Hey, there is someone out there who appreciates us..
Preschool teachers do so much: Parent
27Nov 2008, ST Forum
I REFER to letters by Ms Christine Chen, 'Preschool teaching is about standards' (Nov 5), and Ms Marissa Teo, 'Quality of preschool teachers: Blame the vague job description' (Nov 10). I am writing as a concerned parent who is worried about the standard of preschool teachers.
I agree with Ms Teo. I spoke to some preschool teachers and they revealed other tasks on the 'hidden agenda' in the job of a preschool teacher. Besides organising and running the curriculum and other routine tasks like feeding and bathing children, they must:
Clean their classroom or outdoor area (if the cleaner is not around or does not start work early).
Work more than 12 hours a day if, for example, another teacher is on mdeical leave.
Handle a class with more than the required number of children when another teacher is on MC (as it is considered too costly to hire temporary staff).
Sometimes, teachers do not have time to take a proper lunch as they must take care of the children while they take their own lunch or take a nap.
To resolve these issues, the Government should provide childcare centre operators with more financial assistance so they can employ more support staff.
It requires a lot of passion and enthusiasm to become a preschool teacher and stay in the profession. Unless the Government steps in to help teachers by raising their pay to make it commensurate with the work and effort they put in and increase public awareness of the importance of preschool education, the professional standard of preschool teachers will remain in the status quo and good teachers will leave the industry.
As quoted in the article, 'Push to give cleaners contract' (Nov 11), 'garbage cleaners in Australia earn around A$2,000 (S$2,040) per month', which is more than most preschool teachers earn in Singapore. Does this mean preschool education is low-skilled? I beg to differ. Most preschool teachers have a basic diploma and more pursue a degree or even a master's and some have been in the field for more than 10 years.
How Weng Kong
Friday, November 28, 2008
Monday, November 24, 2008
Open Letter to NIM Management
12 November 2008
Dear NIM Management (Nan and Alfred),
An Open Letter : “Did I Really Learn This During My ECE Course?”
I felt compelled to write this open letter to you, as guardians of your institute, about the current course on Early Childhood Education that I am undertaking. I am just past halfway through my course, so this act of sending this letter to you may well be suicidal (to my grades), or at best, foolhardy. But I would prefer to think that the better judgment on the part of senior management would prevail.
Yesterday’s class broke the camel’s back for me. I had intended for this open letter to be sent after my course is over, but I believe this should not wait.
Why would your lecturers deliver such messages/materials/assignments to us :
1. referring to the ECE teaching community as “caregivers”?
Shouldn’t the lecturer be taking the effort to propagate a more positive term like “ECE educators” to us wide-eyed, eager trainee teachers? While the whole ECE sector, particularly AECES, is trying hard to move away from being perceived as merely caregivers in the eyes of parents here and thus, the negative connotations which come with it (low salary for ECE teachers being one), your lecturer had chosen to feed us this term. The argument for this choice of word was that the “textbook I am referring to uses it”. Are those Powerpoint slides that troublesome to change? Surely, the role of the lecturer ought to be one of taking the joint leadership to propagate the ECE field in the best light, be it in class in front of new trainees or elsewhere, shouldn’t it?
2. telling us at the start of a module that we will not be good teachers upon completion of our course because it is a crash course?
Now, why would a lecturer put such a caveat in front of the trainees? To motivate? Hardly. Coming from a person from the same teaching fraternity, this comment to young trainees seemed most odd.
3. assigning us the task of designing a childcare centre from scratch, or drawing up a snacks menu?
May I ask how would these tasks help me as an ECE teacher? Both assignments are clearly outside the bounds of a typical ECE teacher’s responsibilities when they are in-service, which therefore begs the question. “Why are we being given such an assignment in the first place?” Are there not more relevant tasks that could have been assigned to us that would help us be better practitioners when we graduate?
These are but 3 examples of what we have been “taught” todate.
I therefore ask this question:
Have both the materials/contents and the quality of the lecturers in your institute been screened and vetted by you for proper relevance and for professionalism? Just because these materials have been used in other institutes or that the teaching methods had been deployed elsewhere (such as “show & tell”) do not mean they qualify to be applicable in the context of an adult education environment. Your institute is the sharp end of the arrow in helping the ECE field upgrade itself, and in so doing, reduce the large turnover and dropout rates that seemed endemic today. I am sure the Ministries overseeing ECE would readily agree.
I am hopeful that this open letter will bring some insights to you from the eyes of one of your students (read, ‘customers’), and thus, initiate a review of your course for the better, if not this year then perhaps for the next cohorts to come, for the good of the ECE sector as a whole. Otherwise, the next open letter may well be titled “Did I Really Pay $10,000 for this ECE Course?”
Sincerely,
George Lee
NY-SD-A2
Dear NIM Management (Nan and Alfred),
An Open Letter : “Did I Really Learn This During My ECE Course?”
I felt compelled to write this open letter to you, as guardians of your institute, about the current course on Early Childhood Education that I am undertaking. I am just past halfway through my course, so this act of sending this letter to you may well be suicidal (to my grades), or at best, foolhardy. But I would prefer to think that the better judgment on the part of senior management would prevail.
Yesterday’s class broke the camel’s back for me. I had intended for this open letter to be sent after my course is over, but I believe this should not wait.
Why would your lecturers deliver such messages/materials/assignments to us :
1. referring to the ECE teaching community as “caregivers”?
Shouldn’t the lecturer be taking the effort to propagate a more positive term like “ECE educators” to us wide-eyed, eager trainee teachers? While the whole ECE sector, particularly AECES, is trying hard to move away from being perceived as merely caregivers in the eyes of parents here and thus, the negative connotations which come with it (low salary for ECE teachers being one), your lecturer had chosen to feed us this term. The argument for this choice of word was that the “textbook I am referring to uses it”. Are those Powerpoint slides that troublesome to change? Surely, the role of the lecturer ought to be one of taking the joint leadership to propagate the ECE field in the best light, be it in class in front of new trainees or elsewhere, shouldn’t it?
2. telling us at the start of a module that we will not be good teachers upon completion of our course because it is a crash course?
Now, why would a lecturer put such a caveat in front of the trainees? To motivate? Hardly. Coming from a person from the same teaching fraternity, this comment to young trainees seemed most odd.
3. assigning us the task of designing a childcare centre from scratch, or drawing up a snacks menu?
May I ask how would these tasks help me as an ECE teacher? Both assignments are clearly outside the bounds of a typical ECE teacher’s responsibilities when they are in-service, which therefore begs the question. “Why are we being given such an assignment in the first place?” Are there not more relevant tasks that could have been assigned to us that would help us be better practitioners when we graduate?
These are but 3 examples of what we have been “taught” todate.
