The MAPS project involved three Principal Researchers (PRs) and three Research Assistants (RAs). Each RA was paired with one of the PRs, and assigned to one of the three centres involved in the project. PRs and RAs engaged in regular meetings together, reflecting on the theoretical basis of the project, which was located in Deleuzo-Guattarian philosophy. Data from the project was analysed in a rhizomatic way, allowing the researchers to “make connections between, across and within data” (Sellers & Honan, 2007, p. 145). These connections formed ‘plateaus’ or open systems, where numerous pathways were created around connections or intensities (Sellers, 2013). Data collection was undertaken using video, photographs, visits from the researchers to their allocated centres, taped and/or transcribed interviews, on-line forum discussions, and cluster meetings, during which all participants danced, acted and musicked with the artists and reflected on the project.

Chris: Introduction St. Andrews Epsom

We begin by looking at the MAPS work undertaken at St. Andrew’s Epsom Early learning Centre (St. Andrews). This early childhood centre has been established for 13 years, is set in the heart of Epsom, Auckland, and serves the immediate catchment, as well as families from the surrounding districts. There are four full time teachers at the centre who were all involved in MAPS. Sessions with community artists were attended by approximately 25 children. Being a sessional kindergarten, most children attended mornings or afternoons. The programme at St. Andrews reflected a commitment to Te Whāriki, the New Zealand Early Childhood Curriculum and the work Reggio Emilia. All teachers at St. Andrews were qualified and registered. The centre manager adds:

The chronological order of the arts activity in this centre was: drama with Tanya Batt; dance with Adrian Smith; and music with Kirsten Simmons. Each artist was very different from the other and engaged with the children and teachers in different ways. The premise behind MAPS was that teachers in each of the three early childhood centres would take and adapt the work of visiting Community Artists (CAs) to support children and their community in creating their own work in the performing arts.

In terms of collecting data, the Principal Researchers (PRs) and Research Assistants (RAs) held regular meetings with teachers and CAs at the end of each session. These interviews were audio recorded for later transcription. The data that was gathered from the interviews and the observation of sessions in the centres was discussed at combined meetings with all the research team, once a term, and in pairs, between the Principal and Assistant Researchers, on an informal basis. Each session at the centre was observed separately by the researchers, but discussed at length as a pair. Researchers also had access to film footage that was placed on ‘Moodle’, the MAPS project online forum. A large database of information was gathered of videos of the artists working with the children, along with audio recordings of interviews and reactions to the work of the CAs in the centres.

Reference was made specifically to the work of Osberg and Biesta (2008) and three texts available in the Contesting Early Childhood series, namely: Hillevi Lenz-Taguchi (2010a); Liselott Marriet Olsson (2009); and Margaret Sellers (2013). These three books, as well as the Deleuze dictionary (2010), enabled the researchers to engage in a reading of Deleuze within the scope of early childhood education. Reference was also made to the primary source text by Deleuze and Guattari, ‘A Thousand Plateaus’ (1987). These key references added to the combined experience of the research staff who have worked in early childhood education for a considerable period. This meant that there was a level of scholarship and experience to be drawn on by the project personnel.

Key Philosophical Concepts

The first set of ideas to be explored in the project was the work of Osberg and Biesta (2008), where ‘Emergence’ is seen in the light of potentialities emerging when new ideas are picked up on and responded to by the artist, the teacher and child, in the flow of moving with continuously changing ideas. Seeing ‘Emergence’ in this light led researchers to question and reformulate ‘knowing’, considering work arising from the children, which was a key focus in the cluster days.

Marjolein observed: The children were visibly enjoying the newness, the openness of what was happening. Some children observed at a distance at first; others joining in by making up their own moves. All the while, Adrian was looking around, picking up on different ideas and responding to these without commenting, but instead responding with his body, identifying, validating and encouraging new thinking. In this way, things started to happen between the child and Adrian at first, and later, between the children. Dance moves started to emerge, as a response to each other but also in contrast to one another. As Osberg and Biesta (2008) maintain: “Human subjectivity emerges only when one acts with others who are different from us” (p. 324). The children were showing their understanding of this by going from ‘So we can do anything!’ to sharing their ideas, to responding to each other’s new ideas and moves.

