Observation is a powerful tool in attempting to understand behavior as well as the factors affecting the behavior. This is true in all aspects of life, more especially so in early childhood education. Through observation, documentation, and interpretation of children’s goals and strategies, teachers (parents and carers) gain insight into the children’s thought processes; thus, allowing them to “engage children in conversations and investigations that have the potential to extend their learning in both depth and breadth” (Foreman and Hall, 2005).
Foreman and Hall (2005) list five reasons why it is important to observe children. They argue that through close observation, the following can be gleaned: the children’s
- interests and preferences;
- levels of cognitive and social development;
- strategies for creating desired effects;
- skills and accomplishments; and
- personalities and temperaments.
The importance of observation, documentation, and interpretation cannot be discounted. This process has given birth to numerous approaches, among them, the learning stories (Te Whariki) approach and the documentation (Reggio Emilia) approach.
Overview of the Reggio Emilia Approach
Founded by Loris Malaguzzi, the Reggio Emilia approach sees children as “competent, resourceful, curious, imaginative, inventive, and possess a desire to interact and communicate with others” (Brainy-Child.com). This approach is child-directed; teachers follow the interests of the children. It emphasizes allowing children to interact with others in a friendly learning environment, as it believes it is through interaction that children learn best.
Its documentation is the main characteristic of Reggio Emilia that sets it apart from other approaches. This approach emphasizes documenting and displaying the works of the children as it is seen to be vital for the children to “express, revisit, and construct and reconstruct their feelings, ideas and understandings,” (Grieshaber and Hatch, 2003). Using this approach, the children’s works in progress are documented to assess their learning process.
Their pictures while at work and while interacting with teachers and peers as well as the words they expressed are likewise documented, displayed, and interpreted to understand what they are feeling and thinking. The teachers act as documenters, helping the children to “trace and revisit their words and actions, and thereby making the learning visible” (Grieshaber and Hatch, 2003). The children’s ideas and works are displayed in the school walls which act as exhibit areas. As Malaguzzi (1993) puts it: “Our walls speak and document” (quoted in Grieshaber and Hatch, 2003). Equipment that is used to document the children’s activities includes cameras, tape recorders, projectors, typewriters, video cameras, computers, and photocopiers (Vecchi, 1993).
Because documentation is vital in Reggio Emilia, it is done delicately. Documentation in this approach is time-consuming. Forman, Lee, Wrisley & Langley (1993) argue that for the project to become successful, documentation and ample time to study the documentation should be given priority. This is to give time for the teachers to reflect on the information to build a more comprehensive picture of the children (Perry, 1997).
Overview of the Learning Stories (Te Whariki) Approach
The Learning Stories approach is an interesting way of documenting how children learn. Instead of employing the traditional report method, this approach uses a narrative or story-telling format to record and report the children’s experiences. The child is the subject of the story and the observer (narrator) captures the child’s learning journey, by describing the things the child does, as well as what he or she might be feeling (Ryan, n.d.).
Based on the work of Dr. Margarett Carr, this approach focuses on the strengths of the children, rather than on their weaknesses, thus, providing insights into the children’s interests, strengths, as well as learning dispositions.
The learning stories approach shows how much the child has improved over time, providing valuable information which can be used to enhance the child’s learning. And because it is more engaging than the traditional reporting method, it encourages the parents to read their child’s record more often, thus providing them an insight into what the child does in school. Ryan (n.d.) argues that the use of the learning stories approach has encouraged parents to share their thoughts and feelings more than they had previously. “Parents are now writing their own learning stories, thus, providing us with an insight into children’s learning at home” (Ryan, n.d.). She adds that parents and children give positive feedback on the approach.
The learning stories approach gives focuses on the child and his or her relationship with the environment. Here, children are seen as “learners-in-action” and the teacher or carer responds to the child’s interests. Exercises are child-focused, child-initiated, and based on the children’s interests. To report the child’s progress, carers look at the child’s perspective, observing the child over time and trying to interpret his or her point of view as well as determine his or her interests. The carers then create portfolios for each child, which include pictures of the child, examples of his or her work, and records of his or her special interests, challenges, and achievements (Childcare, 2007). To observe the children, audio and video recordings equipment may be used.
A Closer Look at Two Observational Approaches (Learning Stories and Reggio Emilia)
In a case study on the learning stories approach published in the journal Childcare and Children’s Health (Vol. 10 No. 4 December 2007), a school teacher, Kay Fitzgerald, adapted the learning stories approach. She implemented a program that “draws on many different developmental theorists and emphasizes the importance of carers ‘scaffolding’ (or providing support for) children’s own learning,” (Childcare and Children’s Health, Vol. 10 No. 4 December 2007) as well as social learning. Fitzgerald created individual portfolios for her students, recording each child’s interests, efforts, and achievements. She also included photos, artworks, records of observations, and narrations from the child. She also sent letters to the children’s parents, explaining to them how she would use the portfolios to document the progress of each child.
After one and a half years of doing this, Fitzgerald reports that families can see the improvement of their child as learning stories provide a “snapshot” of a child’s learning “in a format that is meaningful and purposeful,” (Childcare and Children’s Health (Vol. 10 No. 2007).
