Learning Across the Early Childhood Curriculum 9781781907016, 9781781907009

Citation preview

LEARNING ACROSS THE EARLY CHILDHOOD CURRICULUM

ADVANCES IN EARLY EDUCATION AND DAY CARE Series Editor: John A. Sutterby Volumes 1–4 Series Editor: Sally Kilmer Volumes 5–14 Series Editor: Stuart Reifel

Recent Volumes: Volume 10:

Foundations, Adult Dynamics, Teacher Education and Play – Edited by Stuart Reifel

Volume 11:

Early Education and Care, and Reconceptualizing Play – Edited by Stuart Reifel

Volume 12:

Bridging the Gap Between Theory, Research and Practice: The Role of Child Development Laboratory Programs in Early Childhood Education – Edited by Brent A. McBride and Nancy E. Barbour

Volume 13:

Social Contexts of Early Education, and Reconceptualizing Play (II) – Edited by Stuart Reifel and Mac H. Brown

Volume 14:

Practical Transformations and Transformational Practices: Globalization, Postmodernism, and Early Childhood Education – Edited by Sharon Ryan and Susan Grieshaber

Volume 15:

The Early Childhood Educator Professional Development Grant: Research and Practice – Edited by John A. Sutterby

Volume 16:

Early Education in a Global Context – Edited by John A. Sutterby

ADVANCES IN EARLY EDUCATION AND DAY CARE VOLUME 17

LEARNING ACROSS THE EARLY CHILDHOOD CURRICULUM EDITED BY

LYNN E. COHEN LIU/Post, NY, USA

SANDRA WAITE-STUPIANSKY Edinboro University of Pennsylvania, PA, USA

United Kingdom – North America – Japan India – Malaysia – China

Emerald Group Publishing Limited Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley BD16 1WA, UK First edition 2013 Copyright r 2013 Emerald Group Publishing Limited Reprints and permission service Contact: [email protected] No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without either the prior written permission of the publisher or a licence permitting restricted copying issued in the UK by The Copyright Licensing Agency and in the USA by The Copyright Clearance Center. Any opinions expressed in the chapters are those of the authors. Whilst Emerald makes every effort to ensure the quality and accuracy of its content, Emerald makes no representation implied or otherwise, as to the chapters’ suitability and application and disclaims any warranties, express or implied, to their use. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 978-1-78190-700-9 ISSN: 0270-4021 (Series)

ISOQAR certified Management System, awarded to Emerald for adherence to Environmental standard ISO 14001:2004. Certificate Number 1985 ISO 14001

CONTENTS LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

vii

SERIES EDITOR INTRODUCTION

ix

VOLUME EDITOR INTRODUCTION

xi

CHAPTER 1 THEORY GUIDED PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN EARLY CHILDHOOD SCIENCE EDUCATION Soo-Young Hong, Julia Torquati and Victoria J. Molfese

1

CHAPTER 2 ENGAGING YOUNG LEARNERS IN INTEGRATION THROUGH MATHEMATICAL MODELING: ASKING BIG QUESTIONS, FINDING ANSWERS, AND DOING BIG THINKING Lucia M. Flevares and Jamie R. Schiff

33

CHAPTER 3 PHYSICAL-KNOWLEDGE ACTIVITIES: PLAY BEFORE THE DIFFERENTIATION OF KNOWLEDGE INTO SUBJECTS Constance Kamii

57

CHAPTER 4 CONTENT KNOWLEDGE AND VOCABULARY LEARNING IN NATURE: BECOMING A NATURE SCIENTIST! Myae Han, Nancy Edwards and Carol Vukelich

73

CHAPTER 5 THE ROLE OF STEM (OR STEAM) IN THE EARLY CHILDHOOD SETTING Karen W. Lindeman, Michael Jabot and Mira T. Berkley v

95

vi

CONTENTS

CHAPTER 6 JOHN DEWEY AND REGGIO EMILIA: USING THE ARTS TO BUILD A LEARNING COMMUNITY Joy Faini Saab and Sam F. Stack Jr.

115

CHAPTER 7 TAPPING THE ARTS TO TEACH R’S: ARTS-INTEGRATED EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION Eleanor D. Brown

135

CHAPTER 8 INTEGRATING EARLY LITERACY AND OTHER CONTENT CURRICULUM IN AN ERA OF INCREASED ACCOUNTABILITY: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Elizabeth Anderson and Nicole Fenty

153

ABOUT THE EDITORS

179

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

181

INDEX

185

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS Elizabeth Anderson

Binghamton University, State University of New York, Binghamton, New York

Mira T. Berkley

State University of New York at Fredonia, Fredonia, New York

Eleanor D. Brown

West Chester University, West Chester, Pennsylvania

Nancy Edwards

University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware

Nicole Fenty

Binghamton University, State University of New York, Binghamton, New York

Lucia M. Flevares

The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

Myae Han

University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware

Soo-Young Hong

University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska

Michael Jabot

State University of New York at Fredonia, Fredonia, New York

Constance Kamii

University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama

Karen W. Lindeman

Edinboro University of Pennsylvania, Edinboro, Pennsylvania

Victoria J. Molfese

University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska

Joy Faini Saab

West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia

Jamie R. Schiff

The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

vii

viii

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Sam F. Stack Jr.

West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia

Julia Torquati

University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska

Carol Vukelich

University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware

SERIES EDITOR INTRODUCTION I have had the experience over the last two years to be the co-program chair of the Early Childhood Education/Child Development SIG (Special Interest Group) at the American Educational Research Association (AERA). One of the opportunities provided by serving as program chair is to be exposed to all of the areas of interest from the dozens of proposals that are reviewed and accepted. One area that jumped out at me as co-program chair was the interest in content area research in early childhood. Large paper sessions with well-known presenters are always filled at AERA, often small sessions are overlooked. However, as a presenter, observer, and discussant at many roundtables and poster sessions for content area education research in early childhood, I found there was a keen interest in these sessions. Often these sessions were standing room only. People craned their necks to listen to the latest research in this area. This was an unsatisfactory experience for the many that showed great interest in content knowledge educational research. I also noted significant researchers attending these roundtables and poster sessions, commenting on the work of graduate students or newly minted doctoral graduates. In order to validate this interest I felt it was important to provide a forum for the many researchers working in the content areas of early childhood education. There are many forums for publication of research. It is my goal to lead the Advances in Early Education and Day Care series to areas where there is significant interest, following in the tradition of the series. I asked Lynn E. Cohen and Sandra Waite-Stupiansky to co-edit this volume because of their similar interest in this topic and their great ability to bring together an interesting and enlightening series of chapters touching on the content areas of science, mathematics, technology, the arts, and literacy. Many of the chapters have a foundation in Progressive Education which helps us continue to examine the tradition of this theoretical foundation and how we may apply it in an era of standardized testing and curriculum. I hope you will find this volume to be a contribution to the field of early childhood research as I have. John A. Sutterby Series Editor ix

VOLUME EDITOR INTRODUCTION Education, according to John Dewey (1938), should be viewed as dynamic and ongoing with direct teaching of integrated content knowledge. When young children learn in a way that is most natural to them, they unconsciously integrate subject areas into a complex whole based on their current interests. This volume, Learning Across the Early Childhood Curriculum, focuses on applying and integrating academic skills such as math, science, technology, art, and literacy into the early childhood curriculum. As early childhood education (ECE) continues to rise to the top of federal, state, and local policy makers’ agendas as a tool to improve children’s academic performance in later grades, we believe the time is right to introduce a book devoted to content learning in early childhood. Early childhood educators are pressured to answer the question of what curriculum content will deliver the necessary skills for children to develop and refine their abilities to think creatively and work collaboratively, precisely the abilities most needed to achieve success and satisfaction in the 21st century. The prevalence of traditional drill and practice of isolated academic skills may be attributed to the inability of early childhood educators to specify what content is appropriate for young children in the standards-based reform movement presently afoot. Whether or not we agree with the direction such reform is taking, the fact remains that our early childhood teachers must intentionally design learning environments that foster initiative, engagement, persistence, and creativity. Additionally, young children, growing up in a digital world and surrounded by media on all sides, are becoming more adept at negotiating meaning through several semiotic forms. This requires an integrated curriculum and good instruction to focus children’s negotiations. Toward that end, Learning Across the Early Childhood Curriculum has been written as a resource for early childhood teachers, as well as answer the questions of what curriculum content will help children achieve learning in a digital, standards-based world. The chapters that follow cover topics including professional development, mathematical thinking, outdoor science and literacy, the arts, and an integrated approach to literacy.

xi

xii

VOLUME EDITOR INTRODUCTION

In Chapter 1, Soo-Young Hong, Julia Torquati, and Victoria J. Molfese discuss the theories and practices in early childhood science education (i.e., preschool through 3rd grade) in relation to teaching for conceptual change. The authors present a strong literature review to add to our understanding of the issues in science content professional development for teachers of young children. Insight into past teaching practices and why it is important in understanding our direction as science educators, in an age of accountability, is offered for reflection and consideration. Specifically, they propose a systems perspective that highlights the unity and interrelationships between all forms of science. Further, the authors claim a systems perspective would facilitate students’ construction of knowledge and skills across grade levels, especially when connected to learning guidelines and standards. In Chapter 2, Lucia M. Flevares and Jamie R. Schiff offer a compelling argument for using mathematical modeling in an integrated early childhood classroom. They connect the progressive ideas of John Dewey to the current emphasis in mathematics on representation as a means for children to comprehend and communicate mathematical ideas as they engage in real and meaningful problem solving. Flevares and Schiff give specific examples using children’s literature as a context for problem solving. In Chapter 3, Constance Kamii, whose work has influenced American educators’ understanding of Piagetian theory over the last four decades, continues her thinking about how play within physical knowledge activities precedes children’s understanding of specific subject areas such as mathematics and science. Using four simple games, Kamii demonstrates how children solve the problems provoked through the playing of these games and how these provocations lead to the children’s thinking as they construct logico-mathematical knowledge which, according to Piaget, is central to all knowledge. In Chapter 4, Myae Han, Nancy Edwards, and Carol Vukelich take up the topic of outdoor education and science for young children to learn about the world around them. Within this context, the authors provide research and practical suggestions for the acquisition of vocabulary and the use of higher order thinking cognitive skills such as planning, prediction, and drawing inferences. Operating from an understanding that the outdoors shape a variety of language and literacy activities, the authors offer suggestions for science vocabulary lessons using scientific process words – observe, predict, describe, investigate, explore, classify, demonstrate, explain, and communicate. In Chapter 5, Karen W. Lindeman, Michael Jabot, and Mira T. Berkley provide a rationale for integrating the arts in science, technology,

Volume Editor Introduction

xiii

engineering, and mathematics (STEM) in early childhood programs. They argue that blocks, painting, and music are early childhood learning components that will support the STEM initiative and develop the 21st century four Cs (e.g., communication, creativity, critical thinking, and collaboration) which are important skills in a standards-based reform movement. They suggest STEAM rather than STEM with our youngest learners, adding the A for Arts. Recognizing the importance of technology in a digital world, the authors offer design technology as an alternative to digital technologies. Suggestions are offered to create environments (physically, temporally, and interpersonally) that encourage and expand the STEM principles. In Chapter 6, Joy Faini Saab and Sam F. Stack Jr., interweave the ideas of John Dewey and the pedagogy of the Reggio Emilia approach using art as the connecting link. They build a case based on Dewey’s historical emphasis on art as critical to the educational experience and as a means to build community through shared experiences. These very concepts resonate in the practices of Italy’s early childhood programs in Reggio Emilia today. In Chapter 7, Eleanor D. Brown uses her unique partnership with the Settlement Music School’s Kaleidoscope Arts Enrichment Preschool, of the Settlement Music School of Philadelphia, to analyze Dewey’s emphasis on experiential educational practices. She shares her research on the impact of an arts-based, integrated curriculum on school readiness of children from a wide range of backgrounds. Brown concludes that the arts can be a powerful force in reducing the achievement gap faced by educators today. In Chapter 8, Elizabeth Anderson and Nicole Fenty discuss the challenges facing early childhood programs in an era of accountability. The authors review the literature to examine the tensions between the current emphasis on accountability and an integrated approach to curriculum and learning in prekindergarten. A two-phase search of the literature resulted in a total of eight studies that meet the inclusion criteria of peer-reviewed empirical articles published between 1995 and 2012, settings serving children ages three- to seven-years-old, and emphasize literacy and content curriculum. Their search supplied evidence that literacy is integrated in early childhood curriculum, existing in varying degrees from an increased emphasis on a second content curriculum to integration of two or more content curricula. The authors’ analysis of these studies also revealed a number of limitations and unresolved issues, including concerns about the use of empirical research, studies limited to preschool children, and the quality of professional development when establishing causal connections with improved child outcomes.

xiv

VOLUME EDITOR INTRODUCTION

In sum, Learning Across the Early Childhood Curriculum explores, through description and critique, a multitude of ideas for an integrated approach to learning that cannot only be delivered in today’s early childhood programs, but must be provided by our early childhood professionals if Dewey’s ideals are to be realized. Each chapter explores the links to an integrated curriculum representing a singular iteration of the possibilities available; each author illustrates Dewey’s vision of education, a view that content knowledge provides opportunities to learn academic and technological skills in meaningful ways.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This volume of Advances in Early Education and Day Care, Volume 17 would not have been possible without the cadre of peer reviewers who provided invaluable insights for the authors of each chapter. Editors of such an undertaking cannot do their work alone. The following peer reviewers assisted in selecting the manuscripts to be included, advising the authors on everything from helping the ideas flow logically to word choices. We would like to thank Kathleen Dailey, Rosemary Omniewski, Nick Stupiansky, Lisa Brightman, and Kristin Webber from Edinboro University of Pennsylvania; Roberta Levitt, Joseph Sanacore, Christopher Smith, and Efleda Tolentino from Long Island University/Post; Cory Hansen from Arizona State University; Robert Carpozan from the University of Alaska-Anchorage; Stephanie Freese, Educational Consultant; David Kuschner and Virginia Carr from the University of Cincinnati; Gretchen Reynolds from Algonquin College; Olga Jarrett from Georgia State University; Marcia Nell from Millersville University of Pennsylvania; and Ingrid Chalufour from the Education Development Center, Inc. We would also like to thank Michelle Ingrassia, Graduate Student at Long Island University/Post, for her help with the final editing of the manuscript. Lynn E. Cohen Sandra Waite-Stupiansky Volume Editors

REFERENCE Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Touchstone/Kappa Delta Pi.

CHAPTER 1 THEORY GUIDED PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN EARLY CHILDHOOD SCIENCE EDUCATION Soo-Young Hong, Julia Torquati and Victoria J. Molfese ABSTRACT The importance of early and developmentally appropriate science education is increasingly recognized. Consequently, creation of common guidelines and standards in early childhood science education has begun (National Research Council (NRC), 2012), and researchers, practitioners, and policy makers have shown great interest in aligning professional development with the new guidelines and standards. There are some important issues that need to be addressed in order to successfully implement guidelines and make progress toward accomplishing standards. Early childhood teachers have expressed a lack of confidence in teaching science and nature (Torquati, Cutler, Gilkerson, & Sarver, in press) and have limited science and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) (Appleton, 2008). These are critical issues because teachers’

Learning Across the Early Childhood Curriculum Advances in Early Education and Day Care, Volume 17, 1–32 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 0270-4021/doi:10.1108/S0270-4021(2013)0000017005

1

2

SOO-YOUNG HONG ET AL.

subject-matter knowledge is a robust predictor of student learning outcomes (Enfield & Rogers, 2009; Kennedy, 1998; Wilson, Floden, & Ferrini-Mundy, 2002) and is seen as a critical step toward improving K-12 student achievement (National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century (NCMST), 2000; NRC, 2000). We argue that the same is true of preschool teachers. This chapter discusses: (a) theories and practices in early childhood science education (i.e., preschool through 3rd grade) in relation to teaching for conceptual change, (b) research on methods of professional development in early childhood science education, and (c) innovative approaches to integrating scientific practices, crosscutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas with early childhood professional development. Keywords: Professional development; science; learning standards; scaffolding; systems thinking

THEORIES AND PRACTICES IN EARLY CHILDHOOD SCIENCE EDUCATION Theories of Conceptual Change Children are born with powerful capacity for learning, and interactions with the physical and social world are necessary for concept development. Young children’s abilities include domain-general learning mechanisms, including an explanatory drive that motivates children to explore and make sense of the world; an orienting response, which ensures that novel stimuli are observed and explored; representational capacity and memory, which allow children to store and retrieve information about their experiences in the world; ability to compare new experience with existing representations; and ability to manipulate and experiment with physical objects. Young children also have ‘‘first principles,’’ domain-specific skeletal knowledge structures pertaining to specific cognitive domains such as the animateinanimate distinction, physics, category, number, biology, and language (e.g., Vosniadou, 2009). Children build upon first principles by using both domain-general and domain-specific learning processes and by using support from older children and adults. As children compare their understanding of the world with each new experience, they construct theories,

Professional Development in EC Science Education

3

sometimes called ‘‘naı¨ ve theories’’ about the world. Children can test some theories on their own, but they often need an adult who is attuned to their theories and who can provide opportunities to test them. From a constructivist perspective, children actively construct cognitive representations or ‘‘schemas’’ through their experiences and interactions with the world. In Piaget’s conceptualization, children assimilate new knowledge when information is consistent with their existing schema (Piaget, 1977). However, when new information is inconsistent with children’s existing schema, disequilibrium occurs because the child’s current conceptualization of a particular phenomenon no longer works. The child needs to restructure his schema, a process Piaget referred to as accommodation, and this is an opportunity for teachers to scaffold children’s experiences by providing well-attuned supports for the construction of new conceptual knowledge (Vygotsky, 1978). For example, a child may have a concept of ‘‘mammal,’’ as a warm-blooded creature that has fur and feeds milk to its young. When confronted with a mammal that superficially resembles a different class (e.g., a platypus that resembles a bird or a dolphin that resembles a fish), the child will need to accommodate, refining the concept of mammal to include these exemplars. Children actively compare new information with past experiences and knowledge, determine what is consistent with their naı¨ ve theories, and strive to understand inconsistent information through the process of equilibration (Piaget, 1977). An important role of teachers from a social constructivist perspective is to scaffold children’s learning by helping link previous experiences and existing knowledge (e.g., ‘‘Remember when we watched the bears on the den cam and the cubs were drinking the mother’s milk? Do you remember what we call an animal that feeds its young milk?’’) to new knowledge (‘‘Dolphins feed their young milk too, just like bears. Do you remember what else is special about mammals? Yes, they breathe air, and what else? Are they warm-blooded or coldblooded? How can we find out?’’). Children actively seek to make meaning of the world by comparing new experiences to previous experiences and knowledge.

Methods of Teaching for Conceptual Change Naı¨ ve theories have limits, however. Formal science instruction may be a relatively recent development in human history, but science has been an important part of cultural knowledge that has been taught and learned across generations. For example, knowing how to preserve food is very

4

SOO-YOUNG HONG ET AL.

important information for survival, and children routinely learned such skills as drying, pickling, curing, or making cheese. This is science knowledge that children have learned from more competent and knowledgeable adults, and children are ready learners, but they would not have discovered this knowledge by exploring on their own through the process of discovery science (Mayer, 2004). This knowledge was discovered and refined across generations and cultures and by using tools that were not necessarily available in everyday life, or available for use in children’s explorations (e.g., using microscopes to identify food-spoiling bacteria). Supporting Metacognitive Skills According to Vosniadou (2009), children’s theories do represent ‘‘a relatively coherent body of domain-specific but implicit knowledge’’ but differ from scientific theories in that they are not well-formulated, explicit, or socially shared (p. 548). Children consider their theories to be true facts about the world rather than hypothetical. Promoting metacognition is necessary when teaching for conceptual change because successful revisions of naı¨ ve theories, in the face of incompatible information, requires both the construction of a new theory as well as understanding one’s own explanatory frameworks (Vosniadou, 2009). To accomplish these goals, instruction must be designed to create ‘‘cognitive conflict’’ that can produce counterevidence that can catalyze disequilibrium, thus giving children the opportunity to examine their current belief structures (Vosniadou, 2009). Existing conceptual understanding influences future learning (Enfield & Rogers, 2009), and therefore it is critical to have accurate concepts upon which to build. The National Academy of Sciences has identified specific strategies and pedagogical practices for teaching children how to construct scientific knowledge: (a) teaching for conceptual change, (b) promoting metacognitive understanding, and (c) engaging students deeply with core concepts (Michaels, Shouse, & Schweingruber, 2008). Teachers must be attuned to children’s implicit theories in order to plan experiences to build upon or challenge those theories. Ongoing multidimensional assessment strategies can provide teachers with key insights about children’s theories. Examining children’s visual representations and listening to their explanations can yield valuable data about children’s understanding, as well as provide opportunities for children to practice engaging in the language and tools of science. It is important to listen carefully and paraphrase to ensure understanding. Science journals can be used both to assess children’s conceptualizations and to expand and challenge their existing understanding when teachers

Professional Development in EC Science Education

5

have children reflect on their representations. Giving children opportunities to demonstrate what they have done (i.e., make an object sink or use a ramp to accelerate an object) and to explain why they used the strategy that they chose can also help children examine their own thinking and make implicit reasoning explicit. ‘‘Show me how y’’ or ‘‘show me what y’’ questions enable children to nonverbally represent their experiences and understanding. Teachers can use behavior reflections to interpret the child’s actions and to check for understanding. Too often, teachers rely solely on verbal explanations (Vosniadou, 2009) and, while asking children to explain their thinking can be an effective strategy, some concepts can be better represented through drawings or models that children create and then explain. Constructing models and explanations is a strategy that helps children to be reflective on both the concepts, and their own thinking about the concepts. Young children are capable of engaging in inquiry, but different scientific reasoning skills require different levels of executive function and metacognition. Executive function is typically conceptualized as the coordination of working memory, inhibitory control, and attention or set shifting. Executive function is a central competency that is necessary for analyzing problems and testing hypothesis. It is necessary to hold in memory both a predicted outcome and an observed outcome in order to compare them. This is characteristic of three-year-olds who are typically at the first level of reflective consciousness in which they can hold in mind and use two rules about a single dimension (i.e., sorting by color) but cannot switch dimensions (Gropen, Clark-Chiarelli, Housington, & Ehrlick, 2011). Such children can make predictions and accurate observations, but have difficulty coordinating working memory, inhibitory control, and attention shifting to distinguish their initial hypothesis from their observation. Children reach the second level of reflective consciousness around four years of age, at which time they can integrate incompatible pairs of rules into a single system (Gropen et al., 2011). In terms of executive function, they can inhibit experiential processing and use analytic processing to holding rules in working memory. This allows them to reflect on and recognize the distinction between their prediction and observation, and therefore they can revise their hypotheses. Teachers can support children’s development of executive function (Diamond, Barnett, & Munro, 2007), for example, by drawing attention to dimensions relevant to a correct prediction (i.e., slope of a ramp related to speed of a marble) and by providing extended opportunities to engage in cycles of inquiry. Gropen et al. (2011) argue that hypothesis testing and revision in preschool is ‘‘pedagogically relevant’’

6

SOO-YOUNG HONG ET AL.

(p. 302) both because it provides a context for practicing inhibition, working memory, and reflection, and it also provides teachers with key information about children’s knowledge and reasoning. Inquiry-Based Teaching A meta-analysis of inquiry-based science teaching in elementary, middle, and high school demonstrated that inquiry methods resulted in greater science learning (Furtak, Seidel, Iverson, & Briggs, 2012). They did not analyze studies of elementary grades separately, but did differentiate between cognitive components of inquiry and levels of guidance. Cognitive components included: (a) conceptual structures and cognitive processes, (b) epistemic knowledge or understanding of the nature of science, (c) social processes, including collaboration, communication, and argument, and (d) procedural components, including methods of discovery. Levels of guidance compared included traditional (mainly didactic) instruction, teacher-led inquiry, and student-led inquiry. Comparison of the cognitive components revealed the largest effect size for the epistemic domain, followed by a combination of epistemic, procedural, and social domains. Comparison of the types of guidance revealed that teacher-led inquiry had the largest effect size when compared with traditional instruction, followed by studentled inquiry when compared with traditional instruction. Simultaneous analysis of cognitive components and type of guidance revealed that the most effective programs had teacher-led inquiry that included epistemic, procedural, and social components. This suggests that teachers need sufficient preservice preparation or professional development in science epistemology or ‘‘nature of science’’ as well as social and procedural dimensions of science in order to effectively guide students’ inquiry. A study specifically focused on inquiry in kindergarten compared traditional science instruction with teacher-led inquiry that included epistemic, social, and procedural components (Samarapungavan, Mantzicopoulos, & Patrick, 2008). Evaluation of learning included portfolio assessments and a quantitative measure of science content and process knowledge. Students in the inquiry classrooms performed significantly better than students in the traditional classroom on all measures of science process and content knowledge. Using multiple modes of assessment was especially revealing; students in the inquiry group were better able to identify and generate relevant research questions in the context of the inquiry process (as documented in the portfolios) than in the decontextualized assessment of science process. Students in the inquiry group engaged in science discourse with peers and their teachers, constructed arguments using

Professional Development in EC Science Education

7

prior knowledge and their observations, represented their learning using multiple modes of communication, and demonstrated proficiency in conceptual knowledge. Teachers in the inquiry group were surprised about students’ level of engagement in learning and the complexity of science concepts and vocabulary that they learned. This line of research underscores the importance of science discourse in early childhood classrooms. Teachers can facilitate discussions in which children explain their scientific reasoning. Such discussions help children begin distinguishing between their own and others’ beliefs. In order to do this, it is necessary to include sufficient science content in early childhood curricula, so that when children engage in scientific conversations there is an object for their intersubjectivity and they can begin to distinguish between appearance, reality, and beliefs of different individuals (Gropen et al., 2011).

Fostering Reflective Discussions Creating a scientific ethos within early childhood classrooms is necessary for fostering science process skills (Kirsch, 2007). Science is a social enterprise and norms, values, and meanings related to science learning are mediated through interactions. A classroom environment that values skepticism, open-mindedness, examination of evidence, and listening to multiple perspectives can help children develop important scientific ‘‘habits of mind.’’ Children learn from other children both when they explain their own reasoning process and when they listen to others’ perspectives. Teachers can support metacognition and perspective taking when they invite children to explain their thinking and when they ask other children to listen carefully (‘‘let’s listen to Abbie’s idea about what might work’’). Children must use inhibitory control, a key component of executive function, to suppress their own perspective and expression while considering the perspectives of others. Encouraging peer learning also changes the power structure in the classroom and helps children understand that answers to problems do not come from authoritative sources, but from their own reasoning and problem solving (Kirsch, 2007). Discussions about reasoning help children begin to understand their own thought processes, an important step toward metacognition and self-regulation of learning. Understanding that one’s own knowledge is built from one’s own cognitive activity promotes intellectual autonomy. It is important to respect children’s ideas in order to both understand their reasoning processes and to support their development of intellectual autonomy and self-regulated learning (Kostelnik, Soderman, & Whiren, 2010).

8

SOO-YOUNG HONG ET AL.

A great deal of science learning can and does occur beyond the classroom. Teachers can elevate the importance of science by partnering with families and by providing suggestions for activities at home or information about opportunities for science learning in the community (e.g., nature centers, museums, special events, tracking in winter, birding in spring, etc.).

The Fit of Early Childhood Science Curricula with Standards and Guidelines The importance of early childhood education has come to the nation’s attention in a number of ways. The first of eight National Education Goals passed by Congress in 1994 is ‘‘School Readiness – by 2000 every child will start school ready to learn.’’ Consequently, 39 states by 2007 had developed or were developing early learning standards (Scott-Little, Lesko, Martella, & Milburn, 2007). Early learning standards or guidelines described content that should be included in classroom instruction and knowledge that young children exhibit through their behaviors. A balance sometimes has been difficult to achieve between the academic content reflected in early learning standards that are designed to enable preschool learning to link with knowledge at kindergarten entry, as well as the more traditional emphasis of preschools on social and emotional skills and development of motor, language, and general cognitive skills. While more mathematics and science content is gradually being included in the early education settings, greater attention is still being given to language and emergent literacy. One indicator of the relative attention of early language and literacy compared to early mathematics and science learning can be seen in the reviews of research on What Works Clearinghouse, the Institute of Education Sciences’ web site that evaluates research findings on early childhood education interventions (called ‘‘programs, products, practices, and policies’’). Reviews are provided for four interventions for ‘‘language competencies’’ and 17 interventions each for phonological awareness and oral language skills. In contrast, there are no science interventions for young children and only 12 mathematics interventions were reviewed, only two of which show any impact on children’s learning. Much greater attention must be given to the development of effective mathematics and science interventions and evaluations. The effects of the lack of attention given to mathematics and science are seen in research reports. Greenfield et al. (2009) studied changes in Head Start children’s knowledge gains across the school year using Galileo

Professional Development in EC Science Education

9

(Bergan et al., 2003). Science scores showed no significant gains over fall scores. Scores on all other content areas (language & literacy, socialemotional development, approaches to learning, creative arts, motor development, and physical health) showed significant increases. Preschool children not only have weak knowledge of science at kindergarten entry, they also have known misconceptions about science and mathematics (Seo & Ginsburg, 2004), and there is little evidence of knowledge gains in these areas from early childhood education. Children’s understandings of science processes and concepts before kindergarten entry influence how they interpret scientific experiences provided by teachers, and their ideas about science do not change as the result of science instruction (Fleer & Robbins, 2003). An examination of content standards for science in early childhood can serve as a starting point for understanding how approaches to science education might change. Science standards for prekindergarten to 1st grade in 29 states including Nebraska (Hong et al., 2012) are shown in Table 1. Standards are shown for physical, life sciences, space/earth sciences, and technology. Specific topics within these content areas include: plants and animals/habitats (Life Sciences), senses and magnets (Physical Sciences), seasons and soil (Space/Earth sciences) and sink, float, dissolve/animals and habitats (Technology). Nebraska Early Learning Guidelines align science topics with behavioral indicators that are appropriate for preschool children, such as describes, classifies, compares, communicates, draws conclusions, explores, experiments, investigates, manipulates, measures, observes, predicts, questions, reflects, uses tools and objects. By considering the content standards and topics as well as behavioral indicators for preschool, kindergarten and 1st grade, ways in which foundational knowledge can build across grades can be used to conceptualize curricula. Such a crosscutting approach can be used to address the criticism of current approaches to science education for young children as ‘‘not organized systematically across multiple years of school, (emphasizing) discrete facts with a focus on breadth over depth, and (not providing) students with engaging opportunities to experience how science is actually done’’ (NRC, 2012, p. ES1). The emphasis on language and literacy in the early grades has grown, in part because of No Child Left Behind Act (2001). The U.S. Department of Education identified reading as the ‘‘threshold to successful learning’’ (FY, 2004, Accountability Act, p. 45), and teachers are reluctant to take instructional time away from reading and reading-related content. However, educators are describing how science activities can be integrated into other

Explores characteristics of matter  Exploring different colors and white and black, shapes of objects, textures (rough/ smooth) and feel (hard/soft), and size and weight  Identifying environmental sounds (e.g., cars, airplanes, wind, rain, birds)  Describing the difference between the wet sand and the dry sand  Describing how water flows through a tube  Experimenting with objects that sink or float in water Properties and characteristics of liquids, solids, and gas  Recognizing water in its three forms (liquid, solid, and gas); Describing the states of matter (e.g., observing ice melting)  Understanding changes when substances are mixed, shaken or cooked

A. Properties of matter

A. Tools Use age appropriate tools to investigate Exploring simple tools (e.g., ramps, magnets, magnifying classes, scales, eyedroppers, unbreakable mirrors, cups, funnels, tape measures, balls, prisms, etc.) Correctly use thermometers, balance scales, magnifying glasses, etc. for investigation Use tools to collect data and record information. Uses computer to solve problems. Natural objects versus man-made objects

Classification of natural objects (e.g., seeds, cones, leaves) according to shapes, forms, and textures Atmosphere (air), mixture of gases, including water vapor, and minute particles Water and its uses; Sun – heat and light; Supporting life on earth; Sound (thunder, wind); Shadows Weather  Temperature  Seasons  Day and night  Sunlight and shade  Identifying patterns and routines in daily life  Weather predictions  Identify types of precipitation Measuring devices (e.g., thermometer, rain gauge, ruler, cup, bowl; Experiments with windsocks, pinwheels, telescopes, binoculars, kites, magnifying glasses

Identifying things as living and nonliving based on their characteristics  Breathes, moves, grows  Animals, plants, rocks, buttons Describing characteristics, patterns, basic needs, and simple life cycles of living things (i.e., plants, animals, and people)  Various patterns and products: e.g., parents and offspring, describing how puppies are like dogs, ducklings are like duck (e.g., that tree grew really tall; Food, water, sunlight, soil, air, space, temperature)  Illustrating complete metamorphosis (e.g., butterfly, frog)  Illustrating incomplete metamorphosis (e.g., grasshopper; Herbivores and carnivores; Compare and contrast complete

Technology

A. Properties of earth and space

Earth Science

A. Living and nonliving

Life Science

Scientific Concepts Included in Science Guidelines/Standards for Preschool to 1st Grade (29 States).

