teaching tiny humans

Inquiry Reflection

On November 30, 2019

In Assignment 1, ECEgrad, Multimedia Learning

Hello Everyone,

Welcome to my final reflection as I look back at my learning journey over the past three months!

Context

I am fortunate to teach Kindergarten at an International Baccalaureate World School in North Vancouver. The IB mission very much aligns with the Redesigned BC Curriculum in its open-ended, inquiry-based nature. This mandated curriculum for students from K-12 includes a subject called Applied Design, Skills, and Technology (ADST). For Kindergarten, the expected learning outcomes are as follows:

(Source: https://curriculum.gov.bc.ca/curriculum/adst/k)

Additionally, the government of BC also offers a Digital Literacy Framework (PDF) which outlines six characteristics based on the National Educations Technology Standards for Students (NETS•S) standards. These characteristics encompass the skills considered necessary to be successful learners in the 21st century. To further elaborate on these characteristics, The National Council of Teachers of English (NTCE) has created a set of of 21st century literacies. The NTCE (2013) posits that literate 21st century global citizens are required to:

Develop proficiency and fluency with the tools of technology
Build intentional cross-cultural connections and relationships with others so to pose and solve problems collaboratively and strengthen independent thought;
Design and share information for global communities to meet a variety of purposes;
Manage, analyze, and synthesize multiple streams of simultaneous information;
Create, critique, analyze, and evaluate multimedia texts;
Attend to the ethical responsibilities required by these complex environments.

With these technological competencies in mind, my inquiry process was far from linear as I initially struggled with narrowing my focus. At first, I was interested in the home-school connection because I was struggling to find an effective way to communicate with my Kindergarten families. This challenge lead me to consider:

Does technology help to bridge the gap between home and school or does it widen it?

Once I began my first IB unit of inquiry with my Kindergarten students I considered:

How can technology serve as a tool for authentic knowledge construction in the early years?
How can technology support inquiry-based learning within an early years context?

It wasn’t until I read Alison Galloway’s MEd project about a Reggio Emilia inspired makerspace that I was inspired to look into the following inquiry:

Does technology support or disrupt the Reggio Emilia philosophy?

It took me several weeks of reading and conversations with my learning pod and the network of teachers in my school district to realize that my inquiry had actually developed into how to authentically and effectively integrate technology in an early years learning environment while honouring the Reggio Emilia philosophy.

I am passionate about the Reggio Emilia philosophy and consider it to be the leading force behind my pedagogical practices. The Reggio Emilia philosophy emphasizes the environment as the third teacher, the image of the child, documentation, and community connections. Therefore, my inquiry topic arose out of a sense of discomfort when envisioning the warm, inviting environment, natural materials and childcentered approach of the Reggio Emilia philosophy in comparison to a cold, sterile room filled with rows of isolated computers. However, as I delved into the research and connected with others, it became glaringly evident that technology plays a large role in a 21st century Reggio Emilia inspired early learning environment. It was time to face my misconceptions.

The Environment as the Third Teacher

Take one step into our classroom and it is evident that the learning environment reflects the Reggio Emilia philosophy. Our room includes soft, home-like furnishings, dim lighting, natural materials, loose parts, and the children as well as their families are honoured throughout. The environment acts as a third teacher, offering students opportunities to learn and play together while exploring their surroundings. Through my inquiry I learned about Makerspaces and how they can create an environment in which everyday materials as well as digital materials are offered as provocations for students. By meeting with Alison Galloway, reading her MEd project, and visiting her website, it became evident that Makerspaces and the Reggio Emilia philosophy reflect one another. Following the makerspace movement Bers, Strawhacker & Vizner (2018) suggest that providing children a mixture of digital and non-digital tools such as robotic kits, circuitry materials, vinyl cutters, powered hand tools, robotics kits, cardboard, clay, scissors, tape, and metal brads may be a good first step to technology in a Reggio Emilia inspired early learning environment.

The Image of the Child

My students are trusted and valued as competent, capable navigators of their own learning. They have full access to their environment. It is common to see a child standing on a chair to help themselves to something up in the cupboard or getting up on the windowsill to use the natural light for their drawing. Yes, safety is prioritized in the classroom but so is student agency. For instance, some of my students found a picnic basket yesterday which contained real plates, utensils, and cups. Immediately the boys wanted to use their new-found tools in our home-centre. Instead of shutting down this potentially risky play, I brought over an appleand demonstrated the appropriate way to cut using the found tools. The boys took turns cutting the apple and enjoying, quite literally, the fruits of their labour.

As demonstrated, curriculum is emergent as children explore their surroundings. Through my research I was introduced an article by Hong and Trepanier-Street (2004) which discussed KidPix and Kidspiration–digital platforms for children to express their ideas. These platforms reaffirm the image of child as competent and capable by offering them the tools to demonstrate their thinking more complexly and accurately than if they were to use conventional tools.

Documentation

Documentation occurs multiple times a day in our classroom. I frequently hear, “Ms. Pulice, take a picture!” Pictures, videos, and voice recordings enable us to capture moments and creations that would otherwise disappear after clean up. The students advocate for the documentation of their work and will often ask for it to be shared with their families. They take pride in their work and feel a sense of gratification knowing that their families will see what they have accomplished at school. This ongoing documentation allows us to look back, reflect, and revise our learning. The students have the opportunity to build off of their prior work and knowledge while I have the opportunity to revisit lessons and extend students’ thinking. My learning pod, Emily and Trisha, shared with me their successes with the Seesaw and Freshgrade apps for documenting students’ work. They both work with older primary students (Grades 1-2) so they also find that students have agency when documenting their own learning. In the Kindergarten context, students can still have a voice in what is being documented even if they are not the ones directly accessing the app. Rinaldi (2006) found that documentation also motivates students because they feel that their work is being valued. Through the Kindergarten teachers network in my school district I was introduced to the HP Instant Ink program for teachers. The program provides teachers with the tools to honour their students’ work by offering affordable coloured printing options.

