Photographs of Play: Narratives of Teaching

Abstract

Research affirms positive results between children’s play and academic success. While play is heavily featured within the early childhood curriculum, limited studies have explored how play is actually implemented within early years settings. The aim of this study was to enhance children’s play and learning by using photographs to explore play-related pedagogical practices of early childhood teachers in Australia over time. Using visual narrative inquiry, three families participated (mother and child) and shared school photos of the mother in an early childhood context and the current child in an early childhood context. The photos were analysed with a visual analysis approach to understand play and teaching across the two time periods. Key findings revealed what has changed and what has become part of the foundation of play in Australian early childhood education. Findings are important to expand the current understanding of play and the historical perspectives of play.

1. Introduction

Across the world, early childhood education has become an important institution to support young children’s learning and development during the crucial stages of development formation. In Australia, early childhood education and care can be described as the period before formal schooling. In Australia, there has been significant investment and focus on early childhood programs to support young children’s learning and development. Children aged birth to 5 years may be placed into long day care, kindergarten or family day care under the directions of a qualified educator. In 2009, the Belonging, Being and Becoming, Early Years learning Framework for Australia [1] was introduced, providing an overview of the high expectations for children in early year settings across Australia. Recently, a revised version of the Early Years Learning Framework (known as Belonging, Being and Becoming, Early Years learning Framework for Australia 2.0) was released to support young children in early year settings [2]. Within this document there are five learning outcomes to support children’s learning and development:

• Outcome 1: Children have a strong sense of identity;
• Outcome 2: Children are connected with and contribute to their world;
• Outcome 3: Children have a strong sense of wellbeing;
• Outcome 4: Children are confident and involved learners;
• Outcome 5: Children are effective communicators.

Play is considered an important element of young children’s learning and development. In the Framework, play is mentioned 133 times. The role of the educator is to plan and support play opportunities for young children, including a range of types of play and the concept of play-based learning and intentionality. Accordingly, play-based learning [2], (p. 8):

• Allows for the expression of personality and uniqueness;
• Offers opportunities for multimodal play;
• Enhances thinking skills and lifelong learning dispositions such as curiosity, persistence and creativity;
• Enables children to make connections between prior experiences and new learning and to transfer learning from one experience to another;
• Assists children to develop and build relationships and friendships;
• Develops knowledge acquisition and concepts in authentic contexts;
• Builds a sense of identity;
• Strengthens self-regulation, and physical and mental wellbeing.

While play is heavily featured within the Australian Framework document, limited studies have explored how play is actually implemented at the “ground level” of service delivery within Australian early year settings. Thus, while early childhood teachers are expected to implement play opportunities for young children, we have few studies of what this actually looks like. Furthermore, it is unclear if teaching practices have changed over time in relation to play and play-based learning. Given the stronger focus on the importance of early childhood education for young children’s learning, it is important to understand the relationship of play and teaching.

The aim of this study is to understand play and teaching of young children across two periods within Australia, engaging with an innovative method of visual narrative inquiry to explore early childhood education. The research question is:

• What can we learn about play and the teaching of young children across two generations in Australia through the implementation of visual narrative inquiry?

In this paper, we take an innovative approach to exploring this phenomenon through the use of photo visual analysis on children in early childhood settings. We are particularly interested in the pedagogical practices of play. Pedagogical practice is described as “the instructional techniques and strategies that allow learning to take place. It refers to the interactive process between teacher/practitioner and learner and it is also applied to include the provision of some aspects of the learning environment (including the concrete learning environment, and the actions of the family and community)” (p.10) [3]. We report on an analysis of photos taken across two generations of three families’ involvement in early year services. This includes kindergarten, family day care and preschool. The incorporation of two generations of a family shows how play may have changed or been replicated within early year settings across teaching practices of planning and documenting. Across the photos, we can reflect on the notion of play as well as identify key trends and gaps that emerge across the visual analysis of the photos, including pedagogical practices. The focus of this study also shows what the role of the educator may be in supporting play-based learning with young children and if this has changed over time.

