Linköping University | Master’s thesis, 15 credits| Master’s programme in Child Studies, Year 1
Course code: 736A41 2020
Teachers’ Perspectives on
children’s agency and
participation in
kindergarten in Finland
Manthoula BountriSupervisor: Emilia Strid Examiner: Anette Wickström
Linköping University
SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden +46 013 28 10 00, www.liu.se
Abstract
The present study aims to explore and delve into early childhood education teachers’ perception and interpretation of children’s agency and participation in the daily routines and planned activities in kindergartens in Finland. The daily established routines and planned activities take a significant amount of time in kindergarten. Therefore, it is essential to scrutinize how teachers engage children’s preferences, opinions, and participation in daily practice. The abovementioned rationale motivates the present qualitative research study. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with five early childhood teachers. Three of them work in international kindergartens and two of them in bilingual kindergartens (Finnish-English). The interview consisted of open-ended questions. They were structured to probe early childhood teachers’ experience in respect of the implementation of children’s agency and participation in the daily practices and the challenges that pedagogical personnel face. The collected data from the semi-structured interview were analyzed through thematic analysis. On one hand, the results showed a none or limited amount of children’s agency and participation in the daily established routines, whereas the amount of agency and participation is increased regarding the planned activities. On the other hand, challenging parameters are the management of the kindergarten and the number of children in a group.
Key words: agency, participation, teachers’ perspectives, daily established routines, planned activities
Preface
The master's program "Child Studies," the professors and all the learning process at Linköping University, has been a significant eye-opener. The program opened a new path for me and inspired me to find and create more ways to support children. In particular, I would like to sincerely thank my supervisor Emilia Strid for this great collaboration and communication. Her feedback and guidance helped me a lot "dive" into this study and enjoyed each minute. I would like to thank the participants for the valuable information, and the time they gave into this project. Finally, I would like to thank, with all my heart, all my friends in Finland and my family in Greece for all the support, trust, and unconditional love that they show me this period. Their support and gentle encouragement meant a lot to me.
List of illustration
Table of contents
Introduction………...………….1-2
Literature review………2-7
• Agency……….2-3 • Participation……….4-5 • The daily routine in Early Childhood Education setting……….5-6 • The Mosaic Approach……….…6-7
Research problem and questions………7-8 Method………...8-12 • Selection of participants ……….8-9 • Background of participants………...9 • Data Collection ………….……….9-11 • Ethical considerations……….11-12 Data analysis………...12-14 Results……….14-36
• Theme 1: “Daily established routines: None or limited room of agency and participation.” ………...14-23 -Subtheme 1: Limited room of children’s agency in daily established routine……….15-20 -Subtheme2: None existed participation of the children in the established routines………....20-23 • Theme 2: “Planned activities: Increased room of agency and participation.”
………23-31 -Subtheme 1: Activities are planned according to children’s interests and ways to capture it………...23-28 -Subtheme 2: Children’s decision defines the realization and participation in activities………...28-31
• Theme 3: “Challenges of creating space for children’s agency and participation.” ……….………31-36 -Subtheme 1: Management of kindergarten……….32-33 -Subtheme 2: Number of children………...33-35
Concluding discussion ………...35-40 Reference list………...41-44
Appendix 1: Interview guide………...45-46
1 INTRODUCTION
As an early childhood education teacher, there are several areas in children’s development to consider and support within the daily planning. Social-emotional development is vital for the development of children, and it builds strong foundations for their personality and well-being (American Academy of Pediatrics, n.d:1). Finnish National Core Curriculum strongly encourages children's active participation in the pedagogical learning process (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2018). It aims to create equal opportunities for developing, learning, and growing for children (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2018). It takes a stand on intersecting capacities for children. As has been mentioned before, part of the curriculum is participation and involvement. Finnish National Core Curriculum supports the cultivation of participation and involvement in the groundwork of "democratic and sustainable future" (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2018:27). Therefore, the child's participation in an educational context can consider as practicing democracy (Emilson & Folkesson, 2006:221). So, it is the practitioner’s responsibility to provide these opportunities to children, which will eventually lead to the development of appropriate skills contributing to the societal level (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2018). Hence, it becomes apparent the significant role of educators in creating space for children's agency and participation in Early Childhood settings in Finland. Thus, the research of this thesis takes place in kindergartens in Finland, which are bound to follow the Finnish National Core Curriculum and the guidelines.
As stated in James and James (2012:3, 86), the agency is the person's ability to "act independently," while participation refers to the active involvement of a person in a situation. Both concepts can be applied in different circumstances and experienced differently. So, it is worth exploring and delving into teachers’ perspectives and experiences of children’s agency and participation. It will probably help to understand better teachers’ views, practices, and challenges. Moreover, it contributes to creating the framework of appropriate strategies, supporting both teacher's and child's well-being at the daily established routines and planned activities.
Both daily established routines and activities are considered very important in pedagogical learning moments. Agni Zakopoulou (1999) stresses the significance of routines in children’s lives to build a sense of time. Additionally, Genevieve Painter (2010) underlines
2
that children’s learning ability is directly affected by the environment, the arrangement of the environment about activities and stimuli, as this influences their capacity in learning. Therefore, in an educational environment, like a kindergarten, these crucial factors of “active environment” (Painter, 2010) and “recurring routines” (Zakopoulou, 1999) in correlation with children’s agency and participation, deserves to be explored.
For the abovementioned reason, the focus of this thesis is on the perspective of kindergarten teachers regarding the agency and participation of children within educational settings and practices in colleration with the Finnish National Core Curriculum. Moreover, it will be examined the involvement of children and contribution to their agency and participation regarding the daily established routines and day-to-day activities. It will also be discussed the tools the participants use to capture children’s wishes and preferences. Therefore, this thesis does not only attempt to go deeper into teachers' beliefs and ways of involve children and contribute to their agency and participation but also intends to consider the challenges that kindergarten teachers face.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Agency
To begin with, James and Prout (1997) introduce the “New Paradigm” in Sociology of Childhood, which defines childhood as social construction and children as active agents of themselves and the surrounding environment. James and James (2012:3) define agency as "the capacity of individuals to act independently." Children are perceived as "social actors" who can decide for themselves and act on their initiative (James & James, 2012:3-4). Article 12 and 13 of United Nations of Conventions of the Right of the Child (UNCRC) declares children's right to form their views, be heard, and the right to self-express according to the self-decided form of expression (UNCRC, 1989). Therefore, an educational environment’s underlying values should benefit and boost children's participation and agency on matters that immediately affect their well-being and their world in any aspect.
