Tradition and convention dichotomises children and curriculum and this is challenged by re(con)ceiving children in curriculum. My study generates ways for thinking differently about children’s complex interrelationships with curriculum by working with the philosophical imaginaries of Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari. I use an assemblage of imaginaries, namely: rhizome, plateaus, multiplicities, nomad, de~territorialising lines of flight, smooth spaces, becoming, milieu, monad and singularities, all of which disrupt traditional and conventional thought in various ways. Working with children to share their understandings of curriculum, demonstrated in their curricular performativity of becoming~learning, becomes a complex methodological endeavour, which inextricably (rhizomatically) entwines researching and researcher/participants and research. What I call the assemblage of the thesis is thus as much about researching rhizomatically as about young children’s understandings of curriculum and Deleuzo-Guattarian imaginaries help bring these together. Rhizome and becoming are two imaginaries that feature frequently in the discussion and in the methodology, with plateaus comprising the condition and expression of the ‘thesis’ cum assemblage. However, as plateaus work non-linearly, the conventional notion of a chaptered thesis is rendered sous rature. Hence the thesis-assemblage becomes a milieu of plateaus that can be read in any order, rather than a conventional linear sequence of chapters containing specific sections of the research process. Continuing with generating a milieu (while simultaneously disrupting linearity) both the literature review and rhizoanalysis occur in various plateaus, and the rhizo-methodology is played out throughout. Bringing my understanding of Deleuzo-Guattarian imaginaries of rhizome and becoming into theories about children and childhood and bringing the notion of rhizome together with young children’s curricular performance opens possibilities for conceiving children and curriculum differently, and for receiving these into reconceptualist curricular conversations. A poststructuralist feminist theoretical approach works to destabilise developmental perspectives of children and childhood as well as the adult|child binary, and recognises curriculum as a complex endeavour. The interconnected processes of rhizo inquiry, rhizomatic methodology and rhizoanalysis engage with emerging understandings of researching complexity and further disrupt modernist, arborescent thought. Data for the study were generated in a kindergarten during a two-week period by moving rhizomatically with the activity of children’s play while video recording their games. Mostly I operated the camera, with the children preferring to be performers in these spontaneous video plays, but periodically various children took the camera and recorded activity of their choosing, thereby generating another dimension to the data. As and when requested by the children, they watched the videos of themselves at play, with opportunities for replaying sequences and engaging in conversation about their becoming~learning. These review sessions were recorded on a second video camera, contributing to an intensifying multiplicity of data. To continue generating this data multiplicity, I approached the rhizoanalysis in several ways – through conventional transcripts, visual notations and by juxtaposing interactive pieces using the literature, transcriptions from the data and my commentaries. For example: data were juxtaposed with philosophical imaginaries; data from both cameras were read alongside one another; data of the children playing were used to inform the methodology as well as the methodology being used to inform the rhizoanalysis; transcriptions were turned into storyboards and some play episodes were mapped pictorially. Determining conclusions is not the purpose of a rhizomatic research multiplicity. Instead I leave off with thoughts for the reader about ongoing and opening processes of thinking differently around curriculum as (a) milieu(s) of becoming and children as dynamically becoming(s)-child(ren). Rhizomatically, these link to data used to explain map(ping) play(ing), children performing curriculum complexly, children’s expressions of power-fullness and children performing rhizo-methodology. These data demonstrate young children’s sophisticated understandings of their doing~learning~living. As well as opening possibilities for adults to understand children’s understandings, the data open possibilities for children’s understandings to inform adult understandings of curriculum, as practiced, theoretical and philosophical, that is, for receiving children into curriculum.