Community Building

Students work together and learn from each other while also sharing with their families, the community at our school and in the district. I see children helping each other through their inquiries and sharing their knowledge through play. Families in the digital age are connected to their children’s learning through online platforms. My learning pod shared FreshSchools with me which is a platform which enables families to access all school information in one easy place. Through my school, I have been introduced to Managebac which is a platform specifically for IB schools which also enables students and teachers to document and share learning online. Lim and Cho (2019) found that mobile documentation is an effective way to connect with 21st century families and have them more present in their children’s educational journeys. Not only can online platforms support family engagement, they can also be used to reach the greater community and invite knowledge sharing from around the world. These connections can build rich sites of knowledge construction for young learners.

Enduring Understandings

The open-ended, inquiry process has been uncomfortable and yet has offered many opportunities for failure as well as growth. Through my own inquiry trials and tribulations I have realized how challenging open-ended learning must be for my young students. However, I have also seen the great value in sitting in the discomfort. I came to many roadblocks throughout my inquiry including a lack of research on my topic as well as reframing my thinking about the Reggio Emilia philosophy which I originally thought I was very knowledgable about. There was a large component that I was missing in my practice and this inquiry has lead me to the realization that technology is not separate from the Reggio Emilia philosophy and is instead imbedded within in it as a 21st century literacy. Moving forward I intend to weave the following enduring understandings from my inquiry into my practice:

Technology should be readily available for children, coinciding with the loose parts and natural materials in the learning environment.
Children should have the opportunity to be creators, not just consumers of technology.
Technology should be used as a tool to build community through documentation and sharing.
Technology should support multimodality and be considered as one of children’s “one hundred languages.”
As per the SAMR Model, technology should be used primarily for the modification or redefinition of a task as opposed to simple substitution or augmentation.

Thank you for following my inquiry journey. I look forward to using this platform to document my learning as I refine my search for my final MEd project.

Take care,

Miss P.💕

References

BC Ministry of Education. (n.d.). BC’s New Curriculum. Retrieved from, https://curriculum.gov.bc.ca/curriculum/social-studies/2

BC Ministry of Education. (2016). Digital Literacy Framework. Retrieved from http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/dist_learning/dig_lit_standards.htm

Bers, M., Strawhacker, A., & Vizner, M. (2018). The design of early childhood makerspaces to support positive technological development two case studies. Library Hi Tech, 36(1), 75-96. doi:10.1108/LHT-06-2017-0112

Galloway, A. (2015). Bringing a reggio emilia inspired approach into higher grades to 21st century learning skills and the maker movement (Unpublished master’s project). University of Victoria, Victoria, BC

Hong, S. B., & Trepanier-Street, M. (2004). Technology: A tool for knowledge construction in a reggio emilia inspired teacher education program. Early Childhood Education Journal, 32(2), 87-94. doi:10.1007/s10643-004-7971-z

Lim, S., & Cho, M. (2019). Parents’ use of mobile documentation in a reggio emilia-inspired school. Early Childhood Education Journal, 47(4), 367-379. doi:10.1007/s10643-019-00945-5

NTCE. (2013). The NCTE Definition of 21st Century Literacies. Retrieved from http://www2.ncte.org/statement/21stcentdefinition/

Rinaldi, C. (2006). In dialogue with Reggio Emilia: Listening, researching and learning. New York: Routledge

Technology in Reggio Emilia Inspired Early Learning Environments

by teachingtinyhumans

On November 27, 2019

In Assignment 2, ECEgrad, Multimedia Learning

Teaching and learning in the 21st century poses an entirely new challenge for both educators and students. The acquired skills necessary to be considered literate citizens have evolved to comprise technological competencies (BC Ministry of Education, 2016). Children are expected to develop into innovative thinkers, digital communicators, and content creators (NTCE, 2013). However, when working with young children much of the onus is put on the shoulders of the educator to guide learners in their technological pursuits. The contexts in which educators work play a large role in the implementation and utilization of technology. One of the most prominent contemporary contexts are Reggio Emilia inspired early learning programs. The Reggio Emilia approach was developed by Loris Malaguzzi, an Italian educator who founded an early childhood education center in his town of Reggio Emilia after it had been destroyed during World War II (Galloway, 2015). Malaguzzi used his influence as an educator to rebuild the sense of community of Reggio Emilia. Malaguzzi’s pedagogical practices were grounded in his philosophies around the image of the child, the environment as the third teacher, the significance of documentation, and the role of the community.

The Reggio Emilia approach honours children as competent and capable navigators of their own learning. It is the responsibility of children’s caregivers and educators to provide them with rich learning environments which offer inspiration and invitations to learn. Malaguzzi valued loose parts, natural materials, warm lighting, and soft materials to offer children a welcoming, home-like learning environment (Bers, Strawhacker & Vizner, 2018; Galloway, 2015). Within the Reggio Emilia approach, the learning process is valued over the finished product. Documentation and displays offer a means of making learning visible, enabling reflection for learners and educators while also connecting with the greater community. Cultural and community contexts are great influencers of the Reggio Emilia approach which strives to authentically reflect the inhabitants of the learning community; therefore, the Reggio Emilia approach cannot be replicated, it can only inspire (Alper, 2013; Bers, Strawhacker & Vizner, 2018; Galloway, 2015; Mitchell, 2007). There appears to be a dissonance between the naturalistic, child-centered, culturally driven ideologies of the Reggio Emilo approach and the digitally saturated, technology based education practices of the 21st century. The following literature review is intended to investigate how to effectively and authentically integrate technology into Reggio Emilia inspired early learning environments.

Theoretical Framework

Social Constructivism (Vygotsky, 1978)

The Reggio Emilia approach is deeply rooted in Vygotsky’s social-constructivism (1978). Children work in a community, accessing and building upon each other’s prior knowledge and experiences. Children are regarded as agentic beings who are in charge of their own learning. Within social constructivism, children learn through social interactions and are guided by the knowledge of experienced peers and educators.

Experiential Learning (Kolb, 1984)

Highlighted within the Reggio Emilia approach is the emphasis on the process of learning. Kolb’s experiential learning theory (1984) recognizes the cyclical nature of this process during which time children learn through failures, successes, reflection, and repetition. Experiential learning is holistic, valuing children’s experiences, perspectives, cognitive processes, and behaviours. Knowledge is constructed through overcoming the challenges and obstacles of the learning process. Learning is never complete, offering children the opportunity to continuously refine and develop their understandings of the world.