2. Literature Review

Literature Review on the Historical Notion of Play in Education and Early Childhood: A Global and Australian Perspective

2.1. Global Perspectives on Play in Education

Sutton-Smith [4] provides a comprehensive exploration of the “Rhetoric’s of Play”, emphasising the diverse cultural and historical narratives that shape our understanding of play. This work underscores the need to recognise play as a culturally embedded phenomenon, influencing educational practices worldwide.

The framework proposed in “Learning Through Play at School” [5] offers a global perspective on integrating play into educational policies and practices. This approach acknowledges the role of play in fostering wholistic child development within formal educational settings.

2.2. Importance of Play in Early Childhood: A Worldwide View

The significance of play in early childhood is underscored by various sources. The blog post on the “Importance of Play in Early Childhood” [6] echoes global sentiments, emphasising play as a crucial avenue for cognitive, social, and emotional development in young children.

Griswold’s [7] work on “Play in Early Childhood” delves into the historical evolution of play theories and their application in early childhood education globally. Griswold’s exploration provides insights into how perceptions of play have shaped early childhood pedagogies across different cultures.

2.3. Australian Perspectives on Play in Education and Early Childhood

Holmes [8], in her literature review on “Childhood, Play, and School” in Australia, offers an in-depth analysis of historical and contemporary perspectives on play within the Australian education context. The review highlights the evolving nature of play pedagogies and their impact on early childhood education.

In “Developing Literacy through Play” [9], the authors focus on the Australian context, examining the intersection of play and literacy development. This study emphasises the role of play in fostering early literacy skills within Australian early childhood education.

2.4. Definition of Play in the Education and Early Childhood Context

In the context of education and early childhood, play can be defined as a spontaneous, self-directed, and purposeful activity that engages children in exploration, experimentation, and interaction with their environment. It is a process through which children make sense of the world, develop social and cognitive skills, and express their creativity. Play in education involves a dynamic interplay between imagination and reality, providing a foundation for learning, problem solving, and the development of essential life skills. This definition recognises play as a central and intentional aspect of pedagogy, acknowledging its inherent value in fostering wholistic child development within educational frameworks.

2.5. Play-Based Learning in Australia

Pyle’s [10] paper on “A Continuum of Play-Based Learning” explores the role of teachers in play-based pedagogy in the Australian context. This research addresses concerns about the fear of “hijacking play” and provides insights into effective strategies for integrating play into learning experiences.

In Australia, the Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF) is a somewhat recent development, established in 2009, and the Australian Government sanctioned the EYLF to provide ongoing professional support and services for early year educators. The Framework has continued to be updated, with the most recent being the 2022 version, in which it is stated that early childhood “Educators are intentional in all aspects of the curriculum and act deliberately, thoughtfully and purposefully to support children’s learning through play” [2].

2.6. The Australian Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF) and Play

The EYLF 2.0 [2] outlines a comprehensive framework for early childhood education in Australia. In “A Continuum of Play-Based Learning”, Pyle [10] discusses the framework’s role in shaping play-based pedagogy and the teacher’s role in facilitating meaningful play experiences.

While the notion of play is identified as imperative to the development of social, emotional, intellectual and physical skills, gaps emerge around what this looks like in teacher practice, especially with young children in the early childhood education context. Thus, entitling the notion of play into the current educational context, where the Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority [11] identifies educational purpose as a way to scaffold learners to be active and informed citizens for participation in society.

Exploring a historical notion of play from the past five decades, specifically 1970–2020, requires a multitude of lenses that also note the changes that have occurred within society such as, but not limited to, access to social connection through technology, changes within the context of the family and home environments, and continued improvements in pedagogical practices informed by theory.

