What the Tech?

Working through questions about technology and education

Tag: Kindergarten

Remote Kindergarten

April 5, 2020 / / 4 Comments

This week’s blog post is supposed to be about Makerspaces and fostering creativity with digital tools. I am not sure if I’ll get to that but I would like to talk about the realities of designing remote learning for Kindergarten. The BC Ministry of Education is asking kindergarten educators to provide one hour of educational opportunities per day. That sounds easy but before we can do it, we have to examine what our learners, and their families, really need.

We must first consider that the remote learning experience necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic is not like the distance learning programs organized by school districts. In Distance Learning, there is a home-facilitator who has thought about all the demands of home schooling and consciously made the decision to dedicate their time to educating their children. The facilitator and the learners, no doubt, have many innate qualities that make them suited to teaching and learning at home. The situation for parents and guardians suddenly dropped into the role may be quite different.

There are some parents that I spoke to this week that are thrilled to be forced to be at home with their children. They have been on homeschooling websites and Pinterest. They are building forts, skate ramps, collages, and paper machĂ© globes. Natural makers! They have bought commercially available workbooks because, “He loves that kind of work!” These children are hungry for learning and the families are happy to keep working along their own way. What they are hoping for are opportunities for their children to interact with their friends. Then there are the others.

For a start, every teacher of young children has seen that students behave drastically differently with family than with adults and children at school. Some children are much more likely to resist schooling at home than in a classroom where perceived authority, well-practiced routines, and peer pressure help to keep learners moving forward. This resistance may result in increased tensions in the home at what is already a stressful time for many families. These families are looking to us to provide something structured for their children to do. They are hoping that if they can say, “Your teacher says you have to do this,” the child will be more inclined to do it.

Some adults have the added challenge of having their own jobs to do at home. Older caregivers simply do not have the energy to keep up. We are in week one and I have already spoken to three adults who are struggling with their children/grandchildren. High quality education is not the goal as much as keeping them busy.

Now add diversity and inclusion to the mix. Then, there are the scary things: children living in poverty, children living with abusive adults, and children without good nutrition. For some of these children, school is the safe place, where they are immersed in social connection.

And finally, there’s this email note from a parent:

We are not used to using technology in our house – it’s very limited, so, despite my awareness that it’s useful at this moment, I would love to maintain our guidelines at home. When work is provided, I’d love it to be…based on doing the activity (paper/pencil, hands-on, etc) with technology as a means of communication and supplemental learning resources, not the sole tool. I think what I’m trying to say is I don’t want anyone to become ‘used’ to using technology because of this ‘school at home’ phase we’re in. 

Now take all these considerations and put them in the hands of educators who are phenomenal at their classroom jobs but are terrified of technology. Don’t get me wrong, there are many tech-savvy teachers out there, but the ones that need help, need A LOT of help.

So what does all this mean for designing remote learning for Kindergarten? For us it means providing as many choices as we can. We design with some routine activities, ones that students can do independently because they have done them before. We design some open ended activities so they can get creative with those keen parents and siblings. We design with activities that can be printed out and activities that can be acted out. We design with some activities that can be completed online and some that can be done orally. We design some activities that use apps for the tech savvy, and some that use paper and pencil for the technophobic. We search out photos and videos and make our own photos and videos, and ask for them to send photos and videos. We design activities that can be done indoors, outdoors, and out the window. We create far more than one hour of activities per day. Then we tell our home facilitators that the social-emotional wellbeing of their family is the most important thing and they don’t have to do any of it if it causes any undue stress.

In the end, the most significant thing we can do is talk with them, connect as much as possible, and facilitate connections between them. I would like to video conference with them so they can all see each others’ faces, even if only for the few minutes their attention spans allow. Because nothing online is ever simple, we have to wait and see if our school district will permit us to use Zoom. Zoom could very well be the most import digital tool for my little learners. We could use Microsoft Teams but because we can only see four faces, it won’t be as engaging for the littles and I won’t see the quiet ones. I will stand in their driveways to see them if I have to, because while I may be a remote Kindergarten teacher at the moment, I refuse to let them be invisible.

