Continuity and Discontinuity - "All the Stuff" is Different: A Mixed Method Study of Continuity

Considerable attention has been paid to the concept of discontinuity in literature concerning the transition to school. The notion of ready schools is based on the understanding that the culture of schools differs from that of prior contexts, thus creating discontinuities that children experience and must adjust to when they enter the school classroom. The different learning settings have differing objectives, traditions of practice, and activity settings that place new demands on children (Hedegaard

& Munk, 2019) and different kinds of activities and knowledge are valued (Dyson, 2018). School differs from anything children have previously experienced (Dockett & Perry, 2021a). Children must navigate differences in social relationships, pedagogical approaches, the curriculum experienced, rules and expectations and the physical environment.

Navigating these discontinuities involves integrating into a new culture where the values, beliefs, and practices may not match those of children’s earlier experiences (Fabian, 2007). Where there is a mismatch, children’s prior learning may be not useful (Brooker, 2008; Dockett & Perry, 2007a;

Margetts, 2013; McNaughton, 2002); they may not have accumulated the social and cultural capital

which is valued at school (Bourdieu, 1986). These discontinuities can worry children (Peters, 1999) leading them to experience discomfort when they are expected to engage in unfamiliar experiences (Dockett & Perry, 2012; Fabian, 2007) and may result in children being unable to display their knowledge in the school context (Dockett & Perry, 2007b). Hagan (2005) suggests that before children can concentrate on the content of learning they have to learn about the culture of school.

Because there is little empirical evidence of the impact of discontinuity on outcomes for children, Vitiello et al. (2022) investigated whether differences experienced during the transition to school impacted on outcomes for children. This study measured the difference between teacher-child interactions, teacher-child closeness, the quantity of teacher structured activity, and whether differences in these variables were associated with children’s social-emotional skills and self- regulation. Data showed that a decrease in teacher-child interactions and teacher-child closeness was associated with lower social-emotional skills and self-regulation particularly in the early part of the year. The amount of time spent on teacher structured activity was not related to these two outcomes.

Vitiello et al. (2022) conclude that, while more research is needed to confirm these findings and investigate other discontinuities and child outcomes, differences in educational environments have implications for children’s outcomes.

Boyle and Wilkinson (2018) argue that in the past the transition to school has been framed around discourses of discontinuity and that more recently research has shifted to focus on continuity. They suggest that this may be a more helpful way of framing the transition to school. This would involve a focus on continuity practices during the transition (Boyle, Petriwskyj, et al., 2018). Similarly, Haggerty and Loveridge (2019) argue that educational discourse in New Zealand has shifted “from the use of the term transition, which invokes the idea of moving between entities that embody quantitative differences, to the use of the term continuity, which is concerned only with sameness” (p. 94). They warn that this shift should be seen in the political and international neoliberal context focused on education for economic good, rather than education for individual benefit.

There are different conceptions of the term continuity, as Boyle, Grieshaber, et al. (2018) found in their review of transition to school literature published between 2000 and 2015. Like Haggerty and Loveridge (2019) some literature presents the concept of continuity as the opposite of discontinuity;

similarities between the environment and practices of prior to school contexts and the school classroom (Dockett & Einarsdottir, 2017). When thinking of continuity in this way teachers who want to increase continuity for children would focus on practices which involve replicating what happens in the other context.

However, continuity does not just mean ‘the same’ (Dockett & Einarsdottir, 2017; Stipek et al., 2017) and an alternative way of viewing continuity is to consider how teachers can implement “experiences and learning that build on what has gone before” (Dockett & Einarsdottir, 2017, p. 133) and thus to promote continuity of learning (Education Review Office, 2015). When teachers see continuity in this way, they are committed to valuing children’s previous learning and understanding how each child learns best so that they can make connections to what has gone before (Ward, 2022). They may also support children to understand how to engage in school activities (Hedegaard & Munk, 2019) thus building social and cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1986). This makes sense, as learning is the main purpose of educational settings and continuity and discontinuity impact on children’s learning journeys (Wilder

& Lillvist, 2018).

Bioecological theory would define continuity as “the smooth intersection of different systems”

(Dockett & Einarsdottir, 2017, p. 137). Transition practices which provide more similarities between contexts, thus reducing discontinuity, can be beneficial in providing a ‘smooth intersection’ as can putting in place practices to support ongoing learning by building on previous learning. In doing so, Boyle, Petriwskyj, et al. (2018) propose that attention should be given to continuities related to children’s development and to the contextual and structural arrangements of school and ECE services.