In Section 3 of this paper, the notion of “play in Early Childhood” is explored through the lens of a camera and a comparison of photographic artefacts across two generations (three decades) for three families. The findings demonstrate the affordances and constraints for educators on incorporating and recording play and various play-based theoretical influences over time.

2.7. Noteworthy Australian Studies and Authors

Several Australian scholars have contributed significantly to the discourse on play in education. Duncan and Tarulli [12], Morris [13], Cutter-Mackenzie and Edwards [14], Siraj-Blatchford [15], and Fleer [15] have explored various facets of play, shaping the landscape of early childhood education in Australia.

Table 1. Summary of ‘Learning through Play’.

Decade	Play Theory/Pedagogical Focus
1970–1980	Focus on Arts and Craft Play with connections to developing Mathematical Thinking [13]
1980–1990	A Vygotskian Influence of Social Cultural Play—learning occurs through social interaction and through engagement with the world, rules, expectations and observation of social roles [12]
1990–2000	Focus on structured play environments [10,16]
2000–2010	Focus on Conceptual Play—imaginary play, based on multimodal literacies [17]
2010–2020	Focus is on the relationships between educators and students and how educators “play a role” in the students lives [14,15]

summarises these works and identifies the influences of the theory underpinning play within early childhood education. Table 1 highlights the main influences on play and pedagogy throughout the past five decades for early childhood education. This includes a focus on the importance of embeddedness within the learning context.

In conclusion, the literature reviewed is reflective of a global understanding of the need for play in early childhood education. The historical evolution of play pedagogies is evident in the works of various scholars, influencing policy and practice within the Australian Early Years Learning Framework. The diverse perspectives presented contribute to a nuanced understanding of the historical notion of play in the Australian educational context and provides a scope that justifies the development of play pedagogies across early childhood education. Yet, there is little evidence, within the literature, identifying the enactment of play methodology and record-keeping of evidence for the authentic reporting of play based learning.

3. Family and School Photographs

A photograph’s production, reading and description represents multiple viewpoints. This field of research provides important insights into the current and past, and is associated with intimate situations for families and children. Finding and reading photographs and recognizing yourself in them are “acts of identity as familiarity” (p. 2) [18]. Photographs are given meaning sometimes through narratives which at times, are autobiographical. Hirsch [18] writes that, “photographs are as essentially constructed as any other representational form, that every part of the image can be manipulated and even fabricated, especially with even more sophisticated technologies” (p. 6).

The social function of photography is reflected in the ideology of the modern family. The family photo shows both the cohesive structure of the family and is a tool for symbolising its togetherness. It documents family rituals and is a part of family rituals. The photograph gives the illusion of presenting the real. It provides a record of events and “has an effect of naturalizing cultural practices and of disguising their stereotyped and coded characteristics” (p. 7) [18]. Photographs contain the flow of a family’s everyday life into a collection of snapshots, immortalising family myths and stories while looking like it is just capturing segments of family history. The photo moderates tensions associated with family life by recording an illusion of cohesion and stability that can be impossible to uphold [18].

Family photos most usually show families in a restrained way: often happy and relaxed. Family photos are not known for their innovativeness, with the poses, framing and happenings being predictable. As Rose [19] writes, “this has led family photographs to be criticised for perpetuating an idyllic image of the nuclear family, cementing only dominant visions of its classed, gendered and racialised identity” (p. 11).

Conventions around photographs are implicated with how photos are used. Bourdieu [20] examined the conventions ruling what is achieved with photographs, including the family snapshot. He wrote about how the activities represented in family snapshots are rule-bound:

While everything would lead one to expect that this activity [photography], which has no traditions and makes no demands, would be delivered over to the anarchy of individual improvisation, it appears that there is nothing more regulated and conventional than photographic practice (p. 7).

So, as Rose [19] suggests, family photographs are a specific type of image which have particular purposes. A range of things are achieved with photos, in various places, and it is through exploring the practices and construction of the family photograph that an appreciation for it can be realised.