Literature Review

The Image of the Child

When integrating technology within Reggio Emilia inspired programming it is important to consider the purpose of the technology. As per the SAMR (substitution, augmentation, modification, redefinition) Model for new media literacies, Hamilton, Rosenberg and Akcaoglu (2016) warn against using technology as a means to simply replace or enhance a task that could be completed without technology. Instead, technology should be implemented when it can be used to significantly and positively alter a task or to create an entirely new task (Hamilton et al., 2016). “What makes NMLs ‘new’ is that they seek to bridge the gap between the sometimes-isolated conceptualizations of digital learning and social learning, focusing on the critical thinking and reflection skills necessary to participate actively in an increasingly complex digital media environment” (Alper, 2013, p.178). This distinction is pertinent in the Reggio Emilia context in which new knowledge is considered to be socially constructed. A study conducted by Hong and Trepanier-Street (2004) found that providing computer software such as KidPix or Kidspiration within a Reggio Emilia inspired early learning center, offered young learners a superior platform for communication and collaboration. Malaguzzi (1996) posited that children have a hundred languages, meaning that their communication is multifaceted–technology is considered to be one of those many facets (Alper, 2013; Galloway, 2015). Technology enables young learners to explore and communicate their thinking at much more complex levels than what we are accustomed to when they use conventional tools (Alper, 2013; Hong & Trepanier-Street, 2004). The support provided by technology confirms the Reggio Emilia view of the child as being capable and competent learners.

The Environment as the Third Teacher

The Reggio Emilia approach identifies three primary teachers for the young learner: 1) caregivers, 2) educators, and 3) the environment. It is the responsibility of educators and caregivers to provide children with open-ended, inviting materials to ignite their curiousity and inquiry. Unlike traditional early childhood education programs, Reggio Emilia inspired learning environments house both digital and non-digital materials together to invite a fluidity between interacting with the provided tools during play (Alper, 2013; Bers, Strawhacker & Vizner, 2018). “Experimentation and media manipulation, within a full ecology of digital and non-digital languages, are key qualities of play for both NMLs and Reggio” (Alper, 2013, p.185). The uninstructructive manner in which digital and non-digital tools are displayed offer children the freedom to take their learning, quite literally, into their own hands. Examples of the rich materials and tools which may be provided include but are not limited to robotic kits, circuitry materials, vinyl cutters, powered hand tools, robotics kits, cardboard, clay, scissors, tape, and metal brads. Practices of the Reggio Emilia approach, including offering a variety of materials, empowering students to think creatively, and regarding children as competent, agents of knowledge construction, have been likened to those of the Maker Movement (Galloway, 2015). “The maker movement pays special attention to the social practices, technology use, and peer-mentorship that characterizes a collaborative project-based learning environment” (Bers et al., 2018, p.76). The thoughtful design of Reggio Emilia inspired early learning environments complete with engaging technologies, tools, and materials provide children the opportunity to develop their identities both as individuals and community members (Bers et al., 2018; Galloway, 2015). It is important to address the amount of adult involvement required for children to operate technologies such as 3D printers and laser cutters. Bers et al. (2018) suggested offering technological tools such as Scratch Jr. (a coding application) and vinyl cutters which can keep children engaged with limited adult involvement. Technology within Reggio Emilia inspired programming is intended to empower young learners to be content creators, not just consumers.

Making the Learning Visible

Documentation and pedagogical narration play an integral role in Reggio Emilia inspired early learning environments. Digital photos, videos, voice recordings, and anecdotal notes make children’s learning visible in ways that traditional methods of recording fail to do so (Lim & Cho, 2019; Mitchell, 2007). Documentation also supports children and educators in engaging in continuous reflection which ultimately enables them to build upon prior knowledge and problem-solve through the ongoing trials and tribulations of the learning process (Hong & Trepanier-Street, 2004; Lim & Cho, 2019). Documentation can lead to an emergent curriculum, offering educators the opportunity to reflect on their teaching practices and the learning pathways of their students. According to Lim and Cho (2019) children are more motivated to learn when they know their work is being documented. “Documentation externalizes memory and processes, creating artefacts that expand children’s and adult’s cognitive capacities” (Alper, 2013). Not only does digital documentation serve to make learning visible, it also preserves artifacts in an easily stored, yet easily accessible fashion.

Connecting with the Community

The Reggio Emilia approach values the learning community both inside and outside of the early learning environment. Mitchell (2007) proposed that one of the most beneficial reasons to use technology as a form of communication is its ability to share globally. However, through their study examining communicating home via mobile apps in a Reggio Emilia inspired early learning center, Lim and Cho (2019) found that the greater benefit lies in digital documentation to open up dialogue between families and children. Teachers were better able to connect with families and share the learning that occurs throughout the school day, enabling parents to actively engage in the learning process. Similarly, Hong and Trepanier-Street (2004) noted that when teachers created documentation panels, daily learning webs, and concept maps for display in the early learning center, parents were better able to connect with their children’s learning which fostered a sense of pride in young learners. The difference is that through mobile apps, parents who are unable to visit the learning center due to time constraints have the option of connecting with their children’s learning remotely. The accessibility of mobile communication is much more inclusive of contemporary families’ schedules. Bers, Strawhacker, and Vizner (2018) recognized that developing community and civic connectedness is one of the largest proponents of the Reggio Emilia approach. As opposed to adopting the traditional role of “sage on the stage,” educators position themselves as co-researchers with their young learners. Work is documented and displayed with pictures, quotes, and labels. “This “museum style” approach to room cultivates a sense of community, as well as a respect for creative, original work. These values are at the heart of the Reggio Emilia philosophy” (Bers et al., 2018, p. 91). Through mobile communication, educators can bridge the gap between home and school while also connecting with the larger community.

Summary

Based on the findings of the literature, technology integration within early learning centers has been proven to be congruent with the ideologies of the Reggio Emilia approach. The image of the child is honoured by technology’s ability to empower children to represent their thinking and create content beyond their capabilities with conventional tools. When including technology within the learning environment both digital and non-digital tools can be displayed in aesthetically pleasing, inviting provocations to engage young learners in exploration and organic learning experiences. Digital technology such as videos, photos, and voice recordings enhance the documentation process by capturing moments and creating artifacts that can be reflected on by both learners and educators. Lastly, technology creates a sense of community in the early learning environment, enabling students and educators to co-construct knowledge together while also connecting with the greater community. To combat the feeling of disconnect between Reggio Emilia approach and technology integration, educators must reflect on the digital tools that they are introducing to the learning environment, the manner in which the tools are presented, and the purpose of the tools. No matter the technology, the voice of the child must always be at the forefront of Reggio Emilia inspired early learning environment.

