Do teachers’ beliefs relate to their understanding of children and their

Although teachers in daycare- and school settings have different educational backgrounds, traditions, societal aims, and curricula, both groups have multifaceted tasks. A mixture of teaching and care apply to both categories of teachers, although in differing degrees. Nespor (1987) suggested: “to understand teaching from teachers’ perspectives we have to understand the beliefs with which they define their work” (p. 323) [original italics]. To exemplify this he pointed to two teachers in his research; one viewing teaching as a job and making a living, while the other saw teaching as a moral mission to socialize children and make the community a better place to be.

Nespor called attention to the importance of recognizing the different meanings teaching has for different teachers. As we have seen earlier, research verifies that beliefs play an important role in defining behavior and organizing knowledge and information (Bandura, 1986, 2002; Brownell &

Pajares, 1999; Nespor, 1987; Pajares, 1992; Rokeach, 1976).

Nespor (1987) has suggested features that make beliefs important in memory processes, and emotion and affect have considerable implications for how teachers learn and use what they learn. He goes on to state the reasons for this lies in the “contexts and environments within which teachers work, and many of the problems they encounter, are ill defined and deeply entangled, and that beliefs are peculiarly suited for making sense of such contexts” (p. 324).

It has previously been stated that primary or core beliefs (Rokeach, 1976) develop early in life and are not easily changed. Looking at where teachers’

beliefs come from, Richardson (1996) pointed to three forms of experience in a person’s educational career which are: “personal experience, experience with schooling and instruction, and experience with formal knowledge” (p.

105). These different aspects contribute to the ongoing development of a teacher’s understanding and how to approach teaching. Referring to life history studies, Richardson noted that personal and schooling experiences

“strongly affect preservice education students’ and in-service teacher’s

beliefs” (p 106), while “…experiences with formal pedagogical knowledge are seen as the least powerful factor affecting beliefs and conceptions of teaching and the teacher role” (p.106).

Daniels and Shumow (2003) presented a framework for explaining how teachers’ perspectives and knowledge about child development contribute to classroom practices. They also reviewed research regarding how an understanding of child development contributes to teachers’ beliefs and practices. They pointed to different theoretical perspectives in educational practice that were dominant in the past, such as: learning and development defined by behaviorist tradition, or extreme biological views, or maturationist views, while more recently educational practices based on current knowledge about how children develop and learn have been endorsed. According to Daniels & Shumow there has been a refocus on “child-centered” practices identified with constructivist, social constructivist, or ecological theories (p.

496). They pointed to some connections between an adult’s opinions of a child’s developing mind and educational practices. This relates to the roles, values and practices the teachers embrace (p. 509).

An interesting aspect was raised by Olson and Bruner (1998) when they stated: “Scientific advances increasingly inform us of the effects of various treatments but the art of knowing “how, for whom, and when” to apply them remains as difficult as ever” (p. 9). They pointed to theories with absence of features very critical to pedagogy, and called attention to aspects as goals, purposes, beliefs, and intentions of both teachers and learners. In their opinion the absence of these features is what creates the gap between theory and practice. Our interactions with others are influenced by our everyday theories of how our own mind and the minds of others work. According to Olson and Bruner these lay theories are referred to as “folk psychology” and lead to assumptions which they called “folk pedagogy” that steer the activity of guiding children to learn about the world. These researchers stated:

“educational practices are premised on a set of beliefs about learners’ minds”

(p. 13). Drawing upon Tomasello, Kruger and Ratner, 1993, Olson and Bruner implied that “different approaches to learning and forms of instruction – from imitation, to instruction, to discovery, to collaboration – reflect differing beliefs and assumptions about the learner – from actor, to knower, to private experiencer, to collaborative thinker” (p. 13). According to them beliefs about

the mind alter beliefs about the sources of and communicability of thought and action, and advances in the understanding of children’s minds are essential to an improved pedagogy. Change from the simplest pedagogies to the most sophisticated, Olson and Bruner concluded, “…is the development of an increasingly internalist or insider’s view of thinking, learning, and knowing” (p. 25), and also pointed to “the increasing degree of common understanding or intersubjectivity to be found between theorist and subject”.

In practical terms this illuminates different understandings of children and teaching. Teachers may rely on theories that center on what the adult can do to promote learning, or they may depend on theories that focus more on what children can do or think they are doing as a basis for children’s intentional learning experience.

Some studies report disappointing results in helping pre-service teachers develop more sophisticated beliefs and practices through teacher education programs (Richardson, 1996). On the other hand some, but not other, pre-service teachers develop beliefs that are consistent with practices approved by theoretically based staff developers (Daniels & Shumow, 2003). They pointed to the need for research on three general areas – “how to reveal teacher thinking about child development and their roles in fostering this development, how to best incorporate a developmental perspective into teaching, and how to support teachers’ developmentally appropriate practices”

(p. 517). According to Stott and Bowman (1996) child development knowledge, broadly defined, is necessary but not sufficient to teacher preparation. They suggested the root of the teaching-learning enterprise depends upon how individual teachers respond to individual children, and pointed to the ability to use relationships to stimulate development as essential. Stott and Bowman (1996) stated the goal of education is not to give a specific kind of information, but to provide a framework, a set of shared values, a disposition to understand, evaluate, and be open to the ideas of others. Reflecting on theories, new findings, formal and personal knowledge, values, practices, and different opinions are part of this process.

