Looking for Theory in Preschool Education

Christine Stephen

Published online: 5 February 2012� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Abstract This paper sets out to examine the place of theory in preschool education,

considering the theories to which practitioners and providers have access and which

provide a rationale for everyday practices and shape the experiences of young children.

The paper reflects the circumstances of preschool provision, practices and thinking in the

UK in general and in Scotland in particular. The central argument is that while there may

be little obvious recourse to theorising and limited exposure to explicit theory about

children’s development, learning and education, practitioners and those responsible for

provision have tacit understandings or implicit theories which can be seen to shape their

practices. The paper begins by considering the explicit theory which practitioners are

exposed to through the development of practice guidance and professional education. This

is followed by an examination of the explicit theories adopted from psychology and more

recent theoretical developments which have their roots in other disciplines and perspec-

tives. Some influences on practitioners’ implicit theories are discussed before considering

two key aspects of the dominate consensus about good practice: that play is the medium

through which children learn and that practice should be child-centred. The paper con-

cludes with a discussion of the ‘identity’ of preschool education theory and the benefits of

articulating the implicit theory and folk beliefs on which local practices are based.

Keywords Preschool education � Theory � Provision and practices � Implicit theory

Introduction

In the UK1 the introduction in 1996 of a part-time, government-funded preschool place

for every 4-year old (later extended to 3-year olds) marked a shift from patchy

C. Stephen (&)School of Education, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, UKe-mail: christine.stephen@stir.ac.uk

1 Disentangling the influences and responsibilities of the UK and Scottish governments for preschooleducation is complex. While this paper focuses on circumstances in Scotland practices and policies beforedevolution (1998) are ascribed to the UK context more generally.

123

Stud Philos Educ (2012) 31:227–238DOI 10.1007/s11217-012-9288-5

provision that depended on local circumstances to universal entitlement and services

dominated by local authority nursery classes and schools offering sessional and term-

time preschool education and private sector nurseries providing education and childcare

across the day and throughout the year. However, along with these opportunities to

expand provision and to receive government-funding were requirements to ‘deliver’ a

specified curriculum, expectations about pedagogy and assessment and pressure to

professionalise and accredit the workforce. For most of the twentieth century preschool

education for 3- to 5-year olds in the UK had been on the margins of educational

provision and had developed an ethos and set of practices that distinguished it from

school settings. Preschool providers and practitioners were used to regulation but that

had focused on the suitability of premises, equipment and staff. Formal expectations

about what the children should do and what they should achieve were new and

challenging.

In the years since the initial government move to make preschool education a uni-

versal entitlement it has become an established part of children’s educational careers. In

Scotland about 96% of 3- to 5-year olds take up their place in preschool education

(Scottish Government 2009) and with the new Scottish curriculum covering the ages

3–18 years specific provision for learning in the early years is firmly incorporated into

the national educational agenda. Yet despite this apparent success story preschool edu-

cational practices and pedagogy appear to be under-theorised, subject to varying, and

sometimes contradictory, ideas and understandings which are often ‘taken for granted’

and therefore not subject to debate and challenge. This became evident in our research

when we began to question the role of practitioners in preschool settings in Scotland.

Practitioners found it difficult to answer ‘why’ questions and their endorsement of de-

contextualised expectations for their role, despite working in different pedagogical tra-

ditions, alerted us to the ways in which everyday practices can be the outcome of

implicit consensus (Stephen et al. 2001). Posing ‘why’ questions about pedagogy and

looking at the relationship between playroom experiences and espoused theory and

policy has remained a continuing thread in our research into preschool education, fos-

tered by the adoption of methods that include interview techniques designed to facilitate

the articulation of implicit perspectives, systematic observation of the activities of

children and adults in the learning environment and engagement with local and national

policy-making.

This paper is concerned with the theory available to and used by preschool prac-

titioners, managers and providers in Scotland and with the explicit and implicit theo-

rising that provides a rationale for the practices which shape the experiences of young

children. A central argument in this paper is that while there is little obvious recourse

in preschool education in Scotland to developed theory or to explicit attempts at

theorising educational provision, learning or children’s development, practitioners and

those responsible for provision and everyday practices have a set of tacit understand-

ings and expectations that shape their actions and interactions with children. I begin by

considering the explicit theory which practitioners are exposed to through the guidance

given for their practices and their initial professional education. Theories of learning

taken from psychology are then examined before moving on to look at more recent

theoretical developments. I turn next to look at the tacit understandings and implicit

theory which I argue underpin everyday practices in the playroom, considering first

some common influences on practice and policy then two big ideas about appropriate

pedagogy.

