Abstract
This article reports on a study investigating young children’s views about learning. The researchers engaged 200 Australian children from 3 to 8 years of age in conversations about how they liked to learn. In an attempt to privilege children’s voices, the direct words of the participating children are used in the reporting of results. The children generated rich and thoughtful ideas about learning as well as factors contributing to their motivation and engagement in learning. Whereas Kindergarten children expressed a real sense of agency and self-efficacy in their learning, school-aged children expressed a strong desire for opportunities to be more actively engaged and have some control over their learning. Of concern was how quickly positive dispositions towards learning appeared to slide when children transitioned to school. The study challenges educators to find ways to listen to children in order to develop policies and practices that are responsive to children’s perspectives and create school systems in which all children, without exception, are actively engaged, motivated and exercising agency in their learning.
Keywords
Introduction
This article reports on young children’s views about learning in educational contexts. These views were gathered as part of a research project that engaged 200 Australian children from 3 to 8 years of age in conversations about how they liked to learn, what they enjoyed learning, the environments that supported their learning, and, importantly, who helped them learn. The research team invited them to offer their views on what learning is and how it happens. Commissioned by the Director of Early Childhood Education and Care in the metropolitan region of the Queensland Department of Education and Training (DET), the research was aimed at privileging and giving voice to young children’s perspectives.
The study is premised on the view that children are competent and capable communicators, able to use a range of verbal and non-verbal media – including drawings, artwork, stories, and artefacts – to construct and share their views and understanding of how they learn. Further, it acknowledges Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC, 1989) that enshrines the rights of children to express views freely in all matters affecting them.
Along with researchers such as Black, Busch, and Hayes (2015, p. 126), we designed a study that would contribute to the development of a “culture of listening to children by valuing their opinions and ideas and viewing them as sources of knowledge”. In doing so, we reject assumptions that adults are the only ones who know what is best for children and argue that what adults understand about children’s lives, may not accord with their actual lived experiences (Harcourt, 2011). Given that systemic decisions about children’s learning are usually based on the assumption that “only adults know”, our motivation, similar to Bragg (2007) and Hill (2006), is to ensure that adults have greater clarity around children’s experiences and understandings. Further, we argue that an awareness of these perspectives is essential in order to make more effective decisions when creating policy or developing practices designed to enhance children’s learning. Of course, like Flutter and Rudduck (2004, p. 3), we are not suggesting that pupils should dictate how schools are run, but like them, we believe that “practitioners and schools can benefit from tuning into pupils’ perspectives”.
The 200 Children’s Voices project was specifically designed to inform a larger study being conducted concurrently by the research team for DET. This broader study, entitled Age Appropriate Pedagogies (AAP), aimed to refocus pedagogies in Queensland’s early years classrooms. The refocus was deemed necessary to address growing concerns about increasingly structured approaches being used to teach children from 4.5 years of age, with an emphasis on the Preparatory Year (the first year of schooling). To inform the AAP project, a foundation paper (Flückiger, Dunn, & Wheeley, 2015) that drew on international literature identified key messages about learning in the early years. In addition, DET were keen to include children’s views on learning and thus initiated the 200 Children’s Voices study.
Given the number of children involved, a very sizable data set was generated. Reporting on the full scope of this data set would be beyond the limits of a single article. Therefore, we focus here on what the children said about how learning happens and their views about factors that support and limit learning. We begin with a brief review of relevant literature, followed by a description of the methodology adopted, including key processes used to ensure authenticity.
Literature review
Listening to, and consulting with, young children has been the focus of much recent research (Adderley et al., 2015; Bath, 2013; Brooks & Murray, 2016; Colliver & Fleer, 2016; Merewether & Fleet, 2014). Some of these studies have emphasised the challenge of designing research processes that are effective in generating data reflecting young children’s perspectives authentically (Clark, 2005a, 2005b; Jesuvadian & Wright, 2011), whilst others have discussed the ethical issues associated with research involving young children (Bath, 2013; Dockett, Einarsdottir, & Perry, 2009). Several studies have reported on the views that young children express on a variety of topics such as inclusion (Adderley et al., 2015), childhood (Harcourt, 2011), starting school (Brooks & Murray, 2016; Einarsdottir, Dockett, & Perry, 2009) and their local communities (Harris & Manatakis, 2013). Surprisingly, however, what children have to say about learning is seldom reported.
