Interactive and socially inclusive pedagogy: a comparison of practitioner- and child-oriented cognitive/learning activities involving four-year-old children in preschools in England

Abstract

There are now a number of well founded, international studies identifying that access to preschool experience will enhance a child's cognitive and social development and facilitate entry to primary schools (Ball 1994; NICHD 2002; Schweinhart, and Weikart 1997; Sylva et al. 2010). These studies demonstrate that the analysis of the potential positive effects of preschool experience on children's development have moved-on from simple considerations of attendance to the investigation of specific qualities associated with effective environments and activities or high quality experiences (EPPE 2004; Siraj-Blatchford 2010; Sylva 2010). Of particular relevance is that pre-schools providing high-quality or 'excellent' provision provide for both cognitive and social development and that these developments are not compartmentalised, they are linked (Siraj-Blatchford et al., 2003). The study reported within this paper examines childrens' experiences within preschool settings (associated with interactions between children and their practitioners) that facilitate cognitive and social developments-especially with regard to an active and interactive pedagogy and the promotion of social inclusion (EPPE 2004; Stephen 2006). In particular, the EPPE studies

Impact of the Interactive Learning Environments in Children’s Prosocial Behavior

“…Most of the studies have focused on how the use of a dialogic teaching approach challenges children's thinking and learning in classrooms based on dialogic interactions [19]. These dialogic features of teaching and learning have also been highlighted as the basis of the inclusive classroom pedagogy [20] and the socially inclusive pedagogy [21].…”

Intentional teaching in early childhood education: A scoping review

“…Research about social contexts for learning (and teaching) paid more particular attention to group contexts: ‘When the practitioner engaged all children in learning activity the researcher then noted on the map the location of individual male and female children, child work groupings, and location of adults working with or without children’ (Kutnick et al, 2016, p. 271). Attending to gender, group preferences and adult presence contributed to a more nuanced appreciation of teaching.…”

“…In the previous section about the ‘how’ of IT we indicated that questions regarding ‘when’ IT was used in group settings were often not answered. However, Kutnick et al (2016) found ‘that children spent 70% of their time in small groups without practitioners…when practitioners were present they would most likely direct, introduce and scaffold learning activities’ (p. 275). Further investigation is required about how and when adults moved into groups and whether children chose groups, and when to change groups.…”

“…Researchers drawing from socio‐cultural theory saw learning as a process involving ‘fine‐grained qualities and complex and dynamic nuances’ and ‘ways of knowing’ (Wood & Hedges, 2016, p. 13). Studies framed by sociological theory examined the relationship between IT and broad learning outcomes such as children's engagement, participation and inclusion (Durden et al, 2015; Hawkins, 2017; Kutnick et al, 2016; MacNevin & Berman, 2017; Stirrup et al, 2017). Our analysis of this aspect raised the noteworthy issues of whether these diverse understandings of learning are compatible; if they are associated with particular age groups, and whether they contribute to confused and competing ideas regarding what it means to ‘teach’ young children.…”

“…Predetermined outcomes (often stipulated in curriculum documents) have become increasingly important in ECE policy as governments apply ‘accountability pressure’ (Little & Cohen‐Vogel, 2016, p. 3). Long‐term outcomes focus on broad factors such as ‘well‐being’ or children's engagement, participation and inclusion (e.g., Hawkins, 2017; Kutnick et al, 2016; Stirrup et al, 2017). In contrast, short‐term, quantifiable outcomes are more common in the cognitive science and early literacy literature (Campbell, 2018; Maita et al, 2014).…”