Hilppö, Lipponen, Kumpulainen, and Rainio (2016) argue that educational practices benefit children's sense of agency, and they render children as able to assess their level of
3
involvement. According to Smith (2016), educational practices can promote children’s agency, while an adult's role is crucial in these practices (Sirkko, 2019). Gurdal and Sorbring (2019) present an aspect of various dimensions in the concept of agency. They examined how children experience agency with family and teachers (Gurdal & Sorbring, 2019). The study showed that the agency's experience is codependent with the relationship that a child creates with the teacher (Gurdal & Sorbring, 2019). According to the result of Gurdal and Sorbring’s study (2019), children experience agency variously, depending on the context that they are involved. When it comes to the relationship between child and teacher, Gurdal and Sorbring (2019) argue that the children had felt the sense of the agency was weaken as the attention of the teacher is divided in a group of children, and it becomes more difficult for a teacher to consider each child's agency.
In line with Gurdal's and Sorbring's (2019) study, Hudson's (2012) study explores kindergarten practitioners’ view on involving children under six years old in the decision-making. The study's findings revealed that practitioners perceive their role as a vital factor in children’s agency (Hudson, 2012). According to the practitioners, they cultivate in children the decision-making skills to be an acquirable characteristic rather than believe it is an integral competency of children (Hudson, 2012). Based on practitioners' view, children's decision-making skills have educational, developmental, and behavioral management character (Hudson, 2012:6). According to the study, there is a difference between the kindergarten and primary school, even if both are educational settings, kindergarten, based on practitioners’ wording, can provide more flexibility in activities in line with children’s interests and needs (Hudson, 2012). Houen, Danby, Farell, and Thorpe (2016:259-260) state in their study that the good interaction between “child-teacher” could be considered as a “pre-requirement” of applicable ways to invite children to demonstrate their agency and participation in an educational environment. Sirkko, Kyrönlampi, and Puroila (2019) stress that the strategies of teachers intend to promote and enhance children’s agency and participation. Nevertheless, these strategies could have the opposite effects and prevent agency and participation (Sirkko et al., 2019). Another challenge for a teacher is to capture and recognize each child’s agency (Ranio & Hilppö, 2016). They argue that a teacher could easier perceive an active and participatory child’s agency (Rainio & Hilppö, 2016).
4 Participation
Landsdown (2005) discusses in his book the importance of children’s participation in decisions
affecting them. He initiates his arguments with a strong statement about the essence of committing to children's rights and their right to have a valuable presence and involvement (Landsdown, 2005). Moreover, he argues that the way of expressing the skills and the sense of participation can vary according to children's age, and also, the way an adult responds to it, can either enhance or diminish these competencies (Landsdown, 2005). Adult's level of support in the context of involvement and participation in a particular activity defines and upholds the capacity of a child to achieve a task (Landsdown, 2005). The more children feel trusted and encouraged to take over and be part of a task, the more children feel that they can achieve self-independency and practice their agency and participation (Landsdown, 2005). Nevertheless, Landsdows (2019:12) continues elaborating that participation is not merely "be part of an activity." It should be realized as the person's competence to be the creator of the circumstances, as this active involvement promotes personal development (Landsdown, 2005). Furthermore, early years settings entail many chancing for children to practice the concept of participation (Landsdown, 2005).
It is noteworthy to highlight the dualistic relationship between teacher and student, which gives educational essence to the learning process (Tirri, 2016). Participation holds a central role in Early Childhood Education. As Venninen, Leinonen, Lipponen, and Ojala (2013) mention in their study, participation has various dimensions, in which the teacher's role is a pivotal parameter. According to the same research, participation strengthens the self-esteem and decision-making skills of children (Venninen et al., 2013). Also, children's involvement in the decision-making gives them the sense that their viewpoint matters and could affect themselves or their surrounding environment (Venninen et al., 2013). Venninen et al. (2013) highlight in their study that the critical part about the discussion of children’s participation is the challenges that arise concerning the adult’s role in it. The inhibitor factors of implementing the participation emerged in the study as "adult-child ration," namely the number of children per teacher, "lack of professional skills," "managing work," "work practices" and "special needs" (Venninen et al., 2013:216-217). It concludes that changes should occur in daily practices in early childhood settings (Venninen et al., 2013). Therefore, the role of participation in education aims to enhance children's skills in the pedagogical process and shape their
well-5
being as a long-term goal (Leinonen, Brotherus and Venninen, 2014). A later study of Leinonen, Brotherus, and Veinonen (2014) point out that teachers' interpretation of participation differentiates, as well as the level of encouragement. It indicates that some teachers interpret participation as choosing among some activities or joint-acquired decisions in an educational setting (Leinonen et al., 2014). The study concludes to the limited chances that children have actually to participate in early childhood’s setting life and consequently influence their environment (Leinonen et al., 2014). However, aiming in active participation, it requires adults to discuss with children, to have a substantial interaction and listen to them (Manassakis, 2019)
Adults would need to take a step further, allowing children to be active agents of their life and the taken decisions (Manassakis, 2019). In the environment of an early childhood setting, creating opportunities for children to participate in the day-to-day decisions actively is considered as an essential process (Manassakis, 2019). Therefore, practicing participation is about the collaboration between teachers and children. Each one from the involved parties contributes and works alongside active participation. Touhill (2013) supports that there are great benefits when teachers and children work together in creating the environment and get involved in the process, allowing and encouraging participation to flourish. Benefits such as competence and independency are considered significant (Touhill, 2013). Coreira, Camilo, Aguiar, and Amaro (2019) advocate on children's participation, making their voices be able to be heard and be taken seriously into account for matters that affect them. Their study emerges that participation does not have one layer; instead, it is multi-dimensional and dependent on the context of the involved people and environment (Coreira et al., 2019). Thus, the abovementioned studies constitute a solid foundation that will support the present study. The present study intends to explore further the realization and experience of participation of the children in day to day activities in the kindergarten from the perspective of a kindergarten teacher.
