Contextualising early childhood education
A critical and constructive postmodern perspective can be a useful tool for contextualising the field of early childhood education. One way this can be done is by situating the seven studies that appear in this issue of AJEC through multiple social, cultural, political, historical, local and global contexts. In doing so, the relationships between these issues are highlighted. Additionally, the ways in which the researchers, participants, settings, data collection strategies, and findings are connected amongst these studies becomes evident. This approach, which does not necessarily imply that the articles should be read in a linear fashion, is about intentionally framing ideas in ways that might generate different understandings about what we do in early childhood and why we do it.
The articles found within this edition of AJEC focus on social issues that are commonly debated and discussed in early childhood education. These issues include poverty, sex education, childcare quality, personal and social skills, repeated viewings of videos, and regulatory frameworks. These issues become more problematic and complex when viewed from various contexts. In doing so, these studies and their findings take on a different set of meanings—making it possible to see how the field of early childhood education is connected, and raising new questions about teaching, learning, and researching.
The cultural contexts of early childhood education and how they influence research is apparent in Lai’s preliminary study. However, if this study of teachers’ perceptions of sex education in Hong Kong preschools were conducted with teachers from South Africa, the United States or Ireland, would it reveal similar findings? Likewise, da Silva and Wise’s study is firmly located within the cultural context of families. This study of parent perspectives on childcare quality focuses on the cultural background of participants as a potential source of difference among parents.
King and Boardman’s study of teachers’ and parents’ insights into the importance of personal and social skills for young children beginning kindergarten is situated within the context of preschool. By locating this study before formal schooling, readiness becomes an important issue for both parents and teachers. Also, by highlighting the different contexts of parents and teachers it becomes possible to see how these participants view the role of early childhood education.
Framing these studies within a professional context illuminates how particular topics or experiences are considered to be either ‘appropriate’ or ‘inappropriate’ for young children. This perspective places Skouteris & Kelly’s study of repeated-viewing and co-viewing of an animated video with young children into the highly charged political arena of the media.
It is likely that all of these studies would have different findings if they occurred during a different historical period. Interestingly, the research conducted by Taylor brings us back to the Life Chances Study, initiated 12 years ago by the Brotherhood of St Laurence. This longitudinal study explored the impact that family income had on children. Case studies of children show how socioeconomic contexts have influenced their lives for over a decade. Thinking about the historical context raises questions about why some of these issues are relevant now and how they will be of interest to teachers, researchers, policy-makers and families in the future.
Although the gendered context of teaching is prevalent in most of the studies, Hard’s inquiry into how leadership is enacted in early childhood takes on new meanings as she explores how horizontal violence affects professional identity and leadership. Horizontal violence, a concept explored in nursing, has implications for the feminised field of early childhood education. Revisiting Lai’s study from a cultural, professional, and gendered context reveals how participants’ marital status determined the appropriateness of discussing sex education with parents.
Fenech, Sumsion, and Goodfellow’s study discusses the regulatory environment in long day care. Through focus groups with early childhood teachers, the local context of their teaching was exposed. In particular, the tensions that these teachers felt regarding their regulatory environment shows how the regulations helped and hindered their work with young children and families.
Contextualising these studies provides new ways for understanding what some may consider common issues in the field of early childhood education. New questions are posed and remind us of the important part that these multiple contexts play in children’s, teachers’ and families’ lives. By failing to recognise these contexts, we lose sight of the complexities of teaching, learning and researching in current times.
Mindy Blaise
Monash University
AJEC Volume 31 No 3 September 2006, p. i.
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
|
|
