Young children’s explorations: young children’s research?

Jane Murray∗

School of Education, The University of Northampton, Northampton, UK

(Received 8 May 2011; final version received 8 July 2011)

‘Exploration’ is recognised as research behaviour; anecdotally, as an early years’teacher, I witnessed many young children exploring. However, young children’sself-initiated explorations are rarely regarded as research by adult researchers andpolicy-makers. The exclusion of young children’s autonomous explorations fromrecognition as research conflicts with ‘new sociology’ perspectives positioningchildren as social actors. These tensions have driven a small-scale interpretivestudy, developed with children aged four to eight years in three ‘good’ schoolsin England to investigate (1) Do children aged four to eight years in three EarlyChildhood Education and Care settings explore?; (2) If so, what are theirexplorations and what effects and affects them?; and (3) Do young children’sexplorations count as epistemology? Findings indicate that in settings where‘free-flow’ play characterised practice, four- to five-year-old children engaged inexploration, but its quality was affected by several factors, including variablelevels of children’s autonomy. Seven- to eight-year-old children in a teacher-directed setting explored less than the four- to five-year-old children, but werefrequently observed ‘off-task’, pursuing self-initiated explorations.

Keywords: exploration; early childhood; critical ethnography; children’sparticipation; epistemology

Introduction

This paper reports on a small-scale empirical enquiry located in the early childhoodeducation and care (ECEC) field, investigating explorations presenting as research be-haviour in young children aged four to eight years in their English ECEC settings.ECEC focuses on children’s first eight years (United Nations Committee on theRights of the Child [UNCRC], 2005), which are widely recognised as a key indicatorfor lifespan outcomes (Gammage, 2006). Although there have previously been attemptsto position children in this age phase as researchers (Alderson, 2008; Clark &Moss, 2001), literature is dominated by projects which adopt adult agendas and meth-odologies to work with older children (inter alia Fielding, 2001; Kellett, 2009).However, excluding young children’s own enquiries from recognition conflicts with‘new sociology’ perspectives positioning children as competent social actors(Corsaro, 2005, p. xii; James, Jenks, & Prout, 1998) and disregards psychologicalstudies reifying infants’ potentially significant cognitive capability (Gopnik, Meltzoff,& Kuhl, 1999). Moves towards children’s greater participation in research have begun

ISSN 0300-4430 print/ISSN 1476-8275 online

# 2012 Taylor & Francis

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2011.604728http://www.tandfonline.com

∗Email: jane.murray@northampton.ac.uk

Early Child Development and CareVol. 182, No. 9, September 2012, 1209–1225

to emerge in recent years (Christensen & James, 2008), but remain under-developed(Redmond, 2008); they are particularly poorly recognised in England, where the chil-dren’s rights agenda has been slow to develop (UNCRC, 2008).

Drawing on emancipatory discourses (Denzin, 2005) and synthesising critical eth-nographic enquiry (Carspecken, 1996) within a constructivist grounded theory (CGT)approach (Charmaz, 2006), this enquiry is one element of a larger study building on thework of Clark and Moss (2001) and Alderson (2008) focused on conceptualising youngchildren as researchers. To contextualise the empirical study, this paper opens with acritical review of the literature followed by presentation and discussion of thepresent study’s findings focused on young children’s explorations as research beha-viours. The paper addresses three questions:

. Do young children aged four to eight years in three early ECEC settingsexplore?

. If so, what are their explorations and what effects and affects them?

. Do young children’s explorations count as epistemology?

The context for young children’s explorations

The literature discussed in this section is focused on young children’s explorations toset the present study in context. It briefly considers the nature of exploration for chil-dren, before addressing the abilities and capabilities of young children as explorers.Discussion then focuses on exploration in English ECEC and different types of play,before the section concludes with a consideration of exploration as a feature of research,with allusion to Stebbins’ (2001) definition of exploration.

The nature of ‘exploration’

Napier and Sharkey (2004) propose exploration is a process which ‘. . . allows chil-dren to develop their knowledge, skills and understanding’ (p. 150). It is argued thatthe correlation of expressive communication with action is a deeply embedded featureof humanity (Burke, 1966); the word ‘explore’ derives from the Latin ‘to cry out’ (explorare). Young children communicate ‘. . . primarily through various bodily cuesand forms of non-verbal communication’ (Bae, 2010, p. 208); they employ variousmodalities to process and express their thoughts (Gallas, 1994; Malaguzzi, 1993,1998). Such media are perceived as young children’s ‘exploratory devices’ andvehicles that adults can use to help them to understand ‘the child’s acquisition ofknowledge’ (Bruner & Olson, 1978, p. 6). Furthermore, exploration is indicatedfor young children’s successful global development (Arnold, 2009; Broadhead,2001; Garner & Bergen, 2006; Meadows, 2006) and Laevers (2000) suggests thatchildren’s deep ‘involvement’ during explorations may enhance such development.Hughes and Hutt (1980) found that exploration can induce calm and intense focusin young children.

Young children: able and capable explorers?

Over two decades as an ECEC teacher, anecdotally I witnessed many young childrenengaging in exploration; while the literature appears to bear this out, it suggests that

1210 J. Murray

the potential of such behaviour to be valued as research remains contested. Psycho-logical and sociological discourses indicate humans’ ability to explore from an earlyage. Infants appear programmed to explore objects (Garner & Bergen, 2006;Goldschmied & Jackson, 2004) and Abbott and Langston (2005) describe explorationas the way infants up to three years ask: ‘What can and does it do?’ (p. 153). Babies’abilities to explore develop exponentially through their first year, aligning with rapidbrain development (Robinson, 2008). Strong brain development continues until agesix (Macintyre, 2001), contingent on a stimulating environment and nurturingrelationships (Gerhardt, 2004; Johnson, 2006) with familiar adults (Belsky, 1986,1988, 1990; Bowlby, 1988; King, 1966; Rutter, 2002). In his later work, Piaget(1970) proposed that through active, inductive, scientific processes, even veryyoung children transform constructions of scientific knowledge to develop new scien-tific knowledge and this has been endorsed by more recent psychological studies(Gopnik et al., 1999; Goswami & Bryant, 2007). Alongside psychologists’ evidencesuggesting children’s ability to explore, a ‘new sociology of childhood’ (James et al.,1998) positions children as competent ‘social actors’ (Hardman, 1973; James &James, 2008). Recently, discourse has focused on children’s participation inmatters affecting them (Percy-Smith & Thomas, 2010), segueing into perspectivesviewing children as active researchers (Christensen & James, 2008; Clark & Moss,2001).

