Encounters With Materials
Isabela Lima and Alyssa Goodsell
Capilano University
EDUC 475 Graduating Seminar

We begin this inquiry by acknowledging with deep respect the lands in which this project took place – the traditional,
ancestral, and unceded territory of the Coast Salish peoples, including the territories of the selílwitulh (Tsleil- Waututh),
sḵwxw̱ ú7mesh (Squamish) and xwməθkwəy̓ əm (Musqueam) peoples. Noting that one of our participants were joining
from other unceded and ancestral territories in B.C. and Alberta. We would also like to recognize the times in which this
inquiry was situated. The COVID-19 pandemic has really influenced our relationships with children, families, materials,
and the entire world around us. We are all living in a moment when everything seems to be unexpected, different and
prompt to change. We are surrounded by uncertainty, instability and unpredictability; hence, we invite you to navigate
this project through a thoughtful and sympathetic lens to all members involved.

Process Essay
This inquiry project is a book study with a focus on Encounters with Materials in Early Childhood
Education by Veronica Pacini-Ketchabaw, Sylvia Kind and Laurie Kocher. Over the course of five months
this study invited a group of five early childhood educators into discussion. Chadya Sirdar, a Capilano
University graduate who is now an infant and toddler educator working in Alberta. Julia Tevelle, a current
student at Capilano University and an educator in a 3-5 room. Mandy Davis, a Capilano University graduate
and current educator, also in a 3-5 room. Ivy Lam, a current Capilano University student and infant and
toddler educator. Zara McGrath, a Langara College Graduate, a multi-age educator. Our intention was to
have approximately eight meetings, every Thursday on alternating weeks. These meetings were held via
Microsoft Teams and we communicated with the group via email.
Before beginning this inquiry, we situated ourselves with and through a post-humanist theory which
removes human dominance from the center and instead, invites conditions where we can construct multiple
understandings with materials. We investigated material relationalist perspectives both within early
childhood centers and personal practices. This involved paying close attention to how materials let us affect
and be affected. We disrupted the discourse of materials being seen as predictable instruments, and became
curious about how experimentation and dialogue can change our ways of thinking and engaging with
materials.

The initial discussion was generated by an email sent to the group inviting them to bring a photo of a material
they may find in early childhood classrooms. Some of the materials brought forward were Tape, Paper,
Charcoal, Clay and Water. These materials dominated our dialogues to support our processes of meaningmaking of how materials are an agentic force within our worldly encounters. However, many educators
expressed discomfort when encountering materials in certain circumstances such as setting boundaries with
materials and children. We wondered, are we policing materials? What are the limits when engaging with
materials? We continue to discuss the tensions around how our lived experiences affect how we see and
respond to materials. In this moment, the predominant subject surrounding us was Covid and its impact on
our relations to materials. For instance, fabric has not been able to be used due to government regulations,
whereas blocks and drawing materials have been heavily relied upon as educators can adhere to safety
guidelines. This brought a yearning and wish to work with absent material that may have been taken for
granted. This leads us to reflect on how the cultures we create with materials influence our encounters with
them. We finished our conversations by sending an email to the participants to read chapter 1 Thinking With
Materials and ponder with key concepts that spoke to them.

During our conversations with chapter 1, we began what is our place as educators when engaging with
materials. We were left with many questions and chose three to provoke our next meeting as a group.
Who/what is the ideal educator? Who is the educator in relation to materials? What is a vibrant
environment to work with materials? We asked the educators to bring forward photos and words that
reflected their beliefs for all three questions. The participants shared they found it difficult to find
photos online that reflected their beliefs, and were left with superficial photos that represent
predetermined ideas of early years education such as colourful scenarios, happy expressions, insincere
interactions, crafts and worksheets. After in depth discussion, and critical reflection on the first and
second question, we landed on ideas about the image of educators as co-collaborators, researchers,
models and active participants. We talked about how the idea of active doesn’t necessarily mean
physical engagement in a material encounter, but that intentional dialogue and observation are also
important parts of the pedagogy of listening (Rinaldi, 2001).

The third question regarding environments led us to unfold and unravel the potentialities of a space. We
invited the educators to think with chapter five, Clay: Ecologies and bring a quote that spoke to them. Our
conversations prompted us to discuss where material processes are known to predominantly take place and
how they are composed of living relations. We also thought back to our discussions about where materials
and making processes belong in chapter one. The word studio pops up as a place for art. But who decides
that? How can we shift the perspective of the studio being a place designated for art only? What makes a
studio? We were left wondering how materials and ecologies are connected. We sent out an email to the
participants inviting them to experiment with a material in the ecology of their choosing and attune to the
many relationalities of the ecologies guiding their interactions and intentions.
As the project unfolded and circumstances uprooted plans, we postponed and changed meeting times to
accommodate participants schedules. When we regrouped, we discussed the material-ecology experiences
and what their interpretations of these events were. As we unfolded the ideas of ecologies, we thought
about what makes us feel drawn to a place. The idea of aesthetically pleasing spaces invites us to think
how aesthetics play a role in our ecology of living relations. We wondered what defines aesthetics? We
asked each person to research an artist that looked aesthetic from their perspective. Every artist brought
forward engaged with distinct material processes and orientations. This generated conversations about
ecological influences, color, vision, whole body aesthetics, beauty and time.

After our last meeting as a group, we read through our documentation together and reflected on the key
concepts that were emerging. We pulled these out and revised the narration into these four main concepts:
image of materials, image of educators, ecologies and aesthetics. Once we attuned to these ideas, we met
over a series of weeks to collectively organize and write the pedagogical narration. We would also like to
recognize we had the opportunity for multiple meetings with our advisor and mentor, Sylvia Kind, who
has supported us in making this inquiry project.
Through this investigation we hope to keep challenging ourselves and the book Material Encounters. We
come to believe that we are not outside observers of the world and are devoted to researching how
materials are active participants immersed in an already existing ecology of relationships.

Thinking With A Materialist Perspective
When thinking about early childhood education spaces today, materials can hold many different meanings and perceived notions.
Children centres have been upheld by stable conventions and norms on how to engage with materials. Generally speaking, materials are
often seen as functional, predictable and logical instruments or loose parts that support children's development and bring out creativity.
They are recognized as inactive, static and lifeless beings that become a tool to be used and explored in the making process of something
(Bunn, 2011). In this essay, we would like to disrupt this childhood discourse by presenting other ways of thinking with and engaging with
materials. We hope to provoke the meanings and multiplicities of thinking with a materialist perspective in the early years.
Materials are not merely different from each other, but they generate different ways of thinking, new possibilities and new
perspectives of the world. In early childhood settings, materials are present and alive in every room. Children and educators are continually
engaging and thinking with them as they move us to explore, relate, sense, dialogue, share, and negotiate. When we think through and with
materials, they have the power to mediate ideas – giving shape to new provocations, theories and opportunities for experimentation. In a
post-humanist perspective humans are no longer the center of dominance but co-live with other agentic forces such as materials, and other
living entities. From this viewpoint materials are not lifeless before we do something with them; they are continually acting, living,
connecting and participating with us and in our relationships (Kind, 2014). Materials are always doing something to us, and us to them. As
humans, we are never separated from the world; our relationships with our environments make us who we are, and our thoughts are created
through our various encounters and relations (Pacini-Ketchabaw, Kind, & Kocher, 2017). Materials influence and evoke multiple
relationships, investigations and encounters throughout our experiences with them (Pacini-Ketchabaw, Kind & Kocher, 2017). They are part
of a powerful and meaningful world that has a direct bond with children, educators, families, spaces and places. A world that constantly acts
upon our understandings as much as our understandings act upon it.

