Children’s movement according to the Norwegian framework plan: A document analysis

Background and introduction

The Framework Plan for the Content and Tasks of Kindergartens (Ministry of Education and Research [MER], 2017), the steering document for Norwegian kindergartens, is based on the Nordic traditions for kindergartens (Hu & Ødegaard, 2019; Vallberg Roth, 2014; Weldemarian et al., 2017). This tradition has been an example of good practice, a model associated with high standards from an international perspective. The Norwegian framework plan shares several features with the Nordic curricula, which consider early childhood education and care (ECEC) as the first stage of lifelong education. Universal ECEC services are provided by well-educated staff (Hännikäinen, 2016). The tradition holds a socio-pedagogical stand that emphasizes the intrinsic value of childhood and promotes an all-around approach to children’s development (Børhaug et al., 2018; Einarsdottir et al., 2015).

In line with the Nordic tradition, terms such as play, exploration, learning, care, and formative development are promoted as important matters for kindergartens in Norway (MER, 2017). However, these ideals are problematized in ECEC research. A large-scale study on socially engaged children showed that the open-ended pedagogical approach in Nordic ECEC curricula failed to provide equal social and intellectual opportunities for all children (Jensen, 2009). Borgen and Ødegaard (2015) attributed this to the paradoxes in the Nordic context of childhood. The core ideal of the Nordic welfare state model is the belief in equal opportunities for all children. A web of structural and relational factors and interrelated dynamics condition children’s spaces for relative autonomy and self-regulation to provide conditions for children’s bodily movement. “Agency” has been a key concept in the social studies of children and childhood since the 1980s. Research has scrutinized the relationship between social structure and the individual social actor (James & James, 2012; Uprichard, 2008). Later, interdisciplinary research showed a more specific interest in children as bodies (Bartholdsson et al., 2014).

Children’s lives have many paradoxes when it comes to, for example, conditions for self-regulation and movement. Children are implicitly and explicitly exposed to cultural artefacts (Wartofsky, 1979). The framework plan is an artefact that affects young children’s lives in ECEC in Norway. Norms for children’s participation in educational institutions can be found in the steering document. A document analysis can reveal whether certain paradoxes can also be found in focus on bodily movements. This is the background for our interest in studying how “movement” is outlined in the framework plan.

Among the Nordic curriculum studies presented earlier, only the Norwegian framework plan presented the overarching concept of Bildung (danning in Norwegian, which is translated to “formative development” in the English version of the framework. Danning and formative development imply a growth mindset framework. Such frameworks include the recognition of ecological designs and nonlinear pedagogy; the teacher encourage co-creation, encouragement, and participation and wayfinding alongside children (Rudd et al., 2020; Ødegaard, 2020). Against this background, the Norwegian framework plan can be considered “ecological,” but how ecological? Will there be wordings that imply paradoxical meanings? At the heart of ecological frameworks, we expect to find wordings that imply ecological dynamics and guidelines encouraging embodied and situated approaches to the constant, reciprocal, and interactive relationships between the child and what the environment (people, materials, and landscapes) affords the child.

Research aim and question

The use of the term movement in the framework plan was investigated to provide insights into kindergartens’ formalized conditions for working with bodily movements as part of children’s all-around development. This investigation was performed through a document analysis (Bratberg, 2018) focusing on the research question, “How is the term movement outlined and used in the Framework Plan for the Content and Tasks of Kindergartens?”

Furthermore, the aim of this study was to highlight the use of the term movement in relation to the core values of the framework plan that imply an ecological framework. Part of the investigation was to examine whether the use of the term movement shows signs of a more instrumental or explorative approach or whether it holds several approaches at the same time. This can reveal potential paradoxes and how they can support and/or limit the expectations from teachers’ work with movement.

The research question was designed to eliminate preconceptions about the research field. However, researchers carry certain preconceptions that affect the results of the studies. In this case, some of the preconceptions are related to the consideration that the framework plan must be read and understood in the context in which it was created and enforced. Therefore, it was analyzed in relation to its own core values and goals concerning childhood’s intrinsic value.