Of note then is the work of Sommer, Pramling Samuelsson, and Hundeide (2010) who argue that early childhood education should be built on children’s perspectives. They remind us however (p. 22) that it is important to differentiate between child perspectives, which “direct adult’s attention towards an understanding of children’s perceptions, experiences and actions”, and children’s perspectives, which “represent children’s experiences, perceptions and understanding in their life world” (p. 23). This differentiation is clearly critical for the current study as the overarching goal of both the funding body and us as researchers was to give voice to children’s perspectives. Of course, any attempt at this is fraught with limitations, as inevitably academic papers require interpretation and are necessarily shared with an adult voice. Nonetheless, like the studies reported below, we have attempted to share the children’s perspectives as authentically as possible, with the creation of videos featuring some of the 200 child participants as a key part of this process. A link to the videos is provided later in this article in the Research design and participants section.
Researching children and learning
In a U.S. study particularly pertinent to our work Daniels, Kalkman, and McCombs (2001) involved 66 children in Kindergarten, Grades 1 and 2 in an investigation of teaching practices and learning. Children participated in structured interviews using cartoon-like drawings that showed boys and girls involved in classroom activities in order to prompt discussion about schoolwork. Within the interview process, the children rated their feelings about the emotional support they received from teachers using a four-point face scale (big smile, small smile, neutral, frown), and then used these to talk about and justify their choice. The children were also asked: “What is a good teacher like?” and, “What is the best way to learn?” The research found that children’s views of learning tended to be consistent with the practices they were experiencing in their classroom. Responses from children in classrooms identified as being learner centred and non-learner centred were compared. Results suggested that those in learner centred classrooms were more interested and engaged in learning whereas those in non-learner centred classrooms were less interested and showed signs of becoming disengaged.
Rudduck and Flutter (2000) suggest however that, for the most part, young children have little overall sense of how teaching and learning might be structured differently from what they are experiencing, and highlight the influence that schools and their existing protocols may exert over the views children hold. This point is made strongly in the work of Bragg (2007) who, as deputy head of a school, attempted to involve children in regular consultation about their schooling. She discovered that their views were shaped by the “broader discursive contexts” of schools, with these often being inspired by an “individualised and competitive model of education” (2007, p. 514). Despite these constraints, Rudduck and Flutter (2004) consider that young children hold important insights into learning and we concur with their proposition that researchers and teachers should: … take seriously what pupils can tell us about their experience of being a learner in school – about what gets in the way of their learning and what helps them to learn; and find ways of involving pupils more closely in decisions that affect their lives in school, whether at the level of the classroom or the institution. (p. 2)
Within the Australian context, Dockett and Perry (2003) sought to investigate children’s views about starting school. This research acknowledged that children are stakeholders in the transition to schooling but are seldom, if ever, consulted in the process. The study involved staff, parents and children from four school contexts across New South Wales. Data sources included audio recordings of classroom discussion, photos taken by children of “things they considered important” (Dockett & Perry, 2003, p. 13) and classroom books made by children using their photos. Results relevant to the 200 Children’s Voices study indicate that the children were concerned about school rules, including those related to the demarcation of play and out-of-bounds areas.
Harcourt’s (2011) study, also involving Australian children, provided the opportunity for 3- to 5-year-olds in an early learning centre to express their perceptions of childhood and adulthood. In that study, Harcourt carried out “conversations with a purpose” (2011, p. 236) over several months, whilst also collecting drawings, photographs, and ethnographic notes. To share the contributions of the child participants, Harcourt provided images and quotes from the children. In the article, she suggested that the challenge was to “stand back from what has been socially constructed (by adults) as understandings of children and childhood” (p. 341) and to reflect on “the existence of a complementary construct” (p. 341, emphasis in original) of the lived experience of children. Harcourt’s study illustrates the power and impact of using children’s own words to communicate sophisticated and complex understandings.