Hence, when we decide to do something with a material, it is not only about us imposing techniques and practicalities
into it, but about a mutual relation, an attunement, and experience – it is about a moment of meeting. This moment exists "on
absolute alternity and the unknowability of the other" (Dahlberg & Moss, 2005, p.79). Kind (2014) and Dahlberg & Moss (2005)
refer to these moments as encounters, where we acknowledge the difference and multiplicity of the Other, in this case, of the
human-material relationship. A material encounter is evident when we closely attune to what might emerge from the moment of
meeting, allowing ourselves to be present and open to the movements of life. This meeting looks for what is not yet known in the
human-material interaction; it investigates the new, the unseen and unexpected. This encounter is about being open to affect and
being affected (Pacini-Ketchabaw, Kind, & Kocher, 2017), not about approaching the experience with an already known or
predetermined idea of the material or what will happen.
When thinking about experimenting and encountering with materials in an early childhood education setting, the process
of making and its entanglements also come to life. What does it mean to work with materials? A materialist perspective invites
us to understand that when we attune to the many potentialities and connections of the human-material relationship, we begin to
understand and pay attention to the many language we use with materials. We do not simply "do something to a material"; "we
work with them" (Bunn, 2011 p.22). It is not about focusing on the technique or specificality, but in the relationalities of the
encounter, the making process, the multiple protagonists present, the environment and so on. For Ingold (2013), children and
educators are makers; they do not merely apply ideas to materials; they work with them through a conversational journey, not
only chasing a final result. Like artists and makers, children follow materials as they work with them (Kind et al., 2014);
everything is in present and constant movement as they join with materials to circulate, mix and transform. The process of
making is an ongoing act where materials not only shape new ideas but also reshape, reform and reinvigorated them through
various inclinations, interactions and movements.

To conclude, we live within an ecology of relationships where "we are not outside observers of the world,
neither are we simply located at particular spaces in the world; rather we are part of the world in its ongoing intraactivity" (Barad, 2007, p. 184 as cited in Lenz Taguchi, 2010, p. 43). By intra-activity we are referring to the inbetween moments of encounter where there is no fixed result but a hope to see something new unravel in its place
(Taguchi, 2010). This leads us to understand we are deeply entangled in ways that cannot be undone. The learner and
the world cannot be separated; they are in co-dependence of each other; consequently, meaning-making and learning
are dependent on the materials around us. In early childhood education and the world, we go beyond instrumentalism
as we shift our attention to a flow of relationships from all living organisms and material environment. This
relationship is alive and full of uncertainties and correspondences. We acknowledge material's agency and vitality;
they are not just static things waiting for an occasion; they are always amidst becoming something; they are open to
many different possibilities and potentialities for experimentation and lively interaction.

The Idea of an Encounter
Throughout this project we will be using the term encounters. An encounter can be defined as a
moment of meeting – a moment that holds specific particularities and unpredictability. An encounter
exists "on absolute alterity and the unknowability of the other" (Dahlberg, G., & Moss, P., 2005, p.79).
It is about acknowledging difference and multiplicity of the Other (Dahlberg, G., & Moss, P., 2005). To
meet in an encounter is, as Paulina Rautio (2013) in Pacini-Ketchabaw, et al. (2017) proposes, "an
occasion to ask: what is it that takes place at the moment?" An encounter is evident when we closely
attune to what might emerge from that moment, not when something has already been predetermined
and discovered. An encounter evokes a response to the other with infinite possibilities for exchange.
Encountering with materials in early childhood education provokes us to notice how materials are
always doing something to us; they not only shape new ideas but also reshape, reform and
reinvigorated them. A material encounter looks for what is not yet known in the human-material
relationship; it investigates the new, the unseen and unexpected. The interconnection of humans and
non-humans is a part of children and educator's process to create spaces to meet with materials.

Image of Materials

What is our image of materials? With this question, we want to deconstruct our preconceived notions of
materials as resources, craft supplies or tools. We began our discussion by inviting the participants to
bring one material they can find within an early childhood education center: Blocks, Tape, Charcoal,
Water, Paper and Clay were the materials brought forward by the group. Each person shared their
chosen material and others responded with their own comments or past experiences. We were surprised
with how we all brought different materials and perspectives on how they play a role in the classroom.
We linger with the various possibilities to use and be with a material.
We were challenged by when these materials are no longer desirable or being used because of their life
cycle. Do materials have a life cycle? If yes, when does it end? When charcoal turns to dust? When
water becomes murky? When paper has been marked? When tape gets crumpled? From these
curiosities, we wonder about our intentionalities behind engaging with materials and how they can be
viewed as resources.
We also begin to think about how “lived experiences” (van Manen, 1997, p. 10) shape our
engagements with material; by this, we are referring to the memories and previous understandings of
material encounters. How does our past influence our present movements, decisions and intentions with
a material? We want to unfold how “transformations in those experiences” (van Manen, 1997, p. 54)
are continuously shaping and reshaping us.

Blocks
We discussed the commonality of blocks being a highly desirable
material found in centers we had worked with. We usually think
about blocks in relation to children and not to educators. Some
educators shared tension with blocks in anticipation of loud noises,
chaos and startling sounds. These potential actions could provoke
other past experiences of un-easement for educators. We noticed
sensory memories triggered how we were around blocks. There was
hesitation to build high towers because we knew of the
repercussions should they come crashing down. The sound, the
heaviness and sharpness of blocks leaves a alert sensation of
urgency. This is carried throughout the room as children move with
the blocks freely to construct, climb or dump. We feel unsettled by
how educators can be with materials such as blocks, without a
vigilant eye to control the situation. How can we begin to shift our
image of materials?

Photo Credit: Chadya Sirdar

Water
During our dialogue, Mandy invited us to dwell with
the tensions of water use and waste. We find ourselves
disrupted by the many questions prompted from the
conversation. We were provoked to wonder how and
when materials are given space in learning? If it is
within the classroom and chosen (such as a water
table), children are drawn to the experience. But,
when there is rainfall, some educators and children
hesitate to join water in the form of rain. We wonder
what calls us to work with water inside but not always
outside? How does our view of water change based on
our desire to be with it? How is water seen as a
commodity in a center? What are the ethical problems
with water play?

(Photo Credit: Mandy Davis)

“...materials themselves propose particular
possibilities. Materials do not just feel or act
differently from each other, or have different
properties, or produce different forms and
images. They also provoke different ways of
thinking as a child engages and works with
them” (Pacini-Ketchabaw, Kind and Kocher,
2017, p.4).

(Photo Credit: Mandy Davis)

Clay
Clay calls us to act in different ways under different circumstances. Clay moulds, shifts, moves, cracks, breaks, and
dissipates based on its interactions with or without water. It conforms and resists our movements, almost guiding our
gestures silently. As we thought about the liveliness of clay, forming and reforming, we are curious as to how it draws our
movements. We also wonder what makes us hesitate to engage with clay? Some educators suggested time and cost play a
role in the material decision making process. We wonder how expense influences our choices of materials to live within a
center and how time, in some cases, cautions us to explore with a material.

Tape
How can we change the narrative of a material? This dialogue
begins to unfold when Isabela shared her disruptive experience
with tape. She felt very uncomfortable every time children
engaged with tape unintentionally and sporadically. Isabela
sensed that she had to “protect” tape from being wasted or used
without meaning. She felt unsettled to have to police children
while using it – it seemed like there were always questions and
concerns when children asked for tape. What is it for? How
much do you need? Why? At times, children even explored ways
to climb up the cupboards to see if they could find Tape. Their
bodies, voices and interests were drawn towards the material and
yet, hesitation was still felt among the educators.
In many centres, tape is seen as a resource to do something with
or to fix. Tape isn’t seen as a play material or one that is to be
wasted, it is thought to be an expensive supply that needs to be
controlled and hidden away or used with clear purpose. There
seems to be this consumerist culture around tape that holds
educators back when bringing tape out. Why can’t tape be an
accessible material? What if tape became an active ingredient
and participant in making process?

