Abstract 
University Students’ Perceptions of Pedagogical Documentation: A Qualitative Research Study 
by Nicole Mitchell 
August 2010 
Director: Sandra Triebenbacher, Ph D 
DEPARTMENT OF CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND FAMILY RELATIONS 
 Ten university students attended a two week study abroad tour of the early childhood 
centers in Pistoia, Italy.  Using a qualitative design, students participated in reflective writing 
activities in order to assess their understandings and perceptions regarding pedagogical 
documentation practices in early childhood education.  Pedagogical documentation is one aspect 
of Reggio-inspired social constructivist practice that is becoming increasingly important in 
educational practices and teacher education programs as a form of curriculum development and 
student assessment.  Findings from this study indicate that studying abroad increased students’ 
understanding and influenced their perceptions of pedagogical documentation.  These findings 
provide significant implications to the field of early childhood educational practice and teacher 
education programs embracing a social constructivist approach. 
Keywords: early childhood education, pedagogical documentation, Pistoia, Reggio Emilia, study 
abroad 
 
 
 
 
 
    
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    
 
 
University Students’ Perceptions of Pedagogical Documentation: A Qualitative Research Study 
A Thesis 
Presented to 
The Faculty of the Department of Child Development and Family Relations 
East Carolina University 
 
 
In Partial Fulfillment 
of the Requirements for the Degree 
Master of Science 
 
 
By 
Nicole Mitchell 
August, 2010 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    
 
 
 
 
 
 
© Copyright 2010 
Nicole Mitchell 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    
University Students’ Perceptions of Pedagogical Documentation: A Qualitative Research Study 
by  
Nicole Mitchell 
 
 
 
APPROVED BY: 
DIRECTOR OF THESIS:__________________________________________________                                                       
         Sandra Triebenbacher, Ph D 
COMMITTEE MEMBER:_________________________________________________  
          Carmel Parker White, Ph D  
COMMITTEE MEMBER:_________________________________________________  
           Joy Stapleton, Ph D 
 
CHAIR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND FAMILY RELATIONS: 
     ______________________________________________  
                           Cynthia Johnson, Ph D 
 
DEAN OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL: 
     ______________________________________________  
            Paul J. Gemperline, Ph D 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………………... vi 
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………..... 1 
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE………………………………….…….. 3 
 Key Elements of the Reggio-inspired Approach……………………………. 3 
 Social Constructivism……………………………………………………...... 4 
 Emergent Curriculum……………………………………………………….. 5 
 Pedagogical Documentation……………………………………………….... 6 
 Documentation Challenges………………………………………………...... 9 
 College Teacher Education Programs……………………………………..... 11 
 Problem and Purpose………………………………………………………... 14 
CHAPTER 3: METHOD…………………………………………………………… 16 
 Participants………………………………………………………………….. 16 
Procedure……………………………………………………………………. 16 
 Prior to the Study Abroad…………………………………………… 16 
 While in Italy………………………………………………………... 16 
 Upon Return from Italy……………………………………………… 17 
Data Collection……………………………………………………………… 17 
Theoretical Perspective …………………………………………………….. 17 
Analyses…………………………………………………………………….. 18 
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS.………………………………….……………………….. 19 
Students’ Perceptions of Pedagogical Documentation……………………… 19 
Students’ Perceptions of Current Documentation Practices in the U.S…...... 26 
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION………………………….……………………………. 28 
    
 Perceptions of Pedagogical Documentation………………………………… 28 
 Perceptions of Current Use………………………………………………….. 35 
 Descriptions of the Influence of the Study Abroad…………………………. 36 
 Limitations…………………………………………………………………… 37 
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION…………………………………………………….... 38 
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………….... 40 
APPENDIX A: IRB APPROVAL…………………………………………………... 46 
APPENDIX B: HUNDRED LANGUAGES OF CHILDREN POEM……………… 48 
APPENDIX C: EXAMPLES OF DOCUMENTATION PANELS………………....  50 
APPENDIX D: COMPLETE READING LIST FOR STUDENTS………………… 53 
APPENDIX E: WRITING PROMPTS……………………………………………… 55 
APPENDIX F: DOCUMENTATION ABOUT DOCUMENTATION…………….. 57 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    
LIST OF TABLES 
1. Perceptions of Pedagogical Documentation Before the Study Abroad…………. 20 
2. Perceptions of Pedagogical Documentation During the Study Abroad ………… 21 
3. Perceptions of Pedagogical Documentation After the Study Abroad…………… 23 
4. Perceptions of Documentation in U.S. Practice Before the Study Abroad……… 27 
5. Perceptions of Documentation in U.S. Practice After the Study Abroad……….. 27 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    
CHAPTER 1: Introduction 
The early childhood systems in many parts of Italy have become widely recognized for 
their thriving examples of social constructivist practice.  Over the past 20 years, the services 
provided by the Italian city-run municipal schools of Reggio Emilia have gained increased 
recognition and acclaim in the United States and other countries around the world (Gandini & 
Edwards, 2001; New, 1993).  Steeped in Italian culture, these schools have evolved from a 
strong and constantly refined pedagogical relationship between theory and practice (Gandini & 
Edwards).  
Reggio Emilia was the first and is the most widely recognized Italian city in the early 
childhood academic literature and thus carries the name for the approach: the Reggio-inspired 
approach.  However, there are other notable cities in Italy that provide similar exceptional 
services to young children.  The city of Pistoia, located in the heart of Tuscany, is one such 
example.  The infant/toddler and preprimary services offered in Pistoia are, in fact, attracting 
attention in their own right for their innovations in early childhood education and work with 
families (Edwards & Gandini, 2008; Galardini & Giovannini, 2001).  
Due to the unique cultural influence fueling their pedagogy, these Italian systems do not 
consider themselves to be a model or curriculum to be copied and applied elsewhere, but an 
inspiration or a reference point for schools in other cultures to begin the process around 
developing and refining their own early childhood educational systems (Hewett, 2001).  Other 
cultures inspired by Reggio pedagogy, such as the United States, have the difficult and distinct 
challenge of reflecting upon, embracing, and implementing key elements of this approach.  Early 
childhood professionals seeking to embrace key elements of the Italian approach that align with 
   2 
 
sound early childhood developmental research provide a way to inform and improve practice in 
the United States.  “It must be carefully uncovered and redefined according to one’s own culture 
in order to successfully affect practice elsewhere” (Hewett, 2001, p. 99).  As a result, groups of 
educators and leaders from the United States travel each year to observe and engage in dialogue 
with caregivers, pedagogistas, and others involved with the schools in these systems.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER 2: Review of Literature 
Key Elements of the Reggio-Inspired Approach 
Several key elements that define the Reggio approach and set it apart from other early 
childhood educational philosophies.  These key elements have been identified as having a strong 
and competent image of the child (Malaguzzi, 1994; Tarr, 2003), teacher as researcher and co-
 constructor of knowledge alongside the child, multiple forms of knowing (Edwards, Gandini, & 
Forman, 1993), emergent curriculum set up through environmental provocations and manifested 
in projects (Malaguzzi, 1993; Rinaldi, 1993), and the practice of pedagogical documentation 
(Gandini & Goldhaber, 2001).   
A strong and competent image of the child recognizes that from birth, children are able to 
communicate their needs and desires and that this ability should be respected by adults working 
with them.  Children are viewed as strong protagonists of their own learning.  Teachers study the 
children in their care, build strong relationships, and collaborate with families and other teachers 
in order to structure curriculum and support children.  It is embraced that there are multiple 
forms of knowing and processes of coming to understand information.  Knowledge is subjective 
and socially constructed in relational exchanges.  Emergent project work provides a rich and 
flexible parameter that facilitates collaborative work between children, teachers, and families.  
Teachers thoughtfully set up provocations, observe and interact with children, participate in 
collaborative discussion based on observations, and plan and structure further provocations.  
Provocations refer to “invitations to children to engage in (further) investigation of a topic” 
(Oken-Wright & Gravett, 2002, p. 213).  Pedagogical documentation is a tool that teachers use in 
order to make learning visible, illustrate relationships, and facilitate emergent curriculum.  The 
   4 
 
