Finnish Early Childhood Education and Care: Heidi Harju-Luukkainen Jonna Kangas Susanne Garvis Editors

Early Childhood Research and Education:
An Inter-theoretical Focus 1
Heidi Harju-Luukkainen
Jonna Kangas
Susanne Garvis Editors
Finnish Early
Childhood
Education
and Care
A Multi-theoretical perspective on
research and practice
Early Childhood Research and Education:
An Inter-theoretical Focus
Volume 1
Series Editors
Joseph Agbenyega, Peninsula Campus, Monash University Peninsula Campus,
Frankston, Australia
Marie Hammer, Fac of Educ, Peninsula Campus, Monash University Fac of Educ,
Peninsula Campus, Frankston, VIC, Australia
Nikolai Veresov, Faculty of Education, Monash University Faculty of Education,
Frankston, Australia
This series addresses inter-disciplinary critical components in early childhood
education such as: Relationships: Movements/Transitions; Community and
contexts; Leadership; Ethics are driven by a range of theories.
It brings depth and breadth to the application of different theories to these
components both in the research and its practical applications in early childhood
education. In-depth discussion of theoretical lenses and their application to research
and practice provides insights into the complexities and dynamics of Early
Childhood education and practice.
This series is designed to explore the application of a range of theories to open
up and analyse sets of data. Each volume will explore multiple age periods of early
childhood and will interrogate common data sets. The notion of theoretical
coherence as a methodological principle will underpin the approach across each of
the volumes.
Heidi Harju-Luukkainen • Jonna Kangas
Susanne Garvis
Editors
Finnish Early Childhood

Education and Care
A Multi-theoretical perspective on research
and practice
Editors
Heidi Harju-Luukkainen Jonna Kangas
University of Jyväskylä University of Helsinki
Jyväskylä, Finland Helsinki, Finland
Nord University
Bodø, Norway
Tampere University
Tampere, Finland
Susanne Garvis
Swinburne University of Technology
Melbourne, VIC, Australia
Early Childhood Research and Education: An Inter-theoretical Focus

ISBN 978-3-030-95511-3 ISBN 978-3-030-95512-0 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95512-0
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland
AG 2022 , corrected publication 2022
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar
or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Contents
1
Introduction to Early Childhood Education System’s
Policies and Practices in Finland�� 1
Heidi Harju-Luukkainen, Jonna Kangas, and Susanne Garvis
Part I Multi-theoretical Teacher Training and Professional Approach

2
Pedagogical Leadership in Early Childhood
Education Teachers’ Work�� 13
Johanna Heikka, Katja Suhonen, and Sanni Kahila
3
Critical Compassion in Finnish Early Childhood Educators’
Responses to Challenges of Acting Compassionately �� 27
Antti Rajala, Anna Pauliina Rainio, Lasse Lipponen, Jaakko Hilppö,
and Emma Kurenlahti
4
Widening Text Worlds in Finnish Early Childhood Education �� 41
Alexandra Nordström, Heidi Sairanen, Jenny Byman, Jenny
Renlund, and Sara Sintonen
5
Developing Praxeological Understanding in Teacher Education:
A Case of Worldview Education in Finnish ECEC�� 55
Saila Poulter, Arniika Kuusisto, and Silja Lamminmäki-Vartia
6
Media Education in Finnish Early Childhood Teacher Education:
A Curricular Analysis�� 69
Saara Salomaa and Pekka Mertala
7
‘Too Little Attention Is Paid to Children Who Require
Specialised Support.’: In-Service and Pre-service Teachers’
Views on Policy and Practice in Early Childhood Teacher
Education in Finland �� 85
Mari Saha and Henri Pesonen
v
vi Contents
Part II Children and Families in ECEC

8
Teachers’ Understanding of Children’s Right to Participation
in Finnish Early Childhood Education and Care �� 101
Marina Lundkvist
9
Promoting Participatory Learning and Creative Thinking
in Finnish ECEC – A Review of Five Arts Pedagogical
Case Studies�� 115
Inkeri Ruokonen
10
North Sámi Language Nests in Northern Finland:
A Case Study of Sámi Early Childhood Education and Care �� 133
Rauni Äärelä-Vihriälä and Tuija Turunen
11 Story, Your Story, Our Story: Reciprocal Listening
My
and Participation Through Storycrafting in Early
Childhood Education and Care�� 147
Anna-Leena Lastikka and Liisa Karlsson
12
Observed Reading Sessions Between 08:00–16:00 Hours
in Finnish Early Childhood Education�� 165
Jyrki Reunamo
13
Early Skills as Predictors for Later Educational Outcome
in Mathematics and Science in Finland
and Sweden – A Further Analysis on TIMSS 2015 Data�� 181
Heidi Harju-Luukkainen, Kari Nissinen,
and Jouni Vettenranta
Part III Towards Finnish Pedagogy

14
Creating a Theoretical Framework for Playful Learning
and Pedagogy – The Finnish Perspective�� 195
Jonna Kangas and Heidi Harju-Luukkainen
15
Practices of Planning as a Reflection of Teaching
and Learning Concepts in ECEC: The Cases of Finland
and Slovenia�� 209
Sonja Rutar, Tuulikki Ukkonen-Mikkola, Tina Štemberger,
and Sonja Čotar Konrad
16
Leadership in the Changing Context of Finnish Early
Childhood Education �� 227
Eeva Hujala and Kirsi Alila
Contents vii
17 Quilt of Practices: Sustainability Education in Finnish

A
Early Childhood and Care�� 241
Ann-Christin Furu
18
Elements of the Pedagogical Process in Finnish
Early Childhood Education�� 257
Kirsi Alila, Tuulikki Ukkonen-Mikkola,
and Jonna Kangas
19
Conclusion and Orientation to the Future�� 275
Jonna Kangas, Heidi Harju-Luukkainen,
and Susanne Garvis
orrection to: Pedagogical Leadership in Early Childhood
C
Education Teachers’ Work. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C1
About the Contributors
Rauni Äärelä-Vihriälä is an associate professor at Sámi Allaskuvla, Norway. She

completed her doctoral dissertation in a unique study of Sámi language nest activi-
ties in 2016 from the University of Lapland. Professor Äärelä-Vihriälä’s work at
Sámi Allaskuvla focuses on the Sámi teacher education and the Sámi educational
field of research. Her research focuses on Sámi language immersion.
Kirsi Alila holds a PhD in education. She is working as a senior ministerial adviser
in educational affairs in the Ministry of Education and Culture in Finland. As work-
ing in the Ministry, she is responsible for the strategic and developmental tasks on
early childhood education care in national and international level of work. Her
research focus is on mainly on quality, steering system, legislation, training, peda-
gogy, and leadership in ECEC.
Jenny Byman is a future PhD student in the school, education, society, and culture
doctoral program at the University of Helsinki. Jenny’s current research project is
digital mediation of children’s interactions with the more-than-human world, funded
by ARC. Her research interests include children’s emotional relationships with
nature, interaction, and multiliteracies.
Ann-Christin Furu is currently affiliated with the Åbo Akademi University in

Finland as researcher of sustainability matters in early childhood education and
care. Her research is directed towards sustainability education, with a special focus
on how resilience can be supported through relational perspectives in teacher educa-
tion. She adopts collaborative, narrative, and arts-based approaches to professional
development and research within the field of sustainability education in early child-
hood. Furu is a member of national as well as international research groups and
networks on sustainability in early childhood, and she is one of the convenors of the
EECERA SIG for sustainability in early childhood education.
Susanne Garvis is Professor of Education and the chair of the Department of

Education at Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne. She has worked in
ix
x About the Contributors
Sweden as well as Australia within early childhood education. Her research in early
childhood policy and quality is world leading and has informed numerous policy
initiatives and professional learning practices with early childhood teachers and
young children.
Heidi Harju-Luukkainen Professor (Univeristy of Jyväskylä, Tampere

University, Finland, and Nord university, Norway), holds a PhD in education, spe-
cial education teacher qualification, and a qualification in leadership and manage-
ment from Finland. She has published more than 200 international books, journal
articles, and reports as well as worked in more than 30 projects globally. Harju-
Luukkainen has worked at top-ranked universities in the USA, such as UCLA and
USC, as well as in many Nordic research universities. She has developed education
programs for universities, been a PI of PISA sub-assessments in Finland, and func-
tioned as board professional. Her research areas are early childhood education, jus-
tice in education, special education, and international student assessment.
Johanna Heikka PhD, works as a university lecturer in the School of Applied

Educational Science and Teacher Education at the University of Eastern Finland.
Her research interests focus on leadership, quality, and pedagogical development in
early childhood education. She is a leader and/or member of leadership research
groups and development projects in Finland and abroad.
Jaakko Hilppö is a university lecturer in the Faculty of Educational Sciences at the

University of Helsinki. His research focuses on children’s projects as manifestations
of their agency and the learning taking place within them. Hilppö is a lazy high
baritone and has tossed a dwarf.
Eeva Hujala is Professor Emeritus of Early Childhood Education. She has been
working as a professor at many universities in Finland and abroad as well as in uni-
versity administration, for example, as dean of the Faculty of Education. Her
research areas include leadership and teachers’ professionalism in ECEC as well as
quality evaluation. Recently, her research orientation has been in cross-cultural
comparisons. She is the founder of “International Leadership Research Forum” and
the Journal of Early Childhood Education Research.
Sanni Kahila is a doctoral candidate and a project researcher in the School of

Applied Educational Science and Teacher Education at the University of Eastern
Finland. Her research interests include teacher leadership and multi-professional
teamwork in early childhood education. She is interested in the professional learn-
ing of teacher students.
Jonna Kangas is an adjunct professor and has a PhD in education. She holds posi-
tions of university lecturer and joint research member in the Playful Learning
Center, Faculty of Education Science, University of Helsinki. Her research focus is
on play-based pedagogy. She seeks to understand children’s learning processes
About the Contributors xi
through joy and participation, and she uses her findings for designing innovative
teacher training and mentoring programs in Finland and developing countries. She
is a director of blended teacher training program at the University of Helsinki.
https://researchportal.helsinki.fi/en/persons/jonna-kangas.
Liisa Karlsson (PhD), Adjunct Professor, University of Helsinki, has been Professor
at the University of Eastern Finland. Her research interests focus on educational sci-
ences, educational psychology, childhood studies, early childhood education, studies
of child perspectives, well-being, participation, reciprocity, empowerment, child cul-
ture, interculturality, learning, pedagogy, study enjoyment, interaction, methodolo-
gies (e.g. storycrafting method). She is a Member of the Board of Nordic Child
Cultural Research Network and Finnish Society for Childhood Studies.
Sonja Čotar Konrad PhD, is Associate Professor in Psychology in the Faculty of

Education at the University of Primorska. Her research interest is in educational and
developmental psychology. Her research work covers the topic of socio-emotional
development of preschool children, supporting professional development of pre-
school teachers, and cooperation between kindergarten and parents. She is also
interested in questions of teacher competence, teacher educators, and relations
between students and teachers at university level.
Emma Kurenlahti is a doctoral student in the Faculty of Educational Sciences at

the University of Helsinki. Her research focuses on the construction of evil in edu-
cational context amidst the age of sustainability crises. She is also the chair of the
board of The Foundation of Environmental Education FEE Finland.
Arniika Kuusisto is Professor of Child and Youth Studies, especially Early

Childhood Education and Care, at Stockholm University, Sweden. She is also a
research director for an Academy of Finland–funded (2018–2022) project, “Growing
up radical? The role of educational institutions in guiding young people’s world-
view construction,” in the Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Helsinki
(https://www.helsinki.fi/en/researchgroups/growing-up-radical/people), as well as
honorary research fellow in the Department of Education, University of Oxford,
UK. Her research interests include children and youths’ value learning trajectories
and personal ontologies, their negotiations on values and memberships across social
contexts, and the teaching and learning related to values, religions, and worldviews
in different formal and informal settings.
Silja Lamminmäki-Vartia (Master of Theology, Bachelor of Education, Early

Childhood Education Teacher) is working as a project planner at the University of
Helsinki in the project of Creating Spaces for Diversity of Worldviews in Early
Childhood Education (https://blogs.helsinki.fi/monikatsomukselliset-tilat-
varhaiskasvatuksessa/). She is a student in the doctoral program of the School,
Education, Society and Culture. Her study examines the topical question of
implementation of worldview education in Finnish early childhood education
and care.
xii About the Contributors
Anna-Leena Lastikka is a licentiate in education from the University of Helsinki

in the field of early childhood education and care. Anna-Leena is particularly inter-
ested in researching and developing the participation and inclusion of children and
families of diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds, as well as the methods sup-
porting the participation and dialogical learning in early years pedagogy.
Lasse Lipponen is Professor of Education, with special reference to early child-

hood education, in the Faculty of Educational Sciences at the University of Helsinki.
His research work is directed to emotions and emotional practices in ECE from
sociocultural perspective.
Marina Lundkvist holds a PhD in education, a teacher qualification, and qualifica-

tion in leadership from Finland. She works as a university lecturer at the University
of Helsinki, Finland. She has a solid and extensive experience and knowledge of
ECEC in Finland, partly through development and research work within the univer-
sity world and partly in close connection with pedagogical activities in ECEC.
Pekka Mertala is Assistant Professor of Multiliteracies and Digital Literacies in

the Faculty of Education and Psychology at the University of Jyväskylä. His research
focuses mainly on young children’s and early years teachers’ relationships with
digital technologies.
Kari Nissinen PhD in statistics, is a senior researcher at the Finnish Institute for
Educational Research, University of Jyväskylä. He has a long experience in statisti-
cal analyses of large-scale assessment data, and his expertise areas are linear and
generalized linear models, multilevel and mixed models, multivariate statistics, and
survey methodology.
Alexandra Nordström is a PhD student in the school, education, society, and cul-
ture doctoral program at the University of Helsinki. She is a member of the Playful
Learning Center in the Faculty of Educational Sciences. Her research interests
include young children’s emotion and affect, interaction, and educational theory.
Henri Pesonen is a researcher in the Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of

Helsinki, Finland. Dr. Pesonen’s research interests include sense of belonging, spe-
cial educational needs in higher education, and transitions, with a particular focus
on students with autism spectrum disorder.
Saila Poulter (PhD, Adjunct Professor) works as a university lecturer in religious

education in the Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Helsinki. Her
research interest concerns religious and worldview education, secularism, and inter-
cultural and citizenship education. Currently, she is doing research on values and
worldviews in early childhood education, and she is PI in the project Creating
Spaces for Diversity of Worldviews in Early Childhood Education (https://blogs.
helsinki.fi/monikatsomukselliset-tilat-varhaiskasvatuksessa/).
About the Contributors xiii
Anna Pauliina Rainio is a senior lecturer at the Faculty of Educational Sciences,

University of Helsinki, Finland. Her long-term ethnographic and intervention
research focuses on developing adult-child joint play, engagement, and agency in
early childhood education settings. She is currently a vice chair of the Finnish
Society for Childhood Studies.
Antti Rajala is Academy of Finland postdoctoral researcher in the Faculty of

Education, University of Oulu. He is also affiliated to the University of Helsinki. He
has done many years of research on cultures of compassion in early childhood edu-
cation and care settings.
Jenny Renlund is a PhD student in the school, education, society, and culture doc-
toral program at the University of Helsinki. Her research interests include multilit-
eracies, children’s aesthetic experiences, and arts-based methods. Jenny’s current
project is digital mediation of children’s interactions with the more than human
world, funded by ARC.
Jyrki Reunamo PhD, is a principal investigator, docent, and university lecturer at

the University of Helsinki, Finland. He is the founder of early education research
and development project Progressive Feedback (https://blogs.helsinki.fi/orientate/),
which focuses on research-based quality improvement. Reunamo’s research inter-
ests include evaluation, research methods, comparative research, and learning
environment.
Inkeri Ruokonen Professor of Early Childhood Education, works as a vice dean in

Faculty of Education, University of Turku. Her main research interests are early
childhood arts education, creative learning environments, and teacher education.
She has published over 160 scientific articles and edited several scientific
publications.
Sonja Rutar PhD, is an associate professor at the University of Primorska, Faculty

of Eduaction. Her teaching and research work is dedicated to ensuring access, equal
opportunity, and quality in education from ECEC to higher education. She focuses
on children’s participation in education, inclusion, and social cohesion. She partici-
pates in numerous national and international projects aimed to provide a supportive
learning environment to increase academic achievement of children from deprived
socio-economic environments, with emphasis on development of pre-literacy skills
and early literacy as well as creation of a bilingual learning environment.
Mari Saha is Assistant Professor of Early Childhood Education in the Faculty of

Education and Culture at Tampere University. Her main research interests are
diverse needs, children’s stress regulation and well-being, as well as early childhood
professionals’ occupational well-being in kindergarten settings.
xiv About the Contributors
Heidi Sairanen is a university teacher and a researcher at the University of Helsinki,

Faculty of Educational Sciences. She serves on the advisory board of Playful
Learning Center and is a member of DigiChild – Nordic Research Network on
Digitalizing Childhoods. Her research interests include early years pedagogy, mul-
tiliteracies including digital literacies, and agency.
Saara Salomaa works as a senior advisor and media education team leader in the
Finnish National Audiovisual Institute, a governmental agency legally obligated for
promoting media education in Finland. She is also conducting her PhD research at
Tampere University, focusing on media education in the context of early childhood
education. Salomaa’s other research interests include media literacy policies and
children’s relations with digital media.
Sara Sintonen works at the University of Helsinki, Faculty of Education Sciences,

as a senior lecturer. She holds positions of adjunct professor on media education
(University of Helsinki) and on children’s digital cultures (University of Turku).
Publications and other research activities can be found on: https://researchportal.
helsinki.fi/en/persons/sara-sintonen.
Tina Štemberger PhD, is an associate professor in the field of educational research

methodology in the Faculty of Education at the University of Primorska. Her main
research interests are predominantly trends in current research methodology chal-
lenges, doing research by actively involving children, and linking research with
educational practice. Her research work also covers such topics as inclusive educa-
tion, teacher competence, teacher development, teacher educators, ICT in educa-
tion, and entrepreneurial competences.
Katja Suhonen MEd, works as a project researcher at the University of Eastern

Finland. Her research interests in this topic focus on leadership and quality in
ECE. In addition, her work and interests focus on children’s socioemotional skills
and ECE staff’s pedagogical group sensitivity.
Tuija Turunen holds is dean of the Faculty of Education, University of Lapland,

Finland. She is a leader of the teacher education program. She also leads UArctic
Thematic Network on Teacher Education for Social Justice and Diversity and
UNESCO/UNITWIN Network on Teacher Education for Social Justice and
Diversity. Professor Turunen is an internationally recognized expert, has published
widely, and leads several national and international projects. Her current research
interests focus on teacher education, professional development in higher education,
educational transitions, indigenous pedagogies, and preventive school welfare work.
Tuulikki Ukkonen-Mikkola works as a lecturer in the Faculty of Education and

Psychology, Department of Education, University of Jyväskylä. She holds a Doctor
of Education degree (with majors in early childhood education and care) and the
About the Contributors xv
qualifications of pre-school and ECEC teacher professions. Her research interests

are the pedagogy of ECEC, ECEC teachers’ pedagogical expertise, cooperation and
development work with the working life, academic teacher training, and profes-
sional agency.
Jouni Vettenranta DSc, is a senior researcher at the Finnish Institute for Educational
Research, University of Jyväskylä. He has a long experience in statistical modeling,
and his expertise areas are simulation and optimization models, decision-making
models, and analyses of large-scale assessment data.
Chapter 1
Introduction to Early Childhood
Education System’s Policies and Practices
in Finland
Heidi Harju-Luukkainen, Jonna Kangas , and Susanne Garvis
Abstract The political and social attention on Early Childhood Education and Care
(ECEC) has increased over the past decade, with many countries undertaking educa-
tional reforms that are still ongoing. In Finland ECEC is seen as an investment into
the future. The ECEC system of the country is one of the most equal in the world and
understood through its holistic and multi-theoretical foundation combining educa-
tion and care through EduCare approach. ECEC in Finland is a unique combination
of international influences and local intents to put each child and family into the
centre of the services. In this chapter we will give our readers an overall understand-
ing of the Finnish policies as well as practices of the early childhood education sys-
tem. After that we will move on in describing the content of this book closer.
1.1 Introduction
The political and social attention on Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC)
has increased over the past decade, with many countries undertaking educational
reforms that are still ongoing (see closer Garvis et al., 2018). Children’s access to
preschool provision has been broadened across the world because policymakers
have recognised the benefits of good quality early childhood education and care on
children’s learning and development (OECD, 2012). However, still after these
H. Harju-Luukkainen (*)
University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland
Nord university, Bodø, Norway
Tampere University, Tampere, Finland
e-mail: heidi.k.harju-luukkainen@jyu.fi
J. Kangas
University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
S. Garvis
Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 1

Switzerland AG 2022
H. Harju-Luukkainen et al. (eds.), Finnish Early Childhood Education and
Care, Early Childhood Research and Education: An Inter-theoretical Focus 1,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95512-0_1
2 H. Harju-Luukkainen et al.
reforms according to Unicef (2019) only half of all pre-primary-age children around
the world are enrolled in preschool, teachers lack good quality training and there is
a worldwide shortage of ECEC teachers. Good quality early education including
high-level special education support helps with school readiness by ensuring that
the transition to school is a seamless experience. This seamless experience exists,
only if quality early education and care are implemented by achieving targets around
quality goals and regulations of delivering early education and care (OECD, 2015).
Governments globally are therefore increasingly recognising that good quality
ECEC plays a crucial role in developing their country’s social and economic poten-
tial in the future.
In Finland ECEC is seen as an investment into the future. The ECEC system of
the country is one of the most equal in the world and understood through its holistic
and multi-theoretical foundation combining education and care through EduCare
approach. ECEC in Finland is a unique combination of international influences and
local intents to put each child and family into the centre of the services. The system-
atic and goal oriented ECEC consists of upbringing, education and care where peda-
gogy is emphasised in order to produce excellence for the future. ECEC is based on
wide selection of scientifical understandings about education through developmen-
tal psychology, sociology, democratic theories, sustainable development, inclusion,
pedagogy, management, organisational psychology, and wellbeing. National cur-
riculum and laws for early education have gone through significant reforms during
the last decade, where the quality, practices and teachers’ competences are defined
in order to support children’s future learning skills. The early childhood teacher
training lies on a multi-theoretical foundation, where each teacher has to find their
own personal theoretical approach to teaching: Teachers organise their everyday
interaction, teaching, and care actions based on wide understanding of the develop-
ment, learning, agency, and wellbeing of children. It is also seen as important that
this high-quality education would be available in both private and public sectors.
ECEC in Finland is a unique combination of international influences and local
intents to put each child and family into the centre of the services. It’s a systematic
and goal oriented ECEC consists of upbringing, education and care where peda-
gogy is emphasised in order to produce excellence for the future. It’s overall plan-
ning, guidance and monitoring system is one of a kind.
In the next section we will give our readers an overall understanding of the
Finnish policies as well as practices of the early childhood education system. After
that we will move on in describing the content of our book closer.
1.2 innish ECE Is Based on International and National

F
Policy Documents
In Finland there are several policy documents steering the ECE provision. At the
national level, ECE is a responsibility of the Ministry of Education and Culture and
the national expert agency for ECE is the Finnish National Agency of Education.
1 Introduction to Early Childhood Education System’s Policies and Practices in Finland 3
The Ministry of Education designs the acts and the Finnish National Agency of
Education develops tools to put them into practice. There are also international,
national, and local policy documents governing ECE in Finland. On the interna-
tional level, the guiding documents come from European Commission (1996), the
United Nations (1989, 2006), and the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and
Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) (1994). Further, the content of ECE is guided by
the national curriculum for ECE (Finnish Agency of Education, 2018) and the
national curriculum for preschool education. Further, the law of early childhood
education (Finnish law of early childhood education 540/2018) declares the child-
teacher ratios and a maximum number of children per class (12 toddlers or 21 3 to
5 years old). Further, also other Acts and policy documents are guiding the work in
ECE settings but with a smaller impact regarding the everyday pedagogical work.
The Finnish ECE working teams are multi-professional, consisting of professionals
with a varying combination of qualifications. The teams consist of at least one
teacher with an academic bachelor’s degree and two assistant teachers with lower
educational degrees.
In Finland children have a subjective right to ECE as well as basic education. The
main principle is that all people must have equal access to high-quality education
and training. Education is free of charge at all levels from pre-primary to higher
education. For ECE for 0–5-year olds, parents pay little according to their incomes
and very low-income families have free service in ECE (Kangas et al., 2015).
Practically this means that when a child needs early childhood education the munic-
ipality needs to organise these services and allocate a place in an ECEC facility.
Even though this seems like a particularly easy system from the parent’s perspec-
tive, it is not necessarily so. For instance, in Finland children participate less in
ECEC, compared to the other Nordic countries with similar systems (see further
Garvis et al., 2019).
1.3 High Quality as the Basis of Finnish ECEC Practices
All practitioners in the Finnish ECEC have to follow the national quality indicators.
These indicators lay a foundation for consistent practices and principles on the
national level. These indicators are described in the FINEEC (2018; 2019) guide-
lines and recommendations for evaluating the quality of early childhood education.
According to this document there are two factors of quality; structural and process
related. Structural factors of quality are related to the conditions of organising
ECEC. They include the curriculum that is the steering document, personnel train-
ing, working time structures, the structure and size of child groups and the physical
facilities where the early childhood and education is organised. Process-related fac-
tors of quality describe the unit’s pedagogical and operating culture. This is in its
turn then linked with other outcomes like children’s experiences. The process-
related factors are leadership, planning, implementation, evaluation and develop-
ment of pedagogy as well as different person’s experiences about the ECEC (see
closer FINEEC 2019, 7). Further these quality factors (structural and process-
related) and the three levels where they exist (national, local and pedagogical activ-
ity level) are linked to the impact of ECEC.
In other words, the process-related factors describe how the objectives and con-
tent specified for early childhood education are realised in practice. Here the focus
can be for instance on following topics:
• On positive, caring, encouraging and gentle interaction.
• On reciprocal interaction between professionals and children and is it done in a
manner compatible with the children’s developmental, interests and learning
capabilities.
• On sensitive staff, taking notice of the children’s initiatives and responding to
them in a manner that supports the children’s participation and agency.
Pedagogical planning, documentation, evaluation and development in early child-
hood education and care lay the foundation for the delivery of high-quality early
childhood education and care. Pedagogical interaction, activities and knowhow are
essential aspects of the quality behind the Finnish ECE (Kangas et al., 2019).
Pedagogically well-planned, diverse, and creative operating methods and learning
environment challenge and inspire children to learn. Pedagogical documentation of
early childhood education and care is a process through which the activities are
made visible and can be evaluated together with the staff and children as following:
• ECEC activities are meaningful and inspiring for the children and challenge
them to learn.
• The staff and the children carry out versatile pedagogical activities based on play,
physical activity, arts and cultural heritage that offer positive learning experi-
ences for the children.
• The activities promote the achievement of objectives set for different areas of
learning and transversal competence.
• The pedagogical learning environment planned and built together by the staff
and the children encourages the children to play, be physically active, explore,
create and express.
• The learning environment is assessed and modified regularly as indicated by the
children’s needs and interests, ensuring that it challenges and inspires the chil-
dren to learn.
Further, in Finland the teachers have a great responsibility and decision-making
power over the class-based curriculum, pedagogical activities and assessment and
documentation practices in everyday education. Teachers’ tasks as well as their
responsibilities of the everyday pedagogical activities as well as holistic and sys-
tematic delivery of education have been redefined during the reform of Finnish ECE
(see Harju-Luukkainen & Kangas, forthcoming). The teachers’ pedagogical role is
also described in the process-oriented factors closer. The teachers need to pay atten-
tion to following aspects:
• At the level of pedagogical activities, an ECEC teacher is responsible for class-

room pedagogy: its planning, goal-oriented implementation and evaluation.
• The staff observe and document the children’s daily experiences systematically
in order to understand the child’s perspectives and views.
• Information produced together with the children and using diverse methods is
used in the planning, implementation, evaluation and development of the
activities
In the next section we will describe the content of this book closer. In this book,
each of the chapters are connected with the above described policies and practices
of ECEC of Finland (see closer OECD, 2018).
1.4 Description of the Content of this Book
We hope that the chapters of this book will be appealing to an international audience
as they showcase the breadth and depth of contemporary issues of the Finnish model
within the field of ECEC. The chapters of this book are divided into three sections.
The content of chapters in the first part is connected with teacher training and pro-
fessional approach, chapters in the second part are connected with children and
families in ECEC and in the third part the focus will be turned towards Finnish
pedagogy. All of the chapters in this book are a balance of multiple theoretical per-
spectives and empirical data. Each of the book chapters highlight following aspects,
• research on the field of Early Childhood Education in Finland
• country’s policies and/or practices connected to this are of research
• theory and empirical data connected to this area of research
• critical perspectives and possible developmental objects are highlighted.
The chapters of this book comprise authors from different universities in Finland,
from the Ministry of Education and Culture and municipalities in order to give a
width in the perspectives of the system as well as of contemporary research issues.
It also compares top-level researchers from abroad with a profound understanding
of the Finnish ECEC, in order to give an external perspective on the policies, prac-
tices and contemporary research issues.
1.5 art I: Multi-theoretical Teacher Training

P
and Professional Approach
The part of this book starts with chapter number two, and it is authored by Johanna
Heikka, Katja Suhonen and Sanni Kahila. This chapter investigates the pedagogi-
cal leadership of ECE teachers in Finland and introduces concepts like distributed
pedagogical leadership and teacher leadership. The findings of this study will
promote the implementation of pedagogical leadership as well as support the prepa-

ration of teacher graduates as well as the continuing professional development of all
ECE staff working on the field of ECE. The third chapter is authored by Antti
Rajala, Anna Pauliina Rainio, Lasse Lipponen, Jaakko Hilppö and Emma
Kurenlahti. In this chapter the authors discuss the critical compassion in Finnish
ECE educators’ responses to challenges of acting compassionately. The aim of this
chapter is to advance a holistic conceptualisation for researching and promoting
care and compassion as an aspect of early childhood educators’ professional activ-
ity. In the chapter the authors build on a novel, cultural-historical approach in order
to investigate compassion and care as well as offer and discuss a nuanced conceptu-
alisation of compassion in ECEC settings that posits compassion as both constituted
in and constitutive of social activity. In the fourth chapter Alexandra Nordström,
Heidi Sairanen, Jenny Byman, Jenny Renlund and Sara Sintonen explore the
concept of widening text worlds in the Finnish early childhood education. In this
chapter the concept of multiliteracies refers to an understanding of multiple texts
(both analogue and digital) in multiple platforms with multiple contexts. In this
chapter, the following questions are explored: How can we find a good balance in
widening text worlds? How can we decide what texts to use in an early childhood
education context, and how can we develop a pedagogy of multiliteracies? At the
end of this chapter some pedagogical principles that can be applied to early child-
hood education in order to support young children’s multiliteracies thinking and
practices will be presented. In the fifth chapter Saila Poulter, Arniika Kuusisto and
Silja Lamminmäki presents a case of worldview education in Finnish ECEC. They
investigate the relevance of praxis and practice-based learning processes as a part of
professional knowledge formation through the case of worldview education in
ECEC teacher education. The chapter suggests that the annexation of elements con-
nected to practical wisdom cultivated as a more systematic part of professional
knowledge construction in ECEC teacher training is, according to learner experi-
ence, valuable in supporting the development of ECEC teacher student profession-
alism. Furthermore, the findings designate an understanding of professional
reflection as a shared meaning-making and understanding generating activity. In the
sixth chapter we turn towards media education in the Finnish early childhood
teacher education. This chapter is authored by Saara Salomaa and Pekka Mertala.
By analysing all Finnish teacher education curricula they came to the conclusion
that media education has been a marginal topic in Finnish ECEC teacher education
programs. Media education and information and communications technology (ICT)
were mostly taught separately, which seems peculiar in today’s media culture.
Among the general ECEC professional competencies, contextual and pedagogical
ones were emphasised, whereas care competencies were neglected. Further, com-
pulsory media education course literature was scarce and partly outdated. The find-
ings raise a question if we at all can expect high-quality media competence from
practitioners with little professional training on the topic. In Chap. 7 we turn our
attention towards in-service and pre-service teachers’ views on policy and practice
in early childhood teacher education in Finland. This chapter ends our first section
and it is authored by Mari Saha and Henri Pesonen. In this chapter the authors
describe the context of inclusive Finnish ECEC after the most recent change in
policy and legislation in 2018. By summarising the research findings, the aim of the
authors is to illustrate the challenges in- and pre-service teachers face in encounter-
ing children with diverse needs and backgrounds, as well as their views on how to
improve the current teacher education. Further, they also discuss how teacher edu-
cation programmes can respond to these challenges by providing suggestions for
policy and practice.
1.6 Part II: Children and Families around ECEC
The second part of this book concentrates on topics around children and families in
ECEC in Finland. It starts with chapter number eight and is authored by Marina
Lundqvist. The topic of the chapter is teachers’ understanding of children’s right to
participation in Finnish ECEC. This study examines in detail the views of 10 early
childhood education teachers on important aspects of children’s right to participa-
tion in early learning environments in Finland. The data used in this chapter is based
on interviews with early childhood education teachers in ECEC. With the help of
content analysis key themes in teachers’ understanding of children’s rights to par-
ticipation in ECEC was identified. The results indicate that teachers are aware of the
importance of the curriculum and the idea of children’s participation, but that the
concept of rights generally needs to be deepened in pedagogical activities. Chapter
9 takes a closer look at five arts pedagogical case studies and how participatory
learning and creative thinking is promoted in Finnish ECE. This chapter is authored
by Inkeri Ruokonen. This chapter presents research-based arts pedagogical learn-
ing projects. It also discusses the challenges and future recommendations of early
childhood education and care arts pedagogy regarding the core curriculum learning
area of diverse forms and expression. The purpose of this chapter is to examine the
perceived challenges concerning the early childhood arts pedagogy and to make
recommendations based on a reflective review of five case studies. Chapter 10 dis-
cusses North Sámi language nests in Northern Finland. This chapter is authored by
Rauni Äärelä-Vihriälä and Tuija Turunen. This study is framed by an indigenous
research paradigm, which focuses on the community as well as entails a strong
awareness of context and respect for traditional knowledge. The purpose of this
article is to introduce the special characteristics of Sámi language immersion
through a language nest approach in early childhood education and care in northern
Finland, the Sámi home district. It aims to develop Sámi language immersion as
Sámi languages spoken in Finland are endangered and require urgent recovery mea-
sures. The concept of a language nest pedagogy provides insight into Sámi language
pedagogical practices. Further, the results imply that language nests not only pro-
vide language education but also strengthen the Sámi culture and way of life.
Chapter 11 is authored by Anna-Leena Lastikka and Liisa Karlsson. This chapter
describes participation through storycrafting in early childhood education and care.
According to the ECEC legislation and the Core Curriculum, children’s initiatives
and interests need to be considered. However, children’s potential to affect decision-

making and pedagogical processes is scarce. Therefore, according to the authors,
there is a need to develop reciprocal listening and participation in ECEC. The objec-
tive for this study is to explore the benefits of the Storycrafting Method, a Finnish
narrative method, for children and ECEC personnel. In the next chapter, Chap. 12,
the focus is on reading sessions in early childhood. This chapter is authored by
Jyrki Reunamo. Reading sessions are a part of the ‘rich world of language’ learn-
ing topics in the Finnish ECEC curriculum. This paper describes the situation in
reading sessions in early childhood education in Finland. The research method is
observation and the data has been systematically sampled (n = 49,645). According
to results of this chapter, children attend reading sessions on average 24 min a day.
According to the author it is important that the teacher welcomes children’s ideas
when children can learn that their ideas are valued and that their ideas can be used
for the benefit of the whole group. Reading sessions can be processes, where chil-
dren and adults can create and share their ideas. Children can learn to develop these
ideas further together with others. In Chap. 13, authored by Heidi Harju-
Luukkainen, Kari Nissinen and Jouni Vettenranta, they take a closer look at
early skills as predictors for later educational outcome. As data they use TIMSS data
sets from Finland and Sweden. The authors point out that family-related factors,
like parent’s educational level, expectations and socio-economic variables have a
significant impact on students’ educational outcomes. The aim of the study is to
examine how parental attitudes and the socioeconomic status of a student’s family
are related to student’s early literacy and numeracy skills and, further, to student’s
performance in mathematics and science in the TIMSS assessment. The results of
this study highlight the importance of high-quality early childhood environments on
students’ later educational outcomes.
1.7 Part III: Towards Finnish Pedagogy
Chapter 14 starts our final and third part called towards Finnish pedagogy. This
chapter is authored by Sonja Rutar, Tuulikki Ukkonen-Mikkola, Tina Štemberger
and Sonja Čotar Konrad. This chapter has a comparative perspective on Finnish
pedagogy, closer planning practices as a reflection of teaching and learning con-
cepts in ECEC. The aim of the chapter is to identify pedagogical planning practices
and thus recognise the prevailing teaching and learning concepts in ECEC in Finland
and Slovenia. Pedagogical planning is one of the key elements of quality for ECEC
in both countries. As a result three learning and teaching concepts were recognised
(i) transmissive pedagogy; (ii) constructivist-developmentalism, with a transmissive
notion of the aim of education; and (iii) participatory pedagogy. Chapter 15 is
authored by Jonna Kangas and Heidi Harju-Luukkainen are creating a theoreti-
cal framework for playful learning and pedagogy and moving towards a so-called
Finnish perspective with the topic. The Finnish curriculum for ECE play is consid-
ered essential for learning and is supported with a systematic and goal-oriented
approach to scaffold children into engaging in learning opportunities. Therefore,

teachers create good preconditions for play, supervise it in a suitable way and ensure
that each child gets an opportunity to participate in play according to their skills and
capabilities. At the end of this chapter the authors present a theoretical framework
for playful learning and pedagogy. This model is conducted through a meta-analysis
of learning theories, theories of play and of the recent research literature. It is a tool
for teachers and researchers to reflect their playful practices and contextualize the
concept of play in the context of education. In the next chapter (Chap. 16) authors
Eeva Hujala and Kirsi Alila discuss leadership in the changing context of Finnish
early childhood education. This paper focuses on the importance of leadership in a
changing context of Finnish early childhood education and care (ECEC). Leadership
is perceived to be embedded in the context of ECEC and defined as an integral part
of the mission and core tasks defined in legal and administrative premises. This
paper also introduces the Finnish framework for leadership in ECEC. This frame-
work consists of several intertwined reforms that have been introduced into Finnish
ECEC during the last few years. These are ECEC legislation renewing, curriculum
reform, new guidelines concerning evaluation policy, and reforms in staff’s qualifi-
cations. The authors conclude that factors supported by growing research in ECEC
leadership have a significant impact on conducting leadership and its working cul-
ture. Chapter 17 takes a closer look on Sustainability Education in Finnish Early
Childhood and Care and it is authored by Christin Furu. According to the author,
in recent years, there has been a major shift in how sustainability issues are addressed
in Finnish early childhood education and care policy and research. Sustainability
education has come to the fore through changes in legislation and national core cur-
ricula. This chapter aims to provide a glimpse into how practitioners understand and
address sustainability education. The chapter ends with a provocation to enhance
future dialogue between different stakeholders in order to overcome the gaps
between policy, research, and practice and thereby facilitate urgent change towards
a sustainable world. Chapter 18 describes elements of the pedagogical process in
finnish early childhood education. This chapter is authored by Kirsi Alila, Tuulikki
Ukkonen-Mikkola and Jonna Kangas. This chapter introduces the Finnish
Pedagogical Process as a central element of the educational system of early child-
hood education. A conceptual definition and shared understanding and interpreta-
tion of the educational process are essential for the high-quality pedagogical
practices of ECE. The authors aim to create a conceptual framework of the
Pedagogical Process through a theoretical analysis of different aspects of the pro-
cess. Through this framework, the authors provide and promote the evaluation and
development debate of current pedagogical practices as well as provide tools to
identify, structure, phase, and clarify the process as a management system.
The final chapter of this book, Chap. 19 concludes this book. This chapter is
authored by Jonna Kangas, Heidi Harju-Luukkainen and Susanne Garvis. It
highlights the similarities and differences between the different chapters of this
book and critically examines the Finnish ECEC system. It takes an outlook for the
future and highlights potential pitfalls but also success factors of policies and
practices. It critically examines the contemporary research issues and provides

future direction and guidelines for researchers in order to develop the system further.
References
Early Childhood Education and Care Act. (540/2018). set in Helsinki 13th of July, 2018.
European Commission. Directorate-General XXII, & Youth. (1996). Teaching and learning:
Towards the learning society (Vol. 42). Office for Official Publications of the European
Communities.
Finnish Education Evaluation Centre. (2019). Quality indicators for early childhood
education and care. Summaries 16: 2019. Retrieved from https://karvi.fi/app/uploads/
2020/03/Quality-indicators-for-ECEC_summary-2019.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1fvm6v1CSab_
pbl8u1smjw0c_tvzGyIayH-Ef4LBsvOYwsdhWXvT_ObVI
Finnish National Agency for Education (FNAE). (2018). Finnish national core-curriculum of early
childhood education and care. Määräykset ja ohjeet 2018: 17. Retrieved from https://www.oph.
fi/sites/default/files/documents/varhaiskasvatussuunnitelman_perusteet.pdf
Garvis, S., Philipsson, S., & Harju-Luukkainen, H. (2018). Volume I: Early childhood education in
the 21st century. In International teaching, family and policy perspectives. Routledge.
Garvis, S., Harju-Luukkainen, H., Sheridan, S., & Williams, P. (2019). Nordic families, children
and early childhood Education. Palgrave Macmillan.
Harju-Luukkainen, H., & Kangas, J. (forthcoming). The role of early childhood teachers in
Finnish policy documents: Training teachers for the future? In W. Boyd & S. Garvis (Eds.),
International perspectives on early childhood teacher Education in the 21st century. Springer.
Kangas, J., Ojala, M., & Venninen, T. (2015). Children’s self-regulation in the context of partici-
patory pedagogy in early childhood Education. Early Education and Development, 26(5–6),
847–870.
Kangas, J., Harju-Luukkainen, H., Brotherus, A., Kuusisto, A., & Gearon, L. (2019). Playing to
learn in Finland: Early childhood curricular and operational context. In S. Garvis & S. Phillipson
(Eds.), Policification of early childhood Education and care: Early childhood Education in the
21st century volume III (Evolving families) (pp. 71–85). Routledge.
OECD. (2012). Starting strong III: A quality toolbox for early childhood education and care.
OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264123564-en
OECD. (2015). Starting strong IV: Monitoring quality in early childhood education and care.
OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264233515-en
OECD. (2018). Providing quality early childhood education and care: Results from the starting
strong survey 2018. Retrieved from https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/301005d1-en/1/1/2/
index.html?itemId=/content/publication/301005d1-en&_csp_=d5ed60fb5c4d257bbb6358
fc7741a521&itemIGO=oecd&itemContentType=book
Unicef. (2019). An unfair start: Inequality in children’s education in rich countries.
United Nations.
United Nations. (1989). Convention on the rights of the child. Retrieved from http://www.unicef.
org/crc/
United Nations. (2006). Convention on rights of people with disabilities. Retrieved from
http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (1994). The
Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. UNESCO.
Part I
Multi-theoretical Teacher Training and
Professional Approach
Chapter 2
Pedagogical Leadership in Early
Childhood Education Teachers’ Work
Abstract In this chapter we investigate the pedagogical leadership of ECE teachers

in Finland. Theoretically, this research was anchored under the concepts of distrib-
uted pedagogical leadership and teacher leadership. The research in this area has
shown that teachers share leadership responsibilities with ECE centre directors, lead
their staff teams, and are considered responsible for the pedagogy of their child
groups. Qualitative shadowing and individual interviews were employed to investi-
gate the enactment and perceptions of the three ECE teachers on pedagogical lead-
ership in selected settings. The analysis of findings suggested that the teachers lead
the planning, assessment, and development of pedagogy in their multi-professional
staff teams. The study also showed how personal dispositions of the teachers influ-
ence the enactment of pedagogical leadership in ECE practice. The findings of this
study can inform and promote the implementation of pedagogical leadership and
can enhance the preparation of teacher graduates as well as the continuing profes-
sional development of all ECE staff in ECE settings.
2.1 Introduction
In Finland, an early childhood education (ECE) teacher has the pedagogical respon-
sibility: they are charged with planning, assessing, and developing pedagogical
activities. Their role in the ECE team is to show that pedagogy is realised in a child
group and to ensure that team members understand the goals of pedagogy and how
to achieve these goals. Because of this status, teachers are expected to act as
The original version of this chapter was revised: The chapter title which was published incorrectly
has been updated now. The correction to this chapter is available at https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-3-030-95512-0_20
J. Heikka (*) · K. Suhonen · S. Kahila

University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, Finland
e-mail: johanna.heikka@uef.fi

Switzerland AG 2022, corrected publication 2022
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95512-0_2
14 J. Heikka et al.
pedagogical leaders and professionals who are committed to the implementation of

the national curriculum and to the development of ECE pedagogy in their child
groups (Act on Early Childhood Education and Care, 540/2018; Finnish National
Agency for Education, 2018).
The significance of this research arises from the growing importance of investi-
gating ECE teachers’ involvement in leadership (Aubrey, 2016; Douglass, 2019;
Waniganayake et al., 2017). ECE as a public service has to accomplish societal
effectiveness and meet the political and societal goals of each country (Aubrey
et al., 2012; Harris, 2003; York-Barr & Duke, 2004). By shifting the focus away
from centre directors to teachers, this study also provides new knowledge about
leadership by indicating how it is enacted within child groups, involving profession-
als from diverse backgrounds and expecting teachers to lead pedagogy in their
teams, which are made up of staff with little or no ECE training. This research will
help teachers to better prepare by informing the development of ECE teacher educa-
tion courses at universities. The findings can also influence the professional devel-
opment of ECE staff so that it can strengthen teachers’ capabilities to lead small
teams focusing on pedagogy and curriculum design.
Leadership is a contextual phenomenon and is highly influenced by societal and
local regulations and conditions. Also, from the perspective of the Finnish early
childhood education context, due to political changes and increased expectations of
teachers for pedagogical leadership (Karila et al., 2017), this study addresses a topi-
cal and important research topic. Not much is known about teachers’ pedagogical
leadership and how it is enacted in daily practice in ECE. By utilising a shadowing
methodology and through individual interviews with the ECE teachers, this study
investigates pedagogical leadership enacted by ECE teachers. The research question
was, “How can the pedagogical leadership of ECE teachers be characterised in ECE
settings in Finland?”
2.2 Overview of Educational Policies

and Theoretical Background
Early childhood education (ECE) policies have recently undergone significant

changes in Finland. Along with these changes, ECE legislative and policy regula-
tions (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2018; Act on Early Childhood
Education and Care, 540/2018) emphasise pedagogy and ECE teachers’ responsi-
bilities for pedagogy and leadership of multi-professional teams within ECE cen-
tres. According to the Act (540/2018, 37§), teams must include one childcare nurse,
at least one ECE teacher, and either one social educator specialising in ECE or ECE
teacher. The Act on Early Childhood Education and Care (540/2018) in Finland
aims to clarify the roles of each professional group based on their educational com-
petencies, highlighting the pedagogical skills and leadership roles of ECE teachers
and breaking away from the traditional so called ‘everyone does everything’
2 Pedagogical Leadership in Early Childhood Education Teachers’ Work 15
culture. Together, ECE professionals aim to fulfil education and care that is high
quality and that advances children’s holistic well-being. New policies have con-
cretely influenced the education system, too: since 2019, a social educator student
can no longer be qualified as an ECE teacher (Act on Early Childhood Education
and Care, 540/2018, 75§). Hence, graduating from a university with a three-year
Bachelor of Education degree is the only way to qualify ECE teachers.
Leadership is a key factor in influencing the quality of ECE. Distributed forms of
leadership can assist in reaching the goals set for ECE by enhancing the profes-
sional development of educators and supporting pedagogical development in child
groups, thereby improving pedagogical functioning of multi-professional staff
teams (Heikka et al., 2013; Waniganayake et al., 2015). Findings from diverse coun-
tries (Aubrey, 2016; Ho, 2011; Waniganayake et al., 2017) indicate that leadership
challenges are connected with co-operation between leaders and teachers and teach-
ers’ skills and dispositions in enacting pedagogical leadership. Research shows that
ECE teachers are typically not well prepared to lead pedagogical change in their
teams (Heikka et al., 2016; Waniganayake et al., 2015). Global observation of the
phenomenon indicates that teachers’ involvement in centre-based leadership has
been developed in many countries (Strehmel et al., 2019).
In recent years, the discussion around the concept of distributed pedagogical
leadership has intensified (Bøe & Hognestad, 2017; Fonsèn, 2014; Male &
Palaiologou, 2017; Sims et al., 2015). However, this discussion sometimes ignores
the theoretical roots of the concept and therefore misses the core elements in distrib-
uted pedagogical leadership. In distributed pedagogical leadership, leadership is
enacted by formal and informal leaders separately but interdependently, and leader-
ship is distributed over the organisation by people and contexts (Spillane et al.,
2001; Spillane, 2006). Interdependence between the leadership enactments by dif-
ferent leadership stakeholders is crucial for leaders and teachers to achieve common
goals. The distributed pedagogical leadership approach creates interdependence
between leadership stakeholders through shared construction and the enactment of
visions and strategies (Heikka, 2014).
Teacher leadership means that the ECE teacher performs the functions and
responsibilities expected of a leader (Harris, 2003). The enactment of leadership by
ECE teachers in Finland involves leading their staff teams, usually with educators
with little or no ECE disciplinary knowledge (Heikka et al., 2016; Heikka, 2014).
Teacher leadership functions and responsibilities discussed in global early child-
hood education research studies include leading curriculum and pedagogy; leading
pedagogical and professional change and development; leading and organising
teamwork and working culture; and engaging both children and team members in
pedagogical planning, assessment, and development (Colmer et al., 2015; Heikka
et al., 2018; Ho, 2011; Hognestad & Bøe, 2014, 2015; Kahila et al., 2020).
Pedagogical leadership is considered to be one aspect of teacher leadership, focus-
ing especially on leading pedagogical planning, assessment, and development in the
staff teams (Kahila et al., 2020). In pedagogical leadership, a key is to take care of
continuous development based on pedagogical documentation. Pedagogical docu-
mentation is a process, where observations, and documents and their reflection
16 J. Heikka et al.
formulate a basis for pedagogical improvement in the staff teams (Finnish National
Agency for Education, 2018). In addition to the responsibility of ECE teachers to
lead their team members towards pedagogical goals, teachers co-operate and par-
ticipate in decision-making at the centre level with the centre director and teachers
from other child groups (Heikka et al., 2018; Li, 2015).
2.3 Methods
Qualitative shadowing and individual interviews were employed as methods to

investigate the enactment of pedagogical leadership by ECE teachers. Qualitative
shadowing is an observation method where the researcher follows an individual in
his/her everyday work (Czarniawska, 2007; Gill et al., 2014). In this study, the tar-
get persons were three ECE teachers from different ECE centres. Each teacher was
shadowed for three days to capture the enactment of pedagogical leadership in its
‘natural’ environment. The shadowing method was supported by individual inter-
views. The interviews aimed to reach the teachers’ thoughts, perceptions, and expe-
riences of the phenomenon under study; therefore, they were compared to the
observations made by an external observer to provide a deeper and different per-
spective for the study (Edwards & Holland, 2013; Rowley, 2012).
2.3.1 Participants
The study involved three ECE teachers from three different municipalities in Eastern
Finland. All three teachers were women, university-qualified (bachelor of educa-
tion), and had several years’ experience working as ECE teachers. They all worked
in municipal ECE centres, which included two to nine child groups. Two of the
teachers worked full-time, but one teacher worked part-time, about five hours per
day. One teacher fell ill during the shadowing period, so for her part, the shadowing
data were only received for two days. One teacher, instead, had to leave work in the
middle of the third shadowing day, and therefore, the third day was shorter than
planned.
The combination of ECE teachers’ teams also varied. One teacher worked in a
team which included herself, another ECE teacher with a bachelor of social ser-
vices, and a childcare nurse. The second team, in addition to the teacher in the study,
consisted of another teacher (bachelor of social services) and two childcare nurses.
The third team included the teacher in the study, three childcare nurses, and one
personal assistant. During the data collection, there was a student-teacher complet-
ing her practicum on the third team. Shadowing in these teams required all team
members to permit the study.
2.3.2 Procedure of the Data Collection
The data were collected from all participants in the autumn semester of 2018. Data
collection began with a three-day shadowing of the teacher during their shift. While
determining the length of data collection, it is important to acknowledge that a long-
lasting shadowing can bring ethical challenges of conducting research (Bøe et al.,
2016). In this study, it was considered that three-day lasting data collection provides
enough data and is reasonable to both participants and researchers, but there is no
time to create relationship between them, which could have an effect on their behav-
ior and making notes and analyses.
A video camera and notes were used as data collection tools. At the beginning of
the first shadowing day, the video recording was introduced to the children and the
personnel of the team to create a safe atmosphere for them and an understanding of
the researcher’s goals. The purpose of the introduction was also to contribute to the
researcher’s ability to conduct video recording in peace, with minimal interaction
between the researcher and the children and personnel. While recording, the
researcher kept distance from the teacher and tried not to influence her actions. In
some cases, the researcher asked the teacher to explain her activities, for example,
when the teacher was working alone at a computer and it was unclear what she
was doing.
The whole shadowing process, including preparations and study after the actual
field research, requires sensitivity and ethical consideration (see Johnson, 2014;
Bøe et al., 2016). The researcher must be sensitive of whether it is appropriate to
record in different situations or be present in the situation at all. For example, when
there were confidential matters or situations involved people who were not allowed
to be recorded, the researcher turned off the video camera and continued the obser-
vation just by making written notes. In the beginning of shadowing, the process was
explained to participants. Even thought the researcher stayed at the background,
participants could make questions and take contact if they felt like it. As an intensive
data collection method, shadowing can be stressful for the participant (Johnson,
2014) and therefore, the researchers constantly observed the gestures and expres-
sions of the participants. In some situations, the researchers might ask how the
recording felt and whether it was appropriate to continue recording.
In the following week of shadowing, the teacher was interviewed about her per-
ceptions and experiences of pedagogical leadership. The interview was conducted
as a semi-structured interview in which pre-conceived themes served as the frame
for the interview, but otherwise, the interview proceeded conversationally (Edwards
& Holland, 2013). The purpose was to give space for the ECE teacher’s initiatives
so that the interview could touch on the teacher’s own thoughts, perceptions, and
experiences (see Rowley, 2012). The themes of the interview considered the signifi-
cance, goals, and tasks of leadership, the enactment of leadership, and the factors
influencing leadership. The interviews were recorded and transcribed. In total, the
data consisted of 27 hours and 10 minutes of video material, notes written in 24
Word documents, and 3 hours and 42 minutes of interview data.
18 J. Heikka et al.
2.3.3 Analysis of the Data
The shadowing and interview data were analysed using inductive qualitative content
analysis (Krippendorff, 2013). In qualitative content analysis, the theoretical con-
cepts and conclusions are generated through the interpretation and inference of par-
ticipants’ original expressions and actions. The shadowing and interview data were
first analysed separately. Analysis of the shadowing data consisted of three phases.
In seeking to answer the research question of this study, the context categories were
defined as an episode presenting a pedagogical leadership act. In the first step of the
analysis, relevant video clips were selected as demonstrations of these practices. For
example, one episode was a conversation between the team members or guidance
given to a team member during the daily activities. Each episode ended when the
nature of the action transformed into another act. After the relevant episodes were
identified among the whole shadowing data, they were then transcribed and con-
densed based on the content of the leadership act in the second step of the analysis.
In the third phase, the condensed episodes were clustered based on the types of the
leadership acts.
The interview data was first coded by utilising the categories formulated in the
analysis of the shadowing data. Because the interview data consisted of contents
that did not clearly exist in the shadowing data, for example the dispositions of the
teachers towards leading and the co-operation between the teachers, the findings
formulated new categories alongside the previous ones. In this way, the different
data completed each other to get a more valid picture of the phenomenon being
studied. To support the credibility of the study, some excerpts from the data are
included in this paper. The final categories were formulated at the end of this phase
by condensing and adjusting the categories to fit in the whole data set. As a result,
this study identified four main characteristics that describe the pedagogical leader-
ship of the teachers: social responsibility for pedagogically focused early childhood
education, leading multi-professional teamwork towards pedagogical goals, colle-
gial support for pedagogical leadership, and varying dispositions and approaches of
the teachers for leading their teams. The findings of the study are organised accord-
ing to the main categories.
2.4 Findings
The findings revealed that the pedagogical leadership of ECE teachers was based on
responsibility for pedagogy and pedagogical expertise. Pedagogical leadership was
enacted by leading the multi-professional staff teams towards high-quality peda-
gogy and enhancing the participation of the team members in pedagogical develop-
ment. However, the study revealed the varying disposition of the teachers in
leadership and their need for collegial support.
2.4.1 Social Responsibility for Pedagogically Focused Early

Childhood Education
The teachers participating in the study were well aware of their social responsibili-
ties as pedagogically qualified early childhood education professionals. ECE teach-
ers considered that their pedagogical expertise and their role as pedagogical leaders
formulated a strong basis for enacting the laws and regulations of early childhood
education at different levels of curriculum processes. One of the studied teachers
also emphasised the teachers’ responsibility to work as a public service provider for
the children and the parents as municipality residents. Teacher leadership was also
seen as a duty to enact ECE regulations of the pedagogically emphasised entity of
education, teaching, and care, and taking care of the pedagogically implemented
practices of early childhood education.
Teacher leadership includes such a planned and purposeful wholeness of educa-
tion, teaching, and care. And especially, then, in this education, teaching, and care
from the ECE teacher’s perspective, pedagogy is emphasised. It’s our responsi-
bility. T2.
Pedagogical leadership was also understood as a responsibility of the teachers to
take care of the goal-oriented and planned ECE pedagogy in their child groups and
to guide their ECE staff teams to develop pedagogy. The fundamental aim of these
leadership responsibilities was to ensure the goal-oriented work in the staff teams.
The teachers emphasised the meaning of pedagogical leadership in ensuring that the
daily practices were in line with the goals set in the national core curriculum. Also,
ensuring that the goals set for pedagogy in the individual plans of children were
realised in the whole child groups was considered as one of the core responsibilities
of the teachers.
Well, it starts from those team meetings where the pedagogical activities are
planned—that they take care that the pedagogical activities are versatile and follow
the contents of the national core curriculum. But then, of course, also the children’s
individual pedagogical plans and the goals set in them, such as what kind of activi-
ties were planned for the children…and then in the assessment to assess how the
goals are being met and how the children have developed. T1.
2.4.2 Leading Multi-professional Teams Towards

Pedagogical Goals
The enactment of responsibility for pedagogy, according to the teachers, required

teachers to lead planning, assessment, and development processes in the multi-
professional staff teams in line with the nested curricula as an integrated whole.
Leading pedagogical planning, assessment, and development in the staff teams was
identified as a key leadership responsibility of the teachers in this study. The teach-
ers emphasised the participation of the whole staff team in planning, assessment,
20 J. Heikka et al.
and development, and these activities were mentioned to take place mainly in the
weekly team meetings.
In the shadowing data, it could be seen that the teachers initiated and enhanced
the reflection of the daily practices among the team members during the team meet-
ings. When enhancing reflection, the teachers brought topics they considered to be
important into the discussion with the team members. For example, one teacher
facilitated a pedagogical discussion about long-lasting play by asking questions and
facilitating thinking about possibilities to extend play opportunities for children. In
the interviews, the teachers noted that it was important that they make pre-plans of
the discussion topics before the team meetings. They also felt it was significant to
ensure that all team members participate in reflection and planning and that each
team member is heard in the decisions.
But all team members participate, and all will be heard. And everyone’s ideas
and thoughts will be taken into account, that I strive for equal action. T2.
The teachers also developed and enhanced the discussion of pedagogical docu-
mentation among the teams. In the episode of shadowing data from the team meet-
ing, the teacher led a discussion about how pedagogical documentation was
employed in the child group by the team members. She also directly provided infor-
mation for the childcare nurses about the purposes and goals of pedagogical docu-
mentation. Within this discussion, she reminded the team about the importance of
reflecting on the documents together. Leading pedagogical documentation in the
staff teams was also widely discussed in the teachers’ interviews. The teachers men-
tioned that they developed different kinds of documentation practices and tools for
their staff teams. When asked more specifically about the tools, it was noted that the
documentation tools were usually forms developed by the teachers themselves for
observing individual children’s learning and development. However, documenta-
tion of the pedagogical practices of the educators still remained unsystematic and
undocumented, which could be seen in the following discussion between the teacher
and the interviewer:
T1: I bring topics to the assessment discussion. For example, ‘Hey, do you realise
that the transitions are really restless and so stressful for everyone…and what is
the reason for why it doesn’t work and why?
I: Do you have a systematic way of documenting and assessing, or is it, like, that the
idea arises and you’ll need to think about it?
T1: No [laughter], yes, we talk pretty much right away, as soon as I get the feeling
that something doesn’t work and we have to do something, we talk a lot in teams.
Well, we have some documentation forms for the kids.
Based on the study findings, it can be interpreted that the teachers led the assess-
ment and development of the pedagogical practices based mainly on their free
observations. However, the systematic documentation–based development of prac-
tices remained undeveloped in the teams in this study.
The teachers considered leading the multi-professional teamwork as an impor-
tant aspect of characterising ECE teachers’ pedagogical leadership. The main goal
of leading multi-professional teams was to create a secure environment for the
children’s holistic development. The leadership of the multi-professional teams was

considered as taking responsibility for goal-oriented teamwork. According to the
teachers, that meant making pedagogical goals visible in the planning and practices
of the team members. This included, for example, verbal expression of the goals in
the team discussions and the teams’ effective co-operation.
In the shadowing data, it could be seen that the teachers actively listened and
appreciated the nurses’ ideas during the team meetings. It was common for the
nurses to bring up issues in the discussions. The childcare nurses, for example,
brought up accurate observations about the children’s skills. The teachers usually
listened carefully and continued the discussion by asking further questions and pro-
viding suggestions for the nurses about how to continue supporting individual chil-
dren. In this way, the teachers led the pedagogical reflection in the teams and
contributed to the development of practices. The findings, however, indicated that
the teachers had varying dispositions and approaches in leadership that may influ-
ence their capabilities to enhance pedagogical development in the teams.
2.4.3 Varying Dispositions and Approaches for Teachers

to Lead Their Teams
The interview findings indicated that the teachers were self-conscious about their
leadership responsibilities but that it was considered a huge task. The teachers
reported that they do not have sufficient dispositions to take on such a big responsi-
bility. They were also a little vigilant about taking leadership positions in their
teams, fearing that it would establish a hierarchy. The shadowing data, however,
showed that the teachers actively led their child groups and guided and supported
the team members during the daily pedagogical activities. In the interviews, the
teachers’ feelings against taking a leadership role in their staff teams, especially in
leading learning and expertise of the team members, varied. One of the teachers
reported feeling difficulties in guiding her team members. She characterised herself
as too timid to provide direct guidance for her teammates:
But I’m sure that everyone can use their own skills; it’s not easy to go and guide. I
wouldn’t praise myself much—I’m probably really timid. T3.
The teachers have developed different approaches in leading. Instead of direct guid-
ing, one of the teachers counted on doing the work to the best of her ability. All the
teachers considered themselves as role models for the team members:
At the moment, it doesn’t feel like my own thing. I do my own work as well as I can,
then I hope that it will, in that way, bring fruit there. T3.
The shadowing data showed that, despite the insecurity some teachers felt in leading
their teams, all the teachers brought up issues that were not consistent with the peda-
gogical goals of their team. In these discussions, the teachers provided their views
and reasons for why the practices were not in line with the goals, and they guided
22 J. Heikka et al.
the nurses in how to meet pedagogical goals in their practices. One of the teachers
even directly questioned the practices of the childcare nurses. They also usually
directly stated their own opinions, even if they were opposite to the nurses’ actions.
One teacher reported feeling secure in expressing her views to the team members.
She emphasised the meaning of trust and humor in the team and felt that there was
good team spirit:
Personally, I strive for openness, that we talk openly about things, discuss, exchange
ideas, and that everyone is listened to. And that all would be heard. And we try;
personally, I try to listen carefully, and I have been glad that we say things
directly, and we can talk about it. I think we have a good team and team spirit. It
helps us in the work. And the fact that confidentiality is a terribly important
thing, and humor. T2.
The findings indicated that the teachers received assistance and support for their
leadership from the other teachers at the centre. This support was considered essen-
tial for their work and for themselves.
2.4.4 Collegial Support for Pedagogical Leadership
The findings revealed that the teachers formulate strong collegial support within
their ECE centres. The support received from the other teachers for pedagogical
leadership was emphasised even more than that provided by the ECE centre direc-
tors. The teachers especially emphasised the meaning of the pedagogical develop-
ment working groups, which consisted of all ECE teachers within one centre:
If something is in my mind, I bring it to the pedagogical working group so that we
could bring this issue up, that I’d like to discuss this issue. T3.
The teachers also expressed the need for stronger professional support from the
ECE centre directors. The teachers especially needed more discussions of peda-
gogical practices and mutual alignment of practices and the operational culture of
the ECE centre.
In addition to collegial support received from the other teachers from the other
child groups, the teachers anticipated that the co-operation and support provided
from the other teacher in the same child group is significant for taking care of lead-
ership responsibilities. These teachers were qualified as bachelors of social service,
and they provided a different perspective in pedagogical issues in the child group.
Responsibility for pedagogy was perceived as a huge task, and the other teachers
were considered to alleviate the workload:
Even though we are making the plans together as a team and implementing them
together, and all of us take care of our own responsibilities, some tasks are left to
Laura, as I do not have time to do them. One example is updating the portfolios
of the children. Those we have updated at least once a week. T2.
The other teachers also provided support by participating in the discussion and
planning of pedagogy with other teachers. One of the teachers did not have a bach-
elor of social service in her team, and she was reporting a lack of support because
of it. This finding was not evident in the shadowing data, even though it was signifi-
cantly displayed in the interviews.
2.5 Discussion and Implications
This research presents characteristics of pedagogical leadership enacted by ECE

teachers in the Finnish early childhood education context, where the development
of teachers’ pedagogical leadership has become topical in recent years due to politi-
cal changes. Based on the teachers’ shadowing and interview data, ECE teachers’
pedagogical leadership was manifested mainly as a responsibility for the pedagogy,
and it was enacted by leading a multi-professional team towards pedagogical goals.
The findings also revealed that teachers were aware of their pedagogical responsi-
bilities, but at the same time, they experienced uncertainty about pedagogical lead-
ership, especially concerning leading their team members. Collaboration with the
director, and especially between teachers in the ECE centre, was presented as an
important and desired support for pedagogical leadership.
The findings of this study reflect how teachers are seen to have a clear responsi-
bility for pedagogy as well as an obligation to lead pedagogy in a team. Despite this,
teachers feel insecure about leading. Parallel findings related to ECE teachers’
reluctance towards leadership has also been found in earlier studies (e.g., Heikka
et al., 2018; Li, 2015). In Finland, teachers’ uncertainty about leadership may partly
reflect the fact that, in a relatively short period of time, pedagogy and teachers’
pedagogical responsibility have been emphasised, and expectations for teachers’
pedagogical leadership have been significantly intensified. At the same time, the
operating culture of early childhood education, especially the job descriptions of
ECE team members, have recently been re-forming, and the multi-professional
teamwork has seemed unstructured and unclear, and therefore, it has appeared as a
developmental need (e.g., Karila et al., 2017). These contemporary factors can con-
tribute to challenges and increased feelings of uncertainty about leadership for
teachers.
ECE teachers’ uncertainty about taking on the role of a pedagogical leader in
their teams is difficult from the perspective of pedagogical development. An inter-
national review indicated that teacher leaders face similar challenges in Nordic
countries. Teachers must position themselves as leaders of pedagogical develop-
ment in their staff teams, negotiating between multiple tasks as well as internal and
external expectations (Heikka et al., 2020). This is why teachers need support to
implement pedagogical leadership and take responsibility for it. According to this
study, teachers feel that their ECE director’s support is important, but other teach-
ers’ support is considered even more important. Concerning this, it would be
24 J. Heikka et al.
beneficial to promote teachers’ collegial support in order to enhance teachers’ skills

and their professional identity to fulfil their responsibilities as pedagogical leaders.
The teachers in this study were self-conscious about leading pedagogy in multi-
professional teams. Still, this study showed that there are areas that need develop-
ment, especially pedagogical documentation. Teachers themselves felt that involving
other team members in planning, evaluation, and development was important.
Therefore, it would be necessary to further develop the pedagogical documentation,
especially from the team members’ perspective. Documentation relating to the
actions of team members could promote and reassert their involvement.
Both the observation and the interviews served a rich and diverse combination of
data by providing information from different perspectives. For example, without the
interviews, teachers’ feelings could have been left out. Based on the observational
data, their actions seemed fairly certain, but the interviews brought up feelings and
experiences of uncertainty. This kind of study, which investigates pedagogical lead-
ership from the perspectives of ECE teachers themselves, provides important infor-
mation for developing pedagogical leadership and leadership skills both at the
university and in the working life. The participants in this study were experienced
teachers. Consequently, future studies could focus on teachers in the early stages of
their careers and investigate how newly qualified teachers experience their role as
pedagogical leaders and what kind of support they need to implement pedagogical
responsibilities. One possibility to take these issues into consideration is the devel-
opment of ECE teacher education, such as pedagogical documentation and leader-
ship skills, so ECE teachers could be better prepared to act as pedagogical leaders
in their future teams.
In summary, the main implications of this study relate to the strengthening of
ECE teachers’ professional identity as pedagogical leaders as well as of their lead-
ership skills. This study revealed that teachers are aware of their pedagogical
responsibilities and implement pedagogical leadership in their teams. Nonetheless,
their professional self-esteem and confidence in their role as the team’s pedagogical
leaders and the knowledge of good and appropriate team leadership methods need
reinforcement. Therefore, it is important to continue raising awareness of teachers’
pedagogical responsibility and leadership throughout the whole ECE staff.
According to this study, it is especially necessary to acknowledge and develop the
collaboration between teachers as a support for their leadership responsibilities. By
supporting the development of professional identity and leadership skills and com-
petencies of both ECE teachers and teacher students, the realisation of well-
managed, high-quality early childhood education can be promoted.
References
Act on Early Childhood Education and Care 2018. (Act 540/2018). https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/
alkup/2018/20180540
Aubrey, C. (2016). Leadership in early childhood. In D. Couchenour & J. Kent Chrisman (Eds.),
The sage encyclopedia of contemporary early childhood education (pp. 808–810). Sage
Publications.
Aubrey, C., Godfrey, R., & Harris, A. (2012). How do they manage? An investigation of early
childhood leadership. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 41(1), 5–29.
Bøe, M., & Hognestad, K. (2017). Directing and facilitating distributed pedagogical leadership:
Best practices in early childhood education. International Journal of Leadership in Education,
20(2), 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2015.1059488
Bøe, M., Hognestad, K., & Waniganayake, M. (2016). Qualitative shadowing as a research meth-
odology for exploring early childhood leadership in practice. Educational Management,
Administration & Leadership, 45(4), 605–620. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143216636116
Colmer, K., Waniganayake, M., & Field, L. (2015). Implementing curriculum reform: Insights
on how Australian early childhood directors view professional development and learning.
Professional Development in Education -Special Issue: The Professional Development of Early
Years Educators, 41(2), 203–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2014.986815
Czarniawska, B. (2007). Shadowing and other techniques for doing fieldwork in modern societ-
ies. Liber.
Douglass, L. A. (2019). Leadership for quality early childhood education and care. OECD educa-
tion working papers no. 211. https://doi.org/10.1787/6e563bae-en.
Edwards, R., & Holland, J. (2013). What is qualitative interviewing? Bloomsbury.
Finnish National Agency for Education. (2018). Finnish national core curriculum for early child-
hood education and care, 2018.
Fonsèn, E. (2014). Pedagoginen johtajuus varhaiskasvatuksessa. [pedagogical leadership in early
childhood education]. (doctoral dissertation). Acta Universitatis Tamperensis 1914. Tampere
University Press.
Gill, R., Barbour, J., & Dean, M. (2014). Shadowing in/as work. Ten recommendations for shadow-
ing fieldwork practice. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management, 9(1), 69–89.
Harris, A. (2003). Teacher leadership as distributed leadership: Heresy, fantasy or possibility.
School Leadership & Management, 23(3), 313–324.
Heikka, J. (2014). Distributed pedagogical leadership in early childhood education. (doctoral dis-
sertation). Acta electronica Universitatis Tamperensis 1392. Tampere University Press.
Heikka, J., Halttunen, L., & Waniganayake, M. (2016). Investigating teacher leadership in ECE
centres in Finland. Journal of Early Childhood Education Research, 5(2), 289–309.
Heikka, J., Halttunen, L., & Waniganayake, M. (2018). Perceptions of early childhood education
professionals on teacher leadership in Finland. Early Child Development and Care, 188(2),
143–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2016.1207066
Heikka, J., Hognestad, K., Kettukangas, T., Boe, M. & Ranta, S. (2020). Reviewing early child-
hood education teachers as leaders in Finland and Norway – Governance and professionalism.
In M. Schroder (Ed.), Early childhood teachers: Global practices, Challenges and Prospects
(pp. 39–84). Nova Science Publishers.
Heikka, J., Waniganayake, M., & Hujala, E. (2013). Contextualizing distributed leadership within
early childhood education: Current understandings, research evidence and future challenges.
Educational Management, Administration & Leadership, 41(4), 30–44.
Ho, D. C. W. (2011). Identifying leadership roles for quality in early childhood education pro-
grammes. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 14(1), 47–57. https://doi.
org/10.1080/13603120903387561
Hognestad, K., & Bøe, M. (2014). Knowledge development through hybrid leadership practices.
Nordisk Barnehageforskning, 8(6), 1–14.
26 J. Heikka et al.
Hognestad, K., & Bøe, M. (2015). Leading site-based knowledge development: A mission impos-
sible? Insights from a study from Norway. In M. Waniganayake, J. Rodd, & L. Gibbs (Eds.),
Thinking and learning about leadership. Early childhood research from Australia, Finland and
Norway (pp. 210–228). Community childcare Cooperative NSW.
Johnson, B. (2014). Ethical issues in shadowing research. Qualitative Research in Organizations
and Management, 9(1), 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1108/qrom-09-2012-1099
Kahila, S. K., Heikka, J., & Sajaniemi, N. (2020). Teacher leadership in the context of early child-
hood education: Concepts, characteristics and enactment. Southeast Asia Early Childhood
Journal, 9(1), 28–43. https://ejournal.upsi.edu.my/index.php/SAECJ/article/view/3301
Karila, K., Kosonen, T., & Järvenkallas, S. (2017). Varhaiskasvatuksen kehittämisen tiekartta
vuosille 2017–2030: Suuntaviivat varhaiskasvatuksen osallistumisasteen nostamiseen sekä
päiväkotien henkilöstön osaamisen, henkilöstörakenteen ja koulutuksen kehittämiseen.
[Roadmap on the development of early childhood education for 2017–2030. Guidelines for
increasing the degree of participation in early childhood education, and for the development
of the skills of daycare centre staff, personnel structure and training]. Opetus- ja kulttuurimin-
isteriön julkaisuja 2017:30. Helsinki: Opetus- ja kulttuuriministeriö. http://julkaisut.valtioneu-
vosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/80221/okm30.pdf
Krippendorff, K. (2013). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (3rd ed.). Sage
Publications.
Li, Y. L. (2015). The culture of teacher leadership: A survey of teachers’ views in Hong Kong
early childhood settings. Early Childhood Education Journal 43(5), 435–445. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10643-014-0674-1
Male, T., & Palaiologou, I. (2017). Pedagogical leadership in action: Two case studies in English
schools. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 20(6), 733–748. https://doi.org/1
0.1080/13603124.2016.1174310
Rowley, J. (2012). Conducting research interviews. Management Research Review, 35(3–4),
260–271.
Sims, M., Forrest, R., Semann, A., & Slattery, C. (2015). Conceptions of early childhood leader-
ship: Driving new professionalism? International Journal of Leadership in Education, 18(2),
149–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2014.962101
Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. Jossey-Bass.
Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A
distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23–28.
Strehmel, P., Heikka, J., Hujala, E., Rodd, J., & Waniganayake, M. (Eds.). (2019). Leadership in
early education in times of change. Research from five continents. Verlag Barbara Budrich.
Waniganayake, M., Cheeseman, S., Fenech, M., Hadley, F., & Shepherd, W. (2017). Leadership:
Contexts and complexities in early childhood education (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Waniganayake, M., Rodd, J., & Gibbs, L. (Eds.). (2015). Thinking and learning about leadership:
Early childhood research from Australia, Finland and Norway. Research monograph No.2.
Community Child Care Cooperative NSW.
York-Barr, J., & Duke, K. (2004). What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings from two
decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research, 74, 255–316.
Chapter 3
Critical Compassion in Finnish Early
Childhood Educators’ Responses
to Challenges of Acting Compassionately
Antti Rajala, Anna Pauliina Rainio, Lasse Lipponen, Jaakko Hilppö,

and Emma Kurenlahti
Abstract Although the importance of caring in the work of early childhood educa-
tors is widely recognised, commonly held and simplistic conceptions of care hide
the complexity of the emotional and relational demands that constitute educational
activity. The aim of this chapter is to advance a holistic conceptualisation for
researching and promoting care and compassion as an aspect of early childhood
educators’ professional activity. Building on a novel, cultural-historical approach
for investigating compassion and care, we offer and discuss a nuanced conceptuali-
sation of compassion in ECEC settings that posits compassion as both constituted in
and constitutive of social activity. In this perspective, compassion is conceptualised
as a caring response to others’ unmet needs. This may involve not only alleviating
the immediate suffering, but also acting to transform the social circumstances that
damage people or cause them distress. Drawing from an ethnographic study of com-
passion in Finnish kindergartens, we provide an analysis of accounts by Finnish
ECEC educators which will serve to illustrate our conceptualisation of the critical
and transformative aspects of compassion.
A. Rajala (*)
University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland
e-mail: antti.rajala@oulu.fi
A. P. Rainio · L. Lipponen · J. Hilppö · E. Kurenlahti

Switzerland AG 2022
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95512-0_3
28 A. Rajala et al.
3.1 Introduction
In Finland, the National Core Curriculum for Early Childhood Education and Care
(2018) outlines a holistic approach which emphasises relationships, interaction,
play and curiosity and resists the “school preparation approach” (Jensen, 2009;
Karila, 2012). This document has been prepared in collaboration with multiple
groups of professional experts. The curriculum dictates the composition and execu-
tion of the curricula both at the municipal and kindergarten levels. Furthermore, the
Finnish approach to early childhood education and care (ECEC) – as outlined in the
national core curriculum – involves a caring and compassionate ethos, which is
exemplified in the emphasis on sensitivity to children’s various needs and initia-
tives. Other policies, such as the recently passed law securing multi-professional
teams as the core unit carrying out the curriculum in Finnish kindergartens (Finnish
National Agency of Education, 2018), aim to enable the creation of diverse ECEC
learning environments in which respect, care and empathy are the norms. However,
at the same time, there is an increase in management-by-results types of governance
(Sihvola, 2020), which may undermine the child-centred, caring approach outlined
in the curriculum documents (see also Paananen, 2017). In fact, as we will show in
this chapter, building compassionate environments in ECEC requires a critical and
a transformative approach, something not fully recognised and promoted currently.
Although the importance of caring in the work of early childhood educators is
widely recognised, commonly held and simplistic conceptions of care sometimes
reduce it to “gentle smiles and warm hugs” and thus hide the complexity of the
emotional and relational demands that constitute educational activity (Goldstein,
1998). A persistent, problematic assumption in the field of education is to associate
the capacity for care and compassion to gender-related qualities of individuals (see
Taggart, 2019). Moreover, educational care should arguably be seen as an aspect of
professional work ethics rather than as a type of customer care that can be bought
from the market (Taggart, 2016). Furthermore, in educational and psychological
research, there is a tendency to conceptualise compassion as an individual disposi-
tion or trait (Hoffman, 2009; Goetz et al., 2010), for example, in terms of educators’
pedagogical sensitivity (Nislin et al., 2016). Although there are undoubtedly indi-
vidual differences in capacity for compassion, exclusive framing of compassion in
terms of individual properties obscures how institutional practices and organisa-
tional culture shape opportunities and obstacles to give and receive care and protec-
tion (Lipponen et al., 2018; Broadfoot & Pascal, 2020). Overall, care and compassion
are not simply benign and innocent concepts, but they are embedded in affective
relations that constitute social practice, which is often characterised by inequalities
and exploitation (Lynch et al., 2016).
The aim of this chapter is to advance a holistic conceptualisation for researching
and promoting care and compassion as an aspect of early childhood educators’ pro-
fessional activity. Building on a novel, cultural-historical approach for investigating
compassion and care (Lipponen et al., 2018), we offer and discuss a nuanced con-
ceptualisation of compassion in ECEC settings that posits compassion as both
3 Critical Compassion in Finnish Early Childhood Educators’ Responses… 29
constituted in and constitutive of social activity. In this perspective, compassion is

conceptualised as a caring response to others’ unmet needs (see also Taggart, 2016).
This may involve not only alleviating the immediate suffering, but also acting to
transform the social circumstances that damage people or cause them distress. In
this respect, we have relied on research that locates compassion in its socio-political
context (for an overview, see Ure & Frost, 2014). That is, we see compassion as a
contested phenomenon that potentially involves balancing and finding ways to deal
with different agendas and interests.
To this end, we first outline our perspective for researching compassion in ECEC
settings and discuss some emerging research from this perspective. We then explain
our ethnographic approach to studying compassion in Finnish kindergartens and
provide an analysis of accounts by Finnish ECEC educators which will serve to
illustrate our conceptualisation of the critical and transformative aspects of compas-
sion. The accounts have been drawn from interviews and observations we con-
ducted, and documents we collected as part of a long-term ethnography in a
kindergarten in Helsinki. Using the examples, we illustrate our theoretical claims
and also seek to argue for the relevance of our theoretical conceptualisations for
research of compassion in ECEC settings. The chapter concludes with a discussion
of practical implications for developing ECEC practices based on our analysis.
3.2 Compassion in ECEC Settings
Compassion is not just an individual capability. Work organisations can also develop
a collective capability for compassion. This means the capability of the work com-
munity and its members to notice others’ hardships and unmet needs reliably and
repeatedly, feel empathic concern, and act to improve others’ situations (Lilius
et al., 2008, 2011). This collective capability for compassion is based on practices,
rules and routines that together constitute the operating culture of a given institu-
tion. Research in workplaces such as a hospital or a university has shown that com-
passion increases positive emotions and commitment to work (Frost et al., 2000;
Lilius et al., 2008). Receiving – or being denied – compassion when in need also
plays a significant role in how people regard themselves, their colleagues, as well as
commit to their work. In ECEC settings, similar findings were found in a study by
Rajala and Lipponen (2018) that analysed the narratives of early childhood educa-
tion student teachers.
Lilius et al.’ (2011) study of a hospital billing unit that was known for being
exceptionally compassionate is a good example of the forms of collective capability
for compassion possible in workplaces. Their study identified everyday practices
that supported compassion in the unit. These practices included recognition of
everyone’s contributions, dealing with problems and conflicts immediately, it being
possible to have fun during working hours, informal chats and collective decision
making about the social life in the unit, and paying attention to others’ needs and
offering help. Taken together, these practices created reciprocal and lasting bonds
30 A. Rajala et al.
among the workers, which helped them to notice others’ hardships from the small-
est of cues and choose appropriate ways to offer help. Furthermore, these practices
contributed to an atmosphere in which the workers felt it appropriate to discuss their
non-work-related worries. However, it was also important that they could speak
directly to each other and knew how to draw boundaries to take care that the worries
did not disrupt the work too much.
Within research on ECEC, there is an emerging line of investigation by our group
and others that examines compassion as an integral aspect of the daily practices and
relationships. Lipponen’s (2018) study sheds light on the formation of compassion
with regards to how its expression is governed by rules. The study showed that in
the preschool curriculum, there were clear indications of rules that supported com-
passion, which were clearly adhered to in the daily work, although it was not com-
mon to make explicit reference to these rules. The most common compassion-related
rule that was identified in the curriculum was ‘including’, which probably implies
that the community valued the creation of inclusive spaces in which everybody is
accepted, and everyone’s needs are recognised. In a similar vein, Rajala et al. (2019)
examined the acts of soothing in the everyday conduct of a kindergarten and how
the kindergarten community responded to children’s distress. The study showed that
the observed acts of soothing could not be explained by reference only to individual
properties. In contrast, they were partly socially determined and often the outcome
of collaborative action. The findings point to a division of labour – perhaps implicit –
between the personnel and children: Often personnel were the ones to be expected
to show compassion to children. Only on some occasions were the children expected
to do this but they could instead even be forbidden from consoling each other.
Hilppö et al. (2019) further demonstrated how ECEC practitioners’ acts of compas-
sion could be conceptualised with the Aristotelian notion of phronesis, practical
wisdom. Their work shed light on how adult acts of compassion are tightly tied with
their social and material settings. Broadfoot and Pascal (2020) showed how com-
passion was experienced as a “multifaceted supportive mechanism” in the daily
rhythms of an early childhood community. This mechanism was comprised of
acknowledgement and acceptance, security and protection, as well as facilitation
and enablement.
Secondly, we argue that compassion should operate beyond the individual emo-
tions and relationship of the sufferer and the one who is trying to alleviate the pain
or respond to a need. Addressing institutional suffering requires a more political
interpretation of compassion. Drawing on Whitebrook (2014), we define critical
compassion as acts that identify systemic or institutional causes of suffering and
then act to remove or dismantle these causes. Identifying structures or institutional
causes of social suffering and acting against them requires exploring and under-
standing the historical development of these institutions, or systems, and their prac-
tices. These systems are shaped and transformed over long periods of time. Their
problems and capacity to develop into something new in the future can only be
understood against their history (Engeström, 2007). In its critical form, compassion
is associated with agency, which we define here as the realised capacity of people to
act on and transform their activities and social and material circumstances (Rainio,
2008; Lipponen & Kumpulainen, 2011; Rajala, 2016). Agency accounts for a
bottom-up process of social transformation and is hence necessary for critical com-
passion that seeks to address and change the conditions that create obstacles for
wellbeing and flourishing.
3.3 Setting and Data
3.3.1 Setting
In recent years, Finnish early childhood education and care has undergone several
large-scale reforms. Previously the role of ECEC had merely been to enable parents
to work and support families in the upbringing of their children, now the focus has
changed to children’s right to high-quality ECEC. Currently, Finnish ECEC is
guided by two national-level documents prepared by multi-professional expert
groups consisting of administrators, researchers and trade union representatives: the
National Core Curriculum for Early Childhood Education and Care (2018) and the
National Core Curriculum for Pre-Primary Education (2014). These documents
serve as a basis for the curricula devised at the municipality and kindergarten levels.
Early childhood education staff are responsible for drafting unit-specific curricula.
Early childhood education and care, pre-primary education that is part of it and
basic education, form an entity proceeding consistently in relation to the child’s
growth and learning and build a foundation for life-long learning. The municipali-
ties are responsible for arranging the ECEC services, as well as for their quality and
supervision. At the national level, ECEC is the responsibility of the Ministry of
Education and Culture.
Furthermore, Finnish ECEC is characterised by a multi-professional work com-
munity with a varying combination of professional qualification levels and job
descriptions, as well as cooperation with professionals in other sectors. The coop-
erative work is usually organised in multi-professional teams. The ECEC staff
responsible for children must have appropriate training. One-in-three in ECEC cen-
tres must have a higher education degree. Other staff in ECEC centres are expected
to have at least a vocational upper-secondary qualification in the field of social wel-
fare and health care. Finnish early childhood education teachers are considered to
be autonomous professionals who are committed to continuous personal develop-
ment and are assumed to have an inquiry-oriented approach to uphold the quality of
their work.
Over the course of several studies (e.g., Lipponen, 2018; Rajala et al., 2019), we
have been engaged in developing an ethnographic approach specifically tuned to
understanding and uncovering the ways in which compassion manifests itself in the
everyday life of Finnish kindergartens. The examples of this paper have been drawn
from a 2-year collaboration with a kindergarten, from August 2018. It is a public
kindergarten located in a culturally and linguistically diverse area. The kindergarten
receives ‘positive discrimination funding’. Finnish officials use the term ‘positive
discrimination funding’ to refer to allowances paid to kindergartens based on the
educational status and income level of children’s parents and the number of
32 A. Rajala et al.
immigrant families in the area. This funding has been used to increase the number
of ECEC staff, especially the proportion of ECEC teachers and the recruitment of
special education teachers.
3.3.2 Data Collection
As part of our long-term ethnography, we have collected data in a number of ways.

