen (1995) regarding participative and collaborative learning. According to Kolb (1984, pp.  40–42), knowledge is created from a combination of grasping experience and transforming it. Kolb and Kolb (2005) presented principles for the enhancement of experiential learning in higher education and suggested that in learning situations there have to be space for students’ previous experiences, feeling, thinking and the development of expertise (Kolb & Kolb, 2005). Student teachers in this case study had different educational backgrounds in the arts. Teacher educators act as mentors, providing a space for student teachers’ various skills and ideas and support their learning processes in the arts and arts education by engaging them in participatory learning. In order to develop a participatory and creative learning process, it is necessary for student teachers to cooperate and share their previous experiences and knowledge of the process without exercising the traditional teacher authority (Hakkarainen, 1993; Soininen, 1995, p. 171). The circus theme in this case study allowed for diverse forms of artistic expression. The student teachers based their work on participative and cooperative learning methods. Using Soininen’s (1995) i-learning model (intention, instruction, interaction and innovation), the intention of the study was to teach the student

9  Promoting Participatory Learning and Creative Thinking in Finnish ECEC…

123

teachers about integrative arts education, diverse forms of expression, cooperative learning and working processes. Results showed that all student teachers reported that the atmosphere of the process was inspiring and positive. The interactions within the group inspired them to work and learn. The student teachers also reported experiencing moments of insight and intuition during the learning process. These moments were mainly related to their individual reflections during the artistic process or when writing their manuscripts. Results showed that children’s imagination and play was connected with the artistic elements of music, colours and shapes. According to the student teachers’ writings and reflections, the use of imagination and play was fundamental to the entire process. The students used a variety of methods to improvise and solve problems in interactive situations. Their described their inventions or artistic productions in connection with the interactive adventures, fantasies and make-believe experiences they had with the children. According to the students’ reflections on the integration of diverse forms of artistic expression, the primary combination was between music and the other arts. This was especially the case when working with the 1- to 3-year-old children and in group activities. Musical expression integrated with visual arts, dance, juggling, clowns, mimes and stage arts. This expressive integration between music, drama (mimes, clowns) and dance (circus horses) helped the students to create an interactive circus adventure with the children. All diverse forms of music (listening, singing, dancing and playing) were included in the student teachers’ interactive circus performances, and they also combined other art forms in the circus learning environment. Children from all age groups participated actively in the drama activities, including miming, emotional expressions with the clowns, juggling and dancing. The children loved the interactive activities in which they pretended to be animals, played circus, listened to and made music, decorated and painted the circus stage. The role of the adult was more important the younger the children were. All of the children followed the circus story intensely and playfully and experienced the newly created learning environment as if it was a real circus. The enchanting reality of this circus play was clear. According to the student teachers, these interactive, playful and reflective methods helped them to create better ideas and resulted in a better performance.

9.4.2  Creative Group Composing Case studies (4 and 5) are promoting creative thinking through composing in early childhood education and teacher education. These two case focused on creative thinking in music, especially improvisation and composing.

124

I. Ruokonen

9.4.2.1  Case 4: Group Composing with 5-String Kanteles In this study by Ruokonen et al. (2012), 5- to 6-year-old children created their own songs in small groups using a five-string kantele. The aim of the study was to discover which aspects of musical learning and improvisation happened when children composed a song or a melody as part of a creative group process. For the qualitative content analysis, three elements from McPherson’s (1994) model concerning musical performance were used to analyze the group composition situations: creative, visual and aural orientation. In addition, it was observed that social orientation was an essential element to the process of creating songs in a group. According to Faulkner (2006), children value their works of music for both their aesthetic qualities and the social and personal experience of their production and distribution. For children, the social aspects (e.g., how the cooperation works and for whom the composition is played) are meaningful. The results showed that children combined their creative musical ideas aurally by improvising and playing their kantele and by listening to each other’s ideas and deciding by ear which one they preferred. Children used visual orientation by writing their musical ideas down using the numbers on the strings. Children co-created their melodies by openly and joyfully sharing their musical ideas, and thus the creative and social orientations were combined with the other orientations. According to the results, the children used various orientations in their creative thinking processes. The connections to transversal skills (thinking and learning, cultural competence, interaction and self-expression, multiliteracy and participation) were obvious. Additionally, the authors noted integration with other areas of learning from the ECEC core curriculum (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2018). For example, the children developed their mathematical skills by using the string’s numbers to mark melody lines and language skills by discussing and creating lyrics to their songs. They also developed their interaction skills by listening to each other and sharing their ideas. The children used their creative thinking to develop musical ideas through various orientations. The results showed that pre-primary children are capable of and motivated to use their creative thinking to create lyrics and melodies. The five-string kantele demonstrated to be a useful instrument for early childhood music education and musical improvisation. 9.4.2.2  Case 5: Composing Children’s Songs Ruokonen and Ruismäki (2016) conducted a qualitative study of 16 student teachers’ experiences of studying group composing in a blended learning environment. In this study, Erasmus exchange students (studying in Finland) participated with Finnish students in voluntary music course. The musical backgrounds of these students varied from novice to advance. One aim of the course was to learn creative group thinking by composing a children’s song together. The purpose of the group composing was to enrich their musical creativity and to develop a new technology-­ based blended learning model for student teachers’ music educational needs.

9  Promoting Participatory Learning and Creative Thinking in Finnish ECEC…

125

Student teachers could study creative production in web-based learning environment between the live group sessions. According to Graham (2006) and Graham and Dziuban (2008), there are many reasons for adopting a blended approach to improve learning. In this case, the blended learning by rotation method was used to explore the learning experiences of studying music and group composing in a blended learning environment compared to traditional face-to-face learning. The qualitative data was content analysed by using Amabile’s (1983) componential model of individuals’ or small groups’ creative processes. Amabile’s (2018) multiplicative creative process consists of several sub-processes: articulating the problem to be solved; preparing to solve the problem by gathering information; generating ideas for solving the problem; validating the solution and communicating it to others. In the first ‘task presentation phase’, the aim of the study course (composing music) was presented to student teachers. The e-learning environment (instrumental lessons and creative production lessons) was introduced to the groups. In the second phase ‘preparation’, all information connected to the task was gathered and studied to solve problems or continue the creative work. Preparation was important for the student teachers to get to know each other face-to-face by singing, dancing and playing (Finnish five-string kantele and Orff instruments) together. Student teachers were asked to combine the online environment with their current level of instrumental studies and to find an instrument to play. Student teachers researched children’s songs (melodies, ambitus, rhythms, words and musical forms) from different cultures and shared them in face-to-face group sessions. For their research, they used song books, social media sites and internet sources. Student teachers also organized a one-day playground singing and playing project for children. In the third phase, ‘response generation’, new ideas for children’s song were created. Students brought their creative musical ideas together. Composing occurred during face-to-face group meetings so that the teacher educator could support them when needed. In the fourth phase, ‘response validation’, student teachers evaluated and selected the best musical ideas to continue on. Students used English as their common language, but they also translated the words into their own languages. In the fifth phase, outcome or creative production, they presented their song to the other groups. In this phase, they concentrated on the interpretation and aesthetical details of the song. Finally, in face-to face situation, all songs were performed together, audio-recorded, shared and assessed within the group. According to the results, a major advantage of blended learning was that it supported student teachers in their creative thinking by offering more creative models and opportunities for independent and constructive learning. The use of information and communication technologies improved student teachers’ attitudes towards independent learning in terms of their creative thinking and musical skills. These results also supported Ketonen’s and Lonka’s (2012) findings that the blended approach combines the best elements of engaged face-to-face learning and online independent or flipped classroom techniques for engaging university students.

126

I. Ruokonen

9.4.2.3  Summary of the Results For concluding the main results of the reviewed case studies are; firstly that the participatory design-based learning in the arts in co-operation with children groups works well with student teachers’ arts pedagogical studies and; secondly, group work even in blended learning environment engage learners to creative productions. In these arts educational projects the focus was on facilitating learning processes, children’s and student teachers’ creative thinking, group interaction, use of different learning environment and computer-supported learning. Thirdly, by combining the arts, play and new technology children engaged with new technology by using applications on tablets and their imagination to open augmented realities associated with the arts works or making animation films or composing music.

9.5  Discussion According to the findings of these five case studies, collaborative, playful and participatory design-learning practices with children or for children are beneficial for developing arts pedagogical studies in teacher education. Results showed that student teachers and children in these studies produced excellent ideas together. Results promotes the sensitive to and respectful interaction and respectfulness of each other’s and children’s ideas. These case studies shows that when students and children feel that their creative ideas and strengths are valued and they have a meaningful role and responsibility for learning, then they will truly engage in learning. Reflecting on these five case studies, I fully agree the opinion of Olafsson (2020) that student teachers should study more research-based knowledge about creativity during their teacher education and get deeper knowledge about creative arts pedagogy through practical experience for strengthening their individual creative capacity. Collaborative way of working strengthens learning (also e.g. Hughes et  al., 2018). The results of these case studies, as well as Hughes et al. (2018) and Marsh et al. (2018) show that design learning or maker space culture should be developed as a part of teacher education developed further to for creating dynamic relations students’ learning processes in the arts, science and new technology. In academic teacher education, learning in, about and through the arts needs to be encouraged. In these five cases, the student teachers reported engagement in their arts pedagogical learning. Results showed that student teachers learned to plan, discuss, write, practise, play and reflect on their skills in terms of their creative design-­ learning process, interactive artistic performance with children and arts pedagogical interactions with children. In these cases, student teachers and children learned to work together and to listen to and respect others and themselves. These case studies and also Shih’s (2018) study reports how children can use arts to show their creative ideas and feelings and learn about artistic and aesthetical thinking. Results showed that the arts-based pedagogies are key elements in the early childhood education by generating meaningful, child-centred contents for children in different learning

9  Promoting Participatory Learning and Creative Thinking in Finnish ECEC…

127

environments. Also Ward’s (2013) findings showed that when educators used arts-­ based pedagogies and their own creative arts experiences and skills, they significantly increased the use of different learning environment and natural word in ECEC daily content. In these phenomenon-based arts projects, an open, free and playful atmosphere reported by student teachers to be important this meant that all of the participants’ views and opinions were equally respected to create an inspiring and encouraging team. This promotes the playful and imaginary learning of Finnish ECEC (Kangas et al., 2019; Syrjämäki, 2019). The results of these case studies showed that student teachers and children enjoyed of using their imaginations and passion to create something good, playful, and aesthetically valuable. Results also showed that technology leads to new possibilities and activities for creating and integrating the arts in ECEC. These positive experiences of collaborative design-learning approach encourage early childhood teacher education to plan more courses that promote phenomenon-based collaborative, participatory and playful learning through the arts.

9.6  R  ecommendations for Improving the Quality of Arts Pedagogy in ECEC According to Finnish ECEC laws, every child should have the right to high quality early childhood education. New legislation requires that the best interests of the child should always be the first priority in all planning, implementation and decision making for ECEC. Teacher education is the key element in developing early childhood education. At the moment Finnish ECEC needs more academically educated early childhood education teachers. According to the Act on Early Childhood Education and Care (540/2018), by 2030, two out of three education, teaching and nursing staff must have university degree in early childhood education teacher training. After the transition period, a master’s degree will be required for kindergarten heads. The development of the quality and pedagogy of early childhood education plays a key role in legal reform. Since the 1990s, the number of academic early childhood education teachers has declined to around 18% of the total staff (Alila et al., 2014; Onnismaa et al., 2017). The change in staff structure requires that there be a sufficient number of academically educated early childhood education teachers. The quality of arts education is a major challenge for early childhood teacher education. In addition to general arts pedagogical skills, an early childhood education teacher also needs sufficient skills in diverse art forms and a sufficient amount of arts pedagogical knowledge specific to different art forms. The artistic backgrounds of student teachers vary, and therefore the groups are heterogeneous, also the amount of arts pedagogical studies has decreased since 1995 (Ruokonen & Ruismäki, 2010). The most important task of a teacher educator is to strengthen

128

I. Ruokonen

students’ confidence in their role as an arts educator and the related lifelong learning. In addition, there is a need for further educational studies in early childhood arts pedagogy. Most of all, early childhood education pedagogy needs to promote holistic, phenomenon-­based learning practices that utilize collaborative, creative, playful and participatory practices in which a space is provided to highlight everyone’s strengths and interests. It is important to draw student teacher’s personal strengths and passions into engaging collaborative learning process. Enchantment is common for play and the arts. Children have big ideas and can perceive the world in new, unprecedented and miraculous ways. Diverse forms of expression play and the arts should belong in everyday practices of ECEC implemented by a pedagogically educated ECE teacher. These five case studies show that developing co-operation between universities’ teacher education units and kindergartens through the arts pedagogical projects can offer extra space both student teachers’ and children’s creative thinking, pedagogical learning and artistic expression.

References Act on Early Childhood Education and Care. (540/2018). Ministry of Education and Culture, Finland. Alila, K., Kahiluoto, T., & Pekuri, H-M. (toim.). (2014). Varhaiskasvatuksen historia, nykytila ja kehittämisen suuntalinjat. Opetus- ja kulttuuriministeriön työryhmämuistioita ja selvityksiä12. Opetus- ja kulttuuriministeriö. Alila, K., & Ukkonen-Mikkola, T. (2018). Käsiteanalyysistä varhaiskasvatuksen pedagogiikan määrittelyyn. Kasvatus, 49(1), 75–81. Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 357–376. Amabile, T.  M. (2018). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Routledge. Basic Education Act. (628/1998). Ministry of Education and Culture, Finland. Basic Education Decree. (852/1998). Ministry of Education and Culture, Finland. Bautista, A., Moreno-Núñez, A., Bull, R., Amsah, F., & Koh, S. F. (2018). Arts-related pedagogies in preschool education: An Asian perspective. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 45, 277–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2017.12.005 Bereiter, C. (2014). Principled practical knowledge: Not a bridge but a ladder. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(1), 4–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2013.812533 Dewey, J. (1938). Education and experience. Simon and Schuster. Dewey, J. (1948). Foreword. In H. Schaefer-Simmern (Ed.), The unfolding of artistic activity: Its basis, processes and implications. University of California. Dewey, J. (2005). Art as experience. Perigee. (Original work published 1934). Eisner, E. W. (2002). The arts and the creations of mind. University of Yale: Yale University Press. Faulkner, R. (2006). Group composing: Pupil perceptions from a social psychological study. Music Education Research, 5(2), 101–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461380032000085504 Finnish National Agency for Education (FNAE). (2018). National core curriculum for early childhood education and care. Finnish National Agency for Education (FNAE). (2016). National core curriculum for pre-­primary education.

