The Dialogical Kindergarten E-Book

Molly Efrat

• Herausgeber: BooxAi
• Kategorie: Bildung
• Sprache: Englisch
• Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2022

Beschreibung

The research presented in the book examined the social-communication patterns of children learning in kindergarten according to the Multi-Dialogical Approach (MDA). It aimed to examine to what extent this approach contributes to the development of these important skills.

Leseprobe

The Dialogical Kindergarten

Molly Efrat

The Dialogical Kindergarten

All rights reserved

Copyright © 2022 by Molly Efrat

No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law.

Published by BooxAi

ISBN: 978-965-577-926-4

The Dialogical Kindergarten

Molly Efrat

Edited byNAOMI GOLDSTEIN YALIN

Translated byNAOMI GOLDSTEIN YALIN

Contents

Acknowledgments

Thesis structure

Abstract

Introduction

1. Theoretical Fundamentals: The Dialogical Approach and Kindergarten Children’s Social-Communication Development

2. Description of the Pedagogical Research entitled: Development of Children’s Social-Communicative Patterns through a Multi-Dialogical Approach in the Kindergarten

3. Findings

4. Discussion of the Findings

5. Conclusions

References

Appendix

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Professor Ungureanu and Professor Bocoş, my doctorate supervisors, for their professional and wise guidance.

Thank you to the doctoral committee.

And also my thanks to the staff of AD Atid Lekidum.

I would also like to express my gratitude to the research participants who provided the data for my study.

Last but by no means least, I am most grateful for the support of my beloved family throughout this journey, and especially to my husband Shay who joined me on this fascinating exploration.

Thesis structure

The thesis includes the following five chapters:

Chapter I presents The Theoretical Foundations for the research. This chapter analyzes, discusses and describes theories relating to the subject of the research.

Chapter II presents the methodology of the pedagogical research.

Chapter III presents the qualitative and quantitative findings of the research.

Chapter IV presents the discussion of the Findings of the research.

Chapter V presents the conclusions derived from the discussion of the findings and describes a practical and theoretical modular model that emerged from the research.

Abstract

The research examined the social-communication patterns of children learning in kindergarten according to the Multi-Dialogical Approach (MDA). It aimed to examine to what extent this approach contributes to the development of these social-communication patterns. The research goal was to fill a gap in knowledge relating to children’s psychological development. The conceptual framework that underpinned the research included theories concerning social communication patterns, pre-school education, attentiveness, mediated learning, the Multi-Dialogical kindergarten and a model for activity planning in the Multi-Dialogical kindergarten.

This was a mixed method research. The qualitative part of the research was conducted in two parallel phases: conducting participatory observations on 25 kindergarten children learning according to the MDA; some of these observations were recorded in writing while others were video-filmed and transcribed. In addition, the researcher conducted semi-structured interviews with 15 kindergarten teachers, seven of whom work according to the MDA and eight who work according to the traditional educational approach. To supplement the qualitative study, a closed-ended quantitative questionnaire was constructed. This questionnaire was administered to 130 kindergarten teachers, 73 of whom were teachers working according to the MDA or undergoing training for the MDA and 57 teachers working according to the traditional approach. The data from this part were analyzed statistically.

The research findings indicate that the kindergarten children educated according to the MDA exhibited an obvious development of social communication patterns such as initiative, leadership, ability to give and accept feedback and the ability to converse and to be attentive to one another. A difference was found in social communication patterns between children educated in a kindergarten according to the MDA and children educated in kindergartens according to the traditional approach.

The significance of this study lies in the model it produced, which explains the development of the children’s social communication patterns during early childhood through the MDA, showing how this approach can actually have an influence in the domain of children’s developmentalpsychology. The modular-adaptive character of the developed model allows it to form a foundation for the development of children’s social communication patterns in kindergarten since it allows the implementation of unique learning approaches. Moreover, the model can lead to alteration of the perceptions and character of work of different practitioners (kindergarten teachers, mentors and supervisors) responsible for the children and also of teacher education colleges. This change can be achieved by reducing the gap between declarations and actions that occurs in practice in kindergartens and colleges.

Keywords: social communication patterns in early childhood; multi-dialogical kindergarten, attentiveness, dialog, individual meetings, discourse, philosophical discourse, negotiation, collaboration, feedback and reflection, guidance, initiative, leadership, peer learning.

