Introduction
This essay explores the development of my early childhood teaching philosophy through reflective journaling across a semester. As a student pursuing a Master of Teaching (Early Childhood Education), I have engaged in a structured process of documenting my beliefs and evolving understanding of teaching practices at three key stages: the start, middle, and end of the semester. The focus areas for this reflection include teaching practice and relationship building, understanding the children I teach, and supporting children’s transitions and change. By critically examining my emerging, evolving, and final philosophies, this essay aims to demonstrate personal growth, informed by scholarly literature and policy. The discussion is structured into three sections corresponding to the semester entries, each building on the previous to highlight shifts in perspective and deepening insights. Ultimately, this reflective process underscores the importance of continuous professional development in early childhood education.
Semester Start Entry (March 14th): Emerging Philosophy
At the outset of the semester, my emerging philosophy for early childhood teaching centered on creating a nurturing, inclusive environment where children feel secure to explore and learn. I believed that the most significant contribution I could bring as a teacher was emotional availability and a commitment to fostering holistic development. This perspective was shaped by my understanding that young children thrive when their social, emotional, and cognitive needs are met through meaningful interactions (MacNaughton, 2003). Indeed, building strong relationships with children is foundational to their sense of belonging and readiness to engage in learning experiences.
Scholarly literature supports this view. For instance, Dowling (2014) emphasizes the importance of secure attachments between educators and children, arguing that such bonds create a safe base for exploration and risk-taking in learning. Similarly, Arthur et al. (2018) highlight that responsive relationships underpin effective early childhood pedagogy, enabling educators to tailor learning experiences to individual needs. These insights reinforced my belief that relationship building is not merely a component of teaching but the very foundation upon which all other practices rest. Furthermore, I saw my role as understanding children’s unique backgrounds and interests to ensure that learning is relevant and engaging, while also supporting their transitions—such as starting preschool—through consistent routines and empathetic communication.
At this stage, however, my philosophy was somewhat idealistic and lacked depth in addressing the complexities of diverse learner needs or the practical challenges of implementing such ideals. My understanding was broad but not yet critically informed by experience or a wide range of perspectives.
Mid-Semester Entry (April 24th): Evolving Philosophy
By mid-semester, engagement with unit content and peer discussions prompted a noticeable shift in my philosophy. While I continued to value relationship building, I became increasingly aware of the need for intentional teaching strategies to support children’s diverse developmental pathways. My evolving philosophy began to incorporate a stronger emphasis on cultural responsiveness and the role of play as a vehicle for learning. This change stemmed from exposure to concepts such as sociocultural theory, which highlights the influence of cultural contexts on learning (Vygotsky, 1978, cited in Fleer, 2018).
Two additional scholarly sources further shaped this shift. Edwards (2016) argues that culturally responsive teaching is essential for affirming children’s identities, particularly for those from marginalized backgrounds. This resonated with me, as I reflected on how my initial focus on universal nurturing might overlook specific cultural needs. Additionally, Pyle et al. (2017) discuss the pedagogical value of play-based learning, suggesting that structured play can scaffold complex skills like problem-solving and collaboration. These readings prompted me to reconsider how I could balance child-led exploration with guided activities to support transitions and change, such as moving between activities or adjusting to group settings.
Significantly, my thinking evolved from a somewhat generalized approach to a more nuanced understanding of individual differences. I began to recognize that understanding the children I teach involves not only observing their behaviors but also critically interpreting these through theoretical lenses. However, I still struggled with how to translate these ideas into consistent practice, indicating a need for further reflection and skill development.
End of Semester Entry (June 5th): Critical Reflection and Analysis
By the end of the semester, my teaching philosophy had matured into a more critically informed and practical framework. Through ongoing reflection, engagement with a broader range of literature, and application of policy frameworks like the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) in the UK, I developed a deeper appreciation for the interconnectedness of relationship building, understanding children, and supporting transitions. My philosophy now emphasizes a strengths-based approach, where children’s capabilities are foregrounded, and my role as an educator is to facilitate rather than direct learning.
