99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Paper
What Does it Mean to Educate the Whole Child?
Oyvind Hennum
Inland Norway University of Applied Sc., Norway
Presenting Author: Hennum, Oyvind
This presentation regards a Ph.D. project that aims to contribute to knowledge and understanding of whole-child education by asking the research question “What does it mean to educate the whole child?”.
The project analyses the curricula of four school systems at primary and lower secondary levels found within Norway. This is Norwegian public education, Montessori education, Steiner/Waldorf education, and International Baccalaureate education (IB). Also, interviews with teachers in the respective school systems will be conducted to gain an understanding of their notions of what it means to educate the whole child.
The research’s preliminary results show similarities and differences in what “educating the whole child” means. A common theme is a focus on well-being in all development domains. Related to this year’s ECER conference theme of diversity, it is relevant that all four school systems emphasize diversity as a foundational value in their educational models. Other common values among the four school systems are democratic values like equal rights, participation, and inclusion.
In a European and international context, the research is relevant as Montessori, Steiner (Waldorf), and International Baccalaureate education are present in many countries and the Norwegian public education system is part of the North-European pedagogics tradition.
The project’s theoretical framework is based on the field of holistic education. This field has emerged since the mid-1980s (Miller 2019a, p. 5), and the topic of holistic education engages globally. The field of holistic education is an eclectic and inclusive field with impulses from many sources (Rudge 2008, p. 4) and is seen as very diverse (Forbes 2003, p. 2). There is no textbook definition of what a holistic education is (Miller 1997, p. 75). It can be seen as an umbrella term covering different approaches and perspectives (Schreiner 2009, p. 755, 761). According to Rudge (2008, p. 21), many educational alternatives are calling themselves holistic, but a clear definition of what educating the whole child means is often missing.
In reviewing literature for an overview of current research status, many journal articles use the term “whole child”, but mostly concern topics related to physical health or community services for supporting children. Arguments for this type of “whole child” approach is that there is evidence of physical activity reducing obesity, and diabetes, and improving academic performance and cognitive functioning (Savina et. al 2016, pp. 283-286). The literature from the field of holistic education making up the theoretical framework of this project offers a broader view of the “whole child”. One statement exemplifying this position holds that holistic education “addresses every aspect of individual growth and development” (Eaude 2019, p. 61).
This project synthesizes the different definitions and descriptions of whole-child education in the literature of the theoretical framework into four different theoretical perspectives. These are used as categories supporting the analysis of curriculum documents and interviews. The four perspectives are “the whole child”, “the whole world”, “personal growth” and “social change”. The perspectives are recognizable in all the literature to a greater or lesser extent. They are outspoken and discussed in the main literature of the theoretical framework, but also present in the supporting literature from the field of holistic education.
Although the field is eclectic and has many sources of influence it also draws on known educators and philosophers. Often mentioned as historical influences are Rousseau, Pestalozzi, Froebel, Montessori, Steiner, and Dewey, amongst others (Miller, 2019a, pp. 5-16, R. Miller 1997, pp. 92-101, Mayes 2019, p. 143).
The different curricula analyzed in this project do indicate a concern for the whole child, although different emphases amongst the different school systems. This will be described in the conclusion section below.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis project is based on an interpretive qualitative paradigm and uses document analysis of curriculum documents and interviews of teachers as the main research methods.
The philosophy of science inspiring the interpretative approach is Gadamer’s (2004) philosophical hermeneutics. Rather than describing a research method, Gadamer emphasizes an interpretative “modus operandi” when the researcher is reading and analyzing text.
In addition, Alvesson and Sköldberg’s (2009, pp. 91-104) model of a hermeneutic research process is guiding the method of textual analysis. This model includes Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics, but also Betti’s (1967) hermeneutic canons, and Ricoeur’s (1988) hermeneutics of suspicion amongst others (Alvesson and Sköldberg 2009, p. 107).
