Developing as a Reﬂ ective Early Years · PDF fileBy Car oline Bligh, Sue Chambers, Chelle Davison, Ian Lloyd, Jackie Musgrave, June O’Sullivan and Susan Waltham 978-1-909330-65-8

SAM

PLE

CRITICAL TEACHING

Developing as a Refl ective Early Years Professional

SAM

PLE

You might also like the following books from Critical Publishing

The Critical Years: Early Years Development from Conception to Five By Tim Gully 978-1-909330-73-3 June 2014

Early Years Policy and Practice: A Critical Alliance By Pat Tomlinson 978-1-909330-61-0 Published 2013

Teaching and Learning Early Years Mathematics: Subject and Pedagogic Knowledge By Mary Briggs 978-1-909330-37-5 Published 2013

Teaching Systematic Synthetic Phonics and Early English By Jonathan Glazzard and Jane Stokoe 978-1-909330-09-2 Published 2013

Well-being in the Early Years By Caroline Bligh, Sue Chambers, Chelle Davison, Ian Lloyd, Jackie Musgrave, June O’Sullivan and Susan Waltham 978-1-909330-65-8 Published 2013

Most of our titles are also available in a range of electronic formats. To order please go to our website www.criticalpublishing.com or contact our distributor, NBN International, 10 Thornbury Road, Plymouth PL6 7PP, telephone 01752 202301 or email [email protected].

SAM

PLE

CRITICAL TEACHING

Carol Hayes , Jayne Daly , Mandy Duncan , Ruth Gill & Ann Whitehouse

Developing as a Refl ective Early Years Professional A Thematic Approach

SAM

PLE

First published in 2014 by Critical Publishing Ltd

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission in writing from the publisher.

The authors have made every effort to ensure the accuracy of information contained in this publication, but assume no responsibility for any errors, inaccuracies, inconsistencies and omissions. Likewise every effort has been made to contact copyright holders. If any copyright material has been reproduced unwittingly and without permission the Publisher will gladly receive information enabling them to rectify any error or omission in subsequent editions.

Copyright © 2014 Carol Hayes, Jayne Daly, Mandy Duncan, Ruth Gill and Ann Whitehouse

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN: 978-1-909682-21-4

This book is also available in the following e-book formats:

MOBI ISBN: 978-1-909682-22-1 EPUB ISBN: 978-1-909682-23-8 Adobe e-book ISBN: 978-1-909682-24-5

The rights of Carol Hayes, Jayne Daly, Mandy Duncan, Ruth Gill and Ann Whitehouse to be identifi ed as the Authors of this work have been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988.

Cover and text design by Greensplash Limited Project Management by Out of House Publishing Printed and bound in Great Britain by Bell and Bain, Glasgow

Critical Publishing 152 Chester Road Northwich CW8 4AL www.criticalpublishing.com

MIXPaper from

responsible sources

FSC® C007785

®

SAM

PLE Contents

Meet the authors vi

Foreword by Angela D Nurse viii

1 The nature of refl ective practice 1 Carol Hayes

2 Writing for refl ection 22 Ruth Gill

3 Critical friends: the refl ective facilitators 38 Ann Whitehouse

4 Refl ecting on the transition from vocational practice to university study 55 Jayne Daly

5 Refl ection informed by observation and assessment 72 Carol Hayes

6 Refl ecting on emotional availability in practice 94 Ruth Gill

7 Refl ecting on racism in predominantly white settings 111 Mandy Duncan

8 Refl ecting on global childhood poverty 130 Mandy Duncan

9 The refl ective leader 149 Jayne Daly

10 Refl ecting on the multiprofessional team 166 Carol Hayes, Mandy Duncan and Ann Whitehouse

11 Refl ection and change 185 Carol Hayes

Index 204

SAM

PLE Meet the authors

Carol Hayes I have worked in Early Years for the last 40 years as a teacher and tutor and at Staffordshire University for the last six years as a principal lecturer and academic group leader. There I helped to develop a thriving early childhood studies department with pro-grammes from foundation degrees to masters in Early Childhood. My specialist areas are cognitive development, language literacy and communication. I taught the module Refl ective Practice to the early childhood studies level 6 students. My main research interests are dyslexia and communication diffi culties and the role of graduate teaching assistants in the workforce.

Jayne Daly I have worked in Early Years for the past 25 years as a nursery offi cer (NNEB), an Early Years manager and tutor. Throughout my professional practice I have worked within the public care, health and education sectors. My current role came about after the realisation that I wanted to ‘give something back’ to those new to providing positive outcomes for young children and their fam-ilies, and this passion pushed me forward into teaching within the higher education (HE) sector at Staffordshire University. I have been employed as a lecturer in Early Childhood Studies, teaching from levels 4 to 6. My specialist areas are leadership and man-agement, child development and safeguarding children, but I also have an interest in international perspectives in terms of curric-ulum development.

SAM

PLE

Meet the authors • vii

Mandy Duncan I began my career as a nursery nurse 15 years ago, before train-ing as a teacher. I initially worked with young children in pri-mary schools in both inner city and rural areas and later with young people aged 14–19 in a further education (FE) college. I have been a lecturer in HE for the last four years, teaching on BA (Hons) and MA Early Childhood Studies and BA (Hons) Childhood and Youth Studies courses. I am currently engaged in doctoral research with young people undergoing child protection proceedings.

Ruth Gill My experience with children started as a children’s nanny to bereaved families and progressed to working in a further education-based nursery as an assistant. I quickly progressed to management, which was a real challenge as my training is Early Years based and I really missed having consistent contact with children. I continued to study at HE level and could justify spending more time with children for my research into the key person approach. Teaching in HE allows me to share my passion for quality interactions between staff and children with a wide audience of new and experienced practitioners.

Ann Whitehouse I started my career as an NNEB and worked for a number of years in nursery education. More recently, I have worked as an Early Years lecturer in FE and have played an integral role in develop-ing a foundation degree in Early Years for experienced practition-ers. I am currently a senior lecturer at Staffordshire University, working with full-time and part-time students on Early Childhood Studies programmes and I am an award leader for the founda-tion degree. My specifi c interests are related to the development of Early Years’ pedagogy and my research always involves listen-ing to practitioners’ experiences and views.

SAM

PLE Foreword

I am pleased and honoured to introduce this book to you. It has been written by a team I know well as I was the external examiner and consultant to their Early Years programme at Staffordshire University when it was expanding rapidly, across the Midlands and Northwest, both in the number of colleges, and consequently the large number of students, it encom-passed. At the same time it developed a variety of courses from foundation through to post-graduate degrees. This is a dedicated and knowledgeable team, one of the most hard-working I have known in my long career, committed to the highest levels of academic learning and professional practice.

The team’s vast knowledge and experience in the fi eld are clearly refl ected in this publication. How the authors found time to research and write it in the midst of their hectic schedules, I do not know; yet they have managed to produce a book which more than meets the needs of students and practitioners, from their earliest undergraduate days through to masters degrees and beyond. They analyse a theme – refl ection – which is threaded through many professional pathways, particularly in teaching in its fullest sense, but rarely pulled apart. Consequently few of us have ever been secure in what refl ection actually means, how to do it and then how to apply the outcomes of our thoughts to the situations in which we fi nd our-selves. This book gives us not only techniques to try but, more importantly, it demystifi es the process and in doing so offers confi dence and trust in our own abilities to analyse and thus value what we have experienced. It moves away from the negative connotations of refl ection and helps us to dwell more on the positive aspects of what we achieve every day, which Carol Hayes rightly considers allows us to use our experience to make sense of complex profes-sional judgements ( Chapter 1 ). In Chapter 2 Ruth Gill has selected a practitioner’s statement which encapsulates something we should all learn to do in our often hectic lives: I always refl ect on the past 24 hours and recall fi ve things I am grateful for and then I record this in my journal (p 35). Chapter 3 offers us a thorough interpretation of the role of a critical friend. Like the term ‘refl ection’, ‘critical friend’ has been introduced into the Early Years arena without much thought given to what it really means and how it is used. Ann Whitehouse has given the term a purpose, using the thoughts and discussions of two of her former students to bring life and meaning to the concept.

Throughout the book, there are strong indications not only of a deep knowledge of the sub-ject matter but also a commitment to revealing its value to the members of the Early Years

SAM

PLE

Foreword • ix

cadre. To do this the team has utilised examples from practice, posed questions designed to help readers think through any issues and provided a range of references as guidance in fur-ther reading and research as well as to inform day-to-day practice. All this is cemented, how-ever, in a solid framework of scholarship, drawing on up-to-date research and writing as well as classical theory and studies across the centuries. The authors have engaged their readers with some delightful analogies. I particularly enjoyed Carol’s comparisons with swimming and Ann’s use of the ‘nose’ tale from Asimov. Each author has chosen excerpts from favour-ite books, poetry, plays or quotations to captivate their audience from the beginning of their chapters. I enjoyed this and I think others will, too. Practitioners are readers of stories, as well as raconteurs. Stories enrich our lives as well as helping us to understand others’ lives from their perspective – surely an inherent part of the ability to refl ect on our relationships within the workplace? Mandy Duncan introduces Chapter 7 with a particularly apt poem as she starts her investigation into racism; it includes many powerful points for practitioners to consider as they make a response to the children with whom they work. She continues in Chapter 8 starting with a quote from Nelson Mandela, then offers a number of hard-hitting examples of childhood poverty and its effects from across the world. The story of Bob and his Bugatti certainly made me refl ect deeply on the self-righteous assumption I had made from my comfortable settee. Throughout, the authors have not shied away from confronting diffi -cult topics and often take a novel approach in their refl ections. In Chapter 10 , Carol, Mandy and Ann have revisited multi-agency working and its inherent problems but have stressed the centrality of the child rather than the issues of working together; this central premise, to my way of thinking, is often neglected in battles, for example, over professional status and funding. Also within this chapter is a discussion of Bentham and his Panopticon. Along with Ruth’s considerations on emotional availability in Chapter 6 and Carol’s reworking of obser-vation and assessment in Chapter 5 , this raised crucial questions about the environment in which small children and their families fi nd themselves in today’s society. So much data is now collected on our children, two-year-olds are targeted in the move to prevent failure and mothers are to be surveyed to ensure there are strong emotional attachments to their chil-dren; but we have to be sure, once again, that as practitioners we place the child’s needs foremost, not subject them to the needs of the state. This book gives us the language to be able to do what is best for children.

