ABSTRACT
An assumption of this study is that some adults can be described as ‘intuitive’ in their actions (Atkinson and Claxton 2000). Who are the teachers who can teach in this way? Do all intuitive teachers of children in the early years of education ‘story’ with children? Deconstructing the identity of intuitive teachers will require an understanding of the values they may hold, their perceptions and their ideologies and an understanding of their sense of professional identity. A number of questions arise in relation to identity and teaching. For example, what is the strength of the relationship that exists between the teacher and their values, including ideology, particularly in view of the strength of current political imperatives? What is s/he embracing in her/his practice and, importantly, what is s/he rejecting? (Are you what you teach?) Developing a construction of ‘professionals’ and ‘professionalism’ is particularly important currently when such constructs are open for public and political debate and are often contentious. Definitions of these terms are especially important in the field of early years education as training, qualifications and self-esteem vary between those adults working with young children. Who then has claim to the badge of ‘professional’ and who has the power to define such terms? Attempts to understand the complexities of human relationships, teaching
and learning interactions and the nature of co-constructed narratives invariably cross boundaries of subject domains. These may include studies from psychology in relation to personality, identity and selfhood; from sociology considering, for example, theories of the primacy of society over individuals (Durkheim 1956), of the use of teachers as technicians to serve society’s needs (Woods and Jeffrey 2004), of the significance of national policies in the lives of teachers; and from education, the business of professionals and pedagogies. This collected wisdom from across disciplines and from theorists and researchers may help the smallest children in our educational systems to learn, affectively and effectively – if that is the intention. Further, there is also a socio-political view to consider, that is that political
intentions in relation to schooling may be rather more connected with social control than liberation and empowerment, bound to the development of functional literacy rather than creative freedoms, tied to conventional, short-term
national objectives rather than visionary, personal aims (Ball 2004). Evidence of this can be seen in contemporary curricula redesigned to include, for example, citizenship, and in examples of ‘creative compliance’ (Lambirth and Goouch 2006) where small attempts are made to conform to both a standardsled curriculum and new creativity initiatives, but still tied securely to crudely defined assessment tools (see Halpin and Troyna 1994). However the national picture is viewed, there still remains the personal dimension, that is, that all ‘school’ learning occurs in a social context. It is dependent upon relationships, reciprococity and language (Bruner 1986; Rogoff 1990; Shotter 1993; Carter 2004). Power structures are such in educational settings that the shape of those relationships, the potential for reciprocal events and the nature of language employed, are all within the control of one individual, the teacher, in spite of prescriptive pedagogies. Unwrapping then the teacher’s values, intentions, ideology and drive seems crucial to understanding the potential for children and their learning in such an individual’s care. Who are the teachers who can engage with children in co-constructing
play narratives in informal, play contexts without hijacking the event? Who are the educators who understand the significance of such events and give status to these opportunities? Human encounters (McLean 1991) matter in education and there appears to be only a core of special educators working in the system who understand and respect the intentionality of children and have, as a fundamental part of their teaching repertoire, the ability to intuitively respond and engage with children’s created narratives. Intuition in practice has been described as the way in which ‘explicit knowledge and implicit “know-how” are braided together in professional contexts’ (Atkinson and Claxton 2000: 3). Deconstructing or unbraiding the nature of the explicit and tacit or implicit knowledge exposes the strength and sophistication of home learning before formal schooling begins and of the work of those other than formally qualified ‘teachers’ in enabling development. Powerful learning takes place in a comparatively short time scale from birth to school starting age when children encounter formal teaching. The significance of the familiarity of the context, the physical environment and the strength of the relationships contribute to this deep learning. Indeed, Dunn reminds us that there are ‘crucial differences in children’s communicative and reflective behaviour at home – in the context of a supportive mother-child relationship, and at school, where all too often the adult-child interaction did not have this quality of supportive interest’ (Dunn 1998: 90). There is little evidence, except in isolated cases to be explored later, that Dunn’s research findings are any less relevant in current school settings. There is, however, strong evidence that the reverse is true (Anning 2004) and that teachers, even in the early years of education, may be becoming ‘technicians’ to fulfil the requirements of politicians here in the UK, who also seem to meet the current expectations of society in general, or at best are ‘walking on two legs’ (Dahlberg et al. 1999) and engaging in ‘strategic compliance’ (Lacey 1977, cited in Woods
and Jeffrey 2004: 236). Teachers, who are in public service, are in rather a difficult position unless there is some unified attempt to make clear the aims of what we all understand to be ‘education’ in school and other institutional contexts.
