Pedagogical Documentation in Early Childhood Education: Process-Oriented Procedures for Documenting Education and Development 3658397357, 9783658397357

Citation preview

Helen Knauf

Pedagogical Documentation in Early Childhood Education Process-Oriented Procedures for Documenting Education and Development

Pedagogical Documentation in Early Childhood Education

Helen Knauf

Pedagogical Documentation in Early Childhood Education Process-Oriented Procedures for Documenting Education and Development

Helen Knauf Bielefeld University of Applied Sciences Bielefeld, Germany

ISBN 978-3-658-39735-7 ISBN 978-3-658-39736-4  (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-39736-4 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 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. Planung/Lektorat: Stefanie Laux This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature. The registered company address is: Abraham-Lincoln-Str. 46, 65189 Wiesbaden, Germany

Picture Credits and Copyright

The graphics have been created by Peter Zickermann, Büro Z, Bielefeld. The photos were taken by the author. The examples shown in the photos come from the following ECEC centres: • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Kita Mühlenpark, Bielefeld Familienzentrum Oberlohmannshof, Bielefeld Kita Leonardo, Gütersloh Kita Im Brinkmannsfeld, Bottrop Kita Boy, Bottrop KiKi—Kinder treffen Kinder e. V., Wiesbaden Kindergarten St. Konrad, Burghausen Katholisches Familienzentrum St. Margareta, Neunkirchen-Seelscheid Kita Unter den Linden, Paderborn Albany Kindergarten, Auckland, NZ Kids’ Domain Early Learning Centre, Auckland, NZ Roskill South, Auckland, NZ Burlington Children’s Space, Burlington (VT), US

The copyright for the photos of the examples and for the graphics lies with the author.

V

Contents

1 Introduction: Pedagogical Documentation in Early Childhood Education Centres. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 Reasons for Documentation in Early Childhood Education Centres. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1 Documentation in Different Early Childhood Approaches. . . . . . . . 5 2.1.1 Montessori Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.1.2 Waldorf Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.1.3 Situation Approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.1.4 Reggio Approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.1.5 Documentation in Early Childhood Approaches as Written Observation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2.2 Documentation in the Context of a Social Constructivist Understanding of Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2.3 Documentation in the Curricula of the German Federal States. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2.3.1 Goals of Documentation in the Curricula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 2.3.2 View of the Curriculums on the Role of Children in Documentation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 2.3.3 Implementation variants in the curriculum: Forms of documentation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 2.3.4 Understanding of Observation and Documentation in the Curricula of the German Federal States. . . . . . . . . . . . 20 2.4 What is Documentation—Approaching a Container Concept. . . . . . 20 2.4.1 Functions of Documentation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 2.4.2 Recipients of Documentation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 2.4.3 Diagnostic vs. process-oriented documentation. . . . . . . . . . 27 VII

VIII

Contents

3 Pedagogical Documentation: Forms and Styles in Pedagogical Practice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 3.1 Portfolio. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 3.1.1 Portfolio: An Open Concept of Pedagogical Documentation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 3.1.2 Implementation in Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 3.2 Learning Stories. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 3.2.1 The Concept of Learning Stories: Origin and Further Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 3.2.2 Implementation of Learning Stories in Germany . . . . . . . . . 57 3.3 Pedagogical Documentation in Space. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 3.3.1 Children’s Works and Wall Documentation—From the Wall to the Room. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 3.3.2 Pedagogical Documentation in Space as a Result of and Influencing Factor for Educational Processes. . . . . . . 71 3.3.3 Implementation of Pedagogical Documentation in Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 3.4 Project Documentation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 3.4.1 Background: Group-Related, Versatile Pedagogical Documentation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 3.4.2 Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 3.5 Digital Pedagogical Documentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 3.5.1 Pedagogical Documentation in the Process of Mediatization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 3.5.2 Implementation of Digital Pedagogical Documentation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 3.5.3 Digital Pedagogical Documentation—The Super Documentation?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 3.6 Styles of Documentation: Understanding and Implementation of Pedagogical Documentation at the Level of Individual ECE Centre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 3.6.1 Typologization of ECE Centers with Regard to Their Documentation Practice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 3.6.2 Four Different Styles of Documentation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 3.6.3 Styles of Documentation as Programmatic Action Practices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 4 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

1

Introduction: Pedagogical Documentation in Early Childhood Education Centres

Abstract

The documentation of children’s education and development today is an important part of the educational work in early childhood education centres. The work on pedagogical documentation is located in the tension between a social constructivist understanding of education on the one hand and a diagnostic logic on the other. Based on the current empirical research, this book tries to theoretically locate the topic of pedagogical documentation; at the same time, it is intended as a contribution to a pedagogically oriented childhood research that also wants to contribute to the reflection and improvement of pedagogical practice. The phrase “making learning visible” is a frequently used formulation to describe the object and purpose of documentation in early childhood education centres (e.g., Project Zero and Reggio Children 2011). For educational work with children in the first six years of life, it is considered particularly important to make the often invisible and therefore usually unnoticed, difficult to access learning processes tangible and understandable—in other words, visible. The (re-) discovery of the early years (cf. Kahl 2006) has sensitized society to a particular extent to learning in early childhood. Early childhood is now understood as a life phase with special opportunities and a formative character for further educational careers and life courses. The increased attention to early childhood learning has led to an expansion and qualitative changes in early childhood education (ECE) in Germany over the past 20 years. Two milestones in this process were the introduction of a right to a place in a day-care facility for children from the age of 3 (1996) and later from the age of 1 (2013). These legal regulations have led to a © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2022 H. Knauf, Pedagogical Documentation in Early Childhood Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-39736-4_1

1

2

1  Introduction: Pedagogical Documentation in Early Childhood …

significant increase in the number of children in ECE centres and day-care: The care quota for children under three years of age increased from 15.5% (2007) to 33.1% (2017); for children between three and six years of age, it rose from 89.0% to 93.4% in the same period (Statistisches Bundesamt 2018). Families in Germany not only use ECE centres more often; the children also spend a lot more time there (Bock-Famulla et al. 2017). In the 55,000 early childhood education centres in Germany, a total of almost 700,000 people work (Autorengruppe Fachkräftebarometer 2017). These numbers make it clear that education in institutions for children up to school age has become a highly relevant field of pedagogy. Basic changes can also be observed in terms of quality. A characteristic of this is the changed view of ECE centres, which are increasingly being regarded as places of education. In this way, they are developing from part of the social system to part of the education system. A clear sign of this development was the publication of ECE plans in the German federal states from 2004 onwards (Diskowski 2009); general guidelines for content and methods of educational work in ECE centres were laid down in them. The trend is also in the same direction as the impulse to train teachers for work with children under six years of age at universities. This academisation of the training of teachers begins in 2004 with the establishment of ECE courses, in particular at universities of applied sciences (Pasternak 2015). With these quantitative and qualitative developments, Germany is catching up with a process that was set in motion earlier and in some cases more radically from an international perspective (e.g. Lazzari and Balduzzi 2014; May and Carr 2016; Pramling Samuelsson 2010). Today, two fixed points essentially provide orientation for work in ECE centres: firstly, the ECE plans and secondly, various (elementary) educational approaches (e.g. Montessori, Reggio). A social constructivist view of the education and development of children has been established as an overarching educational principle. Education, according to the basic idea, takes place when “children together and children with adults find meanings, give things and events a sense and make the world view more and more complex—in other words, construct it together” (Becker-Stoll et al. 2015, p. 141). This understanding of children’s educational processes is based on the idea that children are active and competent learners. In Germany, the term co-construction has established itself for this purpose (Fthenakis 2003). In educational plans, pedagogical approaches and the spelling of the social constructivist concept of education, documentation plays a central role. Pedagogical documentation is understood as an important tool to accompany children in their educational processes and to reflect on them (together). At the same time,

1  Introduction: Pedagogical Documentation in Early Childhood …

3

documentation is also understood, together with observation, as the basis for systematic educational work that ensures the optimal development of each child; documentation is mainly used for diagnostic purposes in this context. The present book examines this tension between documentation as a central element of childoriented education on the one hand and a diagnostic instrument on the other. The various and sometimes contradictory attributions of functions of documentation are illuminated in their different programmatic and empirical aspects. With this approach, the book aims to provide a theoretical and empirical positioning of documentation that will enable professional practice. What Scherr (2012, p. 13) states for social work also applies to (childhood) education: it is “normatively based on influential normative concepts as a socially situated practice”. This view makes it necessary to clarify the normative criteria to which it refers and which it applies. Based on Otto and Ziegler (2012, p. 3), it is not a question of whether early childhood education “is based on normative-political standards, but of which standards these are”. For the investigation of documentation in ECE centres, this means identifying (different) normative reference points and working them out in practice. The focus is therefore not on an observational theoretical analysis, but on a “theoretical foundation of professional practice” (Scherr 2012, p. 12). The analyses presented in this book illustrate that the pedagogical work with documentation is guided to a great extent by different normative ideas. For this reason, their implementation can be a meaningful indicator of the principles of each individual educational institution, but it also provides information about the basic positioning of early childhood education. The dualism of process accompaniment and diagnostics, which characterizes documentation, refers to a tension field that characterizes early childhood education: on the one hand, the orientation towards a co-constructivist education paradigm and, on the other hand, towards a medical-psychological development paradigm. Although there may well be overlaps and synergies between the two paradigms, they are based on different ideas of children and childhood. An important task of educational research in the described tension field is the identification of the different (also normatively based) positions. This makes it possible to practice in a well-founded, informed and reflective way. The research on which this book is based would like to contribute to an educational research on childhood that has its roots in pedagogy, at the same time sheds light on its processes and framework in an empirical way and also looks beyond the national horizon. The guiding questions for such an educational childhood research can be those that Hartmut von Hentig (1991) posed in a review of Volume 5 of the Handbook of German Educational History (edited by Langewische and Tenorth): “It is not about a specific product of our

4

1  Introduction: Pedagogical Documentation in Early Childhood …

profession; it is above all about the question: How does a science commissioned and borne by the community - pedagogy - work; what kind of language does it speak, what can its results be?” The research on pedagogical documentation in this book tries to fill the concept of educational childhood research content-wise and to present it to the readers in a comprehensible language. The following is a overview of the book. In Chap. 2 Various theoretical justifications for documentation are examined: pedagogical approaches, the social constructivist concept of education associated with it, and the curricula of the German federal states. The conclusion of this chapter is the evaluation of national and international literature on the subject of documentation. This should enable the objective to be achieved of outlining and contrasting the concepts of documentation. Chap. 3 sheds light on individual procedures for pedagogical documentation in detail. This part is based to a large extent on the results of the author’s empirical research on pedagogical documentation. This research focuses primarily on pedagogical practice in Germany, but also opens up international perspectives. For each form of pedagogical documentation (portfolio, learning stories, pedagogical documentation in space, digital pedagogical documentation), the programme underlying it is first presented in the form of goals and structure. Subsequently, on the basis of empirical research results, the implementation in the practice of ECE institutions is analysed and discussed. Finally, on the basis of empirical analyses across the different forms of pedagogical documentation, four different styles of documentation are presented, which shape the documentation practice in  ECE institutions in Germany. With this structure, the book does not pursue a normative idea of the “right” or “wrong” pedagogical documentation, but subjects both the programme and the empirics of pedagogical documentation to a critical analysis. The conclusion in Chap. 4 succinctly summarises the results.

2

Reasons for Documentation in Early Childhood Education Centres

Abstract

The documentation of educational processes and the development of children is today seen as a sign of high quality in ECE centres and as a central task of pedagogues. This general and widely undisputed setting is fed by both (elementary) pedagogical theories and programs as well as by political requirements. First, four significant educational approaches (Montessori and Waldorf education as well as the Situation approach and the Reggio approach) will be examined to see what importance they attribute to documentation. Subsequently, the today in theory and practice of elementary education dominant social constructivist educational understanding will be illuminated in more detail with regard to documentation; this is followed by an analysis of the curricula of the German federal states as relevant political framework for the work in ECE centres. Finally, these theoretical and political foundations will be brought together by working out the diversity of objectives associated with documentation as well as the different addressees of documentation.

2.1 Documentation in Different Early Childhood Approaches The reference to educational approaches is of great importance in early childhood practice in Germany. The analysis of educational approaches prevalent in Germany shows that observing children forms the core of most educational con-

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2022 H. Knauf, Pedagogical Documentation in Early Childhood Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-39736-4_2

5

6

2  Reasons for Documentation in Early Childhood Education Centres

cepts. In contrast, education documentation plays a subordinate role in most programs (with the exception of the Reggio approach). ECE centres in Germany usually base their educational work on concepts for which the term “educational approach” is widely used in Germany. On the one hand, there are relatively closed concepts such as Waldorf or Montessori education, which today often still orient themselves strictly on the methods repertoire of their founders. On the other hand, there are more open concepts such as the Situational approach or the. Even if the justifications of the educational approaches go back 100 years or more, they are still guiding the work in ECE centres today. In order to analyze the meaning of documentation in educational approaches, four approaches were selected: the Montessori approach, the Waldorf approach, the Situational approach, and the Reggio approach. The first three are approaches that have both a pronounced program and a significant distribution in Germany. In Germany there are around 600 Montessori kindergartens (Montessori Dachverband Deutschland e. V. 2018) and 550 Waldorf kindergartens (Vereinigung der Waldorfkindergärten 2018). Numerous ECE centres are oriented towards the Situation approach, for which no exact numbers are available. In addition, the Reggio approach is examined in more detail; documentation plays a central role in it, although there are only around 90 recognized Reggio kindergartens in Germany (Dialog Reggio 2018). In addition to facilities that explicitly follow a certain approach, many ECE centres are oriented towards a certain educational tradition. Other, also important approaches, such as forest kindergarten or Offene Arbeit, are not analyzed because, so far, neither documentation nor research play a central role in these approaches. In Sect. 2.1.1 to 2.1.4 the four approaches mentioned in Germany are analyzed with regard to the question of what importance is attached to documentation in them. This analysis is based on a broad understanding of documentation. All practices that record observations, activities, reflections and findings in writing, pictorially or audibly and thus make them accessible to subsequent consideration by the participating actors will be included.

2.1.1 Montessori Education The educational approach founded by Italian physician Maria Montessori attaches particular importance to the observation of children (Allmann 2018). The observation is intended to enable a differentiated and in-depth understanding of the children’s learning process. Montessori has developed a special form of observation with curve drawing that corresponds to her understanding of chil-

2.1  Documentation in Different Early …

7

dren’s learning processes. Following this understanding of learning, learning takes place in the child’s activity. According to Montessori, the child’s activity proceeds in curves, consisting of concentration, work, watching, rest, boredom, disruptive behavior. The observation is intended to capture at which point of this activity curve a child is currently standing. This is to be made possible by a minute observation of the child by the pedagogue. If the pedagogue knows in which stage of his activity a child is, he can appropriately design the child’s environment. By identifying the appropriate degree of challenge, optimal conditions for the child’s deepening in his activity are to be created. For Montessori, observation is a core competence of the educational specialist (Allmann 2014). Montessori orients this educational observation to scientific standards. For this purpose, it is necessary that the observer remains in the background and becomes apparent as little as possible for the observed child in order to influence the observed situation only minimal. In 1921, Montessori described her method in a lecture: Every methodological observation requires preparation. The goal of the preparation is to see what the children do independently of our presence. The observer must be absolutely silent and motionless […] You will often be tempted to show your admiration or criticism or to tell your neighbor your impressions. So it’s really an exercise in conscious immobility that we achieve through our will (Montessori 2017, p. 62/62).

As with the research method of non-participant observation (Bortz and Döring 2006), the observing expert is completely limited to observation and does not intervene in the event (Allmann 2014). For Montessori, it is important that observation and interpretation are clearly separated from each other. The aim is to first record only what can actually be seen or heard, that is, what is accessible to the senses. This should ensure the highest possible objectivity. Only in the second and third steps will interpretation and corresponding intervention then take place. Documentation is here understood as the written recording of a systematic observation process and referred to as observation transcript in Montessori pedagogy (ibid.). The observations serve primarily the professional process of cognition of the expert. The child is the object of a systematic investigation and not itself part or actor of the reflection process into which the observation leads. In addition to the observation procedure developed by Montessori, today’s Montessori-based early childhood education centres use other documentation procedures. For example, many institutions also work with a portfolio in which the child’s work is documented (cf. Sect.  3.1). In part, there is also a link to a

8

2  Reasons for Documentation in Early Childhood Education Centres

form of documentation shaped by the Reggio approach (cf. Sect. 2.1.4), for example in the form of “talking walls” (cf. Sect. 3.3), instead of (e.g. MacDonald 2006).

2.1.2 Waldorf Approach The philosophy of Rudolf Steiner, the founder of Waldorf education, emphasizes two aspects in particular for work in early childhood education: the importance of play and the consideration of the child as a differentiated subject (“holistic consideration”). Observation and documentation play no explicit role. Documentation is also only mentioned in passing in the “Guidelines for Waldorf Education” (Kardel et al. 2007). However, various methods for observation and documentation have also been developed in the practice of Waldorf kindergartens. However, these are mainly based on observation and its analysis. In the literature available on Waldorf education, the aim of identifying the developmental level and the strengths and weaknesses of children is largely unquestioned. However, the analysis of the developmental level should be based on a loving look at the children and be characterized by a real interest in the children (Greubel 2016). As a widespread procedure, Greubel (ibid.) describes the “children’s conference”. This is not a conference of children as it is used, for example, as a form of participation in some ECE centres (cf. Hansen et al. 2011), but rather a conference of pedagogues, in which one child is discussed. The conversation focus of the pedagogues is exclusively on one single child. The aim is to obtain the various perspectives of the different adults on this one child. The special feature here is the multi-perspectivity, which is to lead to a differentiated and comprehensive analysis of the child’s development. Other procedures involve other actors in the analysis, such as the “dialogue” (here the perspective of the parents is also recorded) and the “trialogue” (in which the perspective of the children is also to be recorded) (Greubel and Jachmann 2016). Dialogue and trialogue are characterized as Waldorf-specific procedures and aim to identify the developmental level of the child with regard to different “senses”: health, motor skills, emotions, cognition and successful transitions; language development is captured by a specific language diagnosis (ibid.). Thus, in the literature on Waldorf education, the focus is clearly on observation, while documentation is not illuminated in more detail.

2.1  Documentation in Different Early …

9

2.1.3 Situation Approach The Situation approach was developed starting in the 1970s at the German Youth Institute (Deutsches Jugendinstitut, DJI) in cooperation with various model institutions. It can be understood as a reaction to the tendencies at that time towards schoolification in ECE centres (Kobelt Neuhaus et al. 2018). The Situation approach is particularly associated with the names Jürgen Zimmer (DJI, Free University Berlin, International Academy for Innovative Pedagogy, Psychology and Economics) and Christa Preissing (International Academy for Innovative Pedagogy, Psychology and Economics). The basic principles of the Situational approach are: lifeworld orientation, education, participation, equality and recognition of diversity as well as unity of content and form. The lifeworld orientation is shown in the orientation to key situations, a principle that was decisive for the naming of the approach. The orientation to key situations is not to be confused with “a situational approach that is based on random, momentary circumstances” (ibid., p. 8, emphasis in original), but emphasizes a differentiated understanding of the lifeworld of children. In place of subjects or (as is the case in today’s curriculum) educational areas, individual analyses of the lifeworld(s) of individual children are therefore used in the situational approach. Because of their great importance for the Situational approach, the individual lifeworlds of children must be analysed precisely. The observation of children is therefore elementary for the Situational approach; in the practical literature on the Situational approach, various methods for the identification of key situations for the lifeworld of children are proposed, e.g. environment tour, lifeworld exploration, observation sheets for the daily routine (Kobelt Neuhaus and Pesch 2016). In the “Conceptual Principles in the Situation Approach” (Preissing and Heller 2009, p. 1) it says: Pedagogues  “observe the children and explore what moves them”, they are “teachers and learners at the same time”. Similar to the Montessori approach (cf. Sect. 2.1.1) and the Reggio approach (cf. Sect. 2.1.4), the staff are also understood as researchers in the Situation approach, who, through their explorations, understand the children (better). However, the focus here is less on the learning process than on the interests and concerns of the children. Transparency of the process of observation is seen as an important element of observation for the observed children. Thus, children should be informed about the observation. If children ask questions, they should also be shown the contents of the observation; they are also given the opportunity to supplement them. The observation is not documented with a specific procedure. However, literature occasionally refers to documentation, which is primarily used to make the

10

2  Reasons for Documentation in Early Childhood Education Centres

work of the ECE center transparent, in particular to give parents insights into the pedagogical work and to motivate them to engage in the institution (ibid.). Kobelt Neuhaus and Pesch (2016, p. 19) explicitly mention an “Me-book” as a form of documentation of the Situational approach in the “Methods Book” they have written. They describe the “Me-book” as comparable to a portfolio (cf. Sect. 3.1), which should not be “primarily a performance show”, but “milestones” a) “the dialogical confrontation of a person with their lifeworld” and b) “the development along a timeline through answers to guiding questions” should show. In this interpretation, the ambivalence of the documentation becomes clear: On the one hand, it is about a faithful image of the perspectives of children on the world and their confrontation with it (a), on the other hand also about an analysis of the development of a child (b). Documentation is not a central element in the Situation approach; rather, it is used as a means of creating transparency and as a basis for discussions with parents. In connection with the implementation of observation and in the form of the Me-book, documentation is used to identify the children’s themes. A further development of the situational approach is the situational approach (Krenz 2012). In this approach, too, the topics that engage the children’ are in the foreground and serve as an occasion for the development of pedagogical projects; here, too, a precise observation of the children is required. The documentation has, as in the Situational approach, primarily an archiving and evidentiary function and serves the transparency of the pedagogical work.

2.1.4 Reggio  Approach Documentation is a central aspect of the educational work in the ECE centres in Reggio Emilia in Italy (T. Knauf 2017). The practice of documentation is closely linked to the image of the child and the concept of the children’s educational processes underlying the Reggio Approach. The children are seen here as active and competent protagonists of their own learning process (Edwards 1998). Therefore, according to the conclusion of the Reggio Approach, it is also worth listening to the children, because their statements, views and ideas are considered valuable. For this reason, the term “pedagogy of listening” is often used in the context of the Reggio Approach (Fyfe 2012). This means that the pedagogues give the children or an individual child their full attention and take responsibility for recording and documenting what has been said (Edwards 1998). Listening makes it possible for the pedagogues to take part in the children’s learning processes, which is why documentation is also seen as a way of making learning visible

2.1  Documentation in Different Early …

11

(Project Zero and Reggio Children 2011). This visibility of learning processes makes it possible for pedagogues, children and also parents to enter into a dialogue about learning. Rinaldi therefore describes the approach to documentation in Reggio as a significant contribution of Reggio to pedagogy in general: I am referring to documentation, in the way we have developed it in the Reggio experience: not as documents for the archives, or as panels hung on the walls, or as a series of nice photographs, but as a visible trace and a procedure that supports learning and teaching, making them reciprocal because they are visible and sharable. I think that this has been, and in the future could be even more, an important contribution of the Reggio experience to the field of pedagogy (but not only on this field) at the national and international levels (Rinaldi 2006a, S. 100).

The understanding of documentation as a tool to make learning processes of reflection accessible builds on other central principles of Reggio pedagogy (Fraser 2011): The establishment of reciprocity through trusting relationships between all parties should enable children, professionals and parents to express their views. This creates the prerequisite to enter into a common dialogue. At the same time, documentation also serves the goal of transparency. It gives people who are not directly involved in the pedagogical processes in the institution insights into the events. In a study, Fleck et al. (2015) were able to show that mothers and children actually talked more differentiated when they had documentation in the sense of Reggio. For example, the observed mothers asked more targeted questions and the children remembered more details than when there was no documentation (ibid.). Documentation also plays an important role in connection with the importance of space in the Reggio approach. It has often been said that the function of space as a third pedagogue next to the pedagogues and the children in the Reggio approach (e.g. Schäfer and Schäfer 2009). The formative function of space is described more as a fact and less as a pedagogical program (Petmecky 2008). However, it is a special concern of the ECE centres in Reggio to create an environment that supports or even stimulates the children’s research-based learning. For this purpose, the pedagogues  take care to design the environment. The goal is to provide an environment that is both aesthetically attractive and intellectually inspiring (Gandini 1998). Rinaldi (2006b) describes the overarching goal of working with children as (shared) meaning-making: Asking questions, forming hypotheses, and searching for answers in a shared research process are at the core of the Reggio approach. Documentation plays a decisive role in this process, as Rinaldi describes:

12

2  Reasons for Documentation in Early Childhood Education Centres I believe that documentation is a substantial part of the goal that has always characterized our experience: the search for meaning – to find the meaning of school, or rather, to construct the meaning of school, as a place that plays an active role in the children’s search for meaning and our own search for meaning (and shared meanings) (Rinaldi 2006b, p. 63).

Documentation can therefore be understood as a linchpin of the Reggio approach; it serves as a medium of the approach’s essential principles. Fig.  2.1illustrates this central position of pedagogical documentation in the Reggio approach.

Transparency

Space as a third pedagogue

Picture of the child Educational Documentation in Reggio Pedagogy

Reciprocity

Role of the pedagogue

Fig. 2.1   Central position of pedagogical documentation in the Reggio approach

2.2  Documentation in the Context of a Social …

13

2.1.5 Documentation in Early Childhood Approaches as Written Observation A review of the various early childhood approaches shows that documentation plays a subordinate role in most programs with the exception of Reggio Emilia. In the approaches described here, it serves primarily to record observations in writing. Documentation also plays a similarly subordinate role in other educational approaches such as Offene Arbeit (Miklitz 2004) or forest kindergarten (Vorholz 2014). This is surprising because the methods and goals of the approaches sketched here could be supported by an process-oriented use of documentation: For example, children could be strengthened in the autonomy that is important from the perspective of the Situation Approach, not only by being passive objects of observation, but also by becoming active shapers of the documentation concerning them. The documentation of the daily work in ECE centres in the sense of a process documentation could at the same time further improve the close cooperation with parents that is emphasized. The stimulating environment that is important for Montessori could be supplemented by wall displays designed (together) by children. If the idea underlying Waldorf education of involving children’s perspectives in developmental diagnostics (as envisaged by the Trialogue) is implemented, then documentation could contribute to capturing this perspective. Only in Reggio Emilia does documentation play a central role; it is the pivot of a “pedagogy of listening”. Reggio Emilia follows a social constructivist understanding of education most clearly, as presented in the following chapter.

2.2 Documentation in the Context of a Social Constructivist Understanding of Education In theory and practice of early childhood education, children are considered as autonomous actors in the educational process. The chapter illustrates that documentation of education, as an accompanying and—reflective procedure, is a particularly suitable tool for an education that is oriented towards social constructivism. The importance of documentation for ECE is closely linked to the current understanding of ECE and the tasks of the ECE center as an educational institution. ECE is thus significantly shaped by an understanding of the child as a “subject of education” and “equal partner in pedagogical intervention” (Kluge 2013,

14

2  Reasons for Documentation in Early Childhood Education Centres

p. 22). Children are therefore not (anymore) considered as objects of education, but are themselves acting and competent actors in their development process (Schäfer 2011). In this perspective, children are not “weak and passive, unable and underdeveloped, dependent and isolated”, but the child is seen as ”curious and brave […], as a child with its own will to learn, to explore and to develop in active dialogue with other people.” (Dahlberg 2004, p. 27). Accordingly, educational processes do not consist in transferring already defined knowledge to children, but children develop their own ideas and theories about the world. However, these ideas do not arise in isolation in a closed internal process of the child, but in social interaction. Building on the learning theories of Piaget, Vygotsky and Bruner, learning is today understood as a social constructivist process in which change occurs in interaction with other people (Schäfer 2011). This understanding of educational processes places specific demands on the professional and institutional environment in which educational processes take place. Dahlberg et al. (2013) see self-reflection and communicative exchange about one’s own work as an essential basis for a pedagogical practice that meets the goals set for it. That is why they describe pedagogical documentation as a central instrument of (self-)reflective work in ECE centres. Pedagogical documentation, so the core argument, can make the process of creating meanings, that is, the construction of knowledge, visible and thus illustrate that it is only a construction and not the truth: Pedagogical documentation is a process of visualization, but what we document does not represent a true reality any more than claims about the social and natural world represent a true reality – it is a social construction, where pedagogues through what they select as valuable to document are also participative constructors (Dahlberg et al. 2013, S. 155).

In a social constructivist educational process, dialogue is seen as a central task; in this case, the pedagogues act as partners (Dahlberg 2004). The construction of the self- and world-view by the child takes place in a reciprocal process between the child and his or her social and physical environment. However, for a social constructivist understanding of education, documentation is also seen as a useful tool at the level of immediate interaction. The shared documentation of pedagogues and children, according to the idea, is accompanied by a dialogue about educational content and can lead to joint reflection and research in the sense of a Sustained Shared Thinking (Siraj-Blatchford 2009). Schäfer describes this reciprocal relationship between the world and self-constructions of children with the constructions of adults as follows:

2.3  Documentation in the Curricula of the German Federal States

15

These perspectives of further development do not only depend on the prior knowledge and skills of the children, but also on what adults can offer in terms of content and personally. Adults and children must communicate with each other in some way - verbally or non-verbally - about what education is all about. From these communication processes, pedagogues now draw conclusions for their professional action and then have to notice again what results their professional statements have led to (Schäfer 2011, p. 295).