Jayne has brought new insights to leadership in Chapter 9 , again stressing the centrality of the child and an ethical and moral commitment to leading our teams in a way which supports us in ensuring this focus endures. Carol ends in Chapter 11 with a refl ection on managing change and how using action research can help to do this.

I have left my refl ection on Jayne Daly’s Chapter 4 till last, not because this implies any anx-iety about its content but because what she had to say plays such an important part in how Early Years practitioners, whether in their fi rst post in nursery or school or as childminders, feel about themselves. Recently the main emphasis on transition has applied to the moves that affect children – out of the home to nursery, nursery to school and so on. Here, Jayne has looked at the transitions that concern adults. She cleverly uses themes from ‘Educating Rita’ as an introduction and never underestimates the impact a move, say, to university has on an adult, particularly those from a non-traditional background. When I fi rst started to lecture at university, I spent months, perhaps years, thinking someone would expose me. I

SAM

PLE

x • Foreword

did not feel worthy of this appointment, what did I have to offer, I was not clever enough … it took me a while to realise that so many in our fi eld felt like this (mostly women!) but rarely felt secure enough to share their feelings. I so wish I had had a book like this, but I thank my students for giving me the confi dence I needed. What this book does is to make us think deeply about our strengths as well as our fl aws and recognise our ability to accept new cir-cumstances and change. Well done, girls.

Angela D Nurse , June 2014

SAM

PLE

Harry stared at the stone basin. The contents had returned to their original, silvery white state swirling and rippling beneath his gaze.

‘What is it?’ Harry asked shakily.

‘This? It is called a Pensieve,’ said Dumbledore. ‘I sometimes fi nd, and I am sure that you know the feeling, that I simply have too many thoughts and memories crammed into my mind.’

‘Err,’ said Harry who couldn’t truthfully say that he had ever felt anything of the sort.

‘At these times,’ said Dumbledore, indicating the stone basin, ‘I use the Pensieve. One simply siphons the excess thoughts from one’s mind, pours them into the basin, and examines them at one’s leisure. It becomes easier to spot patterns and links, you understand, when they are in this form.’

(J K Rowling, 2000 )

What is refl ection? Can you swim? When you go to the swimming pool do you dive in with a fl ourish or do you lower yourself into the water carefully and with trepidation? Are you comfortable at the deep end where you cannot put your feet down or do you wade in slowly ensuring that you know how to get back?

Refl ection is a little like this. You can lean over the pool looking at the blue water glistening in the sunlight and see your refl ection looking back at you and while the pool is not disturbed your image is clear and easy to see. Once other people enter the pool the water starts to move and ripple and your refl ection gets more diffi cult to assess. When children enter the water, the splash-ing and energy with which they engage makes it even harder to see your refl ection clearly.

1 The nature of refl ective practice

CAROL HAYES

SAM

PLE

2 • Developing as a Refl ective Early Years Professional

When you see your refl ection in the water do you say

• Oh look there’s me? or

• Is this what I want to be like?

When you look into the water do you see who you expect to see or can you see someone else at your shoulder? Those of you who are confi dent swimmers, like confi dent practitioners, are happy to take the plunge and accept the challenges of the deep water with no armbands or life jacket. As you dive in, the water opens up for you to see as you explore the depths of the pool, touching the bottom, perhaps gathering new things from the fl oor of the pool. These practitioners perfect their style and levels of confi dence by listening to friends and instruc-tors, talking to others who have observed them and perhaps reading about how water is displaced, aerodynamic shapes, speed and velocity.

However, most of us slip gingerly into the cold pool, putting a toe into the water of refl ective practice; needing instructors to keep us afl oat and to help us to take our feet off the bottom, change our style and review our practices.

It is common to hear Early Years practitioners say:

• We can do the job so why do we need to do more?

• I have been in the job for the last 30 years and have vast experience; I do not need to do more.

• Forget about what you were taught in college. This is the real world!

Sylva et al ( 2004 ) documented, in The Effective Provision of Pre-school Education (EPPE) Project, that Early Years settings run by critically refl ective, well-qualifi ed staff were more effectively run, more refl ective and more open to change and challenge . The evidence for the importance of refl ective practice is so compelling that it cannot be ignored any more.

Like the experienced swimmer and diver, the refl ective practitioner is the one with vision, the ability to judge the depth of the water, the temperature of the water and the content of the water and has creative fl air as they dive. With this ability they are able to be responsive and creative in their practice. The experienced swimming instructor is there to take you by the hand and guide you through further training, which will give you better understanding, develop your confi dence and resilience and encourage your refl ection upon events, critical incidents and experiences past, present and future. So too is a book like this designed to take you through the processes and hold your hand when the refl ection appears scary, to raise your levels of confi dence and your image as an advanced practitioner.

Refl ection could be considered a synonym for ‘thought process’ which involves looking back at events and asking questions, looking forward and crystal ball gazing. Refl ection involves a self-assessment or self-appraisal of practice and competence at a given time and in a given situation. It is about looking for learning points within the refl ection, about striving for better understanding and eventually identifying future developmental needs.

SAM

PLE

The nature of refl ective practice • 3

Is there really a defi nition? The original defi nition of refl ection in education probably came from Dewey ( 1933 ), who discusses refl ection in the light of professionalism, and this was developed further by Sch ö n ( 1983 ), into a process he called ‘refl ective practice’. How often have you heard the phrase That’s all very well in theory but what about here in the nursery, what use is that here in the real world? from practitioners looking for real solutions to real problems? However, Sch ö n ( 1983 ) saw this as a serious misunderstanding of the relationship of theory to practice. He thought that attributing to professionals knowledge and autonomy in their work granted them extraordinary rights and privileges in return for their very special contribution to soci-ety. His concern about this led to his idea that there are two types of refl ection, refl ection on action and refl ection in action.

Refl ection on action Refl ection on action is looking back, so it can only be done retrospectively, once the situation has happened and a possible solution has been found. This then involves asking questions such as:

• Are these the right solutions?

• Are there other solutions?

• What would be the consequences if different solutions had been found?

If you are a driver you could liken this to replaying a ‘near miss’ in your mind; as a practitioner this is perhaps an incident with a parent that was not resolved satisfactorily – the scenario of If only I had … .

Refl ection in action As a concept this is more debatable, and you could question whether it is even possible to refl ect while entrenched within the situation. As a driver there are times when actions are unconscious, for example changing gears and braking. For the practitioner this might be routines such as reading a story or serving a meal. You do them automatically, but refl ecting in action is when you switch to conscious mode and start to ‘think on your feet’. This might involve changing the activity in response to a new situation which has occurred and draw-ing more consciously on a range of familiar strategies. Sch ö n’s representation of refl ection could perhaps appear to be somewhat simplistic or account insuffi ciently for the context and background of the refl ection. Moon ( 1999 ) questions whether it is even achievable to refl ect at the time and suggests that you need to step away from the situation and look back in context and time. However, looking back into the past can be limited by perception and what you remember, and if you ask several people what they remember about the same incident they will often ‘remember’ it differently. Psychologists such as Hunter ( 1970 ) have shown that the further away in time you are from a situation the less you remember about it and, more disturbingly, you may even appear to remember things related to the event that never

SAM

PLE


transpired. Interestingly, in the legal system this is readily recognised and statements relat-ing to an incident are known to be more accurate if they are taken as soon as possible or within 24 hours of the incident taking place (HSE, 2003 ). Hunter ( 1970 ) demonstrated that recollections on the second day have a few inaccuracies but, by the third day, the inaccur-acies of the second day were taken as real memories and further inaccuracies occurred. In fact, incorrect responses to memories increase exponentially with the passage of time even when given by a competent professional under favourable conditions, so completely accur-ate recall is rare (Hunter, 1970 ). This response to memory can also be infl uenced by the prac-titioner’s own values, culture, education, age, prejudices and assumptions (HSE, 2003 ). This emphasises the importance of refl ecting upon the ‘here and now’ and even refl ecting into the future, that is, on what you would like to happen, with a commitment to your extended professionalism. The more you do something, the more routine an activity is, the less likely you are to think about it, so activities in the nursery such as toileting, meal times and greet-ing times are often taken for granted and less likely to be put under the spotlight of scrutiny and refl ection. The process of choosing which activities to refl ect upon can also be a diffi cult one, with practitioners often feeling that small events or routines are not worthy of close examination, wanting to refl ect upon large projects, major incidents and key moments in the day. Frequently you may want to refl ect upon things that went wrong, debating how they could have been better or how they could be avoided, but it is as important to refl ect upon the things that you do well, and consider why they are so good and what makes them this way. In the things that go well you can see good practice that could be replicated in other contexts and used as solutions to the diffi cult moments or to help other situations that you fi nd more challenging. It is important to refl ect upon good practice to ensure that it remains so, and that it is challenged from time to time as groups change, systems change and con-texts are different. Could the good practice be ‘even better practice’ or even ‘outstanding practice’? The process of refl ection in action, therefore, really means thinking about your assumptions and the everyday things that you take for granted. This does not imply that you need change for the sake of change, but that you develop a deeper understanding of your own practice and of why you do the things in the way that you do, that is to seek a rationale for their existence.

