Reflection in Action
Young Thinkers: Supporting Toddler
Theory-Making through Cooking
Cici Malin
Cici Malin makes a comparative case study of two toddlers in her classroom to explore how 2-year-olds make theories about physical and chemical
changes taking place during cooking. She brings to light the teacher’s role in
understanding toddler’s thinking (often more complex than their language can
capture)—a balancing act between taking their words at face value and deciphering meaning from their actions. She shows how activities like the cooking
experience afford children the time and room to construct their own theories.
Throughout her article, Cici makes clear how competent these young
children are as theory makers, yet also highlights how different similarly-aged
learners are. As a teacher researcher, Cici is particularly adept at detailing
children’s behavior to see the big ideas they are working on, and at integrating
developmental theory into her findings to explain her insights. Her work shows
how the roots of scientific thinking begin early in development, yet also how
important the role of the teacher is to guide and support children’s inquiry. This
study provides another excellent example of teacher research based on work
with some of our youngest children, a gap in the literature that remains large in
teachers’ studies of their own practice.
—Barbara Henderson
Malin, C. • Voices of Practitioners 8, no. 2 • November 2013 1
Catherine (Cici) Malin,
M.A., is a mentor
teacher at Aquatic Park
School, in Berkeley,
California. She has been
working in the field of
education for 12 years.
People develop as they participate in and contribute to cultural activities.
—Barbara Rogoff
F
or years I admired teachers who did cooking projects with children, as
there is so much learning value. Cooking involves many domains of
knowledge and processes, as well as social and cultural interactions.
However, despite my appreciation for the benefits of cooking with young
children, I was hesitant to take on the materials preparation, the minor chaos of
flying ingredients, minding the oven timer, and the extensive cleanup involved.
Yet the school where I work, a full-day Reggio-inspired program, encouraged
me to challenge myself as a teacher and to develop culturally-relevant curriculum. This pushed me to try cooking with the children.
At the same time I began our cooking projects I was also taking a graduate course on cognitive development and became interested in young children
as scientific thinkers. After my first few cooking experiences, in which I made
playdough with 2-year-olds,
I began to think about how
cooking involves physical
changes and chemical reactions. I wondered how my
toddlers would observe these
changes and what theories
they would develop. I wanted
to provide engaging science
encounters and systematically record children’s learning. Although I began my
teacher research project focusing on specific scientific concepts, I soon became
interested in toddler theory-making and how I could support this with the children. This paper is a study of two 2 ½-year-olds, Reny and Harry, who develop a
passion for the art and science of cooking over the course of a semester.
I began to think about how cooking involves
physical changes and wondered how my
toddlers would observe these what theories
they would develop.
Literature review
The overall motivation for my study was my interest in toddlers as theorymakers. As Reggio educator Carlina Rinaldi writes,
From a young age, children seek to produce interpretive theories, to give
answers. . . . [T]he important thing is not only to give value to but, above all, to
understand what lies behind these questions and theories, and what lies behind
them is something truly extraordinary. (2000, 87)
I sought to create situations that would pique the children’s interest and
inspire inquiry. I believe that education should be hands-on and practical, ideas
in concordance with American philosopher John Dewey and Reggio Emilia
Malin, C. • Voices of Practitioners 8, no. 2 • November 2013 2
education visionary Loris Malaguzzi. As demonstrated in Dewey’s Lab School
and other progressive educational settings, including Reggio Emilia, children
learn when they engage in inquiry that links to family life (Tanner 1998). I also
drew from Russian developmental psychologist Lev Vygotsky and his ideas on
the teacher’s role in creating learning experiences for children and on the role of
culture in learning (Vygotsky 1978). He believed that teachers should always try
to work within what he called the proximal zone of development, a ripe space
for learning just beyond the child’s independent ability (Vygotsky 1978).