Firstly, we engaged in extensive participant observation (Hammersley & Atkinson,
2007) in the various kindergarten groups. In short, we have been observing and
recording activities in the groups from the moment the first ECEC practitioners and
children arrive in the morning and when the last ones have left. We’ve taken part in
morning circles, naptime, played with the children outside in the yard, talked with
them during lunch and snack times, and been on field trips with them. We have also
sat in on weekly staff meetings as well as smaller meetings with personnel working
in the same kindergarten group and collected copies of the documents used, written
extensive field notes, taken photographs and drawn images as part of our fieldwork.
In addition, we have engaged with the staff in daily, informal conversations about
life in the kindergarten and their work and in a similar fashion, engaged with the
parents of the children during drop-offs and pick-ups. In addition, we conducted
thematic interviews with all educational staff members at the beginning of our field-
work and about half of them at the end of the fieldwork. Our main intention with the
interviews was gaining an in-depth perspective on how the staff experienced their
work and especially their perspective of compassion as part of their work. To this
end, we had drafted an interview guide which we used in the interviews but did not
adhere to strictly if other relevant themes emerged during the interview. The inter-
views lasted between 30 to 90 minutes and were done during the workday and on
the kindergarten’s premises.
In our research, we are committed to adhering to the ethical standards of scien-
tific research of the University of Helsinki and the Finnish National Board on
Research Integrity. Participation in the research project was voluntary and the par-
ticipants (and the parents of the children) were informed about the project and how
the research data will be used and asked for their consent. We made a considerable
effort in informing the parents about the research, many of whom did not under-
stand Finnish. For example, the project descriptions and consent forms were trans-
lated into several different languages.
3.3.3 Data Analysis
To advance a nuanced and political understanding of compassion we analysed the

data to identify situations in which the early childhood educators had difficulties in
acting with compassion due to their unfavourable work conditions. Our analysis is
theory-driven (Miles & Huberman, 1994) and informed by the conceptualization of

compassion described above. The vignettes drawn on in the next section are from
the observation notes, interviews, and documents we have collected. They have
been purposefully selected because of their illustrative and contrastive power to
shed light on the richness of the phenomenon under investigation (Patton, 1990).
3.4 hree Ways of Solving Challenges of Acting

T
with Compassion in the Workplace
In this section, we have analysed and discussed three vignettes that illustrate the
diverse ways in which early childhood educators respond to situations when their
work conditions are not favourable to acting with compassion, although all the three
teachers shared a strong work ethic of caring for the children.
3.4.1 Excerpt 1
The first excerpt is from a teacher’s letter that she spontaneously wrote to one of us.
The teacher had earlier told us that she is fed up with her situation and wanted to
change her career. This is how she describes her double bind situation in her work,
related to compassion:
For me, working in Kindergarten has been very rewarding and I feel that it has in part been
just the right place and way for me. I am very lively and creative, and in my own way I am
childlike, so I have enjoyed it. I am also very sensitive as well as intuitive and have empathy
in a special way. I easily sense emotional climate and feelings, about spaces, people and
animals. For me, it is just best to do and tinker with children and none of the days is the
same. I get a contact with the children and a relationship which is really rewarding, and I
feel I am influencing a small person’s life in a positive way. I enjoy taking responsibility and
being taken seriously: taking responsibility for noticing in time if something is not quite
right, or if support does not arrive in time, or if the child or the family needs something
more than what has been done so far. Sometimes I do not have time nor resources for that,
and it presses on me and it is difficult when you have done your best and you have to state
that no more is coming. Responsibility for implementing goals given by others and follow-
ing standards set by others, it sometimes brings me a feeling of not being enough. I have not
set those goals, but I am still assessed against them and my bonus salary is based on reach-
ing them. I am a person who is present at the moment and sometimes it is heavy when you
realize it is not your main job but instead your work is assessed on the basis of whether you
have done all the documentation or if you have reached the externally-set goals… Even then
I know myself and notice that the children’s group in question where I work, they need
something else and especially they need me just being present, setting borders, kindness. It
doesn’t matter how fancy goals have been set (because goals have to be set for each age
group, so that early childhood education can be described as equal and of high quality) if
there are no resources and opportunities for reaching them. The reason can simply be that
the children have various needs or, for example, that they do not have enough Finnish lan-
guage skill and conceptual understanding to even have a basic idea of what we are talking
34 A. Rajala et al.
about. And for another matter, it can well be that the child has challenges in the mental
capacity to act at the level at which the goals have been set. In these situations, as a good
educator, I shape my goals and take into account the fact that I work with a very diverse
group with multiple levels of capabilities (both language capacity and overall capacity). [It
is not pleasant] to hear my colleagues and leadership claim how tedious it is that the agreed
issues are not in use and that I do not have things quite under control.
Above the teacher describes that she would like to support the children in her own
way, to be with them and be present for them, but she is forced to comply with the
goals that others impose on her activity and have to spend a lot of time in document-
ing what she has done, which is away from her actual time with the children. In
effect, she is confronted with a double bind that annoys her, that is, a situation in
which she receives two messages which negate each other (Bateson et al., 1956). On
the one hand, if she does her job as she thinks the children need, she will get scold-
ing from her colleagues and leadership. On the other hand, if she adheres to the
rules, she gets a bad conscience of leaving the children on their own. Her response
to this double bind situation was something as extreme as trying to leave the field
and change a career, which she, however, described enjoying and being com-
petent at.
This account makes visible the complexity of institutional care work. Here, what
matters is not so much the teacher’s capacity to notice the children’s needs or to feel
empathic concern. On the contrary, the teacher communicates a self-understanding
of being especially sensitive to noticing emotional climates and children’s needs.
She also expresses a strongly-felt empathic concern for the children’s welfare. This
emotion is felt to the extent that it becomes an unbearable contradiction that forces
her to seek an alternative career. Instead, part of what is at stake is that the work
conditions do not allow her the time and the resources to be in immediate social
interaction with the children, which she feels is necessary for her to notice the needs
of the children and their families and to support them when they need it.
Underlying this situation appears to be contradictory views about how the work
of education and care is to be organised and divided in the work community. The
conflict between the teacher and the leadership of the unit related to documenting
the activity, implementation of collectively agreed arrangements, as well as reach-
ing of the goals and quality standards that were posed to achieve equal quality of
education and care for every child. The teacher objects to the collective and stan-
dardized approach, which conflicts with her preferred way of working, and creates
a perceived obstacle to addressing the children’s needs appropriately in the way that
she understands them.
In this conflict, we can hear echoes of several contradictory historical layers of
the activity. The teacher seems to have a relatively traditional understanding of her
job. The staff members we interviewed at the kindergarten still remember the time
in which they were solely responsible for their own group of children and spent
much of their time in direct social interaction with them. The division of labour
between the nurse and the teacher was relatively undifferentiated. This used to be a
common division of labour among the staff members of kindergartens in Finland,
often characterised as the “everyone does everything” principle (Kinos, 1997;

Onnismaa et al., 2017). However, several convergent changes in the Finnish ECEC
system and policy have contributed to the conditions in which this teacher appears
to be struggling with the contradictory demands of her work. Firstly, the new early
childhood education legislation and the binding National core curriculum guide the
contents and activity of ECEC in a more specific and goal-oriented manner than
before (Karila, 2016). At the same time, there is an increase in management-by-
results types of governance (Sihvola, 2020). These changes contribute to the
increased demands felt by the teacher to produce varied documentation regarding
the activity and the children, as well as to adhere to external quality standards (see
also Karila, 2016; Paananen, 2017).
Secondly, there has been a significant change in the division of labour between
the staff members in the direction of it being more differentiated and hierarchical.
The new Finnish Act on Early Childhood Education and Care changed the staff
qualification requirements, imposing more liabilities and duties on ECEC teachers.
The teachers have more responsibility for the documentation of the activity and
children’s education plans as well as for organising and attending to various meet-
ings with the parents and other professionals regarding the special needs of chil-
dren. Consequently, they may have less time than the nurses to be in direct social
interaction with the children. Especially in this kindergarten, many children had
needs that required organisation and reporting of multi-professional meetings,
which added to the teachers’ workload.
It is beyond the scope of this chapter to offer an in-depth discussion of the posi-
tive or negative consequences of the changes in ECEC policies for the care of chil-
dren. However, we hope that our analysis makes clear the limitations of an exclusive
focus on individual educators’ capacity for caring and compassion and evidences
the need to examine care and compassion as integral aspects of the collective organ-
isation of the activity in its cultural-historical context. For the teacher in this exam-
ple, the challenges and obstacles for acting compassionately appeared to be
primarily at the collective and not at the individual level of the activity. The analysis
also sheds light on the agency of the teacher in her attempts to break out of the
double bind situation she felt she was in. However, the lack of support that she expe-
rienced resulted in directing her agency to seek to exit the stressful and apparently
hopeless situation, rather than solving it in a constructive manner. We argue that a
constructive solution would require collective engagement with the historical con-
tradictions of the activity and negotiations about the organisation of the work.
3.4.2 Excerpt 2
The second example offers a nurse’s perspective, in which she explains the nature-
related pedagogical arrangements she had planned in her leisure time for the chil-
dren at the kindergarten.
36 A. Rajala et al.
Nurse: We have gone to nature. It is not easy, but we have done it. A pity we have had to
cancel it a couple of times. I would have liked to take the children to my father’s garden, but
we can’t go there because of the weather. It is still too cold. I would like to show the chil-
dren the miracle of growth. I called the city garden and asked if they could give us seeds and
onions so that the children could see them grow. They also had seedlings of violets and she
asked if we want them. She brought them there and we carried them here, the children car-
ried them. And I asked about getting seeds for all the pre-schoolers, without talking about
it with anyone here, and I thought that it might fail. But it succeeded better than expected. I
called them to ask if they also had pots and they had, and I used my own money to buy the
soil. I did not want to wait to get approval from the leaders, I would have had to talk with
them to get the funds to buy the soil. So, I just got the pots, I used my own car to get them …
Interviewer: Why do you want to do this?
Nurse: I want to do it for the children, they are happy when it succeeds… There is no time
to plan here, especially because I am not a teacher. This was planned with Jaana [another
nurse], although we don’t have time for planning, we don’t have time to meet, we have been
given nothing.
In the interview, the nurse explains that she does a lot of planning and invests her
own time and even money to do things with children to address their pedagogical
needs. She complains in the excerpt that the teachers get all the planning time and
as her role is to nurse, no time is allocated to her for planning and organising.
Nevertheless, she explains that she wants to use her own resources to do that to see
the joy in children. She does that almost secretly.
Here we have another example of an ECEC professional acting compassionately
with children (by offering them experiences she feels they love) by stretching the
boundaries of her work position and by making personal sacrifices. Interestingly,
here too, these acts of compassion take place as the teacher’s individual agentive
efforts, almost on the side if not against her organisation. These challenges relate to
a newly arrived historical arrangement of the ECEC work that we discussed above:
recently the nurses’ and teachers’ work requirements have been differentiated. As
suggested in this example and the previous one, this has left some kindergartens in
an unclear situation because the division of labour between different professional
groups is not clear or is contested.
The challenge in the above example from the perspective of care and compassion
is that if organisational support is not available or is unclear for different groups,
acting compassionately may remain an individual choice. Making individual sacri-
fices can be draining and the cost of personal investment and acting alone – some-
times even secretly from the rest of the community – may be an increased level of
stress and compassion fatigue. In sum, this example suggests lost opportunities to
offer flexible support on an as-needed basis and to build a collective capability for
compassion in the organisation (Lilius et al., 2008, 2011).
3.4.3 Excerpt 3
The final example is from the observation notes of one of the researchers. It is a
discussion with the vice-director of the kindergarten who also worked there as a
teacher. Prior to the discussion, the researcher had just observed a spontaneous ses-
sion in which the teacher explained to children what was going to happen to them
the following year, as they were to move from pre-school to school). She had par-
ticularly wanted to explain this to one of the children, Ndricim, who had been
informed that he would not be starting school the following year as planned.
The teacher tells me that she did this session because Ndricim was told in December that he
would need to do another pre-school year (and not yet go to school as planned). Ndricim
had difficulties understanding this as they had already talked about him attending school.
The teacher tells me that she wanted to make the thing definite with the help of pictures, so
that the boy could understand it. Before lunch, the teacher had told me that she had some
vice-director tasks to do but now she tells me that she could not get to do them because she
thought it was more important to deal with Ndricim. They were going to visit the school and
she did not want to take Ndricim there because he was now denied the opportunity to go to
school next year. The teacher explains to me that she felt it important to be able to explain
the issue to Ndricim before the others went on the school visit. The teacher tells me that she
is upset that she does not have enough time to do the vice director tasks but she also tells me
that when she agreed to take the role of the vice director, she said she did it on the condition
that she could prioritise the children’s needs.
From these notes, we can infer that in rearranging the schedules and organising the
mini session for the children, the teacher engaged in an act of compassion out of
concern of Ndricim’s well-being. There was a sense of urgency to help Ndricim to
understand and accept the decision to postpone his school start, which was poten-
tially a great disappointment that would destroy his enthusiasm to start the school
next year. In contrast to the first example, we can see a sense of empowerment in
this account. The teacher appears to feel entitled to make flexible rearrangements
and negotiate the various demands, in effect exercising transformative agency in
creating the conditions needed for the compassionate act. In contrast to the second
example, this teacher construed this deviation from the plans as an explicit part of
her job, and feels entitled to alter her work time openly and flexibly to prioritise the
children’s emergent needs. Through enacting agency in rechannelling resources and
repurposing the situation, the teacher engages in an instance of critical compassion,
which appeared to be essential to create a supportive and safe learning environment
for the children.
3.5 Discussion
We have seen that compassion is a dynamic process that is constructed relationally

through multiple interactions within a cultural context, involving ongoing transfor-
mations of both the community and the self (Lipponen et al., 2018; Broadfoot &
38 A. Rajala et al.
Pascal, 2020). Furthermore, it is through interactions that compassion is contested,

negotiated and re-negotiated.
Although it is likely that compassion always manifests itself in educational insti-
tutions, it is argued that these institutions seldom systematically harness social prac-
tices that support compassion (see Peterson, 2016). In our vignettes, all three
interviewees described how a compassionate and caring orientation to children is at
the heart of their activity and professional identity. These examples support and add
to Geoff Taggart’s (2016) contention that acting compassionately is at the heart of
ECEC practitioners’ ethical professionalism.
However, in all three of these vignettes, we also see ECEC professionals working
to solve dilemmas they face in relation to their priority of acting compassionately in
their daily work, which calls for a political interpretation of compassion (Whitebrook,
2014). All three of them described a situation in which compassion as a value is
partly in conflict with the other organisational requirements of their work positions
or challenging to fulfil. The ways in which these professionals responded to the
challenges of caring and compassion are different but they all end up stretching the
boundaries of their professional conduct in their response to the situation. In this
respect, the examples point to – we dare to say – typical situations in the field of
ECEC, in which individual professionals are at the risk of leaving, becoming cyni-
cal or burning themselves out. The study of Paananen and Tammi (2017) gives sup-
port to this interpretation. The ECEC staff from various kindergartens whom they
interviewed experienced tensions between the needs of the management and the
needs of the children, with negative implications for their work-related wellbeing
and opportunities for responding to children’s initiatives. In short, the increasingly
managerial ways of governing ECEC in Finland appear not to fit easily together
with the child-centred manner of understanding the ECEC work (Paananen, 2017).
In our vignettes, compassion and care appeared not always to be the first priority
from the organisational perspective but rather were realised through individuals
making conscious decisions, sometimes even against the organisational culture, to
respond to the children’s needs.
To conclude, we propose some practical implications for the work in
ECEC. Creating conditions for caring and compassion in a kindergarten requires
supportive organisational structures – or otherwise, it may mean regularly bending
rules or requirements of one’s work with possible negative consequences for one’s
health and well-being. Thus, there is a need for a collective process of critical com-
passion that involves questioning and analysing taken-for-granted ways of organis-
ing work as well as envisioning and implementing new models of the activity to
remove systemic and institutional obstacles for well-being and flourishing (see also
Lipponen et al., 2018; Engeström, 2007). As the examples analysed and discussed
in this chapter show, these obstacles often originate in the historical contradictions
within the field of ECEC. To deal with these contradictions, the work community
needs to come together to share examples of problems, analyse them together, as
well as envision, design and experiment with new ways of organizing work. For
example, ‘change laboratory’ is a method that can support such collaborative learn-
ing in and transformation of work activities (Virkkunen & Newnham, 2013). In all,
it is not sufficient to develop individual ECEC professionals’ sensitivity to chil-

dren’s needs and caring orientation. In this chapter, we have argued that it is impor-
tant to ask what makes an ECEC organization collectively capable of compassion.
Acknowledgements The research reported in this article was funded by the Academy of Finland
(the project no. 299191). This paper is partly stimulated by the ongoing discussions and collabora-
tive activities of a diverse group of scholars as part of the Re-generating CHAT research network,
www.re-generatingchat.com.
References
Bateson, G., Jackson, D. D., Haley, J., & Weakland, J. (1956). Toward a theory of schizophrenia.
Behavioral Science, 1, 251–264.
Broadfoot, H., & Pascal, C. (2020). Exploring experiences of compassion in the daily rhythms of
one early childhood community. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 28,
457–474.
Engeström, Y. (2007). Putting Vygotsky to work: The change laboratory as an application of dou-
ble stimulation. In H. Daniels, M. Cole, & J. V. Wertsch (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to
Vygotsky (pp. 363–382). Cambridge University Press.
Finnish National Agency for Education. (2018). National Core Curriculum for Early Childhood
Education and Care.
Frost, P. J., Dutton, J. E., Worline, M. C., & Wilson, A. (2000). Narratives of compassion in organi-
zations. In S. Fineman (Ed.), Emotions in organizations (pp. 25–45). Sage Publications.
Goetz, L., Keltner, D., & Simon-Thomas, E. (2010). Compassion: An evolutionary analysis and
empirical review. Psychological Bulletin, 36, 351–374.
Goldstein, L. S. (1998). More than gentle smiles and warm hugs: Applying the ethic of care to
early childhood education. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 12(2), 244–261.
Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (2007). Ethnography: Principles in practice. Routledge.
Hilppö, J., Rajala, A., Lipponen, L., Pursi, A., & Abdulhamed, R. (2019). Studying compassion
in the work of ECEC educators in Finland: A sociocultural approach to practical wisdom in
early childhood education settings. In S. Phillipson & S. Garvis (Eds.), Teachers and families
perspectives in early childhood education and care: early childhood education and care in the
21st century Vol. II (Vol. 2, pp. 64–75). Routledge.
Hoffman, D. (2009). Reflecting on social emotional learning: A critical perspective on trends in the
United States. Review of Educational Research, 79, 533–556.
Jensen, B. (2009). A Nordic approach to early childhood education (ECE) and socially endangered
children. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 17, 7–21.
Karila, K. (2012). A Nordic perspective on early childhood education and care policy. European
Journal of Education, 47(4), 584–595.
Karila, K. (2016). Vaikuttava varhaiskasvatus [impactful early childhood education]. Raportit ja
selvitykset, 2016, 6. Available at: http://www.oph.fi/download/176638_vaikuttava_varhaiskas-
vatus.pdf
Kinos, J. (1997). Päiväkoti ammattikuntien kamppailujen kenttänä. [Kindergarten as a field of
struggle for professions]. University of Turrku.
Lilius, J., Worline, M., Maitlis, S., Kanov, J., Dutton, J., & Frost, P. (2008). The contours and con-
sequences of compassion at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 193–218.
Lilius, J., Worline, M., Dutton, J., Kanov, J., & Maitlis, S. (2011). Understanding compassion
capability. Human Relations, 64, 873–899.
Lipponen, L., & Kumpulainen, K. (2011). Acting as accountable authors: Creating interactional
spaces for agency work in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(5), 812–819.
40 A. Rajala et al.
Lipponen, L. (2018). Constituting cultures of compassion in early childhood educational settings.

In S. Garvis & E. E. Ødegaard (Eds.), Nordic dialogue on children and families (pp. 39–50).
Routledge.
Lipponen, L., Rajala, A., & Hilppö, J. (2018). Compassion and emotional worlds in early child-
hood education. In C. Pascal, T. Bertram, & M. Veisson (Eds.), Early childhood education and
change in diverse cultural contexts (pp. 168–178). Routledge.
Lynch, K., Baker, J., Lyons, M., Feeley, M., Hanlon, N., Walsh, J., & Cantillon, S. (2016). Affective
equality: Love, care and injustice. Springer.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook.
Sage Publications.
Nislin, M. A., Sajaniemi, N. K., Sims, M., Suhonen, E., Maldonado Montero, E. F., Hirvonen,
A., & Hyttinen, S. (2016). Pedagogical work, stress regulation and work-related Well-being
among early childhood professionals in integrated special day-care groups. European Journal
of Special Needs Education, 31(1), 27–43.
Onnismaa, E.-L., Kalliala, M., & Tahkokallio, L. (2017). Koulutuspoliittisten paradoksien jäljillä –
Miten varhaiskasvatus muotoutui sosiaalialan koulutuksia suosivaksi [tracing paradoxes of
educational policy – How was early childhood education shaped to give preference to qualifi-
cations in social work]. Kasvatus & Aika, 11(3), 4–20.
Paananen, M. (2017). Imaginaries of early childhood education: Societal roles of early childhood
education in an era of accountability. Doctoral dissertation. University of Helsinki.
Paananen, M., & Tammi, T. (2017). Työn kuormittavuuden kokemusten, työn tehostamisen ja
sairauspoissaolojen moni-ulotteiset yhteydet lastentarhanopettajan työssä. [the multidimen-
sional connections betweeen teachers’ experiences of stress, intensification measures and the
amount of sick leaves in the work of early childhood educators]. Journal of Early Childhood
Education Research, 6(1), 43–60.
Peterson, A. (2016). Compassion and education: Cultivating compassionate children, schools and
communities. Springer.
Rainio, A. P. (2008). From resistance to involvement: Examining agency and control in a play-
world activity. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 15(2), 115–140.
Rajala, A. (2016). Toward an agency-centered pedagogy: A teacher's journey of expanding the
context of school learning. Doctoral dissertation. University of Helsinki.
Rajala, A., Kontiola, H., Hilppö, J., & Lipponen, L. (2019). Lohdutustilanteet ja myötätuntokult-
tuuri alle kolmivuotiaiden päiväkotiryhmässä [soothing situations and culture of compassion in
a kindergarten group of below three-years-olds]. Kasvatus, 4, 314–326.
Rajala, A., & Lipponen, L. (2018). Early childhood education and Care in Finland: Compassion
in narrations of early childhood education student teachers. In S. Garvis, S. Phillipson, &
H. Harju-Luukkainen (Eds.), Early childhood education in the 21st century: An international
perspective, Volume I (pp. 64–75). Routledge.
Taggart, G. (2016). Compassionate pedagogy: The ethics of care in early childhood professional-
ism. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 24, 173–185.
Taggart, G. (2019). From mothering to social compassion: The ethical context of early childhood
education. In G. Barton & S. Garvis (Eds.), Learning, teaching and theorizing compassion and
empathy in education (pp. 120–135). Palgrave.
Ure, M., & Frost, M. (Eds.). (2014). The politics of compassion. Routledge.
Virkkunen, J., & Newnham, D. S. (2013). The change laboratory: A tool for collaborative develop-
ment of work and education. Sense Publishers.
Whitebrook, M. (2014). Love and anger as political virtues. In M. Ure & M. Frost (Eds.), The
politics of compassion (pp. 21–36). Routledge.
Chapter 4
Widening Text Worlds in Finnish Early
Childhood Education
Alexandra Nordström, Heidi Sairanen, Jenny Byman, Jenny Renlund,

and Sara Sintonen
Abstract The focus of this chapter is on multiliteracies and widening text worlds
in early childhood education (ECE) in Finland. The concept of multiliteracies refers
to an understanding of multiple texts (both analogue and digital) in multiple plat-
forms with multiple contexts. In this chapter, the following questions are explored:
How can we find a good balance in widening text worlds? How can we decide what
texts to use in an early childhood education context, and how can we develop a
pedagogy of multiliteracies? In the Finnish ECE perspective, multiliteracies are
considered to promote educational equality among children. This chapter clarifies
the concept of multiliteracies in ECE and construes how and why it will widen the
text worlds and promote equality in early childhood education learning. Based on
this understanding, some of the pedagogical principles that can be applied to early
childhood education in support of young children’s multiliteracies thinking and
practices will be presented at the end of this chapter.
4.1 ultiliteracies and the Finnish Core

M
Curriculum for ECE
Finland is ranked as the world’s most literate nation (Miller & McKenna, 2016).
However, research shows that Finnish children and young people do not enjoy read-
ing, their interest in print-based literacy is declining, and there is growing inequality
in young people’s reading habits and multiliteracies skills as well as in access to
technology (Kaarakainen & Kaarakainen, 2018; Mullis et al., 2017).
Our focus in this chapter is on multiliteracies and widening text worlds in Finnish
ECE. The concept of multiliteracy refers to an understanding of multiple texts in
multiple platforms with multiple contexts, and with widening text worlds we refer
A. Nordström (*) · H. Sairanen · J. Byman · J. Renlund · S. Sintonen

e-mail: alexandra.nordstrom@helsinki.fi

Switzerland AG 2022
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95512-0_4
42 A. Nordström et al.
to the expanding dispositions of meaning-making and communication. The concept

of multiliteracies is discussed in this chapter, and we have construed how and why
multiliteracies can widen the text worlds and promote equality in ECE.
The Finnish national core curriculum for ECE has been implemented at every
early childhood education centre. All cities and municipalities create their own cur-
riculum which follows the national core curriculum, but they have added their own
characteristics into the curriculum. In Finland, the core curricula are subjected to
reform in approximately 10 years cycles (Välijärvi & Sulkunen, 2016). In the latest
Finnish curricular reform, which took place from 2014 to 2016, especially the
national core curriculum for ECE was revised. The curriculum for ECE underwent
changes in at least two significant ways. First, the curriculum for ECE changed from
a recommendation to a binding document as the curricula in pre-primary and basic
education had already been. Second, the curriculum was devised distinctively more
consistent with pre-primary and basic education, thus the consistency of the curri-
cula aims to promote a continuous educational path from early years to secondary
level (FNAE, 2018, pp. 19, 24). Further, considerable development in the reform
throughout all national core curricula was the introduction of transversal competen-
cies, coherent from ECE to basic education and into upper secondary school. The
curricula state that transversal competencies are needed in a changing world to
ensure the individual child’s opportunities and abilities for participation in the social
and cultural communities of democratic societies. According to the national core
curriculum for ECE, multiliteracy (combined with ICT skills) as a transversal com-
petence “is required in the everyday lives of children and families, interaction
between people and participation in the society. Multiliteracy [...] promotes chil-
dren’s equality in education” (FNAE, 2018, pp. 43–44). In addition, multiliteracy
should be promoted across the activities; It is not a subject nor an area of learning
but high-quality pedagogical activities and learning environments which support
children’s learning and well-being across learning areas (FNAE, 2018, p. 36).
The curricula aim to provide equal rights to every child for high-quality educa-
tion. Throughout the curricula, pedagogies are based on ideals of equal opportunity,
diversity and valuing the uniqueness of each individual child. (2014b, FNAE, 2014a,
2018). However, educational equality shows signs of decline as the Finnish educa-
tional system has found it to be difficult to respond to challenges in pupils’ declin-
ing reading literacy motivation and families’ increasing socioeconomic differences
(Välijärvi & Sulkunen, 2016).
4.2 Toward Multiliteracies and Widening Text Worlds
In this chapter, we discuss Finnish early childhood education policy and practices
from the point of view of contemporary literacy resources and children’s meaning-
making potential with multimodal texts. Following this line of thinking, it is rele-
vant to ask: How can we find a good balance in widening text worlds? How can we
4 Widening Text Worlds in Finnish Early Childhood Education 43
decide what texts to use in an early childhood education context, and how can we
develop a pedagogy of multiliteracies?
By emphasising and exploring widening literacy resources, we point out the
pedagogical relevance of understanding the role and meaning of multimodality in
children’s textual orientations. According to Kress (1997) children tend to extend
and enhance meanings by moving signs across modalities. There is a need to
improve understanding of the multimodal nature of young children’s meaning-
making and communicative practices (see also Kress, 1997; Larson & Marsh,
2013). In the research literature, the aim of multiliteracy (or multiliteracies as we
have preferred in our chapter (see e.g. Serafini & Gee, 2017)), is to widen the notion
of reading and texts more broadly rephrasing the meaning to include a variety of
textual modalities under the concept, such as written, oral, audio-visual, printed and
digital, as well as various combinations of modalities, and emphasising the produc-
tion of the texts next to reading and understanding (Kumpulainen et al., 2018;
Välijärvi & Sulkunen, 2016).
The national core curriculum for early childhood education and care emphasises
interaction and interpreting of culturally complex forms of messages as crucial
components in the pedagogy of multiliteracy (FNAE, 2018, p. 26). The curriculum
underscores that children should be encouraged to explore, produce and use various
messages in both analogue and digital environments (FNAE, 2018, p. 26). Promoting
children’s active exploring and curiosity together with personnel and other children
are important aspects of multiliteracy in the ECE national core curriculum (FNAE,
2018, p. 26). The curriculum states that learning should take place in a rich textual
environment, including culture produced by and for children, such as stories/story-
telling (traditional and digital), rhymes and poems, everyday verbalisation and con-
versation, TV programmes and films and music or drama. Therefore, the notion of
multiliteracies presented in the curriculum entails a broad definition of text, in
which a text can be made up of several modalities, such as written text, images,
symbols, facial expressions, gestures, sounds and combinations of these, and can be
both digital and analogue (see also Kress, 1997; Kumpulainen, Sairanen, &
Nordström, 2020b). Hence, a broad conceptualisation of text implies that a text can
be written, spoken, audio-visual and digital, or a combination of these.
We address young children’s literacy practices as fluid, nonlinear (Burnett &
Merchant, 2020; Leander & Boldt, 2013), interactive (Kress, 1997) and dynamic
(Burnett & Merchant, 2020; Cope & Kalantzis, 2009). In this chapter, we use four
case examples to illuminate how multimodal and playful joint activities have been
carried out as a part of further developing a pedagogy of multiliteracies within the
context of Finnish ECE. The four case examples were carried out as projects which
aimed to promote multiliteracies as a part of the Finnish national research and
development programme The joy of learning multiliteracies (www.monilukutaito.
com/en) at the Playful Learning Center (www.plchelsinki.fi) of the Faculty of
Educational Sciences at the University of Helsinki. We examine the material and
environmental prerequisites, the pedagogical solutions and the texts utilised in these
examples. In summary, we investigate young children’s widening text worlds in
Finnish ECE.
4.3 onceptual Framing of Multiliteracies and Young

C
Children’s Literacy Practices
The background to the definition of multiliteracies lays in the seminal work by the
New London Group (1996, Cope & Kalantzis, 2009) in which the authors asked
several critical questions: why is there a need to focus on literacy practices?; what
should learning include?; and how should learning take place in the modern society
that is characterised by linguistic and cultural diversity? The groundwork by the
New London Group has further influenced books, journals and the new literacies
movement (Leander & Boldt, 2013; Serafini & Gee, 2017). One aim of the peda-
gogy of multiliteracies advocated by the New London Group was to create a broader
understanding of literacy practices and new modes of communication in contempo-
rary society. Research conducted by the New London Group was initially focusing
on sociocultural perspectives on literacy practices but was further developed in the
field of new literacy studies to include, for instance digital literacy (Boyd & Brock,
2015; Serafini & Gee, 2017). In its original conceptualisation, multiliteracy was not
defined as different skills, but rather as a pedagogical approach to literacy, dividing
different ways of meaning-making into situated practice, overt instructions, critical
framing and transformed practice. Situated practice focuses on children’s learning
through emphasising the children’s own knowledge, experiences and interests in
learning (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009). Overt instruction draws focus on developing a
specific metalanguage to express the design and modes of meaning. Critical fram-
ing refers to interpreting and reflecting on texts from a contextual perspective.
Transformative practices approach a pedagogy in which children are supported in
becoming active learners, which further supports learning in new and challenging
contexts or situations (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009; New London Group, 1996).
The pedagogy of multiliteracy argues that to be included in extended communi-
ties and lifeworld’s, the individual needs the ability to navigate through multiple
literacy practices. The New London Group emphasised that the pedagogy of multi-
literacy should consider social, cultural and linguistic diversity and a diversity of
multimodal texts (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009). Therefore, literacy practices in contem-
porary society are “fundamentally different ways of knowing and learning the
world’‘ (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009, p. 180). Cope and Kalantzis (2009) present litera-
cies through different modalities of meaning-making, further developing the peda-
gogy of multiliteracy created by the New London Group. Multimodality refers to
different modes of meaning-making which individuals use to interpret the world.
The different modes include written and oral language, visual, audio, tactile, ges-
tural and spatial representation, and these modalities can occur separately and/or as
parallels with each other in meaning-making processes. This framing emphasises
the notion of multiliteracies as a multitude of literacies and social practices (e.g.
Serafini & Gee, 2017). Leander and Boldt (2013) offer some critical notions con-
cerning the pedagogy of multiliteracy in its original form. They state that literacy
practices occur in the “ongoing present, forming relations and connections across
signs, objects, and bodies in often unexpected ways” (Leander & Boldt, 2013,
p. 26), suggesting we recognize for example movement and sensations in literacy

activities. That is, literacy practices are not projected toward a defined textual end
point but are emergent and relational.
Positioning and defining multiliteracies in the Finnish core curriculum differ
somewhat from the original notion of multiliteracies put forth by the New London
Group. The semiotic and textual understanding of multiliteracies in the Finnish core
curriculum does not encompass dimensions of equality and social justice to the
same extent as the New London Group’s original framing of the concept (Mertala,
2018; Palsa & Ruokamo, 2015). In the Finnish core curricula, multiliteracy is
defined as competencies related to texts, and not as a pedagogical approach to lit-
eracy as emphasised in the original concept (Mertala, 2018; Palsa & Ruokamo,
2015). However, the transversal competencies, and the national core curricula as a
whole, include ideals of diversity and equality that are similar to the ones in the
original conception of multiliteracies (Mertala, 2018).
Drawing on new literacy studies and sociocultural theorising, we approach
young children’s literacy practices as socially situated practices, embedded in cul-
tural and historical contexts, also recognising the various modalities of communica-
tion and meaning making (Kress, 2011; Larson & Marsh, 2013; Street, 1984).
Building on sociocultural theorising informed by the affective and material turns in
educational sciences (see Hackett et al., 2020; Leander & Ehret, 2019), we address
young children’s multimodal literacy practices and meaning-making as being
deeply entwined with the material dimension (Burnett & Merchant, 2018, 2020;
Hackett & Rautio, 2019). We do not understand materials (that is, tools, technolo-
gies, bodies, actions, objects, texts and discourses) solely as mediational, but also as
entangled in children’s text worlds (Fenwick et al., 2011).
Hence, we consider what relational and material perspectives might add to the
discussion on children’s widening text worlds, in which young children’s literacy
practices are ongoing in the present, forming dynamic relations and connections
across signs and bodies (Leander & Boldt, 2013). Focusing on the material aspects
of children’s meaning-making and text worlds, taking into consideration the physi-
cal, temporal and spatial aspects, enable a comprehensive investigation into young
children’s literacy practices in situ (Burnett et al., 2020; Fenwick et al., 2011;
Kuby & Rowsell, 2017; Leander & Ehret, 2019). Using this perspective illumi-
nates how children create ways of communicating, knowing, being and doing,
emphasising the contextual nature of (children’s) literacy practices. It also
acknowledges children’s own interests and experiences (Burnett et al., 2014;
Leander & Boldt, 2013). From this perspective, understanding children’s widened
text worlds entails directing attention to the material requirements, children’s cre-
ation and remixing of multimodal texts as well as the pedagogical solutions and
interaction in situ.
According to our reading of the Finnish national core curriculum for ECE, it
clearly advocates utilising and exploring various modalities and contexts, which
draws attention to social interaction and pedagogy and emphasises rich textual envi-
ronments drawing on children’s interests and experiences, proposing that young
children’s widening text worlds be considered in everyday practices in ECE.
4.4 romoting Multiliteracies Through Widening

P
Text Worlds
Finnish early childhood education has a long tradition of child-centred pedagogy

that emphasises children’s initiatives and agency in and for pedagogical activities
and consequent learning opportunities (Kumpulainen, 2018; see also Pramling
Samuelsson & Asplund Carlsson, 2008). Characteristic of Finnish ECE is to have
pedagogical activities indoors or outdoors, combining children-led activities, free
play and teacher-led activities. Researchers have long identified play as a vital com-
ponent in the development of a child (e.g. Bergen, 2002; Garvey, 1993; Vygotsky,
1976), and dynamic literacy practices also occur in children’s digitally enriched
play activities, whereby children seemingly weave and merge online and offline
play together (Marsh, 2010; Plowman et al., 2012). In the technological and cultural
contexts of the past two decades, the movement towards on-print and print-mixed
texts has accelerated because of access to digital affordances for creating and mix-
ing print, images, sounds, video and music. The ongoing trend towards multimodal-
ity is global and multigenerational. The swing in the landscape of communication
from linear print to spatial images prompts the creation of many print-mixed texts
(Kress, 2003, 2010).
In Finnish education, one way to respond to these aforementioned challenges has
been to include multiliteracy as a transversal competence across all core curricula.
Furthermore, an aim of Joy of Learning Multiliteracies, the national research and
development programme, is to promote young children’s multiliteracies, consider-
ing the pedagogy of multiliteracy advocated by the New London Group, along with
a dynamic multiliteracy model formed by the research group, building on Green’s
(1988) dynamic literacy theory. In the pedagogical model of dynamic multilitera-
cies (Kumpulainen et al., 2018) four intertwined practices are presented. First,
Interpretation of texts refers to children’s ability to understand the rules, concepts
and symbols in various texts. It also entails children’s ability to analyse and interpret
a variety of texts, while understanding the objective, operational culture, values and
ideologies behind a text. Second, Production of texts focuses on skills in using dif-
ferent types of texts and tools to create information and to make and share mean-
ings. This includes taking responsibility in one’s production and communication of
texts. Third, Enculturation refers to a child’s ability to grow into, participate in and
influence existing cultures of practice by learning to use tools and texts in culturally
appropriate ways. Fourth, Imagination highlights children’s right to imagine and
play with texts and culture. By using their imagination children can actively partici-
pate in the creation of new meanings, cultural products and information.
(Kumpulainen et al., 2018).
4.4.1 eflecting Dynamic Multiliteracies Through Four

R
Case Examples
We reflect children’s widening text worlds upon the dimensions of the dynamic
multiliteracy model (Kumpulainen et al., 2018) through the four Finnish multilit-
eracy cases on which we have recently been working. In our adaption of a frame-
work synthesis method (Barnett-Page & Thomas, 2009), we considered the
following aspects of widening text worlds; (1). The material and environmental
requirements and conditions (resources), (2). The kinds of pedagogy represented
(teachers’ pedagogical choices), and (3). Ownership and utilisation of texts (chil-
dren’s agency). Examining these three aspects provides a better understanding of
the potential of children’s meaning-making with multimodal texts in widening
text worlds.
Nordström et al. (2019) examined how young (6-year-old) children’s positive
affect is evoked when children are creating, making, and sharing texts and interests
during their multimodal and playful multiliteracies project called The Spirits of the
forest (inspired by the digital material Whisper of the Spirit, which is pedagogical
open-ended resource based on Finnish myths and nature). The material and environ-
mental conditions promoted and supported creativity, multimodal play and social
relations. The project was carried out in literacy-rich environments created for and
by children, i.e. in the classroom, the local library and the nearby forest. The project
was planned by the teachers and children together and was based on the children’s
interests, such as elves and figures in Finnish nature and myths, including Santa
Claus and his elves. They searched for information about elves by googling on a
tablet and by reading stories recommended by librarians, and they attended a play
about elves. The children made their own spirits of the forest out of natural materi-
als, such as cones and twigs, and materials found in the ECE centre, such as news-
papers and leftover cardboard. When visiting the forest and choosing their materials,
the children experienced different materials through different senses, such as smell
and taste. The children created a backstory for their own spirit as written text and as
a voice recording behind a QR code, and the artefacts together with stories were
then exhibited at the local library (Nordström et al., 2019).
Sairanen et al. (2019) described teachers’ sense-making of multiliteracies and
the study illuminates the four Finnish teachers’ use of the pedagogical resource
called Whisper of the Spirit. All the teachers were applying the same material in
unique ways across their teaching. Two ECE teachers and two pre-primary teachers
implemented the material in various ways using it outdoors and indoors together
with the children and took advantage of material affordances of their own learning
environments. Hands-on activities were connected to children’s digital production
and remixing. In their own story creation, children used digital tools, brought artis-
tic elements and applied nature materials and also materials provided by the ECE
centre. The teachers recognised that children’s interest and curiosity developed as
the result of the activities, their ability to imagine and produce meaningful multi-
modal content. Stories and tales were emphasised as well as children’s imaginary
play. Teachers emphasised digital production but also offered activities in which
children could produce without digital devices (Sairanen et al., 2019).
Kumpulainen, Byman, et al. (2020a) investigated children’s (N = 62, aged 7–9)
storying of nature with and through MyARJulle, an augmented reality application.
The application has been developed to be used with young children. Instead of
learning about nature, the aim was to promote imaginative and explorative interact-
ing with the environment through digital storying, with a focus on children’s imagi-
nation, wonder, and multimodal and embodied interactions with nature. The study
was conducted in a Finnish elementary school and the nearby outdoor surroundings.
The school was situated in an urban environment, surrounded by a natural landscape
with forest and hills. As an introduction, the children listened to a story about forest
elves included in the application and received instructions and guidance from teach-
ers and researchers on how to use the application. The children used tablet comput-
ers to take pictures outdoors and to explore, imagine and create their own stories
about Julle, the forest elf, in nature. After exploring the outdoor surroundings of the
school with Julle, the children’s photographs and stories were shared and discussed
in small groups of children and researchers. The children were given space to
express their thoughts and values about nature and to be part of creating and voicing
relational entanglements of augmented reality, digital devices, humans and nature
(Kumpulainen, Byman, et al., 2020a).
Sairanen et al. (2020) investigated children’s agency and teacher-child interac-
tion during a multiliteracies project. Using video data, the researchers observed the
actions of eight five-year-old Finnish children and two ECE practitioners (an ECE
teacher and a child carer) in a project called “The Spirit”, which was based on
Whisper of the Spirit. The project lasted three months and it included mainly
teacher-designed activities which were carried out once or twice per week. During
the project, children discussed the topic and stories, read about spirits and gnomes,
moulded spirit characters for animation, designed and crafted homes for them, and
created and produced digital animations. During the project, the materials they used
included modelling clay, recycled cardboard and materials from nature from the
local environment. (Sairanen et al., 2020).
Next, we will summarise these case examples (in chronological order following
publication date). The following table assembles the key elements from the mate-
rial, pedagogical and textual points of view (Table 4.1).
From a multiliteracies point of view, in these cases, the Finnish early education
and its pedagogy encompasses a full range of such communicative settings, in
which children can use a variety of representative forms of expression and modes of
meaning-making with equal dignity and importance. Using a range of multimodal
texts can operate as the analytical lens that leads our attention to other areas where
meanings emerge, beyond that of language. Rich, textual environments that encour-
age children to investigate, conceptualise, produce, share and make meaning are at
the heart of supporting children’s engagements with and learning about
Table 4.1 Aspects of widening text worlds through multiliteracies policy and practices
Material and
The case environmental
(article) requirements Pedagogical solutions Text ownership
Nordström Indoors, outdoors, their Teacher leading the Children’s artefacts:
et al. (2019) “own” forest nearby, activities, joint planning Paintings, mythical
natural materials (which of project with the creatures, stories,
were experienced children, children digital material whisper
through different creating, making, and of the Spirit
senses), “trash”, tablet sharing their texts
Sairanen et al. Indoors and outdoors, Teachers as facilitators, Teacher produced and
(2019) analogue materials for storytellers, children as curated, children
creation and making, storytellers, artistic re-produced, children
digital tools mainly for creators, co-teachers, produced and curated
documentation players
Kumpulainen, Outdoors, the Teachers and researchers Children’s photographs
Byman, et al. schoolyard and nearby guiding and supporting and digital stories
(2020a) forest, augmented the children, children’s intertwined with
storying with the individual and collective ready-made augmented
augmented reality exploring of the reality characters,
application MyAR Julle surroundings through introduction story in the
digital storytelling, digital application
sharing stories.
Sairanen et al. Indoors and outdoors, Teacher leading the Various ready-made
(2020) various materials for activities, joint planning information sources,
creation and making, of creations with the pedagogical resources
digital tools mainly for children. Children for teachers to adapt,
animation creating, making, and related artefacts and
sharing their texts. digital animation
produced by children
multiliteracies. Multiliteracies reach above and beyond traditional text appreciation,

notation reading and writing on paper, and towards individual and shared meaning-
making as well as playful activities and processes.
4.5 Discussion and Conclusions
In this chapter, we focussed on how to find balance in a widening text world, how to
decide what texts to use in an early childhood education context, and how to develop
a pedagogy of multiliteracies. The aim of this chapter was to discuss the educational
importance of multiliteracies and to recognise the meaning of widening text worlds
in early childhood education. We seek to attract the attention of early educators and
policy makers to the potential contribution of multimodal texts to the enhancement
of multiliteracies learning, creation and communication processes in general and for
young children in particular (see also Larson & Marsh, 2013). Understanding young
children’s widening text worlds is also relevant from the viewpoint of learners who
are not proficient in the local language or children with learning challenges in their
development of academic skills (see also Boyd & Brock, 2015; Hackett et al., 2020).
In Finland, teachers are autonomous in their work and they can have an impact
and can make individual choices concerning their teaching and materials. The most
qualified early education teachers are trained in university teacher education pro-
grams, which are highly research-oriented (e.g. Niemi & Nevgi, 2014). According
to Niemi and Nevgi (2014), teachers who are trained at the universities, are capable
of thinking themselves as knowledge creators instead of being simply receivers of
knowledge. We suggest that it is the teachers’ obligation to find an appropriate bal-
ance in widening text worlds, contingent on the needs and interests of the children.
The teachers should, together with the children, decide the manner and sorts of
utilised texts.
In addition to teacher ability of adaptation, we have emphasised the importance
of material fluidness (Burnett & Merchant, 2020) in developing a pedagogy of mul-
tiliteracies. As we noted earlier, dynamic, multimodal resources also stimulate
teachers’ imagination and will work as a starting point for the pedagogical design of
activities aimed at enhancing multiliteracies (Sairanen et al., 2019). As shown in our
framework synthesis, multiliteracies can operate as the analytical lens that leads our
attention to other areas in which various meanings emerge. This complexity offers
multiple pathways into text worlds by giving children a choice of features and mate-
rials to notice, also through their own production and seeing others’ solutions (see
also Hull & Nelson, 2005). These processes also help participants to become aware
of and effectively communicate what they already know, which is important to rec-
ognise in early childhood education (Larson & Marsh, 2013). Allowing children to
construct knowledge of multimodal communication within widening text worlds
from their own perspective is another exciting move and interesting pedagogical
outcome.
In conclusion, Finnish early childhood education and care is based on each child
having an equal right to take part in high-quality education. The national core cur-
riculum for ECE states that transversal competencies, such as multiliteracies, are
the way for every child to have an opportunity to increase their own potential in a
changing world. Also, it highlights the equal opportunity for social and cultural
participation (FNAE, 2018, pp. 24–25), even though the equality aspect is not
described as a part of multiliteracies in the core curricula. We also acknowledge the
need for conceptual clarification and contextualisation, that is, support for imple-
mentation from policy to practice as suggested by Palsa and Mertala (2019).
However, we believe that the Finnish way and the evolving multiliteracies processes
towards widening text worlds indicate the forward-looking policy and practices of
early childhood education.
4.6 ecommendations for Early Childhood

R
Education Practices
We have summarised some practical advice and pedagogical principles based on the
pedagogical development work we have been conducting in the Finnish early child-
hood education context. The aim of our practical advice and pedagogical principles
is to promote young children’s multiliteracies and to pay attention to widening text
worlds. In light of the synthesis presented in this chapter, we propose the following
recommendations as a guidance for policymakers and early education
practitioners:
• As a teacher, consider your own role and the text model you provide.
• Use a wide range of modalities and materials in using and creating diverse texts
with children.
• Show interest and take part in children’s own text worlds and existing cultures.
• Learn about different texts and modalities (both analogue and digital), and allow
the children to frequently take the role of the expert.
• Inspire and encourage children to create their own texts and meanings with vari-
ous modalities and materials.
• Show your interest and be excited about the content and texts children are
producing.
• Emphasise the process of creation as being equally meaningful as the final texts.
• Plan pedagogical open-ended activities drawing on children’s interests and expe-
riences with the children.
• Present appropriate challenges and feedback, and try to avoid potentially
demeaning assessment.
• Explore and widen text worlds - your own and the children’s.
References
Barnett-Page, E., & Thomas, J. (2009). Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: A critical
review. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 9(59). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-9-59
Bergen, D. (2002). The role of pretend play in children’s cognitive development. Early Childhood
Research and Practice, 4, 1–12.
Boyd, F., & Brock, C. (2015). Social diversity within multiliteracies: Complexity in teaching and
learning. Routledge.
Burnett, C., & Merchant, G. (2018). Affective encounters: Enchantment and the possibility of
reading for pleasure. Literacy, 52(2), 62–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/lit.12144
Burnett, C., & Merchant, G. (2020). Literacy-as-event: Accounting for relationality in literacy
research. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 41(1), 45–56. https://doi.
org/10.1080/01596306.2018.1460318
Burnett, C., Merchant, G., & Neumann, M. M. (2020). Closing the gap? Overcoming limitations in
sociomaterial accounts of early literacy. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 20(1), 111–133.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798419896067
Burnett, C., Merchant, G., Pahl, K., & Rowsell, J. (2014). The (im)materiality of literacy: The sig-
nificance of subjectivity to new literacies research. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics
of Education, 35(1), 90–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2012.739469
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). “Multiliteracies”: New literacies, new learning. Pedagogies: An
International Journal, 4(3), 164–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/15544800903076044
Fenwick, T., Edwards, R., & Sawchuk, P. (2011). Emerging approaches to educational research:
Tracing the sociomaterial. Routledge.
Finnish National Agency for Education (FNAE). (2014a). Esiopetuksen opetussuunnitelman
perusteet 2014. [National Core Curriculum for Pre-Primary Education 2014].
Finnish National Agency for Education (FNAE). (2014b). Perusopetuksen opetussuunnitelman
perusteet 2014 [National Core Curriculum for Basic Education 2014].
Finnish National Agency for Education (FNAE). (2018). Varhaiskasvatussuunnitelman perusteet.
Määräykset ja ohjeet 2018:3a [National Core Curriculum for Early Childhood Education and
Care 2018].
Garvey, C. (1993). Play. Harvard University Press.
Green, B. (1988). Subject-specific literacy and school learning: A focus on writing. Australian
Journal of Education, 32(2), 156–179.
Hackett, A., MacLure, M., & Pahl, K. (2020). Literacy and language as material practices:
Re-thinking social inequality in young children’s literacies. Journal of Early Childhood
Literacy, 20(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798420904909
Hackett, A., & Rautio, P. (2019). Answering the world: Young children’s running and rolling as
more-than-human multimodal meaning making. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in
Education, 32(8), 1019–1031. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2019.1635282
Hull, G. A., & Nelson, M. E. (2005). Locating the semiotic power of multimodality. Written
Communication, 22(2), 224–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088304274170
Kaarakainen, S.-S., & Kaarakainen, M.-T. (2018). Tulevaisuuden toivot – Digitaalisten medioi-
den käyttö nuorten osallisuuden ja osaamisen lähteenä. Media & Viestintä, 41(4). https://doi.
org/10.23983/mv.77458
Kress, G. (1997). Before writing: Rethinking the paths to literacy. Routledge.
Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. Routledge Falmer.
Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality. A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication.
RoutledgeFalmer.
Kress, G. (2011). Multimodal discourse analysis. In The Routledge handbook of discourse analy-
sis. Routledge.
Kuby, C., & Rowsell, J. (2017). Early literacy and the posthuman: Pedagogies and
methodologies. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 17(3), 285–296. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1468798417715720
Kumpulainen, K. (2018). A principled, personalised, trusting and child-centric ECEC system in
Finland. In S. L. Kagan (Ed.), The early advantage 1: Early childhood systems that Lead by
example (pp. 72–98). Teachers College Press.
Kumpulainen, K., Byman, J., Renlund, J., & Wong, C. C. (2020a). Children's augmented storying in,
with and for nature. Education Sciences, 10(6), 149. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10060149
Kumpulainen, K., Sairanen, H., & Nordström, A. (2020b). Young children’s digital literacy prac-
tices in the sociocultural contexts of their homes. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1468798420925116
Kumpulainen, K., Sintonen, S., Vartiainen, J., Sairanen, H., Nordström, A., Byman, J., & Renlund,
J. (2018). Playful parts: The joy of learning multiliteracies. Helsinki.
Larson, J., & Marsh, J. (2013). Preface. In J. Larson & J. Marsh (Eds.), The sage handbook of early
childhood literacy (pp. xxix–xxxi). Sage.
Leander, K., & Boldt, G. (2013). Rereading “a pedagogy of multiliteracies”: Bodies, texts, and
emergence. Journal of Literacy Research, 45, 22–46.
Leander, K., & Ehret, C. (2019). Affect in literacy learning and teaching: Pedagogies, politics and
coming to know. Routledge.
Marsh, J. (2010). Young children’s play in online virtual worlds. Journal of Early Childhood
Research, 8(1), 23–39.
Mertala, P. (2018). Lost in translation? Huomioita suomalaisten opetussuunnitelmien
monilukutaito- käsitteen tutkimuksellisista ja pedagogisista haasteista. Media & viestintä,
41(1), 107–116. https://journal.fi/mediaviestinta/article/view/69921
Miller, J. W., & McKenna, M. C. (2016). World literacy: How countries rank and why it matters.
Routledge.
Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Hooper, M. (2017). PIRLS 2016 international results in
Reading. TIMSS & PIRLS international study center, Boston College. Retrieved from: http://
timssandpirls.bc.edu/pirls2016/international- results/.
New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard
Educational Review, 66(1), 60–93. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.66.1.17370n67v22j160u
Niemi, H., & Nevgi, A. (2014). Research studies and active learning promoting professional com-
petences in Finnish teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 43, 131–142. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.07.006
Nordström, A., Kumpulainen, K., & Potter, J. (2019). Positive affect in young children’s multilit-
eracies learning endeavours. In K. Kumpulainen & J. Sefton-Green (Eds.), Multiliteracies and
early years innovation: Perspectives from Finland and beyond. Routledge research in early
childhood education (pp. 166–182). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429432668-10
Palsa, L., & Mertala, P. (2019). Multiliteracies in local curricula: Conceptual contextualizations
of transversal competence in the Finnish curricular framework. Nordic Journal of Studies in
Educational Policy, 5(2), 114–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2019.1635845
Palsa, L., & Ruokamo, H. (2015). Behind the concepts of multiliteracies and media literacy in the
renewed Finnish core curriculum: A systematic literature review of peer-reviewed research.
seminar.net, 11(2) Retrieved from https://journals.hioa.no/index.php/seminar/article/view/2354
Plowman, L., McPake, J., & Stephen, C. (2012). Extending opportunities for learning: The role
of digital media in early education. In S. Suggate & E. Reese (Eds.), Contemporary debates in
child development and education (pp. 95–104). Routledge.
Pramling Samuelsson, I., & Asplund Carlsson, M. (2008). The playing learning child: Towards a
pedagogy of early childhood. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 52(6), 623–641.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00313830802497265
Sairanen, H., Kangas, J., & Sintonen, S. (2019). Finnish teachers making sense of and promot-
ing multiliteracies in early years education. In K. Kumpulainen & J. Sefton-Green (Eds.),
Multiliteracies and early years innovation: Perspectives from Finland and beyond (pp. 42–60).
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429432668
Sairanen, H., Kumpulainen, K., & Kajamaa, A. (2020). An investigation into children's agency:
children's initiatives and practitioners’ responses in Finnish early childhood education. Early
Child Development and Care. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2020.1739030
Serafini, F., & Gee, E. (2017). Remixing multiliteracies. Theory and practice from New London to
new times. Teachers College Press.
Street, B. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice. Cambridge University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1976). Play and its role in the mental development of the child. In J. Bruner,
A. Jolly, & K. Sylva (Eds.), Play: Its role in development and evolution (pp. 76–99).
Basic Books.
Välijärvi, J., & Sulkunen, S. (2016). Finnish school in international comparison. In H. Niemi,
A. Toom, & A. Kallioniemi (Eds.), Miracle of education. The principles and practices of teach-
ing and learning in Finnish schools (pp. 3–23). Sense Publishers.
Chapter 5
Developing Praxeological Understanding
in Teacher Education: A Case
of Worldview Education in Finnish ECEC
Saila Poulter, Arniika Kuusisto, and Silja Lamminmäki-Vartia
Abstract This study investigates the relevance of praxis and practice-based learn-
ing processes as a part of professional knowledge formation through the case of
worldview education in ECEC teacher education. Drawing theoretically and meth-
odologically from praxeological research tradition, the study aims to explore how
student teachers experience participatory learning and the role of practical imple-
mentation of worldview education as part of their professional knowledge forma-
tion. The data analysed here consist of in-depth interviews and learning diaries of
seven Finnish ECEC student teachers who participated in a six-month participatory
group learning process as a part of their degree studies, together with six more expe-
rienced in-service teachers. The results indicate that students consider it important
to have a social space for shared professional knowledge construction. Students also
considered that their learning process contributed to a deeper understanding of
ECEC praxis as an essential part of professional knowledge. The study suggests that
the annexation of elements connected to practical wisdom cultivated as a more sys-
tematic part of professional knowledge construction in ECEC teacher training is,
according to learner experience, valuable in supporting the development of ECEC
teacher student professionalism. Furthermore, the findings designate an understand-
ing of professional reflection as a shared meaning-making and understanding gen-
erating activity.
S. Poulter (*) · S. Lamminmäki-Vartia

e-mail: saila.poulter@helsinki.fi
A. Kuusisto
University of Helsinki, Finland and Stockholm University, Helsinki, Sweden

Switzerland AG 2022
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95512-0_5
56 S. Poulter et al.
5.1 Introduction
This study takes a praxeological approach to investigating ECEC teacher training,

with a particular focus on the producing of professional knowledge and developing
professionalism, here through the case of ECEC worldview education. Worldview
here refers inclusively to both religious and secular—and, indeed, often hybrid,
drawing elements from both, and other sources—ontological, epistemological and
ethical orientations, be these held by individuals or shared within groups or orga-
nized/institutional entities. A worldview, as a value-laden way of looking at the
world, presents a vision and a way of life which, when to an extent shared with oth-
ers, contains a great deal of heterogeneity and diversity inside specific worldview
traditions (Åhs et al., 2019; Newman & Leggett, 2019; van der Kooij et al., 2017).
Also, individual worldviews are compounded of a ‘mosaic’ drawn from various
sources, and thereby can further be seen as diverse within themselves.
Constructing an understanding on cultural, linguistic and worldview diversity is
a part of the Finnish National Core Curriculum for ECEC (Finnish National Agency
of Education, 2018). Religions and worldviews are included also as a specific learn-
ing content area in the National Core Curriculum, where worldview education is set
to cover the exploration of both religious and non-religious worldview traditions.
The curriculum sets criteria for both pedagogical contents—which should be non-
confessional and non-binding—and for ECEC teachers to act as role models for
positive encountering of diversity. Lived worldviews present in the particular group
through children’s backgrounds are set as the foundation for implementing world-
view education. The curriculum expects ECEC staff to take worldview diversity
into account in educational partnership with parents (Finnish National Agency of
Education, 2018). Worldview education is based on positive recognition of all
worldviews, a spirit stemming from the Act on Freedom of Religion (2003). The
Finnish Act on Early Childhood Education and Care (2018) also requires that ECEC
“help children develop their capacity to understand and respect the general cultural
heritage and each child’s linguistic, cultural, religious, and ideological background”.
However, recent national evaluation reports on the quality of ECEC education
show that educators lack the pedagogical tools for implementing worldview educa-
tion. Furthermore, the locally set curricula typically lack concrete means for achiev-
ing the national curricular standards (Tainio et al., 2019; Repo et al., 2018, 113–114).
Thereby, it is important to examine how ECEC teacher education programmes and
in-service training could better facilitate professional learning in this area. This
study derives from the praxeological paradigm, rooted in a participatory and action
research approach to professional development (Formosinho & Oliveira-
Formosinho, 2012; Pascal & Bertram, 2012). At the heart of praxeological under-
standing is a view that besides academic elites, the multiple perspectives of
practitioners also hold important knowledge. As can be seen from the above-cited
national ECEC quality evaluation reports, it is evident that there is an unclosed gap
5 Developing Praxeological Understanding in Teacher Education: A Case… 57
between disciplinary knowledge, national and local policy documents, and ECEC
praxis regarding worldview education in Finnish ECEC.
5.2 Aim of the Study
Previous studies of ECEC teacher professionalism or professional knowledge are

very scarce. We aim towards contributing to a further understanding of professional
knowledge and professional epistemologies (Campbell-Barr, 2019; Urban, 2008,
2010). Secondly, we want to contribute to the field with the implementation of this
particular perspective, as there is, to our knowledge, no prior research based on
understanding praxis as a part of professional knowledge in the literature on ECEC
worldview education. Participatory and practice-led research is increasingly used
by and with teachers to counter discourses and policies of top-down standardiza-
tion, by contributing to knowledge in ECEC research (Kultti & Pramling Samuelsson,
2017; Newman & Leggett, 2019; Pascal & Bertram, 2012). Aiming for transforma-
tion in pedagogical praxis and educational contexts is important in praxeological
research and constructs new knowledge about complex educational realities
(Formosinho & Oliveira-Formosinho, 2012).
Although this study is set in a particular national context, thus presenting merely
a context-based exploration of a small group of Finnish ECEC student teachers, we
aim to generate an explorative foundation for further methodological and theoretical
examinations for practice-based knowledge formation. We aim to provoke prob-
lematizing on where, how and by whom the ‘right’ professional knowledge is pro-
duced. Praxeology aims at empowering students to seek transformation through
finding ways to solve problems using their own knowledge (Pascal & Bertram,
2012). Searching for relevant knowledge for building teacher professionalism
thereby also aims to loosen the dichotomy between theory and practice. This ‘new’
epistemology is then used to inform teaching and learning also in teacher education.
In this study, we are interested in searching the relevance of practice and practice-
based learning processes in the development of professional knowledge on ECEC
worldview education. We analyse the ways in which students experience the role of
the participatory group process both with other students and with more experienced
in-service teachers. Moreover, we investigate the importance of praxis in ECEC
knowledge production, and the relevance given by students to pedagogical engage-
ment with children in ECEC.
Our research questions are:
1. According to these Finnish ECEC teacher students, what is the role of praxeo-
logical learning in supporting their professional knowledge formation in ECEC
worldview education?
2. According to the Finnish ECEC teacher students, how does practical and peda-
gogical engagement affect their professional knowledge and ideas of worldview
education?
5.3 Conceptual Underpinnings of the Study
Professionalism is here based on previous conceptualizations of professional knowl-

edge, some of them much debated. Urban (2008) sees practice as a sphere where
professional knowledge is produced, as questions arise from the situations practitio-
ners are involved in, especially in interaction with children. Furthermore, we under-
stand professional knowledges in ECEC as plural (e.g. Campbell-Barr, 2019). The
still relatively recent transition of ECEC teacher education from practice-based,
vocational education to an academic study has increased the role of science-based
knowledge (Havnes, 2018). This has enhanced the division of those who talk and
those who are talked about. The idea of epistemological hierarchy illustrates the
distinct layers where professional knowledge is produced, transferred and applied
(Urban, 2008). Havnes (2018) introduces the idea of observing professionalism
“from above” vs. “from within” to challenge the epistemological hierarchy in
ECEC, and to defend teacher autonomy and the role teachers play in creating rele-
vant professional knowledge. The discourse on ECEC professionalism in policy
documents can also reveal a specific way of talking about professionalism (Urban,
2008). The question remains whether such discourse actually benefits those at the
bottom level of the epistemological hierarchy, or whether it treats them as objects
but does not hear their voice.
To understand praxis as more than ‘doing’ is essential in this study. We follow
Formosinho and Oliveira-Formosinho’s (2012) definition of praxis as “a grounded
and reasoned, situated and contextualised practice” infused with “beliefs and val-
ues, based on educational theories and situated in specific contexts with specific
educators and for specific beneficiaries, thus including power relationships”. The
concept of praxis between context-dependent and context-independent knowledges
addresses special epistemological issues of investigation. Biesta (2014, 134) argues
that what makes education educational lies in the domain of praxis involving wis-
dom for good action. Formosinho and Oliveira-Formosinho (2012) describe peda-
gogical praxis as “a triangulation of practices, beliefs and theories infused with
feelings and ethics aiming to grounded, principled and deontological pedagogical
action”—practical wisdom or phronesis.
Phronesis is an Aristotelian philosophical concept, one of Aristotle’s three forms
of knowledge: episteme (pure knowledge), techne (skills), and phronesis (practical
wisdom). Episteme deals with recognized expertise, while techne represents more
vocational knowledge or technical skills (Campbell-Barr, 2019). Phronesis is more
difficult to explain and has been translated as “practical reasoning”, “practical judg-
ment” and “practical wisdom” (Jope, 2018). Jope (2018) refers to Aristotle (2004,
1109a26–29) in linking phronesis to the right person acting in the right way, for the
right reasons, at the right time and to the right extent as “phronesis involves reason-
ing about what is good and what is bad in particular educational situations, making
judgments about what to do, and taking appropriate action.” As Campbell-Barr
(2019) succinctly puts it, “Phronesis is not a question of responding to a child, but
of how to respond to a child”. We attach to the definition of phronesis the moral
disposition “to act wisely, truly and justly; with goals always open to review”
(Kemmis & Smith, 2008, 23), which is “a situated awareness of ethical values in
action that is not separate from other forms of knowing” and is central in bringing
together different forms of knowledges of ECEC (Jope, 2018).
Phronesis cannot necessarily be ‘taught’; still, we believe there may be means to
enhance and support the development of certain abilities contributing to phronesis
in teacher education. Biesta (2014, 135) discusses teachers’ professional develop-
ment as something that is always about professional socialization—and also profes-
sional subjectification. Biesta sees (1) that teacher training should be concerned
with formation as whole person, that teacher education concerns the transformation
of the person in making educationally wise decisions. Also (2), he sees that making
wise judgements can be learned through providing a space for practising the forma-
tion of educational judgements, which further relates to the continuous possibility
to engage with the question of educational purpose in practical contexts and situa-
tions. Finally (3), Biesta regards the role of salient examples as important in learn-
ing to make educationally wise judgements, occurring in observations or
conversations with more experienced, practically wise teachers (Biesta, 2014,
135–136).
The importance of the processes of educational judgement, ethical reflection and
contextual meaning-making (Bakker, 2016; Biesta, 2014; Urban, 2008) is also
regarded as critical in this study. Morally ‘right’ actions, not merely ‘the right tech-
niques’, relates to understanding professional knowledge as multiple forms of
knowledges (Campbell-Barr, 2019). This highlights the importance of looking at
the ‘sites’ of professional subjectification and socialization in relation to phronesis.
Professionalism, from this perspective, highlights its relational and dialogical
nature, also challenging the view of professional development as linear and ‘neat’
(Lamminmäki-Vartia et al., 2020). Meaning-making for professional development
is thus also always contextual and collaborative (Formosinho & Oliveira-
Formosinho, 2012). Therefore, the contents and contexts are central in investigating
professional development (Fochi, 2019).
5.4 Methodological Framework
Wenger (1999) understands learning as social participation. Inspired by Wenger’s

(1999) idea of a community of practice, our research design entails a platform for
professional learning facilitating a safe place to share and learn. In this study, seven
ECEC student teachers and six more experienced practitioners were brought
together into a six-month practice-based process. This involved lectures, group
meetings, site visits with children, and observing and planning pedagogical activi-
ties. The students and teachers were paired with each other as “critical friends” in
order to work more closely together on the planning and implementing worldview
education pedagogy in ECEC. To emphasize the critical ecology of early childhood
profession (Urban, 2008), it was here considered important to highlight collective
knowledge production, close connection to praxis, local ECEC units, and peer-
learning—all with dialogical and critical awareness of the context in which the stu-
dents were becoming ECEC teachers.
In this “series of pulses”, the teachers and teacher students came together to dis-
cuss, work with children, process events in writing in their reflective learning dia-
ries, and then return for further group reflection. Such an activity of creating
understandings together relates to the hermeneutical idea of knowledge creation
through a dialogical process (Urban, 2008). At the end of the process, the students
reflected on the process in individual interviews.
The researchers were committed to a deep involvement “in the real world”
which was studied, while keeping instructor input to a minimum (Pascal & Bertram,
2012; Winterbottom & Mazzocco, 2014. Praxeological learning is participatory
(students), democratic (through choice) and collaborative practice (with the com-
munity, here in-service teachers). Pascal and Bertram (2012) argue that early child-
hood is best practised—both in pedagogy and in theory—by those who are actually
close to the world of small children. The situatedness of praxeological learning
embraces localism. Education typically takes place in the company of peers: stu-
dents produce knowledge through interactions and relationships, and the idea of
praxeology is to empower students to use their voice and ultimately, to seek change
in education:
It is research that is done with people in context and NOT to people, and it is always done
in the company of others, seeing the social world of practice as dependent on relationships
and interactions. It uses and generates theories of action to reveal the underlying assump-
tions we have about our work – to discover why we do what we do. (Pascal & Bertram,
2012, 485).
The fundamental principles of participatory research, then, is to provide an open

and safe space to facilitate communication (Bergold & Thomas, 2012). In this study,
the informants were not treated as objects of the study but as valued research part-
ners whose voice was heard in different phases in implementing the process.
Another key element in participatory research is continual self-reflection and reflec-
tive dialogue (Marshall & Reason, 2007) which can happen at many levels, for
example as personal and epistemological reflexivity. In this study, following the
elements suggested by Bergold & Thomas (2012), the participants were asked to
use (1) reflection on personal and biographical attributes and dispositions, through
the forms of learning diaries, questionnaires and interviews, (2) reflection on the
social relationships among the research partners, as both peers more generally and
the particular “critical friends” in the ECEC teacher student and ECEC practitioner
teacher dyads, as well as the broader group meetings as a platform for critical reflec-
tion, (3) structural reflection on the social field of the research project in the form of
the previous empirical and theoretical literature on education as related to religions
and worldviews, and the structural embeddedness of educational processes in the
related societal frameworks and worldview landscapes, and (4) reflection on the
praxeological process, which was a particular issue discussed in the research inter-
views, the accounts from which were here analysed alongside with the participants’
reflective learning diaries.
As Winterbottom and Mazzocco (2014) and Pascal and Bertram (2012) remind
us, what makes things praxeological, reflection and action needs elements of power,
politics, values and ethics in all thinking and actions. For them, the participatory
paradigm is equated with understanding in which reflection and action done in con-
junction with others, “needs to be immersed within a much more astute awareness
about power (politics) and a sharpened focus on values (ethics) in all of our thinking
and actions” (Pascal & Bertram, 2012, 480). Praxeological learning grounds itself
in real-world situations trying to see the complexity of a situation as a whole and to
capture the reality of its ‘messiness’ and ‘chaos’ but in a systematic and rig-
orous way.
5.4.1 Data
The data of this study consists of students’ accounts from the in-depth interviews
as well as the corresponding reflective learning diaries. The data were analysed with
qualitative content analysis (Cohen et al., 2018). The initial analysing stage of a
data-driven thematization (see also Lamminmäki-Vartia et al., 2020) illuminated the
participants’ experiences on the significance of praxis, which we considered impor-
tant to take further with a closer investigation. Thereby, the aim here is to look
closer at the transcribed interview accounts and learning diaries from the perspec-
tive of praxis and praxeological processes, using a theory-driven approach for the
more thorough content analysis. We favour the idea of thinking with a theory pro-
cess methodology where the role of theory has meant a constant conversation with
the key concepts and the data rather than proceeding rigid empirical stages of
method (Jackson & Mazzei, 2012). The actual analysis was carried out by labelling
the data according to the ideas as units or pieces of information related to the key
theoretical concepts utilized in this study. The analysis proceeded by identifying the
key elements in each student’s data that, in the further stages of the analysis, would
eventually cluster into the more consolidated entities of findings that we will intro-
duce in the next section.
The design of the project adhered strictly to the guidelines given by the Finnish
Advisory Board on Research Integrity on research in the social sciences (Finnish
Advisory Board, 2012). Informed consent was acquired, and particular care and
sensitivity was applied in all processing of data and in reporting findings, and strict
measures were taken to avoid participant recognizability. Pseudonyms were
assigned to each participant.
The sample was a small but in notable ways very heterogeneous group of seven
ECEC teacher students. Some did not have much prior knowledge on either ECEC
or education on worldviews. Others had some knowledge on either or both, and
there were also those with an extensive knowledge of either the subject matter and
pedagogical practice or both. Also in terms of the participants’ personally upheld
worldviews, there was a wide variance in their self-identifications, from atheist to
Christian, and agnostic to religious. Due to the often-perceived personal nature of
the topic, and in order to safeguard participant anonymity, we will not provide any
more detailed information of the participants, nor disclose any more distinguishable
features of their accounts here. Rather, we focus on general themes directly related
to the focus of the article at hand. The student name plus the number one at the end
of the data excerpts refers to the learning diaries data set, whereas student name plus
the number two presents examples from the interview account material.
5.5 Results
All students experienced the professional learning process analysed here as person-
ally rewarding and described it in positive terms. Especially the group meetings
were regarded as having a special importance for providing emotional support and
knowledge through listening to each other. The students reported that the learning
process offered them a holistic platform to consider their developing teacher profes-
sionalism as the formation of the whole person (Biesta, 2014). They appreciated the
opportunities to (re-)consider the elements that related to professional subjectifica-
tion and socialization and to practical wisdom as part of their professional knowl-
edge. The teacher students reported that participating in the process offered them a
collaborative form of learning through both the group meetings and through work-
ing with the “critical friend” in the teacher student–practitioner teacher dyad. The
process was perceived as a kind of ground for negotiation for professionalism,
where the students discussed together with their peers, providing important insights
into their own professional position about their professional strengths and needs.
The group functioned as an empowering sphere where the students were able to
relate to each other. They regarded it as important to have such a space for a holistic
and intensive process and valued the recurrence of the discussions and the encoun-
ters with people holding views different from their own. The group meetings were
experienced as a safe place where they were heard, could express their views,
including their doubts and reservations.
I enjoyed the chats in the group meetings so much…it was like an open and safe space and
then we can talk about matters. Bertha, 2.
It has felt like being cared for…It has been possible to share openly one’s own emotions
in the group without fear of being lynched! Rachel, 1.
The students reported having gained new knowledge from the group discussions,
from other students and teachers. Observing good examples, hearing experiences of
others was particularly beneficial. For their professional reflection, learning from
salient examples was seen as important, as was hearing about different ways of
thinking and doing (see Biesta, 2014). Students highlighted that the most significant
part of the process was the joint reflection with the teachers and the group. They also
appreciated the sharing of pedagogical ideas, the problematizing of practical inci-
dents, and finding multiple perspectives to the same phenomenon.
It has been interesting to observe the working of the in-service teachers and discussions, the
process of the fellow students and also to participate in the group meetings. Iris, 1.
When there were different students and teachers from different ECEC centres, those
discussions brought up new perspectives. Natalie, 2.
In-service teachers played an important role as role models for students in their
professional socialization. Students reported that they particularly liked learning
from the peer-teacher with knowledge “from real life”. They valued the practical
experience that the teachers had, and the direct contact with children in ECEC cen-
tres, helping them to concretize the theoretical knowledge and implement pedagogi-
cal plans together. Especially one of the experienced teachers played a significant
role as the role model of a confident teacher to the entire group. Throughout the
learning process, she demonstrated verbally and through positive examples how
worldview education relates to the broader horizon of education, which made her an
ideal teacher in the eyes of many of the students.
Working with the ECEC teacher helped me to pay attention to the realities in the ECE and
also to reflect on the change of the visibility of worldview education in the field. Bertha, 1.
Working with the peer [the teacher] and with the group has helped me to reflect on the
matter from multiple perspectives. However, working with Aino [the teacher] has been a
central part in this process. She knew the children best. Eva, 1.
Teachers brought a broader understanding of the ECEC context in the group and
gave voice to professionalism “from within” (Havnes, 2018). That helped students
to integrate scientific knowledge with practical wisdom.
Often at the university, when students plan together, everything is so idealistic and utopian.
Then you talk with a person who is in the everyday reality. And then we bring these [per-
spectives] together. So there two worlds are encountered. Natalie, 2.
It was nice to listen to these teachers who have a long experience in the field when I
don’t have any experience yet; it was nice to hear those concrete examples. Carol, 2.
Students considered the practice in worldview education more than just the practi-
calities. Knowledge was reasoned and situated, which also helped them to under-
stand that there are not necessarily simple solutions in worldview education.
Students described how engagement with the practical reality of ECEC, especially
working with children, helped them to formulate knowledge on worldview educa-
tion in a way that was meaningful to them and empowered them to see it as part of
their professional knowledge. The encounters with children were perceived as very
meaningful, as focusing on the child made students reflect deeply on the implemen-
tation of the aims of worldview education within the wider educational horizon.
How to make the subject knowledge available to a child? This forced them to con-
textualize knowledge and to imagine building knowledge horizontally with the chil-
dren. Children often pulled them directly into the core issues of worldviews with
their questions.
This learning with children, that you are also there learning, on the other hand you have the
role of a teacher. But at the same time, it is not like that I go there and teach, instead we
learn together, we learn from each other, we think together. Eva, 2.
I had a cheeky pre-schooler there and we had good talks straight away. He told me that
he doesn’t believe in anything so we had a chat. That was very concrete. Natalie, 2.
The strong connections to ECEC practice were experienced as exceptional in their

academic studies. Through practical engagements they reported a deepening knowl-
edge of praxis in ECEC, professionalism in worldview education, and their role as
a teacher. They regarded practical wisdom as a ‘real’ professional skill in ECEC
teacherhood. Methods (techne) were considered to be tools in the teacher’s tool box,
which can be understood as something instrumental. On the other hand, students
felt that by using these tools they knew better how to implement their conceptual
(episteme) knowledge. On the other hand, tools were also perceived as a means to
gain new subject knowledge when students and children co-constructed meanings
together.
They [the child group] had visited the Jehovah’s Witnesses, all possible [places of worship],
I got the feeling like wow, I was almost like I would like to copy that… would dare, dare to
grasp more of these things. Carol, 2.
It was lovely to see these projects, where they had implemented the knowledge provided.
It somehow opened locks in me, so to speak, like oh yes, I could also do that. Rachel, 2.
As a part of their professional subjectification, the students reported that the process
directed them towards a personal transformation in which they had to clarify their
personal views in relation to gaining professional understandings. Developing one’s
own thinking was enhanced by the presence of others, which forced them to con-
front their personal worldview:
Now I’ve been forced to face myself and my thinking and it has been possible to proceed
further in my thinking. To go through the longer-term process has been very important to
me, because I have had time to think and process thoughts in peace. Rachel, 1.
There is ‘Jesus-mocking’ in our ECEC unit and school yard…it has been where I have
noticed that I wonder how should I respond to that…because I’m a Christian myself. Iris, 2.
From the perspective of professional socialization, the students positioned them-

selves as novices in relation to the teachers, but at times they also regarded them-
selves as having knowledge, skills or attitudes that the qualified teachers lacked.
Many students felt themselves to be equals as learners with their dyad teacher, or
they even positioned themselves as more competent either due to up-to-date knowl-
edge, a more constructive attitude, or more ambition in pedagogical planning.
I think that for [the peer-teacher] it was a new thing, that she started it with an open mind.
But it kind of looked like it was a new thing where she needed some tools. Eva, 2.
It somehow frustrated me a little that it kind of felt that we were underachieving…I
would have liked to do so much more. Carol, 2.
Well, Samantha had a much stronger objection [towards worldview education] because
she was so worried, she had had those troubles in her group. Natalie, 2.
A few students recognized themselves as having more knowledge or experience in

worldview education than other students, where the process did not give much new
theoretical knowledge but still deepened their practical understanding.
All students also had some particular key experiences, as special practical cases
that functioned as significant learning moments that forced them to combine differ-
ent forms of knowledges and practice educationally wise decision-making. For
some these stemmed from pedagogical practice, while for others it was, for instance,
an unexpected reaction from the children, teachers or parents. Such experiences
were seen to have helped in understanding their role as ECEC professionals and to
provoke ethical reflections, also offering a useful reason to problematize their edu-
cational key goals. Recalling such incidents and the ways in which the student
teacher had resolved them was crucial in building their self-confidence and aware-
ness of ethical responsibility and power relations. Educational decisions here were
value judgements, not just technical judgements, such as something that needs to be
done in order to bring about something regarded as educationally desirable (Biesta,
2014, 134).
I started kind of panicking that how should I proceed…like how to explain or what is right,
how can this be solved. But then the children themselves started to talk and I just observed
that, like wow, so great! If I was [a teacher] there for a longer period something could
emerge from these things. Rachel, 2.
I constantly saw that these children do not understand this thing now, this is too abstract
or something. How should I make this more concrete and how do I elicit children’s thoughts
or memories about this; it was very challenging. But you had to somehow grasp what is
relevant for a child. Ada, 2.
When epistemic and technical knowledges were attached to practical knowledge, it

called for reflection on professional subjectification, as one’s own values, beliefs
and educational principles were forced into action. Successful pedagogical imple-
mentation—but also failures—provoked internal dialogue about one’s skills, atti-
tudes, and values. Therefore, such practice was a means to measure the students’
level of professional knowledge and professionalism. Developing the students’
practical wisdom was central in bringing together different forms of knowledges of
ECEC (Jope, 2018):
When [the practical implication] comes close to you…this is no longer a thing on a paper
or information received at the lecture. Ada, 2.
My greatest realization has been that to do worldview education…small things are
enough for children. Bertha, 1.
It has been very interesting to dive deeper into the world of worldview education in the
ECEC context and I have noticed that I have now seized those moments when there has
been a chance. Iris, 1.
The process helped students to understand their professional position realistically,

and this was experienced as empowering.
To face things together gave me a feeling that one doesn’t need to be perfect when entering
the field: the growth in professionalism continues all the time. Rachel, 1.
Perhaps it is also as a student, when you go there [ECEC], you learn to rely on your
professional skills, that you truly have them. This was a concrete thing for me. Iris, 2.
5.6 Discussion
The findings of this study correspond with the dimension of ECEC professional
knowledges that extends beyond the episteme and the techne. What makes investi-
gating phronesis challenging relates to its nature as a mixture of practices, theoreti-
cal knowledge, methodological skills, together with values, emotions and ethical
reflection (Formosinho & Oliveira-Formosinho, 2012). The results illustrate how

phronesis is located between the individual and the universal, taking into account
both the context and the interpersonal relationship between the teacher, the student
and the child (Campbell-Barr, 2019). The collective knowledge production, close
connection to praxis, local ECEC units, dialogical peer-learning together with theo-
retical and critical awareness of the context in which students become teachers,
were all central elements in this process. Undoubtedly, the role of salient examples
was very important for the students’ learning and helped them make educationally
wise judgements. For student teachers, educational judgements were not just techni-
cal they were also value judgements, as they aimed to comprehend what needs to be
done regarding “the educationally desirable” (Biesta, 2014, 134). Therefore, phro-
nesis related to a certain personal quality, to character and to holistic professional
formation.
The study highlights the contextual and collaborative nature of professional
development (Formosinho & Oliveira-Formosinho, 2012). To study the importance
of social relations in specific situations is central in helping student teachers under-
stand their professional development (Fochi, 2019). As found in our previous study
(Lamminmäki-Vartia et al., 2020), the professional learning process is often filled
with complex simultaneous, overlapping and ‘messy’ negotiations actualized
through tensions and questions, and to engage in an open conversation with ECEC
praxis can help in ‘making sense’ of one’s professional identity.
5.7 Conclusion
Praxeological learning provides a theoretical framework with the potential to

improve teacher education programmes (Winterbottom & Mazzocco, 2014). The
central challenge relates to perceiving theory and practice not as dichotomous, but
rather as two constituting sides of the same knowledge process (Kultti & Pramling
Samuelsson, 2017, 36). However, the praxeological framework is influenced by the
locality of the specific context and therefore does not aim to demonstrate causalities
or to support comparisons or predictions; hence, it is sometimes considered to hold
less utility for policy (Winterbottom & Mazzocco, 2014). Consequently, further
research is needed in this area. However, the approach does hold clear strengths in
its close involvement with practice, helping to identify needs and directions in order
to develop educational practice. Through collaborative learning, it also demon-
strates the usefulness of theoretical ideas in practice. Although the transferability of
the results of this study to teacher training is affected by locality, some of the pre-
sented ECEC teacher student insights might well be useful in informing teacher
education in different contexts, for instance in provoking the empowering of stu-
dents in understanding their role in professional knowledge contribution. Loosening
the dichotomy between theory and practice can also inform teaching and learning in
different contexts.
We can tentatively conclude that the model of praxeological learning imple-

mented here can have a positive impact on students’ practical wisdom, phronesis. It
is important to practice the entwined processes of developing educational judge-
ment, ethical reflection and contextual meaning-making in all their complexity dur-
ing teacher education (Bakker, 2016; Biesta, 2014; Urban, 2008). As suggested by
Kultti and Pramling Samuelsson (2017, 42), dialogues on pedagogical issues need
to be recognized as a new practice for those who work with children. Students need
a space to discuss challenging issues, disagree and critically reflect in safe contexts.
We also follow Winterbottom and Mazzocco’s (2014) idea that ECEC teacher edu-
cation should reconceptualize their epistemology to inform future teachers by
implementing praxeological learning with students.
To make changes in ECEC practice, more has to be done to make the curricular
goals an educational reality. ECE units would need to be safe places for dialogues
on pedagogical matters concerning worldviews, which are often experienced as sen-
sitive and challenging. To enhance collaborative learning between teacher training
units and local ECEC centres in creating innovative solutions for learning is a key
aim in fostering worldview education in the future.
References
Act on Early Childhood Education and Care. (740/13) (2018). [Varhaiskasvatuslaki]. https://www.
finlex.fi/fi/laki/alkup/2018/20180540. Accessed 5 May, 2020.
Act on Freedom of Religion. (2003). [Uskonnonvapauslaki]. https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajan-
tasa/2003/20030453. Accessed 5 May, 2020.
Aristotle. (2004). The Nicomachean ethics. Penguin Books.
Bakker, C. (2016). Professionalization and the quest how to deal with complexity. In C. Bakker
& M. N. Montesano (Eds.), Complexity in education: From horror to passion (pp. 9–30).
SensePublishers.
Bergold, J., & Thomas, S. (2012). Participatory research methods: A methodological approach
in motion. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 13(1). Available at: http://nbn-resolving.de/
urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs1201302
Biesta, G. (2014). The beautiful risk of education. Paradigm Publishers.
Campbell-Barr, V. (2019). Professional knowledges for early childhood education and care.
Journal of Childhood Studies, 44(1), 134–146.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education. Routledge.
Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity. (2012). https://www.tenk.fi/sites/tenk.fi/files/HTK_
ohje_2012.pdf.
Finnish National Agency for Education. (2018). National Core Curriculum for Early Childhood
Education and Care 2018. Regulations and guidelines 2018:3c. https://www.oph.fi/sites/
default/files/documents/varhaiskasvatussuunnitelman_perusteet.pdf. Accessed 7 May, 2020.
Fochi, P. (2019). Pedagogical documentation as a strategy to develop praxeological knowledge:
The case of the observatory of childhood culture. European Early Childhood Education
Research Journal, 27(3), 334–345.
Formosinho, J., & Oliveira-Formosinho, J. (2012). Towards a social science of the social: The con-
tribution of praxeological research. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal,
20(4), 591–606.
Havnes, A. (2018). ECEC professionalization – Challenges of developing professional standards.