While ECEC, psychological and sociological literature indicates young children’sabilities to explore, economist Sen (1993) suggests that young children’s capabilitiesto explore depend on their lived contexts. Over centuries, ECEC literature has advo-cated ‘exploration’ as an important medium for young children’s learning (i.a.Froebel, 1826; Isaacs, 1929; Piaget, 1952; Rousseau, 1762). However, although thispersists (i.a. Adolph, 2008; Morgan & Kennewell, 2005), children’s exploration hasnot featured strongly in English primary education spanning three centuries andyoung children’s contexts in England have increasingly become set by adults(Lansdown, 2005; Wyver et al., 2010).

Exploration in English ECEC?

In England, universal compulsory education has been characterised by themes of adultcontrol, discipline and preparation for economic productivity (Deasey, 1978) suppres-sing opportunities for children to engage in exploration of their own choosing(Alexander, Rose, & Woodhead, 1992; Department for Education [DfE], 2010a; HerMajesty’s Government [HMG], 1872). Bathurst’s pioneering work (Board ofEducation [BoE], 1905) led to the opening of some nursery schools for childrenfrom two years, although this has never become universal in England (Departmentof Education and Science [DES], 1990; Early Childhood Education Forum [ECEF],1998). Lack of universal high-quality ECEC provision in England and assumptionsthat formal teaching enhances school readiness have caused young children to missopportunities to learn from their own explorations for years (Adams, Alexander,Drummond, & Moyles, 2004; Ball, 1994; Cleave & Brown, 1991), despite linksbetween exploratory play and cognitive development being made early in the twentiethcentury (Isaacs, 1929; McMillan, 1919).

In England, formal teaching has also prevailed (Alexander, 2009; Galton,Hargreaves, Comber, Pell, & Wall, 1999; Galton, Simon, & Croll, 1980) despite gov-ernment reports advocating young children’s exploration (Central Advisory Council for

Early Child Development and Care 1211

Education, 1967; DES, 1990; Hadow, 1933). Into the twenty-first century, discoursecontinues to advocate the value of young children’s exploration (Alexander, 2009).Interactionism has recently gained increased favour (Sylva, Melhuish, Sammons,Siraj-Blatchford, & Taggart, 2010; Wood, 2007) with policy following suit for childrenaged zero to five years (Department for Children, Schools and Families [DCSF], 2008;Department for Education and Skills [DfES], 2003). This has attracted increasedfunding, but the ensuing adult focus on outcomes detracts from young children’sexplorations (Murray, 2010). Valentine and McKendrick (1997) suggest that children’sfree play outdoors has become curbed by adult interventions in recent years. Further-more, themes of control, discipline and preparation for economic productivity as keydrivers for early learning continue to be prominent in England (DfE, 2010a, 2010b).However, adult control of children’s exploratory activity is not isolated to England;for example, Chak (2010) notes that teachers in Hong Kong believe that direct adultintervention is ‘. . . paramount for the children to engage in any type of exploration’(p. 643).

Exploration in play?

The literature suggests that exploration presents within various adult constructions ofchildren’s play, for example, free-flow play (Bruce, 1994, 2005), symbolic play, roleplay, recapitulative play (Hughes, 2002), object play, physical play and epistemicplay (Meadows, 2006). Hutt, Tyler, Hutt, and Christopherson (1989) distinguishexploratory (epistemic) behaviour from amusing (ludic) behaviour in play, claimingthat exploratory behaviour is more likely to promote the construction of knowledgeand understanding than ludic play. DeVries, Reese-Learned, and Morgan (1991) ident-ify the role of peers in children’s developing understanding and Dweck and Legett(1998) agree that, that children may not need adults to direct their exploratorybehaviour.

Hughes (1979) characterises exploration in young children as predictable sequencesor elements and the systematic quality of exploration enhances problem-solving(Forman, 2006; Hutt et al., 1989). Furthermore, Gura (1992) proposes that problem-solving is particularly evident in open-ended engagements with objects. Meadows(2006) proposes that both exploration and problem-solving guide children’s mentalactivity and she distinguishes exploration as an inductive trial and error process.Isaacs and Isaacs (1944) support Meadows’ claim, observing ‘epistemic interests’ inchildren’s activity and open questioning. It has been suggested that young children’spersonal schemata (Piaget, 1971) are important exploratory media (Meadows, 2006):Meade and Cubey (2008) describe these patterned explorations as ‘. . . arguably thecore of developing young minds’ (p. 134).

Exploration as research?

Exploration has long been established as a key feature of research (Whyte, 1949),recognised as an element of adult researchers’ work (Charmaz, 2006; Hammersley &Atkinson, 2007; Silverman, 2006; Stebbins, 2001), indicating that exploratory behav-iour may be deemed ‘concerned with the nature and justification of human knowledge’:epistemological behaviour (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997, p. 88). Stebbins (2001) definesexploration in the field of social sciences research, by suggesting four ‘senses’ ofwhat it means ‘to explore’:

1212 J. Murray

(1) ‘to study, examine, analyse (sic), or investigate’;(2) ‘to become familiar with something by testing it or experimenting with it’;(3) ‘to travel over or through a particular space for the purposes of discovery’;(4) ‘to examine a thing or idea for (specific) diagnostic purposes’ (p. 2).

Notwithstanding this, the literature indicates that young children aged zero to eight yearsexplore (Athey, 2007; Gopnik et al., 1999; Hutt et al., 1989). Indeed, exploration is pro-posed as an important factor in young children’s successful global development but thisrelies on young children having opportunities and support to pursue exploration (Arnold,2009; Broadhead, 2001; Garner & Bergen, 2006; Meadows, 2006): children’s contextsaffect their capabilities as explorers (Lansdown, 2005; Sen, 1993). While some youngchildren are actively encouraged to pursue their own explorations (Arnold, 2009),thereby constructing personal epistemologies (Hoyuelos, 2004; Piaget, 1970), inEngland many young children are denied such opportunities (Alexander, 2009;Murray, 2010). With reference to Stebbins’ broad definition as appropriate to interpretiveenquiry, the present study discusses the nature and extent of explorations observed inchildren aged four to eight years in three English ECEC settings and whether or notthose explorations may be considered to be epistemological (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997,p. 88).

