Early Childhood Education Systematic literature review from 2011 to 2021
COURSE: Thesis Project, 15 hp
PROGRAMME: International Master’s Program in Swedish Preschool Education
AUTHOR: Nhi V Ngc Yn
SUPERVISOR: Josefin Rostedt
EXAMINER: Beth Ferholt
SEMESTER: Spring, 2021
___________________________________________________________________________
Nhi V
Preschool teacher’s perspective on the reconceptualization of caring in teaching context in Swedish
Early Childhood Education
___________________________________________________________________________
The Educare model has been represented in Swedish preschool history from the 1970s onward and is described in the
Swedish preschool national curriculum. This curriculum presents a holistic view of care, learning, and development.
Currently, Early Childhood Education and Care preschool teachers in Sweden have been presented with a new keyword –
“teaching” - in preschool practices. The addition of the term “teaching” has placed a high emphasis on strengthening the
teaching mission in the Swedish preschool nation curriculum. As the focus of preschool has been adjusted and shifting
towards knowledge, and education, preschool teachers do not know how to maintain the Swedish preschool tradition and
at the same time, strive for curriculum goals. Care has been seen as secondary in the context of the new demand for
teaching. There are some questions and concerns regarding how much room is given to care in teaching situations. This
study investigates how care is conducted and understood by Swedish preschool teachers in teaching activities in previous
research studies. This study may highlight the tension not only between care and education but also the reformed curriculum
and teacher’s insights about care and teaching in their actual practices. The research questions are: What is the position of
care that is given in teaching activities by Swedish preschool teachers in previous research?; And how does the characteristic
of care support teaching practices by preschool teachers in Sweden? The Developmental Pedagogy Theory was used to
analyze data in four articles, with the purpose of investigating the position and characteristic of care according to preschool
teacher’s perspectives. Analysis of this systematic literature review raised awareness of not only the multilayers and
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
Swedish Preschool Education
2.1.1. Teaching in the Swedish preschool policy ................................................................ 3
2.1.2. The reinterpretation of care ....................................................................................... 5
2.2 Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................... 6
2.2.1 Developmental Pedagogy .................................................................................... 6
2.2.2 Process of teaching and learning in Developmental Pedagogy. ......................... 7
2.2.3. The role of variations in developmental pedagogy .............................................. 9
2.2.4. Additional concepts ............................................................................................ 11
3.1 Research Aims ........................................................................................................... 13
3.2 Research questions .................................................................................................... 13
4.2 PICo Framework ....................................................................................................... 14
4.3 Literature selection criteria (inclusion and exclusion of articles) ............................. 15
4.4 Search Strategies and sources ................................................................................... 17
4.5 Literature Selection Process ...................................................................................... 19
4.6 Data extraction .......................................................................................................... 20
4.7 Quality assessment .................................................................................................... 21
4.8 Data analysis .............................................................................................................. 22
5.1.1 Care as a form of teaching ..................................................................................... 25
5.1.2 Characteristic of care as form of teaching.......................................................... 26
5.1.3 Care as a content subject .................................................................................... 28
5.1.4 Characteristic of care as content subject............................................................ 30
6. Discussion ........................................................................................................................ 32
6.1 Care in framework of Developmental Pedagogy ...................................................... 32
6.2 Relating care to teaching and learning in preschool teacher’s perspectives ............ 35
6.3 Limitations ................................................................................................................ 36
7. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 36
Appendix B – Data Extraction Protocol .................................................................................
1
1. Introduction
In all human society, the concept of care has been widely recognized in many fields, such as
philosophy, psychology, political science, library science, business, nursing, religion, and, especially,
education (Noddings, 2012). According to Noddings’ theory (2003), caring is defined as both the
caregiver and the care recipient contributing to a caring relation. Noddings emphasizes that this
relation is reciprocal, which allows for an examination of caring from both the teachers’ and children’s
viewpoints. In the educational context, care is normally seen as an ordinary interaction, which focuses
on children’s well-being, needs, and development (Rockel, 2009, p. 2). According to Fugelsnes (2018),
caring in early childhood education and care (ECEC) engages a multitude of actions performed by
educators as part of their daily work with children. On one hand, caring can be performed as nursing.
On the other, caring can also contain ethical dimensions, which are not limited to any specific
scenarios (Pramling Samuelsson, 2001). That said, care is regarded as the backbone in the role of
ECEC practitioners. (Katz & Goffin, 1990; Diderichsen & Thyssen, 2005).
In Nordic ECEC, researchers have pointed out the fundamental role of care in early years education
(Broström, 2006; Johansson, 2013; Johansson & Pramling Samuelsson, 2001). Quality of preschool
services requires both ‘care’ and ‘education’ as intertwined concepts (European Commission, 2011;
Eurydice, 2009; UNESCO, 2010). That is how the concept of Educare was internationally found
(Broström, 2006a). More importantly, Educare means high-quality care and education in a well-
balanced mix (Jönsson, Sandell & Tallberg-Broman, 2012). It is argued that quality in ECEC should
embody a broad, holistic view on learning, caring, upbringing, and social support for children. In
Sweden, the Educare model has been characterized in the Swedish preschool history from the 1970s
onward and is often held up as the central feature of the Swedish preschool (OECD, 2001; 2006;
Moss, 2006).
Despite that, the views on Educare have been changing lately (Brodin & Renblad, 2014). Particularly,
the term Educare is described as a combination of the historical foundation in care as well as the
objective of readiness for school and lifelong learning in ECEC in Sweden. Several scholars examining
the Swedish preschool argue that the term “care” seems to be less important not only in steering
documents but also in both preschool planning and evaluation documents (Löfdahl and Pérez Prieto,
2009). The focus of preschool has been adjusted and shifted towards knowledge, education, and
learning, which means the use of the term care has been moved away from care-oriented to
2
educational-oriented service (Löfdahl & Folke-Fichtelius, 2015). More specifically, care has been
placed in a more pedagogical context, which “could be connected to two other words that should be
used in preschool: education and teaching” (Niklasson, 2013, p.73).
Considering that ECEC preschool teachers have been presented with a new relationship between care
and teaching in preschool practices, it becomes essential to understand how teaching and care have
been displayed and addressed in the Swedish preschool curriculum. In 2010, the term teaching was
introduced as a new concept in the Educational Act of 2010 (SFS, 2010, 800). In 2011, the curriculum
showed a growing tendency towards pedagogic work. For instance, the increase in educational
activities was fundamental to strive for goals concerning mathematics, literacy, science, and technology
in children’s learning and development (Skolverket, 2011). In 2018, the concept of teaching was
officially placed for the first time in the Swedish preschool curriculum (Skolverket, 2018) and came
into force in 2019. The curriculum states that the holistic perspective combining care, development,
and learning is paramount for the improvement of education and teaching: “Preschool teachers should
lead the goal-oriented processes and assume responsibility in teaching for care, development and
learning forming a whole” (Skolverket, 2018, p. 20). A critical tension can be noted here. The
curriculum gives a full picture of preschool teacher’s multifaceted responsibilities concerning teaching,
while the teaching instruction is vague and left to be interpreted by each preschool and preschool
teacher (e.g.: section “Responsibilities of preschool teachers in teaching”) (Skolverket, 2018).
Preschool teachers are required to emphasize care and nurturing, while at the same time prioritize
educational-oriented activities for children’s learning and development (Bennett, 2005). In other
words, care needs to be integrated into teaching to stimulate the children’s interests and curiosity,
which is to reinforce children’s development and learning (Skolverket, 2018). Taking into
consideration the values and foundation of preschool, and since “teaching” and “caring” are now both
part of the teacher’s work description, it may be unclear in what way care is used to support the
preschool teacher in teaching activities and to improve preschool’s quality. Thus, preschool teachers
feel confused and under pressure when engaging in teaching in classroom activities (Alvestad & Berge,
2009; Löfdahl Hultman, et al., 2015).
The aim of this research is to examine how care is communicated and conducted by Swedish preschool
teachers in previous research, and how care supports preschool teachers when it comes to teaching
situations. This may highlight the tension not only between care and education but also between the
reformed policy and teacher’s insights about care and teaching in their actual practices.
