Pedagogical Innovation for Children's Agency in the Classroom: Building Knowledge Together 303128500X, 9783031285004

Table of contents :
Acknowledgements
Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
Chapter 1: Introducing the Book
1.1 What Is the Book About?
1.2 The Ideas That Fed the Development of This Book
1.3 A Sure Start: Presenting Some Key Concepts for This Book
1.3.1 Self-Determination
1.3.2 Agency
1.3.3 Positioning
1.3.4 Pedagogy of Listening
1.3.5 Democratic Pedagogy and Dialogic Pedagogy
1.3.6 Project-Based Approach
1.4 Two Philosophies That Inspired a Journey of Pedagogical Innovation
References
Chapter 2: The Culture of a Project of Pedagogical Innovation
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Education for Young Children, Education with Young Children
2.3 Self-Determination: A Concept with a Long History, But Still Unsettled
2.4 Trying to Overcome the Conflict with Fresh Theorisations: A Psychological Approach to Self-Determination
2.5 Agency Becomes a Key Concept for the Sociological Study of Childhood
References
Chapter 3: What Is Facilitation?
3.1 Facilitation of Children’s Agency: What Does Facilitation Mean?
3.2 Voices of Children in Educational Encounters: A Critical Comparison Between Facilitation and Neo-Vygotskyian Methodologies
3.3 High Chairs, Low Chairs, Where Do Children and Adults Sit in Educational Encounters?
3.4 Does Children’s Agency Have a Place in Pedagogies?
3.5 Early Childhood Education: A Pedagogy of Listening Therefore a Dialogic Pedagogy. What Can Facilitation Do for It?
3.6 A Few Words on Narratives, Because Authoring Narratives Is Authoring Knowledge Is an Expression of Agency
References
Chapter 4: How We Can Say What We Say: The Methodology of Facilitation, the Methodology of Observing Facilitation
4.1 How We Designed Facilitative Workshops: The Project-Based Approach
4.2 ‘Seeing’ Self-Determination in Adult–Child Interactions: Methodological Observations
4.3 A Few How To? Notes on the Observation of Project-Based Approach Workshops
4.4 The Local Contexts Where Our Pedagogical Innovation Became Real
4.5 The Production of Data: On Video Recording
4.6 What About the Background? Critical Remarks on Expectations and Assumptions, Including a Methodological Point
4.7 What We Looked for When We Looked at Child–Adult Interactions
4.7.1 Facilitative Actions: Invitations to Talk
4.7.2 Facilitative Actions: Asking Questions to Promote Narratives
4.7.3 Facilitative Actions: Feedback to Support Children’s Authorship of Narratives
4.7.4 Facilitative Actions: Facilitator’s Personal Stories
4.8 Children’s Personal Initiatives
4.9 Ethical Essentials
References
Chapter 5: How Did It Go? Building Knowledge Together with the Help of Facilitative Actions
5.1 Introduction
5.2 How Facilitative Actions Can Upgrade Children’s Status as Authors of Knowledge
5.2.1 Promoting Narratives: Inviting Children to Talk
5.2.2 Asking Questions to Support Authorship of Narratives
5.2.3 Every Little Bit Helps: Actions of Feedback to Support Children as Authors of Knowledge Narratives
5.2.4 Making It Real: Facilitators’ Personal Stories
5.3 To Bring It Home: Insights on How Facilitative Actions Can Support Children’s Agency
5.3.1 Invitations to Talk
5.3.2 The Use of Questions
5.3.3 Actions of Feedback
5.3.4 Power That Needs Control: Facilitator’s Personal Stories
References
Chapter 6: Children’s Personal Initiatives and What They Mean for Facilitation
6.1 Constructing Knowledge Via Agentic Participation 1: Children as Coordinators of Interaction
6.2 Constructing Knowledge as Agentic Participation 2: When Personal Initiatives Disrupt Other Narratives
6.3 Insights on Children’s Personal Initiatives in Facilitation, for Facilitation, with a Few Words on Those Disrupting Instances of Agency
References
Chapter 7: Welcome to the Real World: A View on the Intricacies of Facilitation During Project-Based Approach Workshops (and Probably During All Sorts of Educational Practices)
7.1 Facilitation Is Complex Because Interacting with Others Is Complex
7.2 Intricate, But We Can Work It Out: Insights on the Interaction Between Facilitative Actions and Children’s Agency
References
Chapter 8: Trusting the Process: Pedagogical Innovation for Children’s Agency in the Classroom
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Facilitators Are Unique Too, and This Is Important for the Design of Project-Based Approach Workshops
8.3 We Got Praxis! A New Idea Emerging from Reflection on Practice: Facilitation as an Environment That Enables
8.4 Closing down the Book, Opening up Opportunities for Change: Outlining Possible Implications for Policy and Practice
8.5 Be Bolshie!
References
Appendix A: A Glossary
Appendix B: Ethical Procedures
Appendix C: Demographic Profile of Participating Schools
Index

Citation preview

Pedagogical Innovation for Children‘s Agency in the Classroom Building Knowledge Together

Federico Farini Angela Scollan

Pedagogical Innovation for Children’s Agency in the Classroom

Federico Farini • Angela Scollan

Pedagogical Innovation for Children’s Agency in the Classroom Building Knowledge Together

Federico Farini Centre for Psychological and Sociological Sciences University of Northampton Northampton, UK

Angela Scollan Centre for Education Research and Scholarship Middlesex University London, UK

ISBN 978-3-031-28500-4    ISBN 978-3-031-28501-1 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28501-1 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 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. Cover illustration: © Sergey Novikov / Alamy Stock Photo This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

To our parents and mentors Maura Mundici, Eugenio Farini, Marie and Frank Neville, Desmond and Elizabeth Scollan, Mary Lynskey, Anne Doyle, Enea Aveni, and To our grandparents, children, and families

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge Claudio Baraldi, Paul Gibbs, and Jane Murray, who have generously shared their insights, time, and expertise inspiring the journey of pedagogical innovation presented in this book. In the beginning of our own intellectual journeys, we greatly benefitted from the curiosity and joy of wondering about how children explore, learn, and express themselves from early childhood studies leaders such as Shirley Maxwell, Helen Tovey, Sue Greenfield, Sue Robson, Fengling Tang, and Peter Elfer. They lit flames that continue to burn, flicker, and light up spaces that belong to children. We would like to express our gratitude to all participating schools, their leadership, teaching and nonteaching personnel, and children and their guardians for their cooperation. Finally, we would like to thank all those able to listen, who consciously listen to consciously do.

vii

Contents

1 Introducing the Book  1 1.1 What Is the Book About?  1 1.2 The Ideas That Fed the Development of This Book  2 1.3 A Sure Start: Presenting Some Key Concepts for This Book  7 1.3.1 Self-Determination  7 1.3.2 Agency  7 1.3.3 Positioning  8 1.3.4 Pedagogy of Listening  8 1.3.5 Democratic Pedagogy and Dialogic Pedagogy  9 1.3.6 Project-Based Approach 10 1.4 Two Philosophies That Inspired a Journey of Pedagogical Innovation 11 References 13 2 The  Culture of a Project of Pedagogical Innovation 19 2.1 Introduction 19 2.2 Education for Young Children, Education with Young Children 20 2.3 Self-Determination: A Concept with a Long History, But Still Unsettled 29 2.4 Trying to Overcome the Conflict with Fresh Theorisations: A Psychological Approach to Self-Determination 37

ix

x 

Contents

2.5 Agency Becomes a Key Concept for the Sociological Study of Childhood 42 References 47 3 What Is Facilitation? 61 3.1 Facilitation of Children’s Agency: What Does Facilitation Mean? 61 3.2 Voices of Children in Educational Encounters: A Critical Comparison Between Facilitation and Neo-Vygotskyian Methodologies 66 3.3 High Chairs, Low Chairs, Where Do Children and Adults Sit in Educational Encounters? 70 3.4 Does Children’s Agency Have a Place in Pedagogies? 73 3.5 Early Childhood Education: A Pedagogy of Listening Therefore a Dialogic Pedagogy. What Can Facilitation Do for It? 77 3.6 A Few Words on Narratives, Because Authoring Narratives Is Authoring Knowledge Is an Expression of Agency 83 References 87 4 How  We Can Say What We Say: The Methodology of Facilitation, the Methodology of Observing Facilitation 99 4.1 How We Designed Facilitative Workshops: The Project-Based Approach 99 4.2 ‘Seeing’ Self-Determination in Adult–Child Interactions: Methodological Observations101 4.3 A Few How To? Notes on the Observation of Project-Based Approach Workshops106 4.4 The Local Contexts Where Our Pedagogical Innovation Became Real110 4.5 The Production of Data: On Video Recording116 4.6 What About the Background? Critical Remarks on Expectations and Assumptions, Including a Methodological Point118 4.7 What We Looked for When We Looked at Child–Adult Interactions120 4.7.1 Facilitative Actions: Invitations to Talk121 4.7.2 Facilitative Actions: Asking Questions to Promote Narratives122

 Contents 

xi

4.7.3 Facilitative Actions: Feedback to Support Children’s Authorship of Narratives123 4.7.4 Facilitative Actions: Facilitator’s Personal Stories126 4.8 Children’s Personal Initiatives127 4.9 Ethical Essentials128 References133 5 How  Did It Go? Building Knowledge Together with the Help of Facilitative Actions143 5.1 Introduction143 5.2 How Facilitative Actions Can Upgrade Children’s Status as Authors of Knowledge144 5.2.1 Promoting Narratives: Inviting Children to Talk144 5.2.2 Asking Questions to Support Authorship of Narratives146 5.2.3 Every Little Bit Helps: Actions of Feedback to Support Children as Authors of Knowledge Narratives149 5.2.4 Making It Real: Facilitators’ Personal Stories155 5.3 To Bring It Home: Insights on How Facilitative Actions Can Support Children’s Agency167 5.3.1 Invitations to Talk167 5.3.2 The Use of Questions168 5.3.3 Actions of Feedback170 5.3.4 Power That Needs Control: Facilitator’s Personal Stories173 References176 6 Children’s  Personal Initiatives and What They Mean for Facilitation179 6.1 Constructing Knowledge Via Agentic Participation 1: Children as Coordinators of Interaction179 6.2 Constructing Knowledge as Agentic Participation 2: When Personal Initiatives Disrupt Other Narratives184 6.3 Insights on Children’s Personal Initiatives in Facilitation, for Facilitation, with a Few Words on Those Disrupting Instances of Agency204 References207

xii 

Contents

7 Welcome  to the Real World: A View on the Intricacies of Facilitation During Project-Based Approach Workshops (and Probably During All Sorts of Educational Practices)209 7.1 Facilitation Is Complex Because Interacting with Others Is Complex209 7.2 Intricate, But We Can Work It Out: Insights on the Interaction Between Facilitative Actions and Children’s Agency236 References240 8 Trusting  the Process: Pedagogical Innovation for Children’s Agency in the Classroom243 8.1 Introduction243 8.2 Facilitators Are Unique Too, and This Is Important for the Design of Project-Based Approach Workshops244 8.3 We Got Praxis! A New Idea Emerging from Reflection on Practice: Facilitation as an Environment That Enables249 8.4 Closing down the Book, Opening up Opportunities for Change: Outlining Possible Implications for Policy and Practice256 8.5 Be Bolshie!259 References260 Appendix A: A Glossary267 Appendix B: Ethical Procedures271 Appendix C: Demographic Profile of Participating Schools275 Index279

List of Figures

Fig. 4.1 Fig. 8.1 Fig. 8.2

Video observation layout RARA Key Model Listening filters

117 246 255

xiii

List of Tables

Table 8.1 Table 8.2

Use of RARA Key model for facilitator-work based design Examples of diffractive questions in a SWOT analysis for facilitator-­work based design

247 248

xv

CHAPTER 1

Introducing the Book

1.1   What Is the Book About? This book presents insights on the use of facilitation to promote children’s agency, which is considered an essential ingredient of dialogic pedagogy. The insights are founded on a thoughtful consideration of previous research and theoretical literature; more importantly, it is believed, they develop from observations of practices of pedagogical innovation that used facilitation as a methodology to promote children’s agency, expressed as authorship of knowledge during classroom conversations. In particular, observations were made at workshops with children in two primary schools classrooms in the city of London (Year 3 of the English school system, 7–8 years of age). The workshops were designed by the authors of the book as a practice of pedagogical innovation to offer children an opportunity to narrate memories encrypted in photographs chosen, or taken, by them. During the workshops, the use of facilitation aimed to promote children’s access to the agentic role of authors of knowledge in the classroom. The idea underpinning the design of the workshops was inspired by, partly modelled on, and developed from pioneering cutting-­edge research on the use of facilitation to which both authors actively contributed (Baraldi et al., 2021).

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 F. Farini, A. Scollan, Pedagogical Innovation for Children’s Agency in the Classroom, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28501-1_1

1

2 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

More specifically, the use of facilitation during the workshops aimed to create favourable conditions for the expression of children’s self-determination as autonomous choices concerning the access to the role of (1) author narratives, (2) commentators of narratives, and (3) facilitators of others’ participation. Based on the observation and analysis of interactions during the workshops, this book reveals how a range of facilitative actions can position children as authors of knowledge. It also discusses how children can make a difference in the context of their interactions with adults and peers by taking up the role of authors of knowledge and organisers of conversations. The underlying idea, supported by previous international research, was that the use of facilitation can promote the self-determination and agency of children by positioning them as authors of knowledge in adult–child interactions, thus supporting (1) a participative approach to learning based on equality of opportunities, (2) empathic reflections on the background of personal memories, and (3) expectations of participation and interactions based on personal expressions rather than role performances. Equality, empathy, and expectations of personal expressions are three core elements of dialogue (Bohm, 1996; Hendry, 2009; Baraldi, 2014; Baraldi et  al., 2021). The following sections in this chapter introduce the key concepts and philosophy underpinning the book, as well as its ambition to contribute to pedagogical innovation, impact, and sustainability.

1.2  The Ideas That Fed the Development of This Book The importance of this book can be fully appreciated to the degree that the meaning of facilitation is clear. Facilitation is a methodology that has been applied in several social situations to promote equality, empathy, and expectations of personal expression (Hendry, 2009; Baraldi & Farini, 2011; Wyness, 2013; Baraldi, 2014; Baraldi & Iervese, 2017). The use of facilitation is not limited to educational contexts; however, facilitation can be seen as a methodology for the enhancement of dialogic pedagogy where children are positioned as agents who construct and influence the contexts of their education as authors of knowledge (James et al., 1998; Baraldi & Iervese, 2012).

1  INTRODUCING THE BOOK 

3

Facilitation as a methodology of dialogic pedagogy invites and expects both teachers and pupils (to) make substantial and significant contributions. In facilitation, an effort is made to help move forward children’s thinking on a given idea or theme, through which teachers can encourage children to participate actively (Mercer & Littleton, 2007, p. 41). Facilitation invites the teacher, to use Holdsworth’s image, to work not as the exclusive holder of knowledge, but as an organiser of and for learning (2005, p. 149). Facilitation can thrive only if children’s self-determination is supported, valued, and expected (Matthews, 2003; Graham & Fitzgerald, 2010; Baraldi, 2012, 2014; Wyness, 2013). Facilitation aims to create the conditions for children’s self-determination to make a difference in the contexts of their own, as well as adults’, learning. Alexander (2006, 2010a, b, 2019) recognises that classroom talk is merely instructional if the talk does not become dialogue. Alexander’s conceptual framework can be applied to conceptualise successful facilitation as a context of adult–child interactions where all participants are positioned as talkers (Alexander, 2019), that is, to use the language of this book, as legitimate authors of knowledge. The transformation of classroom talk into classroom dialogue can be a pertinent representation of the aim of facilitation as it is conceived of in this book. The book offers theory- and research- driven insights into the use of facilitation as a methodology for enhancing dialogic pedagogy, as proposed by recent research (Baraldi et al., 2021, 2022). The workshops were inspired by Alexander’s idea that the positioning of children as talkers, and so as authors of knowledge, can transform classroom talk into dialogue. By design, the workshop participants approached facilitation as a way to promote children’s agentic participation in learning that was compatible with the objectives of the curriculum for primary education in the national contexts of the research, England and Wales, as well as in several other national contexts, for instance Italy (Miur, 2021), Ireland (Gleeson, 2021), Japan (Yamanaka & Suzuki, 2020), Kenya (Corrado, 2022), Canada (Quebec) (Métioui & Trudel, 2014), and Uruguay (Santiago et al., 2016). According to the National Curriculum for England and Wales, written and spoken language and multi-literacies in Year 3 (the age of the cohorts who engaged with the workshops) should aim to engage and stimulate children’s understanding and enjoyment of stories, poetry, plays, and non-­ fiction (DfE, 2014b, p. 34). Successful education should encourage children to develop their language, verbal and listening skills, to support both

4 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

oral and written articulation and views. Year 3 pupils should become more familiar with and confident in using language in a greater variety of situations, for a variety of audiences and purposes, including through drama, formal presentations, and debate (DfE, 2014b, p. 34). Facilitation can support curricular ambition by promoting (1) children’s linguistic production; (2) children’s ability to connect creativity, memories, and dialogue; (3) children’s reflection on global geography and the interrelatedness of histories; and (4) children’s skills in managing interaction, distribution of turns at talk, and the use of questions (Murray, 2021). In contrast to traditional classroom talk, connotated by adult-led monologues and orientated by an assessment agenda and planned objectives (Kitchen, 2014), facilitation offers itself as a methodology to promote classroom dialogue. Returning to Alexander’s point: Classroom dialogue can combine learning with the promotion of children’s agency as authors of knowledge and leaders of learning (Baraldi, 2014; Baraldi et al., 2021). This book offers a critical assessment of the use of facilitation in primary schools, in connection with the success of facilitation and specific actions of facilitation, to promote children’s agency in the form of authorship of knowledge. Nevertheless, whilst engaged with primary education, children who took part in the workshop were 7–8 years old, and so within the realm of early childhood as defined by international convention (UNICEF, 2022). Theories on early childhood development indicate that the early years of life form a blueprint for relationships, self-identity, and potential, which impacts current and future learning and development (Gesell, 1946; Bruce, 2012; Shonkoff & Richter, 2013; Taggart, 2015, 2016, 2019). A good start to life is, therefore, recognised as crucial to maximising human lifelong potential, so attention is focused on the early stages of education. However, whilst young children’s participation in education is generally advocated, questions may arise concerning the nature of young children’s participation in education. Several critical studies suggest that, due to an assumed inability of young children to contribute positively to their learning, education is often designed for children rather than with children. The position of young children in education is expressed as one of recipients of adults’ intentions (Penn, 2014; Moss, 2014; Cameron & Moss, 2020). Such a critical view of how young children participate in education has fuelled an alternative pedagogical framework within the community of professionals working with young children (Davies, 2014; White, 2016; Murray, 2019a, 2019b; Cameron & Moss, 2020; Clark,

1  INTRODUCING THE BOOK 

5

2020; Clark & Moss, 2011). This framework is referred to as early childhood education. A comparison between early years education and early childhood education can be used to discuss a paradigmatic shift. Early years education describes a relationship where adults are positioned as the exclusive owners of knowledge who are responsible for controlling communication to transmit effectively the knowledge that children need (Kitchen, 2014; Matusov, 2014). Early childhood education is underpinned, philosophically and methodologically, by the idea that children and adults can move between educational roles. It is a fluid interpretation of positioning, where adults and children can access the status of leaders of learning (Malaguzzi, 1995; Hall et al., 2014). This is possible because early childhood education positions children as experts in their own lives who deserve to be listened to and included as agents of their own learning, as well as agents of adults’ learning. The concept of listening is key to early childhood education: Davies (2014) builds on the Reggio Emilia philosophy to identify a form of real listening as a blended emergence of physical, cognitive, spiritual, and sensory interactions. Real listening differs from outsider listening (White, 2016), which focuses on the measurement of expected outcomes (Kitchen, 2014). For the community of scholars and educators contributing to the development of early childhood education, the question is not whether children should be listened to or not; the question concerns the best way to listen, ‘for real’, to them. Real listening is a component of the main tenet of early childhood education: Education is learning with and from children, for children and adults. This idea, first developed by the Reggio Emilia approach, is based on the recognition of children’s right to self-determination. The Reggio Emilia approach positions children as individuals with unlimited potential (Malaguzzi, 1995); it is because of their natural self-determination that children have the right to be valued for what they are and what they experience (Malaguzzi, 1995). In the Reggio Emilia approach, self-­ determination is what makes each child unique, and the uniqueness of children is what motivates the overall Reggio Emilia pedagogical approach. Inspired by the Reggio Emilia approach that positions each child at the heart of their own learning (Malaguzzi, 1996), early childhood education is committed to promoting children’s personal expression rather than standardised role performances to create favourable conditions for the expression of their uniqueness. When expectations of personal expressions

6 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

structure interactions with children, the child as a unique human being replaces the pupil as a role (Freire, 2005; Farini, 2019) within interactions that consider emotions and personal meaning (Dunn, 1993; Goleman, 1996; Corrie, 2003; Arnold, 2010). Facilitation aligns with the pedagogical tenets of early childhood education. Facilitation constructs an image of children as competent agents in all contexts of their experiences, promoting their choices, thereby enhancing their right to self-determination. Working with children in Year 3 of primary school also meant working with children who sit on the cusp of early childhood whilst embedded in school education. For this reason, this book’s ambition can also be conceptualised as an attempt to bring early childhood education ethos and methods into primary education, via the use of facilitation. The authors would like to conclude this section with some meta-­ remarks, using the book to make remarks on the book. Such meta-remarks concern the link between the idea of the unique child and the authors’ critical approach regarding how the ‘backgrounds’ of children are considered, particularly in some areas of academic pedagogical discourse. The idea of the unique child is key for the authors’ critical view on the common idea that working with children should begin with consideration of their ‘backgrounds’. A thorough criticism is offered in Sect. 4.5 of Chap. 4, explaining why the discussion of data presented in this book is not obsessed with the use of the ‘background’ to understand what goes on during Project-Based Approach workshops. For now, the authors would like to leave the following diffractive question to invite reflection: If knowing about each child’s background is essential to work with them, then which one, or which ones, among the several aspects of a person’s background, is more relevant in a specific moment, in a specific social situation? Socioeconomic status? Gender? Age? Religion? Ethnicity? Football fandom? And will the same aspect, or aspects, be the most relevant at another point in time, interacting with different people? It became clear to the authors that such questions can only be answered by posing them to children themselves, provided that any assumption about the influence of the ‘background’ is bracketed to leave room for real listening to children’s voices. What needs to be bracketed is not only the assumption about the influence of the background; the assumption about what ‘background’ is made of, for a certain child at a certain moment in his, her or their social experience, ought to be bracketed, too. During the project-based approach workshops, the facilitators promoted and listened to children’s voices

1  INTRODUCING THE BOOK 

7

respectfully, leaving it up to them to present what is important and what is not important in relation to their identities, in any specific moment. This approach is key to keeping the project of pedagogical innovation presented in this book aligned with the idea of the unique child.

1.3  A Sure Start: Presenting Some Key Concepts for This Book 1.3.1  Self-Determination This research uses an empirical and pragmatist concept of self-­determination. Self-determination manifests in social interactions (McDermott, 1975; Ryan & Deci, 2002; Wehmeyer et al., 2017), where it is made visible by autonomous choices. Autonomy refers to choices that are not merely a reaction to others’ choices (McDermott, 1975; Wehmeyer, 2004). The emphasis on autonomy in choices connects self-determination with the idea of the unique child that underpins the Reggio Emilia philosophy. When Malaguzzi suggests that children move between autonomy, dependence, freedom, and interaction, but they nevertheless will not tolerate not being recognised as individuals (Malaguzzi, 1995, p. 12), a powerful case is made for the position of children as unique individuals and, with it, for the recognition of children’s self-determination. The image of children developed within the Reggio Emilia approach is at the centre of early childhood education and invites pedagogies based on real listening because only real listening values children’s uniqueness and autonomy. 1.3.2  Agency Agency is a key concept for any sociological and pedagogical study of childhood and adult–child relationships (James & James, 2008; James, 2009; Oswell, 2013; Leonard, 2016; Gabriel, 2017; Baraldi & Cockburn, 2018). Moosa-Mitha suggests that children’s agency concerns how they respond to, mitigate, resist, have views about, and interact with the social conditions in which they find themselves (2005, p.  380). This definition introduces three dimensions of agency: (1) action, (2) perspectives, and (3) interaction with the social context. Action refers to autonomous choices, linking agency to self-determination. Perspectives refers to valuing children’s voices, so it connects with real listening. Interaction with the

8 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

social context refers to the consequentiality of children’s choices when such choices can make a difference for all participants in the social situation (Bernstein, 1989). 1.3.3  Positioning The theory of positioning originates from social psychology. Positioning describes how people use words and actions to position themselves and others in the several contexts of social interactions. A participant’s position refers to rights, obligations, and duties in a specific social situation, such as, for example, teaching. The concept of position entails the theoretical assumption that not all participants in social interactions have equal access to rights and duties to perform specific actions, in a specific moment and with specific co-participants (Harré, 2012). The theory of positioning was a cornerstone for the theory of intergenerational order, which is explicitly based on the idea that the position of children and adults defines spaces and opportunity for children’s agency (Qvortrup, 1990; Alanen, 2009, 2016). The theory of positioning is a pillar of this book and of the use of facilitation in workshops, because facilitation can be understood as a form of communication that positions children and adults as equal agents who have equal rights to contribute actively to their learning. 1.3.4   Pedagogy of Listening The pedagogy of listening describes a relational approach to education, where listening is the foundation of trusting relationships centred around the person rather than the roles of educator and learner (Bath, 2013). Listening is a process that promotes learning and knowledge for children and adults based on mutual disclosure and personal expression (Dahlberg & Moss, 2005; Bath, 2013; Gallagher et al., 2017). A pedagogy of listening invites educators to tune in to multi-literacies, languages and expressions of children, because children articulate and express their ideas in a hundred ways, and then a hundred more ways (Malaguzzi, 1995). Noddings (1996), Brooker (2010), and Bath (2013) build on Malaguzzi’s (1996) and Rinaldi’s (2005) approach as they recognise that responsive listening to verbal and non-verbal expression is a condition for the meaningful participation of children in education because

1  INTRODUCING THE BOOK 

9

the voices of children are expressions of self-determination, which is a crucial component of agency. Listening can be tokenistic, hierarchical, and non-reflective if children’s self-determination is perceived as a risk for education and, for this reason, silenced (Brooker, 2010; Bertram & Pascal, 2010; Bath, 2013). A pedagogy of listening does not approach listening as a tool to make the work of educators more effective in achieving learning objectives. Rather, listening is understood as tuning into children’s personal expression and autonomous choices, which are supported as being consequential in the contexts of children’s and adults’ learning. Listening to the voices of young children is an ethical and methodological tenet of early childhood education (Pascal & Bertram, 2009; Osler & Starkey, 2010; Lundy, 2012; Davies, 2014, Brooks & Murray, 2016; Palaiologou, 2016; Gallagher et al., 2017; Murray, 2019a; Scollan & McNeill, 2019; Alderson & Morrow, 2020). Early childhood education can therefore also be conceptualised as a pedagogy of listening that considers children’s personal expression as a resource for learning (Farini, 2019). Facilitation is compatible with early childhood education as a pedagogy of listening in light of its commitment to promoting children’s authorship of knowledge as an expression of autonomous choices. 1.3.5   Democratic Pedagogy and Dialogic Pedagogy Democratic pedagogy refers to teachers and children co-constructing learning through reflective inquiry (Lipman, 2003, 2008). Democratic pedagogy involves interactions that engage and immerse participants in problem-solving, shared investigations, and reasoning (Lipman, 2003, 2008). Dialogue and the promotion of the voices of all participants in education are key for the model of democratic education presented by Dewey (1916). Democratic pedagogy values the voices of children as an important resource for education (Dewey, 1916). However, in Dewey’s democratic pedagogy, it cannot be assumed that the voices of children will be positioned as equal to those of adults. Interpretations of democratic pedagogy influence the positioning of children and teachers across a continuum, from equality to hierarchical relationships. Thus, democratic pedagogy and dialogic pedagogy are not synonyms, and democratic pedagogy can be compatible with teacher-led practices and the positioning of teachers as holders of superior knowledge that legitimises hierarchical relationships.

10 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

In contrast to democratic pedagogy, dialogic pedagogy is necessarily based on equality. This refers to equality between participants who are all positioned as legitimate authors of knowledge. Dialogic pedagogy is underpinned by real listening within interactions where children are positioned as authors of knowledge for themselves and for adults, rather than as recipients of adult-led education (Dahlberg & Moss, 2005; Lansdown, 2005; Rinaldi, 2005, 2012). Dialogic pedagogy evolves during interactions as a co-constructed process of transformation based on listening, whilst the possibility of controlling the outcome of communication is prevented by the active role of the ‘other’ (Rinaldi, 2005, p. 184). For this reason, dialogic pedagogy is not compatible with teacher-led models: Listening in dialogic pedagogy means incorporating the other as a force that can change the trajectory of any educational interaction (Freire, 1987; Skidmore & Murakami, 2016). 1.3.6   Project-Based Approach The use of facilitation to promote children’s narratives of personal memories took place during workshops. The workshops were designed following a project-based approach. The project-based approach is based on the idea that children’s autonomous choices are a resource for learning, and it is influenced by Kilpatrick’s (1918) project-based learning methodology. Project-based learning is characterised by (1) a focus on tasks; (2) constructivism, which considers knowledge as constructed in social interaction; (3) problem-posing to probe the skills and knowledge that learners bring to the educational interaction; and (4) the relevance of projects for the solution of real-world problems, where a learner’s problem-solving is guided by the educator (Barron & Darling-Hammond, 2008; Thomas, 2007). Project-based learning and the project-based approach differ when it comes to the role of the educator. Project-based learning follows Dewey’s (1966) democratic pedagogy, which perceives the role of the educator as a leader who initiates and oversees learning. The project-based approach underpinned the workshops, where facilitation positions participants in educational interactions as legitimate authors of knowledge. In the project-­ based approach, the participation of children was not scaffolded by tasks designed by an educator; like the ateliers in the Reggio Emilia approach, in project-based approach workshops, children are promoted as co-­ constructors of the themes and trajectories of educational interactions.

1  INTRODUCING THE BOOK 

11

1.4  Two Philosophies That Inspired a Journey of Pedagogical Innovation Facilitation was used to enhance dialogical forms of learning and teaching in project-based approach workshops, where adults and children were positioned as equal in terms of rights and responsibilities for creating knowledge. The Reggio Emilia approach and Freire’s version of critical pedagogy were inspirational for the pedagogical innovation discussed in this book. For this reason, it is important to discuss how they are connected, theoretically and methodologically. The Reggio Emilia approach builds its methods on the idea of the unique child, promoting children’s personal expressions rather than standardised role performances (Edwards et al., 1998a, b). The Reggio Emilia approach is intrinsically a pedagogy of listening that values the voices of children as a resource for their own, as well as adults’, learning. A key aspect of the Reggio Emilia approach is that children and adults are positioned as equal in terms of rights and responsibilities for constructing knowledge. This represents a tenet of Freire’s critical pedagogy, too. In the Freirian version of critical pedagogy, the voices of learners are not promoted to secure their engagement in learning activities designed and orchestrated by an educator. Rather, similarly to the Reggio Emilia approach, Freire’s critical pedagogy positions learners and educators as equal partners in the construction of learning (Freire, 1970, 1976, 1998, 2000, 2005). Freire’s critical pedagogy aims to promote self-awareness as a form of reflection in education but also on education. Reflection in education concerns the position of educators and learners in the local context of educational interactions, the relationships and hierarchies between roles. Reflection on education concerns the position of education within society, its function, and its contribution to challenge or reproduce inequalities. Looking back on the Reggio Emilia approach, self-awareness emerges as an important component, as much as equality between educators and learners is a component of Freire’s critical pedagogy. Listening to the voices of children, in the Reggio Emilia approach, supports reflection on adult–child relationships. Real listening to the voices of children creates favourable conditions for self-awareness, which is key for the transformation of intergenerational order (Edwards et  al., 1998a, b; Hall et  al., 2014), inasmuch as self-awareness is key for the transformation of the social order in Freirian critical pedagogy. Thus, self-awareness is a key aim

12 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

of educational practices both in Freire’s critical pedagogy and in the Reggio Emilia approach. From a methodological point of view, Freire’s critical pedagogy and the Reggio Emilia approach share the same methodology: Educational practices are based on dialogue. Only dialogue, as a form of communication based on equality, empathy, and expectation of autonomous self-­ expression, can support the democratisation of pedagogy. If Freire’s critical pedagogy and the Reggio Emilia approach are read through the lenses of the position of learners, they appear tightly connected: Learners and educators are positioned as agents in education and their rights to self-­ determination are promoted. Freire’s critical pedagogy and the Reggio Emilia approach converge in considering autonomous choices as a resource, rather than a risk, for learning. For both philosophies, dialogue is more than a methodology for ‘doing education’. Dialogue is also a context of communication. Described by Freire and Macedo (1995) as a network of epistemological connections and relationships, dialogue is the method and the context of educator– learner interactions. This is an idea of dialogue that underpins the idea of using facilitation to promote children’s authorship of narratives: Facilitation can contribute to the construction of a social context where adults and children are positioned as co-authors of the learning experience. This book aims to contribute to innovations across six intersecting dimensions. The first dimension is philosophical. The use of facilitation to promote children’s agency was at the centre of previous research (Baraldi & Iervese, 2012, Baraldi et al., 2021). However, this book concerns an innovative use of facilitation with young children, within the ethos of early childhood education. The second dimension concerns theory. Critical pedagogy and dialogue studies are combined with self-determination theory, challenging the mainstream understanding of self-determination theory as individualistic and incompatible with an interest in the social dimension. Self-determination theory is combined within a theoretical framework that considers the interaction between individual choices and the influence of the social context. The third dimension moves from underpinning theory to the introduction of new concepts. A theoretical innovation of this book consists in the introduction of new concepts such as (i) consequentiality of choices, which is used as a theoretical link between self-determination and agency; (ii) listening filters, which is used to interpret the intersection between professional identities, organisational culture, and the position of professionals working with children in the context

1  INTRODUCING THE BOOK 

13

of intergenerational relationships. The fourth dimension is ethical, developing the idea that promoting children’s role as constructors of knowledge is essential for a pedagogy of authentic listening that combines the ethos and methods of dialogue with early childhood education. This innovative idea is applied in the context of primary school classrooms. The fifth dimension is concerned with practice. No published literature discusses the use of facilitation with children 7–8  years old. The book offers new practical insights, identifying an array of facilitative actions that can successfully upgrade children’s status as authors of knowledge. The book also offers an innovative approach to the design of workshops for the use of facilitation with children, the facilitator work-based design, which is based on the idea of unique facilitators. Finally, the sixth dimension develops as a data-driven but theoretically sound conceptualisation of facilitation as an environment that enables. This book argues that facilitation can become an environment that enables children’s agency by legitimating them as authors of knowledge, creating favourable conditions for dialogue as a praxis of critical pedagogy. On completion of Chap. 1, Federico Farini and Angela Scollan propose the following questions to provoke further reflection, research, and dialogue. • Reflect on the similarities and differences in Freire’s critical pedagogy and the Reggio Emilia approach of child-initiated education. • Reflect on the different positions on children in project-based learning compared to a project-based approach. • Are early years education and early childhood education synonymous? If not, what are the key differences?

References Alanen, L. (2009). Generational order. In J. Qvortrup, W. Corsaro, & M. S. Honig (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of childhood studies (pp. 159–174). Palgrave. Alanen, L. (2016). ‘Intersectionality’ and other challenges to theorizing childhood. Childhood, 23(2), 157–161. Alderson, P., & Morrow, V. (2020). The ethics of research with children and young people: A practical handbook. Sage.

14 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

Alexander, R. (2019). Whose discourse? Dialogic pedagogy for a post-truth world. Dialogic Pedagogy: An International Online Journal, 7. https://doi. org/10.5195/dpj.2019.268 Alexander, R. J. (2006). Education as dialogue: Moral and pedagogical choices for a runaway world. Hong Kong Institute of Education with Dialogues. Alexander, R. J. (Ed.). (2010a). Children, their world, their education: Final report and recommendations of the Cambridge primary review. Routledge. Alexander, R. J. (2010b). Speaking but not listening? Accountable talk in an unaccountable context, Literacy, 44(3), 103–111. Arnold, C. the Pen Green Team. (2010). Understanding schemas and emotion in early childhood. Sage. Baraldi, C. (2012). Participation, facilitation and mediation in educational interactions. In C. Baraldi & V. Iervese (Eds.), Participation, facilitation, and mediation. Children and young people in their social contexts (pp. 66–86). Routledge. Baraldi, C. (2014). Children’s participation in communication systems: A theoretical perspective to shape research. Soul of society: a focus on the leaves of children and youth. Sociological studies on children and youth, 18, 63–92. Baraldi, C., & Cockburn, T. (2018). Theorising childhood. Palgrave Macmillan. Baraldi, C., & Farini, F. (2011). Dialogic mediation in international groups of adolescents. Language and Dialogue, 1(2), 207–232. Baraldi, C., Farini, F., & Ślusarczyk, M. (2022). Facilitative practices to promote migrant children’s agency and hybrid integration in schools: Discussing data from Italy. Language and Intercultural Communication. https://doi.org/10.108 0/14708477.2022.2096054 Baraldi, C., & Iervese, V. (Eds.). (2012). Participation, facilitation, and mediation. Children and young people in their social contexts. Routledge. Baraldi, C., & Iervese, V. (2017). Narratives of memories and dialogue in multicultural classrooms. Narrative Inquiry, 27(2), 398–417. Baraldi, C., Joslyn, E., & Farini, F. (Eds.). (2021). Promoting Children’s rights in European schools. Intercultural dialogue and facilitative pedagogy. Bloomsbury. Barron, B., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Teaching for meaningful learning: A review of research on inquiry-based and cooperative learning. George Lucas Educational Foundation. Bath, C. (2013). Conceptualising listening to young children as an ethic of care in early childhood education and care. Children and Society, 27(5), 361–371. Bernstein, B. (1989). The structuring of pedagogic discourse. Routledge. Bertram, T., & Pascal, C. (2010). Introducing child development (p. 71). A Guide for Students. Bohm, D. (1996). On Dialogue. Routledge. Brooker, L. (2010). Constructing the triangle of care: Power and professionalisation in practitioner/parent relationships. British Journal of Educational Studies, 58, 181–196.

1  INTRODUCING THE BOOK 

15

Brooks, E., & Murray, J. (2016). Ready, steady, learn: School readiness and children’s voices in English early childhood settings. Education 3–13, 46(2), 143–156. Bruce, T. (2012). Early childhood practice. Sage. Cameron, C., & Moss, P. (2020). Transforming early childhood in England: Towards a democratic education. UCL Press. Clark, A. (2020). Towards a listening ECEC system. In C. Cameron & P. Moss (Eds.), Transforming early childhood in England. Towards a democratic education (pp. 134–150). UCL Press. Clark, A., & Moss, P. (2011). Listening to young children: The mosaic approach (2nd ed.). National Children’s Bureau. Corrado, E. W. (2022). Harambee approach: Towards decolonising east African education through capturing social-cultural ethos. Journal of the British Academy, 10(2), 135–152. Corrie, C. (2003). Becoming emotionally intelligent. Network Educational Press Ltd. Dahlberg, G., & Moss, P. (2005). Ethics and politics in early childhood education. Davies, B. (2014). Listening to children: Being and becoming. Routledge. Department for Education. (2014a). Listening to and involving children and young people. DFE—00011—2014. DfE. Department for Education. (2014b). Statutory framework for the early years foundation stage (EYFS). Crown Copyright. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. Macmillan. Dewey, J. (1966). Selected educational writing. Heinemann. Dunn, J. (1993). Young Children’s close relationships. Sage. Edwards, C., Gandini, L., & Forman, G. (Eds.). (1998a). The hundred languages of children. Ablex Publishing Corporation. Edwards, C., Gandini, L., & Forman, G. (Eds.). (1998b). Introduction: Background and starting points. In C. Edwards, L. Gandini, & G. Gorman (Eds.), The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia approach-advance reflections (pp. 5–26). Ablex Publishing Corporation. Farini, F. (2019). From the child to the pupil to the child. Trust based on categorical inequalities and the quest for alternatives towards a more inclusive education. Italian Journal of Sociology of Education, 11(3), 246–264. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Herder and Herder. Freire, P. (1976). Education: The practice of freedom. Writers and Readers. Freire, P. (1987). The politics of education: Culture, power, and liberation. Greenwood Publishing Group. Freire, P. (1998). Pedagogy of freedom: Ethics, democracy, and civic courage. Rowman and Littlefield. Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of freedom: Ethics, democracy, and civic courage. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Freire, P. (2005). Education for critical consciousnesses. Continuum.

16 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (1995). A dialogue: Culture, language, and race. Harvard Educational Review, 65(3), 377–403. Gabriel, N. (2017). The sociology of early childhood: Critical perspectives. Sage. Gallagher, M., Prior, J., Needham, M., & Holmes, R. (2017). Listening differently: A pedagogy for expanded listening. British Educational Research Journal, 43(6), 1246–1265. Gesell, A. (1946). The ontogenesis of infant behaviour. In L. Carmichael (Ed.), Manual of child psychology (pp. 295–331). Wiley. Gleeson, J. (2021). Evolution of Irish curriculum culture: Understandings, policy, reform and change. Irish Educational Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 03323315.2021.1899028 Goleman, D. (1996). Emotional Intelligence. Bloomsbury. Graham, A., & Fitzgerald, R. (2010). Progressing children’s participation: Exploring the potential of a dialogical turn. Childhood, 17(3), 342–359. Hall, K., Cunneen, M., Horgan, M., Cunningham, D., Murphy, R., & Ridgway, A. (2014). Loris Malaguzzi and the Reggio Emilia experience. Bloomsbury Publishing. Harré, R. (2012). Positioning theory: Moral dimensions of social-cultural psychology. In J.  Valsiner (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of culture and psychology (pp. 191–206). Oxford University. Hendry, R. (2009). Building and restoring respectful relationships in schools. Routledge. Holdsworth, C. (2005). “When are the children going to leave home!”: Family culture and delayed transitions in Spain. European Societies, 7(4), 547–566. James, A. (2009). Agency. In J. Qvortrup, G. Valentine, W. Corsaro, & M. S. Honig (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of childhood studies. Basingstoke. James, A., & James, A. (2008). Key concepts in childhood studies. Sage. James, A., Jenks, C., & Prout, A. (1998). Theorizing childhood. Polity Press. Kilpatrick, W. H. (1918). The project method: The use of the purposeful act in the education process. Teachers College Record, 19, 319–335. Kitchen, W. H. (2014). Authority and the teacher. Bloomsbury Academic. Lansdown, G. (2005). The evolving capacities of children: Implications for the exercise of rights. UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre. Leonard, M. (2016). The sociology of children, childhood and generation. Sage. Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in education. Cambridge University Press. Lipman, M. (2008). A life teaching thinking. Montclair University. Lundy, L. (2012). Children’s rights and educational policy in Europe: The implementation of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. Oxford Review of Education, 38(4), 393–411. Malaguzzi, L. (1995). A journey into the rights of children. Reggio Children. Malaguzzi, L. (1996). The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia approach to early childhood education. Ablex Publishing Corporation. Matthews, H. (2003). Children and regeneration: Setting and agenda for community participation and integration. Children and Society, 17, 264–276.

1  INTRODUCING THE BOOK 

17

Matusov, E. (2014). Four ages of our relationship with the reality: An educationalist perspective. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 1–23. McDermott, F.  E. (1975). Self-determination in social work. Routledge and Keegan Paul. Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and development of children’s thinking. Routledge. Métioui, A., & Trudel, L. (2014). Conceptual analysis of Quebec primary school programs in Canada: Science and technology. Journal of Teaching and Education, 3, 439–446. MIUR. (2021). Linee guida per la formulazione dei giudizi descrittivi nella valutazione periodica e finale della scuola primaria. Retrieved November 29, 2022, from https://www.istruzione.it/valutazione-­scuola-­primaria/allegati/ Linee%20Guida.pdf Moosa Miltha, M. (2005). A difference-centred alternative to theorization of Children’s citizenship rights. Citizenship Studies, 9(4), 369–388. Moss, P. (2014). Transformative change and real Utopias in early childhood education: A story of democracy, experimentation and potentiality. Routledge. Murray, J. (2019a). Hearing young children’s voices. International Journal of Early Years Education, 27(1), 1–5. Murray, J. (2019b). Happy anniversary? 30 years of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. International Journal of Early Years Education, 27(4), 341–344. Murray, J. (2021). Young children, rights and voice: The Child’s voice in research. In L. Arnott & K. Wall (Eds.), Research through play: Participatory methods in early childhood (pp. 19–36). Sage. Noddings, N. (1996). Stories and affect in teacher education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 26(3), 435–447. Osler, A., & Starkey, H. (2010). Teachers and human rights education. IOE Press. Oswell, D. (2013). The agency of children. From family to global human rights. Routledge. Palaiologou, I. (Ed.). (2016). The early years foundation stage. Sage. Pascal, C., & Bertram, T. (2009). Listening to young citizens: The struggle to make real a participatory paradigm in research with young children. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 17(2), 249–262. Penn, H. (2014). Understanding early childhood issues and controversies. Open University Press. Qvortrup, J. (1990). Childhood as a social phenomenon. An introduction to a series of national reports. Eurosocial Report, 36/1990. Rinaldi, C. (2005). In dialogue with Reggio Emilia. Routledge. Rinaldi, C. (2012). The pedagogy of listening: The listening perspective from Reggio Emilia. In C. P. Edwards, L. Gandini, & G. Forman (Eds.), The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia experience in transformation (pp. 233–246). Praeger.

18 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). An overview of self-determination theory. In E.  L. Deci & R.  M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 3–33). University of Rochester Press. Santiago, P., Beatrice, Á., Tracey, B., Alejandro, M., & Thomas, R. (2016). OECD reviews of school resources: Uruguay 2016, OECD reviews of school resources. OECD Publishing. Retrieved December 18, 2022, from https://doi. org/10.1787/9789264265530-­en Scollan, A., & Mc Neill, E. (2019). Discourses/2. Ireland: Listening to children’s voices in Irish social work through cultural and organisational filters. In F. Farini & A. Scollan (Eds.), Children’s self-determination in the context of early childhood education and services: Discourses policies and practices (pp.  151–167). Springer International Publishing. Shonkoff, J.  P., & Richter, L. (2013). The powerful reach of early childhood development: A science-based foundation for sound investment. In P. R. Britto, P.  L. Engle, & C.  M. Super (Eds.), Handbook of early childhood development research and its impact on global policy (pp. 24–34). Oxford University Press. Skidmore, D., & Murakami, K. (Eds.). (2016). Dialogic pedagogy. Multilingual Matters. Taggart, G. (2015). Sustaining care: Cultivating mindful practice in early years professional development. Early Years, 35, 1–13. Taggart, G. (2016). Compassionate pedagogy: Ethics of care in early childhood professionalism. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 24(2), 173–185. Taggart, G. (2019). Cultivating ethical dispositions in early childhood practice for an ethic of care: A contemplative approach. In R. Langford (Ed.), Theorising feminist ethics of care in early childhood practice: Possibilities and dangers (pp. 97–123). Bloomsbury. Thomas, G. (2007). Education and theory: Strangers in paradigms. Open University Press. UNICEF. (2022). Early Moments Matter. Retrieved December 21, 2022, from https://www.unicef.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/EarlyMoments Matter_UNICEFUK_2022_PolicyReport.pdf Yamanaka, S., & Suzuki, K. H. (2020). Japanese education reform towards twenty-­ first century education. In F. M. Reimers (Ed.), Audacious education purposes (pp. 81–103). Cham. Wehmeyer, M. L. (2004). A self-determination and the empowerment of people with disabilities. American Rehabilitation, 28, 22–29. Wehmeyer, M. L., Shogren, K. A., Little, T. D., & Lopez, S. J. (Eds.). (2017). Development of self-determination through the life-course. Springer. White, J. (2016). Introducing dialogic pedagogy: Provocations for the early years. Routledge. Wyness, M. (2013). Children’s participation and intergenerational dialogue: Bringing adults back into the analysis. Childhood, 20(4), 429–442.

CHAPTER 2

The Culture of a Project of Pedagogical Innovation

2.1   Introduction This chapter discusses the intellectual and ethical foundations of the project of pedagogical innovation, whose results are presented in this book. The different sections of the chapter touch on several interrelated themes. The first theme relates to a cultural shift in the construction of early childhood that fuelled the development of early childhood studies as a discipline and early childhood education as a pedagogical field within the discipline of early childhood studies. The current paradigm of early childhood education and the translation of early childhood education into educational practices will be considered. The second theme emerges in a critical review of the right of self-­ determination. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) (1989) and the ancillary General Comment 7 to the UNCRC (Implementing Child Rights in Early Childhood, 2005) are approached as part of a case study for the ambiguous position of children in society. Critical examination of the UNCRC will focus on the problematic coexistence of the principles of protection and provision, which require adults to act for and on behalf of children, and the principle of self-determination that refers to the capability of children to make decisions to influence the contexts of children’s social experiences (Johnny, 2006; Hudson, 2012).

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 F. Farini, A. Scollan, Pedagogical Innovation for Children’s Agency in the Classroom, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28501-1_2

19

20 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

Freeman suggests that the protection of children can turn into oppressive control without the recognition of their autonomy, both actual and potential (Freeman, 1996, p. 1). The principle of self-­determination underpinning the UNCRC itself is critically approached, in connection with the conditionality of self-determination, which sees competence and ability to make decisions as being dependent on age or, alternatively, on the level of development measured by adults. A different view, which questions the competence of adults to understand, contextualize, and promote children’s choices (Holt, 1974; Farson, 1974, 1979; Hudson, 2012), is introduced. The critical review of the UNCRC is followed by an exploration of the convergence between two disciplines, psychology and sociology, which emphasises the interaction between self-determination and the social environment. The context where children make choices may promote or hinder their ability to make a difference. It is important to highlight that the conceptualisation of self-determination as contextualised and embedded in empirical social interactions was key for the pedagogical innovation discussed in this book, because the aim of facilitation consists in creating local contexts where children’s self-determination is expressed as actions that can make a difference for all participants.

2.2   Education for Young Children, Education with Young Children A quote from the UNCRC (2005) signals a shift in the meaning of childhood and intergenerational relationships: Young children actively make sense of the physical, social and cultural dimensions of the world they inhabit, learning progressively from their activities and their interactions with others, children as well as adults

Saying that young children learn progressively from their activities and interactions with others entails a recognition of young children’s role as authors of their own learning and development. Learning from interactions introduces an idea that development is not the outcome of children’s internalisation of knowledge transmitted by adults. Rather, development is a process whereby children actively make sense of the physical, social, and cultural dimensions of the world that they inhabit.

2  THE CULTURE OF A PROJECT OF PEDAGOGICAL INNOVATION 

21

Autonomy of children in constructing the meaning of experiences, children’s active role in learning, an interactive and relational ontology of development: These are the pillars supporting the development of early childhood studies. Notwithstanding different disciplinary backgrounds and professional interests, researchers, scholars, and practitioners in early childhood studies share a fundamental perspective: The question is not if children should be listened to but how to listen to them (Alderson, 2004; Penn, 2011; Davies, 2014; Gallagher et al., 2017; Murray, 2019a, 2019b; McDowall-Clark, 2020; Cameron & Moss, 2020; Clark, 2020). Early childhood studies benefits from the contribution of several other disciplines and enriches the discourse of several other disciplines, including education, sociology, and psychology. Regarding education, the intersection between education and the shift in the image of the child embodied by early childhood studies has contributed to the development of the field of early childhood education. The ontology that underpins early childhood education is centred around a view of children as unique individuals whose experiences cannot be aligned to adult-constructed expectations of staged development (Moss & Urban, 2020; Needham & Ülküer, 2020). Early childhood education questions the assumption that the tempo of life-trajectories can be rhythmed by standardised expectations of development. Tickell (2011) suggests that children’s unreadiness is a pure educational construct, the consequence of a mismatch between the unique child and the standardised learning agenda (McDowall-Clark, 2017, 2020). Coherently with early childhood studies’ plea for an active role of children in their own development, early childhood education recognises that children have unique ways to enter, live, and leave the early phase of their life. Early phase of life is itself a fluid concept whose meaning depends on the unique experiences of children. Early childhood studies view young children as capable, competent, and creative social actors (Houen et al., 2016), and this can be considered a pillar of early childhood education (Stephen, 2010). Whilst the theoretical and cultural shift underpinning childhood studies and early childhood education is evident, a question concerns whether and how such a shift informs the pedagogical debate. To answer this question, it is necessary to discuss the cultural world where early childhood education interacts with children, professionals, and families, starting with the status of pedagogy. This section discusses the status of pedagogy and how it is influenced by professional values and beliefs about the purpose of education. Bruce

22 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

(2012) suggests that the status of pedagogy is fluid because it is intertwined with the unique identities of pedagogues. Osgood’s research into professionalism (2009) finds that professional identities may influence how children are engaged with, depending on whether individuals working in the sector perceive their role as a job, a vocation, or a profession. The identity of pedagogues is not only conditioned by individual self-­ perception. Paige and Craft (2008), and Allen et  al. (2019) invite the probing of pedagogy’s status. The aims and methods of pedagogy are influenced by professional identities, which are in turn underpinned by values, beliefs, training, disposition, positionality, and disciplinary background (Stephen, 2010; Osgood, 2010; Bruce, 2012; Smith, 2016). Pedagogy is a unique and individual mix of professional artistry, training, and philosophy influenced by life experiences, reflections, and professional training (Schön, 1987; Bruce, 2012; Sim et al., 2015; Allen et al., 2019; Garrison, 2020; O’Sullivan & Sakr, 2022). More generally, pedagogy is a social construct that interacts with social and historical conditions (Cameron & Moss, 2011; Cagliari et  al., 2016). Felstead et  al. (2009) argue that pedagogy is embedded in history and follows the trajectory of other coeval social constructs. Brooker (2010), Whitehead (2010), and Sims and colleagues (2015) invite us to consider that whilst development and learning are universal processes, they take place in specific social and cultural contexts. The status of pedagogy as a social construct can be examined to uncover how the paradigm of pedagogy and the work of pedagogues influence each other. This is essential for reflecting on early childhood education because it enables a critical and conscious gaze to advocate from within, for, and towards transformation (Tisdall, 2012, 2015; Tisdall & Punch, 2012; Moss, 2019). For Tovey, pedagogy constantly evolves during practice, shaping all involved from positive and challenging experiences (Tovey, 2012). Bruce (2012), Allen et al. (2019), and O’Sullivan and Sakr (2022) advocate for a continuing critical engagement of pedagogues within the paradigm of pedagogy to maintain self-awareness of how underpinning values, beliefs, and expectations can shape professional practice. Coherently with its vision of what underpins childhood, early childhood education deconstructs the paradigm of pedagogy to identify and criticise those elements that position children as subaltern to adults’ authority (Tang & Maxwell, 2007; Tisdall & Punch, 2012; Georgeson et al., 2015; Birth to 5 Matters, 2021). If not deconstructed, discussed, challenged, or clarified, language can silently impact pedagogical practice

2  THE CULTURE OF A PROJECT OF PEDAGOGICAL INNOVATION 

23

and praxis (Fass, 1980; Freire, 1985; Houen et  al., 2016). Fass (1980) and Bakthin (1984, 1986) invite exploration into how habits in the use of language can become a channel for fragments of inherited discourses to survive and influence current discourses. The deconstruction of early childhood education as a pedagogical paradigm favours a continuing debate that equips researchers, scholars, and practitioners with the intellectual and methodological tools to deconstruct the practices of pedagoging, starting from their ideological, philosophical, and ethical foundations (Murray & Palaiologou, 2018; Borkett, 2020; Birth to 5 Matters, 2021). An example of critical deconstruction undertaken by early childhood education is offered by the work of Chung and Walsh (2000) around the concept and use of child-centred pedagogy. Although the term is generally taken as self-evident, Chung and Walsh found over 40 definitions of child-­centredness, suggesting that the concept has a much more elusive meaning. Chung and Walsh recognise three dominant meanings of childcentredness: (1) the child at the centre of his or her world, (2) the child at the centre of schooling, and (3) the child at the centre of his or her learning. Each meaning changes according to the social context where the discourse on child-centredness develops. For instance, child-centred practice in school settings refers to supporting the development of the child towards adult-defined expectations (education for the child). In early childhood settings, child-centred more often refers to the active role of children in the construction of the learning environment (education from the child). Research underpinned by early childhood education has proved capable of deconstructing pedagogical practices. A recent example is offered by the Early Intervention Foundation (EIF, 2018) research that invited a shift in attention from the quality of the curriculum per se to the quality of adult–child interactions, coherently with the early childhood studies tenet that learning is a social and interactional process. EIF research also challenges the vision of adult–child communication in educational contexts as a transmission of knowledge from adults to children, inviting reflection on whether a knowledge-based hierarchy can hinder the construction of trust based on intimacy, dialogue, and emotional attunement (Elfer et al., 2012), which is essential for pedagogies centred on the uniqueness of each child. Nevertheless, Sim and colleagues (2015) acknowledge that deconstructing pedagogy can be challenging because pedagogy is intertwined with practices that have real effects on children and professionals. Layers of complexities need to be considered, for instance, the possible impact of

24 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

deconstructing pedagogical practice on professional identities (Osgood, 2010; Whalley & Allen, 2012; Georgeson et al., 2015). For this reason, change in practice requires time to combine the deconstruction of professional identities, duties, and routines inherited through osmosis (Brock & Carter, 2013) with consideration of how such exercise of deconstruction can affect interactions with children (Tang & Maxwell, 2007; Allen et al., 2019). Theoretically, the deconstruction of pedagogical paradigms undertaken by early childhood education is motivated by the ontological position of the unique and capable child (Tisdall, 2015). The idea of children as active participants in their own learning is a tenet of early childhood education (Brehony, 2001; Tang & Maxwell, 2007; Bruce, 2012, 2020, 2021; Tovey, 2012; Fumoto et  al., 2014; Palmer & Read, 2020), which developed from the legacy of pedagogists such as Vygotsky, Froebel, Montessori, Rousseau, and Pestalozzi (Reed & Walker, 2015). The idea of children as active participants in their own learning is based on an underpinning epistemological theory, where children, like all other individuals, are active constructors of knowledge. Rousseau was the first philosopher who devoted specific attention to the education of young children. One of the pillars of Rousseau’s philosophy is that learning occurs most naturally in the child’s everyday environment, following the child’s curiosity, interest, and lead. Rousseau (1974) perceives the role of adults as facilitators who follow children’s quests as they discover the world, clearly exercising a great influence on Dewey’s democratic pedagogy (Dewey, 1916). Developing Rousseau’s idea of children as leaders of their own learning, Pestalozzi invites educators to move away from artificial teaching and tricks (Pestalozzi, cited in Silber & Tippett, 1965, p. 134), working closely with children during a learning journey that Pestalozzi considers to be driven by empirical experiences. Pestalozzi places great focus on children’s spontaneity and ability to self-construct learning activities, to the point where he developed the idea of children needing to be educated through their hands, heart, and head (Silber & Tippett, 1965). Unlike Rousseau, Pestalozzi believes that adults can learn not only with but also from the child, suggesting his influence on the contemporary early childhood education ethos. Probably the most widely discussed influence on early childhood education comes from Froebel and his kindergarten movement. For Froebel, learning develops at the intersection between a child’s natural curiosity,

2  THE CULTURE OF A PROJECT OF PEDAGOGICAL INNOVATION 

25

learning by doing, and trial and error (Brehony, 2001; Tang & Maxwell, 2007; Tovey, 2012; Bruce et al., 2018). Froebel emphasises how adults should observe children and initiate dialogue with them in order to become attuned to and connect with their worlds (Tovey, 2012; Bruce et al., 2018). Children’s voices become a pivotal resource for education, because children’s voices, if listened to and engaged with, allow education to connect with children’s experiences (Bruce, 2012, 2020, 2021). Froebel’s work is particularly close to early childhood education. This is also true of another pedagogical approach developed by Montessori: harnessing learning towards children’s unique dispositions and capacity. For Montessori, learning occurs as a process of osmosis during social exchange within well-planned and prepared environments. Montessori’s theory (2012) advocates for children’s ascendancy to the status of authors of unique learning processes, clearly pioneering the pedagogical position of early childhood education as well as the early years foundation stage (EYFS) idea of the unique child (DfE, 2021). Nurtured by the legacy of important pedagogists, early childhood education is being developed by an ever-growing range of scholars globally (Reed & Walker, 2015; Bruce et al., 2018; McDowall-Clark, 2020) within interdisciplinary studies that answer the plea of Christensen and Prout (2005), Pain (2010), and Spyrou (2016, 2018) for collaboration between disciplines around the unifying magnet of the unique child. The following section explores the current paradigm of early childhood education. As an educational paradigm, early childhood education positions adults and children in a very specific way, with unique interests, ethical and practical, in the spaces that education provides for children’s voices. Mainstream theorisations of human development suggest that the early years of life are the blueprint for relationships and self-identity (Dahlberg & Moss, 2005; Taggart, 2015). A large-scale research project in the UK, the Effective Provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE), indicated that pre-school impacts on children’s future educational outcomes (Sylva et al. 2004). However, how early education should support children’s development is not an uncontroversial topic. There is a view of educational practices in the early years of life suggesting that it should be designed and delivered for and to children within a teacher-led paradigm that understands education as a teacher-led and unidirectional transmission of knowledge (Harrison, 1970; Sternhouse, 1983; Kitchen, 2014). Whilst discussing the work of Bantock on literary

26 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

education, Harrison argues that the learner has no authority outside of himself (1970, p. 19). Kitchen (2014) affirms that the authority of a teacher should be absolute in education. He suggests that this is necessary for success given that the mission of teaching is to spread knowledge across generations. For Kitchen, teaching must focus on the need to learn, and in his perspective, the motivation for a child’s participation is based on the authority of the teacher and pleasure to be gained from learning. Authority and pleasure are the two resources that the teacher must be able to generate to help children learn (Kitchen 2014). Although Bantock was writing in the late 1960s, recent work from Kitchen shows that a teacher-led paradigm remains an important part of the discourse on, and in, the education of young children. How a teacher-­ led paradigm is still very much alive is illustrated by new research aimed at evaluating whether dialogue can support curricular learning (Brian Howe & Covell, 2021). Such research is particularly interesting because it can be made the object of critical assessment for displaying an instrumental concept of dialogue as a tool for teacher-centred pedagogy to achieve curricular outcomes. As suggested by Helavaara and colleagues (2015), if the empowerment of children’s voices and dialogue are understood as a technique to motivate children to engage with teachers’ agenda, the use of dialogue does not guarantee that the voices of children will be listened to and valued. Listening to the voices of children is essential for early childhood education in order to develop pedagogies that value the uniqueness of the child by promoting the expression of such uniqueness in educational interactions (Penn, 2000; Brehony, 2001; Bath, 2013; Gallagher et  al., 2017; Clark, 2020; McDowall-Clark, 2020; Moore, 2020). Scholars and researchers who share an image of children as competent, responsible authors of valid knowledge, such as Dahlberg and Moss (2005), Brooker (2010), Gillespie (2012), Moss (2014), Fumoto et  al. (2014), Penn (2014), Baraldi (2015), Kirch and Ma (2016), Paananen (2017), Bruce et al. (2018), Jadue Roa et al. (2018), Murray and Palaiologou (2018), Farini (2019), and McDowall-Clark (2020), question whether the voices of children are listened to in teacher-centred educational practice. Alternative paradigms to teacher-centred pedagogy have been developed (Dahlberg & Moss, 2005; Pascal & Bertram, 2014, Parker-Rees, 2015a; Allen et al., 2019) that are compatible with an image of children as agentic participants in their own education (Oswell, 2013; Smith, 2016; Gabriel, 2017; Alderson, 2017; Hadley et al., 2020; Spyrou, 2016, 2018).

2  THE CULTURE OF A PROJECT OF PEDAGOGICAL INNOVATION 

27

Although pedagogical innovation is a complex area, where policy makers introduce complexities for those working with and for young children (Christensen & Prout, 2005; Pascal & Bertram, 2014; Moss, 2014; Clark, 2017; Gallagher et al., 2017; Allen et al., 2019; Murray, 2019a, 2019b; Murray & Palaiologou, 2018; McDowall-Clark, 2020; Cameron & Moss, 2020), listening to children and recognising their right to play an active role in their learning is a constant staple of early childhood education. Early childhood education is propelled by a vision of children as competent and trustworthy who are positioned as equals to adults in the social field of intergenerational relationships. Early childhood education not only positions children as co-authors of their learning; they are positioned as potential leaders of adults’ learning (Tovey, 2012; Cagliari et al., 2016; Bruce, 2020). Children and adults can move between roles, and children can be leaders of learning (Malaguzzi, 1995). The positioning of children and adults as agents with equal opportunities to construct knowledge in educational interactions means that children’s choices can make a difference, changing the context and agenda of learning. White (2016) argues that being prepared to be altered in dialogic pedagogy is not only the attitude for children but for teachers too: it is poised resourcefulness at its best (White, 2016, p. 167). Poised resourcefulness refers to creativity, resilience, and focus on relationships. Teachers need professional wisdom, relatedness, and empathy for the unique child, but, most importantly, teachers need to be prepared to learn from children in the co-construction of learning (Gallagher et  al., 2017; Allen et  al., 2019). This is implied in the idea of children’s access to the status of legitimate authors of knowledge. The translation of early childhood education into educational practice interacts not only with pedagogical paradigms but also with the organisational dimension (Bush, 2008; Cameron & Moss, 2011; Moss & Urban, 2020) and the cultural dimension of education (Freire, 1970; Rogoff, 1990). Cagliari et al. (2016) recognise that, whilst each child’s potential and learning journey are unknowable, unpredictable, and unexpected, how the expressions of children’s uniqueness are reacted to depends on the context where education takes place. ‘Context’ is not a univocal term, because it can refer both to organisational and cultural variables. The model of management is an example of an organisational variable. For example, there are a plethora of leadership and management models that influence routines, that influence how curricula are interpreted and sometimes can limit the scope for practitioner-led innovation (Bush, 2003,

28 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

2008; Georgeson et al., 2015). Parker-Rees (2015b) argue that the limited material resources (particularly time) and limited inclination to dialogue that characterise the dominant model of management combine to prevent those working across children’s services critically reflecting on the learning being offered and promoted. An example of the impact of cultural variables is the impact of professional identities in education. Osgood (2009, 2010) and Osgood et al. (2017) have advanced the concept of becoming professional to describe the fluid and processual development of professional identities of educationalists working with young children. Rather than a state (being professional), professional identity adapts to the contexts of practice. The translation of early childhood education in pedagogical practice is influenced by the identity of early childhood education professionals. For instance, Kaga et  al. (2010), Sylva et  al. (2004, 2010), Nutbrown (2012), Osgood et al. (2017), and Bonetti (2019) argue that pedagogical innovation towards real listening is made difficult in contexts where professionals have less time, confidence, and access to resources. McDowall-Clark (2020) observes that in the UK, as in many other countries, pre-school education is predominately staffed by a low-skilled workforce because it is primarily considered a support to parental employment (Dahlberg & Moss, 2005). Thus, early childhood education interacts with organisational and cultural variables that may hinder its translation into pedagogical practice (Moss, 2019). Nevertheless, early childhood education is organic to cultural shifts that have been challenging the mainstream construction of childhood for more than 30 years. As part of a broader and vigorous cultural shift, early childhood education’s critique of pedagogy and reflection on professional identities have become a transformative act (Bruce, 2012), and it is not unusual for pedagogists to lobby for a status of early childhood education equal to school education (Tisdall, 2015; Georgeson et al., 2015; Early Years Coalition, 2021). The Birth to Five Matters Early Years Coalition Group (2020–2021) challenges the position of children and adults in early years education, but also in school education. As recently as 2021, Birth to 5 Matters challenged the top-down model of knowledge transmission underpinning school education to advocate for the application of early childhood education principles across all educational stages, so that the uniqueness of each child is supported to make children’s individual life experiences and knowledge an asset for the

2  THE CULTURE OF A PROJECT OF PEDAGOGICAL INNOVATION 

29

learning environment. This means that children’s knowledge and life experiences should be used as a resource for education (Cameron & Moss, 2020). By advocating for a pedagogy that is able to utilise the wide array of knowledge that children can bring into the classroom, Birth to 5 Matters positions children as authors of knowledge and co-constructors of education. Thus, professionals are faced with the challenge of relinquishing control over children, trusting their active participation and autonomous choices as a resource for education (Georgeson et al., 2015). A key idea in this book is that the promotion of children’s autonomous choices as a resource for education is linked to the recognition of children’s right to self-determination.