“Sometimes the way we think about materials can limit our
ideas of the material” – Mandy
In the process of our discussions we started to think with the
discourse of materials and resource. What is a material and what
is a resource? When does a material become resource? Do
materials have limits? If so, what are they?
We wondered about how much our social-cultural and past
experiences with a material can influence how we see and engage
with them. Isabela mentioned that growing up tape has always
been portrayed as an untouchable supply that can only be used
when necessary. Perhaps the way she was thinking about that
material motivated her actions and sensations. But how can
educators begin to deconstruct this idea of material as a resource?
How can we start conversations about waste? We linger with the
possibility of attuning to the cultures educators create around
materials. The way we think, talk, engage and attend to a material
can play a role in how this material lives in a room.

Charcoal
What are the boundaries within a material? This questions
provoked us to think with the multiplicities and limits of charcoal.
When charcoal enters a space it carries strength with it, giving
space for marks to powerfully submerge themselves into the area.
Bodies, floor, paper, walls, furniture and air are coated with rich
black charcoal marks. It begins to spread as we move with it,
touching us and others, signaling an urge to connect and transform.
Each encounter with charcoal marks openings into new ways of
thinking, investigating, and making. However, this contamination
can also bring hesitation and uneasy-ness. There is a resistance and
a slow-to-warm-up temperament when encountering charcoal. It
can be a deep and sticky material that lingers with us in so many
ways. Our thoughts and discussions invite us to think with the
mutuality of touching and being touched when working with
charcoal.

(Photo Credit: Charcoal event group project)

“To touch is always to touch
something, someone. I touch not by
accident, but with a determination to
feel you, to reach you, to be affected
by you. Touch implies a transitive
verb, it implies that I can that I will
reach toward you and allow the
texture of your body to make an
imprint on mine. Touch produces and
Event" (Manning, 2009, p. 12 as
cited in Pacini-Ketchabaw, Kind and
Kocher., 2017, p. 37).

(Photo Credit: Charcoal event group project)

“Charcoal touches everything, it moves around and it
becomes something alive all across the room” - Chadya

Children’s body movements and sensations can speak loudly
to how to they are being part of something. It may not be
apparent to our eyes but in the subtleties educators can attune
to the multiple ways in which children engage with charcoal.
Does it always involve holding a piece of charcoal and
making marks? How else do children gesture with and
towards charcoal? Erasers? Tongs? White crayon? We
wonder how these and others can bridge our relations with
charcoal.

(Photo Credit: Charcoal event group project and Zara)

Paper
Julia’s lived experiences with paper led to a disruptive
dialogue about how we think and engaged with paper in
our classrooms. In this encounter with paper the use of
“scrap”, “old”, or “used” paper was the medium present
to work with. Julia noted in working with this lived paper
from previous encounters, language began to emerge
from children that sought out more desirable pieces that
hadn’t been touched. paper that was already used was
deemed to be less valued by some children. The demand
of wanting “clean” or “new” paper became unsettling for
educators as they tried to resist bringing in untouched
pieces. There was a hesitation towards what was already
drawn, it appeared like paper became invisible if it was
marked. This brought about many questions. What is new
paper? Did new ideas need new papers? Does lived paper
belong to the past or present user? The material of paper
invites educators and children to collect traces and be
mindful of how paper becomes desirable or unwanted.
(Photo Credit: Julia Tevelle)

(Photo Credit: Julia Tevelle)

How does attuning to lived experiences with materials affect how we
work with them?

(Photo Credit: Mandy Davis)

During Chadya’s experimentation she reflected on past experiences with charcoal and how this shaped her engagement. She felt her
previous encounters with charcoal were inspired by her school setting where she first began to engage and make meaning with charcoal. In
the moment of this encounter she felt a desire to act in specific ways because of that experience, but was called by the lines of the wood
floor to act differently. Her strokes started mimicking the patterns she was surrounded by. However, she wondered why she was called to
act with charcoal in this way and not go beyond her comfort levels? How did her lived experience with charcoal in school affect where she
met with this material again?
(Photo Credit: Chadya Sirdar)

During one of our collective engagements we reflected on an
encounter with a material. Julia chose to work with discarded
paper and a sewing machine. In this experimentation, she
noticed how as the pieces of paper came together, the whole
collection became sturdier. It resisted ripping and rolling. She
had no pattern or design in mind, but followed the calls of the
papers movements with the thread. The words unconsciously
played a role in where she would sew, and the machine would
get stuck over certain words like democracy. What did that
mean? It seemed like the words were all connecting and
constructing an unknown map.
Julia was inspired to work with sewing and paper during one
of our group meetings after reflecting on Lorna Crane’s art.
Layering pieces both old and new has been part of Julia’s
lived experiences. She had also engaged with the idea of
“used” paper previously, influencing her decision to work
with what were deemed scrap materials.
(Photo Credit: Julia Tevelle)

Once again, we attune
to how lived
experiences can
influence our
encounters with
materials and change
our perception of
material life.
Through this
experiment, we
wonder how our
moments of encounter
travel between time to
invoke nostalgia or
invite the unexpected.

(Photo Credit: Julia Tevelle)

Lived Experience
As we think with lived experience in this inquiry, we are referring to how one encounters the world. In the
previous slides we have mentioned some examples such as Julia’s paper engagements, Chadya’s charcoal
experiences, and Isabela’s encounters with tape. These stories provoked us to begin to think with van Manen’s
idea of lived experiences. According to this author, to research lived experience is to dwell with the unknown. It
invites you to leave behind what you think you know, and actively immerse yourself into past memories and
moments. It is an understanding not only of how we live with the world but how we act in ways of becoming
with the world, in all its curiosities.
In thinking with van Manen (1997), lived experiences are diffractive, and consider a reflexive process of
reliving something that was significant. A lived experience is a time of recollection, when we reflect on an
experience that has already taken place and been lived through. It is important to mention, reflection is
necessary for people to "better come to an understanding of the deeper meaning or significance of an aspect of
human experience" (van Manen, 1997, p. 62). Therefore, you can’t reflect during an experience, the reflection
must come after (van Manen, 1997).
As our discussions around these lived experiences unfolded, we begin a reflective process of looking back on
what we have lived through and how these impact our ideas of material encounters today. It seemed as if these
reflections weren’t just individual. Rather, we collaboratively engaged in dialogues that provoked further
thinking by revisiting, reinterpreting, reconstructing and re-experiencing the many nuances of each moment. We
began to wonder, how does our past engagements influences our present relationships with materials?

Material-Human Relations
In one of our later meetings in this project we had asked the educators to share an artist whose work they thought was
aesthetically pleasing (which will be discussed in upcoming slides). However, this artist, brought forward by Zara, led our
discussions to continue thinking with the image of materials and boundaries. We began by describing what we saw in each photo
and what we felt more drawn too. Zara noted despite liking them all, the “cleanest” looking one (on the left) appealed to her the
most. We believed this image to be neat, organized and thoughtful about placement of brushes. Julia shared she thought the
middle photo was more intriguing with the stacking of materials. The layering and paper that had been stitched together was an
interesting concept. We begin to linger with which materials go together and if there are the rules when working with materials.
Many group members shared the right image was unorganized, messy and already had something in motion; it didn’t draw
anyone to step into it. This made us wonder why. Is it the “cleanliness” of the brushes that invite us to gaze? Do we only feel
drawn to images that show a definitive beginning? What makes us uncomfortable to step into the middle or as Stengers refers to,
the “milieu” (Stengers et al, 2009, as cited in Pacini-Ketchabaw, Kind and Kocher, 2017, p. 58) of an encounter?

Images by: Lorna Crane
https://lornacrane.com

The dialogue of joining with or into the middle of an event
stirred up tension with the educators present. We were
provoked to think with Julia’s previous encounter with used
paper, and wondered if children felt they were engaging in the
middle of a work incomplete. We wondered if those marked
Papers served as canvases to then create something new.
What is the beginning of material-human relations? Perhaps,
there may be a beginning or an already present relation to
material when we enter the space. This middle place of
encounter continues to challenge us as we wonder if our
willingness to move into an experience changes dependent on
material. We lingered with the possibility of materials
influencing our responsiveness to an event already taking
place. What if we were entering into a painting, drawing or
charcoal events? What culture are we creating if everything
has to start from a place of “newness”?

