AN OBSERVATION OF AN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION CLASSROOM

My observation was conducted in a nursery school for children aged 3 – 5. It is attached to and
forms part of a larger school complex which contains both primary and secondary schools. So
theoretically, a child could begin education in the nursery school and remain in the same
environment until he graduates.
THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
The first thing I noticed when I stepped into the nursery school complex was the fact that the
school was highly influenced by the Montessori model of early childhood education. Although
the school does not tout itself as a Montessori school, I noticed that there were a lot of the
components of the Montessori philosophy in the way the school was designed. For instance,
the utilities – toilets and wash hand basins were at an height that was easily accessible to the
children without needing adult assistance. That for me was unusual and quite impressive,
because even the preschool at which I teach has not made such a provision. I also noticed that
in addition to the different learning centers in the classrooms, they also had a Montessori room,
where a lot of the Montessori learning and sensory materials were displayed. I believe this is a
middle ground or compromise the school has had to reach because, as I will explain further on
in this paper, practicing a truly child-centered or child led methodology is very difficult in our
educational climate.
I further noticed that a lot of care and attention was paid to the classroom learning environment,
and it appeared the teachers had whole-heartedly embraced the idea of having the environment
as a third teacher. The school implements a theme-based, teacher directed curriculum, and it
was obvious from the classroom environment that the theme for that period (I am not sure if it
was a weekly or monthly theme) had to do with the climate. (See Fig 1) There were paper and
cardboard suns, clouds, snowflakes, icicles and rain drops hanging from the roof. There was a
huge, beautifully illustrated wall display of the water cycle on the wall, as well as a wall display
showing the four seasons of the temperate region. With my exposure to socio-cultural
approaches to learning, which encourages us to ‘match learning experiences to children’s
cultural contexts’ (Edwards, 2003:258), I would critique the use of snow-flakes, icicles and a
reference to spring, autumn or winter as teaching aids in a tropical climate such as ours, but it
was apparent that a lot of effort had been expended in creating the displays.

Fig 1: Colourful class displays designed as learning aids.