Tradition and convention dichotomises children and curriculum and this is challenged by re(con)ceiving children in curriculum. My study generates ways for thinking differently about children’s complex interrelationships with curriculum by working with the philosophical imaginaries of Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari. I use an assemblage of imaginaries, namely: rhizome, plateaus, multiplicities, nomad, de~territorialising lines of flight, smooth spaces, becoming, milieu, monad and singularities, all of which disrupt traditional and conventional thought in various ways. Working with children to share their understandings of curriculum, demonstrated in their curricular performativity of becoming~learning, becomes a complex methodological endeavour, which inextricably (rhizomatically) entwines researching and researcher/participants and research. What I call the assemblage of the thesis is thus as much about researching rhizomatically as about young children’s understandings of curriculum and Deleuzo-Guattarian imaginaries help bring these together. Rhizome and becoming are two imaginaries that feature frequently in the discussion and in the methodology, with plateaus comprising the condition and expression of the ‘thesis’ cum assemblage. However, as plateaus work non-linearly, the conventional notion of a chaptered thesis is rendered sous rature. Hence the thesis-assemblage becomes a milieu of plateaus that can be read in any order, rather than a conventional linear sequence of chapters containing specific sections of the research process. Continuing with generating a milieu (while simultaneously disrupting linearity) both the literature review and rhizoanalysis occur in various plateaus, and the rhizo-methodology is played out throughout. Bringing my understanding of Deleuzo-Guattarian imaginaries of rhizome and becoming into theories about children and childhood and bringing the notion of rhizome together with young children’s curricular performance opens possibilities for conceiving children and curriculum differently, and for receiving these into reconceptualist curricular conversations. A poststructuralist feminist theoretical approach works to destabilise developmental perspectives of children and childhood as well as the adult|child binary, and recognises curriculum as a complex endeavour. The interconnected processes of rhizo inquiry, rhizomatic methodology and rhizoanalysis engage with emerging understandings of researching complexity and further disrupt modernist, arborescent thought. Data for the study were generated in a kindergarten during a two-week period by moving rhizomatically with the activity of children’s play while video recording their games. Mostly I operated the camera, with the children preferring to be performers in these spontaneous video plays, but periodically various children took the camera and recorded activity of their choosing, thereby generating another dimension to the data. As and when requested by the children, they watched the videos of themselves at play, with opportunities for replaying sequences and engaging in conversation about their becoming~learning. These review sessions were recorded on a second video camera, contributing to an intensifying multiplicity of data. To continue generating this data multiplicity, I approached the rhizoanalysis in several ways – through conventional transcripts, visual notations and by juxtaposing interactive pieces using the literature, transcriptions from the data and my commentaries. For example: data were juxtaposed with philosophical imaginaries; data from both cameras were read alongside one another; data of the children playing were used to inform the methodology as well as the methodology being used to inform the rhizoanalysis; transcriptions were turned into storyboards and some play episodes were mapped pictorially. Determining conclusions is not the purpose of a rhizomatic research multiplicity. Instead I leave off with thoughts for the reader about ongoing and opening processes of thinking differently around curriculum as (a) milieu(s) of becoming and children as dynamically becoming(s)-child(ren). Rhizomatically, these link to data used to explain map(ping) play(ing), children performing curriculum complexly, children’s expressions of power-fullness and children performing rhizo-methodology. These data demonstrate young children’s sophisticated understandings of their doing~learning~living. As well as opening possibilities for adults to understand children’s understandings, the data open possibilities for children’s understandings to inform adult understandings of curriculum, as practiced, theoretical and philosophical, that is, for receiving children into curriculum.