In their article on including toddlers in school snack preparation, Taylor and
Dodd state “Through cooking activities, toddlers and twos can foster their sense
of accomplishment, their self-esteem, as well as their concept of nutrition. In
addition, cooking can develop children’s social, emotional, physical, cognitive,
language and math skills” (1999, 33). Colker writes,
As [these] children cook and observe the changes in physical properties and
chemical reactions, they are able to learn about science—not in a theoretical
sense, but in action. . . . They can also learn the process skills of scientific inquiry,
including asking scientific questions, planning and conducting investigations,
gathering data, and communicating findings. (2005, 60)
I approached this project with an image of the 2 ½-year-old child as a
competent theory-maker ready to cook. I wanted to narrate my experience in a
way that would enrich my own learning and inspire others to seek similar experiences with toddlers. As Edwards and Rinaldi describe in The Diary of Laura,
In [this] text transpires the pleasure of narrating to understand, narrating to give
existence and to exist. Through the organization of data and events, chosen for
some relevance among all those that happened, the narrative becomes a form
of thought and gives structure and meaning to a story, thus giving it existence,
transforming it into a life story, recreating it and giving it new meaning. (2009, 9)
I knew that in order to have a well-organized narrative that would demonstrate toddler theory-making to readers I would need to conduct a well-scaffolded study for the children. Jerome Bruner reports that the teacher’s ability to
support a young child’s experiences requires that the adult both be interested
in what the child is already thinking and respond systematically to encourage
cognitive organization (Smidt 2011). He introduced the analogy of the scaffolding put up while a building is constructed or restored (Smidt 2011). The teacher
erects a scaffold that allows the child to take small, supported steps in learning;
when he can do that task independently the scaffolding is removed. Scaffolding
requires the teacher:
• to understand what it is that the child is interested in, trying to do, or paying
attention to;
• based on that, to intervene in a way that will help the child achieve independence in that task (this can be done through commenting on what the child
has already achieved); and
• to help the child reflect on what she has been doing, suggesting particular
resources and so on. (Smidt 2011, 25)
Malin, C. • Voices of Practitioners 8, no. 2 • November 2013 3
Furthermore, Bruner highlights the competence of very young children,
explaining how even achieving the first step with toddlers just starting to communicate verbally broadens our idea of what communication is. Smidt relates
his view:
Those of us working with young children need to pay attention to the ways
in which babies and toddlers give evidence of this competence. So we need to
watch and notice what they are paying attention to. We need to take note of
changes in their facial expressions, or their focus of attention, or their breathing
rate, or any other physiological feature. (2011, 36)
Research questions
I framed my research on the following questions:
• Would my toddlers observe and construct theories about the physical
changes in cooking?
• If so, what theories would they develop?
• How can I best support this theory-making?
Methods
The participants in my study, Reny and Harry, were two 2 ½-year-olds whom I
selected from a group of twelve children because they were consistently interested in the cooking activities I offered and focused longer than many of the other
children in my group. Reny is bilingual. He had been at my school since he was
infant; Harry had just started school a few weeks earlier. My study took place
over three months, in ten sessions.
My research plan was to capture the vibrant interest of toddlers interacting in the cooking sessions and to explore and describe their thinking. I asked
questions to gain supplementary information about their feelings, theories,
and wonderings about cooking. Like Escamilla (2004), I based this research
on a deep intention to listen to the children. Therefore, the research as well as
our curriculum were emergent. I looked at the data from each cooking experience to create the next. We started off making playdough because it is a simple
recipe with leeway for error. Our next challenge was to tackle pancakes, a more
complicated recipe and also one we could eat. As we progressed and the children could pour and mix on their own, we began
to explore more abstract concepts. For example, I
asked them questions about the effect of heat on
the ingredients.
I used a case-study approach of each child
as they participated in the cooking sessions and
compared their two approaches to theorymaking. I collected data through photographs
As we progressed and the
children could pour and mix on
their own, we began to explore
more abstract concepts.