Physical Science

Table 1.

10 SOO-YOUNG HONG ET AL.

 Involving in transformation of materials (e.g., cooking, painting) Acting out a melting snowman, popping popcorn, and object rolling down a hill

metamorphosis and incomplete metamorphosis Exploring and describing similarities, differences, and categories of plants and animals (e.g., compares size and shape) Understanding changes in the appearance, behavior, and habitats of living things (e.g., plants, spider webs) Asking questions about growth, change, function, and adaptation in plants and animals (i.e., evolution) Structure and function of living things  Five senses  Oral hygiene: how to clean teeth  Human body parts: heart, lungs, brain, stomach, muscles, bones  Plant parts: leaves, stems, flowers, roots

Order or stages of animal and plant growth Describe how things change naturally, age, weight Maintain a balanced ecosystem (Solves problems involving earth and space; Pollution; Recycle, reused, and conserved) Natural and man-made things Composition and structure of the universe and the Earth’s place in it.  Rotation  History of the earth  Concept of rotation,  Sequence of planets in the solar system

Professional Development in EC Science Education 11

B. Uses How we use technology and the affect it has on our lives. Promotes safety — begin to understand basic safety practices How technology affects our lives Relationships among science, technology, environment, and society Apply the concepts, principles, and processes to technological design

B. Environment Relationships between animals, plants, and the environment (i.e., habitats)  Fish live in water. Taking care of familiar plants and animals  Waters houseplants, feeds pet fish, growing plants, and caring for pets Preserving environment  Recycling, planting a tree Neighborhoods Population and ecosystems Recognizing what it means for a species to be extinct

Note: Italicized concepts were included only in 1st grade science standards.

Force and motion:  Describing the ways that objects can move (e.g., in a straight line, zigzag, up and down, back and forth, round and round, and fast and slow)  Position vocabulary (e.g., over/under, in/out, above/below)  Forces in nature  Understand gravity  Magnets: predicting which objects magnets attract (pull) or repel (push); Categorizing properties of materials using magnets Energy:  Different forms of energy (e.g., light, heat and sound energy)  Transfer of energy  Importance of light and heat Investigating sound Represents observations of the physical world in a variety of ways

B. Force, motion, & energy

Table 1. (Continued )

12 SOO-YOUNG HONG ET AL.

Professional Development in EC Science Education

13

content areas. For example, Brenneman, Stevenson-Boyd, and Frede (2009), Brenneman and Louro (2008), Gelman and Brenneman (2004), Greenfield et al. (2009), and Sackes, Cabe, and Flevares (2009) all describe how science activities support language and literacy skills through opportunities to learn and apply new words, communicate observations, compare and contrast different organisms to note similarities and differences, write and draw about science ideas in journals, and listen to and talk about books with science themes. Through integrating and connecting knowledge across content areas, children gain greater knowledge about science and mathematics, as well as language and reading skills.

Science Materials, Activities, and Interactions in Early Childhood Classrooms Few studies have specifically examined science materials, activities, or interactions in early childhood classrooms; however, results of these studies indicate that focused and effective science teaching and learning in such classrooms are rare. Early et al. (2010) analyzed two data sets (the NCEDL and SWEEP studies) and found that the largest proportion of time spent in learning activities focused on language and literacy (17% of the day), social studies (15%), and art (15%). Science (11%) and mathematics (8%) activities comprised the smallest proportion of the day. It is noteworthy that the codes were not mutually exclusive so it would be possible to be engaged in both literacy and science, for example, so it would not be necessary to ‘‘displace’’ other activities in order to increase the amount of time spent on science. Science activity was defined as exploring or identifying any natural phenomena and this broad definition could include exploration of sand and water. Tu (2006) assessed the availability of preschool science materials, natural science materials, and science activities in 20 preschool classrooms. Half of the preschool classrooms had a science area, but during free choice time teachers spent the smallest proportion of time interacting with children in the science center and the greatest proportion of time interacting with children in the art center. The most frequently observed science materials were vinyl animals (80% of classrooms) and live plants (70%), but teachers never talked with children about the plants in the classroom. Most classrooms had a sensory table (65%) and science posters or charts (60%). Other than plants, few classrooms had natural science materials. Overall, 4.5% of class time was spent in formal science activities (i.e., making play dough), and informal science activities

14

SOO-YOUNG HONG ET AL.

comprised 8.8% of class time (exploring sand with shovels). No incidental science activities (‘‘teachable moments’’) were observed in this study. Finally, observations of children in 2,500 1st grade classrooms revealed that 50% of instruction time focused on literacy and approximately 10% focused on science (Pianta, Belsky, Houts, Morrison, & NICHD ECCRN, 2007). Taken together, these studies indicate that opportunities to engage in meaningful science learning in early childhood programs are minimal.

RESEARCH STUDIES ON METHODS OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN SCIENCE EDUCATION Although there is not a single, agreed-upon definition, professional development is defined, in general, as a variety of training opportunities that aim to enhance the effectiveness of teaching by providing preservice and in-service teachers with guidance and feedback (Buysse, Winton, & Rous, 2009). Research evidence on effective models of professional development in early childhood science education is limited. Therefore, we draw upon empirical findings on effective models of teacher professional development for elementary teachers and for prekindergarten mathematics (Clements & Sarama, 2011; Scher & O’Reilly, 2009; Yoon, Duncan, Lee, Scarloss, & Shapley, 2007). Effective science and mathematics professional development emphasize both content and pedagogy (Kanter & Konstantopoulos, 2010; Scher & O’Reilly, 2009), with a focus on children’s thinking and conceptual change (Clements & Sarama, 2011; Vosniadu, 2009). Effective science professional development incorporates knowledge of children’s conceptions of science phenomena (Enfield & Rogers, 2009). It is necessary for teachers to understand science content to enable them to interpret children’s representations and conceptions and to design ways to challenge and expand those concepts. Metacognitive science talk is an important vehicle for developing scientific understanding and reasoning skills. Effective professional development is grounded in and applicable to specific curriculum concepts and materials (Clements & Sarama, 2011). Research indicates that effective professional development is ‘‘multifaceted, extensive, ongoing, (and) reflective’’ (Clements & Sarama, 2011, p. 140). A meta-analysis of nine professional development studies involving elementary teachers indicated that intensity (more than 14 hours) predicted significant positive effects on student achievement (Yoon et al., 2007). All of

Professional Development in EC Science Education

15

the effective professional development models included ‘‘institutes’’ during the summer, and eight included follow-up academic year support. Students whose teachers participated in the professional development included in the meta-analysis performed better by 21 percentile points on average; the average effect size for studies using randomized control trials was 0.51. These findings emphasize the importance of providing teachers with opportunities to apply new knowledge in the classroom and reflect upon their practices and students’ learning, while also providing support for implementing new practices. Follow up mentoring for developing and implementing lessons, as well as guidance of professional challenges has been found to be effective (Ager & O’May, 2001; Joyce & Showers, 2002). Professional development foci often include elements of classroom quality, which are considered in the next section.

Evaluating Classroom Quality: Structure and Process Elements in the Classroom and Impacts on Student Learning Outcomes A body of research has emerged exploring connections between program quality and classroom learning. Program quality is often characterized by structure and process elements in the classroom (e.g., Pianta & Hamre, 2009). Pianta, Barnett, Burchinal, and Thornburg (2009) define structural elements as ‘‘those aspects of the programs that describe the caregiver’s background, curriculum, or easily observed or reported characteristics of the classroom or program’’ (p. 66). Structural elements include the physical space, routines, materials, and other elements that are often related to licensing regulations or accreditation. In contrast, process elements ‘‘refer to children’s direct experiences with people and objects in the child care setting, such as the ways teachers implement activities and lessons, the nature and qualities of interactions between adults and children y and the availability of certain types of activities’’ (p. 66). Together, structural and process elements are critical indicators of classroom quality, but how the elements relate to specific content, such as science, is not usually considered. While there is no single approach to evaluating classroom quality that considers both structure and process, there are approaches that together provide a more complete picture of quality. The Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale-Revised (ECERS-R, Harms, Clifford, & Cryer, 2005) is a frequently used observation measure of center-based early childhood program quality that includes five subscales assessing structural quality (space and furnishings, personal care routines, activities, program

16

SOO-YOUNG HONG ET AL.

structure, and parents and staff) and two subscales that include both structure and process indicators (language-reasoning and interactions). Examples of indicators on the language-reasoning subscale include: ‘‘Some activities used by staff with children to encourage them to communicate,’’ ‘‘Staff talk about logical relationships while children play with materials that stimulate reasoning,’’ and ‘‘Children are asked questions to encourage them to give longer and more complex answers.’’ Examples of indicators on the interactions subscale include: ‘‘Staff assist children to develop skills needed to use equipment,’’ ‘‘Staff talk to children about ideas related to their play, asking questions and adding information to extend children’s thinking,’’ and ‘‘Staff actively involve children in solving their conflicts and problems.’’ These indicators can provide guidance for the kinds of interactions that support children’s development and learning, but specific curricular content domains are not addressed in the measure. The modest effect sizes of associations between classroom quality and children’s development (e.g., Peisner-Feinberg et al., 2001) and the insignificant associations between classroom environment quality and other cognitive outcomes (reading, mathematics, and cognitive/attention) may have resulted from the lack of content-specific quality indicators. The Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS, Pianta, La Paro, & Hamre, 2008) is a process-focused measure that assesses the quality of interactions between teachers and children. There are three domains: emotional support, organization, and instructional support. Each domain is composed of three to four dimensions: Emotional Support includes positive climate, negative climate, teacher sensitivity, and regard for student perspectives; Organization includes behavior management, productivity, and instructional learning formats; and Instructional Support includes concept development, quality of feedback, and language modeling. The domain of Instructional Support is particularly germane for student learning. Instructional Support refers to teachers’ interactions with children that promote concept and skill development through scaffolding, questioning, and feedback loops. Research evidence links this domain of classroom process to children’s academic achievement. For example, Perry, Donohue, and Weinstein (2007) found that 1st grade children in classrooms with higher levels of Instructional Support made greater academic progress than children in classrooms with lower levels of Instructional Support. Hamre and Pianta (2005) reported that Instructional Support in 1st grade classrooms promoted academic achievement among children at risk for academic difficulty. Kindergarten children in classrooms with higher Instructional Support showed greater academic competence (Pianta, La Paro, Payne,

Professional Development in EC Science Education

17

Cox & Bradley 2002). Mashburn and colleagues (2010) examined data from two national samples of public prekindergarten programs and found measures of Instructional Support predicted children’s academic and language skills in pre-kindergarten. Interestingly, the ECERS-R scores obtained from the programs were poor predictors of academic and language skills. It is important to note that neither the ECERS-R nor the CLASS scales are designed to relate elements of classroom quality to learning of specific content. The Preschool Rating Instrument for Science and Mathematics (PRISM) is an observation-based instrument that links teacher-student interactions and classroom materials to preschool children’s mathematics and science learning (Brenneman, Stevenson-Garcia, Jung, & Frede, 2011). The PRISM has six ‘‘materials’’ items (such as, ‘‘Materials for counting, comparing, estimating, and recognizing number symbols,’’ ‘‘Materials for biological and nonbiological science explorations,’’ and ‘‘Materials to support reading about and representing science’’) and 10 ‘‘staff interactions’’ items (such as ‘‘Counting for a purpose,’’ ‘‘Science explorations, experiments, and discussions,’’ and ‘‘Recording science information’’). PRISM was used in a study of public preschoolers along with ECERS-R and measures of vocabulary, math, and science. PRISM and ECERS-R correlations were moderate (0.41) suggesting that the PRISM measures some similar as well as unique information about the classroom environment. Brenneman et al. (2011) reported that the ‘‘staff interactions’’ scores were lower than the ‘‘materials’’ scores. This is interesting because other than ‘‘counting for a purpose,’’ which had an average score of 4.08, the other ‘‘staff interactions’’ were much lower (1.54–2.49). These low scores are interpretable in light of the issues raised earlier in this chapter about the amount of attention given to mathematics and science learning in early childhood classrooms. While many activities in these classrooms relate to ‘‘counting,’’ there are few activities that build children’s thinking and foundational skills around other math and science content. The finding of low average ‘‘staff interaction’’ scores reported by Brenneman et al. (2011) is similar to the reports on the CLASS (Pianta et al., 2005). Scores on Instructional Support tend to be lower than scores for Emotional Support and Classroom Organization. Teachers seem to consistently create wellorganized classrooms with positive and sensitive teacher-student relations more so than classrooms characterized by the use of analysis and reasoning to promote concept development and interactions involving back and forth exchanges, specific feedback, and open-ended questions. Yet, it is these types of interactions that are needed to build student learning and knowledge.

18

SOO-YOUNG HONG ET AL.

Quality of Professional Development in Early Childhood Science Education Research indicates that many preschool to 1st grade teachers feel inadequate and anxious about teaching science and mathematics (e.g., Ginsburg, Lee, & Boyd, 2008; Greenfield et al., 2009; Sutton, Bausmith, O’Connor, & Pae, 2009; Torquati, Cutler, Gilkerson, & Sarver, in press). Further, the majority of early childhood teachers have taken a relatively small number of science and mathematics content courses (PCAST, 2010), typically only those courses required in their undergraduate degree programs. Fulp (2002) found that 42% of elementary teachers in a national survey completed four or fewer semesters of science and fewer than 30% of elementary teachers believed they were well prepared to teach science. While science and mathematics courses are supplemented with methods classes, practicum experiences, and student teaching, the total credit hours related to science and mathematics are relatively low. This is a critical problem because elementary teachers’ subject-matter knowledge is a robust predictor of student learning outcomes (Enfield & Rogers, 2009; Kennedy, 1998; Wilson, Floden, & Ferrini-Mundy, 2002) and is seen as a necessary step toward improving K-12 student achievement (NCMST, 2000; NRC, 2000). It is reasonable to assume that that the same is true of prekindergarten teachers. Evidence indicates that teachers use their past experiences in science and mathematics classes as templates for teaching (Lortie, 2002), often giving students the impression that science is scripted and mathematics is procedural, with every experiment providing a correct answer and a single process for arriving at a solution. A scripted use of textbook and cookbook lab materials does not reflect the discovery and investigative nature of science and mathematical practices (Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and National Governors Association (NGA) Center for Best Practices, 2010). Rather, these methods encourage children to see science and mathematics as collections of facts and problems with single pathways for finding a single solution. Effective professional development must address this problem.

Coaching to Strengthening Pedagogical Content Knowledge, Teaching Efficacy, and Practices in the Classroom Coaching has been recognized as one of the effective early childhood professional development tools through which teachers receive individualized

Professional Development in EC Science Education

19

support in implementing evidence-based practices (Powell, Steed, & Diamond, 2010). Although there are mixed findings about the effectiveness of coaching, it is considered to be more promising than other traditional forms of professional development (i.e., workshops) and has improved the learning of children at risk for school failure (Gupta & Daniels, 2012; Odom, 2009). Coaching methods have been used frequently in early childhood classrooms to promote teacher effectiveness and children’s learning in the areas of literacy and language (Hsieh, Hemmeter, McCollum, & Ostrosky, 2009; Powell et al., 2010), mathematics (Rudd, Lambert, Satterwhite, & Smith, 2009), social-emotional intervention (Fox, Hemmeter, Snyder, Binder, & Clarke, 2011), and classroom management strategies (Reinke, Stormont, Webster-Stratton, Newcomer, & Herman, 2012). Coaching is used in early childhood classrooms to help teachers adopt a new curriculum or tools or to assist their use of specific teaching strategies. The structure of coaching determines how coaching is delivered and received (e.g., frequency, number, duration of coaching contacts, supplemental materials); whereas the process of coaching includes what coaches do to promote change in teachers’ practices. Coaches model or demonstrate specific strategies, observe teacher behavior and classroom interactions, share thoughts and comments about the interactions, and encourage teachers to reflect on their teaching practices. However, little is known about the mechanisms through which coaching promotes teacher knowledge and skills (Sheridan, Edwards, Marvin, & Knoche, 2009). Coaching and mentoring with individualized and intentional support may help early childhood teachers gain science Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) and self-efficacy for teaching science, which in turn may impact children’s science learning. PCK is considered to be a necessary foundation for teaching and the ability to transform subject-matter content into forms that can be mastered by students (Shulman, 1986). PCK is a construct that contains five components: (a) knowledge of curriculum, (b) knowledge of student understanding, (c) knowledge of assessment in science, (d) knowledge of instructional strategies, and (e) orientation to teaching science (Falk, 2012; Magnusson, Krajcik, & Borko, 1999). Early childhood teachers are hesitant to teach science, not only because they lack science knowledge, but also because they lack PCK in science (Appleton, 2008). When teachers did not have proper PCK, they tended to avoid teaching science at all or only taught science content that is similar to the content taught in literacy or social studies (Harlen & Holroyd, 1997). Appleton (2008) investigated the role of mentoring in improving early elementary teachers’ PCK. The mentor planned and taught activities together with each teacher to enhance his or

20

SOO-YOUNG HONG ET AL.

her self-efficacy for teaching science in early elementary classrooms. This approach was based on the belief that effective professional development in science education should be transformative, which means that it causes changes in social, professional, and personal areas (Bell & Gilbert, 1996). More specifically, for science professional development to be effective, it should enable teachers to develop collaborative relationships with other teachers (social), develop ideas and actions (professional), and attend to their feelings (personal), which in turn produce lasting changes (Peers, Diezmann, & Watters, 2003). Although Appleton (2008) was a case study with four teachers with one science mentor, the one-on-one mentoring was perceived as beneficial by the elementary teachers and may have a potential to be an effective strategy for early childhood science professional development. Early childhood science professional development should include efforts to promote teachers’ knowledge, skills, and dispositions. Building teachers’ motivation to teach science as well as scientific knowledge is essential for effective science teaching. Dispositions are defined as ‘‘prevailing tendencies to exhibit a pattern of behavior frequently, consciously, and voluntarily’’ (Sheridan et al., 2009, p. 380). Unless teachers have the motivation to use the skills and knowledge that were learned through professional development, it would be difficult to expect changes to occur in their behaviors or dispositions.

INNOVATIVE IDEAS: PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN PRESCHOOL TO THIRD GRADE SCIENCE EDUCATION Integration of Scientific Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas Recently, the NRC (2012) published a framework for K-12 science education. The goal was to create new sets of K-12 science education standards that are common, crosscutting, and integrated across grade levels, and the framework suggests that science education in K-12 grades be constructed around three main dimensions: ‘‘scientific and engineering practices, crosscutting concepts that unify the study of science and engineering through their common application across fields, and core ideas in four disciplinary areas: physical sciences, life sciences, earth and space sciences, and engineering, technology, and applications of science’’ (NRC,

Professional Development in EC Science Education

21

2012, p. 2). As emphasized in early learning guidelines, children are expected to learn to ask questions, define problems, develop hypotheses and plan investigations, collect, analyze and interpret data, explain the results, make conclusions, and communicate the results with other people. All these scientific problem-solving processes are expected to be included in all K-12 science education. The suggested crosscutting concepts include: (a) patterns, (b) cause and effect, (c) scale, proportion, and quantity, (d) systems and system models, (e) energy and matter, (f) structure and function, and (g) stability and change. Michaels et al. (2008) also discussed the benefits of creating learning progression around science core concepts. When children get actively engaged in learning all these crosscutting concepts as well as the major scientific and engineering practices over the K to 12 years, their understanding of core ideas will be deepened considerably. This will also enable teachers to provide meaningful science experience in the classroom that are built on the students’ previous learning at each grade level (Michaels et al., 2008). Teacher professional development should use these guidelines to enhance teacher effectiveness and student learning. Aligning state guidelines and standards with this framework can be the first step for planning a relevant professional development. For example, one of the core ideas included in the physical sciences is Matter and Its Interactions. Components under this core idea include structure and properties of matter, chemical reactions, and nuclear processes. The first component of the core concept (i.e., structure and properties of matter) appears in many states’ early learning guidelines (for preschoolers) as well as most early elementary science standards. The depth of knowledge on this component shared at different grades may be considerably different, but the basic idea is the same: Different kinds of matter exist (e.g., water, wood, metal) with different forms and they have different characteristics (e.g., texture, size, weight); small pieces can build many different objects (e.g., blocks). Examining the continuity and progression in the content being taught across grades including prekindergarten would help teachers and researchers see the big picture of science education. The scientific and engineering practices can then be used to help children understand these core concepts. Children can explore the properties of matter by observing, comparing, and contrasting characteristics of objects; sorting them into different categories; measuring the size and weight of different objects; observing and making hypotheses about how matter changes by doing true scientific investigations and experiments; and sharing the learned knowledge with other teachers, classmates, and parents. These scientific investigations can enable children to develop understanding of

22

SOO-YOUNG HONG ET AL.

some of the crosscutting concepts as well, such as patterns (e.g., recognizing patterns of similarities and differences by classifying objects) and cause and effect (e.g., temperature change causes changes in properties of matter, such as water).

Systems Approaches to Promoting an Integrated Understanding of Science One of the crosscutting concepts included in NRC’s framework for science education is Systems and System Models. Systems are an essential focus of science education and a unifying theme among science disciplines (Kay & Foster, 1999). A system is a set of relationships that all work together. A system can be as small as a cell or as large as an ecosystem. Important problems facing our society today are complex and require a systems approach for developing solutions. Unfortunately, most science instruction fails to promote an integrated understanding of science systems among students (Ben-Zvi-Assaraf & Orion, 2010; Liu & Hmelo-Silver, 2009). A systems thinking model is essential to understanding how organisms are connected with elements in ecosystems, for example, and for bridging life and physical sciences. Systems principles transcend compartmentalized content knowledge, enhancing generalizability. Therefore, science education with a focus on systems and the dynamic interactions among the system’s components and functions has the potential to enhance students’ learning in science. This approach is consistent with the systems-level view of mathematical proficiency (Kilpatrick, Swafford, & Findell, 2001) that emphasizes mathematical reasoning, processing and data interpretation, and communicating interconnected mathematical ideas within the same or between different topics (NCMST, 2000). Educators view systems thinking as a viable pedagogical approach for teaching science (Hmelo, Holton, & Kolodner, 2000) that provides benefits not found in traditional methods of teaching science (Ben-Zvi-Assaraf & Orion, 2010). Key benefits include understanding the interconnectedness of the components within the system; recognizing the complexity within the system; and presenting the system, its components, and its processes as a whole. For example, in elementary classrooms teachers use a scope and sequence of science topics based on a set of independent (from their perspective) and unrelated goals and objectives. Kindergartners in most states study plants, senses, seasons, and sink, float, dissolve. Teachers create activities to demonstrate and engage children in each of these areas with

Professional Development in EC Science Education

23

goals specific to each topic. They grow a plant, use their senses, observe the seasons, and manipulate objects that sink, float, and dissolve, but never make connections linking this knowledge to a larger system of understanding. By including systems thinking as a key element in science professional development, teachers may learn connections between plants, senses, seasons, and sink/float/dissolve with an organism(s). The systems approach can enable teachers to see connections among the life cycle of organisms (i.e., involving plants and animals, senses, seasons, weather, and change in earth and sky), basic concepts of living and nonliving, inheritance (i.e., involving plants and animals, patterns in nature), and the associations between an organism and its environments and survival (i.e., involving the concept of interdependence, seasons, plants and animals, etc.). Systems thinking can provide continuity across grades when conceptualizing the scope and sequence of concepts at each grade level. Each aspect of the systems-level approach assists teachers and students in understanding the complexity of a system (i.e., an organism) while still meeting curricular goals specified for curriculum scope and sequence. While knowledge and skills taught to preschool children focus on processes (science: observing, classifying, experimenting, communicating; mathematics: counting, measuring, classifying, identifying), these processes are applicable to life, physical, and earth sciences in building knowledge and abilities across grades. The systems approach involves using constructs and language that cross science and mathematics areas, enabling better articulation of classroom instruction and student learning across grades due to shared use of language and concepts related to science and math. We believe that the use of systems thinking can enable teachers to build strong PCK (Shulman, 1986), one of the many tasks of science teaching requiring specialized knowledge (Ball, Thames, & Phelps, 2008). While early childhood teachers generally are not prepared to teach science using a systems thinking approach, it is learnable and readily applicable to the scope and sequence of science curricula across grades.

Science Laboratory Experiences to Enhance Teachers’ Science Content Knowledge Science laboratory experiences may be another innovative strategy to enhance early childhood teachers’ science content knowledge. Walden and his colleagues developed a professional development program for sixth to

24

SOO-YOUNG HONG ET AL.

twelfth grade science teachers that involved collaboration between science teachers and university scientists (Walden, Greene, Slater, Lubin, & Keesee, 2009). The intervention included a two-week summer professional development program where teachers experienced authentic scientific research processes and participated in professional learning communities across the state of Oklahoma. This project promoted teachers’ science content knowledge and also improved teacher quality and student outcomes even in small, isolated rural schools. One of the assessment tools was concept mapping (i.e., representation of teachers’ understanding about certain science topics), and the number of links on their map between concepts as well as their ability to integrate different science concepts significantly increased after the inquiry-based professional development. This intervention influenced how teachers thought about constructivist practices, and their increased endorsement of constructivist and inquiry-based practices were observed although it did not make a significant difference in their motivation and attitudes toward teaching science. Providing early childhood teachers with authentic science lab experience as a part of professional development may enhance their science content knowledge as well as scientific problem-solving skills. The authentic processes of science and collaborative partnerships between science teachers and scientists may promote teachers’ in-depth understanding of linked concepts as well as system-level relationships among those concepts.

Using Collective Participation in Schools for Collaboration and Problem-Solving to Support Science Teaching One of the main objectives of professional development is to sustain ‘‘high-quality professional practices by enhancing systems and individuals to engage in activities that are self-sustaining and growth producing’’ (Sheridan et al., 2009, p. 380). In order to help teachers sustain the knowledge, skills, and dispositions gained from a professional development program, it is critical to provide them with a group of teachers who can reflect on what they have discovered from the professional development experience and help one another assess and monitor their professional growth (Fleet & Patterson, 2001; Riley & Roach, 2006; Sheridan et al., 2009). Although the initial information comes from outside, such as from coaches and consultants, the process of self-regulated ongoing growth comes from inside (i.e., teachers themselves) to achieve meaningful changes and improvements (Wesley & Buysse, 2006). Therefore, building

Professional Development in EC Science Education

25

a professional community that shares understanding of concepts, processes, and teaching methods can provide a culture that supports newly learned practices. The process of working together as a team should happen early in the process of professional development, and we suggest that teachers of preschool through early elementary grades participate in professional development opportunities together and reflect on their science teaching collaboratively. A recent study examined the impact of standards-based science content and professional learning communities on science teaching efficacy with elementary and middle school science teachers (Lakshmanan, Heath, Perlmutter, & Elder, 2011). Throughout the three years of professional development, teachers were encouraged to work with one another to reflect on their science teaching and share information as a form of professional learning communities. Results revealed significant gains in teachers’ science teaching efficacy and in inquiry-based instruction in the classroom as well as a positive association between the two. Although this particular study only included teachers from fifth to eight grades, elements of professional learning communities were recognized in other studies with teachers of lower grades. Richmond and Manokore (2010) analyzed teacher talk during professional learning community meetings using qualitative research methods and found five key elements: ‘‘teacher learning and collaboration, community formation, confidence in knowledge of content and guided inquiry, concerns about the impact of accountability measures on teaching and learning, and sustainability of reform’’ (p. 555). The main purpose of professional learning communities is to help teachers become motivated to learn and change (Grossman, Wineburg, & Woolworth, 2001). All teachers expressed that they gained science content knowledge, knowledge and strategies about designing and using performance-based and formative assessment, and how to teach the content knowledge more effectively (i.e., pedagogy). The interdependence and collegiality formed among the participating teachers enabled them to share challenges and struggles; the self-efficacy for teaching science was increased; and most importantly, there was an increase in students’ science test scores when they were at fifth grade after their teacher participated in professional learning communities. Data are mostly qualitative, so this study does not provide clear learning trajectory of the teachers and students; however, the in-depth analysis of the conversations among teachers shows the positive changes in their knowledge, skills and practice, and dispositions. Yet, in order for a professional learning community to become successful and yield long-term changes in teacher practices, it may be critical to stage experiences by initiating it

26

SOO-YOUNG HONG ET AL.

with an external facilitator (Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001; Richmond & Manokore, 2010). The membership of professional learning communities becomes an issue when teachers try to collaborate across sites or across school districts during the school year. Collaboration occurs most effectively when there are substantial opportunities for collaboration among teachers (Slavit, Homnlund-Nelson, & Kennedy, 2009). This suggests that collective participation in a professional development program with colleagues across grade levels within the same school district, within the same community, and within the same school building may be the most effective organization of professional learning communities (Michaels et al., 2008). This will help teachers build structures and processes through which they can exchange information and knowledge related to teaching science.

CONCLUSIONS Effective science education in early childhood must build upon children’s powerful capacity for learning. It is necessary to support children’s development of metacognitive skills in order for them to build the capacity to state, test, and revise their own hypotheses through scientific inquiry. Providing children with opportunities to make their implicit theories explicit through various modes of representation can enable teachers to understand children’s theories and to provide experiences that challenge those theories when necessary. Ongoing assessment strategies that involve verbal as well as nonverbal opportunities for children to represent their understanding (i.e., through demonstrations or constructing models) help children to reflect on their own thinking and constitute evidence for learning. Teaching for conceptual change involves providing plentiful opportunities for deep discussions about core concepts in a classroom environment that values science processes and content and immerses children in the language and tools of science. We propose that student learning can be enhanced when the content and processes of science are made cohesive through a systems perspective because this perspective highlights the unity and interrelationships between all forms of science. A systems perspective can facilitate students’ construction of knowledge and skills across grade levels, especially when connected to learning guidelines and standards. Research evidence indicates that effective inquiry experiences include conceptual, epistemological, social, and procedural components as well as teacher guidance. Integration of science with other curricular domains can

Professional Development in EC Science Education

27

synergize learning while expanding the amount of time devoted to science without displacing other curricular domains. For example, science journals (Brenneman & Louro, 2008) and high-quality nonfiction literature (Sackes et al., 2009; Samarapungavan et al., 2008) have been effectively used in the context of science inquiry. Using mathematics in the context of science helps students to understand the relevance of mathematics to everyday life and questions of importance. Early childhood teachers need confidence and PCK to effectively implement science activities. Enhancing PCK, focusing on the nature of science, and emphasizing the importance of social processes such as collaboration, argument, and communication can provide teachers with tools and greater confidence implementing science effectively. professional development focusing on teaching for conceptual change should include specific guidance for teachers on how to facilitate concept development, provide effective feedback, and model language representing science concepts and processes. Research indicates that professional development is most effective when it is intensive and cohesive and includes ongoing support in the form of mentoring or coaching as teachers apply and reflect upon their learning in the classroom context. Just as students can benefit from the cohesion of a systems perspective, teachers can also benefit from understanding the interdependence of systems. Whenever possible, professional development that builds a professional community and culture that shares the values and vision of effective science education can help teachers to transform their practice.

