Embracing technology

Monday, 26 March 2012

Links to my comments

I have certainly been amazed at how this paper has opened my eyes to blogging and the value it serves for student teachers. I like Debbie thought it was going to be a complete waste of my time with no benefits for this degree whatsoever, how wrong I was. I now understand how Yang (2009) could make such a bold statement like “Using blogs to enhance critical reflection” (p.11). After reading the article I was a little sceptical on the content of the reading and thought it was open for interpretation and not exactly conclusive to placate my full curiosities. However, after taking part in the group blog and being able to reflect and examine the way I do things in practice, I am now a believer. I feel I was more receptive to ‘critical reflection’ having the knowledge that my friends given the feedback were trustworthy and would provide constructive criticism to empower me to grow as a practitioner, not to belittle me as a student teacher (O’Connor & Diggins, 2002). Having the feedback written for me to revisit provided the opportunity to reflect in depth on how my experiences were similar or different to theirs, identify techniques or practices that I could change or adapt to not only benefit me but ultimately the children, families and staff that I work alongside. Miranda provided sound advice about the power of ‘suggestion’ or ‘facilitation’ to invoke problem-solving and critical thinking for children (Smorti, 1999). I believe facilitation and suggesting are great teaching strategies in everyday practice and certainly pertinent for working with Information technology (MacNaughton & Williams, 2009). As Netsafe (2008) so rightly notes and something I am inclined to agree with, it is important that children understand the guidelines and risks surrounding the internet before exploring the possibilities of the cyber world. I believe for children to develop an understanding and gain knowledge of the various concepts of information technology the learning needs to be scaffolded by a peer or adult (Santrock, 2009). This IT learning as my group seems to agree with should be balanced between ‘social interactions with peers’ and gaining skills in Information Technology. Judith made a valid point which I reflected on; she mentioned sometimes computers provide an outlet for children to explore their feelings and thoughts just as we as adults do through books. This comment made me stop and think how this could change the way I view computers for children. I have always known that computers can reveal hidden strengths that some children have, baring this in mind, it seems fair to conclude that if this is the case then those children probably feel more comfortable behind a computer then playing in with peers in other areas of the curriculum(Ministry of Education, 1996). What I needed to consider was; ‘how could I ensure the child is comfortable but not isolated from others? After discussion with the other teachers in my centre we found if we encountered this we would probably encourage the child to show a friend how to use the computer, therefore catering to his individual need to feel comfortable and his wellbeing of building friendships through embracing the concept of ‘AKO’ (Tamati, 2005). Rosie noted to further extend and empower children after they redesigned the outdoor area I could encourage them design the indoor space, this was something we did as a possible ‘what next’ of the learning experience after discussion with the children (Arthur, Beecher, Death, Dockett & Farmer, 2008). An important factor that was highlighted by Debbie and one that I agree with is that technology is not limited to digital or information technology but comes in various forms. Defining technology and the importance it should play in an Early childhood setting is problematic task to do as I believe it is determined by the culture of each centre and the attitudes staff within. I believe Technology in the form of problem-solving and critical thinking is something I would definitely use in my everyday practice alongside children. However, using computers with children on a daily basis is something that my personal philosophy struggles with. I believe regardless of our own beliefs collaboration with other staff, parents and whānau to discuss what would best meet the needs of all within our centre environment is the key to any great curriculum (Ministry of Education, 1996). In addition, the opportunities that are provided to develop IT skills within Early Childhood settings should definitely be woven throughout the curriculum, be child lead, and authentic to the interests of the children. This will ensure that learning is meaningful and children are more likely to be receptive to any new concepts and skills facilitated through this. I strongly believe although there is a need for children to have an understanding of the technological advances we are making as a society this should not take precedence over the importance of human interactions and building responsive, respectful relationships within the setting. If our aim is focused on children building self-esteem, self-worth and confidence, they will be prepared for any technological innovations that the future holds (Ministry of Education, 1996; Ministry of Education, 2007).

References

Arthur, L., Beecher, B., Death, E., Dockett, S., & Farmer, S. (2008). Programming and planning in early childhood settings (4th ed.). Victoria, Australia: Thompson.

MacNaughton, G., & Williams, G. (2009). Techniques for teaching young children: Choices in theory and practice. New South Wales, Australia: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Ministry of Education. (1996). Te Whāriki, he whāriki mātauranga mo nga mokopuna o Aotearoa: Early childhood curriculum. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media.

Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand Curriculum Retrieved from

http://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/the new zealand curriculum.

Netsafe. (2008). Netsafekit for ECE. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education.

O’Connor, A., & Diggins, K. (2002). On reflection: Reflective practice for early childhood educators. Lower Hutt, New Zealand: Open Mind Publishing.

Tamati, A. (2005). “Mā tōu rourou, mā tōku rourou” the concept of AKO:

co-construction of knowledge from a Kaupapa Māori perspective. Early childhood Education.

Santrock, J.W. (2009). Lifespan development (12th ed., International). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Smorti, S. (1999, Autumn) Technology in early childhood. Early Education, 19.

Yang, S. (2009). Using blogs to enhance critical reflection and community of practice. Educational Technology & Society, 12 (2), 11-21.

Monday, 19 March 2012

The value of computers

One morning I arrived at work to a room full of giggling children. Amidst the laughter was one of our teachers, E working quietly on the laptop with a small group of children. As I observed I noticed they were using the computer to decorate their own name tags for the wall. The previous day N had said “I want to do my name on da puter with Dora picture”. As a team we had discussed setting the laptop up for children so we could scaffold their learning in Information Technology (MacNaughton & Williams, 2009). I was really pleased that E was already facilitating this experience.

In our centre we do not have a computer set up for children to use freely. Tsantis, Bewick & Thouvenelle (2003) say that some teachers do not value computers in their classrooms because many lack the confidence or knowledge to provide the opportunities. Be rest assured, the teachers in my room are more than computer savvy and proficient on computers. We have discussed how we feel about the importance of computers in our setting. Although we value computers and believe they are a fantastic tool for children to visualise difficult concepts and represent their discoveries through expressive media, we feel if computers are made readily available in our room some children may use it as a substitute for social interaction with others (Ministry of Education, 1996; Ministry of Education, 2007). The reason we believe this is because we have a few 4.5yr old children with additional learning needs, who, although computers can reveal hidden talents they possess, building their social competency in preparation for school is far more important at this point of their development, than sitting behind a computer discovering something that will be part of their future for many years to come (Katz & McCellan, 1997). Of course this is just the opinion of a few teachers, not a collective as a whole. In saying this, we want to provide an environment where all children have the opportunity to explore Information Technology but will not take precedence over the importance of social interactions within the environment (Ministry of Education, 1996). Therefore, we have developed a plan to introduce technology but still require sourcing the appropriate programs before we can implement it fully (Netsafe, 2008). We would like to run a computer lab similar to primary school. Two times a week we will divide the children into 3 groups, one with each teacher armed with a laptop preparing to explore the interests of the children in the group. We believe it is important that learning experiences that we provide throughout the curriculum are child lead not teacher directed (Arthur, Beecher, Death, Dockett & Farmer, 2008). This is not to say that we do not make suggestions or facilitate, because we do. I am merely suggesting that whatever experience we provide for the children have come from their interests and not plucked out of thin air. This IT exploration will run for an hour and a half, although there is flexibility within this allocated time as it depends on where the children lead the play. Our fourth teacher will provide supervision for those children that do not wish to participate as it is not a compulsory experience. We look forward to implementing the change in our centre and hopefully it is a beneficial one for all involved. We will be doing a self-review on our plan of action once implemented and evaluate and refine our practice if needed (O’Connor & Diggins, 2007).

References

Arthur, L., Beecher, B., Death, E., Dockett, S., & Farmer, S. (2008). Programming and planning in early childhood settings (4th ed.). Victoria, Australia: Thompson.

MacNaughton, G., & Williams, G. (2009). Techniques for teaching young children: Choices in theory and practice. New South Wales, Australia: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Ministry of Education. (1996). Te Whāriki, he whāriki mātauranga mo nga mokopuna o Aotearoa: Early childhood curriculum. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media.

Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand Curriculum Retrieved from

http://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/the new zealand curriculum.

Netsafe. (2008). Netsafekit for ECE. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education.

O’Connor, A., & Diggins, K. (2002). On reflection: Reflective practice for early childhood educators. Lower Hutt, New Zealand: Open Mind Publishing.

Tsantis, L.A., Bewick, C.J., & Thouvenelle, S. (2003). Examining some common myths about computer use in the early years. Young Children, 58(1), 1-9.