In order to do justice to the diverse perspectives of children, observation and pedagogical documentation in a social constructivist understanding of education are designed to “capture as broadly and unspecifically as possible, all possible behavioral, experiential and cognitive processes” (ibid.). The social constructivist understanding of education differs from the (traditional) idea: In this idea, children are seen as incomplete and developmentally needy beings per se, for whose appropriate development a scientifically sound observation and diagnosis of deficits and needs is necessary (Eckermann and Heinzel 2018). By rejecting this idea of the child as a developmental being, an observation and documentation oriented towards a general norm is also critically seen, since this focuses on a standardized development of the child in previously defined educational areas.

2.3 Documentation in the Curricula of the German Federal States The federal state curricula are an important orientation for the educational work in ECE centres. In addition to a general concept of ECE centres as educational institutions expressed in them, the curricula of the federal states differ in detail. The analysis carried out in this chapter shows that the curricula  formulate different ideas and implementations for documentation. It becomes clear that contradictory goals are linked to documentation (e.g. both diagnosis and process accompaniment). A central point of reference for the work in early childhood education centres in Germany are the curricula of the different federal states. They were developed starting in 2004 in all federal states and include content-related, pedagogical and organizational aspects of the work in ECE centres (Diskowski 2009). The central basis for the curricula  is a joint resolution of the Conference of Youth Ministers and the Conference of Ministers of Education from 2004, in which the participants agreed on a “Common Framework of the States for Early Education in early childhood education centres” (Conference of Youth Ministers and Confer-

16

2  Reasons for Documentation in Early Childhood Education Centres

ence of Ministers of Education 2004). Various educational areas are mentioned therein (e.g. “Language, Writing, Communication” or “Nature and Cultural Environment”), which can be found in a similar way in all curricula of the federal states and form a “core” of the plans (Smidt and Schmidt 2012, p. 246). The curricula  are to be seen in the context of a debate about the educational mandate of ECE centres, which was also conducted as a reaction to the mediocre placement of Germany in the international education comparison study PISA (Smidt and Schmidt 2012). The goal of ECE centres specified in social law (SGB VIII)— education, training and care—was perceived as too general in this context, which is why the educational mandate should be concretized in particular with the curricula  (Stoltenberg 2008). The curricula of the federal states differ in many respects. For example, the age range of the children to which the curricula apply is very different. Some curricula take children up to the age of school entry into account (Saarland, MBK 2006), some extend to primary school age (Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, MBWK 2011) or even to the 18th year of life (Thuringia, TMBJS 2015). Accordingly, different institutions are involved, namely sometimes only ECE centres and daycare, sometimes also schools and after-school clubs. Another important difference relates to the binding nature of the curricula. While in some federal states the curriculum is intended as a general orientation, in others it is more binding. Therefore, the information and further education of the pedagogues on the contents of the curricula differ depending on the federal state; a systematic introduction into the institutions has not been carried out nationwide (Viernickel et al. 2013). The function of the curricula as an actionguiding instrument for pedagogical work is therefore only partially fulfilled (Meyer 2018). In the following, the curricula will be analysed with regard to their statements on documentation.

2.3.1 Goals of Documentation in the Curricula Documentation is described as part of the professional work of the pedagogues in almost all curricula of the federal states. In a total of ten federal states, documentation can be found in its own chapter or subchapter (Baden-Württemberg, Berlin, Bremen, Hamburg, Hessen, Niedersachsen, Nordrhein-Westfalen, RheinlandPfalz, Sachsen-Anhalt and Schleswig-Holstein). In six federal states (Bavaria, Brandenburg, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Saarland, Saxony and Thuringia) there

2.3  Documentation in the Curricula of the German Federal States

17

is no separate chapter that explicitly deals only with documentation; however, documentation is mentioned in various places. The “Common Framework of the Länder for Early Education in Childcare Facilities” (Youth Ministers' Conference and Conference of Ministers of Education 2004) also provides an orientation for the education plans of the federal states, in which documentation is discussed in two contexts: • As a basis for the diagnosis of individual children: “The children should then be observed to see what their strengths and weaknesses are in each educational area, how they take up stimuli and how they deal with them. Systematic observation and documentation of children’s development processes are required” (p. 5). • As a basis for exchange with parents: “ECE centres and schools, together with parents, bear joint responsibility for the transition to school in order to ensure the greatest possible continuity of children’s development and learning processes. Documentation provides the opportunity for a common basis for conversation between institutions and parents” (p. 8). These two goals are also the primary contexts in which documentation is mentioned in the education plans of the federal states. The importance of documentation for a sound diagnosis is repeatedly emphasized. For example, the “Orientation Plan for Education and Education in Baden-Württemberg Kindergartens and Other Childcare Facilities” (MKJS 2011, p. 18) states that documentation serves to “record and assess individual educational and developmental processes”. The “Educational Concept for 0- to 10-year-old Children in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern” (MBWK 2011, p. 7) also argues with the systematic identification of children’s strengths and weaknesses: The aim of observation and documentation is the individual promotion of children’s development processes, that is, the children are supported in their development, their learning and their independence. Children increasingly learn (developmentally appropriate) with the help of documentation to reflect their learning steps and their learning experiences and to set their own goals, that is, to plan their further learning.

Observation is seen as a systematic, well-founded and differentiated procedure that is to ensure the greatest possible objectivity, as this quotation from the Lower Saxon “Orientation Plan for Education and Education in the Early Years” (MK 2005, p. 39) makes clear:

18

2  Reasons for Documentation in Early Childhood Education Centres The aim of the observations is always to expand the understanding of the pedagogues for the individuality, the behavior and the experience of the child. His developmental progress and his possible difficulties can be more clearly perceived. Under no circumstances should the result of observations lead to children being stamped, for example by the one-sided evaluation, for example as distanceless, as backward or good etc. The observations should instead lead to the development of very individual support offers based on the particularities of the individual child.

The examples make it clear that documentation is always discussed in connection with observation. Documentation thus becomes a written record of the observed behavior of children and is not understood as an independent field of action.

2.3.2 View of the Curriculums on the Role of Children in Documentation The curricula are mostly shaped by the understanding that children are not active subjects, but objects of observation and documentation. In this perspective, children are the object of the educational gaze of adults or pedagogues (Schmidt et al. 2016). Observation and documentation are understood as the decisive steps of a systematic and thus high-quality approach; they should contribute to the implementation of the general goal of individual fostering. The objectification of children through observation is interpreted in some curricula as a special attention of adults. For example, the curricula from Berlin and Hamburg state that the child has “the right to be (ob)served” (BJF 2014, p. 33; BASFI 2012, p. 36). Observation (and subsequently documentation) is understood here as a special (positive) attention to the individual child. However, children are not always seen as objects of professional observation, in some curricula they are also described as active creators of documentation. For example, the “Hessian Education and Education Plan” (HMSI 2016, p. 116) states: “The documentation includes the views of children and parents”. Here, the pedagogues act as moderators of different perspectives, which they should collect and work in; in the Berlin (p. 34) and Hamburg (p. 36) curricula, they are even recognized as “subjects of observation” because their perspectives should be included and taken seriously. In the North Rhine-Westphalian “Educational Principles for Children from 0 to 10 Years” (MKFFI 2016, p. 35), this “inclusion” is further concretized by the fact that it says: Therefore, it is important to involve the child in the creation of his pedagogical documentation, to involve him in the selection of the attached materials (drawings, pho-

2.3  Documentation in the Curricula of the German Federal States

19

tos, etc.), to take up his comments on situations and to make his “product” available to him for co-design.

Here, children are described as shaping actors of documentation themselves. Nevertheless, curricula are contradictory especially with regard to the role of children. This is illustrated by means of a quote from the Berlin educational programme (BJF 2014, p. 36) where it is stated: In addition, it might be necessary to recognise developmental risks in children at an early stage in order to advise parents professionally. The criterion for observation and assessment of what a child has achieved is not an externally set ‘developmental norm’ – rather, it is about effective, targeted support of the individual possibilities of each child in the direction of the defined and justified competence areas and about the description of his or her individual educational history.

So developmental delays or malformations (‘developmental risks’) are supposed to be recognised, but this is not supposed to happen by means of a static measuring-rod (‘developmental norm’). But how else than by means of deviations from a normal development could ‘developmental risks’ be recognised? Here, a fundamental conflict between different, ultimately incompatible goals becomes apparent, which points to a deeper-lying problem (see Sect. 2.4.3).

2.3.3 Implementation variants in the curriculum: Forms of documentation The curriculum specifies in different ways how concretely documentation is to be carried out. In some cases, no statements are made at all, in others the formulation is very general and open, as in the Saxon Curriculum (SMK 2011, p. 84), where it says: “The results of the observations and the analysis are documented in an appropriate form.” Several curricula propose a collection of different documents, e.g. as a “folder” (Bremen), “portfolio” (Hamburg, North Rhine-Westphalia, Rhineland-Palatinate), “education and learning documentation” (Lower Saxony), “expert books or development books, education books” (Saxony-Anhalt). Learning stories are also mentioned in the curricula of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Lower Saxony and North Rhine-Westphalia. Berlin has specified the language learning diary as a special documentation procedure for the language education area in the last year of kindergarten. In addition, other forms of documentation are sometimes mentioned, such as “commented drawings, works, photos” (North Rhine-Westphalia) or “talking walls” (Saxony-Anhalt).

20

2  Reasons for Documentation in Early Childhood Education Centres

Together with the forms of documentation, observation forms and instruments are mentioned again and again (e.g. “spontaneous observation in everyday life” in Baden-Württemberg or the “DESK Dortmund Development Screening 3-6” in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania). As with the objectives of documentation (cf. Sect. 2.3.1), a close link can be seen here between observation and documentation, between a process-oriented and a measuring approach.

2.3.4 Understanding of Observation and Documentation in the Curricula of the German Federal States The curricula of the federal states conceive documentation as useful with regard to two objectives: First, in order to diagnose, whereby not only deficits, but also strengths are to be taken into account, and second, in order to support the cooperation with parents, which is considered important. Documentation is almost always discussed in connection with observation. Sometimes documentation is only understood as a written record of the observations of children’s behavior and not as an independent pedagogical instrument. The children are then seen more as objects of observation and documentation than as acting subjects. With regard to the proposed specific forms of documentation, the curricula are open and give individual institutions a lot of leeway. The portfolio or portfolio-like collections are most often mentioned, but there are only rarely binding requirements. However, there are also contradictory statements in the curricula: Reference is consistently made to the child as an actor in his development, as an independent and competent subject. It can be concluded from this that the image of the child sketched in the curricula is primarily shaped by the social constructivist image of education. At the same time, however, (standardized) development diagnostics are sought, or at least a systematic recording of any developmental delays, as a net and double bottom. The curricula prove to be contradictory with this social constructivist image of education on the one hand and the image of the child as a needy and needy deficit on the other.

2.4 What is Documentation—Approaching a Container Concept Against the background of the expectations and ideas of documentation formulated in pedagogical approaches and curricula, the central functions and the various addressees of documentation are elaborated in this chapter. It becomes

2.4  What is Documentation …

21

clear that documentation is associated with a wealth of—sometimes competing— functions; numerous actors are also understood as potential addressees of documentation. An important result is the extrapolation of two different concepts of documentation: a process-oriented and a diagnostic understanding of documentation.

2.4.1 Functions of Documentation Against the background of the ideas set out in the pedagogical approaches (Fig. 2.1), the today dominant understanding of education (Fig. 2.2) and the curricula (Fig. 2.3), several functions result that documentation should or can fulfil in pedagogical practice. In total, seven different functions can be differentiated; an overview is given in Fig. 2.2. Communication function  The dialogue has been described as the central interaction form of pedagogy in early childhood (Dahlberg 2004). In this context, the role of the questioners and listeners is particularly important for pedagogues (Rinaldi 2006b). Schäfer and von der Beek (2013, p. 77) also speak of a “pingpong didactics” in this context, in which two people give each other thoughts as impulses, which the other reacts to and further develops. Documentation can be used to record such dialogues on the one hand and to stimulate them on the other. However, documentation should not only support communication between educators and children, but also communication with parents: “Documentation is a basis for exchange with parents and paves the way for partnership in education” (Kebbe and Viernickel 2009, p. 145). Last but not least, documentation also serves as a basis for professional exchange in the colleagues' circle (Huhn and Schneider 2008). Individual procedures, such as the concept of the German Youth Institute (DJI) for educational and learning histories, attach particular importance to the exchange in the team via the resulting documentation (Leu et al. 2007). Cognition function  Documentation can also be seen as a strategy to explore the thinking and acting of children: Documentation “makes visible, at least partially, the nature of the learning process and strategies used by each child” (Rinaldi 2006a, p. 100). These insights can essentially be gained by the fact that the pedagogues observe the children and communicate with them (communication function, see above). As in the approach developed in particular by Siraj-Blatchford (2009) of “Sustained Shared Thinking”, questions and ideas of children and

22

2  Reasons for Documentation in Early Childhood Education Centres

Communicaon funcon:

Documentaon as an occasion for communicaon with and between stakeholders Dialogue and listening as necessary means of communicaon

Cognive funcon:

Comprehending and understanding children's perspecves Documentaon as a mirror of adult interpretaons of children's views

Parcipatory funcon:

Children are respected as addressees Children acvely parcipate in the documentaon

Reminder funcon:

Representaonal funcon:

Documentaon prevents forgeng and enables remembering Source of inspiraon for new acvies Documentaon provides insights into the work of the facility Impression of the child's behaviour

Diagnosc funcon:

Recognion of the child's strengths and weaknesses Derivaon of support offers

Coherence funcon:

Provision of informaon for school and therapists Facilitang the transion between day care and school

Fig. 2.2   Functions of documentation

adults are shared and thought about together. In this way, the thinking and educational processes of children can be traced and understood through joint documentation. In this context, Schäfer and von der Beek (2013, p. 29) point out that documentation does not record objective “developmental stages” at all, but “a

2.4  What is Documentation …

23

picture of how we understand the actions, design, speech and thoughts of certain children”. Participation function The participation of children in the sense of democratic participation is often described as one of its goals in the discourse on documentation. Through pedagogical documentation, children should be given a voice so that their thoughts and feelings can be expressed (Gandini and Kaminsky 2004). Educational processes that would otherwise remain invisible and therefore unnoticed should be made visible through the involvement of children in the documentation process (Vecchi 2011). Dahlberg et al. (p. 155) therefore see pedagogical documentation as “a vital tool for the creation of a reflective and democratic pedagogical practice”. Participation should be achieved by taking children seriously as addressees of the documentation and by allowing children to have a significant influence on the process of documentation themselves (Knauf 2017b, 2019). Participation has gained additional importance in the debate on inclusion; Documentation is discussed in this context as an inclusive instrument (Knauf 2017d, 2017e). Memory function  Documentation is also described as an opportunity to record something that has happened for the future. This creates, among other things, points of contact for further development and for new things. Therefore, Schäfer (2011, p. 309) also describes documentation as “external memory”. According to the interpretation of Schäfer and Beek (2013, p. 28), documentation is “an important basis for not only dealing with something once, but over and over again. Seen in this way, it is a tool for -rethinking and thinking.” Viernickel and Völkel (2007, p. 158) pragmatically describe: “Without documentation, you run the risk of simply forgetting what you really saw too soon, or what you perceived quickly mixes with interpretation”. The memory function primarily refers to the children themselves, for whom documentation should provide an opportunity for memory. However, this is also associated with the risk that, for example, portfolios (exclusively) are implemented as nostalgic albums or as a modern form of the collection folders traditionally widespread in German ECE centres, with (uncommented and non-contextualised) work of the child. Müller and Zipperle (2011) found in an empirical analysis of the implementation of learning stories that often the (preferably beautiful) product of the finished documentation is in the foreground and not the dialogical process of documenting itself.

24

2  Reasons for Documentation in Early Childhood Education Centres

Representation function Documentation is also used for the purpose of showing outsiders (in particular the parents) what children and pedagogues are dealing with: “The parents receive a detailed insight into the work of the ECE centre as well as into the doing and leaving of their child” (Laewen and Andres 2007). Documentation can thus create transparency about the educational action of the pedagogues: “In addition to the portfolios, specially made photo documentation is also used to make the work in the ECE centre transparent for parents, visitors and the provider” (ibid., p. 92). It should be noted that documentation often also serves the positive representation of the work of pedagogues in the sense of an “impression management” (Knauf 2017a) (see Sect. 3.1). Diagnostic function  Documentation often describes the current development status of a child and thus serves as a basis for identifying suitable educational and support offers. In this diagnostic function, the close connection between documentation and observation becomes particularly apparent, because if specific measures are to be taken on the basis of observations, these must also be documented as evidence (Viernickel and Völkel 2009). Documentation is also used to record changes and developments and to create a basis for comparison; it shows “the pedagogue how the children are making progress” (Strätz and Demandewitz 2007). In particular, it is through the diagnostic function that the ambiguity of documentation arises, as described in Sect. 2.4.3: on the one hand as a non-evaluative constructive part of the educational process, on the other hand as a diagnostic element. Coherence function  Documentation can also be effective beyond the institution. It can provide information for other educational and training institutions, first and foremost for school: “Documentation is the basis of the information needed for the transition to school. As such, they contain—with the consent of the parents— a selection from the child’s educational path in the ECE centre, which is significant for school” (Schäfer 2011). Documentation can also be an important source of information for the cooperation with therapists (speech therapy, motopädie, occupational therapy, etc.), who work with individual children. At the same time, the exchange with other people and institutions can also be seen critically: Once made interpretations of a certain behavior, descriptions or attributions of personality traits or the evaluation of certain skills and potentials in the documentation can, for example, the perspective of teachers in school influence and lead to bias. The assessments contained in the documentation passed on about a child—in a positive as well as in a negative sense—can therefore shape the further educa-

2.4  What is Documentation …

25

tional path of the child. Beyond all questions of data protection, the sensitivity of the documentation becomes clear with these considerations. This list of objectives or functions of documentation is initially to be understood descriptively and not prescriptively, i.e. only those functions are described which are mentioned in the available literature. Which objectives are to be achieved with a concrete documentation, which objectives are in the foreground in each case and are particularly emphasized by the involved actors, can therefore vary greatly and depends on the respective context. Different forms of documentation also focus on different goals, although here too the concrete implementation significantly affects the actual function. In addition, the documentation forms are also based on different educational approaches, as described in Sect. 2.1.

2.4.2 Recipients of Documentation The analysis of educational approaches and curricula has shown that documentation is addressed to different recipients, which are shown in Fig. 2.3. The compilation in Fig. 2.3includes potentially possible recipients and is purely analytical in character, so it should not be understood prescriptively. Pedagogues  If documentation is understood in the context of diagnosis in the broadest sense, then documentation serves primarily to provide pedagogues with insights into the development of children. But process-oriented documentation, in which the educational process and not the result or the output (e.g. a certain level of knowledge of the child) is in the foreground, can also be a tool for reflection for pedagogues. Schäfer (2011, p. 309) sees documentation in this sense as “the professional tool of the pedagogue to reflect on her work and to develop new proposals from it—alone or in a team.” With this, Schäfer also refers to the professional exchange of professionals in the group. On the one hand, the pedagogues can exchange ideas in order to differentiate and validate the documentation, on the other hand, documentation can also be used as an occasion for internal exchange and reflection on educational processes. Parents  Above all, the parents are mentioned as one of the most important groups of recipients in the curriculums of the German federal states, but partly also in the described approaches to early childhood education. Documentation should give parents insights into the educational work of the ECE center. At the same

26

2  Reasons for Documentation in Early Childhood Education Centres

Pedagogues

Parents

Children

Documentaon

Public

Partners in the educaonal system

Fig. 2.3   Recipients of Documentation

time, it forms the basis for discussions, for example for development discussions. The documentation also has the function of illustrating what is to be discussed or serving as evidence for the analyses of the pedagogues. Children  The documentation is intended to serve children as an impulse and basis for reflection on their own learning and as an encouragement for further exploration and construction. In many documentations—especially in portfolios and learning stories—children are explicitly addressed (for example, by the salutation “Dear …”). If the focus is on the educational process, children are in the foreground as active agents of documentation. However, if diagnostic aspects

2.4  What is Documentation …

27

of documentation or educational outcomes are emphasized, children lose their role as creators and most important addressees of the resulting documentation. Because in this context, children are primarily assigned a role as an investigation object. Documentation is created about children, intended for third parties, and less documentation, which was created together with children and addressed to the children themselves. Educational Partners  As child care facilities have established themselves today as elementary level of the education system, the need for cooperation with other institutional educational institutions, especially with schools, is growing. A special focus is on the transition from child care to primary school (OECD 2017). Documentation can become a medium of information exchange here: for example, by involving teachers in professional exchange or by using documentation as a basis for discussions between pedagogues, parents and children. The same applies to cooperation with therapeutic services (e.g. early childhood education, occupational therapy or motopaedics), with which the dialogue on the child’s education and development can be deepened through documentation. At the same time, a sensitive handling of the documentation is required here to protect personality rights. (see also the explanations of the coherence function in Sect. 2.4.1). Public  Documentation that does not refer to individual children in terms of individual diagnosis can be a link to the public. The ECE center can present itself to the public with the help of documentation, at the same time the activities of the children can be documented in public. The connection with the social environment is particularly important in the context of Reggio pedagogy, which is also named after its place of origin: Projects in the city and with institutions and people in the city play a special role here (Davoli and Ferri 2015).

2.4.3 Diagnostic vs. process-oriented documentation The analysis of the educational program (in the form of elementary educational approaches in Sect. 2.1) as well as the political guidelines (in the form of the national curriculums in Sect. 2.3) shows documentation as a collective term for very different practices. At the extreme points, two different conceptions of documentation can be identified: 1. Documentation is described as a strategy for interaction with children and parents and is an expression of a “pedagogy of listening” (Rinaldi 2006b), through

28

2  Reasons for Documentation in Early Childhood Education Centres

which the thinking and learning processes of children can be researched (Gandini and Goldhaber 2001; Gandini and Kaminsky 2004; Helm 2007; Project Zero and Reggio Children 2011; Thornton and Brunton 2014; Waller 2009). In this interpretation, documentation serves primarily the educational process itself and its reflection by children and pedagogues. In this interpretation, documentation is seen as a means of strengthening participation and democracy in educational institutions; documentation gives space to the perspectives of children and thus gives them a voice (Falk and Darling-Hammond 2010; Picchio et al. 2014; Suárez 2010). 2. Documentation is placed in the context of the evaluation and assessment of development and performance of children. It is part of a systematic diagnostic process that serves the identification of strengths and weaknesses of children. Documentation is closely linked to the observation of children in this understanding. Observation and documentation should allow for the most precise individual support of each child possible. Documentation is used in this perspective to analyze the abilities of children (Alasuutari et al. 2014) and is oriented towards the benchmark of a “normal child” (Kelle 2013). Basford and Bath (2014, p. 4) follow a similar argumentation when they characterize documentation as part of an “assessment game” in which it is about naming normality and deviations or strengths and weaknesses of children as precisely as possible. In this interpretation, documentation serves primarily the retrospective archiving of past actions or interactions (Forman and Fyfe 1998). These two interpretations of documentation basically pursue different objectives: The first is process- and theme-oriented, the second result- and performance-oriented. On closer inspection, however, it becomes clear that these different objectives do not exclude each other in principle: Documentation originally intended as supportive, process- and theme-oriented can also be used later for assessment purposes. This is also the central point of criticism of Alasuutari et al. (2014) and of Bath and Basford (2014): The originally non-standardized and norm-oriented documentation is used almost automatically in the further processing in the ECE center (e.g. in parent-teacher conferences) for the assessment of the child’s skills and development. It is therefore more appropriate to speak of two faces of documentation than of two variants of documentation. This duality is particularly evident in the curricula of the German federal states (see Sect. 2.3), in which diagnostic and process-oriented objectives and procedures merge.

2.4  What is Documentation …

29

 Documentation is understood in this context as the written, visual and auditory recording of situations in ECE centres. In a broader understanding, this also includes conversation protocols, notes made by pedagogues during observations, and completed observation forms or other standardized developmental diagnostic procedures. In a narrower understanding, documentation refers exclusively to the recording of perceptible processes and objects that focus on the educational process. Documentation that follows this narrower understanding is referred to as pedagogical documentationin the context of this work. The focus of the present book lies on pedagogical documentation. The forms of documentation described and analyzed in Chap. 3 are therefore forms of pedagogical documentation in the narrower sense of the word.

3

Pedagogical Documentation: Forms and Styles in Pedagogical Practice

Abstract

For the implementation of pedagogical documentation in ECE centres, various methods have been developed in recent decades. This chapter presents the most important methods of pedagogical documentation: portfolio, learning stories as well as pedagogical documentation in space. In addition, an overview of project documentation and digital forms of pedagogical documentation is given. For each method, an overview of the goals and procedures and the state of research is given first. Subsequently, results of own empirical studies as well as other research results are presented. The conclusion is an analysis of the institution-related documentation styles, which are transverse to the previously presented forms of pedagogical documentation. In Germany, a particularly large variety of different methods of pedagogical documentation is used. For example, a study by Fröhlich-Gildhoff and Strohmer (2011) shows that ECE centres in Germany usually use several documentation procedures in parallel. With regard to the observation instruments used in German ECE centres, the “Starting Strong V” study of the OECD (2015) also shows that narrative assessments (i.e. learning stories) and portfolios are common in Germany. As the analysis of the curricula in Sect. 2.3 showed, the concrete design and implementation of pedagogical documentation lies in the hands of the institutions themselves. Viernickel et al. (2013, p. 91) also state in a comprehensive survey on the quality of education in German ECE centres that there is no uniform prac-

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2022 H. Knauf, Pedagogical Documentation in Early Childhood Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-39736-4_3

31

32

3  Pedagogical Documentation: Forms and Styles …

tice of pedagogical documentation in Germany, but rather “providers, management and teams are each faced with the task of choosing their own methods”. The study also provides indications of which documentation procedures are used in Germany. It shows that the largest group of institutions works with self-developed methods, followed by the use of the portfolio concept and educational and learning stories. Self-developed procedures usually build on other procedures such as portfolios and include them.

3.1 Portfolio Portfolios are the most widely used form of pedagogical documentation in Germany. Their attractiveness results from their large design options. Portfolios offer the opportunity to collect different documents; at the same time, they allow for institution- or provider-specific structuring. However, the empirical analysis shows that these freedoms are not necessarily used to create an pedagogical documentation that is oriented towards the topics, interests and strengths of children. Rather, standardized portfolio entries with a limited variety predominate. The participation of children in the process of pedagogical documentation in and for portfolios is also rather low.

3.1.1 Portfolio: An Open Concept of Pedagogical Documentation In ECE centres, the portfolio is understood as a collection of works by the child as well as photos, reports and other documents on experiences from the time in the ECE centre. The term portfolio goes back to the Renaissance in Italy; there the portfolio was a selection of the best works of an artist and served as proof of his achievements. The works were each recorded on one sheet (=foglio) and could thus be carried around (=portare) (Häcker 2006). In  educational institutions, the portfolio was only used in the twentieth century. In school and university, it was used as an alternative to traditional examination forms and was intended to make it possible to take into account not only a single final examination performance as a basis for assessment, but the entire learning process (Stratmann et al. 2009). Therefore, it is often also understood as a process-oriented examination form (in contrast to results-oriented examination forms). Portfolios have been gaining in popularity in ECE centres since around the year 2000. There they meet the often widespread collecting folders as predecessors, in which the

3.1 Portfolio

33

works (especially pictures and handicrafts) of the children have traditionally been collected (Viernickel and Völkel 2009). In addition to self-developed methods, portfolios are the most widely used form of pedagogical documentation in German ECE centres (Viernickel et al. 2013). In many other OECD countries, the portfolio is also part of the standard repertoire of documentation procedures (OECD 2015). The portfolio is a form of pedagogical documentation that is individually created for each child. Portfolios are implemented very differently in Germany. Most institutions adapt the principle of the portfolio to their own ideas and possibilities, so that the term portfolio has developed into a general term for various forms of pedagogical documentation; in them, products of the children and documents about each individual child are collected. There are portfolios that serve as simple folders for pictures and craftwork of the children, as well as diaries or photo albums; but there are also differentiated competence and development representations. Portfolios are usually organized in folders (as can also be seen in Fig. 3.1), on which the name is written on the outside and often also a photo of the children can be seen. Usually they are placed in the group room or in the hallway and are freely accessible; in part, they are also stored locked in a cupboard.