Methodological discussion

Drawing on emancipatory discourses (Denzin, 2005), this small-scale interpretive studyadopts critical ethnography (CE) (Carspecken, 1996) located within a CGT approach(Charmaz, 2006).

Research processes

For Stage 1, nine professional early years and educational researchers (PEYERs)participated in interview conversations (Charmaz, 2006) and five engaged in a focusgroup (Creswell, 2008). Both procedures followed the same schedule, focused onECEC research, resulting in rich data, which the PEYERs checked. A framework of34 research behaviours (RBF) emerged of which one was ‘exploration’, reconfirmingWhyte’s perspective (1949), in a contemporary ECEC context. Furthermore,PEYERs indicated that young children and their practitioners in ECEC settingsshould participate: ‘theoretical sampling’ (Charmaz, 2006).

One of the PEYERs was a governor of a primary school and told the headteacherabout the present study and he was keen for his school to participate. He toldanother headteacher about the project and she also wanted her school to participate.A third setting emerged from a previous study (Murray, 2006) as the headteacherhad already indicated his school would be keen to participate in educational research.There was partial parity regarding the nature and size of the settings, for example, eachhad recently been judged ‘good’ by inspectors, each taught children aged 4–11 yearsand each took 60 new children every year. Power relationships were also somewhatequalised because participants were predominantly white British and middle class, asam I (Fine & Sandstrom, 1988; Pollard & Filer, 1996). However, full parity was notachieved in these ‘real world’ contexts (Robson, 1993) and, given the groundednature of the study, full parity was not sought. As this was a small-scale doctoralstudy, manageability was also a factor (see Table 1).

Early Child Development and Care 1213

In a context of safeguarding anxiety regarding children (Parton, 2005), a number ofaccess issues had to be overcome before data collection (Murray, 2011). A series ofmulti-modal case studies was planned for construction with participants in eachsetting (Charmaz, 2006; Clark & Moss, 2001; Creswell, 2008), each to be undertakenover six half-days and three full days (see Table 2).

Initially, I worked as a volunteer teaching assistant over several days to build anunderstanding of the setting culture through ‘thick description’ (Ryle, 1968), providereassurance that my motives were honourable and move towards ‘insider’ status(Griffiths, 1998): important for the collection of naturalistic data of children’s everydaybehaviours (Pellegrini, 2004). To begin with, the data collection encompassed allaspects of the setting and the children that could be recorded. As data were entered,they were constantly evaluated with focus on the RBF behaviours, including ‘explora-tion’. Within this grounded study, this process was inductive, designed to respect theparticipants by facilitating their perspectives to emerge as authentically as possible:definitions of ‘exploration’ were to emerge from the field. Charmaz’s (2006) guidancewas followed: notwithstanding my own preconceptions, thoughts about what I ‘. . . hadseen, heard, sensed and coded’ were noted and I allowed my mind to ‘. . . rove freely in,around, under and from’ the category the PEYERs had termed ‘exploration’ (pp. 82–83).During the process, theoretical sampling was conducted (Charmaz, 2006), enablingfocus to refine down from all 150 children to 17 presenting strongly with RBF researchbehaviours, including ‘exploration’.

Table 1. Stage 2 participants.

Setting A Class of seven- to eight-year-old boys and girls (n ¼ 30) and their practitioners(n ¼ 3) in a suburban primary school of 423 children aged 4–11 years.Graded ‘Good’ by independent inspectors

Setting B Four- to five-year-old boys and girls (n ¼ 60) in an Early Years FoundationStage unit and their practitioners (n ¼ 7) in a suburban primary school of 321children aged 4–11 years. Graded ‘Good’ by independent inspectors

Setting C Four- to five-year-old boys and girls (n ¼ 60) in an Early Years FoundationStage unit and their practitioners (n ¼ 5) in a suburban primary school of 226children aged 4–11 years. Graded ‘Good’ by independent inspectors

Table 2. Multi-modal approach to collecting ECEC setting data (based on Clark & Moss,2001).

Researcher’s field notes:‘Thick Description’(Ryle, 1968)

Video filming of children’snaturalistic behaviourindoors

Photographs taken byresearcher

Documents (e.g. planning,school prospectus,children’s artefacts)

Observations of children’snaturalistic behaviouroutdoors

Formal interviewconversations withchildren andpractitioners

Observations of children’snaturalistic behaviourindoors

Photographs taken bychildren

Informal interviewconversations withchildren andpractitioners

1214 J. Murray

Ethical considerations

As an attempt to explore and undertake democratic research, described by Carspecken(1996) as ‘morally and epistemologically important’ (p. 207), ethical considerationspermeate form and function of this CE enquiry which was conducted according tothe British Educational Research Association (BERA, 2004) ethical guidelines.

Data analysis procedures

In this CGT study, processes were repeated in cycles, until data were saturated(Charmaz, 2006). For example, Stage 1 data were transcribed, coded and analysed toelicit directions of travel for Stage 2, then data were analysed according to Charmaz(2006). The democratic nature of CE (Carspecken, 1996), coupled with a CGTapproach (Charmaz, 2006), indicated value in practitioners, children and PEYERscontributing to the data analysis. These contributions were enabled through furtherinterview conversations (Charmaz, 2006) and focus groups (Creswell, 2008). Giventhat CGT foregrounds ‘the studied phenomenon or process’ (Charmaz, 2006, p. 22)and CE seeks to equalise power relations (Carspecken, 1996), formal training wasnot afforded to participants; rather, their authentic perspectives were sought. Codingand analysis became increasingly influenced by data as they were contributed by par-ticipants, providing justification for findings that was situated with the stakeholders(Carspecken, 1996). To establish further the reliability of the participants’ perspectives,findings relating to ‘exploration’ were retrospectively referenced to Stebbins’ (2001)definition and these are now presented and discussed.

Data presentation and discussion

This section presents and discusses data indicating that children aged four to eight yearsin three ECEC settings engaged in exploration and that a range of issues effected andaffected those explorations. Furthermore, it is argued that the explorations presentedhere may be regarded as epistemological (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997).

Introduction

Fourteen of the 17 children observed closely in three ECEC settings were observedengaging in 1227 incidences of exploration; exploration was noted in 85 separate nar-rative and snapshot observations constructed with children. Within the scope of thispaper, it is only possible to present the main study findings relating to children’sexplorations and a sample of the data.