School photographs were an aspect of the early development of photography. Widespread globally, they are a way to memorialise schooling and traditionally have not attracted very much critical attention. They follow uniform and serialised conventions and are eschewed by historical sources. The meaning of school photographs appears obvious, but mainly, their unchanging facades are opaque. School photographs have many of the same qualities of familial and institutional photographs that infer social roles [21].

Families can be viewed as “fractured and subject to conflicting historical and ideological scripts” (p. 13) [18]. Photographs offer a means through which to examine cultural memory composed of remnants to be collated and compiled in a range of ways to relate various stories from diverse perspectives [18]. Spence and Holland [22] contend that:

Family photography can operate at this junction between personal memory and social history, between public myth and personal unconscious. Our memory is never fully “ours”, nor are the pictures ever unmediated representations of our past. Looking at them both construct a fantastic past and set out on a detective trail to find other versions of a “real” one (pp. 13–14).

As with Hirsch [18], we reveal the juncture of private and public history through an examination of the idea of “family”, “childhood” and “early childhood education” as represented in family photographs. Reading snapshots and photo albums, we aim to illuminate the cultural and constructed nature of what seems to be transparent and natural. We critically analyse the auto/biographical to provide narratives about the family photographs.

In this paper, we combine school photos that have become family photos to explore pedagogical practices of early childhood teachers in Australia over time. We draw upon photos from two generations to explore what is important about the photos and the associated meanings that can be given to them.

Our study is limited in that we have only drawn upon one method (photos). This study may have benefitted from extra methods, including interviews to probe answers further from participants and also the engagement of other family members about the experience (apart from the mother and child, participants could have been expanded to include other family members).

4. Methodology

Visual Analysis

For the purpose of this paper, we collected photographs from three families (mother and child). As researchers, we explored and made meaning from the photographs both visually and narratively. The photographs were used to frame conversations about play in early childhood contexts.

To analyse the family photographs, we draw on Kuhn’s [23] set of protocols as a guide for analysis rather than as a prescriptive analytic tool. Kuhn [23] separates out various contexts that give photographs meaning. In our collaborative discussions about the photographs, as researchers, we contemplated the human subject(s) of the photograph/s to convey the feelings embedded in the photograph/s, even taking into account inanimate objects. For example, the early childhood education equipment and materials that the children were playing with and on such as puzzles, construction sets and climbing frames were central to the unpacking of the photographs in our collaborative discussion. Then, we considered the photograph/s context of production, asking questions about where, when, how, by whom and why. This included a discussion about the setting, the time period, who took the photos and why they were taken. We talked about the technologies used to produce the photograph, the aesthetics of the image and its conformity to photographic conventions of the times. The professional staged approach versus the amateur, everyday nature of the photographs was important to this aspect of the conversation. Finally, the context of reception and the audience for the photograph was considered by questions such as “Who or what was the photograph made for? Who has it now, and where is it kept? Who saw it then, and who sees it now?” (p. 7). Our interest in the photographs was that they were made so families could remember the early years of their children. We talked about how families from different generations had stored the photographs across time. Although the photographs have only been viewed by family and friends, as researchers, we were given permission from the participants to make the photographs available for public viewing.

The associations emerging from the use of these protocols can be reflective, interpretive or analytical in design. The collaborative discussion underpinned by Kuhn’s [23] visual methodological approach helped and prompted us, as researchers, to move beyond the personal to consider the cultural and historical contexts that give the photographs broader meanings [23]. After our collaborative discussion, as researchers, we then individually unpacked and analysed the photographs representing our own family group (Authors 1 and 3) and the family group interviewed (Author 2).

The stepping off point for the paper was data drawn from a study on “intergenerational family practices: play and language” conducted in Australia during 2021–2022 with six family groups. The research team conducted intergenerational group interviews, filmed family play activities and collected video-clips and photos of young children’s play. Ethics approval was granted from a University Human Ethics Committee to conduct this research [Project ID: 21968], including the use of visual materials which identify the participants in this paper.