Images by: Lorna Crane
https://lornacrane.com

Image of the Educator

In thinking with the Image of the Educator, we reimagine our place in the field of education
and in relation to materials. We become co-collaborators, listeners, and researchers. Educators
attune to the multiplicities of interactions between children and materials. We seek to
understand how we affect and are affected by these encounters and our role within them.
Educators’ active participation can invite children to move intentionally and collaboratively
with materials, dialoguing and sharing ideas. This can help us work with a pedagogy of
listening (Rinaldi, 2001). Listening can support us in attuning to the many ways children and
educators co-exist by fostering questions, attending to the unspoken word, and embracing
curiosity, desire, and uncertainty.
This leads us to be curious about the importance of language. By language, we are referring to
the various ways in which we think and work with materials; for example, our calls us to
action, the way we move our bodies and how we respond. We are invited to think we are
constantly shaped, informed and defined by and through language (Leggo, 2005). Therefore,
we begin to wonder what are the many languages of educators and how they influence our
relationships with materials.

Explores material

Curious

Breaks out
from comfort
zone
respectfully

Immersive

Intentional

Active participant –
directly involved

Not trying to
create something
beautiful but
rather is just with
the material

Who/what is the ideal teacher?

Collaborative

Observant

Flexible, fluid, not one thing

Engaging

Conversation starter

Sets boundaries

Being
present

Shows emotion

Models

Active in ways more
than or not only just
limited to physical
involvement

For centuries, society has imposed a predetermined and
prescriptive notion of who a teacher is or should be. In
unsettling previous biases we held about who the
teacher-researcher is, we begin to understand the
educator as someone who is continually working and
living in relationship with children, families, materials,
more-than-human, environment, time, spaces, and
others. The B.C. Early Learning Framework (2019)
dialogues about the educator as "researchers and
collaborators" (Province of British Columbia, 2019, p.
17) as they are constantly listening, engaging and
reflecting and responding to/with children in ways that
are not predetermined. The educator is directly involved
in the processes and learning experiences of children.
Teacher-as-researcher is an educator who is deeply
attuned to the many relationalities and complexities of
the multiplicity of care and commitment when constantly
working with humans, more-than-humans, and spaces.
Images sourced from: B.C. Ministry of Education. (2019). British
Columbia early learning framework. Victoria, B.C.

“It’s not about perfection, it’s about expression”
- Julianne Hough as cited in Leibe (2020)
The educators presence adds to the relations between all beings.
The educator is not only a collaborator but also an active
participant. In this image, we speculated how moving with the
clay call us to act in particular ways. When thinking with clay, it
provokes us to transform our being and attune to it’s uncertainties.
As we meet with clay in different spaces, we are forced to
question and detach ourselves from predetermined expectations,
because “each piece of clay acts differently” (Pacini-Ketchabaw,
Kind and Kocher, 2017, p. 56).
We attune to how participating doesn’t always need to be hands
on, it can be about speculation, immersion, conversation, and
listening to children encounter with materials. There is no one
way to be, there is no perfect engagement. As Chadya, one of the
participants noted, educators should “not be forcing their will but
following its calls to action.”
https://images.app.goo.gl/qfwHyqeLCZsDEamf8

Pedagogy of Listening

https://blog.himama.com/what-is-an-early-childhood-educator/

As educators we value the pedagogy of listening as an essential
component in our practice. As previously addressed in the
introduction, we recognize the significance of slowing down and
taking the time to hear children’s many languages, beyond verbal
communication. Rinaldi (2001) notes listening is not easy or
mastered but something that is continually renewing.
Zara suggested an educator is someone that participates with or
alongside children and materials during explorations. They do not
put a material out and step away from it but rather “fold in[to] an
experience” (Pacini-Ketchabaw, Kind and Kocher, 2017, p. 63).
When the educator is fully present, we can better listen to children’s
intentions and ideas. This helps us attune to the liveliness of
materials and the web of relations calling us to be in particular
ways.

https://www.nbs-enb.ca/en/professional-development/workshopcreative-movement-for-young-children

“Materials do not just feel or act differently from each other, or have different properties, or produce
different forms and images. They also provoke different ways of thinking as a child engages and works with
them (Pacini-Ketchabaw, Kind and Kocher, 2017, p. 4)
When thinking in and with materials, they have the power to mediate ideas – giving shape to multiple concepts and
thoughts. Materials are an agentic force that act on and with each other, they are not lifeless and inactive before we
do something with them; they are continually acting, living, connecting and participating with us and in our
relationships. When experimenting with materials it is not about questioning what the material is but about
attending to what a material does and activates. We want to unsettle the conventions and instrumental practices
around materials discourses. However, as educators we may feel hesitant to let materials move in certain ways
within the centers. The unpredictability of certain materials inspired us to question how educators play a role in the
movement of materials in a room.
We wondered, what are the boundaries for children when encountering, working, and being with materials?
We continue to linger with the role of an educator in material encounters, to the arts of noticing, attuning and
observing how materials and children travel around a room together. This provokes us to think, how do materials
provoke other ways of being an educator? How does reimaging who the educator is or can be leave more
possibilities for welcoming the agentic nature of materials?

Ecologies

As our discussions unfolded, we wondered about environment and ecology. We became interested in
where material encounters take place and how they are defined. Are they inside? Outside? In a studio?
A classroom? As we worked with materials, we began to realize they act and demand different things
in different places. We wondered what drew children into these environments. What is the ideal place
to be with materials? However, we felt like the word environment doesn’t diversify where or how we
can work with materials. Therefore, in thinking with the authors, we attuned to the word ecologies.
Ecologies are composed of living relations. They move, breathe, influence and change over time with
no beginning. They are already in a state of becoming and existing where the new and unpredictable
are continuously emerging. Attuning to these words, we wonder how thinking with ecologies can
inspire us to reframe how we engage with(in) material encounters.

Intentional

Aesthetically
Pleasing

Open

Inviting

Hidden
secrets

Has space to
move

How
educators
move with
the place

Mix of both
indoor and
outside

Curated with Care

What is a vibrant environment for working with materials?
As we think with the above question, we wonder about the dominant discourses of
vibrant materials in early childhood education. We invited the educators to search this
question and bring an image to our dialogue. Zara expressed when she googled “vibrant
environment ECE” images emerged which depicted organized, colorful, neat, happy,
indoor, pre-determined, table and chairs activities. We further discussed how these
romanticized images didn’t reflect what we each were envisioning and therefore needed
to search elsewhere for images that reflected our ideas.

Some examples of romanticized early childhood education.

https://stenbergcollege.com/classroom-safety/

https://www.google.com/search?q=early+childhood+educator&sxsrf=ALeKk0358uRFLeP7tAhltOjbUbeQwPy0A:1617493210739&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjlo
YLinPvAhWFvZ4KHTAkCwkQ_AUoAXoECAEQAw&biw=735&bih=700#imgrc=NMW2GJpBupijB
M

https://www.coastalcollegeofbc.com/courses/early-childhood-educator-assistant-ecea

https://sprottshaw.com/blog/which-early-childhoodeducation-program-to-take/

Photos that we think to be counterromanticized early childhood education.

