Final Reflection

At the start of this assignment I believed that nearly all the group members had similar and unanimous views, that technology (particularly electronic devices) did not have a place in early childhood settings. However with the completion of my personal blog, and through responding to my individual group member’s blogs, I have come to the conclusion that technology does have a vital and essential role to play in early childhood education. I observed that although there were common devices used in our experiences across the blogs each person has conveyed and contributed a new aspect of knowledge regarding technology processes because of the context of the centre. This is often attributed to the culture, people, spaces, places and resources and age of the children. This supports Smorti’s (1999) reading which states “technology is influenced by the culture or society in which it occurs” (p.6).

I benefited from receiving the feedback of my peers, and gained new and enhanced perspectives on the different ways in which I could progress and scaffold these experiences in the future. Katie highlighted the importance of brainstorming; I feel that this pertains not only to technological experiences but all early childhood education explorations. Brainstorming allows educators to gain a better understanding of children’s knowledge on particular topics and it provides them with a clear reference point for ‘where to next’. Jody’s informed blog comments (‘growing a better future’) reminded me of the critical importance of nurturing children’s learning through the satisfaction and joy I gain from my creative explorations with drawing, painting sketching and photographing bulbs and plants. This validates the need of educators to bring their areas of strength, uniqueness and expertise to the forefront of their teaching experiences and to substantiate the worth of a quality teaching team. Recognising, acknowledging and utilising individual talents and abilities also emulates the teaching philosophies that educators apply to fostering the unique identity of the children they teach and the necessary contributions these make to the cultural contexts of the environments they occupy. “A strong image of the child is also a strong image of the teacher and a strong image of the school.”(Rinaldi, 2001, p.51)

I feel that we have gone on a journey that has tested our understanding and knowledge of technology and the conceptual ‘componentry’ in its processes. That understanding has in turn, generated a process of critical reflection concerning our unique perspectives, values and beliefs, personal opinions and biases. Through class discussions, readings and participating in practical experiences, using technology as tool both as a process and as a device, (as Morgan stated her blog ‘How handy and iphone – 5’) we have gained renewed insights into the capability and confidence of children as they explore new fields of learning and we have been able to implement informed teaching practices based on non-biased approaches. With this change in pedagogical views we have ensured the ‘high quality’ learning experiences of children using technical devices (Evidenced in Jody’s reflection about ‘Construction in the sand’).

However in saying this, technological advances are being made at a rapid rate, almost beyond our ability to keep up with them. With the reading of Morgan’s blog ‘What is a leap pad’ I feel my fears are being realised, that technology may eventually replace other important processes essential to early childhood development, ones that promote the practical skills of acquiring knowledge (through physically writing in text books and reading paper books) . The relationship with the teacher risks being a cursory one with the primary role of educator being instilled into the fibre optics of technological hardware and the impersonal mediation of software programs. While this may not be a primary concern at present discretionary use of technology is dependent on the cultural contexts of different learning environments  and means there are genuine concerns surrounding the long term viability and relevance of the ‘real’ versus the virtual educator.  I think it is because of the social variables that exist in the one to one interactions with educators, when learning an academic skill, which makes them so unique and essential to the socio-cultural development of children. Because of this realisation I now have to anticipate how this will affect my teaching in the future, in particular pertaining to children’s relationships with technological devices. I have heard it said that ‘you can’t change what you don’t acknowledge’. As research is still being formulated and is yet to be conducted on the long term physiological and psycho-social implications for individuals resulting from the introduction of these advancing technologies, I can only adopt a wait and see approach myself. In order to deconstruct this fear in my teaching practice I need to maintain my vigilance in keeping abreast of new knowledge and current theories of education and child development, and use reflective models to ensure a non-bias approach to my teaching.

This assessment has strengthened my belief that the nature that is displayed in the physical world and the inherent nature of the individual are inextricably entwined. And this recognition is vital for the continued and holistic well-being of both. This relationship should continue to be the dominant factor in contributing to high quality education and new understandings of how we need to incorporate technology. I believe that as long as there is technology in the world we need to maintain a balance when creating rich learning experiences for children. Richard Louv (2008) supports this by stating “the future will belong to the nature-smart—those individuals, families, businesses, and political leaders who develop a deeper understanding of the transformative power of the natural world and who balance the virtual with the real. The more high-tech we become, the more nature we need”.

