Subjectivity as an agent for driving pedagogy

Is the idea of objective scientific observation of children a myth? What is the value of
subjectivity in understanding children’s learning and development?

Early childhood education is based off on a curriculum that is holistic. It is grounded in not
only philosophy but also in rigorous methodology and theory and research. These schemes,
however, did not originate from those who were immersed in early childhood education but
from academics from vastly different professional backgrounds. Their commonality was the
understanding of children. This understanding is what made early childhood education
unique; it started with the child. Over time the image of the child we have has changed. So
has many principles and practices that laid the foundation of early childhood education.
Subjectivity is one such practice. For decades the children were viewed in an objective lens
and observations that were made were objective scientific observations. However, with
changing times, early childhood education has taken a step towards observing the child with a
subjective lens. Therefore, early childhood professions have started to discover the value of
subjectivity in understanding children’s learning and development.

Early childhood education’s roots go back as far as the 1500s when very people knew how to
read and were uneducated. Martin Luther (1483-1546), a German theology professor,
believed that education should be a universal right and emphasised that education can
strengthen the community and family. He also believed that children should be taught to read
independently and to teach children to learn at an early age is highly beneficial to society.
Leading from this idea, individuals such as John Amos Comenius (1592-1670), John Locke
(1632 – 1704), Fredrich Froebel (1782 – 1852) and Maria Montessori (1870 – 1952)
revolutionised early childhood education (Bonnay, 2017). Their believes and theories, such
as children’s learning is rooted to sensory exploration, children learning through play,
children are ‘blank slates’ and children are a source of knowledge and that educators are
social engineers, paved the path for more theorists to observe, gather data, hypothesise and
come to conclusions about many more theories that form the foundation for early childhood
education (Bonnay, 2017).

For example, Jean Piaget who established the theory of development where children’s
development is divided into a series of stages and that children learn through active
interaction with the environment. Lev Vygotsky who’s development theory is based on a
socio-cultural perspective and that children scaffold their own learning. John Dewey who
believed that children’s learning should stem from their interests. Eric Erikson’s theory of
psychosocial stages of development where he stressed the emotional development as key
component of early childhood education. These scientific theories have been a driving force
behind early childhood education (Berk, 2013).

These theories and scientific observations have given stakeholders such as educators, other
early childhood professionals, policymakers, parents and families around the world the
information needed to design programs, curriculums and policies and make decisions that a
centred around the children and their education. The scientific information such as
developmental milestones have given educators around the world an idea of how children
develop and what can they do it to facilitate it further.

“Scientists claim that scientific knowledge is the best form of knowledge because it tells us
what is true and what is not” (MacNaughton, 2003, p. 17). These scientific theories,
however, are based on typical conditions and do not take all children into account. They do
not take children’s individual experiences into account as they will vary due to many factors.
For example, children from war-torn countries would have had vastly different upbringing to
children from another country. Their experiences, emotional responses, priorities and their
basic lifestyle would be different. Therefore, it natural to assume their development will not
follow the same progression due to the varying circumstances. Therefore, scientific approach
towards pedagogy and curriculum can be skewered as this approach tends to ignore the lived
experiences of the children and the vast knowledge and ideas that educators and children
bring into the learning which in turn may influence the outcome.

All the theories that underpin the early childhood education do suggest that objective
scientific observation of children is not a myth. However, as said before, it does not give a
full image of the child. Whereas subjectivity can recognise children’s learning and
development is shaped by the experiences, activities and practices that they are engaged in
their everyday life.

The idea of subjectivity stems from many contemporary and postmodern perspectives. One
of them being the Reggio Emilia approach which also known as the emergent approach.
Reggio Emilia was founded by Loris Malaguzzi who believed that children’s learning and
interests must be the driving force behind the educator’s programming and curriculum
(Bonnay, 2017). He also states that teaching begins with the image of the child. He states “It
is necessary that we believe that the child is very intelligent, that the child is strong and
beautiful and has very ambitious desires and requests. This is the image of the child that we
need to hold” (Malaguzzi, 1993). Carla Rinaldi who was influenced by the Reggio Emilia
approach believes subjectivity is strongly related to the uniqueness and the differences of
individuals and that by valuing differences we can avoid the risks of homogenising and
standardising (Rinaldi, 2013).