REFERENCES Ager, A., & O’May, F. (2001). Issues in the definition and implementation of ‘‘best practice’’ for staff delivery of interventions for challenging behaviour. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 26, 243–256. doi: 10.1080/13668250120063412 Appleton, K. (2008). Developing science pedagogical content knowledge through mentoring elementary teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19, 523–545. doi: 10.1007/ s10972-008-9109-4 Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. C. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 389–407. doi: 10.1177/ 0022487108324554 Bell, B., & Gilbert, J. (1996). Teacher development: A model from science education. London: Falmer Press. Ben-Zvi-Assaraf, O., & Orion, N. (2010). Four case studies, six years later: Developing system thinking skills in junior high school and sustaining them over time. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 1253–1280. doi: 10.1002/tea.20383

28

SOO-YOUNG HONG ET AL.

Bergan, J. R., Bergan, J. R., Rattee, M., Feld, J., Smith, K., Cunningham, K., et al. (2003). The galileo system for the electronic management of learning. Tucson, AZ: Assessment Technology. Brenneman, K., & Louro, I. (2008). Science journals in the preschool classroom. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36, 113–119. doi: 10.1007/s10643-008-0258-x Brenneman, K., Stevenson-Boyd, J. & Frede, E. (2009). Math and science in preschool: Policies and practice. National Institute for Early Education Research. Retrieved from http:// nieer.org/resources/policybriefs/20.pdf Brenneman, K., Stevenson-Garcia, J., Jung, K., & Frede, E. (2011). The preschool rating instrument for science and mathematics (PRISM). Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness. Retrieved from https://www.sree.org/conferences/2011f/program/.../ 316.pdf Buysse, V., Winton, P. J., & Rous, B. (2009). Reaching consensus on a definition of professional development for the early childhood field. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 28, 235–243. doi: 10.1177/0271121408328173 Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2011). Early childhood teacher education: the case of geometry. Journal of Math Teacher Education, 14, 133–148. doi: 10.1007/s10857-011-9173-0 Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and National Governors Association (NGA) Center for Best Practices. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_Math%20Standards.pdf Diamond, A., Barnett, S., & Munro, J. S. (2007). Preschool program improves cognitive control. Science, 318, 1387–1388. Early, D. M., Iruka, I. U., Ritchie, S., Barbarin, O. A., Winn, D.-M. C., Crawford, G. M., et al. (2010). How do pre-kindergarteners spend their time? Gender, ethnicity, and income as predictors of experiences in pre-kindergarten classrooms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25, 177–193. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2009.10.003 Enfield, M., & Rogers, D. (2009). Improving science teaching for young children. In O. A. Barbarin & B. H. Wasik (Eds.), Handbook of child development and early education (pp. 558–576). New York, NY: Guildford Press. Falk, A. (2012). Teachers learning from professional development in elementary science: Reciprocal relations between formative assessment and pedagogical content knowledge. Science Education, 96, 265–290. doi: 10.1002/sce.20473 Fleer, M., & Robbins, J. (2003). ’’Hit and run’’ research with ‘‘hit and miss’’ results in early childhood science education. Research in Science Education, 33, 405–431. doi: 10.1023/ B:RISE.0000005249.45909.93 Fleet, A., & Patterson, C. (2001). Professional growth reconceptualized: Early childhood staff searching for meaning. Early Childhood Research and Practice, 3(2). Retrieved from http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v3n2/fleet.html Fox, L., Hemmeter, M., Snyder, P., Binder, D. P., & Clarke, S. (2011). Educators to implement a comprehensive model of promoting young children’s social competence. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 31, 178–192. doi: 10.1177/0271121411404440 Fulp, S. L. (2002). Status of elementary school science teaching. 2000 national survey of science and mathematics education. Retrieved from http://www.Horizon-research.com Furtak, E. M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., & Briggs, D. C. (2012). Experimental and quasiexperimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 82, 300–329. doi: 10.3102/0034654312457206 FY. (2004). Performance and accountability report. Retrieved from www2.ed.gov/about/reports/ annual/2004report/goal2.doc

Professional Development in EC Science Education

29

Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 915–945. Gelman, R., & Brenneman, K. (2004). Science learning pathways for young children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 150–158. Ginsburg, H., Lee, J., & Boyd, J. (2008). Mathematics education for young children: What it is and how to promote it. Social Policy Report, 22, 1–23. Greenfield, D., Jirout, J., Dominguez, X., Greenberg, A., Maier, M., & Fuccillo, J. (2009). Science in the preschool classroom: A programmatic research agenda to improve science readiness. Early Education and Development, 20(2), 238–264. Gropen, J., Clark-Chiarelli, N., Housington, C., & Ehrlick, S. B. (2011). The importance of executive function in early science education. Child Development Perspectives, 5, 298–304. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00201.x Grossman, P., Wineburg, S., & Woolworth, S. (2001). Toward a theory of teacher community. Teachers College Record, 103, 942–1012. Gupta, S. S., & Daniels, J. (2012). Coaching and professional development in early childhood classrooms: Current practices and recommendations for the future. NHSA Dialog, 15, 206–220. Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2005). Can instructional and emotional support in the first grade classroom make a difference for children at risk of school failure? Child Development, 76, 949–967. Harlen, W., & Holroyd, C. (1997). Primary teachers’ understanding of concepts of science: Impact of confidence and teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 93–105. Harms, T., Clifford, R., & Cryer, D. (2005). Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS-R) (Rev. ed.). New York, NY: Teacher College Press. Hmelo, C. E., Holton, D. L., & Kolodner, J. L. (2000). Designing to learn about complex systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 247–298. doi: 10.1207/S15327809JLS0903_2 Hong, S.-Y., Lee, J.-H., Lee, J., Carey, D., Eum, J., & Syeda, S. (2012, November). Scientific concepts and vocabulary in children’s books: Developmentally and scientifically appropriate early childhood science activities. Poster presented at Annual Conference of National Association for the Education of Young Children, Atlanta, GA. Hsieh, W.-Y., Hemmeter, M. L., McCollum, J. A., & Ostrosky, M. M. (2009). Using coaching to increase preschool teachers’ use of emergent literacy teaching strategies. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 24, 229–247. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2009.03.007 Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Kanter, D. E., & Konstantopoulos, S. (2010). The impact of project-based science curriculum on minority students’ achievement, attitudes, and careers: The effects of teacher content and pedagogical content knowledge and inquiry-based practices. Science Education, 94, 855–887. doi: 10.1002/sce.20391 Kay, J. J., & Foster, J. (1999, June). About teaching systems thinking. In G. Savage & P. Roe (Eds.), Proceedings of the HKK conference (pp. 165–172). Ontario: University of Waterloo. Kennedy, M. M. (1998). Education reform and subject matter knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 249–263. Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (Eds.). (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

30

SOO-YOUNG HONG ET AL.

Kirsch, S. A. (2007). Re/production of science process skills and a scientific ethos in an early childhood classroom. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 2, 785–815. Kostelnik, M. J., Soderman, A. K., & Whiren, A. P. (2010). Developmentally appropriate curriculum: Best practices in early childhood education (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc. Lakshmanan, A., Heath, B. P., Perlmutter, A., & Elder, M. (2011). The impact of science content and professional learning communities on science teaching efficacy and standards-based instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 534–551. doi: 10.1002/tea.20404 Liu, L., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2009). Promoting complex systems learning through the use of conceptual representations in hypermedia. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 1023–1040. Lortie, D. C. (2002). School-teacher: A sociological study (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 95–132). Washington, DC: The National Academy Press. Mashburn, A. J., Downer, J. T., Hamre, B. K., Justice, L. M., & Pianta, R. C. (2010). Consultation for teachers and children’s language and literacy development during pre-kindergarten. Applied Developmental Science, 14, 179–196. doi: 10.1080/10888691. 2010.516187 Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59, 14–19. Michaels, S., Shouse, A. W., & Schweingruber, H. A. (2008). Ready, set, science! putting research to work in K-8 science classrooms. Board on Science Education, Center for Education, Division of behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century (NCMST). (2000). Before It’s too late. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. National Education Goals 2000: Educate America Act. (1994). Retrieved from http:// www.nd.edu/Brbarger/www7/goals200.html National Research Council (NRC). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press. National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Nebraska Early Learning Guidelines. Retrieved from www.education.ne.gov/oec/elg.html No Child Left Behind. (2001). Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA02/ Odom, S. L. (2009). The tie that binds: Evidence-based practice, implementation science, and outcomes for children. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 29, 53–61. doi: 10.1177/0271121408329171 Peers, C. E., Diezmann, C. M., & Watters, J. J. (2003). Supports and concerns of teacher professional growth during the implementation of a science curriculum innovation. Research in Science Education, 33, 89–110. Peisner-Feinberg, E., Burchinal, M., Clifford, R., Culkin, M., Howes, C., Kagan, S., & Yazejian, N. (2001). The relation of preschool child care quality to children’s cognitive and social developmental trajectories through second grade. Child Development, 72, 1534–1553.

Professional Development in EC Science Education

31

Perry, K. E., Donohue, K. M., & Weinstein, R. S. (2007). Teaching practices and the promotion of achievement and adjustment in first grade. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 269–292. Piaget, J. (1977). The development of thought: Equilibration of cognitive structures. New York, NY: Viking Press. Pianta, R., & Hamre, B. (2009). Conceptualization, measurement, and improvement of classroom processes: Standardized observation can leverage capacity. Educational Researcher, 38, 109–119. doi: 10.3102/0013189X09332374 Pianta, R. C., Barnett, W. S., Burchinal, M., & Thornburg, K. R. (2009). The effects of preschool education: What we know, how public policy is or is not aligned with the evidence base, and what we need to know. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 10(2), 49–88. doi: 10.1177/1529100610381908 Pianta, R. C., Belsky, J., Houts, R., Morrison, F., & the NICHD ECCRN. (2007). Opportunities to learn in America’s elementary classrooms. Science, 315, 1795–1796. Pianta, R. C., Howes, C., Burchinal, M., Byrant, D., Clifford, R., Early, C., et al. (2005). Features of pre-kindergarten programs, classrooms, and teachers: Do they predict observed classroom quality and child-teacher interactions? Applied Developmental Science, 9(3), 144–159. Pianta, R. C., La Paro, K. M., & Hamre, B. K. (2008). Classroom Assessment Scoring Systemt(CLASSt) manual: PreK. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing. Pianta, R. C., La Paro, K. M., Payne, C., Cox, M. J., & Bradley, R. (2002). The relation of kindergarten classroom environment to teacher, family, and school characteristics and child outcomes. The Elementary School Journal, 102(3), 225–238. Powell, D. R., Steed, E. A., & Diamond, K. E. (2010). Dimensions of literacy coaching with Head Start teachers. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 30, 148–161. doi: 10.1177/0271121409341197 President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). (2010). Prepare and inspire: K-12 science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education for America’s future K-12. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ ostp/pcast-stemed-report.pdf Reinke, W. M., Stormont, M., Webster-Stratton, C., Newcomer, L., & Herman, K. C. (2012). The incredible years teacher training: Using coaching to support generalization to real world classroom settings. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 416–428. doi: 10.1002/pits.21608 Richmond, G., & Manokore, V. (2010). Identifying elements critical for functional and sustainable professional learning communities. Science Teacher Education, 95, 543–570. doi: 10.1002/sce.20430 Riley, D. A., & Roach, M. A. (2006). Helping teachers grow: Toward theory and practice of an ‘‘emergent curriculum’’ model of staff development. Early Childhood Education Journal, 33, 363–370. Rudd, L. C., Lambert, M. C., Satterwhite, M., & Smith, C. H. (2009). Professional development þ coaching ¼ enhanced teaching: Increasing usage of math mediated language in preschool classrooms. Early Childhood Education Journal, 37, 63–69. doi: 10.1007/s10643-009-0320-5 Sackes, M., Cabe, K., & Flevares, L. (2009). Using children’s literature to teach standard-based science concepts in early years. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36, 415–422. Samarapungavan, A., Mantzicopoulos, P., & Patrick, H. (2008). Learning science through inquiry in kindergarten. Science Education, 92(5), 868–908.

32

SOO-YOUNG HONG ET AL.

Scher, L., & O’Reilly, F. (2009). Professional development for K-12 math and science teachers: What do we really know? Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2, 209–249. doi: 10.1080/19345740802641527 Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. doi: 10.3102/0013189X015002004 Scott-Little, C., Lesko, R., Martella, J., & Milburn, P. (2007). Early learning standards: Results from a national survey to document trends in state-level policies and practices. Retrieved from http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v9n1/little.html Seo, K.-H., & Ginsburg, H. P. (2004). What is developmentally appropriate in early mathematics education? Lessons from new research. In D. Clements, J. Sarama & A. diBiase (Eds.), Engaging young children in mathematics: Standards for early childhood mathematics education (pp. 91–104). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Sheridan, M. S., Edwards, C. P., Marvin, C. A., & Knoche, L. L. (2009). Professional development in early childhood programs: Process issues and research needs. Early Education and Development, 20, 377–401. doi: 10.1080/10409280802582795 Slavit, D., Homnlund-Nelson, T., & Kennedy, A. (Eds.). (2009). Perspectives on supportive collaborative teacher inquiry. New York, NY: Routledge. Sutton, J. P., Bausmith, S. C., O’Connor, D., & Pae, H. (2009). Competency differences among special educators prepared through alternative and traditional licensure programs. Presentation at the 87th Council for Exceptional Children Annual Convention and Expo, April, Seattle, WA. Torquati, J., Cutler, K., Gilkerson, D., & Sarver, S. (in press). Early childhood educators’ perceptions of nature, science, and environmental education. Early Education and Development. Tu, T. (2006). Preschool science environment: What is available in a preschool classroom? Early Childhood Education Journal, 33, 245–251. doi: 10.1007/s10643-005-0049-8 Vosniadou, S. (2009). Science education for young children. A conceptual change point of view. In A. Barbadin & P. Frome (Eds.), The handbook of developmental science and early schooling: Translating basic research into practice. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Walden, S. E., Greene, B. A., Slater, J., Lubin, I. A., & Keesee, M. (2009, August). Collaboration between Science teachers and university scientists: inquiry-oriented professional development. Paper presented at European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Wesley, P. W., & Buysse, V. (2006). Building the evidence base through communities of practice. In V. Buysse & P. W. Wesley (Eds.), Evidence-based practice in the early childhood field (pp. 161–194). Washington, DC: Zero to Three Press. Wilson, S. M., Floden, R. E., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2002). Teacher preparation research: An Insider’s view from the outside. Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 190–204. doi: 10.1177/ 0022487102053003002 Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W.-Y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. (2007). Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement. Issues & Answers Report, REL 2007-No. 033. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest, Washington, DC. Retrieved from http:// ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs

CHAPTER 2 ENGAGING YOUNG LEARNERS IN INTEGRATION THROUGH MATHEMATICAL MODELING: ASKING BIG QUESTIONS, FINDING ANSWERS, AND DOING BIG THINKING Lucia M. Flevares and Jamie R. Schiff ABSTRACT The conceptual framework of mathematical modeling (e.g., Lesh & Doerr, 2003) is a vital area in mathematics education research, and its implementation has potential for deeply involving children in integrated and meaningful learning. In mathematical modeling learners are active agents in content-integrated, real-world problem solving. This emphasis on integrating multiple content areas to answer big questions, the pursuit of mathematical modeling, descends from Dewey’s work. We present the definition, principles, and design of modeling practices for readers who may be familiar with early childhood curriculum but less so with using modeling for learning. We explore the application of mathematical

Learning Across the Early Childhood Curriculum Advances in Early Education and Day Care, Volume 17, 33–56 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 0270-4021/doi:10.1108/S0270-4021(2013)0000017006

33

34

LUCIA M. FLEVARES AND JAMIE R. SCHIFF

modeling to early childhood classrooms and its compatibility with early childhood pedagogies and philosophies. Young children may often be underestimated, assumed to be unable to pose big questions that can be answered through activity, experience, and data; but we discuss how young children can be engaged in problems through mathematical modeling. Finally, as preservice teacher educators, we discuss preparing preservice and in-service teachers for modeling in their classrooms. We offer examples and guidance for early childhood teachers to engage in authentic practice – meeting children where their interests are and creating integrated problem-solving experiences. Keywords: Early childhood; mathematical modeling; integrated learning; teacher preparation; teacher professional development

How can young learners be encouraged to ask big questions and find answers in their classrooms? The conceptual framework of mathematical modeling (e.g., Lesh & Doerr, 2003) is a vital and burgeoning area in mathematics education research, and its implementation has great potential for involving learners in the exploration of big ideas and answering big questions through the integration of subject areas and deep and engaging learning. We propose a mathematical modeling approach as a way of creating engaging, meaningful learning experiences for children, even young children, engaging the whole child – socially, emotionally, cognitively, and physically. Given the few extant connections between early childhood learning and mathematical modeling, we offer this chapter as an introduction and overview to mathematical modeling, presenting definitions, principles, and examples and then turn to specific considerations for the enterprise of mathematical modeling in early childhood classrooms. Throughout, we illustrate the fruitful grounds for integrating topics in learning during modeling. We provide examples of model-eliciting activities to make the potential more concrete. Finally, we offer considerations of concerns and future directions for mathematical modeling in early childhood. We herein constrain ‘‘early childhood’’ to be inclusive of prekindergarten classroom experiences and early elementary/primary classrooms, and, while we envision experiences with the youngest learners to differ from that of primary-grades students in some ways, we argue that both prekindergarten and primary-grades classrooms can benefit from these experiences.

Mathematical Modeling in Early Childhood

35

WHAT IS A ‘‘MODEL’’? Throughout the literature on mathematical modeling, often called a modelsand-modeling perspective to include those who approach primarily from a field other than mathematics education, many definitions have been offered for what a ‘‘model’’ is. A concise definition was offered by Lesh and Fennewald (2010): ‘‘A model is a system for describing (or explaining, or designing) another system(s) for some clearly defined purpose’’ (p. 7). Models always stand for something. More concretely, English, Fox, and Watters (2005) wrote that ‘‘models are an important tool in everyday life because they enable us to make intelligible interpretations of real-world situations y. Models always have a purpose, and they must be sharable and reusable’’ (p. 157). Thus, models are descriptive or explanatory solutions to real-world problems, composed of one or more representations. Modeling, the process of creating these models, can be further understood through consideration of mathematical representations. Within the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics’ (NCTM) Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (2000), the NCTM articulated the mathematical process standard of representation in which they recommended that children as young as prekindergarten have the opportunity to not only ‘‘create and use representations to organize, record and communicate mathematical ideas,’’ but also to ‘‘use representations to model and interpret physical, social, and mathematical phenomena’’ (p. 67). Thus, learners should use representations as a means of communicating and showing their thinking of an idea; this is a fundamental and overarching function of representation – to stand for something. However, in that second quote from the process standard, NCTM called for learners to go beyond this function of representations and use representations to model and thus, stand for something real to solve problems and understand real phenomena. The early childhood years are marked by tremendous development in children’s representational abilities as they gain a repertoire of symbols (numerical, alphabetic, and other), drawings, and other referents (English, 2011). For young children, simple representations may also serve as models, such as by sorting and classifying materials, especially when accompanied by discussion of their decisions and processes. Mathematical modeling activities – teacher-guided activities in pursuit of answering a question and documenting the process and solution – can spark further representational awareness and growth through learners’ sharing and discussion as they work to design solutions. The potential for developing understanding of

36

LUCIA M. FLEVARES AND JAMIE R. SCHIFF

representations through modeling is in contrast to instructional experiences in many traditional classrooms where a representational system like a chart or graph might be learned in isolation, as the topic, not as a tool to answer a real question. The value of modeling activities in learning was further reinforced by the National Governors Association for Best Practices in the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (2010). These standards, adopted by almost all 50 states, include eight mathematical practices to guide teaching and learning processes. One of the eight is to ‘‘model with mathematics’’ (p. 7). The vision of this mathematical practice is for mathematically proficient students who ‘‘can apply the mathematics they know to solve problems arising in everyday life, society, and the workplace. In early grades, this might be as simple as writing an addition equation to describe a situation’’ (p. 7). Note the use of the words, ‘‘might be as simple as,’’ not that modeling should only involve simple addition equation writing. The authors of the Standards recognized the great potential of learning through modeling, and skillful engagement in modeling processes is a hallmark of a student being mathematically proficient.

Beyond Simple Problem Solving and Word Problems With the basis for using modeling strongly supported by major standards, we now delve further into the characteristics and implementation of modeling in classrooms. Although mathematical modeling entails problem solving, it is not synonymous with problem solving. Rather, modeling is a process of attending to learners’ questions and problem posing and, in response, creating experiences for children to be not mere recipients but active agents in problem answering and solving. The problems or questions involved typically stem from students’ questions and are real-world problems, such as making purchasing decisions for the classroom or planning for the use of a community space. What differentiates modeling from typical problem solving is especially that sense of purpose. It is not enough for the problem to be realistic – as in plausible. Instead, to be modeling, the process, activity, and answer should be also meaningful and purposeful for decision making (e.g., Galbraith, 2007). Children can learn to ‘‘problem solve’’ in the everyday sense of the term, finding an answer by following rules or procedures, such as ‘‘Mrs. Baker’s class has 18 students. They have picked 14 apples. How many more do they need to pick so that each student has one?’’ sometimes mechanistically (Chan, 2010),

Mathematical Modeling in Early Childhood

37

by operating on the given numbers, even when it makes no sense (Verschaffel, Greer, & de Corte, 2000). It is incumbent upon teachers as the subject-matter experts to engage children in authentic learning. By adopting a modeling approach, the teacher can engage children in the process of asking a big and motivating question that leads to rich problem solving rather than a single problem which may only lead to computation. A more realistic, more modeling-compatible problem might be, ‘‘Tom wishes to find out how many apples are eaten by the students in his school in a month. Explain how he can do so’’ (Dindyal, 2010, p. 105). This could be the start of an investigation that goes beyond mere computation as in the Mrs. Baker problem. The children could be engaged in determining how many children there are in the preschool, or by grade in early elementary, and then how many apples are needed by finding the number of students in each classroom, all the while working together to represent with, for instance, tallies, diagrams, numbers, concrete objects, and so forth, and model their solution, thus, doing mathematics that might be otherwise beyond them. With an additional context of a school field trip to an apple orchard or with helping the school lunch staff plan, the situation could become an even more real and potentially purposeful question, enhancing the modeling further and creating the potential for larger, more ongoing investigations. While modeling activities share the disposition toward answering questions deeply of inquiry-oriented classrooms and the sustained learning of a project-based approach, the modeling may be seen as falling under the umbrella of project-based learning and using inquiry (Lesh & Fennewald, 2010). However, to be modeling, the endeavor must go beyond simply being project- or question-driven. It must put real-world connections at the forefront of teacher planning through an integrated approach. As a result of the real-world purpose intrinsic in mathematical modeling activities, integration is inherent in mathematical modeling (Lesh & Fennewald, 2010). Depending on the particular question of interest, there could be natural and strong connections to the natural world, technology and engineering, the community and society, the arts, and literature and language arts, and more.

Philosophical Underpinnings of the Modeling Approach on Learning With this emphasis on real-world experiences, integrating and experiencing multiple content areas to answer big questions, and social interaction in learning, the pursuit of mathematical modeling might appear reminiscent of

38

LUCIA M. FLEVARES AND JAMIE R. SCHIFF

Dewey’s work. This is no coincidence. In fact, leading proponents of using a modeling approach see more than a connection – rather they identify their framework as descending from Dewey (e.g., Lesh & Fennewald, 2010). As modeling activities involve students in ‘‘active, goal-directed exploration’’ (Speiser & Walter, 2010), the experiences are very much aligned with Dewey’s view, in which ‘‘problem situations evoke exploration in response to a perceived need, an explicit sense of something missing, something to clarify and understand as well as seek’’ (Speiser & Walter, 2010, p. 168). In a Deweyian classroom, the teacher does more than teach the subject matter; he or she guides children’s learning how to live in society. In concert with Dewey’s perspective, within a modeling classroom, the teacher acts as an observer of students to guide interest and readiness; the teachers have pivotal roles in children’s experiences as they document, organize, and plan. The modeling approach thus shares principles with the Reggio Emilia approach to early childhood experiences as well. In each, the child is not only the driver of his or her learning, but also a producer of culture and knowledge and is a necessarily social being seeking connections to others and engaging with his or her environment. Consequently, in these perspectives, Deweyian, Reggio Emilia, and modeling, the complexity of real-life experiences and the problems within them offer a compelling reason for integrated learning experiences (Wraga, 2009). Each, as well as other approaches using different labels, is compatible with a child-centered approach to learning (e.g., Mooney, 2000).

WHAT ARE THE PROCESSES AND PRACTICES OF MATHEMATICAL MODELING? Given this overall view of the perspective and goals of a modeling approach, we now turn to summarize the design process that drives modeling within a classroom. Lesh, Cramer, Doerr, Post, and Zawojewski (2003) articulated five principles that should be at the core of modeling experiences for learners: the Personal Meaningfulness Principle, the Model Construction Principle, the Model Documentation Principle, the Self-Assessment Principle, and the Model-Generalization Principle. Briefly, for Personal Meaningfulness, the endeavor should be relatable for the learners developmentally and make a complex situation comprehensible. The Construction Principle encapsulates the active nature of modeling activities; the children should be doing, building, acting, describing, and making. The Model Documentation Principle

Mathematical Modeling in Early Childhood

39

embodies the essential role of representational thinking, in concert with the NCTM (2000) representation process standard; we will address this principle in greater detail below. Throughout the process, young students should keep the goal of model creation in mind and should be guided to see that models are testable; through this testing, they can self-assess their model. The Principle of Generalization speaks to the modeling process being a cycle, rather than a single event. Modeling should be experienced in an ongoing, iterative cycle of modeling and interpreting. Like a ‘‘project-based’’ approach more generally, modeling should be considered as a sustained endeavor, not achievable within a single day’s experience. This cyclic process not only creates the time and space for sustained engagement with a question, it also reflects reality to young learners: big questions, requiring big thinking need multiple occasions to reach a meaningful and purposeful goal (English, 2007). Young learners should have the benefit of sustained experience, going through modeling stages, such as the cycle discussed by Doerr and Pratt (2008) of (1) realworld problem identification which is then (2) expressed in mathematical ways – from the simplest tallies or groupings to more complex representations – and then (3) transformed into a model solution, which is then (4) interpreted as a real-world solution. That solution can then be tested and validated in the real-world, potentially leading to the cycle beginning again. Through this process, children can discover the wonder of questions leading to answers which lead to new questions. Given the potential complexity of modeling activities, the ability to engage in modeling activities must be learned through experience, cycling within a year and even over years. At the prekindergarten level, the modeling experiences will necessarily be simpler than for older learners. While they might be seen as ‘‘pre-modeling’’ relative to what older learners can engage it, the experiences can be true modeling in their purpose, authenticity, and model building and evaluation.

Is Mathematical Modeling with Young Children Developmentally Appropriate? This sense of true engagement in modeling, but in a developmentally appropriate way, speaks to the compatibility of modeling with several early childhood pedagogies and learning philosophies, as noted above. Indeed, any early childhood classroom that pursues an emergent curriculum or a child-directed curriculum could be compatible with mathematical modeling.

40

LUCIA M. FLEVARES AND JAMIE R. SCHIFF

Prekindergarten children may often be underestimated, assumed to not be able to pose big, important questions that can be answered through activity, experience, and data. Early childhood teachers can engage in the most authentic practice – meeting children where their interests and curiosities are and creating integrated experiences to answer their big questions. A growing chorus of scholars of the mathematical modeling approach have called for the application of mathematical modeling approach with younger learners. The practice of mathematical modeling may be most common with older students, especially middle-school and secondary students. An implied assumption, noted by English (2011), has been that younger children are incapable of engaging in modeling with complex situations. On the contrary, for the practice of mathematical modeling to be successful for student problem solving and learning, experiences in meaningful modeling in elementary grades may be a necessity (e.g., Blum, Galbraith, Henn, & Niss, 2007; English, 2007; Mousoulides, Pittalis, Christou, & Sriraman, 2010). We assert that experiences prior to elementary school can offer both a good foundation for later learning and offer rich learning experiences within prekindergarten classrooms. We do not propose that young children would engage in modeling as conceptually advanced as older learners but argue that authentic mathematical modeling experiences can be planned and carried out with children even as young as prekindergarten. Modeling activities create opportunities for young learners to see mathematics as useful and applied, rather than abstract and isolated (e.g., Blum et al., 2007; Greer, Verschaffel, & Mukhopadhyay, 2007). At its simplest for young learners, the idea of modeling can be experienced through word problem solving (Usiskin, 2004), making number operations and measurement activities real, purposeful problem solving. But deeper, modeling-based experiences can encourage young students’ ‘‘sense of agency through recognizing the potential of mathematics as a critical tool for analysis of issues important in their lives’’ (Greer et al., 2007, p. 89). One of the many potential benefits of the richness of modeling experiences is the possibility of children engaging with it in ways that follow their interests and match their current understandings of topics while simultaneously presenting opportunities for challenge and growth. These activities must not be seen as intended only for higher-achieving students. Two prominent researchers of the modeling approach argued passionately that they reject, ‘‘the notion that only a few exceptionally brilliant students are capable of developing significant mathematical concepts unless step-by-step guidance is provided by a teacher’’ (Sriraman & Lesh, 2006, p. 249). The potential for learning from these activities is great for any student and can

Mathematical Modeling in Early Childhood

41

go well beyond simple learning. Based on their own and others’ research, Sriraman and Lesh asserted that the only real path to conceptual change in students ‘‘is to engage students in situations where they must express their current ways of thinking in forms that can be tested and revised (or rejected) (Lesh & Sriraman, 2005a, 2005b)’’ (2006, p. 249), situations like modeling. The consequence is that true modeling is both more attainable for younger students than previously assumed and potentially hugely beneficial. Modeling and the Growth of Children’s Representational Abilities As noted above, modeling activities can be fruitful grounds for children’s representational development. Engaging in modeling activities, children develop the models which then serve as artifacts and documentation. The representations can take the form of oral language, written language, drawings, maps, diagrams, collections, graphs, and so on (Chan, 2010; Lesh & Doerr, 2003). Models make their ideas and understandings observable and explicit for themselves and others as both documentation and communication. These products, whether ephemeral or tangible, provide evidence of the children’s engagement and problem solving and are opportunities for the children to engage with not only mathematical ideas but language, literacy, art, science, social studies and social interaction, movement, and more. The representations children create during modeling activities become external models, embodiments of the children’s understandings (Lesh, Carmona, & Post, 2004). Through social interaction, representations in many forms become shared for children’s own reflections and for discussion with peers and teachers and for assessment and research. By creating models, children are constructing and displaying representations of mathematical concepts, data, and attributes. However, as Lehrer and Schauble (2007) asserted, children need support representing their developing models as they frequently have difficulties in applying structure consistently or identifying and using only the relevant information. We will address this need for support in the upcoming section on the teacher’s role. Examples of Mathematical Modeling Activities with Elementary Grades Students Work (e.g., English, 2007; English & Watters, 2005; Lehrer & Schauble, 2002) in the implementation of mathematical modeling for primary grade

42

LUCIA M. FLEVARES AND JAMIE R. SCHIFF

learning across subject areas has documented benefits for learning. We next summarize and comment on a few mathematical modeling projects conducted with elementary grades students to illustrate more concretely how they are planned and conducted and can serve as illustrations for modeling with even younger learners. Modeling experiences are ideal to promote communication and teamwork in small-group work through social experiences. English et al. (2005) conducted a project in which students explored cyclones in Australia to design a warning system. The modeling process built a bridge between math as a way of making sense of the physical/social world and math as a set of abstract, formal structures. The children debated, engaged in constructive dialog, and shared ideas when working on creating models, representations of their data, which could then be used in future experiences. Mathematical modeling problems are designed for small-group situations that allow students to explore collaboration that is increasingly important for today’s society. Mathematical modeling experiences can be an ideal means to first experience the idea of ‘‘data’’ for young learners as they identify attributes and categorize items based on the attributes and especially how children learn to identify which attributes are relevant to answer a question of their interest (Lehrer & Schauble, 2007). Such scaffolded experiences can guide young learners in critical thinking. For example, if children wanted to determine the best choice of art supplies for their classroom, they would need to identify the relevant characteristics or criteria and then gather data through facts and opinions and document the data to make a choice. The criteria would not have simple, clearly distinct characteristics like manufactured sorting materials in an attribute sorting kit would with defined shapes, colors, textures, and thickness. The children must discern, with guidance, the characteristics of items that would be appropriate to solve their big question. English and her colleagues have explored primary grade students’ modeling using numeric data and beginning statistics. First, English and Watters (2005) detailed a two-year longitudinal study of second- and thirdgrade classes engaging in modeling a problem based on their analysis of data. After teachers took part in professional development focused on modeling experiences, they prepared their students for working with data through literacy experiences and then engaged them through three modeling problems, one with the goal of selecting swimmers for the Olympics based on their previous swim times. English (2011) reported on data-based activities with three Australian second-grade classrooms from a longitudinal project about grocery store .

