Artefacts for learning

I am fascinated with Aboriginal ways of knowing, doing and being and want to continue to learn more about how I can saturate my pedagogical approach with these both overtly and more subtly.  The idea of adding artefacts to the environment is one way to achieve this but as I read and researched further I discovered there is a lot more to the notion of artefacts than I had realised.

Anthony and Walshaw argue that “in mathematics education, artefacts offer ‘thinking spaces’—they are tools that help to organise mathematical thinking.”

Artefacts according to Anthony and Walshaw can be almost anything from children's work, graphs, models metaphors mathematical symbols and equations and even the number system to examples, stories, illustrations, textbooks, rulers, clocks, calendars, technology, and problem contexts. 

I had never thought of these as artefacts!

But they do offer Thinking Space. 

Anthony and Walshaw add that educators support children's connections to “concepts embodied in the artefacts used” by carefully and purposefully “…select[ing] and construct[ing] artefacts that their students can relate to’

They go further and state that “Embracing culturally contextualised pedagogy is not, however, simply a matter of incorporating ethnic symbols and artefacts into tasks.” Deeper consideration must be given to the cultural context, children's, and communities understanding and the educators own cultural competence.

Describing a Canadian experience that has many parallels to Australian Aboriginal First Nations peoples the impact of colonisation has been devastating.  The article argues strongly for decolonising education that redresses the past and seeks to pave a future that values and honours Aboriginal perspectives.  Munroe et al  “…believe the teaching of decontextualized mathematics and literacy skills does not align with an Indigenous worldview which is holistic and interconnected,” and that  “…students who learn numeracy and literacy skills in a decontextualized way will develop the critical thinking “ needed to make decisions in a complex world.

Battiste (2002) in Munroe etal explains the significance of indigenous knowledges in this way:

“Indigenous knowledge comprises the complex set of technologies developed and sustained by Indigenous civilizations. Often oral and symbolic, it is transmitted through the structure of Indigenous languages and passed on to the next generation through modeling, practice, and animation, rather than through the written word.… Indigenous knowledge is typically embedded in the cumulative experiences and teachings of Indigenous peoples rather than in a library. (p. 2)” I would also argue that the knowledge is also passed on through dance, ceremony, land, seasons, art, and artefacts. 

Anthony, G. & Walshaw, M. (2007a). Mathematics teaching for diverse learners utilises tools as learning supports in Pedagogy in Mathematics/Pangarau.

Wellington: Ministry of Education. P126-140

140http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/series/2515/5951

MUNROE, E.A., BORDEN, L.L., ORR, A.M., TONEY, D. and MEADER, J., 2013. DECOLONIZING ABORIGINAL EDUCATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY. McGill Journal of Education (Online), 48(2), pp. 317-337.

Assessing Literacy and Numeracy

 Educators who know and understand children well will be able to effectively support their emerging literacy and numeracy.  These relationships are important for both connection and learning.  An essential component of the relationships is the reflective practice of the educator.  Recording and making learning visible is another.  These are also both important professional competencies. 

Docket et al describe in their article the way that narrative assessment in the form of Learning Stories was used in a Project in southern Adelaide starting in 2004.  This project and the article seek to define “nature of powerful mathematical ideas and their relevance to early childhood” using an action research approach explores ways to assess children's mathematical learning. When I thought about shapes and geometry, I thought all that was needed was for the children to know the names of some regular shapes.

The article describes conversations with early childhood educators working together to link these powerful maths ideas to the SACSA Developmental Learning Outcomes* In this case - Children are intellectually inquisitive:

It was really not something I thought they would be inquisitive about. By using the matrix, I can see that they can develop their inquisitiveness by asking lots of questions about lots of different shapes in their environment--not just triangles and circles--and can investigate why things are the way they are. This will take them into asking about how things are used, where they come from, whether some shapes are better than others for a particular job, and why some shapes look better than others. It is exciting for the children--and for me!

The Thurman article considers play-based, curriculum and dynamic assessments in an attempt to find a valid way to assess children literacy development in a context that fits the child.  Interestingly they concede that while“…standardized assessment methods are certainly useful in making normative comparisons between children and their peers, it is important to remember that these approaches do not always provide comprehensive measures of children’s level of functioning; rather, they provide samples of behavior that are likely to be limited in scope.”

Bracken and Walker (1997) in Thurman suggest “…the true potential of assessment techniques lies not in their ability to provide diagnostic labels for use in classification of children, but rather in their ability to utilize data to guide the provision of appropriate services through the modification of educational environments.” This definition fits very closely with the shift in assessing and planning for children's learning in early childhood from deficit focused checklists to more holistic narrative assessment. 

After exploring these alternative assessment styles and modalities Thurman and McGrath turn their attention to literacy development suggesting the validity of these methods in assessing children's literacy. 

While the article makes an excellent argument for non-standardized assessment is falls short in its scope of what literacy in early childhood entails.  There is no mention of anything other than text as literacy learning. 

Dockett, S., Harley, E., & Perry, B. (2007). Learning stories and children's powerful mathematics. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 9(2).