228 C. Stephen

123

Explicit Theory

Access to Explicit Theory

Practitioners might be expected to be exposed to educational theory (and empirical evi-

dence) through the development of government sanctioned curricula and pedagogy (what

Alexander 2010, refers to as ‘the state theory of education’). Although on some occasions

in Scotland literature reviews and empirical studies have been commissioned to inform the

development of curricula and pedagogic advice (e.g. Stephen 2006; Dunlop et al. 2008)

there is generally little or no reference to the basis, particularly the theoretical basis, for the

practices being endorsed. In contrast, a focus on practices dominates the guidance, with

general statements typically followed by examples of ‘good practice’. For instance, the

policy framework on the use of Information and Communication Technologies in pre-

school settings (Learning and Teaching Scotland 2003) set out four ‘principles’ for practice

of which two could be linked to theoretical work: the claim that relationships and inter-

actions were at the heart of learning experiences and the reminder to take account of the

ways in which children learn. However, there were no references to the theoretical sources

and the document continued by setting out a series of de-contextualised aims for practi-

tioners’ actions, supported by reference to web-based examples of good practice. More

recently the extension from preschool to the primary school of what is described as ‘active

learning’ (Scottish Executive 2007) did refer to a review of the literature (Stephen 2006)

but again there was no attempt to theorise how or why this pedagogic approach could

support the development of the four capacities at the core of the curriculum.

During their period of initial professional education practitioners have some opportunity

to engage with theory about children’s development and the process of learning. However,

given the way in which practical skills and curricular, policy and workplace issues dom-

inate their continuing professional development, for many their initial training may be their

only encounter with theory. Fleer et al. (2009) found that the theory which practitioners

drew on for playroom actions such as structuring observations reflected the period during

which they were trained and that this could leave them without the conceptual resources

necessary to make sense of some current behaviours. It seems likely that practitioners in

the UK will have similar experiences. The index of a textbook for preschool practitioners

in training in the UK includes the names of 15 authors (Tassoni 2008). Twelve of these are

psychologists who worked in the first half of the twentieth century and there are no

mentions of more recent bodies of theory or contributions from other disciplines.

Practitioners in Scottish preschools have a range of initial professional qualifications but

whatever their qualification route theories about learning (and ideas about the ways of

supporting learning that follow) have to jostle for space with other knowledge and com-

petencies required by the awarding body, such as ensuring health and safety, working with

families, children’s rights and team work with colleagues. Trainee practitioners must also

learn about the requirements of the national curriculum they are expected to offer and the

preferred planning and assessment processes. Furthermore, like the policy documents,

course units are typically expressed in terms of practices (e.g. develop and promote

positive relationships; promote children’s development), with the focus being on practi-

tioner actions (observing, supporting, planning etc.) rather than engagement with a body of

theoretical or empirical work (see for example, Children’s Care Learning and Develop-

ment, SVQ level 3, SQA). This focus on practices or actions can also be found in the books

prepared for use during and after initial professional education. Although there are some

exceptions, the market is dominated by texts that focus on practices associated with

Looking for Theory in Preschool Education 229

123

specific aspects of the curriculum (e.g. outdoors play, language and literacy). In this

context there is little scope or imperative for practitioners to engage with theory, although

most in the UK and elsewhere (e.g. Australia, Fleer et al. 2009) will encounter the two ‘big

names’ of Piaget and Vygotsky.

Theory from Psychology

The theories of Piaget and Vygotsky have been extensively referred to by those seeking a

theoretical base for preschool practices, although neither theorist saw this as a goal for his

work. Published in French and English from the 1920’s Piaget’s work has a long history of

influence but Vygotsky’s work did not make a substantial impact on thinking in the west

until it was more widely translated into English several decades later. Piaget’s work has

been subject to substantial critique and modification (e.g. Donaldson 1978) and since his

early death Vygotsky’s work has been developed and extended by others such as Luria and

Leontiev and more recently by Cole (1996) and Bodrova (2008). Nevertheless, it is the

names of Piaget and Vygotsky and their key ideas that have remained as a significant

presence in thinking and practice development in the preschool sphere in the UK.

Two aspects of Piaget’s work in particular have contributed to foundational thinking in

the early years: his step-wise, linear and uni-directional theory of developmental progress

and his conception of children as learning through lone exploration, particularly physical

and concrete exploration in the early years. Piaget’s construction of the young learner as an

immature thinker, naıve and limited in comparison to the abstract thought reached in

adulthood, has contributed to a deficit model of childhood, one which sees young children

as being ‘not yet able to’ and in need of adult support and input to achieve progression.