Mathematical Modeling in Early Childhood

43

items she began when they were first-grade students. Through the results she documented how the students engaged in statistical reasoning that had been assumed to be beyond children that age. Analyzing and using data to solve problems and modeling situations, a major idea in mathematics and science (Lehrer & Schauble, 2005), should, according to English, be a fundamental topic of early childhood curricula. Identifying a gap in the research literature on exploring data in the early school years, English conducted her study. The student groups approached the task differently, creating different types of representations and models of the data, while using numeric, statistical, and geometric concepts. The nature of the task also engaged the children in literacy skills and health topics including nutrition. This enterprise requires that the teacher is knowledgeable about the subject. Models varied in sophistication and English identified how a particular model was more complex and built upon a previous model.

PREPARING FOR THE ROLES OF MATHEMATICAL MODELING First and foremost, children should be active in the modeling problem solving. This can be best achieved when they are engaged in inquiry about one of the multitudes of topics of interest to young learners. This inquiry can motivate both teachers and children to pose meaningful and deep questions. The problem solving can then transition to collaborative problem solving, encouraging joint problem solving, an important life skill (English et al., 2005). This group problem solving can encourage children’s social development as modeling activities are necessarily sociocultural experiences; the class and groups within it are members of a real community, reflective of the real-world of their modeling activity (Lesh et al., 2004). Children use cultural tools including language and other symbols to problem solve and the interactions with others affect the choices of tools and creations of models. Working together on big questions, children can tackle bigger problems and more complex situations than they could individually, using the cognition distributed not only among team members, but also afforded by tools including various technologies. Small-group interactions are ideal for modeling experiences as they raise questions, work through conflicts, identify problems, and prepare to communicate their model solutions to their peers (Blum et al., 2007; Doerr & English, 2003; Lesh & Zawojewski, 2007).

44

LUCIA M. FLEVARES AND JAMIE R. SCHIFF

The interactive nature of modeling activities may also hold promise for young learners’ social development and self-regulation as classroom activities and real-world tasks require children to selectively focus attention on relevant information. Copple and Bredekamp (2009) offered perspectives on developmentally appropriate practices. In the early elementary grades, that means balancing the need for focused instruction with what the children need in order to build on what they already know. Children benefit from making connections across domains-integrated curriculum and participating in cooperative projects and descriptive presentations children develop social and emotional skills. This can mean sustained effort over many days or weeks exploring a topic deeply within multiple domains and attending to how children engage not only with the topics, models, and tools but with each other.

Considerations for Teachers Implementing and Integrating Through Modeling In spite of the potential benefits of integration, in any form it takes, integrated learning may be challenging for teachers, and they should be supported in this endeavor, particularly when first implementing an integrated learning experience for children (Zhbanova, Rule, Montgomery, & Nielsen, 2010). Rule’s (2006) four components can be used when planning integrated experiences to address the whole child in an authentic way in early childhood education: real-world problems, inquiry activities, discussion and collaboration, and student empowerment/ownership through choice. Neither Rule nor Zhbanova et al. framed the topic of integrated learning in terms of using modeling, but each of those factors is an essential component of the modeling approach. The modeling situation or the mathematics involved should not outpace the children’s readiness. This endeavor thus requires the purposeful planning and observation by the children’s teacher and support for his or her reflective practice. Working with any integrated curriculum can be complex and challenging, but these challenges can be addressed through facilitated experiences and well-planned professional development and teacher preparation. Teachers can prepare the children for modeling experiences by engaging in premodeling activities with open-ended problem solving that highlights more than one correct solution, authentic data and materials, estimation activities, and problems with real-world constraints (Dindyal, 2010). The teacher should ensure that modeling situations are not too complex, that the language used in problems is comprehensible, that they facilitate children’s

Mathematical Modeling in Early Childhood

45

figuring out and problem solving, that problem solving stay authentic and compelling, and consider the report or end product of a modeling activity. Teachers must judiciously choose problems, attentive to students’ interests and curiosities, and then they must prepare their students to engage in experiences at their level of cognitive and mathematical sophistication (Dindyal, 2010). The teacher should not be an ‘‘instructor’’ but a guide and support for the children in their learning throughout the stages of modeling. As the guide and facilitator of modeling activities the teacher should be supportive but not directive while students work in teams. They should especially scaffold their teamwork (English et al., 2005). Teamwork includes ‘‘collaborative interpretation of the problem; negotiation of meaning; consensus on possible solutions; and explanation of, and justification for, the models developed’’ (p. 162). Modeling is designed to promote communication and teamwork in small-group work through social experiences. Children can debate, engage in constructive dialog, and share ideas when creating a model. Modeling activities hold the potential for rich mathematical discourse, especially between and among students (e.g., Zahner & Moschkovich, 2010), engaging children in communication to reasoning and justifying their solutions. It is essential, though, to consider prior to undertaking these activities, how to prepare students to interact in these ways. Norms must be established so that the children interact with each other in productive ways.

Preparing In-service Teachers for Modeling Activities By itself, mathematical modeling might seem intimidating for early childhood teachers who may be less comfortable with mathematics than older grades’ teachers who have chosen mathematics as their lone or major subject focus. Even secondary teachers who have more experiences with modeling tasks may find them challenging to implement (Kuntze, 2011). However, for teachers already practicing or inclined toward integration, using a modeling approach should not be a radical departure but rather an opportunity to enhance their ways of planning to facilitate integrated learning experiences. In particular, they will benefit from preparation in facilitating the discourse students will engage in during modeling activities and in scaffolding students’ modeling and documentation. In English et al.’s (2005) study, the teacher’s role was to support, not direct, children’s mathematical development. This was done through guiding the discourse through questions of the groups, prompting their discussion and reflection on their own and others’ models.

46

LUCIA M. FLEVARES AND JAMIE R. SCHIFF

Preparing Preservice Teachers Through Practice Given the opportunity to implement integrated experiences, preservice teachers gave students more choice and more voice in planning during an integrated curriculum experience, in comparison to their preservice colleagues in traditional settings (Zhbanova et al., 2010). Planning for integrated experiences is necessarily more challenging as the teacher must consider multiple subjects and recognize their place within a single larger experience with a unified goal. Teachers must be orchestrators of complex processes, facilitating an activity in which students make decisions and have choices but also scaffolding and guiding the students as needed, and keeping in mind the planned objectives of the experience in relation to learning goals or standards. Preservice teachers are tasked with much learning within typically intensive programs, expected to learn many concepts, principles, and skills. Often integration is a small proportion of their program and may often be daunting and intimidating (Zhbanova et al., 2010). To gain experience and confidence for implementing the integrated experiences embodied within the modeling approach, teachers must have experience with them in their preparation. Naturally, the experiences in the teacher preparation program cannot be isolated by course topic but should be integrated as well, taking a programmatic approach. In previous work, Flevares planned and implemented integrated mathematics-science methods coursework, and the preservice students conducted modeling projects (Sackes, Flevares, Trundle, & Gonya, 2012). The experience improved the early childhood preservice teachers’ views and sense of efficacy for integration. Through teamed project-based modeling experiences, they experienced the modeling cycle and learned techniques to implement with their prekindergarten students. That experience and research, in addition to our other work as teacher educators, gave us perspectives and guidance on how to plan future integrated modeling instruction. Additionally, the work of English and her colleagues (e.g., English, 2010; English & Watters, 2005) includes excellent exemplars of preparing teachers for modeling experiences with their students.

WHAT IS THE NATURE OF ASSESSMENT IN MODELING CLASSROOMS? Especially with the current data-driven climate in education emphasizing standardized tests, educators and other stakeholders may wonder what

Mathematical Modeling in Early Childhood

47

assessments should be like when doing mathematical modeling. Teachers sometimes do find the prospect of assessing students’ performance within mathematical modeling tasks to be daunting and difficult (Doerr & English, 2003; Doerr & Pratt, 2008) as it may entail both new modes of teaching and assessment (Galbraith, 2007). Teachers must provide their class with experiences in real-world contexts engaging learners in a variety of reflections and activities (Blomhoj & Kjeldsen, 2006). Teachers with experience implementing modeling have cited time as an obstacle as well as how to assess performance during modeling (Burkhardt, 2011; Schmidt, 2011). Teachers need to not see mathematics as separate, isolated packets or pieces of knowledge; they need to emphasize students’ reasoning, rather than short answers and fragmented ideas; ‘‘giving students greater responsibility for their own and each others’ learning, moving them into ‘teacher roles’ like explaining their assumptions and assessing each others’ reasoning,’’ ‘‘becoming a diagnostician and adviser rather than a source of answers and summative right/wrong judgments – for modeling, it is an essential part of the students’ job to decide if their solutions and reasoning are correct (as in life)’’ (Burkhardt, 2011, p. 513). Although additional mathematical topics may be discovered during the activities, teachers should anticipate and plan in advance which mathematical topics and skills, and those from other subject areas, are central to the modeling (Carmona & Greenstein, 2010). For example, if the modeling task involves a mapping task, the teacher would anticipate spatial, geometric, and measurement concepts within mathematics. Alternatively, for a task involving planning inventory for a school store, the teacher would plan for number concepts, number operations, data analysis, and graphical display concepts. Finally, in addition to teachers’ assessment of students, students should be expected to engage in self-assessment. Learners should themselves be enabled to identify, use, test, and revise their models for their usefulness and potential need for revision (Mousoulides, 2009).

HOW BIG QUESTIONS COME ALIVE IN THE CLASSROOM In the following section, three potential modeling activities for early childhood classrooms are offered and include the purposeful use of literature in coordination with carefully integrated content areas. The use of literature in early childhood education provides a point of entry through which teachers can frame, introduce, and enhance the learning of their

48

LUCIA M. FLEVARES AND JAMIE R. SCHIFF

students by piquing interest and motivation in a variety of content areas. Often books are read aloud to create interest in a topic; however, such literacy experiences can also be components of a larger activity or idea when they are positioned in response to authentic student inquiry. Through planned, integrated, standards-based experiences, purposeful topics are more deeply investigated as students initiate discussions and models as a means for finding solutions to problems of their interest. Students may work individually or cooperatively in groups of a variety of sizes in order to solve problems they have encountered during their own experiences. These three scenarios serve as overviews of possible modeling experiences suitable for early childhood classrooms, but they are not an exhaustive list; the central questions afford many possibilities for modeling and inquiry.

Recycling Classroom Waste In Recycle! Gail Gibbons (1992) takes readers through what happens when items are recycled and created into new products. This informational text contains colorful illustrations that take up most of the pages and include labels and bold words with definitions. Within those drawings, diverse groups of children and adults are seen participating in the various stages of the recycling process. Specifically, the processes for recycling paper, glass, aluminum, and plastic are explained in great detail. Connections to how recycling benefits the environment are mentioned in the text and reinforced in the illustrations. Characters and readers alike are faced with problematizing what to do with too much garbage and not enough room in the landfill. Children begin sorting and subgrouping items leading readers to wonder how many items the children will recycle in all. In some cases items are even traded for money. This text lends itself to the rich integration required of mathematical modeling as it presents children engaging with a problem that is authentically related to their everyday experiences as they eat lunch, throw garbage away, and take out the trash at home. To transform the experience from a simple read-aloud to a modeling activity, the text would serve as a reference that increases background knowledge and as the springboard for students’ interests in recycling and their exploration of conceiving of or improving a recycling program in their classroom, school, or local community. During and following the read aloud, it could also spark big questions students may have about how recycling is or is not represented in their lives and what happens to their

Mathematical Modeling in Early Childhood

49

classroom waste; the teacher could prompt the young students for reflection with open-ended questions like, ‘‘What do you know about recycling?’’ or ‘‘What are some things you could recycle?’’ and allowing the most room for learner-generated investigations: ‘‘What are some questions you have about recycling? How could this class answer them?’’ The Common Core Mathematics State Standards created by the National Governors Association for Best Practices (2010) can be used by teachers to help anticipate and plan for the learning students will engage in during the modeling exploration, and for the related assessments, whether informal or more formal. From the Standards, kindergarten students should have experiences with sorting and classifying objects into categories such as cans or cartons from snack. They can then count the objects in each category and describe what they observe to answer questions. Older children could engage in questions similar to those of prekindergarten or kindergarten students but with more advanced mathematics, representations and models. For instance, children at the third-grade level may create more complex, in-depth pictographs to document recycling, while younger students would use the recycled objects in the creation of floor graphs. At any age or grade level, community connections such as a field trip could be planned from students’ interest in recycling as a topic for modeling.

Mapping Our World Lisa takes us on a first person account of how her class learned to make maps in the text Mapping Penny’s World, by Loreen Leedy (2000). As we are transported into Lisa’s classroom her teacher promotes autonomy by telling students they can make a map of any place after showing them the world. Illustrations cover the pages as the text is superimposed along with guiding additional text such as map keys, labels, and units of measurement. As Lisa works on her mapping project she decides to make maps that show all the favorite places of her dog Penny. Many of the maps in the text cover two pages and invite readers to further explore the specific parts while also containing a great variety of units for measuring distance. After the reading, students can reference the text for models of maps as they consider the use of maps in real local spaces. Integrating literature such as Mapping Penny’s World presents students with a multitude of resources such as a variety of maps, which may encourage students to gather other resources, and more closely examine how maps work.

50

LUCIA M. FLEVARES AND JAMIE R. SCHIFF

Children would be engaged and excited about the possibility of being involved with such modeling activities as designing and planning for the spaces within or surrounding their schools. Examples of this include opportunities to plan for gardens, landscaping, and, especially, playground spaces. When a school presents students with the challenge of planning for spaces, the guiding purpose and processes of mathematical modeling – to design, to answer, to represent – can support teachers in responding to or guiding students in solving the many problems they will encounter throughout the process. Teachers integrating the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics as proposed by the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (2010) will see many connections to measurement and data represented in the text and across the early childhood grades. Also embedded within the use of such texts are potential connections to social studies standards from prekindergarten to third grade. For instance, students may choose to incorporate democratic practices such as voting for maps that meet the needs of a problem they are working to solve in their community. A variety of possibilities exist for teachers looking to incorporate and integrate mathematical modeling with designs and maps into their existing curriculum.

Planning for Parents’ Night Spaghetti and Meatballs for All! (Burns & Tilley, 1997) brings readers into the dilemmas a family encounters as they plan the food quantities and seating for a family reunion during which more guests arrive than expected. During the preparations for the event, readers can explore the numeric amounts associated with the food being prepared or observe the guests making changes to seating in order to accommodate the extra people at tables limited by size. The illustrations support students in comprehending the text by providing accurate representations for students to reference when problem solving. In addition to the mathematical concepts highlighted in the text, the underlying story of family working together to solve their problems and create an enjoyable experience for their guests translates well to the ways in which cooperative learning groups successfully solve problems in the classroom. Additionally, accurate representations of problems and solutions can be clearly seen in the illustrations so that students can refer to the book when working through their own ideas, which they may feel inspired to model using tools in their classrooms. This text would best support young early childhood students as a read aloud during which they could discuss, with support, how the story connects to their

Mathematical Modeling in Early Childhood

51

own experiences. Students may then engage in short- or long-term explorations of ideas from the text as they find ways model their planning for an event in their classrooms. Examples of such explorations could include using dramatic play areas to retell the story, setting the table for lunch and counting how many students need place settings, or even designing a menu and exploring the nutrients and costs of the food items. Allowing students time to figure out what questions or problems they foresee is critical even though teachers could carefully plan for these kinds of experiences ahead of time. This text reinforces the curriculum and potentially connects to students’ questions from prekindergarten through third grade as it models possible solutions for common problems students may be looking to solve in their environment. For a big question addressed through modeling, the children could plan for a family event at school dealing with questions similar to those in the book such as how much seating is needed and how to set it up, how much food should be planned, how to set the tables; or they could create new questions to fit their particular situation and goals. Such collaborative planning creates the opportunity to involve students in experiences with shared responsibilities when working toward common goals in the home, school, and community, engaging children in early childhood social studies. Simultaneously, the children would engage with mathematical concepts including one-to-one correspondence and more, less and equal as they planned the family event. For older students, such as in third grade, area and perimeter are examples of concepts the text covers in depth, matching the current Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, 2010). The text can be suitable for students at various levels as they work through identifying solutions to their questions. Through the purposeful use of children’s literature to spark and contextualize questions, along with the thoughtful anticipation and planned integration of content areas, students are engaged as active participants in their learning. The modeling experiences described above serve as general examples which can be applied to a variety of lessons across subject areas, but the potential is as limitless as the number of questions curious, engaged, young learners might ask.

LOOKING AHEAD: RESEARCH AND PRACTICE Looking ahead, we anticipate the need and fruitful opportunity for research into effective designs for teacher preparation and professional development for modeling in their classrooms and for research into implementations of

52

LUCIA M. FLEVARES AND JAMIE R. SCHIFF

modeling activities in early childhood classrooms, especially in prekindergarten and kindergarten. We anticipate this to be akin to a modeling activity in which questions create models, leading to revisions and future implementations, and so on, in a cycle. In particular, we will work on and look for answers to such questions as the following:  How are integrated modeling experiences most effectively implemented in early childhood classrooms?  How are young learners most effectively prepared for engaging in such experiences?  How are early childhood teachers most effectively prepared for planning and implementing modeling experience with young learners, and how are the teachers most effectively supported during these experiences?  What should assessment practices be during these experiences, and how might they effectively incorporate both prospective planning and backmapping to standards and learning goals?  What should be assessed (e.g., students’ modeling products, students’ progress, students’ contributions to discourse and teamed problem solving, and so on) for evaluating modeling activities and planning future experiences?

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION Within this chapter we have reviewed the definition and characteristics of modeling and identified the design principles, practices, and conceptual underpinnings in integrated, Deweyian education. We have reviewed related extant literature on research with elementary classrooms and provided considerations for implementation of modeling and potential scenarios for early childhood educators and researchers to consider. We acknowledge that some early childhood educators hold philosophies that differ in significant ways from that entailed in modeling, including classrooms that are exclusively play-based, or, conversely, following a direct-instruction pedagogy. For those many others whose pedagogies and school settings support integrated, project-based learning, we offer modeling as compatible with the approaches of many early childhood classrooms that already embrace recognizing child-centered, integrated learning, projectbased learning, and interaction between students. Such modeling experiences can engage young learners in big ideas and big problem solving, immersing them in integrated content learning in rich, thought-provoking,

Mathematical Modeling in Early Childhood

53

and fun ways. As we continue our efforts, drawing upon our own experiences in the classroom with children and preservice teachers, with in-service teacher professional development, in observation of early childhood classrooms, we call for other early childhood educators and researchers to recognize the potential for modeling with young learners and join us in a community of early childhood educators and researchers. Together we can answer the big, meaningful, purposeful question of how to engage young learners in deep, rich, engaging experiences.

REFERENCES Blomhoj, M., & Kjeldsen, T. H. (2006). Teaching mathematical modeling through project work. The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 38(2), 163–177. Blum, W., Galbraith, P. L., Henn, H., & Niss, M. (2007). Modelling and applications in mathematics education: The 14th ICMI study. New York, NY: Springer. Burkhardt, H. (2011). Modelling examples and modelling projects – Overview. In G. Kaiser, W. Blum, R. B. Ferri & G. Stillman (Eds.), Trends in teaching and learning of mathematical modelling (Vol. 1, pp. 511–517). Dordrecht: Springer. Burns, M., & Tilley, D. (1997). Spaghetti and meatballs for all! A mathematical story. New York, NY: Scholastic Press. Carmona, G., & Greenstein, S. (2010). Investigating the relationship between the problem and the solver: Who decides what math gets used? In R. Lesh, P. L. Galbraith, C. R. Haines & A. Hurford (Eds.), Modeling students’ mathematical modeling competencies (pp. 245–254). London: Springer. Chan, C. M. E. (2010). Mathematical modelling in a PBL setting for pupils: Features and task design. In B. Kaur & J. Dindyal (Eds.), Mathematical applications and modelling: Yearbook 2010 (pp. 112–128). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co. Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (Ed.). (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in Early Childhood programs. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Dindyal, J. (2010). Word problems and modelling in primary school mathematics. In B. Kaur & J. Dindyal (Eds.), Mathematical applications and modelling: Yearbook 2010 (Vol. 94, pp. 94–111). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co. Doerr, H. M., & English, L. D. (2003). A modeling perspective on students’ mathematical reasoning about data. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(2), 110–137. Doerr, H. M., & Pratt, D. (2008). The learning of mathematics and mathematical modeling. In M. K. Heid & G. W. Blume (Eds.), Research on technology and the teaching and learning of mathematics: Research Syntheses (Vol. 1, pp. 259–285). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. English, L. D. (2007). Interdisciplinary modelling in the primary mathematics curriculum. In J. Watson & K. Beswick (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia annual conference (pp. 275–284). Hobart, Tasmania: MERG.

54

LUCIA M. FLEVARES AND JAMIE R. SCHIFF

English, L. D. (2010). Modeling with complex data in the primary school. In R. Lesh, P. Galbraith, C. R. Haines & A. Hurford (Eds.), Modeling students’ mathematical modeling competencies: ICTMA 13 (pp. 287–300). London: Springer. English, L. D. (2011). Data modeling in the beginning school years. In P. Sullivan & M. Goos (Eds.), Proceedings of the 34th annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australia (MERGA) (pp. 226–234). Alice Springs, NT: MERGA Inc. English, L. D., Fox, J. L., & Watters, J. J. (2005). Problem posing and solving with mathematical modeling. Teaching Children Mathematics, 12(3), 156–163. English, L. D. & Watters, J. J. (2005). Mathematical modelling with 9-year-olds. In H. L. Chick, & J. L. Vincent (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th annual conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, MERGA, Melbourne, Australia (Vol. 2, Issue 1, pp. 297–304) . Galbraith, P. (2007). Beyond the low-hanging fruit. New ICMI Studies Series, 10, 79–88. Greer, B., Verschaffel, L., & Mukhopadhyay, S. (2007). Modelling for life: Mathematics and children’s experience. In W. Blum, P. Galbraith, H. Henn & M. Niss (Eds.), Modelling and applications in mathematics education: The 14th ICMI study (pp. 89–98). New York, NY: Springer. Gibbons, G. (1992). Recycle!. New York, NY: Time Warner Book Group. Kuntze, S. (2011). In-service and prospective teachers’ views about modelling tasks in the mathematics classroom – Results of a quantitative empirical study. In G. Kaiser, W. Blum, R. B. Ferri & G. Stillman (Eds.), Trends in teaching and learning of mathematical modelling (Vol. 1, pp. 279–288). Dordrecht: Springer. Leedy, L. (2000). Mapping penny’s world. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2002). Symbolic communication in mathematics and science: Co-constituting inscription and thought. In E. Amsel & J. P. Byrnes (Eds.), Language, literacy, and cognitive development: The consequences of symbolic communication (pp. 167–192). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2005). Developing modeling and argument in elementary grades. In T. Romberg, T. Carpenter & F. Dremock (Eds.), Understanding mathematics and science matters (pp. 29–53). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2007). Contrasting emerging conceptions of distribution in contexts of error and natural variation. In M. Lovett & P. Shah (Eds.), Carnegie symposium on cognition: Thinking with data (pp. 149–176). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lesh, R., Carmona, G., & Post, T. (2004). Models and modeling: Working group. In D. E. McDougall & J. A. Ross (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty sixth annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education, Columbus, OH. Lesh, R., Cramer, K., Doerr, H. M., Post, T., & Zawojewski, J. S. (2003). Model development sequences. In R. Lesh & H. M. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning and teaching (pp. 35–58). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Lesh, R., & Doerr, H. M. (2003). Beyond constructivism. Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning and teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Mathematical Modeling in Early Childhood

55

Lesh, R. & Fennewald, T. (2010). Introduction to part I modeling: What is it? Why do it? In R. Lesh, P. L. Galbraith, C. R. Haines, & A. Hurford (Eds.), Modeling students’ mathematical modeling competencies (pp. 5–10). New York, NY: Springer. Lesh, R., & Sriraman, B. (2005a). John Dewey revisited – Pragmatism and the models-modeling perspective on mathematical learning. In A. Beckmann, C. Michelsen, & B. Sriraman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1st international symposium on mathematics and its connections to the arts and sciences, May 18–21, 2005, University of Schwaebisch Gmuend, Germany (pp. 32–51). Lesh, R., & Sriraman, B. (2005b). Mathematics education as a design science. Zentralblatt fu¨r Didaktik der Mathematik, 37(6), 490–505. Lesh, R., & Zawojewski, J. S. (2007). Problem solving and modeling. In F. Lester (Ed.), The second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 763–804). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Mousoulides, N. G. (2009). Mathematical modeling for elementary and secondary school teachers. Research and Theories in Teacher Education. Rhodes: University of the Aegean. Mousoulides, N., Pittalis, M., Christou, C., & Sriraman, B. (2010). Tracing students’ modeling processes in school. In R. Lesh, P. L. Galbraith, C. R. Haines & A. Hurford (Eds.), Modeling students’ mathematical modeling competencies (pp. 119–129). Springer, New York, NY: Dordrecht Heidelberg. Mooney, C. G. (2000). Theories of childhood: An introduction to Dewey, Montessori, Erikson, Piaget, and Vygotsky. St. Paul, MN: Redleaf Press. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. Rule, A. C. (2006). The components of authentic learning. Journal of Authentic Learning, 3, 1–10. Sac- kes, M., Flevares, L. M., Gonya, J., & Trundle, K. C. (2012). Preservice early childhood teachers’ sense of efficacy for integrating mathematics and science: Impact of a methods course. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 33, 349–364. Schmidt, B. (2011). Modelling in the classroom: Obstacles from the teacher’s perspective. In G. Kaiser, W. Blum, R. B. Ferri & G. Stillman (Eds.), Trends in teaching and learning of mathematical modelling (Vol. 1, pp. 641–652). Dordrecht: Springer. Speiser, B., & Walter, C. (2010). Models as tools, especially for making sense of problems. In R. Lesh, P. L. Galbraith, C. R. Haines & A. Hurford (Eds.), Modeling students’ mathematical modeling competencies (pp. 67–172). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. Sriraman, B., & Lesh, R. (2006). Modeling conceptions revisited. ZDM, 38(3), 247–254. Usiskin, Z. (2004). The arithmetic operations as mathematical models. In H.-W. Henn & W. Blum (Eds.), ICMI Study 14: Applications and modelling in mathematics educationpre-conference volume (pp. 279–284). Dortmund, Germany: Universitat Dortmund. Verschaffel, L., Greer, B., & de Corte, E. (2000). Making sense of word problems. In K. Gravemeijer, R. Lehrer, B. van Oers & L. Verschaffel (Eds.), Symbolizing, modeling and tool use in mathematics education (pp. 257–276). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

56

LUCIA M. FLEVARES AND JAMIE R. SCHIFF

Wraga, W. G. (2009). Toward a connected core curriculum. Educational Horizons, 87(2), 88–96. Zahner, W., & Moschkovich, J. (2010). Talking while computing in groups: The not-so-private functions of computational private speech in mathematical discussions. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 17(3), 265–283. Zhbanova, K. S., Rule, A. C., Montgomery, S. E., & Nielsen, L. E. (2010). Defining the difference: Comparing integrated and traditional single-subject lessons. Early Childhood Education Journal, 38, 251–258.

CHAPTER 3 PHYSICAL-KNOWLEDGE ACTIVITIES: PLAY BEFORE THE DIFFERENTIATION OF KNOWLEDGE INTO SUBJECTS Constance Kamii ABSTRACT Four examples of physical-knowledge activities are described and analyzed on the basis of Piaget’s theory. These are playful activities like Pick-Up Sticks in which children act on objects mentally and physically to produce a desired effect. The objective of physical-knowledge activities is to develop children’s logico-mathematical knowledge. Therefore, it is not the activities themselves that are important. What is important is the thinking children do while they play because it is by thinking that children construct logicomathematical knowledge, and logico-mathematical knowledge serves as the framework for children to construct all knowledge. Data are presented about the achievement in mathematics of two groups of low-SES first graders who came to school without any number concepts. One group was given physical-knowledge activities during the

Learning Across the Early Childhood Curriculum Advances in Early Education and Day Care, Volume 17, 57–72 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 0270-4021/doi:10.1108/S0270-4021(2013)0000017007

57

58

CONSTANCE KAMII

math hour for half a year instead of math lessons. The other group received traditional math instruction throughout the year. The first group did better in mental arithmetic at the end of the school year, demonstrating the importance of a solid logico-mathematical foundation. Keywords: Physical knowledge; logico-mathematical knowledge; social-conventional knowledge; seriation; numerical concepts

This volume is intended to show how a number of subject-matter components can be integrated in an early childhood curriculum. On the basis of Piaget’s theory, however, I have argued for a long time that young children’s knowledge is not yet differentiated into academic subjects like mathematics, science, and social studies. In this chapter, therefore, I focus on what I call ‘‘physical-knowledge activities.’’ These are activities like Jenga (r Hasbro, see Fig. 1) in which children mentally and physically act on objects to produce a desired effect. In Jenga, they try to pull one block after another out of the tower, without making it fall. If they make it fall, the person who caused the fall loses the game. The person who collects more blocks than anyone else is the winner. Jenga can be said to have elements of science (balance) and mathematics (number). As a physical-knowledge activity, however, Jenga is not intended

Fig. 1.

Jenga.

Physical-Knowledge Activities

59

to teach science or mathematics. It is intended to encourage children to think, to construct logico-mathematical knowledge that will serve as a framework for the construction of all knowledge. To explain what I mean by ‘‘logico-mathematical knowledge,’’ it is necessary to clarify the three kinds of knowledge Piaget distinguished.

PIAGET’S THREE KINDS OF KNOWLEDGE Piaget (1967/1971, 1945/1951) made a fundamental distinction among three kinds of knowledge according to their ultimate sources: physical knowledge, social-conventional knowledge, and logico-mathematical knowledge. Physical knowledge is knowledge of objects in the external world. Knowing that the tower might fall in Jenga is an example of physical knowledge. Knowing that marbles roll and balls bounce is also physical knowledge. Another example is the knowledge that a glass is likely to break if it is dropped on the floor. Social-conventional knowledge is knowledge of rules and conventions that people make. Languages like Spanish and English are examples of socialconventional knowledge. Holidays like the Fourth of July are also examples of social-conventional knowledge. Another example is the rule that when we shake hands, we must use our right hand, and not the one on our left. It is not difficult to understand that the ultimate source of socialconventional knowledge is conventions that people make over time, and that the ultimate source of physical knowledge is objects in the external world. By contrast, because logico-mathematical knowledge consists of mental relationships that each individual makes, its ultimate source is much harder to understand. This is explained using the example below. If I show a red marble and a blue one to the reader, s/he will probably agree that the two marbles are ‘‘different.’’ In this situation, the difference between the marbles is not observable because the difference does not have an existence in the external world. The proof is that if I say that the two marbles are ‘‘similar’’ (because they are both made of glass and have the same shape and weight), the reader is also likely to agree. It is just as true to say that the two marbles are ‘‘similar’’ as it is to say that they are ‘‘different.’’ A third mental relationship we can make between the same marbles is the numerical relationship ‘‘two.’’ If we think about the marbles numerically, the marbles become ‘‘two’’ for us at that moment. ‘‘Different,’’ ‘‘similar,’’ and ‘‘two’’ are mental relationships that we make in our minds. Only when we think about the two marbles as being ‘‘different’’ are the two marbles different for us. When we think about them as being ‘‘similar,’’ by contrast, the marbles become similar.

