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

Words and Concepts

18/10/13 Week 8 

I left the last workshop wondering about my own capacity and understanding of mathematical concepts.  What concepts don’t I know?  What are the concepts I don’t have words and names for? These questions influenced my reading selection and once again led in me in various directions. They also generated more questions – what are the concepts I need to know?  With this dilemma also comes the notion of the inextricable link between literacy and numeracy.  They cannot in reality be separated. 

One of the things I found interesting and slightly troubling in the readings was the link between language and concept development.  There is a strong belief that without language the concepts cannot be understood.  Gordon (2004) asks the question “ Is it possible that there are some concepts we cannot entertain because of the language we speak?” (p 496) His studies with the Piraha tribe in Amazonia demonstrated that numerical understandings and capacity to process numerically were “clearly affected “ by their counting system of “one-two-many”. Does this mean that without the language and words to explain the concepts it is not possible to fully understand the concepts? 

Butterworth et al (2008) ask a similar question; “Are thoughts impossible without the words to express them?” however their findings are in direct contrast.  They found that “no language effects” were found and in fact although statistically insignificant the Indigenous children from both regions performed better than their city counterparts in non-verbal addition even without language for higher numbers. 

This fits more closely with what I know, understand and believe about very young children.  Butterworth (2005) in another article also suggest an “innate specific capacity for acquiring arithmetical skills, but the effects of the content of learning, and the timing of learning in the course of development, requires further investigation. “ (p3).  This leads to further questions for me as an educator and will shape future professional learning and curiosity.

Butterworth, B (2005), The development of arithmetical abilities Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 46:1 3–18

Butterworth, B., Reeve, R., Reynolds, F., & Lloyd, D. (2008). Numerical thought with and without words: Evidence from indigenous Australian children. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(35), 13179.

Gordon, P. (2004). Numerical cognition without words: Evidence from Amazonia. Science, 306(5695), 496-9.