Pseudonyms are used and findings are organised into four themes: Provocations forChildren’s Explorations, Practitioners’ Roles and Children’s Explorations, Time andChildren’s Explorations and Children who were not Observed Exploring. Findingswere indicated by participants and were retrospectively cross-referenced to Stebbins’(2001) four ‘senses’ of what it means ‘to explore’ in the context of research, providingadditional justification:

. Sense 1:‘to study, examine, analyse (sic), or investigate’;

. Sense 2: ‘to become familiar with something by testing it or experimenting with it’;

. Sense 3: ‘to travel over or through a particular space for the purposes ofdiscovery’;

Early Child Development and Care 1215

. Sense 4: ‘to examine a thing or idea for (specific) diagnostic purposes’(Stebbins, 2001, p. 2).

In the following discussion, Stebbins’ ‘senses’ of what it means ‘to explore’ are shownfor each example of the data given, indicating that perspectives of the participants in thepresent study align with those established by ‘the academy’ (Ball, 2001).

Provocations for children’s explorations

Free availability of many varied materials that could be applied in different waysseemed to encourage children to explore (Senses 1, 2 and 4) (Goldschmied &Jackson, 2004). These included seeds, soil, tent, bricks and sugar cubes. Childrenadopted various approaches to exploring with the resources: exploring resources perse (Sense 1), using them as props to facilitate other explorations, exploring their prop-erties before using them as props (Sense 2) (Gura, 1992; Hughes, 1979) and solvingproblems with resources they had explored (Sense 4) (Dweck & Legett, 1988; Huttet al., 1989). For example, Gemma (g4, SB) explored the video camera and its proper-ties for some hours (Sense 1) before planning and setting up scenes to film (Sense 2),Pedro (b4, SC) examined rocks through his binoculars (Sense 1) before piling themonto the tricycle (Sense 2) and Martin (b5, SC) rolled tyres before piling two together,placing himself inside the tyre tower and adding three more (Senses 2 and 3). These areexamples of children planning explorations: an activity identified by Charmaz (2006) asan element in research.

Opportunities to initiate and freely pursue explorations seem to be important for thefrequency of children’s explorations. The frequency of children exploring in theteacher-directed setting (Setting A) was around 43% of the frequency of childrenexploring in the ‘open framework’ settings (Siraj-Blatchford, Sylva, Muttock,Gilden, & Bell, 2002, p. 12). Many seven- to eight-year-old children engaged inexploration, suggesting their natural propensity to explore (Isaacs & Isaacs, 1944).However, their explorations were usually observed as ‘off-task’ behaviours, indicatingthat the setting’s practice discouraged children’s explorations. Alexander (2009)confirms that Setting A’s practice was common for seven- to eight-year-old childrenin English primary schools when the data were collected, citing it as a rationale forsystemic change within English education. Alexander’s concern is shared by Bruce(1994) who suggests such practice results in: ‘Dependency, narrowness, a desire toplease those in authority, conformity and a lack of creativity, imagination or theability to create and solve problems’ (p. 16).

Conversely, the four- to five-year-old children observed were in predominantly‘open framework’ settings (Siraj-Blatchford et al., 2002, p. 12). However, thebalance of child-initiated and adult-focused activity was different in Settings B andC: Setting B provided far more opportunities for ‘free-flow play’ (Bruce, 2005),whereas children in Setting C often experienced two daily teacher-directed wholeclass sessions each lasting 30–60 minutes. Additional continuous provision inSetting C was also less conducive to child-initiated explorations (DCSF, 2008), as itconsisted of pre-planned activities and specific ‘jobs’. Therefore, although thenumbers of observed children’s explorations were aligned in Settings B and C (563and 562 respectively), the quality of children’s explorations was different between set-tings. Laevers (2000) articulates that it is beneficial for young children to have oppor-tunities to become deeply involved in their interests. Some children were observed

1216 J. Murray

exploring with such ‘deep-level’ involvement. Oscar (b5, SC) spent around 20 minutesconstructing alone. He then successfully tested his construction: his own interpretationof a climbing frame, using resources available to him (Sense 2) (Silverman, 2006)(Figure 1).

Pedro (b4, SC) constructed a model building from sugar cubes, then reconstructed it(Figure 2) when another child knocked it down (Sense 2):

However, children were sometimes observed ‘flitting’ between activities (Athey,2007), experiencing ‘shallow’, rather than ‘deep-level’ explorations (Laevers, 2000).These prevailed more in Setting C. For example, after Oscar (b5, SC) had tested his‘climbing frame’ he moved through eleven activities in four minutes; in fiveminutes, Martin (b5, SC) attempted ten activities.

Several children were encouraged to explore by their peers; this was most com-monly observed in Settings B and C (DeVries et al., 1991). Harry (b4, SB) exploredstory and characterisation with friends during a socio-dramatic game of BenTen(Senses 1 and 2). Pedro (b4, SC) and his friend explored visual impairment byguiding one another around the playground with closed eyes (Senses 2 and 3), whileAnnie (g7, SA) was drawn from her work to join eight of her peers to look for aspider (Sense 1).

Children often built on their prior experiences and knowledge when freely explor-ing: they had gathered data (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2007) and in the setting, appliedit to their new explorations. Gemma (g4, SB) synthesised her experiences of visiting acastle with her family and her explorations of materials to create a castle picture withdetailed crenellations (Sense 2). She also used her experiences of necklaces as thebasis for exploring ways to create a necklace from paper (Sense 2). Similarly,Johnny (b4, SB) synthesised his prior experiences of watches and measuring skills tocreate a ‘watch’ which he then wore (Sense 2). Meanwhile, during a self-initiatedrole play with her friend, Nora (g5, SC) explored some issues she had previouslyencountered (Sense 2):

Pretend that I was your boyfriend. Pretend I was laying on you. Pretend you get sick onyou – all over you.

Figure 1. Oscar’s climbing frame.

Early Child Development and Care 1217

These are examples of children constructing new understandings from the foundationsof their prior experiences (Piaget, 1952). When Billy’s explorations (b8, SA) led to newrealisations for him, he repeated them: while his teacher spoke to the class, he repeat-edly explored ‘off-task’ what happened when he made an imprint with his pen on hisleg (Sense 2). Again while his teacher spoke to the class, he later explored what hecould do with a small stone ‘off-task’ for 15.39 minutes, repeating similar movementsand extending his exploration (Sense 2). For Billy, repetition of selected actions seemedan important aspect of his exploratory behaviour, similar to schemata (Arnold, 2009;Athey, 2007; Meade & Cubey, 2008).