Despite the substantial body of work that has demonstrated that development proceeds in a

much more fluid and less unidirectional manner than Piaget originally suggested, and that

the circumstances in which children are asked to make judgements influence their answers,

notions of age, stage and linearity persist. Policy and guidance documents have incorpo-

rated ideas of linear progression towards a desired state (Stephen and Brown 2004).

Children are grouped according to age in early years settings and parents and practitioners

tend to evaluate progress according to normative, staged expectations. MacNaughton

(2005) has concluded that thinking in terms of developmental stages is deeply embedded.

[it has]settled so firmly into the fabric of early childhood studies that its familiarly

makes it just seem ‘‘right’’, ‘‘best’’ and ‘‘ethical’’. (MacNaughton 2005, p5).

Piaget’s conceptualisation of learning as the result of dynamic interactions (both

assimilation and accommodation) between the child and her environment remains evident

in attention paid to providing resource-rich playrooms in the UK and in our finding that

practitioners see their role as predominantly acting as providers and facilitators (Stephen

and Brown 2004). Pramling-Samuelsson and Fleer (2009) refer to practitioners apologising

for intervening in children’s activities as a contravention of expectations that they will

provide resources and observe children’s progress, but not interfere with their exploration.

The role of the adult is differently constructed in the Vygotskian legacy. Here the

theoretical position is that learning is a social process, with adults assisting children to

acquire the cultural tools of their society (and language in particular). As children

encounter the ways of acting and thinking in their society they learn first through joint

interactions and performance with more competent others (adults or peers) which are then

internalized to allow the individual to succeed in that task, or with that tool, alone. Critical

to the success of this process is the adults’ awareness of the child’s understanding and their

230 C. Stephen

123

willingness and ability to scaffold children’s activities until they can proceed alone. This

theory demands a different contribution from practitioners as their role becomes one of

supporting learning through joint endeavours with children. We have sometimes observed

practitioners supporting children’s learning in this way, for instance, guiding the hand of a

child learning to use a computer mouse, giving instruction on how to use a camera or

initiating a narrative in pretend play (Stephen and Plowman 2007). However, tailored

support for learning is challenging in a group environment and is in conflict with the ‘hands

off’ interpretation of Piagetian ideas. Our evidence suggests that it is both undervalued by

practitioners, who tend to take these interactions for granted, and a less frequent occurrence

than reactive supervision (Stephen and Plowman 2007; Plowman and Stephen 2005).

Alternatives to Psychological Theories

Beginning in the late 1980’s and gathering momentum during the 1990’s and early years of

the twenty-first century writers concerned with early childhood and influenced by philo-

sophical work arguing against beliefs in certainty and established binaries, like that of

Foucault and Derrida, began to identify and challenge dominant discourses, such as the

‘truth’ of universal developmental change and deterministic progression, present in the

prevailing psychological basis for early years educational practices (Cannella 2005). For

instance, MacNaughton (2005), Rhedding-Jones (2003) and Blaise (2005) have developed

critical perspectives on early years professional practices and children’s experiences,

focusing on issues of identities, gender, power and diversity. Others, prompted by the

development of the new sociology of childhood (James et al. 1998), have argued for a

move away from existing conceptions of childhood towards attention to children as active

agents, shaping as well as shaped by their experiences. This way of theorising children as

agents in their own learning underpins the academic writing and practice rhetoric which

advocates shared meaning-making. It has encouraged attention to listening to children and

looking at relationships in preschool settings.

Dahlberg and Moss (2005) have theorised preschool experiences as sites for ethical

encounters. Drawing on philosophical arguments about ethics, relationships and education

they are critical of the technical-rational approach to preschool provision adopted by nation

states and international agencies which invest to achieve specific goals. Instead Dahlberg

and Moss argue for a focus on ethical practices achieved through a ‘pedagogy of listening’.

Developed from the Reggio Emilia approach to early education this involves children and

adults in dialogue and co-construction, perceiving children as competent and active and

educational settings as places for experimentation rather than transmission.

Lenz-Taguchi (2010) has described developmental and constructivist approaches to

learning as ‘benevolent’ but criticised the focus on mastery and the evaluation of progress

against the normative expectations of the school system. In their place Lenz-Taguchi draws

on the work of feminist physicist Barad and the writing of Deluze and Guattari to argue for

an ‘intra-active pedagogy’ that includes the intra- and inter-personal and pays explicit

attention to the ‘intra-active relationship between all living organisms and the material

environment’ (2010, p. 10). She argues that learning happens in the intra-actions between

children, adults and the material world and advocates a pedagogy which is centred on a

listening dialogue which pays attention to what children bring to the learning encounters in

a way that avoids filtering through adult values and aims for learning. Lenz-Taguchi urges

practitioners to engage in ‘creative actualising of the event’, not for diagnosis, but as

‘collaborative creators and inventors of learning events with children and our colleagues’

(p. 94).