I therefore ask this question:
Have both the materials/contents and the quality of the lecturers in your institute been screened and vetted by you for proper relevance and for professionalism? Just because these materials have been used in other institutes or that the teaching methods had been deployed elsewhere (such as “show & tell”) do not mean they qualify to be applicable in the context of an adult education environment. Your institute is the sharp end of the arrow in helping the ECE field upgrade itself, and in so doing, reduce the large turnover and dropout rates that seemed endemic today. I am sure the Ministries overseeing ECE would readily agree.
I am hopeful that this open letter will bring some insights to you from the eyes of one of your students (read, ‘customers’), and thus, initiate a review of your course for the better, if not this year then perhaps for the next cohorts to come, for the good of the ECE sector as a whole. Otherwise, the next open letter may well be titled “Did I Really Pay $10,000 for this ECE Course?”
Sincerely,
George Lee
NY-SD-A2
Friday, November 21, 2008
My ECE Assignments : Action Research
"My ECE Assignment" series is meant to demystify ECE and make it a more pleasurable endeavour for those of us who are willing to commit to it :
Module: Action Research
Individual Assignment - Research Dissertation :
Maximizing the Value of Project Approach as a Teaching Strategy for K1 and K2 Children : 3 Key Areas for Teachers to Focus On
Abstract
The utilization of the Project Approach in teaching is fast gaining popularity in early childhood education (ECE) settings. Significant levels of money and time are being applied to make the traditional ECE curriculum come alive through Project Approach. But how can these resources be optimally utilized to provide for the highest possible return on the investments, for both the teachers delivering Project Approach in their classes as well as the children receiving these teachings via projects?
This research paper provides an insight into the mind of the teacher of the Project Approach. More importantly, it brings out the voice of the children who had previously received their first project, by telling us as educators, the areas of their project phases or activities that had made the most impact to them. With these insights, we can therefore explore ways of maximizing the effectiveness of the Project Approach to the most important constituents in any ECE school system – the children themselves.
Introduction
Project Approach as a teaching strategy has many proponents and admirers globally. The benefits that it can bring to any learning centre that has adopted it are plenty and significant. Children who are taught using the Project Approach are known to have an increased level of self-confidence, show a high level of enthusiasm for their work and display stronger levels of positive socio-emotional traits, amongst some of these benefits (Project Approach Website, 2008).
In the field of early childhood education in Singapore, Project Approach is beginning to receive the attention of many educators, and is now beginning to be adopted by more and more forward-looking ECE centres. A case in point is the Carpe Diem Childcare Group. Known locally as the first childcare group in the country to bring in the renown Multiple Intelligences curriculum by Dr Howard Gardner, the Group has begun the adoption of Project Approach as well. This has provided for further augmentation of its teaching strategies to their children of both the K1 and K2 classes.
But how do we ensure that the resources of money and time being applied to this new teaching approach provide the best possible return-on-investment for a typical preschool wishing to implement Project Approach in their learning environment? With preschools constantly facing lesser resources to deliver better education to the young in this country, the need to maximize the value of a newer teaching strategy like Project Approach therefore becomes even more apparent.
As a professional involved in this new adoption of the Project Approach teaching strategy in my childcare centre, this research will provide information to support the hypothesis that because the top 3 areas within a typical Project Approach process are being emphasized, the value of our teachings to the K-class students can be maximized. The research would then heighten the awareness of teachers to these top 3 areas, and in so doing, provide a stronger basis for them to incorporate these top 3 areas into their teaching methods, when commencing with the start of any new project.
This research had 2 components to it. Firstly, it began with an interview with a K1-class teacher who has recently completed a project, under the Project Approach, to understand from her perspective, the specific areas in the whole process of her project completion which excited her students the most. For example, were there certain aspects of the project that captures the attention of her students the most? Were her students changing their behaviours as the project progressed? Do they work better as a group for certain types of activities? These will be some of the questions that will be answered through this interview with the class teacher.
Secondly, the next component of the research involved interviewing all of the children who had completed the said project. The voice-of-the-children was therefore represented in the outcomes of these interviews, giving us a valuable insight into the minds of the children, in terms of what areas of the project activities interest them the most.
Feedback from parents whose children have completed a recent project were solicited and presented here.
This 3-way view of Project Approach therefore provided an invaluable insight into the minds of the teacher, the children and the parents. The top 3 areas or key activities in a project were identified. They can then become the focus for all teachers whenever they begin their own new projects. As a result, the values of teaching any project or topic of interest to the children can be maximized to the fullest, and with that, a better return-on-investment can be realized for any ECE centre planning to adopt Project Approach in their learning environment.
Literature Review
Theoretical Views of Project Approach
John Dewey
The Project Approach is based on the work of an American educator and philosopher called John Dewey, who maintained that education is the reconstruction of experience (Wikipedia, 2008). Dewey was the most famous proponent of hands-on learning or experiential learning.Dewey developed the approach over a period of seven years at his laboratory school at the University of Chicago. Dewey challenged the view that was current at the time that knowledge was a fixed notion of truth waiting to be discovered. Learning had been viewed as a possession that was a necessary and practical result of social standing.
For Dewey, knowledge is not absolute, immutable, and eternal, but rather relative to the developmental interaction of man with his world as problems arise to present themselves for solution. Views of Dewey on learning grew out of the basic assumptions of the newly evolved pragmatic theory of knowledge.
Lilian Katz
More recently, Lilian Katz propose the Project Approach, based on Dewey's ideas, as a way of working with children so that they might arrive at deeper understandings of the world they inhabit. Research by Lillian Katz has shown that children learn best through meaningful activities. It has also shown that children’s skills are much more likely to be mastered if they have the opportunity to apply them in meaningful activities (Katz & Chard, 1989).
The Project Approach to teaching therefore is another way for students to experience how an inviting, dynamic environment can encourage learning.
Projects are defined as “an in-depth study of a topic or theme” (Chard, 1998). A project involves three phases. During the first phase, children and their teacher select and discuss a topic to be explored. In the second phase, the children conduct firsthand investigations and then create representations of their findings. The third phase typically includes culminating and debriefing events, which are likely to involve parents.
In the views of Katz and Chard (1989), projects can help children meet learning goals in the four major areas of knowledge, skills, dispositions, and feelings. Projects not only help children gain academic skills, social skills, and communication skills, they can help children form good self-concepts about themselves as successful learners. They can also help children gain positive dispositions toward learning.
These favorable dispositions toward learning are critical to their future success. Similar dispositions and feelings may be formed by teacher-preparation students who have the opportunity to experience active, engaging work, such as projects and centers in their own coursework. As students are learning about how to use the Project Approach with young children, they can be engaged in their own project, learning and seeing the benefits of using this approach.