3
The results of this study indicate the current preschool teachers’ understanding and experience of
implementation of care in teaching practices as well as how their individual interpretations of care are
documented in different preschool teaching activities in previous studies.
2. Background/Prior research
2.1 Tension between caring and teaching
The foundation of the Swedish preschool system is built upon the Nordic Model (Einarsdottir et al.,
2015, Kristjiansson, 2006). This model has the pedagogical approach as a central theme, which forms
a well-balanced structure where teaching, play, and care are unified.
Hilden et al. (2021) argues that overlap between care and teaching can lead to ambiguity in preschool,
as the concept of care could be viewed as secondary in the preschool teaching profession and related
practices. On a similar note, several research articles (Maniates, 2016; Dockett and Perry 2014; Sisson
2011; Sofou and Tsafos 2009) indicate that Swedish preschool teachers fear the domination of
teaching over care within the preschool activity, that is, the replacement of care for pure teaching
activities.
2.1.1. Teaching in the Swedish preschool policy
In 2010, preschool teaching was defined for the first time in the Swedish Educational Act (SFS, 2010,
800). Meanwhile, teaching has not been stated in the Swedish preschool curriculum until the latest
revision in 2019 (Skolverket, 2018). The term teaching can be described as the “preschool teachers’
conscious support of children’s goal-oriented learning and development (SSI 2016, 12, translated from
Swedish)” (Hilden et al., 2021, p. 2). A similar note translated by Bourbour (2020) interprets teaching
as a goal-driven procedure in which preschool teachers follow children’s interests and curiosity, so
they become interested and engaged in the specific subject content. Changes in both the Educational
Act and preschool curriculum firmly reinforce the concept of teaching as a new mission of preschool
teachers (Eidevald & Engdahl, 2018). Along the same lines, Westman and Bergmark (2013) have stated
that in the Swedish preschool revised curriculum a high emphasis is placed on the word ‘teaching’,
which strengthens the teaching mission of preschool teachers.
As the practice of Educare embraces holistic teaching methods fostering care, social and emotional
learning while providing children’s cognitive learning experiences, teaching has been placed in “the
4
task of preschool – holistic view” and “responsibilities of preschool teachers in teaching” sections,
which strongly connects teaching to care, development and learning (OECD, 2006; Skolverket, 2018;
Bourbour, 2020). Despite the guidelines and goals with detailed bullet points in the Swedish
curriculum, Sheridan et al. (2011) argues that the teaching guidelines are ambiguous and vague, which
opens the text to different interpretations from each municipality or preschool. Additionally, research
has revealed that preschool teachers are uncertain about how to keep up with the goal-driven teaching,
which may involve children’s care, play, and development as well as the achievement of curriculum
goals (Nilsson, Ferholt, & Lecusay, 2017; Björklund, 2014; Siraj Blatchford, 2010). With this
confusion, it is apparent that the tension between long-established tradition and new policy reforms
is a challenge in current Swedish ECEC practice.
More explicitly, tradition stands for deeply rooted beliefs of preschool teachers about education, such
as the belief that preschool is primarily a place to play, while new policies place emphasis on teaching,
which may lead to obstacles for preschool teachers in their daily practice (Hargreaves, 2005;
Kelchtermans, 2005; Soler & Miller, 2003). For instance, preschool teachers may be required to
stipulate tasks according to goals that pertain to content knowledge such as language, mathematics,
science, and technology, as well as goals concerning children’s care, social and democratic
development (Skolverket, 2018). Thus, teaching is characterized as both a demanding and challenging
mission, while at the same time it ensures the quality and higher status of the practice. Thulin (2011)
argues that these challenges are traced from two matters, a lack of theoretical tools to reinforce the
new missions, and a lack of knowledge concerning content-subject areas. As a result, Bennett (2005)
and Persson (2008) have discussed that the preschool teacher’s profession has become more complex
and multifaceted. Therefore, teachers feel more pressure when participating in teaching (Alvestad &
Berge, 2009; Löfdahl Hultman, et al., 2015).
Löfdahl and Folke-Fichtelius (2015) argue that the core tension between care and teaching is
questioned by many researchers who investigate whether care and teaching should be considered a
dichotomy. They believe that “the preschool deserves to have questions asked about how care is
carried out and the contexts in which it is expressed, since only then will other aspects of quality than
learning be visible.” (Löfdahl and Folke-Fichtelius, 2015, p. 269).
5
2.1.2. The reinterpretation of care
Contradicting the notion of teaching and care as a dichotomy, Broström (2006) argues that “by
selection of an educational content (a problem, subject, theme, etc.) through care, teaching, and
upbringing the child-care worker helps the child to appropriate and construct his or her own meaning
and understanding” (p. 406). Care is more than just taking care of children or babysitting, and teaching
is not only about the transmission of pre-defined knowledge (Broström, 2006). Thus, learning does
not mean directly teaching “in a somewhat authoritarian manner” and is not “seen as being absolutely
against children’s needs and interests” (p. 393). Due to a lack of shared concepts, making the
collaboration between care, teaching, and development in practices is a challenge.
In line with that, both theorists Knud E. Løgstrup (1997) and Nell Noddings (2012) view caring as a
reciprocal relation between two parties: the caregiver, or the carer, and the care-receiver, or the cared-
for. Noddings (2003) explains further that caring needs to be established and sustained to contribute
to the relation of care and trust between both parties. Løgstrup (1997) offers a similar definition,
emphasizing the bond between humans. Trust is an essential element contributing to our
interdependence. Trust and care are key aspects in the caring relationship, which needs time and effort
to build (Noddings, 2012). Noddings further discusses that this effort may demand the carer to engage
in listening, thinking, communicating, and making thoughtful connections among the disciplines and
to life itself. Listening is a powerful method to signal children that they are being heard and respected.
This can open up dialogues, communication between the two parties in a way that enables teachers to
understand children’s thoughts, feelings, and expressed needs.
Care ethics underlines the crucial difference between assumed needs and expressed needs. In this
regard, it is essential not to confuse what the children want to know/learn with what the teacher thinks
they should want/learn/know. Sometimes when the needs are obvious, teachers respond right away.
However, there are times when further consideration is necessary. In this case, Noddings (2012) claims
that it is fundamental to ask, think, reflect, and answer to the expressed needs, which can reinforce
and maintain the relations of care and trust amongst both parties. On a similar note, Hansen (2013)
indicates that by sharing with an open mind, teachers are learning new things about themselves as well
as about the children. Løgstrup (1997) argues that the trust shown by children incites in teachers an
attraction to take care of them. Noddings hopes that caring relations will be spread not only amongst
two parties but also between the children and the world. Hopefully, caring attitudes from the teacher
may extend and stay with children into their both professional and civic life (Noddings, 2012, p.779).
6
The combinations of Noddings’ (2003), Løgstrup’s (1997), and Hansen’s (2013) definitions open up
an extensive understanding of caring as a reciprocal relation between the carer/teacher and the cared-
for/child involving not only children’s well-being, needs, and development but also the development
of caring relations in both parties, which promotes teachers’ teaching and children’s learning through
caring.
Therefore, through caring, it is necessary for the Swedish preschool teachers to enable to identify
“teaching possibilities that are suitable for the children, considering children’s different pre-existing
knowledge and interests, and adapting teaching methods in-action” (Björklund and Ahlskog-
Björkman, 2018, p.91). This suggests that there are variations on how teaching and caring are
orchestrated in relation to both teachers' and children’s knowledge and experience with the
phenomenon (subject content, theme, etc.) (Björklund and Ahlskog-Björkman, 2018).
As a result, Broström (2006) suggests building a new theoretical concept and a new kind of knowledge
that supports, initiates a new practice, a new system that is neither school nor preschool. In this new
context, “a care/well-being culture and a teaching/learning culture coexist.” (p. 406). On a similar
note, Pramling Samuelsson (2006) offers a pedagogical approach – Developmental Pedagogy – that
crosses traditional boundaries and is neither traditional preschool nor status-quo compulsory school.
