10 minute read
TOWARDS A RE-CONCEPTUALISATION OF RISK-TAKING IN ECE
A RESEARCH STUDY BY MANDY COOKE, CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY
Advertisement
What comes to mind when you hear the words ‘risk-taking’ in an early childhood education (ECE) context?
A review of ECE research literature (eg Little, Wyver, & Gibson, 2015; Sandseter, 2009), magazines and professional development offerings suggests that many people view risktaking in ECE as something that:
1. Children do 2. Takes place outdoors 3. Is physical and play-like in nature.
These elements combined are what we have come to know as risky play.
When I first began my PhD research three years ago, I was keen to research risky play. As a lover of the outdoors, rock climbing and nature pedagogy, I saw risky play as an exciting way to engage in the types of experiences and pedagogical approaches I saw as important and beneficial for children.
As I began my research, I discovered that psychologists, sociologists and a small number of early childhood researchers saw risk-taking as not just physical, not just outdoors and not just something that children do. Risk-taking can take place in many aspects of life. It can be social, emotional, environmental. It can take place indoors as well as outdoors, and educators can also engage in risktaking. In ECE, however, our attention seems to have been predominantly focused on risky play.
As I reflected on the literature and my own experiences as an educator, I began to wonder how educators view risk-taking. Do they see it purely as risky play? Or do they think of it as more than this?
RISK-TAKING Risk is a complex concept with both positive and negative connotations. Risk-taking differs from the notion of ‘at risk’. Being considered ’at risk’ refers to the vulnerable and often involuntary position of being at risk of harm. Whereas ‘risk-taking’ is voluntarily engaging in an act or experience that has a perceived danger or uncertainty that may lead to either positive or negative consequences. Like risk, risk-taking can be both positive and negative.
Negative risk-taking tends to be impulsive and has negative consequences that outweigh possible positive outcomes. Positive risk-taking, also known as healthy or beneficial risk-taking, is the kind of risk-taking we are talking about and want to include in ECE. Positive risk-taking is thoughtful, reflective and planned. It usually has positive outcomes that outweigh possible negative consequences. Benefits can be for the person taking the risk or for others. Benefits can occur through achievement or success, or through the learning involved in error, failure or injury.
RISK-TAKING IN ECE Children’s engagement in positive risktaking has been on the agenda for ECE for the past 10 to 15 years. In Australia, risk-taking for children is included in the Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF). The EYLF encourages educators to provide opportunities for children to take risks both indoors and outdoors and in all aspects of learning (Australian Government Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations [DEEWR], 2009). Inclusion of risk-taking in the EYLF aims to support confident, competent and resilient children through learning to assess and manage risk and cope with failure.
Unlike the dominant discourse in ECE literature, the EYLF does not focus on
risk-taking as risky play. For risk-taking to be in line with the holistic approach of the EYLF, a broader view of risktaking is needed. It is this thinking that led to my research.
RESEARCH OVERVIEW My research, titled Towards a ReConceptualisation of Risk-Taking in Early Childhood Education, is a qualitative multi-site case study nested within a larger research project titled Exemplary Early Childhood Educators at Work. The focus on exemplary educators in both projects is to ensure that data identifies perspectives and practices associated with high quality ECE.
The study involved interviews and observations with 55 educators from three services deemed ‘exceeding’ in the ACECQA assessment and rating process. In addition to their exceeding rating, services invited to participate also expressly valued children's risk
taking. This was assessed using a ‘risk indicator checklist’ created from the literature. Both the exceeding rating and the value services placed on children’s risk-taking put educators in these services in the best position to offer insight on risk-taking in ECE.
THE STUDY FOCUSED ON TWO MAIN QUESTIONS: 1. How is risk-taking conceptualised by educators in exemplary ECE services that expressly value children’s risk-taking? 2. What are the practice architectures that enable and constrain educators’ risk-taking practices in exemplary ECE services that expressly value children’s risk-taking? The term ‘practice architectures’ refers to the theory that formed the theoretical, methodological and analytical approach to the research. The theory of practice architectures is an ontological practice theory that aims toward a dual purpose of education – to help people ‘live well in a world worth living in’ (Kemmis et al., 2014, p. 25). The theory provides a framework for analysing practices and the conditions that enable and constrain practices.
RESEARCH RESULTS Results of the first research question revealed two key findings:
1. Most educators first and foremost think about risk-taking as risky play 2. With minimal provocation, educators identified a broad range of risk-taking for children and educators
RISK-TAKING AS RISKY PLAY Educator's predominant discourse about risk-taking in ECE was about risky play. Children’s risk-taking outdoors, such as tree climbing, using tools and swings and other activities
that could injure, were educator's ‘go to’ when asked about risk-taking. Participating educators had all undertaken professional development that included information about risktaking in the form of risky play, often in conjunction with learning about outdoor play or nature pedagogy. Some educators admitted: The Story of Joseph and Abraham From the first day I met Joseph and Abraham (pseudonyms) at the conservative Anglican school where I taught, it was apparent that they were quite fond of dressing up in what we might traditionally consider ‘girls’ clothing- dresses: tutus and shoes with heels.
