Pikler and Co-construction: bridging a theoretical divide

This post continues my series on Pikler's learning principles and the need to take a critical social-constructivist view of its developmentalist foundations. I'm a staunch advocate for Pikler. I must confess that I was initially attracted to Pikler because it seemed to bypass the complexities of the learner/teacher relationship. Just as I was getting a handle on co-construction and such, bam – Pikler seduces me, pulls me across this chasm of messy theory and lets me take on a 'wants nothing' position (thank you Janet Gonzalez-Mena for making this role sound so bloody nice!).

Now however it is the image of the child as a free and empowered learner that I find most appealing about Pikler and, paradoxically, what I don't like is its association with constructivist ideas on development which see learning as an individual journey that requires no 'interfering' with by teachers. We are products of our cultural and social worlds – there's no denying that and socio-cultural views of learning reflect this. Do we have an unbridgeable chasm here? In my last post I explored content knowledge – go read it now if you already haven't (in fact go right back to Pikler Revolution 1 so you get the whole picture – and my evolution of thought). Now I want to keep going with this inquiry and explore possible ways of imparting new knowledge to learners while respecting their rights.

First up: a central tenet of my personal philosophy is an image of the child as being an active, self-initiating learner with the fullest of human rights who wants and needs to engage in play. I consider play to be a human right, a cultural right and the right way to learn. No teacher-led transmission of knowledge stuff like in a classroom – and sadly in many centres. Play is the vehicle for learning.

Contemporary theories of learning have evolved from Piagetian constructivism to focus on Vygotsy's social-constructivism which recognises that all learning occurs within a social and cultural context – we are not isolated, nor 'coded' to learn as constructivism would have us believe. Learning and learners are not moving on a linear path to a homogenised universal truth. Everything is inter-related. Evolving from this recognition of social interactions as the basis of learning, social-constructivism envisions a different role for teachers in considering children can perform more challenging tasks when assisted by more advanced and competent individuals through both informal and formal interactions (Hedges, 2010). Unfortunately, while Te Whāriki (New Zealand's early childhood curriculum) fully embraces this line of thinking in that it “emphasises the critical role of socially and culturally mediated learning and of reciprocal and responsive relationships for children with people, places, and things,” it hits a brick wall of traditional free-play practice that is compounded by teachers failing to fully understand social-constructivist strategies and interpreting them as being about teacher-led. This confusion results in teachers returning to a default constructivist-orientated practice – our happy place :)

What a fuck up right? And it just goes on and on. So we have a legacy of constructivist inspired free-play environments and a social-constructivist curriculum that rightly reflects the incredible diversity we experience. Throw into the mix the need to introduce new knowledge.

Tina Bruce (1991) describes how too often educators attempt to teach through play, where the teacher cuts into play situations in order to teach a concept that may have emerged as the children played. This interventionist approach to teaching devalues play, renders it useless by dragging the children back into a reality constructed by the adult. Play, and thus meaningful learning, is effectively suspended. This is just major theoretical/practice confusion and you can see it happening all the time at kindergartens.

Isenberg and Quisenberry (2002) describe play as a means for children to facilitate the understanding of skills and concepts, and to take ownership of new knowledge, that it is both a process and a product. The importance given to play as the leading factor in learning and development owes much to developmental psychology: Vygotsky considers play to be the space where children operate at their highest level of functioning and where they apply all they have experienced – their working theories, their funds of knowledge (Bruce, 1991; Hedges, 2010). According to Bruce (1991), what we broadly refer to as 'play' is actually an inter-connected process with foundational learning processes like struggle, manipulation, exploration, and discovery leading to competence and a sense of control. This control builds self-confidence, autonomy, intrinsic motivation, the desire to have a go, to takes risks and solve problems. Thus, rich and varied experience is a prerequisite to play where wallowing in ideas, experiences, feelings, and relationships, transforms the actual into the possible with new, meaningful knowledge the result. In pulling apart our concept of play and recognising that within play there are periods where more direct support is needed, Wood (2004) argues that teachers are better positioned to introduce discipline-based knowledge skills and understandings. My question is: how?

Children at play naturally behave like scientists in that they learn by doing things and asking questions. Children's questions are often fundamental, complex and not easily answered, and as a result, they provide a natural learning context for enquiry-based education (Jordan, 1982). Questions also serve as a useful guide to determining what is significant and interesting to them. Hedges (2010) refers to a child's funds of knowledge, their “unique family and community experiences” (p.28) as a possible framework for teachers to recognise and understand a learner's motivation for inquiry in everyday activities and interests. The pedagogical challenge is to move from “having information about children, to knowledge of children at a deeper level” (Hedges, 2010, p.35).