THURMAN, K.S. and MCGRATH, M.C., 2008. Environmentally Based Assessment Practices: Viable Alternatives to Standardized Assessment for Assessing Emergent Literacy Skills in Young Children. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 24(1), pp. 7-24.

*SACSA Developmental Learning Outcomes*

SACSA (South Australian Standards and Accountability Framework) was a Birth-18 years curriculum used in all settings.  The EYLF is drawn very heavily on the theoretical underpinnings of SACSA.  For more information about SACSA Home

Analyst – critical literacy and numeracy skills.

Week 11

For many educators philosophy and practice go unquestioned all too often.  In order to support the development of children’s critical literacy and numeracy skills – their Theory of Mind I need to have a capacity to critically analyze my own and others theories and perspectives.  By exploring constructs and contexts for teaching and learning literacy and numeracy in early childhood settings I am able to see different perspectives and make informed decisions about my own practice.

The articles this week both examine the social, cultural-historical contexts where the teaching and learning of literacy and numeracy occur and have provided new perspectives of both theory and practice.  Street (2005) describes the hidden and subtle aspects of an educator’s language and the social and relational contexts within which dialogue takes place.  Importantly the child is “ facilitated to explore rather than regurgitate mathematical principles, to take authority rather than reproduce the teacher’s authority.”  And we are drawn to the significance of the educators capacity to “var[y] the communicative repertoire with use of multi-modality –gestures, waves objects, draws, points;” to support the children’s understanding of mathematical concepts.  This language rich approach that is focused on what Street refers to as “ambiguities” rather than “truths” helps children make meaning of often complex mathematical concepts.

The diagram below an example of some of the elements of this repertoire that support the development of Theory of Mind

http://livasperiklis.com/2012/09/30/what-eye-movements-can-tell-about-theory-of-mind-in-a-strategic-game/

The Fleer and Raban article could easily have been written in in 2013.  The demand from society for early literacy and numeracy has intensified since 2005 and the pressure on educators’ to prepare children for future success is significant.  The interest in the article for me is the trail and evaluation of the Literacy and Numeracy Resource highlighted in my Portfolio

“Vygotsky’s (1987) work on everyday concept formation and scientific or academic concept formation draws our attention to the importance of identifying the core concepts in literacy and numeracy knowledge, and combining these with children’s personal everyday knowledge.”  When educators explicitly link everyday concepts and academic contexts together (double move), theoretical knowledge is developed”

Table 2 and Table 3 clearly indicate the important role of “tools” to support educators capacity to understand and make their own meaning of literacy and numeracy concepts and apply this learning to their work with young children. 

 

Marilyn Fleer & Bridie Raban (2007) Constructing cultural‐ historical tools for supporting young children's concept formation in early literacy and numeracy, Early Years: An International Research Journal, 27:2, 103-118,

Brian Street (2005) The Hidden Dimensions of Mathematical Language and Literacy, Language and Education 19:2, 135-140

Pedagogy for literacy and numeracy in the early years

25/10/2013 Week 9

Cracking the code – the educators role to support children’s emerging literacy and numeracy – to support children to begin to crack the code make meaning of the world with increasingly sophisticated literacy and numeracy skills. 

Pedagogy in the early years can be problematic. There is rhetoric around play and child-centred learning but with the push to teach particular skills like mathematical concepts the focus shits quickly to more traditional teaching with instructional methodologies used to impart knowledge and formative assessment to determine learning.   

Gifford (2004) argues that “most early years mathematics research has focused on children’s competence, not pedagogy: it seems we have established what young children can confidently do, especially with regard to number, but we do not know much about ‘systematically helping children to learn’, “p 100. Gifford’s article highlights some of the main areas of research and theoretical perspectives that have influenced pedagogy and practice and concludes it is the holistic and integrated nature of early childhood learning and development that is important.  The article also offers key strategies for teaching with educators who are relational, playful, and non-confrontational, curious and knowledgeable.

Singh et al (2012) also concludes a broader socio-cultural perspective is required to support literacy learning for young children.  The authors argue that a more democratic and distributed leadership environment must replace a “heroic” style of early childhood leaders where all educators, families and perhaps also children are leaders in literacy learning.   The article is concerned with the pre-service teachers experience and the examples of philosophical change and transformative shifts in practice were insightful and inspiring. 

While I found these articles helpful in providing an overview of research and theoretical underpinnings of literacy and numeracy pedagogy I still have some questions.  Most research talks about pedagogy for children 3—5 so what does this mean for even younger children – infants and toddlers?  Can we draw conclusions about pedagogical approach for them? 

Sue Gifford (2004) A new mathematics pedagogy for the early years: in search

of principles for practice, International Journal of Early Years Education, 12:2, 99-115,

Singh, M., Han, J. And Woodrow, C., (2012) Shifting Pedagogies Through Distributed Leadership: Mentoring Chilean Early Childhood Educators In Literacy Teaching. Australasian Journal Of Early Childhood, 37(4), Pp. 68-76.

Christine Ludwig (2003) Making Sense of Literacy, Newsletter Of The Australian Literacy Educators' Association, Queensland Studies Authority Feb