Week 7, October 31st

What and why?

My literacy reading for this week is “Early adopters: Playing new literacies and pretending new technologies in print-centric classrooms”. I chose this reading because it not only discussed literacy conventions, a hallmark of the ‘technician’ component of this course, but also business terms and video games that I am familiar with.

Central Premise

The paper highlights a situation where over fifty percent of kindergarten (and primary school) teachers identify themselves as ‘technology novices’. As such, technology can be seen as entertainment only, or a minor addition to the actual learning delivered in print. In the paper itself, teachers noted that a focus on high-stakes literacy testing allowed less time for a technology focus.

Much of the text focused on an invented battle video game created by two boys, and the process of making meaning within this. As a regular video game player this was complex even to me, but it was interesting to see this viewed from an academic perspective, e.g. ‘non-linear narrative structure, quite distinctive spatial layouts, ongoing and cumulative challenge levels, multiple and interactive cueing systems’.

In practice

I think it’s essential for educators to stay up to date with technology in order to be able to understand and communicate with students. However, I am still conflicted about introducing additional technology into the classroom at the centres where I currently teach, despite them currently being quite ‘low tech’ in my assessment. On the one hand, I feel as though technology activities are largely indoors, and additional outdoor time is useful to combat the growing obesity issue. On the other, I feel as though a quote by Luke (1999, cited in Wohlwend, 2009) raises a valid point:

“If we don’t [become involved], corporate software developers will maintain their control over content design that invariably shapes how and what [the software we use will] teach.”

That is to say, if we as educators have no involvement in the process, how are we able to have a positive influence on the directions this technology takes?

Reference:

Wohlwend, K. E. (2009). Early adopters: Playing new literacies and pretending new technologies in print-centric classrooms. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 9(2), 117-140. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/61860267?accountid=10910

What and why?

This week I searched for numeracy readings specifically related to development, in the hope that I could relate it to the numeracy continuum I am in the process of solidifying. I found that adding this extra requirement to my search made it more difficult to find articles, as I am now narrowing my search based on papers that are:

•  Peer-reviewed
•  Less than 10 years old
• About numeracy
•  Hopefully about children 4 years and younger
• Relevant to the ‘technician’ concept
• Relevant to my continuum

The article that best fit this description was ‘Numeracy in the early years: Project good start’ from the Australian Council for Educational Research. The study examined the numeracy skills of more than 1600 pre-school students who were tracked up until the end of their first year of school. A number of ‘assessment instruments’ (gap analyses / tests) were used to gauge the children’s skill levels.

Central Premise

It was found that girls outperformed boys on tasks that required verbal processing and fine motor-coordination skills, which was considered unsurprising as this is seen as common from a developmental perspective. Indigenous students performed less well in all areas assessed.

In centres that implemented numeracy in a subtle, play-based manner, it was found that those who used ‘systematic / planned play’ produced better results than ‘random play’. These terms were not elaborated on, but I assume this means that the activities were not purely child-led but had higher degrees of teacher preparation, facilitation, and interaction.

[Such a great idea, expanding on the numeracy within 'The very hungry caterpillar]

The report highlighted three key areas typical of pre-schools with exceptional numeracy performance:

1. “High expectations and clear goals, and an ability to communicate these clearly;
2. An awareness of the need for direct, formal development of children’s concepts in numeracy, and so having pedagogical focus on numeracy as well as literacy. Explicit plans for numeracy as a separate area of the program;
3. An awareness of numeracy on the part of the teacher, embedded in materials bought and made, and in the use of mathematical language with the children.”

(Thomson, 2004, p.16)

In practice

I feel like point three goes without saying. Pre-schools run by educators with poor awareness of numeracy seem very unlikely to perform well. However, the first two points are well worth remembering. The concept of having a ‘play-based’ and ‘child-led’ environment seems very common, but it’s important to remember that this should be tempered with an appropriate level of formal focus and planning. High expectations is also an aspect that I am thinking more about as I develop. When children say to me “I can’t do X”, I am taking this more as a challenge than a ‘get out of jail free card’.

Reference

Thomson, S. (2004). Numeracy in the early years: Project good start. Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 9(4), 14-17. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/61906121?accountid=10910