This video clip showcases his ideas and theories surrounding nature deficit-disorder. http://richardlouv.com/books/last-child/videos/

Therefore in this age of information overload it is easy to become overwhelmed with the plethora of knowledge available. Through digital resources, but with the informed and skilled interventions of educators, children can learn discernment and unique ways of expressing their identity.

References

Gandini, L., & Edwards, C. (2001). Reggio Emilia:The Image of the Child and the Child's Environment as a Fundamental Principal Bambini; The Italian approach to infant/toddler care (pp. 49-53). London, England: Teachers College Press.

Louv, R. (2012). Videos about Last Child in the Woods. Books  Retrieved 06.04.2013, 2013, from http://richardlouv.com/books/last-child/videos/

Louv, R. (2008). Last Child in the Woods: Saving our children from nature-deficit disorder. United States of America: Algonquin Books.

Contribution to Group Blogs

Cheynne's Blog
Reflection One:Youtube
Reflection Two:Camera
Reflection Three: Leaf Painting


Katy's Blog
Reflection One: Introducing the ipad
Reflection Two:The use of pens in Early Childhood Education
Reflection Three: The laptop as tool for belonging


Jody's Blog
Reflection One: Say Cheese
Reflection Two:Construction in sandpit
Reflection Three: Creating a vegetable garden


Morgan's Blog
Reflction One: I climbed aboard a pirate-ship
Reflection Two: What is a leap-pad
Reflection Three:How handy an i-phone-5

Reflection Three: Growing Our Future

The Kindergarten has been carrying out small group projects focused on planting and maintaining ecological sustainability within the centre. The children have constructed a well-established worm farm and have created optimal environments for speed germination. The children take pride in tending to their plants, eating the produce and using it in their cooking or baking.

In one of the afternoon sessions the children were busy planting Anemone (super mix) and Ranunculi (rainbow mix) bulbs. Before planting, the bulbs were soaked in water to increase their growing rate. The children then discussed what tools they would need to dig the holes for the bulbs. They all decided to use plastic spades, but during the excavation process the children realised that their spades were too big and were destroying the surrounding plants and disturbing their soil. The children then sought to collaborate with staff on which pieces of equipment would be the most appropriate for the task. They used their problem solving skills throughout the discussions and the processes of elimination pertaining to the practicalities and design intention of each implement. The criteria they used for implement selection were based on the strength of the tool, its ability to scoop and hold soil and the size of the scoop having depth but not volume.  Once the criteria had been satisfied and the choice of soup/serving spoons established, the children returned to the garden.

With one of the educators reading the instructions, the children began digging their holes. The next step involved measuring the holes. The children discovered that a ruler would be the best tool to measure width and depth. With the adult assisted guidance they proceeded to measure the holes to ensure that they were 3-4 centimetres’ deep and 6-8 centimetres’ apart. The children then had to ensure that the bulbs were facing downwards. However we did make the discovery that the bulbs would rotate themselves if placed upside down. Once the holes were measured accurately the children covered the holes with dirt and watered them. Over the next few weeks I hope to document their growth with the children, discover more information about the plant species and to use a range of creative activities both indoors and outdoors to scaffold their current knowledge.

The technological tools used in this scenario were, spades, serving spoons, rulers and watering cans. They aided the children in problem solving and formed an integral part of science, focusing on the process itself to further their discovery outcomes. This experience supports the ‘Contribution’ strand in Te Whāriki that “growing experience in solving problems together develops children’s understanding of how technologies can help them and others” (Ministry of education, 1996, p.96).  I believe that gardening is a technological process because it encourages children to invent, imagine, discover and experiment, providing them with the essential know-how that they can adapt to other forms of problem solving. It challenges children to experiment with other environmental factors that affect plant growth such as heat, cold, wind, rain, different soil types and whether plants are more suited to indoor or outdoor environments. This in turn stimulates further enquiry into the methodology of how we can optimise growing conditions with other interventions/inventions. Gardening also encompasses social studies. “Social Studies is the exploration of people’s interactions in and with their social and physical environments” (Mindes, 2006, p107). I believe that gardening helps children explore their natural environment and make vital connections with their social world. The Ministry of Education (1996) in the ‘Exploration’ strand of Te Whāriki states that “children use a variety of technologies for different purposes as they explore their world” (p.98). It helps children to work alongside others and to examine issues that are important to their community. It fosters a sense of belonging and in this way contributes to the well-being of the child. It helps children to make to meaning of the world they inhabit by directly involving them, not just in the complex interactions of physical environment with their social responsibilities, but also in the unique microcosms of process as they exist exclusively in their own ecosystems.