More recently, Colliver and Fleer (2016) conducted a study of two- to five-year-old children examining their views on what was being learned through imaginary play. The children identified that they were learning about the aim of the game, and rules associated with imaginary play. Colliver and Fleer suggest that, through play, children are exploring the roles and rules of society and discovering how the world works.
Method
Research design and participants
Particular challenges are associated with researching the views of young children and in finding the best, most appropriate, methods of data collection. Whilst many studies have found interviews and guided discussion effective (see, for example, Bragg, 2007; McIntyre, Pedder, & Rudduck, 2005; Mitsoni, 2006), Lewis and Porter (2007, p. 229) suggest that a broader range of methods are suitable for accessing the perspectives of young children including observations, individual interviews, small group interviews, creative methods (e.g. using cameras, video, drawing, drama), elicited and spontaneous narratives, prompted approaches, and, what they call projective techniques (tests).
The Mosaic Approach developed originally by Clark and Moss (2001) and further applied by Clark (2001, 2005a, 2005b) seeks to gather the ideas of children. It involves a range of multi-modal data collection methods applied in a particular sequence including drawing, role-play, photographs, interviews, and observations. Involvement of children, teachers, parents and others in the research context is considered important, with the data collection and analysis taking place over a considerable period of time (e.g. a half year or at minimum, a single school term). Importantly, children are also involved in the analysis process and contribute to the creation of the mosaic that records and reports on the study at its completion.
In designing the current study, many aspects of the ideas presented above were taken into account, particularly those offered by Hill (2006) who has pointed out that not all research methods suit all children, and that choice within the methods assists children’s participation in the research process. Hence, we approached the task with a shared view of the importance of children’s agency, seeking to design a participatory and collaborative process. As such, the aim was to ensure that children had agency in terms of both the type and level of their involvement, whilst also attempting to make the researchers’ interactions with the children more like conversations and less like formal interviews.
Multiple considerations impacted on the design of our research. These included the desire to incorporate the voices of children aged 3–8 years attending kindergarten (prior to school), school (Preparatory Year to Year 2) and community learning sites. Access to a community site was provided by the State Library of Queensland which offered our team the opportunity to meet with children and their families visiting the library. All five schools and three kindergartens involved in the research were located within Metropolitan Brisbane and were selected to ensure socio-cultural diversity. Participants therefore included children from First Australian, refugee and immigrant backgrounds and those with varying cultural and socio-economic circumstances. Of the 200 children, 55% of the participants were boys and 45% were girls. No further selection criteria were applied other than the children’ willingness to contribute to the research.
This willingness to participate was signalled verbally at the time of the conversations and also prior to the conversation in writing, whilst written consent was gained by providing the children with the option to add shapes, letters or drawings on the official consent form. Parents and caregivers were then invited to countersign these forms once the children had made their decision. The children’s involvement in the formal component of assent, by making a mark on the written document alongside that of their parents or caregivers, was deemed by the research team to be an important signal to the children that their involvement was taken seriously. Of course, on the day, the children were free to participate in just some of the activities or withdraw entirely.
Additional considerations shaped the design of the study, one of which was that the Metropolitan Region of DET, the funder and instigator of the project, was keen for the children’s views to be showcased within a series of videos. Therefore, a video ethnographer joined the research team to capture content and context. Her involvement both enhanced and constrained the research process, for the presence of a large camera and boom microphone made natural conversation between adult and child challenging. However, the presence of the camera served to bring to these discussions some sense of importance, with the children being invited towards the end of each set of video recorded discussions to speak directly to camera in order to communicate their views to an imaginary person we referred to as the “big boss of schools”. We explained to the children that this was a person who made lots of decisions about how schools run and asked them to share with this “boss” any particular ideas they had about making schools better. Many declined this opportunity, but others eagerly grasped it, with some making impassioned pleas for more time to play, better learning spaces, or in one case, as highlighted below, for schools to be more like Kindy.
