What is ‘effective observation’ and on whose terms?

Observation is an integral part of everyday practice but are we questioning our methods and the purposes behind observation often enough?

This paper seeks to both challenge current knowledge of everyday practice and encourage practitioners such as myself to ‘think outside the box when it comes to inquiry’ (Thomas, 2013, p.185). Observation in the Early Years (EY) is a form of inquiry that involves researching the child and their actions. With unique thinking, practitioners can unlock unique data and learn more about the child they are observing whilst exploring the practice of observation itself.

Absence of Statutory Guidance

The statutory guidance on observations is minimal and provides mixed messages. The framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage states that:

‘Ongoing assessment (also known as formative assessment) is an integral part of the learning and development process. It involves practitioners observing children to understand their level of achievement, interests and learning styles, and to then shape learning experiences for each child reflecting those observations’ (DfE, 2017, p.13).

In contrast to this, government advice on childcare choices outlines how ‘learning journeys’ and similar documents are ‘not required’ and that it’s one of the ‘common misconceptions about the requirements of the early years foundation stage’ (DfE, 2013, p.42). This leaves us with practitioners being ‘split between competing and dissonant demands’ (Basford and Bath, 2014, p.122). On one hand, we have government documents that don’t provide a clear message about whether commonly used methods to record observations, such as learning journeys, are a statutory requirement, which they aren’t (DfE, 2013, p.42). On the other hand, parents of the children in the nursery where I work are always interested in their child’s progression in terms of learning and development. These ‘competing and dissonant’ (Basford and Bath, 2014, p.122) demands lead practitioners to believe they need to produce detailed reports on the children to satisfy non-existent statutory requirements, whilst also pleasing the parents by creating journals that display their child’s learning and development. As Webb (2016) describes, there is a ‘pressure of appearance over substance’.

Ephgrave (2017) expresses her concerns that ‘as a profession we have become governed by a fear and misplaced belief that we have to document everything’. By trying to make this ‘hyper-feminine’ (Osgood 2010, p.121) workforce more ‘professional’ in order to create ‘increased respect for nursery staff’ (Ibid, p.121), this seems to have achieved the opposite, by disempowering those who fall at the bottom of this ‘epistemological hierarchy’ (Moss, 2013, p.141 cited in Basford and Bath, 2014, p.122). Practitioners have been sucked into an ‘audit culture’ (Rizvi and Lingard, 1996; Ozga, 2000; Strathern, 2000, cited in Osgood, 2010, p.122), where they are trying to please Ofsted and ‘lay claim to measures of ‘quality’’ to present to the ‘market’ and guide ‘choice’ (Osgood, 2010, p.124). In this case, the ‘market’ would be the parents of children in attendance.

A Brief History of the Early Years Foundation Stage

In 2008, the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) Framework was introduced as a statutory requirement. Its predecessors, the ‘Birth To Three Matters’ and the ‘Foundation Stage Curriculum 3–5 Year Olds’ were guidance documents rather than mandatory. Broadhead (2006) discusses the birth of the EYFS, suggesting that it ‘emerged within a national context of assessment in place for over a decade, that was criterion referenced, aimed to facilitate comparisons across schools and local authorities’ (p.196). Basford and Bath (2014) similarly identify that, in England, ‘ideas of documenting early learning have been strongly influenced by broader national curriculum developments’ (p.120). This influence also resonates with one of the key guidance documents used by practitioners in EY: ‘Development Matters’ (Early Education, 2012). This document is often clung onto by practitioners due to the lack of direction for observation and assessment in the statutory framework. According to Stewart, one of the authors of ‘Development Matters’, it is ‘too often misused’ (2016, para. 2) by practitioners who use it ‘as a tick list of descriptors of what children must achieve’ (Ibid). It has also been criticised for its use of ‘developmental stages’ (DfE, 2010, p.29), linking back to a Piagetian approach (Fleer, 2002). People are clinging onto this because even with the old statutory framework introduced in 2008, the DfE report carried out in 2010 titled ‘Practitioners’ Experiences of the Early Years Foundation Stage’ found that practitioners were already confused as to what was expected with regards to the statutory requirements for observation and assessment. One of the recommendations following this study was to address this confusion.

