crec student research papers archive paper no: … student research papers archive paper no:...

CREC Student Research Papers Archive Paper No: 2012/004

*This piece of academic practitioner research was submitted in part fulfilment of the award of MA Dissertation at

Birmingham City University. It is made freely available with the express permission of the author as part of CREC’s commitment to support, promote and develop practitioner research in the field of early years.

Creating a more participatory practice for children in early years; an action research project

Helen Lyndon To cite this article: Lyndon, H. (2012) Creating a more participatory practice for children in early years; an action research project. MA Dissertation. Birmingham City University. Available at: http://www.crec.co.uk/research-paper-archive/ [Accessed date] To link to this article: http://www.crec.co.uk/research-paper-archive/2012-004.pdf

Abstract This is a participatory action research project which explores 'listening to children.' Through the Mosaic approach (Clarke and Moss 2011) practitioners are enabled to develop participatory practices for children within a full day care setting. Listening to children is currently topical including UNCRC; previous study supports the capacity that the youngest children have to participate in their own education. Relationships and power, confidentiality, anonimity and consent were considered whilst remembering that selecting certain children may marginalise others. The factors which facilitate participation were also found to be barriers. Leadership and ethos, motivation and time were identified as impacting on participatory practice. Action research was a successful catalyst for change and continued professional development of practitioners and inspired practitioners to undertake further projects. Keywords: listening to children, participatory, action research, mosaic approach, early years practitioner.

Creating a more participatory practice for children in Early Years;

an action research project.

Helen M Lyndon 09482944

July 2012

Dissertation submitted in part fulfilment of the award of MA Education (Early Years) at

Birmingham City University.

Contents Abstract 1 Introduction 2 Literature review 5 Methodology 14 Presentation and analysis of findings 30 Conclusion 30 References 62 Tables Table 1: Lincoln and Guba (1985) Comparison 16 Table 2: Summary of staff co-constructed dialogue through RAMPS. 31 Table 3: Mosaic summary for Shay. 34 Table 4: Mosaic summary for Sophia. 35 Table 5: Mosaic summary for Gabia. 36 Table 6: Mosaic summary for Thane. 37 Table 7: Mosaic summary for Brogan. 38 Table 8: Mosaic summary for La’Shaya 39 Figures Figure 1: Case Study 3 adapted from Clark and Moss 2011 12 Figure 2: Extract from parent interview. 41 Figure 3: Example of photo-board. 48

Contents of Appendices: Appendix 1: RAMPS reflective questions and analysis A Appendix 2: Parent conference F Appendix 3: Practitioner conference F Appendix 4: Child conference G Appendix 5: Consent H Appendix 6: Observation schedule. J Appendix 7: Shay’s mosaic K Appendix 8: Sophia’s mosaic L Appendix 9: Gabia’s mosaic N Appendix 10: Thane’s mosaic P Appendix 11: Brogan’s mosaic R Appendix 12: La’Shaya’s mosaic T Appendix 13: Cross mosaic analysis. U Appendix 14: BCU approval for research V

Helen Lyndon 09482944 Page 1

Abstract

Listening to children is an underpinning principle of the latest government guidelines. This is

reflected most recently in the revised Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation

Stage (DfE 2012) following the Tickell Review (2011) and supported by earlier public policy

(ECM agenda DfES 2004, Early Support DfES 2007, Childcare Act 2006, UN rights of the

child 1991). Previous study supports the capacity that even the youngest children have to

participate in their own care and education (including Clark and Moss 2011, Flewitt 2005,

Paige-Smith and Rix 2011, Harcourt, Perry and Waller 2011).

This study examines participatory practice within a private full day care setting and through

the action research cycle makes some changes to practice to facilitate children’s

participation. The mosaic approach (Clark and Moss 2011) was used to gather information

around target children and this facilitated a more participatory process. Key workers quickly

embraced the methods and began to imitate the good practice which was modelled.

Specifically changes were made in the setting in allowing children access to cameras and

giving them the opportunity to discuss the images they had taken, observation schedules

were reformulated to reduce the amount written down and to use coding to focus the

observation and parent conferencing provided valuable insight into the child’s perspective.

Ongoing discussion with staff centred on the prompts offered by the listening framework

provided by RAMPS (Lancaster 2006) and this also facilitated an increased awareness of

listening within the setting.


The factors which facilitate participation were also apparent as barriers. Leadership and

ethos of setting, motivation of staff and time were the factors identified in this study as

impacting most on participatory practice. The participatory approach that the action research

took ensured that all parents, staff and children were consulted throughout and this was a

most successful strategy; the setting has revised how it listens to children and staff are

changed practitioners as a result. The lessons from this are now to be applied to other early

years settings locally.

Introduction

The main focus for this study is children’s participation in their own early years education

despite their age and stage of development. Through my role as children’s centre teacher I

have used the mosaic approach (Clarke and Moss 2011) to better inform the children’s

learning journeys. These learning journeys were practitioner based and held only key

workers interpretations of the children’s learning. The children did not participate in selecting

what was recorded, how it was recorded nor did they have the opportunity to discuss how

they felt about certain areas of learning. The nursery staff also felt that the learning journeys

had become a paperwork exercise and were not enhancing the children’s learning or

development; they were a series of short incidental observations based on whatever the key

worker deemed appropriate.

This action research was carried out within a private full day care setting attached to a

children’s centre. This setting has a twenty four place full day care servicing thirty eight


children, some part time. It also has a nursery class offering sessional nursery education,

sixteen places for a morning or afternoon session. This private provider has struggled with

issues of sustainability and it does not have the luxury of supernumerary staffing; as a result

a key aim was that any changes to practice were manageable and efficient as well as

enhancing how the setting listens to children. As children’s centre teacher I had been

working with the nursery staff for four years and had developed an excellent working

relationship. Prior to this study I had worked alongside staff to implement planning which

better reflected the children’s next steps and identified more individualised lines of

development. This project was a natural next step in enhancing how the setting allowed

children to contribute to their own education and development.

More specifically the research questions were as follows:

How do we create more participatory practice for children in the Early Years?

What is it?

What facilitates it?

What are the perceptions of it in action?

What challenges participatory practice?

How do we move towards realising participatory practice in Early Years settings?

Through reviewing the literature I initially examined a broader participatory approach and

how this was set within the context of national and international policy. I then examined

studies which were advocates of children’s voice and participation ranging from those which

outlined a young child’s capability when participating in such work, to those which used


children as co-researchers and immersed them in the research process. I also examined

some of the most up to date early years studies which had demonstrated the capacity of

young children to be active participants in their own learning.

In exploring methodology I examined the advantages and potential disadvantages of

undertaking action research, concluding that for sustained and lasting change an approach

that included all participants would have greater impact. The RAMPS approach (Lancaster

2006) was selected as an audit tool to baseline how well the setting listened to children; it

was then used as a final evaluation tool so that progress through the project could be

measured. The full potential of the Mosaic approach (Clark and Moss 2011) was then

explored and the different methods within it examined e.g. conferencing with parents’ key

workers and children, photography, map making and so on. The complex ethics of working

with such young children were also explored including issues such as informed consent for

preverbal children. To conclude this section there is reflection upon the research process

and evaluation of the methods used.

In analysing the results I initially dealt with the findings from the RAMPS analysis, carried out

as a focus group. I then discussed the results from the implementation of the mosaic

approach through learning journeys. Content analysis was used followed by a deeper

interpretive analysis; patterns and themes were identified as well as findings which differed

from the norm. This interpretation is linked to the earlier literature review as findings are

considered in relation to previous study.


In concluding I initially answer my research questions and reflect upon the original aims of

the study. The implications for policy and practice are discussed as well as links to current

theory; I demonstrate what this study has done to contribute to existing knowledge in the

field of Early Years and how it can be transferred to a variety of contexts.

Literature review

In reviewing the literature I initially describe the context within which participatory practices

have developed, specifically in early years education. Then I will examine how this has

impacted upon methodology, not only methods used for research purposes but also in the

wider context of early years practice. I will explore specifically the contribution the Mosaic

Approach (Clarke and Moss 2011) and the RAMPS framework for listening to children

(Lancaster 2006) has brought to participatory process in early education. Finally I will

examine the knowledge that has been created by the adoption of such participatory

processes.

Context of participatory research

Historically the view of a child has been as an incomplete adult, dependent upon parents or

guardians to make their decisions. Childhood is a biological stage of development but it is

understood through social context (Moss, Dillon and Statham 2000). Qvortrup (1997)

describes the protective exclusion of children from real life as well as from social accounting.

Children have historically not been considered to have the maturity or capability to able to


speak for themselves or to contribute to decision making; children are accounted for as

‘appendixes to the family’ (p.102 Qvortrup 1997). Furthermore it is seen as necessary to

protect children and this is used as a reason for restricting children’s freedom. The dominant

discourse in Britain is that children are the responsibility of their parents, cared for

predominantly by the mother and immature and incomplete (Moss, Dillon and Statham

2000). This inferior position was once held by women within our society who were also

unable to make certain decisions of their own. By involving women more in politics, business

and other areas of society one could argue that these areas have become more insightful,

better serviced and better able to meet the needs of the broader community. Once women

undertook greater involvement in research it also became more insightful and this too could

be applied to children (Alderson 2001, Mayall 2002); by involving children in their own

research it is more likely to be valid and representative of those it claims to speak for.

Historically theorists saw children as objects to be researched, mirroring the view within

society of children as dependent (Mukherji and Albon 2010). Research was large scale and

quantitative; guided by the hypothesis of the researcher (Smith 2011). The view researchers

held of children was basically developmental; passing through a number of phases or stages

on their road to maturity and childhood was seen as an incomplete state (Dahlberg, Moss

and Pence 2002), this reflects the work of Foucault (1980) who identified that power is

maintained through a regime of truth which exists within a social, economic and cultural

context.


Since the United Nation convention on the Rights of the Child (1991) many researchers and

practitioners have examined the role of children both within research and a wider context. It

is article twelve of the convention on the Rights of the Child, which respects the views of the

child, and article thirteen, offering freedom of expression, which have impacted widely on

children’s services in England. There now appears to be a shift towards a participatory

paradigm which advocates listening to children and this is reflected in public policy. Mayall

(2002) sees this shift towards a more participatory approach as political; an upgrading of

children’s social status. The Every Child Matters agenda (2004), Early Support (2007) and

the Early Years Foundation Stage (2008, 2012) have all impacted across early years

settings in England and all place the child at the centre of practice. The Childcare Act (2006)

places an emphasis on local authorities to regard the views of young children about the

services they receive. For older children part of the realisation of a more participatory

approach has been through mechanisms such as school councils which have increased to

almost ninety percent of all schools, with the fastest rise given to primary schools (Whitty

and Whisby 2007). This said most primary school councils struggle to find effective

mechanisms through which they can listen to their youngest pupils, in the case studies

discussed, Whitty and Whisby (2007) described full participation of year two pupils in

decision making and only partial consultation with selected year one pupils. Advocates of

listening to children now place the child as an active participant or co-constructor of the

society within which they live and view childhood as a component of the structure of our

society and therefore of importance (Dahlberg, Moss and Pence 2002).


As well as those advocates of more participatory practice within early education there are

also those who advocate a more participatory research style within early years research

allowing children’s involvement to shape the research. Alderson (2001) suggests that

children may be the means of access to other children offering a broader perspective to a

research topic. Sumsion et al. (2011) found themselves to be ‘more tentative’ in their hope

of the development of participatory practices which enabled the children to be co

constructors of new knowledge, they felt it was more likely that such study would inform

policy and practice in relation to early years education.

Whilst the political, social and academic arenas advocate listening to children, the reality of

how this translates to early years settings remains varied. There are still many institutions in

which there is not evidence of these basic rights in practice (Pascal and Bertram 2011).

Despite the recent drive to put the child at the centre of early childhood practice through the

EYFS (DCSF 2008, DfE 2012), ECM agenda (2004) and so on, there is still a consensus

across many practitioners that the youngest children are ‘too young’ to have the ability to

participate. In a society where children listen to explicit verbal messages, they will pick up on

the values and prejudices that they are hearing and develop an understanding of what we do

or do not expect from them (Lancaster 2006). Many practitioners may have the view that

children, particularly the youngest, are unable to contribute as they are preverbal or do not

have much to say; children will respond to this by meeting expectations. This results in the

youngest members of society being silenced and unable to take any part in decision making;

the perception remains that they require an adult to act on their behalf (Pascal and Bertram


2011). Clark, Mcquail and Moss (2003) found that most audits carried out by Early Years

and Childcare Partnerships during 2001 -2002 had not focused at all on the views of the

under fives. The reality of actively listening to children requires understanding, time, space

and resources and some settings have not equipped themselves with the mechanisms to

facilitate this.

There is a growing thread within current research that promotes participatory practice within

early childhood education. The European Early Childhood Research Association has a

special interest group: Young Children’s Perspectives, which meets annually at conference

and currently has membership of forty eight (Harcourt, Perry and Waller 2011). The Centre

for Research in Early Childhood (CREC) in Birmingham, England conducts a range of

participatory research which have an ethos of empowering the participants; they advocate

the rights of children ‘as citizens with voice and power.’ (Pascal and Bertram 2011 p. 251).

The National Children’s Bureau established a Young Children’s Voices Network in 2006

offering different degrees of local and national support (Blades and Kumari 2011). As

children are gradually being recognised as more capable and as co-constructors of their

social environments, greater possibilities for research with children are explored (Mukherji

and Albon 2010).

Participatory practices are not isolated to one paradigm and methods from other fields can

be drawn upon in the field of early childhood research. Lapan et al. (2012) describe

participatory researchers as ‘joining forces with stakeholders to conduct research towards


some form of social action’ (p.78); the role of the researcher is acknowledged but the

stakeholders contribute their knowledge and decision making to the research design, data

collection, analysis, interpretation and finally the use of the findings. In the field of health

research Lawrence (2001) describes participatory practice as ‘an approach that entails

involving all potential users of the research and other stakeholders in the formulation as well

as the application of the research. Participatory rural appraisal has been used to enhance

farming methods (Chambers 1993) and participatory learning and action has been used in

environmental development and agriculture (Pretty et al. 1996). Participatory action research

has been used to identify solutions to local problems and develop theory related to

community issues such as power, education, health, work practices and so on (Beamish and

Bryer 1998). What these approaches have in common is a core mechanism of participation

by the working group or social organisation to all aspects of the research. It is clear that

these participatory practices cross disciplines as well as paradigms (Dahlberg, Moss and

Pence 2002).

Participatory research in practice

One of the most influential approaches to participatory research in early childhood is the

Mosaic approach first outlined by Clark and Moss in 2001. This methodological approach is

discussed in several key texts (Clark, Mcquail and Moss 2003, Clark, Kjorholt and Moss

2005, Clark and Moss 2005 & 2011) and cited by numerous more.