Although a lot of attention had been paid to using the classroom displays as a learning aid, less
had been paid to aesthetics and creating a warm and welcoming home-like environment. The
class was painted in bright, primary colours, the displays were also big and bold, dominating
the entire class, and I could imagine a 3 or 4 year old being overwhelmed and over stimulated,
rather than intrigued, by it all. There was no attempt to integrate natural materials or add
elements of nature into the classroom. Curtis & Carter (2015) advocate bringing an element of
softness into the early childhood classroom. They suggest soft fabric, rugs and warm lighting
to make the environment more home-like and less institutional. I agree with the need to keep
early childhood education environments de-institutionalised. Relationships (between the
children, between children and their caregivers, and between the early childhood center and the
children’s family) are key to the social and emotional development of the children who attend
the center. When an early childhood education setting feels like an institution, this may prevent
such relationships from forming. (Shephard & Eaton, 1997).
The outdoor environment was what I would call standard for early childhood education in my
country. There was a square grassed area about 14 squared meters which presumably is for
outdoor classes or ‘physical education’ classes. There was also a fenced in playground with the
typical playground equipment – slides, swings, a see-saw, and a climbing frame. Once again,
there was no attempt to encourage or stimulate interaction with nature. Apart from the well-
manicured lawn and border shrubs which, in my opinion were too well maintained to encourage
children to interact with them, there were no other invitations to experience nature. All the
playground equipment was of brightly coloured plastic, there were no trees to encourage
climbing, no water or sand play areas. Once again this is as a result of the commonly held belief
in my environment (which I have discovered is common to most third-world countries) that
nature is unsafe and unsanitary and should be avoided. It would take a lot of parent education
and sensitization to change this belief. While I fully understand this predicament most
preschools find themselves in, I believe a determined early childhood educator can find ways
to include nature and natural objects in the environment. They can include food items like
grains on the sensory table, smooth pebbles or sticks for counting rather than commercially
purchased tokens, and clay or home made play dough made from food grade materials. (In my
class, I use garri, a food staple made from cassava, in our tray for mark making. This is more
acceptable to the parents than playground sand, which they feel is unsanitary.)
FOSTERING INTERACTION
This field observation confirmed my suspicions that very few or no schools in my country run
an emergent curriculum in which the day’s activities are truly child-led. It will be very
challenging to do this in our educational climate because every school has a rigorous academic
program. Unlike in European/American cultures where play is viewed as vital and important
for children’s emotional and physical development, in my country, children’s play is viewed
as a waste of time, something to be done when the work (household chores and schoolwork) is
done. Thus, parents will find it confusing, not to say irritating, if children spent their whole
school day ‘playing’.
Furthermore, early childcare (Nursery school for children aged 3 – 5) in my country is totally
in the realm of private business ownership. There are no government-run preschools. There is
no centralised framework for early childhood education. School managements are therefore
under pressure to remain competitive and measure up to standards and expectations set by
parents, the consumers. To appropriate the words of Dahlberg & Moss, in my country, early
childhood education is ‘a business competing in a market to sell its products—education and
care. Parents (have) become autonomous calculating consumers, supported in their individual
calculation by managerial concepts such as delivery, quality, excellence and outcomes.’ (In
Dialogue with Reggio Emilia, 2006:2) The outcomes expected by these consumers are not very
developmentally appropriate. For instance, in contrast to guidelines on Developmentally
Appropriate Practice issued by NAEYC (2009), that the aim of early childhood education
should not be that children learn grade -school level skills at an earlier age, in my country that
is precisely the aim. Parents measure how good an early childhood education setting is by how
early the child can read – expectations are that children should be reading by age 3 and 4, how
far the child can count and how many historical facts he has memorized and can recite. Faced
with such exacting standards, many early childhood educators are constrained in their options
as to methodology and pedagogy.
The more progressive practices may try to incorporate methodologies that make allowance for
children to be active learners e.g. Montessori. They may provide the Montessori materials in
the classroom. But the program is not truly child-led because the materials are used as an aid
in achieving the learning goals set by the teacher, not because the child chooses to interact with
them. A child cannot, for instance, choose to be at the sensory table when it is time for a lesson
in Numeracy.
In the classroom I observed, there was only one large group seating arrangement, with all the
little chairs arranged around a large table for all 18 children in the class. Although theroretically
this could provide opportunities for interaction, in practice there was little or no interaction
between the children. The teacher sat in one of the chairs, introduced her topic and discussed
it. She was interactive with the children, and invited them to participate in the class, but this
was more in the form of leading questions and rhetoric questions, which demanded mostly
chorus answers or yes/no answers. In my opinion she could do more to foster dialogue with the
children by asking open-ended questions, and offering extensions or continuations to the
children’s comments.
DOCUMENTATION OF CHILDREN’S WORK
There were samples of the children’s work on the walls, but these were not displayed in a way
as to draw attention or elicit conversations. If anything, I would say they were overshadowed
by the teacher-created displays. When I inquired of the teacher why the children’s work was
