Category: Assignment 2

Technology in Reggio Emilia Inspired Early Learning Environments

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

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

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

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

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.

New Media Literacies and the Reggio Emilia Philosophy

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
girl sitting on chair

(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. 

woman taking photo during daytime

(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.

toddler holding book on bed

(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

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

Multimedia Learning Theory

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

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

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?

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

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

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

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén