Child-Centred Education Origins

1. Introduction

Child-centred education is an approach which is enduring and well established especially in western-based teaching. Before the eighteen century, childhood was taken as a stage of weakness and immaturity. The modern child-centred education traces its origin back to the Jean-Jacques and the Romantic Movement. The education involves knowledgeable and appropriately qualified childhood profession, parents among other things. This paper attempt to discuss some major critiques of child-centred education approach based on critical feminist theory. The paper will also discuss the limitation of child-centred education, its significance in the teacher preparation specifically when relating to early childhood education.

2. Defining Child-centred Pedagogy

There are several definitions that have come up to define child-centred pedagogy. Chung & Walsh (2000), in their literature review which aimed at defining the term ‘child-centred pedagogy’, they found a fourth meaning of the term and they suggested that ending the debate about the term and coming with a similar meaning may be illusionary. Additionally, the study states that regardless of the number of definitions, there is a probability of an understanding which is similar and which is ideological among most early childhood practitioners. Moreover, in their analysis of history of time since the 1930s up to some period in 1980s, (Chung & Walsh, 2000) discovered the existence of three major, meaning. First is the Frobel’s assumption of children being at his world’s centre, the develop-mentalist theory that children are the Centre of schooling and lastly is the theory of progression which indicates that a child should direct his/her daily things.

Further, the review reinstated that the basic surface of some of the major meaning were just notions about children, development, and learning. Apart from these ancient meaning, Ryan gave a formal and recent definition. Within the education which is child-centred, the learning starts with the interest as well as needs of the children and usually corresponds to the childhood’s characteristics which are unique. Educator utilizes their knowledge of child development to structure experience in learning that facilitates the learning of a child via discovery and play. Children are therefore seen as active learner who need free time from their old people’s authority in order to explore activities independently as well as create sense to their own lives (Ryan, 2005, p. 99)

Ryan in his research described developmentally appropriate practice (DAP) as an expression which is non-changeable with student-centred curriculum. Furthermore, Grieshaber & Cannella (2001) refereed developmentally appropriate practice as the educational discourse which is dominant in Canada, United States, as well as New Zealand and inextricably linked to the meaning of high quality. Before the DAP, child-centred education was difficult to challenge since it refereed to the progressive importance like individual freedom and democracy as per Cannella (1997). Up to the time, that child-centred curriculum was classified into and in the guise of DAP by the year 1996 in a position paper by the national association of the education of young children; it experienced huge criticism (Brooker & Yelland, 2005).

3. Critique 1: The Powerless Teacher and Child (against Feminist Theorists)

During the 1960s as well as 1970s, teachers who were feminist supported student-centred approach as a democratic approach to create curriculum projects’ equity in the classroom. Cannella (1997), stated in her research stated that radicals, feminists as well as any other person who would place children first position would have genuinely trusted that children centred approach is a liberator. This was because child-centred pedagogy is consistent with our personal experience or even seems to create an alternative way to overt oppression. Additionally, feminist termed the profession of teaching as a chance of females to practice, to move past their social class and later achieve independence which was seen as a liberation step to take. The educators referred to themselves as student-centred. In the United Kingdom, by looking the psychoanalytic, feminist and postmodern models, Walkerdine (1990) and Steadman (1987), started to question the underlying tenets of the children centred education with relation to the educator who was most probably female. Through the next twenty years, other researchers in Britain United States and Australia such as canella based on the scholarly work of Walkerdine as well as Steadman maintained the critic of the feminist with a view on the early children life teachers as a site of social justice and equity. For these reasons, both scholars’ critical analysis of the pedagogy which was child-centred was fully explained. Regardless of some disagreement on the ideology of Forbes on the female educators, Steedman in constructing the history of the origin of this student centred education, found it in the Frobel’s definition of the educator who was described as the mother made consciously and reification of feminine with the curriculum (Steedman, 1985, p. 153). Steedman later argued that with conscious, an educator may start to build the equilibrium on the desire to influence, educate and to fill a child with knowhow and the knowledge that she should draw back at the time of need.

