The transfer of knowledge across and within the pedagogical sites

This section examines how the advisors assisted the transformation of the pedagogy across and within various sites of the Pedagogical Recontextualising Field (PRF).

The Advisors explained how the production and dissemination processes were structured and each identified contributions that they had made to assist its transference from policy to practice.

Each Advisor participated in the series of working parties and contributed to the production of the curriculum. The Welsh Government requested nominations for these groups and each of the Advisors were representatives of their local authorities. Dawn and Mary were involved in the pilot scheme and their experiences informed the production process. Dawn described the pilot phase at the early stage of the pedagogy’s development.

‘When it started we had nothing. No one had the picture, no one knew what it looked like, we were all floundering so we all hid under our own little stone and worked out what was good. We were left to our own devices. What worked in the first year didn’t necessarily work in the second year, so it was a continuum of little bite size chunks and see what you can do with it’ Dawn.

‘We had meetings inspections research we were exploring, experimenting and being evaluated at the same time. Of course, you wanted to be seen as doing it right, but there was no right way, so that was hard at that time. In hindsight, I think we could have more guidance or more time to debate, to see if it was working’ Mary.

Both Dawn and Mary’s accounts illustrate the relevance of time and space in the construction of the curriculum. Discourses identified as valid for inclusion during the initial production phase, such as the global pedagogical modalities, were mediated in context to other modes of

72 practice that emerged within the pilot process. Placing the new curriculum within the micro-sphere exposed a pedagogic gap and prompted new forms of recognition and recontextualisation. During the initial phase of the pilot scheme, the process of developing and trialling elements of the curriculum appeared piecemeal and disconnected. Rather than convey any sense of empowerment through the position of being, ‘left to our own devices’, Dawn described the experience as ‘floundering’. Mary also alluded that the context of constructing the pedagogy within the setting was ‘hard’ and signalled how the impact of surveillance from the upper and horizontal reaches of the education system influenced pedagogical practice ‘to be seen as doing it right’. While the construction of the pedagogy within the micro-sphere appears fragmented and distant from the cohesive partnership ethos the initial phase of production had intended to cultivate, the advisors still maintained that they had gained value from working in collaboration towards a shared ideal.

In contrast to the fragmentation identified in the micro-spheres of the schools and settings, the partnership agenda of the four Advisors, appeared sustained. Catherine explained how her early teaching career had influenced her opposition to the formal teaching of three-year olds and that the new pedagogy produced positive rates of cohesion. Recognising the value of the collaborative ethos she had encountered through her work with AWFPA and within the various working parties, Catherine identified a coherent and productive community of practice (Lave and Wenger 1991).

‘We worked together with the neighbouring authorities and did a lot of joint visits to each other’s settings. It was useful to share concerns and challenges’ Catherine.

Further confirmation of the existence of a cohesive and collaborative CoP operating at a different level to the one identified within the micro-sphere emerged through Dawn’s account, as a member of one of the working parties. Dawn identified her position within the production site as being effectual to the sharing of knowledge she recognised as relevant to impart. First, in respect to the child-centred focus of the new curriculum, Dawn felt well placed to share the ‘ethos already captured by the playgroup movement’.

‘We were already there. We were already doing child-initiated learning to an extent so it gave us more credence. I was fortunate to be invited to all the documentation meetings. There was a broad range of experience and everyone’s views were relevant.

I felt valued and made good contacts. It was good to visit different schools and network’ Dawn .

73 Dawn’s inclusion in the production process granted her access to knowledge, as the official Foundation Phase pedagogy began to transpire. Although it seemed that the grassroots agenda generated efficacy for those involved in the policy process, levels of stratification within the PRF were beginning to emerge. Advisors maintained positions in specific knowledge domains and as such, each retained different roles and responsibilities. Catherine had described herself as ‘privileged’ to be included on the visit to northern Italy to gain ‘first-hand’ experience of the Reggio Emilia model, so was aware of a sense of authorisation.

Catherine explained how she and some of the AWFPA representatives disseminated the pedagogical model on their return to Wales.

‘There was no textbook and we needed to share the ethos. We had good advisory teachers working with us who had not been able to go. When we returned we took them to an Italian restaurant and delivered a slide presentation on what we had seen.

The square outside the restaurant was similar to the central piazza’ Catherine.

Catherine’s account illustrates the dissemination process between horizontal and vertical domains. As Catherine had gained direct access to the pedagogic model the Welsh Government had appropriated as legitimate for inclusion in the Foundation Phase, Catherine was able to distribute knowledge and increase rates of participation. Through the recontextualisation process, Catherine identifies the various culturally symbolic cues instantiated to assist levels of mediation in support of the Italian scheme. Without the verification of the ‘textbook’ and the symbolic distance between sites, Catherine’s example illustrates her autonomy to disseminate knowledge within the PRF. She also signposts how the relocation and reshaping of the pedagogy is made explicit to those deemed relevant for entry to the scheme. Given the disparities that Mary and Dawn had identified in relation to the ad-hoc (self-help) production process and notions of surveillance, there was evidence to suggest that the advisors’ experienced variable rates of inclusion to the partnership bond, designed to assist integration. Although Dawn confirmed that she felt valued with the contribution she made to the policy process, both she and Mary indicated that their experiences were more vulnerable and fragmented. In contrast, Catherine identified a strong and coherent discourse of integration, working closely with the neighbouring local authorities.

Each of the advisors had contributed to the recontextualisation of the pedagogy as it transferred across sites within the PRF. However, the gap and division of labour between

74 agents and agencies suggested that the process of integration was far more complex than the shared ethos of the Foundation Phase appeared to imply.