preservice teachers' perceptions of pedagogic documentation techniques in early childhood...

This article was downloaded by: [Florida Atlantic University]On: 11 November 2014, At: 06:45Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Early Childhood TeacherEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujec20

Preservice Teachers' Perceptions ofPedagogic Documentation Techniques inEarly Childhood Teacher PreparationSuzanne M. Flannery Quinn a & Kimberly Schwartz ba Department of Early Childhood Studies , Froebel College,Roehampton University , London, UKb Department of Childhood Education and Literacy Studies ,University of South Florida College of Education , Tampa, Florida,USAPublished online: 23 Feb 2011.

To cite this article: Suzanne M. Flannery Quinn & Kimberly Schwartz (2011) Preservice Teachers'Perceptions of Pedagogic Documentation Techniques in Early Childhood Teacher Preparation, Journalof Early Childhood Teacher Education, 32:1, 39-54, DOI: 10.1080/10901027.2010.547767

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2010.547767

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujec20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/10901027.2010.547767

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2010.547767

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:45

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 32:39–54, 2011Copyright © National Association of Early Childhood Teacher EducatorsISSN: 1090-1027 print / 1745-5642 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10901027.2010.547767

Preservice Teachers’ Perceptions of PedagogicDocumentation Techniques in Early Childhood

Teacher Preparation

SUZANNE M. FLANNERY QUINN1

AND KIMBERLY SCHWARTZ2

1Department of Early Childhood Studies, Froebel College, RoehamptonUniversity, London, UK2Department of Childhood Education and Literacy Studies, University of SouthFlorida College of Education, Tampa, Florida, USA

This research examines the perceptions of early childhood preservice teachers in rela-tion to earning the techniques of pedagogic documentation with young children. Datasources are preservice teachers’ written responses to questions related to using tech-nologies associated with pedagogic documentation such as photography and videorecording, as well as their thoughts on the process and purposes of pedagogic docu-mentation in early childhood education. The data were drawn from preservice teacherswho were enrolled in an upper division course in an early childhood teacher prepara-tion program at a major University in the southern United States. Findings includepreservice teachers’ articulations of apprehensions related to human-technologicalinterfaces, clear preferences for photography over video as a media for documentationin the classroom, and conceptions of documentation as a technique for children’s learn-ing as well as for their own professional development. Implications for early childhoodteacher educators are discussed.

During the course of their professional development, teachers of young children learnto use a variety of techniques to facilitate meaningful curriculum and engage in authen-tic assessment. The use of technologies (including still photography and audiovisualrecordings) as tools for pedagogic documentation of children’s learning experiences aretechniques thought to hold promise for early childhood educators, particularly becausethey afford teachers, children, families, and other stakeholders in children’s learning withthe ability to reflect on the process of teaching and learning. This technique involves theteacher’s and children’s use of photographs and/or video recordings along with accompa-nying narratives to document and explain or prompt thought about the process of learning.These techniques allow teachers to share the documentation with learners and their fami-lies, which encourages collaborative assessment that has the potential to inform emergentcurriculum (Boyd Caldwell, 1997; Bredekamp, 1993; Edwards, Gandini, & Forman, 1993,1998; Ezra H. Baker School & John Simpkins School, 2003; Katz, 1996; New, 1993;Project Zero/Reggio Children, 2001).

Received 19 October 2009; accepted 23 January 2010.Address correspondence to Suzanne M. Flannery Quinn, Department of Early Childhood

Studies, Froebel College, Roehampton University, Grove House, London SW14 5PJ, UK. E-mail:[email protected]

39

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:45

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

40 S. M. Flannery Quinn and K. Schwartz

Inquiry related to how preservice teachers engage in the practice of pedagogic doc-umentation is emerging. Scholars in the field of early childhood teacher education areinterested in how the techniques of documentation are learned and applied by teachersand preservice teachers (Beneke, 2000; Edwards et al., 2007; Hong & Trepanier-Street,2004; Kline, 2008; Moran & Tegano, 2005). Key questions in this line of research includehow to facilitate the infusion of documentation techniques throughout undergraduateteacher preparation programs (Edwards et al., 2007), how to use documentation work asa component of assessment of preservice teachers in conjunction with NCATE/NAEYCaccreditation (Kline), how technologies such as photography and related software areintegrated into preservice teachers’ learning about pedagogic documentation (Hong &Trepanier-Street), and how photography (including digital video) can be used as educatorsmove toward visual literacy (Moran & Tegano).

Moran & Tegano (2005) examined how preservice and experienced teachers of youngchildren use photography as a tool of inquiry. They have identified three functions of pho-tography which are particularly relevant in thinking about the use of photography in earlyand primary educational settings: a representational function, a meditational function, andan epistemological function. The representational function of photography refers to howpeople make meaning through the use of photography as a ‘representation’ of either anevent, object, or scene. This function of photography helps us to understand that there isa process of meaning-making involved in the use of photography and photographs. Themeditational function of photography operates when a teacher chooses to focus his or herlens, or his or her attention, on a specific aspect of the learning situation in order to take aphotograph. The epistemological function of photography occurs when teachers and learn-ers use photographs to generate new knowledge about the learning situation. These threefunctions operate together to create a disposition of inquiry in the teaching and learningprocess. Moran and Tegano believe that understanding photographic techniques as a lan-guage of inquiry that is generative and communicative will help teachers as they movetoward visual literacy within their professional practices. Their research shows the sophis-ticated potential that photographic technologies can offer teachers related to the integratedprocesses of curriculum and assessment.