9  Promoting Participatory Learning and Creative Thinking in Finnish ECEC…

129

Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future directions. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs (pp. 3–21). Wiley. Graham, C.  R., & Dziuban, C. (2008). Blended learning environments. In M.  J. Bishop (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp.  269–276). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hakkarainen, P. (1993). Oppiminen korkeakouluopetuksen haasteena. Kasvatus, 24(5), 473–481. Hedges, H., & Cullen, J. (2012). Participatory learning theories: A framework for early childhood pedagogy. Early Child Development and Care, 182(7), 921–940. https://doi.org/10.108 0/03004430.2011.597504 Hughes, J., Morrison, L., Kajamaa, A., & Kumpulainen, K. (2018). Makerspaces promoting students’ design thinking and collective knowledge creation: Examples from Canada and Finland. In A. Brooks, E. Brooks, & C. Sylla (Eds.), Interactivity, game creation, design, learning, and innovation (pp. 343–352). Springer. Kangas, J., Harju-Luukkainen, H., Brotherus, A., Kuusisto, A., & Gearon, L. (2019). Playing to learn in Finland. In S.  Garvis & S.  Philipson (Eds.), Early childhood education in the 21st century: Vol. 3. Policification of early childhood education and care (pp. 110–127). Routledge. Kangas, K. (2014). The artifact project: Promoting design learning in the elementary classroom (Home economics and craft studies research reports 35). Faculty of Beahvioural Sciences. University of Helsinki: Unigrafia. Ketonen, E., & Lonka, K. (2012). How to make a lecture course an engaging learning experience? Studies for the Learning Society, 2/3, 63–74. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10240-­012-­0006-­1 Knutson, K., Okada, T., & Crowley, K. (Eds.). (2020). Multidisciplinary approaches to art learning and creativity: Fostering artistic exploration in formal and informal settings. Routledge. Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(2), 193–212. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as a source of learning and development. Prentice Hall. Lahti, H., & Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P. (2014). Designing teaching-teaching designing: Teacher’s guidance in a virtual design studio. Journal of Learning Design, 7(1), 10–26. Linnavalli, T. (2019). Effects of musical experience on children’s language and brain development [Doctoral dissertation, University of Helsinki]. Studies of cognitive science 12. University of Helsinki. Helsinki: Unigrafia. Lonka, K. (2018). Phenomenal learning from Finland. Edita. Marsh, J., Arnseth, H. C., & Kumpulainen, K. (2018). Maker literacies and maker citizenship in the MakEY (makerspaces in the early years) project. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 2(3), 1–19. McPherson, G. E. (1994). Improvisation: Past present and future. In Lees. H. (Ed.), Musical connections: Tradition and change (pp. 154–162). Proceedings of the 21th world conference of the international music education. Tampa, . Nikkola, T., Reunamo, J., & Ruokonen, I. (2020). Children’s creative thinking abilities and social orientations in Finnish early childhood education and care. Early Child Development and Care, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2020.1813122 Olafsson, B. (2020). Norwegian arts and crafts teachers’ conceptions of creativity. Journal for Research in Arts and Sports Education, 4(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.23865/jased.v4.1700 Onnismaa, E. L., Kalliala, M., & Tahkokallio, L. (2017). Koulutuspoliittisen paradoksin jäljillä. Miten varhaiskasvatus muotoutui sosiaalialan koulutuksia suosivaksi [Reflections on an ­education policy paradox: How did social sector occupational groups get a dominant position in early education.]. Kasvatus & aika., 11(3), 4–20. Paatela-Nieminen, M. (2016). Lisätty todellisuus saa taideteokset elämään. Stylus, 1(16), 22–23. Räsänen, M. (2008). Kuvakulttuurit ja integroiva taideopetus. Gummerus. Repo, L., Paananen, M., Eskelinen, M., Mattila, V., Lerkkanen, M.-K., Gammelgård, L., Ulvinen, J., Marjanen, J., Kivistö, A., & Hjelt, H. (2020). Every day quality in early childhood education

130

I. Ruokonen

and care: ECEC curriculum implementation at ECEC centres and in family day care. Finnish Education Evaluation Centre. Reunamo, J., Lee, H.  C., Wang, L.  C., Ruokonen, I., Nikkola, T., & Malmström, S. (2014). Children’s creativity in day care. Early Child Development and Care, 184(4), 617–632. https:// doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2013.806495 Ruokonen, I. (2009). Music education issues in the learning environments of Helsinki area day-­ care centres. CFMAE Journal, 1(1), 212–219. Ruokonen, I. (2013). Ilon sillat [Bridges of joy] [video]. Vimeo. https://vimeo.com/channels/ ilonsillat Ruokonen, I. (2015). Sibelius and the world of art: Experience and expression through music and imagery [Video]. Vimeo. https://vimeo.com/130703389 Ruokonen, I. (2016). Esi- ja alkuopetuksen musiikin didaktiikka. Finn Lectura. Ruokonen, I. (2020). Varhaiskasvatuksen taidekasvatus. Leikkiä, lumousta, oppimista ja hyvää elämää. [Arts education in early childhood education. Play, enchantment, learning and a good life] Helsinki: Association of Early Childhood Teachers. Ruokonen, I., Kattainen, A., & Ruismäki, H. (2012). Preschool children and the 5-string kantele: An exercise in composition. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 45, 391–400. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.575 Ruokonen, I., & Othman, E. (2016). Sibelius and the world of art: Experience and expression through music and imagery in arts educational studies. IMAG, 3(1/2), 236–251. Ruokonen, I., & Ruismäki, H. (2010). Taito- ja taideaineet akateemisessa opettajankoulutuksessa haikuja opettajankouluttajilta. In A. Kallioniemi, A. Toom, M. Ubani, & H. Linnansaari (Eds.), Akateeminen luokanopettajakoulutus: 30 vuotta teoriaa, käytäntöä ja maistereita [Academic teacher education: 30 years of theory, practice and masters] (pp. 271–294). Kasvatusalan tutkimuksia 52. Helsinki: Suomen Kasvatustieteellinen Seura. Ruokonen, I., & Ruismäki, H. (2012). Learning circus skills in a day care Centre: Student teachers in a cooperative, integrative arts education project original. Procedia: Social and Behavioural Sciences, 69, 1443–1451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.12.084 Ruokonen, I., & Ruismäki, H. (2013). Bridges of joy: A case study of the collaborative design learning process of the university teacher students. The European Journal of Social & Behavioural Sciences, 7(4), 1187–1192. https://doi.org/10.15405/ejsbs.98 Ruokonen, I., & Ruismäki, H. (2016). E-learning in music: A case study of learning group composing in a blended learning environment. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 217, 109–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.02.039 Rusanen, S. (2007). Taidekasvattajaksi varhaiskasvatukseen: kuvataiteen opintojen kehittäminen lastentarhanopettajien koulutuksessa. Taideteollisen korkeakoulun julkaisusarja A77. Gummerus. Ruokonen, I. , Tervaniemi, M., & Reunamo, J. (2021). The significance of music in early childhood education and care of toddlers in Finland: An extensive observational study. Music Education Research, 23(5), 634–646. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2021.1965564 Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2014). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K.  Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp.  97–115). Cambridge University Press. Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., Viilo, M., & Hakkarainen, K. (2010). Learning by collaborative design: Technology-enhanced knowledge practices. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 20, 109–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-­008-­9066-­4 Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P. (2011). Design based learning in crafts education: Authentic problems and materialization of design thinking. In H. Ruismäki & I. Ruokonen (Eds.), Design learning and wellbeing. Fourth international journal of intercultural arts education (Research report 331) (pp. 3–14). University of Helsinki: Unigrafia. Shih, Y. H. (2018). Helping young children perceive beauty: Exploring the teaching principle of aesthetic education in early childhood. Journal of Chinese Management Development, 7(1), 16–28. https://doi.org/10.22158/ct.v1n1p24.

9  Promoting Participatory Learning and Creative Thinking in Finnish ECEC…

131

Soininen, M. (1995). Tiedon jakajasta tietämyksen rakentajaksi. [From knowledge sharing to knowledge constructing]. In J. Heikkilä & S. Aho (Eds.), Muutosagenttiopettaja: Luovuuden irtiotto. Turku University Publications B: 48. Department of Teacher Education (pp. 159–173). Turku: University Press. Syrjämäki, M. (2019). Leikkien, havainnoiden, kannatellen: Vertaisvuorovaikutusta vahvistavaa pedagogiikkaa varhaiserityiskasvatuksen toimintaympäristössä. [Playing, observing, scaffolding The pedagogy of enhancing peer interaction in early childhood special education]. Helsinki Studies in Education, 59. University of Helsinki. Helsinki: Unigrafia. Torraco, R.  J. (2016). Writing integrative literature reviews: Using the past and present to explore the future. Human Resource Development Review, 15(4), 404–428. https://doi. org/10.1177/1534484316671606 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Nov. 20, 1989). 1577 U.N.T.S. 3; 28 I.L.M. 1456. Wang, F., Kinzie, M. B., McGuire, P., & Pan, E. (2010). Applying technology to inquiry-based learning in early childhood education. Early Childhood Education Journal, 37(5), 381–389. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-­009-­0364-­6 Ward, K. S. (2013). Creative arts-based pedagogies in early childhood education for sustainability (EfS) challenges and possibilities. Australian Journal of Environmental.

Chapter 10

North Sámi Language Nests in Northern Finland: A Case Study of Sámi Early Childhood Education and Care Rauni Äärelä-Vihriälä and Tuija Turunen

Abstract  The purpose of this article is to introduce the special characteristics of Sámi language immersion through a language nest approach in early childhood education and care in northern Finland, the Sámi home district. It aims to develop Sámi language immersion as Sámi languages spoken in Finland are endangered and require urgent recovery measures. The study is framed by an indigenous research paradigm, which focuses on the community. This entails a strong awareness of context and respect for traditional knowledge. This framework is supported by an ethnographic study approach and the long-term presence of an indigenous researcher. The data for this chapter were collected through observations of a language nest in an early childhood education and care setting. The results reveal how Sámi language immersion is carried out in Sámi language nests. The concept of a language nest pedagogy based on these results provides insight into Sámi language pedagogical practices. The results imply that language nests not only provide language education but also strengthen the Sámi culture and way of life. In addition, languages nests bring communities closer together, thus supporting Sámi language and culture in a broader sense.

10.1  Introduction This article introduces the special characteristics of Sámi language immersion through a language nest approach in early childhood education and care (ECEC) in northern Finland, the Sámi home district. According to UNESCO (2019), all three Sámi languages spoken in Finland, including Northern Sámi, Inari Sámi and Skolt R. Äärelä-Vihriälä (*) Sámi University College, Kautokeino, Norway e-mail: [email protected] T. Turunen University of Lapland, Rovaniemi, Finland © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 H. Harju-Luukkainen et al. (eds.), Finnish Early Childhood Education and Care, Early Childhood Research and Education: An Inter-theoretical Focus 1, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95512-0_10

133

134

R. Äärelä-Vihriälä and T. Turunen

Sámi, are endangered. As a result of assimilation policies enacted by the Finnish government, many Sámi people have lost some or all of their native languages. In the interest of assimilation through education, various measures were carried out between 1950 and 1960, which prohibited the practice of traditional Sámi religion and the speaking of Sámi languages in schools (Kuokkanen, 2009). These policies led to a widespread forced language shift from Sámi to Finnish. Because these ecclesiastical education and school measures, the Sámi people were forced to change their language, customs, and values to match those of the surrounding society (Keskitalo et al., 2014). A native language is usually defined as the first language learned in childhood in a family sharing the same cultural and linguistic background (Love & Ansaldo, 2010). However, this definition is based on colonial practices that aimed to destroy ethnolinguistic identity. The Sámi people identify with the Sámi languages, but their first language learning has been compromised for generations. Linguistic resuscitation is the key to handling the burden of the assimilation heritage (Fishman, 1991). Since the loss of language in Sámi communities has not been voluntary, it can thus be said that the native languages are still their first languages (Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000). This perspective is an important starting point for language revitalisation, emphasising the holistic concern for the well-being of indigenous people. Language is bound to culture and traditional knowledge (Vuolab, 2000). Sámi people use their languages to tell stories, perform joik (Sámi traditional singing), read poems, play with words, talk, and tell jokes to one another. For example, the practice of reindeer husbandry involves a very comprehensive Sámi vocabulary describing the natural environment, the reindeer themselves, and their living conditions. Children are taught to use the language associated with reindeer husbandry by participating together with their family in the reindeer husbandry duties (Joks, 2007). Without language, every generation would be forced to rediscover such basic knowledge to protect their culture. If a language dies, the wisdom of thousands of years of experience disappears (Vuolab, 2000). Colonisation is influenced by the idea of ‘otherness’; it places its targets, such as indigenous people, in the space of another (Keskitalo, 2017). In that space, the needs of indigenous people are not of particular interest. This has meant that Sámi children have been taught Finnish ECEC practices, and their language and cultural needs have been ignored (Laiti, 2018; Äärelä, 2016). However, over the past three decades, the Sámi people in Finland have begun to assert their right to their own language and culture (Lehtola, 2015). One of the most significant steps has been the Sámi education development project currently underway in Finland, coordinated by the Ministry of Education and Culture, which focuses on the development of Sámi education. Similarly, indigenous peoples around the world have started to claim back their languages and developed language nest programmes as part of their language revitalisation efforts (Olthuis et al., 2013). Traditionally, language nests are ECEC settings for children from birth to school age using total early language immersion. They are used by indigenous peoples to revive or revitalise their languages, cultures, and values (Olthuis et al., 2013). The nesting activities started with the Kōhanga Reo movement of the Māoris in Āotearoa,

10  North Sámi Language Nests in Northern Finland: A Case Study of Sámi Early…

135

New Zealand, in the early 1980s (Hinton & Meek, 2016). From there, the method quickly spread to Hawaii. Both Hawaiian and Māori language nesting activities are based on the educational philosophies of indigenous cultures. They mirror the cultures’ own values of humanity and play a central role in indigenous educational ideologies.

