Children’s participation in the organisation of a kindergarten classroom

Introduction

Few opportunities are available for children to share their views and be heard on matters that affect them in the early childhood classroom. According to the Committee on the Rights of the Child (2012), Australian early childhood teachers in early childhood settings and schoolteachers were found to rarely consider children’s views in the classroom (Hudson, 2012; Pascal and Bertram, 2009). The challenge of not considering children’s views is influenced by, but not limited to, perceptions adults have of children, the lack of support given to teachers to facilitate children’s involvement in the classroom, large class size and high educator-to-child ratios. The perceptions adults have of children (Hart, 2006; Lundy, 2007) still sees children needing to be controlled, cared for and protected (Lansdown, 2005; Smith, 2007). There is a lack of support given to teachers to support children’s verbal and non-verbal language (Alderson, 2008; Clark, 2010; Lundy, 2007).

The large class size and educator-to-child ratios influence children’s opportunity to be heard and made decisions in the classroom. The large class size was found to be acknowledged by pre-school children in Sweden where they said the reason why they do not get to decide what happens in the classroom is because there are too many children (Sheridan & Pramling Samuelsson, 2001). In Finland, the large educator-to-child ratios were also identified by early childhood teachers have influence (Venninen, Leinonen, Lipponen & Ojala, 2014). The educator-to-child ratio for Finland is one educator to seven children in classrooms with children over the age of 3 (Venninen et al., 2014). In Australia, specifically in Queensland where this study was conducted, the educator-to-child ratio is 1 educator to 11 children which could also suggest that high numbers of children to educators can put strain on what is implemented in the classroom, in particular the opportunities given for children to share their views, make decisions and be heard (Australian Children’s Education & Care Quality Authority, 2016).

While these are valid reasons, children do have the right, under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) (1989) Article 12, to have their views taken seriously on matters that affect them. The implementation of Article 12 is termed the ‘practice of participation’ (Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2009, para 35). Participation is defined in many various ways by numerous scholars (Alderson, 2008; Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2009; Hart, 1992; Hill et al., 2004; Lansdown, 2005; Shier, 2001; Theobald, 2011). Participation is defined by the Committee on the Rights of the Child (2009) and Theobald (2011) as a process of sharing dialogue and information between children and adults. Participation, then, involves a sharing of dialogue and listening to children. This enables children to work collaboratively and cooperatively with teachers to share their views about the organisation of the early learning space and, recognise their capabilities (Touhill, 2013). Once children are given the opportunity to practice this collaboration with teachers, they can develop their independence to be competent actors in the early learning space (Touhill, 2013).

Beyond the initial definition of participation, as the sharing of dialogue and listening to children, is where children are involved in making decisions about their daily life termed active participation. As Alderson (2008), Hart (1992), Hill et al. (2004), Shier (2001) and Touhill (2013) asserted, children need to make decisions, choices and share their views about matters that affect them. Children, however, need to practice making decisions to become active decision makers (Hart, 1992). To enable children to make decisions, a balance of power is necessary between children and adults (Hart, 1992; Shier, 2001). Therefore, to move beyond the initial definition of participation to active participation, adults need to encourage children to be decision makers by allowing them to practice participation and share the balance of power.

Whether children are participating or actively participating in the organisation of the early learning space, the learning and developmental outcomes outshine the potential challenges identified. First, with increased involvement, children’s personal development is strengthened, which may relate to better social-emotional outcomes, learning outcomes, confidence, independence and autonomy (Lansdown, 2005). Also, children’s skills to make democratic decisions and solve problems may also develop in contexts where they are expected to make decisions (Department of Children and Youth Affairs, 2005; Hart, 1992; Lansdown, 2005; Pascal and Bertram, 2009; Sheridan and Pramling Samuelsson, 2001). Other skills applicable to children’s participation include negotiation and teamwork (Department of Children and Youth Affairs, 2005). In addition, children can also build a sense of responsibility, self-esteem, ownership and competence (Hart, 2006; Shier, 2001). Finally, if children are involved in organising their early learning space, then the space may be more meaningful for them and result in a stronger sense of belonging (Greenman, 1988; Kritchevsky and Prescott, 1979; Satta, 2015). Therefore, it is essential that opportunities are available for children to participate and actively participate in the daily process and practices in an early childhood space. Given these potentially positive features of children participating and actively participating, and the mandated requirement for children to participate, this article describes the opportunities given to children to portray their role in organising the kindergarten classroom.