2.3   Self-Determination: A Concept with a Long History, But Still Unsettled Self-determination appears in the English language towards the end of the seventeenth century, when it refers to the determination of one’s mind or will by itself towards an object. For centuries, the concept of self-­ determination was declined politically as the action of a people in deciding its own form of government (Wehmeyer, 2004). Self-determination is translated in an individual dimension only from the late eighteenth century as a philosophical endeavour to signify free will and life choices without external pressure (Wehmeyer, 2004). The twentieth century developed the use of self-determination not as an attribute but as a principle, a ‘fact of nature’. Self-determination came to be used as a principle to explain the function of biological and psychological systems (Wehmeyer, 2004). Until the nineteenth century, self-determination was a choice, a political or an ethical position; from the twentieth century, self-determination became a natural, universal attribute of nature. However, as it was finding a prominent place in the conceptual toolbox of several disciplines, the meaning of self-determination became contested (Wehmeyer, 1994, 2004; Wehmeyer et al., 2017; Farini & Scollan, 2019). Two meanings of self-determination coexist in the current debate. The first meaning of self-determination is that of a natural ‘fact of life’ that can be acted upon or ignored but that will still always predate individual or collective choices. The second meaning of self-determination is one that refers, not to nature, but to choice, the choice to make autonomous choices

30 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

(Freedberg, 1989). It is an ethical and political meaning of self-­ determination that unavoidably interacts with the social context and appears to be most influential in current educational debates (Lundy, 2012; Wehmeyer et al., 2017; Farini & Scollan, 2019; Murray, 2019a). McDermott (1975) proposes a concept of self-determination as a component of one’s self-identity as a choice-maker that can be encouraged or discouraged by specific contextual conditions. Writing within the area of social work, McDermott argues that it is the duty of the social worker to create favourable conditions for client choices and decision-making. In 1983, Freeman recognised the difficulties of the legal debate in approaching children’s rights to add the right of self-determination to protection and welfare rights. Two decades later, Fortin (2003) still observed the enduring difficulties of jurisprudence in acting upon children’s rights of self-determination. Wehmeyer et  al. (2017) efficiently summarise the difficult translation of the right of self-determination into practice, including educational practice, as it points to possible contrasts between decisions made by children and decisions of adults who claim that they are acting in children’s best interest. The dilemma between the promotion of children’s autonomous choices and the protection of children characterises, and largely reduces in scope, the application of children’s right to self-determination. The challenging coexistence of adults’ control and children’s self-determination is not resolved by compromises like that proposed by Eekelaar (2015), who developed the concept of dynamic self-determinism: self-determination depends on children’s understanding, competence, and maturity in the different contexts of their lives. Children’s readiness is measured by adults, whose readiness, in contrast, is taken for granted; ultimately, dynamic self-­ determinism understands self-determination as something conceded by adults to children, according to an adult decision based on adults’ criteria and expectations. A cultural movement towards the recognition of children’s, including young children’s, right to self-determination is epitomised by the recommendation of the UNICEF-sponsored Convention on the Rights of the Child that recognises young children as holders of all rights enshrined in the Convention [because] early childhood is a critical period for the realization of these rights (UNCRC, 2005, p. 1). Handley (2005) observes that children’s self-determination is often conditional on adults’ evaluation of children’s competence. Lundy (2012) suggests that the subordination of children’s self-determination to adults’

2  THE CULTURE OF A PROJECT OF PEDAGOGICAL INNOVATION 

31

assessment can disempower the voices of children if they are not expressed in the ways that adults expect. Alderson (2008) and Monk (2004) observe how medicine (Alderson) and psychology (Monk) are prudent in positioning children as equal participants. Concerning education, Freeman (2011) suggests that children’s self-determination is perceived as a risk by professionals, because professionals are culturally oppressed by discourses of adults’ responsibility and accountability. The ambiguous status of children’s self-determination within many social spheres in much less ambiguous in early childhood education, where it is situated at the centre of important theoretical developments, with implications for the innovation of educational practice. Early childhood education positions children as competent and responsible co-­constructors of their social worlds, who are social actors from the beginning of life (OHCHR, 2011, p. 2) and holders of rights independently of adult concession (Murray & Palaiologou, 2018). The most influential approach to self-determination in the educational debate positions self-determination in a fluid interaction with the cultural social and political context. Children’s right to self-determination does not happen in a void. Rather, the meaning of self-determination is articulated within broader discourses in, and on, intergenerational relationships: the discourse of children’s needs and the discourse of children’s interests (Wyness, 2013). Each discourse constructs divergent meanings of children’s self-­ determination. The discourse of children’s needs positions adults as advocates who act on behalf of children, to provide children what they (adults) deem as essential for their (children) development (Holt, 1974; McDermott, 1975; Wehmeyer et al., 2017). Political decision-making and legal provision are two social spheres that offer examples of the very real implications of the discourses of children’s needs (Gabriel, 2017; Moss & Urban, 2020; Moore, 2020). For instance, the UK-wide Children and Family Act 2014 moves within the discourse of children’s needs. The voices of children are not included in decisions regarding work-care balance; more generally, the rights of children are considered as a residual consequence of adults’ position. The effects of the Children and Family Act 2014 on children’s experiences are not considered by the legislation from the perspective of children, who are positioned as dependents of adults rather than social agents, in a substantial eclipse of their right to self-determination.

32 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

The discourse of children’s interests positions children as members of a social group, who share common interests and who can bring about consequential changes in the social contexts of their experiences as they voice them (Wyness, 2013; Farini & Scollan, 2019; Moss, 2019). Consequentiality refers to children’s autonomous choices, including the choice of voicing interests, that (1) are significant for other participants and (2) make a difference in their context, as they change the context of others’ experiences and actions. A consequential choice is a choice that other participants in a social situation cannot not consider as they make their decisions. Positioning children within a discourse centred on their needs or within a discourse centred on their interests entails political, social, and cultural implications. For instance, if children are perceived through the lenses of their needs, then their capacity to make autonomous choices is confined by adults’ decision-making for and on behalf of them (Fass, 1980). Konstantoni (2013) and Duhn (2019) argue that children’s self-­ determination is less meaningful in a situation of limited trust, where adults do not trust children’ s decision-making. Te One (2006), Te One & Sauni-Welsh (2019), Thomas (2007), and Duhn (2015, 2019) relate limited trust in children’s decision-making to a cultural construct of children as incompetent and immature, a cultural construct that is not easy to critically review because, in a sort of vicious circle, limited trust prevents real listening to children’s voices (Farini & Scollan, 2021). Biestek and Gehrig (1978) and, more than 30 years later, Lee and Miller (2013) recognise that in social work, and in particular in social work with children, clients are observed through the lenses of their needs, positioning social workers on a superior status as the providers of their clients’ needs. The implication of looking at clients through the lenses of their needs is that their self-determination may be promoted, but only within the limits imposed by social workers’ decisions. Kraft (1973) prompts adults to reflect on how they listen to children’s voices and urges adults to undertake a fine retune. This means that adults’ ears might be listening and open whilst also shut at the same time, meaning that children’s voices fall on deaf ears. Unlike the discourse of children’s needs, the discourse of children’s interests positions children as competent social actors who can pursue their own agendas and interests, voice their opinions, and hold others accountable (Holt, 1974).

2  THE CULTURE OF A PROJECT OF PEDAGOGICAL INNOVATION 

33

Through the lenses of children’s needs, acting for and on behalf of children is instrumental to empowering their voices in the future, at the end of a successful developmental trajectory. In contrast, through the lenses of children’s interests, acting for and on behalf of children is understood as silencing their voices in the here and now. In a discourse of children’s interest, if children’s right to self-determination is to be taken seriously, adults need to construct ways of listening to children’s voices that are expressed in many ways (Carr et al., 2005; Pufall & Unsworth, 2004; Alderson, 2010; Cockburn, 2013; Farini & Scollan, 2019). Narrowing the focus from a philosophical to an educational argument, it appears that this latter point resonates with the early childhood education idea that adults working with children should not evaluate the quality of children’s voices but listen to them. In the discourse of children’s interests as well in early childhood education, which is firmly positioned in that cultural constellation, children’s voices are not to be evaluated; they are to be valued and listened to. Listening to children invites adults to reflect on the motivations and interests underpinning children’s choices, rather than taking an evaluative and judgemental stance (Malaguzzi, 1996; Davies, 2014; Clark, 2020; Allen et al., 2019; Cameron & Moss, 2020). The meaning of self-determination shifts significantly in the movement from children’s needs and children’s interests (Farini & Scollan, 2019). In the discourse of children’s needs, self-determination is conditional, and decision-making is reserved for adults, silencing children’s voices. In the discourse of children’s interests, children are positioned as agents whose choices can make a difference, and their self-determination is expected and promoted. For Rogoff (1990), the recognition of children as agents who construct their agenda and interest is characterised by a shift in the balance of responsibility, from adults to children. Self-determination becomes a process of participatory responsibilising of the children (Rogoff, 1990). The categories of children’s needs and children’s interests can be utilised to add further theoretical framework depth to Penn’s (2014). Penn’s influential work articulates children’s rights in two macro categories: (1) welfare rights and (2) self-determination rights. Welfare rights are advocated for children by adults on behalf of children; they are rights that flow from adults to children. A general consensus is often observable in the public discourse around welfare rights, for instance when welfare rights concern ‘safe-guarding’ (Moss, 2006; Alderson, 2008; Penn, 2014). Welfare rights are framed within the discourse of children’s needs.

34 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

Self-determination rights are more controversial in the public discourse, because they position children as decision-makers who take responsibilities and negotiate power away from adults (Holt, 1974; Wehmeyer, 2004; Ackerman, 2006; Wehmeyer et al., 2017). Self-determination rights are framed within the discourse of children’s interests. A version of self-determination rights where power is completely taken away from adults was proposed in the 1970s by Holt (1974). However, since the 1980s, more moderate approaches have replaced the emphasis on children’s liberation from adults’ with the idea of children working alongside adults (Freeman, 2007, 2011). A definition of self-­determination that is at the same time strong but also compatible with the idea of child– adult partnerships is provided by Alderson. Alderson’s articulation of self-­ determination (1995) is useful because it recognises the conditions for self-determination on physical, psychological, and social levels. For Alderson, children’s self-determination presupposes adults’ respect for children’s integrity on three levels: (1) Physical integrity: children’s right to determine what is to be done to their body (2) Mental integrity: a right not to be mentally pressured or coerced (3) Personal integrity: a right of children to be considered as fully formed and integrated personalities who have a clear enough conception of themselves. Each of the three levels of children’s integrity becomes an arena where the discourse of children’s needs and the discourse of children’s interests compete. We can take the intersection between the level of personal integrity and the level of physical integrity as an example: What is the balance between children’s decisions and adults’ assessment about medical procedures if children are considered as fully formed and integrated personalities who have a clear enough conception of themselves? The complexity generated by the intersection of Alderson’s levels of children’s integrity emerges as soon as the concept of self-determination is translated into practice, as suggested by the ambiguous status of self-­ determination in the UNCRC. Divergent discourses on the position of children and adults coexist, as vividly represented in the UNCRC (1989). The coexistence of a discourse of children’s needs and a discourse of children’s interests contributes to a

2  THE CULTURE OF A PROJECT OF PEDAGOGICAL INNOVATION 

35

complex and sometimes contradictory definition of self-determination within the UNCRC. The UNCRC is a global frame of reference for children’s rights in legal, professional, and political terms (Freeman, 1997; Thomas, 2007; Stoecklin, 2013; Smith, 2016; Leonard, 2016). As a general petition in principle, the UNCRC challenges the position of children as passive objects of care and charity (UNICEF, 2015) and could appear to be underpinned by the children’s interest discourse, shifting the children’s needs approach of its predecessor, the 1959 Declaration of the Rights of the Child. Nevertheless, the UNCRC lends itself as an example of the ambiguous status of children’s rights, where welfare rights are juxtaposed with self-­ determination rights in an unstable balance that influences the meaning of self-determination. Article 3 introduces the concept of a child’s ‘best interests’, to be defined by adults for and on behalf of children: In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration’. Article 3 (UNCRC, 1989)

Notwithstanding the use of the word ‘interest’, article 3 promotes a welfare rights model, within a children’s needs discourse (Lansdown, 2005; UNICEF & Bernard van Leer Foundation, 2006; Lundy et  al., 2012). The concept of best interest was already present in the 1959 Declaration of Children’s Rights, where it can be traced as one of the declaration’s ethical pillars. By stating in its preamble that the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth, the this declaration firmly establishes itself within the discourse of children’s needs. Whilst influenced by the discourse of children’s needs, as made particularly evident by Article 3, the UNCRC is more complex and fluid than the 1959 Declaration. An example of such complexity is offered by the well-­ researched sequences of UNCRC articles 12 to 15. These articles define the meaning of children’s self-determination, diverging from the semantics of children’s needs enshrined in article 3. Article 12 is surely the most discussed, as well as the most criticised. The first item of the article reads as follows:

36 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child. Article 12 is known as the self-determination article because it advances an image of children as active subjects who are not given rights but have rights, whose views are to be given due weight and recognition (Tisdall & Punch, 2012; Leonard, 2016; Riddell & Tisdall, 2021). Whilst emphasis is placed on the opportunity (for the child) to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, an apparent drive towards children’s autonomy is, however, diluted in a model of tutorship as the article suggests that a child’s voice (interestingly, the child is conceptualised as an abstract category; the plurality of children’s voices is not recognised) can be raised via a representative or an appropriate body. To be heard, children’s voices need to be accepted by adults, who assess the capacities and competences of their owners. The positioning of adults and children is one of hierarchical intergenerational relationships. A later digest of article 12 published by UNICEF (2015) presents children as objects of protection rather than subjects with interests. UNICEF commentary states that the child’s right to self-determination should not undermine the right, and duty, of the adult towards the protection of the child. Thus, the UNCRC ultimately perpetuates the idea that children’s competence should be assessed by adults before the right of self-determination can be conceded. Wyness (2012) can therefore argue that the UNCRC is framed by a paternalist version of rights-based perspectives, where children’s voices are spoken and narrated by adults. The ambiguities in the concept of self-determination presented in the UNCRC are considered by Burr (2015) as a weak ontology of children’s rights, which is built on the ultimately incompatible concepts of protection and participation. Alderson (2008) offers a more nuanced analysis, stating that both protection and participation are essential for children’s active citizenship. Baraldi and Cockburn (2018) suggest that, although welfare rights and self-determination rights are not easy to combine, they are interdependent in practice: Provision and protection of and for children must include an element of children’s participation. Conversely, children’s participation cannot exist in the reality of social practices if provision and protection of children are not secured.

2  THE CULTURE OF A PROJECT OF PEDAGOGICAL INNOVATION 

37

The UNCRC may be conceptually contradictory and often appear paternalistic; nevertheless, it is still a driving force that secures a place for children’s self-determination in the public discourse (Moss, 2019). Its main contribution is the idea that self-determination is a right of all children, not a concession from adults. It is true that the extent of the practical applications of self-determination most often depends on adults’ judgement, but still, the ownership of the right to self-determination does not depend on adults and must be considered by adult decision-makers (Freeman, 2007). The following sections will investigate how psychology and sociology, two constituent disciplines of early childhood studies and, therefore, of early childhood education, approach self-determination; within social sciences, self-determination is coupled with the concept of agency.

2.4  Trying to Overcome the Conflict with Fresh Theorisations: A Psychological Approach to Self-Determination Self-determination theory is probably the most important contribution by psychological research to the theorisation of self-determination, developing from the pioneering work of Deci and Ryan. In the 1980s, Deci and Ryan developed a concept of self-determination that combined psychological motivation with the influence of the social context (Deci & Ryan, 1991), because social structures underpin choices, control, and decisions made by individuals (Ryan & Deci, 2004). Individuals, including children, make choices and take part in experiences orientated at many levels by directions of behaviour. Direction of behaviour refers to a process whereby individuals internalise experiences of effective functioning within a social world and context, which influence attitudes and motivation, including the attitude towards the exercise of self-determination. The concept of direction of behaviour is built upon psychological research from the early 1980s (Ryan & Connell, 1989; Vallerand et al., 1989) that observed self-­ determination in social interactions, developing from those observations a psycho-social model to understand what underpins the expression of self-­ determination. For Vallerand and colleagues, three intrinsic motivations for the self to initiate behaviour are universal, because they are innate: (1) the need for competence that allows control in the field of individual experience; (2) the need for relatedness that refers to interactions, to be

38 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

connected to care for others; and (3) the need for autonomy that concerns making choices that determine own life trajectory. However, intrinsic motivations interact with extrinsic motivations. This means that behaviour is influenced by external demands and rewards. The concept of extrinsic motivations can be approached as a psychological rendition of the sociological concept of social structure (Wehmeyer et al., 2017). The interplay between intrinsic and extrinsic motivations can be observed as it transpires from social interactions. According to Deci and Ryan, how intrinsic and extrinsic motivations define directions of behaviour can be understood by observing how individuals during social interactions display objective markers such as being willing and creative and having knowledge and understanding (Deci & Ryan, 1991; Ryan & Deci, 2004). Inspired by the pioneering work of Blummer (1969) on the interplay between children’s identities, including cognitive skills and experience and social opportunities, self-determination theory has been applied to research the motivation of students’ engagement in education. An array of researchers (Kage & Namiki, 1990; Standage et al., 2006) have explored the link between engagement in education and learners’ self-­determination, suggesting that the promotion of learners’ autonomous choices via learner-­ centred activities and dialogic exchange increases their motivation and performance. Self-determination theory confirms the results of previous research in educational settings that evidenced the decrease of students’ engagement when a more stringent form of teacher control relating to participation during classroom interactions was imposed (Koestner et al., 1984). Although Deci and Ryan’s methodology is based on experimental psychology, and therefore somehow removed from real-life interactions, it advances a psychological approach to self-determination where individual motivations interact with the social contexts that can encourage or discourage autonomous choices. Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory (1989) is another psychological approach to self-determination that considers the role played by social structures. Ecological systems theory deconstructs self-­determination as a multilevel concept whose meaning depends on the intersection between local, national, or global dimensions and political, legal, economic, health, or educational discourses. In Bronfenbrenner’s model (1979, 1989), self-determination appears as a multidimensional concept that relays different meanings at the micro, macro, and meso levels. Whilst the popularity of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory could invite

2  THE CULTURE OF A PROJECT OF PEDAGOGICAL INNOVATION 

39

questioning the originality of Deci and Ryan’s work, we believe that an aspect differentiates them, ultimately making the latter preferable for this research: Deci and Ryan (1991) emphasise individual reflection on social experiences as a contributing factor in the construction of the direction of behaviour. This theoretical aspect is important because it recognises the centrality of individual representations of social experiences. How individuals make sense of shared experiences creates different attitudes towards self-determination. Deci and Ryan, more than Bronfenbrenner, recognise the importance of individual and contextualised attitudes to self-­ determination. Such a range of attitudes, we suggest, can be conceptualised under the umbrella term of trust. Trust is a theoretical tenet of facilitation, a condition for its success and an expected outcome of it. The importance of trust has been widely recognised by psycho-pedagogical research, suggesting that children’s self-­ determination is promoted within environments where adults trust children to make choices (Wehmeyer, 2006; Alderson, 2008, 2012). Wehmeyer (2006) insists on the role of the adult by arguing that promoting self-determination demands trusting children’s choices and self-­ expression. Alderson (2004) and Wehmeyer and colleagues (2017) follow on the latter claim, recognising that young children’s self-determination is not independent of its context, which is marked by different levels of trust. Children need spaces and opportunities to make choices (Hannon et al., 2020), to have personal control to regulate their own behaviour (Dunn, 1988, 1993), and to feel capable of self-realisation. Further exploration at the intersection between individual motivations and contextual conditions is undertaken by Stoecklin (2013), who proposes the actor’s system model to capture how actions that display self-­ determination evolve via experiences and reflections, mediated by self-identity and motivations. Stoecklin’s model is influential in educational planning, contributing the idea that self-determination is both the social expression of children’s identities and a social opportunity for further reflexive construction of identity, moving between conscious and unconscious knowing, reaction, will, and choice. It is possible to summarise the contribution of psychological theories of self-determination. Psychological theories of self-determination contribute an understanding of self-determination as an attitude to social relationships (Ryan and Deci: direction of behaviour) that develops at the intersection of internal motivation and social context.

40 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

The intersection between individual action and the influence of its context is key also for sociological research on self-determination, as well as for the definition of the concept of agency. Since the early 1900s, when James was a solitary voice advocating for inclusive teaching based on the recognition of children’s rights to make choices affecting their learning (James, 1983), the position of children has changed to the point where their status of agents who can shape the contexts of their experiences is often a presupposition of mainstream educational research and practice (Osler & Starkey, 2010). The definition of ‘agency’ varies depending on the discipline as well as the social contexts that frame the discourse (Durham, 2011; Oswell, 2013; Tisdall, 2015). Christensen and Prout (2005) suggest that context interacts with actions to define the relevance of agency within a spectrum ranging from actions that make a difference (more agency) to actions that do not make any difference, because they are ignored (lack of agency). Christensen and Prout’s awareness of the influence of the context does not cancel out individual action, which remains an essential component of agency. Christensen and Prout recognise that self-determination is a presupposition of agency, whereas agency makes self-determination socially relevant. Agency is measured according to the capacity of individual action to make a difference in a context (Sutterlüty & Tisdall, 2019). For Oswell (2013), agency is individually driven by self-determination, but what makes agency consequential is more than the individual act. Agency is measured by the difference that actions make for their social context, in line with Christensen, Prout, Sutterlüty, and Tisdall. Durham (2011) and Tisdall (2015) utilise a contextual definition of agency to explain the different levels of agency observed across different social contexts: families, education, and children’s services. Durham and Tisdall agree that children’s actions find more favourable social conditions in some contexts, such as families, than in others, such as social services. Spyrou (2018) also follows on Christensen and Prout and on Oswell’s contextual concept of agency to offer a methodological insight: Contingent observation of the difference that actions make is required to determine agency. Spyrou links theoretical conceptualisations to the observation of empirical social practices, which aligns with the ethos and methods of the reflections on pedagogical innovation proposed in this book. Bordonaro and Payne (2012) argue that the meaning of children’s agency shifts across different social contexts: What is perceived as agentic in one environment may not be perceived as agentic in another

2  THE CULTURE OF A PROJECT OF PEDAGOGICAL INNOVATION 

41

environment. The working child, the child soldier, and child as carer are viewed differently across the globe in relation to their agency and position (Wyness, 2014). Tisdall (2015), Punch (2016), Spyrou (2018), and Sultan and Andresen (2019) argue that agency is not something that children possess. The idea that a child can have more or less agency should be challenged because it can open the way to the idea of adults’ measurement of children’s value based on their ‘level of agency’. Rather, agency is to be understood as relational (Christensen & Prout, 2005; Gallagher, 2012, 2019; Sultan & Andresen, 2019) and a component of the structures of intergenerational order. One of the most discussed concepts of agency is proposed by Klocker (2007). The context can influence the viability of agency to the point where Klocker distinguishes two types of agency. Thick agency refers to contexts that favour a broad range of options, whereas thin agency refers to contexts where the space for choice is restricted and choice is limited to a few viable alternatives. The attention to the interplay between choices and contexts suggests that the concept of agency is inspired by constructivism. For constructivism, meaning is at once an individual and a social construction (Berger & Luckmann, 1966), whereby individuals make sense of their world by combining cultural narrations and individual representation. The influence of the Weberian concept of Verstehen is evident: Making sense of social experiences (the context) is based on a continuing active participation in them (Weber, 1978). This means that the concept of Verstehen is influential not only for constructivism. Going back to a previous section of this chapter, Verstehen appears to be influential also for self-determination theory. Deci and Ryan, as well as other scholars in the field of self-determination theory, conceptualise self-determination as a direction of behaviour that interacts with the social context of decision-making. The meaning of self-­ determination is constructed by participating in social interactions, where self-determination is acted and reacted. Self-determination theory can be easily translated into the sociological concept of agency because it refers to autonomous choices (themselves evidence of self-determination) that make a difference in their context. Constructivism underpins both the psychological concept of self-determination and the sociological concept of agency at the intersection of individual motivation on the one hand and contexts that make actions (more or less) consequential on the other. The tested pedagogical innovation whose results are discussed in this book has found solid ground, for three interrelated reasons: (1)

42 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

self-­ determination becomes consequential (thus signalling agency) depending on the context; the use of facilitation in this research aims to transform the local contexts of children’s and adults’ experiences to create favourable conditions for agency; (2) favourable conditions for agency make positive experiences of self-determination more likely, which supports mutual trust as well as a direction of behaviour centred around selfdetermination; and (3) mutual trust and a direction of behaviour centred around self-­ determination create a dialogic form of communication because they produce equality in participation, empathy, and expectations of personal expression. Agency is a synergy between an individual’s action and the context of the individual’s participation in social interactions (Halliday, 1975; Beltrama, 2020); thus, the transformation of interactions through facilitation is a change in context that can influence the viability of children’s agency. Agency is constructed at the intersection of physicalness, emotions, and interactions between individuals. After all, this is a tenet of the sociological field of childhood studies, which has incessantly privileged the theme of children’s agency since the 1980s.

2.5  Agency Becomes a Key Concept for the Sociological Study of Childhood The concept of agency is popular in childhood studies (among many others: James, 2009; James & James, 2008; Oswell 2013). Childhood studies is a field of sociological discourse introduced by Smith and Greene (2015) and Hammersley (2016) as centred on the idea that children are autonomous social actors who cannot be reduced to voiceless members of the family unit, as was the case in traditional sociology. Childhood studies researchers argue that the position of children as agents of their own socialisation finds a space, although often controversial, in Western culture of the late twentieth century (James et al., 1998; Vanderstraeten, 2003; Lawy & Biesta, 2006; Baraldi, 2014). Since the early 1990s, influential publications by scholars in the field have fuelled a debate around children’s active participation in society, where active participation is not limited to the micro levels of intimacy, also referring to national and global dimensions of macro-social processes (Robson, 2006; Elfer et al., 2012; Moss, 2014, 2015, 2019; Cagliari et al., 2016; Cameron & Moss, 2020).

2  THE CULTURE OF A PROJECT OF PEDAGOGICAL INNOVATION 

43

At its core, the epistemological position of childhood studies is as follows: Children are agents in their own right; therefore, they are worthy of researchers’ attention. Hammersley adds another dimension in suggesting that childhood studies should be firmly embedded in the social sciences as researchers in the field view children’s behaviour and agency as primarily sociocultural rather than psychological, because [the primacy of] individualistic internalisation of [externally imposed] behaviour norms and patterns of behaviour denies agency (2016, p. 119). Hammersley’s assessment seems to overlook psychological works bridging the study of self-determination (motivation for action) with the study of agency (the meaning of action in context), as is the case for Deci and Ryan’s works. However, it is true that childhood studies understands children’s agency as a social construct that cannot be defined based on individual action only. Moosa-Mitha offers a clear definition of agency as the recognition of children’s opportunity to respond, mitigate, resist, have views about and interact with the social conditions in which they find themselves (2005, p. 380). This definition can be deconstructed to articulate three dimensions of children’s agency: (1) respond, mitigate, and resist refer to action; (2) have views refers to perspectives; and (3) interact with social conditions refers to the importance of the social context. The ambition of this book fits neatly with childhood studies’ definition of agency: Facilitation can be the favourable context for agency; agency, in the three dimensions of action, perspective, and context, mirrors the three dimensions of dialogic communication: equality (action), empathy (perspectives), and expectations of personal expression (context). Childhood studies offers a clear and articulated discussion of agency (James et  al., 1998). For childhood studies, autonomous choices are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for agency. A situation of agency requires that actions be consequential, that is, that they make a difference for other participants in the social situation (the context). Self-­ determination can be consequential or not depending on its intersection with contexts. Agency thus refers to children’s capability to both shape their own lives and influence their social contexts (Lansdown, 2005; Markström & Halldén, 2009; Baraldi, 2014), and we refer to such a capability as the consequentiality of children’s actions, or the consequentiality of children’s self-determination. We also believe, and this ultimately justifies the whole project presented in the book, that facilitation can transform intergenerational interactions in a context that supports children’s autonomous choices to become consequential, positioning children as active

44 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

protagonists who co-construct with adults meaning, identity, and knowledge (Cagliari et al., 2016). The concept of agency allows theorising the interaction between autonomous choices and the social contexts. Based on research in childhood studies, it is possible to typify two types of educational contexts that are not favourable for children’s agency. The first type includes contexts that are structured by hierarchical positioning, where children’s self-determination means acceptance of adult authority (Kaukko & Wernesjo, 2017), for instance children’s acceptance of existing sociocultural orientations and children’s cooperation in the reproduction of generational order (Bühler-Niederberger & Schwittek, 2014). The second includes contexts where children’s self-determination appears to be instrumental and non-consequential (Prout, 2000). Attribution of agency depends on social conditions and structures, with some structures inhibiting children’s agency (Alanen, 2009; Bjerke, 2011; James, 2009; Leonard, 2016; Moosa Miltha, 2005). This is particularly evident for one of the most important contexts of children’s experiences: the school system (Baraldi & Corsi, 2017). In organised educational contexts such as schools, the relationship between self-determination and context that defines the consequentiality of children’s actions is complex (James & Prout, 1990; Prout, 2000; Holdsworth, 2004; Blanchet Cohen & Rainbow, 2006; Holland & O’Neill, 2006; Lawy & Biesta, 2006); the meaning of children’s self-­ determination can be influenced by policy and legislation that are averse to the risk of trusting in children’s decision-making (Fielding & Moss, 2011). Education is interweaved with ideological, political, economic, and legal variables (Paige-Smith & Craft, 2008). A generally advocated humanistic approach to teaching fuelled by caring for others is framed in organisational procedures that prevent a recognition of children’s rich and diverse knowledges, if those knowledges do not match the expectations prescribed by curricula (Cagliari et al., 2016; Allen et al., 2019; Moss & Urban, 2020). Although is it beyond doubt that for most approaches to education teaching and learning are built on caring for others (McDowall-­ Clark, 2020; Moss & Urban, 2020), educational agendas that originated from outside of education (such as agendas framed by the political system) may replace the concept of care for the unique child as a person with the management of the standardised pupil as a role (Tickell, 2011; Musomi & Swadener, 2017). Moss (2015, 2019) argues that education for young children should be underpinned by an ethics of care pervading adult–child relationships. An ethics of care implies a recognition of the unique person

2  THE CULTURE OF A PROJECT OF PEDAGOGICAL INNOVATION 

45

behind the generalised social role of the pupil. This recognition is inextricably coupled with the acceptance of self-determination, which is expressed in autonomous choices. The alternative to an ethics of care is distrust and anxiety over the participation of children. Distrust in the unique child is embedded in an image of children as unpredictable and threatening (Vanderstraeten, 2003; Farini, 2019). Thus, the unique child, the person, must be kept at bay during educational encounters that are centred around the pupil, the social role that can be the object of standardised expectations and assessment. Moss (2006), Penn (2014), and Cameron and Moss (2020) suggest that in contexts where institutionalised distrust permeates intergenerational relationships, protection of children (including protection of children from their own choices) can override the commitment to support children’s self-determination. Along a similar line, Osler and Starkey (2010) discuss how perspectives on children’s rights are based on social, economic, and cultural positioning of the actors, making a prescriptive approach to their implementation less than realistic. Trevarthen (2011), Alderson (2012), and Cameron and Moss (2020) advance Osler and Starkey’s point arguing that the contextualised ‘child’ is influenced by the environment and available resources, as well as by the adults that inhabit the child’s social worlds. Researchers in the last twenty-five years have been arguing that a gulf separates representations of childhood, centred on children’s interest, and actual educational practices, still anchored to a children’s needs discourse (see the comprehensive reviews offered by Baraldi & Iervese, 2012; Warming, 2013; Farini & Scollan, 2019). Researchers interested in what children’s self-determination looks like in educational practice have argued that within educational settings, children are positioned as incompetent when it comes to constructing and accessing knowledge. This translates into knowledge owned by adults being transmitted to children, who are treated as passive recipients of it, within a one-directional transmission of knowledge, for children’s own good against their self-determination (James & James, 2008). Anthropological research suggests that the problem should be identified in how school works as an acculturation context for children (Horenczyk & Tatar, 2012). This process of acculturation typically happens through the conveyance of (1) knowledge (curriculum content, course content); (2) norms (rewarded and punished behaviours); (3) values (recognition and some degree of retention of ‘childhood’ cultures); and (4) assumptions concerning the ontological status of childhood (Horenczyk & Tatar, 2012). Szalai (2011), as well as Janta and Harte

46 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

(2016), suggests that the pattern of classroom interaction leads to children’s adaptation to the school context, rather than enhancing children’s active participation. Dominant knowledge, values, and expectations concerning positioning and behaviour are conveyed in classroom interactions (Bowles & Gintis, 1976; Mehan, 1979; Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990; Luhmann, 2002). Nevertheless, as another example of the intrinsic ambiguity of the discourse on children’s self-determination, rights-based pedagogies, young children’s participation, and ‘voice’ are promoted by the UNCRC (1989). Young children’s collaboration with teachers and a consistent and shared exchange of ideas between children and adults are promoted by national education policies and nationwide initiatives, such as, with regard to England and Wales, positive environments where children can flourish (OFSTED, 2018), Children and Youth Services Review 91 (Horgan et al., 2018), and respect, equality, participation: exploring human rights education in Great Britain (EHRC, 2020). In the meantime, research on teacher–child interactions has highlighted effective methods to enhance children’s active participation in education, through education (e.g. O’Connor & Michaels, 1996; Mercer & Littleton, 2007; Walsh, 2011). Research highlights the effectiveness of facilitation of children’s agency (Hendry, 2009; Wyness, 2013; Baraldi, 2014; Baraldi & Iervese, 2017, Baraldi et al., 2022). Some studies show that facilitation is achieved in specific interactions, including organised sequences of adults’ actions that enhance children’s agency and children’s actions that display agency (Baraldi, 2014; Baraldi & Iervese, 2017, Baraldi et al., 2021, 2022; Farini & Scollan, 2021). The idea is that education can promote children’s agency and that children’s agency can make it a force for positive change in the context of their experiences, school, and communities (Cockburn, 2013). Cockburn argues that the benefits of promoting children’s self-determination consequentiality may be both (1) individual, in terms of each child feeling empowered, accessing information, and gaining new skills, and (2) social, in terms of better services, improved decision-making, and democracy. However, there remains a paucity of research examining participatory practices promoting self-determination in educational practices at the micro level of context. Considering the need for further insights on the promotion of self-determination and, from this, on the promotion of agency in the classroom, this book is committed to exploring the use of facilitation as an educational practice to nurture children’s

2  THE CULTURE OF A PROJECT OF PEDAGOGICAL INNOVATION 

47

self-­determination, to create spaces for children to lead on topics and subjects in which they are interested and possess expertise. In this way, agency can be achieved as authorship of knowledge, for children, from children, for adults. On completion of Chap. 2, Federico Farini and Angela Scollan propose the following questions to provoke further reflection, research, and dialogue: • How is the image of the child constructed by early childhood education, in contrast to the image of the child in other pedagogical perspectives? • Reflect on whether a concept of self-determination as developed by the psychological self-determination theory fits better in a children’s interest discourse or a children’s needs discourse. • What is the difference between self-determination and agency? How does the context of social interactions make a difference, according to sociological studies on childhood?

References Ackerman, D. (2006). The costs of being a childcare teacher: Revisiting the problem of low wages. Educational Policy, 20(1), 85–112. Alanen, L. (2009). Generational order. In J. Qvortrup, W. Corsaro, & M. S. Honig (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of childhood studies (pp. 159–174). Palgrave. Alderson, P. (1995). Listening to children: Children, ethics and social research. Barnardo’s. Alderson, P. (2004). Ethics. In S.  Fraser, V.  Lewis, S.  Ding, M.  Kellett, & C.  Robinson (Eds.), Doing research with children and young people (pp. 97–112). Sage. Alderson, P. (2008). Young children’s rights: Exploring beliefs, principles and practice. Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Alderson, P. (2010). Younger children’s individual participation in all matters affecting the Child. In B.  Percy-Smith & N.  Thomas (Eds.), A handbook of children and young people’s participation: Perspectives from theory and practice (pp. 88–96). Routledge. Alderson, P. (2012). Rights respecting research: A commentary on the ‘right to be properly researched: Research with children in a messy, real world’. Children’s Geographies, 10(2), 233–239.

48 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

Alderson, P. (2017). Common criticisms of children’s rights and 25 years of the IJCR. International Journal of Children’s Rights, 25(2), 307–319. Allen, S., Maureen, L., Whalley, M. E., & Scollan, A. (2019). Developing professional practice in the early years. Open University Press. Bakhtin, M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. University of Texas Press. Bakhtin, M.  M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics. University of Minnesota Press. Baraldi, C. (2014). Children’s participation in communication systems: A theoretical perspective to shape research. Soul of society: A focus on the leaves of children and youth. Sociological studies on children and youth, 18, 63–92. Baraldi, C. (2015). Intercultural communication systems and discourses of cultural identity. Applied Linguistics Review, 6(1), 49–71. Baraldi, C., & Cockburn, T. (2018). Theorising childhood. Palgrave Macmillan. Baraldi, C., & Corsi, G. (2017). Niklas Luhmann: Education as a social system. Springer. Baraldi, C., Farini, F., & Ślusarczyk, M. (2022). Facilitative practices to promote migrant children’s agency and hybrid integration in schools: Discussing data from Italy, Poland and England. Language and Intercultural Communication. https://doi.org/10.1080/14708477.2022.2096054 Baraldi, C., & Iervese, V. (Eds.). (2012). Participation, facilitation, and mediation. Children and young people in their social contexts. Routledge. Baraldi, C., & Iervese, V. (2017). Narratives of memories and dialogue in multicultural classrooms. Narrative Inquiry, 27(2), 398–417. Baraldi, C., Joslyn, E., & Farini, F. (Eds.). (2021). Promoting children’s Rights in European schools. Intercultural dialogue and facilitative pedagogy. Bloomsbury. Bath, C. (2013). Conceptualising listening to young children as an ethic of care in early childhood education and care. Children and Society, 27(5), 361–371. Beltrama, A. (2020). Social meaning in semantics and pragmatics. Language and Linguist Compass, 14 (9). Online version: https://doi.org/10.1111/ lnc3.12398. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Anchor Books. Biestek, P., & Gehrig, C.  C. (1978). Client self-determination in social work. A fifty-year history. Loyola University Press. Birth to 5 Matters. Non-statutory guidance for the Early Years Foundation Stage on behalf of the Early Years Coalition. (2021). Retrieved November 20, 2022, from https://www.birthto5matters.org.uk Bjerke, H. (2011). ‘It’s the way they do it’: Expressions of agency in child–adult relations at home and school. Children and Society, 25, 93–103. Blanchet Cohen, N., & Rainbow, B. (2006). Partnership between children and adults?: The experience of the International Children’s Conference on the Environment. Childhood, 13(1), 113–126.

2  THE CULTURE OF A PROJECT OF PEDAGOGICAL INNOVATION 

49

Blummer, H. (1969). Symbolic interaction. Prentice-Hall. Bonetti, S. (2019). The early years workforce in England: A comparative analysis using Labour Force Survey. Education Policy Institute and Nuffield Foundation. Bordonaro, L., & Payne, R. (2012). Ambiguous agency: Critical perspectives on social interventions with children and youth in Africa. Children’s geographies, 10(4), 365–372. Borkett, P. (2020). Special educational needs in the early years: A guide to inclusive practice. Sage. Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J.-C. (1990). Reproduction in education, society and culture. Sage. Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America: Educational reform and the contradictions of economic life. Routledge. Brehony, K. (2001). The origins of nursery education: Friedrich Froebel and the English system. Routledge. Brian Howe, R., & Covell, K. (2021). Meeting the challenge of populism to children’s rights: The value of human rights education. Journal of Human Rights Practice, 13(1), 45–66. Brock, M. E., & Carter, E. W. (2013). A systematic review of paraprofessional-­ delivered educational practices to improve outcomes for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 38(4), 211–221. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Harvard University Press. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1989). Ecological systems theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child development (pp. 187–248). Erlbaum. Brooker, L. (2010). Constructing the triangle of care: Power and professionalisation in practitioner/parent relationships. British Journal of Educational Studies, 58, 181–196. Bruce, T. (2012). Early childhood practice. Sage. Bruce, T. (2020). Educating young children: A lifetime journey into a Froebelian approach. The selected works of Tina Bruce. London. Bruce, T. (2021). Friedrich Froebel. A critical introduction to key themes and debates. London. Bruce, T., Elfer, P., Powell, S., & Werth, L. (Eds.). (2018). The Routledge international handbook of Froebel and early childhood practice: Re-articulating research and policy. Routledge. Bühler-Niederberger, D., & Schwittek, J. (2014). Young children in Kyrgyzstan: Agency in tight hierarchical structures. Childhood, 21(4), 502–516. Burr, V. (2015). Social constructionism. Routledge. Bush, T. (2003). Theories of educational management. Sage. Bush, T. (2008). Leadership and management development in education. Sage. Cagliari, P., Castegnetti, M., & Giudici, C. (2016). Loris Malaguzzi and the schools of Reggio Emilia: A selection of his writings and speeches 1945–1993. Routledge.

50 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

Cameron, C., & Moss, P. (2011). Social pedagogy: Current Understandings and Opportunities. In C. Cameron & P. Moss (Eds.), Social pedagogy and working with children and young people: Where care and education meet (pp.  7–33). Jessica Kingsley. Cameron, C., & Moss, P. (2020). Transforming early childhood in England: Towards a democratic education. UCL Press. Carr, M., Jones, C., & Lee, W. (2005). Beyond listening: Can assessment practice play a part?’. In A. Clark, A. T. Kjörholt, & P. Moss (Eds.), Beyond listening: Children’s perspectives on early childhood services (pp. 129–150). The Policy Press. Christensen, P., & Prout, A. (2005). Anthropological and sociological perspectives on the study of children. In D. Hogan & S. Greene (Eds.), Researching children’s experience: Approaches and methods (pp. 42–60). Sage. Chung, S., & Walsh, D.  J. (2000). Unpacking child-centredness: A history of meanings. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(2), 215–234. Clark, A. (2017). Listening to young children, expanded third edition: A guide to understanding and using the Mosaic approach. National Children’s Bureau. Clark, A. (2020). Towards a listening ECEC system. In C. Cameron & P. Moss (Eds.), Transforming early childhood in England. Towards a democratic education (pp. 134–150). UCL Press. Cockburn, T. (2013). Rethinking children’s citizenship. Palgrave. Dahlberg, G., & Moss, P. (2005). Ethics and politics in early childhood education. Routledge. Davies, B. (2014). Listening to children: Being and becoming. Routledge. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality. In R.  Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation: Perspectives on motivation (pp. 237–288). University of Nebraska Press. Department for Education. (2021). Statutory framework for the early years foundation stage. Setting the standards for learning, development and care for children from birth to five. Retrieved September 09, 2022, from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/974907/EYFS_framework_-­_March_2021.pdf Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. Macmillan. Duhn, I. (2015). Making agency matter: Rethinking infant and toddler agency in educational discourse. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 36(6), 920–931. Duhn, I. (2019). Attentive encounters: Infant and toddler participation in an Early Childhood Community. In F. Farini & A. Scollan (Eds.), Children’s Self-­ determination in the context of early childhood education and services: Discourses, policies and practices (pp. 125–136). Springer. Dunn, J. (1988). The beginnings of social understanding. Basil Blackwell. Dunn, J. (1993). Young children’s close relationships. Sage.

2  THE CULTURE OF A PROJECT OF PEDAGOGICAL INNOVATION 

51

Durham, D. (2011). Disgust and the anthropological imagination. Ethnos, 76(2), 131–156. Eekelaar, J. (2015). The role of the best interests principle in decisions affecting children and decisions about children. The International Journal of Children’s Rights, 23(1), 3–26. EHRC – Equality and Human Rights Commission. (2020). Respect, equality, participation: exploring human rights education in Great Britain. Retrieved December 21, 2022, from https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/ default/files/respect_equality_participation_exploring_human_rights_education_in_great_britain.pdf EIF. (2018). Key competencies in early cognitive development: Things, people, numbers and words. Retrieved November 28, 2022, from https://www.eif.org. uk/report/key-­competencies-­in-­early-­cognitive-­development-­things-­people-­ numbers-­and-­words Elfer, P., Goldschmied, E., & Selleck, D. Y. (2012). Key persons in the early years. Building relationships for quality provision in early years settings and primary schools. David Fulton. Farini, F. (2019). From the child to the pupil to the child. Trust based on categorical inequalities and the quest for alternatives towards a more inclusive education. Italian Journal of. Sociology of Education, 11(3), 246–264. Farini, F., & Scollan, A. (Eds.). (2019). Children’s self-determination in the context of early childhood education and services: Discourses, policies and practices. Springer. Farini, F., & Scollan, A. (2021). Meanings and methods of pedagogical innovation. In F. Farini, C. Baraldi, & E. Joslyn (Eds.), Promoting children’s rights in European Schools. intercultural dialogue and facilitative pedagogy. Bloomsbury. Farson, R. E. (1974). Birthrights: A bill of rights for children. Macmillan. Farson, R.  E. (1979). Active listening. In D.  Kolb, I.  Rubin, & J.  MacIntyre (Eds.), Organisational psychology (pp. 168–180). Prentice Hall. Fass, P. (1980). The damned and the beautiful: American youth in the 1920’s. Oxford University Press. Felstead, A., Fuller, A., Jewson, N., & Unwin, L. (2009). Improving working as learning. Routledge. Fielding, M., & Moss, P. (2011). Radical education and the common school: A democratic alternative. Routledge. Fortin, J. (2003). Children’s rights and the developing law. Cambridge University Press. Freedberg, D. (1989). The power of images: Studies in the history and theory of response. Chicago Press. Freeman, M. (1996). Children as persons in children’s rights: A comparative perspective. Dartmouth Publishing Company Limited.

52 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

Freeman, M. (1997). The moral status of children: Essays on the rights of the child. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Freeman, M. (2007). Why it remains important to take children’s rights seriously. International Journal of Children’s Rights, 15, 5–23. Freeman, M. (2011). Human rights: An interdisciplinary approach. Polity Press. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Herder and Herder. Freire, P. (1985). The politics of education: Culture, power, and liberation. Greenwood Publishing Group. Fumoto, H., Robson, S., Greenfield, S., & Hargreaves, D. J. (2014). Young children’s creative thinking. Sage. Gabriel, N. (2017). The sociology of early childhood: Critical perspectives. Sage. Gallagher, M. (2019). Rethinking children’s agency: Power, assemblages, freedom and materiality. Global Studies of Childhood, 9(3), 188–199. Gallagher, M., Prior, J., Needham, M., & Holmes, R. (2017). Listening differently: A pedagogy for expanded listening. British Educational Research Journal, 43(6), 1246–1265. Gallagher, S. (2012). Multiple aspects of agency. New Ideas in Psychology, 30, 15–31. Garrison, D. (2020). Do better. Tackling racism in early years education and care. Taylor and Francis. Georgeson, J., Campbell-Barr, V., Bakosi, E., Nemes, M., Paifi, S. P. and Sorzio (2015). Can we have an international approach to child-centred early childhood practice? Early Child Development and Care, 185 (11–12): 1862–1879. Gillespie, A. (2012). Position exchange: The social development of agency. New Ideas in Psychology, 30(1), 32–46. Hadley, F., Jones, C., Johnstone, M., & Waniganayake, M. (2020). Early childhood educators’ workplace well-being: It’s everyone’s right! Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 45(4), 322–335. Halliday, M. A. K. (1975). Learning how to mean. Edward Arnold. Hammersley, M. (2016). Reading ethnographic research. Routledge. Handley, G. (2005). Children’s rights to participation. In T. Waller (Ed.), Early childhood: A multi–disciplinary approach (pp. 82–95). Paul Chapman. Hannon, P., Nutbrown, C., & Morgan, A. (2020). Effects of extending disadvantaged families’ teaching of emergent literacy. Research Papers in Education, 35(3), 310–336. Harrison, J. (1970). G.H.  Bantock, literature, and moral education. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 4(3), 37–54. 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.

2  THE CULTURE OF A PROJECT OF PEDAGOGICAL INNOVATION 

53

Hendry, R. (2009). Building and restoring respectful relationships in schools. Routledge. Holdsworth, C. (2004). Family support during the transition out of the parental home in Britain, Spain and Norway. Sociology, 38(5), 909–926. Holland, S., & O’Neill, S. (2006). ‘We Had to be There to Make Sure it was What We Wanted’: Enabling children’s participation in family decision-making through the family group conference. Childhood, 13(1), 91–111. Holt, J. (1974). Escape from childhood. Holt Associates. Horenczyk, G., & Tatar, M. (2012). Conceptualizing the school acculturative context: School, classroom, and the immigrant student. Realizing the Potential of Immigrant Youth, 2(4), 359–375. Horgan, D., O’Riordan, J., Martin, S., & O’Sullivan, J. (2018). Children’s views on school-age care: Child’s play or childcare? Children and Youth Services Review, 91, 338–346. Houen, S., Danby, S., Farrell, A., & Thorpe, K. (2016). Creating spaces for children’s agency: ‘I wonder…’ formulations in teacher–child interactions. IJEC, 48, 259–276. 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. Jadue Roa, S. D., Whitebread, D., & Gareca Guzmán, B. (2018). Methodological issues in representing children’s perspectives in transition research. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 26(5), 760–779. James, A. (2009). Agency. In J. Qvortrup, G. Valentine, W. Corsaro, & M. S. Honig (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of childhood studies. Palgrave. James, A., & James, A. (2008). Key concepts in childhood studies. Sage. James, A., Jenks, C., & Prout, A. (1998). Theorizing childhood. Polity Press. James, A., & Prout, A. (Eds.). (1990). Constructing and reconstructing childhood. Falmer. James, W. (1983). The principles of psychology. Cambridge University Press. Janta, B., & Harte, E. (2016). Education of migrant children: Education policy responses for the inclusion of migrant children in Europe. Brussels: European Union. Retrieved December 28, 2022, from https://www.rand.org/pubs/ research_reports/RR1655.html Johnny, L. (2006). Reconceptualising childhood: Children’s Rights and youth participation in schools. International Education Journal, 7(1), 17–25. Kaga, Y., Bennett, J., & Moss, P. (2010). Caring and learning together. UNESCO Research. Kage, M., & Namiki, H. (1990). The effects of evaluation structure on children’s intrinsic motivation and learning. The Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology, 38(1), 36–45.

54 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

Kaukko, M., & Wernesjo, U. (2017). Belonging and participation in liminality: Unaccompanied children in Finland and Sweden. Childhood, 24(1), 7–20. Kirch, S. A., & Ma, J. Y. (2016). The relationship between passibility, agency and social interaction and its relevance for research and pedagogy. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 11, 1103–1113. Kitchen, W. H. (2014). Authority and the teacher. Bloomsbury Academic. Klocker, N. (2007). An example of ‘thin’ agency: Child domestic workers in Tanzania. In R. Panelli, S. Punch, & E. Robson (Eds.), Global perspectives on rural childhood and youth: Young rural lives (pp. 83–94). Routledge. Koestner, R., Ryan, R. M., Bernieri, F., & Holt, K. (1984). Setting limits on children’s behavior: The differential effects of controlling vs. informational styles on intrinsic motivation and creativity. Journal of Personality, 52(3), 233–248. Konstantoni, K. (2013). children’s rights-based approaches: The challenges of listening to taboo/discriminatory issues and moving beyond children’s participation. International Journal of Early Years Education, 21(4), 362–374. Kraft, A. (1973). Are you listening to your child? How to bridge the communication gap through creative play sessions. Walker. Lansdown, G. (2005). The evolving capacities of children: Implications for the exercise of rights. UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre. Lawy, R., & Biesta, G. (2006). Citizenship-as-practice: The educational implications of an inclusive and relational understanding of citizenship. British Journal of Educational Studies, 54, 34–50. Lee, J. J., & Miller, S. E. (2013). A self-care framework for social workers: Building a strong foundation for practice. Families in Society, 94(2), 96–103. Leonard, M. (2016). The sociology of children, childhood and generation. Sage. Luhmann, N. (2002). Das Erziehungssystem der Gesellschaft. Suhrkamp. Lundy, L. (2012). Children’s rights and educational policy in Europe: The implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Oxford Review of Education, 38(4), 393–411. Lundy, L., Kilkelly, U., Byrne, B., & Jason, J. (2012). The UN convention on the rights of the child: A study of legal implementation in 12 countries. UNICEF. Malaguzzi, L. (1995). A journey into the rights of children. Reggio Children. Malaguzzi, L. (1996). The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia approach to early childhood education. Ablex Publishing Corporation. Markström, A. M., & Halldén, G. (2009). Children’s strategies for agency in preschool. Children and Society, 23, 112–122. McDermott, F.  E. (1975). Self-determination in social work. Routledge and Keegan Paul. McDowall-Clark, R. (2017). Exploring the contexts for early learning: Challenging the school readiness agenda. Routledge. McDowall-Clark, R. (2020). Childhood in society for the early years. Learning Matters.

2  THE CULTURE OF A PROJECT OF PEDAGOGICAL INNOVATION 

55

Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Harvard University Press. Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and development of children’s thinking. Routledge. Monk, D. (2004). Problematising home education: Challenging ‘parental rights’ and ‘socialisation’. Legal Studies, 24, 568–598. Montessori, M. (2012). The Montessori method: Scientific pedagogy as applied to child education in "the children’s houses" with additions and revisions by the author. Frederick A. Stokes Company. Moore, A. (2020). ‘How to create a opening listening climate’. Using the Lundy model of child participation with adults. In J.  Murray, J.  B. Blue, & K. S. Swadener (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of young children’s rights (pp. 447–459). Routledge. Moosa Miltha, M. (2005). A difference-centred alternative to theorization of children’s citizenship rights. Citizenship Studies, 9(4), 369–388. Moss, P. (2006). Structures, understanding and discourses: Possibilities for re– envisioning the early childhood worker. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 7(1), 30–41. Moss, P. (2014). Transformative change and real Utopias in early childhood education: A story of democracy, experimentation and potentiality. Routledge. Moss, P. (2015). There are alternatives! Contestation and hope in early childhood education. Global Studies of Childhood, 5(3), 226–238. Moss, P. (2019). Alternative narratives in early childhood: An introduction for students and practitioners. Routledge. Moss, P., & Urban, M. (2020). The organisation for economic co-operation and development’s international early learning and child well-being study: The scores are in. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 21(2), 165–171. Murray, J. (2019a). Hearing young children’s voices. International Journal of Early Years Education, 27(1), 1–5. Murray, J. (2019b). Happy anniversary? 30 years of the United Nations Convention on the rights of the child. International Journal of Early Years Education, 27(4), 341–344. Murray, J., & Palaiologou, I. (2018). Young children’s emotional experiences. Early Child Development and Care, 188(7), 875–878. Musomi, M., & Swadener, B. B. (2017). Enhancing feminism and childhoods in Kenya through stronger education policy, access, and action. In K. Smith, K. Alexander, & S. Campbell (Eds.), Feminism(s) in early childhood. Perspectives on children and young people. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­981-­10-­3057-­4_7 Needham, M., & Ülküer, N. (2020). A growing interest in early childhood’s contribution to school readiness. International Journal of Early Years Education, 28(3), 209–217.

56 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

Nutbrown. C. (2012). Foundations for quality: The independent review of early education and childcare qualifications. Final Report. Retrieved December 02, 2022, from www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_ data/file/175463/Nutbrown–Review.pdf O’Connor, C., & Michaels, S. (1996). Shifting participant frameworks: Orchestrating thinking practices in group discussion. In D.  Hicks (Ed.), Discourse, learning, and schooling (pp. 63–103). Cambridge University Press. O’Sullivan, J., & Sakr, M. (2022). Social leadership in early childhood education and care: An introduction. Bloomsbury Publishing. OFSTED. (2018). Ofsted annual report 2017/2018: Education, children’s services and skills. Retrieved December 31, 2020, from https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/ofsted-­annual-­report-­201718 OHCHR. (2011). United Nations declaration on human rights education and training. Formal adoption by the General Assembly, 19. Retrieved December 19, 2022, from http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Education/Training/Pages/ UNDHREducation Osgood, J. (2009). Childcare workforce reform in England and the ‘early years professional’: A critical discourse analysis. Journal of Education Policy, 24(6), 733–751. Osgood, J. (2010). Reconstructing professionalism in Early Childhood EducationC: The case for the "critically reflective emotional professional". Early Years: An International Journal of Research and Development, 30(2), 119–133. Osgood, J. Elwick, A., Robertson, L., Sakr, M., & Wilson, D. (2017). Early years teacher and early years educator: A scoping study of the impact, experiences and associated issues of recent early years qualifications and training in England: Retrieved December 29, 2020, from http://tactyc.org.uk/research/ Osler, A., & Starkey, H. (2010). Teachers and human rights education. IOE Press. Oswell, D. (2013). The agency of children. From family to global human rights. Routledge. Paananen, M. (2017). The imaginaries that survived: Societal roles of early childhood education in an era of intensification. Global Studies of Childhood. https:// doi.org/10.1177/2043610617704934 Paige-Smith, A., & Craft, A. (2008). Developing reflective practice in the early years. Open University Press. Pain, R. (2010). Ways beyond disciplinarity. Children’s Geographies, 8(2), 223–225. Palmer, A., & Read, J. (2020). Twenty-first century. A community of progressive educators. Routledge. Parker-Rees, R. (2015a). Developing communication: Getting to know each other. In R. Parker-Rees & C. Leeson (Eds.), Early childhood studies: An introduction to the study of children’s lives and children’s worlds (pp. 42–56). Sage.

2  THE CULTURE OF A PROJECT OF PEDAGOGICAL INNOVATION 

57

Parker-Rees, R. (2015b). Concepts of childhood: Meeting with difference. In R. Parker-Rees & C. Leeson (Eds.), Early childhood studies: An introduction to the study of children’s lives and children’s worlds (pp. 191–203). Sage. Pascal, C., & Bertram, T. (2014). Early years literature review. Retrieved November 29, 2022, from www.early–education.org.uk/early–years–literature–review Penn, H. (2000). Early childhood services. Open University Press. Penn, H. (2011). Quality in early education and care. An international perspective. Open University Press. Penn, H. (2014). Understanding early childhood issues and controversies. Open University Press. Prout, A. (2000). Children’s participation: Control and self–realisation in British late modernity. Children and Society, 14, 304–315. Pufall, P.  B., & Unsworth, R.  P. (2004). Rethinking childhood. Rutgers University Press. Punch, S. (2016). Cross-world and cross-disciplinary dialogue: A more integrated, global approach to childhood studies. Global Studies of Childhood, 6(3), 352–364. Reed, M., & Walker, R. (2015). A critical companion to early childhood. Sage. Riddell, S., & Tisdall, E. M. K. (2021). Transforming children’s rights? Dilemmas, challenges and implementation. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 43(1), 1–7. Robson, S. (2006). Frameworks for thinking: Supporting successful thinking and learning. Transylvanian Journal of Psychology, 2(1), 77–89. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social contexts. Oxford University Press. Rousseau, J. J. (1974). Émile. Dent. Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons for acting in two do- mains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 749–761. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2004). Autonomy is no illusion: Self-determination theory and the empirical study of authenticity, awareness, and will. In J. Greenberg, S. L. Koole, & T. Pyszczynski (Eds.), Handbook of experimental existential psychology (pp. 449–479). Guilford Press. Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Towards a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. Jossey–Bass. Silber, E., & Tippett, J. S. (1965). Self-esteem: Clinical assessment and measurement validation. Psychological Reports, 16, 1017–1071. Sim, M., Forrest, R., Semann, A., & Slattery, C. (2015). Conceptions of early childhood leadership: Driving new professionalism? International Journal of Leadership in Education, 18(2), 149–166. Smith, A. B. (2016). Children’s rights: Towards social justice. Momentum Press. Smith, C., & Greene, B. (2015). Key thinkers in childhood studies. Policy Press. Spyrou, S. (2016). Researching children’s silences: Exploring the fullness of voice in childhood research. Childhood, 23(1), 7–21.

58 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

Spyrou, S. (2018). Disclosing childhoods: Research and knowledge production for a critical childhood studies. Palgrave Macmillan. Standage, M., Duda, J. L., & Ntoumanis, N. (2006). Students’ motivational processes and their relationship to teacher ratings in school physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 77(1), 100–110. Stephen, C. (2010). Pedagogy: The silent partner in early years learning. Early Years, 30(1), 15–28. Sternhouse, L. (1983). The relevance of practice to theory. Theory into Practice, 22(3), 211–215. Stoecklin, D. (2013). Theories of action in the field of child participation: In search of explicit frameworks. Childhood, 20(4), 443–457. Sultan, A., & Andresen, S. (2019). ‘A child on drugs’: Conceptualising childhood experiences of agency and vulnerability. Global Studies of Childhood, 9(3), 224–234. Sutterlüty, F., & Tisdall, E. K. (2019). Agency, autonomy and self-determination: Questioning key concepts of childhood studies. Global Studies of Childhood, 9(3), 183–187. Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Taggart, B. (2004). The effective provision of pre-school education (EPPE) Project Technical Paper 12: The Final Report. Institute of Education/Department for Education and Skills, London. Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Taggart, B. (2010). Early childhood matters: Evidence from the effective pre–school and primary education project. Routledge. Szalai, J. (2011). A voice to be heard: Citizenship rights and political participation of the ‘New’ Poor in contemporary democracies. In G.  Farrell & F.  Oliveri (Eds.), Towards a Europe of shared social responsibilities: Challenges and strategies (pp. 131–156). Council of Europe. Taggart, G. (2015). Sustaining care: Cultivating mindful practice in early years professional development. Early Years, 35(4), 381–393. Tang, F., & Maxwell, S. (2007). Being taught to learn together: An ethnographic study of the curriculum in two Chinese kindergartens. Early Years, 27(2), 145–157. Te One, S. (2006). Setting the context for children’s rights in early childhood. Childrenz Issues, Journal of the Children’s Issues Centre, 10(1), 18–22. Te One, S., & Sauni-Welsh, M. (2019). “I have a new Taiaha”: Learning new ways do advocate for the rights of Mokopuna Māori. In F. Farini & A. Scollan (Eds.), Children’s self-determination in the context of early childhood education and services: Discourses, policies and practices (pp. 231–246). Springer. Thomas, N. (2007). Towards a theory of children’s participation. International Journal of Children’s Rights, 15, 199–218.

2  THE CULTURE OF A PROJECT OF PEDAGOGICAL INNOVATION 

59

Tickell, C. (2011). The early years: Foundations for life, health and learning. An Independent Report on the Early Years Foundation Stage to Her Majesty’s Government. Retrieved June 22, 2022, from http://www.education.gov.uk/ tickellreview Tisdall, E.  K. (2012). The challenge and challenging of childhood studies? Learning from disability studies and research with disabled children. Children and Society, 26, 181–191. Tisdall, E.  K. (2015). Children’s wellbeing and children’s rights in tension? International Journal of Children’s Rights, 23(4), 769–789. Tisdall, E. K., & Punch, S. (2012). Not so ‘new’? Looking critically at childhood studies. Children’s Geographies, 10(3), 249–264. Tovey, H. (2012). Bringing the Froebel approach to your Early Years Practice. David Fulton. Trevarthen, C. (2011). What is it like to be a person who knows nothing? Defining the active intersubjective mind of a newborn human being. Infant and Child Development, 20(1), 119–135. UNICEF. (2015). Annual report. Retrieved November 21, 2022, from https:// www.unicef.org/reports/unicef-­annual-­report-­2015 UNICEF & Bernard van Leer Foundation. (2006).  Annual Report. Retrieved November 21, 2022, from  https://www.unicef.org/media/93006/file/ UNICEF-annual-report-2006.pdf United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. (2005). Implementing child rights in early childhood general comment no. 7 UN/CRC/GC/2005/1. United Nations, Geneva. United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. (1989). Retrieved November 31, 2021, from www.unicef.org.uk/what–we–do/un–convention–child–rights/ Vallerand, R. J., Blais, M. R., Briere, N. M., & Pelletier, L. G. (1989). Construction and validation of the academic motivation scale declaration of children’s rights. Revue Canadienne des Sciences du Comportement, 21, 323–349. Vanderstraeten, R. (2003). An observation of Luhmann’s observation of education. European Journal of Social Theory, 6(1), 133–143. Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring classroom discourse: Language in action. Routledge. Warming, H. (2013). Citizenship, participation and trust in children’s lives. Palgrave Macmillan. Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society. An outline of interpretive sociology. University of California Press. Wehmeyer, M. (1994). Self-determination as an educational outcome. IMPACT, 6(4), 6–7. Wehmeyer, M. L. (2004). A self-determination and the empowerment of people with disabilities. American Rehabilitation, 28, 22–29.

60 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

Wehmeyer, M. L. (2006). Universal design for learning, access to the general education curriculum and students with mild mental retardation. Exceptionality, 14(4), 225–235. Wehmeyer, M. L., Shogren, K. A., Little, T. D., & Lopez, S. J. (Eds.). (2017). Development of self-determination through the life-course. Springer. Whalley, M.  E., & Allen, S. (2012). Leading practice in early years settings. Learning Matters. White, J. (2016). Education, time-poverty and well-being. Theory and Research in Education, 14(2), 213–225. Whitehead, M. (2010). Language and literacy in the early years. Sage. Wyness, M. (2012). Children’s participation and intergenerational dialogue: Bringing adults back into the analysis. Childhood, 120(4), 429–442. Wyness, M. (2013). Children’s participation and intergenerational dialogue: Bringing adults back into the analysis. Childhood, 20(4), 429–442. Wyness, M. (2014). Global standards and deficit childhoods: The contested meaning of children’s participation. Children’s Geographies, 11(3), 340–353.