The theoretical approach offers interaction and communication between teachers and children, which
supports and links the children’s experiences to the content knowledge and promotes the achievement
of intersubjectivity or sustained shared thinking (Pramling & Pramling Samuelsson, 2011). In the next
section, this shared space between caring, playing, learning, teaching in the Developmental Pedagogy
approach is thoroughly described.
2.2 Theoretical Framework
2.2.1 Developmental Pedagogy
In this study, Developmental Pedagogy (Pramling Samuelsson, 2006) is used as the theoretical
framework that guides the data analysis and interpretation. This approach focuses on both children’s
learning and the teacher’s teaching strategies for creating learning opportunities (Pramling Samuelsson
& Pramling, 2016). The framework is meant to focus on children’s development, awareness, and
sense-making of a wide repertoire of different ways of seeing/understanding phenomena (associated
skills, knowledge, and values) during the early years (Pramling Samuelsson & Pramling, 2016). In other
words, this framework is a specific perspective on teaching and learning, where children’s perspectives
7
take the spotlight. The notion of developmental pedagogy shares “the ontological premise of
phenomenography of a non-dualistic perspective on knowledge, where the object and the subject are
interrelated” (Pramling Samuelsson & Pramling, 2016, p. 290).
In line with this non-dualistic perspective, Pramling Samuelsson (2006) claims that learning and
development being sides of the same coin’ connected or related to the child (subject) and the world
(object) being interdependent. The world is experienced differently by each child, as determined by
their varied life experiences. Particularly, the child’s understanding of the world forms his/her
personality and affects how they internalize knowledge (Samuelsson, 2006; Pramling Samuelsson &
Pramling, 2016). Once the child makes sense of new knowledge, he or she can make use of that
knowledge in new situations and gradually engage in collective learning (Marton, 1992). In other
words, children’s learning and development are dependent on both their prior experiences and the
way they are taught, and with every new piece of knowledge obtained, their understandings may
change. Therefore, the relation between the child and the world is central within learning and teaching,
and this must be taken into consideration along with learning objectives and goals, the process of
learning, and the outcomes that result from that process. (Samuelsson, 2006).
2.2.2 Process of teaching and learning in Developmental Pedagogy.
From the non-dualistic perspective, the process of teaching and learning in Developmental Pedagogy
is based on how children’s understanding connects to their earlier experiences and surroundings. The
child and the world are the core foundation of teaching and learning. Particularly, the process includes
three major steps: initial phase - the phase of the intended object of learning, during phase - the phase
of the enacted object of learning, and after phase - the phase of the lived object of learning.
Initial phase – The phase of the intended object of learning
The intended object of learning is often understood as an initial phase when the teacher’s attention is
oriented towards what skills/knowledge the children are going to develop. For instance, Swedish
preschools have traditionally set up intended objects of learning that revolve around a broad range of
topics, such as skills to make instruments, social competence, the development of self-reliance, etc.
(Samuelsson, 2006).
During phase – the phase of the enacted object of learning
The enacted object of learning is viewed as the way children learn by acting, doing, imitating,
communicating, experimenting. It is seen as the strategies the teachers use to make the intended object
of learning possible for children to learn and engage themselves in e.g., communication, interaction,
encouragement between the teacher and the children and between the children themselves, etc.
(Marton, Runesson, & Tsui, 2004). In this phase, as an act of learning occurs, children may attain
various interpretations of the intended object of learning, which I prefer to call ‘variations’. Therefore,
preschool teachers should be aware that children themselves produce many variations in what is
learned during the phase of the enacted object of learning.
After phase -the phase of the lived object of learning
The lived object of learning is defined as knowledge or skills that are perceived and expressed differently
by the children’s understandings after the teaching phase. The experience of the child with the
intended and enacted objects of learning forms the outcome of the activities, the lived object of
learning (it is possibly very different from the intended or enacted object of learning) (Marton and
Tsui 2004; Marton 2015). Having said that, what a teacher expects to build knowledge upon may not
be what the teaching situation motivates the children to explore, “since different experiences among
the learners inform what they discern as prominent and relevant” (Björklund & Ahlskog-Björkman,
2018, p. 93).
The following example describes a process of teaching and learning related to how children learn to
use symbols in the three previously described phases: (1) the intended object of learning, (2) the
enacted object of learning, and (3) the lived object of learning.
In the first phase, a preschool teacher defines an intended object of learning in line with the goals expressed
in the national curriculum (e.g.: literacy, mathematics, science, etc.), which in this example are alphabet
letters used to communicate within a given culture. Then, in the during phase, the enacted object of
learning is indicated as the set of activities that guides the children towards the intended object of
learning, in this case, alphabet letters. Children enter the act of learning by engaging with and exploring
alphabet letters through teacher-initiated activities or spontaneous activities. For instance, the children
can put letters into words, or spell/write letters in the way it sounds right to them, etc. This enables
them to experience knowledge from the intended object of learning, the enacted object of learning,
or both. Finally, in the after-phase, the teacher may want to evaluate what letters the children have
9
learned, that is, to analyze how they express their letters in writing, which is the lived object of learning. The
lived object of learning, that is, the knowledge and experience acquired by the child, may or may not
be in line with the initial intended object of learning (Samuelsson, 2006).
2.2.3. The role of variations in developmental pedagogy
Developmental pedagogy emphasizes children’s learning and teacher’s teaching strategies for
producing learning opportunities (Samuelsson, 2006). Such opportunities foster children’s learning of
the intended subjects, which can happen with variations. More specifically, such variations are attained
from children’s differing backgrounds and circumstances or the repetition in children’s early
childhood experience. Valsiner (1989) discusses that variations in how children assimilate the intended
object of learning may be produced due to their many differing, unique childhood backgrounds and
prior experiences. Samuelsson (2006) argues that “variation must have some traces of familiar, the
routine in order to capture and capitalize upon the power of children’s previous experience as the
backdrop for new experience” (p. 119). Learning can be seen as a process to prepare children for the
unknown (the intended object of learning) by using the known (can be the enacted object of learning).
Therefore, variation can be flexibly taken as a tool to not only understand children but also set up new
intended objects of learning which they show interest in.
Results taken from Pramling and Mardsjo’s (1997) evidence shows that children who undergo
variation obtain a deeper understanding of the content knowledge (Samuelsson, 2006). Obtaining a
deeper understanding of the content knowledge means that children have an opportunity to
demonstrate the variation in expressions. Furthermore, as this knowledge is placed back as the content
of the educational process in developmental activities in preschool, it gives a new and advanced
opportunity for children to think, talk and reflect. It is namely meta-cognition and meta-
communication (Samuelsson, 2006). Thus, the content in developmental activities is added after the lived
object of learning, which manifests a full picture of the educational procedure of the Developmental
Pedagogy theory. Moreover, it also extends chances to identify and analyze all facets of care mentioned
and captured by the preschool teacher in the retrieved articles. During my analysis, the diagram shown
in Figure 1 was created to depict the process of teaching and learning that occurs in multiple layers.
The diagram illustrates how different kinds of objects of learning are performed and understood when
organizing teaching activities concerning the early-year curriculum.
10
Figure 1 Self-created model of the educational procedure of the Developmental Pedagogy theory.
After phase: Expressed
Lived object of learning A Lived object of learning B
Content in developmental
2.2.4. Additional concepts
In this study, to make it possible to describe a comprehensive structure with multiple layers of
pedagogical objects, I chose to add concepts from the Variation Theory (Marton, 2015). In that
framework, the intended object of learning can be classified into two more sub-categories: the intended
direct object of learning and the intended indirect object of learning.
The intended direct object of learning is described as the knowledge/skills the child is explicitly expected to
develop;
The intended indirect object of learning refers to general skills teachers implicitly talk about as primary goals,
but these skills are invisible in the actual practice (Björklund & Ahlskog-Björkman, 2018).