The Mosaic approach was developed with three and four year old children and has been

adapted to work with practitioners, parents, children under two and those for whom English


is an additional language. It was carried out in two settings in London on a total of twenty

children, six practitioners and five parents (Clark and Moss 2011). The purpose was to co-

construct meaning; to gain insight into how young children experienced their setting and to

explore the quality of the provision. The approach views children as:

Experts in their own lives – children offer a unique perspective on their own life

Skilful communicators – this hold with the Reggio Emilia approach which emphasises

competency

Rights holders – articles twelve and thirteen of the Rights of the Child mean that

children should be allowed to express their views and given the necessary methods

to do so.

Meaning makers – a constructivist view of children as active participants in their own

learning

(adapted from Clark and Moss 2011 p. 5)

In their advocacy of listening to children Clark and Moss (2011) offer a framework for

listening which is multi method, participatory, reflexive, adaptable, focused on children’s lives

and perspectives and embedded into practice (p.7).

The Mosaic approach is broken down into stages; children and adults gather evidence;

information is pieced together for dialogue, reflection and interpretation; and finally there is

decision making about continuity and change. In gathering information the mosaic approach

offers a variety of complimentary methods which aim to build up a picture of that child’s

experience (further discussed in methodology section). By integrating verbal as well as

visual information and by gathering evidence from parents and practitioners a broad picture

emerges of the child’s experience and patterns begin to develop. The children then get the


opportunity to reflect upon this and are asked to participate in the interpretation of evidence.

The importance of that third stage is paramount; listening not just to hear what’s been said

but listening as a prerequisite of change (Clark, Kjorholt and Moss 2005).

The initial Mosaic approach found that for each child who participated in the research key

themes began to emerge. These themes turned into questions for further reflections and

actions.

Figure 1: adapted from Clark and Moss 2011 Case Study 3 - Gary (aged 3).

Clark and Moss (2011) also highlight the importance of being open to the unexpected; using

a participatory research technique will enable the children’s priorities and concerns come to

the fore. These will invariably be different to the concerns of the adults. The children in the

initial study did not choose to document much about the ‘learning activities’ which took place

in the nursery, instead they documented friendships and attachments, conflict and how it

was dealt with and the outdoor environment. Such analysis of children’s documentation

enabled a greater understanding of those children’s lives and prompted change in practice.

Through observation tours

and map making Gary

expressed the importance of

playing with his sibling.

Following reflection

researchers asked ‘Do

you allow me to see

my brother?’

Future action:

structures in place to

allow siblings to play

together.


The mosaic approach has influenced the methodology of many other pieces of research.

Waller and Bitou (2011) explored the use of a mosaic approach through an outdoor learning

project. Their use of photographs enabled them to hold further discussions with children

which allowed their meaning to prevail. Clark (2011) used the mosaic approach with the

adults within a setting first. Initially this was simply to provide the adults with the experience

which they could then apply when working with the children but soon found that this medium

offered the adults a safe way to discuss their perceptions of the nursery environment. The

value this would have in the co-construction of new knowledge is that through collecting

adults and children’s perspectives on the same issue greater symmetry may develop; a

more equitable reality of childhood may result (Harcourt 2011).

As well as the academic research which offers a participatory approach there is also

practical guidance offered by a variety of trusts and charitable organisations to assist early

years providers. An example of such an approach is offered by Lancaster (2006) through

The Day Care Trust. RAMPS exemplifies five principles for listening to children:

Recognising children’s many languages;

Allocating communication Spaces;

Making time;

Providing Choice;

Subscribing to reflective practice.


This evaluative tool offers early years settings an explanation of these areas of listening as

well as good practice guidelines and questions for reflection. This ethical framework

contributes towards the definition of children’s participation and offers quality assurance to

those adhering to the five principles (for RAMPS reflective questions see appendix 1). Other

such advice is offered by Save the Children (2006) as well as a series of leaflets published

by the Young Children’s Voices Network (2008/09) called ‘Listening as a way of life.’ These

documents all offer practitioners good practice examples of listening to children and provide

reflective questions aimed at moving practice forwards. What all of these documents have in

common is their accessibility and transferability to a variety of early years settings.

Thematically they all cover listening to preverbal children, use of a variety of methods, the

importance of listening to children with English as an additional language, the need for

communication spaces to facilitate such listening as well as the role of leadership in a

listening culture.

Methodology

In this chapter I will initially explore the perspective within which I am working and the

implications that will have on the methodology and the data gathered. I will then proceed to

examine the design of the research study in detail exploring issues such as credibility,

transferability, dependability and confirmability as a measure of trustworthiness (Lincoln and

Guba 1985). This section will take each step of the planned study and justify the methods

selected against others available, in particular I will focus on the participatory processes

involved and the voice that this allows children, parents and staff. Finally I will explore the


ethical considerations which come into play when working with children under five,

particularly when this research is to be conducted as part of my job role as children’s centre

teacher.

The research perspective

This action research project will be interpretivist and predominantly of a qualitative nature

drawing on many methods to gather information around individual children’s development

and nursery experience. A child’s experiences within a day-care setting are highly varied as

they encounter socialisation, communication, routines and regulations as well as the specific

activities planned out by practitioners; such a complex and holistic view of the child could not

be gathered by traditional positivist methodology (Mukherji and Albon 2011). Positivists

usually explore a constant relationship between two or more variables (Robson 2002) and

are able to quantify the data they gather and demonstrate statistical significance. It is clear

that the data gathered on a child’s early years experience will generate a wide range of data

which will not be quantifiable. Interpretivists believe that the research should reflect the

complex social environment, emotional significant situations and be carried out within a

child’s own context (Mukherji and Albon 2011).

This action research also reflects a more constructivist approach (Robson 2002) as I will be

analysing multiple social constructions of the child’s meaning and knowledge. This approach

has also been called naturalistic (Lincoln and Guba 1985). Five axioms of the naturalistic

paradigm were explored by Lincoln and Guba (1985) who believe that these better explain


sociobehavioural phenomenon; these can be related directly to my own approach to

research methodology.

Table 1: A comparison between Lincoln and Guba’s axioms of naturalistic enquiry and my

own research perspective.

Guba and Lincoln’s Five Axioms of

Naturalistic enquiry

(p.37 Lincoln and Guba 1985)

my own research perspective

realities are multiple, holistic and

constructed.

prediction is unlikely as the whole child is to be

studied from a variety of perspectives; I cannot

predict what knowledge will be generated or how

many further questions will be raised.

the knower and the known are not

separate; there is interaction.

this research will be shaped by the practitioners

within the full daycare setting as well as the

children; my relationships with both groups are

longstanding and I cannot offer complete

objectivity.

hypotheses are bound by time and

context.

the success of the research and the

developments it creates will be bound by when I

conduct the research and which children I select.

cause and effect cannot be separated. many elements of nursery practice will be

reshaped so exact cause and effect will not be

determined.

inquiry is value bound. my own values will determine what I seek to

achieve and the values of the staff, children and

parents will all affect their own participation in the

research.

As I am adopting such a naturalistic approach to this research the methods selected will

reflect the multiple constructs I expect to find. By focusing on methods such as semi

structured interviews, child conferencing, observation I will gather predominantly qualitative


data through which I hope to identify the complex nature of experiences within the setting

and gain an in-depth understanding of the child’s perspective.

Design of the research study

The research study is to be predominantly based on action research which operates a

problem solving approach (McNiff, Whitehead and Laidlaw 1992, McNiff and Whitehead

2011). Action research is often described as cyclical; this involves the identification of a

problem, the implementation of a solution, evaluation of the solution and the modification of

practice (McNiff et al. 1992, Robson, 2002, MacNaughton and Hughes 2009). It helps to

provide a lasting or long term solution to problems experienced in the setting (Bell 1999,

Robson 2002). Koshy (2005) describes action research as the process by which practice

can constantly be refined. The action research approach has been used for many years and

was pioneered by the work of Lewin (1947) when he described unfreezing, moving and

freezing an organisation in order to facilitate change. Lewin (1947) believed that for change

to be effective it must take place at a group level and it must be a collaborative and

participatory process.

In one of the settings which I support the staff have identified that the children’s profile

documents (known also as learning journeys) are causing some organisational concerns;

this has been echoed by other settings which I support. My own audits of these documents

have revealed inconsistencies in approach and demonstrate that these are documents

compiled for adults (the parents) by adults (the key worker); the child’s perspective is not


currently visible. Collectively we feel that they are problematic in their current format and so

a problem or issue has been identified to begin the action research process.

Throughout the research process a research diary/ journal will be kept to keep a timeline of

events, to record general points; particularly the ‘thick’ descriptions that show how complex

situations can be (McNiff and Whitehead 2003), to record raw data and observations and to

provide an opportunity for reflection. The thick description will also come through the variety

of methods which will provide a hierarchy of meaningful structures in which the information

can be perceived and interpreted (Geertz 1973).

To begin the research process all staff will be asked to participate in a focus group which will

explore how well the setting currently listens to children. This will be structured using the

RAMPS approach (Lancaster 2006 see appendix 1). The RAMPS approach (Lancaster

2006) offers a number of questions for reflection against each of the five principles of

listening to children and these questions will form the basis of the focus group. By using a

focus group I will be using the natural opportunity of a staff meeting to prompt group

discussion. I will also benefit from being able to encourage those who would not normally

participate or think that they had nothing to contribute to such a discussion (Robson 2002).

As this is a group which meets to discuss and plan issues for the setting I am already aware

of the personalities which exist within the group; this will enable me to ensure all voices are

heard and I will be able to avoid group bias caused by the domination of one or two voices

(Robson 2002). The semi structured nature of the focus group will also enable me to


elaborate upon questions or probe further when necessary; this flexibility would not be

afforded through methods such as questionnaires.

As well as discussing how well the setting listens to children I also wish to involve all

practitioners in the research process by sharing the potential methodology and gaining their

views; particularly their suggestions as to which children should form part of the study. I

respect their knowledge and experience and value their input into the whole process and

action research is in its very core a collaborative process (McNiff and Whitehead 2011,

Koshy 2005).

Following the initial consultation with staff the research will then focus on the life of the

Nursery beginning with initial observations. Observation is typically used in real world

research as part of an exploratory phase or as part of a multi-methodological approach

(Robson 2002); within this research it will provide both a preliminary overview of nursery life

and it will form part of the overall Mosaic (Clarke and Moss 2010). The role I aim to take is

that of the marginal participant (Robson 2002) as I cannot escape from my subjective

position as teacher within the children’s centre and have already built long term relationships

with the children, practitioners and parents; I could not possibly spend time in the setting

without engaging with the children.

Initially the observations will be exploratory, unstructured and will not rely on any coding

(Robson 2002, Mukherji and Albon 2011). In the initial phase observations will be recorded


on a purely narrative basis in a field research journal (MacNaughton and Hughes 2009). This

prolonged observation in a context which I am very familiar with will provide an element of

credibility (Lincoln and Guba 1985).

Following the general environmental observations there will be more specific observations

undertaken. The exact format of these will be determined through participatory processes as

options are discussed with staff and children. There will be some level of coding on these

observations as this will allow interpretation to begin immediately. Coding of observations

has been used previously where the target child observations were coded against activity,

language, task and social codes. This level of analysis produced quantitative data for the

analysis of the Oxford pre school project (Sylva et al 1980) which was a large scale research

project involving multiple researchers. The Effective Early Learning Programme (Bertram

and Pascal 2004) uses observation coding where activity can be coded in terms of

involvement, social interaction, initiative and area of learning; such coding produces a large

amount of data very quickly and efficiently. Kalliala (2011) argues that by paying attention to

the degree of involvement the researcher pays attention to the child’s perspective.

Furthermore Kalliala (2011) points out that intense observations are needed to take in a

child’s perspective and this will be afforded by the dual observations which will provide an

element of the credibility (Lincoln and Guba 1985).

These observations will form the first stage of the mosaic (Clarke and Moss 2010) and

enable me to focus in on three children within the setting. For these children the


observations will serve as a prompt for parent, child and key worker conferencing. The

parent/ key worker conferences will take a similar format to a semi structured interview

where both the key worker and parent are asked similar questions in order to determine

some broad themes which reflect the child’s interests, likes and development (see

Appendices 2 and 3). The semi-structured nature of these conferences will enable deeper

probing into certain issues whilst ensuring that all participants are asked similar questions to

facilitate the interpretive analysis (Mukherji and Albon 2010).

The mosaic (Clarke and Moss 2010) will further be enhanced through the use of imagery.

The children will be invited to take photographs and to draw or paint images which represent

their experience. By inviting the children to take photographs and to draw their own images I

will be providing them with a vehicle through which they can demonstrate their views, they

will help the children when forming the narrative (Formosinho and Araujo 2006). The images

can then be used to make books or to produce maps and have tours of the setting (Clarke

and Moss 2010). The participatory nature of the study means that these are just some of the

possibilities which will be shared with the children but the decision as how to best use the

images will lie with the children who produced them. Research has been demonstrating that

children show an increased level of communicational competence when they have control

over the discussion and the topic (Formosinho and Araujo 2006).

The mosaic (Clarke and Moss 2010) will also utilise child conferencing (see appendix 4).

The children will be invited to discuss all elements of the research and their perspective will


be recorded through the observations and a field diary. The conferences will remain

unstructured as the children will need to be given space in order to teach what we need to

know (Formosinho and Araujo 2006). Clarke and Moss (2010) identified that the use of

older children, particularly siblings, could also form part of that mosaic but cited this as an

area for further study. I am particularly interested in how the oldest and more articulate

children in nursery interpret the experiences of the youngest members of the group; this can

also be applied to children where communication difficulties have previously been identified

as the purpose of the study is to review how the setting listens to all children.

Throughout the process discussions and reflections will take place with the practitioners in

the setting about the process of listening to children. Successes will be shared and

practitioners will be encouraged to begin to experiment themselves with a more multi-

methodological approach to documenting the child’s learning journey. During this phase of

the research critical conversations will be recorded (McNiff, Lomax and Whitehead 2003)

which will demonstrate significant changes in practice, show changes in thinking and provide

information about the process. This will also provide opportunity for member checking which

will again add to the research’s credibility (Lincoln and Guba 1985).

Finally practitioners will be invited to participate in an evaluative focus group session; again

based on the RAMPS approach (Lancaster 2006) which should show the progress the

setting has made in listening to children and will map the changes which have been

implemented.


Data analysis will be an ongoing process, particularly through the opportunity for reflexivity

through the field journal. Data will then be coded (based on how it was obtained) and

patterns or themes will be identified and further coding will take place in order to track the

documentation and themes emerging (Robson 2002). I anticipate that a good basic

spreadsheet pack will facilitate this analysis without the need for a specialist program

(Robson 2002). Such an audit process will establish dependability and confirmability

(Lincoln and Guba 1985).