Scholarly literature played a pivotal role in this growth. For instance, Siraj-Blatchford and Sylva (2004) highlight the importance of sustained shared thinking in early childhood settings, which involves educators engaging deeply with children’s ideas to extend learning. This concept challenged me to move beyond surface-level interactions towards more meaningful dialogues. Similarly, Fleet et al. (2017) advocate for pedagogical documentation as a tool for understanding children’s learning processes, prompting me to consider journaling not just as a reflective exercise but as a way to track and respond to individual progress.
Moreover, policy documents such as the EYFS framework (Department for Education, 2021) reinforced the importance of personalized learning and development plans, particularly in supporting transitions. The framework underscores the need for a balance between adult-led and child-initiated activities, which aligned with my growing belief in intentional yet flexible teaching practices. Other studies, such as those by Brooker (2010) and Dunphy (2012), further emphasized the educator’s role in easing transitions through consistent communication with families and collaborative planning.
My understanding of relationship building also deepened through insights from Hayes et al. (2017), who discuss the co-construction of learning environments with children and families. This perspective helped me appreciate the value of partnerships in creating inclusive spaces. Additionally, Clark and Moss (2011) introduced me to the concept of listening as an ethical practice, encouraging me to prioritize children’s voices in my teaching. While I have made strides in integrating these ideas, I acknowledge that applying them consistently across diverse contexts remains a challenge, reflecting the ongoing nature of professional growth.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this reflective journey across the semester illustrates significant growth in my early childhood teaching philosophy. From an initial focus on nurturing relationships, I progressed to a more nuanced understanding of cultural responsiveness, intentional pedagogy, and the critical role of transitions. Scholarly literature and policy frameworks have been instrumental in broadening my perspective, encouraging me to adopt a more analytical and evidence-based approach to practice. While limitations remain in fully translating theory into action, this process has underscored the value of continuous reflection and professional learning. Moving forward, I aim to further refine my skills in pedagogical documentation and family collaboration, ensuring that my philosophy remains responsive to the evolving needs of the children I teach. Ultimately, this reflective exercise has laid a strong foundation for my development as an early childhood educator, highlighting the transformative potential of critical self-assessment.
References
- Arthur, L., Beecher, B., Death, E., Dockett, S., & Farmer, S. (2018) Programming and Planning in Early Childhood Settings. 7th ed. Cengage Learning.
- Brooker, L. (2010) Supporting Transitions in the Early Years. Open University Press.
- Clark, A., & Moss, P. (2011) Listening to Young Children: The Mosaic Approach. 2nd ed. National Children’s Bureau.
- Department for Education (2021) Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage. UK Government.
- Dowling, M. (2014) Young Children’s Personal, Social and Emotional Development. 4th ed. SAGE Publications.
- Dunphy, E. (2012) Children’s Transitions in Early Childhood Education: Perspectives from Research and Practice. International Journal of Transitions in Childhood, 5, 13-22.
- Edwards, S. (2016) New Concepts of Play and the Problem of Technology, Digital Media and Popular-Culture Integration with Play-Based Learning in Early Childhood Education. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 25(4), 513-532.
- Fleer, M. (2018) Child Development in Educational Settings. Cambridge University Press.
- Fleet, A., Patterson, C., & Robertson, J. (2017) Pedagogical Documentation in Early Years Practice: Seeing Through Multiple Perspectives. SAGE Publications.
- Hayes, N., O’Toole, L., & Halpenny, A. M. (2017) Introducing Bronfenbrenner: A Guide for Practitioners and Students in Early Years Education. Routledge.
- MacNaughton, G. (2003) Techniques for Observing Children: A Practical Guide. Pearson Education.
- Pyle, A., Danniels, E., & DeLuca, C. (2017) A Scoping Review of Research on Play-Based Pedagogies in Kindergarten Education. Review of Education, 5(3), 311-351.
- Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Sylva, K. (2004) Researching Pedagogy in English Pre-Schools. British Educational Research Journal, 30(5), 713-730.