Introduction

The rationale that guided the research focuses on the gap that exists between the goals of education in general and the goals of education for early childhood as set out for the Israeli educational system, in particular. Those goals are presented by the Israeli Ministry of Education (2015a) along with the extent of their implementation in the field in the kindergartens. The present study focuses on the shaping of children’s social communication patterns in early childhood, when they are educated according to the Multi-Dialogical Approach (hereinafter: MDA). These patterns, in fact, constitute important life skills that accompany the child from childhood through the different school stages and on into adulthood. According to the MDA, these life skills will form the foundation for the future citizen that the child will become in the society where he lives: a citizen with initiative, an independent thinker, reflecting on his actions, tolerant and flexible.

The Israeli Ministry of Education presents its educational philosophy in general and for early childhood in particular on its official Internet site. For example:

Deepening emotional, ethical and social education and promotion of personal and social involvement … fostering an optimal climate to reinforce resilience and personal growth and to promote containment of the other and acceptance of diversity (Ministry of Education, 2015a, p. 7).

Another example of the Ministry’s declared goals of education is:

To reinforce powers of judgment and criticism, to foster intellectual curiosity, independent thinking and initiative …to allow the children to develop according to their own path (Ministry of Education Internet site, 2015b).

These are important and meaningful goals for the development of significant social communication skills in early childhood. As an experienced kindergarten teacher, a Ministry of Education mentor and lecturer in a teacher education college, who also trains student-teachers for work with early childhood, I have come to realize that these goals are almost never implemented in practice in the field, meaning that they are almost never implemented in the kindergartens.

Background and context of the research

The research context is in early childhood, which is the first period that children spend in the Israeli education system, within the educational frame of the kindergartens for ages 3-6, that provide a developmental space responding to the needs of children in early childhood. The kindergartens that belong to and constitute an integral part of the public education system aim to establish a sense of confidence and trust for the child and his family, creating social interaction, so that the child can learn social rules, internalize behavioral norms, and develop emotional awareness and empathy, imparting values of morality and social justice and enabling the child to acquire world knowledge (Ministry of Education, 2010). The goals of the kindergarten, as they are stated by the Ministry of Education, are goals with significant weight for the social- communication development of kindergarten children. In practice, in the field of early childhood, in the kindergartens these goals are hardly expressed at all.

Various different educational approaches are implemented in the kindergartens for kindergarten children, including the Traditional Structured Approach, in which the teacher is the person that has the knowledge, which she transmits to the children (Kohn, 2002), and the Flow Approach that allows children to choose what they would like to deal with (Levine, 1989) and also the MDA (Firstater & Efrat, 2014). The implementation of the MDA in kindergartens relies on the general dialogical educational approach and expands its use to early childhood. According to this approach, the children participate in decision-making regarding the operation of all areas of the kindergarten through negotiation with the kindergarten teacher, who guides them. The distinction of this approach is that it relates to dialog at such an early age, in infancy and it provides the teacher with practical ways to do this in the kindergarten. Its innovation is expressed in the actual implementation, in practice, of the declared goals of education for infants in the kindergarten. Therefore, it is important to investigate the social- communication patterns of preschool children educated according to the MDA in order to determine whether Ministry of Education goals for kindergartens are actually achieved. For these reasons, the present study that conducts just such an investigation can provide vital information for various practitioners, including kindergarten teachers, mentors and supervisors working in the field. Additionally, the research findings and conclusions may be informative for the construction of courses for the professional development of those working with early childhood, and those who write learning programs for early childhood, and Ministry of Education policy-makers.

The gap in knowledge that this study aimed to fill is due to the fact that most studies that have been conducted in the dialogical learning field in various countries have focused on elementary school children. Others that related to kindergartens have mainly examined interactions between the kindergarten teacher and the child (Fumoto, 2011) and the influence of mediated learning on children (Tzuriel & Shamir, 2007). However, as far as can be ascertained, there has been no investigation of the implementation of different educational approaches in early childhood or of their implications for the children. The rationale for this seems to stem from the perception (that is not the subject for this research) that the educational stage of the kindergarten is a stage in the child’s development of cognitive and emotional development for school. In any case, no studies were found relating to kindergartens working according to the MDA that focus on children’s social communication processes in early childhood. Thus, this is the first research of its kind in Israel or worldwide to specifically relate to social and communication patterns within the context of a multi- dialogical kindergarten in early education.

Two research questions were investigated: (1) what unique social, behavioral and interpersonal communication patterns develop among kindergarten children in a multi-dialogical kindergarten? And (2) what social, communication and interpersonal differences can be found between children educated in multi-dialogical kindergartens and children educated in traditional kindergartens?