The daily routine in an Early Childhood Educational setting
Another essential part of this study is the daily established routines and day-to-day activities. The core of kindergarten's life consists of daily routines and activities. Several pieces of research and literature have attempted to explore this part of an early childhood educational setting. As has already mentioned, the Finnish National Core Curriculum highlights children
6
and teacher’s collaboration (Leinonen & Venninen, 2012). Nevertheless, the level of the implementation of this collaboration, between children and teachers, comes in correlation with teacher’s perception of what children’s participation means in this process (Moyles, 1997).
However, starting with, according to Zakopoulou (1999), the existence of program/ routines, either at home or at kindergarten, refers to the sequence of actions that take place in the same order and the same time every day. Zakopoulou (1999) underlines that educators' role-in case of early childhood settrole-ings facilitates these transitions. It is enhanced with the provision of predictable routines and verbal encouragement toward children (Zakopoulou, 1999).
In the same line with Zakopoulou (1999), Salmon (2010) points out that daily routines support children's emotional development in different ways. The role of routines in an educational setting constitutes the frame of learning's configuration (Salmon, 2010), which supports children to move from one activity to the other (Watson and DiCarlo,2015) or so-called "transition time." They are the agreement of arranging the participation between the children and the teacher by creating an emotional safety net for children (Salmon, 2010). Salmon (2010) interprets this feeling of safety as the expected alteration of daily routines, eliminating children’s transitional stress and helping them navigate the educational setting. Accordingly, an essential part of this thesis is the experience of agency and participation in the daily established routines. This part of the literature review brings the importance of daily routines in the early years setting, and it will be useful to examine the findings of the study.
The Mosaic Approach
The “Mosaic Αpproach” brings children in the center of the decision-making and the matters that affect their lives. This approach was structured through four research studies from 1999 to 2007, and it combines various methods to "create with the children an image for their world" (Clark & Moss, 2017:17). It was created by Alison Clark and Peter Moss and considered children as experts in their lives (Rouvali, 2013). Therefore, the Mosaic approach recognizes children as specialists in their lives, who can communicate their world and their rights to be heard, express themselves, and influence decisions (Clark & Moss, 2017).
This method moved further than just simple verbal communication. It provides children with a variety of tools to express and communicate themselves. The mosaic approach uses
7
“observation, interviews, photographs, book-making, child-led tours, map-making, child’s interviews” to investigate the children’s perspective and point of view (Clark & Moss, 2017).
Rouveli’s (2013) research project, which studied the implementation of the "Mosaic Approach" in a Greek preschool, recognizes the need for listening and giving an agentic role to children to participate in structuring and forming their daily life. In her research project, she used a variety of verbal and non-verbal tools, exploring what the children do daily in the Greek kindergarten, what are the children prefer the most in kindergarten, and what they consider as most important in kindergarten life (Rouveli, 2013). Rouveli (2013) found out that children prefer mostly outdoor play, and they consider their peers as significant people in kindergarten.
“Mosaic Approach” comes along with a variety of tools that allows children to express themselves in a manner that they choose and render them as experts of their life. As this study aims to investigate the space for children’s agency and participation, that kindergarten teachers provide, the “Mosaic Approach” creates an empowered background on the ways the children share their world in verbal and non-verbal ways.
RESEARCH PROBLEM AND QUESTIONS
The thesis aims to scrutinize teachers’ experiences and perspectives of children’s agency and participation, with the ambition to offer valuable insights into kindergarten life and contribute to further research. This research will focus on teachers’ perception and interpretation of agency and participation. Furthermore, the daily established routines and the planned activities play a big part in children’s life in kindergarten. Therefore, it is worth exploring how a kindergarten teacher includes children’s opinions and preferences in daily practice. This study intends to go into teachers’ practices and experiences. The study's vital characteristic is acknowledging the daily circumstances and how teachers coordinate children’s agency and participation in their practices.
Hence, for this study aims to answer the following research questions:
1. How do early childhood teachers describe and create space for children’s agency and
8
2. What kind of challenges do early childhood teachers experience in creating space for children’s agency and participation in the daily established routines and planned activities in kindergarten?
METHOD
Selection of participants
As the aim of this thesis is to explore teachers’ perspective on children’s agency and participation, the qualitative method of structured interview was chosen. The semi-structured interview was conducted with five kindergarten teachers who work in private kindergartens in Finland. All of the participants graduated from the Early Childhood Education departments of Universities in Europe. They work for at least four years as kindergarten teachers in Finland, and one of them has experience in other educational systems in Europe. Three of them work in English-speaking environments and two of them in bilingual kindergartens (Finnish-English). All the kindergartens, participants work, are private. All the participants fulfilled the requirements, namely working in the Finnish educational system for at least two years. The interviews were conducted with people working in English speaking private kindergartens, facilitating communication between interviewer and interviewee.
The participants recruited from the researcher's acquaintance environment without a close relationship that could affect the outcome of the study. The researcher lives and works as kindergarten teacher in English speaking kindergartens in Finland for the past 6 years and is active in pedagogical events and seminars. The participants belong to this acquaintance environment. The researcher ensured that there was no close work relationship or personal relationship, which could have implications on the study. As it has mentioned above, the participants belonged to researcher’s acquaintance environment, so, the researcher firstly sent a private message on participants’ social media, informing them briefly for the content and the purpose of the study and asking them for their e-mail address in case they agree to participate. Once, the participants agreed on taking part on the semi-structured interviews, the researcher sent via the e-mail (that participants provided) the consent forms and detailed description of the aims and purposes of the research. The participants signed the consent form in person on the
9
day of the interview, except the one participant, who chose to have a telephone interview. This participant sent the signed consent form via e-mail, enabling the confidentiality mode of the document in the e-mail (option that is given by the e-mail address).
