Findings

CASE STUDY

Practitioners experimented putting water  into a tuff tray. The water was shallow, however dipped into the middle where it was deeper in the centre, the resources were smaller of size in accordance with the depth of the water.  There was a child in the room, keen to play with the water however because of his height, he could not reach the centre of the tray where the water was deep enough to scoop, pour and fill. The child who is EAL and prefers to use body language and gestures to communicate quickly exclaimed, “ It’s not deep enough, I can’t reach “ . This declaration presented a teachable, responsive moment rich with experience and interactions from a child who prefers  to communicate through gesture. He was quickly guided with freedom, to create deep water experiences by filling buckets of water to use in the water play tray. This exemplified deeper engagement, he played for almost an hour – interrupted by lunchtime. Fundamentally, the practitioner honed the skills of securing the child’s autonomy and his rights to equality, she supported sustainable creativity and thinking, developing his knowledge and understanding. This was evident from the child’s actions, words and emotions. All practitioners remarked that when they guided discovery and creativity at the water tray, children would  spending considerable periods of time, indulging the experience, predicting outcomes and building on their own knowledge.

Participation became more natural as the research project developed.  Practitioners were visibly relaxed in their facilitation of experiences and rather than set-up water challenges or tasks, practitioners cyclical process of “think, do, think” empowered and guided children’s autonomy to make discoveries, develop creativity or indulge in their imaginative play and life experiences. Practitioners were more attuned – and deeper play took place as a result.

The recommended reading throughout the practitioner enquiry sessions was fundamental to introduce action research to my colleagues. In particular the McNaughton and Hughes, 2008 publication “Doing action research in Early Childhood Studies”.

From the introduction of the book, to my research question, I have been influenced by my Froebelian principles and guided by the content to fulfil and summarise a process of change that is action research.

Disseminating “think, do, think” practice (thinking what do we do at present, then do something to engage in change, think again about what we have done and its effects) will fully evolve throughout our experiences and environment supporting children to develop their right to express their views, feelings and wishes, be considered and taken seriously, indicative of Article 12,  UNCRC . Practitioners demonstrated skills to recognise  that children’s voices are communicated by behaviour as well as verbally. Therefore listening to young children’s movement and gesture,  alongside what they may say, enabled equitable contributions to the research – spaces and emotions gave the child’s voice true context and meaning.

Equally observations of discovery and creativity using water play, presented opportunities to identify the principles of curriculum design. There was depth, relevance, personalisation and choice, coherence, breadth, challenge, progression and most importantly enjoyment could be obtained in one observation.

Rich experiences were observed supporting and developing children’s experiences by sensitive and knowledgeable practitioners. Recognising significant moments, practitioners know when and how to interact, knowing when to give the child autonomy – my observations highlighted the  relevance of observing children, placing their needs and interests at the centre of the environment,  playing with purpose indoors or outdoors is timeless and Froebelian in nature.

When planning for my research I thought of several questions to ignite a response from the children regarding their concept of water, however using the toolkit I wondered if the questions were really needed ? I considered  the questions were a contradictory approach to encouraging self-direction and creativity  and could actually be an interruption to the children’s creativity. By using my devised questions I had already decided and began to shape an outcome that suited me as practitioner therefore I was limiting the children’s true participation.

Children had many first hand experiences of playing with water, therefore their own wealth of knowledge about the properties and elements of water play was evident by simply observing or partaking in  the self-directed children’s play. Indeed everything I initially wanted to know from my devised questions happened holistically  – without pens and paper.

Conclusion

I recognised my intention (of the devised questions ) to what Kay Tisdall (2015) refers to as an instrumental pitfall, describing the practice as highly selective of children’s contributions to meet my aims and outcome.  This was pivotal to me as a practitioner, as I believed my pedagogical approach to early years practice was a role model of example, advocating  children with rights and experiences to draw and build upon their being. The research project highlighted my professional and personal being is long from complete. The journey of self-discovery has been fulfilling and presents future practice, that I am excited to embrace and engage – fully endorsing Froebelian practice with children’s true autonomy.

The collaboration of research findings presented a difference from indoors to outdoor water play. The biggest is outdoors – we have no direct access to water, therefore while experiences are beautifully natural and based on the wonder of nature there are limitations to the longevity of experiences.  The research has impacted on our future environments with a plan supported by the senior management to create a working group of parents and community supports to facilitate our outdoor spaces with access to running water.