Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Young children’s engagement in Education for Sustainability has focussed predominantly on their participation in environment-based initiatives or practices. Reasons for this include a notion that wider dimensions of sustainability, including social, political and economic areas of concern can be too complex and overwhelming for young children. When children experience learning around wider dimensions of sustainability, there is potential to develop genuine and critical understandings about global issues in a transformative and critical learning context. This article investigates how an early childhood teacher, in the role of teacher-as-researcher, engaged young children in a kindergarten classroom in an investigation of poverty as a socio-political aspect of sustainability. The authors focus on teacher-as-researcher critical reflections from action research data to contextualise how curriculum decision-making unfolded. Using critical theory as a guiding framework, the authors examine how knowledge around poverty was co-constructed between children and adults, thus unsettling the idea of teacher as ‘expert’. The authors advocate for early childhood teachers to employ a teacher-as-researcher role in sustainability education and to critically reflect on ways to embed a holistic approach to Education for Sustainability in early childhood contexts.

Keywords

action research critical theory early childhood education and care Education for Sustainability social dialogues socio-political sustainability teacher-as-researcher

Introduction

In Education for Sustainability (EfS), young children’s involvement tends to be restricted to education about sustainability rather than for sustainability (Davis, 2015) However, emerging research recognises children are capable of making decisions and guiding their own learning, particularly around sustainability issues (Hagglund and Pramling Samuelsson, 2009; Mackey, 2014; Rinaldi, 2013). Various studies also demonstrate that children are increasingly drawn to investigating issues of sustainability beyond environmental dimensions (Hammond et al., 2015; Hatzigianni et al., 2016; Hawkins, 2010; MacNaughton, 2009; Phillips, 2010). Commensurate with approaches promoting children’s agency and capabilities when exploring complex issues, we contend that the lens of EfS in early childhood contexts can include children’s exposure to wider dimensions of sustainability. In this article, we turn to a teacher-as-researcher (Moss, 2006, 2019) approach, focussing on critical reflection as a useful way to understand children’s explorations of socio-political dimensions of EfS. We use examples of teacher-as-researcher reflections to discuss how an action research process provided conditions for transformative learning for both teacher and children.

This article draws on an action research project which explored children’s understandings about poverty. Through a pedagogical approach underpinned by an ‘image of the child’ and ‘image of teacher’ as capable and competent (Malaguzzi, 1994; Moss, 2006; Rinaldi, 2006), the investigation of poverty was introduced by the kindergarten teacher as a provocation. While Australia enjoys consistent economic growth and is currently ranked as the second wealthiest county in the world, poverty rates remain high level. More than 3 million people live below the poverty line, including 739,000 children (Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS), 2014; Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 2014); hence, the topic of poverty was investigated as a core socio-political issue. Engaging children in socio-political dialogue supports them to challenge stereotypical assumptions about poverty and to develop awareness about socio-political inequalities in the local, national and global contexts (Siraj-Blatchford, 2008).

Teacher-as-researcher reflections written by the first author (Y.M.P.) throughout the action research project provide the focus for analysis in this article. These reflections document tensions, ethical hurdles and how teacher actions supported children’s meaningful participation in investigating a complex topic. We discuss the teacher-as-researcher reflections in the context of EfS from three standpoints: the image of the child, the image of the teacher and EfS pedagogy. A brief introduction to EfS in the context of early childhood education and care is outlined, followed by a definition of teacher-as-researcher and associated practices. We then explore tensions arising from adults and children as co-researchers, and how reflection as a process supported the teacher–researcher to move beyond taken-for-granted roles. Thereafter, we investigate the notion of teachers as assumed experts in EfS curriculum and show how teacher-as-researcher reflections can unsettle the teacher’s knowledge as the ‘truth’ in EfS. Implications for teaching and learning in EfS are outlined in the conclusion.

EfS for young children

EfS creates spaces for conversations about issues from industrialisation and modernisation and the impacts they bring globally to both human and non-human beings (Bonnett, 2002). EfS supports people to not only reflect on the consequences of unsustainable ways of living, but also to be critically reflective in finding solutions to change and transform unsustainable practices. One global effect of unsustainable practices is poverty. Poverty encompasses issues pertaining to socio-political sustainability, specifically themes relating to democracy, peace, equality and human rights (UNESCO, 2010). Poverty is an increasingly global concern for all nations and is identified as the United Nations’ number one Sustainable Development Goal or global blueprint to address challenges that hinder a universal sustainable future for all (United Nations, 2016).

In the action research project reported on in this article, the sustainable goal of eradicating poverty became a provocation to integrate into EfS within an early childhood context. Through EfS, children become active participants in conversations about real-world issues, which in turn can embed positive and transformative understandings about the challenges of sustainability from an early age (Davis, 2015; Hagglund and Pramling Samuelsson, 2009). In Australia, the national context for this research, poverty is identified as having restricted access to basic needs, such as food, housing, health and education (Davidson et al., 2020). Recognising the importance of eradicating poverty, Australia is a signatory to the United Nations’ number one Sustainable Development Goal. However, the irony of this is that Australia has also one of the highest poverty rates among a group of wealthy countries in the international OECD that collaborates to stimulate worldly economic growth. This places Australia above the average poverty line of the OECD (2020). To put that into the Australian context, there is one in six children who are living below the poverty line (Davidson et al., 2020). The reality that children are classified as high risk in poverty became the impetus for this teacher–researcher to introduce this topic to the children of this research, more so as their kindergarten was located in a relatively affluent suburb (Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2011) of the Australian Government’s Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA). Based on these data, the children are classified as a high-socioeconomic population who potentially have never experienced poverty in their lives. By supporting children to explore understandings about poverty, the teacher–researcher was able to support children to broaden their understandings about poverty and develop empathy and awareness towards those experiencing it.

