Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttps://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ciey20

International Journal of Early Years Education

ISSN: 0966-9760 (Print) 1469-8463 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ciey20

Documentation panels: supporting youngchildren’s self-regulatory and metacognitiveabilities

Selda Aras & Feyza Tantekin Erden

To cite this article: Selda Aras & Feyza Tantekin Erden (2020) Documentation panels:supporting young children’s self-regulatory and metacognitive abilities, International Journal ofEarly Years Education, 28:1, 63-80, DOI: 10.1080/09669760.2019.1592743

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2019.1592743

Published online: 16 Mar 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1099

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 6 View citing articles

Documentation panels: supporting young children’sself-regulatory and metacognitive abilitiesSelda Aras a and Feyza Tantekin Erden b

aDepartment of Elementary Education, Başkent University, Ankara, Turkey; bDepartment of Elementary andEarly Childhood Education, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey

ABSTRACTIt is thought that our behavioural, social and intellectualdevelopment is fostered in early childhood alongside theacquisition of metacognitive and self-regulatory abilities. Thisqualitative investigation reports on how 11 children applied theseskills via pedagogical documentation. Participant observation andinterviews were used to gather data through documentationpanel activities over a period of seven weeks. Data were codedand analysed with reference to the Cambridge IndependentLearning (C.Ind.Le) framework. In this way, a specific application ofa pedagogical documentation process was observed for evidenceof how sharing time sessions and reflective dialogues withdocumentation panels supported children’s use of self-regulatoryand metacognitive abilities.

ARTICLE HISTORYReceived 23 May 2018Accepted 25 January 2019

KEYWORDSYoung children; pedagogicaldocumentation; self-regulation; metacognition

Introduction

Studies on pedagogical documentation, though few in number, confirm that it is a processthat supports children’s motivation, participation, self-awareness, mental processes, andreflection (Bath 2012; Buldu 2010; Rintakorpi and Reunamo 2016). Research assertsthat such processes foster children’s self-regulation and metacognition; consequently,the topic has recently begun to attract academic attention (Clark 2012; Rinaldi 2001).

Self-regulation and metacognition are vital to student learning and are considered tohave a ‘central role in influencing learning and achievement in school and beyond’ (Boe-kaerts and Cascallar 2006, 199). The literature offers key evidence of the influences of earlyself-regulatory and metacognitive abilities on developmental outcomes and short- andlong-term academic achievements (Blair and Razza 2007; Mitchell, Wylie, and Carr2008). These abilities contribute to children’s readiness for school and support theiracademic skills.

The study reported here has been inspired by the framework developed by Whitebreadet al. (2009) and early work by Flavell (1979) and Ann Brown (1987). Whitebread and col-leagues’model enabled researchers to consider self-regulation and metacognition together‘to recognise those parts of the model of self-regulation which draws heavily upon the cog-nitive tradition’ (Whitebread et al. 2009, 64). Metacognition forms the cognitive sides of

© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

CONTACT Selda Aras saras@baskent.edu.tr

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EARLY YEARS EDUCATION2020, VOL. 28, NO. 1, 63–80https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2019.1592743

self-regulation, which also involves affective, motivational, and social elements. Self-regu-lative abilities prompt children to attempt to monitor, regulate, and control their cogni-tion. Children with self- regulatory abilities engage in active roles in problem solvingprocesses. They are observed as individuals who are successful at expressing themselvesand have better self-evaluative skills. The development of self-regulation and metacogni-tion in children largely depends on the environment (Bronson 2000). Recent researchdraws parallels between documentation, as an approach that provides an appropriatelearning environment for reflection, and self-regulation, which emphasises active partici-pation in learning processes and reflection on one’s thinking (Clark 2012). The objective ofdocumentation is to build strong connections between the strategies deployed by childrenwhile they exercise self-regulation (Clark 2012).

Pedagogical documentation is a process-oriented learning and teaching method focus-ing on classroom interactions (Buldu 2010; Dahlberg, Moss, and Pence 1999; Rinaldi2001). During the process, teachers effectively listen to children, observe them, and takenotes and photographs that reflect learning experiences. Then, they prepare documen-tation panels to share what and how students learned; that sharing will support children’sself-esteem and awareness of learning (Edwards and Gandini 2001). Displayed documen-tation panels make children’s learning visible through photographs, quotations, artifacts,and teacher analysis. Panels focus on the student voice and work in a particular learningmoment (Kline 2008). Documentation panels may include projects, themes, specificevents or cases, themes from curriculum, acquisition of any skill or ability, learningenvironments, and developmental areas (Seitz 2008). Teachers design sharing timeswith panels and engage children into revisiting and reflecting on their learning in anevidence-based manner.

Significance of the study

The traditional view on self-regulation and metacognition is that young children developthese skills after the age of eight. Recent research, however, has challenged this position onboth methodological and theoretical grounds by exploring the development of self-regu-lation at younger ages (Bronson 2000). Studies investigating self-regulation and metacog-nition among young children has been an area of research in recent years.

Whitebread et al. (2007) argue that metacognitive abilities developed in the early yearsmay have been minimally reported because of the reliance on experimental laboratorystudies and children’s self-reports. However, the limited number of observationalstudies have shown that young children have the potential to exhibit self-regulation andmetacognition. Recent research utilises more age-appropriate methodologies based onnaturally occurring classroom observations to identify self-regulatory and metacognitiveabilities in the early years. For instance, three-year-old children have monitored theirbehaviours while solving a problem, and four-year-old children have demonstrated meta-cognitive abilities (Sperling, Walls, and Hill 2000). Children who are given time to performopen-ended activities and make their decisions independently tend to engage in self-regu-lated learning such as self-evaluations and problem solving (Perry and Drummond 2002).Robson (2010) also engaged with children in reflective dialogue about their completedactivities and tasks and found that children displayed more evidences of self-regulationafter they completed activities. Zachariou and Whitebread (2015) explored 6-year-old

64 S. ARAS AND F. T. ERDEN

children’s self-regulation during musical play through observation and found that musicalplay provided an opportunity for children’s self-regulation. In their observational studyPerry et al. (2002) found the evidences of self-regulation in young children and empha-sised on the role of teacher–child interactions. While it is clear that metacognitive andself-regulatory abilities are vital for children’s early behavioural, social, and intellectualdevelopment, the emergence and development of these abilities are yet to be sufficientlyinvestigated and, therefore, are subject to new evidence in the field (Bronson 2000; White-bread et al. 2009). In particular, more observational studies on children in naturalistic con-texts are warranted (Whitebread et al. 2009).