10.2  Sámi Language Nests: Language and Values Sámi language nests link language and culture. Within language nests, children are included in language revitalisation activities, which are more of a quest for simultaneous bilingualism than successive bilingualism. This involves the commitment of the whole family and community; everyone who speaks the language must speak it with the child, even outside of the language nest. Most of the time, the other speakers are grandparents who have learned the language at home as children’s parents have mostly lost their language because of the assimilation policy. Connecting the generations of speakers in this way is one of the most important functions of language nests as part of the language revitalisation process (Olthuis et  al., 2013; Pasanen, 2015). The Sámi language nests use a language immersion approach in which language learning occurs through genuine interaction in everyday practices with complete linguistic and cultural immersion (Laurén, 2008). The educators use only Sámi when interacting with the children (Sámi Parliament, 2009). Children, especially in their first years in language nest, can choose which language they use but are encouraged to speak Sámi, especially during guided pedagogical moments. The activities of the language nests are based on Sámi ECEC principles and the cultural values underlined by the community and traditional livelihoods; they are also borne out of a desire to promote the development of Sámi identity (Sámi Parliament, 2009, 2013). The goal of the nests is for children to achieve functional bilingualism in Sámi and Finnish for different purposes in everyday situations (Pasanen, 2015). In addition, language nesting revives the Sámi language and culture in the whole community and thus strengthens the Sámi’s sense of belonging. The purpose of the Sámi language nesting activities has always been to increase the number of native speakers. In Finland, the Sámi language nests started with a Skolt Sámi language nest at Lake Sevettijärvi in 1993, prompted by the fact that the UN’s International Year of Indigenous Peoples was being celebrated at the time. The first Inari Sámi language nest was established in Ivalo in 1997 (Pasanen, 2015). Currently, there are 12 language nests in Finland: seven Northern Sámi, three Inari Sámi, and two Skolt Sámi nests (Sámi Parliament, 2019). The language nests are mostly part of the local municipalities’ Sámi language ECEC services, except the three Inari Sámi language nests, which are administered by the Inari Sámi Association. As part of Sámi education, the language nest activities are based on concrete experiences, the natural environment, and the family community. Education focuses

136

R. Äärelä-Vihriälä and T. Turunen

on individual freedom and choice, emphasising oktavuohta lundui [connection to nature], iešbirgejupmi [well-being], iešráđálašvuohta [self-reliance], gierdevašvuohta [endurance)], and friddjavuohta [freedom] (Balto, 1997). The Sámi have their own social operating model, which prioritises family relationships, friendship, and the Sámi character (Aikio 2010). The Sámi have retained their traditional knowledge, lifestyle, and livelihoods from generation to generation (Sámi Parliament, 2006). Through intergenerational experiences, Sámi practices connect the past, present, and future (Porsanger & Guttorm, 2011). In Sámi education, children are co-owners of their education. They are responsible for their actions, and their self-esteem develops naturally through action (Balto, 1997). The community supports children’s individual development and cognitive enhancement and expects children to face new challenges and find ways to overcome them. By conquering challenges, the child’s autonomy increases. Language plays a central role in Sámi education as a path towards the Sámi community and its cultural wisdom. Minority languages are like foxes, who must survive alone without the safety of the herd. To survive, a fox must look and listen, be fully aware of all the surrounding dangers, and be prepared to hide, run away, and consider all other creatures in the forest (Vuolab, 2000). Following this metaphor, language nests are like fox nests, where children participate in language revitalisation efforts aimed at restoring the appreciation and significance of the Sámi languages through the intergenerational transmission of culture. The Sámi Early Childhood Education Plan (Sámi Parliament, 2009) emphasises the importance of language, highlighting that language builds a shared world vision and culture. Through language, children have the opportunity to participate fully in the Sámi community. As the Sámi people have historically interacted through different languages and cultures in the Sámiland, they appreciate strong language skills. Language is not only an important means of communication and interaction but also a symbol of ethnic cohesion (Balto, 1997). This sense of ethnic cohesion is at risk of being lost due to the effects of the assimilation policies enacted over the past 50+ years. For many children, the Sámi language nest may be their only Sámi environment.

10.3  Methodological Approach and Methods 10.3.1  Indigenous Research Approach This study explores Sámi ECEC in a language nest from the inside. The specific research question of this study sought to answer was ‘How is Sámi language immersion implemented in a North Sámi nest?’ The focus was on the functions and activities of the nest and how Sámi language use was supported and revitalised by them. In this kind of indigenous research, the foundation and methodology for producing new knowledge are based on the indigenous people’s own thoughts, needs, knowledge, and experiences (Rigney, 1999). However, Sámi research must also follow

10  North Sámi Language Nests in Northern Finland: A Case Study of Sámi Early…

137

general scientific and ethical guidelines (Hoëm, 2009). Accordingly, Western research paradigms and methods need to be critically examined when conducting indigenous research (Tuhiwai Smith, 1999). The first author of this study is a well-known Sámi scholar in the community. She has extensive experience as an educator, organising Sámi teaching, producing teaching materials, and training Sámi teachers. In accordance with the objectives of post-­ colonial indigenous research, this research was carried out with the understanding that the ownership of the project, data, and results lies with the Sámi community. The project was also conducted in compliance with the Worlds Indigenous Nations Higher Education Consortium (WINHEC) research standards and ethical guidelines, which underline that indigenous research must use the local language respectfully as a foundation for interpretation and meaning (WINHEC Research and Journal Working Group, 2010). As language was central to this study, and all communication with participants was conducted in Sámi, only a Sámi-speaking researcher could have conducted it.

10.3.2  Setting and Participants The ethnographical research process included two field periods in the North Sámi language nest from 2014 to 2015 (described in a PhD study by Äärelä [2016]). During these periods, the researcher collected data by observing everyday practices at the language nest over a total of 12 days. Observations took place during predetermined days. The North Sámi language nest, acting as a research field, was one of ten language nests operating in Finland in 2014–2015.The following example describes the process of entering into the field; the data excerpts were translated from Sámi and Finnish into English by the authors: Mánná 1: Maid don čálat? Dutki: Mun čálán iežan jurdagiid. Mánná 1: Maid don jurddašat? Child 1: What are you writing? Researcher: I write my own thoughts. Child 1: What do you think? (Diary 19.5.2015)

10.3.3  Data Collection and Analysis The language nest was a diverse and multifaceted phenomenon. It included educators, children, parents, toys, educational materials, indoor and outdoor spaces, language arrangements, and the local community. As a community member, the researcher was familiar with the children in the language nest. Hence, the children approached the researcher every time she visited the language nest. The children also asked her to be involved in their activities.

138

R. Äärelä-Vihriälä and T. Turunen

In ethnographic research like this, it is important to see the familiar with new eyes, as data collection and analysis require the ability to distance oneself from the subjects (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1995). In this study, the Sámi researcher was a member of the Sámi community, thus exploring the culture to which she belongs (Irvine & Gaffikin, 2006). Even though the researcher was an insider in the culture, she was not familiar with language nests as a phenomenon. This provided her with two roles: insider in the culture and outsider in the research phenomenon. This position was critically reflected throughout the study. The ethnographic methodological approach involved strengthening the first author’s role of the researcher in the community. This meant that participation in policy-making, community meetings, and non-governmental organisation activities was reduced. However, after the study began and the community was informed and accepted the study, the researcher’s role in supporting language revitalisation was strengthened. Among indigenous peoples, research is often regarded a colonisation process completed by outsiders (Kuokkanen, 2009) Therefore, it was vital that the community was assured that the research aimed to serve community and would be performed by a community member. The data consisted of three 60-page, A4-sized notebooks (altogether 180 pages), containing handwritten observations, drawings illustrating the language nest activities, and annotations of the researcher’s analytical thinking throughout the process recorded in chronological order. These notebooks served as a progressive recording of the data collection process and preliminary analysis. The data analyses were initiated during the data collection period. In the actual analysis phase, a word processor was first used to write up the observation entries, excluding the drawings. After, the data were further categorised by using ECEC primary and secondary functions as analytical tools. The primary functions consist of activities that are essential for children’s well-being and the flow of daily practices, such as dining, dressing up, and basic care activities (Harju-Luukkainen, 2007; Mård, 1996). The secondary functions consist of activities that can be omitted without compromising children’s well-being (Harju-Luukkainen, 2007; Mård, 1996). They are related to thematic activities, morning welcoming gatherings, and play. In this study, the secondary functions mirrored the special features of the language nest. Once the categorising was completed, a thematic analysis was used to identify the key features of Sámi pedagogy in these functions (see Nowell et al., 2017).

10.4  Results 10.4.1  Primary Functions: Sámi Language in Daily Practices The primary functions of ECEC were categorised into four themes: giela geavaheami movttiidahttin beaivválaš diliin [everyday activities of language support], boradeapmi [dining], beaivenahkárat [naptime], and olgun lihkadeapmi [outdoor

10  North Sámi Language Nests in Northern Finland: A Case Study of Sámi Early…

139

activities]. The Sámi Early Childhood Education Plan (Sámi Parliament, 2009) emphasises that Sámi cultural content should be implemented in daily activities to provide children with natural experiences of their language and culture. Outdoor activities were added to the primary functions because they are an integral part of Sámi education. During primary function activities, language nest educators promote children’s linguistic activity while ensuring that they achieve the pedagogical goals (Sámi Parliament, 2009). The primary functions are permanently included in the operation of the language nest and cannot be removed when the daily plans change (see Kettukangas, 2017). The following extract illustrates how the Sámi language was incorporated into primary function activities: The kids are eager to go out and play. They are looking for their clothes and looking for a place to dress. Some children have itchy feet, and their eagerness tends to turn into sadness when things do not happen fast enough. The educator notices the situation and grabs one of the children into her arms, singing ‘Gos lea bealgi, gos lea bealgi? Dáppehan mun!’ [‘Where is the thumb, where is the thumb? Here I am!’]. The educator sings while dressing a child at the same time. The child calms down. (Diary 12.5.2015)

In the situation described above, giela geavaheami movttiidahttin beaivválaš diliin [everyday activities of language support] formed the socio-cultural basis for children’s Sámi language learning. During these activities, language learning situations were relaxed and natural. The educators also planned in advance how they could support language learning during daily activities. Boradeapmi [dining] was also an important part of the language nest interactions. The educators consciously emphasised questions and phrases using the Sámi language. The educators had pictures on the wall labelled with the most important phrases used in dining. Labels were also attached to most furniture and objects: I look around the kitchen. It’s like a linguistic treasure trove: texts in Sámi, in large coloured letters. No eyes would be able to attempt not to see ‘Leage buorre!’ [‘Please!’] Or, ‘Giitu!’ [‘Thank you!’]. (Diary 16.6.2015)

The educators maintained Sámi language conversation throughout the lunch period. Children could first use Finnish, and the educators used different language immersion pedagogies to encourage them to say the same thing in Sámi. In the discussion of the following excerpt, the educator indicated that she did not understand what the child was saying and expressed that the child was expected to use Sámi: Child: Saanko lisää maitoa?(Finnish) Educator: Maid? Loddi girddii almmis?(Sámi) Child: Oaččošingo lási mielkki?(Sámi) Child: Saanko lisää maitoa? Educator: What? A bird flying in the sky? Child: Can I have some milk? (Diary 28.4.2015)

Beaivenahkárat [naptime] was observed to be peaceful, with Sámi music and storytelling in the background. It was an important safe language moment during the day, with Sámi cultural manifestations appearing in this safe lingual context.

140

R. Äärelä-Vihriälä and T. Turunen

In the language nest, living in balance with nature was emphasised. Therefore, olgun lihkadeapmi [outdoor activities] were a crucial part of everyday practice. Children were taught to find objects and to develop the means for outdoor play by using nature. This can be called exploratory education through primary functions. We are in the outdoor space when one child finds a timberman beetle [a fairly big insect]. He shouts at others to watch. They put the timberman beetle to the snout of a stick and walk around the yard. All the kids want to keep the stick. They wander around with the stick. (Diary 16.6.2015)

The extract illustrates the children’s straightforward relationship with nature. The outdoor spaces were designed to emphasise the Sámi culture’s learning environment. The language nest was located in the middle of nature and included a goahti [a Sámi hut], elliid bálggis [animal trail], sáttolođá [sandbox], and gárdi [reindeer fence]. During outdoor activities, the children used plastic four-wheel mopeds as all-terrain vehicles, a suohpan (a lariat-like rope, important in reindeer herding), and wooden knives. These objects were similar to those used in personnel’s everyday work. This supported the Sámi pedagogical principle that children should learn to use and care for their tools through play. For example, a wooden knife was viewed as a real knife. We are in the outdoor space and watch the children playing. One of them grabs a wooden knife and starts running around. The educator goes to him. She stops the child, squats in front of him and asks, ‘Lávego du áhčči viehkat niibbi gieđas?’ [‘Does your father run with a knife in his hand?’]. (Diary 19.5.2015)

In summary, the primary function activities were conducted in Sámi and were based on Sámi culture. The cultural values of Sámi education could, therefore, be recognised in everyday life in the language nest. The primary activities consisted of daily care, activities related to care, and necessary activities in the language nest. All activities were permeated by Sámi language activities based on Sámi culture.