Introducing poverty through EfS empowers young children to explore the topic of poverty through core skills and values, such as critical thinking, participation, change, democracy, action and change for equality (Commonwealth of Australia, 2009; Fien, 2004; UNESCO, 2015). This action research project was not about TR passively teaching children about poverty. Instead, the aim for this study was for children to participate in broader sustainability concepts by exploring aspects of poverty that included homelessness, hunger, marginalisation and access to education through everyday kindergarten learning experiences. When children participate in conversations about democracy, peace, equality and human rights (UNESCO, 2010), there is opportunity for transformational learning because they are exposed to meaningful ideas and questions about topics, including poverty, which in turn enables them to make informed decisions and support their development of empathy about the world in which they live.

In the context of this study, the children demonstrated that they can meaningfully participate in wider aspects of sustainability despite the predominant focus of environmental sustainability within early childhood education contexts. Reasons for an environmental focus include the notion that children are becoming disconnected from nature (Louv, 2014) and have been identified as default protectors by having to ‘bear the weight’ of protecting the natural world (Prout and James, 2015). Scholarship suggests that when children are introduced to broad global concerns in the early years, they may be more likely to develop awareness and understanding about socio-political inequalities and be supported to disrupt stereotypical understandings (Siraj-Blatchford, 2008). In this project, Y.M.P. found that by using a teacher-as-researcher approach to introduce socio-political sustainability, children were supported to explore and communicate their understandings about an issue of local and national significance.

What is teacher-as-researcher?

A teacher-as-researcher approach recognises that knowledge is subjective, with knowledge construction occurring within a process of collaboration between two or more people (Moss, 2006). This approach differs from transmission-based learning, where knowledge is delivered in a linear way, predominantly by the teacher who is viewed in a position of power. Teacher-as-researcher is a pedagogical approach that was deeply embedded in the research site for this current project. It requires both teacher and children to be in a relationship that entails listening and dialogue between one another to co-construct knowledge. A teacher-as-researcher approach can become democratic practice for all learners, because it challenges taken-for-granted understandings through the values of critical reflection, collaboration and subjective interpretation of the subject being researched (Moss, 2006). Such values position children as active learners and disrupt the teacher’s position as ‘expert’. As children become active researchers, the teacher-as-researcher embraces uncertainty because the construction of knowledge is non-hierarchical and in constant motion.

A teacher-as-researcher approach is both a research method and a pedagogical model. As a research method, it takes the form of action research in which teachers research their own practices within their own classrooms (Kemmis et al., 2014). As a pedagogical model, it enables teachers and children to explore topics of interest using iterative, reflective processes.

In the current project, poverty was introduced to children as the topic for investigation by the teacher-as-researcher. This occurred through teaching and learning focussed on storytelling, the visual arts, collaborative discussion and reflection, and dramatic play (Paujik, 2019) – data generation and collection methods appropriate to early childhood contexts and familiar to the child participants. The children’s interest in the topic was monitored from the outset, with the collection of evidence of their engagement, including the topic appearing in their peer-to-peer conversations and play scenarios. Using teacher-as-researcher reflections in the context of action research, it was possible to examine, iteratively, how children engaged with the topic of poverty throughout the project. As the investigation continued, Y.M.P. was intentional and flexible in moving in and out of roles, including teacher, moderator, facilitator and provocateur (Mackewn, 2008; Malaguzzi, 1994).

In the following sections, we draw on teacher-as-researcher reflective pieces written by the first author (Y.M.P.) throughout the project to locate conceptualisations of children’s meaning-making about poverty: image of the child; image of the teacher and EfS. The reflections analysed in this article were chosen by the authors to highlight critical incidents (Miles et al., 2014) in the project; specifically, incidents where tensions arose around understandings of poverty between Y.M.P. and the children, and positions of power were unsettled. While the action research project comprised an introduction, a synthesising and a culminating phase (Helm and Katz, 2011; Katz and Chard, 2000), the children’s meaning-making about poverty did not take place in a linear fashion. For this article, the selected teacher-as-researcher reflections depict chronological events in each project phase to show shifts in Y.M.P.’s thinking and position.

The image of the child

Teacher-as-researcher reflections can unsettle taken-for-granted understandings that influence teachers’ educational decision-making. For example, understanding differences between working with children and working on children. Unsettling taken-for-granted understandings and positions is important in teaching and research with children because the power in pedagogical relationships will always be in favour of the adult (Farrell, 2016). MacNaughton (2009) labels this adult power as the power of position; the taken-for-granted positioning of adults as more knowledgeable and influential relative to young children, based on differences in age and life experiences. Here, we use an example of a critical incident from the project to highlight how power of position can influence children’s engagement in learning experiences indirectly.

In the introduction phase of the project, the children displayed cause–effect understandings about poverty. In group conversation and brainstorming sessions, the children made meaning of poverty by focussing on social markers, such as wealth, along with on-trend material possessions (e.g. sneakers) and their direct correlation to a person’s happiness and well-being. They also attributed wealth to the hard work of individuals and, by association, poverty as an outcome of people not working hard enough. Through teacher-as-researcher reflections, the first author (Y.M.P.) was able to identify and characterise children’s initial understandings about poverty and plan for ways to challenge these understandings in subsequent project phases. Following conversations, brainstorming sessions, engagement with children’s literature and visual arts experiences in the introduction phase, a critical incident occurred in the synthesising phase (Helm and Katz, 2011), where the children demonstrated a shift in their understanding. From cause–effect understandings emerged new understandings that social markers (Ridge, 2006) and material possessions had the potential to marginalise others. The critical reflection below highlights Y.M.P.’s thinking around Kara’s (child participant) shift in thinking where her response to the children’s book Those Shoes showed awareness of how social markers including possessions determine boundaries for inclusion and exclusion:

. . . After questioning children through scaffolded questions, the children, especially Kara, had highlighted the notion of inclusiveness. The fact that the children who wore stripey shoes would only play with them (those who initially did not have these stripey shoes in the beginning of the story, but then had those stripey shoes in the later part of the story) once they had the same ‘social appearance’. Kara also clearly uses labels: poor and rich. (Teacher-as-researcher reflection, 14 November 2016)