The different objects of learning can be included and intertwined in the entire learning process, as
each element is mutually related to the others. As a result, we end up with four types of objects of
learning, which fulfill the model of teaching and learning process according to the Developmental
Pedagogy.
3. The enacted object of learning.
4. The lived object of learning.
In all aspects of the objects of learning, care can be used and placed in various ways. Figure 2 below
depicts the completed self-created framework of the educational procedure described in the
Developmental Pedagogy theory, along with elements of the Variation Theory.
12
Figure 2 The completed self-created model of process of teaching and learning in preschool.
Expressed
VISIBLE
Content in developmental
3.1 Research Aims
As the term “teaching” is introduced for the first time in the Swedish preschool curriculum in 2018,
Swedish preschools have been highly emphasizing the importance of teaching as a means of
supporting children’s learning and development. The Swedish preschool curriculum describes
teaching in two sections: “care, development and learning” and “responsibilities of teachers in
teaching”. In this context, teaching can be defined as a process in which caring, upbringing, and
learning form a whole. Adding to this, Persson (2015) emphasizes that “quality in preschool education
is a combination of responsive care and high-quality teaching” (p. 123). Due to this combination of
teaching and care in newer policies and studies, it becomes crucial for researchers and preschool
teachers themselves to investigate how preschool teachers understand these concepts and the relation
between them. Thus, the aim of this research is to examine how the concept of care supports the
Swedish preschool teachers in teaching practices in previous research.
3.2 Research questions
1. In previous research, what position is care given in teaching activities by Swedish preschool
teachers?
2. How does the characteristic of care support teaching practices by preschool teachers in
Sweden?
4.1 Systematic literature review
In this work, I conducted a systematic literature review (S.L.R) I collected and critically reviewed
findings in articles pertaining to how preschool teachers in Sweden think of/integrate/engage care in
teaching in preschools. S.L.R aim to find the full extent of the research which reliably meets a selection
of criteria to identify and explain individual research questions (Gough, Oliver & Thomas, 2017).
The S.L.R process used in this work is described in the work of Bryman (2016) as a replicable, scientific
process aiming to downplay the bias “through exhaustive literature searches of published studies”
(Bryman, 2016, p. 99). In other words, S.L.R is a secondary analysis of already published data. There
14
are five steps in S.L.R: (1) define the purpose and scope of the review, (2) seek out studies relevant to
the scope and purpose of the review, (3) assess the relevance of each chosen study regarding research
aim, and questions, (4) appraise the studies from step 3, (5) analyze each study and synthesize the
results.
Step 1 is usually a preparation phase that requires, thorough searches and digging into the field of care
and teaching to acknowledge what has been examined, written, and researched. Furthermore, this step
also supports narrowing down the topic (e.g.: caring teaching, or care and teaching or care in teaching)
and the research aim, identifying askable research questions in S.L.R. and also finding out different
synonyms used in each study in different databases to get ready for step 2.
In steps 2 and 3, the aim is to create relevant search terms, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and conduct
the search. In these two steps, the process of screening is done based on titles, abstracts, and full texts
in order to choose relevant literature research. The articles that fail to meet inclusion criteria are
eliminated. A data extraction protocol is created capturing all the details of the retrieved articles to
increase the transparency of the process and the quality of the articles.
In step 4, all the selected articles are assessed based on the quality assessment checklist which includes
crucial aspects such as study purpose, prior background, study design, sampling, data collection, and
data analysis. It is necessary to know that the chosen articles are appropriate and qualified before
synthesizing the results.
Lastly, in step 5, a formal protocol is applied to record features of these studies. This phase involves
the summary of narrative synthesis (qualitative) of the research. As qualitative studies are the focus of
my research, it particularly uses a narrative to summarize the key findings from the studies regarding
the research questions and then analyze them.
4.2 PICo Framework
Working on the first step, it is necessary to develop well-identified research questions. Therefore, the
application of the Population - Interest - Context (PICo) framework is utilized in qualitative studies
to outline the components of research questions, which include population or problem, interest, and
context. The rationale is provided in Table 1 below:
15
Table 1. PICo framework applied to aim and research questions:
PICo
Population
Interest
Context
The positions of care
4.3 Literature selection criteria (inclusion and exclusion of articles)
The inclusion and exclusion criteria were established according to the aim and review questions of
this study. These criteria were specified before the search was carried out and applied to direct the
literature selection and used also in the process of data extraction. As the attempt is to investigate care
in teaching activities in Sweden, one of the first inclusion criteria was care in teaching. Research or
journals that touched upon that aspect were, therefore, included. If the studies focused on mainly
teaching, or teaching professions, they were excluded. Included studies had to focus on children
between one- and six-years attending preschool. Studies that focused on children six years old or
above in preschool class, in after-school class, or children with special needs were excluded in this
review. Furthermore, the following characteristics were also taken as inclusion criteria: peer-reviewed
research and/or scientific journals; investigated within Sweden; preschools working on the revised
Swedish curriculum; written in English; and published within a specific time frame: 2011-2021. The
timeframe from 2011 was selected because of two reasons. The first one is that both the Educational
Act and the Swedish preschool curriculum were revised and came into force in 2010 and 2011. The
second reason is that the term “teaching” was introduced in the Educational Act in 2010 and later also
published for its first time in the Swedish preschool curriculum Lpfo 18 - Skolverket 2018. For these
reasons, many changes within the Swedish preschool system have been documented and captured in
the previous research that followed from 2011 onwards. These inclusion and exclusion criteria had a
significant influence on the search strategy and search strings, which was described in detail under the
section “Search strategies and source”.
The table 2 below depicts the inclusion- / exclusion criteria.
Table 2. Selection criteria
Preschool teachers.
6 years old children in preschool class, afterschool class.
Children with special needs.
Settings/Location Preschools in Sweden working on Swedish preschool curriculum.
Preschool in other countries.
Preschool class in Sweden.
Family childcare.
Publication Peer reviewed articles
Quantitative studies
Systematic reviews
Mixed-method studies
Content in teaching
Only focus on teaching
Availability Available full text Not in full text
Language English language In another language than English
17
4.4 Search Strategies and sources
Firstly, one of the search strategies was to choose scholarly relevant databases related to care in
teaching practices in Swedish preschool. Therefore, the four most common electronic databases
operated in the scholarly field of education were selected, namely ERIC, nb-ecec.org, ProQuest
Central, and Taylor & Francis Online. Secondly, the adopted search terms contained identified
keywords and synonyms from the two research questions. The search terms were: early childhood
education or preschool, kindergarten, early years, daycare; teach, teaching; care, caring; curriculum, curricula; Sweden,
Swedish. The search included differing keywords determined by different databases to ensure a
maximum result of relevant articles for the aim of this study. Since there is a restricted number of
articles in the literature using caring teaching as a specific academic term, it was easier for the investigative
process of this research to rephrase caring teaching to the concept of care in teaching practices in Swedish
preschool.
The intention in using synonyms, Boolean operators, and truncations was to collect more accurate
studies and improve the quality of the search result. More specifically, Boolean operators such as
“AND”, “OR”, and “NOT” contributed to either broaden or narrow down the search and ensure all
relevant articles were included (Jesson et al., 2011). Truncations were made so that some keywords
and root words were produced. These root words were used along with the star sign (*) so that the
databases could provide results that included the root words in combination with any possible ending
to that root word (e.g.: curricul* = curriculum and curricula). Moreover, quotation marks were used
around some search terms to include them as a whole phrase.
The search strings used in the databases ERIC and ProQuest Central were quite similar, which were:
“early childhood education” OR preschool OR kindergarten AND teach* car* curricul* AND Swed*.
The phrase used in nb-ecec.org was teaching in Swedish preschool, and the phrase “teaching mission in Swedish
preschool” was used in Taylor & Francis Online. The term “mission” was added in the Taylor & Francis
Online search term, since it helped to narrow down the range of articles regarding teaching as a new
mission in accordance with the latest Swedish preschool curriculum while the result turned to be 0 if
the term “mission” was added in the nb-ecec.org database. During the search process, additional
advanced filters were applied according to the search options in each database. Those are expressed
in Table 4 below.