Malin, C. • Voices of Practitioners 8, no. 2 • November 2013 4
of the children in action, transcripts of conversations recorded on an audio
recorder, and quick notes written during or just after our cooking sessions.
These notes and recordings included both the children’s and my own words
and actions. I reviewed my data regularly by reading my notes, listening to and
transcribing the most interesting parts of audio recordings, and analyzing series
of photos. If I was unsure how to analyze specific data I reviewed it with the
children, asking clarifying or open-ended questions in an attempt to gain more
information about their thinking. In these ways I pulled out themes regarding
the children’s interests and growing knowledge.
Findings and discussion
After a few cooking sessions with the children I quickly began to understand
that cooking is such a wonderful activity for very young children because of
its wide variety of concepts, tasks, and experiences, which provide access for
all children. A careful review of my data showed that the following patterns
emerged in each child’s theory-making. Both Reny and Harry showed great
interest and learning in these three concepts: properties of matter, mixing, and
heat. Reny, who had no previous cooking experience, spent more time learning
about properties of matter (liquids, solids,
granular substances) through touching
them, pouring, and mixing. Harry, who
had previous cooking experience at home,
showed acquired skills in pouring and
mixing, and demonstrated knowledge of liquids, solids, and granular substances. He moved more quickly to theories of which ingredients should be mixed in
which order to create pancake batter. Both Reny and Harry showed great interest in the concept of heat, watching the pancakes cook in the pan over and over
again and commenting on changes.
Both Reny and Harry showed great
interest in the concept of heat.
My findings section is organized in the following way. First I focus on
Reny’s experience, then Harry’s, and finally I compare the two. Lastly, I summarize what I learned about my research questions.
Case study #1: Reny
Reny, the child newer to cooking, became engrossed in the feel of the ingredients and later in watching the batter form into pancakes. These are two very
different activities; the first is tactile and immediate, and the second is observational and involves self-control and developing theories without touching.
In the initial cooking session, Reny showed the most interest in properties
of matter, experimenting with pouring flour and salt and picking flour up with
his hands and pondering its stickiness. Reny worked with focus and attention
to detail when he was interested in something. He enjoyed experimenting with
the ingredients, but was also careful and serious about the steps and processes
Malin, C. • Voices of Practitioners 8, no. 2 • November 2013 5
He seemed surprised that
the flour stuck to his hand,
perhaps because he didn’t yet
understand the clinginess of a
powdered substance like flour. I
believe he thought that the flour
would all fall out of his hand,
like dry sand. A few weeks
later I showed him a picture
of himself looking at his flourcovered hands with confusion.
I asked him what he was thinking, and he said, “Wash hands.”
He remembered he had been
unhappy with his messy hand.
Photo 1: Reny grabs flour.
photos courtesy of the author
involved. He measured carefully and asked what to do with
certain ingredients. He would
work with one ingredient for an
extended period of time, using
different tools to manipulate
flour, salt, water, or oil. During
his first cooking session, Reny
grabbed a handful of flour from
the bag (photo 1), dumped it in
a measuring cup, and then froze
with his hand suspended in the
air, looking perplexed (photo 2).
Photo 2: Reny freezes.
Nevertheless, Reny continued to explore powders, liquids,
and sticky things—seeking
understanding of their properties. For example, he would
often touch batter or raw eggs
with his finger before getting a spoon to mix. He also was eager to experiment
with the containers and tools used in cooking, and his theories were often easy
to observe. For example, here are two photos taken early in the project as Reny
was trying to get salt from its container (see photos 3 and 4). I framed this experience by saying, “We need salt for our playdough. Reny, can you put some
salt into our dough bowl?” Then I handed him the salt container. He examined
the container and began trying to open the spout. He used his fingers and
then a measuring spoon to try and pry it open. He could not open the spout
and gave up. I asked other children to help, yet none of them could succeed. I
Malin, C. • Voices of Practitioners 8, no. 2 • November 2013 6
then opened it and placed the salt
Photo 3: Reny tries to catch salt
in front of Reny. He immediately
picked up the measuring spoon and
placed the spoon right at the bottom of the spout.