In this scenario it was the culture of the Kindergarten that emphasised the importance of ecological sustainability and the role technological processes have in assisting and promoting it. Upon reflection, this experience represents the importance of creating citizens that can use technology to enhance the well-being of the community while maintaining a conscientious connection to ‘growing’ stronger futures that rely on environmental awareness. This is made possible through projects like planting that require children to collaborate, form reciprocal relationships, share knowledge with parents and most importantly come together to share and celebrate produce.

References

Cherry-Merry. (2003-2013, 2013). Related Video's Retrieved 31.03.2013, 2013, from http://footage.shutterstock.com/clip-2174324-stock-footage-children-planting-a-tree-in-the-garden.html

Mindes, G. (2006). Social studies in kindergarten. In D. Gullo (Ed.), K today: Teaching and learning in the kindergarten year (Chpt. 10, pp.107115). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Ministry of Education. (1996). Te Whariki: He Whāriki Mātauranga mō ngā Mokopuna o Aotearoa, Early Childhood Curriculum, . Wellington,New Zealand: Learning Media Limited.

1zoom. Retrieved 31.03. 2013, 2013, from http://www.1zoom.net/Flowers/wallpaper/334384/z1114.9/

Reflection Two: Speed Way

Several weeks ago I read Smorti’s (1999) reading “Technology in early childhood”. From the article I discovered that technology in early childhood is an umbrella term that encompasses all objects that can be used to problem solve. This was a new concept to me as my understanding of technology was confined to machines, automation, electronics, and mechanisation. Applied sciences, knowledge, and how we integrate material objects into our society, moved my understanding of technology into the processes of thought, creativity and imagination found in all the sciences. “Technology is…. a creative and purposeful activity aimed at meeting needs and opportunities through the development of products, systems or environments” (Smorti, 1999, p.5). In my last reflection I carried out a technological experience with children using my camera, but with changes to my understanding of technology I thought I would explore the common ‘everyday’ tools and resources that the children use in the Kindergarten to problem solve, and examine the scientific processes involve with their application.

In the past year the children have displayed an on-going interest in using gutters to test the laws of gravity.  The educators have placed the plastic gutters in different places and have provided the children with toys such as plastic balls and small model cars to foster experimentation. The children have applied themselves enthusiastically, placing their objects in the gutter and observing how fast they travel and where there final resting place is. Two weeks ago the gutter was lying against the carpentry table and there were several different resources which included a wooden table, blue plastic basket, white bowl, woven basket filled with cars and a cardboard box placed beside it. Over the course of the morning the children moved the gutter and rearranged the resources to change the degree/angle in which the gutter was positioned in order to accelerate or decelerate their cars.

During this activity the children encountered numerous external obstacles. The wind kept blowing and/or several children would accidently knock the gutter over. This meant that the children had to use their problem solving skills about practical invention and design as well as using technological tools/resources to find a solution. With one of the children we employed processes of elimination. Firstly, we transferred the cars from the ground to the big plastic container. We then used the white bowl as the collection agent for the cars. When the child placed the cars down the gutter she noticed that the bowl flipped because it could not sustain the weight of the cars. So she suggested that we try the small woven basket. The same result occurred again. Finally we placed the tall, plastic blue basket underneath the gutter and to her surprise it worked. I explained to her that this was because of the strength of the plastic and the height of the container. The children noticed that some of the cars travelled down quickly whilst others didn’t move at all. We discussed that this was mainly due to the construction, weight and size of the cars.

I viewed the blue, plastic basket as a technological tool. The manufacturer would have designed it as a multiple purpose container, to be used for storage and to aid people in transferring objects or substances from one place to the next. In this case the children used to the basket to problem solve and to assist the workings of the machinery they’d constructed. The basket provided a stable foundation for the gutter and a sturdy receptacle for the cars.

Reflecting on this experience expanded my current understanding and knowledge of technology. It showcased the children’s ability to be resourceful and to adapt the technological tools they possess in their own environments to enlarge their understanding of the world, and to find solutions that expedite desired outcomes. These statements link to the following strands that have interwoven technological principals in Te Whāriki:

Wellbeing

“Technology: capability in solving practical problems contributes to self confidence in their ability to develop relationships with others (Ministry of Education, 1996, p.94)”

Belonging

“Technology: using many materials for different purposes enables children to recognise that different technologies may be used in various places and settings. (Ministry of Education, 1996, p.95)

References

flickr. (2013) Retrieved 30.03.2013, 2013, from http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3413/3245034684_800c11e3bc.jpg

Ministry of Education. (1996). Te Whariki: He Whāriki Mātauranga mō ngā Mokopuna o Aotearoa, Early Childhood Curriculum, . Wellington,New Zealand: Learning Media Limited.