Friday, 16 March 2012

A house fit for a snail

"The snails will get sunburn"

"Not when they have a roof"

Once upon a time, there lived 2 snails that need a lovely home to live in. The little people at my centre decided the large box that once housed the hand towels would be suitable accommodation for these slimy little critters. My first reaction was to sit back, observe and see what would unfold. Fortunately, I thought about what my fellow group member Miranda had suggested on my blog about using small blocks, meccano or smaller resources to practice with and thought this would be a perfect opportunity for me to use her suggestion in someway. As the children were discussing how big the box was compared to the snails, I casually placed a box of lego beside their working space and waited to see if they would utilise it. Low and behold M spotted the lego and suggested “we make the snails the house with the lego like we doned with the lego people”. Many attempts at working the different pieces of lego together, and more than a few disagreements among themselves later, the snails had a cosy wee home complete with a roof to provide shade and a bright pink bath. Tino pai to mahi Tamariki ma!!!

I loved this experience because it was child initiated and not teacher directed. The children directed the play and used their previous experiences on building with lego to develop their own working theories on what would best suit the requirements for the snails (Arthur, Beecher, Death, Dockett & Farmer, 2008; Ministry of Education, 1996). Although at my centre many believe there is a remarkable difference between science and technology, I beg to differ somewhat. I feel that scientific methods are part of technology. A child can not use a technological concept of building, creating or designing without using the method of visual perception of size, depth, or quantity (Johnston, 2005, Ministry of Education, 1996, Smorti, 1999). So in effect technology in my belief is a combination of science and technology. I believe this learning experience was also a great reflection of how facilitation can work in practice, thanks Miranda. Generally I use open-ended questions to encourage children to use critical thinking and problem-solve for themselves or to sit back and encourage children to try different ways of working things out independently (MacNaughton & Williams, 2009). I believe I am like this in practice because that is the way I do things; try and try and hopefully succeed. However, I tend to forget that it is okay to offer suggestions or provide additional resources to support children’s play and extend their learning (Gonzalez-Mena, 2008, Ministry of Education, 1996). We as teachers just need to be mindful that we are not dominating the experience and disempowering children. I felt really happy that this spontaneous type of play provided me with the opportunity to capture the teachable moments that we teachers sometimes seem to miss (Arthur et all, 2008). All to often we are caught up in the day to day politics of the centre with the pressures of meeting learning story requirements, checking if we are in ratio, providing activities that are child lead that we forget that sometimes those ‘authentic moments’ that are meaningful for children and make for great docurmentation are right under our noses (Gonzalez-Mena, 2008). I believe if we take a step back from the hustle and bustle of the routines within our day, we will really find magic in what children are capable of. The preschoolers while involved in this experience really showed how they used the concepts of technology and design combined with scientific methods of visually sizing up what the snails needed for their humble abode and creating a masterpiece. The finished product was a visual representation of the technological skills of problem-solving and using various strategies to meet an objective. Yes the last sentence is all so technical but this is technology after all (Johnston, 2005; Smorti, 1999).

References

Arthur, L., Beecher, B., Death, E., Dockett, S., & Farmer, S. (2008). Programming and planning in early childhood settings (4th ed.). Victoria, Australia: Thompson.

Gonzalez-Mena, J. (2008). Foundations of early childhood education: Teaching children in a diverse society. (4th ed.). Boston, MA, United States of America: McGrawHill.

Johnston, J. ( 2005). Early explorations in science (2nd ed.). London, United Kingdom: McGraw Hill.

MacNaughton, G., & Williams, G. (2009). Techniques for teaching young children: Choices in theory and practice. New South Wales, Australia: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Ministry of Education. (1996). Te Whāriki, he whāriki mātauranga mo nga mokopuna o Aotearoa: Early childhood curriculum. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media.

Smorti, S. (1999, Autumn) Technology in early childhood. Early Education, 19.

Wednesday, 14 March 2012

Innovative designers

Before

The children approached me today and asked if they could change the layout of the playground equipment. I wanted to encourage their critical thinking and problem solving skills so I posed the question; how can we design the new playground? After much thought J suggested we “draw a picture to show where everything should go”. A few other children joined our group and pretty soon we had a collection of architects designing and discussing how the equipment would fit into the playground. Each child took turns at drawing where they wanted the different equipment to go. After half an hour our playground was ready to move. Once the revamped playground was set up the children had so much fun.