The research aims to examine the development of children’s social-communication patterns, such as initiative, leadership, discourse, and the ability to give and receive feedback in a multi-dialogical kindergarten. More specifically, the research aimed:

To ascertain the children’s interpersonal communication patterns.To examine the implementation of the MDA in a kindergarten.To identify ways to implement the MDA in the kindergarten.To compare children’s social-communication patterns in Multi-Dialogical kindergartens in contrast to children educated according to the traditional kindergarten approach.

The significance of the research

The significance of the research lies in its ability to inform a change in the perception and practical approach to early childhood education in the context of the Multi-Dialogical kindergarten. The research did indeed lead to the development of an original modular theoretical and practical model that explains the forces operating in a kindergarten that works according to the MDA. These forces serve as the foundation on which social communication patterns can be developed among early childhood children in the multi-dialogical kindergarten.

The structure of the thesis

Chapter 1: The Theoretical Foundationschapter describes, discusses and analyzes theories relating to the subject of the research. This chapter begins with main theories of the Dialogical Approach in education, continues with main fundamental theoretical perceptions in Dialogical Education and then discusses the main concepts of kindergarten children’s social and communication skills. The chapter ends with a summary and description of the conceptual framework that underpinned the research.

Chapter II describes the pedagogical research. Itdetails the methodological considerations taken into account in order to choose the most appropriate methodology to attain the research goals. The chapter begins by presenting a description of the funnel-shaped structure representing the research hypotheses and goals, and then describes the research procedure. The description of the procedure includes the type of research chosen for the study – mixed methods research, its validity and how it is expressed, a description of the research population that included kindergarten teachers and early childhood children, the location in which the study was conducted – the kindergarten, the timetable for the performance of the study, research methods employed to collect data – mixed methods including qualitative action research and quantitative study, the research tools – participatory observations (some video-filmed and transcribed and others recorded in writing) and semi-structured interviews in the qualitative part of the study and a closed-ended statistical questionnaire in the quantitative part of the study. It also describes the methods employed to analyze the collected data: content analysis for the qualitative data and statistical analysis for the quantitative data. The methodology chapter concludes with a description of the ethical considerations involved in the research and steps taken to address them.

Chapter III: The Findings presents the findings which emerged from the content analysis of the transcriptions of the video-films and structured participatory observations and the semi-structured interviews. It then describes the statistical analysis method used by the researcher and presents the statistical analyses of the quantitative findings.

Chapter IV: The Discussion of the Findings begins with the interpretation of the different types of findings discussing this interpretation in light of the theoretical foundations presented in the review of relevant literature in Chapter 1.

Chapter V: The Conclusions focuses on conclusions derived from the discussion of the findings, presenting a theoretical and practical modular model that was developed from the research findings and drawing general conclusions. In an additional discussion presented in this chapter, the thesis describes the contribution of the study to extant knowledge, the limitations of the research and recommendations for further research.

Chapter I below describes the theoretical foundations derived from the review of the relevant literature that underpinned the research.

Chapter1

Theoretical Fundamentals: The Dialogical Approach and Kindergarten Children’s Social-Communication Development

I.1 Preview

This work deals with the use of the Multi-Dialogical Approach (MDA) in the kindergarten. Its aim is to examine whether there is a connection between the implementation of the MDA in a kindergarten and the development of kindergarten children’s social-communication skills. One of the purposes of preschool education is to allow the child to grow and to evolve into a person involved in society, who has the ability to judge and criticize and is a curious, independent thinker, demonstrating initiative. The basic assumption of Multi-Dialogical Education, which is the topic of the present thesis, is that a child, who learns about his world out of an inner interest, will evolve into that type of a person. The aim of this study is to examine the central aspects of this education, namely, the social-communication patterns and processes of children who learn in a Multi-Dialogical kindergarten.

The main contribution of the humanist psychologist Carl Rogers to the educational field was that:

…he located the educational process on two supporting beams: intellectual and emotional. In order to have effective learning, it is not enough to have the cognitive process of transferring information, solving a problem or phrasing a text; there has to be an experimental event, emotional and authentic, in order for the learning to be effective. Combining intellect and emotion for significant learning can be done only in a dialogical interphase which nurtures interpersonal relationships (Harari, 2008, p. 194).

This chapter will explain how this connection between learning and interpersonal relationships is reflected in practice in a Multi-Dialogical kindergarten.