For reasons of confidentiality, the use of names of participants are pseudonyms.
Background of the participants
• Olga works as a qualified teacher in a bilingual (Finnish-English) kindergarten in Finland with children aged three to six years old. As she mentions, she is the main responsible person to observe children in her group, their development, the daily routines, and their behavior. She has been working as a kindergarten teacher in Finland for the last six years, and she has worked with children from eight months old to six years old in her career as a kindergarten teacher.
• Marie also works as a kindergarten teacher in a bilingual kindergarten (Finnish-English) in Finland with children three to five years old.
• Mira works as a kindergarten teacher in an international kindergarten in Finland. As she mentions, she is responsible for planning, evaluating, and assessing children's learning. She works in collaboration with specialist teachers (i.e., Music teacher) and an assistant co-teacher
• Anna works as a kindergarten teacher in different European countries for ten years, and for the past few years, she works in Finland with children from the age of five to six years old.
• Saana works as a kindergarten teacher for the last seven years in Finland since 2013 in an English-speaking kindergarten. This year, she works with children age three to four years old.
Data Collection
Semi-structured interviews were conducted to collect the needed data. They is interested in the interviewee's point of view and allows the interviewee to give rich and detailed answers without
10
being restricted by the interview questions (Bryman, 2016). According to Bryman (2016), the semi-structured interview can be flexible in the answers and the questions and allows the interviewee to guide the interview.
The semi-structured interview was conducted with five kindergarten teachers, who work in Finland in private kindergartens. The interviews lasted about 20 to 30 minutes each. The interviews were audio-recorded, and no notes were taken during the interview, as it was essential to create a relaxing and trustworthy environment, where the interviewees could express themselves. Bryman (2016) suggests interviewing in a familiar and quiet place, having a sound quality recorder, and testing it beforehand. These parameters were taken into account while preparing and conducting the interview.
Four out of five interviews were conducted at participants’ homes, as it was their choice, and one of them had a telephone interview. All the necessary steps secure the confidentiality of the information. In both in-person interviews and telephone interviews, the audio recorder did not have an internet connection, and there was no other person in the room while conducting the interview.
Regarding the telephone interview, it was conducted through a conventional telephone call without an internet connection, and the phone speaker was on to record using the audio recorder (again, in this case, there was no one else in the room with researcher, while conducting the interview and recording).
For the purpose of the interview, the researcher had created an interview guide. The interview guide (see Appendix 2) was created in line with Bryman's guidelines (Bryman, 2016). Kvale (1996), cited in Bryman, suggests several suggestions, which were used to build the interview guide (Bryman, 2016:473-475). The interview was divided in four parts. Firstly, the interview started with the introductory questions, which were aiming to give space to the interviewees to present themselves and how they are related in work with children. In the second part, the questions were about established routines. The interviewees were asked to talk about the involvement of agency and participation in the daily established routines and provide examples. In the third part of the interview, the questions were about the planned activities. The interviewees were asked about the type of the activities in kindergarten and the involvement of children’s agency and participation in the planned routines. Finally, the ending questions were exploring the challenges that kindergarten teachers face in making space to children’s agency and participation in the daily established routines and planned activities.
11
After the interviews, the researcher transcribed manually all the interviews verbatim to avoid jeopardizing the confidentiality of the information.
Ethical Considerations
The Ethical Vetting Board of Linköping University, Sweden, approved the present thesis. This study took into account several ethical considerations.
Regarding the selection of the participants, this research was conducted with early childhood education teachers who work actively in the field of early childhood education in Finland for at least two years. An essential factor was the no-prior work relationship between interviewer and interviewee. Namely, both involved parties (interviewee and interviewer) do not work or have worked together in the past. This condition eliminated the predetermination of the direction of the interview between participants and the interviewer. This type of relationship might affect not only their answers to the interview questions but also the interviewer's point of view.
Moreover, the participants do not have a close work or personal relationship with the interviewer, as this type of close relationship could unintentionally and subconsciously manipulate participants' answers. Furthermore, a prior close relationship among the participants and the interviewer could jeopardize the confidentiality of the given information.
Ramrathan, Grange, and Shawa (2017:432) argue that a research project can only start once the “ethical clearance” has been addressed. Ramrathan et al. (2017:439-440) emphasize acknowledging the rights and the limitations in the research project, summarizing them in the five bullet points below:
• The research aims and motivations should be inequivalent to involved parties • The participants’ role within the research should be unambiguous to participants • All the given information should be kept confidential
• Participants should be aware of their right to withdraw their participation or/ and their provided data from the research any time and without justifying their decision.
12
According to the "ethical clearance" (Ramrathan et al., 2017), it is crucial to seek participants to give their informed consent to proceed with the project. Hence, according to the abovementioned, participants were provided with written informed consent forms. The consent form (see Appendix 1) describes the aims and the purpose of this research study and the rights of participants. It was clarified to the participants that any moment that they feel unsure, they are welcome to ask or if they feel like stopping the interview, they could do it anytime without justifying their action.
It is vital to reassure the participants about the confidentiality of the information regarding the research and the research process (Bryman, 2016). Confidentiality of the information is secured, as participants reassured that interviews are stored in a USB stick without an internet connection. Moreover, the researcher transcribed the interviews manually to avoid jeopardizing the confidentiality of the information.
Finally, only the interviewer (or possibly supervisor of this study) will have access to the collected data. For the sake of anonymity and confidentiality, the participants are named Anna, Olga, Saana, Marie, and Mira.
DATA ANALYSIS
The collected data of the semi-structured interviews were analyzed through thematic analysis. Collected data will help to scrutinize further and try to give answers to the research questions. According to Braun and Clarke (2006:77-79), thematic analysis is a widely used method among qualitative researches and intends to "identify, analyze and report patterns (themes)." The collected data from the semi-structured interviews were analyzed according to Braun and Clarke’s (2006) suggested steps to create primary themes and subthemes.