CHAPTER 3

What Is Facilitation?

3.1   Facilitation of Children’s Agency: What Does Facilitation Mean? Facilitation is approached in this book as a viable methodology to enhance dialogic pedagogy, that is, to enhance change in the social sphere of education. Such an ambitious view of the transformative potential of facilitation is supported by recent theories of social change. These theories link diffused innovation at the micro level of interactions to gradual evolution at the macro level, interaction after interaction, local change after local change (Luhmann, 2005; Tisdall & Davis, 2015; Moss & Urban, 2020; Needham & Ülküer, 2020). Coherently with the transformative potential of facilitation, this section presents a deep discussion of the meaning of facilitation, starting with a conceptual argumentation, followed by a discussion of the coupling of facilitation and trust in educational practices and of the relationship between facilitation and agency. Facilitation is a form of communication that promotes the expression of autonomous choices in social interactions, creating expectations of equity and empathy that represent the essential conditions of dialogue. Research suggests that facilitation can enhance dialogic pedagogy by positioning all participants in educational encounters as authors of knowledge and equal partners in interaction (Hendry, 2009; Wyness, 2013; Baraldi 2014a, 2014b; Baraldi & Iervese, 2017; Baraldi et  al., 2021, 2022; Farini & Scollan, 2021). © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 F. Farini, A. Scollan, Pedagogical Innovation for Children’s Agency in the Classroom, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28501-1_3

61

62 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

Whereas teacher-centred learning aims to impart knowledge so that learning can be achieved, tested, and used to achieve curricular goals (James & James, 2004; Wyness, 1999), facilitation positions both educators and learners as holders of rights and responsibilities for constructing knowledge, promoting equality in the epistemic authority (Heritage & Raymond, 2005) of participants in educational interactions. Recognition of children’s epistemic authority situates them as legitimate producers of knowledge (Baraldi, 2015). Facilitation is underpinned by a vision of children as autonomous authors of knowledge (Baraldi et  al., 2021, 2022; Farini & Scollan, 2021). By upgrading children’s epistemic authority in interactions at the micro level, facilitation contributes to the transformation of macro structures of intergenerational order, because it favours expectations of children’s competence and agency (Alanen, 2009; Qvortrup et al., 2005; Farini, 2011; Baraldi, 2012; Baraldi & Corsi, 2017). Facilitation describes a form of communication; from a practical point of view, it describes sequences of facilitators’ and children’s actions, where each action defines and redefines the context for a subsequent action. For instance, a question creates a context for the following action to interact with, a statement creates a different context for the following action, and so on. In facilitation, the facilitator’s actions aim to create a context marked by expectations of children’s autonomous choices (self-determination) that make a difference for other participants in the context (agency). In the pedagogical innovation discussed in this book, the facilitator’s actions aim to create a context characterised by expectations of children’s access to the role of authors of valid knowledge, as they choose amongst different ways of narrating perspectives, experiences, and emotions (Taylor & Marienau, 2016; Baraldi & Iervese, 2017). In sum, successful facilitation develops as a meaningful sequence of events (Mercer & Littleton, 2007) that shifts the pattern of interaction from adult-led (whether adult- or child-centred) to dialogue. Knowledge in the form of authorship of narratives is produced in the context of facilitation with and, most importantly, from children. It is true that facilitation can be seen, if approached from an educational perspective, as a methodology for dialogic teaching; however, this equivalence is legitimate only as long as dialogic teaching means positioning adults and children as equal participants. Dialogic teaching must be teaching for and from children as well as for and from adults to be considered as the educational application of genuine facilitation. Dialogic teaching implemented via facilitation is thus a methodology of teaching that upgrades children’s

3  WHAT IS FACILITATION? 

63

epistemic authority. It is based on real listening, promotes equity, empathy, and expectations of personal expression rather than role performances (Goleman, 1996; Baraldi & Iervese, 2014). Teaching from and for all participants in the educational encounter is the consequence of positioning all participants as equal and a condition for the development of dialogic pedagogy. Facilitation positions children as beings in the present rather than unfinished projects who live in the present for the future (children as becomings; Davies, 2014). For this reason, facilitation as dialogic teaching is a pedagogy of real listening, promoting children’s voices whether expressed via actions, listening, narratives, or emotional displays. Real listening to children’s voices as the voices of agents who are responsible for the construction of knowledge in the here and now requires mutual trust. Facilitation can enhance dialogic pedagogy (Baraldi et al., 2021, 2022; Farini & Scollan, 2021). Dialogic pedagogy involves trusting children to act as agents whose choices can make a difference for all participants in the social situation where they are taken. Trust supports decision-making in situations of risk (Kwong, 2019). Following Milona (2019), trust is created from a desire and a belief in the positive outcome of decision-making. Applying this concept to facilitation, the desire concerns the development of dialogic pedagogy and the belief concerning the positioning of children as agents with rights and responsibilities in the production of knowledge. Enabling children as decision makers, rather than controlling them to prevent risks, has been advocated by child-centred pedagogies that promote outdoor dialogue and exploration (Knight, 2012; Tovey & Waller, 2014; Bilton, 2020) because shared problem-solving requires space for reflecting on trial-and-error episodes that entail children dealing with risk (Skemp, 1989; Pound, 2006; Tovey, 2012; Knight, 2013; Solly, 2015; Canning, 2020). However, Boronski and Hassan (2015) suggest that trust is intrinsically fragile in the domain of education because adult–child relationships are based on the position of children as not fully competent (yet) (Baraldi & Corsi, 2017). D’Cruz (2018) argues that trust is domain-specific, and this may explain why trust in children varies dramatically across social contexts, for instance decreasing when moving from the family to educational settings. With regard to trust in educational contexts, Tovey (2007) and Tovey and Waller (2014) discuss situations where adults do not trust children’s decision-making because of past experiences, because of inherited expectations, or because they fear for their own responsibilities.

64 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

Risk-­prevention attitudes limit the opportunities for children’s decisionmaking in situations of uncertainty and, at the same time, limit the meaning and scope of the empowerment of children as agents. Ultimately, facilitation concerns expectations of personal expressions and expectations of consequential self-determination; for this reason, risk-prevention attitudes are not compatible with it. In a nutshell, the key to the practice of facilitation is trusting children’s self-determination. Both risk prevention and agency are forms of adults’ and children’s positioning embedded in contextualised interactions. Pedagogia relazionale from the Reggio Emilia approach (Malaguzzi, 1996, 2011; Rinaldi, 2005) serves as an example of context that positions both children and adults as competent participants, with the consequence that pedagogy within such a context intrinsically promotes self-determination and its capacity to make a difference. Interactions in educational contexts are not loose talk; they can either reinforce trust or invite sceptical attitudes. Interactions in educational contexts are the local context where adult participants embody the ‘adult world’ in the eyes of children. Adults’ positive attitude towards children’s display of self-determination in the form of personal initiatives is a condition of agency. It also promotes children’s trust in their own agentic status. Conversely, if adult attitudes towards children’s display of self-determination are negative, then self-determination cannot become consequential, that is, it can happen, but it is prevented from making a difference for others. This may feed children’s distrust in agency and risk-­ avoidance behaviours, often causing them to retreat to the safe harbour of standardised role performances. Domenicucci and Holton describe the interactive expansions or retreat of trust as a two-place relationship (2017). By suggesting that children’s trusting commitments are based on lived experiences, as trust is influenced by specific interactions, Domenicucci and Holton (2017) make a case for the potential of facilitation as interactive practice to transform child and adult positioning, also favouring the establishment of mutual trust. We would suggest that the unstable foundations of trust in education make facilitation a particularly interesting example of pedagogical innovation, where participants replace distrust and need for control with trust and acceptance of the risks of self-determination. Facilitation serves as a pedagogical practice for early childhood education because it transforms interactions, making them a favourable context for children’s agency.

3  WHAT IS FACILITATION? 

65

It is necessary to acknowledge that at the level of concrete social practices, there may be constraints on the consequentiality of children’s self-­ determination. For example, children’s initiatives may be rejected, and their agentic status can be suspended if children’s choices are seen as a threat for safeguarding and protection (Bjerke, 2011; Valentine, 2011; Oswell, 2013; Wyness, 2014; Baraldi, 2015; Farini, 2019; Farini & Scollan, 2019). These are constraints that facilitation needs to consider; however, practical limitations imposed by safeguarding and protection do not detract from the possibility that facilitation can become a context of children’s agency where they can demonstrate their autonomous capacity of acting knowledge in social interactions (Dahlberg & Moss, 2005; Moss, 2009; Bath, 2013; Pascal & Bertram, 2013; Cagliari et al., 2016). Methodologically and ethically, facilitation is underpinned by the choice of doing with children, rather than for children (Freire, 2004). How this research interacts with Freire’s critical pedagogy will be discussed later in this chapter. When facilitation constitutes the context of educational communication, children are positioned as learners, as explorers, as decoders of signs and symbols, but also as problem solvers, scientists, and creators. They are the challengers, the investigators, and the risk assessors and are recognised as legitimate authors of valid knowledge. This multifaceted position of children is constructed via real listening (Malaguzzi, 1996, Rinaldi, 1998; Prout, 2003; Siraj-Blatchford & Hallett, 2014; Waller, 2014). Facilitation positions children as agents who can choose whether and how to express personal perspectives. Facilitation enables children to play active roles in constructing the contexts for their own experiences (Wyness, 2013; Baraldi & Iervese, 2014, 2016), upgrading their status as authors of valid knowledge in the educational encounter, so that interactions become dialogic interactions (Bamberg, 2011). During facilitation, adults’ active listening supports children’s self-­ expression by taking children’s views into account, involving them in decision-­ making processes, and sharing power and responsibility with them (Sakr & Scollan, 2019; Shier, 2001; Wyness, 2013). Facilitation of authorship of narratives entails the expectation that children’s choices and contents of narratives can influence the social situations in which they are involved. Enhancement of children’s agency and recognition of children’s rights to construct their own narratives means upgrading children’s epistemic authority, that is, upgrading children’s authority as authors of knowledge.

66 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

3.2   Voices of Children in Educational Encounters: A Critical Comparison Between Facilitation and Neo-Vygotskyian Methodologies This section critically discusses the similarities and differences between facilitation and neo-Vygotskyian methodologies. This is an important point to develop because neo-Vygotskyian methodologies have been influential in educational practice in several incarnations: scaffolding, dialectical pedagogy, dialogic enquiry, sustained shared thinking and interthinking. Due to their hegemonic status in the scholarly and professional debate on and in education, attention is focused on scaffolding and sustained shared thinking. Scaffolding is a methodology for adults, as educators, to support children’s learning to learn (Wood et al., 1976). Scaffolding develops from the Vygotskyian idea that education is most effective when adults support children’ s learning within their zone of proximal development, that is, when adults challenge children to move forward, little by little, using notions and experience from established domains of knowledge (Vygotsky, 1978). Scaffolding is centred around adults’ actions that are devoted to supporting children to learn how to know (Seedhouse, 2004), to take control of the process of achieving knowledge (Sharpe, 2008, p. 133). Scaffolding aims to mitigate hierarchical forms of adult–child relationships in educational interactions. However, such mitigation is not related to repositioning children as authors of valid and legitimate knowledge. Rather, it still depends on adults’ actions and agenda. Facilitation differs from scaffolding. Whilst scaffolding promotes a more active participation by children in learning, it is founded methodologically on teachers’ monitoring of children’s learning, which includes evaluation of children’s performances considering predetermined standards. Like scaffolding, facilitation empowers children as learners; unlike scaffolding, facilitation also promotes the access of children to the status of authors of knowledge. As authors of knowledge, children can empower adults. The roles of educator and learner become more fluid within non-­ hierarchical intergenerational relationships. Whilst scaffolding stops at the recognition of the importance of participation in empowering children as learners (Pascal & Bertram, 2009, p. 254). The difference between facilitation and scaffolding is chiefly a difference in the epistemic status of children. The epistemic status of children is higher in facilitation because children are recognised as the epistemic authority that pertains to authors of knowledge. The epistemic status of

3  WHAT IS FACILITATION? 

67

children is lower in scaffolding because children are positioned as ‘learners’ who depend on teachers’ expert guidance. In the methodology of scaffolding, children’s agency is limited because children are positioned as inferior in a hierarchy of epistemic statuses. In contrast, facilitation is underpinned by the aim to challenge such an epistemic hierarchy between adults and children (Baraldi, 2015; Farini & Scollan, 2021). Facilitation aligns with the discourse on, and with, children fuelled by the Reggio Emilia approach. The Reggio Emilia approach positions children, in a similar fashion to facilitation, as autonomous and competent authors of knowledge (Edwards et al., 1998). Like the Reggio Emilia approach, facilitation invites adults to refrain from (1) claiming superior epistemic authority to justify the imposition of their ideas and values on children when interacting with them and (2) claiming superior epistemic status to legitimise control over the themes, tone, and trajectories of the interactions. Facilitation aims to change the hierarchical relationships between adults and children through the promotion of expectations of personal expression, which should replace expectations of role performances. A change in expectations means that children’s and adults’ actions-in-interaction are interpreted, are reacted to as expressions of a unique person and not as performances of a standardised role. As suggested by Farini (2019), the pupil (the standardised role) leaves room to the child (the unique person). Facilitation promotes equality in participation amongst participants who are constructed in communication as unique persons. This is not the case for scaffolding, where personal expressions are accepted insofar as they do not present obstacles in the trajectory of the educational agenda. In addition to scaffolding, the Vygotskyian pedagogical theory has influenced several other methodologies over the last three decades, the most prominent being dialectical pedagogy (Bruner, 1996), dialogic enquiry (Wells, 1999), sustained shared thinking (Siraj-Blatchford et  al., 2002; Siraj-Blatchford & Manni, 2008), and interthinking (Littleton & Mercer, 2013). Bruner, Wells, Littleton, Siraj-Blatchford and colleagues, and Mercer developed their methodologies emphasising different areas of Vygotsky’s theory. Bruner combines scaffolding with Hegel’s conversational epistemology, giving it a new intellectual depth. Wells utilises the concept of semiotic mediation to create a middle ground between innatism and social pedagogies. Littleton and Mercer found new ground for their Vygotskyian methodology in the semiotic evolutionary theory that considers thinking as a function of language development.

68 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

However, the breakthrough neo-Vygotskyian methodology for educational practice in England (DfE, 2014, 2017, 2021a), Scotland (Educational Scotland, 2020), Wales (Welsh Government, 2019), and Ireland (CECDE, 2019) is sustained shared thinking. The value of sustained shared thinking does not reside in the theoretical innovation introduced, as indirectly but clearly acknowledged by Siraj-Blatchford (2009). Its innovative aspect is rather related to the attention paid to the observation of empirical interactions in educational encounters. As a methodology, sustained shared thinking emphasises working together in an intellectual way to solve a problem, clarify a concept, evaluate activities, or extend a narrative (Siraj-Blatchford, 2009, p. 5). As claimed by the author, this is an orthodox Vygotskyian perspective, enriched by the accent on learning by doing and child-initiated pedagogies. Sustained shared thinking, just as much as scaffolding and all other methodologies discussed in this section, is a remarkable piece of pedagogical work. However, sustained shared thinking, like the other neo-Vygotskyian methodologies, does not challenge the hierarchical positioning of adults and children in educational interactions. Neo-Vygotskyian methodologies aim to mitigate adult–child hierarchical relationships. Nevertheless, it is here argued that they are ultimately based on them. For example, when discussing the status of sustained shared thinking, Siraj-Blatchford introduces it as teacher-led pedagogy, in the sense that it is something adults do to support and engage children’s learning (Siraj-Blatchford, 2009, p.  11). Within the sustain shared thinking methodology, again according to Siraj-Blatchford, adults progressively introduce [children] to the cultural tools that they require to integrate fully as contributing members of the society around them (ibid.) The hierarchical distribution of epistemic rights underpinning sustained shared thinking entails a hierarchical positioning of adults and children: Adults do for children. Adults support children’s learning. What remains for children is to learn from adults. The idea of introducing children to cultural tools, at least introducing them to the cultural tool of language, defined by Wells as ‘the ubiquitous semiotic mediator’ (Wells, 1999), is not alien to facilitation. Promoting children’s agentic participation in interactions as authors of knowledge can be conceptualised as promoting engagement with language. What is characteristic of facilitation is that the positioning of participants is fluid, in line with Bohm’s idea of authentic dialogue and free-flow communication,

3  WHAT IS FACILITATION? 

69

where roles can be exchanged and expectations are centred around expectations of personal expression (Bohm, 1996). As they are based on hierarchical epistemic positioning of adults and children, neo-Vygotskyian methodologies are at risk of evolving, at the level of empirical educational interactions, into one-way communication, which Bohm (1996) indicates is preliminary to the technicalisation of communication. Technicalisation refers to the instrumental use of communication to pursue predetermined agendas that objectify the other. Incidentally, technicalisation is the opposite not only of Bohm’s concept of dialogue but also of Freire’s concept of authentic education (Freire, 1970) and Buber’s concept of the I-Thou humanising relationship (Buber, 2002). Technicalisation prevents reflectivity in and on action (Schön, 1987) and can transform educational interaction into a mechanical style of communication. What differentiates facilitation from neo-Vygotskyian methodologies is that facilitation constructs a non-hierarchical form of adult–child positioning. Non-hierarchical positioning is possible in facilitation because in facilitation communication is structured by expectations of personal expression. Facilitation can become a methodology to construct authentic, free-flow dialogue (Bohm), authentic education (Freire), and humanising relationships (Buber). Like neo-Vygotskyian methodologies, facilitation positions children as recipients of adult-led transmission of cultural tools. However, in contrast to neo-Vygotskyian methodologies, facilitation also positions children as providers of cultural tools to support adults’ learning (Baraldi, 2015). Expectations of personal expression can be constructed in facilitated interactions, as adults and children interact with each other. When discussing the results of observing project-­based approach workshops, this book will illustrate the facilitative actions that proved effective in constructing equal epistemic positioning based on expectations of personal expression. Such facilitative actions challenge the hierarchical adult–child positioning in several ways, often combined in complex turns at talk. Facilitative actions challenge the hierarchical adult–child positioning by (1) promoting participation (actions such as invitations to talk, questions); (2) displaying active listening (actions of feedback) and, as a unique characteristic of facilitation, (3) displaying a facilitator’s self-positioning as a person (rather than as an educator), combined with expectations of personal, affective, empathetic communication (actions such as facilitator comments, personal stories, and support of children’s personal initiatives).

70 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

3.3  High Chairs, Low Chairs, Where Do Children and Adults Sit in Educational Encounters? Diverging from teacher-led approaches to pedagogy, a critical approach to education interested in the relationships between children’s right to self-­ determination and educational practices questions the extent and meaning of what inclusion of children in education actually means and whether it is coupled with children’s agency. An initial theoretical point we introduce is that children’s agentic status, for instance as authors of knowledge, is limited when children’s choices are treated as a risk for their learning. It is another reference to the traditional image of children as not yet fully competent, which influences much pedagogical discourse, as well as the mainstream approach to children’s rights (Chap. 2). The theory of positioning is particularly helpful when reflecting about how different cultural images of ‘the child’ are reflected by different educational methods and ethos. Following Moghaddam and Harré (2010, p. 2), positioning theory describes how people use words (and discourse of all types) to locate themselves and others, because it is with words that we ascribe rights and claim them for ourselves and place duties on others (Moghaddam & Harré, 2010, p. 2). The theory of positioning encourages consideration that not all participants in a social situation have equal access to rights and duties that allow for the performance of specific actions, in a specific moment and with those specific co-participants. Harré defines a position as a cluster of short-term disputable rights, obligations, and duties (2012, p. 193). Although originating in the field of social psychology, the theory of positioning has seen widespread application across several intellectual domains since the early 1990s (Moghaddam & Harré, 2010). In particular, it has been taken up in the field of education, but it is also influential in anthropology (Handelman, 2008), communication studies (James, 2014), and business studies (Wise & James, 2013). Within the sociological study of childhood, the theory of positioning underpins the theory of intergenerational order (Qvortrup, 1990; Alanen, 2001). The theory of intergenerational order suggests that adult–child interactions at the micro level, for instance during an ordinary school lesson, are framed by expectations, obligations, and duties that are related to the positioning of children and adults at the macro levels of hegemonic discourses. Teacher-centred pedagogies can be used as an example: In teacher-centred pedagogies, adults and children are positioned in a hierarchical intergenerational order.

3  WHAT IS FACILITATION? 

71

Adults’ control is legitimated by distrust in children’s autonomous choices, and children can be constructed as recipients of adults’ initiatives. Children’s involvement as active contributors to their own education is considered to be a risk, in particular for the active contribution of young children. The example of teacher-centred pedagogies is pertinent for this book, because it makes a case for the impact and innovation entailed in the use of facilitation. As previously discussed, facilitation changes the position of adults and children in educational interactions. Facilitation can bring about change in educational practices as well as in the cultural underpinnings of those educational practices. Amongst the cultural underpinnings of educational practices, a prominent place is occupied by the intergenerational order. The consequentiality of self-determination, that is, the capacity of children’s initiatives to make a difference for others, is not indifferent to the sociocultural contexts where decisions are made (Lansdown, 2010; Deci & Ryan, 2012). Positioning children as capable of making decisions about issues that affect their lives represents a cultural shift for the context of intergenerational relationships, with wide-ranging implications for the position of children in education (Franklin & Sloper, 2005; Jones & Walker, 2012; Jones & Welch, 2013). Already in the early 2000s, a theme in the debate in and on education was the idea that educating children means socialising them to an understanding of their own competencies (Matthews, 2003, p. 274), rather than guiding them to achieve curricular objectives, which are often shaped by political decision-making. Critical approaches to generational hierarchies of power in education argue that children should not be deprived of their voices, and they should not be categorised according to curricular expectations, tailored around standardised ‘levels of development’ (Hart, 2004; Dahlberg et  al., 2006; Farini & Scollan, 2019). Children’s position as agents, rather than passive objects of normative expectations, implies a recognition of children’s responsibility in planning, designing, monitoring, and managing their learning and the context of their learning (Ball, 2003). Context, following the lesson of sociolinguistic studies (Gumperz, 1982), may refer to two different levels: (1) the local context, which coincides with specific, empirical interactions, and (2) the external context, understood as the cultural presuppositions that support expectations and assumptions. Expectations and assumptions, based on first-hand experiences or learnt through socialisation, are needed by participants in the

72 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

local context to choose how to act as well as to understand others’ actions. Expectations and assumptions have a key social function, because it is through expectations and assumptions that the external context influences the local contexts by positioning the participants in social interactions. Halliday (1975, 2003) discusses how observing interactions can offer insights into the participants’ understanding of their mutual positions. To exemplify Halliday’s argument, whether a teacher says to children OK, I will let you go outside when you finish the last question or, OK, once you are ready, go outside, the interaction offers cues for the different positioning of the participants. The idea that the cultural worlds of participants in interactions can transpire through interactive cues underpins the influential work of Gumperz (1982, 1992) on contextualisation cues, that is, the cues for how participants understand, and try to build, the context of their experience. It is acknowledged that without the tools of sociolinguistic research, it can be difficult to notice often elusive contextualisation cues. This is another argument to support the relevance of this book in the pedagogical discourse, because the book is devoted to analysing and discussing how the language of facilitation can contribute, action after action, to the establishment of a favourable context for children’s agency. Although this book presents insights from observations in a local context, based on the idea that facilitation can support children’s self-­ determination to change the local contexts of their experiences, action after action, it is also acknowledged that the manner in which actions-in-­ interactions follow each other is influenced by the positioning of children and adults, that is, by the external context, as previously discussed. The theory of generationing (Qvortrup, 1990; Alanen, 2001) explains that the positioning of children and adults defines intergenerational relationships. The nature of intergenerational relationships, for instance whether hierarchical or based on equity, is the external context that influences the local context of intergenerational interactions. The theory of generationing is particularly useful when applied in culturally dense contexts, such as educational settings, where the Weberian dynamics between action (self-determination) and structure (the context) are particularly complex. This is due to the intersection between the positioning of children and adults and the local professional and organisational structures (Fass, 1980; Prout, 2003; Holdsworth, 2004; Blanchet Cohen & Rainbow, 2006; Holland & O’Neill, 2006; James & James, 2008). In educational contexts, generational order refers to a three-way junction between the

3  WHAT IS FACILITATION? 

73

position of adults and children in a broader cultural sense, the position of children and adults in the social sphere of education, and the position of children and adults in the local cultures of the specific setting. A consequence of the theory of generationing is the idea that, for children’s agency, the position of adults is as important as the position of children (Alderson, 1995, 2008; Leonard, 2016). Archard (1993) highlights the centrality of the role of adults in all progressive pedagogies. Children’s agency depends on children’s self-determination. It also depends on children’s position of adults vis-á-vis the position of adults, a balance that is often defined by the hierarchical power structures that are necessary for the reproduction of traditional forms of education (Freire, 1985). James and James (2004) recognise how professional perceptions are influenced by policy and legislation, which determine how children’s self-­ determination is interacted with, between theory into practice. Facilitation aims to support children’s self-determination, expressed as the choice to contribute to the creation of knowledge, to make a difference for all participants in a social situation. Warming and Fahnøe (2017) draw attention to the concept of manipulation, which should be detached from its mundane negative connotation because it may concern the transformation of the context to make it more favourable to children’s agency. Facilitation itself can be conceptualised using Warming and Fahnøe’s theoretical repertoire as manipulation of the local context of adult–child interactions. Research suggests that, though often in the shadow of hierarchical positioning, children can engage with and manipulate local contexts of interaction (Brooker, 2008; Deci & Ryan, 2012; Warming & Fahnøe, 2017), transforming them into spaces of localised changes in intergenerational positioning (Farini & Scollan, 2019). The following section discusses the intersection of facilitation and intergenerational relationships in the pedagogical discourse, arguing that, by changing the local context of adult–child interactions, facilitation can contribute to a gradual change in the cultural context of the intergenerational order.

3.4  Does Children’s Agency Have a Place in Pedagogies? Research has examined how facilitative actions create a favourable context for agency in a range of social situations (for instance, Bohm, 1996; Gergen et al., 2001; Black, 2008; Baraldi, 2012; Baraldi & Gavioli, 2020; Farini & Scollan, 2021). Baraldi (2008, 2014a) and Baraldi et al. (2021,

74 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

2022) present a non-exhaustive list of facilitative actions that includes promotional questions to invite clarification and further discussion, acknowledgement tokens confirming and appreciating others’ positioning, comments to support an ongoing interaction, and formulations aiming to secure a shared understanding of the gist of previous turns of talk and their implications. Notwithstanding their varied morphology, actions are facilitative when they contribute to the aim of facilitation, that is, positioning children as agentic authors of valid knowledge, promoting dialogue. In line with the classic literature, dialogue is understood as a form of communication that empowers expressions of different perspectives, promotes equity in the distribution of participation, and highlights sensitivity to this participation (Bakhtin, 1977; Bohm, 1996; White, 2016; Alexander, 2017, 2020). Dialogue values positively active and fair participation, perspective-taking, and empowerment of expressions (Baraldi, 2012, 2014b; White, 2016). Wierzbicka (2006, p. 692) suggests that when education takes a dialogic form, each party moves a step closer to the other. Matthews (2003) and Baraldi and colleagues (2018) recognise that dialogic pedagogy refers to a methodology that aims to create conditions for mutual learning – children from adults and adults from children – based on dialogue. For two decades, a steady stream of research has been devoted to dialogic practices in schools. Cronin (2006), Holliday (2011), and Skidmore and Murakami (2016) demonstrate that dialogue can change the position of educators by shifting the expectations of educational communication towards expectations of children’s self-determination in the form of choices and personal expression. Theoretical and applied research on dialogic pedagogy in the first years of the twenty-first century has made a strong claim for the capacity of dialogue to enable an equal treatment of different perspectives, opening the floor to the expressibility of diversity as narratives of personal trajectories, thereby also opening the floor to what Giddens (1990, 1991, 1992) calls the reflexive production of identity. Dialogic teaching promotes contributions that promote children as leaders during their own learning (Bakhtin, 1981; Mercer & Littleton, 2007), opening interactive spaces for the expression of consequential self-­ determination. Pioneering research from Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) argues that dialogic approaches offer more scope for negotiation, freedom of expression, perspectives, and collaboration than teacher-led education. Skidmore and Murakami (2016) suggest that if dialogic pedagogy is

3  WHAT IS FACILITATION? 

75

expressed as genuine dialogic teaching, then it can offer opportunities to actively co-construct meaning and contexts of the educational encounter. Dialogic pedagogy is based on, and supports, children’s (and adults’) agency (James et al., 1998; Shier, 2001). Shared responsibility in the construction of contexts of mutual learning between children and adult is a cornerstone of the Reggio Emilia approach. In the years when the Reggio Emilia approach was becoming globally renowned, Malaguzzi wrote the poem …ed invece il cento c’é (…no way, the hundred is there; Malaguzzi, 1996) to communicate the idea that, whilst adults may impose on children one world to learn about and to live in, children have the capability to build and inhabit a hundred more worlds. The poem captures an image of children who are capable communicators, who can share their thinking, feelings, interests, and knowledge with those who are willing and able to listen. Listening is at once key to facilitation, a fundamental condition of children’s agency that displays acceptance of children’s self-determination, and a foundation of equity that defines dialogic pedagogy (James & James, 2008; James, 2009; Oswell, 2013; Leonard, 2016; Baraldi et al., 2021). Nevertheless, dialogic pedagogy does not overlook the importance of the external context. White (2014, 2016) recognises that power structures and the social environment can enhance but also silence participants’ voices. Pedagogical practices vary greatly depending on the external contexts, which are composed of professional values, beliefs, and the influence of training (Nutbrown, 2012; Palaiologou, 2012; Trodd, 2016; Chalke, 2017; Osgood et al., 2017; Allen et al., 2019). The external context can favour aversion to the risk of trusting children as agents in their own education. However, consideration for the context should not detract from the ontological status of dialogic pedagogy. In line with Dahlberg et al. (2006), and returning to the topic of the importance of listening previously discussed with regard to early childhood education, we recognise that dialogic pedagogy demands real listening to children. Lundy (2007), Alderson (2008), and Penn (2011, 2014) contribute to define a concept of listening to children that connects it with children’s agency, making it compatible with dialogic pedagogy. The three influential scholars agree that listening is one thing, hearing and responding to what a child is saying or expressing is another. Listening, hearing, and acting upon what children express are important themes to be explored when considering if and how dialogic pedagogy represents a genuine partnership, where voices and choices of all stakeholders are listened to.

76 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

Self-determination, facilitation, agency, real listening, and dialogue are intertwined in Bakhtin’s concept of centrifugal and centripetal languages (Bakhtin, 1981). Centripetal language pushes all elements into one single ‘correct’ and ‘official’ form of utterance. Centripetal language produces monological forms of communication ruled by a system of norms that regulate how something should be uttered, when it should be uttered, and by whom. Centrifugal language, in contrast, multiplies diversity, both cultural and individual. Following Bakhtin’s argument and applying it to educational interaction, centripetal dynamics can be understood as a movement towards a unified and less diverse communication that supports a shared understanding used as a regulator of further communication. Centrifugal language takes an opposite meaning, indicating a form of communication where expectations do not concern established patterns of action and responses to action. Rather, centrifugal dynamics refers to expectations of choices amongst alternatives, creativity, autonomy, and self-determination. Facilitation can therefore be described using Bakhtin’s theory of centripetal and centrifugal language as a centrifugal force that creates expectations of self-determination, unique contributions, and unpredictability. Schultz-Jorgensen and colleagues (2011) and Bae (2012) assert that, though the structures of education may not support children’s agency, genuine dialogic teaching should offer spaces for children and adults to interact independently of the influence of hierarchical structures. Bae (2012) defines this as spacious patterns of interactive situations where the limits imposed by the hierarchical positioning of adults and children are suspended in specific interactions, leaving room for equality and the possibility of participation. Bea’s argument could be criticised for not fully clarifying whether the change in adults and children’s positioning should be stably confined to limited ‘reserves of dialogic teaching’ or if spacious patterns are understood as fractures in the continuity of hierarchical positioning that aim to become an enduring perturbation. Only the second interpretation aligns with the ambition of facilitation as utilised in the pedagogical innovation discussed in this book. In the pedagogical innovation discussed here, project-­based approach workshops aimed to open spacious patterns to children’s authorship of narratives, towards the construction of a pedagogy of listening, which represent the essence of dialogic pedagogy, but also of early childhood education.

3  WHAT IS FACILITATION? 

77

3.5  Early Childhood Education: A Pedagogy of Listening Therefore a Dialogic Pedagogy. What Can Facilitation Do for It? In the early twentieth century, Dewey’s democratic education (1916), based on experiential learning, recognised that listening to learners’ voices is necessary to fuel their engagement and use their intelligence (Gardner, 2001) as a resource for education (Levinson, 2012). However, if Dewey’s democratic education sees the voices of learners as a resource for a learning still orchestrated by the educator, early childhood education sees the voices of children as an opportunity for children’s as well as for adults’ learning. Children’s voices are the voices of agents who can bring about change in the (local) contexts of their experiences. Children’s voices express their identities, lived experiences, and knowledge (Hall et al., 2014; Cagliari et al., 2016; Holliday & Amadasi, 2020). Children’s voices, thus, can be an asset for all participants in early childhood education. Listening to young children is not only an ethical principle; it also becomes a methodological commitment that brings about complexity, in particular regarding the balance between the recognition of children’s autonomy and the social demand for protection (Osler & Starkey, 2010; Lundy, 2012; Bath, 2013; Davies, 2014, Farini, 2014; Brooks & Murray, 2018; Palaiologou, 2016; Murray, 2019a; Scollan & Mc Neill, 2019). Moreover, listening to children demands that educators tune in to their languages and expressions because children have complex lives and experiences that can generate very diverse styles of communication (Halliday, 1975; Whitehead, 2010; Lundy, 2012; Brooks & Murray, 2018; Holliday & Amadasi, 2020). This means that children can articulate and express themselves in a hundred ways, and then a hundred more ways (Malaguzzi, 1996). This image of the child radically distances the meaning of listening in early childhood education from the meaning of listening to children in other pedagogical discourses. Unlike Dewey’s democratic education, but also unlike the learner-centred approach proposed by Gordon (1974), for early childhood education listening is not instrumental in making education more effective. Rather, listening is a component of dialogue that prioritises expectations of self-expression against expectations of role performances (Farini, 2021). Reflection on the meaning of listening in the discipline of early childhood education, as well as in the cognate fields of childhood studies and children’s rights studies, has produced a convincing

78 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

conceptual distinction between purposeful listening and real listening (Lundy, 2012; Davies, 2014; Murray, 2017, 2019a; OECD, 2018; Scollan & Mc Neill, 2019; Murray et al., 2019). An examination of current educational policies revealed that, at least on paper, there is a growing emphasis on engaging with children’s voices. For example, this is a central point in the most recent Early Years Foundation Stage Framework in England and ancillary policies (DfE;, 2021a, 2021b). However, research suggests that listening can become ‘tokenistic’ when purposeful, devoted to serve adults’ agendas as a tool to make education more effective within hierarchical relationships where adults are positioned as the exclusive owners of knowledge (Brooker, 2010; Lundy, 2012; Moss, 2014; Murray, 2019b, c; Cameron & Moss, 2020). Alderson and Morrow (2011, 2020) offer examples of children’s competence that are not heard because, good intentions notwithstanding, adults listen to children through professional or cultural filters, through expectations and assumptions that position children as not-yet-competent actors. When discussing examples taken from research with children, Alderson and Morrow argue that adults’ view of children’s competence can be guided by adult schemata that are not able to capture that competence fully. Wyness (2000, 2008, 2012) considers how adults are influenced in their decisions by their own, culturally connoted, understanding of children’s competence. Penn (2014) recognises, with regard to educational settings, that adults are able to see children’s competence in the measure allowed by observation driven by curricula, which is instrumental to the assessment of standardised outcomes. Alderson and Morrow (2011) recognise an act of knowing that is positioned at the intersection between legal and ethical discourses and professional identities, in this way reinforcing Alderson’s comments (1995) and Warming (2013) that adult observers may miss children’s ability to manipulate their local contexts through autonomous decision-making. Further exploration of intergenerational listening in educational contexts is invited by the concept of commentator (Jones & Welch, 2010, 2013), which describes adults’ continuous monitoring, assessing, and measuring of children’s ability to make choices. Adults’ role as commentators is characteristic of a conditional version of agency, where the acknowledgement of agency is conditional on adults’ assessment of children’s performances that becomes institutionalised, as an assessment of children’s development, in educational contexts.

3  WHAT IS FACILITATION? 

79

A constant invitation to reflect on the importance of listening is also fuelled by scholars who have been calling for further research to determine whether children are listened to (Jones & Welch, 2010; Alderson & Morrow, 2011; Davies, 2014) within rights-based approaches (Osler & Starkey, 2010). Writing to advocate the importance of listening to the voices of children, Dahlberg and Moss (2005) summarise ideas developed by Malaguzzis (1996), Danby and Baker (1998), Morrow (1999), and Danby and Farrell (2004): Any act of knowing is one side of a coin, the other side being an ‘act of not knowing’, where observation of children’s competence is filtered out by adults’ schemata. Freire’s idea that dialogic pedagogy is inherently reflective (Freire, 1970) underpinned the pedagogical innovation discussed in this book. Reflective practice is a tenet of early childhood education (Kearney, 1987; Thomas & O’Kane, 1998; Skehill et  al., 1999; Paige-Smith & Craft, 2008; Jones & Walker, 2012; Nutbrown, 2012, 2013; Davies, 2014; Lundy, 2014; Lundy & Cook-Sather, 2016; Trodd, 2016; Lindon & Trodd, 2016; Allen et  al., 2019). However, reflection is effective only when it includes the perspectives and meanings of others: Reflection must be founded on the ethics of listening. Real ‘listening to children’ represents a cultural shift (Dahlberg & Moss, 2005; Lansdown, 2005; Rinaldi, 2005; Clark, 2020); real listening, as opposed to purposeful listening, does not refer to a pedagogical technique; rather, it describes a local context of adult–child relationships that makes relevant expectations of self-­expression (Baraldi, 2014a; Farini, 2021; Farini & Scollan, 2021), creating the conditions for the unique expressions of children to be engaged with, heard, and listened to (White, 2014, 2016). Albeit in different terms, this is what Malaguzzi (1995, 1996) and Davies (2014) argue when they invite us to conceptualise listening not as a product but as an emerging diffractive process (Keevers & Treleaven, 2011): Listening is not an educational tool but an underlying philosophy of education. Writing within the discipline of early childhood education, Clark (2020) advocates ‘slow listening’ as a feature of a dialogue between adults and children that can offer insight into representations and expressions of both parts, to both parts. Clark argues that purposeful listening is not able to adapt its pace to a particular need or mutual understanding, which is pivotal for trust and genuine dialogue. Bath (2013) suggests that the meaning of real listening in early childhood education goes beyond purposeful educational practice when she argues that listening is in danger of appearing as a feature of early childhood education and care practice that is already

80 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

understood and therefore not in need of further discussion (2013, p.  3). Listening sits at the foundation of adult–child relationships, where all individuals’ voices are considered equally capable to make a difference in the social context. In agreement with Bath, we advocate for early childhood education as a pedagogy of listening that values the voices of children not only because they channel children’s needs, but also because they express a variety of children’s knowledges, which represent a resource for all participants in the educational encounter. Because of its emphasis on real listening to the voices and expressions of children as competent authors of knowledge, early childhood education finds in facilitation a methodology. Facilitation is a methodology to enhance dialogue, and the pedagogy of early childhood education is dialogic pedagogy. Early childhood education strives towards dialogic pedagogy, and facilitation can be a methodology to put early childhood education ethos into practice, even to export it beyond the boundaries of education in early-years settings, as was the case for the pedagogical innovation based on the project-based approach in primary schools. The underlying thread is that a pedagogy of real listening is a pedagogy of dialogue, and a pedagogy of dialogue is a pedagogy underpinned by children’s right to self-­ determination. The Reggio Emilia approach serves as an example of the implementation of dialogic pedagogy in educational practices. Reflecting on positioning means reflecting on the expectations, assumptions, and criteria to assess and construct knowledge in different social contexts (Paige-Smith & Craft, 2008; Alderson, 2012, 2017; Alderson & Morrow, 2020; Trodd, 2016; Lindon & Trodd, 2016; Murray, 2019c). In the context of educational communication, how adults and children are positioned influence children’s access to rights, as recalled to us by Jones and Walker (2012), Jones and Welch (2013), Allen et al. (2019), Murray et al. (2019), and McDowall-Clark (2020). The authors’ position is influenced by the philosophy of the Reggio Emilia approach, which holds as an ethical and methodological tenet that education is a social situation where children and adults are prepared to learn from and with each other. A quote from Malaguzzi (1995, p. 12) summarises the philosophy underpinning the Reggio Emilia approach, early childhood education, facilitation, dialogic pedagogy, and our position as practitioners and researchers: If children are something else with respect to what we think we know about them, then all the more reason why they have the right to be better under-

3  WHAT IS FACILITATION? 

81

stood and more highly respected for what they are worth. And this is a question that surpasses all borders

The Reggio Emilia approach is underpinned by an image of children as competent agents in their daily lives, competent agents who deserve to be listened to in the here and now, human beings whose maturity and ownership of rights require respect and dignity (Malaguzzi, 1996), not immature shells of future adults. Children are competent in expressing their rights as desires, as ‘What I can do’ and ‘what I can’t and mustn’t do’ (Malaguzzi, 1996, 12). The right of children that chiefly motivates the Reggio Emilia approach is the right to self-determination. When Malaguzzi suggests that children are rights holders rather than recipients of adults’ concession of rights because they ‘move between autonomy, dependence, freedom, and interaction, but one who nevertheless will not tolerate not being recognised as an individual’ (Malaguzzi, 1995, p. 12), he makes a powerful case for the recognition of children’s self-determination as a philosophical foundation for pedagogy. In recent works, influential figures in early childhood education, such as Murray (2019a, b, c, 2021), Allen and colleagues (2019), Clark (2020), Cameron and Moss (2020) McDowall-Clark (2020) have proposed an image of children as rights holders prior to societal roles imposed on them that is compatible with the one produced by the Reggio Emilia philosophy. In line with the Reggio Emilia approach theme of pedagogia relazionale, Moss (2009) and Roberts-Holmes and Moss (2021) advocate for a relation-based approach to education where learning is co-constructed during democratic interactions and space in a ‘meeting place’. This contrasts with educational curricula orientated towards predetermined expectations of what children should do, of what children should be (McDowall-Clark, 2020). Facilitation can be approached as a pedagogical practice because it can be a methodology of dialogic pedagogy. Facilitation aims to achieve the aim of dialogic pedagogy, that is, transforming educational interactions to promote children’s self-determination, expressed in choices and personal initiatives, to make a difference for all participants in the educational encounter. The possibility for children’s choices and initiatives to change their context, at least the local context of social interactions, connotates a situation of agency. The pedagogical innovation discussed in this book distils insights on the use of facilitation in the classroom. Facilitation can

82 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

transform educational interactions promoting children’s self-­determination to make a difference for all participants in the educational encounters. In particular, self-determination is observed as choices and personal initiatives to become authors of knowledge in the form of narratives. In the pedagogical innovation discussed in this book, children’s agency refers to upgrading children’s epistemic status and positioning children as high epistemic authorities, with rights and responsibilities to produce knowledge. A situation of children’s agency discriminates democratic pedagogy from dialogic pedagogy. Whilst discussing the meaning of democracy in modern society, Carr and Hartnett (1996) question whether children are included in the demos. Carr and Hartnett’s critical remarks are particularly pertinent for education because they concern opportunities for children to actively participate in decision-making in educational contexts if education is not exempt from the democratic ethos and methods. Lipman (2003, 2008) defines democratic as a form of pedagogy where teachers and children co-construct a community of inquiry. Lipman presents democratic pedagogy as a reflective process of inquiry that involves problem-solving, shared reasoning, and, crucially for this research, dialogue. Dialogue and the promotion of the voices of all participants in education are key for the influential methodology of democratic education presented by Dewey (1916). It is well known that Dewey’s methodology is based on experiential learning. Experiential learning requires the active participation of learners, and the active participation of learners requires listening to their voices to fuel their engagement and use their experiences as a resource for education (Levinson, 2012). Dewey’s democratic education promotes the voices of learners as a resource for their learning, orchestrated by the educator. However, in Dewey’s democratic pedagogy, valuing the voices of children does not imply that adults and children are positioned as equal partners in educational interaction. Democratic pedagogy is compatible with teacher-led practices and with the superior epistemic status of teachers as holders of valid knowledge that legitimises hierarchical relationships. Whilst democratic pedagogy remains an important methodological influence on dialogic pedagogy, the two pedagogies should be distinguished based on the different positions of children and adults. Democratic pedagogy and dialogic pedagogy are not synonyms. Dialogic pedagogy is based on equality between participants who are all positioned as legitimate authors of valid knowledge. Listening to children in dialogic pedagogy is

3  WHAT IS FACILITATION? 

83

an expression of a culture of childhood that positions children as agents in educational interactions, for instance as authors of valid knowledge for them and the adults (Dahlberg & Moss, 2005; Lansdown, 2005; Rinaldi, 2005, 2012). The aim of facilitation relates to the unique positioning of children and adults in dialogic pedagogy: Facilitation is based on the use of actions that aim to change the local contexts of children’s educational experiences, promoting expectations of equality, empathy, and personal expression. The use of facilitation in project-based approach workshops is discussed in this book, as in previous related works (Farini, 2012; Wyness, 2013; Baraldi et  al., 2021, 2022; Farini & Scollan, 2021), with regard to the success of facilitative actions in creating expectations of equality, empathy, and personal expressions. This will be assessed by observing how adult– child interactions develop, if and how children and adults participate, listen to each other, and access the role of authors of knowledge. As suggested by Rinaldi, dialogue is not just a communicative exchange; rather, it is a co-constructed process of transformation based on listening. In true dialogue, the possibility to control the outcome of communication is prevented by the active role of the ‘other’ (Rinaldi, 2005:184), and this is known and embraced by all participants (Bohm, 1996). For this reason a pedagogy that aims to be ‘dialogic’ is not compatible with teacher-led models: Listening to children in dialogic pedagogy is not a tool for assessment, and it is not a way to harness their interest to curricular objectives, as in democratic pedagogy. Listening to children in dialogic pedagogy means incorporating the other as a force that can change the trajectory of the educational interaction (Freire & Shor, 1987; Skidmore & Murakami, 2016).

3.6  A Few Words on Narratives, Because Authoring Narratives Is Authoring Knowledge Is an Expression of Agency As previously mentioned, the pedagogical innovation that constitutes the focus of this book considers the production and exchange of narratives as a possible context for children to access the status of authors of knowledge. The concept of narrative underpinning the design of facilitative workshops is presented in this section, to distinguish it from the mundane use of the term.

84 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

With respect to children, based on autonomous choices and sharing autonomous knowledge, their role as authors of narratives is the form of agency that the use of facilitation aims to promote, and it is safe to say that narratives are at the centre of this book. However, the book does not fall within the domain of narratology (Phelan et al., 2010). The morphology of narratives does not constitute one of its interests. The book is also not chiefly interested in understanding the meanings that children channel through narratives, so it is not an exercise in narrative analysis (Riessman, 1993). Narratives are not the primary object of analysis at project-based approach workshops; rather, they are the context of observations. This is connected to the meaning of the previously discussed ‘local context’. Local contexts refer to specific interactive social encounters, and narratives, as promoted by the use of facilitation, are an example. The production and exchange of narrative is a social space, a space of interaction. Within this space, we have observed how children’s self-determination, expressed as personal contributions to the production of narratives, could become consequential, producing knowledge that made a difference for all participants. Nevertheless, it is important to explain why the production and exchange of narratives was chosen as the aim of facilitation; it is connected to a specific idea of what narratives are. Narratives offer an example of Max Weber’s verstehen, which refers to individuals making sense of reality by reflecting on their experiences. Thus, narratives can be understood as social constructs where experiences are interpreted and storied into trajectories that define and explain personal identities, for the self and others. The theory of narrative identity developed by Giddens (1990, 1991, 1992) is also influential, with its idea that the construction of individual identity is achieved through narratives of the self, based on continuing reflection on social experiences. The production of narrative is the context for the construction and negotiation of identities through personal stories (Bamberg, 2011; Amadasi & Iervese, 2018; Holliday & Amadasi, 2020). Two types of narrative appear to be tightly intertwined with the production and socialisation of identities through stories. First are narratives of personal life that deal with pivotal events defining personal biographies. These underpin the second type of narrative, narratives of the self, which concern opinions, emotions, and relationships (Somers, 1994).

3  WHAT IS FACILITATION? 

85

Under the narrative movement and criticism of positivism, the question of textual objectivity has been challenged by social constructivism (Gergen, 1997), which encourages approaching narratives as social constructions, that are social insofar as they are exchanged between people. Narratives constitute and create, rather than represent, reality. As such, life stories are cultural products in content and form (Linde, 1993). Language in narratives is therefore seen as constitutive of reality, not merely a device for establishing meaning. Stories do not reflect the world out there but are constructed, rhetorical, and interpretive (Riessman, 1993, 2008). Weber’s verstehen and Giddens’ narrative identity theory underpin the mainstream understanding of narrative analysis (Riessman, 1993). We recognise that narratives create meaning through stories; we also concur with Riessman’s idea that such a function makes narratives an important and universally shared social activity. The production and exchange of narratives can be at once familiar and engaging for children and adults, and for this reason we chose the production of narratives as the aim of facilitation. Facilitation does not aim to transform individuals; rather, it aims to transform local contexts of adult–child relationships to promote the positioning of all participants in social interactions as equals in their rights and responsibility for producing knowledge. Facilitation is a context of interaction and also interactively constructed. The production of narratives is particularly appropriate as the aim of facilitation: The production of narratives may concern personal experiences, but it is also an intrinsically social activity, because narratives are constructed in communication (and sometimes about communication) and solidly positioned in history and cultures. Regarding the social dimension of narratives, Somers (1994) differentiates between ontological narratives (concerning the self), public narratives, conceptual narratives (including scientific concepts), and metanarratives (the narratives that concern the epic dramas of our time; Somers, 1994, p.  619). Facilitation, however, does not discriminate between the dimension of children’s and adults’ narratives. Rather, facilitation is interested in fulfilling the potential of all narratives as space for polyphony, following Bakhtin’s suggestion that when narratives are shared, they can become a chorus voicing different perspectives, where different experiences are combined and storied (Bakhtin, 1984), creating localised cultural objects (Holliday & Amadasi, 2020).

86 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

Fisher (1987) persuasively suggests that not only are narratives produced in interactions but that all interactions are also narratives because they are situationally, as well as historically and culturally, grounded. Norrick (2007) insists that face-to-face interactions are an important context for producing narratives. The focus of this book is not primarily on the interactional construction of meaning; rather, the book is more interested in the negotiation of rights associated with narrating. The construction of narratives, even when they are used to define personal identities, always implies the management of the right to narrate. As suggested in a classic work by Goffman (1974), the right to narrate concerns the role played by participants, for instance, the role of teller, the role of co-teller, the role of listener, or the elicitor of new narratives. The right to narrate also concerns the reactions of various participants because each narrative has the potential to be followed by comments, feedback, or response narratives to ratify or challenge the status and role of the teller. Facilitation as the promotion of authorship of narratives is therefore founded on two considerations. First, each participant may contribute to constructing and negotiating a narrative in the interaction as teller, co-­ teller, listener, or elicitor of new narratives. Second, narratives can elicit different comments from different participants. Each narrative can be followed by response narratives, thereby enhancing interlaced stories. The facilitation of children’s authority as authors of knowledge is a way to promote children’s self-determination (Baraldi, 2015), which becomes consequential when children’s choices to narrate lead to the production of knowledge that makes a difference in the local contexts of the educational encounter. It is a use of facilitation, the one discussed in this book, where the recognition of children’s roles as co-constructors of knowledge, meaning-­makers, and experts (Hill, 2005) aims to create the most favourable conditions for them to contribute to their own education, knowing more about themselves and others. Ultimately, observing the interactional construction of narratives means observing the positioning of children and adults around epistemic status and authority. The use of facilitation to promote the construction of narratives allowed the children, as the authors of such narratives, to become co-authors of this book. It is hoped that the book will offer useful insights into how facilitative actions contribute to supporting all participants in gaining access to all roles in the construction of narratives.

3  WHAT IS FACILITATION? 

87

On completion of Chap. 3, Federico Farini and Angela Scollan propose the following questions to provoke further reflection, research, and dialogue: • Why is mutual trust essential for agency, and how does facilitation contribute to mutual trust? • What is the difference between the position of children as persons and the position of children as roles, and how can facilitation promote the shift between the two? • What is the position of children in terms of epistemic authority when they author narratives, which is an example of their agency?

References Alanen, L. (2001). Conceptualizing child-adult relations. Routledge. Alanen, L. (2009). Generational order. In J. Qvortrup, W. Corsaro, & M. S. Honig (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of childhood studies (pp. 159–174). Palgrave. Alderson, P. (1995). Listening to children: Children, ethics and social research. Barnardo’s. Alderson, P. (2008). Young Children’s rights: Exploring beliefs, principles and practice. Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Alderson, P. (2012). Rights respecting research: A commentary on the ‘right to be properly researched: Research with children in a messy, real world’. Children’s Geographies, 10(2), 233–239. Alderson, P. (2017). Common criticisms of Children’s rights and 25 years of the IJCR. International Journal of Children’s Rights, 25(2), 307–319. Alderson, P., & Morrow, V. (2011). Ethics, social research and consulting with children and young people. Barnardo’s. Alderson, P., & Morrow, V. (2020). The ethics of research with children and young people: A practical handbook. Sage. Alexander, R.  J., (2017). Developing Dialogue: Process. Trial, Outcomes, paper delivered at the 17th Biennial EARLI. Alexander, R. J. (2020). A dialogic teaching companion. Routledge. Allen, S., Maureen, L., Whalley, M. E., & Scollan, A. (2019). Developing professional practice in the early years. Open University Press. Amadasi, S., & Iervese, V. (2018). The right to be transnational: Narratives and positionings of children with a migration background in Italy. In C. Baraldi & T. Cockburn (Eds.), Theorising childhood (pp. 239–262). Palgrave Macmillan.

88 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

Archard, D. (1993). Children: Rights and childhood. Taylor and Francis. Bae, B. (2012). Children and teachers as partners in communication: Focus on spacious and narrow interactional patterns. International Journal of Early Childhood, 44(1), 53–69. Bakhtin, M. (1977). The problem of the text (an essay in philosophical analysis). Soviet Studies in Literature, 14(1), 3–33. Bakhtin, M. (1981). Discourse in the novel. In M. Holquist (Ed.), The dialogic imagination. Four essays by M. University of Texas Press. Bakhtin, M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics. University of Minnesota Press. Ball, S. J. (2003). The risks of social reproduction: The middle class and education markets. London Review of Education, 1(3), 163–175. Bamberg, M. G. (2011). The Acquisition of Narratives: Learning to use language. New Babylon. Baraldi, C. (2008). Promoting self-expression in classroom interactions. Childhood, 15(2), 239–257. Baraldi, C. (2012). Participation, facilitation and mediation in educational interactions. In C. Baraldi & V. Iervese (Eds.), Participation, facilitation, and mediation. Children and young people in their social contexts (pp. 66–86). Routledge. Baraldi, C. (2014a). Children’s participation in communication systems: A theoretical perspective to shape research. Soul of society: A focus on the leaves of children and youth. Sociological studies on children and youth, 18, 63–92. Baraldi, C. (2014b). Formulations in dialogic facilitation of classroom interactions. Language and Dialogue, 4(2), 234–260. Baraldi, C. (2015). Promotion of migrant Children’s epistemic status and Authority in Early School Life. International Journal of Early Childhood, 47(1), 5–25. Baraldi, C., & Corsi, G. (2017). Niklas Luhmann: Education as a social system. Springer. Baraldi, C., Farini, F., & Ślusarczyk, M. (2022). Facilitative practices to promote migrant children’s agency and hybrid integration in schools: Discussing data from Italy. Language and Intercultural Communication. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14708477.2022.2096054 Baraldi, C., & Gavioli, L. (2020). Managing uncertainty in healthcare interpreter-­ mediated interaction: On rendering question-answer sequences. Communication and Medicine, 15(2), 150–164. Baraldi, C., & Iervese, V. (2014). Observing children’s capabilities as agency. In D.  Stoecklin & J.-M.  Bonvin (Eds.), Children’s rights and the capability approach: Challenges and prospects (pp. 43–65). Springer. Baraldi, C., & Iervese, V. (2016). The analysis of interaction, facilitation and narratives in multicultural classrooms. Department of Linguistic and Cultural Studies, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia.

3  WHAT IS FACILITATION? 

89

Baraldi, C., & Iervese, V. (2017). Narratives of memories and dialogue in multicultural classrooms. Narrative Inquiry, 27(2), 398–417. Baraldi, C., Joslyn, E., & Farini, F. (Eds.). (2021). Promoting Children’s rights in European schools. Intercultural dialogue and facilitative pedagogy. Bloomsbury. Bath, C. (2013). Conceptualising listening to young children as an ethic of care in early childhood education and care. Children and Society, 27(5), 361–371. Bilton, H. (2020). Values stop play? Teachers’ attitudes to the early years outdoor environment. Early Child Development and Care, 190(1), 12–20. Bjerke, H. (2011). ‘It’s the way they do it’: Expressions of Agency in Child–Adult Relations at Home and School. Children and Society, 25, 93–103. Black, L. (2008). Deliberation, storytelling, and dialogic moments. Communication Theory, 18, 93–116. Blanchet Cohen, N., & Rainbow, B. (2006). Partnership between children and adults?: The experience of the international Children’s conference on the environment. Childhood, 13(1), 113–126. Bohm, D. (1996). On Dialogue. Routledge. Boronski, T., & Hassan, N. (2015). Sociology of education. Sage. Brooker, L. (2008). Supporting transitions in the early years. Open University Press. Brooker, L. (2010). Constructing the triangle of care: Power and professionalisation in practitioner/parent relationships. British Journal of Educational Studies, 58, 181–196. Brooks, E., & Murray, J. (2018). Ready, steady, learn: School readiness and children’s voices in English early childhood settings. Education 3–13, 46(2), 143–156. Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Harvard University Press. Buber, M. (2002). Between man and man. Routledge. Cagliari, P., Castegnetti, M., & Giudici, C. (2016). Loris Malaguzzi and the schools of Reggio Emilia: A selection of his writings and speeches 1945–1993. Routledge. Cameron, C., & Moss, P. (2020). Transforming early childhood in England: Towards a democratic education. UCL Press. Canning, N. (2020). Children’s empowerment in play. Routledge. Carr, W., & Hartnett, A. (1996). Education and the struggle for democracy: The politics of educational ideas. Open University Press. CECDE (Centre for Early Childhood Development and Education). (2019). Síolta. The national quality framework for early childhood education. CECDE. Chalke, J. (2017). Early years professionalism and professionalisation policies in England. In L.  H. Meyer (Ed.), Oxford bibliographies in education. Oxford University Press. Clark, A. (2020). Towards a listening ECEC system. In C. Cameron & P. Moss (Eds.), Transforming early childhood in England. Towards a democratic education (pp. 134–150). UCL Press. Cronin, M. (2006). Translation and identity. Routledge.

90 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

D’Cruz, J. (2018). Trust within limits. International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 26(2), 240–250. Dahlberg, G., & Moss, P. (2005). Ethics and politics in early childhood education. Dahlberg, G., Moss, P., & Pence, A. (2006). Beyond quality in early childhood education and care. Falmer. Danby, S., & Baker, C. (1998). How to be masculine in the block area. Childhood, 5(2), 151–175. Danby, S., & Farrell, A. (2004). Accounting for young children’s competence in educational research: New perspectives on research ethics. The Australian Educational Researcher, 31, 35–49. Davies, B. (2014). Listening to children: Being and becoming. Routledge. Deci, E.  L., & Ryan, R.  M. (2012). Motivation, personality, and development within embedded social contexts: An overview of self-determination theory. In R. M. Ryan (Ed.), Oxford handbook of human motivation (pp. 85–107). Oxford University Press. Department for Education. (2014). Listening to and involving children and young people. Department for Education. Department for Education. (2017). Unlocking talent, fulfilling potential: A plan for improving social mobility through education. Retrieved December 20, 2022, from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/ uploads/attachment_data/file/667690/Social_Mobility_Action_Plan_-­_for_ printing.pdf Department for Education. (2021a). Statutory framework for the Early Years foundation stage. Setting the standards for learning, development and care for children from birth to five. Retrieved September 13, 2021, from https://assets. publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/974907/EYFS_framework_-­_March_2021.pdf Department for Education. (2021b). Development Matters. Non-statutory curriculum guidance for the early years foundation stage. Retrieved December 13, 2022, from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/ system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1007446/6.7534_DfE_ Development_Matters_Report_and_illustrations_web__2_.pdf Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. Macmillan. Domenicucci, J., & Holton, R. (2017). Trust as a two-place relation. In P. Faulkner, T. Simpson, & R. Holton (Eds.), The philosophy of trust (pp. 150–162). Oxford University Press. Education Scotland. (2020). Realising the ambition, being me. Retrieved September 13, 2021, from https://education.gov.scot/media/3bjpr3wa/realisingtheambition.pdf Edwards, C., Gandini, L., & Forman, G. (1998). Introduction: Background and starting points. In C. Edwards, L. Gandini, & G. Gorman (Eds.), The hundred

3  WHAT IS FACILITATION? 

91

languages of children: The Reggio Emilia approach-advance reflections (pp. 5–26). Ablex Publishing Corporation. Farini, F. (2011). Cultures of education in action: Research on the relationship between interaction and cultural presuppositions regarding education in an international educational setting. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(8), 2176–2186. Farini, F. (2012). Trust building in the promotion of peace and intercultural dialogue among adolescents in international summer camps. International and Multidisciplinary Journal of Social Sciences, 1(2), 163192. Farini, F. (2014). Trust building as a strategy to avoid unintended consequences of education. The case study of international summer camps designed to promote peace and intercultural dialogue among adolescents. Journal of Peace Education, 11(1), 81–100. Farini, F. (2019). From the child to the pupil to the child. Trust based on categorical inequalities and the quest for alternatives towards a more inclusive education. Italian journal of. Sociology of Education, 11(3), 246–264. Farini, F. (2021). Now, where were we? Celebrating ten years of language, discourse and society doing what we do best: Researching language in society. Language, Discourse and Society, 9(2), 13–27. Farini, F., & Scollan, A. (Eds.). (2019). Children’s self-determination in the context of early childhood education and services: Discourses, policies and practices. Springer. Farini, F., & Scollan, A. (2021). Meanings and methods of pedagogical innovation. In F. Farini, C. Baraldi, & E. Joslyn (Eds.), Promoting Children’s rights in European schools. Intercultural dialogue and facilitative pedagogy (pp. 67–90). Bloomsbury. Fass, P. (1980). The damned and the beautiful: American youth in the 1920’s. Oxford University Press. Fisher, W. (1987). Human communication as narration: Toward a philosophy of reason, value, and action. University of South Carolina Press. Franklin, A., & Sloper, P. (2005). Participation of disabled children and young people in decision making within social services departments: A survey of current and recent activities in England. The British Journal of Social Work, 36(5), 723–741. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Herder and Herder. Freire, P. (1985). The politics of education: Culture, power, and liberation. Greenwood Publishing Group. Freire, P. (2004). Pedagogy of indignation. Paradigm Publishers. Freire, P., & Shor, I. (1987). A pedagogy for liberation. Macmillan. Gardner, R. (2001). When listeners talk: response tokens and listener stance. Benjamins. Gergen, K. J. (1997). Who speaks and who replies in human science scholarship? History of the Human Sciences, 10, 151–173.

92 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

Gergen, K. J., McNamee, S., & Barrett, F. J. (2001). Toward transformative dialogue. International Journal of Public Administration, 24(7–8), 679–707. Giddens, A. (1990). The constitution of society. Polity Press. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity. Stanford University Press. Giddens, A. (1992). The transformation of intimacy. Stanford University Press. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis. Harper and Row. Goleman, D. (1996). Emotional Intelligence. Bloomsbury. Gordon, T. (1974). Teacher effectiveness training. Three Rivers Press. Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge University Press. Gumperz, J. J. (1992). Contextualization and understanding. Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon, 11, 229–252. Hall, K., Cunneen, M., Horgan, M., Cunningham, D., Murphy, R., & Ridgway, A. (2014). Loris Malaguzzi and the Reggio Emilia experience. Bloomsbury Publishing. Halliday, M. A. K. (1975). Learning how to mean. Edward Arnold. Halliday, M. A. K. (2003). On the ‘architecture’ of human language. Equinox. Handelman, D. (2008). Afterword: Returning to cosmology. Thoughts on the positioning of belief. Social Analysis, 52(1), 181–195. Harré, R. (2012). Positioning theory: Moral dimensions of social-cultural psychology. In J.  Valsiner (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of culture and psychology (pp. 191–206). Oxford University. Hart, J. (2004). Children’s participation in humanitarian action: Learning from zones of armed conflict. Refugee Studies Centre, University of Oxford. Hendry, R. (2009). Building and restoring respectful relationships in schools. Routledge. Heritage, J., & Raymond, G. (2005). The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(1), 15–38. Hill, M. (2005). Ethical considerations in researching children’s experiences. In S.  Greene & D.  Hogan (Eds.), Researching children’s experience: Approaches and methods (pp. 61–86). Sage. Holdsworth, C. (2004). Family support during the transition out of the parental home in Britain. Spain and Norway. Sociology, 38(5), 909–926. Holland, S., & O’Neill, S. (2006). ‘We had to be there to make sure it was what we wanted’: Enabling children’s participation in family decision-making through the family group conference. Childhood, 13(1), 91–111. Holliday, A. (2011). Intercultural communication and ideology. Sage. Holliday, A., & Amadasi, S. (2020). Making sense of the intercultural: Finding deCentred threads. Routledge. James, A. (2009). Agency. In J. Qvortrup, G. Valentine, W. Corsaro, & M. S. Honig (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of childhood studies. Basingstoke.