Reggio Emilia
One of the earliest proponents of Project Approach and probably the most well-known is embodied in the Reggio Emilia approach to teaching (Giudici & Rinaldi, 2001). The Reggio Emilia approach to teaching young children puts the natural development of children as well as the close relationships that they share with their environment at the center of its philosophy.
Early childhood programs that have successfully adapted to this educational philosophy share that they are attracted to Reggio Emilia approach because of the way it views and respects the child. They believe that the central reason that a child must have control over his or her day-to-day activity is that learning must make sense from the child's point of view. To make it meaningful, it also must be of interest to the child. That is one way they have control over their learning.
Do Different Educational Approaches Produce Different Results?
In a landmark longitudinal study conducted by Schweinhart and Weikart (1997), three different models of early childhood methods were studied, namely (a) the High Scope model which engaged children as active learner, which emphasized key experiences focusing learning in intellectual, social and physical domains, (b) the traditional nursery school model which focused on child-centred approach and (c) the direct instructional model which emphasized teacher-directed academic instructions using workbooks. It was concluded that the early childhood programs in which children initiate their own learning activities are superior to programs based on teacher-directed instructions (Hendrick, 2001). In the early years of the follow-up study, all three models were about the same. But at age 23, many differences became apparent when the children from High Scope and the nursery curricula were compared with those from the direct instruction program, including the fact that there were fewer felony arrests, fewer years of special education for emotional impairment and more members doing volunteer work, from children of the High Scope program.
These results put an even higher premium on the Project Approach method of teaching which also promotes active learners in its curriculum, and augurs well for this innovative method of teaching.
Methodology
Selection of Participants
The selection of the participants was determined by the goals of this research. The first participant was the class teacher who had recently completed a Project Approach exercise with her students. Her inputs provided the basis for comparison on what procedures and activities in her project constitute the most significant portions of the entire project.
These data from the teacher was then compared with the feedback from the children of her class that had undergone a recent project. The inputs from the children were crucial to our understanding of the three most important activities of the entire project, from the children’s viewpoints.
The third participants in this research were the parents of the children. They provided inputs on how they viewed their children’s own experiences in a project that was recently concluded.
Findings and Analysis
The entire process of the Project Approach was concisely summarized into 10 key activities the children had performed , under each of its 3 Phases, as follows:
Phase 1:
Activity #1. Sharing Experiences and KWL
Activity #2. Journal Writing
Activity #3. Drawing and Labelling
Phase 2:
Activity #4. Newspaper and Magazine Cuttings
Activity #5. Representational Drawings
Activity #6. Creating Models and Painting
Activity #7. The Field trip
Phase 3:
Activity #8. Setup of the Object/Topic-of-Interest inside School
Activity #9. Pretend Play
Activity #10. Exhibition and Display to Parents
The Teacher’s Perspective
The teacher viewed the top 3 most important activities in the whole Project Approach process and the reasons for them, as
1. The Field Trip – Activity #7
The children learnt the most through this real-life and hands-on activity.
2. Sharing Experiences and KWL - Activity #1
Personal experiences by the children allowed them to learn better.
3. Exhibition and Display to Parents – Activity#10
The opportunity for strong bonding between the teacher and the parents helped to
develop the child holistically.
Additionally, the teacher gave the following views on how the children in her K1 class were working together:
(i) the setup of the object/topic-of –interest inside the school (Activity #8) made the children work most cooperatively amongst each other, because they learnt to work together and set aside their differences to achieve one goal.
(ii) the pretend play (Activity #9) promoted social interactions the most between the children because role-playing helped to promote the language development and skills.
(iii) the exhibition and display to parents (Activity #10) derived the most amount of laughter amongst the children because they enjoyed sharing their knowledge and work with their parents.
(iv) the field trip (Activity #7) elicited the most amount of empathy amongst the children because they had sensorial and concrete experiences.
(v) the sharing of experiences and KWL (Activity #1) enabled the most recall amongst the children because story-telling helped them to relate their personal experiences better.
The Children’s Perspective
The top 3 activities that the children enjoyed the most and had the most fun with, were described by them as:
1. The Field Trip (Activity #7)
2. Newspaper and Magazine Cuttings (Activity #4)
3. Pretend Play (Activity #9)
It should also be noted that creating models and painting (Activity #6) and the setup of the object/topic-of-interest (Activity #8) were a close third. The bar chart below (Figure 1) showed the distribution of the votes by the children that were interviewed:
Q: Which activities are the most enjoyable for you?
Sample size: 39
The Parents’ Perspective
The survey received from the parents yielded the following results:
(i) The average rating given by parents was 6.6, that is, between the grades of “Very Good” and “Excellent”, when asked how they rated their child’s overall experience during the tenure of the project that their child was involved in.
(ii) When asked if their child had shown improvements intellectually, emotionally or socially during the project period, 72% of the parents said that their child had improved significantly, per the pie chart below (Figure 2):
Q: Do you think your child has shown improvements during the project?
Sample size: 11
(iii) When asked which part of the project was their child most excited about, 60% of the parents mentioned the Field Trip (Activity #7), followed by the Exhibition and Display to Parents (Activity #10) and the Setup of the Object/Topic-of-Interest in School (Activity #8).
Conclusion
The most crucial outcome of this research, based on these interviews and survey results, was that the views of the teacher, the children and the parents were identical when they were asked which activity within the Project Approach process was the most important in terms of its impact. And that is, the Field Trip (Activity #7) was at the very top. This confluence of the 3 perspectives would therefore suggest that the planning, and indeed its execution, of the Field Trip by the teacher should be given top priority whenever a project was initiated for the children in the classroom. If executed well, the children would be the biggest beneficiaries of the Project Approach. They seemed to revel in this activity, which in turn, provided the highest impact in positive learning for them.
There was however, a divergence of views between the teacher and the children when the 2nd and 3rd most impactful activities of the Project Approach process were analysed. Given these divergent views, it would be prudent on the part of the teacher to regard the voice-of-the-children as taking precedent. The teacher should therefore pay more attention to the Newspaper and Magazine Cutting activity (Activity #4) and the Pretend Play activity (Activity #9) so that the values of the children’s learnings in this Project Approach were to be further maximized.
This researcher believes that teachers practicing Project Approach will be more motivated to embrace and continue to utilize this innovative teaching method in their classrooms if they understand better the combined views of the children and the parents. They will be more fulfilled if they know that the children and the parents will appreciate the outcomes of the Project Approach more if the top 3 activities are properly planned and executed.
The second outcome, and perhaps the more important of the two, is that the children taught under the Project Approach will be become much more engaged in their understanding of subject matters, more confident in their disposition and as a result, better all-round learners, both in their early childhood and their adult lives.
Both of these outcomes will therefore provide a good return-on-investment on the resources deployed towards the implementation of the Project Approach in an early childhood education centre.