on display, she explained that it was to let the children know their work is appreciated. I agree
that this is a laudable purpose for documentation, and documentation should always be
arranged in such a way as to show the children that we respect and value their ideas. (Tarr,
2001). However, as I have come to learn, documentation can be utilized to much greater
purpose as a means of inviting collaboration and connections with the children, their parents
and colleagues. Documentation is meant to elicit curiosity and ‘draw (the observer) into the
experience’ (Seitz, 2008:88), by telling the story behind the display. When utilized in this way,
documentation widens and deepens our understanding of the children, their thoughts, feelings
and values. (Wien, 2013:3) This was lacking in the displays of the children’s work in this
classroom.
I feel it would have been a better learning opportunity for the children, as well as better
documentation if, rather than designing the weather displays herself, they had been created as
a class project involving the children and their ideas about the climate, what causes the weather
to change and how changes in weather affect us e.g. choices about clothing, housing, food
preservation etc. The children would have probably remained engaged longer and investigated
the topic in more detail and with more concentration. I felt that once the novelty of the colourful
hangings and wall displays wore off, the children were no longer interested in the subject and
it became just another day in class.
CREATING CONNECTIONS
As noted earlier, this classroom environment did not include many opportunities to interact
with nature, due to the prevalent fear of the outdoors in my society. However I also noticed
that there were not any cultural references or artefacts on display or in use in the classroom. In
fact the classroom could have been set up in any part of the (westernized) world. It is important
to enhance connections with the community, because that is when meaningful learning
happens. (Curtis & Carter, 2015:63). The early childhood environment should therefore
reinforce and reflect children’s bonds with their homes and with their communities. This could
have been achieved by having a welcoming space which encourages family members to linger
and/or socialize. For instance, the displays of children’s work could have been placed in an
alcove or ante room with comfortable provisions for sitting, thus encouraging parents to stop
and consider the documentation. Connections with the community could also have been created
by making use of culturally relevant materials for displays and as props for children’s activities,
rather than purely commercial ones. There are a great variety of locally made storage vessels
like woven baskets, calabashes or gourds and beautifully engraved clay vessels in which
classroom materials could be stored, which, apart from being culturally relevant, are
aesthetically pleasing. I would also have encouraged the use of locally made fabrics and
costumes reflecting the indigenous cultures of the children in the dramatic role play area
(Friedman, 2005).
ROUTINES AND SCHEDULING
The class was run on a tight schedule, and as far as I could tell, there was little opportunity for
variations in scheduling, apart from a designated ‘free play period’ when the children could
interact in the various activity centers. The day was started off with a circle time, during which
the teacher set the tone for the day by reviewing or revising points covered during learning
periods the previous day and describing the learning objectives for the day. This was followed
by Literacy, numeracy or any other subject the teacher had planned for the morning. Although
the pace of activities was not rushed, there did not seem to be much room left for spontaneity.
I therefore felt that routines dominated the program, and that there was not much time for
sustained engagement with the subject matter. I asked the teacher what the response was when
children did not seem to be in the mood for a particular activity she had planned. She said she
tried to vary the settings. For instance if some children looked like they were getting antsy or
restless, she could take a class outdoors.
Since the program being run is a teacher-led curriculum with specific learning goals, there
really isn’t too much room for long term investigations of subject matters and materials. I did
notice however that in the construction/block area which was cordoned off from the rest of the
class, there appeared to be half completed constructions which had apparently not been cleared
up from the previous day. This I think was a positive development. Children are more likely to
embark on ambitious, elaborate projects when they know that they are not under pressure to
finish it within an allotted period of time, or that they can always come back to it the following
day. (Shephard & Eaton, 1997).
CONCLUSIONS:
In the course of the weekly readings during this course, I had come to see a lot of areas in which
Early childhood education practices prevalent in my society were not in keeping with current
best practices. There are a number of local and cultural challenges which may act as barriers to
implementing these practices. However, with proper sensitization of stakeholders, professional
development and training of teachers, and most importantly, a determination on the part of all
concerned to do what is in the best interests of the children, the provision of these services can
be greatly improved.
REFERENCES
Curtis,D. & Carter, M. (2014). Designs for Living and Learning. St Paul, MN: Redleaf Press.
Edwards, S (2003). New Directions: Charting the paths for the role of sociocultural theory in
early childhood education and curriculum. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 4(3),
251-265.
Friedman, S. (2005). Environments That Inspire. YC: Young Children, 60(3), 48-55.
Rinaldi, C. (2006). In dialogue with Reggio Emilia. London: Routledge.
Seitz, H. (2008). The Power of Documentation in the Early Childhood Classroom. YC: Young
Children 63(2), 88 – 93.
Shephard, W and Eaton, J. (1997). Creating environments that intrigue and delight children
and adults. Child Care Information Exchange 9, 42 – 47.

Tarr, P. (2001). Aesthetic codes in early childhood classrooms: What art educators can learn
from Reggio Emilia. Art Education, 54(3), 33-39.

Wien, C. (2013). Making learning visible through pedagogical documentation. Retrieved

from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/childcare/ResearchBriefs.pdf).