Tradition and convention dichotomises children and curriculum and this is challenged by re(con)ceiving children in curriculum. My study generates ways for thinking differently about children’s complex interrelationships with curriculum by working with the philosophical imaginaries of Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari. I use an assemblage of imaginaries, namely: rhizome, plateaus, multiplicities, nomad, de~territorialising lines of flight, smooth spaces, becoming, milieu, monad and singularities, all of which disrupt traditional and conventional thought in various ways. Working with children to share their understandings of curriculum, demonstrated in their curricular performativity of becoming~learning, becomes a complex methodological endeavour, which inextricably (rhizomatically) entwines researching and researcher/participants and research. What I call the assemblage of the thesis is thus as much about researching rhizomatically as about young children’s understandings of curriculum and Deleuzo-Guattarian imaginaries help bring these together. Rhizome and becoming are two imaginaries that feature frequently in the discussion and in the methodology, with plateaus comprising the condition and expression of the ‘thesis’ cum assemblage. However, as plateaus work non-linearly, the conventional notion of a chaptered thesis is rendered sous rature. Hence the thesis-assemblage becomes a milieu of plateaus that can be read in any order, rather than a conventional linear sequence of chapters containing specific sections of the research process. Continuing with generating a milieu (while simultaneously disrupting linearity) both the literature review and rhizoanalysis occur in various plateaus, and the rhizo-methodology is played out throughout. Bringing my understanding of Deleuzo-Guattarian imaginaries of rhizome and becoming into theories about children and childhood and bringing the notion of rhizome together with young children’s curricular performance opens possibilities for conceiving children and curriculum differently, and for receiving these into reconceptualist curricular conversations. A poststructuralist feminist theoretical approach works to destabilise developmental perspectives of children and childhood as well as the adult|child binary, and recognises curriculum as a complex endeavour. The interconnected processes of rhizo inquiry, rhizomatic methodology and rhizoanalysis engage with emerging understandings of researching complexity and further disrupt modernist, arborescent thought. Data for the study were generated in a kindergarten during a two-week period by moving rhizomatically with the activity of children’s play while video recording their games. Mostly I operated the camera, with the children preferring to be performers in these spontaneous video plays, but periodically various children took the camera and recorded activity of their choosing, thereby generating another dimension to the data. As and when requested by the children, they watched the videos of themselves at play, with opportunities for replaying sequences and engaging in conversation about their becoming~learning. These review sessions were recorded on a second video camera, contributing to an intensifying multiplicity of data. To continue generating this data multiplicity, I approached the rhizoanalysis in several ways – through conventional transcripts, visual notations and by juxtaposing interactive pieces using the literature, transcriptions from the data and my commentaries. For example: data were juxtaposed with philosophical imaginaries; data from both cameras were read alongside one another; data of the children playing were used to inform the methodology as well as the methodology being used to inform the rhizoanalysis; transcriptions were turned into storyboards and some play episodes were mapped pictorially. Determining conclusions is not the purpose of a rhizomatic research multiplicity. Instead I leave off with thoughts for the reader about ongoing and opening processes of thinking differently around curriculum as (a) milieu(s) of becoming and children as dynamically becoming(s)-child(ren). Rhizomatically, these link to data used to explain map(ping) play(ing), children performing curriculum complexly, children’s expressions of power-fullness and children performing rhizo-methodology. These data demonstrate young children’s sophisticated understandings of their doing~learning~living. As well as opening possibilities for adults to understand children’s understandings, the data open possibilities for children’s understandings to inform adult understandings of curriculum, as practiced, theoretical and philosophical, that is, for receiving children into curriculum.

Tradition and convention dichotomises children and curriculum and this is challenged by re(con)ceiving children in curriculum. My study generates ways for thinking differently about children’s complex interrelationships with curriculum by working with the philosophical imaginaries of Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari. I use an assemblage of imaginaries, namely: rhizome, plateaus, multiplicities, nomad, de~territorialising lines of flight, smooth spaces, becoming, milieu, monad and singularities, all of which disrupt traditional and conventional thought in various ways. Working with children to share their understandings of curriculum, demonstrated in their curricular performativity of becoming~learning, becomes a complex methodological endeavour, which inextricably (rhizomatically) entwines researching and researcher/participants and research. What I call the assemblage of the thesis is thus as much about researching rhizomatically as about young children’s understandings of curriculum and Deleuzo-Guattarian imaginaries help bring these together. Rhizome and becoming are two imaginaries that feature frequently in the discussion and in the methodology, with