Despite shifts in the children’s understanding across the three phases of the project, in the culmination phase, the children’s understandings reverted back to cause–effect understandings about poverty. The culmination phase coincided with the three weeks preceding the Christmas festive season. During this phase, a group of children suggested that they might donate gifts of toys to a charity for ‘poor children’ or specifically . . . children who don’t have Christmas presents. Snippets of the conversations around a toy charity included . . . I think they would like lots of presents, we can buy them presents; . . . imagine if they didn’t have any presents at all. That’s why it’s important for us to give them presents to make them happy too. The terminology of ‘us/we’ versus ‘them/they’ suggests that children are aware of differences and reflects Lister’s (2008) concept of othering the poor. Simultaneously, the children’s suggestion of buying presents for ‘them’ indicates that social markers can offer some form of positiveness or happiness for children who have less. While the children’s suggestion appears to come from a position of care and concern, it also reinforced cause–effect understandings; that is, without gifts of toys (social markers and material possessions) other children could not possibly be happy. Despite deeper understandings emerging beyond cause–effect prior to the culminating phase, the reversion to initial understandings created tension for Y.M.P., as shown in the reflection below:

I feel as though we have reverted back to the first week. When I asked the children what direction they wanted to take next in the project, most of the children want to do a donation through giving toys or presents away. The idea of donation is great, however I feel as though children did not truly understand the concepts of inclusion and exclusion that were explored over the past weeks. (Teacher-as-researcher reflection, 23 November 2016)

When Y.M.P. states ‘I feel as though we have reverted back . . . I feel as though children did not truly understand the concepts of inclusion and exclusion . . .’, there is suggestion that the adult’s direction and knowledge took precedence over the children’s knowledge. Using a critical lens, Y.M.P. appeared to have taken her position for granted, and as a result may have unconsciously expected the children to arrive at a predetermined ‘truth’ or outcome (Moss, 2014, 2019). Outcome-based learning (Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR), 2009), dominant in the education field, is evident when the adult expects a direct or ‘linear’ method of learning, wherein the children should arrive at a set understanding of poverty that is predetermined by the assumed ‘expert’, the adult. In this case, where there was a mismatch between the children’s and teacher’s meaning-making about poverty, Y.M.P. experienced pedagogical tension in her position of power as a teacher-as-researcher/adult in relation to the children who were progressively taking agency and leading in their learning, yet not in quite the way in which Y.M.P. had anticipated or hoped for.

Tensions arising from the above critical incident were a crucial learning experience, not only for the teacher-as-researcher in her role as the adult in the classroom, but also for the children who are navigating their place in spaces in which adults are predominantly in power. In many ways, critically reflecting upon and analysing this teacher-as-researcher reflective entry led to the realisation that this incident could be classified not only as power struggle, but also as value conflict (Hagglund and Johansson, 2014) involving differences of opinion between two or more people. Value conflict is characteristic of many important experiences for learners regardless of age, because it enables different views and understandings to be shared. In turn, shared knowledge and understandings can enable gentle challenging of each other’s positions (Avgitidou, 2009; Hagglund and Johansson, 2014). When teacher and children are immersed in intersubjective social dialogues involving the positioning of power and value conflict, there is greater likelihood that power and values can eventually become shared (Hagglund and Johansson, 2014; Rinaldi, 2006).

Y.M.P. used analyses from the teacher-as-researcher reflections to re-evaluate her teaching practices for the next teaching cycle in the project (Kemmis et al., 2014; Stringer, 2008). Teacher-as-researcher reflections enabled a process of carefully considering how positions of power for adults and children could become more evenly balanced (Jordan, 2009). A crucial reflective question for Y.M.P. was about whose voices were being represented as a result of her decision-making processes, as she later wrote:

. . . I questioned if, in the responses the children gave and the concepts about poverty they were able to reflect, were authentically what the children understood or were what I as an adult wanted to hear? Putting it bluntly, were the children’s responses during our learning experiences a result of transformational knowledge or indoctrination by the teacher? (Teacher-as-researcher Reflection, 25 November 2016)

Delving deeply, openly, and critically into these teacher-as-researcher reflections, generated a reinvigorated commitment to being more intentional in subsequent learning practices, particularly in enacting a more collaborative style of teaching and learning with the children, where the teacher–researcher is not so much an expert-and-thereby-more-knowledgeable, but more of a facilitator of learning and co-researcher with the children who were viewed as active decision-makers and transformative learners within EfS.

The image of teacher

Teacher-as-researcher reflections can support teachers to be more thoughtful about their roles in children’s learning and lead to revised images of themselves as teachers (Moss 2006). For example, reflecting on children’s responses to activities and self-generating provocations can be harnessed to create deeper thinking about meaningful follow-up learning experiences, rather than simply resorting to the most obvious or linear plan. When learning contexts are informed by critical reflections, there is a greater possibility for children’s voices to be heard and their participation valued as co-researchers and, in so doing, disruptions to the assumed power of the teacher as ‘expert’ who determines what knowledge should be imparted can occur (Bentley, 2012). This necessitates a relinquishing of the taken-for-granted position of power from which the image of teacher is constructed.

To illustrate this, as previously mentioned, in the initial brainstorming stages of the project, children’s understandings about poverty revolved around cause–effect understandings, and meritocratic notions about how, for example, wealth and possessions could be acquired (Tait, 2016). Meritocracy is the belief that an individual’s success in life is solely dependent on hard work regardless of that individual’s gender, social class or age. Children’s understandings about poverty revolved around their ideas that poverty could be resolved through hard work and saving money. These were ideas that Y.M.P. wanted to challenge. This was documented as a series of questions in teacher-as-researcher reflections shown below:

How do I extend/challenge children’s understandings about poverty from a cause–effect lens (i.e. the understanding of meritocracy (Tait, 2016), where a successful life is solely dependent on hard work regardless of a person’s gender, class, race)?