3  WHAT IS FACILITATION? 

93

James, A., & James, A. (2004). Constructing childhood. Theory, policy and social practice. Palgrave. James, A., & James, A. (2008). Key concepts in childhood studies. Sage. James, A., Jenks, C., & Prout, A. (1998). Theorizing childhood. Polity Press. James, M. (2014). Positioning theory and strategic communications: A new approach to public relations research and practice. Routledge. Jones, P., & Walker, G. (Eds.). (2012). Children’s rights in practice. Sage. Jones, P., & Welch, S. (2010). Rethinking childhood. Attitudes in contemporary society. Sage. Jones, P., & Welch, S. (2013). Rethinking children’s rights. Bloomsbury Academic. Kearney, N. (1987). The historical background: Social work and social work training in Ireland, yesterday and tomorrow. Department of Social Studies Occasional paper Series, 1, 11–12. Keevers, L., & Treleaven, L. (2011). Organizing practices of reflection: A practice-­ based study. Management Learning, 42(5), 505–520. Knight, S. (2012). Forest School for all. Sage. Knight, S. (2013). International perspectives on Forest School: Natural spaces to play and learn. Sage. Kwong, J.  M. C. (2019). What is hope? European Journal of Philosophy, 27, 243–254. Lansdown, G. (2005). The evolving capacities of children: Implications for the exercise of rights. UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre. Lansdown, G. (2010). The realisation of children’s participation rights: Critical reflections. In B. Perry-Smith & N. Thomas (Eds.), A handbook of children and young People’s participation (pp. 11–23). Routledge. Leonard, M. (2016). The sociology of children, childhood and generation. Sage. Levinson, M. (2012). No citizen left behind. Harvard University Press. Linde, C. (1993). Life stories: The creation of coherence. Oxford University Press. Lindon, J., & Trodd, L. (2016). Reflective practice and early years professionalism: Linking theory and practice. Hodder. Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in education. Cambridge University Press. Lipman, M. (2008). A life teaching thinking. Montclair University. Littleton, K., & Mercer, N. (2013). Interthinking: Putting talk to work. Routledge. Luhmann, N. (2005). Risk: A sociological theory. Transaction Publishers. Lundy, L. (2007). “Voice is not enough”: Conceptualising article 12 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. British Education Research Journal, 33(6), 927–942. Lundy, L. (2012). Children’s rights and educational policy in Europe: The implementation of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. Oxford Review of Education, 38(4), 393–411. Lundy, L. (2014). United Nations convention on the rights of the child and child well-being. In A. Ben-Arieh, F. Casas, I. Frønes, & J. Korbin (Eds.), Handbook

94 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

of child well-being: Theories, methods and policies in global perspective (pp. 2439–2462). Springer. Lundy, L., & Cook-Sather, A. (2016). Children’s rights and student voice. In D. Wyse, L. Hayward, & J. Pandya (Eds.), The sage handbook of curriculum, pedagogy and assessment (pp. 263–277). London; Sage. Malaguzzi, L. (1995). A journey into the rights of children. Reggio Children. Malaguzzi, L. (1996). The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia approach to early childhood education. Ablex Publishing Corporation. Malaguzzi, L. (2011). The hundred is there. In C.  Edwards, L.  Gandini, & G.  Forman (Eds.), The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia Experi­ence in Transformation (pp. 1–3). Praeger Publishing. Matthews, H. (2003). Children and regeneration: Setting and agenda for community participation and integration. Children and Society, 17, 264–276. McDowall-Clark, R. (2020). Childhood in Society for the Early Years. Learning Matters. Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and development of children’s thinking. Routledge. Milona, M. (2019). Finding hope. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 49(5), 710–729. Moghaddam, F., & Harré, R. (2010). Words of conflict, words of war: How the language we use in political processes sparks fighting. Praeger. Morrow, V. (1999). ‘We are people too’: Children’s and young people’s perspectives on children’s rights and decision-making in England. The International Journal of Children’s Rights, 7(2), 149–170. Moss, P. (2009). There are alternatives! Markets and democratic experimentalism in early childhood education and care. Bernard Van Leer Foundation. Moss, P. (2014). Transformative change and real utopias in early childhood education: A story of democracy, experimentation and potentiality. Routledge. Moss, P., & Urban. M. (2020). The organisation for economic co-operation and development’s international early learning and child well-being study: The scores are in. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 21(2), 165–171. Murray, J. (2017). Building knowledge in early childhood education: Young children are researchers. Routledge. Murray, J. (2019a). Hearing young children’s voices. International Journal of Early Years Education, 27(1), 1–5. Murray, J. (2019b). Happy anniversary? 30 years of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. International Journal of Early Years Education, 27(4), 341–344. Murray, J. (2019c). Our Community in Early Years Education. International Journal of Early Years Education, 27(2), 115–117. Murray, J. (2021). Young children, rights and voice: The Child’s voice in research. In L. Arnott & K. Wall (Eds.), Research through play: Participatory methods in early childhood (pp. 19–36). Sage.

3  WHAT IS FACILITATION? 

95

Murray, J., Swadener, B. B., & Smith, K. (2019). Epilogue: Imagining child rights futures. In J. Murray, B. Swadener, & K. Smith (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of young Children’s rights (pp. 552–556). Routledge. Needham, M., & Ülküer, N. (2020). A growing interest in early childhood’s contribution to school readiness. International Journal of Early Years Education, 28(3), 209–217. Norrick, N. (2007). Conversational storytelling. In D.  Herman (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to narrative (pp. 127–141). Cambridge University Press. Nutbrown. C. (2012). Foundations for Quality: The independent review of early education and childcare qualifications. Final Report. Retrieved December 12, 2022, from www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_ data/file/175463/Nutbrown–Review.pdf Nutbrown, C. (2013). Conceptualising arts-based learning in the early years. Research Papers in Education, 28(2), 239–263. OECD. (2018). Engaging young children-lessons from research about quality in early childhood education and care. Retrieved December 21, 2022, from www. oecd.org/education/engaging-­young-­children-­9789264085145-­en.htm Osgood, J. Elwick, A., Robertson, L., Sakr, M., & Wilson, D. (2017). Early Years Teacher and Early Years Educator: a scoping study of the impact, experiences and associated issues of recent early years qualifications and training in England: Retrieved December 21, 2022, from http://tactyc.org.uk/research/ Osler, A., & Starkey, H. (2010). Teachers and human rights education. IOE Press. Oswell, D. (2013). The agency of children. From family to global human rights. Routledge. Paige-Smith, A., & Craft, A. (2008). Developing reflective practice in the early years. Open University Press. Palaiologou, I. (2012). Childhood observation for the early years. Learning Matters. Palaiologou, I. (2016). The early years foundation stage. Sage. Pascal, C., & Bertram, T. (2009). Listening to young citizens: The struggle to make real a participatory paradigm in research with young children. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 17(2), 249–262. Pascal, C., & Bertram, T. (2013). The impact of early education as a strategy in countering socio–economic disadvantage. Research Pa, per for Ofsted’s ‘Access and achievement in education 2013 review’. Centre for Research in Education (CFEC)/Ofsted. Retrieved December 29, 2022, from www.crec.co.uk/docs/ Access.pdf Penn, H. (2011). Quality in early education and care. An international perspective. Open University Press. Penn, H. (2014). Understanding early childhood issues and controversies. Open University Press. Phelan, J., Herman, D., & McHale, B. (2010). Teaching narrative theory. Publications.

96 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

Pound, L. (2006). Supporting mathematical development in the early years. Open University Press. Prout, A. (2003). Participation, policy and the changing conditions of childhood. In C.  Hallet & A.  Prout (Eds.), Hearing the voices of children (pp.  11–25). Routledge Falmer. Qvortrup, J. (1990). Childhood as a social phenomenon (p.  36/1990). Eurosocial Report. Qvortrup, J., Corsaro, W., & Honig, M. S. (Eds.). (2005). The Palgrave handbook of childhood studies. Palgrave. Riessman, C. K. (1993). Narrative analysis. Sage. Riessman, C. K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences. Sage. Rinaldi, C. (1998). The emergent curriculum and social constructivism: An interview with Lella Gandini. In C. Edwards, L. Gandini, & G. Foreman (Eds.), The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia approach to early childhood education (pp. 101–112). Ablex Publishing. Rinaldi, C. (2005). In dialogue with Reggio Emilia. Routledge. Rinaldi, C. (2012). The pedagogy of listening: The listening perspective from Reggio Emilia. In C. P. Edwards, L. Gandini, & G. Forman (Eds.), The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia experience in transformation (pp. 233–246). Praeger. Roberts-Holmes, G., & Moss, P. (2021). Neoliberalism and early childhood education: Markets, imaginaries and governance. Routledge. Sakr, M., & Scollan, A. (2019). The screen and the sand-timer: The integration of the interactive whiteboard into an early years free-flow learning environment. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 17(3), 190–204. Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Towards a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. Jossey-Bass. Schultz-Jørgensen, P., Leth, I., & Montgomery, E. (2011). The Children’s rights convention in Denmark: A status report on implementation. Early Education and Development, 22(5), 839–862. Scollan, A., & Mc Neill, E. (2019). Discourses/2. Ireland: Listening to children’s voices in Irish social work through cultural and organisational filters. In F. Farini & A. Scollan (Eds.), Children’s self-determination in the context of early childhood education and services: Discourses policies and practices (pp.  151–167). Springer International Publishing. Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Blackwell. Sharpe, T. (2008). How can teacher talk support learning? Linguistics and Education, 19, 132–148. Shier, H. (2001). Pathways to participation: Openings, opportunities and obligations. Children and Society, 15, 107–117.

3  WHAT IS FACILITATION? 

97

Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse. The English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford University Press. Siraj-Blatchford, I. (2009). Conceptualising progression in the pedagogy of play and sustained shared thinking in early childhood education: A Vygotskian perspective. Education and Child Psychology, 26(2), 77–89. Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Hallett, E. (2014). Effective and caring leadership in the early years. Sage. Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Manni, L. (2008). “Would you like to tidy up now?” an analysis of adult questioning in the English foundation stage. Early Years, 28(1), 5–22. Siraj-Blatchford, I., Sylva, K., Muttock, S., Gilden, R., & Bell, D. (2002). Researching effective pedagogy in the early years DfES research report 365. Queen’s Printer. Skehill, C., O’Sullivan, E., & Buckley, H. (1999). The nature of child protection practices: An Irish case study. Child and Family Social Work, 4, 145–152. Skemp, R. (1989). Mathematics in the primary school. Routledge. Skidmore, D., & Murakami, K. (Eds.). (2016). Dialogic pedagogy. Multilingual Matters. Solly, K. (2015). Risk, challenge and adventure in the early years. Routledge. Somers, M.  R. (1994). The narrative constitution of identity: A relational and network approach. Theory and Society, 23, 605–649. Taylor, K., & Marienau, C. (2016). Facilitating learning with the adult brain in mind: A conceptual and practical guide. Jossey-Bass. Thomas, N., & O’Kane, C. (1998). The ethics of participatory research. Children and Society, 12, 336–348. Tisdall, E. K., & Davis, J. M. (2015). Children’s rights and wellbeing: Tensions within the children and young people (Scotland) act 2014. In A. Smith (Ed.), Enhancing the rights and wellbeing of children: Connecting research, policy and practice (pp. 214–227). Palgrave Macmillan. Tovey, H. (2007). Playing outdoors: Spaces and places, risk and challenge. Open University Press. Tovey, H. (2012). Bringing the Froebel approach to your early years practice. David Fulton. Tovey, H., & Waller, T. (2014). Outdoor play and learning. In T.  Waller & G. Davies (Eds.), An introduction to early childhood (pp. 146–165). Sage. Trodd, L. (2016). The early years handbook for students and practitioners: An essential guide for the foundation degree levels 4 and 5. Routledge. Valentine, K. (2011). Accounting for agency. Children and Society, 25, 347–358. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental process. Harvard University Press.

98 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

Waller, T. (2014). Voices in the park: Researching the participation of young children in outdoor play in early years settings. Management in Education, 28(4), 161–166. Warming, H. (2013). Citizenship, participation and trust in children’s lives. Palgrave Macmillan. Warming, H., & Fahnøe, K. (2017). Lived citizenship on the edge of society: Rights, belonging, intimate life and spatiality. Palgrave Macmillan. Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry. Cambridge University Press. Welsh Government. (2019). Foundation phase nursery. Retrieved November 19, 2022, from https://gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2019-­03/ foundation-­phase-­nursery-­guide-­for-­parents-­and-­carers.pdf White, E. J. (2014). Are you ‘Avin a Laff?’: A pedagogical response to Bakhtinian carnivalesque in early childhood education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 46(8), 898–913. White, J. (2016). Education, time-poverty and well-being. Theory and Research in Education, 14(2), 213–225. Whitehead, M. (2010). Language and literacy in the early years. Sage. Wierzbicka, A. (2006). The concept of ‘dialogue’ in cross-linguistic and cross-­ cultural perspective. Discourse Studies, 8(5), 675–703. Wise, D., & James, M. (2013). Positioning a price on carbon: Applying a proposed hybrid method of positioning discourse analysis for public relations. Public Relations Inquiry, 2(3), 327–353. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Child Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 17, 89–100. Wyness, M. (1999). Childhood, agency and education reform. Childhood, 6(3), 353–368. Wyness, M. (2000). Contesting childhood. Falmer Press. Wyness, M. (2008). Schooling and social class. In D. Matheson (Ed.), An introduction to the study of education (pp. 142–155). Routledge. Wyness, M. (2012). Childhood and society: An introduction to the sociology of childhood. Palgrave Macmillan. Wyness, M. (2013). Children’s participation and intergenerational dialogue: Bringing adults back into the analysis. Childhood, 20(4), 429–442. Wyness, M. (2014). Global standards and deficit childhoods: The contested meaning of children’s participation. Children’s Geographies, 11(3), 340–353.

CHAPTER 4

How We Can Say What We Say: The Methodology of Facilitation, the Methodology of Observing Facilitation

4.1   How We Designed Facilitative Workshops: The Project-Based Approach The project-based approach is based on the idea that children’s autonomous choices are a resource for learning and an essential component of dialogic pedagogy. After all, we believe this is a realistic position: Children are already embarked on a life-long journey of learning based on a cycle of experience and reflection on experience when they enter the education system (Malaguzzi, 1996; Chard, 1998; Katz & Chard, 2000; Helm & Katz, 2011; Siraj-Blatchford, 2008; Sargent, 2013; Wehmeyer et al., 2017). The project-based approach utilised in the design of workshops for the use of facilitation is influenced by the well-known project-based learning methodology. Project-based refers to a methodology that engages students in learning through an extended inquiry process structured around complex, authentic problems to be solved, designed products and tasks (Markham et al., 2003, p. 4). Project-based learning was first developed by Kilpatrick (1918), inspired by Dewey’s concept of learning by doing and Thorndike’s idea of psychology of learning: Project-based learning is based on the idea that learners have skills and knowledge that should be valued as a resource for their education. Project-based learning is characterised by (1) a focus on tasks; (2) constructivism, which treats knowledge as constructed in social interaction;

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 F. Farini, A. Scollan, Pedagogical Innovation for Children’s Agency in the Classroom, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28501-1_4

99

100 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

(3) problem-posing to probe the skills and knowledges that learners bring to educational interactions; and (4) the relevance of projects for the solution of real-world problems, where learners’ problem-solving is guided by educators (Barron & Darling-Hammond, 2008; Thomas, 2013). This latter aspect indicates a role for the educator to serve as a guide in learners’ learning by doing. This role marks the difference between the project-based learning methodology and the project-based approach utilised to design facilitative workshops. Like Dewey’s democratic pedagogy, the project-based learning methodology reserves a superior status for the educator, which is necessary to orchestrate learners’ work. It is true that for the project-based learning approach the contribution of learners is an important resource for education; however, valuing skills and knowledge that learners bring to educational interactions does not imply that educators and learners are positioned as equal partners who can equally influence the context and contents of learning. The project-based approach as utilised in pedagogical innovation to design workshops is built on a different positioning of learners and educators. While project-based learning is based on the superior status of educators as holders of valid knowledge that legitimises hierarchical relationships, the project-based approach is based on equality between participants in educational encounters, all of whom are positioned as legitimate authors of valid knowledge. The ateliers of the Reggio Emilia approach are an example of the project-based approach: Children and adults co-construct projects, and projects represent engaging challenges and an opportunity for learning designed and initiated by children (Rinaldi, 1998). In the project-based approach, the participation of children is not scaffolded according to tasks designed by an educator. Rather, in line with the Reggio Emilia ateliers, the participation of children extends to the co-­ constructions of the themes and trajectory of interactions. Project-based approach workshops were designed for the use of facilitation, whose results are discussed in this book, and the facilitation of children’s authorship of narratives was understood as the context for children’s and adults’ mutual learning, characterised by • children’s leadership, because child–adult interactions emerge from the interests of children and from stories around visual materials selected by children and related to their memories; • interaction, since facilitation aims to promote the engagement of children’s engagement in extended processes of asking questions,

4  HOW WE CAN SAY WHAT WE SAY: THE METHODOLOGY OF FACILITATION… 

101

using multiple resources, coordinating different perspectives, and developing shared narratives; and • critical thinking, where workshops were designed to afford all participants the possibility of sharing their experiences and listening to others’ experiences. Project-based approach workshops align with Freire’s notion of problem-­posing education (Freire, 2005), where both teacher and student evolve a critical consciousness and articulation during the dialogic engagement. Reflection on the memories encrypted in visual materials is promoted through real listening and the exchange of narratives, open to interlacements and comments expressing commonalities and differences in participants’ personal trajectories.

4.2   ‘Seeing’ Self-Determination in Adult–Child Interactions: Methodological Observations Facilitation has been implemented in project-based approach workshops and observed to evaluate whether and how facilitation can be a favourable context for children’s autonomous choices (expressing self-determination) to become consequential in local social contexts (creating a situation of agency). Three focuses of analysis were fuelled by the interest in observations: (1) Do elements of facilitation in project-based approach workshops afford children agency? If so, what are those elements, and how do they afford children agency as authorship of knowledge? (2) How do children construct knowledge through personal initiatives based on autonomous choices during facilitation in project-based approach workshops? (3) What are the associations between facilitation in project-based approach workshops and children’s agency as authors of knowledge in the form of narratives? Whilst several studies have explored the intersection between children’s choices and the social context of education theoretically (Lansdown, 2005; Dahlberg & Moss, 2005; Markström & Halldén, 2009; Moss, 2009; Pascal & Bertram, 2009; Bath, 2013; White, 2016), few authors have explored how the intersection of children’s choices and the social context of education takes form in empirical interactions (Dotson et al., 2014; Baraldi, 2015a, 2015b; Scollan & Farini, 2021). In the present research, observation of facilitative workshops was therefore grounded in

102 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

the pedagogical opportunities offered by facilitation as a form of dialogic pedagogy, evaluated by observing the interlacement between children’s and facilitators’ actions and its implications for children’s participation. In other words, facilitative actions will be examined regarding their contribution to the enhancement of dialogic pedagogy. If successful, facilitation can become a Bakhtinian centrifugal force, transforming education into a space of heteroglossia (Bakhtin, 1984) that offers spaces for non-­ hierarchical sharing of knowledges and experiences: a place for real listening. Before presenting the findings and discussing the results of the research, we believe that it is important to summarise the methodology of the observations, as well as the methodology of the analysis of data offered by the observations. How project-based workshops were designed and how they were observed cannot be detached from the beliefs that construct our view of education, as a context of adult–child relationships (Lincoln & Cannella, 2004; Fraser & Robinson, 2004). Our view of education constitutes the paradigm (Kuhn, 1970) that offered direction to the aim of pedagogical innovation to the observation of pedagogical innovation and to the interpretation of observation. The paradigm of our project of pedagogical innovation, as well as that of our observations and reflections on pedagogical innovation, is founded on Freire’s critical pedagogy. Although Freire’s educational practice was devoted to adult education, his work has informed the planning, delivery, and reflection on pedagogical innovation because of Freire’s commitment to critically tackling the hierarchical relationships underpinning mainstream educational practices (Tur Porres, 2022). Influential on several scholars and practitioners throughout a long career, Freire’s critical pedagogy (Freire, 1970, 1973, 1976, 1988, 1998, 2000, 2005) occupies a unique position. It is true that, like other critical accounts (e.g., Bowles & Gintis, 1976; Apple, 1979, 1982; Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990; Giroux, 2020), Freire sees mainstream educational practice as an instrument to secure the reproduction of an unequal social order. However, as noted by Gottesman (2016), Bourdieu and Passeron are concerned with the reproduction of the knowledge and behaviour of the dominant class (the habitus), Bowles and Gintis are interested in educating the poor to future subalternity in the labour market, Apple studies the cultural colonisation of the curriculum, and Giroux researches education as a field contested between popular culture and hegemonic culture. Compared with these authors, Freire takes a more complex stance that combines the critical

4  HOW WE CAN SAY WHAT WE SAY: THE METHODOLOGY OF FACILITATION… 

103

account of mainstream education with the effort to develop a methodology to allow education to fulfil its authentic aim: the liberation of the individual (Kohan, 2021). Freire distinguishes between inauthentic educational practices and authentic education. Inauthentic educational practices impose external views and opinions onto learners, transforming the consciousness of the learner into one that conforms with the educator’s consciousness (Freire, 2005, p. 47). Inauthentic education is directed to the transfer of knowledge to recipients that are positioned as passive receivers. This is described by Freire’s by the metaphor of the banking model. The banking model is a form of cultural oppression implemented via inauthentic education that can favour material oppression. Freire’s critical view of the culture of education was originally formulated based on the idea that education was an instrument for hegemonic social classes to oppress the dominated, not only economically but also culturally. Nevertheless, Freire’s critique of the culture of education can be applied, as it is in this book, to multiple forms of hierarchical order, including hierarchy based on age. Authentic education, in contrast, can be a driving force in the struggle against multidimensional forms of oppression; for Freire, this is the case of critical pedagogy. Critical refers to one’s awareness of her position in the different contexts of social experience. Although clouded by inauthentic education, such awareness must be liberated, because it is necessary to motivate, organize, and implement the struggle to bring about change in education and through education. In his seminal work Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1970), Freire’s idea of historically and socially contextualised self-awareness is condensed in the concept of conscientisation. The aim of creating conditions of conscientisation means, for education, aiming to support not just all learners but all educators as well. Learners and educators share the need to become aware of their positions within dynamic and conflictual social contexts, including education itself. The authenticity of education is expressed in the movement towards conscientisation. For Freire, conscientisation is the foundation of a continuing cycle of action–reflection–learning. Freire’s concept of reflection can be articulated utilising Schön’s idea of reflection on action and reflection in action (Schön, 1987). Reflection on action is compatible with Freire’s idea that authentic education should promote forms of contextualised self-awareness. However, Schön’s concept of reflection in action is perhaps even more consequential for Freire’s idea of authentic, critical

104 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

education. Reflection in action is compatible with Freire’s concept of praxis, as discussed in what follows. Self-awareness exists only if theory and practice are coherently combined. The combination of theory and practice is defined by Freire, who borrows the concept from Gramsci: praxis. For Freire (1970), dialogic pedagogy is the praxis of critical pedagogy (Freire, 1970). Self-awareness, which represents the goal and the process of Freire’s version of critical pedagogy, can only be pursued through interactions underpinned by dialogue. Only dialogue can promote democratic exchanges and allow personal expression. Self-awareness cannot be taught through the hierarchical relationships of inauthentic education, because hierarchical relationships can deprive some participants in education of the possibility to develop self-awareness. Dialogue is necessary for learners and educators to understand each other’s needs and interests (Kincheloe, 2008). The paradigm that underpins the use and evaluation of facilitation discussed here is based on Freire’s critical pedagogy applied to intergenerational relationships and its view of education as the promotion of self-awareness through the praxis of dialogic pedagogy. The book as an intellectual project is motivated by the idea that the positioning of children and adults in education can be transformed through dialogue, starting from the micro context of interactions. Facilitation can be the praxis that enhances dialogic pedagogy, and dialogic pedagogy can be the praxis that enhances critical pedagogy. If the examination of the philosophical underpinning of this book shifts its focus to the position of individuals in education, the paradigm of this research is based on self-determination, as understood by Deci and Ryan (1991). Deci, Ryan, and their collaborators articulate self-­determination in three components: (1) autonomy, (2) competence, and (3) relatedness. Autonomy refers to the individual motivation for action, competence has to do with self-awareness of one’s position in social contexts, and relatedness refers to empirical relationships where self-­determination is manifested in forms of autonomous choices. The use and evaluation of facilitation discussed in this book is also motivated by the idea that autonomous and competent choices can make a difference in the local contexts of social relationships. Thus, the philosophical underpinning of this book can be presented as a combination of two paradigms: critical pedagogy and self-determination theory. We believe that these two paradigms are compatible.

4  HOW WE CAN SAY WHAT WE SAY: THE METHODOLOGY OF FACILITATION… 

105

First, the meanings of conscientisation and self-determination converge. Conscientisation is characterised by the attributes of autonomy, competence, and relatedness of Deci and Ryan’s idea of self-­determination. Self-determination is individual and influenced by the relationships that constitute its social context. Also, self-determination necessarily manifests itself as actions in interaction, much like critical pedagogy’s concept of praxis, where critical pedagogy is understood as the outcome of interactive dialogic practices. Second, Freire recognises dialogic pedagogy as the praxis that can promote autonomy, self-awareness, and choices (Shih, 2018). The promotion of autonomy, self-awareness, and choice, which is the aim of Freire’s authentic education, can be seamlessly translated into promotion of self-determination. Third, for Freire, dialogue is more than a communicative technique. It is a network of epistemological connections and relationships (Freire & Macedo, 1995) and constitutes the method and the context of critical pedagogy. Freire’s connection between dialogue and critical pedagogy is mirrored by the idea that facilitation is a technique and the context of self-­ determination. Facilitation is not merely a communicative technique to produce self-determination but also a favourable context of self-­ determination. The dialogue between children and adults is not only the instrument used to bring about structural change (McLaren, 2020); it is that change. Fourth, self-determination can be recognised as a fundamental ingredient of a pedagogy of democratisation (Giroux, 2020) because recognition of autonomy in decision-making, responsibility for choice, and mutual trust are necessary for a genuine democratisation of education. The design of project-based approach workshops, the use of facilitation to promote children’s agency as authorship of knowledge, the observation of facilitation to distil practices that position children as authors of knowledge and contributors to their own, and adult, learning: These were all inspired by the idea that facilitation could be the praxis that enhances dialogic pedagogy by promoting autonomy, competence, and relatedness in adult–child interactions. Dialogic pedagogy, in turn, can be the praxis capable of enhancing self-awareness and awareness of the other, that is, critical pedagogy.

106 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

4.3  A Few How To? Notes on the Observation of Project-Based Approach Workshops The use of facilitation to promote children’s authorship of narratives was based on the idea of working on visual materials in the classroom to offer children the opportunity to choose when to interact with them, comparing them, sharing them, constructing narratives about them. As pedagogists and social scientists trained and experienced in the use of methodologies aimed at promoting children’s agentic participation in education, we designed project-based approach workshops and accessed the role of facilitators during the workshops. The choice to take the role of facilitators in project-based approach workshops was motivated by the acknowledgement that the work of experienced facilitators was essential. Only the work of expert and trained facilitators could allow the observation of facilitative actions with a certain degree of certainty that those facilitative actions had been chosen and implemented coherently with the ethos and methods of facilitation. The observation of adult–child interactions during project-based approach workshops was aimed at observing if and how facilitation supported children’s access to the agentic role of authors of knowledge. A methodological decision (the how to? decision) was made to implement the analysis of project-based approach workshops using ethnomethodological methods. Ethnomethodology is an approach to research committed to the empirical study of how ordinary people use a surprisingly extensive and detailed repertoire of skills and knowledges to communicate with each other (Allen, 2017). Ethnomethodology is interested in exploring practical activities and practical organisational reasoning. This is suggested by its name, coined by Harold Garfinkel (1963): Ethnomethodology refers to the scientific study (−ology) of the patterned actions (method-) of ordinary people in a society (ethno-). Ethnomethodology allows reflecting on the often seen but unnoticed social practices (Pink, 2009; Punch & Oancea, 2014). According to Garfinkel, social actions are situated (Garfinkel, 1967): They create familiar and predictable situations (for instance, a school lesson or any other type of classroom interaction) recognisable to any socialised person. Participants in a situation can use previous experiences in similar situations, both first-hand experiences or vicarious experiences, learned during socialisation, to understand the flow of actions and reactions. To participate in a social situation, it is necessary to know how; it is

4  HOW WE CAN SAY WHAT WE SAY: THE METHODOLOGY OF FACILITATION… 

107

not necessary to be able to explain why one is doing it (Lynch, 1993). Rather, participating in social interactions is learned by doing and by reflective observation. The ethnomethodology research programme is to study this ceaseless production of social order by observing and analysing actual human activities in the situations in which they occur. Ethnomethodology has been used to study social situations in the education system, to explain how individuals co-construct situations in which the practical work of education goes on, be it teaching or other types of education. Ethnomethodological studies of education examine how participants co-construct social order, for example constructing social situations such as lessons (Mehan, 1979), constructing the institutional categories of “teachers” and “students” (Doyle, 2006), constructing expectations concerning what counts as classroom order or disorder (Doyle & Carter, 1984) or teacher authority (Breidenstein, 2008). Ethnomethodological educational research is interested in how (the methods) the participants in educational situations (the ethnos) cooperate in establishing something like a ‘lesson’ (Mehan, 1979; Doyle, 2006; Breidenstein, 2008). Ethnomethodology is generally less interested in the subject matter of the lesson and deliberately does not question the quality of teaching and learning. It does not evaluate the quality of education but strives to explain order and see how things work in a very pragmatic sense (Baker, 1997). For instance, from a didactic perspective, it is obvious that some empirical classroom interactions will be disappointing and unsatisfactory (Geier & Pollmanns, 2016). Nevertheless, participants in classroom interactions usually do not seem to have problems in making sense of their experiences even during lessons that could be the object of harsh criticism from a didactical point of view. If a lesson looks like a lesson (Doyle, 2006), teachers, as well as students, will manage to make sense of actions in interaction and rely on mutually shared expectations. The intelligibility of a lesson for participants is independent of its pedagogical quality. In this research, the object of ethnomethodological observations was facilitated interactions during project-based approach workshops. Following Miles and Huberman (1994), a case is a phenomenon that occurs in a social context. Project-based approach workshops can be understood as the context, and facilitated interactions can be understood as the case. Thus, an ethnomethodological study interested in project-­ based approach workshops can be considered an ethnomethodological case study. Interactions during project-based approach workshops were not approached as exemplary cases of broader social and cultural processes.

108 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

Rather, interactions during project-based approach workshops were studied with a view to their intrinsic properties (Creswell & Poth, 2018; Mukherji & Albon, 2018), with a focus on the association between facilitation and the promotion of children’s agency as authorship of knowledge. Choosing to observe project-based approach workshops through the lens of ethnomethodology made it possible to observe the effect of facilitation on adult–child relationships and their mutual positioning in educational interactions. The ethnomethodological approach successfully fulfilled the two functions of observation discussed by Bassey (1999): (1) formative function (supporting the design and implementation of facilitative practices) and (2) summative function (reflection on project-based approach workshops). An ethnomethodological case study was the answer to the how to? question. Nevertheless, the methods of research are never about the how to? question only; another important question concerns the researcher or, in more general terms, the observer’s approach to the act of observing. An observer can approach observations from a hierarchical position as an evaluator or a judge of behaviours. An observer can also approach observations from a position defined by equality, empathy, and expectations of personal expressions: a dialogical position. The dialogical approach to observation (Lawrence, 2021) was deemed to be coherent with the research aim and ethical position of this research. In the last two decades, the use of observation as an instrument for the assessment of fixed goals has been recognised and criticised within early childhood education (Carr, 2001; Billington, 2016). An alternative, dialogical approach to observation was chosen for this research based on alternative methods and ethos that conceptualise observation as a mutual knowing process, beneficial to both the children and the researcher. The concept of dialogue underpinning the dialogical approach to observation coincides with the concept of dialogue subscribed by the pedagogical innovation discussed in the book. Dialogue is not merely a synonym of communication. Rather, how the partners in communication regard others determines whether the interaction is dialogical. A dialogical approach understands observation as the context of potential dialogue between participants and researcher who share a social situation where they co-­ construct meaning. Lawrence (2021) utilises Buber’s theory of dialogue to explain the meaning of dialogue that underpins the dialogical approach to observation. Buber distinguishes between an instrumental monological I-It attitude (acting on the other) and an alternative attitude to engage

4  HOW WE CAN SAY WHAT WE SAY: THE METHODOLOGY OF FACILITATION… 

109

with the other as a whole person. This is defined as an I-Thou relation that is the context of meeting and experiencing the other (Buber, 2002). The I-Thou relation could be described as a relation centred on equality in participation, empathy, and expectations of personal expression, that is, a relation based on dialogue. For the observation of facilitation, the social situation shared by observer and participants coincided with the project-based approach workshops. For Lawrence, observation in research can be an interrelated communication system between children and the researcher, with potential for dialogue between them (Lawrence, 2021). This idea builds on the philosophical point that observation is a communicative act rather than a solipsistic individual act (Markovà & Linell, 1996). Angrosino and Mays de Perez’s (2000) build on a relational concept of observation to urge a shift from thinking of observation as a method for data collection towards seeing observation as a context for interacting with those involved in research. In this research, dialogical participant observation was chosen to enact a shared experience, particularly conducive to reciprocal relationships between the researcher and children. Dialogical participant observation was chosen as the context of a mutual encounter to be accomplished in and through the interactions (Heath et al., 2010). Observations produced the data; analysis of interactions was used as a procedure to analyse data. In particular, the analysis of data developed from the idea that talk-in-interaction is both shaped by the context of an interaction and works to (re)produce the context of the interaction. Interactions are doubly contextual, because interactions are both context-­ shaped and context-renewing (Heritage, 1984). They are context-shaped because the impact of each action to developing interaction cannot be adequately understood without a reference to the local context. Interactions are also context-renewing because each action becomes the immediate context for the following action as the interaction unfolds, thereby influencing how the following action will be understood. In this sense, the context of the next action is inevitably renewed with each current action. According to Heritage, each current action will, by the same token, function to renew any generally prevailing sense of context which is the object of the participants’ orientations and actions (Heritage, 1984, p. 23). It is an idea of local context as a constantly renewable and alterable resource for participants (Raclaw, 2010). This is an important point, not only for the analysis of observation but also for the overall design of the pedagogical intervention: As a form of talk-in-interaction, facilitation can

110 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

shape the context of adult–child relationships, for instance positioning of children as agentic authors of knowledge. Talk-in-interaction is of course not indifferent to what Heritage calls the macro context of interaction, that is, the larger environment of activity within which any specific interaction occurs (Heritage & Clayman, 2010). This was translated into our awareness that expectations of ordinary educational interactions were going to be the most obvious resource for children to understand facilitator actions and react to during project-based approach workshops. Supported by previous research on the use of facilitation in educational contexts (Kelman, 2005; Baraldi & Iervese, 2012; Wyness, 2013; Baraldi et  al., 2021, 2022; Farini & Scollan, 2021), we invested time and attention as facilitators in the reformulation of children’s expectations through role modelling, for instance by sharing personal stories related to our own memories as a way to display openness, personal commitment, and trust during the interaction. The analysis of data thus focused on the observation of how facilitation created favourable contexts for children’s access to the agentic status of authors of knowledge in the form of narratives. In particular, the analysis concerned how facilitation shaped conversational sequences (Baraldi & Iervese, 2012; Baraldi et al., 2021). Three aspects of facilitation were at the centre of the research project: (1) adults’ initiative to promote children’s production of narratives and their sharing in the classroom, (2) adults’ reactions to children’s personal initiatives, and (3) the positioning of children as legitimate authors of knowledge.

4.4  The Local Contexts Where Our Pedagogical Innovation Became Real Two primary schools in Greater London were selected as the contexts for delivering project-based approach workshops. The two schools are located in the north-west section of London and share similar demographic characteristics. A difference between the two schools lies in their status as rights-based schools: Whilst in one school teaching and learning are planned around the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), in the other one a similar pedagogical movement was being considered at the time of the research but not yet implemented. In the following sections, the profile of the participating school will be discussed. More detailed data about the demographic profile of the two schools are provided as an appendix.

4  HOW WE CAN SAY WHAT WE SAY: THE METHODOLOGY OF FACILITATION… 

111

The first school that participated in the research is identified as School 1. School 1 is a mainstream, state-funded primary school. Further, School 1 is a rights-based school that has achieved the UNICEF Level 2 Rights Respecting Award. The Rights Respecting Award is given to schools where teaching and learning is planned around the UNCRC. UNICEF (2021) have prepared rights respecting school material to promote children’s voices within education with the message that listening to children is an everyday part of life rather than a special occasion when adults seek a specific contribution (Holt, 1974; Lundy, 2012). The second school that participated in the research is identified as School 2. School 2 is a state-funded community primary school. At the time of the research, School 2 had just started the movement towards the incorporation of rights-based practices, with a charter of children’s rights under development. Year 3 classes in the participating schools had 30 children enrolled. However, an average of 25 children participated in each workshop, due to short-term and long-term absences, planned Special Education Needs (SEN) support, extra classes, or planned school activities. No children or parents refused to take part in the research and activities. Selection of the participating classes was based on the decision to work with children in Year 3 of primary school. Young children in Year 3 are aged between 7 and 8 years of age. Whilst they are moving towards the middle of their primary school journey, Year 3 children are also within early childhood (0–8 years). Working with children on the cusp of early childhood and embedded in school education was considered optimal for the researcher’s ambition to use facilitation to bring early childhood education ethos and methods into primary education practices. Three project-based approach workshops were undertaken in each participating class. After discussions with the participating teachers, it was decided to undertake workshops of up to forty-five  minutes each. Four weeks before the first workshop, we visited the classes to distribute information sheets and an informed consent form for children and parents and to explain the aim of the workshops and their structure. Children were asked to bring photographs or objects related to memories that they would like to share in the classroom. In the design of the workshops, the construction of narratives was stimulated by personal photographs. The choice of using children’s ‘vernacular photographs’ as a pivot to produce narratives was motivated by the choice to support children to think and communicate through, about, and with pictures.

112 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

The construction of narratives was aimed at helping children to connect the image of a photograph with insight about the situations and circumstances that lay behind the image. Narratives could focus on both the images in the photographs and the situations and circumstances behind and beyond the photographs (Baraldi & Iervese, 2017). The intention was to enable children to explore the social contexts of photographs as well as to create new stories inspired by the images in photographs (or connected to artefacts). Underpinning the design of the project-based approach workshops was the idea that photographs could serve as a portal to (re)capture moments of personal life as well as enhance and invite connections, providing the opportunity for participation in classroom dialogue. Photographs brought from home into the school environment can be observed as transitional objects (Winnicott, 1971) and temporal portals (Sontag, 1990) that support children’s transitions between the physical, cognitive, and emotional realms (Scollan & Gallagher, 2016; Scollan & Farini, 2021). The project-based approach workshops were designed around three phases. The first phase was dedicated to introducing the workshops. Following the first workshop, children were introduced to, or reminded about, the idea that the meeting presented an opportunity to share memories related to photographs or prompted by other participants’ photographs and story. A pivotal moment in the introduction was to co-construct expectations about participation in the conversation with children. During the workshop, personal expression rather than role performances was expected, comments should be non-judgemental, assessment was suspended, and no distinction was made between correct and incorrect knowledge. We understood that expectations developed over years of participation in hierarchical educational communication could not be changed in the space of an introduction to the workshops. Nevertheless, it was important to explicitly position children as legitimate authors of knowledge, to promote their trust in the possibility of equal participation. Of course, the challenge was to make these expectations ‘real’ in actual interactions during the second phase of the workshops. The second phase coincided with the practice of facilitation. Observations from the second phase of the project-based approach workshops underpin the insights in the use of facilitation discussed in this book. Such insights will be presented and discussed in Chaps. 5, 6, and 7. The third phase of the project-based approach workshops was devoted to securing a transition from the workshop to the ordinary educational

4  HOW WE CAN SAY WHAT WE SAY: THE METHODOLOGY OF FACILITATION… 

113

context. The transition was centred on showing appreciation for children’s participation, summarising the themes emerging from the exchange of stories and discussing whether and how they might change the social and cultural worlds of children, reminding them of the following workshop, or saying farewell to them upon the conclusion of the last workshop. The length and function of each phase, however, were not rigidly planned. Rigid planning, as suggested by Luhmann (1995), is a way to limit the uncertainty of the future to a restricted range of possible outcomes of present decisions. It is understood that planning is essential even for the least ambitious cooperative work of a formal group or an informal group. However, if applied to facilitation, rigid planning would have implied claiming control over the development of project-based approach workshops, de facto silencing the voices of children and the unpredictability they might bring. We wanted to listen to those voices; therefore, we chose to replace planning with an expectation of the unexpected. The project-based approach workshops followed a similar pattern: Children were invited to self-select as presenters of their photographs. Photographs were projected on the classroom’s whiteboard. The observation of the project-based approach workshops occurred out of an interest in the use of facilitation to promote children’s agency as authors of knowledge. Consequently, it focused on facilitative actions and their interactions with children’s participation. The presentation of the photographs was seen as an opportunity to narrate memories related to them. Questions and comments were explicit, and we took on the role of turn-taking manager when more children expressed the desire to comment on the ongoing narrative or to ask questions. No predetermined time allocation was planned for the narration of memories related to each photograph; transitions between photographs or narratives were dictated by the trajectory of the discussion, for instance when comments or interlacements brought in new narratives. The workshops took place during hours in the teaching schedule normally assigned to personal social and emotional development, which is integral to the current National Curriculum. One week was left between workshops, although in one school the need for a teaching calendar extended the space between workshops in the same class to 2 weeks. A challenge for all methodologies aimed at promoting children’s participation in educational interaction, which was already acknowledged in the pioneering work of Gordon (1974), consists in situations where children choose not to participate. This is the same problem encountered by

114 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

Roger’s client-centred therapy (Rogers, 1951), which is the main inspiration for Gordon’s pedagogy: Promoting active engagement can encounter an apparently insurmountable obstacle when the participants in the interaction whose actions are promoted do not want to actively engage. Facilitation is methodologically based on the idea that children’s participation cannot be the outcome of adults’ pressure because this would hinder children’s self-determination. The use of promotional questions or invitations to talk in order to facilitate active engagement without forcing participation is a pivotal technique for facilitation, as it is for neo-­ Vygotskyian methodologies, such as scaffolding, sustained shared thinking, or interthinking. Promotional questions and invitations to talk aim to create favourable conditions for children’s self-selection as active participants in interactions. Chapters 5 and 6 will illustrate and discuss the technique of ‘throwing out a net’, which is an example of facilitating the self-selection of children. Self-selection as active participants in an interaction may represent an instance of children’s self-determination. However, as noted by Baraldi and colleagues (2021), facilitating the self-selection of participants may cohere with the ethos of facilitation, but it is not necessarily sufficient to achieve the aim of facilitation. The limit of promoting self-selection coincides with situations where children choose to self-marginalise from active participation, thereby avoiding the net thrown by a facilitator’s promotional questions and invitations to talk. International research in educational contexts with young children has discussed the possible underpinning reasons of self-marginalisation from active participation: challenges in oral production in the host language (Herrlitz & Maier, 2005), challenges in understanding the cultural orientations prevalent in schools (Harris & Kaur, 2012; Burger, 2013), disabilities (Allan, 2010; Anaby et al., 2013), or disadvantaged socioeconomic status (Aturupane et al., 2013). A paradox emerges where safeguarding children’s self-determination (and, hence, not forcing active participation) is intertwined with the risk of contributing to self-marginalisation. Nevertheless, as suggested by pragmatist philosophy, at the level of social practice, paradoxes are managed in the same fashion as the Gordian knot was untangled: A decision is made that dissolves the paradox by choosing one side of it against the other. For instance, Gordon chooses to prioritise the promotion of active participation at the cost of hindering self-determination, accepting the risk that active participation can become role performance imposed on

4  HOW WE CAN SAY WHAT WE SAY: THE METHODOLOGY OF FACILITATION… 

115

children (Gordon, 1974). Laissez-faire methodologies, in contrast, prioritise self-determination (Mintz, 1994, 2003), thereby accepting the risk of validating emerging patterns of marginalisation, based on children’s self-exclusion. Research in facilitation has reflected on the paradoxical coupling of the ethical commitment to prioritise children’s self-determination and the methodological risk of supporting self-marginalisation (Farini, 2011; Baraldi & Farini, 2011; Farini & Scollan, 2019; Baraldi et al., 2021). A solution proposed by Baraldi et  al. (2021) consists in a mid-range approach, between putting pressure on children and laissez-faire. The research presented in this book applied this mid-range approach during project-based approach workshops. Laissez-faire approaches resonated in the ‘throwing out the net’ technique, but they were combined with an active engagement of the facilitator to extend the area of active participation. Such engagement was implemented through several facilitative actions that converged in the effort to create favourable conditions for participations based on expectations of personal expression and mutual trust. Those facilitative actions are presented and discussed in Chaps. 4 and 5. They consist in (1) actions of positive feedback, dedicated to showing appreciation for children’s contributions whilst reducing concerns about the risk of judgement (appreciation, change-of-state tokens); (2) actions to promote active participation by exerting mild pressure on children, as a mitigated version of Gordonian strategies (focused questions); (3) actions that role-model personal expression, self-disclosure, and engagement in the interaction as a person rather than a role. By offering her/him as a ‘living example’ of personal expression, the facilitator demonstrates trust in children, which is considered a powerful way to promote children’s trust in the facilitator and trust in peers, as well as confidence in the safety of the interaction as a space for personal expression. Facilitation is therefore owned by the context and those in it. Facilitation cannot neutralise the risk of self-marginalisation of some children. This is true for all forms of educational communication as soon as it moves away from an authoritarian framework. On the other hand, the participation secured by authoritarian models is participation of role, not participation of children (Farini, 2019a). However, though facilitation cannot neutralise the risk of self-marginalisation of some children, empirical research has suggested that its combination of laissez faire techniques, low-intensity Gordonian techniques, and role-modelling can be successful

116 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

in extending the area of active participation well beyond the area of active participation in the same context during ordinary instructional activities (Warming, 2012; Baraldi et al., 2021).

4.5  The Production of Data: On Video Recording Video recording was used as a tool for observing project-based approach workshops, producing the data needed to reflect on the use of facilitation. Video recording was chosen as a reliable technique to record talk-in-­ interaction that can be revisited and replayed after events, thereby supporting reflectivity (Goodwin, 2007; Palaiologou, 2012). Whilst video observation as a technique to produce data does not erase the observer’s selectivity, nevertheless, it offers the opportunity to create the needed epistemological separation between production of data and interpretation of data. Regarding the specific aim of this research, video observation was considered the only technique that could support the observation of the fine details of talk-in-interaction. Video data make it possible to pause time or slow it down, offering much scope for detailed observation and time and space to decode, reflect on, think about, and revisit data, which is pivotal for the interpretivist epistemology of this research (Zuengler et al., 1998; Farini, 2009, 2010). Video-recorded data offered the possibility to analyse in detail several aspects of talk-in-interaction during the project-based approach workshops: (1) types of facilitative actions used by the facilitator to support children’s production of narratives; (2) characteristics of children’s personal initiatives, with regard to the morphology of turns and their position in sequences of actions; (3) facilitator’s reactions to children’s personal initiatives; and (4) children’s reactions and interlacement to ongoing narratives and the role of the facilitator in the interlacement of narratives. The use of video observation afforded reflection in action and reflection on action (Schön, 1987). For instance, video observation offered space and distance to provoke reflection upon practice so that content, responses, themes, and categories became visible. The ability to document the complexities of interaction made the choice of video observation compelling with respect to achieving the aims of the research. Following suggestions from previous research (Farini, 2010; Goodwin, 2010; Baraldi et al., 2021) and our personal experiences in ethnomethodological and ethnographic fieldwork, the camera was positioned so as to

4  HOW WE CAN SAY WHAT WE SAY: THE METHODOLOGY OF FACILITATION… 

117

capture the presenting child(ren), the facilitator, and the rest of the group. The following diagram illustrates the positioning of the camera. As suggested by Fig. 4.1, the programme of facilitation during project-­ based approach workshops was based on a model where an individual child (or more than one, if preferred by the children) presented a photograph that was projected on the classroom’s whiteboard. We, as facilitators, sat close to one end of the whiteboard. The presenting child(ren) and the facilitator faced the rest of the group. If children intervened to link narratives or extended comments to the ongoing narratives, they had the opportunity to choose whether to reach for the whiteboard or to remain in their place. Goldman’s (2014) criteria for the positioning of the video equipment and the management of recordings were followed: (1) perspectivity: close shots combined with a wide lens to afford both the researcher and children’s points of viewing; (2) chronological verisimilitude: uninterrupted recording to enable comprehension ‘in sync’ with the flow of events.

Fig. 4.1  Video observation layout

118 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

Safe spaces with seats and tables, either removed or not removed from the camera’s eye, were accessible. Instrumental to the decision to allow children to move in and out of the attention of the camera, the video equipment was positioned carefully to ensure that children who chose not to participate in the research could still take part in the activities if they so desired. A question may arise as to the effects that being videotaped has on the well-being or behaviour of the participants. Although we accept that the presence of a camera could impact participants’ behaviour, reflection on experience and the scientific literature led us to assume that the children would get used to it and the presence of the camera would become residually influential over time (Farini, 2011). Moreover, the research focused on detailed conversational practices that represented ‘behaviour that is beyond the ability of most people to alter significantly over extended periods of time’ (Zuengler et al., 1998). These considerations supported the decision to implement video observation of interactions as the technique to produce data.

4.6  What About the Background? Critical Remarks on Expectations and Assumptions, Including a Methodological Point Available information about some aspects of children’s multifaceted background, namely information about children’s socioeconomic status, possible special education rights, and academic achievement, is provided in Appendix 3, ‘Demographic Profile of Participating Schools’. The authors are aware that some readers, particularly in the academic sphere, may demand information about research participants’ ‘background’, which usually refers to socioeconomic status, ethnicity, or gender. Whilst the authors understand the rationale for such demands, they also argue that information on the background of participants does not resolve all difficulties related to a study’s validity. The converse may be true: Providing information on the ‘background’ may encourage essentialist approaches that use people’s background to explain their choices. The problem is that information about participants’ background is necessarily a simplification of reality. We can use the contexts of the research presented in this book,

4  HOW WE CAN SAY WHAT WE SAY: THE METHODOLOGY OF FACILITATION… 

119

primary school classrooms in Greater London. In primary school classrooms, as in any other social context, a wide variety of backgrounds intersect. Some children share an ethnic background but not socioeconomic status; other children share socioeconomic status and an ethnic background but not their first language; still other children might share a first language but not an ethnic background or gender. Literally hundreds of other similar complexities could be raised, and this begs the question of what aspect of the background is relevant in each moment of a child’s social experience. Has child A agreed with child B’s narrative because of a cultural tendency towards minimisation of conflict or because of incipient class solidarity? Children’s background by itself says little about a study’s validity. The authors would like to emphasise this point; quite the contrary, it can be methodologically incorrect for some studies, like the one presented in this book. The authors have already invited reflection on the assumed influence of the ‘background’: What aspect of background is more relevant in a specific moment, in a specific social situation, for a child? Incidentally, the authors believe that that question points to one of the strengths of the research and, therefore, of this book. The authors chose to bracket any assumption about what aspect of a ‘background’ should influence a child’s behaviour. More poignantly, the authors also chose not to assume what ‘background’ is made of, for a certain child at a certain time of his, her, or their social experience. During the project-­ based approach workshops, the facilitators promoted and listened to children’s voices respectfully, leaving it to them to present what is important and what is not important in their identities, at any specific moment. This approach is key to respecting the idea of the unique child that underpins the overall project of pedagogical innovation. Nevertheless, when available, the authors chose to add information about the migrant background of children participating in the exemplary excerpts; this is discussed in Chaps. 5, 6, and 7. Such information can be retrieved from the coding used to anonymise participants, which is illustrated in Sect. 5.2.1. Migrant background refers to the definition of ‘children of migrants’ advanced by the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford: children of migrants include both children under age 18 born overseas and children born in the UK with at least one parent born abroad, regardless of their citizenship ­(https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/ resources/briefings/children-­of-­migrants-­in-­the-­uk).

120 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

4.7  What We Looked for When We Looked at Child–Adult Interactions Observations stemmed from an interest in how facilitative actions could create local contexts where expectations concerned equal rights to narrate, based on the idea that facilitation develops through sequences of adults’ actions and children’s actions, in local social contexts of interaction. The observation of actions-in-interaction made it possible to evaluate (1) a facilitator’s actions that upgraded the epistemic status of children and promote children’s access to the role of authors of knowledge and (2) children’s personal initiatives that showed self-determination and the facilitator’s reaction to them. Previous research on the use of facilitation in educational and non-­ educational contexts (Hendry, 2009; Baraldi & Farini, 2011; Wyness, 2013; Baraldi, 2014; Baraldi & Iervese, 2017; Farini, 2019a, Baraldi et al., 2021, 2022; Farini & Scollan, 2021) called attention to the most important actions of facilitation, supporting our observations: 1. Invitations to talk, used to start a narration or to interlace new narration to an ongoing one (Baraldi, 2015b), supporting the production of the development of narratives; 2. Questions to support the development of narratives (Keevallik, 2010; Farini, 2011; Seuren & Huiskes, 2017; Clayman & Loeb, 2018); 3. Feedback on children’s action, which could be minimal (Caffi, 2004; Hutchby, 2008; House, 2013; Huq & Amir, 2015), to show active listening of the children’s narratives or extended as formulations, where the facilitator proposed the gist of children’s contributions (Heritage, 1985; Antaki, 2012; Baraldi, 2019; Skarbø Solem & Skovholt, 2017) to show understanding and to promote further communication by creating spaces for clarifications; 4. Facilitator’s personal initiatives (personal stories, comments) to enhance children’s narratives and create interpersonal relations (Hendry, 2009; Baraldi & Iervese, 2017). In addition to these facilitative actions, our interest in self-­determination expressed as children’s autonomous choices suggested the inclusion of another focus of analysis:

4  HOW WE CAN SAY WHAT WE SAY: THE METHODOLOGY OF FACILITATION… 

121

5. Children’s personal initiatives and facilitators’ reaction to them The exploration of the connection between types of facilitative actions and children’s access to the role of authors of knowledge (also through personal initiatives that display self-determination) allowed for an analysis of the association between facilitation in project-based approach workshops and children’s agency, thereby offering insight into the design and implementation of future uses of facilitation. 4.7.1   Facilitative Actions: Invitations to Talk Inviting children to talk can support the production of a new narrative but also solicit comments on narratives or the interlacement of narratives to a current one. It is possible to discern a common function underpinning all invitations to talk as observed in the project-based approach workshops. Invitations to talk were used to support active participation, representing a pillar of facilitation. How were invitations to talk performed? During project-based approach workshops, invitations to talk were mostly performed as questions. Asking a question was the action that put invitations to talk into practice. Both questions with an open format and questions with a closed format were utilised to perform invitations to talk. Invitations to talk are defined in the following examples ‘Does anyone want to share their photograph?’, ‘Does that remind you of anything, I wonder?’, ‘Who thinks they have had a similar experience?’ Invitations to start a narrative were generally performed as polar yes/no questions (Clayman & Loeb, 2018). According to Clayman and Loeb, when used as invitations, polarised yes/no questions (henceforth: polarised questions) make relevant either acceptance or rejection of the invitation in the next turn at talk. When posed as a polarised question, an invitation presents both alternatives without implying any interactive work to prepare and justify a possible rejection. Invitations as polarised question are thus different from the presentation of a future scenario for acceptance, which projects a stronger preference for acceptance, as for the examples that follow: a. Polarised question: Would you like to go to the party with me? b. Presentation of a future scenario, embedding a preference for acceptance: We should go to the party together.

122 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

A rejection of an invitation performed in the form of a question does not demand the same laborious design of the turn at talk that performs a rejection of a future scenario. Nevertheless, polarised questions often entail a preference for acceptance. Polarised questions are a common interactive resource to put pressure on their recipients towards acceptance and are widely used in educational interactions (Farini, 2011). For this reason, polarised questions occupy an ambiguous position in facilitation. Whilst polarised questions are compatible with the promotion of self-­ determination, because they allow choices to be expressed in a relatively easy way (yes/no answer); they nevertheless exert some pressure on their recipients for acceptance. Open questions are a second form of invitation to talk to promote the production of new narratives observed in the project-based approach workshops. Open questions enhance children’s choices differently from polarised questions because they do not put the same level of pressure on children following actions in the context of interaction. However, because open questions exert less pressure on children’s actions, an invitation to talk performed as open questions may not have the same effectiveness of polarised question in terms of promoting children’s willingness to engage with an interaction. 4.7.2   Facilitative Actions: Asking Questions to Promote Narratives Asking questions is a common action in any conversation; it is also one of the most important actions in educational interactions, where, much as in everyday conversation, questions are a versatile action that can be utilised for a wide range of pragmatic opportunities, well beyond seeking information. Stivers discusses the many functions of questions across a range of languages. Questions are often the vehicle for other actions, from repairing misunderstanding (What did you say?) to offering (Would you like some help?), from requesting (Do you have one minute for me?) to challenging others’ behaviour (Why are you talking like that?). In the context of the project-based approach workshops, questions were used as facilitative actions to support children’s agency as authors of narratives. Whilst any question format can support active participation in conversation; there are differences between polarised formats and open formats. Polarised questions are very effective because they project a strong preference for a limited range of action in the next turn, as well as a

4  HOW WE CAN SAY WHAT WE SAY: THE METHODOLOGY OF FACILITATION… 

123

preference for an answer that aligns with the agenda of the author of the question (Farini, 2011). Nevertheless, polarised questions favour a form of participation that is often limited to the minimal answer invited by the polarised alternative (Keevallik, 2010). Open questions offer a wider range of opportunities. Open questions, as all questions, exert some form of control on the recipient’s reaction; however, this is not as stringent as in the case of polarised questions. Open questions seem to be more compatible with the principles of facilitation. It is, however, important to consider that open questions do not provide the same ‘safe direction’ to children that polarised questions offer, by virtue of their simple binary alternative proposed to the recipients. Open questions offer more opportunities. With more opportunities, they also introduce more risk, with the consequence that the recipients of open questions may choose to reduce risk by providing preferred answers (guessing the preference of the questioner) (Pomerantz, 1984), by withdrawing from participation or by limiting participation to a minimal form, for example minimal, non-committal, answers. Choosing between polarised questions and open questions is key during facilitation. The facilitator needs to consider current levels of engagement, the specific point in the interaction, and other contextual variables. In the observed project-based approach workshops, open questions were the most common format of question in the data analysed. Polarised questions were more often used to kick off narratives or to support the expansion of ongoing narratives by focusing on the specific contents of the narration. The interest in the use of specific formats of questions should not detract from the reality of observed facilitation in project-based approach workshops, where the support of children’s production of narrative was performed using both polarised and open formats of questions in the same conversations. 4.7.3   Facilitative Actions: Feedback to Support Children’s Authorship of Narratives Actions of feedback refer to a facilitator’s reactions to children’s turns at talk. The facilitator’s feedback on children’s actions is a crucial aspect of facilitation. Looking at the sequences of actions-in-interactions that constitute facilitation, as any other conversation, a facilitator’s action of feedback can be used by children to observe how the facilitator positions them, for instance as participants with equal epistemic authority or within a

124 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

hierarchical order. Actions of feedback are cues for how participants contextualise interactions, and in the case of the observed project-based approach workshops, they were cues for how participants created a context of dialogue or a context of hierarchical and adult-controlled communication. Actions of feedback can be divided into two categories: (1) minimal feedback and (2) complex feedback. Minimal feedback includes actions such as continuers, acknowledgement tokens, and repetitions that can support children’s authorship of narratives, with a minimal intervention from the facilitator. Minimal feedback describes a category of actions that are very common in all types of conversation, including educational interactions (House, 2013; Huq & Amir, 2015). It is necessary to clarify that minimal feedback does not refer to short replies to explicit questions. Minimal feedback refers to reactions to previous turns at talk, for instance a facilitator’s reaction to children’s actions and vice versa. Minimal feedback was considered an important resource to support children’s authorship of narratives as well as a contextualisation cue for the positioning of participants. The first consideration allowed by the observation of project-based approach workshops is that minimal feedback can be utilised to support children’s access to the role of authors of knowledge and to connote positively children’s contributions. The support of children’s authorship of narratives can be performed with the use of continuers as well as with the use of repetitions. Continuers are short actions of feedback that express attention to the current speaker’s contribution (Gardner, 2001). In the context of facilitation, continuers that express attention can be utilised to reinforce children’s status as authors of knowledge and to encourage risk-­ taking. Continuers include actions such as short confirmations and para-­ verbal signals. Repetitions are duplication of the previous turn at talk or, more frequently, the duplication of single words or parts of sentences from the previous turn at talk (Wong, 2000). Repetitions display listening more explicitly than continuers, but they entail a more incisive intervention of the facilitator in the interaction. Notwithstanding the differences, both continuers and repetitions display active listening of children’s contributions (Voutilainen et al., 2019). Another function of minimal feedback observed in the project-based approach workshops was to react positively and encouragingly to

4  HOW WE CAN SAY WHAT WE SAY: THE METHODOLOGY OF FACILITATION… 

125

children’s contributions; this function was accomplished with the use of acknowledgement tokens. Acknowledgement tokens are actions that display understanding of the previous turn at talk while also conveying interest, surprise, and empathy (McCarthy, 2003). Acknowledgement tokens provide more explicit feedback than continuers and repetitions; compared to repetitions, acknowledgement tokens convey a stronger positive connotation of the previous turn at talk. Complex actions of feedback consist in formulations. Formulations are a complex action of feedback that is utilised to propose a summarised interpretation of previous turns at talk, an interpretation of their possible implicit meanings or possible development stemming from them. A formulation can be used as the starting point for the expansion of a formulated narrative but also to shift the topic of the narrative or to create favourable conditions for the interlacement of new narratives. Formulations are communicative actions that distil the gist of previous turns at talk (Heritage & Watson, 1979). Research suggests that formulations are used in educational interactions to check mutual understanding (Skarbø Solem & Skovholt, 2017), to manage conflicts (Baraldi, 2019), and to promote dialogue in the classroom (Baraldi, 2014; Baraldi et al., 2021, Farini & Scollan, 2021; Baraldi et  al., 2022). Formulations are a more complex action than minimal feedback that can display facilitators’ attention to and engagement with children’s narratives more emphatically. The observation of project-based approach workshops captured two types of formulation: (1) formulations as explications, to clarify the meaning of previous turns at talk (Chernyshova, 2018), and (2) formulations as developments of previous turns, to present or expand on possible implications of them that were not made explicit (Peräkylä, 2019). Developments entail a risk for the facilitator of expanding the conversation in directions that were not foreseen by the author of the formulated turn. This can lead to the rejection of the formulation. However, the rejection of a formulation is not necessarily a failure of facilitation because if a formulation is rejected, then the original turn-at-talk author’s epistemic authority is preserved. Facilitation aims to support children’s active participation, children’s trust in interactions, and children’s access to the role of authors of knowledge. The rejection of a formulation is an example of children’s active participation as equal partners in communication.

126 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

4.7.4   Facilitative Actions: Facilitator’s Personal Stories Sharing personal stories related to memories, emotions, and moral postures can be a way for facilitators to display closeness to children, engagement with them as individuals positioned as equals in the local context of an interaction. According to Bamberg, sharing stories is a way for narrating persons to propose their identity, contextualised in events of the story, to listeners (Bamberg, 2011). Personal stories are different from exemplary stories or mottos. They construct, and expose, a history of the self (Nelson, 2003), displaying the storyteller’s engagement in the conversation as a person who trusts partners in the context (Hoerl, 2012; Norrick, 2012). Personal stories show that the facilitator is willing to exchange the role of teller and listener with children, who are thus invited to position facilitators as equal participants in the interaction. Personal stories are facilitative actions that, more than any other facilitative action, mark a difference between facilitation and ordinary instructional communications in educational encounters. Personal stories mark a change in the social structures of adult–child interactions because they bring self-disclosure and related trust in interactions. At the same time, if we consider the impact on the development of interactions, personal stories are pervasive actions that influence the course of interactions. At the most extreme, personal stories can impose the facilitator’s position on an interaction. In a way, personal stories entail the paradoxical nature of facilitation (Baraldi & Iervese, 2017). As author of personal stories, the facilitator upgrades her epistemic status in the interaction. However, this upgrading of epistemic status is instrumental for promoting children’s active participation, because personal stories (1) make relevant the expectation of personal expression, (2) promote empathy, and (3) demonstrate equality in participation. Paradoxes challenge logical thinking but are always practically solved in social interactions by choosing one of the two terms as the starting point for action (Luhmann, 1995). This is true of the paradox of personal stories in facilitation. Whether personal stories upgrade the facilitator position in interactions or promote dialogue depends on actions that follow the personal story. If personal stories are embedded in sequences of facilitative actions, such as invitation to talk, feedback for active listening, or formulations, then the facilitator’s upgrade of epistemic status supports the upgrade of children’s epistemic authority as well.

4  HOW WE CAN SAY WHAT WE SAY: THE METHODOLOGY OF FACILITATION… 

127

In the observed project-based approach workshops, personal stories were systematically connected to children’s narratives. A facilitator’s personal stories were produced in responses to children’s stories, thereby confirming children’s status as co-leaders in interactions and primary authors of knowledge. Sharing personal stories is a way for facilitators to position themselves in the local context of the interaction as authors of knowledge, without claiming superior epistemic status, because personal stories do not concern academic or subject-related knowledge transmitted by the educator to the not (yet) knowledgeable children. Rather, personal stories bring the unique person of the facilitator in the interaction, who positions herself as a person among other persons, abandoning role-based hierarchies (Mandelbaum, 2012). Personal stories make relevant expectations of personal expression and demonstrate the facilitator’s commitment to the interaction and trust in children (Farini, 2019b). The trust promoted by sharing personal stories is a type of trust that Giddens defines as trust based on affectivity (Giddens, 1991). According to Giddens, mutual disclosure supports trust in a more powerful and unconditional way than trust based on the observation of role performances. Affectivity generated by personalised participation in social interaction is a fundamental component of dialogue because it underpins empathy and expectations of personal expressions (Baraldi et al., 2021).

4.8  Children’s Personal Initiatives Children’s personal initiative is a category of actions that share a characteristic: They are not reactions elicited by a facilitator. Children’s personal initiatives are based on autonomous choices, rather than reacting to facilitator’s invitations or provocations. Thus, they represent a cue for children’s self-determination that transpires from the observation of social interactions. Observing children’s personal initiatives within sequences of actions-in-­ interaction makes it possible to ascertain two important aspects: (1) how personal initiatives relate to previous actions, which represent their local interactive context (action as context-shaped, Heritage & Clayman, 2010); and (2) the consequences of personal initiatives as they become the local interactive context for the following action (action as context-renewing, Heritage & Clayman, 2010). The observation of project-based approach workshops allowed us to identify two social situations developing from

128 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

children’s personal initiatives: (1) children’s personal initiatives may be aimed at coordinating participation in interactions, distributing access to the status of next speaker, with or without the intervention of a facilitator; (2) children’s personal initiatives may disrupt ongoing narratives, most commonly as interruptions, overlaps, or interlacements of narratives before an ongoing one is completed. The second scenario, where children’s personal initiatives disrupt other children’s narratives, was observed throughout the project-based approach workshops. It presents a challenge to facilitation. In the practice of project-­ based approach workshops, pressurised by the fluid and fast-paced development of interactions, the facilitator had to choose whether to support the agentic status of a child as constructor of knowledge entailed in the disrupting personal initiative or to protect the agency of another child, the author of the disrupted narrative. How a facilitator reacts to children’s personal initiatives is a crucial point for the observation of facilitation. A facilitator’s reactions to personal initiatives can support children’s agency. However, they can also reject children’s agency, making relevant expectations of the facilitator’s control over the interaction.

