What May Characterise Teaching in Preschool? The Written
Descriptions of Swedish Preschool Teachers and Managers in 2016
Ann-Christine Vallberg Roth
Faculty of Education and Society, Children, Youth and Society, Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden
ABSTRACT
This paper addresses national concern about teaching in preschool, building on the challenges, opportunities, and requirements facing today’s preschools due to the higher expected level of preschool assignments. The aim is to build knowledge of how preschool teachers and managers from 10 Swedish municipalities characterise preschool teaching. The material was generated in a 2016 survey completed by 243 respondents (91% response rate). A didactics-oriented textual analysis referred to Kansanen’s (1993). An outline for a model of teachers’ pedagogical thinking. In P. Kansanen (Ed.), Discussions on some educational issues IV. Research report 121. Helsinki, Finland: University of Helsinki) three-level schema comprising the action, theoretical, and meta-theoretical levels and the results identify 8 distinctive traces ranging from the rejection to the recognition of preschool teaching. Recognition traces emphasise wide-ranging, diffuse, and child-centred teaching. The results indicate that traces of the action level are more prominent and“multivocal” than are traces of the theoretical and meta-theoretical levels. Overall, the combined analytical results support the concept of diffuse multivocal teaching.
ARTICLE HISTORY Received 14 August 2017 Accepted 17 May 2018 KEYWORDS
Didactics; preschool; Sweden; teaching
There is a great need to clarify how teaching is carried out in preschools, as significant differences have appeared in how Swedish preschools handle their educational mandate (Swedish Schools Inspectorate, 2016a, 2016b). Earlier research into Swedish preschools has concentrated more on learning than on teaching (Vallberg Roth,2017b).
This paper addresses national concerns about teaching in preschool, building on the challenges, opportunities, and requirements facing today’s preschools due to the higher expected level of preschool assignments. Preschool has become a school form that also requires teaching (Swedish Education Act, SFS,2010:800). Teaching in preschool may refer to goal-oriented acts that, led by preschool teachers, direct children’s attention in order to stimulate “development and learning through the acquisition and development of knowledge and values” (SFS,2010:800, Ch 1 s 3). Education and teaching must be based on both science and proven experience (RFR10, 2012/
2013). Moreover, preschools must be equal in quality and offer all children high-quality preschool
activities (SFS,2010:800). This paper on teaching in Swedish preschools can be seen as part of this context.
© 2018 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
CONTACT Ann-Christine Vallberg Roth ann-christine.vallberg-roth@mau.se Faculty of Education and Society, Children, Youth and Society, Malmö University, Malmö 205 06, Sweden
The Identified Problem
Teachers and managers in Swedish preschools seem to struggle with the concept of“teaching” in their daily practice. This problem is also the basis of a three-year research and development project on teaching in preschool1, of which the study described here is part. As the concept of“teaching” has been stressed in recent national preschool policies and in daily practice in preschool, it is important to explore how it is used and understood by preschool teachers and managers responsible for pre-school assignments.
Survey of the Field and the Identified Research gap
Swedish preschoolsfit into a Nordic tradition based on welfare-state ambitions that are highly ranked in international comparisons (OECD,2006,2012,2017). Nordic preschools have similar systems of management by objectives, so it is more relevant to refer to, translate, and employ results from Nordic than non-Nordic research when examining Swedish preschools. However, research into teaching in preschool contexts in other countries can add important perspectives (see examples of references below). One example of this is a review of research into develop-ment, learning, play, and care considered as elements, in particular, of preschool as an edu-cational programme and, to a lesser extent, of the preschool teaching in various countries (Tallberg Broman,2015).
A Norwegian study found that the Norwegian day-care curriculum (rammeplanen) does not use the concept of teaching and that the day-care teachers interviewed seemed to repudiate the concept (Hammer, 2012). Hammer wondered whether dominant discourses concerning child-centred practice have undermined preschool teachers’ significance as active agents in relation to children’s learning. The downplaying of teaching in preschool is a theme that recurs in Swedish studies (e.g., Doverborg, Pramling, & Pramling Samuelsson,2013; Rosenqvist,2000), and“many are disinclined to use the term teaching” (Swedish Schools Inspectorate, 2016a, p. 6). In research into subject-based didactics (Tallberg Broman, 2015), Swedish/Nordic studies place more emphasis on the “learning side” than on the “teaching side” of didactics (Vallberg Roth, 2016, 2017b), although there are also examples of studies that focus on teaching in preschool (e.g., Areljung,2017; Björk-lund & Ahlskog-Björkman, 2017; Botö, Lantz-Andersson, & Wallerstedt, 2017; Dalgren, 2017; Doverborg et al.,2013; Engdahl,2010; Fleer, Gomes, & March,2014; Harju-Luukkainen & Kultti,
2017; Hedefalk,2014; Jonsson, Williams, & Pramling Samuelsson,2017; Rosenqvist,2000). The implications of teaching in preschool can shift, depending on the theoretical perspectives and approaches used in the studies. The (meta)theoretical approaches applied in the studies, such as sociocultural perspectives, variation theory, pragmatic perspectives, and post-constructionism, however, emphasise learning more than teaching (Vallberg Roth, 2017a, 2017b). We have, for example, sociocultural perspectives focusing on“situated learning,” variation theory with a con-nection to the “learning study,” and intentional learning; we also have pragmatic perspectives referring to“reflective learning” and post-constructionism with a connection to “rhizomatic learn-ing” (Vallberg Roth,2017a,2017b). All of this evokes something of a“learnification of didactics” (cf. Biesta,2017).
From an international perspective, research indicates the significance of preschool teachers to the quality of activities and thus to children’s learning and development (e.g., Chambers, Cheung, & Slavin, 2016; Guo, Wang, Hall, Breit-Smith, & Busch, 2016; Sullivan & Bers,
2016; Sylva, Melhuish, Sammons, Siraj-Blatchford, & Taggart, 2010; Wang, Firmender, Power, & Byrnes, 2016; Wyatt & Chapman-De-Sousa,2017). In a literature review including 1The paper is based on a three-year research project, 2016–2018 (Vallberg Roth, Holmberg, Löf, Palla, Stensson, & Tallberg Broman, forthcoming). The project specifically aims to test the concept of multivocal didactic modelling and is being carried out in partner-ship between Ifous (Swedish acronym for‘innovation, research, and development in schools and preschools’) and Malmö University.
international studies, Persson (2015) emphasised that “earlier research has presented results which indicate that quality in preschool education is a combination of responsive care and high-quality teaching; the latter is designated instructional quality in the international research literature” (p. 123). The examples of non-Nordic studies of teaching in preschool focus primar-ily on the teaching of academically oriented content and on learning outcomes; however, some also focus on child-initiated activities involving little direct teaching and on teaching in di ffer-ent group sizes. Critical didactics and didactic levels (Kansanen,1993) are not prominent in the non-Nordic studies (see also the section entitled “Theoretical premises, main concepts, and analysis” [below]). Moreover, these non-Nordic studies do not include both managers and tea-chers (cf. Uljens & Ylimaki, 2017).
In earlier research into teaching in preschool concentrating on the Nordic and Swedish contexts, commonly used methods include interviews, video documentation, and qualitative data analysis in a relatively small number of case studies focusing on preschool teachers and/or student preschool tea-chers (Vallberg Roth,2015,2017b). In the present paper, preschool teachers and managers docu-ment their thoughts about teaching and generate data regarding a relatively large number of preschools from 10 Swedish municipalities, without the direct presence of researchers observing the preschool practice (see Footnote 1). The range of preschool teachers and managers included from these 10 municipalities provides data that sheds light on what may characterise teaching in pre-schools on a significantly wider scale than has been usual in earlier studies of teaching in preschool that have analysed qualitative data.