How do I extend/challenge the understanding that social markers (i.e. money, toys) will necessarily make a person experiencing poverty feel happiness?

How do I extend/challenge the notion of children’s altruism that revolves around the cause–effect understanding that, to support those experiencing poverty, one needs to provide them monetary support (i.e. donation of money to the poor)?

What were some focal points from this introductory phase that influenced the direction of the synthesising phase? For example, reflecting on what resources would support me to challenge cause–effect understandings of poverty (i.e. to challenge the idea that money or security of work will necessarily equate financial security). (First teacher-as-researcher reflection point: Transitioning into synthesising phase of project)

The above excerpts depict tension in Y.M.P.’s identities (or roles) as both teacher and researcher. Was the role of teacher to challenge children’s emerging ideas and concepts or to collect ‘raw data’ from children as they explored and made meaning about poverty? If Y.M.P.-as-teacher were to introduce the children to alternative themes about poverty, she would perhaps be able to support them to fully explore concepts of socio-political sustainability and perhaps expand their understandings (Department of the Environment, 2010). A teacher or a technician, as Moss (2006) suggests, would be justified in setting this agenda because one dominant image of the teacher is that of an informed decision-maker who governs what technical content should be taught. If Y.M.P.-as-researcher were to leave the children to pursue their own self-generated inquiries, she would be able to collect raw data that were meaningful despite the possibility that children would not progress beyond cause–effect understandings about poverty. A researcher would be justified in not interfering because one dominant image of a researcher is that of an objective observer and documenter (Banegas, 2012; Kennedy-Lewis, 2012; O’Flynn, 2009; Souto-Manning, 2012).

At the same time, Pacini-Ketchabaw et al. (2015) suggest that teacher-as-researcher reflection should challenge teachers to be critical of the various perspectives that shape children’s thinking and meaning-making about their world. For example, using Y.M.P.’s reflective piece above, how did Y.M.P. resist the view of teacher-as-researcher as the ‘expert’, when there was potential contradiction in her reflections as a teacher and a researcher? The children were challenged to engage in higher order thinking about poverty by the teacher yet, simultaneously, Y.M.P. was potentially continuing to conform children to being dependent on adults as the ‘source of truth’ through the specific follow-up learning experiences that Y.M.P. was providing.

Tension arising from conflict between teacher and researcher identities was resolved via adopting the concept of role flexibility that emerged during critical reflections. Just as there are hundreds of images of the child (Malaguzzi, 1994), so too there are hundreds of images of the teacher. Malaguzzi (1994) explains this multiplicity as role flexibility. Role flexibility encourages the teacher-as-researcher to identify when to interchange their roles, as a protagonist, facilitator, observer and bystander at different stages of a learning inquiry (Mackewn, 2008).

However, in this project, tension was not restricted to Y.M.P.’s role as teacher and researcher. Tension was also present in the various other identities required of the teacher-as-researcher in an action research project. In the middle stages of the action research, as the children were progressively taking active roles in their learning, there was a simultaneous shift in role from initiator to facilitator of learning. For example, as initiator, Y.M.P. wanted to utilise the medium of play as an active learning experience for children via which they could explore and make meaning about poverty. Yet, as facilitator, Y.M.P. had reservations about encouraging play as medium for exploring poverty and concerns about it being unethical or even tokenistic. This tension was documented in the teacher-as-researcher reflection below:

How amazing was it that Lola, Ravi, Xavier, Carol and Geata were able to carry out a play scenario exploring themes of poverty. A role-playing experience on poverty was something I wanted to plan out, but I wasn’t sure how to come about doing this, without being unethical or tokenistic to people who experience poverty. What props could I have provided? How does a person experiencing poverty look like? How do I initiate play on poverty? Is it even ethical to pretend to role play as a person who experiences poverty?

Little did I know, the children took it on themselves and role-played Scat Cat from Rich Cat, Poor Cat. From what I saw, there were even new characters such as doctors and nurses that were introduced to help Scat.

Here, I was unsure of not wanting to be tokenistic, unaware that I was the one who potentially had a narrow view of poverty. The children did not in any way mention about money or not having enough of things. Instead, they looked at themes around, food, health and friendship. (Teacher-as-researcher Reflection, 25 November 2016)

Tension between using play, a fundamental approach to learning in the early childhood classroom, as a way to make children’s abstract understandings visible for the purposes of the project, and its potential to reinforce stereotypes of individuals in situations of poverty could not be resolved. Y.M.P. made the decision to not introduce concepts about poverty through play experiences in the project’s orienting phase. Later, as the project about poverty progressed, the incorporation of play became possible because the children increasingly took ownership of the direction and organisation of their learning (Moss, 2019). Ultimately, the children did, independently, demonstrate complex understandings about poverty through their play. This was captured in a critical incident in which Y.M.P. took the role of observer, audience, and scribe in a child-initiated dramatic play episode. Documenting the experience in a teacher-as-researcher reflection, Y.M.P. was able to evaluate tightly held, taken-for-granted images of herself as a teacher, including the image of being the sole decision-maker in an action research project. While initial fears about children’s role-playing of poverty themes and its links to ethics and tokenism were valid, these concerns were potentially restrictive, resulting in a decision to take a ‘safe’ option rather than challenge social structures assuming that children, left to their own devices, would not be able to use play ethically to explore complex ideas.

The practice of teacher-as-researcher reflections thus enabled greater integration of role flexibility, with a particular focus on the needs of children, rather than maintaining an immutable image of the teacher. When adults are powerfully positioned within an image as key decision-makers, this limits children’s opportunities to take active roles in their learning (Avgitidou, 2009). Through teacher-as-researcher reflections, teachers can be supported to seek valuable alternative images of themselves via conceptualising their role more flexibly and being open to moderate their own in-grained teaching practices. When images, roles and identities are questioned, teachers can begin to create conditions that enable children to take an active lead in meaning-making and decision-making processes.