Smorti, S. (1999) Technology in Early Childhood. Early Education, 19, 5-10.

Reflection One: Capturing Pricless Moments

The power that children have through their ability to independently access information and entertainment and access ‘adult’ knowledge, challenges traditional images of children as dependent, morally pure and incompetent. An alternative view is that children are competent users of technology, active agents in their own learning and very aware of the world beyond their family” (Arthur, Beecher, Death, Dockett, & Farmer, 1993).

We live in a technological age. My current paper titled “people, places, things and events” is currently informing me of the role technology has in early childhood settings.  As we move towards a better future educators are faced with a technological movement in education that creates an influential undercurrent, impacting on our curriculum. This movement causes educators to take a stance for or against the incorporation of technology into our early childhood sector.

Unfortunately the Kindergarten in which I work in has decided against the incorporation of technological devices in the centre. Because it is part of the social environment we live in it is difficult to ignore in education, therefore I decided to discover ways in which I could incorporate technology into the centre through correspondingly contemporary activities.

An example of this was when I brought one of my personal, older but still functional, cameras into the Kindergarten to see how the children would respond. I placed the closed camera box on an outdoor table, sat down and observed the children’s reactions. The children displayed mixed responses; some exhibited no interest, others were uncertain and a small number of children participated in the discovery of the various processes and purposes of the camera. I discussed the ways in which to protect the camera, during this phase the children counted the batteries, checked to see if the batteries were loaded and established that the safety wrist band was attached to the camera. We then went through the steps required in order to take photographs.  Once the camera was operational the children took turns using the camera.

One of children in particular was very eager to take photos, so she rushed off the deck and began documenting the world around her. She was captivated by her friends and educators in the outdoor environment and captured their involvement in several activities. She spent a considerable time documenting one of her friend’s movements and discovered that she couldn’t take photos of her while she herself was engaged in running to keep up with her. We discussed why that was, that because of the speed at which her friend was moving, the camera was not able to capture that precise moment as she kept moving out of the frame. Throughout this child’s learning process she was aware that I was simultaneously taking photos of her, so we used the opportunity to compare our cameras. She identified that although our cameras were a different size and colour they still had the same function of taking pictures. It was wonderful to see her engrossed in this process and taking ownership of her own learning.

Another child was enthusiastic to show me his painting that was hanging on the deck to dry. When he realised there was a camera he could use he began taking a steady stream of photographs of his artwork. Not only was he demonstrating a pride in his work, but he was discovering another artistic medium in which to express himself. His creative endeavours reaffirmed his individuality and validated his social role as a valuable member of the kindergarten environment. In another observation, a child expressed a fascination with the camera in its physical form, taking it in and out of the case and using it as an accessory. For this individual, I recognised that the process held a greater significance for him, rather than the product. This validates Smorti’s (1999) belief in “using a process approach to technology (similar to our current approach to creative arts in early childhood), it is the ‘doing’ that is important, rather than the ‘product’ ” (p.6).

To conclude, this experience has confirmed that technology does have a place in a non-technological setting. “Adaption and innovation are at the heart of technological practice. Quality outcomes result from thinking and practices that are informed, critical and creative” (Ministry of Edcation,2007,p.34).Using the camera with the children has supported my views that technology explored and utilised in critical amounts with educator-supported interventions, can be used as another tool for expression, documentation, creation, building confidence, and can be used to contribute and shape children’s identities.

References

Arthur, L., Beecher, B., Death, E., Dockett, S., & Farmer, S. (1993). Programming & Planning In Early Childhood Settings (4th ed.). South Melbourne, Victoria Australia: Cengage Learning.

Caton, K. (2013). Snaptastic Shots photography Retrieved 30.03.2013, 2013, from http://snaptasticshots.com/

Downgraf. (2013) Retrieved 30.03.2013, 2013, from http://www.downgraf.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/168.jpg

Smorti, S. (1999) Technology in Early Childhood. Early Education, 19, 5-10.

Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand cirriculum. Wellington, New Zealand:Learning Media