It is hoped that this research results can also provide the foundation for even more research to be conducted to understand the views of the children and their parents even more, so that this innovative teaching strategy called the Project Approach can be further enhanced for the benefit of the children.
References
1. Chard, S. C. (1998a). The project approach: Making curriculum come alive. New
York: Scholastic.
2. Giudici, C., & Rinaldi, C. (2001). Making Learning Visible. Infant-Toddler Centers
and Preschools as Places of Culture, p.38, Reggio Children, Piazza della Vittorio,
Reggio Emilia, Italy.
3. Hendrick, J (2001). The Whole Child. What Makes a Good Day for the Children, p.32,
Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall
4. Katz, L. G., & Chard, S. C. (1989) Engaging children’s minds: The project approach.
Greenwich, CT: Ablex.
5. Project Approach Website [Online Database]. Retrieved September 24, 2008 from
World Wide Web:
http://www.projectapproach.org/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1
6. Wikipedia Website [Online Database]. Retrieved September 19, 2008 from the World
Wide Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dewey
Appendix
A. Ethical Clearance from Childcare Centre
B. Timeline for Research
C. Sample Questionaire to the Teacher
D. Sample Questionaire to the Children
E. Sample Questionaire to the Parents
(A) Approval for Ethical Clearance
1. Investigator : George
2. Name of the Training School : Nanyang Institute of Management
3. Description of Work : To interviewing the class teacher, the students and the parents
of the K1 class in the childcare centre.
4. Title of Project : Maximizing the Value of Project Approach as a Teaching Strategy
for K1 and K2 Children : 3 Key Areas for Teachers to Focus On
5. Objectives : To ensure that teaching resources are better deployed, and to build better
students through a more effective deployment of the Project Approach.
6. Design of Study : Questionaire and interviews with the teacher and children of her K1
class. Survey forms to be used to obtain feedback from the parents.
7. Consent and signature of Principal/Centre Director:
…………………………………………………………………………..
8. Signature of the Investigator :
……………………………………………………………………………
Student Teacher Contact: George
Project Supervisor Contact: Dr Sepalika
(B) Timeline for Research
1. Research Proposal design … 15 September
2. Obtain ethical clearance from Centre Director … 19 September
3. Submit Research Proposal … 26 September
4. Interview and questionaire from K1 Teacher … 29 September
5. Interview and questionnaire from K1 students … 02 October
6. Survey Form sent to Parents … 29 September
7. Survey Forms returned from Parents … 10 October
8. Compile and analyse data … 13 October
9. Preliminary Research Dissertation … 20 October
10. Final Research Dissertation … 30 October
11. Submission of Dissertation … 03 November
(C) Questionaire/Interview : Teacher
1. What are the 10 key steps/activities in the whole process of Project Approach?
1. ______________________ 2. _____________________
3. ______________________ 4. _____________________
5. ______________________ 6. _____________________
7. ______________________ 8. _____________________
9. _______________________ 10. _____________________
2. Out of these 10 steps, which (and why):
- made the children work cooperatively the most ____________________________
____________________________________________________________________
- promoted social interactions between the children the most ____________________
____________________________________________________________________
- derived the most laughter amongst the children ____________________________
____________________________________________________________________
- enabled the most recall amongst the children ______________________________
___________________________________________________________________
- elicited the most amount of empathy amongst the children ____________________
___________________________________________________________________
3. What do you think are the most important steps/activities in the Project Approach that
a teacher should be focused on to maximize her teaching to her students? And why?
1. _______________________________________________________________
2. ______________________________________________________________
3. _______________________________________________________________
(E) Parents Feedback Form: K1 Class
Dear Parents,
On 26Aug, we held our “Parents Day” to exhibit and present the outputs of your children’s “Doctor” project under the Project Approach teaching method. We hope you have found the evening of value to you, and to your children. To further plan for our future projects for the children, we seek your feedback on the following important areas of the Project Approach experience, and the Parents Day itself. We thank you very much in advance for your valuable feedback.
(Please return this form back to the class teacher or the centre by Thurs, 25 Sept)
******************************************************************
1. How would you rate your overall experience during the Parents Day evening?
(pls circle)
Poor Good Very Good Excellent Exceptional
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2. How would you rate your child’s overall experience during his/her whole period of the
“Doctor” project (09June – 26 Aug), based on your casual observations? (pls circle)
Poor Good Very Good Excellent Exceptional
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
3. What part of the Project period was your child most excited about (eg setting up the
School Clinic, or visiting the Doctor, or the Parents Day)?
……………………………………………………………………………………….
4. Do you think your child has shown improvements intellectually, emotionally or
socially during this “Doctor” project period (09June – 26Aug)? (pls tick)
No change ___ Yes, a little ___ Yes, significant ____ Yes, a lot _____
5. Can you suggest 2 project topics (eg Doctor project) that you think your child would
be interested in for his/her future projects?
(1) ______________________________ (2) ________________________
Name of Child : ………………………………… (optional)
Module: Action Research
Individual Assignment - Research Dissertation :
Maximizing the Value of Project Approach as a Teaching Strategy for K1 and K2 Children : 3 Key Areas for Teachers to Focus On
Abstract
The utilization of the Project Approach in teaching is fast gaining popularity in early childhood education (ECE) settings. Significant levels of money and time are being applied to make the traditional ECE curriculum come alive through Project Approach. But how can these resources be optimally utilized to provide for the highest possible return on the investments, for both the teachers delivering Project Approach in their classes as well as the children receiving these teachings via projects?
This research paper provides an insight into the mind of the teacher of the Project Approach. More importantly, it brings out the voice of the children who had previously received their first project, by telling us as educators, the areas of their project phases or activities that had made the most impact to them. With these insights, we can therefore explore ways of maximizing the effectiveness of the Project Approach to the most important constituents in any ECE school system – the children themselves.
Introduction
Project Approach as a teaching strategy has many proponents and admirers globally. The benefits that it can bring to any learning centre that has adopted it are plenty and significant. Children who are taught using the Project Approach are known to have an increased level of self-confidence, show a high level of enthusiasm for their work and display stronger levels of positive socio-emotional traits, amongst some of these benefits (Project Approach Website, 2008).
In the field of early childhood education in Singapore, Project Approach is beginning to receive the attention of many educators, and is now beginning to be adopted by more and more forward-looking ECE centres. A case in point is the Carpe Diem Childcare Group. Known locally as the first childcare group in the country to bring in the renown Multiple Intelligences curriculum by Dr Howard Gardner, the Group has begun the adoption of Project Approach as well. This has provided for further augmentation of its teaching strategies to their children of both the K1 and K2 classes.
But how do we ensure that the resources of money and time being applied to this new teaching approach provide the best possible return-on-investment for a typical preschool wishing to implement Project Approach in their learning environment? With preschools constantly facing lesser resources to deliver better education to the young in this country, the need to maximize the value of a newer teaching strategy like Project Approach therefore becomes even more apparent.