Based on Steedman (1987), the social literature for the dissemination of the conscious made by mother made teacher was referred to as teaching trade feminization. he further stated that as opposed to the 19th century mother who moved away from his/her child, the prescribed psychological perspective of today's mothering nature was created by paid females through working females- nannies, early educators and nurses. It was the female who represented the true parent who spend the whole year in a single classroom with a child, nurturing and watching them. In the single room, Walkerdine (1990), in his paper referred to the building of a rational as well as an independent child liberation from the authority of other people. Additionally, he argued that this building as linked to the micro-project of the creation of the today’s nature and the modern approach of governing that is democratic and in which its citizens have right to act autonomously and rationally in undertaking personal interests and rights. Recently, the research described social building as "state job" for females (Wong, 2007). Walkerdine (1990), earlier research described educators who are female as nurturers and always careful in coming up with each independent and child who are free hence for the leadership of the theorist modern activities. Another scholar Walkerdine in his suggestion, this activity has created impossible demand of the educators who are female. Nevertheless, Burman (1994), while arguing from a point of view of the developmental psychologists described the impossibility of an educator’s attempt to conform to children centeredness- the educator encounter untenable confusion between institutional position and the role for non-interference to create independent as responsible for learning of children. Walkerdine 1990) argued that it was by circumstances that female teachers found themselves with the role of nurturing. This child-centred education is restricted to show only particular behaviour consistent with children's centred pedagogy. Though this mentoring is impossible in the real world, a trainers must be responsible for achieving all the requirements of the child all the time- failure to meet the needs in this role are guiltily seen as limitations to the achievement of the modernist project. Teachers of the student-centred pedagogy mostly have feelings of guilty once they result in traditional educator strategy in the realities of the unattainable expectations.

The Male Child at the Centre

Walkerdine at some point criticized the way in which children as well as female are placed in link to each other in the student-centred pedagogy as well as how the social relation produce specific relation of power that is able to create a free make a child and constraint as well as regulate the daily activities of girls and female teachers. Further, Walkerdine foresaw the children in this pedagogy surrounding build as active, autonomous, free, an essentially male. In the relation to such children, women educators are passive to the children’s activity. The teacher seems to be a servant of the omnipotent child who has a need that has to be met all the time- this is the price of women’s autonomy. The value of intellectual labour-symbolic play of the logos is its opposite and other work. Labour which is manual makes intellectual play possible while the servicing labour of females make children-natural child successful. Besides Walkerdine describe female teacher and who oversee, monitor and facilitate children who are male in development and who is actively inquired and construct knowledge; he says that that position of the educator who is passive to children who is active is important to uphold the probability of an illusion of control and autonomy upon which pedagogy which is student-centred is based. Nurturance ability became the basis of female’s fitness for the enhancement of knowing and the recreation of the learner which can be described as the upper hand for and the contrast of knowledge production. Production of Knowledge is therefore separated from its production and divided along division that depicts reproduction of the natural capacity of the any sexes. (Walkerdine, 1990, p. 61)