Pedagogical documentation naturally provides opportunities for children to reflect ontheir thinking and learning. Its philosophical framework is based on making childrenreflect on what and how they have learned. The physical and psychosocial environmentsuggested by pedagogical documentation meets the conditions required to promote theself-regulatory and metacognitive abilities of children. This study combines the two con-cepts by investigating self-regulation and metacognition through the process of pedagogi-cal documentation. The importance of self-regulation and metacognition in the early yearshas been well recognised (Bronson 2000; Robson 2010). In fact, recent studies have calledfor programmes and interventions that can foster these abilities in young children (Daily2013; Diamond and Lee 2011; Hughes 2011). Pedagogical documentation, by nature, canplay a vital role in meeting this objective. This study examines its potential in an explora-tory manner within a naturalistic context. The aim of this study is to explore young chil-dren’s self-regulatory and metacognitive abilities during their pedagogical documentationpractices. The research questions are:

. How do sharing times and reflective dialogues within documentation panel practicessupport young children to demonstrate their self-regulatory and metacognitiveabilities?

. To what extent do young children demonstrate self-regulatory and metacognitive abil-ities through sharing times and reflective dialogues within documentation panelpractices?

Method

Research design

A qualitative exploratory research design was utilised to investigate early self-regulationand metacognition in documentation practices (Yin 2014).

Participants

We used purposeful sampling methods to identify ‘intensity-rich cases that manifest thephenomenon intensely, but not extremely’ (Patton 2002, 243). We also used primary cri-terion sampling to include cases with predetermined criteria (Patton 2002). This researchrequired an early childhood teacher, familiar with pedagogical documentation practices.The study was set in a kindergarten classroom located in a school on a state universitycampus in Ankara, Turkey. The age group of children was in the range of 48–60 months.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EARLY YEARS EDUCATION 65

The teacher selected for this study was a participant in a longitudinal research projecton pedagogical documentation. At the time of the study, the teacher had a year’s experi-ence in in-service teacher training on pedagogical documentation. She had attended semi-nars, workshops, and in-class trainings on the topic. The teacher had 12 children in theclassroom, of whom 11 participated in the study. One child was excluded because thechild’s family refused to grant permission to participate.

Data collection methods

In this study, the sharing times in the documentation panel cycle and the reflective dialo-gues that strengthen these sharing times were used as data sources. Sharing is an importantpart of the documentation panel cycle where children and teachers share their learningexperiences within documentation panels. Teachers organise sharing times in front ofpanels to allow children to reflect on and revisit their learning experiences. Throughoutthis process teachers engaged children in reflective dialogues to foster children’s thinkingabout their learning experiences.

Video-based observationsSeven sharing-time sessions linked to documentation panels were observed and video-recorded throughout the academic semester. The themes and content were selected bythe teacher. We regularly interacted with the teacher, who shared her weekly scheduleat the beginning of each week. We visited the classroom for each sharing-time sessionand conducted participatory observations on the teacher led sharing time sessions.

Reflective dialoguesInterviews with each child were based on the documentation panel. Each interview was ledwith one of the researchers. The interviews were called documentation-stimulated reflec-tive dialogues since the objective was to ask children reflective questions on their experi-ences (Robson 2010).

We used digital recorders to record the documentation-stimulated reflective dialogues.The following are some of the questions posed to the participants: ‘What can you tell meabout the activities on the panel?’ ‘Are you pleased with what you and your friends did?’ ‘Isthere any task that you would want to perform again?’ ‘Do you think anything was hard oreasy?’ The children were also asked to explain the reasoning behind their answers. Reflec-tive dialogues were audio-recorded (Table 1).

Data analysis

Data were analysed using the Cambridgeshire Independent Learning (C.IND.LE) frame-work, developed for identifying indicators of metacognition and self-regulation amongyoung children (Whitebread et al. 2007, 2009) (Appendix A). The observation frameworkincluded a detailed description of verbal and nonverbal behaviours under three key areasof self-regulation and metacognition: (1) metacognitive knowledge, which pertains to theknowledge of persons, tasks, and strategies; (2) metacognitive regulation, which refers tochildren’s cognitive processes during task completion; and (3) emotional and motivational

66 S. ARAS AND F. T. ERDEN

regulation, which is defined as monitoring and controlling emotions and motivationduring tasks (Whitebread et al. 2009).

Children’s self-regulatory and metacognitive abilities were observed during the sharing-time sessions and reflective dialogues were conducted with each child based on documen-tation panels. Transcripts of video data obtained during the sharing sessions andtranscripts of audio data during the reflective dialogues were analysed using the codingframework.

Trustworthiness and transferability

A pilot study was conducted to determine the relevance of the procedure. Expert deb-riefing was also used to ensure the credibility of the data. The creator of the codingscheme was consulted as needed, such as for difficulties in categorisation of cases. Inaddition, an early childhood education expert, specialised in pedagogical documentation,self-regulation, and metacognition, checked the coding procedure of the study.

Two coders analysed this study’s data and inter-coder agreement was achieved asfollows. First, the researcher and the recoder separately analysed the data based on thecoding scheme. When they finished, they came together and controlled each other’scoding. The differences between the two analyses were discussed, and the process wasrepeated until an agreement rate of 91% was achieved. In those cases where the researcherand the recoder could not agree, the disputed data were eliminated from the analysis andwere not included in the findings of the study.

Rich, detailed, and concrete descriptions were used to provide readers with a contextand help them draw out meanings and understandings (Patton 2002). Further, thisstudy used children’s quotations and nonverbal behaviours as examples and details oftheir social environment.

Ethical considerations

Research conducted with young children should employ high ethical and methodologicalstandards and a commitment to the well-being, protection and safety of children (Brady,Davey, and Shaw 2011). The participation of children in the study was controlled by a

Table 1. Sequence of data collection process.Weeks Collected data Time spent/Minutes

1st Sharing Time – AnimalsReflective Dialogues

24′35′

2nd Sharing Time – SeasonsReflective Dialogues

20′28′

3rd Sharing Time – MuseumReflective Dialogues

15′30′

4th Sharing Time – Ancient Human BeingsReflective Dialogues

24′28′

5th Sharing Time – Music and EmotionsReflective Dialogues

27′31′

6th Sharing Time – Human BodyReflective Dialogues

13′25′

7th Sharing Time – The ClockReflective Dialogues

16′24′

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EARLY YEARS EDUCATION 67

hierarchy of gatekeepers, responsible for the protection and safety of children such as anethics committee, parents, and experts (Hill et al. 2004).