Reggio-inspired practice of pedagogical documentation has contributed to many early childhood 
professionals’ views of the assessment and curriculum processes in early educational settings 
(Kroeger & Cardy, 2006).  Each of these independent elements is interdependent on the other 
elements and can be best understood within the context of the theory of social constructivism. 
Social Constructivism 
 Constructivism has historically viewed young children as scientists actively exploring the 
world in order to construct a series of mental schemas which represent their understanding of the 
outside world (Edwards, 2005).  Current theoretical discussions, building on Lev Vygotsky’s 
(1934/1962) work, integrate and emphasize the social and cultural functions of learning and 
development (Carlson, 1999; Edwards, 2005).  Social constructivist theory views learning as a 
social process in which child and teacher engage to co-construct the socio-cultural realm, and 
their decisions scaffold each other (Adams, 2006).  Co-construction not only takes place between 
teacher and child, but also in interactions between children.   
Education takes on specific characteristics when a social-constructivist framework is used 
to guide practice.  Teachers act as supporters of this learning through environmental preparation 
(Carter, 2007; Gandini, 1993; Tarr, 2004), active engagement (Adams, 2006; Edwards, 2005), 
and careful observations and documentation (Gandini & Goldhaber, 2001; Lewin-Benham, 2008; 
Vecchi, 1993). Constructivist teachers of young children use documentation to discover how 
children think, feel, and come to know, then to plan and structure opportunities to extend this 
learning through careful environmental design (Kroeger and Cardy, 2006). Ongoing observation 
of children engaged in a wide variety of experiences provides an authentic picture of the child’s 
5 
 
personality, interests, developmental levels, skills and accomplishments, and strategies for 
problem solving (Forman & Hall, 2005).  Emergent curriculum reflects these values. 
Emergent Curriculum 
 Emergent curriculum is a natural extension of social constructivism.  It is manifested in 
project work (Katz, 1993).  It is defined as an exchange of ideas, debate, and negotiation among 
teachers and children that leads to the initiation of a project and determines how a project will 
continue or branch (Lewin-Benham, 2008).  Loris Malaguzzi (1994), founder of the Reggio 
Emilia approach, posits that “we need to be open to what takes place [in school] and able to 
change our plans and go with what might grow at that very moment both inside the child and 
inside ourselves” (p. 53).  In this type of curriculum, teachers carefully observe the interests of 
the children in order to plan activities and help extend the child’s learning (Katz & Chard, 1996).  
It is manifested in short and long term projects initiated by the children and extended by the 
teachers.  It is a negotiated and flexible process.  
Current literature both explores and defends the validity of such curriculum through an 
emphasis on reflective documentation in which children and teachers constantly revisit previous 
learning in order to extend this learning (Forman & Hall, 2005; Goldhaber, 2007; Kline, 2008; 
Lewin-Benham, 2008; McNaughton & Krentz, 2007).  Pedagogical documentation is part of a 
critical cycle of inquiry in which teachers observe, document, analyze and reflect, plan and 
extend experiences, revisit and revise, and then repeat the cycle (Gandini & Goldhaber, 2001; 
Tegano & Moran, 2005 ).  This concept of flexibility in planning has been embraced and 
implemented in many progressive early childhood settings.  This is not without great 
controversy.  Current educational standards in the United States promote a culture where 
performance is often valued over learning (Adams, 2006). 
6 
 
 Accountability standards often conflict with social constructivist theory and practice.  In 
this increasingly standardized atmosphere, visible assessments of learning standards and progress 
are often necessary to both assess and defend curriculum goals.  “Researchers have found a 
patterned relationship between the advance of accountability concerns and the retreat of 
traditional child observations” (Kline, 2008, p. 71).  Current constructivist teachers, student-
 teachers, and teacher educators face the challenge of balancing educational accountability 
standards with active, child-centered practice.  Pedagogical documentation in early childhood 
classrooms provides a valuable instrument to help bridge this gap.  “If done properly, good 
documentation can serve all masters simultaneously, from individual assessment, to curriculum 
planning, to instructional accountability” (Forman, Lee, Wrisley, & Langley, 1993, p. 249).  
Documentation can be used as an effective tool to make learning visible to children, teachers, 
administrators, parents, and the outside community.   
Pedagogical Documentation 
The element of pedagogical documentation is recognized as a cycle of inquiry that fuels 
early childhood educational practice (Gandini & Goldhaber, 2001; Goldhaber, 2007).  It is 
understood that documentation is a journey, not a destination (Beneke, 2000) that ultimately 
brings teachers closer to children’s learning experiences” (Kroeger & Cardy, 2006, p. 389) and 
“embodies the essence of getting closer to children’s thinking” (p. 391).  Seitz (2008) defends 
the importance of documentation by asserting that it shows accountability, extends learning, and 
makes learning visible.  It draws others into the experience and helps explain learning.  
Documentation can embody any format that communicates the story and purpose of an event, 
experience, or development.  An important aspect of this communication is to consider the 
audience and purpose of the documentation.  “Successful documentation formats reflect the 
7 
 
intended audience and its purposes” (Seitz, p. 89).  It should fully explain the process of an event 
while highlighting various aspects of that event.  “It provides a record of the learning experiences 
in the classroom, reveals connections between events, and provides children, parents, and 
teachers with the opportunity to review and plan future experiences” (Fraser & Gestwicki, 2002, 
p. 129). 
Pedagogical documentation illustrates a holistic view on child learning.  “All children 
have the potential, albeit in different ways, to learn and to develop their own ideas, theories, and 
strategies” (Gandini & Goldhaber, 2001).  The Reggio-inspired approach to early childhood 
education embraces these different ways of learning as ‘languages.’  In Malaguzzi’s famous 
hundred languages of children poem, he writes that “the child has a hundred languages (and a 
hundred hundred hundred more)” (Edwards, Gandini, & Forman, 1993, p. v1, see Appendix B 
for copy of full poem).  Documentation is not intended to illustrate only cognitive strides in 
development, but to view the whole child and the various domains that influence development 
and learning. 
Different types of experiences in the classroom necessitate different formats of 
documentation.  Seitz (2008) states that “the format that documentation takes can be as varied as 
the creator’s mind permits” (p. 88).  This documentation can take many forms.  “Depending on 
the topic and age of the children, documentation may range from a simple photograph with an 
explanation… to a series of panels that illustrate the process followed in a lengthy project” 
(Fraser & Gestwicki, 2002, p. 133).  Photographs, written or recorded words, videos, webbing 
charts, books, displays, panels, slide shows, portfolios, and learning stories are commonly used 
media for documenting children’s ideas and work (Buell & Sutton, 2008; Forman & Hall, 2005; 
Goldhaber, 2007; Goodfellow, 2004; Kline, 2008; Seitz, 2008).   
8 
 
 The documentation panel has become one of the most popular formats that teachers and 
teacher educators use to document (Kline, 2008; Seitz, 2008).  The panel is a type of display that 
combines photographs and artifacts with words, it provides teachers with a versatile and 
comprehensive medium that can be used to make children’s learning visible (Appendix C).  
“Panels document the interactions between child/child, child/adult and child/material.  They may 
contain photos, transcripts of conversations, teacher’s notes, and artifacts from one child or a 
group of children” (Kline, p. 71).  Panels can be created on any flat display surface in the school 
such as walls in the classroom or hallway, bulletin boards, or cardboard/foam board displays.  
The purpose of the panel is to function as a communication tool.  It is this purpose that separates 
it from other types of bulletin boards and displays in the classroom.  Kline states that 
“documentation panels facilitate communication with families” (p. 73).  Panels invite parents 
into the classroom, allowing them to spend more time there, and thus enabling them to become 
more involved, and strengthen family-school relationships.  These panels have been introduced 
in teacher education programs to help candidates reflect on their teaching practices.  “Panel 
making is a recursive process providing a forum for candidates to revisit children’s learning; 
analysis of the documentation artifacts; and thinking, refining, and clarifying that thinking as 
they go” (p. 74). 
 Documentation can embody simpler forms than the documentation panel in order to 
inform planning practices.  Webbing is a popular form of planning in many early childhood 
settings.  Buell and Sutton (2008) moved webbing beyond merely planning around topics and 
themes and into a form of documentation.  They achieved this by placing each child’s name in 
the center of the web, and the extensions became observations of children’s actions and interests.  
This type of web provides teachers with a loose form of documentation that is visible and easily 
9 
 
maintained.  “Webbing enables teachers to brainstorm and record ideas in an organized way” 
(p.100).  It is a strong way to organize interests and topics that the children express curiosity in 
exploring.  This type of web is different than traditional forms of planning webs.  Buell and 
Sutton observe that “student teachers often got too caught up in the content and theme of the web 
and lost some of the focus on the children” (p. 101).  In addition, when some children showed 
interest in topics not on the web, student teachers tended to ignore it.  Ideas that did not fit into 
the theme were often not considered.  They found that child-centered webbing helps early 
childhood education students focus on both developmental needs and the interests of the child as 
opposed to the themes or content on traditional webs. 
Documentation Challenges 
 Teacher beliefs and attitudes often present a challenge to documentation practices.  
McCarthy and Duke (2007) identify a variety of challenges relating to teacher beliefs and 
attitudes: documentation is viewed as “too hard,” “something they don’t have time for,” and as 
“one more thing to do” (p. 104).  Goldhaber and Smith (1997) recognized that documentation 
demands a high degree of emotional investment.  The emotional investment is a result of a 
process that evokes frustration, confusion, and fatigue.  A strong belief in the value of 
documentation is necessary for teachers to commit to the systematic process that pedagogical 
documentation demands. 
 A major hurdle novice teachers and beginning documenters encounter is that of not 
knowing what to document.  A variety of topics are worth documenting (Seitz, 2008).  Seitz 
posits that documentation is most effective if one topic is carefully selected and explored to the 
fullest rather than trying to document a little of everything.  To choose a focus, the teacher would 
start by observing an interest of the children and show developing progress of that interest.  This 
10 
 