From the Walkerdine’s critique, Cannella (1997, p. 132), illustrated that child-centred pedagogy positions children at the middle as an approach, constructer and independence developer, which is a biased masculine picture. In her suggestion, counter to behaviour to view early children life setting as biased due to the predominance of the female educators, the schooling in early life is masculinized via the enhancement of pedagogy which is learner-centred. Besides, a British researcher- Skelton indicated that employing this pedagogy in primary schools, the environment of the education is not feminized. He further maintained that by adopting a naive and simplistic interpretation of the gender as sometimes depicted along bias lines and located in females and males, limits the understanding of how basic schooling becomes extra masculine. Today, learning policy is not advancing in the directions that will create challenges the conventional gender bias actively. It is the emphasis on the assessment as well as testing outcome indicator, stratified, league tables and leadership formations which have outdone the nature which is masculine in education identified in the 1980s and 19990s. Similarly, Clark (1989), and McNaughton (1997) who are Australian scholars argued that child-centred pedagogy approach which is known as neutral in terms of nature in practice works to produce small systems of gender. Clerk (1989), further discuss the position which is not comfortable where female educators are placed once they let in expression of the masculine in the independent child-centred system which fail to recognize their own courage. In more recent research, Maher (2001, p. 23), quoted Walkerdine’s definition of the matters of the masculinized grounding of pedagogy which is progressive and examined the Dewey's knowledge of education which is progressive. He found that the knowledge of Dewey's in learning and teaching was constrained by the fact that he accepted gender deference as well as of masculine privilege as well as the ultimate lack of analysis on the work of the educator.

The Female Child Outside of the Centre

Whenever children in the middle of the child-centred curriculum are masculine, where do we find the feminist children? Various scholars contend that essentialised gendered dichotomies between female and male children within the child-centeredness render controlled and limited female students outside of the Centre (Walkerdine, 1985; McNaughton, 1997 and Clark, 1989). For instance, Walkerdine (1985, p. 231), states how gender dichotomy; the girl's freedom is ignored while some traits of the feminine like the conformity, neatness, and good behaviour reinforced. In research, (Clerk 1989) discovered that the educator population which employed learner-centred education maintained a notion within the independence of ant child as well as own-motivation while still holding a trust in the difference of gender. Further, the clerk stipulated that the combination of the regime of feminist and the theme of child-centred of individuality ensured that female learners might not be get success in their own independent ways. Additionally, clerk indicated that males experienced an affirmation if their socially produced independence via the two discourses (p.246). On his finding, clerk discovered that gender bias of males can exist in the approach in learner-centred education of the essential as well as universal child since the logic of individualism and naturalism inform both (p. 248). Ultimately, clerk stated that learner-centred pedagogy is usually against the probability of practices which are equitable since it fails to avail the educators’ way of dealing with relations of authority and gender reproduction (p.243). On the other hand, McNaughton (1997) stated that the major limitation to observing the gender which is at the humanist believe understanding and in the child’s independence. Based on McNaughton, the only available way out to making female central to curriculum would be by making visibility on how educators take part and join in the boys’ and girls’ experience of gendering rather than individualizing girls’ needs.

4. Critique 2: Gender-biased Image

Canella on his paper suggested that the position of a child in the pedagogy is at the Centre and developers of self-dependence that is perceived as biasing masculine view. In her view, the tendency to see childhood education at earlier stage as a something that is feminized due to the predominance of the female educators, schooling at early stages is masculinized via the enactment of the liberal pedagogy which is child Centred. Skeleton on the other hand, state that curriculum is irrespective of the female predominance and could not by any case be masculinized via a model. Maher additionally suggest that understanding of the child based approach is restrained if we appreciate gender differences as well as the privileges given to males. Maher concludes that progressive education approach depicts the child/ educator dyad in a reverse of the traditional theory while replacing the teacher with children while still leaving the opposition which is not challenged. The educator who is facilitative with little ground to claim the power that is sometimes seen as illegitimate limiting the independent raging child is called upon to be equitable and fair so as to include all children. The female teacher may soon be a loss of basis to construct her relationship with children to create fairness. This means that her relative passivity in the perception of facilitation actually leaves in place and strengthen the authority relation brought into the class from the outside community.