Looking for Theory in Preschool Education 231

123

An alternative re-conceptualising of the process of preschool education comes from

Olsson (2009). Developing her theoretical thinking from Deluze and Guattari, Olsson sees

desire as the motivating force that drives the on-going movement and experimentation that

shifts children’s thinking and knowing in unpredictable ways. As with Lenz-Taguchi’s

theorising, Olsson’s construction of young children’s learning demands that practitioners

work in new and less prescribed ways. Rather than ‘[the] taming logic of subjectivity and

learning’ Olsson argues for practice that pays attention to what children are already

engaged by and for staff to ‘try to latch on to these together with the children and give

space for lines of flight to be created’ (p. 179).

Ailwood (2010) acknowledges the challenge to traditional thinking about early edu-

cation which comes from poststructualist and feminist theories but goes on to to argue that

‘theory should be put to work to improve practice’. However, whether such theorising or

research offers a helpful way for practitioners to thinking about practice and has had any

substantial impact on playroom actions and interactions remains a matter for further

exploration. Both Lenz-Taguchi and Olsson have worked with practitioners and exemplify

their ideas through projects in which they have engaged with preschool staff or students.

Blaise and Andrew (2005) talk of offering ‘more complex images of early childhood’ in

her teaching and of moving away from working on ‘developmentally appropriate practice’.

Yelland and Kilderry (2005) argue that the writing on reconceptualising early years calls

for a shift from doing ‘what is said to be right;’ to asking ‘In what ways can we create

effective learning environments?’ Such authors may be beginning to influence the thinking

of other academics, particularly those responsible for professional education, but it seems

premature to expect such recent and often demanding theory to be having an impact on

everyday practice.

Long-held perspectives and doubts about professional autonomy may also inhibit

change in practice and theoretical understandings. For instance, Dahlberg and Moss (2005)

call for a shift away from notions of universal ethics and external governmentality (e.g.

through quality assurance, benchmarks or accreditation processes) to local decision

making, democracy and practice that is able to take account of diversity and promote

critical thinking. However, they recognise that others may not share the ideological and

utopian perspective that they have developed. Here re-conceptualising and theorising about

education and care moves again into the realm of ‘ought to be’, albeit that Dahlberg and

Moss talk of possibilities and practising differently rather than prescribing a specific course

of action. Reviewing Lenz-Taguchi’s work Dahlberg and Moss (2010) point out that it

requires practitioners to be open to what children are already engaged with, invite

experimentation, and be ready to ‘learn to surf it’. Supporting learning in the way which

Olsson suggests means that practitioners must be prepared for not knowing and to be

surprised. While such approaches might appeal to confident, independent professionals

they will not come easily to practitioners who feel constrained by being held to account for

learning outcomes and judged on how they meet the curricular expectations of parents and

national and local inspection processes as we discovered when we investigated imple-

menting innovations in preschool and the early years of primary school (Stephen and

Brown 2004; Stephen et al. 2010).

Tacit Understandings and Implicit Theory

Above I have suggested that preschool practitioners have limited exposure to educational

theory and that when they have opportunities to engage with theory it is most likely to be

232 C. Stephen

123

restricted to potentially contradictory interpretations of the work of Piaget and Vygotsky.

But this is not to say that practitioners and providers of preschool provision do not have

expectations and understandings that influence practice, their construction of their role and

of children and of the purposes of preschool education. Our analysis of data from a series

of studies of early years practice led us to argue that there was a distinct ‘insider’ culture of

practice among practitioners which differed from the technical-rational, linear approach of

‘outsiders’ such as local and national policymakers and inspectors and advisors (Stephen

and Brown 2004). While practitioners from a variety of settings could engage with the

outsider ‘delivery and impact’ orientated discourse the evidence suggested that their

everyday practice was driven by an implicit theory-in-action which was dynamic, mediated

through an established repertoire of actions to maintain what they saw as desirable

activities in the playroom and which nurtured and responded to signs of new developments,

rather than attaining specific progress goals. The ways in which practitioners are accus-

tomed to think about practice in their settings and the values and assumptions which they

share about preschool provision and educational endeavours is a discourse which drives

practice and which, having attained the status of natural and normal, can inhibit attempts to

consider how things might be done better or differently (Sumsion 2005; Gee 1996).

Purposes, Values and Influences on Implicit Theory

Wagner (2006) points out that although those involved in early years practice and poli-

cymaking in Europe and North America ‘intone the same authorities, such as Piaget and

Vygotsky’ this often masks important differences of perspective about what is appropriate

and necessary for the development and education of young children (Wagner 2006, p. 298).