Data collection
With these considerations in mind, we created a research design that we hoped would provide the best possible opportunity for us to capture the children’s perspectives, whilst ensuring consistency across the data set. To this end, the authors, each of whom is an experienced early years educator, undertook the data collection personally, despite being unfamiliar to the children. This decision, to work directly with the children rather than asking their teachers or other adults more familiar with them to collect the data, was also driven by a desire to give the children the opportunity to freely express their views on learning unhindered by the desire to please the adults directly involved in that learning.
We were, however, cognisant of the need to take time to build rapport with the children and to help them feel relaxed and safe within the discussions. To this end, we spent several hours in each location interacting with the children and informally chatting with them before we commenced a series of activities designed to gather their perspectives. These activities were applied flexibly from context to context and child-to-child. They included:
Draw-and-describe: In small groups the children drew a picture of themselves learning and, during the process, they were encouraged to talk to each other and a member of the research team about what was depicted. These conversations were either video- or audio-recorded. Walk-and-talk: Following the draw-and-describe activity, individuals or pairs of children were invited to take an individual researcher to a place where they like to learn. These locations, and the discussions about them, were either video- or audio-recorded. Show-and-tell: The children, individually and in groups, were encouraged to show the researcher examples of what they had been learning and of which they were proud. These sometimes became demonstrations, as children chose to show the researcher their skills.
Data analysis
Once the conversations with the children were completed, a two-stage analysis process was undertaken. In the first stage, all video and audio-recordings, along with the children’s drawings were examined repeatedly in order to identify emerging themes. Initially, the data analysis process was informed by the categories employed by Daniels et al. (2001, pp. 260–262) that include descriptions of good teachers and best ways to learn (traditional and contemporary). Next, we built upon these categories and developed a broader structure that also included what, how, where, when, and with whom the children liked to learn. To support consistency of analysis and sorting, we followed the format of Daniels et al. by creating a definition for each new category and identifying sample responses.
The second stage involved the creation of six short videos, with four of these intentionally offering the children’s perspectives free of adult commentary. These videos were organised by year level and according to the identified themes. Two further videos were created, with the first of these introducing the project and the second offering adult perspectives and commentary. This process of creating and editing the videos was similar to Richardson and St Pierre’s (2005) notion of “writing to understand”, as the film production process gave us the chance to consolidate our understanding of the themes through the selection and sequencing of illustrative images and sound bites. Drafts of these videos were provided to all participating organisations for feedback and advice. The location of the final videos was also communicated with participating organisations to be shared with the children, their parents and caregivers, and with the teachers involved (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmROCCFGUEc&list=PLgjv5epyrnQDkotysJW0AuSeNH-NHhjn4).
In the following section, we present the findings that emerged through this analysis process, making specific use of the children’s words. First, we outline children’s perspectives on how learning happens, followed by children’s ideas about the conditions that support their learning and those that limit it. The perspectives offered here are not sorted according to the children’s age, but where there were clear differences between age-groups these have been highlighted and discussed.
Results
Children’s perspectives on learning
When asked to describe how learning happens, many children identified particular body parts including: their hands – if you’re writing something and, when you make a mistake, your hand sends a message all the way up to your brain. I think it might come back down to your eyes, the thing you did wrong, and then back to your brain and then down your arm and then it crosses it out; their minds – I just think about stuff, then I make it come true by writing; their ears – to listen; and mouths – to brainstorm or talk to each other and figure things out.
One kindergarten child offered a revealing description of how his brain works to support learning when he noted: We use our brains. By thinking, we are going deep in our minds to see what ideas we’ve got. Another young child didn’t mention her brain as such, but simply explained: When I was thinking about it, I saw that I knowed it! Another described learning within a science experience: So first we watched, and then we tried, but if we couldn’t do it, we tried again. We got better and better. I got better! Everybody did. Other children connected learning with the use of their imaginations, including one Kindergarten girl who described in some detail how she came to create a castle from a box: One day when I was at the making area, I made a castle out of a box. The box gave me that idea…because it looked like a castle was waiting to be made on it. Another child, in Year Two noted: I like to write about things in my imagination because I have a really good imagination. I write about places that are magical, that have cool creatures in it…I play games a lot and read books so it makes my imagination kind of get bigger.