process is extremely difficult for some teachers overwhelmed with the freedom of options 
presented through this style of documentation. 
 Other challenges regarding documentation are theme-based and pre-developed 
curriculum guidelines as well as standardized assessments that many teachers and directors are 
required to use (Kroeger & Cardy, 2006).  Theme-based and pre-developed curricula provide a 
form of environmental standardization in order to “offset low levels of teacher training and 
wage, and child and teacher mobility in settings serving high numbers of low income families” 
(p. 393).  Assessments in the United States (U.S.) are often standards-driven.  These curricula 
and assessments do not take into account teachers’ responsiveness to the needs of the children.  
Constructivist views and emergent curriculum hold children themselves as the standards to 
which they teach. 
 Finally, this process of documentation is meant to be collaborative and reflective 
(Gandini & Goldhaber, 2001).  In order for this to occur, proper structural supports are necessary 
to foster documentation.  Goldhaber and Smith (1997) describe the University of Vermont’s 
Campus Child Care Center as an American example of a program with such supports in place.  
The lead teacher  and program faculty co-teach academic courses and continually explore and 
challenge each other’s understanding of theory and practice.  Most significantly, center and 
program staff share a common vision.  It is in this atmosphere that documentation can thrive.  
Rigid and uniform early childhood settings breed an atmosphere that is passive and lacking in 
motivation, depth and breadth, and relevancy (Kroeger & Cardy, 2006).  Lack of a collaborative 
atmosphere is a considerable challenge to the practice of pedagogical documentation. 
Pedagogical documentation is a difficult process for many teachers in general; however, 
teacher education programs have a particularly salient role in equipping educators with the 
11 
 
information and tools to make documentation a successful component in early childhood 
classrooms and programs. It is important to expose pre-service teachers to this process of 
pedagogical documentation as early as possible in teacher education programs in order to move 
away from transmission oriented education toward new understandings of teaching through 
critical thinking and inquiry (Tegano & Moran, 2005).  Transmission oriented education refers to 
an image of the teacher as “one of expert knower and transmitter of knowledge and the image of 
the child is one of being needy and dependent” (p. 289).  Tegano and Moran look toward teacher 
education programs and posit that “inquiry-oriented practice can and should begin in the earliest 
practica and develop through a continuity of related experiences” (p. 289). 
College Teacher Education Programs 
Teacher education programs in many university and community college settings are 
incorporating Reggio-inspired pedagogical concepts into their curriculum (Buell & Sutton, 2008; 
Goldhaber and Smith, 1997; McCarthy and Duke, 2007).  Improvement in overall program 
quality has been reported by several teacher educators as a result of the implementation of 
pedagogical documentation practices into teacher education programs (Goldhaber & Smith, 
1997; Kline, 2008; McCarthy & Duke, 2007; McNaughton & Krentz, 2007).  According to Kline 
(2008), these improvements resulting from pedagogical documentation were demonstrated 
through a respect for children’s ideas and work; providing a structure for continuous planning 
based on student work in progress; enticing parents to become more aware of their children’s 
experiences in school; enabling teachers to focus on their role in supporting the learning process; 
and providing public evidence of children’s cognitive abilities. 
 Social constructivist teacher education programs preparing students to work as 
professionals in the field of early childhood often use pedagogical documentation as a vehicle for 
12 
 
reflection.  The most common trends among developing teachers enrolled in these teacher 
education programs include: exposure to literature about Reggio-inspired documentation 
practices, collaboration using dialogue and reflection, systematic gathering of information 
through child observations, the creation of documentation, and examination of personal theories 
and teaching practice (Buell & Sutton, 2008; Goldhaber & Smith, 1997; Kline, 2008; Kroeger & 
Cardy, 2006; McCarthy & Duke, 2007; McNaughton & Krentz, 2007; Tegano & Moran, 2005).  
Trends in outcomes included student transformations in theoretical views, classroom ‘roles’ and 
educational practice, an increase in self efficacy and competence, and inspiration. 
 As a result of participating in these teacher education programs, participants reported 
numerous benefits.  The strengths of the findings were inspiring to the teacher educators 
implementing the programs.  Goldhaber and Smith (1997) reported that there were improved 
collaborative relationships between student teachers and teacher educators.  Through sharing 
stories, students were ‘drawn in’ to the process of collaboration; the collaboration helped fire 
intellectual excitement (McCarthy & Duke, 2007). 
 In many of the programs, students developed greater self confidence and came to see 
themselves as competent professionals and teacher researchers (Goldhaber & Smith, 1997; 
Kroeger & Cardy, 2006; McCarthy & Duke, 2007).  The benefits of students’ improved self-
 perceptions were especially salient to McCarthy and Duke as they noted that their population of 
student teachers was mostly women with low incomes who held negative views toward 
documentation and reflective thinking. 
 The struggles revealed through teacher education programs were both abundant and 
representative of larger societal challenges related to documentation.  Teacher educators often 
struggle with helping early childhood student teachers understand and develop the process of 
13 
 
documentation (Goldhaber & Smith, 1997; Kroeger & Cardy, 2006; McCarthy & Duke, 2007; 
Tegano & Moran, 2005).  This can be a result of a variety of factors and overall findings reveal 
that documentation is simply a hard place to reach (Kroeger & Cardy, 2006). 
 McCarthy and Duke (2007), along with Tegano and Moran (2005), found that student 
teachers had preconceived ideas about teaching, and these ideas were largely based on the way 
that they were taught in school.  Students whose teachers modeled transmission-style approaches 
produced student teachers who valued a transmission-style approach.  This represents a 
fundamental struggle for teacher educators due to the epistemological differences regarding the 
nature of learning.  Tegano and Moran state that “novice teachers must develop both the need to 
know and dispositions for knowing in order to move away from transmission oriented teaching 
and learning toward inquiry-oriented practice” (p. 287).  McCarthy and Duke found that 
empowering the student teachers through collaboration as well as educating them about child 
development helped to transform these preconceived ideas into more developmentally 
appropriate practice.  It was the inspiration that came with the increased competence that ignited 
the process of change. 
 Another struggle teacher educators face is students’ misunderstandings of the purpose of 
documentation.  Kroeger and Cardy (2006) explain that students having trouble simultaneously 
engaging with children while documenting demonstrate this misunderstanding.  “These students 
see documenting as an either-or dichotomy distracting them from valuable processes like 
structuring the classroom, interacting with the children, and performing other teacherly duties… 
absent from the teachers’ earliest insights, however, is the deep philosophical rationale behind 
the practice, which reveals its purpose more fully” (p. 390).  Kroeger and Cardy concluded that 
they try to help students focus not on time or resources that they are lacking, but upon 
14 
 
documentation forms and what those forms have to teach them about what is missing in their 
understanding of children and settings.  They also grouped students into dyads in order to 
experience collaboration and support through reflective conversations. 
 Influenced by the social constructivist views of learning shared by all of the teacher 
education programs in this literature review, students were given space and time within a 
structured format in order to autonomously and interdependently construct their understanding of 
pedagogical documentation.  Although the challenges were significant, so also were the 
transformations within the student teachers’ paradigms and practice. 
Problem and Purpose 
Despite progress in national standards, many American early childhood caregivers and 
educators struggle to embrace, apply, or implement practices that reflect a Reggio-inspired 
influence into their early childhood environments (Kroeger & Cardy, 2006).  A general 
consensus in the research indicates that there are barriers to implementing key elements of 
Reggio-inspired practices (Egan, 2009; New, 2007; Strong-Wilson & Ellis, 2007).  Research also 
indicates that teacher education programs play a critical role in helping future teachers overcome 
these barriers (Buell & Sutton, 2008; Goldhaber & Smith, 1997; Kline, 2008; Kroeger & Cardy, 
2006; McCarthy & Duke, 2007; McNaughton & Krentz, 2007; Tegano & Moran, 2005).  
Illustrating different approaches to teaching adult learners about the key elements of Reggio-
 inspired pedagogy is instrumental to understanding ways to improve practice in teacher 
education programs.  Although there are examples in the literature (e.g., Buell & Sutton, 2008; 
McCarthy & Duke, 2007), continued research is needed to illustrate how teacher educators and 
student teachers come to understand and embrace pedagogical documentation in different 
contexts and situations.  Some of the teacher educators were inspired through actual visits to 
15 
 
Italy (e.g., Goldhaber and Smith, 1997), but nowhere in the literature did any of the researchers 
take a group of university students studying early childhood to Italy to observe documentation 
first hand.  Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine university students’ 
understanding and perceptions of pedagogical documentation in the early childhood environment 
before, during, and after a study abroad tour of the infant/toddler and preprimary centers in 
Pistoia, Italy.  Two central research questions guided this study: 
1. How do child development/family relations students describe their perceptions of 
pedagogical documentation prior to, during, and following the study abroad process? 
2. How do child development/family relations students describe their perceptions of current 
use of pedagogical documentation in U.S classrooms prior to and following the study 
abroad process?
 