Local cultures and social expectations, values and socio-political imperatives influence the

development of practice and policy, goals and regulations and the tacit understandings of

practitioners. Tobin et al. (2009, p. 193) argued that the similarities which they found

between the USA settings in their study could be ‘attributed to the underlying influence of

American cultural beliefs on preschool practices’. They suggested that the USA practi-

tioners’ tacit approach to their practice was influenced by their belief in free choice, self-

expression, individual rights and the pursuit of happiness.

In the UK provision for children under the age for admission to school has been a

response to social and political as well as educational considerations. Compensating for

deprived home environments, poor nutrition, health and hygiene was a core reason for the

foundation of nursery schools in the early twentieth century (McMillan 1919). At the

beginning of the twenty-first century the compensatory motive is evident again in poli-

cymakers’ interest in the preventative value of early years provision. Investment in edu-

cation and care for children under 5 years old is thought of as a way of enhancing human

capital, contributing to society’s future economic benefits and reducing social and eco-

nomic burdens. For instance, the Scottish Government (2008) sees investing in early years

care and education as a ‘central element of our strategy for regenerating communities,

reducing crime, tackling substance misuse and improving employability’. The implications

for practitioners of thinking of preschool settings as sites for ‘normalising’ and ‘maxi-

mising’ individual development for future societal gain are as yet unclear. However, seeing

children as either deprived or potential costs to society appears to be in some contradiction

with perspectives that focus on their current competence, meaning-making and active

participation in learning settings (Bruner 1996).

Running somewhat in tension with compensatory motives for the provision of preschool

provision are long-established beliefs in the UK about the value and significance of the

Looking for Theory in Preschool Education 233

123

mother–child relationship for children’s development, accompanied by concerns about the

potential damage that any disruption to this relationship could have on children’s sense of

attachment and security. Schaffer (1990, p. 73) describes these ideas as ‘deeply ingrained

in both popular and professional thinking. Any arrangement of child rearing which does

not foster this unit is frowned upon’. Although later empirical work has failed to support

the idea that very young children can only form attachment relationships with one care-

giver, doubts about the appropriateness of group care persist. Dahlberg et al. (1999) argue

that in the UK an underlying belief that maternal care is the best option for young children

continues to shape preschool practices, through an approach characterised by Singer (1993)

as attachment pedagogy. They suggest that this gives rise to the high ratio of adults to

children and attention to practices such as the establishment of key worker systems or

‘home groups’ to ensure a personalised relationship between the child and a particular

practitioner. This focus on individual, nurturing relationships with children in the UK

contrasts with the team-orientated construction of practice in Spain and Italy (Penn 1997).

A Consensus on Practice

Amongst the community of preschool practitioners in the UK and those responsible for

professional education there is an implicit folk pedagogy (or set of common understand-

ings) about what is needed to support young children’s development and learning which

persists despite some challenges from theoretical developments or a lack of empirical

support. Two big ideas are central to this consensus on practice. Although developed

locally these understandings have much in common with the globally influential frame-

work for good practice known as Developmentally Appropriate Practice (NAEYC 2009).

The first of these ideas is child-centred or child-led practice which offers children

opportunities to choose how to spend their time in the playroom and who to spend time

with, an approach which is often characterised as ‘following the children’s interests’.

Thinking of preschool settings as places where children can make choices about how to

spend their time has a long history in the UK. Isaacs (1932) argued that good practice takes

it lead from the child, suggesting for instance that young children are attuned to activities

that extend their physical skills and that it is adults with their prohibitions or inappropriate

tasks who inhibit development. Montessori too argued for recognition of the young child’s

needs and ways of being in the world. In an apparent reversal of the role of learner and

teacher, she argued that the role of the adult should be to ‘open up the door’ for the child to

move about at will and select activities (Montessori 1966). Her claims have gone on to

exert a tacit influence, even in settings that do not make explicit reference to her approach.

It follows from these ideas that the aim of the practitioner should be to create an

environment that helps children to do alone whatever it is that they choose to do. However,

the development of Vygotsky’s theory and more recent research evidence has challenged

the efficacy of this central tenet. Siraj-Blatchford and Sylva (2004) found that settings

which were most effective in terms of children’s cognitive, social and behavioural out-

comes were those where there was a 50:50 balance between children-initiated and adult-

initiated activities. In their report to the Committee on Early Childhood Pedagogy Bowman

et al. (2000) too point to the central contribution that sensitive adults make to children’s

learning. Nevertheless, as we found when exploring the implementation of new guidance,

practitioners in Scottish preschool settings continue to focus on responsive planning and

resourcing for learning and talk little about their opportunities to lead learning (Stephen

2010).