‘I think risk-taking is more outdoors… I don't really see those things as risks inside.’
PROMPTING EDUCATORS TO THINK MORE BROADLY As the purpose of the research was to explore risk-taking beyond risky play, I provoked educators to think more broadly. The main provocation was a story about my interaction with twin boys I’d taught some years ago. From the first day I met Joseph and Abraham’s father, it was apparent that he was not fond of the boys dressing up, something the boys seemed aware of. His first question to me on orientation day was ‘So Mandy, what are you going to do to man up my boys?’
As I got to know Joseph and Abraham, I learned they also liked to engage in wedding play. They loved to arrange big elaborate weddings where they dressed as glamorous brides and usually married each other.
One day, after a particularly delightful garden wedding, I overheard a conversation between Abraham and a friend. Abraham: But boys can’t marry boys
As an observer to this conversation, I had the option to engage, or not. I chose to engage.
Educator: Well actually, you’re both right. In some countries, boys can marry boys and girls can marry girls, just not in Australia, not yet.
A few days after this interaction I was called into the principal’s office. It turns out that Abraham had gone home and told his parents what he had learned. And they were not happy about it. They said they didn’t think it was appropriate information to be discussed at school. I was asked to apologise to the boys’ parents.
Despite the clear disapproval from the boys’ parents and the school principal, the boys continued to wear their dresses and I continued to allow them to (and purchase new dresses from the op shop when requested). Actions that I now wonder, could they be considered
risk-taking? Not physical outdoor risktaking like risky play, but social and emotional risk-taking that for Joseph and Abraham could be connected to their sense of identity and for me was an opportunity for advocacy.
A BROAD RANGE OF RISK-TAKING FOR CHILDREN AND EDUCATORS Following the above provocation and questions such as, ‘Can you tell me about any risks the children could be taking indoors?’ and ‘Have you taken any risks yourself?’, educators began to express a broader view of risktaking. Findings reveal that educators perceived that children may take risks:
⊲ Indoors Educators’ examples of possible indoor risk-taking include rough and tumble play, attempting a new puzzle, asking someone to play and contributing ideas to a group discussion.
⊲ Non-play activities Educators suggested that children may take a risk when they try a new food at snack time, participate in a self-help task such as tying their shoe lace or asking for help with a new skill, such as cutting with a knife.
⊲ Non-physical activities Educators said that children may engage in social, emotional and cognitive risk-taking in experiences such as making friends, sharing
ideas, making suggestions in play and attempting a task that is new, such as writing their name.
In addition to a broad range of risktaking for children, many educators recognised risk-taking as a valuable and important part of their professional practice in ECE. Three main themes emerged as to why educators take risks:
1. For professional growth and development 2. To support children’s development as competent and empowered individuals 3. As intentional acts of advocacy and activism. I am currently in the process of finalising journal articles detailing educators’ risk-taking practices and the conditions that enable and constrain these practices.
IMPLICATIONS As detailed in an article published in Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, the concern is that if educators primarily view risk-taking as risky play, they may overlook opportunities to provide and support children in a broad range of positive risk-taking experiences – experiences in line with the holistic approach toward risk-taking presented in the EYLF.
It is also a concern that if, as a sector, we are not aware of the risks that educators take, we may overlook opportunities important for their professional development and opportunities to support them to negotiate risk-taking beneficial to children’s learning and development and for creating a more socially just society.
Mandy Cooke has over 20 years’ experience teaching and leading in primary and early childhood education in Australia and internationally. She is currently in the final stages of a PhD at Charles Sturt University. Mandy’s interests include educator practices, creativity, play, children’s rights and being outdoors. The research and ideas discussed in this article are drawn from her doctoral studies looking at early childhood educators’ conceptions and practices of risk-taking in early childhood education.
FURTHER READING
Listen to Mandy talk about the complexity of risk in early childhood education in this PED talk. www.facebook.com/EECERA/videos/388092285230599/ Read Mandy’s article published in Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, titled Towards a re-conceptualisation of risk in early childhood education. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1463949119840740
Look out for Mandy’s next article, titled ‘High quality educators’ conceptualisation of children’s risk-taking in early childhood education: Provoking educators to think more broadly’ in the European Early Childhood Research Association Journal, due out June 2020.
REFERENCES Australian Government Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations [DEEWR]. (2009). Belonging, being and becoming: The early years learning framework for Australia. Canberra, Australia: DEEWR for the Council of Australian Governments. Kemmis, S., Wilkinson, J., Edwards-Groves, C., Hardy, I., Grootenboer, P., & Bristol, L. (2014). Changing practices, changing education. Singapore: Springer. Little, H., Wyver, S., & Gibson, F. L. (2015). Levels of positive risk-taking and peer context in preschoolers’ play. Retrieved from ResearchGate website: https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/268355515 Sandseter, E. B. H. (2009). Characteristics of risky play. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 9(1), 3-21.