The Multi-Dialogical kindergarten operates according to the principle that educational plans and children's activities are determined through negotiation with the children while cooperating with them. Therefore, the kindergarten teacher's role is not only to teach but rather to guide the children after checking with them what their interests are. Much emphasis is given to building a learning program in the kindergarten that is based on the children's knowledge and fields of interest, which the teacher identifies by paying attention to what they say and do. From this attentive phase, the teacher guides the children to achieve insight, to develop their autonomy and leadership skills, to lead educational and social processes, to develop their ability to hear other opinions, to receive feedback and to manage negotiation. It is important to mention that the MDA is a pioneering approach in kindergartens. The Italian Reggio Emilia kindergartens can serve as a model and basis for comparison. In these kindergartens emphasis is given to paying attention to children's ideas and helping them to develop their own theories to understand the world. In addition, in the Reggio Emilia kindergartens the children are involved in negotiating the educational program, which is built specifically towards each child’s individual needs, relying on the educator’s attentiveness and sensitivity to the child.

The theoretical and philosophical grounds for this educational approach stem from the theories of Socrates, Dewey, Buber, Freire, Rogers, Gardner, Vygotsky and Feuerstein, who share support for a dialog-based education, asking questions, listening, and conducting discourse between equals. The learner, the child, is not seen as an empty tool waiting to be filled but rather a true partner to the investigation and learning. Dialog and conversation are, therefore, basic components of all these theories. Dialog is enriched through discourse, in which the participants can exchange ideas, listen to other ways of thinking, investigate a problem in depth and understand its complexity, consolidate assumptions and open them to external criticism. In order to define the uniqueness of each of the above concepts, the difference between dialog and discourse is that during dialog, the communication can be made through talk or conversation, but the verbal aspect is not mandatory. Observation is an example of non-verbal dialog. In contrast, during discourse, communication is only verbal. This means that all discourse is dialog, but not all dialog is discourse. A specific type of discourse is philosophical discourse in which, for example, children raise questions regarding the world around them, and independently investigate their answers and theories, while acquiring discourse capabilities.

In Multi-Dialogical Education children are encouraged to develop social skills that lead to reflection in cooperation among themselves. This involves negotiation while independently trying to solve problems and conflicts, desiring to help a friend in need, and listening to others' ideas and responding to them while building a discourse culture. This MDA turns a spotlight on and encourages the development of children’s social-communication skills in the Multi-Dialogical kindergarten. The Multi-Dialogical kindergarten encourages social interactions, shared initiatives, choices and self-guidance activities, as well as cooperation in partnerships. Other principles of this approach include the need to negotiate and solve conflicts without teacher involvement, as well as the ability to be considerate of others. It is helpful to examine how the MDA in the kindergarten conveys and contributes to the development of these skills. In order to understand the central role of discourse and dialog in the multi-dialogical kindergarten, it is necessary to look at the social and interpersonal communication patterns of the children in this type of kindergarten. The objective of the present research was to examine and investigate the social, behavioral and the interpersonal communications patterns that a multi-dialogical kindergarten encourages in children.

I.2 The dialogical approach in education

The MDA argues that the best learning takes place when it comes from the child’s inner curiosity and is connected to his strengths (Firstater & Efrat, 2014; Hecht & Ram, 2008). The role of educators is to help each child learn according to his interests. The educators’ decisions and the building of the curriculum originated from their attentiveness to the children and their cooperation with them in making these decisions (Lasri, 2004; New, 1998).

The Multi-Dialogical Educational Approach is presented below as well as the theories on which it is based. The review of literature on this approach focuses on the implementation of the MDA in kindergartens including its goals, its work methods, the leading staff, and the characteristic patterns of the kindergarten children’s social-communication skills.

I.2.1 Negotiation between educators and children as the basis of the dialogical approach

Understanding ideas and not just repeating them requires a dialogical relationship in education (Wegerif, 2010); dialog enables us to analyze ideas, investigating, and not just accepting them as obvious (Alexander, 2006). At the heart of the dialogical approach is the concept that constant negotiation between the educators and the children on ideas and curriculum will facilitate the development of meaningful learning (Forman & Fyfe, 1998; Lasri, 2004). This means that educators and the children engage in active negotiation about the curriculum and the educational processes, contributing to one another (Jhong, 2008), in dialog based on open questions, reflections, feedback and rebuilding knowledge using each other’s ideas (Callander, 2013).

Brain-storming is one of the means used to negotiate and organize knowledge in the dialogical approach. It can be defined as thinking about and exchanging opinions on a particular issue (Firstater & Efrat, 2014), in reciprocal interaction between participants (Ben-Yosef, 2009). In other words, brainstorming is “the knowledge and learning contents set out on the table between two knowledgeable subjects that meet around the table and used for the goal of shared learning” (Shor & Freire, 1990, p. 107). This means that people develop their ideas and open up to new ideas through dialogical discussion (Feld-Elhanan, 2007), where brain-storming is one of the means for this process (Firstater & Efrat, 2014). This works well on condition that the instructor uses principles of justice and equality and does indeed facilitate the creation of such discussion (Sadan, 2008). Brainstorming plays an educational role (Firstater & Efrat, 2014), when dialog relies on the condition that knowledge of the other is given a place and allowed to be expressed (Feld-Elhanan, 2007).