European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 26(5), 657–673.
Jackson, A., & Mazzei, L. (2012). Thinking with theory in qualitative research: Viewing data
among multiple perspectives. Routledge.
Jope, G. (2018). Becoming ethically responsive in initial teacher education. Research in Education,
100(1), 65–82.
van der Kooij, J. C., Ruyter, D., & Miedema, S. (2017). The merits of using “worldview” in reli-
gious education. Religious Education, 112(2), 172–184.
Kemmis, S., & Smith, T. (2008). Personal praxis. In S. Kemmis & T. J. Smith (Eds.), Enabling
praxis: Challenges for education (pp. 15–35). Sense Publishers.
Kultti, A., & Pramling Samuelsson, I. (2017). Changing patterns of communication for the facili-
tation of inclusion, collaboration and democracy: A review of a praxis-oriented research
approach. In A. Hellman & K. Lauritsen (Eds.), Diversity and social justice in early childhood
education: Nordic perspectives (pp. 30–45). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Lamminmäki-Vartia, S., Poulter, S., & Kuusisto, A. (2020). Learning trajectory of emerging pro-
fessionalism: Finnish student teacher negotiating worldview education and ECEC superdiver-
sity. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood Education.
Marshall, J., & Reason, P. (2007). Quality in research as “taking an attitude of inquiry”.
Management Research News, 30(5), 368–380. https://doi.org/10.1108/01409170710746364
Newman, L., & Leggett, N. (2019). Practitioner research: With intent. European Early Childhood
Education Research Journal, 27(1), 120–137.
Pascal, C., & Bertram, T. (2012). Praxis, ethics and power: Developing praxeology as a participa-
tory paradigm for early childhood research. European Early Childhood Education Research
Journal, 20(4), 477–492.
Repo, L., Paananen, M., Mattila, V., Lerkkanen, M-K., Eskelinen, M., Gammelgård, L.,
Ulvinen, J., Hjelt, H., & Marjanen, J. (2018). Varhaiskasvatussuunnitelman perus-
teiden 2016 toimeenpanon arviointi: Varhaiskasvatussuunnitelmien käyttöönotto ja
sisällöt. Kansallinen koulutuksen arviointikeskus. https://karvi.fi/app/uploads/2018/08/
Varhaiskasvatussuunnitelman-toimeenpanon-arviointi_2018.pdf.
Tainio, L., Kallioniemi, A., Hotulainen, R., et al. (2019). Koulujen monet kielet ja uskonnot:
Selvitys vähemmistöäidinkielten ja -uskontojen sekä suomi ja ruotsi toisena kielenä -opetuksen
tilanteesta eri koulutusasteilla. Valtioneuvoston selvitys- ja tutkimustoiminnan julkaisusarja,
11/2019. Helsinki.
Urban, M. (2008). Dealing with uncertainty: Challenges and possibilities for the early childhood
profession. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 16(2), 135–152.
Urban, M. (2010). Rethinking professionalism in early childhood: Untested feasibilities and criti-
cal ecologies. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 11(1), 1–7.
Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge
University Press.
Winterbottom, C., & Mazzocco, P. J. (2014). Reconstructing teacher education: A praxeological
approach to pre-service teacher education. European Early Childhood Education Research
Journal.
Åhs, V., Poulter, S., & Kallioniemi, A. (2019). Pupils and worldview expression in an integrative
classroom context. Journal of Religious Education, 67, 203–221.
Chapter 6
Media Education in Finnish Early
Childhood Teacher Education:
A Curricular Analysis
Saara Salomaa and Pekka Mertala
Abstract In this chapter, we discuss the results of the media education (ME) study
focusing on Finnish early childhood teacher education curricula. The research inter-
est evolved from a specific time in the history of Finnish early childhood education
and care (ECEC): the first mandatory national core curriculum became effective in
2017 and it also included ME. How was the new teacher generation prepared for this
new professional demand? We analysed the curricular texts and mandatory course
literature of all seven Finnish university bachelor’s degree programmes that provide
teacher qualifications for ECEC, to answer the following research questions: (1)
How was media education positioned in early childhood teacher education pro-
grammes’ curricula during the academic year 2014–2015? (2) How did the media
education related competencies articulated in the curricula fall into the common
ECEC professional competence categories? The findings suggest that ME has been
marginal topic in Finnish ECEC teacher education. Media education and informa-
tion and communications technology (ICT) were mostly taught separately, which
seems peculiar in today’s media culture. Among the general ECEC professional
competencies, contextual and pedagogical ones were emphasised, whereas care
competencies were neglected. Additionally, compulsory ME course literature was
scarce and partly outdated. The findings raise the question of whether it is possible
to expect high-quality media pedagogies from practitioners with little professional
training on the topic. We conclude by providing implications for teacher education.
S. Salomaa (*)
Finnish National Audiovisual Institute, Helsinki, Finland
e-mail: saara.salomaa@kavi.fi
P. Mertala

Switzerland AG 2022
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95512-0_6
70 S. Salomaa and P. Mertala
6.1 niversity-Level ECEC Teacher Education

U
and the National Core Curriculum Guidelines
for ECEC in Finland
According to the Finnish Act on ECEC (540/2018, section 26) the basic qualifica-
tion criterion for the ECEC teacher is at least a bachelor’s degree in education,
which includes studies that give professional skills for tasks in ECEC. ECEC teacher
education, with bachelor’s and master’s degree programmes offered, exists in seven
Finnish universities.1 At the bachelor’s level, the education programmes consists of
180 European Transfer Credit System (ETCS) credits, including: (1) educational
science as a major subject (75 credits), (2) studies providing professional skills for
early childhood and preschool education (60 credits), (3) studies in minor subjects
(25 credits) and (4) language and communication studies (20 credits). In addition,
all the programmes’ curriculum documents include descriptions of the educational
objectives, the specific objectives, content, teaching methods and evaluation scale
of the courses and the teaching material and literature used (Karila et al., 2013).
The contents of the studies vary from one university to another since universities
have the academic freedom of choosing the contents and methods of teaching.
Legally, according to the Universities Act (558/2009), all universities providing
ECEC teacher qualification are under the remit of the Ministry of Education and
Culture (MoEC). Overall planning, steering and supervision of ECEC are also the
responsibility of the MoEC (540/2018, section 51). This includes support for devel-
oping professionals’ education. To provide an example, the MoEC appointed a
development forum of ECEC professional education programmes for the years
2019–2020 (MoEC, 2019). The national core curriculum guidelines are prepared by
the Finnish Agency for Education (FNAE, 2018), a governmental agency subordi-
nate to the MoEC, in cooperative processes involving academia and other stake-
holders. The national ECEC curricula have been, for the first time, normative in
their nature: they have been in effect since 2016 in pre-primary education and since
2017 in all ECEC. ME has a clear position in the curricula. According to the core
curriculum for ECEC, the objective of ME is to support children’s opportunities to
be active and to express themselves in their communities. ME pedagogy is dis-
cussed as such, and media literacy is also included as part of a cross-curricular
transversal competence area of ‘multiliteracy’. Children are to be familiarised with
different types of media and they must have opportunities to experiment with and
produce media in a playful manner in a safe environment. ICT and its importance in
everyday life is observed with children. Media content related to children’s lives and
its veracity are reflected with children to support the emergent media criticism.
Playing, drawing and drama are named as examples of child-centred methods for
1
It is also possible to graduate for a teaching position in ECEC with a degree from a university of
applied science, but this practitioner’s title is, according to the Act on ECEC (540/2018, section
27), social pedagogue in ECEC. Additionally, since only university degrees provide qualifications
to work as a teacher in whole ECEC (including pre-primary education), this study focuses on
university-level teacher education.
6 Media Education in Finnish Early Childhood Teacher Education: A Curricular… 71
exploring media-related themes. Whereas the curricula are not setting any measur-
able learning objectives for children, they establish an obligatory framework for
education providers (FNAE, 2018).
6.2 Media Education as a Part of Professional ECEC
ME has been conceptualised in several ways in the research literature (Palsa &
Ruokamo, 2015). A rough division can be made between conceptions that consider
teaching with media as ME and conceptions that consider teaching about media as
ME (Buckingham, 2015). Our definition draws from the latter viewpoint, inspired
by Kupiainen and Sintonen (2009), who described ME as a ‘goal-oriented interac-
tion involving the educator, the learner and media culture. The outcome of this
process is media literacy’ (p. 31).
As the concept of media culture also includes values, cultures, tastes and rela-
tionships related to media, in this interpretation media are not approached only as
devices and applications one should master. Accordingly, the use of the term ‘media
literacy’ connotes a humanistic conception (Buckingham, 2015) that includes criti-
cal thinking as well as ethics, self-expression and cultural and social dispositions in
the context of media culture (Kupiainen & Sintonen, 2009), alongside operational
skills and the ability to use media devices (Marsh, 2017).
The use of the term ‘media culture’ also emphasises that ME needs to acknowl-
edge the context where it is being conducted. To draw on Palsa and Ruokamo
(2015), contextualisation clarifies the meaning and purposes of multidimensional
media literacy, thus allowing it to be meaningfully promoted in practice. Hence
when developing early years’ ME, it is important to ensure that a strong connection
is created between the common educational objectives and principles of ECEC and
ME (Salomaa & Mertala, 2019). This applies also to the core competencies required
from teachers. Consequently, ECEC teachers’ ME competencies refer to abilities to
recognise how media culture intertwines with different dimensions of ECEC as well
as to the practical capability to operationalise these notions into meaningful peda-
gogical activities in ECEC.
Karila and Nummenmaa (2001; see also Karila, 2008) have defined the central
knowledge and competency areas and the core competencies for ECEC as follows:
(1) Contexts of ECEC—this competence area includes awareness of the societal and
cultural environment of ECEC, such as understanding families’ everyday lives or
the normative frameworks of institutional ECEC; (2) ECEC, including educational,
caring and pedagogical competencies—here, education refers to a process through
which an individual becomes both a functional member of society ‘as is’ and a
unique subject who is able to criticise the prevalent societal structures and be an
agent of change in his or her own right as he or she contributes to the development
of a society that ‘might be’ (Biesta et al., 2015, p. 634). Pedagogy, in turn, is about
supporting children’s learning of new knowledge and skills, and when approached
as care, the task of ECEC is ensuring children’s holistic wellbeing (Karila &
Nummenmaa, 2001, pp. 31–32); (3) Cooperation and interaction knowledge and
competencies—cooperation competencies are those that are needed for smooth col-
laboration between parents, other staff members and other key partners (Karila
et al., 2017). Interaction competencies can be approached as sensitivity to children’s
efforts at interaction (Holkeri-Rinkinen, 2009, p. 228) as well as the ability to inter-
act with children using various and multimodal forms of expression (i.e. verbal
interaction or gestures; Ledin & Samuelsson, 2017); and (4) Continuous develop-
ment, including reflective competencies and knowledge management —reflective
competencies refer to the ability to evaluate one’s own work, whereas knowledge
management is about skills related to retrieving and processing knowledge in a criti-
cal manner (Karila et al., 2017).
When integrated with ME perspective, contextual competence could mean, for
example, that a teacher understands media culture as one of the meaningful life-
worlds of children, whereas competencies in caring could refer to knowledge about
audio-visual media’s age restrictions (psychological and emotional wellbeing) and
ergonomic ways of using digital media (physical wellbeing), to provide some
examples.
Based on a survey conducted in 2007, only a small minority of ECEC profes-
sionals had studied ME as a part of their pre-service education; however, ME had
been a part of university studies more frequently in the 2000s than in the 1990s
(Suoninen, 2008). Regardless of this development, the inadequacy of ME teaching
in ECEC degree programmes has been recognised again in the 2010s via quality
assessments (Karila et al., 2013) and a student survey (Salomaa et al., 2017).
However, there have been no previous studies into how ME has been positioned in
Finnish ECEC teacher education curricula.
6.3 Research Design
When conducting research on curriculum, it is essential to distinguish the written,

intended curriculum from the implemented curriculum. Whereas written curriculum
describes the intended and the desirable, the implemented curriculum is a result of
teachers’ interpretation of the written curriculum. The third aspect is the learnt cur-
riculum—the knowledge and competences that students achieve via education
(Luoto & Lappalainen, 2006, pp. 14–15). This study focused on official written
curricular documents, whereas in the present chapter we adapt Levin’s (2008, p. 8)
definition of the written curriculum as ‘an official statement of what students are
expected to know and be able to do’. The official teacher education curriculum can
be seen as providing a perspective on the central aims and the image of the ideal
teacher (Krzywacki, 2009, p. 102).
When scrutinising the results, it is vital to remember that a study on concise cur-
ricular texts cannot reveal the implemented, actualised contents of teaching and it
can reveal still less about what has been learnt. We are aware of such ME course
design and teaching practises that have taken place (e.g. Mertala, 2020), but would
remain invisible in curricular analysis. However, based on the findings reported in
this study, such a course design would have been an outcome of an individual teach-
er’s interest instead of curricular demands.
6.3.1 Data Collection and Analysis
The data consist of the curricular texts of seven Finnish early childhood teacher
education bachelor’s-level programmes. As our interest was to explore the educa-
tion provided for the cohort entering the work field when the new core curriculum
for ECEC became effective, the analysed curricula—collected from the universi-
ties’ webpages—were chosen to be those effective during the academic year of
2014–2015. Even though teacher education curricula are subject to change every
few years, students mainly study according to the curriculum they began their stud-
ies with.
We did not include master’s degree curricula because it is not mandatory for
qualification as an ECEC teacher. We only studied the mandatory courses to deter-
mine what all the teacher candidates were supposed to be studying.2 Altogether, 301
mandatory course descriptions were included in the data. Figure 6.1 summarises the
Fig. 6.1 An overview of the data collection and analysis process (The distinction between media
education and ICT in the open coding phase was done with respect to the nature of the data. Further
details are provided in the first paragraph of the ‘Findings and discussion’ section)
2
It is also possible to study ME as minor subject or take individual voluntary courses on the topic.
However, according to the survey conducted in 2017, only 7% of pre-service ECEC teachers had
studied any non-mandatory ME courses (https://www.mediataitokoulu.fi/liiteselvitykseen/#2)
Table 6.1 Categorisation matrix for curricular positions of ME and ICT

Position Description
Visible Subject is found in at least two different courses, either in the course name, or as
goals or contents
Recognisable Subject is the main topic of one specific course, or the subject is mentioned in at
least two courses’ goals and/or contents, among others
Traceable Subject is mentioned only in one course’s goals and/or contents among many
other themes and/or included in the literature
Adapted from Korhonen and Rantala (2007)
data collection and analysis process of the study. A more detailed analysis descrip-
tion is offered below.
The analysis followed the principles of qualitative content analysis (Elo &
Kyngäs, 2008). In the preparation phase, the unit of analysis was defined to be the
course description. Knowing that terminology within the field of ME is unsettled
(Palsa & Ruokamo, 2015), we searched for terms explicitly or implicitly referring
to ME. Examples of implicit references were ‘media literacy’, ‘digital media’,
‘media culture’ and ‘information and communication technology’. It was not neces-
sary for the course to focus only on ME—any reference was enough to merit further
analysis. We found 22 courses containing ME headlines, goals and/or content. Some
of these courses included mandatory reading that was also taken into consideration.
To achieve a conceptual clarification through organizing the data, distinctions were
made between observations.
In the reporting phase, we abstracted the categorisations to move further from
the descriptive level of the organisation phase. The previous curricula analysis work
conducted by Korhonen and Rantala (2007) was used as a categorisation matrix
(Table 6.1) to describe the positions of ME and ICT in training programmes. The
positioning described the depth and extent of the subject in the curricula.
Karila and Nummenmaa’s (2001) description of central knowledge and com-
petence areas, specifically the core competencies, provided the starting point for
our analysis of the ME competencies. This definition was chosen for its continu-
ous relevance for Finnish ECEC policies. It has, with only minor modifications,
been recently included as part of the roadmap for the development process of the
Finnish early childhood education system (Karila et al., 2017); this, in turn,
formed a basis for the current development forum of ECEC professional educa-
tion programmes (MoEC, 2019, 2). Furthermore, a competence description pro-
vides a lens to scrutinise the data from the perspective of the different targeted
competences expressed in curricular texts. We categorised and allocated the learn-
ing objectives explicated in the texts, answering the question, ‘Is this core compe-
tence addressed in the text and how?’ One course description could address
several different competencies.
6.4 Findings and Discussion
We present our findings in two subsections, the first of which focuses on how ME
and ICT were positioned in the curricula. This distinction was made during the
analysis phase since it became clear that course descriptions addressing ICT seldom
mentioned media, considered ICT as a socio-cultural phenomenon or aimed to pro-
vide competencies to teach and learn about media. Instead, they focused on teaching
other subjects with ICT or learning operational ICT skills. An illustrative example
was a course on ICT in which attendance could be substituted with technical skills
demonstrations. Given that the operational dimension is a fundamental part of
media literacy (Marsh, 2017), we chose not to omit these courses from the analysis.
Instead, we created two different categories—ME and ICT. The second subsection
concentrates on the distribution of competencies in the curricula.
When interpreting these results, it is worth highlighting that even though the
units of analysis are called ‘ME/ICT courses’ for clarity’s sake, often the courses
discussed the topics alongside several different subjects. As an example, in one
course worth five ETCS credits, ‘media culture’ was mentioned alongside as many
as 12 other content areas. Consequently, the targeted competencies were seldom
connected only to ME/ICT content; they were more often presented as general
learning objectives instead.
6.4.1 Positions of ME and ICT in Curricula
Altogether, 22 of the 301 mandatory courses included ME/ICT themes. Eleven (11)
courses included goals, content and/or literacy that paid specific attention to ME
and 16 courses were focused on ICT. Usually ME and ICT were discussed sepa-
rately since only five (5) of the 22 analysed course descriptions included both ME
and ICT goals, content or literature. Previous research has implied that ME termi-
nology is seldom included in Finnish studies scrutinising ICT in education (Pekkala
et al., 2013); this seems to mutually apply to universities’ curricula.
Of the 16 ICT courses, seven (7) focused solely on ICT, whereas only two (2) of
the 11 ME courses were solely devoted to media cultural issues. When integrated as
a minor theme of the course, ME and ICT were parts of courses discussing a variety
of different subjects, such as arts education, literacy education, societal issues and
the pedagogical or systemic planning of ECEC.
The 22 course descriptions contributing to ME and/or ICT mentioned 29 manda-
tory books or articles. The total number of reading materials was higher, but we only
analysed the ones obligatory for all students. However, a closer look into the litera-
ture revealed that only four (4) of the 29 mandatory pieces of literature discussed
media-related issues even as a subtheme. Additionally, two of the four books dis-
cussing children’s media usage and ME were from the 1990s. It is worth mentioning
that all analysed reading materials were from ME or ME/ICT courses. None of the
courses focusing solely on ICT included any required, specified course literature.
One possible reason for the scarcity of mandatory reading was that the lecturer had
the academic freedom to choose the course literature. This, however, does not
explain why, in some cases, students were required to read books in which the media
cultural landscape was outdated. For example, one book from 1990s discussed ped-
agogical use of VHS tapes.
The position of ME and ICT in Finnish ECEC teacher training varied signifi-
cantly between the curricula. The position of ME was recognisable in four curricula
and traceable in two curricula. The visible position was found in one curriculum.
The most common position for ICT was visible, in four curricula. In the three
remaining curricula, ICT was in a recognised position. The difference between the
positions is partly explained by our inclusion of three basic, operational ICT courses
in the data.
6.4.2 Targeted Competencies in ME and ICT Courses
In order to study the targeted ME and ICT competencies of ECEC teacher candi-
dates, we scrutinised the curricular texts of ME and ICT courses from the viewpoint
of common categories of ECEC professional competencies (Karila & Nummenmaa,
2001; see also Karila, 2008). The objective was to investigate whether the curricula
aimed to provide students with the same kind of competencies within ME/ICT
courses that are considered important in ECEC in general. Table 6.2 summarises the
distribution of the eight core competencies of ECEC. As can be seen, pedagogical
and contextual competencies were strongly emphasised, whereas competencies in
caring were not regarded in any of the course descriptions. A more detailed account
of the course contents is provided below.
The competencies targeted most often in ME course descriptions were contex-
tual competencies, addressed in 22 courses. An example of data addressing contex-
tual competencies is: ‘the student will gain information about … children’s own
culture and the impacts of media on childhood’ (University1).
Table 6.2 Early childhood education competencies addressed in curricula texts of ME and ICT
course descriptions
Central knowledge and competence areas Core competencies ME ICT
Contexts of early childhood education Contextual competencies 10 12
Early childhood education Educational competencies 2 1
Competencies in caring – –
Pedagogical competencies 9 11
Cooperation and interaction Interaction competencies 1 2
Cooperation competencies 4 5
Continuous development Reflective competencies 4 6
Knowledge management 2 8
Competencies related to teaching and fostering learning, pedagogy, were

addressed in a total of 20 course descriptions. The following learning goal was set
in courses addressing pedagogical competencies: ‘students have gained knowledge
of how different media can be used to stimulate and promote children’s learning’
(University7).
Reflective competencies and knowledge management competencies were both
targeted in ten course descriptions. Regarding reflective competencies, one course
stated that the ‘student is able to utilise ICT and reflect on one’s own working and
learning’ (University2). As a knowledge management-related goal, one course
description aimed that ‘the student masters the basics of information retrieval’
(University3).
Cooperation competencies were addressed in nine courses. In one course
description, the cooperation-related learning goal was framed as teamwork: ‘[the
student] can utilise ICT in individual work and community-based teamwork’
(University4).
Competencies for education and interaction were both targeted in three course
descriptions. An example of educational goal setting can be found in the following
description: ‘ … the student will gain understanding of … art as a language of edu-
cation and is able to apply art and cultural practices as producers of joy and prosper-
ity and as a promoter of intellectual development’ (University2). Interaction can be
found in the following: ‘[the student] knows how to promote children’s language
development and to prevent linguistic problems with both the means of verbal and
non-verbal interaction’ (University6). The last two data excerpts also illustrate how
ME competencies were often not specifically mentioned as learning goals in courses
that included ME content; instead, only more general learning goals were set.
The strong emphasis on contextual and pedagogical competencies appears logi-
cal in teacher training; this, however, is not the case with the shortage of educational
competencies. This competence area only appeared in two ME course descriptions
and one ICT course, which was surprising for a programme providing a bachelor’s
degree in education. This might be partly explained by the structure of the curricula
as only three of the analysed courses were offered as part of the education sciences
(master’s subject studies); of these three, two course descriptions targeted educa-
tional competencies. The rest of the courses were located either in professional
skills studies or communication studies, and among these 19 course descriptions,
only one targeted educational competency.
Another problematic notion was the absence of competencies in care (e.g. dis-
cussing and fostering children’s wellbeing in relation to media). On the one hand, it
can be argued that in multi-professional working communities of ECEC the compe-
tencies in care would be the responsibility of childminders instead of teachers. On
the other hand, there is a body of research indicating that care is an indistinguishable
part of being (and becoming) a teacher (Kemp & Reupert, 2012; O’Connor, 2008).
Care—alongside teaching and education—is one of the cornerstones of the Nordic
model of ECEC (Karila, 2012). Previous research also suggests that Finnish pre-
service ECEC teachers’ concerns regarding ICT use and ME are predominantly
care-related; they believe that children’s physical and mental health are endangered
by media and technology. These anxieties are associated with beliefs about chil-
dren’s use of ICT at home being extensive and unregulated, and pre-service teachers
have expressed mainly negative attitudes towards parents’ capabilities in child rear-
ing in relation to digital technologies (Mertala, 2019). As these exaggerated beliefs
are not supported by empirical research on Finnish children’s media and technology
use (Chaudron, 2015; Suoninen, 2014), they form a rather uninformed and negative
basis for ME. Thus, it can justifiably be argued that teacher education should aim to
provide teacher candidates with research-based information about children’s well-
being and media as well as how to enhance critical self-reflection, in order to chal-
lenge anytheir (negative) preconceptions. Botturi (2019), for example, has reported
pre-service teachers’ attitudes shifting from purely protective towards more com-
prehensive critical literacy after studying a digital and media literacy course.
However as only a few of the analysed course descriptions in the present study
included goals or content providing competencies for reflection, cooperation and
interaction, it is questionable whether these issues were at all addressed in relation
to ME and ICT. This is also in contrast to the expectations of practising equal and
respectful educational cooperation with parents (FNAfE, 2018; MoEC, 2013).
An additional interesting finding is that practising ME and ICT with children
during the studies was seldom mentioned in the curricular texts. The analysed
course descriptions did not include projects to be conducted with children, nor were
these subjects explicitly included as part of the internship periods’ descriptions.
Three courses linked to internships were all courses in which ME/ICT held minor
positions (e.g. were included only in pieces of course literature). Similarly, in
Germany, Friedrichs-Liesenkötter (2015) identified a shortage of possibilities for
students to develop their ME competencies with children and considered it a prob-
lem for professional development. In contrast, in Norway the pre-school teacher
education curriculum expected students to design working methods for using digital
media in children’s groups (Bølgan, 2012). The literature also identifies cases in
which popular media culture and kindergarten projects were integrated in early
years education courses (Mertala, 2020; Souto-Manning & Price-Dennis, 2012). We
argue that these integrative approaches would align with the holistic nature of the
pedagogy of ECEC.
6.5 Conclusions
This study used curricular analysis to explore how ME has been included in Finnish
ECEC teacher education programmes during the academic year 2014–2015. An
additional research interest was to study how these contents were aligned with the
framework outlined by Karila and Nummenmaa (2001) for the general core compe-
tencies of ECEC professionals. This part of the study underlines the importance of
a holistic approach in developing ME competencies for ECEC. Curriculum design
is not only about how much but very much about what and how.
The analysis revealed that ME and ICT have been parts of all Finnish university-
level ECEC teacher education curricula during the years just before the first manda-
tory ECEC curriculum. However, the position of ME and ICT as well as the
competencies targeted in curricula, varied between universities. Hence, the newly
graduating ECEC professionals have potentially had very different levels and under-
standing of ME competencies when entering the work field in which they were, for
the first time, equally obligated to carry out ME with children.
ICT and especially ME appeared as relatively marginal contents of studies. ME
was in a visible position in only one curriculum. ICT was in a visible position in
four curricula. Based on our analysis, pedagogical and contextual competencies
were highly emphasised in course descriptions. Whilst they are both crucial in the
teaching profession, more balanced and versatile perspectives could be beneficial in
building ECEC professionalism and consciousness about the goals, value basis and
prerequisites of education and educational cooperation. Based on both empirical
research on children’s everyday lives (e.g. Chaudron, 2015) and the Finnish ECEC
curriculum, media literacy and ICT skills are not just entities to be taught about or
with, but are ultimately related to twenty-first-century interaction, societal issues,
everyday practices and human growth.
The finding that no course description included practicing ME with children
casts doubts on the level of concreteness of the pedagogical competence provided.
This, combined with marginal positioning and merging with other subjects, can
explain why only 51% of pre-service early childhood teachers have reported that
ME (ICT included) appeared in their mandatory studies—even though it should
have been provided for all (Salomaa et al., 2017). However, the findings of the pres-
ent study also question the theoretical depth of ME and ICT courses: the reading
materials were sparse and the ICT courses contained no specified mandatory read-
ing. The risk of such a superficial approach is that students are learning quickly
outdated technological tricks instead of adaptive competences. Whist we recognise
that low technological self-efficacy builds barriers to ME (Kupiainen et al., 2006),
operational competence is not a guarantee of pedagogically justified practices if the
decisions of why and how to implement digital media in early childhood education
are built on uninformed grounds.
6.6 Implications for Teacher Education
The present study indicates that while Finland is often used as a ‘showpiece coun-
try’ of ME in international comparisons (Celot, 2009; Tomljenović, 2019), there is
already a need to provide in-service training for those ECEC teachers’ cohorts that
have graduated quite recently. Additionally, it is at least equally needed for previ-
ously graduated cohorts whose studies seem to have included even less ME. That
said, we understand that the mere addition of ME content in pre-service teacher
education curricula would be an oversimplified answer to a complex question. In a
constantly changing media culture, professional ME competency building can be

seen as a career-long endeavour.
One way to strengthen the role of ME within the existing framework of pre-
service teacher education and also in in-service training would be to dispense with
the dichotomic stance of providing ICT courses and ME courses separately. As
Kotilainen and Ruokamo (2017, p. 39) argued, the conceptual boundaries between
ICT and media literacy are artificial as, in the end, the core of both is a pedagogical
perspective on technology-mediated interaction between human beings. Also,
Buckingham (2015) has argued that digital media can no longer be regarded simply
as matters of ‘information’ or ‘technology’ but must be seen as cultural forms. Thus,
any form of digital media should neither be regarded as a neutral means of deliver-
ing information nor used in a merely functional or instrumental way. Furthermore,
‘education about the media should be seen as an indispensable prerequisite for edu-
cation with or through the media’ (Buckingham, 2015, p. 21 [italics original]).
Consequently, including ME perspectives in ICT courses (and vice versa) would,
to paraphrase Buckingham (2015, p. 21), develop more effective connections
between children’s/pre-service teachers’ experiences of technology outside of kin-
dergarten/university and their experiences in the classroom. Such a symbiotic and
inclusive approach is indeed much closer to how young children conceptualise ICT
and media culture. Children, for example, do not approach computers as informa-
tion technology or as a didactic tool, but as one way of carrying out media cultural
interests and preferences (Mertala, 2016). However, the potential sparks for child-
initiated ME pedagogies may remain neglected if the teachers have not learned to
carry out ME from a wider educational perspective or are not even aware of either
their educational value or children’s digital media cultures and interests.
We, in turn, are aware that universities’ curricula can be seen as ‘dynamic force
fields’ (Luoto & Lappalainen, 2006, 14). In these fields, traditional and several new
contents, such as ME, multiculturalism or sustainable development are competing
to gain visibility in space framed by degree programmes’ limited boundaries. If the
subject is not visibly and widely included in the curriculum, there is a risk each time
that the subject can fade away when the contents of the curriculum are negotiated
(Korhonen & Rantala, 2007, pp. 457–458). Consequently, there is a recognised
need for strengthening the position of ME in Finnish teacher education curricula.
It could also be beneficial to invest in course design. This could, in practice,
mean ensuring that compulsory reading would be up-to-date and that all ME courses
would also include explicit ME learning goals. Additionally, already existing ME
content may need more visibility in teacher education. Our main concern is that ME
as a cross-curricular subject can be invisible to pre-service teachers if the scattered
incentives of developing ME competencies are not meaningfully explicated and
connected as multi-dimensional learning paths.
It is also worth noticing when designing in-service courses, that while ECEC
professionals’ inadequate digital competencies are often discussed in public (e.g.
Gillen et al., 2018), they still may have received significantly more initial education
for operational ICT competencies than for culturally orientated ME or theoretical
understanding of ICT pedagogies.
References
Biesta, G., Priestley, M., & Robinson. S. (2015). The role of beliefs in teacher agency. Teachers
and Teaching, 21(6), 624–640. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2015.1044325
Bølgan, N. (2012). From IT to Tablet: Current use and future needs in kindergartens. Nordic
Journal of Digital Literacy, 7(3), 154–171. https://doi.org/10.18261/ISSN1891-943X-
2012-03-02
Botturi, L. (2019). Digital and media literacy in pre-service teacher education. A case study from
Switzerland. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 14(3–4), 147–163. https://doi.org/10.18261/
issn.1891-943x-2019-03-04-05
Buckingham, D. (2015). Defining digital literacy. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 10(5), 21–35.
https://www.idunn.no/dk/2006/04/defining_digital_literacy_-_ what_do_young_people_
need_to_know_about_digital
Celot, P. (2009). Study on assessment criteria for media literacy. EAVI. https://ec.europa.eu/
assets/eac/culture/library/studies/literacy-criteria-report_en.pdf
Chaudron, S. (2015). Young children (0–8) and digital technology. A qualitative exploratory study
across seven countries. Joint Research Centre. https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/
handle/JRC93239
Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced
Nursing, 62(1), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x
Finnish National Agency for Education (FNAE). (2018). Varhaiskasvatussuunnitelman perusteet
2018. [National core curriculum for early childhood education 2018]. Finnish National Agency
for Education: Regulation and Guidelines 3a. https://www.oph.fi/sites/default/files/documents/
varhaiskasvatussuunnitelman_perusteet.pdf
Friedrichs-Liesenkötter, H. (2015). Media-educational habitus of future educators in the context of
education in day-care centers. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 7(1), 18–34.
Gillen, J., Arnott, L., Marsh, J. Bus, A., Castro, T., Dardanou, M., Duncan, P., EnriquezGibson, J.,
Flewitt, R., Gray, C., Holloway, D., Jernes, M., Kontovourki , S., Kucirkova, N., Kumpulainen,
K., March-Boehnck, G, Mascheroni, G., Nagy, K., O’Connor, J., O’Neill, B., …, & Tafa,
E. (2018). Digital literacy and young children: Towards better understandings of the benefits
and challenges of digital technologies in homes and early years settings. DigiLitEY COST
action IS1410 and the digital childhoods SIG of the European early childhood research associa-
tion. https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/65712/
Holkeri-Rinkinen, L. (2009). Aikuinen ja lapsi vuorovaikutusta rakentamassa:
Diskurssianalyyttinen tutkimus päiväkodin arjesta [adult and child construction interaction:
A discourse analytical study on early childhood education]. Tampere, Finland: Tampereen
Yliopistopaino.
Karila, K. (2008). A Finnish viewpoint on professionalism in early childhood education.
European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 16(2), 210–223. https://doi.
org/10.1080/13502930802141634
Journal of Education, 47(4), 584–595. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12007
Karila, K., Harju-Luukkainen, H., Juntunen, A., Kainulainen, S., Kaulio-Kuikka, K., Mattila,
V.,Rantala, K., Ropponen, M., Rouhiainen-Valo, T., Siren-Aura, M., Goman, J., Mustonen, K.,
& Smeds-Nylund, A.-S. (2013). Varhaiskasvatuksen koulutus Suomessa. Arviointi koulutuksen
tilasta ja kehittämistarpeista. [Evaluation of the ECEC degree programmes in Finland]. https://
karvi.fi/app/uploads/2014/09/KKA_0713.pdf
Karila, K., Kosonen, T., & Järvenkallas, S. (2017). Varhaiskasvatuksen kehittämisen tiek-
artta vuosille 2017–2030 [Roadmap for developing early childhood education 2017–2030].
Publications by the Ministry of Education and Culture: 30. https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/
bitstream/handle/10024/80221/okm30.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Karila, K., & Nummenmaa, A. R. (2001). Matkalla moniammatillisuuteen. Kuvauskohteena
päiväkoti. [Towards multiprofessionalism in early childhood education]. WSOY.
Kemp, H. R., & Reupert, A. (2012). ‘There’s no big book on how to care’: Primary pre-service
teachers’ experiences of caring. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(9), 114–127.
https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2012v37n9.5
Korhonen, V., & Rantala, L. (2007). Opettajankoulutus—mediakasvatuksen autiomaa?
Mediakasvatus opettajankoulutuksen opetussuunnitelmateksteissä [Teacher training—a ME
desert? ME in teacher training curricular texts]. Kasvatus, 38(5), 454–467.
Kotilainen, S., & Ruokamo, H. (2017). Haloo opettajankoulutus: TVT ja medialukutaidot yhteiso-
pinnoiksi [Hello teacher education: integrate ICT and media literacy]. In S. Salomaa, L. Palsa,
& V. Malinen (Eds.), Opettajaopiskelijat ja mediakasvatus 2017. [Teacher students and ME
2017] (pp. 38–41). Kansallisen audiovisuaalisen instituutin julkaisuja 1.
Krzywacki, H. (2009). Becoming a teacher: Emerging teacher identity in mathematics teacher
education. University of Helsinki. Faculty of Behavioural Sciences. Department of Applied
Sciences of education. Research report 308.
Kupiainen, R., Niinistö, H., Pohjola, K., & Kotilainen, S. (2006). Mediakasvatusta alle 8-vuotiaille.
Keväällä 2006 toteutetun Mediamuffinssi-kokeilun arviointia. [ME for under 8-year-olds.
Evaluation of the Mediamuffin initiative]. : Tampereen yliopisto.
Kupiainen, R., & Sintonen, S. (2009). Medialukutaidot, osallisuus, mediakasvatus [Media litera-
cies, participation, ME]. Helsinki University Press.
Ledin, P., & Samuelsson, R. (2017). Play and imitation: Multimodal interaction and second-
language development in preschool. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 24(1), 18–31. https://doi.org/1
0.1080/10749039.2016.1247868
Levin, B. (2008). Curriculum policy and the politics of what should be learned in schools. In
F. M. Connelly, M. F. He, & J. Phillion (Eds.), The sage handbook of curriculum and instruc-
tion (pp. 7–24). Sage.
Luoto, L., & Lappalainen, M. (2006). Opetussuunnitelmaprosessit yliopistoissa. [Curriculum pro-
cesses in universities]. Korkeakoulujen arviointineuvoston julkaisuja 10. https://karvi.fi/app/
uploads/2015/01/KKA_1006.pdf
Marsh, J. (2017). Introduction. In J. Marsh, K. Kumpulainen, B. Nisha, A. Velicu, A. Blum-Ross,
D. Hyatt, Jónsdóttir, S.R., Levy, R., Little, S., Marusteru, G., Ólafsdóttir, M.E., Sandvik, K.,
Scott, F., Thestrup, K., Arnseth, H.C., Dýrfjörð, K., Jornet, A., …, & G. Thorsteinsson (Eds.),
Makerspaces in the early years: A literature review (pp. 6–11). University of Sheffield. http://
makeyproject.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Makey_Literature_Review.pdf
Mertala, P. (2016). Fun and games – Finnish children’s ideas for the use of digital media in pre-
school. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 11(04), 207–226.
Mertala, P. (2019). Wonder children and victimizing parents – Preservice early childhood teachers’
beliefs about children and technology at home. Early Child Development and Care, 189(3),
392–404. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2017.1324434
Mertala, P. (2020). Misunderstanding child-centeredness: The case of “child 2.0” and media
education. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 12(1), 26–41. https://doi.org/10.23860/
JMLE-2020-12-1-3.
Ministry of Education and Culture. (2013). Mediakasvatus kuntien varhaiskasvatuksessa. [ME in
municipal early childhood education]. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-263-216-6
Ministry of Education and Culture. (2019). Asettamispäätös [Appointment decision]
OKM/69/040/2019.
O’Connor, K. E. (2008). “You choose to care”: Teachers, emotions and professional identity.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 117–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.11.008
Palsa, L., & Ruokamo, H. (2015). Behind the concepts of multiliteracies and media literacy in the
renewed Finnish core curriculum: A systematic literature review of peer-reviewed research.
International Journal of Media, Technology and Lifelong Learning, 11(2), 1–19. https://jour-
nals.hioa.no/index.php/seminar/article/view/2354
Pekkala, L., Pääjärvi, S., Palsa, L., Korva, S., & Löfgren, A. (2013). ME research in Finland: A
literature review. Finnish Centre for ME and Audiovisual Media. https://kavi.fi/sites/default/
files/documents/kirjallisuuskatsaus_en.pdf
Salomaa, S., & Mertala, P. (2019). An education-centred approach to early-years digital ME. In
I. Palaiologou & C. Gray (Eds.), Early learning at digital age. Sage.
Salomaa, S., Palsa, L., & Malinen, V. (Eds.). (2017). Opettajaopiskelijat ja mediakasvatus 2017.
[Teacher students and ME 2017]. KAVI http://www.mediataitokoulu.fi/opettajaopiskelijat.pdf
Souto-Manning, M., & Price-Dennis, D. (2012). Critically redefining and repositioning media
texts in early childhood teacher education: What if? And why? Journal of Early Childhood
Teacher Education, 33(4), 304–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2012.732669
Suoninen, A. (2008). Mediakasvatus päiväkodissa ja esiopetuksessa. [ME in kindergarten and
preschool]. Mediamuffinssi-hanke ja Jyväskylän yliopiston nykykulttuurin tutkimuskeskus.
Retrieved from https://staff.jyu.fi/Members/kuilju/mediakasvatus_paivakodissa_raportti.pdf
Suoninen, A. (2014). Lasten mediabarometri 2013. [Children’s media barometer 2013].
Nuorisotutkimusseura. http://www.nuorisotutkimusseura.fi/julkaisuja/lastenmediabarome-
tri2013.pdf
Tomljenović, R. (2019). Regulatory authorities for electronic media and media literacy –
Comparative analysis of the best European practices. Council of Europe. https://rm.coe.int/
regulatory-authorities-for-electronic-media/1680903a2a
Chapter 7
‘Too Little Attention Is Paid to Children
Who Require Specialised Support.’:
In-Service and Pre-service Teachers’ Views
on Policy and Practice in Early Childhood
Teacher Education in Finland
Mari Saha and Henri Pesonen
Abstract There have been moves towards more integrative and inclusive early
childhood education settings. This can be seen in policy documents as well as in the
everyday life in kindergartens. Inclusive early childhood education and care (ECEC)
requires self-reflection from teachers in relation to the extent they perceive them-
selves to be skilful and competent to engage with children with special educational
needs (e.g. developmental disabilities, learning difficulties) or various backgrounds
(e.g. children who are maltreated or neglected, children from LGBT families).
Teacher education has a significant role in educating qualified and competent future
teachers in the field of early childhood education. In this chapter, our aim is to
describe the context of inclusive Finnish ECEC after the most recent change in
policy and legislation in 2018. By summarising the research findings, our aim is to
illustrate the challenges in- and pre-service teachers face in encountering children
with diverse needs and backgrounds, as well as their views on how to improve the
current teacher education. Further, we also discuss how teacher education pro-
grammes can respond to these challenges by providing suggestions for policy and
practice.
M. Saha (*)
University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland
e-mail: mari.saha@tuni.fi
H. Pesonen
University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

Switzerland AG 2022
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95512-0_7
86 M. Saha and H. Pesonen
7.1 Introduction
Early childhood education and care in supporting children with diverse needs and
backgrounds.
Internationally, the field of education has moved towards more inclusive arrange-
ments in recent decades. Efforts have been made to reduce segregation by placing
all children together and dismantling special arrangements (e.g., Ferguson, 2008;
Savolainen, 2009; Pesonen et al., 2015), and education is organised in accordance
with international agreements, such as the Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994)
and United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (The
United Nations, 2006), that have been designed to ensure fair and equal treatment
for all. The goal has been to meet the needs of all learners regardless of their skill,
disability or background (Foreman & Arthur-Kelly, 2017). Finnish education is
committed to these agreements at all levels, from early childhood education to
higher education.
High-quality early childhood education and care (ECEC) is an effective means
of providing support to children with diverse needs and backgrounds (Moss &
Dahlberg, 2008; Melhuish et al., 2019). A report by Finnish Education Evaluation
Center (Vlasov et al., 2018) states that the quality indicators in Finnish ECEC have
been derived from the Act on Early Childhood Education and Care, the National
Core Curriculum for Early Childhood Education and Care (Finnish National Agency
of Education, 2018), and based on the ‘quality’ factors presented in national and
international research. These guidelines offer suggestions for policy and practice at
national and local levels by covering structural indicators (e.g. teacher qualifica-
tions, group-size, adult-child ratio) and process quality indicators (e.g. adult-child
interaction, instructional support, educational cooperation). Previous research on
the role of early childhood education in supporting children’s development and
learning has shown that good-quality early childhood education can significantly
strengthen children’s positive development (Sylva et al., 2004; Hall et al., 2013;
Sylva, 2014). In particular, children with support needs, such as those with various
developmental risk factors (e.g., learning difficulties, unfavourable growth environ-
ments, poverty, neurological issues), benefit from the quality pedagogy and care
they receive in their early years (Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation,
2014). It is essential that children’s developmental delays or learning difficulties are
detected at the earliest possible stage and that support is offered to children and their
families. Such support is intended to reduce or prevent the accumulation of prob-
lems (Guralnick & Bruder, 2019). However, even though support is recommended,
its availability and quality vary among early childhood education providers in
Finland (Pihlaja & Neitola, 2017; Alijoki & Pihlaja, 2011).
7 ‘Too Little Attention Is Paid to Children Who Require Specialised Support.’… 87
7.2 Inclusive ECEC in Finland
In Finland, early childhood education is based on the principle of inclusion, and its
aim is to offer all children equal opportunities for quality education and care.
Inclusion can be seen in values and ideology, and it actualises in pedagogical actions
(Booth, 2011; Viitala, 2018). In inclusive early childhood education, the children
with special needs are taken into account and diversity is valued (Pihlaja, 2018;
Viljamaa et al., 2018). Support does not only mean special arrangements; rather,
basic, high-quality education and care should be considered to be the primary forms
of support. In Finnish ECEC, special educational support is called support for
development and learning (Finnish National Agency for Education 2018). This sup-
port covers the general and more intensive special education support offered in kin-
dergarten settings. The aim is to implement early childhood education in such a way
that all children have an equal right to quality education and care regardless of their
individual support needs or background. The aim is to arrange the child’s early
childhood education services in a regular classroom so that all children are together.
It is critical to note that support services are delivered in the classroom; the child is
not taken to them (Alijoki & Pihlaja, 2011; Turja, 2017; Pihlaja & Neitola, 2017).
The most visible change towards inclusion in early childhood education services
has been the significant reduction in the number of special groups and integrated
special groups (Pihlaja & Neitola, 2017; Viljamaa & Takala, 2017). In accordance
with the principles of Finnish inclusive early childhood education, children with
special needs are placed in regular kindergarten groups instead of into special
groups. In inclusive early childhood education, support is provided by an early
childhood education teacher and a special education teacher, and there are also ser-
vices provided by a multidisciplinary team that is structured according to the child’s
needs (e.g., speech therapy, neuropsychological rehabilitation/training). The aim is
to increase the availability of support by allocating special educational resources in
a more inclusive way.
In Finland, the accessibility of support in ECEC is not dependent on a child’s
diagnosis; rather, it is based on ECEC teachers’ and special teachers’ pedagogical
observations and assessments of the child’s needs made by ECEC teachers and spe-
cial teachers (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2018; Heiskanen, 2018). In
Finland’s national ECEC curriculum (Finnish National Agency for Education,
2018), a child’s support needs are not described using diagnoses or labels. Instead,
by adopting the concept of support for development and learning, various diverse
needs are covered. Finland’s ECEC curriculum highlights both individual and envi-
ronmental factors in determining support needs. If a child’s need for support is due
to severe developmental delays, disability, illness or socio-emotional development
challenges, the child may need full-time and more intensive support. In this case,
special group arrangements are considered but placements are flexible and moni-
tored regularly. The support arrangements are planned and implemented by multi-
disciplinary teams in conjunction with parents (Finnish National Agency for
Education, 2018).
7.3 eacher Education Responding to Policy and Practice:

T
Teachers’ Competence and Attitudes Towards Diverse
Needs and Inclusive Education
Identifying support needs and planning effective practices requires teachers to have
special educational knowledge and pedagogical expertise. Because of inclusive
arrangements for dealing with children with special needs, teachers face increas-
ingly complicated challenges regarding children’s diverse needs in their learning,
development and well-being in regular classrooms (Florian, 2017). Individual sup-
port needs may be due to a child’s individual factors (e.g., developmental delays,
neurological causes) or environmental factors (e.g. neglected care, poverty) (Nislin
& Pesonen, 2019). Therefore, the range of support needs that teachers face in their
daily work is wide. Teachers are required to have competencies that enable them to
address the needs of all students (Paju et al., 2016). However, internationally, criti-
cism has been directed at teacher education, stating that it is inadequate in meeting
the current professional needs of teachers (Ashman, 2010; Symeonidou & Phtiaka,
2009). Even though inclusion has been the leading ideology in education, there has
been little change in teacher education to improve coverage of this content (Nislin
& Pesonen, 2019; Forlin, 2010). Courses focusing on special educational content
are often separate instead of being integrated within the regular curriculum. This
may be harmful for inclusion and could reinforce the idea that educating children
with special needs requires a specialist (Forlin, 2010). Whatever the delivery mode
of special educational content is, inclusion should be seen as a shared ideology, and
courses covering the contents of inclusion should prepare teachers with critical
skills and knowledge to dismantle the barriers to education for all (Slee, 2010).
In Finland, ECEC teachers are highly educated compared to those in many other
countries (see e.g. Sims & Waniganayake, 2015; OECD, 2006; 2012) and staff qual-
ifications are defined in law (Law 540/2018). ECEC teachers are required to have a
university-level bachelor’s degree in education which includes pedagogical and pro-
fessional studies in ECEC. Social pedagogues in ECEC hold a bachelor’s degree in
the social sciences from a university of applied sciences (the other sector in Finland’s
binary higher education system), which include either 60 credits in ECEC or social
pedagogy. Nursery nurses hold a vocational upper secondary education qualifica-
tion in social welfare and health care or another suitable programmes that include
study focusing on the education and care of young children. For ECEC special
teachers there is additional training in special education, or they should have a mas-
ter’s degree in education with a major in special education. According to the law, at
least one of three team members should have qualification as an ECEC teacher.
Teacher education programmes in ECEC have a significant task to ensure that
in-service and pre-service teachers are equipped with the skills and knowledge
needed to work with children with diverse needs and backgrounds. In our previous
study (Nislin & Pesonen, 2019), we found that students find it challenging to encoun-
ter children with more intensive diverse needs, such as a developmental disability or
an autism spectrum disorder. Problems related to children’s socio-emotional
development were also perceived as challenging. On the other hand, students found
themselves to be more competent in working with children with religious back-
grounds or from families with drug abuse issues. We found that only age and work
experience in teaching were correlated with self-perceived competence, not the
number of credits from special education studies. These findings are in line with
previous studies examining ECEC professionals (Nislin et al., 2015) and primary
and secondary school teachers’ attitudes and competence (Ojala, 2017; Kokko et al.,
2014; Kontu et al., 2017; Nislin & Pesonen, 2019).
Also, a report by the Finnish Educational Assessment Centre highlighted short-
comings in teachers’ ability to identify support needs and implement supportive
practices and there are delays in accessing support services early enough (Repo
et al., 2018). Similarly, a report commissioned by the Ministry of Education
(Eskelinen & Hjelt, 2017) raised concerns about the adequacy of resources in imple-
menting early childhood education for children with special needs. Studies have
identified challenges in the realisation of inclusion, such as teachers’ attitudes to
children with more intensive support needs (Mulhivill et al., 2002) and their aware-
ness of diverse needs and competence in catering to them (Kiyini & Desai, 2007).
In this chapter, we have focused on in-service and pre-service ECEC teachers’
views on special education course content in encountering diverse needs and back-
grounds in university level teacher education. We further investigated their aspira-
tions on how to improve current teacher education. It is important to understand
what students gain during their studies and what they perceive to be the shortcom-
ings of their education in order to improve teacher training programmes so that they
better cater to the demands of ECEC teachers’ practical work (see also e.g. Repo
et al., 2018).
7.4 Methods
7.4.1 Participants
The research presented in this chapter is part of a broader international comparative

study comparing Finland and Hong Kong aimed at finding out about student teach-
ers’ perceptions of inclusion and their ability to encounter diversity in 2017–2018.
In this Finnish sub-study, we focused on examining the expectations and needs of
in-service and pre-service early childhood education teachers in relation to the
themes of inclusive education. Participants in this sub-study were from the
University of Helsinki. The participant data were drawn from pre-service teachers
in the early childhood education programme and in-service ECEC teachers attend-
ing a special education qualification programme. They all attended a mandatory
special education course targeted at all students in the faculty. The main study
included students from several programmes (including classroom teacher educa-
tion, special education, subject teacher education). In this sub-study we focused on
only early childhood education students. There were ten in-service and 26 pre-
service teachers. Participants (all female) were 21–56 (M = 31.7, SD = 0.7) years
old. Students attending the special education qualification programme were in-
service early childhood education teachers who had already earned a bachelor’s
degree, with a minor in special education (25 credit points), teacher qualification
studies and working experience in teaching.
7.4.2 Survey
Data were collected with online questionnaire on pre- and in-service teachers’ back-
ground characteristics and with open-ended questions on their perceptions of and
expectations for teacher education training. The survey also included items related
to students’ study well-being and burnout, sense of belonging and self-assessed
competence in encountering children with diverse needs and backgrounds. Those
results were reported in our previous study (please see Nislin & Pesonen, 2019).
The open-ended questions used in our current study were:
1. Please, describe how the current teacher education programme develops your
abilities to encounter children with diverse needs and backgrounds?
2. What expectations do you have for special education studies, and how do you
think you will benefit from them working in the ECEC?
Answers to the open-ended questions were received from 35 participants. All the
required information was given prior to the agreement to participate, emphasising
that participation is fully voluntary. Written consent was received from the partici-
pants. The anonymity of the participants was guaranteed, and they were informed of
their right to withdraw at any time during the study.
7.4.3 Data Analysis
Data were analysed using an inductive content analysis technique (Schreier, 2012).
Such an approach is effective when addressing specific research objectives and
questions (Thomas, 2006). Inductive content analysis consists of five steps: (1) the
data are prepared for analysis; (2) familiarisation of the raw data; (3) coding and
categorising, from which key themes are identified; (4) recognising a thematic
framework based on these key themes; and (5) revision and refinement of the
emerged themes using the thematic framework (Thomas, 2006). The literature fur-
ther suggests that the analysis should produce three to eight main themes so that it
can be considered a complete inductive content analysis; more than eight major
themes is considered to mean incomplete inductive coding (Schreier, 2012;
Thomas, 2006).
First, the qualitative survey responses were placed into a Microsoft Word docu-
ment from the Excel file. The word document consisted of six pages, with 35 open
ended answers with an average length of 37 words, that were imported into Atlas.ti
8 Software. The capabilities of the software (coding and grouping the codes) were
used as a tool for analysis. After preparing the data for analysis, the raw material
was read multiple times to get a general understanding of the data. Next in the
analysis, the research questions were initially used in categorising the data and iden-
tifying emerging themes (e.g. respondents experienced difficulties in encountering
special needs, theoretical knowledge on diverse needs, children’s support needs,
aspirations for practical training, and training for milder learning difficulties, etc.),
which was followed by recognising a thematic framework. This was followed by
revision and refinement of the themes (codes and code groups in Atlas) that led to
three main themes (Thomas, 2006). For the purposes of ensuring trustworthiness,
researcher triangulation (Patton, 2015) was utilised throughout the analysis to dis-
cuss the codes and themes. The authors held four data validation meetings (Given,
2008) at which the themes were discussed until consensus among the authors was
reached.
7.5 Findings
Analysis of the open-ended survey answers resulted in six subthemes, which were
divided into three main themes: (1) education on diverse needs and backgrounds,
(2) aspirations for knowledge building and (3) expectations for practical training.
The first main theme of education on diverse needs and backgrounds was related to
the two other main themes related to expectations for improving the current teacher
education on its theoretical and practical contents. The main themes and subthemes
are presented in Fig. 7.1. Data extracts can be identified from the codes “PRE(n)”
for pre-service and “IN(n)” for in-service teachers.
7.5.1 Education on Diverse Needs and Backgrounds
7.5.1.1 Encountering Diversity
The survey responses showed that an aim of teacher education was to shape stu-
dents’ attitudes to be more accepting and understanding towards the learners with
diverse needs and backgrounds. Such attitude education was perceived as helping to
encounter all children no matter what their support needs were. For example, the
respondents considered that during their teacher education, that students are
“encouraged to reflect” (PRE33) and “critically assess” (PRE2) their personal prej-
udices and attitudes [about diverse learners]” (x), which enhances students “to
become accepting” (PRE12) early childhood education teachers.
Fig. 7.1 Survey respondents’ views on the teacher education and aspirations for improvement
The responses further indicated that the teacher training gave a “wide spectrum
of ways to ponder and engage with things” (PRE22), which was also believed “...to
help to encounter children and adults in a new way, more professional way” (IN31)
and overall learn to “...encounter different kinds of people” (PRE28), as well as
“gain respect” (IN32). Furthermore, the respondents appreciated how the education
helped them “perceive diverse needs as being ‘usual’ and ‘normal’, and not some-
thing that is different from the ordinary” (PRE3). The participants also recognised
how important it is to be “truly present” (IN7) when working with children with
diverse needs and backgrounds The following extract especially demonstrates this:
During my studying, I have been able to reinforcing my views about how it is
best to engage with a child as an individual, who has individual needs, but at the
same time see children’s similarities/combining factors. It is important that the edu-
cator creates a safe environment, in which everyone can accept their own and oth-
ers’ diversity (all children are special and diverse!). (PRE12).
7.5.1.2 Mild Support Needs
Although some said that the education provides a solid foundation for future profes-
sion, most of the survey responses indicated that currently the teachers being trained
in early childhood education gave students only basic information about diverse
learning needs and there was really “only one course about diverse learning needs
and backgrounds” (PRE14) if students do not independently take an extra course
about special educational needs. For example, the respondents mentioned that the
teacher training “focuses mainly on [mild] learning difficulties” (PRE18) with
“very little special educational needs” (PRE10) (e.g. disabilities), which therefore
does not “provide enough readiness to confront children with special support needs
(children with IEPs)” (PRE26). Overall, the survey responses indicated that not
having received enough education on various children’s support needs was chal-
lenging for the respondents, as they were not prepared to meet children with more
demanding special educational needs.
7.5.2 Aspirations for Knowledge Building
7.5.2.1 Recognising and Naming Challenges
Since the open-ended answers demonstrated that the degree programme gave basic
information about diverse needs, the survey responses further indicated aspirations
for more content about recognising and naming the existing challenges. For exam-
ple, the respondents mentioned that the teacher training just touched the surface of
issues that were considered important: “There is too little attention paid to children
who require specialised support. This should be resourced a lot more, as the number
of these children is constantly increasing.” (IN29) The survey responses further
indicated that the teacher education appeared to be based on the ethos of not identi-
fying any children according to their diagnosis (see ECEC curriculum, Finnish
National Agency of Education, 2018), which was perceived as not supporting stu-
dents in their future professions. For example: “Studies about special educational
needs are scarce, so...there are too few professional skills in recognising them.”
(PRE16), and further some mentioned: “I hope to get more information about chil-
dren’s specific learning needs” (PRE34).
7.5.2.2 Significant Support Needs
The respondents further expressed how important it would be to have information

about significant support needs during the degree programme. As mentioned earlier,
it appeared that the programme did not prepare future teachers enough about such
support needs that refer to “traumatised children” (PRE18) and “social problems
(substance abuse etc.)” (PRE4). The survey answers showed that the respondents
specifically aspired to have content about issues related to children’s mental health
and well-being, as overall “[early childhood education] children groups are rather
challenging these days, in which wide understanding of special needs is
required” (IN32).
7.5.3 Expectations About Practicality
7.5.3.1 Tools and Materials
Although the survey respondents expressed how they appreciated sharing practical ideas
based on discussion during small group teaching instead of during big lectures, the
respondents would have preferred to have more practical tools and materials during their
programme. The responses showed that the students wished to learn more about real-life
practices instead of learning theory about diverse learning needs and backgrounds; for
example: “I wish to gain tangible ‘tools’ to face different kinds of support needs…”
(IN19). At the moment, the students had to “...independently search and gather” (IN23)
information on practicalities used in assessing and teaching children.
7.5.3.2 Practicums
Students recognised the importance of teaching practicums for learning about every-
day practices from qualified early childhood educators about confronting all children.
For example: “The practicum gives the best preparedness at the moment for encoun-
tering diversity and backgrounds.” (IN25). Although students expressed how useful
the practicums were, yet they also wished that: “...in my opinion the practicum period
could be longer.” (IN30) Overall, the subtheme of practicums was not discussed as
much in the survey data as the practical tools and materials subtheme.
7.6 Discussion
The globally increased inclusive early childhood education arrangements have also
challenged the practical work in the field and teacher education programmes. In this
chapter, we were specifically interested in examining the current state of inclusive
early childhood education and care, and how the Finnish teacher education responds
to the actual professional needs of teachers. To illustrate this, we studied in- and
pre-service teachers’ perceptions on the current teacher education and how it could
be improved. Our findings showed that teacher education provided a general under-
standing of diverse needs and backgrounds and provided a basis for professional
growth and acquiring accepting attitudes. Despite the respondents being generally
satisfied, our findings demonstrated that teacher education could benefit from more
specific special education content and practical training.
Although respondents were both in- and pre-service teachers, it was apparent across
the entire sample that teacher education mainly focuses on educating about milder
diverse needs. However, more severe support needs such as mental health issues and
diverse family backgrounds should be covered more, which is in line with previous find-
ings (Ojala, 2017; Kontu et al., 2017; Nislin & Pesonen, 2019). Based on the findings, it
appeared that inclusive early childhood education is challenging teachers’ competence
as the needs and demands of children differ from what the training currently provides.
Therefore, it appears that achieving inclusion could be problematic if teachers are not
well-enough trained for identifying and recognising the wide spectrum of diverse needs
(see also Kontu et al., 2017). Previous research has shown that teachers’ competence in
catering for the needs of diverse learners (Kiyini & Desai, 2007) and attitudes to chil-
dren with more severe support needs (Mulhivill et al., 2002) are crucial for inclusion.
Perhaps the teacher education with its lack of content on a range of disabilities and
social problems and almost “the culture of not labelling” any children does not provide
enough competencies to foster inclusion, which at the same time is stated to be one of
the main goals in national and international policy documents.
Further, it is possible that teacher education should place more emphasis on
strengthening the teachers’ professional development by a providing realistic view
of the nature of the work and the challenges. This was also apparent in our findings,
as the respondents would have liked more practical tools, as well as extended practi-
cums. This would allow students to recognise the roles relevant for their profession
more. In Finnish inclusive ECEC, support for development and learning is organ-
ised in multi-professional teams (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2018).
This means, that special educational expertise and consultation are available to
ECEC teachers in regular classrooms. Although it is evident in the results that the
respondents who acquire more special educational expertise, it is not solely an indi-
vidual teacher’s responsibility to have all the knowledge and skills to cater needs of
all learners (including those with severe support needs). Teacher training should
include a stronger emphasis on the content on multi-professional collaboration. For
instance, the students should be provided with more opportunities to share their
views on what it means to collaborate and what their professional qualities are, as
students need time to reflect on what their responsibilities and expertise in inclusive
ECEC are (see also Pesonen et al., 2020). This could lead to students recognising
that it is not necessary to be a specialist in all support needs, instead sharing respon-
sibility and knowledge should be encouraged and appreciated.
This study has its limitations. The reader must be cautious when reading the results:
making generalisations is not recommended, as the study has a small data set that was
collected from students at a single university. Furthermore, the participants had a
range of backgrounds and expertise in ECEC, and this needs to be acknowledged
when interpreting the results. However, this did not interfere with the findings. One
limitation is also that this study is only based on the views of students and no data
were collected from lecturers and professors nor were curricula documents investi-
gated, for example. These matters should be addressed in future studies. Also, data
should be collected from several universities. Furthermore, data in the form of inter-
views with students and university teachers could lead to more generalisable results.
7.6.1 I mplications for Policy and Practice in University-Level

ECEC Teacher Education
In this chapter, we shed light on the current state of Finnish inclusive ECEC and
addressed the teachers’ challenges in encountering the needs of diverse learners. We
demonstrated that ensuring inclusion in ECEC is a multidimensional process in
which continuous collaboration and dialogue should be encouraged between
students, faculty and the kindergartens. It is also important to foster students with
lifelong learning skills as it is not the sole responsibility of universities to prepare
students for life in the workforce.
The need for improving the current state of support services in ECEC and teacher
competencies in catering for children with diverse needs have also been raised in
previous policy reports commissioned by the Ministry of Education and Culture
(Eskelinen & Hjelt, 2017) and the Finnish Education Evaluation Center (Repo et al.,
2018).This requires ECEC teacher education to consist of more content on multi-
professional teamwork. For example, during teacher education it is important to
familiarise students with perspectives on effective teamwork. This would equip stu-
dents for working as ECEC expert members in multi-professional teams (that
include psychologists and therapists, for instance) in kindergartens. Teamwork will
also include co-teaching with ECEC special teachers to guarantee quality early
childhood education for all children. Furthermore, collaboration with parents in
early identification and intervention for children with diverse needs should be
emphasised throughout the teacher training, and specifically during practicums.
Although our study has its limitations and future studies are unquestionably
needed, it is clear that training for encountering children who require specialised
support (e.g. significant disabilities and mental health problems) should be more
recognised and emphasised in the courses taught in university-level ECEC (see also
Nilsin & Pesonen, 2019). Such content would not only benefit current and future
teachers, but it would also create opportunities to improve multidisciplinary col-
laboration and the inclusion of all children.
References
Alijoki, A., & Pihlaja, P. (2011). Pedagogiset rakenteet ja ratkaisut lasten erityisten tuen tar-
peiden näkökulmasta [Pedagogical structures and solutions from the perspective of children
with diverse needs]. In E. Hujala & L. Turja, (Eds.), Varhaiskasvatuksen käsikirja [Handbook
of early childhood education] (pp. 260–273). PS-kustannus.
Ashman, A. (2010). Modelling inclusive practices in postgraduate tertiary education
courses. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(7), 667–680. https://doi.
org/10.1080/13603111003778429
Booth, T. (2011). The name of the rose: Inclusive values into action in teacher education. Prospects.
Quarterly Review of Comparative Education, 41(3), 303–318.
Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation. (2014). Children with disability in inclusive
early childhood education and care: Literature review. Centre for Education Statistics and
Evaluation. New South Wale Department of Education and Communities: Sydney, Australia.
Available: https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/media/downloads/our-services/children-and-youth/
ecec/funding/community-preschool-funding/LiteratureReview- PDSP.PDF
Eskelinen, M., & Hjelt, H. (2017). Varhaiskasvatuksen henkilöstö ja lapsen tuen toteuttaminen
[Early childhood professionals and implementation of the support of children]. Valtakunnallinen
selvitys [National report of Ministry of Education and Culture]. Opetus-ja kulttuuriministeriön
julkaisuja, 39.
Ferguson, D. L. (2008). International trends in inclusive education: The continuing challenge teach
each one and everyone. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 23, 109–120.
Finnish National Agency for Education (FNAE). (2018). National core curriculum for early child-
hood education and care.
Florian, L. (2017). The heart of inclusive education is collaboration. Pedagogy, 126, 28–253.
Foreman, P., & Arthur-Kelly, M. (2017). Introducing inclusion in education. In P. Foreman (Ed.),
c (5th ed., pp. 2–41). Cengage.
Forlin, C. (2010). Reframing teacher education for inclusion. In C. Forlin (Ed.), Teacher education
for inclusion (pp. 3–12). Routledge.
Given, L. M. (2008). The SAGE encyclopaedia of qualitative research methods. SAGE Publications.
Guralnick, M. J., & Bruder, M. B. (2019). Early intervention. In Handbook of intellectual dis-
abilities (pp. 717–741). Springer.
Hall, J. S., Sylva, K., Sammons, P., Melhuish, E., Sirja Blatchford, I., & Taggart, B. (2013). Can
preschool protect young children’s cognitive and social development? Variation by center qual-
ity and duration of attendance. School Effectiveness & School Improvement, 24(2), 155–176.
Heiskanen, N. (2018). Tuen prosessit ja lähtökohdat [Support processes and principles]. In
P. Pihlaja & R. Viitala (Eds.) Varhaiserityiskasvatus [Early childhood special education].
(pp. 95–118) Jyväskylä: PS-kustannus, 95–118.
Kokko, T., Pesonen, H., Polet, J., Kontu, E., Ojala, T., & Pirttimaa, R. (2014). Erityinen tuki
perusopetuksen oppilaille, joilla on tuen tarpeen taustalla vakavia psyykkisiä ongelmia,
kehitysvamma- tai autismin kirjon diagnoosi. VETURI-hankkeen kartoitus 2013 [Special
support support for students with social-emotional problems, profound or severe disabili-
ties, or autism. VETURI-project survey results 2013]. University of Helsinki & University of
Jyväskylä, Finland: Yliopistopaino.
Kontu, E., Ojala, T., Pesonen, H., Kokko, T., & Pirttimaa, R. (2017). “Vaativan erityisen tuen käsite
ja tutkimustuloksia” (VETURI-hanke 2011–2015). [The concept of significant support needs
and research results]. In Vaativa erityinen tuki esi- ja perusopetuksessa. Kehittämisryhmän lop-
puraportti. [significant support needs in pre- and basic education. The final report by the devel-
opment group]. Finnish ministry of education and culture's publications 2017:34: Helsinki.
Kuyini, A. B., & Desai, I. (2007). Principals’ and teachers’ attitudes and knowledge of inclusive
education as predictors of effective teaching practices in Ghana. Journal of Research in Special
Educational Needs, 7(2), 104–113.
Melhuish, E., Barnes, J., Gardiner, J., Siraj, I., Sammons, P., Sylva, K., & Taggart, B. (2019). A
study of the longterm influence of early childhood education and care on the risk for develop-
ing special educational needs. Exceptionality Education International, 29(3), 22–41.
Mulvihill, B. A., Shearer, D., & Van Horn, M. L. (2002). Training, experience, and child care pro-
viders’ perceptions of inclusion. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17(2), 197–215.
Moss, P., & Dahlberg, G. (2008). Beyond quality in early childhood education and care languages
of evaluation. New Zealand Journal of Teachers’ Work, 5(1), 3–12.
Nislin, M. A., Paananen, M., Repo, L., Sajaniemi, N., & Sims, M. (2015). Working with children
with special needs in Finnish kindergartens: Professionals and/or specialists? South African
Journal of Childhood Education, 5(3), 1–10.
Nislin, M., & Pesonen, H. (2019). Associations of self-perceived competence, well-being and
sense of belonging among pre-and in-service teachers encountering children with diverse
needs. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 34(4), 424–440.
OECD. (2006). Starting strong II: Early childhood education and care. OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2012). Starting strong III – A quality toolbox for early childhood education and care.
OECD Publishing.
Ojala, T. (2017). “When pupils have emotional and behavioral disorders in comprehensive school –
Teachers experiences.” Doctoral dissertation. Jyväskylä University Printing House: Jyväskylä.
Paju, B., Räty, L., Pirttimaa, R., & Kontu, E. (2016). The school staff’s perception of their ability
to teach special educational needs pupils in inclusive settings in Finland. International Journal
of Inclusive Education, 20(8), 801–815.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. SAGE.
Pesonen, H. V., Rytivaara, A., Palmu, I., & Wallin, A. (2020). Teachers’ stories on sense of belong-
ing in co-teaching relationship. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00313831.2019.1705902
Pesonen, H., Itkonen, T., Jahnukainen, M., Kontu, E., Kokko, T., Ojala, T., & Pirttimaa, R. (2015).
The implementation of new special education legislation in Finland. Educational Policy, 29(1),
162–178.
Pihlaja, P. (2018). Ryhmä erilaisten lasten kasvun paikkana [Development of diverse chil-
dren in social groups]. In P. Pihlaja & R. Viitala (Eds.), Varhaiserityiskasvatus (pp. 79–93).
PS-kustannus.
Pihlaja, P., & Neitola, M. (2017). Varhaiserityiskasvatus muuttuvassa varhaiskasvatuksen kentässä
[Early childhood special education in change]. Kasvatus ja Aika, 11(3), 80–91.
Repo, L., Paananen, M., Mattila, V., Lerkkanen, M. K., Eskelinen, M., Gammelgård, L., ..., &
Marjanen, J. (2018). Varhaiskasvatussuunnitelman perusteiden 2016 toimeenpanon arviointi:
varhaiskasvatussuunnitelmien käyttöönotto ja sisällöt [Implementation evaluation of the 2016
national core curriculum for early childhood education and care – Deployment and contents
of early childhood education and care curricula (2018)]. Julkaisut/Kansallinen koulutuksen
arviointikeskus [Report of Finnish Education Evaluation Center], (2018, 16).
Savolainen, H. (2009). Responding to diversity and striving for excellence: The case of Finland.
Prospects, 39, 281–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-009-9125-y
Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. SAGE.
Sims, M., & Waniganayake, M. (2015). The role of staff in quality improvement in early child-
hood. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 3(5), 187–194.
Slee, R. (2010). Political economy, inclusive education and teacher education. In C. Forlin (Ed.),
Teacher education for inclusion (pp. 39–48). Routledge.
Sylva, K. (2014). The role of families and pre-school in educational disadvantage. Oxford Review
of Education, 40, 680–695.
Sylva, K., Melhuish, E. C., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Taggart, B. (2004). The effective
provision of preschool education (EPPE) project. Effective pre-school education. DfES /
Institute of Education, University of London.
Symeonidou, S., & Phtiaka, H. (2009). Using teachers’ prior knowledge, attitudes and beliefs to
develop in-service teacher education courses for inclusion. Teaching and Teacher Education,
25(4), 543–550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.02.001
The United Nations. (2006). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Treaty Series,
2515, 3.
Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for Analysing qualitative evaluation data.
American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214005283748
Turja, L. (2017). Lasten osallisuus varhaiskasvatuksessa [Children’s participation in early child-
hood education]. In E. Hujala & L. Turja (Eds.) Varhaiskasvatuksen käsikirja (Handbook of
early childhood education] (4th ed) Jyväskylä: PS-Kustannus.
UNESCO and Ministry of Education and Science Spain. (1994). The Salamanca statement and
framework for action on special needs education. UNESCO.
Viitala, R. (2018). Inkluusio ja inklusiivinen varhaiskasvatus [inclusion and inclusive early
childhood education]. In P. Pihlaja & R. Viitala (Eds.), Varhaiserityiskasvatus (pp. 51–77)
PS-kustannus.
Viljamaa, E., & Takala, M. (2017). Varhaiserityisopettajien ajatuksia työhön kohdistunei-
sta muutoksista [Early childhood special teachers’ perceptions on changes in their work].
Varhaiskasvatuksen Tiedelehti — JECER, 6(2), 207–229.
Viljamaa, E., Juutinen, J., Estola, E., & Puroila, A.-M. (2018). Puhuvaksi puhuvien pariin: kom-
munikaatiomaisema (inklusiivisessa) päiväkotiryhmässä [Learning communication: Verbal
skills in inclusive ECEC]. In P. Granö, M. Hiltunen, & T. Jokela (Eds.), Suhteessa maailmaan.
Ympäristöt oppimisen avaajina (pp. 251–268). Lapland University Press.
Vlasov, J., Salminen, J., Repo, L., Karila, K., Kinnunen, S., Mattila, V., Nukarinen, T., Parrila, S. &
Sulonen, H. (2018). Varhaiskasvatuksen laadun arvioinnin perusteet ja suositukset [National
guidelines and recommendations for early childhood education assessment]. Kansallinen kou-
lutuksen arviointikeskus, Julkaisut; No. 24: 2018.
Part II
Children and Families in ECEC
Chapter 8
Teachers’ Understanding of Children’s
Right to Participation in Finnish Early
Childhood Education and Care
Marina Lundkvist
Abstract Every child has rights, not only as a human being but also as a participant
in early childhood education and care (ECE). The rights of children are well docu-
mented in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and in Finnish steering
documents for ECE. This paper specifically focuses on children’s participation as
one of the key rights in Finnish ECE. In a previous study (Mansikka and Lundkvist,
Nordisk tidsskrift for pedagogikk & kritikk 5:111–129, 2019), it became clear that
the focus of current Finnish ECE is more oriented towards learning than nursery
care, more towards children’s participation than simply teacher-oriented activities
and more towards children’s own perspectives and rights. This study examines in
detail the views of 10 early childhood education teachers on important aspects of
children’s right to participation in early learning environments in Finland. The data
used in this paper is based on interviews with early childhood education teachers in
ECE. Content analysis was performed on this empirical data to identify key themes
in teachers’ understanding of children’s rights to participation in ECE. The results
indicate that teachers are aware of the importance of the curriculum and the idea of
children’s participation, but that the concept of rights generally needs to be deep-
ened in pedagogical activities.
8.1 Introduction
The last decade has seen an increase in studies indicating the importance of young
children’s right to participation, not only as members of society but also as unique
individuals who are active in their own life in ECE and school. According to
UNICEF (2007), for example, all kinds of education undoubtedly play an important
M. Lundkvist (*)
Nord university, Bodø, Norway
e-mail: marina.lundkvist@helsinki.fi