From its placement, it’s clear
that he is expecting to catch the salt
in the spoon. What was his theory
about how the salt would get into
the spoon? Did he think it would
slide down the curve of the pour
spout? Did he have an idea of the
consistency of the salt because he
wanted to contain it in the spoon?
Or was he remembering previous
experiences holding a spoon while
I poured salt or flour into it? He
had also experimented with flour
the day before, when he used a
measuring cup to scoop flour and
water and wooden spoons to mix
them together. He experienced a
kind of avalanche effect with the
flour: it would slowly slide and
build up at the edge of the spoon
until it reached a critical mass and
all poured out. If this was going to
happen with the salt he was ready,
as photo 4 shows!
Photo 4: Trapping salt with a cup
In photo 4 we see that Reny
had figured out he had to turn the
salt container upside down for the
salt to flow. In doing so, he shows
an understanding that a granular substance will pour. His goal was to get some
salt into the mixing bowl, and he knew if he tipped the salt over without a container to catch it that the salt would spill. He also changed tools from a measuring spoon to a half-cup measure. Did he choose a bigger container because he
anticipated the speed of the salt flow now that the container was upside down?
Reny could go no further with his strategy because his hand was too small to
lift the container. Another child did manage to pick up the salt in two hands, tip
it upside down over the mixing bowl, and pour it in. Reny watched closely, and
then watched another child carefully pour oil using two hands on the bottle.
Malin, C. • Voices of Practitioners 8, no. 2 • November 2013 7
Reny sought information about ingredients by touching them all and mixing them with his hands. He seemed to have no way to evaluate the success of
his mixing, however, and tended to leave the materials clumped and separate.
He would reach his hands into the bowl to feel the materials and combine
them a bit, but stop mixing before they became batter. In terms of his observation of heat and change, however, he did notice changes that took place when
I cooked the batter, and stayed longer than any other child to watch me cook
the pancakes. He made noises such as “Ooohhh,” and asked “What’s that?”
while he watched, showing interest in the changes happening. During the first
few sessions he only once answered an open-ended question about what was
happening regarding the changes he observed. This was potentially because he
lacked the language to describe what he saw, rather than the interest or ideas.
When prompted with specific language as opposed to open-ended questions he
responded more often. To my question, “Will the pancake batter be the same or
different after we cook it?” he answered, “Different,” on two occasions.
By the fifth cooking session, Reny was demonstrating his thinking about the
change processes that happen when pancake batter is poured into a hot frying
pan. After I poured the batter I asked, “What’s happening now? What do you
see?” Reny said, “Yook haw” (Looks hot). He understood that heat was involved,
but he described heat as visual, not as a source of energy (at this age, children lack
the capacity for that understanding). While we watched the batter cook I asked
questions to determine what Reny understood about the process. After observing
bubbles forming in the cooking pancakes this conversation occurred.
Cici: How do I know when to flip the pancake?
Reny: Don’t know.
Cici: Will it stay together or fall apart?
I begin sliding the spatula under the pancake to flip it.
Reny (with concern): Guh goh. GUH GOH!
I flip the pancake and it stays together. Reny looks up with a surprised and
pleased expression.
Cici: Did it stay together or fall apart?
Reny: Fa pot! (Fall apart).
Cici: Mmm.
Reny: Way done?! Way done?! (When done?)
Interpreting this conversation is a balancing act between taking Reny’s
words at face value and taking into account that he is a bilingual child and lacks
extensive English vocabulary. I am not sure whether he understood the terms
“stay together” and “fall apart.” I believe he expressed concern, saying “GUH
GOH!” for “Uh oh!” because he thought the pancake would fall apart if moved.
