Introduction

As part of Australia’s first national curriculum, developed in 2009, as well as the recently revised 2022 edition, the Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF) adopted ‘intentional teaching’ as one of eight key practices to promote children’s learning. In both documents, the EYLF refers to the role of educators who are ‘intentional in all aspects of the curriculum and act deliberately, thoughtfully and purposefully’ (AGDE, 2022, p. 22). This definition evolved from Epstein (2007), who drew from the work of Pianta (2003) and Berliner (1992), defining an intentional teacher as ‘one who acts with knowledge and purpose to ensure that young children acquire the knowledge and skills (content) necessary for success in school and life’ (p.1). Intentional teaching has a history in Developmentally Appropriate Practice (DAP) within the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), drawing largely from Piaget’s (1971) intellectual development theory (Schweinhart & Weikart, 1997), used within the High/Scope approach. The current definition for an intentional teacher is problematic for contemporary Australian early learning environments as it lacks an interpretation that supports the practices and outcomes of a contemporary Early Years Learning Framework (AGDE, 2022). The following four considerations are presented as a rationale for why the current definition of an intentional teacher needs to be reconsidered within current policy documentation:

First, as part of the EYLF (AGDE, 2022) educators are encouraged to recognise the significance of the ‘here and now’ in children’s lives and to see early childhood years as not ‘solely preparation for the future but also about the present’ (p. 6). Second, the goal of preparing children for school by equipping them with knowledge and content under the High/Scope definition of an intentional teacher runs contrary to the purposes of the Australian EYLF that values and recognises the importance of early childhood. Third, the associated historical notions of the role of the educator, with direct links to DAP, creates tension within contemporary curriculum frameworks that embrace socio-cultural and postmodern conceptualisations.

Finally, the learning objectives of High/Scope focusing on eight curricula areas, runs counter to the EYLF outcomes which are ‘broad and observable’ (AGDE, 2022, p. 29) and contributes to the growing trend of assessment regimes for school entry, with a view of preschool as merely preparation for school. Dahlberg et al. (2013) cautioned educators against predetermined learning outcomes for children, stating that, “The maps, the classifications and the ready-made categories end up replacing the richness of children’s lived lives and the inescapable complexity of concrete experience” (p. 36).

It is clear that underlying tensions within the EYLF exist from the causal relationship between the term intentional teacher and past developmental theories. Grieshaber (2008) challenged educators long-held ideas about the role of the educator as a ‘hands off’ approach, calling for Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) to move beyond the developmental paradigm. Similarly, Kilderry (2015) noted the continued influence of DAP on educators’ pedagogical practices noting that, ‘due to the effects of the dominance of the DAP discourse, it potentially limited the theoretical space for other ways of thinking and practicing’ (p.26). Leggett and Ford (2013) further highlighted misinterpretations of intentional teaching by Australian educators who viewed this as a time to ‘teach’ children - mostly occurring indoors. They argued that this was contrary to a contemporary curriculum that includes ‘all the interactions, experiences, routines and events, planned and unplanned, that occur in an environment designed to foster children’s learning, development and well-being’ (AGDE, 2022, p. 7). Since its inception in 2009, intentional teaching remained a contentious term in relation to the role of the educator, largely due to the historical implications and current contested meanings and practices in Australian Early Childhood Education and Care.

In 2022, the intentional teaching practice of the EYLF was revised in response to research presented by Leggett and Ford (2013), which highlighted the need to provide a balance between adult guided and child-led play. The framework now has a ‘specific emphasis on play-based learning and the intentional role played by both educators and children’ (AGDE, 2022, p. 4). Within the revised edition, the old practices of ‘learning through play’ and ‘intentional teaching’ have merged into one new practice, ‘play-based learning and intentionality’ (AGDE, 2022, p. 21). Though this recognises the intentional roles of both children and adults, there is a danger to assume that all play involves learning and that all learning occurs during play. In addition, the recent shift of the role of the educator now situated heavily within children’s play, presents a new need for acknowledging the child’s right to freedom in play and their agency for creative expression.

While the EYLF continues to draw from intentional teaching practices developed by Epstein (2007), it has tried to avoid discourses located in DAP where adults were the primary decision makers, in favour of more contemporary approaches drawn from an emergent curriculum, most notably, Reggio Emilia. The EYLF drew inspiration from the world-renowned Reggio Emilia approach, recognising a child-led curriculum and valuing rich environments that act as the ‘third teacher’ (Edwards et al., 2012). The Reggio Emilia approach is often cited by many early childhood services in Australia who have now incorporated key elements into their centre’s philosophy. This approach also values creative thinking as central to children’s learning with no assessable outcomes. Loris Malaguzzi’s (1998) proposal of the hundred languages of children is representative of the many creative ways that children express their thoughts. In place of assessments, educators carefully document children’s learning pathways as a means of making their thinking visible.

