Hi Peter. I wanted to join in the discussion in the ways you are
suggesting, so I read Kathryn's account this morning. To start with an
engaged and appreciative response, I like the way it draws me in as a
reader. The account starts by declaring the author's surprise that theory
can be living and then, it seems to me, goes on to demonstrate in a living
(developmental and dynamic) way what she understands by living theory. Her
account reveals a dialectical educational process and subsequent
theorising. I like the way she weaves her educational values in with her
questioning and finding solutions. She interrogates her own findings, using
the logic of question and answer. She says she believes in empowerment
through dialogue and then I see her developing that with her pupils. The
logic she uses, transparent and dialectical, makes me realise how useful
this document would be as an example to offer my colleagues in China, who
sometimes find it difficult to theorise from practice or indeed accept that
as a way of conceiving and developing educational knowledge.

In terms of her evidence-based claims. Her account expresses its parameters
clearly in terms of what she's aiming to do and what she isn't attempting
to do. I find her claims and justifications reasonable throughout. For
example, she says she doesn't aim to generalise from her individual work,
but wants to turn her ideas into truths for the educational benefit of
herself and her pupils and the possible sharing of values with others. She
shows where she changes her mind and actions when necessary, and takes
steps to improve her practice in the light of her emerging understandings
and those of her pupils. Her account also integrates her reading in such a
way what it's a dialogical relationship with the texts rather than a
display of theoretical knowledge. In other words, it's living as well.

Standards of judgement. Her clarity of parameters strikes me as an
important standard of judgement for this work because it emerges
developmentally from it in the course of the educational processes. And has
she found some educational truths, which have benefited the situation as a
result of her growing clarity? I think the answer is yes. For me, her
account also displays trustworthiness (Kincheloe, 1991) in ways which lend
her account necessary validity and rigour (Winter, 1989). Although she
doesn't desire generalisabiity in terms of replicability, she seems to me
to achieve what Bassey later termed relatability (Bassey, 1997). She
tallies her espoused values with her lived values and theorising in such a
way that her readers can follow her logic and see if it applies to their
own situation. Although I have no experience of infant classrooms, I find
her account completely believable, interesting and stimulating. It makes me
want to know what I might do to encourage clearer and more focused use of
language in discussion with colleagues and students in China about their
own learning processes.