At this point the top of the pancake does still look like liquid, which makes me
think Reny understood it would be impossible to flip a liquid substance. He
obviously saw that the pancake remained intact when I flipped it. It is likely
Malin, C. • Voices of Practitioners 8, no. 2 • November 2013 8
he replied “Fa pot!” because he didn’t
follow my meaning, and so simply
echoed the second choice. He ended
the conversation by asking when the
pancakes would be done, showing he
had learned that a certain amount of
time had to pass or certain changes had
to happen before we could eat them.
Photo 5: Reny identifies mixing
After six cooking sessions, Reny
and I looked at some photos of our
experiences thus far. It was clear he
had learned some vocabulary and was
building an understanding of the process of cooking pancakes. I asked Reny
open-ended questions, such as “What
Photo 6: Reny calls this “making playdough”
are we doing here?” without feeding
him any vocabulary or concepts. Reny
described one photo as “making playdough,” which was the first cooking
project we did together. We had made
pancakes every time after that, so it was
surprising that he focused on this first
experience. Next, he identified his action in photo 5 of pouring a liquid into
another bowl as “mixing.” Perhaps this
is because another child is holding a
whisk, poised to stir.
Looking now at photo 6, Reny again
described this as “making playdough,”
although I was pouring pancake batter
in a pan. Did he think the word for all
batter was “playdough” because that
was the first kind of batter he made? He
had heard the word “pancakes” many
times, and had even been corrected by
other children saying, “No, we’re making pancakes!” It was not until Reny
saw actual pancakes cooking, separate
and of a different color than the batter,
did he say “Pancake!” (see photo 7).
Photo 7: Reny finally identifies pancakes
Did he perceive the batter and
the pancakes as two separate entities
because they look different, and therefore not understand that it was the
Malin, C. • Voices of Practitioners 8, no. 2 • November 2013 9
same matter undergoing a physical
Photo 8: Harry begins pouring
change? Did he lack the vocabulary to
describe the change? Or was he using
“playdough” to capture the concept
of the uncooked substance, as he
lacked a word for the batter?
Case study #2: Harry
Harry had many experiences with
cooking and manipulating food at
home and seemed to know what the
ingredients would feel like and how
they would interact when he joined
our first cooking session. He moved
right into testing theories about
which combination of ingredients
was needed for batter. For example,
when I put out oil and flour on the
table and said we were making pancakes, he decided that we needed water as well. Harry was excited to cook
every week. In the first few cooking
sessions, he was most interested in
and knowledgeable about mixing.
Without prompting, he would scoop
and pour to combine a few ingredients into a bowl, and then mix them
thoroughly. He repeated this process
a few times. He also showed some
knowledge about the necessary ingredients to make dough by initiating
the addition of water to flour.
Photo 9: Harry confidently finishes the job
Harry gave evidence of knowledge of the properties of powders
and liquids at the start of the project.
For example, unlike other children who scooped liquid with a spoon (a long
process), he demonstrated that he knew a liquid can be poured from one bowl
to another. He performed the task with great skill, tipping a bowl of egg and
oil into another bowl slowly, increasing the angle until all the liquid was transferred (photos 8 and 9). Similarly, Harry skillfully scooped flour and salt with
spoons without spilling, which appeared to show knowledge of how powders
act. (I learned through email correspondence with both families that, in fact,
Harry often cooked at home with his mother, whereas Reny did not.)
Malin, C. • Voices of Practitioners 8, no. 2 • November 2013 10
Harry also demonstrated some knowledge of the changes that occur
through cooking. For example, he grasped that ingredients can change consistency when combined, as was evidenced when I asked him what would happen
when we added water to a flour/oil combination. He replied, “It will melt.”