Theoretical framework

Given that the children have the right to share their views about the organisation of the classroom and the positive results that follow with learning and developmental outcomes, one may argue that supporting this in early childhood education and care setting is necessary. To understand children’s roles in organising the classroom, this article adopts a sociomaterial and spatiality lens to analysis. Sociomaterial understandings address the typically taken-for-granted notions of non-human materials (educational resources, equipment and furniture) as being a means to an end for teachers to have the power to effect educational processes, practices and learnings (Fenwick et al., 2011; Kuby and Rucker, 2016). The effect of non-human materials, and their interactions with humans, could exclude, regulate, limit and/or invite children into the learning process (Fenwick et al., 2011; Fenwick, Nerland & Jensen, 2012; Fenwick & Nerland, 2014; Postma, 2012). Thus, this study adopts a sociomaterial lens in order to understand children’s roles in the processes and practices of organising an early childhood classroom by specifically considering influences between children, teachers and non-human material.

An extension of the sociomaterial understanding is the spatiality theory arena (Fenwick et al., 2011). Spatiality theory is defined here as the social interactions between the effectivity of human and non-human material and the space (Fenwick et al., 2011). These interactions can produce and reproduce power, control and authority (Lefebvre, 1974 [1991]; Massey, 1994; Shilling, 1991; Soja, 2009). Feminist spatial theorist Massey (1993) explored the connection between spatiality (space) and temporality (time) and argued that these cannot be separated from each other. This study then considers children, teachers, non-human materials and their interactions in space and time. In order to analyse children’s roles in the early learning space through the theoretical lens of sociomateriality and spatiality, a Kuby et al. (2015) and Kuby and Rucker (2016) approach is adopted.

Kuby and Rucker (2016) investigated how literacy is learnt through intra-action with materials, time and space. They drew on the concept literacy desirings to understand the processes by which children intra-acted with materials and were in a constant form of becoming through time and space (Kuby et al., 2015; Kuby and Rucker, 2016). Kuby et al. (2015) and Kuby and Rucker (2016) explored time, space and materials by focusing on finding three aspects; intra-activity with materials, the notion of becoming and departures from the expected. Kuby et al. (2015) and Kuby and Rucker (2016) observed second-grade children’s intra-actions with materials to find the in-between to make a giraffe and birdhouse. The notion of becoming was seen when, over time, children initially used pipe cleaners and made an outline of a picture they drew, which shifted over the following months to make a three-dimensional scaffold. Finally, Kuby et al. (2015) drew on departures from the expected, where they identified the macro, meso and micro levels. At the macro level they sourced what literacy practice typically looks like or is understood. At the meso level, they identified what the school and administration expect from a literacy class. At the micro level, they examined differences or changes from what they could see in their classroom to what was expected at the macro and meso levels.

In this study, Kuby et al.’s (2015) and Kuby and Rucker’s (2016) aspects provide the framework for analysing how children describe their role in organising an early learning space. This article will specifically look at departures from the expected in data analysis. This article is timely, as considering materials and the early learning space is typically overlooked in research (Fenwick et al., 2011; Fenwick and Landri, 2012; Luhman and Cunliffe, 2013). The limited number of studies surrounding children’s participation in the organisation of the early learning space has not adopted the theoretical positioning specific to the sociomaterial approach, with the majority taking an anthropocentric stance, receiving data from humans and not considering materials (Hultman and Lenz Taguchi, 2010).