Switzerland AG 2022
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95512-0_8
102 M. Lundkvist
role in mediating and implementing children’s rights. Nevertheless, as seen in vari-

ous studies (for example, Brownlee, 2009; Berthelsen, 2009; Mansikka & Lundkvist,
2019; Leinonen et al., 2014; Kangas, 2016), the educational dimensions of chil-
dren’s rights have often been eclipsed by political or juridical questions. On the
other hand, over the last decade, increasing interest has been directed at children’s
right to participation in the Finnish context (see, in particular, Mansikka &
Lundkvist, 2019; also, Turja & Vuorisalo, 2017; Kangas et al., 2018). One key
framework, at least for Finnish and Scandinavian research in the field of Early
Childhood Education and Care (ECEC), has been participatory learning. This para-
digm emphasizes the child’s own perspectives and children as active agents of their
own learning and explicitly refers to a holistic understanding of children’s participa-
tion in ECE (Dahlberg et al., 2013; Sommer et al., 2009).
A study by Kangas (2016) concerning educators’ perspectives on and concep-
tions of children’s participation in everyday pedagogic practices found that chil-
dren’s voices were considered important by educators. The results also showed that
even though children’s right to make independent choices and take initiatives was
acknowledged, their real chances of participating in decision-making processes and
pedagogical processes were weak. The main reason for this was that both children’s
competencies and educators’ professional skills were seen to inhibit such participa-
tion. Another study (Mansikka & Lundkvist, 2019) on the role of children’s per-
spectives and children’s participation in recent Finnish steering documents, such as
the National Core Curriculum for Early Childhood Education and Care (FNAE,
2018) and the previous curriculum from 2005, revealed that greater emphasis is now
placed on the rights of the child, the child’s own perspective, and participation as a
new ideological orientation of ECEC. However, in this context, it has also become
clear that incorporation of children’s perspectives and children’s participation into
the culture of ECEC has been relatively slow in Finland compared to other Nordic
countries (Einarsdottir et al., 2015).
Steering documents are policy documents, guidelines, and recommendations,
not handbooks for how a child’s right to participation should be realized in
ECEC. According to research (Kronqvist et al., 2020; Mansikka & Lundkvist,
2019) a gap exists between the theoretical understanding of children’s rights to par-
ticipation within the ECEC literature and teachers’ understanding of, as well as their
willingness and ability to design, educational activities based on the principle of
participation. Therefore, it is important to increase understanding of the intercon-
nection between children’s rights and education and of the perceptions of teachers
and staff working in ECEC on children’s rights as general principles and as a value
base for educational activities.
Based on these premises, I wished to focus on teachers who had quite recently
graduated and discuss their understanding of children’s right to participation in
ECEC. The study’s research questions were “What do early childhood education
teachers consider to be children’s right to participation in early childhood educa-
tion?” and “how do teachers understand children’s rights to participation related to
daily life in early childhood education?” In this paper, the analysis of teachers’
understanding is related to Finnish policy documents, such as the national core
8 Teachers’ Understanding of Children’s Right to Participation in Finnish Early… 103
curriculum, and research primarily situated within the field of early childhood
education.
8.2 hildren’s Right to Participation – The Finnish

C
ECEC Context
Finland has witnessed considerable reforms in ECEC in recent years, and the
national steering system of early childhood education and care has undergone major
changes. Today, several documents guide ECEC work in Finland. At the highest
level, such work is guided by the Early Childhood Education and Care Act
(540/2018) and the Child Welfare Act (417/2007). These acts, especially the Early
Childhood Education and Care Act, are based on the UN Convention on the Rights
of the Child (1989). In turn, two steering documents guide the practical work of the
ECEC sector: (1) the Finnish National Core Curriculum for Early Childhood
Education and Care (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2018) and (2) the
Finnish National Core Curriculum for Pre-Primary Education (Finnish National
Agency for Education, 2016). The first document guides the work for children under
the age of six and the latter the work with children during their pre-primary year
(Lundkvist & Harju-Luukkainen, 2021).
According to the Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (Vlasov et al., 2019,
p.18), the reformed Act on Early Childhood Education and Care and a mandatory
National Core Curriculum for Early Childhood Education and Care “now inform
the development of ECEC content in greater detail and a more goal-oriented manner
than before”. This means, for example, that children’s right to participation is con-
nected to the concept of learning, and the national core curriculum has shifted
towards a stronger learning framework than in previous iterations. This consider-
able turn towards emphasizing education, and, in the most recent curriculum, the
stronger emphasis on children’s learning, rights, and participation, in many ways
indicates a paradigm shift in Finnish ECEC. In turn, such a shift might result in a
certain re-orientation of the daily work with children (Karila, 2016; Mansikka &
Lundkvist, 2019).
According to the National Core Curriculum for Early Childhood Education and
Care (2018, 31–32), all activities in ECEC should be based on children’s rights. At
the same time, an all-inclusive operational culture promotes participation, equality,
and equity in all activities in ECEC. In the core curriculum, this is more precisely
expressed, as the following extract demonstrates.
The initiatives, views and opinions of children, personnel and guardians are
respected. This requires conscious development of structures and practices that pro-
mote participation. Children develop their understanding of the community, rights,
responsibility, and consequences of choices through participation. Participation is
strengthened when the children are encountered sensitively and when they experi-
ence that they are seen and heard. The involvement of children and guardians in
planning, implementing, and assessing the activities promotes their participation.
Each member of the personnel is an important part of the community. (2018, 31–32).
104 M. Lundkvist
Finnish early childhood education and care stresses the promotion of every
child’s best interest. According to Vlasov et al. (2019, p. 41), all children have the
right to receive support for their holistic growth, learning and wellbeing.
Moreover, when.
defining ECEC quality, a view of the intrinsic value of childhood, according to
which each child is unique and valuable just as he or she is, takes centre stage. These
values are based on the child’s rights, and they are realised from the perspective of
the principles of full membership in community and inclusion, among other
things (Emilson & Johansson, 2018).
As demonstrated, this understanding of children’s rights and participation is in
accordance with, for example, the national core curriculum for ECEC, and is based
on a socio-cultural curriculum tradition that takes a broad and holistic view of the
child. This is a common feature throughout the Nordic countries (Rogoff, 2008;
Garvis et al., 2019). In Finnish core curriculums, concepts such as democracy and
influence are hardly mentioned, while participation, children’s rights and their own
perspectives have gained increasing visibility (Mansikka & Lundkvist, 2019).
8.3 articipation – A Key Aspect of Democracy

P
and Children’s Rights
The Finnish educational system, including ECEC, is based on general principles

and democratic values, such as the equal value of all human beings, the inviolability
of human life, equality, respect, tolerance and solidarity, and these principles are
expressed in ECEC steering documents (Vlasov et al., 2019). Johansson et al.
(2018) assert that ECEC values should be translated into visible and concrete goals
that guide activities in ECEC. Moreover, this should extend from the national level
down to the level of pedagogical activities. According to the Finnish national core
curriculum (FNAE, 2018, p. 27) “active and responsible participation and involve-
ment create [the] foundation for a democratic and sustainable future, which requires
skills and desire in the individual to participate in different activities and trust in
their own possibilities of making differences”. Active and responsible participation
also requires the implementation of childrens’ right to be heard and to express them-
selves, their opinions, and their thoughts. Emilson and Johansson (2009, p. 68) and
Lansdown (2011, p. 9) emphasize that participation is a dimension of values per-
taining to democracy and can be both collectively and individually oriented.
Because ECEC is an important arena for the practical implementation of chil-
dren’s rights, it is important that professionals working with children are aware of
and understand these rights, both in theory and practice (Heinonen et al., 2016, 142;
Turja & Vuorisalo, 2017; Venninen & Leinonen, 2013). Practical work in ECEC is
guided by national policy documents, which create the framework for educational
activity. Curriculums provide values, principles, and theoretical perspectives to
guide the daily life of ECEC. Furthermore, they help teachers become more
purposeful when planning, assessing, and reflecting on their work with children’s
right to participation and encourage working methods that favour children’s devel-
opment and democratic thinking (Herczog, 2012; Smith, 2016, 54). Dewey (1916)
argued that the goal of educational activities was not to prepare the child for the
future; instead, it was the “here and now” experiences of the child that were essen-
tial. According to Quennerstedt and Quennerstedt (2014), this indicates a view of
education that highlights the child’s opportunities to gain different experiences in
the daily learning environment and that these experiences are crucial for the child’s
continued growth. According to Vlasov et al. (2019, 24), ECEC-pedagogy overall
refers to a methodical and goal-oriented entity comprising education, instruction,
and care, which finds its concrete expression in staff-child interaction, the operation
culture of ECEC community, the learning environments, and staff’s professional
work practices.
Participatory learning could be interpreted as a pedagogy which includes active
listening, arguing, discussion and reflection as well as interpretation that supports
children’s involvement and participation, aspects which are strongly connected with
the notion of the competent child and issues of the quality of education (Dahlberg
& Moss, 2005; Dahlberg et al., 2013).
The concepts of participation and influence are relational, which means that they
are also linked to power in terms of whose voice is heard and when and how this is
permitted (see Dolk, 2013). When children are involved and have influence, they
also possess real opportunities to affect both the discussion and implementation of
the activities in which they participate. They can thus become co-actors when, for
example, thematic activities are planned. However, this presupposes that preschool
teachers are interested in involving the children.
UNICEF’s rights-based conceptual framework for all education, including
ECEC (2007, 28), “highlights the need for a holistic approach to education, reflect-
ing the universality and indivisibility of all human rights”. In this paradigm, it is
clearly stated that a rights-based framework requires and addresses the right of
access to education, the right to quality education and respect for human rights in
education. According to UNICEF (2007, 28), “these dimensions are interdependent
and interlinked, and a rights-based education necessitates the realization of all
three”. The central elements to be addressed in each of the three dimensions – the
right to access to education, the right to quality education and the right to respect in
educational learning environments – are the following:
• Access to education – education throughout all stages of childhood and beyond,
availability and accessibility of education and equality of opportunity
• The right to quality education – a broad, relevant, and inclusive curriculum,
rights-based learning and assessment, child-friendly, safe, and healthy
environments
• The right to respect in the learning environment – respect for identity, participa-
tion rights and integrity (UNICEF, 2007, 28)
In ECEC, teachers’ obligation and responsibility are not only to help children
understand the meaning of democracy but also to develop their democratic thinking.
106 M. Lundkvist
Although children can acquire the prerequisites for developing democratic thinking
by learning about democracy, this can be achieved even more effectively by partici-
pating in an ECEC environment that is characterized by children and personnel
relating democratically to each other (Biesta, 2011; Hadler Olsen, 2009). In the
everyday life of ECEC, children and personnel express values that are democratic
and that are important for children’s ability to develop into democratically thinking
people. A basic prerequisite is to be seen and heard and to be involved and have
influence (Lundkvist, 2020).
8.4 Data
The data for this study was collected through semi-structured qualitative interviews
with 10 early childhood education teachers who had been in work at least 2 years
since graduation from the ECEC teacher-training programme at either the University
of Helsinki or Åbo Akademi University in Finland. ECEC teachers were asked if
they wished to participate in the study, and, of those who expressed a desire to take
part, 10 informants were randomly chosen. The criteria for participation was that
graduation had occurred between 2 and 5 years prior to commencement of the study.
The teachers were asked to answer open-ended questions, such as “According to
the core curriculum of ECEC, what do you consider to be quality in ECEC?”, “What
do you think about children’s rights in ECEC?” and “According to the core curricu-
lum of ECEC, every child has the right to participate in the daily life of ECEC –
what do you think about this as a teacher?” All the interviews were recorded and
transcribed and were approximately one hour in length. The textual data from the
teachers’ answers was then analysed and interpreted.
8.5 Methods
This paper utilizes content analysis to analyse the interview data. First, the data was
anonymized, and teachers were assigned codes (Teacher T1, Teacher T2, etc.).
Then, the text was thematized based on the code words “quality”, “the child’s
rights”, and “the child’s right to participation”. According to Krippendorff (2019,
47), “content analysis is a research technique for making replicable and valid infer-
ences from texts (or other meaningful matter) to the contexts of their use”. In turn,
Leedy and Omrod (2001, 155) describe content analysis as “a detailed and system-
atic examination of the content of a particular body of material for the purpose of
identifying patterns, themes or biases”. Such research is thus inductive, exploratory,
and empirically driven. In the present study, the main categories were thematized
further, with eight subcategories regarding children’s rights to participation emerg-
ing from the data. These categories were then discussed and agreed upon, and names
that best expressed their content were assigned to them.
As regards ethical considerations, this study adheres to the national guidelines

for research ethics set by the Finnish advisory board on research ethics (2012). The
study provided its participants with adequate information on the purpose of the
research, access to the information, the intended use of the results, and the conse-
quences of the research project. The participants were also made aware of their
informed consent and their right to withdraw from the project. This research also
respected participants’ autonomy, integrity, freedom and right to co-determination.
The data was processed in such a way that personal matters and information
remained confidential (Tjora, 2019).
8.6 Results
The study explored the questions “What do early childhood education teachers con-
sider to be children’s right to participation in early childhood education?” and “How
do teachers understand children’s rights to participation related to daily life in early
childhood education” . In the content analysis of the open-ended questions, two
main categories emerged regarding teachers’ views of children’s right to participa-
tion. These main categories, “Children’s rights are related to underlying values and
aspects of quality” and “Children’s rights to participation are related to aspects
within the ECEC-context”, consisted of eight subcategories. Below, each category
is exemplified by translated extracts from the interviews. The translations aim to
provide as close a match as possible to the informants’ original statements.
8.6.1 hildren’s Rights Are Related to Underlying Values

C
and Aspects of Quality
The teachers interviewed in this study were asked questions about children’s rights
in ECEC related to the national core curriculum (FNAE, 2018) and their ways of
understanding quality. Their answers highlighted underlying values, such as the
right to be seen, heard, and treated with respect, as central aspects of their under-
standing of children’s right to participation.
8.6.2 hildren’s Perspectives Are an Essential

C
Educational Goal
Almost all teachers emphasized the importance of the child’s right to be seen and
heard. According to one teacher (T6), the perspective of the child should constitute
a continuous topic of discussion among staff. Children’s views and opinions form
108 M. Lundkvist
an important aspect of the values and work within ECEC. Children’s own perspec-
tives are a pedagogical goal and are related to general principles and demo-
cratic values.
It can actually look a little different from unit to unit, and it important that the team get an
common idea of what the child view is, and of course accept that we do not have to have
exactly the same view, but I feel that the child’s perspective has to the be the goal for peda-
gogical activities … then we can have many different procedures and different ways of
working so that we try to achieve it. (Teacher T6)
8.6.3 hildren’s Rights Are About the Possibility to Be Seen

C
and Heard
Most of the teachers in this study returned in one way or another to the child’s right
to be seen and heard. For instance, Teacher T5 believed that not all children auto-
matically wanted to be involved, and thus it was the teacher’s responsibility to help
those children participate in the community with other children.
The rights of the child in early childhood education are about children having the right to
be in early childhood education and being allowed to be themselves, and that they are seen
and heard in their own way and that everyone is allowed to participate in the activities
together with other children and personnel… there are always children who do not want to
be part of anything and who can feel left out … as an teacher you must take into account all
the children and make sure that everyone is well and that everyone is happy. (Teacher T2)
Participation is of course that everyone should be heard and seen and be part of the
daily life in ECEC and feel like it has value to be here and be able to influence their
surroundings. (Teacher T9).
8.6.4 articipation Requires Responsible

P
and Respectable Teachers
Even though children should be allowed to participate and influence their everyday
life in the ECE center, teacher T4 emphasized that personnel must take responsibil-
ity, as grown-ups and educators, for pedagogical activities.
What we have discussed a lot is that it is a very important thing that, it is completely obvi-
ous, that the children should be allowed to participate in their everyday life at the ECE
center and influence the activities, but it is also very important that we teachesrs dare to take
responsibility and realize that the children cannot take responsibility for the activity and
that we cannot demand from them that they themselves take responsibility for everything
that concerns them and to, for example, ask a one-year-old if he wants to stay in or go out,
so we feel it’s a lot to put on these kids. (Teacher T6)
According to teacher T7, children’s right to participation also included the possibil-
ity to be heard and seen, which required responsible teachers who seriously took
children’s views into account.
I consider as perhaps the most important [thing], that children feel that their
voices are heard and that there are opportunities to say what they want and that
someone takes their question seriously. (Teacher T7).
8.6.5 hildren’s Right to Participation Is Related to Aspects

C
of the ECEC-Context
The teachers were asked to reflect on the question about the national core curricu-
lum of ECEC (FNAE, 2018) and on their opinion of the statement that every child
had the right to participation in the daily life of ECEC. The central aspects of the
teachers’ answers concerned children’s rights to be part of a relational community
and the prioritization of children’s rights over the needs of teacher. In this context,
well-trained staff is a prerequisite for realizing children’s right to participation.
8.6.6 I ndividual Rights in a Welcoming

Relational Environment
Teacher T3 emphasized that while every child had rights as an individual, they also
had the right to engage in social interaction with other children and personnel. A
child’s rights were relational in several respects, and in a safe, warm, and welcom-
ing ECEC environment, the child could develop and learn.
I think that the child has the right to a safe early childhood education, a place where they
feel safe, well-treated, welcomed and where we care about them. They have the right to
have their needs met, get food, go to the toilet, develop, practice social relationships and yes
practice their skills before life and school, just play and enjoy life and yes and develop.
(Teacher T3)
8.6.7 aily ECEC Life Based More on Children’s Perspectives

D
Than Personnel’s Needs
Teacher T4 also highlighted the rights of the child, emphasizing the superiority of
those rights over the needs and wishes of personnel. This teacher had also adopted
the idea of the importance of children’s own perspectives as a fundamental principle
of modern ECEC, at least at a conceptual level.
110 M. Lundkvist
I think there is a lot of discussion, there is a lot of material now available, so I hope that it
is a development we are moving towards that they also start working based on the child’s
rights, the children’s perspective, rather than the personnel’s needs, what personnel wants.
(Teacher T4)
8.6.8 hange of Perspective Among Staff Regarding

C
Children’s Participation
According to teacher T4, ECEC staff of different ages viewed both the children
themselves and educational activities differently, which potentially affected their
opinions on children’s right to participation in daily activities.
It is starting to appear more and more, and I think it was a pretty big change for
many who have worked for a long time in ECEC, and they were authoritarian and
adult-oriented activities … I feel that there was perhaps a lot of searching for how
you as a teacher could consider the children in the planning and how the children
could participate with their opinions … it is one of those things that has been very
much on the agenda now and a lot of work has been done to find an approach for
how to let the children participate and how they actually can participate. (Teacher T4).
In the same way, teacher T4 mentions the large number of discussions in their
work team on the meaning of children’s participation everyday life.
8.6.9 hallenging to Have Time to Do All That Is Required

C
of a Teacher
Some of the teachers, for example Teacher T7, stated that one of the main criteria
for effective ECEC was for personnel to have the capability and time to be present
in daily activities with children. This teacher underlined that although such presence
concerned respect for each child, the large number of tasks that constituted a teach-
er’s daily work limited their ability to devote the necessary attention to children.
This lack of time was a serious problem in ECEC according to most of the teachers
interviewed for this study.
Children have the right to the best education possible, but one problem is when you as a
teacher face reality and feel that you do not really manage to always give the very best
because of a lack of time … so often. I have found it frustrating when you sit with your
plans and fix things and want to write things down and document, and, in that way, it has a
very important role, but at the same time there’s still the realization that something is suf-
fering anyway and that you may at some stage also have to find a suitable balance.
(Teacher T7)
8.6.10 Well-Educated and Trained Staff
To develop high-quality pedagogical activities, teachers must evaluate pedagogical

strategies in accordance with the ECEC curriculum. Teacher T2 emphasized that
this required well-educated and trained staff with strong pedagogical knowledge
and the ability to plan, design and renew educational activities for children.
All children should have an opportunity for as good an early childhood education as pos-
sible. Hopefully, the staff has such strong pedagogical knowledge for planning activities,
evaluating and renewing them in a way that helps the children to develop … there are very
many children who have a need for early childhood education, as not everyone’s parents are
able to set boundaries. The children also learn group dynamics, and much of this the chil-
dren do not learn at home; instead, it can be better taught in the ECE center. (Teacher T5)
8.7 Conclusions
The aim of this paper was to explore teachers’ understanding of children’s right to
participation in ECEC in terms of the substance of that right and its manifestation in
the daily life of ECEC. This understanding was analysed with the help of content
analysis. Because the number of respondents in this study was small, the possibility
to generalise the results is somewhat limited. Nevertheless, the study provides an
overall picture of how quite recently graduated teachers view children’s participa-
tion in ECEC.
One of the clearest results was that teachers generally seem to be highly aware of
the importance of the curriculum as the basis for all pedagogical activities in
ECEC. Moreover, most informants referred to basic values and the need to take
children’s right to participation into consideration as a guideline for their pedagogi-
cal work. What, on the other hand, proved more problematic for the teachers was to
describe and provide examples of children’s right to participation in more concrete
terms. Johansson et al. (2018) recommend that ECEC values be translated into vis-
ible and concrete goals that guide the activities in ECEC. Furthermore, these under-
lying values should be manifested as the guiding principles of actions and measures
extending from the national level down to the level of pedagogical activities (Turja
& Vuorisalo, 2017). Another study (Mansikka & Lundkvist, 2019) demonstrated the
gap between the theoretical understanding of children’s right to participation in the
education literature and teachers’ understanding of educational activities based on
this right. Consequently, there is a need for both more research and further educa-
tion on how children’s right to participation can be more clearly anchored in educa-
tional activities and become a natural part of early childhood education and care.
Simultaneously, a certain level of uncertainty is evident among all teachers when
expressing their thoughts on pedagogical activities and children’s right to participa-
tion in terms of quality. While thinking about quality clearly occurs, the choice of
112 M. Lundkvist
words and concepts for expressing this understanding is more ambiguous. It is clear,
according to Finnish steering documents (FNAE, 2018), that all children have the
right to high quality early childhood education, and no teacher would dispute such
a right. Participation is defined as one of the central qualities and process-related
factors in Finnish early childhood education and care (Lundkvist & Harju-
Luukkainen, 2021). Nevertheless, all the teachers in this study emphasized, in one
way or another, that quality was intrinsically linked to the availability of well-
educated and trained staff with solid overall pedagogical knowledge and, more pre-
cisely, expertise in children’s development and learning. This can be interpreted as
a natural consequence of the increased prominence not only of quality as a concept
but also of the evaluation of pedagogical ECEC activities in Finland in recent years.
According to Mansikka and Lundkvist (2019), this, in turn, is a result of children’s
participation being the norm in Finnish early childhood education today.
Some of the teachers interviewed for this study discussed children’s participation
in relation to time, more precisely the lack of it. Such a shortage of time gives rise
to ethical dilemmas, and hence stress and anxiety, when fundamental values such as
the child’s right to participation clash with the increasing demands of everyday life.
In this respect, education and training are required to help teachers transform
abstract thoughts into concrete action models and make children’s rights to partici-
pation feasible. The concept of participatory learning (see, e.g., Kangas, 2016) or a
human rights-based strategy for education (see UNICEF, 2007) could be possible
ways to increase children’s right to participation in early childhood education.
References
Berthelsen, D. (2009). Participatory learning. Issues for research and practice. In D. Berthelsen,
J. Brownlee, & E. Johansson (Eds.), Participatory learning n early years. Routledge.
Biesta, G. (2011). Learning democracy in school and society Education, lifelong learning, and the
politics of citizenship. Sense Publishers.
Brownlee, J. (2009). Contexts, pedagogy and participatory learning: A way forward. In
D. Berthelsen, J. Brownlee, & E. Johansson (Eds.), Participatory learning in early years.
Routledge.
Dahlberg, G., & Moss, P. (2005). Ethics and politics in early childhood Education. Routledge Falmer.
Dahlberg, G., Moss, P., & Pence, A. (2013). Beyond quality in early childhood Education and
care. Routledge.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education. Free Press.
Dolk, K. (2013). Bångstyriga barn: Makt, normer och delaktighet i förskolan. Ordfront förlag.
Einarsdottir, J., Purola, A.-M., Johansson, E. M., Broström, S., & Emilson, A. (2015). Democrazy,
caring and competence: Values perspectives in ECEC curricula in the Nordic countries.
International Journal of Early Years Education, 23(1), 97–114.
Emilson, A., & Johansson, E. (2009). The desirable toddler in preschool. Values communicated
in teacher and child interactions. In D. Berthelsen, J. Brownlee, & E. Johansson (Eds.),
Participatory learning n early years. Research and Pedagogy. Routledge.
Emilson, A., & Johansson, E. (2018). Values in Nordic early childhood Education – Democracy
and the Child’s perspective. In M. Fleer & B. van Oers (Eds.), International handbook on early
childhood Education and development. Springer.
Early Childhood Education and Care Act (540/2018) set in Helsinki 13th of July 2018.
Finnish Advisory Board on Research Ethics. (2012). Good scientific practice and procedures for
handling misconduct and fraud in science. Finnish Advisory Board on Research Ethics. www.
tenk.fi/sites/tenk.fi/files/HTK_ohje_2012.pdf
Finnish National Agency for Education (FNAE). (2018). Finnish national core curriculum of early
childhood education and care. Määräykset ja ohjeet 2018: 17.
Finnish National Agency for Education (FNAE). (2016). Finnish National Core Curriculum for
pre-primary Education. Määräykset ja ohjeet 2016:1.
and early childhood Education. Palgrave Macmillan.
Hadler-Olsen, S. (2009). Democrazy in Norwegian kindergartens. In B. U. Wilhelmsen &
B. Hadler-Olsen (Eds.), Democracy in Education. Bergen University College Journal, 2.
Heinonen, H., Iivonen, E., Korhonen, M., Lahtinen, N., Muuronen, K., Semi, R., & Siimes,
U. (2016). Lasten oikeudet ja aikuisten vastuut varhaiskasvatuksessa. PS-kustannus.
Herczog, M. (2012). Rights of the child and early childhood Education and Care in Europe.
European Journal of Education, 47(4), 542–555.
Johansson, E., Emilson, A., & Puroila, A.-M. (2018). Mapping the field: What are values and val-
ues education about? In E. Johansson, A.-M. Puroila, & A. Emilson (Eds.), Value education in
early childhood settings; concepts, approaches, and practice (pp. 13–31). Springer.
Kangas, J. (2016). Enhancing children’s participation in early childhood education through the
participatory pedagogy. (Diss.). Helsinki: University of Helsinki.
Kangas, J., Vlasov, J., Fonsén, E., & Heikka, J. (2018). Osallisuuden pedagogiikkaa varhaiskas-
vatuksessa 2: Suunnittelu, toteutus ja kehittäminen. Suomen varhaiskasvatus.
Karila, K. (2016). Vaikuttava varhaiskasvatus. Tilannekatsaus toukokuu 2016. Finnish National
Agency for Education publications 2016:6.
Krippendorff, K. (2019). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage.
Kronqvist, C., Schaffar Kronqvist, B., & Lundkvist, M. (2020). The difficulty of thinking. Listening
to the voices of kindergarten teachers to be. In Journal of Philosophy in Schools, 7(1), 68–85.
Lansdown, G. (2011). Every Child’s right to be heard: A resource guide on the UN Committee on
the rights of the child general comment no.12. UNICEF/save the children. Tillgänglig: http://
www.unicef.org/french/adolescence/file/Every_Childs_Right_to_be_Heard.pdf
Leedy, P., & Ormrod, J. (2001). Practical research: Planning and design (7th ed.). Merrill Prentice
Hall. SAGE Publications.
Leinonen, J., Brotherus, A., & Venninen, T. (2014). Children’s participation in Finnish pre-school
education – Identifying, describing and documenting Children’s participation. Nordisk barne-
hageforskning, 7(8), 1–16.
Lundkvist, M. (2020).” Jag var ju också här”- Om delaktighet och inflytande ur ett didaktiskt per-
spektiv. I C. Björklund & I. Pramling Samuelsson (Red.), Innehållets didaktik i förskolan (s.
127–134). Stockholm.
Lundkvist, M. & Harju-Luukkainen, H. (2021). Perspectives on quality in EDEC in Finland – A
content analysis on first year teacher students views. In S. Garvis et al (Eds.), Quality improve-
ment in early childhood. Palgrave.
Mansikka, J.-E., & Lundkvist, M. (2019). Barns perspektiv och delaktighet som ideologisk ori-
entering för småbarnspedagogiken i Finland. Nordisk tidsskrift for pedagogikk & kritikk, 5,
111–129.
Quennerstedt, A., & Quennerstedt, M. (2014). Researching children’s rights in education:
Sociology of childhood encountering educational theory. British Journal of Sociology of
Education, 35(1), 115–132.
Rogoff, B. (2008). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: Participatory appropriation,
guided participation, and apprenticeship. In K. Hall, P. Murphy, & J. Soler (Eds.), Pedagogy
and practice: Culture and identities (pp. 58–74). Sage.
Sommer, D., Pramling Samuelsson, I., & Hundeide, K. (2009). Child perspectives and Children’s
perspectives in theory and practice. Springer.
114 M. Lundkvist
Smith, A. (2016). Children’s rights: Towards social justice. Momentum Press.

Tjora, A. (2019). Qualitative research as stepwise-deductive induction. Routledge.
Turja, L., & Vuorisalo, M. (2017). Lasten oikeudet, toimijuus ja osallisuus oppimisessa. In
M. Koivula, A. Siippainen, & P. Eerola-Pennanen (Eds.), Valloittava varhaiskasvatus.
Oppimista, osallisuutta ja hyvinvointia (pp. 36–55). Vastapaino.
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989.
UNICEF. (2007). A human rights-based approach to Education for all: A framework for the real-
ization of children’s right to education and rights within education. Tillgänglig. http://unesdoc.
unesco.org/images/0015/001548/154861e.pdf
Venninen, T., & Leinonen, J. (2013). Developing children’s participation through research
and reflective practices. Asia-Pacific Journal of Research in Early Childhood Education,
7(1), 31–49.
Vlasov, J., Salminen, J., Repo, L., Karila, K., Kinnunen, S., Mattila, V., Nukarinen, R., Parrila,
S., & Sulonen, H. (2019). Guidelines and recommendations for evaluating the quality of early
childhood Education and care. (FINECC). Finnish Education Evaluation Centre Publications
5:2019. Retrieved from https://karvi.fi/en/early-childhood-education/guidelines-and-
recommendations-for-evaluating-the-quality-of-early-childhood-education-and-care/
Chapter 9
Promoting Participatory Learning
and Creative Thinking in Finnish ECEC –
A Review of Five Arts Pedagogical Case
Studies
Inkeri Ruokonen
Abstract Chapter presents research-based arts pedagogical learning projects and

discusses the challenges and future recommendations of Finnish education system,
early childhood education and care (ECEC) arts pedagogy on the core curriculum
learning area of diverse forms and expression in early childhood teacher education.
The purpose of this chapter is to examine the perceived challenges concerning the
early childhood arts pedagogy and to make recommendations based on a reflective
review of five case studies related to the topic. Five case studies are reviewed to
promote new trends in the arts and creativity education of Finnish early childhood
pedagogy and teacher education. According to results “Design learning” approach
seem to be working well in practice and offering space for community-based cre-
ativity in arts pedagogical studies. Early childhood teacher education programmes
should promote creative arts pedagogical studies that use collaborative, participa-
tory and playful learning methods. There is also a need for specialization in and
in-service training studies of early childhood arts education.
9.1 I ntroduction to the Arts Education Policies

in Finnish ECEC
In the Finnish ECEC is rooted in the Act on Early Childhood Education and Care
(540/2018) and the values of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the
Child (1989). Pursuant to this, the Finnish National Agency for Education (2018)
published the National Core Curriculum for Early Childhood Education and Care.
Pre-primary education is guided by the National Core Curriculum for Pre-Primary
I. Ruokonen (*)
University of Turku, Turku, Finland
e-mail: inkeri.ruokonen@utu.fi

Switzerland AG 2022
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95512-0_9
116 I. Ruokonen
Education (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2016), which is based on the
Basic Education Act (628/1998) and Basic Education Decree (852/1998). In both
core curricula, arts education belongs to the learning area known as diverse forms
and expression.
I added arts to Alila’ and Ukkonen-Mikkola’ (2018) definition of early child-
hood pedagogy for introducing the concept of arts pedagogy in Finnish ECEC:
Early childhood arts pedagogy is planned and goal-oriented institutional and pro-
fessional activity based on the interaction between the educator and the child, which
consciously seeks to influence the child’s development, learning and well-being.
The arts pedagogy of early childhood education is implemented in the educational
community on a science and research basis through the goals, contents, methods
and learning environments of early childhood education, as well as through the
observation, documentation and continuous developmental evaluation. The arts
pedagogy of early childhood education is implemented with emphasis on play, the
child’s participation and inclusion, in collaboration with parents and other arts edu-
cational experts. (pp. 75–81).
The learning area “diverse forms and expression” is holistic in its contents and
aims to support the development of children’s musical, visual, verbal and physical
expression in a goal-oriented manner as well as to familiarize children with their
cultural heritage and different forms of art. Both the National Core Curriculum for
Early Childhood Education and Care (FNAE, 2018) and National Core Curriculum
for Pre-Primary Education (FNAE, 2016) aim to offer versatile learning experi-
ences for children in different learning areas.
According to National Core Curriculum for Early Childhood Education and
Care (FNAE, 2018), these learning areas are (a) rich world of languages; (b) diverse
forms of expression; (c) me and our community; (d) exploring and integrating with
my environment; and (e) I grow, move and develop. The learning area of diverse
forms and expression combines children’s interests, areas of learning and transver-
sal skills to support children’s learning. The concept of transversal competences
consists of knowledge, skills, values, attitudes and will. Regarding Finnish ECEC,
these transversal competences include (a) thinking and learning, (b) cultural compe-
tence, (c) interaction and self-expression, (d) taking care of oneself and managing
daily life, (e) multiliteracy and competence in information and communication
technology and (f) participation and involvement (FNAE, 2018). These are all
important skills for living in an increasingly diverse world and can be developed
through the arts pedagogy.
9.1.1 The Learning Area of ‘Diverse Forms of Expression’
Finnish ECEC encourages children to experience and become familiar with the arts,
music and other diverse cultures. Different forms of expression allow children to
think creatively, express their emotions and engage in play (Ruokonen, 2020).
Cultural experiences are important for the development of children’s identities. In
9 Promoting Participatory Learning and Creative Thinking in Finnish ECEC… 117
the arts, there is space for individual and shared interpretations, imagination and
empathy. Arts are part of children’s cultural heritage, basis of new knowledge, skills
development and creativity (Ruokonen, 2020). The holistic approaches of the
Finnish core curricula (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2016, 2018) consist
of creative combinations of different forms of art and provide versatile possibilities
for children to express their emotions and use their creative thinking. The arts give
children the possibility to imagine and evoke mental images that are also key to their
ethical thinking. Children learn to understand the value of the arts and the meaning
of their cultural heritage. Different forms of arts and expression also strengthen
children’s competence in creative thinking, multiliteracy, participation and involve-
ment (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2018).
9.2 Challenges in Implementing the Arts Education
The decreased focus on art subjects in teacher education as well as the lack of ECEC
teachers has affected the quality of arts education in kindergartens for many years
(Ruokonen, 2009; Rusanen, 2007). Furthermore, studies have demonstrated the
importance of arts education, creative activities and play-based learning for chil-
dren’s overall development and learning (Kangas et al., 2019; Linnavalli, 2019;
Reunamo et al., 2014; Nikkola et al., 2020; Ruokonen et al., 2021).
There are many studies which promotes the role of arts and creativity education
in curriculum and learning environmental planning, embodied experience, knowl-
edge production (e.g. Ward, 2013; Bautista et al., 2018; Knutson et al., 2020), and
teachers understanding about creative capacity in the classroom (see Olafsson, 2020).
Between 2017 and 2019, the Finnish Education Evaluation Centre implemented
the evaluation project Every Day Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care:
ECEC Curriculum Implementation at ECEC Centres and in Family Day Care,
which examined ECEC curricula as instruments to support the provision and imple-
mentation of ECEC as well as these curricula in daily ECEC (Repo et al., 2020).
The project was implemented using self-evaluation of staff to highlight their opin-
ions of developmental needs regarding ECEC daily practices and activities. The
results of the evaluation showed that the ECEC core curriculum as a whole directs
ECEC pedagogy and provides generally good guidelines for the implementation of
high-quality ECEC, but the quality of some content-related objectives of the core
curriculum vary between different kindergartens (Repo et al., 2020). According to
the report, there are serious concerns regarding the quality and shortcomings of
pedagogical activities, especially in pedagogy focusing on children under 3 years of
age. Pedagogical shortcomings were found in the contents of arts, expression,
music, physical activity, literacy skills and multiliteracy skills. According to the
evaluation, arts education was not a sufficient part of the daily work in ECEC.
In ECEC, learning areas should be implemented in a way that enables integrative
broad-based examination and exploration of matters and phenomena in learning activ-
ities. Children’s interests and questions should serve as a key premise for learning
118 I. Ruokonen
activities. Early childhood education promotes holistic phenomenon-based learning.

According to Lonka (2018) childhood is a period of life when everything is possible
through play and that’s why phenomenon-based learning is the best way to learn. It is
a multistage learning process with several learning environments and creative collab-
orative problem-solving in a free and student-centered setting (Lonka, 2018).
Multiliteracy is closely connected to thinking and learning skills. It is important to
note that most of the staff who participated in this evaluation and who are working in
the field of ECEC had no academic teaching background, which may affect the results
of the evaluation (Repo et al., 2020). In this chapter, some research-based educational
studies, including arts pedagogical concepts, are presented and reflected upon to fur-
ther the discussion on future teacher education and ECEC arts pedagogy.
9.3 Research Design
In this chapter, five case studies are reviewed and reflected, upon to promote new
trends in the arts and creativity education of Finnish early childhood pedagogy and
teacher education. The aim of this article is to make an integrative review and intro-
duce these five integrative arts educational studies as the examples of the Finnish
teacher education for synthesising some new knowledge from topic (Torraco, 2016).
The research designs of these five case studies are introduced in Table 9.1.
In first tree case studies (Bridges of Joy, Musical Surface and Circus with chil-
dren) the common research aim was to find out how the design learning method was
used and how design processes developed and how diverse forms of expression and
new technological tools were used in the arts education and communication with
children. The participants were student teachers planning and implementing their
integrative and interactive arts educational project altogether with 1- to 8-year-old
children. The qualitative data consisted of writings, observations, interviews and
group conversations in a closed fb -project group. The qualitative research methods
included content analyses of interviews and descriptions of observations as well as
students’ reflective and evaluative writings about their creative learning processes.
The fourth and fifth case studies focused on creative music learning through
composing. In Group composing with 5-string kanteles (4. case), participants were
5–6-year-old children. The composing process and performances were videotaped,
observations were written down in a form pedagogical diary and sessions were con-
tent analyzed by using qualitative theory-based methods in classification. Research
material was analyzed and the most typical episode descriptions were written to
describe the different orientations found in the composing sessions. For better reli-
ability, the two observers were used in the classroom for observing and analyzing
the data. In the fifth case study Composing children’s songs student teachers were
composing children’s songs in groups in an international student group and in
blended learning environment. In both of these cases the common issue was to study
creative group composing process which was in both cases analysed by using
qualitative content analysis.
Table 9.1 Research design of five case studies reviewed

Case study Main research questions Participants and data Analysis methods
1.Bridges of How design learning 14 student teachers (arts Qualitative content
joy process developed to project participants were analyses
build bridges between 45 pre- primary and
preschools and primary school children
hospitalized children and hospitalized children)
and how new writings, observations,
technological tools interviews and group
were used in arts conversations in a closed
education with fb -project group
children?
2.Musical How student teachers’ 12 student teachers’ Qualitative content
surface design-learning process reflective and evaluative analysis
developed and what writings about the creative
types of pedagogical design-learning process
learning they and descriptions of
encountered when video-documented
working together with observations of the arts
children through pedagogical sessions
musical storytelling?
3.Circus How the integrative arts 11 student teachers (arts Qualitative theory-based
with children educational learning project participants were (Soininen’s i-model,
process developed and 32 1 to 6 year old children 1995) content analysis,
how diverse forms of of one kindergarten) the results were
expression were used reflectively discussed and
with children? evaluated with the
participants and the and
feedback from ECE
children was gathered for
the common discussion
4.Group Which aspects of Six 5–6-year-old children Data was qualitatively
composing creative thinking and in one kindergarten, theory-based content
with 5-string musical learning and observations (videotaped) analyzed by using the
kanteles improvisation can be of children’s composing McPherson model (1994)
seen when children situations and group of five aspects of musical
compose a song or a discussions with the performance
melody with a 5-string children after group
kantele? composing sessions.
Observations were written
down into pedagogical
diary.
5. Which kind of learning 16 student teachers group Data was qualitatively and
Composing experiences student interviews and reflective theory based content
children’s teachers had in studying writings (student group analysed by using
songs music, especially was international) Amabile’s (1983)
during group componential model of
composing in a blended small groups’ creative
learning environment? process
120 I. Ruokonen
9.4 Results
In this chapter the contents and main results of these five arts educational projects
are introduced. After integrative review analysis the case studies 1, 2 and 3 pro-
moted especially participatory educational design-based learning, and case studies
4 and 5 promoted especially creativity through group composing both with children
and the personnel.
9.4.1 Participatory Design-Based Learning in the Arts
First, second and third case studies promote participatory design-based learning in
the arts pedagogy of early childhood teacher education. These studies are examples
of Finnish research-based teacher education and the arts pedagogy of student teach-
ers pursuing their minor studies in arts and skills education. In both of these cases,
the pedagogical approach used was participative design-based learning. Participative
design-based learning is an innovative process of inquiry in which new ideas are
collaboratively created (Bereiter, 2014; Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, 2011). Constructive
and participatory learning encourage the active role of students and children by sup-
porting their creativity and autonomy, which are essential in the arts pedagogy (e.g.,
Eisner, 2002; Räsänen, 2008; Ruokonen, 2016).
9.4.1.1 Case 1: Bridges of Joy
Ruokonen and Ruismäki (2013) conducted a qualitative study of the design-learning

process in the arts educational projects of 14 student teachers. The purpose of the
study was to explore the student teachers’ design process of an arts pedagogical
project for pre-school and school pupils and children at a children’s hospital. The
student teachers guided the schoolchildren to create animated films for the hospital-
ized children and vice versa. The student teachers named this project ‘Bridges of
Joy’ because the purpose was to bring joy through artistic expression and to connect
children from different learning environments.
Participatory design-learning is focused on creating new solutions for future
learning environments (Hedges & Cullen, 2012; Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, 2011;
Wang et al., 2010). The student teachers worked with the children and used playful
methods to create the stories and animated films together. Their work was goal-
oriented and collaborative, and it helped the children to make connections with vari-
ous artistic materials, the visual arts, sound, colour and new technology.
The aim of this study was to reveal the student teachers’ experiences with design-
learning approach and their opinions on how new technology can be used in arts
education and interaction. The results showed that participatory, creative and col-
laborative design-learning approach and new technology provide tools that helped
student teachers to think and act when encountering new, uncertain or problematic
pedagogical learning environments and situations. Project helped student teachers
to find creative solutions for their and the children’s creative intentions and play in
the artistic project.
The design-learning process used in this study included an arts pedagogical
model comprised of planning, implementation, results and reflective evaluation.
According to results participatory, playful and collaborative design-learning pro-
cess can increased students’ engagement in learning arts pedagogy and improved
their ability to offer children a space for their voice and artistic imagination. All of
the children’s animations are available on the faculty’s Vimeo page: https://vimeo.
com/channels/ilonsillat (Ruokonen, 2013).
9.4.1.2 Case 2: Musical Surface
Student teachers implemented the project, entitled ‘Musical Surface’, in collabora-

tion with the Ateneum Art Museum as part of the Sibelius and the World of Art
exhibition and workshops. Student teachers introduced children to Finnish national
composer Jean Sibelius’s music and the works of art created by his contemporaries,
whom he inspired (Ruokonen & Othman, 2016).
Arts educational researchers (e.g., Eisner, 2002; Paatela-Nieminen, 2016;
Räsänen, 2008; Ruokonen, 2016) have focused on constructive and integrative
design learning strategies that encourage the active role of children by supporting
their creativity and autonomy. In this interactive design-learning project, new solu-
tions for future learning environments were developed. The collaborative design-
learning approach, which is based on progressive inquiry, provides tools that help
student teachers think and act in new, uncertain or problematic situations and find
creative solutions or new technologies for their intentions (Kangas, 2014; Lahti &
Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, 2014; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2014; Seitamaa-Hakkarainen
et al., 2010).
The student teachers had high expectations for promoting their own creativity in
the arts and assisting children in their artistic expression. The students designed
drama-based museum tours for the children in which they met Sibelius, a violinist
and a group of Kalevala singers who performed with five-string kanteles; they could
also join in singing the Finlandia Hymn. Student teachers created augmented reali-
ties to introduce the paintings to the children in a more playful manner. They began
their guided tours for the children before the museum was open to the public, and
this special arrangement allowed them to use live music (playing instruments, sing-
ing and using computer voices) and drama in the exhibition halls, which would not
have been possible during regular museum hours.
After the experiential tour of the exhibition, the children participated in the arts
workshops, in which the tone colours, rhythms, melodies, keys and shapes they had
experienced were transformed into visual works of art that the children then com-
posed. The workshop participants moved on a ‘surface’ from music to image and
vice versa. The children explored the connections between images and music as
122 I. Ruokonen
well as the overall audio-visual effect. Children created their visual expressions in
groups while the music played, and after that, they used their imaginations to make
up stories about what they had experienced. They added ‘sound colours’, rhythms
and melodies to their visual stories and improvised their own group compositions.
Visual thinking strategies were used in the arts pedagogical discussions by asking
questions such as ‘What is going on in this picture?’ and ‘What do you see that
makes you say that?’ Children were encouraged to share their feelings and
interpretations.
The results showed that integration of the arts with interactive pedagogy that
combines children’s natural curiosity, inquisitiveness and creativity strengthens
learning in, about and through the arts. The analysis of observation showed that col-
laborative and participatory learning fit well into integrated arts educational studies
and that interactive pedagogy and creative workshops are useful tools for engaging
with children in an art museum environment. Mobile devices and applications
offered new possibilities in arts education. Innovative approaches using augmented
reality technology was implemented in early childhood pedagogy. The video of the
project is available on the faculty’s Vimeo page: https://vimeo.com/130703389
(Ruokonen, 2015).
9.4.1.3 Case 3: Circus with Children
Ruokonen and Ruismäki (2012) conducted a qualitative case study of an integrative

arts educational project wherein 11 student teachers designed an arts pedagogical
learning environment for a project aimed at 1- to 7-year-old children. The theoreti-
cal background of this case study was the writings of Dewey (1938, 1948,
1934/2005), D. A. Kolb (1984), Hakkarainen (1993) and Soininen (1995) regarding
participative and collaborative learning. According to Kolb (1984, pp. 40–42),
knowledge is created from a combination of grasping experience and transforming
it. Kolb and Kolb (2005) presented principles for the enhancement of experiential
learning in higher education and suggested that in learning situations there have to
be space for students’ previous experiences, feeling, thinking and the development
of expertise (Kolb & Kolb, 2005).
Student teachers in this case study had different educational backgrounds in the
arts. Teacher educators act as mentors, providing a space for student teachers’ vari-
ous skills and ideas and support their learning processes in the arts and arts educa-
tion by engaging them in participatory learning. In order to develop a participatory
and creative learning process, it is necessary for student teachers to cooperate and
share their previous experiences and knowledge of the process without exercising
the traditional teacher authority (Hakkarainen, 1993; Soininen, 1995, p. 171).
The circus theme in this case study allowed for diverse forms of artistic expres-
sion. The student teachers based their work on participative and cooperative learn-
ing methods. Using Soininen’s (1995) i-learning model (intention, instruction,
interaction and innovation), the intention of the study was to teach the student
teachers about integrative arts education, diverse forms of expression, cooperative

learning and working processes.
Results showed that all student teachers reported that the atmosphere of the pro-
cess was inspiring and positive. The interactions within the group inspired them to
work and learn. The student teachers also reported experiencing moments of insight
and intuition during the learning process. These moments were mainly related to
their individual reflections during the artistic process or when writing their manu-
scripts. Results showed that children’s imagination and play was connected with the
artistic elements of music, colours and shapes. According to the student teachers’
writings and reflections, the use of imagination and play was fundamental to the
entire process. The students used a variety of methods to improvise and solve prob-
lems in interactive situations. Their described their inventions or artistic productions
in connection with the interactive adventures, fantasies and make-believe experi-
ences they had with the children.
According to the students’ reflections on the integration of diverse forms of artis-
tic expression, the primary combination was between music and the other arts. This
was especially the case when working with the 1- to 3-year-old children and in
group activities. Musical expression integrated with visual arts, dance, juggling,
clowns, mimes and stage arts. This expressive integration between music, drama
(mimes, clowns) and dance (circus horses) helped the students to create an interac-
tive circus adventure with the children. All diverse forms of music (listening, sing-
ing, dancing and playing) were included in the student teachers’ interactive circus
performances, and they also combined other art forms in the circus learning
environment.
Children from all age groups participated actively in the drama activities, includ-
ing miming, emotional expressions with the clowns, juggling and dancing. The chil-
dren loved the interactive activities in which they pretended to be animals, played
circus, listened to and made music, decorated and painted the circus stage. The role
of the adult was more important the younger the children were. All of the children
followed the circus story intensely and playfully and experienced the newly created
learning environment as if it was a real circus. The enchanting reality of this circus
play was clear. According to the student teachers, these interactive, playful and
reflective methods helped them to create better ideas and resulted in a better
performance.
9.4.2 Creative Group Composing
Case studies (4 and 5) are promoting creative thinking through composing in early
childhood education and teacher education.
These two case focused on creative thinking in music, especially improvisation
and composing.
124 I. Ruokonen
9.4.2.1 Case 4: Group Composing with 5-String Kanteles
In this study by Ruokonen et al. (2012), 5- to 6-year-old children created their own
songs in small groups using a five-string kantele. The aim of the study was to dis-
cover which aspects of musical learning and improvisation happened when children
composed a song or a melody as part of a creative group process.
For the qualitative content analysis, three elements from McPherson’s (1994)
model concerning musical performance were used to analyze the group composi-
tion situations: creative, visual and aural orientation. In addition, it was observed
that social orientation was an essential element to the process of creating songs in a
group. According to Faulkner (2006), children value their works of music for both
their aesthetic qualities and the social and personal experience of their production
and distribution. For children, the social aspects (e.g., how the cooperation works
and for whom the composition is played) are meaningful.
The results showed that children combined their creative musical ideas aurally
by improvising and playing their kantele and by listening to each other’s ideas and
deciding by ear which one they preferred. Children used visual orientation by writ-
ing their musical ideas down using the numbers on the strings. Children co-created
their melodies by openly and joyfully sharing their musical ideas, and thus the cre-
ative and social orientations were combined with the other orientations.
According to the results, the children used various orientations in their creative
thinking processes. The connections to transversal skills (thinking and learning, cul-
tural competence, interaction and self-expression, multiliteracy and participation)
were obvious. Additionally, the authors noted integration with other areas of learn-
ing from the ECEC core curriculum (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2018).
For example, the children developed their mathematical skills by using the string’s
numbers to mark melody lines and language skills by discussing and creating lyrics
to their songs. They also developed their interaction skills by listening to each other
and sharing their ideas. The children used their creative thinking to develop musical
ideas through various orientations. The results showed that pre-primary children are
capable of and motivated to use their creative thinking to create lyrics and melodies.
The five-string kantele demonstrated to be a useful instrument for early childhood
music education and musical improvisation.
9.4.2.2 Case 5: Composing Children’s Songs
Ruokonen and Ruismäki (2016) conducted a qualitative study of 16 student teach-

ers’ experiences of studying group composing in a blended learning environment.
In this study, Erasmus exchange students (studying in Finland) participated with
Finnish students in voluntary music course. The musical backgrounds of these stu-
dents varied from novice to advance. One aim of the course was to learn creative
group thinking by composing a children’s song together. The purpose of the group
composing was to enrich their musical creativity and to develop a new technology-
based blended learning model for student teachers’ music educational needs.
Student teachers could study creative production in web-based learning environ-

ment between the live group sessions.
According to Graham (2006) and Graham and Dziuban (2008), there are many
reasons for adopting a blended approach to improve learning. In this case, the
blended learning by rotation method was used to explore the learning experiences
of studying music and group composing in a blended learning environment com-
pared to traditional face-to-face learning. The qualitative data was content analysed
by using Amabile’s (1983) componential model of individuals’ or small groups’
creative processes. Amabile’s (2018) multiplicative creative process consists of sev-
eral sub-processes: articulating the problem to be solved; preparing to solve the
problem by gathering information; generating ideas for solving the problem; vali-
dating the solution and communicating it to others.
In the first ‘task presentation phase’, the aim of the study course (composing
music) was presented to student teachers. The e-learning environment (instrumental
lessons and creative production lessons) was introduced to the groups. In the second
phase ‘preparation’, all information connected to the task was gathered and studied
to solve problems or continue the creative work. Preparation was important for the
student teachers to get to know each other face-to-face by singing, dancing and
playing (Finnish five-string kantele and Orff instruments) together. Student teachers
were asked to combine the online environment with their current level of instrumen-
tal studies and to find an instrument to play. Student teachers researched children’s
songs (melodies, ambitus, rhythms, words and musical forms) from different cul-
tures and shared them in face-to-face group sessions. For their research, they used
song books, social media sites and internet sources. Student teachers also organized
a one-day playground singing and playing project for children. In the third phase,
‘response generation’, new ideas for children’s song were created. Students brought
their creative musical ideas together.
Composing occurred during face-to-face group meetings so that the teacher edu-
cator could support them when needed. In the fourth phase, ‘response validation’,
student teachers evaluated and selected the best musical ideas to continue on.
Students used English as their common language, but they also translated the words
into their own languages. In the fifth phase, outcome or creative production, they
presented their song to the other groups. In this phase, they concentrated on the
interpretation and aesthetical details of the song. Finally, in face-to face situation,
all songs were performed together, audio-recorded, shared and assessed within
the group.
According to the results, a major advantage of blended learning was that it sup-
ported student teachers in their creative thinking by offering more creative models
and opportunities for independent and constructive learning. The use of information
and communication technologies improved student teachers’ attitudes towards
independent learning in terms of their creative thinking and musical skills. These
results also supported Ketonen’s and Lonka’s (2012) findings that the blended
approach combines the best elements of engaged face-to-face learning and online
independent or flipped classroom techniques for engaging university students.
126 I. Ruokonen
9.4.2.3 Summary of the Results
For concluding the main results of the reviewed case studies are; firstly that the
participatory design-based learning in the arts in co-operation with children groups
works well with student teachers’ arts pedagogical studies and; secondly, group
work even in blended learning environment engage learners to creative productions.
In these arts educational projects the focus was on facilitating learning processes,
children’s and student teachers’ creative thinking, group interaction, use of different
learning environment and computer-supported learning. Thirdly, by combining the
arts, play and new technology children engaged with new technology by using
applications on tablets and their imagination to open augmented realities associated
with the arts works or making animation films or composing music.
9.5 Discussion
According to the findings of these five case studies, collaborative, playful and par-
ticipatory design-learning practices with children or for children are beneficial for
developing arts pedagogical studies in teacher education. Results showed that stu-
dent teachers and children in these studies produced excellent ideas together. Results
promotes the sensitive to and respectful interaction and respectfulness of each oth-
er’s and children’s ideas. These case studies shows that when students and children
feel that their creative ideas and strengths are valued and they have a meaningful
role and responsibility for learning, then they will truly engage in learning.
Reflecting on these five case studies, I fully agree the opinion of Olafsson (2020)
that student teachers should study more research-based knowledge about creativity
during their teacher education and get deeper knowledge about creative arts peda-
gogy through practical experience for strengthening their individual creative capac-
ity. Collaborative way of working strengthens learning (also e.g. Hughes et al.,
2018). The results of these case studies, as well as Hughes et al. (2018) and Marsh
et al. (2018) show that design learning or maker space culture should be developed
as a part of teacher education developed further to for creating dynamic relations
students’ learning processes in the arts, science and new technology.
In academic teacher education, learning in, about and through the arts needs to
be encouraged. In these five cases, the student teachers reported engagement in their
arts pedagogical learning. Results showed that student teachers learned to plan, dis-
cuss, write, practise, play and reflect on their skills in terms of their creative design-
learning process, interactive artistic performance with children and arts pedagogical
interactions with children. In these cases, student teachers and children learned to
work together and to listen to and respect others and themselves. These case studies
and also Shih’s (2018) study reports how children can use arts to show their creative
ideas and feelings and learn about artistic and aesthetical thinking. Results showed
that the arts-based pedagogies are key elements in the early childhood education by
generating meaningful, child-centred contents for children in different learning
environments. Also Ward’s (2013) findings showed that when educators used arts-
based pedagogies and their own creative arts experiences and skills, they signifi-
cantly increased the use of different learning environment and natural word in
ECEC daily content.
In these phenomenon-based arts projects, an open, free and playful atmosphere
reported by student teachers to be important this meant that all of the participants’
views and opinions were equally respected to create an inspiring and encouraging
team. This promotes the playful and imaginary learning of Finnish ECEC (Kangas
et al., 2019; Syrjämäki, 2019). The results of these case studies showed that student
teachers and children enjoyed of using their imaginations and passion to create
something good, playful, and aesthetically valuable.
Results also showed that technology leads to new possibilities and activities for
creating and integrating the arts in ECEC. These positive experiences of collabora-
tive design-learning approach encourage early childhood teacher education to plan
more courses that promote phenomenon-based collaborative, participatory and
playful learning through the arts.
9.6 ecommendations for Improving the Quality of Arts

R
Pedagogy in ECEC
According to Finnish ECEC laws, every child should have the right to high quality
early childhood education. New legislation requires that the best interests of the
child should always be the first priority in all planning, implementation and decision
making for ECEC. Teacher education is the key element in developing early child-
hood education. At the moment Finnish ECEC needs more academically educated
early childhood education teachers.
According to the Act on Early Childhood Education and Care (540/2018), by
2030, two out of three education, teaching and nursing staff must have university
degree in early childhood education teacher training. After the transition period, a
master’s degree will be required for kindergarten heads. The development of the
quality and pedagogy of early childhood education plays a key role in legal reform.
Since the 1990s, the number of academic early childhood education teachers has
declined to around 18% of the total staff (Alila et al., 2014; Onnismaa et al., 2017).
The change in staff structure requires that there be a sufficient number of academi-
cally educated early childhood education teachers.
The quality of arts education is a major challenge for early childhood teacher
education. In addition to general arts pedagogical skills, an early childhood educa-
tion teacher also needs sufficient skills in diverse art forms and a sufficient amount
of arts pedagogical knowledge specific to different art forms. The artistic back-
grounds of student teachers vary, and therefore the groups are heterogeneous, also
the amount of arts pedagogical studies has decreased since 1995 (Ruokonen &
Ruismäki, 2010). The most important task of a teacher educator is to strengthen
128 I. Ruokonen
students’ confidence in their role as an arts educator and the related lifelong learn-
ing. In addition, there is a need for further educational studies in early childhood
arts pedagogy.
Most of all, early childhood education pedagogy needs to promote holistic,
phenomenon-based learning practices that utilize collaborative, creative, playful
and participatory practices in which a space is provided to highlight everyone’s
strengths and interests. It is important to draw student teacher’s personal strengths
and passions into engaging collaborative learning process. Enchantment is common
for play and the arts. Children have big ideas and can perceive the world in new,
unprecedented and miraculous ways. Diverse forms of expression play and the arts
should belong in everyday practices of ECEC implemented by a pedagogically edu-
cated ECE teacher. These five case studies show that developing co-operation
between universities’ teacher education units and kindergartens through the arts
pedagogical projects can offer extra space both student teachers’ and children’s
creative thinking, pedagogical learning and artistic expression.
References
Act on Early Childhood Education and Care. (540/2018). Ministry of Education and Culture,
Finland.
Alila, K., Kahiluoto, T., & Pekuri, H-M. (toim.). (2014). Varhaiskasvatuksen historia, nykytila ja
kehittämisen suuntalinjat. Opetus- ja kulttuuriministeriön työryhmämuistioita ja selvityksiä12.
Opetus- ja kulttuuriministeriö.
Alila, K., & Ukkonen-Mikkola, T. (2018). Käsiteanalyysistä varhaiskasvatuksen pedagogiikan
määrittelyyn. Kasvatus, 49(1), 75–81.
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 357–376.
Amabile, T. M. (2018). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity.
Routledge.
Basic Education Act. (628/1998). Ministry of Education and Culture, Finland.
Basic Education Decree. (852/1998). Ministry of Education and Culture, Finland.
Bautista, A., Moreno-Núñez, A., Bull, R., Amsah, F., & Koh, S. F. (2018). Arts-related pedago-
gies in preschool education: An Asian perspective. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 45,
277–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2017.12.005
Bereiter, C. (2014). Principled practical knowledge: Not a bridge but a ladder. Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 23(1), 4–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2013.812533
Dewey, J. (1938). Education and experience. Simon and Schuster.
Dewey, J. (1948). Foreword. In H. Schaefer-Simmern (Ed.), The unfolding of artistic activity: Its
basis, processes and implications. University of California.
Dewey, J. (2005). Art as experience. Perigee. (Original work published 1934).
Eisner, E. W. (2002). The arts and the creations of mind. University of Yale: Yale University Press.
Faulkner, R. (2006). Group composing: Pupil perceptions from a social psychological study. Music
Education Research, 5(2), 101–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461380032000085504
Finnish National Agency for Education (FNAE). (2016). National core curriculum for pre-primary
education.
Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future directions.
In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), The handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives,
local designs (pp. 3–21). Wiley.
Graham, C. R., & Dziuban, C. (2008). Blended learning environments. In M. J. Bishop (Ed.),
Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 269–276).
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hakkarainen, P. (1993). Oppiminen korkeakouluopetuksen haasteena. Kasvatus, 24(5), 473–481.
Hedges, H., & Cullen, J. (2012). Participatory learning theories: A framework for early child-
hood pedagogy. Early Child Development and Care, 182(7), 921–940. https://doi.org/10.108
0/03004430.2011.597504
Hughes, J., Morrison, L., Kajamaa, A., & Kumpulainen, K. (2018). Makerspaces promoting stu-
dents’ design thinking and collective knowledge creation: Examples from Canada and Finland.
In A. Brooks, E. Brooks, & C. Sylla (Eds.), Interactivity, game creation, design, learning, and
innovation (pp. 343–352). Springer.
learn in Finland. In S. Garvis & S. Philipson (Eds.), Early childhood education in the 21st
century: Vol. 3. Policification of early childhood education and care (pp. 110–127). Routledge.
Kangas, K. (2014). The artifact project: Promoting design learning in the elementary classroom
(Home economics and craft studies research reports 35). Faculty of Beahvioural Sciences.
University of Helsinki: Unigrafia.
Ketonen, E., & Lonka, K. (2012). How to make a lecture course an engaging learning experience?
Studies for the Learning Society, 2/3, 63–74. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10240-012-0006-1
Knutson, K., Okada, T., & Crowley, K. (Eds.). (2020). Multidisciplinary approaches to art learn-
ing and creativity: Fostering artistic exploration in formal and informal settings. Routledge.
Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential
learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(2), 193–212.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as a source of learning and development.
Prentice Hall.
Lahti, H., & Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P. (2014). Designing teaching-teaching designing: Teacher’s
guidance in a virtual design studio. Journal of Learning Design, 7(1), 10–26.
Linnavalli, T. (2019). Effects of musical experience on children’s language and brain development
[Doctoral dissertation, University of Helsinki]. Studies of cognitive science 12. University of
Helsinki. Helsinki: Unigrafia.
Lonka, K. (2018). Phenomenal learning from Finland. Edita.
Marsh, J., Arnseth, H. C., & Kumpulainen, K. (2018). Maker literacies and maker citizenship in
the MakEY (makerspaces in the early years) project. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction,
2(3), 1–19.
McPherson, G. E. (1994). Improvisation: Past present and future. In Lees. H. (Ed.), Musical con-
nections: Tradition and change (pp. 154–162). Proceedings of the 21th world conference of the
international music education. Tampa, .
Nikkola, T., Reunamo, J., & Ruokonen, I. (2020). Children’s creative thinking abilities and social
orientations in Finnish early childhood education and care. Early Child Development and Care,
1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2020.1813122
Olafsson, B. (2020). Norwegian arts and crafts teachers’ conceptions of creativity. Journal for
Research in Arts and Sports Education, 4(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.23865/jased.v4.1700
Onnismaa, E. L., Kalliala, M., & Tahkokallio, L. (2017). Koulutuspoliittisen paradoksin jäljillä.
Miten varhaiskasvatus muotoutui sosiaalialan koulutuksia suosivaksi [Reflections on an
education policy paradox: How did social sector occupational groups get a dominant position
in early education.]. Kasvatus & aika., 11(3), 4–20.
Paatela-Nieminen, M. (2016). Lisätty todellisuus saa taideteokset elämään. Stylus, 1(16), 22–23.
Räsänen, M. (2008). Kuvakulttuurit ja integroiva taideopetus. Gummerus.
Repo, L., Paananen, M., Eskelinen, M., Mattila, V., Lerkkanen, M.-K., Gammelgård, L., Ulvinen,
J., Marjanen, J., Kivistö, A., & Hjelt, H. (2020). Every day quality in early childhood education
130 I. Ruokonen
and care: ECEC curriculum implementation at ECEC centres and in family day care. Finnish
Education Evaluation Centre.
Reunamo, J., Lee, H. C., Wang, L. C., Ruokonen, I., Nikkola, T., & Malmström, S. (2014).
Children’s creativity in day care. Early Child Development and Care, 184(4), 617–632. https://
doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2013.806495
Ruokonen, I. (2009). Music education issues in the learning environments of Helsinki area day-
care centres. CFMAE Journal, 1(1), 212–219.
Ruokonen, I. (2013). Ilon sillat [Bridges of joy] [video]. Vimeo. https://vimeo.com/channels/
ilonsillat
Ruokonen, I. (2015). Sibelius and the world of art: Experience and expression through music and
imagery [Video]. Vimeo. https://vimeo.com/130703389
Ruokonen, I. (2016). Esi- ja alkuopetuksen musiikin didaktiikka. Finn Lectura.
Ruokonen, I. (2020). Varhaiskasvatuksen taidekasvatus. Leikkiä, lumousta, oppimista ja hyvää
elämää. [Arts education in early childhood education. Play, enchantment, learning and a good
life] Helsinki: Association of Early Childhood Teachers.
Ruokonen, I., Kattainen, A., & Ruismäki, H. (2012). Preschool children and the 5-string kantele:
An exercise in composition. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 45, 391–400. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.575
Ruokonen, I., & Othman, E. (2016). Sibelius and the world of art: Experience and expression
through music and imagery in arts educational studies. IMAG, 3(1/2), 236–251.
Ruokonen, I., & Ruismäki, H. (2010). Taito- ja taideaineet akateemisessa opettajankoulutuksessa -
haikuja opettajankouluttajilta. In A. Kallioniemi, A. Toom, M. Ubani, & H. Linnansaari (Eds.),
Akateeminen luokanopettajakoulutus: 30 vuotta teoriaa, käytäntöä ja maistereita [Academic
teacher education: 30 years of theory, practice and masters] (pp. 271–294). Kasvatusalan tut-
kimuksia 52. Helsinki: Suomen Kasvatustieteellinen Seura.
Ruokonen, I., & Ruismäki, H. (2012). Learning circus skills in a day care Centre: Student teachers
in a cooperative, integrative arts education project original. Procedia: Social and Behavioural
Sciences, 69, 1443–1451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.12.084
Ruokonen, I., & Ruismäki, H. (2013). Bridges of joy: A case study of the collaborative design learn-
ing process of the university teacher students. The European Journal of Social & Behavioural
Sciences, 7(4), 1187–1192. https://doi.org/10.15405/ejsbs.98
Ruokonen, I., & Ruismäki, H. (2016). E-learning in music: A case study of learning group com-
posing in a blended learning environment. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 217,
109–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.02.039
Rusanen, S. (2007). Taidekasvattajaksi varhaiskasvatukseen: kuvataiteen opintojen kehit-
täminen lastentarhanopettajien koulutuksessa. Taideteollisen korkeakoulun julkaisusarja A77.
Gummerus.
Ruokonen, I. , Tervaniemi, M., & Reunamo, J. (2021). The significance of music in early childhood
education and care of toddlers in Finland: An extensive observational study. Music Education
Research, 23(5), 634–646. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2021.1965564
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2014). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technol-
ogy. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97–115).
Cambridge University Press.
Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., Viilo, M., & Hakkarainen, K. (2010). Learning by collaborative design:
Technology-enhanced knowledge practices. International Journal of Technology and Design
Education, 20, 109–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-008-9066-4
Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P. (2011). Design based learning in crafts education: Authentic problems
and materialization of design thinking. In H. Ruismäki & I. Ruokonen (Eds.), Design learning
and wellbeing. Fourth international journal of intercultural arts education (Research report
331) (pp. 3–14). University of Helsinki: Unigrafia.
Shih, Y. H. (2018). Helping young children perceive beauty: Exploring the teaching principle of
aesthetic education in early childhood. Journal of Chinese Management Development, 7(1),
16–28. https://doi.org/10.22158/ct.v1n1p24.
Soininen, M. (1995). Tiedon jakajasta tietämyksen rakentajaksi. [From knowledge sharing to

knowledge constructing]. In J. Heikkilä & S. Aho (Eds.), Muutosagenttiopettaja: Luovuuden
irtiotto. Turku University Publications B: 48. Department of Teacher Education (pp. 159–173).
Turku: University Press.
Syrjämäki, M. (2019). Leikkien, havainnoiden, kannatellen: Vertaisvuorovaikutusta vahvistavaa
pedagogiikkaa varhaiserityiskasvatuksen toimintaympäristössä. [Playing, observing, scaffold-
ing The pedagogy of enhancing peer interaction in early childhood special education]. Helsinki
Studies in Education, 59. University of Helsinki. Helsinki: Unigrafia.
Torraco, R. J. (2016). Writing integrative literature reviews: Using the past and present to
explore the future. Human Resource Development Review, 15(4), 404–428. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1534484316671606
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Nov. 20, 1989). 1577 U.N.T.S. 3; 28
I.L.M. 1456.
Wang, F., Kinzie, M. B., McGuire, P., & Pan, E. (2010). Applying technology to inquiry-based
learning in early childhood education. Early Childhood Education Journal, 37(5), 381–389.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-009-0364-6
Ward, K. S. (2013). Creative arts-based pedagogies in early childhood education for sustainability
(EfS) challenges and possibilities. Australian Journal of Environmental.
Chapter 10
North Sámi Language Nests in Northern
Finland: A Case Study of Sámi Early
Childhood Education and Care
Rauni Äärelä-Vihriälä and Tuija Turunen
Abstract The purpose of this article is to introduce the special characteristics of

Sámi language immersion through a language nest approach in early childhood edu-
cation and care in northern Finland, the Sámi home district. It aims to develop Sámi
language immersion as Sámi languages spoken in Finland are endangered and
require urgent recovery measures. The study is framed by an indigenous research
paradigm, which focuses on the community. This entails a strong awareness of con-
text and respect for traditional knowledge. This framework is supported by an eth-
nographic study approach and the long-term presence of an indigenous researcher.
The data for this chapter were collected through observations of a language nest in
an early childhood education and care setting. The results reveal how Sámi lan-
guage immersion is carried out in Sámi language nests. The concept of a language
nest pedagogy based on these results provides insight into Sámi language pedagogi-
cal practices. The results imply that language nests not only provide language edu-
cation but also strengthen the Sámi culture and way of life. In addition, languages
nests bring communities closer together, thus supporting Sámi language and culture
in a broader sense.
10.1 Introduction
This article introduces the special characteristics of Sámi language immersion

through a language nest approach in early childhood education and care (ECEC) in
northern Finland, the Sámi home district. According to UNESCO (2019), all three
Sámi languages spoken in Finland, including Northern Sámi, Inari Sámi and Skolt
R. Äärelä-Vihriälä (*)
Sámi University College, Kautokeino, Norway
e-mail: rauniav@samas.no
T. Turunen
University of Lapland, Rovaniemi, Finland

Switzerland AG 2022
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95512-0_10
134 R. Äärelä-Vihriälä and T. Turunen
Sámi, are endangered. As a result of assimilation policies enacted by the Finnish

government, many Sámi people have lost some or all of their native languages. In
the interest of assimilation through education, various measures were carried out
between 1950 and 1960, which prohibited the practice of traditional Sámi religion
and the speaking of Sámi languages in schools (Kuokkanen, 2009). These policies
led to a widespread forced language shift from Sámi to Finnish. Because these
ecclesiastical education and school measures, the Sámi people were forced to
change their language, customs, and values to match those of the surrounding soci-
ety (Keskitalo et al., 2014).
A native language is usually defined as the first language learned in childhood in
a family sharing the same cultural and linguistic background (Love & Ansaldo,
2010). However, this definition is based on colonial practices that aimed to destroy
ethnolinguistic identity. The Sámi people identify with the Sámi languages, but their
first language learning has been compromised for generations. Linguistic resuscita-
tion is the key to handling the burden of the assimilation heritage (Fishman, 1991).
Since the loss of language in Sámi communities has not been voluntary, it can thus
be said that the native languages are still their first languages (Skutnabb-Kangas,
2000). This perspective is an important starting point for language revitalisation,
emphasising the holistic concern for the well-being of indigenous people.
Language is bound to culture and traditional knowledge (Vuolab, 2000). Sámi
people use their languages to tell stories, perform joik (Sámi traditional singing),
read poems, play with words, talk, and tell jokes to one another. For example, the
practice of reindeer husbandry involves a very comprehensive Sámi vocabulary
describing the natural environment, the reindeer themselves, and their living condi-
tions. Children are taught to use the language associated with reindeer husbandry by
participating together with their family in the reindeer husbandry duties (Joks,
2007). Without language, every generation would be forced to rediscover such basic
knowledge to protect their culture. If a language dies, the wisdom of thousands of
years of experience disappears (Vuolab, 2000).
Colonisation is influenced by the idea of ‘otherness’; it places its targets, such as
indigenous people, in the space of another (Keskitalo, 2017). In that space, the
needs of indigenous people are not of particular interest. This has meant that Sámi
children have been taught Finnish ECEC practices, and their language and cultural
needs have been ignored (Laiti, 2018; Äärelä, 2016). However, over the past three
decades, the Sámi people in Finland have begun to assert their right to their own
language and culture (Lehtola, 2015). One of the most significant steps has been the
Sámi education development project currently underway in Finland, coordinated by
the Ministry of Education and Culture, which focuses on the development of Sámi
education. Similarly, indigenous peoples around the world have started to claim
back their languages and developed language nest programmes as part of their lan-
guage revitalisation efforts (Olthuis et al., 2013).
Traditionally, language nests are ECEC settings for children from birth to school
age using total early language immersion. They are used by indigenous peoples to
revive or revitalise their languages, cultures, and values (Olthuis et al., 2013). The
nesting activities started with the Kōhanga Reo movement of the Māoris in Āotearoa,
10 North Sámi Language Nests in Northern Finland: A Case Study of Sámi Early… 135
New Zealand, in the early 1980s (Hinton & Meek, 2016). From there, the method
quickly spread to Hawaii. Both Hawaiian and Māori language nesting activities are
based on the educational philosophies of indigenous cultures. They mirror the cul-
tures’ own values of humanity and play a central role in indigenous educational
ideologies.
10.2 Sámi Language Nests: Language and Values
Sámi language nests link language and culture. Within language nests, children are
included in language revitalisation activities, which are more of a quest for simulta-
neous bilingualism than successive bilingualism. This involves the commitment of
the whole family and community; everyone who speaks the language must speak it
with the child, even outside of the language nest. Most of the time, the other speak-
ers are grandparents who have learned the language at home as children’s parents
have mostly lost their language because of the assimilation policy. Connecting the
generations of speakers in this way is one of the most important functions of lan-
guage nests as part of the language revitalisation process (Olthuis et al., 2013;
Pasanen, 2015).
The Sámi language nests use a language immersion approach in which language
learning occurs through genuine interaction in everyday practices with complete
linguistic and cultural immersion (Laurén, 2008). The educators use only Sámi
when interacting with the children (Sámi Parliament, 2009). Children, especially in
their first years in language nest, can choose which language they use but are encour-
aged to speak Sámi, especially during guided pedagogical moments.
The activities of the language nests are based on Sámi ECEC principles and the
cultural values underlined by the community and traditional livelihoods; they are
also borne out of a desire to promote the development of Sámi identity (Sámi
Parliament, 2009, 2013). The goal of the nests is for children to achieve functional
bilingualism in Sámi and Finnish for different purposes in everyday situations
(Pasanen, 2015). In addition, language nesting revives the Sámi language and cul-
ture in the whole community and thus strengthens the Sámi’s sense of belonging.
The purpose of the Sámi language nesting activities has always been to increase
the number of native speakers. In Finland, the Sámi language nests started with a
Skolt Sámi language nest at Lake Sevettijärvi in 1993, prompted by the fact that the
UN’s International Year of Indigenous Peoples was being celebrated at the time.
The first Inari Sámi language nest was established in Ivalo in 1997 (Pasanen, 2015).
Currently, there are 12 language nests in Finland: seven Northern Sámi, three Inari
Sámi, and two Skolt Sámi nests (Sámi Parliament, 2019). The language nests are
mostly part of the local municipalities’ Sámi language ECEC services, except the
three Inari Sámi language nests, which are administered by the Inari Sámi
Association.
As part of Sámi education, the language nest activities are based on concrete
experiences, the natural environment, and the family community. Education focuses
on individual freedom and choice, emphasising oktavuohta lundui [connection to

nature], iešbirgejupmi [well-being], iešráđálašvuohta [self-reliance],
gierdevašvuohta [endurance)], and friddjavuohta [freedom] (Balto, 1997). The
Sámi have their own social operating model, which prioritises family relationships,
friendship, and the Sámi character (Aikio 2010).
The Sámi have retained their traditional knowledge, lifestyle, and livelihoods
from generation to generation (Sámi Parliament, 2006). Through intergenerational
experiences, Sámi practices connect the past, present, and future (Porsanger &
Guttorm, 2011). In Sámi education, children are co-owners of their education. They
are responsible for their actions, and their self-esteem develops naturally through
action (Balto, 1997). The community supports children’s individual development
and cognitive enhancement and expects children to face new challenges and find
ways to overcome them. By conquering challenges, the child’s autonomy increases.
Language plays a central role in Sámi education as a path towards the Sámi com-
munity and its cultural wisdom. Minority languages are like foxes, who must sur-
vive alone without the safety of the herd. To survive, a fox must look and listen, be
fully aware of all the surrounding dangers, and be prepared to hide, run away, and
consider all other creatures in the forest (Vuolab, 2000). Following this metaphor,
language nests are like fox nests, where children participate in language revitalisa-
tion efforts aimed at restoring the appreciation and significance of the Sámi lan-
guages through the intergenerational transmission of culture.
The Sámi Early Childhood Education Plan (Sámi Parliament, 2009) emphasises
the importance of language, highlighting that language builds a shared world vision
and culture. Through language, children have the opportunity to participate fully in
the Sámi community. As the Sámi people have historically interacted through dif-
ferent languages and cultures in the Sámiland, they appreciate strong language
skills. Language is not only an important means of communication and interaction
but also a symbol of ethnic cohesion (Balto, 1997). This sense of ethnic cohesion is
at risk of being lost due to the effects of the assimilation policies enacted over the
past 50+ years. For many children, the Sámi language nest may be their only Sámi
environment.
10.3 Methodological Approach and Methods
10.3.1 Indigenous Research Approach
This study explores Sámi ECEC in a language nest from the inside. The specific
research question of this study sought to answer was ‘How is Sámi language immer-
sion implemented in a North Sámi nest?’ The focus was on the functions and activi-
ties of the nest and how Sámi language use was supported and revitalised by them.
In this kind of indigenous research, the foundation and methodology for producing
new knowledge are based on the indigenous people’s own thoughts, needs, knowl-
edge, and experiences (Rigney, 1999). However, Sámi research must also follow
general scientific and ethical guidelines (Hoëm, 2009). Accordingly, Western

research paradigms and methods need to be critically examined when conducting
indigenous research (Tuhiwai Smith, 1999).
The first author of this study is a well-known Sámi scholar in the community. She
has extensive experience as an educator, organising Sámi teaching, producing teach-
ing materials, and training Sámi teachers. In accordance with the objectives of post-
colonial indigenous research, this research was carried out with the understanding
that the ownership of the project, data, and results lies with the Sámi community.
The project was also conducted in compliance with the Worlds Indigenous Nations
Higher Education Consortium (WINHEC) research standards and ethical guide-
lines, which underline that indigenous research must use the local language respect-
fully as a foundation for interpretation and meaning (WINHEC Research and
Journal Working Group, 2010). As language was central to this study, and all com-
munication with participants was conducted in Sámi, only a Sámi-speaking
researcher could have conducted it.
10.3.2 Setting and Participants
The ethnographical research process included two field periods in the North
Sámi language nest from 2014 to 2015 (described in a PhD study by Äärelä [2016]).
During these periods, the researcher collected data by observing everyday practices
at the language nest over a total of 12 days. Observations took place during prede-
termined days. The North Sámi language nest, acting as a research field, was one of
ten language nests operating in Finland in 2014–2015.The following example
describes the process of entering into the field; the data excerpts were translated
from Sámi and Finnish into English by the authors:
Mánná 1: Maid don čálat?
Dutki: Mun čálán iežan jurdagiid.
Mánná 1: Maid don jurddašat?
Child 1: What are you writing?
Researcher: I write my own thoughts.
Child 1: What do you think?
(Diary 19.5.2015)
10.3.3 Data Collection and Analysis
The language nest was a diverse and multifaceted phenomenon. It included educa-
tors, children, parents, toys, educational materials, indoor and outdoor spaces, lan-
guage arrangements, and the local community. As a community member, the
researcher was familiar with the children in the language nest. Hence, the children
approached the researcher every time she visited the language nest. The children
also asked her to be involved in their activities.
In ethnographic research like this, it is important to see the familiar with new
eyes, as data collection and analysis require the ability to distance oneself from the
subjects (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1995). In this study, the Sámi researcher was a
member of the Sámi community, thus exploring the culture to which she belongs
(Irvine & Gaffikin, 2006). Even though the researcher was an insider in the culture,
she was not familiar with language nests as a phenomenon. This provided her with
two roles: insider in the culture and outsider in the research phenomenon. This posi-
tion was critically reflected throughout the study.
The ethnographic methodological approach involved strengthening the first
author’s role of the researcher in the community. This meant that participation in
policy-making, community meetings, and non-governmental organisation activities
was reduced. However, after the study began and the community was informed and
accepted the study, the researcher’s role in supporting language revitalisation was
strengthened. Among indigenous peoples, research is often regarded a colonisation
process completed by outsiders (Kuokkanen, 2009) Therefore, it was vital that the
community was assured that the research aimed to serve community and would be
performed by a community member.
The data consisted of three 60-page, A4-sized notebooks (altogether 180 pages),
containing handwritten observations, drawings illustrating the language nest activi-
ties, and annotations of the researcher’s analytical thinking throughout the process
recorded in chronological order. These notebooks served as a progressive recording
of the data collection process and preliminary analysis. The data analyses were initi-
ated during the data collection period. In the actual analysis phase, a word processor
was first used to write up the observation entries, excluding the drawings. After, the
data were further categorised by using ECEC primary and secondary functions as
analytical tools. The primary functions consist of activities that are essential for
children’s well-being and the flow of daily practices, such as dining, dressing up,
and basic care activities (Harju-Luukkainen, 2007; Mård, 1996). The secondary
functions consist of activities that can be omitted without compromising children’s
well-being (Harju-Luukkainen, 2007; Mård, 1996). They are related to thematic
activities, morning welcoming gatherings, and play. In this study, the secondary
functions mirrored the special features of the language nest. Once the categorising
was completed, a thematic analysis was used to identify the key features of Sámi
pedagogy in these functions (see Nowell et al., 2017).
10.4 Results
10.4.1 Primary Functions: Sámi Language in Daily Practices
The primary functions of ECEC were categorised into four themes: giela geava-
heami movttiidahttin beaivválaš diliin [everyday activities of language support],
boradeapmi [dining], beaivenahkárat [naptime], and olgun lihkadeapmi [outdoor
activities]. The Sámi Early Childhood Education Plan (Sámi Parliament, 2009)
emphasises that Sámi cultural content should be implemented in daily activities to
provide children with natural experiences of their language and culture. Outdoor
activities were added to the primary functions because they are an integral part of
Sámi education.
During primary function activities, language nest educators promote children’s
linguistic activity while ensuring that they achieve the pedagogical goals (Sámi
Parliament, 2009). The primary functions are permanently included in the operation
of the language nest and cannot be removed when the daily plans change (see
Kettukangas, 2017). The following extract illustrates how the Sámi language was
incorporated into primary function activities:
The kids are eager to go out and play. They are looking for their clothes and looking for a
place to dress. Some children have itchy feet, and their eagerness tends to turn into sadness
when things do not happen fast enough. The educator notices the situation and grabs one of
the children into her arms, singing ‘Gos lea bealgi, gos lea bealgi? Dáppehan mun!’ [‘Where
is the thumb, where is the thumb? Here I am!’]. The educator sings while dressing a child
at the same time. The child calms down. (Diary 12.5.2015)
In the situation described above, giela geavaheami movttiidahttin beaivválaš diliin

[everyday activities of language support] formed the socio-cultural basis for chil-
dren’s Sámi language learning. During these activities, language learning situations
were relaxed and natural. The educators also planned in advance how they could
support language learning during daily activities.
Boradeapmi [dining] was also an important part of the language nest interac-
tions. The educators consciously emphasised questions and phrases using the Sámi
language. The educators had pictures on the wall labelled with the most important
phrases used in dining. Labels were also attached to most furniture and objects:
I look around the kitchen. It’s like a linguistic treasure trove: texts in Sámi, in large coloured
letters. No eyes would be able to attempt not to see ‘Leage buorre!’ [‘Please!’] Or, ‘Giitu!’
[‘Thank you!’]. (Diary 16.6.2015)
The educators maintained Sámi language conversation throughout the lunch period.
Children could first use Finnish, and the educators used different language immer-
sion pedagogies to encourage them to say the same thing in Sámi. In the discussion
of the following excerpt, the educator indicated that she did not understand what the
child was saying and expressed that the child was expected to use Sámi:
Child: Saanko lisää maitoa?(Finnish)
Educator: Maid? Loddi girddii almmis?(Sámi)
Child: Oaččošingo lási mielkki?(Sámi)
Child: Saanko lisää maitoa?
Educator: What? A bird flying in the sky?
Child: Can I have some milk?
(Diary 28.4.2015)
Beaivenahkárat [naptime] was observed to be peaceful, with Sámi music and story-
telling in the background. It was an important safe language moment during the day,
with Sámi cultural manifestations appearing in this safe lingual context.
In the language nest, living in balance with nature was emphasised. Therefore,
olgun lihkadeapmi [outdoor activities] were a crucial part of everyday practice.
Children were taught to find objects and to develop the means for outdoor play by
using nature. This can be called exploratory education through primary functions.
We are in the outdoor space when one child finds a timberman beetle [a fairly big insect].
He shouts at others to watch. They put the timberman beetle to the snout of a stick and walk
around the yard. All the kids want to keep the stick. They wander around with the stick.
(Diary 16.6.2015)
The extract illustrates the children’s straightforward relationship with nature.