10.4.2  Secondary Functions: Learning Sámi Culture The secondary functions were categorised into seven themes: fáddáoahpahus [theme teaching], bagadallon iđitboddu [morning circle], muitaleapmi ja máidnasiid máilbmi [storytelling], stohkosat ja bargobihtát mat ovddidit giellamáhtu [games and tasks that develop language skills], guossit mat ovdanbuktet kultuvrralaš sisdoalu [visitors as producers of cultural content], and sierra jahkodatáiggiid doaimmat [annual-cycle-related activities]. In the language nest, all activities were based on the sierra jahkodatáiggiid doaimmat [Sámi annual cycle]. The overarching theme for the entire operating period (2014–2015) was nature and nature cycle activities. The cycle of nature-­ related themes followed the goals of the Sámi Early Childhood Education Plan (Sámi Parliament 2009). The activities followed the Sámi annual cycle with eight seasons, and thus varied according to the seasons and resources available. In

10  North Sámi Language Nests in Northern Finland: A Case Study of Sámi Early…

141

addition, the language nest implemented the cultural values of Sámi ECEC, which were reflected in the design of the themes. Themes were an important part of the iđitboddu [morning circle], which was a pre-planned activity and an integral part of the morning routine in which all children participated. The morning circle is widely used in ECEC practices, but in the language nest, it was used as an important pedagogical tool. The iđitboddu was based on Sámi pedagogical practices and supported children’s ownership of their education (Balto, 1997). During the iđitboddu, language played a significant role, and the educators directed children to use it. The educators had specific linguistic goals for each circle (e.g., marking the date, weather, and birthdays). In addition, the language nest days were divided by activity, including mánnodat: speallan [Monday: gaming], disdat: buđaldeapmi [Tuesday: crafting], gasaskvahkku: lávlun [Wednesday: singing], duoras: datmálen [Thursday: painting], and bearjadat: máinnast [Friday: storytelling]. The following example highlights the pedagogical practices employed during the iđitboddu. Before dawn, the educator guided the children towards the use of the Sámi language by asking, ‘Mii lea min iđitbottu giella?’ [‘What is the language of our morning circle?’]. The second part is as follows: The second part of the morning circle is kept outside. The kids go out to get dressed, excited knowing that next, we’re going to identify animal traces. In the yard, we are looking at a card containing figures of animal traces with the purpose of matching the animal and its tracks. Children are excited; for them, this is a familiar task. The elk trail is so easy! They scream and continue to the next card. (Diary 23.9.2014)

The second example illustrates the specific cultural practices part of the iđitboddu: The morning circle with joiking [Sámi singing] is about to end. Children can play different musical instruments, and pretend that they are animals in the forest. Pretending to be an angry bear seemed to be especially fun. The children were also eager to play the drum. The joiking morning ends with joiking in the circle. (Diary 28.4.2015)

Muitaleapmi ja máidnasiid máilbmi [storytelling] was an integral part of the daily practices and was often combined with primary functions. For example, when it was nap time, the educator either read the children a book or played them a CD. In addition, stories were utilised in the iđitboddu and during playtime. Also, some visitors told stories as part of their programme. Storybooks in Sámi were available to the children. Stories were also created in the goahti [a Sámi hut], where children and educators gathered by the fire. The goahti is an important place in Sámi culture, providing a learning environment where people traditionally sit by the fire and tell stories. The kids were lying around the fire, and everything was calm. The educator read a Sámi story aloud as the fire crackled slowly. (Diary 16.6.2015)

The stories were often associated with some activities and play. In addition to puppet shows and storytelling moments, the children produced their own stories using iPads. They also edited short films starring themselves and chose the captions. The topics and events were left up to the children to decide, and the films were viewed

142

R. Äärelä-Vihriälä and T. Turunen

later together. In addition, children made their own storybooks with their own drawings in them. Stohkosat ja bargobihtát mat ovddidit giellamáhtu [games and tasks that develop language skills] were used on a daily basis. The Sámi Early Childhood Education Plan (Sámi Parliament 2009) lists various games that can be played, including wolf and reindeer, bear fishing, reindeer separation, notation, animal trace identification, rag, and weather games. The themes for these games were drawn from the surrounding world and events as well as Sámi culture. In addition to these games, the language nest educators and children also invented their own. One day, during the observations, an educator asked the researcher to watch joiking tag, which was one of their own games: I watch the children’s enthusiasm when the educator says they can play joiking tag. The children run laughing around the yard as the educator tries to catch them. There are children joiking everywhere because joiking is the safe place. (Diary 8.6.2015)

The results show that community and cohesion play an important role in Sámi education. Traditionally, children have been brought up as part of the surrounding community, in which the adults have the responsibility and the right to foster them. In the language nest, the connection with the community was safeguarded; the educators were actively engaged with the surrounding community, and the language nest children participated in local cultural events. During these activities, children heard others speak the language, and they were able to use the language naturally outside of the language nest. Guossit mat ovdanbuktet kultuvrralaš sisdoalu [visitors as owners of cultural knowledge] were common in the language nest. For example, the Sámi Children’s Cultural Centre Mánnu organised joiking sessions in the language nest, including two in the autumn term and one in the spring term. Joiking in the spring term was part of the iđitboddu [morning circle]. Children are gathered around the guest on the floor. The guest brings up a soft toy [these toys in the language nests are replicas of real animals, not just ‘teddy bears’], a mountain hare, and shows it to the children while asking questions about what colour it is, and how it changes [according to seasons]. The children participated in the discussion excitedly; the hare is an animal familiar to them. The guest then takes out the drum and performs the mountain hare joik. (Diary 28.4.2015)

The secondary functions were the planned activities of the language nest that are carried out on a daily basis. They created opportunities for a holistic Sámi educational approach. For example, nature and the goahti as a learning environment enabled the use of traditional proverbs in Sámi education, which reinforced the indirect approach of education. Through thematic work, it was possible to add Sámi content to the activities, especially in iđitboddu [morning circles]. When the iđitboddu, which was held in a goahti [a Sámi hut] by the fire, it reinforced the traditional act of fire and being by the fire.

10  North Sámi Language Nests in Northern Finland: A Case Study of Sámi Early…

143

10.5  Discussion The results presented in this chapter form the basis of the Sámi language nesting pedagogy, illustrated in Fig. 10.1. The four colours in the background of Fig. 10.1 represent the Sámi language and the pedagogical framework of language teaching: Sámegiela ealaskahttin [Sámi language revitalisation], Sápmelaš kultuvra [Sámi culture], Sápmelaš bajásgeassin [Sámi education], and giela oahppan [language acquisition]. The colours symbolise the main features of the Sámi lifestyle: red for fire, green for earth, yellow for the sun, and blue for water. The language nesting pedagogy is depicted in Fig. 10.1 as a šiella [cradle ball] in the Sámi environment. The šiella is a protective object given to children to keep evil spirits away and is usually attached to the child’s cradle, bed, carriage, or carrying case. It reflects the language nest pedagogy’s underlining ideology ‘to keep the children safe’ as they learn the Sámi language in the Sámi environment. The šiella is crafted with nine balls, which illustrate the basics of the language nesting pedagogy principles. These are the functions that facilitate language learning. They include the primary activities, the annual nature cycle, community and visitors as resources, small group pedagogy, theme teaching, morning classes, language learning games, storytelling, and material resources. Language immersion as a fundamental feature of language nesting pedagogy is part of Sámi pedagogy. Sámi pedagogy has special characteristics related to adapting learning environments and the roles of learners and educators to the Sámi culture and combining the development of educational sciences with traditional Sámi knowledge and education (Keskitalo et al., 2014). The results of the present study promote individual freedom and choice, which are key elements of Sámi pedagogy.

Fig. 10.1  Sámigielat giellabeasis pedagogihkka [Sámi language nesting pedagogy]

144

R. Äärelä-Vihriälä and T. Turunen

These elements were present in activities that emphasised oktavuohta lundui [connection to nature], iešbirgejupmi [well-being], iešráđálašvuohta [self-reliance], gierdevašvuohta [endurance], and friddjavuohta [freedom].

10.6  Implications and Future Recommendations The status of language nests should be strengthened at the national level through policy and guidelines to make nests a permanent activity. This approach primarily involves ensuring that Sámi children have equal access to Sámi language ECEC. To achieve this, the measures proposed in the Ministry of Education and Culture’s action program for the revitalisation of the Sámi language should be used and further promoted (Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture, 2012, 2014). This is essential for Sámi communities to heal from their colonial past. Time is passing, and language nests are required to strengthen the language connection between generations. Language nest activities should be based on the Sámi Early Childhood Education Plan, which could be supported by language nest educators. For example, the Early Childhood Education Plan in the Utsjoki municipality extensively addresses the priorities of ECEC in the Sámi language (Utsjoen kunta, 2017). Accordingly, the Sodankylä municipality’s Early Childhood Education Plan (Sodankylän kunta, 2017) is entirely based on language nest pedagogy, and its implementation involves the early completion of a language nest. Language nest pedagogy is part of Sámi pedagogy, which is based on the values of Sámi education. As highlighted in this article, language nest pedagogy goes through the primary and secondary functions and the Sámi language and culture are intertwined in both of them. These functions of language nest pedagogy should be further researched and developed as a part of language nest activities. The role of the Sámi language nests as key to language revitalisation is indisputable. The ability of language nests to revitalise the whole community should be highlighted through research across disciplines. The language nest reflects the current situation, needs, aspirations, scars of the past, and hope for the future of the entire Sámi community. Acknowledgements  Work on this chapter was funded by Kieli- ja kulttuuritietoinen koulutus hanke DivED [Language and culturally respective education-project DivED] (OKM/75/523/2017)], Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture.

10  North Sámi Language Nests in Northern Finland: A Case Study of Sámi Early…

145

References Äärelä, R. (2016). Dat ii leat dušše dat giella. Se ei ole vain se kieli: Tapaustutkimus saamenkielisestä kielipesästä saamelaisessa varhaiskasvatuksessa. [Dat ii leat dušše dat giella: A case study of a Sámi language nest in Sámi early childhood education]. Lapin yliopisto. Aikio, A. (2010). Olmmošhan gal birge: Áššit mat ovddidit birgema [A human being can bear up: Things that help you to succeed]. ČálliidLágádus. Balto, A. (1997). Sámi mánáidbajásgeassin nuppástuvvá [Sámi education is changing]. Notam Gyldendal. Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture. (2012). Toimenpideohjelma saamen kielen elvyttämiseksi [Proposal for action to revitalise Sámi language]. Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture. (2014). Valtioneuvoston periaatepäätös toimenpideohjelmaksi saamen kielen elvyttämiseksi [Decision of the Council of State for a proposal for action to revitalise Sámi language]. Fishman, J. (1991). Reversing language shift: Theoretical and empirical foundations of assistance to threatened languages. Multilingual Matters. Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1995). Ethnography: Principles in practice. Routledge. Harju-Luukkainen, H. (2007). Kielikylpydidaktiikkaa kehittämässä: 3–6-vuotiaiden kielikylpylasten kielellinen kehitys ja kielikylpydidaktiikan kehittäminen päiväkodissa [Advancing language bath pedagogy: 3–6-year children’s linguistic development and developing language bath pedagogy in yearly years setting]. Åbo Akademi University Press. Hinton, L., & Meek, B. A. (2016). Language acquisition, shift, and revitalization processes in the USA and Canada. In S. M. Coronel-Molina & T. L. McCarty (Eds.), The handbook of indigenous language revitalization in the Americas (pp. 92–120). Routledge. Hoëm, A. (2009). Sámi dutkan [Sámi research]. In J. Keskitalo, K. Nystad, & T. Pettersen (Eds.), Sámi oahpahus – sámi dutkan – sámi ásahus [Sámi teaching – Sámi research – Sámi institution] (pp. 53–58). Sámi allaskuvla 20 jagi. Fagtrykk Idé as. Irvine, H., & Gaffikin, M. (2006). Getting in, getting on and getting out: Reflections on a qualitative research project. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 19(1), 115–145. Joks, S. (2007). Boazodoalu máhtut áiggis áigái – Etniid doaibma árbevirolaš oahpaheamis boazodoalus [Reindeer herding skills from time to time – Mothers’ activities in traditional teaching of reindeer herding]. Dieđut 3/2007. Sámi allaskuvla. Keskitalo, P. (2017). Kultursensitiiva Sámi skuvla [Culture-sensitive Sámi school]. Davvi Girji. Keskitalo, P., Lehtola, V-P., & Paksuniemi, M. (2014). Johdatus saamelaisten kansanopetuksen ja koulunkäynnin historiaan [introduction to the history of Sámi folk schooling and studying]. In P. Keskitalo, V-P. Lehtola, & M. Paksuniemi (Eds.), Saamelaisten kansanopetuksen ja koulunkäynnin historia Suomessa [The history of sami folk schooling and studying in Finland] (pp. 13–28). Siirtolaisinstituutti. Kettukangas, T. (2017). Perustoiminnot-käsite varhaiskasvatuksessa [Concept of basic activities in early childhood education]. University of Eastern Finland. Available online http://urn.fi/URN: ISBN:978-­952-­61-­2574-­9 Kuokkanen, R. (2009). Boaris dego eana. Eamiálbmogiid diehtu, filosofiijat ja dutkan [Old as the earth. Indigenous knowledge, philosophy and research]. ČálliidLágádus. Laiti, M. (2018). Saamelaisen varhaiskasvatuksen toteutus Suomessa [The implementation of Sámi early childhood education in Finland]. Lapin yliopisto. Laurén, C. (2008). Varhain monikieliseksi. Kielen oppimisen teoriaa ja käytäntöä [To become multilingual early: Theory and practice of language learning]. Gummerus. Lehtola, V-P. (2015). Saamelaiskiista – Sortaako Suomi alkuperäiskansaansa [Sámi dispute – does Finland oppress its’ indigenous people]. Into. Love, N., & Ansaldo, U. (2010). The native speaker and the mother tongue. Language Sciences, 32(6), 589–593. Mård, K. (1996). Kielikylpyopettajan kaksi roolia päiväkodissa [Two roles of the language nest educator in the early childhood setting]. In M.  Buss & C.  Laurén (Eds.), Kielikylpy:

146

R. Äärelä-Vihriälä and T. Turunen

Kielitaitoon käytön kautta [Language bath: To language proficiency by using it] (pp. 31–45). Vaasan yliopisto. Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 160940691773384. Olthuis, M.-L., Kivelä, S., & Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2013). Revitalising indigenous languages. How to recreate a lost generation? Multilingual Matters. Pasanen, A. (2015). Kuávsui já peeivičuovâ. ‘Sarastus ja päivänvalo’. Inarinsaamen kielen revitalisaatio. [Kuávsui já peeivičuovâ, or ‘Dawn and daylight’: The revitalisation of Inari Uralica Sámi]. Helsingin yliopisto. Porsanger, J. & Guttorm, G. (2011). Building up the field of study and research on Sami traditional knowledge árbediehtu. In J. Porsanger & G. Guttorm (Eds.), Working with traditional knowledge: Communities, institutions, information systems, law and ethics (pp.  98–125). Dieđut 1/2011. Sámi allaskuvla. Rigney, L. I. (1999). Internationalization of an indigenous anticolonial cultural critique of research methodologies. Wicazo Sa Review, 14(2), 109–122. Sámi Parliament. (2006). Saamelaisten kestävän kehityksen ohjelma [Sámi sustainable development agenda]. Saamelaiskäräjät. Sámi Parliament. (2009). Saamelainen varhaiskasvatussuunnitelma [Sámi early childhood education plan]. Saamelaiskäräjät. Sámi Parliament. (2013). Saamelaisen varhaiskasvatuksen arjen käytäntöjen opas [Sámi early childhood education everyday practice]. Saamelaiskäräjät. Sámi Parliament. (2019). Saamelaiskäräjien mahdollisuudet hallinnoida ja järjestää saamelaisten kulttuuri- ja kielipesätoimintaa [Sámi Parliament possibilities to administer and organise the pursuits of Sámi culture and language nest]. Saamelaiskäräjät. Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2000). Linguistic genocide in education or worldwide diversity and human rights? Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Sodankylän kunta. (2017). Sodankylän kunnan pohjoissaamenkielisten kielipesien varhaiskasvatussuunnitelma 2017. [Early education plan for the Sámi language nests in the municipality of Sodankylä 2017.] Tuhiwai Smith, L. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. Zed Books. UNESCO. (2019). Atlas of the world’s languages in danger. http://www.unesco.org/culture/ languages-­atlas/. Utsjoen kunta. (2017). Utsjoen kunnan varhaiskasvatussuunnitelma. [Utsjoki municipality’s early childhood education plan]. Vuolab, K. (2000). Such a treasure of knowledge for human survival. In R. Phillipson (Ed.), Rights to language: Equity, power and education (pp. 13–16). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. WINHEC Research and Journal Working Group. (2010). Research Standards (1st ed.).