Conceptualizing bodily movements

Bodily movement can be considered a crucial part of children’s all-around development and is fundamental for play, exploration, learning, care, and formative development (Bartnæs & Myrstad, 2022). To address this, we found inspiration in an ontological view that accounts for embodied living and movement as a fundamental part of children’s navigation and meaning making in the world and the importance of child-sensitive pedagogy through movement. The ontological view of phenomenology and ecological designs (e.g., Ingold, 2000, 2018; Sheets-Johnstone, 2013, 2016) has inspired and given direction to how we address and understand potential paradoxes and opportunities when it comes to the use of the term movement in the framework plan. Movement is perceived as a fundamental part of young children’s navigation and meaning making in the world (Husserl, 1989; Ingold, 2011; Merleau-Ponty, 2012; Sheets-Johnstone, 2013, 2016). Humans have an inborn inclination to play, explore, experience, sense, and feel through movement (e.g., Ingold, 2011; Rudd, et al., 2020; Sheets-Johnstone, 2016). Children’s exploration of their own and others’ movements can therefore be considered a base for self-agency, empathy, and understanding of themselves and embodied participants in the world in which they live. In line with children’s continuous processes of being and becoming, movement is a persistent part of their cultural formation processes (Ødegaard, 2019; Schei, 2013). Following this line of thought, Tim Ingold, an anthropologist who crosses the boundaries between anthropology, phenomenology, process philosophy (post-humanism), post-Darwinism, and pedagogy (Ingold, 2018), writes that life is “lines of becoming” (Ingold, 2011). Life is not lived within a boundary space but along lines and “meshworks,” a metaphor he uses for how life is lived along lines of becoming: emergent, indeterminate, contingent, historical, and narrative. All species, including humans, have their own bundle of lines. “Becoming” is what unfolds. Children move and, at the same time, are moved by what they encounter. This is demonstrated in relation to Gibson’s (1979) concept of affordance as the perceived possibility for movement in the environment and how children understand their possibilities based on earlier experiences. The conditions for children’s movements are hence important for their meaning making, how they act, and how they see and understand themselves and others now and in the future. Children’s possibilities for movement and how teachers facilitate, meet, and celebrate their inborn inclination to move and be moved are therefore important for their cultural formation processes in kindergarten.

In the present enquiry, the term movement is a translation of the Norwegian term bevegelse. Both movement and bevegelse refer to (among other things) the act of moving or a change or development (“Bevegelse,” 2021). The study examined movement as the act of moving one’s body. This can be approached in diverse ways in the field of ECEC. Movement is physical activity that involves skills of the body (running, jumping, climbing, or dancing). Movement is also exploration, communication, and expression (hugging, hitting when angry, singing when happy, or running away when scared).

The roles that physical activity and movement (should) play in children’s lives and policy documents in ECEC settings have been discussed in previous studies (Lu & Montague, 2016; Pedersen & Fusche Moe, 2020). On the basis of the research studies in the Norwegian context that focused on children’s movement/physical activity, such as those of Løkken (2000), Nilsen et al. (2019), Myrstad and Sverdrup (2019), Pedersen and Fusche Moe (2020), Rossholt (2012), Fjørtoft et al. (2018), Bjørgen (2017) and Sando et al. (2020), we can argue that an enlarged focus on young children’s movement/physical activity has more benefits than just the physical health aspect. Pedersen and Fusche Moe (2020) pointed out the World Health Organization’s (WHO) concern about children’s lives being increasingly organized and more sedentary than ever before (WHO, 2019). The United Nations’ Committee on the Rights of the Child (2013) reported a clear trend that emphasizes academic-targeted plans and actions steered toward modern knowledge societies. On this basis, they bring forth a concern for children’s lack of opportunities to play and be physically active. There is a concern that the preference for academic achievement in the early years may lead to less (focus on) movement (Bae, 2021; Pedersen & Fusche Moe, 2020). Pedersen and Fusche Moe (2020) identified signs that showed that even though movement and play are being prioritized in the agenda, they are often approached as instruments for improving children’s health. However, they argue that play and movement have intrinsic values, as children engaging in playful movements “discover who they are and how they can explore themselves and their surroundings as embodied beings” (p. 69). They argued that playful shared movements in preschools need more attention and that a better understanding of this dimension is central to meeting children on their own terms, which is “crucial if preschool[s] are to be a place of growth and enrichment” (p. 69). Lu and Montague (2016) indicated that ECEC plays a proactive role in developing healthy lifestyles and that children will benefit from physical activities for their health and holistic learning. Both Pedersen and Fusche Moe (2020) and Lu and Montague (2016) argued that kindergarten teachers’ knowledge about physical activity and movement should be enhanced and that policy documents should account for physical activity.