Two of the six families from the larger study chose to share photos across two generations of photographs taken in early childhood education contexts (Family 1 and Family 2). The mother from Family 1 drew Author 2’s attention to the similarity in the professional early childhood education photographs representing two different generations in her family. This observation prompted a discussion between Author 1 and Author 2. Author 3 was then asked to share three “mirror” photos of play and experience in early childhood education settings from her family photo collection. See

Table 2. Mother and child descriptions.

Family	Mother	Attended ECE	Child	Attended ECE
1	Ange	1980s	Louis	2010s
2	Susie (Author 1)	1980s	Emilie	2020s
3	Natalie (Author 3)	1980s	Noah	2020s

for an overview of the participants in this paper.

Each family’s photographs represent time gaps between the photos which show similarities in play activities across time. From these cross-generational kindergarten photographs, rich and meaningful insights are captured of intergenerational family practices, creating spaces to interpret and analyse early childhood education practices across time in dynamic and complex ways.

5. Findings and Discussion

This paper now reports on the individual findings and discussion of the three families (mother and child) across two generations. Photos from each family are shared and described before this paper considers what this means for the narrative of teaching in early childhood education. We begin with the first family, Ange and Louis.

5.1. Family 1

Ange is in her late 30s and her son Louis is eight years of age. When they were interviewed in November 2021 as part of an intergenerational family practices project, Ange shared mother-and-son professionally taken kindergarten photograph albums. Ange talked about how similar the photographs and activities were in both photo albums, even though the photographs were captured 35 years apart. Ange explains:

I picked up, the other day, Louis’ kinder[garten] book from last year and was looking at all the photos. Then I was looking at some photos today as I found my kinder[garten] book. Louis and I were just looking at them before. He commented how they were similar. I turned the first page, and Louis’ like, ‘Look, Mummy, you’re reading a book and I’m reading a book’. We both were doing that. And then I turned to the next page and I was doing a puzzle and he was doing a puzzle. So we were talking about how we did the same things, and then we were both climbing here in our class photos. We were talking about how when Louis was little he did similar things to when I was little.

	1980s	Late 2010s
Playing with puzzles and construction sets
Outside climbing activities
Portraits

The first photos show Ange and her son Louis developing their fine motor skills as they use the small muscles of their hands to fit together puzzle and construction set pieces. The mother and son are also developing their cognitive abilities as they think, reason and understand while putting together the pieces of the puzzle and the construction set. In the photo on the left, Ange is intently focused on joining puzzle pieces, showing the complex process that this physical and intellectual work involves. In contrast, Louis’ gaze is on the camera as he holds the linked construction pieces. The focus of this photo is on the child and his happy and content persona rather than on the construction process. This type of fine motor and cognitive skill development is a precursor to children scribbling, writing and drawing [24]. The two photos show how child development and learning through play was, and still is, integral to a preschool program.

In the second set of photos both children gaze at the camera whilst playing in an outdoor environment. Ange is dressed in a pretty blue dress, while Louis is in a warmer dark blue outdoor jacket. Although capturing slightly different outdoor activities, the photos are very similar in some ways. Ange grasps a net climbing frame with both hands, while Louise grasps an outdoor play frame with his left hand. Both children are doing an outdoor activity, which requires physical coordination and a degree of independence. Hence, these professionally taken photographs show Louis engaged in physical activity similar to what his mother engaged in as a child.

The third set of photos are individual child portraits depicting happy smiley children. Ange’s photo in black and white tones contrasts Louis’ coloured portrait. The photos, as Rose [19] writes, “were about picturing happy moments and feeling happy” (p. 27). The photos were not only about the children’s happiness but also about making the viewer feel happy. The likeness between the mother and son across two generations is as much in the depiction of their smiling faces as their physical traits. Although the photos are of individual children, as Ange talked about in her interview, they were a prompt for a conversation between a mother and her son. This mother and child talked about their similar experiences of early childhood education.