60

CONSTANCE KAMII

Likewise, when we think about them as being ‘‘two,’’ the two marbles become ‘‘two.’’ Each marble is observable (physical knowledge), but ‘‘one’’ is not. A marble becomes ‘‘one’’ only when we think about it as ‘‘one.’’ If ‘‘two’’ is a mental relationship human beings construct from within, every other number (e.g., 3, 4 y 10, y 50 y 100 y) is also something that we must construct from within. Arithmetic should therefore be taught as logico-mathematical knowledge (Kamii, 2000), but it is now taught as if it were social-conventional knowledge. Almost all mathematics educators now think that arithmetic is part of our cultural heritage that must be transmitted to the next generation. This is why they now teach one readymade rule after another (like ‘‘carrying’’ and ‘‘borrowing’’) that the majority of second graders do not understand. Table 1 is a summary of the three kinds of knowledge with Jenga (r Hasbro) as the first example. It can be seen in this framework that Jenga involves the physical knowledge of balance and the social-conventional knowledge of the rules of the game. Logico-mathematical knowledge has been divided into the two categories of logico-arithmetical relationships (made to organize discrete objects) and spatio-temporal relationships (made to think about the space and time in which objects exist). In the logico-arithmetical realm, Piaget especially studied classification, seriation (Inhelder & Piaget, 1959/1964), and number (Piaget & Szeminska, 1941/1965). In the spatio-temporal realm, he studied spatial relationships (Piaget, Inhelder, & Szeminska, 1948/1960) and temporal relationships separately (Piaget, 1946/1969).

EXAMPLES OF PHYSICAL-KNOWLEDGE ACTIVITIES Four examples will be given of physical-knowledge activities: Jenga, Pick-Up Sticks, the Balance Game, and Bowling. As children’s thinking in each game is explained, I hope the reader will better understand what I mean by ‘‘logicomathematical knowledge’’ and ‘‘the logico-mathematical framework.’’ Jenga In Jenga (r Hasbro), as stated earlier, children try to pull one block after another out without making the tower fall. When they try to decide which block to pull out first, they seriate the blocks from ‘‘the easiest to try to pull out’’ to ‘‘the hardest’’ (at the bottom of the tower). As can be seen in Table 1,

X

X

X

X

Jenga

Pick-Up Sticks

The Balance Game

Bowling

X

X

X

X

SocialConventional Knowledge

X

X

X

X

Classificatory Relatiohsips

X

X

X

X

Seriational Relationships

X

X

X

X

Numerical Relationships

Logico-arith. Relationships

X

X

X

X

Spatial Relationships

X

X

X

X

Temporal Relationships

Spatio-temporal Relations

Logico-Mathematical Knowledge

The Three Kinds of Knowledge and Logico-Mathematical Framework.

Physical Knowledge

Table 1.

Physical-Knowledge Activities 61

62

CONSTANCE KAMII

this seriation is related to the spatial relationships children make. Children also try to get as many blocks as possible and make numerical relationships. After pulling out the block in the middle of a layer of three blocks, they realize that they cannot use the other two that are on the edges. They then classify the three blocks on each layer into ‘‘the two on the edges that should be used first’’ and ‘‘the one in the middle that should not be used first.’’ This classification is based on temporal, spatial, and numerical relationships. I stated earlier that in physical-knowledge activities, children act on objects physically and mentally. Physical actions are easy to understand but not mental actions. What Piaget meant by ‘‘mental actions’’ is the logicomathematical actions of classifying, seriating, making numerical relationships, spatial relationships, and temporal relationships. Without these mental actions (i.e., thinking), children could not act on objects intelligently. Because the purpose of all physical-knowledge activities is to encourage children to think, it is necessary to change some of the rules of Jenga (r Hasbro) that are printed on the box. First, there are too many blocks in a box for young children to put into relationships. The number must therefore be reduced as can be seen in Fig. 1. Second, the rule on the box states that the players must not hold the tower down with their free hand, but this rule must be eliminated for young children. Young children hold the tower down because they are thinking, and telling them not to hold it down interferes with this thinking. Third, the official rule says that when children succeed in pulling a block out, they must put it on top of the tower. This rule, too, must be eliminated because young children want to keep the blocks they succeeded in pulling out. Telling them to place the blocks on top of the tower would reduce their motivation to think. When the objective of an activity is to encourage children to think, the principles of teaching must also be changed from traditional principles. For example, the teacher must refrain from reinforcing ‘‘correct’’ actions and must refrain from suggesting how to become more successful. In a physicalknowledge activity, children can tell whether or not they were successful, and being praised takes their attention away from thinking about how to act on the blocks. Being told how to be more successful likewise deprives children of opportunities to do their own thinking.

Pick-Up Sticks In Pick-Up Sticks (Fig. 2) children try to pick up one stick after another without making any other stick move. If a player moves another stick, s/he loses the game. The person who collects more sticks than anybody else wins.

Physical-Knowledge Activities

Fig. 2.

63

Pick-up Sticks with Only Eight Sticks.

In the situation illustrated in Fig. 2, children try to decide which stick to pick up first. They thus first classify the sticks into ‘‘those that are touching other sticks’’ and ‘‘those that are not touching any other stick.’’ As can be observed in Table 1, they then seriate the sticks from ‘‘those that are touching only one stick’’ to ‘‘those that are touching more sticks.’’ If one stick is on top of another (a spatial relationship), children make a temporal relationship and decide to pick up first the one that is on top. At the end, they make numerical relationships to decide who won. In one version of the game, the first player tries to pick up all the sticks, and the second and subsequent players also try to pick up all the sticks. In another version, the players take turns trying to take only one stick. This is the version I prefer because children can be mentally more active when they do not have to wait so long for the others to each have a turn. Pick-Up Sticks is especially good for children’s socio-moral development. The rule of the game stated earlier was that a player loses the game if s/he makes another stick move. Children sometimes change this rule to ‘‘If you make another stick move, you have to put it down and try to pick up a different one.’’ When they are allowed to change any rule by majority vote, children have opportunities to think about different rules and perspectives (Piaget, 1932/1965). Voting to adopt a suggestion also fosters numerical thinking. Children and adults think especially hard when they have to make decisions. For example, a first grader announced one day that he put a quarter on his desk, but the coin disappeared while he was not looking. The teacher was not sure about what to do and asked the class, ‘‘Can anybody think of a way to find the quarter?’’ This question encouraged the entire class to think, and one child suggested, ‘‘We can look in every pocket, and

64

CONSTANCE KAMII

every shoe, and every desk, and every backpack until we find it. It has to be inside the room because there wasn’t enough time for the quarter to get out.’’ Everybody agreed that this was a good (logical) argument, and the quarter turned up after a while. The class was relieved, and the teacher concluded that her decision to ask the class was a good one for children’s moral development as well as intellectual development. The guilty child must have learned a great deal while the class searched for the coin. There are countless other opportunities throughout the day for the teacher to encourage children to make decisions.

The Balance Game This two-player game uses a paper plate placed on an empty plastic bottle (Fig. 3). Each player is given five Unifix Cubes of the same color at the beginning, and the number can later increase to 10, 20, or more. The players take turns putting a Unifix Cube on the plate without making it fall. If it falls, the player who caused the fall loses the game. The one who used up all his/her cubes first wins. Young children usually put the first cube on the edge of the plate and make it fall. Teachers are often tempted to tell children how to be successful, but, needless to say, such help prevents children from doing their own thinking. The center of gravity is not directly observable, but children sooner or later make the spatial relationship between the top of the bottle and various positions on the plate. If they get frustrated because they cannot make the necessary relationships, they can always choose to play some other game.

Fig. 3.

The Balance Game.

65

Physical-Knowledge Activities

After figuring out the center of gravity, the next challenge involves symmetry. Children have to imagine a line that cuts across the center of gravity and put a cube alternately at the same distance from the center. These spatial relationships all have to be constructed from within, and some kindergartners soon begin to show off a mountain of cubes they succeeded in piling up. Figuring out the need to think about symmetry involves spatial relationships as well as temporal relationships (one on the left, followed by one on the right). As children make these spatio-temporal relationships, they also make the classificatory relationship of ‘‘the plate stayed up (success)’’ and ‘‘the plate fell (failure).’’ All these logico-mathematical relationships can be seen in Table 1. In the Balance Game, seriation can take place in decreasing order. As the number of cubes placed on the plate increases, its stability increases, and the players can become less careful about where to put a cube. In other words, when a player places the first and second cubes on the plate, s/he has to be exact in thinking about symmetry. As s/he places the 15th or 20th cube on the plate, the distances away from the center can become less exact. The social interactions between the players are important to note. Kindergartners are not as competitive yet as first and second graders, and they all offer advice to the others. These interactions must be encouraged because children learn from each other. To figure out what advice to give, children have to decenter and think from another person’s point of view. From the standpoint of the recipient of advice, a suggestion made by a peer is not the same thing as a suggestion made by a teacher, who is in a position of authority (Piaget, 1932/1965).

Bowling This game uses 5–10 empty plastic bottles (that can contain some sand for stability) and a tennis ball. Each child begins by arranging the bottles (pins) and rolls the tennis ball to knock down as many pins as possible. The person who knocks down more pins than anybody else wins the game. Bowling can be played alone, and four-year-olds arrange the pins in a variety of ways. The game gradually becomes social, but there is at first no rule about taking turns. Whoever catches the ball gets a turn. There is likewise no rule about distances to the target, and each player can roll the ball from anywhere. As disagreements emerge about who is getting too many turns, children may suggest making a rule. If they do not, the teacher needs to suggest the desirability of making a rule.

66

CONSTANCE KAMII

A characteristic of bowling among older children is that they want to take more than one turn and cannot remember who knocked down how many pins. The need for recording the numbers knocked down thus emerges, and Fig. 4 shows the kind of progress that appears in their writing. The top portion of Fig. 4 shows the score sheet produced by three sixyear-olds in Geneva, Switzerland – Fre´de´ric, Michel, and Laurent (indicated by ‘‘F’’, ‘‘M’’, and ‘‘L’’). It can be seen in this illustration that Laurent was

Fig. 4.

Two Bowling Score Sheets.

Physical-Knowledge Activities

67

the only child who added 0, 1, 3, and 4 and got a total of 8 points. Laurent was also the only child who used space to represent the temporal order in which he made these points. Four months later, as can be seen at the bottom of Fig. 4, all the children attempted to use space to represent temporal order. Keeping score in an understandable way requires thinking and discussing how to use writing in a way that makes sense to everybody. Many other ideas suggesting physical-knowledge activities can be found in Kamii and DeVries (1978/1993), Ozaki, Yamamoto, and Kamii (2008), and in DeVries and Sales (2011). (Please note: The first of these references was written a long time ago, when the authors did not sufficiently understand the nature of logico-mathematical knowledge.) Teaching Numerals without Teaching Them Explicitly I do not advocate lessons or exercises in how to read and write numerals. Instead of giving exercises, I introduce a game called Lining up the 5s (Kato, Honda, & Kamii, 2006), which can be downloaded from my website (http:// Constancekamii.org). By playing this game, children develop not only their knowledge of numerals but also their logico-mathematical thinking. Lining Up the 5s uses numeral cards like those in Fig. 5. (‘‘Y8’’ means ‘‘8’’ printed on yellow cardstock. ‘‘B10’’ means ‘‘10’’ printed on blue cardstock. ‘‘P8’’ means ‘‘8’’ printed on pink cardstock.) These cards go from 1 to 10,

Fig. 5.

Three Six-Year-Old’s Arrangement of Cards in Lining Up the 5s.

68

CONSTANCE KAMII

making a total of 30 cards. (These cards, too, can be downloaded from my website.) The 30 cards are dealt to three players, who align them face up as shown in Fig. 5. The players who have the 5s put them down in the middle of the table (see Fig. 5). They then take turns putting down a card of the same color in numerical order, without skipping any. For example, the first player can put down the blue 4 or 6, the yellow 4 or 6, or the pink 4 or 6. If the first player puts down the blue 6, the second player can put down the blue 4 or 7, the yellow 4 or 6, or the pink 4 or 6. If a player does not have a card that can be used, s/he has to pass. The person who is first to use up all his/her cards is the winner. Lining Up the 5s can be played without any knowledge of numerals because children can count the symbols on each card to know whether or not it can be played. As they continue to play this game, they find out that using the numerals is faster and more efficient than counting the symbols each time. They thus become able to read all the numerals without a single lesson. Lining Up the 5s also motivates children to develop their logicomathematical thinking. It can be observed in Fig. 5 that Takuma was the only child who classified his cards according to color and seriated them in numerical order. The other two children aligned them haphazardly in ways that did not help them to think strategically. We can see in Takuma’s arrangement that he could use either his blue 4 or his pink 6 now. He decided to use his pink 6 first, but should have used his blue 4 first. The reason is that he had the pink 7 and 8, which could be used successively at any time, but the use of his blue 2 depended on somebody else to put down the blue 3. When children want to write numerals in bowling, they look at numeral cards and copy the numerals they need. Numerals are part of socialconventional knowledge, which requires input from the environment. However, if there is a way to teach numerals without teaching them explicitly, it is better to present them in a playful way that maximizes children’s initiative to think.

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PHYSICAL-KNOWLEDGE ACTIVITIES It is easy to conclude from Table 2 that physical-knowledge activities are effective. This table shows that a group of 26 first graders in a Constructivist school did better in mental arithmetic at the end of first grade than a similar

69

Physical-Knowledge Activities

Table 2.

Two Groups of First Graders Giving Correct Answers within 3 Seconds at the End of First Grade (in Percent)a. Constructivist (n=26)

Comparison (n=20)

Difference

Signif.

100 92 77 88 88 88 81 58 50 58 69 62 42 24 38 38 35

90 90 85 65 70 65 40 25 40 35 45 40 30 5 15 10 20

10 2 8 23 18 23 41 33 10 23 24 22 12 19 23 28 15

n.s. n.s. n.s. .05 n.s. .05 .01 .05 n.s. n.s. .05 n.s. n.s. .05 .05 .05 n.s.

2þ2 5þ5 3þ3 4þ1 1þ5 4þ4 2þ3 4þ2 6þ6 5þ3 8þ2 2þ5 4þ5 5þ6 3þ4 3þ6 4þ6 a

Kamii et al. (2005).

group of 20 children in a comparison school (Kamii, Rummelsburg, & Kari, 2005). All 46 of the first graders attended two Title I schools in California. When they entered first grade, they did not have any logico-mathematical concept of number as evidenced by two tasks: the conservation task with eight objects and a hiding game with four objects. The two tasks are described below. In the conservation task, the interviewer aligns eight chips (see Fig. 6a) and asks the child to ‘‘put out the same number.’’ If the child puts out the same number as can be seen in Fig. 6b, the adult says, ‘‘Watch what I am going to do,’’ shortens one of the lines, lengthens the other (as in Fig. 6c), and asks, ‘‘Now, are there still as many in this line (one of the lines) as in the other, or does this line have more (pointing), or does this line have more?’’ The children who answer that the two lines still have the same number ‘‘because all you did was move them’’ are said to be conservers, who have the logico-mathematical idea of number. Those who reply that the longer line has more because it is longer are said to be nonconservers. In the hiding task, all the children could count out four chips when asked to. The interviewer then hid some of the four chips under a hand and asked,

70

Fig. 6.

CONSTANCE KAMII

The Arrangement of Chips in the Various Parts of the Conservation Task.

‘‘How many am I hiding?’’ The answers given by the 46 first graders were ‘‘Ten,’’ ‘‘Eight,’’ or some other random number. To strengthen their logico-mathematical foundation for number, the Constructivist group in Table 2 was given physical-knowledge activities during the math hour for almost half a year. As they demonstrated ‘‘readiness’’ for arithmetic, this group was given word problems and mathematics games as advocated by Kamii (2000). By contrast, the comparison group was given traditional math instruction throughout the year with a textbook and workbook, supplemented by activities with ‘‘manipulatives.’’ It can be observed in Table 2 that the Constructivist group did better on 16 of the 17 mental-math problems, 8 of them with statistical significance. It would be easy to conclude from this table that physical-knowledge activities are effective in strengthening children’s logico-mathematical foundation for arithmetic. However, another set of data indicated that what is important is not the physical-knowledge activities themselves but the thinking children do. In the same school as the Constructivist school included in Table 2, we happened to collect data about conservation in kindergarten. These data, presented in Table 3, were collected at the same time as those reported in Table 2. The first column of Table 3 indicates the various teachers who taught kindergarten during the years shown in the second column. The last two columns show the numbers and percentages of conservers found at the beginning and end of each school year. It can be noted in these columns that almost no child conserved at the beginning of the kindergarten year. However, Teacher C always produced high percentages of conservers by the end of the school year (62–88%). By contrast, Teacher V in 1997–1998 and Teacher E in 2001–2002 started the school year with 0% and ended it with 0%.

71

Physical-Knowledge Activities

Table 3. Teacher

Numbers of Conservers Before and After Kindergarten. Year

No. in Class

Conservers Fall

C

P1 J V

P2 E S N

1997–1998 1998–1999 1999–2000 2000–2001 2001–2002 2002–2003 1997–1998 1998–1999 1999–2000 1997–1998 1998–1999 1999–2000 2000–2001 2000–2001 2001–2002 2002–2003 2002–2003

25 26 29 26 29 19 24 25 27 26 26 26 23 20 23 20 17

0 0 4 0 0 2 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

Spring 17 23 18 20 25 16 18 17 18 0 9 5 4 5 0 11 7

(68%) (88%) (62%) (77%) (86%) (84%) (75%) (68%) (67%) (0%) (35%) (19%) (17%) (25%) (0%) (55%) (41%)

None of the teachers in Table 3 taught conservation to their students because they only vaguely remembered having heard about conservation when they were in college. In fact, these teachers did not receive any inservice instruction and did not know what logico-mathematical knowledge was. They did not know anything about physical-knowledge activities, the fact that thinking was important, or that the conservation task could be used to find out about children’s logico-mathematical knowledge of number. Table 3 thus serves to inform us that children can develop logicomathematically even if they are not given any physical-knowledge activities. The important element seems to be the thinking children do. Before concluding this chapter, therefore, I would like to highlight the following principles of teaching physical-knowledge activities that I mentioned in passing earlier: 1. When children are successful, do not reinforce the ‘‘correct’’ behavior by praising them. Children already know it when they are successful, and their attention must not be diverted to pleasing the teacher. 2. When children are unsuccessful, do not suggest how to be more successful. Such help deprives children of opportunities to do their own thinking.

72

CONSTANCE KAMII

CONCLUSION Physical-knowledge activities are a type of play, and I conclude by urging early childhood educators to think about play with more theoretical rigor and clarity. By documenting babies’ construction of logico-mathematical knowledge from the first day of life, Piaget (1937/1954) suggested the central role of logico-mathematical knowledge in the construction of all knowledge. He (Piaget, 1971/1974) also pointed out that children build logicomathematical knowledge in everyday situations by thinking. Children indeed like to think, and we will do well to study how they think while they play.

REFERENCES DeVries, R., & Sales, C. (2011). Ramps & pathways. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1964). The early growth of logic in the child. New York, NY: Harper & Row. (First published in 1959). Kamii, C. (2000). Young children reinvent arithmetic (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Kamii, C., & DeVries, R. (1993). Physical knowledge in preschool education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. (First published in 1978). Kamii, C., Rummelsburg, J., & Kari, A. (2005). Teaching arithmetic to low-performing, low-SES first graders. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 24, 39–50. Kato, Y., Honda, M., & Kamii, C. (2006). Kindergartners play Lining Up the 5s. Young Children, 61(4), 82–88. Ozaki, K., Yamamoto, N., & Kamii, C. (2008). What do children learn by trying to produce the Domino effect? Young Children, 63(5), 58–64. Piaget, J. (1951). Play, dreams, and imitation in childhood. New York, NY: Norton. (First published in 1945). Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. New York, NY: Basic Books. (First published in 1937). Piaget, J. (1965). The moral judgment of the child. New York, NY: Free Press. (First published in 1932). Piaget, J. (1969). The child’s conception of time. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. (First published in 1946). Piaget, J. (1971). Biology and knowledge. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. (First published in 1967). Piaget, J., & Garcia, R. (1974). Understanding causality. New York, NY: Norton. (First published in 1971). Piaget, J., Inhelder, B., & Szeminska. (1960). The child’s conception of geometry. New York, NY: Basic Books. (First published in 1948). Piaget, J., & Szeminska. (1965). The child’s conception of number. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. (First published in 1941).

CHAPTER 4 CONTENT KNOWLEDGE AND VOCABULARY LEARNING IN NATURE: BECOMING A NATURE SCIENTIST! Myae Han, Nancy Edwards and Carol Vukelich ABSTRACT The purpose of this chapter is to suggest ways for early childhood teachers to teach science content knowledge, vocabulary, respect, and an appreciation for nature while children engage in meaningful outdoor nature activities. Science concepts such as nature, life cycle, observation, and experimentation can be woven into outdoor activities as children pretend to be nature scientists. Intentional planning provides teachers with the opportunity to integrate science content knowledge and vocabulary learning during the nature study. The careful selection of content vocabulary related to the scientific process and science content knowledge helps children learn new words in meaningful and developmentally appropriate ways. This chapter provides several examples of outdoor

Learning Across the Early Childhood Curriculum Advances in Early Education and Day Care, Volume 17, 73–93 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 0270-4021/doi:10.1108/S0270-4021(2013)0000017008

73

74

MYAE HAN ET AL.

nature activities with science content knowledge and vocabulary embedded into each activity. Keywords: Nature education; science vocabulary; early literacy; content knowledge; outdoor education; big ideas

The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (Delors, 1996) describes four pillars of learning: learning to know, learning to do, learning to live together, and learning to be. Today, government initiatives have directed U.S. educators to focus on the first two pillars to achieve academic and economic success. Others (e.g., Davis, Rea, & Waite, 2006), however, assert that the latter two pillars are also critically important as they ensure the complete development of the person. Learning about and learning through nature can provide an ideal context to address all of the four pillars. In this chapter, we describe ways to teach science content knowledge, the scientific process, and vocabulary through outdoor activities that facilitate children’s learning about nature. We share descriptions of exemplary lessons with rich activities that provide opportunities for young children to learn about content, process, and related vocabulary, and how to live together and to appreciate nature.

IMPORTANCE OF NATURE AND OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES Scientific principles and laws do not lie on the surface of nature. They are hidden and must be wrested from nature by an active and elaborate technique of inquiry. (John Dewey, Reconstruction in Philosophy, 2004)

John Dewey (2004) was a keen observer who noticed that nature was a place for humans to exploit an active and elaborate process of inquiry. Children use the outdoor environment intensely, if they are allowed to do so; their interest in nature is strong. A growing body of research points to the importance of access to nature and the outdoor environment for the overall well-being of children and adults (Chawla, 2012). In short, time to learn outdoors is essential for children’s growth and development (Ginsburg, 2007; Pellegrini & Smith, 1998). Having access to outdoor activities reaps varied benefits for young children. Studies show linkages between children’s access to such activities

Content Vocabulary Learning in Nature

75

and the ability to sustain concentration and stay on task (Wells, 2000), to delay gratification and inhibit impulses (Faber Taylor, Kuo, & Sullivan, 2002), to engage in more cooperative and creative social play (Kirkby, 1989), and to cope with stress (Wells & Evans, 2003). Playing (and learning) in the outdoor environment is also beneficial to children’s motor development, vision, cognition, vitamin D levels, and mental health (Tandon, Zhou, & Christakis, 2012). Unfortunately, outdoor experiences in the United States have diminished considerably in many schools and early childhood programs due to the increasing pressure on academic achievement and the standards-driven movement (Frost, 2007). On the contrary, the importance of outdoor experiences has been recognized as an integral part of children’s education in the United Kingdom. A government green paper, entitled Every Child Matters: Change for Children (DfES, 2003), suggests that outdoor experiences should be integrated into the curricula for children ages 3–19 (QCA, 2000).

SCIENCE CONTENT KNOWLEDGE Lieberman and Hoody (1998) offer the outdoor environment as a key context for interdisciplinary, student-centered, hands-on, and engaged learning. They suggest that there are strong advantages to providing children with outdoor experiences, advantages that translate into better performance on standardized measures of academic achievement in reading, writing, math, science, and social studies; reduced discipline and classroom management problems; and increased engagement and enthusiasm for learning. Not surprisingly, the literature (e.g., Armstrong & Impara, 1991) also suggests that children who engage in outdoor activities tend to exhibit a stronger science content knowledge base and are more empathetic toward environmental issues than children who lack such experiences. We believe that through the integration of the outdoor environment into the early childhood curriculum, teachers can facilitate children’s achievement of the rigorous academic standards in language and science, and the last two pillars of learning – learning to live together and learning to be. In most states, early childhood science standards include scientific process (inquiry and exploration) and science content knowledge. The foci of the science content knowledge standards often are topics such as living and nonliving things, earth and the space system, matter, and the senses. The concepts and skills associated with each can be developed easily by studying

76

MYAE HAN ET AL.

nature. Many vocabulary words associated with science content knowledge and the scientific process are novel words to young children, ones rarely spoken by them. Beck, McKeown, and Kucan (2002) label such words tier 2 or tier 3 words. Through careful planning, early childhood teachers can facilitate not only their young learners’ scientific content knowledge and science process knowledge but also their young learners’ vocabulary development while the children engage in the study of nature. In order to develop science literacy, children need to gain knowledge of science content and vocabulary together (Nelson & Stage, 2007). In other words, as Wellington and Osborne (2001) suggest, ‘‘science teachers are language teachers’’ (p. 5). By using scientific vocabularies and phrases during science inquiry, children learn vocabulary in a meaningful way. Such instruction maximizes children’s opportunities to encounter various types of vocabularies.

VOCABULARY LEARNING It is well known that by the time children from different socioeconomic groups are four years of age, they differ in the number of words they know by several thousand words (Biemiller & Slonim, 2001; Hart & Risley, 1995). When children begin school with such large differences in the number of words they know and use, the gap is usually hard to close, and, unfortunately, often widens as the children progress in school. Researchers (Biemiller & Slonim, 2001; Walker, Greenwood, Hart, & Carta, 1994) report that children who enter school with poor vocabulary knowledge often experience difficulties learning to read and that early vocabulary size predicts later academic achievement. Despite the evidence of the importance of early vocabulary learning, how to best teach vocabulary to young children is unclear. Marulis and Neuman’s (2010) recent meta-analysis identified 67 studies that investigated the effects of vocabulary interventions on preschool and kindergarten children’s vocabulary development. Following their careful review of each of these 67 studies, they concluded: y further work is needed to help design more effective vocabulary interventions. It [the meta-analysis] did not yield recommendations for how to promote quality instruction in vocabulary. For example, we still need better information on what words should be taught, how many should be taught, and what pedagogical strategies are most useful for creating conceptually sound and meaningful instruction. (p. 328)

Content Vocabulary Learning in Nature

77

None of these studies included in the meta-analysis investigated vocabulary teaching within the context of science. Neuman and Dwyer (2009) examined vocabulary teaching strategies in the early literacy curriculum used by Early Reading First projects, the U.S. government-funded program to enhance the language and literacy skills of low-income 3- and 4-year olds. They discovered that none of the curriculum projects provided teachers with sufficient guidance on how to teach vocabulary. Further, Neuman and Roskos (2005) examined states’ early learning standards and concluded that states’ standards rarely include specific vocabulary teaching guidance. In short, Neuman and Roskos (2005) discovered few vocabulary teaching strategies – and none that taught vocabulary within the context of the outdoor environment. When vocabulary teaching strategies have been described in the literature, the suggestions typically were embedded within a literacy context. Several of the researchers interested in teaching vocabulary have used storybook reading as the context for their vocabulary teaching strategies (e.g., Arnold, Lonigan, Whitehurst, & Epstein, 1994; Robbins & Ehri, 1994; Se´ne´chal & Cornell, 1993; Whitehurst et al., 1994). Only recently have a few researchers begun to investigate the use of strategies aimed at teaching vocabulary within other contexts, like dramatic play (e.g., Han, Moore, Vukelich, & Buell, 2010; Newman & Dickinson, 2012). These researchers provide the following guidance to early childhood teachers: intentionally plan and explicitly teach words. Clearly, these suggestions are equally appropriate for teaching vocabulary within the context of science. Children whose teachers intentionally plan for and explicitly teach words have increased opportunities to encounter more words and to use more and different words in meaningful ways during scientific inquiry and exploration. Harris, Golinkoff, and Hirsh-Pasek (2011) suggest six principles of vocabulary teaching and learning during the early years. These include the following: (a) frequency matters, (b) make it interesting, (c) make it responsive, (d) focus on meaning, (e) be clear, and (f) beyond the word. Again, these principles appear to be equally appropriate for facilitating children’s development of vocabulary within any context, including the context of scientific inquiry and exploration within nature. Nature is inherently interesting to young children, so it is a context for teachers to teach new vocabulary words. In an outdoor context, teachers can explain scientific definitions in clear and child-friendly ways, thus encouraging children to learn and use expressive and receptive vocabulary skills.

78

MYAE HAN ET AL.

SETTING THE STAGE FOR SUCCESS: BEGIN AND END WITH RESPECT FOR NATURE Take your busy heart to the art museum and the chamber of commerce but take it also to the forest. The song you heard singing in the leaf when you were a child is singing still. (From the poem ‘‘What can I say’’ by Mary Oliver, 2012)

Because children today spend significantly less time playing outdoors than children did in the previous generation (Clements, 2004), it is important for early childhood teachers to prepare their children intellectually, socially, and emotionally, so that they are ready for successful outdoor learning experiences. To do so, aligns the instructional strategies with UNESCO’s pillars of learning. While some outdoor activities offer opportunities for noisy, boisterous, and vigorous physical play, exploring nature often requires a calm and quiet approach. Teachers should plan learning experiences that foster a climate of respect for living things and their habitats, prior to outdoor experiences and learning. We believe that this is an extremely important step for successful explicit instruction in the outdoors. By taking the time to cultivate a climate of respect for nature in the classroom, teachers can build an empathetic foundation of knowledge for children that they can later practice while engaging in scientific investigations outdoors. The following are a few ideas for cultivating a caring and respectful climate toward nature in the classroom prior to taking children outdoors. These ideas can be used in any environment, including in urban schools. The animals and plants can be substituted with other creatures seen in urban settings.

Puppet Play Plan a skit using puppets to portray an animal’s response to noisy people to help the children become aware of the animal’s perspective. For example, prior to a class trip to the pond gather ‘‘pond’’ puppets and a blue bath rug or piece of paper to represent the pond. Start the skit by having the puppets talk about what a beautiful quiet peaceful day they are having at the pond. Ask another adult, supplied with a bucket and net, to portray a noisy disruptive person approaching the pond. Show how the frightened pond animals react to the noise and then hide. Repeat the play with a situation when people approach the pond quietly. Ask the children whether noisy people or quiet people are more likely to see more animals in nature.

Content Vocabulary Learning in Nature

79

Children’s Books Children’s literature can be a powerful tool for introducing questions such as ‘‘Why should I care about nature?’’ There are many examples of children’s picture books that serve as discussion starters and allow children to share ideas and ponder this question. For example, in the book, Hey Little Ant, by Phillip and Hannah Hoose (1998), the question of whether a boy should step on an ant is portrayed from both the boy’s and the little ant’s perspective. The story ends with the boy’s shoe raised above the ant and the question ‘‘What do you think that kid should do?’’ The answer to this question could stimulate a discussion with the children that can be extended to picking plants or flowers, or trapping an animal.

Child’s Role Play Provide the children with a role to play in nature such as a nature detective, an earth guard, a life scientist, or a naturalist. Role-play empowers children to engage in learning from a new perspective. Children are motivated to take on the role of an ‘‘Earth Guard’’ because they feel powerful and valued like a super hero. The role of ‘‘Nature Detective’’ appeals to children who like to solve mysteries or look for clues to solve problems.

The Outdoor Concert Scout out an outdoor area where most of the sounds heard are those from nature. Listen for the musical sounds of the outdoors: like the branches of trees as the wind blows, the leaves as the wind moves them across the ground, or the birds or insects as they sing. Allow for a few man-made sounds for comparison purposes. Supply each child with a carpet square and a ticket. Tell the children that you are taking them to an outdoor concert, and they will need a ticket to enter the concert. Walk to the designated spot and collect a ticket from each child as you guide them to their ‘‘seat.’’ Ask each child to remain seated and wait for the concert to begin. After each child is seated tell the children that the concert is about to begin. Instruct the children to close their eyes and not to make a sound until the concert is over. Tell the children that they will know the concert is over when they hear the sound of this bell. Gently ring the bell and say ‘‘Ladies and Gentlemen! The concert begins right now!’’ Allow the children to sit quietly for one minute

80

MYAE HAN ET AL.

or as long as they can and then ring the bell. Tell the children they can open their eyes and share what they heard during the concert. Ask questions like: ‘‘What did you hear during the concert? What did it sound like? Where did the sound come from? Was it a sound from nature? Was it the sound of a vehicle, such as a car or a train? How do you know?’’