The outdoor spaces were designed to emphasise the Sámi culture’s learning envi-
ronment. The language nest was located in the middle of nature and included a
goahti [a Sámi hut], elliid bálggis [animal trail], sáttolođá [sandbox], and gárdi
[reindeer fence]. During outdoor activities, the children used plastic four-wheel
mopeds as all-terrain vehicles, a suohpan (a lariat-like rope, important in reindeer
herding), and wooden knives. These objects were similar to those used in person-
nel’s everyday work. This supported the Sámi pedagogical principle that children
should learn to use and care for their tools through play. For example, a wooden
knife was viewed as a real knife.
We are in the outdoor space and watch the children playing. One of them grabs a wooden
knife and starts running around. The educator goes to him. She stops the child, squats in
front of him and asks, ‘Lávego du áhčči viehkat niibbi gieđas?’ [‘Does your father run with
a knife in his hand?’]. (Diary 19.5.2015)
In summary, the primary function activities were conducted in Sámi and were based
on Sámi culture. The cultural values of Sámi education could, therefore, be recog-
nised in everyday life in the language nest. The primary activities consisted of daily
care, activities related to care, and necessary activities in the language nest. All
activities were permeated by Sámi language activities based on Sámi culture.
10.4.2 Secondary Functions: Learning Sámi Culture
The secondary functions were categorised into seven themes: fáddáoahpahus [theme
teaching], bagadallon iđitboddu [morning circle], muitaleapmi ja máidnasiid
máilbmi [storytelling], stohkosat ja bargobihtát mat ovddidit giellamáhtu [games
and tasks that develop language skills], guossit mat ovdanbuktet kultuvrralaš sis-
doalu [visitors as producers of cultural content], and sierra jahkodatáiggiid doaim-
mat [annual-cycle-related activities].
In the language nest, all activities were based on the sierra jahkodatáiggiid
doaimmat [Sámi annual cycle]. The overarching theme for the entire operating
period (2014–2015) was nature and nature cycle activities. The cycle of nature-
related themes followed the goals of the Sámi Early Childhood Education Plan
(Sámi Parliament 2009). The activities followed the Sámi annual cycle with eight
seasons, and thus varied according to the seasons and resources available. In
addition, the language nest implemented the cultural values of Sámi ECEC, which
were reflected in the design of the themes.
Themes were an important part of the iđitboddu [morning circle], which was a
pre-planned activity and an integral part of the morning routine in which all children
participated. The morning circle is widely used in ECEC practices, but in the lan-
guage nest, it was used as an important pedagogical tool. The iđitboddu was based
on Sámi pedagogical practices and supported children’s ownership of their educa-
tion (Balto, 1997). During the iđitboddu, language played a significant role, and the
educators directed children to use it. The educators had specific linguistic goals for
each circle (e.g., marking the date, weather, and birthdays). In addition, the lan-
guage nest days were divided by activity, including mánnodat: speallan [Monday:
gaming], disdat: buđaldeapmi [Tuesday: crafting], gasaskvahkku: lávlun
[Wednesday: singing], duoras: datmálen [Thursday: painting], and bearjadat: máin-
nast [Friday: storytelling].
The following example highlights the pedagogical practices employed during
the iđitboddu. Before dawn, the educator guided the children towards the use of the
Sámi language by asking, ‘Mii lea min iđitbottu giella?’ [‘What is the language of
our morning circle?’]. The second part is as follows:
The second part of the morning circle is kept outside. The kids go out to get dressed, excited
knowing that next, we’re going to identify animal traces. In the yard, we are looking at a
card containing figures of animal traces with the purpose of matching the animal and its
tracks. Children are excited; for them, this is a familiar task. The elk trail is so easy! They
scream and continue to the next card. (Diary 23.9.2014)
The second example illustrates the specific cultural practices part of the iđitboddu:
The morning circle with joiking [Sámi singing] is about to end. Children can play different
musical instruments, and pretend that they are animals in the forest. Pretending to be an
angry bear seemed to be especially fun. The children were also eager to play the drum. The
joiking morning ends with joiking in the circle. (Diary 28.4.2015)
Muitaleapmi ja máidnasiid máilbmi [storytelling] was an integral part of the

daily practices and was often combined with primary functions. For example, when
it was nap time, the educator either read the children a book or played them a CD. In
addition, stories were utilised in the iđitboddu and during playtime. Also, some visi-
tors told stories as part of their programme. Storybooks in Sámi were available to
the children. Stories were also created in the goahti [a Sámi hut], where children and
educators gathered by the fire. The goahti is an important place in Sámi culture,
providing a learning environment where people traditionally sit by the fire and tell
stories.
The kids were lying around the fire, and everything was calm. The educator read a Sámi
story aloud as the fire crackled slowly. (Diary 16.6.2015)
The stories were often associated with some activities and play. In addition to pup-
pet shows and storytelling moments, the children produced their own stories using
iPads. They also edited short films starring themselves and chose the captions. The
topics and events were left up to the children to decide, and the films were viewed
later together. In addition, children made their own storybooks with their own draw-
ings in them.
Stohkosat ja bargobihtát mat ovddidit giellamáhtu [games and tasks that develop
language skills] were used on a daily basis. The Sámi Early Childhood Education
Plan (Sámi Parliament 2009) lists various games that can be played, including wolf
and reindeer, bear fishing, reindeer separation, notation, animal trace identification,
rag, and weather games. The themes for these games were drawn from the surround-
ing world and events as well as Sámi culture. In addition to these games, the lan-
guage nest educators and children also invented their own. One day, during the
observations, an educator asked the researcher to watch joiking tag, which was one
of their own games:
I watch the children’s enthusiasm when the educator says they can play joiking tag. The
children run laughing around the yard as the educator tries to catch them. There are children
joiking everywhere because joiking is the safe place. (Diary 8.6.2015)
The results show that community and cohesion play an important role in Sámi edu-
cation. Traditionally, children have been brought up as part of the surrounding com-
munity, in which the adults have the responsibility and the right to foster them. In
the language nest, the connection with the community was safeguarded; the educa-
tors were actively engaged with the surrounding community, and the language nest
children participated in local cultural events. During these activities, children heard
others speak the language, and they were able to use the language naturally outside
of the language nest.
Guossit mat ovdanbuktet kultuvrralaš sisdoalu [visitors as owners of cultural
knowledge] were common in the language nest. For example, the Sámi Children’s
Cultural Centre Mánnu organised joiking sessions in the language nest, including
two in the autumn term and one in the spring term. Joiking in the spring term was
part of the iđitboddu [morning circle].
Children are gathered around the guest on the floor. The guest brings up a soft toy [these
toys in the language nests are replicas of real animals, not just ‘teddy bears’], a mountain
hare, and shows it to the children while asking questions about what colour it is, and how it
changes [according to seasons]. The children participated in the discussion excitedly; the
hare is an animal familiar to them. The guest then takes out the drum and performs the
mountain hare joik. (Diary 28.4.2015)
The secondary functions were the planned activities of the language nest that are
carried out on a daily basis. They created opportunities for a holistic Sámi educa-
tional approach. For example, nature and the goahti as a learning environment
enabled the use of traditional proverbs in Sámi education, which reinforced the
indirect approach of education. Through thematic work, it was possible to add Sámi
content to the activities, especially in iđitboddu [morning circles]. When the
iđitboddu, which was held in a goahti [a Sámi hut] by the fire, it reinforced the tra-
ditional act of fire and being by the fire.
10.5 Discussion
The results presented in this chapter form the basis of the Sámi language nesting
pedagogy, illustrated in Fig. 10.1.
The four colours in the background of Fig. 10.1 represent the Sámi language and
the pedagogical framework of language teaching: Sámegiela ealaskahttin [Sámi
language revitalisation], Sápmelaš kultuvra [Sámi culture], Sápmelaš bajásgeassin
[Sámi education], and giela oahppan [language acquisition]. The colours symbolise
the main features of the Sámi lifestyle: red for fire, green for earth, yellow for the
sun, and blue for water.
The language nesting pedagogy is depicted in Fig. 10.1 as a šiella [cradle ball] in
the Sámi environment. The šiella is a protective object given to children to keep evil
spirits away and is usually attached to the child’s cradle, bed, carriage, or carrying
case. It reflects the language nest pedagogy’s underlining ideology ‘to keep the
children safe’ as they learn the Sámi language in the Sámi environment. The šiella
is crafted with nine balls, which illustrate the basics of the language nesting peda-
gogy principles. These are the functions that facilitate language learning. They
include the primary activities, the annual nature cycle, community and visitors as
resources, small group pedagogy, theme teaching, morning classes, language learn-
ing games, storytelling, and material resources.
Language immersion as a fundamental feature of language nesting pedagogy is
part of Sámi pedagogy. Sámi pedagogy has special characteristics related to adapt-
ing learning environments and the roles of learners and educators to the Sámi cul-
ture and combining the development of educational sciences with traditional Sámi
knowledge and education (Keskitalo et al., 2014). The results of the present study
promote individual freedom and choice, which are key elements of Sámi pedagogy.
Fig. 10.1 Sámigielat giellabeasis pedagogihkka [Sámi language nesting pedagogy]

These elements were present in activities that emphasised oktavuohta lundui [con-
nection to nature], iešbirgejupmi [well-being], iešráđálašvuohta [self-reliance],
gierdevašvuohta [endurance], and friddjavuohta [freedom].
10.6 Implications and Future Recommendations
The status of language nests should be strengthened at the national level through
policy and guidelines to make nests a permanent activity. This approach primarily
involves ensuring that Sámi children have equal access to Sámi language ECEC. To
achieve this, the measures proposed in the Ministry of Education and Culture’s
action program for the revitalisation of the Sámi language should be used and fur-
ther promoted (Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture, 2012, 2014). This is
essential for Sámi communities to heal from their colonial past. Time is passing, and
language nests are required to strengthen the language connection between
generations.
Language nest activities should be based on the Sámi Early Childhood Education
Plan, which could be supported by language nest educators. For example, the Early
Childhood Education Plan in the Utsjoki municipality extensively addresses the
priorities of ECEC in the Sámi language (Utsjoen kunta, 2017). Accordingly, the
Sodankylä municipality’s Early Childhood Education Plan (Sodankylän kunta,
2017) is entirely based on language nest pedagogy, and its implementation involves
the early completion of a language nest.
Language nest pedagogy is part of Sámi pedagogy, which is based on the values
of Sámi education. As highlighted in this article, language nest pedagogy goes
through the primary and secondary functions and the Sámi language and culture are
intertwined in both of them. These functions of language nest pedagogy should be
further researched and developed as a part of language nest activities.
The role of the Sámi language nests as key to language revitalisation is indisput-
able. The ability of language nests to revitalise the whole community should be
highlighted through research across disciplines. The language nest reflects the cur-
rent situation, needs, aspirations, scars of the past, and hope for the future of the
entire Sámi community.
Acknowledgements Work on this chapter was funded by Kieli- ja kulttuuritietoinen koulutus -

hanke DivED [Language and culturally respective education-project DivED]
(OKM/75/523/2017)], Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture.
References
Äärelä, R. (2016). Dat ii leat dušše dat giella. Se ei ole vain se kieli: Tapaustutkimus saamenkielis-
estä kielipesästä saamelaisessa varhaiskasvatuksessa. [Dat ii leat dušše dat giella: A case study
of a Sámi language nest in Sámi early childhood education]. Lapin yliopisto.
Aikio, A. (2010). Olmmošhan gal birge: Áššit mat ovddidit birgema [A human being can bear up:
Things that help you to succeed]. ČálliidLágádus.
Balto, A. (1997). Sámi mánáidbajásgeassin nuppástuvvá [Sámi education is changing]. Notam
Gyldendal.
Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture. (2012). Toimenpideohjelma saamen kielen elvyt-
tämiseksi [Proposal for action to revitalise Sámi language].
Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture. (2014). Valtioneuvoston periaatepäätös toimenpideo-
hjelmaksi saamen kielen elvyttämiseksi [Decision of the Council of State for a proposal for
action to revitalise Sámi language].
Fishman, J. (1991). Reversing language shift: Theoretical and empirical foundations of assistance
to threatened languages. Multilingual Matters.
Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1995). Ethnography: Principles in practice. Routledge.
Harju-Luukkainen, H. (2007). Kielikylpydidaktiikkaa kehittämässä: 3–6-vuotiaiden kielikylpylas-
ten kielellinen kehitys ja kielikylpydidaktiikan kehittäminen päiväkodissa [Advancing language
bath pedagogy: 3–6-year children’s linguistic development and developing language bath ped-
agogy in yearly years setting]. Åbo Akademi University Press.
Hinton, L., & Meek, B. A. (2016). Language acquisition, shift, and revitalization processes in the
USA and Canada. In S. M. Coronel-Molina & T. L. McCarty (Eds.), The handbook of indig-
enous language revitalization in the Americas (pp. 92–120). Routledge.
Hoëm, A. (2009). Sámi dutkan [Sámi research]. In J. Keskitalo, K. Nystad, & T. Pettersen (Eds.),
Sámi oahpahus – sámi dutkan – sámi ásahus [Sámi teaching – Sámi research – Sámi institu-
tion] (pp. 53–58). Sámi allaskuvla 20 jagi. Fagtrykk Idé as.
Irvine, H., & Gaffikin, M. (2006). Getting in, getting on and getting out: Reflections on a qualita-
tive research project. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 19(1), 115–145.
Joks, S. (2007). Boazodoalu máhtut áiggis áigái – Etniid doaibma árbevirolaš oahpaheamis boaz-
odoalus [Reindeer herding skills from time to time – Mothers’ activities in traditional teaching
of reindeer herding]. Dieđut 3/2007. Sámi allaskuvla.
Keskitalo, P. (2017). Kultursensitiiva Sámi skuvla [Culture-sensitive Sámi school]. Davvi Girji.
Keskitalo, P., Lehtola, V-P., & Paksuniemi, M. (2014). Johdatus saamelaisten kansanopetuksen
ja koulunkäynnin historiaan [introduction to the history of Sámi folk schooling and study-
ing]. In P. Keskitalo, V-P. Lehtola, & M. Paksuniemi (Eds.), Saamelaisten kansanopetuksen ja
koulunkäynnin historia Suomessa [The history of sami folk schooling and studying in Finland]
(pp. 13–28). Siirtolaisinstituutti.
Kettukangas, T. (2017). Perustoiminnot-käsite varhaiskasvatuksessa [Concept of basic activities in
early childhood education]. University of Eastern Finland. Available online http://urn.fi/URN:
ISBN:978-952-61-2574-9
Kuokkanen, R. (2009). Boaris dego eana. Eamiálbmogiid diehtu, filosofiijat ja dutkan [Old as the
earth. Indigenous knowledge, philosophy and research]. ČálliidLágádus.
Laiti, M. (2018). Saamelaisen varhaiskasvatuksen toteutus Suomessa [The implementation of
Sámi early childhood education in Finland]. Lapin yliopisto.
Laurén, C. (2008). Varhain monikieliseksi. Kielen oppimisen teoriaa ja käytäntöä [To become
multilingual early: Theory and practice of language learning]. Gummerus.
Lehtola, V-P. (2015). Saamelaiskiista – Sortaako Suomi alkuperäiskansaansa [Sámi dispute – does
Finland oppress its’ indigenous people]. Into.
Love, N., & Ansaldo, U. (2010). The native speaker and the mother tongue. Language Sciences,
32(6), 589–593.
Mård, K. (1996). Kielikylpyopettajan kaksi roolia päiväkodissa [Two roles of the language
nest educator in the early childhood setting]. In M. Buss & C. Laurén (Eds.), Kielikylpy:
Kielitaitoon käytön kautta [Language bath: To language proficiency by using it] (pp. 31–45).
Vaasan yliopisto.
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving
to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1),
160940691773384.
Olthuis, M.-L., Kivelä, S., & Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2013). Revitalising indigenous languages.
How to recreate a lost generation? Multilingual Matters.
Pasanen, A. (2015). Kuávsui já peeivičuovâ. ‘Sarastus ja päivänvalo’. Inarinsaamen kielen revit-
alisaatio. [Kuávsui já peeivičuovâ, or ‘Dawn and daylight’: The revitalisation of Inari Uralica
Sámi]. Helsingin yliopisto.
Porsanger, J. & Guttorm, G. (2011). Building up the field of study and research on Sami traditional
knowledge árbediehtu. In J. Porsanger & G. Guttorm (Eds.), Working with traditional knowl-
edge: Communities, institutions, information systems, law and ethics (pp. 98–125). Dieđut
1/2011. Sámi allaskuvla.
Rigney, L. I. (1999). Internationalization of an indigenous anticolonial cultural critique of research
methodologies. Wicazo Sa Review, 14(2), 109–122.
Sámi Parliament. (2006). Saamelaisten kestävän kehityksen ohjelma [Sámi sustainable develop-
ment agenda]. Saamelaiskäräjät.
Sámi Parliament. (2009). Saamelainen varhaiskasvatussuunnitelma [Sámi early childhood educa-
tion plan]. Saamelaiskäräjät.
Sámi Parliament. (2013). Saamelaisen varhaiskasvatuksen arjen käytäntöjen opas [Sámi early
childhood education everyday practice]. Saamelaiskäräjät.
Sámi Parliament. (2019). Saamelaiskäräjien mahdollisuudet hallinnoida ja järjestää saamelaisten
kulttuuri- ja kielipesätoimintaa [Sámi Parliament possibilities to administer and organise the
pursuits of Sámi culture and language nest]. Saamelaiskäräjät.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2000). Linguistic genocide in education or worldwide diversity and human
rights? Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Sodankylän kunta. (2017). Sodankylän kunnan pohjoissaamenkielisten kielipesien varhaiskasva-
tussuunnitelma 2017. [Early education plan for the Sámi language nests in the municipality of
Sodankylä 2017.]
Tuhiwai Smith, L. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples.
Zed Books.
UNESCO. (2019). Atlas of the world’s languages in danger. http://www.unesco.org/culture/
languages-atlas/.
Utsjoen kunta. (2017). Utsjoen kunnan varhaiskasvatussuunnitelma. [Utsjoki municipality’s early
childhood education plan].
Vuolab, K. (2000). Such a treasure of knowledge for human survival. In R. Phillipson (Ed.), Rights
to language: Equity, power and education (pp. 13–16). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
WINHEC Research and Journal Working Group. (2010). Research Standards (1st ed.).
Chapter 11
My Story, Your Story, Our Story:
Reciprocal Listening and Participation
Through Storycrafting in Early Childhood
Education and Care
Anna-Leena Lastikka and Liisa Karlsson
Abstract Although the revised early childhood education and care (ECEC) legisla-
tion and the Core Curriculum for ECEC in Finland demand that children’s initia-
tives and interests are considered, children’s potential to affect decision-making and
pedagogical processes is scarce. Thus, there is a need for developing reciprocal lis-
tening and participation in ECEC. The objective of this study is to explore the ben-
efits of the Storycrafting Method, a Finnish narrative method, for children and
ECEC personnel. The research data consists of earlier studies on Storycrafting,
archives of storycrafted stories and ECEC professionals’ experiences and research
diaries to achieve a profound and holistic understanding of the benefits of the
method. Through thematic analysis, it was found that Storycrafting strengthens
children’s lives and the working practices and pedagogy of teachers and other ECEC
professionals. Using the method regularly improves children’s self-esteem, is natu-
ral for children because of its playfulness, promotes reciprocal and participatory
listening and promotes children’s own rich culture, experiences and thoughts. For
teachers and other ECEC professionals, the method provides a deeper understand-
ing of children’s lives, thoughts and actions. Instead of only hearing and evaluating
them, teachers have learned to listen to and understand children.
11.1 Introduction
In today’s early childhood education and care (ECEC) policies and pedagogy, par-
ticularly in Finland and other Nordic countries, children’s participation has become
a central paradigm: children are seen as active agents who learn and develop through
A.-L. Lastikka (*) · L. Karlsson

e-mail: anna-leena.lastikka@helsinki.fi

Switzerland AG 2022
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95512-0_11
148 A.-L. Lastikka and L. Karlsson
interaction with other people and their environment (Finnish Education Evaluation
Centre, 2019; Finnish National Agency for Education, 2018; Kangas & Lastikka,
2019; Karlsson, 2018a, 2020; Vlasov et al., 2018; Weckström et al., 2020). In
Finland, the National Core Curriculum for ECEC (Finnish National Agency for
Education, 2018) and the Act on Early Childhood Education and Care (540/2018)
acknowledge children’s active participation and the significance of children’s roles
in creating an ECEC culture and pedagogical learning environments. Furthermore,
in the Finnish ECEC policies, it is seen that learning is effective when children
actively engage, reflect and explore together with others (e.g., Burgess et al., 2019;
Finnish National Agency for Education, 2018; Rogoff et al., 2018; Säljö, 2014). The
focus is on encouraging social interactions and relationships between children, their
families and ECEC personnel (e.g., Finnish National Agency of Education, 2018;
Kumpulainen, 2018). The most positive experiences for children deal with inspiring
and enabling material environments, responsive personnel, peer groups and oppor-
tunities for meaningful activities in the ECEC context (Boström, 2017; Lipponen
et al., 2018; Puroila et al., 2012; Sandseter & Seland, 2015).
In Finland, the premises of ECEC policies are built on children’s participation:
children should experience a sense of belonging and have opportunities to make
initiatives. Therefore, children’s wishes, proposals, ideas and questions should be
listened to and used in planning, implementation and evaluation (see e.g., Finnish
National Agency for Education, 2018; Kangas & Lastikka, 2019; Karlsson, 2020;
Karlsson et al., 2018b; Weckström et al., 2017, 2020). Participation is seen to actu-
alise in reciprocal interaction among active, equal, capable and creative agents, who
can have an effect on shared decision-making and activities (see also, e.g.,
Berthelsen, 2009; Corsaro, 2011; Kangas, 2016; Kangas & Lastikka, 2019; Sheridan
& Samuelsson, 2001). Hence, interaction, which encompasses listening, dialogue
and participation seems to be crucial for children. However, ECEC teachers and
other ECEC professionals consider planning and implementing ECEC pedagogy is
easier without taking into account children’s participation and that children’s poten-
tial to affect decision-making and pedagogical processes is scarce (Forde et al.,
2018; Hudson, 2012; Kangas, 2016; Kangas & Brotherus, 2017; Leinonen &
Venninen, 2012; Virkki, 2015).
Therefore, there is a need to study methods that enhance shared participation and
reciprocal listening in the ECEC pedagogy. The Storycrafting method (Karlsson,
2013; Riihelä, 1991) offers one solution to this need. In this chapter, we study the
benefits of Storycrafting for children, teachers and other ECEC professionals. The
aim is to encourage ECEC teachers and other ECEC professionals to engage in
reciprocal interaction, particularly listening carefully to what children want to share.
This in turn will help teachers in their professional development (see also, Weckström
et al., 2020) and in the construction of a culture of participation in which children
can be involved in the planning, implementation and evaluation of ECEC activities
together with ECEC personnel (Karlsson, 2020).
11 My Story, Your Story, Our Story: Reciprocal Listening and Participation… 149
11.2 The Storycrafting Method
Storycrafting (Karlsson, 2014; Riihelä, 1991) is a narrative and listening method

that encourages the sense of community and interaction in which a free-flowing nar-
rative, a new fairy tale or story is created between the narrator and the storycrafter
as the listener records everything word-for-word. In Storycrafting, children can
express themselves with the words they have chosen and describe the topic in which
they are interested. Afterwards, the story is always read aloud and the children can
correct or change it if they wish. In other words, in Storycrafting, children have the
last word on their own stories. In the process of the development of the Storycrafting
method, the word-for-word recording and the opportunity for the child to make cor-
rections has proven (Karlsson, 2013) to be of vital importance even though children
seldom want to correct anything. This guarantees that children can be sure that their
meaning was understood. At the same time, it is meaningful for the teacher to listen
to the child.
11.2.1 Background and Theoretical Framework of the Method
Storycrafting is the only Finnish method, selected from among hundreds of propos-
als, to qualify as a functional model for promoting children’s mental health (Mental
Health Europe, 1999). It has also been nominated among 100 social innovations
from Finland (Taipale, 2015) and rewarded in global education (Kepa, 2004). The
method is a result of research and development that have not only been imple-
mented in ECEC and schools but also libraries, work communities and home set-
tings. Museums, cultural, social and therapeutic agencies, refugee camps and
reception centres, nursing homes, and disability services can also employ this
method when necessary or desired. The method was developed in Finland in the
1980s and 1990s, when there was a need to construct more equal and interactive
relationships between professionals and children. Monika Riihelä (1991) found that
using structured tests alone did not help with understanding children’s thinking. She
wanted to develop a method that could help with understanding and listening to
children’s thoughts, descriptions of their lives and reasoning. Thus, there was a need
for a method that would allow for listening to children’s thoughts as they
described them.
The narrative knowledge gained through Storycrafting is quite different from a
traditional logic-rationalistic approach (Bruner, 1996; Gubrium & Holstein, 2008).
Narrative knowledge allows educators s to understand personal feelings and mean-
ings and examine emotional and motivational dimensions. Through stories created
by children, it is possible to gain information on their preoccupations and how they
experience and perceive various subjects and their meanings (see also Karlsson, 2013).
The theoretical background of Storycrafting rests on a sociocultural-historical
tradition that views human development as the result of cultural, social, material and
historical processes, as well as the intentions of active agents (Bruner, 1996; Cole,
1996; Corsaro, 2011; Karlsson, 2016; Rogoff, 2003, 2008). Storycrafting views
individuals as naturally interactive beings exercising agency and the ability to learn,
create information, affect the world around them and grow through empowering
experiences with others.
11.2.2 Storycrafting in Practice
Storycrafting includes five essential phases (see also, Karlsson, 2013): (1) verbatim
(telling the story), (2) writing down the story in the presence of the child, (3) reading
aloud the written story, (4) incorporating the narrator’s possible corrections and (5)
reading the story aloud to other listeners or publishing it if the storyteller allows.
Each phase is significant, because in each phase, the story emerges cooperatively
between the narrator and the scribe (the storycrafter) in a new way.
Storycrafting always begins with the storycrafter proposing to the child:
Please tell a story that you would like to tell.
I will write it down, just as you tell it.
When the story is finished, I will read it aloud.
If at that point, you can correct the story or make changes, if you wish. (CAT, 2020;
Karlsson, 2013; Riihelä, 2001)
The instruction involves the storycrafter’s desire to listen to the child (“Please tell a
story that you would like to tell”). It does not necessarily need to be a story: the
storycrafter can stress that thoughts, ideas, wishes, sounds or utterance can be writ-
ten down as well. After that, the storycrafter writes down exactly as the child speaks
and finally reads it aloud. If the child wishes, the story can be corrected according
to the child’s own wishes. Finally, the story can be read aloud to the child or other
listeners. It is crucial to stress to children that they have the copyright on their own
work by asking the child if the story can be read to others or made into a book and
published.
To grasp the children’s perspectives on Storycrafting and stories, we will provide
a story told by four-year-old children (Aki, Reima, Tuomas and Rosa):
What is a story?
A story is telling. A story is the mouth movement.
A story is not snow. What if a story was snow?
A story is listening.
A story is yellow.
Listening to a story is being silent. A story means that we are quiet when the other tells
the story.
A story is white paper. A story is writing on paper.
A story is a flash of light. A story is playing and singing. A story is climbing. A story is
listening with a cat. A story is playing in a sandbox.
A story is a story.
Fig. 11.1 The elements of Storycrafting
11.3 Elements of Storycrafting
In Storycrafting (see Fig. 11.1), there are five elements important for reciprocal
listening and participation: (1) narrating freely and space; (2) promoting creativity,
imagination, play and learning; (3) active and reciprocal listening; (4) acknowledg-
ing children and (5) encountering dialogically. In Fig. 11.1, we have illustrated the
course of Storycrafting, which begins by giving free space and time for a child to
discuss what is on his/her mind and what he or she particularly wants to share.
During this free narration, the child’s creativity, imagination, learning and play are
promoted and encouraged. In the Storycrafting process, ECEC teachers and other
ECEC professionals genuinely listen to children and take them seriously. With the
collaboration of a teacher, a child actively participates and engages in creating his
or her own story; this process usually leads to a feeling of empowerment.
11.3.1 Narrating Freely and Space
Narrating freely and space is an important element: in Storycrafting, a child, or a

group of children, tell a story of their own choice and the teacher writes the story
down exactly as it has been told without correcting the story, asking questions or
making suggestions. The narrator’s own story is interesting just as it is; it can con-
sist of a few words or sentences or even of sounds. When the story is finished, the
storycrafter reads it aloud so that the child or children can change the story if they
choose. It is crucial to remember that simply writing down the story is not
Storycrafting. Storycrafting is always based on a dialogue, interaction, and willing-
ness of the storycrafter, the recording teacher, to genuinely listen to the story and
thoughts of the child in that particular situation. The dialogue in Storycrafting

begins, when the storycrafter encourages a child to tell his or her story or a group of
children to tell their shared story. Teachers and other ECEC professionals can also
tell their story by themselves or in a group to a storycrafter who wants to listen.
11.3.2 Promoting Creativity, Imagination, Play and Learning
When children participate in storycrafting, an element of promotion of creativity,

imagination, learning and play is added to their experience. They create something
new and creative and use their imagination in a playful way. These are essential ele-
ments when learning is participatory and active (see also Boström, 2017) involved
with joy. The following story of a four and a half-year-old child describes well the
use of creativity, imagination and play in Storycrafting:
Once upon a time, a squirrel weaved giant mittens in his nest and gave them to the turtle.
But then it went to its friend’s mouse and gave him the other giant-size mitten. And then it
tinkled his watch at home for the whole forest, even for the tiger, who woke up to the noise
and the little bear that woke up to it. Then the little bear left for the river, the little tiger
came along. And then the little tiger went to collect mushrooms. Then there was a fly that
built a nest in the cloud. You can’t live in the cloud. And then there was a flood and they all
decided to sleep past the flood, but no one can win the flood by sleeping, you can’t!
(Storycrafted in an ECEC setting)
11.3.3 Active and Reciprocal Listening
Active and reciprocal listening is another significant element in Storycrafting. It is

crucial that the storycrafter listens attentively, writes everything down and reads the
story aloud to the children. The dialogic nature of the method encompasses the shar-
ing of the story and the appreciation of children’s ways of seeing. A dialogue does
not necessarily need words: active and respective listening, approving and acknowl-
edging are important parts of Storycrafting as a four-year-old girl explains in a
description of her experiences:
It’s nice when an adult writes down and I can tell whatever I want to. The nicest thing is to
tell alone, I don’t want anyone to laugh if I have a funny story. Sometimes I wonder for
45 minutes and sometimes just for one minute, and then I’ll start to tell. (Storycrafted in an
ECEC setting)
11.3.4 Acknowledging Children
Another principal element of the method is acknowledging children; the objective

of not to ask the child questions about his or her traumatic experiences or about the
happy things in life or the subject of the lesson. The main idea is to be genuinely
interested in listening, giving a voice to children and providing the space and free-
dom for them to decide on the topics they want to tell, as well as how and when.
11.3.5 Encountering Dialogically
The fifth element of Storycrafting is encountering dialogically. Storycrafting is dif-

ferent from many other methods, because the primary aim is not to teach the struc-
ture of a story but to listen to children and the story they want to tell. The
storycrafters’s focus is on reciprocal and dialogical listening and on the premise that
all children have something interesting and crucial to say regardless of age, gender,
cultural background, level of education or degree of disability. In a Storycrafting
process, the underlying assumption is that everyone has unique thoughts, informa-
tion and stories that are important. An experienced teacher emphasises this point as
follows.
Nowadays, every day in different situations, a teacher stop to listen to the child and his or
her thoughts in our early childhood education setting. When teaching staff have learned to
get to know children better by listening to their own unique thoughts and interests, they
have also grown to be interested in knowing more. And when there is time for the child to
speak and talk, the teacher gradually has a much better picture of how many topics this
child knows about. (A teacher in early childhood education and care)
11.4 Methods
11.4.1 Research Data
In this study, the data consists of the combination of literature review, archives of
storycrafted stories and research diaries in order to achieve a profound and holistic
understanding of the benefits of Storycrafting for children, ECEC teachers and
other ECEC professionals (see Fig. 11.2).
Literature review was applied to acquire an in-depth and integrated synthesis
(Torraco, 2005) of the benefits of the method. In the beginning, the first author of
this study identified the relevant research on Storycrafting by searching electronic
databases to identify relevant studies. Both older literature and recently published
studies were examined. Search terms included the term “Storycrafting”. After
choosing the sources (Angersaari, 2011; Children Are Telling, 2020; Finnish Social
Science Data Archive (n.d.); Hakomäki, 2013; Hohti & Karlsson, 2013; Karlsson,
2000, 2009, 2012; Karlsson & Karimäki, 2012; Karlsson et al., 2014, 2019; KOTO
Project, 2019; Lähteenmäki, 2013; Lindqvist, 2012; Piipponen & Karlsson, 2019;
Riihelä, 2000, 2002; Storybridges, 2019), we chose the full texts to include as data
for this study.
Fig. 11.2 Overview of the

research data
The storycrafted stories and ECEC professionals’ experiences have been archived
in the national Finnish Social Science Data Archive (1995–2015), Storyride Project
(1995–1998), KOTO Project (2016–2017), and Storybridges Project (2016–2018).
The focus in this article is on the Storycrafting experiences of ECEC teachers and
other ECEC professionals and on storycrafted stories told by one to seven-year-old
children.
The first author has been involved in building the Storybridges Project Archive
(2016–2019). The second author of this article has been involved in building the
national Finnish Social Science Data Archive (1995–2015), Children Are Telling
Archive (2000–2019) and KOTO Project Archive (2016–2017). In addition, the
research diaries of the first author (2016–2019) and the second author (1988–2019)
have been used in the analysis.
11.4.2 Data Analysis
In the data analysis, the thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006), which is a widely
used method for analysing qualitative data, was applied. First, the selected studies
were read through several times and recurring central themes across the research
were identified. After this, the research diaries, storycrafted stories and ECEC per-
sonnel’s experiences related to the objective of this study were reviewed. During
this phase, the first author generated preliminary themes from the whole data. These
preliminary themes were reviewed after which the coherent themes (Braun &
Clarke, 2006) were determined.
11.4.3 Ethics
Additional informed consent was obtained from all individual participants for
whom identifying information is included in this chapter and the research was per-
formed in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration
of Helsinki and its later amendments, as well as in the ethical guidelines by National
Advisory Board on Research Ethics (2009).
11.5 Results
In this section, we answer our research question by examining the benefits of

Storycrafting for children, ECEC teachers and other ECEC professionals. First, the
benefits for children will be described and second, the benefits for ECEC teachers
and other ECEC professionals will be presented in greater detail.
11.5.1 The Benefits of the Method for Children
For children, Storycrafting was found to be beneficial in diverse aspects: first, the
results show that the method is suitable for all children and can be used with chil-
dren of diverse backgrounds. Although the method has mostly been applied with
majority children, it is also applicable in diverse contexts for minority children or
children in other categories such as children with disabilities or vulnerable life
experiences like immigrant or refugee backgrounds. All these children have been
given a new imaginative possibility to describe their problems through Storycrafting.
Roma children, who have been storycrafted, have revealed a sense of community
and caring about each other but also discrimination and exposure to bullying. The
method was also found to be a natural way to use language in immigrant education
as it generates encouragement, motivation and opportunities to practise different
areas of language.
In addition, the results indicate that Storycrafting is effective in intercultural
learning; it helps children to have a participatory role and explore their own experi-
ences and identities through intercultural encounters when exchanging stories.
Furthermore, although Storycrafting is not a method for learning to write and read,
our research shows that children have learnt these abilities, because in Storycrafting,
children usually follow what a teacher or a professional is writing down and sees
how speech becomes a text and finally, when the story is being read aloud, it
becomes speech again.
Through Storycrafting, children’s self-esteem, self-respect and well-being were
found to have increased and their uniqueness and empowerment have been pro-
moted. When children have genuinely been heard and encountered as they are, they
become encouraged and empowered children. Many teachers have experienced that
the most memorable stories are the ones told by a shy, quiet or even wild child, who
has found the courage to tell a story.
Our research data demonstrates that one crucial aspect is the moment or process
of Storycrafting, not only the story itself. Storycrafting creates shared empowering
moments; joy, fun, humour and a special encounter are often present in these
moments even though children may report their difficult or traumatic life events.
Telling about positive or humorous incidents might have healing effects or turn the
Storycrafting moment into a pleasant and warm encounter. For example, immigrant,
refugee and asylum-seeking children, whose families may have had difficult or even
traumatic experiences, have been able to share their thoughts through Storycrafting.
For some children, these Storycrafting moments have been found to be important,
because someone has wanted to hear particularly them and has had time to do so.
Children’s gestures, expressions and willingness to tell stories expressed the
empowerment children felt.
The results show that through Storycrafting, children can bring forward several
aspects of human life in their own way, as the story of Aada about the funeral of her
grandmother shows:
The grandmother Hilu has really died that the mother will have a bad mood, no but a sad
mind. Then it will be placed in the coffin and then the person heals there. It is burned - then
it is put in the oven and it gets better. It is placed on the ground and then it grows into trees
or leaves or grass or lawns, and of course mud as well. I have a party dress. Well, when I
go to grandmother Hilu’s party, I need to have a party dress like that. It will be the death
ceremony of grandmother Hilu. (Research data; a three-year-old girl, Aada, storycrafted in
an ECEC setting)
This story has been documented by an ECEC teacher, who had observed that Aada
had been concerned about her grandmother’s illness and one day she had a particu-
lar need to talk about it. The teacher used Storycrafting in which Aada had a chance
to tell about her thoughts on her grandmother’s death and funeral and the teacher
learned what was on Aada’s mind. The results show that it is crucial that children are
able to report anything they want to, because if they are restricted, children will eas-
ily sense that they cannot fulfil teachers’ and professionals’ expectations; in
Storycrafting, it is vital that children experience a sense of competence and
acceptance.
11.5.2 he Benefits of the Method for ECEC Teachers

T
and Other ECEC Professionals
Next, we will describe the benefits of Storycrafting for ECEC teachers and other
professionals in ECEC. The results show that the method provides a deeper under-
standing of children’s lives, thoughts and actions. Instead of only hearing, teachers
and professionals have learned to listen and understand rather than simply evaluate
children.
In my work, I am enthusiastic about using the Storycrafting Method, because it gives me
freedom not to correct (children). I often find out through Storycrafting that I have the very
opposite ideas of the child’s narrative, when compared to other exercises. The child’s know-
how emerges. (Research data, the speech therapist tells about her experiences on
Storycrafting)
It was also found that the method has encouraged teachers to approach children’s
narratives in a participatory way, which allows different spaces to work with matters
important for children; through Storycrafting children’s voices reveal what has pre-
viously been unseen. Children’s stories can create spaces in which children are able
to participate in the surrounding communities in a meaningful way. Moreover, the
dialogic and reciprocal teaching and learning opportunities have been accomplished
involving processes of reciprocal listening and telling.
Additionally, Storycrafting generates a peaceful atmosphere, where teachers and
other professionals have an opportunity to stop and listen to children. This in turn
enhances learning from each other, positive relationships, community spirit and the
promotion of the culture of participation. It is crucial that children’s experiences,
views and thoughts are acknowledged while dialogue and reflection develop among
all participants. Importantly, teachers and professionals learned to truly listen to
children; before using Storycrafting, when asked about their news, children
answered briefly but after teachers began to use the method, children’s answers
were heard as the teachers were genuinely interested in them.
By writing down the child’s narratives and actions, the educator becomes sensitive to lis-
tening and observing. In this way, the educator becomes involved in the child’s mindset and
learns to listen more carefully to the child’s narration. The child receives the educator’s
entire attention in the Storycrafting situation and his/her self-esteem is strengthened,
because his/her story is written down and later read aloud. (Research data; ECEC teacher)
Additionally, changes in the culture of participation in ECEC have occurred through

using Storycrafting as one of the methods; reciprocal interactions, as well as chil-
dren’s and teachers’ experiences of active participation have increased. Storycrafting
was also proved to be effective in pedagogical documentation, as the following
excerpt shows:
As a result, personnel have a great evaluation tool. Personally, I have always documented
the children a lot, because it has been easy and natural for me. We’ve said that it [documen-
tation] is not easy for everyone. But now it seems that it has increased enormously. Those
who have done it have found it important. It’s easier to follow a child’s learning. The image
of a child as an individual is highlighted. (Research data; an ECEC teacher)
Our data shows that through Storycrafting, teachers have learnt to know children in
a new way. Furthermore, for children who have been timid and quiet or rambunc-
tious or “wild”, Storycrafting has been useful, because they have been able to
receive positive feedback. Furthermore, teachers have discovered what children
think, wonder and worry about. This information has been used in planning activi-
ties or projects, which in turn has brought meaningful experiences and a sense of
agency in the surrounding world.
Children believe in their own work and are bold in their expression, whether it is
Storycrafting or drawing a picture or any creative activity. We have found that the courage
to take initiative in planning activities has increased. They want to make their opinions
more public. Over the years, we personnel also dare to give more space to the versatile,
inexhaustible ideals pool of children. Shared planning is enriching. (Research data; an
ECEC teacher)
Table 11.1 The process and benefits of the storycrafting method

The process of storycrafting Benefits for children and ECEC personnel
Writing down the thoughts and story Creating a new method Desire to tell one’s
of the narrator when encountering others thoughts to another person
Reading aloud the thoughts and story Engaging in reciprocal Desire to listen to another
of the narrator listening and dialogue person’s way of seeing the
world
Allowing the narrator to make Sharing wonders, humour, Respect for the thoughts of
corrections to the story excitement and worries others
Giving space and time for nonverbal Savouring the shared Creation and preservation
expression (looks, gestures, feelings) moment and encountering of a new narrative culture
the other person
Reading the story aloud to other Getting to know the other Participation that is easy
listeners or publishing it in some way person in a new way and playful
if the storyteller allows
Preserving the thoughts and the story Allowing people of all ages Enjoyable times together
of the narrator to participate
11.5.3 Summary of the Results
Summing up the benefits for children, ECEC teachers and other ECEC profession-
als say that Storycrafting has united children, teachers and other professionals due
to the moment of sharing stories, thoughts or ideas that have been written down and
read aloud. The method has not only highlighted children’s experiences, perspec-
tives and knowledge but also changed the culture in ECEC settings towards recipro-
cal listening and participation in which all members of the ECEC community play
a significant role.
The process and benefits of Storycrafting found in this study are summarised in
Table 11.1.
11.6 iscussion and Implications: From My Story

D
to Our Story
The results of this study demonstrate the power of the Storycrafting Method in pro-
moting children’s participation, which has been a central theme in many projects
and research, as well as in policy and programme initiatives particularly since the
UN Conventions on the Rights of the Child (United Nations, 1989). However, this
interest has not always led to the use of appropriate methods (Percy-Smith &
Thomas, 2010). In Finland, the revised legislation (Act on Early Childhood
Education and Care 540/2018), the Finnish Core Curriculum for ECEC (Finnish
National Agency for Education, 2018) and the recent research call for taking chil-
dren’s active participation into account in ECEC have created challenges. A hectic
atmosphere, the number of children, and personnel changes have influenced how
ECEC teachers and other ECEC professionals are able to promote children’s par-
ticipation (see Weckström et al., 2020).
In this study, Storycrafting proved to have a powerful effect. For children, it was
found to be empowering, child-friendly, playful, and natural; for ECEC personnel,
it was found to be easy to use, increase knowledge of children and their perspectives
and generate knowledge for planning and implementation of activities. Furthermore,
the method was shown to promote a shared understanding and a sense of together-
ness and build reciprocal listening, interaction and participation. This implies that in
ECEC, practical methods capturing children’s perspectives, communality and equal
interaction, should be embedded in the ECEC pedagogy. This could influence the
sense of communal agency (Adair & Colegrove, 2014) in which children act as a
group and employ their agency together. This in turn could enhance diversity and
equity (see also Lastikka, 2019) in ECEC communities.
Furthermore, our study indicates that communality, friendship, action-based
methods, experimentation, exploration and humour are important for children,
ECEC teachers and other professionals in ECEC. Children also express themselves
through playful, creative and imaginative actions (see also, e.g., Kangas et al., 2019;
Lastikka & Kangas, 2017). When children and ECEC personnel are engaged in
playful learning based on children’s initiatives and active participation, motivation
increases (Kangas & Lastikka, 2019; Sheridan & Samuelsson, 2001). Therefore, we
argue that Storycrafting, which was found to be a playful and imaginative method,
should be regularly utilised in ECEC to promote learning.
Initially, there were some doubts and criticisms of the method; first, there is a
danger of using the method only to “produce output”. However, Storycrafting is
always a dialogic process in which the one who is listening and writing down the
story wants to carefully listen to the thoughts of the other person telling the story.
Therefore, in Storycrafting, the relationship between children and teachers becomes
relevant, because all the participants are active and participate in creating the shared
moment of stories. The underlying conception of Storycrafting is that everyone pos-
sesses knowledge, which is valuable and worthwhile to share. The listener is posi-
tioned differently, because he/she needs to give space to children’s initiatives,
perceptions, and thoughts; there should be neither assessment nor one-sided interac-
tion. Through Storycrafting, power relations are equalised, and practices become
less controlling (see also, Turja & Vuorisalo, 2017), because teachers accept that
children have valuable thoughts that must be considered when planning activities.
Thus, the teller can make initiatives. Hence, it is crucial to focus on the knowledge
of children and use this knowledge and plan and implement activities and curricu-
lum together with children (see also, Kangas, 2016; Lipponen et al., 2018). This in
turn has a positive effect on the children’s experiences of participation and agency
together with ECEC personnel in a safe and trustful community. As Storycrafting
was found to act as creating shared experiences of participation in which reciprocal
listening played a significant role, it implies that ECEC teachers’ and other ECEC
professionals’ skills of active listening and dialogue skills should be more stressed
(see also, Kekkonen et al., 2017).
Secondly, there is the danger of teachers and educators overinterpreting a story

according to their own expectations, because for human beings, it is natural to inter-
pret and picture what one hears or sees. However, in Storycrafting, it is important to
note that it is not recommended to overinterpret stories excessively, because only
the teller knows if the story is true or not and to what purposes the story can be used.
Therefore, story-crafted stories should be seen as “only stories”, not as true, experi-
enced descriptions of life. Despite this fact, when a teacher knows the children
being storycrafted, the story can give them a new perspective of the children and
their worlds, as well as a moment to encounter each other, share the moment together
in that specific time.
In this chapter, we have studied Storycrafting and its utility in the promotion of
reciprocal listening and participation. We have also brought forward some empirical
examples and stories to illustrate the power of the method. The Storycrafting method
and its use should continue to be researched. We hope that our study has encouraged
researchers, professionals and teachers to apply the method in their work to bring
forward children’s own thinking and perspectives but also to promote reciprocal and
dialogic listening between all members of the ECEC community. In today’s turbu-
lent world, we argue that reciprocal listening and dialogue should be stressed more
in ECEC. Storycrafting can offer an easy but powerful way to stop, listen and learn
from one another. It can be applied with all children to promote reciprocal listening
and dialogue and an understanding of children’s perspectives and cultures. It is a
useful way to support learning and development, pedagogical documentation and
diversity education.
References
Act on Early Childhood Education and Care. (540/2018).

Adair, J. K., & Colegrove, K. S. (2014). Communal agency and social development: Examples
from first grade classrooms serving children of immigrants. Asia-Pacific Journal of Research
in Early Childhood Education, 8, 69–91.
Angersaari, I. (2011). Näkymättömästä näkyväksi – Romanilasten sadut ja tarinat. Tutkimus
kuopiolaisten romanilasten asemasta [from invisible to visible – Stories and narratives of
Roma children. A study of the status of Roma children in the City of Kuopio]. Master’s thesis.
University of Eastern Finland.
Berthelsen, D. (2009). Participatory learning: Issues for research and practice. In D. Berthelsen,
J. Brownlee, & E. Johansson (Eds.), Participatory learning in the early years: Research and
pedagogy (pp. 1–11). Routledge.
Boström, S. (2017). A dynamic learning concept in early years’ education: A possible way to pre-
vent schoolification. International Journal of Early Years Education, 25(1), 3–15. https://doi.
org/10.1080/09669760.2016.1270196
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Harvard University Press.
Burgess, C., Tennent, C., Vass, G., Guenther, J., Lowe, K., & Moodie, N. (2019). A systematic
review of pedagogies that support, engage and improve the educational outcomes of Aboriginal
students. The Australian Educational Researcher, 46, 297–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/

s13384-019-00315-5
CAT – Children Are Telling. (2020). Retrieved from https://lapsetkertovat.org/toimintamme/
sadutus/sadutusohje-eri-kielilla/english/
Children Are Telling. (2020). Available at: https://lapsetkertovat.org/toimintamme/sadutus/
sadutusohje-eri-kielilla/english/
Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Harvard University Press.
Corsaro, W. A. (2011). The sociology of childhood (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Finnish Education Evaluation Centre. (2019). Quality indicators for early childhood education
and care. Summaries, 16, 2019. Available at: https://karvi.fi/app/uploads/2020/03/Quality-
indicators-for-ECEC_summary-2019.pdf
Finnish Social Science Data Archive. (n.d.). Available at: https://services.fsd.uta.fi/catalogue/
FSD2104/PIP/dgF2104.pdf
Forde, C., Horgan, D., Martin, S., & Parkes, A. (2018). Learning from children’s voice in
schools: Experiences from Ireland. Journal of Educational Change, 19, 489–509. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10833-018-9331-6
Gubrium, J., & Holstein, J. (2008). Narrative ethnography. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.),
Handbook of emergent methods (pp. 241–264). Guilford Publications.
Hakomäki, H. (2013). Story composing as a path to a child’s inner world: A collaborative music
therapy experiment with a child co-researcher. Doctoral dissertation. University of Jyväskylä.
Hohti, R., & Karlsson, L. (2013). Lollipop stories: Listening to children’s voices in
the classroom and narrative ethnographical research. Childhood, 1–15. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0907568213496655
Hudson, K. (2012). Practitioners' views on involving young children in decision making: Challenges
for the children’s rights agenda. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 37(2), 4–9.
Kangas, J. (2016). Enhancing children's participation in early childhood education through the
participatory pedagogy. Doctoral dissertation. University of Helsinki. Retrieved from https://
helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/159547
Kangas, J., & Brotherus, A. (2017). Osallisuus ja leikki varhaiskasvatuksessa: “Leikittäisiin ja
kaikki olis onnellisia!” [Participation and play in early childhood education]. In A. Toom, M.,
Rautiainen & J. Tähtinen (Eds.), Toiveet ja todellisuus: Kasvatus osallisuutta ja oppimista
rakentamassa (pp. 197–223), Kasvatusalan tutkimuksia Nro 75. Turku: Suomen kasvatusti-
eteellinen seura.
Kangas, J., & Lastikka, A-L. (2019). Children’s initiatives in the Finnish early childhood education
context. In S. Garvis, H. Harju-Luukkainen, S. Sheridan, & P. Williams (Eds.), Nordic fami-
lies, children and early childhood education (pp. 15–36). (Studies in childhood and youth).
Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16866-7_2.
Kangas, J., Harju-Luukkainen, H., Brotherus, A., Kuusisto, A., & Gearon, L. (2019). Playing
to learn in Finland: Early childhood curricular and operational context. In S. Garvis &
S. Phillipson (Eds.), Policification of early childhood education and care: Early childhood
education in the 21st century volume III (pp. 71–85). (Evolving families). Routledge. https://
doi.org/10.4324/9780203730539-7.
Karlsson, L. (2000). Lapsille puheenvuoro – Ammattikäytännön perinteet murroksessa [Giving
children the floor. Transition in the tradition of professional practice]. .
Karlsson, L. (2009). To construct a bridge of sharing between child and adult culture with
the Storycrafting method. In H. Ruismäki & I. Ruokonen (Eds.) 2009: Arts contact points
between cultures (pp. 117–128). 1st International Journal of Intercultural Arts Education
Conference: Post-Conference Book. Department of Applied Sciences of education. Research
report 312. University of Helsinki. Helsinki: Yliopistopaino. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.
net/10138/14969
Karlsson, L. (2012). Lapset toimivat – Aikuiset valistavat: Lasten kertomuksia syömisestä

[Children act – adults educate: children’s stories about eating]. In L. Karlsson & R. Karimäki
(Eds.), Sukelluksia lapsinäkökulmaiseen tutkimukseen ja toimintaan [Plunges into research
and action in child’s perspective] (pp. 235–283). Suomen Kasvatustieteellinen Seura / The
Finnish Educational Research Association.
Karlsson, L. (2013). Storycrafting method – To share, participate, tell and listen in practice and
research. The European Journal of Social & Behavioral Sciences, Special Volumes VI Design
in Mind, 6, 1109–1117.
Karlsson, L. (2014). Sadutus: Avain osallisuuden toimintakulttuuriin. [Storycrafting – The key to
a dialogical sharing culture]. PS-kustannus.
Karlsson, L. (2016). Lapsinäkökulmainen tutkimus ja aineiston tuottaminen [Child perspective
research and producing data]. In K. P. Kallio, A. Ritala-Koskinen & N. Rutanen (Eds.), Missä
lapsuutta tehdään? [where childhood is done?] Finnish Youth Research Network / Finnish
Youth Research Society. Verkkojulkaisuja 106 (pp. 121–141). Available at: https://www.nuor-
isotutkimusseura.fi/images/julkaisuja/missa_lapsuutta_tehdaan.pdf
Karlsson, L. (2018a). Sadutus siltana kotoutumiseen, kohtaamiseen ja toisen kulttuurin
ymmärtämiseen. [Storycrafting as a bridge to integration, encounters and an understanding
of other cultures] In L. Karlsson, A-L. Lastikka, & J. Vartiainen (Eds.), KOTO – Kohtaamisia
taidolla ja taiteella. Kielten ja kulttuurien yhteisöllistä oppimista ja kotoutumista [KOTO –
Encounterings through Arts and Skills – Communal learning and integration of languages and
cultures] (pp. 48–61). University of Eastern Finland and KOTO project (Integration through
Arts and Skills – Research-based asylum seekers’ integration project through workshops and
the development of voluntary work with the methods of arts and skills). Grano Oy.
Karlsson, L. (2018b). The Storycrafting method. In K. Lonka (Ed.), Phenomenal learning from
Finland (pp. 117–212). Edita.
Karlsson, L. (2020). Studies of child perspective in methodology and practice with ‘Osallisuus’
as a Finnish approach to Children’s reciprocal cultural participation. In E. Eriksen Ødegaard
& J. S. Borgen (Eds.), Childhood cultures in transformation: 30 years of the UN convention of
the rights of the child in action. Chapter 13. Brill/Sense Publisher.
Karlsson, L., & Karimäki, R. (2012). Sukelluksia lapsinäkökulmaiseen tutkimukseen ja toimintaan
[Plunges into research and action in child’s perspective]. Suomen Kasvatustieteellinen Seura /
The Finnish Educational Research Association.
Karlsson, L., Levamo, T.-M., & Siukonen, S. (Eds.). (2014). Your mango, my mango, our mango.
Storycrafting across cultures. Experiences in storycrafting in development cooperation and
global education. Taksvärkki ry / Operation a Day’s Work Finland. Retrieved from: https://
www.taksvarkki.fi/tv/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Mango-English-edition.pdf
Karlsson, L., Lastikka, A.-L., & Vartiainen, J. (2018a). KOTO – Kohtaamisia taidolla ja tai-
teella. Kielten ja kulttuurien yhteisöllistä oppimista ja kotoutumista [KOTO – Encounterings
through arts and skills – Communal learning and integration of languages and cultures].
University of Eastern Finland /KOTO project. Available at: http://epublications.uef.fi/pub/
urn_isbn_978-952-61-2890-0/urn_isbn_978-952-61-2890-0.pdf
Karlsson, L., Weckström, E., & Lastikka, A.-L. (2018b). Osallisuuden toimintakulttuuria rak-
entamassa sadutusmenetelmällä [Building a culture of participation with the Storycrafting
method]. In J. Kangas, J. Vlasov, E. Fonsén, & J. Heikka. (Eds.), Osallisuuden pedagogiik-
kaa varhaiskasvatuksessa 2: Suunnittelu, toteutus ja kehittäminen [Participatory pedagogy in
early childhood education 2: Planning, implementation and developing] (pp. 73–99). Suomen
Varhaiskasvatus ry / Early Childhood Education Association Finland.
Karlsson, L., Lähteenmäki, M., & Lastikka, A.-L. (2019). Increasing well-being and giving
voice through storycrafting to children who are refugees, immigrants, or asylum seekers. In
K. J. Kerry-Moran, & J-A. Aerila (Eds.), Story in children's lives: Contributions of the narra-
tive mode to early childhood development, literacy, and learning (pp. 29–53). (Educating the
Young Child. Advances in Theory and Research, Implications for Practice; Vol. 16). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19266-2_3
Kekkonen, M., Lehti, K., & Tirkkonen, J. (2017). Dialogisuus varhaiskasvatuksessa [Dialogue in
early childhood education and care]. In T. Haapsalo, H. Petäjä, P. Vuorelma-Glad, M. Sanden,
H. Pulkkinen, I. Tahvanainen, & E. Saarinen (Eds.), Varhaiskasvatus katsomusten keskellä
[Early childhood education and care among worldviews] (pp. 62–74). Lasten keskus.
Kepa. (2004). Kepa’s Global Education Reward to Storycrafting, Minister of Education Tuula
Haatainen. S. Rekola/ Kepa (email message: September 28, 2010).
KOTO Project. (2019). Integration through arts and skills – Research-based asylum seekers’
integration project through workshops and the development of voluntary work with the meth-
ods of arts and skills. The English abstract. Available: http://epublications.uef.fi/pub/urn_
isbn_978-952-61-2890-0/urn_isbn_978-952-61-2890-0.pdf
Lähteenmäki, M. (2013). Lapsi turvapaikanhakijana. Etnografisia näkökulmia vastaanottokeskuk-
sen ja koulun arjesta [The child as an asylum seeker. Ethnographic perspectives on reception
centres and daily school life]. Doctoral dissertation. University of Helsinki.
Lastikka, A-L. (2019). Culturally and linguistically diverse children’s and families’ experiences
of participation and inclusion in Finnish early childhood education and care. Licentiate study.
University of Helsinki. Available at: http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe2019102835162
Lastikka, A.-L., & Kangas, J. (2017). Ethical reflections of interviewing young children:
Opportunities and challenges for promoting Children’s inclusion and participation. Asia-Pacific
Journal of Research in Early Childhood Education, 11(1), 85–110. https://doi.org/10.17206/
apjrece.2017.11.1.85
Leinonen, J., & Venninen, T. (2012). Designing learning experiences together with children.
Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 45, 466–474.
Lindqvist, H. (2012). Lapsinäkökulmaista toimintaa soveltamassa [Applying child-centred activi-
ties]. In L. Karlsson & R. Karimäki (Eds.), Sukelluksia lapsinäkökulmaiseen tutkimukseen ja
toimintaan [Plunges into research and action in child’s perspective] (pp. 325–346). Suomen
Kasvatustieteellinen Seura / The Finnish Educational Research Association.
Lipponen, L., Kumpulainen, K., & Paananen, M. (2018). Children’s perspective to curriculum
work: Meaningful moments in Finnish early childhood education. In M. Fleer & B. van Oers
(Eds.), International handbook of early childhood education. Springer international hand-
books of education (pp. 1265–1277). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-0927-7_65
Mental Health Europe. (1999). Storyride. In Mental Health Promotion for children up to six years.
Directory of Projects in the European Union. Mental Health Europe – Sante Mentale Europe.
Belgium.
National Advisory Board on Research Ethics. (2009). Ethical principles of research in the humani-
ties and social and behavioural sciences and proposals for ethical review. Available at: https://
www.tenk.fi/sites/tenk.fi/files/ethicalprinciples.pdf
Percy-Smith, B., & Thomas, N. (2010). A handbook of children and young people’s partici-
pation. Perspectives from theory and practice. Routledge. Retrieved from http://nmd.bg/
wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Routledge-A_Handbook_for_Children_and_Young_Peoples_
Participation.pdf
Piipponen, O., & Karlsson, L. (2019). Children encountering each other through storytelling:
Promoting intercultural learning in schools. The Journal of Educational Research, 112(5),
590–603.
Puroila, A.-M., Estola, E., & Syrjälä, L. (2012). Having, loving, and being: Children's narrated
Well-being in Finnish day care centres. Early Child Development and Care, 182(3–4), 345–362.
Riihelä, M. (1991). Aikakortit, tie lasten ajatteluun. [time cards: The way to children’s thinking].
Helsinki.
Riihelä, M. (2000). Leikkivät tutkijat [Playing researchers]. Lapset kertovat -julkaisusarja (chil-
dren are Telling publishing series). Stakes & Oy Edita Ab.
Riihelä, M. (2001). Playing researchers – Research report and a videotape. A study about play
among children, social and innovative learning. Filminova. Helsinki. Retrieved from: https://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoBAXfWE-AA&t=37s; https://www.edu.helsinki.fi/lapsetker-
tovat/lapset/In_English/Playing/Playing_paa.html
Riihelä, M. (2002). A story about story exchange between two cultures and its significance. Qissah
Wa Tawassul – Satusilta – Kotka – Beirut. Filminova. Psykologien sosiaalinen vastuu ry.
Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfNyd0x39n0&t=1616s
Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human learning. Oxford University Press.
guided participation, and apprenticeship. In K. Hall, P. Murphy, & J. Sole (Eds.), Pedagogy and
practice: Culture and identities (pp. 58–74). Thousand Oaks.
Rogoff, B., Dahl, A., & Callanan, M. (2018). The importance of understanding children’s lived
experience. Developmental Review, 50, 5–15.
Säljö, R. (2014). Lärande i praktiken – Ett sociokulturellt perspektiv. Studentlitteratur.
Sandseter, E. B. H., & Seland, M. (2015). Children’s experience of activities and participation and
their subjective well-being in Norwegian early childhood education and care institutions. Child
Indicators Research, 9(4), 913–932. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-015-9349-8
Sheridan, S., & Samuelsson, I. P. (2001). Children’s conceptions of participation and influence in
pre-school: A perspective on pedagogical quality. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood,
2(2), 169–194. https://doi.org/10.2304/ciec.2001.2.2.4
Storybridges. (2019). The Storybridges Project - participation and action in language learning.
The Children Are Telling Group.
Taipale, I. (Ed.). (2015). 100 social innovations from Finland. Finnish Literature Society.
Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human
Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484305278283
Turja, L., & Vuorisalo, M. (2017). Lasten oikeudet, toimijuus ja osallisuus oppimisessa [Children’s
rights, agency and participation in learning]. In M. Koivula, A. Siippanen, & P. Eerola-Pennanen
(Eds.), Valloittava varhaiskasvatus - Oppimista, osallisuutta ja hyvinvointia [Engaging early
childhood education and care - learning, participation and well-being] (pp. 36–55). Vastapaino.
United Nations. (1989). UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Retrieved from http://www.
unicef.org.uk/UNICEFs-Work/Our-mission/UN-Convention/
Virkki, P. (2015). Varhaiskasvatus toimijuuden ja osallisuuden edistäjänä [early childhood educa-
tion promoting agency and participation]. Publications of the University of Eastern Finland.
Dissertations in education, humanities, and theology, 66. Joensuu, Finland: University of
Eastern Finland.
Vlasov, J., Salminen, J., Repo, L., Karila, K., Kinnunen, S., Mattila, V., & Sulonen, H. (2018).
Varhaiskasvatuksen laadun arvioinnin perusteet ja suositukset [foundation and recommenda-
tions for quality assessment of early childhood education and care]. Kansallinen koulutuksen
arviointikeskus, Julkaisut, 24, 2018. https://karvi.fi/app/uploads/2018/10/KARVI_2418.pdf
Weckström, E., Jääskeläinen, V., Ruokonen, I., Karlsson, L., & Ruismäki, H. (2017). Steps
together: Children’s experiences of participation in club activities with the elderly. Journal of
Intergenerational Relationships, 15(3), 273. https://doi.org/10.1080/15350770.2017.1330063.
Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15350770.2017.1330063
Weckström, E., Karlsson, L., Pöllänen, S., & Lastikka, A.-L. (2020). Creating a culture of partici-
pation: Early childhood education and care educators in the face of change. Children & Society,
35(4), 503–518. https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12414
Chapter 12
Observed Reading Sessions Between
08:00–16:00 Hours in Finnish Early
Childhood Education
Jyrki Reunamo
Abstract Reading sessions are part of the rich world of language in the Finnish
curriculum. According to the Finnish National Evaluation Centre the reading ses-
sions and storytelling should be enhanced. This article describes the Finnish situa-
tion in reading sessions in early childhood education. The research method is
observation with systematic sampling (n = 49,645). According to results, children
attend reading sessions on average 24 minutes a day. Children’s involvement (learn-
ing potential) was intermediate. The reading sessions included more neutral states
of mind than other activities. Children participated less in the evolving events dur-
ing reading sessions than in the other activities. Also, the personnel participated less
in the process. The youngest, 1–3-year-old children attended reading sessions less
than other children. The children with immigrant backgrounds had the most dra-
matic difficulties in participating in the reading session, leaving them vulnerable to
segregation. As implications for practice, it is important that the teacher welcomes
children’s ideas when children can learn that their ideas are valued, and their ideas
can be used for the benefit of the whole group. Reading sessions can be processes,
where children and personnel can create and share their ideas. Children can learn to
develop these ideas further together with others.
12.1 Introduction
This article focuses on the reading sessions in Finnish early education. Reading ses-
sions belong according to the National Core Curriculum for ECE in Finland (FNAE,
2018) among a larger learning area rich world of languages, where reading and
telling stories in an unhurried atmosphere is described providing opportunities for
considering the meanings of words and texts and learning new concepts in their
J. Reunamo (*)
e-mail: jyrki.reunamo@helsinki.fi

Switzerland AG 2022
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95512-0_12
166 J. Reunamo
contexts (research problem 2). The personnel has the task of attracting and encour-
aging the children’s interest in spoken and written language and gradually also in
reading and writing (research problem 6). Children are encouraged to playful writ-
ing and reading. Children are familiarized with versatile children’s literature.
In this article, the focus is on reading a book or telling a story, either an adult
reads a book or the child reads/looks at the book. This definition includes mainly the
basic literacy and stories, not all the multiliteracy aspects of numerical, media, digi-
tal, and visual literacy. In this article, children looking at the books even though they
cannot read is considered reading, often children do pretend reading (Nurmilaakso,
2006) by themselves. Although pretend reading is important as such, an adult (by
involving herself or himself in the process of pretending reading) can elaborate on
the act and give support and direction for the learning process (Reunamo &
Nurmilaakso, 2007). Language awareness (Siiskonen et al., 2014, 312) is important
in the process of learning to read.
Participation is important in reading sessions (research problem 4). When a child
gets used to producing the story material with others, children learn to participate
and produce cultural products together with others (cf. Reunamo &
Nurmilaakso, 2007).
Literature may be important for children’s emotional development (research
problem 3). According to Riquelme and Montero (2013) encouraging children’s
emotional competence through an adult-mediated reading of children’s literature
was beneficial for emotional recognition, empathy, and emotional lability (see
research problem 3).
Physical activity is not often considered during reading sessions. However,
according to Reunamo et al. (2014), the higher the physical activity, the more the
activity includes high involvement and sustained, intense, concentrated, creative,
persistent learning processes. High physical activity and deep learning seem to
attract each other (research problem 5).
The Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC) has evaluated the learning
content area rich world of languages. In their survey results summary Repo et al.
(2019) conclude that in the majority of groups, the language was used in a varied
and rich way daily. Likewise, children were encouraged to participate in linguistic
interaction daily. However, only half of the respondents report that personnel read
for children pedagogically selected books or rhymes were played with children
daily (cf. research problem 1). Repo et al. (2019) emphasize the need to create a
linguistically rich environment for those under 3 years of age (research problem 7)
to coordinate the strengthening of a linguistically rich environment for children and
all children and Finnish as a second language (research problem 8). Besides, lin-
guistic support was needed to support development if the child’s linguistic develop-
ment is not progressing as expected. It is the task of this article to present the
empirical findings of the quality indicators summarized by the FINEEC. What is the
quality of the reading sessions in practice? Do the reading sessions meet the quality
indicators of the Finnish early education? The article seeks to study how the policies
meet the test of everyday early education?
12 Observed Reading Sessions Between 08:00–16:00 Hours in Finnish Early… 167
Reading sessions can be enhanced with dialogue, which develops children’s

development in narration (Suvanto, 2012). For example, reading sessions can be
enhanced with dialogue, which develops children’s development in narration
(Suvanto, 2012). Mäkinen et al. (2017) have written a book, which is used as a start-
ing point for the children’s own, as yet untold stories. For example, Espoo city
special teachers have produced a model that is widely used in Espoo (Espoo Special
Teachers, 2017). According to dialogic reading, the teacher needs to prepare before-
hand to make the reading session more meaningful. During the session, children’s
questions need to be discussed and children’s answers entwined in the discussion.
The teacher needs to help children to become storytellers. After reading, the book
should be discussed and enriched with songs, play, and drama.
12.2 Methods
The rich world of languages is a versatile topic that needs several perspectives. The
research problems of the article are as follows:
• How much time are children observed to spend in reading sessions at different
times and contexts of the day?
• What is the observed learning potential of children in reading situations?
• What are the observed emotions of children in reading sessions?
• What are the social roles of children in reading sessions?
• What is the physical activity of children in reading sessions?
• What are the personnel’s roles in reading sessions?
• What is the quality of reading for 1–3-year-old children?
• What is the quality of reading for children with an immigrant background?
12.2.1 Participants
The data was collected in 2019–2020 in 14 municipalities, including about 30% of

Finnish early education, concentrating on southern Finland. A random sample of
early education units within the municipalities was conducted, a total of 708 teams
were observed. In each unit, the observers used random sampling to pick one group
for observation. In the group, the observers used random sampling to choose five
children. Only children with parents’/guardians’ consent were included in the ran-
dom sample. Altogether, 2608 children were observed. In the observation, system-
atic sampling was used.
The class sizes varied from eight to 37 children (M = 17.2, SD = 4.8). The num-
ber of teachers in the class varied from zero to four (M = 1.24, SD = 0.67). The
number of nurses varied from zero to four (M = 1.57, SD = 0.68). The number of
special teachers ranged from zero to one (M = 0.10, SD = 0.31). The number of
168 J. Reunamo
assistants varied from zero to two (M = 0.35 SD = 0.54) and the number of other
people from zero to two (M = 0.23, SD = 0.46).
Of the children, the background statistics were reported on 70.8% of the chil-
dren. The children’s ages were from 12 to 93 months (M = 52.0 months,
SD = 19.5 months). Of the children, 45.0% were girls and 53.8% were boys (1.2%
other). The children had been attending the observed early education unit between
zero and 80 months (M = 17.4 months, SD = 14.5 months). Of the children, 5.8%
had special needs and 15.8% had an immigrant background.
12.2.2 Observation
Altogether, there were 49,645 observations. All the observers (n ≈ 190) were volun-
teer teachers recruited by the participating municipalities. The observers were
trained for the observation by two-day training sessions and the observers practiced
the observation in their own class between the training sessions. However, the actual
observation was conducted in other ECE centers (not in the observers’ own classes),
where the observers did not know the staff or children. The dates of the observation
were random and the personnel of the observed groups did not know the observation
days before the observation. The observation started in September 2019 and ended
in March 2020. Using systematic sampling, the observers picked each child for
observation at four-minute intervals following a list that was repeated every 16 min-
utes. The four-minute observation cycle consisted of 2 minutes of preliminary
observation to understand the context of the child, 30 seconds of actual observation,
and 1 minute 30 seconds to coding. The observers used tablets or phones for coding,
and they uploaded the data to the online server after each observation. If a child was
missing, the next child on the list was chosen for observation. One observation ses-
sion lasted 4 hours, either from 8:00 to 12:00 or from 12:00 to 16:00, including all
activities from breakfast, teaching, play, care, and outdoors. The observed child
should not be aware that they are being observed. The observer did not seek contact
with children but answered their questions if necessary. Avoiding communicative
eye-contact was important and the observer could move around as needed. The
observer did not interfere with the normal activities in any way. The staff was not
informed of the exact days for observation to avoid unconscious observer impact on
everyday activities.
The observed items included ECE activities, children’s activities, children’s
objects of attention, peer contact, physical activity, involvement, emotions and
social orientations, and teachers’ orientations (Reunamo & Nurmilaakso, 2007). In
this article, we concentrate on children’s activities, where reading sessions were
coded as B5. According to the observation instructions, in reading either the teacher
reads for the children or the children looked at the books themselves. In Finland,
4–5-year-old children cannot usually read properly by themselves. The reliability of
the observation was checked throughout the observation with a paired comparison.
Nineteen pairs of observers were randomly chosen to do the same (random)
observations without knowing each other’s classifications, totaling 736 observa-

tions. The children’s action categories were highly reliable based on the paired
observation (Kappa) for involvement was .667 (CI .629, .705, p < .0005). When two
independent observers were observing children’s actions, in 75% of the cases both
observers coded the reading sessions similarly.
The learning potential of the children was observed by using the Leuven
Involvement scale (Laevers, 1994), where the degree of children’s sustaining, cre-
ative and energetic involvement in the activity was measured on a Likert scale. High
involvement is an indicator of deep processing of the activity and the zone of proxi-
mal development (Vygotsky, 1978). The reliability of the paired observation (intra-
class correlation coefficient, one-way random) for involvement was .756 (CI 719,
789, p < .0005).
Physical activity categories were based on OSRAC-P (The Observational System
for Recording Physical Activity in Children-Preschool Version, Brown et al., 2006).
The reliability of the paired observation (intraclass correlation coefficient, one-way
random) for physical activity was .868 (CI 847, 885, p < .0005).
The emotion categories were originally based on Ekman’s (1994) categories of
observable emotions but adapted later based on the 2015 round of research (e.g.
Authors, 2019). The reliability of the paired observation (kappa) for emotions was
44.1% (CI .39.1%, 39.1%, p < .0005). The Ekman categories of emotions were used
because of their reliability in observation.
The social roles of the children were observed by using Reunamo and
Nurmilaakso’s (2007) categories, classified into accommodative, participative,
dominant, non-social, and not defined social roles. The Kappa for the social orienta-
tion was 40.5% (CI 38.1%, 45.3%, p < .0005). Social orientation is based on the
relative openness and personal input in the context. The categories make it possible
to evaluate children’s connection to others and their social impact.
The observations were used in the analysis to see the relationship between the
observed level of involvement, positive emotions, physical activity, participative
relationships, and the reading sessions. The observation instrument was indepen-
dent of other measures. The observers had no access to the evaluations and did not
discuss them with the class personnel.
12.2.3 Analysis
In the analysis, frequencies and percentages are used to describe the quantity and
distribution of the results. Cross-tabulations are used to describe the connections
between the observed reading sessions and observed emotions, social roles, positive
emotions, participation, and physical activity. The statistical significances were
tested with the chi-square test and the column proportions tested using the z test
(adjusted p-values Bonferroni method). Children’s involvement was studied by
comparing the involvement mean (1–5) and the statistical significances were tested
with variance analysis (GLM) with the Tukey post hoc multiple comparisons.
170 J. Reunamo
Because the number of observations was large, most of the differences are statisti-
cally significant at the 0.000 level, however, in the result section, the level of statisti-
cal significance is 0.05.
12.2.4 Ethics
The Ethical Review Board in the Humanities and Social and Behavioural Sciences
at the University of Helsinki evaluated the methods and conduct of the research. The
participating municipalities agreed to allow the data to be collected for the research.
The teachers and directors did their evaluation as part of the municipal early educa-
tion evaluation. The observers were voluntary teachers. The names, groups, and
units were not collected, securing the anonymity of the evaluation.
Because most of the children were less than 4 years old and none of the children
was older than 7 years, it was considered necessary to get parents’ consent for the
research. All the children participating in the research had a signed consent from
their parents/guardians to allow their participation in the research. The children
were not exposed to strong stimuli and no register of the children was collected. The
research procedures did not affect children’s everyday activities. The children’s
names, birthdays, social security numbers, or other data that could enable the iden-
tification of a child were not collected. The personal information of the parents/
guardians and teachers was not collected. Instead, each child and child group
received a number that was used in the analyses. The data collection was conducted
as part of everyday activities. The children’s physical integrity was not violated in
any way while the observations were being carried out. The observers’ training
emphasized respecting the children’s feelings and rights. The results have been dis-
tributed to the municipalities participating in the research.
12.3 Results
In the observation, all activities were observed, not just reading sessions. Altogether,
there were 2545 (5.1%) observations of children attending reading sessions. This
means that children attended reading sessions on average 24 minutes during the day
if the child was in the class in 8:00–16:00. The girls attended reading sessions 5.3%
of the time and boys 4.9% of the time. The difference is not statistically
significant.
During the observation, the main class activity was classified along with child
activity. By crosstabulation, these we can study in which activities the reading ses-
sions occurred. Reading sessions were the most frequent during teaching sessions
(20% of the teaching time). The difference is statistically significant (p < 0.05)
larger in comparison to other class activities. The other important time for reading
was the rest/sleeping time, where children attended reading 8.5% of the time
(p < 0.05). In the supported play, indoors reading was the main activity for 3.4% of
the observations. During free play indoors, reading was observed in 3.3% of the
cases. Basic care situations (dressing, hygiene, care) included reading 2.9% of the
time. The eating situations (breakfast, lunch, and snack) included reading only 0.7%
of the time and outdoor activities only 0.3% of the time.
During the observation children’s main object of attention was classified along
with the child activity. By crosstabulation, we can study the social context of the
reading sessions. During teaching the main object of attention was mainly the adult
(68% of the time). During free play indoors children’s attention during reading ses-
sions was divided between reading while attending other children (40.2%) and read-
ing while attending non-social content, which indicates that children were reading
with peers or by themselves during free play indoors. In basic care situations, the
children most often read while attending to non-social content (46.1% of the time),
indicating that children were, for example, looking books while waiting for permis-
sion to go outdoors. During the eating sessions, the most frequent attention was for
teacher (31.5% of the time), for example, the teacher reading for the children while
waiting for the food. During the rest/sleeping reading sessions, children were
attending to non-social content (46.5% of the time) or adult (45.5% of the time)
most of the time. Either the adult read to the children or the story was an audiobook.
The time of observation was recorded automatically, which makes it possible to
study the reading sessions in a timeline. The percentages of children’s reading ses-
sions by the hour are presented in Fig. 12.1.
In the morning (8:00–9:00) most of the reading was conducted in teaching ses-
sions (61.8% of all reading) while children looked books also during free play
(23.9% of all reading). Between 9:00 and 10:00, the reading was heavily concen-
trated on the teaching sessions (79.7% of all reading). Between 10:00 and 11:00
reading still occurred mostly during teaching (53.7% of all reading), but the division
10%
9%
8%
7%
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM
Fig. 12.1 The percentages of the reading sessions between 8:00 and 16:00
172 J. Reunamo
into other activities increased. The highest density of reading sessions occurred
between 11:00 and 12:00 hours, where reading was still the most frequent during
teaching sessions (40.6% of all reading), but almost as much reading occurred dur-
ing rest time (38.4% of the reading time). In the afternoon between 12:00 and
16:00 hours, reading sessions were getting rarer, concentrating on teaching sessions
(33% of the reading time) and free play indoors (25% of the reading time).
12.3.1 Learning Potential (Involvement) in Reading Sessions
The reading potential was observed with Laevers’ (1994) involvement scale (Likert
scale from one to five), in which children’s concentrated, creative, sustaining, and
energetic processing indicates a deep level of proximal development. During read-
ing sessions, children’s involvement was simple 16.9% of the time, often interrupt-
ing 10.6% of the time, mostly continuous 25.4% of the time, continuous 38.7% of
the time, and deep involvement 8.3% of the time. In general, the mean value of
involvement was a little higher in reading (3.11) than in the other activities put
together (2.88), p < 0.05.
According to the variance analysis (GLM), the mean involvement of the children
in the reading sessions was statistically significantly (p < 0.05) lower than in the
observations for rule play (mean difference −0.7026), role play (mean difference
−0.6703), physical activity (mean difference −0.5546) and tasks (including learn-
ing tasks, practice, work, the mean difference being −0.5505).
The mean involvement of the children during reading sessions was statistically
significantly higher (p < 0.05) than the observations of children having no focus
(mean difference 0.93), other activity (surprises, confusion, accidents, mean differ-
ence 0.99), general frame (daily routines, mean difference 0.90) and forbidden
activity (0.93). The action category of children hanging about together with other
children did not differ from the reading sessions statistically significantly (mean
difference 0.01).
12.3.2 he Observed Emotions of Children

