© Dahlov Ipcar
Volume 9 • Number 1
This study shows how teaching is an act of inquiry involving speculation, wondering, and
questioning. In this article, Sarah Jewell Leonard and Jamie Gleason ask, “What does it mean to
be an artist?” This question focuses not only on children’s understanding of what it means to
be an artist, but on their perceptions of themselves as artists. The teachers involve the children and the community in this collaborative inquiry, showing how it becomes a routine and
expected function of teachers’ and children’s daily lives in the classroom. They demonstrate
how a real understanding of the underlying meanings and purposes of learning activities (art,
in this case) can only be developed by insiders (teachers, with the help of children) conducting
research. Furthermore, as Sarah and Jamie make clear, this research “focuses on what children
have the ‘right’ to learn—such as self-identity, respect for others and materials, our community,
and the arts—and how teachers support this learning.”
—Andy Stremmel
Volume 9 • Number 1
Sarah Jewell Leonard, BS, is a
lead teacher at the Child Study
and Development Center at the
University of New Hampshire in
Durham, New Hampshire. She
holds a master teacher and master professional credential from
the New Hampshire DHHS Child
Development Bureau. Sarah has
taught in the infant, toddler, and
preschool programs since joining
the center in 2000.
[email protected]
Sarah Jewell Leonard and Jamie Gleason
Coming Full Circle:
A Year-Long Inquiry of
Art and Community
Preschool children ranging in age from almost three years to just four
years old paint with brushes and their hands. They mix colors and swirl
them on the large sheets of paper that cover the table. The children smile
as they discover what happens when red and blue mix together.
Jamie, did you see that? I had blue and then I had red. When they mix
together, I have purple. Did you know that I love purple?
T
Jamie Gleason, MEd, is an early
childhood teacher at the Child
Study and Development Center at
the University of New Hampshire
in Durham, New Hampshire. She
holds a master’s of early childhood education, and an early
childhood teacher credential from
the New Hampshire DHHS Child
Development Bureau. Jamie has
taught in younger and older preschool programs since joining the
center in 2011.
[email protected]
Photos courtesy of the authors
o some this might look like a sensory exploration with a color
theme. However, as we observed the children, we were curious
about how they expressed their ideas and developed a sense of
themselves as artists. We wanted to challenge ourselves to engage
children in a meaningful, extensive, and detailed investigation.
How in-depth could the investigation get with this age group? What makes
the kind of investigation we were embarking upon different from just doing interesting art projects with children? These questions guided us as we
spent a year exploring the work of a local artist, Dahlov Ipcar. During formal
planning times we reflected upon our observations and developed hypotheses about how children were constructing their knowledge. Based on these
hypotheses we posed a research question to ourselves and to the children:
What does it mean to be an artist?
The question held so much more than what it stated on the surface. It
was not just about what children perceived being an artist meant; it also
focused on their perceptions of themselves as artists. Furthermore, it also
Leonard, S.J., & Gleason, J. • Voices of Practitioners 9, no. 1 • June 2014
2
dealt with how our community viewed our children as artists and appreciators of paintings and sculptures in a place that is designed and generally
only open to adults.
Part of the world of art, at least in this investigation, involves the public
sharing and display of art. We wanted children to see that an artist’s work
exists not simply in books, but as work to be viewed in broader contexts. As
such, museum trips were pivotal events in helping children to conceptualize and experience art and artists in an exhibition context. Children’s ideas
about art are so often limited to the classroom art table, and not beyond.
Connecting with a living artist and going to the place of display, often only
thought of as a place for adults, was a huge step in this work.
In her work The Girl with the Brown Crayon (1997),
Vivian Paley highlights the tensions teachers sometimes
face when attempting to follow children’s interests and
explore unanticipated curriculum threads. We initially
had no intention of conducting a long-term study of
Ipcar, as we were unfamiliar with her work. We were simply focused on a trip to a local museum. How were we to
know that just as Leonni’s Frederick in Paley’s classroom
supported her classroom community, a museum trip
and the book The Art of Dahlov Ipcar (Little & Ipcar 2010)
would spark a memory and connection for children with
a previous parent-led experience making East Indian
mandalas called pookalams. This article documents
the implementation and impact of teacher inquiry, and
poses implications for general curriculum development.