5. Critique 3: The Free and Individual Child: An Illusionary and Decontextualized Construct

As discussed, in the child-centred curriculum each child (masculine) is built as liberated as well as independent to undertake his needs and to embrace himself once he is independent to make choice. Female critic of the female-centred education has upheld that, in the real world, male and female child are restricted in their doings by peers and parents. Walkerdine (1994) in his study described the premise of the independence children in this pedagogy as an illusionary construct. With the emphasis on authority as a fluid and factors of social live, post-structuralism offered a way to interfere with a premise that was perceived as incoherent (Burman, 1994, p. 163). In this education system, educators discover the interest and need of the child through observing. In Walkerdine suggestion, the observation is in real world convert surveillance of some children (specifically those who have the humble background), who need to be guided benevolently into being who are rational. This means that the child-centred educator should exercise some authority which is not accepted via various strategies such as those of learner-centred pedagogy. Additionally, he adds that the teacher is available to assist, facilitate and enable and thus only learner with slow grasp of the real happening around him see the power. Due to their personal families, they usually react in a paranoid way to this mentorship. They are sometimes hard workers and do not talk more since they feel that there is someone watching them. In his research, Burman (1994) stated that the child-centred pedagogy methods were concerned with social regulation and control through this idea are articulated in the self-regulation discourse which means that freedom is readily accessible. Cannella (1997, p. 121) on her view upheld that choices of children are usually an illusion and bigger people in most cases govern the choice of children as well as the ability to follow- via during the time of making choice. Singer, (2005, p. 618) in his view argued that most of the upcoming forms of pedagogy which is progressive keep children's creativity as well as activity at the middle indicate a new form of punishing of the children. All method can be turned into orthodoxy and later translated into practice in a silencing of children.

McArdle & McWilliam (2005) on the other hand referred ironic generalizations of ‘educate without educating' to support the singer's view. This view binds two opposing areas i.e. Discipline (teacher directed pedagogy) and freedom (child-centred pedagogy. Though this idea not categorized as a paradox, a challenge can be solved by looking at a balance. It's a rhetorical device for speaking and thinking about the difference conflict where educators are compelled to educate as well as do some “not teaching” appearance.

In a recent study by Ryan (2005), there was a doubt on whether child-centred pedagogy creates equity in education and if all learners regardless of their gender have access to a different learning chance which can be involved in studying in an independent way. In her study, that was based on the challenges of female and males at the time of making choice in a child based class. The results indicated that period’s choice and the type of play learners engage in are also a discursive practice which indicated gender stereotype which created a different opportunity for both children to exercise power in their worlds. On her recommendation, Ryan stated that choice being conceptualized as independence from peer and old people’s power, educators require to focus on assisting child get knowledge of the different choices offered in classroom discourses i.e. what is meant by gender and the powerful effect of such decisions?

Sometimes the genderless platform of a child who is free is the lack of the culture of the children, and race. Studies have shown that child-centred education is a decontextualized approach (Cunningham, 2006, p. 9). Additionally, Cunningham, in his scholarly findings on the of the impact of Piaget in the oral history of early year educators who started their career in UK from 1927 to 1955, and still are teaching beyond 1960s discovered that Piaget's job was increasingly being utilized overt this time to create a rationale which is scientific other than a behavioural rationale in the child-centred education. On his view, Walkerdine (1990) called this as a coupling of the discourse of the learner-centred education and developmental theory into a modernist presentation of children. The linking of the two discourses made each one essentialised facts. The models of development have received critics since the mid-1990s. For instance, Dahlberg et al, (2007) and Pacini-Ketchabaw & Bernhard (2009) criticized this theory. In this paper, most of the critics are based on the developmental theory and the child-centred pedagogy.