18
Finally, the order of search is described in the search protocol, which contains six columns: title of the
database, dates of conducted search, search terms, number of results, information of advanced search,
and titles of articles.
ERIC NB-ECEC ProQuest Taylor & Francis
Online
Online
Peer-reviewed
Modify the search:
Title: teaching, preschool
Note *The filter for language is not available in nb-ecec.org and Taylor & Francis Online databases,
and published date is not ready on nb-ecec.org.
19
20
ProQuest Central, nb-ecec.org, ERIC, and Taylor & Francis Online got 142 hits in total. As the first
step, the results were exported and downloaded into a personal computer and then imported into the
Rayyan website in one of its accepted formats (e.g. Endnote, RIS, CSV, PubMed XML, CIW). Rayyan
is a free, secure web tool with significant storage to upload, store and monitor exported results to
facilitate the process of screening and selecting retrieved articles. Later, one more article was added,
and the total amount of retrieved articles became 143. The last article was selected using a snowball
sample, that is, seeking the reference lists from other found articles.
The second step was to scan the titles. 120 articles were discarded as a result of the application of
inclusion and exclusion criteria. Reasons for exclusion included: wrong population group, such as
preschool teacher students or preschool heads; wrong settings like preschool class, family childcare,
or after school. On top of that, another 2 articles were removed as duplicates, which downed the
number of retrieved articles to 21. In the third step, the process of screening is carried on with the
title-abstract evaluation. Many titles and abstracts focused on preschool teacher’s competence, or
professional profiles, which were incompatible with the aims of this study. Afterward, 13 articles
remained as candidates for the full-text screening.
The fourth step is full-text screening. After reading thoroughly the remaining 13 articles in their
entirety, 9 studies were deemed not qualified for use based on the selection criteria. Particularly, there
were mismatches, for example, inappropriate outcome (focuses only on teaching, touching, or bodily
interaction). During the full-text screening, the data collection methodology and theoretical
framework sections received more attention. Finally, there were 4 qualified articles for this study. Figure
3 depicts the summary of the screening process.
4.6 Data extraction
A standardized data extraction protocol was generated in Microsoft Excel and populated with relevant
data from the retrieved studies to facilitate management, analysis and comparison of information. The
table of da extraction protocol’s structure was adapted to the research aim and questions and was
made up of the seven following sections:
1. Identification of the paper (author(s), title, journal, publication year)
2. Aim
7. Results
The table illustrating the data extraction protocol is provided in the Appendix B.
4.7 Quality assessment
The four retrieved articles satisfying the predefined inclusion and exclusion requirements went
through a quality assessment. The quality assessment tool is drawn from the Critical Appraisal Skills
Programme (CASP) Qualitative Studies Checklist 2018 and Critical Review Form – Qualitative Studies
2007.
These tools consist of eighteen questions, which are covered within 7 crucial sets:
Study purpose, Literature, Study design, Sampling, Data collection, Procedural Rigor, Data analysis.
Each question can be answered in one of three ways: “Yes/Good”, “Can’t tell/Fair” and “No/Poor”.
The answers are in turn converted to points, from 0 to 2 (e.g., No/Poor = 0 point, Can’t tell/Fair =
1 points, Yes/Good = 2 points). By assigning numerical scores to each answer, the overall checklist’s
quality grade can be expressed in three levels, where (A) 27 – 36 represents high quality (75% of
qualified response), (B) 19 – 26 represents medium quality (the quality of response is more than 50%
and less than 75 %), (C) 0 – 18 is for low quality studies (less than 50 % of qualified response). The
modified quality assessment tool is attached in Appendix A.
According to this assessment, three studies were classified as high quality and one as medium quality.
Interestingly, since too many areas had to be taken into consideration when grading the quality of a
study, it could happen that a ‘0 point’ in one or two aspects in the data collection section would be
‘balanced out’ by maximum points in the other components, which would still render a good quality
score overall.
22
preschool: teachers' experiences,
beliefs and strategies
learning: a study based on Swedish
early childhood education practice
exploring relations between nature-
oriented teaching and preschool
4.8 Data analysis
The analysis of the data extracted from the included studies was divided into two main
categories: position of care and characteristic of care. Transcribed interviews, observations, and video
records presented in the findings, theoretical frameworks, and discussions were my primary focus to
analyze, compare, and categorize. The extraction followed two main steps.
To answer the first question, theoretical frameworks and findings were taken into consideration to
analyze the position of care in teaching activities highlighted in each study. Then, following the
procedure of the Developmental Pedagogy theory (Pramling Samuelsson, 2006), those positions were
singled out, interpreted, and re-categorized into two categories: care as a form of teaching and care as a
23
content subject. The latter category was more deeply analyzed with two more sub-categories that
thoroughly layer care, which were care as foreground content subject and care as background content subject.
To answer the second research question, the discussions and the interpretations regarding care
implementation which were mentioned along with the examples in the findings sections were
examined to reveal the variations in care’s characteristics, which were illustrated differently in each
position.
5. Results
The aim of this research was to develop knowledge about ECE teachers’ understanding of care and
how care is situated in teaching practices. Additionally, the tension between established tradition and
the new policy was analyzed, with emphasis on the different objects of learning and the tension
between education and care in Swedish preschool system. This section illustrates the findings of the
literature review in line with the two research questions:
1. In previous research, what position is care given in teaching activities by Swedish preschool
teachers?
2. How does the characteristic of care support teaching practices by preschool teachers in
Sweden?
In what follows, the results are demonstrated. The review of the selected literature showed that care
was presented in multiple teaching situations in preschool, but those presentations varied in position
based on the preschool teacher’s intentions, children’s interests, and how characteristic of care was
connected to the teaching context. In most of the articles, the positions of care seemed to be
characterized by varied teacher’s pedagogical goals or objects of learning in carefully planned activities
and spontaneous moments. The results, allied with the research aim, are designated in particular
subsections.
Table 6 below depicts four main themes resulting from the data analysis in face of the research aims
and questions.
INA Author(s)
Instructors and
teaching Video observation
participants
Table 6. Note. INA=Identification Number of the Article; Role of preschool teachers were taken from
teacher’s perspectives concerning their positions in teaching activities.
5.1 Positions of care
Methodologies used concerning position of care in four articles:
The table 6 depicts that there are two positions of care identified: care as a content subject (1, 2, 4)
and care as a form of teaching (2, 3, 4). In articles 1, 2, the position of care was described with
examples, or projects mentioned by the participants in the semi-structured interviews and interviews,
and then written interpretations after each example. In articles 3, 4, the position of care was analyzed
in teaching activities transcribed from video-recorded observations and the resulting interpretations
were examined.
Position of care in four articles:
The positions of care were not transparent in the selected articles, except for article 1, which was
designed to follow up on teacher’s intentions and content subjects within its data analysis. The position
of care, in that context, could be said to be both in the fore and background of the teaching situations.
Articles 2 and 4, in contrast, mixed the concept of care within both content subject and form of
25
teaching. Despite that, the position of care could still be identified within the examples, based on the
descriptions, the teacher’s intentions, and the way they were implemented.
Roles/positions of preschool teachers in teaching activities mentioned in four articles:
In addition, as the high emphasis was placed on care as a content subject in article 1, the preschool
teachers’ role could be described more as an instructor, whereas in articles 2, 3, and 4 preschool
teachers saw themselves as both instructors and participants in the teaching activities. Particularly, in
article 1, the role of the preschool teachers as instructors was identified from the expressions in their
narratives, which concentrated greatly on different intertwined pedagogical goals connected to the
‘teachers as instructors. In articles 2, 3, and 4, the role of the preschool teacher as a participant emerged
from the teaching activities, which incorporated both positions of care and characteristics of care (e.g.:
interaction, communication, and exploration between teachers and children and between children
themselves).