The discourse in a dialogical learning session is flexible and dynamic. One of its purposes is to help children to construct tools for independent learning and to rouse interest (Ben-Yosef, 2009). Discourse like this begins with brainstorming on the studied subject so that the educators can understand what the children know and want to know on the subject (Firstater & Efrat, 2014). In this sort of discourse the children are given plentiful room to relate to the subject. The educators’ role is to understand and ask the children what the intention of their words is in order to understand how and in which way they are thinking and to use this in planning the learning. The continuation of the learning dialog is then constructed in reliance on the children’s knowledge and what they want to learn about the subject (Ben-Yosef, 2009). A dialogical learning discourse develops connections and social patterns (Ibid.) and highlights the children’s empowerment (Firstater & Efrat, 2014).

According to the dialogical approach, educators and children learn together in dialog characterized by a sense of empowerment alongside an aspiration to produce both personal and general meaning regarding the subject they are discussing. The discussion is conducted in collaboration and in an egalitarian manner between them, so that each of them is fully involved and gaining a rich experience of the situation. Moreover, the subjects that they are discussing are open subjects, so that each subject may open into alternative subjects and they also discuss the implications that stem from their discussion. The significance of learning through dialog is that it encourages the children to ask questions, to think otherwise and to voice their reservations and discuss them without fear of making mistakes. It also encourages them to initiate subjects for discussion and activities. Thus, dialog between educators and students can create a space for thinking and empowerment (Ben-Yosef, 2009). It also creates cooperative thinking but requires clear rules for the dialogical process, which should be accepted by all participants (Fisher, 2007; Lipman, 2003). The dialogical interaction is therefore characterized by a feeling of safety, sympathy-based interpersonal relationships, and consideration and caring between the members of the group, who are able to acknowledge different points of view, but the child also learns to practice self-discipline and to assume his own responsibility for his learning (Aloni, 2008; Hecht & Ram, 2008).

Because of the uniqueness of each learner and the differences between learners, no one path suits everyone, but rather there are different routes which should be combined to create the educational act. Therefore, sharing opinions, peer study, mutual persuasion efforts and being open to the other are essential conditions for the success of this dialog (Aloni, 2008; Hecht & Ram, 2008). In addition, it can be observed that while the children learn the skills of dialog, an infrastructure is created for the learning of other communication skills such as management and leadership of discussions, attentiveness, problem-solving, reacting to other people's ideas, and being ready to change their personal point of view after hearing others' points of view alongside independent thinking (Fisher, 2007).

Independent thinking constitutes an important additional characteristic of the dialogical approach to education and it develops out of negotiations between the educator and the children (Firstater & Efrat, 2014). It is based on the provision of a supportive space where dialog can take place out of respect for the learners (Murphy, 2010). It represents freedom and it is expressed as a resource available to the individual throughout their life experiences and assists them in coping with new situations. In order to attain independent thinking, an individual needs to train to be able to examine themselves from the broadest possible viewpoints and ways of interpretation. An additional ability that should be developed through the dialogical process is the ability to make decisions and to try to realize them out of loyalty to their own path and personal thinking (Aloni, 2013).

One of the roles of education is to enable learners to develop the ability to learn independently and to initiate (White, 2007). In practice, using dialog in learning enables the learner to practice decision-making and to employ independent and caring thinking (Murphy, 2010). In other words, children who experience a sense of commitment and responsibility in their learning will develop independent thinking (Greene, 1995). More specifically, it seems that their personal consideration of contents that are being dealt with leads the children to use and adopt individual concepts such as: what I consider to be interesting, what excites me, with whom I feel it is appropriate to cooperate, the activities in which I would like to participate, what is my opinion on a particular event or subject, what I learn from the event. In other words, when the child gives personal meaning to subjects and contents, he/she assimilates a pattern of constructing a personal worldview (Ben-Yosef, 2009).

This links up with the present research when it is understood that independent thinking is expressed in a person’s ability to think in an individual, reflective and critical manner, out of the ability to take responsibility for one’s choices, decisions and their implications (Aloni, 2013). When an individual develops independent thinking, this will contribute to their social abilities and improve their ability to integrate within society that is often characterized by uncertainty (Barnett, 2007). Moreover, a person who enjoys independent thinking will consider his thoughts and opinions and try to realize his choices even in the face of strong social pressures (Aloni, 2013), so that he will be able to become an active citizen in the society in which he lives (Murphy, 2010). Thus, when investigating whether the MDA has an effect on social-communication patterns of kindergarten children, one of the skills that should be noted is the children’s ability to develop independent thinking.