The identified research gap especially concerns teaching in the Swedish preschool as a school form. There is a need for research into preschool teaching in which the scientific foundation is not reduced to an emphasis on learning theory. This does not mean that learning-theory-based research into teaching is irrelevant, but rather that it can be expanded to incorporate other possible theoretical approaches.
In 2000, Rosenqvist studied student preschool teachers’ views of the concept of teaching in pre-school in light of Kansanen’s (1993) three levels of didactic thinking (see the section entitled “Method and theoretical premises” [below]). The results indicated that student preschool teachers had not developed their thinking about teaching on a theoretical and meta-theoretical level. The question is how preschool teachers and managers express what may characterise teaching in pre-school in 2016 and what levels of didactic thinking can be discerned in this.
Aim and Research Questions
The aim is to develop our understanding of what preschool teachers and managers from 10 munici-palities in Sweden have expressed in writing about what may characterise preschool teaching in 2016. The research is guided by the following questions:
. What may characterise teaching in preschool according to preschool teachers’ and managers’ written descriptions?
. What levels of didactic thinking about preschool teaching can be discerned in the preschool tea-chers’ and managers’ written descriptions?
Method and Theoretical Premises
The method consists of a survey with relatively open-ended questions. The data analysis consists of textual analysis with an expanded approach (see Alvesson & Sköldberg,2008; Åsberg,2000/
2001; Silverman, 2011). Textual analysis and the specific approach applied here are further
described in the section“Analysis in relation to ontological, epistemological, methodological, and data-related dimensions” (below). First, a few words about the material and sample are warranted.
Material and Sample
The material consists of written answers to thefirst of five relatively open-ended questions included in a reflective questionnaire administered to preschool teachers and managers, as follows:
The reflective questionnaire
(1) What may characterise teaching in preschool? (2) What may characterise preschool teaching in
(a) music (b) mathematics
(c) language/communication/multilingualism?
(3) What may characterise an instructive preschool teacher?
(4) What may characterise an organisation and leadership that promotes teaching in preschool? (5) What might characterise assessment and co-assessment in preschools?
This paper is limited to analysing thefirst question. The answers to Question 1 were probably affected by the focus of the other questions, such that the answers ended up being more general than the answers to the questions focusing on specific content areas or on management and organisation.
Sample, response frequency, and non-response
The sample comprises 243 respondents representing their municipalities in a three-year research project (see Footnote 1). Of these 243, 178 are preschool teachers and 65 are managers, of whom 55 are preschool managers at the preschool level and 10 are administrative managers at the munici-pal level. It is not apparent from their responses whether all respondents were trained preschool tea-chers; however, all participants were part of the ongoing project (see Footnote 1), for which the principals required that the participants be preschool teachers.
As no significant differences were evident between the responses of the preschool managers and administrative managers (at the municipal level) to Question 1 about what may characterise teaching in preschool, in this paper I have combined preschool managers and administrative managers, call-ing them simply“managers”. The analysis is further limited to considering preschool teachers and managers as groups, with no comparison made between municipalities. In the confines of this paper, interpreting and differentiating between each municipality’s preschool teachers and managers would entail far too extensive, and unwieldy, an analysis. I also label the groups preschool teachers (T) or managers (M) in the word frequency analysis inTable 2and when identifying the distinctive traces emerging in the responses of only either preschool teachers or managers inTables 3and4. I note that the number of participating preschool teachers ranged between 3 and 42 and the number of man-agers between 3 and 12 in the various municipalities.
The reflective questionnaire described above was distributed by email to all 243 respondents from the 10 municipalities. This study reports part of a larger ongoing project (see Footnote 1) that com-plies with the Swedish Research Council’s (2017) principles of research ethics. The material was gen-erated in connection with the beginning of the project in 2016. The instructions to the project participants were simply to answer the questions and then return the completed questionnaire by email. After four reminders, there was a total of 21 non-responders. The researchers had hoped to obtain a 100% response rate, and the four reminders probably influenced the number of responses. Overall, the response rate was 91%. The response and non-response rates are shown in Table 1, dis-tributed by municipality and preschool teachers (T) and managers (M) (Table 1).
Theoretical Premises, Main Concepts, and Analysis
“Teaching” is the main concept addressed here, while “didactics” can be seen as the overall knowl-edge base for teaching and learning. Didactics focuses on the teacher-child-content relationship– in
other words, a theory of teaching (e.g., Bengtsson,1997; Comenius,1632/1989; Uljens,1997).“The word‘didactics’ may be explained as ‘the art of pointing out something to someone’” (Doverborg et al.,2013, p. 7).
The analysis in this paper is guided by critical didactics. Didactics, interpreted as stressing re flec-tion in educaflec-tional processes that involve preparing individuals for an open and unforeseen future, therefore by definition refers to critical didactics (cf. Biesta,2011; Brante,2016; Broström,2012). In concrete terms, this means that in the research question I have replaced“should” with “may.” In didactic questions,“should” pertains more to traditional normative didactics (Uljens,1997), whereas “may” is associated with critical didactics. “May” ensures that there might be alternatives to the choices made and that we make no claims to having definitively established “what should be taught” or “what characterises … ,” but that we instead emphasise “what may characterise … .” Critical didactics endeavours to support critical reflection through the use of alternative tools, the point being to set the stage for something alternative. In this paper, I open the door to“multivocal teach-ing” in which teaching is multivocal on the action, theoretical, and meta-theoretical levels (see Kan-sanen,1993; Vallberg Roth,2017a,2017b). Multivocal refers to multiple voices in many parts, which can be translated into multiple perspectives and a variety of approaches (Vallberg Roth,2015,2017a). The Norwegian linguist Dysthe (1993) launched the concept of“the multivocal classroom,” clearly inspired by the work of Russian philosopher and literary theorist Bakhtin and his colleagues. Socio-linguistic and sociocultural premises are prominent in their work. The multivocality could then be interpreted as focusing more on the action level than on the (meta)theoretical level, which instead emphasised sociocultural perspectives in a more univocal manner. In the present study, the term “multivocal teaching” is inspired by Dysthe, even as a more expansive approach can be tested that is intended to encompass several action-based, theoretical, and meta-theoretical premises (Vall-berg Roth,2015,2017a,2017b).
Analysis in relation to ontological, epistemological, methodological, and data-related dimensions
Didactically oriented analysis may operate through shifting theoretical approaches and scientific foundations‒ that is, didactics as a multidisciplinary field of knowledge (Ingerman & Wickman,
2015). Teaching may therefore be studied based on varied theoretical premises, such as variation the-ory, sociocultural and pragmatic perspectives, and post-constructionist premises, and, depending on the particular approach and premises, the meaning of teaching seems to vary (Vallberg Roth,2015,
2017a,2017b).
Traces of scientific grounds that emerge from the written material are discussed here. The aforementioned theoretical premises are explicitly mentioned in the written material, but there are examples of other theoretical premises that may be associated with the traces in the material. I use the term “trace” in the analysis rather than “category,” for example, because
Table 1.Response frequency and non-response.
Municipality Response T/M Non-response T/M
A 14/6 5/0 B 11/4 3/0 C 12/4 2/1 D 12/3 1/0 E 8/3 0/1 F 16/4 1/1 G 22/12 1/2 H 8/4 0/0 I 17/7 1/1 J 42/12 1/0 Total 10 163/59 = 222 15/6 = 21
“trace” can be analytically compatible with different premises and perspectives that shift between qualitative and post-qualitative approaches and ways of relating to and processing data. Traces can be both explicit and implicit. Explicit traces are delimited with relatively sharp and closed outlines, for example:“We do not use the term ‘teaching’ in preschool.” Implicit traces have more diffuse, fuzzy, and open outlines, such as the diffuse traces of scientific grounds in terms of“learning objectives” that can be connected to both variation theory and developmental peda-gogy. Although both explicit and implicit traces appear in the material, the analysis emphasises explicit traces.