The framework plan for kindergartens: Content and tasks

The framework plan is a 56-page document covering nine sections. The document has two substantial areas, one promoting the core values and pedagogical approaches and the other outlining seven learning areas (MER, 2017). The core values promote education for democracy, diversity and mutual respect, equity and equality, sustainable development and life skills, and health. The seven outlined learning areas are meant to be intertwined with the core values and built on matters promoted to be “of interest and intrinsic value to children of kindergarten age [which] shall help promote well-being, all-round development, and good health” (MER, 2017, p. 47). For this purpose, children’s rights to participation, exploration, and expression of opinions and the diversity of methods and activities are promoted as crucial. Play is emphasized as an important building block in different learning areas. Besides play, terms such as formative development, exploration, learning, care, and development are promoted as important matters for kindergartens in Norway throughout all learning areas (MER, 2017).

The current framework plan for Norwegian kindergartens was first implemented in 2017. The intentions were to make kindergartens’ responsibilities and tasks clearer. As the updated version has been implemented, several analyses of the framework plan have been performed. Some analyses were concerning the emphasis on Nordic kindergarten traditions and values (Eriksen et al., 2017), and some have shed light on a down-schooling tendency, leaning toward an Anglo-Saxon approach to education and ECEC, which means that a readiness-for-school approach is emerging in ECEC in Norway (Fosse et al., 2018). Even though several studies have highlighted the importance of an all-around approach to children’s development, we have not found analyses that focused on the emphasis on movement, neither in relation to analyses of the framework plan itself nor in relation to inquiries focusing on Nordic socio-pedagogical tradition and an all-around approach to children’s development. However, a recent expert report concerning the kindergarten teacher’s role (Børhaug et al., 2018) expresses a need for a greater focus on children’s embodiment and movement as conditions for development. Other than the framework plan, the hierarchical government control of kindergartens in Norway is weak (Børhaug et al., 2018). Therefore, the framework plan must be viewed in relation to the teacher’s autonomous work to create a picture of how movement is emphasized in Norwegian kindergartens. In this matter, what is emphasized often ends up being valued (Biesta, 2009). Despite the kindergarten teachers’ autonomy, we can argue that the wording of the framework plan provides meaning to what is emphasized in the daily lives of kindergarten children (Lu & Montague, 2016).

Moen and Rugseth (2018) indicated how learning about and with the body is central in physical education (PE) in Norwegian schools. A theoretically driven text analysis of the national curricula in PE in Norwegian schools and the bachelor’s program in physical education and sport revealed how body emerged as both object and subject. The results of the analysis provide a broad understanding of the body but show that in the learning outcomes, it is “less clear that the body can be understood from different theoretical perspectives” (p. 154). They used this as a backdrop to discuss how “different perspectives on the body can establish an opportunity for developing PE as an inclusive subject which manages to meet and support learning and development, in a constructive way, for all students” (pp. 154–155). Even though the same terms such as body as object or body as subject were not used in the present research, their perspectives inspire a discussion of how different approaches to movement can support an all-around approach to children’s formative development. Furthermore, we believe that this can help identify and overcome challenges and paradoxes and raise opportunities in kindergarten as an arena for formative development.

Document analysis and its implications

The research question was investigated through a document analysis (Bratberg, 2018). A content analysis provided insights into the research question through a systematic view of how often, when, and in relation to what the term movement or the other key terms are mentioned in the framework plan. As we were inspired by a phenomenological and ecological approach to children’s movement, the enquiry holds a different emphasis and carries different results than it potentially would have if the vantage point were based on another approach. Hence, the results from the enquiry cannot be considered as end results but can be an attempt to highlight a dimension of the research and a contribution to the development of future framework plans.