Dockett and Einarsdottir (2017) agree adding that continuity in the philosophical and curricula approaches used in the different contexts are also of significance.

Transition is a dynamic process involving both continuity and change and extends over the time before and after school entry until children have a sense of belonging (Dockett et al., 2017; Dockett & Perry, 2014). Therefore adults involved in the transition need to consider the balance of change and continuity (Dockett & Einarsdottir, 2017) and how schools and communities can be ready to support children as they navigate aspects that are unfamiliar to them (Peters, 2010). It is also important to understand which continuities and discontinuities are important to children (Dockett & Perry, 2012) and to consider how best to support and scaffold them as they engage with the school context (Peters, 2000, 2004a). The following sections discuss themes that emerged from literature relating to continuity and discontinuity during the transition to school.

2.5.1 Social Relationships

The move to school results in social discontinuity as children enter into a new community, are often separated from their preschool friends and have to build new relationships (Ackesjö, 2014; Ackesjö, 2019; Dockett & Perry, 2012; Fabian, 2010; Joerdens, 2014; Ladd et al., 2006; Wilder & Lillvist, 2018).

Continuity of relationships is important but can be difficult to achieve because “transitions are all

about relationship break-ups and relationship building processes” (Ackesjö, 2019, p. 53). Children must form relationships with new teachers and peers, and this can result in social unrest as children miss their old friends and may find older children in the class threatening (Sandberg et al., 2014). Some children struggle with the social and emotional challenge of interacting with new peers and teachers (Ladd et al., 2006) and becoming part of a new peer culture (Chowby & Barley, 2022). Reflection on this is important because peer acceptance is related to academic success through increased classroom engagement (Bossaert et al., 2011). Uncertainty about relationships can also be a stressor during the early days at school (Tatlow-Golden et al., 2016) and continuity in social relationships has been identified as important to children’s adjustment (Dockett & Perry, 2007b).

Children in Ireland described negative emotional responses to challenges related to friendships when they started school (Booth et al., 2019). When presented with scenarios such as having no one to play with or joining other children at play, children in this mixed method qualitative study reported feeling negative emotions. Children also identified missing family members as significant. Having friends was found to be supportive of children’s emotional regulation and developing a sense of emotional wellbeing. Broström (2019) also found friendships were important in his Danish study involving interviews with 22 preschool children which sought to establish children’s expectations when starting school. Children in this study wanted to make new friends and maintain prior friendships at school.

According to Ackesjö (2019), children may not understand that starting school may result in permanent separation from familiar people and she concludes that teachers should prepare children for the permanent nature of the transition. She contends that many transition events do not address social discontinuity.

Children have identified social discontinuity as a key aspect of their transition to school in several Australian studies. In a Queensland study involving 162 child participants from urban and regional settings, children said that the best thing about starting school was meeting old friends and making new ones (Danby et al., 2012). Children in this study were concerned that they might not have friends at school and that they would have to meet new people and a new teacher. They found it helpful when existing friends moved with them to school, a practice also endorsed by Fabian and Dunlop (2007). Older friends and siblings at the same school also provided some social continuity (Danby et al., 2012). Older children can provide companionship, support, and advice to help bridge the transition (Dockett & Perry, 2013a; Schürer et al., 2022). Dockett and Perry (2012) also found that Australian children were concerned about continuity of friendships during transition. Some of the 40 children in this study noted that making new friends was a positive aspect of the transition, some children were anxious about not having friends. Children were concerned by some of the social aspects of schooling

that seemed unfamiliar, such as fighting. Similarly, a strong theme in Margetts (2006) study investigating what children thought new entrants needed to know when starting school reflected the children’s desire for continuity of relationships and to have friendship making skills. Children also wanted to know how to deal with negative interactions with peers. Children in this Australian study also suggested that it would be helpful to know about the teachers before starting school. Joerdens (2014) also found that relationships with the teacher were important to the children in her study.

These relationships and the development of friendships with other children contributed to a sense of belonging for transitioning children.

In New Zealand, where children usually start school on their fifth birthday rather than as a cohort, Peters’ qualitative doctoral study found that children who were already at school had established friendships and it was difficult for new entrants to break into these friendship groups (Peters, 1999, 2004a). Further data from this study indicated that having friends at school could provide children with motivation to go to school, but observation and interviews with parents and children showed that when children did not have friends lunch and play times became difficult (Peters, 2003a, 2004a).