References

Alper, M. (2013). Developmentally appropriate new media literacies: Supporting cultural competencies and social skills in early childhood education. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 13(2), 175-196. doi:10.1177/1468798411430101

BC Ministry of Education. (2016). Digital Literacy Framework. Retrieved from http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/dist_learning/dig_lit_standards.htm

Hamilton, E. R., Rosenberg, J. M., & Akcaoglu, M. (2016). The substitution augmentation modification redefinition (SAMR) model: A critical review and suggestions for its use. Techtrends, 60(5), 433-441. doi:10.1007/s11528-016-0091-y

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. New Jersey, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Lim, S., & Cho, M. (2019). Parents’ use of mobile documentation in a reggio emilia-inspired school. Early Childhood Education Journal, 47(4), 367-379. doi:10.1007/s10643-019-00945-5

Mitchell, L. M. (2007). Using technology in reggio emilia-inspired programs. Theory into Practice, 46(1), 32-39. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4601_5

NTCE. (2013). The NCTE Definition of 21st Century Literacies. Retrieved from http://www2.ncte.org/statement/21stcentdefinition/

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of HigherPsychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Reggio Emilia vs The Maker Movement

by teachingtinyhumans

On November 18, 2019

In Assignment 1, ECEgrad, Multimedia Learning

Hello Everyone,

I was lucky enough to connect with Alison Galloway, a former MEd student from the University of Victoria. I was immediately drawn to Alison’s MEd project because of its embodiment of the Reggio Emilia philosophy. Alison’s experience prior to her MED project included working in a Reggio Emilia inspired school, visits to the Opal charter school in Oregon and the Bishop Strachan School in Toronto, as well as a two-week Summer Institute in Reggio Emilia, Italy. Her rich knowledge of the Reggio Emilia philosophy offered a strong foundation for her inquiry into the intersection of the Reggio approach and the Maker Movement. Through her MEd project Alison was able to create a space within her school which she called the iLab to give life to the intersections of these two approaches. She now teaches

(Source: https://curriculum.gov.bc.ca/sites/curriculum.gov.bc.ca/files/images/core-competencies.png)

Applied Design Skill and Technology (ADST) to students from Kindergarten to Grade 3. The iLab has progressed to now be a space not only for ADST but also for Alison to teach her students about social-emotional learning and for them to hone their core competencies–creative thinking, critical thinking, communication, and personal/social awareness.

(Source: https://unsplash.com/photos/rSdkzkfvqlY)

Alison has documented the process of her co-creation of the iLab as well as the evolution of the work of the students within the space through her website. When asked about where her passion for ADST came from, Alison responded that she has always had an interest in the power of technology with children. She also mentioned the importance of technology literacy for children to prepare them for life after school in the 21st century. The BC Ministry of Education’s (2016) Digital Literacy Framework, defines digital literacy as:

“the interest, attitude and ability of individuals to use digital technology and communication tools appropriately to access, manage, integrate, analyze and evaluate information, construct new knowledge, and create and communicate with others” (p.1).

I shared my concerns with Alison about technology disrupting the fundamentals of the Reggio Emilia philosophy (e.g. natural materials, loose parts); however, she assured me that the Reggio Emilia community prides themselves on constantly evolving and improving. Alison insisted that technology is viewed as one of the “hundred languages of children” and can be used to further inquiry, documentation, provocations, new knowledge construction and learning opportunities. I was curious about the role of the teacher versus that of the students when using technology. Alison suggested that the teacher needs to let go of their apprehensions and allow the children the space and time to pursue their personal interests.

boys using blue and black virtual reality headset

(Source: https://unsplash.com/photos/wqLswHmf6j4)

When asked about the must-have technologies in the iLab, Alison warned about the misconception that we need to invest in all the latest technological devices when in fact the learning depends not so much on the tools but how they are used. For instance, I have signed out the school iPads for Monday afternoons but so far have only taught my students to use the Starfall app. With this limited opportunity my students are mostly consumers of information as opposed to creators of new content. Alison shared the importance of having digital technologies (e.g. coding mats, robotic mice, Scratch jr., circuitry, LEDs, motors, copper tape, 3D printers, and laser cutters) in congruence with tools such as cardboard cutters, crafting materials, loose parts, and recycled items. Interestingly, this last suggestion created a dialogue about the repurposing of materials because once students used the recycled materials for their creation, they were no longer recyclable. To combat this issue, Alison offered the idea of students using loose parts for their creations, taking a picture of what they had made, and then taking the creations apart so that the materials can be used again.

Alison offered the following advice to any teacher wanting to implement technology in the early years classroom:

Think of the purpose of the technology and the learning goals
What is the technology doing that you couldn’t teach in another way?
Don’t be afraid to make mistakes or try new things
Practice a growth mindset–be okay with chaos, be flexible and responsive

Finally, Alison discussed the ways in which technology can promote problem solving skills, curiosity, communicating, critical thinking. This was particularly important to my own professional reflection because not only do those skills mirror the core competencies of the Redesigned BC Curriculum, they are also directly relate to the IB learner profile which is at the core of my teaching practice at an IB World School.

Until next time,

Miss P.

Technology as a Tool, Not a Toy

by teachingtinyhumans

On November 3, 2019

In Assignment 1, ECEgrad, Multimedia Learning

Hello All,

“It’s a tool, not a toy” is a common phrase within elementary school classrooms. When using technology in the classroom with early primary students, this idiom becomes increasingly poignant. Technology can easily be viewed as a toy, a distraction, or a way to appease young learners. While these perspectives may be true, technology has the potential to be a powerful educational tool for young learners.

(source: https://unsplash.com/photos/q6uQFIJ1CqY)

A study conducted by the University of Michigan-Dearborn analyzed the implementation of technology within the university’s Reggio Emilia inspired teacher education program and on-campus early learning centre. The Reggio Emilia philosophy values children as agents of knowledge construction. The philosophy recognizes that children hold their own histories and culture which offer each of them a unique lens when accessing new information.