T
in Reading Sessions
During the observation reading sessions, the children were observed to have no
emotion 47.7% of the time, indicating a neutral state of mind. The surprise, curious
or excited state of mind was observed during reading sessions 22.2% of the time,
happiness and contentment 12.9% of the time, other emotion (mostly sleeping dur-
ing rest) 9.5% of the time, joy for 6.3% of the time, frustration 1.1% of the time and
sadness or depression 0.2% of the time.
In comparison to other activities, the reading sessions were statistically signifi-

cantly more often observed to include a neutral state of mind than in other activities
(percentage difference 10.7%), although the amount of surprise and curiosity obser-
vations was larger in reading sessions than other activities by 3.4%. The amount of
observed joy was smaller than in other activities by 3.6% and the observed happi-
ness or contentment was smaller by 2.5%. Sadness or depression were observed less
frequently during reading sessions in comparison to other activities (percentage dif-
ference 0.4%). Frustration was observed less frequently in reading sessions in com-
parison to other activities (percentage difference of 1.4%).
In general, reading sessions were statistically significantly more neutral than
other activities (percentage difference 9.1%), less positive (percentage difference
6.4%) and included less negative emotions (percentage difference 2.5%).
12.3.3 The Social Roles of Children in Reading Sessions
Children’s social roles were divided into four categories during observation: accom-
modating (is adapting and open), participative (is agentive and open), dominating
(self-centered and insistent), and withdrawn or non-social (not interacting). In
Table 12.1 we can see children’s social roles in reading sessions and other activities.
As we can see in Table 12.1, the most frequently observed social role for children
during reading sessions was accommodation. Accommodation frequented statisti-
cally significantly more during reading sessions than in other activities. According
to the observation manual, during accommodation, the children do not change the
flow of activity or add new content to the activity. According to observation instruc-
tions, if a child answers the question of the teacher, it is classified as accommoda-
tion, because the child does not change the course of events. However, if the child
proposes a new idea and takes initiative, the role is considered participative.
Participation is statistically significantly less participative in comparison to other
activities. In participation, the children change the course of events by adding new
content to the process. As we can see, the reading session includes fewer
Table 12.1 The percentages of children’s social roles in reading sessions and other activities
Social role Other activity Reading Total
Accommodates 31.8%a 42.5%b 32.3%
Participates 35.5%a 26.7%b 35.0%
Withdraws or non-social 15.1%a 20.2%b 15.4%
Other role 14.0%a 8.8%b 13.7%
Dominant 3.7%a 1.7%b 3.6%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Each subscript letter denotes a subset of children’s activity categories whose column proportions
do not differ significantly from each other at the 0.05 level
174 J. Reunamo
opportunities for social change and creating things together with others in compari-
son to other activities.
Children are statistically significantly more often withdrawn or non-social dur-
ing reading sessions. The non-social role was most frequent during resting situa-
tions, 40.1% of the time. However, the withdrawn role is not rare in other activities
except for teaching sessions, where children were observed to be withdrawn from
the context only for 9.3% of the time.
Children were observed to have other roles statistically significantly during read-
ing sessions. The other role usually indicates that the social role cannot be defined,
in practice this most often happened when children were sleeping during a reading
session at the resting time. More specifically, children were observed to be sleeping
during reading sessions while resting 24.6% of the reading time. However, this per-
centage is only tentative, because it may be difficult to observe whether the child is
really sleeping or if the child is just concentrating on the story eyes closed.
A dominant role, according to the observation instructions, was essentially push-
ing through the social context concentrating only on one’s own ideas. Dominance is
a rare occurrence in children’s observed social roles and it happens even less often
during reading sessions. The difference between dominance in the reading sessions
and other activities is statistically significant.
12.3.4 The Physical Activity of Children in Reading Sessions
The physical activity was observed and measured with a Likert scale (1 = does not
move, 2 = stationary movement, 3 = light movement (for example walking),
4 = Some fast and heavy movement, 5 = fast and heavy movement). During the
reading sessions, children were found to be immobile for 24.6% of the time, which
mostly refers to the resting situation. The most frequently observed physical activity
was stationary activity (in 66.4% of the cases), which mainly relates to sitting down,
while only the hands and feet occasionally move. The next level, light movement,
occurred only in 7.7% of observation. Even less often was the activity with some
physical exertion (1.1% of the cases). The fast, strenuous movement was almost
non-existent with a proportion of 0.2% of all observations of reading sessions. The
results mean that children mostly sit down during the reading sessions. In general,
children move a lot less during reading sessions in comparison to other activities.
12.3.5 The Personnel’s Roles in Reading Sessions
Observers classified the teacher’s activity along with the attendance of the reading
session. The most frequent adult role was the goal-oriented role, where the teacher
teaches, motivates, instructs, or trains children. The goal-oriented activity was the
most frequently observed teacher activity with 38.3%, statistically significantly
more than in other action (13.3% of the time). The second most frequent activity
was neutral activity, where the teacher did not deepen the context, but just carried
on. This neutrality occurred in 20.6% of the reading cases, which is statistically
significantly less than in other action (32.5%), which indicates that personnel enrich
the content more than in other activities. Children did not get the adult’s attention in
18.5% of the reading session cases, in comparison to 30.3% of the cases of other
action. The difference is statistically significant. The adult was a little bit more par-
ticipative (14.9%) in comparison to other action (13.0%), the difference is still sta-
tistically significant. There was only one observation (0.0% of the cases) of the adult
being negative towards the child, while in the other action the percentage of a nega-
tive action is 0.2% (the difference is not statistically significant).
12.3.6 The Quality of Reading for 1–3-Year-Old Children
The age groups varied considerably in attending the reading. The youngest children,
1–3-year-olds, attended reading 3.6% of the time, 4–5-year-olds attended reading
5.1% of the time and the six-year-olds attended reading 8.1% of the time. The dif-
ferences are statistically significant at.05 level. Of the reading sessions, for the
1–3-year-olds only 17.4% happen during the resting session in comparison to older
children (38.5%, p < 0.05). The 1–3-year-old children look at books less with their
peers (11.4% of the time) in comparison to older children (17.9%, p < 0.05). The
younger children are less neutral (40.6%) than older children (52.0%) during read-
ing sessions (p < 0.05). Positive emotions are greater: Surprise or curiosity was
observed in 24.7% of the cases (19.4% with older children, p < 0.05) and happiness
or contentment in 16.1% of the cases (10.2%, p < 0.05). The younger children par-
ticipated more (30.9%) in the reading session in comparison to older children
(24.8%, p < 0.05). Furthermore, the personnel participated in the reading session
more (20.6%) than older children (10.1%, p < 0.05).
12.3.7 he Quality of Reading for Children

T
with an Immigrant Background
The children without immigrant background spent time in the reading sessions
5.3% of the time and the children with an immigrant background were observed to
spend time reading 4.0% of the time. The children with both parents/guardians with
an immigrant background attended reading sessions the least, only 3.3% of the time.
All differences are statistically significant at the 0.05 level. The children with an
immigrant background were less highly or continuously (4–5) involved in the read-
ing sessions (38.0%) than other children (45.8%, p < 0.05). Emotionally, the chil-
dren with immigrant background were more often neutral (60.2%) than other
176 J. Reunamo
children (53.9%, p < 0.05) and less positive (38.2%) than other children (44.7%,
p < 0.05). The children with an immigrant background were less participative
(20.8%) in comparison to other children (27.4%, p < 0.05). Furthermore, the chil-
dren with an immigrant background were attending more towards non-social con-
tent (38.5% of the time) than other children (28.2%, p < 0.05), indicating that they
were not connected with the reading session.
12.4 Implications for Practice
Reading books are used in many different early education contexts. Most often it is
used as part of teaching sessions, but it is also used during the resting time and to a
lesser amount in supported play, eating situations, and care. Reading sessions occur
very rarely outdoors. Reading sessions serve many different purposes, for example,
teaching, winding down, in transitions, and play. Reading sessions were more fre-
quent in the morning although they occurred throughout the whole day.
Children’s learning potential evaluated by their involvement in the reading ses-
sion was lower than in role-play, rule play, physical play, and learning tasks and
only a little bit higher than involvement in the activities in general. This means that
the reading sessions do not engage children strongly in the process of the unfolding
story. For involving children more, their ideas and conceptions relating to the story
should be entwined together and developed further together with children accord-
ing, for example, to the principles of dialogic reading. To be involved in the story
means that children should feel to be in the story. When the children start to feel to
be a part of the story, the story ideas become children’s personal ideas and children
can start to work out these ideas together with others. This contact between the
children’s ideas and the story ideas is important because children’s ideas can be
enriched by the literature ideas and children can get feedback on their ideas during
the process. To meet the curriculum objectives for the rich world of languages, a
broad and deep zone for proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978) is needed.
Reading sessions were observed to be more neutral than the activities in general.
This is a surprising result. Books and stories should be full of emotions, drama,
emotionally moving plots, and emotions that the children can relate to themselves.
It seems that the emotions in the books are not fully integrated into the process. The
lack of emotions during reading sessions means that children do not process these
emotions strongly. The opportunity of enriching children’s emotional processing is
lost. The children cannot use different experiences and contexts to enhance their
own emotional experiences. The teacher needs to use drama, make instigating ques-
tions, and let children elaborate on the emotional themes of the books. Discussing
and experiencing emotions during reading sessions is a safe and rich environment
for getting in contact with the emotions of someone else and learn to discuss the
feeling. Reading sessions should be a platform for shared emotions that can be
developed further together.
Children’s social roles were less participative during reading sessions than in
other activities. Participation means that children are open to the ideas of others and
at the same time they contribute new content to the process. For book reading, this
means that the teacher needs to make consciously room for children’s initiatives.
The teacher needs to let the children suggest alternatives, provoke new interpreta-
tions, and discuss their opinions about the books. The teacher may not think chil-
dren’s suggestions as disturbances, rather, they are opportunities to open up the
book content for everybody to work out. When children can contribute to the con-
tent of the book, the children get perspective and feedback on their ideas. When the
teacher welcomes children’s ideas, they learn that their ideas are valued, and their
ideas can be used for the benefit of the whole group. In essence, reading sessions
can be processes, in which children and personnel can create and share their ideas.
The important thing is that they can learn to develop these ideas further together
with others.
Discussing physical activity concerning reading sessions may seem strange. This
strangeness describes the deep-rooted idea that reading should be immobile, with-
out disturbances, and concentrated. However, physical activity enhances learning.
Instead of sitting down, new ways of listening stories should be developed: reading
in the climbing frame, dramatizing the story with movement, and getting the feel of
the story in the concrete activity. With physical activity, the children can feel the
story in their own body and deepen their experiences. Of course, some reading ses-
sions should be left for unwinding and relaxation.
Along with the lack of children’s participation, also the adult’s role was less
often participative during the reading sessions. Instead, the teacher was found in a
goal-oriented role. Hopefully, this does not mean that the goal of the teacher was to
get the books read as effectively as possible. This would make the teacher consider
children’s initiatives as disturbances that put the beforehand defined goals of book
reading in danger. The teachers need to be aware that the best way to involve chil-
dren in the story is to open up the goals and reach for the undefined possibilities of
the evolving story that the book instigates. The teachers need to consider the book
as opening a door for a shared journey. When book reading is a voyage of discovery,
it is impossible to know the goals beforehand. The task of the teacher is to recognize
the secrets and dangers of the evolving road.
The youngest children attend reading sessions the least and their involvement in
books is not very deep. However, reading books is more emotional, positive, and
participative for younger children. Younger children need more reading with many
participating opportunities to engage them in the world of the book opens. For the
youngest, the book is part of the larger physical and mental learning environment,
which connects the children with the curriculum objectives through the adult’s
scaffold.
The most alarming results relate to children with an immigrant background.
They attended the reading session less, they were not as involved in them, they were
not emotionally connected with the reading and they participated less in the reading
sessions. Book reading cannot be considered an effective tool for children with an
immigrant background to learn the language or learn the culture the others are
178 J. Reunamo
connected to. These children are in danger of getting segregated in these teacher-led
processes, where they do not understand what the book is about and they lose track
of the process making it impossible to participate in the enriching of the story.
Creating a deep zone of proximal development requires the right amount of diffi-
culty, discussions with parents, pictures, and contact with children’s interests. The
teachers need to be aware of these children’s difficulties and give them special atten-
tion. The children with the immigrant need to learn to share and create the culture
with others. Now they learn how they are segregated without access to the cultural
content of others.
In conclusion, to meet the Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC) rec-
ommendations for reading books, the books may not be considered as an end prod-
uct, books that should just be read for children (except for resting and relaxation).
The results strongly indicate that books should be considered as the starting points
of the mutually produced story and language creation, a start to a common journey,
for which the road is built as the story evolves.
References
Brown, W. H., Pfeiffer, K. A., McIver, K. L., Dowda, M., Almeida, M. J. C. A. & Pate, R. R. (2006).
Assessing Preschool Children’s Physical Activity: The Observational System for Recording
Physical Activity in Children-Preschool Version. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport,
77(2), 167–176.
Ekman, P. (1994). All emotions are basic. In: Ekman, P. and Davidson, R. (eds.) The nature of
emotion: Fundamental questions (pp. 15–19). Oxford University Press.
Espoon S2-lastentarhanopettajat. (2017). Dialoginen lukeminen [Dialogic reading]. Material for
teachers. https://peda.net/joensuu/esiopetus/sv/materiaalia/mjl/dlau
FNAE. (2018). National Core Curriculum for early childhood education and care. Finnish
National Agency for Education.
Laevers, F. (1994). The innovative project experimental education and the definition of quality in
education. In F. Laevers (Ed.), Defining and assessing quality in early childhood education
(pp. 159–172). Leuven University Press.
Mäkinen, L., Suvanto, A., & Ukkola, S. (2017). Eetu, Iitu ja kertomattomat tarinat: lapsen kerron-
tataitoja kehittävä satukirja [Eetu, Iitu and untold stories: a storybook that develops a child’s
storytelling skills. .
Nurmilaakso, M. (2006). Lukemisen alkeita päiväkodissa – Lastentarhanopettaja ja alkava kuu-
sivuotias lukija. [Early literacy development in day-care Centre, in Finnish]. Doctoral thesis.
University of Helsinki, Department of Applied Sciences of Education: Research report 267.
Repo L, Paananen, M., Eskelinen, M., Mattila, V., Lerkkanen, M.-K., Gammelgård, L.,
Ulvinen, J., Marjanen, J., Kivistö, A., & Hjelt H (2019) Varhaiskasvatuksen laatu arjessa –
Varhaiskasvatussuunnitelmien toteutuminen päiväkodeissa ja perhepäivähoidossa [ECE
quality in everyday work- curriculum implementation in day care centers and family care].
FINEEC publication 15.
Reunamo, J., & Nurmilaakso, M. (2007). Vygotsky and agency in language development.
European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 15(3), 313–327.
Reunamo, J., Hakala, L., Saros, L., Kyhälä, A.-L., Lehto, S., & Valtonen, J. (2014). Physical activ-
ity in day care and preschool. Early years: An International Research Journal, 34(1), 32–48.
Riquelme, E., & Montero, I. (2013). Reading: Short Term Effects of a Children’s Literature
Program. Mind, culture and activity, 20(3), 226–239.
Siiskonen, T., Aro, T., Ahonen, T., Ketonen, R., & Vehniäinen, J. (2014). Joko se puhuu?
Kielenkehityksen vaikeudet varhaislapsuudessa [Difficulties in language development in early
childhood]. PS-kustannus.
Suvanto, A. (2012). Lapsi tarinaa rakentamassa. Kielihäiriöisten lasten kerrontataidot ja niiden
kuntoutuminen [The child constructing narratives. Narrative skills and their rehabilitation in
children with speech and language impairment]. Doctoral dissertation. University of Oulu.
Faculty of Humanities, Logopedics. Acta Universitatis Ouluensis B 106.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Harvard University Press.
Chapter 13
Early Skills as Predictors for Later
Educational Outcome in Mathematics
and Science in Finland and Sweden –
A Further Analysis on TIMSS 2015 Data
Heidi Harju-Luukkainen, Kari Nissinen, and Jouni Vettenranta
Abstract Family-related factors, like parent’s educational level, expectations and

socio-economic variables have a significant impact on students’ educational out-
comes. In this study our aim is to examine how parental attitudes and the socioeco-
nomic status of student’s family are related to student’s early literacy and numeracy
skills and, further, to student’s performance in mathematics and science in the
TIMSS assessment. As data we use the latest TIMSS 2015 data collected from par-
ents and students in Finland and Sweden and further as method we use path analysis.
According to the results, all considered variables have a highly significant and posi-
tive direct effect on the 4th grade student performance. However, some differences
between the countries emerged. The results of this study highlight the importance of
high-quality early childhood environments on students later educational outcome.
13.1 Introduction
A child’s learning happens in an ecology with home and different learning environ-
ments. The educational outcome of a child is a complex construct of many factors
affecting each other’s (Garvis et al., 2019). It is important to note, that the impact of
these factors are individual. According to Considine and Zappala (2002) the effect
of parental SES on children’s educational outcomes may be neutralised,
H. Harju-Luukkainen (*)
Nord University, Bodø, Norway
e-mail: heidi.k.harju-luukkainen@jyu.fi
K. Nissinen · J. Vettenranta

Switzerland AG 2022
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95512-0_13
strengthened or mediated by a range of other contextual, family and individual char-

acteristics. Therefore, what families have as material resources can mediate what
family members do (ibid.) and these have further consequence on the child’s educa-
tional outcome. The age of the child is also of importance. The younger the child is,
the stronger the influence of the family is (Caro et al., 2009).
As stated, family related factors affect children’s educational outcomes and they
include among others family’s socio-economic and cultural status (Harju-
Luukkainen & Vettenranta, 2014; Yamamoto & Holloway, 2010). A rich body of
research point out, that socio-economic hardship put children in an underprivileged
position. Here, contextual indicators are among the most important ones and they
predict attainment, learning trajectories and later also career outcomes (Banerjee,
2016). According to OECD (2016) learning should not be hindered or restricted in
any way even if a child comes from a poor family, has an immigrant background, is
raised by a single parent or has limited resources at home. This is something that
most of today’s successful educational systems have understood, and the different
systems have found various ways to allocate resources so as to level the playfield
(OECD, 2016). Further, family’s material resources like socioeconomic status and
educational background can influence what family members do. This can be seen in
parental attitudes, expectations (Siraj-Blatchford, 2010) and how they support their
child (Christenson, 2004; Fantuzzo et al., 2000). However, not all parents are
equipped with equal possibilities to support their child, and here expert skills are
needed from the educators (see for instance Uusimäki et al., 2019).
As mentioned above, child’s learning happens in an ecology with home and dif-
ferent learning environments. One important environment is early childhood educa-
tional context. Through a collaboration between family and ECEC, parents will get
a broader perspective on their child’s overall growth, development and learning as
well as in this collaboration their attitudes are formed. In Finland the co-operation
(also called the partnership, parental involvement or parental collaboration) with the
parents is highlighted in the Finnish ECEC steering documents. An entire chapter in
the national core curriculums for ECEC (Finnish National Agency for Education,
2016, 2018) is devoted to this parental participation and its implementation. The
National Core Curriculum for ECEC (Finnish National Agency for Education,
2018, p. 14) defines its mission as following “The mission for ECEC is to advance
children’s overall growth, development and learning in collaboration with the
guardians of the child. ECEC is a service that promotes equality and equity and
prevent social exclusion. The skills and knowledges children learn during ECEC
strengthens children’s active engagement in the society. Furthermore, ECEC sup-
ports guardians in their parenting and makes it possible for them to work or to
study.” According to the National Core Curriculum for ECEC (Finnish National
Agency for Education, 2018, 32–33), the aim for the partnership is meeting the
needs of the child to ensure their growth-, development and learning. The partner-
ship between ECEC and parents is defined by such terms as, “trust, respect, and
equality… and parental knowledge is underlined” (Alasuutari, 2010, 150). The ini-
tiation of a collaborative partnership is the role of the ECEC and requires expert
collaboration skills as well as in meeting families with understanding and respect.
13 Early Skills as Predictors for Later Educational Outcome in Mathematics and… 183
In this partnership the family’s diversity and children’s individual needs are take
into consideration. The importance of open and positive dialogue between the
guardians and the personnel is emphasized during two occasions. Firstly, when an
ECEC educational plan is designed for each child and secondly, when a support
plan for child’s development and learning is designed.
In Sweden this collaboration is not as defined as clearly as in the Finnish policy
documents. However, in Sweden the ECE must follow, like in Finland the national
curriculum and are duty-bound to actively promote understanding and communica-
tion between the parents and the teachers. The purpose of this is to build trust
between the child’s main learning contexts and to ensure a safe environment in
which each child is met and treated as an individual. The task of the preschool is to
also to help families by supporting them in their role of bringing up and helping
their children to grow and develop. The task of the preschool means “working in
cooperation with parents so that each child receives the opportunity of developing
in accordance with their potential” (Curriculum for preschool Lpfö 98, p. 4).
In this study, the focus will be on parental attitudes, home educational resources
and students’ early skills before school start and on later educational outcomes.
Therefore, also the theoretical frame of this study will be constructed of these dif-
ferent, but intertwined research areas. From these premises we have formulated two
research questions. We firstly explore how (1) parents’ educational level, home
resources and parental attitudes towards mathematics and science are connected to
students’ early competencies and to their competencies on the fourth grade. Further
we explore (2) how largely early competencies predict educational outcome on the
fourth grade in both Finland and Sweden. Here a comparison between the Finnish
and Swedish data is presented. The results are presented with the help of a path
analysis.
13.2 Theoretical Frame
The theoretical frame of this paper constructs of three sections. These sections have
been developed from our research questions. Firstly, we take a closer look on the
effect of socioeconomic status on children’s educational outcome. Secondly, we
look at early skills and its connection with later educational outcome and thirdly we
focus on parent’s attitudinal influence on student’s educational outcome.
13.2.1 Socioeconomic Factors Affecting Educational Outcomes
One of the mostly studied factors affecting child’s educational outcome is the socio-
economic status (SES) and therefore there is a rich body of research evidence and
an understanding of the effect of family’s SES on children’s educational outcome.
It has typically been studied in sociological and educational research on educational
inequality to address or control for socio-economic differences. SES is generally

regarded as one of the major variables in explaining student performance, together
with institutional variables and other social status indicators such as ethnic back-
ground, gender, and other family-related factors (e.g. Yang, 2003). For instance, The
Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) provides informa-
tion on SES indicators related to student achievement including the parental educa-
tion level, the number of books at home, and home educational resources. TIMSS
data has consistently shown positive effects between student achievement and SES
indicators (see Baker et al., 2002; Bouhlila, 2015; Byun & Kim, 2010; Chudgar &
Luschei, 2009; Hanushek & Luque, 2003; Harris, 2007; Liu et al., 2006; Takashiro,
2016; Yang, 2003). Recently, Takashiro (2016) found that the number of books, the
possession of computers, and parental education as student SES indicators had a
positive effect on student mathematics achievement by using TIMSS 2013 Japan
data. The largest predictor was the number of books, which accounted for 10.7% of
variance in student achievement. Overall, student SES appears as a strong contribu-
tor to student achievement in TIMSS. In Korea, Byun and Kim (2010) reported a
strong relationship between student SES and achievement in TIMSS data from
1999, 2003, and 2007.
Sirin (2005) conducted a meta-analytic review (comprising 58 articles from 1990
to 2000) of the relationship between SES and student achievement at both individ-
ual and school level. According to Sirin (ibid.), family’s socio-economic status is a
strong correlate of academic performance at the individual level (average correla-
tion of 0.299). Students with higher family SES are found to have much higher
educational achievement than those having poorer family resources, and vice versa
(e.g. Okpala et al., 2001; Engin-Demir, 2009; Yang & Gustafsson, 2004; Battle &
Lewis, 2002; Tomul & Savasci, 2012).
However, it is important to note that the explanatory power of SES-related fac-
tors for student achievement varies in different countries. Baker et al. (2002)
reported that the student SES explained from 1.5% to 20% of math and science test
score variation, depending on the country. In Finland socio-economic background
explains very little of the between-student variance in mathematical literacy.
According to Harju-Luukkainen et al. (2014) student’s socio-economic and cultural
status index (ESCS) could only explain approximately 9 percent of the between-
student variance in PISA 2012 mathematics test results. This was among the lowest
percentages within the OECD countries (OECD average 15 percent). Also among
students with an immigrant background in Finland the ESCS index explained only
10 percent of the variance between students. This has led also to an assumption that
the ESCS explanatory power would be as low throughout Finland and through the
education span. The latest research has however been proven this assumption wrong.
For instance, the effect of ESCS index in Finland vary somewhat between the dif-
ferent parts of the country (Harju-Luukkainen & Vettenranta, 2013).
The influence of SES-related factors is not constant throughout the span of
schooling. The younger the child is, the stronger the influence of the family is. Caro
et al. (2009) found out that the achievement gap caused by SES varies by student
age groups from childhood to adolescence. According to their findings, the gap
remains stable from the age of 7 to 11 years and widens increasingly from 11 to
15 years. This bears no clear implications for interventions, however – these are
most likely needed and benefit disadvantaged children at any age from early child-
hood to adolescence. As such, SES-related differences in learning outcomes seem to
remain more modest during elementary school but tend to grow significantly wider
at the upper grades and stages.
13.2.2 Early Skills as Predictors for Educational Outcome
Early childhood has become a priority in policy in many countries (Garvis et al.,
2018). There is a wide notion that high quality early childhood education (or learn-
ing environments) will provide many benefits for children and families both in short
as well as in long term. However, according to Taguma et al. (2012) these positive
benefits are related to the ‘quality’ of early childhood education. The challenge in
this lies in the fact, that the definition of quality differs across countries or across
different interest groups. There are to be found research on the quality of early
childhood environments from different perspectives, but lesser focus has been paid
towards family’s influence, thus parents are child’s first educators.
Parents provide their child, alongside with other learning environments, a broad
mathematical and early literacy input. What type of an input this is, is of impor-
tance, since early years mathematical knowledge is strongly correlated with later
mathematical and reading skills (Watts et al., 2014). Similarily, according to
Hannover Research (2016) early academic skills related to literacy and math are the
most significant predictors of future academic achievement. Also, children’s early
non-academic skills, such as social competence and self-regulation, also contribute
to school success.
However, not all kind of support have an impact on the child’s skills. Zippert and
Rittle-Johnson (2018) found barely any links between parent support and children’s
broad mathematical skills. Further, according to a recent longitudinal study of 554
three-year-old children, conducted by Lehr et al. (2019), show that book exposure
and the quality of verbal interaction regarding mathematics both predicted mathe-
matical outcomes in secondary school and those effects were mediated through
early language and arithmetic skills. Reading outcomes in secondary school were
not directly predicted by early home learning environments but indirectly via early
language and literacy skills. Path models revealed that the different dimensions of
the early home learning environments were differentially associated with pre-
schoolers’ early competencies. All effects remained significant when including the
concurrent home learning environments during secondary school which predicted
reading outcomes directly. Therefore, the quality of early learning environments
seems to have an impact on later outcomes, which in turn have an impact on student
future prospects. The impact of early academic skills on student’s educational out-
come can in turn vary dependent on gender, socioeconomic status and English pro-
ficiency (Hannover Research, 2016).
13.2.3 Parental Influence
Parents’ can influence their child in multiple ways. However, parental attitudes and
parental expectations are two different things. Their attitudes on mathematics and
science are important, but not necessarily highly correlate with their child’s attitude.
Mohr-Schroeder et al. (2017) investigated parents’ attitudes towards mathematics
and parents’ influence on students’ attitude. According to their results parents’ and
students’ attitudes towards mathematics were correlated, but only 5.6% of the varia-
tion in students’ attitude could be explained by the variation in parents’ attitudes.
Expectations towards academic achievement seems to be a more important factor,
however the research results in this matter are still very controversial. According to
a study conducted by Loughlin-Presnal and Bierman (2017) in the USA, bidirec-
tional longitudinal associations emerged between parents’ academic expectations
and child academic outcomes. Child’s perceived academic competence mediated
this association from second to fifth grade. In a study conducted by Froiland &
Davison parental expectations were positively related (standardized path coeffi-
cient = .44) to positive school outcomes and had a stronger effect than SES (stan-
dardized path coefficient = .24). The findings suggest that educators should be
aware of the potential for parents to play a significant role through expectations and
developing supportive relationships with educators. Further, Yan and Lin (2005)
studied parent involvement and mathematics achievement. The findings indicate
that parent expectations had a strong positive effect on 12th graders’ mathematics
achievement. According to Vukovic et al. (2013) parental home support and expec-
tations influenced children’s performance in mathematics. However, not all results
point out to a clear correlation between parental involvement and positive changes
in achievement. El Nokali et al. (2010) investigated children’s trajectories of aca-
demic and social development across 1st, 3rd, and 5th grades. Hierarchical linear
modelling was used to examine within- and between-child associations among
maternal and teacher reports of parent involvement and children’s standardised
achievement scores, social skills, and problem behaviours. Findings suggest that
within-child improvements in parent involvement predict declines in problem
behaviours and improvements in social skills but do not predict changes in
achievement.
13.3 Data
TIMSS is an international assessment of mathematics and science at the fourth and

eighth grades. The first TIMSS assessment took place in 1995 and the program has
continued with subsequent rounds every 4 years since then. Approximately 70
countries were involved in TIMSS 2015, which makes it one of the largest interna-
tional assessments in the world. TIMSS is conducted by the International Association
for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), which is an independent
international cooperative of national research institutions and government agencies

doing cross-national achievement studies. The assessment yields information not
only about students’ overall achievement, backgrounds and attitudes toward math-
ematics and science but also about their teachers’ education and training, classroom
characteristics and activities, and school contexts for learning and instruction in
mathematics and science. Therefore, TIMSS 2015 assessment employed question-
naires for students’ as well as for parents, schools and teachers, respectively.
In this study we used TIMSS 2015 data, conducted for fourth graders. We used
data collected from two countries, from Finland and Sweden. Here we looked closer
at the Early Learning Survey, directed to parents, as well as for data collected from
the students. The Finnish data comprised in total of 158 schools and 5251 students
and the Swedish data comprised of 144 schools and 4142 students.
13.4 Methods
In this study our aim was to examine how parental attitudes and the socioeconomic
status of student’s family are related to student’s early literacy and numeracy skills
and, further, to student’s performance in mathematics and science in the TIMSS
assessment. This was done by fitting a path model to the Finnish and Swedish
TIMSS data sets. The parental attitudes towards mathematics and science is mea-
sured in TIMSS through a quantitative index (TIMSS variable ASBHAMS) derived
from eight statements in the Early Learning Survey, directed to parents. In the
fourth-graders’ TIMSS data the family SES is measured with a composite index
(TIMSS variable ASBGHRL, ‘home educational resources’) constituting of vari-
ables concerning parents’ educational level, occupational status, number of books
and children’s books at home as well as student having an Internet connection or
own room available (Martin et al., 2016). In measuring students’ early competen-
cies, we employed two quantitative indices (TIMSS variables ASBHELT and
ASBHENT, ‘early literacy tasks’ and ‘early numeracy tasks’) formed from 13 items
in the parent questionnaire. These items deal with what literacy (six items) and
numeracy (seven items) skills the child possessed before he/she started school,
assessed by his/her parent. Due to the high inter-correlation between these indices
we combined them into a principal component to be used in our analyses. Finally,
we created a variable measuring student’s competency at Grade 4 by forming a
single principal component from the student’s mathematics and science scores (i.e.
we performed a principal component analysis of five plausible values of mathemat-
ics and five plausible values of science). The chosen approach was path analysis.
The target was to analyse, whether the home resources and parental attitudes affect
directly the student performance in the 4th grade, and do the early skills possess an
intermediary role. The model contains five path parameters: two effects of parental
attitudes, two of home resources and one of early skills. In addition, the model con-
tains variances of all variables and the correlation between parental attitudes and
home resources.
13.5 Results
The Finnish data, the saturated model showed only sufficient fit to the data. That is,
all effects were highly significant, and no parameter could be removed from the
model without sacrificing the model fit. In the Swedish data, the parental attitudes
have no significant direct effect. These held equally for girls and boys. In addition,
the parameter estimates of girls and boys were very similar, suggesting that the
pooled model would be valid for the both genders and in Finnish and Swedish data
as well. The estimation results of the pooled models are shown in Fig. 13.1.
All considered variables have a highly significant and positive direct effect on the
4th grade student performance. Of them, the strongest association is observed with
student’s early skills (0.38 and 0.25) and the relation between home resources and
student performance (0.29, 0.45), while the association of parental attitudes with
Grade 4 performance is relatively weak (Finnish data) or insignificant (Swedish
data). It is however worth noting that parental attitudes and home resources are cor-
related (0.24, 0.23).
The home resources and parental attitudes have positive effects on the early skills
also. It is interesting that home educational resources seem to be associated more
strongly with the Grade 4 performance than the skills child possessed before start-
ing school.
The path model explained 29 percent of the variance in Grade 4 performance in
the Finnish data 31 percent in the Swedish data. The proportion of variance in the
early competencies, which parents’ attitudes and family SES explained was not
Fig. 13.1 The estimated path model of the Finnish (upper numbers) and Swedish data (lower
numbers). Standard errors of the parameter estimates are given in parentheses
more than 5 percent. The estimated effects of parental attitudes and home resources
on early competences are quite similar in Finland and Sweden. Instead, the effects
on 4th grade performance are somewhat different. The direct effect of home
resources is significantly stronger in Sweden than in Finland, while the opposite
holds for the effect of early competencies.
13.6 Conclusions and Recommendations
In this paper our aim was, with the help of path analysis, to explore how parents’
educational level, home resources and parental attitudes towards mathematics and
science are connected to students’ early competencies and to their competencies on
the fourth grade. Further we explored how largely early competencies predict edu-
cational outcome on the fourth grade in both Finland and Sweden. As data we use
the latest TIMSS 2015 data collected from parents and 4th grade students in Finland
and Sweden.
According to Fig. 13.1, Somewhat surprisingly in the Swedish data, parental
attitudes towards science and math had no significant direct effect on student’s edu-
cational outcome in math and science on the fourth grade. The effect was a bit larger
(.10), however still weak, when it comes to parents’ attitudes effect on students’
early skills in both of the countries. Therefore, according to the results of this study,
parental attitudes seems to play a minor role in students’ educational outcome, how-
ever these are positively connected. This finding is in line with previous research
(Mohr-Schroeder et al., 2017). Unfortunately, parental expectations were not stud-
ied in TIMSS, which might have given another type of results on parental influence
on educational outcome (Loughlin-Presnal & Bierman, 2017; Yan & Lin, 2005).
There is a clear positive effects between student achievement and SES indicators
in international studies as well in the results of this study (Baker et al., 2002;
Bouhlila, 2015; Byun & Kim, 2010; Chudgar & Luschei, 2009; Hanushek & Luque,
2003; Harris, 2007; Liu et al., 2006; Takashiro, 2016; Yang, 2003). According to the
results of this study, the direct effect of home resources was significantly stronger in
Sweden than in Finland. The fact that the Swedish students home resources were
more influential when it comes to the educational outcome, is somewhat concern-
ing. The less home resources effect on student’s educational outcome, the better the
education system is in ‘levelling the playing field’ (see further OECD, 2016) and
giving students equal opportunities. On contrary, the direct effect of early skills was
significantly stronger in Finland, compared to Sweden. This poses a challenge, in
making sure that all children are exposed to high quality early learning environ-
ments. We know from previous findings that for instance the attendance to early
childhood education is much higher in Sweden, compared to Finland (see for
instance Garvis et al., 2019).
The path model described in this study was able to explain 29 percent of the total
variance in fourth grader’s performance in the Finnish data and 31 percent in the
Swedish data. This is a large proportion, but still only few studies have been
conducted on the connections between the different areas described in this study.
Therefore, the results underline a need for additional research in order to understand
the mechanism between family related factors, early learning skills and later educa-
tional outcome in different student groups.
The results of this study point out the importance for all children to have a pos-
sibility to take part in high quality early childhood environments, since early skills
in math and science have a direct effect on the child’s later educational outcome in
science and math (see also Taguma et al., 2012). Both the Finnish and Swedish
ECEC, is based on an integrated approach supporting children’s wellbeing through
care, education and teaching, the so-called “educare” model, where learning through
play has an important role. Also, in both environments the parental collaboration is
highlighted in order to support child’s overall growth, development and learning.
Therefore, one aspect of high-quality learning environment is well organised as well
as conducted collaboration with the parents. However, how this parental collabora-
tion is put into practice varies. Through good collaboration parents can receive tools
to support their child and to develop their own attitudes towards, for instance, edu-
cation. The ECEC is one important early learning environment and it therefore also
has one of the key roles in leveling the later playing fields for individual children.
This important work includes parental collaboration as well.
References
Alasuutari, M. (2010). Striving at partnership: Parent–practitioner relationships in Finnish early

educators’ talk. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 18(2), 149–161.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13502931003784545
Baker, D. P., Goesling, B., & LeTendre, G. K. (2002). Socioeconomic status, school quality, and
national economic development: A cross-national analysis of the “Heyneman-Loxley effect”
on mathematics and science achievement. Comparative Education Review, 46(3), 291–312.
Banerjee, P. (2016). A systematic review of factors linked to poor academic performance of disad-
vantaged students in science and maths in schools. Cogent Education, 3, 1178441. https://doi.
org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1178441
Battle, J., & Lewis, M. (2002). The increasing significance of class: The relative effects of race and
socioeconomic status on academic achievement. Journal of Poverty, 6(2), 21–35. https://doi.
org/10.1300/j134v06n02_02
Bouhlila, D. S. (2015). The Heyneman–Loxley effect revisited in the Middle East and North Africa:
Analysis using TIMSS 2007 database. International Journal of Educational Development,
42, 85–95.
Byun, S. Y., & Kim, K. K. (2010). Educational inequality in South Korea: The widening socioeco-
nomic gap in student achievement. In Globalization, changing demographics, and educational
challenges in East Asia (pp. 155–182). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Caro, D., McDonald, J. T., & Willms, D. J. (2009). Socio-economic status and academic achieve-
ment trajectories from childhood to adolescence. Canadian Society for the Study of Education,
32(3), 558–590.
Christenson, S. L. (2004). The family-school partnership: An opportunity to promote learning
competence of all students. School Psychology Review, 33(1), 83–104.
Chudgar, A., & Luschei, T. F. (2009). National income, income inequality, and the importance of
schools: A hierarchical cross-national comparison. American Educational Research Journal,
46(3), 626–658.
Considine, G., & Zappala, G. (2002). Factors influencing the educational performance of students
from disadvantaged backgrounds. In T. Eardley & B. Bradbury (Eds.), Competing visions:
Proceedings of the National Social Policy Conference 2001, SPRC report 1/02 (pp. 91–107).
Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney.
El Nokali, N. E., Bachman, H. J., & Votruba-Drzal, E. (2010). Parent involvement and children’s
academic and social development in elementary school. Child Development, 8, 988–1005.
Engin-Demir, C. (2009). Factors influencing the academic achievement of the Turkish urban poor.
International Journal of Educational Development, 29(1), 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijedudev.2008.03.003
Fantuzzo, J. W., Tighe, E., & Childs, S. (2000). Family involvement questionnaire: A multivari-
ate assessment of family participation in early childhood education. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 92, 367–376.
Finnish National Agency for Education. (2018). National core curriculum for early childhood
education and care. Finnish National Agency for Education.
Finnish National Agency for Education 2014. (2016). National core curriculum for pre-primary
education 2014. Finnish National Agency for Education.
Garvis, S., Philippson, S., & Harju-Luukkainen, H. (2018). Volume I: Early childhood education in
the 21st century. International teaching, family and policy perspectives. Routledge.
and early childhood education. Palgrave Macmillan.
Hannover Research. (2016). Early skills and predictors of academic success. Hannover
Research. Retrieved from https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/SDE/ESSA%20Evidence%20Guides/
Early_Skills_and_Predictors_of_Academic_Success
Hanushek, E. A., & Luque, J. A. (2003). Efficiency and equity in schools around the world.
Economics of Education Review, 22(5), 481–502.
Harju-Luukkainen, H., & Vettenranta, J. (2013). The influence of local culture on students’
educational outcomes. In K. Tirri & E. Kuusisto (Eds.), Interaction in educational domains
(pp. 77–90). Sense Publishers.
Harju-Luukkainen, H., & Vettenranta, J. (2014). Social capital and local variation in student per-
formance in Swedish-speaking Ostrobothnia in Finland. In E. Hyry, E. Estola, & M. Hiltunen
(Eds.), Place and education (pp. 1–20). University of Oulu.
Harju-Luukkainen, H., Nissinen, K., Sulkunen, S., & Suni, M. (2014) Avaimet osaamiseen ja
tulevaisuuteen: Selvitys maahanmuuttajataustaisten nuorten osaamisen tasosta ja siihen liit-
tyvistä taustatekijöistä PISA 2012 –tutkimuksessa. (keys to competence and future. A report on
PISA 2012 results and related underlying factors for students with an immigrant background.)
University of Jyväskylä, Finnish Institute for Educational Research.
Harris, D. N. (2007). Diminishing marginal returns and the production of education: An interna-
tional analysis. Education Economics, 15(1), 31–53.
Lehr, S., Ebert, S., Blaurock, S., Rossbach, H.-G., & Weinert, S. (2019). Long-term and domain-
spesific relations between the early years home learning environment and students’ academic
outcomes in secondary school. School Effectiveness and School Improvement. https://doi.org/1
0.1080/09243453.2019.1618346
Liu, Y., Wu, A. D., & Zumbo, B. D. (2006). The relation between outside of school factors and
mathematics achievement: A cross-country study among the US and five top-performing Asian
countries. Journal of Educational Research & Policy Studies, 6(1), 1–35.
Loughlin-Presnal, J., & Bierman, K. L. (2017). How do parent expectations promote child aca-
demic achievement in early elementary school? A test of three mediators. Developmental
Psychology, 53(9), 1694–1708.
Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., & Hooper, M. (Eds.). (2016). Methods and Procedures in TIMSS
2015. Retrieved from Boston College, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center website:
http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/publications/timss/2015-methods.html
Mohr-Schroeder, M., Jackson, C., Cavalcanti, M., Jong, C., Schroeder, D., & Speler, L. (2017).
Parents’ attitudes toward mathematics and the influence on their students’ attitudes toward
mathematics: A quantitative study. School Science and Mathematics, 117(5), 214–222.
OECD. (2016). PISA 2015 results in focus. Paris: OECD retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/
pisa/pisa-2015-results-in-focus.pdf. Accessed January 21, 2017.
Okpala, C. O., Okpala, A. O., & Smith, F. E. (2001). Parental involvement, instructional expendi-
tures, family socioeconomic attributes, and student achievement. The Journal of Educational
Research, 95(2), 110–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670109596579
Siraj-Blatchford, I. (2010). Learning in the home and at school: How working class children suc-
ceed against the odds. British Educational Research Journal, 36, 463–482.
Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic
review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 417–453. https://doi.
org/10.3102/00346543075003417
Taguma, M., Litjens, I., & Makowiechki, K. (2012). Quality matters in early childhood education
and care. Finland 2012. OECD.
Takashiro, N. (2016). A multilevel analysis of Japanese middle school student and school socio-
economic status influence on mathematics achievement. Educational Assessment, Evaluation
and Accountability, 29, 247–267.
Tomul, E., & Savasci, H. S. (2012). Socioeconomic determinants of academic achievement.
Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 24, 175–187.
Uusimäki, L., Yngvesson, T. E., Garvis, S., & Harju-Luukkainen, H. (2019). Parental involve-
ment in ECEC in Finland and in Sweden. In S. Garvis, H. Harju-Luukkainen, S. Sheridan, &
P. Williams (Eds.), Nordic families, children and early childhood education. Studies in child-
hood and youth (pp. 81–99). Palgrave Macmillan.
Vukovic, R. K., Roberts, S. O., & Green Wright, L. (2013). From parental involvement to chil-
dren’s mathematical performance: The role of mathematics anxiety. Early Education and
Development, 24, 446–467.
Watts, T. W., Duncan, G. J., Siegler, R. S., & Davis-Kean, P. E. (2014). What’s past is prologue:
Relations between early mathematics knowledge and high school achievement. Educational
Researcher, 43, 352–360. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14553660
Yamamoto, Y., & Holloway, S. D. (2010). Parental expectations and children’s academic perfor-
mance in sociocultural context. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 189–214. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10648-010-9121-z
Yan, W., & Lin, Q. (2005). Parent involvement and mathematics achievement: Contrast across
racial and ethnic groups. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(2), 116–127.
Yang, Y. (2003). Dimensions of socio-economic status and their relationship to mathematics and
science achievement at individual and collective levels. Scandinavian Journal of Educational
Research, 47(1), 21–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313830308609
Yang, Y., & Gustafsson, J. (2004). Measuring socioeconomic status at individual and collec-
tive levels. Educational Research and Evaluation, 10(3), 259–288. https://doi.org/10.1076/
edre.10.3.259.30268
Zippert, E., & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2018). The home math environment: More than numeracy. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.07.009
Part III
Towards Finnish Pedagogy
Chapter 14
Creating a Theoretical Framework
for Playful Learning and Pedagogy –
The Finnish Perspective
Jonna Kangas and Heidi Harju-Luukkainen
Abstract In this chapter we create a framework around the concept of play as a

multimodal attitude or experience in early childhood education. In the Finnish cur-
riculum for ECE play is considered essential for learning and is supported with a
systematic and goal-oriented approach to scaffold children into engaging in learning
opportunities. Therefore, teachers create good preconditions for play, supervise it in
a suitable way and ensure that each child gets an opportunity to participate in play
according to their skills and capabilities. In this chapter we analyze the play and play-
ful approach in the Finnish ECE with the help of content analysis of policy docu-
ments and previously published peer reviewed scientific papers. At the end of this
chapter we present a theoretical framework of playful learning and pedagogy. This
model is conducted through a meta-analysis of learning theories, theories of play and
of the recent research literature. It is a tool for teachers and researchers to reflect their
playful practices and contextualize the concept of play in the context of education.
14.1 Introduction
The Finnish education system has received a lot of attention during the last decade.
Partly due to the international PISA and other assessment success, but also due to
somewhat unique educational assessment and pedagogical approaches. Even the
Finnish method of playful learning have caught attention in international media. For
instance Washington Post stated “I have seen the school of tomorrow. It is here, in
J. Kangas (*)
e-mail: jonna.kangas@helsinki.fi
H. Harju-Luukkainen

Switzerland AG 2022
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95512-0_14
196 J. Kangas and H. Harju-Luukkainen
Finland” and required more time for play for children (Strauss, 2016). In Finland
play is not considered as an extra-curricular educational activity, not something that
you can add on into a day schedule. It is regarded as regular learning activity both
in classroom and in outdoor environments (Harju-Luukkainen et al., 2019).
In the Finnish curriculum for ECE play is considered essential for learning and it
is supported with a systematic and goal-oriented approach to scaffold children to
engage in opportunities to learn. Therefore teachers must secure preconditions for
play, use playful guidance and support, and ensure that each child gets an opportu-
nity to participate in play together with other children, according to their skills and
capabilities. In Finland play is understood as an attitude, an approach and a whole
way of looking at the world. This makes the concept of play in Finland to a multi-
modal attitude or experience (Sefton-Green et al., 2015). However, it is important to
note that play alone is not learning. Some Nordic researchers have been claiming
the concept “playing, learning child’ to represent the early childhood education
approach (Pramling Samuelsson & Sheridan, 2008). Simultaneously, playful learn-
ing in the context of education raises the question of whether the Finnish education
should or shouldn’t be taken seriously and is children’s play ‘real’ learning. In gen-
eral, the Finnish policy documents regarding ECE are painting a serious image of
play, full of requirements for teachers, school directors and above all – the children.
At the same time there are no clear definition on play and learning, playful learning
and play-based learning. All often used as synonyms in research papers and steering
documents. Further, there are also no attempts to synthesize the different approaches
in order to develop the practices and teacher’s understanding of playful learning.
From these premises, we have decided to take a closer look at how play and play-
ful learning is defined in the Finnish context. Firstly we use the Finnish national
curriculum guidelines of ECE as our analysis framework. A synthesis of play and
playful learning (concepts used in this chapter) are then formed with the help of a
systematic content analysis of definitions of play and playful learning described in
16 different research papers. With the help of content analysis we aim in framing the
Finnish affiliated researcher’s perspectives on play and playful learning. As a con-
clusion of these two parts (theoretical frame and research results) we form a synthe-
sis, a theoretical framework of playful learning and pedagogy. This model is
conducted through a meta-analysis of learning theories, theories of play and of the
recent research literature.
14.2 he Foundations of the Finnish Play

T
and Playful Learning
The foundation of Finnish ECE as well the role of play in the education system is
constructed based on Fröbel and Pestalozzi thoughts on pedagogy based on chil-
dren’s play and work (Berger, 2000), where the materials, toys and the enabling
environment is providing children active learning through self-directed activities or
even free-play where teachers only interact through setting the environment and
14 Creating a Theoretical Framework for Playful Learning and Pedagogy… 197
interrupting non-accepted behavior (Kangas & Brotherus, 2017; Lindberg, 2014).

This kind of passive teaching adaptation takes place for example in Reggio Emilia
method where teachers guide the learning through environment with non-direct
interaction (Dodd-Nufrio, 2011). This is because learning itself is considered moti-
vating and children should not be taught through set questions and answers (Dewey,
1916). On the other hand the direct teaching where teacher explains and questions
the set answers to ensure children are copying the expected pieces of knowledge is
used in many countries. Bennett (2005) have identified the pre-primary tradition
(e.g. Belgium, France, Ireland, UK, and the US) and the pedagogic tradition (e.g.
Nordic countries and many parts of Central Europe). The pre-primary tradition aims
on cognitive goals and ‘readiness for school’ through schoolification where the
pedagogical tradition is emphasizing on agency and social development through
play (see Bodrova, 2008). Also the learning goals are defined through academic
achievements in the pre-primary tradition whereas the pedagogical tradition focuses
on holistic development and learning-to-learn skills through more varied objectives
than only set results (Kangas et al., 2019). This can be seen of instance in the intro-
duction of the Finnish National curriculum guidelines for ECE as following ‘the
purpose … is to create equal preconditions the holistic growth, development and
learning of the children...’ (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2018, 9).
In Finland the National Curriculum for ECE (Finnish National Agency for
Education, 2018) do not provide exact learning goals or set of academic or practical
skills. The learning is emphasized strongly in the curriculum (Finnish National
Agency for Education, 2018) in the General Goals and in the Planning and
Implementing Pedagogical Activity. The national core curriculum (2018) is based
on a conception of learning according to which children grow, develop and learn in
interaction with other people and the immediate environment. Learning is holistic
and occurs everywhere. It combines knowledge, skills, actions, emotions, sensory
perceptions, bodily experiences and thinking (Finnish National Agency for
Education, 2018). Among other things, learning occurs when children observe and
examine their surroundings and as they imitate the actions of others (Kangas et al.,
2019; Karpov, 2005). Children also learn by playing, moving, exploring, working
on different assignments and expressing themselves as well as through activities
based on arts (Harju-Luukkainen et al., 2019). In Finnish ECE the previous experi-
ences of children, their interests, and their competences are the starting point for
learning (see Kumpulainen, 2018). The National curriculum guidelines (Finnish
National Agency for Education, 2018) describes notions about play in the context of
learning by making statements about the role of play to be significant for the learn-
ing in early years. Play is described to be motivating and bringing joy; thus it also
gives opportunities to learn many skills and acquire knowledge. New knowledge
and skills learned by children are connected to their developing competences as
well as the world they experience and their cultural backgrounds (Finnish National
Agency for Education, 2018). In these the process or interpretative reproduction
where children interpret the knowledge, test it through their developing skills and
make joint-meanings and reproduce the understanding through creative methods are
essential (Corsaro, 2011; Repo et al., 2020). Children are learning effectively when
they are feeling well and secure, and positive emotional experiences and interactive
relationships promote learning. Motivation and children’s interest towards learning
is considered essential and the National curriculum guidelines state that ‘interest-
ing, goal-oriented and suitably challenging activities inspire the children to learn’
(Finnish National Agency for Education, 2018). The socio-pedagogical and holistic
approach (Bennett, 2005) is combined with individual learning paths, and a child is
entitled to gain experiences of success and joy in his or her actions and of them-
selves as a learner. Personal experiences and initiatives are meaningful in the learn-
ing process (see Kangas & Lastikka, 2019).
14.3 The Theoretical Foundations of Play in Finnish ECE
Internationally the discussion on both theoretical and practical field raised questions
if it is possible to learn through play and what could teachers do to support and scaf-
fold that learning. Further, scholars and policy makers have made statements for and
against the playful learning approach in ECE. For instance Bodrova (2008) ana-
lyzed the pre-primary traditions of ECE programs in different countries and showed
the limitations regarding time and space for pretend play activities. This tradition of
‘schoolification’ can be seen (from a Finnish perspective) as a threat for children’s
natural development. Also OECD has expressed concerns on the risk of too much
emphasis on formal teaching and other ‘schoolification’ aspects of the ECE and
further stressed that play should not been seen as competing with academic learning
but rather as enhancing it (see Bodrova, 2008; Christie & Roskos, 2006). More
generally play and especially playful learning could be understood as practical solu-
tions of ‘those aspects of curriculum that contribute to the well-being and involve-
ment of the child’ (Kangas et al., 2019, see also Bennett, 2005; Rainio, 2010).
Play can be viewed from several perspectives. Play is for instance an important
space for optimal acquisition of social skill. In play children feel the ownership
towards the action and dares to take risks to perform on a higher skill level. This
social acquisition is understood through the zone-of-proximal development
(Vygotsky, 1978), where children act and interact in their personal skills level and
above it. In peer-related activity each participating child adapts the degree of diffi-
culty to the right level, where play is performed on this proximal level of develop-
ment in communication, academic, motor and process skills (see also Hakkarainen
& Bredikyte, 2010; Kangas et al., 2019; Lautamo, 2012). Further, play is also
understood as a part of children’s culture and activity (Corsaro, 2011) and has an
intrinsic value to those who are involved in the play. Play is also described as chil-
dren’s natural and spontaneous activity (Vygotsky, 1978). However the assessing
and evaluating learning or performance is considered difficult, even meaningless to
those, often personnel, who are observing it from the outside (Kangas et al., 2019).
Bondioli (2001) states that if play is understood as a “spontaneous and self-
motivated activity” (p. 111) while the learning is resilient it is a great risk that the
motives and thus the outcomes of play are generally overlooked. The dualistic
understanding of learning as serious and important and play as rewarding and fun
have been criticized by many researchers globally. The well-known featuring of
learning by Csikszentmihalyi (1990) defines the learning through concept of flow
where the learning takes place in interaction with the perceived environment as
playful and exploratory means and is self-reinforcing and enjoyable (see Hoffman
& Novack, 1997).
Play is described to be dynamic and dialogical process in an imaginary environ-
ment (Møller, 2015). From multidiscipline approach play has multimodal natures of
form in different societies (Whitebread et al., 2012). It can be claimed that in Finnish
society and the context of ECE play have modalities such as learning activity, ele-
ment of fun and playful communication, adaptations to active learning through tac-
tile and kinesthetic activities where children are doers, makers and reproducers of
learning (see Harju-Luukkainen et al., 2019; Kangas et al., 2019). This multimodal
and multi-sensorial approach comes close to Dewey’s (1938) idea of learning by
doing where children are interacting with their environment through hands-on activ-
ities. Further on learning in ECE in Finnish context is valued through the process of
active adaptation and exploration of environment through creative activities. The
Finnish curriculum (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2018) addresses both
the learning and the play as key elements of the operational culture and educational
practices but fails to bring them together. Thus the concept of playful learning
remains vague and distant from the policies and practices of early childhood educa-
tion (see Kangas et al., 2019; Sefton-Green et al., 2015).
14.4 Data and Methods
In this paper we used (1) Finnish curriculum guidelines for ECEC (2018) and (2) 16
scientific papers and doctoral theses (marked with * in Table 14.1) as data, describ-
ing the definitions of play and playful learning in the Finnish early childhood educa-
tion both in theory and practice. These documents were all published between
2010–2020 in recognized international scientific journals, peer evaluated book
chapters or by universities as doctoral theses. In all of them play, playful or play-
based was mentioned in connection with early childhood education as a keyword or
some of the words were emphasized in the abstract. In order to identify as many
research papers in this area as possible Google Scholar and Scopus searches were
made. From these papers those that were affiliated with any Finnish university were
chosen for further analysis. This in order to have a Finnish ‘affiliated’ perspective
with this research.
In order to form a synthesis about play and playful learning in the Finnish early
childhood education we decided to use systematic content analysis as our method.
Content analysis from literature serves in this study is as a research-orienting tool
following the valid inferences by analysing and identifying gaps, values, directions,
or intersections within the broader research scope and ground future research trajec-
tories (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008; Khirfan et al., 2020). With this method our aim was to
Table 14.1 Notion categories, sub-categories and author identification to each sub-category
Notion Author identification to
categories Sub-categories sub-category
Growth Wellbeing & care Kalliala (2011)
Motor development (‘being big Rutanen (2012)
enough’) Hännikäinen (2018)
Closeness and togetherness
Development Developmental affords Hyvönen (2011)
Play development Hakkarainen and Bredikyte (2010)
Occupation Lautamo (2012)*
Learning Reaching the pre-set goals Piispanen and Meriläinen (2015)
Learning environment Lindberg (2014)*
Academic (language) learning Kesäläinen et al. (2019)
Academic (science) learning Vartiainen and Kumpulainen (2020)
Interaction Co-operation Syrjämäki et al. (2018)
Joint play with teachers Pursi and Lipponen (2019)
Sense of community Koivula and Hännikäinen (2017)
Active agency Agency Rainio (2010)*
Participation & Influence Leinonen et al. (2014)
Making initiatives Kangas and Lastikka (2019)
* Doctoral dissertation
provide meta data and contextual understanding regarding the concept of play. Our
analysis was conducted in a few steps. In the first step of our analysis we framed
how play is defined in the in the Finnish curriculum guidelines for ECEC (2018),
since this would work as a baseline for our further systematic content analysis and
finding the sub-categories from the peer reviewed papers. In Finland the curriculum
is obligatory steering document for the context and quality of ECE. In the Finnish
curriculum guidelines (2018) there were to be found five notion categories regard-
ing play as following:
The national core curriculum for early childhood education and care is based on a concep-
tion of learning according to which children grow, develop and learn in interaction with
other people and the immediate environment. The conception of learning is also based on a
view of the child’s active agency. (p. 33).
We used these five notion categories (growth, development, learning, interaction

and active agency) as our frame for our further systematic content analysis of scien-
tific papers. Leedy and Ormrod (2001, 155) describes content analysis as ‘a detailed
and systematic examination of the content of a particular body of material for the
purpose of identifying patterns, themes or biases’. We analysed the content of the
chosen scientific papers and doctoral theses in order to find ‘junks of meaning’
regarding the definition of play, playful learning and play-based learning. After this
these junks of meaning where then categorized under the five notions from the
Finnish curriculum guidelines and these ‘junks of meaning’ formed the so-called
sub-categories (see Table 14.1 closer). This was done in order to be able to get a
broad view of the concept of play and to define closer how Finnish affiliated
researchers contextualize the playful learning. Content analysis in general is
advantageous for understanding the social and cultural reality of multifaceted, phe-
nomena like play and playful learning (Khirfan et al., 2020), which in case of this
chapter, overlaps childhood, developmental psychology, education, teacher training
and professional development and curriculum development among others.
14.5 esults – Framing Play and Playful Learning

R
in Finnish ECE
In this section we will be present our results by framing how play is defined in the
Finnish ECE context and by Finnish affiliated researchers. The notion categories
were formed from the Finnish curriculum guidelines (2018) and the sub-categories
were formed from scientific papers and doctoral theses. All these are described
closer in Table 14.1.
Notion of Growth In this category play researches focuses on the wellbeing and
physical growth of human being. Kalliala (2011) gives examples of toddlers wellbe-
ing through ‘being visible’ and criticizes the paradigm of child as a competent
member of society: ‘…the child as eager to learn, competent and strong in some
respects but, at the same time, vulnerable, immature and needy in others’ (p. 239).
Thus Kalliala (2011) draws patterns of nurturing children’s wellbeing through sen-
sitivity and care of teachers as a pedagogical tool. Wellbeing in play and education
have often explained through care as provider of wellbeing. For example, Rutanen
(2012) have shown, that children under 3 years are often experiencing invisible
limits and barriers in Finnish ECE to protect them from physical harm. Hännikäinen
(2018) approaches the wellbeing from the perspective of togetherness and describes
children happiness when ‘educator was close by, listening to and talking with them’
(p. 152). Kalliala (2011) explains that dilemma between play and care is that within
free play children are abandoned to survive in the social interaction without direct
support from teachers and children cannot obtain their wellbeing on their own.
More generally this dualistic approach towards play and learning becomes visible in
the category called Notion of Growth in Finnish ECE. On one hand, children are
growing naturally but on the other hand they are small and vulnerable and require
care from staff to experience wellbeing.
Notion of Development In this category the Finnish ECE is viewed through social-
ization process, mainly through being and belonging and where children are devel-
oping their identity, skills, and interests. The development exists also as an entity
‘taking its natural course’. However in her research Hyvönen (2011) frames the
developmental areas of play as affording within the educational settings in ECE. She
points out that these developmental areas are co-created between children and
teachers, not taught or guided by the teacher. The development is afforded when the
play and teacher’s role is affording in a process play which ‘is understood as a
learning activity as a process with distinct phases of orientations, playing and elabo-
rating’ (p. 59) In process play the development of especially cognitive and emo-
tional aspects were shown to be strong and because the process was understood to
be more important than the product, children changed to adapt the play within their
personal competence level (Hyvönen, 2011). Further, Hakkarainen and Bredikyte
(2010) gave strong foundations of play as tool for development ‘Play develop-
ment…has been superior route to higher-level executive functions and self-
regulation compared to all direct training programs’ (p. 58). According to our results
the category Notion of Development in Finnish ECE is based on social situation of
development theory created by Vygotsky (Hakkarainen & Bredikyte, 2010). Finally,
development can be seen through the play as occupation of children (Lautamo,
2012) ‘when we see play as an occupation, we can assume that participation in play
is essential to children’s feeling of competence, occupational identity and well-
being’ (p. 16). Further, the play performance could be evaluated through these occu-
pational factors and enhance the valuation of play.
Notion of Learning In the Notion of Learning category researchers bring forward

the meaning of the curriculum as well as didactical basis of ECE in language, sci-
ence, math and arts. The learning notion is strongly visible also in discourses about
learning environment. Lindberg (2014) claims that enabling physical space for
learning is not only for offering new affordances for children to perceive, but also to
enable the use of material elements important for the children. Also Piispanen and
Meriläinen (2015) refer learning as reaching pre-set goals through ‘good plan-
ning…gives pupils freedom to play individually and creatively but still along the
lines of the goals’ (p. 233). Learning as notion is brought forward through focusing
the learning in Finnish ECE settings as not learn the subject content as such but as
being able to create understanding about contents by linking it with experiences
(Piispanen & Meriläinen, 2015). Learning is explored through play in the context of
language learning by Kesäläinen et al. (2019) and of science learning by Vartiainen
and Kumpulainen (2020). In learning through play the emphasis is on the role of
children as active producers and users of knowledge, where the focus of learning is
beyond demonstrating what is known (Vartiainen & Kumpulainen, 2020). The lan-
guage learning was strengthened within the context of social play where children
did report enjoyment, interaction and participation with peers (Kesäläinen et al.,
2019). Within the Notion of Learning category in the contexts of academic learning
the children were able to engage themselves in problem-solving and meaning-
making situations through play and playful activities with tools and toys as referring
to Dewey’s learning by doing ideology (Kesäläinen et al., 2019; Vartiainen &
Kumpulainen, 2020).
Notion of Interaction The Notion of Interaction category is considered in many

play and playful learning approach-oriented researches, where play and learning are
both understood as social meaning-making, but also as learning social and behav-
ioural skills as continuum to Vygotsky’s social learning ideas. According to our
results, for this category the meaning of play was essential. In social situations play
created shared context of understanding and further co-operation between children.
Even though they very young toddlers they were ‘able to organize their actions in
concert with each other in order to build shared understanding and sustained co-
participation’ (Pursi & Lipponen, 2019, p. 109). The role of teacher as a mediator
was identified as key element of successful co-operation and peer interaction in play
with children with special needs (Syrjämäki et al., 2018). With joy and playful com-
munication the play connection i.e. children resilience towards play was also
increased (Pursi & Lipponen, 2019). A longitudinal research by Koivula and
Hännikäinen (2017) showed the construction of the sense of community through
continuous play activities. Through these children learned negotiations and influ-
encing skills together with emotional expression and we-talk. They state that chil-
dren constructed belonging through joint activities and negotiate the rituals and
routines of the group, and experienced inclusion, caring and togetherness (Koivula
& Hännikäinen, 2017).
Notion of Active Agency Participation and agency are meaningful to learning and
motivation in the context of Finnish ECE (The National curriculum guidelines
2018). Rainio (2010) brings the question of children’s agency and participation
within the play and playful experience further. In agentive approach learning and
development are connected through the experiences of ‘be taken seriously and
spaces to be offered to it in different areas of social life’ (p. 96). Very close to the
concept of agency is children’s participation in ECE setting. It has been noted how
children are learning self-esteem and skills for practical democracy in playful
actions in classrooms (Leinonen et al., 2014). The multidimensional concept of
agency aspects of learning becomes visible in play for examples in skills to control
oneself, to act and to become conscious of oneself and the world (Rainio, 2010).
Within this category also children’s initiatives towards learning and classroom prac-
tices becomes important. Kangas and Lastikka (2019) have shown how children’s
initiatives in play have a crucial role in learning and motivation, especially in play
related activities where children felt ‘they are capable and able to learn new skills’
(p. 33).
14.6 onclusions – Creating a Framework for Playful

C
Learning and Pedagogy
A challenge on the field of research regarding play and playful learning is that there
have not been done any synthesis of the theoretical background or pedagogical
practices during the last decade. The definition of play and playful approaches have
therefore been vague. A challenge in trying to synthesize this area is the fact that the
definition of play and playful learning can be viewed from several standpoints.
Therefore this paper is a first attempt to describe the definitions of play and playful
learning in Finnish early childhood education and give it a framework. In order to
achieve this aim we used systematic content analysis as our method and analysed 16
scientific papers and doctoral theses and used the Finnish curriculum guidelines as
our analysis frame.
As a result of this content analysis, we claim that the Finnish understanding and
practices of play and playful learning are constructed through multidisciplinary
understanding of research about learning as social, psychological and active learn-
ing paradigm. The influence of Vygotsky (1978) is clearly visible in the social
acquisition to perform on a higher skill level (see also Kangas et al., 2019; Vartiainen
& Kumpulainen, 2020). On one hand the learning is understood to construct the
meaning and multimodal roles of play but they are also multidimensional and evolv-
ing in the practice. This ideology reflects the understanding of learning as reproduc-
ing culture through active agency (see Corsaro, 2011; Rainio, 2010). Learning in
Finnish ECE is understood through mastering knowledge and skills, taking actions,
expressing emotions, making sensory perceptions and bodily experiences and,
finally, thinking (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2018). Through these
multimodal and multi-sensorial adaptations the concept of learning comes close to
Dewey’s (1938) idea of learning by doing where children are interacting with their
environment through hands-on activities. The social dimensions of learning are also
strongly emphasized and Bardy (2001, p.125) summarizes that as following ‘… to
involve children in communities in a way that secures their learning process’.
Further, play in Finnish ECE is defined and understood through multidimensional
values and roles. Play have an intrinsic value to those who are involved in the play
(Finnish National Agency for Education, 2018, 25). Especially important is the area
of self-initiated play, which is also highlighted in curriculum guidelines. It is
described as children’s natural and spontaneous activity where they need support for
joining in and care (see Kalliala, 2011; Vygotsky, 1978). On the other hand learning
in play is highly valued and play is seen as path of socialization of human being
where the areas of communication, social learning and problem-solving skills (Pursi
& Lipponen, 2019; Kangas et al., 2019; Koivula & Hännikäinen, 2017; Whitebread
et al., 2012). These social competences are requirement for successful play; thus
play includes active carrying out of negotiations and agreements and is thus dynamic
and dialogic process (Møller, 2015). Further, play within ECE settings have an
impact in relation to intentional learning, connected with effortfulness and involve-
ment of problem-solving and creativity skills (Whitebread et al., 2012).
As a final conclusion for this study we created a framework of playful learning
and pedagogy (Fig. 14.1). There are two stands that are affecting our understanding
of playful learning in pedagogical practice. These are the theories related to learning
and theories related to play, both of them evident in the pedagogical practice.
However, these have not been integrated in the pedagogical practices on a theoreti-
cal level previously. This framework of playful learning and pedagogy highlight the
teachers’ role, their understanding of play and learning, children’s needs and the
output or interaction where teachers enable, control, interact and finally play with
children. The role of a teacher is to mediate in the development of children’s motives
for play (Karpov, 2005). The conclusion can be drawn that play is not always learn-
ing and play is not initially a self-motivated activity, but the motives for playing – as
Fig. 14.1 A theoretical framework of playful learning and pedagogy
well as learning - gradually develops in children (see also Hakkarainen & Bredikyte,
2010; Kalliala, 2011; Kangas et al., 2019).
To understand the framework of playful learning and pedagogy we need to
understand the role of pedagogy as a scaffolding activity where observation, inter-
action, support and guidance from teacher are crucial. Pedagogical play refers to the
use of play in ECE in promoting the learning of young children (Sefton-Green et al.,
2015; Wood, 2010). Pedagogical play means also designing and planning the edu-
cational activities following curriculum goals through playful activities and com-
munication (Kangas et al., 2019). Skills such as enactment into learning activities
through creativity and exploration or goal setting for learning through independent
initiatives and choice making were shown to be developing in the context of playful
learning environment with the playful pedagogy (Hyvönen, 2011; Piispanen &
Meriläinen, 2015).
Further, in early childhood education it is necessary to understand the intrinsic
value of play for the children as well as the pedagogical significance of play in
learning and children’s holistic growth and well-being. The playing learning child
ideology (see Pramling Samuelsson & Asplund Carlsson, 2008) is seen in the centre
of the ECE, and it states that all learning, interaction and everyday activities should
be implemented through play because children will make everyday events of their
life playful (see also Kangas et al., 2019; Pramling Samuelsson & Sheridan, 2008).
Playful learning includes multimodal concepts or experiences, considered by
Sefton-Green et al. (2015, p. 6) as ‘an attitude, an approach and a way of looking at
and interacting with the world’. When framing the playful learning approach from
conceptions and understanding of play and learning we are viewing play through
modalities of learning and learning through the modalities of play. Within the
different notions of learning the meanings and multitude practical approaches are
framed for the use of educational policies and further on to the pedagogical prac-
tices of ECE.
References
Bardy, M. (2001). Lasten osallisuus – keitä me olemme, mihin me kuulumme ja kuinka me

elämme? In M. Bardy, T. Salmi, & M. Heino (Eds.) Mikä lapsiamme uhkaa? Suuntaviivoja
2000-luvun lapsipoliittiseen keskusteluun. [The threats of our children. Guidelines to the child
policy discussion in the third millennium.] (pp. 123–138). STAKES. Raportteja 263.
Bennett, J. (2005). Curriculum issues in national policy-making. European Early Childhood
Education Research Journal, 13(2), 5.
Berger, M. (2000). Friedrich Fröbels konzeption einer pädagogik der frühen kindheit. In
W. E. Fthenakis & M. R. Textor (Eds.), Pädagogische Ansätze im Kindergarten [Pedagogical
approaches in kindergarten] (pp. 10–22). Beltz.
Bodrova, E. (2008). Make-believe play versus academic skills: A Vygotskian approach to today’s
dilemma of early childhood education. European Early Childhood Education Research
Journal, 16(3), 357–369.
Bondioli, A. (2001). The adult as a tutor in fostering children’s symbolic play. In A. Göncu &
L. Klein (Eds.), Children in play, story, and school (pp. 107–131). Guilford Press.
Christie, J. F., & Roskos, K. A. (2006). Standards, science and the role of play in early literacy
education. In D. G. Singer, R. M. Golinkoff, & K. A. Hirsh-Pasek (Eds.), Play = learning:
How play motivates and enhances cognitive and social-emotional growth (pp. 57–73). Oxford
University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Harper & Row.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. Simon & Schuster.
Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: A theory of inquiry. Henry Holt.
Dodd-Nufrio, A. T. (2011). Reggio Emilia, Maria Montessori, and John Dewey: Dispelling teach-
ers’ misconceptions and understanding theoretical foundations. Early Childhood Education
Journal, 39(4), 235–237.
Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced
Nursing, 62(1), 107–115.
Finnish National Agency for Education. (2018). National Curriculum of early childhood education
and care. EDUFI – Finnish National Agency for Education.
Hakkarainen, P., & Bredikyte, M. (2010). Strong foundation through play-based learning.
Psychological Science and Education, 15(3), 58–64.
Hännikäinen, M. (2018). Values of wellbeing and togetherness in the early childhood education of
younger children. In E. Johansson & J. Einarsdottir (Eds.), Values in early childhood educa-
tion: Citizenship for tomorrow (pp. 147–162). Routledge.
Harju-Luukkainen, H., Garvis, S., & Kangas, J. (2019). “After lunch we offer quiet time and medi-
tation”: Early learning environments in Australia and Finland through the lenses of educa-
tors. In S. Faas, D. Kasüschke, E. Nitecki, M. Urban, & H. Wasmuth (Eds.), Globalization,
transformation, and cultures in early childhood education and care: Reconceptualization and
comparison (pp. 203–219). Palgrave Macmillan.
Hoffman, D. L., & Novack, P. N. (1997). Modeling the structure of the flow experience among web
users, project 2000. Vanderbilt university.
Hyvönen, P. T. (2011). Play in the school context? The perspectives of Finnish teachers. Australian
Journal of Teacher Education, 36(8), 5.
Kalliala, M. (2011). Look at me! Does the adult truly see and respond to the child in Finnish day-
care centres? European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 19(2), 237–253.
Kangas, J., & Brotherus, A. (2017). Osallisuus ja leikki varhaiskasvatuksessa: “Leikittäisiin ja kai-
kki olis onnellisia!”. In A. Toom, M. Rautiainen, & J. Tähtinen (Eds.), Toiveet ja todellisuus:
Kasvatus osallisuutta ja oppimista rakentamassa [Hopes and reality: Constructing participa-
tion and learning through education] (pp. 197–223). Suomen kasvatustieteellinen seura.
Kangas, J., & Lastikka, A.-L. (2019). Children’s initiatives in the Finnish early childhood educa-
tion context. In S. Garvis, H. Harju-Luukkainen, S. Sheridan, & P. Williams (Eds.), Nordic
families, children and early childhood education (pp. 15–36). Palgrave Macmillan.
learn in Finland: Early childhood curricular and operational context. In S. Garvis & S. Phillipson
(Eds.), Policification of early childhood education and care: Early childhood education in the
21st century volume III (pp. 71–85). Routledge.
Karpov, Y. V. (2005). The neo-Vygotskian approach to child development. Cambridge
University Press.
Kesäläinen, J., Suhonen, E., Alijoki, A., & Sajaniemi, N. (2019). Children’s play behaviour, cogni-
tive skills and vocabulary in integrated early childhood special education groups. International
Journal of Inclusive Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.1651410
Khirfan, L., Peck, M., & Mohtat, N. (2020). Systematic content analysis: A combined method to
analyze the literature on the daylighting (de-culverting) of urban streams. MethodsX, 7, 100984.
Koivula, M., & Hännikäinen, M. (2017). Building children’s sense of community in a day care
center through small groups in play. Early Years: An International Journal of Research and
Development, 37(2), 126–142.
Lautamo, T. (2012). Play assessment for group settings: Validating a measurement tool for assess-
ment of children’s play performance in the day-care context. Doctoral dissertation. Jyväskylä
Studies in Education, Psychology and Social Research.
Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2001). Practical research: Planning and design. Merrill Prentice Hall.
Leinonen, J., Brotherus, A., & Venninen, T. (2014). Children’s participation in Finnish pre-school
education – Identifying, describing and documenting children’s participation. Nordic Early
Childhood Education Research, 7(8), 1–16.
Lindberg, P. (2014) In search of affordances and visual quality. Interpreting environments of chil-
dren aged under three in seven Finnish day-care centers. Doctoral dissertation. University
of Oulu.
Møller, S. J. (2015). Imagination, playfulness and creativity in children’s play with different toys.
American Journal of Play, 7(3), 322–346.
Piispanen, M., & Meriläinen, M. (2015). Play as part of learning – Learning as part of play. In
C. Shoniregun & G. Akmayeva (Eds.), Proceedings of IICE 2015, Ireland international confer-
ence on education (pp. 229–234). Infonomics Society.
Pramling Samuelsson, I. P., & Asplund Carlsson, M. A. (2008). The playing learning child:
Towards a pedagogy of early childhood. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 52(6),
623–641.
Pramling Samuelsson, I., & Sheridan, S. (2008). Play and learning in Swedish early childhood
education. In I. Pramling Samuelsson & M. Fleer (Eds.), Play and learning in early childhood
settings: International perspectives (pp. 135–154). Springer.
Pursi, A., & Lipponen, L. (2019). Creating and maintaining play connections in a toddler peer
group. In G. Quinones, A. Ridgway, & L. Liang (Eds.), Peer play relationship: International
early childhood education research perspectives springer series (pp. 93–111). Springer.
Rainio, A. P. (2010). Lionhearts of the Playworld: An ethnographic case study of the development
of agency in play pedagogy, Doctoral Dissertation. University of Helsinki.
Repo, L., Paananen, M., Eskelinen, M., Mattila, V., Lerkkanen, M. K., Gammelgård, L.,
Ulvinen, J. M. J., Kivistö, A., & Hjelt, H. (2020). Varhaiskasvatuksen laatu arjessa–
Varhaiskasvatussuunnitelmien toteutuminen päiväkodeissa ja perhepäivähoidossa. [The qual-
ity of ECEC in practice – The curriculum implementation study]. Kansallinen koulutuksen
arviointikeskus (Karvi). Julkaisut 15: 2019.
Rutanen, N. (2012). Socio-spatial practices in a Finnish daycare group for 1 to 3-year-olds. Early
Years: An International Journal of Research and Development, 32(2), 201–214.
Sefton-Green, J., Kumpulainen, K., Lipponen, L., Sintonen, S., Rajala, A., & Hilppö, J. (2015).
Playing with learning. The Playful learning center. University of Helsinki. http://plchelsinki.fi/
Strauss, V. (2016). I have seen the school of tomorrow. It is here today, in Finland. Answer sheet, 7th
May 2016, Washington post. Retrieved 18.4.2020 from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/
answer-sheet/wp/2016/05/07/i-have-seen-the-school-of-tomorrow-it-is-here-today-in-finland/
Syrjämäki, M., Pihlaja, P., & Sajaniemi, N. (2018). Enhancing peer interaction during guided play
in Finnish integrated special groups. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal,
26(3), 418–431.
Vartiainen, J., & Kumpulainen, K. (2020). Playing with science: Manifestation of scientific play
in early science inquiry. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal. https://doi.
org/10.1080/1350293X.2020.1783924
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Harvard University Press.
Whitebread, D., Marisol, B., Kuvalja, M., & Mohini, V. (2012). The Importance of Play: A report
on the value of children’s play with a series of policy recommendations. Toy Industries Of
Europe (TIE).
Wood, E. (2010). Developing integrated pedagogical approaches to play and learning. In
P. Broadhead, J. Howard, & E. Wood (Eds.), Play and learning in education settings. Sage.
Chapter 15
Practices of Planning as a Reflection
of Teaching and Learning Concepts
in ECEC: The Cases of Finland
and Slovenia
Sonja Rutar, Tuulikki Ukkonen-Mikkola, Tina Štemberger,

and Sonja Čotar Konrad
Abstract The aim of this study was to identify pedagogical planning practices and
thus recognise the prevailing teaching and learning concepts in ECEC in Finland
and Slovenia. Pedagogical planning is one of the key elements of quality for ECEC
in both countries. The study followed a qualitative paradigm. Data were collected
by carrying out semi-structured thematic interviews with ECEC teachers in Finland
and Slovenia and analysed using content analysis. Regarding the planning practices,
the results show that ECEC teachers (i) mostly plan in teams or tandems and (ii)
consider the curriculum, that is, the ECEC national document, as well as the chil-
dren’s voices, in planning. Through an analysis of pedagogical planning practice,
three learning and teaching concepts were recognised (i) transmissive pedagogy;
(ii) constructivist-developmentalism, with a transmissive notion of the aim of edu-
cation; and (iii) participatory pedagogy.
15.1 Introduction
According to Farquhar and White (2014), pedagogy addresses a wide scope of edu-
cational questions, such as the following: what does it mean to teach? What does it
mean to learn? What does it mean to be human? What and whose knowledge is
important? They noted that pedagogy reflects the conceptualisation of teaching,
S. Rutar (*) · T. Štemberger · S. Č. Konrad

University of Primorska, Koper, Slovenia
e-mail: sonja.rutar@upr.si; tina.stemberger@upr.si; sonja.cotarkonrad@upr.si
T. Ukkonen-Mikkola
e-mail: tuulikki.t.ukkonen-mikkola@jyu.fi

Switzerland AG 2022
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95512-0_15
210 S. Rutar et al.
learning, knowledge, society, and politics. It involves a vision of society, people,

and knowledge. More specifically, early childhood education and care pedagogy
emphasises children’s activity, play, and participation, and it is implemented in
cooperation with parents and experts (Alila & Ukkonen-Mikkola, 2018). The way
in which an ECEC teacher interacts with children and their families derives from the
teacher’s teaching/learning concepts and professional identities within different dis-
courses, which are significantly developed in the process of pre-service training
(Miller Marsh, 2002). Teachers’ pedagogical work involves designing and planning
learning activities and environments, interacting with children, and cooperating
with personnel (Karila, 2012). Pedagogical documentation and planning must be
linked (Alvestad & Sheridan, 2014).
To ensure planning is a participatory process, teachers must consider children’s
agencies and the entire learning community (teachers, children, and parents) by
linking children’s initiatives and the curriculum (Fonsén et al., 2014; Kangas et al.,
2015; Karila & Kinos, 2012; Rutar & Štemberger, 2018). Even though observing,
planning, and intervening form an inseparable part of high-quality educational
interventions (Lemay et al., 2018), we focused mainly on planning practices in
ECEC, specifically recognising teaching and learning concepts in Finland in
Slovenia, which both have integrated systems of education and care organised under
a ministry responsible for education. Although pedagogical planning is one of the
key elements of quality ECEC, little is known about how teachers make their deci-
sions regarding what to teach and how to teach (Ryan & Goffin, 2008).
15.2 CEC Legislation Framework for Pedagogical