The researcher transcribed the collected data verbatim in word file and saved them in a USB stick away from internet connection. The collected data were read thoroughly and the researcher started familiarizing herself with them. As next step, the researcher started identifying common codes among the collected data while reading them again and underlining them with colored markers. These initial codes were created according to their frequency on participants’ interviews and the relevance with the research questions. Continuing, the researcher divided the initial codes with the same color into potential themes developing the
13
first thematic map. The first thematic map was reviewed again and cleared out. Some of the codes were merged together, as they had common background and some of them were erased, as the given evidence were not enough to be supported developing a second thematic map. The given potential themes of the second thematic map were reviewed one more time and the potential themes with common background, that responded to the research questions, merged together creating the final strong themes. The results developed the third and final thematic map with three strong themes and two subthemes under each of them.
The thematic analysis and the coding of the collected data followed the inductive approach, as the thesis seeks to explore the teachers’ understanding and experience about agency and participation in the daily established routines and planned activities in kindergarten (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Furthermore, the level, in which the collected data were identified, was within the latent approach, as the study is interested in exploring and going deeper in the participants’ ideas beyond the words (Braun & Clarke, 2006).
In the final thematic map, three primary themes resulted: 1. Daily established routines: None or limited room of agency and participation, 2. Planned activities: Increased room of agency and participation, and 3. Challenges of creting space for children's agency and participation (see Figure 1). Within each of the primary themes, there are subthemes. In the first primary theme, two subthemes identify the none-existed participation of children in the rigid structure of the daily established routines and the limited influence of children regarding the change of routines. In the second primary theme, there are two subthemes. The first sub-theme concerns the significance of children's decision of realization and participation in the activities, and the second subtheme is that the activities are mainly planned based on children’s interest and the ways to capture it. Concluding with the third primary theme, there are two sub-themes: 1. Management of kindergarten and 2. The number of children.
14
Figure 1. Thematic Map: Primary themes and subthemes
Before moving on to the results, it is crucial to make a clear distinction between routines and activities. As mentioned earlier, according to Zakopoulou (1999), routines are referred as a sequence of actions that take place in the same order and same time every day. Whereas, the Finnish National Core Curriculum (2018) follows a "holistic approach" regarding the pedagogical activities. The interaction is the key to pedagogical activities between staff and children. Children's interests and needs and the learning areas come together and build the pedagogical activities. The learning areas are: "Rich world of languages," "Diverse form of expression," "Me and our community," "Exploring and interacting with my environment," and "I grow, move and develop" (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2018:42-52). These learning areas encourage kindergarten teachers to plan and implement cooperative activities with children (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2018).
RESULTS
Theme 1: Daily established routines: None or limited room of agency and participation.
The analysis of the collected data revealed, as the first primary theme, that the interviewed teachers perceived the space for children’s participation and agency in the daily established routines restricted or non-existed. Hence, it showed a difference between how the teachers create space for children’s agency in the daily established routines and how they engage children in the established routines. Due to this distinction, two subthemes, under the first
• Subtheme 1:Limited room for child's agency
• Subtheme 2: None-existed participation of the children
Primary Theme 1: Daily established routines: None or limited room of agency and participation
• Subtheme 1:Child's decision defines the realization and participation
• Subtheme 2:Activities are planned according to child's interst and ways to capture it.
Primary Theme 2: Planned activities: Increased room of agency and participation.
• Subtheme 1: Management of kindergarten • Subtheme 2: Number of children
Primary Theme 3: Challenges of creating space for child's agency and participation
15
primary theme, developed. On the one hand, the interviewed teachers were able to make small changes in the routines, if applicable, and involve children's agency in the routines at a certain level. On the other hand, children have restricted space in the formation of daily routines.
Subtheme 1: Limited room of children’s agency in the daily established routines
All the participants had started the interview by presenting their daily routines. All of them have set up daily established routines and a schedule. They have specific moments per day for an activity and the transitions from one to the other. Some of the participants follow them strictly without leaving space for changes, and others give some space to children to influence the routine. In both cases, the room for children's agency varies, and the participants justify the reasons.
Olga: […]during circle time, we give them the option to choose what they want to do, so that is how we get to plan our schedule. For example, on Monday, that is the first day of the week, we have a flexible schedule, or maybe the whole week, we have a more flexible schedule […]
In Olga’s case, she mentions above about the way she uses circle time to involve children’s agency in the planning of the daily routines. So, she has been more flexible with the daily established routines, as she states that she gives great importance to children’s wishes in her schedule. She gives them the option to plan their day, supporting and encouraging the involvement of children’s agency. Furthermore, Olga seems to give a more agentic role to children in her group, as she leaves the decisions about the realization of essential routines on their hands. For her, it is crucial how children feel and want to do with their day. She does not hesitate to skip a routine if children do not want to follow.
Olga: [….] of course, we might have like…we do not do that every day… we explain to them that the park is important to get physical fit […]
16
Although she cannot skip certain routines, it appears that Olga gives a specific space for children’s agency in her group by letting them choose what they will do with their routines. For instance, it is impossible to skip the quiet time, as a daily routine, but Olga allows children to decide how they will spend it either with some quiet time activities or resting. She reminds them that others would like to sleep. Hence, even if it is impossible to skip a routine, Olga does not omit to communicate the reasons and treat children as equal parts of the setting, who needs to be informed and know why their wishes cannot be met. For her, even if their needs cannot be met, they are eligible to know the reasons.
Marie: […] in the morning circles, we ask children what they would like to do during the day, what trips they would like to go to, in the cooking and dancing session, we always ask them what they would like to make or what dance they would like to do. So, we always take into consideration the children’s voice or what they want to or how they would like to plan the day.
In line with Olga, Marie gives the same importance to children’s wishes and views. In the first introductory question, Marie did not reveal much information about her view on the involvement of children's agency. Marie mentioned that, during the morning circle time, the children have the opportunity to plan their day and the activities. She answered that it works well for her group when children have their input in planning. Marie talks more about how the children form the activities without making any direct references to routines. Even if Marie refers to the permanent activities, rather than the daily established routines themselves, she acknowledges children’s wishes and the validity in their daily life at kindergarten. So, there is not a clear answer about how Marie involves children's agency in the daily established routines. She does not mention clearly if children's decisions can influence the realization of the daily established routines. Nevertheless, she states that children's preferences influence activities.