The Image of the Studio
As our conversations of chapter one unfolded, we felt unsettled about the environments in which materials are
known to be present. We came across the concept of Studio, and began to discuss our presumptions of this place.
Our lived experiences guided us to think a studio is where art emerges from, not as a place to engage with material
or artistic processes. It all was linked to this idea that something comes from this place. In reading with the chapter,
we began to reposition ourselves to wonder about where and how a studio lives. Is it limited to a room with
materials, or can it take shape as an ecology, as a place unexpected? What makes a studio? We wonder if the studio
is a human-centered space where we can control the exchanges, or has a life of its own where forces and
movements are alive. Would this make a studio an ecology? Can a studio be an ecology of living relations?
Our dialogues guided us to another disruption. We linger with the idea that there may be a disconnection between
how materials and projects live in the studio and how they are encountered in a classroom setting. In a studio, the
space is curated to produce an environment that allows for more focused intentions. In the classroom, materials
travel differently, are engaged with differently, evokes different desires, callings, and cravings that don't necessarily
fit within the frameworks of traditional curriculum. How can we entangle the classroom and the studio together?
These findings lead us to consider a studio as an ecology. We wonder how ecologies and spaces can be configured
and what it may mean to work in correspondence with a world in motion. By correspondence we mean the act of
dialogue between the elements in play, where the negotiations of tension, reciprocal relationships and other forces
weave together in a moment of meeting (Ingold, 2013).

Material Ecologies and Artistic Processes
As we dialogue about different artists and where their
studios are, Julia invited us to think with the artist Andy
Goldsworthy. His style of artwork, invites us to step into
seasonal ecologies and embrace the found/natural elements
in these places. Julia provoked us with this quote:
"I enjoy the freedom of just using my hands and "found"
tools--a sharp stone, the quill of a feather, thorns. I take the
opportunities each day offers: if it is snowing, I work with
snow, at leaf-fall it will be with leaves; a blown-over tree
becomes a source of twigs and branches. I stop at a place
or pick up a material because I feel that there is something
to be discovered. Here is where I can learn.” - Andy
Goldsworthy,
We wonder how these ecologies influence his work and
wonder how working with materials such as ice, leaves and
feathers, shape his understandings as he makes.
Images and quote from: https://www.livingyourwildcreativity.com/artgallery-1-mitchell-1

In thinking with Goldsworthy’s ecology of relations we
notice he doesn’t only just work with materials but the
rhythms of time, growth, life, decay, place, and history.
“When I work with a leaf, rock, stick, it is not
just the material itself, it is an opening into the
processes of life within and around it … I’m
not an artist born full of things I want to
express. I’m empty, hungry, wanting to know
more … my art is a way of learning in which
instincts guide best … I need the shock of
touch, the resistance of place, materials and
weather … It is a collaboration, a meeting
point between my own and earth’s nature.”
(Friedman and Goldsworthy 1990: 160–1; as
cited in Bunn, 2011, p.23)

This invites us think with Bunn (2011), and her idea that
is not possible to separate mind and body from the
experience or our whole being from the environment. It is
not about working with materials for the first time, but it
is about working with materials as if each time was the
first (Bunn, 2011).
Our group becomes entangled in these authors ideas and
are troubled to think beyond conventional material
practices. We dwell with the reality that we are not
separated from these ecologies, but are part of a worldly
web of relations. This provokes us to start thinking about
the possibilities of how we are drawn into these
ecologies.

The aesthetics of Goldsworthy’s work are fascinating. He
becomes with materials and ecologies present, shaping and
forming with them. He does not force will, but shares joy with
what is available. His impressions and material processes ask
us to wonder what is unseen in these places, and what may
emerge when we spend time with them.
-

Winter -> snow, melting of snow, icicles
Fall -> erosion, washed away, temporal, leaves, vitality,
dead leaves, glowing

As we attune to the materials present in ecologies, we are
invited to correspond with their relations, seeing how they
transform into works of art. We become present in these
moments, refreshing our connection to nature. Goldsworthy
reminds us that we are nature. This prompts us to think, if we
lose the connection to nature, do we lose ourselves? How are
we tied to these natural ecologies?
Images from: https://www.livingyourwildcreativity.com/art-gallery-1mitchell-1

“All world relations: the understandings that
humans creature, plants, trees, and non-human
living entities, forces and landforms are all
interconnected. Western ways of thinking create
separation between all these and place humans
as exceptional. Other cultures and worldviews
recognize that we as humans collectively share
the world with all these relations, and all are
entangled and dependent on one another” (B.C
Early Learning Framework, 2019, p.23).

(Photo Credit: Mandy Davis)

As we begin to reflect on our place within the world of ecologies, we revisit the post-humanist and materialist ideas that inspired
us to lead this project. Notions that are concerned about humans in relationship with others such as living beings, spaces and
more than human. We are constantly amidst and living in these complex, unique and unavoidable relationships. The “intra–
activity” (Barad, 2007, p.33) between our ecology-human bond implies that we are not distinct and inseparable from our spaces,
rather we exist in an ongoing becoming in which entities do not precede each other but emerge from and through their
connectivities. This requires us to develop an intra-awareness of the mutual and co-becoming with all human and non-human
entities. Hence, we come to understand that we are innately entangled with the ecologies in our surroundings, as they are
entangled to us.

Full of
agentic
materials
Becoming

What is an ecology?
Composed of
living
relations

Already in
motion
Emerging

Living

In thinking with this concept of ecology we come to understand
that ecologies have a life of their own and don’t need us to
force things into them. We begin to enliven the idea that
perhaps we can affect and be affected by an ecology,. Neither
can be replicated or manipulated to act in one way, as an
ecology is already acting and enacting in itself. An ecology
isn’t something you start from scratch, but a place with existing
relations. We want to magnify that an ecology is already in
movement and alive before we are invited to step into it. It is a
place where agentic forces are continually present, intertwined
and working together. We are left wondering, how can we
attune to these already co-existing entanglements in ecologies?
(Photo Credit: Mandy Davis)

“It matters what stories tell stories, it matters what thoughts think thoughts, it
matters what worlds world worlds” (Haraway, 2015, para. 7 as cited in PaciniKetchabaw, Kind and Kocher, 2017,p.60-61)
During our dialogues about ecology we find ourselves compelled by how
specificity matters when thinking with and through them. We come to understand
that every ecology is different and calls us to act in distinct ways. There is always
something new and unpredictable coming into and from that space. Paying close
attention to the specificities of a place or a material may help educators understand
that we are unable to perfectly replicate ecologies, even if we wanted to. We begin
to dialogue and linger with the importance of attuning to this specificity.
Think about a space with Fabric hanging. If we decide to take the fabric down and
put it up again in another room similar to the previous one we wouldn’t be able to
replicate it. We could try to make it look it similar, but the fabric would move, be
and enact differently then before. The new space would invite and challenge us to
work with it differently. Every detail of a space or a material should be taken
seriously. It matters what Fabrics we are working with, the colors, where, how,
when, etc. Fabric will act, demand and live differently in a room, outside, on a
deck, at a river, etc.
(Photo Credit: Mandy Davis)

Soil
In one of our collective material experimentations while thinking with
ecologies, Zara and Isabela coincidentally decided to work with soil.
During our discussions, we attuned to soil’s peculiarities and
relationalities with the world. Isabela unraveled the reason why she felt
eminently drawn to work with soil. As an advocate for climate change,
Isabela began to noticed that soil regeneration had been part of frequent
environmentalist conversations around its vital actions for
transformation. However, she was disrupted by how she had never
paused to attune or be with soil. What is soil? What does it do? Where
does it belong to? It seemed to us that we are always concerned about
what comes from soil rather than the complexities and multiplicities of
soil itself. We find ourselves conflicted with the reasons why we honor
things that come from Earth but not the processes or what’s behind it.
Our lived experienced with soil leads us to believe that the outcomes
above ground are perhaps more important than what is entangled in the
process of becoming. By why? Why do we seem to chase final results
when engaging with Materials?