Clark, Kozma, and Kindergarten

September 17, 2019 / / 2 Comments

“Untitled” by Paul O’Donoghue is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

The Clark-Kozma debate is more than 20 years old.  Why are we still talking about it?  Clark seemed to be steering educators away from the use of media largely because it’s so expensive.  This is a genuine concern; money for public education is tight.  I think back in 1983, he had some valid points.  Why should we spend all that extra money on media for things we can successfully teach without media?  That said, it’s 2019, we drank the Kool Aid, technology is in the curriculum; wifi, iPads and Chromebooks are increasingly in schools.  Too bad, so sad, Clark.  Mission failed.  And I’m so glad.

I teach kindergarten and, to be honest, I could teach them entirely without digital media. We have plenty of old fashioned, relatively inexpensive tools such as books, pencils, crayons, markers, erasers, paints, play dough.  We have hands on activities, a multitude of loose parts and art materials, a variety of different ways to express  themselves verbally and physically.  I have a plethora of teaching strategies that make learning engaging.  I can foster curiosity and inquiry with a few magnifying glasses and dead bugs.  Why would I want to dent, actually, wipe out, seven years worth of my glue stick budget to buy an iPad for student use?  I have struggled with it.

The answer for Kindergarten, and I am sure, many elementary school teachers, has to do with the push from administration,  the pervasiveness of consumer technology in homes, and individualized learning.

When I decided I would no longer be taking my four and five year olds to the computer lab, my administrator was concerned and wanted to know why.  I explained that it takes the entire block to get everyone signed on with no time left to do anything on the computer so there was little point.  Some time later, she presented me with a Beebot which I think is great but is it necessary for Kindergarten students to know how to code a robotic bee?  Also, they just think they are playing with it; as I’m sure Clark would agree, without an instructional strategy, they may as well be playing with a remote control car, or a marble on a tipping tray.  They don’t know they are coding unless the teacher helps them reflect and connect, thereby, “(forging) a relationship between media and learning” (Kozma, 1994, p. 8)

I have a learner with special needs in my class.  This student is non-verbal and, in preschool, learned to use an iPad to communicate. The iPad stays on a shelf until needed but the moment it comes out, a little crowd gathers around it.  The children all know what a tablet is and they all associate it with entertainment.  A few parents expose their children to educational games but every child knows what YouTube is.  In fact, when asked what they want to be when they grow up, two children in my 2017 and one child in my 2018 class named “YouTuber”.   This tells me they don’t just know about consuming content, but they are already thinking about creating and sharing it.  I don’t think that was even on Clark’s radar back in 1994 and certainly not in 1983.  If it had, he would have realized that these media tools are coming whether we like it or not and our job as educators would inevitably need to include them at some point despite the expense.  I still hold that I can teach the ground floor of digital citizenship to Kindergarten students without putting an iPad in their hands, but if the schools have to buy them anyway, why would I not use them?

If I have two little people, sitting at a table during choice time, choosing to draw frogs, three days in a row, why wouldn’t I want to pull out an iPad and encourage them to pursue an inquiry about frogs?  And then, why wouldn’t I want to encourage them to record their own frog story?  Or create a stop motion video with play dough frogs?

“IMG_2043” by Fatkid32 is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Whenever you have found a medium or set of media attributes which you believe will cause learning for some learners on a given task, ask yourself if another (similar) set of attributes would lead to the same learning result (Clark, 1994, p. 28).

Of course, I could go to the library and get frog books, and get more paper so they could draw pages for their frog story, but let’s face it, these boys would likely have viewed that as work, whereas the iPad would be viewed as entertaining. I’m willing to bet they would tire of colouring long before they would tire of creating on the iPad. Plus, I can’t leave the classroom to go get books for whatever topic might arise.  With an iPad, they have near-instant access to whatever subject catches them.  Yes, I have to teach them about reliable sources but I have found several children’s non-fiction books in our school library that contain inaccurate or outdated information.  Misinformation is everywhere.