Informed consent was obtained from the parents and it was ensured that parents wereinformed about the procedure and assured of complete confidentiality. A form confirmingvoluntary participation was also obtained from the teacher. The study was also approvedby the Ethics Committee of a state university in Ankara, Turkey.

The difficulty for researchers seeking to access children’s voices lie in both their datacollection and data analysis methods. In terms of our study, we did not seek to promptchildren for correct answers and focused on the reflective dialogues they engaged induring routine activities in class. Throughout, we sought to maintain a child-centredresearch approach. We believe we achieved this by offering children sufficient opportu-nities to express assent, dissent and views; considering the child’s willingness to partici-pate, and listening to the child (Flewitt 2005). Besides, the study did not utilise aninterventional approach. The observations that were recorded were the daily implemen-tations of the teacher. All children’s dialogues in this study were obtained with the per-mission of the teacher, parents, and the children themselves.

Findings

Seven sharing-time sessions with seven documentation panels were observed. Eachsharing-time session lasted for 15–40 min. After every session, the children wereinterviewed. They participated in reflective dialogues of 2–7 min. The childrenwere assigned codes: C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6, C7, C8, C9, C10, and C11 by theresearchers.

Tables 2 and 3 present the results of the study according to the C.Ind.Le Indicators.

Metacognitive knowledge

We found that sharing-time sessions involving documentation panels and the associatedreflective dialogues support children’s metacognitive knowledge because they enable chil-dren to recognise their own and others’ abilities and cognition. This covers children’sverbal and non-verbal behaviours related to the knowledge of persons, tasks, andstrategies.

Table 2. Frequency of overall total C.Ind.Le indicators—Sharing-times with documentation panels.Category name & behavior indicator P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 T

Metacognitive knowledgeKnowledge of persons 1 4 3 0 5 3 4 20Knowledge of tasks 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 3Knowledge of strategies 3 1 2 2 4 0 0 12

Metacognitive regulationPlanning 1 0 1 3 5 1 0 11Monitoring 16 2 3 9 14 7 10 61Control 8 0 6 2 10 3 2 31Evaluation 4 0 2 2 1 1 0 10

Emotional/Motivational regulationEmotional/Motivational monitoring 12 2 3 2 5 0 3 27Emotional/Motivational control 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 5

68 S. ARAS AND F. T. ERDEN

Knowledge of personsIt was observed that seeing their own activity sample or photograph on the panel encour-aged them to talk about the ‘self’, while seeing others’ samples helped them comment onothers’ thinking processes and refer to universal cognition. Children’s verbalizations oftheir knowledge of persons were generally observed during sharing times within theclassroom.

Some children verbalised their strengths or weaknesses in the context of learning andacademic skills. The excerpt below from sharing time on a panel about the human bodyshows the verbalisation of knowledge of persons. The children were shown an image of aperson sneezing, and this facilitated a discussion on why people sneeze and what the bodyexperiences while sneezing. Children reflected on their previous learning and engaged inthe discussion, demonstrating their metacognitive knowledge of universals such as‘Teacher, we also close our eyes when we sneeze.’ (C5) and ‘If you put salt in yourmouth and scatter it around, you sneeze.’ (C6).

During the sharing-time session involving the panel on museums, C11 commented onpeople’s universal cognition.

Teacher Why do we visit museums, I wonder?C11 Because of what they have there. We look around, see what they have there, and,

it’s like, we get excited to go. To see things like a dinosaur, insects, an old car, andanimals. We get excited when we look at them and see what they are; that’s whywe want to visit a museum.

The children were keen to display their personal knowledge and used their mental statevocabulary to comment on themselves; for example, ‘I don’t remember the reason (C1)’, or‘I don’t remember what music this is (C5)’. Children also demonstrated their knowledge oftheir preferences. For example, during a sharing session on the panel on music andemotions, C8 expressed his knowledge of self: ‘I did this because I like this kind ofmusic; oh yeah, rock music!’

The children also demonstrated their knowledge of others during sharing-time ses-sions. For example, when the class discussed why people used clocks, C8 cited hismother as an example: ‘To understand the time. But, my mum does not understand thetime. My mum gets tired [and sometimes she forgets what day it is].’

Table 3. Frequency of overall total C.Ind.Le indicators—reflective dialogues with documentationpanels.Category name & behaviour indicator P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 T

Metacognitive knowledgeKnowledge of persons 5 1 6 2 0 6 11 31Knowledge of tasks 1 0 5 2 1 0 4 13Knowledge of strategies 4 3 5 5 2 2 1 22

Metacognitive regulationPlanning 2 3 3 4 2 0 4 16Monitoring 1 3 1 2 5 5 2 19Control 1 1 2 1 2 0 0 7Evaluation 6 6 8 9 4 2 3 38

Emotional/Motivational regulationEmotional/Motivational monitoring 1 5 12 7 1 1 3 30Emotional/Motivational control 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EARLY YEARS EDUCATION 69

Moreover, children displayed and reflected on their metacognitive knowledge. Forexample, C6 pointed to the panel about animals and commented, ‘I started from thisbecause I don’t know any of these.’

In a reflective dialogue, C4 uttered the phrase ‘first human being’ while viewing thepanel on ancient human beings and explicitly expressed his capabilities: ‘When it is likethis… but I can move ahead easily without falling.’ Similarly, while talking about themuseum panel, C6 communicated his knowledge of his preferences and capabilities:‘Because now I can draw the dinosaur very well.’

