Final Version May 5 07

131
If pre-service practices do not illustrate the benefits of co-construction and shared
ownership of the curriculum, it would appear unlikely that early childhood education
students understand these principles. Those who train early childhood educators do not
have to add to the oppression of the sector. There are examples of teacher educators from
the U.S. and Canada promoting a reconceptualization of practice that aligns with the
philosophies of Reggio. Yelland and Cartmel (2000) describe a successful graduate level
early childhood teacher education program in Australia with a collaborative structure
where “students are able to engage in discourse, debate, risk taking, and critical
analyses.” This Reggio-inspired atmosphere promotes “meaningful learning” and
empowers students “to become more effective early childhood education professionals”
(p. 34).
DeJong (1999) makes a strong substantiated case for learning through projects in
early childhood teacher education and has many suggestions for incorporating project
work into teacher preparation programs. Drawing parallels between project work with
children, DeJong states that “recent research now suggests that it is not only an effective
learning strategy for young children,” it is also “an especially useful strategy to foster
dispositions, motivations, and professional habits that are as important as knowledge to
the success of beginning classroom teachers” (p. 325). Just as the educators from Reggio
Emilia suggest that the child should be viewed as a competent theory builder the teacher
educator can view the pre-service teacher in the same way. Establishing a congruency
between what is taught at the pre-service level and how it is taught in the classroom
should impact the broader field; a number of researchers have identified positive