The document analysis was conducted by reading and re-reading the documents one by one, locating statements or pieces of text that possibly could help answer the main research question. The curriculum documents contain large amounts of text, and data reduction of findings into suitable sizes and categories for analysis was important. The reduction was done by organizing several findings thematically under broader themes.
The merging of findings in themes is informed by Braun and Clarke’s (2022) thematic analysis. The theoretical perspectives synthesized from the holistic education literature are used as the main overall categories when organizing and analyzing the findings.
Interviews are conducted as semi-structured focused group interviews with 4-8 teachers per group interview. One group interview is made per school system. The intention of doing interviews is to gain understanding of teacher perspectives on what it means to educate the whole child. As the study is interpretative, the statistical generalizability of interview results is not emphasized. The planning and conducting of the interviews are informed by Brinkmann and Kvale’s (2015) stages of an interview inquiry.
The sampling is done within certain geographical areas in Norway where there are several schools of all four school types. Recruitment of interview participants is done via the principal/head of school and it is voluntary for the teachers to participate. The sampling aimed for a balance between teachers working on primary and lower secondary levels in the groups being interviewed.
Possible challenges to the methods are that the interpretation could be seen as more focused on a “hermeneutics of empathy” rather than a “hermeneutics of suspicion”. This is because the analysis seeks to identify signs of whole child education and does not to a great extent focus on signs that points in a different direction.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe results presented at the Emerging Researchers Conference are preliminary results from a literature review and document analysis. Results of the interview analysis that are finished before the conference will also be presented.
Preliminary results show that there are several ways of defining and describing the education of the “whole child”. The Norwegian public education curriculum focuses mostly on “education for all” and does not distinctly describe whole-child education. The aspect of “Bildung” is described along with social, physical, and intellectual development in the Norwegian public education curriculum, and life skills are defined as a transdisciplinary theme.
In the Montessori curriculum, there is an explicit focus on the whole child and the development of the “head, heart, and hands”. Maria Montessori’s idea of “cosmic education” which is defined as the education of the whole child, the concept of “Erdkinder” – meaning “children of the earth” and the idea of education for peace indicates a holistic approach.
Steiner education similarly emphasizes the education of hand, head, and heart and “education towards freedom” as a holistic formation process. Steiner education has a spiritual foundation where the child is seen as a whole being and is influenced by Steiner’s Anthroposophy.
The International Baccalaureate education defines its programs as holistic, especially the lower secondary level curriculum uses the word holistic education to a certain extent. Here the focus on developing different aspects of the child, physical, social, and emotional as well as intellectual, is emphasized.
A preliminary conclusion is that educating the whole child in a narrow definition concerns education for health and wellbeing in all developmental domains of the child. This includes the intellectual, social, emotional, physical, and in some instances spiritual domains. In a broader definition, it concerns the education of “all children” encompassing equality, diversity, and participation for all children.
ReferencesAlvesson, M. & Sköldberg, K. (2009) Reflexive Methodology. New Vistas for Qualitative Research. London. Sage
Betti, E. (1967) Allgemenine Auslegungslehre als Methodik der Geisteswissenshaften. Tübingen: Mohr.
Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2022) Thematic Analysis. A practical guide. London. Sage
Brinkmann, S. and Kvale, S. (2015). InterViews – Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing (third edition). Los Angeles: Sage.
Eaude, T. (2019) Addressing the needs of the whole child. Implications for Young Children and Adults Who Care for Them. In Miller, J. P., Nigh, K., Binder, M. J., Novak, B. & Crowell, S. (Eds.), International Handbook of Holistic Education (pp 61-69). New York: Routledge
Forbes, S. (2003). Holistic Education: An Analysis of its Ideas and Nature. Brandon: Foundation for Educational Renewal.