4.9  Ethical Essentials Whilst additional reflection on the ethical procedure followed in the observation of project-based workshops is provided as an appendix, it is important to share more general reflection, philosophical in a way, about the ethical position of this book. McNiff and Whitehead (2006) argue that research undertaken within one’s own field of expertise should be undertaken with the view to influence practice for the benefit of participants, in the case of this book, for the benefit of children and education professionals. The design of pedagogical innovation in the form of a project-based approach for the use of facilitation, as well as the observation of facilitation, was instrumental in the development of practices of dialogic pedagogy that can create favourable and sustainable conditions for children’s agency and child-led learning in the classroom (ICoEE, 2018). The ethical dimension of facilitation is emphasised in the International Code of Ethics for Educators (ICoEE, 2018) intended to guide educators as they navigate complex ethical dilemmas and seek to better serve their communities (2018, p. 5). Facilitation is included in principle 4 of the ICoEE, titled Facilitating Responsive and Relevant Teaching. Principle 4 states that

4  HOW WE CAN SAY WHAT WE SAY: THE METHODOLOGY OF FACILITATION… 

129

educators understand the effects of responsive and relevant pedagogical practice in promoting and ensuring children’s development and learning, and intentionally engage in creating meaningful, safe, and dynamic learning environments that embrace culturally, contextually, and developmentally appropriate practices.

Principle 4 can be related to the design of this research, where facilitation aims to create inclusive contexts of learning for children and adults. Principle 5 of the ICoEE, Ensuring Access and Equity, recommends that educators strive to eliminate barriers that prevent or hinder access to education, including gender, language, ability, socioeconomic, or cultural issues, in order to ensure that every child receives an education and achieves their full potential.

Here, the use of facilitation can be understood as a way to eliminate educational barriers that hinder children’s access to authentic education in the Freirean sense of the development of self-awareness through reflection, based on self-determination and dialogue. Principle 6 of the ICoEE, Embracing Innovation, invites educators to embrace innovation in education, new and evolving skills, concepts, and approaches that advance teaching and learning.

The ICoEE views innovation as critical to enabling children to address both local and global challenges. Principle 6 aligns with the aim of the pedagogical innovation tested via project-based approach workshops, where facilitation is approached as a potential methodology for the promotion of children’s agency towards dialogic pedagogy. In addition to consideration of motivations, ethics is implemented as decisions that take into account the contexts of pedagogical intervention. This research took place in schools with young children, where a crucial contextual variable was the statutory requirement to keep children safe, as set out in the UK Children Act (2006) and related legislation (Working Together to Safeguard Children, 2018). Safeguarding refers to statutory requirements to protect children and to keep them safe from harm, which is the responsibility of those working with and for children. The Department for Education (DfE, 2018) and Ofsted (2019) define safeguarding as the protection of children by identifying and preventing

130 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

maltreatment, impairment of health, and promoting development. Legal guidelines make professionals accountable for securing safe environments for children. In the participating schools, head teachers were ultimately responsible for safeguarding children also during the project-based approach workshops, according to levels of protection as defined by the UNCRC (1989), Human Rights Act (2018) Sustainable Development Goals (2018), The Children Act (2006), and The Children and Families Act (2014). When accessing the contexts of research, we familiarised ourselves with school safeguarding policies and head teachers’/teachers’ interpretations of them. The commitment to respect the safeguarding policies favoured trusting relationships and repaired the research from being a risk for the settings. Working with teachers made it possible to assess possible individual needs or circumstance prior to research, so that potential challenges could be carefully managed. Assent was asked from children prior to, and during, the project-based workshops, because at the foundations of research with children is the idea that children are competent to choose whether to participate or not (Morrow, 1999; Alderson & Morrow, 2011, 2020). However, we were also aware that children could have shared stories that were unacceptable from a safeguarding perspective. This point introduces a complex ethical, methodological, and philosophical question related to the promotion of children’s voices in educational contexts. Pascal and Bertram (2014) recognise that spaces for children’s voices to touch themes outside of curricula are limited within educational environments. The dialogue with school leaders and teachers also meant our becoming immersed in contexts where children are not necessarily positioned as equal partners and where their voices are subordinate to adult control (Allen et al., 2019). Practices across educational organisations in England are centred around safeguarding policies to a point where ethical practice is usually filed under safeguarding policies (Farini & Scollan, 2019). It seems that little has changed since Lansdown’s observations (2005) that access to educational contexts to work with children is vetted by school leadership through the filter of safeguarding policies, with a preference for the minimisation of risk. This is recognised by Cameron and Moss (2011) (and before them by Kipnis, 1987), who make a plea for doing ethics right, without dismissing the safeguarding-informed perspective of participants or stakeholders in educational settings. Flewitt (2005) proposes a mid-range position for research with children advocating creative synergies between children’s voices and protection of children.

4  HOW WE CAN SAY WHAT WE SAY: THE METHODOLOGY OF FACILITATION… 

131

As education professionals, we are aware that safeguarding in school is a statutory priority. When introducing project-based approaches to secure a partnership with schools, one of our priorities was to reassure school leaders and teachers on the priority given to children’s safety. This was a principle of realism but also of respect for the professional identities of educationalists. A decision was made to follow each school’s safeguarding policies. A priority for the pedagogical innovation design was to minimise the possibility of negative experiences for children in the settings where the research was undertaken. Any concerns raised during facilitation was shared with the class teacher, children, and school gatekeeper in view of safeguarding procedures, ethical guidelines, and intervention. However, it may be possible to criticise the hegemony of the safeguarding model in research with children, developing from the pioneering work of Hart (2004). Hart considers ethical guidelines and practices to be a form of tokenism because the barriers imposed by safeguarding prevent adults from engaging with children as equal participants in research. For Hart, the concept of safeguarding can be manipulated and misunderstood at many levels, preventing children from accessing the status of agentic contributors to their own education. Clark and Moss build on Hart’s critique of the effects of safeguarding on children’s positioning by advocating for children as partners and co-constructors of meanings in research or any pedagogical intervention. Goodman (2001) identifies the need for wise practice and being positively open to change and critique, or else tokenism will prevail. Similarly, Pascal and Bertram (2012, 2014) propose a praxeological approach to make ethical decisions based on a dialogue between ethical principles, including safeguarding, and the evolving nature of the context of the research. For instance, a safeguarding-based approach in the early stages of the research may evolve to trust in children’s selfdetermination when adults have the chance to observe what children want and can do. Scollan and Mc Neill (2019) point to the paradoxical coexistence of ethical procedures seeking informed consent from children and safeguarding policies underpinned by limited and conditional trust in children’s informed decision-making. Our experiences researching with children have offered opportunities to engage with diffractive thinking (Harraway, 1997; Keevers & Treleaven, 2011) to recognise that children’s voices are heard through listening filters (Scollan & Mc Neill, 2019) and often silenced by safeguarding policies and limited trust in their decision-making.

132 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

Whilst safeguarding is an ethical and legal tenet of working with children, the choice of promoting the voices of children entails an ethical commitment to trusting their decision-making, as famously suggested by Holdsworth in his remark that taking young people seriously means giving them serious things to do (2005). It is therefore important to untangle the ethical and safeguarding dilemma. Flewitt (2005) and Pascal and Bertram (2014) argue that, to be sound and inclusive, the ethics of working with children need to be uncomfortable, which means they need to be open to evolution and there needs to be an awareness of the associated complexities and paradoxes. A more complex approach to ethics is offered by Palaiologou (2012), who refers to the 3Rs of early childhood education, responsibilities, respect, relationships, that make it possible to combine safeguarding and trusting in children’s self-determination: responsibility to protect children, respect for their voices, and trust in the relationships. Inspired by Palaiologou, this research was underpinned philosophically and ethically by the 3Rs model. We believe that if adults choose to commit to the promotion of children’s voices, as was the case for the pedagogical innovation observed for this book, a balance needs to be struck between safeguarding and trusting in children’s decision-making (Baraldi & Farini, 2011, 2019). Strategies were therefore devised to combine safeguarding and promotion of the voices of children. With the active involvement of school leaders and teachers, it was decided that if children initiated a narrative whose topic was considered unsafe, we would divert the trajectory of the interaction, for instance, proposing a shift of topic via questions or comments. In our previous experiences of facilitation, the need to shift the topic of conversation for safeguarding reasons was a rare occurrence, suggesting that children are capable of self-regulation. The observation of project-based approach workshops supported such expectations: We did not need to enhance strategies to change the direction of conversations during project-­ based approach workshops. Opportunities for children to privately share something with the facilitator that was not addressed during the activities were offered to create spaces for the voices of children to be expressed safely. The promotion of children’s voices was the aim of this research and one of its ethical pillars. The research was ethically and methodologically underpinned by the commitment to do research with children rather than research on children (Woodhead & Faulkner, 2008), which is a core principle for research in early childhood education.

4  HOW WE CAN SAY WHAT WE SAY: THE METHODOLOGY OF FACILITATION… 

133

Upon completion of Chap. 4, Federico Farini and Angela Scollan propose the following questions to provoke further reflection, research, and dialogue. • What are the characteristics of a project-based approach? • How can reflection in action and reflection on action contribute to dialogic pedagogy as the praxis that enhances critical pedagogy? • What is the concept of dialogue that underpins the dialogic approach to observation? How does the dialogic approach to observation relate to Buber’s theory of dialogue, and how can Buber’s theory of dialogue be linked to positioning theory?

References Alderson, P., & Morrow, V. (2011). Ethics, social research and consulting with children and young people. Barnardo’s. Alderson, P., & Morrow, V. (2020). The ethics of research with children and young people: A practical handbook. Sage. Allan, J. (2010). Questions of inclusion in Scotland and Europe. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 25(2), 199–208. Allen, M. (2017). Ethnomethodology. In The sage encyclopaedia of communication research methods (pp. 608–611). Sage Publications. Allen, S., Maureen, L., Whalley, M. E., & Scollan, A. (2019). Developing professional practice in the early years. Open University Press. Anaby, D., Hand, C., Bradley, L., Di Rezze, B., Forhan, M., Di Giacomo, A., & Law, M. (2013). The effect of the environment on participation of children and youth with disabilities: A scoping review. Disability and Rehabilitation, 35(19), 1589–1598. Angrosino, M. V., & Mays de Perez, K. A. (2000). Rethinking observation: From method to context. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 673–702). Sage. Antaki, C. (2012). What actions mean, to whom, and when. Discourse Studies, 14, 493–498. Apple, M. W. (1979). Ideology and curriculum. Routledge and Kegan Paul. Apple, M. W. (1982). Education and power. Routledge and Kegan Paul. Aturupane, H., Glewwe, P., & Wisniewski, S. (2013). The impact of school quality, socioeconomic factors, and child health on students’ academic performance: Evidence from Sri Lankan primary schools. Education Economics, 21(1), 2–37.

134 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

Baker, C. (1997). Ethnomethodological Studies of Talk in Educational Settings. In B. Davies & D. Corson (Eds.) Oral Discourse and Education. Encyclopedia of Language and Education (pp. 43–52). Dordrecht: Springer. Bakhtin, M. M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics. University of Minnesota Press. Bamberg, M. G. (2011). The Acquisition of Narratives: Learning to use language. New Babylon. Baraldi, C. (2014). Children’s participation in communication systems: A theoretical perspective to shape research. Soul of society: A focus on the leaves of children and youth. Sociological studies on children and youth, 18, 63–92. Baraldi, C. (2015a). Intercultural communication systems and discourses of cultural identity. Applied Linguistics Review, 6(1), 49–71. Baraldi, C. (2015b). Promotion of migrant Children’s epistemic status and Authority in Early School Life. International Journal of Early Childhood, 47(1), 5–25. Baraldi, C. (2019). Using formulations to manage conflicts in classroom interactions. Language and Dialogue, 9(2), 193–216. Baraldi, C., & Farini, F. (2011). Dialogic mediation in international groups of adolescents. Language and Dialogue, 1(2), 207–232. Baraldi, C., Farini, F., & Ślusarczyk, M. (2022). Facilitative practices to promote migrant children’s agency and hybrid integration in schools: Discussing data from Italy. Language and Intercultural Communication. https://doi.org/10.108 0/14708477.2022.2096054 Baraldi, C., & Iervese, V. (Eds.). (2012). Participation, facilitation, and mediation. Children and young people in their social contexts. Routledge. Baraldi, C., & Iervese, V. (2017). Narratives of memories and dialogue in multicultural classrooms. Narrative Inquiry, 27(2), 398–417. Baraldi, C., Joslyn, E., & Farini, F. (Eds.). (2021). Promoting Children’s rights in European schools. Intercultural dialogue and facilitative pedagogy. Bloomsbury. Barron, B., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Teaching for meaningful learning: A review of research on inquiry-based and cooperative learning. George Lucas Educational Foundation. Bassey, M. (1999). Case study research in educational settings. McGraw-Hill Education. Bath, C. (2013). Conceptualising listening to young children as an ethic of care in early childhood education and care. Children and Society, 27(5), 361–371. Billington, C. (2016). How digital technology can support early language and literacy outcomes in early years settings: A review of the literature. National Literacy Trust. Retrieved December 18, 2022, from https://cdn.literacytrust.org.uk/ media/documents/2016_06_16_free_research_-­_digital_technology_early_ literacy_review_2016_oWCanmt.pdf Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J.-C. (1990). Reproduction in education, society and culture. Sage.

4  HOW WE CAN SAY WHAT WE SAY: THE METHODOLOGY OF FACILITATION… 

135

Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America: Educational reform and the contradictions of economic life. Routledge. Breidenstein, G. (2008). The pupils’ job. An ethnographic approach to schooling as practical accomplishment. Paper presented on the ECER Conference 2008, Gothenburg (Paper received from the author). Buber, M. (2002). Between man and man. Routledge. Burger, K. (2013). Early childhood care and education and equality of opportunity. Springer. Caffi, C. (2004). La mitigazione: Un approccio pragmatica alla communicazione nei contesti terapeutici. LIT Verlag. Cameron, C., & Moss, P. (2011). Social pedagogy: Current understandings and opportunities. In C. Cameron & P. Moss (Eds.), Social pedagogy and working with children and young people: Where care and education meet (pp.  7–33). Jessica Kingsley. Carr, M. (2001). Assessment in early childhood settings: Learning stories. Paul Chapman. Chard, S. S. (1998). The project approach. A practical guide. Scholastic. Chernyshova, E. (2018). Explicitation sequences in conversation: Some considerations on formulations, candidate inferences and grounding. Travaux neuchâtelois de linguistique, 68, 51–58. Children Act. (2006). Retrieved December 27, 2022, from https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/21 Clayman, S. E., & Loeb, L. (2018). Polar questions, response preference, and the tasks of political positioning in journalism. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(2), 127–144. Creswell, J., & Poth, C. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design choosing among five approaches. Sage. Dahlberg, G., & Moss, P. (2005). Ethics and politics in early childhood education. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality. In R.  Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation: Perspectives on motivation (pp. 237–288). University of Nebraska Press. Department for Education. (2018). Working together to safeguard children: A guide to inter–agency working to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. Retrieved December 27, 2022, from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/ government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/729914/ Working_Together_to_Safeguard_Children–2018.pdf (Last accessed 27.12.2022). Dotson, H.  M., Vaquera, E., & Argeseanu Cunnigham, S. (2014). Sandwiches and subversion: Teachers’ mealtime strategies and preschoolers’ agency. Childhood, 22(3), 362–376. Doyle, W. (2006). Ecological approaches to classroom management. In W. Doyle & K.  Carter (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management (pp.  97–125). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

136 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

Doyle, W., & Carter, K. (1984). Academic tasks in classrooms. Curriculum Inquiry, 14(2), 129–149. Farini, F. (2009). An improbable leadership: Structural limits of educational communication. The case of some Italian primary schools. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 12(4), 36–388. Farini, F. (2010). L’espressione della diversità dei punti di vista in classe: risorsa o pericolo per l’educazione? Orientamenti Pedagogici, 55(5), 877–898. Farini, F. (2011). Cultures of education in action: Research on the relationship between interaction and cultural presuppositions regarding education in an international educational setting. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(8), 2176–2186. Farini, F. (2019a). From the child to the pupil to the child. Trust based on categorical inequalities and the quest for alternatives towards a more inclusive education. Italian journal of. Sociology of Education, 11(3), 246–264. Farini, F. (2019b). As a conclusion, to the future: A discussion on trust, agency and the semantics of rights in intergenerational relationships. In F.  Farini & A. Scollan (Eds.), Children’s self-determination in the context of early childhood education and services: Discourses, policies and practices (pp. 267–280). Springer. Farini, F., & Scollan, A. (Eds.). (2019). Children’s self-determination in the context of early childhood education and services: Discourses, policies and practices. Springer. Farini, F., & Scollan, A. (2021). Meanings and methods of pedagogical innovation. In F. Farini, C. Baraldi, & E. Joslyn (Eds.), Promoting Children’s rights in European schools. Intercultural dialogue and facilitative pedagogy. Bloomsbury. Flewitt, R. (2005). Conducting research with young children: Some ethical considerations. Early Child Development and Care, 175(6), 553–565. Fraser, S., & Robinson, C. (2004). Paradigms and philosophy. In S.  Fraser, V. Lewis, S. Ding, M. Kellett, & C. Robinson (Eds.), Doing research with children and young people (pp. 59–78). Sage. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Herder and Herder. Freire, P. (1973). Education for critical consciousness. Continuum book. Freire, P. (1976). Education: The practice of freedom. Writers and Readers. Freire, P. (1998). Pedagogy of freedom: Ethics, democracy, and civic courage. Rowman and Littlefield. Freire, P. (2005). Education for critical consciousnesses. Continuum. Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (1995). A dialogue: Culture, language, and race. Harvard Educational Review, 65(3), 377–403. Gardner, R. (2001). When listeners talk: response tokens and listener stance. Benjamins. Garfinkel, H. (1963). A conception of and experiments with trust as a condition of stable, concerted actions. In O. J. Harvey (Ed.), Motivation and social interaction (pp. 187–128). Ronald Press. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Prentice-Hall.

4  HOW WE CAN SAY WHAT WE SAY: THE METHODOLOGY OF FACILITATION… 

137

Geier, T., & Pollmanns, M. (2016). What are lessons? On the constitution of an educational form. VS-Verlag. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity. Stanford University Press. Giroux, H. (2020). On critical pedagogy. Bloomsbury Academic. Goldman, R. (2014). Video representations and the perspectivity framework. In R. Goldman, R. Pea, B. Barron, & S. Derry (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 3–38). Routledge. Goodman, D. (2001). Promoting diversity and social justice: Educating people from privileged groups. Sage. Goodwin, C. (2007). Participation, stance and affect in the organization of activities. Discourse and Society, 18(1), 53–73. Goodwin, C. (2010). Research in psychology. Wiley and Sons. Gordon, T. (1974). Teacher effectiveness training. Three Rivers Press. Gottesman, I. (2016). The Critical Turn in Education: From Marxist Critique to Poststructuralist Feminism to Critical Theories of Race. Oxon: Routledge. Harraway, D. (1997). The virtual speculum in the New World order. Feminist Review, 55(1), 22–72. Harris, F., & Kaur, B. (2012). Challenging the notions of partnership and collaboration in early childhood education: A critical perspective from a whanau class in New Zealand. Global Studies of Childhood, 2(1), 4–12. Hart, J. (2004). Children’s participation in humanitarian action: Learning from zones of armed conflict. Refugee Studies Centre, University of Oxford. Heath, C., Hindmarsh, J., & Luff, P. (2010). Video in qualitative research: Analysing social interaction in everyday life. Sage. Helm, J. H., & Katz, L. G. (2011). Young investigators: The project approach in the early years. Teachers College Press. Hendry, R. (2009). Building and restoring respectful relationships in schools. Routledge. Heritage, J. (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 299–345). Cambridge University Press. Heritage, J. (1985). Analysing news interviews: Aspects of the production of talk for an overhearing audience. In T. Van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis (Discourse and dialogue) (Vol. 3, pp. 95–117). Academic Press. Heritage, J., & Clayman, S. (2010). Talk in action. Interactions, identities, and institutions. Wiley-Blackwell. Heritage, J., & Watson, R. (1979). Formulations as conversational objects. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 123–162). Irvington. Herrlitz, W., & Maier, R. (Eds.). (2005). Dialogue in and around multicultural schools. Niemeyer. Hoerl, K. (2012). Selective amnesia and racial transcendence in news coverage of President Obama’s inauguration. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 98(2), 178–202.

138 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

Holt, J. (1974). Escape from childhood. Holt Associates. House, J. (2013). Developing pragmatic competence in English as a lingua franca: Using discourse markers to express (inter)subjectivity and connectivity. Journal of Pragmatics, 59, 57–67. Human Rights Act. (2018). Retrieved September 11, 2022, from https://www. legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents Huq, R., & Amir, A. (2015). When the tokens talk: IRF and the position of acknowledgement tokens in teacher-student talk-in-interaction. Research on Youth and Language, 9(1), 60–76. Hutchby, I. (2008). Participants’ orientations to interruptions, rudeness and other impolite acts in talk-in-interaction. Journal of Politeness Research, 4(2), 221–241. International Code of Ethics for Educators. (2018). Retrieved December 28, 2022, from https://static1.squarespace.com/static/572284eec2ea513dc4d683df/ t/5bbcbe0d7817f74d89c7ae0f/1539096078523/ICOEE.pdf Katz, L.  G., & Chard, S.  C. (2000). Engaging Children’s minds: The project approach. Ablex Publishing. Keevallik, L. (2010). Minimal answers to yes/no questions in the service of sequence organization. Discourse Studies, 12(3), 283–309. Keevers, L., & Treleaven, L. (2011). Organizing practices of reflection: A practice-­ based study. Management Learning, 42(5), 505–520. Kelman, H. (2005). Building trust among enemies: The central challenge for international conflict. Kilpatrick, W. H. (1918). The project method: The use of the purposeful act in the education process. Teachers College Record, 19, 319–335. Kincheloe, J. L. (2008). Critical pedagogy primer. Peter Lang. Kipnis, K. (1987). How to discuss professional ethics. Young Children, 42(4), 26–30. Kohan, W.  O. (2021). Paulo Freire. A philosophical biography. Bloomsbury Publishing. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). Structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press. Lansdown, G. (2005). The evolving capacities of children: Implications for the exercise of rights. UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre. Lawrence, P. (2021). Dialogue observed in dialogue: Entering a ‘dialogical approach to observation’ in early childhood. Early Child Development and Care, 191(2), 292–306. Lincoln, Y. S., & Cannella, G. S. (2004). Dangerous discourses: Methodological conservatism and governmental regimes of truth. Qualitative Inquiry, 10, 5–14. Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems. Stanford University Press. Lundy, L. (2012). Children’s rights and educational policy in Europe: The implementation of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. Oxford Review of Education, 38(4), 393–411.

4  HOW WE CAN SAY WHAT WE SAY: THE METHODOLOGY OF FACILITATION… 

139

Lynch, M. (1993). Scientific practice and ordinary action: Ethnomethodology and social studies of science. Cambridge University Press. Malaguzzi, L. (1996). The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia approach to early childhood education. Ablex Publishing Corporation. Mandelbaum, J. (2012). Storytelling in conversation. In J.  Sidnell & T.  Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 492–508). Wiley. Markham, T., Mergendoller, J., Larmer, J., & Ravitz, J. (2003). Project based learning handbook. Buck Institute for Education. Markovà, I., & Linell, P. (1996). Coding elementary contributions to dialogue: Individual acts versus dialogical interactions. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 26(4), 353–373. Markström, A.  M., & Halldén, G. (2009). Children’s strategies for Agency in Preschool. Children and Society, 23, 112–122. McCarthy, M. (2003). Talking Back: “small” interactional response tokens in everyday conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 36, 33–63. McLaren, P. (2020). The future of critical pedagogy. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 52(12), 1243–1248. McNiff, J., & Whitehead, A. (2006). All you need to know about action research. Sage. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Harvard University Press. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Sage. Mintz, J. (1994). Handbook of alternative education. Macmillan. Mintz, J. (2003). No homework and recess all day: How to have freedom and democracy in education. AERO. Morrow, V. (1999). ‘We are people too’: Children’s and young people’s perspectives on children’s rights and decision-making in England. The International Journal of Children’s Rights, 7(2), 149–170. Moss, P. (2009). There are alternatives! Markets and democratic experimentalism in early childhood education and care. Bernard Van Leer Foundation. Mukherji, P., & Albon, D. (2018). Research methods in early childhood: An introductory guide. Sage. Nelson, K. (2003). Narrative and the emergence of a consciousness of self. In G. D. Fireman, T. E. J. McVay, & O. Flanagan (Eds.), Narrative and consciousness (pp. 17–36). Oxford University Press. Norrick, N. (2012). Remembering for narration and autobiographical memory. Language and Dialogue, 2(2), 193–214. OFSTED. (2019). The education inspection framework. Retrieved December 21, 2022, from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/ system/uploads/attachment_data/file/801429/Education_inspection_ framework.pdf Palaiologou, I. (2012). Childhood observation for the early years. Learning Matters.

140 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

Pascal, C., & Bertram, T. (2009). Listening to young citizens: The struggle to make real a participatory paradigm in research with young children. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 17(2), 249–262. Pascal, C., & Bertram, T. (2012). Praxis, ethics and power: Developing praxeology as a participatory paradigm for early childhood research. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 20(4), 477–492. Pascal, C., & Bertram, T. (2014). Early years literature review. Retrieved November 29, 2022, from www.early–education.org.uk/early–years–literature–review Peräkylä, A. (2019). Conversation analysis and psychotherapy: Identifying transformative sequences. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 52(3), 257–280. Pink, S. (2009). Doing sensory ethnography. Sage. Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis (pp. 57–74). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Punch, K.  F., & Oancea, A. (2014). Introduction to research methods in education. Sage. Raclaw, J. (2010). Approaches to “Context” within Conversation Analysis. Colorado Research in Linguistics, 22. Retrieved April 6, 2021, from https:// journals.colorado.edu/index.php/cril/article/view/295 Rinaldi, C. (1998). The emergent curriculum and social constructivism: An interview with Lella Gandini. In C. Edwards, L. Gandini, & G. Foreman (Eds.), The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia approach to early childhood education (pp. 101–112). Ablex Publishing. Rogers, C. (1951). Client-centred therapy: Its current practice, implications and theory. Constable. Sargent, M. (2013). Assessment for learning in the early years. Early Years Educator, 15(1). Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Towards a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. Jossey-Bass. Scollan, A., & Farini, F. (2021). From enabling environments to environments that enable: Notes for theoretical innovation at the intersection between environment and learning. An Leanbh Óg. The OMEP Ireland Journal of Early Childhood Studies, 14. Scollan, A., & Gallagher, B. (2016). Personal and socio-emotional development and technology. In L. Kaye (Ed.), Young children in a digital age (pp. 127–147). Routledge. Scollan, A., & Mc Neill, E. (2019). Discourses/2. Ireland: Listening to children’s voices in Irish social work through cultural and organisational filters. In F. Farini & A. Scollan (Eds.), Children’s self-determination in the context of early childhood education and services: Discourses policies and practices (pp.  151–167). Springer International Publishing.

4  HOW WE CAN SAY WHAT WE SAY: THE METHODOLOGY OF FACILITATION… 

141

Seuren, L. M., & Huiskes, M. (2017). Confirmation or elaboration: What do yes/ no declaratives want? Research on Language and Social Interaction, 50(2), 188–205. Shih, Y. H. (2018). Rethinking Paulo Freire’s dialogic pedagogy and its implications for Teachers’ teaching. Journal of Education and Learning, 7(4), 130–235. Siraj-Blatchford, I. (2008). Understanding the relationship between curriculum, pedagogy and progression in learning in early childhood (p. 1237). University of Wollongong. Skarbø Solem, M., & Skovholt, K. (2017). Teacher formulations in classroom interactions. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 63(1), 69–88. Sontag, S. (1990). On photography. Anchor Books. Tickell, C. (2011). The early years: Foundations for life, health and learning. An independent report on the early years foundation stage to her majesty’s government. Retrieved June 22, 2022, from https://www.education,gov.uk/ tickellreview Thomas, N. (2013). The Agency of Children: From Family to Global Human Rights. Childhoods Real and Imagined, Volume 1: An Introduction to Critical Realism and Childhood Studies. The British Journal of Social Work, 43(8), 1670–1672. Tur Porres, G. (2022). Reinventing Freire: A political and childhood reading of education. Human Rights Education Review, 5(2), 117–119. UNICEF. (2021). Rights-respecting schools. Retrieved November 21, 2022, from https://www.unicef.org.uk/rights-­r especting-­s chools/the-­r rsa/ about-­the-­rrsa United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. (1989). Retrieved November 31, 2021, from www.unicef.org.uk/what–we–do/un–convention–child– rights/ Voutilainen, L., Henttonen, P., Stevanovic, M., Kahri, M., & Peräkylä, A. (2019). Nods, vocal continuers, and the perception of empathy in storytelling. Discourse Processes, 56(4), 310–330. Warming, H. (2012). Children’s citizenship in globalised societies. In C. Baraldi & V. Iervese (Eds.), Participation, facilitation, and mediation: Children and young people in their social contexts (pp. 30–48). Routledge. Wehmeyer, M. L., Shogren, K. A., Little, T. D., & Lopez, S. J. (Eds.). (2017). Development of self-determination through the life-course. Springer. White, J. (2016). Education, time-poverty and well-being. Theory and Research in Education, 14(2), 213–225. Winnicott, D. (1971). Playing and reality. Tavistock. Wong, J. (2000). Repetition in conversation: A look at “first and second sayings”. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33(4), 407–424.

142 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

Woodhead, M., & Faulkner, D. (2008). Subjects, objects or participants? Dilemmas of psychological research with children. In P. Christiansen & A. James (Eds.), Research with children: Perspectives and practices (pp. 10–39). Falmer Press / Routledge. Wyness, M. (2013). Children’s participation and intergenerational dialogue: Bringing adults back into the analysis. Childhood, 20(4), 429–442. Zuengler, J., Ford, C., & Fassnacht, C. (1998). The analyst’s eyes: Data collection as theory. CELA Technical Report. Centre for English Learning and Achievement.

CHAPTER 5

How Did It Go? Building Knowledge Together with the Help of Facilitative Actions

5.1   Introduction Chapters 5, 6, and 7 present insights from the observation of project-­ based approach workshops. Observation was focused on how facilitative actions supported children’s access to the status of authors of knowledge as tellers of narratives or commentators of other children’s and facilitators’ narratives. Authorship of narrative was understood as an expression of agency based on children’s autonomous choice to: share narratives; interlace new narratives with an ongoing one, or comment on narratives. Observation did not stop with facilitative actions; it also focused on children’s personal initiatives, how they linked with previous facilitative actions and the reaction to them. The observation of facilitation was founded on the previously discussed idea that each action-in-interaction contributes to shaping the local context for the incipient action. Such an idea made it possible to evaluate how facilitative actions shaped sequences of talk-in-­ interaction, creating favourable contexts for children’s access to the agentic status of authors of knowledge. Exemplary excerpts from project-based approach workshops are presented in this chapter, as in Chaps. 6 and 7. In this chapter, the aim of the excerpts is to illustrate how each category of facilitative actions supported children’s agency. The selection of excerpts is not motivated by the

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 F. Farini, A. Scollan, Pedagogical Innovation for Children’s Agency in the Classroom, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28501-1_5

143

144 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

intention to represent everything that happened during the project-based approach workshops. Rather, the excerpts were chosen to exemplify all the ways in which, in the corpora of data produced, each type of facilitative action supported children’s participation in the interactions as authors of knowledge. Chapter 5, along with the subsequent Chaps. 6 and 7, uses illustrative excerpts to present insights from the observation of project-based approach workshops that can be used to distil a methodology to facilitate children’s agency as authors of knowledge in the form of narratives. The three chapters are structured in shorter, tightly connected sections, so as to offer a detailed intellectual map to navigate the dense intersections between facilitative actions that contribute to promote children’s status as authors of knowledge. This chapter presents transcripts from observed project-based approach workshops to illustrate how facilitative actions supported children’s participation in the interactions as authors of knowledge.

5.2   How Facilitative Actions Can Upgrade Children’s Status as Authors of Knowledge 5.2.1   Promoting Narratives: Inviting Children to Talk During project-based approach workshops, invitations to talk are most frequently utilised to (1) invite the interlacement of new narratives and comments with an ongoing one and (2) invite questions on ongoing, or recently completed, narratives. The format of the invitations to talk and their sequential position is the same for both functions, which are also often intertwined, as illustrated by Excerpt 5.1. A methodological clarification: In all excerpts presented in Chaps. 5, 6, and 7, the coding system used to identify participants was as follows: NAME (sex, age, migrant background, or non-migrant background). The definition of migrant background or non-migrant background followed the guidelines from the European Commission. Migrant background is related to having at least one parent born outside the country of residence. The participants in the excerpts and further contextual information are presented in the table that introduces each excerpt.

5  HOW DID IT GO? BUILDING KNOWLEDGE TOGETHER WITH THE HELP… 

145

Excerpt 5.1 Participants Setting Length of workshop Length of excerpt Local context

FACilitator, EVA (f, 7, MB), MICHAEL (m, 7, NMB) school1, pm session 45 minutes 2 minutes (min 40 to 42 in workshop) MICHAEL has just completed the presentation of a photograph

1. FAC: who wants to ask a question about that maybe, or do you think we move to the last picture? 2. EVA: Um, I am wondering what was your favourite part about visiting the racing track? 3. MICHEAL: That’s easy, it was driving go carts and racing with my cousin because whenever we do stuff, we try to beat each other and he’s older. 4. FAC: Ahh, is he older than you? 5. MICHEAL: Yeah. 6. FAC: Yeah. 7. MICHEAL: He always wins, but one time when we went there, I beat him, actually twice I won (…) we always compete (…) about racing when I stayed at his house, we played racing the whole time (holds arm up) I crashed my arm.

In Excerpt 5.1, an invitation to ask a question is advanced by the facilitator in Turn 1, combining an open question and a polarised question. The invitation to ask a question has created a local context favourable for children’s access to the role of speaker. The effect of the invitation to talk can be observed in the following Turn 2. In Turn 2, EVA chooses to interlace her contribution with the open question rather than the polarised question. EVA formulates a question to the child who had just completed a narrative. EVA’s question upgrades her role in the local context of the interaction to the role of organiser of participation. EVA’s choice is

146 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

consequential because it transforms the trajectory of the interaction, creating a context that supports MICHAEL’s expansion of the narrative. The expanded narrative is the object of a question from the facilitator (Turn 4). The question validates MICHAEL’s access to the role of author of knowledge. In Turn 6, the facilitator’s repetition of MICHAEL’s minimal response is a common facilitative action of minimal feedback, which will be discussed later in the chapter. For now, it suffices to say that repetitions of turns at talk display interest and attention. They are components of active listening. The effect of the repetition can be assessed by observing the action-in-interaction that follows. In Turn 7, MICHAEL expands his narratives, showing that facilitative actions such as a question in the first turn of the sequence and a repetition of his answer to the question succeeded in supporting his continuing access to the status of author of knowledge. 5.2.2   Asking Questions to Support Authorship of Narratives Section 5.2.1 presents invitations to talk, with individual questions that were used to initiate new narratives, to invite expansion of ongoing narratives, or to invite interlacements with ongoing narratives. This section focuses on a series of questions. The implications of the use of multiple questions for the facilitator to access the role of co-author of narratives during facilitation is presented. The most important implication of the insertion of questions in ongoing narratives is that, by asking questions, the facilitator may access the role of co-author of narratives. This is illustrated by Excerpt 5.2, which is an example of the combined use of open and polarised questions, which was often observed during project-based approach workshops. Open questions are utilised by the facilitator to promote the development of a narrative while limiting the pressure on the child’s choice in the following turn at talk. When the reaction to an open question takes the form of minimal answers, a polarised question can be used to sustain the expansion of the narrative and, with it, the role of the child as an author of knowledge. Excerpt 5.2 is presented in two parts.

5  HOW DID IT GO? BUILDING KNOWLEDGE TOGETHER WITH THE HELP… 

147

Excerpt 5.2, Part 1 Participants Setting Length of workshop Length of excerpt Local context

FACilitator, ADE (m, 7, MB) other CHILDREN School2, pm session 45 minutes 4 minutes (Part 1 and Part 2, min 12 to 16 in the workshop) ADE has just joined the facilitator to present a photograph he has taken to the workshop

1. FAC: How come you chose to bring in this photo to share? 2. ADE: Because. 3. FAC: So is this the picture your dad gave to your aunt? Is it the one you like best? 4. ADE: Yes. 5. FAC: Ah, I wonder why (…) is it because of what it captures? 6. ADE: And (…) because I took the picture. 7. FAC: Ahh, you took it? 8. ADE: Yes (…) (nods). 9. FAC: How come you took it? Was it an occasion? 10. ADE: Just at the house on Christmas day it was. 11. CHILDREN (chatter) 12. FAC: Is it your camera you used? 13. ADE: No (shakes head). 14. FAC: Oh, ok, so I guess you like taking photographs then? I wonder whose camera it was. 15. ADE: Yes (…) emm that time my mum’s emm, oh her phone. 16. FAC: Ahh, I see, and do you print them all? 17. ADE: Ahh, no (…) not really, we have a plug-in picture frame, they pop up all the time. 18. FAC: Ahh, a digital frame. What a good idea. And do the photos you take go in it? 19. ADE: Most of them (…) some do.

148 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

The first part of Excerpt 5.2 (Turns 1–19) is inaugurated with an open question in Turn 1. The open question explores the reasons underpinning ADE’s choice of the photograph. ADE’s reply suggests some hesitation; in Turn 3 the facilitator reacts to ADE’s hesitation by formulating a polarised question that addresses a specific aspect of a narrative (produced earlier in the interaction). Polarised questions can be used as a pivot to sustain participation by projecting a limited range of next actions, thereby reducing the recipient’s uncertainty regarding the questioner’s expectations. After ADE’s affirmative reply to the polarised question, a sequence of further polarised questions by the facilitator investigates the narrating child’s feelings when the photograph was taken (Turns 5, 9, and 14). In Turn 18, another polarised question shifts the focus of the interaction to the display of family photographs.

Excerpt 5.2, Part 2

20. FAC: So, the photo was a gift for your aunty. What gift did you give them? 21. ADE: Erm we bought auntie some dresses. 22. FAC: Mmh mmh. 23. ADE: We made the banner (…) erm: love you. 24. FAC: Ah but we love, why? Who did it with you? 25. ADE: Cousin. 26. FAC Your cousin? 27. ADE: (nodding) 28. FAC: And who are they? Maybe they are the children of that auntie. 29. ADE: Yes. 30. FAC: Ah, so stay with them? Live with them? 31. ADE: Yeah. 32. FAC: I see. 33. ADE: And also, with me grannie. 34. FAC: She lives with you? 35. ADE: But then that’s it.

5  HOW DID IT GO? BUILDING KNOWLEDGE TOGETHER WITH THE HELP… 

149

The second part of Excerpt 5.2 (Turns 20–35) begins with a new open question about a present that ADE gave to her parents (them). Compared to polarised questions, open questions provide less indications about the range of next actions expected by the questioner. In the excerpt, this is demonstrated by ADE’s reaction to the open question in Turn 20; the child ADE misinterprets the question as being concerned with the gift that the family bought for the child’s aunt. The facilitator’s action that follows ADE’s reply is particularly interesting. The facilitator does not correct ADE’s understanding of the question; rather, she chooses to support ADE’s ongoing authorship of a narrative, even if the narrative is developing from a wrong understanding of the question. The facilitator follows the trajectory of the interaction designed by ADE, asking a series of polarised questions linked to several aspects of the narrative (Turns 24, 26, 28, 30, and 35). The facilitator’s choice to support the ADE-led development of the narrative with a series of polarised questions is particularly important for an analysis of facilitation. Polarised questions can support the expansion of a conversation (Seuren & Huiskes, 2017), with the caveat that such an expansion is limited to the themes introduced by the polarised questions. 5.2.3   Every Little Bit Helps: Actions of Feedback to Support Children as Authors of Knowledge Narratives Actions of feedback, both actions of minimal feedback and formulations, were an important type of facilitative action during the project-based approach workshops. The exemplary excerpt discussed in this section illustrates the use of minimal actions of feedback. In the practice of facilitation, as in any type of interaction, minimal actions of feedback are generally inserted into complex sequences of turns at talk, where several types of action are combined, sometimes in the same turn. In Excerpt 5.3, minimal actions of feedback are thus presented in their sequential context, as components of complex turns at talk, rather than artificially removed from it, to be presented in isolation. This choice is due to the intention to show how minimal actions of feedback worked in the reality of project-based approach workshops.

150 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

Excerpt 5.3 Participants Setting Length of workshop Length of excerpt Local context

FACilitator, FRIZAN (f, 7, MB) School2, pm session 45 minutes 2 minutes (min 9 to 11 in the workshop) FAC has initiated a conversation on the preservation of past events using different supports. FRIZAN refers to home videos

1. FRIZAN: I watch videos of me when I was a baby (…). Mum and dad laugh at me falling over because I couldn’t walk then (…) and they laughed at me splashing in the bath (…). We watch videos of all of us and on Saturdays we all get in bed with mummy and snuggle up to watch TV or family videos (…). Last time we laughed a lot when I stuffed cake into my mouth when I was just one at a party and emm my cousin was there and her mum (…) and my nanna is in the video, but she doesn’t live anymore (…) only in the video. 2. FAC: Ah ah. 3. FRIZAN: Then my mum cries when she sees nanna on the video sometimes and we cuddle up cosies and laugh again at us all (…). I love looking at my baby videos to see how I looked. 4. FAC: Aww. 5. FRIZAN: I don’t cry because I can still see nanna on the TV and in pictures. 6. FAC: Oh, it’s so nice to share our special memories, and they can make us feel happy and sad can’t they (…)? Snuggling up is so nice. 7. FRIZAN: Yeah

In Excerpt 5.3, continuers support an ongoing narrative, confirming the status of FRIZAN as a legitimate narrator (Turns 2 and 4). In Turn 6, the acknowledgement token that opens the turn (oh) is a special type of acknowledgement token, defined by Heritage (1984) as a change-of-state token. Change-of-state tokens show that the previous turn produced a change in cognitive status in the speaker, for instance providing new information. In facilitation, change-of-state tokens reinforce the epistemic authority of the author of the turn at talk that provokes them, in this case FRIZAN, by displaying how his or her action made a difference. The

5  HOW DID IT GO? BUILDING KNOWLEDGE TOGETHER WITH THE HELP… 

151

second part of Turn 6 summarises the gist of the facilitator’s interpretation of meanings and implications of FRIZAN’s narrative. It is a simple type of formulation that demonstrates the facilitator’s active listening while extracting the gist of FRIZAN’s narrative, to be utilised as a possible platform for the interlacement of new narratives. In Turn 7, FRIZAN validates the formulation. Children’s validation of the formulations are an important aspect of facilitation. Formulations could be used to impose the facilitator’s interpretations of children’s turns at talk. It is therefore important for facilitation that formulations be exposed to the validation of the author (children) of the summarised turns at talk, so as to acknowledge his or her status as the owner of the knowledge produced during the interactions. By producing a formulation and sharing it with FRIZAN for validation, the facilitator positions the child as a high epistemic authority in the local context of the interaction. Repetitions are another action of minimal feedback where the duplication of the previous turn at talk or, more frequently, the partial duplication of previous turns at talk demonstrates active listening, encouraging further talk. Excerpt 5.4 captures the use of repetition in project-based approach workshops (Turn 4). Excerpt 5.4 Participants Setting Length of workshop Length of excerpt Local context

FACilitator, MUSHTAQ (m, 7, MB), FREYA (f, 7, MB), SUE (f, 7, NMB) School1, pm session 45 minutes 40 seconds (min 11 in workshop) FREYA suggests that she can draw a figure very quickly, and a conversation is initiated by children about ‘things that I can do fast’

1. MUSHTAQ: I eat my breakfast quickly. How long does it take you? 2. FREYA: What (…) (laughs) not sure. Bet I’m quicker than you 3. SUE: I eat it all up in 6 minutes. 4. FAC: 6 minutes. 5. MUSHTAQ: How long does it take you? 6. FREYA: Seven minutes, no, five minutes.

152 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

In the project-based approach workshops we observed, repetitions were often combined with questions in the same turn at talk. Such complex turns at talk, including more than one type of facilitative action, proved effective at promoting children’s active participation in interactions. Children’s reactions to the combination of repetitions and questions ranged from minimal answers (the most common reaction) to more extended contributions. Excerpt 5.5 Participants Setting Length of workshop Length of excerpt Local context

FACilitator, RICKY (m, 7, MB) School2, am session 45 minutes 45 seconds (min 5 in workshop) RICKY is sharing a story about a day away with his family

. FAC: Oh, that’s fab (…) (puts thumb up). Did you enjoy it? 1 2. RICKY: Yup. 3. FAC: And if you don’t mind me asking, what did you guys do then? 4. RICKY: Bits and bobs. 5. FAC: Bits and bobs (laughs). What is bits and bobs (…). Did you guys like doing bits and bobs? 6. RICKY: Yeah. Turn 1 offers another example of the use of change-of-state tokens, combined with a polarised question to support the expansion of the narrative. In Turn 5, the repetition of part of the previous turn demonstrates active listening, and it is combined with another polarised question to support the expansion of the narrative. As is often the case with polarised questions, the expansions of the narrative that are achieved by the polarised questions included in Turns 1 and 5 are minimal. During project-based approach workshops, continuers and acknowledgement tokens were also often combined to achieve a display of active listening whilst at the same time upgrading the epistemic authority of children. These situations are illustrated in the following Excerpt 5.6.

5  HOW DID IT GO? BUILDING KNOWLEDGE TOGETHER WITH THE HELP… 

153

Excerpt 5.6 Participants Setting Length of workshop Length of excerpt Local context

FACilitator, JOSH (m, 7, MB) School2, pm session 45 minutes 15 seconds (min 27 in workshop) JOSH is presenting a family portrait

1. JOSH: (laughs) This is me and my big sister when we were little (…). I’m little and she is bigger. 2. FAC: Ah ah. 3. JOSH: It was when I was just born (…). That’s my favourite teddy next to me. 4. FAC: Aaaah.

In Excerpt 5.6, a continuer that invites further talk (ah ah, Turn 2) is used in combination with a change-of-state token (aaaah, Turn 4). The change-of-state token positions JOSH as the author of a piece of knowledge that is making a difference for the facilitator. Minimal actions of feedback are particularly effective at supporting the production of narratives that do not demand significant interactive work by the facilitator. However, more complex actions of feedback, with a more active role of the facilitator, were often observed during project-­ based approach workshops to promote children’s production of narratives. These actions of more complex feedback are formulations. Formulations can be utilised as developments or as explications. In Excerpt 5.7 (previously used for another purpose as Excerpt 5.3), formulations are used as developments. Before the formulation, active listening is demonstrated via minimal actions of feedback using continuers (Turns 2 and 4). In Turn 6, the formulation presents the gist of the previous turn at talk and from that gist develops the narrative by introducing possible implications of it. Turn 6 is an example of tripartite turns: change-­ of-­state token (oh), formulation as development, polarised question. In this case, the turn is made more complex by the addition of a second formulation as development after the question. The formulations as development are validated by FRIZAN, the author of the narrative, with a minimal action (yeah), in Turn 7.

154 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

Excerpt 5.7 Participants Setting Length of workshop Length of excerpt Local context

FACilitator, FRIZAN (f, 7, MB) School2, pm session 45 minutes 2 minutes (min 9 to 11 in workshop) FAC has initiated a conversation on the preservation of past events using different supports. FRIZAN refers to home videos

1. FRIZAN: I watch videos of me when I was a baby (…). Mum and dad laugh at me falling over because I couldn’t walk then (…) and they laughed at me splashing in the bath (…). We watch videos of all of us and on Saturdays we all get into bed with mummy and snuggle up to watch TV or family videos (…). Last time we laughed a lot when I stuffed cake into my mouth when I was just one at a party and emm my cousin was there and her mum (…) and my nanna is in the video, but she doesn’t live anymore (…) only in the video. 2. FAC: Ah ah. 3. FRIZAN: Then my mum cries when she sees nanna on the video sometimes, and we cuddle up cosies and laugh again at us all (…). I love looking at my baby videos to see how I looked. 4. FAC: Aww 5. FRIZAN: I don’t cry because I can still see nanna on the TV and in pictures. 6. FAC: Ahh, oh, it’s so nice to share our special memories, and they can make us feel happy and sad, can’t they (…). Snuggling up is so nice. 7. FRIZAN: Yeah. The combination of a formulation as explication and a question can promote a quick reaction from children, probably due to the expectations of an answer strongly projected by the question. Interestingly, observation suggests that for these complex turns at talk, it is the format of the question, rather than the type of formulation, that influences the nature of children’s contribution more incisively. Open questions promote expansions of narratives that are more complex than those achieved by polarised questions, as illustrated by Excerpt 5.8.

5  HOW DID IT GO? BUILDING KNOWLEDGE TOGETHER WITH THE HELP… 

155

Excerpt 5.8 Participants Setting Length of workshop Length of excerpt Local context

FACilitator, SONIA (f, 7, MB) School1, am session 45 minutes 1 minute (min 3 in workshop) SONIA has joined FAC, and she is about to present a photograph she has taken into the workshop

. FAC: Would you like to share what your photograph is about? 1 2. SONIA: Yes, I think I took it when we went to the zoo. 3. FAC: Uh huh. 4. SONIA: And I was allowed to feed the giraffe because we booked it up for a present (…). I had to stand in the giraffe house and hold up big tree branches and big bunches of leaves (…). I had to stretch up high (…) here. 5. FAC: So, you actually went into a giraffe house and fed them into their mouth by stretching (stretches arm up) (…). Ohh, and what did you think when you were feeding them? 6. SONIA: Um (…) I was on my tippie toes to do it, and the branch was heavy and it shook when the giraffe put out a massive tongue to eat it.

In Turn 5 of Excerpt 5.8, the facilitator produces a formulation as explication, presenting the gist of SONIA’s narrative. The formulation is combined in the same turn with an open question aimed at exploring SONIA’s feelings about the events of the narratives. The open question invites the expansion of the narrative, and the formulation as explication positions the facilitator as co-author of the narrative. Excerpt 5.8 is an example of the frequently observed success in the support of children’s authorship of narratives, with a combination of a formulation as an explication and an open question. 5.2.4   Making It Real: Facilitators’ Personal Stories In this section of the chapter, the focus of attention shifts to the facilitator’s comments on children’s narratives. The observations of project-­ based approach Workshops suggested that the facilitator’s comments were an effective facilitative action in creating favourable conditions for children’s

156 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

agency. Facilitator’s comments can channel support, engagement with children’s narratives and expectations of personal expression. A range of facilitator comments on children’s narrative were observed, from expressions of empathy, to appreciations; the type of facilitator’s comment that appear to be more effective in promoting children’s authorship of narratives, without putting pressure on them, is personal stories. Excerpt 5.9 exemplifies the use of personal stories, as observed in the analysis of interactions during project-based approach workshops. Excerpt 5.9 Participants Setting Length of workshop Length of excerpt Local context

FACilitator, KLAUDIA (f, 7, MB),RACHEL (f, 7, NMB) School1, pm session 45 minutes 2 minutes (min 33 to 35 in workshop) A child has shared memories of a wedding; the facilitator now invites interlacement of new narratives

1. FAC: Has anybody else got a memory about a wedding they want to share? 2. KLAUDIA: I remember when I was two. I think my mum took me to Poland for her sister’s wedding and we actually (…) my auntie’s and a lot of people, like guests, they were basically dancing with me. I was like only two and everybody was trying to take care of me, but I was mostly crying during the wedding so (…), but I do remember like the music we had and like the cake. 3. FAC: Does anybody (?) going to see (…). I don’t know about how you felt, but you’ve reminded me how it’s lovely to see everybody at weddings. You see people you haven’t seen for ages, and you think, oh I forgot about you, am I related to you? There are some cousins you might have or friends who are a bit annoying (?) Do you remember that from a wedding, do you remember that, did you have to do that at your wedding, what did you have to do, what stuff happened? 4. RACHEL: (Gestures with hands) Because I was smaller, I had to go and say hello. 5. FAC: Yes, it’s hard to connect to someone when you’ve not seen them for a while and you’ve got to go up and talk to them, and you’re like what are you going to talk about and you’ve kind of got so many connections and stuff, I always feel a bit shy too. Does anybody else want to share a wedding experience? We’ve got a few eager.

5  HOW DID IT GO? BUILDING KNOWLEDGE TOGETHER WITH THE HELP… 

157

In Excerpt 5.9, the first personal story is shared by the facilitator within a complex turn at talk, Turn 3. The personal story is anticipated by a disclaimer (Caffi, 2004). The disclaimer is an action that can be used to downgrade the epistemic authority of its author. In this case, by downgrading her epistemic authority, the facilitator favours expectations of equal positioning in the interaction, which is a core component of dialogue. The disclaimer (I don’t know about how you felt) is a cue for the rejection of that expertise-based hierarchy viewed by Kitchen (2014) as the ultimate legitimisation of teachers’ authority. After the disclaimer, you’ve reminded me is a pivotal semantic unit that communicates active listening and values KLAUDIA’s contribution as an action that changes the context of the interaction: a consequential action, which is an interactive cue for agency. KLAUDIA’s narrative has made the facilitator remember; KLAUDIA’s choice to share a narrative, based on self-determination, is acknowledged as consequential when the facilitator shows that it is making a difference for her, thereby changing the context of the interaction. The facilitator’s personal story is followed by an open question that, as previously discussed, opens up opportunities for children to interlace new narratives. The use of open questions at the end of the turn, that is, in the part of the turn that most incisively renews the context of the interaction (Schegloff, 2012), exemplifies a strategy observed several times across the corpora of data. This strategy can be defined with a metaphor as ‘throwing out a net’. Throwing out a net refers to the use of open questions to extend the area of participation to bystanders. In Turn 5, the facilitator adds another personal comment, in this way co-authoring with RACHEL the construction of knowledge. Research on the use of language in conversation suggests that the first part of a turn at talk is monitored by participants during interactions to observe how the author of the turn positions him- or herself with respect to the previous one (Schegloff, 2012). The first component of Turn 5, yes, is an acknowledgement token that links the facilitator’s personal comment to RACHELS’s contribution, showing that the child’s action is making a difference as it has changed the interactive context of the interaction. In the same turn, the facilitator’s personal comment that follows the acknowledgement token confirms the relevance in the interaction of expectations of personal expressions, which are a component of dialogue. In her personal comment, the facilitator shares her perspective about the difficulties of relating to others, including family members, after long periods of separation. As discussed earlier, the choice of exposing her personal ideas and feelings demonstrates the facilitator’s trust in children as equal partners in an interaction that is centred around expectations of disclosure and personal expression. The final unit of Turn 5 is an invitation to talk, performed through an open question.

158 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

Excerpt 5.10 Participants Setting Length of workshop Length of excerpt Local context

FACilitator, LUCKY (m, 7, MB) School1, pm session 45 minutes 2 minutes 15 seconds (min 36 to 38 in workshop) Excerpt follows Excerpt 5.9; children are sharing narratives of weddings

1. FAC: How did it make you feel, I wonder, when you bumped into someone that you know, and you bump in (…) how was that? 2. LUCKY: A little bit awkward 3. FAC: How (…) Why? Why did it feel awkward? 4. LUCKY: I don’t know 5. FAC: Did you want to say hello to him? 6. LUCKY: Yeah, but I didn’t 7. FAC: You didn’t?! Oh, you didn’t (…). Is it because you didn’t know how to do it, or was it because you thought ‘would he remember me?’ and stuff like that because you said that as well (indicates to KLAUDIA) you said if someone would remember you, so we feel a bit shy sometimes (speaks to whole class). 8. Video person: Did he see you? 9. LUCKY: I don’t think so. 10. FAC: I went to (…) um I’m quite old now, I’m just over twenty-­ one (giggles) and a little bit more (…) but I went to a school reunion, and these were people I went to school with, oh, um (…) thirty years ago, and we went to this school reunion and I thought no one’s going to remember me, no one’s going to know what I look like now because I don’t look like when I went to school, we all recognised each other and it was a really nice feeling (…). It was a bit awkward (indicates to LUCKY). I felt a bit awkward and a bit shy, and there were a couple of teachers there who were still going strong at this reunion, and I couldn’t believe it and it made me feel really good but a bit awkward and a little bit (…). I wondered if they would remember me, so I really connected with what you were saying just then (indicates both LUCKY and VIV) (…) (to VIV). Do you want to see if anybody else has any more questions?

5  HOW DID IT GO? BUILDING KNOWLEDGE TOGETHER WITH THE HELP… 

159

Excerpt 5.10 includes a long personal story shared by the facilitator about experiences at school. The facilitator’s personal story connects with LUCKY’s expression of uneasiness. It is a form of empathetic engagement, motivated by her own memories of similar experiences. As in Excerpt 5.9, the personal story projects expectations of personal expression. In particular, the facilitator’s personal story (1) values LUCKY’s choice to share feelings about meeting others as a consequential choice for the interaction, (2) positions the facilitator and the children as unique persons rather than standardised role players, and (3) role models trust in the co-participants and choice of personal expression. The latter point is particularly important: A role-based hierarchy is rejected in practice. The facilitator promotes persona-centred expressions as the expected form of participation by offering a contextualised role model for children to follow. In conclusion of the personal story, the facilitator reflects positively on LUCKY’s participation, again showing appreciation for his agency. LUCKY’s choice to share his feelings has changed the context of the interaction because it has promoted the facilitator’s decision to share her own personal story. The final part of Turn 10 is a question addressed to VIV, who had previously presented a story. The question invites VIV to take on the role of coordinator of participation in the interaction by checking whether other children want to contribute. Excerpt 5.11 offers another example of the ‘throwing-out-a-net’ strategy that characterised the project-based approach workshops we observed. The facilitator offers her personal story as a possible starting point for the interlacement of other narratives, without forcing children’s participation. Throwing out the net is a style of facilitation based on role modelling and opening up opportunities, with minimal interventions to coordinate children’s contributions.

160 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

Excerpt 5.11 Participants Setting Length of workshop Length of excerpt Local context

FACilitator, AMRI (f, 7, MB), PATEL (m, 7, MB) School1, pm session 45 minutes 2 minutes (min 21 to 23 in workshop) A child has shared a narrative of holidays overseas; FAC has invited other children to share other narratives of holidays

1. AMRI: I have a memory. So, I went to Dubai, this waterpark is called (unclear name), and there is like KFC and McDonald’s, and they have this surfing place over there. So, I just put my tummy on the ground. I didn’t learn how to swim, and then there were trees like this and then I ate McDonald’s. 2. FAC: You know when you put your belly on the ground, was it so that you could pretend to be swimming? 3. AMRI: Yeah. 4. FAC: Do you know what—you really remind me when I was a little girl, which was a really, really long time ago, my dad took me swimming to Brighton, which is a seaside. 5. (Class all talk—talking about also visiting the same seaside as FAC) 6. FAC: And my dad, he couldn’t swim, but I didn’t know he couldn’t swim. And he put me on his shoulders when I was a little girl, probably about your size, and I was on his shoulders, and he took me up. And I was wondering why my mum was getting really cross. She was standing on the side of the sea, and she was going like this, come in, like this. And my dad was laughing. And I think he was laughing because he was kind of joking with my mum because she knew he couldn’t swim. And he took me out a little bit. And I thought my dad was the best swimmer in the whole wide world and I was safe, but really, he was taking me out and he couldn’t swim either. And I was on his back and then he had to come back in because my mum told him off, and you’ve really made me remember that. 7. PATEL: And my dad, he took me to the deep end like 2 metres and (?) and those boys over here (?) sometimes the wave comes, so what happened my dad said ‘come here’ and then I went there, he picked me up, and then he’s like ‘jump and I will catch you’, and I was no—I’m scared, and then he took me back.

5  HOW DID IT GO? BUILDING KNOWLEDGE TOGETHER WITH THE HELP… 

161

In Excerpt 5.11, the facilitator shares a personal story related to memories of a seaside trip, emphasising her father’s behaviour, her lack of risk awareness, and her happiness for being carried by her father on his shoulders (Turn 6). A facilitator’s personal stories create a context where the self-expression of the person is expected, rather than the performance of the role. To use a metaphor proposed by Farini (2019b), the pupil leaves room to the unique child, and the educator leaves room to the unique adult as the references for interactions. The person talks to the person, not the role to the role, and this changes how participants make choices and understand others’ choices. The facilitator’s personal story is loosely connected to AMRI’s previous contributions. The first unit of Turn 4 (the one that displays how the author of the turn connects with the previous one) is dedicated to presenting AMRI’s story as the starting point of the facilitator’s story (you really remind me). The facilitator’s personal story offers to another child, PATEL, the possibility of interlacing a new narrative using the facilitators’ reference to risky behaviour as the anchoring point. PATEL’s narrative is loosely interlaced with the previous one, thereby offering a strong example of agency: The production of the narrative is based on PATEL’s autonomous choice, an autonomous and consequential choice that makes a difference for the course of the interaction. Excerpt 5.12 is another example of the use of personal stories to promote authorship of narratives without putting pressure on children, thereby safeguarding their autonomy, which is an essential component of agency.

Excerpt 5.12 Participants Setting Length of workshop Length of excerpt Local context

FACilitator, PATTY (f, 7, MB), JIM (m, 7, MB) School2, pm session 45 minutes 2 minutes 45 seconds (min 4 to 7 in workshop) A child has just presented a picture; FAC invites questions; after no one has taken up the invite FAC shares a personal story (continued)

162 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

Excerpt 5.12  (continued) 1. FAC: Anybody else got anything to ask about the picture? 2. (silence) 3. FAC: I had a picture of a baby in a cot (…) but the baby was climbing out of the cot and the baby put all the pillows on the top and (turns the photo) I think the baby was about your age (points to photo) just coming up to one and a half, two (…) and didn’t want to be in the cot anymore (…). They put the pillows and then put the teddy on the top and then climbed out of the cot (does motions of climbing). 4. JIM: That’s smart. 5. FAC: That was a very smart one-and-a-half, two-year-old, I couldn’t believe it (…). And er (…) that was what you call wanting to break for freedom (laughs). (addressing the whole group) Do any of you remember being in cots? 6. (several voices): Oh yeah. 7. FAC: Do you remember? 8. (voices from audience continue) 9. FAC: You was in a bed (indicates audience member) what was (…) do you remember being in a cot? (indicates another audience member) Hold on a minute, guys, let’s have a listen. 10. PATTY: (?) A seal and not exactly sure what that is (?). 11. FAC: Uh huh. 12. PATTY: And they’re like as big as me. 13. FAC: And they’re in the cot with you? 14. PATTY: Yeah. 15. FAC: That’s a really good memory to remember that, thank you (…). And do you remember? (indicates another audience member)

In Turn 3 of Excerpt 5.12, the facilitator produces a personal story utilising an interactive slot made available by the lack of reactions (Turn 2) to a previous invitation to talk (Turn 1). The invitation to talk was performed as an open question addressed to the whole group rather than an individual child. As previously discussed, the open format of questions projects a wider

5  HOW DID IT GO? BUILDING KNOWLEDGE TOGETHER WITH THE HELP… 

163

range of possible actions for the recipients, thereby supporting agency, but at the same time open questions may be less effective in triggering participation. Projecting more options means more uncertainty for the recipients with regard to the questioner’s expectation, and this can result in strategies to minimise risks by avoiding participation. How the facilitator reacts to the incipient silence by once again taking on the role of speaker is key for the evaluation of facilitation. In all types of conversation, across all languages, a period of silence that exceeds the ‘normal’ length after a turn at talk can be used by the author of the last turn at talk to maintain the status of current speaker (Sacks et al., 1974; Stivers et al., 2009; Hayashi, 2012). This form of turn-taking management was interesting for the observation of the project-based approach workshops: The facilitator could have chosen to put pressure on the children to force their participation, in the most obvious way by selecting a specific next speaker. Putting pressure on children by selecting the next speaker could have secured participation; however, it would have limited the space for children’s autonomous choice, thereby hindering their agentic status. Rather than selecting the next speaker after the ‘longerthan-­normal’ silence, the facilitator chose to maintain the status of speaker to produce a personal story, promoting children’s authorship of knowledge through role modelling and providing them with the opportunity to interlace new narratives. Turn 4 indicates that participants in the interaction position themselves as equals: A child, JIM, accesses the role of commentator of the facilitator’s narrative. His comment is a form of acknowledgement token that demonstrates active listening and interest in the narrative, much as the facilitator’s acknowledgement tokens did in the previously discussed excerpts with regard to children’s narratives. The possibility for participants to swap interactive roles, from narrator to commentator and vice versa, is a cue for equality in epistemic status and for the possibility of active participation. These are essential components of dialogic teaching. Turn 5 presents a common feature of interactions when facilitators share personal stories. The completion of the personal story is followed in the same turn by an invitation to talk, that is, an invitation for children to access the role of authors of narratives. The invitation takes form as an

164 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

open question (do any of you remember being in cots?) to extend the area of possible participation. The open question after the personal story is another example of the throwing-out-a-net strategy. In Turn 6, several voices take up the invitation to talk, displaying children’s willingness to actively participate in the interaction. In Turn 9, the facilitator coordinates participation by selecting PATTY as the next speaker, supporting the child in accessing her role as author of narratives. Polarised questions are utilised in Turn 9 to invite participation. The power of questions to promote engagement is based on their projection of the expectation of an answer as the next turn; this is accentuated with polarised questions that are addressed to a specific recipient (Farini, 2011). In Turn 10, PATTY initiates a narrative; in Turn 11, the facilitator supports PATTY’s epistemic status as author of knowledge with a continuer that displays active listing, although this entails a minimal intrusion in the ongoing narrative. The continuer, however, supports the development of the narrative (Turn 12). The question in Turn 13 displays active listening and promotes the expansion of the narrative, which is stronger than a continuer. Questions are more complex facilitative actions than continuers, but their use must be controlled to avoid excessive interventionism. This is particularly true with the use of polarised questions, which may limit the scope of children’s choices. As for most polarised questions in the data analysed, the invitation to talk performed by the question in Turn 13 does promote participation, but in a minimal form (Turn 14). In Turn 15, the facilitator shows appreciation for PATTY’s contribution as an author of her narrative. The interplay between the facilitator’s actions and the children’s action suggests that PATTY’s participation was the consequence of her choice to use the opportunity offered by the facilitator’s invitation to talk. It is possible to consider PATTY’s access to the role of author of a narrative as an example of agency. The final unit of Turn 15 is an attempt to further extend the area of active participation through the management of turn-taking, as the facilitator selects the next speaker by addressing the invitation to talk to a specific child.