The importance of collaboration was noted as well, but mostly by the younger children. For example, in the context of box construction, a Kindergarten child explained how his friends supported him to achieve his goal: You have to plan what you’re gonna make in your head and so sometimes it comes to you and sometimes it doesn’t…Normally you plan with someone else…so we plan with our friends. A Year 2 girl also valued working with peers, offering a detailed rationale: We (sometimes) work in twos, with a partner…and if they don’t know anything you can learn from them. Sometimes my mind is a bit lost and I can’t really concentrate…they might know what to do and they might like talk you through what you have to do.
Children who viewed learning in this way, generally used the word “tell” to describe what teachers did, suggesting that learning is a process which privileges listening. For example, one described learning in this way: The teacher tells us to look at the board, listen and do it. In addition, several children used the word boring when referring to the process of listening to learn, with one noting: When I sit and listen I find it really boring because I have lots of stuff I want to speak to my friends [about].
The school-aged children frequently described learning as being a silent and individual process – You are not allowed to talk to people and you do it all by yourself. For these children, learning was described as occurring when someone stands in front of you and tells you what to do, what to write and stuff…how to learn. Copying from other children was also highlighted, with one child suggesting that learning happens when you do something exactly the same as another person.
Many children also talked about learning as a process that gets harder and harder as they progress through the various levels of schooling. Several seemed in awe of just how difficult learning was going to be in secondary school. Indeed, one Prep child seemed to find it all a bit overwhelming, with the increasing demands of school being more like a prison sentence than an enjoyable experience, noting that it’s going to get even harder until we finish…and then we get to be free of school.
Factors that support children’s learning
Over and over again, during our conversations with the children, they became most enthusiastic about learning when they described processes such as scientific experimentation, mathematical investigations, projects, interviews, researching, designing and using computer games, making things, and playing games of all kinds, including mathematics games, spelling games, and group games. Many also expressed a keen interest in predicting and problem solving.
One child noted that they loved science learning when they were engaged in making new stuff and making new inventions. Other children enthusiastically described learning activities in which: they experimented with concepts of floating and sinking; created volcanoes; and engaged with a visiting expert in-role as a professor who introduced them to scientific ideas. During this visit, the children got to dress up as scientists and wear special glasses and coats. One child described this event: We don’t do experiments, but one time we did when [the professor] taught us all how to make glow-in-the-dark jelly.
Experiences with technology, particularly those involving robotics, were embraced enthusiastically, especially those where the children had opportunities for agency. Similarly, when learning mathematics, children in Year 2 children suggested that learning was more enjoyable when they engaged in active processes such as designing board games or using technologies including iPads or computers. Prep and Year One child noted that when learning mathematics, fingers, counters, blocks, or other concrete objects helped them to learn.
Activities that were exciting, encouraging, creative, collaborative or fun were favoured the most. One child supported the importance of fun by suggesting that, if you aren’t having fun, you’re not happy. However, fun was defined in different ways, including: doing something in the playground you’ve never done before; doing fun stuff [with the Art teacher]; or group work, like drawing, doing play dough, painting…and computers. Children also liked to make things and then to feel a sense of achievement upon completion. In creating these, children were definitely not afraid of taking risks, with one child indicating: In our school one of our learning things is that if you don’t make mistakes, you are a robot.
The school-aged children were mostly silent about opportunities for choice, with only a few exceptions. Where children did comment on choices, they made statements such as: I like it when I get to choose between choices because if we all get to do the same thing it would be less fun and [choice] gets you better at learning new stuff. When reflecting on the idea of choice, several reminisced about the richer opportunities offered in the Kindergarten setting, with a Year 2 child fondly recalling, we got to do whatever we wanted…but now we have to listen to the teachers. For the Kindergarten children however, opportunities for choice were taken for granted, with children making the following comments: I can choose anything I want…I just think about one I want and then I just pick one I want; We decided…we like it when we get to choose; I choosed which flag – I’ll show you which flag I choosed.