The whole concept of refl ection moved on from Dewey and Sch ö n and Boud, Keogh and Walker (1985) describe refl ection as:

an important human activity in which people recapture their experience, think about it, mull it over and evaluate it.

(p 43)

This is clearly a much broader and more fl uid description and like Moon ( 1999 ) it equates refl ection with learning. Moon ( 1999 ) suggests that you can refl ect upon things for which there is not necessarily an obvious solution, and associates refl ection with a range of feel-ings which can be emotional and even spiritual, but certainly a part of the mental processing. Moon ( 1999 ) also develops the concept of refl ection by emphasising the purposive nature of the process. You usually refl ect upon something in order to have an outcome, a solution, so it becomes a processing of knowledge, understanding and emotion:

SAM

PLE


a form of mental processing with a purpose and/or anticipated outcome that is applied to relatively complex or unstructured ideas for which there is no obvious solution.

(Moon, 1999 , p 23)

Osterman and Kottkamp ( 1993 ) brought into the process the concept of analysis, ie that refl ection starts with an element of curiosity, of asking questions and questioning accepted assumptions:

through refl ection and analysis we strive to understand the experience, (p 23)

Ruch ( 2002 ), like Sch ö n, saw the importance of theory and research to the refl ective process. She saw that practitioners are often reluctant to see research in the light of real experiences and tend to dismiss them as theoretically remote, impracticable and unusable. This builds upon Sch ö n ( 1983 ) who talked about the ‘technical rationality’ where knowledge is divorced from experience, and the values and understanding that underpin practice are never ques-tioned. Some practitioners believe that this is the way that it has always been done and do not question whether it is still appropriate despite possible changes to the team, changes in customer expectation, changes to the physical fabric of the setting or changes of local and national politics and policy over the years.

The refl ective process The human brain probably processes some 50,000 to 60,000 thoughts every day. As we encounter diffi culties and problems in our daily lives we consult what Raelin ( 2002 ) calls our ‘ solution database’, which contains all the elements that we have learned in the past to fi nd answers to everyday problems . Of course accepting this means that there is a fi nite number of possible solutions and no elements of the database will enable us to tackle new, and so far unencountered, problems. This method of problem solving does not allow you to think ‘outside the box’. However, by thinking about thinking and other such metacognitive processes, by refl ecting on your thoughts and those of others, you are able to add to your ‘solution database’, to expand ideas and give new meaning to old ideas and older situations. Clearly this type of personal refl ection demonstrates great benefi t to professional practice, enabling new solutions, creative ideas and imaginative, resourceful thinking to fl ow into set-tings. By sharing your refl ections with others you open up your thoughts and assumptions to public scrutiny and public examination, but this also allows your thinking to incorporate the ideas of others and you can thereby learn from your actions.

Every situation you may fi nd yourself in will be different – different contexts, different employ-ment cultures, different relationships and so on. Although your existing ‘solution database’ can lead you in certain directions and give clues for solutions, if no two situations are the same then it is likely that no two solutions will be the same either. This implies that, as you look at a new situation, you need to look for similarities with what you have already experi-enced, but you also need to look at the differences.

SAM

PLE


So you should put into the refl ective process what you already know or believe, but add new material from your observations, from research, from peers, colleagues and even the chil-dren and families in your care, and then draw out something that relates to the reason for that refl ection in the fi rst place.

Grushka, Hinde-McLeod and Reynolds (2005) bring in a further suggestion of ‘refl ection for action’. This they describe as prospective refl ection, and some refer to this as crystal ball gazing, allowing the practitioner to consider where they want to be in the future, refl ection upon future developments, meeting perceived needs or career planning. However, the crys-tal ball gazing should not be so introspective that it becomes naval gazing, which narrows the process to such an extent that it ceases to take account of the wider context and the epigenesis (that is the bi-directional relationship) between the environment and the person. Prospective refl ection can be likened to looking through a holiday brochure before you go away. You get ideas of what it might be like, what you might do, or who you might meet. It is like superimposing yourself into the picture and imagining the feelings, actions and experi-ences that will ensue, enabling you to be more prepared when you fi nally meet with this experience in the future.

So what is refl ective practice? Refl ective practice requires practitioners who already see themselves as active research-ers and learners, who explore their values and benefi ts and regularly set learning goals for themselves and their settings. It is about looking beyond refl ection to a wider context which incorporates care and education in a political sphere, the curriculum, pedagogy and innov-ation. Not all practitioners are refl ective learning practitioners and for many the learning stopped when they left formal education with their licence to practice. This is often evident in the quality of their practice and the experiences that they offer to the children in their care as well as their resistance to change and a change culture, as highlighted by the Nutbrown Review ( 2012 ).

An individual does not stop learning and developing once they have completed their initial training and become qualifi ed … they need further training to enhance and develop their knowledge and skills, and to keep pace with new research and developments .

(Nutbrown, 2012 , p 4.23)

CASE STUDY The brush-off

Practitioner: Following my discussion with the parents of James, I am really concerned that we are not connecting with parents enough and the concept of parent partnership in the nursery is not working as well as it should. I would like to propose that we have a meeting with parents and staff to discuss this and fi nd out how we could develop this relationship further.

CASE STUDY The brush-off

Practitioner: Following my discussion with the parents of James, I am really concerned that we are not connecting with parents enough and the concept of parent partnership in the nursery is not working as well as it should. I would like to propose that we have a meeting with parents and staff to discuss this and fi nd out how we could develop this relationship further.rr

SAM

PLE


Manager: Thank you for that suggestion but you will not remember that we did have a meeting a couple of years ago, before you arrived at the nursery, and it really did not work with only two parents turning up. The staff felt that it was a waste of time.

Refl ective activity How do you think that the practitioner should react to the manager? »

How could you further develop the relationship with James’ parents? »

What advantages can you see for James and the other staff within the nursery? »

It is apparent that the manager in the case study is entrenched in her ideas and closed to any concept of change. Perhaps she even feels threatened by a practitioner who appears critical of the system that she has been responsible for for some time. There is no suggestion by the manager that refl ecting upon what has happened in the years since parent partnership policies were last reviewed would achieve anything, despite the change in team, in customer base and the inspectoral requirements. If the manager continues to block new ideas and resist change and suggestions, there is a danger that eventually staff will give up thinking about what they are doing and will no longer strive for improvement through their refl ection. This could produce a stagnation of the processes and procedures within the setting, which could leave children with a bland and unvisionary experience, lacking in creativity, thereby reducing the learning environment to one of benign and limited means.

Raelin ( 2002 ) describes refl ective practice as the:

practice of periodically stepping back to ponder the meaning of what has recently transpired to ourselves and to others in our immediate environment. It illuminates what the self and others have experienced, providing a basis for further action. In particular, it privileges the process of enquiry, leading to an understanding of experiences that may have been overlooked in practice.

(p 1)

The whole concept of refl ective practice therefore carries multiple meanings, from solitary introspection to a critical dialogue of thinking and learning. Some have described this solitary dialogue as nothing more than self-indulgent but Ghaye ( 2000 ) refers to this inter-subjective refl ection or the relational context and mutual collaboration as a ‘refl ective conversation’. Practitioners can formalise it and record it, even manufacture it, as may be required for inspection purposes, or it may be a more ongoing and fl uid experience which goes unre-corded and undocumented, but is nevertheless helpful as practitioners strive to make sense and meaning of the moral and social values that underpin their work.

Manager: Thank you for that suggestion but you will not remember that we did have a meeting a couple of years ago, before you arrived at the nursery, and it really did not work with only two parents turning up. The staff felt that it was a waste of time.

SAM

PLE


CASE STUDY Triggers Nursery

Triggers Nursery is a long-established setting of over 20 years. Many of the staff have been at the setting since the start. The nursery originally attracted large numbers of mono-cul-tural middle-class families, but over the years the demographics of the community have changed and these children and families have slowly been replaced by children from immi-grant families, often with a poor grasp of English speaking skills and largely unemployed and on benefi ts.

As the population shifted many of the staff found themselves unable to understand the cultural lives of the children and their families and the quality of practice within the nursery started to decline, affecting the whole ethos of the setting.

Refl ective activity Imagine that you are the new manager of Triggers Nursery. How would you start to »address the issues of equipping your staff with the refl ective tools required to help them to better understand the dynamics and new remit of the setting?

How would you create an open and unthreatening working environment where staff »feel able to discuss their feelings and values with no fear of prejudice or reprisal?

Refl ective models If you have looked at other texts on refl ective practice you will have noted that there are almost as many models of refl ective practice as there are writers in the fi eld. Why is there such a proliferation of differing models of refl ection? Is it just that researchers and writers cannot agree what it is, or do the models described simply lack consensus and clarity? Some of the key models are examined here to allow you a fl avour of their similarities and differ-ences. Most start by describing an incident and then encourage use of your own knowledge, that of your peers and colleagues, and evidence from theory and research in an attempt to understand what has been described.

The refl ective pyramid This relationship between the various forms of knowledge can be seen more easily as pyr-amidal (see Figure 1.1).

• At the top of the pyramid is you – your personal refl ection on your own life, aspirations, career plans, values and emotions .