The present analysis applies Kansanen’s (1993) three levels– that is, the “action level,” “thinking level I” (object theories), and “thinking level II” (meta-theory). The action level refers to descriptions of teaching acts, such as planning, co-action, and assessment in practice, in connection with edu-cational aims and goals in the curriculum. Thinking level I, including object theories, refers to how preschool teachers and managers base their teaching practices on science and relate them to theoretical premises such as variation theory and pragmatic and sociocultural perspectives. Thinking level II, the meta-theoretical level, refers to traces of preschool teachers” and managers’ orienting themselves in and connecting themselves to the meta-theoretical level, as in post-constructionism. It is appropriate here to emphasise that I do not regard thought as separated and isolated from action, but as intertwined in all three levels. To meet the need for tools that can expand teachers’ professional scope for action and support critical reflection and science-based action, studies are required that clarify how teaching can have both theoretical and meta-theoretical bases (Vallberg Roth, 2017a). In other words, this can be expressed as an orientation that includes how teaching is based on ontological and epistemological grounds. A broader approach can discern practice-related, theoretical, and meta-theoretical traces in the material and the analysis can be expanded and transposed between different identified grounds.
In the methodological dimension, the analysis refers to abduction. An abductive analysis iterates between empirically loaded theory and theoretically loaded empiricism, with each being successively reinterpreted in light of the other (Alvesson & Sköldberg,2008; Peirce,1903/1990). The results of the abductive analysis, presented in the“Results” section (below) contain elements of both theory and empiricism. Abduction can point to the creative aspect of the analysis. Abductive moments in the analysis may include suddenly seeing an alternative– that is, discovering a previously unrevealed “being-possible” (Peirce,1903/1990). The abductive analysis moves to and fro between empiricism, open reading, and theory-based tracing.
In the data-related dimension, the data comprise “word data.” The quotations presented here were selected for their clear exemplification of the traces in the material. More concretely, the sis involves identifying traces in the material in relation to the research aim and question. The analy-sis can then be described in terms of the following interpretive paths (see, e.g., Alvesson & Sköldberg,
2008; Fejes & Thornberg,2009; Rapley,2011):
Empirically based analytical path
. Close reading– I read the material and highlight prominent words.
. Word frequency analysis – The frequency of prominent words was counted using the “Find” function in Word to enable quantitative processing of word data (see Table 2 and Figure 1). This process identified words that, upon repeated revision of the material, appeared the most fre-quently, as indicated in Table 2. The word-frequency analysis can be seen as a quantitative element of the qualitative processing of word data. The point of including quantitative elements in the qualitative processing is to stabilise the analysis and hopefully reduce error sources, such as confirmation bias.
. Distinctive traces were identified – How words interact with and reinforce each other in their con-texts was analysed. The analysis built on both high- and low-frequency traces in the second and qualitatively oriented interpretive path (see “Distinctive traces” in Table 3 and responses in
Table 4). The word-frequency analysis can be viewed as offering stabilising support in the analysis
of the distinctive traces. One example is high-frequency words such as “children,” “interest,” “play”, “we/together” (i.e., educators + children), and “co-explore” (seeTable 2). In the analysis of how the words interact with and reinforce each other in their contexts, the high-frequency words in this case led to a distinctive trace of “child-centred teaching.” According to one interpretation of the material, the teaching therefore proceeds from children’s interests and play with accompanying, responsive, and co-explorative educators (see “Trace 3” in Table 3
and examples of responses inTable 4).
Table 2.High-frequency words in material on what may characterise teaching in preschool in 2016.
Word Preschool teachers Managers
Children/the child 362/30 102/9
Learn/ing 126/91 54/29
Educator/sr 101/20 38/22
We/together (educators-children) 118/55 8/7
Teaching 111 36
Interests (primarily children’s interests) 84 20
Play 70 7 Development 48 22 Explore/co-explore 42/17 16/6 Prior knowledge/knowledge/expertise 2/40/7 2/14/5 Activity 35 14 Challenge 33 13/3 Goal 34 16 Preschool teacher 10 22
Theory-based analytical path
. Distinctive traces in the third interpretive path were problematised in relation to earlier research and concepts (see the section“Problematisation of the distinctive traces” [below]). The high-fre-quency, empirically based traces were paid somewhat greater attention than were the low-fre-quency traces when reporting the problematising step of the analysis.
. Cohesive analysis was performed in light of Kansanen’s (1993) three levels, resulting in a concep-tualising focus (see the section“Concluding discussion related to the action, theoretical, and meta-theoretical levels” [below]).
In practice, the empirically based and theory-based interpretive paths are more intertwined than the above bullet list would indicate.
Situated Generalisation
As regards generalisation, there is an argument for the logic of situated generalisation, according to which the results provide alternative perspectives and concepts rather than a single truth (Larsson,
2009). This approach is discursive, exploratory, and sensitive and one in which the reader interprets the extent to which the results can provide guidance in similar cases, situations, and contexts outside the study. The generalisation is situated in the sense that it cannot be predicted and instead occurs through recognition, that is, when the reader can recognise identified teaching traces described in the paper and can use the results and concepts as tools in practice (see Larsson,2009).
Results
The results are presentedfirst in the form of an empirically-based word frequency analysis, followed by the presentation and problematisation of distinctive traces. This leads to a cohesive theory-based Table 3.Overview of distinguishing traces of what may characterise teaching in preschool in 2016.
Preschool teachers and managers Preschool teachers (T) or Managers (M) 1 Repudiation of teaching (T) 2 Wide and diffuse teaching
. (2a) Everything that happens in preschool is teaching
. (2b) Teaching = learning (preschool teachers not required)
. (2c) Teaching happens both in spontaneous everyday routines/situations and in planned activities (with an educator present)
3 Child-centred and socio-emotionally oriented teaching
. (3a) Teaching proceeds from children’s interests and play, with accompanying, responsive, and co-explorative educators
. (3b) Teaching as a socio-emotional relationship where, e.g., security, care, fun and social interaction are emphasised
4 Learning environment and learning tools as support for teaching in the foreground
– “the third educator”
5 Teacher-oriented teaching and leadership
. (5a) The preschool teacher’s activities in the foreground – e.g., lead, introduce, systematically document and evaluate
. (5b) Teaching connected to legally secure foundations– the Education Act and curriculum
6a Teaching with special needs education traces
‘all children’ – “every child’s learning processes” – “special needs” (6b) Teaching with multilingual traces‘several languages’ and native language – (T)
7 Narrow teaching connected to “measurable learning” – (M) 8 Traces of scientific grounds and tested experience linked to teaching
analysis and discussion with reference to Kansanen’s (1993) three-level schema of the action, theor-etical, and meta-theoretical levels.
Word Frequency Analysis
Altogether, the material comprises about 10,000 words. Each response ranged from 3 to 288 words, with responses of 11–40 words being the most common. The word counts of the responses of pre-school teachers and managers are presented inFigure 1.
The word frequency analysis identified several words that topped the list of 125 high-frequency words, as shown inTable 2. For reasons of space, only the most frequently used words with total hits of more than 30 are included in the Table
References to Table 2are integrated in the section“Problematisation of the distinctive traces” (below).
Table 4.Overview of examples of responses in the distinguishing traces of what may characterise teaching in preschool in 2016. Preschool teachers and managers Preschool teachers (T) or Managers (M)
1 Repudiation of teaching
“We do not use the term ‘teaching’ in preschool’” – (T) 2 Wide and diffuse teaching
. (2a)“Teaching starts when the preschool opens at 6:15 in the morning and ends when the preschool closes at 6:15 in the evening”
. (2b)“All learning can be characterised as teaching”
. (2c)“Teaching in preschool is apparent throughout the day, not only at‘assemblies’ but in brief moments all day long where there is an educator present”
3 Child-centred and socio-emotionally oriented teaching
. (3a)“We proceed from the children’s interests”.