I.2.2 The educator’s role in the dialogical approach

It is important to understand that the dialogical approach is not an educational program but a philosophical belief which implies a change in the conceptualization of the educator’s role (Callander, 2013). This study adds another level of understanding, arguing that the use of dialog enables children and educators to learn from each other as a result of their interactions (Alexander, 2006; Wells, 2000), and allows the educators to become part of the learning process since they act to understand the children's motives and lead and guide them accordingly (Jhong, 2008; Rinaldi, 1999). According to this approach, the educators should direct the procedure of the activities and the learning process on the foundation of the children’s reactions to contents that emerge and not according to a pre-determined and closed program that principally serves to teach the children what is correct and what is not correct (Ben-Yosef, 2009). At this stage, they discover the children's beliefs, theories and knowledge of the study topics and analyze them, to understand the way that the children think and their meanings (Forman & Fyfe, 1998). In other words, in order to conduct a dialog, the educators must understand the real meanings underlying the children’s words (Wells, 1986) to document the children’s work and use this documentation as a tool to guide them and as a basis for the curriculum. By doing so, they become investigative educators, who study along with the children, and who ask the children about their future work planning in order to build their work programs (Jhong, 2008; Rinaldi, 1996; Wong, 2009). In contrast, meticulous planning of learning by the educators could stultify the children’s development. Structured adherence to predetermined plans leads to the educator’s lack of attention to the children’s unanticipated reactions, and they fail to consider these reactions, so that no real dialog is enabled (Ben-Yosef, 2009). In contrast, educators working according to the dialogical approach find it very important to plan their meetings with the children in a flexible and dynamic manner. This enables the learning path to progress, yet allows deviations from the subject to be discussed in line with the children’s reactions and improvisation, if necessary, to add additional learning paths (Ben-Yosef, 2009). It seems, therefore, that the dialogical approach to education necessitates that the educator should be able to manage and organize time in a flexible manner (Ben-Yosef, 2009; Firstater & Efrat, 2014).

Philosophers agree that, in order to learn, learners should take an active part in their learning process (Ciot, 2009; Palinscar, 1998) and learn to explain their thoughts and ideas on different topics (Alexander, 2006; Skidmore, 2006). Therefore, in dialogical education the learning program is considered as a program that grows out of the children and is constructed by the educators (Forman & Fyfe, 1998) based on what interests the children. Such a program enables the learner to take an active role and also provides options for choice and development of decision-making skills (Seung, Susan & Min, 2005). This is also the reason that according to this approach, the children and educators cope with assignments together as a collective. The children can freely formulate and propose their ideas with the educators’ support. The dialog between educators and children is characterized by mutual relations, so that those who participate in the learning listen to each other's ideas, while sharing and observing alternative viewpoints and going deeper into ideas that are developed on the subjects discussed (Alexander, 2006).

The educators’ consideration of the children is a very significant element in the MDA. Educators do not assess the children’s learning in terms of “correct or incorrect”, rather they take the approach that the goal is to understand and learn about the children’s reactions to the organization, and starting from this point to allow the children to encounter different viewpoints. As part of this consideration, they are aware that the children’s seemingly “incorrect” reactions concerning a particular subject are usually based on creative thinking (Ben-Yosef, 2009). Their role can be seen as identifying the children’s initiatives, supporting them and developing them together with the children through mediation (Lasri, 2004). Therefore, part of their role appears to be to stimulate the children’s curiosity and desire to learn, to assist them in coping with difficulties that they encounter in the learning process and thus help them to develop. In order to help them to perform this kind of educational work, educators need to be aware of the diversity among the children that is expressed in each child’s individual learning style, thinking and areas of interest (Ben-Yosef, 2009).

I.2.3 Observation and attentiveness

Dialog contributes to an individual’s emotional and social-communication development. This is because, through dialog, the individual can share his experiences, emotions and actions with others and by doing so, create a basis on which he can develop self-awareness, self-control and thinking tools (Tomasello et al., 2004). Children practice and develop their social skills as a result of activities in which they participate (Berk & Winsler, 1995). By doing so, they use their experiences to create meaning (Vygotsky, 1978), and learn to take responsibility, cooperate, initiate and lead (Claxton & Carr, 2010).