Fig. 3.1   Portfolios in an open shelf in the hallway of an ECE centre

34

3  Pedagogical Documentation: Forms and Styles …

3.1.2 Implementation in Germany Overview of Methods The basis for the study underlying this section is the empirical study of 25 portfolios from 23 different German ECE centres. As far as possible, different institutions were selected according to theoretical criteria in order to cover a wide range of framework conditions for portfolio creation (Kelle and Kluge 2010). The selection is based on the principles of qualitative sampling and does not claim to be representative. The sample includes four institutions in municipal ownership, ten in church ownership and eleven in private ownership. 6 portfolios are for children under 3 years old, 19 for children between 3 and 6 years old. Institutions in both rural and urban areas are also included. Each institution names a special content focus and/ or pedagogical approach in its concept, which its work is based on. Here too, care was taken to include different approaches in the sampling. The sample therefore includes institutions that work according to the Situation approach, ECE centres that are based on the Montessori or Reggio pedagogy, Open approach and forest kindergartens. In addition, some institutions work integratively or inclusively. The 25 portfolios contain a total of 2104 portfolio entries. After a first review, formal categories were first formed, which capture the type (e.g. image, photo, text) and the authorship (e.g. created by the child or the teacher) of the entries. In a further review, the material was sorted according to the impression it makes. The structure was created based on the material (Muckel 2011). This careful, material-oriented approach corresponds to the exploratory approach of the study: Since empirical studies on portfolios in ECE centres are still largely lacking, the aim was not to superimpose an external category structure. In order to be able to evaluate the portfolio entries statistically, they were assigned to the formed categories in a further review. Based on the categories, theories were formed, typical entries were identified for each of these and exemplarily analyzed at the micro level (Breuer 2010).

3.1.2.1 Contents: Between Freedom and Template In principle, portfolios allow a free form of pedagogical documentation. Individual documents can be collected here that are individually suitable for each child, its development and its interests. This flexibility corresponds to a large extent to

35

3.1 Portfolio

the openness of the content design of the early childhood education and care sector, for which there are no curricular requirements that certain content must be “covered” (see also Sect. 2.3). In the folders, different documents from the day-to-day life of a child can be stored: pictures the child has drawn, photos from activities or from everyday life, favorite songs and stories (Elschenbroich et al. 2008; Strätz 2013; Knauf 2012). Often, portfolios also contain learning stories, which are examined in more detail in Sect. 3.2. The evaluation of portfolios from Germany first shows a great variety of different documents. A total of 13 different document types could be distinguished formally. They are shown in Fig. 3.2; in the category “Others”, three

Photos with/without comment 1011 Painted picture 417 Completed form/worksheet 259 Copy song, poem, story 120 Handicras 115 Text only 74 Blank form 24 PROFILE 24 Development Report 22 Leer from parents/family 14 Cerficate 9 Newspaper clipping 9 Other 6 Fig. 3.2   Types of portfolio entries by content (n = 2104)

36

3  Pedagogical Documentation: Forms and Styles …

more categories are bundled (postcards from vacation, letters from friends, and children’s quotes without pictures or context). The portfolios most often studied contain photographs, often in combination with short episodes or comments, but also in the form of a learning story. The relatively large number of completed forms or worksheets is surprising, since the portfolio is basically designed as a free form of pedagogical documentation. One reason for this finding is that there is a wide range of materials available in Germany for working with portfolios. A wealth of templates and forms that can be used as photocopies by ECE centres are provided in the existing literature for practice (e.g. the Saarland portfolio concept by Elschenbroich et al. 2008 or the portfolio templates by Bostelmann 2007). In addition, there are numerous templates available on the Internet. Individual institutions or their providers have also developed their own forms to facilitate or structure everyday work (Knauf 2015b). Figure 3.3 shows a register with different forms as it is found in practice. In the portfolio approach of Saarland, the aim is to shed light on various educational areas more systematically with a portfolio: so-called “balance sheets” are used to document “which interests and competences a child could develop or,

Fig. 3.3   Hanging register with forms for the portfolio; checklist for developmental areas to be observed

3.1 Portfolio

37

more cautiously, probably develop in all educational areas.” (Elschenbroich et al. 2008, p. 27). The portfolio is thus also used for diagnostic purposes. Another instrument for portfolio work that goes beyond simply collecting relevant documents are checklist: With them, teachers can check which portfolio entries have already been processed for which child and where there is still “work to be done”. In this way, it should be ensured that all children receive enough attention from the pedagogues and that the portfolio folders of the children are filled out evenly. Figure 3.4 shows an example of a checklist in which both the

Fig. 3.4   Checklist for portfolio work

38

3  Pedagogical Documentation: Forms and Styles …

different topics and the templates to be used can be ticked off; in addition, it can be noted which persons have dealt with each one. These strategies for systematizing portfolio work can also be seen critically: Through balance sheets, templates and checklists, the openness of the portfolio principle is limited. The actual core idea that the portfolio collects everything that is important to the child, that documents its very individual learning paths and interests, is countered by these instruments. Instead, approaches of standardization and orientation to a generally valid norm are used here. This observation is also the basis for the consideration that portfolios contain a hidden curriculum in that certain content is defined as “normal” and deviations from this “normality” are problematized (Alasuutari et al. 2014). Another approach provides for a two-stage process for filling the portfolio: First, all the child’s works, photos of him and his activities, etc. are collected. At regular intervals (e.g. every three months), the documents are then selected together with the child to be stored in the folder. In this way, not only a selection should take place, but the joint selection process should also serve as a reflection on past learning processes (Seitz and Bartholomew 2008). The empirical study shows that portfolios are often also used as pure collecting folders, in which pictures and photos are kept for mere storage. This is certainly also due to the widespread tradition in which scrapbooks were established long before the introduction of portfolios in ECE centers. This unsystematic and above all non-education-oriented collection of documents has existed and still exists in many German ECE centers; the portfolio is often understood as an extended version of this scrapbook or as a rather formal transfer from a DIN-A3 folder to a DIN-A4 folder. Another problem in developing portfolios is that often a lot of time and effort is spent on an attractive design. The goal is to put together a particularly beautiful and complete (photo) album that is given to the children at the end of their time in the ECE centre as a farewell gift. These portfolios, which are designed as albums, focus on the memory function of documentation—not with the goal of giving new educational processes in the context of ECE, but to preserve positive memories of the time in the ECE centre for the later schoolchild, teenager or adult that the child will grow up to be.

3.1.2.2 Structure Differences can also be found in the structures used in portfolios. Many ECE centres proceed chronologically and attach the most recent documents to the front. In some cases, this chronological structure is given a stronger structure by inserting a separator for each year. The chronological structure emphasizes the long

3.1 Portfolio

39

period that the portfolio covers. Through the structure, a connection should be made between different situations from everyday life in the ECE centre and the process character of education should be emphasized (Kroeger and Cardy 2006). Other structures provide for thematic sub-divisions. An example of this is shown in Fig. 3.5, in which the portfolio is divided into the categories “This is me”, “I can do this”, “I’m interested in this”, “This is how I paint”, “My favorite songs, games and rhymes” and “My most beautiful experiences/events”. In other countries, educational areas or specific learning objectives are often used as structural elements (Harris Helm et al. 2007). Other concepts divide the portfolio into a part for the child and a part for the adults. Some portfolio concepts for early childhood education propose even further differentiated structures. For example, Groot-Wilken (2008) distinguishes between four types of portfolios: development, competence, family, and presentation portfolio, with the portfolios being stored in separate folders or boxes and having different authors. The development portfolio is written by the pedagogue, the competence portfolio by the child, the family portfolio by the family; all actors are involved in the presentation portfolio. Together, the four portfolios then make up the child’s portfolio. The portfolio concept issued by the Saarland Ministry of

Fig. 3.5   Portfolio with thematic subdivision

40

3  Pedagogical Documentation: Forms and Styles …

Education also provides for a part for the child, a part for the pedagogues, and a part for the parents (“Parental tasks in the portfolio”) (Elschenbroich et al. 2008). In this way, the portfolio becomes a comprehensive observation and documentation tool. In practice, however, competence, family, and presentation portfolios are often combined, while the share of the development portfolio is outsourced and replaced by other instruments (e.g. standardized or open observation procedures). Child-related information, diagnostic documents, and protocols of parent-pedagogue conferences are often stored in a child’s file separately from the portfolio.

3.1.2.3 Topoi: The Messages Behind the Content In order to understand the mechanisms that influence the production of portfolios and thus also the finished product, the portfolios were subjected to a deeper evaluation in addition to the formal analysis. The question was pursued as to which messages the portfolios contain. The addressees of these messages are— as Sect. 2.4.2 shows for documentation as a whole—numerous: parents, children, pedagogues, educational partners. In accordance with the requirements of the curricula, children and parents can be identified as the main addressees of documentation—and thus also of the messages in the portfolios. The evaluation shows that the portfolios are mainly created by the pedagogues and not by the children (see Sect. 3.1.2.4 in detail). The contents and language of the portfolios examined refer to the fact that, in addition to the child as the primary addressee, the parents (possibly also other adults) are always kept in mind as secondary addressees when producing portfolio entries. Therefore, as shown in Fig. 3.6, the portfolio can be interpreted as an instrument of indirect communication between pedagogues and parents. It is assumed that documentation is not an objective representation of reality, but that it represents a meaning constructed (=made) by the pedagogues. In this way, by selecting certain actions or observations and by embedding and

Pedagogue

Child

Fig. 3.6   Parents as indirect addressees of the pedagogues’ portfolios

Parents

3.1 Portfolio

41

interpreting these situations in the form of comments, stories and captions, individual topics and priorities of the work in the ECE center can be emphasized. In this way, the pedagogues create certain images (=topoi) of the work in the ECE center. These topoi give an indication of the pedagogues’ pedagogical mindsets. At the same time, they can also be interpreted as a reaction to (assumed) expectations of parents. The analysis of the material shows that the following five topoi in particular shape the image that is or is to be drawn of the work in the institution: The children… • • • • •

…have a lot of fun, …are connected to other children through friendships, …are well prepared for school, …receive high quality offers and …are seen and appreciated individually.

The Children Have a Lot of Fun The portfolio entries are selected by the pedagogues so that festivals, special occasions and other highlights throughout the year make up a large part of the content. These include birthdays and seasonal events such as Easter, summer party or lantern festival. These activities are documented in the portfolios with photos; often they are only labeled with a comment as a headline. For example, the children are seen on the photos with lanterns or Easter baskets and smiling faces. These pictures bring the happy aspects of the events in the ECE centre to the foreground; by selecting these aspects in particular, the topos of having fun is emphasized. In addition, the topos “having fun” is also referred to in almost all portfolios in everyday situations. It often appears in the comments of photos. Partly, portrait photos of the child are provided with a corresponding picture caption, for example: “You are a happy child!” or “We have a lot of fun with you!” Especially often there are corresponding comments on photos on which children can be seen in certain everyday activities, as can be seen in the following quotes: Mia has dirty hands and a lot of fun! We sang, danced and laughed a lot. We all had a great time! You always have a lot of fun in the ball pit. Betting makes a lot of fun for young and old.

42

3  Pedagogical Documentation: Forms and Styles …

In some comments, the general well-being is also mentioned, as in a portfolio in which it says: “You felt comfortable with the seahorses right away”. The attribution of “having fun” to a situation is directly formulated in these examples. “Fun” is then a general term for positive feelings such as joy, security and satisfaction. At the same time, “fun” is also a label for unspecific situations that the pedagogues perceive more diffusely than positively. This is why the picture and the situation do not always seem to match and the children pictured sometimes look more serious or sad. This also shows a problem with the production process of photo contributions in portfolios: The development of the photos usually takes some time, because first enough pictures are collected and then ordered. The prints are sometimes only available weeks or months later. After such a long time, the original situation is often no longer present for the participants. The “fun” then appears as a solution to find a positive, but ultimately meaningless description of the image. Even if the actual reference to the situation is rather weakly expressed, the topos of the fun is used because it is understood as a universal category that meets the (assumed) expectations of the portfolio’s recipients. The pedagogues obviously consider it very important to document in the portfolio how well the children are doing in the institution. The Children are Connected to Other Children Through Friendship A topos that can be found in almost all portfolios refers to the community of children. For example, group photos are captioned with slogans that are intended to illustrate the cohesion of the children, e.g.: “We are a good team”. In this way, a picture with all children is loaded with meaning and the impression is created that here not only children are standing next to each other, but that they are also socially and emotionally connected to each other. Something similar is the case with the concept of friendship, for example when a picture with three children is commented with “Friendship is great” or the caption “My best friends” gets. Also here a small group of children is assumed to have a special proximity and community. The topos of friendship is used in a special way to illustrate the integration of the individual child into the group of children. This is also shown by the portfolio entries, in which a child is “chosen” by others, as in the following comment on a photo: “When B. celebrated his 5th birthday, you were allowed to sit next to him at breakfast”. By including this event in the portfolio, it becomes clear that the situation is given a special value. Similar to the topos “have fun”, the aim here is to make it clear that the child is doing well and feels comfortable in the institution.

3.1 Portfolio

43

The Children are Well Prepared for School The analysis of the portfolio entries makes it clear that another important topos is the preparation for school. Some of the documents in the portfolios are worksheets on which children are supposed to train certain skills that are considered relevant for school. These tasks can only be found in the portfolios for children over 3 years of age (and not in the portfolios from the nursery). Typical tasks are categorization tasks (“classify”), writing or coloring letters and numbers, drawing lines according to a given pattern, error detection, labyrinths and counting exercises. In addition to these worksheets, there are also comments on photos that emphasize the impression that the children are being comprehensively prepared for school. The following caption, for example, emphasizes the use of books and thus refers to the promotion of literacy: In between, we sometimes read one of the books that the children had brought with them and learned a lot of interesting and new things.

In some portfolios, the joint excursion to a primary school is also documented, where the kindergarten children can gain first impressions of their future school. In contrast to the “have fun” topos, which can be found in all portfolios, only half of the kindergarten portfolios contain the “school preparation” topos. So it is above all individual institutions that attach particular importance to conveying to the parents that and how the children are well prepared for the requirements at school. Here, a certain content-related profile of the institution may emerge. The Children Receive High-Quality Offers All portfolios examined are intended to make it clear that the ECE centres work in a pedagogically high-quality manner. However, this is not about predominantly cognitive activities, as described in the section on school preparation, but about more holistic activities. Many portfolio entries document everyday situations in photos, which are given a special upgrade by the accompanying commentary. Activities in the outdoor area are part of the daily routine in most institutions; a photo of a child playing outside with the caption “We like to be outside” emphasizes this in a special way. The connection with the word “like” highlights the positive basic mood; the plural makes the statement a confession of the entire group instead of the description of the preferences of the individual child pictured. In the context of the widespread conviction that contact with nature and

44

3  Pedagogical Documentation: Forms and Styles …

staying outdoors has a positive effect, especially for young children, this portfolio entry invites an everyday activity to become a particularly valuable pedagogical measure. Such loadings with meaning can also be found for numerous other everyday activities, such as brushing one’s teeth (“We practice brushing our teeth properly”), reading aloud or the shared snack with healthy food (“The reading circle in front of the fruit bowl”). However, the portfolio entries also illustrate expansions and specializations of already known activities that would possibly have gone unnoticed without the explicit mention in comments and captions. For example, a photo showing children painting is provided with a description of “painting to music”. Only in this way does it become clear that the children are listening to music very deliberately while painting and are therefore in a pedagogically framed situation. The value of this activity is directly formulated in the comment: “In this way of painting, the thoughts are free, the children are completely with themselves, painting what comes”. A photo with a child in the garden is upgraded by the comment below: “In the garden with the magnifying glass on discovery”. The exploratory, research-oriented character of the child’s explorations is made more clear by the emphasis on “discovering” and by directing attention to the utensil (“magnifying glass”). Special actions play a big role in the portfolios. These can be not only festivals and celebrations (see section “Having fun”), but also excursions to the fire department, the forest, the Zoo or larger projects. The following example describes a garbage project: We collect garbage in front of the ECE centre. We sort garbage brought from home. The children do not want people to throw garbage on the ground. We want to put garbage cans in front of the ECE centre and need money. Maximilian calls the bank and explains the situation. We write a letter to the bank and ask for money for a garbage can.

Even unusual offers by the pedagogues in the institution itself illustrate the pedagogical claim, such as photos of the “blowing course mouth motorics”, in which the children have to blow deliberately with the straw. This also offers the opportunity for the pedagogues to make their own expertise clear. In general, entries in portfolios with this topos aim to illustrate the special pedagogical offerings of the ECE centre or the pedagogues and to show that the children are offered a demanding and differentiated program that promotes their development in various ways.

3.1 Portfolio

45

The Children are Seen and Appreciated Individually In some of the portfolio entries, the everyday observations of the staff are presented, unlike in the “Preparation for School” and “High-Quality Activities” topoi. This creates short, personal descriptions. These are often simple situations in which the observed child makes a special experience, as in this example: Today we played with the cars. We put a mat on the podium and let the cars roll down. You took a car, put it on top of the mat and let it go. You carefully observed how it rolled down the sloping mat. Then you took the next car out of the basket […] You tried different cars—big cars, small cars […] I was impressed that you examined the cars and the sloping mat for so long and patiently. You were very concentrated and did not let yourself be distracted.

The following example describes a game situation in which two children were involved: This morning you played with […] in the hallway. Since you both wanted to hang the blanket, but only had one, you came up with the following: each should have the blanket for a while. So that you knew when to exchange, you set the hourglass in front of you. Here [in the photo] […] waited while you walked through the hallway with the blanket around your shoulders. I especially liked that you found a regulation without an educator having to intervene.

The focus on seemingly small, everyday situations is also illustrated by the photos used, which bring details into the foreground. Figure 3.7 shows such a combination of text and image. These portfolio entries are exemplary for the pedagogical documentation designed as learning stories of situations. Sometimes this topos can also be found with smaller insights into everyday life in the ECE centre, which are then not embedded in a whole story. This happens, for example, when a picture of a child at the sink is commented with: “You like to go to the sink and are happy when the water turns on and you can splash around.” The impression that is in the foreground here is the exact and very individual observation by the pedagogue. The detailed description makes it clear that the child described is very attentively perceived and that even small everyday occurrences are considered valuable and important. On the one hand, the pedagogues are visible as precise observers who are sensitive to important moments and sometimes also stimulate experiences in children with small impulses (offer shaving foam, put the mat on a podium). On the other hand, however, the pedagogues

46

3  Pedagogical Documentation: Forms and Styles …

Fig. 3.7   Topos perception and appreciation of small developmental steps in a learning story

take a back seat because they do not (primarily) report on one of their offers, but on the child’s activities. The impression therefore predominates that the child is in the center with his needs and interests.

3.1 Portfolio

47

These portfolio entries are found in the data material evaluated here exclusively in portfolios from ECE centers. This can have various reasons: In the work with children in the first 3 years of life, usually fewer guided group activities (e.g. excursions, joint crafting) are carried out (Ahnert and Eckstein-Madry 2013). The emphasis on special events that can be found in many kindergarten portfolios therefore has no place here, so that the everyday life and free play of the children receive more attention. In addition, the groups in the ECE center are smaller and the pedagogue-child-ratio is higher than in groups with children over 3 years (Bock-Famulla et al. 2017), so that the conditions for more individual observations and pedagogical documentation are better. The different emphases that are expressed through the topoi express different ideas of education in ECE  centers. These different ideas are to be understood against the background of a changed view of the role and function of ECE centers. ECE centers in Germany are not only places of care for children, but also of their education. Accordingly, there is an important common element for the portfolio entries analyzed here: They all show children as learning, educating subjects and are part of the constitution of an “institutional doing education” (Schulz 2013, p. 39). In answer to the question of what exactly is meant by education in early childhood, the portfolios give different answers, however: The portfolios in which entries with worksheets for school preparation predominate seem to interpret education primarily as the acquisition of the cultural techniques of writing and arithmetic. Portfolios, on the other hand, which document apparently small events, represent a social constructivist understanding of education, according to which education is seen in the context of individual development. Other portfolios make it clear through their emphasis on fun and friendship that the social-emotional involvement of children is seen as the most important task of the institution.

3.1.2.4 Participation A central goal in the use of portfolios in pedagogical documentation in ECE is the participation of children. For example, Seitz and Bartholomew (2008) see portfolios as an opportunity for child-oriented pedagogical documentation, in which children can participate actively. This can encourage them to reflect and evaluate themselves. Especially the variant presented above (Sect. 3.1.2), involving children in the selection process of the documents included in the portfolio, can contribute to increased participation. By orienting oneself to the products and experiences of the children, the contents of the portfolio can be better understood and more easily understandable for the children. However, the evaluation of portfolio entries shows that most portfolio entries are created by the pedagogues. Fig-

48

3  Pedagogical Documentation: Forms and Styles …

ure 3.8 assigns the portfolio entries to the different authors. The figure shows that the pedagogues have designed more than 60% of the pages.

0.1 % Quotaons from the child 0.8 % Family contribuons

37.6 % Works of the child

61.5 % Contribuons of the pedagogue

Fig. 3.8   Types of portfolio entries according to authors (n = 2104)

3.1 Portfolio

49

Just under 40% of the entries can be assigned to the category “Works of the Children”. However, this category also includes task and worksheets filled in by the children; so it is something the children have done, but based on very specific instructions. The craftwork contained in the portfolios is mostly also oriented towards given tasks, in which adult-developed techniques are implemented. The portfolios analyzed contain relatively few entries that reflect the perspective of the children without prescribing a specific framework. These are primarily the children’s pictures, which were provided with explanations by the pedagogue, with these explanations obviously dictated by the children, as the picture in Fig. 3.9 shows. However, the portfolio entries examined also show that they were mostly also created on the initiative of the specialists; in Fig. 3.9 this is made clear by the caption “Our trip into fantasy”. The portfolios examined, it can be concluded, almost exclusively contain documents prepared, framed or completely created by the pedagogues. This practice

Fig. 3.9   Commented picture of a child in a portfolio

50

3  Pedagogical Documentation: Forms and Styles …

thus stands in contrast to the participatory character of the portfolio often emphasized in theory (Gilkerson and Fryer Hanson 2000; T. Knauf 2011). In this way, the portfolio turns out to be an object controlled and designed primarily by adults.

3.1.2.5 Cooperation with Parents: Participants or Addressees In the scientific justification of and discussion about portfolios, their importance for communication with parents plays a special role. It has been pointed out several times that portfolios are particularly suitable as a basis for discussions with parents (e.g. Lepold and Lill 2017); this is also mentioned as a key goal in the curricula of the German federal states (see Sect. 2.3.1). In Sect. 3.1.2.3 in particular, the role of parents as recipients of certain topoi was considered. In this perspective, parents are rather passive recipients. But parents can also be involved in portfolio work not only by receiving the portfolio, but, as the evaluation of the literature shows, also as co-workers. Appl et al. (2014) make it clear that it is precisely the openness of the portfolio principle that also makes it possible for parents to participate. Some portfolio concepts foresee this explicitly, as in the Saarland program: There is its own “home task” category, which is addressed to parents and to which they are supposed to contribute. Parents are asked to borrow, try out at home with their children, and then report in writing in the portfolio (alternatively orally in the parent-teacher conference) (Elschenbroich et al. 2008). Groot-Wilken (2008, p. 102) suggests that parents “write about all topics that are relevant for the educational work in the ECE center” and put these texts in the “family portfolio”, with the institution providing “documentation assistance” by asking certain questions, for example about the child’s activities at home, his or her relationships with friends and siblings, or his or her handling of conflicts. Another possibility for involving parents was used in the portfolios examined, whereby the parents were asked to write a letter to the ECE center. Some institutions also give the parents the task of designing the portfolio folder. This form of parental involvement is generally to be regarded as two-edged. The aim of cooperation in this way to strengthen or to give parents occasions and incentives to engage with the learning of their children, is to serve the positive development of the child. By for the child clearly visible ECE center and parents do something together, can be increased sense of security and well-being. On the other hand, it is expected that parents deal differently with these expectations and requirements of the ECE center. Uncertainty, lack of time or low (language) skills can lead to that expected by the pedagogues portfolio entries of parents are very different designed or not achieved at all. The intended support

3.1 Portfolio

51

for the child can then turn into its opposite and lead to a sense of deficit or even stigma. Gilkerson and Fryer Hanson (2000) but point out from their experience with “family portfolios”, that not all families feel comfortable to give insights into their family life. They therefore propose to provide various options for the involvement of families in the portfolio, so that families have a choice.

3.1.2.6 Connection/Transition to Elementary School The transition between kindergarten and elementary school can be accompanied by portfolios. Portfolios can establish connection to the next learning environment (i.e. the school) (Richter et al. 2012; Backhaus et al. 2014). By for the portfolio a particularly long period and documents also different areas of life and learning, it is considered as a particularly suitable form of pedagogical documentation. The transfer of the portfolio (or other pedagogical documentation) is not legally regulated or even required in Germany. Since the form of pedagogical documentation for ECE centres is also not specified, a transfer to school does not take place regularly. In addition, it is assumed that the pedagogical documentation or, in this case, the portfolio is the property of the child and that the child can decide for itself what happens to it and who is allowed to read it. The transfer of information from the ECE centre to the school is often seen as problematic; it is feared that this could lead to stigmatization of children (Jasmund et al. 2013). In practice, the transfer of documents from the ECE center to the school is widespread. In a survey of pedagogues and parents about the transfer of pedagogical documentation to the school, 31% of the parents and 23% of the pedagogues said that such a transfer takes place (Backhaus et al. 2015). In this survey, the parents also stated why they did not pass on the pedagogical documentation. As reasons for not passing on, they mentioned that they did not know this possibility or that the elementary school had no interest in it. The desire not to influence the perception of future teachers also plays a big role. This goal is also relevant for the primary-teachers, who would like to look at the children as unbiased as possible to a large extent. About a third of the primary-teachers surveyed believe that the pedagogical documentation of the ECE centre does not contain any relevant information for them. These results point to deeper obstacles to the cooperation between elementary and primary level, which should not be further illuminated here. In addition to the possible contempt for the work of ECE centres expressed in this finding, it also becomes clear: ECE centres and primary-schools are shaped by different goals and expectations of education (Bülow 2011). However,

52

3  Pedagogical Documentation: Forms and Styles …

the influence of school education and assessment concepts on the work in ECE centres seems to be gaining in importance at the same time (Mierendorff 2014).

3.2 Learning Stories Learning stories are a widely used method of pedagogical documentation in Germany and often an important part of portfolios. The concept was developed in New Zealand and later adapted by the German Youth Institute (DJI) for the German context. An analysis of learning stories from German ECE centres shows that the diversity of implementation of learning stories is very large. A typology systematizes the range of this diversity. The diversity is also due to the large scope that early childhood education centre in Germany have in choosing and implementing the procedure of pedagogical documentation. Many learning stories follow the principles as they were developed in New Zealand or by the DJI. However, numerous learning stories also show great deviations from the concept of learning stories, for example by focusing more on the evaluative development of the child or by their choice of words making it clear that they are primarily addressed to adults and not to children.

3.2.1 The Concept of Learning Stories: Origin and Further Development At the end of the 1990s, a curriculum for early childhood was presented for the first time in New Zealand, the Te Whariki. Until then, curricula had been reserved worldwide for schools. However, in contrast to school curricula, subjects or disciplines are not the decisive  structural features of the Te Whariki. Instead, principles (empowerment, holistic development, family and community, relationships) and goals (well-being, belonging, participation, communication, exploration) are shaping the Te Whariki., In the langiage of the Maori, who lived in New Zealand long befor European emigrants,  Te Whariki, means “woven mat” and symbolises that children are carried by a strong ground, built by the principles and the goals  as Fig. 3.10 illustrates. In the language of this metaphor, the curriculum should hold and support the participants; but at the same time, its nature (threads or bands that are interwoven) makes it possible and necessary that new threads are woven in again and again— thought of as a symbol for new knowledge and new skills (May and Carr 2016). In addition to the metaphor, the name also indicates through its language that the

53

Pr in

c ip

le s

3.2  Learning Stories

t en m er w t po en Em pm lo ity ve un de m c m lis ps co hi d Ho ns an o la Re Be

lo

ng

in g

Pa r

cip Co a m m on un ica o Ex pl n or a on W el lb ei ng

ily

m Fa Go s al

Abb. 3.10   Principles and goals of the Te Whariki as a woven mat

Maori are an important part of New Zealand culture and that the cultural diversity of the country is reflected in this curriculum. The original document of the New Zealand Ministry of Education is accordingly bilingual. For this new curriculum,

54

3  Pedagogical Documentation: Forms and Styles …

an appropriate assessment instrument should also be developed, because the need for observation and documentation was beyond question during the development. Margaret Carr’s learning stories are therefore closely linked to Te Whariki and take up both the principles and the goals of the curriculum (Carr 2001). Working with learning stories is therefore—taking up the image of the woven mat—understood as an essential part of weaving this mat (Lee et al. 2013). For learning stories, situations in which the children act are selected, described and interpreted in an exemplary way. Lee et al. (2013, p. 109) define three key elements of learning stories: • Narrative describing a significant learning event: What happened? • Analysis of the learning event: What learning do I think has happened here? • Planning of subsequent steps: What possibilities arise from this? As a central analytical framework for the selection of suitable situations as the basis for learning stories, for analysis in the learning story and further planning, the concept of learning dispositions is used. These are understood, following Katz (1993), as intellectual habits or patterns with a motivational and affective character. In this way, children are to be valued less according to a norm, but according to their individual development (Carr 2001). The following are referred to as learning dispositions (ibid.): • • • • •

Developing an interest Being involved Persisting with difficulty or uncertainty Communicating with others Taking responsibility

Carr (2001) emphasizes that learning stories should always be linked to social interaction. In this respect, they should be embedded in the social and cultural context in which they arise. The emergence of a learning story is therefore described by Carr as a dialogical process in which observation and interpretation of a situation are discussed by the documenting pedagogue with colleagues as well as with the child him- or herself; in this respect, children, families, the team of pedagoguesteachers in an ECE centre, and the pedagogue him- or herself are described as the target groups of learning stories (Carr 2001). According to this

3.2  Learning Stories

55

view, assessment in the form of learning stories comprises three steps (Ministry of Education and Research 2004): • Noticing: Perception of relevant situations, • Recognizing: Understanding the significance of this situation, and • Responding: Engaging with the learning needs expressed in the situation. The focus on learning dispositions and the narrative character are intended to allow individual events to be presented not in isolation but rather to allow learning processes to be discussed in a holistic way and embedded in a larger (sociocultural) context (Carr and Lee 2012). Learning stories are written primarily for the child but also for parents and other pedagogues and are intended to encourage dialogue about learning between all those involved. Learning stories are designed as narrative assessment and not as objective measurement. This distinguishes them from standardized and objective assessments (e.g. competence checklist or development tables). Learning stories are therefore deliberately intended to be a subjective interpretation, which can serve as a basis for discussions and joint agreements of all involved parties (ibid.). Carr (2001) emphasizes in particular that with the learning stories, instead of a deficit-oriented view of the child (“What can’t it do yet?”), a resource-oriented view should be taken (“What has it already learned?”). Accordingly, this form of assessment does not lay down a predetermined grid for the activities of the children, but takes their starting point in the children’s behavior and places them in the center as actively learning (Grindheim et al. 2010). With the focus on learning dispositions, domain-specific performance is in the background, because learning dispositions can be observed in every activity of the children (e.g. when building or crafting, role-playing or ball games) and are therefore independent of certain content. In this way, the different interests and personalities of the children are to be taken into account individually. The narrative character of learning stories and the associated address to the children is also intended to increase their participation in pedagogical documentation. The basic idea is that children can follow a story more easily than a description written in the style of a factual text. If the children can understand the story, it is seen as an essential prerequisite for conversations about a certain situation in which the children’s self-reflection can be stimulated (Carr 2011).