. “I consider preschool educators as helpers rather than
teachers”
. (3b)“Secure children can assimilate teaching, they need to be thoroughly accustomed to the preschool’s basic activities” i.e., routines and social interaction.
4 Learning environment and learning tools as support for teaching in the foreground
“The environment is also highly significant to teaching in the preschool. If the environment is inviting, it can stimulate learning and development and support teaching in the preschool”
5 Teacher-oriented teaching and leadership
. (5a)“How we lead, what we say and the paths we choose determine the type of teaching that is possible and happens at any given time”
. (5b)“Goal-oriented processes planned by certified preschool teachers based on the Education Act and the preschool curriculum. … create the conditions for children to acquire new knowledge”
6a Teaching with special needs education traces “Teaching proceeds from the needs and circumstances of all
children”
(6b) Teaching with multilingual traces
“When the children have acquired one or more languages, we can create many opportunities for reflection during the preschool day” – (T)
7 Narrow teaching connected to“measurable learning” “Carefully considered elements that result in measurable learning’” – (M)
8 Traces of scientific grounds and proven experience linked to teaching
Distinctive Traces of What May Characterise Teaching in Preschool
Eight distinctive traces emerged in the analysis of what may characterise teaching in preschool. These traces build on both the high- and low-frequency traces in the preceding interpretive path and are compiled inTable 3. The eight distinctive traces range from the rejection to the rec-ognition of preschool teaching. Recrec-ognition and high-frequency traces emphasise wide-ranging, diffuse, and child-centred teaching (Traces 2–3). The results indicate that traces of the action level are more prominent and “multivocal” (Traces 1–7) than are traces of the theoretical and meta-theoretical levels (Trace 8).
Examples of responses illustrating the distinguishing traces inTable 3are presented inTable 4. The example responses inTable 4are expanded on and contextualised in the following section.
Problematisation of the Distinctive Traces
The various traces are problematised in this section in relation to earlier research; here I examine the question of what may characterise teaching in preschool from various perspectives.
Repudiation of teaching in preschool
The trace“repudiation of teaching” identified in the analysis can be illustrated by the quotation “We do not use the term‘teaching’ in preschool” (Trace 1 inTable 3). This trace in the preschool teachers”
responses is consistent with the Swedish Schools Inspectorate’s 2016 reports on preschool outcomes, in which many respondents resist using the word“teaching” (Swedish Schools Inspectorate,2016a,2016b). In line with the traces identified here, the earlier cited Norwegian study (Hammer,2012) found that the repudiation of teaching as a concept emerged in interviews with preschool teachers. The authors considered whether the dominant discourses on child-centred activities undermined the sig-nificance of preschool teachers as active agents in relation to children’s learning. However, other traces also emerged in presenting the analysis of the material.
Wide-ranging and diffuse teaching
The trace“wide-ranging and diffuse teaching” is apparent in the material, for example, when teaching is described in terms of“everything that happens in a day at preschool,” “EVERYTHING you do with the children at preschool!” and “Teaching starts when the preschool opens at 6:15 in the morning and ends when the preschool closes at 6:15 in the evening” (Trace 2a inTable 3). It can be difficult to regard “everything” that happens in the preschool as teaching. For example, it is difficult to see children’s already learned and developed acts as teaching; this might involve children doing what they have already learned and mastered, such as riding a bicycle. Moreover, there may be acts that are difficult to regard as teaching acts, even though preschool teachers are present, such as when preschool teachers clean tables and storage areas when children are not present. As to the link to teaching as a goal-oriented, inten-tional, and didactic relationship, Engdahl (2010) presented didactic examples from one outing with two preschool teachers who offered different opinions. According to the author, Preschool Teacher A provided a pleasant outing, while Preschool Teacher B taught“about the preschool’s local community and documented follow-on learning processes, in which the children were given the opportunity to exert considerable influence” (Engdahl,2010, p. 27). The example of Preschool Teacher A did not, according to Engdahl, equal the teaching status and quality of the example of Preschool Teacher B.
“Learning” is another high-frequency word (seeTable 2) and, in this wide-ranging and diffuse trace, teaching and learning can appear to be identical phenomena that do not require preschool teachers:
. Learning in general.
. All learning can be characterised as teaching.
. The children see and learn from each other. (Trace 2b inTable 3)
Learning and teaching can be said to be strongly linked, because teaching is intended to facilitate learning. However, learning can be interpreted as possible without teaching and outside of teaching situations (see Illeris, 2015): There “is no automatic connection between teaching and learning” (p. 16). When the word “learning” is used as synonymous with teaching, no difference emerges between what the teacher teaches and what the child actually learns. In this context, traces illustrated by statements that seem to equate teaching with learning can be interpreted as problematic. Teaching can also happen without learning. For example, preschool teachers may teach about something that some children in the group have already learned, that the children are not interested in, or that is too difficult, so that the children do not learn it. Also, children may perceive and learn something other than what the preschool teacher intended to teach (see, e.g., Rosenqvist,2000; Sandberg,2012). A post-structural approach would be an alternative way to get closer to teaching in this context, in which teaching can be interpreted as opening a pathway for non-predetermined potential. The main point may then be that teaching can facilitate children’s creative, knowledge-generative pro-cesses, giving rise to the unpredicted in the moment. Examples of this are when children start think-ing and talkthink-ing about“mould music” (Elfström,2013) or“talking strings” between worms that let them message each other, warn each other about danger, or ask for help when they get ill (Dahlberg & Elfström,2014, p. 283).
Furthermore, teaching in the form of a trace that involves both spontaneous everyday situations and planned activities (see“Activity” inTable 2and Trace 2c inTable 3) can be interpreted as con-sistent with a broad interpretation of teaching:
Teaching in preschool is evident throughout the day, not only in“assemblies” but in brief moments all day long when there is an educator present.
Everyday situations… . Scheduled activities, assemblies, physical activity periods, etcetera.
Teaching is ongoing in the preschool when the educators are aware of what they are meant to do. In routine situations such as mealtimes, visits to the toilet, dressing and undressing, time outdoors. (Trace 2c inTable 3)
Child-centred and socio–emotionally oriented teaching: care according to a broad interpretation of teaching
“Care, development, and learning form a whole in preschool teaching” (Swedish Government Bill,
2009/10:165, p. 217). In this context, the trace“teaching as a socio–emotional relationship” with chil-dren (Trace 3b inTable 3) can be interpreted as closely linked to care. Security, care, and together-ness in routines and social interaction come to the foreground here, as in the following example:
Secure children can assimilate teaching; they need to be thoroughly accustomed to the preschool’s basic activi-ties, i.e., routines and social interaction.
For learning to occur, the children must feel secure and this happens through present and co-exploring edu-cators who create a secure and tranquil climate.
(Trace 3b inTable 3)
Teaching in preschool must relate to children’s needs for care, security, and safety (Swedish Gov-ernment Bill,2009/10:165; Swedish National Agency for Education, 2017). This may involve, for example, children’s right to a safe environment, enacted by preventing accidents and avoiding high-risk situations. Further examples may involve meeting children’s needs for attachment, com-fort, and wellbeing, or caring acts to ensure that children are not harassed, excluded, or treated unfairly. Johansson and Pramling Samuelsson (2001) argued that care and learning cannot be di ffer-entiated. Care in the institutional setting may refer to a relationship between the caregiver and the care recipient (Davies,1996; Noddings,1984,2012). The concept may represent an ethical relation-ship that refers to the notion that if someone needs us, we should not turn away from that person. Care involves a reciprocal relationship and process that encompass both the person who gives care and the recipient’s response to that care. The basis of care may then be that we see and recognise ourselves in the other, that we see, recognise, and reflect the needs of others in relation to the setting and context.