5  HOW DID IT GO? BUILDING KNOWLEDGE TOGETHER WITH THE HELP… 

165

Excerpt 5.13 Participants Setting Length of workshop Length of excerpt Local context

FACilitator, MEG (f, 7, NMB) School2, pm session 45 minutes 45 seconds (min 19 in workshop) MEG has shared a narrative related to a family portrait; FAC invites expansion of the narrative

1. FAC: You did and did anyone else have curly hair when you were young and now it’s gone straight? So, now we know some people had curly hair and they don’t have it anymore. So, already we are finding out from looking at a picture about our connections. Okay, and what else did you like or do you not like about this picture? 2. MEG: I don’t know really. 3. FAC: It’s something you felt like you wanted to bring in. Does anybody else remember going to a house and (…) I remember moving into a new house and being (…) wondering how all of my stuff was going to fit into a new room. So, moving is quite a big change isn’t it? You can move rooms, you can move houses, move schools, move countries. So, did you have to move to any countries or just houses all the time?

In Excerpt 5.13, Turn 3, the facilitator’s short personal story is introduced by a formulation that extracts meaning from the previous turns and develops possible implications of MEG’s minimal answer in Turn 2. The formulation in Turn 3 works as a development because, rather than summarising the gist of MEG’s contribution, it brings into the interaction what was only implicit. The formulation is followed by an open question to invite participation. Turn 3 is particularly complex. The short narrative is followed by a personal comment that introduces the facilitator’s personal stance on moving home. Personal expressions are made relevant, and the turn creates conditions for empathy and mutual disclosure, which are conditions of trust and dialogue. An open question at the end of the turn aims to create favourable conditions for the interlacement of new narratives.

166 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

Excerpt 5.14 Participants Setting Length of workshop Length of excerpt Local context

FACilitator, MANU (f, 7, MB), AMRI (m, 7, NMB) School1, pm session 45 minutes 1 minute 30 seconds (min 20 to 22 in workshop) MANU is sharing a narrative related to the memory of a wedding

. FAC: Oh wow. The people that were getting married? 1 2. MANU: Yeah. 3. FAC: What happened? I have to say when I went to a wedding, I don’t know about you, but I went to a Christian wedding like you and the bride was all in white. But then the same year I went to a Hindu wedding and the bride was in red and she just looked, and she had all gold over her, she just looked stunning. It was so different, the Hindu wedding to the Christian wedding, where it was a white dress and there was loads of colours at the Hindu wedding. Very colourful outfits and beautiful makeup. And I just couldn’t believe it. I felt like I was looking at a princess, you know. It was very different for me to go to different faith weddings. Has anybody else had that experience of going to a ceremony that is different to theirs? Does anybody want to share? 4. (MANU indicates AMRI) 5. AMRI: (Waves hands around as speaking) I’ve been to a wedding which basically there was plenty of juices at the far back. So, we got (…) we mixed all of the juices and we put pepper (?) and we were daring them to drink it. And I got another one with the cucumbers and then we got started fighting with the cucumbers.

Turn 3 of Excerpt 5.14 is a lengthy narrative that the facilitator develops based on her memory of a wedding. The narrative is sparked by previously shared stories, and it is enriched with a comparison between a Hindu wedding and other Christian weddings she had participated in. The narrative not only promotes personal expressions; it also role models possible expansion of the interaction of sharing and comparing cultural traditions.

5  HOW DID IT GO? BUILDING KNOWLEDGE TOGETHER WITH THE HELP… 

167

The personal story is followed by an open question addressed to the whole group; in this case, the open question is very successful in inviting further narratives, as well as exploiting the possibility of open questions from the children. Open questions expand the range of possible contributions to include not only stories related to different traditions but also stories related to unusual situations.

5.3  To Bring It Home: Insights on How Facilitative Actions Can Support Children’s Agency The discussion of how facilitative actions can afford children’s agency, upgrading children’s epistemic authority as authors of knowledge, is organised to highlight the specific function and effect of each category of facilitative action observed in the corpora of data. For this reason, this section is divided into subsections dedicated to invitations to talk, questions, feedback (including formulations), and personal stories produced by the facilitator. 5.3.1   Invitations to Talk The first category of facilitative actions to be discussed includes actions that support children’s participation: invitations to talk. Invitations to talk are a flexible and versatile facilitative action (Baraldi et al., 2021). In the corpora of data, invitations to talk were mostly performed as polarised questions or open questions. Polarised questions can promote participation effectively. By projecting a strong preference for a specific action in the next turn at talk, they reduce the risk of participation (Raymond, 2003; Margutti, 2006; Farini, 2011). Polarised questions were one of the most utilised facilitative actions in the observed project-based approach workshops. Still, they occupy an ambiguous position in facilitation. Polarised questions exert stronger pressure on their recipients towards acceptance of the preferred scenario, for instance the acceptance of the invitation to talk. An excessive use of polarised questions may limit the space for children’s autonomous choices. The nature of children’s participation that polarised questions promoted in the project-based approach workshops was generally limited to those minimal responses projected by the question’s format.

168 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

Open questions do not project a limited range of expectation on the following turn at talk; for this reason, they seem to be more compatible with the facilitation of children’s autonomous choices. However, open questions used as invitations to talk may not have the same effectiveness of polarised questions. Because they do not project the questioner’s expectations as polarised questions do (where the range of expected actions is limited to a binary option), open questions make the choice of action riskier, due to a wider range of possibilities (Farini, 2011). Nevertheless, when children chose to risk participation after a less directive open question, this participation was expressed in more complex and articulated contributions. The properties of open questions would invite their consideration as an important resource for facilitative practice. However, in the initial stages of facilitation, expectations of personal expressions might not be sufficiently established to fully replace expectations of role performances. In these circumstances, the wider range of options presented by open questions could be perceived by children as a lack of direction, paralysing participation in the interaction. Polarised questions project the expectation of a very limited range of actions in the next turn at talk. Such a range is limited to a binary alternative. An excessive use of polarised questions may hinder children’s agency. Nevertheless, polarised questions can serve as a tool in the initial stages of facilitation when children’s trust in agentic participation appears to be more difficult. In the initial stages of facilitation, children may need opportunities to test the water, and polarised questions offer a safer ground for participation. 5.3.2   The Use of Questions The use of questions to promote children’s agency as authors of narratives was not limited to invitations to talk. The observation of project-based approach workshops was geared towards the things that are done with words (Wang, 2014): Questions appear to be versatile actions that can be used to do several things. For instance, questions were utilised to support further expansion of ongoing narratives, preserving the current narrator’s status as author of knowledge. When polarised and open questions are used to invite further expansions of an ongoing narrative, their effect mirrors the effects when used to invite participation. Observations of project-based approach workshops suggested that open questions offer their recipients a wider range of

5  HOW DID IT GO? BUILDING KNOWLEDGE TOGETHER WITH THE HELP… 

169

options, because they do not project clear expectations from the questioner, beyond the expectation of an answer. Polarised questions reduce the risk of participation by projecting expectations that guide children’s actions, that is, expectations of a very limited range of answers. The outcome of the use of polarised questions during the project-based approach workshops was a more diffused, but also more limited, participation. We believe this is an interesting point for the analysis of facilitation. Reflecting on observation, we would suggest that polarised questions are more suitable in the early phase of facilitation, when trust in autonomous participation, which supports risk-taking, has not yet been built. Polarised questions appear to be suitable for the initial phases of facilitation; however, the limited constraints and pressure of open questions can be a resource for the promotion of participation in the following stages. When facilitation succeeds in supporting trust, the wider range of choices projected by open questions will not be perceived as risky and will support more diverse and articulated contributions. Choosing between polarised questions and open questions is not always easy in the midst of facilitation. The facilitator needs to consider levels of engagement, the specific point in the interaction, and other contextual variables. In the project-based approach workshops we observed, polarised questions were successfully utilised to kick off narratives, to open the floor to contributions, and to signal support of further expansion of ongoing narratives, for instance focusing on a specific piece of content in the narration. It is true that polarised questions can be utilised to control the trajectory of interaction, imposing the adult’s agenda and interest (Mehan, 1979; Margutti, 2006; Farini, 2011; Baraldi et al., 2021). However, in the project-based approach workshops, polarised questions were an important resource for facilitation when used to support the expansion of narratives that had been initially facilitated by open questions. The interest in the use of specific formats and styles of questions should not detract from the reality of interactions during the project-based approach workshops, where the support of narratives was usually performed through series of questions that combined polarised and open questions. Whether questions are formulated in a polarised or open format, the observation of project-based approach workshops suggests that caution is needed in the invitation to further expand narratives. Polarised questions and, to a lesser extent, open questions have the power to condition the trajectory of interactions, carrying the risk of excessive control that can hinder children’s agency.

170 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

5.3.3   Actions of Feedback Actions of feedback can display appreciation and support of children’s role as authors of knowledge. Actions of minimal feedback are non-intrusive actions that preserve the fluidity of the narrative. ‘Minimal’ has to do with the complexity of actions, not their importance for facilitation: Continuers, repetitions, and acknowledgement tokens (often in the form of change-of-­ state tokens) can display active listening, playing an important role in supporting children’s agency. Whilst continuers and repetitions are used to invite further talk, acknowledgement tokens specialise in portraying positively children’s contribution. A type of acknowledgement token, the change-of-state token, is used to demonstrate acknowledgement of the epistemic authority of the author of a previous turn at talk. The change-of-state token validates the author of a turn at talk as a legitimate author of knowledge. Because change-of-state tokens signal a change in the cognitive status of their authors, they not only demonstrate acknowledgement of epistemic authority; they also show that the knowledge produced, for instance in the form of narrative, is making a difference, it is consequential, it is a cue for the agentic status of the narrator. During the project-based approach workshops, continuers and acknowledgement tokens were often combined to demonstrate active listening and to upgrade the epistemic authority of children. Actions of minimal feedback appeared to be particularly effective when support of the production of narratives did not demand significant interventions from the facilitator. In the project-based approach workshops, actions of minimal feedback were a characteristic of less proactive styles of facilitation where more intrusive actions, such as questions or comments, were less used, because the facilitator chose to limit his or her active participation. This observation aligns with the findings of recent research in the use of facilitation (Baraldi et al., 2021, 2022; Farini & Scollan, 2021a, 2021b). Active listening has been at the centre of learner-centred pedagogies, such as Dewey’s democratic pedagogy, for several years. However, in facilitation, active listening has a more encompassing function: Demonstrating attention and engagement not only aims to meet the needs and interests of the learner so as to develop learner-centred teaching; in facilitation, active listening aims to promote learners’ autonomous choices and authorship of knowledge, upgrading their epistemic status. This marks the difference between democratic pedagogy, which is learner-centred but

5  HOW DID IT GO? BUILDING KNOWLEDGE TOGETHER WITH THE HELP… 

171

educator-led and dialogic pedagogy, where learning is treated as co-­ constructed and learners and educators are positioned as equal partners. A recommendation for facilitation is to utilise actions of feedback systematically. Actions of feedback reinforce expectations of personal expression and are essential components of the positioning of children as authors of knowledge. Actions of minimal feedback are non-intrusive actions that signal active listening efficiently, inviting children to feel valued in their participation. It is important to time the production of minimal feedback at appropriate interactive slots to secure authenticity. Formulations are more complex actions of feedback. Like actions of minimal feedback, formulations demonstrate active listening and, hence, validation of the previous speaker’s role as author of knowledge. However, unlike less complex forms of active listening, formulations can also distil and present interpretations, or implications, of ongoing narratives, offering those interpretations, or implications, as a platform for expansions of the ongoing narrative, as well as for the interlacement of new narratives. Research on dialogic communication has revealed that formulations can combine a demonstration of active listening with a demonstration of the consequentiality of turns at talk that are selected as platforms for the expansion of the interaction. This is particularly true for formulations as developments. Observation of project-based approach workshops suggests that formulations are powerful facilitative actions. It also suggests, however, that formulations are more intrusive than minimal actions of feedback, because they necessarily entail the interruption of the ongoing narrative. Formulations can also distil and present to the audience interpretations or implications of narratives that are not the ones envisaged by their authors. It is therefore important for facilitation to limit the use of formulations. When utilised, formulations should be subjected to the validation of the authors of the formulated turns, with the addition of a tag question at the end of the turn at talk. An important object for the evaluation of facilitation was the observation of whether the facilitator monitored children’s reactions to formulations. Taking children’s authorship of knowledge seriously means allowing them to express acceptance or rejection of the summaries proposed via formulations. In the observed projectbased approach workshops, this was accomplished with the use of tag questions (Farini, 2011). Tag questions are questions positioned at the end of a turn at talk, exposing the statement they follow to comments from other participants in the interaction. Tag questions were used in the

172 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

observed project-based approach workshops to open up formulations to comments from the authors of the formulated turns. Regarding children’s validation of facilitators’ formulations, findings suggest that children’s turns at talk following formulations mostly consisted of minimal confirmations. However minimal, for instance simple nodding, children’s confirmations were important because they demonstrated that the facilitator’s interpretation had been accepted. Other types of children’s reactions to facilitators’ formulations included longer expansions as well as rejections of the formulation, though the latter was a rare instance during the observed project-based approach workshops. Formulations more frequently referred to single turns, rather than summarising a series of turns, although this latter case describes a small minority of cases. Formulations were mostly produced as a third turn at talk that followed a dyad ‘facilitator’s question (Turn 1), followed by children’s answers (Turn 2)’. Consequently, formulations during the observed project-­based approach workshops often captured the gist of children’s replies to facilitators’ questions and elicitations. In the third turn of the sequence, formulations either occupied the whole turn at talk or were combined with other facilitative actions in a complex turn. The most common type of complex third turn, including a formulation and other actions that were observed in the project-based approach workshops, was a tripartite turn: (1) change-of-state token to acknowledge the epistemic authority of the narrating child, (2) formulation to display active listening, and (3) a tag question to create a platform for the following turn at talk as an expansion of the ongoing narrative or the interlacement of a new narrative. Complex turns centred around formulations were utilised by the facilitator to access the role of co-author in the production of narratives. The co-construction of narratives was based on formulations embedded in more complex turns, where they were combined with other facilitative actions, more often questions. The combination of a formulation and a question in the same turn at talk can be a powerful facilitative action. However, particular attention is required: Polarised questions did not promote articulated responses from the children as much as open questions. Thus, based on the observations of project-based approach workshops, a possible problem for facilitation may derive from the combination of formulations, both as explications and developments, and polarised questions. This is particularly true when such a combination is used to ‘speed up’ the production of narratives. Whilst all formats of questions project

5  HOW DID IT GO? BUILDING KNOWLEDGE TOGETHER WITH THE HELP… 

173

expectations of an answer at the following turn at talk, polarised questions may excessively limit the space for children’s autonomous decision-­ making, imposing the facilitator’s control over the interaction. Observations of project-based approach workshops suggest that it is important for facilitators to monitor children’s reactions to check whether questions are promoting or limiting children’s agency, in the form of emergent listening, 5.3.4   Power That Needs Control: Facilitator’s Personal Stories Personal stories shared by a facilitator are a type of facilitative action that proved particularly effective during the project-based approach workshops, because they combine support of children’s participation with a recognition of children’s autonomy. Personal stories, if well timed at the appropriate interactive slots, can support children’s agency by (1) demonstrating active listening, (2) displaying the facilitator’s engagement with children’s narratives, and, most importantly, (3) embodying the facilitator’s participation in the interaction as a person and not as a role, thereby supporting expectations of personal expression through role modelling. Personal stories are complex facilitative actions that entail the paradoxical nature of facilitation. Analysis of the project-based approach workshops showed that by accessing the role of author of narratives, the facilitator upgraded her or his epistemic status. However, this was not detrimental to the concurrent upgrade of children’s epistemic status. In the project-based approach workshops, personal stories were embedded in sequences of facilitative actions, such as invitations to talk, minimal actions of feedback to display active listening, and formulations: The facilitator’s upgrading of her epistemic status was instrumental to upgrading the children’s epistemic authority. Based on previous research on the relationship between trust and agency (Baraldi & Farini, 2013; Farini, 2019a, 2019b), it can be argued that sharing personal stories was a way for the facilitator to role model risking trust in opening up to personal expression. Taking the risk of sharing personal stories allowed the facilitator to construct, story after story, layers of self-­disclosure that invited children to mirror the facilitator’s trusting commitments. In this way, the project-based approach workshops offered an example of Gidden’s concept of personal trust based on mutual disclosure and affectivity (Giddens, 1991). In several interactions observed and exemplified by selected excerpts in this chapter, the facilitator’s sharing of personal stories produced gradual disclosure, gradual connections, and a

174 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

gradual stabilisation of expectations of personal expression. Personal stories were used in the project-based approach workshops not only to promote trust and expectations of personal expression but also to upgrade the epistemic status of children. Responding to a child’s narrative with her or his own personal story, the facilitator displayed interest and engagement in the ongoing interaction, acknowledging children’s agentic status as authors of knowledge. Personal stories proved particularly effective during the initial phases of the project-based approach workshops, for their capacity to promote trust and engagement in the interaction from the position of unique persons. In interactions where they were used to upgrade the epistemic status of children, personal stories were often introduced by, or combined with, positive feedback on children’s ongoing narratives, to express appreciation for their participation as authors of knowledge. Observations from the project-based approach workshops suggest that the use of personal comments can introduce equal, contingent, and unpredictable production of knowledge, particularly when combined with other facilitative actions such as continuers, positive feedback, or questions. By producing personal stories, a facilitator accesses the role of author of narratives. However, this was not detrimental to the promotion of children’s agency because, during the project-based approach workshops we observed, the facilitator’s personal stories were systematically connected with the children’s ongoing narrative, which were thus recognised as a valid platform for the interlacement of the new narratives. The observation of project-based approach workshops invited consideration that personal stories could facilitate a change in the way of thinking and acting with respect to knowledge in classroom interactions, a change from transmission of knowledge to co-construction of knowledge. The metaphor of throwing out the net illustrates another function of personal stories observed during the project-based approach workshops. This function to extend the area of active participation to include more children. Unlike a direct change of topic, the insertion of a personal story allowed the facilitator to shift the topic of the interaction without devaluing an ongoing narrative and, with it, the epistemic status of its author. The findings suggest that when personal comments are used to enrich a conversation with the involvement of more children, facilitators’ initiatives to invite children’s contributions after the sharing of a personal story were pivotal. As shown in the illustrative excerpts presented, a common type of

5  HOW DID IT GO? BUILDING KNOWLEDGE TOGETHER WITH THE HELP… 

175

facilitator action to invite children’s connection to personal comments is a promotional question. Personal stories that promote mutual trust are an example of how facilitation can change the local context of child–adult interactions, generating qualitative changes in educational practices (Farini et al., 2023). Personal stories can shift the social structures of educational encounters towards dialogic forms of communication, based on equality among participants, empathy, and expectations of personal expressions. Personal expressions entail trust in communicative partners. The production of personal stories is thus a recommended action for facilitators to role model trust in interactions, inviting children, implicitly but powerfully, to mirror their trust commitments. Producing a personal story is a way for facilitators to enhance the authenticity of interactions, to expose feelings and emotions, to signal the will to waive any role-based hierarchical form of control over the interaction. However, it is important to acknowledge that personal stories are not free of risk. Personal stories can alter the trajectory of a interaction, and the risk is that the facilitator’s access to the role of author of narratives might limit the space of children’s authorship. The potentially pervasive nature of facilitators’ personal stories can become a hindrance for children’s engagement and active participation. Personal stories must be authentically adapted to the interactive context, connected to children’s narratives, and respectful of children’s space and status as primary authors of knowledge through the production of narratives. Thus, it is recommended that facilitators refrain from excessive use of personal stories. When personal stories are used, reflection in action is essential, so as to monitor whether the personal stories are imposing the facilitator’s agenda or serving as a genuine contribution to dialogic exchange. The question for reflection in action concerns whether and how a personal story relates to children’s ongoing and previous contributions. Whilst the use of personal stories needs careful coordination of communication, they can contribute to facilitation’s success in enhancing children’s agency. In the project-based approach workshops observed, personal stories were used to throw out a net to capture children’s participation without putting pressure on them, allowing instead for role modelling trust in personal expression and mutual disclosure. Throwing out a net is a metaphor for non-directive invitations to contribute, opening spaces for children’s choices.

176 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

On completion of Chap. 5, Federico Farini and Angela Scollan propose the following questions to provoke further reflection, research, and dialogue: • What is the link between the power of a facilitative action in promoting children’s engagement and the risk of imposing an adult agenda? • What is the most appropriate situation for the use of focused questions and the use of open questions? • What further actions should be combined in a formulation to make it fully compatible with the ethos of facilitation?

References Baraldi, C., & Farini, F. (2013). Trust and facilitation. In H. Warming (Ed.), Participation, citizenship and trust in children’s lives (pp. 132–153). London: Palgrave MacMillan. Baraldi, C., Farini, F., & M. Ślusarczyk (2022) Facilitative practices to promote migrant children’s agency and hybrid integration in schools: Discussing data from Italy, Poland and England. Language and Intercultural Communication. https://doi.org/10.1080/14708477.2022.2096054. Baraldi, C., Joslyn, E., & Farini, F. (Eds.). (2021). Promoting Children’s Rights in European Schools. Intercultural Dialogue and Facilitative Pedagogy. Bloomsbury. Caffi, C. (2004). La mitigazione: Un approccio pragmatica alla communicazione nei contesti terapeutici. LIT Verlag. Farini, F. (2011). Cultures of education in action: Research on the relationship between interaction and cultural presuppositions regarding education in an international educational setting. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(8), 2176–2186. Farini, F. (2019a). From the child to the pupil to the child. Trust based on categorical inequalities and the quest for alternatives towards a more inclusive education. Italian Journal of Sociology of Education, 11(3), 246–264. Farini, F. (2019b). As a conclusion, to the future: A discussion on trust, agency and the semantics of rights in intergenerational relationships. In F.  Farini & A. Scollan (Eds.), Children’s Self-determination in the context of early childhood education and services: Discourses, policies and practices (pp. 267–280). Springer. Farini, F., & Scollan, A. (2021a). From enabling environments to environments that enable: Notes for theoretical innovation at the intersection between environments, learning and children’s agency. An Leanbh Óg: The OMEP Ireland Journal of Early Childhood Studies, 14, 20–39.

5  HOW DID IT GO? BUILDING KNOWLEDGE TOGETHER WITH THE HELP… 

177

Farini, F., & Scollan, A. (2021b). Meanings and methods of pedagogical innovation. In F. Farini, C. Baraldi, & E. Joslyn (Eds.), Promoting children’s rights in European schools. Intercultural dialogue and facilitative pedagogy. Bloomsbury. Farini, F, Baraldi, C., & Scollan, A. (2023). This is my truth, tell me yours. Positioning children as authors of knowledge through facilitation of narratives in dialogic interactions. Practice, 4–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/2578385 8.2023.2177185 Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity. Stanford University Press. Hayashi, M. (2012). Turn allocation and turn sharing. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 167–190). John Wiley and Sons. Heritage, J. (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 299–345). Cambridge University Press. Kitchen, W. H. (2014). Authority and the teacher. Bloomsbury Academic. Margutti, P. (2006). “Are you human beings?” Order and knowledge construction through questioning in primary classroom interaction. Linguistics and Education, 17(4), 313–346. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Harvard University Press. Raymond, G. (2003). The structure of responding: Conforming and nonconforming responses to yes/no type interrogatives. American Sociological Review, 68(6), 939–967. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735. Schegloff, E. A. (2012). Sequence organization in interaction. A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge University Press. Seuren, L. M., & Huiskes, M. (2017). Confirmation or elaboration: What do yes/ no declaratives want? Research on Language and Social Interaction, 50(2), 188–205. Stivers, T., Enfield, N. J., Brown, P., Englert, C., Hayashi, M., Heinemann, T., Hoymann, G., Rossano, F., & de Ruiter, J. P. (2009). Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(26), 10587–10592. Wang, X. (2014). A cognitive pragmatic study of rhetorical questions. English Language and Literature Studies, 4(1), 42–47.

CHAPTER 6

Children’s Personal Initiatives and What They Mean for Facilitation

6.1   Constructing Knowledge Via Agentic Participation 1: Children as Coordinators of Interaction In this chapter, the focus shifts to children’s personal initiatives related to their access to the role of authors of knowledge, as well as their access to the role of coordinators of conversations. An important way for children’s personal initiatives to contribute to the construction of knowledge is the coordination of participation in the interaction. In these situations, children’s personal initiatives take form as the distribution of access to the role of author of knowledge. In the literature on conversations, the coordination of participation refers to the management of the system of turn-­ taking that selects the next speaker after each turn at talk (Sacks et  al., 1974). Turn-taking is a crucial aspect of any conversation because it distributes opportunities for active participation. For instance, in project-­ based approach workshops, the management of turn-taking distributed opportunities to access the role of author of knowledge. When children’s personal initiatives concern their management of turn-­ taking, the most evident consequence of children’s personal initiatives is a change of the facilitator’s status in the interaction. The facilitator’s role as manager of turn-taking is taken over by children’s personal initiatives,

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 F. Farini, A. Scollan, Pedagogical Innovation for Children’s Agency in the Classroom, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28501-1_6

179

180 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

which is a strong example of agency, because children’s personal initiatives change the local context of an interaction. The observation of project-­ based approach workshops revealed that facilitators withheld any attempt to reinstate their control over turn-taking management. By withholding intervention to regain control over turn-taking, the facilitators supported the children’s agency by validating the children’s autonomous choices and their responsibilities in the co-construction of the local context, the interaction. This also marks a visible difference between the project-based approach workshops and mainstream educational communication, which is, in contrast, underpinned by a teacher-centred management of turn-­ taking (Mehan, 1979; Margutti, 2006; Farini, 2011). Excerpt 6.1 presents an example of the facilitator’s support of children’s personal initiatives, when such personal initiatives concern children’s coordination of participation in an interaction via the management of turn-taking. Excerpt 6.1 Participants Setting Length of workshop Length of excerpt Local context

FACilitator, AKELIA (f, 7, MB), ALEEM (m, 7, MB), CATHY (f, 7, MB), PAM (f, 7, NMB), MIRA (f, 7, MB) School2, pm session 45 minutes 2 minutes 30 seconds (min 3 to 6 in workshop) CATHY has presented a photograph of her family’s home in the countryside overseas

1. FAC: Oh wow, that gives such an insight into where you have lived and what you did there (…) and all the chores you had to do that you don’t maybe do so much living here? (…) does anyone else have questions to ask or to find out more about the photo? 2. (CATHY scans the room) 3. ALEEM: Have you been back there? 4. CATHY: Yes. 5. FAC: Did you ask? Have you been back there? 6. ALEEM: Yeah. (continued)

6  CHILDREN’S PERSONAL INITIATIVES AND WHAT THEY MEAN… 

181

Excerpt 6.1  (continued)

7. FAC: You went back there recently again, did you? 8. CATHY: (nods) Did I go back again? Yes, last summer (…) all summers. 9. AKELIA: How does it make you feel when you look back at the photo and see it all? 10. FAC: Does it make you feel happy? 11. CATHY: Yeah (smiles). 12. FAC: (smiles) I wonder what it is that makes you feel happy when you look at that memory now (…) in the photo taken when you were back there. 13. CATHY: (shrugs) (?) 14. FAC: Lots of memories to think about and fun to remember I suspect? Who else has photographs or memories about a time they enjoy looking back at? Or maybe took photos of a place or person? 15. (CATHY scans her peers and points to someone in class.) 16. PAM: everyone gets me, and my sister mixed up because we are so alike (…) we have to look hard to see who is who (…) we wear different hair clips. 17. FAC: Ahh, so it is difficult to know who is who between you and your sister in the photos? 18. CATHY: (points) 19. MIRA: On my holiday in Scotland, I sat on a tractor like the one you were on. 20. (CATHY makes thumbs up sign and smiles) Turn 1 of Excerpt 6.1 is a complex turn with a change-of-state token as the first unit. Because the first unit in a turn at talk displays how the author of the turn at talk positioned himself with regard the previous one, putting the change-of-state token in that position is a way to value CATHY’s role as author of knowledge; CATHY’s action is therefore a consequential action that makes a difference for the facilitator, changing the local context of the interaction. The second unit of Turn 1 is a formulation as a development; the third unit of the turn is an open question used to extend the area of participation. Turn 1 of Excerpt 6.1 illustrates a tripartite turn that was often observed during the project-based approach workshops.

182 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

. The first unit gives positive feedback to a child’s contribution. 1 2. The second unit formulates the gist of the children’s contributions, making them a possible platform for the interlacement of further narratives. 3. The third unit is an invitation to talk proffered to the bystanders to engage them in the interaction. In Excerpt 6.1, Turn 2 is a non-verbal action; nevertheless, it is an important one, because it represents a first personal initiative from CATHY. The child chooses to claim or, better, to take up the role of turn-­ taking manager as she scans the room to select the next speaker. In contrast to situations where the facilitators invite the author of a completed narrative to ask for comments or questions, thus maintaining their control over turn-taking, in Excerpt 6.1 CATHY takes a personal initiative to manage turn-taking, distributing access to the role of author of knowledge. In Turn 3, ALEEM assumes the role of current speaker to ask CATHY a polarised question about her narrative. As for the facilitators in other situations, also for children, like ALEEM, asking questions that introduce new themes for the conversation is a way of accessing the status of co-­ authors of narratives, thus an observable cue for agency. In Turn 5, the facilitator asks a polarised question that functions as a repair of conversation (Schegloff et al., 1977; Schegloff, 2000). Repairs are a type of action dedicated to checking or restoring mutual understanding. A repair can be utilised by a bystander, that is, a non-active participant (Schegloff, 2000), to play an active role while minimising the risk of being rejected by currently active participants. The priority of preserving mutual understanding in conversations legitimises uninvited access to the role of active speaker to produce a repair (Schegloff, 2000). It is interesting for the observation of facilitation that, whilst forcing his way into the interaction via a repair, the facilitator positions himself as an equal partner. This is demonstrated by the sequential order of action-in-­ interaction. After ALEEM completes the repair in Turn 6, the facilitator asks CATHY a polarised question; the question follows ALEEM’s line of questioning (Turn 7), and CATHY replies with an articulated contribution that exceeds the minimal answers often achieved by polarised questions (Turn 8). Turn 9 is a crucial turn at talk because it demonstrates the children’s agency in the management of turn-taking. AKELIA, asking a question,

6  CHILDREN’S PERSONAL INITIATIVES AND WHAT THEY MEAN… 

183

self-selects herself as the next speaker. Self-selection as next speaker is a common form of turn-taking management in mundane conversations (Sacks et al., 1974). This is not so common in educational interactions, a social context where children’s self-selection as next speaker is not expected (Mehan, 1979; Margutti, 2006; Baraldi et  al., 2021). AKELIA’s self-­ selection as the next speaker is therefore a cue for agency that differentiates between the positioning of adults and children during project-based approach workshops and ordinary educational interactions. AKELIA’s personal initiative is autonomous because it changes both the management of turn-taking and the theme of the conversation, making a difference for all participants in the local context of the interaction. Turn 10 constitutes a vantage point for observing how the facilitator positions herself and the children with regard to rights and responsibilities in the interaction. Turn 10 is the first interactive slot available for the facilitator to react to the personal initiative taken by AKELIA. How does the facilitator react to the instance of agency? She reformulates AKELIA’s question for CATHY. Reformulating the question entails the acceptance of the personal initiative that underpins it; in doing so, the facilitator confirms the legitimacy of AKELIA’s personal initiative and validates the new topic introduced by the child. Continuing the discussion of the excerpt, the first part of Turn 14 is formulation as development that presents possible implicit meanings of CATHY’s minimal answer. The second part of Turn 14 is an open question formulated by the facilitator to ‘throw out the net’, inviting the interlacement of new narratives. In Turn 15, for the second time, CATHY autonomously takes on the role of turn-taking manager. In this role, CATHY distributes access to the role of next speaker, that is, access to the role of author of knowledge. The speaker selected by CATHY is PAM, who produces a narrative about the experience of being photographed with her sister. In this case, the narrative is not about a photograph but about photography (Baraldi & Iervese, 2017). In Turn 17, the facilitator proposes a formulation as an explanation to summarise and clarify the gist of PAM’s contribution. The formulation works as an action of feedback that displays active listening. Two aspects of the formulation as explication in Turn 17 are important. (1) The first turn unit that establishes how the emerging turn relates to the previous one is ‘so’. ‘So’ highlights that what is coming in the following part of the turn at talk is linked to the previous one, thereby demonstrating active listening. (2) The formulation is produced in an interrogative format. The interrogative format of the

184 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

formulation creates the local context for the following action. The author of the formulated turn, PAM, is in the ideal position to either validate or reject the formulation. Her status as author, and owner, of the knowledge channelled in the narrative is preserved. Another important turn at talk for the analysis of facilitation is Turn 19 when, for the third time, CATHY accesses the role of turn-taking manager. It is, however, the first time that CATHY’s management of turn-­ taking does not follow a facilitator’s question. CATHY distributes access to the role of speaker autonomously and outside a trajectory of the interaction initiated by a facilitator’s question. The next interactive slot, Turn 20, is the first available space for the facilitator’s reaction. The facilitator chooses not to subvert the course of action autonomously initiated by CATHY. The facilitator refrains from intervention. A focus on sequences of actions-in-interaction, rather than individual turns at talk, allows us to observe the importance of minimal actions, silences, gestures, and even a lack of action as in this case for the development of an interaction and the positioning of participants. What happens in Turn 20 is that MIRA, selected as the next speaker, interlaces a new narrative with the photograph presented by CATHY. The visual material brought into the classroom by CATHY is the platform for MIRA’s narrative. CATHY’s photograph triggers MIRA’s memories. As she shares how her own memories relate to CATHY’s photograph, MIRA positions herself and CATHY as persons who can share feelings and emotions. Affectivity is the foundation of personal trust; it is also an essential component of dialogue, underpinning empathy and expectations of personal expression (Buber, 2002; Kelman, 2005; Baraldi et  al., 2021). In Turn 21, at the end of the excerpt, CATHY accepts MIRA’s contextualisation of their conversation as person-centred and open to the demonstration of affectivity.

6.2   Constructing Knowledge as Agentic Participation 2: When Personal Initiatives Disrupt Other Narratives Besides the management of turn-taking, the most common types of children’s personal initiative observed in project-based approach workshops are questions or comments on ongoing narratives and the production of new narratives that are not elicited by the facilitator. The management of turn-taking can be interpreted as an indirect contribution to the

6  CHILDREN’S PERSONAL INITIATIVES AND WHAT THEY MEAN… 

185

construction of knowledge because it creates the condition for the access of others to the status of narrator. In contrast to the management of turn-taking, questions, comments, and the production of new narratives are personal initiatives that directly contribute to the construction of knowledge. However, questions, comments, or the production of new narratives may interrupt ongoing narratives before their completion. It is interesting to observe how the facilitators reacted to such children’s personal initiatives that were at once the expression of agency and disruptive for the expression of other children’s agency. Excerpt 6.2 illustrates the reaction to personal initiatives disrupting an ongoing narrative that was most frequently observed during project-based approach workshops. Comments, questions, or new narratives disrupting ongoing narratives were often validated by the facilitators as legitimate contributions. A way to ascertain the validation of children’s disrupting personal initiatives is to observe if the knowledge channelled by them is utilised by the facilitator as a platform for new conversations.

Excerpt 6.2 Participants Setting Length of workshop Length of excerpt Local context

FACilitator, MATTY (m, 7, NMB), DEXTER (m, 7, NMB) School2, am session 45 minutes 3 minutes 30 seconds (min 17 to 21 in workshop) MATTY has joined the facilitator bringing several photographs with him. FAC has picked the photograph on top of the pile, but MATTY asks for another one

1. MATTY: Can I have the next picture, please? 2. FAC: Yeah, sure, would you like to (…) (the child chooses pictures/takes from Facilitator’s hand) 3. MATTY: Well, this one (…) well that’s my uncle, that’s my brother (name). This is like a Palace legend called Speroni and this is me (…). I just look silly. 4. DEXTER: I’m pretty sure that’s my dad in the picture. 5. FAC: Where’s your dad? 6. DEXTER: (child comes up from his seat to point to picture) There! (continued)

186 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

Excerpt 6.2  (continued)

7. FAC: Behind him (…) behind him? How do you know that’s your dad? 8. DEXTER: Because I er (…) went there (…) a couple of (…) like one year ago. 9. MATTY: It was the Palace-Burnley game (…), it was Palace-­ Burnley, or is it Palace-Valencia? 10. FAC: So, were you there the same day? 11. DEXTER: (nods) 12. FAC: So do you remember seeing each other? 13. MATTY: I think I did. 14. FAC: Did you see each other (…)? So you remember? 15. DEXTER: Only when we were leaving? 16. FAC: And you think that was your dad just behind him there? 17. DEXTER: (nods) 18. FAC: Yeah (…) oh wow (…). How do you feel about seeing your dad in the background of that picture? 19. DEXTER: (shakes head) 20. FAC: Do you think your dad knows he’s there in the picture? 21. DEXTER: (shakes head) No (…) I don’t even think he knew. 22. FAC: Wow (…) you know what you’re making me think about (…)? I wonder how many of you (indicates classroom and indicates picture on the projector) might be in the background of somebody else’s picture (…), say somebody might have taken a picture of their family and you could be walking past, and you could be in the background (…) (turns to DEXTER) (…). So your dad’s in the background, isn’t he? 23. DEXTER: (nods) 24. FAC: (to MATTY) And did you know that was his dad? 25. MATTY: No 26. FAC: So, there you go (…). How about pictures? 27. DEXTER: I only know because he’s got like a coat because he works in a hospital. 28. FAC: Oh, in a hospital in Croydon? 29. DEXTER: No, not in a hospital. 30. FAC: Oh. 31. DEXTER: I don’t know the workplace. 32. FAC: You don’t know, ok, thank you for sharing.

6  CHILDREN’S PERSONAL INITIATIVES AND WHAT THEY MEAN… 

187

Turn 1 of Excerpt 6.2 is a personal initiative taken by MATTY, as he asks the facilitator to pick up a different photograph from the several that he has brought to the project-based approach workshop. In Turn 2, the facilitator complies with MATTY’s requests. In Turn 3, the child starts the narration of a memory encrypted in the chosen photograph. Turn 4 consists of DEXTER’s personal initiative. DEXTER intervenes with a comment about the photograph that introduces a new topic of conversation, de facto interrupting MATTY’s ongoing narrative. DEXTER’s personal initiative invades MATTY’s interactive space. MATTY’s photograph is repositioned by DEXTER’s personal initiative as part of his own family life. Applying the theory of symbolic disjointing proposed by Appadurai at this micro level of interaction, it is possible to interpret DEXTER’s personal initiative as a double movement. First, it displaces MATTY’s photograph from its original context; second, his personal initiative replaces the photograph within DEXTER’s familiar territory, where it is given new meanings (Appadurai, 1990). For the analysis of facilitation, the crucial aspect is that DEXTER’s personal initiative interrupts MATTY’s narrative. As illustrated by Excerpt 6.1, the turn at talk that follows a personal initiative is the first available slot in the interaction for the facilitator to show a reaction to it. Unlike personal initiatives that claim management of turn-taking, DEXTER’s personal initiative interrupts an ongoing narrative. DEXTER’s personal initiative constructs knowledge, but how it constructs knowledge poses an additional challenge for the facilitator, who faces an interactive paradox. The support to one instance of agency (DEXTER’s personal initiative) would validate the disruption of a concurrent instance of agency (MATTY’s ongoing narrative). In Turn 5, DEXTER’s personal initiative is not rejected, but nor is it left unquestioned. The facilitator makes DEXTER’s interrupting comment the object of a new development of the interaction through two open questions (Turns 5 and 7). DEXTER’s personal initiative is therefore validated by the facilitator who makes it the platform for a change of trajectory in the interaction. A question concerns the consequence of the facilitator’s choice to support DEXTER’s personal initiative for the position of MATTY in the interaction. The sequence of actions-in-interaction suggests that the choice to support DEXTER’s personal initiative is not detrimental for MATTY’s agentic participation in the interaction. The open questions produced by the facilitator do something more than supporting DEXTER’s personal initiative; they also construct a local context centred on expectations of personal initiatives. This interpretation is suggested by MATTY’s choice to take a personal initiative in Turn 9. MATTY self-selects himself

188 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

as speaker to offer more information about the context of the photograph. His self-selection as speaker positions MATTY as co-author of that trajectory of the interaction inaugurated by DEXTER’s previous personal initiative. The facilitator’s choice to support DEXTER’s personal initiative did not hinder MATTY’s agentic participation. Rather, the facilitator’s choice created a favourable context for the personal initiatives of all participants. A participated construction of knowledge characterises the sequences of Turns 10–21. The facilitator’s polarised questions in Turns 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 20 invite the expansion of the narrative. Whilst children’s answers are sometimes minimal, it is interesting to observe that MATTY and DEXTER manage the distribution of participation autonomously, exchanging the role of current speaker without the intervention of the facilitator. Turn 22 is particularly interesting. The first unit is a change-of-state token, followed by a comment, you know what you’re making me think about, that demonstrates the consequentiality of the children’s contributions as they make a difference for the facilitator. DEXTER’s personal initiative is implicitly validated as the starting point of an interaction that is making the facilitator think. The third unit of the turn is a formulation as development that presents the possible implications of MATTY’s and DEXTER’s co-construction of knowledge across the previous turns at talk. The lengthy formulation as development is connected to MATTY’s and DEXTER’s contributions, acknowledging their status as authors of knowledge who can change the trajectory of the interaction with their personal choices. Quite uniquely in the data analysed, the facilitator does not follow the formulation with an invitation to talk; rather, she uses a polarised question to reintroduce the previous topic concerning the presence of DEXTER’s father in MATTY’s photograph. The final part of Excerpt 6.2 is characterised by a sequence of the facilitator’s questions to promote the expansion of the narrative, intertwined with DEXTER’s and MATTY’s minimal answers. Minimal answers can nevertheless be expressions of autonomous choices, and for this reason they are systematically supported by the facilitator, in Excerpt 6.2, as well as and across all observed project-based approach workshops. In Turn 27, DEXTER produces a more elaborated answer, and the facilitator reacts with a change-of-state token, followed by a polarised question. Turn 32 again displays the facilitator’s acceptance of children’s minimal answers as she uses a repetition to display active listening, followed by a comment to deliver positive feedback. Another illustrative example of facilitators’ reactions to children’s personal initiatives that disrupt ongoing narratives is offered by Excerpt 6.3.

6  CHILDREN’S PERSONAL INITIATIVES AND WHAT THEY MEAN… 

189

Excerpt 6.3 Participants Setting Length of workshop Length of excerpt Local context

FACilitator, FARAH (f, 7, MB), AYE (m, 7, MB), MEE (f, 7, MB) School1, pm session 45 minutes 2 minutes 30 seconds (min 20 to 23 in workshop) AYE is describing a photograph he has brought to the workshop

1. FAC: I wonder who all those are in the photo. 2. AYE: My family here, and some fiends on this side. 3. FAC: Ahh, so do you meet up often with them all? 4. FARAH: I went to a party last week and stayed up very late (…). Ah, I saw my mum’s friends. 5. FAC: What time did you stay up until if it was late? 6. FARAH: Very late (…). I was very tired. 7. FAC: What was the party for, I wonder? 8. FARAH: Birthday. 9. FAC: Oh, and how old was the person whose birthday it was? 10. FARAH: Ah (…) old. 11. FAC: (laughs) Old? Ok, and where was the birthday party? 12. FARAH: (smiles) At a club 13. FAC: Oh, wow, a club? Was everyone dancing? Did you dance? 14. FARAH: Sometimes. 15. FAC: I wonder if we all dance at parties (…). We can see we all go to parties for different reasons and at different times (…). Some of us had parties or go to them to celebrate birthdays, weddings, festivals and births, and some of us have gone to parties in different countries. I wonder if we go to the same parties at the same time. 16. MEE: I had a party in my house and so everyone came, and we all danced and played games. My bedroom got messed up, my brother pillowed fighted me, that’s why the room was messy, and my mum was angry of the noise and mess. 17. FAC: Oh no, did she catch you both fighting? (smiles) (continued)

190 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

Excerpt 6.3  (continued)

8. MEE: Yes. (smiling) 1 19. FAC: Did you both stop the pillow fight then? 20. MEE: Yes. 21. FAC: And who had to tidy up your room? 22. MEE: Me. My brother didn’t help. 23. FAC: Did your friends help to tidy up? 24. MEE: No, ah, maybe a bit (…). We played again with pillows.

The first turn is an invitation to expand the narrative, formulated as an open question. AYE’s answer in Turn 2 is followed in Turn 3 by a polarised question to invite further expansion. AYE is selected as the next speaker by the polarised question, but in Turn 4, FARAH takes a personal initiative, as she self-selects as next speaker, using the interactive slot she has claimed to share a narrative about a recent experience. FARAH’s personal initiative shifts the topic of the interaction from AYE’s photograph to her family memories. Her personal initiative constructs knowledge, but it does so by disrupting the narrative co-constructed by AYE and the facilitator. Turn 5 is the first interactive slot where the facilitator can display her reaction to FARAH’s personal initiative. The facilitator chooses to support it, as she asks an open question concerning the child’s narrative. FARAH’s personal initiative disrupts an ongoing narrative, but it is validated as a legitimate construction of knowledge. This is displayed by the choice to use the personal initiative as platform for a long dyadic exchange between the facilitator and FARAH, beginning with an open question in Turn 5 (Turns 5–14). During the dyadic exchange, the facilitator’s polarised questions are utilised to sustain further expansion of the narrative. As previously discussed, polarised questions generally succeed in promoting participation, but the form of such participation can be minimal, as in the sequence of Turns 5–14. Throughout the sequence of Turns 5–14, questions are not the only facilitative actions; change-of-state tokens (Turn 9), repetitions (Turn 11), change-of-state tokens combined with a repetition (Turn 13): these are all actions of minimal feedback that display active listening and position FARAH as a legitimate participant, thus validating her personal initiative.

6  CHILDREN’S PERSONAL INITIATIVES AND WHAT THEY MEAN… 

191

Turn 15 is complex. Introduced by a reference to FARAH’s previous turn at talk, the facilitator’s personal comment introduces a new possible topic of conversation (cultural habits). The turn is completed with an invitation to talk that throws out the net to extend the area of active participation. Introducing a new topic of conversation could be interpreted as a way for the facilitator to assert her agenda. However, the observation of project-based approach workshops looked at turns at talk in context: The new topic of conversation is not imposed by the facilitator, because it is explicitly connected to FARAH’s contribution. FARAH’s personal initiative is making a difference in the local interactive context. In Turn 16, MEE takes the initiative to self-select as the next speaker, interlacing a new narrative with the one recently completed by FARAH. MEE’s personal initiative is somehow less problematic because her self-selection as the next speaker follows the facilitator’s invitation to talk, where a change of speaker is expected, rather than disrupting an ongoing narrative. MEE’s narrative inaugurates a new dyadic sequence of turns, 16–24, that largely reproduces the previous sequence between the facilitator and FARAH. The dyad facilitator–MEE co-construct a narrative through pairs of turns at talk, where the first turn is a facilitator’s polarised question, and the second turn is MEE’s reply to the polarised question. The dyadic sequence of Turns 16–24 appears tight and fast-paced. This is related to the use of polarised questions. Tightly connected ‘polarised question– answer’ pairs are examples of adjacency pairs. Adjacency pairs are two-part exchanges, where the second part is functionally dependent on the first (Schegloff & Sacks, 1973; Atkinson & Drew, 1979). Adjacency pairs are characterised by the strong preference expressed by the first part for a limited range of actions in the second part. The use of adjacency pairs in facilitation should be cautious, due to the strong pressure that the first-pair parts may exert on the second-pair part. For instance, the use of adjacency pairs to control the development of educational interaction has been studied by Seedhouse (2004). However, adjacency pairs can also be used to promote children’s access to the status of authors of narratives, because they can demonstrate active listening. In Excerpt 6.3, the facilitator’s polarised questions evince engagement in MEE’s narrative and invite further expansions; unlike most exchanges observed project-based approach workshops, MEE’s participation often transcends a minimal form, with the production of more complex turns. In Excerpt 6.4, facilitative actions, such as formulations as explications, questions, and comments, are combined with simpler actions, such as changeof-state tokens to demonstrate support of children’s personal initiatives.

192 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

Excerpt 6.4 Participants Setting Length of workshop Length of excerpt Local context

FACilitator, DEMOS (m, 7, MB), CLARENCE (m, 7, NMB), LOU (m, 7, NMB) School1, pm session 45 minutes 2 minutes 15 seconds (min 42 to 45 in workshop) CLARENCE is presenting a photograph of a family holiday

1. FAC: Ahh, it seems like it’s making you remember nice things because you’re smiling. Does this make you feel happy? 2. CLARENCE: Yeah. (nods) 3. FAC: Ahh, that’s so nice to share, thank you (…). Was being there on holiday a happy memory? 4. CLARENCE: Yes, mostly, but when we were there, my sister ran away (…), well not ran away, she was lost. 5. FAC: Oh no, you couldn’t find her? Was your mum worried? 6. CLARENCE: (nods) Everyone was worried. 7. DEMOS: One time on holiday I got off the bus on the wrong stop, and we were all on the bus together, but it was full up and my brother and I wanted to sit at the front of the bus to sightsee, so when it was our stop, I got up and ready to get off the bus, but when I got off and waited for all the people to get off the bus, my family didn’t get off (…). The passengers all got off and me but not my mum, and then the doors closed but they still didn’t get off. I was there alone and couldn’t see them. The front bus door opened and my dad and everyone got off and we all couldn’t believe it and I got in trouble for getting off, but we hugged and laughed. 8. FAC: Oh wow (…), that was tricky. Thank goodness it ended OK, and you were all together again (…). That’s a happy ending. 9. LOU: Once (…) er I was on holiday at the seaside, and we put our blanket and stuff on the sand for the day, and we built sand castles er a very big one, and I wanted to get water so my mum said she would count how long it takes me to get the water and (continued)

6  CHILDREN’S PERSONAL INITIATIVES AND WHAT THEY MEAN… 

193

Excerpt 6.4  (continued)

come back (…). I took my bucket and ran to the sea (…) and lots of children were playing and on the sand and when I got to the sea I wanted to be fast for mummy’s counting (…). I ran back to my mum, but I kept running back but couldn’t find her and emm I was lost (…). I was walking everywhere and cried (…). A lady asked me if I was lost emm and looked after me to try to find my mum, but we couldn’t find her, and a lifeguard came and helped er and she had a radio and the other life guard was with my mum, so we met up in the middle of the seaside and I found my mum (…). I was very happy. 10. FAC: Wow (…) emm. So we have shared so many stories about getting lost, and it seems to happen a bit it seems? (…). Busy places make it hard to stick together (…). I was wondering because you make me think about what is the best thing to do if we get lost? Do we stay where we are, and someone will find us, or do we find someone to help us? I’ve got lost at the beach before and missed my stop on the tube so had to go back a stop to catch up with my family (…) so tricky to know what to do best (…). What do you think is the best thing to do?

Excerpt 6.4 is inaugurated by a facilitator’s polarised question shifting the focus of the conversation from the content of the photograph to the emotions experienced when looking at the photograph. Whilst the polarised question makes relevant expectations of personal expression and disclosure, CLARENCE’s reaction is limited to the minimal answer projected by a polarised format. Turn 3 is an example of a tripartite turn at talk often observed in facilitation during project-based approach workshops. The first unit is a change-of-state token (ahh) that displays how CLARENCE’s contribution is making a difference for the facilitator. The second unit expresses appreciation, and the third unit is an invitation to expand the narrative, delivered as a polarised question. Although polarised questions often achieve only minimal forms of participation, CLARENCE chooses to expand the narrative in a more articulated manner (Turn 4). Turn 5 is another example of tripartite organisation. The first unit displays empathy; the second part is a formulation as explication; both units

194 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

demonstrate active listening and validate CLARENCE’s contribution. The third unit in the turn is a polarised question that invites further expansion of the narrative. Following CLARENCE’s answer, which again exceeds a minimal format, thereby signalling engagement in the discussion (Turn 6), the topic of the interaction is diverted by DEMOS’s personal initiative in Turn 7. DEMOS self-selects as the next speaker to interlace a new, extended narrative with CLARENCE’s expansion of his narrative. DEMOS’s personal initiative constructs knowledge, but it does so by occupying an interactive slot that could have hosted further expansions of CLARENCE’s ongoing narratives. Personal initiatives are expressions of children’s trust in the possibility of positioning themselves as authors of knowledge who can make a difference in the interaction with their choices. The turn at talk following a child’s personal initiative that disrupts an ongoing narrative shows the facilitator’s choice between diverging instances of construction of knowledge, the disrupting personal initiative, and the ongoing disrupted narrative. The facilitator’s comment in Turn 8 includes two facilitative actions that validate DEMOS’s personal initiative, albeit potentially disrupting of CLARENCE’s agency: a change-of-state token and a formulation as explication. The change-of-state token shows that DEMOS’s personal initiative made a difference for the facilitator. The following formulation as explication is designed to express empathetic alignment with the narrating child. Although it does not interrupt an ongoing narrative, LOU’s production of a new narrative in Turn 9 is a personal initiative because it is based on the child’s self-selection as the next speaker. In Excerpt 6.4, the facilitator waives the possibility of controlling the sequential order of the interaction by managing turn-taking. The absence of a centralised, adult-centred, and adult-controlled management of turntaking marks a difference between dialogic and non-dialogic pedagogy (Farini, 2011, 2014; Baraldi et al., 2021; Farini & Scollan, 2021). The facilitator’s reaction to LOU’s personal initiative is supportive, expressed in a complex quadripartite turn that expands the more commonly observed three-part format. The first unit in the turn is a change-­ of-­state token, followed by a formulation as explication in the second unit. These first two turn units demonstrate active listening. The formulation is a more complex action of feedback than the change-of-state token because it combines active listening with a summarised rendition of previous turns at talk. Whilst during project-based approach workshops formulations often address a single turn at talk, Excerpt 6.4 illustrates several cases

6  CHILDREN’S PERSONAL INITIATIVES AND WHAT THEY MEAN… 

195

where a formulation refers to a series of contributions, in this excerpt contributions from LOU, DEMOS, CLARENCE, and the facilitator herself. In tripartite turns, the function of proposing a platform for the interlacements of narrative is fulfilled by the formulation. In this quadripartite turn, the formulation maintains that function, but it is doubled by a personal comment. Interestingly, the facilitator’s personal comment is inaugurated by an explicit reference to the consequentiality of the children’s personal initiatives, ‘you make me think about’. The facilitator acknowledges the children’s status as authors of knowledge that is making a difference for her. The fourth and final unit of the turn is an open question to extend the area of participation, similarly to the function of the questions that occupy the third unit of tripartite turns. In the complex quadripartite Turn 10, the facilitator accesses the role of co-author of knowledge with a formulation and with a personal comment, in this way cooperating with the three children’s personal initiatives towards a participated construction of knowledge. Excerpt 6.5 is another example of the facilitator’s choice to support the children’s personal initiatives.

Excerpt 6.5 Participants Setting Length of workshop Length of excerpt Local context

FACilitator, LISA (f, 7, NMB), TOMMY (m, 7, MB), DANNY (m, 7, NMB) School1, pm session 45 minutes 3 minutes (min 40 to 42 in workshop) TOMMY has presented a photograph, and FAC invites expansion of the narrative

1. FAC: So, who are they? They might be members of your family or… 2. TOMMY: Emm, family and friends. 3. FAC: Ahh both? Looks like you see them every time there is a party maybe? 4. LISA: I love parties (…) and my mum loves them, and the last time we took our neighbour at a family party, and he didn’t know my family when we were there. (continued)

196 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

Excerpt 6.5  (continued)

5. FAC: Ah, that sounds like good times. Did your neighbour enjoy it? 6. LISA: (nodding) Yes, he liked everyone. 7. FAC: I’m wondering what was the party in aid of? What was it for? 8. LISA: To celebrate. 9. FAC: Celebrate, oooh (…). So you went to celebrate (…). Wow! So how was it, what was it like, the celebration? 10. LISA: Everyone was happy and talking loud. 11. FAC: Very very busy and noisy? 12. LISA: (nods and smiles) Yes very! 13. FAC: Nice, okay then. Ahh, so lots of reasons for celebrations then we can hear, family gatherings (…) parties, christenings, birthdays, and all doing it a bit differently then but all having great [fun]. 14. DANNY: At my parties (smiles) I meet up with friends and we mess up (…). It’s we have great fun (…). We don’t stay with our parents, we go upstairs or outside, and then one time we took all the treats out. 15. FAC: So you kept away from the adults and had fun! (smiling) 16. DANNY: We were fighting and threw hard sweets at Siraj. 17. FAC: So you threw hard sweets at your friend? 18. DANNY: Yeah. 19. FAC: What did Siraj do (…)? Did he throw them too? 20. DANNY: Yeah. 21. FAC: When was this? 22. DANNY: Christmas.

The first turn in Excerpt 6.5 is a facilitator’s question addressed to TOMMY, who is presenting a photograph. The format of the question switches from polarised to open, as a consequence of the use of the particle or as a final turn unit (Selting, 2000). Turn 3 is a tripartite turn that demonstrates the facilitator’s reception of TOMMY’s answer. The first unit is a change-of-state token, the second unit is a formulation as a development, and the third unit (maybe?) is a polarised question, incorporated into the

6  CHILDREN’S PERSONAL INITIATIVES AND WHAT THEY MEAN… 

197

formulation. The most important aspect of Turn 3 is the pragmatic transformation of the formulation into a two-fold action: a formulation and a polarised question. Formulations as developments can be utilised to propose possible implications of previous turns. If not exposed to the scrutiny of the author of the formulated turn, formulations can impose some form of control over the interaction, highlighting meaning and implication according to the author of the formulation, rather than the author of the formulated turn. What is crucial for facilitation is to open formulations to a possible rejection from the author of the formulated turn. In Turn 3, this is secured by incorporating maybe? into the formulation. The polarised question at the end of the turn projects TOMMY as the next speaker. However, in Turn 4, LISA self-selects as the next speaker. It is a personal initiative, an autonomous choice that reduces the interactive space for TOMMY’s participation. The turn that follows LISA’s disrupting personal initiative is a crucial point for her, as for all other participants in interactions. In any sort of conversation, participants continuously monitor reactions and initiatives, constructing and reconstructing the meaning of the interaction at each transition for one turn at talk to another. Facilitation should support LISA’s personal initiative. However, it is also true that LISA’s personal initiative could have reduced TOMMY’s opportunity to further contribute as author of knowledge. For instance, LISA’s self-selection as next speaker has prevented TOMMY having a chance at rejecting the facilitator’s formulation. Will the facilitator reject LISA’s personal initiative? Will she accept it? In this excerpt, which is an exemplar of several similar instances during project-based approach workshops, the facilitator’s choice in Turn 5 is to support LISA’s agency, even if expressed as a potentially disruptive personal initiative. This choice is performed with the common tripartite turn format: change-of-state token, formulation, polarised question. The sequence of Turns 4–12 is a dyadic exchange where the facilitator’s questions invite expansions of the narrative. As is characteristic of tight dyadic exchanges, polarised questions (Turns 5 and 11) are alternated with open questions (Turns 7 and 9). The support of LISA’s status as author of knowledge is produced not only with an invitation to expand the narrative but also with minimal actions of feedback such as a repetition coupled with a change-of-state token (Turn 9, celebrate; oooh) and another change-of-state token in the same turn (wow). Throughout the sequence, the facilitator demonstrates active listening to support LISA’s personal initiative in making a difference in the interaction. Turn 13 is opened with

198 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

an expression of appreciation followed by a change-of-state token and a formulation as explication that captures the gist of the long dyadic exchange and offers it as a platform for the interlacement of new narratives. As LISA did in Turn 4, DANNY takes the personal initiative to self-­ select as the next speaker in Turn 14. In the previous Turn 13, the formulation is not followed by any turn unit that signals the availability of the floor for a new speaker, such as open or polarised questions. On the contrary, DANNY’s self-selection overlaps with the ongoing facilitator’s turn at talk. Overlaps are common in mundane conversation (Drew, 2009), but they are less frequent in communication structured by an expectation of hierarchical order, such as teacher-centred educational interactions. DANNY’s overlapping turn at talk may signal a change in the expectations that guide participation in project-based approach workshops towards expectations of equal positioning of all participants. DANNY doesn’t just self-select himself as the next speaker; he does so by eroding an interactive slot occupied by the facilitator’s turn at talk. The examination of the turn that follows DANNY’s personal initiative suggests that the facilitator chooses to support DANNY’s expression of agency, although it has materialised as an invasion of the facilitator’s interactive slot and a usurpation of her status as current speaker. Turn 15 is a formulation as explication inaugurated with ‘so’. When positioned as the first turn unit, ‘so’ emphasises the connection of what follows (in the case of Turn 15, a formulation) with the previous turn at talk. ‘So’ thus displays engagement with, and attention to, DANNY’s contribution, upgrading the child’s epistemic status. Turn 16 is another cue for DANNY’s position as agentic author of knowledge in the interaction. In Turn 16, DANNY expands the narrative, without the need for a facilitator’s invitation to talk. The sequence of Turns 17–22 serves as a second example of dyadic exchange in the interaction. During the dyadic exchange, the facilitator’s questions invite expansion of the narrative, acknowledging TOMMY’s agentic status as author of knowledge. Although less frequently, observation of project-based approach workshops includes instances of facilitators’ rejection of children’s disruptive personal initiatives. Facilitators’ rejection of personal initiatives is systematically performed as discouragement. The most frequent form of discouragement is a mitigated discouragement. Mitigated discouragements consist in turns at talk, where the first unit is a minimal action of feedback to demonstrate active listening of the personal initiative, while the second unit returns to the temporarily disrupted narrative. Excerpt 6.6 is centred around YOUSSUF’s narrative of an earthquake.

6  CHILDREN’S PERSONAL INITIATIVES AND WHAT THEY MEAN… 

199

Excerpt 6.6 Participants Setting Length of workshop Length of excerpt Local context

FACilitator, YOUSSUF (m, 7, MB), SAM (m, 7, MB) School2, pm session 45 minutes 2 minutes 45 seconds (min 43 to 45 in workshop) YOUSSUF is presenting a family picture when he refers to a serious earthquake that happened in the Afghanistan province where the photograph was taken

1. FAC: Did you know when you were there too? 2. YOUSSUF: No, I saw on the news it was a nine. 3. FAC: And who was with you in the bunker/earthquake? 4. YOUSSUF: There was like my family, my uncle, my dad, and my mum, and my grandmother, and my brothers and sisters. 5. FAC: That’s quite a big memory as well to have. You wouldn’t have time to take pictures at that time, you would have been too fearful of what was going to happen. What was the room like that you were in? 6. YOUSSUF: It was covered with really, really hard bricks, and most of the houses were bricks and wood, and that part was really protected, so we had to go inside there, and we were a little bit squashed as well. 7. FAC: And how did you know when to come out, when it was safe to come out? 8. YOUSSUF: When it stopped then we come out, and all the glass and everything breaked off the counter. 9. FAC: Wow, and what was it like when you came out, what changed? (Puts hands to head and face) The first thing I said, I think everyone does this, I was like woooh! And I was nearly (?) then I was in like a protected area (?). And you were praying to be safe? Yeah, I think I would be quite scared, and I would want to pray as well to (…) for myself and for everybody else. Was anybody injured at that time? 10. YOUSSUF: No one was injured. No one was injured [but] (…). (continued)

200 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

Excerpt 6.6  (continued)

11. SAM: (moves hands) In Kabul, earthquakes are normal. There’s like fives, fours, sometimes sixes, but like there’s never ever been a nine. 12. FAC: Wow so they are normal. (looking at YOUSSUF) So, you were there for a nine. That was scary. And how long ago was it? 13. YOUSSUF: It was like a year ago. 14. FAC: Thank you so much for sharing, thank you. So we’re going to go back round and start looking at our pictures. Thanks so much. So you’re going to bring in lots of pictures that you’ve taken yourself next time, yeah. And I think, already we’ve spoken about quite a bit, so I’ve really enjoyed seeing them.

YOUSSUF’s status as author of knowledge is supported by the facilitator’s open questions (Turns 3, 5, and 7). Although YOUSSUF’s narrative is centred around a less than realistic level of the earthquake on the Richter scale (Turn 2), the facilitator supports the expansion of the narrative without challenging YOUSSUF’s narrative. Key to facilitation, and in line with the pedagogical approach of early childhood education, priority is given to the promotion of YOUSSUF’s status as the author of knowledge rather than the evaluation of the correctness of the knowledge constructed. A crucial tenet of facilitation is the positioning of children as competent and autonomous constructors of knowledge; such knowledge can be discussed, revised, and developed, but not assessed. The open format of the questions invites more elaborated contributions from their recipients, as exemplified by the sequence of Turns 3–8, where the facilitator’s open questions and YOUSSUF’s answers co-­ construct a rich narrative. Turn 9 opens with a change-of-state token, followed by a personal comment displaying facilitator’s personal engagement in the interaction. The personal comment explicitly refers to YOUSSUF’s narrative, validating it as a platform for further development of the interaction, which is invited by the final unit of the tripartite turn, a polarised question.

6  CHILDREN’S PERSONAL INITIATIVES AND WHAT THEY MEAN… 

201

The question selects YOUSSUF as the next speaker, but in Turn 11, SAM takes personal initiative to self-select as the next speaker. In this excerpt, the ‘out of (sequential) order’ nature of SAM’s personal initiative is evident. SAM’s comment overlaps with YOUSSUF’s expansion of the ongoing narrative that was projected by the facilitator’s polarised question. Overlaps in conversation may signal competition for the floor (Kurtić et  al., 2013), which is often connected to violations of the turn-taking system, as is the case in Turn 11. YOUSSUF withdraws from the competition, waiving his role as author of knowledge. SAM’s personal initiative not only invades YOUSSUF’s interactive slot; it also challenges YOUSSUF’s epistemic status, which had been upgraded by the facilitator in the previous dyadic exchange of question/answer adjacency pairs. Excerpt 6.6 is chosen as an example of the facilitator’s rejection of a child’s personal initiative, motivated by the decision to protect the agentic status of another child. By rejecting SAM’s personal initiative, the facilitator preserves the space of YOUSSUF’s agency but also YOUSSUF’s epistemic status, which had been challenged by SAM’s critical remark. How is the rejection of SAM’s personal initiative performed? This is an important question for the analysis of facilitation because SAM’s personal initiative was still an instance of self-determination displaying trust in the possibility of active participation. The crucial challenge for facilitation is to show that, whilst the personal initiative is rejected in the specific circumstances, it is nevertheless appreciated. This is achieved, as exemplified in Excerpt 6.6, through mitigated discouragements. Turn 12 is an example of mitigated discouragement. The first unit of the turn looks back at SAM’s comment, which is appreciated with a change-of-state token merged with a minimal formulation, minimal to the point of bordering on the simple action of repetition. Both actions in the first turn unit demonstrate active listening. When the facilitator chooses to support a personal initiative, the second unit of the turn is frequently a formulation, followed by a question that invites further expansion. However, Excerpt 6.6 is an example of where the facilitator chooses to reject a personal initiative. The second unit of Turn 12 does not include any reference to SAM’s comment, either as a formulation that would validate it as the object of interlacements or as a question that would invite expansion of the narrative. SAM’s self-­ determination is appreciated (first unit of Turn 12), but it is not made consequential. SAM’s personal initiative is acknowledged, but it does not make a difference in the interaction.