Motivation was another factor identified by children as supporting their learning, with motivation appearing to come from multiple sources. For example, one child described motivation by suggesting: If you’re interested in something you really want to do it, and you are really focused and you’re really happy about what you are doing and it really helps you (learn). Others also noted that if they were good at doing something, such as spelling, reading or mathematics, they were more motivated to engage in it, including tasks that others considered boring.
Some children explained that learners should stop worrying about others and, instead, just try their best. They also suggested that children should learn from their mistakes and that competition, in which children progress through levels or earn smiley stickers, is motivating. For example, one child explained the complex extrinsic motivation processes used in her classroom: If you read three books, you get an iPad to play. If you read the mostest, the mostest, the mostest, you get the iPad and a peg point. If you get up to peg point number nine and do whole body listening…you’ll be the buzzy champion. If you get 55 buzzy bees you get to choose a prize. If you get less than 50 you don’t get anything.
Interestingly, no Kindergarten children in the study mentioned extrinsic rewards as a motivator for learning, whilst a further difference between their responses and those of the school-aged children was the very strong sense of self-efficacy they demonstrated. For example, Kindergarten children noted that they were very good at counting, drawing a lot better now, drawing more things, and very good at looking at skeletons and drawing them, adding I’m not scared of anything.
Children at all year levels suggested that it was important to just keep on going – to practice, and practice and practice. Challenge was also seen as an important motivating factor. A Prep child commented: If you do easy stuff at school, you’ll never learn, whilst a Year One child sought additional challenge by requesting harder homework.
Finally, children identified times when they felt pride in their work. For some, this pride came when they mastered a skill: like learning the five times table, made a friend, created an art collage, created an App on the computer or a puppet to play with, when they finished something and it looked beautiful (e.g. a bookmark made in a technology lesson), or finished Maths ahead of others.
Limitations on learning
School-aged children identified factors that limit learning including people talking, people touching you and annoying you, bullies who distract the principal and teachers and the child and waste time, when people come and say right you have to come to this or do this and you don’t get your work finished or even for one child, when the teacher goes on the phone and everyone looks at her. Another child noted that when you get in trouble and you get in time-out or the thinking chair it ruins for you to go to the gold ticket room (as part of a school-wide behavioural reward system).
For school-aged children, boredom was the most commonly identified limitation on learning. One Prep child explained boredom as, doing stuff that gets my arms tired. Another Prep child had similar views suggesting: my arms go like that [demonstrates arms drooping] and I can’t do anything…I can’t really do it. Worksheets were identified by this child as the key cause of this arm fatigue. Others saw worksheets more positively, identifying them as vehicles for learning (…we need to write on sheets to learn), but these children were in the minority. Only a handful of children indicated they liked completing worksheets with the majority describing the act of completing them as very boring because they were seen as mostly easy or annoying because they can be long. Significantly, boredom was not mentioned at all in Kindergarten responses.
In some schools, hot summer temperatures were identified as a further impediment to learning with children explaining that their uniforms made them hot and sweaty and arguing that all schools should have swimming pools. Some also claimed that air conditioning was needed. Sitting at desks, too, limited the capacity for learning, with one child noting: I don’t like separate desks…I think you kind of feel alone even though there is someone next to you….I like a big table joined together with a group of people because teamwork is good.
Discussion
The children’s perspectives outlined above are only a small selection from the hundreds we collected. Nevertheless our analysis suggests that they are illustrative of the thoughts and ideas the children shared with us, and overall offer four key insights.
First, we were very pleased to witness children’s capacity to generate rich and thoughtful ideas about learning. In this study, even very young children were able to articulate an understanding of learning processes, describe their relationships with teachers as well as others and identify learning approaches appropriate for their ongoing development. Children were also able to recognise what motivated and engaged them in learning. This finding reinforces Harcourt’s (2011) view that children have strongly held views and an innate ability to communicate these. With this in mind, we argue that children need to be consulted children more often and with the genuine intent of using their ideas and perspectives to inform policy and practice.