(Photo Credit: Isabela Lima)

“(...) ecologies force educators and
children to think. To hesitate. To feel.
To notice. To question. These ecologies
demand close attention, nourishment,
and situated competencies” (PaciniKetchabaw, Kind and Kocher, 2017,
p.56)

(Photo Credit: Isabela Lima)

It almost felt like soil sat unnoticed and hidden from the world. This invisibility provoked us to dwell that even
though soil is most of the time situated within in a ecology, soil is in itself is an ecology and lives within an
ecology of living and dying, rhythms or growth and decay, in weather worlds, and seasons. Something already in
motion. It forces us to question, to investigate and to pay close attention. How can we attune to what’s hidden?
How does attuning to what sits unnoticed influence our understandings of ecologies?

“The response of clay and child are never predictable, because
ecologies of practice as always emergent. Movements are not
intentionally performed: They emerge” (Pacini-Ketchabaw, Kind
and Kocher, 2017, p.65)
As Lisa went for a walk in her local forest, she was drawn to linger
at this clay wall. She was noticing the detailed layers as though
thin slabs of clay had been stacked upon each other. She wondered
if these ridges became a place of shelter for tiny insects in this
forest. She was invited to rubbed her hand along the clay and pull
some loose bits into her hand. Lisa wondered what other elements
contribute to this clays ecology. Perhaps the rainfall, the small
stream of water than lay below it or the soil that was hidden behind
it. It was interesting to see how this clay wall has life growing
through it. Mosses and ferns hung over head and were wedged into
the different cracks. We wondered if the clay had a symbiotic
relation to the moss, each deriving stability and nutrients from one
another, changing its color and shape.

Photo Credit: Lisa Goodsell

We thought about how clay in this ecology invited Lisa to act.
Chadya mentioned if clay were perhaps on a table inside a center,
it may call us to crush, pound, squish or roll it. But clay within an
ecology near water may invite us to smoothen, mould, or wash
away pieces. Perhaps we don’t know what will happen until we are
in the middle of it happening.

Ecologies and Mapping
As we think about the complexities of ecology
relations, Chadya invited us to think with artist
Kim Stewart, whose works are composed of
counter-mapping. The idea of counter-mapping
was new to us. In thinking with the images of her
work, we discussed the anti-colonial influence in
her work. To us, we believe she is deconstructing
the boundaries and limitations of what mapping
is and covering it with beadwork that honors the
previous engagements before settler arrival. This
reminded us to think about the already present
relations of ecologies. Before we arrive or step
into these ecologies, other living beings are
already co-existing.

As we paused and lingered with these
images, many questions emerged. What do
maps say? Who has the power? What do
counter-mapping practices teach us about the
places, relations and ecologies we are living
in?
There was a lot of energy, patience and time
put into these pieces. Each bead delicately
placed to create these images on top. What is
our connection to land? How are we
transformed in thought by these lands?
Whose lands are they? We wondered why
she chose beads as her material for this
process. What did they represent?

https://www.instagram.com/kim.art4life/

The artist makes us wonder how can we
situate ourselves within the materials chosen.
What do they do to us? How do materials
make ecologies and how do ecologies make
materials?

Lisa invites us to think with the artist
Alana Hansen. Hansen creates
installations of Earth Art, consisting of
found materials, watercolor paintings and
photography.
Lisa is drawn to dwell with Hansen’s
methodology to material encounters as it
ties into the multiplicities of working in
ecologies. Her work pays homage to the
life cycles and interconnectedness of
beings. This immersive, spiritual and
vibrant (not just thinking of bold and
bright colors but the richness of natural
colors), and the agency of material within
these ecologies breathes life into her
pieces.
The ecologies of Forest, River, Ocean
Front, Shoreline and beyond all serve as a
meeting place for witnessing the
intricacies of life on this planet.
Website: https://www.alanahansen.art/

Images from: https://www.alanahansen.art/

Our discussion with Hansen’s work left us with questions. How do materials move
with and in ecologies, how are they situated in place? How are aesthetics at play in
ecologies - why do we feel drawn or choose one over another?

As our discussion step into ecologies,
Julia notes this work is “putting
something into motion” (Julia Tevelle,
personal communication, 2021) as
ecosystems play a role in Hansen’s
vision. We discuss the potential place
for truth and reconciliation in her
work, as she shows a salmon skeleton
living on into other plants as it’s bones
decompose. Although it may not be
“conventionally pretty” it still contains
an aesthetic component that draws us
into the piece. We feel Hansen’s work
is immersed within ecologies and their
ecosystems, provoking us to see art in
new ways and in new places.
Images from: https://www.alanahansen.art/

Aesthetics

What draws us into an aesthetic material processes?

Our dialogues with ecologies also inspired us to think about the word aesthetics and how it
plays a role within these ecologies. What makes an ecology aesthetic? How do we encounter
aesthetics in a material process? What are the limitations of aesthetics? Do aesthetics function
under certain conditions? These questions provoke us to further unravel romanticized discourses
around the idea of aesthetics and its relation to material encounters.
After collaborating with Sylvia from past group meetings, we invited the participants to engage
with artists who they found were aesthetically pleasing and bring forward images of their work.
Concepts such as art, beauty, creativity, color, tidiness and cleanliness emerged from our
dialogues as predominant language associated with material processes and artwork. This
provoked us to disrupt the conventional ties between art and beauty. We wonder if reconsidering
these ideas and proposing alternative understandings will foster a more inclusive approach to
our practices and relations with materials.

Aesthetics, Art and Making
What is art? What does the idea of art mean, signify and represent to us? How do our predetermined ideas and experiences with
art play an important role in our understandings of this idea?
We collectively expressed conflict within the idea art, as it brought about different lived experiences and sensations. Some felt it
came with the need for creativity, some felt the pressure of performance, some felt it only connects with particular materials and
some felt it is a distant discipline for learning. We heard comments such as “but I’m not artistic” or “ I can’t draw” coming from
our discussions. We wondered how these thoughts influenced the feelings and actions of educators when engaging with materials
in a center. There seemed to be a lot of hesitation and preconceived notions of where and how art belong with materials. We
wonder, why are art and materials so intimately interchanged? How are materials restricted when thought of as merely instruments
and tools for art?
One statement that emerged was “I’m not an artist”. This lead us to believe that the educators present in this dialogue think that a
person must have particular skills to make art, which might impede their desire to work with materials. However, we need
recognize that you don’t need to be an artist to engage with materials or artistic processes. We could begin to think of ourselves as
“makers” with materials instead of “artists”. This challenges us to broaden our scope of what it means to engage in artistic and
material processes. It opens up the idea to many relationalities and potentialities. Thus, not seeking a final result, which the
concept of artist may lead to, but investigating and welcoming the unknown, uncertain and unexpected in the making process.
Our dialogues unravel to thinking about the how the quality of relations, movements and sensations draws us into the aesthetics of
place, material and encounter. We wonder, in what ways do aesthetics invite us into experiences? This leads us to further
investigate the idea of aesthetic encounters and how they inspire us to work with materials and be part of artistic processes. We are
called us to think with aesthetics in ecologies, centers and with artists.

Aesthetics in Ecologies

Images from: https://www.alanahansen.art/

As we think with aesthetic encounters and revisit Alana Hansen and her Earth Art pieces, we are reminded of how
ecologies can inspire us to work with found materials. The aesthetics of where she is motivates and inspires how she
does and sees her artwork. The interconnectedness of her pieces provoke us to think how aesthetics played a role in
drawing her to these material encounters. Both the forest and oceanfront ecologies encourage her to act in particular
ways. It seems to us she is called to move differently by the aesthetic sounds, colors, textures and found materials in
each of these places. She leaves us wondering, how do aesthetics influence our material encounters?