17
On the other hand, the rest of the interviewees have some practical difficulties in creating space for children’s agency in the daily established routines, even if they acknowledge and value children’s agency
Mira: On the days that they have activities with me, I am flexible. If I see that they want to play more or want to stay outside more, we do it.
In Mira’s case, it is the pre-decided routines that the school, where she works, has already set up. She states that when she has activities with the children, she is able to be more flexible with children and create space for their agency. However, for Mira, children’s agency cannot be involved in the routines or how the week will be planned. So, Mira does not find children’s agency applicable to be involved in the majority of the routines. A piece of valuable information that significantly affects is that Mira coordinates with specialist teachers, such as music teachers. Mira’s school provide to the children lessons of music and art (for example), which are conducted by specialized teachers. Their lessons are scheduled at certain times and days, and these times cannot be negotiated or changed. Mira can only offer limited chances to create space for children’s agency regarding the routines, and this can take place only when she alone has time with her group of children. For instance, she offers children the opportunity, if they want to go outside, which park they want to visit or how long they will be outside. Mira tries to offer a limited space for children’s agency, allowing children to make decisions that influence the routines slightly. She tries to find moments within the day that children can contribute to the routines.
Anna: As an agency, as I could describe it anyway, in general, is the children's awareness in the daily routine and the daily program if I can put it that way.
18
Giving her definition about the agency, Anna acknowledges children's agency and their role within the establishment of the daily routines. She brings the discussion about children's agency on a different level. On the one hand, Anna creates space for children’s agency, defining it in the interview based on her beliefs. On the other hand, she states that it is not always applicable to involve children and contribute to children’s agency during the daily life of kindergarten. She explains that the structure of the day does not allow it.
Anna: […] when we have some specific routines like for example, let's say, when we have to go from the playground back to school, we have all the kids lined up and ready to go back to school and let's say that I have a kid who still wants to finish up building his castle. Personally, I might give him a couple of extra seconds to finish his work, but then I will not be able to wait 5 or 10 minutes for him to finish his work and meanwhile, I try with several forms of negotiation, to kind of like try taking him with us but, you know…it is not always applicable to take into consideration their agency.
In her view, Anna gives a powerful and reliable example of how the agency can be recognized by an educator and how challenging its implementation is.
Analyzing the example mentioned earlier, the child has a different wish compared to the established routines and what he should do at that time of the day. It is self-evident that the child’s desires do not meet with the established routines. Anna can recognize the child's needs, but she cannot fulfill them, namely, give him more time at the park. Her way to compromise the child's need with following the routine is to negotiate with the child to make him follow the established routine. So, it is described an attempt from the teacher to balance both the child’s individual needs with the needs of the group. Anna supports that she cannot give more time, so it is self-evident the almost non-existent space for the child’s agency, in this case. A critical element of the situation is that the rest of the group was waiting to go back to school, which added certain limitations. Besides the co-existence of the child's agency and the established
19
routines, it is added in the equation a group of children waiting for the other child to come. So, Anna needs to take into account several factors, balancing them and act according to them. The child’s room for agency in respect of daily established routines becomes a multi-dimensional concept affected by different circumstances. In this certain case, the multi-dimensional nature of the concept emerges from the multiple needs of individuals and the different tasks that need to be addressed at the same time by the teacher.
Interviewer: How can the agency be described in kindergarten for you? How can you describe children's participation in respect of the established routines?
Saana: I think from the moment that there is a schedule in a day, I think it very hard to talk about agency, and it is up to each teacher to take into consideration some of the children's opinion, but still it is not possible to change routines towards children's wishes at this moment.
For Saana, the answer about children's agency in the daily established routines seems more straightforward. She believes that it is not possible to talk about children’s agency since there is a schedule. In this case, there is not a lot of space for children’s agency in the daily established routines, but it relies on each teacher's initiative to consider children's opinions within daily routines. It seems that the routines give a smaller room to involve and contribute to children’s agency. Making exploratory questions to Saana for the statement above, she claimed that she offers more space to children’s agency in the planned activities than the established routines.
Olga: In circle time, we usually give them time before. For example, "now we have 10 minutes, and then it is tidy up" Like this, we prepare them that something is coming and it will be easier for them to accept it.
20
Marie: We always give warning time to the children to move to another activity or any other transition, we always give them 10 minutes in advance, so they know how long it will be till the other activity, transition…so they have the time in mind and if a child wants to play longer […]
Furthermore, both Olga and Marie's interviews meet a common practice of using the strategy of preparing children for the transition from one routine to the next one. Both communicate the remaining time verbally. This strategy can be recognized as a level of facilitation for children regarding the daily established routines. They explain that this practice helps and allows children to do what they want with the remaining time. This practice, as a strategy, could show that they try to involve and contribute to children’s agency creating a safe space and time for the children. At the same time, as Olga mentions, it helps children emotionally to know what to expect. Thus, this strategy has benefits for children’s emotional and personal development. It acknowledges children as essential members of the educational setting, who have the right to be informed about matters that affect them.
It becomes distinct that the given space for children’s agency varies in the established routines by taking into consideration the parameters mentioned above. However, all of them lead to the limited influence of children in the daily established routines. All the participants recognize the importance of creating space for children's agency, but for different reasons, they involve it in a very restricted manner. Therefore, the rigid nature of routines does not always allow children to contribute to the routines. Each of the participants recognizes children as essential members of the school community that it is essential to be informed or to discuss matters that affect them. Nevertheless, in some cases, practicalities prevent the participants from providing more space for children to have input.
Subtheme 2: None existed the participation of the children in the established routines.
The second subtheme identifies that there is no children's participation in the established routines. All the participants agreed on the rigid form of daily routines, and children cannot contribute or participate in creating them at all times. All of the five participants have stated
21
that children are obligated to follow certain routines. Each of them gives different reasoning about why children are not able to participate in the formation of daily established routines.
