Underwood, K., Valeo, A., & Wood. R. (2012). Understanding inclusive early childhood education: a capability approach. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 13 (4), 290-299).

This article explores how a capability approach to understanding inclusion can be applied to early childhood settings. Inclusion is defined as activity that promotes equitable outcomes. Equity is not cast as simply a matter of access, it also includes support and individual responsivity. The capability approach “emphasises that each person has capabilities that are individually defined by that which they value” (p. 291). This article sets out a theoretical framework for taking a capability approach to inclusion of children with diverse learning needs.

The capability approach entails three key concepts: capabilities – actions and states valued by the individual; functionings – capabilities that have been realised by the individual; and, differences – how an individual converts capabilities into functionings. “Acknowledgement of the range of experiences and individual characteristics of children with disabilities is an important starting point to understandings inclusive education” (p. 292). These definitions, and the pedagogical thrust, circulate an important question – how do we find out about the capabilities of diverse learners in our settings? The authors are clear that inclusion is as much about achieving the goals of individual children as it is about giving equal access to early childhood settings.

Some of the issues for early childhood teachers come in the form of young children not being able to articulate what they value. This is a problem for an early childhood education that is charged with “preparing children for later educational experiences or enhancing their developmental trajectory” (p. 293). So how then do teachers recognise the capabilities of all children? What do you do?

Dr Bradley's buzz:

The authors point to a central tension in inclusive education: how do teachers balance early intervention with the right to be different? Or put another way, how do ‘special’ differences differ from the ‘normal differences’ of a child’s culture? (My own interpretation of the problem posed). The answer put forward is simple – all children must be acknowledged for their own individual capabilities, whatever they may be. The authors state that this takes effort on the part of educators, specifically, it entails educators taking a non-deficit, pluralistic approach to capability. The challenge here is for teachers to reflect not only on their practice (behaviours) but also the motivation of that practice (assumptions on capability).

The three common principles of international reviews on inclusive education are: that instruction must be individualised; that instruction must occur across settings; and, that practice requires systemic support (e.g., policy etc). Each of these principles are shown to be consistent with the capability approach to inclusion (the approach that focuses on individual definitions of capabilities that are valued).

For the teacher, this article amounts to a challenge. It is a challenge to drop the schematic tool of knowing where a child should be in favour of knowing where a child wants to be, on their terms. There is much detail that I have missed in defending these propositions, but the article itself is a very engaging read. It is well worth a look.

Moore, M., & Hall, S. (2012). Listening and comprehension at story time: how to build habits of the mind. Dimensions of Early Childhood, 40, 2, 24-31.

Dr. Bradley's buzz:

This article makes the point that understanding is an active process and that storytime is a key time for building strong habits of mind. Key habits of mind are noted as: being able to attend to what is important in the story, being able to anticipate what comes next, and being able to build meaning from a collection of details. These habits of mind combine the dispostion to engage with the story with the skill of being able to make sense.

These authors describe comprehension as an act of meaning making, and point out that learning to listen and build understanding leads naturally to formal reading. The authors offer several strategies to teachers:

1. Teaching children about the structure of stories (cover, page numbers, beginning, middle, end, author etc.) is an important facet of early literacy.

2. Breaking down pictures by asking questions about setting, characters, activities helps children to make sense of scenes.

3. It is useful for teachers to introduce new vocabulary before the story and lead discussion on meaning and what it means to children. Then ask questions about pictures that allows children to use practice using that vocabulary.

4. Most stories revolve around the main character encountering some sort of problem and then solving the problem. Working with children on identifying the problems and brainstorming or recognising solutions is a good way of engaging them in the story.

5. Begin with the cover of the book and get children to make predictions about what they think the book will be about and what will happen.

6. Asking meaningful questions about the picture (e.g., what is going on here? or, do you have one of these at home?) can help unpack the symbols in the picture as well as link to prior knowledge and working theories.

7. Graphic organisers like T-charts (http://www.enchantedlearning.com/graphicorganizers/tchart/) are useful to extend learning - it also provides a tool that links to numeracy. Venn diagrams and story timelines can also support understanding of characters and the way a story unfolds.

This is a very useful practitioner directed article that aims to give teachers practical skills for developing comprehension in group reading situations.

Shin, M. (2012). The role of joint attention in social communication and play among infants. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 10(3), 309-317.