Edwards et al. (2007) engaged in a collaborative coinquiry process in order to examinetheir provision of opportunities for preservice teachers to learn and apply observational andpedagogic documentation skills throughout their teacher training program. Their inquirydemonstrates the process and product of faculty inquiry related to helping preservice teach-ers engage with the complex potentials of pedagogic documentation. Through extensivefaculty discussion, collaboration, and reflection, their findings identified several key skillsthat should be developed among preservice teachers in order for them to move frominexperience with documentation toward implementing the approach in their preserviceteaching work. These skills were related to framing questions about learning, observing,and gathering appropriate artifacts, reflecting on the observations and artifacts, planningthe design of the documentation display, and communicating the documentation contentwith an aesthetic appeal. This research group identified elements of the observation anddocumentation process, including the level of skill of the preservice teacher, the focus ofthe observation included in the documentation, the lens from which the observations weremade, the intended audience of the documentation, and the various finished products (suchas portfolio pages, panel displays, slide presentations, or videotapes). These elements helpus to understand the complexities of introducing this approach to preservice teachers, andcall our attention to the need for careful planning and mentoring of student experiencesrelated to documentation, which Edwards et al. conceptualize as a cycle.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:45

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Perceptions of Pedagogic Documentation Techniques 41

The research related to how preservice teachers learn to document has encompassedrich description and theorizing about the methods and practices of meaningful facilitationof the approach. Both Moran and Tegano and Edwards et al. examined intense process ofcollaboratively developing experiences that will help preservice teachers be able to engageeffectively in pedagogic documentation. As with any complex and meaningful pedagogy,there are still questions of interest for teacher educators who are working to facilitate theimplementation of this approach. For example, we could learn more about how preserviceteachers react to learning how to engage in pedagogic documentation by asking questionsrelated to their concerns and struggles related to the approach. It is the intent of the presentresearch study to examine these issues. This research has practical implications for teachereducators who work with preservice teachers in field-based experiences. This research pro-vides an analysis of preservice teachers’ reactions to, and struggles with learning how todocument children’s learning through the use of photography and audiovisual techniques.An understanding of how students articulate their engagement with these techniques willprovide teacher educators with a deeper understanding of preservice teachers’ perspectivesand may provide a starting point for course development that includes these techniques.

Context of the Inquiry

Photographic and audiovisual documentation techniques are an integral component of firstsemester field-based coursework in the early childhood teacher preparation program inwhich the preservice teachers are enrolled. This upper division degree program leads to aBachelor of Science in Early Childhood Education, and satisfies partial requirements forteacher certification (age 3–grade 3). During the first semester of the program, students areplaced in a field-based internship 2 half-days a week at partner schools. In this field place-ment, they work as preservice teachers, with children ages 3–5 (prekindergarten). Thesepreservice teachers are also enrolled in 12–15 credit hours of additional undergraduatecoursework in content areas and teaching methods. The preservice teachers who were par-ticipants in this study (N = 22) were all first semester juniors. All of the preservice teacherswere female, with ages ranging from 21 years old to 35 years old. The researchers did notquery the ethnic identities of the preservice teachers.

The preservice teachers are taught the principles and methods of using photographictechnologies with children within a course titled Creative Experiences for Young Children.The focus of the course is to develop skills and understandings related to the provisionof meaningful learning opportunities for young children that can be broadly describedas within a ‘creative’ domain, such as dramatic play, painterly and graphic arts, music,and movement. Preservice teachers enrolled in this course work in conjunction withmentor teachers at a preschool to help design, implement, and assess meaningful, project-based creative activities for children. The course begins with readings and discussionsof emergent curriculum (Gestwicki, 1999; Jones & Nimmo, 1994) authentic assessment(Helm & Katz, 2001; NAEYC & NAECS/SDE, 2003) and pedagogic documentation asa curricular approach and tool for reflection (Edwards et al., 1998; Project Zero/ReggioChildren, 2001). The preservice teachers are encouraged to think through and questionthese approaches actively during in-class dialogues and via writing. Following each dis-cussion and lecture period, the preservice teachers write short (one page) papers in orderto provide feedback to the instructor on selected issues. The content of these papers wasused as a data source in this research.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:45

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Guiding Questions

Understanding the Preservice Teachers’ Responses to Learning How to Engage inPedagogic Documentation

The details of how preservice teachers learn to engage in pedagogic documentation viatheir university coursework in the Creative Experiences for Young Children course is ofprime interest to the researchers. Using the preservice teachers’ reflective writing relatedto learning the technique, we want to understand aspects of their engagement with courseactivities (such as practicing the use of documentation with classmates, and observingexemplary documentation panels) and discussions, which led to their construction of anunderstanding of the principles of using photographic technologies to document, assessand reflect on young children’s learning. Uncovering the details of the preservice teach-ers’ process of learning to use photographic documentation forms the basis of our presentinquiry, and serves as our research question. Specifically, we seek to understand how pre-service teachers articulate their engagement and learning of this approach, and what theyidentified as challenges or barriers to learning the approach.

Data Sources

Data from the written reflections of 22 preservice teachers who participated in the CreativeExperiences course were used in this inquiry. This represents all of the students enrolledin the course, during one term. Not all students were present during all of the class ses-sions, therefore there are varying numbers of responses across the inquiry period. Classattendance (and written responses) was never fewer than 20 preservice teachers.