Children at the university’s early learning centre were afforded the opportunities to access information and engage with their peers in knowledge construction through various forms of technology including computers, cameras, video camera, scanners, and, of course, the internet. Hong and Trepanier-Street (2004) identified four uses of technology within a Reggio Emilia inspired early years program:

(a) representation and organization of ideas in a different medium, (b) communication of ideas and collaboration among members of a specific learning community, (c) visualization and reflection on thinking of children and teachers, and (d) extension and communication of consolidated learning to the broader community.

(Source: https://unsplash.com/photos/dYSH1AS7bFw)

(p.88)

The Reggio Emilia philosophy proposes that when provided with the time and space to play and explore, young children are able to think with creativity and ingenuity; however, their ability to physically express these thoughts can be impeded by their fine motor control. Hong and Trepanier-Street (2004) found that technologies such as KidPix and Kidspiration enabled children to better represent their thoughts and understandings of the world.

As noted in past blog posts, documentation of learning is a large component of the Reggio Emilia philosophy. Children and educators are intended to make learning visible via photos, videos, and anecdotal notes. The purpose of the documentation is not so much to showcase a polished, finished product; instead, learning displays are created to engage learners, educators, and the community in reflective thinking–valuing process over product (Hong & Trepanier-Street, 2004). Throughout the study, the teacher candidate and mentor teacher would switch roles with one teaching while the other documented using digital cameras and videocameras. The educators were then able to go back and reflect and collaborate together to create extension lessons within an emergent curriculum. Hong and Trepanier-Street (2004) also noted how documentation opened up communication with parents and the larger community including administrators and policymakers because it provided insight into the learning that occurred within the classroom. The researchers suggested that documentation displays helped children to feel pride in their work which may be true; however, within the Reggio Emilia philosophy the role of the child throughout documentation of learning goes beyond feeling pride. While Hong and Trepanier-Street (2004) described the educators as viewing children as powerful and competent learners, the importance of the revisiting, reflecting, and knowledge construction of the children seemed to have been missed. When working with young learners we must ensure that their voices are not only heard but listened to intently.

Reference

Home-School Connection via Documentation

by teachingtinyhumans

On October 27, 2019

In Assignment 1, ECEgrad, Multimedia Learning, Uncategorised

Hello again,

Earlier when I was mulling over a few inquiry topics I began to wonder whether technology helped to bridge or widen the gap between home and school. I reflected on my own practices which are a mixture of both non-digital and digital communication. Interestingly enough, now that I am exploring the Reggio Emilia philosophy and the roles of the teacher and student when using technology, I left out an important key player in my research: the parent. Luckily, during my search I happened to find an article about a study conducted in a Reggio Emilia-inspired school which examined the experience of parents when interacting with digital documentation sent home from school.

A large component of the Reggio Emilia philosophy is the practice of documenting students’ learning processes. This documentation typically takes the form of pedagogical narration–photographs accompanied by the child’s scribed thoughts and the educator’s reflections. Lim and Cho (2019) call this process of photo documentation and pedagogical narration, “mobile documentation.” The benefit of mobile documentation is not only does it capture the organic learning processes of young learners, it also opens up the communication between home and school. “Using mobile apps, both [parents] can receive documentation on a regular basis. Even busy parents can still receive documentation via mobile apps and use this venue as an opportunity to communicate with children and the school” (Lim & Cho, 2019, p.367). With mobile documentation the after school conversation no longer needs to be: “What did you do at school today?” followed by, “I don’t know.” Now parents have access to their children’s day-to-day life at school which enables them to have a more active role in their children’s education.

In my own practice I have used Seesaw to support my students in documenting their own learning and making that learning visible so that it can be shared and reflected upon by my students, their families, and myself. Seesaw enables learners to take photos, videos, and voice recordings which they can comment on and markup as well. The app offers the option to connect families to their children’s accounts so that they can get updates when children have uploaded content. The educator also has the option of uploading lessons, activities, and questions that they wish their students to respond to.

Emily from my learning pod also shared with me about an app her school uses called FreshGrade. She described FreshGrade as a 3-way documentation tool between the student, parent, and teacher. Similar to Seesaw it facilitates reflection, assessment, and lesson planning. FreshGrade has more formalized platforms for assessment than Seesaw but the concept is primarily the same. Trisha offered her knowledge about FreshSchools which is also a communication tool for parents and educators. It offers a calendar, emailing applications, and a chalkboard for classroom updates so that parents can find information in one spot. It can be used for the Parent Advisory Committee to synch the entire school calendar as well as individual classroom agenda items. Teachers can access the contact information of any family within the school which is beneficial for personnel such as learning support teachers, coaches, and librarians who work with multiple families.

selective focal photo of crayons in yellow box

(Source: https://unsplash.com/photos/1zR3WNSTnvY)

The study took advantage of the Reggio Emilia’s practice of documenting learning and enhanced it with technology, making the documentation for relevant and accessible to 21st century families. Parents in the study were asked to download an app which offered individual journal entries posted by the teacher, general class information, as well as a questions and answers section for parents’ queries. Instead of having to log into a class website, access the school newsletter, check planners, and monitor email inboxes, parents were able to access all the important information about their children’s school in one place. “Mobile documentation seems to have the potential to increase parents’ awareness of children’s lives in a school, especially for fathers” (Lim & Cho, 2019, p.377). One of the most notable findings of the study was that fathers became more engaged in their children’s school life. According to Lim and Cho (2019), mothers typically take a more active role in their children’s school life, leaving fathers to hear about the school day through the retelling of mothers. Mobile documentation combats that stereotype, involving fathers and sparking a conversation between them and their children.

man carrying to girls on field of red petaled flower

(Source: https://unsplash.com/photos/O-RKu3Aqnsw)

For the purpose of my research, I found Lim and Cho’s (2019) reference to Rinaldi (2006) to be particularly meaningful because it added a new layer to photo documentation that I had yet to consider. Rinaldi (2006) asserted that documentation motivates children to learn because it offers a sense of importance to their work. However, this causes me to question the moments when we are not documenting. Do the undocumented moments make children feel that they are less valuable? Is it the role of the educator to judge when learning is worth documenting and when it is not?