What about my builders?  If they have built the same structure repeatedly I could pull out the iPad and find images of real structures inspire them.  Again, I could go get a book but by the time I get back from the library (if I could get out of the room), their structure has fallen down and they have moved on to the  train table.  In addition, they could share an image of their structure with an engineering (my son) or architectural (one of my moms) expert and get some real feedback, possibly in real time.  I guess I could invite them in on his/her day off and make all the children build something that day, but that does not take advantage of the teachable moments.

T. Westwood

What about my timid talkers?  I have had children who do not like to speak in front of me or their peers, but in a private space, with an iPad, they can spin quite a yarn.  Not only that but they will go back and rerecord if they don’t like the first take.  This makes the iPad a tool for meeting the needs of the less confident learners.

I do not think Clark had conceived of these types of interactions back in 1983.  I do think he had it right that the media itself, at that time, would not be effective in improving learning without the instructional design to back it up.  I also believe that the capabilities of media need to be accompanied by effective instruction and/or guidance to result in effective learning. I am glad that we did not give up on educational technology.  I believe that Kozma was right that we can use the capabilities of media to influence learning and that it is the task of the designer to make that happen, giving medium and method a more integral relationship. I also agree with Becker that if we want a stand-alone game that will lead to learning, the designer must have “creativity and a thorough understanding of instructional design” and “a thorough understanding of games AND of game design” (2010, p. 4).  I’m only just beginning to explore instructional games for Kindergarten and I have yet to find one that satisfies me but I have only explored free games so far.  I imagine the good ones come with a bigger price tag.

 

 

A First Look at Digital Literacy in Kindergarten

July 24, 2019 / / 0 Comments
Children at school

“Children at school” by Lupuca is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0

How does one weave technology into Kindergarten learning? Certainly there are ways for the teacher to use technology in preparing lessons for students, sharing media with students, and reporting student learning to parents, but how do teachers put the technology into the hands of four and five year olds for the purpose of enhancing their learning? One way might be through inquiry-based learning. The authors of the paper, Information and Digital Literacies in a Kindergarten Classroom: An I-LEARN Case Study (Tecce DeCarlo, Grant, Lee, & Neuman, 2018), sought to validate the I-LEARN model for guiding young learners’ inquiry-based projects.

The authors of the paper appear to be connected through Drexel University in Pennsylvania, U.S.A. Mary Jean Tecce DeCarlo is an Associate Clinical Professor in the School of Education at Drexel University. Her research interests are listed as early literacy development, digital and information literacy, learning differences, knowledge construction, and urban education. Allen Grant, formerly an Associate Clinical Professor at Drexel University, is now Dean of the School of Education at State University of New York Potsdam, in New York. His research interests are listed as emerging technologies, urban school reform, leadership development, and virtual schooling. Vera J. Lee is also an Associate Clinical Professor at Drexel University. Her research interests are listed as family literacy in urban communities, sociocultural perspectives of literacies, language and literacy development of multilingual parents and children, and community partnerships. Finally, Delia Neuman is a Professor Emerita from the College of Computing and Informatics at Drexel University. Her research interests are listed as learning in information-rich environments, instructional systems design, the use of media for learning, and school library media.

T. Westwood (2019)

It is important to note that the authors declared no conflict of interest in the production of this research, even though the I-LEARN model was created by Dr. Neuman (2008). The I-LEARN model consists of six steps designed to guide students through the research process: Identify a question, Locate information, Evaluate information, Apply information, Reflection, and kNow.

The case study discussed in the paper is a report on the results of one kindergarten class out of four kindergarten classes that were part of a larger research project. The authors believed that this particular class of 24 students “yielded the richest findings” because the teacher, Ms. C, applied a “developmentally appropriate approach” (Tecce DeCarlo et al., 2018, p. 265). The paper outlined how each step was executed with the teacher identifying how to best model and structure each step based on her own expertise developed over five years of teaching kindergarten. The last step, kNow, was not discussed in the paper other than to list it as a step and explain it as “instantiating the knowledge gained so it can be used in the future” (p. 266). The four teachers involved in the larger study developed the assessment rubric and did not include kNow; they only proposed to assess the first five steps. The researchers concluded that young children, even in low-income public schools, can identify inquiry topics, locate sources, and participate actively in the digital world.