Many previous researchers have used this mosaic methodology when assessing how

practitioners listen to children (for example Clarke and Moss 2010, Harcourt 2011, Paige-

Smith and Rix 2011 , Waller and Bitou 2011 ) which will increase the transferability of the

research (Lincoln and Guba 1985). The mosaic is, by design, a triangulation of methods; this

increases the credibility of the research (Mukherji and Albon 2011). Credibility and therefore

dependability (Lincoln and Guba 1985) will be further reached by the participatory approach

used as all practitioners and children involved will form part of the research process and will

be able to concur that the account is a truthful one of how the setting listens to children.

Credibility, dependability and transferability will be further addressed through the use of the

wider learning community to provide a ‘critical friend’ by presenting findings and processes

for peer review prior to publication.

In conducting an action research project within one setting the aim is to provide internal

generalisability (Robson 2002) and enable all practitioners within the setting to make


improvements to their practice. It is also likely that there will be a degree of external

generalisability with the findings as most of the early years settings which I support have

expressed an interest in the study and findings; they also experience similar problems with

documenting children’s learning stories. My aim is to provide educative support (McNiff and

Whitehead 2000) for a variety of early years settings which will enable them to improve

outcomes for their children and families.

Further ethical considerations

Overall this research project will be carried out with respect adhering to BERA (2011)

principles and guidelines.

When working with young children in a familiar setting these are some specific ethical

considerations to be addressed with this action research project. Firstly my own relationship

with participants (children, parents and staff) needs consideration. As a practitioner-

researcher I am mindful of the relationships I already have with participants. This insider

knowledge (Robson 2002) gives me experience of the systems and processes which I am

researching but also means that participants have a knowledge and an expectation of my

own role. I believe the children see me as a parent first and foremost as my own daughter

occasionally attends the setting. The parents and practitioners have a greater understanding

of my role as teacher and understand that I provide ongoing support to the setting in raising

standards of early education. This might hinder some of the practitioners, with less self


confidence, in seeing themselves as a co-researcher in this process. As teacher advisor to

the setting I never implement any new strategies without the input and guidance of the staff;

this action research should be a process they are familiar with in terms of my work ethic. As

researcher I will also remain reflexively aware (Ahern 1999) which will enable potential bias

in the research to become apparent.

The second complex ethical issue which needs careful consideration is that of consent.

Initially consent will be sought from the children’s centre manager, my own line manager, for

the study to be carried out within the setting and my own working capacity. Secondly

consent will be sought from the nursery manager as the nursery is managed by an

independent charitable organisation. This consent will be sought in writing and will cover

issues such as the informed consent of participants, confidentiality (and its limitations due to

safeguarding) and the responsibilities of the researcher. Parents of all nursery children will

be informed of the action research project through the nursery newsletter and will be invited

to ask any questions or raise any concerns.

Consent will also be sought in writing from all key workers and parents to be interviewed

(see appendix 5). For the parents this will also cover parental consent for their child’s mosaic

to be developed. In gaining consent from the children several methods will be used to

demonstrate the importance of the child’s ongoing consent (Mukherji and Albon 2010).

Where they show awareness of the process they will be asked to draw or mark make to

indicate their willingness to participate in the process. They will also be able to refuse or


remove themselves from the process at anytime. All children will be asked to consent even if

they are not the direct focus of the mosaic and simply contributing to that of another. When

attempting to listen to the youngest children body language (e.g. turning away not wanting

research resources etc) and sounds (abnormally quiet or upset/crying) will be used as

mechanisms for listening (Mukherji and Abon 2010).

Confidentiality will be offered to all participants along with an explanation that extracts of

learning journeys and some photographs may be used in the final write up of the project but

that anonymity of participants is guaranteed. Clarke and Moss (2010) touch on this issue

when they reviewed the challenges of the mosaic approach; listening to children is not a

right and may in fact be an unwanted intrusion. By remaining reflexively aware of this when

observing children I would hope not to intrude into their privacy (Ahern 1999).

Finally I wish to ensure that all children feel valued and can contribute to the research

process. Practically I can only accommodate building a mosaic around three of the children

but ethically I feel that all children have the right to be listened to. I intend to remain aware of

the group as a whole and to value contributions from all children; these contributions may

prove useful to children’s learning journeys even if they are not directly related to the

research process.

Review of methodology

The research process set out to be of flexible design to fully adhere to participatory

principles. The first amendment to the research design was the decision, due to an outbreak

of Chicken Pox, to target six rather than the proposed three children. This widening of


sample size did have time implications for the research process but ensured enough data

could be gathered.

The second change was in the implementation of the RAMPS (Lancaster 2006) audit. The

focus group could not be delivered as planned as the employing body was leading the staff

meeting and issuing staff with consultation for redundancies. This obviously impacted greatly

on the beginning of the research and staff struggled with embarking upon a new initiative

when the future of the nursery was uncertain. This delayed the start of the research and

made timescales tighter and flexibility a little more difficult.

The methodology of focus group was altered and what emerged was a co constructed

dialogue. The audit was carried out openly in the setting whilst staff worked and children

played. By placing myself in each part of the nursery setting I was able to share and discuss

previous responses as well as add new responses that staff gave. The staff benefited from

being able to share ideas, which in turn generated new ideas. This method also prevented

one dominant voice taking over the group; which was something the nursery manager and I

had considered prior to the focus group. Also three of the questions (see appendix 1) were

put to a collection of the preschool children who answered thoughtfully and added an

additional dimension to the initial RAMPS framework.

The conferencing with parents, children and key workers (see appendices 2, 3 and 4) all

followed the planned format. Some issues were encountered with the part time children and


scheduling these conferences at a mutually convenient time was difficult. The parent

conferences were particularly successful and I was able to reflect in my field notes upon the

positive comments that were made about the concept and process of better listening to their

children. The parent conferences lasted much longer than the key worker conferences as

parents tried to give as much information about a wide variety of experiences and obviously

clearly enjoyed having the opportunity to discuss their child.

The use of photography and the creation of photo-boards was a particular success of the

research (see also presentation and analysis of findings). The difficulty methodologically was

the need for a plentiful supply of batteries and also the logistics of quickly returning the

printed images to the children while the memory of taking the photographs was still recent.

The longest time lapse between taking images and the creation of photo-boards was three

days; the shortest was within one day. This meant the children could readily talk about what

the images were and why they were taken.

Initially environmental observations provided a long narrative (recorded in field journal) which

provided context and background information. The staff then collaborated in the revision of

observation schedules (see appendix 6) using examples from Early Effective Learning

(Bertram and Pascal 2004). Initially the coding looked daunting and perceptions of it were

that it was complicated, however as staff began to use the schedule they saw that it reduced

the amount they were writing and they could see how much information was gathered by the

coding (see also presentation and analysis of findings).


Reviewing the learning journeys alongside the children became very difficult and was only

achieved in one case (see appendix 9). Where it was implemented it was successful but

time constraints meant that most children’s documentation was examined in their absence.

What I was able to do was to feed back my interpretation of their documentation through

member checking saying ‘I’ve looked inside your learning journey and I can see that you do

lots of creative work at nursery. Can you tell me about it? What do you do?’

Finally the planned focus group and reanalysis of RAMPS was carried out as three smaller

meetings where staff who worked together in sections of the nursery (babies, preschool and

nursery class) were able to discuss the research as a whole (see also presentation and

analysis of findings). This again benefited from not being the wider group as all staff

participated. It became an excellent opportunity for reflection and I was pleased the nursery

valued the research and wanted to commit such time and effort (covering groups etc) to its

final analysis.


Presentation and analysis of findings

This chapter will be split into several sections to allow full analysis of the findings as well as

researcher reflections throughout. It shall begin with the responses of the RAMPS

(Lancaster 2006) survey and my ‘field note’ reflections which relate to this. Following this will

be an exploration of the mosaic approach for the six individuals who were studied. For this

the key themes will be demonstrated for each child. Subsequently there will be an analysis

across all six mosaics looking at similarities and differences and the key themes which

emerged. Again field note reflections will be considered throughout this section. Then the

final evaluative comments will be considered as I explore the impacts that the research has

had on current working practices.

Summary of Key Findings:

Participatory practice can occur incidentally where good practitioners strive to provide

the best education and care for their children.

Simply raising awareness of participatory practice has an impact on how children are

listened to and interpreted.

The mosaic approach offers a flexible multi-methodological approach which

successfully interpreted the interests of children and offered suggestions for change.

Action research provided the opportunity to model good practice which led to further

staff development and change.


RAMPS

Initially the RAMPS (Lancaster 2006) approach was used to offer a baseline as to how the

setting listened to children, as discussed in the methodology this was realised through a co-

constructed dialogue rather than a focus group. Table 2 offers a summary of themes which

emerged across the five elements of listening.

Table 2: Summary of staff co-constructed dialogue R A M P S

Recognising many languages

Allocating communication spaces

Making time Providing choice Subscribing to reflective practice

Views gathered through observations, dialogue with older children (facilitated by positive relationships), through circle time and discussion during activities. Planning is evaluated.

Spaces available: Babies love book corner, circle time on preschool and during lunch and snack. No specific communication area.

Setting time aside to learn participation: Staff pick up on what happens incidentally. Is sharing in the EYFS?

Genuine choices: Snack time Freeflow play When potty training

Staff have 1:1 with nursery manager. Staff meetings. During planning process.

We value and encourage kind words and positive behaviour. Usually try to ignore bad behaviour but sometimes it is ‘rewarded’ with attention.

Most status to be heard: Colleagues Older children are more vocal. Listen more to those who are easier to get on with. Is there a full/part time difference? Some parents are listened to more than others.

Gaps in children’s knowledge: We report/ record what they CAN do. Asking open questions to extend/ enrich. Challenge them – keep asking similar questions.

Children’s involvement in planning: Babies needs and interests are interpreted. Staff often ask preschool ‘What do you want to do today?’

Do children reflect and evaluate? Its recognising when it’s the end of the road with an activity - the children show us when they’re bored.

So everyone can contribute access to speech therapists, staff training (autism, behavioural needs), key workers know their children so plan accordingly and

Offer proof to children that we listen by: Following their requests and interests. Changing planning to support changing needs.

Do children discuss fears etc? Babies express their fears emotionally. Preschool mostly confident to discuss issues with staff. Emotions are discussed.

Positive contribution: Tidy up time. Make them take responsibility for own actions e.g. saying sorry etc.

Are we open to learning from children? Staff offer to attend training. When children copy us in role play!


allow for unique child.

Children’s contributions documented through: Planning next steps. Sometimes stickered – is this evident in profiles?

Children’s contribution to planning, delivery and evaluation: Next steps are planned. Where activities are found difficult they might be deliberately repeated to raise attainment.

Learning and well being problems: Older children tell us what they want. Problem solving is encouraged – real life situations used e.g. after spilling water children get paper towels.

Who do children think we should do differently? What do the children think we should include? What do the children think we should keep the same? No responses offered except ‘ask the children.’

Researcher reflections:

Staff definitely recognise many different ways children can ‘speak’ to them. No mention was given to children who spoke English as an additional language despite there being several children within setting.

Physical space is an issue but staff offer discursive spaces and provide a focus on dialogue. Documenting children’s participations needs investigating. Do we check we’ve understood children’s perspectives accurately?

Time not set aside for participation as such but occurs through professionalism of good practitioners. Time definitely an issue in the documentation of listening; staff concerned about how much time things will take. No spare time – ratios, staff absence etc.

Children offered choice in activities but not in how their voice is interpreted. Coding could be used to show if children had choices.

The staff are used to a culture of regular self evaluation and a reflective ethos is apparent in the setting. Children’s views are not necessarily part of this process.

What emerged from this dialogue was that the staff felt quite strongly that they listened to the

children and that mechanisms were in place to ensure this happened consistently e.g.

planning for next steps and evaluating activities. What also emerged from this exercise was

that it prompted a number of questions for staff:

Do children’s learning journeys reflect that children are listened to within the setting?

Is there a difference in how full and part time children are listened to?

What do the children think?

As the aim of the action research was to be participatory these questions became integral to

the research and I planned to examine the learning journeys of the target children, ask a


focus group of children the three reflective questions and investigate further differences

between full and part time children.

In analysing the responses to the RAMPS (Lancaster 2006) questions I was able to compare

the results that I had generated with the original Lancaster (2006) discussion. It was

apparent that the Nursery was starting from a good base as in all five categories the staff

were able to talk confidently about examples of good practice. The original RAMPS

(Lancaster 2006) discussion offered other further examples of good practice which the staff

would benefit from exploring in particular more concrete activities or mechanisms for

gathering views e.g. children’s involvement in a specific project or a mechanism such as

wish trees.

What staff in this setting did well was to take advantage of the incidental opportunities which

were offered for listening to children; there was opportunity to develop this further by

planning specific opportunities to listen to children. This approach would have the advantage

of modelling good practice to the staff who were less confident in this area.

Mosaic Approach

First level of analysis:

Following the initial RAMPS (Lancaster 2006) dialogue the Mosaic approach (Clark and

Moss 2011) was employed as a listening tool with six target children to further develop

participatory processes within the nursery. Once all of the raw data was generated I then

began a process of summarising the data to reduce the quantity and produced a mosaic for


each child (see appendices 7 - 12), although subjective the same principles were applied

when summarising all six mosaics to ensure the summarised data remained reliable.

Following this there was a process of inductive coding (Mukherji and Albon 2011) where I

allowed themes to emerge from the data, again applying consistency across the different

mosaics and methods. These themes were colour coded onto the mosaics and themes

which linked were identified.

Mosaic 1: Shay (see appendix 7)

Shay’s mosaic consisted of five elements and his key themes are outlined in table 3 below.

As a preverbal child observation was a key mechanism for listening to Shay. The short time

lapsed observations demonstrated his interests and bonds with others while the longer

narrative environmental observation demonstrated his routines and how staff interpreted his

needs over the longer period. Shay was happy almost all of the time he was observed and

would seek out interaction with others. When speaking to his father it was clear that such

interaction was the benefit of the nursery environment. Shay’s key worker felt that she knew

him well and could interpret his needs; she did recognise however that when her section of

nursery was busy the experience may not be as pleasurable for Shay. Linking this back to

the RAMPS (Lancaster 2006) analysis Shay’s expression was listened to and interpreted but

then not valued enough to make any significant changes to practice.

