Tag: intentionality

Children’s theories: how to use them for planning?

~ Storykate ~ Leave a comment

Have you ever heard a child say something that made you stop and think, “Wait a minute. I’ve never thought about it that way”?

Today I wanted to talk about theories, or child theories.

Outcome 4.2 talks about problem-solving, inquiry, experimentation, hypothesising, researching and investigating. One of the educator strategies is to help and encourage children to express or make visible their ideas and theories to others.

Wait a minute. But what theories are we talking about?

The word “theories” appears in the educator strategy column in the EYLF. The everyday meaning of theory is an established explanation backed by evidence. It’s a set of ideas, and it’s usually quite structured.

You probably know about Piaget’s theory, Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory, post-humanist theory and many others.

But in the Reggio Emilia approach, we talk about children’s theories. This goes back to Loris Malaguzzi’s vision of children as capable and competent.

Children have their own theories, or explanations, that they build to make sense of the world.

Malaguzzi described the child as competent, capable, creative and rich, as opposed to the idea of the child as an empty vessel proposed earlier by John Locke and followed by the formal education system.

Carla Rinaldi talked about three roles: the child as a protagonist of their own learning, the child as a collaborator working with other children and with educators, and the child as a communicator who uses the hundred languages, or many different expressive media.

A child’s theory, in Reggio terms, is provisional. It is a way of making sense of something. It is an explanation.

For example, recently I visited a nature-based preschool and overheard the following conversation between two boys. They were talking about mosquitoes, and they saw animal droppings on the ground. One child asked:

“Do mosquitoes poo?”

This really stopped me in my tracks because I had never really thought about it.

And children really are quite clever. They offer us a fresh perspective on many things that we have never even questioned or that we have simply taken for granted.

Theories are usually social. They build and develop through groups. Disagreement is normal, and disagreement can be productive.

Children’s theories drive planning in Reggio Emilia, and educators document them for projects, or progettazione, which is usually inquiry-based.

Listening for children’s theories is a very important interpretive act.

Going back to the mosquitoes, the children really didn’t know whether mosquitoes had a full digestive tract and whether they produced waste. So they made a hypothesis: maybe mosquitoes poo, or maybe they don’t.

That could potentially become a theory.

It will become a more developed theory when children say something like:

“Mosquitoes don’t poo because they only drink blood, and blood is a drink.”

Or:

“They do poo, but it’s too small to see.”

Now we have something that is becoming a theory.

But at this stage, it is still a very important part of the inquiry process. And I would definitely document it, which I did.

The thing with questions like this, or theories that can come out of them, is to resist the temptation to give the immediate answer.

As people in Reggio Emilia say, handing the question back to children can start an inquiry and grow into a full-on project.

For example, children found a dead snake on the ground.

Maxim said, “I never die.”

James agreed.

“And I also never die because we are kids,” said Maxim.

Three things make this a theory.

There is a claim: “I never die.”

There is a question underneath it: What is life? What is death?

And there is a reason: “Because we are kids.”

This makes it a theory.

Two children are building a theory through their social interaction. They are exploring the concept of death, which is not an easy topic.

Maxim accepted that the snake is dead and will probably stay dead. All things die. Animals die. But kids are exempt.

And that is their theory.

Have you ever witnessed any unusual child theories?

Have you observed or noticed theories in practice?

I would really like to hear from you.👇🏻

What Does “Intentional Teaching” Actually Mean?

~ Storykate ~ Leave a comment

A question I still hear educators get wrong — and it matters more than you think.

Walk into almost any early childhood setting and ask an educator what intentional teaching looks like. Chances are, they’ll describe a lesson. A planned activity or an explicit instruction moment. Children sit at the table and follow the teacher’s instructions. That’s not quite what intentional teaching means . The the confusion has real consequences for children’s learning.

Let me explain.

Intentional teaching in the EYLF

Contemporary theories in early childhood education highlight the role of interactions, rights of children, and children’s agency. Learning is largely child-centred. So the focus of all the frameworks, such as EYLF and My Time, Our Place and this state version, such as the Victorian framework are on so-called intentionality. Intentionality is not the same as direct teaching. It’s not explicit teaching, so please do not confuse these terms. You also probably have heard the term intentional teaching, which means being intentional, being thoughtful and purposeful in your actions as a teacher, making decisions. This is the definition from EYLF 22 page 66.

Intentionality is also linked to the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers. In particular, Professional Standards 3 requires educators to draw on a range of teaching strategies to plan and implement effective teaching and learning. Children also learn in their own ways through interaction with others, with the environment, with other children, but they interact and act in ways that lead their learning, and that’s when intentionality shows up in their play. Sometimes they set up their own challenges, sometimes they challenge other children, sometimes they’re problem-solving and doing something intentionally.

For example, I remember I had a child who would go around with me to do the final checkup before closing down because he was often late to be picked up, and we would do it, and he enjoyed this kind of learning. He was intentional.

Children can also lead their own learning. Sometimes they ask for experiences to be set up. For example, I had an American child who was very much into learning about artists. Maybe they do go to museums a lot or maybe they had experiences living in the world in different places. So I set up a Monet-inspired art space which supported his exploration. So agency is quite linked to intentionality.

Children use agency to investigate and learn as well as expect the right to be listened to and taken seriously, as we know from the UNROC convention. So we can be intentional in many ways. For example, we can be intentional through our conversations with children, the words we use. And if you’re struggling with that, I have a guide on what to say when.

https://payhip.com/b/XdBc7

We can ask questions, yes, so we can participate in substantial thinking, a concept developed by Siraj Blatchford in 2003. Educators listen carefully, ask questions, and make comments to promote deeper thinking and extend learning. When educators are intentional, they use specific language in conversations to talk about size, patterns, and other concepts. They talk about processes such as writing and painting. They model art techniques, and they scaffold children’s learning. This is what intentional teaching.

So what does it actually look like in your practice?

Smuggling knowledge into play?

~ Storykate ~ Leave a comment

Hey educators! Have you heard of the concept: “Smuggling content knowledge into play”? It is a concept proposed by Sue Hedges, an early childhood education researcher. It refers to the intentional integration of academic content or subject matter into play-based learning experiences for young children. It is when we ask: what colour is that?

Rather than approaching learning as a separate and formal activity, Hedges suggests embedding educational content within the context of play. This approach capitalises on children’s natural inclination to explore, experiment, and make sense of the world through play.

For example, instead of directly teaching mathematics concepts through worksheets or drills, educators might create play scenarios or provide materials that encourage children to explore mathematical ideas through hands-on activities. This could involve counting, sorting, measuring, or problem-solving within the context of a pretend grocery store, construction site, or kitchen.

By “smuggling” content knowledge into play, educators can make learning more engaging, meaningful, and developmentally appropriate for young children. It allows for a seamless integration of academic concepts into children’s everyday experiences, fostering deeper understanding and retention of knowledge.

I do “smuggling of knowledge into play “quite a lot, but I am also reflective about my role in children’s play as an observer or a “foreigner” (a concept for another post!).


What about you – are you guilty of smuggling content knowledge into children’s play?