EfS pedagogy

Teacher-as-researcher reflections can support teachers to enact EfS. The topic of poverty was chosen for this project to explore the ways in which young children explore broader global sustainability issues beyond the dimension of environmental sustainability. The notion that EfS in early childhood contexts is limited to a narrow focus on environmental issues is reinforced in Australia’s early learning frameworks and regulatory policy. In the Australian learning framework for children aged 0–5 years, EfS comes under Learning Outcome 2, where children are socially responsible and show respect for the environment. In line with this learning outcome, children are supported to understand the interdependence of all living beings to the environment and respond to the changes from these relationships (DEEWR, 2009). In the national policy that regulates assessment and quality improvement for early childhood education and care services, known as the National Quality Framework (NQF), learning and teaching about sustainability is located under Quality Area 3: Physical Environment. Under this quality area, the focus is on children becoming environmentally responsible and showing respect for the environment (Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA), 2013, Element 3.3.2, para 1). The document does not address broader dimensions of sustainability, including human, social and economic dimensions (UNESCO, 2010; UNESCO, 2015). Not surprisingly, there is evidence that teachers focus solely on exposing children to learning experiences about their physical environment and neglect investigations on wider themes of sustainability, including socio-political sustainability (Elliott and McCrea, 2015).

Consistent with a key goal of the Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations, 2016), Y.M.P. introduced the topic of poverty into the kindergarten as a way for children to participate in real-world conversations about everyday concerns about their world. When children are active and engage in sustainability issues, such as poverty, they are empowered to explore democratic values relating to democracy, peace, equality and human rights (UNESCO, 2010). The children in this study had explored understandings about homelessness, hunger, friendship and social markers through kindergarten experiences in both teacher-led and child-initiated storytelling, brainstorming sessions, visual arts and role-play. Follow-up experiences were a result of the critical reflections of the action research cycles undertaken by Y.M.P. These experiences were delivered within large-group and small-group learning opportunities which were both intentional and spontaneous. As active contributors in these experiences, children became transformative learners who were seeking ways to challenge issues related to poverty. During the inquiry, Y.M.P., was challenged to go beyond environmental sustainability through critical reflections of how to support children’s emerging inquiries about poverty and the teaching practices required to achieve this. Through teacher-as-researcher reflections, attention was drawn to the notion that responsive pedagogies are those based on understandings that there is more than one ‘truth’. In this project, it became clear that there were various ‘truths’ to be uncovered resulting from rigorous cycles of teacher-as-researcher reflections. Some of these truths were encountered by examining children’s meanings about poverty and the factors that influence these meanings: the children’s meanings attached to poverty can be likened to the messiness found in the ‘tangles of spaghetti’ (Rinaldi, 2006: 7) where meaning is influenced by social contexts, physical conditions, contemporaneous events and lived experiences.

To illustrate the ‘tangles of spaghetti’ in children’s meaning-making about poverty first requires a background on MacNaughton’s (2009) power of the marketplace. The power of the marketplace is one of many ‘silent’ and taken-for-granted practices that dictate ways of everyday life in human societies. In the context of this project, the power of the marketplace arrived in the form of Christmas. The final culminating stage of the project, as noted above, coincided with the 3 weeks leading up to the celebration of Christmas. During this time, Christmas was all encompassing: children were exposed to sensory Christmas stimuli at every turn, most especially in retail stores with a heavy emphasis on gifts, toys, entertainment and clothing. The kindergarten was no exception. The research site itself was decorated with Christmas symbols, such as a Christmas tree, decorations and music. Everyday conversations between children and adults focussed on the impending kindergarten Christmas party. The ‘power’ of Christmas had seeped into children’s play and it was clear that merchandising and marketisation were evident in children’s meaning-making about poverty during that time.

Through teacher-as-researcher reflections, Y.M.P. brought attention to the impact of the celebration of Christmas on her teaching practices, specifically the difficulty of enacting satisfactory pedagogy on a complex topic such as poverty. This was documented in the reflection below:

However, the time frame of this research also coincided with the Christmas festive season, adding much pressure and difficulty to carry on with exploring this topic. This topic despite being very important is not necessarily authentic to the children’s everyday life experiences. There were countless times throughout this research, where I felt frustrated and lonely as it was too much hard work to continue on with exploring ‘big’ themes like social injustice, equality and poverty. It certainly felt much easier to join in the festive season of Christmas joy and wonder. (Teacher-as-researcher Reflection, 28 November 2016)

This all-pervading Christmas theme was virtually impossible to escape (MacNaughton, 2009). To not acknowledge the influence of Christmas was considered potentially disadvantageous to children, because they could continue to make negative evaluative judgements about those who experience poverty during Christmas. According to Glover (2016), children make evaluative judgements, or have potential biases against others, simply because their life experiences are different. Persevering with the investigation into poverty alongside the dominance of Christmas may enable children to have social conversations among one another, and for the teacher-as-researcher to better comprehend the subjective meanings that children were forming about poverty, particularly when these meanings were inherently framed by external factors and contexts.

Teacher-as-researcher reflections not only supported the first author to understand children’s subjective meanings, but also to critically reflect on how her teaching practices provided conditions necessary to support expanded understandings. An example of this can be viewed in the reflective piece below which revisits the children’s suggestion of gifting toys to a charity. The conversations about their efforts had revolved around binary positioning of us buying them toys, and the cause–effect notion that by doing this, we are making them happy. In her teacher-as-researcher reflection, Y.M.P. was drawn to considering the notion of altruism, and coming to terms with a sense that children believed they could save the world from poverty simply by their acts of charity:

Nevertheless, the festive season together with the power of marketing, commercialisation and consumerism, the festive season tends to be about the latest ‘hot’ toy on children’s wish list. As a result, when we talked about how we could contribute to help those who did not have enough, the suggestions that children came up with, were naturally linked to Christmas and presents . . . As a team, the majority of the children agreed that they want to give a present to children who could not afford Christmas, or have a present for Christmas. These are all great suggestions from children themselves; however, it is pertinent that children understand too that this act of giving does not necessarily mean that they have ‘saved the world from poverty’ . . . (Teacher-as-researcher Reflection, 23 November 2016)