E
Planning in Finland and Slovenia
In Finland and Slovenia, the values of pre-primary education are based on interna-
tional agreements and declarations that ensure the provision of equal access to edu-
cation and support for all children’s growth and learning in the best possible way.
The main principles of these conventions are to ‘ensure children’s non-discrimination,
equal treatment, the child’s right to life and full development’ (UN Convention on
the Rights of the Child, 1989). Children’s views should be considered, and their
voices should be heard on issues concerning them. The ECEC legislation and steer-
ing documents in both countries are based on these conventions, but they have dif-
ferent emphases.
In Finland, the goal of ECEC is to promote children’s holistic growth, develop-
ment and learning in collaboration with their guardians (parents). Another goal of
ECEC is to promote equality and equity among children, prevent their social exclu-
sion and strengthen children’s participation and active agency in society. The
renewed ECEC curriculum emphasises interaction and pedagogy, especially partici-
patory pedagogy (Finnish National Agency of Education, 2018). In Slovenia, the
objective of ECEC is to enhance respect for children’s rights and consider children’s
diversity (Eurydice – The Education System in the Republic of Slovenia, 2019). In
15 Practices of Planning as a Reflection of Teaching and Learning Concepts in ECEC… 211
both countries, the curricula provide guidelines regarding how to cooperate with
parents, as well as how to arrange and use the learning environment (Eurydice – The
Education System in the Republic of Slovenia, 2019; Finnish National Agency of
Education, 2018). Children are understood as active participants in the process; they
develop new skills and knowledge by exploring, experimenting, and making choices
(Finnish National Agency of Education, 2018; Kurikulum za vrtce, 1999).
In both countries, all preschool children under school age have the right to high-
quality early childhood education and care (Kangas et al., 2015; Eurydice – Slovenia,
Fundamental Principles and National Policies, 2020) within a unitary system of
early childhood education and care. Early childhood education and care welcomes
children aged 10 months in Finland and 11 months in Slovenia (Eurydice – The
Education System in the Republic of Slovenia, 2019; Kangas et al., 2015). These
children remain in ECEC until they enter compulsory pre-primary education in
Finland and basic school in Slovenia. Preschool groups are organised according to
age in both countries. The first age groups include children under 3 years, and the
second age group includes children aged 3–5 years in Finland and children aged
3–6 years in Slovenia, where pre-primary education is not compulsory.
In Slovenia and Finland, curricular goals and principles are defined as a frame-
work for pedagogical planning. The principle of teamwork planning and the imple-
mentation of preschool education and professional training (Finnish National
Agency of Education, 2018; Kurikulum za vrtce, 1999) stipulate that professional
staff cooperate in the planning process within the group (teacher and teacher assis-
tant), between groups, within the preschool, among preschools, and with other edu-
cational and professional institutions. In the curricula, (Finnish National Agency of
Education, 2018; Kurikulum za vrtce, 1999) the principles of critical evaluation, the
development-process approach, and active learning assume that the preschool
teacher observes the development and learning of each child and uses the data from
observations for the planning and implementation of goals, activities, the educa-
tional process, and individualisation (Ukkonen-Mikkola & Fonsén, 2018; Vidmar
et al., 2017). In both countries, children and their parents can participate in plan-
ning, implementing, and assessing early childhood education (Finnish National
Agency of Education, 2018; Kurikulum za vrtce, 1999). In Finland, an individual
ECEC plan is prepared for each child, together with the child’s guardians and edu-
cators. The objectives written in the plan concern pedagogical activities (Finnish
National Agency of Education, 2018). Legislation, steering documents, and some
relevant statistical information for Finland and Slovenia are presented in Table 15.1.
15.3 eaching and Learning Concepts as a Reflection

T
of ECEC Pedagogy
In this chapter, the term ‘ECEC pedagogy’ is conceptualised as a theoretical frame-

work for planned, goal-oriented, interactive, and reflective institutional activity. It
emphasises children’s activity, play, and participation, and it is implemented in
212 S. Rutar et al.
Table 15.1 ECEC system in Finland and Slovenia (NIHW, 2019; Ministry of Education and
Culture, 2020; The Education System in the Republic of Slovenia, 2019)
Issue Finland Slovenia
Ministry responsible for Ministry of Education and Ministry of Education, Science
ECEC Culture, since 2013 and Sport, since 1993
Key legislation Act on Early Childhood Education Organisation and Financing of
and Care (2018) Education Act (1996/2017)
Kindergarten Act (2016/2017)
Curricula The National Core Curriculum for Kindergarten curriculum (1999)
ECEC (2018)
The National Core Curriculum for
Pre-primary Education (2014)
Use of public ECEC 83% 94.4%
services
Participation rate 74% 81.7%
(children aged 1–6 years)
Qualifications of ECEC Teachers: Bachelor’s degree Teachers: Bachelor’s degree
professionals Nurses: 3 years of upper Teacher assistants: 4 years of
secondary school upper secondary education
Professional development Voluntary 5 days/year obligatory
Educator-to-child ratio 1:7 for children over 3 years 1:12 for children over 3 years
1:4 for children under 3 years 1:7 for children under 3 years
Compulsory/voluntary Compulsory for 6-year-olds Voluntary
Children start basic 7 years 6 years
education (9 years of basic education) (9 years of basic education)
cooperation with parents and experts (Alila & Ukkonen-Mikkola, 2018). However,
education and pedagogy are socially and culturally constructed (Siljander, 2014)
and may range from teacher centred/transmissive pedagogy to child centred/partici-
patory pedagogy.
Transmissive pedagogy can be understood as adult-oriented, adult-initiated, and
teacher-led ECEC pedagogy. Kinos (2002) defined adult-oriented pedagogy as
didactic and technical action implemented by personnel and based on the concept of
behavioural learning. In transmissive pedagogy, the concept of knowledge is static,
the child is understood as an object of care, and childhood is viewed as a ‘lack of
adulthood’ (Kinos, 2002). The teacher’s role is to transfer information according to
the curriculum aims, making the children into passive objects of the teaching activi-
ties (Edwards et al., 1995; Rinne et al., 2004).
In ECEC settings, constructivist-developmentalism has, for many decades, been
regarded as a theoretical approach to defining practice (Edwards, 2007). According
to constructivist-developmentalism, knowledge construction is an individual pro-
cess, which mainly depends on the child’s development. This theory was reconcep-
tualised and problematised within sociocultural interpretations of knowledge
construction. Mercer and Howe (2012, p.12) believe that ‘knowledge is not just an
individual possession, but also the creation and shared property of community
members, who use “cultural tools” (including spoken and written language),
relationships and institutions (such as schools) for that purpose.’ This leads to the
understanding that learning and development should be viewed as the integration of
individual and collective knowledge. In perspectives on teaching and learning,
McLachlan et al. (2018) describe developmental theories as focusing on describing
and understanding the process of change, which is usually framed around normative
ages or stages of development. In turn, using sociocultural or cultural-historical
theories, they interpret learning as a process of change, in which development is
foregrounded through children’s social and cultural situations in families and other
community interactions and relationships.
Child-oriented, child-initiated, and participatory pedagogy (often used as syn-
onyms for the pedagogy of listening, with the child at the centre of pedagogy) is
implemented as a creative and experimental process, and it is based on the sociocul-
tural and socio-constructivist theory of learning. The concepts of knowledge and
pedagogy are dynamic, allowing for the influences of diverse circumstances and
situations to affect practices. Teachers and children are equal agents in child-
oriented, child-initiated, participatory pedagogy. The teacher’s role is to support
children’s interests, and the children are considered active and competent agents
(Edwards et al., 1995; Kinos, 2002) in pedagogical discussions. However, Kinos
et al. (2016) stress that teachers must document and analyse children’s initiatives
when designing the pedagogical processes and also reflect on documented peda-
gogical processes with children (Rutar & Štemberger, 2018). Langford (2010) pro-
posed that instead of naming and framing child-centred concepts of teaching and
learning, the term and concept ‘democratic-centered pedagogy’ should be used.
Langford (2010, p. 10) defined democratic-centred pedagogy as a pedagogy
where learning becomes understood as a process whereby both, the child and teacher and
children as peers are actively engaged in events that can be initiated by the child, by peers
and by the teacher within an environment that has been set up collaboratively by children
and teachers respond to children’s interests and build on their existing knowledge.
We believe that democratic-centred pedagogy (Langford, 2010) could, in practice,

be recognised as a type of participatory pedagogy, in which according to the con-
temporary sociological approach to childhood, children are recognised as active
social agents and citizens (Corsaro, 2011). The children are regarded as subjects
that interact with other people and the environment (Rogoff, 2008; Pramling-
Samuelsson & Sheridan, 2010), and child participation is viewed as a multidimen-
sional issue in ECEC, an important criterion of children’s well-being (Smith,
2002; Sandseter & Seland, 2016) and high-quality preschools (Sheridan, &
Pramling -Samuelsson, I., 2001; Sheridan, 2007).
Nevertheless, children’s participation is often understood in quite narrow terms,
as only listening to the children’s voices (Venninen & Leinonen, 2012), and does
not always incorporate children’s perspectives in decisions. This prevents the chil-
dren from becoming constructors and co-constructors of knowledge, culture and
values in education (Dahlberg et al., 2006; Van Krieken Robson, 2019).
Like today, in the past, there was not only tension between the developmental
and sociocultural interpretations of knowledge construction but also a discussion
214 S. Rutar et al.
and reconceptualisation of the goal of education, the image of the learner, the image
of a teacher, and the role of participation. Formosinho et al. (2016) recognised all
these dimensions in transmissive and participatory pedagogies. As they stated,
transmissive pedagogy is focused on the knowledge that is to be conveyed, while
participatory pedagogies focus on the key stakeholders who co-construct knowl-
edge by participating in the learning process. As Kinos et al. (2016, p.353) have
already reported, “a clear tension exists between those who value more democratic
approaches to early childhood education and those who believe that children must
have direct instruction determined by the adults in their lives.”
15.4 edagogical Planning in Participatory Pedagogy –

P
the Planning Practice that We Strive for
When planning the educational process, ECEC teachers should consider curricula,
children’s individuality, children’s initiatives, learning environments, cooperation
with other teachers and parents, and many other factors (Fonsén et al., 2014; Kangas
et al., 2015; Karila & Kinos, 2012). They must consider children’s agencies to
ensure planning is a participatory process.
Planning practices that consider children’s interests and opinions support chil-
dren’s participation (Batistič Zorec, 2015) and reflect teachers’ democratic beliefs
and attitudes (Turnšek & Pekkarinen, 2009). Teachers who adopt participatory con-
cepts of learning emphasise children’s role in planning regarding their age and abili-
ties (Turja & Vuorisalo, 2017). However, this does not imply solely the teachers’
interpretation of children’s abilities but mainly listening to the children’s voices/
initiatives, which can significantly differ from normative developmental expecta-
tions. When children play in small groups, teachers can listen to and observe them,
as well as support their agency (Fonsén et al., 2014). Roos (2015) points out that
listening to children’s voices helps teachers understand their perspectives. In terms
of child-initiated planning, it is the teacher’s task to enhance participation and create
an environment that is suitable for participatory activities (Ahn & Kim, 2009).
Venninen and Leinonen (2012) point out that while teachers have sought children’s
opinions and ideas during planning processes, the effects of such have not truly
been observed in long-term planning.
Children’s participation in pedagogical planning supports their self-concepts and
sense of responsibility (Turja & Vuorisalo, 2017), agency (Lipponen & Kumpulainen,
2011), and metacognitive skills (Jones, 2004). It is essential to focus on children’s
initiatives because these encourage and promote their agency and motivation within
early childhood education (Kangas & Lastikka, 2019). Helavaara Robertson et al.
(2015) state that children want to view themselves as competent experts in ECEC
and that teachers are partners who can provide ideas and suggest ways to further
progression. However, the children must be actively involved in the (1) planning, (2)
implementation, and (3) evaluation/reflection of the process, which empowers them
to learn, make choices, express ideas and views, and develop a positive self-image
(Rutar, 2013; Rutar & Štemberger, 2018; Sommer et al., 2013). Participatory peda-
gogical planning involves child-adult–child/child–adult/child relations and peda-
gogical practices in which preschool professionals (teachers and assistants) make
pedagogical decisions together with children, not for children, keeping ‘with the
child in mind’ (Rutar, 2013) by interpreting children’s developmental needs and
cultural features (Rutar & Štemberger, 2018).
15.5 Research Questions
The aim of this study is to investigate ECEC teachers’ pedagogical planning prac-
tices and thus recognise the teaching and learning concepts behind these practices
in Finland and Slovenia. In this paper, we address the following research questions:
• How do teachers plan pedagogical processes in ECEC in Finland and Slovenia?
• Which teaching and learning concepts can be recognised in ECEC planning
practices in Finland and Slovenia?
15.6 Methodology
The research followed a qualitative paradigm of educational research. Data were

gathered by carrying out semi-structured interviews with ECEC teachers in Slovenia
(n = 10) and Finland (n = 10), who were educated to at least at the level of a bach-
elor’s degree. The interviewed teachers worked in public ECEC centres. The inter-
views were recorded and transcribed; data were analysed using content analysis,
which allowed us to categorise data from a systematic perspective and generalise
the studied phenomenon. Through content analysis, we have focused on the essen-
tial core of the data (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). The analyses proceeded in an induc-
tive manner.
The research followed the guidelines for responsible and good research ethics
given by the Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity (2012) and the ethical
standards in research of the University of Primorska, Etični kodeks (2011).
Conducting a cross-cultural study required exact designing and reflection before,
during, and after the research process (Vlasov, 2018). The questions used for the
interviews were the same in both countries. During the analysis and writing process,
the researchers reflected on and thoroughly discussed the findings. Participation in
the study was voluntary, instructions on how to opt out of the study were provided,
and the informants’ anonymity was protected. The participants were informed of all
issues related to the objectives and implementation of the study, as well as the data
management practices. All quotations have been anonymised, and the names of the
participants’ workplaces have been withheld.
216 S. Rutar et al.
15.7 Results
15.7.1 lanning Pedagogical Process in ECEC in Finland

P
and Slovenia
In both countries, teachers learn how to plan within initial teacher education and
continuing professional development programs, but mainly, they learn from one
another. In both countries, the pedagogical process is planned together with other
teachers, parents, and children.
The planning process is based on observations, children’s ideas, wishes, needs,
strengths, and challenges. In addition, the ECEC curricula are the key source of
pedagogical planning in both countries. The national curricula goals and content are
combined with children’s ideas and suggestions. In Finland, children’s individual
ECEC plans, which are written together with parents for every child, are also con-
sidered when planning the activities.
Teachers and teams are responsible for long-term planning, and the plans are
reviewed together with colleagues, teacher assistants/child care workers, and chil-
dren on a weekly basis. Teachers described the planning as an endless process:
The planning process is a continuous activity. I sometimes get ideas when I am at home, and
I have to write them down. (Teacher from Finland, 21 years of work experience)
Teachers in Finland and Slovenia appreciate the co-construction of knowledge and

meaning with colleagues, but they also mentioned that shared values and teaching/
learning concepts are important for successful cooperation in tandem. They believe
that discussions with other teachers and teamwork are of great importance in plan-
ning the pedagogical process. This can be recognised from the following quotations:
I wait for ideas from my colleagues, common and open discussion and sometimes even
disagreement, so we can develop our practices. We have to trust each other. (Teacher from
Finland, four years of work experience)
If you have a colleague in a tandem with whom you can talk about work, it is good… the
best situation is when I can discuss with the colleague and when we share our observa-
tions… I express my ideas. He/she expresses his/her own ideas and perspectives regarding
some events, situations… this is the best. But it is not always so. It depends on who you work
with. (Teacher from Slovenia, 25 years of work experience)
Regarding the question of whom ECEC teachers plan with, it has been recognised
that there are a variety of planning approaches in Finland. The ECEC centres con-
vene a variety of meetings: whole-unit staff meetings, educators’ group meetings,
teachers’ pedagogical teams, and child care workers care-teams. Teachers from
Slovenia reported that they start planning the pedagogical process together with the
teacher assistant, who they work with in the same class. Only a few reported that the
planning process includes colleagues from other groups as well (planning on the
level of ECEC settings). Some teachers mentioned that those kinds of meetings take
considerable time and are challenging to organise.
In contrast to Finland, where parents are encouraged to participate in pedagogi-

cal planning and the activities are collected from parents through discussions, par-
ents’ evenings, and questionnaires, parents in Slovenia are usually informed and
consulted but not included as partners. Parents in Finland are also included in pre-
paring the children’s individual ECEC plans, which is not the case in Slovenia.
Nevertheless, teachers reported they are confident about the inclusion of parents’
thoughts and wishes in pedagogical planning.
The analysis shows there are two important elements considered within the pro-
cess of pedagogical planning in ECEC: the organisational context (who ECEC
teachers plan with) and the content context (where ECEC teachers derive con-
tent from).
15.7.2 ecognised Teaching and Learning Concepts

R
in Finland and Slovenia
Based on the analysed results, three teaching and learning concepts underlying the
pedagogical planning practice were recognised (see Table 15.2): transmissive,
constructivist-developmentalism, and participatory pedagogy.
We recognise that teachers in both countries are sensitive towards children’s
ideas. However, their learning/teaching concepts derive from different discourses
(transmissive or participatory), which defines how the planning process starts, who
is included in the planning process, and how they are included. A transmissive
notion of the aim of education begins with the responsibility to cover curriculum
Table 15.2 Teaching/learning concepts recognised in Finnish and Slovenian ECEC

2. Constructivist-
developmentalism with a
transmissive notion of the
1. Transmissive notion of aim of education and ‘with
the aim of education the child in mind’ 3. Participatory pedagogy
The main source of Teachers organise activities Teachers, together with children and
planning is the according to the findings other colleagues, identify topics that
curriculum (ECEC from observation/assessment are important and meaningful to
national document); the and their interpretation of children (derived from observation/
teacher decides what is children’s needs by taking the documentation of children’s learning
appropriate for the curriculum (ECEC national in a sociocultural context,
children. Topics are document) into account. incorporating children’s experiences,
discussed with colleagues Teachers decide about the knowledge, ideas, and interests).
in teams, but not with the appropriateness of the They also follow/incorporate the
children. activities for the children curriculum (ECEC national
together with colleagues, but document).
the subject is not discussed
and the plans are not
developed with the children.
218 S. Rutar et al.
expectations, as well as the understanding that curriculum itself covers all children’s
learning needs.
The following quotation shows a teacher’s transmissive planning in their deriv-
ing planning from the curriculum:
We work according to the curriculum; we have goals, thematic units, six curriculum
domains (math, language, society, science, art, movement). For each domain, some goals
and activities… from Monday to Friday… and for the whole month, I plan activities… but I
also change the plan if it is needed… if I recognise the needs in circle time. (Teacher from
Slovenia, 11 years of work experience)
It is difficult to identify constructivist-developmentalism with a transmissive notion

of the aim of education and keeping ‘the child in mind’, as illustrated in the follow-
ing examples.
We try to utilise the children’s individual pedagogical plans and curriculum and their needs
when we construct the children’s small groups. It is challenging. (Teacher from Finland, 15
years of work experience)
(have in mind)… children’s age, their developmental level, where they are, what needs to
develop… I use observations to see their interests… then, I define long-term goals; each
week has to contain the goal for each curriculum domain…(Teacher from Slovenia, 20
years of work experience)
Within this approach, constructivist-developmentalism with a transmissive notion

of the aim of education, teachers use observation findings in planning, but they
interpret these findings by themselves and do not discuss them with the children.
Teachers use their expert knowledge in planning and deciding what is appropriate
for the children, but they do not ask the children about their perspectives or listen to
their voices.
Teachers who implement participatory pedagogy begin their planning based on
observation findings/documentation and listen to and consider children’s interests
and ideas, but they also consider the curriculum (ECEC national document) as well.
They plan with children and colleagues in order to co-construct knowledge. Teachers
who practice participatory pedagogy also reflect their educational practice to a large
extent. The plans are not static; they are open to unpredicted daily situations
in groups.
We listen to children’s wishes and interests, and then, we modify the learning environment
together with children. They are very creative, and they have good ideas. (Teacher from
Finland, 21 years of work experience)
I recognised that when children learn that they can participate with their own ideas, they
want to do it all the time… and also, that it is not necessary, that what you, as a teacher
have in mind, is good for them. I’m worried, and I wonder all the time if the activities are
challenging enough for children to go further… I’m also worried if the work is too difficult
for them. Many times, the work that is organized is appropriate for older children, but I do
encourage the younger children to go as far as they can. (Teacher from Slovenia, 25 years
of work experience)
In both countries, teachers mentioned that different concepts of learning, teaching,

and relationships between personnel cause confusion and problems in professional
communities. In addition, teachers also expressed uncertainty regarding how and
the extent to which children and parents should participate in planning activities.
This concern is evident in the following quotation:
We have heard how they (in other ECEC centers) just do not plan activities in advance; they
take ideas daily from children. Nevertheless, yes, we are still clearly planning our team
meetings once a week. (Teacher from Finland, 8 years of work experience)
Teachers from both countries stated that similar values, learning/teaching concepts,
and a sense of belonging to a teacher’s team are the most productive part of their
work and inspire their planning activities. Teachers find it easier to handle chal-
lenges connected to children and parents if they can reflect on these in a team.
15.8 Discussion
The aim of this study was to identify teaching and learning concepts in pedagogical
planning practices in Finish and Slovenian ECEC. The planning practice in ECEC
in both countries is based on three main concepts of teaching and learning.
• Teachers are curriculum focused (transmissive: to achieve goals, planned in
advance, derived from a national curriculum).
• Teachers follow constructivist-developmentalism with a transmissive notion
regarding the aim of education, keeping ‘the child in mind’ (teachers interpret
children’s needs without asking or consulting children and without planning
together with children).
• Teachers, together with children and other colleagues, are focused on children’s
strengths, previous knowledge, and initiatives (and also the learning process,
recognised through pedagogical documentation), which are incorporated into the
planning process (participatory pedagogy) and combined with national ECEC
curriculum guidelines.
All three approaches to planning are practiced in both countries, but in the process
of realisation, when goal realisation and planned activities begin, teachers are most
commonly sensitive to children’s expressions, suggestions, and comments.
Brownlee & Berthelsen (2006) emphasise that teachers require a better understand-
ing of and more discussion about how their personal epistemologies, values, and
beliefs relate to their practices, a finding which was also confirmed in our study. Due
to conceptual and pedagogical changes concerning ECEC, negotiation in ECEC
communities is essential (Ukkonen-Mikkola & Fonsén, 2018).
However, a participatory approach is most frequently used as a basis for planning
the ECEC educational process: planning predominantly includes personnel team-
work planning and, at the same time, child participation. In the planning process,
220 S. Rutar et al.
the national ECEC curricula are also regarded as an important guiding element
when planning the pedagogical activities in both countries.
There is also one distinctive difference between the two systems: teachers in
Finland reported that planning predominantly derives from assessment, reflection,
and documentation. Gathering and analysing information about children is more
common in Finland than in Slovenia. In Finland, observation and documentation are
understood as parts of an ongoing educational process that includes planning, reali-
sation, documenting and evaluating children’s learning and teaching process (see
Alila & Ukkonen-Mikkola, 2018). Even though a development-process approach
and active learning in the national curriculum in Slovenia assume that the preschool
teacher observes the development and learning of each child and uses the data from
observations for the planning and implementation of goals, activities, the educa-
tional process, and individualisation (Vidmar et al., 2017, p. 27), improvements in
this educational element are needed. Moreover, in Finland, each child has their own
individual pedagogical plan, which is developed in cooperation with teachers, par-
ents, and children. This is not the case in Slovenian ECEC.
In general, learning and teaching concepts, as well as practices, are shifting
toward child-oriented, participatory pedagogy in both countries. These are promis-
ing findings because children’s participation is regarded as an important issue in
their well-being, learning, competence skills development, self-regulation, and self-
motivation in high-quality ECEC, (see Rogoff, 2008; Kangas, 2016; Kangas &
Lastikka, 2019; Pramling-Samuelsson & Sheridan, 2010; Smith, 2002). Additionally,
Rutar (2013) and Rutar and Štemberger (2018) identified the existence of a prob-
lematic approach to planning: the organization of activities according to the findings
from observations/assessments and based on teachers’ interpretations of children’s
needs, specifically by taking the curriculum (ECEC national document) into
account, which was also recognised in the present study. One problematic aspect of
this process is the fact that the teachers themselves (without the children) interpret
observations and make decisions about the appropriateness of the activities “with
the child in mind” but without planning the entire process together with children.
Another problematic aspect of this approach is the fact that the children only pas-
sively (even though they are actively involved in interesting activities) follow the
plans and activities organized for them, creating the illusion of participation. This
kind of practice is less transparent, more difficult to recognise, and more challeng-
ing to transform into democratic, participatory practices.
There are certain limitations to consider concerning the validity and ethical
issues involved in this study. One potential limitation is related to language: under-
standing educational concepts can be challenging, even in one’s native language,
and translating the answers from Slovenian and Finnish into English may lead to
different interpretations (see Vlasov, 2018). To avoid misinterpretation, researchers
discussed the content extensively and used language experts to enhance understand-
ing. In future studies, it will be essential to explore the effects of learning environ-
ments, assessment, and documentation on planning processes in cross-cultural
contexts.
15.9 Conclusions and Recommendations
Pedagogy and pedagogical planning are an essential part of teachers’ work in

ECEC. Our study aimed to recognise teaching and learning concepts in teachers’
planning practices in Finnish and Slovenian ECEC. Those concepts define teaching
and children’s learning and relationships with personnel and, hopefully, reflect an
awareness of children’s rights if children have opportunity to participate (see
Kangas, 2016). All these conceptions affect pedagogical planning.
In both countries, ECEC planning practices are developing in the direction of
participatory pedagogy and demonstrate the awareness and implementation of chil-
dren’s agency in the educational process. This research gives us insight into the fact
that practices in both countries require constant professional discussion. Some
teachers participating in the research expressed the view that participation, as well
as their own verbalisations regarding their work, gave them an opportunity to reflect
on their practice.
It is very significant for teachers and teams to be conscious of their values, con-
ceptions, and beliefs, which influence choices in everyday pedagogical work with
children. To be aware of this, time for professional discussion is required. Organising
time and space for conversations is a challenge for the working community and also
for leaders in ECEC centres, who must encourage teachers to dedicate time to con-
tinuous professional development and enable them to learn by creating a supportive
organisation for learning (Hitt & Tucker, 2016; May et al., 2012; Sahenk, 2010 in
Daniëls et al., 2019).
The daily work should be organised in such a way that teachers have enough time
to plan pedagogical activities with their colleagues, other staff, children, and par-
ents. Teachers require time to reflect on pedagogical documentation and search for
ideas for varied pedagogical activities together with colleagues, parents, and chil-
dren. A creative and safe working and professional learning community is a good
starting point for a successful planning process. When planning, teachers must take
into account both- short-term and long-term goals for individuals and groups of
children based on the curriculum, the children’s potentials, and children’s initia-
tives, as derived from teaching and learning discussion.
We believe that it is the responsibility of pre-service teacher training programs in
both countries to support undergraduate and graduate students to become aware of,
identify, and develop their learning and teaching concepts and also to reflect on the
effects of such on their pedagogical work, especially when making decisions in
ECEC. These conceptions are often hidden (see Schein, 1989), but they are mani-
fested directly in teacher practice. Additionally, in-service training for teachers and
other staff is necessary because traditional conceptions and routines may be deeply
ingrained, especially if there are no expectations, places, and times to reflect them.
Finally, (1) pedagogy (theory) and (2) the pedagogical planning (practice) are
significant elements of teachers’ work. Consciousness of the aim of ECEC in soci-
ety (the best interests of the child and the family) and awareness of the presence of
222 S. Rutar et al.
teaching and learning concepts in pedagogical planning are two of the core elements
of teachers’ professional knowledge and identity, along with professionalisation
and the quality of early childhood education and care.
References
Act on Early Childhood Education and Care. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/
kaannokset/2018/en20180540.pdf
Ahn, G. S., & Kim, S. H. (2009). The effects of child-initiated singing activities through the lit-
erature approach on children’s music concepts. Asian-Pacific Journal of Early Childhood, 3,
145–160.
Alila, K., & Ukkonen-Mikkola, T. (2018). Käsiteanalyysistä varhaiskasvatuksen pedagogiikan
määrittelyyn [The concept analysis of the ECEC pedagogy]. Kasvatus, 49(1), 75–81.
Alvestad, T., & Sheridan, S. (2014). Preschool teachers’ perspectives on planning and documenta-
tion in preschool. Early Child Development and Care, 185(3), 377–339.
Batistič Zorec, M. (2015). Children’s participation in Slovene preschools: The teachers’ view-
points and practice. European Education, 47(2), 154–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/1056493
4.2015.1039878
Brownlee, J., & Berthelsen, D. (2006). Personal epistemology and relational pedagogy in early
childhood teacher education programs. Early Years, 26(1), 17–29.
Finnish National Agency of Education, J., & Berthelsen, D. (2006). Personal epistemology and
relational pedagogy in early childhood teacher education programs. Early Years, 26(1), 17-29.
Corsaro, W. A. (2011). The sociology of childhood. Pine Forge Press.
Dahlberg, G., Moss, P., & Pence, A. (2006). Beyond quality in early childhood education and care:
Languages of evaluation. London: Routledge.
Daniëls, E., Hondeghem, G., & Dochy, F. (2019). A review on leadership and leadership develop-
ment in educational settings. Educational Research Review, 27, 110–125.
Eurydice – Slovenia, Fundamental Principles and National Policies (2020) https://eacea.ec.europa.
eu/national-policies/eurydice/content/fundamental-principles-and-national-policies-77_en.
Edwards, S. (2007). From developmental-constructivism to socio-cultural theory and practice: An
expansive analysis of teachers’ professional learning in early childhood education. Journal of
Early Childhood Research, 5(1), 83–106.
Edwards, C., Gandini, L., & Forman, G. (Eds.). (1995). The hundred languages of children. The
Reggio Emilia approach to early childhood education. Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Eurydice. (2019). In T. Taštanoska (Ed.), The education system in the Republic of Slovenia
(pp. 191–176). The Ministry of Education, Science and Sport of the Republic of Slovenia.
Farquhar, S., & White, E. (2014). Philosophy and pedagogy of early childhood. Educational
Philosophy and Theory, 46(8), 821–832. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2013.783964
Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity. (2012). Responsible conduct of research and proce-
dures for handling allegations of misconduct in Finland. https://www.tenk.fi/sites/tenk.fi/files/
HTK_ohje_2012.pdf.
Finnish National Agency of Education. (2018). The national core curriculum on early childhood
education and care. (Ser. Publications 2018: 3a). Finnish National Agency of Education.
Fonsén, E., Heikka, J., & Elo, J. (2014). Osallisuutta edistävän suunnittelun tasot. [The stages of
increasing participation]. In J. Heikka, E. Fonsén, J. Elo, & J. Leinonen (Eds.), Osallisuuden
pedagogiikka varhaiskasvatuksessa [Participatory pedagogy in ECEC] (pp. 80–95). Essay,).
Suomen varhaiskasvatus ry.
Formosinho, J., Formosinho, J., & Pascal, C. (2016). Pedagogy development: Transmissive and
participatory pedagogies for mass schooling. In J. Formosinho (Ed.), Assessment and evalua-
tion for transformation in early childhood (pp. 31–53). Essay,). Routledge.
Helavaara Robertson, L., Kinos, J., Barbour, N., Pukk, M., & Rosqvist, L. (2015). Child-initiated
pedagogies in Finland, Estonia and England: Exploring young children’s views on decisions.
Early Child Development and Care, 185(11–12), 1815–1827. https://doi.org/10.1080/0300443
0.2015.1028392
Hitt, D., & Tucker, P. (2016). Systematic review of key leader practices found to influence student
achievement: A unified framework. Review of Educational Research, 86(2), 531–569.
Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative
Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
Jones, C. (2004). Supporting inclusion in the early years. Open University Press.
Kangas, J. (2016). Enhancing children’s participation in early childhood education with participa-
tory pedagogy. Helsinki.
Kangas, J., & Lastikka, A. L. (2019). Children’s initiatives in the finnish early childhood education
context. In S. Garvis, H. Harju-Luukkainen, S. Sheridan, & P. Williams (Eds.), Nordic families,
children and early childhood education. Studies in childhood and youth. Palgrave Macmillan.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16866-7_2
Kangas, J., Ojala, M., & Venninen, T. (2015). Children’s self-regulation in the context of partici-
patory pedagogy in early childhood education. Early Education and Development, 26(5–6),
847–870. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2015.1039434
Journal of Education, 47(4), 584–595. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12007
Karila, K., & Kinos, J. (2012). Acting as a Professional in a Finnish Early Childhood Education
Context. In L. Miller, C. Dalli, & M. Urban (Eds.), Early Childhood Grows Up. International
perspectives on early childhood education and development (Vol. 6). Springer. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-94-007-2718-2_4
Kinos, J. (2002). Kohti lapsilähtöisen varhaiskasvatuksen teoriaa. [Towards the theory of child-
initiated early childhood education.]. Kasvatus, 33(2), 119–132.
Kinos, J., Robertson, L., Barbour, N., & Pukk, M. (2016). Child-initiated pedagogies: Moving
toward democratically appropriate practices in Finland, England, Estonia, and the United
States. Childhood Education, 92(5), 345–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2016.1226107
Kurikulum za vrtce. (1999). https://www.gov.si/assets/ministrstva/MIZS/Dokumenti/Sektor-za-
predsolsko-vzgojo/Programi/Kurikulum-za-vrtce.pdf.
Langford, R. (2010). Critiquing Child-Centred Pedagogy to Bring Children and Early Childhood
Educators into the Centre of a Democratic Pedagogy. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood,
11(1), 113–127. https://doi.org/10.2304/ciec.2010.11.1.113
Lemay, L., Cantin, G., Lemire, J., & Bouchard, C. (2018). Conception and validation of the quality
of educators’ observation and planning practices scale (QEOPPS). Early Years, 1–17. https://
doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2018.1462303
Lipponen, L., & Kumpulainen, K. (2011). Acting as accountable authors: Creating interactional
spaces for agency work in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(5), 812–819.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.01.001
May, H., Huff, J., & Goldring, E. (2012). A longitudinal study of principals’ activities and student
performance. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 23(4), 417–439.
McLachlan, C., Fleer, M., & Edwards, S. (2018). Early childhood curriculum: Planning, assess-
ment and implementation. Cambridge University Press.
Mercer, N., & Howe, C. (2012). Explaining the dialogic processes of teaching and learning: The
value and potential of sociocultural theory. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1(1),
12–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2012.03.001
Miller Marsh, M. (2002). Examining the discourses that shape our teacher identities. Curriculum
Inquiry, 32(4), 453–469. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-873x.00242
Ministry of Education and Culture. (2020). Early childhood education and care. Opetus- ja kult-
tuuriministeriö. https://minedu.fi/en/early-childhood-education-and-care.
224 S. Rutar et al.
NIHW. National Institute for Health and Welfare. (2019). Day care – THL. Finnish Institute for
Health and Welfare (THL), Finland. https://thl.fi/en/web/thlfi-en/statistics/statistics-by-topic/
social-services-children-adolescents-and-families/day-care.
Pramling-Samuelsson, I., & Sheridan, S. (2010). Play and learning in Swedish early childhood
education. In I. Pramling-Samuelsson & M. Fleer (Eds.), Play and learning in early childhood
settings international perspectives (pp. 135–154). Essay,). Springer.
Rinne, R., Kivirauma, J., & Lehtinen, E. (2004). Johdatus kasvatustieteisiin (Vol. 5). WSOY.
guided participation, and apprenticeship. In K. Hall, P. Murphy, & J. Soler (Eds.), Pedagogy
and practice: Culture and identities (pp. 58–74). Essay.
Roos, P. (2015). Lasten kerrontaa päiväkotiarjesta [Children’s narration of daily Ecec] (Doctoral
dissertation). Tampere University, Tampere University Press.
Rutar, S. (2013). Poti do participacije otrok v vzgoji. Univerza na Primorskem, Znanstveno-
raziskovalno središče, Univerzitetna založba Annales.
Rutar, S., & Štemberger, T. (2018). How children are manipulated and how they participate:
Preschool teachers’ and preschool teacher assistants’ perspectives. Journal of Contemporary
Educational Studies, 68(1), 146–161.
Ryan, S., & Goffin, S. G. (2008). Missing in action: Teaching in early care and education. Early
Education & Development, 19(3), 385–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409280802068688
Sahenk, S. (2010). Characteristics of the headmasters, teachers and students in an effective school.
Social and Behavioural Sciences, 2(2), 4298–4304.
Sandseter, E. B. H., & Seland, M. (2016). Children’s experience of activities and participation and
their subjective well-being in Norwegian early childhood education and care institutions. Child
Indicators Research, 9(4), 913–932.
Schein, E. H. (1989). Organizational culture and leadership: A dynamic view. Jossey-Bass
Publisher.
Sheridan, S. (2007). Dimensions of pedagogical quality in preschool. International Journal of
Early Years Education, 15(2), 197–217.
Sheridan, S., & Pramling -Samuelsson, I. (2001). Children’s conceptions of participation and
influence in pre-school: A perspective on pedagogical quality. Contemporary Issues in Early
Childhood, 2(2), 169–194. https://doi.org/10.2304/ciec.2001.2.2.4
Siljander, P. (2014). Systemaattinen johdatus kasvatustieteeseen. Peruskäsitteet ja suuntaukset.
[Systematic instruction to educational science, conceptions and trends]. Vastapaino.
Smith, A. B. (2002). Supporting participatory rights: Contributions from sociocultural theory.
International Journal of Children’s Rights, 10, 73–88.
Sommer, D., Pramling-Samuelsson, I. P., & Hundeide, K. (2013). Early childhood care and educa-
tion: A child perspective paradigm. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal,
21(4), 459–475. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293x.2013.845436
Turja, L., & Vuorisalo, M. (2017). Lasten oikeudet, toimijuus ja osallisuus oppimisessa [Children’s
rights, agency and participation in learning]. In M. Koivula, A. Siippainen, & P. Eerola-
Pennanen (Eds.), Valloittava varhaiskasvatus. Oppimista, osallisuutta ja hyvinvointia [Winsome
early childhood education. Learning, perticipation and well-being] (pp. 36–54). Vastapaino.
Turnšek, N., & Pekkarinen, A. (2009). Democratisation of early childhood education in the atti-
tudes of Slovene and Finnish teachers. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal,
17(1), 23–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/13502930802688998
Ukkonen-Mikkola, T., & Fonsén, E. (2018). Researching Finnish early childhood teachers’ peda-
gogical work using Layder’s research map. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 43(4),
48–56. https://doi.org/10.23965/ajec.43.4.06
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). (1989). Unicef UK. https://www.unicef.org.
uk/what-we-do/un-convention-child-rights/.
University of Primorska, Etični kodeks (2011). https://www.upr.si/si/univerza/eticni-kodeks.
Van Krieken Robson, J. (2019). Participatory pedagogy for values education in early childhood
education. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 27(3), 420–431. https://
doi.org/10.1080/1350293x.2019.1600811
Venninen, T., & Leinonen, J. (2012). Developing children’s participation through research
and reflective practices. Asia-Pacific Journal of Research in Early Childhood Education,
7(1), 31–49.
Vidmar, M., Rutar Leban, T., Rutar, S., & Požar Matijašič, N. (2017). Transitions from early child-
hood education and care to primary education: OECD review of policies and practices for
transitions from ECEC to primary education: country background report Slovenia. Transitions
from early childhood education. https://www.zrss.si/pdf/transitions-from-early-childhood-
education.pdf.
Vlasov, J. (2018). Reflecting Changes in Early Childhood Education in the USA, Russia and
Finland (Doctoral dissertation). Tampere University, Tampere University Press.
Chapter 16
Leadership in the Changing Context
of Finnish Early Childhood Education
Eeva Hujala and Kirsi Alila
Abstract This paper focuses on the importance of leadership in a changing context

of Finnish early childhood education and care (ECEC). Leadership is perceived to
be embedded in the context of ECEC and defined as an integral part of the mission
and core tasks defined in legal and administrative premises. Contextually derived
and defined leadership is seen as a prerequisite for the quality of ECEC pedagogy.
The paper introduces the Finnish framework for leadership in ECEC. The frame-
work consists of several intertwined reforms that have been introduced into Finnish
ECEC during the last few years. These are ECEC legislation renewing, curriculum
reform, new guidelines concerning evaluation policy, and reforms in staff’s qualifi-
cations. These factors supported by growing research in ECEC leadership have a
significant impact on conducting leadership and its working culture.
16.1 Introduction
One of the main discourses in early childhood education and care (ECEC) today is
leadership and quality assurance of ECEC services (Act on Early Childhood
Education and Care, 540/2018, hereinafter Act on ECEC; National Core Curriculum
on Early Childhood Education and Care (FNAE, 2018), hereinafter curriculum;
Fonsén & Vlasov, 2017). Leadership is generally perceived as an important key in
achieving quality in ECEC (Strehmel, 2016), yet in practice, it has remained an
indistinguishable phenomenon until today (Act on ECEC, 540/2018). ECEC leader-
ship has become more and more demanding. Several changes have taken place both
in administrative and policy levels as well as in the curriculum in Finnish
E. Hujala (*)
University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland
e-mail: eeva.hujala@eevahujala.fi
K. Alila
Ministry of Education and Culture, Helsinki, Finland

Switzerland AG 2022
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95512-0_16
228 E. Hujala and K. Alila
ECEC. These reforms have brought a need for developing leadership in early edu-
cational settings.
The purpose of this chapter is to analyze and conceptually examine governance
and leadership as a contextually defined phenomenon in the ECEC context.
Contextually defined leadership (Hujala, 2013; McDowall Clark & Murray, 2012;
Nivala, 1999) underlines that ECEC leadership is based on goals and core tasks
included in the mission. Another purpose is to articulate the framework guiding
leadership in Finnish ECEC and clarify the key factors influencing the practice of
leadership.
The framework for leadership consists of several intertwined factors that guide
the conduct of leadership actions in practice. ECEC policy, such as legal and finan-
cial premises, curriculum, staff’s qualifications, guidelines for quality and quality
evaluation as well as research on ECEC leadership are included into the framework
and give a foundation for contextually produced leadership.
The analyses of the key factors framing and defining Finnish leadership is based
on document analyses (Bowen, 2009). The document analysis is targeted to docu-
ments guiding and regulating ECEC and its leadership. Also, the role of research on
leadership as well as the working culture of leadership is analysed in the context in
Finnish ECEC in recent years. The analysis aims to answer the following questions;
what are recent main changes in Finnish ECEC policy, how do these changes influ-
ence ECEC leadership, and what are the key elements that construct the framework
for leadership in ECEC? The recent paradigmatic changes in ECEC policy and new
research findings affect leaders’ work and working culture and constitute an updated
framework for ECEC leadership.
16.2 Finnish ECEC Policy as a Context for Leadership
In Finland, ECEC services cover public and private ones. Now the public sector
covers 82% of services. They are operated and supervised by municipalities and
supported by the government. The private sector is growing covering at this moment
18% of ECEC services (Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, 2020).
Municipalities oversee private services within their areas, too. The government
supervises both publicly and privately operated services by Regional State
Administrative Agencies and National Supervisory Authority for Welfare and
Health. ECEC is regulated in legislation (Act on ECEC, 540/2018) and policy docu-
ments, such as the National Core Curriculum on Early Childhood Education and
Care (FNAE, 2018). Based on demands in new steering documents developing
ECEC calls for efficient and strong leadership in all levels of ECEC leadership. This
is especially important at the times of large regime transforms and paradigmatic
changes in ECEC content. The administration has shifted from the Ministry of
Social Affairs and Health to the Ministry of Education and Culture in 2013. Since
the year 2015, Finnish National Agency for Education has been a responsible insti-
tution for the development of ECEC. Due to the curriculum for ECEC has become
16 Leadership in the Changing Context of Finnish Early Childhood Education 229
mandatory to follow. Additionally, National Evaluation Centre of Education has

been responsible for the evaluation and developing evaluation system of
ECEC. ECEC’s renewed legislation (Act on ECEC, 540/2018) defines ECEC as the
first phase of lifelong learning. The curriculum reform did mean an emphasis on
ECEC as a pedagogical work (FNAE, 2018). These changes created new concepts
as well as working and leading culture. They demand professionals to adapt to new
approaches and act differently than before.
Leaders’ workloads are extensive and demanding (Douglass, 2019). ECEC ser-
vices today are multiform. Leaders are often responsible for managing different
programs, such as ECEC centres, family daycare, open ECEC services as an inte-
grated unit (Soukainen, 2015). Multi-professional staff with different training back-
grounds and clients’ growing expectations concerning the quality of ECEC (Vlasov
& Hujala, 2016) are demanding for leaders to lead towards the goals set for
ECEC. Leaders working in the growing private sector are expected to master busi-
ness leadership, too. This has caused more demands for monitoring private services
as well. Municipalities as well as Regional State Administrative Agencies have legal
responsibility (Act on ECEC, 540/2018, 51 §) to monitor the private sector.
In Finland, every child has a subjective right to ECEC. It covers the age range of
children from 0 to 7 years when compulsory education starts including the pro-
grammes either in ECEC centre or in family daycare as well as so-called open
ECEC services. The year before compulsory school, children participate in pre-
primary education at the age of 6.
An educated staff is recognised as one of the key factors in providing high-
quality ECEC (Manning et al., 2017). In Finnish ECEC centres staff consists of
university-trained teachers, polytechnic colleges trained social pedagogues, and
childcarers trained at vocational education. To increase the quality of ECEC govern-
ment’s aim is to strengthen educators’ professional importance in centre-based
ECEC programs and to have more teachers in the child groups until the year 2030.
Centre leaders have at least a university-based bachelor’s degree in education. In the
future, the year 2030 centre leaders must have at least a master’s degree in education
and qualification of ECEC teacher. University-based teacher training has a strong
emphasis on research. The qualification requirements for staff and leaders in ECEC
centres are defined in the Act on ECEC.
16.3 Different Views on Leadership
Based on international leadership discussion there are variations in the discourse

around the concept of ‘leadership’ (Granrusten et al., 2018; Strehmel et al., 2019).
The terms ‘leadership’ and ‘management’, as well as ‘leader’, ‘principal’ and ‘man-
ager’, have different interpretations in different ECEC contexts, ECEC programs,
and societies.
The term ‘leadership’ is quite new and not yet well understood within the early
childhood sector in the global perspective. ‘Management’ is a more familiar term
amongst educators themselves (Hujala et al., 2013). Management and administra-

tive leadership are often understood as dealing with strategic and administrative
actions such as resources, recruiting staff, or planning and organising ECEC to be
sure to achieve the aims of the ECEC (Connolly et al., 2019; Strehmel, 2016). Wood
(2011) has defined that leadership is connected steering the staff to be motivated and
engaged towards the shared goals of ECEC. Hallinger and Snidvongs (2008) speak
about holistic leadership, which combines different sectors of leadership. Finnish
ECEC used to use the term “administration” (Nivala, 1999), but today both ECEC
practice and national steering system use the “leadership”. Administrative and man-
agement functions are included in the leadership (Act on ECEC, 540/2018;
FNAE, 2018).
Distributed leadership means that members in ECEC organisations are engaged
in the common goals, tasks, and responsibilities of leadership to maximise the qual-
ity of the core tasks (Heikka, 2014). Based on the distributive leadership paradigm
Hujala et al. (2012) have defined early education focused leadership as involving
teachers to take care of and develop early childhood education as well as take
responsibility for developing quality in ECEC. Douglass (2019) introduces an inter-
esting new term for describing leadership as facilitative leadership. Facilitative
leadership creates the conditions in which ECEC staff have the autonomy and the
necessary supports to solve the problems and lead improvement efforts. Pedagogical
leadership, human resource management, and leading the multi-professional teams
and co-operation are leaders’ key responsibilities in many ECEC societies (Hujala
et al., 2016).
ECEC is strengthening its role as an important institution in a society where
leaders are more and more in charge of the economy, public relations, and co-
operation with multiple stakeholders (Heikka, 2014). Also, the leaders ensure that
the parent-staff partnership is implemented and ECEC is organised following cur-
riculum and legislation (Strehmel et al., 2019). Beyond the success of ECEC is the
comprehension that the leader is responsible for the management of the quality that
is based on supportive leadership, not on controlling the teachers’ work (Hujala
et al., 2019).
16.4 Contextually Defined Leadership
Contextual leadership is here embedded in the context of ECEC. It means that lead-
ership is perceived as part of the mission and the core tasks of ECEC (Hujala, 2013;
McDowall Clark & Murray, 2012; Nivala, 1999). Effectiveness of leadership is con-
nected to its appropriateness to the context, i.e. to the mission of ECEC. Another
prerequisite for effective leadership is that the leadership goals and responsibilities
of everyone involved with ECEC organization are connected to ECEC core tasks
(Heikka, 2014).
A contextual leadership approach, that has a foundation on Bronfenbrenner’s
(1979) ecological concepts, defines the structural framework for leading practices in
the ECEC. According to this approach, societal values and institutional structures
frame the leadership. The context of leadership defines leadership culture (Hujala,
2013). Intangible and tangible capital empowers the organisation and its manage-
ment functions. In ECEC, leadership is defined as an interactive process between
the substance of ECEC, the actors in the process, and structures of the organisa-
tional environment. Contextually derived leadership has a foundation on a clearly
defined mission, co-ordinates the quality of the core tasks, and develops ECEC
processes towards the vision (Hujala, 2013; Nivala, 1999).
Akselin (2013) has defined ECEC leadership as a shared responsibility towards
the aims of ECEC. Although leaders are responsible for the management of ECEC,
the implementation of leadership is an interactive process, in which the whole staff
is engaged. The challenge of leadership is to clarify the core tasks so that both lead-
ers and the staff in the work context agree with them. Contextually defined, distrib-
uted leadership gives a way to improve the quality of ECEC (Hujala, 2013).
Even though the connection between context and leadership is better understood
(Heikka, 2014) it appears that the focus of ECEC leadership research has remained
quite narrowly concentrated on relationships between personnel and a leader.
Traditionally, in ECEC leadership studies (Hayden, 1998; Jorde-Bloom, 2000;
Morgan, 2000; Van der Ven, 2000), leadership has been defined as the position of a
leader. The focus has been on ECEC directors’ responsibilities (Eskelinen & Hujala,
2015). Soukainen (2015) found that leaders’ tasks and duties as well as shared
responsibilities connected to leadership have been unclear among staff members.
However, more and more in recent research (Akselin, 2013; Heikka, 2014;
Soukainen, 2015; Tiihonen, 2019) leadership is studied holistically. The focus has
changed to distributed leadership and leadership functions. Currently, pedagogical
leadership is the most researched topic by leadership researchers (Eskelinen &
Hujala, 2015; Strehmel et al., 2019).
ECEC leadership theories in the 2000s strongly emphasise a shared vision of
leadership (Halttunen, 2009). As a result of this perspective, the time for individual
leaders has passed. The need for distributed leadership arises when organizational
changes make leadership more expert and network intensive (Fonsén et al., 2015).
Fonsén et al. (2015) consider distributed leadership from two perspectives. Firstly,
it is perceived as the sharing of leadership activities and responsibilities. Leadership
appears as an entity that can be partitioned or divided. Leadership elements can be
constructed by more efficient work processes, by encouraging the employees, and
by building teams. The second perspective on distributed leadership views it as a
process of learning together and constructing meaning and knowledge collectively
and collaboratively (Fonsén et al., 2015). Heikka et al. (2012) consider distributed
leadership as a complex interaction of people who are working for a common pur-
pose; thus, their focus is on the distribution of leadership among people rather than
on the distribution of leadership tasks and roles.
In ECEC leadership research, Heikka (2014) analysed leadership discourses by
politicians, leading administrative officials, centre directors, and teachers. The
results showed that the studied stakeholders comprehend ECEC leadership in six
different ways, including pedagogical leadership, the leadership of human resources,
co-operation, everyday management, political tasks, and response to families’

needs. Yet, the contents of leadership were emphasised differently in studied groups.
Based on the results the study proposes that in successful leadership, the roles and
responsibilities of ECEC leadership should be based on the clearly defined core
tasks of ECEC by all stakeholders. Thus, one important prerequisite for the imple-
mentation of distributed leadership is that stakeholders’ expectations towards each
other’s leadership responsibilities are clear and visible. Distributed leadership
requires a shared understanding of the organisation where people are working. It
requires trust and open relationships between individuals to make sense of what is
happening and to make it a reality together.
One perspective to contextual leadership is to examine how the changes in the
macro-level indirectly affect micro-level leadership. Vlasov and Hujala (2016) have
examined the forming of institutional ECEC in the cross-cultural settings of the
USA, Russia, and Finland during the past 20 years. The findings suggest that the
field of ECEC has faced significant changes in each studied society contexts, and
these changes may be related to the larger socio-cultural contexts at a given time
(see Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006; Tudge, 2008). In the study by Vlasov and
Hujala (2016), changes in the ECEC field were connected to four main themes: the
role of parents as customers; the change in regulations affecting the services; the
change in the pedagogic orientation; and the changed role of the director. Growing
expectations and changed managerial duties, as well as insufficient training, were
perceived to cause pressure on directors who have to balance the growing demands
of parents, and at the same time maintain and develop quality services. Unlike in
Russia and Finland, where the finance of the ECEC sector is based mainly on public
funding, the privatised ECEC system in the USA (Barnett, 2010) demands that the
directors run centres differently, namely more as a business (Vlasov & Hujala, 2016).
Parents are less satisfied with ECEC leadership today than they were 20 years
ago (Vlasov & Hujala, 2016). It seems that parents of today have more knowledge
of ECEC, and also that their expectations towards their child’s early education as
well the professionals have grown. Parents’ participative role as customers calls for
strong professionalism from teachers and leaders. Traditionally, the work of ECEC
leaders has been connected closely to the families, whereas today leadership duties
are seen to have expanded from subject orientation towards management tasks in all
of the studied society contexts (Vlasov & Hujala, 2016).
16.5 Framework for Leadership in ECEC
The framework for Finnish leadership is based on steering documents and research
discussed previously in this chapter and the changes have taken place in the context
of leadership in Finnish ECEC in recent years. The framework (Fig. 16.1) consists
of several intertwined factors that guide the conduct of leadership practice. ECEC
policy, research, leaders’ management functions, and working culture constitute a
framework for leadership.
Fig. 16.1 Framework for ECEC leadership
Leadership is converted through national and local ECEC policy. It is essential to

understand how legislation forms a central framework for leaders to operate in their
field of work. In Finland, pedagogy has strengthened strongly since the year 2013
when ECEC changed to the administrative branch of the Ministry of Education and
Culture. Additionally, the legislation of ECEC has changed in the years 2015 and
2018. Due to these large changes, leaders must take over new legislation for them-
selves but also guide their staff to understand and implement it in their work and
develop ECEC further. If new legislation has put new demands on leadership, so has
the new obligatory ECEC curriculum, too. In Finland, the curriculum has faced
large transformation in recent years. Leaders must lead the development of ECEC
according to the new pedagogical guidelines. Another premise of ECEC policy is
the financial factor, which is one crucial framework for leaders. As municipalities’
local economy has weakened it has had straight implications for leaders’ work. For
leaders, it is challenging to operate effectively and economically but at the same
time advance the quality of ECEC service.
Research on ECEC leadership in Finland has got remarkably stronger (Eskelinen
& Hujala, 2015; Alasuutari & Raittila, 2017). It has brought new insights for under-
standing and developing leadership. Leaders have an opportunity to reflect on their
know-how and work in the direction of new research findings. A leader’s role is
important for transmitting new research-based information for the staff and helping
them to adopt new research data for developing their working practices with chil-
dren. Due to growing research on ECEC, leadership is chosen by the Finnish gov-
ernment to be one of the themes of nationally steered in-service-training for teachers
and leaders. In the next few years, a new national ECEC leaders’ training program
as well as support material for leaders will be developed. This reform, which is
conducted by the government’s “Right to Learn Program” (Ministry of Education
and Culture, 2020) in the years 2020–2022 aims to facilitate the implementation of
the ECEC curriculum, help networking within leaders and leadership researchers,
and assist the evaluation of leadership nationally.
Important issues to highlight from the framework for leadership are policy deci-
sions and guidelines for qualifications as well as the staff and leader training. In
Finland, qualifications for leadership and other staff in ECEC are defined in legisla-
tion (Act on ECEC 540/2018) and are therefore obligatory to follow. The big para-
digmatic changes in the context of ECEC are for example new ECEC Act and
curriculum. They are behind the aim of raising the level of training of ECEC staff.
ECEC Act (540/2018) emphasizes, and implementation of the ECEC curriculum
requires highly educated leaders and staff as an essential factor for good ECEC
pedagogy and its quality.
The working culture of leadership is an important context of the organization in
which the staff, leaders, and other stakeholders act and implement ECEC daily. Leaders
are responsible for creating an atmosphere and culture where legislation, curriculum,
and core tasks of ECEC can be implemented. Leaders take care of the wellbeing of
staff and children and at the same time aim to improve it. The leader has a central role
in creating a professional and versatile working culture where all stakeholders in the
professional community strengthen the working culture together (FNAE, 2018, 28).
ECEC comprises teaching, education, and care as forming an integrated entity.
According to the new ECEC act (540/2018), the mission of ECEC is to promote
children’s learning and development, enhance life-long learning and educational
equality as well as to support children’s overall well-being. ECEC emphasises the
importance of artistic subjects, play, and the recognition of children’s individual
learning needs. A healthy and happy child is the main aim of ECEC emphasised by
Finnish parents and teachers (Hujala et al., 2017). The importance of early educa-
tion is based on the principle that childhood is viewed as a valuable stage of life
(Hujala et al., 2019).
The National Core Curriculum on ECEC (FNAE, 2018) emphasizes teachers’
independence and autonomy to plan the activities as a key foundation for curricu-
lum implementation. The pedagogy for ECEC aims to support learning through
play and enhance learning-to-learn skills instead of focusing on academic outcomes.
Teaching with a focus on children’s participation is seen as a process of sharing
meaning and understanding (Kangas, 2016; Roos, 2015; Virkki, 2015; Vlasov et al.,
2016). Children’s right to participation has legal status within the ECEC legislation
(Act on ECEC 540/2018), ensuring that all children have the opportunity of partici-
pating in matters concerning them. The law determines that children and their par-
ents should be allowed to participate in and influence the planning and evaluation
processes in ECEC (Act on ECEC 540/2018).
Research and ECEC policy, as well as administrative management, leading peda-
gogy, and human resource management are important factors in the leadership
framework. The role of administrative management is to execute regulations and
guidelines into practice. Administrative leadership, human resource management,
and leading the pedagogy are different types of leadership functions but still embed-
ded with each other.
In the Finnish ECEC curriculum, the new and strong focus is on pedagogy, which
challenges the leadership for pedagogy. Leadership for pedagogy aims to support
staff to enhance their competence, as well as implement and develop pedagogical
practices in ECEC as a continuous process (Fonsén, 2014). This requires strong
pedagogical competence from the leader. The importance of leading the pedagogy
has risen due to big changes in a new regime, legislation, and curriculum in the
ECEC context. But leaders as well as other ECEC staff are worried that leaders do
not have enough time for leading the pedagogy (Fonsén, 2014). Often leaders are
forced by their superiors to concentrate on administrative work. One explanation
might be the fact that in Finland ECEC leaders do not have any secretaries as leaders
in many countries have. Most Finnish ECEC leaders do all the administrative paper-
work themselves. Leaders experience that the load from the administrative work
takes up their time which they would like to use for leading the pedagogy
(Fonsén, 2014).
Human resource management has many tasks, such as recruiting the staff and
supporting their competence building. Although, the main tasks of human resource
management expected by ECEC personnel are to take care of the staff‘s personal
needs and their wellbeing (Hirvelä, 2010). Pedagogical reasons should be the foun-
dation when leaders make decisions about issues concerning human resource man-
agement. Or, you could say, human resource management should always be based
on pedagogical grounds. That way staff can give all their professional capability,
experience, and commitment to reach the aims of ECEC. Human resource manage-
ment must be made also for several other reasons than pedagogical, for example,
work-related legislation in a society. Leaders’ different areas of work are connected.
Guidelines, knowledge, and regulations coming from the leadership framework
presented above together with leaders’ working experience and working commu-
nity are forming the working culture of leadership in ECEC. Quality management
and development of ECEC becomes possible in this framework for leadership. The
framework is a challenging structure to handle and needs a lot of competence and
learning from the leader. At the same time, it offers the possibility to achieve even
better leadership, outcomes, and quality in ECEC services.
16.6 Implications
16.6.1 Contextually Derived Leadership
The changes in the policy of ECEC on the macrolevel transform the framework for
the leadership at the micro-level. All major changes are transforming the guidelines
on how ECEC is developed and challenging the way how working culture of leader-
ship is conducted. All this indicates that ECEC leadership is a strongly contextual
phenomenon. Leaders’ challenge in all levels of leadership is to be aware and share
by themselves (Heikka, 2014) the issues framing the leadership to reach the goals
set for ECEC in a society.
16.6.2 Paradigmatic Changes
As described above, recent years from 2013 to 2020 have been time for big reforms
in Finnish ECEC. Maybe the changes are bigger we even have realized. In the year
2013, there was a shift in the ECEC regime and shortly after that a new steering
system, new legislation, and new curriculum were established. Also, there has been
a strong emphasis on research, producing new knowledge on ECEC, and its leader-
ship. The new structure of the organizational culture has been generated but also a
new vision and understanding of the substance of ECEC have been renewed. All
these new perspectives create paradigmatic changes in a way of thinking and actu-
alising ECEC. These reforms are not easy to comprehend and implement in a short
time. They demand a lot of information, steering, various support, and resources for
leaders, other ECEC staff, and local authorities, policymakers, and politicians.
16.6.3 Emphasis on Leading the Pedagogy
Extensive and long-lasting reforms in ECEC steering institutions have put new
demands for ECEC and its leadership. The most highlighted change is the emphasis
of pedagogy in ECEC. This has influenced leaders’ work in many fields of leader-
ship; administrative leadership and human resource management, but most of all,
the way how leading the pedagogy is conducted by the leader. One of the challenges
in implementing “new” leadership is to change the discourse and terminology in
leadership discussions. For many leaders, the term “pedagogical leadership” is not
clear. It has various interpretations by different actors. Yet, leaders are familiar with
the term pedagogy because the main subject in their training is early childhood
education. They are competent and committed to the pedagogy in their organisa-
tions. But leaders are unsure what pedagogical leadership means and how to imple-
ment it in practice.
Pedagogical leadership is referred to when a leader is using pedagogical working
tools in the work as a leader. That means that leaders in other sectors than ECEC
could also lead pedagogically (Their, 1994). Instead in ECEC, by saying “leader is
leading the pedagogy” we refer directly that pedagogy is in the focus and central
part of ECEC leaders’ work. For example, leading the implementation of the cur-
riculum is a good example of leading pedagogy. In ECEC, leadership for pedagogy
is derived from the mission of ECEC e.g. pedagogy. To be clear we have to move
from speaking of “pedagogical leadership” to speak of “leading the pedagogy”. The
pedagogical emphasis in the ECEC leadership framework is so strong that leaders
need more support and tools for leading the pedagogy according to curriculum and
legislation.
16.6.4 Coherent Administration and Steering of ECEC
What has become an outcome of these transformations in Finnish ECEC policy?

Even though the process of reform is still ongoing, after several years it is obvious
that the national steering system in ECEC described in this paper is now coherent;
for example, regime, Act on ECEC, and curriculum contribute to each other. Also,
new demands for professionals’ training and a new structure for evaluation of ECEC
promote the coherence of the steering system. All these give a solid framework and
ground for the work of the leaders.
16.6.5 More Focus on Research and Training
Many ongoing reforms in ECEC cause that leaders need various support for their
leadership in this changed framework. In the future, the development and training of
leadership should be more based on the research. That is why the Finnish govern-
ment is going to invest in research, evaluation, training, qualifications, and support
of leaders in the upcoming years. The aim is that in the future we are going to have
even more motivated and competent ECEC leaders in Finland.
References
Act on Early Childhood Education and Care 2018.540/13.7.2018.

Akselin, M.-L. (2013). Varhaiskasvatuksen strategisen johtamisen rakentuminen ja menestymisen
ennakoiminen johtamistyön tarinoiden valossa. [The development of strategic management
and the prediction of success in the stories of early education directors.] Acta Universitatis
Tamperensis 1283. University of Tampere.
Alasuutari, M., & Raittila, R. (2017). Varhaiskasvatustutkimuksen kaksi vuosikymmentä:
Tieteenalat, kysymyksenasettelut ja metodit. [Two decades of research on early childhood edu-
cation; disciplines, problems, and methods.]. Kasvatus & Aika, 11(3), 51–59.
Barnett, W. S. (2010). Universal and targeted approaches to preschool education in the United
States. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, 4(1), 1–12.
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research
Journal, 9(2), 27–40.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Harvard University Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In
W. Damon & R. Lerner (Eds.), Theoretical models of human development (Handbook of child
psychology) (Vol. 1, 6th ed., pp. 793–828). Wiley.
Connolly, M., James, C., & Fertig, M. (2019). The difference between educational man-
agement and educational leadership and the importance of educational responsibil-
ity. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 47(4), 504–519. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1741143217745880
Douglass, A. L. (2019). Leadership for quality early childhood education and care. OECD
Education Working Papers No. 211. https://doi.org/10.1787/6e563bae-en.
Eskelinen, M., & Hujala, E. (2015). Early childhood leadership in Finland in the light of recent
research. In M. Waniganayke, J. Rodd, & L. Gibbs (Eds.), Applying early childhood leader-
ship research from near and far – Australia, Finland, and Norway (pp. 87–101). Macquarie
University.
Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare. (2020). Early childhood education 2019.
Statistical report 33/2020. [Terveyden ja hyvinvoinnin laitos. Varhaiskasvatus 2019.
Tilastoraportti 33/2020]. https://www.julkari.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/140541/Tr33_20.
pdf?sequence=5&isAllowed=y. Accessed 29 September 2020.
Finnish National Agency of Education (FNAE). (2018). National core curriculum on early child-
hood education and care. Finnish National Agency of Education.
Fonsén, E. (2014). Pedagoginen johtajuus varhaiskasvatuksessa. [Pedagogical leadership in early
childhood education and care] Acta Universitatis Tamperensis 1914. Tampere University Press.
Fonsén, E., & Vlasov, J. (2017). Leading pedagogical quality in the context of Finnish child care.
In C. Ringsmose & G. Kragh-Müller (Eds.), Nordic social pedagogical approach to early
years (International perspectives on early childhood education and development) (Vol. 15,
pp. 253–265). Springer.
Fonsén, E., Akselin, M.-L., & Aronen, K. (2015). From distributed leadership towards joint leader-
ship – A case study: The early stages of developing a new ECE leadership model for the City of
Hämeenlinna. In M. Waniganayake, J. Rodd, & L. Gibbs (Eds.), Thinking and learning about
leadership – Early childhood research from Australia, Finland, and Norway (International
leadership research forum (ILRF) research monograph no 2) (pp. 116–130). Community Child
Care Co-operative (NSW).
Granrusten, P., Gotvassli, K.-Å., Lillemyr, O., & Moen, K. (Eds.). (2018). Leadership for learning.
The new challenge in early childhood education and care. Information age publishing.
Hallinger, P., & Snidvongs, K. (2008). Educating leaders. Is there anything to learn from business
management? Educational Management, Administration & Leadership, 36(5), 9–31. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1741143207084058
Halttunen, L. (2009). Päivähoitotyö ja johtajuus hajautetussa organisaatiossa. [Day care work and
leadership in a distributed organisation]. Jyväskylä studies in education, psychology and social
research 375. University of Jyväskylä.
Hayden, J. (1998). Influences upon staff satisfaction in four early childhood settings:
Implications for enhancing quality. A case study from Australia. Symposia presentation in
8th European Conference on Quality of Early Childhood Education. EECERA. Santiago de
Compostella, Spain.
Heikka, J. (2014). Distributed pedagogical leadership in early childhood education. In Acta
Universitatis Tamperensis (Vol. 1392). University of Tampere.
Heikka, J., Waniganayake, M., & Hujala, E. (2012). Contextualizing distributed leadership within
early childhood education: Current understandings, research evidence, and future challenges.
Educational Management, Administration & Leadership, 41(1), 30–44.
Hirvelä, S-M. (2010) Pedagoginen johtajuus päiväkodin johtajien ja lastentarhanopettajien sil-
min. [Pedagogical leadership seen by centre leaders and kindergarten teachers] (Master’s
Thesis). University of Tampere, Department of Teacher Training.
Hujala, E. (2013). Contextually defined leadership. In E. Hujala, M. Waniganayake, &
J. Rodd (Eds.), Researching leadership in early childhood education (pp. 47–60). Tampere
University Press.
Hujala, E., Fonsén, E., & Elo, J. (2012). Evaluating the quality of childcare in Finland. Early Child
Development and Care, 182(3–4), 299–314.
Hujala, E., Waniganayake, M., & Rodd, J. (2013). Cross-national contexts of early childhood lead-
ership. In E. Hujala, M. Waniganayake, & J. Rodd (Eds.), Researching leadership in early
childhood education (pp. 13–40). Tampere University Press.
Hujala, E., Eskelinen, M., Chen, C., Inoue, C., Matsumoto, M., Kawase, M., & Keskinen, S. (2016).
Leadership tasks in early childhood education in Finland, Japan, and Singapore. Journal of
Research in Childhood Education, 30(3), 406–421.
Hujala, E., Vlasov, J., & Szecsi, T. (2017). Parents’ and teachers’ perspectives on changes in child-
care quality in the United States, Russia, and Finland. South African Journal of Childhood
Education, 7(1), 2223–7674. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajce.v7i1.538
Hujala, E., Koski, A., Roos, P., & Vlasov, J. (2019). The success story of Finnish early childhood
education. Vertikal.
Jorde-Bloom, P. (2000). Images from the field: How directors view their organizations, their roles,
and their jobs. In M. Culkin (Ed.), Managing quality in young children’s programs (pp. 59–77).
Teachers College Press.
Kangas, J. (2016). Enhancing children’s participation in early childhood education with participa-
tory pedagogy. University of Helsinki.
Manning, M., Garvis, S., Fleming, C., & Wong, T. W. G. (2017). The relationship between teacher
qualification and the quality of the early childhood care and learning environment. A Campbell
Systematic Reviews, 13(1), 1–82. https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2017.1
McDowall Clark, R., & Murray, J. (2012). Reconceptualizing leadership in the early years. Open
University Press.
Ministry of Education and Culture. (2020). Right to learn program. http://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.
fi/bitstream/handle/10024/161948/Early%20childhood%20education%20and%20care%20
programme%20-%20Brochure.pdf, Accessed 9 September 2020.
Morgan, G. (2000). The director as a key to quality. In M. Culkin (Ed.), Managing quality in young
children’s programs (pp. 40–58). Teachers College Press.
Nivala, V. (1999). Päiväkodin johtajuus [Leadership of a childcare centre]. Acta Universitatis
Lapponiensis 25. University of Lapland.
Roos, P. (2015). Lasten kerrontaa päiväkotiarjesta. [Children’s narration of the daily life in a child-
care centre]. Acta Universitatis Tamperensis 1504. University of Tampere.
Soukainen, U. (2015). Johtajan jäljillä – Johtaminen varhaiskasvatuksen hajautetuissa organ-
isaatioissa laadun ja pedagogisen tuen näkökulmasta. [In the steps of a leader – leadership in
decentralised ECEC organisations from the perspective of quality and pedagogical support].
Annales Universitatis Turkuensis C 400. University of Turku.
Strehmel, P. (2016). Leadership in early childhood education – Theoretical and empirical
approaches. Journal of Early Childhood Education Research, 5(2), 344–355.
Strehmel, P., Heikka, J., Hujala, E., Rodd, J., & Waniganayake, M. (Eds.). (2019). Leadership in
early education in times of change. Barbara Budrich Publishers.
Their, S. (1994). Pedagoginen johtaminen. [pedagogical leadership]. Tammer-Paino Oy.
Tiihonen, E. (2019). Varhaiskasvatuksen johtajuus suhteiden kautta toteutuvana ilmiönä
[Leadership as a relationship-based phenomenon in early childhood education]. University of
Helsinki, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Helsinki Studies in Education, number 56.
Tudge, J. (2008). The everyday lives of young children: Culture, class, and child rearing in diverse
societies. Cambridge University Press.
Van der Ven, K. (2000). Capturing the breadth and depth of the job: The administrator as influ-
ential leader in the complex world. In M. Culkin (Ed.), Managing quality in young children’s
programs (pp. 112–128). Teachers College Press.
Virkki, P. (2015). Varhaiskasvatus toimijuuden ja osallisuuden edistäjänä [Early childhood edu-
cation as a promoter of agency and participation]. Faculty of Education, Humanities and
Theology 66. University of Eastern Finland.
Vlasov, J., & Hujala, E. (2016). Cross-cultural interpretations of changes in early childhood educa-
tion in the USA, Russia, and Finland. International Journal of Early Years Education, 24(3),
309–324.
Vlasov, J., Turja, L., Valpas, A., & Hujala, E. (2016). Children’s participation in Finnish early
childhood education. In C. Dalli & A. Meade (Eds.), Research, policy, and advocacy in the
early years (pp. 37–47). NZCER Press.
Wood, D. R. (2011). And then the basals arrived: School leadership, learning communities, and
professionalism. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 14(4), 475–499. https://
doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2011.577911
Chapter 17
A Quilt of Practices: Sustainability
Education in Finnish Early Childhood
and Care
Ann-Christin Furu
Abstract In recent years, there has been a major shift in how sustainability issues
are addressed in Finnish early childhood education and care (ECEC) policy and
research. Sustainability education has come to the fore through changes in legisla-
tion and national core curricula. This chapter aims at providing a glimpse into how
practitioners understand and address sustainability education. Through four narra-
tives, based on empirical research within a qualitative framework, the highly vari-
able implementation of policy and research into practice is made visible. The results
show that sustainability is expressed in terms of everyday choices, life-guiding val-
ues, pedagogy linked to specific places in Nature, or as silence. In order to make
sure that children’s right to develop necessary knowledge, skills, values and atti-
tudes for living sustainably is realized, the importance of providing high quality
sustainability education for all children is underlined. The chapter ends with a prov-
ocation to enhance future dialogue between different stakeholders in order to over-
come the gaps between policy, research, and practice and thereby facilitate urgent
change towards a sustainable world.
17.1 Introduction
During the past few years, sustainability education have gained ground internation-
ally as well as in Finnish ECEC. Whilst educational policy and research around
sustainability issues have developed rapidly, there is still uncertainty concerning the
implementation of policy into practice. Through the renewal of the Act on Early
Childhood Education and Care in 2015 and the revisions of national core curricula
(NCC) for both early childhood education and care (primarily targeting children
aged 0–5 years) and for pre-primary (primarily targeting children aged 6 years),
A.-C. Furu (*)

Åbo Akademi University, Turku, Finland
e-mail: christin.furu@abo.fi

Switzerland AG 2022
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95512-0_17
242 A.-C. Furu
sustainability has been expressed as a basic value and an issue that should permeate
ECEC. Finnish ECEC aims to promote the wellbeing, growth, and learning of all
children in an equal manner and to support their development as active participants
in society. This is in itself an example of sustainability, but also reflects the fact that
Finnish education in the early years rests upon international agreements, such as the
Agenda 2030 (United Nations, 2015) and the United Nations Convention of the
Rights of the Child (UNICEF, 1989).
Since 2015, the Finnish Act on ECEC states that one of the aims of ECEC is to
“guide him or her [the child] towards acting responsibly and sustainably” (Sect. 3,
paragraph 8). Further, according to the NCC for the early years, all children have the
right to develop the prerequisites for a sustainable life during their time in early
years education (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2016, 2018). Sustainability
is mentioned both as a basic value and as an aspect of the transversal competences
(entities of knowledge, skills, values, attitudes, and will) that ECEC should support
in children. It is also part of the education towards a democratic citizenship where
children are seen as capable of acting in an ethical manner and making choices that
are in line with a sustainable way of life. The NCC also express sustainability as a
matter of organizational culture. Both the day-to-day life and the pedagogical activ-
ities should rest upon the principles of sustainability:
The principles of a sustainable way of living are followed in ECEC, taking its social, cul-
tural, economic and ecological dimensions into account. ECEC lays a foundation for eco-
social knowledge and ability, allowing people to understand ecological sustainability as the
precondition for social sustainability and the realization of human rights. (p. 28, Finnish
National Agency for Education, 2018)
While the goal of sustainability education is expressed explicitly in the NCC, the
means to reach it are expressed implicitly. Approaches to contents or forms are
mentioned in the section on environmental education, but otherwise staff is expected
to approach sustainability education guided by the same principles that guide the
overall organizational culture i.e. through building learning communities where
children and personnel learn from and with one another. Consequently, there is
uncertainty among staff as to how sustainability education could or should be con-
ducted in ECEC (Repo et al., 2018, 2019). As the NCC do not provide specific
guidelines for sustainability education in the ECEC, research on “best practices”
and development of theory are valuable in order to strengthen implementation of
policy into practice.
Finland has a long tradition of addressing matters related to sustainability (e.g.
enhancing social equality and diversity, supporting nature contact or protecting the
environment), but sustainability education is conceptually a relatively new entity.
Furthermore, sustainability education has only recently been addresses systemati-
cally in ECEC teacher education (Furu et al., 2018; Wolff & Furu, 2018). Yet at the
same time, the rapidly growing sustainability challenges in the Anthropocene face
us with a new urgency to facilitate change (Elliott et al., 2020). Both staff, teacher
educators, and researchers in the field of ECEC need to address these issues in new
ways and with stronger effort.
17 A Quilt of Practices: Sustainability Education in Finnish Early Childhood and Care 243
In this chapter, I will provide a view of how sustainability education is currently

understood and addressed in Finnish ECEC. The chapter relies on empirical research
conducted in collaboration with practitioners in Finland between 2017 and 2019.
The leading research interest has been to explore how staff understand sustainability
education (with respect to ECEC) at the conceptual level and address it at the practi-
cal and pedagogical level. The aim of this chapter is to present a view of sustain-
ability education in Finnish ECEC during times of substantial change in ECEC
policy and increasing public awareness of the magnitude of the sustainability crises
in the world. As will be seen, staff and students within ECEC are eager to develop
the education for our youngest in ways that strengthen their capacity to contribute
to a better future for all and to support their resources for sustainable ways of living.
Although the framework in terms of educational policy and research has developed
notably during the past few years, the implementation to practice is still in progress.
Hence, I will discuss some implications for further development of research and
policy, as well as for practice. Within Academia, we might listen carefully to the
practitioner’s perspective and engage in transformative dialogue around meaningful
ways of promoting sustainability in ECEC and, eventually, a faster change towards
a sustainable world.
17.2 Theoretical Framework
In order to contextualize the research presented in this chapter, I will provide a theo-
retical framework which can serve as a lens for the interpretation of the empirical
research presented as well as shed light on the development of sustainability educa-
tion in Finnish ECEC. I will address some of the core concepts related to the topic
and contextualize sustainability education within Finnish ECEC by providing an
overview of how sustainability issues have previously been addressed and researched
in early years education. I will then address some of the orientations within sustain-
ability education in ECEC and finally address the contemporary perspectives in
theory and research.
17.2.1 Core Concepts
There are several concepts used to address sustainability issues in contemporary

early years education and research. I prefer to use the concept sustainability to refer
to a condition where human life does not hurt any life (human or non-human) on
Earth today or in the future (cf. Wolff & Furu, 2018). It entails that a healthy eco-
system, social and cultural justice must be the foundation for economy. Sustainability
includes the complex linkages between social, political, environmental, and eco-
nomic dimensions of human life. It highlights issues of fairness through questions
and even critique of the current state of art. Sustainability is here used instead of the
244 A.-C. Furu
concept sustainable development, which has troubling connections a neo-liberalistic

paradigm based on continuous economic growth (cf. Wolff et al., 2017; Ideland,
2019). The latter concept stems from the Brundtland Report Our Common Future
(WCED, 1987) which states that a sustainable development must guarantee a good
life also for future generations and it still occurs in both policy and research as well
as in common language. It is also found in the The Agenda 2030 (United Nations,
2015), which is currently the main international agreement concerning sustainabil-
ity issues globally.
I use the concept sustainability education as an overarching term for the entity of
formal and informal learning opportunities that are formed upon the view that chil-
dren together with significant adults such as staff in ECEC can be active participants
in processes of change towards sustainability. Sustainability education includes
many forms of sustainability work in ECEC, such as daily routines, pedagogical
approaches, and specific learning projects. Sustainability education is a process that
aims to foster values and attitudes and to develop knowledge and skills that make
sustainable ways of living possible, now and in the future. Sustainability education
thus includes multiple perspectives and aims to support ecological as well as social/
cultural and economic sustainability. It may cover a wide range of topics from envi-
ronmental education to building active citizenship skills and democracy, from
developing emotional and social skills to protecting physical and mental health, or
learning to cope with day-to-day life etc. Hereby, sustainability education in its
broadest sense strives to strengthen resilience (the capacity to deal with adversities
and challenges in constructive ways) in humans, but also in communities and in
entire cultures. Sustainability education shares a common ground with expressions
like Education for Sustainability (EfS), Early Childhood Education for Sustainability
(ECEfS), Early Childhood Education and Care for Sustainability and Early
Education for Sustainability. The concept sustainability education can also refer to
university courses, continuous professional development, collegial developmental
processes or training related to specific approaches or programs (e.g. Forest schools,
Eco-schools, Rain or Shine-preschools) that are offered to pre- and in-service
teachers.
17.2.2 he Roots of Contemporary Sustainability Education