56

3  Pedagogical Documentation: Forms and Styles …

At the same time, however, there is also criticism of the concept of learning stories, which can be summarized in three points: first, part of the criticism questions the statement power of learning stories. According to Sadler (2010), inferences from observable behavior to learning dispositions are to be made only with reservations. Due to the open and also random character of the emergence of learning stories, it cannot be guaranteed that the entire complexity of a child’s learning will be captured. Blailklock (2008) also points out that developments in important areas of knowledge and skills can be overlooked due to the unsystematic approach. In addition, many learning stories remain superficial and only insufficiently exploit the potential for interpretation contained in a situation (Zhang 2016). A second line of argumentation questions the appropriate implementation of the approach in practice. It is repeatedly pointed out that a lot of time is needed for the creation of learning stories (DJI 2007; Moritz et al. 2012; Zhang 2016). Third, the form of adaptation for the situation in Germany by the German Youth Institute (DJI) is criticized. The DJI has contributed significantly to the dissemination of the learning stories approach in Germany at the beginning of the 2000s. As part of the project “Bildungs- und Lerngeschichten als Instrument zur Konkretisierung und Umsetzung des Bildungsauftrags im Elementarbereich” (Educational and Learning Stories as an Instrument for the Specification and Implementation of the Educational Mandate in Early Childhood Education), the procedure was transferred to the German context and adapted under the title “Bildungs- und Lerngeschichten” (Educational and Learning Stories) (DJI 2007). The orientation to the learning dispositions was retained, but various steps were elaborated in detail, which are only implicitly present in the New Zealand concept: an observation instrument, the collegial exchange and the reflection. With initially 25 model institutions, the procedure was tested and further developed between 2004 and 2007; as a result, an extensive manual was published in 2007 (Leu et al. 2007). The type of transfer for Germany has also been criticized since then. Since learning stories in Germany are not, as in New Zealand, closely linked to the curriculum, learning stories in Germany have a significantly lower priority and are only one task among many others (Müller and Zipperle 2011). In addition, it is an additional hurdle for teachers in Germany to turn away from externally guided assessment and categorization schemes and to a “dialogic educational process” (Kupfer 2010, p. 198). Against the background of these obstacles, the procedure developed by the DJI is perceived as too complicated, especially since it is relatively complicated due to the detailed differentiation of the procedure (Haas 2012).

3.2  Learning Stories

57

3.2.2 Implementation of Learning Stories in Germany Overview of Methods A total of 338 learning stories from 32 early childhood education centre across Germany were included in the study. The selection was made according to the principle of theoretical sampling, whereby additional material is added to the sample until no new variants are recognizable (theoretical saturation) (Breuer 2010). Of the learning stories examined, 67% come from groups with children over 3 years old and 33% from groups with children under 3 years old. The early childhood education centre involved had different levels of experience with learning stories; some had been working with them for 15 years, others for only 1 year. The ECE centres included in the study were asked to choose learning stories that they considered typical of the work in the ECE centre . It is assumed that learning stories were provided that the staff in the facilities considered to be particularly successful. Due to the sample, no claim to representativeness can be made, but the procedure of theoretical sampling ensures a certain degree of validity. The data evaluation was carried out for both of the following studies according to the principle of grounded theory. The aim was to identify the patterns or theories underlying the learning stories or contained in them. The procedure is intended to ensure that the analysis is oriented towards the material and that no theories are imposed from the outside. A detailed description of the methods can be found in Knauf (2018a, b).

3.2.2.1 Six Different Types of Learning Stories The analysis of learning stories shows a very wide range in the implementation of the concept. While the concept of learning stories (in contrast to other forms of pedagogical documentation) is relatively clearly outlined, a great variety of learning stories was found in practice. In the evaluation it also became clear that recurring patterns can be seen in this diversity, which can be condensed into types of learning stories. The types were formed on the basis of the two following characteristic variables: • Focus of observation: The learning stories under observation differ greatly in terms of their focus. There are learning stories with a general, abstract view of the observed situations or in which several situations are summarized (e.g. “You especially like to play on our outdoor playground.”), learning stories that

58

3  Pedagogical Documentation: Forms and Styles …

describe concrete observations (e.g. “You take very reliable care of the plants in our raised bed.”), as well as very detailed descriptions (e.g. “First you got the watering can from the water point and filled it with water. Then you carried the heavy can past the swings to the raised bed. There you first checked which plants need water …”). The focus therefore varies in three steps between—to stay with the image—wide-angle and focus. • Intensity of analysis: There are also clear differences in the learning stories in terms of the importance of interpretations and reflections. Thus, a part of the learning stories focuses on the description of the perceived situation and contains no analysis at all. Another part of the material contains an analysis in the form of assigning the observed situation to an educational area, a developmental task or certain (assumed) emotions of the acting child (“You train your sense of balance and coordination.”; “You are still annoyed when something does not work immediately …”). A third part evaluates the observed behavior of the child, mostly in a positive form of praise (“You’re doing that well.”). The learning stories therefore also vary in three steps between a neutral observation and a categorizing evaluation. For type formation, these two characteristics were combined so that initially nine different types were formed. However, it became clear that not all nine types can be clearly distinguished from each other, so that (following the principle of reduction) several types were combined. The final typology therefore comprises six different types of learning stories. The overview in Fig. 3.11 shows the abbreviations developed for each type and a summary description of each type in one sentence. The following six types are characterized and illustrated with quotes from the learning stories. Event Report Learning stories of this type describe a special event. In terms of content, this can be a trip, but also an action from everyday life in the ECE centre, such as baking a cake, making a film or commissioning a new toy. Even the visit of a guest (e.g. visit of a dental hygienist) can be the subject. In any case, the event itself is in the foreground, its course and individual components are described. The text therefore has the character of a report of facts, whereas reactions of the children or their perspectives play no or only a minor role, as the following example1 makes clear: 1 For

reasons of anonymity, names and places have been abbreviated in the learning stories quoted below. Language errors have been corrected for better readability and out of respect for the authors of the learning stories.

59

3.2  Learning Stories

Analysis

General

Concretely

Detailed

Event Report An action or a special experience is described

Photo Story Photo of the child with a quote from him or words put in his mouth

Microdescription The behaviour of the child is shown in detail ("slow motion observation").

Collective Review Several play situations or areas of education are presented in an overview

Rating

Intensity of the analysis

No analysis

Focus

Research Report Exploratory research into children's behaviour

Performance and progress display Report on the achievement of a certain development step

Abb. 3.11   Types of learning stories

At the bus stop we are surprised by a hail shower. Good that we can take shelter […] Then we are at the police station […] First we go up the stairs to the identification service. There are very friendly policemen there who explain to us, for example, how to recognize a burglar […].

The focus is generally set, because an overview of the most important elements of the event is to be given. As a rule, these learning stories concern several children or the entire group of children and not just one child. That is why these learning stories are usually not individually written, but rather so that they fit every child who was involved in this experience. Individuality is established in some learning stories of this type through the accompanying photos, partly through personal address. A direct address is sometimes designed so that all or many children can feel addressed by it: Look how you are looking for different water creatures together with the other children! Surely you also remember the toad we looked at, or?

60

3  Pedagogical Documentation: Forms and Styles …

Since these learning stories are intended to reach a larger group of children, they usually do not contain interpretations or evaluations of the behavior of individual children, nor do they mention next learning and experience steps related to the action. Most of these learning stories are very long and comprise several pages of text as well as numerous photos. 48 of the examined stories or 14% can be assigned to this type. Fotostory In these learning stories, photos are in the foreground. As a rule, they contain several photos, but some consist of only one image. This focuses on a specific situation in which the addressed child does something specific. The learning stories are supplemented by a short text, which often consists only of a quotation from the child, which is indicated by quotation marks, as in this example: I made a ball radio. You can hear there. Antenna. A button to turn on.

Especially with younger children who cannot or only speak a little, the child is also given a statement: [Photo 1] M. puts a tire on his head … can I do that too? [Photo 2] I’ll try it … [Photo 3] Not so difficult … [Photo 4] Yeah! Made it!

According to the orientation to the photos, the texts are usually very short with one to five sentences. The text does not contain any interpretation or evaluation and also does not point to activities related to the situation. However, there are attributions in about half of the photo stories, in which a certain meaning is given to a situation or certain feelings or a certain quality of relationship is assumed, as in the caption: “You play the stacking game with your girls.” On the corresponding photo the child, for whom the learning story was written, is together with six other children, who are advanced to a clique or a circle of friends by the designation “your girls”, in particular by the possessive pronoun (“your”). A reference to subsequent learning opportunities (next steps) is not included in the photo stories, as they focus largely on the documentation of the situation described in them. Learning stories of the type photo story are mostly handwritten, the photos are glued on as developed by the photo lab and provided with text. They make up 11% (n = 38) of the learning stories examined. Microdescription Learning stories that have been assigned to the type micro-description are characterized by their focus on details. They describe a very short sequence of actions in great detail, as the following excerpt shows by way of example:

3.2  Learning Stories

61

You pick up the bottle with your left hand and put it back in the bottle box. Then you get your own bottle from the bottle box and go back to the construction area. There you kneel down, put your drinking bottle on the left next to you on the ground and play with the wooden balls on the wall. You keep turning the balls around with your index fingers in a circle. After playing with the balls for a while, you stand up and go to the cabinet where the ducks are lying […].

The description of the situation can cover up to one page and then ends with a short concluding formula that does not contain any interpretation or classification of the observed. The example quoted above ends with the sentences: Dear L., I had the impression that you had a lot of fun that day. I enjoyed watching you and writing this letter to you and I hope I can write you another letter soon.

A generally formulated assumption that the child “had fun” is typical of these learning stories. This attribution of (usually positive) emotions is often, as can be seen from the example above, formulated in connection with the own positive emotions of the pedagogue, so that both a connection between the observer and the observed is established and a friendly conclusion is found (cf. also Sect. 3.1.2.3 “Have fun”). In learning stories of the type micro-description, there is no interpretation in the sense of an assignment of the child’s behavior to a larger (developmental) context; rather, the minute description of the situation stands on its own. Whether fetching the drinking bottle in the learning story quoted above is an everyday and usual action for the child or something special (e.g. because the child has never done this before), is not clear from the learning story. Therefore, it is also logical that these learning stories do not contain any suggestions for activities that follow the observed behavior. Of the learning stories examined, 30 fall into this category, corresponding to 9%. Collective Review Learning stories of the type review collection give an overview of several situations. Mostly typical behaviors of the child are described from different educational areas. Often, no specific situation is in the center, but it is generally written about how the child behaves. The following example illustrates the rather general focus: For some time now we have been able to observe that you are one of the biggest builders in the whole frog group! You build with the glitter stones, Kappla, Lego and of course with the paper cups. It doesn’t matter with which material, because you always come up with many great new ideas. In doing so, we were able to observe how skillfully you handle the different building elements.

62

3  Pedagogical Documentation: Forms and Styles …

Many learning stories of this kind systematically illuminate different learning areas (e.g. handicrafts and construction, sports and movement, social behavior, music, natural science and experiments, pre-skills). Associated with the description of the different areas is usually also an interpretation that orders the observed behavior. These learning stories are also written as “introduction stories” after the first weeks or as “transition stories” at the end of the time in the ECE center. In addition to the teacher interpretation, a review is also usually found in the learning stories of the type “collective review”. This can refer to individual educational areas (or individual sections in the learning story), but is mostly also found as a general assessment in the conclusion: You have learned so much in this kindergarten time that you have grown into a very smart school starter. Be proud of yourself! We are too!!!!!!!

Some of these learning stories assess each of the child’s activities described, so that the praise is in the foreground, as is clear from the following example: Great, how quickly you learned that and how super you could already write your name. You are also an incredibly big builder. You have great ideas […].

Because of the comprehensive nature of the content of these learning stories, they are often very long; most of them extend over several pages and are also richly illustrated with photos. With 93 of the learning stories examined (28%), this type has the largest share of the learning stories analyzed. Research Report The term research report refers to the precise reproduction of observations on the one hand and the questioning-explorative approach in the learning stories on the other hand—both important elements of research activity. This part of the learning stories, which makes up 22% of the examined documents (n = 75), focuses on a single situation, which is described concretely and in some cases very detailed, as in the following example of a learning story for a child of about 1 year: Your eyes were shining and you made joyful noises. First the floor was cleaned and you were very careful not to forget any spot. Even the diaper pail aroused your interest and you knew exactly where to press so that the diaper pail would open […] Then you tried the soap dispenser yourself and some soap dripped onto the floor. Then you took the mop and cleaned everything thoroughly.

3.2  Learning Stories

63

This observation is then interpreted in relation to the educational content assumed by the observer. In some cases, the text type is also varied: from a letter to the child to a text about the child. The interpretation of the situation described in the preceding example is: E. observes very carefully and intensively. As a result, he quickly internalized the daily routine and the individual work steps and processes […] He learns by imitation and by being allowed to try things out himself. He expresses his joy and enthusiasm through mimicry and gestures and individual words […].

In this example, the separation of observation and interpretation is also made clear by the subheading “What did E. learn in my opinion?”. The formulation also makes it clear that this is only one possible interpretation; by the insert “in my opinion” the author points out that it is a subjective interpretation. In other learning stories, the interpretation flows more strongly into the observation or forms its conclusion. In some of these learning stories, questions are asked of the child that suggest possible interpretations, but only as possibilities that are to be increased in validity through conversation with the child. The following excerpt makes this questioning attitude clear: The learning story is about a child who climbs a ladder. You quickly and purposefully made your way up the ladder […] Did you try out a sort of race for yourself? You were barefoot. Didn’t that hurt at all? Or did it make you feel more secure?

The example makes it clear that the author has formed hypotheses about what motive might be behind the child’s behavior; the questions are asked in order to test these hypotheses. This too expresses the research-oriented character of these stories. Most learning stories of the type research report also include suggestions and offers for next steps. These suggestions are possible because it was previously analyzed which learning experience was in the foreground in the observed situation. This is exemplified in the following excerpt: Dear L., I think you’re already looking forward to being a schoolchild soon and learning many new things. There is an alphabet board in our workshop. If you like, we can take a look at it together.

For the most part, these learning stories do without evaluation. Only a few connect the justification for the suggestion of next steps with an evaluation of the

64

3  Pedagogical Documentation: Forms and Styles …

child’s behavior or sprinkle praise elsewhere. Most learning stories of this type contain photos; they are usually one to two pages long. Performance and Progress Display Similar to the learning stories of the type micro-description and research report, the focus in the performance and progress displays is rather close; i.e., it is reported concretely or even in detail about a specific situation. These situations are mainly related to clearly measurable performance, often also to school-relevant skills, for example reading, arithmetic, writing, concentration, sitting still, learning rules. A learning story revolves around the topic named in the headline of the story, “Independent Sitting in the Morning Circle”: […] after you have eaten a delicious muesli and a marmalade sandwich, it was time for our morning circle again. First, the children of the yellow group and I. and I sang our clock song “Tick-Tack” […] When we started with our “Hello-Hello” song, you sat down next to D. I am very happy that you were able to sit so well in the morning circle today.

Numerous evaluations that highlight the child’s performance are woven into the description. These are usually linked to an interpretation by the observer. The following learning story about a child with a mobility impairment illustrates the link between description and evaluation: Dear T., today you showed a lot of strength and power again. You really wanted to go to breakfast with your sticks […] Step by step you put one foot in front of the other and walk with your sticks along the long aisle. You have already come a long way! You could see that you were very happy […] Keep it up!

Among the learning stories of this type are also some that deal critically with the child’s previous behavior: In these learning stories, a behavior of the child that was classified as inappropriate or undesirable is reported, but which the child has now overcome, as in the following example: Dear M.! When you came to us in kindergarten, it was very difficult for you to sit at the breakfast table. There always had to be an adult sitting with you. Meanwhile, you get your own plate from the cupboard and sit down at the breakfast table. After breakfast, each child washes his plate with us so that the next child also has a clean plate. You didn’t like this rule at all. You always got very stiff and whined when you had to wash your plate. It took many months for an adult to do this task with you. Today I watched you push R. [a specialist, note H.K.] to the side because you wanted to wash your plate all by yourself, and you did. It is always a pleasure for me to observe such developmental steps in you.

3.2  Learning Stories

65

So the performance in this example is to get rid of the negative behavior and replace it with an adequate one. Next steps are rarely a topic in these learning stories. In some, a general encouragement is formulated at the end, which is intended to encourage the continuation of the demonstrated performance: “Stay as committed and hardworking as before!” Most of these learning stories are illustrated with photos. The length varies greatly between a few sentences and several pages. 54 of the examined learning stories (this corresponds to 16%) belong to this type.

3.2.2.2 Characteristics of Learning Stories The typology of learning stories, as presented in the previous chapter, provides a concise overview of the variety and variants of learning stories in practice. Necessarily, these types are focused on essentially two characteristics (focus of observation and degree of analysis). However, the collected material contains additional dimensions that cannot be or only partially captured by the typological approach. Therefore, the typology was followed by a second analysis process presented in the following, which works out the variety of categories contained in the material. Subjectivity is Only Partially Recognizable Although all forms of pedagogical documentation are in principle subjective, this is particularly true for learning stories. Subjectivity is not seen as a disturbance factor in the concept of learning stories, but as an trigger for conversations about learning. Carr and Lee (2012, p. 60) emphasize that learning stories enable “agency and dialogue” between the involved actors, because in the learning stories the pedagoguesteachers express themselves on behalf of the children, but not in order to make a diagnosis, but to get into conversation with children, parents and colleagues about learning. The prerequisite for this dialogue is, however, that all participants also clearly see the subjective character of the learning story. In the learning stories examined, the subjectivity of interpretation is made visible by various elements. Formulations that make it clear that the learning story was written by a certain person are particularly common. For example, most learning stories (n = 269) are written in letter form, that is, they begin with an address to the child (e.g. “Dear Linnea!”). In most cases, these learning stories also end with a personal farewell greeting (e.g. “Your Andrea”); however, almost a quarter (n = 92) end without a greeting. The personal greeting formula at the end is one way to make the subjectivity of the text clear. Another frequently used strategy for emphasizing the subjective character is the use of the 1st person singular (e.g.: “For the past few weeks, I could see at lunchtime how well you could already eat by yourself.”). In addition to simple

66

3  Pedagogical Documentation: Forms and Styles …

descriptions from the first-person perspective, hypotheses are also put forward that are visible as possibilities and not as facts: “It seemed to me as if you had already come up with a real plan.” In some cases, very clear own feelings are also formulated, as in this example: “You were so enthusiastic and happy about it that it was just as much fun for me to watch you work.” 156 of the examined learning stories are explicitly written in the ‘I’ form. Much less frequently (n = 52), the learning stories also contain direct questions to the child. Questions emphasize subjectivity because they involve assurances (e.g. “Didn’t that hurt you at all?”) or because the hypothetical character of one’s own interpretation becomes very clear (e.g. “Did you test a kind of race for yourself?”). A particularly clear way to illustrate the subjective character clear is to introduce one’s own paragraph, which is made known as an interpretation by a headline. In learning stories of this kind, a situation is first described and then a paragraph follows with the headline “What learning could I have seen here?” or: “What did E. learn, in my opinion?”. In this section, the direct address is then changed to a description in the 3rd person, which is sometimes also formulated like an inner monologue: … so she accepted my offered alternative—also a little social learning. And I also believe that her attempt can be a new form of expression in her repertoire and that she became aware of this as such. And F. is holding out, once again, she simply doesn’t let herself be defeated and not impressed by difficulties. On the contrary, I have the feeling that overcoming F. is only really fun!

These learning stories come exclusively from two institutions; apparently this is a consistent principle that the teachers in these ECE centre have agreed upon. In contrast, the use of the 1st person form, greeting formulas, questions to the child occur more randomly and unsystematically, thus seem to be more intuitive and not deliberately incorporated. Almost half of the learning stories (n = 186) are written like a factual report, for example in one learning story: You are always happy to participate in all activities and offers. Crafts, painting, singing, gymnastics—you do everything with great joy. You have many ideas and also like to try something new. Currently we are reading a long story aloud: Peter’s Trip to the Moon… You can listen attentively and still know a lot about the story the next day.

In these learning stories, the person writing is not recognizable in the text. The content is presented as objective findings about the child. The claim to take on agency or enter into a dialogue is not recognizable in the learning story itself. Overall, it can be seen that in the learning stories examined, their subjective character is only partly clarified, as Fig. 3.12 shows.

67

3.2  Learning Stories

269 Personal salutaon 235 Farewell by name

156 Use of »I«

52 quesons for the child 20 Subheading, interpretaon secon

Fig. 3.12   Indicators of subjectivity, frequency of occurrence

Evaluation and Praise Play a Big Role The aim of learning stories is to enrich children’s learning processes, to strengthen their self-reflection and to encourage a dialogue about learning. This should primarily be achieved by highlighting the child’s strengths; Carr (2001, p. 97) succinctly calls it “shifting from deficit to credit”. Almost all of the examined learning stories (n = 297) correspond to this goal. They are formulated in a way that is appreciative, for example by reporting small details and writing the story with many positive attributes, as in this example: Dear M., you played with the chestnuts very intensively. When Z. came, you both filled plates, bowls and hands with chestnuts. You swapped with Z. and played together, great! You also liked bathing in the chestnuts, even though the feeling is a bit unusual. It’s great that you had so much fun!

In 212 of the learning stories, a specific strength is explicitly named (e.g. “You explain and show it to the other children, so that their work will also be good.”). However, the descriptions of strengths often have the character of a evaluation, e.g. “I am thrilled at how great you always (…) listen attentively.” Even though this evaluation is positive, it establishes a hierarchy between the laudatory author

68

3  Pedagogical Documentation: Forms and Styles …

of the learning story and the praised child, which does not correspond to the claim of learning stories to jointly explore learning. Another part of the learning stories (n = 48), on the other hand, does not focus on the individual child at all, but describes a shared experience or group activity. While a majority of them are in a appreciative tone, there is no focus on the strengths of the children or specific behaviours. As Jenkins et al. (2015) could show, this general and unspecific praise is also a widespread practice among teachers in schools. The tendency to evaluate behavior is an indication that the ideas about the function of learning stories and even their own role vary greatly. Mainly three variants can be identified: • Learning stories as a basis for conversation; the pedagogue as an opposite, sharing his own perception with the child and communicating his ideas about it. • Learning stories as a differentiated feedback, which highlights the child’s strengths and encourages him in it; teacher as evaluator, who analyzes and orders the child’s abilities. • Learning stories as diary entries, which should preserve important experiences from being forgotten; teacher as archivist or historian, who records these experiences. In these different roles, a fundamental ambiguity may be reflected. Especially in Germany, where the role of the teachers in day-care centers is not, as in many other countries, clearly defined as a teacher, these variants are an expression of a lack of clarity in the requirements for the teachers (Stöbe-Blossey and Torlümke 2010). Learning Dispositions: More “Interested” Than “Responsible” Almost all learning stories show a reference to a learning disposition. Only nine learning stories describe a seemingly randomly selected situation exclusively descriptively, so that no learning disposition is recognizable. With most learning stories (n = 284), a reference to two and more learning dispositions can even be established; on average, reference is made to approximately 2.5 learning dispositions. Figure 3.13 shows to which learning dispositions the investigated learning stories refer. In almost all investigated learning stories, the learning disposition “develop interest” is described, it is also often reported in the learning stories that the child is “involved”. In just under half of the investigated learning stories, the teachers observe that the child is “in connection with others”; in a good third it is

3.2  Learning Stories

69

Assume responsibility Persevere Being in contact with others Be involved Develop interest Fig. 3.13   Frequency of reference to learning dispositions, n = 329 (multiple learning dispositions per learning story possible)

described that a child “remains persistent despite difficulties and uncertainties”. However, situations in which the child takes responsibility are rarely described. This finding initially suggests that interest and involvement are often observed in children, while assuming responsibility is rather rare. However, the result can also be interpreted as an indication of the perception patterns of educational teachers: Possibly, their expectation towards children is more oriented towards behaviours such as interest and curiosity, and less towards children taking responsibility or being persistent. Furthermore, this result also points to the strategies with which the situations suitable for learning stories are selected: It seems less about finding a situation for each learning disposition that illustrates this. Rather, such situations are selected which are intuitively considered to be significant. When analysing situations, pedagogues apparently perceive interest and commitment of children in the first place, while situations in which they assume responsibility are rather not perceived. Which connection between focusing or not focusing on individual learning dispositions by the pedagogues and the behaviour actually shown by the children has to be clarified in future research (for example in the form of systematic observation) and cannot be clarified here. But it is conceivable that effects such as selective perceptions and expectations of the pedagogues not only influence the perception of the pedagogues, but also the behaviour of the pedagogues (Kim 2015). Language Makes Accessibility More Difficult for Children A key concern of learning stories is to reach children and parents as target groups. Learning stories are described by Carr and Lee (2012, p. 42) as dialogues that enable and encourage “sustained shared thinking about learning and about whatever comes to mind”. The linguistic design of the learning stories is a central

70

3  Pedagogical Documentation: Forms and Styles …

lever for this. The analysis shows that in about one third (n = 102) of the learning stories, accessibility is impeded by difficult-to-understand language. Sentences with insertions and subordinate clauses are used particularly often (n = 56), but also foreign words (n = 43) and nominalizations (n = 33). In many learning stories, a pedagogical jargon dominates, containing words such as “eye-hand coordination”, “solution-oriented action” or “craft offer”. In addition to language in the narrower sense, however, other factors also facilitate or complicate access to learning stories. The length of the stories alone can be a hurdle. Half of all the learning stories examined are longer than 12 sentences. Of the learning stories examined, 47 are handwritten; of the typed learning stories, only 12 use capital letters. Of course, it cannot be assumed that children in day-care centres can read. However, they can recognize letters or individual words. Engaging with written language is an important part of language acquisition; handwritten texts make this access more difficult and represent a barrier. An important factor for the accessibility of learning stories are the photos used. They can also establish a connection to the described situation without text. The clear majority of the learning stories examined (n = 271) are illustrated with photos, only about one sixth (n = 67) do not contain pictures. This gives rise to a number of learning stories that are both linguistically and visually easy to understand, as well as a significant number of difficult-to-access stories. This suggests that children are not always in the foreground as the intended audience of learning stories, or that the awareness of the need for child-friendly language is only weakly developed. It is also possible that the goal of learning stories to engage in conversation with children through these (also) is less present for pedagogues. This finding is in line with other studies that show the low level of participation of children in participation in pedagogical documentation (Knauf 2015b).

3.3 Pedagogical Documentation in Space In contrast to the previously described forms of pedagogical documentation portfolio and learning stories, pedagogical documentation in space is particularly concerned with group processes, rather than focusing on the individual child. Pedagogical documentation in space thus turns out to be particularly suitable for making the much-discussed co-constructivity of education visible. Pedagogical documentation in space thus also makes the idea originating from Reggio Emilia visible that there is more than one educator (the adult) for children: space is the third educator, peers are the second educator. The analysis of pedagogical documentation in space shows that the great diversity in implementation offers oppor-

3.3  Pedagogical Documentation in Space

71

tunities for the participation of children by involving them as participants in the process of production and taking them seriously as recipients. However, it is also clear that the function of pedagogical documentation in space is often unclear or that no agreement has been reached on the recipients of pedagogical documentation.