Although this emerging sense of altruism is important for children’s emerging moral development, Jackson (2014) cautions that children should not be limited to addressing the concept of poverty is simply through charity. The implications from Jackson’s study showed that when educators focus on using students’ emotions as a way of moral education, there are risks of those emotions ‘taking over’ the situation where feelings of pity or desensitisation take precedence over the actual social injustice of child poverty. Instead of focussing on merely engaging with emotions, educators should enable students to be critical of ways on how to improve the social injustices of children experiencing poverty. This notion of expressing transformative actions through the emotions of ‘doing good’ via a toy charity was something of concern to Y.M.P. To simply ‘encourage’ children to feel that they have helped those experiencing poverty through their toy charity potentially took away the learning opportunity to deconstruct and be critical of the plight of those experiencing poverty. In the current project, Y.M.P. was able to reflect on her teaching practices and plan for conditions to address and challenge children to go beyond notions of merchandising and marketing, and the idea that we are helping them through charity. This is highlighted below in further reflections written as reflective questions:

• How do I extend these understandings of the link between social markers and how they can influence one’s inclusion or exclusion into society?

• Children are showing understanding and awareness in the differences between people (e.g. us versus them), how do we deter that notion that the difference between us and them is that ‘we can save them’?

• There is certainly difference between people in this world, but how do we ensure that children have positive messages about differences? (Teacher-as-researcher Reflection, 23 November 2016)

These reflective questions are also reminiscent of what was explored in the previous sections, where Y.M.P. experienced tensions in reconciling the image of the child, and the image of herself as a teacher, and teacher-as-researcher. The tensions expressed here in selecting and implementing appropriate teaching practices to support exploration of socio-political sustainability with young children in a kindergarten setting relate not only to images of child and teacher, but also to images of EfS and how it is enabled or constrained by curriculum and policy, and to well-established taken-for-granted pedagogical approaches to celebrations (Dau and Jones, 2016; Glover, 2016).

Considerations and conclusion

In this article, the authors examined teacher-as-researcher reflections to discuss how critical reflection in an action research process created conditions for transformative learning for both teacher and children around ‘doing’ socio-political sustainability in a kindergarten classroom. We emphasise the importance of employing teacher-as-researcher practices to support children’s engagement in socio-political dimensions of sustainability within EfS. Specifically, through teacher-as-researcher reflections, adults were reflective and intentional about providing conditions to support children in exploring their understandings about poverty. Through these conditions, children became engaged in meaning-making, problem-solving and decision-making processes on the project investigated (Bautista et al., 2018; Rinaldi, 2013). When children are part of social dialogues, their inquiries empower them to make meaningful understandings, where real utopias (Moss, 2014) or subjective inquiries can take place.

Real utopia is when children progressively take active reigns in the directions of their own learning, as opposed to being ‘taught’ predetermined content that can be both technical and governed by the adult. The issue arises when teachers instead unconsciously follow prescribed learning experiences or govern knowledge explored in the guise of what is perceived as high-quality education (Moss, 2019). Therefore, it is important that adults are critical when labelling children as transformative learners when, in reality, children are passively conditioned as receivers of adult-governed knowledge (Moss, 2019).

When the teacher is the only active contributor in the conversation, children’s participation can be limited to being passive recipients. Passive participation prevents children’s voices from being heard and can, indirectly, become a barrier to learning. When they have limited opportunities to share, negotiate or engage with others, the learning context can become disconnected from children. It is only when everyone’s expertise is included in meaning-making that ethical and democratic pedagogy can be actioned (Dahlberg and Moss, 2005).

The learning experiences in this project demonstrate that children can be active contributors to their learning when they are provided with conditions and opportunities to be involved in social dialogues. Through social dialogues, there were instances when children and adults’ meanings about poverty were in conflict. This demonstrates that there are various truths to how meanings about poverty are constructed. Through teacher-as-researcher reflections, the first author reflected on her position of power (MacNaughton, 2009) as assumed ‘expert’ and became critical about how this impacts children’s attempts at meaning-making about complex and abstract topics. Teacher-as-researcher reflections are important because it brings attention to the children’s voices in meaning-making and supports the adult to be critical in their teaching practices that are inclusive of children’s subjective needs and ideas.

Like Elliott and Young (2016), in this article, we have argued that teachers need to re-think their roles as the taken-for granted expert in determining experiences in which children can become involved. When children’s experiences of sustainability are limited to learning only about the environment, there are missed opportunities to be part of a community of learners who participate in critical dialogues that revolve around sustainability issues beyond environmental themes (Siraj-Blatchford, 2009). In this project, we employed a teacher-as-researcher approach because it is based on the values of collaborative learning (Moss, 2006). This collaboration enabled children to be involved in complex conversations beyond environmental themes through being active in critical reflections and decision-making processes when investigating poverty.

‘Doing’ socio-political sustainability can be difficult because of the taken-for-granted power of the adult over young children. We argue that the first author was able to be critical in understanding her own assumed power through analysing her teacher-as-researcher reflections. Through these critical reflections, the first author was enabled to understand how her taken-for-granted position as the ‘expert’ potentially created barriers for children’s learning and participation. By reflecting on the dissonance of power between children and adult, the first author was empowered to enact pedagogy which invited children to be engaged in complex conversations and decision-making processes as opposed to determining how a project about socio-political sustainability should play out. When children are part of these conversations there is potential to demonstrate there is no one ‘truth’ to understanding socio-political sustainability issues. We advocate utilising teacher-as-researcher reflections to support children’s engagement in wider themes of sustainability within EfS.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

This study was undertaken as a Master of Philosophy (MPhil) project by Y.M.P. and supervised by M.M., M.G. and K.W. This text is original and has not been published or submitted elsewhere.