The second insight, which aligned with that of Rudduck and Flutter (2000), is that, as children’s progress through school, their views of learning became increasingly aligned with the practices they experienced in their classrooms. We noted distinct differences in the way children described learning according to the approaches most commonly used to teach them. For example, in schools where learning appeared to be quite teacher-directed, children tended to describe learning as being about listening and following directions. By contrast, in schools and kindergartens where more varied pedagogies were employed, notions of collaboration and exploration were far more likely to be included when children described learning.
Whilst across the full data set, the Kindergarten children included a real sense of agency and self-efficacy in their descriptions of learning, many school-aged children described learning as a process that requires them to be compliant and passive. This finding echoes those identified by Bragg (2007) who noted in her study that children progressively accommodate the discourses and existing structures of schools, including passive acceptance of rules, restrictions, and rewards. This outcome also confirms the work of Dockett and Perry (2003) which was conducted more than twelve years ago.
The third insight was that almost all children craved work and learning processes that gained and kept their interest. They also reported seeking opportunities to engage in activities that were exciting, encouraging, creative, collaborative or fun. They eagerly identified the types of learning that they found stimulating, focusing especially on experiences where they were exploring, experimenting, researching, or actively engaged in, and having some control over, the learning process. In addition, across the data set, all children indicated that they preferred active, playful and experiential learning, with opportunities to collaborate with their peers, challenge themselves and take risks.
The fourth insight was that when opportunities for active engagement in learning were absent, the school-aged children told us they experienced boredom. By contrast, these complaints were not evident in the responses of the Kindergarten children, who were universally enthusiastic about learning. Whilst their school-aged co-participants often described desk-bound environments dominated by the requirement to listen to teachers or to complete worksheets that failed to challenge or motivate, the Kindergarten children described active, agentic and imaginative experiences. For the school-aged children, the latter types of experiences were certainly identified, but were described by the children as being more special occasion learning events than standard approaches.
It seems, therefore, that pedagogical approaches, such as inquiry and problem-based approaches deserve a greater presence in the early years, confirming calls for more emphasis to be placed on pedagogies in the early years of schooling that engage and motivate young children (Archer & Siraj, 2015; Flückiger et al., 2015; Hillman, Erickson, & Kramer, 2008).
Conclusion
Few parents and even fewer educators would be surprised that children in the early years of schooling are able to offer confident, sophisticated and, at times, intriguing views on learning. They are also unlikely to be surprised that as children move from kindergarten learning contexts to more formal schooling contexts, learning is described as becoming increasingly more teacher-directed. However, what may surprise many is how quickly the positive dispositions towards learning, developed within Kindergarten and other pre-school contexts, including the home, appear to slide when children transition to school.
Given that positive dispositions are critical for learning, this apparent slide in engagement and motivation is of concern. It suggests that although educators are aware of the importance of children experiencing positive transitions, more needs to be done to maintain the highly positive dispositions towards learning that children bring with them when they commence school. Questions such as the following should challenge teachers, school administrators and policy makers to find solutions: How do we continue to privilege the belief evident in very young children that they can learn anything and uncover learning for themselves, instead of the contradictory notion of the teacher as the one-who-knows, the authority in learning? How do we develop school and classroom cultures that sustain, across the years of schooling, the positive dispositions that kindergarten children hold? And, what is the key to creating a school system in which every child, without exception, is actively engaged, motivated and exercising agency in their learning?
Children’s voices are heard too seldom within education debates and their continued marginalisation is troubling. The 200 children we engaged in conversation about learning were very keen to have their voices heard. They enthusiastically shared their ideas and, in particular, conveyed the view that learning needs to be interesting, challenging and motivating. Our role as educators is to take greater notice of these perspectives and act upon them, ensuring their views inform policy and practice.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The 200 Children’s Voices study was undertaken by researchers in the Griffith Institute for Educational Research.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Metropolitan Region of the Department of Education and Training, Queensland, initiated and funded the study and is the project owner.