Chapter 11

My Story, Your Story, Our Story: Reciprocal Listening and Participation Through Storycrafting in Early Childhood Education and Care Anna-Leena Lastikka and Liisa Karlsson

Abstract  Although the revised early childhood education and care (ECEC) legislation and the Core Curriculum for ECEC in Finland demand that children’s initiatives and interests are considered, children’s potential to affect decision-making and pedagogical processes is scarce. Thus, there is a need for developing reciprocal listening and participation in ECEC. The objective of this study is to explore the benefits of the Storycrafting Method, a Finnish narrative method, for children and ECEC personnel. The research data consists of earlier studies on Storycrafting, archives of storycrafted stories and ECEC professionals’ experiences and research diaries to achieve a profound and holistic understanding of the benefits of the method. Through thematic analysis, it was found that Storycrafting strengthens children’s lives and the working practices and pedagogy of teachers and other ECEC professionals. Using the method regularly improves children’s self-esteem, is natural for children because of its playfulness, promotes reciprocal and participatory listening and promotes children’s own rich culture, experiences and thoughts. For teachers and other ECEC professionals, the method provides a deeper understanding of children’s lives, thoughts and actions. Instead of only hearing and evaluating them, teachers have learned to listen to and understand children.

11.1  Introduction In today’s early childhood education and care (ECEC) policies and pedagogy, particularly in Finland and other Nordic countries, children’s participation has become a central paradigm: children are seen as active agents who learn and develop through A.-L. Lastikka (*) · L. Karlsson University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 H. Harju-Luukkainen et al. (eds.), Finnish Early Childhood Education and Care, Early Childhood Research and Education: An Inter-theoretical Focus 1, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95512-0_11

147

148

A.-L. Lastikka and L. Karlsson

interaction with other people and their environment (Finnish Education Evaluation Centre, 2019; Finnish National Agency for Education, 2018; Kangas & Lastikka, 2019; Karlsson, 2018a, 2020; Vlasov et  al., 2018; Weckström et  al., 2020). In Finland, the National Core Curriculum for ECEC (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2018) and the Act on Early Childhood Education and Care (540/2018) acknowledge children’s active participation and the significance of children’s roles in creating an ECEC culture and pedagogical learning environments. Furthermore, in the Finnish ECEC policies, it is seen that learning is effective when children actively engage, reflect and explore together with others (e.g., Burgess et al., 2019; Finnish National Agency for Education, 2018; Rogoff et al., 2018; Säljö, 2014). The focus is on encouraging social interactions and relationships between children, their families and ECEC personnel (e.g., Finnish National Agency of Education, 2018; Kumpulainen, 2018). The most positive experiences for children deal with inspiring and enabling material environments, responsive personnel, peer groups and opportunities for meaningful activities in the ECEC context (Boström, 2017; Lipponen et al., 2018; Puroila et al., 2012; Sandseter & Seland, 2015). In Finland, the premises of ECEC policies are built on children’s participation: children should experience a sense of belonging and have opportunities to make initiatives. Therefore, children’s wishes, proposals, ideas and questions should be listened to and used in planning, implementation and evaluation (see e.g., Finnish National Agency for Education, 2018; Kangas & Lastikka, 2019; Karlsson, 2020; Karlsson et al., 2018b; Weckström et al., 2017, 2020). Participation is seen to actualise in reciprocal interaction among active, equal, capable and creative agents, who can have an effect on shared decision-making and activities (see also, e.g., Berthelsen, 2009; Corsaro, 2011; Kangas, 2016; Kangas & Lastikka, 2019; Sheridan & Samuelsson, 2001). Hence, interaction, which encompasses listening, dialogue and participation seems to be crucial for children. However, ECEC teachers and other ECEC professionals consider planning and implementing ECEC pedagogy is easier without taking into account children’s participation and that children’s potential to affect decision-making and pedagogical processes is scarce (Forde et  al., 2018; Hudson, 2012; Kangas, 2016; Kangas & Brotherus, 2017; Leinonen & Venninen, 2012; Virkki, 2015). Therefore, there is a need to study methods that enhance shared participation and reciprocal listening in the ECEC pedagogy. The Storycrafting method (Karlsson, 2013; Riihelä, 1991) offers one solution to this need. In this chapter, we study the benefits of Storycrafting for children, teachers and other ECEC professionals. The aim is to encourage ECEC teachers and other ECEC professionals to engage in reciprocal interaction, particularly listening carefully to what children want to share. This in turn will help teachers in their professional development (see also, Weckström et al., 2020) and in the construction of a culture of participation in which children can be involved in the planning, implementation and evaluation of ECEC activities together with ECEC personnel (Karlsson, 2020).

11  My Story, Your Story, Our Story: Reciprocal Listening and Participation…

149

11.2  The Storycrafting Method Storycrafting (Karlsson, 2014; Riihelä, 1991) is a narrative and listening method that encourages the sense of community and interaction in which a free-flowing narrative, a new fairy tale or story is created between the narrator and the storycrafter as the listener records everything word-for-word. In Storycrafting, children can express themselves with the words they have chosen and describe the topic in which they are interested. Afterwards, the story is always read aloud and the children can correct or change it if they wish. In other words, in Storycrafting, children have the last word on their own stories. In the process of the development of the Storycrafting method, the word-for-word recording and the opportunity for the child to make corrections has proven (Karlsson, 2013) to be of vital importance even though children seldom want to correct anything. This guarantees that children can be sure that their meaning was understood. At the same time, it is meaningful for the teacher to listen to the child.

11.2.1  Background and Theoretical Framework of the Method Storycrafting is the only Finnish method, selected from among hundreds of proposals, to qualify as a functional model for promoting children’s mental health (Mental Health Europe, 1999). It has also been nominated among 100 social innovations from Finland (Taipale, 2015) and rewarded in global education (Kepa, 2004). The method is a result of research and development that have not only been implemented in ECEC and schools but also libraries, work communities and home settings. Museums, cultural, social and therapeutic agencies, refugee camps and reception centres, nursing homes, and disability services can also employ this method when necessary or desired. The method was developed in Finland in the 1980s and 1990s, when there was a need to construct more equal and interactive relationships between professionals and children. Monika Riihelä (1991) found that using structured tests alone did not help with understanding children’s thinking. She wanted to develop a method that could help with understanding and listening to children’s thoughts, descriptions of their lives and reasoning. Thus, there was a need for a method that would allow for listening to children’s thoughts as they described them. The narrative knowledge gained through Storycrafting is quite different from a traditional logic-rationalistic approach (Bruner, 1996; Gubrium & Holstein, 2008). Narrative knowledge allows educators s to understand personal feelings and meanings and examine emotional and motivational dimensions. Through stories created by children, it is possible to gain information on their preoccupations and how they experience and perceive various subjects and their meanings (see also Karlsson, 2013). The theoretical background of Storycrafting rests on a sociocultural-historical tradition that views human development as the result of cultural, social, material and

150

A.-L. Lastikka and L. Karlsson

historical processes, as well as the intentions of active agents (Bruner, 1996; Cole, 1996; Corsaro, 2011; Karlsson, 2016; Rogoff, 2003, 2008). Storycrafting views individuals as naturally interactive beings exercising agency and the ability to learn, create information, affect the world around them and grow through empowering experiences with others.

11.2.2  Storycrafting in Practice Storycrafting includes five essential phases (see also, Karlsson, 2013): (1) verbatim (telling the story), (2) writing down the story in the presence of the child, (3) reading aloud the written story, (4) incorporating the narrator’s possible corrections and (5) reading the story aloud to other listeners or publishing it if the storyteller allows. Each phase is significant, because in each phase, the story emerges cooperatively between the narrator and the scribe (the storycrafter) in a new way. Storycrafting always begins with the storycrafter proposing to the child: Please tell a story that you would like to tell. I will write it down, just as you tell it. When the story is finished, I will read it aloud. If at that point, you can correct the story or make changes, if you wish. (CAT, 2020; Karlsson, 2013; Riihelä, 2001)

The instruction involves the storycrafter’s desire to listen to the child (“Please tell a story that you would like to tell”). It does not necessarily need to be a story: the storycrafter can stress that thoughts, ideas, wishes, sounds or utterance can be written down as well. After that, the storycrafter writes down exactly as the child speaks and finally reads it aloud. If the child wishes, the story can be corrected according to the child’s own wishes. Finally, the story can be read aloud to the child or other listeners. It is crucial to stress to children that they have the copyright on their own work by asking the child if the story can be read to others or made into a book and published. To grasp the children’s perspectives on Storycrafting and stories, we will provide a story told by four-year-old children (Aki, Reima, Tuomas and Rosa): What is a story? A story is telling. A story is the mouth movement. A story is not snow. What if a story was snow? A story is listening. A story is yellow. Listening to a story is being silent. A story means that we are quiet when the other tells the story. A story is white paper. A story is writing on paper. A story is a flash of light. A story is playing and singing. A story is climbing. A story is listening with a cat. A story is playing in a sandbox. A story is a story.

11  My Story, Your Story, Our Story: Reciprocal Listening and Participation…

151

Fig. 11.1  The elements of Storycrafting

11.3  Elements of Storycrafting In Storycrafting (see Fig.  11.1), there are five elements important for reciprocal listening and participation: (1) narrating freely and space; (2) promoting creativity, imagination, play and learning; (3) active and reciprocal listening; (4) acknowledging children and (5) encountering dialogically. In Fig. 11.1, we have illustrated the course of Storycrafting, which begins by giving free space and time for a child to discuss what is on his/her mind and what he or she particularly wants to share. During this free narration, the child’s creativity, imagination, learning and play are promoted and encouraged. In the Storycrafting process, ECEC teachers and other ECEC professionals genuinely listen to children and take them seriously. With the collaboration of a teacher, a child actively participates and engages in creating his or her own story; this process usually leads to a feeling of empowerment.

11.3.1  Narrating Freely and Space Narrating freely and space is an important element: in Storycrafting, a child, or a group of children, tell a story of their own choice and the teacher writes the story down exactly as it has been told without correcting the story, asking questions or making suggestions. The narrator’s own story is interesting just as it is; it can consist of a few words or sentences or even of sounds. When the story is finished, the storycrafter reads it aloud so that the child or children can change the story if they choose. It is crucial to remember that simply writing down the story is not Storycrafting. Storycrafting is always based on a dialogue, interaction, and willingness of the storycrafter, the recording teacher, to genuinely listen to the story and

152

A.-L. Lastikka and L. Karlsson

thoughts of the child in that particular situation. The dialogue in Storycrafting begins, when the storycrafter encourages a child to tell his or her story or a group of children to tell their shared story. Teachers and other ECEC professionals can also tell their story by themselves or in a group to a storycrafter who wants to listen.

11.3.2  Promoting Creativity, Imagination, Play and Learning When children participate in storycrafting, an element of promotion of creativity, imagination, learning and play is added to their experience. They create something new and creative and use their imagination in a playful way. These are essential elements when learning is participatory and active (see also Boström, 2017) involved with joy. The following story of a four and a half-year-old child describes well the use of creativity, imagination and play in Storycrafting: Once upon a time, a squirrel weaved giant mittens in his nest and gave them to the turtle. But then it went to its friend’s mouse and gave him the other giant-size mitten. And then it tinkled his watch at home for the whole forest, even for the tiger, who woke up to the noise and the little bear that woke up to it. Then the little bear left for the river, the little tiger came along. And then the little tiger went to collect mushrooms. Then there was a fly that built a nest in the cloud. You can’t live in the cloud. And then there was a flood and they all decided to sleep past the flood, but no one can win the flood by sleeping, you can’t! (Storycrafted in an ECEC setting)

11.3.3  Active and Reciprocal Listening Active and reciprocal listening is another significant element in Storycrafting. It is crucial that the storycrafter listens attentively, writes everything down and reads the story aloud to the children. The dialogic nature of the method encompasses the sharing of the story and the appreciation of children’s ways of seeing. A dialogue does not necessarily need words: active and respective listening, approving and acknowledging are important parts of Storycrafting as a four-year-old girl explains in a description of her experiences: It’s nice when an adult writes down and I can tell whatever I want to. The nicest thing is to tell alone, I don’t want anyone to laugh if I have a funny story. Sometimes I wonder for 45 minutes and sometimes just for one minute, and then I’ll start to tell. (Storycrafted in an ECEC setting)

11.3.4  Acknowledging Children Another principal element of the method is acknowledging children; the objective of not to ask the child questions about his or her traumatic experiences or about the happy things in life or the subject of the lesson. The main idea is to be genuinely

11  My Story, Your Story, Our Story: Reciprocal Listening and Participation…

153

interested in listening, giving a voice to children and providing the space and freedom for them to decide on the topics they want to tell, as well as how and when.