Although using “melt” to describe dough becoming more liquid is an overgeneralization, this response showed he could predict physical change toward a
more liquid state. However, Harry did not respond when I asked him “What
will happen when we cook this dough on the hot stove?” and “Will it be the
same or different after we cook it?” Perhaps Harry had an easier time predicting
change when the ingredients were visible in front of him. It is more immediate
and concrete to see flour and water combine than to put batter over heat and
wait for changes that come from energy, which is more abstract.
Comparative analysis
Both children were excited about cooking each week. Harry had a similar level
of focus as Reny when it came to carrying out the procedures involved. Not
surprisingly, Reny intently observed Harry’s pouring skills, tracking the tipping
of the bowl and the flow of the liquid. In contrast to Reny, Harry did not study
any one ingredient for a long time. He seemed to have greater knowledge of the
properties of powders and liquids at the start of the project.
During the fourth session, halfway through the study, I brought out containers of batter saved from the previous week. At this point I was thinking the
children would be ready to study heat, the most abstract concept so far. At first,
both Harry and Reny believed the batter saved from the previous week would
be hot, seemingly theorizing heat as something that can just exist without a
source. They were “chunking” all things that contain pancake batter into the
“hot” category (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking 1999).
I open a container of pancake batter saved from a previous session, and have
the children smell it.
Cici: Reny, what do you think this [batter] would feel like if you touched it?
Reny: Hot.
Cici: Well, let’s see.
I tip the container so he can touch the batter. Reny leans back, frightened.
Reny: No, don’t! Put it down!
Five minutes later Harry joins the group.
Cici: Harry, if you touched this pancake batter with your finger, how would it
feel?
Harry: Hot . . . (pointing to the electric frying pan and two containers of batter),
hot, hot, and hot.
I put butter in the pan and we watch and listen to it melting.
Cici: Okay, when I pour the batter into the pan what will happen?
Reny: Hot.
Harry: It’s going to get hot.
Cici: And will it stay like this (I swirl batter), moving around, or will it be different?
Harry: Different.
Malin, C. • Voices of Practitioners 8, no. 2 • November 2013 11
As a teacher, I was surprised at the strength of the children’s illogical theory
that the batter would be hot from the start. However, Harry’s choice of the
words, “It’s going to get hot,” communicates knowledge of heating up as a process, not merely a state of existence. Harry also predicted a change would occur
from the batter coming into contact with the hot pan, which shows he understands heat as a force that can cause change.
Next, Reny asked me to flip the pancakes over, showing his memory of the
cooking process. While we were waiting for the pancakes to cook, I put my finger in the batter to show them it wasn’t hot, and most children tried this too. After I flipped the pancakes I showed them the raw batter again and asked if they
remembered what it felt like. One child said, “Hot!” yet Harry said “Yummy!”
as he had previously licked some off his finger. Reny finally touched the batter
and said “Cold!” with surprise.
In summary, Reny begins with very little knowledge of cooking, learns basic
skills, and delves into some complex concepts. At first he was unsure about how
to mix ingredients, while Harry moved through that phase seamlessly. While
Reny did not appear to have the same initial grasp as Harry regarding the transformation of the batter when heated, he seemed to make significant gains by
watching and listening to me and his peers. Harry began to perfect his already
practiced cooking technique. Toddlers’ thinking is more complex than they can
express, but he became clearer in verbalizing his theories on the processes of
change that happen in cooking.
Coming back to my research question, “How do I best support toddler
theory-making?,” three aspects of my study stand out to me. The first is offering
the same activity repeatedly, with calculated changes in the materials or in the
focus of the questions asked of the children. The second is allowing the children
to experiment and postulate at their own pace over time. Third is that the smallgroup format of 2–6 children allows them to learn by observing each other. I
think I could have been stronger in supporting their vocabulary building by
being consistent in my choice of terms, which may have helped them communicate their theories more effectively. Perhaps, also, I could have spoken Spanish
with Reny in order to eliminate the variable of second language communication
and receive a more accurate reading of his understanding of the concepts.