 
CHAPTER 3: Method 
Participants  
Ten university students participated in a two week study abroad to the infant/toddler 
centers in Pistoia, Italy.  All were female and ages ranged from nineteen to twenty-eight years.  
There were four undergraduate and six graduate students, all from the Department of Child 
Development and Family Relations at East Carolina University in Greenville, North Carolina.  
The students had varying interests, majors, and educational backgrounds, including early 
childhood education, early intervention, and child life.   
Procedure 
Prior to the study abroad.  Students participated in a series of three pre-departure 
discussion sessions, each lasting two hours, during which they discussed their interpretation of a 
variety of literature on social constructivist practice, Reggio-inspired pedagogy, and pedagogical 
documentation (Appendix D).  In addition, each student also read the text, Bambini: The Italian 
Approach to Infant/Toddler Care (Gandini & Edwards, 2001), as Donatella Giovannini, one of 
the contributing authors, was instrumental in facilitating many of the group interactions on the 
study tour.  The sessions were set up to be discussion based, interactive, and reflective. 
Discussions for each session centered on students’ reflections on the literature and written 
responses to prompts about documentation practices (Appendix E).   
While in Italy.  Over the course of fourteen days, students observed in ten different 
infant/toddler and preprimary centers, participated in reflective group discussions each day with 
Italian educators, and kept a daily, reflective journal. 
   17 
 
Upon return from Italy.  Students used their own documentation of their experience to 
compile a comprehensive, reflective portfolio.  Following completion of their portfolio, students 
responded to the same prompts they wrote about prior to the actual study abroad experience with 
the addition of one question (Appendix E).  
Data Collection 
This study attempted to examine students’ understanding and perceptions of 
documentation by using multiple forms of documentation.  The data used in this study came 
from four sources: completed pre-tour and post-tour writings prompts, reflective journals 
composed daily while in Italy, and a comprehensive portfolio at the end of the study abroad 
experience.  Each of these components illustrated different pieces of the students’ growth in 
understanding and perceptions of pedagogical documentation processes.  
Theoretical Perspective 
This qualitative study utilized key elements of a phenomenological framework informed 
by a post-positivist research paradigm.  Phenomenological research seeks to understand 
individuals’ lived meaning of phenomena through the first person perspective (Gubrium & 
Holstein, 1993; Hein & Austin, 2001).  According to this perspective, conceptions individuals 
hold about their perceptions should be sensitive to the notion that reality is an essentially 
subjective experience (Edwards, 2005).  “Studies seeking to examine beliefs, conceptions, or 
understanding people hold about their worlds and/or work should reflect this orientation and 
therefore emphasize the collection of data aimed at illuminating the issues as they are perceived 
or interpreted by the participants of concern” (Edwards, 2005, p.40).
   18 
 
Analyses 
 All information relating to documentation from each of the data sources (pre/post 
writings based on prompts, reflective journals, and comprehensive portfolios) was extracted for 
analysis.  A blind analysis of students’ writing was conducted first by the primary researcher, 
then by a secondary source, the primary researcher’s graduate advisor, and grouped under broad 
themes once consensus was reached.  In this study, it was very important that each student, 
regardless of age, educational status (graduate or undergraduate), or major, had an equal voice in 
the research process.  Therefore, statements were included from each student.  If more than one 
student wrote statements very similar in meaning, only one was selected to represent the 
expressed concept.  The culmination of these data resulted in a collective voice that represented 
each student participating in the study abroad process.
 
 
CHAPTER 4: Results 
Students’ Perceptions of Pedagogical Documentation 
The first research question examined students’ perceptions of pedagogical documentation 
prior to, during, and following the study abroad process.  Analysis of the data resulted in five 
common themes that remained present throughout the entire process and the emergence of one 
additional theme while in Italy.  The common themes include that pedagogical documentation a.) 
involves education, b.) is for the teachers, c.) is for the child, d.) involves families, and e.) is for 
the school and outside community (see Tables 1, 2, and 3).  While in Italy, the additional theme 
emerged that documentation can give value to the period of childhood (see Table 2).   
Although the five broad themes were consistent across the research process, they were 
qualitatively distinct in many regards.  The students’ descriptions that supported each theme 
illustrated that their understanding and reflections evolved during the study abroad process and 
upon returning home.  Students perceived that documentation was for the child, teacher, families, 
school, and outside community before they experienced the study abroad process, but it was not 
until they were immersed in the Italian educational settings that they began to understand the 
distinct ways in which this style of documentation applied to those entities.  As can be seen in 
Table 1, prior to the study abroad, students perceived that pedagogical documentation was a type 
of documentation that referred to education.  During and following the study abroad (Tables 2 
and 3), they made the distinction that it does not simply “refer” to education but that it is a 
method of education that plays a central role in Reggio-inspired schools.
20 
 
Table 1 
Perceptions of pedagogical documentation before the study abroad 
Theme 1: Documentation refers to education. 
(Quotes from students’ writing based on prompts before the study abroad) 
• “It is the process of creating an archive of the child’s learning and may include 
teachers’ notes, pictures, or creations the child has made.” 
• “It is the recording of a child’s progress in various aspects or on various tasks, 
often in the form of teacher recordings and checklists.” 
• “Shows the progression of the child’s learning and serves as a reference for 
improvement.” 
• “Refers to education or teaching, often used to document the progress of 
students.” 
• “Provides a holistic view of children, their abilities, their influence on those 
around them, and control over their own learning.” 
• “Creates an atmosphere of openness to new and differing ideas.” 
• “Promotes observations with open endings rather than observations to simply 
meet standards.” 
• “Helps the curriculum to be child centered and appropriate.” 
Theme 2: Documentation is for teachers. 
• “Allows the teacher to reflect on children in a natural manner.” 
• “Allows the teacher to assess exactly what the child is interested in and support 
learning through that interest.” 
• “Through this type of documentation, teachers usually observe student behavior 
in order to reflect on their teaching or why a child is or isn’t meeting specific 
academic standards or goals.” 
• “It is very important in understanding the development of students so that teachers 
can better create a classroom environment that caters to the special needs of each 
student.” 
Theme 3: Documentation is for the child. 
• “It establishes individual needs of students.” 
Theme 4: Documentation  involves families. 
• “Allows and promotes parental involvement.” 
• “Provides visual and concrete evidence to children and parents regarding 
development.” 
Theme 5: Documentation is for the school and outside community. 
• “Provides ‘proof’ of what is going on in a teacher’s classroom.” 
• “Can be used as a tool to show principals or directors the benefits of specific 
teaching strategies.” 
• “Supports the need for funding.” 
 
21 
 
 
Table 2 
Perceptions of pedagogical documentation during the study abroad 
Theme 1: Documentation is an educational method. 
(Quotes from students’ reflective journals) 
• “It is a daily process that plays a central role.” 
• “It is a method of education that shows and highlights the work of children and 
gives it value.” 
• “makes learning visible by making explicit things not being seen” 
• “gives value to the process of learning” 
• “promotes reflection- it should be thought about and make you think” 
• “It is used to tell a story.” 
• “Teachers and children construct activities based on reflections about 
documentation.” 
• “It is a constructive, not passive, process.” 
• “It is about taking a distance from your daily work in order to reflect on it.” 
Theme 2: Documentation is for the child. 
• “can help the children remember what they can do in an area and what they have 
done before.” 
• “shows the children that what they are doing is important” 
• “gives children a voice” 
• “It increases the relationship between children.” 
• “shows how different things work with different children” 
Theme 3: Documentation gives value to the period of childhood. 
• “It should be about ordinary, daily events that happen- not just extraordinary 
events; the narration of the story itself makes it come alive.” 
• “The richness of childhood comes to life if we are constantly enriching this time 
period.” 
• “Talking about what we do enriches childhood.” 
• “Our reflection enriches childhood.” 
Theme 4: Documentation is for the teacher. 
• “requires teachers to take a step back and helps them reflect on their work and on 
professional practice” 
• “helps teachers organize their way of thinking” 
• “builds a common ground between a group of educators within the school” 
• “provides a common ground between teachers and other professionals” 
• “Educators share ideas with colleagues to find meaning in what is being done.” 
• “It is important for teachers to talk about what they see.” 
• “confirms teacher identity” 
• “builds identity of colleagues working together, all teachers feel involved in a 
common project” 
• “It is oriented toward knowledge and acquiring a greater critical awareness about 
practice.” 
 
22 
 
 
Table 2 (continued) 
Perceptions of pedagogical documentation during the study abroad 
Theme 5:  Documentation involves families. 
• “It is important to provide a wide variety of opportunities for parents to be 
involved in the documentation process.” 
• “encourages parents to care about school and their child’s experiences at school” 
• “encourages the parents’ interest in what the child is doing at school” 
• “smoothes the transition into school by providing a link between home and 
school” 
• “Parents rely on good documentation and it helps the families feel involved in the 
school system.” 
• “everyone has the opportunity to participate in documentation but does not 
penalize parents for not documenting” 
• “It gives value to the words and participation of parents.” 
Theme 6: It is for the school and wider community. 
• “It establishes a sense of memory in the school.” 
• “gives an outside view on teaching” 
• “It provides proof of the abilities of children.” 
23 
 