For this inquiry, we drew on approximately 126 pages of handwritten responses tofour writing prompts over the course of one semester, and 66 typewritten pages of thepreservice teachers’ formal final reflections for the course. The handwritten responses tothe writing prompts were specifically focused on the topic of pedagogic documentation.However, preservice teachers were free to write on any topic they deemed related to theiroverall learning in the course. These short writing activities were completed as a reflec-tive in-class writing activity, and were also used to record class attendance and to obtainfeedback for the course, but were not graded by the instructor on the basis of content. Thisallowed the preservice teachers to voice concerns and express frustrations as well as sharepositive accomplishments in relation to their progress in the course with regard to peda-gogic documentation techniques. Personal feedback to the written responses was providedby the course instructor, and the instructor considered the content of the papers for thepurpose of ongoing curriculum development. Therefore, the preservice teachers’ writingwas an integral component of the emergent nature of the course, and as such, affected thecourse outcome. When the course was over, the responses and feedback were assigned afile number and copied again with identifying information removed. File numbers are alsoused in the reporting of the data as indicated by the number in brackets that appears at theend of directly quoted narratives in this research paper.

The typewritten final course reflections were open-ended and intended to be used bythe students as a form of self-assessment for the course. Final reflections were open-endedin that they required the preservice teachers to reflect on their learning in all areas over thecourse of the semester. The final papers were more formal than the in-class writing andwere graded on evidence of critical thinking, as well as conventions or writing, such asgrammar and spelling. After the final grades for the course were submitted, the names of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:45

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


the students were removed from the work and all files were placed in a word processing file.More than 6 months passed before the researchers reread the reflections for this analysis.

Method and Process of Analysis

The analysis of the preservice teachers’ written work followed a model of grounded theory(Glaser, 1978; Glaser & Strauss, 1967), in which the researchers closely read the writtenwork, noting units of meaning and emerging themes related to the topic of the inquiry.The research team was comprised of the primary researcher who was the instructor forthe course, and a research assistant who was an advanced graduate student who was notinvolved in the teaching or preparation for the course. The differing viewpoints and vestedinterests of the two researchers were thought to hold a benefit for the inquiry, providinga balance of the insider viewpoint of the instructor as the researcher, with the outsiderviewpoint of the research assistant.

Prior to the analysis, the primary researcher provided a written explanation of the spe-cific course activities that had occurred prior to the preservice teachers’ reflective writing,and the rationale for these activities to the research assistant. These activities were thenconsidered when reading the preservice teachers’ reflective writings by the researchers.Common responses in the preservice teachers’ writing were used to identify themes inthe collective narrative, which were potentially salient points related to the course and thepreservice teachers’ learning with regard to pedagogic documentation as a curricular andpedagogical tool. Themes that appeared in more than five students’ writings for any onesession were tagged as particularly salient.

The themes that were identified by each of the researchers were analyzed through aprocess of discussion, and were then used to develop a coding frame from which to codethe corpus, using principles of content analysis (see Bauer 2000; Holsti, 1969; Weber,1990). A coding frame was constructed for each of the four sets of in-class writing. Thisallowed for a frequency tabulation and comparison of themes throughout each of the setsof writing, and also afforded the opportunity to consider how specific in-class activitiesmay have affected the preservice teachers’ responses. Because it was possible that eachsingle preservice teacher could write about more than one idea in each of their reflections,the number of distinct ideas, or units of meaning, per written reflection were recorded andconsidered in the analysis.

The final course reflections were analyzed by first noting the instances of referenceto the techniques of pedagogic documentation as tool of curriculum and authentic assess-ment, and then identifying themes within those references. Those papers which includedmention of the approach were analyzed by the same principles of content analysis as thehandwritten responses, building on the themes that emerged from the in-class writings,and generating theories related to the preservice teachers understandings of the use ofpedagogic documentation at the end of the term.

The limitations of this approach include the bias of the primary researcher who wasthe course instructor. Further, both of the researchers espouse philosophies of teachingand learning that are aligned with the phenomena under investigation. We confronted thispossible limitation by reevaluating the data several times, and by providing illustrativeexamples from the written responses in our findings. We also recognize the strength ofour positionality as teachers who are researchers with a vested interest in the topic ofinquiry. These biases and our positionality are to be considered by the reader. It should alsobe considered that it is not the purpose of this research to determine the effectiveness of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:45

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


teaching pedagogic documentation techniques to preservice teachers, but rather, to examinehow the approach is perceived by the preservice teachers.

Findings

Initial Lack of Familiarity With the Approach

During the first meeting of the course, the preservice teachers were asked to write abouttheir familiarity with pedagogic documentation as a tool or approach to curriculum andauthentic assessment. Further, they were asked to explain the extent of their experiencewith the approach. Of the 22 responses, 17 indicated that they had no familiarity with theapproach, 4 indicated they were aware of the approach, and 2 of the students noted thatthey had seen the approach used.

Using the Documentation Process With Peers

Based on the preservice teachers’ lack of experience with the approach, the instructorplanned to facilitate their use of documentation techniques during class time by docu-menting their own introductions to one another using digital photography, video, and taperecordings. The participants worked in small groups of 4 to 5 people and were prompted tointroduce themselves to one another by using artifacts from their backpacks, which mightbe used to represent themselves to another. They were then asked to record the processusing either still photography, film, or tape recordings. At the end of the class period,students in the course were asked to reflect on what they had learned in the process ofdocumenting their introductions.

Following are illustrative examples of the preservice teachers’ written responses to theprocess of documenting their introductions. We provide these typical examples to help thereader understand the potential complexity and diversity of responses to the prompts. Notehow several distinct ideas might be written about in a typical written response.