plateaus comprising the condition and expression of the ‘thesis’ cum assemblage. However, as plateaus work non-linearly, the conventional notion of a chaptered thesis is rendered sous rature. Hence the thesis-assemblage becomes a milieu of plateaus that can be read in any order, rather than a conventional linear sequence of chapters containing specific sections of the research process. Continuing with generating a milieu (while simultaneously disrupting linearity) both the literature review and rhizoanalysis occur in various plateaus, and the rhizo-methodology is played out throughout. Bringing my understanding of Deleuzo-Guattarian imaginaries of rhizome and becoming into theories about children and childhood and bringing the notion of rhizome together with young children’s curricular performance opens possibilities for conceiving children and curriculum differently, and for receiving these into reconceptualist curricular conversations. A poststructuralist feminist theoretical approach works to destabilise developmental perspectives of children and childhood as well as the adult|child binary, and recognises curriculum as a complex endeavour. The interconnected processes of rhizo inquiry, rhizomatic methodology and rhizoanalysis engage with emerging understandings of researching complexity and further disrupt modernist, arborescent thought. Data for the study were generated in a kindergarten during a two-week period by moving rhizomatically with the activity of children’s play while video recording their games. Mostly I operated the camera, with the children preferring to be performers in these spontaneous video plays, but periodically various children took the camera and recorded activity of their choosing, thereby generating another dimension to the data. As and when requested by the children, they watched the videos of themselves at play, with opportunities for replaying sequences and engaging in conversation about their becoming~learning. These review sessions were recorded on a second video camera, contributing to an intensifying multiplicity of data. To continue generating this data multiplicity, I approached the rhizoanalysis in several ways – through conventional transcripts, visual notations and by juxtaposing interactive pieces using the literature, transcriptions from the data and my commentaries. For example: data were juxtaposed with philosophical imaginaries; data from both cameras were read alongside one another; data of the children playing were used to inform the methodology as well as the methodology being used to inform the rhizoanalysis; transcriptions were turned into storyboards and some play episodes were mapped pictorially. Determining conclusions is not the purpose of a rhizomatic research multiplicity. Instead I leave off with thoughts for the reader about ongoing and opening processes of thinking differently around curriculum as (a) milieu(s) of becoming and children as dynamically becoming(s)-child(ren). Rhizomatically, these link to data used to explain map(ping) play(ing), children performing curriculum complexly, children’s expressions of power-fullness and children performing rhizo-methodology. These data demonstrate young children’s sophisticated understandings of their doing~learning~living. As well as opening possibilities for adults to understand children’s understandings, the data open possibilities for children’s understandings to inform adult understandings of curriculum, as practiced, theoretical and philosophical, that is, for receiving children into curriculum.

Tradition and convention dichotomises children and curriculum and this is challenged by re(con)ceiving children in curriculum. My study generates ways for thinking differently about children’s complex interrelationships with curriculum by working with the philosophical imaginaries of Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari. I use an assemblage of imaginaries, namely: rhizome, plateaus, multiplicities, nomad, de~territorialising lines of flight, smooth spaces, becoming, milieu, monad and singularities, all of which disrupt traditional and conventional thought in various ways. Working with children to share their understandings of curriculum, demonstrated in their curricular performativity of becoming~learning, becomes a complex methodological endeavour, which inextricably (rhizomatically) entwines researching and researcher/participants and research. What I call the assemblage of the thesis is thus as much about researching rhizomatically as about young children’s understandings of curriculum and Deleuzo-Guattarian imaginaries help bring these together. Rhizome and becoming are two imaginaries that feature frequently in the discussion and in the methodology, with plateaus comprising the condition and expression of the ‘thesis’ cum assemblage. However, as plateaus work non-linearly, the conventional notion of a chaptered thesis is rendered sous rature. Hence the thesis-assemblage becomes a milieu of plateaus that can be read in any order, rather than a conventional linear sequence of chapters containing specific sections of the research process. Continuing with generating a milieu (while simultaneously disrupting linearity) both the literature review and rhizoanalysis occur in various plateaus, and the rhizo-methodology is played out throughout. Bringing my understanding of Deleuzo-Guattarian imaginaries of rhizome and becoming into theories about children and childhood and bringing the notion of rhizome together with young children’s curricular performance opens possibilities for conceiving children and curriculum differently, and for receiving these into reconceptualist curricular conversations. A poststructuralist feminist theoretical approach works to destabilise developmental perspectives of children and childhood as well as the adult|child binary, and recognises curriculum as a complex endeavour. The interconnected