The framework plan itself is not an end product. There are several stages in the “life” of a steering document, beginning with the ideas in the plan, the formal document, the perceived document, and the operationalized plan and resulting in the experienced plan (Goodlad, 1979). Therefore, it is not adequate to analyze parts when trying to understand the content fully. The perceived and operationalized plans will depend on the kindergarten and the teacher. The experienced plan depends on the child affected by it. Therefore, the assumption that the stages can be fragmented and criticized separately is not geared toward either policy makers or the plan itself.

Despite the existing research on movement and physical activity, concern about overlooking the embodied dimensions of children’s being and becoming is increasing (Alexander, 2015; Bae, 2021; Ødegaard, 2006; Pedersen & Fusche Moe, 2020). Moreover, phenomenological theories on kinesthesia show a lack of focus on movement as fundamental for meaning making and navigation in the world, even in the phenomenology of the body (Sheets-Johnstone, 2016). Therefore, policy makers, teachers, or other users of the framework plan are not expected to know how to account for this dimension of children’s being and becoming. The claim that policy makers are not accounting for this dimension of children’s meaning making if they do not mention it specifically in their documents is therefore not necessarily an accurate claim. Policy makers might attempt to grasp all aspects of children’s multifaceted development by referring to the intrinsic value of childhood. Within this attempt, elements may remain unaccounted for in words, as they are of a more pre-reflective character. The same can apply to kindergarten teachers, who in their daily lives might be working with all the elements described without putting them to words. It is therefore important to remember that the framework plan holds guidelines and does not necessarily depict the current situation in kindergartens in Norway. However, content analysis can help identify traces of a conceptualization of movements place in children’s being and becoming.

Analysis procedures

The analysis followed a four-step process inspired by Fosse et al. (2018) and Nilsen et al. (2017). The process was partly planned in advance and developed as the analytical process progressed. Before the start of the analytical process, the word movement was conceptualized in relation to the aim of the study. As the term movement (“Bevegelse,” 2021) can carry several meanings, an outline of movement as the act of moving one’s body was made. Furthermore, terms and expressions that could describe movement were detected in Norwegian and English. These terms were found partly based on common sense, such as physical activity, and theoretical conceptualization about young children as moving bodies, such as kinesthesia, while some words such as motor skills were added to the search as they occurred in relation to movement in the initial search. Translations between Norwegian and English were checked at http://www.ordnett.no and in the Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training Norwegian/English dictionary for terms used in primary and secondary education and training (https://www.udir.no/verktoy/ordbok/). The words included in the search as a first step of the analytical process were “bevegelse/movement,” “bevege/move,” “kropp/body,” “kroppslighet/embodiment,” “kinestetisk/kinesthetic,” “fysisk aktivitet/physical activity(ies),” and “fysikk/physic.” The search was both in Norwegian and English to strengthen the translation for the present article. The second analytical step was inspired by Fosse et al. (2018) and consisted of producing a table identifying an overview of the selected terms: where they were mentioned and how, how often, and in relation to what they were used. In the third step, the terms surrounding the key terms were considered in relation to the key terms. These surrounding terms such as “challenging and safe environment” (for varied movement experiences) were noted in a column next to the sentence to detect repetition. This analytical step was carried out to view how the relationship between the key and surrounding terms mediates ideas about movement in the framework plan. As an example, the expression “challenging and safe environment” in several cases indicated the importance of the environment to facilitate varied forms of movement. The last step was considering the emphasis on movement in relation to the framework plan’s core values and the Nordic socio-pedagogical approach that views childhood as having an intrinsic value (MER, 2017). This was inspired by theories about young children as moving bodies (Husserl, 1989; Ingold, 2011; Sheets-Johnstones, 2016). On the basis of the Nordic traditions’ values, the words “learning,” “(formative) development,” “exploration,” “care and play,” and “childhood’s intrinsic value” were added to the table in this step. Table 1 provides an example of the analytical process.

Results of the keyword search that were not relevant to the research question were excluded from the third step of the analysis. An example of this is how the search result for the word “physic” occurred in relation to the law of physics and was thus omitted.

Results

In the following section, the findings of the analysis are presented. Initially, we outline the research question of how the framework plan uses the term movement. Subsequently, the findings are discussed in relation to theories about movement as a fundamental dimension of children’s multifaceted processes of being and becoming.

Discussion

In the following section, the key elements of the findings are outlined and discussed in relation to how children explore and undergo existential and formative experiences.