5.2. Family 2

The second family consists of a mother (Susie), who attended the free preschool service in Queensland during the 1980s, and her daughter (Emilie), who attended kindergarten (paid by family) in the early 2020s. In both time periods, the child had access to a qualified early childhood teacher and a teaching assistant to support their learning. The biggest difference between the photos was the time period of exposure (dosage). The mother experienced the early childhood service for part days, while the daughter, in the early 2020s, experienced the early childhood service from 8.45 a.m. until 5 p.m. (once the kindergarten program had finished, the child entered after-school care).

	1980s	2020s
Engaging with collage—using a range of different materials
Outside activities exploring how things grow
Portraits

In the first comparison of photos, the opportunities for collage and making things appeared similar across both time periods. In both photos, the child had access to a range of materials to create the collage and could also engage with scissors, staplers and other tools to assist. As such, the teacher had designed a workstation for the children to play with different materials and be creative in their own designs. This allowed the child to also practice important skills that would be useful in schooling (such as fine motor skills and learning colours). Based on the two photos, it appears that the ability to create is still an important characteristic of learning and play within early childhood education, and that the teacher continues to allow for open-ended activities for the child to explore.

The second photos of exploring how things grow show the importance of connecting to the natural environment and how this continues to be an important focus within early childhood education. In both photos, the teacher had planned learning experiences that focused on understanding the growing cycle. In the first photos from the 1980s, this included a trip to a farm to explore the growing of cotton. In the photos from the 2020s, plants were grown inside the early childhood service, and the child was provided a watering can to look after the plants. This may have been because of more safety regulations, where it was difficult to take children on excursion. The photos were also taken during the COVID pandemic, where, again, restrictions may have limited possibilities for excursions. Nevertheless, the photos both highlight the importance of understanding the environment and caring for the environment, again aligning with early childhood practices.

The third set of photos provide a comparison of portraits that occurred during both settings. The portraits always show a ‘happy child’ who is by themselves. The photo from the 1980s is a formal photo on a chair with a background from a photographer. The photo from the 2020s shows an action portrait of a child in the school’s natural environment outside, taken by the photographer. This photo shows the importance of connecting to the natural environment outside and perhaps the agency given to children in photos to be free moving and mimic play. The child is enjoying the movement in the natural environment. The focus on agency could be because of the EYLF 2.0, which acknowledges the importance of supporting children’s agency throughout the day.

5.3. Family 3

The third family consists of a mother (Natalie) and her 3 year old son (Noah).

Natalie attended the Australian Capital Territory preschool program in the late 1980s 2 days per week from the age of 4 years. The preschool was attached to a primary school and ran between the hours of 9 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. The style of education meets the Australian standard of a “structured, play based learning program” [25] with a qualified teacher and a teacher’s assistant.

As an educator and educational researcher, Natalie wanted a more nuanced, natural and contextual approach to learning for Noah, that is, learning that is child-centred, encompasses inquiry and exploration, and outside of the four walls structured play model, and learning from nature and nurturing interests through engagement. Noah attends an alternate boutique home day care education program 1 to 2 days per week for approx. 5 h per day, located in Australia’s Gold Coast. The context includes two early childhood educators with 10 children per day, and the program is offered 3 days per week. The program is designed to spend 3–4 h a day on an “adventure”, where opportunities are provided to explore the local natural environments from the ocean and parklands to farms and hinterland forests.

During an adventure, opportunities are also established for the children to connect with the wider community, for example, aged care groups, visits to the fire station, community support groups and environmental groups.

The time spent at “basecamp” is an opportunity for the children to engage in inquiry play within an indoor and outdoor learning environment that consists of contextual play areas, vegetable gardens, fruit orchards, grassed hills and sloping cliffs that have wooden stairs, bridges, ropes and climbing walls that allow access to the cubby houses, chicken pens, sandpit and gathering campfire. The children are also immersed in the process of honey making, with the observation of bee hives and turning honey into edible and useful products such as lip balm, furniture polish and creams.