11.3.5  Encountering Dialogically The fifth element of Storycrafting is encountering dialogically. Storycrafting is different from many other methods, because the primary aim is not to teach the structure of a story but to listen to children and the story they want to tell. The storycrafters’s focus is on reciprocal and dialogical listening and on the premise that all children have something interesting and crucial to say regardless of age, gender, cultural background, level of education or degree of disability. In a Storycrafting process, the underlying assumption is that everyone has unique thoughts, information and stories that are important. An experienced teacher emphasises this point as follows. Nowadays, every day in different situations, a teacher stop to listen to the child and his or her thoughts in our early childhood education setting. When teaching staff have learned to get to know children better by listening to their own unique thoughts and interests, they have also grown to be interested in knowing more. And when there is time for the child to speak and talk, the teacher gradually has a much better picture of how many topics this child knows about. (A teacher in early childhood education and care)

11.4  Methods 11.4.1  Research Data In this study, the data consists of the combination of literature review, archives of storycrafted stories and research diaries in order to achieve a profound and holistic understanding of the benefits of Storycrafting for children, ECEC teachers and other ECEC professionals (see Fig. 11.2). Literature review was applied to acquire an in-depth and integrated synthesis (Torraco, 2005) of the benefits of the method. In the beginning, the first author of this study identified the relevant research on Storycrafting by searching electronic databases to identify relevant studies. Both older literature and recently published studies were examined. Search terms included the term “Storycrafting”. After choosing the sources (Angersaari, 2011; Children Are Telling, 2020; Finnish Social Science Data Archive (n.d.); Hakomäki, 2013; Hohti & Karlsson, 2013; Karlsson, 2000, 2009, 2012; Karlsson & Karimäki, 2012; Karlsson et al., 2014, 2019; KOTO Project, 2019; Lähteenmäki, 2013; Lindqvist, 2012; Piipponen & Karlsson, 2019; Riihelä, 2000, 2002; Storybridges, 2019), we chose the full texts to include as data for this study.

154

A.-L. Lastikka and L. Karlsson

Fig. 11.2  Overview of the research data

The storycrafted stories and ECEC professionals’ experiences have been archived in the national Finnish Social Science Data Archive (1995–2015), Storyride Project (1995–1998), KOTO Project (2016–2017), and Storybridges Project (2016–2018). The focus in this article is on the Storycrafting experiences of ECEC teachers and other ECEC professionals and on storycrafted stories told by one to seven-year-old children. The first author has been involved in building the Storybridges Project Archive (2016–2019). The second author of this article has been involved in building the national Finnish Social Science Data Archive (1995–2015), Children Are Telling Archive (2000–2019) and KOTO Project Archive (2016–2017). In addition, the research diaries of the first author (2016–2019) and the second author (1988–2019) have been used in the analysis.

11.4.2  Data Analysis In the data analysis, the thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006), which is a widely used method for analysing qualitative data, was applied. First, the selected studies were read through several times and recurring central themes across the research were identified. After this, the research diaries, storycrafted stories and ECEC personnel’s experiences related to the objective of this study were reviewed. During this phase, the first author generated preliminary themes from the whole data. These preliminary themes were reviewed after which the coherent themes (Braun & Clarke, 2006) were determined.

11.4.3  Ethics Additional informed consent was obtained from all individual participants for whom identifying information is included in this chapter and the research was performed in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration

11  My Story, Your Story, Our Story: Reciprocal Listening and Participation…

155

of Helsinki and its later amendments, as well as in the ethical guidelines by National Advisory Board on Research Ethics (2009).

11.5  Results In this section, we answer our research question by examining the benefits of Storycrafting for children, ECEC teachers and other ECEC professionals. First, the benefits for children will be described and second, the benefits for ECEC teachers and other ECEC professionals will be presented in greater detail.

11.5.1  The Benefits of the Method for Children For children, Storycrafting was found to be beneficial in diverse aspects: first, the results show that the method is suitable for all children and can be used with children of diverse backgrounds. Although the method has mostly been applied with majority children, it is also applicable in diverse contexts for minority children or children in other categories such as children with disabilities or vulnerable life experiences like immigrant or refugee backgrounds. All these children have been given a new imaginative possibility to describe their problems through Storycrafting. Roma children, who have been storycrafted, have revealed a sense of community and caring about each other but also discrimination and exposure to bullying. The method was also found to be a natural way to use language in immigrant education as it generates encouragement, motivation and opportunities to practise different areas of language. In addition, the results indicate that Storycrafting is effective in intercultural learning; it helps children to have a participatory role and explore their own experiences and identities through intercultural encounters when exchanging stories. Furthermore, although Storycrafting is not a method for learning to write and read, our research shows that children have learnt these abilities, because in Storycrafting, children usually follow what a teacher or a professional is writing down and sees how speech becomes a text and finally, when the story is being read aloud, it becomes speech again. Through Storycrafting, children’s self-esteem, self-respect and well-being were found to have increased and their uniqueness and empowerment have been promoted. When children have genuinely been heard and encountered as they are, they become encouraged and empowered children. Many teachers have experienced that the most memorable stories are the ones told by a shy, quiet or even wild child, who has found the courage to tell a story. Our research data demonstrates that one crucial aspect is the moment or process of Storycrafting, not only the story itself. Storycrafting creates shared empowering moments; joy, fun, humour and a special encounter are often present in these

156

A.-L. Lastikka and L. Karlsson

moments even though children may report their difficult or traumatic life events. Telling about positive or humorous incidents might have healing effects or turn the Storycrafting moment into a pleasant and warm encounter. For example, immigrant, refugee and asylum-seeking children, whose families may have had difficult or even traumatic experiences, have been able to share their thoughts through Storycrafting. For some children, these Storycrafting moments have been found to be important, because someone has wanted to hear particularly them and has had time to do so. Children’s gestures, expressions and willingness to tell stories expressed the empowerment children felt. The results show that through Storycrafting, children can bring forward several aspects of human life in their own way, as the story of Aada about the funeral of her grandmother shows: The grandmother Hilu has really died that the mother will have a bad mood, no but a sad mind. Then it will be placed in the coffin and then the person heals there. It is burned - then it is put in the oven and it gets better. It is placed on the ground and then it grows into trees or leaves or grass or lawns, and of course mud as well. I have a party dress. Well, when I go to grandmother Hilu’s party, I need to have a party dress like that. It will be the death ceremony of grandmother Hilu. (Research data; a three-year-old girl, Aada, storycrafted in an ECEC setting)

This story has been documented by an ECEC teacher, who had observed that Aada had been concerned about her grandmother’s illness and one day she had a particular need to talk about it. The teacher used Storycrafting in which Aada had a chance to tell about her thoughts on her grandmother’s death and funeral and the teacher learned what was on Aada’s mind. The results show that it is crucial that children are able to report anything they want to, because if they are restricted, children will easily sense that they cannot fulfil teachers’ and professionals’ expectations; in Storycrafting, it is vital that children experience a sense of competence and acceptance.

11.5.2  T  he Benefits of the Method for ECEC Teachers and Other ECEC Professionals Next, we will describe the benefits of Storycrafting for ECEC teachers and other professionals in ECEC. The results show that the method provides a deeper understanding of children’s lives, thoughts and actions. Instead of only hearing, teachers and professionals have learned to listen and understand rather than simply evaluate children. In my work, I am enthusiastic about using the Storycrafting Method, because it gives me freedom not to correct (children). I often find out through Storycrafting that I have the very opposite ideas of the child’s narrative, when compared to other exercises. The child’s know-­ how emerges. (Research data, the speech therapist tells about her experiences on Storycrafting)

11  My Story, Your Story, Our Story: Reciprocal Listening and Participation…

157

It was also found that the method has encouraged teachers to approach children’s narratives in a participatory way, which allows different spaces to work with matters important for children; through Storycrafting children’s voices reveal what has previously been unseen. Children’s stories can create spaces in which children are able to participate in the surrounding communities in a meaningful way. Moreover, the dialogic and reciprocal teaching and learning opportunities have been accomplished involving processes of reciprocal listening and telling. Additionally, Storycrafting generates a peaceful atmosphere, where teachers and other professionals have an opportunity to stop and listen to children. This in turn enhances learning from each other, positive relationships, community spirit and the promotion of the culture of participation. It is crucial that children’s experiences, views and thoughts are acknowledged while dialogue and reflection develop among all participants. Importantly, teachers and professionals learned to truly listen to children; before using Storycrafting, when asked about their news, children answered briefly but after teachers began to use the method, children’s answers were heard as the teachers were genuinely interested in them. By writing down the child’s narratives and actions, the educator becomes sensitive to listening and observing. In this way, the educator becomes involved in the child’s mindset and learns to listen more carefully to the child’s narration. The child receives the educator’s entire attention in the Storycrafting situation and his/her self-esteem is strengthened, because his/her story is written down and later read aloud. (Research data; ECEC teacher)

Additionally, changes in the culture of participation in ECEC have occurred through using Storycrafting as one of the methods; reciprocal interactions, as well as children’s and teachers’ experiences of active participation have increased. Storycrafting was also proved to be effective in pedagogical documentation, as the following excerpt shows: As a result, personnel have a great evaluation tool. Personally, I have always documented the children a lot, because it has been easy and natural for me. We’ve said that it [documentation] is not easy for everyone. But now it seems that it has increased enormously. Those who have done it have found it important. It’s easier to follow a child’s learning. The image of a child as an individual is highlighted. (Research data; an ECEC teacher)

Our data shows that through Storycrafting, teachers have learnt to know children in a new way. Furthermore, for children who have been timid and quiet or rambunctious or “wild”, Storycrafting has been useful, because they have been able to receive positive feedback. Furthermore, teachers have discovered what children think, wonder and worry about. This information has been used in planning activities or projects, which in turn has brought meaningful experiences and a sense of agency in the surrounding world. Children believe in their own work and are bold in their expression, whether it is Storycrafting or drawing a picture or any creative activity. We have found that the courage to take initiative in planning activities has increased. They want to make their opinions more public. Over the years, we personnel also dare to give more space to the versatile, inexhaustible ideals pool of children. Shared planning is enriching. (Research data; an ECEC teacher)

158

A.-L. Lastikka and L. Karlsson

Table 11.1  The process and benefits of the storycrafting method The process of storycrafting Writing down the thoughts and story of the narrator Reading aloud the thoughts and story of the narrator

Benefits for children and ECEC personnel Creating a new method Desire to tell one’s when encountering others thoughts to another person Engaging in reciprocal Desire to listen to another listening and dialogue person’s way of seeing the world Allowing the narrator to make Sharing wonders, humour, Respect for the thoughts of corrections to the story excitement and worries others Creation and preservation Giving space and time for nonverbal Savouring the shared of a new narrative culture expression (looks, gestures, feelings) moment and encountering the other person Getting to know the other Participation that is easy Reading the story aloud to other and playful listeners or publishing it in some way person in a new way if the storyteller allows Preserving the thoughts and the story Allowing people of all ages Enjoyable times together of the narrator to participate

11.5.3  Summary of the Results Summing up the benefits for children, ECEC teachers and other ECEC professionals say that Storycrafting has united children, teachers and other professionals due to the moment of sharing stories, thoughts or ideas that have been written down and read aloud. The method has not only highlighted children’s experiences, perspectives and knowledge but also changed the culture in ECEC settings towards reciprocal listening and participation in which all members of the ECEC community play a significant role. The process and benefits of Storycrafting found in this study are summarised in Table 11.1.

11.6  D  iscussion and Implications: From My Story to Our Story The results of this study demonstrate the power of the Storycrafting Method in promoting children’s participation, which has been a central theme in many projects and research, as well as in policy and programme initiatives particularly since the UN Conventions on the Rights of the Child (United Nations, 1989). However, this interest has not always led to the use of appropriate methods (Percy-Smith & Thomas, 2010). In Finland, the revised legislation (Act on Early Childhood Education and Care 540/2018), the Finnish Core Curriculum for ECEC (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2018) and the recent research call for taking children’s active participation into account in ECEC have created challenges. A hectic atmosphere, the number of children, and personnel changes have influenced how

11  My Story, Your Story, Our Story: Reciprocal Listening and Participation…

159

ECEC teachers and other ECEC professionals are able to promote children’s participation (see Weckström et al., 2020). In this study, Storycrafting proved to have a powerful effect. For children, it was found to be empowering, child-friendly, playful, and natural; for ECEC personnel, it was found to be easy to use, increase knowledge of children and their perspectives and generate knowledge for planning and implementation of activities. Furthermore, the method was shown to promote a shared understanding and a sense of togetherness and build reciprocal listening, interaction and participation. This implies that in ECEC, practical methods capturing children’s perspectives, communality and equal interaction, should be embedded in the ECEC pedagogy. This could influence the sense of communal agency (Adair & Colegrove, 2014) in which children act as a group and employ their agency together. This in turn could enhance diversity and equity (see also Lastikka, 2019) in ECEC communities. Furthermore, our study indicates that communality, friendship, action-based methods, experimentation, exploration and humour are important for children, ECEC teachers and other professionals in ECEC. Children also express themselves through playful, creative and imaginative actions (see also, e.g., Kangas et al., 2019; Lastikka & Kangas, 2017). When children and ECEC personnel are engaged in playful learning based on children’s initiatives and active participation, motivation increases (Kangas & Lastikka, 2019; Sheridan & Samuelsson, 2001). Therefore, we argue that Storycrafting, which was found to be a playful and imaginative method, should be regularly utilised in ECEC to promote learning. Initially, there were some doubts and criticisms of the method; first, there is a danger of using the method only to “produce output”. However, Storycrafting is always a dialogic process in which the one who is listening and writing down the story wants to carefully listen to the thoughts of the other person telling the story. Therefore, in Storycrafting, the relationship between children and teachers becomes relevant, because all the participants are active and participate in creating the shared moment of stories. The underlying conception of Storycrafting is that everyone possesses knowledge, which is valuable and worthwhile to share. The listener is positioned differently, because he/she needs to give space to children’s initiatives, perceptions, and thoughts; there should be neither assessment nor one-sided interaction. Through Storycrafting, power relations are equalised, and practices become less controlling (see also, Turja & Vuorisalo, 2017), because teachers accept that children have valuable thoughts that must be considered when planning activities. Thus, the teller can make initiatives. Hence, it is crucial to focus on the knowledge of children and use this knowledge and plan and implement activities and curriculum together with children (see also, Kangas, 2016; Lipponen et al., 2018). This in turn has a positive effect on the children’s experiences of participation and agency together with ECEC personnel in a safe and trustful community. As Storycrafting was found to act as creating shared experiences of participation in which reciprocal listening played a significant role, it implies that ECEC teachers’ and other ECEC professionals’ skills of active listening and dialogue skills should be more stressed (see also, Kekkonen et al., 2017).