When comparing all versions of the EYFS I discovered that information regarding observation and assessment had been removed rather than improved. Doing a simple search showed me the word ‘observation’ was mentioned thirteen times in the original 2008 document, six times in the 2012 revision and five times in the 2014 and 2017 versions. It’s no wonder that these grievances are still being felt! Ofsted (2017) have recognised that practitioners have brought up this issue frequently and responded with a new document outlining common misconceptions. I feel that while this has been a step in the right direction, it is still too broad and doesn’t provide any real information on how to conduct observations effectively.

Reflections from my Subsequent Research

When researching different methods of observation and how they can be applied, I found a significant gap in that none of the literature provided any empirical evidence on the application of methods shown. My research stemmed from my desire to understand how different methods could be used in a single nursery setting and their use.

I decided to investigate three different methods of observation, including the one we already employ at my setting: the anecdotal method. The two new methods I trialled were the narrative and tracking methods.

The anecdotal method is common practice within the EY sector because it is ‘quick and easy to do sometimes’ and, often, ‘the only kind of observations that are carried out’ (Barber and Paul-Smith, 2012, p.15). Practitioners are relying on this method in order to capture key moments of a child’s development, share information with parents and record the child’s interests.

All observations were hand-written on pro-forma I had created, which were influenced by Barber and Paul-Smith (2012). The anecdotal method involved observing one child for 15-minutes, whilst writing sparse notes. The majority of the writing took place after the observation occurred, where the observer is able to pick and choose which information is included in the final write up. Similarly, the narrative observation took place over a 15-minute period of time, but with as much detail as possible being recorded.

The final method of observation, tracking, took place over a 30-minute period of time. A sketch of the room was drawn out prior to the observation taking place and all additional information, both quantitative and qualitative, was recorded on a separate pro-forma to assist with recording. These included; time spent at activity, number of children present and order of visit.

In line with suggestions made by Barber and Paul-Smith (2012), I also recorded the time and location of each observation as each element may have an effect on the child. I also limited the number of children I was observing from my usual sixteen per week to four.

Conclusions Drawn from my Research

Effective observation doesn’t necessarily have to be focused on the child, which I hadn’t previously considered. By using the tracking method of observation to see how a child or group of children interact with the room or the outside space, practitioners can use the data collected to adjust the provisions available, creating a well-rounded learning experience for the children. This may not provide much helpful or interesting information for a parent, but practitioners, particularly nursery managers, can understand and therefore improve how well a space is being utilised. This makes me further consider the potential scope of observations in my setting.

Figure1: Child A’s Tracking observation in the Garden

Figure 2- Child A’s Tracking observation of the Pre-school room.

Furthermore, I wanted to address the pressures faced by practitioners when ensuring observation procedures are being followed. I believe that the notion of fewer, but higher quality, focused observations would be highly beneficial to everyone involved. By having an aim, which was suggested when I researched the narrative method (Barber and Paul-Smith, 2012), more purpose is given to the session and helped me to streamline which data I wanted to collect during the observation.

Getting to Know the Children

Before collecting my observations, I hadn’t appreciated that by the very nature of observing four children, I would get to know these children better than I had done prior to starting this process. The allocated times of 15 and 30 minutes for the longer narrative and tracking methods gave me the opportunity to have allocated time specifically observing these children. I commented on this in my research journal saying that I was ‘able to see how different methods show differences between the children straight away’. One such example of this were my findings when comparing the indoor and outdoor tracking observations of Child A. Specifically, these observations shed light on how Child A interacted very differently with the space, when comparing the two observations. These findings reaffirm Ephgrave’s viewpoint that ‘some children can only become deeply engaged outdoors’(2017). I agree with Ephgrave and accounted for this in my research design by ensuring that I collected observations in an outdoor space. These findings may help to inform practitioners about the difference in Child A’s learning styles in these two spaces and enable them to build on their interests accordingly.