Dr. Bradley's buzz:

This article identifies a gap in the literature when it comes to infant peer communication. The author's focus is on non-verbal social play, noting that there is a great deal of research on adult-infant interactions, but very little on infant-infant interactions.

The research took place in New York City over the course of a semester, and it involved 8 infants (4 boys, 4 girls) between the age of 6 weeks and 25 months.

The researcher found that infants began to engage in social interactions at around 9 months of age. She found that gazing, and being able to hold one another's gaze was the foundation of early social play. This gaze meeting then developed into gaze following as infants began to understand the intention behind the gaze of the other (e.g., looking over at a ball together).

Pointing was found to be object oriented but the researcher found that the children in her study were more interested in the other infant's interaction with the object rather than the object itself. Two types of pointing interactions were noted: pointing that is imperitative (e.g., requesting and object), and point that is declarative (e.g., drawing the other's attention to the object). In this study gesture was strongly linked to social play.

Conflict was also shown to take a positive role in social play. Although struggles were often over the ownership of objects and could lead to the end of the interaction, it was found that over time infant's strategies changed. This suggests that conflict can be a powerful tool for social learning leading to compromise and engagement.

These findings suggest that active observation is also a form of active participation in social relationships. The author points out that infants are highly capable of shared understanding long before they gain the ability to use verbal language. The upshot of this article is that infant caregivers need to be sensitive to the multiple meanings of behaviour, especially when it comes to the development of social communication.

Dunn, J., & Stinson, M. (2012). Learning through emotion: moving the affective in from the margins. International Journal of Early Childhood, 44, 203-218.

Dr Bradley's buzz:

This article looks at a drama programme introduced to children between the ages 6.5-7.6 in a small Australian school. It takes a case study approach gathering data from observations, child made artefacts and researcher reflections.

The authors highlight an increasing focus on testing that is leading to the further disappearance of emotional competence in the early years. The strong link between emotional engagement and brain development (particularly memory) is identified, and the idea of process drama as a means of developing emotional inteligence is put forward.

Process drama involves children and teachers pretending together in teacher led pretexts (such as a particular story or set of events). Children draw on their own lived experience to empathise with the situations that characters find themselves in (e.g., Goldilocks doing something she shouldn't and being caught). Through process drama children are able to engage their imagination to construct emotional empathy with others, as well as work through their own emotions and model different forms of expression. According to the authors, emotions allow children to explore the space between fiction and reality. Process drama offers a way for children to do so in a safe and supported manner.

The authors argue that when children begin to identify with characters they are developing the ability to identify with others and how they are feeling - this in turn is a powerful tool for the development of social competence. The article goes on to report on a particular event where children act out parts in a researcher constructed story. Much of the data in the article is derived from researcher reflections but there were also some good ideas about linking domains such as art, literacy, and technology to the dramatic experience. This reminded me a little of a project approach.

Children's interactions in the story, their engagement with themes and their developing empathy with the characters were well reported. I thought that the article looked a little like an entry in a reflective journal, but it provided a good articulation of the impact of emotional state on subsequent thinking, speaking and writing/drawing. I would have liked to see a gender break down as the project and its framing on relationship, verbal articulation and empathy may have engaged girls more than boys. It may not have, but it would have been nice to know.

Carter, D., & Pool, J. (2012). Appropriate social behaviour: teaching expectations to young children. Early Childhood Journal, 40, 315-321.

Dr. Bradley's buzz:

This article does not muck around when it comes to behaviour guidance. The approach taken is teacher led and not really inclusive, but it could be modified to include children as agents in the development of positive behavioural expectations.

The programme reported on is Positive Behaviour Interventions and Supports. The programme is designed as a method of systematically teaching appropriate behaviour, but it also creates a shared language that teachers and parents can use to discuss challenging behaviour. The key to the programme is consistency and predictability - which is similar to most behaviour modification programmes.

There are three phases of the programme: creating support links with parents and caregivers, explicit instruction of social skills, and individualised intervention when needed.

Once a reciprocal relationship has been built with parents/caregivers the programme begins with the definition of expections. This is split into two steps: step one involves creating broad expections in a language children can understand e.g., 'we take care of each other.' There should be no more than 5 expectations. The second step involves providing examples of what the expectation looks like in different settings or routine times, as well as examples of what not meeting the expectation looks like. Teachers can then draw up a behaviour expectation matrix which lists what expectations look like in practice.

