The AJEC Committee invites readers’ thoughts on the matters raised in this article, as well as elsewhere within the journal. Letters to the editor, enquiries, comments, submissions and contributions can be sent to publishing@earlychildhood.org.au.
Marilyn Fleer
Monash University
In recent years sociocultural theory has provided an important conceptual tool for re-thinking many practices in early childhood education (e.g. Anning, Cullen & Fleer, 2004; Edwards, 2001; Edwards, 2003). While much has been gained, many taken-for-granted practices still remain in need of critique. Although the term ‘Child Development’ has been debated in the past (see collection of papers in Fleer, 1995; Keesing-Styles & Hedges, in press; Lubeck, 1996; 1998), we have not seen the emergence of a new approach or world view to replace it. Ten years have passed, and we still find national materials which foreground Western middle-class notions of development (e.g. Responses to the National Agenda for Early Childhood, Australian Government, 2003). This paper seeks to stimulate debate within Australia and New Zealand around the term ‘Child Development’. Responses are invited so that the historical and cultural legacy of that term can be examined and a new term introduced which recognises our culturally and linguistically diverse communities. It is through public debate that we can as a scholarly community build new terminology to name and make visible new thinking.
Keywords: child development, sociocultural, early childhood education, cross-cultural, culturally and linguistically diverse.
Introduction
Contemporary early childhood education in many English-speaking countries foregrounds the importance of educators’ ‘Child Development’ knowledge. In particular, most Australian students and graduates of early childhood education programs would have focused at some stage on children’s ages and the expected ‘developmental milestones’. This knowledge is fundamental to the professional knowledge needed for early childhood educators to work effectively in the field. This knowledge shapes the thinking about what is the expected development of children from birth to eight years. However, consider the following two quotations:
Once [Polynesian] babies could walk, mothers released them into the care of 3- to 4-year-old siblings, who played nearby, checking periodically on the young ones (Rogoff, 2003, p.123, drawing upon Martini and Kirkpatrick, 1992).
In contrast to the preferred age of 7 to 10 years for child caregivers in many countries, middle-class European American
families seldom use baby-sitters younger than 12 years old (Rogoff, 2003, p. 123).
The first quotation sits outside of the linear developmental pattern characteristic of health and education developmental
charts and quality assurance documents in Australia (Fleer & Kennedy, 2001). The latter sits more comfortably within what
would be expected behaviour based upon general ‘Child Development’ knowledge. These two quotations draw our attention to the
need to not just think about diversity across cultural communities but also reconsider the basis upon which we as
professionals make judgements. Expectations which have been normed against particular cultural communities may not reflect
the diversity of cultural groups which make up our culturally and linguistically diverse Australian community.
In drawing upon sociocultural theory and socio-historical research we seek to problematise the term ‘Child Development’.
General sociocultural (Anning, Cullen & Fleer, 2004) and postmodern (see Alloway, 1999; Dahlberg, Moss & Pence, 1999;
MacNaughton, 1995) critiques of early childhood education have helped to illuminate the assumptions underpinning many
practices. In light of this, we also believe it is important to provide a concrete way forward in thinking about development.
Although it is not the intention of this paper to ‘do away’ with development, it is our professional responsibility to find
possible directions to move the field forward. As such, we invite responses to this paper and hope that a fruitful dialogue
can be entered into within the Australian Journal of Early Childhood (AJEC).
Development
There is a conception of education which professes to be based upon the idea of development. But it takes back with one hand
what it proffers with the other. Development is conceived not as continuous growing, but as the unfolding of latent powers
toward a definite goal. The goal is conceived of as completion, perfection. Life at any stage short of attainment of this
goal is merely an unfolding toward it (Dewey, 1916, p. 56).
The legacy of a traditional view on development, as outlined above by Dewey back in 1916, is still commonplace within the
field of early childhood education. Just as Dewey had been critical, Vygotsky was similarly critical of this view of
development for the mind:
… an enormous mosaic of mental life development comprised of separate piece of experience, a grandiose atomistic
picture of the dismembered human mind (Vygotsky, 1997, p. 4).
What both scholars have in common is a social orientation to development and to learning. Both put forward different ways of
thinking about development:
… the educational process is one of continual reorganising, reconstructing, transforming (Dewey, 1916, p. 50).