In our group, we used the tape recorder as documentation. We answered thequestion: “Why do you want to be a teacher?” The first time we answered thequestion without the recorder. Everyone’s answers were casual and truthful.When we turned on the recorder, everyone’s tone of voice changed as did theiranswer. The casual went to professional. Some people thought more detail wasneeded. Others wrapped up their feelings in less words than before. I found thateveryone in the group is “scared” or discouraged by the rumors concerning theamount of work we are about to embark in. [16]

In the example above, we see that the preservice teacher has identified that the techniqueof documenting affected the group dynamics, possibly in an adverse way. She has alsomade a comment about her fear (and perceived fear of other students in the group) over therequired course for the degree.

In another example, we read an account of a preservice teacher who articulates severaldistinct ideas, including an explanation of the task, a connection she made to other people inthe group, narrative about the topic of the course, and her personal reaction to documenting.This student was using photography to document the group conversation.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:45

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


The introductory sharing activity gave me insight into my fellow classmatesthrough personal communication, body language, willingness to share, andthe artifact that they shared. I learned that each in the group had differentbackgrounds but we all seemed to want to be teachers for the same reason.I was able to see each seemed excited and eager to learn about how to createmeaningful music, art, and dramatic play experiences for children. During thedocumentation I learned that I was very comfortable talking with my group andvery open to share my experiences. I think this will help as a teacher becauseI will be open to share my ideas and not be timid in my expressions. Theintroduction to this course today has me very excited to learn more about myown creativity and learning how to use it with young children. I’m eager to dohands-on projects and how to document my projects through video, audio, andphoto essays. [10]

A theme was identified when 5 or more preservice teachers wrote about a similar topicwithin their writing. For this first set of written responses, four themes emerged. Thethemes were: connections that the students made with each other through their conver-sations (but not necessarily because of the documentation process) (n = 19); positiveevaluative comments about using photographic, audiovisual, or audio documentation(n = 12); comments on how the technology affected feelings or behavior (n = 9); andgeneral comments about the class (n = 7).

The most common theme was related to the content of the discussion the studentshad during the introductions, or the ‘connection’ they found with each other through theintroduction. For example, “I found that my group connected very well” [6] and “I enjoyedbeing able to get to know a few of the other girls in my cohort” [9]. However, not allcomments suggested that there was a perceived connection during the introduction, as inthe following example: “I found that my group was not so talkative after about 3 questions.I guess when things we didn’t have in common were asked the conversation died out”[4]. We found these data to be of interest because they revealed to us that the preserviceteachers were attuned to the process of making connections with each other as colearners,a process that the course instructor designed to be facilitated by the use of documentation.However, the preservice teachers did not clearly articulate that it was the documentationprocess that enabled these connections. This was very important information for the courseinstructor, who could then use the student feedback to guide the preservice teachers in theirthinking about the approach in subsequent sessions.

Twelve of the preservice teachers expressed a sense of excitement about using theapproach. Some comments provided a rationale for the excitement, such as:

Today opened me up to a new style of learning and teaching. People alwayshear of a “hands on approach” to teaching, but it is rarely used. I believe thatthis class will help me to use this approach and go beyond it. I consider myselfto be a critical thinker and reasoner and I am excited that this class will helpme to explore this and how to teach using these methods in the classroom. [1]

While some comments were general statements: “I am looking very forward to completinga photo essay project this semester” [5].

Nine of the preservice teachers wrote about how the use of the technology or theapproach affected their feelings or behaviors, as in the following:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:45

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


The use of the recording device was very insightful to me. I have never doneanything like that and it was actually interesting. I am a very shy person so Iassumed it would be uncomfortable but it wasn’t at all. [6]

Imbedded in 3 of these comments were further elaborations on how the technology mightmake children feel or behave, for example:

When the video camera came on I did become more aware of what I wassaying, but soon became more comfortable, and nearly forgot it was there.While working with children this would probably play an important role intheir behavior, the children may act reserved at first but then come into theirown as time passes, and this is when you can capture the true child. [3]

Seven of the preservice teachers made general comments about the course that did notrelate specifically to the documentation, such as: “Music is fun and I thoroughly enjoy itbut my tone and rhythm probably wouldn’t agree! I am excited to see what this coursewill bring out in me” [2]. Not all of the comments were enthusiastic, such as: “I feelexcited, but a little overwhelmed by this introduction to class.” [14]. These data show thecomplexity of the preservice teachers’ learning at the start of the course, and how they wereincorporating several facets of their learning into their reflective writing. Their focus wasnot on documentation, but on the course as a whole, which is what should be expected,given the course topic was not exclusively on pedagogic documentation, but on how to usethe approach in conjunction with creative experiences in early childhood education.

Constructing and Reading the Documentation Display of Their Introductions

During the second class meeting, (one week following the in-class activity of engaging inthe introductions), the instructor brought the preservice teachers’ documentation materialsback to them for reflection and analysis (photographs placed in PowerPoint slides, videoclips downloaded, and the tape recording transcribed). The instructor facilitated smallgroup activities related to placing narrative with the photographs and video and reflect-ing upon the tape-recorded conversations, thus helping the students to engage further inthe documentation process.

An analysis of the 22 written reflections after this activity revealed that the preserviceteachers began to address more topics in their writing. Six themes emerged from this set ofwriting; they were: comments and elaborations on what documentation is related to whatit can afford the teacher/learner (n = 15), statements that photography was preferred overother media (n = 13), comments that indicated that putting the documentation together inclass helped to clarify what the process involved (n = 10), general positive evaluative com-ments (n = 9), comments on how seeing themselves in the media made them feel (n = 6),and comments related to technological difficulties (or anticipated difficulties) (n = 6).