Further down is what you share with your colleagues and peers. Consider how much • you let them into your thoughts and refl ections, and how much is within your control. Revealing your refl ections can be likened to the ‘dance of the seven veils’ in which the dancer removes one veil at a time before exposing herself completely.

CASE STUDY Triggers Nursery

Triggers Nursery is a long-established setting of over 20 years. Many of the staff have been at the setting since the start. The nursery originally attracted large numbers of mono-cul-tural middle-class families, but over the years the demographics of the community have changed and these children and families have slowly been replaced by children from immi-grant families, often with a poor grasp of English speaking skills and largely unemployed and on benefi ts.

As the population shifted many of the staff found themselves unable to understand the cultural lives of the children and their families and the quality of practice within the nursery started to decline, affecting the whole ethos of the setting.

SAM

PLE


At the base of the pyramid is research and theoretical understanding and this really • is the rock upon which all the rest is founded. You may not always appreciate how much this infl uences your everyday practice. It is not just your own understanding of the theories that you learned in college or through your reading, but it is how the wider context of government and society is infl uenced by new theoretical understanding and discovery that affects your conversations with colleagues and your own internal conversations. This in turn will allow you to see yourself within that context and how this will affect your practice. All models vary in how prescriptive they are but need to be seen not as a straitjacket – rigid, infl exible and mechanistic – but as a tool for learning. Different models may suit different contexts or the same context at different times. No one model will suit all of the people all of the time. Different models continue to be written to accommodate different professional groups and different groups within those professions. It is therefore likely that it is neither possible nor even desirable to use one defi nitive model.

The Kolb Cycle Although Kolb ( 1984 ) is frequently referred to in the context of refl ection, the Kolb Cycle is just as often referred to as the Kolb Learning Cycle. Kolb has been criticised by Boud et al ( 1985 ) for not specifi cally detailing the process of refl ection within his diagram. However, the whole model is based very fi rmly in practice and in the personal experiential experience. Kolb lays great store by the importance of observation and in particular refl ective observation (which is discussed in more detail in Chapter 5 ).

However, maybe experience is not enough. The practitioner who claims to have been in the job for 20 years and therefore has 20 years of experience to call upon when making decisions, could have had 20 years of the same experience and have been doing the same thing in the same way for all that time without really refl ecting upon this in an intelligent and refl exive manner.

The Kolb model also talks of ‘abstract conceptualisation’, which moves from practical experi-ence through an understanding of the ‘why’ as well as the ‘what’. This is the point at which the refl ective practitioner needs to say:

• This is what I do but why do I do it like this?

• Are there other solutions, maybe better solutions, to the problems?

Personal

Colleagues and peers

Research and theoreticalunderstanding

Figure 1.1 The refl ective pyramid

SAM

PLE


The practical experience is shaped and developed by an abstract conceptualisation of the issue. In Kolb’s cycle this leads into planning and trying out some of the new ideas that have been developed from that interplay between theory and practice. Kolb ( 1984 ) can be accused of being too simplistic and sequential and lacking in an understanding of the effect that emotion can play on change and the reason for change at a particular time in a particu-lar way. Kolb, like Sch ö n, was concerned only with observable behaviour, what he called the ‘objective observer’, and the thoughts, feelings and values of a practitioner are not seen as important to the refl ective process. This objectivity and evidence-based theorising is benefi -cial to the researcher as it appears open and transparent, and on the surface appears to add reliability to the model. However, it also has the potential to seriously limit the validity and reliability of the refl ection by failing to recognise the part played beneath the surface by feel-ings, emotions, cultural values and moral dilemmas in the refl ective process, which brings into sharp question its worth and merit.

Gibbs’ Cycle Gibbs (1998) attempted to build on Kolb’s model and to incorporate an understanding of these emotive responses into a developed model (see Figure 1.3). Gibbs attempted to respond to the human nature element of refl ection. However, as this is a frequently unseen element, a moving variable that cannot easily be replicated or understood, it is diffi cult to describe within a one-size-fi ts-all, two-dimensional model.

Concreteexperience

(Doing/having anexperience)

Abstractconceptualisation

(Concluding/learning from

the experience)

Activeexperimentation

(Planning/trying outwhat you have

learned)

Reflectiveobservation(Reviewing/

reflecting on theexperience)

Figure 1.2 Kolb’s Refl ective Cycle ( 1984 )

SAM

PLE


Description(What

happened?)

Feelings(What are youthinking and

feeling?)

Evaluation(What was good/

bad about theexperience?)

Analysis(What sense canyou make of the

situation?)

Conclusion(What else could

be done?)

Action Plan(If it arose againwhat would you

do?)

Figure 1.3 Gibbs’ Refl ective Cycle ( 1988 )

However, maybe Gibbs’ model is also too simplistic for such a complex process. It is steeped in concerns about practical experiences rather than recognising that the refl ective process could be multi-layered and there may be differing levels of refl ection. Within these levels it is important to examine the issues of value, change, commitment to quality, differentiation and diversity.

Jay and Johnson: three-tier classifi cation Jay and Johnson ( 2002 ), developed a three-tier classifi cation of refl ection based on a series of questions for the practitioner to ask themselves. This typology aimed to recognise this difference of levels and to build upon it by bringing in ethical and moral issues.

One problem with this model is that it does tend to retain Sch ö n’s idea of refl ection on action, and of refl ection only being a retrospective process with little scope for refl ection in action or prospective refl ection, refl ection for action (Grushka, Hinde-McLeod and Reynolds, 2005).

SAM

PLE


Race’s ripples model A model perhaps more suited to the experienced practitioner is Race’s updated ‘ripples’ model ( 2010 ) (see Figure 1.4). This is based on the Vygotskian theory ( 1978 ) that the best way to learn is to become actively involved in the activity and that the best teachers are those who facilitate children’s learning, rather than trying to pour in the learning from the top. Race ( 2010 ) places ‘learning by doing’ at the centre of a pool of water and shows how the ripples fan out from the centre to encompass other types of learning and refl ection.

This model is similar to Kolb in that it is dynamic and based on experiential learning but it is not sequential requiring one aspect before and following another. Race describes this as Intersecting systems of ripples on a pond (Race, 2010 ) .

Assessment

Teaching

Feedback

Making sense

Doing

Wanting and needing

Figure 1.4 The six stages of Race’s ripples model of refl ection and learning ( 2010 )

Table 1.1 Jay and Johnson ( 2002 )

Descriptive What is happening? Is this working and for whom? How am I feeling? What do I not understand?

Comparative How do other people explain what is happening? What do research and theory say? How can I improve?

Critical Can I look at this from alternative perspectives? Given my own moral and ethical stance which solution is best for this particular issue? How does this refl ective process inform and shape my perspective?

SAM

PLE


Raelin’s fi ve-stage model Raelin ( 2002 ) suggests a fi ve-stage model of refl ection:

1. Speaking … with a collective voice – this is very group-orientated and involves being willing to express some of the uncertainties and assumptions.

2. Disclosing … sharing doubts, assumptions, impatience and expressing passions. Presenting a story to uncover the depths.

3. Testing … through open enquiry to uncover possible new ways of thinking. Considering norms and taken-for-granted assumptions.

4. Probing … non-judgemental consideration of other people’s views, drawing out facts, assumptions, reasons and consequences and considering alternatives.

5. Being … Raelin sees this as the most infl uential of the fi ve, which can also be referred to as ‘mindfulness’, an awareness of a situation without trying to input meaning, but considering what we can learn from it and how the practitioner becomes a part of the whole process.

He suggests that, generally, most practitioners do not move beyond a basic approach to problem solving as shown in Figure 1.5 .

Refl exivity You have already considered how refl ective practitioners engage in critical self-refl ection, examining the impact that their own background, culture, assumptions, feelings and behav-iour have upon their practice. The refl exive practitioner also takes account of the wider political culture, current ideology, national trends and legislation. To understand the term refl exivity, Finlay and Gough ( 2003 ) describe the concept as forming a continuum (see Figure 1.6 ).

This demonstrates the bi-directional nature of the relationship between cause and effect and giving meaning to experience. Therefore refl exivity goes beyond refl ection allowing us to use our experience to make sense of complex professional judgements. Finlay ( 2008 ) talks of refl exivity as having fi ve overlapping variants with critical self-refl ection at the core.

Problem

Solutiondatabase

STOP!

Figure 1.5 Raelin ( 2002 )

Reflection Critical reflection Reflexivity

(Thinking about something) (Dynamic self-awareness)

Figure 1.6 Finlay and Gough’s ( 2003 ) refl exive continuum

SAM

PLE


Introspection … this is the one-to-one dialogue with yourself, thinking about feelings • and emotions.

Inter-subjective refl ection … thinking about the relationship between your practice • and the context in which it is set.

Mutual collaboration … what Ghaye ( 2000 ) calls • refl ective conversations , the dialogical relationship between professionals .

Social critiques … this focuses upon the wider cultural and political context within • which the professional has to work.

Ironic deconstruction … this is the analysis of the discursive practices focusing upon • the ambiguity and multiplicity of meaning.

Challenges to refl ective practice Although the process of refl ection as described here may appear long and complex, there is no need for it to be so and it may involve no more than fi ve minutes at the end of the day to refl ect upon the critical moments. It is likely that when people say that they have no time for refl ection they are talking about retrospective and prospective refl ection. This makes the ‘heat of the moment’ refl ection, what Sch ö n calls refl ection in action, all the more important . So the barrier is perhaps not one of time but of willingness to engage each other in refl ecting thoughts, feelings and actions.