… Vygotsky posed internalization of interpersonal processes as being the substrate of development (Glick, 1997, p. xi)
Vygotsky argued that, in the development of the child, two types of mental development are represented (not repeated). These
are biological and historical, or natural and cultural development of behaviour. He suggested that:
… culture creates special forms of behavior, it modifies the activity of mental functions, it constructs new superstructures
in the developing system of human behavior. This is a basic fact confirmed for us by every page of the psychology of
primitive man [sic], which studies cultural-psychological development in its pure, isolated form. In the process of
historical development, social man changes the methods and devices of his behavior, transforms natural instincts and
functions, and develops and creates new forms of behavior – specifically cultural (Vygotsky, 1997, p. 18).
Vygotsky stated that to ‘study history is not to study the past. To study something historically means to study it in
motion.’ (Vygotsky, 1997, p. 43). Rogoff (2003) has also suggested a more dynamic view of development. In her most recent
book on the cultural nature of development, Rogoff (2003) has argued that cultural communities cannot be viewed as a static
social address, but that the reciprocity of individuals, community culture and context enact upon each other informing and
transforming over time (intergenerationally). Gutierrez and Rogoff (2003) suggest that a ‘cultural–historical approach can
help researchers and practitioners characterize the commonalities of experience of people who share cultural background,
without “locating” the commonalities within individuals’ (p. 21). They state:
We argue that people live culture in a mutually constitutive manner in which it is not fruitful to tote up their
characteristics as if they occur independently of culture, and of culture as if it occurs independently of people (p. 21)
Vygotsky argued that traditional approaches to psychological research focused on studying elements—such as walking or
talking. However, the perspective that Vygotsky introduced ‘is based on understanding child development as a dialectical unit
of two essentially different orders, and it sees the basic problem of research to be a thorough study of the one order and
the other and a study of the laws of their merging at each age level’ (Vygtosky, 1997, p. 22).
Research that understands development of higher mental functions in this way always tries to comprehend this process as part
of a more complex and broad whole, in connecting with biological development of behavior, against a background of an
interlacing of both processes (Vygtosky, 1997, p. 22).
Vygotsky (1997) also argued that in these relations, where higher levels of psychological functioning are developing (inter
to intra), social beings actively select those dimensions that interest them, and which they have been socially primed to
notice and want to understand. Vygotsky foregrounded the importance of a ‘whole social context’ (as opposed to introducing
fragmented and isolated skills or concepts) in which imitation is of great importance. However, Vygotsky had a technical
definition of imitation in mind when he introduced this concept (see Chaiklin, 2003, p. 52). As Vygotsky states, we must
‘reject the opinion that reduces the essence of imitation to the simple formation of habits and to recognize imitation as a
substantial factor in the development of higher forms of human behaviour’ (Vygotsky, 1997, p. 96). Vygotsky argued that an
individual can imitate only when she or he has developed some understandings. That is, ‘imitation is possible only to the
extent and in those forms in which it is accompanied by understanding’ (p. 96). With this orientation to cultural development
in mind, the importance of the social whole and the dialectical relationship between biological and historical (subjective
and objective as elaborated by Chaiklin, 2003) become evident.
In contrast to theories of development that focus on the individual and the social or cultural context as separate entities
(adding or multiplying one and the other), the cultural–historical approach assumes that individual development must be
understood in, and cannot be separated from, its social and cultural–historical context. According to Vygotsky’s theory, the
efforts of individuals are not separate from the kinds of activities in which they engage and the kinds of institutions of
which they are a part (Rogoff, 2003, p. 50).
Gaskins (1999) suggests that to understand development we should examine neither individual children nor institutional
structures, nor even cultural belief systems, but rather observe the dynamic processes of children engaged in daily activity
with other people (Gaskins, 1999). The interlacing, rather than the displacement or separate study of all these dimensions,
constituted Vygotsky’s concept of the cultural–historical development of children (Vygotsky, 1997).
In fields such as early childhood education, where views of development (individual, stage oriented) were influential in
laying the foundations and for shaping the nature of the profession, considering a new orientation to development means
removing the fossilised foundations. Calls for this unearthing have also come from the cross-cultural literature (Woodhead,
Faulkner & Littleton, 1998). Some of this research is briefly examined in the following section.
