Portfolio 1.3

For this portfolio I am looking specifically at Outcome 1.3 (Specifies the teaching approaches you’ll use & the learning environs you’ll create to support the social dimensions of early literacy/numeracy)

To me, this connects with EYLF Outcome 1: Children develop knowledgeable and confident self-identities. Further, we can also use the educator guidance information where I would ‘promote in all children a strong sense of who they are and their connectedness to others’ (National Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education and Care, 2013 p.21). 

This activity would be focused on age 3-4 in kindergarten. The activity would be primarily focused on gender. Based on research I have sourced in another topic, I have come across a range of activities that are typically encouraged more for one gender than the other by educators. For example, girls and domestic play, boys and messy play, boys and climbing.

As an initial introduction into the ideas of gender roles and critical thinking, I would make three columns on a whiteboard (male, female, both), cards with female & male symbols, and a number of activity cards.

With a group of children, ideally 3-10 with both genders & also different backgrounds represented, I would then go through the activities and ask, ‘Who can do this activity’. As we went through, I would ask them to justify their decisions, and see if they could come to a general consensus. At this point, I wouldn’t provide my own input other than questioning.

Once all of the activities were assigned on the board, we can then look at it overall. We can count how many activities are in the boys only, girls only, and both columns. We can look at less and more also. Finally, I would move them all in to the centre, and explain my rationale, in that all children are equally able to undertake these tasks, regardless of their gender.

Reasoning:

This idea was based on the reading I did for another topic, as well as an observation of one 4 year old who insisted that in one activity, only boys could be dinosaurs. It was also to do with my perceived lack of representation for gender issues in the EYLF when compared to cultural issues. Whilst discussing this in the seminar today, it was suggested to me that I check how many times gender was mentioned in the document, versus cultural terms. Gender appeared 3 times (and 1 was in the index), whilst cultur* (wildcard used to capture all variants) appeared 57 times. This further emphasised my need for activities such as the above in ECE settings.

Reference:

National Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education and Care (2013). Early Years Learning Framework. [online] Retrieved from: http://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/belonging_being_and_becoming_the_early_years_learning_framework_for_australia.pdf [Accessed: 7 Nov 2013].

Week 8, 6th of November + Portfolio 3.3

What and why?

My literacy reading for this week is “European Early Childhood Education Research Journal”. I chose this reading because it related to this week’s core concept of Analyst through advertising. Advertising appeals to me particularly as a research focus as it is related to my former studies and work.

Central Premise

The paper focused on 96 children from kindergartens in Greece, and looked at their responses to a series of advertising images. It was interesting to me that many people (often myself included) may dislike advertising to children as it can be deceptive – that is, appearing to be exciting and fun, when in fact the primary motive is something else, selling a product to the child. At the same time, the study was presented to children as the researcher wanting to ‘understand how children see and think about pictures’. What it was actually about was how they perceive the intent of, and emotionally react to advertising. Not exactly the same thing, and I understand the need for ambiguity in order to not taint the data, but it was interesting nonetheless.

Though buried in obscure wording (conation, anyone?), the most interesting finding I could gather was that around 8% of the children recognised that the purposes of the images presented to them were for selling / or advertising.

In practice

Based on the above finding, I think children should be exposed to critical literacy activities around advertising. I think discussions with each other around materials provided by the educator would be a good start. This could then be a starting point for online research around the source, purpose, and conventions used in advertising.

Update: 21/11/2013

I am resubmitting this reading reflection as I believe it aligns with Outcome 3.3: States the strengths & possible limits of your own ability to observe & offer literacy & numeracy experiences with children less than 4 years of age.

I believe that my background in business could be an advantage in early childhood in that I can provide an alternative viewpoint based on my experiences in this area. It is perhaps unusual that someone who has studied advertising is now recommending that 'I think children should be exposed to critical literacy activities around advertising'. However, considering that I have both studied and worked in this area to some extent, I think that this is not an opinion without merit.

In terms of potential weaknesses as an educator, I covered one example of this in 'Portfolio Week 5' where I said:

"When I first went to live in the Netherlands in 2011 I discovered to my surprise that I was more similar to other ‘macho’ Australian men than I thought. I refused to ride on the back of my girlfriend’s bicycle and couldn’t really explain why other than it felt ‘wrong’".

Whether this 'weakness' would be a weakness in all cases can be examined further. As prompted by the feedback I have received from Jesse via email (and perhaps similarly to my point about a business perspective above), I wonder if there are some situations where having an alternative, though archaic, point of view would be an advantage?

Reference:

Constandinidou-Semoglou, O. (2007). Early childhood education and adult-oriented advertising discourse. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 15(3), 329-341. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/61903755?accountid=10910

What and why?

My numeracy reading for this week is “Mathematics and Social Justice in Grade 1: How Children Understand Inequality and Represent It”. I thought this would be an interesting reading as I believe social justice issues are equally relevant in Australia as they are in Canada. Secondly, this article appeals to any Australian reader through the promotion of maths versus math, a pet peeve of many non-North American I’m sure, as well as having a focus on ‘The Rabbits’ by Shaun Tan, my favourite children’s book author / illustrator.

Central Premise

The paper uses an example of an activity where the children were asked to demonstrate aspects of The Rabbits books using Cuisenaire rods. It was fascinating to see the various ideas they came up with, and their equation of power with the various rods.

In practice

This reminded me of the reading I had last week, where the educator had isolated the various food items from The Very Hungry Caterpillar and made them into objects on a felt board to be manipulated. I am sensing a common theme of the importance of manipulatives in early numeracy, which is heartening as it seems far more engaging than what little I recall of my own early numeracy experiences.

I feel as though this is a particularly worthwhile example to emulate in that it not only addresses numeracy in an engaging way, but also challenges children to think about complex topics like power and social justice at the same time.

Reference:

Murphy, M. (2009). Mathematics and social justice in grade 1: How children understand inequality and represent it. Beyond the Journal: Young Children on the Web, May, Retrieved 6^th November 2013 from http://www.naeyc.org/files/yc/file/200905/BTJMurphy.pdf