Others also identify the importance of enhancing relationships between teachers and children (Pianta, 1999; Pianta et al., 2003a; Pianta & Walsh, 1996), and the significance of collaboration between participants in children’s environment (Pianta & Kraft-Sayre, 2003b). Relationships between child and

teacher are also related to indicators of a broader school climate and organizational ethos (Pianta et al., 2003a). Being informed of important aspects of developing relationships is one thing, understanding these elements and believing enough in them to pursue them as a goal, is something different.

Pianta (1999) described relationships between children and adults as a critical resource for development. Some of these relationships are impoverished and are a source of risk, while others are a potential resource for improving developmental outcomes. He cautioned that “…one cannot underestimate the extent to which relationships with people and environments support or inhibit developmental progress and functioning in school. Children are only as competent as their context affords them to be” (p. 64). This points to the significance of understanding the child as a developing system in an extended system and not just viewing competence as an assess of the child alone. In addition a teacher’s relational background and history plays a part in the way teachers form relationships with children (Pianta et al., 2003a). Relationships between children and teachers in daycare and school are asymmetric and the degree of this varies as the child grows older and becomes more competent.

According to Pianta et al. (2003a) a systems conceptualization of the child-teacher relationship can integrate child and child-teacher attributes, representations of relationships, child-teacher interactions and communication, school and classroom climate (p. 215). In light of this it can be interesting to study teachers’ understandings, priorities and beliefs about discipline and behavior management, group/classroom practices and beliefs about children.

Values, priorities and beliefs are connected and influence our choices and behavior. Rokeach (1973, p. 25) gave the following definition of a value and a value system:

“To say that a person has a value is to say that he has an enduring prescriptive or proscriptive belief that a specific mode of behavior or end-state of existence is preferred to an oppositive mode of behavior or end-end-state.

This belief transcends attitudes toward objects and toward situations; it is a standard that guides and determines action, attitudes towards objects and situations, ideology, presentations of self to others, evaluations, judgments, justifications, comparisons of self with others, and attempts to influence others. Values serve adjustive, ego-defensive, knowledge, and self-actualizing functions. Instrumental and terminal values are related yet are separately organized into relatively enduring hierarchical organizations along a continuum of importance”.

What does this mean in everyday life for teachers? As we can see from Rokeach’s definition, many elements in human life are affected by our values and beliefs and some of these are more important to us than others. Our preferences are made visible when we prioritize. According to Rimm-Kaufman et al. (2006) teachers’ priorities are the lens through which teachers perceive practice decisions (p.143). The researchers described priorities as multi-determined and stemming from many different sources. In their view teachers ascribe to a set of principles or priorities loosely connected to classroom practices. These reported practices can shed light on different belief dimensions. When these beliefs or principles are challenged by new training or new experiences Rimm-Kaufman et al.(2006) claim teachers’ existing framework shifts and can lead to the emergence of a new practice. This is also verified in a study by Thorsen (1999) directed at Norwegian preschool teachers.

Understanding teachers’ priorities and beliefs about discipline and behavior management can point to what teachers believe they can and should do to develop and maintain a good learning environment in daycare or school settings. Do they for example express views that tolerate noise and lively play and collaboration, or are they more focused on having control, structure and rules? Do teachers emphasize prevention of problems, and what are their views on self-monitoring and autonomy? Do they express clear expectation of the children? What are teachers’ beliefs about using punishment, praise or rewards?

When it comes to practices in daycare- and school-settings, how do teachers express their meanings concerning results and processes, structure and play?

Are they focused on routines, or do they follow children’s initiative and/or reflections? Do teachers express a practice that emphasizes enhancing relationships? How do they view instruction and/or social support in learning?

Teachers’ beliefs about children will in one way or another affect the relationship between them. Do teachers see children as potentially good and do they like the children they have contact with in daycare and school? Do teachers focus on children’s strengths? Do teachers express meanings about care and closeness to children and families?

Many questions have been raised concerning teachers’ possible beliefs and opinions. Different beliefs and theoretical convictions can lead to different priorities and practices. Rimm-Kaufman et al. (2006) pointed to differences in teacher education and experiences and hypothesized that pre-service and in-service teachers hold different beliefs and priorities about discipline and behavior, effective teaching practices and children. Could this be the case for teachers with different pedagogical backgrounds as well as here in Norway?

Would it be possible to see traces or trends from policies and different curricula that express different standpoints and meanings among Norwegian teachers in daycare and school?

2.3.2 Do teachers’ beliefs vary considering different traditions,