Problematising universal views of development: Evidence from cross-cultural research
Schieffelin and Ochs (1998) have stated:
The extent to which we are developing culturally specific theories of development needs to be considered (Schieffelin & Ochs,
1998, p. 61).
Woodhead, Faulkner and Littleton (1998) suggest:
Developing emotional attachments, learning language and acquiring reasoning skills may be universal, but that doesn’t make
these human activities any less cultural, in so far as they take place within culturally regulated social relationships, and
are mediated by cultural practices. These practices are in turn shaped by knowledge and beliefs about what is normal and
desirable, including the knowledge offered by developmental psychology (Woodhead, Faulkner & Littleton, 1998, p. 2).
Cross-cultural research provides us with a broader understanding of beliefs surrounding expectations in children’s
development. For example, in some parts of West Africa the principle underpinning child development is social rather than
biological, as noted by Nsamenang and Lamb (1998) in their study of Nso children in the Bamenda Granfields of Cameroon, West
Africa (211 men and 178 women who were parents or grandparents of children under the age of 10 years):
… children are progressively assigned different roles at different life stages depending on their perceived level of social
competence rather than on their biological maturation (Nsamenang & Lamb, 1998, p. 252).
In many other industrialised nations, the age of children underpins the way preschool, child care and schools are organised.
Rogoff (2003) states that it was not until the late 1800s that age became a criterion for ordering lives:
With the rise of industrialization and efforts to systemize human services such as education and medial care, age became a
measure of development and a criterion for sorting people. Specialized institutions were designed around age groups.
Developmental psychology and pediatrics began at this time, along with old-age institutions and age-graded schools (p. 8).
In most English-speaking countries today, children are usually placed into groups based on their age. Rogoff (2003) states
that, before specialised institutions were designed around age groups:
… people rarely knew their age, and students advanced in their education as they learned. Both expert and popular writing in
the United States rarely referred to specific ages … Over the past century and a half, the concept of age and associated
practices relying on age-grading have come to play a central, though often unnoticed role in ordering lives in some cultural
communities … (p. 8; my emphasis).
She also suggests that:
Children’s groups around the world generally include a mix of ages … Grouping children by age is unusual around the world. It
requires adequate numbers of children in a small territory to ensure availability of several children of the same age
(Konner, 1975). It also seems to be prompted by the growth of bureaucracies and reductions in family size (Rogoff, 2003, p.
125).
Clearly then, ‘Child Development’ in the context of early childhood education, as presently conceptualised and enacted in
English-speaking countries, has become a taken-for-granted cultural practice based on ages and stages which has been
normalised. This particular cultural belief about children is relevant for children from European or North American
backgrounds (given this is the research base used) from a time in which industrialisation was an important cultural practice.
However, the legacy of this cultural belief and assumption about how children develop in contemporary society is in need of
review. Rogoff (1990; 1998; 2003) has argued that ‘development can be understood only in light of the cultural practices and
circumstances of their communities – which also change’ (Rogoff, 2003, pp. 3-4, original emphasis). In essence, culture not
only determines the principles for defining development, but frames the contexts in which the development of children is
supported. Woodhead, Faulkner and Littleton (1998) have also foregrounded the cultural nature of development:
‘Child Development’ is itself culturally constructed. As a body of theoretical knowledge and research descriptions, Child
Development reflects a minority of world childhoods, based mainly on North American and European children as studied from the
perspective of North American and European researchers (Woodhead, Faulkner & Littleton, 1998, p. 1).
Hedegaard (2004) argues that children develop through participating in everyday activities in societal institutions.
Development is viewed by Hedegaard (2004) as the relationship between the child and society. Development is not something
that exists within the child, but rather takes place as the child interacts with her/his cultural community. She argues that
when development does not proceed it is not the fault of the child, but rather of the relationship between the child and
society. As such, the problem lies not in the child, but in the institution. When cultural diversity exists within a
particular community, Hedegaard’s (2004) assertion is particularly important. Assuming universal views on ‘Child Development’
positions some children from some families in deficit (Fleer & Robbins, 2004). As suggested by Rogoff, Mosier, Mistry and
Göncü (1998) we need to begin to understand ‘the development of children in the context of their own communities’, and this
requires the ‘study of the local goals and means of approaching life’ (Rogoff, Mosier, Mistry & Göncü, 1998, p. 228):
… the sociohistorical approach assumes that individual development must be understood in (and cannot be separated from) the
social context (Rogoff, Mosier, Mistry & Göncü, 1998, p. 227).