As a professional involved in this new adoption of the Project Approach teaching strategy in my childcare centre, this research will provide information to support the hypothesis that because the top 3 areas within a typical Project Approach process are being emphasized, the value of our teachings to the K-class students can be maximized. The research would then heighten the awareness of teachers to these top 3 areas, and in so doing, provide a stronger basis for them to incorporate these top 3 areas into their teaching methods, when commencing with the start of any new project.
This research had 2 components to it. Firstly, it began with an interview with a K1-class teacher who has recently completed a project, under the Project Approach, to understand from her perspective, the specific areas in the whole process of her project completion which excited her students the most. For example, were there certain aspects of the project that captures the attention of her students the most? Were her students changing their behaviours as the project progressed? Do they work better as a group for certain types of activities? These will be some of the questions that will be answered through this interview with the class teacher.
Secondly, the next component of the research involved interviewing all of the children who had completed the said project. The voice-of-the-children was therefore represented in the outcomes of these interviews, giving us a valuable insight into the minds of the children, in terms of what areas of the project activities interest them the most.
Feedback from parents whose children have completed a recent project were solicited and presented here.
This 3-way view of Project Approach therefore provided an invaluable insight into the minds of the teacher, the children and the parents. The top 3 areas or key activities in a project were identified. They can then become the focus for all teachers whenever they begin their own new projects. As a result, the values of teaching any project or topic of interest to the children can be maximized to the fullest, and with that, a better return-on-investment can be realized for any ECE centre planning to adopt Project Approach in their learning environment.
Literature Review
Theoretical Views of Project Approach
John Dewey
The Project Approach is based on the work of an American educator and philosopher called John Dewey, who maintained that education is the reconstruction of experience (Wikipedia, 2008). Dewey was the most famous proponent of hands-on learning or experiential learning.Dewey developed the approach over a period of seven years at his laboratory school at the University of Chicago. Dewey challenged the view that was current at the time that knowledge was a fixed notion of truth waiting to be discovered. Learning had been viewed as a possession that was a necessary and practical result of social standing.
For Dewey, knowledge is not absolute, immutable, and eternal, but rather relative to the developmental interaction of man with his world as problems arise to present themselves for solution. Views of Dewey on learning grew out of the basic assumptions of the newly evolved pragmatic theory of knowledge.
Lilian Katz
More recently, Lilian Katz propose the Project Approach, based on Dewey's ideas, as a way of working with children so that they might arrive at deeper understandings of the world they inhabit. Research by Lillian Katz has shown that children learn best through meaningful activities. It has also shown that children’s skills are much more likely to be mastered if they have the opportunity to apply them in meaningful activities (Katz & Chard, 1989).
The Project Approach to teaching therefore is another way for students to experience how an inviting, dynamic environment can encourage learning.
Projects are defined as “an in-depth study of a topic or theme” (Chard, 1998). A project involves three phases. During the first phase, children and their teacher select and discuss a topic to be explored. In the second phase, the children conduct firsthand investigations and then create representations of their findings. The third phase typically includes culminating and debriefing events, which are likely to involve parents.
In the views of Katz and Chard (1989), projects can help children meet learning goals in the four major areas of knowledge, skills, dispositions, and feelings. Projects not only help children gain academic skills, social skills, and communication skills, they can help children form good self-concepts about themselves as successful learners. They can also help children gain positive dispositions toward learning.
These favorable dispositions toward learning are critical to their future success. Similar dispositions and feelings may be formed by teacher-preparation students who have the opportunity to experience active, engaging work, such as projects and centers in their own coursework. As students are learning about how to use the Project Approach with young children, they can be engaged in their own project, learning and seeing the benefits of using this approach.
Reggio Emilia
One of the earliest proponents of Project Approach and probably the most well-known is embodied in the Reggio Emilia approach to teaching (Giudici & Rinaldi, 2001). The Reggio Emilia approach to teaching young children puts the natural development of children as well as the close relationships that they share with their environment at the center of its philosophy.
Early childhood programs that have successfully adapted to this educational philosophy share that they are attracted to Reggio Emilia approach because of the way it views and respects the child. They believe that the central reason that a child must have control over his or her day-to-day activity is that learning must make sense from the child's point of view. To make it meaningful, it also must be of interest to the child. That is one way they have control over their learning.
Do Different Educational Approaches Produce Different Results?
In a landmark longitudinal study conducted by Schweinhart and Weikart (1997), three different models of early childhood methods were studied, namely (a) the High Scope model which engaged children as active learner, which emphasized key experiences focusing learning in intellectual, social and physical domains, (b) the traditional nursery school model which focused on child-centred approach and (c) the direct instructional model which emphasized teacher-directed academic instructions using workbooks. It was concluded that the early childhood programs in which children initiate their own learning activities are superior to programs based on teacher-directed instructions (Hendrick, 2001). In the early years of the follow-up study, all three models were about the same. But at age 23, many differences became apparent when the children from High Scope and the nursery curricula were compared with those from the direct instruction program, including the fact that there were fewer felony arrests, fewer years of special education for emotional impairment and more members doing volunteer work, from children of the High Scope program.
These results put an even higher premium on the Project Approach method of teaching which also promotes active learners in its curriculum, and augurs well for this innovative method of teaching.
Methodology
Selection of Participants
The selection of the participants was determined by the goals of this research. The first participant was the class teacher who had recently completed a Project Approach exercise with her students. Her inputs provided the basis for comparison on what procedures and activities in her project constitute the most significant portions of the entire project.
These data from the teacher was then compared with the feedback from the children of her class that had undergone a recent project. The inputs from the children were crucial to our understanding of the three most important activities of the entire project, from the children’s viewpoints.
The third participants in this research were the parents of the children. They provided inputs on how they viewed their children’s own experiences in a project that was recently concluded.
Findings and Analysis
The entire process of the Project Approach was concisely summarized into 10 key activities the children had performed , under each of its 3 Phases, as follows:
Phase 1:
Activity #1. Sharing Experiences and KWL
Activity #2. Journal Writing
Activity #3. Drawing and Labelling
Phase 2:
Activity #4. Newspaper and Magazine Cuttings
Activity #5. Representational Drawings
Activity #6. Creating Models and Painting
Activity #7. The Field trip
Phase 3:
Activity #8. Setup of the Object/Topic-of-Interest inside School
Activity #9. Pretend Play
Activity #10. Exhibition and Display to Parents
The Teacher’s Perspective
The teacher viewed the top 3 most important activities in the whole Project Approach process and the reasons for them, as
1. The Field Trip – Activity #7
The children learnt the most through this real-life and hands-on activity.
2. Sharing Experiences and KWL - Activity #1
Personal experiences by the children allowed them to learn better.