From this set of writings, we observed that the students continued to write generalpositive evaluative comments, and comments related to what we identified as a theme,which we coded as the human-technological interface. We noticed that in the prior set ofresponses, we had identified a theme related to how the technology affects their behaviors.However, in the current set of responses the preservice teachers’ comments related moreto how it felt to see and hear themselves in the media.

In this set of written responses, we observed that the preservice teachers no longerchose to write about the connections made through conversations. They no longer wrote

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:45

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


general comments about the class. We saw the emergence of four new themes: commentsabout what documentation ‘is’ (or what it affords the teaching and learning process), state-ments that photography was preferred over other media, comments that indicated thatputting the documentation together in class helped to clarify what the process involved,and comments related to technological difficulties (or anticipated difficulties).

It is logical that seeing the documentation process would help to clarify what theapproach involves, and that technological difficulties (how to adjust lighting and sound,etc.) would be identified, so what became more of interest to us as researchers were twopotentially informative themes: preservice teachers’ articulations of what documentation‘is’, and their noted preference for photography (rather than video or audio record-ings). Therefore, we moved forward in the analysis to interrogate these two potentiallyinformative themes specifically.

Articulating What Documentation Is

Many preservice teachers wrote eloquently about their ideas related to documentation, asin this illustrative example:

Documentation with photos presents a better understanding of what is takingplace. It is like putting a face with a voice. Documentation is a great way toask open ended questions. It helps you visualize beyond the photo. This typeof project helps others to understand what the picture is all about. [7]

This comment shows that the preservice teacher understands documentation as a way togain a ‘better understanding’ and she identifies it as a tool for inquiry (for asking open-ended questions) and as a tool of communication (to help others understand).

While many of the comments seemed to resonate with these aspects of documentation(inquiry and communication), many comments did not specify whether the documentationwas thought of as serving the interests of children (as learners) or whether it was thought ofas serving the interests and needs of the preservice teachers as learners, as exemplified inthe following comments: “The [documentation] opens your mind to trying different waysof presenting and sharing your findings with others” [6.5], and “It will help you rememberlater on in your teaching career” [8]. These comments reveal that at this point in theirlearning of the technique, some of the preservice teachers may have thought of pedagogicdocumentation as something they do for their coursework, and not something they engagein for the sake of children’s learning and reflection.

A Preference for Photography

Thirteen of the preservice teachers clearly stated a preference for still photography ratherthan audiovisual or audio documentation techniques. No students stated a preference forvideo or sound recordings, and 9 students did not state a preference. What is of interest tous as researchers is why photography is preferred by these students.

The variety of stated reasons for preferring photography made analysis challenging.Some of the preservice teachers identified more than one reason for their preference. Thefollowing ideas were identified in the preservice teachers’ writing: still pictures are moreinformative or clear (n = 11); the preservice teacher noted that they did not like seeing theirimage in video (n = 4), they have more experience with photography than video (n = 4),and using a still camera is easier than a video camera (n = 2).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:45

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


At first glance, it seems that most of the preservice teachers with a preference forphotography felt that the still photos can give them more with which to work, because theyare more informative or clear. As suggested in the following comments: “You can focuson one point with the picture rather than trying to focus on the whole conversation” [2],and “You can add so much more character and comments to exactly what is occurring atthe moment” [18]. However, upon closer examination, we can see that these responses notso much identify photography as a preference in its own right, but that it is preferred incomparison to video. Therefore, it may not be that there is a preference for photographyso much as there might be an aversion to video.

Seeing Examples of Prior Documentation Work

One month after the introduction of documentation techniques in class, the preserviceteachers were expected to be starting their own projects of creative experiences in theirfield placements, such as providing for and facilitating dramatic play, and/or music or artactivities that would contribute to ongoing classroom investigations or themes. The pre-service teachers were also expected to be using pedagogic documentation techniques tofacilitate emergent curriculum and authentic assessment.

Within discussions during the course sessions, the preservice teachers had voicedsome trepidation of how to proceed, because many of them were not seeing the techniqueactively practiced in the classrooms and schools with which they were working. After muchconsideration, the instructor decided to exhibit the prior student work, along with severalprofessional texts that were illustrative of the technique, such as those from Reggio Emilia(Reggio Children, 1996, 1999; Vecchi, 2002).

After the exhibition and discussion, the preservice teachers wrote about their emerginglearning related to the approach. The written reflections were open-ended, and the preser-vice teachers were free to voice criticisms they felt might help the instructor to understandtheir engagement better. Twenty preservice teachers were present and provided writtenresponses to the examples of documentation. Our analysis revealed three distinct themes inthe writing: seeing the examples helped to clarify expectations (n = 20), comments or elab-orations on what documentation is related to what it can afford the learner or the teacher(n = 14), and positive comments about using the approach in the classroom (n = 12).

It is expected that seeing examples of documentation would help the preservice teach-ers to understand better the expectations for the course. It is also not surprising that manyresponses included positive comments about the use of photography as a tool for curricu-lum and authentic assessment, given that exemplary work was presented. Therefore, thetheme that is of most interest to us as researchers is related to what documentation is orwhat it affords the learner or the teacher. Note that this is a theme that was also writtenabout in the last set of writing, in which 15 of the preservice teachers also made com-ments about what documentation ‘is’. This continuation of theme in the writing allows fora closer interrogation of the comments related to whether the preservice teachers see theapproach as primarily serving the needs of children (as a tool of curriculum and authenticassessment) or whether they see the documentation as something they are doing for thecourse or for their own needs as a preservice teacher.