There are many models for designing inquiry projects for both adults and children. Most of them include the same steps as Neuman’s model in some form. Neuman’s model is a linear model. Others describe inquiry steps as a cycle or spiral where a student may continue into a new question or reflection may cause the student to go back a step or two. MacKenzie and Bathurst-Hunt list “Ten Phases of the Inquiry Cycle” (2018, p. 24). The model itself is not what drew me to this paper.

What drew me to this paper was the notion of exploring digital literacy with Kindergarten children. The authors repeatedly emphasized the role of the teacher, Ms. C, in making the project a success. “Ms. C’s developmentally appropriate approach to the I-LEARN project…was exemplary, and this paper focuses on the strategies and techniques she adopted as well as the results of her students’ work” (p. 265). “Analysis of the data indicated that Ms. C had developed her own highly effective approach to the assignment and adjusted her implementation of I-LEARN’s stages to meet her students’ particular needs” (p. 270). I would argue that in the end, it seemed to have little to do with the actual I-LEARN model and entirely to do with the scaffolding and support provided by the adults that were present in each of the steps.

The descriptions of what Ms. C did to model and guide the students are necessary in order for the students to be successful. It is possible that the three, less successful, teachers either did not realize this or did not want to alter the instructions provided by the researchers. Mrs. C broke each step into smaller, more manageable pieces, and provided opportunities for discussion, examples and modelling. For example, before having the children choose there own sources, she discussed possible sources such as computers and family members, and then provided concrete examples of sources in the form of read-alouds and guest speakers. Then, she modelled how to fill in their draft sheets. These necessary sub-steps for applying the I-LEARN steps were not provided by the I-LEARN model.

Overall, the paper provided few answers and raised many questions for me. What was the level of engagement by students in the class? How was the class managed? Did all the children work on their projects at the same time? The paper mentioned that the teacher and two of the researchers were helping the children use the computers. How often did these computer sessions take place? Can a project such as this be managed by one teacher alone?

T Westwood (2019)

These questions about the paper are contributing to my own emerging research interest. It is often the case that the kindergarten teacher is the only adult in the room. It is sometimes possible to schedule the Learning Commons Teacher once a week, but there are no guarantees. How can a lone teacher build digital literacy in a kindergarten class? Is it done through inquiry projects that follow a model such as I-LEARN or the Ten Phases of the Inquiry Cycle offered by MacKenzie and Bathurst-Hunt (MacKenzie & Bathurst-Hunt, 2018, p. 24)? Would structured inquiry projects be more feasible in small groups while the rest of the class is doing different activities that require less guidance? Would it be better to break up digital literacy into its smaller components and address each in turn while introducing students to different applications? Tablets such as iPads are amazing tools in that they are fairly easy to use and offer a tactile component that young children enjoy. They are engaging all by themselves. Is it important for young learners to know how to use a computer or laptop at this stage?

Kindergarten is a very busy place. Some of these children are as young as four years old when they walk through the door. They have come to school to play. They are at school to develop social skills and test new relationships. They are there to experiment and take risks. Many are just beginning to understand behavioural expectations and self-regulation. They are beginning to compare themselves to others and allow that to shape their behaviour. The children are active and noisy. In the classroom setting, they need to be guided and monitored in virtually everything they do. How does a kindergarten teacher fit digital literacy into this already full day? Those same children are also there to learn. They have great curiosity and have many interests of their own. Most are eager to learn to read, write, and do math. Project-based inquiry might be the answer.

References

MacKenzie, T., & Bathurst-Hunt, R. (2018). Inquiry Mindset (First). Elevate Books EDU.

Neuman, D. (2008). I-LEARN: A Model for Creating Knowledge in the Information Age. International Association of School Librarianship. Selected Papers from the … Annual Conference; Brantford, 1–10.