Table 3:

Shay Environmental observations

Time lapse observations

Parent conference

Key worker conference

Learning Journey

Contented/ happy

♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

Sociable ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥


Practitioner relationships

♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

Interactive/ pop-up toys

♥ ♥

Music ♥ ♥

Mosaic 2: Sophia (see appendix 8)

Sophia’s mosaic consisted of six separate elements. To add to Sophia’s mosaic her elder

sister Jo was used to facilitate the photography and the creation of the photoboard. Jo’s

attendance regularly at the after school club on the same site gave her insight into her

sister’s nursery day. Jo helped Sophia to take photographs herself as well as following

instructions on what to take photographs of; obviously this was facilitated by their sibling

relationship. These photographs demonstrated Sophia’s love of the outdoor environment as

most of her photographs were taken outside. Also all of the indoor images bar one were

taken on the preschool side of the nursery; there is not capacity for Sophia to attend

preschool until September, her key worker facilitates time on preschool whenever ratios

allow. Again reflecting back using RAMPS (Lancaster 2006) this demonstrates how the key

worker has reflected upon Sophia’s needs and made changes valuing her voice.

Table 4:

Sophia Environmental observations


Photographs and creating photo-board

Parent conference


Learning Journey

Outdoor play ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

Readiness for preschool

♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

Comm’cation ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

Dolls/ teddies

♥ ♥ ♥

Mosaic 3: Gabia (see appendix 9)


Gabia’s mosaic consisted of nine separate elements, see figure 4, and during the collection

of the data we developed quite a bond. Her willingness to participate in everything made it

easy to gather evidence of her perspective. Relationships were a key element in Gabia’s

mosaic and she often sought out adults to talk to; this interest in what adults were doing was

common in both the home and nursery environment.

Table 5:

Gabia

Enviro

nm

enta

l

observ

ations

Tim

e la

pse

observ

ations

photo

s

Key

work

er

confe

rence

Child

Confe

rence

Pare

nt

confe

rence

Learn

ing

Journ

ey

RA

MP

S

Add

itio

nal

reflections

staff relationships

♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

friendships ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

Creative ♥ ♥ ♥

Role play ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

Gabia also loved role play, this was visible in the observations as well as through discussion

with Gabia herself. This element wasn’t mentioned by Mum or by Gabia’s key worker; it was

evident that the role play was never an adult led activity yet the children continued to role

play and organise their own imaginative play. Reflecting back on RAMPS (Lancaster 2006) I

could see that role play was not a mechanism through which the children’s voice was

interpreted, although by continually role playing the children were shaping their own

activities; truly participatory.

Mosaic 4: Thane (see appendix 10)

Thane’s mosaic was also made up of nine elements, see figure five, and like Gabia his

willingness to participate made collecting his perspective very easy.


Table 6:

Thane

Enviro

nm

enta

l

observ

ations

Tim

e la

pse

observ

ations

photo

s

Keyw

ork

er

confe

rence

Child

confe

rence

Pare

nt

confe

rence

Learn

ing

Journ

ey

RA

MP

S

Add

itio

nal

reflections

Outdoor play ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

computer ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

Staff relationships/ helpful

♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

stories ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

When piecing together Thane’s mosaic it became apparent that there was discord between

parents and nursery staff about use of the interactive whiteboard. During observations,

discussion and key worker conferencing it became apparent that Thane was very skilful

when operating the interactive whiteboard and this was one of his key interests in nursery.

Thane’s parents allow him to watch very limited television and there had been a query as to

whether Thane was spending too much time at nursery on the interactive whiteboard. This

demonstrated the dichotomy of following a child’s interests and parents’ wishes. Discussion

with staff around this issue demonstrated that it was not the first time that it had been

experienced; another father had told nursery that his son was forbidden from dressing up in

‘female costumes’. This influences what staff then choose to document about the child for

fear of offending parents; the child’s voice does not seem to take priority. I reflected in my


field journal upon the power relations at play here; the adults were exerting their power over

the child and it was their discourse which was given value (Foucault 1980).

Mosaic 5: Brogan (see appendix 11)

Brogan’s mosaic consisted of seven elements and what emerged predominantly was his

capacity to concentrate on an activity intensely for a prolonged period of time. Brogan was

the only child observed who remained on the same activity across two or more of the time-

lapse observations (ranging from between ten and twenty minutes apart). The involvement

scale (adapted from EEL, Bertram and Pascal 2004) on Brogan’s observations showed that

he often demonstrated sustained intense involvement in his activities. This theme did not

emerge from the key worker conference or the learning journey which was a point for

reflection when I gave feedback on this mosaic to the key worker; she agreed that his

involvement was always excellent in adult led activities and felt that this was a skill she could

utilise as she worked with Brogan to prepare him for the transition to school.

Table 7:

Brogan

Enviro

nm

enta

l

observ

ations

Tim

e la

pse

observ

ations

Photo

gra

phs

and c

reatin

g

photo

-board

Pare

nt

confe

rence

Child

confe

rence

Key w

ork

er

confe

rence

Learn

ing

journ

ey

Outside play ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

Friendship ♥ ♥ ♥

ICT ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

Sand/water play

♥ ♥ ♥


♥ ♥ ♥ ♥


High involvement levels

♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

Mosaic 6: La’Shaya (see appendix 12)

La’Shaya’s mosaic consisted of seven elements (see table 8 below). La’Shaya was the

target child who had been at nursery the shortest time period when the mosaic was

completed. There were initial staff concerns that this might make compilation of the mosaic

difficult but upon later reflection it actually proved to be a valuable tool in assessing her initial

settling in period with nursery and Mum welcomed the opportunity to discuss her progress to

date. What was particularly interesting when analysing La’Shaya’s mosaic was the fact that

both she and Mum placed importance on friendship. Mum cited that she often talked about

different friends and believed that was her primary gain since starting nursery. La’Shaya

photographed five different friends and then talked about them as she glued her photos onto

her board.

This was very different to both the environmental and the time lapse observations which saw

La’Shaya playing alongside other children rather than with them. Where she did attempt

more collaborative play she was often met with resistance. Considering this in light of the

RAMPS (Lancaster 2006) analysis drew me to conclude that friendship was important to

La’Shaya but time wasn’t allowed to encourage cooperative play. Making time was the

element of RAMPS that staff found most challenging.

Table 8:


La’Shaya

Enviro

nm

enta

l

observ

ations

Tim

e la

pse

observ

ations

Photo

gra

phs

and c

reatin

g

photo

-board

Pare

nt

confe

rence

Key w

ork

er

confe

rence

Learn

ing

Journ

ey

Child

confe

rence


Enjoys activity

♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

Computer ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

Mark making

♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

To complete this first level of analysis a recoding of the coding was completed which

demonstrated that broadly the mosaics covered three elements: social capacity and skills,

activity preferences and personal characteristics. All mosaics also demonstrated the

capacity to illustrate children’s next steps as well as providing conclusions which could be

drawn as suggestions for change demonstrating that the methods had been successful in

facilitating participatory practice. These were all discussed in the later evaluative meetings

with staff.

The second level of analysis

Once the mosaics had been individually analysed themes were identified across the mosaics

(see appendix 13). The first and most unexpected theme which emerged was the gender

stereotyping that occurred within the choice of toys and activity within the nursery. This had

been expressed by target children through their photo-boards and through their conferences.

It was also expressed by a parent through their conference and through discussions with

nursery staff as the action research process was reflected upon. When observations were

then reanalysed in light of this it was apparent that such stereotypical choices frequently


occurred in free-flowing play, girls played with dolls and boys role played plastering the

bathroom. Such gender stereotypical choices are common (Hislam 2005) and role play is

often the vehicle through which children begin to work out what is socially acceptable and

‘normal’.

What was interesting was the fact that this obvious gender stereotyping was only prevalent

in preschool, it was not observed or noted on baby side nor was it noted in nursery class.

Again this was an issue to be taken to the practitioners as part of the final evaluative review.

The second key theme which emerged was the need for communication spaces. The

children were already using certain areas as communication spaces e.g. the pirate ship

climbing frame in the nursery garden but awareness of this had not come through any key

worker conferences or practitioner reflections. Space was described by practitioners as a

problem within the nursery and separate communication areas have not been designated,

the children’s use of specific spaces showed their participation in the environment (RAMPS

= allocating communication spaces). The lack of awareness that the practitioners had about

this made it an obvious area for development and an agenda item for the final evaluative

review.

Home and nursery links were a further theme across most of the mosaics. All parents

interviewed discussed an appreciation of some level of link between home and the setting.

Some parents went further and gave specific examples of how the link had enhanced an

element of learning.


Figure 2: Extract from parent interview

Researcher: How do you know what sort of a day Thane has had?

Parent: We ask him what his day has been like. Sometimes he forgets, sometimes it takes

time to get him to recall. He remembers more and tells us when there is a link with something

from home, like when nursery did Michael Recycle after he’d bought the things in. And when

he makes things and brings them home, he can talk about that. I also hang around for a while

when I collect and talk to the others (staff).

Interestingly there were very different parental views about the type of information which was

shared by practitioners at the end of the day. Most parents wanted information regarding the

education of the children rather than their care. The exception from this rule was the parent

of the youngest target child who valued the information they received regarding Shay’s care

during the day e.g. nappy changes and food/drink intake. From this I reflected that perhaps

practitioners should ask parents what information they would like when they collected their

child, rather than having a script depending on which area of nursery the child attends.

Following the initial RAMPS (Lancaster 2006) analysis the staff had queried whether the full

or part time status of the children impacted upon how they were listened to. The mosaics

which were completed showed no evidence of any obvious difference between full and part

time children. What had emerged was the methodological complication of completing a

mosaic for a child’s whose attendance was irregular or affected by illness etc, it definitely

required more organisational skills and planning to ensure the part time children could

contribute to their mosaics in the same way the full time children could.


The areas that had emerged across all six mosaics provided some of the broader

implications for changes to nursery practice. As well as specific feedback about individual

mosaics these broad themes formed part of the final evaluations with staff.

Final Staff discussions and review of RAMPS

The final discussions were held as three smaller meetings to reflect the three sections of the

nursery environment and to discuss aspects significant to each section in greater detail (see

methodology review for further details).

To begin with mosaics for the target children were shared and staff were asked to comment

on the themes which had emerged for each child. All staff agreed with the findings from all

mosaic analyses and discussion centred around staff giving further examples of social

capacity and skills, activity preferences and personal characteristics which had occurred

since completion of the mosaics. This member checking provided credibility to the results

and therefore suggested that they were dependable (Lincoln and Guba 1985).

The broad emerging themes were then discussed. Preschool staff agreed about the gender

stereotypical play in that part of nursery and again cited further recent examples. When it

was revealed that this was not apparent in nursery class the staff expressed surprise and

reflected that it was a result of environmental factors; nursery class is a much smaller


environment with less room for role play and fewer toys. They further reflected that the

choice of preschool target children would have also affected this as both were described as

‘strong characters.’

All staff agreed to examine the use of communication spaces in their section and the nursery

manager highlighted the importance of these spaces outdoors; she directed staff to ensure

communication was considered when planning for outdoors and that there wasn’t just an

emphasis on physical development.

All staff agreed to allow parents to guide the information which is shared at the end of a

session. There was, however, strong discussion with staff working with babies about the

value of their ‘day books’ in which routines are recorded. The staff did understand that

simply reading from this book may not give the parent the information they were seeking.

Reflection upon this discussion I was pleased; the staff had previously only demonstrated

compliance with me as teacher/researcher. The action research had clearly been a liberating

education (Freire 1996) as staff were able to challenge; this process had happened with

them not to them.

There was considerable discussion surrounding the use of learning journeys within the

setting, particularly considering the revised Early Years Foundation Stage documentation

(DfE 2012). This revised documentation places a reduced emphasis on paperwork. Prior to

this study staff had felt learning journeys were unmanageable and children and parents had


no input into their contents. During the initial RAMPS (Lancaster 2006) discussion staff had

asked whether learning journeys demonstrated a participatory approach; I was able to feed

back that, for the six target children, there was no evidence of children’s views or comments

in their folders, all work clearly came from the perception of the key worker. Staff reflected

upon this and there was an element of disappointment, RAMPS had shown that staff did

listen to children and most often took advantage of incidental moments to allow children’s

voice to affect change. We discussed that perhaps there had been missed opportunities in

documenting this and perhaps children’s voice should be better documented by writing their

comments and suggestions on post it notes or stickers. One staff member provided the

example of eating lunch in key worker groups; this was changed at the children’s request so

they could self-select their seating. This could easily be recorded in learning journeys

demonstrating the children’s contribution to change.

The compilation of the mosaics demonstrated a truly participatory approach to gathering

information about a child and staff reflected that perhaps this could influence the contents of

learning journeys; their observations becoming just one element of a child’s folder. It was

also discussed that staff should allow children access to their own folders; staff felt that this

would prompt further discussion with the child and offer the staff the opportunity to make

further annotations demonstrating how the child’s views may have developed or changed.

Staff working with babies agreed that the children get great pleasure from looking back over

their previous images and felt they need not be excluded from this approach even though

most of their children were preverbal. Reflecting upon this I was really pleased at how


thinking across the nursery had developed, being preverbal was not seen as a barrier; staff

were open to changing practice and demonstrated their own reflective approach. The

nursery manager agreed to look into a specific bookcase or system for housing learning

journeys which made them more accessible on a daily basis.

Effecting Change

There were a number of changes to nursery practice which occurred as the action research

unfolded. Primarily the staff discussed the RAMPS (Lancaster 2006) framework and had an

increased awareness of listening to children as a result. As a participant researcher I was

aware that staff began to check their interpretations of children’s wishes with them and I

wasn’t aware of this happening readily beforehand. I had suspected that by simply raising

awareness of the topic I would affect some change in practitioners as they always strive to

provide the best possible nursery experience.

Once the observations were underway the staff were very interested in the format as they

discussed the inadequacies of the previous format. The Effective Early Learning (Bertram

and Pascal 2004) inspired time lapsed observation schedule (see appendix 6) was the

product of staff collaboration as we co- selected the elements that we felt were required.

Staff had ownership of this process and some were keen to begin using the schedule as

soon as possible which was facilitated.

The use of cameras within the setting was another change which occurred during the

research process. They children were motivated and excited by the addition of the cameras


to their resources and all children wanted to participate. Mindful of offering voice to as many

children as possible photographs were taken by eighteen children and photo-boards were

created by sixteen. Harcourt and Einarsdottir (2011) expressed a concern that selecting only

certain children to listen to would marginalise others; this had been an ethical consideration

in the planning of the study. Fortunately the practitioners, who could see the children’s

excitement and motivation to complete this work, assisted. They listened carefully as I

modelled the process of the photo- board, reviewing the pictures taken with the child and

then allowing them to lead selecting those to be used and adding any additional information

or effects. The practitioners and myself then facilitated sixteen children (researcher focus

remained on the targeted children) in their completion of their own photo-board.