Because all of the preservice teachers’ responses were given a file number so that a filenumber represents a single person, we were able to identify whether or not the same personcontinued to write about the same theme from the second set of writings to the third. Ofthe 15 people who wrote about the topic of what documentation is during the second setof responses, all but 2 also wrote about the same topic in the third set of responses. One of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:45

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


these 2 chose not to write about it in the third set, and one was not present. We can alsosee that 3 people were writing about this topic for the first time, and 5 people did not writeabout what documentation is in either of the sets. We can deduce then, that those preserviceteachers who were interested in writing about how they defined documentation continuedto do so from the second writing prompt to the third.

A closer examination of the preservice teachers’ comments revealed that each of thecomments is quite idiosyncratic, with few exceptions, each referred to a unique perspectiveon what documentation is, and what it affords the teacher or the learner. Some commentsrevealed that the preservice teachers viewed documentation as a process-oriented tool forcurricular reflection and communication between teachers and learners, as exemplified inthe following:

The children will make their own connections in their own time . . . thisembraces many disciplines and concepts. Documentation helps with this,because it reinforces process over product . . . with photo documentation chil-dren can revisit what they did, and hopefully make deeper neural connections,[and] revise previous concepts. [14]

Other comments seem to indicate that some preservice teachers viewed documentation asa tool exclusively for their own professional development, rather than as integral to theprocess of curriculum and authentic assessment with children, as in the following:

The important part of our internships are to be able to practice our ideas in aclassroom to see what works and what doesn’t. When you have photo docu-mentation available for an assignment, you are able to go back and rememberspecifics. Even when something goes completely wrong, you can have awonderful learning experience out of it. [5]

Both kinds of comments help us to understand the diversity of responses to engagementwith documentation as an approach to curriculum and authentic assessment. In particular,the comments from preservice teachers that reveal their thinking in relation to documen-tation as a tool for their own professional development call our attention to the need toclarify and emphasize that the approach is used primarily to serve the needs of children,rather than the needs of the teacher or preservice teacher.

Final Course Reflections

The preservice teachers’ final assignment was to reflect on their learning in the course asa whole. The assignment was open-ended and was expected to be insightful and employcritical thinking. These papers were graded according to how well the preservice teacherhad articulated their own learning, and how they demonstrated their academic growth overthe course of the semester. Each paper was approximately three–five typewritten pages inlength.

These final reflections are relevant to our inquiry because the preservice teachers werenot required to write about pedagogic documentation for the assignment. Rather, if a pre-service teacher did choose to write about the technique in their final course paper, thenit could be assumed that it was an important aspect of their learning over the course ofthe semester. All preservice teachers were required to write the final paper, and the courseinstructor asked permission to analyze these final reflections for research purposes. The

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:45

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


purpose of the specific research questions were not shared with the preservice teachers. Ifpermission was granted, the papers were returned to the course instructor after the coursewas over. As a result, 17 out of the 22 final reflections were available to analyze. It is notknown why 5 students in the course declined to provide their papers for this final analysis.

Of the 17 papers, 10 made no direct mention of pedagogic documentation in theirdiscussion of relevant learning over the course of the semester. These papers can be charac-terized as addressing other areas of growth in the area of creative expression and facilitationof creative activities with young people.

Seven of the final reflections address pedagogic documentation as a tool of reflectionand authentic assessment. Three of these final reflections only briefly addressed documen-tation as a technique that was learned in the class, and valued by the preservice teacher,while four of the final reflections provided elaboration specifically related to documenta-tion. What is of interest is that within these four final reflections, each student discussesdocumentation as a tool for curriculum and authentic assessment of learning with chil-dren, highlighting the collaborative nature of project work and the reflective nature of thedocumentation process, as in the following example:

Looking at children through the lens of a camera allows me to capture oneaspect of their work that can mean so much, and even much more if there isdocumentation of what they have said. What makes this technique so inter-esting is that I am able to use pictures to see their progress through time,and observe how they are learning. The reflection process that is capableof taking place allows both the teacher and the student to see what wasdone, and how both grew from the experience, and what they might havedone differently or may have to improve upon in the future. Seeing the workof Reggio children, even among the very young, encouraged me to thinkthat both the project approach, and documentation were invaluable in theclassroom. [3]

Only one preservice teacher wrote about the challenges she may face related to implement-ing this approach in the classroom:

I often wonder if my peer teachers will question my methods of teaching andassessment . . . While I would not like to be questioned about my teachingstrategies, I know that I would be able to assertively explain my position as aneducator. [21]

These two examples provide us with an understanding of the range of learning relatedto pedagogic documentation techniques by preservice teachers. On the one hand, wehave a preservice teacher who has a clear articulation and stated value for the approach.However, this preservice teacher did not seem to question the implications of the practice.Alternatively, we have another preservice teacher who states a value for the approach, butwho anticipates resistance or challenges within school settings to the implementation ofthis approach.

Discussion/Implications

The focus of this inquiry is to understand the details of how a group of preservice teacherslearned to use pedagogic documentation as a curricular approach and tool for authentic

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:45

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


assessment by examining their reflective responses to ongoing course-related activitiesthat were designed to facilitate their learning. Specifically, we are interested in how thesepreservice teachers explained or articulated their engagement and learning related to thisapproach, and what they identified as challenges or barriers to learning or implementingthe approach.

Generally, the preservice teachers articulated their learning with positive evaluativecomments, which would be expected given that the written work used as data sourceswere intended to be read by the course instructor. While it is encouraging that the stu-dents embraced the approach with enthusiasm, it is neither surprising, nor particularlyinformative to our inquiry.