processes of rhizo inquiry, rhizomatic methodology and rhizoanalysis engage with emerging understandings of researching complexity and further disrupt modernist, arborescent thought. Data for the study were generated in a kindergarten during a two-week period by moving rhizomatically with the activity of children’s play while video recording their games. Mostly I operated the camera, with the children preferring to be performers in these spontaneous video plays, but periodically various children took the camera and recorded activity of their choosing, thereby generating another dimension to the data. As and when requested by the children, they watched the videos of themselves at play, with opportunities for replaying sequences and engaging in conversation about their becoming~learning. These review sessions were recorded on a second video camera, contributing to an intensifying multiplicity of data. To continue generating this data multiplicity, I approached the rhizoanalysis in several ways – through conventional transcripts, visual notations and by juxtaposing interactive pieces using the literature, transcriptions from the data and my commentaries. For example: data were juxtaposed with philosophical imaginaries; data from both cameras were read alongside one another; data of the children playing were used to inform the methodology as well as the methodology being used to inform the rhizoanalysis; transcriptions were turned into storyboards and some play episodes were mapped pictorially. Determining conclusions is not the purpose of a rhizomatic research multiplicity. Instead I leave off with thoughts for the reader about ongoing and opening processes of thinking differently around curriculum as (a) milieu(s) of becoming and children as dynamically becoming(s)-child(ren). Rhizomatically, these link to data used to explain map(ping) play(ing), children performing curriculum complexly, children’s expressions of power-fullness and children performing rhizo-methodology. These data demonstrate young children’s sophisticated understandings of their doing~learning~living. As well as opening possibilities for adults to understand children’s understandings, the data open possibilities for children’s understandings to inform adult understandings of curriculum, as practiced, theoretical and philosophical, that is, for receiving children into curriculum.

Tradition and convention dichotomises children and curriculum and this is challenged by re(con)ceiving children in curriculum. My study generates ways for thinking differently about children’s complex interrelationships with curriculum by working with the philosophical imaginaries of Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari. I use an assemblage of imaginaries, namely: rhizome, plateaus, multiplicities, nomad, de~territorialising lines of flight, smooth spaces, becoming, milieu, monad and singularities, all of which disrupt traditional and conventional thought in various ways. Working with children to share their understandings of curriculum, demonstrated in their curricular performativity of becoming~learning, becomes a complex methodological endeavour, which inextricably (rhizomatically) entwines researching and researcher/participants and research. What I call the assemblage of the thesis is thus as much about researching rhizomatically as about young children’s understandings of curriculum and Deleuzo-Guattarian imaginaries help bring these together. Rhizome and becoming are two imaginaries that feature frequently in the discussion and in the methodology, with plateaus comprising the condition and expression of the ‘thesis’ cum assemblage. However, as plateaus work non-linearly, the conventional notion of a chaptered thesis is rendered sous rature. Hence the thesis-assemblage becomes a milieu of plateaus that can be read in any order, rather than a conventional linear sequence of chapters containing specific sections of the research process. Continuing with generating a milieu (while simultaneously disrupting linearity) both the literature review and rhizoanalysis occur in various plateaus, and the rhizo-methodology is played out throughout. Bringing my understanding of Deleuzo-Guattarian imaginaries of rhizome and becoming into theories about children and childhood and bringing the notion of rhizome together with young children’s curricular performance opens possibilities for conceiving children and curriculum differently, and for receiving these into reconceptualist curricular conversations. A poststructuralist feminist theoretical approach works to destabilise developmental perspectives of children and childhood as well as the adult|child binary, and recognises curriculum as a complex endeavour. The interconnected processes of rhizo inquiry, rhizomatic methodology and rhizoanalysis engage with emerging understandings of researching complexity and further disrupt modernist, arborescent thought. Data for the study were generated in a kindergarten during a two-week period by moving rhizomatically with the activity of children’s play while video recording their games. Mostly I operated the camera, with the children preferring to be performers in these spontaneous video plays, but periodically various children took the camera and recorded activity of their choosing, thereby generating another dimension to the data. As and when requested by the children, they watched the videos of themselves at play, with opportunities for replaying sequences and engaging in conversation about their becoming~learning. These review sessions were recorded on a second video camera, contributing to an intensifying multiplicity of data. To continue generating this data multiplicity, I approached the rhizoanalysis in several ways – through conventional transcripts, visual notations and by juxtaposing interactive pieces using the literature, transcriptions from the data and my commentaries. For example: data were