According to Davies (1996), multiplicity is emphasised in care work that includes both physical and emotional work in the form of caring about and caring for. Davies stresses her focus on “caring” rather than “care.” While “care” is something static and something that is, “caring” can incorporate more ongoing processes and capture active agents and relation-ships between continuity and change. This may then involve relationrelation-ships that are created, recreated, preserved, and changed over time. In this context, we can relate to the concept of “EduCare,” a blend of education and care. In relation to teaching in preschool, we might perhaps express ourselves in terms of “EduCaring” rather than “EduCare.” In this context, the didactic relationship is challenged and expanded and also includes dimensions of care (Vallberg Roth,2017b).
Child-centred teaching
“Child-centred teaching” (or “child-led teaching”), in which teachers follow the children’s interests and play, is another prominent trace in the material (Trace 3a inTable 3). High-frequency words such as “children,” “interest,” “play,” “we/together,” and “co-explore” can be included here (see
Table 2). Child-centred teaching proceeds from children’s interests and play, facilitated by accom-panying educators:
We proceed from the children’s interests and play. I consider preschool educators helpers rather than teachers.
Today, much of our work involves exploring, in cooperation with the children, whatever they have shown inter-est in.
(Trace 3a inTable 3)
In this context, traces of child-centred teaching can also be interpreted as consistent with the gov-erning documents and the broad interpretation of teaching, when certified preschool teachers and other qualified staff are in charge. Children’s needs, interests, and participation are emphasised in the preschool curriculum (e.g., Lpfö98,2016). In the research (e.g., Persson, 2015), relationships between teachers and children are also presented as fundamental to the quality of activities in preschool.
The child-centred trace can also be problematised in relation to equivalency goals. Elfström (2013) formulated a dilemma when she asked herself“whether the interests and experiences of all [my emphasis] children are sought and allowed to influence the direction of planning and initiating aspects of the work” (p. 232). Elm Fristorp (2012) argued that it is only a few children, those who can express themselves verbally, whose interests are noticed, while the others’ voices are unheard. This also begs the question of whether preschool teachers’ interpretations of children’s interests may be linked to their own interests, knowledge, and capacity (see Mårdsjö Olsson & Tullgren,2013). Other possible questions are whether teaching that systematically follows children’s interests and questions may lead to“cementing” or going beyond children’s knowledge and the existing order in practice and society. In this context, Osberg and Biesta (2010) have emphasised the dilemma of a child-centred approach. They problematised this approach, which is oriented towards following children and allowing them to learn what they want to learn and are interested in, arguing that it is another way to maintain and perpetuate the existing order. The authors also noted that child-centred teach-ing provides no way of dismissteach-ing or modifyteach-ing knowledge that is wrong. Earlier studies have cited the example of preschool teachers who reply to children’s questions with a counter question: What do you think? (Thulin,2011). Child-centred teaching can be problematic and it can be difficult to consistently“follow the children” when the teacher needs to introduce something with which the children are completely unfamiliar. When preschool teachers need to facilitate learning encounters involving learning and sense-making about something previously unknown to the children, it becomes difficult to “follow the children” as they can hardly ask for something about which they know nothing.
Learning environment and learning tools as support for teaching in the foreground
Tangible traces are also linked to the view of the learning environment and learning tools/ materials as providing support for teaching. This can also be formulated in terms of “the third educator”:
The environment is also highly significant to teaching in the preschool. If the environment is inviting, it can stimulate learning and development and support teaching in the preschool.
A high-quality, challenging learning environment.
The environment is an important aspect of teaching because it is used as a learning environment, as the“third educator.”
(Trace 4 inTable 3)
In the material, the environment is primarily linked to“learning,” “educator,” and “challenge” (see
Table 2). Environments for learning can be emphasised from various theoretical perspectives, such as the sociocultural perspective (e.g., Carlgren,1999; Säljö,2011). References to the learning environ-ment as“the third educator” are related to the Reggio Emilia philosophy (see, e.g., Dahlberg & Elf-ström,2014; Folkman,2017).
The interest in teaching materials of various kinds is emphasised in the Swedish National Agency for Education’s support materials for pedagogical documentation (2012), resting on a post-construc-tionist basis. Learning is, moreover, not seen as an individual and independent activity, but rather as something linked to the environment and the material (e.g., Hultman,2011; Lenz Taguchi,2010/
2012).
The Swedish national preschool curriculum (Lpfö98,2016, (pp. 4, 6, 7, 9, and 16) also emphasises the importance of the learning environment. Given the existence of preschools with staff members who do not hold degrees in preschool education (Swedish National Agency for Education,2016), it is difficult to regard the offer of a stimulating learning environment in the absence of preschool tea-chers who are responsible for and lead goal-directed processes as teaching in relation to the definition of teaching used in the Swedish Education Act.
Teacher-oriented teaching and leadership
In addition to the aforementioned traces, lower-frequency traces of“teacher-oriented teaching” (or “teacher-led teaching”) emerge (see “teacher,” “goal,” and “knowledge” inTable 2and Traces 5a and 5b inTable 3), focusing on the teacher’s activities, such as planning, leading, introducing, evaluating, and documenting processes. These teacher-oriented activities may include conversations and colla-borative action with parents/caregivers:
How we lead, what we say, and the paths we choose determine the type of teaching that is possible and happens at any given time. (Trace 5a inTable 3)
Teaching is systematically documented and evaluated. (Trace 5a inTable 3)
Goal-oriented processes planned by certified preschool teachers based on the Education Act and the preschool curriculum… create the conditions for children to acquire new knowledge. (Trace 5b inTable 3)
Using this as a base, the teaching staff create an activity plan in collaboration with the children and their parents. (Trace 5b inTable 3)
In this trace, teachers figure as instruction leaders in relation to goal-directed processes and an emphasis on knowledge. Teachers’ exercise of their profession, including planning, introducing, evaluating, and documenting, is in the foreground. This trace can be related to Biesta (2011,
2017), who emphasised teaching as something relational that, unlike learning, presupposes teachers, teachers’ leadership, and teachers who add something new.
Furthermore, traces of control and power relationships can be connected to statements about tea-cher-oriented teaching related to governing documents, systematic evaluation, and documentation (Traces 5a and 5b in Table 3). Control can also be related to the other traces, for example, “When activities are controlled by the children’s interests.” The words “power” and “norms”, how-ever, are not explicitly expressed in the material.
Teaching with special-needs education and multilingual traces
Other low-frequency traces are teaching that includes“all children” (i.e., the special-needs education trace) and teaching incorporating elements of“several languages.” The Swedish national preschool curriculum (Lpfö 98, 2016) also emphasises the needs of “all children” (e.g., pp. 5 and 12) and languages other than the mother tongue (e.g., pp. 7 and 10). Multilingual and special-needs edu-cation traces are also evoked by Question 2c in the reflection questionnaire, concerning “language/communication/multilingualism.” The first question in the reflection document gives rise to only a few individual traces, as follows:
Teaching proceeds from the needs and circumstances of all children. (Trace 6a inTable 3)
When the children have acquired one or more languages, we can create many opportunities for reflection during the preschool day. (Trace 6b inTable 3)
These traces can perhaps be interpreted as evidence of inclusive teaching and teaching that considers multiple languages as a resource (cf., e.g., Björk-Willén,2006; Cekaite & Björk-Willén,2017; Ehrlin,
2012; Harju-Luukkainen & Kultti,2017; Kultti,2012; Lunneblad,2009; Martín-Bylund,2017; Palla,
2015). A research survey addressing special education (Palla, 2015) stresses the need to develop research and competence in various areas related to teaching situations, ways of working, and chil-dren with functional variations.
