Teachers who Support Reggio—Exploring Their Understandings of the Philosophy

Abstract

There is a growing recognition that for an educational innovation to be successful it needs to be more than a good idea—success requires an understanding of how change is implemented. Reggio, a widely-applied, innovative philosophy in early childhood settings, has some support in primary schools. Yet there is very little research to guide primary teachers interested in incorporating it into their teaching practice. This study begins to address this issue by investigating whether teachers committed to Reggio: a) have a deep understanding of the philosophy; b) distinguish a difference between the original and their own sociopolitical and cultural contexts; and c) report utilising this knowledge in their practice. The findings of the research underscore the importance of knowledge of the change process and the need for debate regarding Reggio in primary school settings.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Barnes

(1985). An Introduction to Waldorf Education. New York: Mercury.

Bourke

(1998). Melbourne via Reggio Emilia. Unpacking educational environments. Visions from Reggio Emilia, Australia, Sweden, Denmark and the United States. A selection of papers presented at the conference (pp. 26–31). Institute of Early Childhood, Macquarie University.

Doig

, & Larkins

(1997). Reggio Emilia in the Victorian classroom. Keys to life: Early years of schooling conference. The early years: Embracing the challenges (pp. 42–46). Melbourne: Department of Education.

Edwards

, Gandini

, & Forman

(1998). The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia approach—advanced reflections. (2nd edn). New Jersey: Alex.

Edwards

, Gandini

, & Nimmo

(1994). Promoting collaborative learning in the early childhood classroom: teachers' contrasting conceptualizations in two communities. In Katz

L. G.

, Cesarone

(Eds.), Perspectives from ERIC/ECCE: A monograph series, No. 6. Reflections on the Reggio Emilia approach (pp. 81–104). Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education.

Fleet

, & Patterson

(1999). KIAH: Four years on. An evaluation of an ongoing collaborative project between staff at Kent Road Public School (DET), and the Institute of Early Childhood, Macquarie University. Sydney: Institute of Early Childhood, Macquarie University.

Fullan

(2001). The new meaning of educational change. Third Edition. New York: Teachers College Press.

Hendrick

(1997). Reggio Emilia and American schools: Telling them apart and putting them back together. Can we do it? In Hendrick

, (Ed.), First steps towards teaching the Reggio way (pp. 41–51). New Jersey: Alex.

Kalton

(1983). Introduction to survey sampling. California: Sage.

10.

Keeter

, Miller

, Kohut

, Groves

, & Prosser

(2000). Consequences of reducing nonresponse rates in a large national telephone survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64, 125–148.

11.

Kolbe

(2001). Rapunzel's supermarket: All about young children and their art. Paddington, NSW: Peppinot.

12.

Linn

M. I.

(2001). World view: An American educator reflects on the meaning of the Reggio experience. Phi Delta Kappan. 83(4), 332. InfoTrac Web: Expanded Academic ASAP.

13.

Montessori

(1997). The Discovery of the Child. Oxford, UK: Clio.

14.

New

R. S.

(1997). Reggio Emilia's commitment to children and community. A reconceptualization of quality and DAP. Canadian Children, Spring, 22(1), 7–12.

15.

Smith

K. F.

(1977). Man, a course of study: Its use in Queensland schools. Brisbane: Curriculum Branch, Department of Education, Queensland.

16.

Studans

(2001). Dialogue with Reggio: What are some possibilities for primary schools? Unpacking interpretation: Deconstructions from Australia, America and Reggio Emilia. Selected papers from the 6th Unpacking conference (pp. 93–105). Institute of Early Childhood.

17.

Trotter

, & Capp

(2001). Autonomous learning at Wooranna Park. Practically Primary, 6(1), 4–8.