LEARNING SCIENTIFIC PROCESS VOCABULARY One of the principles of vocabulary learning is ‘‘frequency matters’’ (Harris et al., 2011). Children need to hear and use new vocabulary words frequently and repeatedly for words to become part of their receptive and expressive vocabulary. If children acquire an attitude and respect for outdoors, they will be ready to become more acute observers of nature and will connect science concepts and vocabularies together. Outdoor nature provides rich opportunities to repeat these processes. Oftentimes, curriculum developers identify the vocabularies based on the thematic units. For example, typically the most common words identified for nature units are season-related words, names of animals or plants, life cycle, land, pond, ocean, and so forth (Pollard-Durodola et al., 2011). Teachers should intentionally plan for their children to learn two kinds of words: (a) scientific content words and (b) science process words. Science content knowledge vocabularies are the science content-related or themerelated words described above. Scientific process words can be used in any science lesson regardless of the theme or topic. Examples of scientific process words, with their verb and noun forms, are shown in Fig. 1. We suggest a slightly different approach for teachers to use in the selection of the vocabulary words for their science lessons. From Beck et al.’s perspective, such words would be tier 2 words, words that are of high frequency for mature language users and are found across a variety of domains. In 2007, Beck and McKeown explained that these tier 2 words can have a powerful impact on children’s verbal functioning. Therefore, perhaps it is not surprising that the Common Core State Standards (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010) stress the importance of vocabulary instruction focused on tier 2 words as the most beneficial for children (see www. corestandards.org). In addition to focusing on such words during science lessons, we also suggest that teaching different linguistic forms of these words (verbs and nouns) simultaneously can maximize the use of these words for

81

Content Vocabulary Learning in Nature

Scientific process words

Verbs

Nouns

Observe Predict Describe Investigate Explore Classify Demonstrate Explain Communicate

Observation Prediction Description Investigation Exploration Classification Demonstration Explanation Communication

Fig. 1. Scientific Process Vocabulary (Verbs and Nouns).

communication. For example, saying, ‘‘Let’s observe the flower closely,’’ followed by, ‘‘What did you notice in your observation of the flower?’’ can direct children to attend to the word’s meaning as well as to the different linguistic forms of the word. The following are examples of lessons teachers might use to teach scientific process words. Any kind of investigation can provide opportunities for children to learn scientific processes words – and teachers should intentionally plan to use the words in Fig. 1. When teaching, teachers should use the words frequently in their talk with the children and should intentionally prompt children to use the words.

Explore Your World (Observe, Describe, and Communicate) Pair the children and provide each pair with a clipboard, magnifying glass, pencil, and a small box containing a piece of string with the ends tied together so that it will make a circle. Take the children outside. Begin by describing some physical boundaries so that children stay within a safe distance. Invite the children to open the box and place the string in the form of circle on the ground anywhere within the established physical boundaries. Tell the children that they are scientists and that scientists use all of their senses to observe the world. Their job as a scientist is to use all of their senses to carefully observe what’s inside their string. Introduce the words ‘‘observe’’ and ‘‘observation’’ with child-friendly definitions. For example, ‘‘When scientists ‘observe,’ they watch something very closely. Then, they tell others about what they observed, about their ‘observation.’ They use

82

MYAE HAN ET AL.

their eyes to see, their ears to listen for sounds, their nose to smell, and their fingers to touch things. Today you are a scientist. You will be observing the world inside your string.’’ Prompt the children to ‘‘describe’’ their world. ‘‘To describe means to tell what you see, feel, hear, or smell as you observe.’’ Be enthusiastic about their descriptions. ‘‘You provided a great description of what you saw inside your string.’’ Allow enough time for the children to explore using all of their senses and to describe what they observed to teacher and their partner. Encourage the children to use many and varied adjectives. Provide positive feedback on their use of adjectives. For example, a teacher might say, ‘‘In your description, you used the word ‘squishy.’ That’s a great way to describe how the ground feels today. Can you think of words to describe how the object smells? I am impressed that you were able to observe details.’’ Encourage the children to use the magnifying glass to find something very small. Ask the children to find something in their world that will fit inside the small box, and to put that object into the small box to bring it back to the classroom. After returning to the classroom, arrange for the children to share the objects they collected in their small boxes. Encourage the children to describe the object and model language. For example, instead of saying, ‘‘That’s a rock,’’ a teacher might say, ‘‘It’s a brown rock with a rough surface with little silvery specks in it. I’ll be listening for some excellent words as you communicate, tell others, about your object. Scientists like to communicate their findings to others!’’ Later, perhaps on another day, the teacher might want to extend the lesson with more ‘‘describing’’ ideas. For example the teacher might say, ‘‘Words are not the only way to describe something. We can describe nature in other ways. You could draw a picture, take a photograph, build something in the block area, create a poem, or dance to communicate about what you observed in nature.’’

Trail Walk Scavenger Hunt (Predict and Classify) Find clip art of birds, insects, people gardening, twigs, buds, flowers, or other objects children might look for along a trail. Pair the children and provide each pair with a pencil, a clipboard, and a page of clip art pictures of objects to look for along a trail. Ask the children to look carefully at the pictures and to predict (to make a reasonable guess) where they might observe each of the objects during a walk outside. For example, ‘‘If you are looking for birds, where would you find them? How about twigs? Where might you find twigs?’’ After the children have made their predictions, walk

Content Vocabulary Learning in Nature

83

along a trail in a nearby park and look for things that are similar to the clipart pictures and let them place a checkmark next to the picture. As children match the objects to the clip-art pictures, ask them to name the object. When children say, ‘‘Bird,’’ teachers can provide the name for the bird, ‘‘It’s a robin. A robin is a kind of bird. Do you know the names of any other kind of birds? When we put things that are alike together – like robins, crows, ducks – we say that we are ‘classifying’ birds into a category. We can classify different kinds of living things, just like a scientist!’’ When the children return to the classroom, check their predictions. ‘‘You predicted that you would see birds in the trees. Was your prediction correct? You predicted that you would see twigs in the trees. Was your prediction correct?’’ Doing this several times allows for the repeated use of the targeted vocabulary word. This learning experience can be repeated several times by changing the pictures and the location of the walk. Over time, the children’s predictions will become more reasoned, and they will be able to name more attributes to classify objects. This activity can be done in an urban setting by changing the pictures of the objects.

What’s Under the Log? (Prediction and Observation) Find a trail or a park with some logs. During one of the trail walks, prompt the children to think about ‘‘What’s under the log?’’ Invite the children to make predictions about what they might find under the log. When the children return to the classroom, invite them to record their predictions about what might be under the log. Record each child’s prediction on a chart. Ask each child why he/she thinks that this is an accurate prediction. The following day, return to the site with a lever to move the log. Bring the chart paper to compare the children’s predictions with their observations. Upon propping up the log, encourage the children to observe the many things living under the log. Compare their predictions to their observations. Remind them that they are scientists. ‘‘Scientists make predictions, and then they check whether their predictions are accurate.’’ When the children return to the classroom, ask them to try to remember one thing that they observed living in or under the fallen log. Explain that the living thing could be a plant or an animal. Ask the children to predict why that plant or animal decided to move into the old rotting log. Then ask, ‘‘What are some ways to ‘investigate’ (to find) the accuracy of our predictions?’’ Record their answers (e.g., books, the Internet, ask a scientist). Introduce the book, A Log’s Life, by Wendy Pfeffer (1997). This

84

MYAE HAN ET AL.

book is about the life cycle of an oak tree. When a storm knocks the old oak tree over many animals, insects, and other living creatures move into or under the log. The rotting log becomes a rich mound of dirt that covers a fallen acorn that eventually grows into another oak tree making the life cycle complete. Explain the scientific process they went through from predicting, observing, and investigating (reading the book) to find answers to their questions, hypotheses, and predictions.

LEARNING SCIENCE CONTENT KNOWLEDGE VOCABULARIES Before planning outdoor nature investigations with young children, teachers must intentionally plan learning goals in terms of content knowledge and vocabulary and the activities the children need to experience to be successful in meeting the goals. This kind of vocabulary is called ‘‘content-based vocabulary,’’ or ‘‘content vocabulary,’’ which is an important component of comprehension (Hirsch, 2006). Because word meanings do not exist in isolation, learning vocabulary should be connected to the knowledge of the world and taught in the context of building knowledge (Justice, 2002; Justice, Meier, & Walpole, 2005; Nagy, 2005; Scarcella, 2003). Researchers (Farkas & Beron, 2004; Neuman & Dwyer, 2009) have addressed the importance of teaching children content knowledge and vocabulary in the early years. These researchers assert that instruction focusing on content vocabulary should be provided to preschool children with ample opportunities for repeated practice and extended learning in other curriculum areas. How might early childhood teachers effectively teach content vocabulary? Researchers proposed that children accumulate vocabulary knowledge by understanding the relationships between new vocabularies and their connected concepts (Justice et al., 2005; Nagy, 2005). Therefore, effective vocabulary instruction should help children to understand the relationships between new words and connected concepts while deepening their knowledge of the world (McCardle, Chhabra, & Kapinus, 2008). In order to plan such instruction, teachers need to consider vocabulary knowledge networks aligned with curricular objectives (Pollard-Durodola et al., 2011). PollardDurodola et al. (2011) have introduced vocabulary instruction using vocabulary knowledge networks during a shared storybook reading. In this chapter, we take a similar approach to vocabulary teaching. The first step is

Content Vocabulary Learning in Nature

85

deciding what conceptual understandings the children would discover while engaging in scientific processes during outdoor nature experiences. Again, children need to be taught about caring for living things, and respecting and preserving natural habitats while engaging in learning science content knowledge and vocabulary before, during, and after the lessons. With these goals in mind, conceptual understandings can be introduced using the language and experience that young children can understand. These concepts are linked with new vocabulary words that are intimately connected to the concepts. The Understanding by Design curriculum framework (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005) identifies concepts as transferable big ideas. Big ideas are essential because they provide the basis for transfer. Transfer is affected by the degree to which people learn with understanding rather than merely memorize sets of facts or follow a fixed set of procedures (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000). A big idea serves as an organizer for connecting important facts, skills, and actions that transfer to other contexts (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). When teachers identify a concept, they should consider whether the transferable big idea will serve to help children organize facts so that they can see their relevance and whether that concept is transferable to other contexts. During nature learning, one concept could be ‘‘every living thing has a life cycle.’’ This is a concept that even children as young as 4 or 5 years of age can understand if opportunities to explore are provided in meaningful and authentic ways. Children can develop a deeper understanding of living things, life cycles, habitats, and how things grow and change. The concept also offers opportunities for children to learn new vocabulary within a meaningful context. One of the important vocabularies linked to this concept is the word ‘‘metamorphosis.’’ (The teacher can explain that ‘‘meta’’ means big, and ‘‘morph’’ means change, and ‘‘osis’’ means a process). Children can learn about this word and concept by learning such concepts as the life cycle of butterflies or frogs. The teacher can develop vocabulary networks based on these concepts. For example, to learn about ‘‘metamorphosis,’’ the life cycle of different livings things can be identified and connected vocabularies can be developed. Fig. 2 provides an example of connected vocabularies for teaching ‘‘metamorphosis’’ using the words related to the life cycle of a butterfly, a frog/toad, and plants. Once the concept and the vocabulary words are identified, the teacher can use a variety of activities to teach the selected words and concepts. The following are examples of suggested activities to teach the content vocabulary, as well as respect and care for nature.

86

MYAE HAN ET AL.

Every living thing has a life cycle.

Plants Seed Sprout Bud Flower

Butterfly Metamorphosis

Eggs Caterpillar Chrysalis

Frog/Toad Spawn Tadpoles Froglet

Fig. 2.

Connected Vocabularies to Teach ‘‘Metamorphosis’’ During Nature Lessons.

Sharing Photographs of Changes Begin by introducing the concept ‘‘every living thing has a life cycle’’ to the class. Read the book, What’s Alive? by Kathleen Weidner Zoehfeld (1995). Remind the children that people are living things and have a life cycle. Reflect on the story and summarize the reading by reminding the children that all living things need water, food, and air to grow. As living things grow, they also change. Another word for this change is ‘‘metamorphosis,’’ which means big change. In the following days, have the children bring and share photographs of when they were infants, toddlers, preschoolers, and kindergarteners. Teachers may also share photographs of themselves when they were children, teenagers, and adults. Guide the children to look carefully at the photographs. Ask the children to describe how they changed as they were growing. Allow the children to describe the changes such as growing teeth, growing hair, growing taller, and changing the way they look. Conclude the lesson by reminding the children that other living things, such as other animals and plants, also have a life cycle and go through a metamorphosis. Invite the children to say ‘metamorphosis.’

Content Vocabulary Learning in Nature

87

Reading, Observing, and Recording the Life Cycle of a Butterfly Order butterfly larvae for the classroom, with approximately three weeks (estimated) average life cycle from larva to adult butterfly. Prepare the classroom habitat (a butterfly garden net or an aquarium) with natural twigs and leaves collected by the children prior to placing the larvae into the habitat. Add signs such as ‘‘Arriving Soon!’’ or ‘‘New Class Pets!’’ Post pictures of the butterflies in various stages of the life cycle. Recall the vocabulary word ‘‘metamorphosis’’ and be prepared to read the book ‘‘The Very Hungry Caterpillar’’ by Eric Carle (1969). Prior to reading, explain to the children that this book is fiction. The book comes from Eric Carle’s imagination and is not based entirely on scientific facts. Some parts of the book are true and some are pretend. Ask the children to focus on the living animal in the story and be ready to explain how it went through a big change, or metamorphosis. Suggest that the children may be able to predict what parts of the story are based on scientific fact and which parts are pretend. After reading the story, provide time for the children to describe the metamorphosis from egg to butterfly. Have flannel board figures depicting the life cycle of the butterfly and invite the children to place the pictures on the flannel board as they identify various processes (egg, caterpillar, chrysalis, butterfly) in the cycle. Mix up the pieces and invite other children to retell the life cycle of the butterfly. Teachers may point out that Eric Carle called the chrysalis a cocoon. The real name for this stage of the butterfly life cycle is chrysalis. The word chrysalis means golden-colored. When caterpillars change into a chrysalis, prompt the children to observe the color of the chrysalis to see if it is golden. Butterfly journal. Place the aquarium or butterfly net on a table where children can observe the caterpillars using a magnifying glass. Provide small booklets (cut in the shape of a butterfly), pencils, and markers so that children can make scientific drawings of the caterpillars. Prompt the children to share the changes they observe each day. Children have the opportunity to observe and record the metamorphosis in the butterfly journal. Encourage the children to represent the metamorphosis in a variety of ways such as dancing, building, and drawing to deepen their understanding of the process and the vocabulary word.

The Life Cycle of a Frog or Toad Frogs and toads are living things and go through a life cycle of a metamorphosis. An investigation of frogs and toads offers opportunities for

88

MYAE HAN ET AL.

children to learn new content vocabulary such as frog spawn, tadpoles, and froglets. Create a large bulletin board of the side view of an empty pond. Prepare pictures of the stages of the life cycle of the frog, lily pads, cattails, turtles, fish, and other creatures that live in the pond. Make word labels for each item. Add one new picture to the pond periodically. Read the book, A New Frog: My First Look at the Life Cycle of an Amphibian, by Pamela Hickman and Heather Collins (1999). Invite the children to place the flannel board pieces on the flannel board as you tell them about each stage of the frog life cycle. Use the following concepts and explanation for the life cycle of frogs and toads. The female frog lays her eggs in the pond water. The eggs are a greyish blue jelly mass called ‘‘frog spawn.’’ The male frog hangs onto the female frog as she lays her eggs. Then the male frog fertilizes the eggs. This is the beginning of a life cycle of frogs. Next the little tadpoles wiggle out of the jelly like spawn. The tadpoles breathe through gills and use their long tails to swim. They begin to eat algae and other small plants in the pond water. First the tadpoles begin to grow lungs to breathe air. When they grow lungs they will need to swim to the surface of the water to breath. The tadpoles grow back legs first and then front legs. The tail becomes smaller and the tadpole looks more like a frog. The new frog is called a froglet. The froglet climbs out of the water to find food such as worms and insects. Then the froglet becomes an adult frog and will live on land and in the water.

Pond Trip Begin by selecting a pond in a nearby park or neighborhood suitable for pond study. The class will visit this pond at least three times. Look for a pond with shallow banks and where the water is accessible to young children. Impress upon the children the importance of safety and staying within an arm’s length of an adult at all times. Talk with the children about the purpose of the first trip to the pond. Explain to the children that we need to approach the pond carefully and quietly so that we do not frighten the living creatures there. Use nets to dip into the pond to bring some of the living creatures back to the classroom so that the children can take care of them and watch them grow. Remind the children of the need to be gentle with the nets and buckets so that the pond animals will survive the trip back to the classroom and only a few samples will be brought back to the classroom so that the habitat is not damaged for the

Content Vocabulary Learning in Nature

89

creatures living in the pond. In addition, children will need to care for the living things brought back to the classroom so that all the living things can be brought back to the pond and released. Young children need to be reminded several times that the living creatures from the pond do not belong to them the way pets, like a dog or cat, do. Pond animals are wild animals and need to live in their natural habitat in order to survive. The tadpoles and other creatures will visit the classroom so that the children can watch them grow and change, but they will be returned to the pond. Before leaving the pond, be sure to collect enough pond water to fill a tank in the classroom for the pond creatures to live. Be sure to collect pond water that contains dead leaves and other matter where algae can grow. This will become food for the tadpoles during their brief classroom visit. Back in the classroom, set up the tank for the pond creatures. Provide booklets shaped like lily pads, magnifying glasses, pencils, and markers close to the tank. Encourage the children to draw and write about the growth and change of the tadpoles and other living things in the tank. Encourage them to use words such as metamorphosis, tadpole, frog spawn, froglet. Within a week, make another visit to the pond because the visiting tadpoles will need fresh algae and pond water to survive. The children will be eager to return to the pond for further exploration. Explain to the children the need to return to the pond to get algae and pond water for the tadpoles and other creatures visiting the classroom. Born free ceremony trip. The purpose of the third trip to the pond is to return the living creatures back to their natural environment. This is a time for the children to demonstrate their understanding that pond creatures belong in the pond. It is an important lesson for children to learn, demonstrating each child’s new understanding of the importance of respecting all living things and preserving the habitats in which they depend for their survival. To prepare for the event, gather enough baby food jars for each child to carry a jar that contains a few pond creatures to return to the pond. Wash each baby food jar carefully and fill it with some of the pond water from the tank in the classroom. Gently scoop one or two creatures into the baby food jars and place the jars in a Rubbermaid tub. Pour the remaining pond water from the tank into a bucket to carry back to the pond. While they are returning the pond animals, sing a song, Born Free (Lyrics by Don Black and music by John Barry. This song is easily available in YouTube) which inspires the importance of returning the animals to nature, respecting, and preserving the natural habitats.

90

MYAE HAN ET AL.

CONCLUSION We began this chapter by suggesting that it was possible and appropriate to teach science content, the scientific process, and science-related vocabulary, and for children to experience UNESCO’s (Delors, 1996) four pillars of learning: learning to know, learning to do, learning to live together, and learning to be through studying in the outdoor environment. In an era of Common Core State Standards, and a standards-driven education system, it is easy to dismiss the last two pillars in our teaching. As of 2012, 45 states have adopted the Common Core State Standards in Literacy and Math (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010). Now the outcomes are defined, and we know what children are expected to be able to do by the end of each grade level. The process to achieve the outcomes is still up to interpretation. The National Association for the Education of Young Children cautions the focus on teachers restricting their teaching to a restricted range of domains such as literacy and math, in early childhood (NAEYC, 2012). This could result in an unintended consequence due to narrowing curriculum and instructional practice in early childhood program. We should not forget that early childhood educators should support the whole development of children in developmentally appropriate ways. Our aim was to share our ideas for meaningful science vocabulary instruction in the context of nature study. We are eager for early childhood teachers to test the ideas we describe in this chapter with their children. We predict that they will work well and that, for some teachers, the integration of science and vocabulary teaching will be a metamorphosis in their teaching.

REFERENCES Armstrong, J., & Impara, J. (1991). The impact of environmental education program on knowledge and attitude. The Journal of Environmental Education, 22(4), 36–40. doi: 10.1080/00958964.1991.9943060 Arnold, D. H., Lonigan, C. J., Whitehurst, G. J., & Epstein, J. N. (1994). Accelerating language development through picture book reading: Replication and extension to a videotape training format. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 235–243. Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (2007). Increasing young low-income children’s oral vocabulary repertoires through rich and focused instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 107(3), 251–271. Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary development. New York, NY: Guilford.

Content Vocabulary Learning in Nature

91

Biemiller, A., & Slonim, N. (2001). Estimating root word vocabulary growth in normative and advantaged populations: Evidence for a common sequence of vocabulary acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3), 498. Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington, DC: National Research Council. Carle, E. (1969). The very hungry caterpillar. New York, NY: Putnam/Philomel. Chawla, L. (2012). The importance of access to nature for young children. Early Childhood Matters, 118, 48–51. Clements, R. (2004). An investigation of the status of outdoor play. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 5(1), 68–80. Davis, B., Rea, T., & Waite, S. (2006). The special nature of the outdoors: Its contribution to the education of children aged 3–11. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 10(2), 3–12. Delors, J. (1996). Learning: The treasure within. UNESCO report for Education for the 21st Century. London: UNESCO Publication, HMSO. Department for Education and Skills (DfES). (2003). Green paper: Every child matters: Change for children. London: TSO. Retrieved from http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/ publications Dewey, J. (2004). Reconstruction in philosophy. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications. Faber Taylor, A., Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (2002). Views of nature and self-discipline: Evidence from inner-city children. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22, 49–63. Farkas, G., & Beron, K. (2004). The detailed age trajectory of oral vocabulary knowledge: Differences by class and race. Social Science Research, 33(3), 464–497. Frost, J. (2007). The changing culture of childhood: A perfect storm. Childhood Education, 83, 225–230. Ginsburg, K. R., American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Communications, & American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health. (2007). The importance of play in promoting healthy child development and maintaining strong parent-child bonds. Pediatrics, 119(1), 182–191. Han, M., Moore, N., Vukelich, C., & Buell, M. (2010). Does play make a difference?: How play intervention affects the vocabulary learning of at-risk preschoolers, American Journal of Play. 3(1), 82–105. Retrieved from http://www.journalofplay.org/issues/151/155-doesplay-make-difference Harris, J., Golinkoff, R., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2011). Lessons from the crib for the classroom: How children really learn vocabulary. In S. B. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (Vol. 3, pp. 49–60). New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Hart, B., & Risley, T. (1995). Meaningful differences in everyday parenting and intellectual development in young American children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H Brookes Publishing. Hickman, P., & Collins, H. (1999). A new frog my first look at the life cycle of an amphibian. Toronto, ON: Kids Can Press LTD. Hirsch, E. (2006). Building knowledge. American Educator, 30(1), 8–51. Hoose, P., & Hoose, H. (1998). Hey Little Ant. Berkley, CA: Tricycle Press. Justice, L. M. (2002). Word exposure conditions and preschoolers’ novel word learning during shared storybook reading. Reading Psychology, 23(2), 87–106. Justice, L. M., Meier, J., & Walpole, S. (2005). Learning new words from storybooks: An efficacy study with at-risk kindergartners. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36(1), 17.

92

MYAE HAN ET AL.

Kirkby, M. (1989). Nature as refuge in children’s environments. Children’s Environments Quarterly, 6(1), 7–12. Lieberman, G. A., & Hoody, L. (1998). Closing the achievement gap: Using the environment as an integrating context for learning. San Diego, CA: State Education and Environment Roundtable. Marulis, L. M., & Neuman, S. B. (2010). The effects of vocabulary intervention on young children’s word-learning: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 300–335. McCardle, P. D., Chhabra, V., & Kapinus, B. A. (2008). Reading research in action: A teacher’s guide for student success. Baltimore, MD: Paul H Brookes Publishing. Nagy, W. E. (2005). Why vocabulary instruction needs to be long-term and comprehensive. In E. H. Hiebert & M. L. Kamil (Eds.), Teaching and learning vocabulary: Bringing research to practice (pp. 27–44). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). (2012). The Common Core State Standards: Caution and opportunity for early childhood education. Washington, DC: NAEY. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards. Washington DC: National Governors Association Center for best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. Nelson, J. R., & Stage, S. A. (2007). Fostering the development of vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension through contextually-based multiple meaning vocabulary instruction. Education and Treatment of Children, 30, 1–22. Neuman, S., & Dwyer, J. (2009). Missing in action: Vocabulary instruction in Pre-K. The Reading Teacher, 62(5), 384–392. doi: 10.1598/RT/62.5.2 Neuman, S. B., & Roskos, K. A. (2005). The state of state prekindergarten standards. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 20(2), 125–145. Newman, K., & Dickinson, D. (2012, November). Language learning through play: A novel model of early childhood vocabulary acquisition. Presented at the annual meeting of Literacy Research Association, San Diego, CA. Oliver, M. (2012). Swan: Poems and prose poems. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Pellegrini, A. D., & Smith, P. K. (1998). Physical activity play: The nature and function of a neglected aspect of playing. Child Development, 69(3), 577–598. Pfeffer, W. (1997). A log’s life. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster Books for Young Readers. Pollard-Durodola, S., Gonzalez, J., Simmons, D., Davis, M., Simmons, L., & NavaWalichowsky, M. (2011). Using knowledge networks to develop preschoolers’ content vocabulary. The Reading Teacher, 65, 265–274. Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA). (2000). Curriculum guidance for the foundation stage. London: QCA/Department for Education and Skills. Robbins, C., & Ehri, L. C. (1994). Reading storybooks to kindergartners helps them learn new vocabulary words. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 139–153. Scarcella, R. C. (2003). Accelerating academic English: A focus on English language learners. Oakland, CA: Regents of the University of California. Se´ne´chal, M., & Cornell, E. H. (1993). Vocabulary acquisition through shared reading experiences. Reading Research Quarterly, 28(4), 361–376. Tandon, P., Zhou, C., & Christakis, D. (2012). Frequency of parent-supervised outdoor play of US preschool-aged children. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 166, 707–712.

Content Vocabulary Learning in Nature

93

Walker, D., Greenwood, C., Hart, B., & Carta, J. (1994). Prediction of school outcomes based on early language production and socioeconomic factors. Child Development, 65, 606–621. Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Buckingham: Open University Press. Wells, N. (2000). At home with nature: Effects of ‘greenness’ on children’s cognitive functioning. Environment and Behavior, 32(6), 775–795. Wells, N., & Evans, G. (2003). Nearby nature: A buffer of life stress among rural children. Environment and Behavior, 35(3), 311–330. Whitehurst, G. J., Arnold, D. S., Epstein, J. N., Angell, A. L., Smith, M., & Fischel, J. E. (1994). A picture book reading intervention in day care and home for children from lowincome families. Developmental Psychology, 30, 679–689. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Zoehfeld, K. W. (1995). What’s alive? New York, NY: HarperCollins Children’s Books.

CHAPTER 5 THE ROLE OF STEM (OR STEAM) IN THE EARLY CHILDHOOD SETTING Karen W. Lindeman, Michael Jabot and Mira T. Berkley ABSTRACT The White House Initiative: Educate to Innovate (2009) outlines the need for school age children (P-12) to focus more intentionally on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math or STEM. The arts and other developmentally appropriate activities (i.e., blocks, painting, music, etc.) are added to STEM to create STEAM. Specifically, this chapter focuses on Technology, Engineering, and the Arts within the contexts of Science and Mathematics in the early childhood setting. By allowing children the time to explore and create, young children will wonder about the world around them. The chapter concludes with suggestions for early childhood professionals to create environments (physically, temporally, and interpersonally) that encourage and expand the STEM principles. Keywords: Technology; engineering; arts; math; science; early childhood

Learning Across the Early Childhood Curriculum Advances in Early Education and Day Care, Volume 17, 95–114 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 0270-4021/doi:10.1108/S0270-4021(2013)0000017009

95

96

KAREN W. LINDEMAN ET AL.

In response to the economic crisis, President Obama created the White House Initiative: Educate to Innovate to improve the United States’ opportunities to excel in the world market place (2009). The initiative outlines the need for school age children (P-12) to focus more intentionally on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math or STEM. This focus is to create the next century of workers who are well prepared to create the new technologies of the future. Along with the STEM initiative, the Common Core Standards were adopted by nearly all 50 states (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers, 2012). The Common Core, like the Educate to Innovate initiative, aims to have all children graduate from high-school college and career ready. Together the new 21st Century Skills were defined. These skills include what can be referred to as the ‘‘four Cs’’: Communication, Creativity, Critical Thinking, and Collaboration (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2011). So what does this mean for our youngest learners in early childhood settings? Vygotsky’s theory of sociocultural learning supports the idea that a child constructs his/her own knowledge through ‘‘active engagement’’ (Bodrova & Leong, 2001, p. 9). Children depend on social and cultural influences to stimulate development. Children do not learn in isolation. Vygotsky (1986) believes children at a very young age can organize concepts, problem-solve, and ‘‘think’’ complexly and abstractly when given real, authentic, and meaningful materials and when these interactions are with peers, especially in play. This ‘‘work’’ can provide increased knowledge building across all domains (Vygotsky, 1986). Play prepares the cognitive framework for learning within domains; it additionally helps to prepare the child for the act of learning itself (Leong & Bodrova, 2012). Early childhood settings typically rely on a sociocultural, constructivist model. Approaches to learning which include curiosity, interest, initiative, persistence, attentiveness and creativity are important features of the STEM/STEAM initiative and are directly related to how young children learn and construct knowledge (Katz, 2010). Developmentally appropriate practice (DAP) as defined by the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) (Copple & Bredakamp, 2009) aligns well with STEM, 21st Century Skills and social-cultural learning theories. Additionally for young children the arts and an ‘‘A’’ can be added to the acronym STEM to create, STEAM. All forms of art can influence and help develop STEM content areas (Robelen, 2011; Sherapan, 2012; Tarnoff, 2010). We will review the connection between STEM and how young children learn and then conclude with a list of recommendations for adults

The Role of STEM or STEAM in the Early Childhood Setting

97

(parents, families, and/or early childhood teachers and providers) to use to expand and develop each area. Because this volume includes chapters specifically addressing science and math, this chapter will focus on the T (technology), E (engineering), and A (arts) in STEAM. However, our focus is not just content and discipline specific but is rather viewed as multidisciplinary and ultimately as an integrated approach that includes science (S) and Mathematics (M). Yakman (2012) notes engineering and the arts are the means by which science and technology can be viewed, documented, and interacted. All of these – technology, engineering, and the arts – are based in science and mathematics content (see Fig. 1). Design technology, engineering, and the arts are the ways young children use science and mathematics on a daily

All within the contexts of

Science and Mathematics Engineering

•Dramatic play •Building with blocks •Drawing, painting •Writing/Telling Stories •Create!

•Why is something happening? •What can I create? •How does it work? •What matierials will I need? •Which materials will work best? •Design!

Arts

•Tools • Ramps •Bridges •Utensiles •Transportation •Machines

Technology

Fig. 1. Young children use the arts, engineering, and technology together to explore the world around them. Each complements the other while using scientific principles (i.e., scientific method or color mixing) and mathematic concepts (i.e., symmetry or geometry). Early childhood educators provide the features of the environment (outside circle) to support STEAM development.

98

KAREN W. LINDEMAN ET AL.

basis to interact with their world. With this in mind, this chapter will focus on design technology through both engineering and the arts.