Children’s role in organising the classroom

Early childhood classrooms are known for their ability to be inviting, purposefully designed and organised with the overall intention to promote educational experience. Little is known about the way children are involved in how early childhood classrooms are organised (Hudson, 2012; Satta, 2015; Sheridan and Pramling Samuelsson, 2001; Stephenson, 2002). A small number of studies have found that teachers have the predominant role in how the early learning classroom or space is organised. A common theme across Sheridan and Pramling Samuelsson (2001), Stephenson (2002) and Hudson’s (2012) studies were that teachers decided what children could play with within the early learning space. Sheridan and Pramling Samuelsson (2001) conducted semi-structured interviews with 39 five-year-old children in Sweden. They found that children could decide on what to play with however, when it came to deciding the organisation, routines, and activities in the early learning space, teachers would make these decisions. In Stephenson’s (2002) ethnographic study, conducted by way of a 5-month observation of children (birth to 5 years of age) in a workplace childcare centre in New Zealand, it was found that the organisation of the indoor early learning space was organised so that children would freely access materials to play with, then would return them back to the same location. Hudson’s (2012) Australian study also found that early childhood educators would organise the early learning space to promote choice in what children could choose to play with, but that the choices available were organised solely by the teachers. While children would be contributing their views by deciding on a particular choice of selected materials, it would appear that Hart (1992) would not classify this practice as genuine participation as children were not informed of why those materials were selected in the first place. The Queensland Kindergarten Learning Guidelines (QKLG) (Queensland Studies Authority (QSA), 2010: 25), a curriculum framework that provides early childhood teachers with a guide for their teaching practice, programming and the facilitation of children’s learning, emphasised that teachers need to involve the children in the planning and organising of the indoor and outdoor space, more specifically making decisions on the ‘location of resources, materials and use of space’ (p. 25). While resulting in the early childhood classroom space being more meaningful to the children, it will facilitate children’s sense of belonging and have an influence on children’s behaviour (Greenman, 1988; Kritchevsky and Prescott, 1979; Satta, 2015). Dietze (2006) also acknowledged that children involved in the organisation of the learning space get a sense of security and comfort.

In combination, the findings of these studies show that teachers usually prepare the early learning space for children with children deciding what to play with, which is an expected practice for a teacher as recommended in the Early Years Learning Framework (the Framework) (COAG, 2009). According to the Framework (COAG, 2009), teachers ‘can encourage’ the participation of children and families to contribute their insights and ideas about the early learning space (p. 16). This does not suggest that this will happen and that it will be taken seriously and valued. Educators are guided by the Framework to direct, analyse and support children’s learning in line with the five key learning outcomes, five key principles and descriptions of effective practice. The QKLG (QSA, 2010), on the other hand, does specify kindergarten children to be involved in the planning and organising of the early learning space.

From the available studies, more research is needed to understand children’s roles in how their classroom is organised and for children to be given the opportunity to share their perspectives on these roles. This article aims to contribute insights into how children describe their function in the organisation of the indoor early learning space in a kindergarten classroom and study the interactions between children, educators and non-human material in the early learning space. The article is guided by the research question how do children describe their role in organising the materials – the tools, resources and furniture – in the indoor early learning space? This article will explore the research context, data collection and analysis.

Research context

The research context where this study was conducted was in an urban kindergarten setting within a childcare centre in the greater Brisbane area, Queensland, Australia. In Queensland, kindergartens operate within long day care settings catering for children from birth to 5 years old, or as stand-alone or school-located kindergartens catering for children aged 3.5–5 years. The kindergarten classroom within Silky Oaks Childcare Centre (pseudonym) had an early childhood teacher, also known as the kindergarten teacher, who was completing her fourth year of the Bachelor of Education early childhood degree, called Sandy (pseudonym). The kindergarten classroom also had a supporting educator, called Lisa (pseudonym), who had attained her diploma of early childhood education care, providing the level of qualification required for an assistant educator. Silky Oaks Childcare Centre had a kindergarten classroom for children 3.5–5 years of age. Ten families were given an information sheet, a consent form and an information sheet for families to discuss with children what was to be involved in the study. From the 10 families, six families returned a consent form for their child to participate in this study.