A socio-cultural view of learning places a great emphasis on culturally and socially mediated interactions and clearly defines a role for teachers in children's learning with the zone of proximal development highlighting the difference in independent problem-solving versus collaboration with more knowledgeable peers or adults. Hedges (2010) describes this adult-child relationship as intersubjective, in that it has “a mutual or shared understanding, a sharing of purpose or focus,” that allows for constructing new knowledge not predetermined or defined.

Can you see it? Space grows from respect and mutual interest (the child's inquiry and the teacher's response) and allows for new learning that is mutually constructed.

Hedges (2010) discusses three pedagogical strategies within the socio-cultural framework to guide teachers within this space: Scaffolding, Guided participation, and Co-construction.

Scaffolding refers to the technique of providing temporary guidance and support as a learner masters independence. Hedges (2010) claims that while often misinterpreted as direct teaching, the weight of control does remain with the adult. Guided participation sees children cast as apprentices, “active in learning through observing, participating with peers and adults to develop skills and knowledge” (Hedges, 2010). Again there is a gradual shift of power to the learner, but often involves outcomes that are predetermined by the expert. Co-construction however, “holds a potentially empowering approach to encouraging both adults and children to have an active role in the teaching and learning process” (Hedges, 2010, p.18) and it is this equity that elevates co-construction as a key strategy for teaching through play.

Bernstone (2009) claims that “teaching strategies are about the different degrees of control of power” (p. 6) and that teachers need to question ownership of knowledge. With co-construction, a shared approach to meaning-making is possible that is empowering for all. By acknowledging cultural and social forces that both shape and influence a learner, by engaging with inquiry processes and accommodating shared meaning-making, co-construction aligns with the goals and intent of Te Whāriki, as well as respecting the deeper drive for free-play.

Can you see the process that differentiates this strategy from others? It's not about learning to use the scissors or climb the big ladder, it's new ideas and concepts that fundamentally challenge and change. We build a community of inquiry that recognises the importance of children's funds of knowledge, activities and interests and the real questions that grow from this base. In responding to this inquiry - participation, intersubjectivity, shared purposes and goals - we co-construct new meaning.

Co-construction provides a pedagogical framework to guide the process of inquiry and I see this role of the teacher alongside a learner at play as an empowering one – principally because it does not seek power and this makes my little anarchist heart skip with joy :)

Well after all that I have to say that it's still all a bit vague. There is simply too little accessible and practical information out there for the average teacher to study. In an attempt to remedy this, a mate is dropping of Fleer's new book 'Early Learning and Development' for me to read over the holidays – apparently it's the latest and greatest on social-constructivism. We'll see where it takes us eh? As you were.

References:

Bernstone, H. (2009). An exploration of teacher power and its place in negotiation as a

teaching strategy in early years. New Zealand Journal of Teachers’ Work, 6 (1), 20-27.

Bruce, T. (1991). Time to play in early childhood education. London, England: Hodder and Stoughton.

Cahill, A., & Fleer, M. (2001). I want to know: Learning about science. Canberra: Australian Early Childhood Association.

Cullen, J. (2003). The challenge of Te Whāriki: catalyst for change? In Nuttall, J. (ED.), Weaving Te Whāriki: Aotearoa New Zealand's early childhood curriculum document in theory and practice pp. 161-187. Wellington: NZCER.

Hedges, H. (2000). Teaching in early childhood: Time to merge constructivist views so learning through play equals teaching through play. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 25(4), 16-21.

Hedges, H. (2010). Whose play, goals and interests? The interface of children’s play and teachers’ pedagogical practices. In L. Brooker & S. Edwards (Eds.), Engaging play. Open University Press.

Isenberg, J., & Quisenberry, N. (2002). Play: Essential for all children. Childhood Education: Infancy Through Adolescence, 79(1), 33-39.

Nuttall, J. (2003). Exploring the role of the teacher within te whāriki: some possibilities and constraints. In Nuttall, J. (ED.), Weaving te whāriki: Aotearoa New Zealand's early childhood curriculum document in theory and practice (pp. 161-187). Wellington: NZCER.

Wood, E. (2004). Developing a pedagogy of play. In Anning A, Cullen J, Fleer M Early Childhood Education: Society and Culture. pp. 19-30. Uk: Sage Publications.