Tecce DeCarlo, M. J., Grant, A., Lee, V. J., & Neuman, D. (2018). Information and Digital Literacies in a Kindergarten Classroom: An I-LEARN Case Study. Early Childhood Education Journal, 46(3), 265–275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-017-0857-7

Two Worlds Meet

July 20, 2019 / / 0 Comments

“Inquiry Learning Word Cloud” by Christopher Lister is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

Back when I taught grade 4/5 in 2014, I collaborated with my colleagues to create an amazing inquiry experience we called, Two Worlds Meet. This project was centred around and assessed within the Social Studies curriculum with the initial goal of incorporating more local, authentic First Nations content. Most of the students really enjoyed it, but I believe we teachers enjoyed it even more. It consumed far more time than our administrators generously gave us, but we enjoyed the collaboration time and together; we designed a project that is still in use today. Since then, I moved away from intermediate students and into the world of Kindergarten.

When I dropped back into Kindergarten, an interesting thing happened. I stopped thinking about inquiry and focused more on play-based and outdoor learning experiences. Play-based learning really has a lot of the elements of Inquiry in it. I spend a lot of time noticing what the students are choosing to play and then, asking them if they want to explore more about it. For example, I noticed two children really enjoyed drawing monkeys so I sat with them as they drew and asked them what they knew about monkeys. Then, during my lunch hour, I found some videos and books about monkeys that they could check out during choice time.

When Trevor Mackenzie came into our EdTech MEd class this week, I thought to myself, “Oh yeah, inquiry. Where does that fit in Kindergarten?” I reflected back on those monkey boys, and thought that if I had been thinking with my inquiry-based brain, I might have taken it further. Why didn’t I ask them about their wonderings? Why didn’t I have them share their learning with the class? Why didn’t I get the iPads out and have them share their learning through a simple app? My answer is, because I am the lone adult in such a busy room. Where can I get that kind of time? How do I focus on teaching a small group an app when there are so many other activities and behaviours to monitor during choice time? Then I look at the book, Inquiry Mindset, and find the profile of Mackenzie’s co-author, Rebecca Bathurst-Hunt, at the back. She is a Kindergarten Teacher! Now I need to read the book and Rebecca’s blog, and follow her on Twitter.

Next, we met Jeff Hopkins from Pacific School of Innovation and Inquiry (PSII). The school’s website claims, “Through a formal inquiry process, learners at PSII (we pronounce it “sigh”) develop interdisciplinary pathways leading to learning activities that take them through a curriculum all their own, while also meeting or exceeding BC graduation requirements.” Listening to Jeff, I was excited for the possibilities for those learners and then, I started thinking about what could I use in Kindergarten. What if I could talk my two Kindergarten teacher colleagues at my school into adapting the PSII model for our learners? I thought about PSII’s layout. What if we had one of our classroom’s as “the noisy room”, one as the room with the “working hum”, and one with “quiet space”? What if our learners could move from one space to the other, with one teacher in each room? I do not think our learners can schedule their own time like PSII learners can, but what if we could schedule the children taking into account their needs and interests. Could we schedule small levelled groups for short, focussed lessons on the basics? Could we schedule large group times for gym, music, and French? Could we schedule small inquiry group sessions that incorporate literacy, numeracy, social studies, science, art, and technology? Would a model such as this meet the social-emotional needs of our students? Would the children be able to establish good social connections? Can my colleagues and I agree on how to implement, assess, and report on progress? How would parents and administrators respond? It is an exciting idea, but it would require an enormous investment of time and energy to get off the ground. But still, it’s there: Kindergarten meets PSII.

Looking at BC’s Digital Literacy Framework for Kindergarten

July 13, 2019 / / 0 Comments

 

“KidsFun_iPads” by CTJ Online is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

BC’s Digital Literacy Framework has some good points for building kids’ digital skills. Importantly, for Kindergarten and elementary school in general, it specifies, right at the top, that teacher modelling will be necessary before a gradual release of responsibility.  Most kids are capable of exploring an iPad by themselves and this can be relatively safe for pre-readers as long as there are colourful child-orientated game apps on it. However, once those kids can read and spell, adult supervision is required in order to make kids safer.  Years ago, when Shrek was popular, my preteen daughter typed Shrek into a Google search and came across an image of a very large naked woman, painted green, entitled “Shrek’s Mom”.  She was horrified, not necessarily because of the image but because she believed it was wrong to see naked people and she thought her dad would be mad.  After she came to me in tears, it turned into a teachable moment, but I wish I had prepared her better before turning her loose on technology.  Has anyone created one of these frameworks for parents?  There should be a pamphlet or something wrapped up inside every tablet, computer, or game console that advises parents about keeping their kids safe on the internet and the gradual release of responsibility.  I don’t think keeping kids off the internet entirely is a good way to keep them safe.  It just means they’ll be learning all the hard lessons later or at a friend’s house.