160

A.-L. Lastikka and L. Karlsson

Secondly, there is the danger of teachers and educators overinterpreting a story according to their own expectations, because for human beings, it is natural to interpret and picture what one hears or sees. However, in Storycrafting, it is important to note that it is not recommended to overinterpret stories excessively, because only the teller knows if the story is true or not and to what purposes the story can be used. Therefore, story-crafted stories should be seen as “only stories”, not as true, experienced descriptions of life. Despite this fact, when a teacher knows the children being storycrafted, the story can give them a new perspective of the children and their worlds, as well as a moment to encounter each other, share the moment together in that specific time. In this chapter, we have studied Storycrafting and its utility in the promotion of reciprocal listening and participation. We have also brought forward some empirical examples and stories to illustrate the power of the method. The Storycrafting method and its use should continue to be researched. We hope that our study has encouraged researchers, professionals and teachers to apply the method in their work to bring forward children’s own thinking and perspectives but also to promote reciprocal and dialogic listening between all members of the ECEC community. In today’s turbulent world, we argue that reciprocal listening and dialogue should be stressed more in ECEC. Storycrafting can offer an easy but powerful way to stop, listen and learn from one another. It can be applied with all children to promote reciprocal listening and dialogue and an understanding of children’s perspectives and cultures. It is a useful way to support learning and development, pedagogical documentation and diversity education.

References Act on Early Childhood Education and Care. (540/2018). Adair, J. K., & Colegrove, K. S. (2014). Communal agency and social development: Examples from first grade classrooms serving children of immigrants. Asia-Pacific Journal of Research in Early Childhood Education, 8, 69–91. Angersaari, I. (2011). Näkymättömästä näkyväksi  – Romanilasten sadut ja tarinat. Tutkimus kuopiolaisten romanilasten asemasta [from invisible to visible  – Stories and narratives of Roma children. A study of the status of Roma children in the City of Kuopio]. Master’s thesis. University of Eastern Finland. Berthelsen, D. (2009). Participatory learning: Issues for research and practice. In D. Berthelsen, J. Brownlee, & E. Johansson (Eds.), Participatory learning in the early years: Research and pedagogy (pp. 1–11). Routledge. Boström, S. (2017). A dynamic learning concept in early years’ education: A possible way to prevent schoolification. International Journal of Early Years Education, 25(1), 3–15. https://doi. org/10.1080/09669760.2016.1270196 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Harvard University Press. Burgess, C., Tennent, C., Vass, G., Guenther, J., Lowe, K., & Moodie, N. (2019). A systematic review of pedagogies that support, engage and improve the educational outcomes of Aboriginal

11  My Story, Your Story, Our Story: Reciprocal Listening and Participation…

161

students. The Australian Educational Researcher, 46, 297–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s13384-­019-­00315-­5 CAT  – Children Are Telling. (2020). Retrieved from https://lapsetkertovat.org/toimintamme/ sadutus/sadutusohje-­eri-­kielilla/english/ Children Are Telling. (2020). Available at: https://lapsetkertovat.org/toimintamme/sadutus/ sadutusohje-­eri-­kielilla/english/ Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Harvard University Press. Corsaro, W. A. (2011). The sociology of childhood (3rd ed.). Sage Publications. Finnish Education Evaluation Centre. (2019). Quality indicators for early childhood education and care. Summaries, 16, 2019. Available at: https://karvi.fi/app/uploads/2020/03/Quality-­ indicators-­for-­ECEC_summary-­2019.pdf Finnish National Agency for Education (FNAE). (2018). National core curriculum for early childhood education and care. Finnish Social Science Data Archive. (n.d.). Available at: https://services.fsd.uta.fi/catalogue/ FSD2104/PIP/dgF2104.pdf Forde, C., Horgan, D., Martin, S., & Parkes, A. (2018). Learning from children’s voice in schools: Experiences from Ireland. Journal of Educational Change, 19, 489–509. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10833-­018-­9331-­6 Gubrium, J., & Holstein, J. (2008). Narrative ethnography. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Handbook of emergent methods (pp. 241–264). Guilford Publications. Hakomäki, H. (2013). Story composing as a path to a child’s inner world: A collaborative music therapy experiment with a child co-researcher. Doctoral dissertation. University of Jyväskylä. Hohti, R., & Karlsson, L. (2013). Lollipop stories: Listening to children’s voices in the classroom and narrative ethnographical research. Childhood, 1–15. https://doi. org/10.1177/0907568213496655 Hudson, K. (2012). Practitioners' views on involving young children in decision making: Challenges for the children’s rights agenda. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 37(2), 4–9. Kangas, J. (2016). Enhancing children's participation in early childhood education through the participatory pedagogy. Doctoral dissertation. University of Helsinki. Retrieved from https:// helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/159547 Kangas, J., & Brotherus, A. (2017). Osallisuus ja leikki varhaiskasvatuksessa: “Leikittäisiin ja kaikki olis onnellisia!” [Participation and play in early childhood education]. In A. Toom, M., Rautiainen & J.  Tähtinen (Eds.), Toiveet ja todellisuus: Kasvatus osallisuutta ja oppimista rakentamassa (pp.  197–223), Kasvatusalan tutkimuksia Nro 75. Turku: Suomen kasvatustieteellinen seura. Kangas, J., & Lastikka, A-L. (2019). Children’s initiatives in the Finnish early childhood education context. In S. Garvis, H. Harju-Luukkainen, S. Sheridan, & P. Williams (Eds.), Nordic families, children and early childhood education (pp. 15–36). (Studies in childhood and youth). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­030-­16866-­7_2. Kangas, J., Harju-Luukkainen, H., Brotherus, A., Kuusisto, A., & Gearon, L. (2019). Playing to learn in Finland: Early childhood curricular and operational context. In S.  Garvis & S.  Phillipson (Eds.), Policification of early childhood education and care: Early childhood education in the 21st century volume III (pp. 71–85). (Evolving families). Routledge. https:// doi.org/10.4324/9780203730539-­7. Karlsson, L. (2000). Lapsille puheenvuoro  – Ammattikäytännön perinteet murroksessa [Giving children the floor. Transition in the tradition of professional practice]. . Karlsson, L. (2009). To construct a bridge of sharing between child and adult culture with the Storycrafting method. In H.  Ruismäki & I.  Ruokonen (Eds.) 2009: Arts contact points between cultures (pp.  117–128). 1st International Journal of Intercultural Arts Education Conference: Post-Conference Book. Department of Applied Sciences of education. Research report 312. University of Helsinki. Helsinki: Yliopistopaino. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle. net/10138/14969

162

A.-L. Lastikka and L. Karlsson

Karlsson, L. (2012). Lapset toimivat  – Aikuiset valistavat: Lasten kertomuksia syömisestä [Children act – adults educate: children’s stories about eating]. In L. Karlsson & R. Karimäki (Eds.), Sukelluksia lapsinäkökulmaiseen tutkimukseen ja toimintaan [Plunges into research and action in child’s perspective] (pp.  235–283). Suomen Kasvatustieteellinen Seura / The Finnish Educational Research Association. Karlsson, L. (2013). Storycrafting method – To share, participate, tell and listen in practice and research. The European Journal of Social & Behavioral Sciences, Special Volumes VI Design in Mind, 6, 1109–1117. Karlsson, L. (2014). Sadutus: Avain osallisuuden toimintakulttuuriin. [Storycrafting – The key to a dialogical sharing culture]. PS-kustannus. Karlsson, L. (2016). Lapsinäkökulmainen tutkimus ja aineiston tuottaminen [Child perspective research and producing data]. In K. P. Kallio, A. Ritala-Koskinen & N. Rutanen (Eds.), Missä lapsuutta tehdään? [where childhood is done?] Finnish Youth Research Network / Finnish Youth Research Society. Verkkojulkaisuja 106 (pp. 121–141). Available at: https://www.nuorisotutkimusseura.fi/images/julkaisuja/missa_lapsuutta_tehdaan.pdf Karlsson, L. (2018a). Sadutus siltana kotoutumiseen, kohtaamiseen ja toisen kulttuurin ymmärtämiseen. [Storycrafting as a bridge to integration, encounters and an understanding of other cultures] In L. Karlsson, A-L. Lastikka, & J. Vartiainen (Eds.), KOTO – Kohtaamisia taidolla ja taiteella. Kielten ja kulttuurien yhteisöllistä oppimista ja kotoutumista [KOTO  – Encounterings through Arts and Skills – Communal learning and integration of languages and cultures] (pp. 48–61). University of Eastern Finland and KOTO project (Integration through Arts and Skills – Research-based asylum seekers’ integration project through workshops and the development of voluntary work with the methods of arts and skills). Grano Oy. Karlsson, L. (2018b). The Storycrafting method. In K. Lonka (Ed.), Phenomenal learning from Finland (pp. 117–212). Edita. Karlsson, L. (2020). Studies of child perspective in methodology and practice with ‘Osallisuus’ as a Finnish approach to Children’s reciprocal cultural participation. In E. Eriksen Ødegaard & J. S. Borgen (Eds.), Childhood cultures in transformation: 30 years of the UN convention of the rights of the child in action. Chapter 13. Brill/Sense Publisher. Karlsson, L., & Karimäki, R. (2012). Sukelluksia lapsinäkökulmaiseen tutkimukseen ja toimintaan [Plunges into research and action in child’s perspective]. Suomen Kasvatustieteellinen Seura / The Finnish Educational Research Association. Karlsson, L., Levamo, T.-M., & Siukonen, S. (Eds.). (2014). Your mango, my mango, our mango. Storycrafting across cultures. Experiences in storycrafting in development cooperation and global education. Taksvärkki ry / Operation a Day’s Work Finland. Retrieved from: https:// www.taksvarkki.fi/tv/wp-­content/uploads/2014/09/Mango-­English-­edition.pdf Karlsson, L., Lastikka, A.-L., & Vartiainen, J. (2018a). KOTO  – Kohtaamisia taidolla ja taiteella. Kielten ja kulttuurien yhteisöllistä oppimista ja kotoutumista [KOTO – Encounterings through arts and skills  – Communal learning and integration of languages and cultures]. University of Eastern Finland /KOTO project. Available at: http://epublications.uef.fi/pub/ urn_isbn_978-­952-­61-­2890-­0/urn_isbn_978-­952-­61-­2890-­0.pdf Karlsson, L., Weckström, E., & Lastikka, A.-L. (2018b). Osallisuuden toimintakulttuuria rakentamassa sadutusmenetelmällä [Building a culture of participation with the Storycrafting method]. In J. Kangas, J. Vlasov, E. Fonsén, & J. Heikka. (Eds.), Osallisuuden pedagogiikkaa varhaiskasvatuksessa 2: Suunnittelu, toteutus ja kehittäminen [Participatory pedagogy in early childhood education 2: Planning, implementation and developing] (pp. 73–99). Suomen Varhaiskasvatus ry / Early Childhood Education Association Finland. Karlsson, L., Lähteenmäki, M., & Lastikka, A.-L. (2019). Increasing well-being and giving voice through storycrafting to children who are refugees, immigrants, or asylum seekers. In K. J. Kerry-Moran, & J-A. Aerila (Eds.), Story in children's lives: Contributions of the narrative mode to early childhood development, literacy, and learning (pp. 29–53). (Educating the Young Child. Advances in Theory and Research, Implications for Practice; Vol. 16). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­030-­19266-­2_3

11  My Story, Your Story, Our Story: Reciprocal Listening and Participation…

163

Kekkonen, M., Lehti, K., & Tirkkonen, J. (2017). Dialogisuus varhaiskasvatuksessa [Dialogue in early childhood education and care]. In T. Haapsalo, H. Petäjä, P. Vuorelma-Glad, M. Sanden, H.  Pulkkinen, I.  Tahvanainen, & E.  Saarinen (Eds.), Varhaiskasvatus katsomusten keskellä [Early childhood education and care among worldviews] (pp. 62–74). Lasten keskus. Kepa. (2004). Kepa’s Global Education Reward to Storycrafting, Minister of Education Tuula Haatainen. S. Rekola/ Kepa (email message: September 28, 2010). KOTO Project. (2019). Integration through arts and skills  – Research-based asylum seekers’ integration project through workshops and the development of voluntary work with the methods of arts and skills. The English abstract. Available: http://epublications.uef.fi/pub/urn_ isbn_978-­952-­61-­2890-­0/urn_isbn_978-­952-­61-­2890-­0.pdf Kumpulainen, K. (2018). A principled, personalised, trusting and child-centric ECEC system in Finland. In S. L. Kagan (Ed.), The early advantage 1: Early childhood systems that Lead by example (pp. 72–98). Teachers College Press. Lähteenmäki, M. (2013). Lapsi turvapaikanhakijana. Etnografisia näkökulmia vastaanottokeskuksen ja koulun arjesta [The child as an asylum seeker. Ethnographic perspectives on reception centres and daily school life]. Doctoral dissertation. University of Helsinki. Lastikka, A-L. (2019). Culturally and linguistically diverse children’s and families’ experiences of participation and inclusion in Finnish early childhood education and care. Licentiate study. University of Helsinki. Available at: http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-­fe2019102835162 Lastikka, A.-L., & Kangas, J. (2017). Ethical reflections of interviewing young children: Opportunities and challenges for promoting Children’s inclusion and participation. Asia-Pacific Journal of Research in Early Childhood Education, 11(1), 85–110. https://doi.org/10.17206/ apjrece.2017.11.1.85 Leinonen, J., & Venninen, T. (2012). Designing learning experiences together with children. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 45, 466–474. Lindqvist, H. (2012). Lapsinäkökulmaista toimintaa soveltamassa [Applying child-centred activities]. In L. Karlsson & R. Karimäki (Eds.), Sukelluksia lapsinäkökulmaiseen tutkimukseen ja toimintaan [Plunges into research and action in child’s perspective] (pp. 325–346). Suomen Kasvatustieteellinen Seura / The Finnish Educational Research Association. Lipponen, L., Kumpulainen, K., & Paananen, M. (2018). Children’s perspective to curriculum work: Meaningful moments in Finnish early childhood education. In M. Fleer & B. van Oers (Eds.), International handbook of early childhood education. Springer international handbooks of education (pp. 1265–1277). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­94-­024-­0927-­7_65 Mental Health Europe. (1999). Storyride. In Mental Health Promotion for children up to six years. Directory of Projects in the European Union. Mental Health Europe – Sante Mentale Europe. Belgium. National Advisory Board on Research Ethics. (2009). Ethical principles of research in the humanities and social and behavioural sciences and proposals for ethical review. Available at: https:// www.tenk.fi/sites/tenk.fi/files/ethicalprinciples.pdf Percy-Smith, B., & Thomas, N. (2010). A handbook of children and young people’s participation. Perspectives from theory and practice. Routledge. Retrieved from http://nmd.bg/ wp-­content/uploads/2013/02/Routledge-­A_Handbook_for_Children_and_Young_Peoples_ Participation.pdf Piipponen, O., & Karlsson, L. (2019). Children encountering each other through storytelling: Promoting intercultural learning in schools. The Journal of Educational Research, 112(5), 590–603. Puroila, A.-M., Estola, E., & Syrjälä, L. (2012). Having, loving, and being: Children's narrated Well-being in Finnish day care centres. Early Child Development and Care, 182(3–4), 345–362. Riihelä, M. (1991). Aikakortit, tie lasten ajatteluun. [time cards: The way to children’s thinking]. Helsinki. Riihelä, M. (2000). Leikkivät tutkijat [Playing researchers]. Lapset kertovat -julkaisusarja (children are Telling publishing series). Stakes & Oy Edita Ab.

