Review of \u3ci\u3eForming ethical identities in early childhood play\u3c/i\u3e by Brian Edmiston

What do parents and educators do when a child pretends to be a roaring T. Rex who devours his victims or becomes a dragon that burns fields and houses? Does allowing young children to engage in violence during pretend play negatively influence their moral and ethical development? In Edmiston’s book Forming ethical identities in early childhood play (2008), he boldly addresses this question using both experiential as well as scholarly evidence to support his proposition that children can develop an ethical identity through violent or what he describes as mythical adult–child play. The foundation of his proposition stems from a long-term case study in which he engages in mythical play with his son Michael (from 18 months to seven years of age). He continues his discussions with Michael to age 17. Edmiston presents Michael in discontinuous snapshots; in one section he may be three and another 13. Therefore, by the end of the book, we long to know more about the process of transformation Michael goes through in his development as a moral being. Although the methodological procedures of this case study are described only briefly, the author provides multiple examples of Michael as both villain and hero to demonstrate how adults can engage children in a reconceputalised version of play as ethical pedagogy and the long-term effects of such engagement. One of the strengths of a case-study approach is the context it provides for understanding the findings. We argue that the context we live in today provides urgency for considering how we become answerable for our actions. Because terrorism, war and violent acts are prevalent in our global societies, we find that his argument for more scholarly conversations on this matter is timely and socially relevant for parents and early childhood educators

Review of \u3ci\u3eForming ethical identities in early childhood play\u3c/i\u3e by Brian Edmiston

What do parents and educators do when a child pretends to be a roaring T. Rex who devours his victims or becomes a dragon that burns fields and houses? Does allowing young children to engage in violence during pretend play negatively influence their moral and ethical development? In Edmiston’s book Forming ethical identities in early childhood play (2008), he boldly addresses this question using both experiential as well as scholarly evidence to support his proposition that children can develop an ethical identity through violent or what he describes as mythical adult–child play. The foundation of his proposition stems from a long-term case study in which he engages in mythical play with his son Michael (from 18 months to seven years of age). He continues his discussions with Michael to age 17. Edmiston presents Michael in discontinuous snapshots; in one section he may be three and another 13. Therefore, by the end of the book, we long to know more about the process of transformation Michael goes through in his development as a moral being. Although the methodological procedures of this case study are described only briefly, the author provides multiple examples of Michael as both villain and hero to demonstrate how adults can engage children in a reconceputalised version of play as ethical pedagogy and the long-term effects of such engagement. One of the strengths of a case-study approach is the context it provides for understanding the findings. We argue that the context we live in today provides urgency for considering how we become answerable for our actions. Because terrorism, war and violent acts are prevalent in our global societies, we find that his argument for more scholarly conversations on this matter is timely and socially relevant for parents and early childhood educators

Teacher-involved conversations with young children during small group activity

This qualitative study examines the conversations of two preschool teachers with two- and three-year-old children during small-group activity settings in two high-quality child development centers. Using interviews, observations and videotaping of small-group activities, the conversations are characterized in terms of the kind and function of language, the usage of cognitive demands and the reciprocal nature of these conversations. The findings indicate that teachers use declarative statements primarily to manage instruction and encourage language development. While teachers control most conversations, teacher–child reciprocity is evident and more genuine in authentic, teacher-guided activities. In both classrooms, the language during small-group activities is characterized as having low cognitive demands. Teachers and teacher educators need to be more cognizant of their language, including its purpose and opportunities to facilitate cognitively challenging conversations with young children. Recommendations for practice are provided

The Nature of Teacher Talk during Small Group Activities

This article examines teacher talk and its elements--kinds of language, functions of language, promoting children\u27s thinking, and power--during small group activities with 2- and 3-year-olds. After observing and videotaping activities in two early childhood classrooms, we are convinced that teachers can promote children\u27s thinking and encourage their participation in authentic conversations (Durden & Rainer Dangel 2008). We examine how two teachers (in toddler and preschool classrooms) talk to children and facilitate small group activities to encourage children\u27s thinking