The participants were three boys and three girls, as shown in Table 1.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Participant information table.

Participant	Gender	Age (years)
Ben	Boy	3.6
Bella	Girl	4.8
Dingo	Boy	4.8
Konnor	Boy	3.11
Lilly	Girl	3.6
Tamara	Girl	3.6
Total n = 6	Girls n = 3 Boys n = 3	Average age = 3.91 years

Pseudonyms were used in place of the children’s, staff and childcare centre’s names to ensure that their identities remain confidential (Alderson and Morrow, 2011). The participants were provided the opportunity to select a pseudonym in place of their real name. For those children who did not select a pseudonym, the researcher assigned a pseudonym. By asking children to select their own pseudonym, children were encouraged to decide on a name and have their views respected (Dockett et al., 2012; National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), 2007).

To value and respect children’s decisions to assent or dissent in the study, they would listen to a story that the researcher had developed on Microsoft PowerPoint prior to conducting child-led tours and/or video-stimulated recall interviews (Dockett et al., 2012; Roth-Cline and Nelson, 2013; Waligora et al., 2014). The story outlined the benefits of participating, what the children would need to show or tell the researcher and steps included in participating in the study. Children would then sign, colour, or circle an age-appropriate consent form that had a smiley face with a green border to indicate that they were happy to participate; a sad face with a red border to show that the child did not want to participate; and a clock to depict if that they wanted more time to think about participating. The age-appropriate visual consent form was a recommended approach used by Danby and Farrell (2005), Dockett et al. (2012) and Harcourt and Conroy (2005) as a support for the children to feel more comfortable in to dissent to the study.

Methods

For children to have the opportunity to describe their role in organising the classroom, children participated in a child-led tour and then a follow-up video-stimulated recall interview. Child-led tours are a participatory tool for research, as it is a method that children lead the data collection and does not rely solely on children’s verbal abilities but draws on their non-verbal abilities (Clark and Moss, 2001; Leobach and Gilliland, 2010). During the child-led tour, the researcher asked each child questions, such as ‘what do you put in here?’ and ‘do you play with it?’. One educator was present in the room at the time. Child-led tours were conducted while children were playing outside to minimise children being captured in the video recording. The children were asked to take a screenshot on a tablet device at each location they walked the researcher to. The benefit of using a tablet device to capture the photo was that the child only needed to press one button on the screen, thus making the device easy to operate. Children’s participation was facilitated by children sharing their views about their role in the organisation of the indoor early learning space. Their views were taken seriously as they had the opportunity to discuss the data in a video-stimulated recall interview.

During the video-stimulated recall interviews, the children reflected on the reasons why children captured video and still footage of particular areas and materials in the early learning space during the child-led tours (Endacott, 2016; Huang, 2014). Children were also asked about, or initiated discussion about, the screenshot photos that they had captured during the child-led tours. Questions asked during the interview included ‘what were you showing me here?’ and ‘is there anything you want to say about this part of the video?’. The video-stimulated recall interview was audio-recorded on the tablet device and the video extracts were displayed on a laptop. The screenshots children took during the tour were printed for children to identify the photos that each child talked about. Once the child-led tours and video-stimulated recall interviews were concluded, the data was processed through deductive thematic analysis (DTA).

Findings

As discussed earlier, it was expected that teachers and children would consult each other and that the teachers would have the predominate role in organising the classroom. One child, Dingo, constructed a number line which could be analysed in terms of both the expected and unexpected occurring being on the micro level. According to Dingo, in the child-led tour and video-stimulated recall interview, he constructed the number line in the classroom involved in the creation of a space, as shown in Figure 1.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Dingo’s number line.

In the child-led tour, the conversation began with the researcher asking Dingo, what have you brought into the room? Dingo then walked over to the number line.