202 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

To re-engage YOUSSUF, the facilitator activates the turn-taking procedure ‘current-speaker selects next’ (Sacks et al., 1974), reinstating the status of YOUSSUF as the author of knowledge. The current speaker’s selection of the next speaker can be performed syntactically, para-­ syntactically, or non-verbally, for example through gaze or gestures (Lerner, 2003), as the facilitator does in Turn 12. The interrupted narrative is therefore brought back to the centre of the interaction, and the epistemic status of YOUSSUF is restored. YOUSSUF’s narrative is explicitly selected as the starting point for the expansion of the interaction (So, you were there for a nine. That was scary). The third unit of Turn 12 is an open question that invites further talk from YOUSSUF. However, a closer observation of this interaction should lead one to question the somehow limited support of the development of the restored narrative. For instance, in Turn 13, YOUSSUF provides the expansion prompted by the facilitator’s question. However, the facilitator brings the interaction to an end in Turn 14. Was it worth discouraging SAM’s personal initiative, albeit in mitigated form, to allow only a minimal expansion of YOUSSUF’s restored narrative? Whilst the question is legitimate, the examination of Turn 14 suggests that further expansion of the restored narrative was probably prevented by time constraints. At the end of the excerpt, Turn 15 is used to express appreciation of children’s participation and to project the next project-based approach workshop. During project-based approach workshops, the overwhelming majority of facilitators’ rejections of disruptive personal initiatives came as mitigated discouragements. Excerpt 6.6 illustrates the most commonly observed mitigating element: Actions of feedback that demonstrate active listening are positioned in the first unit of the turn after the disrupting personal initiative. However, rare non-mitigated discouragements were observed during project-based approach workshops. Excerpt 6.7 illustrates the difference between mitigated and unmitigated discouragements: Unmitigated discouragements do not provide the mitigating element of the display of active listening in the first unit of the turn that rejects the personal initiative.

6  CHILDREN’S PERSONAL INITIATIVES AND WHAT THEY MEAN… 

203

Excerpt 6.7 Participants Setting Length of workshop Length of excerpt Local context

FACilitator, RICO (m, 7, MB), RENI (m, 7, NMB) School2, am session 45 minutes 1 minute (min 31 in workshop) A child has described a photograph taken at a party, FAC believed she had recognised a famous sportsman, but the child did not believe that was the case. FAC invites others to talk

1. FAC: Ahh, so it isn’t the famous footballer in the photo then? (…) (looks at photograph intently) I thought it might be him too emm it’s so easy to mix people up or think you know someone who might be famous or just someone you know and it’s not them. (laughs) I do that often (…). Have you ever mixed people up or thought you recognised a famous person? 2. RICO: I did. 3. FAC: Ahh (smiles) (…). Did you? I didn’t (performs disappointment). What did the famous person say, I wonder? 4. RENI: I didn’t, but I am going to. 5. FAC: Did you talk to the person? (to RICO) 6. RICO: Yes, and so did my dad. 7. FAC: Oh (…). Wow (…), and what did you talk about? 8. RICO: Football because my dad used to play football with him, and they know each other. 9. FAC: Oh, wow, have you and your dad got memories of playing football with him (…), maybe as friends or on opposite teams (…)? Perhaps they played in a stadium for a famous team? 10. RICO: Um (…) well my dad does (…). I remember my dad telling me things emm stories of them playing football together when they were young.

204 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

Turn 1 of Excerpt 6.7 is a facilitator’s personal comment that expands the ongoing narrative, to offer other children the possibility to interlace new narratives. Participation is promoted with an invitation to talk, formulated as a polarised question, in the final unit of the turn. After RICO’s minimal alignment to the expectations projected by the polarised question, the invitation to talk in Turn 3 is formulated as an open question. The open question identifies RICO as the next speaker; however, in Turn 3 RENI’s self-select as the next speaker. RENI’s personal initiative closes the interactive space of a possible expansion of RICO’s story. In Turn 5, the first slot after RENI’s personal initiative, the facilitator displays the rejection of RENI’s personal initiative with an unmitigated discouragement, characterised by the lack of any acknowledgement of RENI’s contribution in the first unit of the turn at talk. The facilitator ignores RENI’s contribution, operating to erase it from the interaction through ignoring, as she selects RICO as the next speaker. The excerpt ends with a polarised question used to invite the expansion of the restored narrative.

6.3  Insights on Children’s Personal Initiatives in Facilitation, for Facilitation, with a Few Words on Those Disrupting Instances of Agency Children’s agency is most evident when children take personal initiative. Two types of children’s personal initiative could be observed during the project-based approach workshops: management of turn-taking and initiatives that disrupt ongoing narratives. The latter type is of greatest interest for this book, because when children’s personal initiatives disrupt ongoing narratives, the facilitator needs to choose between supporting the agency in the disrupting personal initiative or protecting the agency in the disrupted narrative. This dilemma is even more intriguing because it appears to characterise the promotion of agency in educational contexts generally, as argued by Rajala et al. (2016). Self-management of turn-taking signals children’s mutual trust. When personal initiatives concerned the management of turn-taking, the facilitator systematically supported children’s autonomous management of the alternation between speakers. Observation of project-based approach workshops suggests that the dilemma between supporting the agency of the interrupting child and protecting spaces of agentic participation for other children was frequently resolved with the decision to support personal initiatives, even if

6  CHILDREN’S PERSONAL INITIATIVES AND WHAT THEY MEAN… 

205

disruptive. The choice to support personal initiatives appears to have contributed to the success of facilitation during the project-based approach workshops, because it made relevant expectations of personal expression and autonomous choice. Observations suggest that when personal initiatives were supported to make a difference in the interactional context, this related to more intense participation of children. In those situations, as illustrated by the excerpts, more children’s personal initiatives followed the initial one, and children’s contribution appeared more articulated. Although support of personal initiatives was more frequent, situations were observed where the facilitator rejected children’s disruptive personal initiatives. It is important to highlight that a decision not to support personal initiatives does not imply a lack of interest or distrust in children’s agency. Personal initiatives may reduce the spaces for other participants’ agency, and the facilitator’s choice to reject them is often instrumental to supporting other children’s role as authors of knowledge. The most common form of discouragement of personal initiatives was the mitigated discouragement. Mitigated discouragements consist of bipartite turns at talk where the first unit is a minimal action of feedback to demonstrate active listening of the disrupting personal initiative. Display of active listening is a mitigating action. The second unit of the turn returns to the temporarily disrupted narrative. Unmitigated discouragements reject the disruptive personal initiative with simpler turns at talk, deprived of the mitigating action of feedback. Though rarely observed, unmitigated discouragements are used to minimise the disruption to the original narrative by limiting the time dedicated to the rejection. Whilst this is not a secondary aspect of facilitation, because it supports the re-engagement of the interrupted speaker, unmitigated discouragements represent a risk for facilitation. In contrast to mitigated forms of discouragement, unmitigated discouragements withhold appreciation of the agency that underpins the disrupting personal initiative, thereby potentially hindering children’s trust in active and agentic participation. Supporting children’s personal initiatives that do not disrupt other children’s participation can promote trust in the possibility of autonomous participation. This insight can be distilled from the observation of project-­ based approach workshops. Non-disrupting personal initiatives concern children’s autonomous management of turn-taking. To support children’s access to the role of turn-taking managers, the facilitator should waive control over the alternation between speakers. This can be done by

206 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

physically repositioning the body away from a dominant position (in stark contrast to space management during traditional teaching). Other possible actions include offering verbal and non-verbal cues that validate the role claimed by children. It is, however, important to make sure that other children can access the same role of turn-taking managers to affirm the validity of expectation of equality in interactions. What if children’s personal initiatives disrupt other children’s participation, for instance interrupting an ongoing narrative? Disrupting personal initiatives denote agency, but such agency restricts the space for other children’s agency. The recommendation is to prioritise support of children’s personal initiatives even when they disrupt ongoing narratives. At the same time, it is key to preserve the agentic status of the author of the interrupted narrative. A solution suggested by the observation of project-­ based approach workshops is that a comment appreciating the value of the interrupted narrative should be offered in the first unit of the turn at talk that follows the disrupting narrative. Also, connections between the two narratives should be emphasised to value their contribution to the co-­ construction of knowledge. If the choice is not to support personal initiatives that disrupt ongoing narratives, forms of mitigated discouragement that include tokens of appreciation for the personal initiative should be preferred to unmitigated discouragement. Explicit sanctions should be avoided in all circumstances as they can hinder trust in autonomous participation. Children’s disrupting personal initiatives pose a challenge to facilitation but they also suggest the success of facilitation. They feed a dilemma that characterises advanced phases of the development of dialogic pedagogy through facilitation. How the dilemma of conflicting instances of agency was resolved in the workshops seem to be related to the facilitator’s assessment of two variables: (1) the contextual relevance of the interrupting narratives and (2) whether the interrupting narratives openly challenged another child’s space of active participation and his/her epistemic status. Any type of children’s personal initiative can subvert the trajectory of the interaction initiated by the facilitator. However, this book does not discuss insights on the fulfilment of the facilitator’s agenda. The aims of facilitation during project-based approach workshops was not children’s achievement of adult-defined learning objectives. Rather, facilitation aimed to create conditions of children’s agency, understood as essential for dialogic pedagogy. Children’s personal initiatives during project-based approach

6  CHILDREN’S PERSONAL INITIATIVES AND WHAT THEY MEAN… 

207

workshops, whether or not they aligned with the trajectory of the interaction designed by the facilitator, indicated the success of facilitation. On completion of Chap. 6, Federico Farini and Angela Scollan propose the following questions to provoke further reflection, research, and dialogue. • What are the most common ways for children to take the initiative as observed during project-based approach workshops? • What dilemma for facilitation can arise from children’s personal initiatives? • How can the management of children’s personal initiatives that disrupt other children’s agency impact the viability of facilitation?

References Appadurai, A. (1990). Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy. Theory Culture Society, 7, 295–310. Atkinson, J., & Drew, P. (1979). Order in court. The organisation of verbal interaction in judicial settings. Macmillan. Baraldi, C., & Iervese, V. (2017). Narratives of memories and dialogue in multicultural classrooms. Narrative Inquiry, 27(2), 398–417. Baraldi, C., Joslyn, E., & Farini, F. (Eds.). (2021). Promoting Children’s rights in European schools. Intercultural dialogue and facilitative pedagogy. Bloomsbury. Buber, M. (2002). Between man and man. Routledge. Drew, P. (2009). Quit talking while I’m interrupting: a comparison between positions of overlap onset in conversation. In M. Haakana, M. Laakso & J. Lindström (Eds.). Comparative Aspects of Conversation Analysis (pp. 70–93). Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society. Farini, F. (2011). Cultures of education in action: Research on the relationship between interaction and cultural presuppositions regarding education in an international educational setting. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(8), 2176–2186. Farini, F. (2014). Trust building as a strategy to avoid unintended consequences of education. The case study of international summer camps designed to promote peace and intercultural dialogue among adolescents. Journal of Peace Education, 11(1), 81–100.

208 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

Farini, F., & Scollan, A. (2021). Meanings and methods of pedagogical innovation. In F. Farini, C. Baraldi, & E. Joslyn (Eds.), Promoting Children’s rights in European schools. Intercultural dialogue and facilitative pedagogy. Bloomsbury. Kelman, H. (2005). Building trust among enemies: The central challenge for international conflict resolution. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 639–650. Kurtic´, E., Brown, G. & Wells, B. (2013). Resources for turn competition in overlapping talk. Speech Communication, 55, 721–743. Lerner, G. (2003). Selecting next speaker: The context-sensitive operation of a context-free organization. Language in Society, 32, 177–201. Margutti, P. (2006). “Are you human beings?” order and knowledge construction through questioning in primary classroom interaction. Linguistics and Education, 17(4), 313–346. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Harvard University Press. Rajala, A., Kumpulainen, K., Rainio, A., Hilppö, J., & Lipponen, L. (2016). Dealing with the contradiction of agency and control during dialogic teaching. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 10, 17–26. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735. Schegloff, E. A. (2000). When ‘others’ initiate repair. Applied Linguistics, 21(2). Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-­correction in the Organization of Repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361–382. Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8(4), 289–327. Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Blackwell. Selting, M. (2000). The construction of units in conversational talk. Language in Society, 29(4), 477–517.

CHAPTER 7

Welcome to the Real World: A View on the Intricacies of Facilitation During Project-Based Approach Workshops (and Probably During All Sorts of Educational Practices)

7.1   Facilitation Is Complex Because Interacting with Others Is Complex In Chap. 5, excerpts were used to illustrate how facilitative actions upgraded children’s epistemic status and promoted their access to the role of authors of knowledge. The excerpts offered a range of examples that covered all interactional situations observed during project-based approach workshops. Chapter 6 discussed excerpts that illustrated children’s personal initiatives and the facilitator’s reactions to the children’s personal initiatives. In Chaps. 5 and 6, relatively short excerpts were selected to magnify the effects of facilitative actions on the local context of interaction, discussing how they can change it towards expectations of agentic participation essential for dialogue. Whilst the excerpts discussed in Chaps. 5 and 6 included several facilitative actions, often combined in the same turn at talk, the complexity of interactions during project-based approach workshops could not be fully represented. Longer excerpts are presented in this chapter to provide the most realistic illustration of the association between facilitation and children’s © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 F. Farini, A. Scollan, Pedagogical Innovation for Children’s Agency in the Classroom, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28501-1_7

209

210 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

agency during project-based approach workshops. With the support of longer and more articulated excerpts, it is possible to appreciate how the promotion of children’s agency is not the outcome of a technical application of individual interactional tools. Rather, the promotion of children’s agency develops as several facilitative actions intertwined with different types of children’s personal initiatives, within continuously evolving local contexts. If the complexity of empirical interactions is considered, it is possible to explore the complex interaction between facilitative actions and children’s agency in project-based approach workshops. Excerpt 7.1 is the shortest excerpts in this chapter. It was selected because it includes several complex turns at talk, where different facilitative actions are densely intertwined.

Excerpt 7.1 Participants Setting Length of workshop Length of excerpt Local context

FACilitator, REA (f, 7, MB) School1, pm session 45 minutes 2 minutes (min 28 to 30 in workshop) REA is sharing a narrative related to a memory of a sleepover

1. REA: I went for a sleepover and stayed at my best friend’s house for Halloween and we played loads of games and went trick a treating and then all our friends sleeping over went to bed and we had a midnight feast and then we played loads of scary games and we were trying to make each other more scared (…) (laughs) to see who’s the most scariest story teller, and some of my friends pretended to be dead and sick. It was great fun and we really laughed and laughed eem (…). Her mum came up and told us off for the noise and wrappers on the and then when we were lying in bed and the light was off. We heard a bang and we started screaming because we got a really big fright because there was a massive knock on the window and it went bang and none of us were near the window (…) and we got really really scared because we were upstairs and no one could reach to bang the window because it’s too high and that made it super scary so we had toget (continued)

7  WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD: A VIEW ON THE INTRICACIES… 

211

Excerpt 7.1  (continued)

up and looked out the window but we couldn’t see anything so she got back into bed and (…) and we heard another bang again so we got up and started screaming. We ran downstairs to the front room to her mum because we don’t wanna be upstairs and Rose cried and wanted to go home and felt sick (…). We all thought it was a witch at the window, so when we went back upstairs. We kept the light on and (…) and we didn’t tell scary stories. It’s best Halloween sleepover and party ever. 2. FAC: Oh, my goodness that sounds so scary (…). And so you had a sleepover (indicates two other children) so you three had sleepovers on the same night but at different places (…) and you went trick and treating (points to children) in the same road wearing the same outfits? (…). Can you all see the links we all share and didn’t know until now (…). Did you know it? (indicates children) We share lots of similar things outside of school I guess. 3. REA: I didn’t realise we do (…). (smiles and turns to peer)

Turn 1 is a long narrative produced by REA. After the narrative, the first unit of Turn 2 is a facilitator’s change-of-state token that confirms REA’s status as author of valid and interesting knowledge. The second unit of the turn is a formulation that offers the gist of REA’s narrative, elevating the summarised narrative to a platform for the interlacement of new narratives. The third unit of the turn is an invitation to talk formulated as a question to ‘throw out the net’, to extend the area of active participation. The tripartite turn is expanded further with the addition of a fourth unit after the polarised question. The fourth unit is a facilitator’s comment that offers new opportunities for the interlacement of narrative, doubling the effect of the polarised question. The quadripartite turn combines several facilitative actions: a change-of-state token, a formulation, an invitation to talk, and a comment. The quadripartite turn at talk is followed by REA’s comment on the last part of the facilitator’s turn. The first part of Turn 3 is a more complex type of change-of-state token that exceeds the basic signalling function of that action of minimal feedback. REA’s choice to comment on the facilitator’s comment suggests trust in equal participation in the interaction, where participants can position themselves in different roles, for instance commenting on each other’s turns.

212 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

Excerpt 7.2 was chosen because the support of children’s personal initiatives and the promotion of children’s agentic participation are performed through a wide range of facilitative actions, often combined in complex, multipart turns at talk.

Excerpt 7.2 Participants Setting Length of workshop Length of excerpt Local context

FACilitator, FRANCESCA (f, 7, MB), SONNY (m, 7, NMB) School1, pm session 45 minutes 3 minutes (min 40 to 42 in workshop) FRANCESCA is sharing a narrative about the context of a family portrait she has brought to the workshop

1. FRANCESCA: The photographer was trying to take pictures of me and my brother, and my brother was only two. So, we kept trying to run off. So, there’s a picture of me and my brother, and my brother is in a suit and I’m in a dress that’s really similar to that (points to dress on screen, arms folded) and then my father is looking the other way and I’m holding him with my legs apart like this. There’s also another picture and he’s in the bush. 2. FAC: Why is he in a bush at a wedding hiding? 3. FRANCESCA: He was playing, and then there is a load of my cousins were there and they didn’t know we were related. So, I went up to them and my uncles were like this is your cousin. 4. FAC: And how did you feel about meeting cousins that were related and you hadn’t met them before? 5. FRANCESCA: We only knew each other when we were babies. 6. FAC: It’s quite weird sometimes to meet cousins that you know you’re related, and you all know everybody, but you haven’t met before. Has anybody else had that experience, especially when you’re in different countries [as well?] It’s really good. 7. SONNY: [Yes] (continued)

7  WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD: A VIEW ON THE INTRICACIES… 

213

Excerpt 7.2  (continued)

8. SONNY (points to another child): We met when we were babies. 9. FAC: What you two, you three, you met when you were babies? 10. SONNY: Yeah, but when we met here, we did not know that. 11. FAC: Oh, so you knew each other as babies through your family and friends, and then in year three you came back and met again. 12. SONNY: Me and him are cousins. 13. FAC: Oh, you are cousins. The two of you are cousins and you didn’t know you were cousins. Wow, that’s really cool. What did it feel like when you found out you were cousins? 14. SONNY: I get to boss him around. 15. FAC: You get to boss him around. 16. SONNY: (Keeps looking over at camera) Well basically I went to a wedding and there were a lot of wine glasses, and I broke a few of them an accident. (1) 17. FAC: So, you had a bit of a mishap. I think that has happened a lot at weddings, mishaps. So, shall we say thank you for the picture. 18. (Class applauds)

In Turn 1 of Excerpt 7.2, FRANCESCA shares a narrative developing from a photograph. It is a meta-narrative that does not concern the subject of the photograph but rather memories about the context of when the photograph was taken. This book is not focused on the assessment of linguistic production; nevertheless, it seems important to highlight the communicative skills demonstrated by young children during the project-based approach workshops: FRANCESCA’s meta-narrative is an example of that competence. The fluency of the narrative invites the facilitator to choose an open format of question to invite further expansion of the narrative (open questions in Turns 2 and 4). Turn 6 contains two facilitative actions. The first facilitative action is a formulation as development that brings to the fore possible implicit meanings of FRANCESCA’s narrative, making it a platform for the interlacement of new narratives. The second facilitative action in Turn 6 is an open question to extend the area of active participation to the other children. In

214 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

Turn 7, SONNY takes the role of next speaker. Whilst SONNY’s initiative is projected by a facilitator’s invitation to talk, his incipient turn overlaps with the final unit in the facilitator’s open question. SONNY’s overlapping turn is an example of a rush-through turn (Walker, 2004, 2010). Rushthrough turns may be produced in anticipation of the conclusion of the current turn to block other participants from competing for access to the role of speaker. Rush-through turns can also function as cooperative overlap (Tannen, 1984), where speaking at the same time as another speaker is not motivated by the aim of dominating the conversation but fuelled by an interest in it. The sequence of actions supports an interpretation of SONNY’s rush-through turn as a cooperative overlap, because there is no cue for a competition to access the role of speaker. Interestingly, the facilitator extends Turn 6 after the overlapping turn. The extension is used to demonstrate appreciation for SONNY’s initiative, thereby validating his status as the next speaker and his personal initiative. SONNY initiates a narrative (Turn 8) whose continuation is supported by the facilitator’s question in Turn 9 that invites expansion, which is provided by SONNY in Turn 10. In Turn 11, the facilitator produces a formulation as an explication that summarises SONNY’s narrative, demonstrating active listening and confirming the child’s status as the author of valid knowledge. In Turn 12, SONNY expands the narrative further to add that he and a classmate are indeed cousins, but they had not met for years before meeting again at school. Turn 13 is a complex quadripartite turn: The first unit is a change-of-state token, the second unit a formulation as explication, and the third a personal comment that shows interest in and appreciation for SONNY’s authorship of knowledge. The fourth unit is an invitation to expand the narrative in the form of an open question. The open question invites expansion but, in contrast to many other similar situations, it also indicates a direction for the interaction by introducing the theme of emotions when family ties are discovered. In Turn 14, SONNY takes a personal initiative. He does not follow the direction indicated by the question; his comment shifts the focus of the narrative towards the experience of doing things with his cousin, instead of following the facilitator’s invitation to talk about emotions. Turn 15 is a repetition, used to demonstrate active listening. The facilitator does not make any attempt to re-introduce the theme of emotions, thereby validating SONNY’s personal initiative. Supported in his status as legitimised author of knowledge, SONNY self-selects as the new speaker

7  WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD: A VIEW ON THE INTRICACIES… 

215

to interlace a short narrative with FRANCESCA’s previous narrative. Interestingly, SONNY connects to FRANCESCA’s narrative after several turns of dyadic exchange with the facilitator. SONNY’s choice can be interpreted as his validation of FRANCESCA’s narrative as a platform for the interlacement of a new narrative. It could be argued that in Turn 17, the facilitator should have invited further expansion of SONNY’s narrative, for instance using an invitation to talk. However, a long pause following a syntactically completed turn at talk – marked by (1), for one second, in the transcript – is usually interpreted in English language conversations (Levinson & Torreira, 2015) as signalling the intention to waive the role of speaker. Such a common interpretation of the intention underpinning a long pause would induce one to see a facilitator’s invitation to expand as undue pressure. In Turn 17, the facilitator expresses appreciation for SONNY’s interlaced narrative with a tripartite turn. The first unit, a formulation, and the second unit, a personal comment, demonstrate active listening and engagement in the interaction. The third unit is an invitation to bystanders to show appreciation for the children’s active participation. Excerpt 7.3 presents a range of facilitative actions similar to Excerpt 7.2; the excerpt was selected to illustrate how a systematic support of children’s personal initiatives can facilitate a large number of interlaced narratives. Excerpt 7.3 illustrates how, during project-based approach workshops, the same facilitator’s turn was used as a platform for the interlacement of narratives from several children.

Excerpt 7.3 Participants Setting Length of workshop Length of excerpt Local context

FACilitator, BELLE (f, 7, MB), TY (m, 7, NMB), NICU (m, 7, MB), SYD (m, 7, NMB), RINAT (m, 7, MB), ZINA (f, 7, MB) School2, am session 45 minutes 4 minutes 30 seconds (min 39 to 45 in workshop) After the presentation of a photograph of wedding, FAC invited more children to share memories related to family events (continued)

216 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

Excerpt 7.3  (continued)

1. TY: On that day, I met one of my cousins (?) and he came to the wedding. He didn’t like me that much but like whenever I got closer, he’d scratch me on my face. 2. FAC: Oh wow, some cousins might do that sometimes when they’re younger. 3. TY: And there was (…) I can remember that my oldest cousin he used to play cricket, he made this rumour that he met one of the famous players, a cricket famous player and then I got into him, and he made me do stuff, like he made me do stuff that I didn’t want to do, like go to the shops (?) and he would show me a picture of when I was a baby and it made me feel embarrassed. 4. FAC: Were you very small? 5. TY: Yeah. 6. FAC: And what do you (…) when you look back at this picture how does it make you kind of feel, like to think of the time together with family, generations? 7. TY: We’re apart now, we’re in different countries. My other cousin (?) like sometimes I cry about it because I never met them. I meet my grandparents every five years. When I met them this year, last year, I was so emotional and I kept sort of like following them and slept with them, but when I was leaving, they cried their hearts out. 8. FAC: They didn’t want to leave you, yes. Can I ask why you slept with them—was it to feel close to them and to get in with them? 9. TY: Yeah. 10. FAC: I used to sleep with my grandma when I was little. 11. TY: My grandma she’s (…) well, when I was in Afghanistan, we have this house, my cousin told me it was haunted and in one of the [unclear] they put their hands (?) in one of the pictures and told me like there’s a ghost and a hand appeared. 12. FAC: So, you want to sleep with your grandma to be safe? 13. TY: (Gesticulates with hands) (?) In the new house we had (…) my brother even told me as a child stories, scary stories that because they had like plastic bags covering their balcony (?) and she told me that, she told me they were covering that up because the ghost doesn’t like coming through the balcony. (continued)

7  WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD: A VIEW ON THE INTRICACIES… 

217

Excerpt 7.3  (continued)

14. FAC: So, lots of scary stories about ghosts. Did anybody else get told stories about ghosts from their grandparents or siblings or their cousins? 15. BELLE: (Standing up, hands off chair of girl in front) My cousin, my cousin told me when I was in my nan’s house, and all of my cousins were there, and at night when we were all sleeping my eldest cousin told us this scary story and then when we went to sleep, I just couldn’t stop thinking about it. 16. FAC: Yeah, it gets quite scary doesn’t it when you hear (…) especially at night time, things get a bit scary at night-time when the light’s off, doesn’t it? I know I get a bit scared sometimes. I have to put a cheeky light on to make me feel a bit safer, so I can see what’s going on. 17. NICU: When I was at my cousin’s house, he told my brother because he lived opposite a forest, and he told my brother that there was a man called the Bear Man in the forest, when he was like little. So, then when he went outside, and it was dark he started crying. And there was this other time, it was like maybe a month ago. My sister she hates Michael Jackson because the rumour of everything that he did, and then he was sitting next to the window when it was dark outside and my cousin, he put the music on and he screamed, and he said like it was Michael Jackson behind her, and she got so scared. 18. FAC: So, she was really freaked out. 19. SYD: So, basically when I was about five or six when I was sleeping in my bed, and they said to me there’s a man underneath your bed. There was a phone, it was ringing, and I just jumped and ran to my mum and said mummy, mummy there’s a man under my bed. And then I had to sleep with my mum because I was scared and then when I was asleep, and she took me in the bed. 20. RINAT: (Smiles) So, when I was really young my dad used to make up these, not scary ones, but about the snake who used to come to our house, he said that it was going to come for me, so I stayed next to him every single time and as I grew up, I didn’t really believe him at the time. (continued)

218 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

Excerpt 7.3  (continued)

21. FAC: Yeah, isn’t it funny how we get these memories and these fears, and you don’t know whether to believe them or not, it’s a bit scary. Did anybody ever think there was somebody in their wardrobe? Sometimes, when I was a little girl, I used to look in my wardrobe to make sure there was nobody in there, there was never anybody in there, but I used to get scared sometimes. 22. ZINA: When I was little, my auntie, because I had like these two wardrobes next to my bed either side, it had murals on it, so my auntie said it was (?). So, when I was sleeping, I used to leave the cupboards open, they faced me. So, when I go to bed, I used to look at the mirrors and I would scream and go under the duvet and get my torch out and see if there’s anything there and go back to bed (?) see it again (…) my duvet. 23. FAC: Do you know what I think a lot of people do that sometimes gets a little bit eerie when the light goes off? I think we can talk about this next time I come back. This is a huge area that you’re sharing, all of these kinds of haunted stories, all from this picture. How did we know that we were going to start talking about hauntings and ghost stories all from a picture like this? Your memories are just so vast and the emotion of your picture that you began to tell us really shared lots of things. So, thank you so much and if you would like to bring in some pictures for next week and if you’ve taken a picture that would be great to bring that in, okay. So, thank you so much and shall we say thank you very much for sharing today, thank you, well done guys, thank you, thank you, and thank you for the videotaping (Applause) So, who would like to bring in some pictures next week? 24. M?: Me. 25. FAC: Bring them all in then, I’ll look forward to seeing them, thank you.

7  WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD: A VIEW ON THE INTRICACIES… 

219

In Turn 1, TY shares the story of a wedding he went to, in the company of his cousins. Turn 2 includes an initial change-of-state token, followed by a facilitator’s personal comment. Unlike the frequently observed tripartite turns, Turn 2 does not include a question to invite participation as the third unit does. Nevertheless, the sequence of actions suggests that TY understood the facilitator’s demonstration of active listening as a cooperative comment (Steensen, 2014) inviting further expansion of the narrative. ‘And’ opens Turn 3, bridging this emerging turn to his previous turn across Turn 2 of the facilitator. In Turn 4, the facilitator’s polarised question supports further expansion of the narrative. As is frequently observed, a polarised question promotes participation but often in a minimal way (Turn 5). The first unit of the facilitator’s Turn 6 replicates the first unit of TY’s Turn 3. The repetition is designed to position this new facilitator’s turn in continuity with the narrative, after the diversion generated across Turns 5 and 6 by the adjacency question–answer pair. Like Turn 13  in Excerpt 7.2, Turn 6 is an open question that invites expansion, also raising emotions as a new theme of conversation. Unlike SONNY in Excerpt 7.2, here TY aligns with the expectation of sharing emotions projected by the open question. The facilitator reacts to TY’s choice to share his emotions with the demonstration of active listening, utilising a formulation to clarify the meaning has been understood, followed by a polarised question that further thematises TY’s emotions (Turn 8). Following TY’s minimal participation in Turn 9, the facilitator shares a personal story in Turn 10. It is an important action for facilitation, because mutual disclosure is a condition for the establishment of personal trust based on affectivity and empathy (Baraldi and Farini, 2011) and authenticity (Elfer et al., 2012). In Turn 11, TY shifts the theme of the narrative from emotions to a story related to his family house. Turn 12 is important for the analysis of facilitation because it shows how the facilitator reacts to TY’s personal initiative. Turn 12 is at once a formulation to clarify and confirm as a development, but it is also a polarised question, because the formulation is expressed using an interrogative tone. The facilitator supports TY’s agency in two ways. Firstly, the formulation as a development

220 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

demonstrates active listening and acceptance of the newly introduced topic of conversation. Secondly, its double identity as a formulation and a polarised question subjects the formulation to TY’s examination and possible rejection. It has been discussed that the opportunity presented to the author of the formulated turn to reject the formulation is a crucial point in the observation of facilitation, because formulations can be used to control the trajectory of an interaction. This is particularly true of formulations as developments, which offer the possibility of inserting new themes into a conversation. In Turn 13, however, TY does not reject the formulation and continues the narrative until completion. Turn 14 is a two-part turn that includes a comment followed by an invitation to talk to extend the area of active participation. Interestingly, Turn 14 follows TY’s choice to shift the interaction away from emotions, thereby demonstrating support of the child’s agency. BELLE takes the opportunity presented by the invitation to talk to access the role of next speaker in Turn 15, authoring a narrative related to early childhood memories. The first unit of the facilitator’s Turn 16, yeah, validates BELLE’s participation. The second unit of Turn 16 is a formulation as development. Unlike most of the tripartite turns observed in the analysis of the data, the third part of Turn 16 is not an invitation to talk; rather, it can be described as self-interlacement of a personal story. The facilitator interlaces her personal story with her own formulation. The sequences of actions that follow Turn 16 show that the facilitator’s personal story becomes a platform foundation for the interlacement of narratives from several children. Excerpt 7.3 illustrates a situation often observed during project-based approach workshops: The same facilitator’s personal story is used by many children as a starting point to produce their own narratives. This type of sequence is generally a cue for the stability of facilitation because it is underpinned by the facilitator’s and children’s personal initiatives: The facilitator takes the initiative to share a personal story; the children take the initiative to self-select as next speaker when interlacing their narratives. This is the case in Turn 17 of Excerpt 7.3: NICU self-selects as the next speaker and produces a long narrative, interlaced with the facilitator’s personal story in Turn 16. The facilitator formulates the gist of NICU’s story, which is accepted by the child who adds, again

7  WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD: A VIEW ON THE INTRICACIES… 

221

without the need for an invitation from the facilitator, more detail. Turn 18 is a formulation as explication that demonstrates active listening. SYD in Turn 19 and RINAT in Turn 20 self-select as next speakers to interlace their narratives with the facilitator’s and NICU’s previous narratives. A network of interlaced narratives is now emerging, initiated by the facilitator’s personal story but now organised by the children, as shown by the ordered circulation of the role of speaker from SYD to RINAT. Children take the initiative to participate, and they manage the turn-taking system autonomously. In Turn 21, the initial unit is a formulation as development that distils the gist of SYD’s and RINAT’s contributions, validating them and making them the platform for interlacements from other children. The second unit of the turn is an open question that throws out the net to extend the area of participation, although the facilitator self-selects as the initial recipient of the question by producing another personal story. The stability of facilitation creates a favourable condition for children’s agency, demonstrated by new personal initiatives. In Turn 22, ZINA self-selects herself as the next speaker to interlace another elaborated narrative with the previous one. We feel it was unfortunate that time constraints brought the interaction to an end because facilitation had enhanced a communication based on equality, empathy, and personal expression. In Excerpt 7.3, all participants are learning from and about each other through dialogue. Turn 23 is used by the facilitator to produce an extended personal comment that appreciates children’s participation, inviting them to engage with the next project-based approach workshops. A child in Turn 24 shows interest in participating in the future; in the final turn of the excerpt, Turn 25, the facilitator produces a comment to show appreciation for that child’s engagement. As a side comment, but important for reflection on the use of facilitation, note that Excerpt 7.3 reports a conversation from the first project-based approach workshop with those children, thereby suggesting that facilitation may achieve equality, empathy, and expectations of personal expression in a limited span of time. Excerpt 7.4 was selected as another example of facilitation developing as the interlacement of several narratives towards the co-construction of knowledge.

222 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

Excerpt 7.4 Participants FACilitator. PACO (m, 7, MB), DARIO (m, 7, MB), ROSS (m, 7, NMB), DAZ (m, 7, NMB), HAKAM (m, 7, MB), PIP (m, 7, NMB), Setting School1, pm session Length of 45 minutes workshop Length of 3-minutes 45 seconds (min 29 to 33 in workshop) excerpt Local A child has presented a photograph of her family house overseas, context PACO accesses the roe of speaker to talk about his Portuguese house

1. PACO: I’ve got a massive house. 2. FAC: What? Out there (Gesturing towards the playground)? 3. PACO: (Nods) In Portugal. 4. FAC: Do you like being there a lot and do you have family there? 5. PACO: Yeah. It has its own swimming pool and treehouse. 6. FAC: And treehouse, wow. That’s why you had such a big smile. (alludes to the photograph) 7. PACO: It has to fit all my family in, all of my cousins. So, it has to be big because I have a massive family. I have three uncles and one auntie. 8. FAC: And they all live in the house? 9. PACO: Yeah. 10. FAC: And are they Portuguese, are they from Portugal? 11. PACO: No, no, no they’re all English. 12. FAC: Okay, so you will share and go over together and stuff? 13. PACO: Yeah. 14. FAC: Okay, so big family holidays. Have you got any memories to share or questions? 15. DARIO: (Makes swimming movements with hands) It reminds me of when I broke my tooth, because I was in Egypt and in my hotel, I went to the swimming pool and I was walking and the water was really wet, and there was just, right next to me, there were people swimming, and then they were making so much splashes that the water went on, and I was walking and then I tripped and broke my tooth. (continued)

7  WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD: A VIEW ON THE INTRICACIES… 

223

Excerpt 7.4  (continued)

6. FAC: Oh wow, that’s a big memory, yeah. 1 17. ROSS: I have a memory. So, I went to Dubai. This waterpark is called [unclear] and there is like KFC and McDonald’s, and they have this surfing place [unclear] over there. So, I just put my tummy on the ground. I didn’t learn how to swim, and then there were trees like this and then I ate McDonald’s. 18. FAC: You know when you put your belly on the ground, was it so that you could pretend to be swimming? 19. ROSS: Yeah. 20. FAC: Do you know what—you really remind me when I was a little girl, which was a really, really long time ago, my dad took me swimming to Brighton which is a seaside. 21. (Class all talk, about also visiting the same seaside as FAC) 22. FAC: And my dad, he couldn’t swim but I didn’t know he couldn’t swim. And he put me on his shoulders when I was a little girl, probably about your size, and I was on his shoulders, and he took me up. And I was wondering why my mum was getting really cross. She was standing on the side of the sea, and she was going like this come in, like this. And my dad was laughing. And I think he was laughing because he was kind of joking with my mum because she knew he couldn’t swim. And he took me out a little bit. And I thought my dad was the best swimmer in the whole wide world and I was safe, but really, he was taking me out and he couldn’t swim either. And I was on his back and then he had to come back in because my mum told him off, and you’ve really made me remember that. 23. DAZ: And my dad, he took me to the deep end like 2 metres and [unclear] and those boys over there (?) sometimes the wave comes, so what happened my dad said come here, and then I went there, he picked me up and then he’s like jump and I will catch you, and I was no—I’m scared and then he’d take me back. 24. FAC: Oh wow. So, there’s all these memories coming from your photograph. I think there’s some more maybe, one or two more. (continued)

224 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

Excerpt 7.4  (continued)

25. HAKAM: So, this reminds me of when I went to Turkey because in Turkey there’s trees like this, and there’s this really big swimming pool and it has a very tall slide that goes in circles. And also, this kind of reminds me when I went to Turkey (?) because I went on this float and you’re allowed to go down the slide with it, then I didn’t know I was in the deep end with the float, but I went upside down and I didn’t know how to swim at the time. So, this guy I didn’t really know he helped me, and he helped me out and then he put me on the side, so. 26. FAC: Oh wow, he was your guardian angel, wasn’t he? When you said you went to Turkey, loads of people here said I’ve been to Turkey, who else went? (Lots of hands up) You guys have got so many links together. If I had a big string now, we’d have a string going all the way around. (Points around to whole class who are now talking) How many links in this classroom? 27. PIP: This reminds me of the time when I went to Minorca, and it was like really hot, and it had almost like the same layout of the hotel and (…) but the pool wasn’t as big. It reminds me of when I went there with my mum.

The first part of the excerpt (Turns 1–13) is a dyadic exchange between the facilitator and PACO.  Dyadic exchanges based on the facilitator’s polarised questions/children’s answer pairs were frequently observed during project-based approach workshops. Dyadic exchanges that utilised the strength of the question–answer adjacency pair successfully supported active participation and the expansion of narratives. However, the form of the children’s participation was often minimal. In the first part of the excerpt, the most interesting sequence is between Turns 6 and 7. Turn 6 is interesting for two reasons. (1) It opens with a double action of feedback, a repetition and a change-of-state token, to demonstrate active listening and the consequentiality of PACO’s answer that, as the change-of-state token suggests, is making a difference for the facilitator. (2) The second unit of the turn is a personal comment that temporarily breaks the chain of question–answer adjacency pairs.

7  WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD: A VIEW ON THE INTRICACIES… 

225

Turn 7 is a personal initiative from PACO, who chooses to continue the narrative interrupted by the facilitator’s comment in Turn 6. The facilitator’s polarised question in Turn 8 demonstrates a willingness to follow PACO’s lead. The sequence of question–answer adjacency pairs is restarted and continues until Turn 14. Turn 14 is a two-unit turn. The first unit is a formulation as explication that distils the gist of the long dyadic exchange, making it available to other children as a platform for the interlacement of new narratives. The second unit of the turn is a question that invites participation. The opportunity to talk is taken by DARIO who self-selected as the next speaker in Turn 15. The interlacement of DARIO’s narrative to PACO’s narrative is made possible by the formulation in Turn 14 because the formulation has abstracted PACO’s narrative from its context, generalising its contents for other children who may not have much to say about PACO’s home but who may want to narrate their own memories. The change-of-state token and the following appreciation in Turn 16 validate DARIO’s access to the role of author of knowledge. Another personal initiative is taken by ROSS in Turn 17, who selfselects as the next speaker, independently of a facilitator’s invitation to talk. The facilitator’s question in Turn 18 supports a minimal expansion of the narrative (Turn 19). Turn 20 is designed by the facilitator to demonstrate how ROSS’s initiative is making a difference. ROSS’s narrative changed the cognitive status of the facilitator, who says that ROSS is really reminding her of when she was a little girl. The following part of Turn 20 is the facilitator’s personal story. A new narrative is interlaced with the facilitator’s personal story by DAZ in Turn 23, as he takes up the role of speaker. In Turn 24, the facilitator’s reaction to DAZ’s personal initiative demonstrates support of the child’s agency via a change-of-state token, followed by an appreciative comment. The second unit of Turn 24 is an invitation to talk addressed to all bystanders, throwing out the net for further participation. Like DARIO in Turn 15, HAKAM takes the interactive slot opened by the invitation to talk to produce his narrative, self-selecting as the next speaker (Turn 26). In Turn 27, the facilitator comments on HAKAM’s initiative, demonstrating active listening with the change-of-state token, as well as showing affective involvement. The second part of Turn 27 is a formulation as development where possible connections amongst children’s experiences are highlighted. Networks of interlaced stories, as illustrated by Excerpts 7.3 and 7.4, create the conditions for the development of small cultures (Holliday, 1999, 2011), where individual identities are constructed and reconstructed through interactive practices. PIP’s personal initiative in

226 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

Turn 27 concerns access to the role of speaker. His personal initiative is not surprising because it is simply the last in a long series. When facilitation becomes stable, personal initiatives are supported by trust in the possibility of agentic participation. Excerpt 7.5 is the longest excerpt in the chapter. The choice to include a lengthy transcript was not motivated by the need to introduce new facilitative actions. It is true that the range of facilitative actions that can be observed in Excerpt 7.5 is wide. However, those actions were discussed previously. The excerpt was selected as exemplary of those characteristics of facilitation that can be seen when attention is focused on longer sequences. Excerpt 7.5 was chosen as an example of the facilitation style that characterised project-based approach workshops. Distilling the main characteristic of the style of facilitation that proved successful in promoting children’s agency is key to supporting the use of facilitation, in this way achieving the ambition of this book. Observations of project-based approach workshops allowed for the identification of a successful hybrid form of facilitation that combines (1) dyadic exchanges based on question–answer adjacency pairs; (2) formulations of children’s contributions; and (3) facilitator’s comments, often as personal stories, that represent platforms for the interlacement of several narratives. The discussion of Excerpt 7.5 considers the main traits of the hybrid form of facilitation.

Excerpt 7.5, Part 1 Participants Setting Length of workshop Length of excerpt Local context

FACilitator, JO (f, 7, NMB), JONAS (m, 7, NMB), LUDMILA (f, 7, MB) School1, pm session 45 minutes 3 minutes (min 11 to 14 in workshop) JO has joined FAC to present a photograph related to a memory of her aunt’s wedding

1. FAC: So, would you share with us a bit about your picture? 2. JO: (Finger to mouth as she has a loss for words) It was my aunt’s wedding and when I am seven. (continued)

7  WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD: A VIEW ON THE INTRICACIES… 

227

Excerpt 7.5  (continued)

3. FAC: What can you remember about the day, about going to the wedding? Was it exciting, was the bride beautiful, the groom handsome? What was special about the day when you went to the wedding? 4. JO: (Hand moves to chest) I felt really excited being there to like be there. 5. FAC: And did you have a special job, were you involved in the ceremony? 6. JO: (Gestures to show roses being thrown) Oh yeah, I was the rose girl, so I was throwing roses. 7. FAC: Oh, so flowers. So, would you call it a rose carrier or a flower girl or bridesmaid, there’s lots of different names isn’t there? Flower girl? 8. JO: (Nods) 9. FAC: Okay and where did the marriage happen? 10. JO: (Maps out a ‘big place’ with hands) I don’t remember, but it was this big place, and that’s where the ceremony was, but the party was in a different place. 11. FAC: Okay, was it a religious ceremony? 12. JO: (Hands now in front of her, stomach height): Yeah, it was a Christian. 13. FAC: It was a Christian ceremony. So, what was it like? 14. JO: (Smiles) After we were sat down (?) it was a little bit boring. 15. FAC: It was a bit boring, was it long as well? 16. JO: (Uses hands to display excitement) Yeah, but when me and [unclear] with the rings it was like 17. FAC: It was exciting? 18. JO: (Smiles) Yeah. 19. FAC: Was it emotional? 20. JO: Yeah. 21. FAC: It sounds really (unclear). Has anybody else here been to a wedding? 22. (Classroom all talks at once) 23. FAC: Who wants to share with me about their favourite wedding experiences? Who can remember going to a wedding and share something about it? (continued)

228 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

Excerpt 7.5  (continued)

4. (JO points at JONAS) 2 25. JONAS: I was at a wedding, and you know the platform they go to to get married? 26. FAC: The platform as in when they stand up. 27. JONAS: I climbed on it and fell. 28. FAC: Oh no, so you went to the wedding and the ceremony was on and you fell down the stairs, can you remember that? 29. JONAS: Not very well. 30. FAC: Oh no, and do you remember that, or is it because your family told you about it? Is it on video? 31. JONAS: Maybe talking about it. 32. FAC: And how did it feel when they told you? 33. JONAS: Embarrassment. 34. FAC: Has anybody else got a memory about a wedding they want to share? 35. LUDMILA: I remember when I was two. I think my mum took me to Poland for her sister’s wedding and we actually (…) my auntie’s and a lot of people, like guests, they were basically dancing with me. I was like only two and everybody was trying to take care of me, but I was mostly crying during the wedding so (…) but I do remember like the music we had and like the cake.

The first part of the excerpt (Turns 1–35) is centred around two extended dyadic exchanges. The first one develops between Turns 1 and 20, and it is based on question–answer adjacency pairs. The facilitator’s opening questions (Turns 1, 3, 9, and 13) and polarised questions (Turns 5, 7, 11, 15, 17, and 19) support the development of JO’s narrative. It was pointed out earlier that polarised questions are efficient in promoting participation, but the form of participation that they project is often minimal. However, in Turns 5 and 15, polarised questions are followed by articulated answers.

7  WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD: A VIEW ON THE INTRICACIES… 

229

Dyadic exchanges were often observed in the data and represent an interesting object for the analysis of facilitation. Regardless of the actions that take place during dyadic exchanges, they produce a style of facilitation that favours closer relationships between the speakers involved, which is beneficial for the construction of personal trust. However, dyadic exchanges risk marginalising bystanders, who can be excluded from active participation over prolonged periods. This is particularly true of extended dyadic exchanges, such as the one that opens Excerpt 7.5. Analysis of the data suggests that the risk of marginalisation inherent in dyadic exchanges can be defused with the use, upon completion of the dyadic sequence, of facilitative actions that extend the area of active participation. It has been observed that invitations to talk are systematically utilised after dyadic sequences. In Turn 21 (replicated in Turn 23), the facilitator produces an invitation to talk. Turn 24 is an apparently minimal, non-verbal turn; however, it is an important element for the observation of facilitation, because it is a personal initiative taken by JO. Autonomously from a facilitator’s invitation to do so, JO manages turn-taking, selecting the next speaker. JONAS, the selected speaker, initiates a narrative related to memories of a wedding in Turn 25. The sequence of Turns 25 to 33 is another dyadic exchange. Although the dyadic exchange is structured by question–answer adjacency pairs (Turns 28–29, 30–31, and 32–33), it appears to be more complex than the previous one in the excerpt. Questions are combined with a wide range of facilitative actions: a formulation as explication (Turn 26), a change-of-state token and a formulation (Turn 28), and a change-of-state token (Turn 30). It is a style of facilitation based on invitations to expand the narrative and a display of active and authentic listening. In conclusion of the dyadic exchange, Turn 34 is an invitation to talk that throws out a net to provoke contributions from more children. The opportunity to become the next speaker is taken by LUDMILA, who starts a new narrative in Turn 35.

230 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

Excerpt 7.5, Part 2 Participants Setting Length of workshop Length of excerpt Local context

FACilitator, LAUREN (f, 7, NMB), DARIO (m, 7, MB), JAY (f, 7, NMB) School1, pm session 45 minutes 1 minute 15 seconds (min 14 to 15 in workshop) Continuation of Excerpt 7.5, part 1

36. FAC: Does anybody (?) going to see (…). I don’t know about how you felt, but you’ve reminded me how it’s lovely to see everybody at weddings. You see people you haven’t seen for ages, and you think, ‘oh I forgot about you, am I related to you?’ There are some cousins you might have or friends who are a bit annoying (?). Do you remember that from a wedding, do you remember that did you have to do that at your wedding, what did you have to do, what stuff happened? 37. LAUREN: (Gestures with hands) Because I was smaller, I had to go and say hello (?). 38. FAC: Yes, it’s hard to connect to someone when you’ve not seen them for a while and you’ve got to go up and talk to them, and you’re like what are you going to talk about and you’ve kind of got so many connections and stuff, I always feel a bit shy too. Does anybody else want to share a wedding experience? We’ve got a few eager (…) 39. DARIO: I went to a wedding, me and my cousin were playing around there, and the people did not see us on stage and then I fell in the curtain. 40. FAC: Oh wow. The people that were getting married? 41. DARIO: Yeah. (continued)

7  WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD: A VIEW ON THE INTRICACIES… 

231

Excerpt 7.5  (continued)

42. FAC: What happened? I have to say when I went to a wedding, I don’t know about you, but I went to a Christian wedding like you and the bride was all in white. But then the same year I went to a Hindu wedding and the bride was in red, and she just looked, and she had all gold over her, she just looked stunning. It was so different, the Hindu wedding to the Christian wedding, where it was a white dress and there was loads of colours at the Hindu wedding. Very colourful outfits and beautiful makeup. And I just couldn’t believe it. I felt like I was looking at princesses, you know. It was very different for me to go to different faith weddings. Has anybody else had that experience of going to a ceremony that is different to theirs? Does anybody want to share? 43. (JO indicates JAY). 44. JAY: (Waves hands around as speaking) I’ve been to a wedding which basically there was plenty of juices at the far back. So, we got (…) we mixed all of the juices and we put pepper (?) and we were daring them to drink it. And I got another one which the cucumbers and then we got started fighting with the cucumbers.

The second part of the excerpt (Turns 36–44) begins with a tripartite turn at talk. The first unit of the turn refers to LUDMILA’s narrative, acknowledging the child’s epistemic authority. LUDMILA’s narrative is making a difference in the context of the interaction because it has reminded the facilitator of feelings and emotions related to weddings. The second unit is a personal comment that makes relevant expectations of self-expression, models personal disclosure and invites children’s trust in the possibility to participate in the interaction as persons rather than roles, as children rather than pupils. The third unit of the turn is an invitation to talk. Although performed through a somehow convoluted question, the invitation to talk succeeds in promoting the interlacement of a new narrative. In Turn 37, LAUREN accesses the role of speaker to produce a

232 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

narrative. Unfortunately, the second part of Turn 37 was one of the rare occurrences where the video recording does not support the understanding of the conversation. In Turn 38, the facilitator introduces for the second time the theme of emotions and when meeting relatives, again sharing a personal story, followed by an invitation to talk. The invitation to talk does ask to talk about feelings and emotions. This is an important aspect, because it signals that the facilitator is promoting agency, not trying to impose her agenda. In Turn 39, DARIO takes the role of speaker, choosing to narrate events rather than emotions. DARIO’s choice demonstrates autonomy; it is a personal initiative that is accepted by the facilitator as a legitimate platform for further conversation. This is demonstrated by the invitation to expand the narrative in Turn 40, anticipated by a change-ofstake token; the invitation to expand is a polarised question that achieves a minimal form of participation in Turn 41. An interesting development of the interaction begins at Turn 42. The first unit of the turn is an open question, probably designed to invite further expansion. However, although the open question projects a change of speaker, the facilitator rushes through to maintain the role of current speaker, utilised to author an extended personal story that introduces a new theme related to cultural habits. Turn 42 is closed by an invitation to talk that, unlike the one in Turn 38, presents an expectation of narrative centred around a specific theme, cultural differences. Turn 43 is a personal initiative taken by JO who, as in Turn 24, accesses the role of turn-taking manager to select JAY as the next speaker. Whilst DARIO’s narrative in Turn 39 can be interpreted as a personal initiative, because it did not develop the theme of emotions introduced by the facilitator’s personal stories in Turns 36 and 38, it followed an invitation to talk that did not project an expectation of children’s alignment with the theme introduced by the facilitator. Non-focused invitations to talk do not orientate the development of interaction as focused invitations to talk. JAY’s personal initiative in Turn 44 is therefore a striking example of agency. JAY chooses not to align with the theme explicitly proposed by the facilitator’s invitation to talk. Rather than following the facilitator’s invitation to narrate experiences of cultural differences, JAY’s narrative is centred around personal memories of a family wedding party.

7  WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD: A VIEW ON THE INTRICACIES… 

233

Excerpt 7.5, Part 3 Participants Setting Length of workshop Length of excerpt Local context

FACilitator, FARAH (f, 7, MB), JAY (f, 7, NMB) School1, pm session 45 minutes 1 minutes 45 seconds (min 15 to 17 in workshop) Continuation of Excerpt 7.5, part 2

5. FAC: At the wedding? 4 46. JAY: (smiles) Yeah. 47. FAC: And do you think the adults knew that you were doing all of this at the wedding? 48. JAY: Yeah. 49. FAC: And was this a children’s kind of, young people’s lives at the wedding, what do you do, that’s interesting, so you were doing potions and dares at the wedding? 50. JAY. Yeah, and our parents were just dancing. 51. FAC. And do you think the parents knew what you were doing all of the time, all of these potions and 52. JAY. Yeah. 53. FAC: They did and they were okay with it? 54. JAY: Yeah. 55. FAC: And who were you doing these potions with? Were they people that you normally see? 56. JAY: (Smiles) Yeah and some people that I don’t normally see. 57. FAC: So, would it be a member of your family or 58. JAY: Friends and family. 59. FAC: Both. Yeah, you see them every time there is an event. 60. FARAH: When I was six I went to a wedding. There was some policemen in a car (?) and my mum was talking to them (?). 61. FAC: You went into them, and what did he say to you? 62. FARAH: I felt embarrassed for the rest of the day. 63. FAC: What sort of wedding was it that you went to? 64. FARAH: It was in Thailand.

234 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

Taking a personal initiative demonstrates that the child positions him-/ herself as an agent who can make autonomous choices in the local context of interaction. How does the facilitator position children and herself? As previously discussed, this is demonstrated in the first interactive slot after the personal initiative, Turn 45. In Turn 45, the facilitator supports JAY’s agency, inviting him to expand on the narrative. Turn 45 inaugurates a third dyadic exchange based on question–answer adjacency pairs, where JAY’s participation is supported by polarised questions that invite expansion (Turns 45, 47, 49, 51, 53, 55, and 57). In Turn 59, the facilitator produces a formulation as explication, proposing a summarised interpretation and a closure of the previous dyadic exchange. During project-based approach workshops, formulations are commonly followed by an invitation to expand addressed to the current speaker or by an invitation to interlace new narratives addressed to bystanders. However, the formulation in Turn 59 is a rare stand-alone formulation. A change of speaker is still relevant at the conclusion of the formulation, even without an invitation to talk, because a change of speaker is always relevant after the completion of a turn at talk. The difference between the combination of a formulation and an invitation to talk and a stand-alone formulation is that the latter does not project any preference regarding the next speaker. Nevertheless, research that emerged from the idea of conversation as ongoing state of incipient talk (Schegloff & Sacks, 1973) identified a default preference for the minimalization of change in the role of speaker (Hoey, 2015). This preference would imply that JAY, who is already engaged in the dyadic exchange, is the designated next speaker. Based on this consideration, FARAH’s self-selection as the next speaker in Turn 60 thus represents a personal initiative to access the status of author of knowledge. After FARAH’s contribution, a fourth dyadic exchange develops (Turns 60–64), similar to the previous exchange between JO and the facilitator.

7  WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD: A VIEW ON THE INTRICACIES… 

235

Excerpt 7.5, Part 4 Participants Setting Length of workshop Length of excerpt Local context

FACilitator, FARAH (f, 7, MB), MEE (f, 7, MB) School1, pm session 45 minutes 1 minute (min 18 in workshop) Continuation of Excerpt 7.5, part 3

65. FAC: In Thailand, you went to Thailand for a wedding. So, and how did the wedding, how did the ceremony work in Thailand, what was it like? 66. FARAH: The bride and the groom were colourful. 67. FAC: So, very colourful and elaborate outfits, yeah? 68. FARAH: And it took place at a temple (?) house. 69. FAC: Okay, and where did you go to the wedding? 70. FARAH: Groom’s house. 71. FAC: So, very different to your wedding, the wedding that you went to. So, we’ve had some different, we’ve had some weddings in temples, in houses, in churches, in registry offices. There’s a real mixture, everybody’s been to all kinds of weddings all in different places. It’s interesting to think about the different places they’re in. 72. MEE: (Smiles, uses hands to show the ‘whole’ cake). I went to this wedding, my mum and my dad we went there with my brothers and sisters, and then I ate all of the cakes because I was really hungry, and then my mum was shouting because I have eaten the whole cake and I was eating with my hand, my face was full of chocolate.

236 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

In Turn 64, FARAH refers to the national context of the narrative, Thailand. This reference offers an opportunity for the facilitator to reintroduce the theme of cultural differences, which was abandoned to follow JAY’s line of narration. The first unit of Turn 65 is a repetition that demonstrates active listening. The repetition is followed by an open question that invites further expansion of the narrative. During the dyadic exchange between the facilitator and FARAH (Turns 64–70), the child’s status as author of knowledge is supported by a formulation that demonstrates active listening (Turn 67, followed by an interrogative tag, yeah? that exposes the formulation to FARAH’s rejection). Expansion of the narrative is promoted again by an open question in Turn 69. Turn 71 is a pivotal turn in the excerpt, characterised by two consecutive formulations as the first two units. The first is a formulation as explication that extracts the gist of FARAH’s narrative. The second is a formulation as development that proposes possible implications of the child’s narrative. Both formulations highlight the intercultural meaning of FARAH’s narrative, as is the case for the personal comment in the third unit of the turn. Turn 72 is a personal initiative taken by MEE, echoing personal initiatives previously taken by DARIO and JAY. Rather than sharing a narrative centred on cultural difference, MEE self-selects as the next speaker to narrate family memories that are not culturally connotated. Personal initiatives such as those taken by MEE, JAY, DARIO, and FARAH in Excerpt 7.5 can subvert the trajectory of the interaction initiated by the facilitator. Children’s personal initiatives, whether or not they align with the trajectory of the interaction designed by the facilitator, are cues for the success of facilitation, and this is how our observation of project-based approach workshops approached them.

7.2  Intricate, But We Can Work It Out: Insights on the Interaction Between Facilitative Actions and Children’s Agency In the practice of project-based approach workshops, the promotion of children’s agency was based on the interaction of several facilitative actions and children’s personal initiatives. In this chapter, the discussion of longer illustrative excerpts allowed us to present two important insights from observations of project-based approach workshops. The first insight is that successful facilitation cannot be achieved with single actions; rather, facilitative actions are systematically combined in several ways. And second,

7  WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD: A VIEW ON THE INTRICACIES… 

237

even the most creative combinations of facilitative actions cannot guarantee the enhancement of dialogic pedagogy. Dialogic pedagogy is necessarily co-constructed; facilitation is not a tool to be used on children. Dialogic pedagogy is not the automatic outcome of a well-planned technical procedure; the consideration of children’s self-determination implies that it is unavoidable for the facilitator to expect the unexpected. A final consideration concerns the style of facilitation that emerged from the observation of project-based approach workshops. The style of facilitation was characterised by a wide range of facilitative actions, often combined in complex turns at talk. Methodologically, this style of facilitation is far from laissez-faire models where the facilitator limits his or her participation to leave more space for participants’ initiatives (Baraldi et al., 2021). Contrary to laissez-faire models, the facilitators were active participants in project-based approach workshops, participants who worked incessantly to support children’s agency. The engagement of the facilitator forged a style actively engaged to demonstrate acknowledgement of children’s agentic status as authors of knowledge. In several interactions, the commitment to promote active participation underpinned the facilitator’s choice to access the role of co-author of narratives, though always preserving the status of children as initiators and the main authors of narratives. Emergent listening to the voices of children and promotion of agency are put to the test when children choose to remain at the margins of an interaction. A challenge for all methodologies aimed at promoting children’s participation in educational interactions, which was already acknowledged in the pioneering work of Gordon (1974), consists of situations where children choose not to participate. This is the same problem encountered by Roger’s client-centred therapy (Rogers, 1951), which was the main inspiration for Gordon’s pedagogy: The promotion of active engagement can encounter an apparently insurmountable obstacle when participants in an interaction whose actions are promoted do not want to actively engage. Facilitation is methodologically based on the idea that children’s participation cannot be the outcome of adults’ pressure, because that would hinder children’s self-determination. The use of promotional questions or invitations to talk to facilitate active engagement without forcing participation is a pivotal technique for facilitation just as it is for neo-Vygotskyian methodologies such as scaffolding, sustained shared thinking, or interthinking. Promotional questions and invitations to talk aim to create favourable conditions for children’s self-selection as active participants in

238 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

interactions. The technique of ‘throwing out a net’ is an example of facilitating the self-selection of children. Self-selection as active participants in an interaction may represent an instance of children’s self-determination. However, as noted by Baraldi and colleagues (2021), facilitating the self-selection of participants may coincide with the ethos of facilitation, but it is not necessarily sufficient to achieve the aim of facilitation. The limit of promoting self-selection coincides with situations in which children choose to self-marginalise from active participation, thereby avoiding the net thrown by a facilitator’s promotional questions and invitations to talk. International research in educational contexts with young children has pointed to some possible underlying reasons for self-marginalisation from active participation; these include challenges in oral production in the host language (Herrlitz & Maier, 2005), challenges in understanding the cultural orientations prevalent in schools (Harris & Kaur, 2012; Burger, 2013), disabilities (Allan, 2010; Anaby et  al., 2013), and disadvantaged socio-economic status (Aturupane et al., 2013). A paradox emerges, where safeguarding children’s self-determination (hence, not forcing active participation) is intertwined with the risk of contributing to self-marginalisation. Nevertheless, as suggested by pragmatist philosophy, at the level of social practices, paradoxes are managed in the same fashion as untangling a Gordian knot: A decision is made that dissolves the paradox by choosing one side of it against the other. For instance, Gordon chose to prioritise the promotion of active participation at the cost of hindering self-determination, accepting the risk that active participation could become role performance imposed on children (Gordon, 1974). Laissez-faire methodologies, in contrast, prioritise selfdetermination (Mintz, 1994, 2003), thereby accepting the risk of validating emerging patterns of marginalisation based on children’s self-exclusion. Research in facilitation has reflected on the paradoxical coupling of the ethical commitment to prioritising children’s self-determination and the methodological risk of supporting self-marginalisation (Farini, 2011; Baraldi & Farini, 2011; Farini & Scollan, 2019; Baraldi et al., 2021). One proposed solution (Baraldi et al., 2021) consists of a mid-range approach, between putting pressure on children and laissez-faire. The research presented in this book applied this mid-range approach during project-based approach workshops. Laissez-faire approaches resonated in the ‘throwing out the net’ technique, but they were combined with an active engagement of the facilitator to extend the area of active participation. Such engagement was implemented through several facilitative

7  WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD: A VIEW ON THE INTRICACIES… 

239

actions that all converged in the effort to create favourable conditions for participations based on expectations of personal expression and mutual trust. Those facilitative actions consisted of (1) actions of positive feedback, dedicated to demonstrating appreciation for children’s contribution while reducing concerns about the risk of judgement (appreciation, change-of-state tokens); (2) actions to promote active participation by exerting mild pressures on children, as a mitigated version of Gordonian strategies (focused questions); (3) actions that model personal expression, self-disclosure, and engagement in an interaction as a person rather than a role. By offering her-/himself as a ‘living example’ of personal expression, the facilitator demonstrates trust in children, which is considered a powerful way to promote children’s trust in the facilitator and trust in peers, as well as confidence in the safety of the interaction as a space for personal expression. Facilitation is therefore owned by the context and those in it. Facilitation cannot neutralise the risk of some children’s self-marginalisation. This is true of all forms of educational communication as soon as it moves away from an authoritarian framework. On the other hand, the participation secured by authoritarian models is participation of role, not participation of children (Farini, 2019). However, whilst facilitation cannot neutralise the risk of self-marginalisation of some children, empirical research has suggested that its combination of laissez-faire techniques, low-intensity Gordonian techniques, and role modelling can be successful in extending the area of active participation well beyond the area of active participation in the same context during ordinary instructional activities (Warming, 2012; Baraldi et al., 2021; Farini et al., 2023).

On completion of Chap. 7, Federico Farini and Angela Scollan propose the following questions to provoke further reflection, research, and dialogue: • What is the difference between self-determination and the laissez-faire methodology? • Why is facilitation as implemented during project-based approach workshops defined as a mid-range approach? • Both facilitation and neo-Vygotskyian methodologies use questions and invitations to talk. What is the difference between the two in terms of the positioning of children and adults?

240 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

References Allan, J. (2010). Questions of inclusion in Scotland and Europe. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 25(2), 199–208. Anaby, D., Hand, C., Bradley, L., Di Rezze, B., Forhan, M., Di Giacomo, A., et al. (2013). The effect of the environment on participation of children and youth with disabilities: A scoping review. Disability and rehabilitation, 35(19), 1589–1598. Aturupane, H., Glewwe, P., & Wisniewski, S. (2013). The impact of school quality, socioeconomic factors, and child health on students’ academic performance: Evidence from Sri Lankan primary schools. Education Economics, 21(1), 2–37. Baraldi, C., & Farini, F. (2011). Dialogic mediation in international groups of adolescents. Language and Dialogue, 1(2), 207–232. Baraldi, C., Joslyn, E., & Farini, F. (Eds.). (2021). Promoting children’s rights in European Schools. Intercultural dialogue and facilitative pedagogy. Bloomsbury. Burger, K. (2013). Early childhood care and education and equality of opportunity. Springer. Elfer, P., Goldschmied, E., & Selleck, D. Y. (2012). Key Persons in the Early Years. Building relationships for quality provision in early years settings and primary schools. David Fulton. Farini, F. (2011). Cultures of education in action: Research on the relationship between interaction and cultural presuppositions regarding education in an international educational setting. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(8), 2176–2186. Farini, F. (2019). As a conclusion, to the future: A Discussion on trust, agency and the semantics of rights in intergenerational relationships. In F.  Farini & A. Scollan (Eds.), Children’s self-determination in the context of early childhood education and services: Discourses, policies and practices (pp. 267–280). Springer. Farini, F., Baraldi, C., Scollan, A. (2023). This is my truth, tell me yours. Positioning children as authors of knowledge through facilitation of narratives in dialogic interactions. Practice: Contemporary Issues in Practitioner Education, https://doi.org/10.1080/25783858.2023.2177185 Farini, F., & Scollan, A. (Eds.). (2019). Children’s self-determination in the context of early childhood education and services: Discourses, policies and practices. Springer. Gordon, T. (1974). Teacher effectiveness Training. Three Rivers Press. Harris, F., & Kaur, B. (2012). Challenging the notions of partnership and collaboration in early childhood education: A critical. perspective from a whanau class in New Zealand. Global Studies of Childhood, 2(1), 4–12. Herrlitz, W., & Maier, R. (Eds.). (2005). Dialogue in and around multicultural schools. Niemeyer. Hoey, E. M. (2015). Lapses: How people arrive at, and deal with, discontinuities in talk. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48(4), 430–453.

