A programme for your group starts with observation
Pedagogical documentation — the method that builds a programme out of what children do rather than what adults say about them. What the recent research shows and how I use it.
The worst way to find out what children want is to ask children what they want. They tell you what they think you want to hear, or what they did last time and enjoyed, or whatever the child before them said.
The second worst way is to ask the adults around them. Parents describe the child they remember; educators describe the one who gives them the most work. Both descriptions are real, and neither is the programme.
The method that works has an ugly name — pedagogical documentation — and has been around for decades.
What it actually is
Pedagogical documentation means recording what children do and say in order to come to know them, and then co-constructing the experiences with them, starting from what you saw. It comes out of the practice in Reggio Emilia, and it is less exotic than it sounds: photographs, notes, transcripts, sometimes video.
The difference from “we took photos at the activity” is the purpose. Activity photos are for the parents. Documentation is for the next session.
A metasynthesis published in 2025, which analysed 23 studies produced over two decades on Reggio-inspired practices in Australian early years settings, confirms the approach’s impact on teaching and learning. Another 2025 study, in the European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, looks at what documentation does for the participation of children and parents — so not only for planning, but for who gets a say in what happens.
What it looks like in my work
I do not work in a kindergarten, so I do not have the luxury of two years of observation. At best I have one conversation beforehand and the first fifteen minutes of the session.
The conversation beforehand is not a questionnaire. I do not ask “what do the children like”. I ask things that have a factual answer:
- What did you last do outdoors, and how long before they got bored?
- Who are the two children the group follows, and who are the two who stay at the edge?
- What went badly enough that you do not want it repeated?
- Who is not allowed to do what?
The last question changes the programme most often. I find out that one child is not given scissors, or that another is not allowed out of the yard, and only then do I know what I can build.
The first fifteen minutes
The rest of the observation happens in the session, and it is not discreet. I tell the children at the start that the first minutes are theirs and that I am watching.
What I look for, concretely:
Who starts without asking. A group where nobody touches anything until they are given permission needs something different from a group that scatters immediately. Neither is “good” or “bad” — it is information about how much I need to structure.
Where the group gathers. Children choose a spot, almost always. If I move the activity there, half the work of holding attention is already done.
Who talks to whom. Spontaneous groups of three or four hold for the whole session. If I break them up to make “balanced” teams, I spend the rest of the time repairing what I broke.
What they leave behind. At the end of a free activity, what is left on the table says more than what they told me. Sticks sorted by size mean something different from sticks snapped into equal pieces.
All of it goes into my notes and, for a programme across several sessions, comes back out in the written proposal for the school next time, with what I am changing and why.
What you lose by skipping it
A programme built without observation is not necessarily a bad programme. It is simply a programme built for an average child, and the average child never turns up.
The cost shows in two places. First: the children who are already good at what you propose get bored, and the ones who are not withdraw — and from the outside both groups look the same, which is to say quiet. Second: you cannot learn anything for next time, because you measured nothing beyond “it went well”.
What documentation is not
It is not assessment. I do not grade children, I do not compare them, and I do not send conclusions about them home. I record what happened so I know what to prepare. That is all.
Nor is it a method I can apply in full at the scale I work at. Reggio assumes educators who spend years with the same children. I borrow the instrument; I do not claim to practise the approach. That distinction matters, because plenty of programmes attach the “Reggio” label to a single hour of activity.
If you want to see the method on the ground, the piece on forest school describes the same idea from another angle: the adult who does not fill the time.
Sources
- Guo K, Rouse E — Searching for evidence-based practice: A qualitative metasynthesis of the research on Reggio Emilia practices in Australian early years settings, 2025
- The role of pedagogical documentation in child and parent participation: an investigation of educator and parent perspectives in a Reggio Emilia-inspired preschool — European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, vol. 34, no. 4, 2025
- Emergent curriculum in twenty-first-century early years contexts: a systematic review of global practices advancing SDG 4 — European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 2025