Marie: […] if a child wants to play longer, we try to explain that we have to go to the other activity that is planned because we have a big group of children and this is our routines, and they have to listen and follow and most of the times children, like, follow the routines, and they listen to the instructions of teachers.
Marie justifies that the number of children does not allow significant changes, and children need to follow the routines. However, at the same time, she claims that children like to follow the established routines. There is no further explanation for Marie regarding children taking part in the formation of the established routines but only the reasoning of a large group.
Saana: That is my position as a kindergarten teacher, it does not offer much potential in that (creation of the daily established routines), but it is part of the owners plan how they have decided their kindergarten to be and follow a specific program.
Saana: In the way that it is organized at the moment, I do not think. It could be that it has to completely change the way that kindergarten works to cover their wishes, and teachers will have to work in a completely different way.
On the other hand, it is clear for Saana that it is the kindergarten’s management role and responsibility to create the program to give room to children's participation in the daily established routines and not only teachers. She claims that her role, as a teacher, does not allow her to make changes. So, in this case, even if a kindergarten teacher recognizes children’s right
22
to participation, there is someone higher in the hierarchy that plays a crucial role. Through Saana's experience, a new layer is added. In an educational setting, there are several layers that a decision goes through. The children’s right in participation recognizes children as an expert of their life, who contribute equally and their opinion matters (UNCRC,1989).
Nevertheless, the involvement and contribution of the children’s participation entails considering other factors of daily routine. It seems that, if an educational setting does not share common philosophy and practices, it becomes difficult for teachers as individuals to make a change. Maybe, as Saana mentioned above, a teacher can only consider children's opinions partially. Another point Saana brings up is the room of participation, which has been set up by the management, and it is reflected in the pedagogical practices. She mentions that both kindergarten’s organization and teachers would need to change the way of working. This reference might imply one more barrier that should be taken into account. The decision and the involvement of children's participation seem for Saana a more complicated process than relying on the teacher's initiative.
Olga: […]it does not happen every day because we may have scheduled something else, for example, meeting, VASU meetings, team meetings, staff meetings that they also affect our routine. So, it does not happen every day. We try to listen to them, but there are moments that we just have to skip it […]
Olga brings up everyday practicalities that need to be considered. As it has been analyzed earlier, Olga demonstrates a more inclusive pedagogical practice model regarding children's agency room in the daily established routines. However, the daily practicalities, such as team meetings and staff meetings, do not always allow children’s participation to be expressed. So, the interview takes a different lead and presents the day-to-day teachers’ duties as factors that need to count in the room for children’s participation.
23
To sum up, the interviewees agreed that it is impossible to consider children’s participation in the daily established routines all the time. On the one hand, participants recognize the importance of making children part of daily established routines, but on the other hand, they meet practical barriers, which cannot be omitted.
Theme 2: Planned activities: Increased room of agency and participation
The second part of the interview was related to the involvement and contribution to children's agency and participation regarding the planned activities. In this part, it was asked from the interviewees to describe the type of activities they do in their group and which of them are planned. Next, it was asked how the participants plan their activities and how children are involved with them. As a result, the second theme developing from the collected data was the bigger room agency and participation regarding the planned activities. The participants highlighted the major significance that children’s interest plays in the planning of the activities and the final decision on realization and participation belongs to children. Also, they discussed different ways of capturing children’s interest. Therefore, the abocementioned consistes the developed subthemes.
It is essential to keep in mind that according to the Finnish National Core Curriculum, the pedagogical activities consist of certain learning areas (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2018). In combination with children’s interest, kindergarten teachers are encouraged to plan and implement these activities with the children (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2018). The routines are a sequence of actions that occur in the same order and time every day (Zakopoulou, 1999). Therefore, routines are the strong and repetitive frame, and the activities are the content, which changes according to the learning areas and goals.
Subtheme 1: Activities are planned according to children's interests and ways to capture it.
A common theme identified among the five participants is the planned activities based on children’s interests and preferences. Participants mention that their priority is to engage
24
children’s interest in planned activities, as this can give them the motivation to join an activity, enjoy the learning process and explore further different topics, according to Anna.
Anna: Every week that I plan the weekly activities, I keep in mind that I am trying to cover all the skill sets of the age group that I am responsible. Anna: At least, I am trying to follow kid's interest, and there are several times, for example, that I might have two or three or even four different kids expressing different interest, I will then have to juggle a little bit and say "Okay, I will focus this time on this and then, can we get back on that?[…] I am really trying to make them feel that they are part of the process.
Anna explains that she plans the activities according to the developmental and learning areas of her age group. She continues saying that she always tries to plan the activities according to children’s interests and make them active participants in the planning and implementation of them.
Sanna: Every Monday, we have literacy, every Tuesday we have Arts, on Wednesday, we have Math and Thursday we have Physical education or cooking, and then on Friday we have…like…more understanding of the world concept […].
Saana follows the same line as Anna regarding the planning based on the developmental and learning areas. Both Anna and Saana have already decided on the learning areas the activities will build. Thus, the interviewees' specific learning and developmental areas have
25
been chosen for the activities, but the children decide the topic of the activity of a specific learning and developmental area. Children are seen through the developmental lens and the activities, which are designed according to their interests. Activities serve the purpose of what areas need to be developed in each age. Notably, in Saana's case, each day of the week, they follow a specific learning area.
Olga: So that is it, that is how more or less try to capture and recall, so they may feel proud of themselves, trying to encourage them, their idea that they give and they might get inspired by us as well, if we are more positive educators, we also encourage them in development in different stages. Olga: If it is the dancing session, if they come up with an idea for a choreography, let's say I will always recall the child's name who thought about the current move, and I will be like “Okay, this move we got it from that child," for example, so we put this part in the choreography.
Olga places children's participation in the center of her pedagogy, as it affects how she prepares her activities. She justifies the benefits of acknowledging, listening, and including children in the decision-making. Olga believes that, if she listens to children, includes their interest in the planned activities, these actions will work as role models for them, and it will benefit them in their personal and emotional development. The type of activities that Olga plans are according to children’s preference. The children have a central role in the selection and the content of activities, giving more importance to the aspect of personal and emotional skills’ benefits that they have on them.