Knowledge of tasksOf the three sub-categories under metacognitive knowledge, knowledge of tasks was the leastobserved ability. Typically, children demonstrated their knowledge of tasks by comparingtasks, judging the difficulty level, or rating the tasks on the basis of their previous knowledge.Using panels, children could simultaneously view their own products and those of theirpeers, which allowed them to draw conclusions about the similarities and differences. Forexample, during a sharing-time session on animals, C5 compared tasks and observed ‘Actu-ally, C1 and I did the same thing.’ C2 also expressed his knowledge of task in terms of differ-ences. During a sharing-time session on clocks, C2 mentioned, ‘I made a moon clock,because it is different from others.’ Similarly, during the reflective dialogues too, childrencompared tasks to display their knowledge: ‘I painted three glasses here. Everybodypainted one. Also, I made the most different dinosaur, a rainbow dinosaur’ (C6).

Children identified their challenges with the process and justified them. In particular,during reflective dialogues they mentioned the level of task difficulty. They also talkedabout elements they found simple or difficult. For example, while reflecting on one ofthe samples, C9 said, ‘Very easy; it was babies’ play’ [meaning a piece of cake].

Knowledge of strategiesProviding children the opportunity to explain their learning via documentation panelshelps them think aloud and reflect on the procedures and elements of the tasks. Specifi-cally, it allowed them to focus on the materials and methods used for the activity. Mostused the sharing times to demonstrate their knowledge of strategies and some alsoexplained the procedures involved in the activity and justified the use of their strategies.

On numerous occasions during the sharing-time sessions and reflective dialogues, thechildren’s observations revealed their strategic ideas. For example, referring to his drawingon the documentation panel, C4 explained that he had used lines to identify animals. Simi-larly, on the panel for ancient human beings, C2 explained why and how he used theselected materials. He constructed a man using play dough and listed the objects heused to make the man stand upright: ‘And, here is my human; these are its bones, ifnot for the bones, this couldn’t stand upright. We glued the string on its back, stuck itin the dough like this, and put it so it remained standing.’ Children also identified oppor-tunities to explain how they did or learned something.

Metacognitive regulation

Documentation panels prompted children to talk about their previous experiences withina visible context. Their educational discussions among themselves enabled them to

70 S. ARAS AND F. T. ERDEN

understand what was going on, monitor their peers, and make corrections as needed. Thecontent and process displayed on the panels also led children to review their learning andanalyse the processes critically.

Metacognitive regulation covers behaviours related to task-planning approaches as wellas the abilities of monitoring, controlling, and evaluating learning and outcomes. Of thethree categories, the highest number of indicators were observed and coded under the cat-egory of metacognitive regulation.

PlanningChildren talked about their previous experiences; when asked to explain a panel, they dis-cussed their activities and photographs. At the beginning of each sharing-time session, theteacher asked the children to think about what they would like to share about the activitiesin the documentation panel, and accordingly, the children planned the processes andactivities to be shared. For example, some children set sharing goals: ‘I will tell fromthis and this (pointing) colours’ (C10 on music and the emotions panel). ‘I will talkabout two things’ (C4 on the human body panel).

Children explained their decisions on how to proceed with the task. For example, in thesharing session on the Animals panel, C2 talked about the activities on the panel. AlthoughC2 was not present for one set of activities (i.e. create your own animal), he decided to talkabout the animal he imagined: ‘Since I was not here, I want to talk about the animal in mydream [thinking], “shark crab”… ’

Children also sought and collected the necessary resources during the sharing-time ses-sions and reflective dialogues. During a reflective dialogue on the panel on music andemotions, C4 wanted to find his sample and share his reflections and experiences:

Researcher C4, I can see something very colourful here.C4 Our teacher played some songs, and we showed which colour we felt on these

papers.Researcher Hmm, which colours did you feel?C4 Let me find its name first…

MonitoringMonitoring behaviours include self-commentary, reviewing task progress, checking one’sown or peers’ performances, and identifying errors. Children were mostly observed moni-toring during sharing times in the classroom with the whole class. The indicators formonitoring were observed less during reflective dialogues. Monitoring examples generallyentailed children verbally assessing their peers’ task progress and commenting on it, par-ticularly on the basis of errors. Children were also found to self-correct. For example, C6,based on his monitoring of the discussion on the human body panel, added to it by sharinghis thoughts as follows:

C5 If our heart stops beating, we would die.Teacher We can’t live, right? In order to breathe…C6 But the brain runs it, too.

An excerpt from the sharing-time session on the panel on clocks illustrated some moni-toring behaviours. For example, C10 and C2 displayed checking behaviours, including

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EARLY YEARS EDUCATION 71

error detection and self-checking their own performance. The panel included ancient andmodern clocks made by the children. The teacher asked the children to divide themselvesinto two groups: one group represented ancient clocks, and the other represented modernclocks:

C10 (to C2) You are an old clock.C2 My clock is being used now as well…Teacher Yes dear. C9, do you have more friends in this group or that one?C10 Oh, then I should go to this side (having decided after looking at his friends)

In the reflective dialogues, children mostly engaged in self-commentary. For example,while looking at a photograph on the panel on music, C5 was initially unable to recollectthe moment shown in the photograph but later she remembered: ‘What are we doingthere? I don’t remember. Ah, yes. We are painting these flags.’ Children reviewed theirprogress by tracking the completed and incomplete procedures:

Researcher Alright, do you have anything else to say?C2 It is finished.Researcher Thank you, dear C2.C2 Let me see if it is finished. Look here. I fixed our dinosaurs, planes, and tractors.

Here are the things early humans used and here are the things we have today.

ControlSeeking help was the most common form of controlling behaviour exhibited by the chil-dren. They sought help from their peers or the teacher when they were unable to recollectan item on the panels or from their previous learning experiences. As with monitoring,evidence of control behaviour was witnessed more often during sharing-time sessionsthan in reflective dialogues. Children asked questions such as ‘What was it?’ or ‘Whatwere we doing here?’ For example, in a sharing session on music and emotions, C10was unable to recollect part of the activity: ‘Here, I, ummm, which music was this?’

Children helped or guided their peers using clues, which is also an evidence of controlbehaviour. For example, C2 helped C1 by simply mentioning certain syllables:

C1 Oh yes, also here… (thinking)C2 Ma’am…Teacher Very good. You have done one of the mammals. Okay, you can also talk about the

animals you did yourself.

EvaluationChildren demonstrated evaluation abilities through comments that indicated that they hadthoughtfully reviewed their own learning. Reflective dialogues contained more evidence ofsuch behaviour. For example, C3 reflected on her task in the following words: ‘I was verysuccessful at this. Because I painted without leaving any blanks.’ C1 also reflected on herpanel activities for seasons: ‘There was a mistake, I erased it. And, I mixed these two there.’