The concept of dialog is not complete without attentiveness. Attentiveness is active communication that includes listening, interpretation, and construction of meaning. It is important to point out that it is not limited to the spoken word and is not passive but rather active. Dialog in education involves attentiveness as part of a dynamic process shared by the children and adults, discussing meanings, and including verbal and non-verbal expressions (Clark & Moss, 2005). In line with this conceptualization, it may be said that, as children possess a hundred languages to express themselves (Malaguzzi, 1998), educators must find a hundred ways to listen (Edwards, Gandini & Foreman, 1998).

Observation and attentiveness are at the basis of the dialogical approach in education and are meant to support and assure mutual communication and investigation by both children and educators (Fiore & Suares, 2010). Despite the notion that attentiveness is mainly connected to what you hear, it is important to understand that attentiveness is also expressed in observation. Attentiveness and observation lead children to take part in social interactions, communication, and cooperation with peers, on the one hand, and allow differences, strengths, and leadership skills to develop, on the other (Seung, Susan & Min, 2005). Thus, we may say that children develop an investigative culture with the help of the educator’s guidance through dialog, attentiveness, asking questions, and through the recording of the children's activity. Thus, the educational process evolves from attentiveness, observation and recording, a process which emphasizes the development of social and cognitive skills and talents of the learners (Fiore & Suares, 2010). The main nexus of the educational process is the meeting between the children and educators, where knowledge is used to serve this purpose (Aloni, 2008). It is therefore important to put the emphasis on how knowledge is acquired rather than on what it actually is. This links up to the current study, which clarifies how this process is carried out by partners in the education process, educators and children, who meet for a mutual activity and mutual processing of the investigated topic or project. Together they propose and discuss theories concerning the involved subject (Edwards, Gandini & Forman, 1998); and negotiate different perspectives and concepts of the investigated realm (Forman & Fyfe, 1998). As a result, children learn out of their own interest and activity in the environment while the educators mediate and help them conceptualize phenomena and situations (Caspi, 1979). With regard to the educational environment, it has been found that children are constantly learning regardless of the educational location, and not only in classrooms (Holt, 2004; Rogers & Freiberg, 1994).

I.2.4 Discourse and dialog

Dialog is a type of interpersonal conversation, speech or communication, characterized by good intentions and reciprocal trust, by openness towards the other and respect for their personality, that over time expands to become self-awareness, awareness of the other, to the subjects of discussion and the relationship between the participants (Ben-Yosef, 2009, p. 150).

Dialog is characterized by the fact that it allows the participants to express their opinions, and any subject can be examined from various viewpoints. Moreover, dialog enables its participants to relate seriously to each other and to develop the ability to understand the thinking, goals and reasoning of others, and so it leads to the development of sensitivity to diversity between different people or different cultures (Lam, 1996). In practice, it can take place in various fields of knowledge and different cultures. In any case it seems that practicing dialogical discourse leads allows the child to develop independent thinking (Firstater & Efrat, 2014). The uniqueness of this type of discourse is expressed in the fact that, on the one hand, there is no intention that the child should reach the “correct” answer, nor does the educator try to persuade the child what is correct or not. On the other hand, it exposes the child to various viewpoints, training him to express his personal opinions and experiences, paying attention to the child and providing the child with feedback. Moreover, with the educator’s guidance the child is assisted in producing meaning from his experiences and opinions so that they become part of the child’s own world and world view and tools for life (Ben-Yosef, 2009).

Investigating the term “discourse” in education, Bakhtin (1984) distinguishes between two discourse types: one is dialogical and the other monological. It is important to point out the differences between the two terms in order to understand how discourse is connected to dialog. It seems that monological discourse blocks real dialog (Skidmore, 2000). In this discourse, the educator’s purpose is to pass knowledge on to the children, and by staying true to these aims, educators gain a large extent of control over the discourse. In fact, it is a discourse that focuses on the educator’s power and suffocates dialog, reciprocal relations between the participants of the discourse, and their ideas (Lyle, 2008). In contrast, philosophers note that dialogical discourse fosters the investigation of a subject (O’Connor & Michaels, 2007); and enables adults to pay attention to children’s ideas and events (Fisher, 2007). Here the educator’s role is not to be the knowledge provider but rather to be the discourse instructor. It can be argued that, in some cases, children have more knowledge than educators on the investigated subject and they learn together. This study adds another level to understanding the concept of reciprocity in education, where the reciprocal relations during discourse expose participants to challenges and changes (O’Connor & Michaels, 2007). There is an understanding among philosophers that the purpose of dialogical discourse is to promote communication by creating a place where many equal voices can participate in discussions. It implies a genuine will to understand the opinions of each of the discourse participants and to build meaning together through cooperation and attentiveness towards one another (Lyle, 2008). This means all participants have a sense of shared experience (Gutierrez & Larson, 1995).