Beyond the positive comments, the preservice teachers articulated apprehensionsrelated to what we identified as human-technological interfaces. The technology-relatedapprehensions included suspicions that using technology to take photos, video segments,or sound recordings in the classroom could potentially alter student or teacher behavior.This is an insightful point that should be acknowledged by preservice teachers and shouldbe considered a useful topic of discussion for teacher educators. We should encouragepreservice teachers to interrogate ideas so intimately related to the why and how of anypedagogy. Additionally, some preservice teachers noted that they experienced uncomfort-able feelings that resulted from seeing themselves on camera. Some of these commentsalso touched upon the potential discomfort of children. This is also an important point tobe considered.

Other challenges related to technology involved practical concerns over using cam-eras or video recorders while teaching. The data show a clear preference for photographyover video as a media for documentation in the classroom. Reasons for the preference forphotography are varied. Some preservice teachers noted that they are most familiar withphotography, therefore they prefer it because they have confidence in their abilities. As theuse and availability of video technologies increases we might expect the level of experienceand confidence to change in the near future. Other preservice teachers noted that video seg-ments may be too complex to analyze. As user-friendly technologies become more widelyavailable, we might expect this to change as well. Upon reflection, we see this as an occa-sion for improvement for the course facilitator, and as an instructive finding of the study.Time and effort should be given to encourage skill development at video recording andanalysis, particularly because of the aforementioned increase in public use of these typesof technology.

The most salient and useful findings of this inquiry are related to how the preserviceteachers describe and define what documentation ‘is’. Preservice teachers’ writing relatedto their articulations of what documentation is spontaneously emerged after an in-classactivity that involved putting together an electronic documentation presentation of theirintroductions to one another, and continued to be a relevant theme in their writing after theyhad seen examples of prior students’ documentation work, as well as examples of publishedphotographic documentation. The preservice teachers’ writing on this topic allowed us tointerrogate their conceptions of the approach. Many of the preservice teachers had concep-tions of documentation that directly related to its use with children, however many of thepreservice teachers seemed to have the conception that documentation was something theyhad to do for the course.

Building on the theoretical concepts posited by Moran and Tegano (2005), we note thatin their final reflections, the preservice teachers who chose to write about pedagogic doc-umentation articulated concepts of the epistemological function of documentation, ratherthan the representational and meditational functions. That is, in their final reflections, the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:45

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


preservice teachers who wrote about the technique did so in relation to how the techniquedid or could help them to make meaning in relation to teaching and learning.

While these findings are particularly informative to the course instructor of these pre-service teachers, we cannot (and do not wish to) claim that these findings are generalizableto other groups of preservice teachers who will undoubtedly have varying experiences,depending on the use of the approach in the settings where they engage in field-basedpreservice teaching. However, this inquiry does have implications for early childhoodteacher educators, by providing insight into how preservice teachers react to learninghow to engage in pedagogic documentation, particularly with regard to their concerns andstruggles related to the approach, and their articulations of the purpose of the approach.

What we can recommend is that the key points which have emerged from this inquirybe points that other teacher educators take into consideration when preparing to teachpreservice teachers about pedagogic documentation. Specifically, we suggest that whenintroducing the technique, teacher educators consider that preservice teachers may haveanxiety related to human-technological interfaces involving how to use technology, as wellas how the use of technology will affect their ability to work with children in other ways.In the spirit of Edwards et al.’s (2007) conceptualization of documentation as a cycle, werecommend that preservice teachers be given opportunities to voice their concerns overpractical matters related to the approach, as well as opportunities to practice their skillsusing technologies in a cyclical manner, allowing for revisions and refinements to thedocumentation process.

Structuring coursework in a manner that allows for revision and reflection may alsohelp preservice teachers to articulate their emerging understandings of what documentation‘is’ as in this inquiry. We suggest that teacher educators recognize that preservice teachersmay be struggling to understand pedagogic documentation as an approach that is intendedto benefit children and other stakeholders in the learning process, rather than a courseassignment solely intended for the benefit of their own professional development.

Our strongest suggestion is in the area that we see as the largest gap within the findingsof our study. That is, that while we believe that the use of pedagogic documentation allowsteachers to share the documentation with learners and their families, which encouragescollaborative assessment and informs emergent curriculum, this was not reflected in any ofthe preservice teachers’ writings. Upon analysis, we believe that this was not emphasizedenough in the teaching of the approach, and not enough opportunities were created toencourage this aspect of the technique.

We believe that in order to encourage the sharing of pedagogic documentation amongall stakeholders in the learning process, school personnel must also work toward mentoringand supporting preservice teachers in the use of the approach. This is often a serious chal-lenge, particularly in early field placements, where the preservice teachers are working inschool settings for the first time, and for a limited number of hours a day. In many cases, thepreservice teachers in early field placements have limited exposure to families and otherstakeholders in the learning process, and may only see families for a short period of timeat the start of the school day, if at all. Further, it may be the case that school personnel donot engage in the custom of reflection on pedagogic documentation, further complicatingthe teaching of the pedagogy to preservice teachers.

We have acted on these two last points in our teacher education program by expandingour support of pedagogic documentation through public events hosted by the universitythat highlight pedagogic documentation, through sharing our preservice teachers’ docu-mentation at national conferences, and via professional development initiatives with ourpartner schools who have an interest. These initiatives have provided a public forum for

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:45

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


dialogue about the approach, and recognize the long-term and cyclical nature of ‘makinglearning visible’ (Project Zero/Reggio Children, 2001). Our initiatives have also led tofurther pedagogic documentation of teacher education (Blank et al., 2009; Flannery Quinn& Long, 2009) as well as a heightened awareness of ethical implications related to theapproach (Blank & Berson, 2009) and the pursuit of critical theorizing related to the use ofphotography with children (Manning & Law, 2009).