The portfolios are seen to provide a positive focus for discussion between parents and carers. And since the children have access to their portfolios, they can suggest what they want to be included or removed and what they want to be put as their favorites. They can also recall and share their past experiences. Fitzgerald reports meaningful interactions between the children, and between the staff and the children. She says “children are listened to more and are more actively engaged in their own learning” (Childcare and Children’s Health, Vol. 10 No. 4 December 2007).
While the above shows the positive outcome of the learning stories method, a presentation by Ken Blaiklock of the Unitec Institute of Technology, Auckland on May 2-4, 2008 at the Early Childhood Council Annual Conference in Wellington, questions some tenets of the approach. He concludes that while there is some evidence that Learning Stories are useful in fostering center-home links, and understandings of literacy, other means of documentations can also achieve the same. He argues that learning stories (as exemplified in Kei Tua o te Pae) “do not provide an effective and practical way of assessing the richness of children’s learning over time; do not provide valid assessments of dispositions nor of crucial areas of children’s learning”; and are “of little value for planning effective learning experiences” (Blaiklock, 2008).
The Reggio Emilia approach, on the other hand, has good ideals and goals. And it has unique systems, which, although it is one of its strengths, can also become its weakness. It is a strength where it fits, but a weakness where it doesn’t. To explain this, it is important to point out that Reggio Emilia originated in Italy, where the local government is a community-based management, and horizontal. This means that every member of the community, regardless of background and status, and age, is of equal footing and has a say in matters. Participatory democracy is valued, allowing schools to be run in a non-hierarchical system.
As such, in countries or societies that are hierarchical, Reggio Emilia may not work without modifications. Moreover, where the approach was conceptualized, children are viewed as citizens of the present.
Parents and educators do not think of the children in terms of who or what they will be in the future, say ten years from now. They simply want the children to succeed now, in the present. On the contrary, other societies or countries view education as a preparation for the children’s future and are insistent upon standard measures (Biddle, 2006). This insistence on standards may render Reggio Emilia inappropriate as it looks at the individual’s learning in terms of how each child improves over time and what he or she needs, and not in terms of what is expected of him or her to learn and achieve according to his or her age.
Conclusion
The importance of an observational approach to childhood education cannot be discounted. Observation allows the teacher, the parents, as well as the carer to gain insight into the strengths, interests, and needs of the child, as well as what might be going on in his or her mind and what he or she might be feeling. It allows them to give the child exactly what he or she needs and understand what he or she should be doing based on his or her interests, as opposed to what age-based approaches think he or she needs and should be doing.
While the above observational approaches present some limitations, both are beneficial to the child as well as to the parents and teachers. Both methods have many things in common, as they agree on many things, like being child-centered and child interest-focused. They also focus on the strengths of the child rather than on their weaknesses, and they view the child as a competent learner. Being child-focused is vital in both curriculums, and this is what teachers should aim for in their classroom: to know and to understand the individual personalities of the students so that they can reach out to them accordingly.
The only major difference between the two is their method of documenting the child’s experiences. While both use a sort of ‘portfolio’ method, the learning stories approach goes beyond using narrative in the documentation. While this method is interesting, there is a question as to which of the activities of the child, or which of the things he or she did or said, should be included in the narrative. Moreover, as Blaiklock points out, the approach lacks guidance as to “where, when, and how often to make Learning Stories.” He also asks valid questions that need to be answered, among them: “Is a learning story about a small event in one context useful for planning learning experiences for future events in very different contexts?” (Blaiklock, 2008).
The same could be said about the Reggio Emilia approach. It also has its limitations. As previously mentioned, the approach cannot just be adapted as is and expected to work as effectively as it did in its country of origin. Modifications are therefore recommended.
Where appropriate, I recommend the use of Reggio Emilia over Learning Stories simply because writing narratives may not be every teacher’s strength; hence it may become among their limitations in documenting the children’s learning process. Moreover, like Blaiklock, I also think that not every instance could be put in the documentation. As such, which experience should be included and which shouldn’t is a question that needs to be addressed.
Bibliography
Biddle, James. (2006). An Analysis of the Reggio Emilia Approach to Early Childhood Education. University of Dayton website. Web.
Blaiklock, K. (2008). Are Learning Stories Working? Presented at the Early Childhood Council Annual Conference. Web.
Brainy Child.com. Make your child smarter. Web.
Childcare and Children’s Health. (2007). Childcare. Childcare and Children’s Health, Vol. 10 No. 4. Web.
Grieshaber, S. J. and Hatch, J. A. (2003) Child observation and pedagogical documentation as effects of globalisation. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing 19(1):pp. 89-102. Web.
Forman, G. & Hall, E. (2005). Wondering with Children: The Importance of Observation in Early Education. Early Childhood Research and Practice. Vol. 7. No. 2.
Forman, G., Lee, M., Wrisley, L. & Langley, J. (1993). The city in the snow: Applying the multisymbolic approach in Massachusetts. In C. Edwards, L. Gandini, & G. Forman (Eds.), The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia approach to early childhood education (pp. 233-250). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Malaguzzi, L. (1993). History, ideas and basic philosophy. In C. Edwards, L. Gandini, & G. Forman (Eds.), The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia approach to early childhood education (pp. 41-89). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Ryan, K. (2006). Learning Stories. Jigsaw. Issue 41.