234 C. Stephen

123

The second big idea is that play is the essential medium through which children learn.

Like child-centredness, the valorising of play was present in the early thinking about

educational provision for young children and still echoes through the rhetoric and practices

of preschool practitioners. As Hutt et al. (1989) discovered, the view that what children do

in nursery is play (whether epistemic or ludic behaviour) is one to which practitioners hold

tenaciously. Yet despite the ubiquity of this view the evidence for the efficacy of play as a

pedagogical process is open to question. A review of the literature concluded that ‘play in

practice is problematic’ and that the relationship is more often asserted than evidenced

(BERA Early Years SIG 2003). Nevertheless, play as the way in which 3- to 5-years olds

learn is not only an essential tenet of practitioners’ theory-in-action it is endorsed by policy

in the UK. The first curriculum guidance for preschool education in Scotland (SCCC 1999)

described play as ‘making a powerful contribution to children’s learning’ and went on to

claim 16 learning outcomes as the result of opportunities for play. The current curriculum

guidance claims that all areas of the curriculum can be ‘enriched and developed through

play’ (Scottish Executive 2007). There continues to be a debate about the characteristics of

play and the contribution of ‘spontaneous play’ and ‘planned, purposeful play’. Never-

theless, as Brooker (2011) suggests, if practitioners think about children as individuals who

play, whose appropriate environment is a playroom and whose disposition is to be playful

this will influence the opportunities the youngsters are offered, the behaviour expected and

the ways in which adults interact with them.

Discussion

This paper set out to look for theory in preschool education. This review of the influences

that shape practice suggests that the experiences of 3- to 5-year olds might not be the result

of ‘a theory of preschool education’ but rather that playroom actions and experience are the

product of multiple, and sometimes contradictory, understandings and conceptualisations

of children, childhood, learning and the purposes of education. I have argued above that

although practitioner engagement with explicit theory is limited most will have some

recourse to the work of Piaget and Vygotsky. But explicit theory is not the only influence

on early years education. Practitioners have tacit understandings and engage with dis-

courses about practice which reflect their values and experiences and the views of others in

their community of practice and which make a difference as they ‘think on their feet’ in the

playroom. Implicit and explicit understandings about children’s learning and expectations

about what is normal and desirable in a playroom make a difference to their everyday

experiences, influencing the learning opportunities and resources in the playroom, the daily

schedule (e.g. free play, adult-initiated games, whole group time), the nature of interactions

with practitioners (perhaps co-constructing, challenging or observing) and the form of

recording and assessment.

If we think of theory as scientific theory—a single, connected set of tested ideas which

explain and offer predictions for outcomes—then the conclusion is that there is no pre-

school education theory. On the other hand, if educational theory is thought of as an

attempt to compile principles for practice then preschool education is not short of theories

and theorising, both explicit and implicit, from which to start this task. The understandings

that might be considered as preschool education theory are saturated with ideas about how

things ‘ought to be’, whether in terms of practices, pedagogy or outcomes for children. In

some cases these views rest on theories about the processes of learning and the con-

struction of knowledge. Other perspectives arise from ideological positions about the

Looking for Theory in Preschool Education 235

123

nature of children and childhood, political positions on educational outcomes, traditional

and deeply held practices about what makes preschool distinctive and value positions

shared by communities and societies. The disciplinary identity of preschool educational

theory is a matter for debate (Biesta 2009). In so far as it draws on ideas from psychology,

sociology, philosophy and even political science and economics it might be considered an

interdisciplinary field rather than an autonomous discipline. But the normative and practice

orientation of preschool educational understandings suggest that this is nearer to the tra-

dition of ‘Padagogik’ which set out to ‘generate guidelines about the right way of action in

educational practice’ (Biesta 2009, p. 12).

In addition to the debate about the ‘identity’ of preschool theory are questions about

whether it should be more appropriately conceived as local or global. Dominant thinking and

teaching about preschool education has certainly been specific to historical, social and

political contexts. For example, Vygotsky’s ideas have been widely and enthusiastically

accepted in early years research, policy and practice since the 1980’s but they were not

welcomed in the 1930’s in the Soviet Union. The strength of cultural traditions and the power

of tacit understandings and local discourses seem likely to resist any attempt to assert a global

‘theory of preschool education’. For instance, ‘Western’ ideas about the value of freely

chosen child-centred play and the avoidance of didactic pedagogic interactions create ten-

sions with the Confucian tradition in China (Tobin et al. 2009). In the context of Australasia,

writers such as Fleer and McNaughton have challenged what they see as the hegemony of

Western thinking about preschool education and young children and championed the

development of alternative understandings that relate to the diversity of experience and value

positions in the majority world or multi-cultural nation states such as New Zealand.