Future Directions

Building on the strong theoretical and research base related to the use of pedagogicdocumentation with children and in early childhood teacher education, we suggest thatteacher educators recognize the complications associated with human-technological inter-face, particularly with the use of photography and audiovisual techniques. Further inquiryand commentary is needed particularly in the area of the ethical implications of theseapproaches. Findings from our inquiry have shown that preservice teachers are aware ofhow these techniques may affect their behavior, and that they are in turn aware of howthese techniques affect how children feel or behave. A clearer understanding of the ethicalimplications and guidelines for ethical practices are needed as we move forward and asnew technologies emerge.

References

Bauer, M. (2000). Classical content analysis: A review. In M. Bauer & G. Gaskell (Eds.), Qualitativeresearching with text, image, and sound (pp. 131–151). London, UK: Sage.

Beneke, S. (2000). Documentation in a lab school setting: Teaching new teachers todocument (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED470893). Retrieved fromhttp://ceep.crc.uiuc.edu/pubs/katzsym/beneke.html

Blank, J., & Berson, I. R. (2009, November). Reflecting on our practices: Ethical issues relatedto the use of photography with pre-service teachers in early childhood settings. Paper pre-sented at the National Association of Early Childhood Teacher Educators 2009 Conference,Washington, DC.

Blank, J., Flannery Quinn, S., Manning, J., Berson, I., Long, C. & Law, E. (2009, November). Seeingin new ways: Photography as a tool for teaching. Paper presented at the National Association forthe Education of Young Children Annual Conference, Washington, DC.

Boyd Caldwell, L. (1997). Bringing Reggio Emilia home. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Bredekamp, S. (1993). Reflections on Reggio Emilia. Young Children, 49(1), 13–17.Edwards, C. P., Churchill, S. Gabriel, M. Heaton, R. Jones-Branch, J. Marvin, C., & Rupiper, M.

(2007). Students learn about documentation throughout their teacher education program. EarlyChildhood Research and Practice, 9(2). Retrieved from http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v9n2/edwards.html

Edwards, C. P., Gandini, L., & Forman, G. E. (Eds.). (1993). The hundred languages of children: theReggio Emilia Approach to early childhood education. Greenwich, CT: Ablex.

Edwards, C. P., Gandini, L., & Forman, G. E. (Eds.). (1998). The hundred languages of children: theReggio Emilia Approach—Advanced reflections (2nd ed.). Greenwich, CT: Ablex.

Ezra H. Baker School & John Simpkins School. (2003). Making teaching visible: Documentingindividual and group learning as professional development. Cambridge, MA: Project Zero.

Flannery Quinn, S., & Long, C. (2009, November). Responding to pre-service teachers usingphotographic/narrative essays in our observations of interns: Focusing on body language.Presentation at the NAECTE 2009 Conference, Washington, DC.

Gestwicki, C. (1999). Developmentally appropriate practice: Curriculum and development in earlychildhood education. Albany, NY: Delmar Publishers.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:45

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative

research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.Helm, J. H., & Katz, L. G. (2001). Young investigators: The project approach in the early years. New

York, NY: Teachers College Press.Holsti, O. R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Reading, MA:

Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.Hong, S., & Trepanier-Street, M. (2004). Technology: A tool for knowledge construction in a Reggio

Emilia inspired teacher education program. Early Childhood Education Journal, 32(2), 87–94.Jones, E., & Nimmo, J. (1994). Emergent curriculum. Washington, DC: National Association for the

Education of Young Children.Katz, L. G., (1996). The contribution of documentation to the quality of early childhood education

(ERIC Digest, EDO-PS-96-2). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois, Urbana.Kline, L. S. (2008). Documentation panel: The ‘Making Learning Visible’ project. Journal of Early

Childhood Teacher Education, 29(1), 70–80.Manning, J., & Law, E. (2009, November). Recognizing the implications of power and power rela-

tions inherent in the use of photography in teacher education. Presentation at the NAECTE 2009Conference, Washington, DC.

Moran, M. J., & Tegano, D. W. (2005). Moving toward visual literacy: Photography as a languageof teacher inquiry. Early Childhood Research and Practice, 7(1). Retrieved from http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v7n1/moran.html

National Association for the Education of Young Children & National Association of EarlyChildhood Specialists in State Departments of Education. (2003). Joint position state-ment on early childhood curriculum, assessment, and program evaluation. Retrieved fromhttp://www.naeyc.org/about/positions/cape.asp

New, R., (1993). Reggio Emilia: Some lessons for U.S. educators (ERIC Digest, EDOPS-93-3).Urbana, IL: University of Illinois, Urbana.

Project Zero/Reggio Children. (2001). Making learning visible: Children as individual and grouplearners. Reggio Emilia, Italy: Reggio Children.

Reggio Children. (1996). I cento linguaggi dei bambini. Reggio Emilia, Italy: Author.Reggio Children. (1999). Everything has a shadow except ants (2nd ed.). Reggio Emilia, Italy:

Author.Vecchi, V. (2002). Theater curtain: The ring of transformations. Reggio Emilia, Italy: Reggio

Children.Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Atla

ntic

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

6:45

11

Nov

embe

r 20

14

preservice teachers' perceptions of pedagogic documentation techniques in early childhood...

Documents