A number of factors appeared to encourage children aged four to eight years in threesettings to explore: free availability of varied materials, opportunities to initiate andfreely pursue explorations of personal interest, peer interactions and prior experiencesand knowledge. The extent to which these factors are available to children in ECECsettings is largely dependent on their practitioners. It should be borne in mind that par-ticipants identified these behaviours as ‘exploration’ and cross-reference to Stebbins’(2001) definition of exploration additionally indicates that his four ‘senses’ of explora-tion in the context of social sciences research are presented by children aged four toeight years in ECEC settings.

Practitioners’ roles and children’s explorations

Observation data suggested that adults provoked children’s explorations, often by pro-viding a stimulus. For example, practitioners provided Gemma (g4, SB) with the idea tomake a pet home which Gemma explored further and developed into a significantproject herself (Sense 4); more inductively, Gemma explored a Tuffcam that prac-titioners introduced (Senses 1 and 2). A practitioner inspired Harry (b4, SB) toexplore various spellings and nonsense words by setting up a phonics cubes game(Sense 4). Practitioners also stimulated children’s explorations by providing resourcesand direction. Martin (b5, SC) explored magnets, tyres, computer programs and

Figure 2. Pedro and the sugar cubes.

1218 J. Murray

musical instruments because his practitioner had planned and provided appropriateresources so that he could do so (Senses 1 and 2).

Practitioners encouraged explorations by affirming them. For example, Querida [g4,SC) and her friend were fascinated by seeds they had found; the practitioner sensitivelyattuned to their interest and helped them to find the resources they needed to explorewhat might happen to the seeds if they planted them (Sense 4) (Hutt et al., 1989;Sylva et al., 2010). Equally, children often seemed to explore in spite of what prac-titioners did (Dweck & Legett, 1988). In Setting A, children often seemed bored bytheir teacher-directed activities and this sometimes acted as a catalyst for them toexplore their own agendas. For example, during the literacy sessions, Annie (g7,SA) looked around the classroom at her peers during the teacher exposition session(Sense 3). Instead of focusing on the teacher’s literacy agenda, Billy (b8, SA) exploredthe sole of his shoe by pulling it up repeatedly with alternate hands (Sense 2), thenexplored his big toe (Sense 1) and Demi (g8, SA) explored a book ‘off-task’ (Sense1). During the teacher-led art sessions, Annie (g7, SA) coloured on the table and exam-ined it to see the effect (Sense 4) and during the whole class numeracy session, Florence(g8, SA) explored her own hand from many different angles (Sense 1). These findingscontradict the beliefs of Hong Kong teachers that direct adult intervention is a pre-requisite for children’s exploration (Chak, 2010).

Whole class discussion or the school assembly also seemed to encourage the chil-dren in Setting B and C to develop personal ‘off-task’ explorations. During assemblies,while adults talked, Gemma (g4, SB) explored the zip of another child’s dress (Sense 1),Harry (b4, SB) explored what would happen to his shirt if he twisted the front of it as faras he could (Sense 4) and he later followed an ant’s progress across the floor with hisfinger (Sense 3). During the whole school singing session, Harry explored what wasbehind him (Sense 3) and India (g5, SB) explored her own fringe (Sense 1), thefaces of the children sitting near her (Sense 3) and the inside of her own mouth withher finger (Sense 1). During whole class discussions, Martin (b5, SC) explored hisfingers (Sense 1) and Querida (g4, SC) explored a hair by pulling one out of herown head and examining it closely (Sense 2). Practitioners sometimes limited chil-dren’s explorations by imposing requirements. A practitioner had instructed childrento draw mini-beasts on a table but Harry (b4, SB) decided to explore the propertiesof each, before categorising them (Sense 3); the practitioner insisted that he return tothe original limited task. Risk aversion sometimes caused practitioners to limit chil-dren’s explorations. When Oscar (b5, SC) attempted to explore the feasibility of thelarge block ‘climbing frame’ he had designed and constructed by climbing on it(Sense 4), a practitioner stopped him (Valentine & McKendrick, 1997). However, inthe setting which practised almost fully free-flow play (Bruce, 2005), no limitationswere presented during the observation.

Time and children’s explorations

Time limitations also seemed to detract from children’s explorations. This was fre-quently imposed by whole school timetabling. For Setting A children, whose schoolday was largely teacher-directed, whole school ‘playtimes’ were their optimal timeto explore and the end of ‘playtimes’ also heralded the end of these children’s explora-tions. However, for children who had more opportunities to pursue theirown explorations throughout the day, the whole school timetabling – even school‘playtimes’ – limited their explorations. On most days, children in Settings B and C

Early Child Development and Care 1219

suddenly had to stop exploring as part of their free-flow play to go to the whole schoolplaytime session, assembly or timetabled PE sessions. When India (g5, SB) and herfriend had been exploring the properties of large cylinders for nearly 13 minutes(Sense 3), they were disappointed to have to stop for ‘tidy-up time’ before lunch.One practitioner (SB) noted that such practice ‘. . . makes it disjointed for them [thechildren]’.

Sometimes children ignored such limitations. Martin (b5, SC) had been exploring acomputer program with two friends (Sense 2); two minutes after the ‘tidy-up’ signal,Martin and his friends were still playing on the computer. A practitioner then calledto the children: ‘Time to tidy up!’ For the next six minutes, while others tidied,Martin explored various aspects of the setting environment (Sense 3). Another time,Johnny (b4, SB) ignored the ‘tidy up’ signal and, while others tidied, spent 15minutes exploring the properties of paper and glue to make a pretend watch (Sense 2)then exploring which shapes would go through which holes in a shape sorter (Sense 4).

Children who were not observed exploring

Focus on children who were not observed exploring provides indications for what sup-ports children to explore and suggests directions for further enquiry. Of the 17 childrenclosely observed, the three children who were not observed exploring were Costas (boyaged 8, Setting A [b8, SA]), Kelly (girl [g] 8, SB), Laura (g5, SB).