3. Exhibition and Display to Parents – Activity#10
The opportunity for strong bonding between the teacher and the parents helped to
develop the child holistically.
Additionally, the teacher gave the following views on how the children in her K1 class were working together:
(i) the setup of the object/topic-of –interest inside the school (Activity #8) made the children work most cooperatively amongst each other, because they learnt to work together and set aside their differences to achieve one goal.
(ii) the pretend play (Activity #9) promoted social interactions the most between the children because role-playing helped to promote the language development and skills.
(iii) the exhibition and display to parents (Activity #10) derived the most amount of laughter amongst the children because they enjoyed sharing their knowledge and work with their parents.
(iv) the field trip (Activity #7) elicited the most amount of empathy amongst the children because they had sensorial and concrete experiences.
(v) the sharing of experiences and KWL (Activity #1) enabled the most recall amongst the children because story-telling helped them to relate their personal experiences better.
The Children’s Perspective
The top 3 activities that the children enjoyed the most and had the most fun with, were described by them as:
1. The Field Trip (Activity #7)
2. Newspaper and Magazine Cuttings (Activity #4)
3. Pretend Play (Activity #9)
It should also be noted that creating models and painting (Activity #6) and the setup of the object/topic-of-interest (Activity #8) were a close third. The bar chart below (Figure 1) showed the distribution of the votes by the children that were interviewed:
Q: Which activities are the most enjoyable for you?
Sample size: 39
The Parents’ Perspective
The survey received from the parents yielded the following results:
(i) The average rating given by parents was 6.6, that is, between the grades of “Very Good” and “Excellent”, when asked how they rated their child’s overall experience during the tenure of the project that their child was involved in.
(ii) When asked if their child had shown improvements intellectually, emotionally or socially during the project period, 72% of the parents said that their child had improved significantly, per the pie chart below (Figure 2):
Q: Do you think your child has shown improvements during the project?
Sample size: 11
(iii) When asked which part of the project was their child most excited about, 60% of the parents mentioned the Field Trip (Activity #7), followed by the Exhibition and Display to Parents (Activity #10) and the Setup of the Object/Topic-of-Interest in School (Activity #8).
Conclusion
The most crucial outcome of this research, based on these interviews and survey results, was that the views of the teacher, the children and the parents were identical when they were asked which activity within the Project Approach process was the most important in terms of its impact. And that is, the Field Trip (Activity #7) was at the very top. This confluence of the 3 perspectives would therefore suggest that the planning, and indeed its execution, of the Field Trip by the teacher should be given top priority whenever a project was initiated for the children in the classroom. If executed well, the children would be the biggest beneficiaries of the Project Approach. They seemed to revel in this activity, which in turn, provided the highest impact in positive learning for them.
There was however, a divergence of views between the teacher and the children when the 2nd and 3rd most impactful activities of the Project Approach process were analysed. Given these divergent views, it would be prudent on the part of the teacher to regard the voice-of-the-children as taking precedent. The teacher should therefore pay more attention to the Newspaper and Magazine Cutting activity (Activity #4) and the Pretend Play activity (Activity #9) so that the values of the children’s learnings in this Project Approach were to be further maximized.
This researcher believes that teachers practicing Project Approach will be more motivated to embrace and continue to utilize this innovative teaching method in their classrooms if they understand better the combined views of the children and the parents. They will be more fulfilled if they know that the children and the parents will appreciate the outcomes of the Project Approach more if the top 3 activities are properly planned and executed.
The second outcome, and perhaps the more important of the two, is that the children taught under the Project Approach will be become much more engaged in their understanding of subject matters, more confident in their disposition and as a result, better all-round learners, both in their early childhood and their adult lives.
Both of these outcomes will therefore provide a good return-on-investment on the resources deployed towards the implementation of the Project Approach in an early childhood education centre.
It is hoped that this research results can also provide the foundation for even more research to be conducted to understand the views of the children and their parents even more, so that this innovative teaching strategy called the Project Approach can be further enhanced for the benefit of the children.
References
1. Chard, S. C. (1998a). The project approach: Making curriculum come alive. New
York: Scholastic.
2. Giudici, C., & Rinaldi, C. (2001). Making Learning Visible. Infant-Toddler Centers
and Preschools as Places of Culture, p.38, Reggio Children, Piazza della Vittorio,
Reggio Emilia, Italy.
3. Hendrick, J (2001). The Whole Child. What Makes a Good Day for the Children, p.32,
Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall
4. Katz, L. G., & Chard, S. C. (1989) Engaging children’s minds: The project approach.
Greenwich, CT: Ablex.
5. Project Approach Website [Online Database]. Retrieved September 24, 2008 from
World Wide Web:
http://www.projectapproach.org/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1
6. Wikipedia Website [Online Database]. Retrieved September 19, 2008 from the World
Wide Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dewey
Appendix
A. Ethical Clearance from Childcare Centre
B. Timeline for Research
C. Sample Questionaire to the Teacher
D. Sample Questionaire to the Children
E. Sample Questionaire to the Parents
(A) Approval for Ethical Clearance
1. Investigator : George
2. Name of the Training School : Nanyang Institute of Management
3. Description of Work : To interviewing the class teacher, the students and the parents
of the K1 class in the childcare centre.
4. Title of Project : Maximizing the Value of Project Approach as a Teaching Strategy
for K1 and K2 Children : 3 Key Areas for Teachers to Focus On
5. Objectives : To ensure that teaching resources are better deployed, and to build better
students through a more effective deployment of the Project Approach.
6. Design of Study : Questionaire and interviews with the teacher and children of her K1
class. Survey forms to be used to obtain feedback from the parents.
7. Consent and signature of Principal/Centre Director:
…………………………………………………………………………..
8. Signature of the Investigator :
……………………………………………………………………………
Student Teacher Contact: George
Project Supervisor Contact: Dr Sepalika
(B) Timeline for Research
1. Research Proposal design … 15 September
2. Obtain ethical clearance from Centre Director … 19 September
3. Submit Research Proposal … 26 September
4. Interview and questionaire from K1 Teacher … 29 September
5. Interview and questionnaire from K1 students … 02 October
6. Survey Form sent to Parents … 29 September
7. Survey Forms returned from Parents … 10 October
8. Compile and analyse data … 13 October
9. Preliminary Research Dissertation … 20 October
10. Final Research Dissertation … 30 October
11. Submission of Dissertation … 03 November
(C) Questionaire/Interview : Teacher
1. What are the 10 key steps/activities in the whole process of Project Approach?
1. ______________________ 2. _____________________
3. ______________________ 4. _____________________
5. ______________________ 6. _____________________
7. ______________________ 8. _____________________
9. _______________________ 10. _____________________
2. Out of these 10 steps, which (and why):
- made the children work cooperatively the most ____________________________
____________________________________________________________________
- promoted social interactions between the children the most ____________________
____________________________________________________________________
- derived the most laughter amongst the children ____________________________
____________________________________________________________________
- enabled the most recall amongst the children ______________________________
___________________________________________________________________
- elicited the most amount of empathy amongst the children ____________________
___________________________________________________________________
3. What do you think are the most important steps/activities in the Project Approach that
a teacher should be focused on to maximize her teaching to her students? And why?
