Category: 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.

(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. 

(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

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