Peters (2004a) found that when prior friendships existed these could contribute to learning; the friend could provide scaffolding that helped the new entrant engage in unfamiliar learning tasks. The benefits of continuity of friendships were also observed in one of Hayes’s (2013) case studies in New Zealand primary schools where a friend made in ECE was observed supporting a new entrant to learn what to do and how to learn at school. Similarly, Belcher (2006) found that school activities often required children to work together and that children thought friends were important and could help them when they were unsure what to do. Children in a study involving two schools and three ECE services said that friendships were important and were particularly concerned about having no one to play with (S.

Peters et al., 2015). Parents in this study valued practices which supported children to develop relationships, especially with other children. Former relationships with other children at school such as siblings or cousins were also found to be significant.

While relationships with peers features extensively in literature, children also need to form relationships with teachers and the closeness of these relationships has significance (Ladd et al., 2006).

Zulfiqar et al. (2018) found that the closeness of teacher-child relationships was related to academic and behavioural outcomes in a study involving 730 children. They propose that transition practices, such as visits to school, allow children to become more comfortable with teachers and develop a sense of security which impacts positively on learning. Transition practices can enable teachers to get to know and understand children before they start (Zulfiqar et al., 2018).

Social adjustment is one indicator of success at school (Dockett & Perry, 2007b) and the ability to interact in positive ways with peers impacts on engagement in the classroom and academic success (Ladd et al., 2006). Therefore, reflection on strategies to support continuity of relationships and to help children cope with social discontinuity is important. Relationships help children to feel safe and build a sense of belonging in the new context (Education Review Office, 2022; Hopps, 2019) and therefore teachers must support children to maintain existing relationships and build new ones (Hopps, 2019). Transition practices before starting school that give children opportunities to interact with others who will be in their class can be useful (Dockett & Perry, 2007b; Education Review Office, 2022; Kaplun et al., 2017) as well as chances to meet school children outside class time (Dockett &

Perry, 2007b; Peters, 2003a). Play dates can help children develop and consolidate peer relationships (Chowby & Barley, 2022). Teachers can help by introducing children to each other and scaffolding the formation of relationships (Dockett & Perry, 2011; Fabian & Dunlop, 2007; Hayes, 2013). It can also be helpful for children to have opportunities to interact with children who are in their class before they enter school and for schools to promote shared activities in the playground (Peters, 2003a). Placing children in the same class as a friend can be a supportive strategy (Bulkeley & Fabian, 2006; Mortlock et al., 2011), although, even when children have friends at school, it can still be difficult for them to break into the play culture of school (Mortlock et al., 2011). The Education Review Office (2022) suggests that starting school in groups, rather than alone, better supports relationship building as children may be able to start alongside children they know and can build relationships when visiting school with other children who will start at the same time. ECE teachers can help children learn skills for joining groups to prepare them for joining new groups at school (Danby et al., 2012; Ladd et al., 2006). Teachers, parents, and peers can assist children to successfully contend with the social discontinuity of leaving old friends and teachers and building new relationships. Strategies such as these are important in supporting children’s learning journeys and helping children re-engage after the transition (S. Peters et al., 2015).

2.5.2 Pedagogical Approaches

On school entry, in addition to encountering new people with whom they must build relationships, children are faced with approaches to teaching and learning which differ from those of ECE (Belcher, 2006; Education Review Office, 2015). The philosophical basis of learning and teaching on which practice is based differs reflecting differences in the histories and purposes of the sectors (Dockett &

Einarsdottir, 2017). Belcher (2006) contends that the socio-cultural approach to teaching characteristic of ECE contexts in New Zealand is very different from the approaches used in schools.

In Bennett’s (2013) opinion ECE is a place where discussion and the construction of knowledge takes

place, contrasting with the approach in many schools where children are expected to learn and reproduce prescribed subject knowledge. Bennett (2013) claims that ECE generally has a tradition of being child centred and following children’s interests, whereas in schools the content of learning is usually determined and organised by the teacher and interaction is dominated by teachers as they aim to transfer knowledge that can be assessed against prescribed learning outcomes. Bennett (2013) does not consider that each school and ECE service may differ in their approach. Similarly, it has been argued that schools are likely to employ a more teacher directed pedagogy and agenda (Bennett, 2013; Bossaert et al., 2011; Fabian & Dunlop, 2007) where the style of classroom interaction differs from that of ECE contexts, being more structured and focussed on academic subjects (Shuey et al., 2019). This pedagogical change can lead to confusion for children (Fabian & Dunlop, 2007; Stipek et al., 2017) and Bellen (2016) argues that pedagogical discontinuity during the transition to school is a contributing factor to children’s adjustment and academic success.