Children also evaluated the strategies they used during their tasks. For example, C6made the following comments about his activity and the rationale for his strategy:

Researcher What are the qualities of your human? How do we know that it is an earlyhuman?

72 S. ARAS AND F. T. ERDEN

C6 Because his hair is long like the sun.Researcher Long like the sun? Why is it long?C6 So that it becomes an early human. I made it different.

Documentation panels provided children with the opportunity to review their learn-ing and become aware of what they have learnt. For example, C7 justified his favouriteactivity as follows: ‘I learned the names of animals I like the most (which is the reason forhis favourite activity).’ We also found evidence of children reviewing task performanceand evaluating their learning during sharing-time sessions in the classroom. Their evalu-ations contained both personal and general comments. For instance, C5 mentioned: ‘Ifelt pink during the belly dance music because it felt a bit strange; but still, I felt mypink.’ Excerpts from C11 and C7’s evaluations below are examples of more generalcomments:

C7 How many people made the dinosaur museum? How many made the car museum?We should have counted it and written the numbers. There could be votes accordingto that. We would understand who was naughty, who was not naughty? (commentingon how to improve a panel activity)

C11 If our friends behaved nicely, it would be better…

The students also verbalised the parts that were difficult or easy to do, which served as anindicator of their evaluation ability:

C9 I didn’t have any difficulty in any of them. But, I had difficulty in two of these activities.C5 I had difficulty with this. And, cutting it gave me a bit of trouble.

Emotional and motivational regulation

Documentation process helps children to share their emotional and motivational experi-ences and supports the development of their ability to do so. Children are presented withevidence of their activities in class and then encouraged to express their feelings about. Thedata have been shown to support children’s learning and to facilitate the acquisition ofimportant emotional and motivational regulation skills.

Emotional and motivational monitoringThis category involves children expressing their awareness about their emotional percep-tions of a task. It also includes children’s monitoring of emotional reactions while per-forming a task. During sharing-time sessions and reflective dialogues, the childrenexhibited similar behaviours of emotional and motivational monitoring. They specificallyhighlighted the part of the panel that they wanted to share with the researcher or theirpeers. For instance, C8 said, ‘I want to talk about my own [activity].’ A noteworthyfeature of the children’s comments was their emotional reactions to their peers’ samplesand activities shown on the documentation panels. They assessed their emotional experi-ences regarding the documentation panels as follows: ‘This is really nice and colourful (C3on C10’s activity).’ ‘I like this one the most, C2’s (C10).’

Children also monitored their emotions during the sharing-time sessions and reflectivedialogues. For example, C5 communicated her feelings in a discussion on the documen-tation panel about ancient human beings:

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EARLY YEARS EDUCATION 73

Teacher, if lived in a cave, I would feel scared, sad, and hurt. The cave gets very dark at nightand what if there is a bear inside? I am very scared of bears, and I don’t like the shape of caves.

Other common references to emotional states pertained to children’s emotional experi-ences while performing activities.

Emotional or motivational controlEmotional and motivational control involves behavioural expressions aimed at regulatingemotions and motivation while performing a task.

The children maintained their focus and resisted distractions during the sharing-timesessions and reflective dialogues. Further, they changed what they wanted to share aboutthe activities on the panels, thus highlighting their motivations or emotions as follows:

C10 This is the early people’s cave. Here, they are making a fire. And here, they builta stone wheel.

Researcher Tell me…was there an activity that you had difficulty in?C10 There is no activity I had difficulty in. But, let me tell you this. The early human

lit a fire here. And cut the animal, a rhinoceros, with a spear. Its horn is broken.Then, he built the fire, cooked it, and ate it. (panel on ancient human beings)

We also found a few examples of children encouraging their peers, especially in thesharing-time sessions: By the way, won’t you talk about the animal in the create-your-own-animal activity that got your attention the most?’ (C5).

Discussion and implications

In line with Rinaldi (2006) and Clark’s (2012) claims, this study suggests that pedagogicaldocumentation enables children to demonstrate self-regulative and metacognitive abilities.According to Rinaldi (1998, 122), ‘documentation supports children’s memory, offeringthem the opportunity to retrace their own processes, to find confirmation of negation,and to self-correct’. Similarly, Dahlberg, Moss, and Pence (1999, 148) explained that ped-agogical documentation was closely related to both process and content: ‘Pedagogicaldocumentation involves the use of material as a means to reflect upon the pedagogicalwork … That reflection will be done … with others [other teachers, children, and parents]’.

The results of this study critically support these claims, as the children rethought andreflected on their tasks. In line with Sparrman and Lindgren’s (2010) and Pettersson’s(2015) arguments, documentation panel produced visibility, helping children to be seen,consulted and heard. Further, the externalisation of children’s words, artefacts, andphotos enabled them to articulate their experiences. The teacher and children used docu-mentation tools along with these visual artefacts to improve the quality of discussion andreflection.

Documentation practices are generally proposed as a tool for educational dialogue, dis-cussion, and participation in evaluation (Pettersson 2015). This study showed that as chil-dren experienced documentation panel activities; they interpreted, critiqued, andevaluated both their peers and themselves. Further, they co-constructed judgments,which is in line with Moss and Dahlberg’s (2008) findings. This reflective manner ofinstruction is a critical way to support children’s self-regulation and metacognition(Larkin 2010). The reflective practices of documentation used in this study enabled the

74 S. ARAS AND F. T. ERDEN

children to display their self-regulatory and metacognitive abilities by expressing whatthey know, what and how they learned, and what they know about their learning.Other studies have also documented evidence of young children’s early expressions ofmetacognition when provided with a meaningful environment (Whitebread andColtman 2010).

When the aspects of self-regulation and metacognition were critically examined, chil-dren displayed indicators of metacognitive knowledge in reflective dialogues, especially theknowledge of tasks and strategies. This finding is consistent with Robson’s (2010, 2016)results that demonstrated the reflective dialogue between an adult and the child encour-aged children’s expression of metacognitive knowledge. Findings indicated that childrendisplayed more examples of monitoring and control under the category of metacognitiveregulation during sharing times. Peer interaction may account for this finding. Childrenwere more likely to check each other’s performance, listen to their peers’ critiques andevaluations, and make comments on these cases, which are indicators of monitoring.Peer interaction also enabled children to seek help and help or guide their peers, whichare indicators of control. But children also demonstrated incidents of monitoring andcontrol in reflective dialogues as well. However, the types of behaviour descriptionsaccounts for this difference. While children mostly self-commented during reflective dia-logues, they displayed more indicators of monitoring and control when it came to generalevaluations during sharing times. These indicators depended on shared thinking.