7  WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD: A VIEW ON THE INTRICACIES… 

241

Holliday, A. (1999). Small Cultures. Applied Linguistics, 20 (2): 237–264. Holliday, A. (2011). Intercultural communication and ideology. Sage. Levinson, S. & Torreira, F. (2015). Timing in turn-taking and its implications for processing models of language. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. DOI: 10.3389/ fpsyg.2015.00731 Mintz, J. (1994). Handbook of alternative education. Macmillan. Mintz, J. (2003). No homework and recess all day: How to have. freedom and democracy in education. AERO. Rogers, C. (1951). Client-centred therapy: Its current practice, implications and theory. Constable. Schegloff, E.  A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8(4), 289–327. Steensen, S. (2014). Conversing the audience: A methodological exploration of how conversation analysis can contribute to the analysis of interactive journalism. New Media and Society, 16(8), 1197–1213. Tannen, D. (1984). Conversational style: Analyzing talk among friends. Oxford University Press. Walker, G. (2004). On some interactional and phonetic properties of increments to turns in talk-in-interaction. In E.  Couper-Kuhlen & C.  E. Ford (Eds.), Sound patterns in interaction. Cross-linguistic studies from conversation (pp. 147–169). John Benjamins. Walker, G. (2010). The phonetic constitution of a turn-holding practice: Rushthroughs in English talk-in-interaction. In D. Barth-Weingarten, E. Reber, & M. Selting (Eds.), Prosody in interaction (pp. 153–180). De Gruyer Mouton. Warming, H. (2012). Children’s citizenship in Globalised Societies. In C. Baraldi & V. Iervese (Eds.), Participation, facilitation, and mediation: Children and young people in their social contexts (pp. 30–48). Routledge.

CHAPTER 8

Trusting the Process: Pedagogical Innovation for Children’s Agency in the Classroom

8.1   Introduction Previous research examined the impact of facilitative actions in a range of social contexts (for instance Black, 2008; Bohm, 1996; Gergen et  al., 2001; Baraldi, 2013; Baraldi & Gavioli, 2020, Baraldi et al., 2021). With regard to educational encounters, observations of project-based approach workshops, whose outcomes were illustrated by the discussion of selected excerpts, suggested that facilitation could support dialogic pedagogy by positioning children as agentic authors of knowledge. In Chap. 3, facilitation was discussed as a form of communication characterised by the interaction between adults’ actions that support agency and children’s actions that demonstrate agency (Wyness, 2013; Baraldi, 2014; Baraldi & Iervese, 2017). Notwithstanding a varied morphology, all facilitative actions share a common objective: upgrading children’s epistemic authority as authors of knowledge. Facilitation positions children as agents who can choose whether and how to express their perspectives and experiences, co-­ constructing the social contexts of their experiences (Baraldi and Iervese, 2014, 2017; Wyness, 2013). Reflection on observations of activities during project-based approach workshops, supported by a thorough examination of the literature, indicates that facilitation can successfully support children’s agency if the following aspects are considered:

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 F. Farini, A. Scollan, Pedagogical Innovation for Children’s Agency in the Classroom, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28501-1_8

243

244 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

(1) The facilitative actions that promote children’s agency as authors of knowledge more efficiently are also the very ones that can hinder children’s agency more efficiently. Whilst minimal actions entail minimal risks, complex actions such as questions, formulations, and, in particular, comments are more powerful in promoting children’s authorship of narratives, but at the same time they can impose a facilitator’s agenda and control over the interaction. (2) Facilitation is a methodology for the enhancement of dialogic pedagogy. Facilitation is also the context where dialogic pedagogy becomes ‘real’ in interactive practices. Dialogic pedagogy is not a one-way form of communication where knowledge is passed from the more knowledgeable (the adult) to the less knowledgeable (the children). Dialogic pedagogy promotes equal opportunities of participation and a positive connotation of personal contributions. For this reason, the methodology of facilitation must be prepared to ‘deal with the unpredictable’, interacting with children’s personal initiatives. (3) Facilitation fosters a reflective approach to practice, which is defined within the field of early childhood education as professional creativity (Craft, 2011; Nutbrown, 2012; Moss, 2016). Reflection on the use of facilitation, as argued by Freire regarding the use of dialogue in education (Freire, 1970), should include a consideration of the local context, for instance of a specific setting’s culture, vision, and strategy (Pascal & Bertram, 2014; Gallagher et al., 2017). The facilitator’s investment in researching the contexts that facilitation aims to transform is key to success.

8.2   Facilitators Are Unique Too, and This Is Important for the Design of Project-Based Approach Workshops In light of their success in the facilitation of children’s agency, we believe it may be helpful for practitioners who are interested in the use of facilitation within project-based approach workshops to share the methodology we used to design them. We call our methodology facilitator-work based design. As the name suggests, facilitator-work based design is underpinned by the idea of the uniqueness of facilitators’ work. The idea of the unique facilitator mirrors the idea of a unique child, which is so important for early childhood education. Facilitator-work based design is characterised

8  TRUSTING THE PROCESS: PEDAGOGICAL INNOVATION FOR CHILDREN’S… 

245

by (1) the inclusion of the methodological and ethical underpinnings of facilitation; (2) an evidence-based knowledge of how facilitative actions can upgrade children’s epistemic status and agency as authors of knowledge; (3) continuing reflection in and on the practice of facilitation. Facilitation is underpinned by the vision of the uniqueness of children, of their knowledges, experiences, and how they express themselves. The facilitator-work based design recognises that facilitators are unique too. Facilitators engage with facilitation in unique ways, moving throughout different styles, experiences, and self-perceptions. Educational experiences, professional training, and pedagogical identities influence the work of facilitators as much as the work of all practitioners (Paige-Smith & Craft, 2008; Bruce, 2012; Davies, 2014; Clark, 2017, 2020; Allen et al., 2019; Cameron & Moss, 2020). Coherently with the tenets of critical pedagogy, the facilitator-work based design sees project-based approach workshops as a multilayered journey where reflection feeds diffractive questioning and insight into the praxis of facilitation. The facilitator-work based design engages us in self-­ assessment and causes us to wonder about why we do what we do. The facilitator-work based design aims to foster sustainable conditions for reflection in and on action (Schön, 1987). Diffractive questions we asked ourselves can be categorised into two types. The first type of diffractive question are questions that support reflection in action, questioning facilitation during facilitation, both as a methodology and local context. How will I know the aim of the project-­ based approach workshop is achieved? How will I know if facilitation is developing as a local context conducive to children’s agency? How do I know when to pull back or move forward with specific facilitative actions? How can I seek evidence of children’s trust in the possibility of taking on the role of expert and educators of the educator? The discussion of facilitative actions (Chap. 5), children’s personal initiatives (Chap. 6), and their interlacements in the reality of facilitation, illustrated by longer excerpts (Chap. 7), offers the tool to tackle reflection in action. The RARA Key model (Scollan, 2009) is a reflective tool that we utilised for facilitator-work based design to support continuing reflection in action. Recently updated with insights from action research with early childhood professionals (Farini & Scollan, 2019), the RARA Key model invites the articulation of reflection across four dimensions: (1) recognise, (2) adjust, (3) review, and (4) act. Figure 8.1 illustrates the complexity of the RARA Key model.

246 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

Fig. 8.1  RARA Key Model

Table 8.1 illustrates the application of the RARA Key to reflect in action about a specific aspect of facilitation, invitations to talk. The second type of diffractive question includes questions that support reflection on action, questioning facilitation after facilitation. This is where the facilitator refers to facilitative processes, engagements, and connections to consider what worked (or did not work) and why. Reflecting on action provokes the facilitator to be more conscious about the decisions made. Reflection on action can also concern a critical assessment of the position of facilitation vis-á-vis ordinary teaching activities and the demands of education. How can facilitation be incorporated into a long-­ term partnership with teaching? Is facilitation sustainable as a methodology for dialogic teaching, in light of the demands of the education system?

8  TRUSTING THE PROCESS: PEDAGOGICAL INNOVATION FOR CHILDREN’S… 

247

Table 8.1  Use of RARA Key model for facilitator-work based design Recognise Is there a need for change? Adjust

If a need for change is recognised, how do we know if we are focusing on the right action(s)?

Review

If a strategy or answer to a challenge or adjustment is found, question whether it is working? Will it always work? Why? Why not? Probe and review from a range of perspectives. Review with others and discuss.

Action

Act. Do. Change. If the review proves fruitful, is the local context changing? What actions are working and why?

How do we invite children’s participation? How might the approach or agenda need to change? Why? How is participation linked to the invitation to talk? Identify actions that work better than others to provoke participation, and reflect on why. Explore reasons, reactions, and impact. How can positive practice be extended and co-constructed? Is the change working? If it is or is not, pinpoint exact strengths/challenges. Why are ongoing changes or tweaks needed? Reflect on whether expectations are realistically aligned with children, context, and culture. How can we know, understand, and listen to the expectations, ideas, and contributions of others? Where and why does change begin? Who should instigate change? What is it about specific invitations to talk that invite participation and engagement? Break down the process. How do participants position themselves? Do children take personal initiatives? How? Why? Do adults need to intervene less or more to maintain participation? What are the themes of communication? Are personal expressions observable? Is the interlacement of narrative fluid, even without adult intervention? Why? How?

Reflection on action is supported with the inclusion of self-assessment tools in the facilitator-work based design approach. A self-assessment tool is identified in strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis. SWOT analysis originates from business studies, where it was developed as a tool to enhance productivity and deployment of resources (Learned et al., 1969). However, the use of SWOT analysis is now common across many sectors because it enables reflection on the impact of complex layers on the outcomes of decision-making. SWOT analysis can be an important resource for reflection (Glaister & Falshaw, 1999; Helms & Nixon, 2010; Allen et al., 2019). In particular, the facilitator-work based design values SWOT analysis to promote reflection that recognises the uniqueness of each facilitator, because self-­ assessment is based on the combination of knowledge of the ethos and methods of facilitation with the unique facilitator’s experiences of working

248 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

with children. Facilitator-work based design conceptualises SWOT analysis as a space where the theory of facilitation, the experience of the practice of facilitation, and the facilitator’s professional identity interact dialogically. The individual facilitator can incorporate the experience of interaction with children to enrich his or her professional identity. At the same time, the design of project-based approach workshops is enriched by the personal contribution of the facilitator. This is a movement between the individual and the social that characterises dialogical reflection in and on practice (Bohm, 1996; Moyles, 2006; Cable & Miller, 2011; Bath, 2013; Siraj-Blatchford & Hallett, 2014; White, 2014; Gallagher et  al., 2017; Clark, 2020). An example of the SWOT analysis we undertook for the facilitator-work based design is offered in what follows. Table  8.2 illustrates the elements of a SWOT analysis concerning the relationships between the philosophy of facilitation and our professional identity and positioning, which is key to reflecting on the viability of facilitation in the context of teaching practices. Table 8.2  Examples of diffractive questions in a SWOT analysis for facilitator-­ work based design What do we mean by ‘the child’ and how does it compare with our idea of ‘the pupil’? Does our pedagogical approach engage with the child or does it engage with the pupil? Define your professional identity and explain three key pedagogical characteristics that underpin how you engage or talk with children. How does professional identity influence how we talk with and listen to children? How are the child’s life experiences and knowledges listened to, and how are they engaged with and incorporated into classroom environments? Define what knowledge is. Is there room in the classroom for the knowledge brought in by the child? Where is that space? Is the only validated knowledge the one taken by the pupil from us? Why? How is the knowledge brought in by the child incorporated into the classroom? By who and why? Is the knowledge brought in by the child accepted or rejected? How? How do we communicate in the classroom? Is it a dialogue based on real listening? Is it a monologue instrumental to a one-way transmission of knowledge? What are the practical implications of how we communicate with the child, and what are the implications for the pupil? What do we want from children and children’s participation? Do we aim to gather evidence that supports assessment of development? Do we want to engage with the child or the pupil? Why? Do we want the pupil or the child to respond? Are we tuned into the child or pupil? Why? Reflecting on our answers to these question: Are choices, actions, ideas and beliefs compatible with facilitation? If not, can we or do we want to change anything? How?

8  TRUSTING THE PROCESS: PEDAGOGICAL INNOVATION FOR CHILDREN’S… 

249

SWOT analysis can be used to promote reflection on facilitation as a methodology for dialogic teaching and promote a critical assessment of facilitation as a local context of adult–child interactions. At the same time, reflection on facilitation can be an opportunity for facilitators to distance themselves from habitual practices that are often seen but unnoticed. Bringing to light the habitual is a necessary condition for the construction of a critical awareness, which is a tenet of Freire’s approach to critical pedagogy (Allen et al., 2019). The SWOT analysis and RARA Key model offer space to reflect on what we do and why we should look in depth at professional impact, influence, and agenda. This book is committed to transforming our experience in the use of facilitation, as well as our reflections on the use of facilitation, into a resource for those interested in promoting favourable conditions for children’s agency in educational contexts. Outlining the pillars of facilitator-­ work based design as a methodology that incorporates the reflectivity and the creativity of the unique practitioner in the design of project-based approach workshops was essential for our endeavour. Outlining the pillars of facilitator-work based design also provoked further reflection on the transformative capability of facilitation. The outcome of such reflection was an innovative theorisation of facilitation as an environment that enables.

8.3   We Got Praxis! A New Idea Emerging from Reflection on Practice: Facilitation as an Environment That Enables Now, we believe, we are in a position to argue that facilitation can transform the classroom into an environment that enables children’s agency by upgrading their epistemic status and positioning them as legitimate authors of knowledge. In this way, facilitation can enhance dialogue as a praxis of critical pedagogy, that is, a praxis of educational encounters where adults and children co-construct knowledge, with all participants becoming conscious of their own position and other participants’ positions in the local, micro context of interactions, in the meso context of education, and in the macro context of society. This section discusses the characteristics of environments that enable, comparing them to the characteristics of enabling environments (Department for Education, 2017, 2021a). A following section argues that facilitation can become an environment that enables because it is

250 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

based on the ethical and methodological tenets of pedagogies of listening (Bath, 2013; Davies, 2014; Clark, 2020). A third section reflects on the implication of the concept of environment that enables for the positioning of children and adults in educational interactions. The final section summarises the main aspects of the theoretical innovation introduced. Since 2012, enabling environments has been one of four themes of the early years foundation stage, the framework for early years education in England and Wales (Department for Education, 2017, 2021a). Enabling environments are described as rich, stimulating, and safe spaces that offer children opportunities to play, to learn and to explore both physically and cognitively. The early years foundation stage describes enabling environments as spaces of child-centred activities, where children are valued and encouraged to be independent, resilient, capable, confident, and self-assured. However, the concept of enabling environment presented in the early years foundation stage is not exempt from criticism; for instance, its ideological underpinnings can be unpacked, following Keevers and Treleaven’s invite to deconstruct ‘tools of the trade’ and ‘ways of working’ with diffractive questions (Keevers & Treleaven, 2011). Diffractive questions are an exercise in critical reflexivity to disentangle practices and concepts from their cultural and ideological background. Diffractive questioning of the culture of childhood and the position of adults and children that underpin the concept of enabling environment indicate its entanglement with an adult-centric vision. It is possible to critically review the definition of enabling environments proposed by the early years foundation stage: enabling environments are rich, stimulating, and safe spaces that offer children opportunities to play, to learn and to explore both physically and cognitively. Adults are positioned as the demiurges who construct the rich, stimulating, and safe space where children find opportunities to play, to learn, and to explore both physically and mentally that are offered to them. The critical examination of the concept of enabling environments presented in the early years foundation stage disentangles it from an adult-­ centric vision, where adults enable children, using the environment as an educational ‘tool of the trade’. The Early Years Inspection Handbook, issued by the Office for Standards in Education, can also be disentangled from the adult-centric vision that underpins it. Inspectors who visit early years settings are required to assess whether practitioners working with young children create an environment that supports the intent of an ambitious and coherently planned and sequenced curriculum (OFSTED, 2019, p.  34). A critical

8  TRUSTING THE PROCESS: PEDAGOGICAL INNOVATION FOR CHILDREN’S… 

251

review is again possible. Adults are responsible, working for children on behalf of children, to serve what they see as children’s needs. The emphasis on responsibility for children positions OFSTED’s concept of enabling environments within a children’s needs paradigm, suggesting limited trust in children’s contribution to their own education, and legitimises hierarchical generational order. Adults are responsible for creating an environment that supports the intent of a coherently planned and sequenced curriculum. Thus, adults are positioned as demiurges that create an enabling environment for children. Enabling environments are tools of the trade that serve adult-defined educational agendas, for children, not with children. The educational agenda is planned. Planning refers to modelling the future based on present expectations and ambition (Luhmann, 2005). The voices of children and their interests are de facto silenced by educational planning. The educational agenda is not only planned; it is also sequenced, that is, based on generalised assumptions about the development of children that do not consider the uniqueness of each person. The unique person of the child is replaced by the standardised role of the pupil. The most recent early years foundation stage framework (2021) confirms an adult-centric vision underpinning the concept of enabling environments. Emphasis is placed on adult leadership: Children learn and develop well in enabling environments with teaching and support from adults, who respond to their individual interests and needs and help them to build their learning over time. Children benefit from a strong partnership between practitioners and parents and/or carers’ (Department for Education, 2021a, p. 6)

Thus, the idea of enabling environments enshrined in the discourse of English early years policies distances itself from the ethos and methods of early childhood education discussed in this book. Also, it is far from the philosophy of dialogic pedagogy and the methodology of facilitation. The crucial difference is cultural and relates to the positioning of adults and children. The concept of enabling environments recognises the importance of children’s participation in their learning but falls short of recognising the importance of children’s agency in their own learning. Within enabling environments, children’s choices are promoted; however, they are promoted as long as they remain within the boundaries of adult-­ planned and adult-implemented learning environments. Our decision to critically approach the concept of enabling environment within the early years foundation stage, recognising its position with

252 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

a specific culture of childhood, was motivated by our reflection on the observation of project-based approach workshops. The observation of interactions during these workshops suggests that facilitation can become an environment that enables. Environments that enable is a concept that flips the narrative that sustains the concept of enabling environments, in particular the narrative of hierarchical positioning of children and adults, legitimised by the responsibility of adults towards children as a social group in need. What is the image of the child that underpins environments that enable? What are the characteristics of adult–child interactions in environments that enable? What are the characteristics of environments that enable? Enabling environments and environments that enable are not mutually exclusive or opposed; rather, they occupy two positions in a continuum of pedagogical practices. For instance, whilst enabling environments aim to empower children as decision makers, within boundaries imposed by adults (embracing the idea of conditional agency advanced by article 12 of the UNCRC, see Chap. 2), environments that enable recognise the role of adults as promoters of children’s agency. Both enabling environments and environments that enable acknowledge children’s capacity to construct their own social worlds. Important policies and position papers such as the Development Matters in the early years foundation stage (DfE, 2012a, 2021b), teachers’ standards (DfE, 2017), the early years foundation stage framework (DfE, 2021a), and the Pre-school Learning Alliance (2017) recognise enabling environments as indoor and outdoor spaces that nurture a sense of belonging, offer children risk-taking opportunities, encourage individual exploration, and celebrate diversity and difference. Those features of enabling environments are not averse to children’s agency. Like enabling environments, environments that enable position children as the enabl-ed. However, unlike enabling environment, environments that enable also position the child as the enabl-er, the author of knowledge and agent of learning, including adults’ learning. The ethos and practice of environments that enable are inspired by pedagogies that recognise children as autonomous authors of knowledge, supporting them in the expression of that knowledge (Rinaldi, 1998, 2005; Pahl, 2007; Edwards et al., 2011, 2016). During project-based approach workshops, facilitation positioned children as enablers and authors of knowledge for themselves and for adults by systematically upgrading their epistemic authority. Facilitation replaced

8  TRUSTING THE PROCESS: PEDAGOGICAL INNOVATION FOR CHILDREN’S… 

253

adults’ decision-making (the cornerstone of the concept and practice of enabling environments) with the positioning of children and adults as equal participants in the local context of interaction. Facilitation is not the creation of adult demiurges; rather, facilitation is a living amalgamation of spaces, people, identities, emotions, communication, and shared experiences. The pedagogical innovation implemented in the project-based approach workshops grew out of an interest in facilitating authorship of narratives to promote children’s access to the role of authors of knowledge. Chapter 3 was discussed the idea that the production of narratives can have an ontological function, contributing to the construction of personal identities. Sharing narratives may generate a situation of polyphony, where different perspectives and different experiences are combined in several intersecting stories. Enabling children as authors of narrative means facilitating the construction and negotiation of ontological narratives, those narratives of the self that contribute to create and renew personal identities. If narratives of the self are shared dialogically, they can be enriched by including other voices and perspectives within a polyphonic space. Me-ing is a concept introduced here to signify the construction and reconstruction of a fluid self via an agentic engagement both in the narration of personal experiences and in the narration of personal interpretations of what Somers (1994) calls the epic dramas of our time, that is, the social and cultural processes that affect the lives of the narrators. Narrators define their identity by positioning the narrated ‘self’ as participant in lived stories or by positioning the narrated self as opinionated observer of broader social process. As previously discussed, facilitation is a methodology of dialogic pedagogy, but it is also a local context structured by expectations of personal expression and trust in the viability of participation of children and adults as persons, rather than roles. The variety of children’s personal initiatives observed during project-based approach workshops indicated that facilitation succeeded in promoting expectations of personal expression via role modelling, systematic appreciation, and display of active listening. Whilst enabling environments are centred around adult decision-­ making, environments that enable position the environment at the centre. This is inspired by the Reggio Emilia approach, where a sociologically informed view of the environment was first developed. In the Reggio Emilia approach, the environment is conceptualised as a network of relationships and interactions. Building on the idea of the environment as a

254 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

physical and social space, reflection on the observation of project-based approach workshops invites the conceptualization of facilitation as an environment that enables, as a local context where children are recognised as responsible decision makers and authors of knowledge. Facilitation could support the consequentiality of children’s autonomous choices, thereby creating situations of agency (Dahlberg & Moss, 2005; Bruce, 2006, 2012; Baraldi & Iervese, 2012; Mica et al., 2012; Warming, 2013; Farini, 2014; Warming & Fahnøe, 2017). A characteristic of project-based approach workshops is that all participants in the interaction were positioned as enabl-er and enabl-ed. During the observed project-based approach workshops, children were enabled as authors of narratives; they were also enablers of others’ narratives through several instances of personal initiatives. The illustrative excerpts discussed in Chaps. 5, 6, and 7 are not exclusively concerned with facilitative actions. They also illustrate that children can enable facilitators’ agentic participation, to the degree that facilitators can enable children’s agentic participation. The concept of double contextuality of interaction (interaction as context-­renewing and context-shaped) is useful to understand the double nature of facilitation as a methodology for the construction of environments that enable and an environment that enables itself. Facilitation is a form of interaction that builds the local context of adult–child relationships; also, facilitation is the local social context of adult–child interactions. As an environment that enables, facilitation enhances the three essential components of dialogue: (1) positive view of children’s active and equal participation; (2) positioning of children as persons who can express their own perspectives, experiences, and emotions; and (3) empathy and expectations of personal expressions. Facilitation can construct positive learning environments as imagined by Sylva and colleagues in the influential report ‘The Effective Provision of Pre-School Education’ (Sylva et al., 2004). Positive learning environments are fluid, constructed, and reconstructed through continuing dialogue that can be initiated by either adults or children. Inspired by Freire’s concept of critical pedagogy as enabling pedagogy based on dialogue, we propose facilitation as an environment that enables agentic participation in education, where education is constructed with children, for children, and by children for adults. Along with many other voices, Wyness (2000) and the Organisation Mondial Pour l’Éducation Prescolaire (OMEP, 2010) recognise that if children’s agency is to be taken seriously, adults should listen to

8  TRUSTING THE PROCESS: PEDAGOGICAL INNOVATION FOR CHILDREN’S… 

255

perspectives and ideas expressed directly by children in all matters that relate to their lives. Critical examination can be devoted to the idea of giving children a voice asking diffractive questions: Who is giving children a voice? Don’t they have a voice already? Alderson (2008) argues that children’s voices are not a concession granted by adults. Children have a voice; the distinction concerns whether or not their voices are listened to. Lundy (2007) argues that listening is one thing, hearing and responding to what a child is saying or expressing is a completely different thing. It is important to consider, following Lundy (2007) and Jones and Welch (2013), that structures or interactions within educational practice can silence the voices of children, as suggested by the concept of listening filters (Scollan & Mc Neill, 2019). As suggested by Fig. 8.2, listening filters can relate to professional identities, legal frameworks, and narratives of intergenerational relationships that impact on whether, and how, children’s voices are listened to (Wyness, 2013). Real listening demands continuing reflection on the effect of listening. Real listening also demands a methodology to limit the risk of imposing adults’ agendas on children’s choices (Davies, 2014; Gallagher et  al., 2017; Clark, 2020). The observation of project-based approach workshops, corroborated by previous research (Baraldi et al., 2021; Farini & Scollan, 2021a), suggests that facilitation can be a methodology of real listening. As Murray and colleagues (2019, p. 24) argue, the onus is on responsible adults to explore ways of listening to and hearing forms of communication.

Fig. 8.2  Listening filters

256 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

In line with Dahlberg et al. (2006), facilitation recognises that practitioners work with children should take the risk of respectful listening to children. Alderson (2012) and Penn (2011, 2014) support a refocus and extension of the somewhat general phrase of ‘listening to children’. Within environments that enable, learning is viewed as a genuine partnership between adults and children, where the voices and choices of all stakeholders are listened to. Children’s decision-making is not conditional on adults’ approval because interactions are based on trust. Facilitation as an environment that enables is a social space where the voices of children are not only listened to; children’s voices are facilitated (but not controlled) in their expression. On the mutual influence between ways of listening and ways of acting, Jones (with Walker, 2012; with Welch, 2013) invites adults who are committed to real listening to position themselves as commentators of children’s contribution within dialogic interactions. As commentators, adults build their contributions around children’s initiatives, emphasising a vision of children as agents. The position of adults as commentators can be enhanced by facilitation. The pivotal role of a facilitator’s comments in supporting children’s agency was discussed in Chap. 5. Based on a solid methodology, the observation of project-based approach workshops suggest that a commitment to the co-construction of environments that enable implies that a facilitator participates in interactions as an organiser of learning who is always ready to learn, as a maestro who is prepared to be captured by music.

8.4  Closing down the Book, Opening up Opportunities for Change: Outlining Possible Implications for Policy and Practice This book presented insights that emerge from observations of a project of pedagogical innovation. The pedagogical innovation consists in the design of project-based approach workshops for the use of facilitation to promote the agency of children 7–8  years old in primary schools. The promotion of agency was pursued as promotion, based on facilitative actions, of children’s access to the role of authors of knowledge, in the form of narratives about personal and cultural memories. Theories of positioning, including theories of intergenerational order, theories of agency, and self-determination, were utilised to interpret the

8  TRUSTING THE PROCESS: PEDAGOGICAL INNOVATION FOR CHILDREN’S… 

257

positioning of adults and children in project-based approach workshops. We are in a position to argue that facilitation succeeded in transforming project-based approach workshops into environments that enable. Facilitation can be successful in promoting children’s agency by upgrading their epistemic status as authors of knowledge in classroom interactions. The promotion of agency is a consequence of facilitative actions that display the consequentiality of children’s choices based on self-­ determination, which are most evident when children take personal initiatives, although they can also be observed in the choice to accept invitations to talk or expand narratives. Facilitation can be adapted as a technique to support other pedagogical methodologies, with the caveat that facilitation can be utilised exclusively within activities aimed at promoting children’s active participation as personal expression. During facilitation, expectations of role performances and a curriculum-driven agenda should be ‘frozen’, allowing expectations of personal expression to guide adults’ and children’s contributions (Scollan & Joslyn, 2021). Facilitation can be flexibly used in any form of educational interaction. The analysis of how a range of facilitative actions promoted children’s agentic status as authors of knowledge during project-based approach workshops offers practical tools that can be used when working and dialoguing with children. The experiences and relationships nurtured during facilitation enhance teaching and learning (Farini & Scollan, 2021a, 2021b). We introduce the concept of live auditing to describe the possibility for all participants in facilitation to add, amend, and enhance the knowledge they are constructing. Live auditing constructs knowledge that can be transferred to other interactive contexts, for instance instructional activities or lessons. As a change in the structures of intergenerational relationships, the effects of facilitation go beyond the specific interactions where facilitation is utilised, tackling some of the challenges advanced by current policies that shape working with children. Numerous national and international policy documents argue that children’s engagement in education is higher if children’s self-determination is, to use the conceptual innovation advanced in this book, made consequential. For instance, the OECD’s ‘Education Policy Outlook 2019: Working Together to Help Students Achieve their Potential’ (OECD, 2019) argues that education should prioritise trust in children’s choices as a cornerstone of educational practices based on dialogue between all stakeholders. This book discussed how

258 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

facilitative actions can create conditions favourable for the development of authentic dialogue between adults and children. Dialogue is highlighted by UNESCO as that characteristic of a quality education that can support sustainable development (UNESCO, 2020). This is echoed by Birth to 5 Matters (Early Years Coalition, 2021) when replying to an invitation from the Early Years Coalition to ‘untangle’ what sustainability means. In particular, Birth to 5 Matters links sustainability of education to dialogue. Sustainability through dialogue should ensure that all needs and interests are considered by educational practices that aim for inclusiveness. ‘Realising the Ambition, Being Me’ (Education Scotland, 2020) insists that working with diverse families, children, and staff requires dialogue as the main tenet of sustainable practice. The observation of project-­based approach workshops identified, at the level of facilitative practices, the intersection between: (1) consequentiality of self-­ determination, which creates conditions for agency; (2) active engagement in interactions, which creates conditions for mutual trust; (3) equality in epistemic status; and (4) real listening and authentic dialogue. We suggest that facilitation can create conditions for authentic dialogue, thereby advancing itself as a methodology that can support sustainability in education. The enhancement of real listening of children’s voices that underpins authentic dialogue is not only key for education. The pivotal role of real listening for the well-being of children is emphatically advocated by the report Their Challenges Are Our Challenges (Anna Freud Centre, 2021) and the 1001 Critical Days Manifesto (Parent-Infant Foundation, 2020) and, already a decade ago, by the report Listening to Children’s Perspectives: Improving the Quality of Provision in Early Years Settings (Department for Education, 2012b). Facilitation positions children as authors of valid and valued knowledge, thereby nourishing each child’s talents. This is what characterises facilitation as an environment that enables. This is the transformation of the environment into a third teacher as in the Reggio Emilia approach (Rinaldi, 2012) and recent policy documents such as Out to Play (Education Scotland, 2018) and the Children’s Play Policy Forum’s Play Builds Children (The Children’s Play Policy Forum, 2019).

8  TRUSTING THE PROCESS: PEDAGOGICAL INNOVATION FOR CHILDREN’S… 

259

8.5   Be Bolshie! Soon after the completion of the project-based approach workshops, the COVID-19 pandemic changed the landscape of education. Sudden and often unplanned changes to educational practice had to be undertaken in a very short time. As education was adapting to the new situation, it became apparent that the effects of the pandemic were going to be felt well beyond the public health dimension; in particular, debate is ongoing around the responsibility of education settings to support children coping with the pandemic, trauma, and its management. As we were writing this book, a Head Teacher in one of the participating schools invited us for discussion and planning around the use of facilitation to support children sharing and reflecting on their experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. At the time of the completion of this book, training is being designed based on the results of our observation and reflections. An agreement with the school, approved by the boards of governors, has been reached for the delivery of training in the use of facilitation in the future, to be followed by the delivery of project-based approach workshops across several classes and ages. We would like to emphasise an interesting point that emerged in the discussion with the Head Teacher. Whilst discussing the positive impact of the project of pedagogical innovation for the children who participated in it, an idea emerged about supporting children to be bolshie. Bolshie is used for children who are agentic in their participation, in education as well as any social contexts of their experiences. Being bolshie in everyday interaction means to make one’s voice heard, without dismissing other voices. Bolshiness refers to actively carving out a space for agentic participation even when conditions may not be favourable, because one of the ethical legacies of this book should be that communication can change individuals’ position, expectations, and status, at least in the local contexts of everyday interactions, including in schools. We will conclude this book by proudly claiming that Our journey of pedagogical innovation facilitated  much-needed, and much-welcomed,  bolshiness

We hope that this book will make our journey a valuable resource for your own journey towards educational practices that combine learning with and from children to foster the promotion of children’s active citizenship in the classroom.

260 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

On completion of Chap. 8, Federico Farini and Angela Scollan propose the following questions to provoke further reflection, research, and dialogue: • How are reflection in action and reflection on action promoted within the facilitator-work based design? • What are the key differences between enabling environments and environments that enable? • Facilitation can create an environment that enables and is an environment that enables at once. With this in mind, reflect on the mutual influence between educational practices and their context.

References Alderson, P. (2008). Young Children’s rights: Exploring beliefs, principles and practice. Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Alderson, P. (2012). Rights respecting research: A commentary on the ‘right to be properly researched: Research with children in a messy, real world’. Children’s Geographies, 10(2), 233–239. Allen, S., Maureen, L., Whalley, M. E., & Scollan, A. (2019). Developing professional practice in the early years. Open University Press. Anna Freud Centre. (2021). Their challenges are our challenges. Retrieved December 16, 2022, from https://www.annafreud.org/media/13013/their-­ challenges-­are-­our-­challenges-­survey-­report.pdf Baraldi, C. (2013). Forms of decision making: Gatekeeping and dialogic coordination in CISV organizational meetings. The Journal of Business Communication, 50(4), 339–361. Baraldi, C. (2014). Children’s participation in communication systems: A theoretical perspective to shape research. Soul of society: A focus on the leaves of children and youth. Sociological studies on children and youth, 18, 63–92. Baraldi, C., & Gavioli, L. (2020). Managing uncertainty in healthcare interpreter-­ mediated interaction: On rendering question-answer sequences. Communication and Medicine, 15(2), 150–164. Baraldi, C., & Iervese, V. (Eds.). (2012). Participation, facilitation, and mediation. Children and young people in their social contexts. Routledge. Baraldi, C., & Iervese, V. (2014). Observing children’s capabilities as agency. In D.  Stoecklin & J.-M.  Bonvin (Eds.), Children’s rights and the capability approach: Challenges and prospects (pp. 43–65). Springer.

8  TRUSTING THE PROCESS: PEDAGOGICAL INNOVATION FOR CHILDREN’S… 

261

Baraldi, C., & Iervese, V. (2017). Narratives of memories and dialogue in multicultural classrooms. Narrative Inquiry, 27(2), 398–417. Baraldi, C., Joslyn, E., & Farini, F. (Eds.). (2021). Promoting Children’s rights in European schools. Intercultural dialogue and facilitative pedagogy. Bloomsbury. Bath, C. (2013). Conceptualising listening to young children as an ethic of care in early childhood education and care. Children and Society, 27(5), 361–371. Black, L. (2008). Deliberation, storytelling, and dialogic moments. Communication Theory, 18, 93–116. Bohm, D. (1996). On Dialogue. Routledge. Bruce, T. (2006). Early childhood. Sage. Bruce, T. (2012). Early childhood practice. Sage. Cable, C., & Miller, L. (2011). A new professionalism. In L. Miller & C. Cable (Eds.), Professionalization, leadership and Management in the Early Years (pp. 147–162). Sage. Cameron, C., & Moss, P. (2020). Transforming early childhood in England: Towards a democratic education. UCL Press. Children’s Play Policy Forum: Play Builds children. (2019). Retrieved December 12, 2022, from https://childrensplaypolicyforum.files.wordpress.com/2019/ 02/play-­builds-­children.pdf Clark, A. (2017). Listening to young children, expanded third edition: A guide to understanding and using the mosaic approach. National Children’s Bureau. Clark, A. (2020). Towards a listening ECEC system. In C. Cameron & P. Moss (Eds.), Transforming early childhood in England. Towards a democratic education (pp. 134–150). UCL Press. Craft, A. (2011). Creativity and Early Years Settings. In Paige–Smith, A. & A. Craft (Eds.) Developing Reflective Practice in the Early Years (pp. 93–107). Buckingham: Open University Press. Dahlberg, G., & Moss, P. (2005). Ethics and politics in early childhood education. Dahlberg, G., Moss, P., & Pence, A. (2006). Beyond quality in early childhood education and care. Falmer. Davies, B. (2014). Listening to children: Being and becoming. Routledge. Department for Education. (2012a). Development matters in the early years foundation stage. Retrieved December 3, 2022, from www.foundationyears.org. uk/files/2012/03/Development–Matters–FINAL–PRINT–AMENDED.pdf Department for Education. (2012b). Listening to children’s perspectives: Improving the quality of provision in the Early Years. Retrieved December 14, 2022, from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/ uploads/attachment_data/file/183412/DfE-­RR239b_report.pdf Department for Education. (2017). Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage: Setting the standards for learning, development and care for children from birth to five. Department for Education. Online. Retrieved December 10, 2022, from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/govern-

262 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

ment/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/596629/EYFS_ STATUTORY_FRAMEWORK_2017.pdf Department for Education. (2021a). Statutory framework for the early years foundation stage. Setting the standards for learning, development and care for children from birth to five. Retrieved December 13, 2022, fromhttps://assets. publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/974907/EYFS_framework_-­_March_2021.pdf Department for Education. (2021b). Development Matters. Non-statutory curriculum guidance for the early years foundation stage. Retrieved September 13, 2022, from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/ system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1007446/6.7534_DfE_ Development_Matters_Report_and_illustrations_web__2_.pdf Early Years Coalition (2021). Birth to 5 Matters. Non-statutory guidance for the Early Years Foundation Stage on behalf of the Early Years Coalition. (2021). Retrieved November 20, 2022, from https://www.birthto5matters.org.uk Education Scotland. (2018). Out to play: Practical guidance for creating outdoor play experiences in early learning and childcare. Retrieved December 12, 2022, from https://www.gov.scot/publications/out-­play-­practical-­guidance-­creating-­ outdoor-­play-­experiences-­children/ Education Scotland. (2020). Realising the ambition, being me. Retrieved December 13, 2022, from https://education.gov.scot/media/3bjpr3wa/realisingtheambition.pdf Edwards, C., Gandini, L., & Forman, G. E. (Eds.). (2011). The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia experience in transformation. Greenwood Press. Edwards, S., Skouteris, H., Cutter-Mackenzie, A., Rutherford, L., O’Conners, M., Mantilla, A., Morris, H., & Elliot, S. (2016). Young children learning about well–being and environmental education in the early years: A funds of knowledge approach. Early Years, 36(1), 33–50. Farini, F. (2014). Trust building as a strategy to avoid unintended consequences of education. The case study of international summer camps designed to promote peace and intercultural dialogue among adolescents. Journal of Peace Education, 11(1), 81–100. Farini, F., & Scollan, A. (Eds.). (2019). Children’s self-determination in the context of early childhood education and services: Discourses, policies and practices. Springer. Farini, F., & Scollan, A. (2021a). From enabling environments to environments that enable: Notes for theoretical innovation at the intersection between environments, learning and children’s agency. An Leanbh Óg: The OMEP Ireland Journal of Early Childhood Studies, 14. Farini, F., & Scollan, A. (2021b). Meanings and methods of pedagogical innovation. In F. Farini, C. Baraldi, & E. Joslyn (Eds.), Promoting Children’s rights in European schools. Intercultural dialogue and facilitative pedagogy. Bloomsbury.

8  TRUSTING THE PROCESS: PEDAGOGICAL INNOVATION FOR CHILDREN’S… 

263

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Herder & Herder. Gallagher, M., Prior, J., Needham, M., & Holmes, R. (2017). Listening differently: A pedagogy for expanded listening. British Educational Research Journal, 43(6), 1246–1265. Gergen, K. J., McNamee, S., & Barrett, F. J. (2001). Toward transformative dialogue. International Journal of Public Administration, 24(7–8), 679–707. Glaister, K.  W., & Falshaw, J.  R. (1999). Strategic planning stil l going strong. Long Range Planning, 32(1), 107–116. Helms, M. M., & Nixon, J. (2010). Exploring SWOT analysis –where are we now? A review of academic research from the last decade. Journal of Strategy and Management, 3(3), 215–251. Jones, P., & Welch, S. (2013). Rethinking children’s rights. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Keevers, L., & Treleaven, L. (2011). Organizing practices of reflection: A practice-­ based study. Management Learning, 42(5), 505–520. Learned, E.P., Christiansen, C.R., Andrews, K. & W.D.  Guth (1969). Business Policy: Text and Cases. Irwin: Homewood. Luhmann, N. (2005). Risk: A sociological theory. Transaction Publishers. Lundy, L. (2007). “Voice is not enough”: Conceptualising article 12 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. British Education Research Journal, 33(6), 927–942. Mica, A., Peisert, A., & Winczorek, J. (2012). Sociology and the unintended. Robert Merton revisited. Peter Lang. Moss, P. (2016). Why can’t we get beyond quality? Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 17(1): 8–15. Moyles, J. (2006). Just playing? Open University Press. Murray, J., Swadener, B. B., & Smith, K. (2019). Epilogue: Imagining child rights futures. In J. Murray, B. Swadener, & K. Smith (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of young Children’s rights (pp. 552–556). Routledge. Nutbrown, C. (2012). Foundations for Quality: The independent review of early education and childcare qualifications. Final Report. Retrieved December 21, 2022, from www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_ data/file/175463/Nutbrown–Review.pdf. OECD. (2019). The OECD education policy outlook: Working together to help students achieve their potential. Retrieved December 13, 2022, from https:// www.oecd-­ilibrary.org/deliver/2b8ad56e-­en.pdf?itemId=%2Fcontent%2Fpub lication%2F2b8ad56e-­enandmimeType=pdf OFSTED. (2019). The education inspection framework. Retrieved December 31, 2022, from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/ system/uploads/attachment_data/file/801429/Education_inspection_ framework.pdf

264 

F. FARINI AND A. SCOLLAN

Organisation Mondiale Pour l’Education Prescolaire. (2010). World organization for early childhood education. Retrieved November 24, 2022, from http:// www.omep2010.org Pahl, K. (2007). Creativity in events and practices: A lens for understanding children’s multimodal text. Literacy, 41(2): 86–92. Paige-Smith, A., & Craft, A. (2008). Developing reflective practice in the early years. Open University Press. Parent-Infant Foundation. (2020). 1001 critical days Manifesto. Retrieved December 12, 2022, from https://parentinfantfoundation.org.uk/wp-­ content/uploads/2019/09/1001-­days_oct16_1st.pdf Pascal, C. & Bertram, T. (2014). Early Years Literature Review. Retrieved December 21, 2022, from www.early–education.org.uk/early–years–literature–review Penn, H. (2011). Quality in early education and care. An international perspective. Open University Press. Penn, H. (2014). Understanding early childhood issues and controversies. Open University Press. Rinaldi, C. (1998). The emergent curriculum and social constructivism: An interview with Lella Gandini. In C. Edwards, L. Gandini, & G. Foreman (Eds.), The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia approach to early childhood education (pp. 101–112). Ablex Publishing. Rinaldi, C. (2005). In dialogue with Reggio Emilia. Routledge. Rinaldi, C. (2012). The pedagogy of listening: The listening perspective from Reggio Emilia. In C. P. Edwards, L. Gandini, & G. Forman (Eds.), The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia experience in transformation (pp. 233–246). Praeger. Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Towards a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. Jossey-Bass. Scollan, A. (2009, January 23). Academic and vocational progression routes for early years practitioners working towards ‘Early Years Professional Status’ (EYPS). Extended Services and Early Years Conference, London Borough of Sutton. Scollan, A., & Joslyn, E. (2021). SHARMED training: Design and practice. In C. Baraldi, E. Joslyn, & F. Farini (Eds.), Promoting Children’s rights in European schools. Intercultural dialogue and facilitative pedagogy (pp.  172–191). Bloomsbury. Scollan, A., & Mc Neill, E. (2019). Discourses/2. Ireland: Listening to children’s voices in Irish social work through cultural and organisational filters. In F. Farini & A. Scollan (Eds.), Children’s self-determination in the context of early childhood education and services: Discourses policies and practices (pp.  151–167). Springer International Publishing. Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Hallett, E. (2014). Effective and caring leadership in the early years. Sage.

8  TRUSTING THE PROCESS: PEDAGOGICAL INNOVATION FOR CHILDREN’S… 

265

Somers, M.  R. (1994). The narrative constitution of identity: A relational and network approach. Theory and Society, 23, 605–649. Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Taggart, B. (2004). The effective provision of pre-school education (EPPE) project technical paper 12: The final report. Institute of Education/Department for Education and Skills. UNESCO. (2020). Education for sustainable development. Retrieved December 18, 2022, from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000374802 Warming, H. (2013). Citizenship, participation and trust in children’s lives. Palgrave Macmillan. Warming, H., & Fahnøe, K. (2017). Lived citizenship on the edge of society: Rights, belonging, intimate life and spatiality. Palgrave Macmillan. White, E. J. (2014). Are you ‘Avin a Laff?’: A pedagogical response to Bakhtinian carnivalesque in early childhood education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 46(8), 898–913. Wyness, M. (2000). Contesting childhood. Falmer Press. Wyness, M. (2013). Children’s participation and intergenerational dialogue: Bringing adults back into the analysis. Childhood, 20(4), 429–442.



Appendix A: A Glossary

Although key terms are thoroughly discussed upon their first use, a small glossary that collates the definitions of the most commonly used concepts is provided for ease of consultation. Acknowledgement token Actions of minimal feedback

Agency

Appreciation

Acknowledgement tokens are an action of minimal feedback that can show an appreciation for the prior turn at talk. Acknowledgement tokens are used to display attention (active listening). Actions of minimal feedback include acknowledgement tokens, continuers, and repetitions (including partial repetitions). They are an essential tool for demonstrating active listening, thereby showing sensitivity for the interlocutors’ needs and feelings. Actions of minimal feedback can support children’s active participation whilst evincing an acknowledgement of children’s construction of knowledge. Agency is a key concept in childhood studies. Within the field of intergenerational relationships, a situation of agency relates to the possibility for children’s autonomous (i.e., not determined by adults’ actions) choices that can enhance social change in the local social context. Appreciations are a type of personal comment that provides affective support to children, showing that their stories are listened to and accepted. However, if appreciations are distributed selectively, they become a form of assessment.

(continued)

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 F. Farini, A. Scollan, Pedagogical Innovation for Children’s Agency in the Classroom, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28501-1

267

268 

APPENDIX A: A GLOSSARY

Comments

Consequentiality

Continuers

Epistemic authority

Epistemic Status

Formulation

Comments are personal contributions introducing new contents in the interaction. Comments can refer to the explicit contents of a prior turn at talk; comments can also introduce new elements (e.g., memories) that are not strictly connected to what has been uttered in the ongoing conversation. Consequentiality is an attribute of choices and actions to make a difference for others in a local social context. Consequentiality is the attribute that differentiates autonomous choices with autonomous and agentic choices. Agency exists when choices make a difference for others. Continuers are an action of minimal feedback that invite the current speaker to maintain the role of teller. They include interrogative confirmation, short confirmations, and other para-verbal signals. Epistemic authority refers to rights and responsibilities for constructing knowledge in the local contexts of a conversation. Within each interactive exchange, a speaker’s epistemic authority can be higher than, equal to, or lower than the epistemic authority of the other participants. High epistemic authority describes a position where the speaker is recognised as the author of valid knowledge that can make a difference for all participants in the local social context. The epistemic authority of a speaker changes according to the local social context. The epistemic authority in a local context is influenced by the epistemic status held by a speaker in the broader social system. Unlike epistemic status, epistemic authority can be negotiated at the micro level of specific interactions. Epistemic status refers to rights and responsibilities for constructing knowledge that are attached to a role within a social system. Epistemic status is not related to a person but to the role embodied by the person. For instance, the epistemic status of a teacher within the education system is related to the role of educator per se. The epistemic status is operationalised at the micro level of interactions as epistemic authority. Formulations are the main type of complex action of feedback. Formulations consist of turns at talk that summarize, gloss, or develop the gist of previous turns at talk. Formulations are a possible tool for active listening that demonstrate attention in the ongoing conversation. Formulations can also work as candidate representations of what an interlocutor can be taken as having said or meant, focusing on a particular element of the prior talk. Formulations can be used to test the producer’s understanding (formulations as explications). They can also be utilised to advance an underlying agenda on their producers’ part by introducing implicit implications of the formulated turn at talk (formulations as developments). Formulations open a sequential slot in which the interlocutor may, in the next turn at talk, accept, reject, or revise the formulation. When such a slot is provided, it signals high epistemic authority for the author of the formulated turn. When the slot is denied by the producer of the formulated turn, it signals low epistemic authority for the author of the formulated turn.

(continued)

  APPENDIX A: A GLOSSARY 

Me-ing

Narrative

Pedagogy

Praxis

Positioning

Questions (open questions/polarised questions)

269

Me-ing describes the continuing construction and reconstruction of a fluid identity through the narration of personal experiences and personal interpretations of the social world. The narrator defines his or her identity by positioning the narrated ‘self’ as participant in stories that concern his or her experiences or by presenting an interpretation of broader social events. Narratives are stories that are produced in all communication processes. Narratives can be seen as social constructions, in which the observed reality is interpreted and ‘storied’ in different ways. Narratives of the self are a type of story about a person’s past, character, thoughts, experiences, and relationships. Through narratives of the self, for instance, children construct their specificity and autonomy (uniqueness) by relating themselves to the past as they observe changes and constancy in time that make them unique. Pedagogy is a form of reflection on teaching practices. Pedagogy is scientific reflection because it takes place in connection with action following research methods that secure independence from the reflector’s bias. The use of a scientific method differentiates pedagogy from teaching observation. Praxis is the process by which theoretical knowledge, either scientific or experiential, is enacted. Praxis refers to the act of engaging, applying, or exercising ideas. Praxis posits a circular relationship between theoretical thinking and practical action, whereby theory informs practice and practice challenges, puts to the test, and reforms theory. For this reason, practitioners become theorists to the degree that reflection on practice is undertaken. Positioning is a social activity whereby people use words (and discourse of all types) to locate (position) themselves and others. A position is a cluster of short-term disputable rights, obligations, and duties. Each position entails different rights and claims them for us and places duties on others. Epistemic authority is an example of positioning Asking questions is a common action in any conversation; it is a versatile action that can be utilised for a wide range of pragmatic opportunities, well beyond seeking information. Questions can be utilised to invite participation. Questions can be posed in polarised and open formats. Polarised questions offer the choice between two options (e.g., yes or no). Open questions do not present a polar alternative, leaving more options to the recipient.



Appendix B: Ethical Procedures

Ethical standards include offering participants clear information to decide about whether or not to participate in the research. Key information needed to provide informed consent entails an explanation of how anonymity and confidentiality will be secured, what will be done with the data produced, and who will be privy to the findings and for what purpose. Another important characteristic of high ethical standards is returning the results of the research to the participants, for instance providing them with a summary of the results and the possibility to access the entire book on demand. This research was underpinned by rigorous ethical procedures. Approval was obtained from the ethics committees of the authors’ universities. Decisions concerning the research aims, design, and methods were informed by a strong sense of responsibility to participants. Taking personal responsibility meant acting honestly, conscientiously, fairly, reasonably, and in good faith, always, having regard for the rights and interests of children. Information about research methods was shared with all participants in advance. Informed consent was sought regarding all aspects of the research. Consent from children’s guardians was obtained before research was undertaken and documented through a signed agreement, with the possibility of using translations if needed, so that consent was genuinely informed.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 F. Farini, A. Scollan, Pedagogical Innovation for Children’s Agency in the Classroom, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28501-1

271

272 

APPENDIX B: ETHICAL PROCEDURES

Assent from children was obtained after research aims and activities were discussed in each class. Children were asked what part of the research they wanted to participate in; for example, it was considered that some children might want to listen to peers but not be captured on video or that some children might not have a photograph to share but still would want to share a personal story. Then children were asked ‘how’ they wanted to proceed (or not) and had the opportunity to decide. Alternative provisions and options were arranged for any children choosing not to take part in sharing photographs or join peer discussions. However, the implementation of this option was not necessary. Assent and consent from all participants were understood as a living and fluid agreement. Whilst children’s participation was essential for the research, their assent obtained prior to the research was not considered sufficient. Assent from children was sought verbally prior to each activity and was continuously monitored during the project-based approach workshops. A dynamic concept of assent meant that children were informed of their right to change their minds about participation also during research activities, for instance at the beginning of each activity. Opportunities for children to privately express to the researcher or the teacher a wish to withdraw were made available in case children felt pressured to participate or unable to withdraw within the classroom context. Additionally, we systematically checked for any sign of discomfort that could suggest a non-­ expressed intention to withdraw. We also co-constructed with children a simple code, for instance a word or a gesture, to signal the intention to withdraw from the activities so that they could leave the activity in a dignified manner. A space was also constructed away from the camera eye so that children could sit and listen if they decided not to continue with the activity. However, there was no circumstance when those safeguarding measures had to be implemented during the project-based approach workshops. As a facilitators, we position children as co-constructors of knowledge in classroom interactions; for this reason, all video recordings from relevant project-based approach workshops were made available to each cohort to be utilised as a learning and teaching resource, under two agreed conditions: (1) the school must submit an informed consent form to children and guardians regarding the use of video data for purposes not covered by the form that we had circulated; (2) the school must commit in writing to ensuring that data would be stored securely, adhering to the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (2018).

  APPENDIX B: ETHICAL PROCEDURES 

273

The management of data was underpinned by the GDPR Act 2018. All personal data were anonymised and kept secure. The risk of a potential breach of confidentiality and data protection was minimised using password-­protected storage. For instance, personal data that participants provided were not accessible to anyone besides the researcher. All personal information, video recordings, and transcripts were stored in encrypted files. Further data protection ensured that no data were sent via email or stored electronically on devices linked to the Internet. We were aware of EU Directive 95/46/EC and the new GDPR 2106/679, which regulates the use of personal data.



Appendix C: Demographic Profile of Participating Schools

School 1: London: England 2019 Demographic Data (Rights-Based School) State-Funded School—Mainstream Primary schools Total number of pupils enrolled: 271 Ofsted Report 2017: Good (brief inspection) One form entry Mixed-gender Overall absence Persistent absence nursery to Year 6 school 3.3% 10% or more AM/PM (ages 2–11 years) Girls enrolled: (below national non-attendance 43.5% (below average of 4%) throughout year national average of 5.4% 49%) (below national average of Boys enrolled: 8.2%) 56.5% (above national average of 51%) Pupils with SEN Pupils with SEN Pupils whose first Pupils eligible for free Education, Health, support: 13.7% language is not school meals at any time and Care Plan: 2.6% (above national English: 79.3% during the past 6 years (above national average of 12.6%) (above national 48.3% (above national average of 1.6%) average of 21.2%) average of 23%) Staff data: 16 teachers/ 15 teaching 5 support staff (catering/ Pupil-to-teacher teaching staff on assistants offering premises responsibility): ratio full/part time classroom support 4.6 full-time equivalent 20.0 (below contracts × 16 staff on full- or part-time national average of 12.3 full-time contracts: 11.2 20.7) equivalent full-time equivalent

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 F. Farini, A. Scollan, Pedagogical Innovation for Children’s Agency in the Classroom, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28501-1

275

276 

Appendix C: Demographic Profile of Participating Schools

Reading Above average 3.1

Writing Average 1.1

Maths Well above average 4.3

Pupils meeting expected standard in reading, writing, and maths (above national average) S1: 76% LA: 73% England: 65%

Pupils achieving at a higher standard in reading, writing, and maths (above national average) S1: 12% LA: 15% England: 11%

Average score in reading S1: 107 LA: 106 England: 104

Ofsted Report 2017 Nest steps: Progression for all planned and evidenced Disadvantaged/high achievers are supported to progress Early years builds on prior learning (less top down) Average score in maths S1: 109 LA: 107 England: 105

School 2: London: England 2019 Demographic Data (Non-Rights Based School) State-Funded School—Community School (primary) Total number of pupils enrolled: 623 (capacity 630) Ofsted Report 2019: Good (brief inspection) Three form entry Mixed domination Overall absence: Persistent absence: 10% nursery to Year 6 and gender school 3.8% or more AM/PM (ages 3–11 years) Girls enrolled: 45% (below national non-attendance (below national average of 4%) (throughout year) average of 49%) 8.1% Boys enrolled: 55% (below national average (above national of 8.2%) average of 51%) Pupils with SEN Pupils with SEN Pupils whose first Pupils eligible for free Education, Health, support language is not school meals (16.6%) at and Care Plan: 12.9% (above national English any time during the past 0.7% (below average of 12.6%) 63.4% (above 6 years (below national national average of national average average of 23%) 1.6%) of 21.2%)

  Appendix C: Demographic Profile of Participating Schools 

Staff Data: Pupil-to-teacher ratio: 22.2 (above national average of 20.7)

36 teachers/teaching staff on full-/ part-time contracts × 26 staff full-time equivalent

Reading Average 0.1

Writing Below average −2.3

Pupils meeting expected standard in reading, writing, and maths (below national average) S2: 72% (school web) S2: 60% DfE LA: 73% England: 65%

Pupils achieving at a higher standard in reading, writing, and maths (below national average) S2: 12% (school web) S2: 7% DfE LA: 15% England: 11%

27 teaching assistants offering classroom support on full- or part-time contracts 19.2 full-time equivalent Maths Average 0.1

Average score in reading S2: 108 (school web) S2: 104 DfE LA: 106 England: 104

277

11 support staff (catering/Premises responsibility) 8.1 full time equivalent

Ofsted Report Next Steps focus: Writing SEND (progress) Behaviour and middle management (alluded to in report) Average score in maths S2: 107 (school web) LA: 107 England: 105

Index

A Agency, 1, 2, 4, 7–9, 12, 13, 37, 40–44, 46, 61, 62, 64, 65, 67, 70, 72, 73, 75, 76, 78, 81, 84, 101, 105, 113, 121, 122, 128, 129, 143, 144, 156, 157, 159, 161, 163, 164, 167–176, 180, 182, 183, 185, 187, 194, 197, 198, 201, 204–206, 210, 219–221, 225, 226, 232, 234, 236–240, 243–260 Authentic education, 69, 103, 105, 129 B Baraldi, Claudio, 2–4, 7, 12, 26, 36, 42–46, 61–63, 65, 67, 69, 73–75, 79, 83, 86, 101, 110, 112, 114–116, 118, 120, 125–127, 132, 167, 169, 170, 173, 183, 184, 194, 219, 237–239, 243, 254, 255 Bohm, David, 2, 68, 69, 73, 74, 83, 243, 248

C Children Act (2006), 129, 130 Children and Families Act (2014), 130 Children’s initiative disrupting personal initiative, 128, 185, 194, 197, 202, 204–206 turn-taking manager, 113, 182–184, 232 Complex feedback formulation as development, 153, 183, 188, 213, 219–221, 225, 236 formulation as explication, 154, 155, 183, 193, 194, 198, 214, 219, 221, 225, 229, 234, 236 Consequentiality of choices, 8, 12, 43, 44, 46, 65, 71, 171, 188, 195, 224, 254, 257, 258, 268 Critical pedagogy, 11–13, 65, 102–105, 245, 249, 254 D Deci, Edward, 37–39, 41, 71, 73, 104, 105

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 F. Farini, A. Scollan, Pedagogical Innovation for Children’s Agency in the Classroom, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28501-1

279

280 

INDEX

Department for Education (England), 129, 258 Dewey, John democratic pedagogy, 9, 10, 24, 77, 82, 99, 100, 170 Dialogic pedagogy, 1–3, 9, 10, 61, 63, 74–76, 79–83, 99, 102, 104, 105, 128, 129, 171, 194, 206, 237, 243, 244, 251, 253 Dialogic teaching, 62, 63, 75, 76, 163 Dialogue component empathy, 2, 12, 27, 42, 43, 61, 63, 83, 109, 125–127, 156, 165, 175, 184, 193, 219, 221, 254 equality, 2, 9–12, 42, 43, 46, 62, 67, 76, 82, 83, 100, 109, 126, 163, 175, 206, 221, 258 Discouragement mitigated, 201, 206 unmitigated, 204, 206 Discourse on childhood children’s interests, 31–34 children’s needs, 31–35, 45, 80, 251 E Early childhood education, 12, 13, 19, 21–28, 31, 33, 37, 64, 75–77, 79–81, 108, 111, 132, 200, 244, 251 Early childhood studies, 19, 21, 23, 37 Early years foundation stage (EYFS), 78, 250–252 Early years policies Birth to 5 Matters, 29, 258 Development Matters, 252 Pre-school Learning Alliance, 252

Effective Provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE), 254 Enabling environments, 249–253 Environments that enable, 249, 252–254, 256 children as enabl-ed, 254 children as enabl-er, 254 Epistemic authority, 62, 63, 65, 66, 123, 125, 126, 150, 152, 157, 167, 170, 172, 173, 231, 243, 252 Epistemic status, 66, 82, 86, 120, 126, 127, 163, 164, 170, 173, 174, 198, 201, 202, 206, 209, 245, 249, 257 F Facilitation, 1–4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 20, 39, 42, 43, 46, 61–87, 99–133, 143, 146, 149, 150, 159, 163, 167–173, 175, 182, 184, 187, 191, 193, 197, 200, 201, 204–207, 209–239, 243–247, 249, 251–259 Facilitator’s personal initiatives appreciation, 115, 214, 215, 239 personal comments, 174, 175 personal stories, 69, 84, 110, 120, 126–127, 155–167, 173–176, 226, 232 Facilitator-work based design, 244, 245, 247–249 Freire, Paulo, 6, 10–12, 23, 27, 65, 69, 73, 79, 83, 101–105, 244, 249, 254 Froebel, Friedrich, 24, 25 G Generationing, theory of, 72, 73

 INDEX 

I I-It relationships, 108 Intergenerational order, 8, 41, 62, 70, 256 Interlacement of contributions, 102, 116, 121, 125, 144, 151, 156, 159, 165, 171, 172, 174, 182, 183, 198, 211, 213, 215, 220, 221, 225, 226, 231, 247 Interthinking, 66, 67, 114, 237 Invitation to talk, 122, 126, 145, 157, 162–164, 167, 182, 188, 191, 198, 204, 211, 214, 220, 225, 229, 231, 232, 234, 247 I-Thou relationship, 69, 109 L Listening listening filters, 12, 131, 255 real listening, 5, 7, 10, 28, 32, 63, 65, 75, 76, 79, 80, 101, 102, 255, 256, 258 M Malaguzzi, Loris, 5, 7, 8, 27, 33, 64, 65, 75, 77, 79–81, 99 Me-ing, 253 Minimal feedback acknowledgement token, 150, 157, 163, 170 change-of-state token, 150, 153, 172, 181, 188, 193, 194, 196–198, 200, 201, 211, 214, 219, 224, 225, 229 continuers, 124, 125, 150, 152, 153, 164, 170, 174 repetitions, 124, 125, 146, 152, 170, 190 Montessori, Maria, 24, 25

281

Moss, Peter, 4, 5, 10, 21, 22, 25–29, 31–33, 37, 42, 44, 45, 61, 65, 75, 78, 79, 81, 83, 101, 130, 131, 244, 245, 254 Murray, Jane, 4, 9, 21, 23, 26, 27, 30, 31, 77, 78, 80, 81, 255 N Narrative, 68, 83–86, 113, 121, 123, 125, 128, 132, 143, 145, 146, 148–150, 152, 153, 155–157, 160, 161, 163–166, 168, 170–172, 174, 182–185, 187, 188, 190, 191, 193–195, 197, 198, 200–202, 204–206, 210–213, 215, 219–221, 225, 228, 229, 231, 232, 234, 236, 247, 252 Neo-Vygotskyian methodologies, 66–69, 114, 237 O OMEP, 254 P Pedagogy of listening, 8–9 Personal expression expectation of, 5, 8, 9, 42, 63, 67, 69, 74, 83, 104, 112, 115, 126, 127, 156, 157, 159, 171, 173–175, 184, 193, 205, 221, 239, 253, 257 Pestalozzi, Johann Heinrich, 24 Positioning, theory, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 27, 31, 32, 36, 43–46, 61–64, 66, 68–70, 72–74, 76, 80, 82, 83, 85, 86, 100, 104, 110, 117, 124, 131, 157, 171, 183, 184, 198, 200, 243, 248–254, 256, 257, 269

282 

INDEX

Position of the child pupil (social role), 6, 44, 45, 67, 161, 248, 251 unique child, 7, 11, 21, 25, 27, 44, 45, 161, 244 Praxis, 13, 23, 104, 105, 245, 249 Project-based approach, 10, 11, 69, 76, 80, 83, 84, 99–101, 106–113, 115–117, 121–125, 127–130, 132, 133, 143, 144, 146, 149, 151–153, 155, 156, 159, 163, 167–175, 179–181, 183, 184, 187, 188, 191, 193, 194, 197, 198, 202, 204, 206, 209–240, 243–249, 252–259, 272 Q Questions open questions, 122, 123, 146, 154, 167, 168 polarised questions, 121–123, 146, 148, 149, 152, 154, 164, 167–169, 172, 173, 182, 188, 190, 191, 193, 197, 198, 224, 228, 234 R RARA Key model, 245, 247 Reflection in action, 103, 116, 175, 245 on action, 103, 116, 246 Reggio Emilia approach, 5, 7, 10–12, 64, 75, 100, 253, 258 Role modelling, 115, 163, 173, 239, 253

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 24 Ryan, Richard, 37–39, 41, 71, 73, 104, 105 S Scaffolding, 66–68, 114, 237 Self-awareness, 104 Self-determination children’s self-determination, 2, 3, 30, 31, 39, 45–47, 73, 82, 114 conditionality, 20 self-determination theory, 12, 37, 38, 41, 104 Small cultures, 225 Sustainable Development Goals, 130 Sustained shared thinking, 66–68, 114, 237 SWOT analysis, 247–249 T Teacher-led pedagogy, 9, 10, 25, 26, 68, 70, 74, 82, 83 Technicalisation of education, 69 Throwing out a net, technique, 114, 157, 164, 238 Trust personal trust, 173, 184, 219, 229 U UNICEF, 4, 30, 35, 36, 111 Declaration of Children’s Rights, 35 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), 19, 20, 35–37, 46, 110, 111, 130 article 12, 35, 36