Throughout this journey with the children we challenged our assumptions of what young children can do
and what teachers must do to support children’s experiences with art. We drew upon our intended curriculum,
which is collaboratively developed each year by the
classroom teachers and inspired from the practice of intent progetuale in the schools of Reggio Emilia (Wurm 2005). This document
focuses on what children have the “right” to learn—such as self-identity,
respect for others and materials, our community, and the arts—and how
teachers support this learning.
Methods: The cycle of inquiry
Inspired by the work of teachers in the Reggio Emilia schools of Italy (Edwards, Gandini, & Forman 1998), our work is grounded in constructivist
theory and reflective inquiry. Teachers and children engage in investigations
informed by their questions and curiosity and test their hypotheses system-
Leonard, S.J., & Gleason, J. • Voices of Practitioners 9, no. 1 • June 2014
3
atically and intentionally through careful observation, reflection, dialogue,
and interpretation. We utilized an action research model (Mills 2000) and
followed The Cycle of Inquiry Process (Broderick & Hong 2011; Gandini &
Goldhaber 2001) to help guide this investigation (see Figure 1).
The inquiry cycle is an inherently iterative process, not a lockstep linear
progression through a curriculum. It involves both children’s explorations
and teacher reflection on these explorations so that children and teachers
are engaged in a co-constructed learning experience. The process of inquiry
also involves posing questions about teaching, curriculum, and children’s
experiences—often resulting in the emergence of new questions along the
way. Hill, Stremmel, and Fu describe the content and rhythm of this inherently constructivist cycle where teachers and children work together to create projects for exploration, fostering “multiple ways of inquiry, discovery,
and making sense and meaning” (2005, 18).
Setting and participants
This research took place at a university laboratory school in New England.
Over 100 children ages 6 weeks to 6 years attend the school, and it is com-
Leonard, S.J., & Gleason, J. • Voices of Practitioners 9, no. 1 • June 2014
4
prised of eight full- and part-time programs. Although other classrooms
engaged in a center-wide investigation of Dahlov Ipcar’s work, this article
focuses on children and teachers in one particular preschool classroom,
comprised of three teachers, two interns per semester, and student teaching assistants. Fifteen children, ages 3 and 4 years, were enrolled in the
classroom. Many of these children had been together for two years or more,
which helped create a supportive community of learners.
Data sources, collection, and analysis
The cycle of inquiry involves listening to and close observation of children.
As such, we entered the cycle through observing and recording (via writing, drawing, and photography) children engaged in creating art. Teachers recorded children’s words while they created art as well as their own
descriptions of their work. Teachers also took pictures of children selecting
materials and creating artwork. During our formal planning times (as well
as through informal conversations in the classroom) we reflected on these
observations. We shared our work with each other and had deep conversations about how we thought children were developing theories about themselves and the world around them (Edwards, Gandini, & Forman 1998).
Findings
The elements of the cycle of inquiry will be used as a structure for our findings, and as such represent a model of curriculum that is negotiated between children and teachers.
Preparing for a trip to a local museum to
see the work of Dahlov Ipcar, one of our
children immediately made a connection
between Ipcar’s mandalas and her
previous experience with the pookalam.
Making connections
In early September, a parent
visited and introduced the
children to pookalams, a floral carpet created during the
Hindi celebration of Onam.
Our original intent was that
this experience would build
community and help children understand different
family traditions in the early weeks of the school. However, a few weeks later
as we prepared for a trip to a local museum to see the work of Dahlov Ipcar,
one of our children immediately made a connection between Ipcar’s mandalas and her previous experience with the pookalam. This connection was significant because it was the first time a child had reflected on an experience
and shared it with the group. The children shared their observations and
Leonard, S.J., & Gleason, J. • Voices of Practitioners 9, no. 1 • June 2014
5
questions, as well as their ideas about the shapes of the
mandalas and pookalams. In this way, the children entered
the cycle of inquiry with teacher support. Would children
make connections with the work at the museum and other
art by Dahlov Ipcar? Would they recognize these circular
patterns in other aspects of their lives?
We also wondered if children’s ideas about art came
from their own beliefs, or from those around them. What
did they consider beautiful? Did art have to look a certain
way? Was it true that as one child put it, “an artist stays in
the lines?” We soon found that these questions all seemed
to fall under our initial question, “What does it mean to be
an artist?”
What does it mean to be an artist?
The children learned about pookalams.
Figure 2. Web of Children’s and Teachers’ Interests.
Who is Dahlov Ipcar, and what is a mandala? Where is
art? What do artists do? In order to truly understand the
children’s curiosity, we created a curriculum web using
our initial question (from both children and teachers) as
the epicenter of the web: what does it mean to be an artist? The process of webbing helped teachers to identify
and sort various entry points
for future study and clarified
connections between children’s interests and possible
pathways (Helm & Katz 2001).