School is often seen as the place for formal learning, whereas early childhood is typically perceived as a time for informal play-based learning (Cullen, 1998; Shuey et al., 2019). The formal approach to learning is more academic in orientation and involves different kinds of learning experiences which often involve more sitting still than children are used to (Bossaert et al., 2011) and longer concentration spans (Fabian & Dunlop, 2007). Opportunities for play may be more restricted at school (Mackenzie, 2018b) and there is often a clear distinction between what counts as play and what is regarded as work and thus prioritised by teachers (Peters, 2015). Internationally research capturing child perspectives demonstrates that children are aware of this difference, perceiving school as a place where they are involved in work instead of play (Centre for Equity and Innovation in Early Childhood, 2008; Corsaro & Molinari, 2008; Dockett & Perry, 2007b; Einarsdottir, 2007). Interviews with 15 children from six Singaporean schools found that children noticed the sudden change in teaching style when they entered school; there was more play and choice in ECE in contrast with the formal approach and academic nature of learning in school (Ebbeck et al., 2013). Margetts’ (2006) Australian research showed that the 54 child participants noticed the difference in learning and teaching in subject areas.

The importance of children knowing the academic skills children would need on school entry was referred to 68 times in data collected from the children. In contrast to these studies, Tatlow-Golden et al. (2016) found that children in an Irish school did not mention a reduction in access to play. They attribute this to the inclusion of play within the school classroom curriculum. They found that play gave children a sense of competence which supported children to be resilient. As international school contexts may differ from those of New Zealand there is a need for up-to-date research capturing children’s perspectives in this area.

Research capturing adult perspectives has similar findings. For example, responses to questionnaires from 176 Swedish parents of children who were soon to start school showed that parents expected school would involve a change from play to learning and many parents were concerned about the higher academic demands they thought would be placed on children. A study in Victoria, Australia found that four ECE and three NE teachers said there were significant areas of inconsistency between contexts (Hunkin, 2014). The most common aspects mentioned related to methods of teaching and learning. Frequent reference was made to how the play-based curriculum of early childhood contrasted with the compartmentalisation of play at school and differences in assessment. These differences were also noticed by preservice primary school teachers in New South Wales, Australia (Lord & McFarland, 2010). The three participants in this study visited an ECE service and noticed the way children learned through play and the individualised nature of the teaching, which contrasted with the approaches they were taught in their teacher education programme. Lord and McFarland conclude that the training of primary and ECE teachers differs significantly and that primary teachers often have little knowledge of the foundations of learning that occur in ECE which impacts on the provision of continuity. The findings of these small scale, qualitative studies are reinforced by Perry and Dockett (2005) who used observation, and analysis of documents to establish that, in Australia, school learning involved more use of whole class teaching, less choice for children, and more comparison of children than prior-to-school contexts. While some schools are now implementing forms of play-based learning in new entrant classrooms (Aiono, 2017; Hedges, 2018), there is a lack of data from New Zealand in this area and a dearth of larger scale research involving multiple perspectives about the pedagogical continuities and discontinuities children may experience on starting school.

Within the teaching of curriculum subjects approaches to learning and teaching may lack continuity.

For instance, while children may engage in rich literacy experiences prior to school entry, these may not match well with the approach taken to literacy at school (Mackenzie, 2018b; McNaughton, 2001).

Internationally research has shown that written language teaching in prior-to-school contexts is usually embedded in play, while schools emphasise the code of writing and the connection between letters and sounds (Sandberg et al., 2014) and divide literacy instruction into discrete parts, which are taught separately (Mackenzie, 2014). Children may experience more structured literacy lessons which teach literacy skills in isolation from meaning or the social situation (Dyson, 2018). An Australian study found that although teachers in each sector worked with children of similar ages and had similar qualifications, they differed in their understanding of how to support progression in writing (Mackenzie & Petriwskyj, 2017). Teachers in this study also had little understanding of how literacy was taught in the other sector. New Zealand schools also employ a more formal approach to reading,

Dalam dokumen "All the Stuff" is Different: A Mixed Method Study of Continuity and Discontinuity During the Transition to School in New Zealand (Halaman 41-63)