Pikler, Constructivism and Content Knowledge...

In exploring the learning principles of Pikler I've found that there are several stumbling blocks with its alignment with elements of constructivist theory, principally developmentalism. One of these issues is the introduction of new knowledge to children: essentially good-old-fashioned teaching, but in a manner that respects the reality of how children learn. As I have discussed in earlier posts (Pikler Revolution; Introducing Emmi Pikler) the central tenet of Pikler is that teachers adopt a 'wants nothing' position that allows the learner freedom to learn and develop at their own pace and direction. Teachers do not interfere in this process. While this stance clearly links with developmentalism where a learner is left alone to allow natural coded development to progress through set stages, I don't believe this aspect of a rigid and linear individualism that seeks a universal 'truth' is the intent of Pikler when we consider the image of the child and the emphasis on respect, equality, and empowerment. Constructivism leads to the reproduction of the status quo. It is individual and insular. It means that dominant discourses remain dominant at the expense of other views on development, learning, and the world about us. How does a class of white kids learn about other cultures? About gay families? Poverty? About science or mathematics or Monet and Rembrandt?

If we are serious about using Pikler's ideas with older children where cultural and social interactions become the basis of learning (with play the vehicle), we need to look at how we can introduce new ideas into a learners world in a way that respects their right to initiate and direct their learning journey. Yes we listen to the child, but is there space for them to listen to us?

For this post I will first look at content knowledge. Next will be how we 'share' this knowledge.

A central tenet of my personal philosophy is an image of the child as being an active, self-initiating learner with the fullest of human rights who wants and needs to engage in play. I consider play to be a human right, a cultural right and the right way to learn. When Hedges (2010) says that while free-play has the capacity to promote deeper learning, teachers must be actively involved for this to occur, as a neophyte teacher, I swing between the sacredness of free-play and knowing that research is highlighting a lack of deep, sustained inquiry within these environments (Lillemyr, 2003). That's a bit sad eh? Hate it when things I like don't really work out :(

Anyway, researching the teaching of content knowledge has revealed just how contentious a subject this is: from its pedagogical relevance, what content knowledge teachers need, and most importantly, how to pass this knowledge onto a child at play.

Traditionally, New Zealand has favoured a free-play approach to learning, a position that drew upon Piaget's constructivist theories of a naturally occurring, individualistic process of development and learning that saw teachers adopt a 'hands-off' approach to teaching. This discourse of learning through free-play remains powerful today despite serious critique from a perspective of community, culture, and social relationships (Nuttall, 2003). Alongside this discourse is the concern that any emphasis on subject knowledge is supporting the 'schoolification' of early childhood education (Moss, 2010). Hedges & Cullen (2005) claim that “these philosophical beliefs appear to have left teachers without clear guidelines for content selection in curriculum and excused them from the responsibility to be knowledgeable about children’s interests” (p.11).

Cullen (2003) claims that the typical play-based curriculum that develops from children's interests, “while justifiable in socio-cultural terms, has also inadvertently served to de-emphasise the significance of content and skills in children's learning” (p.281). Te Whāriki is a descriptive document in that its principles and strands act to guide programme planning rather than specify content. Yet if Te Whāriki's central goal is for children “to grow up as competent and confident learners and communicators, healthy in mind, body, and spirit, secure in their sense of belonging and in the knowledge that they make a valued contribution to society”, Hedges & Cullen (2005) are right to ask that “if functioning as an adult member of society requires a body of knowledge, then what might that knowledge consist of?” One might also ask how children get this knowledge.

According to Shulman (1986) the divide between content knowledge and teacher practice has grown from a century of research about learners cognitive development, yet fails to consider where teacher explanations come from. While New Zealand's Graduating Teacher Standards are led by the statement that teachers will have 'content knowledge appropriate to the learners', there remains a powerful legacy that a “subject-based approach to curriculum is inappropriate as it is contrary to the ways children think and learn” (Hedges & Cullen, 2005, p.11) - a position reflected by research into teachers’ responses to children’s scientific questions that found scientific knowledge (70% of the replies in fact) to be inaccurate and insufficient (Hedges & Cullen, 2005).

One of the main critiques of the constructivist / developmental position is that it totally ignores the reality of living within a social and cultural context. Achievement is both individual and collective. We are not taught culture, we are culture. Yes we learn by doing, but we also learn by observing and imitating others who have greater knowledge and skills. This is the Vygotskian / Brunner idea of the Zone of Proximal Development and it can't be ignored. Constructivism must be critically analysed if we are to genuinely respect and support a child's learning journey. Maintaining a 'hands off' position is to deny the child access to new knowledge.