The successes came with children who had not been specifically selected to participate in

the research. One child, with speech and language delay, who never participated in mark

making, rarely favoured communication with adults and actively avoided adult led activities

was keen to join in. He sat with me, chose his photos and stuck them onto his paper, he then

pointed and talked about some of the images. I asked if I should be writing these things

down and he nodded so the annotations were made on his work. He then took the pen off

me and made marks across his photo-board. The practitioners were amazed to have found

an activity which he connected with so well and reflected on the possibilities to repeat and

extend this for him further.


This photo-board discussion demonstrated to staff a participatory approach which was

facilitated by the use of cameras and children’s own imagery; this directly related to my initial

research questions. Modelling this process to staff enabled them to follow suit and complete

boards for many of the other children demonstrating how we are moving towards realising

participatory practice on a larger scale.

Figure 3: example of section of photo-board.

The final ongoing change was initiated at a leadership level. Throughout the action research

there have been regular briefings with the nursery manager to inform her of progress and to

help to facilitate any changes. During the feedback we had discussed the differences

amongst the staff team in their approaches to listening to children and examples of specific

staff strengths were discussed.

A talking week was planned as a result and certain staff were asked to take on key roles

which would enable them to model good practice. The talking week was to rely heavily on

parental involvement as children made sock puppets to take home and bought in items from


home to share at circle time. As part of preparations for this week staff were asked to

consider their nursery environment and make changes that would facilitate communication,

they were also asked to consider time that would be set aside for listening e.g. when sat at

the table for lunch. Talking week was to finish with parents completing a listening homework;

a discussion with their child around the entire activities nursery put on that week.

Talking week proved successful and was extended, following the children’s interests, for a

further week. Through talking week the children further developed their participatory skills as

time was taken to teach the skills of listening in small groups, conversational turn taking,

speaking to a larger group and so on. The children thoroughly enjoyed the telephone role

play, the puppet show and the circle time which they participated in. Parents were also given

the opportunity to contribute to this by completing a talking homework; providing key workers

with valuable insight into the children’s learning from a home perspective, this document was

then added to the child’s learning journey.

To end the research process a summary of the research was shared with all parents in a

newsletter and the target children’s mosaics were shared with their parents offering a

chance for feedback. The summary was also shared with the regional directors of the private

full day care so that broader implications could be considered across all of their settings. The

photo-boards were developed into an interactive display, with the children’s consent,

demonstrating the settings capacity to listen to children to any visitor to the setting.


Finally a review of this research including the data analysis mechanism was presented for

peer review. Examples of the raw data and the data reduction process were shared as an

external check on credibility and dependability (Lincoln and Guba 1985).

Conclusion

Initially in concluding my findings will be linked back to the research questions posed:

How do we create more participatory practice for children in the Early Years?

What is it?




How do we move towards realising participatory practice in Early Years settings?

This knowledge will be discussed within the wider context of early years research examining

what has been contributed to existing knowledge.

Following this the conclusions will be discussed in terms of implications for current policy

and practice both in terms of what has already been implemented and the recommendations

which were made. To close the strengths and limitations of the research will be evaluated

and suggestions made for future related research.


Initially in creating a more participatory practice all stakeholders need to believe that children

have the ability to co-construct knowledge relating to their own developmental and

educational experience. During this research process the initial use of RAMPS (Lancaster

2006) raised key worker awareness of the different manifestations of actively listening to

children and a change was noted immediately as staff began to check their own

interpretations of children’s speech and actions. It is this ethos within a setting which

facilitates a listening culture.

Continuing to raise the profile of a participatory approach this research demonstrated a

mosaic approach (Clark and Moss 2011) of gathering information around an individual child.

Children participated by responding to questions which enabled a mosaic to be built but also

by influencing the research design, for example the children’s responses directly influenced

the development of the photo-boards and the children decided how these would look and

what they would contain. This supports the work of Alderson (2001) and Dahlberg, Moss and

Pence (2002) as the children co-constructed the research methodology. Staff were also able

to see how even the voice of the youngest preverbal children could be analysed and the

children were viewed by all as being the experts in their own lives and experiences ( Clark

and Moss 2011).

Like previous mosaic research (Clark and Moss 2011) the target children in this research

also expressed the importance of friendship and the outdoor environment; this was used to

further encourage staff in their use of outdoors and prompted further staff development in the


use of communication spaces. Also similar to previous research (Clark and Moss 2011) the

learning activities were not a focus for the children’s reflections although, in this study,

parents did express interest in this and some requested more feedback about nursery

activity which they could consolidate in the home environment. What was apparent in this

research was the desire by parents and children to have good communication and strong

links between home and nursery; following the research key workers saw themselves as

facilitators of this and a key change was in how this was approached by all practitioners,

offering the parent choices in what information was disseminated and offering the children a

physical prompt to take home (a piece of work or a leaflet summarising a topic) to become a

focus for discussion.

Time was a big facilitator of more participatory practice in the first instance, time was set

aside due to the research process; this also demonstrates a challenge as staff in busy

private full day care settings do not always have the luxury of time or the mechanisms

through which reflection can be encouraged. The revisions to the EYFS (DfE 2012) may

offer one such mechanism for reflection through the statutory need for supervision of staff.

Having time set aside and an agenda of reflective practice should offer settings further

opportunity to reflect upon children’s voice.

The nursery staffs enthusiasm for the project also facilitated such an approach although

there was some initial hesitation, which again reflects a potential challenge. The staff’s self

perception was initially that research was for the researcher and they were mere facilitators


of this. It took lots of encouragement for practitioners to see themselves as co-researchers.

Staff did not see themselves as experts within their own field and this exemplifies the low

status often experienced by early years workers (Aubrey 2007). The researcher was seen as

the point of knowledge (Freire 2006) and it took encouragement and trust to begin this

participatory process.

The children and parents did not demonstrate the same level of reticence and established

their confidence and capacity to take part in the research from the onset. I believe this to be

reflective of the ethos created by the nursery and the child-centred approach which is

underpinned by the EYFS (DfE 2012). Leadership is a key driver for participatory practice

and can again become one of its greatest challenges. A democratic leader (Goleman 2002)

whose strengths lie in communication and collaboration would naturally promote a listening

ethos within an organisation.

Contribution to existing knowledge

This research project has added to existing knowledge some methodological advances in

participatory practice. The use of a co-constructed dialogue rather than a focus group initially

added to the research design as it alleviated some of the potential difficulties of a focus

group e.g. less articulate may not share their views or an extreme voice may dominate

(Robson 2002) whilst maintaining the benefits e.g. participants were stimulated by the

thoughts of others (Robson 2002). This data collection method was more demanding on

researcher time but still enabled all staff to contribute and to build upon each others ideas. It


has the added benefit for research on participatory process of ensuring all staff contributed,

something which I doubt would have been achieved in the focus group.

A further methodological advancement was the creation of the photo-boards as a prompt for

discussion using the children’s own images of the setting. Photos had previously been used

in map making (Clark and Moss 2011) and discussion prompted by them was seen as safe

(Clark 2011). In this research I was conscious of not excluding the voice of any child for fear

that it would marginalise them (Harcourt and Einarsdottir 2011) yet map making was time

consuming and exclusive in its process. By adapting this concept to simply sitting and

discussing the child’s images more children could be listened to in a shorter time and staff

were able to sit and listen to the process as it was modelled for them, enabling them to add

to the process immediately. The children were in complete control of which photos were

included, in what order, what annotations were added and by whom. Staff interpretations of

the photo-boards were then checked with the children to maintain credibility (Lincoln and

Guba 1985). It was the success staff experienced when developing this method with me that

gave impetus to the project and fuelled their enthusiasm.

A further development methodologically was the use of an older sibling to facilitate the

perspective of a preverbal child. This has been an advancement suggested by Clark and

Moss (2011) after the original research design and it had been very successful in this

research as an older sibling was able to take on a researcher role to elicit the perceptions of


her younger sister. Again as staff saw the success of this they were able to make

suggestions for its future use within the setting.

Finally a small advancement was experienced with the use of learning journeys. Again this

had been suggested as a previous advancement of study (Clark and Moss 2011) and the

learning journey was used to make up one element of the mosaic. This was most successful

where the child could sit alongside the researcher and add to the interpretation (see

appendix 9). Unfortunately time became a limiting factor in how far this element could be

explored.

Implementations for current practice and policy

Using the mosaic approach (Clark and Moss 2011) modelled to staff a different way of

listening to children. The use of cameras within the mosaic was particularly successful and

staff were quick to emulate this method themselves; as a result eighteen children

participated in this method and created photo-boards which included discussion with staff

about the photographs. Staff were inspired by this and cameras continue to be planned into

evaluation of activities in the setting.

Another change during the action research cycle was the use of observations within the

setting. Previously long narratives has been written and sometimes rewritten and then

included in children’s folders. The research questioned the value of these and demonstrated

a shorter time lapse observation schedule which included coding as a shorthand (based on


EEL observation schedules, see appendix 6). All staff were keen to shift their practice and

are experiencing success with the new format which is also being shared with parents.

Also through this research the make-up of a learning journey was challenged as practitioners

were guided away from trying to document every element of a child’s life and asked to focus

on more efficient ways of gathering information. Previously Waller and Bitou (2011) had

concluded that it was impossible to document everything about the learning and

development of all children at all times. The research project ended with the staff perception

of a learning journey being altered to a shared document which included the child’s, parent’s

and practitioner’s perceptions. The staff began to actively think of ways parents views could

be sought and looked for practical ways the document could be accessed and shared within

the setting. Fortunately this fell in line with the revised EYFS guidelines (DfE 2012) for a

reduced emphasis on paperwork.

Strengths

This action research project provided a private full day care with the opportunity to improve

the way the setting encourages children’s participation; this has succeeded and practice is

altered. These changes are now being used as discussion points for other practitioners

locally as good practice is shared through network meetings giving the overall concept of the

study transferability through the thick descriptions (Lincoln and Guba 1985) offered of

participatory processes.


A strength of the study was the variety of methodology used in building the mosaic and the

triangulation that this offered (Robson 2002). In some cases the mosaics had nine distinct

elements which were cross referenced in the data analysis.

A further strength was the action research approach which empowered staff to take on

researcher roles and value their own contribution. Knowledge creation was seen as a

collaborative effort (McNiff and Whitehead 2011) and the staff helped to educate the

researcher and vice versa (Freire 1996). This change in mindset has impacted on the setting

and staff have been embarking upon their own initiatives and including the children as

collaborators e.g. a gardening project.

Finally a strength of the research lies in my own practitioner researcher position. Trust was

long established with the staff, parents and children which enabled the research to be

carried out in a relatively short space of time. My insider position also enabled me to bring

prior knowledge of participatory processes within the setting which afforded greater

understanding of the practical differences which could be suggested through the research

process. As a researcher I only attempted to gather data under the same conditions in which

staff would have to do so; the changes that were to develop to practice needed to be

practical and manageable.

Limitations


The primary limitation of the research was the timescale. Previous mosaics had been

developed with children over a longer time scale and allowed children to revisit conferencing

questions to see if their perceptions had altered (Clark and Moss 2011). The mosaics in this

research will do the same as they have been included into the children’s learning journeys; it

is just unfortunate that that I am unable to revisit the methodology and previous work at a

later date for comparative purposes. A longer timescale would also have enabled the staff to

have longer to embed participatory processes into their practice.

A second limitation was the small scale of the research. The initial research design was to

include only three children but this was quickly modified to include six. The staff had

identified that the two target children from preschool were ‘strong characters’ and this may

have impacted on the results gathered. The staff were also most interested in techniques

which allowed more efficient ways of working with all children and as all parents had

originally consented to their child’s participation it was unfortunate that more could not

participate.

Finally this research is limited by its relevance to current policy, which also makes it

culturally specific (Rogoff 2003). Current policy (EYFS DfE 2012) actually falls short of

advocating participatory practices; they implicitly lie in the Personal, Social and Emotional

Development points offered by the learning and development outcomes and participatory

processes can be seen embedded in the characteristics of effective learners (Early

education: Development Matters in the EYFS 2012). Sadly as participatory processes have


not been made explicit in the Statutory Framework (DfE 2012) some practitioners and some

early childcare settings will not realise the benefits of such participatory processes.

Opportunities for future research

In order to extend this research further I would examine the mosaic at a variety of levels. The

impact of local government policy could be added to an individual child’s mosaic in order to

provide a more in-depth understanding e.g. the may receive fifteen hours of nursery funding

term time only. This would further provide the opportunity to engage managers and those

responsible for strategic decision making in dialogue about participatory processes.

The mosaic methodology could also be applied to a setting rather than an individual and

practitioners, parents, children, community members, governors could all contribute to the

overall picture. This would enable settings to be compared using a truly participatory process

and could provide a vehicle for self-evaluation.

There is further scope within a primary school setting to apply such participatory practices to

school councils. Older siblings could be used to elicit the views of the youngest members of

the primary school environment and this may provide greater insight.

A further avenue for future study would be a longitudinal mosaic study; through a mosaic

learning journey a child could participate in shaping their entire early years’ experience.


Furthermore the mosaic methodology offers an opportunity to further explore transition to the

national curriculum as children exit their early years’ experience.

Finally in agreement with Clark (2011) I would advocate a mosaic approach and participatory

principles for gathering information around any age child or adult. In particular with

photography being used as a safe medium for discussion; the possibilities here are endless

and can be applied to children for whom English is an additional language or those with

disabilities. The prospect for further development of this innovative methodology is exciting

and vast.

Finally to summarise:

A more participatory approach in early years allows children, parents and staff to

contribute to all aspects of nursery life from involvement in planning activities to

deciding upon snack time routines or designing a garden environment.

It is facilitated initially by good staff and an overall ethos which values listening. It can

be further facilitated by ensuring participatory processes are part of the everyday

culture of the setting; this can be simply demonstrated through policies and protocol.

Parents further facilitate this through their communication with key workers and vice

versa.

Initial perceptions of a mosaic approach were of more paperwork and increased

workload. Demonstrating some subtle changes to observation schedules and

modelling increased parent links gave staff smarter ways of working which decreased


workload. Staff particularly valued the contribution the cameras made to the mosaic

and were inspired to continue using this technique.

The main challenge for participatory practice was time and this was relevant to both

the children, staff and parents. Some of the children attend only one half day session

weekly, many parents are busy and have inflexible working patterns and the staff are

not afforded the luxury of additional time to complete documentation. Other

challenges included a lack of resources or funding as well as lack of space within the

environment to have dedicated communication spaces.

In order to move towards a more participatory practice a participatory approach is

required; involving staff consultation in any change to the setting helps staff to

understand the need for such change. Modelling good practice inspires practitioners

who develop their own skills further and continue the cycle by modelling their own

good practice to others.