The introduction of Deleuzean theory provoked the research team to re-examine the work of the children and artists. In doing so, several new concepts came into play, including the ‘rhizome.’ The rhizome is a network of potentialities from which new pathways can emerge. The rhizome sees connections in ways that will appear random, according to the complex interconnections between all the factors present. This rhizome is especially useful for early childhood educators, as children work in an uninhibited fashion, making connections and surpassing formal rules, which characterise the way children devise their activity. Sellers (2010) describes the way in which children build curriculum as ‘and…and…and…’ meaning the activity or game is constantly ‘in flux’, influenced by other players within/between learning experiences.

Within the rhizome, there is, however, structure, for instance, children’s games have rules or demarcation of roles. Within these structures, however, we see fractures that open for a crossing of borders or ‘deterritorialisation’ when there is a blurring or removal of boundaries or ‘stratifications’. An example of this is children taking a song and making their own version – first they deterritorialise, making the song their own before deciding on keeping a new version, then they formalise or reterritorialise the idea – though this may not last for long. In this process we see new work emerging or ‘lines of flight’. In the MAPS project, we were aware of frequent shifts in children’s work and the rhizomatic nature of their engagement being quite different from an adult’s overview of engagement. As Deleuze and Guattari characterise these ideas:

Another theory employed within Deleuze’s writing is that of ‘becoming.’ This connects to the ideas above of deterritorialisation and reterritorilisation. For our purpose in this paper, we see ‘becoming’ as between, as an active state with an encounter that is enriched in new worldly experience undefined, as it is always in the middle. Using the example of the orchid being pollinated by the wasp, Deleuze elaborates on becoming:

Here we see ‘becoming’ within the time of the act itself. The wasp and the orchid, in the act of pollinating, change and move to another condition, hence change occurs as a present experience of becoming. Within the work of MAPS, we can apply this term to the way that children frequently changed their ideas during the dance moves. In the episode below, Marjolein adds to our understanding of ‘becoming’.

Marjolein: Observations of the research assistant: St. Andrews, Epsom

I visited the centre as an RA during the second cycle with Adrian Smith, the CA for dance, and the third cycle of the research project with Kirsten Simmons, the CA for music. The visits were around two hours each, and involved observing the CA working with the children and teachers in the centre, followed by an interview with the CA and teachers. During my observations, I took notes and photos, had conversations with the teachers and Adrian and sometimes videoed the sessions. One of the teachers generally joined in with the artist or recorded the session on video. As the research progressed, myself, the three researchers and the other two research assistants met together to discuss my observations.

Observation 1: Noticing difference, immanence and ‘becoming’

When I went to observe Adrian, he began his work with the children by using a free exploration of ‘moves’ at different levels, speed and feel. The children were following the actions until one child exclaimed: “Oh I know what this is!” and she started to explain a game in which children make different moves to music and stop when the music stops. “Yes!” said another child, “It ... it is Musical Statues!”

“This is like that, but instead of listening to the music, you listen to everyone else, like what all the other people are doing”, explained Adrian. He asked the children which way to move next. As if he had been waiting for this moment, the boy in the white jacket swiftly moved forward between two children and said excitedly, “A ... a ... racing car!”

Immediately, Adrian changed into a racing car, which was taken up by the children and the teacher, all driving their own variation of a racing car. From that point onwards, Adrian took suggestions from the children on how to move next. As he did so, he also looked around carefully looking for new moves by the children and affirming these. For example, a child spinning around caused the group to change from being racing cars to making spinning movements.

By doing so, the Community Artist recognised what the children did that was ‘different’, meaning a separate entity to what he and others were doing. Subsequently, children started to present yet more new ideas of their own. In seeing each part or moment as a ‘singular’ entity, individual responses appear as a stand-alone presence in their own right. The part that is ‘different’ is taken up by the Artist and the rest of the group, thus affirming the child.

Observation 2: ‘Becoming dancer’

Learning is in a constant state of ‘becoming’; there is no clear beginning and no ‘end goal’. Things are constantly ‘in progress’, with participants ‘re’-negotiating, making connections and responding in ways that are both similar and disparate (Sellers, 2010). The concept of ‘becoming’, from Deleuze, involves the learner seeing themselves in the light of ability and possibilities, not linked to any fixed identity (Olsson, 2009; Sellers, 2013; Lenz Taguchi, 2010b).