With access to content knowledge positioned as an integral part of learning, how can we as educators teach content in ways that align with holistic socio-cultural principles and an image of the child that sees them as competent, capable learners in control of their learning journey? How do we bridge our respect for the empowered constructivist with living in a diverse, dynamic, ever-changing social and cultural world? Perhaps it is as Hedges & Cullen (2005) suggest, that it's “not subjects per se, but how teachers assist children to construct subject knowledge that is the central pedagogical issue for early childhood education to resolve."

Stay tuned folks for part 2 and how to resolve this issue!

Introducing the Principles of Emmi Pikler...

Welcome to part two of Instead of Education: an anarchist exploration of early childhood education. Here I introduce the theories of Pikler who steps away from adult agendas as seen within social constructivism to let children take authentic control of their learning.


The educational theories of Emmi Pikler grew from her work with orphaned babies and draw primarily from attachment theory and developmentalism, but recognises the importance of social-constructivism and relationships, and finally blends these with an image of the child that would make any anarchist smile.

Children gain an image of themselves and who they are, mirrored in the ongoing relationship between themselves and another. Our image of the child is constructed by who we are and the impact of social and historical discourses: charity, medical, gender, development, rights, economic, liberation and so on. These discourses create multiple lens that reflect our own pathway. Our image of children and childhood is therefore socially constructed as is what we think children and childhood should be. Are we filling children with our notions of correct knowledge, or do we let go of the reins?

Pikler considers the child as an equal to be awarded the fullest of human rights. Core beliefs would include:

• Respect as an unique individual with the right to live in the here and now

• Freedom to move and explore as one desires

• Time for uninterrupted play

• Acknowledgement and respect of the child's decisions, motives, interests etc

• To be an active participant in their lives

• To see the value in struggle and failure

• To allow development and learning at their speed

• Safety, stability and continuity of care


Tolstoy describes education as a compulsory, forcible action of one person upon another to create a predetermined idea of knowledge. Compare this with culture, the consequence of a myriad of influences upon a person, that grows through the free association of people based on the need to both give and receive knowledge. Teaching is a means of both culture and education, the difference being only the matter of compulsion.

At the core of the Pikler model is the removal of power-over relationships that twist the acquisition of culture into 'education'. The early childhood centre is not a closeted place of prescribed learning, rather it is an active part of the wider community where the natural curiosity of children guides their learning. The adult agenda is primarily safety, but eyes and ears are always open: we notice, recognise and respond to the evolution of learning by providing knowledge, by modifying the environment to provoke further challenges and to provide resources, and to offer encouragement of course!

In typical double-speak, traditional educationalists talk of how we must restrict children's freedom in order to prepare then for freedom as adults within a democracy. Somehow amidst this clusterfuck of control, the early childhood sector is handed a window of freedom and the irony of it is that it exists within a framework established by the state, who in making the curriculum so vague, hope that the seeds of neoliberalism would filter through the personal pedagogy of teachers and thus create another generation of loyal obedient workers.

So where do we find 'Pikler'?

Everywhere there are seeds: Pikler inspired centres are rare, but they are growing in popularity as educators attend the growing number of workshops and conferences. 2010 saw the first national Pikler-inspired conference in Christchurch with several hundred enthusiastic teachers ready for change. The parent-run Playcentre movement is strongly influenced by Pikler as are some home-based providers. Hit the internet, look for key words and phrases, ask.

Anarchist's have a proud history of subverting education: Louise Michel, Francisco Ferrer and Tolstoy all infused education with their anarchism. While neither Pikler or Te Whāriki talk of anarchism, the possibility of creating learning centres which truly reflect our cultures whilst promoting and practising egalitarianism, social justice and critical thinking are very real goals. Of course the enemies of freedom are well aware of this and the state is under increasing pressure to revisit the early childhood curriculum.

Emmi Pikler focused on infants and toddlers and when you consider the type of learning that this age group engages in, her theories make perfect sense. Relationship building is during close care-giving moments, otherwise you leave baby (safely) alone or with peers to learn and develop. But what about older children where the learning has shifted from more individualistic learning that is often about fine and gross motor skills, to more social interactions with their associated higher concepts of learning?

There are now early childhood centres that cater for older children that are adopting elements of Pikler. I will explore their practice and ponder the relevance of Pikler's constructivism in part three so come back soon for more fun and games!