Marie: […] we like taking into consideration their needs, wishes, and interests when we plan age-appropriate activities. We ask them in circle time
26
what they would like to do in every activity, in every session that we have, so we write down their wishes, and every week we follow up […]
Regarding Marie, she mentions that she plans together with her colleague, and they take into consideration children’s preferences. Marie and her colleague discuss with children what they want to do. Marie uses this verbal communication as one of the tools to perceive children’s interest and include in her practices. Also, she mentions various ways to capture their preferences, besides verbal communication.
Mira: I am responsible mostly for the math activities and also for the units of inquiry that we are following because our school follows units of inquiry. Mira: If you mean that we sit down and decide together, no, we don't, but the unit as it is structured it is led by them […] then you see how children take action over the specific project, and this goes, moves forward…so in that sense, they lead the way, and they will show me what they want to know.
The curriculum that Mira's school follows has child-led character, as the activities are encouraged to include the preferences of the children. Mira mentions that she needs to follow certain learning areas, and she does not plan together with children. Nevertheless, she will make sure that the way, activities will occur, will be according to their wishes. Mira does not seek children's participation in the planning, but she uses their preferences and wishes. The curriculum that Mira needs to follow has specific units, e.g., learning areas, that they need to be covered. Nevertheless, the way they will be covered depends on the children’s input. Children's input is sought in a variety of ways, as it has already been mentioned above. The way that children’s interest is approached is similar to Saana’s and Anna’s cases, as children’s preferences are sought to promote certain learning areas. It is important to be clarified that units
27
are the learning areas, and each unit represents one learning area, that Mira works with it every time.
Interviewer: And regarding the planned activities that you have already mention, how do you plan them for the children?
Saana: We always have some themes in mind and these themes are coming out of observations of children or […] You could ask the children to take photos of the things they like in the kindergarten or what they do not like… […]
Anna: […] I tried to take a picture of it, and afterward, we went back to school, and I showed them the picture […]
Mira: We do a lot of share writing, which means I write what they say in front of them. So, we make mind maps and lists of their ideas […], so I take a lot of pictures and videos that some time watch together.
Mira: So, most of the activities that I plan, they come from observing and listening to what they have said before […]
In line with Marie, Saana, visual tools are used by Mira and Anna to capture children's interests, such as photos, videos, and mind-maps. Verbal communication and discussion are a powerful way for them to capture children's interest. At the same time, they recognize other vital ways that children choose to express themselves, making sure that they consider children. Mira and Anna take many pictures, share and discuss with children, while Saana asks children to take pictures of what they like or they do not like. A prevalent tool to capture children’s interest is the observation, as four out of five participants use observation to capture children's interest. Children's interaction with both environment and peers inform the participants about their preferences. Like this is they know where to focus on the activities.
28
Concluding this subtheme, the planned activities are designed according to children’s interests, which are captured through different tools discussed above. Although each activity center is children's interest, each activity's learning areas might not always follow only their preferences. For instance, Mira needs to follow and implement each given unit (e.g. learning areas) to create an activity, which order has been decided and is based on the units. In the same way, Anna and Saana have already arranged learning areas and based on these areas, children's interest contributes to shape the activity. It has been observed an act of balance from the participants’ side, as there are different tasks and different children’s wishes that they need to be addressed. Hence, this act of balance is reflected on the planned activities as follow. They supported that children’s wishes and preferences are the determinant factor of planned activities. However, it emerged from the collected data, they should follow specific learning and developmental areas in their planning. It leads to the conclusion that teachers seem to interweave the learning and developmental areas with children’s preferences and balance them. One part of the activity is pre-decided, and the other part relies on children’s wishes and interests. The interest of the child is not the only factor, which defines a planned activity.
Subtheme 2: Children's decision defines the realization and participation in activities
The analysis reveals that it is up to children to participate in an activity or even if it will occur. The participants show flexibility in children’s participation in the activities by providing alternative options. An essential part of participants’ pedagogy appears to be the discussion with the children about the reasons children do not want to participate. The participants believe that it is vital to encourage children to participate in a planned activity. The discussion and encouragement to participate, seem to reflect for participants as a positive way to reinforce participation and self-initiative for the children. It is intriguing that participants support children's participation and decision-making, but if a child does not want to participate, they tend to encourage and convince them to take part. Hence, participants try to balance between the planned activities and children’s decision-making. Each of the participants approaches a different aspect of the negotiation and the discussion with children. Some participants ascribe to children the lack of confidence in doing the activity or that eventually, children are not interested in the activity anymore and want to do something different. Moreover, another part to consider is that the planned activity itself might not respond to a group of children’s wishes
29
and needs, as it is unlikely that several children would have the same interest and wish at the same time. The element of individuality comes into the equation.
Saana: They have the chance when they do not want this activity that we said, we give them another option, and if they still do not want the other option, we ask them what they would like to do at this moment. Moreover, again, you need to see of course, why a child does not want to participate in the activity, is it the fact that they feel they are not good enough to do the activity? Is it about confidence?
Saana advocates children’s participation in the planned activities, but she always gives children the option not to participate if they want to do another activity. She claims that it is essential to discuss with them why they do not want to participate, as it might underlie the feeling of not feeling capable of completing the suggested activity. For Saana, it is vital to be able to consider and discuss their view about the activity. She justifies her way as part of working with children’s confidence. She believes that children might lack confidence and hesitate to participate in an activity. Saanna’s statement emerges a very intriguing aspect of the discussion. The reluctance of participating in an activity does not merely equalize for Saana as lack of interest for the activity. She brings up the aspect of confidence in doing the activity. The negotiation and discussion, that Saana uses, can be considered as an act of trying to investigate the reasons why children might refuse to participate. Thus, it becomes self-evident that Saana aims to create a space for children’s participation in the decision-making, as she seems to consider children as experts for their life, discussing with them the reasons preventing them from participate and addressing the situation through a common decision.
Olga: […] for the ones who do not want to participate in cooking, for example, they can have free time play, or we have another activity on the