Teaching connected to measurable learning
The responses of preschool managers display traces of narrower teaching oriented towards measur-able learning:“Carefully considered elements that result in measurable learning” (Trace 7 inTable 3). Traces that include teaching as promoting measurable learning can be interpreted as illustrating a relatively narrow definition of teaching, with claims that can be interpreted as outside the purview of the preschool’s objectives, with interim goals for the activities to strive for without a predetermined final objective. On the general level, Andersen Østergaard, Hjort, and Skytthe Kaarsberg Schmidt (2008) have discussed whether it is even possible for teachers to document learning. The authors argued that learning and learning processes are inaccessible, unobservable, and intangible, compris-ing, for example, ideas, smells, and tastes. In that sense, learning cannot be recorded. Measurable learning may furthermore be interpreted as influenced by measurement theory and by goal–rational (i.e., goal- and results-oriented) thinking in business and management (cf. new public management; see, e.g., Schwandt,2012; Segerholm,2012). Management can then be interpreted as based on com-petition and accountability in the case of measurable learning, in which the reporting of results and quality is connected to underlying economic interests.
Traces of scientific grounds and proven experience
Finally, a few explicit traces of scientific grounds and proven experience emerge, comprising traces of didactics, a pragmatic perspective with reference to Dewey, a sociocultural perspective, and a post-constructionist approach. Didactics, preschool didactics, and subject didactics are exemplified as follows:
Didactic attitude:
Preschool didactics are the basis for mixing with subject didactics, which we then implement together in the preschool. (Trace 8 inTable 3)
Sociocultural premises, in terms of the“zone of proximal development” and “sociocultural learning” are exemplified as follows:
Activities/doings that constitute the basis for aims and goals and influence together with the children to chal-lenge and develop children’s learning processes, which are based on the children’s zone of proximal develop-ment.
As a teacher, I have knowledge of sociocultural learning. (Trace 8 inTable 3)
That one works with variation theory and has knowledge of the various subjects.
Active educators who involve themselves in the children’s interests and are able to get them interested in var-ious learning objectives. (Trace 8 inTable 3)
Pragmatic premises are exemplified by references to Dewey and “learning by doing”:
That I proceed from John Dewey’s ideas about the democratic classroom or that one must do in order to learn. Teaching can also occur through shared experiences and“learning by doing.” (Trace 8 inTable 3)
It can be noted here that though Dewey became famous for “learning by doing,” according to researchers (Burman,2014), what Dewey actually brought to the fore was “learning by reflective experience.” It is from the consequences of actions that we learn: “We learn through experiences and personal activity combined with reflection: the reflective experience” (Burman,2014, p. 37).
Traces of meta-theoretical premises also emerge from the material in terms of post-construction-ism, as follows:
Preschool teaching can be characterised as something that I, as a teacher, have knowledge of… learning in a post-constructionist environment/culture that treats the children as beings. (Trace 8 inTable 3)
Finally, explicit references to science and proven experience also emerge, for example:
It is based on science or thoroughly proven experience. (Trace 8 inTable 3)
Partially implicit traces of proven experience can also be discerned in the material, in other words, traces of shared, communicated, reflected on, and documented experience. In the following section, the discussion of traces of scientific grounds and proven experience is expanded and then concluded by establishing connections to the action, theoretical, and meta-theoretical levels2,3,4.
Concluding Discussion Related to the Action, Theoretical, and Meta-Theoretical Levels
This section presents a cohesive theory-based discussion in relation to the aim of the study and the questions concerning what may characterise preschool teaching and the levels of didactic thinking about teaching in preschool that can be discerned in the preschool teachers’ and managers’ written descriptions.
The discussion is pursued with reference to Kansanen’s (1993) three levels– that is, the action, theoretical, and meta-theoretical levels. In this context, it should be emphasised that these levels overlap in practice and that the analytical process iterates between empirically loaded theory and theoretically loaded empiricism.
Earlier research has, for example, tested Kansanen’s levels in relation to beliefs about the teaching of student preschool teachers (Rosenqvist,2000),finding that the students “engaged in talk only to a minor extent at the second thinking level” (p. 164), arguably indicating that “pedagogical and other theories should be repeatedly studied in the course so that they can subsequently constitute vibrant and powerful tools in the programme” (p. 164). There has also been criticism of Kansanen’s view of the action level, which seemed to recommend that teachers should literally follow the state texts. Relating to state governing documents, “not following a curriculum ‘word for word’ can actually be regarded as a prerequisite for upholding a democratic society,” Rosenqvist (2000, p. 152) claimed. In this analysis, the levels in Kansanen’s model are not used as literally exemplary and hierarchical levels, but are instead regarded as intertwined levels to be referred to as they are useful.
2
A post-constructionist approach is a theoretical approach and relational ontology that together become an agential realism (cf. Barad,2012Lenz Taguchi,2010/2012).
3
The term‘social construction’ (Berger & Luckman,1966) has evolved along two main lines. One of these main lines is called con-structivism or social concon-structivism. The other main line is called social constructionism (e.g., Alvesson & Sköldberg,2008; Åsberg, 2000/2001).
4Proceeding from a restrained realism, Ferraris (2012/2014) argued that social objects differ from natural objects, and likewise that
With reference to Kansanen’s (1993) levels, I can more clearly decipher distinct, explicit, and mul-tivocal traces of a practice-based action level than traces that can be explicitly assigned to the theor-etical or meta-theortheor-etical level. Traces 1–7 inTable 3can be interpreted as distinguishing traces of a more practice-based action level. Trace 8 inTable 3can be interpreted as encompassing explicit signs on the theoretical and meta-theoretical levels. It is preferably explicit expressions of theories (e.g., “variation theory”) and concepts (e.g., “zone of proximal development”) that determine whether a statement is allocated to the theoretical or action level (e.g.,“All learning can be characterised as teaching”). The explicitly expressed theory-based traces in the material vary between didactics and sociocultural, pragmatic, and variation theory perspectives.
Meta-theoretically, explicitly expressed traces of post-constructionist premises also emerge. The theories that otherwise occasionally appear in Trace 8 (Table 3) can in meta-theoretical terms pri-marily be associated with social constructionism (see Alvesson & Sköldberg,2008). Taken as a whole, these traces can be interpreted as mainly attributable to relativist premises (i.e., social con-structionist and post-concon-structionist premises; see Vallberg Roth, 2015, 2017a). In this context, expressions also occur in the material that can be interpreted as emphasising construction in terms of“there is no right or wrong.” However, there are also traces that can be associated with realistic premises. Traces of implicit realistic premises can be discerned in descriptions that emphasise facts, as follows:
However, I do not believe we should be afraid to give children facts. I think children obviously like facts. We do not always have to answer children’s questions with counter questions; sometimes I think that idea is taken too far.
“Facts” is a concept that is open to multiple interpretations. In this context, one interpretation might be that a fact is something that exists in a reality that can be experienced but cannot be corrected through the power of thought (Ferraris,2012/2014). In that connection, teaching generally and as a whole can be linked to two meta-theoretical directions that move between relativist and realistic premises (Alvesson & Sköldberg,2008; Ferraris,2012/2014; Vallberg Roth,2015,2017a).
Limitations associated with the study
It is appropriate to emphasise that there is significant variation in the theoretical and meta-theoreti-cal premises of this work. The paper makes no claims to offer comprehensive interpretations or exhaustive coverage of a list of theoretical and meta-theoretical directions. Rather, it should be regarded as a discussion outlining certain tendencies in teaching in preschool based on the (meta)theoretical variation discerned in the material.