Gadamer, H-G. (2004) Truth and Method. London. Continuum
Goodlad, J and associates (1979). Curriculum Inquiry. The Study of Curriculum Practice. New York. McGraw-Hill
Mayes, C. (2019). Developing the whole student: New horizons for holistic education. Lanham. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Miller, J. P. (2019a). Holistic Education. A Brief History. In Miller, J. P., Nigh, K., Binder, M. J., Novak, B. & Crowell, S. (Eds.), International Handbook of Holistic Education (pp. 5-16). New York: Routledge Miller, J. P. (2019b). The holistic curriculum (third edition). Toronto. University of Toronto Press.
Miller, R. (1997) What Are Schools For? Holistic Education in American Culture (third revised edition). Brandon. Holistic Education Press.
Ricoeur, P. (1988) Time and Narrative, volume 3. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Rudge, L. (2008). Holistic education: An analysis of its pedagogical application. PhD dissertation. Ohio State University. Retrieved from: http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1213289333
Savina, E., Garrity, K., Kenny, P. et al. The Benefits of Movement for Youth: a Whole Child Approach. Contemp School Psychol 20, 282–292 (2016). DOI: 10.1007/s40688-016-0084-z
Schreiner, P. (2009). Holistic Education and Teacher Training. In de Souza, M., Francis, L. J., O’Higgins-Norman, J. & Scott, D. (Eds.), International Handbook of Education for Spirituality, Care and Wellbeing. (pp. 753-770). Doordrecht: Springer
99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Paper
Rethinking Parental Engagement during and after the Covid-19 Crisis through a Froebelian Lens: Bringing Young Children’s Voices to the Front
Xunrou Shen
University of Strathclyde, United Kingdom
Presenting Author: Shen, Xunrou
The Covid-19 crisis has had and continues to have profound impacts on the continuity of learning of young children. While families and early years practitioners faced unprecedented challenges and demands, the crisis also urged us to explore new approaches to developing early childhood education, especially around parental engagement strategies and practices (Education Scotland, 2020; Ribeiro et al., 2021). As a PhD researcher and an early years practitioner, I became interested in how parental engagement in children’s learning worked in real-life contexts beyond the nursery setting during the pandemic. By understanding better parents’ interactions with young children, new insights can be gained to help us consider effective parental engagement practices that support young children’s learning experiences during crises and beyond.
“Parental engagement” can be considered as the active involvement and interactions of parents with their children’s learning in a variety of contexts, such as early learning and childcare settings, the community, and through family learning in the home (Education Scotland, 2019; Epstein, 2018). However, previous literature and the emerging ones under the pandemic tended to mainly limit the discursive power to practitioners and parents, which means that children, especially those who are at a formative stage in their lives and their growing civic awareness, are rarely consulted in this important debate on parental engagement (Oppenheim et al., 2022). In Scottish early years education, parental engagement has always been an enduring theme that has resonated in an array of policies and guidelines to make efforts to promote children’s learning and development with the engagement of parents and family members (Bryce et al., 2018). This academic and political discourse has been given prominence in the early years even more than ever along with national policies and studies that immediately responded to it after the outbreak of Covid-19, though still without seeking the voices of young children (Bynner et al., 2020). My PhD research is intended to address the absence of young children’s views and experiences in the research literature on parental engagement during the pandemic, which is too often dominated by adults’ narratives (Pascal & Bertram, 2021). Listening to children’s voices is also aligned with the Scottish Government’s initiative to incorporate the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (2009) into its legislation to ensure that children’s rights are respected and their views are heard over matters that may affect them (Scottish Government, 2020).
Additionally, my research also specifically considers parental engagement through the lens of Froebelian pedagogy. As a prominent discourse in early childhood education, Froebelian pedagogy is distinct as this approach rests upon the idea that parents and families form the basis for a child’s learning (Bruce, 2021). Based on the Froebelian approach that emphasises the integrity of childhood in its own right, parenting and family engagement as well as children's voices are the essential tenets of this pedagogy (Tovey, 2017). Thus, the Froebelian context can be uniquely stimulating for me to rethink in-depth the principles, values, and implications of parental engagement,
Overall, this research aims to explore young children’s learning experience with parental engagement during and after the Covid-19 crisis and examine how the Froebelian principles and practices shape parental engagement with young children’s learning during the pandemic and beyond. The research questions are:
- How do young children from a Froebelian setting experience parents’ interactions with their learning under and after Covid-19?