This paper draws from recent research that closely analysed discussions between educators from three early childhood centres in the region of Reggio Emilia, Italy and educators from four early childhood centres located in the Newcastle regions of NSW, Australia. The centres in Reggio Emilia, Italy were selected for their expertise in implementing the Reggio Emilia approach to ECEC underpinned by socio-cultural theories. These centres belong to a municipality where all practitioners fall under the guidance and support of a lead Pedagogista. Educators who implement the Reggio Emilia approach are recognised for their role in careful listening, documentation, and continued reflective practice (Edwards et al., 2012). Educators from the Australian centres were able to share their conceptions of the intentional teacher as part of the Australian national curriculum and negotiate their understandings with educators from their Italian counterparts. The voices of educators in this study present current conceptions of intentional teaching that emphasise the important notion of careful, considerate, collaborative, and reflective practice within early childhood pedagogy.

Through Skype meetings, email exchanges, and reflective conversations on centre documentation, these educators contributed shared meanings that could potentially resolve tensions about intentionality. This paper argues that from collective understandings of practitioners in this study, a more nuanced definition for the role of the educator can be unveiled from current practices that closely correlate with contemporary theoretical understandings. This paper presents aspects of the intentional teacher currently neglected within curriculum documentation. These pedagogical practices include taking time; being careful in their approach to children’s learning; applying thoughtful considerations for the creative thinking of children; and engaging in collaborative, reflective practice.

The Role of the Educator as an Intentional Teacher: New Considerations for Defining this Role from the Reggio Emilia Approach

Currently, the EYLF states that ‘educators are intentional in all aspects of the curriculum and act deliberately, thoughtfully and purposefully to support children’s learning through play’ (AGDE, 2022, p. 22). What is not stated in this definition is that a teacher’s actions should also originate from ‘careful thought and be accompanied by careful consideration and critical reflection of their potential effects’ (Epstein, 2007). Perhaps what is missing from the definition as adopted by the EYLF is the notion of ‘care’ as suggested by Epstein for the role of the educator. The current definition of a teacher’s role omits essential words that represent the careful considerations educators make each and every day as well as the many personal and collaborative critical reflections necessary for how teachers think and respond to children. Taking care and listening to children is a central tenet of the Reggio Emilia approach.

The Reggio Emilia approach is one in which children’s ideas and thoughts are respected and taken seriously, because adults pay careful attention to what children communicate through their various ways of learning, or ‘hundred languages’ (Rinaldi, 2006). The role of the educator involves careful and sensitive listening, observation, documentation, and reflection as teachers work in small groups with children. Educators provide provocations, open-ended resources, collaborative action and invest in the co-construction of knowledge with children (Rinaldi, 2006). These practices are underpinned by socio-cultural theorists such as Vygotsky (1978, 1986, 1990) who was a key influence on their practice (Malaguzzi, 1998; Rinaldi, 2006). In particular, creativity was recognised as a core cognitive function for which the child was able to express his/her thoughts through a variety of media. For Vygotsky (1990), creativity meant the ability to combine thoughts in unique ways to create something new. According to the pedagogists (educators) in Reggio Emilia, all learning is a creative act, not in terms of product but rather in terms of process. From a Vygotskian perspective, the educator co-constructs learning with cultural tools through a social process where the child’s ideas, concepts and practices are guided by others (1978, 1986, 1990). The educator is deeply aware of the child’s interests, potential, and creativity. Gandini (1993) stated that:

All children have preparedness, potential, curiosity, and interest, in constructing their learning, in engaging in social interaction, and in negotiating with everything the environment brings to them. Teachers are deeply aware of children’s potentials and construct all their work and the environment of the children’s experience to respond appropriately (p. 5).

From this statement, Vygotskian theory supports how teachers facilitate a learning environment that promotes collaboration between peers so that a child’s potential can emerge and develop from interaction with more capable others; hence working within the zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978). The Reggio Emilia approach emphasises an open-ended learning process. The teacher does not have a set goal in mind for children; rather the child’s own curiosity and interest directs possible pathways for learning in which the child is able to express him/herself. One key aspect of the role of the educator is documenting children’s thinking, as a tool for making learning visible. Educators and children co-research the world around them, with the educator paying close attention to what captures the eye of the child. The educator presents provocations in the way of hypotheses that challenge the child further in seeking creative answers to problems that arise within their learning environments. This description resonates with the socio-cultural underpinning where collaboration and democracy form key principles. Children are viewed as capable contributors who collaborate and work collectively with educators who closely document and reflect on the process of teaching and learning.