Regarding the analysis, the point of including quantitative elements in the qualitative proces-sing is to stabilise the analysis of the closely empirical, distinguishing traces in the extensive material. In other words, it is not a matter of a quantitative analysis that claims that each and every word in the material should be quantified. InTable 2, for example, it is difficult to
quanti-tatively compare the different groups, as they include different numbers of informants. Moreover, there is a great range in the number of words per response (i.e., 3–288 words, seeFigure 1), and preschool teachers and managers probably have ideas about teaching that have not been expressed in words in the material. Teachers and managers might also, for instance, be theoreti-cally informed even though they do not explicitly refer to theories when they write about teaching. Although both explicit and implicit traces appear in the material, the analysis focuses more on explicit traces. The preschool teachers’ and the managers’ responses were of varying length, breadth, and depth, and it was considered important not to over-interpret the responses. The paper does not claim to include all possible interpretations in the wide range of traces explored. As part of the ongoing project (see Footnote 1), a follow-up and comparative analysis of teachers’ and managers’ thinking about teaching is planned for 2018, which may open the way for further interpretations of the traces.
Concluding conceptual discussion
In relation to the research aim and question, the analysis canfinally be unified into a demonstrable and communicable whole through the concept of diffuse multivocal teaching. Multivocality can be discerned primarily on the practice-based action level but less clearly on the theoretical and meta-theoretical levels. Traces of relatively action-based approaches (Traces 1–7 in Table 3), based on the voices and interpretations of multiple actors, can be discerned as relatively strong in the material. In other words, diffuse multivocal teaching in preschool can, first, encompass a strong practice-based outcome, primarily oriented towards following the children in wide-ranging and diffuse teaching. The concept can also include relatively weak traces of explicit scientific grounds (Trace 8 inTable 3). Multivocal teaching can be demonstrated to be a potential tool for critical reflection on teaching in relation to every child’s development, learning, play, and care in a preschool for all (see Vallberg Roth,2015,2017b). The concept can be discerned in the case of teaching in preschool, which may be multivocal with interlinkages between the action-based as well as the theoretical and meta-theoreti-cal levels. In that way, multivometa-theoreti-cal teaching can include various interpretations of contents, forms, and educational functions, as well as various actors, such as children, preschool teachers, educators, and managers, having varying backgrounds. Multivocal refers to multiple voices in many parts, which can be translated into multiple perspectives and approaches (Vallberg Roth,2015,2017a). In contrast to multivocal teaching on both the action level and the theoretical and meta-theoretical levels, univo-cal practice in preschools could appear when a certain (meta)theory becomes dominant (e.g., Dysthe,
1993; Folkman, 2017). With reference to Kansanen’s (1993) levels, it is the explicit rather than implicit traces of multivocality in the professionals’ thinking and co-actions that are invoked here. Future research could usefully examine multivocal teaching as a tool for critical reflection that can include the perspectives (versions) of a variety of actors, scientific grounds, and proven experiences. The concept of multivocal teaching requires further testing (see Footnote 1).
Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Funding
This work was supported by the independent Instistute for Innovation, Research and Development in School and pre-school (Ifous) and Malmö University.
References
Alvesson, M., & Sköldberg, K. (2008). Tolkning och reflektion: Vetenskapsfilosofi och kvalitativ metod (2nd ed.) [Interpretation and reflection: The philosophy of science and qualitative method]. Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur. Andersen Østergaard, P., Hjort, K., & Skytthe Kaarsberg Schmidt, L. (2008). Dokumentation og evaluering mellem for-valtning og pædagogik [Documentation and evaluation between administration and pedagogy]. Copenhagen, Denmark: University of Copenhagen.
Areljung, S. (2017). Utanför experimentlådan: Kunskapsproduktion, tid och materia i förskolans naturvetenskapsunder-visning [Outside the experimental box: Knowledge production, time and materials in preschool science instruction]. Umeå, Sweden: Umeå universitet.
Åsberg, R. (2000/2001). Ontologi, epistemologi och metodologi: En kritisk genomgång av vissa grundläggande vetenskap-steoretiska begrepp och ansatser [Ontology, epistemology and methodology: A critical review of certain fundamental concepts and approaches in scientific theory]. Göteborg, Sweden: University of Gothenburg.
Barad, K. (2012). Posthumanistisk performativitet: Mot en förståelse av vad material betyder [Posthumanist performa-tivity: toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter] (translation into Swedish by Martin Hultman). In C. Åsberg, M. Hultman, & F. Lee (Eds.), Posthumanistiska nyckeltexter (pp. 77–88). Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur.
Bengtsson, J. (1997). Didaktiska dimensioner: Möjligheter och gränser för en integrerad didaktik [Didactic dimen-sions: opportunities and limits of integrated didactics]. Pedagogisk Forskning i Sverige, 2(4), 241–261.
Berger, P., & Luckman, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
Biesta, G. (2011). God utbildning i mätningens tidevarv [Good education in the era of measurement]. Stockholm, Sweden: Liber.
Biesta, G. (2017). The rediscovery of teaching. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis.
Björklund, C., & Ahlskog-Björkman, E. (2017). Approaches to teaching in thematic work: Early childhood teachers’ integration of mathematics and art. International Journal of Early Years Education, 25(2), 98–111.doi:10.1080/ 09669760.2017.1287061
Björk-Willén, P. (2006). Lära och leka medflera språk: Socialt samspel i flerspråkig förskola [Learning and playing with several languages: social interaction in multilingual preschool]. Linköping, Sweden: Tema Barn, Linköpings Universitet.
Botö, K., Lantz-Andersson A., & Wallerstedt, C. (2017).“Ja tycker om B” – Barns deltagande i läs- och skrivundervisn-ing i förskolan [“I like B”: Children’s participation in reading and writing instruction in preschool]. Forskning om undervisning och lärande, 2(5), 78–99.
Brante, G. (2016). Allmän didaktik och ämnesdidaktik– en inledande diskussion kring gränser och anspråk [General didactics and subject didactics: An initial discussion of the limits and claims]. Nordisk Tidskrift för Allmän Didaktik, 2(1), 52–68.
Broström, S. (2012). Curriculum in preschool: Adjustment or a possible liberation? Nordic Early Childhood Education Research, 5(11), 1–14.doi:10.7577/nbf.419
Burman, A. (2014). Dewey och den reflekterade erfarenheten [Dewey and the reflective experience]. In A. Burman (Ed.), Den reflekterande erfarenheten: John Dewey om demokrati, utbildning och tänkande [The reflective experi-ence: John Dewey on democracy, education and thinking] (pp. 13–36). Huddinge, Sweden: Södertörn University. Carlgren, I. (Ed.) (1999). Miljöer för lärande [Environments for learning]. Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur. Cekaite, A., & Björk-Willén, P. (2017). Svenska som andraspråk i förskolan: Utveckling i lek och lärarledda aktiviteter
[Swedish as a second language in preschool: Development in play and teacher-led activities]. In A.-L. Lindgren, N. Pramling, & R. Säljö (Eds.), Förskolan och barns utveckling: Grundbok för förskollärare [Preschool and children’s development: reference for preschool teachers] (pp. 125–137). Malmö, Sweden: Gleerups.
Chambers, B., Cheung, A. & Slavin, R. (2016). Literacy and language outcomes of comprehensive and developmental-constructivist approaches to early childhood education: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 18, 88–111.doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2016.03.003
Comenius, J. A. (1632/1989). Modersskolan eller om barns omvårdnad och fostran under de sex första levnadsåren [The mother’s school or on the care and upbringing of children during the first six years] (translation and introduction by Tomas Kroksmark). Göteborg, Sweden: University of Gothenburg.