To summarize: Dialogical discourse and dialog are the main characteristics of the dialogical approach in education (Cohen, 2008). What are the commonalities and differences between the two concepts? Both dialog and discourse are based on investigation and developing a subject (O’Connor & Michaels, 2007); both of them constitute a kind of true human partnership whose objective is not to accomplish something but rather to establish reciprocal relationships. The difference between them is that while in dialog the partnership is expressed in both verbal and non-verbal ways, in a dialogical discourse, the partnership is only expressed verbally (Buber, 1980). In practice, the children should be taught the rules of discourse: timing – when to enter into the discourse and say their words, speaking without interrupting the speech of others, respectful consideration of the words of their discourse partners, even if they contradict their own opinions, giving feedback with reasoning and without aggression and without any attempt to enforce their opinions on others (Blum-Kulka, 2008; Cohen, 2008). This forms the foundation for the dialogical approach, allowing the child to practice skills for dialog through dialogical discourse.

I.2.5 Philosophical discourse

With regard to the age appropriate for initiating philosophical discourse, it has been found that even kindergarten children have the ability to conduct a philosophical discourse (Cohen, 2008). There are many similarities between the components of philosophy and education (Lipman & Sharp, 1985). They both focus on investigation, study, examination, reaching conclusions, dialog and are both based on critical thinking and questioning. In sum, there is no way to separate education and philosophy and it can even be argued that philosophy is education. Thus, developing philosophical discourse with children helps them to develop an intellectual and social approach to life (Cohen, 2008).

Philosophical discourse helps to promote children's ability to ask questions and explore the world. There is agreement among philosophers that dialog develops communications skills, curiosity and cooperation among children (Fisher, 2007). This connects to the current study in the way it perceives the importance of discourse as an important component of the educational dialog and in that there is an understanding that in a philosophical discourse, children should have room to ask their own questions, raise topics for discussion, explore their ideas, develop opinions and theories, and listen and voice different points of view on the same learning subject (Fisher, 2007, Lipman, 2003). Despite the different opinions concerning the age at which it is possible to take part in a philosophical discourse, it was found that kindergarten children are indeed able to participate in philosophical discourse, to ask and deal with philosophical questions (Fisher, 2007).

In order to create a philosophical discourse, practical matters must be considered, such as seating arrangements and discourse rules. The seating arrangement during a philosophical discourse is a circle, enabling everyone to see each other. In addition, for the discourse to be fruitful and based on attentiveness, several rules must be enforced: children must listen to each other inside the philosophical discourse circle; only one child talks at a time; children should think before speaking and say what they mean; they are allowed to disagree with another’s idea and ask him about his opinion; they must respect one another. Every meeting of philosophical discourse begins with repeating the discourse rules and ends with feedback on how the participants felt during the discourse. Following the rules enables children to explain their opinions, while the educator’s role is to mediate the discourse circle (Firstater & Efrat, 2014; Fisher, 2007; Lipman, 2003).

The aim of philosophical discourse with children is not to teach children philosophy but rather to encourage them to create their own philosophy, which will be exploratory, dynamic, investigational, and creative (Cohen, 2008). During a philosophical discourse, an experience is shared and meaning is investigated. As philosophical discourse is based on attentiveness, listening, understanding, empathy, and joint activity (Fisher, 2007), it can be argued that this discourse develops the children’s self-awareness and their awareness of other circle participants. In addition, in this way, children develop social and communication skills like reading social situations, persuasive abilities, abilities to lead negotiation, accepting others' opinions and the ability to cooperate (Fisher, 2007; Lipman, 2003).

The dialogical education approach enables children to exercise listening skills, make mistakes and learn from them; give feedback and evaluate one another, and cooperate with one another (Alexander, 2006; Boyd & Markarian, 2011; Jones, 2007). The current study reinforces the understanding that when this approach is implemented, children clearly define their words, learn to ask questions, express themselves in a clearer way, and consolidate points of view that most suit them; all of which help them to develop initiative and leadership (Lyle, 2008).

The educator’s mediation plays a significant role in a community that is conducted through dialog with the children. Dialog mediation can bring the children to a higher level of cognitive development at an earlier age. In mediating the dialog educators enable the children to share ideas and options and consequently to challenge one another’s thinking (Lyle, 2008). Knowledge and understanding are learned and developed when both educators and children conduct mutual examinations, seeking proof, analyzing ideas and investigating values.