Malaguzzi (1998), founder of the Reggio Emilia approach, explained that to fully respect the research paths undertaken daily by children, it is necessary to dedicate time to pedagogical documentation, as ‘an extraordinary tool for dialogue, for exchange, for sharing, that for Malaguzzi, meant the possibility to discuss everything with everyone’ (Hoyuelos, 2004, p. 7). The process of documentation takes and needs time: time for preparation, time for listening, time for documenting, time for discussion, and time for reflection. Vecchi (2010), found that what was detrimental to children’s education were ‘proposals for creating things with hurried actions, in too short a time, and insufficient quality of relationships to the subject of their work’ (p. 31). Vecchi (2010) suggests that acts of attention and care, or taking care means not considering problems of a practical nature to be irrelevant. Constant and sensitive attention to the research processes implemented by the children allows educators to recognize the final products as closely intertwined with the contexts in which they were created. For this reason, Malaguzzi (1998) stated that the work of a teacher is for ‘professional marvellers’. He recognised the need to value children, listen to them, and have patience in awaiting the magnificent ideas and theories they have to offer. In this sense, educators must be considerate of the time children need to learn and experience being in the world around them.

Pedagogical Practices: Understanding the Importance of time and Slowing down the Pace of Teaching and Learning

Malaguzzi (1998) recalled Ferdinando Pessoa stating that ‘the measure of the clock is false. It is certainly false with respect to the clock of children, of childhood experiences, of subjective experiences, of learning and teaching situations’ (p. 47). It is essential that as educators, we remember we cannot use time against individual children’s growth, their learning experiences, or as a measure for teaching. As Caggio and Noziglia (2002) state:

It is necessary to guarantee each child a meaningful everyday life not so much on the basis of ‘the amount of stimuli and activities he does or performs or lives, but on the basis of the amount of time he has, takes, spends, uses and learns to use to have, realize and fulfil what is important for him. A time therefore thought by reason of becoming oneself by understanding what happens, how much, when and how it happens; a time that reassures the child and that is a sign of an educational style aimed at involving him in his events’ (pp. 47–48).

Taking time in education, therefore, becomes a metaphor for rediscovering, persevering to seek the true meaning of experiences and taking care of each other and ourselves. In this sense, it also means opposing the logic of speed, that is disrespectful of the learning and growth times of the individual child. For educators within Australian ECEC centres, taking care, and considering time requires an intentional slowing down of the pace of living and their daily pedagogical practices.

Slow Pedagogy

Slow pedagogy is more than just slowing down. This approach seeks to achieve healthy bonds between people as well as seek embeddedness and connectedness to the local community. Adopting slow pedagogy provides spaces for deep learning and meaningful engagement with the world. Slow pedagogy emphasises the role of the body (ies) in learning experiences, taking seriously the corporeal and intercorporeal turns in philosophy and nature discourses (Grosz, 2004; Merleau-Ponty, 1962; Payne & Wattchow, 2009). Payne and Wattchow (2009) state that for deep learning and connection with one’s surrounds requires a ‘shift in emphasis from focusing on the ‘learning mind’ to re-engaging the active, perceiving, and sensuous corporeality of the body with other bodies (human and non-human) in making meaning in, about, and for the various environments and places in which those bodies interact…’ (p. 16). For the Italian participants in this study, a slower pace in life is a familiar aspect of cultural life born out of the slow food movement instigated by Petrini (2001) in the 1980’s. Within ECEC systems of Reggio Emilia, Italy, slowness is also experienced by educators who are free from external evaluation systems and Government testing regimes. Whereas in Australia, slowing down is not as easy due to the ongoing pressures presented by governmental accountability. The next section presents recent research involving findings from municipal early childhood centres from the region of Reggio Emilia, Italy, and Newcastle, Australia.

Recent Research with Educators from Australia and Italy

A recent study by the authors, brought together teachers from Italian and Australian early childhood services to share their understandings of their role in promoting children’s creative thinking within different educational contexts. This pilot project involved a team of six researchers: three based in Italy and three in Australia. Three early childhood centres from the regions of Reggio Emilia, Italy, and four early childhood centres from the Newcastle region of NSW, Australia, were invited to participate in the study. Following ethics approval from the University ethics committee (Approval number H-2019-0233), a total of 18 educators from three centres in Reggio Emilia, Italy and 25 educators from four centres in Newcastle region, NSW agreed to participate in this study.