How our educational institutions take account of cultural variations and children’s community experiences has generally not
been foregrounded in early childhood beliefs and practices around development. Rather, expectations of children during the
early childhood years are generally viewed with Western middle-class lenses, and culture is ‘added on’ to this trajectory of
development as an anomaly—not quite fitting. This is clearly evident in the profession’s responses to the recently published
National Agenda for Early Childhood (Australian Government, 2003), where Developmentally Appropriate Practices (see
Bredekamp, 1987; Bredekamp & Copple, 1997) are foregrounded. Culturally and linguistically diverse communities are given a
separate section, without a critique of whose development is considered as the default in the main body of the document. As
suggested by Gutierrez and Rogoff (2002):
Scholars from a wide range of disciplines have called attention to the problem of ‘essentializing’ people on the basis of a
group label and have underlined the variability that exists within groups and practices. Scholars examining cultural styles
have agreed for a more situated and dynamic view of the cultural practices of ethnic and racial groups (Banks, 1995; Gay,
1995; 2000; Irvine & York, 1995; Nieto, 1999) (Gutierrez & Rogoff, 2002, p. 20).
Conclusion: From ‘Child Development’ to ‘Cultural–Historical Development of Children’
Problematising the notion of ‘Child Development’ across and within groups highlights the complexity of capturing the dynamic
and transformative characteristics of children, culture and early childhood institutions. As Gutierrez and Rogoff (2002)
remind us:
… with cultural–historical approaches, there has not yet been sufficient attention to figuring out how to talk and think
about regularities across individuals’ or cultural communities’ ways of doing things (p. 21).
What we do know is that the term ‘Child Development’ as used within the field of early childhood education in Australia is
found wanting, since we should not ‘… give too much weight to specific age expectations because the age at which children
begin to contribute to specific activities is strongly related to the sort of supports and constraints offered by their
community’ (Rogoff, 2003, p. 17). Analyses of cultural communities by Rogoff (2003) (both as reviews of the literature, and
her own research) have shown ‘impressive variations’ in what is expected and what is done at very different ages across
communities. She argues:
The ages of accomplishment are highly related to the opportunities children have to observe and participate in the activities
and cultural values regarding development of particular skills (Rogoff, 2003, p. 170).
We can argue that the term ‘Child Development’ in Australia has been reified (Wenger, 1998) and now represents a static and
monocultural view of children, notably Western middle-class children and their families. We would suggest that the term
‘Cultural–Historical Development of Children’ more closely captures the dynamic and complex nature of the interlacing
(Vygotsky, 1997) of institutional structures, cultural belief systems, and the dynamic processes of children engaged in daily
activity with other people (Gaskins, 1999). Taken together, a sociocultural perspective foregrounds the Cultural–Historical
Development of Children (for further discussion on this see Fleer & Farquhar, in press). This new world view suggests that
development should not be located within the individual; should be viewed intergenerationally; should be thought of as part
of lived everyday experience in which children are socially primed to engage; and should be dialectical in nature. The
Cultural–Historical Development of Children is a dynamic construct supporting a new world view for early childhood
education.
References
Alloway, N. (1999). Reconceptualising early literacy achievement: Moving beyond critique-paralysis. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 24(4), 1-6.
Anning, A., Cullen, J., & Fleer, M. (2004). Early childhood education: Society and culture. London: Sage.
Australian Government (2003). Responses to Towards a National Agenda for Early Childhood Commonwealth Task Force on Child
Development, Health and Wellbeing, ACT.
Bredekamp, S. (1987). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood education programs. Serving children from birth
through aged 8. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Bredekamp, S., & Copple, C. (1997). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood education programs (revised edn).
Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Chaiklin, S. (2003). The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky’s analysis of learning and instruction. In A. Kozulin, B.
Gindis, V. S. Ageyev & S. M. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context (pp. 39-64). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Dahlberg, G., Moss, P., & Pence, A. (1999). Beyond quality in early childhood education and care: Postmodern perspectives.
London: Falmer.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: Free.
Edwards, A. (2001). Researching pedagogy: A sociocultural agenda. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 9(2), 161-186.