The Power of Hidden Aesthetics
During our previous discussions about vibrant environments,
Isabela shared an experience from a busy afternoon in her 3-5
room. It was a transition in time between lunch and nap. The
room seemed loud and disorganized from her eyes. As she
moved towards the blocks area, she sees a lot of magnatiles
spread across the ground mingled with animals, paper and
wood pieces. Isabela noticed another educator, Julia close by.
Julia was engaging with children in what seemed to be a
“power” game, whoever held the power, would throw it at
someone else and without physical touch would impact the
other. Some would be frozen, some would fall to the ground,
some would become animals and so on. Isabela became
entangled in the dynamics of play and collectively decided
with Julia and the children to create a safe place to store this
“power”. As Isabela continued to elaborate on her experience
and the pictures she shared, it alluded to what appeared to be a
hidden aesthetic moment.
Images from: Isabela Lima

As we reflect on this experience we dwell
with the idea of a disorganized material
event, full of magnatiles on the ground and
disrupted encounters. We discuss the chaos
Isabela felt while this event unfolded, as there
were many moving pieces and bodies. When
children became enthused around the idea of
passing an invisible power through the air to
one another, a collective agreement to build a
house to hold the power was made. Children
passed the power to Isabela to carefully hold
as they were constructing and their bodies
would dance back and forth to peek at it.
Perhaps they wondered, how big was the
power? Would it fit in the house? What did it
look like?

Images from: Isabela Lima

As we discussed these images and the experience Isabela
brought forward, we wondered what makes an experience
aesthetic? Is it the color? The intention? The way materials
have been put out in a room? As we begin to deconstruct
the meaning of aesthetics, our focus is pulled to this photo.
At first, Isabela comments she doesn’t feel this photo is
aesthetic in any way. It makes her think how the moment
was messy and uncomfortable. There was no set up, no
vibrancy, she just liked the photo. But then we wondered
about how in this moment, Isabela herself had become
aesthetic. The children became drawn in by the event
created around the power, curious to uncover what was
hidden.

Images from: Isabela Lima

Working definitions:
Aesthetics (noun): Something that is, perhaps questioning what
makes something beautiful.
Aesthetics (adjective) : Something that describes, perhaps
beautiful, attractive, visually appealing.

In this experience, Isabela unintentionally became
aesthetic to this event. Children were enlivened by her and
the children’s movements towards the materials and the
hidden power.
This provoked us to think about aesthetics as a noun versus
an adjective. What is the difference? We also wondered
about relational aesthetics, where meanings are made in
the quality of relations.

Disrupting Aesthetics
As we continue to dwell with the definitions
of aesthetics we wonder if there a set criteria
for aesthetics? In one of our collective
provocations, Isabela brought forward this
artist as a way to describe the way she felt
about aesthetics. In a world where everything
is based in perfection, she sees value in
attuning to the reality of human existence.
Giovanni Caramello is a hyper realistic artist
that hopes to deconstruct permanence and
dominant standards around the human body
through time, life and death.
Words such as unconventional, beauty and
temporality emerge in our discussions. We
wonder why the troubling life events are not
conventionally considered
worthy
of
attention? Why aren’t they often found in
early childhood spaces? How does
temporality affect our vision of beauty?

As we thought about sculpture we had seen
in the past, Lisa immediately thought of an
angelic, smooth, white, emotionless piece
that were often idolized as a symbol of
beauty. However, Giovanni’s ability to
capture the human spirit invites us to reflect
on our own perception of life. We begin to
think about how these perceived imperfect
encounters become aesthetically pleasing as
we shift our perspectives. This change in
viewpoint invites us to challenge these
conventional norms of beauty.

Image from: https://www.hypeness.com.br/2016/03/cobertura-hypenessgiovani-caramello-apresenta-mais-obras-hiper-realistas-em-novaexposicao/

Color and Aesthetics
Is material aesthetics a whole body
experience?
As we continue to unravel the word aesthetics,
we wonder how closely our sense of sight is in
relation to this concept. After looking at
Giovanni’s sculptures that were posted in black
and white, we were challenged to think how we
observe and respond to aesthetics. We
wondered what this means to people who are
visually impaired. Does color matter in
aesthetics? We are provoked to think what role
sight plays in aesthetics and what happens
when we reduce aesthetics to particular
conditions. Does it become exclusive? This
leads us to linger with the idea of whole body
aesthetics; in which experiential influences of
sound, touch, taste, smell and movement may
participate in these encounters.

Images From: IG @giovannicaramello

Time
“How does time endure in bodies? How do different bodies
experience it differently? When we see time as becoming, as
duration, we can see that is doesn’t exist as an organizational
structure outside of, or regardless of, bodies. As duration, time is
particular to a body’s experience of it” (Pacini-Ketchabaw, Kind
and Kocher, 2017, p. 77).
Giovanni’s work propositions us to think with time. His life-like
sculptures invite connection as we re-encounter the realities of
life. Wrinkles, hair loss, color differences, and the emotional
drainage from years in this world. We are challenged to look at
ourselves, see ourselves and celebrate how time moves through
us. In a moment of existence captured through sculpting, earth
installations, marked paper or rejuvenation in soil, we are drawn
to encounter the aesthetics of life and its impermanence.
Image from:
https://www.hypeness.com.br/2016/03/coberturahypeness-giovani-caramello-apresenta-mais-obras-hiperrealistas-em-nova-exposicao/

The concepts art, aesthetics and beauty left us troubled
by the limitations and restrictions of conventional
standards around material and artistic processes. We
wonder how dominant culture has impacted our
understandings of these realities. In thinking with our
lived experiences, we are able to reflect on the
complexities entangled with(in) these ideas. We are
curious to learn more about the importance of
aesthetics, as it appeared to have shifted our
perspective in our material encounters. We come to see
aesthetics stretches beyond a visual component into
something that invites a whole body experience. When
attuning to our multiple sensations, we feel provoked
to further engage and investigate othered material
relations that are unnoticed. This refers to the sounds,
embraces, smells, tastes and quality relations present
in relational aesthetics.

Images from: Isabela Lima

*othered is referring to the marginalized ways of
conducting or engaging in material practices.

Material-Ecologies and Aesthetic-Material Encounters
Early childhood education is often focused on what we can do to materials. However, in a post-humanism perspective,
thinking shifts away from human-centeredness and invites us to think with the entanglements existing between human and more
than human entities. What becomes more interesting is to then think with the ecologies of materials and aesthetic-material
encounters. In this sense, we are attending to the living qualities of aesthetic encounters and forces that move together within
ecologies. Then, we must consider, how “we are moved by materials and are prompted by the materials’ own characteristics and
liveliness” (Pacini-Ketchabaw, Kind & Kocher, 2017, p. 26). As we wander into the intersectionality of material ecologies, we
can see that “nothing stands alone” (S. Kind, personal communication, January 20, 2021). We are provoked by material to move
with(in) diverse ecologies and are drawn into aesthetic experiences. There are particular ways of being that invite us to dwell,
sift, and linger in the troubles and tensions of these relations[SK1] .
To begin, we must think, what is an ecology versus an environment? An environment is a place where something
or someone grows and thrives. It has a strong connection to nature and is defined with particular attributes. For example, a forest
environment, has trees, perhaps a path, ferns, living animals, a place that is separate from us. An ecology[SK2] attunes to the
intersectionality of being within environment, it is a living network of relations. Ecologies “demand close attention, nourishment
and situated competencies” (Pacini-Ketchabaw, Kind and Kocher, 2017, p. 56). It goes beyond what it is and acknowledges the
forces that weave together in this place. To continue with the example of a forest, we can pay attention to the relationships
between things; trees give shelter, animals feed animals, wind blows leaves, earth rejuvenates with decomposing entities and
rainfall. Each part of this ecology plays a role in affecting another. Ecologies play an important role in understanding a materials
agency, as multiple places can lead to varying disruptions and tendencies. In a clay[SK3] -meets-river ecology, water and clay live
together simultaneously. Clay moulds and moves with water and water shapes and curves with clay. Clay is responsive to water,
as they influence each other’s movements within this ecology.