In this study, children demonstrated self-regulatory and metacognitive abilities duringtheir documentation panel activities. In the sharing-time sessions, children engaged inshared thinking (c.f., Robson 2010), which supports self-regulation and metacognitionin young children. This process is highlighted in Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural perspec-tive explaining the critical role of social interaction in promoting these skills.

Documentation allows children to present their mental images to their peers anddevelop a more conscious vision. They move from one experience to another andreflect on these shifts. It also encourages richer evaluations by allowing children tolisten and to be heard through reciprocal interaction (Rinaldi 2006). The findings ofthis study support Rinaldi’s emphasis on the role of documentation in metacognitive pro-cesses. Rinaldi also highlighted how photographs, artefacts, and notations aid memory inlearning processes and environments. This study responds to Rinaldi’s (2006) call formore observational studies. It confirms that documentation tools encouraged children’smemory and metacognitive thinking and allowed children to interpret their thinkingprocesses.

The documentation panels also encouraged interpersonal and intrapersonal communi-cation by offering children opportunities for reflection. The context provided by docu-mentation practices promotes the values of group interaction and discussion. Reflectivedialogues confirmed the value of discussing children’s reasoning, which was also high-lighted by Robson (2016). The findings of this study also support the notion that childrencan express metacognitive thought while they practice it. Reflective questions triggeredbroad metacognitive thought and encouraged the children to reflect on their strategiesfor performing tasks and stimulated self-explanation for self-regulation and metacogni-tion. Furthermore, asking children to articulate their thinking process during the taskand recognising the importance of revision itself supported metacognition and self-

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EARLY YEARS EDUCATION 75

regulation (Darling-Hammond et al. 2003). The teacher’s feedback on redirecting andrevising their learning allowed children to revisit their work with greater understanding.

In conclusion, it is found that young children practicing documentation panel activitiesdemonstrate self-regulatory and metacognitive skills. In addition, young children whoshare their learning paths and experiences using multiple language tools provide reflectiveresponses. The ‘visibility, legibility, and share ability’ (Rinaldi 2001, 52) of documentationtools facilitate self-regulation and metacognition even in early childhood.

This study aims to contribute to the research on young children by examining twoimportant and little-studied phenomena and the relationship between them. Researchemphasises the need for development of self-regulation and metacognition in earlyyears (Bronson 2000; Robson 2010). In addition, recent studies have called for researchon programmes and implementations that will foster self-regulation and metacognition(Daily 2013; Diamond and Lee 2011; Hughes 2011). Pedagogical documentation naturallyhas valuable potential to foster these concepts when used with young children. This studysearched for this potential in a qualitative manner using a natural context. This will enableeducators to examine the issue in detail and see what happens in actual early childhoodlearning environments.

The phenomena explored in this study are novel yet thought vital to the field of early child-hood education. It is therefore important to incorporate these topics in teacher education.

In this study, children’s self-regulatory and metacognitive abilities were analysed byusing a predetermined coding scheme. Although the scheme includes a variety of theelements discussed in the literature, the findings of the study are limited to the categoriesin the coding. We found that the scheme was very beneficial to analysing the data.However, with the increasing number of studies in the field, the issue remains to bestudied in a purely inductive and interpretive manner. Longitudinal studies that employgrounded theory to produce systematic findings will be of significant benefit to researchersand educators in the field.

Further research is also required to determine the contexts that promote children’s self-regulation and metacognition, and the factors that engender appropriate learning environ-ments. Besides, pedagogical documentation approach continues to gain worldwide atten-tion and more interventional studies are needed to investigate the effectiveness of thisapproach for children’s development and learning.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID

Selda Aras http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7285-0336Feyza Tantekin Erden http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6060-1877

References

Bath, C. 2012. “I Can’t Read it, I Don’t Know’: Young Children’s Participation in the PedagogicalDocumentation of English Early Childhood Education and Care Settings.” International Journalof Early Years Education 20 (2): 190–201.

76 S. ARAS AND F. T. ERDEN

Blair, C., and R. P. Razza. 2007. “Relating Effortful Control, Executive Function, and False BeliefUnderstanding to Emerging Math and Literacy Ability in Kindergarten.” Child Development78: 647–663.

Boekaerts, M., and M. Cascallar. 2006. “How Far Have We Moved Toward the Integration ofTheory and Practice in Self-Regulation?” Educational Psychology Review 18: 199–210.

Brady, L., C. Davey, and C. Shaw. 2011. Guidelines for Research with Children and Young PeopleGuidelines for Research with Children and Young People. London: Natural Children’s Bureau.

Bronson, M. B. 2000. Self-Regulation in Early Childhood: Nature and Nurture. New York: Guilford.Brown, A. L. 1987. “Metacognition, Executive Control, Self-Regulation and Other More Mysterious

Mechanisms.” InMetacognition, Motivation and Understanding, edited by F. E. Weinert, and R.H. Kluwe, 65–116. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Buldu, M. 2010. “Making Learning Visible in Kindergarten Classrooms: PedagogicalDocumentation as a Formative Assessment Technique.” Teaching and Teacher Education 26:1439–1449.

Clark, I. 2012. “Formative Assessment: Assessment is for Self-Regulated Learning.” EducationalPsychology Review 24: 205–249.

Dahlberg, G., P. Moss, and A. Pence. 1999. Beyond Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care.Postmodern Perspectives. London: Routledge.

Daily, Sarah. 2013. “Young Children’s Self-Regulated Learning and Supported Teacher-ChildInteractions: An Exploratory Study.” PhD diss., George Mason University.

Darling-Hammond, L., K. Austin, M. Cheung, and D. Martin. 2003. “Thinking About Thinking:Metacognition.” In The Learning Classroom: Theory into Practice: 157–172.

Diamond, A., and K. Lee. 2011. “Interventions Shown to Aid Executive Function Development inChildren 4 to 12 Years Old.” Science 333: 959–964.