We returned to this web over
and over, modifying it as new
trajectories emerged.
Starting at the first step in
the cycle of inquiry, observation, we observed children’s
curiosity about an exhibit at
the University of New Hampshire. We showed the children
fliers describing the exhibit,
and they immediately began
making connections between
the art in the flyer and some of
Ipcar’s mandalas that we had
examined in the classroom. We
recorded children’s questions
A Trip to the Museum
Leonard, S.J., & Gleason, J. • Voices of Practitioners 9, no. 1 • June 2014
6
and curiosities. During meeting and center times we examined Ipcar’s mandala paintings from a volume about her work, The Art of Dahlov Ipcar by Carl
Little (2010), many of which would be on display at the museum. We were
not sure if children would connect with a voluminous book of paintings or
the intricate details in the mandalas. But in fact, children were curious about
the vivid colors, shapes, and animals in the paintings. They asked questions
about the names of the animals and made connections to the animals they
saw in books, pictures, or in their own experience.
Sarah: What are you noticing in this mandala?
Child 1: I see orange and blue.
Child 2: There’s a big elephant!
Child 3: There’s fire dog! (a Dalmatian)
Child 1: I don’t see a dog. I see a circle.
Sarah: I wonder if you can show us where you’re seeing the dog?
(Child 3 approaches the book and points to the top corner.)
Sarah: I hadn’t even noticed that there are animals in the corner. I wonder
what other animals we can find?
We reflected back on this documentation and entered into step 2 of
the cycle of inquiry, developing our hypotheses about children’s thinking. We
thought about how art occurs in many places, not just in isolation in the
classroom, and wanted children to experience art in multiple environments.
Based on our hypothesis we entered step 3, to create a research question
rooted in our overarching question of what it means to be an artist. We
asked the children, “Where is art?” This question drove our work in step 4,
in which we planned curriculum to support children’s thinking. We read books
about museums, researched our museum
online, and continued to examine Ipcar’s
paintings to build a base of knowledge for
children to explore research questions
during our visit. We focused on the details
of when paintings were made, what the
inspiration or story of each painting was,
and what materials Ipcar used. This helped
children develop a general knowledge of the
paintings as well as the artistic process. The children closely examined the exhibit.
Entering into step 5, we set up a provocation through our museum trip. On a
sunny morning, we waited for the bus to
take us to the art museum. When we arrived
we were greeted at the front door by the
museum director and instructed to sit down
Leonard, S.J., & Gleason, J. • Voices of Practitioners 9, no. 1 • June 2014
7
to talk about Dahlov Ipcar’s work and the rules of the museum. Because we
prepared the children through researching the museum, they were ready to
hear about these rules. It was paramount to not touch the paintings!
Soon children were milling around the exhibit, looking closely at the
mandala paintings. Some children made connections, such as “We saw that
one in the book!” They talked about the colors and the animals. They asked
questions about how Ipcar made the paintings: “How’d she make that?”
As we moved through the museum we used teacher strategies, including
storytelling and technically-focused talk such as describing the use of oil
paint to create the paintings (Eckhoff
2008). Building on the learning children
did about Ipcar’s work and art mediums
prior to our visit (in step 4), we began to
tell a story around creating art. Teachers recorded children’s words and ideas
about art throughout the trip. In this way,
teachers cycled back to step 1 of the
cycle of inquiry—observation.
“Don’t touch the paintings!”
Sometimes we saw their hands move
closer and then stop and hover in
front of a painting while asking a
question or talking about the art.
Other people’s perceptions: Don’t touch the paintings!
The statement, “Don’t touch the paintings!” stayed with the teachers as
well as the children. During our museum visit the children were careful not
to touch the artwork, even when they were really excited. Sometimes we
saw their hands move closer and then stop and hover in front of a painting
while asking a question or talking about the art. At times, museum employees would quickly swing a piece of paper between children’s fingers and
paintings. They didn’t have experience with our children to know just how
capable they could be. On the one hand, we wanted children to respect the
norms of a museum visit, but we also didn’t want them to feel disconnected
from the artwork.
Moving again to step 2 of the cycle of inquiry, developing hypotheses, we
posited that there was disequilibrium between our hands-on work with art
and the messages that children received during our visit to the art museum.