Methodology

This was a qualitative, phenomenological study exploring educators’ conceptualisations of children’s creative thinking and their role as intentional teachers. Four sets of ‘sister centres’ were created, pairing centres from Italy and Australia based on centre size and total number of children attending aged 3–5 years. To generate data for analysis, all participants completed a pre-and post-research questionnaire online. Two educators from each centre then volunteered to attend three planned Skype meetings over a four-month period. However, with the outbreak of COVID-19 during this research, and the inevitable closure of centres, first in Italy and then Australia, only two Skype meetings between sister centres were conducted. Each Skype meeting ran for approximately 60 minutes; these were transcribed and later translated into both English and Italian.

One of the main foci included discussions on their role as educators in promoting children’s creative thinking. By using the keyboard during the Skype meetings, educators were able to type their questions and responses with an automatic translation tool. Participants and researchers in both Italy and Australia were provided with data in both language versions to make any amendments or revisions. Following each Skype meeting, these educators attended centre-based meetings to share the transcribed conversations with their team members. In place of a third round of Skype meetings, the focus shifted to documentation. Each research site emailed three examples of centre documentation to their sister centre. Participants then commented on the teaching strategies used by the educators. These responses were translated and returned to each centre for further input and discussion.

Analysis

Analysis of data was implemented using a two-cycle approach (Saldana, 2015). During the first cycle, participant information was deidentified, and data were sorted into tables and charts according to the various stages of the research. The second cycle of analysis involved interpreting significant aspects of the data through a process of coding according to patterns, as well as the use of NVivo codes to organise data into categories (Saldana, 2015). After each stage of analysis (pre-questionnaires, skype meetings, post-meeting notes, emails/documentation and post-questionnaires) researchers from Italy and Australia met via skype to share their analysis summaries and triangulate the data through shared perspectives. Each stage of analysis was implemented by both the Italian and Australian researchers within their own contexts. The researchers exchanged their analysis and interpretations for additional comment. As Sipe and Ghiso (2004) note: ‘All coding is a judgment call’ since we bring our ‘subjectivities, our personalities, our predispositions, (and) our quirks’ to the process (pp.482-3). By sharing our analysis and interpretations with each other, we were able to provide a more transparent and valid approach through the triangulation of different perspectives. This paper focuses on data analysed from the pre-questionnaires as well as the two skype meetings.

Pre-Research Questionnaires

At the commencement of the study, all participants were emailed a pre-research questionnaire. One question asked educators: From your training and experience in early childhood education and care, what do you think is important to promote creative processes in children? Table 1 presents an analysis of what the Australian participants thought was important to promote creative processes in children and Table 2 presents an analysis of responses to this question from the Italian participants.

Table 1 What Australian participants think is important to promote creative processes in children
Full size table
Table 2 What Italian participants think is important to promote creative processes in children
Full size table

The Role of the Educator and the Agentic Child

From both responses, it is clear that the role of the educator is considered the most significant factor in promoting young children’s creative thinking in addition to providing time, contexts/environments, and resources, and through the relationships they have with the children. However, there is a difference emerging from the data with regard to the view of the child. It is evident that the agentic child, popularised by the Reggio Emilia movement, has been adopted by educators in their practice in an effort to challenge historical notions of the child as innocent and powerless (Corsaro, 1997). Children are instead viewed as active participants who co-construct knowledge with adults as they make sense of their world through active engagement with it (Corsaro, 1997). From the Italian responses, curriculum for children is co-constructed through adult-child collaboration where adults guide the learning process, striving together to augment their understandings of issues important to them (Woodrow, 1999). Planning is, therefore, carefully co-constructed and implemented as it unfolds from careful listening, dialogue, interaction, observation, and recordings of children’s ideas, thoughts, interests, and languages (Sorin, 2005).