Four naturalistic observations featured Costas; the context in which they occurredsuggests why Costas was not observed exploring. Three were constructed in acontext of ‘teacher-directed, programmed learning’ (Siraj-Blatchford et al., 2002,p. 12), offering little opportunity for Costas to explore autonomously: Costas rarelystrayed ‘off-task’. A fourth observation was undertaken during a freely chosen footballgame in the playground during playtime, exemplifying ‘games with rules’: ‘. . . highlysocially constrained and often ritualised’ activities (Hutt et al., 1989, p. 225), so evenwhen choosing freely, because his play choice did not lend itself well to exploration,Costas did not explore. However, more evidence is required to assert that Costasnever explores in his setting.

A free-flow play environment (Bruce, 2005) characterised Setting B’s provision,offering 563 observed examples of exploration, though neither Kelly nor Laura wereobserved exploring. Again, context may have been a reason for the lack of observationsof Kelly and Laura exploring. Kelly was observed eating an apple, then later, playingwith peers in the ‘playdoh’; Laura was observed leading play in the space rocket roleplay, drawing and playing ‘teacher’. Siraj-Blatchford et al. (2002) suggest that active,child-initiated learning, interspersed with sensitive, informed adult interactions is mostlikely to support children to think and learn. Observations including Kelly and Lauradid not include such interactions with adults and this may have limited their opportu-nities to demonstrate exploration.

Conclusion

This grounded CE study focused on whether or not children aged four to eight years inthree ECEC settings explore, the nature of those explorations – and what effects andaffects them – and whether or not young children’s explorations count as epistem-ology. In Stage 1, 14 experienced PEYERs confirmed ‘exploration’ as a research be-haviour, correlating with the literature (Charmaz, 2006; Hammersley & Atkinson,

1220 J. Murray

1995; Silverman, 2006; Stebbins, 2001; Whyte, 1949). Stage 2 introduced three set-tings where data were constructed through multi-modal case studies with 150 childrenand their practitioners during the equivalent of 18 school days, 1227 separate inci-dences of children aged four to eight years exploring were noted and the children’sexplorations featured in 85 observations. Participants contributed freely to this analysis.The enquiry suggests that most young children aged four to eight years engaged inexploration in the three ECEC study settings. However, even when they were free tochoose, not all children chose to explore.

Children’s individual explorations were highly varied yet, in the final analysis,aligned with Stebbins’ (2001) definition of exploration in the context of social sciencesresearch. Equally, explorations seemed to be effected and affected by a range of factors.These included practitioners, their provision, ‘open framework’ setting organisation(Siraj-Blatchford et al., 2002) and opportunities for children to develop and pursuetheir interests to a ‘deep level’ (Laevers, 2000) as well as interactions with peers,stimuli, practitioners’ affirmation and availability of different materials that the childrenhad opportunities to apply in ways they chose. Autonomy to initiate, pursue and some-times repeat personal explorations freely also seemed important and children oftendrew on prior experiences and knowledge they had previously constructed, in andout of the setting. Teacher-directed contexts, particularly large group work that childrenseemed to find tedious sometimes encouraged them to pursue their own explorations‘off task’.

A number of factors seemed to limit children’s exploration in their settings. Chil-dren in the teacher-directed setting were observed to explore 43% less than childrenin the open framework settings. Even in open framework settings, very detailed plan-ning and strong direction by practitioners seemed to discourage children’s ‘deep-level’explorations (Laevers, 2000) and tended to result in them ‘flitting’ between activities.Practitioners’ concern for children’s safety sometimes limited children’s opportunitiesto explore. Time limitations, particularly whole school timetabling seemed to limitexploratory behaviour, but some children ignored such limitations and continuedexploring according to their own agendas.

In this critical ethnographic study with its grounded approach, the authenticity ofparticipants’ contributions lends rigour to findings (Carspecken, 1996; Charmaz,2006). Children contributed, with practitioners and PEYERS, to analysing videofootage of children exploring in their settings, offering their own interpretations ofwhat they saw and heard (Silverman, 2006). Through these analyses, children, prac-titioners and PEYERS identified many incidences of children exploring in theirsettings. Moreover, elements of children’s explorations identified empirically in thisstudy align with elements of research established in the literature. While exploring,children were observed planning (Charmaz, 2006), data gathering (Hammersley &Atkinson, 2007) and interpreting (Silverman, 2006). Retrospective comparison withStebbins’ (2001) definition of exploration indicates further correlations between adultsocial scientists’ exploratory research behaviours and the exploratory behaviours ofchildren aged four to eight years. The present study found that children engaged inexploratory research, providing ways for them to construct knowledge and understand-ing, often in sequences that they planned and implemented themselves. Furthermore,children contributed to validating findings. If epistemology is ‘concerned with thenature and justification of human knowledge’ (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997, p. 88), it canbe argued, therefore, that the explorations undertaken by these young children agedfour to eight years in their settings count as epistemology.

Early Child Development and Care 1221

This paper reports one part of a larger study that revisits Piaget’s (1970) conceptu-alisation of young children as researchers. It does so in the context of new discoursesand evidence from the fields of ECEC, education, sociology, psychology and econ-omics and it provides new empirical evidence from contemporary ECEC settings.The study is ongoing: to explore further whether or not young children can be concep-tualised as researchers, broader and deeper analysis of the data is planned, conductedthrough the lenses of the other research behaviours identified by PEYERs.

Notes on contributorJane Murray is senior lecturer in education at the University of Northampton where she teacheson a range of undergraduate and postgraduate programmes. Her research interests are locatedwithin the early childhood education and care field and include pedagogy, epistemology andyoung children’s agency.

ReferencesAbbott, L., & Langston, A. (2005). Birth to three matters. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Adams, S., Alexander, E., Drummond, M.J., & Moyles, J. (2004). Inside the foundation stage:

Recreating the reception year (Final report). London: Association of Teachers andLecturers.

Adolph, K.E. (2008). Learning to move. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(3),213–218.

Alderson, P. (2008). Children as researchers: Participation rights and research methods. InP. Christensen & A. James (Eds.), Research with children (pp. 276–290). London:Routledge.

Alexander, R. (2009). Children, their world, their education: Final report and recommen-dations of the Cambridge primary review. London: Routledge.

Alexander, R.J., Rose, J., & Woodhead, C. (1992). Curriculum organisation and classroompractice in primary schools. London: Department for Education and Science.

Arnold, C. (2009). Understanding ‘Together and Apart’: A case study of Edward’s explorationsat nursery. Early Years, 29(2), 119–130.