At school, our teacher-librarians have curated safe places for the children to search out information of interest inside our Digital Learning Commons. There are recognizable icons and pictures that lead pre-readers to video clips and articles that can be read through text-to-speech technology.  When we introduce these things, there is a conversation about using “safe search” engines rather than the big G they see on the tools at home.

In Kindergarten, the biggest challenge is supporting the children as they use digital technology.  If there’s 20 kids and just me, that is a tricky thing to manage.  I gave up on the computer lab because it would take the entire 25 minute block to get them all signed on.  We pretty much just stick to iPads with no passwords.  Weekly, the teacher-librarian and I sign out the class set of iPads and work together to support the class during a specific technology block.  What I believe would be more useful would be to have a set of 5 iPads that I can keep in my classroom to use in small group settings or, if during free choice time, a student wants to look something up on monkeys, I can help them do that.  In either plan, it would be important to emphasize that the iPads are tools, not toys.  School iPads are not babysitters.

Other than iPads, we have been dipping our toes into coding games and the robotic mouse which is cool.  I would like to do more with this.

A large piece of the Framework is about digital citizenship.  In Kindergarten, kids are learning about ordinary, run-of the-mill citizenship and  personal protection every day.

a. safety – It would be easy to connect digital citizenship in that context.  We talk about most people they meet being good people, but we need to use our instincts and stay out of reach from “bad apples”.  We can easily incorporate online people and online bad apples into those same lessons/conversations.

b. privacy – This would definitely be guided lessons. We could talk about passwords with regard to my “Teacher iPad”.  We could talk about how websites track purchasing activity during our unit on wants and needs right before Christmas.  We could talk about pop-up ads that they may see on game apps.

c. relationships – we could incorporate some Skype or FaceTime with relatives into our sharing time (aka, show and tell).  We already talk about how parents can send their digital photos to me with email and airdrop.

d.  cyberbullying – I think this is a bit premature for Kindergarten. Unless they are participating in online interactive video games at home, I think we can include this in social learning at school.  If someone is saying or doing something that upsets you, let a grown up know so we can help that someone to be a better friend.  In Kindergarten, bullying is a frequently misused word, but that’s another blog.

e.  digital footprint – ‘Mom, Mrs. Westwood says you should ask my permission before you put my photo on Facebook because a bad apple might see it.’  I’m not sure if I would step into that one yet.  Besides isn’t putting embarrassing photos of your kids on Facebook a parental imperative?  Still, someone needs to talk to them about the bathtub photos.

g.  creative credit & copyright – We talk about ownership over creative work every time someone scribbles on someone else’s drawing, or when someone takes someone’s drawing out of the recycling, they need to ask for permission to take it . They get it.  We can talk about copying and pasting images when we do our class butterfly report.

f, h, i and j have no bullet points for Kindergarten so I won’t comment on them but I do wish there was a bullet point on limiting the use of technology so kids are still playing and building in real life, still interacting with adults and other children, and getting physical activity.  I had a little guy once tell me, “I only play video games.  I’m better at it than my brother.  I don’t like toys.”  Yikes!  This is a big question for me in Kindergarten.  When 4, 5 and 6 year olds are still learning the very basics, how much digital technology do we want in there?  How do I find the balance between the sand box and iPads?

Thoughts on Project-Based Learning in Kindergarten

July 5, 2019 / / 0 Comments

Image result for most likely to succeedIn the film, Most Likely to Succeed, we are presented with an idealized high school class where everyone appears to be engaged and thriving. Well, I teach Kindergarten. My students are on the ground floor in preparing for this possible future. Since we all know the expression, “All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten,” I need to roll up my sleeves and get going.