T
within Finnish ECEC
ECEC, in Finland as well as in other Nordic countries, has a long tradition of work-
ing with sustainability related matters (cf. Ärlemalm-Hagsér & Elliott, 2020).
Already from its beginning in the mid 1800s, education for the youngest was related
to Nature. Children’s ability to care for plants, animals and the surrounding world
was highlighted. Issues of social or cultural equality, promotion of health or mitigat-
ing poverty were inherent in the very idea of providing education for young children
and ECEC was part of a broader social transformation. These influences were
visible also during the first parts of the 1900s. However, there is no evidence of a
common framework for linking the seemingly separate issues of sustainability to
each other or of understanding their interrelatedness at that time. There was no spe-
cific policy or research underpinning this early sustainability work, but it can be
assumed that it was rooted in and reflected towards prevailing educational theory,
which in Finland was developing from a philosophical towards a more psychologi-
cal interest in educational matters.
A major turning point was seen in the 1960s and 1970s when general awareness
of environmental problems was rising. Since the Tblisi Declaration in 1977, sustain-
ability has explicitly been stated as a priority in education (Davis, 2015). In the
1980s and 1990s there was increasing activity among ECEC practitioners in Finland,
primarily with focus on the environmental dimension of sustainability. The first
national strategy for environmental education was published in 1992 (UNESCO,
1992), but ECEC was lacking a common guiding framework for how this policy
was to be implemented into practice as there was no national core curriculum for
ECEC at the time. By and large, the implementation was dependent on personal
interest among staff in ECEC. In the beginning of the new Millennium, the struc-
tures of education for children aged 0–6 years in Finland were transformed and
national core curricula for ECEC (Stakes, 2005) as well pre-primary (Finnish
National Agency for Education, 2000) were introduced. With the introduction of
national core curricula, environmental education was formally introduced within
the realm of science education and with a strong focus on environmental education.
Furthermore, issues of children’s rights and participation and democracy education,
as well as a focus on socio-emotional development were highlighted. The economic
dimension of sustainability was not explicitly expressed in the NCC. At the time, no
explicit references to sustainability were made, but policy is based upon humanistic
values, including respectful relationships with other humans as well as Nature.
Hence, the renewal of the Act in 2015 and the subsequent new NCC for ECEC and
pre-primary represent a turning point in sustainability education in Finland. The
concept sustainability is now widely used and the three interrelated dimensions are
made visible both in basic values and with respect to transversal competences.
17.2.3 Previous Research on Sustainability in Finnish ECEC
Research on sustainability issues in Finnish ECEC is sparse and most studies were
conducted before the new Act and the introduction of new national core curricula.
Reunamo and Suomela (2013) have shown that staff primarily focus on learning and
social relations, whereas ethical and participatory perspectives are weaker. Salonen
and Tast (2013) have found that ECEC staff value sustainability issues as important,
but that sustainability is incorporated with variability into everyday practices and
pedagogy due to lack of time and knowledge. Salonen and Hakari (2018) conducted
a study of sustainable lifestyle among ECEC staff in 2012. The study showed that
there was a gap between thinking and behavior and that staff activity in
246 A.-C. Furu
non-governmental organizations in general narrowed this gap. In addition to these

scientific studies, some Bachelor and Master theses that focus primarily on environ-
mental education have looked into sustainability education within ECEC.
Recently, there has been research directed towards sustainability issues in Finnish
ECEC (Furu, 2019; Furu & Heilala, 2021; Furu & Valkonen, 2021). These studies
show that sustainability is currently implemented with great variability in ECEC
settings. There are teams that address sustainability extensively in all three dimen-
sions, both in everyday routines and pedagogically, but there are also teams that
have merely thread the path towards sustainability education at all. These results are
in line with the described rhetoric-reality gap described by Ärlemalm-Hagsér and
Elliott (2020). It has been suggested that incorporating the principles of sustainabil-
ity into ECEC requires assessment at the team level and, if found necessary, devel-
opment of the work culture (Furu & Heilala, 2021). This underlines the role of
leadership and constructive collegial relationships in ECEC (Furu & Valkonen,
2021) and new approaches to sustainability education. A study by Furu (2019)
shows that sloyd (arts and crafts) can be a rich arena for sustainability education
within ECEC.
When it comes to sustainability education in Finnish ECEC teacher education,
research has shown that only a small proportion of student teachers have an exten-
sive understanding of the concept sustainable development while most have a vague
understanding of it (Wolff & Furu, 2018). Furthermore, sustainability education still
has a weak position in ECEC teacher education at most universities (Furu et al.,
2018). However, ongoing research shows that multimodal storytelling can be a
fruitful way of addressing sustainability issues in ECEC teacher training and that
subject integrated courses can facilitate students´ learning processes in this field
(Furu, Kaihovirta & Ekholm, 2021).
17.2.4 Orientations towards Sustainability Within ECEC
The development of sustainability education in Finland can be understood as a par-

allel to the international and Nordic endeavors. It can also be reflected against
Weldemariam and Wals (2020) description of three main orientations towards sus-
tainability within ECEC internationally: an ecological approach, a socio-critical
approach, and an approach focusing on empowering children to actively participate
in change towards sustainability.
The ecological orientation is prominent within the framework of environmental
education, where learning about Nature, in Nature, and for Nature has been empha-
sized. In line with this, the major point of focus has evolved from emphasizing
knowledge (about) to experience (in) to action (for). Nature contact is a key concept
in this field and various forms of outdoor education, forest schools or eco-schools
are expressions of this orientation. The socio-critical orientation is characterized by
putting emphasis on issues of democracy and social justice. Critical and creative
thinking can be viewed as important aspects in this orientation and it questions
prevailing power relations and seeks to support structural change. Hence, the politi-
cal dimensions of education have been articulated and led to an increased focus on
children’s active participation. The empowerment orientation in turn has challenged
romanticized views of children and childhood and instead supported a view of the
child as capable and active in shaping its own world. This position requires citizen-
ship skills, and consequently children must be educated in order to take active part
in societal matters.
The awareness of the importance of sustainability education within ECEC has
grown rapidly since the turn of the Millennium, both in Finland and internationally.
For an overview of contemporary international research, please see Elliott et al.
(2020) and Huggins and Evans (2018). In recent years, focus has increasingly been
put on how the challenges we are facing in the Anthropocene are adversely affecting
the lives of children across our globe (Clark et al., 2020; Siraj-Blatchford et al.,
2016). As children and young people are important agents in the pursuit of sustain-
ability, they must be included as active participants and change makers in societal
transformation both within education and in the wider society. Children’s participa-
tion has also been identified as a crucial part of their resilience (Sanson et al., 2019)
i.e. the shared capacity to constructively meet challenges and adversities in life
(Masten & Barnes, 2018). Thus, ECEC has an important part to play in developing
sustainability and supporting resilience among children and communities.
Over the years, education for sustainable development has evolved as a pathway
towards a better future. Sustainability education has been described as an arena for
developing necessary awareness, values, knowledge, and skills for active participa-
tion. The UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005–2014) shed
light on the importance of holistic education for the youngest. In 2009, The World
Organization for Early Childhood Education (OMEP) initiated a series of projects
aiming at strengthening sustainability education within ECEC across the globe.
OMEP has also created dialogue between policy, research, and practice through the
ESD World Project, which has resulted in practical tools for assessment of sustain-
ability in ECEC settings as well as in several research publications. More recently,
the Agenda 2030 (United Nations, 2015) underlines the role of education, especially
for the youngest, in SDG no 4.
17.2.5 Contemporary Perspectives in Theory and Research
In line with the basic values of each orientation above and the key focus of each
period of time and policy framework, specific contents and forms for sustainability
education in the early years have been identified. Increasingly, an awareness of the
context specific characteristics of sustainability education within ECEC have been
described. For example, indigenous perspectives and place based approaches have
come to the fore in recent years.
While the above described orientations have all been valuable in our evolving
understanding of sustainability education within ECEC, they all stem from an
248 A.-C. Furu
anthropocentric worldview. In recent years, research in sustainability education in

ECEC has increasingly included post-humanist and post-colonial perspectives as
well as Deleuzian rhizomatic methodologies (Elliott et al., 2020). Wolff et al. (2020)
state that currently four ideas seem to drive sustainability education in the early
years: outdoor play and learning, competent child and agency, practice architec-
ture, and posthumanistic approaches. The idea of outdoor play and learning empha-
sizes children’s interaction with the natural world as foundational in sustainability
education, while the idea of the competent child and agency directs focus towards
children’s active participation in sustainability activities. The idea of practice archi-
tecture points out ECEC settings as places where sustainability is practiced through
collaborative action and personal wisdom. The fourth idea, the posthumanistic
approaches, are based on relational worldviews and advocate pedagogical practices
that foster children’s understanding of themselves as entangled with the living and
non-living world.
Taylor (2017) and Wals (2017) are among those who have made visible the need
for making space for other parts of the Web of Life (i.e. the interconnectedness of
living and non-living aspects of an ecosystem) to be included in our view of the
world. Weldemariam and Wals (2020) suggest an orientation to sustainability edu-
cation, which decenters the human and stresses the importance of children’s entan-
glements within multiple human and non-human relations. Furu (2019) has
suggested relational ontology as a basis for development of theory and practice
regarding sustainability education within ECEC. This perspective entails relations
both to oneself, to others and to all the living and non-living Nature. Further, it is
founded upon the understanding of the interconnectedness of humans within the
rest of the Web of Life, as well as on the mutual dependency between humans and
life-supporting ecosystems.
In conclusion, for the time being, there are multiple understandings of what sus-
tainability education within ECEC is in terms of its aims, contents and methods.
These understandings are sometimes overlapping, sometimes expressions of vari-
ous interpretations of ECEC itself. The quilt of understandings within the realm of
policy and research can be expected to be reflected in practice in teacher education
as well as in ECEC settings which are vibrant arenas for transformation (cf. Engdahl
& Furu, 2022). This applies at the level of individual teachers, but also at the level
of teams, leaders or entire organizational cultures. In order to provide a more multi-
faceted view of sustainability education in Finnish ECEC, I will reflect the afore-
mentioned policy and research perspectives against the perceptions of staff in ECEC
settings.
17.3 Methodological Framework
The empirical research on which this chapter relies was conducted between 2017
and 2019 in collaboration with staff in ECEC settings in Finland. The main interest
behind the research was to explore what the current state of sustainability education
in Finnish ECEC is. Focus was directed towards how staff understand and address
sustainability issues in their work. As such, the research had an explorative and
descriptive character.
The methodological approach was a bricolage (Denzin & Lincoln, 2018). A bri-
colage can be described as a quilt where small pieces of information about the
phenomenon under study are sewn together in order to provide a multifaceted and
broad view of it. It can also include different types of research materials that offer
multiple perspectives on the phenomenon. The research materials are triangulated
or crystallized in order for a multifaceted understanding of the phenomenon under
study to emerge.
The research material consists of several types of information. First, mind maps
(n = 86) regarding the concept sustainable development were collected in four
cohorts during continuous professional development lectures from November 2017
to January 2019. Second, ESD Rating Scale questionnaires (n = 4) from a case study
of four ECEC settings involved in a pilot research project on promoting sustainabil-
ity in ECEC from October 2017 to August 2018 were utilized. These questionnaires
provided information about how staff rate their daily life in ECEC in terms of sus-
tainability work as well as descriptions of practices and pedagogical approaches
related to sustainability issues. Third, written accounts (n = 4) or process diaries
made by the same four teams during the study provided valuable insights into the
development of sustainability work in ECEC. Fourth, participant observations
(n = 8) of day-to-day work in an ECEC setting were made from September 2018 to
May 2019 during a case study of how intergenerational encounters can support
sustainability education in ECEC. Fifth, a focus group interview (n = 1) with three
members of staff involved in this study was conducted. One of them was a teacher
in ECEC, one a child miner in ECEC, and one was responsible for the activity group
of elderly.
The research participants represent all types of team members in Finnish ECEC
teams i.e. ECEC teachers, social pedagogues, and child miners. Naturally, they have
different educational backgrounds. The distribution of age and years in profession
are wide, ranging from newly educated staff to those who are close to retirement.
The participants represent ECEC settings of various size, both urban and rural con-
texts, as well as various regions in Southern and Western Finland.
The research materials were analyzed through thematic content analysis (Denzin
& Lincoln, 2018) and narrative analysis (Clandinin et al., 2016). Each type of
research material was first analyzed separately, then interpreted against the other
types in a hermeneutical process. The analysis and interpretation was guided by two
recurrent questions: How does staff understand sustainability education in the realm
of ECEC? and How does staff practically and pedagogically address sustainability
issues in ECEC? The research process followed a quadro-hermeneutical approach
(XX, 2011) which means that descriptive and reflexive strands were intertwined
during analysis and interpretation. The results emerging from the research materials
were continuously contrasted against current policy and contemporary research
regarding sustainability in early years education. The process resulted in four narra-
tives on sustainability education in contemporary Finnish ECEC.
250 A.-C. Furu
17.3.1 Ethical Aspects
The research follows the guidelines by the Finnish National Board on Research
Integrity (TENK, 2019). All participants were provided with information about the
aims of the respective sub-studies and formally agreed that the materials were used
for research. In some cases, municipalities and/or leaders of ECEC gave their writ-
ten permission that the materials were used for research. The participants were
guaranteed anonymity and confidentiality and all during analysis and interpretation
all research materials were coded in order to prevent bias.
17.4 Results
The overall results of the research presented in this chapter show that there is con-
siderable variation as to how sustainability education is currently understood and
addressed in Finnish ECEC, both at the conceptual level and at the level of practice
and pedagogy.
The first narrative, which is also the most dominant one, depicts sustainability
education as matter of actions in day-to-day life. It expresses sustainability educa-
tion as a series of choices made by staff with respect to resources like food, energy,
water or materials. This narrative reflects a consumer culture where individual
choices are at the core. The narrative highlights the meaning of being mindful in
everyday life. It focuses on good everyday habits such as giving value to and saving
resources. Further, core items concern collecting and sorting trash, reusing materi-
als for arts and craft, and spending time outdoors or in Nature. To some extent there
is a focus on avoiding plastic or chemicals e.g. in toys or furniture in the settings.
Co-use of toys, games, and tools, borrowing books from the library or arranging a
fleet market with the parents are other recurrent practices included in this narrative.
Food is an important part of the narrative – it is preferably described as local, partly
vegetarian, and to some extent even grown by the children themselves in gardens in
the ECEC yard. To sum up, this narrative can be said to be colored with green: it is
rooted in the environmental education tradition and departs from giving ecological
sustainability a high value. The narrative pays attention to daily habits and actions
as a path to teaching children sustainability. However, it is dominated by an adult
centered view and it does only occasionally articulate children’s active participa-
tion. Moreover, it does not openly support critical reflection over the anthropocen-
tric worldview nor interrogation of the cultural values behind e.g. prevailing power
hierarchies, the consumer culture or social injustices (cf. Ärlemalm-Hagsér &
Elliott, 2020).
The second narrative, which is common but less prominent, is one about sustain-
ability education as life-guiding values. It contains expressions of values like
responsibility, respect, modesty or trust. Life-long learning appears as a value linked
to children as change-makes for a better Future, but also to the idea that children
should learn about sustainability in order to learn for life. Equality and democracy
are also rationales linked to sustainability, however sparsely. This narrative brings to
the fore issues of being careful with yourself, others, and the Planet. It emphasizes
socio-emotional development, formation of collaborative communities, and pays
attention to emotional security as the basis for development and learning. This nar-
rative reflects a relational worldview, where mutual respect, responsibility, and care
are seen as core values. It takes other forms of life into consideration in the sense
that plants and animals are important in their own right and should be treated
respectfully. Nature and walking with gentle steps on Mother Earth are founda-
tional. Physical and/or mental health and the importance of supporting these among
children as well as staff is visible in the narrative. To conclude, a core idea in this
narrative is to build compassion for the entire Web of Life and fostering an attitude
of care (cf. Wals, 2017) is seen as a key aspect of this. A will to enhance social
transformation towards more relational and inclusive structures can be traced in this
narrative. Contradictory views on children are however seen in this narrative, as
children are sometimes expressed as competent and agentic and sometimes as vul-
nerable and in need of protection (cf. Pramling Samuelsson, 2011).
The third narrative expresses sustainability education as a pedagogy linked to
specific places in Nature. It highlights places like the forest, lakes or the sea as valu-
able environments for learning how to lead a sustainable life. Nature is expressed as
an environment which is well suited for sustainability related learning, as it provides
both experiences and relevant content. Another key feature in this narrative is the
explicit focus on pedagogy. Experiential learning, phenomenon-based learning, as
well as experiments, learning studies, and holistic learning are emphasized. In addi-
tion, it underlines the importance of being aware of the versatile affordances in vari-
ous environments. Another approach mentioned is that of providing a set of
pedagogical methods and materials in order to stimulate children’s multifaceted
learning. Paying attention to natures cycles, composting and learning about plants
and animals is viewed as valuable aspects of sustainability education. Likewise,
storytelling, art projects, music, movement, literacy and numeracy work is related to
the outdoor experiences. The Right of Public Access, which is highly valued in
Finland, is associated to sustainability education by staff. Hence, this narrative
reflects a view of children as robust, competent, and eager to explore the surround-
ing world together with staff. Further, it contains the understanding of nature con-
tact and outdoor education as foundations for sustainability education. This narrative
corresponds with views that emphasize children’s holistic learning but lacks an
explicit ambition to transform existing structures.
The fourth narrative expresses sustainability education through silence. This
narrative emerges from what is not visible in the research material. It emerges from
white pages in the mind maps, from what is not mentioned in the questionnaires and
written accounts or from silences in the interview. This narrative suggests that there
is a lack of language for sustainability education among staff in ECEC. In this nar-
rative, even the point of view that children should not be worried by sustainability
issues or that sustainability is not to be part of ECEC, is expressed. Altogether, this
narrative can be interpreted as a reflection of the lack of sustainability related
252 A.-C. Furu
awareness, knowledge or skills among some members of staff. The narrative is to

some extent understandable, since there are few specific instructions on sustainabil-
ity education in the Finnish NCC for the early years. As most teachers have not had
sustainability education as an element in their teacher education, they may have
little or no theoretical or didactical points of reference in this field. Developing an
understanding of sustainability education is thus dependent on either personal inter-
est in sustainability issues or a being part of a team with a specific interest in sus-
tainability education. Apparently, not all members of staff are part of an organizational
culture that supports professional development in this domain.
17.5 I mplications and Recommendations for Policy

and Praxis
All in all, the implementation of policy into practice varies from setting to setting
and sustainability education is conducted both to varying extents (from none at all
to permeating the pedagogical and practical work) and through a broad range of
contents and forms. Apparently, a common guiding framework which translates
policy into practice is lacking. The research upon which this chapter is based con-
firms the knowledge-practice and rhetoric-reality gaps described by Ärlemalm-
Hagsér and Elliott (2020). It also makes visible a gap between the magnitude of the
ongoing sustainability crises and the relatively sparse attention directed towards
sustainability issues within ECEC practice.
The narratives reflect the three anthropocentric orientations that Weldemariam
and Wals (2020) put forth, but show that the orientations are not pure, but rather
entangled with each other. In Finnish ECEC settings, the ecological orientation is
predominant and the socio-critical is expressed to some extent, while the empower-
ment orientation is hardly visible. There are only minor traces of ambition to reflect
upon or question and transcend prevailing social and cultural structures. However,
there are signs of relational ontology (cf. Furu, 2019) emerging through notions in
the second narrative, which is based on values, attitudes and personal beliefs and
which highlight the entanglement with the entire Web of Life and the importance of
taking care of both the human and non-human world.
For the time being, children attending Finnish ECEC encounter highly variable
approaches to sustainability education. Thus, there are no guarantees that ECEC
supports all children’s equal rights to develop the necessary knowledge, skills, val-
ues, attitudes or will to live a sustainable life or to develop their resilience in order
to handle the ongoing sustainability crises in constructive ways. The results of the
research presented in this chapter is in line with other research (Furu & Heilala,
2021; Furu & Valkonen, 2021) of how sustainability is implemented in the organi-
zational culture in ECEC. The policy in ECEC has recently been updated and sus-
tainability issues are gaining increasing attention within the educational field. Issues
like pandemics, refugee crises, climate change, rapid loss of biodiversity, or the
adverse circumstances for cultural minorities (nationally and globally) are increas-
ingly at the surface in public debate and social media. It can be expected that general
awareness about sustainability challenges is growing and that staff in ECEC is
increasingly eager to develop their understanding of how these challenges can be
addressed within ECEC.
Although the goal of sustainability education is expressed in the Act and in the
NCC, there needs to be development in terms of approaches. Contents and forms
suitable for sustainability education in ECEC need to be made visible through both
theory development and through empirical research. In recent years, sustainability
education has been the focus of several developmental and/or research projects and
the output of these are increasingly visible within the community of practitioners.
Further, resources that translate policy and research into practice and that monitor
and catalyze change towards sustainability in the organization culture need to be
utilized. Sustainability education is a matter of knowledge and skills, but also of
values, attitudes and will among staff. Thereby, it is closely linked to how members
of staff view themselves in relation to both sustainability issues and to the aims of
contemporary Finnish ECEC. This, in turn, highlights the importance of supporting
professional development (pre-service as well as in-service) as a matter of both
professional competence and professional identity. Promoting sustainability educa-
tion is a matter of supporting transformation and change of the organization culture
as a whole. Leadership plays a key role, but also building cultures of learning where
children and staff can learn from and with one another. An implication of the
research upon which this chapter is based, is that the dialogue between practitio-
ners, teacher educators, researchers and policy makers needs to be strengthened in
order to overcome the gaps between policy, research, and practice. This dialogue
can provide a space for creating and embracing new approaches to sustainability
education in ECEC which can guarantee each child the basic capacities for leading
a sustainable life and for contributing to urgent change towards a better future for
People and Planet.
References
Ärlemalm-Hagsér, E., & Elliott, S. (2020). Analysis of historical and contemporary early child-
hood education theories in the Anthropocene. In S. Elliott, E. Ärlemalm-Hagsér, & J. Davis
(Eds.), Researching early childhood education for sustainability (Challenging assumptions
and orthodoxies). Routledge.
Clandinin, D. J., Huber, J., Menon, J., Murphy, M. S., & Swanson, C. (2016). Narrative inquiry:
Conducting research in early childhood. In A. Farrell, S. L. Kagan, & E. K. M. Tidsall (Eds.),
The SAGE handbook of early childhood research (pp. 240–254). SAGE.
Clark, H., Coll-Seck, M., Barnerjee, A., Peterson, S., Dalglish, S. L., Ameratunga, S., Balabanova,
D., Bhan, M. K., Bhutta, Z. A., Borrazzo, J., Claeson, M., Doherty, T., El-Jardali, F., George,
A. S., Gichaga, A., Gram, L., Hipgrave, D. B., Kwamie, A., Meng, Q., … Costello, A. (2020). A
future for the world’s children? A WHO-UNICEF-Lancet Commission. Lancet, 395, 605–658.
Davis, J. (2015). Young children and the environment. Early education for sustainability.
Cambridge University Press.
254 A.-C. Furu
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2018). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th
ed.). SAGE.
Elliott, S., Ärlemalm-Hagsér, E., & Davis, J. (Eds.). (2020). Researching early childhood educa-
tion for sustainability. Challenging assumptions and orthodoxies. Routledge.
Engdahl, I., & Furu, A-C. (2022). Early childhood education: A vibrant arena in the complex trans-
formation of society towards sustainability. IJEC. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13158-022-00323-0
Finnish National Agency for Education. (2000). Grunderna för förskoleundervisningens läroplan
2000. Finnish National Agency for Education.
Finnish National Agency for Education (FNAE). (2016). National core curriculum for pre-primary
education 2014. Finnish National Agency for Education.
hood education and care 2018. Finnish National Agency for Education.
Furu. A-C. (2019). Narratives on sustainability and sloyd in Finnish ECEC. Nordic Studies in
Education, 39(3), 198–213. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.1891-5949-2019-03-03
Furu, A-C., & Heilala, C. (2021). Sustainability education in progress: Practices and pedagogies in
Finnish early childhood education and care teaching practice settings. International Journal of
Early Childhood Environmental Education, 8(2), 16–29.
Furu, A-C., & Valkonen, S. (2021). Gearing up sustainability education in Finnish early child-
hood education and care (ECEC): Exploring practices and pedagogies by means of collegial
reflection and discussion. International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education,
8(2), 30–42.
Furu, A-C., Wolff, L-A., & Suomela, L. (2018). Premisser för hållbarhet i den finländska utbild-
ningen av lärare inom småbarnspedagogik – en kritisk granskning av visioner och verklighet.
Utbildning och demokrati, 22(2), 59–80.
Furu, A-C., Kaihovirta, H., & Ekholm, S. (2021). Promoting sustainability through multimodal
storytelling. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 23(2), 18–29. https://doi.
org/10.2478/jtes-2021-0014
Huggins, V., & Evans, D. (Eds.). (2018). Early childhood education and care for sustainability.
International perspectives. Routledge.
Ideland, M. (2019). The eco-certified child: Citizenship and education for sustainability and envi-
ronment. Palgrave Pivot.
Masten, A. S., & Barnes, A. J. (2018). Resilience in children: Developmental perspectives.
Children. https://doi.org/10.3390/children5070098
Pramling Samuelsson, I. (2011). Why we should begin early with ESD: The role of early child-
hood education. International Journal of Early Childhood, 17(1), 78–91.
Repo, L., Paananen, M., Mattila, V, Lerkkanen, M-K., Eskelinen, M., Gammelgård, L., Ulvinen,
J., Hjelt, H., & Marjanen, J. (2018). Varhaiskasvatus-suunnitelman perusteiden 2016 toimeen-
panon arviointi. Varhaiskasvatussuunnitelmien käyttöönotto ja sisällöt. [Implementation evalu-
ation of the 2016 national core curriculum for early childhood education and care – Deployment
and contents of early childhood education and care curricula]. Julkaisut 16:2018. FINEEC.
Repo, L., Paananen, M., Eskelinen, M., Mattila, V., Lerkkanen, M-K., Gammelgård, L.,
Ulvinen, J., Marjanen, J., Kivistö, A., & Hjelt, H. (2019). Varhaiskasvatuksen laatu arjessa.
Varhaiskasvatussuunnitelmien toteutuminen päiväkodeissa ja perhepäivähoidossa. (2019).
[Every-day quality in early childhood education and care – ECEC curriculum implementation
at day-care centres and in family day-care]. Julkaisut 15. FINEEC.
Reunamo, J., & Suomela, L. (2013). Education for sustainable development in early childhood
education in Finland. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 15(2), 91–102.
Salonen, A. O., & Hakari, S. (2018). Early childhood educators and sustainability. Utbildning och
Demokrati, 27(2), 81–102.
Salonen, A., & Tast, S. (2013). Finnish early childhood educators and sustainable development.
Journal of Sustainable Development, 6(2), 70–85.
Sanson, A. V., Van Hoorn, J., & Burke, S. E. L. (2019). Responding to the impacts of the climate
crisis on children and youth. Child Development Perspectives, 13(4), 201–207.
Siraj-Blatchford, J., Mogharreban, C., & Parks, A. (Eds.). (2016). International research on educa-
tion for sustainable development in early childhood. Springer.
Stakes. (2005). Grunderna för planen för småbarnsfostran (Handböcker) (Vol. 61). Stakes.
Taylor, A. (2017). Beyond stewardship: Common world pedagogies for the Anthropocene.
Environmental Education Research, 23, 1448–1461.
TENK. (2019). The ethical principles of research with human participants and ethical review in
the human sciences in Finland. Finnish National Board on Research Integrity TENK guidelines
2019. Publications of the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity TENK 3/20.
UNESCO. (1992). A national strategy for environmental education. Finnish National Commission
for UNESCO.
UNICEF (1989). United Nations convention of the rights of the child. Retrieved from https://
downloads.unicef.org.uk
United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
United Nations.
Wals, A. (2017). Sustainability by default: Co-creating care and relationality through early child-
hood education. International Journal of Early Childhood, 49, 155–164.
WCED. (1987). Our common future. Oxford University Press.
Weldemariam, K., & Wals, A. (2020). From autonomous child to a child entangled within an agen-
tic world. In S. Elliott, E. Ärlemalm-Hagsér, & J. Davis (Eds.), Researching early childhood
education for sustainability. Challenging assumptions and orthodoxies (pp. 13–24). Routledge.
Wolff, L-A., & Furu, A-C. (2018). Hållbarhetspedagogik för finländska barnträdgårdslärarstu-
denter: Från begrepp till engagemang. Pedagogisk forskning i Sverige, 23(3-4), 214–234.
Wolff, L.-A., Sjöblom, P., Hofman-Bergholm, M., & Palmberg, I. (2017). High Performance
Education Fails in Sustainability? – A Reflection on Finnish Primary Teacher Education.
Education Sciences, 7(1), 32. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci7010032
Wolff, L.-A., Skarstein, T., & Skarstein, F. (2020). The mission of early childhood education in the
Anthropocene. Education Sciences, 10, 27. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10020027
Chapter 18
Elements of the Pedagogical Process
in Finnish Early Childhood Education
Kirsi Alila, Tuulikki Ukkonen-Mikkola, and Jonna Kangas
Abstract This chapter introduces the Finnish Pedagogical Process as a central ele-
ment of the educational system of early childhood education (ECE). A conceptual
definition and shared understanding and interpretation of the educational process
are essential for the high-quality pedagogical practices of ECE. We aim to create a
conceptional framework of the Pedagogical Process through a theoretical analysis
of the different aspects of the process. Through this framework, we provide and
promote the evaluation and development debate of current pedagogical practices.
This framework will provide the tools to identify, structure, phase, and clarify the
Process as a management system that includes planning, implementation, and eval-
uation practices and policies. The Pedagogical Process of ECE is considered through
the broader sense of a process approach, incorporating both actional and structural
concepts as well as the actions, deeds, actors, understanding, and sequential chain
of events. The Pedagogical Process of ECE described in this chapter is built around
its central elements: the first central element as the aim of the Pedagogical Process
is children’s development, learning, and wellbeing. The second central element
influencing each premise and the aim is the staff. The four premises are modeled as
the sub-entities around the central element and structurally influencing it and each
other. The elements of the Finnish Pedagogical Process are: (1) Driving force and
purpose, (2) Starting point, (3) Functional part, (4) Process outcomes. The multidi-
mensional Pedagogical Process is not only about pedagogy but also related to an
understanding of political, scientific, and professional operational practices and
national policies surrounding the pedagogy.
K. Alila (*)
Ministry of Education and Culture, Helsinki, Finland
e-mail: kirsi.alila@gov.fi
T. Ukkonen-Mikkola
J. Kangas

Switzerland AG 2022
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95512-0_18
258 K. Alila et al.
18.1 Introduction
This chapter introduces the Finnish pedagogical process as a central element of the
educational system of early childhood education (ECE). Recently, the Finnish ECE
system has undergone a transformation and reform. One significant reform is the
emphasis on pedagogy in the educational policies (Kangas et al., 2020). A concep-
tual definition and shared understanding and interpretation of the process of peda-
gogy is essential for the high-quality pedagogical practices of ECE. The need to
define the concept of pedagogy and describe the Pedagogical Process is based on
the perceived understanding of ECE as unstructured and undefined institution glob-
ally and locally (see Stipek & Byler, 1997; Härkönen, 2006).
The pedagogy and the Pedagogical Processes of ECE can be viewed as culturally
and historically determined concepts, where practitioners’ beliefs and practices
have been found to influence emerging pedagogy (Stipek & Byler, 1997). In the
narrow concept the Pedagogical Process is often defined as process of planning,
implementing and evaluating the teaching practices. This kind of simplified under-
standing of the process of education do not pay attention to the premises of educa-
tion nor the societal values, restrictions and paradigms (Peters, 1967). The wider
context for ECE compounding through reciprocal interaction between practitioners’
beliefs, political context, and theoretical understanding (Brownlee, 2009). However
the dynamic relations among these concepts remains unclear. Still, the whole pro-
cess of pedagogy has so far received very little attention in the educational litera-
ture. Peters (1967) claimed that education itself is not a process but a reform, but if
the educational process remains unidentified there is no standards for high-quality
education. The Process of Pedagogy has been referred before both in Finland
(Fonsén et al., 2014; Helenius & Korhonen, 2008; Härkönen, 2006) and internation-
ally (Brownlee, 2009) within the definition of pedagogy. In this chapter, the
Pedagogical Process is understood through more general aspects than just teaching
and learning, and the description of the Pedagogical Process is constructed through
a theoretical literature review with scientific and professional publications, the key
legislation documents on Finnish ECE, and the obligatory national curriculum doc-
ument (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2018). We aim to create an under-
standing of the process’ components, analyze theoretically the different aspects of
the process, and provide and promote the evaluation and development debate of
current pedagogical practices. This framework will provide the tools to phase, struc-
ture and clarify the process as a management system that includes planning, imple-
mentation and evaluation practices and policies.
In this study we aim to understand and describe the Pedagogical Process in ECE
in Finland. We produce a process-oriented model of the pedagogy and answer two
research questions:
1. What are the elements of a Finnish pedagogical process?
2. How is the Pedagogical Process constructed in practice?
18 Elements of the Pedagogical Process in Finnish Early Childhood Education 259
18.2 The Pedagogical Process in Education
To move from the definition of pedagogy as a teaching method to a more compre-

hensive and multidimensional quality implementation of the pedagogy as practical
activities, interaction, and membership of the process, it is necessary to define the
Pedagogical Process of ECE. A process can be defined as a series of interrelated
recurring events or actions that produce a desired result (Luukkonen et al., 2012)
where the concepts of operation and structure are distinguished. First, the opera-
tional concepts refer to actions in the process, where the actor(s) are also to be
defined. Secondly, the structural concepts describe the process as events where the
actor cannot be assigned in the same way as in the action concepts. For example,
education can be defined as the actions of the educational staff while the develop-
ment is the process of individual development (see McLachlan et al., 2013). The
definition process of education should include at least values of education, learning
theory, understanding about teaching, and the interaction through which the other
aspects are fulfilled (Peters, 1967). Karjalainen (2006) points out that the cultural
processes of organizations are also complex that are more than the sum of their
parts, and contradictions can occur among different parts. The process of education
refers to interactions among the activities of learning and teaching; thus, they are
seen as part of the same process (Siljander, 2014). In this chapter the process of
ECE is considered through the broader sense of a process approach, incorporating
both actional and structural concepts as well as the actions, deeds, actors, under-
standing, and sequential chain of events.
The parts of the Pedagogical Process are not realized as separate, chronologi-
cally, and progressive factors, but they are interconnected and influence each other
in a processive way in the progress of the overall process. When the parts of the
Pedagogical Process or their order in the process cannot be precisely defined, it is
called a dynamic process (see Luukkonen et al., 2012).
To understand pedagogical process of ECE the concept of pedagogy needs to be
defined. International research identifies two different traditions globally. The pre-
primary tradition represents the idea of ECE to be preparing school-readiness and is
widely used in UK, US, Belgium and France, while the socio pedagogical tradition
used in Nordic countries understand the role of ECE more holistically and widely.
In this pedagogical tradition the participation to ECE is seen important for child’s
and family’s competences and development through transversal competencies,
learning-to-learn skills and play (see Kangas et al., 2020). Pedagogy can be defined
to be “walking side-by-side” and to scaffold children through interaction, shared
activities and children agency. Pedagogy in ECE is also described to be sustained-
shared thinking where children learn the cultural traditions in behaviour and knowl-
edge (Siraj-Blatchford, 2008). The shared understanding is essential reason also for
determining the Pedagogical Process of ECE for creating sustained continuum of
meanings and goals of ECE for all its stakeholders.
However, the implementation of ECE pedagogy can be discerned or should
include certain features that are relevant to the activity. According to Helenius and
260 K. Alila et al.
Korhonen (2008), the Pedagogical Process of ECE can be described as “a con-

sciously guided process of education and teaching that encompasses both the indi-
vidual child’s personality and the development of the children’s community,” and
there are six interrelated elements in the Pedagogical Process: (1) the child at the
center of the activity; (2) the group of children; (3) content; (4) main forms of the
activity, and (5) organizational factors. The staff is referred as the sixth element.
18.3 Methods
18.3.1 Context of the Study
Finnish ECE policy has been undergoing a reformation since 2013 under the guid-
ance of the Ministry of Education and Culture. Previously, the Ministry of Social
Affairs and Health was responsible for ECE, and its role was mainly determined
through social policies. That included child day care for working families who
needed to leave their children in care while at work. Other significant changes took
place in the ECE system in 2015, when the Finnish National Agency of Education
became the responsible policy agent for pedagogical development under the super-
vision of the Ministry of Education and Culture through the education sector. The
assessment and evaluation of ECE practices and structures was combined with The
Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC) in 2015. Thus, the pedagogical sig-
nificance in the educational policies considering ECE has been emphasized more
than before. Completed in 2015, the Early Childhood Education Act (Amendments
2016 and 2018), has resulted in a significant change in the operational culture of
ECE through content and pedagogy approaches. The first obligatory version of the
National Curriculum Guidelines for Early Childhood Education was published in
2016 and updated in 2018 as a prescriptive and binding document on implementa-
tion of ECE. The curriculum guidelines are strongly focused on the content of the
Early Childhood Education Act and are obligatory for both public and private
ECE. Based on the Act and the National Curriculum Guidelines the National
Education Assessment Center has begun in 2017 to develop a national evaluation
system for the first time in history. At the same time, Finnish ECE research has
gained more attention and the quality of research has improved.
The subject of the research were the steering and guidance documents (n = 2)
and laws (n = 7) of Finnish ECE together with scientific (n = 23) and professional
(n = 2) publications which were acquired through an advanced search of the Helka
primo and Google Scholar search engines with key words early childhood educa-
tion Finland. From the search results a total of 25 professional and scientific publi-
cations were selected as analysis material. The selection criteria for the literature
were based on their central role and link to the national steering documents and
guidelines.
The Pedagogical Process of ECE is constructed in this chapter through three key
factors:
• Relevant research findings are used to support and explain elements within the
Pedagogical Process.
• Key legislation documents on Finnish ECE, and the obligatory national curricu-
lum document represent the policies in the process.
• Roles and influence of personal of ECE represent the actors in the process.
These three factors are re-constructed and strengthen the conceptualization of peda-
gogical process of ECE.
18.3.2 Analysis Methods
The analysis is conducted through review of the literature, a method by which topic-
related single research papers and reports are collected, and critically evaluated to
form a coherent picture of the themes and topic (Torraco, 2005). Literature research
holds a critical position in the development of social science. Research on text-
based sources is applicable in the educational sciences, as educational systems con-
sistently produce excessive amounts of detached data (Punch & Oancea, 2014). In
review of the literature, the aim is to develop existing theoretical understanding,
create new approaches, and form a synthesis about the topic. For example, Wee and
Banister (2016) have introduced six different approaches that address these claims
and identify the existing gaps; furthermore, they frame practical solution to evaluate
different methodological solutions and results (see Table 18.1). This study is mainly
situated in the gaps on the literature level to give a new understanding about
Table 18.1 Options for the added value of Literature Review Paper
Options for added Main output of the Pedagogical
value Process
Empirical insights A synthesis what is – or is not – State of knowledge from theories and
already known policy papers
Theories An investigation of different Overview of the strengths and
theories and their importance weaknesses of existing theories.
Creating theoretical links.
Gaps in literature An exploration of omissions and To give a new understanding about
and research limitations in approaches and pedagogy as a process
agenda suggestions to ways forwards
Relevance for A synthesis for real-world Implementations and
real-world application recommendations for policies and
applications practices of ECE
Conceptual model An explicit structure on the relation A synthesis of a framework of the
of dependents and independent pedagogical process of ECE
aspects
Original source: Wee and Banister (2016), adapted
262 K. Alila et al.
pedagogy as a process, a real-world application to create a bridge between policy

documents and pedagogical practices, and to create a new conceptual framework for
the Pedagogical Process.
18.4 he Framework of the Finnish Pedagogical

T
Process of ECE
The Pedagogical Process as a key concept is explored and reflected through the
practical implementation focus as well as by defining the cultural approaches of the
process. Framing a pedagogical process utilizes commonly used process definitions
and process description structures.
To define the Pedagogical Process the concept of pedagogy should be under-
stood. The conception of the pedagogy in the ECE is multidimensional. Definitions
of ECE pedagogy often focus either on the relationships and interaction between
children and personnel, or the practical and goal-oriented education activities con-
ducted by the educators and the educators’ communities (Siraj-Blatchford, 2008).
In Finland, the definition includes activities, interaction, professional skills and
awareness as well as the description of the actual practices:
The ECE pedagogy in Finland is institutional and professional activities based on carefully
planned and structured goal-oriented interaction between children and educators, where
educators are aware and have purposeful ways of affect the development, learning and
wellbeing of the child. In the pedagogy the goals are to influence child’s development,
learning and well-being. The pedagogy of ECE is based on scientific knowledge and follow-
ing the national goals, contents, methods and learning environment of education. Pedagogy
is conducted through observation, documentation and on-going development of the opera-
tional culture of the ECE. Essential is the role of the child as active and participant member
of the society as well as co-operation with parents. (Alila & Ukkonen-Mikkola, 2018)
To move from the definition of pedagogy to the implementation and development of

ECE, it is crucial to define the Pedagogical Process. The process of pedagogy is
something broader than simply the idea of pedagogy. The wider objectives of fram-
ing the Pedagogical Process through structuring and clarifying is to influence in the
planning, implementation, and evaluation of activities as well as management
procedures.
This process is crafted using the Structures of Process Descriptions (Luukkonen
et al., 2012) where a process is understood as a chain of related and frequent events.
The Pedagogical Process also features the previously developed descriptions of the
Pedagogical Process of ECE (Helenius & Korhonen, 2008). The Pedagogical
Process of ECE described in this article is crafted around its central elements: the
first central element as the aim of the Pedagogical Process is children’s develop-
ment, learning, and wellbeing. The second central element, influencing each prem-
ise and the aim of process, is the staff. The premises are modelled as the sub-entities
structurally influencing the central pieces of the Pedagogical Process. Four sub-
entities are the basis of the Finnish Pedagogical Process:
1. Driving force and purpose

2. Starting point
3. Functional part
4. Process outcomes
18.4.1 ECE Staff
The staff in the Pedagogical Process consists of teachers, social-pedagogues and

practical nurses as well as directors (Karila, 2012). The staff have a different back-
ground from the training, and they come from two different areas of science (educa-
tion and socio-pedagogy), which produces a variety of levels of pedagogical
competence. Professional actors are required to have a wide range of knowledge
and skills (see Harju-Luukkainen & Kangas, 2020). In addition the professionaliza-
tion of actors is enhanced through work experience, but systematic, goal-oriented
and effective skills development is also important (Fonsén & Ukkonen-Mikkola,
2019). The implementation of pedagogical activities in ECE is diverse, but it must
be based on goals and a systematic design process. In terms of content and method-
ology, the potential for different emphases exists, and teachers have a strong role in
planning and implementing activities. The staff together form a professional educa-
tion community, supported by other experts.
Directors are the key actors in pedagogical process. In Finland, the director of the
ECE center acts as leader of administration, co-operates with parents and adminis-
trative staff, and acts as the manager of the staff, and oversees development and
quality (Heikka & Waniganayake, 2011). The role of the Director is to guide staff
by undertaking observation, planning, implementation, evaluation, and develop-
ment. In the Pedagogical Process, the director creates the conditions for the opera-
tional premises, and leads the whole pedagogical process. It is essential for the
director to understand the Pedagogical Process and its various phases to support the
process. Pedagogical leadership takes responsibility for the development of ECE
and management with a pedagogical approach (Fonsén, 2014).
18.4.2 Driving Force and Purpose
In principle, the Pedagogical Process of ECE always has some basic driving force,
goal or purpose that determines why the pedagogy is implemented. The prime
mover that emerges from the purpose and goals of the activity can be said to act as
a trigger, cause, or “fuel” or driving force for the activity. As explained in the con-
text of this study, the Finnish ECE is based on both international and national legis-
lation and treaties. In this process, the purpose and driving force behind ECE has
been defined as a systematic and purposeful educating, teaching, and caring of the
child, with a particular focus on pedagogy and promoting the overall growth and
264 K. Alila et al.
development (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2018). This general goal is
implemented through the operational objectives of the child’s individual develop-
ment, learning, and wellbeing.
18.4.3 The Starting Point
The implementation of the Finnish ECE process is based on an understanding of the

principles on which ECE is based, i.e. the starting points for work in education.
These premises are framed here for to shed light to the Pedagogical Process frame-
work through international conventions, national legislation, guiding documents,
values and ethical principles, cultural concepts, and scientific approaches.
18.4.4 I nternational Treaties and National

Obligatory Documents
International treaties and national legislation guarantee the rights of a child that
must be respected in ECE. The most important international treaty for early educa-
tion is the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNICEF, 1989)
ratified in Finland in 1991. Central to the treaty is the fundamental value of the
child’s dignity. There are four general clauses in the agreement relating to the dig-
nity of the child considered as general principles: (1) non-discrimination and equal
treatment in society; (2) best interests of the child; (3) right to life, and (4) full
development and consideration.
The Constitution of Finland (739/1999) guarantees many rights to children, such
as equality (Article 6), according to which no one may be placed in a different posi-
tion, inter alia based on age. Children are also required by the Constitution to be
treated equally as individuals, and to be allowed to participate in issues concerning
them. The Constitution also guarantees children cultural rights (Article 16), and the
right to their own language and culture (Article 17).
In addition to the Finnish Constitution, early education also follows the Act of
Early Childhood Education (540/2018) and the Government Decree on ECE
(753/2018). This legislation guarantees the subjective right to education, the best
interests of the child, a highly educated staff, and a safe and healthy learning envi-
ronment. Other legislation relevant to ECE also includes the Administrative
Procedure Act (434/2003), the Act on the Openness of Government Activities
(621/1999), the Non-discrimination Act (1325/2014), and the Act on Equality
between Women and Men (609/1986).
The basic framework of the Pedagogical Process is established in the curricula,
both national and local. A key curriculum is the National Curriculum Guidelines for
Early Childhood Education (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2018) which
define the general goals and key principles of pedagogical implementation of ECE.
18.4.5 Ethical Principles
The ethical principles of ECE are essential premises of understanding the

Pedagogical Process through professional ethics. Ethical principles emerge from
the values of the above-mentioned international treaties and the legislation. Ethics
guide the ECE staff in practices, attitudes, and responsibilities. Among other topics,
the ethical principles state that teaching staff must meet their children, parents, and
their colleague in an individual, equal and respectful manner (Kindergarten Teachers
Association, 2020).
Oser and Baeriswyl (2001) have structured the teacher’s ethical competencies as
justice, truthfulness, and capability. These ethical competencies are intertwined
with professionalism, professional ethics, and commitment to work. Atjonen (2009),
in turn, has pointed out aptly that “pedagogical ethics and ethically sustainable ped-
agogy” are also needed.
18.4.6 Cultural Perceptions
Many cultural concepts are the starting point for ECE pedagogy. The most impor-
tant cultural concepts that guide pedagogical practices are the concepts of people,
education, children, and information. The concept of education consists of a con-
cept of people and learning that influences the way teaching staff understands, acts
and speaks in their pedagogical work (Siljander, 2014).
The conception of ECE in Finland can be regarded as holistic and humanistic,
whereby the child is seen as a holistic and inherently dignified physical, mental, and
social being. The concept of learning in Finnish society is socio-constructivist and
emphasizes a child’s activity and interactivity. In relation to child participation,
learning is addressed through socio-cultural learning theory (see Kumpulainen, 2018).
18.4.7 Scientific Approaches
The practical implementation of ECE also reflects a changing perception of the

child and childhood. Since the 1980s, along with the developmental psychological
interest in information about childhood, there has also been a rise in social science-
oriented childhood research that seeks to understand childhood as part of an era and
culture. In part, this change has been the result of the institutionalization of child-
hood and the rebuilding of intergenerational relationships (Corsaro, 2011). Children
266 K. Alila et al.
are seen as actors defined by their generational status as part of social life (Kangas
et al., 2020). Theoretical backgrounds of pedagogical activities in ECE include
knowledge of parenting theories, in-depth knowledge of the child, child group
dynamics, child growth, development, and learning (Alila & Ukkonen-
Mikkola, 2018).
18.4.8 Functional Part
The functional part is explained and formed through the practices of education: top-
ics and activities are selected and implemented to achieve the goals set for peda-
gogy. Researchers attempt to determine how teachers’ awareness and methodical
understanding are present in their choices. Finally, they wish to discover how these
activities are aimed at the goals set for ECE.
The functional part of the ECE process is the most visible and extensive compo-
nent of ECE. Teaching and educational practices are mainly visible through opera-
tional culture, implementation of practices and learning environments, interaction
and co-operation, and the development of the quality of education.
18.4.9 The Operational Culture
An operational culture in ECE is a historically and culturally structured way of

organizing education. The operational culture exists and develops though the inter-
action of the members of community: staff, children, and parents. The operational
culture of ECE consists of learning environments and working methods, organiza-
tion, planning, implementation and evaluation of work and leadership structures and
practices (Alila & Ukkonen-Mikkola, 2018; Finnish National Agency for Education,
2018). Play is considered important in everyday learning and interaction, and chil-
dren are seen as capable actors (Kangas et al., 2020).
18.4.10 Learning Environment
The learning environment consists of physical, psychological, and social aspects

(Finnish National Agency for Education, 2018) that are combined in a pedagogical
environment through a pedagogical examination of these three environmental enti-
ties. The development of the environment is linked to the aims of the ECE and learn-
ing activities. The involvement of children is important in building and developing
learning environments (Fonsén et al., 2014). The pedagogical environment of ECE
refers to educational foundations and solutions in planning, implementation and
development of activities and environments (Kumpulainen, 2018). Its formation
requires a pedagogical work orientation of the staff in solutions related to the child’s
daily life, interaction, and environment. The learning environment in Finnish ECE
is defined to be child-friendly, safe, healthy, and accessible (Act 540/2018).
18.4.11 The Practices
The pedagogical practices of ECE are implemented through the interaction and
shared actions between staff and children. Pedagogical activities are based on chil-
dren’s interests, their needs for individual support, learning areas and transversal
competencies from the curriculum. The pedagogical methods are versatile, and the
systematic evaluation and development of activities are essential elements in the
implementation of new learning activities (Alila & Ukkonen-Mikkola, 2018).
The starting point for planning of learning activities is the curriculum (Finnish
National Agency for Education, 2018). Based on the curriculum, municipalities
make policies and strategies for education, and develop a local ECE plan. Together
with parents, an individual education plan is made for each child. Children and
parents are involved in the planning of activities, and the activities are planned
based on the children’s needs (Harju-Luukkainen & Kangas, 2020).
Observation by the staff is considered a method of systematically producing and
collecting information. Observation should be goal oriented, systematic, and care-
fully documented. When planning the educational process, teachers consider cur-
riculum, children’s initiatives and personalities, learning environments, cooperation,
and many other factors. This approach is called a pedagogical observation approach,
and requires awareness of the goals, context and the promotion of the child’s learn-
ing. (Fonsén et al., 2014). The children’s participation in pedagogical planning sup-
ports the children’s self-concepts, sense of responsibility and agency
(Rintakorpi, 2016).
18.4.12 Interaction and Co-operation
Interaction exists among three actors: children, staff, and parents in the process of
ECE. Interaction and cooperation among professionals working in ECE are the
basis for the process. ECE staff come from different educational backgrounds and
form a multi-professional community (Kangas & Ukkonen-Mikkola, 2019; Karila,
2012); they build a learning community for learning from each other and develop
community action (Kinos, 2008). Interaction between staff and children can be
viewed as the central relationship in ECE. This pedagogical relationship considers
a child’s individual features, and the requirements of group activities.
(Brownlee, 2009).
Furthermore, children and parents are legitimate actors in interaction. The con-
clusions parents and the staff make and share with each other form the basis for a
268 K. Alila et al.
perception of the child’s overall well-being and development (Purola et al., 2021).
The aim of parental-staff interaction is to develop commitment, trust, and equality
to promote the child’s learning and wellbeing (Finnish National Agency for
Education, 2018). Children also learn different skills and views from each other, and
thus become members of the community. Peer group opens opportunities for peer
learning emerging through play and playful interaction (Siraj-Blatchford, 2008).
18.4.13 Documentation and Evaluation
Documentation can be considered as recording of any actual ECE event in details.

Pedagogical documentation refers to the process of recording ethical perspectives,
pedagogy, as well as constructing an understanding of a child’s skills or working
methods. Through documentation, education becomes more open, and child-
centered activities and participation are strengthened (Rintakorpi, 2016).
Pedagogical documentation is currently a prerequisite for quality ECE in Finland.
Evaluation is always combined with the concept of quality (Alila, 2013). The
guidelines for evaluating the quality of ECE are set by FINEEC (see Vlasov et al.,
2018). The main factors of quality in Finnish ECE are structural and process factors.
Structural factors are related to ECE organization at three different levels: national,
local, and pedagogical. Pedagogical factors of quality are the functions of ECE with
a link to the child’s experiences. An understanding of the quality of ECE determines
the evaluation of activities and goals (Alila, 2013).
Versatile and multi-faceted evaluation of activities is a prerequisite for pedagogi-
cal quality. The evaluation of activities is completed through analyses and reassess-
ment and attempts to create new perspectives (Ojanen, 2006). Evaluation enables
the planning of pedagogical activities, supports collaboration with parents, and the
continuation of the child’s learning, and provides information on development
needs (Fonsén et al., 2014). Evaluating the effectiveness of pedagogical activity in
advance, during and after the activity is crucial.
18.4.14 Process Outcomes
The Pedagogical Process of ECE is completed by its intended or unexpected out-

comes. The challenge for the process and the pedagogy is that the results are not
always predictable or unambiguously and immediately verifiable. The process does
not actually end but is ongoing. Therefore, the process should be regularly reviewed
based on the accomplished actions. The significant changes and other components
should be evaluated to understand how they will affect the future implementation of
the process.
To get a comprehensive view of the Pedagogical Process, the outcomes must be
considered in relation to the content and objectives of ECE as defined in the Act
(540/2018, § 3) and the Early Childhood Education Curriculum. In addition, the

result should be viewed in relation to the objectives set locally. If the development
and learning of the child, as well as the well-being, involvement and active partici-
pation have been promoted in the direction of goals, a pedagogical process can be
considered successful, and the achieved result has also been desired. Another impor-
tant outcome is that the children also seem to feel well, gain rich experiences in
different areas of learning, and enjoy their learning.
18.5 Discussion
In recent years, with the reform of the Early Childhood Education Act (540/2018),
the core curriculum and local and child personalized education plans have become
mandatory to complete and follow in practices (Finnish National Agency for
Education, 2018). This has significantly strengthened the role and status of peda-
gogy in ECE in Finland. Simultaneously, both national and international research
into ECE has increased significantly in the recent decade. The role of ECE as a
scientific discipline has been strengthened since the 1990s, although the roots of
academia can be traced back to the 1970s (Husa & Kinos, 2005). Increasing knowl-
edge and research on education also challenges the practitioners and politicians to
critical reflection and evaluation of knowledge. Thus, the understanding of the role
of ECE has been changing in recent decades The Pedagogical Process, which in this
chapter is described to be multidimensional, is not only about pedagogy, but also
related to an understanding of political, scientific and professional operational prac-
tices and national policies surrounding the pedagogy. The multidimensional nature
of the Pedagogical Process in ECE is explained and defined through policies, per-
sonnel, practices, and process outcomes in this chapter. The Pedagogical Process of
ECE has been shaped historically, culturally, and socially through practices, poli-
cies, and scientific understanding.
The prerequisite for the success of the Pedagogical Process is the conscious and
systematic actions of an individual teacher, and more generally of the staff. The staff
of ECE should have a professional work orientation and expertise on the substance
of ECE, as well as a comprehensive understanding of the Pedagogical Process
(Alila & Ukkonen-Mikkola, 2018). Following the ideas from McLachlan et al.
(2013) it is important to focus on reflective development and ask defining questions
from the Pedagogical Process: What do we want this process to achieve, what would
we expect to be the outcomes for children, or outcomes as a result of participating
in the implementation of it? (see also Kangas & Ukkonen-Mikkola, 2019). It is not
enough that teachers focus on teaching, but they must also understand the larger
picture and opportunities and responsibilities towards each individual child and
family, as well as towards the system. This perspective is essential to future ECE
success.
In ECE, the role of the staff and the influences of policymakers can be seen as
complex, multi-faceted and ever-changing which on the other hand i based on
270 K. Alila et al.
traditions and details of the guiding documents. The interactions of the staff and
families represent these beliefs and understandings of the roles of different actors in
the process (Siraj-Blatchford, 2008). Forms of interaction between staff and chil-
dren, parent-professional interaction, interaction between children and profession-
als working in an educational institution are all central to the Pedagogical Process
and influence each other constantly (Harju-Luukkainen & Kangas, 2020).
Operational practices arise from the operating culture; pedagogical operating
practices arise from the pedagogical operating culture. The more aware, thoughtful,
reasoned and commonly agreed upon practices are, the more consistent the opera-
tional culture will be an important element of ECE. The continuous evaluation and
development and development of operational culture and practices is important.
Operational culture and practices are dynamic and time- and context-dependent.
Professionally grounded pedagogical policies and practices are based on the ECE
policy, other policies, theory and knowledge base, values, and principles (see
Johansson et al., 2018; Finnish National Agency for Education, 2018).
The Pedagogical Process refers to the understanding of the ECE through system-
atic and goal-oriented aspects. As a process the ECE is a developing system, in
which all the aspects of the process are evaluated through the same goals and prin-
ciples (Alila, 2013). However, it is not just a process of reviewing the outcome at the
end of the process, but also evaluating the pedagogical function must be continuous
and systematic throughout the process (see Kumpulainen, 2018). If the pedagogical
activity produces the intended result and effects, the process can be linked to its
original purpose and driving force (Alila & Ukkonen-Mikkola, 2018). Of course,
the process may also have unexpected results that have not been predicted as effects.
These results also need to be evaluated in relation to the objectives and interrelated
practices that have been set.
Finally, based on the results and discussion we propose a definition for the
Pedagogical Process of ECE:
The Pedagogical Process of ECE is a chain of events based on aims and planning (see
Fig. 18.1). The goal of the process is to support the child's learning, development, and well-
being. It is implemented by professional actors through interaction with other stakeholders.
The Pedagogical Process consists of interrelated sub-entities, that are the Driving force, the
Starting point, the Functional part, and the Process outcomes. The process can be defined
as sine qua non, the understanding of the process is a prerequisite and essential to the core
of high-quality ECE.
18.6 Recommendations
After defining the Pedagogical Process of ECE, it is essential to explore a practical

level of understanding for the actors: To administration, to education and training,
and to the staff of ECE.
A common approach for all stakeholders of ECE is the identification of values,
principles, and goals. It is possible to maintain and develop the debate of the
Fig. 18.1 Pedagogical process of early childhood education
meaning of ECE through effective and up-to-date legislation and steering docu-
ments. It is essential that these documents are constructed based on scientific
research and the understanding of the Pedagogical Process. Finally, ECE adminis-
trators should be provided enough knowledge and methods for training the staff, as
well as competence for leading staff development.
Already during the education and training of different professional groups in
ECE, it is necessary to look at the planning, implementation, and evaluation of the
Pedagogical Process from both theoretical and practical points of view. The training
must be based on an education science, ECE, and multidisciplinary approaches. The
staff needs to understand the substances, be aware of the structure of the process, be
competent of teamwork and understand their role within it. Thus, effective educa-
tion and in-service-training for staff is needed. Through the in-service-training, new
regulations and understandings about the dynamic pedagogical process can be
implemented in practice.
Through the understanding and definition of the Pedagogical Process, it is pos-
sible to structure the practical work of ECE as well as share the expertise and tasks
of professional groups at different phases of the process. The Pedagogical Process
of ECE gives tools to staff to focus on the central pieces of the process and supports
staff involvement. Thus, professional groups can identify their role and contribution
as an important part of the process. Outlining of the Pedagogical Process of ECE
also contributes to the quality of management and development of education. The
272 K. Alila et al.
management of pedagogy is defined to be the management of the overall pedagogi-

cal process as defined above.
The reforms of the national guidance documents and the new research data point
to the pedagogy of future ECE and the totality of the Pedagogical Process. Atjonen
(2009) has stated when considering future pedagogy that a committed, reliable, and
well-educated staff needs pedagogical guidance. The good pedagogy of the future
emphasizes the pedagogy of caring, dwelling, tolerating and should include quali-
ties of variability, discernment, and curiosity. These combine into larger factors: a
pedagogy of care, justice, and truthfulness.
It will be interesting to see where early childhood pedagogy develops in the com-
ing years. Finally, it is easy to agree with Atjonen’s (2009) statement that “pedagogy
is in and hot - now and especially in the future.”
References
Act on Equality between Women and Men (609/1986).

Act on the Openness of Government Activities (621/1999).
Administrative Procedure Act (434/2003).
Alila, K. (2013). Laadun ohjaus ja ohjauksen laatu. Laatupuhe varhaiskasvatuksen valtionhallin-
non ohjausasiakirjoissa 1972–2012. Doctoral dissertation. Tampere University Press.
Alila, K., & Ukkonen-Mikkola, T. (2018). Varhaiskasvatuksen pedagogiikka – Meta-analyysista
teoreettiseen käsitteen määrittelyyn [From the meta-analysis to the definition of the early child-
hood education pedagogy]. Kasvatus, 49(1), 75–81.
Atjonen, P. (2009). Tulevaisuuden pedagogiikka. Kuuminta HOTtia etsimässä? Perusopetus
2020-seminaari. Helsinki 16.9.2009. (Retrieved 7.6.2018).
Brownlee, J. (2009). Context, pedagogy and participatory learning. In D. Berthelsen, J. Brownlee,
& E. Johansson (Eds.), Participatory learning in the early years: Research and pedagogy
(pp. 203–208). Routledge.
Early Childhood Education Act (540/2018).
Finnish National Agency for Education. (2018). National core curriculum for early childhood
education and care. Finnish National Agency for Education.
Fonsén, E. (2014). Pedagoginen johtajuus varhaiskasvatuksessa [Pedagogical leadership in early
childhood education]. Doctoral dissertation. Tampere University Press.
Fonsén, E., & Ukkonen-Mikkola, T. (2019). Early childhood education teachers’ professional
development towards pedagogical leadership. Educational Research, 62(2), 181–196.
Fonsén, E., Heikka, J., & Elo, J. (2014). Osallisuutta edistävän suunnittelun tasot. [The lev-
els of planning in participatory pedagogy] In J. Heikka, E. Fonsén, J. Elo & J. Leinonen
(eds.), Osallisuuden pedagogiikka varhaiskasvatuksessa [Participatory pedagogy in ECE]
(pp. 80–95). Kopio-Niini.
Government Decree on ECE (753/2018).
Harju-Luukkainen, H., & Kangas, J. (2020). The role of early childhood teachers in Finnish policy
documents - training teachers for the future. In S. Garvis & W. Goff (Eds.), International per-
spectives on early childhood teacher education in the 21st century. Springer Nature.
Härkönen, U. (2006). Varhaiskasvatuksen yliopisto-opettajat pohtimassa pedagogista prosessia.
University of Joensuu.
Heikka, J., & Waniganayake, M. (2011). Pedagogical leadership from a distributed perspec-
tive within the context of early childhood education. International Journal of Leadership in
Education, 14(4), 499–512.
Helenius, A., & Korhonen, R. (2008) Pedagogiikan palikat. [Blocks of pedagogy] WSOY.
Husa, S., & Kinos, J. (2005). Academisation of early childhood education. Scandinavian Journal
of Educational Research, 49(2), 133–151.
Johansson, E., Emilsson, A., & Puroila, A.-M. (Eds.). (2018). Values education in early childhood
settings. Concepts, approaches and practices (International perspectives on early childhood
education and development 23). Springer International Publishing.
Kangas, J., & Ukkonen-Mikkola, T. (2019). Multi-voiced development in Finnish early childhood
education practices. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research,
18(11), 1–17.
Kangas, J., Harju-Luukkainen, H., Brotherus, A., Gearon, L., & Kuusisto, A. (2020). Outlining
play and playful learning in Finland and Brazil. A content analysis of early childhood educa-
tion policy documents. Contemporary issues in early childhood.
Journal of Education: Research, Development and Policy, 47(4), 584–595.
Karjalainen, A. (2006). Koulutusorganisaation prosessit. Institution of Teacher Education
Development. University of Oulu.
Kindergarten Teachers Association. (2020). The professional ethics of ECE teachers.
Kinos, J. (2008). Professionalism – a breeding ground for struggle. Finnish day care centre as an
example. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 16(2), 224–241.
Luukkonen, I., Mykkänen, J., Itälä, T., Savolainen, S., & Tamminen, M. (2012). Toiminnan ja pros-
essien mallintaminen – Tasot, näkökulmat ja esimerkit. Itä-Suomen yliopisto ja Aalto-yliopisto.
McLachlan, C., Fleer, M., & Edwards, S. (2013). Early childhood curriculum: Planning, assess-
ment and implementation. Cambridge University Press.
Non-discrimination Act (1325/2014).
Ojanen, S. (2006). Ohjauksesta oivallukseen. Ohjausteorian käsittelyä. Yliopistopaino.
Oser, F. K., & Baeriswyl, F. J. (2001). Choreographies of teaching: Bridging instruction to learn-
ing. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook on research on teaching (pp. 1031–1065). American
Educational Research Association.
Peters, R. S. (1967). What is an educational process? In R. S. Peters (Ed.), The concept of educa-
tion (pp. 1–23). Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Punch, K. F., & Oancea, A. (2014). Introduction to research methods in education. Sage
Publications.
Purola, K., Harju-Luukkainen, H., & Kangas, J. (2021). Parental perspective in the Finnish
early childhood education context. In S. Garvis, S. Phillipson, H. Harju-Luukkainen &
A.R. Sadownik (Eds.), Parental engagement and early childhood education around the world
(pp. 90–98). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367823917-8
Rintakorpi, K. (2016). Documenting with early childhood education teachers: Pedagogical docu-
mentation as a tool for developing early childhood pedagogy and practices. Early Years, 36(4),
399–412.
Siljander, P. (2014). Systemaattinen johdatus kasvatustieteeseen. Peruskäsitteet ja suuntaukset.
Vastapaino.
Siraj-Blatchford, I. (2008). Understanding the relationship between curriculum, pedagogy and
progression in learning in early childhood. Hong Kong Journal of Early Childhood, 7(2), 6–13.
Stipek, D. J., & Byler, P. (1997). Early childhood education teachers: Do they practice what they
preach? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12(4), 305–325.
The Constitution of Finland (739/1999).
274 K. Alila et al.
Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human
Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356–367.
UNICEF (1989). United Nation convention of the rights of the child.
Vlasov, J., Salminen, J., Repo, L., Karila, K., Kinnunen, S., Mattila, V., Nukarinen, T., Parrila, S.,
& Sulonen, H. (2018). Guidelines and recommendations for evaluating the quality of early
childhood education and care. Finnish Education Evaluation Centre.
Wee, B. V., & Banister, D. (2016). How to write a literature review paper? Transport Reviews,
36(2), 278–288.
Chapter 19
Conclusion and Orientation to the Future
Jonna Kangas , Heidi Harju-Luukkainen, and Susanne Garvis
Abstract In this chapter we discuss the conclusion of this book as well as take an
orientation towards the future of ECEC. The authors of this book have raised critical
questions to policymakers and practitioners of ECE both in Finland and globally.
Each chapter’s implications and recommendations show a critical understanding
and holistic conceptualization of early education: In Finnish ECE different aspects,
such as teacher education, curriculum, classroom practices, parental co-operation
and services for families, evaluation and assessment, educational policies or leader-
ship are not seen as individual elements, but rather as a complex and multi-
dimensional phenomenon where certain values and perspectives always needs to be
considered. Co-operation on the field of ECE aims to create a deeper understanding
about the existing processes of ECE, and further on to construct an understanding
about the aims and goals of early childhood education is required to develop both
the policies and practices in the future and for the future.
19.1 Introduction
There is a large body of literature pointing out to the benefits of early education for
the individual as well as for the society. According to Harju-Luukkainen, Stang and
McElvany (2020) and Harju-Luukkainen et al. (2019) education can effectively level
the playing field and improve the quality of life as well as increase opportunities for
J. Kangas (*)
e-mail: jonna.kangas@helsinki.fi
H. Harju-Luukkainen
S. Garvis
Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia

Switzerland AG 2022
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95512-0_19
276 J. Kangas et al.
individuals in a long-term perspective. Therefore, how early education and care is

organised and implemented is important. This book highlighted through its 19 chap-
ters different policies and practices in Finland on the field of early childhood educa-
tion from a multi-theoretical perspective. It also highlights empirical evidence about
these. The early childhood teacher training lies on a multi-theoretical foundation in
Finland, where each teacher must find their own theoretical approach to teaching:
Teachers organize their everyday interaction, teaching, and care actions based on
wide understanding of the development, learning, agency, and wellbeing of children.
Therefore, the research on the field of ECEC in Finland is also multi-theoretically
focused, approaching the different research topics from multiple perspectives.
When it comes to research connected to policies and practices on the field of
early childhood education in a multi-theoretical framework, there are several simi-
larities to be found between the chapters of this book thus multiple theoretical
focuses. One way of measuring these is the repetitiveness of words used across the
chapters. Figure 19.1. Indicate the most used words across the chapters of this book.
The size of the word in the figure indicates its frequency in this book. What this
figure clearly highlights is that the topic of discussion across Finnish policy and
practice related research in early childhood are connected to words like education,
children, learning, teachers, curriculum, research, study, Sámi, activities, process
and to the staff among many others.
Something that these words do not describe is the future perspective, those devel-
opmental objects, that each of the chapters highlighted. The future of early child-
hood education is strongly focusing on the holistic approach of lifelong learning
from toddlerhood to higher education and beyond. The trend of life-long learning
views citizens as learning and transforming individuals that take responsibility for
Fig. 19.1 Word cloud indicating the mostly used words across the chapters of this book
19 Conclusion and Orientation to the Future 277
their personal learning and life from a young age onwards (Harju-Luukkainen &
Kangas, 2021). Despite this, the value of early childhood education is presented for
the children and their parents as something that is only “here and now”. In Finnish
ECE the child is seen as an active member and each individual child has the right to
participate and belong in the education through their personal interests and capaci-
ties. This dualistic approach to education is one of the core elements of Finnish
early childhood education policies and practices. Therefore, we need to keep all the
possible “futures” open for the children and enable children’s participation and
agency in education every day, since we do not know what the future holds for them.
(see Kangas et al., 2019).
The authors of this book have raised critical questions to policymakers and prac-
titioners of ECE both in Finland and globally. Each chapter’s implications and rec-
ommendations show a critical understanding and holistic conceptualization of early
education: In Finnish ECE different aspects, such as teacher education, curriculum,
classroom practices, parental co-operation and services for families, evaluation and
assessment, educational policies or leadership are not seen as individual elements,
but rather as a complex and multi-dimensional phenomenon where certain values
and perspectives always needs to considered.
As a summary, this book draws an image of the Finnish ECE with three main
elements. These are children, practitioners and premises for organising a good qual-
ity early childhood education and care as following:
• Children. They are the most important members and stakeholders of education.
Children’s wellbeing, holistic development, and their role in society as citizens
from early years are the main principles of Finnish ECE.
• Practitioners. There cannot be early education without highly educated profes-
sionals of education. Teachers, leaders, and other members of the staff form the
core of the process where education transforms from policy documents to every-
day practices through multi-professional and dynamic co-operation. Finnish
practitioners are critical thinkers and receive a research based high-quality
education.
• Premises. Education, even when aiming towards the future, relies on space and
place, and more generally on the political premises. In Finland, the ECE is aim-
ing towards higher quality through national evaluation standards and indicators.
ECE in Finland reflects the discourses and values of the politics, research, ethics,
and conceptions of child, childhood, and education in general. For instance,
when Finland is said to be a good country for children, these premises are always
changing and to be re-negotiated in the discourse. The premises are not everlast-
ing and that is why researchers, teachers, and political actors should bring their
conceptions about the quality and overall values of ECE to the public discussion.
The implications shown in this book focus on the future of ECE and towards a more
responsible and diverse educational community and beyond. It focuses towards a
society where decisions are made for children’s wellbeing and learning. Education
in early childhood should, according to the authors of Chaps. 4, 8, and 12, promote
holistic, phenomenon-based learning practices that utilize collaborative, creative,
and playful practices to highlight children’s agency and participation. From a more
critical point of view, it is not enough to offer children and families opportunities to
participate, but children’s individual needs and different learning strategies should
be scaffolded through high-quality and critical pedagogical practices and political
decision making suggest authors in Chaps. 3, 9, and 11. Pedagogical actions of
teachers and ECE personnel in Finland are strongly based on the national curricu-
lum guidelines (FNAE, 2018) as authors of Chap. 15 suggest. However teachers
should not only consider curriculum as a basis of their teaching and implementation
of pedagogy. They should consider more transversal goals as their principle or even
as values on which they base their pedagogical decision-making and professional
choices in ECE work. In this work teachers need leadership skills and support from
the local and national leaders of ECE, as the Chap. 16 suggests, in order to enhance
the quality of ECE further. This discourse about identification of values, principles,
and goals of ECE is essential to be shared with all stakeholders of ECE. These val-
ues and principles are considered through critical perspectives in Chaps. 3,
10, and 18.
Further on when following the implication recommendations of the authors, the
role and quality of the teacher education should be considered in the critical dis-
course of quality of ECE. Teacher education policies and practices together with a
strong scientific foundation is the basis of development of ECE in the future. As
authors of Chaps. 2, 5, 6, and 7 suggest the teacher education should not be an unat-
tached system of the ECE processes but following closely - and even leading - the
development of the ECE in political and practical fields. Finnish teacher education
for ECE is based on a multi-disciplinary, multi-theoretical and critical approach,
where the theory and practice form a holistic compound of teaching and learning in
different contexts of ECE. Further, teacher training students are the future driving
force of education and they will during their career influence thousands of chil-
dren’s everyday life and even years and decades after their teacher training. That is
why the role of science based and critical teacher education is one essential founda-
tion of the Finnish ECE and will have an important role, also in the future.
However not teacher education nor the ECE process are immune to the changes
in society locally and globally. As authors of Chaps. 13, 14 and 17 suggest, educa-
tion should be seen as part of the bigger picture and it could offer solutions to the
global challenges through sustainable education and diversity discourses. When
framing the understanding about ECE through learning approach, conceptions of
childhood, as well through political conceptions and understanding of learning, we
are viewing education through modalities of learning, humanism and social contexts.
The political orientation to develop the educational systems towards perfection is
strong in Finland and different stakeholders aim to control this development through
guiding documents. One of the latest, by the Ministry of Education and Culture,
brings forward the aspect of visions for the future (Jokinen & Nieminen, 2019).
Future visions can be used to contextualize and form coherent entities and intercon-
nections about the ideas of the future with different forces, trends, and signals that
are driving the change. The aim of this vision work is to understand through the
future values they present – and the present values they critically review – to create
new values for innovative and entrepreneurial development (OECD, 2018), or in a
19 Conclusion and Orientation to the Future 279
more general sense, by taking the understanding and responsible actions to addresses
global challenges, such as exclusion, resource scarcity, and climate change (see
Bentley, 2017). Future education in the early years requires a vision of sustainability
and resilience through the multi-voiced discussion about social and cultural values
together with economical viewpoints (Rychen, 2016). For the future Finnish ECE
new knowledge, understanding, insights, ideas, techniques, strategies, and solutions
are required to solve problems both old and new. In the future, education can only
remain up to date with strong efforts to find knowledge and create practices that
make it easier to understand a changing, sometimes chaotic world. More general
visions for the future should be open and multi-voiced to be shared with the larger
audience and not discriminating (Lamminmäki-Vartia et al., 2020). Making sustain-
able solutions is based on values, the structuring of which requires a broad, imagi-
native, and dynamic understanding of knowledge based on different perspectives.
In each country the Early Childhood Education processes as well as curriculums
are emphasising the quality of ECE as well as focusing on the best possible future
for the children. The Finnish ECE does this through the holistic approach of learn-
ing as an adaptation process to culture and society. However, in an educational
system that acknowledges the importance of education in the child’s holistic learn-
ing, well-being and development, the actual operations and pedagogy can be based
on factors that restrict opportunities for learning and wellbeing (Kangas et al.,
2020). When early education practices and policies remain not clearly defined and
the development of practices is not based on research-based decision-making, this
leads to differences in the interpretations on the operational level (see Harju-
Luukkainen et al., 2019). As we claimed before early childhood education has
multi-dimensional and dynamic descriptions located in different context and cul-
ture. However no single country can develop its educational policies and practices
alone: Co-operation that aims to create a deeper understanding about the existing
processes of ECE, and further on to construct an understanding about the aims and
goals of early childhood education is required to develop both the policies and prac-
tices in the future and for the future.
References
Bentley, T. (2017). Brief comments on ‘creating new value’ and ‘taking responsibility’ section
of education 2030 - Conceptual learning framework: Background papers, OECD, http://
www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/contact/Conceptual_learning_framework_Conceptual_
papers.pdf.
Harju-Luukkainen, H., & Kangas, J. (2021). The role of early childhood teachers in Finnish policy
documents: Training teachers for the future? In W. Boyd & S. Garvis (Eds.), International per-
spectives on early childhood teacher education in the 21st century (pp. 65–80). Springer Nature.
Harju-Luukkainen, H., Stang, J., & McElvany, N. (2020). Introduction to monitoring student
achievement in the twenty-first century. In In monitoring student achievement in the 21st cen-
tury (pp. 1–6). Springer.
Harju-Luukkainen, H., Garvis, S., & Kangas, J. (2019). After lunch we offer quiet time and medi-
tation: Early learning environments in Australia and Finland through the lenses of educators.
In S. Faas, D. Kasüschke, E. Nitecki, M. Urban, & H. Wasmuth (Eds.), Globalization, trans-
formation, and cultures in early childhood education and care: Reconceptualization and com-
parison (pp. 203–219). Palgrave Macmillan.
Kangas, J., Harju-Luukkainen, H., Brotherus, A., Gearon, L., & Kuusisto, A. (2020). Outlining
play and playful learning in Finland and Brazil: A Content Analysis of Early Childhood
Education Policy Documents. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1463949120966104
learn in Finland. In S. Garvis & S. Philipson (Eds.), Early childhood education in the 21st
century. Policification of early childhood education and care (Vol. 3, pp. 110–127). Routledge.
Lamminmäki-Vartia, S., Poulter, S., & Kuusisto, A. (2020). The learning trajectory of emerging
professionalism: A Finnish student teacher negotiating world-view education and early child-
hood education and care superdiversity. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood.
Jokinen, A., & Nieminen, A. (2019). Visions for early childhood education and care 2040. Report
on the foresight. Process by advisory board on early childhood education and care. Publications
of the Ministry of Education and Culture, Finland 2019:30.
OECD (2018), The future of education and skills: Education 2030. Position paper, https://www.
oecd.org/education/2030/E2030%20Position%20Paper%20(05.04.2018).pdf.
Rychen, D. (2016). Education Conceptual framework 2030: Key Competencies for 2030
(DeSeCo 2.0), OECD, http://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/about/documents/E2030-
CONCEPTUAL-FRAMEWORK-KEY-COMPETENCIES-FOR-2030.pdf.
Correction to: Pedagogical Leadership
in Early Childhood Education
Teachers’ Work
Correction to:
Chapter 2 in: H. Harju-Luukkainen et al. (eds.),
Finnish Early Childhood Education and Care, Early Childhood
Research and Education: An Inter-theoretical Focus 1,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95512-0_2
The original version of this chapter was incorrectly published with the title
“A Contemporary Dialogue of Finnish Early Childhood Education and Care”.
The title has been now updated as follows “Pedagogical Leadership in Early
Childhood Education Teachers’ Work”.
The updated version of this chapter can be found at

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95512-0_2
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature C1

Switzerland AG 2022
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95512-0_20

Finnish Early Childhood Education and Care: Heidi Harju-Luukkainen Jonna Kangas Susanne Garvis Editors

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Finnish Early Childhood Education and Care: Heidi Harju-Luukkainen Jonna Kangas Susanne Garvis Editors

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Early Childhood Research and Education:

Finnish Early Childhood

Early Childhood Research and Education: An Inter-theoretical Focus

Part I Multi-theoretical Teacher Training and Professional Approach

Part II Children and Families in ECEC

Part III Towards Finnish Pedagogy

17  Quilt of Practices: Sustainability Education in Finnish

Rauni Äärelä-Vihriälä is an associate professor at Sámi Allaskuvla, Norway. She

Ann-Christin Furu is currently affiliated with the Åbo Akademi University in

Susanne Garvis is Professor of Education and the chair of the Department of

Heidi Harju-Luukkainen Professor (Univeristy of Jyväskylä, Tampere

Johanna Heikka PhD, works as a university lecturer in the School of Applied

Jaakko Hilppö is a university lecturer in the Faculty of Educational Sciences at the

Sanni Kahila is a doctoral candidate and a project researcher in the School of

Sonja Čotar Konrad PhD, is Associate Professor in Psychology in the Faculty of

Emma Kurenlahti is a doctoral student in the Faculty of Educational Sciences at

Arniika Kuusisto is Professor of Child and Youth Studies, especially Early

Silja Lamminmäki-Vartia (Master of Theology, Bachelor of Education, Early

Anna-Leena Lastikka is a licentiate in education from the University of Helsinki

Lasse Lipponen is Professor of Education, with special reference to early child-

Marina Lundkvist holds a PhD in education, a teacher qualification, and qualifica-

Pekka Mertala is Assistant Professor of Multiliteracies and Digital Literacies in

Henri Pesonen is a researcher in the Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of

Saila Poulter (PhD, Adjunct Professor) works as a university lecturer in religious

Anna Pauliina Rainio is a senior lecturer at the Faculty of Educational Sciences,

Antti Rajala is Academy of Finland postdoctoral researcher in the Faculty of

Jyrki Reunamo PhD, is a principal investigator, docent, and university lecturer at

Inkeri Ruokonen Professor of Early Childhood Education, works as a vice dean in

Sonja Rutar PhD, is an associate professor at the University of Primorska, Faculty

Mari Saha is Assistant Professor of Early Childhood Education in the Faculty of

Heidi Sairanen is a university teacher and a researcher at the University of Helsinki,

Sara Sintonen works at the University of Helsinki, Faculty of Education Sciences,

Tina Štemberger PhD, is an associate professor in the field of educational research

Katja Suhonen MEd, works as a project researcher at the University of Eastern

Tuija Turunen holds is dean of the Faculty of Education, University of Lapland,

Tuulikki Ukkonen-Mikkola works as a lecturer in the Faculty of Education and

qualifications of pre-school and ECEC teacher professions. Her research interests

Heidi Harju-Luukkainen, Jonna Kangas , and Susanne Garvis

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 1

1.2  innish ECE Is Based on International and National

1.3 High Quality as the Basis of Finnish ECEC Practices

• At the level of pedagogical activities, an ECEC teacher is responsible for class-

1.4 Description of the Content of this Book

1.5  art I: Multi-theoretical Teacher Training

promote the implementation of pedagogical leadership as well as support the prepa-

1.6 Part II: Children and Families around ECEC

and interests need to be considered. However, children’s potential to affect decision-­

1.7 Part III: Towards Finnish Pedagogy

approach to scaffold children into engaging in learning opportunities. Therefore,

practices. It critically examines the contemporary research issues and provides

Johanna Heikka, Katja Suhonen, and Sanni Kahila

Abstract In this chapter we investigate the pedagogical leadership of ECE teachers

J. Heikka (*) · K. Suhonen · S. Kahila

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 13

pedagogical leaders and professionals who are committed to the implementation of

2.2 Overview of Educational Policies

Early childhood education (ECE) policies have recently undergone significant

Qualitative shadowing and individual interviews were employed as methods to

2.3.2 Procedure of the Data Collection

2.3.3 Analysis of the Data

2.4.1 Social Responsibility for Pedagogically Focused Early

2.4.2 Leading Multi-professional Teams Towards

The enactment of responsibility for pedagogy, according to the teachers, required

Part I Multi-theoretical Teacher Training and Professional Approach

Part II Children and Families in ECEC

Part III Towards Finnish Pedagogy

17 Quilt of Practices: Sustainability Education in Finnish

1.2 innish ECE Is Based on International and National

1.3 High Quality as the Basis of Finnish ECEC Practices

1.4 Description of the Content of this Book

1.5 art I: Multi-theoretical Teacher Training

1.6 Part II: Children and Families around ECEC

and interests need to be considered. However, children’s potential to affect decision-

1.7 Part III: Towards Finnish Pedagogy

2.2 Overview of Educational Policies

2.3.2 Procedure of the Data Collection

2.3.3 Analysis of the Data

2.4.1 Social Responsibility for Pedagogically Focused Early

2.4.2 Leading Multi-professional Teams Towards

2.4.3 Varying Dispositions and Approaches for Teachers

2.4.4 Collegial Support for Pedagogical Leadership

2.5 Discussion and Implications

3.2 Compassion in ECEC Settings

3.3 Setting and Data

3.3.2 Data Collection

3.3.3 Data Analysis

3.4 hree Ways of Solving Challenges of Acting

4.1 ultiliteracies and the Finnish Core

4.2 Toward Multiliteracies and Widening Text Worlds

4.3 onceptual Framing of Multiliteracies and Young

4.4 romoting Multiliteracies Through Widening

4.4.1 eflecting Dynamic Multiliteracies Through Four

4.5 Discussion and Conclusions

4.6 ecommendations for Early Childhood

5.2 Aim of the Study

5.3 Conceptual Underpinnings of the Study

5.4 Methodological Framework

6.1 niversity-Level ECEC Teacher Education

6.2 Media Education as a Part of Professional ECEC

6.3 Research Design

6.3.1 Data Collection and Analysis

6.4 Findings and Discussion

6.4.1 Positions of ME and ICT in Curricula

6.4.2 Targeted Competencies in ME and ICT Courses

6.6 Implications for Teacher Education