In a second observation, the children had started moving into their chosen creative space on their own initiative. Two boys were dancing and imitating each other while others watched and one of the staff filmed their dance. “Look at my new move,” (Child led dance, Moodle, September, 2012) said one of the boys as he started jumping and twisting.

At first, the boys were dancing around each other, in their own space, but then the cohesion between the group started to grow as a third boy joined them briefly.

The boys were now circling around each other, receiving and responding to each other’s gestures, observed by a fourth boy (let’s call him Samdeep) who seemed to be processing the dance moves in his head (shown by small movements of his legs and feet, while intently watching)

The boy (Samdeep) continued watching the two boys intently from a distance. I noticed him observing others on several occasions (for example, on 13/8/12, 12/9/12 and 17/9/2012). What I observed was that, by being immersed in a practice of the Community Artist continuously recognising and responding to children’s initiations and ideas, he himself became an instigator of new ‘lines of flight’ (Olsson, 2009; Lenz Taguchi, 2010b). I witnessed a very empowering moment (17/9/12), the very moment of this boy becoming aware of the rest of the group following his newly invented move. Samdeep had a surprise on his face and looked around him as if to check whether the others were perhaps copying someone else. I then witnessed Samdeep responding intentionally by sharing his new moves with the others and responding to moves from others that looked different.

Sellers (2010) reminds us that learning is not linear; learning is a process of continuously ‘becoming’; it is continuously ‘in progress’ and not ordered or sequential. Using the term ‘becoming-child’, Sellers (2013) explains that ‘becoming’ is seen as a ‘state of being’, in itself; within this ‘becoming‘, there is a multitude of possibilities that are already taking place ‘in the moment’. ‘Becoming-in-itself’ is not a ‘becoming-in-comparison’ or ‘becoming-a-certain- thing’; as Sellers explains: they were already ‘becoming-dancers’ at the point of watching. This state of being has value in itself; Samdeep is already a dancer, reflecting his own observation of the dancing while imagining himself making dance moves. In the response that reflected his ‘dance-like’ movements back at him, his move is amplified by the whole group. The child is seen in terms of ‘what already is’, not in terms of ‘what is yet to come’. Intra-actions between the child and the artist, individual children and the group, the art form and the physical and emotional ‘feel’ of the space all impact on the learning (Sullivan, as cited in Parr, 2010).

Observation 3: Chris: Noticing Striations

Adrian’s approach can be typified as becoming milieu (Sellers, 2013), working from the middle. That is, the surroundings, the people, the environment, and the curriculum can all be seen as the milieu, where changes happen in-between, without fixed endings, following the flow of imagination.

As the children embarked on their new game of ‘driving the car’ (see above), they were aware that there was no fixed order anymore in the game they started. As there was no more circle, there were no more turns, and the children sensed an ‘in between-ness’. They sensed a shift in power and seemed quite delighted at the prospect. They called out to Adrian what they wanted to do next; a boy cried:

Adrian starts driving around the room again and stops. The children seem to be aware of this ‘no man’s land’ they are in - but still wish to continue the game. However, what rules are there going to be now, and who will make the rules? This will be a place of power and negotiation that the children wanted to play with. The game continues:

By now, the children had started to tire of the start-stop, and saw their power accruing in disobeying the commands; one girl took a keen delight in continuing to move in a friendly, taunting manner when everyone else had forozen. After ‘fishies’, Sunil, the racing car enthusiast, suggested robots, and Adrian instantly started ‘body popping’, becoming robotic, with the children doing likewise. The game, however lost its intensity and the children sensed that a new activity was due. One child (let’s call her Oriel) grabs the opportunity, declaring that they play ‘crack the egg’. The circle is reformed and the new game continues with each child seemingly familiar with how to make different shapes as they crack open each other’s eggs.