juxtaposed with philosophical imaginaries; data from both cameras were read alongside one another; data of the children playing were used to inform the methodology as well as the methodology being used to inform the rhizoanalysis; transcriptions were turned into storyboards and some play episodes were mapped pictorially. Determining conclusions is not the purpose of a rhizomatic research multiplicity. Instead I leave off with thoughts for the reader about ongoing and opening processes of thinking differently around curriculum as (a) milieu(s) of becoming and children as dynamically becoming(s)-child(ren). Rhizomatically, these link to data used to explain map(ping) play(ing), children performing curriculum complexly, children’s expressions of power-fullness and children performing rhizo-methodology. These data demonstrate young children’s sophisticated understandings of their doing~learning~living. As well as opening possibilities for adults to understand children’s understandings, the data open possibilities for children’s understandings to inform adult understandings of curriculum, as practiced, theoretical and philosophical, that is, for receiving children into curriculum.

Tradition and convention dichotomises children and curriculum and this is challenged by re(con)ceiving children in curriculum. My study generates ways for thinking differently about children’s complex interrelationships with curriculum by working with the philosophical imaginaries of Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari. I use an assemblage of imaginaries, namely: rhizome, plateaus, multiplicities, nomad, de~territorialising lines of flight, smooth spaces, becoming, milieu, monad and singularities, all of which disrupt traditional and conventional thought in various ways. Working with children to share their understandings of curriculum, demonstrated in their curricular performativity of becoming~learning, becomes a complex methodological endeavour, which inextricably (rhizomatically) entwines researching and researcher/participants and research. What I call the assemblage of the thesis is thus as much about researching rhizomatically as about young children’s understandings of curriculum and Deleuzo-Guattarian imaginaries help bring these together. Rhizome and becoming are two imaginaries that feature frequently in the discussion and in the methodology, with plateaus comprising the condition and expression of the ‘thesis’ cum assemblage. However, as plateaus work non-linearly, the conventional notion of a chaptered thesis is rendered sous rature. Hence the thesis-assemblage becomes a milieu of plateaus that can be read in any order, rather than a conventional linear sequence of chapters containing specific sections of the research process. Continuing with generating a milieu (while simultaneously disrupting linearity) both the literature review and rhizoanalysis occur in various plateaus, and the rhizo-methodology is played out throughout. Bringing my understanding of Deleuzo-Guattarian imaginaries of rhizome and becoming into theories about children and childhood and bringing the notion of rhizome together with young children’s curricular performance opens possibilities for conceiving children and curriculum differently, and for receiving these into reconceptualist curricular conversations. A poststructuralist feminist theoretical approach works to destabilise developmental perspectives of children and childhood as well as the adult|child binary, and recognises curriculum as a complex endeavour. The interconnected processes of rhizo inquiry, rhizomatic methodology and rhizoanalysis engage with emerging understandings of researching complexity and further disrupt modernist, arborescent thought. Data for the study were generated in a kindergarten during a two-week period by moving rhizomatically with the activity of children’s play while video recording their games. Mostly I operated the camera, with the children preferring to be performers in these spontaneous video plays, but periodically various children took the camera and recorded activity of their choosing, thereby generating another dimension to the data. As and when requested by the children, they watched the videos of themselves at play, with opportunities for replaying sequences and engaging in conversation about their becoming~learning. These review sessions were recorded on a second video camera, contributing to an intensifying multiplicity of data. To continue generating this data multiplicity, I approached the rhizoanalysis in several ways – through conventional transcripts, visual notations and by juxtaposing interactive pieces using the literature, transcriptions from the data and my commentaries. For example: data were juxtaposed with philosophical imaginaries; data from both cameras were read alongside one another; data of the children playing were used to inform the methodology as well as the methodology being used to inform the rhizoanalysis; transcriptions were turned into storyboards and some play episodes were mapped pictorially. Determining conclusions is not the purpose of a rhizomatic research multiplicity. Instead I leave off with thoughts for the reader about ongoing and opening processes of thinking differently around curriculum as (a) milieu(s) of becoming and children as dynamically becoming(s)-child(ren). Rhizomatically, these link to data used to explain map(ping) play(ing), children performing curriculum complexly, children’s expressions of power-fullness and children performing rhizo-methodology. These data demonstrate young children’s sophisticated understandings of their doing~learning~living. As well as opening possibilities for adults to understand children’s understandings, the data open possibilities for children’s understandings to inform adult understandings of curriculum, as practiced, theoretical and philosophical, that is, for receiving children into curriculum.