5.1.1 Care as a form of teaching
The concept of care as a form of teaching emerged from the theoretical frameworks and findings of
articles 2, 3, and 4. Care (2, 3, 4) is seen as one of the teaching forms implemented to guide and support
children’s minds and bodies in the explorative learning processes. This process added to the
complexity of teaching and care in teaching in preschool activities (2, 3, 4). As a form, care in teaching
was talked as a holistic view involving the body, mind, emotion as well as social and environmental
aspects (2), while it highlighted the interconnection of variations of forms of teaching towards learning
processes (such as teaching strategies (2)/moves (4)/attitudes (2, 3)).
Firstly, care can be provided as an instrument, or form, to create an approachable and welcoming
learning environment (2, 3). For example, questions were asked by preschool teachers during teaching
activities (3) such as: “Do you want to join…”, “If you want to join…”, “Don’t you want to try….,”
in order to foster children’s participation. Also, actions showing the attention of teachers to
everything/everyone in the present situation were put forward (3), which produced an inclusive and
inviting environment to encourage children to take part in the activities.
Secondly, care can be used as a tool to create a respectful, inspiring, and supporting environment (2,
3, 4). In the study based on interviews (2), preschool teachers discussed that communication and
interaction with children enable them to connect, inspire and become part of their world. Similarly,
26
conversations from video-recorded examples (3, 4) demonstrated that a close connection was formed
between teachers and children in teaching activities. For instance, teachers that acted as co-explorers
in article 3 were shown to inspire children’s exploration. Additionally, article 4 presented one teacher
who participated in a sliding experience with a child and showed a supportive attitude towards the
child’s feelings and her new experience. This kind of connection allows teachers to understand
children’s thoughts, needs, expressions, etc. (2, 3, 4), as well as support and direct their learning and
discoveries, both individually and collectively, towards content that either teachers want them to
develop or children shows interest in (2, 3, 4). That said, as preschool teachers and children become
more connected, teachers (2, 3) become more able to show support and appreciation towards
children’s beliefs and curiosity. By treating them as individuals, or even small citizens, a caring and
trusting relationship is fostered, which may take the teachers one step closer to how the children create
connection and meaning (meaning-making) between themselves and the world and contribute to a
shared space for learning (2, 3, 4).
Another example of care as a form of teaching is the creation of a safe, secure and trustworthy
preschool environment (2, 4). Preschool teachers (2) expressed that a concern for children’s well-being
and safety is one crucial aspect of preschool routines. Creating safe spaces was also mentioned and
explained in the transcribed examples from article 4. In article 2, it is mentioned that the teacher’s
emotional and physical presence in teaching is fundamental so that the children feel safe to freely
explore and learn. On a different note, article 2 highlights the tension between children’s demands or
interests and teachers’ traditional beliefs, which shows concern for children’s health and safety. For
instance, teachers (2) revealed that sometimes they have to refuse to follow preschool traditional
beliefs in order to fulfill children’s needs and thereby avoiding judging and restricting children to do
what they like based on their age (e.g.: a child in article 2 did not want to take off his shirt when playing in the
water, as the teacher asked, but both preschool teacher and the child had fun when doing different things like that). This
shows that the position of care and trust is placed in high regard in teachers and children relationship,
which opens opportunities for children to fulfill their desires, joys, and further explorations, and for
teachers to deeply understand the children.
5.1.2 Characteristic of care as form of teaching
Characteristic of care as a form of teaching, in this review, was examined from the discussions and the
interpretations mentioned along with the examples in the findings sections (2, 3, 4). Characteristics of
care as a form of teaching were categorized into three sub-categories: (1) welcoming, belonging
27
environment; (2) respecting, inspiring and supporting environment; and (3) safe and trustworthy
environment. Each sub-category was described by different characteristics of caring listed in articles
(2, 3, 4).
Table 7. Characteristic of care as form of teaching in the studies
Characteristic of care as form of teaching Article 2 Article 3 Article 4
Welcoming, belonging environment
Offering materials for children to join
Respecting, inspiring and supporting environment
Being responsive to children’s needs, expressions,
thoughts
about their feelings, thoughts, and experiences
Listening to children’s interests, beliefs, curiosity
Listening to children’s feelings, expressions
Appreciating children’s thoughts, beliefs, curiosity
Encouraging, supporting children in the discoveries
Challenging children by asking questions
Avoiding prejudging children’s knowledge, ability
Treating children as unique individuals
Safe and trustworthy environment
world
Building up trust relations with children
Aiming at showing the intertwined and complex relationship of care in the teaching process, articles
(2, 3, 4) investigated care as a primary instrument used to create a high-quality preschool teaching
environment. Characteristics of care were taken from the preschool teacher’s perspective in article 2
and from specific observed examples in articles 3, 4. These articles presented care’s characteristics as
a form of teaching in different ways, sometimes with examples, sometimes with descriptions from
teachers’ interviews. Despite the differences in data collection, there were many similarities between
the characteristics of care captured in articles (2, 3). Articles 2 and 3 covered almost all of the
characteristics of care as form of teaching described in Table 7, while article 4 regarded care not much
as a form, but rather as a content subject. Because of this, characteristics of care as a form of teaching
were manifested in only one specific activity out of four activities in the findings (4). Due to the
precise analysis and transcription of activities in article 4, it included some characteristics that were
‘building trusting relations with children’ was also shown in article 2, according to your table.
5.1.3 Care as a content subject
Regarding indications of care as a content subject in teaching situations, theoretical frameworks, and
findings of articles 1, 2 and 4 were analyzed. Two sub-categories were designed to match the positions
of care mentioned in the articles. They are: care as foreground content subject (4) and care as
background content subject (1, 2).
5.1.3.1 Care as foreground content
Care observed in article 4 stands in the foreground of teaching situations. In other words, care is
regarded by preschool teachers as specific content knowledge, for example, care for nature, and other
learning qualities, such as cognitive, moral, aesthetical and physical qualities. According to the
methodology described in article 4, care is viewed as teaching content and is taught with support from
29
move, re-constructing move, instructional move and generative move). These moves were used as
content-oriented instruments to direct children’s attention towards care for nature as well as other
learning qualities (cognitive, moral, aesthetical and physical qualities). It should be noticed that care
for nature stands as a big theme that also covers the other four learning qualities as foreground
teaching contents. The study (4) admitted that it is not possible to work with nature-oriented content
as a complete standalone topic, which means that care for nature should not be seen as a separate
content/theme but rather as a set of activities that already run in parallel with other activities in the
preschool routine. As a result, care for nature is always placed in the foreground as a content and
combined with teaching and caring to promote care in other learning qualities. Care for nature and
care as a learning quality are both situated as foreground content (4). The conclusion (4) highlights a
multifaceted and complex teaching practice along with a hope for the improvement and extension of
the learning qualities.
5.1.3.2 Care as background content
When it comes to indications of care standing in the background of teaching situations, articles 1 and
2 were analyzed and compared with article 4. Considering the methodologies in the first two articles,
article 2 used life-world philosophy, which examines the entwined relationship between people, things,
language and environment, while article 1 used the variation theory of learning which refers to care as
one of several ways in which children try to master new knowledge. Care in the background of teaching
situations in article 1 and 2 can be understood as care actions that support the teaching act and are
not the part of the foreground content. In article 1, care is viewed specifically as general skills
(communicative skills, analytical skills) while it is viewed as social skills (problem solving skills,
communicative skills, self-reliance, self-esteem) in article 2. Particularly, preschool teachers argued, in
both articles, that care does not refer to any specific content or knowledge area but ensures sustainable
development for children and society. Interestingly, not only preschool teachers in article 1, 2, but also
in article 4 agreed that caring values can be learnt through a foreground content subject.
In article 4, care as learning qualities (cognitive, moral, aesthetical and physical qualities) was placed in the
foreground together with the big theme care for nature, while in article 1 care was placed invisibly
through every act and activity. This is due to the fact that care (1) was assumed to be a cross-
disciplinary set of activities, while care (4) was included in the teacher’s direct intention of what to
learn. Furthermore, preschool teachers (1) argued that teaching in early years involves a dynamic
30
process that includes the presentation of several contents which are not necessarily stated explicitly.