Dahlberg, G., & Elfström, I. (2014). Pedagogisk dokumentation i tillblivelse [The genesis of pedagogical documen-tation]. Pedagogisk forskning i Sverige 19(4–5), 268–296.
Dalgren, S. (2017). Att göra pedagogisk praktik tillsammans: Socialt samspel i förskolans vardag [Teaching together: Day-to-day social interaction in preschool]. Linköping, Sweden: Linköping University.
Davies, K. (1996). Omsorg om barn– önskningar och realiteter: En sociologisk studie av daghem [Caring for children. Wishes and realities: A sociological study of day-care centres]. Stockholm, Sweden: Carlsson.
Doverborg, E., Pramling, N., & Pramling Samuelsson, I. (2013). Att undervisa barn i förskolan [Teaching children in the preschool]. Stockholm, Sweden: Liber.
Dysthe, O. (1993). Writing and talking to learn: A theory-based, interpretive study in three classrooms in the USA and Norway. Tromsö, Norway: University of Tromsö.
Ehrlin, A. (2012). Att lära av och med varandra: En etnografisk studie av musik i förskolan i en flerspråkig miljö [Learning from and with each other: An ethnographic study of music in preschool in a multilingual environment]. Örebro, Sweden: Örebro University.
Elfström, I. (2013). Uppföljning och utvärdering för förändring– pedagogisk dokumentation som grund för kontinuerlig verksamhetsutveckling och systematiskt kvalitetsarbete i förskolan [Tracking and assessment for change: Pedagogical documentation as the basis of continued programme development and systematic quality management in the pre-school]. Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm University.
Elm Fristorp, A. (2012). Design för lärande– barns meningsskapande i naturvetenskap [Design for learning: Children’s sense-making in science]. Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm University.
Engdahl, I. (2010). Förskolepedagogisk undervisning [Preschool pedagogical teaching]. Förskoletidningen, 30(4), 25–29.
Fejes, A., & Thornberg, R. (2009). Handbok i kvalitativ analys [Handbook of qualitative analysis]. Stockholm, Sweden: Liber.
Ferraris, M. (2012/2014). Manifest för en ny realism [Manifesto for a new realism]. Stockholm, Sweden: Daidalos. Fleer, M., Gomes, J. & March, S. (2014). Science learning affordances in preschool environments. Australian Journal of
Folkman, S. (2017). Distans, disciplin och dogmer– om ett villkorat lyssnande i förskolan: En studie av lyssnandet i en Reggio Emiliainspirerad pedagogik [Distance, discipline, and dogma: On conditional listening in preschool: a study of listening in Reggio Emilia-inspired teaching]. Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm University.
Guo, Y., Wang, S., Hall, A., Breit-Smith, A. & Busch, J. (2016). The effects of science instruction on young children’s vocabulary learning: A research synthesis. Early Childhood Education Journal, 44(4), 359–367. doi:10.1007/s10643-015-0721-6
Hammer, A. S. E. (2012). Undervisning i Barnehagen? [Teaching in the day-care centre?] In Elin Eriksen Ødegaard (Ed.), Barnehagen som danningsarena [The day-care centre as educational arena] (pp. 223–244). Oslo: Fagbokforlaget.
Harju-Luukkainen, H. & Kultti, A. (red.) (2017). Undervisning iflerspråkig förskola [Teaching in multilingual pre-school]. Malmö: Gleerups.
Hedefalk, M. (2014). Förskola för hållbar utveckling: Förutsättningar för barns utveckling av handlingskompetens för hållbar utveckling [Preschool for sustainable development: prerequisites for children’s development of action skills for sustainable development]. Uppsala, Sweden: Uppsala University.
Hultman, K. (2011). Barn, linjaler och andra aktörer: Posthumanistiska perspektiv på subjektskapande och materialitet i förskola/skola [Children, rulers and other actors: Post-humanist perspectives on subject-making and materiality in preschool/school]. Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm University.
Illeris, K. (2015). Lärande [Learning] (2nd ed.) Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur.
Ingerman, Å., & Wickman, P.-O. (2015). Towards a teachers’ professional discipline. In P. Burnard, B.-M. Apelgren, & N. Cabaroglu (Eds), Transformative teacher research: Theory and practice for the C21st (pp. 167–179). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.
Johansson, E., & Pramling Samuelsson, I. (2001). Måltidssituationen på förskolan – ur ett omsorgs- och lärandeperspektiv [The mealtime situation in the preschool: From a caring and learning perspective]. Report from Nätverk för barnomsorgsforsking [Early child care research network), Göteborg, 20–21 November 2000, pp. 37–51. Linköping, Sweden: Linköping University.
Jonsson, A., Williams, P., & Pramling Samuelsson, I. (2017). Undervisningsbegreppet och dess innebörder uttryckta av förskolans lärare [The concept of teaching and its meaning expressed by preschool teachers]. Forskning om under-visning och lärande, 5(1), 90–109
Kansanen, P. (1993). An outline for a model of teachers’ pedagogical thinking. In P. Kansanen (Ed.), Discussions on some educational issues IV. Research report 121 (pp. 51–65). Helsinki, Finland: University of Helsinki.
Kultti, A. (2012). Flerspråkiga barn i förskolan: Villkor för deltagande och lärande [Multilingual children in preschool: Conditions of participation and learning]. Gothenburg, Sweden: Gothenburg University.
Larsson, S. (2009). A pluralist view of generalization in qualitative research. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 32(1), 25–38.doi:10.1080/17437270902759931
Lenz Taguchi, H. (2010/2012). Pedagogisk dokumentation som aktiv agent: Introduktion till intra-aktiv pedagogik [Pedagogical documentation as active agent: Introduction to intra-active pedagogy]. Malmö, Sweden: Gleerup. Lpfö 98. (2016). Läroplan för förskolan Lpfö 98: Reviderad 2016 [Curriculum for preschool Lpfö 98: revised 2016].
Stockholm, Sweden: Swedish National Agency for Education, Fritzes.
Lunneblad, J. (2009). En målsättning för de Andra: Förskolepedagogers tal om barn och föräldrar under planering och utvärdering på en förskola med en kulturellt blandad barngrupp [A goal for the others: Preschool teachers’ views of children and parents during planning and evaluation at a preschool with a culturally diverse group of children]. Nordisk Barnehageforskning, 2(3), 115–125.doi:10.7577/nbf.251
Mårdsjö Olsson, A.-C., & Tullgren, C. (2013). Profession i brytningstid [Profession in a period of transition]. In M. Holmqvist Olander (Ed.), Learning study i förskolan [Learning study in preschool] (pp. 49–60). Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur.
Martín-Bylund, A. (2017). Towards a minor bilingualism: Exploring variations of language and literacy in early child-hood education. Linköping, Sweden: Linköping university.
Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Noddings, N. (2012). The language of care ethics. Knowledge Quest, 40(5), 52–56.
OECD. (2006). Starting strong II: Early childhood education and care. Paris, France: Author. OECD. (2012). Starting strong III: Early childhood education and care. Paris, France: Author.
OECD. (2017). Starting strong 2017: Key OECD indicators on early childhood education and care. Paris, France: Author. Electronically accessible, 2017-06-21: Retrieved from http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/education/starting-strong-2017_9789264276116-en#page71
Osberg, D., & Biesta, G. (2010). The end/s of education: Complexity and the conundrum of the inclusive educational curriculum. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(6), 593–607.doi:10.1080/13603110802530684 Palla, L. (2015). Delstudie 3: Specialpedagogik i förskola [Sub-study 3: Special education in preschool]. In I. Tallberg
Broman, A.-C. Vallberg Roth, L. Palla, & S. Persson (Eds.), Förskola tidig intervention [Preschool early intervention] (pp. 94–118). Stockholm, Sweden: Vetenskapsrådet.