Athey, C. (2007). Extending thought in young children. London: PCP.Bae, B. (2010). Realizing children’s right to participation in early childhood settings: Some criti-

cal issues in a Norwegian context. Early Years, 30(3), 205–218.Ball, C. (1994). Start right: The importance of early learning. London: Royal Society of Arts.Ball, S.J. (2001). ‘You’ve been NERFed!’ Dumbing down the academy: National Educational

Research Forum: ‘A national strategy? Consultation paper’: A brief and bilious response.Journal of Education Policy, 16(3), 265–268.

Belsky, J. (1986). Infant day care: A cause for concern? Zero to Three, 6(4), 1–9.Belsky, J. (1988). The effects of infant day care reconsidered. Early Childhood Research

Quarterly, 3, 235–272.Belsky, J. (1990). Parental and non-parental childcare and children’s socio-emotional develop-

ment: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52(4), 885–903.Board of Education (BoE). (1905). Report on children under five years of age in public elemen-

tary schools. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO).Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base. London: Routledge.British Educational Research Association (BERA). (2004). Revised ethical guidelines for

educational research. Retrieved July 6, 2011, from http://www.bera.ac.uk/files/guidelines/ethica1.pdf.

Broadhead, P. (2001). Investigating sociability and cooperation in four and five year olds inreception class settings. International Journal of Early Years Education, 9(1), 23–35.

Bruce, T. (1994). Children, adults and blockplay. In P. Gura (Ed.), Exploring learning(pp. 14–26). London: Paul Chapman.

Bruce, T. (2005). Developing learning in early childhood. London: PCP.

1222 J. Murray

Bruner, J.S., & Olson, D.R. (1978). Symbols and texts as tools of intellect. Interchange, 8(4),1–15.

Burke, K. (1966). Language and symbolic action. Berkeley, CA: University of California.Carspecken, P.F. (1996). Critical ethnography in educational research. London: Routledge.Central Advisory Council for Education. (1967). Children and their primary schools. The

Plowden report. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.Chak, A. (2010). Adult response to children’s exploratory behaviours: An exploratory study.

Early Child Development and Care, 180(5), 633–646.Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory. London: Sage.Christensen, P., & James, A. (Eds.). (2008). Research with children. London: Routledge.Clark, A., & Moss, P. (2001). Listening to young children: The mosaic approach. London:

National Children’s Bureau.Cleave, S., & Brown, S. (1991). Early to school: Four-year-olds in infant classes. London:

Routledge.Corsaro, W. (2005). The sociology of childhood. 2e. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.Creswell, J. (2008). Educational research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.Deasey, D. (1978). Education under six. London: Croom Helm.Denzin, N.K. (2005). Emancipatory discourses and the ethics and politics of interpretation. In

N.K. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative enquiry. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF). (2008). The early years foundationstage. London: Department for Children, Schools and Families.

Department for Education (DfE). (2010a). The importance of teaching: Schools white paper.Retrieved July 6, 2011, from http://www.education.gov.uk/b0068570/the-importance-of-teaching/.

Department for Education (DfE). (2010b). The review of the early years foundation stage.Retrieved July 6, 2011, from http://www.education.gov.uk/tickellreview.

Department of Education and Science (DES). (1990). Starting with quality. The Rumbold report.London: Department of Education and Science.

Department for Education and Skills (DfES). (2003). Exellence and enjoyment. Nottingham:Department for Education and Skills.

DeVries, R., Reese-Learned, H., & Morgan, P. (1991). Sociomoral development in direct-instruction, eclectic, and constructivist kindergartens: A study of children’s enacted interper-sonal understanding. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 6(4), 473–517.

Dweck, C.S., & Legett, E.L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality.Psychological Review, 95, 256–273.

Early Childhood Education Forum (ECEF). (1998). Quality in diversity. London: NationalChildren’s Bureau.

Fielding, M. (2001). Students as radical agents of change. Journal of Educational Change, 2(2),123–141.

Fine, F.G., & Sandstrom, K. (1988). Knowing children: Participant observation with minors.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Forman, G. (2006). Constructive play. In D.P. Fromberg & D. Bergen (Eds.), Play from birth totwelve (pp. 103–110). London: Routledge.

Froebel, F. (1826). On the education of man. Keilhau/Leipzig: Wienbrach.Gallas, K. (1994). The languages of learning: How children talk, write, dance, draw, and sing

their understanding of the world. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Galton, M., Hargreaves, L., Comber, C., Pell, T., & Wall, D. (1999). Inside the primary class-

room: 20 years on. London: Routledge.Galton, M., Simon, B., & Croll, P. (1980). Inside the primary classroom. London: Routledge

and Kegan Paul.Gammage, P. (2006). Early childhood education and care: Politics, policies and possibilities.

Early Years, 26(3), 235–248.Garner, B.P., & Bergen, D. (2006). Play development from birth to age four. In D.P. Fromberg

& D. Bergen (Eds.), Play from birth to twelve (pp. 3–11). London: Routledge.Gerhardt, S. (2004). Why love matters: How affection shapes a baby’s brain. London: Brunner-

Routledge.Goldschmied, E., & Jackson, S. (2004). People under three. London: Routledge.

Early Child Development and Care 1223

Gopnik, A., Meltzoff, A.N., & Kuhl, P. (1999). How babies think. London: Weidenfeld andNicolson.

Goswami, U., & Bryant, P. (2007). Children’s cognitive development and learning (PrimaryReview Research Survey 2/1a). Cambridge: University of Cambridge Faculty of Education.

Griffiths, M. (1998). Educational research for social justice. Buckingham: Open UniversityPress.

Gura, P. (1992). Developmental aspects of blockplay. In P. Gura (Ed.), Exploring learning(pp. 48–74). London: Paul Chapman.

Hadow, W.H. (1933). Infant and nursery schools (Report of the Consultative Committee).London: HMSO.

Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (2007). Ethnography: Principles in practice. London:Routledge.

Hardman, C. (1973). Can there be an anthropology of children? Journal of the AnthropologySociety of Oxford, 4(1), 85–99.

Her Majesty’s Government (HMG). (1872). Revised code of regulations: Standards ofeducation. London: Hansard.

Hofer, B.K., & Pintrich, P.R. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefsabout knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of EducationalResearch, 67(1), 88–140.