While the Australian participants were able to describe their role as intentional teachers who used strategies such as supporting, guiding, asking and questioning, they also felt that their role was to ‘provide for’ and ‘allow’ children to communicate their ideas and think for themselves. This style of representation echoes the sentiments of the Australian EYLF that presents a child-centred, play-based approach to learning. The EYLF (AGDE, 2022) uses ‘allowing’ and ‘providing’ as words for describing the role of the educator. For example, it states that the educator is one who, ‘provides opportunities for children to engage independently with tasks and play… and provides time and space for children to engage in both individual and collaborative pursuits’ (p. 33). In reference to the term ‘allow’, the EYLF (AGDE, 2022) describes play-based learning as a context that ‘allows for the expression of personality and uniqueness’ (p. 8) and that documentation ‘allows children to reflect on their learning and develop an understanding of themselves as learners’ (p. 26). The Australian educators in this study exercised their knowledge of imparting the principles and practices of the EYLF through their descriptions of daily practice. From the strategies listed, the Australian participants viewed their role as one who provided the ‘conditions’ that allowed for children’s creativity to flourish through their play, in which children were in control.

Conversely, the Italian educators in this research, shared their approach in the process of co-constructing knowledge with children and the collaborative nature of problem-solving using provocations from the educator. Educators also acknowledged the important role of the environment in supporting children’s learning. From the Italian educators’ responses, it was evident that they were in constant dialogue and exchange with small groups of children as they co-researched and investigated hypotheses. Scientific terminology was used to describe their role as co-researchers: proposing problems, researching, listening, formulating hypotheses and presenting problem-solving situations. For the Italian educators, a much deeper level of collaboration was expressed in leading the children, and involvement ‘with’ children, rather than ‘following’ their interests.

Skype Meetings

From the first two Skype meetings, two educators from each sister centre met to discuss their teaching practices in relation to promoting children’s creative thinking. Each centre partnership was coded, for example: Australia 1 (A1), and Italy 1 (I1). For the first Skype meeting, educators were asked to share how they felt they promoted creative thinking in their own practice, and for the second meeting participants discussed the ways they encouraged, prompted, or stimulated creative thinking in children. This section presents some of the data that highlights participants’ understandings of their role as educators. In the following example, educators were sharing their role for setting up the outdoor environment for children:

A1 stated: When we set up our spaces, they are all open-ended and our children have lots of unhurried time to play independently so that teachers aren’t always interfering which we believe allows for children to be more creative and wilder with their imagination as sometimes educators can be too worried about ‘what are you doing? Why?’ and asking questions or planning teacher-led experiences targeted at a specific outcome or area of development.

I1 responded with: Our educational philosophy recognises the outdoor space as a permanent atelier so indoor and outdoor are seen as complementary. The child has the opportunity to do research outside and collect the material, to bring it inside and then re-evaluate it, through insights and the use of multiple languages, such as art, painting, body language, music and through also a technological approach capable of creating immersive contexts that stimulate in the child imagination and creativity. The role of the teacher is to facilitate and stimulate relationships between children and their hypotheses. We teachers observe, listen in a participatory way and are together with the children co-builders of the experiences and situations that live…

For the Italian participant, creative thinking is expressed by children through multiple languages; or as Malaguzzi proposed, the hundred languages of children (Rinaldi, 2006). This educator highlighted the importance of children hypothesising, questioning, and observing, with the assistance of a teacher who co-constructs their knowledge (Vygotsky, 1978). She suggested that the children have their own strategies, hypotheses, and questions that they ask among themselves in which they seek to find answers. The intentional teaching strategies from her perspective are to co-research through observing and listening in a participatory way with the children. The role of the teacher is to facilitate and stimulate the relationship between the children and their hypotheses.

For the Australian participant, her belief was that a play-based approach allows for creativity in children. This view reflects the aims of the EYLF curriculum that states ‘play-based learning enhances thinking skills and lifelong learning dispositions such as curiosity, persistence and creativity’ (AGDE, 2022, p.8). The role of the educator, as expressed by the Australian participant, is to ‘set up’ open-ended spaces, to ‘provide’ unhurried time and to ‘allow’ children to play independently. There was a concern that if educators ‘interfered’ in children’s play by asking questions, they would run the risk of interrupting the flow of wild, creative and imaginative ideas. In the following excerpt educators from different sister centres shared similar beliefs regarding the role of the educator:

A3: We provide children with avenues to follow their ideas and theories. We try to remain as co-learners with the children as much as possible. We provide them with opportunities to seek answers in multiple ways.

I3: By proposing problem situations, without providing children with predefined solutions, allows children to discover their own personal theories and solutions.