In line with this, preschool teachers (2, 4) talked about teaching in a more holistic way, which means
teaching practices may contain many content subjects at the same time, since teaching areas are
interwoven and dependent on each other. Moreover, care (2) as a background content can at times
unintentionally shift into a foreground content, depending on what is regarded by the teachers as the
most important topics for the children to experience and learn at that point.
In general, from the perspective of care as both foreground and background contents, preschool
teachers (1, 2, 4) reached a consensus showing that it is impossible to precisely follow one single
content subject. The conclusion of the articles (1, 2, 4) revealed the complexity and multidimension
of care in teaching in early years. Articles 2, 4 addressed that each position of care, either foreground
or background, is primary and contributes to a holistic view of teaching and caring, which integrates
and promotes care and other values in children’ minds towards the surrounding context. In specific,
article 4 highlighted that care for nature has already been a part of the preschool teaching routine for
some time, therefore, combining teaching and caring in that context had as an aim to reinforce caring
values in qualities other than nature for children’s development. It is important to note that, from the
insights obtained from teaching experiences, articles (1, 2, 4) aim to raise awareness of preschool
teachers regarding care as both an underlying/implicit as well as explicit aspect in teaching and its
integration and interconnection in this multifaceted teaching mission.
5.1.4 Characteristic of care as content subject
Characteristic of care as content subject, in this review, was examined from articles 1, 2, and 4.
Characteristics of care as a form of teaching were categorized into three sub-categories: (1) care as
specific learning objects; (2) care as learning qualities; and (3) care as general skills.
Table 8. Characteristic of care as content subject in the studies
Characteristic of care as content subject Article 1 Article 2 Article 4
Foreground content subject
Specific learning objects:
- Care for nature
31
Analytical skills
Communicative skills
Democratic values
Aesthetical skills
In table 8 above, care is not necessarily expressed with the same values or skills in articles (1, 2, 4).
However, it is apparent that the concept of care is flexible and can be moved from background content
to foreground content and vice versa, depending on what knowledge or skills are regarded as crucial
for children (2, 4). Moreover, the possibilities considered for the positions of care relied on preschool
teacher’s perspectives, and children’s interests and curiosities. Different positions of care produce
different characteristics of care, which supports specific purpose from teachers and children.
Interestingly, care was seen as general skills in articles 1, 2 and 4. However, care as general skills was
situated as foreground content in article (4), and at the same time background content in article (1, 2).
Care in article 4 was presented as learning qualities and combined with care for nature, as it is already
in the culture of preschool activities, and therefore placed in the foreground of activities. On the other
hand, care in article 1, 2 was assumed by preschool teachers to be invisibly arranged in every act and
activity in order to promote other foreground learning contents. Therefore, preschool teachers’
priority was laid more on foreground subject contents.
32
In general, the positions of care as foreground content (4) and care as background content (1, 2) reflect
the different perspectives, and intention from the preschool teachers. Particularly, if there is emphasis
on other content subjects, care is placed as a background content and it does not matter if care is
learnt or not. Conversely, care is prioritized as foreground content when the teachers expect care to
be learnt at that moment. However, a reversal of care’s positions can occur when care as background
content is pointed out and achieved, which means care in this case shifts to foreground content
subject.
6.1 Care in framework of Developmental Pedagogy
In what follows, the results are examined in accordance with the issues previously raised
regarding the tension between preschool traditions and new policy reform as well as between care and
education, with particular emphasis on how preschool teachers understand the position of care in
teaching activities. To further investigate these topics in connection with the research aim and
questions, the framework of Developmental Pedagogy Theory (Pramling Samuelsson, 2006) was first
utilized, described in relation to care implementation in teaching.
As previously described, the combination of concepts from the Variation Theory of learning (Marton,
2015) into the Developmental Pedagogy theory illustrates four major levels of objects of learning:
(1) Intended direct object of learning;
(2) Intended indirect object of learning;
(3) Enacted object of learning;
(4) Lived object of learning.
Note that this framework was created as a measure of the degree of care preschool teachers conducted
in specific teaching practices. Applying the Developmental pedagogy’s framework to the results, only
three of the categories above-mentioned emerged:
(1) Care as intended direct object of learning (Care as foreground content subject):
The first category, care as intended direct object of learning, was mentioned in article 4 as foreground content
subject in teaching. The intended direct object of learning can be defined as the intended knowledge
33
or skills which the children are explicitly expected to develop. This means that, in that context, care
is defined as the main goal of the teaching activity. Particularly, in article 4, children were expected to
develop care, moral, aesthetic, etc., which were placed as intended direct knowledge for children to
achieve along with care for nature. Therefore, teachers also prioritized other preschool traditional
values (cognitive quality, physical quality, moral quality, aesthetic quality) as the intended direct objects
of learning in order to promote children’s development around care. From a holistic perspective, those
skills were related to human’s possibilities or learning qualities, which was believed to be able to
intertwine with other national curriculum goals (in this case nature-science) (4). Preschool teachers
acknowledged the plurality between teaching and caring as a “messy business” (p. 54). As a result,
preschool teachers made use of this plurality in preschool teaching by combining care as intended
direct object of learning in teaching practices to balance the tension between new policy reform and
preschool tradition. Compared to the provided figure 2 above, care is used as an intended direct object
of learning to develop children’s learning on both care for nature. In other words, care is one of
primary foci in this teaching process (4).
(2) Care as intended indirect object of learning (Care as background content subject):
The second category, care as intended indirect object of learning, is described by preschool teachers
in articles 1, 2. As given definition, the intended indirect object of learning refers to general skills
teachers talk about as primary goals but that are usually implied and not directly expressed in teaching
practice. It is shown that preschool teachers (1, 2) held great regard for care, democratic values, and
social skills as their primary focus, and emphasized those as general skills (1)/social skills (2). Despite
the difference in naming, social skills and general skills are basically the same. To avoid confusion,
general skills was chosen to be used in this section. Preschool teachers in articles (1, 2) included those
general skills invisibly and indirectly while developing intended direct objects of learning. For instance,
preschool teachers (1) believed children could learn empathy (indirect) through science (direct). In
article 2, it was believed children could learn appreciation of differences (indirect) through how to
make instruments (direct). In this case, the act of designing instruments brought about musical
elements as the direct object of learning. However, that also served as a facilitator for children to
visualize their differences (1). The intended direct object of learning is seen as an incentive that
encourages children to experience the intended indirect object of learning and make meaning of it as
a certain skill or knowledge (1). Moreover, preschool teachers (1, 2) believed that as care is presented
in most of the preschool activities, it could be worked on indirectly and not necessarily reported.
34
Furthermore, they (2) argued that in some circumstances, it was a norm that those intended indirect
objects of learning could unconsciously switch to be intended direct object of learning.
(3) Care as enacted object of learning (Care as a form of teaching):
Care as enacted object of learning was a part of the results and labelled as care as a form of teaching
in articles 2, 3 and 4. The enacted object of learning is regarded as the teaching strategy used to make
it possible for the children to learn and engage themselves with the intended object of learning. Based
on the observation and interview (2, 3, 4), preschool teachers were using care as a form of teaching to
make children feel welcomed, respected and safe to learn, explore and develop.
Overall, considering the framework of Developmental Pedagogy, most of the articles shed
light on the complex practices in preschool work and highlighted the ambiguity regarding the
relationship between teacher’s control and children’s autonomy. In other words, preschool teachers
were aware of the tension between goal-oriented teaching and children’s spontaneous thoughts. To
manage this tension, preschool teachers (1, 2, 3, 4) tended to embrace the holistic view of teaching
and learning, connecting and emphasizing all aspects of teaching concerning both curriculum goals
and preschool tradition (general skills including care). From that holistic perspective, care was involved
in many ways in teaching practices. Teachers provided care as enacted object of learning in articles 2,
3, 4, care as intended direct/indirect object of learning in articles 1, 2, and the possibility of care as
both intended direct and intended indirect object of learning in article 2. It is evident that care is always
implemented in various layers of teaching practices, but sometimes preschool teachers are not aware
of that integration.