Edwards, S. (2003). New directions: Charting the paths for the role of sociocultural theory in early childhood education an
curriculum. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 4(3), 251-266.
Fleer, M. (Ed.) (1995). DAPcentrism: Challenging Developmentally Appropriate Practices. Canberra: Australian Early Childhood
Association.
Fleer, M., & Farquhar, S. (in press). Developmental colonisation of early childhood education in Australia and Aotearoa New
Zealand. In Linda Keesing-Styles and Helen Hedges (Eds.), Critical issues in early childhood education in Australia and New
Zealand [working title]. Pademelon.
Fleer, M., & Kennedy, A. (2000). Quality Assurance: Whose quality and whose assurance? New Zealand Journal of Early Childhood
Education, 3, 6-12.
Fleer, M., & Robbins, J. (2004, 12-13 July). Learning the landscape: A sociocultural analysis of family enactments of
literacy and numeracy within the official script of middle class early childhood discourse. Paper presented at the
International Society for Cultural and Activity Research, Regional Conference, University of Wollongong.
Gaskins, S. (1999). Children’s daily lives in a Mayan village: A case study of culturally constructed roles and activities.
In A. Göncü (Ed.), Children’s engagement in the world: Sociocultural perspectives (pp. 25-61). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Glick, J. (1997). Prologue. In L. S. Vygotsky, The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky, Vol. 4: The history of the development
of higher mental functions (R. W. Rieber, Ed.; M. J. Hall, trans.) (pp. v-xvi). New York: Plenum.
Gutierrez, K. D., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or repertoires of practice. Educational
Researchers, 32(5), 19-25.
Hedegaard, M. (2004, 12-13 July). A cultural–historical approach to learning in classrooms. Paper presented at the
International Society for Cultural and Activity Research, Regional Conference, University of Wollongong.
Keesing-Styles, L., & Hedges, H. (Eds.) (in press). Critical issues in early childhood education in Australia and New Zealand
[working title]. Pademelon.
Lubeck, S. (1996). Deconstructing ‘child development knowledge’ and ‘teacher preparation’. Early Education and Development,
2(2), 138-164.
Lubeck, S. (1998). Is developmentally appropriate practice for everyone? Childhood Education, 74(5), 283-298.
MacNaughton, G. (1995). A post-structuralist analysis of learning in early childhood settings. In M. Fleer (Ed.) DAPcentrism:
Challenging Developmentally Appropriate Practices (pp.25-35). Canberra: Australian Early Childhood Association.
Nsamenang, A. B., & Lamb, M. E. (1998). Socialization of Nso children in the Bamenda Grassfields of Northwest Cameroon, In M.
Woodhead, D. Faulkner, & K. Littleton (Eds.), Cultural worlds of early childhood (pp. 250-260). London: Routledge.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Rogoff, B. (1998). Cognition as a collaborative process. In W. Damon (Chief Ed.) & D. Kuhn & R. S. Siegler (Vol. Eds.),
Cognition, perceptions and language (5th edn): Handbook of child psychology (pp. 679-744). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rogoff, B., Mosier, C., Mistry, J., & Göncü, A. (1998). Toddlers’ guided participation with their caregivers in cultural
activity. In M. Woodhead, D. Faulkner & K. Littleton (Eds.), Cultural worlds of early childhood (pp. 225-249). London:
Routledge.
Schieffelin, B. B., & Ochs, E. (1998). A cultural perspective on the transition from prelinguistic to linguistic
communication. In M. Woodhead, D. Faulkner & K. Littleton (Eds.), Cultural worlds of early childhood (pp. 48-63). London:
Routledge.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky, Vol. 4: The history of the development of higher mental
functions (R. W. Rieber, Ed.; M. J. Hall, trans.). New York: Plenum.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1998) Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press.
Woodhead, M., Faulkner, D., & Littleton, K. (Eds.) (1998). Cultural worlds of early childhood. London: Routledge.
AJEC, Vol. 30 No. 2, June 2005, pp. 2-7.
You can purchase this issue of the Australian
Journal of Early Childhood now.
If you liked this article, you can 'social bookmark' it with others who might be searching for good content on early childhood. This means you can share your favourite webpages with others, or just keep an online list of your bookmarks so you can access them on any computer.
Read more about social bookmarks
|
|