From this statement, the Australian participant also expressed the role of the educator as one who ‘provides’ the means for the children to explore their ideas. Opportunities for learning are provided through play-based contexts and open-ended resources. This strategy reflects what is stated in the Australian National Quality Framework (ACECQA 2023). Element 3.2.2 states that educators should promote ‘resources, materials and equipment [that] allow for multiple uses, are sufficient in number, and enable every child to engage in play-based learning (p. 201)’. The Reggio Emilia approach also encourages the use of open-ended resources for children’s investigations and educators draw from the ReMida resource centre to provide quality recyclable items that support children’s interests. The difference between the two contexts from the above examples is that for the Italian educator, her role is to propose a problem to the children and to co-research and collaborate together, whereas the Australian educators expressed their role as providing opportunities that allowed children to express their ideas independently, through play. The role of the educator therefore appears quite different: one who is a ‘collaborator’ and the other as a ‘provider’.

Discussion

From this research there are two main considerations for change that needs to occur within the EYLF documentation. Firstly, we must reconsider how intentional teaching is understood and represented as part of a contemporary curriculum framework. Past theoretical underpinnings of this term have created misinterpretations for how it has been enacted by educators (Grieshaber, 2008; Kilderry, 2015; Leggett & Ford, 2013). The EYLF focuses on children’s learning as the core concept presenting as a ‘child-centred’ curriculum framework, with the role of the educator as one who provides the support and allows children opportunities to learn through their play. Australian educators in this study echoed sentiments of a play-based, child-centred focus of the EYLF (AGDE, 2022), acknowledging the child as agentic and capable of leading his or her own learning. Revising the theoretical underpinnings of the EYLF to focus more on socio-cultural and post-modern perspectives will change the dynamics of a child-centred curriculum to one that is more collaborative and inclusive of all stakeholders. What we can learn from our Italian participants is that learning is highly collaborative, and the involvement of the educator is significant for listening, providing provocations and leading experiences.

The second is that the EYLF lacks focus on the important role educators play who through a process of collaboration, carefully document and reflect on children’s learning. When asked to explain how educators document in Italy, one educator responded with the following:

I start by saying that documentation is a daily practice for us that tries to narrate the contents and methods of our educational work. To keep memory, to organize, to ‘progettare’ (to project forth) and to share... To document for making visible the children’s creative thinking is not always easy, I think it means to be able to make choices and the day at school we know how rich and complex of experiences it is.

Instead of acknowledging the importance of ‘documentation’, the EYLF draws attention to the practice of ‘assessments’ (AGDE, 2022). Assessment, as part of the practice, ‘Assessment and evaluation for learning, development and wellbeing’, refers to assessment strategies that include ‘observations, documentation, reflections and gathering of information about, and with, children and their families (AGDE, 2022, p. 25). Assessments and evaluations tend to focus on finding out what children are doing by assessing their knowledge, skills, and abilities. Rinaldi (2004) considers documentation as an essential form of assessment and cautions the risk of considering testing as a tool of assessment. She states, ‘In reality, testing assesses only children’s knowledge of the tests content, not the true learning of the child’ (p. 2). Further, Rinaldi explains that ‘we think of documentation as an act of caring, an act of love and interaction’ (p. 1).

We suggest while there is a clear focus on assessments in the current edition of the EYLF, more focus is needed on the documentation process for educators for understanding the true learning of children. Bringing documentation to the forefront in making decisions for co-constructed learning experiences derived from listening, dialogue, interaction, and careful reflection on children’s thinking is an essential aspect of the important work of educators. From the Italian educators in this study, it is clear their intent for planning with and for children arises from ‘collaboration’ with children and other adults. Documentation identifies the careful work of educators as a form of ‘visible listening’ that illustrates the ‘extraordinary, beautiful and intelligent things children know how to do’ (Vecchi, 2010, p.132). It demonstrates the care and respect of educators as they desire to know the children better.

Conclusion

From this study it is evident that a reconceptualization of our role as educators has evolved from collaboration between Australian and Italian participants. While the Italian educator is referred to as a ‘pedagogista’, perhaps it is time that we also identify with the role of a ‘pedagogue’ instead of an ‘intentional teacher’. Further, in place of ‘intentional teaching practices’, the EYLF should consider ‘pedagogical teaching practices’ as a more accurate description of the work of pedagogues. From this research it has become evident that pedagogical teaching practices involve educators taking time to be ‘careful, considerate, collaborative and reflective’. In conclusion, educators must take a careful approach towards individual children’s ideas and be considerate towards the multiple languages they use to investigate and express their thinking. A collaborative approach to teaching and learning also needs to become a central tenant of the EYLF in place of a child-centred curriculum. Finally, rather than assessments and outcomes, a greater focus on documentation as an ongoing process involving continual reflective practice is necessary to ensure that the true learning of children is always at the forefront.