This is an old post
that I'm revisiting as my thinking around the relevance of Pikler's
principles of learning in the context of older children continue to
change. A lot has changed.
To refresh: the
theories of Emmi Pikler are not original, but rather a convergence of
principles that together weave a pedagogical base that exemplifies
best practice. These theories can be extrapolated as:
- an image of child as a free and equal human being to be treated with dignity and respect
- attachment or primary care - a secure emotional base is the foundation for all learning
- play-based learning that is initiated and directed by the player
- elevation of the environment as the third teacher and the principle path of teaching
In transitioning from
an infant care model that incorporates these principles to an older
age group we must look at each thread.
Image of
the child.
As I said earlier, our
image of children and childhood reflects both our own journey and
contemporary discourses. Pikler (and other philosophies such as
Reggio Emilia and Anarchist) considers the child as a free and equal
human being, but it's easy to see how these rights can quickly erode
as the child approaches formal education. There is significant
downward pressure from the primary school sector to 'prepare'
children for school – essentially to make their job easier, so we
get lots of mat-time and literacy / numeracy lessons. In the minds of
politicians, many teachers and parents, ECEC is essentially
'pre-school' where children are in a state of preparation for their
adult roles as economically viable workers. ECEC is seen as an
investment and the true purpose and intent of the education system -
homogeneity, social reproduction, obedience etc - is beginning to
rear its ugly head.
Too often children move
from a position of being trusted, respected and valued as an
autonomous individual in the infant years, to being disempowered and
forced to succumb to an adult agenda of 'education'. Can we maintain
the trust that a child can initiate, control, develop, and succeed in
learning challenges that are authentic, meaningful, and contextual?
Of course.
I continue to feel that
this is the core principle of Pikler and one shared by many others.
Is there any reason to abandon such ideals? No.
Routine becomes
Ritual
Many
infant programs have been based on a model of care and education that
aligns with an institutional version of attachment theory where a
primary caregiver is critical for emotional stability - the
foundation for all learning. While older children still need security
and predictability, they are not in the beginning stages of
developing basic trust and a sense of self as are infants and
toddlers.
The concept of
continuity of care refers to the
practice of assigning a primary infant care teacher to an
infant and (ideally) continuing this relationship until the child is
three years old or leaves the program. Many centres find this model
unworkable as the child gets older and 'the group' become
increasingly mobile and disperse about the centre. Despite this,
maintaining a strong relationship with children remains crucial –
as all of you know!
Pikler positions the
building of a secure emotional base during caregiving moments such as
toileting, feeding and sleeping where close one-on-one interaction
occurs, but as these times diminish with the increasing independence
of the child, there is a need to look to other ways to create space
for this relationship building.
This is where we
witness the transformation of other daily routines into rituals that
allow for the continuation of this relationship process. Routines can
be described as an obligation, a job or chore where we do things 'to'
a child rather than 'with'. A routine is often not considered a
period of learning, but an interruption and can be seen occurring
throughout a typical Kindergarten day.
On the other hand, a
ritual conjures images of passion, love, willingness, extraordinary,
creative and caring. In a ritual you are present, giving full
attention with the 'head, heart and hands'. The ritual continues to
have the structure we associate with routine, but its purpose takes
on new meaning as rather than a chore to be gotten through, it is the
base for the building of secure relationships.
Routines that come
become rituals in the centre include periods of relaxation, group
gatherings, and mealtimes. Thus ritual becomes the heart of a child's
day and provides the children with structure and stability with play
the space for exploring the unknown as the child's confidence in
briefly leaving the 'safe spaces' grows. In the ritual we have rhythm
and predictability, we have space for rich authentic relationships
that feed the soul and leave an emotional imprint.
The time I spend with
the children in my primary care reduces as they grow older. I still
assist in toileting some, I sometimes find myself at the kai table
with them, I check in throughout the day to see what they are up too,
and I try to create instances of intentional teaching that
specifically target them. I closely follow their learning progress
and liaise with parents.... yes the links are there, but they are
getting more difficult to maintain from a practical perspective: they
are more mobile and their learning journeys are more individualised -
and of course I'm stuck in other places, not strictly bound by staff
rostering but still often unable to move freely to follow 'my'
children.
.
Play-based learning
and the role of the teacher:
The
social-constructivist argument for increased teacher involvement in
children's learning is a central tenet of contemporary teacher
training. Rather than planned outcomes, teachers embrace the
uncertainty of allowing children to lead the learning process with
the teacher repositioned as a co-constructor with access to
resources, skills, ideas etc. Yes a teaching agenda exists. Knowledge
has been chosen as of having value and worthy of children learning.
We seek to enhance numeracy, literacy, mathematical, socialisation
skills and knowledge through strategies such as open ended
questioning, co-construction, scaffolding and manipulation of the
environment.
I agree with this
position and this is where I find myself abandoning Pikler.
Pikler is an infant
model focused primarily on physical development and aligns perfectly
with Piaget's developmentally-inspired constructivism where the
teacher “wants-nothing”,
a reference
to the
need to
let play
develop from
within the
child, to
having no
set outcomes
or agendas
which turn
play into
an 'activity'.
We 'teach''
through the
environment alone
by providing ongoing challenges. Through
secure
relationships we
build trust,
security, safety
and a
deeper connection
with the
child that allows to better support their
learning.
Yet things change as
the child grows. They can run, climb and jump. They feel secure, have
a good self-esteem and love learning. Yet now this learning is more
conceptual, more about ideas, the world about them, fundamental
questions arise about life...
Research shows that the
learning of language, mathematics, music, science, art etc can stall
without more expert input than that of a child's peers. Lillemyr
(2003) identifies research that questions the level of learning
happening in the free-play environment. They found that “sustained
conversation or play, highly complex play, and purposeful involvement
leading to creative, exciting discovery”, were rare in the
free-play environment. So how children can access more advanced
knowledge and skills if restricted to only learning amongst their
immediate peers?
We can critique the
types of play we are witnessing and find those moments when an
empowered child briefly invites the participation of an adult:
periods of practice, manipulation, supported struggle,
representation, discovery and inquiry, all present moments where
teachers can introduce concepts and ideas that are outside the
child's immediate world.
And so we arrive at
co-construction – the central teaching strategy of
social-constructivism and a long way from Pikler. Here the expert is
working alongside the child to construct new knowledge. There is
another post that looks into this in detail. You can find a link on
the right hand list.
This is a fundamental
departure from Pikler. Yes we maintain our image of the child, but no
longer is learning an individual journey.
Environment as the
Third Teacher
This role of the
teacher remains important even though it is no longer the principle
path of teaching that it once was with infants.
An environmental
structure – be it resources, vegetation, sand, water, places to
hide etc, need not have negative connotations of being prescriptive
and the result of choosing 'correct' knowledge, they can be sources
of infinite possibilities if we keep their purpose open-ended with
the ability to become more complex. A well planned environment can
incorporate concepts of mathematics, science, art, language etc in
ways that inspire questioning from the children.
Conclusion
If we are now following this type of programme,
can we still refer to it as Pikler? We could also ask why? If we
consider the context of Pikler's original working environment – a
state orphanage filled with disabled infants – should we really use
this title? Sure we may be based on Pikler's learning principles, but
we are developing a local context that reflects our need to honour
the ongoing pedagogical research and practice.
Emmi Pikler picked the best of contemporary
practice – we are doing the same.
No comments:
Post a Comment