Comprehending that children’s experiences shape their learning leads to us to understand that
there are many values to subjectivity. Subjectivity inspire us to understand that there are
multiple perceptions of looking at things, makes us utilise different perspective to understand
better, that there is no single truth but different perspectives and since there is no single truth
everyone, whether they be an adult or a child, deserves the right be heard, respected and
acknowledged (Rinaldi, 2013; Malaguzzi, 1993).

The above statements lead us to understand the subjectivity is dependent of the image of the
child. As Malaguzzi states the image is what will drive our actions and interactions with the
child, and our prior experiences and learning will be what shapes our image of the child.
Therefore, he states that us as educators must critically reflect on our image of the child and
determine whether we see them in a positive or a negative perspective as our image of the
child will influence our teaching (Malaguzzi, 1993).

A positive image of the child educators can have that of an agentic child. The agentic child
challenges the notion of children as powerless, innocent and victims and holds children as a
citizen of their society. It describes children as participants in their lives and education. The
agentic child also co-constructs their childhood with adults and that adults interact with
children they are co-learners who negotiate, challenge and guide while sharing power with
them. When educators view children as agentic children who possess potential and
knowledge, educators can engage in assessment to find out children’s capabilities, can design
a curriculum based on their abilities with broad outcomes in mind and engage in a strength-
based approach to pedagogy (Sorin, 2005).

Subjectivity also offers us a method to observe children and capture children’s experiences
using their voice, work samples, learning stories and photos. These methods allow us to
glance at children’s real experiences, their thoughts and feelings and the learning that occurs.
As Malaguzzi said, it is vital for educators to be wholly involved because children feel valued
that adults are there being attentive, helpful and guiding them (Malaguzzi, 1993). Also, when
educators are immersed with children in their activities educators themselves can gain a
different perspective on the role they have. As Malaguzzi said “…when you learn to observe
the child, when you have assimilated all that it means to observe the child, you learn many
things that are not in books — educational or psychological. And, when you have done this
you will learn to have more diffidence and more distrust of rapid assessments, tests,
judgments. The child wants to be observed, but she doesn’t want to be judged” (Malaguzzi,
1993, p. 4)

In conclusion, subjectivity can be an agent that drives pedagogy. Subjectivity is about

making decisions based upon what is best for the child rather than outcomes or norms. It can
also be considered reflective thinking rather than letting science and theory guide the
curriculum decisions. The values of subjectivity are tremendous. Subjectivity allows us to
view children as competent, active and agentic. It lets us view children as having rights, that
children are driven by the enormous amount of potential that fuels their curiosity and capable
of constructing their own knowledge and learning. When subjectivity drives pedagogy, our
principle and practices are founded upon reflective and critical thinking. Also, the principles
and practices become child-centred as opposed to teacher-directed. However, objective
scientific observations or scientific theory should not be wholly disregarded. It should be
used as a tool that can be questioned, taken apart and hybridised to new perspectives.
References

Berk, L. E. (2013). Child Development. Boston: Pearson Education.

Bonnay, S. (2017, May 25). Early Childhood Education: Then and Now - The Spoke - The
Early Childhood Australia's Blog. Retrieved September 05, 2018, from The Spoke -
The Early Childhood Australia's Blog - A voice for young children:
http://thespoke.earlychildhoodaustralia.org.au/early-childhood-education-now/

MacNaughton, G. (2003). Shaping Early Childhood: Learners, Curriculum and Contexts.

Milton Keynes, United Kingdom: Open University Press.

Malaguzzi, L. (1993). Your Image of the Child: Where the Teaching Begins. Retrieved from
https://www.reggioalliance.org/downloads/malaguzzi:ccie:1994.pdf

Rinaldi, C. (2013). Re-imagining Childhood: Re-Imagining Childhood: The inspiration of

Reggio Emilia education principles in South Australia . Adelaide: Government of
South Australia. Retrieved from
https://www.education.sa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net691/f/reimagining-childhood.pdf

Sorin, R. (2005). CHANGING IMAGES OF CHILDHOOD – RECONCEPTUALISING

EARLY CHILDHOOD PRACTICE. International Journal of Transitions in
Childhood , 1(1), 12-21. Retrieved from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.556.6967&rep=rep1&type=
pdf