Teachers then devise specific lessons for each part of the matrix. When teaching, it is best to move into the setting to give instruction. The article then introduces a four step approach to teaching behaviour expectations: "1. Tell children what the expectation is, what it looks like and why it is important. 2. Show children what it looks like to display the expectation in the target setting or routine and what it looks like to not meet the expectation. 3. Create opportunities for children to practice implementing the expectation in the target setting or routine. 4. Provide feedback to children for both meeting the expectation and not meeting the expectation in natural contexts" (Carter & Pool, 2012, p. 318.

This article was an easy read aimed at providing a structure for the intentional teaching of behavioural expectations. It challenges early childhood teachers to formulate lesson plans around behaviour modification but also reiterates throughout that consistency is the key.

Gross, C. (2012). Science concepts young children learn through water play. Dimensions of Early Childhood, 40 (2), 3-11.

Dr. Bradley's buzz:

This is a fantastic practice focused resource that offers language and concept for learning through water play. It builds on children's natural curiousity and interest in water and goes beyond the initial pouring schema that occupies many children from the outset. The overall theme of this article is that - play IS investigation.

This article highlights the links between water play and physics (flow, motion), chemistry (solutions), biology (plant, animal life) and mathematics (measurement, volume). Science is defined as an activity where children can build their ideas of the world through a process of experimentation and revisitation. Examples of scientific enquiries with water include: how and where puddles form; how to make whirlpools; how a drop of water behaves on different surfaces.

Teachers are encouraged to facilitate science through providing materials, encouraging observation, prediction, description and theorising. Teachers can also encourage thinking by posing problems or asking questions. Other things teachers can do are creating time and space for exploration, using the environment as the third teacher, engaging children in meaningful conversation, and documenting and assessing children's progress.

The article then links science concepts with common play themes:

For sinking and floating
Concept = buoyancy   Method = choosing different items   Question = why do you think that happened?

Concept = displacement   Method = make a small boat and predict how many items it will take to fill and capsize it    Question = What happened to the water when the boat sank?

For bubbles
Concept = sphere    Method = make bubbles with different objects     Question = what kind of shaped bubble do you think the object will make?

Concept = dissolve    Method = provide a variety of ingredients for children to mix with water    Question = Where did the mixed item go?

For solutions
Concept = suspension   Method = fill containers with oil, vinegar, water and mix in different ingredients   Question = Why do you think that some mix and some don't mix?

Concept = absorption    Method = use mops, sponges, paper towels to mop up water   Question = Which one do you think will hold the most water?

Children are also cited as learning valuable social skills from water play - concentration, turn-taking, self-regualtion, collaboration, as well as key physical skills - precision in puring, hand-eye coordination, balance and building muscle strength.

This article has many other ideas to bring science alive, as well as many other scientific concepts, and is an excellent resource for teachers who wish to extend and build upon science and scientific understandings.

Duhn. I. (2012). Places for pedagogies, pedagogies for places. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 13 (2), 99-107.

Dr. Bradley's buzz:

This is a bit more of a theoretical paper. In it Duhn argues for a post-humanist perspective on early childhood studies. What this means is the development of a perspective on place that includes the non-human world of animals, insects and inanimate objects.

Duhn begins with the idea that space is a socially constructed concept before moving on to say that 'place' is often taken to mean 'human space' as opposed to 'wilderness' which is the space we share with the non-human. Duhn advances the idea of 'assemblage' as a way of talking about early childhood spaces as an intersection between human and non-human worlds.

She gives the example of an interaction between children where a table, the child and the water trough feature as key participants in the learning experience. She makes two key points in relation to these assemblages - place enables the formation of identity. This is important as children grow to be custodians of no only the human but also non-human worlds. There is therefore an ethical advantage of viewing space from the post-humanist perspecive.

The other point that Duhn encourages is viewing children not simply as individuals, or as individuals within the complex web of social settings, but to view them as entangled in relationships with the human and the non-human world.

This article is a good example of theory-making in the hope that people might begin to critically reflect on how they think of place and the social and historical reasons for that perspective, whilst opening the door to ideas of place that supercede the mere social.

For teachers this article is a challenge that asks 'just what does it mean to belong to a place? What does contribution to that place look like, and who is able to contribute? And, how is the non-human world percieved and how does that perception favour a social, rather than an integrated human/non-human perspective on place?