3.3.1 Children’s Works and Wall Documentation—From the Wall to the Room Pedagogical documentation in space is understood in this chapter as a collective term for various forms of pedagogical documentation that are located in the rooms of ECE centres. Essentially, there are two groups: • Wall documentation: Designed walls (e.g. with posters or bulletin boards), which document the activities, experiences and focus areas of the children. Typical elements of wall documentation are photos, drawings and pictures made by the children, comments by the children, descriptions created by the staff. Wall documentation can be designed formally and content-wise both simply and elaborately. • Children’s Works: Products presented in the rooms of the ECE center, which the children have created in their everyday life in the ECE center. These are not only exhibited with name and date, but are supplemented by comments, explanations or reflections of the children, partly also by explanations of the staff or photos of the process of creation. The products can be very different (e.g. pictures, sculptures, constructions) and are made of different materials (e.g. paper, fabric, clay, wood). These two groups are often not clearly separated from each other, since the children’s works are also part of the wall documentation, but at the same time creative, three-dimensional work by children often refers to a project topic or an excursion.

3.3.2 Pedagogical Documentation in Space as a Result of and Influencing Factor for Educational Processes Unlike the previously introduced forms of pedagogical documentation, which are usually stored in folders or hanging files, pedagogical documentation is publicly present in space in a special way over a longer period of time. They become part

72

3  Pedagogical Documentation: Forms and Styles …

of the room design—both in groups—as well as in functional rooms, as well as in corridors, cloakrooms and entrance areas. Rooms and room design are important for the development of young children (Gutknecht 2016; Kessl 2016); they therefore have a great influence on the educational processes in ECE centres. How the rooms in which children and adults stay are designed is therefore an important factor for pedagogical work (Knauf 2018d). The documentation of education in space can play a decisive role. The bidirectional relationship attributed to space in general with educational action (Breidenstein 2004) is impressively demonstrated in the documentation of education: On the one hand, documentation of education is the result of the thinking and action of children and adults, and on the other hand, it is in turn the framework and stimulus for new thought and action processes (see Fig. 3.14). Documentation of education in space therefore has a special importance for the everyday life in the ECE center, because it acts back on it immediately, shapes it and can also inspire it. In principle, this applies—at least in terms of the goal—to all forms of documentation of education, but documentation of education in space has a particularly strong presence through its visibility in the rooms (Knauf 2017c).

Documentation in space

Educaonal processes

Fig. 3.14   Interaction between documentation of education in space and educational processes

3.3  Pedagogical Documentation in Space

73

3.3.2.1 Focus: Group Processes Another special feature of pedagogical documentation in space is its reference to group activity. This distinguishes it from the other forms of pedagogical documentation described so far (portfolio and learning history), which are directed at a single child. pedagogical documentation in space shows what the group or part of the group has done together and what they are dealing with. This takes into account the research of recent years, which has highlighted the importance of peers for educational and developmental processes. Thus, children are already interested in relationships with peers in the early years of life and form a common culture in which belonging plays a major role (Schneider and Wüstenberg 2014). These peer relationships also have an important impact on the children’s educational processes: they “stimulate each other emotionally, physically, socially and cognitively to new experiences, develop and implement new ideas together and spur each other on to develop their skills and abilities” (Wertfein and ReichertGarschhammer 2017, p. 155). These research results are in line with the idea of education as a socially constructive process (see Sect. 2.2), in which learning always takes place in the confrontation and interaction with others. In an interview, Rinaldi sees a variety of positive features in small groups: The small group work becomes a source of cohesion, a space in which thoughts take shape, are expressed and compared with others, different interpretations; new thoughts are generated; meanings are negotiated; and ‚the hundred languages‘ can emerge (Gandini und Kaminsky 2006, p. 127).

In the pedagogical documentation that focuses on the children’s group, these socially constructed processes become particularly clear. Ideally, they can make it visible how the mutual stimulation of the children comes about. At the same time, the documentation of the joint activities can create a shared memory (“collective memory”) “allowing children to return to their thoughts and ideas and pursue them either individually or in groups” (Krechevsky and Mardell 2011, p. 289). Against this background, group-related pedagogical documentation plays a particularly important role in the form of posters, exhibitions, etc.

3.3.2.2 Functions of Pedagogical Documentation in Space In view of the different functions of documentation (see Sect. 2.3.1) it becomes clear that pedagogical documentation has a clear focus in space: In addition to the cognitive function, it aims in particular at the communication function and the participation function. The communication function is so important because the pedagogical documentation visible in space is permanently visible to all par-

74

3  Pedagogical Documentation: Forms and Styles …

ticipants and thus offers a clear opportunity for conversation. A poster hung in the hallway or an exhibition set up in the group room are immediately recognizable visual impulses for children, parents and the pedagogues in the facility, which can be an occasion for exchange and questions. However, this requires that the type of presentation is understandable for all participants. Here there is an intersection with the participation function (Knauf 2018d): Only those who understand it can take part and take up the impulse. Pedagogical documentation in space can therefore only fulfill the participation and communication function if it is understandable for all actors and thus offers points of contact—also for those for whom the dominant languag in the ECE centre is a foreign language. Participation is initially established by understanding children, parents and all pedagogues as addressees and thus making the understanding of pedagogical documentation as easy as possible. This is achieved both by a high proportion of meaningful visual material (photos, drawings, etc.) and by a simple, clear language. With a view to children as addressees, the pedagogical documentation is presented on an equal footing. Participation is however not only achieved on the level of reception of the pedagogical documentation, but also on the level of production of the pedagogical documentation. In particular, children are often involved in the process of pedagogical documentation, for example by giving their own comments on the situations presented and by taking them up, by choosing photos and pictures and by influencing the design of the pedagogical documentation. For this purpose, a dialogue between children and pedagogues is necessary—the pedagogical documentation can thus already trigger a dialogue about learning in its process of creation (communication function). The role of documentation in space is also to play a role in the formation of knowledge. By supplementing the products of the children with their explanations and by the literal reproduction of dialogues between the children, the educational processes can be made comprehensible. At the same time, these processes are made accessible to reflection. Documentation in space also fulfills a representational function, as it gives special insights into the work of the institution. It is precisely the visibility of documentation in space that gives this form of documentation a high degree of publicity. Documentation can give a striking impression of the content of the work in the ECE center, but also of the approach with which this is dealt with (care, topicality, aesthetics, etc.). In contrast, the functions of documentation related to the individual child play only a subordinate or even no role. Documentation in space is primarily not for the diagnosis of the performance or the strengths and weaknesses of an individual child. However, misunderstandings can arise here, because when the products

3.3  Pedagogical Documentation in Space

75

of the children are exhibited, comparisons can arise between the children (Who can “draw better”?) This results in an important requirement for the framework of documentation in space: The focus in this form of documentation is on the interaction processes between the children and the thought processes behind the products. The coherence function in relation to other institutions and the memory function also have a subordinate importance, because the group and not the individual child is in the foreground.

3.3.2.3 Elements of Pedagogical Documentation in Space pedagogical documentation in space is very diverse. Already in the implementation of portfolios and learning stories, a wide range of design parameters are used: There are no general guidelines for the format, because the pedagogical documentation does not have to fit into a folder or binder. It is not necessary to limit oneself to a two-dimensional representation, but the three-dimensionality of space can be used. This makes it possible to use different materials (and not just paper); for example, fabric or wood can be incorporated or objects can be included in the pedagogical documentation in space. Thus, four design elements can be identified for pedagogical documentation in space: photos, pictures of the children, texts and three-dimensional objects (see Fig. 3.15). These four elements can be combined in very different ways and are sometimes used individually, but mostly in combination of two or more components, as will be seen in the following section.

3.3.3 Implementation of Pedagogical Documentation in Space Methods Overview

The examples presented in this section are taken from a pool of pedagogical documentation in the space of a total of 65 early childhood education centre. This includes facilities from different countries, namely from Germany (n = 50), New Zealand (n = 10) and the USA (n = 5), as well as facilities of different sponsors and different sizes. The examples were selected so that they represent typical implementations on the one hand and illustrate variants of pedagogical documentation in space on the other hand.

76

3  Pedagogical Documentation: Forms and Styles …

Pictures of the children

Photos

Component of educaonal documentaon in the room

Texts

Items

Fig. 3.15   Components of pedagogical documentation in space

3.3.3.1 Presentation of Products by Children One of the most widespread forms of documentation of education in space is the presentation of products of children. Often these are pictures or drawings that the children have made in the ECE center. As can be seen in Fig. 3.16, pictures of several children are usually exhibited together on one wall. The exhibition becomes documentation of education by providing additional information to the picture to document the process of creation. In this example, this is first done by a longer introductory text that provides information about the context of creation and the educational goals in the context of which the pictures were created.

3.3  Pedagogical Documentation in Space

77

Fig. 3.16   Exhibition of children’s pictures

As the close-up in Fig. 3.17 shows, in addition, the story of the process of creation is reported for each image, as well as additional interpretations and explanations by the educational teacher. Thus, the text says: Z. observed the shadows that formed from the overhead projector onto the paper and carefully arranged some objects so that they formed a “snowman”. With care, she chose her colors and created her work of art based on the shadows. While Z. worked, she used her knowledge of light and shadow, form and color, to build and trace an object that was familiar to her. Her work of art was a real mix of artistic and scientific discovery.

The text makes it clear which process led to the creation of the image—without it, it would not be apparent that the image was created using an overhead projector and various objects. The interpretation of the pedagogue also offers an embedding of the image in the context of learning and education and protects against reducing it to its decorative aspect (“pretty picture”).

78

3  Pedagogical Documentation: Forms and Styles …

In addition, the photos documenting the process of creation allow an understanding of how the image came about. The small photo series also makes it possible for children (who cannot yet read) to access the exhibition. This is also the case with the example in Fig. 3.18 where the image of the child was supplemented with a photo of the child while painting this image. The detail shown in Fig. 3.18 belongs to a whole wall of pictures documenting the children’s engagement with the topic of “owls”. Unlike in the example from Figs. 3.16 and 3.17, here all children dealt with the same topic and also used the same painting technique. The pictures are part of a more comprehensive owl project. However, an additional feature here is the child’s comment on his or her own picture, in this case an explanation: “She has beautiful eyes and can see at night. She sees mice”. In this way, the child is represented with his thoughts and his (perhaps project-based) knowledge.

Fig. 3.17   Exhibition of children’s pictures—individual example

3.3  Pedagogical Documentation in Space

79

Fig. 3.18   Detail of a photo of an exhibition wall

However, the exhibition of products does not have to be limited to paintings, as the example in Fig. 3.19 shows, objects can also be presented with the materials available in the ECE centre. The vehicle in the photo in Fig. 3.19 is part of an exhibition of objects made with magnetic building blocks. In order to clarify the authorship, it was supplemented by a (self-made) nameplate, as well as by photos documenting the investigation of the building material and its magnetic function. An accompanying text lists the “competencies” associated with this exploration (e.g. “development of new ideas; joy of life.”). Even if the experiences or impulses listed are not strictly speaking “competencies” (as the accompanying text names them), an important aspect is made clear here: the interpretation of the exhibited object as part of a comprehensive educational process. In this way, the child’s product becomes visible in its function for the child’s learning and adults and children can be inspired to conversations about learning. Koch and Nebe (2013) have shown, using the example of a learning story, that open methods of pedagogical documentation, such as those used in these product presentations, make the actions of children accessible for pedagogical inter-

80

3  Pedagogical Documentation: Forms and Styles …

Fig. 3.19   Presentation of an object built by the children, supplemented by photos and explanation

pretation and “workable” for pedagogical action. This expresses the attempt to overcome the “pedagogical strangeness” of children and make it comprehensible (a. a. O., p. 132).

3.3.3.2 Project and Action Documentation A large number of ECE centres have walls on which projects or actions are documented. This format of pedagogical documentation is inspired, among other things, by the “Speaking Walls” in Reggio Emilia. Strozzi (2011, p. 62) describes the message that is to be conveyed through such pedagogical documentation: The documentation panels cover the walls throughout the school as if they were a second skin. The panels make you feel that you are, or invite you to become, a part of experiences and stories. They suggest that future experiences will be valued. The documentation substantiates the value of memory and narration as a right and a vital quality of the educational environment.

3.3  Pedagogical Documentation in Space

81

In this view, wall documentation provides more than just an insight into the work of the institution, they are also an expression of a certain attitude towards children and what is happening in the institution; they should express appreciation for the activities of the children and the events in the institution as a whole. An example of such a wall documentation can be seen in Fig. 3.20. The wall documents the procedure and observations of the children during microscopy. A very wide range of elements are included in the pedagogical documentation: • • • • • •

Photos of the children while microscoping and investigating, Comments from the children about their observations, Children’s drawings of the objects under investigation, Collection of the objects under investigation, Illustrated representation of the investigation process with photographs, General representation of the goal of this project.

Abb. 3.20   Wall documentation of a project on microscopy

82

3  Pedagogical Documentation: Forms and Styles …

This diversity of elements documents the perspectives of both children and adults; at the same time, there are components that are easy for children to understand and those that are primarily aimed at adults. In this way, a strongly participatory approach can be realized that takes into account and includes both children and adults as producers and recipients of pedagogical documentation. In addition to photos and text, three-dimensional objects (the objects of investigation) were also included, so that (at least potentially) several senses could be involved. This aspect is reinforced in the pedagogical documentation in Fig. 3.21. This wall documentation on the topic of “Measuring and Weighing” continues into the room with a bucket scale and other measuring instruments. Photos and short texts on the wall show how the instruments were used by children; together with the scale and rulers, this results in a pedagogical documentation in the room with a high invitation character.

Abb. 3.21   Wall documentation with action-stimulating elements

3.3  Pedagogical Documentation in Space

83

In Fig. 3.21, the topic of the pedagogical documentation or the project presented therein is made visible by a clear, concise headline. In addition, clear, typed letters set impulses for dealing with writing and letters (keyword: literacy). The wall documentation on the topic of “storytelling” in Fig. 3.22 is also particularly interesting because it documents a longer-term project and thus both results (in the form of stories with matching illustrations) and the way there. The children were photographed while drawing pictures; but the considerations of the pedagogues are also made transparent. A text reports how the children suggest representing the stories as short scenes themselves and the pedagogues are unsure whether this is a sensible way. Finally, they justify their decision for a spontaneous form of dramatic staging instead of developing an elaborate stage play. In this way, the wall documentation not only provides insights into the learning processes of children, but also those of adults.

Fig. 3.22   Wall documentation of a project on storytelling

84

3  Pedagogical Documentation: Forms and Styles …

3.3.3.3 Documentation of Everyday Life Another variant that can be found in many institutions is the documentation of everyday situations on wall displays. They often serve as a frame or marker for an area in the rooms of the ECE center that is intended for a specific activity. Areas with dressing materials are designed with photos of children in costumes or historical costumes; in a tray with flower pots you will find illustrations of plant growth or the care of plants by children or, as in Fig. 3.23, in a construction area: This documents a play situation in which children use the materials available in the construction area; For this purpose, photos and a dialogue between the children are used. In addition, the resulting product is recorded in a photo. This example shows how wall documentation can also be used as a document (in the sense of a manifestation) of the appropriation process of the space and its materials by the children. The pedagogical documentation shows children who are in the ECE center at that time; they can identify themselves in the photos and be recognized by others. The institution is thus clearly defined as the “territory” of these children and not for children in general.

Fig. 3.23   Wall documentation with photos and dialogues in the construction area

3.3  Pedagogical Documentation in Space

Fig. 3.24   Pedagogical documentation for the exploration of materials and furniture

85

86

3  Pedagogical Documentation: Forms and Styles …

Pedagogical documentation of everyday situations also has the potential to be inspiring. They show, like a set of instructions, how certain materials or objects can be used. The investigation of chestnuts and holes, as shown in Fig. 3.24, can be understood as an impulse for other children to carry out similar explorations. Documentation of everyday life often represents randomly created situations and not results of an intentionally and purposefully designed educational process. Like the study of chestnuts, the role-playing game shown in Fig. 3.25 is a spontaneously created game situation that was captured in a photograph. However, unlike the pedagogical documentation of the chestnuts (Fig. 3.24), the children themselves are given a voice here, as a pedagogue allowed himself to be told by the children what they had played in this situation exactly. The documentation of this short story as well as the drawings and the headline created by the children in addition emphasize the involvement of the children in this pedagogical documentation—it was not documented about, but with the children. By preparing everyday events for pedagogical documentation in space, they are given special appreciation and dignity. For the “discovery of the early years”,

Fig. 3.25   Pedagogical documentation of a role-playing game

3.3  Pedagogical Documentation in Space

87

which is so important for early childhood education, this form of pedagogical documentation is particularly important because it emphasizes the special in the seemingly everyday and ordinary activities of the children—or (from a constructivist perspective) as particularly constructed.

3.3.3.4 From the Wall to the Book Pedagogical documentation in space has a limited shelf life, because projects have an end and children leave the ECE centre in a recurring rhythm. After they are no longer up to date, posters and other large-format pedagogical documentation are archived as a whole in some ECE centres. Other institutions have switched to transferring wall documentation to the portfolios of individual children after a while. This sometimes leads to the fact that the wall documentation is designed in the DIN-A4-compatible folder format from the outset and hung up accordingly. This is understandable in view of the condensed workflows in many ECE centres; often pedagogues see this as the only way to create wall documentation. The disadvantage is that the placard effect of wall documentation is lost in

Fig. 3.26   Learning stories as wall documentation

88

3  Pedagogical Documentation: Forms and Styles …

this way; this usually also leads to a reduction of the design elements to text and photos. The reverse path is taken by institutions that first hang individual learning stories and other portfolio entries on the walls for a short time, as Fig. 3.26 shows. With regard to the perception of the portfolio entries, this has the advantage that the learning stories do not disappear unnoticed in the portfolio folders, but, for example, children can point their parents to the new story or the events described therein. However, in addition to the lower optical appeal, the group focus is replaced here by an individual focus.

3.3.3.5 Boundaries: Posters and Information pedagogical documentation in the room that is explicitly aimed at adults draws their attention to pedagogically significant elements that often appear monotonous or ordinary in everyday life. Pedagogical documentation in space usually has a double addressee—children and adults—but in these variants of pedagogical documentation, adults are addressed primarily and urgently. The group of adults includes, on the one hand, the parents and, on the other hand, the pedagogues  themselves. With the wall documentation of this group, it is not always clear to which of the two groups it is addressed. So there are always questions or invitations to reflection, as in Fig. 3.27, which can be understood as a stimulus for parents but also as a pedagoguicteacher self-assurance of the pedagogues. In this example from New Zealand, the connection between stimulating play material and the development of Working Theories by the children is addressed. Working Theories are a central element in the New Zealand curriculum Te Whariki and can be understood as theories that children (as well as adults) develop about their environment and the relationships therein (Hedges 2013). So it says on this poster (tr. H. K.): How do open-ended resources support children’s working theories? In what ways do open-ended resources cultivate creative and imaginative play? Ko te ahurei o te tamaiti arahia o tatou mahi—Let the uniqueness of the child guide your work.

The question of the target group is clearly defined, however, with wall documentation that provides certain information for parents, such as the information on transition to primary school shown in Fig. 3.28. This information wall not only provides information, it is also responsive, allowing parents to enter the school their child will attend and also note their own questions. Such and other parent information is not part of the pedagogical documentation. They “document” the everyday language of what happens in the

3.3  Pedagogical Documentation in Space

89

Fig. 3.27   Wall documentation with questions for the pedagogical analysis of the children’s play

90

3  Pedagogical Documentation: Forms and Styles …

Abb. 3.28   Information on transition to school

ECE centre, but no learning processes of the children are recorded, illustrated or reflected. The same applies to exhibitions of children’s products without context information. Nevertheless, information boards and exhibitions are a common part of the visual ensemble of ECE centres and therefore in the sights of people who stay in there.

3.4  Project Documentation

91

3.3.3.6 Pedagogical Documentation in Space as an Aesthetic Factor Pedagogical documentation in space differs not only in terms of content and the design elements used in them, but also in terms of visual design and aesthetic quality. Under the slogan “Doku instead of Deko” it has been repeatedly pointed out that purely decorative elements should make way for the content-related, pedagogical documentation in the rooms of ECE centres (MBJS 2011). However, many wall documentations seem to want to combine decorative and documentary elements by using many colors and fonts, as well as symbols and icons, and arranging individual documentation elements for decorative purposes. However, if pedagogical documentation is to enable accessibility for children, then preference should be given to a clear form of expression: A sparing use of colors, the use of a single, clear (and printed instead of handwritten) typeface, as well as a right-angled arrangement of pictures and photos, as well as clearly recognizable headlines are therefore important factors. Such a presentation form oriented towards clarity should in the best case also have an aesthetic quality itself.

3.4 Project Documentation This chapter first deals with the role of projects in early childhood education and the importance of documenting projects. Subsequently, the present empirical material makes it clear that project documentations are, in terms of their content, wall documentations in a handy format in many respects. However, if they are designed as reproducible booklets, they can reach a wider target audience and be kept as a souvenir by each child. They are often characterized by a stronger narrative and linear structure.

3.4.1 Background: Group-Related, Versatile Pedagogical Documentation Project documentation is a compilation of materials on clearly delineated and time-limited projects, usually in the form of books, albums or folders. Of the previously mentioned forms of pedagogical documentation, project documentation is the least common form of pedagogical documentation.

92

3  Pedagogical Documentation: Forms and Styles …

3.4.1.1 Projects as a Working Principle Working in project form has a tradition in German ECE centres. For the Situation approach (see Sect. 2.1.3) which originated in the 1970s and is widely used in Germany, working in projects is fundamental: If key situations were identified by the staff, these are further processed in projects. The cooperation of children and staff in projects is understood as a discovery-based and research-oriented learning that does not follow a predetermined plan, but is designed to be flexible and openended (Preissing and Heller 2009). Project triggers do not necessarily have to be major problems or fundamental questions, but can also be small, everyday events (but key situations) (Holschuh and Markgraf 2000). Project-based work also plays a central role in Reggio Emilia. The project (“progettazione”) usually (but not exclusively) arises from the interests of the children and is shaped by their hypotheses and strategies (Gandini and Kaminsky 2006). A project can have a very different scope and only last a few days or several months. Since the projects are based on the immediate interests of the children, usually only small groups are involved in the individual projects. However, the composition of the group can also change in terms of size and composition over time. Overall, projects in Reggio are not understood as special events, but as normality in the everyday life of an ECE daycare center (Knauf et al. 2018). Perception, reflection, action and communication are described as essential elements of the projects in Reggio. Projects are usually documented in the room as an expression of reflection and communication. The “speaking walls” serve as open, growing and self-stimulating working tools during the course of the project. In contrast, project documentation represents a conclusion and presents a completed process or at least an intermediate step. In practice, it is often parts of the former wall documentation that are included in the project documentation.

3.4.1.2 Functions of Project Documentation Project documentation is more outward-looking than other forms of pedagogical documentation and fulfills a communication and representation function: It shows parents and a wider public what the children have been dealing with. With this they aim at communication with outsiders (communication function) and offer an opportunity for conversation—new impulses can be taken up and possibly even new projects arise. Thanks to the (in contrast to pedagogical documentation in the room) handy format, they also fulfill a memory function and can be viewed and read again and again at a later point in time.

3.4  Project Documentation

93

Fig. 3.29   Cover of a project documentation

3.4.2 Implementation A key feature of project documentation is the diversity of implementation. Often to be found are lovingly designed albums or notebooks, which are kept as unique items in the ECE center. An example of this is the pedagogical documentation of the project “The Magic Door” from an ECE center in New Zealand, in which children dealt with doors as mysterious places (see Figs. 3.29, 3.30 and 3.31).

94

3  Pedagogical Documentation: Forms and Styles …

Fig. 3.30   Detail from a project documentation “The Magic Door”

The project documentation includes drawings, photos, dialogues and statements by the children as well as descriptions by the pedagogues. Many project documentations are therefore brought into a handy and therefore easy to store wall documentation. However, an additional important dimension unfolds if not an album is created as a unique item, but a reproducible booklet or magazine is created, from which a larger number of copies can be distributed (or sold) to the children, their parents and other interested parties. In Reggio Emilia, such project documentation have become a fixed part of the work in ECE centres and range from simple DIN-A4 sheets folded into a brochure to small books, as the two examples in Fig. 3.32 show. The book form puts the narrative element more in the foreground than is the case with pedagogical documentation in space. In the pedagogical documentation “Visit of a Snail” from a German ECE center, the confrontation with checks is told chronologically—from the discovery of the first snail as a project occasion to the death or release of the snails (Figs. 3.33 and 3.34). Partly, the project is even

3.5  Digital Pedagogical Documentation

95

Fig. 3.31   Detail from a project documentation “The Magic Door”

combined into a story, as can be seen from the title of the project documentation shown in Fig. 3.32: “The Story of the Fire Tree (La storia dell’ albero del fuoco)”. Project documentation is usually subject to a clear and linear structure.

3.5 Digital Pedagogical Documentation This chapter sheds light on two essential forms of digital pedagogical documentation: the digital portfolio and pedagogical documentation in digital social networks. Both forms of documentation are still in development and by no means to be seen as a widespread or even self-evident practice. The engagement with these two variants shows that digital forms of pedagogical documentation are well on their way to perfecting the often imperfect implementation of pedagogical documentation and becoming a kind of super-pedagogical documentation. The use can bring an affective gain to the participants by giving them more resonance, recognition and joy. However, it is already clear that the switch from analogue to digital pedagogical documentation entails a fundamental change in pedagogical documentation: an expansion of the addressees or potential recipients as well as

96

3  Pedagogical Documentation: Forms and Styles …

Fig. 3.32   Project documentation from Reggio Emilia

Fig. 3.33   Cover sheet project documentation “Visit of a Snail”

3.5  Digital Pedagogical Documentation

97

Fig. 3.34   Detail project documentation “Visit of a Snail”

the multiplication of the data produced go hand in hand with this step, as does a possible closer link between pedagogical documentation and diagnostic and educational process-stimulating forms. It is also important to consider that the use of digital forms of pedagogical documentation always goes hand in hand with a high presence of digital devices in the everyday life of an ECE center. This presence is partly viewed with displeasure and perceived as an intrusion of the digital into a world that is characterized first and foremost by its analogue design.

3.5.1 Pedagogical Documentation in the Process of Mediatization 3.5.1.1 Motivation for the Digitalization of Pedagogical Documentation The further development of digital technology opens up new possibilities for the practice of pedagogical documentation in ECE centres. The use of digital photography and its further processing on the computer, the creation of learning stories and other portfolio entries as well as elements for wall documentation in a

98

3  Pedagogical Documentation: Forms and Styles …

word processing program are part of everyday life in the majority of ECE centres in Germany today. Nevertheless, outdated equipment, lack of internet access and lack of money for color prints often make it difficult to work on pedagogical documentation and lead to delays or (unnecessarily) cumbersome paths of implementation. However, this part of the digitalization of pedagogical documentation should not be in the foreground here, because digital techniques are only a tool for creating analog pedagogical documentation. Instead, this section is about the use of specific software for pedagogical documentation and the use of social networks for pedagogical documentation. These are new forms of representation that take the place of previous pedagogical documentation or can do so. The goals or functions of documentation described at the beginning (see Sect. 2.3.1) also apply to digital pedagogical documentation. With the digitalization, the hope is associated that the functions can be better fulfilled by their use than analog methods allow. For the knowledge and memory function, no fundamental extensions result at first, but for the following functions in particular: • Communication function: The exchange, in particular with parents, is to be increased by digital pedagogical documentation, since for them the pedagogical documentation is made more easily accessible in this way, for example via a smartphone. Through the stronger reception of the pedagogical documentation, more conversation starters can arise and additional communication channels can also be opened (for example, through messenger services, e-mail or comment functions). • Participation function: The simple handling of tablet computers and the use of corresponding apps enable children to be more involved in the production of pedagogical documentation. A high proportion of visual, audio and auditory elements can reduce participation barriers for children who cannot yet read. Access to pedagogical documentation can also be made easier for parents who do not yet master the national language. Finally, it might be possible to also enable those parents to receive pedagogical documentation who can only rarely or briefly be in the ECE centre. • Representation function: The expected accessibility of a digital pedagogical documentation should also improve the insight into the work of the institution. In the case of the use of public social networks, it is also added that even those not directly involved can get to know the work of the institution better. • Diagnostic function: Software for digital pedagogical documentation also usually contains digital versions of observation and diagnostic instruments. By bundling in one device (usually a tablet computer), these instruments are always available and can be integrated into the educational everyday life under

3.5  Digital Pedagogical Documentation

99

certain circumstances more easily than paper-and-pencil versions, which have to be ordered, searched and/or retrieved first. In addition, synergy effects between observation, diagnosis and pedagogical documentation are expected to reduce the time required. For pedagogical documentation via social networks, these expectations are not met. • Coherence function: Also only applicable to restricted access documentation software is the improvement of coherence. By specifically assigning access rights, entire pedagogical documentation or certain parts thereof should also be easily accessible to therapists and teachers of primary schools. In addition to the expectations and hopes associated with digital methods of pedagogical documentation, this list also illustrates potential dangers, such as the development of continuous monitoring of children, the question of the protection of privacy rights or the appropriation of pedagogical documentation by a diagnostic view of the child.