Material-ecologies invites us to think with movement in material. How is material shaped by its interactions with things? How
do materials dance together in these places? In. this sense, when with material and ecology, we are not doing something to a material
but rather we are being moved by the material as we are moving with it. There is a reciprocal relationship that moves much like a
swing, back and forth between two sides of the apparatus. An ecology is already living, breathing, moving and we are stepping into
these living relations as we are called to act in particular ways. This movement is agentic in the being of a material and speaks
through its essence. In this sense, the pathway of movement with material is not straightforward but dynamic in the process of
creating (Kind, 2010). Ingold (2013) refers to this act as one of correspondence. A back and forth that plays with each other in a
particular way. Materials ecologies provoke different ways of thinking (Kind, 2010).
One component of these interactions is that of aesthetic encounter. This invites us to respond to events in particular
ways. We are drawn in through the feel of something. By aesthetic, I am not only referring to visual intrigue [SK4] but one that touches
all senses with “…curiosity and wonder; it is the opposite of indifference and carelessness” (Vecchi, 2010, p. 5). It employs a
different way of seeing, doing, and engaging with something. As a word that is often held within rigid and fixed paradigms, aesthetic
encounters “require care, grace, attention, subtlety and humor, a mental approach going beyond the simple appearance of things to
bring out unexpected aspects and qualities” (Vecchi, 2010, p. 10). In thinking with these ideas of aesthetics, we can outstretch where
and how they take form. The way Clay-River Ecology conforms to one another, draws us in to touch the smoothness, see the
furrowed lines across the clay and delight in the sounds of this event.

Aesthetics is not stringent and definitive or set by a standard of what it is. Rather, aesthetics invites us to be “immersed
in the wholeness” (Olsson, Dahlberg and Theorell, 2016, p. 723) of the encounter. We are able to pause and attune to the
relational aesthetics of things. There is space to be mindful of the ins and outs of relations from an inside perspective. As such,
when aesthetics is placed in early childhood settings, we are activating potentialities and possibilities through provocations for
the mind and body (Olsson, Dahlberg and Theorell, 2016). By this, I mean to say we are not disconnected from things, merely
observing. Aesthetic encounters enchant us to be a part of something, in the middle or in the milieu of an event (PaciniKetchabaw, Kind and Kocher, 2017). As Vea Vecchi (2010) notes, this aesthetic sense is what guides our encounters across
multiple disciplines. As we pause, dwell, and listen to material, we can hear its “…many variances and proposals” (Kind,
Pacini-Ketchabaw, Vintimilla, 2018, p. 3). Thus, linking the art of aesthetic awareness to the ecologies in which we learn.
To think with materials is to think with ecologies and aesthetic encounters. It invites us attune to the living
relations of things and draws us in through sensorial pathways. It is in these events of material-ecology and aesthetic-material
encounters that we “sense how things dance together with one another” (Vecchi, 2010, p. 15). As we “fold inwards” (PaciniKetchabaw, Kind and Kocher, 2017) attuning to the intersectionality of being, we notice the ways place mingles with its
inhabitants. Through research and immersion, we continue to share why these relations matter.

Lingering Thoughts
As we approach a pause for this project, we look back over the intentions and dialogues we’ve had over
the duration of this inquiry. We feel enthused to continue thinking with the ideas that emerged from
working with the book and educators.
The image of materials, image of the educator, ecologies and aesthetics were the main concepts that
were generated in our discussions. These conversations led us to disrupt how to live well with
materials, attune to the role of educator and reimagine conventional languages. We are also drawn to
reframe the meanings of ecologies and renew perspectives around aesthetics within material processes.
We hope this inquiry invites those connected to the field to pause and linger with the multiple
possibilities of material encounters. How can we think differently about materials in early childhood
spaces? How do you invite materials in your space? How can we begin to unravel conversations that
disrupt these discourses? By engaging in this book study, we were able to collectively share
experiences and reflect on how these reshape our understandings with materials. Perhaps, early
childhood centers could reconsider their intentions behind material relations and their own hesitations
or limits with(in) those encounters.

As previously mentioned at the beginning of this inquiry, the COVID-19 pandemic has influenced the
way we work with materials, this being said, we are curious how this impacted our thoughts and may
have led us on a different trajectory. What would our findings and reflections be under different
circumstances? However, as we continue with this inquiry, we are left lingering with the questions as
follows. What cultures we are creating around material and how we can dismantle dominant
narratives? Who is the educator in relation to materials? What do ecologies put into motion? How do
materials make ecologies and how do ecologies make materials? How are aesthetics at play in
material encounters?
When thinking with our project experiences and the impermanence of the world, we sit in a place of
hope – a place that brings us to engage with regrowth, repurpose and renewal. These ruminations
inspire us to question what transformative change can take place with materials in early childhood
settings. We propose reimagining the image of the educator as a co-collaborator and researcher with
children, educators and materials. Then, we can begin to think how materials have a life of their own
and co-exist in relationships. This propels us to view materials as a protagonist in early childhood
settings, coming with their own stories, movements, resistances, responses and invitations. We suggest
paying close attention to the specificities of the ecologies in which materials are present and how
aesthetics can draw us into these moments of meeting. We pause in a place of hope for how our
findings can inspire this field in reconceptualizing ideas with material encounters.

Acknowledgements
We would like to express our gratitude to the following people for their participation, collaboration and
support throughout this inquiry. It has been a complex journey navigating an entirely online project during
such unprecedented circumstances. We look forward to seeing how this project may inspire and disrupt the
field of early childhood education and hope this inquiry continues to live among our future conversations.
We thank you for your time, patience and enthusiasm:
Sylvia Kind
Chadya Sirdar
Julia Tevelle
Zara McGrath
Amanda Davis
Ivy Lam
Our respective families

References
Barad, K.M. (2007) Meeting the Universe Halfway: quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
B.C. Ministry of Education. (2019). British Columbia early learning framework. Victoria, B.C.
Bunn, S. (2011). Materials in the making. In T. Ingold (ed.) Redrawing anthropology: Materials, movements, lines, pp. 21–32. Farnham, Surrey, UK: Ashgate.
Dahlberg, G., & Moss, P. (2005). Ethics and politics in early childhood education. London: Routledge Falmer.
Ingold, T. (2013). Making: anthropology, archeology, art, and architecture. New York: Routledge
Kind, S. (2010). Art encounters: Movements in the visual arts and early childhood education. In V. Pacini-Ketchabaw (Ed), Flows, rhythms, and intensities of early
childhood education curriculum, pp. 95-109. Rethinking Childhood series, New York: Peter Lang.
Kind, S.(2014).Material encounters. International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies, 5, 865-877.doi:10.18357/ijcyfs.kinds.5422014

Kind, S., Vintimillia, C. D & Pacini-Ketchabaw, V. (2018). Material choreographies: fabric as a living language of exchange. Innovations in Early Education: The
international Reggio exchange. 25(3), 40-51.
Liebe, J (2020, July 21st). Reignite your imagination with this amazing 45 minute workout. Jessica Leibe. URL: https://medium.com/@jess.leibe/reignite-yourimagination-with-this-amazing-45-minute-workout-f2e5477a7ff4
Material Encounters, Capilano University Studio Art Gallery, curated by Sylvia Kind, North Vancouver BC, March 2014, exhibition catalogue, 22 pages
Moss, P. (2019). Alternative narratives in early childhood: An introduction for students and practitioners. New York: Routledge
Olsson, L., Dalhberg, G., & Theorell, E. (2016). Displacing identity – placing aesthetics: early childhood literacy in a globalized world. Discourses: Studies in the
Cultural Politics of Education, 37, 717 – 738.
Pacini-Ketchabaw, Kind and Kocher. (2017). Encounters With Materials in Early Childhood Education. Routledge, New York.
Taguchi, Hillevi Lenz. (2010). Going Beyond Theory/Practice Divide in Early Childhood Education. New York: Routledge
Van Manen, M. (1997). Researching Lived Experience: Human Science for An Action Sensitive Pedagogy (2nd edition). London, Ontario
Vecchi, V. (2010). Art and Creativity in Reggio Emilia: Exploring the role and potential of ateliers in early childhood education. Routledge, New York.