Child B was another example of where I got to know the children better. This time through the narrative observation. Watching her for 15 minutes let me see how her play was built up. I recorded in my research journal: ‘Child B watched what was happening around the water tray for around 10 minutes before she made the move to start playing over there. This may have been missed if I was doing an anecdotal observation’. This observation technique, which lets the observer ‘reveal the development of momentum and reciprocity in children’s play’ (Broadhead, p.193), can only be gained from doing the longer in-depth observations, such as narrative and tracking.

This experience of observing four focus children was refreshing. It was more manageable and gave me permission to ‘get to know’ the children on a level I previously hadn’t achieved with the anecdotal method alone. In line with suggestions from Ephgrave (2017) and advice from Boyd-Badstone (2004) to ‘avoid attempting to observe every-body all at once’ (p.231), I would find it beneficial to revisit the organisational process and develop a more structured timetable for observation practice.

Practical implications

Practitioners are already calling observations ‘time-consuming’ (DfE, 2010, p.46) and taking them ‘away from the children’ (Ibid, p.50). One proposed solution would be to give nursery staff non-contact time, where they are able to complete observations in a time where it does not have a negative impact on the children’s learning. This is something scheduled into the daily routine of teachers at some primary and secondary schools, known as ‘PPA (planning, preparation and assessment) time’. This would avoid practitioners from doing it ‘in their own (unpaid) time.’ (Ibid, p.50).

By setting aside dedicated time for observations it allows for them to be less frequent, but more effective: Quality over quantity. By doing so, I’m able to build a better picture of each child and be able to tailor their nursery experience individually.

There is no single method that does everything; no grand narrative or ultimate answer when it comes to data collection. By using different methods of observation, you can collect novel information about a child and the environment they interact with.

References

Barber, J. and Paul-Smith, S. (2012) Early Years Observation and Planning In Practice. London: MA Education Ltd.

Basford, J. and Bath, C. (2014) ‘Playing the assessment game: an English early childhood education perspective’, Early Years, 34(2), pp. 119–132.

Boyd-Batstone, P. (2004) ‘Focused Anecdotal Records Assessment: A Tool for Standards-Based, Authentic Assessment’, The Reading Teacher, 58(3), pp. 230–239.

Broadhead, P. (2006) ‘Developing an understanding of young children’s learning through play: the place of observation, interaction and reflection’, British Educational Research Journal, 32(2), pp. 191–207.

Department for Education (2010) Practitioners’ Experiences of the Early Years Foundation Stage. Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/181479/DFE-RR029.pdf (Accessed: 17th August 2017).

Department for Education (2013) More Affordable Childcare. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/212671/More_Affordable_Childcare.pdf (Accessed 6 September 2017).

Department for Education (2017) Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage. Available at: http://www.foundationyears.org.uk/files/2017/03/EYFS_STATUTORY_FRAMEWORK_2017.pdf (Accessed: 19th July 2017).

Early Education (2012) Development Matters in the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS).

Available at: https://www.gov.gg/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=104249&p=0

(Accessed 19th July 2017).

Ephgrave, A. (2017) ‘Planning Next Steps in the Moment’. Early Years Foundation Stage Forum, 21st March. Available at: http://eyfs.info/articles/_/teaching-and-learning/planning-next-steps-in-the-moment-r217. (Accessed 16th August 2017).

Fleer, M. (2002) ‘Sociocultural Assessment in Early Years Education: myth or reality?’ International Journal of Early Years Education 10(2), pp. 105–120

Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted) (2017) Early years inspections: myths. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/early-years-inspection-handbook-from-september-2015/early-years-inspections-myths (Accessed: 16th August 2017).

Osgood, J. (2010) ‘Reconstructing Professionalism in ECEC: the case for the ‘critically reflective emotional professional’’. Early Years, 30(2), pp. 119−133.

Stewart, N. (2016) ‘Development Matters: A landscape of possibilities, not a roadmap’. Early Years Foundation Stage Forum, 27 May. Available at: http://eyfs.info/articles/_/teaching-and-learning/development-matters-a-landscape-of-possibilit-r205 (Accessed 6th September 2017).

Thomas, G. (2013) How To Do Your Research Project. 2nd ed. London: Sage.

Webb, R. (2016) Comment from Feedback on MAE Assignment. Brighton: University of Sussex.