Pedagogista and educator in dialogue: Listening to educational encounters I remind the reader of the intent of this research, to trace the transformative potentials in

involves power in terms of making ‘difficult decisions’ about what gets taken up and what gets left out of the inquiry (Nxumalo, Vintimilla and Nelson, 2018). This is guided by the matter of concern and the dialogical expressions and framings of that concern. This work moves into the realm of the pedagogista and relates to active reflection for thinking about both cultivating and sustaining emergence of a collective inquiry that is made of the creativity and curiosity of those involved.

3.4 Pedagogista and educator in dialogue: Listening to educational encounters

narration’ to refer to the same thing. This is a practice of narrating educational encounters drawing on multiple forms of documentation including photographs, films, fieldnotes for

“exploration and reflection, a stimulus for questioning and wondering” (Pacini-Ketchabaw et al., 2014, p. 187). This practice of documentation is teacher research which is done in order for the educator to learn in dialogue with others about their teaching where the

teacher/researcher is seen as relationally situated into the learning process.

[Pedagogical documentation] invites teachers to inquire, to listen closely. It is a relational encounter that requires emotional as well as intellectual empathy: ‘Can we understand without judgement what these children [and youth] are thinking? Can we show them what we think they are thinking and let them alter it?’ (Wien, Guyevskey and Berdousis, 2011, n.p.)

Another clarification of the intent of this analysis is important to this study. The Reggio Emelia pedagogical documentation (hereafter referred to as documentation) approach distinguishes itself from assessment. Through documentation, teachers develop a way of attuning to the thoughts and emotions of learners and from this self-reflective perspective, are better equipped to design a curriculum that meets the learners’ own learning process. It is a way for educators to communicate what they are seeing and reflect on their own practice before they judge whether their intended learning outcome emerged.

Documentation is often described as listening; deep listening, visible listening. It offers the opportunity to “listen again” (Rinaldi and Gandini, 1998, p. 121). Capturing moments and productions in educational encounters enables the development of a practice of listening that can attune to learners’ own modes of learning and curiosity. However, it is possible to ‘listen’

in a way that is content with the way things are and with a certainty of drawing certain

conclusions from what one hears. We need to think about the act of listening when, as Spivak argues, “the conditions of being heard have already been set by those who construct the dominating discourse” (referenced in Neimanis, 2017, p. 58); otherwise, listening may become merely “another colonising apparatus” in our educational processes (Pacini-

Ketchabaw et al., 2014, p. 180). Listening must be a process of seeing ourselves in relation to others, of being attuned to the theories at play in our practice with the purpose of considering them. In this way, documentation as listening directly implicates the learning of the teacher as well as the learner.

Critical reflection, an intentional embrace of this learning, is a central capability for an educator (Dei, 2010b; Pacini-Ketchabaw et al., 2014). Gaztambide-Fernandez (2016, p. xiii) warned us about a typical pitfall of critical education, where the educator assumes a level of conscientisation, and also that the learner’s journey should look something similar. This trap obstructs the process of continuous and active reflection. Critical reflection should aim understand children and youth in their social, cultural, economic, and political worlds does engage with anti-racist, feminist thought however, this practice must resist essentialising identities but would rather “seek new potentials and ethical relations” and look for ways of enhancing “capacities for ethical action” (Pacini-Ketchabaw et al., 2014, p. 31). Like a mirror, critical reflection also relates to our own thought processes (Pacini-Ketchabaw et al., 2014) where we make our own assumptions and meaning making visible rather than

conceptualising our analysis as applying theories detached from ourselves. The way I read it, reflection with pedagogical documentation is the site upon which the educator and the pedagogista meet and enter into conversation.

3.4.1 Relationship to theory

The relationship to theory in this study is articulated in the Reggio inspired critical reflection and research on critical education practice (McKenzie and Bieler, 2016).

When developing a praxis of theory, we do not create hierarchical relationships but see our use of theory as a practice of dialogue. A ‘unidirectional’ and ‘hierarchical’ treatment of theory informing practice dismisses the possibilities of fostering “shared constructions of meaning” (Filippini and Bonilauri, 1998, p. 133). Equally, the false idea that practice is ever free of theory, puts us in a dangerous position. Instead, what is sought is that the relationships between our reflections, participant’s reflections, theory and empirical observation takes on a flat relationship building theory within and engaging with “… theory to bring imagination and political possibility to the data” (McKenzie and Bieler, 2016, p. 7 citing Jackson &

Mazzei, 2012). Or as pedagogista Filippini (1998, p. 133) states:

[W]e reflect on our practice – a reflection that moves towards theory – or start from a theoretical assumption and compare it to what we have seen in practice to redefine its meaning. As we discuss and share reflections, we create culture.

In this way, the use of theory to study practice (of learning about water) is a reflexive relationship with those already thinking-acting-writing in ways that resonate.

3.4.2 Multiple theories

The multi-dimensional nature of educational practice as well as the relational approach to theoretical praxis, requires “intentional movement between theoretical sensitivities, given the interscalar and multidimensional aspects of practice” (McKenzie and Bieler, 2016, p. 34).

With the interest of continuously linking our experience to broader structures in the world, the study of critical education requires both ‘zooming in’ on how practice unfolds, and

‘zooming out’ to understand how this practice is located and affected in time and space (McKenzie and Bieler, 2016, p. 34 referencing Nicolini, 2013 ).movement requires an embrace of multiple theories. Pacini-Ketchabaw et al. (2014, p. 143) agree, arguing that a singular approach should not be used to capture the complex processes of education. Instead, multiple theories are brought together to create community connecting “…actively and creatively, both individual and social growth” (Malaguzzi, 1998, p. 85). Connecting back to the bricolage of research, Reggio Emelia and literature on critical education research embrace the use of a multiplicity of theories to study educational practice.

SECOND HALF