- How do parents from a Froebelian setting perceive and engage with their children’s learning under and after the Covid-19 crisis?
- To what extent Froebelian pedagogy offers opportunities and challenges for parental engagement with young children’s learning during and after the Covid-19 crisis?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedUnderpinned by the research purposes and research questions, a qualitative multiple case study was chosen as the overarching research design and a diverse range of methods was adopted to collect data from and with different groups of research participants. The chosen methodology allowed me to investigate the complexities and particularities of individual child’s learning experiences with their parents’ engagement in their own real-life situations as well as the contextual influences (especially the characteristics of the Froebelian pedagogy) upon those experiences (Stake, 2005).
The data collection was carried out in two Froebelian-underpinned nurseries in Scotland. There were eight young children aged from three to five and their parents, as well as six Froebelian-trained practitioners, were recruited as research participants in this research. Semi-structured individual interviews were carried out with parents and practitioners respectively. The interviews with parents explored their views and experiences concerning engaging with their children’s learning under and after the Covid-19 crisis. Specifically, issues related to how parents support their young children’s learning outwith the nursery and in what ways as well as their thoughts on those associated experiences. In addition, parents’ perceptions of Froebelian practices and their relations to their interactions with children’s learning were also investigated. For practitioners and headteachers, interviews were utilised to acquire essential information about the Froebelian approach and its principles, and particularly the underpinning practices and provisions for engaging and supporting parents with young children’s learning before, and during the pandemic times and till now.
Document analysis was also conducted to gather data from parents and practitioners via associated public and personal documents concerning parental engagement work with children’s learning before, during and after the outbreak of Covid-19. Meanwhile, both settings were encouraged to share pictures or videos of children’s home-based or community-based, nursery-based learning moments/materials which was also a preparation for the later activity with children. For the young child participants, multiple participatory and visual methods were employed to allow children to document their experiences through their point of view and support to break down the disparities in power to facilitate their expressions with researchers, contributing to research with children rather than on children (Clark, 2011). Specifically, this study adopted a variety of visual and verbal activities, including photo-elicitation, photovoice and magic wand for the purpose of effectively capturing young children’s views and experiences in a diverse way (Butschi & Hedderich, 2021; Epstein et al., 2006; Shaw, 2021).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsI have recently completed the data collection and I am currently analysing the data, which is expected to finish by June 2023. The preliminary findings are emerging and evolving. The fieldwork and initial familiarisation with datasets indicate that parents and families encountered barriers to engaging with their children's continuous learning during the pandemic, whereas a Froebelian approach and its underpinned principles, provide diverse and insightful practices to support parental engagement in children's learning, particularly during the pandemic and lockdown time. For example, Froebelian occupations, such as sewing, cooking and planting, tend to open opportunities for effective learning interactions between parents and young children at home or in the community. However, being unable to fully and explicitly recognise a Froebelian approach by parents may impede their understanding of the practitioners' and nursery's practices and provisions, resulting in negative impacts on developing a strengthened home learning environment for young children. Further findings are expected to emerge on how young children experienced their learning with parents’ engagement during and after the pandemic. In the presentation, I plan to share preliminary findings on the learning interactions and experiences of young children with their parents during the pandemic and how a Froebelian approach shapes that and impacts the diverse parental engagement practices in Froebelian early years contexts.
ReferencesBruce, T. (2021). Friedrich Froebel: A Critical Introduction to Key Themes and Debates. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Bryce, T. G. K., Humes, W. M., Gillies, D., Kennedy, A., Davidson, J., Hamilton, T., & Smith, I. (2018). Scottish education (Fifth edition. ed.). Edinburgh : Edinburgh University Press.