I loved watching the enjoyment the children seemed to achieve from this type of technology, designing their new playground not only showed their innovative abilities but also being in the outdoors, breathing in all that fresh air is great for their overall wellbeing (Ministry of Education, 1996; Greenfield, 2007). I was remarkably impressed with the creativity that these pre-schoolers possessed when thinking through the process of where they wanted the equipment to go (Petty, 1997). Although initially the main focus for the children was drawing up plans, the emphasis soon became centred on discussion amongst themselves about whether the ladder or monkey bars should be attached to a box. The children displayed independent thinking and showed the ability to recall on prior knowledge about the process and problem-solving skills when involved in this learning experience (Ministry of Education, 1996; Ministry of Education, 2007; Santrock, 2009;Smorti, 1999). I was happy with my role as the facilitator and was amazed at their ability to critically think about what they were going to do when I asked open-ended questions (MacNaughton & Williams, 2009) I could almost hear their active brains ticking over like the workings of a clock. I believe when children are given the freedom to adapt or modify things in the environment they are learning innovations which sit at the core of technological practice (Ministry of Education, 2007). The children worked really well as a team as they collectively planned, set up and trialled their masterpiece they had created and developed new strategies to problem-solve for themselves (Ministry of Education, 1996). They were so excited about what they accomplished, it warmed my heart to be a witness to their creative and confident decision making. I love it when children play an active part in the curriculum as it shows they really feel comfortable and empowered to participate in the environment. Children also know that when their ideas and thoughts are valued they gain a sense of belonging (Ministry of Education, 1996).

Discussing design

This experience provided children with the opportunity to take charge of their learning and gain empowerment when they were encouraged to use critical thinking when trying to find solutions in designing the new playground (Athur, Beecher, Death, Dockett & Farmer, 2008; Ministry of Education, 1996; Smorti, 1999; Stephenson; 2010). Practical resources such as planks, the climbing wall, monkey bars and ladder supported the development of creative innovation as children used what was available around the centre to create what they envisaged (Ministry of Education, 1996; Ministry of Education, 2007; Smorti, 1999). While working cooperatively alongside their peers children used the concepts of ‘AKO’ and scaffolding. The numerous discussion and debating that took place while enterprising their design of the playground reaffirmed for me how technology is found everywhere we look (Santrock, 2009; Tamati, 2005). While the children were planning their new playground it became clear they were developing technological knowledge about the different methods of communicating their ideas through math concepts of distance and inventive processes (Copley, 2010; Ministry of Education, 1996; Smorti, 1999).

Team work

References

Arthur, L., Beecher, B., Death, E., Dockett, S., & Farmer, S. (2008). Programming and planning in early childhood settings (4th ed.). Victoria, Australia: Thompson.

Copley, J. (2010). The young child and mathematics. (2nd ed.).Washington, United States of America: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Greenfield, C. (2007). What is it about the monkey bars? Early childhood Folio, 11:2007, 31-35.

MacNaughton, G., & Williams, G. (2009). Techniques for teaching young children: Choices in theory and practice. New South Wales, Australia: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Ministry of Education. (1996). Te Whāriki, he whāriki mātauranga mo nga mokopuna o Aotearoa: Early childhood curriculum. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media.

Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand Curriculum Retrieved from

http://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/the new zealand curriculum.

Petty, G. (1997). The creative process. In How to be better at creativity (pp. 15-21). London, UK: Kogan Page.

Tamati, A. (2005). “Mā tōu rourou, mā tōku rourou” the concept of AKO:

co-construction of knowledge from a Kaupapa Māori perspective. Early childhood Education.

Santrock, J.W. (2009). Lifespan development (12th ed., International). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Smorti, S. (1999, Autumn) Technology in early childhood. Early Education, 19.

Stephenson, A. (2010). Unravelling children’s “freedom of choice”. Early Childhood Folio 14 (2), 26-30.

The new design

Saturday, 10 March 2012

Welcome!!!!

Ciao everyone!!!... If you are reading this post, it means contrary to rumour I am computer literate after all lol..... Welcome to my blog page...Hopefully soon it will be overrun with exciting posts about technology in the Early Childhood setting....yeah right...hehe... I hope everyone is not too stressed about this module and is looking forward to the abundance of knowledge we will gain from this paper...God, here's hoping....Okay my lovely's it is time to vamoose and actually start some of these much needed posts.... Good luck with everything...Princess kisses....Mwahh!!!!!