Week Ten Readings

Week Ten’s Theme

Given very young children's development of language and abstraction, how do contextual, multimodal symbols and conventions support their encoding or decoding of the world around them?

This week’s theme is about being a literacy and numeracy technician as a progression from user and participant. During tutorials this week, we created our own codes and messages for our peers to decode. This was an activity designed to get us thinking about how children decode everyday literacy and numeracy. Previously this blog has focused heavily (not by design) on the idea that children encounter literacy and numeracy ideas, concepts, activities, themes, and learning in normal, everyday play and activities. This can include being talked or read to, watching TV, shopping with mum or dad, and playing with blocks. As technicians, children decode these literacy and numeracy related experiences, creating their own rules, understandings, and meanings. 

Because I was unclear about what exactly a literacy or numeracy technician was, or how children act as technicians, this week’s readings are again taken from the textbook as an easier way to understand these concepts.

Reading One

Seefeldt, C., Galper, A. & Stevenson, J. (2012). Connecting Everyday Experiences with Mathematical Content. In Active Experiences for Active Children: Mathematics (3^rd Ed., pp. 42-53). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Australia.

One of the first points this reading made was to emphasise that children’s firsthand experiences and investigations with maths happen before formal school begins, and that these experiences help children make sense of their world and construct a solid foundation for success in school (p. 43). I thought this was an interesting point to make as it called attention to children’s success in school and not life. While Seefeldt et al. may have a firm belief that success in school leads to success in life, I believe we should emphasise success in life as our main goal. Children, parents, and educators should be promoting this goal, instead of promoting the idea of success in school. Success in school may be out of the range of some children’s capabilities, or the promotion of success in school may put too much pressure on children. Maybe I’m being picky, but I think language like this is something serious that needs to be worked on in order to educate children to be lifelong learners, and global citizens who are able to participate successfully in society.  

Next point was that in order to educate children in mathematics educators first need a firm grasp of how children learn as well as of the subject they are teaching, whether numeracy for one year olds of 17 year olds. Only with this knowledge can educators begin to create meaningful, appropriate learning experiences. 

Seefeldt et al. outlined what they believe to be important principles for teaching mathematics to young children:

• Equity
• Curriculum
• Teaching
• Technology
• Learning
• Problem Solving
• Assessment

The NCTM Standards are outlined in this reading as well as interwoven strands designed to support the learning of meaningful mathematics. These standards are:

• Number Operations
• Algebra
• Geometry/Spatial Awareness
• Measurement
• Data Description, Organisation, Representation, and Analysis
• Problem Solving

In both of these standards or principles problem solving is listed as being an important focus. This ties in with previous week’s discussion (week nine) which also had a focus on problem solving being an important skill to teach young children. By teaching children to solve problems, educators are participating in an education that will help create critical thinkers, which will help children as they progress through life. 

The last point of this reading was to expand on and extend children’s firsthand experiences of mathematics by providing books with mathematical concepts, create open ended questions, use mathematical language around children, allow children to learn from each other, and show children how to use number operations to solve problems. By extending and expanding on children’s firsthand mathematical experiences in this way, educators are also creating meaningful literacy experiences for children to engage in. In this way, we can see that literacy and numeracy do not have to be experienced in separate learning environments, and that children can immerse themselves in literacy and numeracy rich environments at the same time.

Reading Two

Fields, M.V., Groth, L.A., & Spangler, K.L. (2008). Understanding How Literacy Emerges. In Let’s Begin Reading Right: A Developmental Approach to Emergent Literacy (6^th Ed., pp. 20-47). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.

The most significant point in this reading was the emphasis on teaching children to read as they are taught to speak. The reading first outlined how children are able to grasp such a large knowledge of the spoken language between birth and preschool age, as when they arrive at preschool they are already able to speak well enough to make their meaning clear. Fields et al. argued that this is because children are immersed in the spoken language from their very first day, and that it is used frequently in their everyday lives (either by them or around them). 

Fields et al. contend that this immersion does not just result in children imitating language; it sees them creating their own understanding of language and its rules. This is why we hear children say words like ‘runned’, ‘goed’, and ‘foots’, because they are creating their own understanding of the rules of the English language, not merely imitating adult speak. Important in this section is the ideas of not stopping children to correct them, or slowing them down when it seems like they are stuttering, but rather to elaborate on children’s own sentences when replying to them. 

The chapter argued that we should teaching children to read in the same way they learn spoken language, by immersing them in written language. Several articles and chapters in previous weeks’ posts (weeks five, six, seven and eight) back up this argument. Fields et al. argue that children should be immersed in written language from as early in their lives as possible, with immersion including being read to and using books in other play activities. Another point is that reading helps with vocabulary development by exposing children to other words and ways of saying things, rather than just learning how their parents, or family talks to them. 

One point I found interesting was the idea of watching TV. Nowadays leaving children to watch TV for prolonged periods of time is seen as bad or lazy parenting, however, Fields et al. outlined the positives in allowing children TV time. Watching TV (or even listening to the radio) can extend children’s literacy development, as well as other areas in their development such as empathy, problem solving, and critical thinking. One example given was the watching of inappropriate shows (within limits), with Fields et al. arguing that instead of banning these shows, to occasionally watch them with children and explain why they are inappropriate or why they are not usually allowed to watch these shows. This teaches children to think critically about what they are viewing. 

With an emphasis on how children create their own rules and understandings of language, this chapter outlined what it is to be a literacy technician. Being a literacy technician is how children decode spoken and written language, either by creating words such as ‘runned’ or by creating their own stories based on pictures in a book before they can read the words. By doing this they are decoding literacy in their everyday lives in a way that makes sense to them, but that might not make sense to the adults around them yet.