3.5.1.2 Displacement of the Elements of Pedagogical Documentation The list of changed functionality has already made it clear that the transition from analog to digital pedagogical documentation does not only mean the transfer of the procedures taking place so far to a new medium. With digitization, an expansion of the communication channels comes first: While analog pedagogical documentation always requires a material basis—usually paper and cardboard—digital pedagogical documentation is freer: It can include movies and audio files and link them to other documents. A video sequence offers numerous connections for further discussion. The openness of the scene offered in the video makes the dialogue less demanding. To interpret it, pedagogical expertise is not necessarily required. This makes it possible for educational staff and parents to meet as equal partners in an educational partnership (on an “equal footing”) and to contribute to the discussion: The pedagigues can make expert interpretation offers, the parents can bring in points of contact from the family’s everyday life into the interpretation (Stange 2012, p. 15). In addition, the child itself can be much more easily involved in the reflection of the situation; It can bring in its memories and associations if it is included in the conversation situation. In this way, the pedagogical documentation via digital media opens up the possibility of a participatory approach of the participants to each other in the sense of an educational partnership.

100

3  Pedagogical Documentation: Forms and Styles …

3.5.1.3 Digitally Documented Education as Part of a Process of Mediatization The development of digital pedagogical documentation can be understood as part of a comprehensive social mediatization process. Mediatization is to be understood as a metaprocess, similar to individualization or globalization, in which the development of technology and digital tools is seen as part of social and cultural change (Krotz 2015). Mediatization does not primarily take place through a quantitative increase in the use of media, but through changes in the forms of communication, social relationships, everyday life and the identity of those affected. Digitalization of pedagogical documentation can therefore be understood in the context of a comprehensive mediatization process. From this perspective, the question arises as to how the learning and life of children, teachers and parents changes in ECE centres when digital forms of pedagogical documentation are used. With a view to pedagogical documentation, two developments are relevant: First, a significant part of the educational work is mediatized by the pedagogical documentation created with media. Secondly, this development is driven by the growing importance of digital media. Both processes—mediatization of educational work and digitalization—are interwoven and influence each other. In the course of the mediatization of pedagogical documentation, not only the channel through which the message is transmitted changes. The communication content and roles also change. This change is typical of mediatization processes. Hepp and Krotz (2012, p. 10) describe this development as follows: “With this shift from direct communication to media communication, processes of communicative construction of reality change”. Even if one were to disagree with the idea of the construction of reality through communication and rather speak of the view of reality, Hepp and Krotz are right when they describe the fundamental change in communication through mediatization: Through the medial processing of pedagogical documentation, information becomes accessible that was previously not perceptible; this changes the view of reality. This affects in particular the content and the roles in communication. When concrete situations are photographed or filmed, part of the ambiguity present in every real situation is retained. In contrast to a situation that is subsequently recorded, many connections are included and can be the subject of interpretation. However, these interpretations are always perspective-dependent. So a child will see and interpret something different than his parents, pedagogue A something different than pedagogue B. The interpretation by the pedagogue thus becomes an offer for an interpretation, in addition to other interpretations by the child or the parents. The interpretive sovereignty of the pedagogue can be chal-

3.5  Digital Pedagogical Documentation

101

lenged here, if not fundamentally broken, then at least lost in dominance (Knauf 2015c). The process of mediatization is also accompanied by discomfort. FröhlichGildhoff and Fröhlich-Gildhoff (2017), for example, see increasing evidence of developmental impairments and health risks associated with digital media in early childhood education and care settings. However, these are often trivialized and insufficiently researched.

3.5.2 Implementation of Digital Pedagogical Documentation 3.5.2.1 Digital Portfolio The portfolio as a particularly widespread form of pedagogical documentation has now been adapted for digital use. Various providers have therefore developed software with which digital portfolios for early childhood education can be created. The offers usually include an app, support, storage space and sometimes also a digital device, usually a tablet computer. The offer is very dynamic, new providers appear on the market, others withdraw. For this reason, typical characteristics of the offers are presented below, regardless of the individual programs. The software offers Stepfolio (Ergovia), Kita-Portfolio (Klax/Antje Bostelmann), Nembørn (Assemble), Seesaw (Seesaw) and Storypark (Storypark) were included in the evaluation. In addition, various apps are now also offered which specialize in sharing messages, photos and videos in early childhood education, such as Kigaclick, Kita-Info-App or Leandoo, but which focus on information exchange and work like a messenger service. Characteristics of Digital Portfolio Programs All software offers have the option of recording photos, videos and audio files from the respective app or importing them from a photo database, so that images and sounds can be combined with texts. Unlike an analogue portfolio, complex behaviours or situations can be recorded in the portfolio without the need for them to be described by the pedagogue, thanks to the integration of video and audio. This option is used primarily to create portfolio entries for which digital forms are available. The digital forms are often based on a subject area or educational area, or merely provide a formal framework with a title, date and text field. However, it is usually also possible to design the pages according to one’s own ideas. In any case, the resulting documents can be assigned to individual educational areas or topics, for example via the assignment of keywords (tags). At the

102

3  Pedagogical Documentation: Forms and Styles …

same time, each document can also be assigned to several children or their virtual folders, for example if a group activity has been documented. The individual documents can be printed out and filed in the analogue portfolio. Some programs have integrated observation tools. For example, the most commonly used observation forms in Germany (Sesmik, Seldak, Basik, etc.) can be used under license as an additional function; however, there is also the option of programming and integrating individual (e.g. provider-specific) observation instruments. In addition, the images and videos already recorded in the program for pedagogical documentation can be used to illustrate the diagnosis. In addition, an automatic evaluation with graphical representation is offered. Programs that do not have observation forms integrated often allow reference to, for example, the educational areas indicated in the educational program. Another common feature of digital portfolio offerings is the ability to make content accessible to parents digitally. So the institution can usually define who has which access rights. In some programs, parents can also specifically share individual contributions with others, for example with grandparents. Digital portfolios are usually responsive; i.e. parents have the opportunity to leave comments or ask questions. teachers can in turn respond to this, so that a short written conversation can develop. The sharing of pedagogical documentation is often supplemented by the possibility of exchanging information between teachers and parents about dates and events, pick-up and drop-off times, wellbeing, activities, illness or meal plans. In some programs, this possibility of exchanging information is clearly in the foreground. Protocols of parent-pedagogue conferences can also be integrated into the digital portfolio. Some programs offer the capture of sleep and eating habits as well as the evaluation of pick-up and drop-off times. In connection with this, for example, the internal working time or personnel planning of the institution is to be optimized. In part, the numerous functions of the portfolio software result in a comprehensive, child-specific dossier that collects various information over a longer period of time and makes it available to pedagogues and the management of the institution. Experience and Research on Digital Portfolios are Still Pending The implementation of such programs is—especially in Germany—still little spread. Accordingly, there are no research results so far, which take a possible change of practice of pedagogical documentation systematically into view. A first exploration is a questionnaire survey by Burghardt and Knauf (2015), in which experiences of institutions with digital portfolio were compared with those with analogue portfolio. Institutions that used a digital portfolio, as the study showed, created significantly more portfolio entries (ibid.). Due to the merging of several

3.5  Digital Pedagogical Documentation

103

functions in one device (in particular the connection of camera and word processing), transfer steps are omitted, and devices do not have to be searched additionally. This results in a saving of time, so that the creation of portfolio entries takes less time (ibid.). However, the surveyed teachers did not report that the exchange in the team had intensified. Due to the relatively small sub-samples (n = 44 and n = 13) as well as with a view to the field access (via the provider of one of the programs), the interpretability of these empirical results is very limited.

3.5.2.2 Social Networks Another way to use digital tools for pedagogical documentation is the use of social networks. A key difference to all previously described forms of pedagogical documentation lies in the radical expansion of the addressee: The contributions in publicly accessible social networks are accessible to a potentially worldwide public. In particular, Facebook, but also Twitter and Instagram are used worldwide by ECE centers. Case Study in a Kindergarten in Vermont/USA

Background

In a case study, a kindergarten group in the USA was examined which is particularly experienced with digital media and at the same time uses a great variety of digital tools. In guideline-based, qualitative interviews with the pedagogue responsible for this group, parents and children, as well as through observations and document analyses, these experiences were illuminated in more detail (Knauf 2016a).

A first step in the exploration of the use of social networks by ECE centres was a case study in a kindergarten in the United States. Kindergarten is a kind of preschool class in the USA that is attended by all 5-year-old children. In the example studied here, the kindergarten was located in the school building. The group used several social networks: Twitter, Facebook, Instagram as well as the network Seesaw, which was specially designed for educational institutions and to which only previously defined persons have access. In addition, a blog is operated on the blog platform Kidblog. Padlet, Google Forms, Skype and Google Hangout are regularly used digital tools. In addition to a computer with an internet connection, an interactive whiteboard is available in the group room, which is connected to the computer and an overhead projector, as well as several tablet computers. The

104

3  Pedagogical Documentation: Forms and Styles …

observation showed that the children are guided and supported to use the available hardware and the digital tools themselves. They were encouraged to present their thoughts or products to the group on the whiteboard or to document them on Seesaw. For example, they comment on a self-painted picture with an audio recording or in a video. These pedagogical documentation can be viewed by the parents, to whom access to Seesaw has been set up, immediately or later together with the children. Parallel to this pedagogical documentation by the children, the pedagogue documents events from the kindergarten day-to-day life on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and in the blog. An example of this is shown in Fig. 3.35.

Fig. 3.35   Tweet about a bird project, here: Crafting and painting bird sculptures

3.5  Digital Pedagogical Documentation

105

The case study showed that the communication of the involved actors (children, pedagogue, parents) is shaped to a great extent by the use of digital technologies. The use of digital media leads to an intensified exchange between the actors on all levels: Parents and teachers, but also children and parents intensify their conversations about what is happening in the kindergarten. In particular, the parents feel more involved, also those parents who otherwise have little contact with the kindergarten (here usually the fathers). The parents also see the digital tools primarily as an opportunity to get into conversation with the children. At the same time, they see the comprehensive information as critical in that it can also represent an overload in its abundance: The many information channels that parents can regularly access also exert pressure to actually retrieve the information provided. The analysis also makes exclusion mechanisms clear: Families without the appropriate technical equipment can only participate in digital interactions with great effort. The pedagogue is also facing increased demands: Firstly, because by publishing photos and short events from everyday life, she creates a particularly high transparency of her pedagogical work. This can also be understood as a surrender to public criticism. She describes the associated feeling as if she were constantly being filmed (“It’s like having a camera on me all day”). At the same time, as the study showed, a lot of time is needed by the pedagogue. However, the pedagogue sets the comprehensive positive feedback and the new connections created through social networks against this and therefore draws a positive balance. In particular with regard to her professional development and the exchange with colleagues, she benefits greatly. In the perspective of the children, the linking of ECE centre and family, which they experience particularly intensively through the use of social networks, is in the foreground. They describe how they look at the contributions of the pedagogue in the social networks together with their parents. One child tells how, during a phase of illness, she was able to take up contact with her kindergarten group via Twitter, which she perceived as comforting. The observation makes it clear that the children become visible as actively learning in this medial environment in a special way and that the use of digital media initiates and moderates pedagogical documentation itself. So the digital channel does not replace traditional forms of communication, but leads to new forms of communication that were not previously available in a comparable way. The actors perceive this—at least within the framework of the case study—as a positively connoted intensification of their exchange with each other. The limited space of the kindergarten group is extended by digital media and interwoven with other social spheres, such as those of the individual families, the parents’ working world and the Internet as a global virtual place.

106

3  Pedagogical Documentation: Forms and Styles …

Twitter and Facebook as Tools for Cooperation with Parents

Background

Posts from ECE centres in Germany and the USA were evaluated in the social networks Facebook and Twitter for the study. The sample was drawn as a random selection using previously defined search terms. A total of 347 posts from 36 institutions (20 from the USA and 16 from Germany) were included in the analysis. The evaluation was carried out according to the principles of grounded theory, with the codes being developed with the aim of maximising emergence (as development from the material) (Muckel 2011). The material was viewed and grouped in several passes, so that clearly distinguishable categories could be formed (see Knauf 2015a for details).

The central question of this study is what functions social networks play in shaping the cooperation between parents and pedagogues, and what priorities are set in this context. Already during data collection, it became clear that social networks are used very differently in the countries involved (Germany and the USA); while many institutions are represented on Facebook or Twitter in the USA, these two platforms play hardly any role in Germany for ECE centres. Therefore, all institutions that could be found in Germany at the time of the study were included in the study. The analysis shows a multifaceted functionality that goes far beyond the mere self-presentation of ECE centres in the public sphere. The posts in social networks are mainly aimed at three functions • Inform: These posts contain news from the institution, event information or link tips on educational topics. They make up 40% of the posts studied. • Document: Here you get insights into the everyday pedagogical life, for example about excursions, projects or games of the children; this group makes up 52% of the posts studied. • Connect: Thanks, quotes about children and childhood and good wishes (e.g. for Christmas) are the focus of these posts. They make up 8% of the posts in this study.

3.5  Digital Pedagogical Documentation

107

The analysis of the documenting posts that are of particular interest here shows that the activities of children are mostly shown in a way that is appreciative and at the same time not evaluative. This is in contrast to other methods of pedagogical documentation described above, which often measure children against standardized ideas of a “normal” development of children. The diagnostic function of documentation takes a back seat here, while the communication function—offering opportunities for conversation—dominates. There are remarkable differences when comparing the countries under investigation. German ECE centres use social networks primarily to inform, while US ECE centres primarily publish documenting posts. This finding is closely related to the different use of social networks in the two countries. A hypothesis derived from this is that social networks are perceived and used less as a medium for content exchange in Germany. Experiences and Attitudes Towards Social Networks of Pedagogues in Germany

Background

This study is based on group discussions with the employees of two ECE centres in Germany. The selection of the institutions was based on a theoretical sampling, in which the most diverse conditions with the aim of contrasting were decisive for the selection (average age of the team, urban and rural location, importance of pedagogical documentation, experience with social networks). The data analysis was based on the procedure of qualitative content analysis (Mayring 2010). Both the individual group discussion and the discussions between them were analyzed in detail (for the procedure: Knauf 2016b).

In order to investigate the use of social networks for pedagogical documentation in ECE centres in Germany, the experiences and attitudes of pedagogues were examined. For this purpose, two group discussions were held with the staff of one centre each. In one of the groups examined, there was no experience with social networks at the time of the survey. The other group had used Facebook until shortly before the survey, but had stopped using it due to legal uncertainties. The results reveal great differences between pedagogues with and without experience in social networks. Various aspects of social networks in the context of ECE centre are illuminated below and illustrated with quotes from the group discussions.

108

3  Pedagogical Documentation: Forms and Styles …

The group that has not yet gained any experience with social networks (GD 1) sees the use as an additional task that supplements the existing work, but does not affect its core. Here, the fear of having additional work through these activities prevails, as the following quotes illustrate: I am mainly wondering how something like this is maintained. If you start, you set a standard (GD 1). I see it as an additional burden. Not because I am fundamentally against it, you always have to stay on top of it. But it’s just something else that comes on top (GD 1).

The use of social networks is perceived by this group as another requirement to a very uniform extent. In sharp contrast, the other (experienced networker) group (GD 2) sees precisely the time savings as the special advantage of using social networks, as the following quote shows: And it’s just totally time-effective, because if I call and say: ‘I just wanted to let you know, everything’s fine,’ which could also be a way we sometimes go […]. Then I have to look up the number. I have to get the phone. I have to have the conversation. I’m not able to observe children in that time, or be present in work with children. And in the worst case, I’m even held up by the parent, because maybe there are suddenly other issues that are relevant. And Facebook or Twitter—depending on which one—are just short, concise, and to the point. The effect of that is—I think— is immense (GD 2).

Posting here replaces other forms of contact with parents, as it is perceived as faster and easier than, for example, a phone call. In addition, the resulting gain is perceived as significantly higher: That wasn’t time-consuming at all. That was the photo […] That was sent and done. It didn’t take five minutes. But you just have this huge gain from it. That’s the beauty of it (GD 2).

It can actually be assumed that the information would not have been transmitted at all over other channels of communication. At the same time, however, it also becomes clear that the boundaries between pedagogical documentation and information are very blurred here. The role of contributions in social networks as a conversation starter, which was already clearly evident in the case study from the USA, is also reported by the group with network experience. The respondents see a special opportunity

3.5  Digital Pedagogical Documentation

109

here to arouse the basic interest of parents and to bring them into conversation with their children: What is also nice for the parents, if you have seen a Twitter message or a Facebook posting in the morning, then you also have something directly to talk to the child about: ‘I saw that this morning […] Did you also make leaf soup? And what did you do with it then?’ You have something directly to talk to the child with, it is a form of taking seriously […] You have a really good hook after the daycare day (GD 2).

The participants in the network inexperienced group also express the hope of reaching parents through social networks at all and possibly also other parents than with the previously used communication channels: Many parents are reached more than by a folder and I can imagine that they look in there in the evening on the couch (GD 1).

The digital channel makes it possible to gain insights into the everyday life of the ECE center from another location. This makes it possible to reach parent groups that cannot or can hardly be reached in other ways, according to the hopes of pedagogues. At the same time, however, new mechanisms of exclusion can also be set in motion, which pedagogues from both groups problematize: But not everyone will have a computer (GD 1). But individual groups will also be excluded (GD 1). But not everyone has Facebook (GD 2).

As the group experienced in networking described, the use of social networks also changes the relationships between the actors. So the daily implementation not only includes the process of posting itself, but also the coordination within the team that precedes it. The following quote describes how this was handled in the facility: We handled it so that we of course exchanged information shortly before, to be as safe as possible. [I said:] ‘I would like to post that. Is that okay? What do you think?’ (GD 2).

This exchange serves not only mutual information, but also reassurance to act correctly. In contrast to the case study from the USA described above, in which

110

3  Pedagogical Documentation: Forms and Styles …

the pedagogue was largely responsible for the postings alone, this team-internal communication is added as a component that at least seems to have the potential to intensify the exchange. As a key factor for the group experienced in networking, the resonance perceived as significantly intensified by parents is added. They say: And then parents who maybe can’t come have the opportunity to press ‘like’ (GD 2). Or they just write: ‘Great thing!’ Which maybe doesn’t happen so easily in everyday life (GD 2). Some people can also write better than talk (GD 2). A thumb is maybe easier to set than to say ‘thank you’ face to face (GD 2).

The respondents of this group experience this feedback after the end of the activities on Facebook as missing. For them, the feedback via this social network was an important incentive. In both groups—but again with different evaluations—the interviewed pedagogues discuss the protection of privacy and the importance of photos. In the group inexperienced in networking, the publication of photos with children is rejected outright, as these two quotes illustrate: The children were also seen there, that can’t be (GD 1). I think [photos] is a boundary crossing, privacy is simply not protected (GD 1).

In contrast, the participants of the other group emphasize that photos are the essential channel for the representation in social networks. Therefore, they have considered which rules to follow: But we also said quite clearly and distinctly that if we post, then only children from behind or only legs, or only hands. So that it is not recognizable which child it is. At least not from the front definitely not. Naked children anyway not. So we had such a finger-painting action outside in the garden, where they all still had diapers and something like that. And then only the legs were on it. And so that was also quite safe (GD 2).

A key difference between the two groups also lies in the evaluation of proximity and distance: While the network inexperienced group perceives contributions

3.5  Digital Pedagogical Documentation

111

in social networks as rather impersonal and distant, the network experienced group puts the proximity established by these contributions in the foreground and emphasizes the strengthening of the relationship of trust between pedagogue and parents. In this way, an identification of the parents with the ECE center observed by the pedagogues of this group arises: It’s great when the parents also identify with the ECE center. And with a ‘Like’ they say: ‘Yeah, that’s our ECE center!’ (GD 2).

Legal uncertainties, inadequate technical equipment and lack of own experience are identified as decisive barriers to the use of social networks. Opportunities that arise through social networks are seen by users primarily in a higher resonance for the pedagogues, more transparency and information for parents as well as the diverse conversation occasions between adults and children about educational processes. The use of social networks turns out to be much more than just sending familiar messages through a new channel. Rather, the contents of the communication change as well; other people and groups are reached. The relationships between the actors also change. The ECE centre becomes connected to other social spheres through the increased public visibility, and its processes become more transparent. Depending on the perspective, these developments can be seen as positive or problematic. The findings of the study suggest that reservations are also based on ignorance and inexperience. However, in the case of the networkaffiliated ECE team included in the study, it may have been precisely the affinity for social networks that already existed before the use of social networks in early childhood education that made these activities possible in the first place and that distorted the evaluation of the experiences in a positive way.

3.5.3 Digital Pedagogical Documentation—The Super Documentation? Many hopes are associated with the digitalization of pedagogical documentation. Easy handling, technical linking of different features, the natural integration into the everyday life of the daycare center, participation options for children and parents as well as the great overview promise a quantum leap in pedagogical documentation. The research results presented in this chapter (albeit still rare) suggest that these assumptions may be met. In addition, the studies show that the use of digital pedagogical documentation is associated with more fun and a greater reso-

112

3  Pedagogical Documentation: Forms and Styles …

nance for the pedagogues. It seems as if the digital pedagogical documentation can be a perfect, a super documentation. However, spelling out the benefits of such a digital pedagogical documentation also raises doubts: Can it really be the goal that children continuously (and possibly critically) reflect on their own actions? Wouldn’t the complete realization of the possibilities of the programs for digital pedagogical documentation described above mean that children are always under observation and also observe themselves constantly? Does this type of observation not also mean control? These questions make it clear that the implementation of digital pedagogical documentation, if the possibilities laid down in the programs are used to the full, means giving up essential characteristics of childhood. Could this be the reason why there is (to some extent also a very diffuse) unease among parents and pedagogues with regard to digital pedagogical documentation ? This unease is certainly fed by a fundamental criticism of digital media and digitalization in early childhood education and care (Fröhlich-Gildhoff and Fröhlich-Gildhoff 2017; Knauf 2016b). However, this “dramatization of digital media in early childhood education and care” (Knauf 2018b, p. 114) is not enough to explain the unease. So the reservations may only partly relate to the digital communication path, but may also be an expression of a fundamental unease with the topic of pedagogical documentation. This thought forces us to a fundamental reflection on pedagogical documentation and the control associated with it. Because it is precisely the programs for digital portfolios that make it clear how closely pedagogical documentation can be linked to control. However, a close observation and control is in contradiction to the “right of the child to the present day” (Korczak 2014, p. 40). The digital pedagogical documentation, as a kind of radical or extreme form of pedagogical documentation, makes this contradiction clear. This problem is exacerbated by the merging of portfolio approaches with observation instruments that is currently taking place in digital portfolio programs. By integrating standardized diagnostic instruments and categorizing assignment options into the software, these are only a finger-tip away from the dialogical, strength-oriented portfolio entries. In this way, the diagnostic view of the child can gain further dominance and push the socio-constructivist principle of dialog-based discovery and understanding into the background. The two interpretations of documentation described in Sect. 2.4.3 (standardized, diagnostic forms on the one hand and process-oriented, dialogical forms on the other) seem to be less and less distinguishable from each other here, but rather to merge with each other.

3.6  Styles of Documentation: Understanding and Implementation …

113

3.6 Styles of Documentation: Understanding and Implementation of Pedagogical Documentation at the Level of Individual ECE Centre Early childhood education centre in Germany can choose from a wide range of forms of pedagogical documentation. The study underlying this chapter examined the decisions made in this regard and the considerations and experiences that guide the actions of pedagogues. The results were condensed into four different styles of documentation. These are based on the different degrees of standardization of pedagogical documentation on the one hand and the different importance that is attached to pedagogical documentation in the institutions on the other. The analysis makes it clear that, in addition to the institution-specific understanding of pedagogical documentation, structural conditions (in particular the time available) are a key factor in the choice of procedures and variants of implementation of pedagogical documentation. After the presentation of various forms of pedagogical documentation in Chap. 3, pedagogical documentation will be considered from the perspective of the individual institution in the following. The relative freedom of the ECE centres in the question of which procedures they decide for, usually leads to individual combinations of single procedures. This selection is usually the result of a process that has taken place or is taking place in the institution and is based on mindsets, experiences, reflections, decisions and sometimes also coincidences. These theoretical justifications are included in the analysis because not only the documents themselves (as in Chap. 3), but also the perspectives of head-teachers of the ECE centres were taken into account.

Overview

The study is based on case studies, each of which defines an ECE center as a case. 40 ECE centers were included. The selection was made on a criterion basis according to the factors size of the institution, type of institution, age of the children, pedagogical orientation and location of the institution. The aim was to adequately consider the diversity in the German ECE landscape. According to the case study approach, different research methods were combined; this should create the most differentiated and comprehensive picture of each institution:

114

3  Pedagogical Documentation: Forms and Styles …

• Qualitative interviews with the head teacher or the leading team • Photographic recording of the implementation of pedagogical documentation • Partially standardized inspection protocols for the systematic collection of the concrete manifestations of pedagogical documentation In the process of open coding (Breuer 2010), a coding plan common to the various data sources was developed. In order to develop a context-related analysis, the codes were summarized in a further step in categories which are used as relevant comparison dimensions for the further evaluation. Based on these categories, a typology was developed which describes different styles of pedagogical documentation in ECE centers (short: styles of documentation).

3.6.1 Typologization of ECE Centers with Regard to Their Documentation Practice In all the examined ECE centres, procedures of pedagogical documentation are being used. The portfolio (38 out of 40 facilities) is the most dominant and by far the most widespread. Wall documentation is also widespread (32 out of 40), with a fluid transition to informational displays for parents. A presentation of products was observed in 26 of the 40 facilities. In addition, special forms can be found in single ECE centres, such as project documentation in book form or grouprelated logbooks, which document important events from the everyday life of the group. The analysis of the collected data shows that differences in the practice of documentation can be seen in particular with regard to the following categories: • Significance/self-conception: pedagogical documentation is seen as constitutive for the educational work. • Standardization: Prepared forms are used for documentation. • Diagnostics/evaluation: Documentation is mainly described as a diagnostic tool. • Participation: Children are active producers of pedagogical documentation (selection of products and photos, design and reflection, etc.). • Group learning: The representation and reflection of learning processes in and with the group is in the foreground (instead of individual learning).

3.6  Styles of Documentation: Understanding and Implementation …

115

Based on these categories, a typology was developed that describes different styles of pedagogical documentation in ECE centres. The decisive factor for the selection of the categories used for type formation was the requirement that the cases within a type should be as similar as possible (internal homogeneity), but at the same time be clearly distinguishable from the cases belonging to other types (external heterogeneity) (Kelle and Kluge 2010). The combination of the characteristics “self-conception” and “standardization” proved to be particularly clearcut. This combination is also sensible because both manifestations can be clearly defined (in the case of “standardization” in particular from the photographic material and in the case of “self-conception” from the interviews). Both categories can be described with two different characteristic expressions: high—low or (rather) important—(rather) unimportant. In this way, four types of institutions with different documentation styles can be characterized in the combination. This typology groups cases with similar characteristic expressions and serves to structure the material. The analysis makes it possible to gain a deeper understanding of the contexts and motivations that are constitutive for the respective types. The aim of the constitution of documentation types is to abstract (subjective) the opinion of the actors, so that a general (as objective as possible) context becomes clear (Weber 1980). Based on this analysis, each type was given a meaningful name, which takes up formulations from the interviews: Type 1: “Kindergarten certificate”, Type 2 “Clear rules”, Type 3 “Professionalism”, Type 4 “Educational process”. Figure 3.36 gives an overview of the types and the categories underlying them. In the sample, institutions with a high degree of standardization predominate (28 of 40 institutions; 70%). Of these, 17 institutions fall into type 2 (42%) and 11 into type 3 (28%). Only 12 institutions carry out the documentation with a low degree of standardization (30%), of which 7 fall into type 1 (17%) and 5 into type 4 (13%). Due to the overall low number of cases, the findings based on this study are by no means representative. However, systematic sampling allows for meaningful findings. Based on the collected material, the following describes the goals the participants associate with their documentation activities and the orientations that guide their actions. The terms “type” and “documentation style” are used synonymously.