That refl ective practice is desirable and was demanded by the original Early Years Foundation Stage documents (DfES, 2008) is often taken for granted, but does the process really yield satisfactory returns for the time invested in its development? The amended EYFS (DfE, 2012) has much less emphasis upon refl ective practice, but it does assume that all Early Years practitioners should be skilful, thoughtful and critical in their practice . Busy and sometimes overstretched practitioners may well feel that refl ective practice is diffi cult and time-con-suming and this could result in unthinking and unsatisfactory results. Mechanical checklists of simplistic questions are unlikely to yield a thinking and thoughtful workforce. Answering questions simply to satisfy inspection processes, with answers that the practitioner thinks the inspectorate want to hear, is also of little use to the process. One can understand why some practitioners, whose only experience of refl ective practice has been of this sort, would not think that the time invested produces credible and innovative results and solutions.

Clearly the process of refl ection should not overwhelm your practice and it needs to be used selectively. One of the aims of the New Labour Government in 2006 was to professionalise the Early Years workforce and raise the quality of provision for young children (DfES, 2006 ). A set of standards was developed to enable graduates to achieve Early Years Professional Status (EYPS) . The two essential elements of this were to be able to lead and change practice and to be a refl ective practitioner. This initiative was largely infl uenced by research conducted by Sylva et al ( 2004 ) and the Effective Provision of Pre-school Education (EPPE) Project. This demonstrated that settings run by well-qualifi ed critical thinkers were highly infl uential in producing the enabling environment required for young children to learn and thrive educa-tionally. It is interesting that the standards of physical care were shown to be less infl uenced by the qualifi cations of the staff. According to CWDC (2010a) such critical thinkers

SAM

PLE


have a clear grasp of reasons why they are acting in particular ways. They recognise their role in improving children’s experiences and life chances and in maximising their opportunities. They make decisions based on the depth of their knowledge of the EYFS and relevant theories and research. They are alive to changing circumstances and respond fl exibly with children’s interests at heart. They review, analyse and evaluate their own and others’ practice and then judge whether they are making a difference to the well-being, learning and development of children in their own and colleagues’ care.

(Children’s Workforce Development Council, 2010 , p 7)

This public scrutiny of Early Years practice can clearly be a scary business, opening us up to the risk of ridicule and attack. If you see refl ective practice in terms of success and failure then it can seem to be intimidating, which could result in defensiveness and closing down the open-minded thinking it is trying to create. Refl ective practice needs to be a continuing process, not something with an end point, viewing every situation, no matter how diffi cult, as something that can be learned from if you have the mindset to improve and go forward with grit and determination. You need to move from an approach which asks:

• What is right?

• What is good practice?

to a more inquisitorial approach of:

• How can I create effective learning environments? and

• How can I develop my setting to offer accessible and equitable practices?

Refl ective practice is not going to be effective if the profession as a whole or the setting/ workplace does not value its role in providing for the environment with coercive institutional practices. Boud and Walker ( 1998 ) suggest that managers of settings need to work hard to provide a working environment that supports both individual and collegiate refl ections and one that encourages staff to challenge the dominant culture and practice. This can be diffi -cult and has the potential to promote discord and an entrenchment of negative views as they challenge the issues of power and control.

a culture that permits questioning of assumptions is diffi cult to tolerate because it requires that people in control lose their grip on the status quo.

(Raelin, 2002 , p 68)

As a practitioner you therefore need confi dence in your practice if you are to engage with an honest self-appraisal and belong to a strong and cohesive working team which is able to confront its working processes and outcomes. A team willing to embrace change and trans-formation can engage with the whole refl ective process in a non-threatening and supportive capacity. This also allows the capacity to co-construct understanding, ideas and meaning alongside the children (see Figure 1.7).

SAM

PLE


Refl ecting, with the children taking a more active role in the process of co-constructing their learning, can have benefi ts for all parties. Through discussion and sustained shared think-ing, the children can be encouraged to ask questions and most importantly to look for solu-tions to their own problems creating learning from within rather than from above.

Another challenge could be that even using the term ‘practitioner’ could deter refl ection. A practitioner is perceived as being involved with ‘practice’, a culture of ‘doing’, a busy person constantly on the move, rather than a thinker, refl ector and researcher. Whilst there is much debate about the difference between a practitioner and a professional, a professional is more associated with words such as conscientious, engaging in constant evaluation, refl ec-tion and striving for excellence.

Ethical issues Practitioners engaged with refl ective practice need to consider the risks involved with moral judgement and ethical concerns. Issues of sensitivity to confi dentiality, privacy, informal dis-closure, rights, consent and professional relationships must be explored. There may also be consideration of how refl ections should be shared, when they should be shared and with whom. Such in-depth introspective thinking can potentially be what Brookfi eld ( 1990 ) called ‘psychologically explosive’. This constant striving for improved practice could result in a lack of confi dence in the practitioners and loss of self-esteem, resulting in negative attitudes to practices.

Seeing ourselves as life-long learners within the setting is probably the fi rst step to engaging with refl ective practice as well as understanding how practitioners making sense of their own beliefs, values and perceptions has important implications for their practice, teaching and learning with the children.

Refl ective activity Identify someone in your past who was a favourite teacher/carer/playgroup leader, etc. What characteristics do you think they had that make you remember them so many years later?

Theoretical understanding

Personal

reflection

PracticeChildren and pedagogy

Group reflection

Figure 1.7 Co-construction of meaning

SAM

PLE


Make a list of their characteristics as you remember them. »

How do you think that you compare to these? »

The fi rst one has been done as an example.

Now examine the list of your characteristics and consider a recent incident in your »practice; how do you think these affected the way in which you dealt with the episode?

Can you fi nd an example of each of your characteristics in your own experience? »

Chapter refl ections What we have seen in this chapter is that refl ective practice is often hard to do effectively. The nature of the activity changes with context, different environments, organisations and relationships and all of these will demand different ways to refl ect. The multiplicity and proliferation of models of refl ection show that either there is simply a lack of consensus about a defi nition of refl ective practice or there are genuinely different ways to refl ect depending upon the context and area of professional practice. The problem with imposing a specifi c model is that it leaves little scope for practitioners to draw upon their own professional judgements, feelings and values. The practitioner who unthinkingly follows a particular model could render their practice more mechanical and mechanistic, which is the total opposite of Sch ö n’s original idea of ‘professional artistry’. This suggests that, although different models are needed for the particular needs of differing professions and contexts within those professions, there is no one model that can be held up as the perfect model and the defi nitive answer. Refl ective practice should be a means to an end and not an end in itself.

Models need to be applied selectively, purposefully, fl exibly and judiciously. (Finlay, 2008 , p 10)

What is ultimately important is that you learn from your refl ections and from the invest-ment of time and effort that you put into the process.

Pick up on apparently insignifi cant happenings and connect them to indicate »patterns and consequences.

Characteristics of my favourite practitioner

Characteristics of me as a practitioner

He was understanding and tried hard to comprehend why I found something hard to do.

I try hard to see an incident from a range of perspectives.

SAM

PLE


Review issues by looking at them through another person’s eyes or seeing things in »a new light.

Recognise how your own prior experience, feelings, values and emotions can affect »your practice.

Understand the importance of looking for innovative ideas and new creative »solutions.

Have the confi dence in your own knowledge and practice to try new and innovative »ways of approaching tasks.

If you are privileged to be working with young children and their families you owe it to them to be as knowledgeable, skilful, ethical, moral and refl ective as you can be. The following acronym may help you remember the key aspects of refl ection:

R egular and relevant

E thical

F eelings

L earning

E valuation

C hange

T ime

CASE STUDY Aleesha’s story

Three weeks after I started at Triggers Nursery I had to deal with a parent complaining about the way a junior member of staff had dealt with their child who had bitten another. I was required to help the staff member to write up the incident in an incident report book. After talking to the parent I was immediately worried. I was scared that I had not said the right things and was unable to answer her questions properly. It felt a bit like when I was train-ing and had to give a presentation about a child being bullied, and the tutor was asking me questions. I didn’t know what to say so thought that I could perhaps make up some good answers and bluster my way through it even though this was bluffi ng! On both occasions that was helpful in maintaining my confi dence at the time but it could so easily have gone wrong and I have seen others come unstuck by making it up as they go along.

As I was a new manager it was important to me that all contacts with parents went well and that I could create a good impression, maybe I wanted too much to do well. I now toss and turn in bed at night thinking about it, and feel as though it was a disaster.

I need to think why the conversation with the parent had such an effect on me, my voice was ‘wobbly’ and my efforts to remain calm were frustrated. Colleagues in the nursery said

CASE STUDY Aleesha’s story

Three weeks after I started at Triggers Nursery I had to deal with a parent complaining about the way a junior member of staff had dealt with their child who had bitten another. I was required to help the staff member to write up the incident in an incident report book. After talking to the parent I was immediately worried. I was scared that I had not said the right things and was unable to answer her questions properly. It felt a bit like when I was train-ing and had to give a presentation about a child being bullied, and the tutor was asking me questions. I didn’t know what to say so thought that I could perhaps make up some good answers and bluster my way through it even though this was bluffi ng! On both occasions that was helpful in maintaining my confi dence at the time but it could so easily have gone wrong and I have seen others come unstuck by making it up as they go along.

As I was a new manager it was important to me that all contacts with parents went well and that I could create a good impression, maybe I wanted too much to do well. I now toss and turn in bed at night thinking about it, and feel as though it was a disaster.

I need to think why the conversation with the parent had such an effect on me, my voice was ‘wobbly’ and my efforts to remain calm were frustrated. Colleagues in the nursery said

SAM

PLE


afterwards that I looked in control despite what I was feeling, but did they really mean that or were they just trying to be kind?