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) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Yvonne M Paujik

Author biographies

Yvonne M Paujik is a research assistant in the School of Early Childhood and Inclusive Education at Queensland University of Technology and an early childhood teacher in Kindergarten settings. Yvonne’s interest in research are early childhood education for sustainability, and continuities of early childhood pedagogies when transitioning to school.

Melinda Miller is the Pedagogy and Practice Manager at G8 Education. Melinda is a researcher and facilitator of action research projects, specifically on teacher-as-researcher practices. Her action research projects focus on cultural inclusin, sustainability, child development and pedagogical documentation.

Megan Gibson is a senior lecurer in the School of Early Childhood and Inclusive Education at Queensland University of Technology. Megan is a respected researcher in the field of early childhood preservice teacher education, and early childhood teacher’s leadership and professional identities.

Kerryann Walsh is a professor in the School of Early Childhood and Inclusive Education at Queensland University of Technology. Kerryann is a pre-eminent Australian scholar in the interdiscplinary field of child maltreatment prevention and has researched and published in the areas of child protection policy, child safe organisations, school-based child sexual abuse preventon programmes, professionals’ reporting of child abuse and neglect, and training interventions for mandatory reporters.

References

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2011) Census of population and housing: Socio-economic indexes for areas. Available at: http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/allprimarymainfeatures/8C5F5BB699A0921CCA258259000BA619?opendocument (accessed 15 January 2020).

Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA) (2013) Quality area 3: Physical environment. Available at: http://acecqa.gov.au/Physical-environment (accessed 15 January 2020).

Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) (2014) Poverty in Australia 2014. Available at: http://www.acoss.org.au/images/uploads/ACOSS_Poverty_in_Australia_2014.pdf (accessed 15 January 2020).

Avgitidou

(2009) Participation, roles and processes in a collaborative action research project: A reflexive account of the facilitator. Educational Action Research 17: 585–600.

Banegas

(2012) Identity of the teacher-researcher in collaborative action research: Concerns reflected in a research journal. Profile 14: 29–43.

Bautista

Moreno-Nunez

, et al. (2018) Preschool educators’ interactions with children about sustainable development: Planned and incidental conversations. International Journal of Early Childhood 50: 15–32.

Bentley

(2012) ‘Rights are the words for being fair’: Multicultural practice in the early childhood classroom. Early Childhood Education Journal 40: 195–202.

Bonnett

(2002) Education for sustainability as a frame of mind. Environmental Education Research 8: 9–20.

Commonwealth of Australia (2009) Living sustainably: The Australian government’s national action plan for education for sustainability. Available at: http://aries.mq.edu.au/pdf/national_action_plan.pdf (accessed 15 January 2020).

10.

Dahlberg

Moss

(2005) Ethics and Politics in Early Childhood Education. Abingdon: Routledge Falmer.

11.

Dau

Jones

(2016) Revisiting celebrations with young children. In: Scarlet

(ed.) The Anti Bias Approach in Early Childhood. 3rd ed. Sydney, NSW, Australia: MultiVerse Publishing, pp. 135–144.

12.

Davidson

Saunders

Bradbury

, et al. (2020) Poverty in Australia 2020: Part 1, overview. ACOSS/UNSW poverty and inequality partnership report no. 3. Sydney NSW, Australia: ACOSS.

13.

Davis

(2015) What is early childhood education for sustainability and why does it matter? In: Davis

(ed.) Young Children and the Environment: Early Education for Sustainability. 2nd ed. Melbourne, VIC, Australia: Cambridge University Press, pp. 7–31.

14.

Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) (2009) Belonging, being and becoming: Early years learning framework for Australia. Available at: https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/belonging_being_and_becoming_the_early_years_learning_framework_for_australia_0.pdf (accessed 15 January 2020).

15.

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (2010) Sustainability Curriculum Framework: A Guide for Curriculum Developers and Policy Makers. Canberra, ACT, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia.

16.

Elliott

McCrea

(2015) Gaps and challenges informing professional learning about early childhood education for sustainability. The Social Educator 33: 17–28.

17.

Elliott

Young

(2016) Nature by default in early childhood education for sustainability. Australian Journal of Environmental Education 32: 57–64.

18.

Farrell

(2016) Ethics in early childhood research. In: Farrell

Kagan

Tisdall

(eds) The SAGE Handbook of Early Childhood Research. London: SAGE, pp. 3–30.

19.

Fien

(2004) Education for sustainability. In: Gilbert

(ed.) Studying Society and Environment: A Guide for Teachers. 3rd ed. South Melbourne, VIC, Australia: Thomson, pp. 184–200.

20.

Glover

(2016) Children and bias. In: Scarlet

(ed.) The Anti Bias Approach in Early Childhood. 3rd ed. Sydney, NSW, Australia: MultiVerse Publishing, pp. 3–16.

21.

Hagglund

Johansson

(2014) Belonging, value conflicts and children’s rights in learning for sustainability in early childhood. In: Davis

Elliott

(ed.) Research in Early Childhood Education for Sustainability: International Perspectives and Provocations. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 38–48.

22.

Hagglund

Pramling Samuelsson

(2009) Early childhood education and learning for sustainable development and citizenship. International Journal of Early Childhood 41: 49–63.

23.

Hammond

Hesterman

Knaus

(2015) What’s in your refrigerator? Children’s views on equality, work, money and access to food. International Journal of Early Childhood 47: 367–384.

24.

Hatzigianni

Miller

Quinones

(2016) Karagiosis in Australia: Exploring principles of social justice in the arts for young children. International Journal of Education and the Arts 17: 17–25.

25.

Hawkins

(2010) A Cry to Teach for Social Justice: Linking Early Childhood Education, Participatory Action Research and Children’s Literature. Brisbane, QLD, Australia: University of Southern Queensland.

26.

Helm

Katz

(2011) Young Investigators: The Project Approach in the Early Years. New York: Teachers College Press.