This was especially true given that any previous experience the children had
with exhibits were in children’s museums—places where children were welcome to touch, feel, and interact with the exhibits. Upon returning to school,
if a child in the classroom didn’t want to share a particular item or, in some
cases, if they wanted others to give their creations some space, we would
hear the phrase “That’s art. Don’t touch it!” Based on our hypothesis of this
disequilibrium, we reentered step 3 by posing the research question: Would
children make distinctions between work they create, the process of making
art, and the norms around art displays that are not interactive?
Leonard, S.J., & Gleason, J. • Voices of Practitioners 9, no. 1 • June 2014
8
Further provocations
We reflected on pictures from the trip with the children.
After our trip to the museum, curriculum inspired by Dahlov Ipcar’s work
was incorporated into all areas of our
classroom. During morning meeting
we reflected on pictures from the trip
with the children. These conversations
influenced our curriculum through
explorations with materials like painting, the light table, blocks, and a newlydesigned studio space. In this way, the
trip became more than a fun outing,
but also a meaningful and integral
component of our curriculum. It also
served as a shared memory for teachers and children around which we
could build a sense of community.
Children making paintings (both individually and collaboratively) and
sharing artwork with one another was essential to our classroom community. To support the children in this endeavor, we created a dedicated space
in the classroom—a large shelving unit—that stored many of the different
art mediums and collage materials. The entire top of that space was available for children to share their work, with the expectations that children
would view the items with their eyes and not their hands. We offered small
labels with their names for their art and worked with children to title and
label their pieces.
As children created in our studio space we were deeply immersed in
step 5 of the cycle of inquiry, presenting provocations in which children
explored the ideas of mandalas using varied materials. For example, based
on observing children’s interest in blocks we extended children’s thinking to
creating mandalas using those materials. During morning meeting times we
examined Ipcar’s mandala paintings and talked about how those could be
re-created using blocks, gems, and animals figures.
Exploring documentation: Involving the children
in sharing their work
An essential component of emergent and negotiated curriculum based on
Gandini and Goldhaber’s cycle of inquiry is examining the documentation
that is gathered by developing hypotheses and planning research questions
(Broderick & Hong 2011; Gandini & Goldhaber 2001). While we were in the
habit of engaging in this type of planning as teachers, we had not always directly involved children in the process of sharing their own work and draw-
Leonard, S.J., & Gleason, J. • Voices of Practitioners 9, no. 1 • June 2014
9
ing conclusions in such a public way, particularly with children who were 3
and 4 years old. It was our experience with the child’s connection between
the pookalam and the mandala that inspired us to take pause and reflect
upon the children’s capabilities. The following dialogue, which occurred
during morning meeting, is an example of documentation that extended
children’s thinking.
Jamie: Can you tell me what you made?
Child: A circle.
Jamie: How did you make it?
Child: I put two and two and two and two.
Jamie: You put two and two blocks together to make a circle?
Child: Yeah.
Jamie: I wonder what made you think about making a circle?
Child: I just did in my mind.
Jamie: Does this shape remind you of something else we are working with in our
classroom?
Child: Yeah, circles. (Child puts a wood cut-out circle in the middle of the block
circle.) That’s a circle.
Jamie: Does this shape remind you of something we saw at the museum yesterday?
Child: Yeah, maybe a turtle lives here.
The creation of circular designs in the block area prompted new observations on our part (step 1). We continued to note that children were curious
about the mandalas, as evidenced by their block structures. While we set up
and facilitated play we carefully thought about the array of materials to provide and the many ways children can express themselves (Edwards, Gandini, & Forman 1998). We continued the
cycle and were deeply immersed in step 5, provocations. It was
important to provide children with authentic materials to convey
our respect for their
abilities. Materials also
needed to be accessible
and plentiful enough for
sustained play. We provided familiar materials,
such as blocks, gems,
and paint, but used
them in novel ways. For
example, a child used
curved blocks to create a
circle. Through observation, documentation, and
sharing this documentation (photographs and
photo essays) through
A child explores mandalas with a variety of building materials.
Leonard, S.J., & Gleason, J. • Voices of Practitioners 9, no. 1 • June 2014
10
meeting times and placing it on the wall in the block area at eye-level, children began to make intricate mandalas with blocks, gems, and animals. They
created a connection to the paintings they had studied.
Children also explored shape
and color at the light table.
Teachers created transparencies
with circle shapes and children
chose multi-colored gems to create mandalas, also using found
objects such as blank CDs and
sequins. Children sorted the
sequins and made a series of
mandalas.