As I think back maybe it was not as bad as it seemed. My colleagues seem to think that I dealt with the altercation well. Perhaps I need to think about how I will react to such a sensitive situation in the future and maybe I will do some research on the internet for some advice about assertiveness, or perhaps go on that leadership course that they do at the University.

One week later

I am feeling more positive about things now although I am still feeling a bit cross. I have started to read some material about appraising a situation and not letting one thing dom-inate my life. I think that I understand better now what was happening and this has given me more confi dence in my ability to engage with parents in the future. As I write this I real-ise how useful it is to refl ect on things and to write them down so that I can see the same situation from a range of different perspectives. I can see that there were things that I had not thought about in this situation, such as the parent’s limited understanding of English, perhaps she had been bullied as a child, or maybe the child was unwell, tired or stressed on the day. I can also see the areas in which I could improve, knowing where I went wrong and admitting to the mistakes has perhaps given me the chance to improve.

Refl ective activity What challenges did the manager encounter both personally and professionally? »

How do you think that retrospective refl ection (refl ection on action) helped her to »understand what happened?

How could refl ection in action have helped her to respond better at the time? »

How could prospective refl ection help her to plan what she will do in the future? »

What could she now share with her colleagues in case they are ever in the same »position, so that they could learn from her experience, and how could this be achieved?

Can you think of a situation where you have struggled professionally and could the »three types of refl ection discussed in this chapter have helped you? Explain your answer.

Further reading Hallet , E ( 2013 ) The Refl ective Early Years Practitioner . London : Sage .

This is a very vocationally orientated view of refl ective practice which sets refl ection into a range of different Early Years contexts. This book has something useful for all levels from level 2 to postgraduate staff, and contains several excellent practical and pedagogical examples to enable you to consider

afterwards that I looked in control despite what I was feeling, but did they really mean that or were they just trying to be kind??

As I think back maybe it was not as bad as it seemed. My colleagues seem to think that I dealt with the altercation well. Perhaps I need to think about how I will react to such a sensitive situation in the future and maybe I will do some research on the internet for some advice about assertiveness, or perhaps go on that leadership course that they do at the University.

One week later

I am feeling more positive about things now although I am still feeling a bit cross. I have started to read some material about appraising a situation and not letting one thing dom-inate my life. I think that I understand better now what was happening and this has given me more confi dence in my ability to engage with parents in the future. As I write this I real-ise how useful it is to refl ect on things and to write them down so that I can see the same situation from a range of different perspectives. I can see that there were things that I had not thought about in this situation, such as the parent’s limited understanding of English, perhaps she had been bullied as a child, or maybe the child was unwell, tired or stressed on the day. I can also see the areas in which I could improve, knowing where I went wrong and admitting to the mistakes has perhaps given me the chance to improve.

SAM

PLE


your problem-solving options. There is a particularly useful chapter to enhance your reading on ‘Work-Based Refl ective Pedagogy’.

References Boud , D and Walker , D ( 1998 ) Promoting Refl ection in Professional Courses: The Challenge of Context .

Studies in Higher Education , 23 (2): 191 –206.

Boud , D , Keogh , R and Walker , D ( 1985 ) Refl ection: Turning Experience into Learning . London : Kogan Page .

Brookfi eld , S ( 1990 ) Using Critical Incidents to Explore Learners’ Assumptions, in Mezirow , J (ed), Fostering Critical Refl ection in Adulthood . San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.

Children’s Workforce Development Council (CWDC) ( 2010 ) On the Right Track . Leeds : CWDC .

Department for Education (DfE) ( 2012 ) Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage: Setting the Standards for Learning, Development and Care for Children from Birth to Five . London : Department for Education .

Department for Education and Skills (DfES) ( 2006 ) Children’s Workforce Strategy: Building a World-Class Workforce for Children, Young People and Families . Nottingham : DfES Publications .

Department for Education and Skills (DfES) ( 2008 ) The Practice Guidance for the Early Years Foundation Stage . London : Department for Education and Skills .

Dewey , J ( 1933 ) How Do We Think? Boston, MA : DC Heath and Co .

Finlay , L ( 2008 ) Refl ecting on ‘Refl ective Practice’, PBL paper 52, www.open.ac.uk/pbpl (accessed 4 June 2013).

Finlay , L and Gough , B ( 2003 ) Refl exivity: A Practical Guide for Researchers in Health and Social Sciences . Oxford : Blackwell Publishing .

Ghaye , T ( 2000 ) Into the Refl ective Mode: Bridging the Stagnant Moat . Refl ective Practice , 1 (1): 5 –9.

Gibbs , G ( 1998 ) Learning by Doing: A Guide to Teaching and Learning Methods . Oxford: Further Education Unit , Oxford Polytechnic .

Grushka, K , Hinde McLeod, J and Reynolds, R ( 2005 ) Refl ecting Upon Refl ection: Theory and Practice in one Australian University Teacher Education Programme . Refl ective Practice , 6 (2): 239 –46.

Health and Safety Executive ( 2003 ) HSE Enforcement Guide, www.hse.gov.uk/enforcementguide (accessed 8 July 2013) .

Hunter , I M L ( 1970 ) Memory . Middlesex : Pelican .

Jay , J K and Johnson , K L ( 2002 ) Capturing Complexity: A Typology of Refl ective Practice for Teacher Education . Teaching and Teacher Education , 18 : 73 –85.

Kolb , D A ( 1984 ) Experiential Learning Experience as a Source of Learning and Development . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Moon , J ( 1999 ) Refl ection in Learning and Professional Development . London : Kogan Page .

Nutbrown , C ( 2012 ) Foundations for Quality: The Independent Review of Early Education and Childcare Qualifi cations . London : Crown.

SAM

PLE


Osterman , K and Kottkamp , R ( 1993 ) Refl ective Practice for Educators: Improving Schooling through Professional Development . Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage .

Race , P ( 2010 ) Making Learning Happen . London : Sage .

Raelin , J A ( 2002 ) ‘ I Don’t Have Time to Think!’ versus the Art of Refl ective Practice . Refl ections , 4(1): 66–79.

Rowling , J K ( 2000 ) Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire . New York : Scholastic Inc .

Ruch , G ( 2002 ) From Triangle to Spiral: Refl ective Practice in Social Work, Practice and Research . Social Work Education , 21(2): 199–216.

Sch ö n , D ( 1983 ) The Refl ective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action . New York : Basic Books .

Sylva , K , Melhuish , E , Sammons , P , Siraj-Blatchford , I and Taggart , B. ( 2004 ) The Effective Provision of Pre-school Education (EPPE) Project; Technical Paper 12 – The Final Report: Effective Pre-school Education . London : DfES/ Institute of Education .

Vygotsky , L S ( 1978 ) Mind and Society: The Development of Higher Mental Processes . Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press .

SAM

PLE

ABC of well-being, 96–97 abstract conceptualisation, 9–10 accountability, 28 , 158 , 169–170 , 182 , 189 action research, 185–189 , 187 , 187–188 , 188 ,

201–202 challenges of, 189–192 and change management 199–201 interpersonal communication, 196–197 and knowledge, 197–199 and professional development, 189 research buddies, 192–194 validity of research, 194–195

Afghanistan, poverty line, 132 agency, 96–97 aid, and poverty, 141–145 AIDS/HIV, 133–134 Ainsworth, Mary, 78 Anderson, L, 162 Anning, A, 169 Asimov, Isaac, 38 assessment, observation, 89–91 Association of Teachers and Lecturers, 57 Atkinson, M, 168–169 attachment

with children, 95–104 , 108 strange situations test, 78

Aubrey, C, 151 , 159–160 autobiographical lens, 112–113 , 115 autonomy, intellectual, 131 availability, and critical friends, 43 awareness

social, 43 see also self-awareness

Bagby, L, 144 Basit, N, 59 Baskerville, D, 44 Bass, B M, 156 Baxter, A, 58 , 59 , 63–64 belonging, and well-being, 96–97 Benson-McMullen, M, 101 Bentham, Jeremy, 175 , 178–179 , 178–179 , 180 ,

181–182 Berne, Eric, 47

Birth to Three Matters (DfES), 57 , 102 Black, M, 134 Bloom, B S, 41 Blyton, Enid, 166 Bolton, G, 25 , 26 , 30 , 31 , 36 Bottery, M, 162 Boud, D, 4 , 9 , 15 Boudreau, J D, 30 Bourdieu, Pierre, 58 Bowlby, John, 95 , 99 Boyatzis, R, 43–44 Brechin, A, 27 Brine, J, 58 Britton, C, 58 , 59 , 63–64 Brockbank, A, 65 , 66 Brooker, L, 96 Brookfi eld, S, 16 , 38–39 , 44 , 51 , 112–113 Brown, H, 27 Bruner, J S, 47 Burn, M, 41 Burns, J A, 156

CAF (Common Assessment Framework), 88 cameras, use of, 82 , 177–178 Cameron, David, 179 capitalism, 136–138 CARE model, 66 , 160 , 163 caring for children, 94 , 102–103 , 104–106 Carr, M, 90 Carroll, L, 22 case studies

action research and change, 191–192 , 194 , 195 , 198–199

child poverty, 136–137 , 138–141 critical friends, 39 , 41 , 42 , 45 , 47 , 49–50 , 52 emotional attachment, 104–106 , 107–108 leadership, 151–152 , 154–155 , 157 , 159 ,

160–161 , 162 multi-professional teams, 171–173 , 176 refl ection, 6–7 , 8 , 18–19 transition to higher education, 60–61 , 62–63 ,

64–65 , 67 writing, 32 , 33 , 35–36

Cavallaro-Johnson, G, 62

Index

Page numbers in italics are fi gures; with ’t’ are tables.