27.

Jackson

(2014) ‘Won’t somebody think of the children?’ Emotions, child poverty, and post-humanitarian possibilities for social justice education. Educational Philosophy and Theory 46: 1069–1081.

28.

Jordan

(2009) Scaffolding learning and co-constructing understandings. In: Anning

Cullen

Fleer

(eds) Early Childhood Education: Society and Culture. London: SAGE, pp. 47–60.

29.

Katz

Chard

(2000) Engaging Children’s Minds: The Project Approach. Stamford, CT: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

30.

Kemmis

McTaggart

Nixon

(2014) The Action Research Planner: Doing Critical Participatory Action Research. Singapore: Springer.

31.

Kennedy-Lewis

(2012) When a teacher becomes a researcher: Using self-narrative to define one’s role as a participant observer. Theory into Practice 51: 107–113.

32.

Lister

(2008) Povertyism and ‘othering’: Why they matter. Paper presented at the “Challenging Povertyism” conference. Available at: https://www.tuc.org.uk/research-analysis/reports/povertyism-and-othering-why-they-matter (accessed 15 January 2020).

33.

Louv

(2014) Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder. London: Atlantic Books.

34.

Mackewn

(2008) Facilitation as action research in the moment. In: Reason

Bradbury

(eds) SAGE Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice. London: SAGE, pp. 615–628.

35.

Mackey

(2014) Valuing agency in young children: Teachers rising to the challenge of sustainability in Aotearoa New Zealand early childhood context. In: Davis

Elliott

(eds) Research in Early Childhood Education for Sustainability: International Perspectives and Provocations. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 180–193.

36.

MacNaughton

(2009) Exploring critical constructive perspectives on children’s learning. In: Anning

Cullen

Fleer

(eds) Early Childhood Education: Society and Culture. London: SAGE, pp. 61–71.

37.

Malaguzzi

(1994) Your image of the child: Where teaching begins. Available at: https://www.reggioalliance.org/downloads/malaguzzi:ccie:1994.pdf (accessed 15 January 2020).

38.

Miles

Huberman

Saldana

(2014) Qualitative Data Analysis: A Method Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

39.

Moss

(2006) Structures, understandings and discourses: Possibilities for re-envisioning the early childhood worker. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 7: 30–41.

40.

Moss

(2014) Transformative Change and Real Utopias in Early Childhood Education: A Story of Democracy, Experimentation and Potentiality. Abingdon; Oxon: Routledge.

41.

Moss

(2019) Alternative Narratives in Early Childhood: An Introduction for Students and Practitioners. Abingdon: Routledge.

42.

O’Flynn

(2009) Teacher/researcher: An unsustainable identity. In: Daniels

Lauder

Porter

(eds) Knowledge, Values and Educational Policy: A Critical Perspective. London: Routledge, pp. 282–294.

43.

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2014) Society at a glance 2014 highlights: Australia OECD social indicators. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/australia/OECD-SocietyAtaGlance2014-Highlights-Australia.pdf (accessed 15 January 2020).

44.

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2020) Poverty rate (indicator). Available at: https://data.oecd.org/inequality/poverty-rate.htm (accessed 15 January 2020).

45.

Pacini-Ketchabaw

Nxumalo

Kocher

, et al. (2015) Reconceptualizing Early Childhood Practices through Pedagogical Narration. Toronto, ON, Canada: University of Toronto Press.

46.

Paujik

(2019) Young children’s understandings of poverty within a framework of sustainability: Action research in a kindergarten. Master of Philosophy Thesis, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane City, QLD, Australia.

47.

Phillips

(2010) Social justice storytelling and young children’s active citizenship. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 31: 363–376.

48.

Prout

James

(2015) A new paradigm for the sociology of childhood? Provenance, promise and problems. In: James

Prout

(eds) Contemporary Issues in the Sociological Study of Childhood. New York: Routledge, pp. 6–28.

49.

Ridge

(2006) Childhood poverty: A barrier to social participation and inclusion. In: Tisdall

EKM

Davis

Prout

, et al. (eds) Children, Young People and Social Inclusion. Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 23–38.

50.

Rinaldi

(2006) In Dialogue with Reggio Emilia: Listening, Researching and Learning. Abingdon: Routledge.

51.

Rinaldi

(2013) Re-imagining childhood: The inspiration of Reggio Emilia education principles in South Australia. Available at: https://www.education.sa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net691/f/reimagining-childhood.pdf (accessed 15 January 2020).

52.

Siraj-Blatchford

(2008) The implications of early understandings of inequality, science and technology for the development of sustainable societies. In: Samuelsson

Kaga

(eds) The Contribution of Early Childhood Education to a Sustainable Society. Paris: UNESCO, pp. 67–72.

53.

Siraj-Blatchford

(2009) Editorial: Education for sustainable development in early childhood. International Journal of Early Childhood 41: 9–22.

54.

Souto-Manning

(2012) Teacher as researcher: Teacher action research in teacher education. Childhood Education 88: 54–56.

55.

Stringer

(2008) Action Research in Education. Columbus, OH: Prentice Hall.

56.

Tait

(2016) Making Sense of Mass Education. Port Melbourne, VIC, Australia: Cambridge University Press.

57.

UNESCO (2010) Four dimensions of sustainable development. Available at: http://www.unesco.org/education/tlsf/mods/theme_a/popups/mod04t01s03.html (accessed 15 January 2020).

58.

UNESCO (2015) Education: Education for sustainable development (ESD). Available at: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/leading-the-international-agenda/education-for-sustainable-development/ (accessed 15 January 2020).

59.

United Nations (2016) Sustainable development goals: 17 goals to transform our world. Available at: http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/ (accessed 15 January 2020).

‘Doing’ socio-political sustainability in early childhood: Teacher-as-researcher reflective practices

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

EfS for young children

What is teacher-as-researcher?

The image of the child

The image of teacher

EfS pedagogy

Considerations and conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Author biographies

References