Extract 1

Dingo:  I put the sticky tape in here, it’s called the number line.

Researcher:  How did you bring the tape in?

Dingo:  I got it from the shed.   (Child-led tour with Dingo, 25 May 2017)

Dingo remembered the procedure he took to set up this number line. He then reinforced his role in the video-stimulated recall interview. The researcher had an informal conversation with Sandy, the early childhood teacher, about the number line and Sandy confirmed that Dingo had helped her construct it. Drawing on the video footage of the number line, the following exchange occurred.

Extract 2

Researcher:  Do you remember showing me that sticky tape?

Dingo:  Yeah.

Researcher:  Do you remember what you were saying about the sticky tape?

Dingo:  It’s a number line because you can learn numbers on it.

Researcher:  Yeah and did you put it there?

Dingo:  Yes, I put it all that sticky tape, writing the numbers.

Researcher:  You wrote the numbers as well.

Dingo:  All the way.

Researcher:  See how you show me that one? Let’s have a look.

Dingo:  And Sandy said don’t step on it because it’s still dry.

Researcher:  So, did you, so you helped, who did you help bring it? Or did you do it all by yourself?

Dingo:  All by myself.  (Recall interview with Dingo, 30 May 2017)

Dingo showed ownership of this number line as he constructed it (Hart, 2006; Seymour, 2015; Shier, 2001). The role Dingo had was as a participant, as his involvement in making the number line was taken seriously. Furthermore, because Dingo constructed the number line, it influenced his behaviour in the way he said, ‘don’t step on it because it’s still dry’, which is unexpected in the context of the macro level where research has shown that teachers have the predominant role in organising the space (Greenman, 1988; Kritchevsky and Prescott, 1979; Satta, 2015). Furthermore, in relation to the meso level of what was expected, he was involved in making the number line with the teacher as he got the materials and made it (QSA, 2010). More research is needed to investigate how the children, teachers and non-human materials work to organise the early learning space.

Conclusion

A crucial implication of this study is the amount of child involvement and the ‘hearing’ of their voices about the processes and practices of organising a kindergarten classroom. A strong breadth of literature supports the importance of involvement of children in the classroom, with children having the immediate right to be heard, taken seriously and given due weight on matters that affect them. A review of the literature suggests that a teacher’s decision to involve children in the classroom is influenced by the large educator-to-child ratios, the perceptions teachers have on children, the lack of support in facilitating children’s verbal and non-verbal languages and the little acknowledged phenomenon that non-human materials and the early learning space have an effect on practice. Contrary to studies finding that educators have the predominate role in organising the classroom, a child described that he clearly constructed the number line. With these findings, there is a need for researchers, educators and organisations to hear through different modes the views of children to hear children’s voices.

This qualitative study, and the use of child-led tours and video-stimulated recall interviews, proved a successful measure of investigating how young children describe their role in organising the indoor kindergarten classroom. Given that this study is the first study to solely investigate the organisation of the indoor kindergarten classroom, further investigation of this particular phenomenon, children and their interactions with non-human material within the early learning space is needed in Australia and internationally. Research needs to be conducted on this phenomenon because, as discussed, the QKLG (QSA, 2010) require teachers to organise a space in consultation with children.

Due to the long period of time required to conduct research, the researcher recommends conducting workshops with teachers (in kindergartens, childcare centres), leaders (director, educational leader) and pre-service teachers regarding how they organise the early learning space. Workshops would include discussions and provocations on how early childhood professionals have considered children’s voice in organising the early childhood space. By organising workshops with these professionals, their learnings will be co-constructed from each other, they will be able to network, and it will be hoped that from discussion and provocations practices will be reconsidered.

Finally, it is emphasised by the inclusion of children in research, as seen in this study, children are capable and competent to interpret their world. The decisions made in how a classroom is organised and, with the use of a research story, any feedback about the daily operation of an early learning setting in a kindergarten classroom can be investigated.