TECHNOLOGY: THE ‘‘T’’ IN STEAM Technology for young children can be viewed in two different ways – screen technologies, both passive and interactive digital versions, and design technology. Screen or digital technologies are typically what first come to mind when we think of technology. Digital technologies such as emailing, texting, and video conferencing are kinds of tools that are used to make our life easier. Whether we are passively viewing a television program or interacting with a friend through SKYPE, digital technologies have changed our world drastically over the last 50 years. These are the evolved, highly complicated versions of technology that are part of our everyday world today. Digital technologies, especially the passive types, TV, movies, DVDs, etc., have no real benefit for children before the age of two. In fact, the American Academy of Pediatrics, The American Public Health Association, and the National Resource Center for Health and Safety in Child Care and Early Education recommend that screen use in early childhood education should not be used with children before the age of two and only 30 minutes once a week of media viewing for children two and older in early education settings (2011). NAEYC and Fred Rogers Center for Early Learning’s Joint Position Statement on Technology (2012) does not suggest banning screens from early childhood settings. However, the authors do support developmentally appropriate use around children’s needs and interests and they expand the use of technology to include supporting English Language Learners (ELL) and communicating with families (NAEYC & Fred Rogers Center, 2012). We agree that the interactive versions of technology that allow children to visit their grandparents across the country or to send a drawing to an aunt overseas can be beneficial to building relationships after the age of two but only when the relationship is being strengthened through the technology. Interactive technologies in our early childhood settings are often used simply for the sake of using it. The premise being children need to keep up with the modern world, grow with technology, and learn to be digital citizens or to make their own decisions about technology use. Some guidelines for using digital technologies with young children include teachers and caregivers who know the technology well and can provide children with programs and software that provide open-ended experiences and opportunities to create (NAEYC & Fred Rogers Center, 2012).

The Role of STEM or STEAM in the Early Childhood Setting

99

Technology should help children work together and develop relationships, not replace them. There is distinction between interactive programs and interactions with people. Early childhood professionals can model the use of technologies and digital citizenship for young children by using technology for documentation (Parnell & Bartlett, 2012) and to communicate with families (NAEYC & Fred Rogers Center, 2012). And as always, the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, Alliance for Childhood & Teachers Resisting Unhealthy Children’s Entertainment (2012) reminds us that families should be kept informed about screen and digital technologies used with their child especially when advertising or marketing is promoted through technology. However, we must keep in mind that these high-level interactive digital technologies ‘‘hide the real work from our eyes and hands’’ (Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, Alliance for Childhood & Teachers Resisting Unhealthy Children’s Entertainment, 2012, p. 15). Digital technologies were created to address adults’ problems and needs. And due to the highly technical nature, children cannot see how these digital technologies are developed. Children like to take things apart and understand how they work. Children cannot do this with your school’s interactive white board or laptop. Google prides itself on how easy and mindless it is to use (Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood et al., 2012). If we limit our view of technology in the early childhood setting to screen and digital technologies, we are missing out on developing the 21st Century Skills and the initiative set out in STEM. Having children playing with iPads to match one-to-one correspondence when this can be done with real items is not the goal of using technology in the early childhood classroom or the stance other countries like the United Kingdom have taken when viewing technology. For STEAM in the early childhood setting, our focus is on design technology. In the United Kingdom, Design and Technology is a subject within the national curriculum for all children. The curriculum for early childhood states: The subject calls for pupils to learn how to think imaginatively and talk about what they like and dislike when designing and making. They build on their early childhood experiences of investigating objects around them. They explore how familiar things work and talk about, draw and model their ideas. They learn how to design and make safely and could start to use ICT [Information Communication and Technology literacy] as part of their designing and making y They think about what products are used for and the needs of the people who use them. They plan what has to be done and identify what works well and what could be improved in their own and other people’s designs. They draw on knowledge and understanding from other areas of the curriculum y. (QCDA, The National Curriculum, 2010)

100

KAREN W. LINDEMAN ET AL.

Simply put technology is the designing, building, and use of tools by humans to solve a problem or to make life easier. The pen we write with, the colander that allows the sand to go through and the rocks to stay, or the ramp to get the wheelchair in the building are all examples of the types of technologies that are addressed by STEAM in the early childhood setting. Materials and tools are used to solve a problem, to make something easier to do, or to figure out how something works. Whether it is the bucket and pulley that allows the child to move wet sand across the play yard or the pencil sharpener used to improve his drawing, young children can view technologies in their everyday world to inspire their own designs and become innovators. Some applications for the iPad (i.e., Foldify, Kidpix, Story Maker) allow children to design a plan, construct a creature, or publish a book. The difference between design technology and the debate about computers in our early childhood classrooms is important to note. We see the computers, iPads, and cameras in our classrooms as tools for design. Therefore, our discussion will focus on computers and digital technologies as one kind of tool that can aid in the process of design. Based on the Standards for Technological Literacy (ITEEA, 2007) there are many natural connections between technology education and developmentally appropriate early childhood education. Technology leads a child to the idea that there are many differences between the natural world and the world created by humans for human needs and wants. The man-made world is characterized by the use of tools to help us do things to make our life easier or more efficient. A first step in using technology with young children is to help them identify the different items in their everyday lives that were man-made. Some examples would be the wheeled cart used to bring in snack or the ramp or even the elevator that brings the cart to the second floor. Children can see everyday tools, including simple machines, in use around them and begin to explore and investigate how and why these various pieces of technology were designed. By taking a closer look at form and function, children can begin to appreciate the design of each tool. A discussion about a plate versus a bowl to hold soup at lunch as well as which utensil design is needed to get the soup to our mouth can begin to empower children to look at the world around them. Our world, both natural and man-made, consists of a series of systems that all interact with each other to shape our world. Often times the components of these systems are used together to help us complete tasks and accomplish goals through planning. Different systems accomplish similar tasks through the use of different materials. Also in these systems some materials can often be reused or recycled and used again the same way or in

The Role of STEM or STEAM in the Early Childhood Setting

101

different ways. In Table 1, we provide a list of found and natural items that can be added to materials to extend children’s play as they have the opportunity to explore these ideas. The way that technology has influenced society has changed through time. It is important for young learners to explore this idea by looking at how these changes have shaped the lives of those in their families and communities. Some prominent examples to explore with young children are in the areas of transportation, communication, and clothing. In each of these the ideas put forth around the nature of technology can easily be explored by children and used to shape other areas of the curriculum. But if we focus on these outputs of technology – the interactive and passive screens or even the construction of tools – we may miss the process of how these technologies came to be. As often happens in education the output or the test score gets the most attention, while in our opinion it is the input or process behind these technologies we value. If technology is the end result, we need to take a closer look at how the technology is designed. It is during this design process, using engineering and the arts, that our 21st Century Four Cs of Communication, Creativity, Critical Thinking, and

Table 1. Materials Including Tools, Found Materials, and Items from Nature. Center

Items or Tools to Provide

Water

Tubes, pumps, funnels, colanders, water wheels, buckets, hand beater, whisks, spoons (wooden and slotted) Buckets, pulleys, colanders, funnels, shovels, balance, scales

Sand

Blocks

Different sizes, types, and textures, ramps, cars and trucks (things with wheels), bridges, animal figures, and people

Art

Different textures of paper, paints, pens, markers (various colors, widths, etc.), scissors, punches, easels, glue, paste, tapes (various colors, widths, and textures), woodworking tools, sculpting tools, pottery wheel

Natural, Found, and Recyclable Items to Provide 2 liter bottles, corks, lids, milk jugs, rocks, shells, soap, color Berry baskets, butter tubs, buttons, confetti, detergent scoops, keys, packing peanuts Tubes, boxes (tissue, packing, etc.), egg cartons, balls, bubble wrap, newspaper, dominoes, clothes pins, fabric, cans (nuts, formula, etc.), Styrofoam trays All of the above including materials from nature such as bark, leaves, flowers, dirt, mud, clay

102

KAREN W. LINDEMAN ET AL.

Collaboration (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2011) and ultimately the approaches to learning in the early childhood setting are cultivated.

ENGINEERING – THE ‘‘E’’ IN STEAM Children are born engineers – they are fascinated with building, with taking things apart, and with how things work. In addressing the key ideas of technology education, children will arrive at a point where the ideas developed will begin to interact with the designed world. It is at this intersection that the ideas of engineering begin to come to play. Engineers are problem solvers and young children are born problem solvers. It is important to begin the discussion of the role of engineering in the early childhood setting, by pointing out both the commonalities and differences between science and engineering. Both the fields of science and engineering have as their goal that children will grow to know the world around them better. In science this is done through the processes of predicting, observing, classifying, hypothesizing, experimenting, and communicating. In engineering, however, children reach this goal in a slightly different way. An example of this is seen in the Engineering is Elementary curriculum (Cunningham, 2009; Cunningham & Hester, 2007; Katehi, Pearson, & Feder, 2009). In an engineering-based experience, children are asked to connect knowledge between disciplines; use problem-solving skills such as problem formulation, iteration, testing of alternative solutions, and evaluation of data to guide decisions; and often use project-based learning with hands-on construction to help hone the children’s abilities to think spatially (see Fig. 2). The entire design process, and most particularly, the engineering design process, contains a number of steps. These steps include identifying a problem, exploring ideas about why the problem may be occurring and/or how best to solve the problem, using these ideas to develop possible solutions, and then sharing these ideas with others. This process is different than other processes, in that it is not necessarily linear. Oftentimes, the engineering design process cycles back as new discoveries are made and new ideas are considered. Both science and engineering, when done well, encourage the development of skills in an active and engaging way where the entire process is driven by the interests of the children. One of the central differences between science as inquiry and engineering as inquiry is in what the desired goal is. In scientific inquiry, the goal is to investigate the impact of variables on the outcome, while in engineering

The Role of STEM or STEAM in the Early Childhood Setting

103

Fig. 2. Engineering is Elementary. Displays the stages of design engineering. The arts in the early childhood setting can be integrated into several stages including the imagine stage, the plan (draw, build, etc.) stage and the create stage. The most important feature of the design engineering process is that it can happen over and over again. Image taken from http://legacy.mos.org/eie/engineering_design.php

inquiry the investigation is to produce a desired effect. Schauble, Glaser, Raghavan, and Reiner (1991) described this further as the idea of a difference between the use of inference in a science task and optimization in an engineering task. Both of these skills are extremely important in helping children to explore the world around them. The ability to design a science experiment and investigate which variables are causal and which are not and then being able to use this new knowledge to infer the effect of these variables in future experiments is at the heart of scientific inquiry. This allows for the development of a theory-based approach to further experimentation. That said, the tendency of children to take a ‘‘try and see’’ method when doing an engineering-based task has great impact. When the engineering task was completed first followed by an experience where the more scientifically driven approach was used, the children actually showed greater improvements in understanding as well as an increased ability to plan and critique future experiments (Schauble et al., 1991; Sneider, Kurlich, Pulos, & Friedman, 1984). The impact of these findings has been studied in a range of elementary and early childhood settings (i.e., Bers, 2008; Bers, Ponte, & Juelich, 2002; Cejka, Rogers, & Portsmore, 2006).

104

KAREN W. LINDEMAN ET AL.

The creative nature of technological and engineering design is also seen when children are encouraged to invent and innovate by asking questions and making observations in unique ways. As Fred Rogers so aptly put it; ‘‘our questions are just as important as our answers’’ (Rogers, 2003, p. 71). Encourage children to question the world around them. This means they need the time and permission to explore their world as well as adults willing to listen. Exposure to real materials and to real problems allows children to wonder. Early childhood educators, who are strong in science content, are needed as children begin to wonder (Fleer, 2009). This focus on ‘‘seeing the world’’ in a different way often leads to novel solutions to problems and to deeper understanding by the children in figuring out how things work. Children are fascinated with building and with taking things apart to see how they work; they engineer informally all the time. A common way to introduce children to this idea of invention and ideation is to encourage them to explore projects that may have failed. This provides a positive approach to failure, an important 21st century goal, and provides children the satisfaction of overcoming an obstacle (Katz, 2010). In exploring why the project failed, they need to investigate how the system was intended to work and in doing so they can discover how the product can be fixed. This is an ideal time to introduce children to the idea that in designing solutions to problems, it is important to recognize that the solutions to problems address the needs and wants of people. We can encourage children to work together to identify problems that can be solved through the design process. Then they can be encouraged to use the design process in building a solution to the problem while at the same time discovering how things are made and how they may be improved. In this ‘‘construction’’ phase of the design process, there are a number of possibilities to help children learn the skills of using tools. It is important to note, we do not often try to solve problems that have no importance. Exposure to meaningful situations that directly impact children’s lives provide for the most valuable engineering experiences. Agee and Welch (2012) conclude that passive screen technologies, batteryoperated toys, teacher-directed lessons, and the marketing of workbooks and ‘‘educational toys’’ have limited children’s knowledge and experiences. Without the need to be imaginative or to think critically about the world, the authors conclude ‘‘imagination deficit is rampant’’ (Agee & Welch, 2012, p. 72). Without imagination and creativity, the engineering process is limited. This is the very reason Robelen (2011), Sherapan (2012), Tarnoff (2010), and others (i.e., Piro, 2010; Van Meeteren & Zan, 2010) believe the ‘‘A’’ for the ‘‘arts’’ in STEAM is necessary. As we look back at famous

The Role of STEM or STEAM in the Early Childhood Setting

105

technology creators such as Albert Einstein, Alexander Graham Bell, and Steve Jobs, we see they each identify themselves as or with the skills of an artist.

ARTS – THE ‘‘A’’ IN STEAM The White House Initiative has a focus on ‘‘innovation.’’ The Webster’s dictionary defines ‘‘innovative’’ as ‘‘having the skill and imagination to create new things’’ (Merriam-Webster, 2008). Synonyms for innovative include imaginative, original, ingenious, and creative (Merriam-Webster, 2008). So besides understanding content or having ‘‘skill’’ our 21st century learners also need to be creative and imaginative. This is why the arts is a necessary addition to STEM in early childhood education. The White House Initiative and the Common Core Standards were developed in response to the need for more skilled workers to compete in the global work force (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers, 2012). Ironically as the White House Initiative and the Common Core Standards are implemented, our early childhood classrooms are seeing less time devoted to opportunities that encourage creativity. Young children are beginning to develop their creative skills through dramatic play, block building, manipulating clay, painting at the easel, and dancing along to music. All of these things can be found in many early childhood settings. There is nothing new here except to say these types of activities and materials should not be replaced or removed. They are actually the very things that will support the STEM initiative and develop the 21st Century skills. Children need time and access to materials in order to develop their creativity. These pure early childhood and developmentally appropriate practices (i.e., painting, drawing, and blocks) allow young children to be imaginative, creative, and help children to develop spatial skills and perspective. Each of these skills is needed for engineers, scientists, and for future technology development. However, children need time to explore and create with open-ended materials to develop these skills (i.e., spatial relations, perspective, etc.). Young children often use materials very imaginatively; unfortunately, many times teachers and parents direct or dictate the use of materials (i.e., today we will make a cat). We suggest limiting adults’ preconceived ideas about how materials are to be used in order to allow young children to develop creativity and to be imaginative. This can be done, for instance, by providing art materials for a sculpture or a variety of instruments to create

106

KAREN W. LINDEMAN ET AL.

music. Early childhood educators need to facilitate the use of materials but not control them. The idea of creativity is crucial in the development of young learners. The process of designing solutions or finding out how things work is a creative process. Imagination is the ability to form ‘‘a mental image of something not present to the senses or never before wholly perceived in reality’’ (Agee & Welch, 2012, p. 72). We all have the ability to design solutions to problems, but it is the arts that allow us to communicate the ideas we imagine. The science and mathematics content skills are important, but not enough. We need to know how to communicate these skills. Just as an architect knows how to build a house, she must create blue prints to communicate to the builder. These blueprints also allow stake holders to discuss, make changes, create models, and improve the plan before building. There are definite connections between the ways that ideas are shared in the engineering design process and the way children often share in the early childhood classroom. For example, children may share their ideas verbally, but also may do so using drawings and the models they construct, similar to the types of sharing that they may do when sharing their artwork. Creativity depends on experience. The more experiences with the world and with materials, the more opportunities children have to be creative. Materials can be traditional art supplies, but should also include dramatic play props, storytelling, blocks, and music. For example, music allows children to experience patterns, beat, counting, and tempo (Geist, Geist, & Kuznik, 2012). Many of the ‘‘art’’ aspects of STEAM are common features in many early childhood classrooms. Each allows children the opportunity to explore science and math while developing their skills in communicating about engineering and technology. Fig. 3 shows a 4-year-old boy discovering the math concept of area with the unit blocks while another group used the same materials to create a ‘‘fire pit’’ for their camp site in the dramatic play center. This type of creativity cannot happen with just a one-time experience with materials. We contend that long-term exposure and large chunks of unhurried time provided for children to think, plan, create, expand, and recreate with these materials support STEM development. In the pictures provided in Figs. 4 and 5, a 3-year-old boy spends time playing with blocks. This may be a typical scene from any early childhood classroom in the block corner; however, the true benefits of STEAM are realized since this young child is given a large area to create, is allowed to freely make decisions about his creations (child-led), and is provided a large chunk of uninterrupted time to explore. He begins to use trial and error as well as basic science and math principles as he builds three different towers

The Role of STEM or STEAM in the Early Childhood Setting

107

Fig. 3. (a) The boy is using unit blocks to cover the table, an exercise in the mathematic concept of area. (b) Children in the dramatic play area are using the unit blocks to create a fire pit for their camp site. Photo Credit: Sarah Fiorella.

108

KAREN W. LINDEMAN ET AL.

Fig. 4. The child first creates his tower on a one-block base (picture 1). It immediately begins to lean and he says, ‘‘oh, no, it’s tipping.’’ The second time he attempts the tower (picture 2) he uses two blocks as a base and alternates the direction of the blocks. Photo Credit: Shauna Condon.

Fig. 5. In picture 1, the child creates a tower with a two-block base and gently places the top block. Since the tower is as high as It can go without falling over, he chooses to knock it over (picture 2). Notice his third tower (picture 3) now uses an extra wide base. This tower is as tall as the child and is sturdy enough to allow him to add other features to his creation. Photo Credit: Shauna Condon.

The Role of STEM or STEAM in the Early Childhood Setting

109

and adjusts the base each time to make a more stable tower. This young man is an engineer! He is creating a tower and has a problem; the tower is tipping over after just six blocks. He used his creativity to adjust his building and is persistent with each trial. Through several attempts and using the materials in different ways, he finds a way to create a more stable structure. Katz (2010) suggests including arts in STEM is the most natural for young children. They already love to build, to draw, and to create. Allowing children to use this media to build their creativity and imagination is simply a way to encourage engineering and ultimately technology use and creation.

ADULTS’ ROLE IN STEAM DEVELOPMENT Many of the recommendations for expanding STEAM initiatives in an early childhood setting include the developmentally appropriate materials and centers traditionally present in early childhood settings. The very things we have been using with young children for years will develop children’s skills in math, science, technology, and engineering. What we do need are early childhood professionals able to provide these experiences for young children expand them meaningfully and display the materials in inviting ways. A list of recommendations follows in regards to the early childhood professionals’ role in establishing the environment. These recommendations are also the outer circle in the diagram in Fig. 1. Gordon and Browne (2011) refer to the early childhood environment in three parts, the temporal, interpersonal, and physical space. They define the environment as the ‘‘sum total of the physical and human qualities that combine to create a space in which children and adults work and play together’’ (Gordon & Browne, 2011, p. 282). Each of these three areas can begin to develop STEAM principles. First, as noted in the block example, time to create is essential. Large open chunks of time during the day are needed to create. Also time to come back over several days to a long-term project is suggested. Unstructured time for children to make decisions about their play and move between tasks on their own is encouraged. A true ‘‘free play’’ time not controlled by a center chart or a timer allows children the most beneficial play experiences. The classroom interpersonal community is another important feature early childhood professionals are responsible for when creating a rich STEAM early childhood environment. Early childhood educators need to cultivate an atmosphere of discovery and exploration where the ‘‘4 Cs’’ of Communication, Creativity, Critical Thinking, and Collaboration

110

KAREN W. LINDEMAN ET AL.

(Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2011) are valued. Teachers can model these by commenting on how things are made and can be the ‘‘guide at the side’’ while assisting children with tasks and exploring. Teachers and adults can help children explore and investigate objects instead of just telling what things are or what they do. It is the adult who can model these ‘‘ah-ha’’ moments and the love of discovery. Children will then themselves begin to notice details and further wonder about the world. Additionally, teachers and adults can ask children open-ended questions. By providing children with good, meaningful questions about their creations and their world, children can begin to think critically. Good questions don’t have just one answer and the answers given may not be the ones the teacher was looking for. When this does happen, early childhood educators need to be flexible and be willing to deviate from the curriculum or plan. By presenting children with provocative questions and following their lead, we allow young children to develop their thinking and engage them in meaningful discussions. Here we help children value the process and not just the product. It is essential that the early childhood setting supports a community of learners who are valued, where communication is essential and mistakes are acceptable. Lastly the physical environment can be changed frequently based on students’ needs and interests. Table 1 provides a list of materials including tools, found materials, and items from nature which can be added to centers to expand play. Early childhood professionals can manipulate the physical environment to ensure children are exposed to a variety of materials and to the everyday world around them. By adding figures such as people and animals, children will create dramatic play scenarios using these materials. And since early childhood education is integrated, literacy skills can be included here as well. For example by adding clipboards, paper, and writing materials to these centers, children are encouraged to plan, draw, observe, and even label. Providing children access to resources such as books, photographs, and websites on meaningful topics (an appropriate use of screen technology) can expand their thinking about the world around them as they create. When long-term projects are meaningful and follow children’s interests, the discussion with the children about needed materials to design the project allows children to become engineers and designers (Katz, 2010). By building on the everyday moments and allowing children to create something new, children become intellectually engaged. An excellent list of suggestions for creating meaningful experiences for young children from Lillian Katz (2010) is provided in Table 2.

The Role of STEM or STEAM in the Early Childhood Setting

Table 2.

111

Meaningful Experiences for Young Children.

Young children should frequently have the following experiences:  Being intellectually engaged and absorbed.  Being intellectually challenged.  Being engaged in extended interactions (e.g., conversations, discussions, exchanges of views, arguments, participation in planning of work).  Being involved in sustained investigations of aspects of their own environment and experiences worthy of their interest, knowledge, and understanding.  Taking initiative in a range of activities and accepting responsibility for what is accomplished.  Experiencing the satisfaction that can come from overcoming obstacles and setbacks and solving problems.  Having confidence in their own intellectual powers and their own questions.  Helping others to find out things and to understand them better.  Making suggestions to others and expressing appreciation of others’ efforts and accomplishments.  Applying their developing basic literacy and numeracy skills in purposeful ways.  Feeling that they belong to a group of their peers. Source: Katz (2010).

Although the young boy in our block building example (Figs. 4 and 5) was using engineering and the arts, it was the environment provided to him, the time to create, and the knowledgeable teacher observing and documenting his play that encouraged these skills. The adult in this situation was able to provide language to support building and ask questions. Early childhood professionals create a temporal, interpersonal, and physical environment that allows children to thrive with science, technology, engineering, the arts, and math.

CONCLUSION The role of STEM or more importantly STEAM is to provide young children with multiple ways to be creative and imaginative within the context of real-world experiences. By allowing young children to discover, explore, question, and create using science and mathematics, early childhood professionals can expand children’s engineering and technology experiences. By incorporating the arts as a way to communicate and display engineering and technology, our youngest learners are developing their 21st Century Skills. We need early childhood professionals to prepare environments for young children (physically, temporally, and

112

KAREN W. LINDEMAN ET AL.

interpersonally) so young children can do what they naturally do, wonder and make sense of the world around them. When young children have opportunities, like the ones described in this chapter (i.e., block building), STEAM can be realized in the early childhood setting for all children.

REFERENCES Agee, R., & Welch, M. (2012). Imagination deficit. Exchange, 206, 72–77. American Academy of Pediatrics, American Public Health Association, National Resource Center for Health and Safety in Child Care and Early Education (2011).Caring for our children: National health and safety performance standards; Guidelines for early care and education programs (3rd ed.). Elk Grove Village, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics; Washington, DC: American Public Health Association. Bers, M. U. (2008). Engineers and storytellers: Using robotic manipulatives to develop technological fluency in early childhood. In O. N. Saracho & B. Spodek (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on science and technology in early childhood education (pp. 105–125). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Bers, M. U., Ponte, I., & Juelich, C. (2002). Teachers as designers: Integrating robotics in early childhood education. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 2002(1), 123–145. Bodrova, E., & Leong, D. J. (2001). Tools of the mind: A case study of implementing the Vygotskian approach in American early childhood and primary classrooms. Geneva: International Bureau of Education. Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, Alliance for Childhood, & Teachers Resisting Unhealthy Children’s Entertainment (2012). Facing the screen dilemma: Young Children, technology and early education. Boston, MA: Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood; New York, NY: Alliance for Childhood. Cejka, E., Rogers, C., & Portsmore, M. (2006). Kindergarten robotics: Using robotics to motivate math, science, and engineering literacy in elementary school. International Journal of Engineering Education, 22(4), 711–722. Copple, C., & Bredakamp, S. (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8. Washington D.C: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Cunningham, C. M. (2009). Engineering is elementary. The Bridge, 30(3), 11–17. Cunningham, C. M., & Hester, K. (2007). Engineering is Elementary: An Engineering and Technology Curriculum for Children. Presented at the ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Honolulu, HI. Fleer, M. (2009). Supporting scientific conceptual consciousness or learning in ‘‘a roundabout way’’ in play-based contexts. International Journal of Science Education, 31(8), 1069–1089. Geist, K., Geist, E. A., & Kuznik, K. (2012). The patterns of music: Young children learning mathematics through beat, rhythm and melody. Young Children, 67(1), 74–79. Gordon, A. M., & Browne, K. W. (2011). Beginnings and beyond: Foundations in early childhood education. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

The Role of STEM or STEAM in the Early Childhood Setting

113

International Technology and Engineering Education Association (ITEEA). (2007). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author. Katehi, L., Pearson, G., & Feder, M. A. (2009). Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Katz, L. G. (2010). STEM in the early years. Early Childhood Research and Practice. Collected Papers from the SEED (STEM in Early Education and Development) Conference. Retrieved from http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/beyond/seed/index.html Leong, D. J., & Bodrova, E. (2012). Assessing and scaffolding make believe play. Young Children, 67(1), 28–34. Merriam-Webster. (2008). http://Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, (11 ed.). Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/innovative. Accessed on November 29, 2012. NAEYC & Fred Rogers Center for Early Learning and Children’s Media (2012). Technology and interactive media as tools in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8: Joint position statement. Washington DC: NAEYC; Latrobe, PA: Fred Rogers Center at St. Vincent College. Retrieved from http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/ PS_technology_WEB.pdf National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2012). Common Core State Standards. Washington DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states Parnell, W., & Bartlett, J. (2012). iDocument: How smartphones and tablets are changing documentation in preschool and primary classrooms. Young Children, 67(3), 50–57. Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2011). Framework for 21st century learning. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/1.__p21_framework_2-pager.pdf Piro, J. M. (2010). Going from STEM to STEAM: The arts have a role in America’s future too. Education Week, 29(24), 28–29. Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency, QCDA. (2010). The national curriculum: Level descriptions for subjects. Earlsdon Park, Coventry, UK: Office of Public Sector Information. Robelen, E. W. (2011). STEAM: Experts make a case for adding arts to STEM. Education Week, 31(13), 8. Rogers, F. (2003). The world according to Mr. Rogers: Important things to remember. New York, NY: Hyperion. Schauble, L., Glaser, R., Raghavan, K., & Reiner, M. (1991). Causal models and experimentation strategies in scientific reasoning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1, 201–238. Sherapan, H. (2012). From STEM to STEAM: How early childhood educators can apply Fred Roger’s approach. Young Children, 67(1), 36–40. Sneider, C., Kurlich, K., Pulos, S., & Friedman, A. (1984). Learning to control variables with model rockets: A neo-Piagetian study of learning in field settings. Science Education, 68(4), 463–484. Tarnoff, J. (2010). STEM to STEAM: Recognizing the value of creative skills in the competitive debate. Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-tarnoff/ stem-to-steam-recognizing_b_756519.html

114

KAREN W. LINDEMAN ET AL.

Van Meeteren, B., & Zan, B. (2010). Revealing the work of young engineers in early childhood education. Early Childhood Research and Practice. Collected Papers from the SEED (STEM in Early Education and Development) Conference. Retrieved from http:// ecrp.uiuc.edu/beyond/seed/zan.html Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Yakman, G. (2012). Recognizing the A in STEM education. Middle Ground, 16(1), 15–16.