 
Table 3 
Perceptions of pedagogical documentation after the study abroad 
Theme 1: Documentation is an educational method. 
(Quotes from students’ comprehensive portfolios and writings based on prompts 
following the study abroad) 
• “It gives value to the work of teachers and children, expresses not just 
extraordinary events, but ordinary, daily events and makes things that are not 
explicit visible.” 
• “A set curriculum is viewed as inhibiting learning, so documentation in a 
flexible curriculum is not only a record of growth, but can be used as a tool for 
learning.” 
• “Keeping evidence of very important things, specifically about the development 
of children.  It uses pictures, the words of children, and work samples to show 
children’s development and where they are going.” 
• “Allows teachers, children, parents, and visitors to reflect and learn from various 
projects.” 
• “Should be looked at as a daily process.” 
• “Sharing is a vital part of documentation.  Rather than just exchanging 
information, it is important to find meaning and explain information through 
documentation.” 
• “It plays a central role in early childhood education and is a method of education 
that gives value to the process of learning and helps the curriculum to be child 
centered and appropriate.” 
• “Documentation can be used through pictures, but not just a picture with a 
caption, rather a picture that tells a story of that child and more than shows what 
they are doing.” 
• “Recording happenings of children in many different ways.” 
• “It is a tool used to provide evidence of teaching practices and activities.” 
• “It could be in the form of a weekly journal between teachers and parents, strings 
of yarn cut to show the physical growth of a child, a child’s creations using 
various materials, and pictures and phrases depicting the children at the center.” 
• “Documentation as a collaboration between multiple teachers and parents in 
order to discuss the children’s interests is key to gaining knowledge and building 
curriculum that is focused on the child.” 
Theme 2: Documentation is for the child. 
• “It shows the children that their work is important and helps them remember their 
work.” 
• “Pictures of activities posted on the walls show children how to use certain 
materials and inspires them to use their imaginations.” 
• “It is used as a form of communication to the child about what is going on around 
him/her.” 
• “Having actual pictures and phrases on the wall of children performing a certain 
activity can spark the imagination of other children to perform the same activity 
24 
 
or even to explore it in their own way.” 
 
 
Table 3 (continued) 
Perceptions of pedagogical documentation after the study abroad 
• “Children use documentation as a source of guidance to help them grow, explore, 
and learn.” 
• “Children use pictures as a reference to explore the same materials seen in the 
pictures.” 
Theme 3: Documentation is for the teacher. 
• “Teachers gather to discuss activities of the children and document.”   
• “Teachers decide as a group what they want to portray in the documentation.  It is 
truly a group effort to provide high-quality documentation.” 
• “Teachers all have his/her own voice and opinion that is respected while still 
keeping in mind that a consensus is often needed.” 
• “Teachers should collaborate daily as well as think fluidly throughout the day in 
order to better guide the children’s learning based on their interests.” 
• “In Italy, teachers are given protected paid time during their day to reflect alone 
and with each other on the day, week, or month of activities in order to 
document.” 
• “The purpose of teacher interactions is for the free exchange of ideas and 
knowledge.” 
• “Builds a common ground among teachers and builds identity of a group of 
teachers.” 
Theme 4: Documentation involves families. 
• “Children and families are clearly given a voice.” 
• “It creates link between home and school.” 
• “Parents, grandparents, and children interact together to create an open 
environment of support.” 
• “Provides parents with a shared understanding and different perspectives on the 
learning process.” 
• “Parents interact with teachers and other parents to gain insight on their own 
children and the others in the classroom/school.” 
• “Various documentation methods allow teachers to show parents the types of 
activities occurring at the school; these include books, pictures, or the children’s 
artwork and sculptures.” 
• “Pictures of children and families on display give children a sense of belonging 
and ties home life with the school.” 
• “An important link between home and school is formed by having photos and 
personal items at school.  This allows the children to personalize their space and 
to feel more comfortable to explore within the school setting.” 
• “Brings teachers and parents together to learn about each child.” 
• “A display where parents can pick up brochures and other materials that inform 
them as to what is happening at the school and forms a connection between the 
25 
 
school and parents.” 
 
Table 3 (continued) 
Perceptions of pedagogical documentation after the study abroad 
Theme 5: Documentation is for the school and wider community. 
• “It is important for educators to constantly share with others within the school and 
clarify with those outside of the school in order to have an efficient program and 
understanding.” 
• “It forms a link between the child and society.” 
• “It establishes a memory and history of what is being done in the schools.” 
• “It communicates to the community the potential and value of the children and is 
a way to improve education for the children.” 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
26 
 
Students’ Perceptions of Current Documentation Practices in the U.S. 
The second research question examined how students perceived pedagogical 
documentation use in current early childhood classrooms in the U.S.  Analysis of the data 
revealed that perceptions before the study abroad varied on a spectrum from no current use to the 
idea that it is used in most classrooms (see Table 4). After visiting the Italian schools, reading 
literature on the subject, and discussing pedagogical documentation, the students’ perceptions 
shifted to a slightly more uniform set of responses (see Table 5).  Following the study abroad 
process, students’ perceptions highlighted that pedagogical documentation is under-utilized, 
being used only by some teachers, or not able to be utilized due to external guidelines.  Again, as 
students ‘lived’ the experience while in the Italian early childhood settings, they were able to 
reflect upon early childhood practice in the U.S. with a new set of lenses.  There is a more 
thorough description of these findings in the discussion section. 
27 
 
 
Table 4 
Perceptions of documentation in U.S. practice before the study abroad 
(Quotes from students’ writing based on prompts before the study abroad) 
• “While my knowledge is very limited, I do not feel as if the current use is 
anything significant- if even used.” 
• “There is not enough documentation in current early childhood practice.” 
• “I feel that early childhood pedagogical documentation practices are not as 
common as they should be.” 
• “It is not utilized enough in the United States.” 
• “In the U.S., pedagogical documentation is scarce.” 
• “I am not sure.” 
• “It is used generally, but in limited instances where each child’s learning is 
individually documented.” 
• “I feel that most early childhood teachers use documentation as a tool to assess 
development and create activities to foster development.” 
 
Table 5 
Perceptions of documentation in U.S. practice after the study abroad 
(Quotes from students’ writing based on prompts after the study abroad) 
• “Documentation is required, but the type of documentation is not always useful.” 
• “Caregivers are unable to use this form of documentation as a curriculum guide 
because of the focus on kindergarten readiness skills and other restrictions.” 
• “It is not used as much as it should be.” 
• “I do think that some teachers are utilizing pedagogical documentation through 
observations and assessments.” 
• “I don’t think the attitude regarding pedagogical documentation in the U.S. is a 
positive one; some teachers feel that it is too time consuming or useless. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHAPTER 5: Discussion 
Perceptions of Pedagogical Documentation 
Analysis of all data sources revealed that students’ perceptions regarding pedagogical 
documentation evolved throughout the study abroad process to produce a more comprehensive 
and informed collective understanding.  Although many of the themes remained consistent 
throughout the process, the students’ writings that supported each theme illustrate that their 
knowledge base and level of reflection expanded during the study abroad process and upon 
returning home.  The consistencies in these themes, and the writing that supported them, indicate 
continuity in perceptions, while the inconsistencies signify the students’ evolution in their 
understanding.  
Students’ perceptions of pedagogical documentation prior to the study abroad experience 
resulted in five themes (see Table 1).  Their collective perceptions demonstrated knowledge that 
pedagogical documentation (a.) broadly refers to education, (b.) is a process for teachers, (c.) is a 
process for children, (d.) involves families, and (e.) is for the school and outside community.  At 
the time the students’ wrote their reflections regarding these perceptions, they had read some 
literature on the subject but had not participated in group discussions or direct observation.  
These themes appear to indicate that students had some understanding of pedagogical 
documentation before the study abroad process, however, some comments suggest that their 
understanding included “standards-based” variations of documentation rather than Reggio-
 inspired pedagogical documentation practices.  This is evidenced in quotes addressing such 
concepts as checklists, recording child progress, and understanding why a child “is or isn’t 
meeting a specific academic standard or goal.”  These variations in the students’ understanding 
29 
 
suggest that early in this process, students did not fully understand the theory behind pedagogical 
documentation.  Findings in this study are similar to Kroeger and Cardy’s (2006) observations 
that their students’ early understanding was lacking a deep theoretical foundation behind the 
practice, which reveals the purpose of pedagogical documentation more fully.  
Students’ perceptions of pedagogical documentation while observing it first-hand in the 
Italian centers and participating in discussions with each other and the Italian educators resulted 
in a much more in-depth understanding of pedagogical documentation as it is used in Reggio-
 inspired practice.  Six themes emerged in their reflective journal writings (see Table 2).  Five of 
the themes are consistent with their previous understanding: refers to (a.) education, (b.) is a 
process for teachers, (c.) is a process for children, (d.) involves families, and (e.) is for the school 
and outside community.  These themes that are common to both the ‘before’ and ‘during’ 
writings were qualitatively distinct.  Before the study abroad, the themes were based on concise 
written descriptions by students based on a variety of different perceptions and a limited amount 
of reading on the topic.  Their ‘during’ writings of these same themes were more elaborate, full 
of examples, and closely aligned to widely held perceptions regarding Reggio-inspired practice.  
For example, during the study abroad, students made the distinction that pedagogical 
documentation is more than “referring to education or teaching,” but instead, “a method of 
education that gives value to what the teacher and children are doing” indicating a greater 
refinement in their understanding.  Students had read an eclectic blend of literature on the 
subject, were immersed in the culture, and participated in direct observation and interaction with 
the teachers, children, and spaces within the centers.  Their writings brought to the surface many 
components of pedagogical documentation identified in the literature.  These include concepts 
such as making learning visible, telling a story, using documentation to construct future 
30 
 