Children continued to be
inspired by Ipcar’s paintings. For
example, they mixed colors they
saw in the mandala paintings.
Throughout the school year
Children made small mandalas with CDs and created a large collaborative mural
Ipcar’s work sustained our curto serve as a History Piece.
riculum, and to our surprise the children did not lose interest. In addition to
offering art provocations, we changed our environment based on children’s
needs and ideas. For example, we created more space for the block area as
children began to create more intricate and larger structures inspired by
mandalas. After these environmental changes teachers noticed a shift from
individual creations to collaborative efforts. Structures were seen not as the
property of one child, but as the work of a group. With teacher support, this
sense of collaboration was fostered in other areas of the classroom, such as
the light table, sensory table, or dramatic play.
Inspired by the Reggio Emilia concept of “History Pieces” (Vecchi 1998;
Tarr 2001) and revisiting work over time, after almost a year of exploring
mandalas we reflected on the work done over the past months. We asked
children about their efforts and made some concrete connections by showing images of the pookalams and the mandalas and asking questions to help
guide conversation. The shape and circular nature of the pookalams were
strikingly similar to that of the mandalas. Within moments, one of the children proclaimed, “The pookalam is a mandala!”
Implications and discussion: Reflecting on our work,
reflecting on their work
Reflecting on documentation was an integral part of the success of this
investigation. During meeting times children shared their work or pictures
of their work. Through revisiting, children were able to form ideas, test them
Leonard, S.J., & Gleason, J. • Voices of Practitioners 9, no. 1 • June 2014
11
out, reflect, and then possibly form different notions. As a result, children
made creations that were more detailed than we anticipated. Children spent
long periods of time carefully creating block structures or mandalas at the
light table—engaging in activity for more extended intervals than prior
to this investigation. Teachers treated children’s creations with respect,
because they were art. In turn, children treated their own work (and the
work process) with respect. This culture of respect also promoted extended,
meaningful engagement in art.
Throughout the investigation children discussed what it means to be an
artist. Children said,
You draw and paint.
You make beautiful things.
You color and paint. You stay in the lines.
Sometimes it’s messy.
They also talked about Dahlov Ipcar as an artist. We then asked the children, what tools do artists use? They created a list including paper, crayons,
paint, paintbrushes, and markers. We observed that children were making
connections between Ipcar’s work and their own, and therefore decided
to create a studio space. We looked at pictures of Ipcar’s studio and talked
about what materials we would need. Children chose these materials and
organized them in the studio. Most of these were authentic artists’ materials
and some were found objects.
The studio space supported children’s art explorations beyond “oneshot” art projects. In fact, this way of working paralleled the way “real” artists work. “When children revisit their work over time, they are able to view
it through different lenses” (Pelo 2007). The ability to reflect and develop
self-regulation through activity is a key developmental process that can be
supported through art investigations (Althouse, Johnson, & Mitchell 2002).
The creation of a studio space in our classroom, and the children’s input in
this space, conveyed a respect for children. It told them the work they do is
valued and important.
Resistance and responsiveness: Untying the
cognitive conflict knot
We began our initial cycle of inquiry with questions about helping children
understand what it means to be an artist. However, as we traveled through
the cycle of inquiry we found that the question held so much more. Now
our work was not simply about being an artist, but about bringing art to the
public and how children can engage with art in a formal museum setting. We
were challenged by others to think about why we were taking children to a
Leonard, S.J., & Gleason, J. • Voices of Practitioners 9, no. 1 • June 2014
12
place that was not designed for children. Would children be able to “follow
the rules”? This feedback, in the form of resistance to our curricular plans,
created an opportunity for cognitive conflict in which we examined and
articulated our philosophies about children’s development and education.
These conversations challenged us to be articulate in framing our rationale,
and the tension confirmed that we were on the right track. Teaching is not
just about having everything always go smoothly. Good teaching, rich teaching will raise hard questions and make you question yourself and others.
Ultimately, our trip to the art museum gave the children a deeper understanding of what it means to be an artist. But it also gave them a better sense
of the community in which they live.
Good teaching, rich teaching will
raise hard questions and make you
question yourself and others.