To start with, Maher, 2001, p. 29) stated that to the extent that theory of education that is progressive is enshrined and not analysed, its pervasiveness as a model of gender blind. (Not to mention social class and culture-blind) which together will blind people to what require to be worked on to enhance inclusive classroom surroundings? Similarly O’Loughlin ( 2009, p. 14), called educators in early childhood to imagine for some time that instead from of critically thinking in terms of personal achievements , normalization of education that seem to shape all learners inexorably in methods that are predetermined, to include the idea of children growth that recognize that a child grew up in the context. By the start of the 1980s, and 1990s, scholars such as Delpit and Henry questioned the efficacy of child-centred pedagogy in the promotion of academic achievements for African-Canadian and African-American learners. They indicated that this education could not be termed as appropriate developmentally nor should it be termed as the best for all learners (Delpit, 1995) as well as (Henry, 1996). Both scholars gave methods to conceptualize which is appropriate base on cultural pedagogy. On the same matter, a researcher from Canada also criticized the child-centred pedagogy uneasy legacy since it both denies social deference in children and also shapes and limit the talking of teachers on social differences (Norquay, 1999). At that time, children who are desacralized are positioned and identified as individual who is unique though detached from social appearance while the deracialised educator is positioned as well as identified as neutral nurture and facilitator. Based on Norquay (1999, p. 194) argument on child-centred pedagogy is a white centred discourse which has a variety of effects and attributes of white privileges and therefore the teacher regard whiteness as neutral funtermetally. A research on diversity of culture and early year education, Brooker & Yelland, (2005) looks at how the learner-centred play based learning assumption benefits children from diverse cultural background and class. They found that children from Bangladeshi in comparison to children African background were not examined as ready for learning Based on the ability of children to learn independently via play. The study made recommendation that reformulating the traits we treasure in a child would need us to think better the entrenched racial bias which is clearly indicated in the provision of learning.

Lastly, a critic by (Dahlberg et al, 2007, p. 43), view child-centred pedagogy suggests that thus pedagogy seem to an unproblematic and concentrate. In real the real world and practice the pedagogy is very problematic and abstract. The whole child-centred might seem to embody a specific modernist know how of a learner, as a reified as well as unified subjects but at the middle of the world, that can be taken beyond the relationship and context.

6. The Absence of an Authentic Social Relationship

Some scholars; Brooker (2005), Connolly (2004), McNaughton, 200 have come with a concern that although children-adult relation has been an integral part of the modernist approach of learner-centred pedagogy, the role of facilitator within the link seem constrained and strained. McNaughton (2003, p. 178, for instance, describe the relationship as having a moral implication to facilitate children to express their thinking as well as themselves fully with minimal interventions. Furthermore, Connolly (2004) stated that Piaget idea of the children centred developmental and the conceptual readiness have undermined the role of older people in students’ education to the side-lines. For instance, masculinities as well as boys in the childhood, research show that there is more direct work when it comes to children which seem to accommodate gender issues. Connolly (2004) in the perspective of the postmodern which decentres the child, seeing the child as existing in a specific social modest and in relation to others. scholars like Singer (1996, 2005), and Graue (2005 have questioned the child-centred pedagogy on its functioning to separate rather than building a relationship between children and adult with the curriculum settings. singer (1996) argued that this child-centred method has potential to estrange the learners from their teachers. Based on the research, Singer adds that educator’ methods such as observation as well as organizing schedules with regulations do not create a basis for togetherness. Nevertheless, singer elaborate that all the activities in the children centred approach, the teacher sentence the learner to a separate world and a world without adult participation. He later argues that if there is a lack of togetherness or interest that is shared there is a lack of something to think together.

In this approach, there is not only the absence of an authentic relationship that is meaningful between adults and children but also there is the presence of devaluation of the relationship among the learners themselves. Singer (1996) also seems to suggest that early practitioners’ focus on individual children restricts the probability of valuing and supporting interactions with peers. Singer gives an example of how teachers disturb children while playing and how they solve a conflict between the learners other than helping the children to come up with solutions which would see them develop a social relationship. Based on brook (2005), most of the times, child-centred education focus on the learner as a knowledge construction and an explorer in an individual child. Based on Vygotsky’s context of learning construction is between two people. Brook later argued that there was more much to learn other than endless repetitive shovelling of sand and that moving learning in child forward requires the intervention of other people with more experience- children as well as an adult who can be able to support children extend the existing know how to new domains.