activities, and reflection (Fraser & Gestwicki, 2002; Gandini & Goldhaber, 2001; Hewett, 2001; 
Katz & Chard, 1996; Kline, 2008; Seitz, 2008; Yu, 2008).   
There was also a qualitative shift from a collective focus on ‘education’ toward 
‘relationships.’  The focus on relationships is fundamental to the Reggio-inspired approach to 
education (Fraser & Gestwicki, 2002; Hewett, 2001).  This shift was illustrated in the variety of 
comments written under each theme.  During the study abroad, students wrote that 
documentation “increases the relationships between children,” “builds identity of colleagues 
working together,” “gives value to the words and participation of parents,” and allows “teachers 
and children to construct activities based on reflection.”  In the students’ writing before the study 
abroad, only two indirect references were made regarding relationships and those were that 
documentation “allows and promotes parental involvement” and illustrates children’s “influence 
on those around them.”  The explicit references to relationships in the writings indicates an 
evolution in students’ perceptions of pedagogical documentation during the study abroad 
process.  This evolution highlights an understanding that documentation is a multi-faceted and 
encompassing concept.  In Italy, the students were able to experience the parts of pedagogical 
documentation they already understood and use that experience to expand that understanding to a 
more meaningful level. 
While in Italy, another theme emerged that did not appear in students’ writing before or 
after the study abroad.  This theme centers around the concept that pedagogical documentation 
gives value to and enriches the period of childhood.  Students wrote that documentation “should 
be about ordinary, daily events that happen- not just extraordinary events” and “our reflection 
enriches childhood.”  This directly addresses concept that childhood is a unique and valuable 
stage in life (Fraser & Gestwicki, 2002).  Development in and of itself is worthy of being 
31 
 
documented and studied.  Making ordinary moments come to life through “the narration of the 
story” as it is told in documentation, gives value to the socially constructed image of childhood.  
This theme emerged during the study abroad as the students were engaged in dialogue about 
documentation with the Italian educators.  It was Donatella Giovannini that highlighted this 
concept and initiated the dialogue.  This opportunity attests to the unique and authentic nature of 
the study abroad process.  The emergence of this theme illustrates how the context of the 
dialogue with Italian educators influenced students’ writings on pedagogical documentation 
while in Italy. 
The themes that emerged in the students’ writings after the study abroad were the same as 
the themes that emerged prior to and during the study abroad, excluding the ‘during’ theme 
regarding giving value to childhood (see Table 3).  Components of the ‘valuing childhood’ 
theme were incorporated into students’ ‘after’ writing in indirect ways, indicating that although 
they did not explicitly make reference of this theme, it did resonate with them enough for it to 
influence their perceptions in different contexts.  For example, in the middle of a quote from the 
‘after’ theme of documentation as an educational method, one student wrote that documentation 
“expresses not just extraordinary events, but ordinary, daily events.”  This one continuity 
suggests that the theme did not disappear in students’ perceptions, but just did not come out as 
explicitly in their ‘after’ writings.  
Overall, the ‘after’ writings were comprised of a rich variety of quotes to support each 
theme and, like the ‘during’ writings, had a central focus on relationships that permeated each 
theme.  In the quotes supporting the theme that pedagogical documentation is an educational 
method, students had developed a comprehensive base of knowledge regarding pedagogical 
documentation.  They addressed that it is a daily, central process in Reggio-inspired schools that 
32 
 
gives value to the work of teachers and children.  They acknowledged that it is a collaborative, 
reflective, flexible curriculum guide, record of growth, and tool for learning.  Regarding 
relationships in this theme, one student wrote that “documentation as a collaboration between 
multiple teachers and parents in order to discuss the children’s interests is key to gaining 
knowledge and building curriculum that is focused on the child.”   
The “standards-based” variations of documentation noted in the students’ ‘before’ 
writings did not reemerge in their ‘during’ or ‘after’ writings.  In the ‘before’ writing, the 
understanding was that recording child progress was most often done in the form of teacher 
recordings and checklists.  In the ‘after’ writing, the students wrote that the child’s growth 
illustrates progress and that “it could be in the form of a weekly journal between teachers and 
parents, strings of yarn cut to show the physical growth of a child, a child’s creations using 
various materials, and pictures and phrases depicting the children at the center.”  One student 
wrote that pedagogical documentation is about “keeping evidence of very important things, 
specifically about the development of children.  It uses pictures, the words of children, and work 
samples to show children’s development and where they are going.”  The understanding of 
documenting ‘progress’ shifted from filling out checklists, to illustrating a child’s growth based 
on authentic recordings of individual development. 
In students’ writing following the study abroad, documentation was referenced as 
providing evidence, but went beyond merely objectively recording.  For example, a student 
wrote that “documentation can be used through pictures, but not just a picture with a caption, 
rather a picture that tells a story of children and more than shows what they are doing.”  A 
student also wrote that “sharing is a vital part of documentation.  Rather than just exchanging 
information, it is important to find meaning and explain information through documentation.”  
33 
 
Students illustrated that their perceptions of pedagogical documentation involved combining 
recordings of the child(ren) and event(s) into a story filled with meaning about the relationship 
between the child(ren) and the event(s).  A student wrote that pedagogical documentation records 
the “happenings of children in many different ways.”  The term ‘happenings’ connotes active 
experience and aligns with the Reggio-inspired view that children are active protagonists of their 
own learning.  Students’ perceptions shifted from an accountability mindset in the ‘before’ 
writings to a more authentic, holistic understanding in the ‘after’ writings. 
 In the themes addressing the child, the teacher, the parents, and the school and wider 
community, students addressed many critical components of pedagogical documentation.  One 
student wrote that documentation “shows the children that their work is important and helps 
them remember their work.”  This is consistent with Fraser and Gestwicki’s (2002) view that “it 
acts as a memory device, enabling [children] to revisit previous experiences and make 
connections to past, present, and future events and experiences” (p. 162).  This central purpose of 
documentation was explicitly illustrated in students’ perceptions following the study abroad 
process.   
Students wrote that for teachers, documentation “builds a common ground among 
teachers and builds identity of a group of teachers” and that “the purpose of teacher interactions 
is for the free exchange of ideas and knowledge.”  Because students spent so much of their time 
in Italy interacting with teachers, this was a concept that they not only discussed, but were also 
able to participate in first hand.  They experienced this free exchange of ideas on a daily basis, 
and thus it may have emerged strongly in their ‘after’ writings due to their reflection back on 
these experiences with the Italian educators.   
34 
 
The role of families in children’s education was highlighted in the students’ writings.  
They wrote that documentation gives children and families a clear voice, “creates a link between 
home and school,” and “provides parents with a shared understanding and different perspectives 
on the learning process.”  This theme of involving families remained consistent in the ‘before,’ 
‘during,’ and ‘after’ writings, but captured a poignant example of the evolution of the students’ 
perceptions.  Through the study abroad process, students were able to see and discuss many 
examples of home-school documentation experiences.  The topic of family relationships was 
discussed/highlighted daily in the conversations with the Italian educators.  Students were able to 
see family-centered documentation: family holiday boxes, photographs of families on the walls 
and in the children’s personal books, journals that teachers and parents share that travel between 
home and school.   
The theme involving documentation in connection with the school and wider community 
also exemplifies an evolution in student perceptions.  In the students’ earliest writings, 
perceptions were grounded in an accountability mindset.  Students wrote that documentation 
“provides proof of what’s going on in a teacher’s classroom,” “supports the need for funding,” 
and “can be used as a tool to show principals or directors the benefits of specific teaching 
strategies.”  Although each of these quotes may have merit in the current educational 
atmosphere, they do not address the heart of the Reggio-inspired view of the purpose of 
connecting documentation to the school and wider community.   While the students were in Italy, 
they wrote that “it establishes a sense of memory in the school,” “gives an outside view on 
teaching,” and “provides proof of the abilities of children.”  These ‘during’ quotes demonstrate a 
shift in perceptions around this theme, but it is not until students write about this theme in their 
‘after’ writings that a clear illustration is provided regarding the depth of the students’ 
35 
 
perceptions.  Students write that documentation “forms a link between the child and society,” 
“establishes a memory and history of what is being done in the schools,” and “communicates to 
the community the potential and value of the children and is a way to improve education for the 
children.”  This journey in perceptions further supports the shift from an accountability mindset 
of documentation to a more relationship-based, authentic understanding based on children’s 
strengths.  Students seemed to perceive pedagogical documentation, after visiting the Italian 
schools, to be an active, ongoing process between children, teachers, parents, and the outside 
community. 
Perceptions of Current Use 
Students’ perceptions of the use of pedagogical documentation in current U.S. practice 
before the study abroad ranged from the notion that it is currently not being used to the belief 
that most early childhood teachers use documentation (see Table 4).  Some students wrote that 
current use is limited, if at all, and that there is not enough documentation used.  Other students 
were simply not sure.  Not all of our students had experience in early childhood classrooms 
(some were training to work with young children in hospital settings or in family services outside 
of the early childhood classroom).  It is important to recognize that perceptions are personal 
views and are influenced by many factors.  Although some of the students had never worked in 
early childhood classrooms, all have had some exposure to early childhood settings and they 
each held perceptions regarding early childhood practice in general.  The wide array of 
perceptions represented by these students is interesting and illustrates how subjective personal 
perceptions regarding current practice are in the U.S. 
 After visiting the Italian schools, reading the literature, and participating in group 
discussions, the students’ perceptions shifted to a slightly more uniform set of responses (see 
36 
 