Edwards, C. P., and L. Gandini. 2001. Bambini: The Italian Approach to Infant/Toddler Care.New York: Teachers College Press.

Flavell, J. H. 1979. “Metacognition and Cognitive Monitoring.” American Psychologist 34 (10): 906–911.

Flewitt, R. 2005. “Conducting Research with Young Children: Some Ethical Issues.” Early ChildDevelopment and Care 175 (6): 553–565.

Hill, M., J. Davis, A. Prout, and K. Tisdall. 2004. “Moving the Participation Agenda Forward.”Children & Society 18: 117–128.

Hughes, C. 2011. “Changes and Challenges in 20 Years of Research into the Development ofExecutive Functions.” Infant and Child Development 20: 251–271.

Kline, L. S. 2008. “Documentation Panel: The ‘Making Learning Visible’ Project.” Journal of EarlyChildhood Education 29: 70–80.

Larkin, S. 2010. Metacognition in Young Children. London: New York: Routledge.Mitchell, L., C. Wylie, and M. Carr. 2008. Outcomes of Early Childhood Education. Literature

Review. Report to the Ministry of Education. Wellington: NZCER.Moss, P., and G. Dahlberg. 2008. “Beyond Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care –

Languages of Evaluation.” New Zealand Journal of Teachers’ Work 5 (1): 3–12.Patton, M. Q. 2002. Strategic Themes in Qualitative Inquiry. Qualitative Research & Evaluation

Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Perry, N., and L. Drummond. 2002. “Helping Young Students Become Self-Regulated Researchers

and Writers.” The Reading Teacher 56: 298–310.Perry, N. E., K. O. VandeKamp, L. K. Mercer, and C. J. Nordby. 2002. “Investigating Teacher-

Student Interactions that Foster Self-Regulated Learning.” Educational Psychologist 37 (1): 5–15.Pettersson, K. E. 2015. “Children’s Participation in Preschool Documentation Practices.” Childhood

22 (2): 231–247.Rinaldi, C. 1998. “Projected curriculum constructed through documentation: Progettazione.” In

The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia approach—Advanced reflections, editedby C. Edwards, L. Gandini, and G. Forman, 113–126. Westport, CT: Ablex.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EARLY YEARS EDUCATION 77

Rinaldi, C. 2001. “Documentation and Assessment: What is the Relationship?” InMaking LearningVisible: Children as Individual and Group Learners, edited by C. Giudici, C. Rinaldi, and M.Krechevsky, 78–90. Reggio Emilia, Italy: Reggio Children.

Rinaldi, C. 2006. In Dialogue with Reggio Emilia: Listening, Researching and Learning. New York:Routledge.

Rintakorpi, K., and J. Reunamo. 2016. “Pedagogical Documentation and its Relation to EverydayActivities in Early Years.” Early Child Development and Care 187 (11): 1611–1622. doi:10.1080/03004430.2016.1178637.

Robson, S. 2010. “Self-Regulation and Metacognition in Young Children’s Self-Initiated Play andReflective Dialogue.” International Journal of Early Years Education 18 (3): 227–241.

Robson, S. 2016. “Are there Differences Between Children’s Display of Self-Regulation andMetacognition when Engaged in an Activity and When Later Reflecting on it?: TheComplementary Roles of Observation and Reflective Dialogue.” Early Years 36 (2): 179–194.

Seitz, H. 2008. “The Power of Documentation in the Early Childhood Classroom.” Young Children63 (2): 88–93.

Sparrman, A., and A. Lindgren. 2010. “Visual Documentation as a Normalizing Practice: A NewDiscourse of Visibility in Preschool.” Surveillance & Society 7 (3): 248–261.

Sperling, R. A., R. T. Walls, and L. A. Hill. 2000. “Early Relationships among Self-RegulatoryConstructs: Theory of Mind and Preschool Children’s Problem-Solving.” The Child StudyJournal 30: 233–252.

Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Whitebread, D., S. Bingham, V. Grau, D. Pino Pasternak, and C. Sangster. 2007. “Development ofMetacognition and Self-Regulated Learning in Young Children: The Role of Collaborative andPeer-Assisted Learning.” Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology 6: 433–455.

Whitebread, D., and P. Coltman. 2010. “Aspects of Pedagogy Supporting Metacognition andMathematical Learning in Young Children; Evidence from an Observational Study.” TheInternational Journal on Mathematics Education 42 (2): 163–178.

Whitebread, D., P. Coltman, D. Pino Pasternak, C. Sangster, V. Grau, S. Bingham, Q. Almeqdad,and D. Demetriou. 2009. “The Development of Two Observational Tools for AssessingMetacognition and Self-Regulated Learning in Young Children.” Metacognition and Learning4 (1): 63–85.

Yin, R. 2014. Case Study Research Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Zachariou, A., and D. Whitebread. 2015. “Musical Play and Self-Regulation: Does Musical Play

Allow for the Emergence of Self-Regulatory Behaviours?” International Journal of Play 4 (2):116–135.

Appendix A

C.Ind.Le Coding Scheme: Verbal and Nonverbal Indicators of Metacognition and Self-Regulationin 3- to 5-Year-Olds

Category Name Description of behaviour ExamplesMetacognitive KnowledgeKnowledge of personsA verbalisation demonstrating theexplicit expression of one’s knowledgein relation to cognition or people ascognitive processors. It might includeknowledge about cognition in relationto:

Refers to his/her own strengths ordifficulties in learning and academicworking skills

Refers to others’ strengths or difficultiesin learning and academic workingskills

I can write my nameI can count backwardsI don’t know how to sing the song

(Continued )

78 S. ARAS AND F. T. ERDEN

Continued.Category Name Description of behaviour Examples- Self: Refers to own capabilities,

strengths and weaknesses, oracademic/ task preferences;comparative judgments aboutown abilities

– Others: Refers to others’processes of thinking or feelingtoward cognitive tasks

– Universals: Refers to universals ofpeople’s cognition

Talks about general ideas aboutlearning

Knowledge of tasksA verbalisation demonstrating theexplicit expression of one’s own long-term memory knowledge in relation toelements of the task.