References:

Alderson, Priscilla. 2001 Research by children: rights and methods. International Journal of Social

Reserach Methodology: Theory and Practice 4 (2): 139 – 153

Ahern, K. 1999 Ten Tips for Reflexive Bracketing. Qualitative Health Research. 9 (3): 407 – 411

Aubrey, C. 2007 Leading and Managing in the Early Years. London: Sage publications.

Beamish, W. and Bryer, F 1998 Programme quality in Australian Early Special Education: an example

of participatory action research. Childcare, Health and Development 56 (6): 457-472

BERA 2011 Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research www.bera.ac.uk last accessed Nov 2011

Bertram, T. and Pascal C. 2004 Effective Early Learning Programme. Birmingham: Amber

Publishing.

Blades, R. and Kumari, V. 2011 Putting listening practice at the heart of early years practice; an

evaluation of the young children’s voices network. London: NCB

Chambers, Robert 1993 Methods for analysis by farmers: the professional challenge. Journal for

farming systems research 4(1): 87-101

Childcare Act 2006 Chapter 21. www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/21 last accessed Dec 2011

Clark, A. 2011 Breaking Methodological Boundaries? Exploring visual, participatory methods with

adults and young children. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 19 (3) 321- 330.

Clark, A., Mcquail, S. and Moss, P. 2003 Exploring the field of listening to and consulting with young

children. Research Report RR445 Nottingham: DfES

Clark, A., Kjorholt, A. and Moss, P. 2005 Beyond Listening: children’s perspectives on early childhood

services. Bristol: The policy press.

Clark, A. and Moss, P. 2005 Spaces to play: More listening to young children using the mosaic

approach. London: NCB

Clark, A. and Moss, P. 2011 Listening to young children: the mosaic approach. London: NCB

Dahlberg, G. Moss, P. and Pence, A. 2002 Beyond quality in early childhood education and care:

postmodern perspectives. London: Routledge Falmer

DCSF 2008 The Early Years Foundation Stage. Nottingham: DCSF publications.

DfE 2012 Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage

https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/standard/AllPublications/Page1/DFE-00023-2012

DfES 2004 Every Child Matters: change for children. Nottingham: DfES publications.

DfES 2007 Early Support: The Family Pack. Nottingham: DfES publications.

Early Education 2012 Development Matters in the Early years Foundation Stage (EYFS)

http://www.foundationyears.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Development-Matters-FINAL-PRINT-

AMENDED.pdf last accessed July 2012.

Flewitt, R. 2005 Is every child’s voice heard? Researching the different ways 3 year old children

communicate and make meaning at home and in a pre-school playgroup. Early Years 25(3): 207 –

222.

Formosinho, J. and Araujo, S. 2006 Listening to children as a way to reconstruct knowledge about

children: some methodological implications. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal

Vol 14 (1): 21-31

http://www.bera.ac.uk/

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/21

http://www.foundationyears.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Development-Matters-FINAL-PRINT-AMENDED.pdf

http://www.foundationyears.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Development-Matters-FINAL-PRINT-AMENDED.pdf


Foucault, M. 1980 Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and other writings 1972 – 1977. New York:

Harvester Press

Freire, P. 1996 Pedagogy of the oppressed. London: Penguin .

Geertz, C. 1973 The Interpretation of cultures: selected essays. Thick Description: towards an

interpretive theory of culture. New York: Basic books.

Goleman, D. 2002 The New Leaders . London: Sphere

Harcourt, D. 2011 An encounter with children: seeking meaning and understanding about childhood.

European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 19(3): 331-343

Harcourt, D and Einarsdottir, J. 2011 Introducing children’s perspectives and participation in research.

European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 19(3) : 301-307.

Harcourt, Perry and Waller. 2011 Researching Young Children’s Perspectives: Debating the ethics

and dilemmas educational research with children. London: Routledge.

Hislam, J. 2005 Story-making, play and gender – chapter 7 within Moyles, J. 2005 The excellence of

play. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Kalliala, M. 2011 Look at Me! Does the adult truly see and respond to the child in Finnish day-care

centres? European Early Childhood Research Journal 19 (2): 237 - 253

Koshy, V. 2005 Action research for improving practice: a practical guide. London: SAGE publications.

Lancaster, Y. Penny. 2006 RAMPS: a framework for listening to children. London: Daycare Trust.

Lapan, S., Quartaroli, M. and Riemer, F. 2012 Qualitative Research Methods: an introduction to

methods and designs. San Francisco: Wiley

Lawrence, G. 2001 Can Public Health Researchers and Agencies Reconcile the push from funding

bodies and the pull from communities? American Journal of Public Health. 91 (12): 1926-1929

Lewin, K. 1947 Quasi- stationary social equilibria and the problem of permanent change. Chapter 5

within Burke, W., Lake, D. and Paine, J. 2009 Organizational Change. San Francisco: Wiley

Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. 1985 Naturalistic Inquiry. London: SAGE publications

MacNaughton, G. and Hughes, P. 2009 Doing action research in early childhood studies.

Maidenhead: McGraw Hill

Mayall, Berry. 2002 Towards a sociology for childhood; thinking from children’s lives. Buckingham:

Open University Press.

McNiff, J. with Whitehead, J. and Laidlaw, M. and members of the Bath action research group. 1992

Creating a good social order through action research. Poole: HYPE publications.

McNiff, J. and Whitehead, J. 2000 Action research in organisations. London: Taylor Francis.

McNiff, J., Lomax, P. and Whitehead, J. 2003 You and your action research project. London: Taylor

and Francis.

McNiff, J. and Whitehead, J. 2011 All you need to know about action research: 2nd edition. London:

SAGE.

Moss, P., Dillon, J. and Statham, J. 2000 The ‘Child in Need and the ‘rich child’: discourses

constructions and practice. Critical Social Policy (20): 233-254

Mukherji, P. and Albon, D. 2011 Research methods in early childhood: an introductory guide. London:

SAGE publications.


Paige-Smith, A. and Rix, J. 2011 Reseraching early intervention and young children’s perspectives –

developing and using a ‘listening to children approach.’ British Journal of Special Education. 38(1):

28-36.

Pascal, Christine and Bertram, Tony. Listening to young citizens: the struggle to make real a

participatory paradigm in research with young children. European Early Childhood Education

Research Journal 17 (2): 249 -262

Pretty, J., Guijt, I., Thompson, J. and Scoones, I. 1996 Participatory Learning and Action. London:

International Institute

Qvortrup, Jens. 1997 A Voice for children in statistical and social accounting: A plea for children’s

rights to be heard. Within James, A. and Prout, A. Constructing and reconstructing childhood:

contemporary issues in the sociological study of childhood. London: Falmer Press.

Robson, C. 2002 Real world research; second edition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Rogoff, B. 2003 The Cultural Nature of Human Development. New York: Oxford University Press.

Save the Children 2006 Starting with choice; inclusive strategies for consulting young children.

London: Save the children.

Smith, Ann. 2011 Respecting childrens rights and agency. Within Harcourt, D., Perry, B. and Waller,

T. Researching young childrens perspectives. Oxon: Routledge.

Sumison, Harrison, Press, McLeod, Goodfellow and Bradley 2011 Researching infants’ experiences

of early childhood education and care. Chapter 8 within Harcourt, D. Perry, B and Waller, T. 2011

Researching Young Children’s Perspectives. London: Routledge.

Sylva, K. Roy, C. and Painter, M. 1980 cited Mukherji, P. and Albon, D. 2011 Research methods in

early childhood: an introductory guide. London: SAGE publications.

Tickell, C. 2011 The Tickell Review – The Early Years Foundations for life, health and learning.

http://www.education.gov.uk/tickellreview/ last accessed June 2012

Tickell, C. 2011 The Early Years Foundation Stage Review: a report on the evidence.

http://www.education.gov.uk/tickellreview/ last accessed June 2012

UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. 1991 http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm last

accessed Dec 2011

Waller, T. and Bitou, A. 2011 Research with children: three challenges for participatory research in

early childhood. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 19 (1): 5-20.

Whitty, Geoff and Whisby, Emma. 2007 Real decision making? School councils in action. DCSF

Research report RR001 Nottingham: DfES publications.

http://www.education.gov.uk/tickellreview/

http://www.education.gov.uk/tickellreview/

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm

MMM

Appendix 1 RAMPS: a framework for listening to children. (Lancaster 2006) Colour coding - Questions for reflection. Initial staff responses in co-constructed dialogues. Children’s views during preschool consultation with nine children. Staff’s views in final evaluative meetings Recommendations for future development R = recognising many languages. How do we gather children’s views?

For babies its looking at what gets played with.

Preschool can tell us.

The children are confident to talk due to the good relationships with staff.

Through circle time and during activities.

Body language and how this is interpreted e.g. pointing.

By evaluating the planning – did the kids like it?

The cameras were a great way to gather the children’s views – they prompted lots of discussion.

Involving parents more adds their views on their children’s learning and development. This can be planned for specifically and included in learning journeys.

What kind of expression or communication do we value? Is one kind valued more than another?

Well behaved children are encouraged and given positive praise.

Kind words are valued and encouraged.

Negative behaviour can sometimes be rewarded with attention. Most staff should try to ignore bad behaviour.

More effort can be made for children with English as an additional language – to show the setting values their home language.

Is extra support offered so that all children can contribute? What might this look like?

Access/ referral to speech therapy.

Staff training specific to the needs of the child e.g. autism awareness/ behavioural needs etc.

Awareness of who can ‘take over’. Awareness that sometimes the youngest children are less vocal.

Little one’s often sleep in the afternoon’s so its an ideal time to target learning activities to the older children.

Key worker approach

Shown on planning; each activity is adapted to meet all needs.

Unique child principle is followed.

Having a talking week raised parents’ awareness of potential problems with communication as a result speech and language referrals were made.

NNN

A= allocating communication spaces. What kinds of spaces are available for children to make a positive contribution?

Babies enjoy the book corner.

There isn’t a specific communication area.

Circle time on the mat.

Social time during lunch and at snack time.

Recognising some of the outdoor spaces as communication spaces and planning to make better use of this in planning further learning.

Who is given the most space and status to be heard?

Colleagues

Older children who are more vocal.

Certain children are listened to more. Some children can become invisible.

Some parents are listened to more than others.

Full time children over part time children.

The involvement scale on the observation schedule makes it explicit how involved a child is in activity or whether they sit on the periphery.

How do we give children proof that we value their contributions?

Listening to the children and responding e.g. getting a toy.

By providing what’s requested in activities e.g. I want glitter.

Following the children’s interests in planning next steps.

By checking our interpretations of children’s wishes. How are children’s contributions being documented?

By planning next steps.

Some requests are stickered (incidental observation note) – these may or may not be looked at again.

Might be evident in their profiles – is it?

Not evident in children’s profiles currently but using mosaic approach principles it could be.

Having children’s learning journey folders out and available for children to look at.

Including a documentation from parents perspective as regularly as possible.

M = making time. Do children and staff learn the skills of participation? Do we set time aside for this?

Pick up on what happens incidentally.

No

At meal times perhaps.

Sharing – is it in the eyfs?

Talking week enabled this with great success.

OOO

Do we explain to children where gaps in their knowledge are? How do we go about this?

Are we more positive than negative and just say what can be done?

Asking open questions to extend and enrich.

Challenge them e.g. keep asking for colours.

Allow children to contribute to what is documented about their learning. This will allow them greater understanding of their own learning and they will know when they have reached key developmental milestones as they’ll know it has been included in their learning journey.

Do children ask questions, raise fears, discuss their concerns or aspirations?

Babies express their fears e.g. one child dislikes men and often cries when men are present.

Preschool mostly talking and will tell staff their fears etc. Staff get to know how children respond when they are fearful of or dislike an activity.

The children are encouraged to talk about emotion.

Photos provided opportunity to discuss what was and wasn’t photographed.

Do children get to make a contribution to planning, delivery and evaluation processes?

Next steps are planned – what children enjoy is considered.

When children find activities challenging they may then be deliberately planned in to increase the children’s ability.

Staff at previous settings have actually planned following week with the children; could this not be applied?

P = providing choice. How are children given genuine choices?

Snack time – juice/water/milk and type of fruit.

Free flow play allows children to choose what to play with.

Potty training – we follow the children’s lead. Are children offered a chance to be involved in planning, delivery and evaluation of activities?

Babies needs/ interests are interpreted.

Staff often ask preschool ‘what would you like to do today?’

Staff agreed to trial planning alongside the children and writing on their contributions.

How do we support, enable and encourage children to make a positive contribution?

Tidy up time.

Taking responsibility for own actions e.g. saying sorry/ giving a hug.

Involvement in planning and discussions around learning journeys. Are children offered the choice to identify issues about their learning and well being as well as contribute to solutions to such problems?

Older children tell us what they want.

PPP

Children will get their own paper towels if they spill the water.

Knowing to turn the page over when finished; letting the children work this out for themselves.

Offering children access to their learning journeys would enable them to revisit their learning and discuss this with their key worker.

S = subscribing to a reflective practice. Are we regularly appraising our own practice?

1:1 supervision with manager.

Through discussion at staff meetings.

During planning.

Interpreting parents’ feedback. Are we reflecting on and evaluating participatory processes regularly?

Sometimes reach the end of the road with an activity and children will tell us that they’re bored, or we can recognise this through their behaviour.

It will be easier now awareness is raised to consider participatory processes.

RAMPS and Mosaic approach could be built into regular practice and would add to quality assurance mechanisms e.g. Ofsted.

To what extent are we open to learning how to be better professionals through children?

Open to professional development – going on courses etc.

When children copy us through role play its often an opportunity to evaluate how children perceive us.

Children’s feedback generally has been interesting and we have learned from it e.g. the gender stereotypical play demonstrated in preschool. Now staff know its there some role play will be approached differently.

More active adult role in activities other than craft. Role play can be modelled for example.

What do the children think we should do differently?

The sticker chart – there were no stickers left and none put on it recently.

The small pink laptop doesn’t work.

Enable more opportunity for outdoor play, that’s what the mosaics showed that the children were interested in.

What do the children think we should include or consider?

‘We have everything so let me go and look’ – came back and said ‘a box to carry pencils and writing things.’

‘More time for cbeebies, Mr Maker and Mr Tumble.’

‘Dancing and music.’

‘Dinosaurs.’

‘Oranges at snacktime.’

More opportunity for music was enabled through the talking week; loads of action songs were covered in particular.

QQQ

What do the children think we should keep the same?

‘Play dough.’

‘Paula and Katie and you.’

‘Friends.’

‘Playing with dolls.’

‘Playing Toy Story – I like Buzz.’

‘Coming to nursery with a smile.’

‘the food playstuff and the toolbox.’

We are good at following children’s interests, a parent only needs mention an interest and we do what we can to incorporate it into the planning e.g. the parent who mentioned the Toy Story interest so we found a Buzz.