The educators incorporate a connection with Australia’s First Nations Peoples and “mother earth” to teach about care of the land (environment), animals and respect for other people. There is a strong focus on building social and emotional skills to support pro-social behaviours and the wellbeing of the children on their life journey.

	1980s	2020s
Fine-motor development
Portraits
Gross-motor development

In the first comparison of photos, there is a stark difference between the activities provided to demonstrate fine motor skill development. The 1980s photo of Natalie shows a structured space with a set activity planned by the educator. Comparatively, Noah’s photos show the agency of child choice for resources with a variety of containers, spoons and mixtures in an open space and additional outdoor learning opportunities that are connected to purpose, e.g.,: working with friends (Vygotsky’s social learning theory) to clear the leaves out of the drains to stop flooding during wet weather.

Comparing the images from both time frames demonstrates the variety of learning experiences that are available to support fine motor skill development and the comparison of learning opportunities where context and purpose is designated as significant to learning and development.

The second photo group compares portrait photos from both education settings and time periods. The photo from the 1980s is a staged formal portrait taken by a photographer visiting the preschool, and the outdoor setting of the photo is a purposeful selection based on the teacher and photographer’s choice. The photos from the 2020s are portraits captured in the moments of inquiry and exploration that also show the learning environment and provide some additional visual information, highlighting the importance of nature, outdoor and hands-on learning experiences. The photos of Noah provide evidence of children’s agency and learning opportunities compared to a “structured play” environment.

The third photo group reflects the importance of gross motor development as a key aspect of learning development. Movement within early childhood education appeared as a strong part of development and is included in photos of children on various playground equipment that promote gross motor skills.

The photo artefacts again highlight the comparisons of staged and in the moment photography. The photo from the 1980s was a structured play experience where children had to climb up the play equipment and pose for the visiting photographer. The photo shows limited aspects as to the skills required to climb the equipment to reach the point at which the photo was taken. In the 2020s photographs, Noah has been captured in action on different equipment, demonstrating his climbing and movement skills. The recent photographs from the 2020s bring to light the advancements in photography and the accessibility to photograph, and video, children as they play/learn.

Across the three families in two generations, we identify key themes for discussion around play-based learning and the role of the teacher. These have emerged from looking across the photos of mothers and children within their early childhood settings across time. They do align with some of the play theories outlined in the table within the literature. For example, perspectives of Vygotsky can be seen in the photos of the 1980s, while in the later photos, the focus moves towards a focus on relationships. As such, the themes provide insights into the pedagogical practices of early childhood teachers in Australia and support the notion of “traditions” of practice that are replicated across generations to support play. They are not dependent on a time period but rather are developed and sustained practices.

The first theme is the importance of natural environments and the engagement of young children with nature to support play. This theme appears across both time periods. In all photos, this was associated with gross motor development associated with certain movements (e.g., climbing or jumping). These photos showed the importance of engaging with outside environments and equipment across the two generations in playful episodes. The natural environment also included engagement with “natural materials” such as animals and plants. The children in the early childhood settings appear to engage with natural materials, with more engagement with natural materials (including water) in the most recent photos.

It could be that the natural learning environment is considered an important space for children’s development, especially with gross motor and sensory development. As such, play is a developmental tool to support gross motor development. In this way, promoting movement through play becomes a traditional pedagogy in early childhood education, where children learn through their senses and engage with gross motor equipment (such as A-frames) in the outside environment. It could also be that because of safety regulations and the subsequent design of settings, gross motor equipment is not located internally and must be located outside. Regardless, it appears to also show the importance of this type of learning across two generations within six different early childhood settings in Australia.