On the first day of Kindergarten, they are all eager to show me how smart they are. Some think they already know everything. They’re going to be mighty disappointed when they find out there’s more and that there’s always more. So let’s teach them Growth Mindset. Hey kids, do you have a growth mindset? I do, I do! Do they really? Many do, others, nope. They did learn what Growth Mindset is. They can tell you which of two scenarios demonstrates a growth mindset, but some still cry if the shark they drew doesn’t really look like a shark. Many have a growth mindset for themselves, but are unforgiving of classmates that struggle. My shark is awesome; yours looks like an Easter egg. They are competitive. They need to practise having a growth mindset and supporting their classmates, but at least I can get them started.

In their article, Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching, Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark make a case against minimally guided instruction. In Kindergarten, problem-based learning, inquiry-based learning, and project-based learning basically boil down to Play-based learning. We have unguided play happening for a big chunk of the day. During this time, could one say students demonstrate “practising a discipline”? Some are expert builders, creating more and more complex buildings, fortresses, towers each day. Some are expert interior decorators, deciding what new elements to create or rearrange in dolly’s house. Some are actors, perfecting their dog impressions. In high school, are students that have an aptitude for film who decide to express their learning in a movie practising their discipline?

Image result for kindergarten provocation three pigsIt’s not until the actors see what the builders are doing that they stray from their role-play. It’s not until the fashion experts, see what the artists are drawing that they venture forth to improve upon their stick figure drawings. Likewise, it is for the teacher to set out other inspiring activities, provocations, we call them, to entice the experts on to something new. If I set out some marbles in a box of sand, maybe they will make a colourful picture in the sand, as I modelled (fine arts, science of matter), and maybe they will borrow the marbles and whip them along the chalk ledge to see how they bounce off the walls (science of matter, physics). The provocation is minimal guidance. I will need to give a little more guidance if I really want to hit the intended learning standards, but I’ll likely choose to appreciate what they showed me and try to catch the learning standards next time.

Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark commented that “In the medical domain, Patel, Groen, and Norman (1993)…showed that students trained in a PBL curriculum failed to separate basic science knowledge from the specific clinical knowledge associated with particular patients.” This makes sense. I’ll need to intervene if I want my marble whippers to name what scientific principles they just discovered. That said, I’m pretty sure they can figure out that there are similarities between marbles and toys cars zipping across that ledge. Maybe I should suggest they add bean bags to their inquiry. You don’t want to see my walls.

So I need to support them in their learning, make their learning more meaningful, guide the practice of skills and growth mindset, and save my walls. Teaching for Meaningful Learning by Barron and Darling-Hammond has something more balanced to offer. “Education today must focus on helping students learn how to learn…” I feel like I’ve been saying this since I started teaching in 1995. Why do we have to learn about Japan? You don’t. You need to know how to learn about something. I picked Japan because I’ve got Japanese stuff in a box to show you. I had the right idea but, oh how the world has changed. Now I’ve really got some stuff to show you!

Barron and Darling-Hammond cited Thomas (2000) in identifying five key components of effective project-based learning. “It is: central to the curriculum, organized around driving questions that lead students to encounter central concepts or principles, focused on a constructive investigation that involves inquiry and knowledge building, student-driven (students are responsible for designing and managing their work), and authentic, focusing on problems that occur in the real world and that people care about.” In Kindergarten, I doubt that I could assign a comprehensive project that will engross my students for an entire term but I can give them little projects that are suitable building blocks. These little projects would need to build their social skills more than anything. Small group projects would strengthen their collaborative and communicative skills such as their ability to share materials, voice their thoughts, take on a role, stay on task, encourage each other, and peacefully settle disagreements. Those projects could certainly be authentic and student-driven in most cases. I could come up with a relatively simple guiding question that engages a particular group within something they are already playing at such as, How can we turn our house area into a veterinarian/pet store? How can we race our marbles/cars without damaging the walls or having dangerous rebounds? In Kindergarten, we’ll want to incorporate those pesky alphabet letters and numbers so I hope they decide to make signs, or do measurements. Otherwise, I’ll have to stick my nose into their fun to “provide proper scaffolding, assessment, and redirection as projects unfold” (Barron & Darling-Hammond, p. 8).

In the end, I hope I got the point of all the reading this week, but this is where my brain went.

© 2024 What the Tech?

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