7. Conclusion

The implication of the western professional preparation where children centred pedagogy is a reverse concept are far-reaching and usually require an important shift in the way female and male educators, students and teachers talk concerning early year pedagogy as well as the construct of educators and children within the pedagogy. teachers’ practitioner is shown in the early year children teacher’s production as well as learners experiences of being produced can construct the way in that one gains, negotiate and resist the dominant discourse concerning learning, educating and being towards a democratic centred pedagogy. Literature indicates that if there was a scope to challenge the dominance of the teacher's image. He further argued that it was incumbent to incorporate into the program while building professional identities that are based on the feminine nurtures who offer many sacrifices. Additionally in observing the overreliance of the heteronormative responses in a discourse especially in child-centeredness, he called for deconstruction and critique of the discourse in early childhood educator pre-service education program. In another literature, it is clear that stated that criticality and reflexiveness are important for appreciating the origin, limitation of the ideological thought like that in child-centred pedagogy. This pedagogy, the study shows that it finds its way in many subjects in the teachers of childhood pedagogy curriculum. At sometimes, this education may also infuse all the course materials. It is a challenge to be involved in criticality and reflexiveness once the length of a teacher’s education program is narrow and the focus is on rapid acquisition of practical and technical skills. A short curriculum is an opportunity in the normative concept such as child-centeredness to take hold. Under such condition, educators call upon usual cultural narratives such as child-centred pedagogy to counter the behaviour of children to enact traditional image of the educator as a person who usually stands at the front of the class with a pointer in the hands. A study also suggested that important question in gaining knowledge and re-envisioning early year educator’s workforce is through what the image of early childhood teachers is.

It is recommended that some strategies can be used in combination to shift from the developmental theory to post-modern practices in early year practitioners and this can be important in transforming child-centred pedagogy towards a pedagogy which is democratic. These strategies are known asset of analytical tools that children can utilize to view practitioners in a different point of view while providing an alternative way of understanding and seeing a similar situation. Situating knowledge is the first’s strategy and involves evaluating how political, economic and cultural context can create various practice and understanding in the early childhood curriculum. The second strategy is the multiple reading where include children learning and deconstructing the idea of early childhood theory from theoretical contexts such as critical theory, post-structures, feminist theory to ask the important and who benefit from particular knowledge and the other practices that might be possible.

In a study carried out by Sumsion, he encouraged teachers who are preservative to consider how to recognize, question and name the process in the construction of their own identities. Reflective assignments are normal in educator’s education program, therefore, learners could see the image of both democratic centred teacher and child-centred teacher as well as the difference in power image. The study suggested that by use of deconstructive techniques, learners are able to pull apart the importance of different systems and this means a better pathway for action at that period.

Within the education which is child-centred, the learning starts with the interest as well as needs of the children and usually corresponds to the childhood’s characteristics which are unique. Educator utilizes their knowledge of child development to structure experience in learning that facilitates the learning of a child via discovery and play. Children are therefore seen as active learner who need free time from their old people’s authority in order to explore activities independently as well as create sense to their own lives (Ryan, 2005, p. 99) This paper collected some major area where learner-centred education has received critics. The cultural constructs as well as gender of the children as well as teachers and the authority relation between the two major participants in the pedagogy have been discussed. Uncertainty as well as complexities of being a childhood practitioner who is forced to take some decisions about their education and of becoming an educator who is supposed to reconstruct these decisions with developing career has been discussed. Drawing upon scholarly articles, some of the preliminary pathways which can be used to critique the child-centred pedagogy rebuild educators and child and position both at the middle of pedagogy that has democracy for all, and have been discussed.

References

Bloch, M. & Popkewitz, T. (2000) Constructing the Parent, Teacher, and Child: discourses of development, in L. Soto Diaz (Ed.) The Politics of Early Childhood Education, 7-32. New York: Peter Lang.

