Findings

“Slow pedagogy allows us to pause or dwell in spaces for more than a fleeting moment and encourages us to attach and receive meaning from that place” (Payne & Wattchow, 2009)

My learning throughout this research project can be encapsulated by the above reference. Throughout the project I observed the importance of slow pedagogy and the impact that this on both the experience of the child and practitioner.

My initial experiences at the beginning of the project were of capturing a baseline of how slow pedagogy is understood by practitioners in our setting. It was immediately apparent that there was a contrast in views of what ‘slow pedagogy’ is, how it’s practised and how it influences experiences. I chose to complete both qualitative and quantitative research on staff views to ensure that I had a clear understanding of how this term is understood in our setting and what misconceptions, if any, exist. Staff completed the above-outlined questionnaire and then took part in a focus group where they were prompted to explore an observation where they felt they had applied a slow pedagogical approach. Interestingly, in response to the question “Slow Pedagogy is about the practitioner moving along with the child”, there was a range of answers. This informed me that there was an inconsistent level of understanding of the theory behind slow pedagogy. I chose to anonymously share the survey results with all staff so that there was a collective understanding of the purpose of us exploring slow pedagogy.

After gathering baseline evidence, I moved to the next stage of the project which was encouraging staff to engage with slow pedagogy research. To support this, I created a professional reading library which included texts such as “Interacting or Interfering” by Julie Fisher and “Slow Knowledge and the Unhurried Child” by Alison Clark. Staff were encouraged to access the library and apply the knowledge they have gained to implement a Slow Pedagogical approach into their practice. I set time aside within weekly staff meetings to discuss interactions and how the environment can support a slow pedagogical approach.

These conversations were highly beneficial for all staff however during focus groups participants were then able to expand on some of these conversations. For example, one practitioner commented that they feel when a member of the leadership was in the setting, they felt pressure to be visibly interacting with a child/children. This honest reflection allowed me to consider the practicalities of slow pedagogy in an environment where staff often feel pressure to ‘perform’ in a certain way. Although unexpected, this was a valuable comment as I then approached SLT about the idea of them reassuring staff that they were also deepening their understanding of slow pedagogy. Another question that was raised was the importance of all practitioners being confident in disagreeing with certain aspects of the reading. As the lead practitioner, I now feel I have to consider how I can model critical analysis of professional texts in discussions.

Finally, I asked the staff to repeat the survey after 3 focus groups. As shown below, there was an increase in staff who were confident that their understanding of slow pedagogy had increased and they were applying this more consistently in their practice.

Conclusion

This project has facilitated a comprehensive understanding within our entire team of the crucial significance of slowing down our approach and embracing Slow Pedagogy. Through this inquiry, we have heightened our awareness of the necessity of allowing children ample time to immerse themselves in play, attributing profound significance to these experiences. As a result, we have cultivated a unified vision among our staff regarding Slow Pedagogy, significantly influencing our current practices.

Children now encounter enriched learning opportunities characterised by quality engagement, as staff apply their newfound knowledge to enhance rather than disrupt their play experiences. Moving forward, this project will undergo continuous development, evaluation, and refinement, with a commitment to working closely with the Senior Leadership Team (SLT) to deepen their understanding of Slow Pedagogy and ensure a consistently applied approach.