1. _______________________________________________________________
2. ______________________________________________________________
3. _______________________________________________________________
(E) Parents Feedback Form: K1 Class
Dear Parents,
On 26Aug, we held our “Parents Day” to exhibit and present the outputs of your children’s “Doctor” project under the Project Approach teaching method. We hope you have found the evening of value to you, and to your children. To further plan for our future projects for the children, we seek your feedback on the following important areas of the Project Approach experience, and the Parents Day itself. We thank you very much in advance for your valuable feedback.
(Please return this form back to the class teacher or the centre by Thurs, 25 Sept)
******************************************************************
1. How would you rate your overall experience during the Parents Day evening?
(pls circle)
Poor Good Very Good Excellent Exceptional
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2. How would you rate your child’s overall experience during his/her whole period of the
“Doctor” project (09June – 26 Aug), based on your casual observations? (pls circle)
Poor Good Very Good Excellent Exceptional
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
3. What part of the Project period was your child most excited about (eg setting up the
School Clinic, or visiting the Doctor, or the Parents Day)?
……………………………………………………………………………………….
4. Do you think your child has shown improvements intellectually, emotionally or
socially during this “Doctor” project period (09June – 26Aug)? (pls tick)
No change ___ Yes, a little ___ Yes, significant ____ Yes, a lot _____
5. Can you suggest 2 project topics (eg Doctor project) that you think your child would
be interested in for his/her future projects?
(1) ______________________________ (2) ________________________
Name of Child : ………………………………… (optional)
ST Forum: "Teachers make or break a child's future.."
2 articles in today's ST Forum of interest to us..
'Take up teaching only if you are passionate about your cause as a 'surrogate' parent.'
MS CATHERINE SOH:
'I refer to Mr Ho Kong Loon's letter, 'How should teachers today behave on their own time?' (Nov 8). Take up teaching only if you are passionate about your cause as a 'surrogate' parent, to nurture and guide your wards to be responsible and caring citizens. In pre-primary and primary schools, teachers are often able to break or make a child's future.'
Yes they can : 'The childcare subsidy is available to a mother on full-time study.'
MR LEE KIM HUA, Director, Family Services Division, Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports:
'We refer to last Saturday's letter by Mr Nguyen Quang Yu, 'Childcare subsidies'. Mr Nguyen was told by a childcare centre that he and his wife were not entitled to the childcare subsidy of $300 as his wife was a full-time student and not a working mother. Mr Nguyen has appealed to the Government to consider granting full-time student mothers the same subsidy. We wish to clarify that, under current policy, the childcare subsidy is available to a mother on full-time study.
Mr Nguyen may not have received the correct advice from the childcare centre. Mr Nguyen should submit documentary proof of Mrs Nguyen's enrolment in the full-time course at Singapore Polytechnic to support her application for the full childcare subsidy. We invite Mr Nguyen to contact our toll-free information line on 1800-2585812 if he has further queries.'
'Take up teaching only if you are passionate about your cause as a 'surrogate' parent.'
MS CATHERINE SOH:
'I refer to Mr Ho Kong Loon's letter, 'How should teachers today behave on their own time?' (Nov 8). Take up teaching only if you are passionate about your cause as a 'surrogate' parent, to nurture and guide your wards to be responsible and caring citizens. In pre-primary and primary schools, teachers are often able to break or make a child's future.'
Yes they can : 'The childcare subsidy is available to a mother on full-time study.'
MR LEE KIM HUA, Director, Family Services Division, Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports:
'We refer to last Saturday's letter by Mr Nguyen Quang Yu, 'Childcare subsidies'. Mr Nguyen was told by a childcare centre that he and his wife were not entitled to the childcare subsidy of $300 as his wife was a full-time student and not a working mother. Mr Nguyen has appealed to the Government to consider granting full-time student mothers the same subsidy. We wish to clarify that, under current policy, the childcare subsidy is available to a mother on full-time study.
Mr Nguyen may not have received the correct advice from the childcare centre. Mr Nguyen should submit documentary proof of Mrs Nguyen's enrolment in the full-time course at Singapore Polytechnic to support her application for the full childcare subsidy. We invite Mr Nguyen to contact our toll-free information line on 1800-2585812 if he has further queries.'
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
ST: 20,000 more childcare places
Announced in Parliament yesterday, adding to earlier reports in Aug this year (see : http://childrenareourfutureteachthemwell.blogspot.com/2008/08/2000-new-childcare-places.html ) :
20,000 more childcare places
By Serene Luo
TWO HUNDRED more childcare centres will be ready in about five years' time, 100 more than what was announced earlier in March.
By 2013, Singapore will have 940 centres with 83,000 places, an increase of about 30 per cent from the 63,000 places in 739 childcare centres now.
Minister of State (Community Development, Youth and Sports) Yu-Foo Yee Shoon gave this update yesterday in Parliament, responding to Madam Halimah Yacob (Jurong GRC) who had asked about the quality, supply and affordability of childcare centres.
The availability of affordable and quality child care is a perennial issue as more families have both parents working, and more people seek early childhood development services for their children.
The new centres will be 'in HDB estates and near transport nodes to make it even more accessible and convenient for parents', Mrs Yu-Foo said.
The sites for them will be released in stages, she added.
With the extra centres, competition will likely increase and that will help keep fees affordable, she added.
Childcare fees have been on the rise recently, owing to factors such as higher costs of living and higher educational requirements for teachers.
The challenge, said Mrs Yu-Foo, is 'not in the hardware, but in attracting people' to work as childcare providers.
Madam Halimah had said the quality of childcare centres depended on the quality of their staff, but low salaries often made it difficult for the centres to attract better staff.
Mr Zainudin Nordin (Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC) also asked if there were plans to improve the image of childcare staff.
Mrs Yu-Foo said some time was needed to improve their image despite the Government giving bigger subsidies and setting higher training criteria.
20,000 more childcare places
By Serene Luo
TWO HUNDRED more childcare centres will be ready in about five years' time, 100 more than what was announced earlier in March.
By 2013, Singapore will have 940 centres with 83,000 places, an increase of about 30 per cent from the 63,000 places in 739 childcare centres now.
Minister of State (Community Development, Youth and Sports) Yu-Foo Yee Shoon gave this update yesterday in Parliament, responding to Madam Halimah Yacob (Jurong GRC) who had asked about the quality, supply and affordability of childcare centres.