Brooker, L. (2005) Learning to Be a Child: cultural diversity and early year’s ideology, in N. Yelland (Ed.) Critical Issues in Early Childhood Education, 115-130. New York: Open University Press.

Brooker, L. and Yelland, N., 2005. Learning to be a child: Cultural diversity and early year’s ideology. Open University Press/McGraw-Hill.

Burbules, N.C. & Berk, R. (1999) Critical Thinking and Critical Pedagogy: relations, differences and limits, in T.S. Popkewitz & L. Fendler (Eds) Critical Theories in Education: changing terrains of knowledge and politics. New York: Routledge.

Burbules, N.C. and Berk, R., 1999. Critical thinking and critical pedagogy: Relations, differences, and limits. Critical theories in education: Changing terrains of knowledge and politics, pp.45-65.

Burman, E. (1994) Deconstructing Developmental Psychology. London: Routledge.

Burman, E., 1994. Innocents abroad: Western fantasies of childhood and the iconography of emergencies. Disasters, 18(3), pp.238-253.

Cannella, G. (1997) Deconstructing Early Childhood Education: social justice and revolution. New York: Peter Lang.

Cannella, G.S., 1997. Deconstructing Early Childhood Education: Social Justice and Revolution. Rethinking Childhood, Volume 2. Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., 275 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001.

Child Care Human Resources Sector Council (2007) Career Promotions and Recruitment Strategy Project. Ottawa: Child Care Human Resources Sector Council.

Chung, S. and Walsh, D.J., 2000. Unpacking child-centredness: A history of meanings. Journal of curriculum studies, 32(2), pp.215-234.

Cunningham, A.E., 2006. Accounting for children’s orthographic learning while reading text: Do children self-teach? Journal of experimental child psychology, 95(1), pp.56-77.

Davies, B., 1989. The discursive production of the male/female dualism in school settings. Oxford Review of Education, 15(3), pp.229-241.

Delpit, L., 1995. Other people's children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. Harvard Educational Review, 65, pp.510-510.

Fenech, M., Waniganayake, M. and Fleet, A., 2009. More than a shortage of early childhood teachers: Looking beyond the recruitment of university qualified teachers to promote quality early childhood education and care. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 37(2), pp.199-213.

Grieshaber, S. and Cannella, G.S. eds., 2001. Embracing identities in early childhood education: Diversity and possibilities. Teachers College Press.

Henry, W, 1996. Creative processes in children's musical compositions: A review of the literature. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 15(1), pp.10-15.

Langford, R., 2010. Critiquing child-centred pedagogy to bring children and early childhood educators into the centre of a democratic pedagogy. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 11(1), pp.113-127.

McNaughton, G. ., 2003. Shaping Early Childhood, Learners, Curriculum and Contexts. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Maher, R., 2001. John Dewey, Progressive Education, and Feminist Pedagogies: issues in gender and authority, in K. Weiler (Ed.) Feminist Engagements: reading, resisting and revisioning male theorists in education and cultural studies, 13-32. New York:

McArdle, F. & McWilliam, E., 2005. From Balance to Blasphemy: shifting metaphors for researching early childhood education, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 18(3), 323-336.

McArdle, F. and McWilliam, E., 2005. From balance to blasphemy: Shifting metaphors for researching early childhood education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 18(3), pp.323-336.

Norquay, N., 1999. Social difference and the problem of the" unique individual": An uneasy legacy of child-centred pedagogy. Canadian Journal of Education/Revue canadienne de l'éducation, pp.183-196.

Ryan, S. and Grieshaber, S., 2005. Shifting from developmental to postmodern practices in early childhood teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(1), pp.34-45.

Surtees, N., 2008. Teachers following children? Heteronormative responses within a discourse of child-centredness and the emergent curriculum. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 33(3), pp.10-18.

Walkerdine, V., 1990. Difference, cognition, and mathematics education. For the learning of mathematics, 10(3), pp.51-56.