The search for a universal set of principles to shape expectations of practice seems

likely to be an ill-fated and flawed endeavour. But articulating a local theory of preschool

education, drawing on the explicit and implicit understandings of practitioners, providers

and policymakers (as representatives of the dominant political perspective) has much to

commend it. Without it practitioners can be ‘stuck’ with ways of thinking about supporting

learning that do not serve them well in contemporary times yet unable to draw on new or

more appropriate theoretical and conceptual ideas. A reliance on consensual notions of

practice and tacit understandings can mean that practitioners are unable to see con-

tradictions or alternatives. They will be ill-equipped to defend their practices in the face of

policy change and challenge, resulting in naıve or inadequately conceptualised amend-

ments to practitioners’ methods (Stephen et al. 2010). Beyond its impact on the everyday

interactions that children have with their peers, practitioners and material resources, local

educational theory influences who gets access to provision, the breadth or narrowness of

the curriculum, the way in which success is evaluated and the values to be prioritised or

transmitted. Preschool education is the result of layers of understandings and value posi-

tions and waves of influential thinking and theorising which might be argued to have

formed local theories-in- and of-practice. Articulating these understandings will reveal

conflicts and tensions but has the potential to enhance children’s experiences and the

practices of the professionals who educate and care for them.

References

Ailwood, J. (2010). Playing with some tensions: Poststructuralism, Foucault and early childhood education.In L. Brooker & S. Edwards (Eds.), Engaging play (pp. 210–222). Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Alexander, R. (2010). The Cambridge primary review. Paper presented at UCET seminar: The implicationsof the Cambridge review for teacher education, Manchester, Mar 2010.

236 C. Stephen

123

Biesta, G. (2009) Disciplinarity and interdisciplinarity in the Academic Study of Education: Comparingtraditions of educational theorising. Paper presented at British Educational Research AssociationConference, Manchester, Sept 2009.

Blaise, M. (2005). A feminist poststructuralist study of children doing gender. Early Childhood ResearchQuarterly, 20, 85–108.

Blaise, M., & Andrew, A. (2005). How ‘bad’ can it be? Troubling gender, sexuality, and early childhoodteaching. In N. Yelland (Ed.), Critical issues in early childhood education (pp. 49–57). Maidenhead:Open University Press.

Bodrova, E. (2008). Make-believe play versus academic skill: A Vygotskian approach to today’s dilemma ofearly childhood education. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 16(3), 357–370.

Bowman, B. T., Donovan, M. S., & Burns, M. S. (2000). Eager to learn educating our preschoolers.Washington DC: The National Academies Press. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309068363. Accessed 25 Feb 2011.

British Educational Research Association (BERA) Early Years Special Interest Group. (2003). Early yearsresearch: Pedagogy, curriculum and adult roles, training and professionalism. http://www.bera.ac.uk/files/2008/09/beraearlyyearsreview31may03.pdf. Accessed 25 Feb 2011.

Brooker, L. (2011). Taking children seriously: reflections on research and practice. Journal of EarlyChildhood Research, 9(2), 137–149.

Bruner, J. (1996). What we have learned about early learning. European Early Childhood EducationResearch Journal, 4(1), 5–15.

Cannella, G. S. (2005). Reconceptualising the field (of early care and education); if ‘western’ childdevelopment is a problem, then what do we do? In N. Yelland (Ed.), Critical issues in early childhoodeducation (pp. 17–39). Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Dahlberg, G., & Moss, P. (2005). Ethics and politics in early childhood education. Abingdon: Routledge.Dahlberg, G., & Moss, P. (2010). Introduction by the series editors. In H. Lenz-Taguchi (Ed.), Going beyond

the theory/practice divide in early childhood education (pp. ix–xx). Abingdon: Routledge.Dahlberg, G., Moss, P., & Pence, A. (1999). Beyond quality in early childhood education and care. London:

Falmer Press.Donaldson, M. (1978). Children’s minds. London: Fontana.Dunlop, A.-W., Lee, P., Fee, J., Hughes, A., Grieve, A., & Marwick, H. (2008). Positive behaviour in the

early years. Edinburgh: The Scottish Government. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/09/12112952/0. Accessed 25 Feb 2011.

Fleer, M., Tonyan, H. A., Mantilla, A. C., & Rivalland, C. M. P. (2009). A cultural-historical analysis ofplay as an activity setting in early childhood education. In M. Fleer, M. Hedegaard, & J. Tudge (Eds.),Childhood studies and the impact of globalization: Policies and practices at global and local levels(pp. 292–312). New York: Routledge.

Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (2nd ed.). London:RoutledgeFalmer.