Compares across tasks identifyingsimilarities and differences

Makes a judgment about the level ofdifficulty of cognitive tasks or ratesthe tasks on the basis of pre-established criteria or previousknowledge

They need to put their boots on. Andwhen they put their boots on, theydig a hole

Knowledge of strategiesA verbalisation demonstrating theexplicit expression of one’s ownknowledge in relation to strategiesused or performing a cognitive task,where a strategy is a cognitive orbehavioural activity that is employedso as to enhance performance orachieve a goal.

Defines, explains or teaches others howshe/he has done or learnedsomething

Explains procedures involved in aparticular task

Evaluates the effectiveness of one ormore strategies in relation to thecontext or the cognitive task

We don’t need to use the sticky tape,we can use the glue

You have to point it up this end so thatit is going to grow

Metacognitive RegulationPlanningAny verbalisation or behaviour relatedto the selection of proceduresnecessary for performing the task,individually or with others.

Sets or clarifies task demands andexpectations

Allocates individual roles andnegotiates responsibilities

Sets goals and targetsDecides on ways of proceeding with thetask

Seeks and collects necessary resources

I’m going to make a big circleI know…me and Harry could be theknights and you could be thepeasant

Child compares two objects beforedeciding which to use on task

MonitoringAny verbalisation or behaviour relatedto the ongoing on-task assessment ofthe quality of task performance (of selfor others) and the degree to whichperformance is progressing towards adesired goal.

Self-commentatesReviews progress on task (keeping trackof procedures currently beingundertaken and those that have beendone so far)

Rates effort on-task or rates actualperformance

Rates or makes comments on currently(sic) memory retrieval Checksbehaviours or performance, includingdetection of errors

Self-correctsChecks and/or corrects performance ofpeer

I think we’ve got one leftThis bit doesn’t fit anywhereHang on, we’ve got it a bit wrong hereChild stops mid-way through anaction (placing puzzle piece),pauses and redirects action to placeit somewhere else

ControlAny verbalisation or behaviour relatedto a change in the way a task had beenconducted (by self or others), as aresult of cognitive monitoring.

Changes strategies as a result ofprevious monitoring

Suggests and uses strategies in order tosolve the task more effectively

Applies a previously learnt strategy to anew situation

Let’s have a practiceCan you help me do it?Child points to spots on a die as hecounts

Child looks at a physical model(example: word on whiteboard)

(Continued )

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EARLY YEARS EDUCATION 79

Continued.Category Name Description of behaviour Examples

Repeats a strategy in order to check theaccuracy of the outcome

Seeks helpUses nonverbal gesture as a strategy tosupport own cognitive activity

Copies from or imitates a model Helpsor guides another child using gesture

repeatedly while completing a taskChild points at computer screen orinteractive whiteboard to indicatewhere another child should clickthe mouse

EvaluationAny verbalisation or behaviour relatedto reviewing task performance andevaluating the quality of performance(by self or others).

Reviews own learning or explains thetask

Evaluates the strategies usedRates the quality of performanceObserves or comments on task progressTests the outcome or effectiveness of astrategy in achieving a goal

He’s done really wellWe learnt how to cut, and how to stickthings together

Child rotates scissors in hands whileopening and closing them beforeinitiating cutting activity

Emotional and Motivational RegulationEmotional/motivational monitoringAny verbalisation or behaviour relatedto the assessment of the currentemotional and motivationalexperiences regarding the task.

Express awareness of positive ornegative emotional experience of atask

Monitors own emotional reactionswhile being on a task

That wasn’t very niceIt’s a bit sadI don’t want to be a peasant

Emotional/motivational controlAny verbalisation or behaviour relatedto the regulation of one’s emotionaland motivational experiences while ontask.

Controls attention and resistsdistraction or returns to task aftermomentary distraction

Self-encourages or encourages othersPersists in the face of difficulty orremains in task without help

Mine is going to be a lovely oneChild looks towards activity of othersin the classroom, then re-focuses ontask at hand and resumes activity

80 S. ARAS AND F. T. ERDEN

<< /ASCII85EncodePages false /AllowTransparency false /AutoPositionEPSFiles false /AutoRotatePages /PageByPage /Binding /Left /CalGrayProfile () /CalRGBProfile (Adobe RGB 50199851) /CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated 50SWOP51 v2) /sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Error /CompatibilityLevel 1.3 /CompressObjects /Off /CompressPages true /ConvertImagesToIndexed true /PassThroughJPEGImages false /CreateJobTicket false /DefaultRenderingIntent /Default /DetectBlends true /DetectCurves 0.1000 /ColorConversionStrategy /sRGB /DoThumbnails true /EmbedAllFonts true /EmbedOpenType false /ParseICCProfilesInComments true /EmbedJobOptions true /DSCReportingLevel 0 /EmitDSCWarnings false /EndPage -1 /ImageMemory 524288 /LockDistillerParams true /MaxSubsetPct 100 /Optimize true /OPM 1 /ParseDSCComments false /ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true /PreserveCopyPage true /PreserveDICMYKValues true /PreserveEPSInfo false /PreserveFlatness true /PreserveHalftoneInfo false /PreserveOPIComments false /PreserveOverprintSettings false /StartPage 1 /SubsetFonts true /TransferFunctionInfo /Remove /UCRandBGInfo /Remove /UsePrologue false /ColorSettingsFile () /AlwaysEmbed [ true ] /NeverEmbed [ true ] /AntiAliasColorImages false /CropColorImages true /ColorImageMinResolution 150 /ColorImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleColorImages true /ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /ColorImageResolution 300 /ColorImageDepth -1 /ColorImageMinDownsampleDepth 1 /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeColorImages true /ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterColorImages false /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /ColorACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.90 /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2] >> /ColorImageDict << /QFactor 0.40 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 15 >> /JPEG2000ColorImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 15 >> /AntiAliasGrayImages false /CropGrayImages true /GrayImageMinResolution 150 /GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 300 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages false /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.90 /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2] >> /GrayImageDict << /QFactor 0.40 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 15 >> /JPEG2000GrayImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 15 >> /AntiAliasMonoImages false /CropMonoImages true /MonoImageMinResolution 1200 /MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Average /MonoImageResolution 300 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict << /K -1 >> /AllowPSXObjects true /CheckCompliance [ /None ] /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile (None) /PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier () /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName () /PDFXTrapped /False /Description << /ENU () >>>> setdistillerparams<< /HWResolution [600 600] /PageSize [595.245 841.846]>> setpagedevice