In this short, episode we saw Adrian act as provocateur to begin, but his role changed as the children moved to become racing cars. Here, he used the ‘freeze’ as a way to create new striations in the game, exercising control that was seen by the children as a necessity in the game. It is interesting how the stopping became a point of departure for the children, in the example above, as this opened up a new dynamic space, thanks to the striation that appeared. It is as if the rules to stop, the striation, and her ignoring the command heightened the sense of worthwhileness for the children, as they saw the rules as supple within the game – so much like the games that they play, where there is constant negotiation. Adrian writes on Moodle, reflecting on his work at a later date:

The quote is interesting, showing how much the dancer/teacher has to trust in the children’s choices as they de-territorialise the game to what they want to create and then re-territorialise the activity and formalise the session, as they did with Oriel suggesting a new game to which the children and Adrian readily assented.

Marjolein: The teachers’ perspectives

The teachers noticed the new ideas and learning that were coming from the children. For example, teachers noted many novel moves by children, such as a ‘side-ways roll’ one child incorporated in her dance (interview with the Research Assistant, September 12, 2012). Teachers also noticed increased involvement of one of the children (imitating a dinosaur move and later changing into a robot) who “normally doesn’t say or contribute much” (personal conversation, September 12, 2012). A shift to collective experimentation following lines of flight in the centre didn’t immediately follow on from this, however. One teacher commented: “There are 100s of things happening every day; it is impossible to follow up on all of it,” and: “We have done ‘dinosaurs’ not so long ago, so we won’t follow up on this”. Two teachers added: “The interest didn’t go any further; it fizzled out” (interview with the Research Assistant, September 12, 2012).

From the teachers’ point of view, maintaining the daily routine and the culture in the centre (Moodle, April 8, 2013) was important, recognising the importance of equilibrium and predictability for new children and their families starting at the centre. One teacher added that many children are part-time, and with 15 new children starting after the holiday period, there needed to be structure and predictability. Lenz Taguchi (2010a) calls organised structure and predictable routines ‘striated’ space. The striated space gives structure and a feeling of safety. Striated space lends itself to reflection and tends to slow down the flow of the unstructured time or ‘smooth space’ in which new lines of flight are more likely to occur. Lenz Taguchi (2010a) points out that children need both striated and smooth spaces and that teachers can use these concepts consciously to purposefully slow down activity and put structures in place.

Apart from the need for some structure and predictability throughout the day, teachers identified other facets of centre practice as important to them, such as the importance of secure relationships between the children themselves and strong relationships between the teachers and parents. The focus on relationships was visible through the informal interactions between teachers and parents and in the relationships between the children while engaging in small group play. Reflecting on the work of the CAs at the centre, one teacher commented: “To reach full potential, I think there needs to be a good relationship with the artist before starting at the centre” (Moodle, June 9, 2013). One of the teachers pointed out that it takes time for new ways of doing things and new ways of teaching to become part of the culture. They needed to feel sure where they were going (interview with the Research Assistant, Cluster Day, October 26, 2012).

Another aspect of centre culture is the role of documentation in the curriculum. As stated in the description of the research methods above, the sessions with the CAs working with the children were well documented in this project. Lenz Taguchi (2010a) indicates that documentation can be seen as an active agent in learning, continuing when children have the opportunity to intra-act with the documentation and dialogue about the documentation. Teachers noted the enthusiasm of children watching a video-recording of their learning, requesting to watch it again and again, pointing out things to each other they hadn’t noticed before. One teacher observed: “teachers and children see different things as opposed to when they are in it for the first time” (interview with the Research Assistant, Cluster Day, October 26, 2012).

From the teachers’ point of view, downloading video recordings was challenging, in terms of technical ability and time. Teachers were also careful not to push their perspectives onto what children were learning in the documentation. One teacher reflected on the use of documentation in the centre in an interview:

Later, on the same day, the centre manager identified the strong friendships among the children as an important factor in the centre culture, and pointed out children busy setting their own goals and being ‘in flux’, intra-acting with each other and the environment. I watched and saw children ‘slipping into the smooth spaces in between the striated spaces’, being purposefully engaged. There were many informal interactions between children, teachers and children, teachers and parents, and parents and children, adding to the centre culture in ways that one could only sense.