References

Lim, S., & Cho, M. (2019). Parents’ use of mobile documentation in a reggio emilia-inspired school. Early Childhood Education Journal, 47(4), 367-379. doi:10.1007/s10643-019-00945-5

Rinaldi, C. (2006). In dialogue with Reggio Emilia: Listening, researching and learning. New York: Routledge

Revisiting the Meaning of Technology

by teachingtinyhumans

On October 20, 2019

In Assignment 1, ECEgrad, Multimedia Learning

Hello All,

Over the past week I found an article which discussed the use of technology in Reggio Emilia inspired programs. While it addressed the various ways in which technology can be used in the early learning environment, the article also caused me to pause and consider the covert technology that is used in my classroom by myself and my kindergarten students almost every day. When I think of technology I often think of computers or iPads but technology can be found in less apparent ways as well. Now with that being said, I am not considering scissors or pencils as technology. Instead, I took a look around my classroom and noticed the following:

light table to illuminate objects and for tracing
CD player used for the listening center
lights used for shadow play
electric pencil sharpener
hot glue guns for building
power drill for larger projects
SmartBoard
Macbook

(Source: https://unsplash.com/photos/SBIak0pKUIE)

The range of technologies in my classroom is wide; however, depending on how they are implemented, they can all very much fit into the Reggio Emilia philosophy. Mitchell (2007) outlined 8 different ways in which technology may be a part of Reggio Emilia inspired programming:

Technology as Tools of Inquiry
Constructing New Knowledge
Tools to Promote Creativity
Bringing Inanimate Things to Life
Use of Assistive Technology to Support Learning
Documentation
Communication
Training

Prior to reading Mitchell’s (2007) work, as indicated in my previous blog posts, I had really only considered the documentation and communication facets of technology within the Reggio Emilia philosophy. I have previously discussed photo documentation and communicating home digitally; however, Mitchell (2007) adds technology’s ability to connect children and their learning to the wider community. This connection enables children to not only share out but also to learn from experts in the community-a proponent of Vygotsky’s Socio-Cultural theory.

boy sitting while holding electronic device part

(Source: https://unsplash.com/photos/t3d22GqvUqs)

When considering technology as tools of inquiry, tools to promote creativity, and tools of knowledge construction, I see these three categories as very much overlapping and being fluid with one another. Mitchell (2007) suggested digital libraries as tools of inquiry which is really only a substitution for traditional library research. Mitchell (2007) indicated technology’s ability to help problem solve which in turn leads to knowledge construction. The example given was about a group of children making spaceships out of clay and wanting to join their spaceships to make one large creation. Mitchell (2007) envisioned the children problem solving by doing an internet search and watching videos of spaceships. The use of technology in this scenario is very much intertwined in inquiry-based learning because the children are inquiring about how to meld their spaceships and the materials to use. To promote creativity, Mitchell (2007) offered the idea of housing technology in the atelier–the artistic space for creative exploration in Reggio Emilia learning environment–alongside art supplies and natural materials. The juxtaposition of the natural materials with technological tools creates a sort of cognitive dissonance for me. I had a preconceived notion that the Reggio Emilia philosophy solely encompassed natural, loose parts; however, it has become apparent after reading Mitchell’s (2007) article and browsing Galloway’s (2015) website that technology is yet another tool for children to play, learn, grow, and express themselves.

References

Galloway, A. (2015). A reggio emilia inspired maker space. Retrieved from http://reggioinspiredmakerspace.weebly.com/reggio-emilia-background.html

Mitchell, L. M. (2007). Using technology in reggio emilia-inspired programs. Theory into Practice, 46(1), 32-39. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4601_5

New Media Literacies and the Reggio Emilia Philosophy

by teachingtinyhumans

On October 14, 2019

In Assignment 1, Assignment 2, ECEgrad, Multimedia Learning

Hello,

I have now narrowed down my inquiry to the ways in which technology support or disrupt the ideologies of the Reggio Emilia philosophy. In doing so, I have recently discovered that the literature around technology and the Reggio Emilia philosophy in quite limited which makes me question why there is a lack of research around a topic which seems so prevalent to the 21st century world of early childhood education.

During my search however, I did come across an article by Alper (2013) which examined Jenkins’ (2006) work around New Media Literacies (NMLs) within the Reggio Emilia context.

New Media Literacies as defined by Jenkins (2006):

play
performance
simulation
appropriation
multitasking
distributed cognition
collective intelligence
judgement
transmedia navigation
networking
negotiation
visualization

(Source: https://unsplash.com/photos/qESmLLXAmWs)

Alper (2013) warns that we must not label children as “digital natives” because this limited view excludes unequal access to opportunities, young learners challenges in identifying the ways in which media shifts perception, and children’s ethical responsibilities as media makers and participants. While respecting that digital literacies are not necessarily innate competencies of young children, Alper (2013) turned to the Reggio Emilia philosophy which positions children as competent, capable beings with what Malaguzzi (1996) describes as “100 languages.” According to Alper (2013), technological skills are just one of children’s many languages and are a way for young learners to explore “self-awareness, pleasure and gratification in learning how to manipulate, respond to and communicate with [digital tools]” (p.185).

Interestingly, unlike most educational settings in which digital tools are offered in isolated events, within the Reggio Emilia philosophy technology is provided liberally within the learning environment among other learning tools. It is through play that both learners and educators learn to manipulate, create, view, communicate, and document with technological tools. Alper (2013) also took note of the Reggio Emilia philosophy’s alignment with Jenkins’ (2006) distributed cognition principle which outlines learners’ abilities to use tools which expand mental capacities. Within the Reggio Emilia philosophy, documentation is given much gravity. Educators and learners use photography and videography to make learning visible, allowing all participants to revisit, reflect, and revise learning engagements.