Hutt, S. J., Tyler, S., Hutt, C., & Christopherson, H. (1989). Play, exploration and learning. London:Routledge.

Isaacs, S. (1932). The nursery years. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.James, A., Jenks, C., & Prout, A. (1998). Theorizing childhood. Cambridge: Polity Press.Learning and Teaching Scotland. (2003). Early learning forward thinking. Glasgow: Learning and Teaching

Scotland.Lenz-Taguchi, H. (2010). Going beyond the theory/practice divide in early childhood education. Abingdon:

Routledge.MacNaughton, G. (2005). Doing Foucault in early childhood studies: Applying poststructural ideas.

London: Routledge.McMillan, M. (1919). The nursery school. New York: E.P. Dutton.Montessori, M. (1966). The secret of childhood. New York: Ballantine Books.National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). (2009). Position statement on

developmentally appropriate practice. http://www.naeyc.org/DAP. Accessed 25 Feb 2011.Olsson, L. M. (2009). Movement and experimentation in young children’s learning. Abingdon: Routledge.Penn, H. (1997). Comparing nurseries. London: Paul Chapman.Plowman, L., & Stephen, C. (2005). Children, play and computers in pre-school education. British Journal

of Educational Technology, 36(2), 145–157.Pramling-Samuelsson, I., & Fleer, M. (2009). Commonalities and distinctions across countries. In I.

Pramling-Samuelsson & M. Fleer (Eds.), Play and learning in early childhood settings internationalperspectives (Vol. 1). New York: Springer.

Looking for Theory in Preschool Education 237

123

Rhedding-Jones, (2003). Feminist methodologies and research for early childhood literacies. In N. Hall, J.Larson, & J. Marsh (Eds.), Handbook of early childhood literacy (pp. 400–410). London: Sage.

Schaffer, H. R. (1990). Making decisions about children—psychological questions and answers. Oxford:Basil Blackwood.

Scottish Consultative Council on the Curriculum (SCCC). (1999). A curriculum framework for children 3 to5. Dundee: SCCC.

Scottish Executive. (2007). Building the curriculum 2: Active learning in the early years. Edinburgh:Scottish Executive.

Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA). (undated). Children’s care learning and development, SVQ level 3.Available at http://www.sqa.org.uk/sqa/7510.htm. Accessed 1 Feb 2012.

Singer, E. (1993). Shared care for children. Theory and Psychology, 3(4), 429–449.Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Sylva, K. (2004). Researching pedagogy in English pre-schools. British Educational

Research Journal, 30(5), 713–730.Stephen, C. (2006). Early Years Education: Perspectives from a review of the international literature.

Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Education Department. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/01/26094635/1. Accessed 25 Feb 2011.

Stephen, C. (2010). Pedagogy: the silent partner in early years learning. Early Years, 30(1), 15–28.Stephen, C., & Brown, S. (2004). The culture of practice in pre-school provision: Outsider and insider

perspectives. Research Papers in Education, 19(3), 323–344.Stephen, C., Brown, S., & Cope, P. (2001). Alternative perspective on playroom practice. International

Journal of Early Years Education, 9(3), 193–205.Stephen, C., Ellis, J., & Martlew, J. (2010). Taking active learning into the primary school: A matter of new

practices? International Journal of Early Years Education, 18(4), 315–329.Stephen, C., & Plowman, L. (2007). Enhancing learning with information and communication technologies

in pre-school. Early Child Development and Care, 178(6), 637–654.Sumsion, J. (2005). Preschool children’s portrayals of their male teacher: A poststructuralist analysis. In N.

Yelland (Ed.), Critical issues in early childhood education (pp. 58–80). Maidenhead: Open UniversityPress.

Tassoni, P. (2008). S/NVQ level 3 children’s care, learning and development: Candidate handbook. Oxford:Heinemann.

The Scottish Government. (2008). The early years framework. Edinburgh: The Scottish Government.http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2009/01/13095148/2. Accessed 25 Feb 2011.

The Scottish Government. (2009). Preschool and childcare statistics 2009 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2009/09/22154942/34. Accessed 25 Feb 2011.

Tobin, J., Hsueh, Y., & Karasawa, M. (2009). Preschool in three cultures revisited. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.

Wagner, J. T. (2006). An outsider’s perspective: Childhoods and early education in the Nordic countries. InJ. Einarsdottir & J. T. Wagner (Eds.), Nordic childhoods and early education (pp. 289–306). Green-wich: Information Age Publishing.

Yelland, N., & Kilderry, A. (2005). Against the tide: new ways in early childhood education. In N. Yelland(Ed.), Critical issues in early childhood education (pp. 1–13). Maidenhead: Open University Press.

238 C. Stephen

123