In this dissertation, the problem of early childhood teacher turnover is approached from the perspective of professional identity. During three-part semi-structured interviews with twelve highly-educated infant-toddler teachers working in NAEYC-accredited centers in a mid-Atlantic metropolitan area, participants shared information about their career decisions and professional identities. The participant teachers, who were more highly-educated than a representative sample would be, generally "fell into" the career without having had any pre-service training specific to working with infants and toddlers. Teachers described their jobs in terms of boredom and / or frustration, and found more value in experiential learning than from formal professional development opportunities. Teachers in this study self-identified as professional "teachers" while perceiving themselves to be other-identified as unskilled "day care workers." Teachers in this study did not view teaching infants and toddlers as a long-term career option. The findings suggest that the public's perception of infant-toddler teachers as unskilled workers may encourage highly-educated teachers to leave the profession. I use these findings to make recommendations for pre-service educators, administrators, and policymakers.

Thesis (Ed.D.)--University of Toronto, 2005. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 265-287)

Previous research indicates that joint storybook reading between caregivers (parents or teachers) and children can have positive effects on the oral language development of young children (Whitehurst et al., 1988; Dickinson & Smith, 1994). This study aimed to add to this body of research by providing information on the relationship between teachers’ language complexity and vocabulary strategies used during storybook reading and vocabulary outcomes for monolingual and dual language learners in linguistically diverse Head Start classrooms. Videotapes of 23 Head Start teachers were coded and analyzed for vocabulary instruction strategies and language complexity during storybook reading using hierarchical regression techniques to determine how these factors related to gains in student vocabulary over the course of a year. Students’ oral language was assessed using the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) and the Learning Express vocabulary sub-test (LE). Teacher’s language complexity was calculated with respect to both quantity (mean length of utterance) and quality (type/token ratio and use of uncommon words). Teacher’s use of vocabulary strategies was examined with respect to the words chosen for instruction and the strategies used to instruct those words. Overall, teachers in this study tended to choose high utility words to instruct, but the strategies used to teach those words, and the number of words chosen for instruction, were often not optimally aligned with best practices in vocabulary instruction (Beck et al., 2002). For the PPVT outcome measure, teachers’ use of higher numbers of vocabulary instruction strategies per word was differentially related to students’ vocabulary outcomes based on the student’s prior vocabulary knowledge, such that the use of more vocabulary instruction strategies per word was negatively related to vocabulary outcomes for students who began the year with the smallest vocabularies. There was also a significant interaction between teachers’ use of uncommon words and students’ prior vocabulary knowledge, though this relationship was only statistically significant for the PPVT outcome. Teachers’ use of more complex language was differentially related to students’ outcomes. Students who began the year with the lowest vocabulary levels exhibited a positive relationship between the teacher’s use of uncommon words and vocabulary outcomes, while average or higher vocabulary students showed a negative relationship between increased exposure to these uncommon words and their vocabulary outcomes. The implications for teachers’ professional development are discussed.