Reshaping the learning disposition domains: Rethinking the language for infants and toddlers

Abstract

During our participation in a Teaching and Learning Research Initiative (TLRI) project entitled Key Learning Competencies across Place and Time: Kimihia te ara totika, hei oranga mo to ao, we were invited, as part of the action research design, to develop our own research project about learning outcomes referred to as key learning competencies. This is a composite term for learning dispositions in the early childhood national curriculum (Ministry of Education, 1996, p. 44) and key competencies in the school curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007, pp. 12-13). We work with infants and toddlers and had become interested in a research project that would enable us to rethink the language for learning dispositions. We were using Learning Stories (Carr, 2001; Cowie & Carr, 2004; Hatherly, 2006) to document and analyse learning, and we wondered if rethinking the language would reshape the way that we document the learning of our youngest children. We talked together about how certain Learning Stories we were writing for our infants and toddlers did not seem to particularly well with the existing domains of learning disposition in Carr (2001, pp. 23-25): taking an interest, being involved; persisting with difficulty or uncertainty; communicating with others; and taking responsibility. These parallel the Te Whariki strands of belonging, well-being, exploration, communication and contribution. During the research project, all teachers at our early childhood centre (New Brighton Community Preschool and Nursery) were analysing Learning Stories using this framework. We were highlighting the key outcomes for each story, and then exploring gaps and continuities. However, we teach infants and toddlers under 2 years old, and we have often found ourselves stuck when trying to describe a significant event or experience for a child and their family because the language of the framework didn't stand strong enough for the story. The dilemma for us here was that on one hand we wanted to honour the framework, but, on the other, we felt the framework did not allow us to capture the real story. It wasn't the notion of dispositions we had a problem with, rather it was the language of the framework that didn't seem to correspond to the learning we wanted to describe. This article discusses how we came to rework some of the dispositional language to better our view of infants and toddlers learning in action at our centre. Listen to the Sound: Where does it fit? The dilemma described above was never more apparent than with Ruby's story, Listen to the Sound. Nadine wrote a story about Ruby's movements in combination with experimenting with her body and how she used her body to play and create sound. Nadine felt none of the existing dispositions expressed the real significance of this story, and she was left wondering if the story was really relevant in the context of the dispositional framework. She asked many colleagues to read it and give their opinion--everyone agreed that it summed up exactly what Ruby was about but that it didn't seem to fit anywhere within the existing frame. Around this time, Keryn Davis, our research co-ordinator for the project, was visiting the preschool for a research meeting. Nadine shared this story with her, hoping that Keryn could shed some light on this growing dilemma. Keryn suggested that Ruby seemed very playful throughout this story, so why not think about it in terms of the dispositions of trust and playfulness, associated with being involved. While Nadine agreed Ruby was being playful, she felt it was much more about Ruby exploring or exploration. However, the actions and behaviours that correspond to the domain of learning disposition associated with exploration (persisting with difficulty or uncertainty) weren't appropriate for Ruby in this story. This was not a challenge for Ruby--it did not seem difficult, nor did she seem uncertain in this situation--but she was exploring. …