The availability of affordable and quality child care is a perennial issue as more families have both parents working, and more people seek early childhood development services for their children.
The new centres will be 'in HDB estates and near transport nodes to make it even more accessible and convenient for parents', Mrs Yu-Foo said.
The sites for them will be released in stages, she added.
With the extra centres, competition will likely increase and that will help keep fees affordable, she added.
Childcare fees have been on the rise recently, owing to factors such as higher costs of living and higher educational requirements for teachers.
The challenge, said Mrs Yu-Foo, is 'not in the hardware, but in attracting people' to work as childcare providers.
Madam Halimah had said the quality of childcare centres depended on the quality of their staff, but low salaries often made it difficult for the centres to attract better staff.
Mr Zainudin Nordin (Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC) also asked if there were plans to improve the image of childcare staff.
Mrs Yu-Foo said some time was needed to improve their image despite the Government giving bigger subsidies and setting higher training criteria.
My ECE Assignments : Understanding and Presenting the Physical Environment (UPPE)
"My ECE Assignment" series is meant to demystify ECE and make it a more pleasurable endeavour for those of us who are willing to commit to it :
Module: “Understanding and Presenting the Physical Environment (UPPE)”
Date: 28 October
Reflection Paper
The importance of the physical environment in a preschool was brought to the fore over the last 3 weeks as I sat through discussions on key aspects of space, light, corners, simple open-ended materials and nature, and how these could positively impact and influence the way preschool children learn and grow. I am reminded by the eminent scientist, Albert Einstein, who once said,
“Time and space are modes by which we think, and not conditions by which we live.”
This quote by him certainly applies not just to his musings on the universe but also, to me, to the context of early childhood education (ECE) as well.
During this course, I came away with three significant ideas that, I feel, are applicable to the preschool environment that I am currently involved in, and indeed are ideas that can be further pursued for actual implementation.
The first idea is about creating a space that inspires the children in a typical classroom. Can the current space within a typically classroom today in my preschool be relooked for possible changes that have the potential to bring inspiration to the children sitting in them? I wonder. After all, isn’t inspiring children the very essence of teaching itself, in the first place? The teaching approach of Reggio Emilia draws inspiration for the children by seeing the environment they live in as a teacher for the children (Giudici & Rinaldi, 2001). It can therefore provide a new basis for thinking about the environment in my preschool, so that it can be utilized to inspire the children.
The second significant idea lies in the understanding of the instructional power of space and materials. Certain materials and space draw children into utilizing them, naturally. Like the presence of an observation tower in a park, the children are instinctively drawn towards climbing it to observe its surroundings. This example provides ample evidence that preschools should have more tools and space that invite the children into utilizing them, naturally. The trampoline is one instructional tool that comes to mind. It is an apparatus meant for developing balance and gross motor skills of a child that should be inside any preschool setting.
The third significant idea is the provision of an array of open-ended materials for the children to use and play, with no specific rules attached to their usage. The children can use them flexibly, using their own imaginative power as their guide towards their own learning. Open-ended materials such as old cardboard boxes, plastic milk containers, shoe boxes, toilet rolls cardboard tubes and metal bottle tops are but just a few examples of open-ended materials that can provide hours of creative fun and imagination for every child.
These three significant ideas can therefore provide an enhanced physical environment for the children in my preschool that can bring endless days of creative fun and curiosity to them. The significance of an engaging physical environment in any preschool is now even more evident to me, with the completion of this module of my course in ECE.
References
1. Giudici, C., & Rinaldi, C. (2001). Making Learning Visible. Infant-Toddler Centers
and Preschools as Places of Culture, p.38, Reggio Children, Piazza della Vittorio,
Reggio Emilia, Italy.
Module: “Understanding and Presenting the Physical Environment (UPPE)”
Date: 28 October
Reflection Paper
The importance of the physical environment in a preschool was brought to the fore over the last 3 weeks as I sat through discussions on key aspects of space, light, corners, simple open-ended materials and nature, and how these could positively impact and influence the way preschool children learn and grow. I am reminded by the eminent scientist, Albert Einstein, who once said,
“Time and space are modes by which we think, and not conditions by which we live.”
This quote by him certainly applies not just to his musings on the universe but also, to me, to the context of early childhood education (ECE) as well.
During this course, I came away with three significant ideas that, I feel, are applicable to the preschool environment that I am currently involved in, and indeed are ideas that can be further pursued for actual implementation.
The first idea is about creating a space that inspires the children in a typical classroom. Can the current space within a typically classroom today in my preschool be relooked for possible changes that have the potential to bring inspiration to the children sitting in them? I wonder. After all, isn’t inspiring children the very essence of teaching itself, in the first place? The teaching approach of Reggio Emilia draws inspiration for the children by seeing the environment they live in as a teacher for the children (Giudici & Rinaldi, 2001). It can therefore provide a new basis for thinking about the environment in my preschool, so that it can be utilized to inspire the children.
The second significant idea lies in the understanding of the instructional power of space and materials. Certain materials and space draw children into utilizing them, naturally. Like the presence of an observation tower in a park, the children are instinctively drawn towards climbing it to observe its surroundings. This example provides ample evidence that preschools should have more tools and space that invite the children into utilizing them, naturally. The trampoline is one instructional tool that comes to mind. It is an apparatus meant for developing balance and gross motor skills of a child that should be inside any preschool setting.
The third significant idea is the provision of an array of open-ended materials for the children to use and play, with no specific rules attached to their usage. The children can use them flexibly, using their own imaginative power as their guide towards their own learning. Open-ended materials such as old cardboard boxes, plastic milk containers, shoe boxes, toilet rolls cardboard tubes and metal bottle tops are but just a few examples of open-ended materials that can provide hours of creative fun and imagination for every child.
These three significant ideas can therefore provide an enhanced physical environment for the children in my preschool that can bring endless days of creative fun and curiosity to them. The significance of an engaging physical environment in any preschool is now even more evident to me, with the completion of this module of my course in ECE.
References
1. Giudici, C., & Rinaldi, C. (2001). Making Learning Visible. Infant-Toddler Centers
and Preschools as Places of Culture, p.38, Reggio Children, Piazza della Vittorio,
Reggio Emilia, Italy.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
ACJC Girl Gets Tied Up by Friends..
What has become of our girls and boys in schools (in this case, mostly girls)?
Is ragging a dinosaur that has no place in our school system in this day and age? How would you feel if this schoolgirl was your daughter?
Wikipedia defines ragging as..
"Ragging is a form of abuse on newcomers to educational institutions. Some senior students force the unorganized newcomers to undergo several forms of mental, physical and sexual abuses. The juniors are usually too frightened to resist their organized group of tormentors."
Here's the recent ACJC version..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)