164

A.-L. Lastikka and L. Karlsson

Riihelä, M. (2001). Playing researchers – Research report and a videotape. A study about play among children, social and innovative learning. Filminova. Helsinki. Retrieved from: https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoBAXfWE-­AA&t=37s; https://www.edu.helsinki.fi/lapsetkertovat/lapset/In_English/Playing/Playing_paa.html Riihelä, M. (2002). A story about story exchange between two cultures and its significance. Qissah Wa Tawassul  – Satusilta  – Kotka  – Beirut. Filminova. Psykologien sosiaalinen vastuu ry. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfNyd0x39n0&t=1616s Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human learning. Oxford University Press. Rogoff, B. (2008). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: Participatory appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship. In K. Hall, P. Murphy, & J. Sole (Eds.), Pedagogy and practice: Culture and identities (pp. 58–74). Thousand Oaks. Rogoff, B., Dahl, A., & Callanan, M. (2018). The importance of understanding children’s lived experience. Developmental Review, 50, 5–15. Säljö, R. (2014). Lärande i praktiken – Ett sociokulturellt perspektiv. Studentlitteratur. Sandseter, E. B. H., & Seland, M. (2015). Children’s experience of activities and participation and their subjective well-being in Norwegian early childhood education and care institutions. Child Indicators Research, 9(4), 913–932. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-­015-­9349-­8 Sheridan, S., & Samuelsson, I. P. (2001). Children’s conceptions of participation and influence in pre-school: A perspective on pedagogical quality. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 2(2), 169–194. https://doi.org/10.2304/ciec.2001.2.2.4 Storybridges. (2019). The Storybridges Project - participation and action in language learning. The Children Are Telling Group. Taipale, I. (Ed.). (2015). 100 social innovations from Finland. Finnish Literature Society. Torraco, R.  J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484305278283 Turja, L., & Vuorisalo, M. (2017). Lasten oikeudet, toimijuus ja osallisuus oppimisessa [Children’s rights, agency and participation in learning]. In M. Koivula, A. Siippanen, & P. Eerola-Pennanen (Eds.), Valloittava varhaiskasvatus - Oppimista, osallisuutta ja hyvinvointia [Engaging early childhood education and care - learning, participation and well-being] (pp. 36–55). Vastapaino. United Nations. (1989). UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Retrieved from http://www. unicef.org.uk/UNICEFs-­Work/Our-­mission/UN-­Convention/ Virkki, P. (2015). Varhaiskasvatus toimijuuden ja osallisuuden edistäjänä [early childhood education promoting agency and participation]. Publications of the University of Eastern Finland. Dissertations in education, humanities, and theology, 66. Joensuu, Finland: University of Eastern Finland. Vlasov, J., Salminen, J., Repo, L., Karila, K., Kinnunen, S., Mattila, V., & Sulonen, H. (2018). Varhaiskasvatuksen laadun arvioinnin perusteet ja suositukset [foundation and recommendations for quality assessment of early childhood education and care]. Kansallinen koulutuksen arviointikeskus, Julkaisut, 24, 2018. https://karvi.fi/app/uploads/2018/10/KARVI_2418.pdf Weckström, E., Jääskeläinen, V., Ruokonen, I., Karlsson, L., & Ruismäki, H. (2017). Steps together: Children’s experiences of participation in club activities with the elderly. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 15(3), 273. https://doi.org/10.1080/15350770.2017.1330063. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15350770.2017.1330063 Weckström, E., Karlsson, L., Pöllänen, S., & Lastikka, A.-L. (2020). Creating a culture of participation: Early childhood education and care educators in the face of change. Children & Society, 35(4), 503–518. https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12414

Chapter 12

Observed Reading Sessions Between 08:00–16:00 Hours in Finnish Early Childhood Education Jyrki Reunamo

Abstract  Reading sessions are part of the rich world of language in the Finnish curriculum. According to the Finnish National Evaluation Centre the reading sessions and storytelling should be enhanced. This article describes the Finnish situation in reading sessions in early childhood education. The research method is observation with systematic sampling (n = 49,645). According to results, children attend reading sessions on average 24 minutes a day. Children’s involvement (learning potential) was intermediate. The reading sessions included more neutral states of mind than other activities. Children participated less in the evolving events during reading sessions than in the other activities. Also, the personnel participated less in the process. The youngest, 1–3-year-old children attended reading sessions less than other children. The children with immigrant backgrounds had the most dramatic difficulties in participating in the reading session, leaving them vulnerable to segregation. As implications for practice, it is important that the teacher welcomes children’s ideas when children can learn that their ideas are valued, and their ideas can be used for the benefit of the whole group. Reading sessions can be processes, where children and personnel can create and share their ideas. Children can learn to develop these ideas further together with others.

12.1  Introduction This article focuses on the reading sessions in Finnish early education. Reading sessions belong according to the National Core Curriculum for ECE in Finland (FNAE, 2018) among a larger learning area rich world of languages, where reading and telling stories in an unhurried atmosphere is described providing opportunities for considering the meanings of words and texts and learning new concepts in their J. Reunamo (*) University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 H. Harju-Luukkainen et al. (eds.), Finnish Early Childhood Education and Care, Early Childhood Research and Education: An Inter-theoretical Focus 1, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95512-0_12

165

166

J. Reunamo

contexts (research problem 2). The personnel has the task of attracting and encouraging the children’s interest in spoken and written language and gradually also in reading and writing (research problem 6). Children are encouraged to playful writing and reading. Children are familiarized with versatile children’s literature. In this article, the focus is on reading a book or telling a story, either an adult reads a book or the child reads/looks at the book. This definition includes mainly the basic literacy and stories, not all the multiliteracy aspects of numerical, media, digital, and visual literacy. In this article, children looking at the books even though they cannot read is considered reading, often children do pretend reading (Nurmilaakso, 2006) by themselves. Although pretend reading is important as such, an adult (by involving herself or himself in the process of pretending reading) can elaborate on the act and give support and direction for the learning process (Reunamo & Nurmilaakso, 2007). Language awareness (Siiskonen et al., 2014, 312) is important in the process of learning to read. Participation is important in reading sessions (research problem 4). When a child gets used to producing the story material with others, children learn to participate and produce cultural products together with others (cf. Reunamo & Nurmilaakso, 2007). Literature may be important for children’s emotional development (research problem 3). According to Riquelme and Montero (2013) encouraging children’s emotional competence through an adult-mediated reading of children’s literature was beneficial for emotional recognition, empathy, and emotional lability (see research problem 3). Physical activity is not often considered during reading sessions. However, according to Reunamo et al. (2014), the higher the physical activity, the more the activity includes high involvement and sustained, intense, concentrated, creative, persistent learning processes. High physical activity and deep learning seem to attract each other (research problem 5). The Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC) has evaluated the learning content area rich world of languages. In their survey results summary Repo et al. (2019) conclude that in the majority of groups, the language was used in a varied and rich way daily. Likewise, children were encouraged to participate in linguistic interaction daily. However, only half of the respondents report that personnel read for children pedagogically selected books or rhymes were played with children daily (cf. research problem 1). Repo et al. (2019) emphasize the need to create a linguistically rich environment for those under 3 years of age (research problem 7) to coordinate the strengthening of a linguistically rich environment for children and all children and Finnish as a second language (research problem 8). Besides, linguistic support was needed to support development if the child’s linguistic development is not progressing as expected. It is the task of this article to present the empirical findings of the quality indicators summarized by the FINEEC. What is the quality of the reading sessions in practice? Do the reading sessions meet the quality indicators of the Finnish early education? The article seeks to study how the policies meet the test of everyday early education?

12  Observed Reading Sessions Between 08:00–16:00 Hours in Finnish Early…

167

Reading sessions can be enhanced with dialogue, which develops children’s development in narration (Suvanto, 2012). For example, reading sessions can be enhanced with dialogue, which develops children’s development in narration (Suvanto, 2012). Mäkinen et al. (2017) have written a book, which is used as a starting point for the children’s own, as yet untold stories. For example, Espoo city special teachers have produced a model that is widely used in Espoo (Espoo Special Teachers, 2017). According to dialogic reading, the teacher needs to prepare beforehand to make the reading session more meaningful. During the session, children’s questions need to be discussed and children’s answers entwined in the discussion. The teacher needs to help children to become storytellers. After reading, the book should be discussed and enriched with songs, play, and drama.

12.2  Methods The rich world of languages is a versatile topic that needs several perspectives. The research problems of the article are as follows: • How much time are children observed to spend in reading sessions at different times and contexts of the day? • What is the observed learning potential of children in reading situations? • What are the observed emotions of children in reading sessions? • What are the social roles of children in reading sessions? • What is the physical activity of children in reading sessions? • What are the personnel’s roles in reading sessions? • What is the quality of reading for 1–3-year-old children? • What is the quality of reading for children with an immigrant background?

12.2.1  Participants The data was collected in 2019–2020 in 14 municipalities, including about 30% of Finnish early education, concentrating on southern Finland. A random sample of early education units within the municipalities was conducted, a total of 708 teams were observed. In each unit, the observers used random sampling to pick one group for observation. In the group, the observers used random sampling to choose five children. Only children with parents’/guardians’ consent were included in the random sample. Altogether, 2608 children were observed. In the observation, systematic sampling was used. The class sizes varied from eight to 37 children (M = 17.2, SD = 4.8). The number of teachers in the class varied from zero to four (M = 1.24, SD = 0.67). The number of nurses varied from zero to four (M = 1.57, SD = 0.68). The number of special teachers ranged from zero to one (M = 0.10, SD = 0.31). The number of

168

J. Reunamo

assistants varied from zero to two (M = 0.35 SD = 0.54) and the number of other people from zero to two (M = 0.23, SD = 0.46). Of the children, the background statistics were reported on 70.8% of the children. The children’s ages were from 12 to 93  months (M  =  52.0  months, SD = 19.5 months). Of the children, 45.0% were girls and 53.8% were boys (1.2% other). The children had been attending the observed early education unit between zero and 80 months (M = 17.4 months, SD = 14.5 months). Of the children, 5.8% had special needs and 15.8% had an immigrant background.

12.2.2  Observation Altogether, there were 49,645 observations. All the observers (n ≈ 190) were volunteer teachers recruited by the participating municipalities. The observers were trained for the observation by two-day training sessions and the observers practiced the observation in their own class between the training sessions. However, the actual observation was conducted in other ECE centers (not in the observers’ own classes), where the observers did not know the staff or children. The dates of the observation were random and the personnel of the observed groups did not know the observation days before the observation. The observation started in September 2019 and ended in March 2020. Using systematic sampling, the observers picked each child for observation at four-minute intervals following a list that was repeated every 16 minutes. The four-minute observation cycle consisted of 2 minutes of preliminary observation to understand the context of the child, 30 seconds of actual observation, and 1 minute 30 seconds to coding. The observers used tablets or phones for coding, and they uploaded the data to the online server after each observation. If a child was missing, the next child on the list was chosen for observation. One observation session lasted 4 hours, either from 8:00 to 12:00 or from 12:00 to 16:00, including all activities from breakfast, teaching, play, care, and outdoors. The observed child should not be aware that they are being observed. The observer did not seek contact with children but answered their questions if necessary. Avoiding communicative eye-contact was important and the observer could move around as needed. The observer did not interfere with the normal activities in any way. The staff was not informed of the exact days for observation to avoid unconscious observer impact on everyday activities. The observed items included ECE activities, children’s activities, children’s objects of attention, peer contact, physical activity, involvement, emotions and social orientations, and teachers’ orientations (Reunamo & Nurmilaakso, 2007). In this article, we concentrate on children’s activities, where reading sessions were coded as B5. According to the observation instructions, in reading either the teacher reads for the children or the children looked at the books themselves. In Finland, 4–5-year-old children cannot usually read properly by themselves. The reliability of the observation was checked throughout the observation with a paired comparison. Nineteen pairs of observers were randomly chosen to do the same (random)

12  Observed Reading Sessions Between 08:00–16:00 Hours in Finnish Early…

169

observations without knowing each other’s classifications, totaling 736 observations. The children’s action categories were highly reliable based on the paired observation (Kappa) for involvement was .667 (CI .629, .705, p