(Source: https://unsplash.com/photos/8nXKXYdO-Wk)

Documentation should not be confused here with display, which may be a result of societal and cultural pressures for children to mass-produce artefacts in preschool for their parents’ delight or as ‘proof’ of learning… It is part of a process of negotiated learning, or a dynamic system of causes, effects and counter-effects via design, discourse and documentation ( Alper, 2013, p.186)

Finally, Alper (2013) examined Jenkins’ (2006) transmedia navigation principle which refers to the ability to attend to multimodal stories and information. This principle is particularly salient in the Reggio Emilia approach because of Malaguzzi’s assertion of the 100 languages. Under the Reggio Emilia umbrella has transpired Story Workshop which is a multistep method to introduce young learners to the writing process. Story Workshop engages multimodal ways of creating, sharing, and viewing. Students work to either individually or collaboratively create stories using loose parts. These stories are then photographed or video recorded and then students have the opportunity to write or draw about the story they have created. Depending on the engagement of the children, a single story may take place over many Story Workshop sessions. I am currently enrolled in an online course provided by the Opal School in Portland, Oregon which practices the Reggio Emilia philosophy. The course will go into depth about Story Workshop so I will be sure to share information that I learn over the next few weeks pertaining to technology in early childhood education.

(Source: https://unsplash.com/photos/kQd8qwmWaNQ)

Update:

To support story workshop, kindergarten teachers in the school district in which I work have shared that they have enrolled in the HP Instant Ink program for teachers. With the purchase of an HP printer, this program provides teachers the tools to print up to 300 coloured pages for only $9.99 a month. The printer notifies HP when it is running low on ink and the company mails a new cartridge to you so that you do not need to worry about running out of ink. Coloured printing enhances story workshop by enabling teachers to print the photo documentation of their students’ stories and bind them into books. By printing hardcopies of students’ stories, the children have an opportunity to review and reflect on their stories which pushes their thinking further. The teachers who shared the printing program information with me said that during quiet time, their students often choose to read and re-read their “published” stories, giving them a sense of pride and empowerment as writers.

Reference

Multimedia Learning Theory

by teachingtinyhumans

On October 7, 2019

In Assignment 1, Assignment 2, ECEgrad, Multimedia Learning, Uncategorised

Greetings All,

The digital age provides many exciting opportunities for young learners but it also poses many new challenges for educators. The TPACK (Technological, Pedagogical, and Content Knowledge) model addresses the need for educators to combine their technological skills, pedagogical practices, and content knowledge to offer innovative educational experiences (What is the TPACK Model?, 2016). How are educators to authentically integrate technology

Hamilton, Rosenberg, and Akcaoglu (2016) posit that the TPACK model trumps the SAMR (substitution, augmentation, modification, and redefinition) model which offers a prescribed hierarchical taxonomy of technological use in the classroom. Substitution is described as technology merely replacing an analog technology but the function remains the same. Augmentation is described as the function of the tool changing in a positive way. Modification is described as technology significantly altering the task. And, finally, Redefinition is described as technology creating an entirely new task. The authors argue that the SAMR taxonomy emphasizes product over process which is inconsistent from an instructional design perspective which favours the learning process over using a particular technology (Hamilton, Rosenberg & Akcaoglu, 2o16). The authors suggest putting the SAMR model into context while also considering the model as less of a hierarchy and more of a spectrum. These suggestions bode well for my International Baccalaureate PYP Kindergarten context. If I were to view the SAMR model as a hierarchy, my practices would almost always be positioned towards the bottom of the pyramid at substitution or augmentation but this is primarily due to the age of my learners. Modification and redefinition via technology would be a challenging feat for my 4-5 year olds. As I have mentioned in past blog posts, my pedagogy is rooted in the Reggio Emilia philosophy which very much focuses on the process over product. In this regard, I very much appreciate Hamilton, Rosenberg and Akcaoglu’s (2o16) recommendations to value the SAMR model as a whole instead of a hierarchy.

Mayer (2017), outlined the 12 principles of technology-based education:

multimedia principle: People learn better from computer-based words and pictures than from computer-based words alone. (p.404)
coherence principle: People learn better from a computer-based multimedia lesson when extraneous material is excluded rather than included. (p.407)
signalling principle: People learn better from a computer-based multimedia lesson when essential parts of text or graphics are highlighted. (p.408)
redundancy principle: People learn better from a computer-based multimedia lesson that contains graphics and narration rather than graphics, narration and on-screen text. (p.409)
spatial contiguity principle: People learn better from multimedia lessons when printed words are placed near rather than far from corresponding parts of the graphic in the screen (p.410)
temporal continuity principle: People learn better from multimedia lessons when narration and graphics are presented simultaneously rather than successively ( p.410)
segmenting principle: People learn better from multimedia lessons that are broken into self-paced segments. (p.411)
pre-training principle: People learn better from computer-based multimedia lessons when they receive pre-training in the key elements. (p.412)
modality principle: People learn better from computer-based multimedia lessons when words are spoken rather than printed. (p.413)
personalization principle: People learn better from computer-based multimedia lessons when the words are presented in conversational style rather than formal style (p.414)
voice principle: People learn better from computer-based multimedia lessons when words are spoken in a human voice rather than a machine-like voice. (p.415)
embodiment principle: People learn better from computer-based multimedia lessons that contain high-embodied on-screen agents rather than low-embodied on-screen agents. (p.415-416)

Within the context of an early years learning environment, many of the aforementioned principles are used daily to engage young learners in knowledge acquisition. Multimedia is necessary to communicate with students in the early years who are not yet able to read. For instance, when brainstorming ideas as a class, I will always draw a picture beside the words to help support my learners’ understanding. However, based on the modality and redundancy principles, I may be better off using graphics on the Smartboard to represent ideas while using oral language instead of taking the time to write out the words. On the other hand, when I am printing for my students, I am modelling writing directionality and proper letter formation. What are your thoughts on using the computer during whole-class brainstorms to incorporate the principles of multimedia instruction?

References

Mayer, R. E. (2017). Using multimedia for e‐learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(5), 403-423. doi:10.1111/jcal.12197

What is the TPACK Model? (2016). Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=18&v=yMQiHJsePOM

Where does technology fit in the Reggio Emilia Philosophy?

by teachingtinyhumans

On September 29, 2019

In Assignment 2, ECEgrad, Multimedia Learning

Good Evening,

Happy Sunday! With the weekend coming to an end and Monday looming in the near future, I have taken some time to reflect on my teaching practices. This year I sent home a Welcome Letter with my students on the first day of school which outlined a bit of who I am and my perspective in regards to teaching. The following is an excerpt from the letter:

I view children as capable, competent beings who deserve room to explore and grow through real life experiences. Therefore, my teaching practices are deeply rooted in child-centred, inquiry-based, play-based, and place-based experiential learning–pedagogies that have been practiced throughout history by indigenous peoples.