Fine motor skill development also emerged as a pedagogy (theme 2) across the two generations, with photos showing fine motor play activities. All the family photos appeared to show children engaged in a fine motor activity, with the majority of these activities taking place inside at tables. The materials allowed for the manipulation of objects in both closed- (puzzles and bead blocks) and open-ended activities (cutting, stapling and glueing). Fine motor skills also allowed the children to be successful in their activity after completion, based on the selection of the fine motor learning material from the teacher. The teacher was therefore responsible for finding materials that were suitable for fine motor development for the children.

Portraits also appeared of the children in the two generations (theme 3); however, in the most recent generation, portrait shots were taken outside in the natural environment and showed children engaged in play episodes. Earlier generational portraits were taken inside, with children sitting and smiling at the camera. Across all of the portraits across the two generations, children appear to be happy and smiling. Images of children crying may not be accepted within social norms of attendance at early childhood settings, suggesting that there is a hidden “rule book” of what is and is not acceptable for taking photos in early childhood education settings in Australia.

Across the photos, links can also be made to the current Australian EYLF 2.0 [2], especially outcome 1, 2 and 4 that focus on the creation of activities. Theme 4 highlights the importance of play-based learning to support these outcomes and a focus on the children’s agency and learning that comes from the curriculum. Since the photos have also been taken from multiple time periods, the photos also highlight the importance of play-based learning across generations in supporting outcomes within learning frameworks. While the learning frameworks were not around for both generations, the play-based learning activities were, supporting the same desired children’s outcomes.

The use of photos as a methodology has allowed an important insight into the lives of Australian children attending early childhood settings across two generations. The advancement in the quality and type of photos can be seen across the time period; however, the content of the photos remains similar. From this, we can start to document play practices that have occurred or perhaps are reproduced by early childhood teachers in Australian early childhood education. As such, it becomes a narrative of pedagogical practice in early childhood education and care in Australia. This also aligns with the above definitions of pedagogical practice shared by Siraj Blatchford et al. [15].

6. Conclusions

This paper has shown insights into the importance of play and the pedagogical practices of early childhood teachers across two generations through the photos. Key themes emerged around the importance of natural environments, fine-motor-skill-focused play activities and the importance of play-based learning to support children’s outcomes in the curriculum. The photos over the time periods show that ideas have continued to be implemented across early childhood settings and highlight a generational narrative around traditions in early childhood education for Australia that appear to be implemented by teachers. This narrative for teaching shapes the planning and pedagogical approaches in early childhood education and provides opportunities for children to explore and engage (as evidenced in the photos).

The narrative also actively promotes the idea of a “happy childhood” within the early childhood setting. None of the photos shared by the families showed the “problems, tensions and dilemmas” that children experience throughout the day in early childhood settings. The photos showed children who were engaged, happy and learning. It is doubtful if teachers document the problems, tensions and dilemmas faced by children and share these images with families as part of the documentation of learning. It is unclear why teachers select “happy childhood” photos as part of the traditional narrative; however, further research is needed in this area. This also includes a key point from the discussion that the photos did not include adults and often did not include other children. Further studies in consultation with the educators regarding the choice of purposeful play opportunities and the selection process of documentation and reporting through photographs, would be beneficial in achieving a wholistic view of intergenerational play and teaching through a visual narrative.

This paper has shown the importance of photos as a research method to explore pedagogical practices of early childhood education in Australia. This has provided opportunities to reflect upon changes in teacher pedagogy across two generations, showing vast similarities in this study. We hope that future studies will add to the use of photos as a part of analyses to highlight different perspectives over time. As such, photos play an important role of becoming historical artefacts within teaching.

This study is limited by its visual analysis approach. Visual analysis is subjective, and through our narrative visual analysis approach, we, as researchers, undertook a “private reading” (p. 97) [26]. That is, visual analysis is personal. This study would be strengthened with the addition of interview data, including from the children of the younger generation who are depicted in the photos. This study would then provide a more comprehensive picture of the role of play across two generations.