As Carlina Rinaldi (2006) remarked: “Education needs empty time” (p. 272). So ‘what’s next?’ Seeing children in the light of potentiality, but whose potentiality and how are parents, other children, and teachers impacting on this? Adrian did not focus on teaching the children particular dance moves, instead, he was using an intra-active pedagogy where learning is ‘immanent’ (happening in response to other learners, adults, materials and environment), eliciting, responding to and affirming any of the children’s own moves and ideas, engaging in collaborative experimentation (Lenz Taguchi, 2010a). Intra-active pedagogy is an open-ended collaboration, guided by ‘mutual curiosity’, responding to each other and the environment. What will children learn from this? Perhaps it is children seeing themselves in the light of potentiality.

Marjolein and Chris: Conclusion

Each of the stories of the researchers in this project will weave together a picture, which will be complemented with teachers’ stories, post-research- interviews, and collaborative writing from the many participants involved in this project.

What stood out was the Community Artists seeing the child as ‘becoming-child’ who is already learning in each moment, instead of having an ‘end-goal’ in mind for the learning. By recognising and responding to ‘difference’ and new ideas, contributions that stood out from the rest, amplified by the group, saw children responding to ‘different’ and new ideas from each other. This promotes the children’s sense of self and being affirmed in their ideas and contributions. The importance of documenting and revisiting documentation has also been discussed in this article, as documentation can be seen as an active agent in on- going learning.

This project was an engagement with the arts through children working with the teachers and the milieu of the centre. In the work undertaken by Adrian, we can see many openings occurring, including children deterritorialising to make their own versions of the movement and playing with the structures, the striations that appeared in the structure of the games that Adrian was playing. This culture of openness to forms of expression was seen in the section where Adrian and the children invited the novice to become part of the game, by including his moves, honouring difference and a sense of inclusiveness in how the dance developed.

The way in which children are viewed by adults involved in early childhood education impacts on how the children see themselves and others as learners. Viewing ourselves and children as already being dancers, musicians and dramatists enables children and adults to affirm each other as to what is already there. Viewing learning as something that happens ‘in the middle’, without a definite beginning or end, not aiming for an end-point in the learning, means that learning in these and other areas will grow in different directions, different lines of flight. Where these lines of flight may lead will be told through many other stories of children’s, teachers’, parents’ and Community Artists’ collaborative experimentation within their communities.

References

• Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia (B. Massumi, Trans.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
• Honan, E., & Sellers, M. (2008). ‘(E)merging methodologies: putting rhizomes to work’. In L. Semetsky (Ed.), Nomadic education: Variations on a theme by Deleuze and Guattari. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
• Lenz Taguchi, H. (2010a). Going beyond the theory/practice divide in early childhood education: Introducing an intra-active pedagogy. London, UK: Routledge.
• Lenz Taguchi, H. (2010b). Rethinking pedagogy practices in early childhood education: A multi-dimensional approach to learning and inclusion. In N. Yelland (Ed.), Contemporary perspectives on early childhood education. Berkshire, UK: Open University Press.
• Ministry of Education. (1996). Te whāriki: He whāriki maatauranga mo nga mokopuna o Aotearoa: Early childhood curriculum. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media.
• Olsson, L. M. (2009). Movement and experimentation in young children’s learning: Deleuze and Guattari in early childhood education. London, UK: Routledge.
• Olsson, L. (2013). Taking children’s questions seriously: The need for creative thought. Global Studies of Childhood, 3(3), 230-25.
• Osberg, D. C., & Biesta, G. (2007). Beyond presence: Epistemological and pedagogical implications of “strong” emergence. Interchange 38(1), 31– 51.
• Osberg, D., & Biesta, G. (2008). The emergent curriculum: Navigating a complex course between unguided learning and planned enculturation. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40(3), 313-328.
• Parr, A. (2010). The Deleuze dictionary revised edition. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.
• Rinaldi, C. (2006). In dialogue with Reggio Emilia: Listening, researching and learning. London, UK: Routledge.
• Sellers, M. (2010). Re(con)ceiving young children’s curricular performativity. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 23(5), 557-577.
• Sellers, M. (2013). Young children becoming curriculum: Deleuze, te whāriki and curricular understandings. London, UK: Routledge.
• Sellers, M., & Honan, E. (2007). Putting rhizomes to work: (E)merging methodologies. New Zealand Research in Early Childhood Education Journal, 10, 145-154.