SAM

PLE

Index • 205

challenges, to refl ective practice, 14–16 Challis, R, 59 change management, 199–201 Charon, R, 30 child protection, 103–104 , 176 Childcare Act (2006), 57 Childcare Strategy (UK childcare), 57 children

development, 90 and the key person approach, 99–100 and observation, 87 rights of, 78–81 role of in refl ection, 16 see also poverty

Children Act (1989), 166 Children Act (2004), 166 , 167–168 children’s centres, 170–171 , 178 , 180 Children’s Workforce Development Council (CWDC), 15 children’s/student’s lens, 112 , 120–122 Christie, H, 57 , 59 citizenship education, 125 Climbi é , Victoria, 166 Clutterbuck, D, 24 , 65 , 66 , 160 coaching, 41 , 65–67 , 163 Code of Practice (2001), 76 ‘Cold Within, The’ (poem) (Kinney), 111–112 Cole, M, 113 , 120 , 123 collaborative participation, 195 colleagues’ lens, 112 , 124 colonialism, 134–136 , 144 colour blindness, 125 Common Assessment Framework (CAF), 88 Common Core of Skills and Knowledge (CWDC), 91 communication

and the ABC of well-being, 96–97 and action research, 196–197 , 200 and the multi-professional team, 170–173 see also conversations

Conan Doyle, Sir Arthur, 72–73 consent, and privacy, 79–81 , 176–177 ContactPoint, 174 conversations

and critical friends, 47–48 , 47–48 , 193 refl ective, 7 , 14

Costa, A, 40–41 counselling, 41 Craib, I, 61 creative thinking, 25 Crick Report on Education for Citizenship and Teaching

Democracy in Schools, The (QCA), 122 , 125 , 126 Criminal Records Bureau, ‘Surveillance Society, A’, 177 critical friends, 38–53

and coaches/mentors, 41–42 and conversation with, 47–48 , 47–48 defi ned, 39–41 , 40–47 and early childhood practitioners, 48–52 qualities of, 42–46 , 51 see also research buddies

critical lenses, 112–113

critical race theory (CRT), 117–119 , 125 , 126–127 Cronin, S, 34 cultural aspects, 8 cultural bag activity, 120–122 cultural capital concept, 58–59 CWDC (Children’s Workforce Development Council),

15 , 87

Data Protection Act (1998), 176–177 De Bono, E, 149 , 154 , 157 , 159 , 162 Dearing Report, 57 Dearnley, K, 102 , 103 Delpit, L, 121 deontology, 175 , 176 , 182 Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF),

171 , 179 Department for Communities and Local

Government, 178 Department for Constitutional Affairs (2006), 174 Department for Education, 57 , 118 development

brain, 99 children’s, 90 , 91

Dewey, J, 3 Dixon, S, 101 Djemli, P, 102 Dowling, M, 103 Drummond, M, 73 , 77 Dyer, M, 22 dysconscious racism, 115 , 117 , 127

Early Learning Goals, 91 Early Years Development Partnerships (EYDP), 57 Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS), 14 , 57 , 73 ,

80 , 89–91 Early Years Foundation Stage Profi le, 91 Early Years Foundation Stage Statutory Framework

(DfE), 81 Early Years Professional Status (EYPS), 14 , 57 , 150 , 159 Early Years Teachers (EYT), 57 , 159 Eby, M A, 27 Educating Rita (fi lm), 55–56 , 58–59 , 63 , 66 , 68 Education Act (1981), 76 Effective Provision of Pre-school Education (EPPE), 2 , 14 ,

87 , 149–150 ego states, 47–48 Elder, L, 131 Elfer, P, 97–98 , 99 , 100–101 , 102 , 103 Elliott, J, 195 emotional availability

and attachments with children, 95–104 choosing to work with children, 94–95 parents as co-carers, 106–108

emotional incidents, 32–34 emotional intelligence, 43–44 , 152 , 161 , 162 empathy, intellectual, 131 Engle, P, 134 Equality Act (2010), 122–123 Erikson, Eric, 200

SAM

PLE

206 • Index

ethnic groups, 112 , 118 , 120 , 124 Excellence in Schools (HMSO), 57 exclusions, pupil, 118 experience, and critical friends, 44 EYDP (Early Years Development Partnerships), 57 EYFS (Early Years Foundation Stage), 14 , 57 , 73 ,

80 , 89–91 EYPS (Early Years Professional Status), 14 , 159 EYT (Early Years Teacher), 57 , 159

fear of change, 199–200 Finlay, L, 13–16 Fitzgerald, D, 167–168 , 169 , 182–183 fi ve-stage model, 13 , 13 FLOW model, 66 Foucault, Michel, 180–181 Foundation Stage Curriculum Framework, 57 Freshwater, D, 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 33 Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle-stop Caf é (fi lm), 66 Froebel, Friedrich, 74 Fuks, A, 30 Furedi, F, 181 future goals, 34

Gadsby, H, 34 Gaine, C, 113–114 , 116 , 122 , 125 , 126 , 127 Garvey, B, 65 George, Susan, 136 , 138 , 144 Georgeson, J, 173 Ghaye, T, 7 , 14 Gibbs’ Cycle model, 10–11 , 11 Gibbs, G, 10–11 Gillborn, D, 113 , 118 , 121 Gillespie-Edwards, A, 99 , 101 Glasgow City Council, 118–119 globalisation, 133 , 134 Goldblatt, H, 44 Goldman Sachs (bank), 144 Goldschmied, E, 97–98 , 99 Goldstein, L S, 102 , 103 Goleman, D, 32 , 43–44 , 61 , 94 , 97 , 151 , 155–156 , 160 ,

161 , 162 Gornall, S, 41 Gough, B, 13–14 government, 179–180 Graduate Leader Fund (DfE), 57 Gravells, J, 65–66 , 160 Greco, V, 171 Griffi ths, B, 191 group collaboration, and writing, 31–32 GROW model, 66 , 191 Grushka, K, 6 Guba, E, 194–195

Hacker, Andrew, 113 Hallet, E, 19–20 , 36 , 197 , 202 Handy, C, 159 Hannon, P, 99

Hanson, K, 51 Hardin, Garrett, 131 , 140–141 , 142 Hedges, H, 39 , 44 , 53 Hermann, N, 30 Hickson, H, 32 High Scope programme, 77 higher education, 99, see also university study Hill, D, 121 , 122 , 123 Hinde-McLeod, J, 6 Hirst, S, 24 HIV/AIDS, 133–134 Hobbes, Thomas, 144 Hodgson, S, 51 Holmes, Sherlock, 72–73 How the Other Half Dies: The Real Reasons for World

Hunger (George), 136 , 144 Hudson, B, 169–170 humility, intellectual, 131 Hunter, IML, 3–4

identity and citizenship education, 125 and higher education, 61–63 professional, 169

Illeris, K, 61 , 63 , 64 , 65 immigrants, 114–115 impostor syndrome, 51 incidents, emotional, 32–34 inequality, 135–136 information sharing, 182

and ethics, 174–177 Ingram, Harry, 27 institutional racism, 114–115 , 116–117 , 119 , 126 integrity, intellectual, 131 intellectual property rights, 143–144 International Monetary Fund (IMF), 143 , 144 interpersonal skills, and critical friends, 43–44

Jackson, S, 97–98 , 99 Jasper, M, 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 33 Jay, J K, 11 Jay and Johnson model, 11 , 12t Johnson, K L, 11 Johnston, J, 186 Jones, C, 158 Jones, R, 120 , 123 , 127 journal writing, 23 , 34–36 , 193 justice, 143 , 144–145

Kaday, C, 191 Kallick, B, 40–41 Kant, Immanuel, 175 Kapasi, H, 117 Kay, J, 167–168 , 169 , 182–183 Kellett, M, 196 Kemmis, S, 186 Keough, R, 4 key person approach, 97–104

SAM

PLE

Index • 207

Khan, O, 58 King, Martin Luther, Jnr, 125 King, R, 115 Kinney, James, 111–112 Kirkpatrick, S A, 152 knowledge

and action research, 197–199 and critical friends, 44 and power, 181

Kolb Cycle model (Kolb Learning Cycle), 9–10 , 10–11 Kolb, D A, 9 Kotter, J, 199–200 Kottkamp, R, 5 Kuhnert, K W, 156 Kwhali, J, 116 Kydd, L, 150

Ladson-Billings, G, 113 , 118 Laming Enquiry/report, 166 leadership, 149–152

and Early Years framework, 158–161 and professionalism, 162–163 situational leadership model, 157–158 team development, 161–162 theories of, 152–157 , 154 , 153–157

learning, 4 and the Race’s ripple models, 12 transformative, 63–65

Lee, S Y, 98–99 Leitch, R, 40 , 42 Leitch Report, 63 lenses

four critical, 112–113 Lewin, Kurt, 186 Liben, S, 30 Lincoln, Y, 194–195 Lloyd, G, 167 Locke, E A, 152 Locke, John, 143 love

for children, 94 , 104–106 and parents/practitioners as co-carers, 106–108

Lowe, M, 190–191 Luft, Joseph, 27 Lund, D, 123

MacBeath, John, 40 , 41–42 McDowall Clark, R, 151 , 158 , 163 McGill, I, 65 , 66 McKee, A, 43–44 McNamara, Robert, 132 McNiff, J, 187 , 190 , 191 , 193 McTaggart, R, 186 Mali, 136–137 Malthus, Thomas, 141 management, 150–152 , 156 , 199–201 managers

and action research, 189–190 as critical friends, 44–46

Mandela, Nelson, 130 Mandell, B, 161 Manning-Morton, J, 100 marginal utility, 131 , 139–140 Marris, R, 141 , 142 Marshall, S J, 159 mature students see university study meaning, co-construction of, 15–16 Meeting the Childcare Challenge (DfEE), 57 Megginson, D, 65 , 66 , 160 memory/remembering, 3–4 , 22 men, Early Years practitioners, 56 mentoring, 41 , 65–67 , 159 , 163 Mezirow, Jack, 64 Milanovic, B, 133 Miles, B, 114 Minujin, A, 133 , 145 , 146 missionaries, church, 135 models, 12

refl ective, 8–13 , 9–10 , 10–11 , 11–12 , 12t , 17 Modood, T, 58 Montessori, Maria, 78 , 158 Moon, J, 3 , 4–5 , 160 Morgan, J, 58 Morrison, M, 123 , 124–125 , 127 Moylett, H, 102 Moyo, Dambisa, 142 Muir, L, 161 multi-professional/multi-agency teams, 166–169 ,