Table 5).  Students’ new perceptions of current pedagogical documentation practice were that it 
was under-utilized, being used only by some teachers, or not able to be utilized due to external 
guidelines.  Logically, these perceptions could be influenced by the students’ shift in their 
understanding as to the definition of and theory behind pedagogical documentation after the 
study abroad.  Once students had a more comprehensive and in-depth understanding, they could 
apply this understanding to their perception of its use in current early childhood practice.  When 
a student wrote that “caregivers are unable to use this form of documentation as a curriculum 
guide because of the focus on kindergarten readiness skills and other restrictions,” it reflected a 
perception of pedagogical documentation informed throughout the study abroad process. With 
more informed perceptions of the Reggio-inspired methods of pedagogical documentation, 
students appeared to have more negative perceptions regarding the current use of it in U.S. early 
childhood practice.   
Descriptions of the Influence of the Study Abroad 
Finally, students were asked to write directly about how this study abroad experience 
influenced their learning regarding pedagogical documentation.  The students consistently 
responded that the study abroad greatly influenced their understanding and perceptions.  One 
student wrote that “the study abroad really gave me a clearer picture of documentation and 
helped me understand what it really was.  I was able to understand better by actually looking at 
some documentation at the centers which methods work and which do not.”  For some students, 
the study abroad was and ‘eye-opening’ experience because they could experience the Reggio-
 inspired approach to documentation first hand.  For example, one student wrote “it opened my 
eyes to the different approaches to documentation and the various forms it can have.  I loved 
seeing the teachers value the children and everything the children were involved in, including art 
37 
 
pieces or books they were creating.”  Another student wrote “I am a visual learner, so to see 
these concepts in action was important to gaining a better understanding.  Before the trip, I had a 
general understanding of these concepts, but after seeing them implemented, I feel as though I 
would be able to transfer and use this information in the future.  It definitely opened my eyes to a 
world of new possibilities for early childhood education.”  For some students, the study abroad 
prompted them to reflect deeper into the roles culture and society play in early educational 
processes.  As an example, one student wrote that “the study abroad experience broadened my 
understanding of how people are constructed into a society.  This experience allowed me the 
opportunity to reflect on how children are socialized in various early childhood settings.” 
Limitations 
There are at least two major limitations in this study.  The first is that it takes place in a 
relatively short time frame.  Pedagogical documentation is a broad, complex topic with many 
different components.  Most early childhood teachers spend their entire careers refining their 
understanding of documentation processes; these students’ understanding was similar to a series 
of snapshots taken over the course of a few months.  The second limitation is that these students 
were discussing their understanding and perceptions at a theoretical level.  None of the students 
were actively applying their understanding in practice during the time of this study.  Further, 
although each of these students was from the department of child development, only four of the 
ten were preparing to practice in the classroom.  The other students were preparing to work with 
young children hospital settings or in family services outside of the early childhood classroom.  
It would have been ideal to include a component by which students had opportunities to apply 
their understanding of pedagogical documentation in early childhood settings and then reassess 
their understanding and perceptions.
 
 
CHAPTER 6: Conclusion 
 The Reggio-inspired practice of pedagogical documentation is a valuable tool in early 
childhood educational practice.  University programs founded in social constructivism that are 
preparing future early childhood professionals for practice can play a significant role in shaping 
students’ knowledge of documentation processes.  “Since knowledge is perceived… as socially 
constructed and, thereby, dynamic, it follows that no ultimate truth may be understood to exist, 
but rather multiple forms of knowing” (Hewett, 2001).  This study attempted to facilitate this 
process of subjective knowledge building by taking a group of students to Pistoia, Italy, in order 
to observe, discuss, and reflect documentation practices first-hand.  The designers of this study 
abroad sought to understand how immersion into Reggio-inspired Italian practice influenced 
students’ perceptions of pedagogical documentation and its current use in U.S. practice.    
Students’ writings suggest that the study abroad experience influenced their perceptions 
throughout the process and ultimately collectively evolved to align more closely with the 
Reggio-inspired educational paradigm.  
Traveling to Italy allowed students to experience documentation in a setting that 
embraced a social constructivist approach to early childhood education.  Studying abroad is an 
intense and culturally rich experience that immerses the participants in direct exposure to the 
subject matter.  Students that participated in this study abroad attested to the concept that they 
would forever be impacted by this experience as they continue on their journey through the 
world of early childhood practice. 
Leading a group of students on a study abroad is equally as exciting as it is challenging.  
It is a vastly different process from traditional methods of teaching adult students and filled with 
39 
 
authentic learning opportunities and unique struggles.  For the purposes of this study, it was 
important that students keep a written record of their journey.  Not only were the students 
keeping this record for this study, but also to have their own form of documentation of the study 
abroad.  It was during the process of collecting journals and portfolios that it became evident that 
the students’ perceptions regarding documentation were coming directly from their own 
authentic sources of documentation.  Each student learned about documentation through 
documentation (Appendix F).  Each source provided a different type of insight into their 
individual and collective journeys through the study abroad process.  The pre-tour writings 
provided insight into their perceptions before they actually participated in the study abroad.  The 
reflective journals served as a daily record of their thoughts, perceptions, understanding, and 
reflections.  The comprehensive portfolio assignment required the students to analyze and 
synthesize the information they took in throughout the process.  Finally, the post-tour writings 
provided insight into their perceptions after the study abroad process was complete. 
This study attests to the capability of study abroad experience to immerse students into 
subject matter and shape and influence student perceptions regarding that subject matter.  
Teachers, teacher educators, students, and other early childhood professionals inspired by or 
curious about the Reggio-inspired approach to early childhood education could benefit from 
experiencing Italian practice first-hand.  It provided an authentic atmosphere for students to learn 
about and experience social constructivism first-hand. 
 
    
 
References 
Adams, P. (2006). Exploring social constructivism: Theories and practicalities. Education, 34, 
243-257. 
Beneke, S. (2000). Documentation in a lab school setting: Teaching new teachers to document. 
Retrieved from http://ericeece.org/pubs/books/katzsym/beneke.pdf  
Buell, M. J., & Sutton, T. M. (2008). Weaving a web with children at the center: A new approach 
to emergent curriculum planning for young preschoolers. Young Children, 63 (4), 100-
 105. 
Carlson, H. (1999). From practice to theory: A social constructivist approach to teacher 
education. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 5(2), 203-218.  
Carter, M. (2007). Making your environment "The Third Teacher." Exchange, 176, 22-26. 
Edwards, C. P., & Gandini, L. (2008). Filastrocca Preschool in Pistoia, Italy: Promoting early 
literacy through books and the imagination.  A conversation with Alga Giacomelli. 
Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/famconfacpub/59/ 
Edwards, C., Gandini, L., & Forman, G. (1993). The hundred languages of children: The Reggio 
Emilia approach to early childhood education (pp. 135-149). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 
Edwards, S. (2005). Constructivism does not only happen in the individual: Sociocultural theory 
and early childhood education. Early Child Development and Care, 175, 37-47. 
41 
 
 
Egan, B. A. (2009). Learning conversations and listening pedagogy: The relationship in student 
teachers' developing professional identities. European Early Childhood Education 
Research Journal, 17, 43-56. 
Forman, G., & Hall, E. (2005). Wondering with children: The importance of observation in early 
education. Early Childhood Research and Practice, 7, Retrieved from 
http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v7n2/forman.html  
Forman, G., Lee, M., Wrisley, L., & Langley, J. (1993).  The city in snow: Applying the 
multisymbolic approach in Massachusetts. In C. Edwards, L. Gandini, & G. Forman 
(Eds.). The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia approach to early 
childhood education (pp. 233-250). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 
Fraser, S., & Gestwicki, C. (2002). Authentic childhood: Exploring Reggio Emilia in the 
classroom. Albany, NY: Delmar. 
Galardini, A., & Giovannini, D. (2001). Pistoia: Creating a dynamic, open system to serve 
children, families, and community.  In L. Gandini & C. P. Edwards (Eds.). Bambini: The 
Italian approach to infant/toddler care (pp. 89-105). New York: Teachers College Press. 
Gandini, L. (1993). Educational and caring spaces. In C. Edwards, L. Gandini, & G. Forman 
(Eds.). The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia approach to early 
childhood education (pp. 135-149). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 
Gandini, L., & Edwards, C. P. (2001). Bambini: The Italian approach to infant/toddler care. New 
York: Teachers College Press. 
41 
 