Hoyuelos, A. (2004). A pedagogy of transgression. Children in Europe, 6, 6–7.Hughes, B. (2002). A playworker’s taxonomy of play types. London: Playlink.Hughes, M.M. (1979). Exploration and play revisited: An hierarchical analysis. International

Journal of Behavioural Development, 2(3), 215–24.Hughes, M.M., & Hutt, C. (1980, June). Heart rate correlates of childhood activities: Play,

exploration, problem solving and daydreaming. Biological Psychology, 8, 253–263.Hutt, C., Tyler, S., Hutt, C., & Christopherson, H. (1989). Play, exploration and learning.

London: Routledge.Isaacs, S. (1929). The nursery years. London: Routledge.Isaacs, S., & Isaacs, N. (1944). Intellectual growth in young children and children’s ‘Why’ ques-

tions. London: Routledge.James, A., & James, A. (2008). Key concepts in childhood studies. London: Sage.James, A., Jenks, C., & Prout, A. (1998). Theorising childhood. Cambridge: Polity Press.Johnson, J. (2006). Play development from ages four to eight. In D.P. Fromberg & D. Bergen

(Eds.), Play from birth to twelve (pp. 13–20). London: Routledge.Kellett, M. (2009). Children as researchers: What we can learn from them about the impact of

poverty on literacy opportunities? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 13(4),395–408.

King, D.L. (1966). A review and interpretation of some aspects of the infant–mother relation-ship in mammals and birds. Psychological Bulletin, 65(3), 143–155.

Laevers, F. (2000). Forward to basics! Deep-level-learning and the experiential approach. EarlyYears, 20(2), 20–29.

Lansdown, G. (2005). The evolving capacities of the child. Florence: UNICEF InnocentiResearch Centre.

Macintyre, C. (2001). Enhancing learning through play. London: David Fulton.Malaguzzi, L. (1993). For an education based on relationships. Young Children, 49(1), 9–12.Malaguzzi, L. (1998). History, ideas and basic philosophy. In C. Edwards, L. Gandini, &

G. Forman (Eds.), The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia approachadvanced reflections (pp. 49–98). Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.

McMillan, M. (1919). The nursery school. London: Dent.Meade, A., & Cubey, P. (2008). Thinking children: Learning about schemas. Maidenhead:

McGraw-Hill and Open University Press.Meadows, S. (2006). The child as thinker. London: Routledge.Morgan, A., & Kennewell, S. (2005). The role of play in the pedagogy of ICT. Education and

Information Technologies, 10(3), 177–188.Murray, J. (2006). Conversations with Gatekeepers: Academic and leadership perspectives on

early years’ educational research. Paper presented at the EECERA 16th Annual Conferencein Reykjavik, September 2006.

1224 J. Murray

Murray, J. (2010). Reclaiming our children’s rights from the jaws of school effectiveness. InTraining, advancement and co-operation in teaching young children: Reflecting on earlyyears issues. Retrieved July 6, 2011, from http://www.tactyc.org.uk/reflections_papers.asp.

Murray, J. (2011). Knock, knock! Who’s there? Gaining access to young children as researchers:A critical review. Educate, 11(1), 91–109.

Napier, N., & Sharkey, A. (2004). Play. In D. Wyse (Ed.), Childhood studies (pp. 149–152).Oxford: Blackwell.

Parton, N. (2005). Safeguarding childhood. Early intervention and surveillance in late modernsociety. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.

Pellegrini, A. (2004). Observing children in their natural worlds. Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.

Percy-Smith, B., & Thomas, N. (Eds.). (2010). A handbook of children and young people’s par-ticipation. London: Routledge.

Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York, NY: W.W. Norton and Co.Piaget, J. (1970). The principles of genetic epistemology. London: Routledge Kegan Paul.Piaget, J. (1971). Science of education and the psychology of the child. Harlow: Longman.Pollard, A., & Filer, A. (1996). The social world of children’s learning. London: Continuum.Redmond, G. (2008). Children’s perspectives on economic adversity: A review of the literature.

Sydney: The Social Policy Research Centre. Retrieved July 6, 2011 http://www.sprc.unsw.edu.au/media/File/DP149.pdf.

Robinson, M. (2008). Child development birth to eight. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill and OpenUniversity Press.

Robson, C. (1993). Real world research. Oxford: Blackwell.Rousseau, J.-J. (1762). Emile (1911 ed.). London: Dent.Rutter, M. (2002). Nature, nurture and development: From evangelism through science toward

policy and practice. Child Development, 73(1), 1–21.Ryle, G. (1968). The thinking of thoughts: What is ‘Le Penseur’ doing?, University of

Saskatchewan Lectures 18. Reprinted in G. Ryle (2009). Collected Papers. Volume 2:Collected Essays, 1929–1968 (pp. 494–510). London: Routledge.

Sen, A. (1993). Capability and well-being. In M. Nussbaum & A. Sen (Eds.), The quality of life(pp. 30–53). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting qualitative data. London: Sage.Siraj-Blatchford, I., Sylva, K., Muttock, S., Gilden, R., & Bell, D. (2002). Researching effective

pedagogy in the early years. London: Department for Education and Skills.Stebbins, R.A. (2001). Exploratory research in the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Taggart, B. (2010). Early child-

hood matters. London: Routledge.United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). (2005). General comment no. 7

(2005): Implementing child rights in early childhood. Retrieved July 6, 2011, from http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/crc/docs/AdvanceVersions/GeneralComment7Rev1.pdf.

United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). (2008). Consideration ofreports submitted by States parties under article 44 of the convention: Convention on therights of the child: Concluding observations: United Kingdom of Great Britain andNorthern Ireland, 20 October 2008, CRC/C/GBR/CO/4. Retrieved July 6, 2011, fromhttp://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4906d1d72.html.

Valentine, G., & McKendrick, J. (1997). Children’s outdoor play: Exploring parental concernsabout children’s safety and the changing nature of childhood. Geoforum, 28(2), 219–235.

Whyte, W.F. (1949, January). The social structure of the restaurant. American Journal ofSociology, 54, 302–310.

Wood, E. (2007). Reconceptualising child-centred education: Contemporary directions inpolicy, theory and practice in early childhood. Forum, 49(1&2), 119–133.

Wyver, S., Tranter, P., Naugthon, G., Little, H., Sandseter, E., & Bundy, A. (2010). Ten ways torestrict children’s freedom to play: The problem of surplus safety. Contemporary Issues inEarly Childhood, 11(3), 263–277.

Early Child Development and Care 1225