The learning environment plays a large role in early childhood education which is why our classroom is filled with neutral colours, natural materials, and soft lighting. It is my hope to engage the students through providing them with exciting provocations to spark their interest and creativity.

I very much strive to align my teaching practices with the Reggio Emilia philosophy and I believe this is evident in the ways in which the learning environment has been set up. I always associate the Reggio Emilia philosophy with loose parts and natural materials so I was surprised to come across the work of Galloway (2015), which examined the Reggio Emilia approach in relation to technology and the Maker Movement. As indicated by Galloway (2015) both approaches fit very nicely with the BC Redesigned Curriculum‘s “vision of a personalized and constructivist learning environment” (p. 1); however, I also see parallels with the standards of inquiry within my IB PYP context. While Galloway (2015) focused on a hybrid model of both the Reggio Emilia approach and the Maker Movement with older students (Grade 3), I see value in this model for early learners. Of course the tools presented to Kindergarten students would be different than those offered to older students; however, the premise would be the same–social, knowledge construction through play. In future weeks, I would like to look into which types of materials and technologies early childhood educators present to their young learners that are developmentally appropriate while still eliciting a sense of wonder and honouring the students’ funds of knowledge (Moll & Greenberg, 1990).

Twenty-first century learners are digital natives who have grown up immersed in technology and, more than ever, they are globally aware, creative and innovative as they take on a new role in this knowledge age.

Galloway, 2015, p. 28

Through reading Galloway’s (2015) MEd project, it became evident that one of the most prominent ways in which technology was present in both the Reggio Emilia approach and the Maker Movement was through documentation. Both approaches offer great emphasis on making thinking and learning visible. In Kindergarten, learning typically emerges through play which provides a challenge to teachers who are looking for evidence of learning for assessment and reporting. Ideally, I would want regular access to a class set of iPads which my students could use to take pictures, videos, and/or voice recordings of their work to document their own learning. A few years ago in my school district all Kindergarten teachers were given a class iPad for this very reason. It is my hope to advocate for my young learners by requesting an iPad for the classroom that they could use to make the invisible, visible.

References

Moll, L. C., & Greenberg, J. B. (1990). Creating zones of possibilities: combining social contexts for instruction. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 319-348). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Bridging the Gap Between Home and School

by teachingtinyhumans

On September 29, 2019

In Assignment 1, ECEgrad, Multimedia Learning

Hello Everyone,

I trust now that we are in the final week of September that you are all settled into your routines and rhythms whether it be at school, work, or just life in general. As a classroom teacher, a large part of settling into new routines is deciding on a means to communicate home. During my Early Childhood Education diploma at UBC, I took a course with Dr. Mari Pighni which was was entirely dedicated to fostering and maintaining a healthy home-school relationship.

(Source: https://unsplash.com/photos/OVDtgUhUPBY)

Last school year I used a combination of communication tools including informal conversations at the door during drop-off and pick-up, formal meeting times, and conferencing. I also utilized traditional methods of communication such as planner messages, school-wide paper notices, and posters in the classroom window. To service my families who did not have the opportunities to come to the classroom as frequently I used email as a primary means of communication. To access all families my parent representatives set up a Shutterfly sharesite in my name to provide an up-to-date calendar, volunteer sign-up opportunities, a class contact list, and important reminders. I found that, in terms of open communication, I had the most success with families who were available for face-to-face conversations and through the use of the sharesite. It was an excellent way to streamline information and have a safe space for parents to ask questions all in one location.

This year, my options for home-school communication have changed due to my relocation to a new school community. To maintain a sense of order and consistency for families I adopted the communication tool of my Kindergarten colleagues. Kindergarten students do not typically own a planner due to their limited writing abilities so instead the kindergarten teachers at my school use what they call a “back and forth folder.” The folder contains important information regarding the IB PYP and the Zones of Regulation as well as a communication page for families and the classroom teacher to write notes to each other. The front pocket is for documents, artwork, notices, etc. that are meant to be “left” at home and the back pocket is meant for those items that are meant to come “right” back to school. The kindergarten teachers also have blogs which provide information about the current IB Unit of Inquiry and scheduling for sharing. I tried these options for a few weeks but quickly realized that they weren’t true to my preferred methods of communication. I very much believe that communication is a two-way street and that there should always be an opportunity for the receiver of a message to respond. With this belief in mind, I created a Shutterfly sharesite for my class this year to supplement the back and forth folder. Additionally, I added a Friday email to the communication thread, outlining all the events of the past week with some photos to engage families.

The only problem is that now that my email has been sent, I have only received two emails back which makes me wonder if parents haven’t read it. And, if they haven’t read the Friday email, does that mean that they are not checking the class Shutterfly sharesite? These questions come to mind due to the shocking statistic I learned during reporting season last year that less than 50% of families at my previous school signed in online to check their children’s report card. This issue is particularly important to my school this year because the staff is looking at ways to engage parents in the students’ units of inquiry by asking them to report any signs of learning pertaining to the units demonstrated at home. In the past, forms were sent home inviting parent feedback during the unit of inquiry but through a survey, the parents and teachers reported feeling that the forms were ineffective. This year, the staff has considered going digital with the forms but will it become just ANOTHER thing for parents to sign into online?

two babies and woman sitting on sofa while holding baby and watching on tablet

(Source: https://unsplash.com/photos/UH-xs-FizTk)

The goal is to increase family engagement and open up the communication between home and school. Based on my conversations with the primary team at my school, there seems to be an argument that some families may be more inclined to communicate via email, websites, online forms, etc. because they are more accessible; however, other families may become withdrawn and less communicative by the impersonal, non-accountable characteristics of virtual communication. The issue of available technology in the home is also concerning because we cannot reasonably expect that all families in our school communities will have access to technological devices.

What are your thoughts on bridging the gap between home and school via technology? Is there a mode of communication that your school uses which you have found to be successful? Please leave a comment below!

Take care,

Miss P. 💕