RRR

Appendix 2

Gathering parents perspectives: date ____________ time ________ What do you think Brogan feels about being at Nursery? What would be a good day for Brogan at home? What would be a good day at Nursery? What do you think a bad day for Brogan would be like? How do you know what sort of day Brogan has had? Appendix 3

Gathering key worker perspectives date ____________ time ________ What do you think __________feels about being at Nursery? What would be a good day at Nursery? What do you think a bad day for __________ would be like? What sort of day do you think ________ is having today? Is there anything else you’d like to add?

SSS

Appendix 4 Target Child Conferencing Sheet:

Facilitator………………………….. Target Child ……………………………………

Age in Months ……….....Date………………

Special Educational

Needs……………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………

Why do you come to nursery?

What do you like best?

What don’t you like about being here?

Who are your favourite people?

Who don’t you like?

What do grown-ups do at nursery?

What should grown-ups do at nursery?

Where is your favourite place in nursery?

Which parts of the nursery don’t you like?

What do you find difficult?

What’s easy?

What’s the food like here?

TTT

What has been your best day at nursery?

Is there anything else about nursery you’d like to tell me?

Appendix 5 Consent (Staff) As many of you are aware I am undertaking research for a Masters degree in our

nursery to investigate how well we listen to children and to see how systems around

this can be improved. The focus of the research will be the children’s folders and how

these can better represent the children’s voice without producing unmanageable

workload.

The project will see me spending much more time in Nursery and Nursery Class as it

will involve the children taking part in activities such as being asked to photograph

the nursery environment to show what they like and dislike; using their photos to

build their own maps. The older children may be asked to draw the things they like

about nursery and possibly asked to interpret the needs of the younger preverbal

children, for example by talking about what the babies might like to do. I will also use

parent and key worker conferencing to add another perspective to the child’s story. I

believe that as the project develops there will be opportunities for improved parent

partnership as well as an improved understanding of the children’s ‘next steps’.

The project will run until June 2012 and during July I will provide nursery staff and

parents with a summary of the findings.

The written research will be submitted via CREC (the Centre for Research in Early

Childhood) to Birmingham City University where a copy will be kept for their

records. The Nursery, Staff and Children will not be identifiable from the research as

anonymity is guaranteed. Furthermore nobody will be expected to participate in

anything, the choice will always be yours and you can opt out at any time.

Please sign below to give your consent to this project in our Nursery. If you have any

further questions please do not hesitate to ask. Thank-you for your continued support

with this work.

Helen Lyndon Centre Teacher

Name of Staff Member Signature of consent

UUU

Consent (parents) As you are aware from the last Nursery Newsletter the Centre Teacher, Helen, is

undertaking masters research in our nursery to investigate how well we listen to

children and to see how this can be improved. The focus of the research will be the

children’s folders and how these can better represent the children’s voice.

The project will involve the children taking part in activities such as being asked to

photograph the nursery environment to show what they like and dislike; using their

photos to build their own maps. The older children may be asked to draw the things

they like about nursery and possibly asked to interpret the needs of the younger

preverbal children, for example by talking about what the babies might like to do.

The project will run until June 2012 and during July Helen will provide nursery staff

and parents with a summary of the findings.

The written research will be submitted via CREC (the Centre for Research in Early

Childhood) to Birmingham City University where a copy will be kept for their

records. The Nursery, Staff and Children will not be identifiable from the research as

anonymity is guaranteed. Furthermore the children will not be expected to participate

in anything, the choice will be theirs and they can opt out at any time.

Please sign below to give your consent to this project in our Nursery. If you have any

further questions please do not hesitate to ask.

Name of Parent Signature of consent for

child(ren) to participate.

Name(s) of child(ren)

VVV

Appendix 6 – observation schedule (formatted over a larger sheet) Target Child Observation and Tracking Sheet: (Adapter from EEL – Bertram and

Pascal 2004)

Observer………………………….. Number of adults present ……………………

Number of children present………………………………

Target Child ………………………………………… Age in Months

………………...Date…………………………………………………………………..

Special Educational

Needs……………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………

Time Zone of

initiative

Involvement

level

Interaction Area of

Learning

Grouping

4 – free choice

3 – some

exclusions 2 – limited

choice 1 – no choice

5

continuous/intense

4 intense moments

3 almost continuous

2 interrupted

1 no activity

TC →TC←

TC ↔C TC→C C

→TC

TC ↔A TC→A A

→TC

TC ↔G TC→G G

→TC

A ↔ G A→G G

→A

Other:

PSED

KUW

CLL

PD

PSRN

CD

Whole Group

Small Group

Pair

Individual

Description of 2 minute period

Time Zone of

initiative

Involvement

level

Interaction Area of

Learning

Grouping

4 – free choice

3 – some



5

continuous/intense

4 intense moments

3 almost continuous

2 interrupted

1 no activity

TC →TC←

TC ↔C TC→C C

→TC

TC ↔A TC→A A

→TC

TC ↔G TC→G G

→TC

A ↔ G A→G G

→A

Other:

PSED

KUW

CLL

PD

PSRN

CD

Whole Group

Small Group

Pair

Individual


Time Zone of

initiative

Involvement

level

Interaction Area of

Learning

Grouping

4 – free choice

3 – some



5

continuous/intense

4 intense moments

3 almost continuous

2 interrupted

1 no activity

TC →TC←

TC ↔C TC→C C

→TC

TC ↔A TC→A A

→TC

TC ↔G TC→G G

→TC

A ↔ G A→G G

→A

Other:

PSED

KUW

CLL

PD

PSRN

CD

Whole Group

Small Group

Pair

Individual


Next Steps

WWW

Appendix 7 Mosaic Summary – within mosaic themes are colour coded, cross mosaic themes are underlined and coded X1 (home/ nursery links), X2 (gender stereotypical play) and X3 (communication spaces).

Environmental observations: Music session Close proximity to staff. Interaction with adults. Pulling himself up and walking along furniture. Mirrors. Happy, smiling at others.

Specific time lapse observations: Mimicking and following other children. Books turning pages. Cooperated with others’ tidying. (X3) Interaction with adults. Interactive toys. Pulling himself up – walking. Painting – adult led. Mirrors Happy, content.

Keyworker conference: Happy Some days he’s bothered when he’s left and will fuss. Loves cuddles and being picked up. Enjoys the pop up toys. Doesn’t like it when its really busy – he doesn’t get as much 1:1 Having a great day today – Shay making friends with new nursery baby playing peepo around the baby gym. Always interested in whats happening and follows the action in nursery. Has a smile for everyone.

Learning Journey analysis: Adult attachments Happy and secure

Name: Shay Age in Months: 15 months Attending: Babies Part time - variable Attended since: November 2011

Parent Conference: Seems happier in himself now at nursery; gets to know other kids. Loves music will dance and move about. Loves shouting. Bad days – only when unwell and will still be smiley. Developing a bit of a temper and can be a bit clingy. Usually happy and smiley at end of day. Nursery staff know him well and tell us most of what he’s done. (X1)

Key Themes:

Shay Environmental observations


Parent conference


Learning Journey

Contented/ happy

♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

Sociable ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥


♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥


♥ ♥

Music ♥ ♥

XXX


Environmental observations: Enjoys outdoor play Good relationship with staff, including preschool staff. Speech and interaction during mealtimes (X3) Interested in the play of the older children.

Specific time lapse observations: Mirrors and play basket (I) Painting (I) Climbing frame (O) Pirate ship (O) Communication for others – helping those younger than her. (X3)

Keyworker conference: Enjoys nursery but prefers preschool – will be moving over soon. Enjoys activity – exploring. Outside play, sand and drawing. Enjoys dolls, pushchairs etc Role plays with teddies. Bad day would be no activity and no outdoor play or only younger children in. Doesn’t like the heat. Does lots of talking especially weekend events.

Camera work and creating photo-boards: Total 55 pictures facilitated by older sister Jo. Friends (A, G, T, G, L, Z, S). Staff (K, L, H, P) Hula hoops (O) Seesaw (O) Soft play blocks (O) Hopscotch (O) Tunnel (O) Bikes (O) Easel (O) Metal plates (O) for banging Slide (O) Balls (O) Tents (O) Scooters (O) Paddling Pools (O) Sand (O) Pirate ship (O) Climbing frame (O) Trees (O) Grass (O) Dressing up (I) Teddies (I) in Role play (I) Sofa (I) Computer (I) Drinks bottles (I) Dinner table (I) Peppa pig display (I) Shed (O)

Sophia Aged 25 months Started Nursery: September 2010 Attends babies section 3 full days.

Parent Conference key points: She likes nursery and sometimes doesn’t want to leave. Sometimes on Mondays doesn’t want to come. Likes the garden and the company of others. Loves days when she gets messy – chats loads when she’s covered in glitter. Loves outdoor space; that’s what sold this nursery. Doesn’t like travel, distance is a mission, involving military planning. Get lots of factual info at end of day. Sometimes Jo feeds back on what’s been happening. (X1)

Additional reflections: Photos – taking and discussion lead by older sister Jo which worked really well.

Learning Journey notes: Enjoys books Role play with dolls Painting and creative work Lots of talking and communication with adults and other children.

YYY

Sophia Environmental observations


Photographs and creating photoboard

Parent conference


Learning Journey

Outdoor play ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

Readiness for preschool

♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

Communication

♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

Dolls/ teddies ♥ ♥ ♥

Creative ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

ZZZ


Environmental observations: Dolls Scooters Tricycles (2 seater) Pirate ship (X3) Helping staff (cleaning outdoor equipment) Painting activity (adult led) Shop role play Talking time - on sofa (X3) Letter writing and drawing Threading Dressing up

Specific time lapse observations: Interest in adults conversations. Dolls house Pirate ship – as social space (X3) Hairdressing dolls Conversation with school children. Dolls/ home role play Play-dough making and using. Scooters – with others Threading

Keyworker conference: Happy and confident Popular and talks a lot of friends Likes creative activities – will be first at the table. Doesn’t have bad days, just gets on with it – not dependent on certain children. If she doesn’t want to do something she’ll say.

Camera work and creating photo-boards: Total of 36 photos taken Friends (B, H, D, E, T, J, B) Staff (H, L, T, E, G) Pirate ship (O) x 4 Computer (I) Dolls (I) Crafts (I)

Gabia Aged 42 months Started Nursery: Nov 2011 Attends preschool Full Time

Parent Conference: Loves nursery and asks to come at weekends; often reports what practitioners say. Loves painting, drawing and being out and about. Art activities are what she talks about. Parents speak Russian as G listens in. Bad day would be boredom – no activities. Loves to leave nursery with the work she’s done. (X1)

Learning Journey: Friendships Creative activities Writing Stories and books Helping staff Gabia loved looking through her folder.

Additional reflections: Asks for what she needs e.g. drinks, toast etc. Has been left as only child awake on preschool… Speaks English at Nursery and Lithuanian at home – she knows nursery rhymes and all animals – allowed to discuss her nursery day in English. (X1) Enjoyed my presence in nursery during the research and always engaged me in conversation.

Children’s Group Conference (RAMPS): Want stickers for the charts Keep same – friends Keep same – dolls Like playing Mums and Dads Should include – dancing and music.

Child Conference: Likes playing babies Doesn’t like the cars (X2) Lots of friends listed. Grown-ups talk to Mummy’s and Daddy’s and play. (X1) Likes the home corner. Difficult – cars (X2) Easy – animal mat Food? Chicken nuggets, tomatoes and chips.

AAAA

Gabia

Environm

enta

l

observ

atio

ns

Tim

e la

pse

observ

atio

ns

photo

s

Keyw

ork

er

confe

rence

Child

confe

rence

Pare

nt

confe

rence

Learn

ing J

ourn

ey

RA

MP

S

Additio

nal

refle

ctio

ns


♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

friendships ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ Creative ♥ ♥ ♥ Role play ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

BBBB


Environmental observations: Duplo play (I) Role play builders (I) (X2) Scooters (O) / races Pirate ship (O) took lead role Role play (O) burglars Helping staff (O) cleaning equipment Storytime (I) interactive

Specific time lapse observations: Laptop toy role playing office Role play families (X2) Playdough (making and then using). Storytime ICT cbeebies games – big cook Threading/ pattern work Scooters

Keyworker conference: Needs stimulation a bad day would be lacking in activity, bad weather or no older children. Likes computer games is very competent. Enjoys company of others, particularly H and E. Outdoor play is preferred. Is helpful to staff.

Camera work and creating photo-boards: 17 photos taken in total Scooter (O) Soft play blocks (O) Trees x3 (O) Harry books (I) Trucks (I) Computer (I) Staff (L, T, E, P) Friends (H)

Thane Aged 51 months Attends 2 or 3 days weekly on preschool. Began attending December 2008

Parent Conference: Happy to be here, can get bored. Dislikes girls toys (X2) Likes outdoors, bikes – ikea for dinner. Asks for letter books. Has separate time with each of parents, likes to be a big brother. Enjoys stories being read to him. During bad days he wouldn’t be outside – recently obsessed about food. Loves home/nursery links e.g. Michael Recycle – makes him recall more or when he makes things. (X1)

Learning Journey: Physical competence/ outdoor play Creative/ painting Exploring & investigating Home/ nursery links (X1)

Additional reflections: Was only child to use additional camera tools and review his images on the camera screen independently. Cooperative with other children and staff, helpful around Nursery. Lots of discussion around mealtimes with practitioners.

Children’s Group Conference (RAMPS): Wants peanut butter Wants Stickers on the sticker chart Keep – playdough Keep - Paula, Katie and Helen Keep - Buzz Lightyear Keep – toolbox (X2) Include more – cbeebies – Mr Maker and Mr Tumble

Child Conference: At nursery ‘because I’m 4’ Likes the farm box Doesn’t like dolls (X2) Grown ups can touch wires, should work and do writing. Likes role play house Dislikes babyside Difficult – painting Easy – playdough Food? There is chocolate. Best day – role play in house. Anything else? Like outside.

CCCC

Thane

Environm

enta

l

observ

atio

ns

Tim

e la

pse

observ

atio

ns

photo

s

Keyw

ork

er

confe

rence

Child

confe

rence

Pare

nt

confe

rence

Learn

ing

Journ

ey

RA

MP

S

Additio

nal

refle

ctio

ns

Outdoor play ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ computer ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ Staff relationships/ helpful

♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

stories ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

DDDD


Environmental observations: Enjoyed pirate ship as social space. Scooters and bikes. Play over longer period – intense. Wanted to explain to staff his activity.

Specific time lapse observations: Magnetic tubes and balls – prolonged intense concentration Role play kitchen leading play. Construction with linking men. Cars on car mat with practitioner. Cars on car mat independent. Very competent socially with adults and other children.