 
  42 
Gandini, L., & Goldhaber, J. (2001). Two reflections about documentation. In L. Gandini, & 
C.P. Edwards (Eds.). Bambini: The Italian approach to infant/toddler care (pp. 124-145). 
New York: Teachers College Press. 
Goldhaber, J. (2007). The development of an early childhood teacher research collaborative. 
Theory into Practice, 46, 74-80. 
Goldhaber, J., & Smith, D. (1997). “You look at things differently:” The role of documentation 
in the professional development of a campus child care center staff. Early Childhood 
Education Journal, 25, 3-10. 
Goodfellow, J. (2004). Documenting professional practice through the use of a professional 
portfolio. Early Years: Journal of International Research & Development, 24, 63-74.  
Gubrium, J. F., & Holstein, J. A. (1993). Phenomenology, ethnomethodology, and family 
discourse. In P. G. Boss, W. J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, & S. K. Steinmetz, 
(Eds.) Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A contextual approach (pp. 673-675). 
NY: Plenum Press. 
Hein, S. F., & Austin, W. J. (2001). Empirical and hermeneutic approaches to phenomenological 
research in psychology: A comparison. Psychological Methods, 6, 3-17. 
Hewett, V. M. (2001). Examining the Reggio Emilia approach to early childhood education. 
Early Childhood Education Journal, 29, 95-100. 
Katz, L. (1993). What can we learn from Reggio Emilia? In C. Edwards, L. Gandini, & G. 
Forman (Eds.). The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia approach to early 
childhood education (pp. 19-37). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  43 
 
Katz, L., & Chard, S. (1996). The contribution of documentation to the quality of early 
childhood education.  Retrieved from www.eric-digests.org/1996-4/quality.htm   
Kline, L. (2008). Documentation panel: The “making learning visible” project. Journal of Early 
Childhood Teacher Education, 29, 70-80.  
Kroeger, J., & Cardy, T. (2006). Documentation: A hard to reach place. Early Childhood 
Education Journal, 33, 389-398.  
Lewin-Benham, A. (2008). Powerful children. New York, NY. Teacher College Press. 
Malaguzzi, L. (1993). History, ideas, and basic philosophy. In C. Edwards, L. Gandini, & G. 
Forman (Eds.). The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia approach to early 
childhood education (pp. 41-89). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 
Malaguzzi, L. (1994). Your image of the child: Where teaching begins. Child Care Information 
Exchange, 3, 52-61. 
McCarthy, K., & Duke, T. (2007). The observation, documentation, and shared reflection 
process: Preparing early childhood educators to teach in Alaska native communities. 
Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 28, 97-113.  
McNaughton, K., & Krentz, C. (2007). The construction site project: Transforming Early 
childhood teacher practice. Theory into Practice, 46, 65-73.  
New, R. (1993). Cultural variations and developmentally appropriate practice.  In C. Edwards, L. 
Gandini, & G. Forman (Eds.). The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia 
approach to early childhood education (pp. 41-89). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 
  44 
 
New, R. (2007). Reggio Emilia as cultural activity theory in practice. Theory into Practice, 46, 
5-13.  
 
Oken-Wright, P., & Gravett, M. (2002).  Big ideas and the essence of intent.  In V. R. Fu, A. J. 
Stremmel, & L. T. Hill (Eds.). Teaching and learning: Collaborative exploration of the 
Reggio Emilia approach (pp. 197-220). Upper Saddler River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall. 
Reggio Children. (2009). Landscapes: Open window. Retrieved from 
http://zerosei.comune.re.it/inter/rc_publications.htm  
Rinaldi, C. (1993). Emergent curriculum and social constructivism. In C. Edwards, L. Gandini, 
& G. Forman (Eds.). The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia approach to 
early childhood education (pp. 41-89). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 
Samuelsson, I. P., Sheridan, S., & Williams, P. (2006). Five preschool curricula: Comparative 
perspective. International Journal of Early Childhood, 38, 11-30.  
Seitz, H. (2008). The power of documentation in the early childhood classroom. Young Children, 
63, 88-93. 
Strong-Wilson, T., & Ellis, J. (2007). Children and place: Reggio Emilia's environment as third 
teacher. Theory into Practice, 46, 40-47.  
Tarr, P. (2003). Reflections on the image of the child: Reproducer or creator of culture. Art 
Education, 56, 6.  
Tarr, P. (2004). Consider the Walls. Young Children, 59,88-92. 
   45 
 
Tegano, D., & Moran, M. J. (2005). Conditions and contexts for teacher inquiry: Systematic 
approaches to preservice teacher collaborative experiences. The New Educator, 1, 287-
 310.  
Vecchi, V. (1993). The role of the atelierista: An interview with Lella Gandini. In C. Edwards, L. 
Gandini, & G. Forman (Eds.). The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia 
approach to early childhood education (pp. 119-131). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and Language. (E. Hanfmann & G. Vakar, Eds. And Trans.). 
Cambridge: MIT Press and Wiley. (Original work published 1934). 
Yu, G. (2008). Documentation: Ideas and applications from the Reggio Emilia approach. 
Teaching Artist Journal, 6, 126-134. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appendix A: IRB Approval 
47 
 
Appendix A: IRB 
Approval
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appendix B: Hundred Languages of Children Poem 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   49 
 
Appendix B: Hundred Languages of Children Poem 
No Way. The hundred is there. 
 
The child is made of one hundred. 
The child has a hundred languages 
a hundred hands 
a hundred thoughts 
a hundred ways of thinking 
of playing, of speaking. 
a hundred always a hundred 
ways of listening of marveling of loving 
a hundred joys 
for singing and understanding 
a hundred worlds  
to discover 
a hundred worlds  
to invent 
a hundred worlds  
to dream. 
The child has a hundred languages 
(and a hundred hundred hundred more) 
but they steal ninety-nine. 
The school and the culture 
separate the head from the body. 
They tell the child: 
to think without hands 
to do without head 
to listen and not to speak  
to understand without joy 
to love and marvel only at Easter and Christmas. 
They tell the child: 
to discover the world already there 
and of the hundred they steal ninety-nine. 
They tell the child:  
that work and play  
reality and fantasy 
science and imagination 
sky and earth 
reason and dream 
are things that do not belong together. 
And thus they tell the child 
that the hundred is not there. 
The child says: No way. The hundred is there. 
 
-LORIS MALAGUZZI   
(from Edwards, Gandini, & Forman, 1993)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appendix C: Examples of Documentation Panels 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
51 
 
Appendix C: Examples of Documentation Panels 
 
 
 
(Image taken from Reggio Children Website: see references for full citation.) 
 
 
52 
 
 
 
(Seitz, 2008) 
 
 
 
(Seitz, 2008)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appendix D: Complete Reading List for Students 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
54 
 
Appendix D: Complete Reading List for Students 
Edwards, C.P., & Gandini, L. (2008). Filastrocca Preschool in Pistoia, Italy: Promoting early 
literacy through books and the imagination.  A conversation with Alga Giacomelli. 
Retrieved February 17, 2010 from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/famconfacpub/59/.  
Gandini, L., & Edwards, C.P. (2001). Bambini: The Italian approach to infant/toddler care (pp. 
124-145). New York: Teachers College Press. 
Galardini, A., & Giovannini, D. (2001). Pistoia: Creating a dynamic, open system to serve 
children, families, and community.  In Gandini, L., & Edwards, C.P. Bambini: The Italian 
approach to infant/toddler care (pp. 89-105). 
Hewett, V.M., (2001). Examining the Reggio Emilia approach to early childhood education. 
Early Childhood Education Journal, 29, 95-100. 
Malaguzzi, L. (1994). Your image of the child: Where teaching begins. Child Care Information 
Exchange, 3, 52-61. 
New, R. (2007). Reggio Emilia as cultural activity theory in practice. Theory into Practice, 
46(1), 5-13. 
Seitz, H. (2008). The power of documentation in the early childhood classroom. Young Children, 
p. 88-93. 
Strong-Wilson, T., & Ellis, J. (2007). Children and place: Reggio Emilia's environment as third 
teacher. Theory into Practice, 46(1), 40-47.  
Tarr, P. (2004). Consider the walls. Young Children, 59,88-92. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appendix E: Writing Prompts 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
56 
 
Appendix E: Writing Prompts 
Questions prior to the study abroad: 
1. Describe your understanding of the term ‘documentation.’ 
2. Describe your understanding of pedagogical documentation. 
3. Describe your perceptions of the role of pedagogical documentation in early childhood 
practice. 
4. Describe your perceptions regarding the current use of pedagogical documentation in 
current early childhood practice. 
5. How do you feel about early childhood documentation practices (as far as the purpose of 
it, methods, and do-ability)? 
6. Describe your understanding of social constructivism and child centered learning. 
7. Describe how pedagogical documentation is related to constructivism. 
8. Describe your perceptions of potential benefits of using pedagogical documentation in 
early childhood educational practice. 
9. Describe your perceptions of potential struggles early childhood educators and caregivers 
face in using pedagogical documentation as a curriculum guide. 
Questions following the study abroad: 
1. Describe your understanding of the term ‘documentation.’ 
2. Describe your understanding of pedagogical documentation. 
3. Describe your perceptions of the role of pedagogical documentation in early childhood 
practice. 
4. Describe your perceptions regarding the current use of pedagogical documentation in 
current early childhood practice. 
5. How do you feel about early childhood documentation practices (as far as the purpose of 
it, methods, and do-ability)? 
6. Describe your understanding of social constructivism and child centered learning. 
7. Describe how pedagogical documentation is related to constructivism. 
8. Describe your perceptions of potential benefits of using pedagogical documentation in 
early childhood educational practice. 
9. Describe your perceptions of potential struggles early childhood educators and caregivers 
face in using pedagogical documentation as a curriculum guide. 
10.  How did the study abroad influence your personal understanding of these concepts? 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appendix F: Documentation about Documentation 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
58 
 
Appendix F: Documentation about Documentation