Butschi, C., & Hedderich, I. (2021). How to involve young children in a photovoice project. Experiences and results. Forum, qualitative social research, 22(1), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-22.1.3457
Bynner, C., Mcbride, M., Weakley, S., Ward, S., & McLean, J. (2020). The impact of COVID-19 on families, children and young people in Glasgow.
Clark, A. (2011). Breaking methodological boundaries? Exploring visual, participatory methods with adults and young children. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 19(3), 321-330. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2011.597964
Education Scotland. (2020). Supporting pupils and parents with learning at home Guide for Early Learning and Childcare Settings and Schools. Retrieved 4 September from https://education.gov.scot/media/3zxfumlo/supportingpupilsandparents.pdf
Education Scotland, S. E. (2019). Engaging parents and families A toolkit for practitioners Education Scotland. Retrieved 3 March from https://education.gov.scot/improvement/learning-resources/engaging-parents-and-families-a-toolkit-for-practitioners/
Epstein, I., Stevens, B., McKeever, P., & Baruchel, S. (2006). Photo elicitation interview (PEI): Using photos to elicit children's perspectives. International journal of qualitative methods, 5(3), 1-11.
Epstein, J. L. (2018). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools. Routledge.
Oppenheim, C., Batcheler, R., Ireland, E., & Rehill, J. (2022). Time for parents: The changing face of early childhood in the UK. Nuffield Foundation.
Ribeiro, L. M., Cunha, R. S., Silva, M. C. A. e., Carvalho, M., & Vital, M. L. (2021). Parental Involvement during Pandemic Times: Challenges and Opportunities. Education sciences, 11(6), 302. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11060302
Scottish Government. (2020). Covid-19: Children, Young People and Families. Retrieved 11 September from https://www.gov.scot/publications/report-covid-19-children-young-people-families-september-2020-evidence-summary/pages/2/
Shaw, P. A. (2021). Photo-elicitation and photo-voice: using visual methodological tools to engage with younger children's voices about inclusion in education. International journal of research & method in education, 44(4), 337-351. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2020.1755248
Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 443-466). Thousand Oaks : Sage Publications.
Tovey, H. (2017). Bringing the Froebel Approach to your Early Years Practice. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315617190
UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. (2009). The right of the child to be heard, General Comment No. 12.
99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Paper
Thirty Years of Educational Robotics and Robots for Children: A Large-Scale Research Agenda
Nursel Yilmaz1, Arafat Yilmaz2
1Osmaniye Korkut Ata University, Turkiye; 2Computer Engineer
Presenting Author: Yilmaz, Nursel;
Yilmaz, Arafat
The rapid progression of technology has altered the technologies used in education, specifically in the education of children. Recently, educational robotics and robots (ERR) are utilized by various research domains to contribute to children’s life and development. For example, some research studies focused on the use of educational robotics in computational thinking (e.g., Atmatzidou and Demetriadis, 2016; Chen et al., 2017; Karaahmetoğlu and Korkmaz, 2019; Tengler et al., 2021), Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics [STEM] learning (e.g., Barker et al., 2014; Ching et al., 2019; Karim et al., 2015; Master et al., 2015; Mosley, 2016; Üçgül and Altıok, 2021), language learning and development (e.g., Kory and Breazeal, 2014; Lee et al. 2011), disabilities (e.g., Begum et al., 2016; Özdemir and Karaman, 2017; Pop et al. 2013; Scassellati et al., 2018; So et al., 2016). While the amount of research studies has increased through the years, some systematic literature reviews were conducted in order to summarize and understand the possible contribution of the studies and possible future recommendations (e.g., Anwar et al., 2019; Benitti 2012; Toh et al., 2016). However, since the systematic reviews mostly include small-size studies for their analysis, it seems difficult to understand a broad view of the studies using large-scale research studies as well as the state of the intellectual structure and recent progress regarding children and educational robotics and robots. That is, despite the published articles related to educational robotics and robots, a broad overview is still needed to make a clear understanding of the population of children. Therefore, the aim of this study is to statistically and visually present the existing work using bibliometric analysis. Moreover, this research aims to bring a comprehensive overview and research trends in the field relating to children and educational robotics and robots (ERR).