Keyworker conference: Likes nursery more than he used to. Used to dislike a larger group and when upset didn’t like children looking at him. Good day when he can do what he wants e.g. outside play, drawing and the computer. Doesn’t really have bad days now he’s settled. Today he’s having a good day – looking forward to water play outside. Likes to bring in toys to show.(X1) Friendly once he gets to know people.

Camera work and creating photo-boards: Total 41 photos. Friends (K,B,J,J,M) Staff (A x 2) Tents (O) Easel (O) Tunnels (O) Building blocks (O) Hop scotch (O) Metal plates (O) Sand tray (O) Chalk board (O) Tricycles (O) Pirate ship (O) Discs in trees (O) Perspex sand tray (O) Easel (I) Sand tray (I) Toy vacuum (I) Hammer and Cork board set (I) Bricks (I) Car mat (I) Profile folders on shelf (I) – important writing and photos go in there.

Brogan Aged 53 months Started nursery class Sept 2011 Attends 5 afternoons

Child Conference: Likes motorbikes outside and sand. Don’t like the cars ‘they’re not better’ Fav people – Alex and Sandra Like Paula but not the best. Grown-ups tell you off. They should play. Best place is by the sand. Don’t like the bathroom. Difficult – balls outside, they hit your head. Easy – sand and computer Food – you’re not allowed to bite it (the play food). Best day – motorbikes scooters and outside.

Additional reflections: When he participated in activities he really focused and his involvement score on specific observations was always high.

Learning Journey: Computer Writing/ mark making Creative/ painting

Parent Conference: He loves Nursery, was a stage when he didn’t but now loves being with friends. At home very good at computer games (an addict) he’ll play anything with a game on. Happier in a smaller group, is happy when I pick him up.

EEEE

Key Themes:

Brogan

Enviro

nm

enta

l

observ

ations

Tim

e la

pse

observ

ations

Photo

gra

phs

and c

reatin

g

photo

bo

ard

Pare

nt

confe

rence

Child

confe

rence

Key w

ork

er

confe

rence

Learn

ing

journ

ey

Outside play ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥


ICT ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

Sand/water play

♥ ♥ ♥


♥ ♥ ♥ ♥


♥ ♥ ♥

FFFF


Environmental observations: Digging box (O) (X3) Seesaw (O) Keeps herself busy Likes the computer

Specific time lapse observations: Sharing books Small world – castle Handheld electronic toys Computer – Dora game Dressing up Writing Car mat

Key worker conference: Loves it – used to cry at home time – staff found difficult. Loves computer, painting, writing and colouring. Completes activities alongside others rather than with. Doesn’t have bad days – loves coming.

Camera work and creating photo-boards: Friends (B, H, J, A, K) Staff (L, A, H) Dressing up x 2 (I) Dolls (I) Dolls house x2 (I) Bricks (I) Role Play (I) Car mat (I) Slide (O) Sand Tray (O) Babies Water bottles A flower from home (X1)

La’Shaya Aged 39 months Started nursery April 2012 Nursery class 5 afternoons

Parent Conference: Loves nursery – cant wait to come, doesn’t want to leave. Enjoys computer at home and being outdoors, DVDs and books. She does her own thing and likes the contact with other children. Bad days when she’s tired. First week I could tell she was settled. (X1)

Additional reflections: Enjoyed the camera work and developed her photography skills.

Learning Journey: Outdoor play Mark making

Child Conference: I like it (nursery) Like colouring and drawing Friends – 4 mentioned Like being on the computer

La’S

haya

Enviro

nm

enta

l observ

atio

ns

Tim

e la

pse

observ

ations

Photo

gra

phs

and c

reatin

g

photo

bo

ard

Pare

nt

confe

rence

Key w

ork

er

confe

rence

Learn

ing

Journ

ey

Child

confe

rence

friendship ♥ ♥ ♥ Enjoys activity ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ Computer ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ Mark making ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

GGGG

Appendix 13

Recoding of Mosaics: Colour coding means – Social capacity and skills Activity preferences Personal characteristics Contented/ happy

Sociable



Music

Outdoor play

Readiness for preschool, need for challenge

Communication

Dolls/ teddies

Staff relationships

Friendships

Creative

Role play

Outdoor play

Computer

Staff relationships/ helpful

Stories

Outside play

Friendship

ICT

Sand/water play



Friendship

Enjoys activity

Computer

Mark making

HHHH

Appendix 14 MA Education Dissertation Proposal Form

Student Name: Helen Lyndon Supervisor: Chris Pascal

Single Research Project

Double Research Project Dissertation √

Title of Research:

How do we create more participatory practice in Early Years?

Write a short paragraph describing the focus of your research. A piece of action research grounded in the belief in the rights of children to participate in their own education despite their age and stage of development. Through my role as Children’s Centre Teacher I aim to use a ‘mosaic’ approach (Clark and Moss 2011) to better inform the children’s learning journeys, currently key worker based. Current practice allows only for brief practitioner observation of the child which is then interpreted into learning journeys; these are a practitioner’s documentation of a child’s journey rather than their own. The children do not participate in selecting what is recorded, how it is recorded nor do they have the opportunity to discuss how they might feel about that element of their learning. In this private full day care setting the staff need to find efficient ways of working which are manageable and also enhance the children’s learning and development; for some staff currently learning journeys have become simply a paperwork exercise. I intend to baseline the setting on how well it currently listens to children (using RAMPS see ref list) and then to implement a multi-methodological approach based on the Mosaic Approach (see ref list) to encourage greater child participation using observation, parent and key worker conferencing, child conferencing and other techniques to create a deeper insight into the children’s learning and therefore a more representative learning journey. The input of parents and key workers will be one element of the information gathered around an individual child and will be particularly valuable when creating the ‘mosaic’ around preverbal children. The aim is to change the way learning journeys are approached in the setting to ensure the children’s participation. Through the process of action research I will trial the different elements of the mosaic and devise a new system for managing learning journeys in the setting. I anticipate that greater participation in this element of nursery life will actually provide the children greater participation in all areas of nursery life e.g. planning, assessment, policy development as the staff will become better listeners of children although a shift in the overall pedagogy may not be immediately apparent. Whilst the research is to be carried out in just one of the early years settings which I support, the methods I find for children’s participation can be transferred and adapted for other settings. List your proposed research questions and/or hypothesis. How do we create more participatory practice for children in the Early Years?

What is it?



What challenges participatory practice? How do we move towards realising participatory practice in Early Years

settings?

IIII

List the area(s) of literature to be reviewed and the key authors you intend to refer to. Children’s Participation:

Alderson, Priscilla. 2001 Research by children: rights and methods. International Journal of Social Reserach Methodology: Theory and Practice 4 (2): 139 – 153

Beamish, W. and Bryer, F 1998 Programme quality in Australian Early Special Education: an example of participatory action research. Childcare, Health and Development 56 (6): 457-472

Blades, R. and Kumari, V. 2011 Putting listening practice at the heart of early years practice; an evaluation of the young children’s voices network. London: NCB

Clark, A., Mcquail, S. and Moss, P. 2003 Exploring the field of listening to and consulting with young children. Research Report RR445 Nottingham: DfES

Clark, A., Kjorholt, A. and Moss, P. 2005 Beyond Listening: children’s perspectives on early childhood services. Bristol: The policy press.

Clark, A. and Moss, P. 2005 Spaces to play: More listening to young children using the mosaic approach. London: NCB

Clark, A. and Moss, P. 2011 Listening to young children: the mosaic approach. London: NCB

Dahlberg, G. Moss, P. and Pence, A. 2002 Beyond quality in early childhood education and care: postmodern perspectives. London: Routledge Falmer

Lancaster, Y. Penny. 2006 RAMPS: a framework for listening to children. London: Daycare Trust.

Mayall, Berry. 2002 Towards a sociology for childhood; thinking from children’s lives. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Pascal, Christine and Bertram, Tony. Listening to young citizens: the struggle to make real a participatory paradigm in research with young children. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 17 (2): 249 -262

Pretty, J., Guijt, I., Thompson, J. and Scoones, I. 1996 Participatory Learning and Action. London: International Institute

Qvortrup, Jens. 1997 A Voice for children in statistical and social accounting: A plea for children’s rights to be heard. Within James, A. and Prout, A. Constructing and reconstructing childhood: contemporary issues in the sociological study of childhood. London: Falmer Press.

Smith, Ann. 2011 Respecting childrens rights and agency. Within Harcourt, D., Perry, B. and Waller, T. Researching young childrens perspectives. Oxon: Routledge.

UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. 1991 http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm

Organisational Change: Friedman, M. 2005 Trying Hard is not Good Enough. Victoria :Trafford Publishing.

Friedman, M. 2002 Using Results and Performance Accountability to Improve The Well-being of Children and Families. www.resultsaccountability.com

Goleman, D. 2002 The New Leaders: Transforming the art of leadership into the science of results. London: Sphere publications.

Handy, C. 1994 The Empty Raincoat. London: Random House.

Kotter, J.P. 1996 Leading Change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Action Research/ methodology:

McNiff, J. with Whitehead, J. and Laidlaw, M. 1992 Creating good social order through action research. Poole: HYPE publications.

MacNaughton, G. and Hughes, P. 2009 Doing action research in early childhood studies. Maidenhead: McGraw Hill.

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm

http://www.resultsaccountability.com/

JJJJ

Describe the research methodology that you intend to use (Quantitative, Qualitative, Critical). Investigating this participatory pedagogy will require a qualitative approach. Coming from a socio-cultural perspective it requires small scale analysis of the way children’s voice is listened to within the children’s centre and how this is acted upon. An action research project is to be undertaken within a private full day care setting located within a children’s centre in order to change the culture and practice towards a more participatory approach.

Describe the research methods that you will use (observation, interviews, concept map) and provide an indication of your sample size(s) and how you will analyse the data. This action research project will begin with an analysis of how well the setting currently listens to children (RAMPS Lancaster 2006). Then a mosaic of methods will be implemented with the aim to give the children greater voice. These methods will begin with observations, parent/keyworker conferencing, child conferencing (with photos and map making as a stimulus). I intend to keep the methodology flexible to meet the needs of the children and to allow them to participate in the research design at some level. As a result of this practice the settings use of learning journeys will be re-examined and changes made. To end the project the RAMPS (Lancaster 2006) analysis will be used again to measure how well the setting listens to children and to capture any changes that have occurred. Both the initial RAMPS (Lancaster 2006) analysis as well as the one at the end will include all Nursery Staff (10 including those who are cover staff). I am also looking to carry out a detailed case study of 3 children (one for each zone of the Nursery)to map how the change process is working and to make use of sibling groups to assist the documentation of the change process. I will analyse the data using content analysis and then interpretative analysis. As data is gathered it will be coded based on firstly the participant and secondly the themes which emerge to facilitate analysis. Provide a timetable or flow chart of where, when and how you intend to undertake the research. This Action Research is to take place within my own job role as Children’s Centre Teacher through which I am in daily contact with Nursery Staff, Parents and Children. It will take place in the private full day care which operates within the centre. Having been in post four years I believe I have built up the relationships which would be required of such a small scale study.

1

Request for Ethical Approval

Section 1 – to be completed by the researcher

Full name

Helen Margaret Lyndon

Module number and title

(student researchers

only)

EMOD55

Dissertation Module

Research Proposal title

How can we create a more participatory approach in

Early Years?

Funding body applying to

if applicable

n/a

Brief outline of proposal

(including research

questions where

appropriate)

You are also asked to

submit with your

application copies of any

questionnaires, letters,

recruitment material you

intend to use if these are

available at the time of

requesting approval

How do we create more participatory practice in the

Early Years?

What is it?




How do we move towards realising

participatory practice in Early Years settings?

The research will centre on how well the setting

listens to children’s voice and how this can then be

improved.

Level of research, e.g.

staff, undergraduate,

postgraduate, master’s

(award related), MPhil,

PhD

Masters

Please outline the

methodology that would

be implemented in the

course of this research.

Qualitative research methods based on action

research. The action research will begin and end with

an analysis based on RAMPS (Daycare Trust 2006).

The main body of the research will be based on The

Mosaic Approach (Clarke and Moss 2011). This will

take the form of observations, parent/key worker

conferencing and child conferencing with stimuli such

as photographs and map making sessions.

Please indicate the

ethical issues that have

been considered and how

these will be addressed.

Relationships

- my own relationship as ‘advisory teacher’ to

Nursery (I never convey that I know best)

2

- my relationship with Nursery as a parent (my own

child attends part time so research within Nursery

will happen when she is not present)

- my current relationship with parents as Teacher

(this positive should enable research process)

Consent of participants

- Written consent to be gained for study from both

Manager of Nursery (private org) and Manager of

Children’s Centre (my line manager). All letters of

consent to have ethics statement referring to

informed consent, confidentiality (and its

limitations due to safeguarding) and the

responsibilities of the researcher.

- Written consent to be gained for all Key workers

and Parents to be interviewed. Parental letter will

also cover consent for child.

- Children talked through their own consent form

and invited to draw/write name to indicate their

understanding.

- Children to be asked to consent to all activities

and given option of stopping/ withdrawing at any

time. Children to be able to demonstrate this

physically by removing themselves from the

research.

Confidentiality

- Mosaic will form part of a child’s learning journey

which is confidential. The consent letter will

explain that extract and some photos may be

used for illustrative purposes in the final write up

of the project.

Harm

- Children not involved may suffer reduced self-

esteem; why wasn’t I picked? Researcher to be

aware of whole group and value their input into

proceedings. Some activities to be run as group

sessions.

Value

- The project is to be meaningful and have value

within the setting as well as transferability to

wider community. The outcome should be

improved outcomes for children.

Please indicate any

issues that may arise

relating to diversity and

equality whilst

undertaking this research

and how you will manage

these.

Language barriers – some children in the setting do

not have English as a first language others are yet to

develop any spoken English. Children’s eye contact,

facial expression and gaze as well as body language

will help to make up the observations.

Cultural difference – the children represent a wide

variety of different cultural heritages – I am mindful

of this and would treat any differences with sensitivity

and respect.

Please indicate how

participants will be de-

briefed about their

involvement in the

research process and or

provided with

The nature of the project provides an opportunity for

staff to reflect upon their own practice and for this to

be carried forward.

It also will provide an opportunity for parents and

children to reflect upon their involvement during the

conferencing sessions.

3

opportunities for

reflection and evaluation

All Nursery Parents will be informed of developments

in practice in the Nursery Newsletter.

Please answer the following questions by circling or highlighting the appropriate

response:

1. Will your research project involve young people under the age of 18?

YES NO

If yes, do you have an Enhanced Disclosure Certificate from the Criminal Records

Bureau?

YES Nov 2011 NO

2. Will your research project involve vulnerable adults?

YES NO

3. For which category of proposal are you applying for ethical approval?

Category A B

crec student research papers archive paper no: … student research papers archive paper no:...

Documents