With respect to limitation giving of what the Developmental Pedagogy theory presenting in terms of
the lived of object of learning and the continual educational process of developmental activities,
unfortunately, none of those articles mentioned any of them in relation to care. Therefore, there was
no further investigation on how preschool teachers made use of those lived objects of learning and
encouraged children to think, talk and reflect on what they had learnt, also called meta-communication
and meta-cognition. For this reason, there is a need to further research the lived object of learning in
preschool activities and how it is used to reach meta-cognition and meta-communication in early years.
35
6.2 Relating care to teaching and learning in preschool teacher’s perspectives
Results from the retrieved articles indicated that care could be framed as intended direct object or
intended indirect object and as enacted object of learning. Preschool teachers put most of their efforts
to balance care into teaching activities with the intention that children may learn something, or
teachers themselves may learn something regarding care (1, 2, 3, 4). In accordance with the care ethics
of Noddings (2012), there are two sub-categories emerging from teacher’s perspectives relating to the
relationship of care, teaching and learning: care for learning and care for teaching.
Care for learning is seen as care as enacted object of learning. Care for learning refers to care as an
instrument for teachers to establish and maintain a high-quality relationship so that they can gain
deeper understanding about children’s perspectives. High quality relationships involve care and trust,
which may require time and effort from teachers and children and that they engage with different
caring characteristics such as dialogues, listening, critical thinking and reflective response (Noddings,
2012). By opening an opportunity of communication and interaction, teachers are eventually able to
understand children’s experience, feelings, interests and curiosities as well as avoid prejudging their
knowledge and ability. Consequently, as teachers appreciate and recognize children’s needs and
interests, the intended direct/indirect object of learning becomes more relatable, meaningful and
appropriate for the children’s development, which has significant contribution to the quality of
teaching activities. It cannot be denied that care as an enacted object of learning is the position of care
for teachers to learn more about children’s perspectives by creating a high quality of care and trust
relationships between teachers and children and children themselves (such as a welcoming, respecting,
inspiring and safe environment).
Care for teaching refers to care as a theme, a subject or a topic. From preschool teachers’ perspective
in this study, care for teaching is performed in two ways: care as intended direct object of learning and
care as intended indirect object of learning. In other words, care can be taught both explicitly and
implicitly. That is to say, preschool teachers may have different perspectives regarding the position of
care in teaching practices. Particularly, as care is used as intended direct object of learning, preschool
teachers explicitly direct children’s attention towards care, while in the other case, care is placed
implicitly through every act and activity. Furthermore, Noddings (2012) suggests that as an intended
direct object of learning, teachers should spend time and talk about care, moral/social issues as they
come up, and when the climate of care is established, it should remain in the background to keep and
maintain the caring environment. In spite of this, both positions of care are seen as primary goals for
36
learning in preschool teachers’ perspective. This can be shown by the fact that care from one position
may at times inadvertently switch to the other. The most important aspect of learning is children’s
experience in the moment. Thus, care for learning and care for teaching are intertwined and supporting
each other to contribute to a high quality of teaching in early years.
6.3 Limitations
There are some limitations, in my opinion, concerning the systematic literature review that need to be
considered after this study. Firstly, due to the search strategy and search terms, many relevant articles
may have been missed. More specifically, all included databases have different search procedures with
varied advanced search strategies and different search words for each, which leads to the uncertainty
and doubt if all the relevant studies are included or not, especially, when care is implicitly engaged in
teaching practices but is not obviously stated in the title, or abstract of the article. Secondly, due to
limited timeline for this master’s dissertation, the whole procedure of screening and data extraction
was individually carried out by one person. This could have resulted in poor judgement or bias while
screening. Thirdly, there was the language barrier. Most of the relevant studies regarding care
conducted in the Swedish language, which may have contained valuable information for my study,
could have been missed. For the further work relating care in teaching, it would be interesting to have
more studies translated into English language for international studies.
7. Conclusion
The aim of this study was to examine positions of care which characterizes and supports differently
the children’s learning and development in teaching practices. The results of analyzing all the retrieved
article underlined the complexity and multifaceted quality of teaching mission. It is surprising that
different positions and characteristics of care are found in teaching practices in Swedish preschool
displaying the well-balanced interrelation between new policy reform and preschool tradition, as well
as proving the false dichotomy between education and care. Results show that it is necessary to be
aware of the complexity of the teaching process since it is impossible for teachers to single out a topic
as intended direct object of learning and strictly follow it within a whole process. By inputting care
into different positions of teaching, differing characteristics are developed, which is not only
supporting and reinforcing teaching process towards the intended object of learning but also balancing
children’s growth regarding both curriculum goals and preschool tradition (general/social skills). Not
all positions of care were presented in each selected article, but all of them were quite descriptive
37
concerning where, how and why care was situated relying on teachers’ perspectives and children’s
interests. Furthermore, it becomes obvious through these perspectives and children’s interests that
care in teaching practices can be flexible – care for teaching, especially care as intended direct object
of learning in teacher’s perspective can shift to be intended indirect object of learning due to children’s
interest and exploration at that moment, and vice versa. An aspect that has essential impact on
children’s learning and teacher’s teaching is the enacted object of learning, which is viewed as care for
learning. It includes caring characteristics to create and maintain quality of care and trust environment
between teachers and children and children themselves to feel welcomed, respected and safe to learn,
explore and develop. In this study, the lived object of learning, which manifests children’s
understanding towards the intended object of learning by participating in the enacted object of
learning, is considered too little or not even mentioned in relation to care, regardless how much it
means in the teaching process. Therefore, there was no further investigation on how to make use of
the lived object of learning. For this reason, there is a need to further investigate the lived object of
learning in relation to care and how it is used to reach meta-cognition and meta-communication in
early years.
References
A
Alvestad, M. & Berge, A. (2009). Svenske førskolelærere om læring i planlegging og praksis relatert til
den nasjonale læreplanen. Nordisk Barnehageforskning, 2(2), 57-68.
B
Bennett, J. (2005). Curriculum issues in national policy-making. European Early Childhood Education
Research Journal, 13(2), 5–23.
Bourbour, M. (2020). Using digital technology in early education teaching: learning from teachers’
teaching practice with interactive whiteboard. International Journal of Early Years Education, ahead-of-print
(ahead-of-print), 1–18.
Björklund, C. (2014). Powerful Teaching in Preschool--A Study of Goal-Oriented Activities for
Conceptual Learning. International Journal of Early Years Education, 22(4), 380–394.
Björklund, C., & Ahlskog-Björkman, E. (2018). From activity to transdisciplinarity and back again -
preschool teachers’ reasoning about pedagogical goals. International Journal of Early Years
Education, 26(1), 90–103.
Brodin, J., & Renblad, K. (2014). Reflections on the Revised National Curriculum for Preschool in
Sweden - interviews with the heads. Early Child Development and Care, 184(2), 306–321.
Broström, S. (2006a). Care and education: Towards a new paradigm in early childhood education.
Child and Youth Care Forum, 35(5–6), 391–409.
Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
C
Caldwell, B. M., (1989). A comprehensive model for integrating child-care and early childhood
education. In F. O. Rust & L. R. Williams (Eds.) The care and education of young children: Expanding context,
sharpening focus. New York, London: Teachers College, Columbia University.
D
Dockett, S., and B. Perry. (2014). Continuity of Learning: A Resource to Support Effective Transition
to School and School Age Care. Canberra: Australian Government Department of Education.
Diderichsen, D., & Thyssen, S. (2005). Omsorg og udvikling. [Care and development]. Copenhagen,
Denmark: Danmarks Pædagiske Universitets Forlag.
E
Eidevald, C., & Engdahl, I. (2018). Introduktion till temanummer om undervisning i förskolan. Barn.
Forskning om barn og barndom i norden. Tema: Undervisning i förskolan, 3–4(36). Trondheim: Norsk senter
for barneforskning (NOSEB).
Einarsdottir, J., Purola, A., Johansson, E., Broström, S., & Emilson, A. (2015). Democracy, caring