Conclusion: Implications and reflections
Overall, my findings let me conclude that Harry and Reny both learned most
about properties of matter and physical change through heat. However, perhaps this was also because I set up the cooking experiences in a way that made
mixing a more individual experience. In contrast, observations of properties of
matter and physical change were group discussions, and therefore scaffolded by
peer language and teacher-led hypotheses testing. I strove to engage the children in their proximal zones of development regarding these new concepts, but
Malin, C. • Voices of Practitioners 8, no. 2 • November 2013 12
I found it difficult because it was my first in-depth cooking experience with a
group. If I had extended the study I believe I would have seen both children fit
into Seigler’s overlapping waves model in their understanding of cooking concepts (1996). Seigler postulates that children may hold various theories about
something at the same time; that they may revert back to old theories even
when they have found newer ones to be better; and that their understanding of
a concept fluctuates over time. For example, Reny demonstrated a growing understanding of the nature of heat as a form of energy that could change things,
but also held on to an idea that heat was a stable characteristic and would be
conserved by a substance, regardless of time elapsed or the fact that batter had
been stored in the refrigerator.
I hope this study inspired Reny and Harry to make cooking one of their
“Hundred Languages” (Edwards, Gandini, & Forman 1998). Three years after
the initial writing of this paper I
am still cooking in my classroom
every week. Cooking has become
an integral part of our classroom
culture, increasing in its complexity as the children grow and we
become more experienced chefs.
Our cooking work has expanded
its reach into many aspects of
our curriculum. Through cooking, I have learned not only about how children
observe, experiment, and create theory, but also about how to create and sustain
classroom culture.
Children may hold various theories about
something at the same time, and may
revert back to old theories even when they
have found newer ones to be better.
The implication of this study on toddler cognition is that careful observation
of toddlers engaged in a series of intentionally structured activities can reveal
the complexity of their theory-making. Group experiences across time help
teachers observe child development and variations in learning, and give important clues as to the role of the peer group in the zone of proximal development.
Observing toddlers requires repeated activities with minor changes. Despite the
imperfection of my methods, we have all learned a lot. Teacher research is continuous, across time and children, and becomes embedded in everyday practice
if consistently used as a framework for teaching.
References
Bransford, J.D., A.L. Brown, & R.R. Cocking, eds. 1999. How People Learn: Brain, Mind,
Experience and School. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Colker, L.J. 2005. The Cooking Book: Fostering Young Children’s Learning and Delight. Washington, DC: NAEYC.
Edwards, C.P., L. Gandini, & G. Forman, eds. 1998. The Hundred Languages of Children:
The Reggio Emilia Approach—Advanced Reflections. 2nd ed. Greenwich, CT: Ablex.
Edwards, C.P, & C. Rinaldi. 2009. The Diary of Laura: Perspectives on a Reggio Emilia Diary.
St. Paul, MN: Redleaf Press.
Malin, C. • Voices of Practitioners 8, no. 2 • November 2013 13
Escamilla, I.M. 2004. “A Dialogue with the Shadows.” Voices of Practitioners 1 (1): 1–5.
Rinaldi, C. 2000. “Creativity as a Quality of Thought.” In In Dialogue with Reggio Emilia:
Listening, Researching and Learning. London: Routledge.
Seigler, R.S. 1996. Emerging Minds: The Process of Change in Children’s Thinking. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Smidt, S. 2011. Introducing Bruner. New York: Routledge.
Tanner, L. 1997. Dewey’s Laboratory School: Lessons for Today. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Taylor, S.I., & A.T. Dodd. 1999. “We Can Cook Too! Snack Preparation with Toddlers and
Twos.” Early Childhood Education Journal 27 (1): 29–33.
Vygotsky, L.S. 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Copyright © 2013 by the National Association for the Education of Young Children. See Permissions
and Reprints online at www.naeyc.org/yc/permissions.
Malin, C. • Voices of Practitioners 8, no. 2 • November 2013 14