116

3  Pedagogical Documentation: Forms and Styles …

Importance of documentation in the self-image of the institution

Type 1

Type 4

low

(rather) important

Kindergarten Certificate

Documentary as an Educational Process

high

Standardization

(rather) unimportant

Type 2 Clear rules

Type 3 Professionalism

Fig. 3.36   Typology of documentation styles in ECE institutions

3.6.2 Four Different Styles of Documentation 3.6.2.1 Documentation Style 1 “Kindergarten Certificate” Importance of Documentation  Childcare facilities of this type attach little importance to pedagogical documentation and reduce documentation work to a minimum. For them, pedagogical documentation is a necessary measure that they carry out unquestioned in order to meet the requirements of the provider. Pedagogical documentation is understood as an additional service. In the daily educational work, pedagogical documentation has a subordinate position and is often neglected. The reasons for the low importance of pedagogical documentation are often a mixture of justification and program: To justify the various burdens that the facility is exposed to, a high rate of absenteeism and turnover among the pedagogues  as well as the low educational level of the parents, their lack of interest and their limited German language skills, financial bottlenecks and organizational restructuring processes are described. However, often there are also contentrelated justification, which represent a time competition between documentation as a more administrative activity on the one hand and “work with the child” as

3.6  Styles of Documentation: Understanding and Implementation …

117

the actual educational work on the other. Pedagogical documentation is seen as an accompanying additional activity that draws resources and attention away from interaction with the child. Standardization  The practices used in pedagogical documentation are little standardized in documentation style 1. Open observation methods are preferred, in which irregularities are noted unsystematically. The main form of documentation is the portfolio, the design of which is very heterogeneous in these types of ECE centres and depends on the ideas of the responsible pedagogue. Children’s Participation  ECE centres of Type 1 see pedagogical documentation primarily in connection with an assessment and evaluation of children. Accordingly, children are seen as research objects and less as acting subjects in the process of documentation creation. Pedagogical documentation rather has the function of recording special events and development steps. Nevertheless, children are perceived as addressees of pedagogical documentation. Therefore, it is important for Type 1 institutions that the portfolios for children are spatially accessible. Diagnostics/Evaluation  Pedagogical documentation is primarily understood as a diagnostic and evaluation tool with which children are observed and examined by pedagogues. A headteacher describes documentation analogous to school as a “kindergarten certificate.” This is rather surprising because ECE centres and schools in Germany understand themselves as strongly separated parts of the education system (Schäfer 2011; Becker-Stoll 2008). This is not about the coherence function described in Sect. 2.3.1 but about a transfer of the school model of performance evaluation (“certificate”) to ECE. Group Learning The pedagogical documentation focuses mainly on the individual child. According to the idea of the “kindergarten certificate”, individual development progress is in the foreground, while the community and mutual inspiration are in the background. Accordingly, the documentation activities also focus on the portfolio as an individual documentation form. Pedagogical documentation is seen as a mandatory task for which the institutions only invest little. The pedagogues perceive a clear time competition between pedagogical documentation and work with the child. Therefore, pedagogical documentation is seen as a “time thief” that prevents the actually important work. Children are more observed objects than acting subjects in the documentation work.

118

3  Pedagogical Documentation: Forms and Styles …

3.6.2.2 Documentation Style 2 “Clear Rules” The Meaning of Documentation pedagogical documentation is just one task among many others in type 2 institutions. The surveyed head teachers complain of a strong increase in formal and administrative requirements in their everyday work and see pedagogical documentation as just another one. Pedagogical documentation is thus perceived as a bureaucratic act, an administrative obligation towards external parties: the provider, the parents and the school as the subsequent educational institution. Against this background, it is understandable that the portfolio is used as the main form of pedagogical documentation, while other forms (such as documentation in the room) are less common, because they refer to the individual child. The staff try to organize the work with the portfolio in such a way that it is manageable; i.e. they limit themselves to what they consider to be essential. Pedagogical documentation serves primarily as a data basis for parent-pedagogue conferences and is used as an archive or evidence for behavioral interpretation or diagnosis. Standardization  The pedagogical documentation in these institutions is relatively standardized. This is especially true for the portfolio, which is highly structured. The individual pages consist of pre-printed forms or templates that have been taken from books or manuals from providers. This standardization makes portfolios an attractive form of pedagogical documentation. The need for standardization is closely related to the desire to do everything “right” and to comply with the requirements, which are often perceived as ambiguous and therefore confusing. The desire for clear standards also extends to other areas of work; for example, conversations with parents are systematically prepared using a previously distributed questionnaire. This makes the content of the conversation clearly defined and therefore more predictable and controllable. Children’s Participation  Children are relatively little involved in the process of documentation. They appear—similarly to Type 1—rather as research subjects and not as active subjects who co-determine their own pedagogical documentation. However, this does not mean that pedagogues create pedagogical documentation entirely without the involvement of children. However, children usually have the function of an executive body that implements the ideas of the pedagogue. This is primarily because, with this style of documentation, the finished product is in the foreground and not the process of documentation.

3.6  Styles of Documentation: Understanding and Implementation …

119

Diagnostics/Evaluation  In line with the high importance of standards, the view of children is also characterized by a more evaluative and less descriptive basic attitude. As one of their essential educational goals, these institutions see the competent diagnosis as their main task. For this reason, pedagogical documentation often has the function of documenting the development status of children and providing evidence for a certain diagnosis. Pedagogical documentation is closely linked to systematic observation and is to be seen in the context of the general goal of “individual promotion”, because it should help to identify developmental deficits (or also -progress) and to address them specifically. Here, too, there is a clear connection to the low importance of participation described above. Pedagogical documentation is seen as an expression of a specific know-how of the pedagogue or an early educational competence that should enable a sound diagnosis. Group Learning  If the goal is mainly to promote individual support, then interaction in the group must take a back seat, as it is based on little predictable and difficult to control group dynamics. In addition, the teachers fear that an pedagogical documentation, which affects the activities of the whole group, will be perceived as unfair; after all, it is hardly possible to describe the share of each individual child in an action appropriately. For this reason, joint activities play a subordinate role in pedagogical documentation. For institutions of type 2, the development of rules and their observance is an important principle that determines the handling of pedagogical documentation. Standardization is seen as an absolute quality criterion. In addition, rules and standards are an important strategy for dealing with the challenges and even the challenges of everyday work and for getting them under control. pedagogical documentation therefore has the function of supporting standardization and normalization processes, e.g. by checking the age-appropriate development of children, by standardizing processes and by regulating communication.

3.6.2.3 Documentation Style 3 “Professionalism” Importance of Documentation Unlike in Types 1 and 2, documentation plays a large role in the everyday lives of pedagogues in Type 3 institutions. The surveyed headteachers provided detailed descriptions of the methods they have developed and how they document, from which an intensive engagement with the topic can be derived. ECE centres that belong to this style of documentation often develop their own methods. During the visits as part of this study, the head teachers present a comprehensive set of tools that the surveyed pedagogues are proud of and use with

120

3  Pedagogical Documentation: Forms and Styles …

full conviction. The headteachers highly value documentation and act accordingly. Documentation is a matter of course in everyday life at the ECE center. Standardization  The degree of standardization of pedagogical documentation is high in type 3 institutions. Due to the self-imposed claim to systematics, various forms of pedagogical documentation have been developed which, due to their standardized form, also enable simplification. In institutions of documentation style 3, portfolios are usually divided into categories. The contents are structured by a variety of forms, some of which have also been developed by the institution itself. The standardization here has less the function to prevent errors (as with type 2), but to achieve a high quality. The forms are to ensure that the variety of possibilities that a portfolio offers is used and that the pedagogues are encouraged to use these possibilities. A means of quality assurance are, for example, checklists on which the completeness of the portfolio is noted. The goal of completeness is based on a precise idea of an ideal portfolio, which in some institutions even exists as a “model folder”. In addition to the portfolio, ECE centres that can be assigned to type 3 have developed other forms of pedagogical documentation. Typical examples are daily documentation: Laminated cardboard allows pedagogues to present short information about the day’s most important events to parents. The predetermined framework of the standard at the same time becomes an obligation to actually carry out the daily documentation. Children’s Participation In their role as users of pedagogical documentation, children are given high consideration in these institutions. The staff reads the children from their portfolios and encourages them to look at their pedagogical documentation. The creation of pedagogical documentation is mainly the work of the pedagogues. As with types 1 and 2, children are rarely producers of pedagogical documentation. Wall documentation is mainly aimed at parents, as shown by the positioning at adult level and the focus on written language. Diagnostics/Evaluation  If you look at the pedagogical documentation in detail, you will see that institutions with documentation style 3 also see themselves in an evaluative and diagnostic role. As already described for documentation styles 1 and 2, the sound diagnosis of the development status of children is an important part of the teacher self-image. Pedagogical documentation is seen (also) as an instrument of this diagnosis. An analysis of the templates described above shows that achievements and progress are recorded here in particular: “I can do that well”, “So I’m getting older” and “Achieved! Learned!” Are typical titles of the forms. The evaluation is an important part of the documentation practice in type 3.

3.6  Styles of Documentation: Understanding and Implementation …

121

Group Learning  Documentation style 3 institutions focus on the individual child and his development. Individual development is in the foreground, which is why high value is placed on the documentation of developments and topics of the individual child. That is why the portfolio is the central documentation form in these institutions. The documentation of learning in the group plays hardly any role; joint activities and interactive play and learning activities are only very rarely the subject of pedagogical documentation. Pedagogical documentation has the function for type 3 institutions to make the work transparent and contribute to a higher quality. That is why documentation is also an important part of pedagogical work, which is reflected in a high investment in the topic, especially through the development of new, own procedures and the elaborate implementation of pedagogical documentation. At the same time, a high degree of standardization is achieved, through which a constant high quality is to be achieved.

3.6.2.4 Documentation Style 4 “Educational Process” Importance of Documentation The institutions that are attributable to Type 4 attach great importance to pedagogical documentation. Pedagogical documentation is here understood as a natural and continuous part of the daily pedagogical work, in the words of a pedagogue: “The antennas are always extended.” This means that pedagogical documentation is perceived as something self-evident that happens continuously and for which routines are set up. The high importance that institutions of this type attach to pedagogical documentation is based on a specific understanding of roles: The pedagogues see themselves as researchers who understand the children’s world of thought and explore their world of life with them. So a pedagogue describes the documentation work as “written listening.” pedagogical documentation makes it possible to engage in joint learning, thinking and research processes with children. The portfolios are clearly visible and inviting in the group rooms, they have been filled continuously and contain a variety of products. However, the portfolio is only one of many forms of pedagogical documentation: Wall documentation with small learning stories that fit the place where they are hung can be seen in all rooms. Children’s products are comprehensively exhibited and supplemented with comments from children, partly also with photos of children during the production of the products. The abundance and diversity observed in the ECE centers of this type is the result of a consistent and long-term work on pedagogical documentation.

122

3  Pedagogical Documentation: Forms and Styles …

Standardization  In these facilities, standardization plays a significantly smaller role than in the facilities of the other documentation styles. The diversity of pedagogical documentation is very large. This also means that many pedagogues have individual preferences and implement them, so that there are sometimes also large differences in the appearance of pedagogical documentation within an institution. The efficiency necessary due to everyday demands is therefore achieved less by content-related standardizations, but rather by a formal framework within which there are many design options. The computer and certain photo programs are seen as work-facilitating. Another way to achieve efficiency is to use individual pages of the portfolio for several children. This means that a higher level of attention is also paid to shared experiences and activities. Standardization of documentation also takes place in type 4 institutions, but not in the form of a scale or norm applied to all children in the same way, but as standardization of documentation processes. In the interviews, however, the pedagogues also address fears that the heterogeneity of their documentation based on the great diversity could be negatively evaluated by outsiders. They suspect that in particular schools and parents see a uniform design of pedagogical documentation in terms of content and form as a quality feature and rather criticize the great heterogeneity. Children’s Participation  Involving children in the documentation process is very important to type 4 institutions. This affects—in contrast to all other documentation styles—both the accessibility of pedagogical documentation and participation in the process of documentation creation. Joint documentation is seen as a necessary prerequisite for being able to appropriately and correctly represent a situation. The importance of children’s participation is closely related to the pedagogic self-image of the staff. At the same time, the consistent implementation of the participation and self-determination of children also represents a challenge for the staff in these institutions, because often the children’s ideas about the content and the careful handling of the pedagogical documentation differ from those of the adults. Diagnostics/Evaluation  Evaluating developmental steps and children’s achievements as a central task is clearly rejected by type 4 institutions. Rather, it is important to the staff to make clear that they work out the experiences and ways of thinking of the children through pedagogical documentation. Therefore, the portfolio should not present the strengths of children in order to address certain performance or requirements. Instead, “experience spaces” should be presented. This is how the staff also do not see themselves in the role of judging or diagnos-

3.6  Styles of Documentation: Understanding and Implementation …

123

ing the development of children. This attitude corresponds to the idea of wanting to better understand the world of children (Turner and Krechevsky 2003). Documentation serves primarily to capture something that is typical for a child. Group Learning  In type 4 facilities, group learning is emphasized. The idea that documentation of educational situations in groups can significantly increase efficiency has already been mentioned. However, the surveyed headteachers also emphasize group learning as an important content-related reason for the high proportion of group-related documentation elements. In these ECE centres, the staff strive for an appropriate balance between individual and group topics. The group should be visible as a context in which education takes place. For example, the wall documentation in these ECE centres makes it clear how children discover a topic together or deal with a certain material. In the institutions  belonging to type 4, pedagogical documentation is an integral part of pedagogical work. It is used to better understand the thinking and actions of children and to talk to children, but not for diagnosis. Children are involved in the creation of pedagogical documentation as acting individuals. pedagogical documentation is relatively unstandardized and adapts flexibly to experienced situations.

3.6.3 Styles of Documentation as Programmatic Action Practices Figure 3.37 summarizes the representation in Sect. 3.6.2 and gives an overview of the categories included in the typology and their respective characteristic expressions. The results of the study show that while pedagogical documentation is important in all of the institutions surveyed, attitudes, evaluations, and implementations differ greatly. In institutions of types 1 and 2, pedagogical documentation is seen more as a duty, while institutions of types 3 and 4 see it as a useful tool for their pedagogical work. This evaluation (as an annoying or useful tool) has a major impact on the specific implementation of pedagogical documentation: Institutions that consider the importance to be low also invest less time and energy in pedagogical documentation, have less variety, and only occasionally use pedagogical documentation in their pedagogical work. The ECE centres that give greater weight to pedagogical documentation also make greater efforts, develop their own and varied forms, and find new ways to use pedagogical documentation. Another important distinguishing criterion is standardization. A high degree of standardi-

124

3  Pedagogical Documentation: Forms and Styles …

Type1

Type 2

Type 3

Type 4

Kindergarten certificate

Clear rules

Professionalism

Educational process

Meaning of documentation

low

rather small

rather high

high

Participation of children

low

rather small

rather high

high

Group learning

low

low

rather small

high

Standardization

low

high

high

low

Diagnostics/ Evaluation

rather small

high

high

low

Fig. 3.37   Characteristics for categorizing the four types of child care facilities in terms of their documentation practice

zation often goes hand in hand with the understanding of pedagogical documentation as an evaluation and diagnostic tool. Pedagogical documentation is then used primarily to present the competence progress or developmental deficits of children to parents and school. Institutions with less standardization, on the other hand, try to reservedly name (type 1) or understand (type 4) the behavior of children without evaluating it. Documentation styles 3 and 4 represent the two understandings of pedagogical documentation described in Sect. 2.4.3 most clearly: While in type 3 the diagnostic and evaluative function of documentation is in the foreground, in type 4 documentation serves to accompany processes in educational situations. The ambiguity of the term pedagogical documentation is also reflected in everyday pedagogical life and leads to very different practices of pedagogical documentation. The typology also shows, however, that in addition to the extreme positions, intermediate stages can also be found, which in turn have an impact on the practice of pedagogical documentation.

4

Conclusion

Abstract

Early childhood education in Germany is carried by the consensus that ECE centres provide children with an stimulating environment with a holistic educational program; at the same time, the ECE center should be a protective space. From this common thought, two different interpretations of ECE can be made: The child is either understood as a developing being (reference point is becoming or future) or as an independent actor (reference point is being or present). While the idea of the child as a developing being is widely considered outdated at least as the sole reference point in the discourse of childhood studies, this is still virulent in the educational plans of the German federal states and the elementary pedagogical approaches and is thus also effective for pedagogical practice in ECE  centres. Documentation of education is therefore often shaped and permeated by this concept. The studies presented in this book have shown how diverse pedagogical documentation is implemented in ECE institutions: Not only the forms of pedagogical documentation are different, but also different—sometimes contradictory—goals are pursued with documentation. If one looks at documentation in ECE institutions from a theoretical, programmatic and practical perspective, two different ideas can be characterized: A diagnostic idea, in which development and learning outcomes are measured, and a process-oriented one, in which development, learning and education are to be stimulated and shown. Already at the beginning in Sect. 2.4.3 it was made clear that the focus of this book lies on the process-oriented forms of documentation (pedagogical documentation); standardized documentation variants, which are often closely interwoven © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2022 H. Knauf, Pedagogical Documentation in Early Childhood Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-39736-4_4

125

126

4 Conclusion

with observation, were not considered in more detail. However, it was already apparent from the justification of documentation from the elementary pedagogical approaches and the analysis of the educational plans (Sect. 2.1 and 2.3) that the idea of measuring development and learning outcomes also plays a remarkable role in procedures that are basically designed to be process-oriented. And in the most important procedures of pedagogical documentation, this dual goal is often very present. In order to understand how these basically clearly distinguishable and sometimes contradictory perspectives on documentation are related to each other, a broadening of the view to the education of young children is necessary: The understanding of ECE centres as educational institutions, although already laid out and prepared in various ways in the decades before, has found general recognition in German politics and society since the turn of the millennium. In doing so, a basic consensus has developed about which characteristics ECE centres should have. This basic consensus can be (greatly simplified) described using three features: • ECE centres provide an stimulating environment that comprehensively promotes the cognitive, social, emotional, and physical development of children. • ECE centres offer a holistic educational program in which individual subjects are not taught in an instructive manner, but in which relevant areas of life are experienced in a playful and natural way. • ECE centres provide a protective space for children that is oriented towards the social and emotional well-being of children. Based on this common foundation, two paths can be distinguished that shape the concrete design of the work in ECE centres: In Path I, the child is understood as a human being in the making, a developing being that is to be prepared for its future life as an adult. The focus here is on creating optimal conditions for a developmentally appropriate and optimal development. In order to ensure this, it is necessary to observe the child's development as accurately as possible. This way, any deviations from normal development can be detected early on; interventions with appropriate, tailor-made measures are possible. In order to identify support needs, a differentiated and continuous diagnostics is necessary. Documentation on this path is primarily the conscientious and comprehensible for third parties (parents, school, therapists, authorities, etc.) documentation of diagnostic procedures, such as in particular observation but also screening and testing. This path follows a medical-psychological logic and uses methods from this area.

4 Conclusion

127

Path II, on the other hand, sees children as actors whose current life phase (childhood) has its own value and is more than just a pre-stage to “proper” human existence. Therefore, the focus is on the research and understanding of the world of experience and interpretation of children. The aim is therefore that adults and children develop or reflect an understanding of the world together. A main task of teachers is to accompany the exploring mind of children and to support and encourage it through dialogue. For documentation, this means that adults are attentive to the interests and questions of children and make these interests and questions visible to the children themselves in the first place. This path follows a pedagogical logic and has developed certain methods from this. As the analyses presented in this book show, however, these two paths are primarily of a theoretical nature. Both in many programmatic texts (Chap. 2) and especially in the implementation (Chap. 3) the two paths are far less separated from each other, but often closely interwoven. Upon closer inspection, the view of a child in its present state does not have to exclude the preparation for its future state, because in an ideal case a fulfilled, positively experienced present is a good prerequisite for a successful future. But the perspectives on children represented in the two paths (and the associated perspectives on the role of adults) are fundamentally different, indeed they contradict each other: The child can either be accepted in its being-a-human state (“The right of the child to be as it is”, Korczak 2014/1967, p. 40), or it is understood as a being-to-be-promoted and thus to be changed. However, the analyses make it clear that path II is dominated by path I in many respects: Although the elementary pedagogical approaches emphasize the child as the actor of its development, they do not seem to trust this view (except in the Reggio pedagogy); they therefore supplement the self-regulation of the child with diagnostic instruments. Although the paradigm of co-constructive educational processes is represented as fundamental in the curricula, the federal states do not want to do without systematic diagnostics in order to (in the language of the curricula) ensure an “optimal promotion” through the “identification of strengths and weaknesses”. And even the investigation of portfolios and learning stories as the most widespread forms of educational documentation in Germany shows that many teachers try to carry out a, albeit gentle, measurement of performance and progress. The procedures of educational documentation, which are theoretically not designed to be measuring, evaluating, diagnosing, are thus placed at the service of this diagnosis. This finding may indicate that the early childhood educational paradigm of the competent child as an actor in his or her own development has not been consistently and fully implemented at all levels.

128

4 Conclusion

Documentation thus proves to be a key educational process for the work of ECE centres, because its analysis points to the fundamental question of what image we have of children and their educational processes.

References

Ahnert, Lieselotte und Tina Eckstein-Madry. 2013. Krippen. In: Handbuch Pädagogik der frühen Kindheit, hrsg. von Susanna Roux und Lilian Fried, 335–345. 3. Aufl. Berlin: Cornelsen Scriptor. Alasuutari, Maarit, Ann-Marie Markström und Ann-Christine Vallberg-Roth. 2014. Assessment and Documentation in Early Childhood Education. London; New York: Routledge. Allmann, Silke. 2014. Beobachtung in der Montessori-Pädagogik. Freiburg: Herder. Appl, Dolores J, Jessica E Leavitt und Melissa A Ryan. 2014. Parent–Child Portfolios: “Look—This Book Is All About Us!”.Early Childhood Education Journal 42, Nr. 3 (1. Mai): 191–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-013-0598-1. Autorengruppe Fachkräftebarometer. 2017. Fachkräftebarometer Frühe Bildung 2017. München: Deutsches Jugendinstitut. https://www.fachkraeftebarometer.de/fileadmin/ Redaktion/Publikation_FKB2017/Fachkraeftebarometer_Fruehe_Bildung_2017_web. pdf. Zugegriffen: 03. August. 2018. Backhaus, Johanna, Andrea Bogatz und Petra Hanke. 2014. Bildungsdokumentationen im Übergang von der Kindertageseinrichtung in die Grundschule aus der Perspektive von Erzieherinnen, Erziehern und Grundschullehrkräften – Ergebnisse aus dem Projekt „WirKt“. In: Jahrbuch Grundschulforschung, Hrsg. von Bärbel Kopp, Sabine Martschinke, Meike Munser-Kiefer, Michael Haider, Eva-Maria Kirschhock, Gwendo Ranger, und Günter Renner, 17:106–109. Wiesbaden: Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-658-04479-4_10. BASFI (Hamburger Behörde für Arbeit, Soziales, Familie und Integration). 2012. Hamburger Bildungsempfehlungen für die Bildung und Erziehung von Kindern in Tageseinrichtungen. (1. Auflage 2005). http://www.hamburg.de/kita/116828/bildungsempfehlungen.html. Zugegriffen: 13. September 2018. Becker-Stoll, Fabienne. 2008. Welche Bildung brauchen Kinder? In: Bildung und Kindheit, hrsg. von Werner Thole, Hans-Günther Roßbach, Maria Fölling-Albers, und Rudolf Tippelt, 115–123. Opladen: Barbara Budrich. Becker-Stoll, Fabienne, Renate Niesel und Monika Wertfein. 2015. Handbuch Kinderkrippe. Freiburg: Herder.

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2022 H. Knauf, Pedagogical Documentation in Early Childhood Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-39736-4

129

130

References

BJF (Senatsverwaltung für Bildung, Jugend und Familie Berlin). 2014. Berliner Bildungsprogramm für Kitas und Kindertagespflege. https://www.berlin.de/sen/jugend/familieund-kinder/kindertagesbetreuung/berliner_bildungsprogramm_2014.pdf. Zugegriffen: 13. September 2018. Blailklock, Ken E. 2008. A critique of the use of learning stories to assess the learning dispositions of young children. NZ Reasearch in ECE Journal11: 77–87. Bock-Famulla, Kathrin, Eva Strunz und Anna Löhle. 2017. Länderreport frühkindliche Bildungssysteme 2017. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung. Bortz, Jürgen und Nicola Döring. 2006. Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. Bostelmann, Antje. 2007. Das Portfolio-Konzept für Kita und Kindergarten. Mühlheim: Verlag an der Ruhr. Breidenstein, Georg. 2004. KlassenRäume – eine Analyse räumlicher Bedingungen und Effekte des Schülerhandelns. Zeitschrift für qualitative Bildungs-, Beratungs- und Sozialforschung5, Nr. 1: 87–107. Breuer, Franz. 2010.Reflexive Grounded Theory. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-531-92580-6. Bülow, Karin von. 2011. Anschlussfähigkeit von Kindergarten und Grundschule: Rekonstruktion von subjektiven Bildungstheorien von Erzieherinnen und Lehrerinnen. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt. Burghardt, Lars und Daniel Knauf. Vorsprung durch (digitale) Technik? Medienimpulse 2017, Nr.  4. https://www.medienimpulse.at/articles/view/1136. Zugegriffen: 03. August. 2018. Carr, Margaret. 2001. Assessment in Early Childhood Settings. London: Sage. Carr, Margaret. 2011. Young children reflecting on their learning: teachers’ conversation strategies. Early Years 31, Nr. 3 (Oktober): 257–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146 .2011.613805. Carr, Margaret und Wendy Lee. 2012. Learning Stories. London: Sage. Dahlberg, Gunilla. 2004. Kinder und Pädagogen als Co-Konstrukteure von Wissen und Kultur: Frühpädagogik in postmoderner Perspektive. In: Frühpädagogik international, 13–30. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Dahlberg, Gunilla, Peter Moss und Alan Pence. 2013. Beyond Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care. London; New York: Routledge. Davoli, Mara und Gino Ferri, Hrsg. 2015. Reggio tutta. Reggio Emilia: Reggio Children. Deutsches Jugendinstitut (DJI). 2007. Abschlussbericht des Projekts „Bildungs- und Lerngeschichten als Instrument zur Konkretisierung und Umsetzung des Bildungsauftrags im Elementarbereich“. München: Deutsches Jugendinstitut. Dialog Reggio. 2018. KITA-Karte. http://reggio-deutschland.de/kita-karte/. Zugegriffen: 10. Juli 2018. Diskowski, Detlef. 2009. Bildungspläne für Kindertagesstätten – ein neues und noch unbegriffenes Steuerungsinstrument. In: Frühpädagogische Förderung in Institutionen, hrsg. von Hans-Günther Roßbach und Hans-Peter Blossfeld, 47–62. Wiesbaden: Springer. Eckermann, Torsten und Friederike Heinzel. 2018. Kindheitsforschung – eine erziehungswissenschaftliche Perspektive? In: Kindheits- und Jugendforschung in der Kritik, hrsg. von Andrea Kleeberg-Niepage und Sandra Rademacher, 251–272. Wiesbaden: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-17090-5_11.

References

131

Edwards, Carolyn. 1998. Partner, Nuturer, and Guide: The Role of the Teacher. In: The Hundred Languages of Children, 179–198. Greenwich London: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Elschenbroich, Donata, Brigitte Gerhold, Marianne Krug, Christa Preissing und Miriam Tag. 2008. Das Portfolio im Kindergarten. Hrsg. von Ministerium für Bildung, Familie, Frauen und Kultur des Saarlandes. Weimar Berlin: Verlag das Netz. Falk, Beverly und Linda Darling-Hammond. 2010. Documentation and Democratic Education. Theory into Practice 49, Nr.  1: 72–81. https://doi. org/10.1080/00405840903436103. Fleck, Bethany, Aaron S Richmond, Jordace Sanderson und Sara Yacovetta. 2015. Does pedagogical documentation support maternal reminiscing conversations? Hrsg. von Kris Gritter. Cogent Education 2, Nr. 1. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311 86x.2015.1124824. Forman, George E und Brenda Fyfe. 1998. Negotiated Learning Through Design, Documentation, and Discourse. In: The Hundred Languages of Children, hrsg. von Carolyn P Edwards, Lella Gandini, und George E Forman, 239–260. Greenwich: London: Greenwood Publishing Group. Fraser, Susan. 2011. Authentic Childhood: Experiencing Reggio Emilia in the Classroom. Toronto: Nelson Education. Fröhlich-Gildhoff, Klaus und Janina Strohmer. 2011. Untersuchungen zum Stand von Beobachtung, Dokumentation und Diagnostik in Kindertageseinrichtungen. In: Forschung in der Frühpädagogik IV, hrsg. von Klaus Fröhlich-Gildhoff, Iris Nentwig-Gesemann und Hans Rudolf Leu, 37–68. Freiburg: FEL. Fröhlich-Gildhoff, Klaus und Michel Fröhlich-Gildhoff. 2017. Digitale Medien in der Kita – die Risiken werden unterschätzt! Frühe Bildung 6, Nr. 4: 225–228. https://doi. org/10.1026/2191-9186/a000332. Fthenakis, Wassilios E. 2003. Zur Neukonzeptualisierung der Bildung in der Frühen Kindheit. In: Elementarpädagogik nach PISA, hrsg. von Wassilios E Fthenakis, 18–37. Freiburg: Herder. Fyfe, Brenda. 2012. The relationship between documentation and assessment. In: The Hundred Languages of Children: The Reggio Emilia Experience in Transformation, hrsg. von Carolyn Pope Edwards, Lella Gandini und George E Forman, 273–291. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. Gandini, Lella. 1998. Educational and Caring Spaces. In: The Hundred Languages of Children, hrsg, von Carlyn P. Edwards, Lella Gandini, und George E. Forman, 161–178. Greenwich London: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Gandini, Lella und Jeanne Goldhaber. 2001. Two Reflections about Documentation. In: Bambini, hrsg. von Lella Gandini, und Carolyn Pope Edwards, 124–145. New York: Teachers College Press. Gandini, Lella und Judith Allen Kaminsky. 2004. Reflections on the Relationship between Documentation and Assessment in the American Context. Innovations in Early Education 11, Nr. 1: 5–17. Gandini, Lella und Judith Allen Kaminsky. 2006. The construction of the educational project. An interview with Carlina Rinaldi. In: In Dialogue with Reggio Emilia, hrsg. von Carlina Rinaldi, 121–136. London und New York: Routledge.