The main research questions of the study were formed as below:
What is the contribution of the countries, institutions, and authors to global publications on educational robotics and robots for children?
What is the distribution of years, research areas, and journals to contribute global publications on educational robotics and robots for children?
What is the co-occurrence of the keywords on educational robotics and robots for children?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThis study is designed to review the scientific literature in the context of children and educational robotics and robots (ERR) using bibliometric analysis. Bibliometric analysis is used to understand the research trends and map the structures of the research topic by summarizing large-scale datasets and having a broad scope of review (Donthu et al., 2021). More specifically, bibliometric analysis can help to review the contributions of the authors, countries, institutions, publications of the journals, emerging research domains, and the trends of the specific literature (Donthu et al., 2020; Mukherjee et al., 2022).
The data of this study were collected from the Web of Science (WOS) Core Collection database using specific search terms and inclusion criteria. The search query included the keywords as robot* and child* and education* in all fields. The first search revealed 2.214 publications and after applying the inclusion criteria related to the language and document type, 1.058 articles written in English were included in the study. No time limitation was applied.
Descriptive statistical analysis was reported by frequencies and percentages of the records calculated and graphs were formed using Microsoft Excel. Moreover, in the research hotspots on educational robotics and robots with children, the VOSviewer application was used and the co-occurrence of keywords and the contribution of the authors were analyzed.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsIt was seen that the first article was published in 1992 (n =2) and most of the studies were published in 2021 (n = 167; 15.78%) and 2022 (n = 164; 15.5%). When the countries and the institutions were examined, it was seen that the top ten leading countries are the USA, Japan, Italy, England, China, Netherlands, Canada, Australia, Spain, and Germany while Osaka University, Tufts University, Harvard University, Udice French Research Universities, University of California System, Kyoto University, University of London, University of Tokyo, Kanazawa University, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology were the top ten institutions producing the most of the publications. The publications were mostly built on five research areas namely, Education and Educational Research, Robotics, Computer Science, Engineering, and Psychology. The articles were mostly published in specific journals such as the International Journal of Social Robotics, Frontiers in Robotics and AI, International Journal of Technology and Design Education, Computers and Education, Frontiers in Psychology, International Journal of Early Childhood Special Education, Education and Information Technologies, Plos One, Advanced Robotics, and British Journal of Educational Technology. Additionally, more results including the co-occurrence of keywords and the contribution of the authors analyzed by using VOSviewer will be presented.
ReferencesAltin, H., & Pedaste, M. (2013). Learning approaches to applying robotics in science education. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 12(3), 365 - 377.
Atmatzidou, S., & Demetriadis, S. (2016). Advancing students' computational thinking skills through educational robotics: A study on age and gender relevant differences. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75, 661-670.
Barker, B. S., Nugent, G., & Grandgenett, N. (2014). Examining fidelity of program implementation in a STEM-oriented out-of-school setting. International Journal of Technology & Design Education, 24(1), 39-52.
Chen, G., Shen, J., Barth-Cohen, L., Jiang, S., Huang, X. & Eltoukhy, M. (2017). Assessing elementary students’ computational thinking in everyday reasoning and robotics programming. Computers & Education, 109, 162–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.03.001
Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285-296.
Mukherjee, D., Lim, W. M., Kumar, S., & Donthu, N. (2022). Guidelines for advancing theory and practice through bibliometric research. Journal of Business Research, 148, 101-115.
Özdemir, D., & Karaman, S. (2017). Investigating interactions between students with mild mental retardation and humanoid robots in terms of feedback types. Education and Science, 42(191), 109–138. https://doi.org/10.15390/
EB.2017.6948
Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2022). VOSviewer manual. Manual for VOSviewer version, 1(0).
|