167–168 , 168–170 challenges for, 169–174 , 170–179 ethics of information sharing, 174–177 and surveillance, 177–182

multiculturalism, 119–122 Munro, E, 180 Murray, J, 151 , 158 , 163 Mytton, G, 61

Nahmed-Williams, L, 186 Nandy, S, 133 , 145 , 146 national curriculum, 121 Noddings, N, 104 , 108 non-malefi cence, 143 Northouse, P G, 150–151 , 152 , 153–154 , 156 Nutbrown, C, 6 , 56 , 59 , 151 , 158

observation, 9–10 , 72–81 , 75–77 , 77 , 91–92 and information sharing, 182 interpretation of and EYFS, 89–91 , 89 , 89 and the planning cycle, 81–82 , 81–88 process, 82–88 , 88–89

Ofsted, 57 , 79 and race issues, 123 , 124–125 , 127

Oh Gawd, How Am I Going to Fit into This? (Cavallaro-Johnson and Watson), 62

O’Neil, J, 161 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

(OECD), 141–142 Osler, A, 123 , 124–125 , 127

SAM

PLE

208 • Index

Osterman, K, 5 O’Sullivan, J, 151 , 153 , 154 , 158 , 160 , 162 Otienoh, R O, 34 Oxfam, 138

Page, J, 105 Paige-Smith, A, 162–163 Palaiologou, I, 73–74 , 79 , 80 , 92 Panopticon, 178–179 , 178–179 , 180–181 Parekh, B, 114 , 117 , 126 parents

as co-carers, 106–108 involvement in observation, 86–87 key person approach for, 100–101 and the multi-professional team, 171–173 rights of, 80

Pascal, J, 24–25 , 28 Payler, J, 173 Penn, Helen, 130 , 142 , 146 personal/professional ’you’, 24 , 33–36 Pherwani, S, 161 philosophical refl ection, 131–132 photography/photographs, 82–85 physical development, and the ABC of well-being, 96–97 Piaget 74 planning, 81–82 , 81–88 play, 74 , 77–78 ‘playground’ racism, 114 Pogge, Thomas, 134 , 143 , 144–145 population, and poverty, 141 Potter, C A, 51 Pound, L, 158 poverty, child, 130–131 , 132 , 145–146

and capitalism, 136–138 and colonialism, 134–136 and developing nations, 132–134 , 145 and overseas aid, 141–145 philosophical refl ection, 131–132 Singer solution, 138–141

power and critical friends, 44–46 and knowledge, 181

practitioner term, 16

privacy, and information sharing, 174–177 problem solving, 5–6 processes, refl ective, 5–6 procrastination, 27–28 professional development, and action research, 189 professional love, 107–108 professionalism, and leadership, 162–163 Pugh, G, 73 , 77 Punch, K F, 194 , 195 pyramid model, 8–9 , 9–10

Raby, R, 116 Race, P, 12 race/racism, 111 , 113–115 , 114–115 , 125–126

and colonialism, 135

critical race theory, 117–119 curricula/policies/procedures, 122–127 incidents, 115–117 and multiculturalism, 119–122

Race’s ripples model, 12 Raelin, J A, 5 , 7 , 13 , 13 , 15 RAIN framework, 28–30 , 34 REFLECT, 18 refl ection

for action 5 in action 3 , 14 , 64 on action 3 , 11 , 159

refl ective practice, defi ned, 1–5 , 6–8 , 18 refl ective process, 5–6 refl ective pyramid model, 8–9 , 9–10 refl exivity, 13–16 , 26 Reid, S, 76 , 87 , 90 relationship management, 43–44 , 170–173 remembering/memory, 3–4 , 22 research buddies, 192–194 Researching Effective Pedagogy in the Early Years

(REPEY), 150 Reynolds, R, 6 Richardson, R, 114 , 119 rights

of children, 78–81 , 133 , 145 human, 143 , 174–175 intellectual property, 143–144 of parents, 80

ripples model, 12 Robbins Committee, 57 Roberts, R, 96–97 , 108 Rodd, J, 155–156 , 161 , 187 , 193 , 196 Rogers, C, 61–62 , 160 Rogers, J, 65 , 159 Rolfe, G, 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 33 Rosling, Hans, 141 Rouse, D, 73 , 77 Rowling, J K, 1 Ruch, G, 5 Rumbold, P, 61 Rutter, M, 95

Sachs, J, 144 Sarup, M, 113 , 122 , 126 Sch ö n, D, 3 , 5 , 14 , 17 , 64 , 159 Seary, K, 62 , 64 self-awareness

and critical friends, 43 and emotional availability, 94 and writing, 24 , 27–30

self-management, 43 self-perception, 61–63 Selleck, D, 98 , 106 Selleck, S, 121 Sen, Amartya, 132 , 144 Senge, Peter, 66 , 152 , 159 shared responsibility, and critical friends, 46 Sieler, A, 66

SAM

PLE

Index • 209

Singer, Peter, 131 , 138–141 , 142 Siraj-Blatchford, I, 150 , 170 situational leadership model, 157–158 , 153–157 skills theory of leadership, 153–155 , 154 SMART targets, 66 social awareness, 43 social class, 122 , 125–126 social mobility, 134 social/cultural capital concept, 57–59 Socrates, 131 Sole, D, 27 solution databases, 5–6 Sosumar sugar project, 136–138 SOUL (observation), 77 state, the, 179–180 status, 102 , 169 Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report, 114 , 115 storying, 25 , 30–31 strange situations test, 78 student’s/children’s lens, 112 , 120–122 stunted growth, 133 Sullivan, A, 58 Sure Start children’s centres, 170–171 , 178 , 180 surveillance, 174 , 177–182 ‘Surveillance Society, A’ (Criminal Records Bureau), 177 Swaffi eld, S, 41–42 , 44 , 48 Swann Report, 119 Swick, K J, 101 , 103 Sylva, K, 2 , 14

Taylor, S, 22 Teacher’s Standards for Early Years (National College for

Teaching and Leadership), 82 terminology

multi-professional teams, 166–168 and race, 113 , 117

theoretical lens, 112 This World: Don’t Panic—The Truth about Population (BBC)

(2013), 141 Thompson, N, 24–25 , 28 thought process, 2 three-tier classifi cation model, 11 time

and refl ective practice, 14 and writing, 28

Tolkein, J R R, 185 Tomlinson, S, 111 traits theory of leadership, 152–156 transactional analysis model, 47–48 , 47–48 transactional theory of leadership, 155–157 Transformation Fund (DfE), 57 transformational theory of leadership, 155–157 , 161 transformative learning, 63–65 transition to university study see university study,

transition to Turnbull, J, 66 , 160 tutors, role in higher education, 65

Ullah, Ahmed, 122

Unequal Childhoods: Young Children’s Lives in Poor Countries (Penn), 130

UNICEF, 130 , 133 United Kingdom

aid target, 142 children’s centres, 170–171 , 178 , 180 poverty line, 132

United Nations aid targets, 142 Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), 78–79 ,

80 , 145 Millennium Summit (2000), 133–134

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), 174 university study, transition to, 56–68

identity and self-perception, 61–63 mentoring/coaching, 65–67 risk factors, 59 social/cultural capital concept, 57–59 transformative learning, 63–65

utilitarianism, 141 , 175–176 , 178–179 , 178–179 , 181–182

Vaclavik, M, 73 validity of research, 194–195 visual representations, 36 Vygotsky, L S, 12 , 47 , 74

Walker, D, 4 , 15 Wallace, S, 65–66 , 160 Waller, R, 58 Wannamaker, N, 73 Warmington, P, 168 Warnock Report, 76 Warwick-Booth, L, 68 Watson, G, 62 wealth see poverty, child well-being

ABC of, 96–97 and CRT, 117

Whalley, M E, 150 Whitebread, D, 39 Williams, C, 40 , 42 Willians, J, 62 , 64 Wilson, J P, 34 Wittig, B, 78 Wolanski, A, 73 World Bank, 143 , 144 World Trade Organization (WTO), 143–144 Wragg, E C, 84 Wright, H R, 59 , 60 Wright, J, 61 , 62 writing, 22–27 , 26–28 , 28–37

and emotional incidents, 32–34 and group collaboration, 31–32 journal, 23 , 34–36 narrative, 25 , 30–31 and self-awareness, 24 , 27–30

Zack, N, 113

SAM

PLE

Documents

Developing as a Reﬂ ective Early Years · PDF fileBy Car oline Bligh, Sue Chambers, Chelle Davison, Ian Lloyd, Jackie Musgrave, June O’Sullivan and Susan Waltham 978-1-909330-65-8