132

References

Gilkerson, Deanna und Michelle Fryer Hanson. 2000. Family portfolios: Involving families in portfolio documentation. Early Childhood Education Journal 27, Nr. 3: 197–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02694235. Greubel, Stefanie. 2016. Beobachtung und Dokumentation in Kindertagesstätten Nordrhein-Westfalens. Research on Steiner Education 7, Nr. 1: 81–95. Greubel, Stefanie und Cornelia Jachmann. 2016. Beobachtung und Dokumentation in Waldorfkindergärten Nordrhein-Westfalens. Alfter: Alanus Hochschule für Kunst und Gesellschaft. Grindheim, Liv Torunn, Sidsel Hadler-Olsen, und Modgunn Ohm. 2010. Who is The Troll? Children as Active Learners Presented as a Learning Story about the Troll from a Norwegian Barnehage. NZ Research in ECE Journal 13: 71–86. Groot-Wilken, Bernd. 2008. Portfolioarbeit leicht gemacht: Leitfaden zur systematischen Dokumentation von Bildungsverläufen in Tageseinrichtungen. Berlin: Cornelsen. Gutknecht, Dorothee. 2016. Die Kindergruppe als Ort der Raumerfahrung und Raumaneignung. In: Kindheit und Raum, hrsg. von Rita Braches-Chyrek und Charlotte Röhner, 145–162. Opladen: Barbara Budrich. Haas, Sibylle. 2012. Das Lernen feiern. Weimar Berlin: Verlag das Netz. Häcker, Thomas. 2006. Wurzeln der Portfolioarbeit. In: Das Handbuch Portfolioarbeit, hrsg. von Ilse Brunner, Thomas Häcker, und Felix Winter, 27–32. Seelze-Velber: Kallmeyer. Hansen, Rüdiger, Raingard Knauer und Benedikt Sturzenhecker. 2011. Partizipation in Kindertageseinrichtungen. Weimar Berlin: Verlag das Netz. Harris Helm, Judy. 2007. Documentation. In: Early Childhood Education, hrsg. von Rebecca Staples New und Moncrieff Cochran, 296–300. Westport London: Praeger. Harris Helm, Judy, Sallee Beneke und Kathy Steinheimer. 2007. Windows on Learning. Documenting young children’s work. New York London: Teachers College Press. Hedges, Helen. 2013. Young children’s ‘working theories’: Building and connecting understandings. Journal of Early Childhood Research 12, Nr. 1: 35–49. https://doi.org/10.117 7/1476718x13515417. Hentig, Hartmut von. 1991. Ablagerungen statt Gärungsprozesse. In : Zeitschrift für Pädagogik 37, Nr. 1, S. 123–138. Hepp, Andreas und Friedrich Krotz. 2012. Mediatisierte Welten: Forschungsfelder und Beschreibungsansätze – Zur Einleitung. In: Mediatisierte Welten, hrsg. von Friedrich Krotz und Andreas Hepp, 7–23. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3531-94332-9_1. HMSI (Hessisches Ministerium für Soziales und Integration). 2016. Bildung von Anfang an. Bildungs- und Erziehungsplan für Kinder von 0 bis 10 Jahren in Hessen. (1. Auflage 2007). https://bep.hessen.de/sites/bep.hessen.de/files/content-downloads/ Bildungs-und_Erziehungsplan_2016-09-23.pdf. Zugegriffen: 13. September 2018. Holschuh, Ute und Brigitte Markgraf. 2000. Kein Projekt in Sicht – was heißt dann „Arbeiten nach dem Situationsansatz“? In: Werkstatt Situationsansatz in der Kindergartenpraxis, hrsg. von Mara Dittmann, 77–84. Weinheim Basel: Beltz. Huhn, Norbert und Kornelia Schneider. 2008. Guck mal, was ich mache! – Schau dir an, was ich kann. In: Bildung sichtbar machen, hrsg. von Norbert Huhn und Kornelia Schneider, 25–51. Weimar Berlin: Verlag das Netz.

References

133

Jasmund, Christina, Astrid Krus, Sylvia Siems, Christian Fischer, Karin Böllert, Dagmar Bergs-Winkels, und Pitsch Magdalena. 2012. Auftaktbericht zur Strukturabfrage. Münster. http://www.bildungsgrundsaetze.nrw.de/fileadmin/dateien/PDF/150911_Auftaktbericht.pdf. Zugegriffen: 30. Juli 2018. Jasmund, Christina, Astrid Krus, Sylvia Siems, Christian Fischer, Karin Böllert, Dagmar Bergs-Winkels, und Pitsch Magdalena. 2013. Abschlussbericht der wissenschaftlichen Begleitung der Erprobung der Grundsätze zur Bildungsförderung für Kinder von 0 bis 10 Jahren in Kindertageseinrichtungen und Schulen im Primarbereich in NRW. Münster. Jenkins, Lyndsay N, Margaret T Floress, und Wendy Reinke. 2015. Rates and types of teacher praise: a review and future directions. Psychology in the Schools 52, Nr. 5: 463– 476. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21835. Jugendministerkonferenz und Kultusministerkonferenz. 2004. Gemeinsamer Rahmen der Länder für die frühe Bildung in Kindertageseinrichtungen. https://www.kmk.org/fileadmin/Dateien/veroeffentlichungen_beschluesse/2004/2004_06_03-Fruehe-BildungKindertageseinrichtungen.pdf. Zugegriffen: 5. August 2018. Kahl, Reinhard. 2006. Die Entdeckung der frühen Jahre: Die Initiative McKinsey bildet zur frühkindlichen Bildung. DVD. Weinheim: Beltz. Kardel, Telsa, Claudia McKeen, Rainer Patzlaff, und Wolfgang Saßmannshausen. 2007. Leitlinien der Waldorfpädagogik für die Kindheit von 3 bis 9 Jahren. Stuttgart: Pädagogische Forschungsstelle beim Bund der Freien Waldorfschulen. Katz, Lilian G. 1993. Dispositions: Definitions and Implications for Early Childhood Practices. Urbana: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education. Kebbe, Anne und Susanne Viernickel. 2009. Bildungsdokumentation und konzeptionelle Entwicklung. In: Beobachtung und Erziehungspartnerschaft, hrsg. von Susanne Viernickel, 143–161. Berlin: Cornelsen Scriptor. Kelle, Helga. 2013. Normierung und Normalisierung der Kindheit. Zur (Un)Unterscheidbarkeit und Bestimmung der Begriffe. In: Normierung und Normalisierung der Kindheit, hrsg. von Helga Kelle und Johanna Mierendorff, 15–37. Weinheim und Basel: Beltz Juventa. Kelle, Udo und Susann Kluge. 2010. Vom Einzelfall zum Typus. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Kessl, Fabian. 2016. Erziehungswissenschaftliche Forschung zu Raum und Räumlichkeit. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik 62, Nr. 1: 5–19. Kim, Hyun Sik. 2015. Foregone opportunities: unveiling teacher expectancy effects in kindergarten using counterfactual predictions. Social Psychology of Education 18, Nr. 2: 273–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-014-9284-4. Kluge, Norbert. 2013. Das Bild des Kindes in der Pädagogik der frühen Kindheit. In: Handbuch Pädagogik der frühen Kindheit, hrsg. von Susanna Roux und Lilian Fried, 22–33. 3. Aufl. Berlin: Cornelsen Scriptor. Knauf, Helen. 2015a. Soziale Netzwerke als Instrument der Bildungs- und Erziehungspartnerschaft mit Familien in Kindertageseinrichtungen. merz wissenschaft, 2015: 58–69. Knauf, Helen. 2015b. Styles of documentation in German early childhood education. Early Years 26, Nr. 51: 7–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2015.1011066. Knauf, Helen. 2015c. Smart Documentation. Mediatisierung professionellen pädagogischen Handelns in Kindertageseinrichtungen. In: Kinder und Kindheit in der digitalen Kultur. Jahrbuch Medienpädagogik 12, hrsg. von Kai-Uwe Hugger, Angela Tillmann,

134

References

Stefan Iske, Johannes Fromme, Petra Grell, und Theo Hug. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag, 119–132. Knauf, Helen. 2016a. Interlaced social worlds: exploring the use of social media in the kindergarten. Early Years 36, Nr. 3: 254–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2016.1147 424. Knauf, Helen. 2016b. The Mediatisation of Professional Pedagogical Practice. MedienPädagogik 2016: 20–36. https://doi.org/10.21240/mpaed/00/2016.12.15.x. Knauf, Helen. 2017a. Making an Impression: Portfolios as Instruments of Impression Management for Teachers in Early Childhood Education and Care Centres. Early Childhood Education Journal 45, Nr. 4: 481–491. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-016-0791-0. Knauf, Helen. 2017b. Documentation as a Tool for Participation in German Early Childhood Education and Care. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 25, Nr. 1: 19–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293x.2015.1102403. Knauf, Helen. 2017c. Visuelle Raumanalyse. Eine methodologische Erschließung am Beispiel Kindertageseinrichtung. Frühe Bildung 6, Nr. 1: 33–40. https://doi. org/10.1026/2191-9186/a000299. Knauf, Helen. 2017d. Bildungsdokumentation in der Frühpädagogik – Instrument inklusiver Bildung? In: Handbuch Inklusive Kindheit, hrsg. von Andrea Platte und Donja Amirpur. Opladen und Farmington Hills: UTB/Budrich, 615–626. Knauf, Helen. 2017e. Bildungsdokumentation zwischen Gemeinschaft und Individualisierung. In: Leistung inklusive? Inklusion in der Leistungsgesellschaft, Band 1., hrsg. von Birgit Lütje-Klose, Mai-Anh Boger, Benedikt Hopmann, und Philipp Neumann. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhard, 151–158. Knauf, Helen. 2018a. Lerngeschichten für Kinder unter 3: Eine Analyse aus theoretischer und empirischer Perspektive. Frühe Bildung 7, Nr. 1: 3–11. https://doi. org/10.1026/2191-9186/a000354. Knauf, Helen. 2018b. Lerngeschichten als narratives Assessment in der Elementarpädagogik: Eine empirische Untersuchung des Konzepts in deutschen Kindertageseinrichtungen. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft 21, Nr. 3: 423–439. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11618-017-0780-0. Knauf, Helen. 2018c. Die Nutzung digitaler Medien in der Kita entdramatisieren. Frühe Bildung 7, Nr. 2: 114–116. https://doi.org/10.1026/2191-9186/a000374. Knauf, Helen. 2018d. Visual Environmental Scale: Analysing the Early Childhood Education Environment. Early Childhood Education Journal. Online first. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10643-018-0914-x. Knauf, Helen. 2019. Partizipation von Kindern bei der Bildungsdokumentation. Erscheint in: Frühe Bildung 8, Nr. 3. Knauf, Tassilo. 2011. Kindern im Portfolio das Wort geben. Das Kita-Handbuch. http:// www.kindergartenpaedagogik.de/2180.html. Zugegriffen: 4. August 2018. Knauf, Tassilo. 2012. Bildungsdokumentation – Last und Lust mit Theorie und Praxis. Kita aktuell BW, Nr. 3: 67–69. Knauf, Tassilo. 2017. Reggio. Berlin: Cornelsen. Knauf, Tassilo, Gislinde Düx, und Daniela Ebbing. 2018. Handbuch pädagogische Ansätze. 4. Aufl. Berlin: Cornelsen Scriptor. Kobelt Neuhaus, Daniela und Ludger Pesch. 2016. Methodenbuch zum Situationsansatz. Freiburg: Herder.

References

135

Kobelt Neuhaus, Daniela, Katrin Macha, und Ludger Pesch. 2018. Der Situationsansatz in der Kita. Freiburg: Herder. Koch, Sandra und Gesine Nebe. 2013. Wie das Kind geschrieben wird. Lerngeschichten als Inszenierungspraxis in Kindertageseinrichtungen. In: Inszenierung und Optimierung des Selbst, hrsg. von Ralf Mayer, Christiane Thompson, und Michael Wimmer, 111– 135. Wiesbaden: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-00465-1_6. Korczak, Janusz. 2014. Wie man ein Kind lieben soll. hrsg. von Elisabeth Heimpel und Hans Roos. 16. Aufl. (1. Aufl. 1967). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Krechevsky, Mara und Ben Mardell. 2011. Four features of learning in groups. In: Making Learning Visible, hrsg. von Project Zero und Reggio Children, 284–294. Reggio Emilia: Reggio Children. Krenz, Armin. 2013. Der „Situationsorientierte Ansatz“ in der Kita: Grundlagen und Praxishilfen zur kinderorientierten Arbeit. Schaffhausen: Schubi Lernmedien. Kroeger, Janice und Terri Cardy. 2006. Documentation: A Hard to Reach Place. Early Childhood Education Journal 33, Nr. 6: 389–398. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-0060062-6. Krotz, Friedrich. 2015. Mediatisierung. In: Handbuch Cultural Studies und Medienanalyse, hrsg. von Andreas Hepp, Friedrich Krotz, Swantje Lingenberg, und Jeffrey Wimmer, 439–451. Wiesbaden: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-19021-1_45. Kupfer, Hartmut. 2010. Lernbeurteilung im Elementarbereich. Das neuseeländische Konzept der learning stories und sein Schicksal in Deutschland. In: Der vermessene Mensch, hrsg. von Martin Dust und Johanna Mierendorff, 197–209. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Laewen, Hans-Joachim und Beate Andres. 2007. Das infans-Konzept der Frühpädagogik. In: Bildung und Lerngeschichten im Kindergarten, hrsg. von Norbert Neuß, 73–99. Berlin: Cornelsen Scriptor. Lally, J Ronald. 2009. How the Infant Teacher’s Context Influences the Content of Diaries. In: The Diary of Laura, hrsg. von Carlina Rinaldi und Carolyn P Edwards, 67–75. St. Paul: Redleaf. Lazzari, Arianna und Lucia Balduzzi. 2014. The Relationship Between ECE and CSE in the Training Field. The Italian Case. In: Elementar- und Primarpädagogik, hrsg. von Peter Cloos, Katrin Hauenschild, Irene Pieper, und Meike Baader, 67–82. Wiesbaden: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-03811-3_6. Lee, Wendy, Margaret Carr, Brenda Soutar und Linda Mitchell. 2013. Understanding the Te Whariki Approach: Early years education in practice. London: Taylor & Francis. Lepold, Marion und Theresa Lill. 2017. Dialogisches Portfolio: Alltagsintegrierte Entwicklungsdokumentation. Freiburg: Herder. Leu, Hans Rudolf, Katja Flämig, Yvonne Frankenstein, Sandra Koch, Irene Pack, Kornelia Schneider, und Martina Schweiger. 2007. Bildungs- und Lerngeschichten. Weimar Berlin: Verlag das Netz. MacDonald, Beth. 2006. Observation – The path to documentation. Exchange, November/ December: 45–49. May, Helen und Margaret Carr. 2016. Te Whariki. An uniquely woven curriculum shaping policy, pedagogy and practice un Aotearoa New Zealand. In: The Routledge International Handbook of Philosophies and Theories of Early Childhood Education and Care,

136

References

hrsg. von Tricia David, Kathy Goouch, und Sacha Powell, 316–326. London: Routgledge. Mayring, Philipp. 2010. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Weinheim: Beltz. Meyer, Sarah. 2018. Soziale Differenz in Bildungsplänen für die Kindertagesbetreuung. Wiesbaden: Springer VS Verlag. MBJS (Ministerium für Bildung, Jugend und Sport Brandenburg). 2011. Doku statt Deko. Systematisches Beobachten und Dokumentieren. Potsdam: Ministerium für Bildung, Jugend und Sport. https://mbjs.brandenburg.de/sixcms/media.php/5527/Kitadebatte_01-2011.15699822.pdf. Zugegriffen: 08. August 2018. MBK (Ministerium für Bildung, Kultur und Wissenschaft des Saarlandes). 2006. Bildungsprogramm für saarländische Kindergärten. https://www.saarland.de/dokumente/thema_ bildung/Saarland_Programm.pdf. Zugegriffen: 13. September 2018. MBWK (Ministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur Mecklenburg-Vorpommern). 2011 Bildungskonzeption für 0- bis 10-jährige Kinder in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. (1. Auflage 2010). https://www.bildung-mv.de/export/sites/bildungsserver/downloads/ Bildungskonzeption-fuer-0-bis-10-jaehrige-Kinder-in-Mecklenburg-Vorpommern.pdf. Zugegriffen: 13. September 2018. Mierendorff, Johanna. 2014. Annäherungen von Kindergarten und Schule. Wandel früher Kindheit? In: Elementar- und Primarpädagogik, hrsg. von Peter Cloos, Katrin Hauenschild, Irene Pieper, und Meike Sophia Baader, 23–37. Wiesbaden: Springer. Miklitz, Ingrid. 2004. Der Waldkindergarten. Weinheim: Beltz. MKFFI (Ministerium für Kinder, Familie, Flüchtlinge und Integration des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen). 2016. Bildungsgrundsätze für Kinder von 0 bis 10 Jahren in Kindertagesbetreuung und Schulen im Primarbereich in Nordrhein-Westfalen. https:// www.mkffi.nrw/sites/default/files/asset/document/bildungsgrundsaetze_januar_2016. pdf. Zugegriffen: 13. September 2018. MKJS (Ministerium für Kultus, Jugend und Sport Baden-Württemberg). 2011. Orientierungsplan für Bildung und Erziehung in baden-württembergischen Kindergärten und weiteren Kindertageseinrichtungen. http://www.kindergaerten-bw.de/site/pbs-bw-new/ get/documents/KULTUS.Dachmandant/KULTUS/Projekte/kindergaerten-bw/Oplan/ Material/KM-KIGA_Orientierungsplan_2011.pdf. Zugegriffen: 13. September 2018. Ministry of Education and Research. 2004. Kei Tua o te Pae. Assessment for Learning: Early Childhood Exemplars. Wellington. http://www.education.govt.nz/assets/ Documents/Early-Childhood/Kei-Tua-o-te-Pae/ECEBooklet1Full.pdf. Zugegriffen: 4. August 2018. MK (Niedersächsisches Kultusministerium). 2005. Orientierungsplan für Bildung und Erziehung im Elementarbereich niedersächsischer Tageseinrichtungen für Kinder. http://www.mk.niedersachsen.de/download/4491. Zugegriffen: 13. September 2018. Montessori Dachverband Deutschland e.V. 2018. Montessori-Einrichtungen in Deutschland. http://www.montessori-deutschland.de/einrichtungen.html. Zugegriffen: 10. Juli 2018. Montessori, Maria. 2017. Über das Beobachten. In: Grundgedanken der Montessori-Pädagogik, hrsg. von Harald Ludwig, 61–63. Freiburg: Herder. Moritz, Melanie, Gaby Müller, Monika Weber, und Mirjana Zipperle. 2012. Evaluation der Einführung des Verfahrens der Bildungs- und Lerngeschichten in Einrichtungen des

References

137

Stuttgarter Eltern-Kind-Gruppen e.V. Hrsg. von Stuttgarter Eltern-Kind-Gruppen e.V. Stuttgart: Universität Tübingen. MS (Ministerium für Arbeit, Soziales und Integration Sachsen-Anhalt). 2013. Bildung: elementar – Bildung von Anfang an. Bildungsprogramm für Kindertageseinrichtungen in Sachsen-Anhalt. (1. Auflage 2004). https://ms.sachsen-anhalt.de/themen/familie/dialogkita/bildungsprogramm/. Zugegriffen: 13. September 2018. Muckel, Petra. 2011. Die Entwicklung von Kategorien mit der Methode der Grounded Theory. In: Grounded Theory Reader, hrsg. von Günter Mey und Katja Mruck, 333–352. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-93318-4_15. Müller, Gaby und Mirjana Zipperle. 2011. Bildungs- und Lerngeschichten in der Praxis. Eine Zwischenbilanz aus empirischer Sicht. In: Forschung in der Frühpädagogik IV, hrsg. von Klaus Fröhlich-Gildhoff, Iris Nentwig-Gesemann, und Hans Rudolf Leu, 121–150. Freiburg: FEL. OECD. 2015. Starting Strong IV: Qualitätsmonitoring in der Frühkindlichen Bildung, Betreuung und Erziehung. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/starting-strong-iv_9789264268289-de#page1. Zugegriffen: 4.  August  2018. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264233515-de. OECD. 2017. Starting Strong V. Transitions from Early Childhood and Care to Primary Education. Paros: OECD Publishing. https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/starting-strong-v_9789264276253-en#page1. Zugegriffen: 4.  August  2018. https://doi. org/10.1787/9789264276253-en. Otto, Hans-Uwe und Holger Ziegler. 2012. Gesetzt aber nicht begründet – Das Normativitätsproblem der Sozialen Arbeit. Neue Praxis, Sonderheft 11: 3–10. Pasternak, Peer. 2015. Die Teilakademisierung der Frühpädagogik. Hrsg. vom Institut für Hochschulforschung an der Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg HoF. Leipzig: Akademische Verlagsanstalt. Petmecky, Andrea. 2008. Architektur von Entwicklungsumwelten: Umweltaneignung und Wahrnehmung im Kindergarten. Marburg: Tectum. Picchio, Mariacristina, Isabella Di Giandomenico und Tullia Musatti. 2014. The use of documentation in a participatory system of evaluation. Early Years 34, Nr. 2: 133–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2014.897308. Pramling Samuelsson, Ingrid. 2010. Demokratie: Grundstein des vorschulischen Bildungsplans in Schweden. In: Frühpädagogik international, 161–174. Wiesbaden: Springer. Preissing, Christa und Elke Heller. 2009. Qualität im Situationsansatz. 2. Aufl. Berlin Düsseldorf: Cornelsen. Project Zero und Reggio Children. 2011. Making Learning Visible. Children as individual and group learners. Reggio Emilia: Reggio Children. Richter, Annette, Jenny Velten und Peter Cloos. 2012. Prozessorientierte Verfahren der Bildungsdokumentation in inklusiven Settings – Potenziale zur Gestaltung des Übergangs vom Kindergarten in die Grundschule. Soziale Passagen 4, Nr. 2: 303–307. https://doi. org/10.1007/s12592-012-0115-1. Rinaldi, Carlina. 2006a. Documentation and Research. In: In Dialogue with Reggio Emilia, hrsg. von Carlina Rinaldi, 97–101. London: Routledge. Rinaldi, Carlina. 2006b. Documentation and Assessment. What is the Relationship? In: In Dialogue with Reggio Emilia, hrsg. von Carlina Rinaldi, 61–73. London: Routledge.

138

References

Sadler, D Royce. 2010. Learning Dispositions: Can we really assess them? Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 9, Nr. 1: 45–51. https://doi. org/10.1080/09695940220119166. Schäfer, Gerd E und Lena Schäfer. 2009. Der Raum als dritter Erzieher. In: Schularchitektur im interdisziplinären Diskurs, hrsg. von Jeanette Böhme, 235–248. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-91868-6_15. Schäfer, Gerd E. 2011. Was ist frühkindliche Bildung? Weinheim: Juventa. Schäfer, Gerd E. und Angelika von der Beek. 2013. Didaktik in der frühen Kindheit. Weimar Berlin: Verlag das Netz. Scherr, Albert. 2012. Wieviel und welche Normativität benötigt Soziale Arbeit ? Neue Praxis, Sonderheft 11: 11–23. Schmidt, Friederike, Marc Schulz, und Gunther Graßhoff. 2016. Pädagogische Blicke. Erziehungswissenschaftliche Perspektiven auf Wahrnehmung. In: Pädagogische Blicke, hrsg. von Friederike Schmidt, Marc Schulz, und Gunther Graßhoff, 7–23. Weinheim Basel: Beltz Juventa. Schneider, Kornelia und Wiebke Wüstenberg. 2014. Was wir gemeinsam alles können: Beziehungen unter Kindern in den ersten Lebensjahren. Berlin: Cornelsen Scriptor. Schulz, Marc. 2013. Frühpädagogische Konstituierung von kindlichen Bildungs-und Lernprozessen. Zeitschrift für Soziologie der Erziehung und Sozialisation 33, Nr. 1: 26–41. Seitz, Hilary und Carol Bartholomew. 2008. Powerful Portfolios for Young Children. Early Childhood Education Journal 36, Nr. 1: 63–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-0080242-7. Siraj-Blatchford, Iram. 2009. Conceptualising progression in the pedagogy of play and sustained shared thinking in early childhood education: A Vygotskian perspective. Educational and Child Psychology 26: 77–89. Smidt, Wilfried und Thilo Schmidt. 2012. Die Umsetzung frühpädagogischer Bildungspläne. Zeitschrift für Sozialpädagogik 10, Nr. 3: 244–256. SMK (Sächsisches Staatsministerium für Kultus). 2011. Der Sächsische Bildungsplan – ein Leitfaden für pädagogische Fachkräfte in Krippen, Kindergärten und Horten sowie für Kindertagespflege. https://www.kita-bildungsserver.de/downloads/downloadstarten/?did=37. Zugegriffen: 13. September 2018. Stange, Waldemar. 2012. Erziehungs- und Bildungspartnerschaften – Grundlagen, Strukturen, Begründungen. In: Erziehungs- und Bildungspartnerschaften, hrsg. von Waldemar Stange, Rolf Krüger, Angelika Henschel, und Christof Schmitt, 12–39. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Statistisches Bundesamt. 2018. Statistiken der Kinder- und Jugendhilfe: Kinder und tätige Personen in Tageseinrichtungen und in öffentlich geförderter Kindertagespflege am 01.03.2017. Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt. https://www.destatis.de/DE/Publikationen/Thematisch/Soziales/KinderJugendhilfe/TageseinrichtungenKindertagespflege5225402177004.pdf?__blob=publicationFile. Zugegriffen: 4. August 2018. Stoltenberg, Ute. 2008. Bildungspläne im Elementarbereich – ein Beitrag zur Bildung für eine nachhaltige Entwicklung. Bonn: Deutsche UN Kommission. Stöbe-Blossey, Sybille und Anika Torlümke. 2010. Neue Anforderungen in der frühkindlichen Bildung. In: Kindertagesbetreuung im Wandel, hrsg. von Sybille Stöbe-Blossey. 121–153. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-91942-3_6

References

139

Strätz, Rainer. 2013. Ziele und Formen von Entwicklungsdokumentation. TPS, Nr. 10: 8–10. Strätz, Rainer und Helga Demandewitz. 2007. Beobachten und dokumentieren in Tageseinrichtungen für Kinder. 5 Aufl. Berlin: Cornelsen Scriptor. Stratmann, Jörg, Annabell Preussler, und Michael Kerres. 2009. Lernerfolg und Kompetenz: Didaktische Potenziale der Portfolio-Methode im Hochschulstudium. Zeitschrift für Hochschulentwicklung 4, Nr. 1. https://doi.org/10.3217/zfhe-4-01/07. https://www. zfhe.at/index.php/zfhe/article/view/55. Zugegriffen: 11. August 2018. Strozzi, Paola. 2011. Daily life at school: Seeing the extraordinary in the ordinary. In: Making Learning Visible, hrsg. von Project Zero und Reggio Children, 58–77. Reggio Emilia: Reggio Children. Suárez, Stephanie Cox. 2010. Show Me Again What I Can Do: Documentation and SelfDetermination for Students with Social Challenges. Theory Into Practice 49, Nr. 1: 21–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840903435550. Thornton, Linda und Pat Brunton. 2014. Bringing the Reggio Approach to your Early Years Practice. London New York: Routledge. TMBJS (Thüringer Ministerium für Bildung, Jugend und Sport). 2015. Thüringer Bildungsplan bis 18 Jahre Bildungsansprüche von Kindern und Jugendlichen. https://www. thueringen.de/mam/th2/tmbwk/bildung/bildungsplan/thuringer_bildungsplan-18_web. pdf. Zugegriffen: 14. September 2018. Turner, Terri und Mara Krechevsky. 2003. Who Are the Teachers? Who Are the Learners? Educational Leadership 60, Nr. 7: 40–43. Vecchi, Vea. 2011. The curiosity to Understand. In: Making Learning Visible, hrsg. von Reggio Children und Project Zero, 185–212. Reggio Emilia: Reggio Children. Vereinigung der Waldorfkindergärten. 2018. Willkommen bei der Vereinigung der Waldorfkindergärten e.V. https://www.waldorfkindergarten.de/startseite/. Zugegriffen: 10. Juli 2018. Viernickel, Susanne und Petra Völkel. 2009. Beobachten und dokumentieren im pädagogischen Alltag. Freiburg: Herder. Viernickel, Susanne, Iris Nentwig-Gesemann, Katharina Nicolai, Stefanie Schwarz, und Luise Zenker. 2013. Schlüssel zu guter Bildung, Erziehung und Betreuung. Hrsg. von Der Paritätische, Diakonie und Gewerkschaft Erziehung und Wissenschaft. Berlin. Vorholz, Heidi. 2014. Offene Arbeit. Berlin: Cornelsen Scriptor. Waller, Tim. 2009. An Introduction to Early Childhood. London: SAGE. Weber, Max. 1980. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. 5. Aufl. Hrsg. von Johannes Winkelmann. Tübingen: Mohr. Wertfein, Monika und Eva Reichert-Garschhammer. 2017. Peer-Interaktionen in den ersten Lebensjahren. In: Interaktionen in Kindertageseinrichtungen, hrsg. von Monika Wertfein, Andreas Wildgruber, Claudia Wirts, und Fabienne Becker-Stoll, 152–165. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Zhang, Qilong. 2016. Do learning stories tell the whole story of children’s learning? A phenomenographic enquiry. Early Years (11. April): 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/0957514 6.2016.1151403.