Teachers as advocates
This investigation, while about art and
children’s conceptions about the work of
artists, was also about advocacy. Through
this investigation we talked with colleagues, administration, and community
members about our image of children: that they are capable and deserving
of being trusted and respected in a “grown-up” place such as a museum. In
this way we were advocates for children. This work challenged our own and
other’s ideas of what children can do. We thought that children would be engaged in the investigation for a short while and then lose interest. However,
the cycle of inquiry (Broderick & Hong 2011; Gandini & Goldhaber 2001) was
paramount to developing the investigation for teachers and children, and
only made us more committed to children’s sustained exploration and discovery. Through reflection and protected time and space to create, children
engaged in lengthy and meaningful play.
Conclusion
We are still pondering what it means to be an artist, and this research raised
new questions for our work. Personal reflections on one’s own experience
with art are so different. Art involves the interpretation of light, texture, and
tone and is very individual. With limited exposure, the interpretation of what
art is can be rather narrow—a painting, or something someone else creates.
Children can learn more about what artists do when they are connected to
living artists in their community. As Althouse, Johnson, & Mitchell discuss,
the narrative and dialogue involved in art is as important as technique;
young children benefit from the social and language aspects of art, as these
endeavors show children that art is part of our shared experiences (2002, 9).
“Art talk” is something that we can all do, and shapes how we define what
artists do and who they are.
Leonard, S.J., & Gleason, J. • Voices of Practitioners 9, no. 1 • June 2014
13
We learned that young children can be exposed to higher-level thinking
about art and engage meaningfully in art explorations, developing their own
identity as artists. Through creating intentional opportunities and spaces for
children to explore art, addressing cognitive conflict, and taking an advocacy stance promoted by the cycle of inquiry, both teachers and children
engaged in a rich curriculum experience. While our children were able to
experience different art mediums and connect with a body of artwork, they
also connected with the community. This not only changed the children’s
notion of what art is, but also others’ perceptions of the capabilities of
young children.
References
Althouse, R., M.H. Johnson, & S.T. Mitchell. 2002. The Colors of Learning: Integrating the Visual
Arts into the Early Childhood Curriculum. New York: Teachers College Press; Washington, DC:
NAEYC.
Broderick, J., & S. Hong. 2011. “Introducing the Cycle of Inquiry System: A Reflective Inquiry
Practice for Early Childhood Teacher Development.” Early Childhood Research and Practice
13 (2): 1–14.
Eckhoff, A. 2008. “The Importance of Art Viewing Experiences in Early Childhood Visual Arts:
The Exploration of a Master Art Teacher’s Strategies for Meaningful Early Arts Experiences.”
Early Childhood Education Journal 35(5): 463–472.
Edwards, C., L. Gandini, & G. Forman, eds. 1998. The Hundred Languages of Children: The Reggio
Emilia Approach to Early Childhood Education—Advanced Reflections. 2nd ed. Westport, CT:
Ablex.
Gandini, L., & J. Goldhaber. 2001. “Two Reflections about Documentation.” In Bambini: The
Italian Approach to Infant/Toddler Care, eds. L. Gandini & C.P. Edwards, 124–145. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Helm, J.H., & L. Katz. 2001. Young Investigators: The Project Approach in the Early Years. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Hill, L.T., A.J. Stremmel, & V.R. Fu. 2005. Teaching as Inquiry: Rethinking Curriculum in Early
Childhood Education. New York: Pearson Education.
Little, C., & D. Ipcar. 2010. The Art of Dahlov Ipcar. Camden, ME: Down East.
Mills, G.E. 2000. Action Research: A Guide for the Teacher Researcher. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Paley, V.G. 1997.The Girl with the Brown Crayon. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Pelo, A. 2007. The Language of Art: Reggio-Inspired Studio Practices in Early Childhood Settings.
St. Paul, MN: Redleaf Press.
Tarr, P. 2001. “Aesthetics Codes in Early Childhood Classrooms: What Art Educators Can Learn
from Reggio Emilia.” Art Education 54(3): 33–39. Available online: www.designshare.com/Research/Tarr/ Aesthetic_Codes_1.htm.
Vecchi, V. 1998. “What Kind of Space for Living Well in School? In Children, Spaces, Relations:
Metaproject for an Environment for Young Children, eds. G. Ceppi & M. Zini, 128–35. Reggio
Emilia, Italy: Reggio Children.
Wurm, J. 2005. Working in the Reggio Way: A Beginner’s Guide for American Teachers. St. Paul,
MN: Redleaf Press.
Copyright © 2014 by the National Association for the Education of Young Children.
See Permissions and Reprints online at www.naeyc.org/yc/permissions.
Leonard, S.J., & Gleason, J. • Voices of Practitioners 9, no. 1 • June 2014
14