CHAPTER 6 JOHN DEWEY AND REGGIO EMILIA: USING THE ARTS TO BUILD A LEARNING COMMUNITY Joy Faini Saab and Sam F. Stack Jr. ABSTRACT This study compares parallel philosophies of the work of American educator John Dewey in Art as Experience and the arts infused educational approach of the Reggio Emilia Schools of Italy. This historical and contemporary comparative, cross-cultural analysis explores educational approaches that incorporate the arts in the process of learning and the use of democratic processes in collaborative learning approaches. Data sources include primary source historical documents, field observations, interviews, and primary source educational materials. Similarities are identified across cultures and time in the examples analyzed for commonalities including arts creation as central to the processes of learning, democratic processes in collaborative project learning experiences, community involvement as an integral part of the learning processes, and imagination and communication as consistent elements in the experiences of the school. This study provides a historical and contemporary context for the cross-cultural analysis of the use of art

Learning Across the Early Childhood Curriculum Advances in Early Education and Day Care, Volume 17, 115–133 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 0270-4021/doi:10.1108/S0270-4021(2013)0000017010

115

116

JOY FAINI SAAB AND SAM F. STACK

in the learning processes as described by American educator John Dewey and the educators in the Reggio Emilia schools of Italy. Keywords: John Dewey; Reggio Emilia; art; community; imagination; communication; democracy

Lella Gandini (Gandini, Hill, Cadwell, & Schwall, 2005) notes that the Reggio Emilia Schools began during the Italian progressive movement in the 1950s. The citizens of the small community, Villa Cella, just outside the larger town of Reggio Emilia, in northern Italy, sold the accoutrements of war left behind by retreating armies (horses, tanks, and a truck) and invested this money in a project which would provide a more promising future for their children. The citizens dialogued about their dreams. Initially, the men were in favor of a theater, but the women pushed for a safe and secure early childhood center in which their children could receive a stellar education so they could return to the workforce (Barazzoni, 2000). Jerome Bruner, American psychologist, has the opinion that if it were not for the strong women of Reggio, the ‘‘Reggiana’’ (as he puts it), the Reggio approach would not have developed in the way it exists today (Reggio Children, 2005). In fact, early Reggio exhibit photos show the young mothers of Reggio Emilia (including teachers from the Reggio schools) picketing in the streets for the community support for high-quality early childhood education centers including infant and toddler centers. Loris Malaguzzi, a teacher and educational psychologist, heard about this community initiative and rode his bicycle to this town to begin providing his support for this grassroots educational movement. He grew into the recognized leader of this approach until his death in 1994. Malaguzzi worked in collaboration with the citizens of Reggio Emilia to establish the internationally recognized early childhood educational system now encompassing 31 schools. Following Malaguzzi’s death, the Reggio Children Foundation was established to carry on the work of the schools and continues to develop collaborative professional development relationships with 32 countries (Reggio Children, 2012). Malaguzzi (Edwards, Gandini, & Forman, 2012) helps us understand the importance of the environment as the third teacher, We value space because of its power to organize and promote pleasant relationships among people of different ages, create a handsome environment, provide changes, promote choices and activity, and its potential for sparking all kinds of social, affective, and cognitive learning. All of this contributes to a sense of well-being and security in

John Dewey and Reggio Emilia

117

children. We also think as it has been said that the space has to be a sort of aquarium that mirrors the ideas, values, attitudes, and cultures of the people who live within it. (p. 339)

Philosophically, the schools were influenced by numerous educational theorists and practitioners including ‘‘Freire, Dewey, Vygotsky, Bruner, Piaget, Bronfenbrenner, and Hawkins, along with the later suggestions from Kaye on the tutorial role of the adult, and Shaffer on the relationship between language and social interaction’’ (Edwards et al., 2012, p. 60). The Reggio philosophy also borrows from the disciplines of education, psychology, biology, and architecture. Gandini (Gandini et al., 2005) states, ‘‘Every child is a creative child, full of potential, with the desire and right to make meaning out of life within a context of rich relationships, in many ways, and using many languages’’ (p. 1). The educators in the Reggio approach describe the hundred languages of children as being representative of the unlimited artistic processes through which ideas can be communicated (Edwards et al., 2012). In every Reggio school, all students have access to an art studio, an atelier, and an art teacher, an atelierista. Atelieristas do not enter each classroom and present a predesigned art lesson to the group of students. Rather, these art teachers act as co-constructors of artistic expressions of the children’s ideas. Thus, when children desire to express their individual and/or group understanding through an art product, the atelierista is accessible and ready to help support this creative expression and communication (Reggio Children, 2005). Thus, these artistic products begin with the children’s experiences and develop in a spiral of increased understanding through the development of art as communication. The function of an atelier under the guidance of the atelierista is described below. It is here, with mention of connections and languages, that we come to the role and contribution of the atelier and atelierista to learning and education. The name ‘atelier,’ was chosen because they felt it was the most suitable metaphor for a place of research where imagination, rigour, experiment, creativity and expression would interweave and complete each other. The atelierista works from (but not always in) the atelier, and has an artistic but not an educational background; she is more an artist than a teacher, but works closely with teachers in schools, both engaged with processes of learning. Her contribution is to introduce y an ‘aesthetic dimension’ or ‘poetic languages’ into the learning process. (Vecchi, 2010, p. xviii)

As the identity is described on the main website for the Reggio Children Foundation (2012), this approach is ‘‘an educational philosophy based on the image of the child, and of human being, as possessing strong potentials for development and as a subject of rights who learns and grows in the relationships with others’’ (Reggio Children Website, 2012). The intricacy of

118

JOY FAINI SAAB AND SAM F. STACK

the relationship between experience and the artistic result of the expression of this experience is at the core of the processes used in the Reggio Emilia schools. The Reggio approach views art in the form of a language; a way to make use of the senses through exploration and the search for meaning. Within this context, the children learn about themselves, others, and their connection to the world around them (Gandini et al., 2005). Vea Vecchi, a former lead atelierista with many years of experience in the Reggio schools, describes this: Reggio is associated with what Carlina Rinaldi calls the ‘‘fantastic theory’’ of the hundred languages of childhood, though she goes on to add that reference to a ‘‘hundred’’ is arbitrary and chosen as a very provocative statement giving different languages not only the same dignity but also the possibility to communicate and connect with each other y. These hundred languages of children demonstrate the methods employed in Reggio schools to communicate through multimodal arts processes to the larger community about the knowledge the children are expressing. The educators accept this responsibility of supporting the children’s languages and facilitating their exhibition to the community. (Vecchi, 2010, p. xviii)

Set in the context of the environment as fertile ground for learning, these languages play an instrumental role in the processes of collaborative knowledge building, as elaborated by Vea Vecchi: We (in Reggio) consider languages as the different ways used by human beings to express themselves; visual language, mathematical language, scientific language, etc. In a conversation on the relationship between pedagogy and atelier, Claudia Giudici, pedagogista, puts it like this, ‘‘When we speak of languages we refer to the different ways children (human beings) represent, communicate and express their thinking in different media an symbolic systems; languages therefore are the many fonts or geneses of knowledge.’’ Poetic languages are forms of expression strongly characterized by expressive or aesthetic aspects such as music, song, dance or photography. (2010, p. xvii)

When considering the many modes and mediums of the arts languages, John Dewey, in Art as Experience, wrote: ‘‘I do not think that dancing and singing of our little children can be explained wholly on the basis of unlearned and informed response to then existing objective occasions’’ (Dewey, 1934/1987, p. 78). Dewey believed that art in its varied forms best exemplified the human experience. It is a tool by which young children can express themselves before they attain the skills of oral language. In essence art for Dewey is a form of language, a way to express the human experience. Dewey envisioned experience as an interaction or transaction between the individual and the environment. We act on the environment and simultaneously the environment acts on us. Dewey felt that experience was

John Dewey and Reggio Emilia

119

full of meaning. Poets, artisans, and even scientists, through their crafts, can reveal meaning in everyday experience (Ryan, 1995; Westbrook, 1991). Life, like art, is full of creative potential. Without art, Dewey suggested the ‘‘human life was brutish, a life of meaningless feelings, appetites, satisfactions and sufferings’’ (Westbrook, 1991, p. 340). Art is what makes us human, but it also links us to the surrounding environment or nature at large. Dewey wrote, ‘‘Art is the extension of the power of rites and ceremonies to unite men, through a shared deliberation, to all incidents and scenes of life. This office is the reward and seal of art. That art weds man and nature is a familiar fact. Art also renders men aware of their union with one another in origin and destiny’’ (Dewey, 1934/1987, p. 275). Through this interaction we discover the self, but also how the self is formed through experience with others. For Dewey, ‘‘the self is created in the creation of objects’’ (pp. 281–282). The self is formed through action. ‘‘Every experience is a moving force. Its value can be judged only as the ground of what moves toward and into’’ (Dewey, 1938, p. 38). Reggio educators often reference the work of John Dewey, particularly his ideas from Art as Experience, in their lectures and publications: In the early 1930s, John Dewey contributed significantly to key foundational underpinnings interpreted by Malaguzzi and colleagues. Although prolific on many aspects of education and society, it was his seminal Art as Experience (1934) that offered Malaguzzi and his colleagues another vantage point to weave within their retort to traditional education approaches. In discussing the importance of the space in which the human experience communes with the everyday, ordinary experience, Dewey’s originality marries the concept of aesthetic to experience. (Edwards et al., 2012, p. 298)

In this chapter we endeavor to look at Dewey’s philosophy of art and link its similarity to the Reggio approach. During his lifetime, Dewey was acutely interested in early childhood education, greatly influenced by his wife Alice Chipman Dewey and her own interest and personal interactions with Maria Montessori. We will explore what we see as common theory and practice with Dewey and the Reggio approach. We will do so under several conceptual headings: aesthetics and communication, imagination, community, inquiry, and democracy.

AESTHETICS AND COMMUNICATION Before introducing our four conceptual themes, we will address the concept of aesthetics and how it forms the foundation of Dewey’s philosophy of art and also a central facet of the Reggio approach. From a general

120

JOY FAINI SAAB AND SAM F. STACK

philosophical point of view, the aesthetic is that branch of philosophy that looks at the nature and character of art. These traditional forms might include poetry, music, dance, painting, puppetry, theater, and sculpture. Aesthetics also focuses on the feeling and emotion one gets through the experience one has with the art, by creating it, but also engaging and even using that creation by others. Additionally, the communicative power of the art forms and products that reflect the human experience cannot be ignored as they are so connected to the human experience. Dewey viewed art in a broader way and tried to tear down the dualism between what constituted fine art and what did not. ‘‘For Dewey, art is understood to put us into and to make us more fully aware of the richness of our relationship with life and culture, thereby rendering us more capable of informed choice and ameliorative political action’’ (Lewis, 2005, pp. 47–48). The museum concept of art which by its very nature separated art from its communicative capacity was a concern for Dewey because it created a chasm between art and human experience (Westbrook, 1991). Art was the ultimate expression of human experience and should not be conceived as merely an object or commodity. It should combine freedom of individual expression viewed as an expression of life ‘‘between the organism and its environment’’ (p. 391). Art was the means through which the individual could grow ‘‘through active engagement’’ (Goldblatt, 2006, p. 20). Reggio educators also decry this ‘‘museumizing of art’’ (Ceruti, quoted in Vecchi, 2010, p. 14), because when art is restricted to the museum, the potential of the engagement of the art form as a way of knowing is restricted. As emphasized in the Reggio approach, the children bring their world, their experiences to the classroom. They may not have the fully developed oral capacity to express themselves, but they can express themselves through art. ‘‘Art integrates self and society’’ (Goldblatt, 2006, p. 20). Art allows us to experience delight, joy, pain, understanding, and sorrow from a perspective other than our own. It is not an escape, but an engagement. Whitehead (2004) writes, ‘‘The pedagogical aesthetic envisages the student as both participant and recipient in the work of aesthetic creation. Such a process frees itself from passivity and enters the open-ended possibilities of form creation – form in its ekphrasis – its telling forth’’ (p. 202). Dewey believed that there was always a purpose to art, whether it be an object for personal use or need, or something created for one’s desire. He did not sense the clear distinction between the two like evident in the museum conception of art. These types of distinctions for Dewey could result in social class distinctions which could result in valuing one’s experience or life over another. So the creation of art becomes something

John Dewey and Reggio Emilia

121

that can combine use and appreciation. ‘‘For all art is a process of making the world a different place in which to live, and involves a phase of protest and of compensatory response’’ (Dewey, 1925/1961, p. 294). For Dewey, according to Robert Westbrook (1991) ‘‘Aesthetic experience broadly conceived, involved the immediate appreciation of things – things directly personal, enjoyed, and suffered in and of themselves’’ (Dewey, 1925/ 1961, pp. 68–69, as cited in Westbrook, 1991, p. 330). So learning in an aesthetic sense is how, through forms of communication such as art, we acquire knowledge (Whitehead, 2004). Learning in its ideal sense should be of use and enjoyable, not just mere acquisition of knowledge, but its applicability. ‘‘Art education based on Dewey’s notion of aesthetics is thus both local and potentially global. It stresses the importance of the aesthetic values that inform one’s own culture, but it also opens up a wide range of possibilities for appreciation and appropriation of the aesthetic value that informs other cultures. Art education is thus at the heart of rethinking and reconstructing one’s own culture as a response to the opening of new cultural horizons’’ (Hickman, 2009, p. 377). Furthermore, Dewey acknowledges the possibility that the communicative function of art remains once the art is created. As he describes, ‘‘In the end, the works of art are the only media of complete and unhindered communication between man and man that can occur in a world full of gulfs and walls that limit community of experience’’ (Dewey, 1934, p. 109). The primary personnel affecting the processes in the atelier, the atelierista, is a significant addition to early education programs. Vea Vecchi, atelierista, describes this: It would be truly naı¨ ve to imagine that the mere presence of an atelierista might constitute an important change in learning if the atelier culture and the pedagogical culture do not reciprocally ‘‘listen’’ to each other or are not both of quality. To introduce an atelier into a school means that materials available for children’s use will most probably increase in number, and that techniques and the formal qualities of final products will improve. Above all, however, it is an approach, the relation with things that must be activated through certain processes where the aesthetic dimension is a significant, fundamental presence y. To my mind an indispensable premise for ideas about the atelier is a reflection on the role of aesthetic dimensions in learning and education in general – and a topic deserving of deeper evaluation and understanding. The topic is a difficult one but must at least be mentioned, for among Reggio pedagogy’s most original features is an acceptance of aesthetics as one of the important dimensions in the life of our species and, therefore, also in education and in learning. While in Reggio schools the role of an aesthetic dimension can be felt immediately, the opposite is usually true and the world of education generally keeps a distance from the subject. I do not think a true

122

JOY FAINI SAAB AND SAM F. STACK

understanding of Reggio pedagogy is possible without due consideration of this issue; an issue which can be approached from various points of view and studied in different ways. (Vecchi, 2010, p. 5)

IMAGINATION Dewey did not believe the traditional teacher-text centered school fostered the child’s imagination. The traditional school separated the child from the connection between self and nature. Dewey noted that it was through its imagination that the child lived (Dewey, 1899/1976). Imagination was not some ‘‘self-contained faculty, differing from others in possession of mysterious potencies. Yet if we judge its nature from the creation of works of art, it designates a quality that animates and pervades all processes of making and observation. It is a way of seeing and feeling things as they compose an integral whole. It is the large and generous blending of interests at the point where the mind comes in contact with the world. When old and familiar things are made new in experience, there is imagination’’ (Dewey, 1934, p. 267). In other words, imagination brings together the emotions and feelings of the child in an attempt to blend mind with the real world. This is a means by which ‘‘meaning gained from previous experience can enter into a present interaction’’ (Whitehead, 2004, p. 204). Imagination stimulates possibility and is ‘‘interwoven within the texture of what is actual’’ (Dewey, 1916/1980, p. 222). Imagination is spontaneous; it cannot be directed or should not be ignored in traditional education as seen as a waste of time. ‘‘Its very essence is spontaneous,’’ Dewey wrote, ‘‘unfiltered play, controlled only by the interests, the emotions and aspiration, of the self’’ (Dewey, 1887/1975, p. 173). Imagination is captured through the arts in this way as it sets up the possibility to create, but also to reflect and problem solve which we will later address as inquiry. Imagination is central to the educational processes in the Reggio approach. An example, from Reggio preschoolers, demonstrates this celebration of the imagination. Children at La Villetta preschool had a desire to make a friendly and inviting playground environment which would encourage the birds to visit more and stay longer. They imagined what the birds needed, what they desired, and what would be an inviting surprise for them (Reggio Children, 2009). Through collaborative meetings with their teacher, the children explored their imaginations in the design, modeling, and ultimately installation of this fully developed Amusement Park for Birds (see Figs. 1 and 2).

Fig. 1. Amusement Park for Birds at La Villetta Preschool [Photo by Saab]

Fig. 2.

Amusement Park for Birds at La Villetta Preschool. [Photo by Saab]

124

JOY FAINI SAAB AND SAM F. STACK

The imaginings of the children resulted in a complex water system, food containers, shelters, imaginary clay friends for the birds, a colorful wind feature, and even a pulley system installed in a tree near a bird’s nest which could lift a baby bird back to its nest after it fell in its first attempts to fly (Reggio Children, 2009). The imagination of the child, developed before, during, and after a significant experience, is the thread that is woven throughout the processes of the Reggio approach in daily collaborative dialogues. This artistic and scientific example of a study of birds and their environments reflects the focus on arts as epistemology. Vea Vecchi describes this link, I found the same aesthetics-epistemology word pair in a recently published book on synthetic morphogenesis (‘‘The generation of simulated forms starting from algorithms and biogenetics and the generation of artificial living forms starting from recombinations of genetic information,’’ Berardi Bifo & Sarti, 2008: cover) in which nothing can be rigorously anticipated y. What we are interested in is the point where aesthetics and epistemology meet. For this reason we will look into the magnifying glass given to us by artists. {y} We must start from sensibility, from physical and conceptual perceptions, and also from the sensation of unease the intimate interweaving of things sometimes provokes in the epidemic tissue of subjectivity. (Vecchi, 2010, p. 14)

COMMUNITY Historically, the Reggio schools began through community activity when parents came together to rebuild the schools in the community following the devastation of World War II in northern Italy. The Reggio schools still emphasize strong school and community relationships. Parents continue to partner with administrators, teachers, and make full utilization of the community as providing educational experiences. World War II literally destroyed the structure of communities, but it did not destroy the spirit of community. Dewey (1916) emphasized, ‘‘men live in a community in virtue of the things they have in common; and communication is the key in which they come to possess things in common. What they must have in common in order to form a community or society are aims, beliefs, aspirations, knowledge – a common understanding – like mindedness as the sociologists say’’ (Dewey, 1916, p. 5). Dewey further noted that working toward a common end is not enough to form a community, but individuals must be ‘‘cognizant of the common end and all interested in it, so that they regulated their specific activity in view of it, then they would form a community’’ (p. 5). Communication forms the basis of community for without it there is

John Dewey and Reggio Emilia

125

no community. It is communication that can lead to transformation for Dewey and this can take various forms, art being one of the most primary. Art is an expression of the human experience and in this we learn about ‘‘the very process of living’’ (Dewey, 1934/1987, p. 30). In his most elaborate discussion of art in Art as Experience, Dewey (1934) clearly linked art to community. He did not see community as something dominated by those of just like mind with no desire to entertain those with different ideas. ‘‘Throughout his philosophy, including his work on community, he stressed the heterogeneity and diversity of human experience’’ (Mattern, 1999, p. 61). Dewey saw community in the values and beliefs that people held, ground in the good and best for all human beings. Art was a means by which we could share our ideals and ideas and our experiences. Art helps us find some commonality, ‘‘through shared experience’’ (p. 62) in a world that seems full of gulfs and walls. Art has the capacity to break the divide that seems to undermine communication, one being language itself. These divides must be breached if real community is to be formed, something Dewey refers to as the Great Community in his work The Public and Its Problems (1927). Art has the potential to open doors to experience, belief, practices and helps build community, a key concept in Dewey’s theory of democracy which will be addressed later in this chapter. Community was the foundation from which the Reggio schools developed. An example of the awareness and integration of the community in the artistic process is the story of the Theater Curtain from Diana School in Reggio Emilia (Reggio Children, 2007). The children of Diana school were intrigued with a local artist’s design on a curtain hanging in the community theater. They often visited this theater as it is situated a short walk from their school and is near the center of town. The students began imagining their own design for a theater curtain. Their teacher and atelierista, listening carefully to the children’s ideas, supported them in this endeavor. They began with collaborative discussions of what would be important enough to express in this very public communication of their ideas. The children decided that they wanted to express the important ‘‘transformation’’ events in the world around them (Reggio Children, 2007). The children began by sketching, revising, and editing drawings that represented an important transformation of which they were aware, such as a seed becoming a flower or a caterpillar becoming a butterfly. This project was continued over many months of the academic year and finished, with the assistance of the aterlierista, the parents, and a core group of six children who were passionate about the outcome. The curtain still hangs in display in a local theater (see Fig. 3) (Reggio Children, 2007).

126

JOY FAINI SAAB AND SAM F. STACK

Fig. 3.

Children’s Transformation Theater Curtain. [Photo by Saab]

ART AND INQUIRY Associated with the conception of communication is the process of inquiry. Dewey believed that through communication, human beings could share their experiences which also included their concerns and problems. In describing Dewey’s thought, Alan Ryan (1995) writes: ‘‘Life is problematic; even when we are not thinking about our sustained existence. Problem solving is the condition of organic life’’ (p. 28). Art by its natural communicative capacity is a form of interaction, an engagement, ‘‘the application of intelligence as opposed to random, disassociated thoughts or feelings; it derives from the ability to recognize relationships among elements, to create meaning’’ (Dewey, 1934, p. 45, as cited in Costantino, 2004, p. 404). It is through inquiry that we ‘‘enable people to have meaningful (educative) experience’’ and this may occur in the form of some cognitive dissonance or what Dewey termed a form of mental uncertainty (Dewey, 1933/1998, p. 12, as cited in Van Toer, Mette, & Elias, 2008, p. 48). This originates from an initial state of doubt, followed by the attempt to resolve the doubt. So in the end Dewey believes this mental uncertainty results in

John Dewey and Reggio Emilia

127

the mind applying the scientific method to the resolution of the problem. Through its communicative capacity, art served as a type of encounter that could lead to intelligence through better problem solving. It could be a form of inquiry, in essence much like a type of tool in the hands of an experienced craftsperson or artisan who actually engages and hopefully solves most of the problems faced in life. Through its communicative capacity art can stimulate inquiry hopefully leading to human beings working together to solve problems for the benefit of humankind. Of course when art becomes isolated, such as when it becomes a mere commodity, it can lose its ability to communicate and stimulate thought and inquiry. Again, this is referred to by Dewey as the museum conception of art. (Lewis, 2005, p. 135).

Goldblatt (2006) states Dewey believed students possessed ‘‘four proclivities: social instinct (the wish to communicate with others); constructive impulse (to make things); instinct for investigation (to find out); and the expressive impulse (to create)’’ (p. 25). The Reggio schools use art to foster these proclivities which can help children learn how to communicate, imagine, inquire, and create, but to also live in a democratic society and act as a responsible members of society. The parallels are seen in the Reggio approach as these educators describe their view of the inquiry process and how it manifests itself in the system of schooling, In the case of experiences and insights springing from Reggio Emilia, therefore, we can expect the ideas to flow as long as they are found to be useful to others and to help people with their own problems and issues. The educators in Reggio Emilia prefer language in which we speak or write of their experience (as opposed to their method or model), and of their experience entering into dialogue with (as opposed to instructing, improving, informing) educators in other contexts. We agree that this kind of language best conveys genuine partnership and a respect for the knowledge, wisdom, and cultural integrity embedded in the systems of meaning held by those of us educators who live in places outside Reggio who may be inspired by (as opposed to following or doing) the practice of educators in Reggio Emilia. (Edwards et al., 2012, pp. 366–367)

Inquiry occurs naturally as a responsive educator carefully observes her children and supports their natural curiosities. An example of the use of inquiry in this collaborative process approach can be found in a shadow study which grew from the children’s fascination with the shapes and sizes of the shadows being cast on the blank wall of the classroom opposite a very ornate wrought iron window covering. The children began noticing that the fancy shadow from the window covering seemed to move across the wall. The teacher, engaged in the pedagogy of listening, as described by Carlina Rinaldi (Reggio Children, 2009), created documentation of the dialogues

128

JOY FAINI SAAB AND SAM F. STACK

they had with the children about these wonderings. She provided support and scaffolding to their thinking and their observations by proposing that the children collect data about this phenomenon. The children and their teacher decided to take photos of the shadow in timed intervals that they carefully recorded for each photo, taken each hour of the day. This scientific process of visual data collection in timed intervals, successfully completed by preschoolers, exhibited their process of inquiry guided and supported in responsive methods by their teacher who served as a co-constructor of knowledge in this meaningful learning experience. Children in this approach are collaborative planners and problem solvers focusing on a meaningful phenomenon that captures their imaginations and stimulates their desire to know.

ART AND DEMOCRACY Dewey stated that, ‘‘In the end, works of art are the only media of complete and unhindered communication between man and man that can occur in the world of gulfs and walls that limited community of experience’’ (Dewey, 1978/1985, p. 110, as cited in Garrison, 2011, p. 309). He believed that ‘‘art was an integral component of democracy, not simply its individual adornment,’’ and further it offered ‘‘opportunities for revitalizing public life and for expanding the meaning and practice of democracy’’ (Mattern, 1999, p. 72). In discussing the poetry of Walt Whitman, who Dewey called the ‘‘seer of democracy,’’ Garrison (2011) points out Dewey’s commitment to ‘‘communicative, pluralistic, and participatory democracy’’ (p. 302). Art expressed at its best the complete human experience. While art alone cannot ensure that we are democratic, it can provide a forum for an engagement to transform a community and society into more democratic and humane entities. What provides the basis if for this engagement lies in the ability of art to stimulate us to communicate, inquire, imagine, and build community. This context of community has always been central to the work of the Reggio schools. Reggio educators describe their view of the foundation of their approach, y we do indeed have a solid core in our approach in Reggio Emilia that comes directly from the theories and experiences of active education and finds realization in particular images of the child, teacher, school, family, and community. Together these produce a culture and society that connect, actively and creatively, both individual and social growth. (Edwards et al., 2012, p. 60)

John Dewey and Reggio Emilia

129

This connection of community to the educational processes remains apparent in current day Reggio schools. In each international study group schedule, teachers, parents, former parents, school administrators, and town officials are all an active part of the agenda for presenting the work of the schools (Reggio Children, 2005, 2011, 2012). The current Charter of the City and Childhood Councils (Documentation and Educational Research Centre, Ed., 2003) is an example of the democratic processes active in these arts infused schools. The ideas in this collaborative document are authored by city officials, parents, and children and are further illustrated by the preschoolers’ artistic rendering of the important ideas of their communities. This living document is accentuated by the important insights of Paola Cagliari, The question is once again about the fact if school only has to transmit culture or if it can be, as we all aim at, a place where to build up culture and where to act democracy? The focus of the collaborative communities in this northern Italian town is that of ‘‘building up culture’’ and ‘‘acting democracy.’’ (Documentation and Educational Resource Centre, 2003, p. 59)

Dewey called for an association that was truly human, an association that can be enhanced through art and the sharing of human experience. Art has the capacity to break down and through barriers that can divide human beings (Dewey, 1910/1978). Dewey conceptualized democracy not as a mere form of government, but as a type of ethical association. Undergirding this form of association was what Dewey termed sympathy. ‘‘The emotion of sympathy is morally invaluable. But it functions properly when used as a principle of insight rather than of direct action’’ (Dewey, 1932/1985, p. 252). It was kind of putting ourselves in the shoes of others, trying to see things from their point of view. ‘‘Sympathy identifies others with one’s self, and at the same time distinguishes them from one’s self’’ (Dewey, 1887/1975, p. 287). So art serves for Dewey as a means to share experience beyond the self and, in itself , can serve as a means of engagement or interaction between the artist and the viewer. The use of art in the Reggio Emilia schools according to Gandini et al. (2005) involves exploration, use of the senses, and experience to seek meaning. They sense art, like Dewey did, as a form of sharing communication with the self and with others that help us make sense of the world around us. Vea Vecchi, a former atelierista and current leader with the Reggio Children Foundation, describes the need to consider the good of the community in each educational project.

130

JOY FAINI SAAB AND SAM F. STACK

y the philosophy of Reggio Emilia is convinced that education cannot be fenced off in private places, not even the most beautiful or correct individual school or network of schools, and the project for family participation is a strong, important strand in its pedagogy. Constant reminders and support for this exist in the way staff work is organized and the myriad of proposals for participation. If we do not promote an ‘‘ethical mentality’’ which includes the good of the community, social disaster is easily predictable. (Vecchi, 2010, p. 79)

This consideration for the ‘‘good of the community’’ or what Dewey might term the common good is apparent in the collaboratively designed projects created, and always documented, with the idea of communicating the essence of the learning to the community. In the early days of the Reggio schools, Loris Malaguzzi helped to direct the growth and development of the schools, and made the bold move of taking the processes of the schools to the central piazzas of the town. He believed the community should have a firsthand opportunity to become aware of the potential and value in the children’s work by witnessing it and experiencing it for themselves. This tradition has continued to this day and can be shared in events like REMIDA Day, in which the children’s aesthetic designs, incorporating free materials donated by local businesses, are displayed throughout the streets and parks and piazzas of the city (see Fig. 4).

Fig. 4.

REMIDA Materials Arranged by Color and Shape. [Photo by Saab]

John Dewey and Reggio Emilia

131

These type of community collaborations are a regular part of the Reggio approach and are regularly supported with enthusiasm and loyalty that are exhibited in the parent volunteers which continue to support the efforts of the schools long after their own children have moved on to the next level of education. As Vea Vecchi states, Although the Reggio schools were only starting on their educational journey, when you walked into them you could feel the energy, the optimism of a community working to a high degree of social and ethical awareness; awareness that over the years has taken shape in a strong common vision – to understand the peculiar qualities of which simple analysis of the ways teachers are educated and trained is not sufficient. Perhaps the social and cultural situation at the time, or maybe the words of Malaguzzi, were capable of deeply motivating the work of teaching young children which elsewhere had so little social recognition. Perhaps there was also an awareness (or a hope, or a possibility) that through our work we were contributing to different ideas of learning and knowledge to those then circulating which were so unexciting culturally. (Vecchi, 2010, p. 17)

It is clear that our current system of standards based education can be singularly focused, limited, and rigid if determined by limited assessment data designed to measure only these standards. The educators in the Reggio approach warn that this view of education can restrict our students. If teaching is monodirectional and rigidly structured according to some ‘‘science,’’ it becomes intolerable, prejudicial, and damaging to the dignity of both teacher and learner. But even when teachers assume themselves to be democratic, their behavior still is too often dominated by undemocratic teaching strategies. These include directives, ritualized procedures, systems of evaluation (which Benjamin Bloom believed should properly be guiding models of education), and rigid cognitive curriculum packages, complete with ready-made scripts and reinforcement contingencies. All of these strategies provide a professional justification for waste and suffering and at the same time create the illusion of an impressive system that reassures adults at an unthinking level. (Edwards et al., 2012, p. 57)

Evidence of democratic processes have been apparent in Reggio schools in both pedagogical processes as well as governance of the school system itself. In fact, a description of this democratic experimentation is included in the latest edition of the Hundred Languages of Children (Edwards et al., 2012): y Reggio Emilia’s educational project has been a sustained and important example of such democratic experimentalism. Indeed, Reggio itself has always emphasized democracy and experimentation as central values, which have been expressed through democratic and experimental practices. Democracy is a form of governance, at all levels. But it is much else besides; it is a way of living together and relating to others, a way of life and a form of subjectivity. Reggio

132

JOY FAINI SAAB AND SAM F. STACK

Emilia seems to me to provide many examples of the multidimensionality of democracy, in what I would term democratic learning, democratic decision making, and democratic evaluation. (p. 105)

In an era dominated by science and math initiatives largely driven by economic forces, the arts have far too often taken a lesser role in the daily life of the classroom. Dewey and Reggio practitioners seem to understand that it is through art, music, poetry, sculpture, dance, and other creative languages of children that we learn what it means to be human, and that creativity is a means by which we express and share our experiences with others, breaking down those differences such as language that can undermine our ability to communicate and the sharing of our experiences. Dewey and the Reggio practitioners understand the importance art does and should play in the lives of children as we prepare them for the responsibilities of global citizenship.

REFERENCES Barazzoni, R. (2000). Brick by brick. Reggio Emilia, Italy: Reggio Children. Costantino, T. E. (2004). Training aesthetic perception: John Dewey on the educational role of art museums. Educational Theory, 54(4), 399–417. Dewey, J. (1887/1975). Psychology. In J. Boydston (Ed.), The early works 1882–1898 (pp. 3–366). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Dewey, J. (1899/1976). School and society. In J. Boydston (Ed.), The middle works 1889–1924 (pp. 3–110). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Dewey, J. (1910/1978). Cyclopedia of education. In J. Boydston (Ed.), The middle works 1899– 1924 (pp. 376–380). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan. Dewey, J. (1916/1980). Democracy and education. In J. Boydston (Ed.), The middle works 1899–1924 (pp. 4–370). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Dewey, J. (1925/1961). Experience and nature. LaSalle, IL: Open Court. Dewey, J. (1927). The public and its problems. New York, NY: Henry Holt. Dewey, J. (1932/1985). Ethics. In J. Boydston (Ed.), The later works 1925–1953 (pp. 9–462). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Dewey, J. (1933/1998). How we think. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin. Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. New York, NY: G. P. Putnam’s Sons. Also referenced as Dewey, J. (1934/1987). In J. Boydston (Ed.), The later works 1925–1952 (pp. 1–352), Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Macmillan. Documentation and Educational Research Centre (Ed.) (2003). Charter of the city and childhood councils. Reggio Emilia, Italy: Preschools & Infant-toddler Centres of Municipality of Reggio Emilia. Edwards, C., Gandini, L., & Forman, G. (2012). The hundred languages of children (3rd ed.). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.

John Dewey and Reggio Emilia

133

Gandini, L., Hill, L., Cadwell, L., & Schwall, C. (2005). In the spirit of the studio. New York, NY: Teachers College. Garrison, J. (2011). Walt Whitman, John Dewey, and primordial artistic communication. Transactions of the Charles Pierce Society, 47(3), 301–318. Goldblatt, P. (2006). How John Dewey’s theories underpin art education. Education and Culture, 22(1), 17–34. Hickman, L. (2009). John Dewey at 150: Continuing relevance for a global milieu. Educational Theory, 59(4), 375–378. Lewis, W. S. (2005). Art or propaganda? Dewey and Adorno on the relationship between politics and art. Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 19(1), 42–54. Mattern, M. (1999). John Dewey, art, and public Life. The Journal of Politics, 61(1), 54–75. Reggio Children Website. (2012). Identity. Retrieved from http://www.reggiochildren.it/ identita/?lang¼en Reggio Children. (2005, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2012). North American Study Groups Conferences. Lecture notes, observation notes, field notes, interview notes, Reggio Emilia, Italy. Ryan, A. (1995). John Dewey and the high tide of American liberalism. New York, NY: W.W. Norton. Van Toer, E. V., Mette, T. D., & Elias, W. (2008). From obstacle to growth: Dewey’s legacy of experience based art education. Journal of Art and Design Education, 27(1), 43–52. Vecchi, V. (2010). Art and creativity in Reggio Emilia. New York, NY: Routledge. Westbrook, R. (1991). John Dewey and American democracy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. Whitehead, D. (2004). The pedagogical aesthetic and formative experience: educating or aletheic imagination in the fine arts curriculum. Journal of Visual Art Practice, 3(3), 195–208.

CHAPTER 7 TAPPING THE ARTS TO TEACH R’S: ARTS-INTEGRATED EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION Eleanor D. Brown ABSTRACT The purpose of this chapter is to examine early childhood arts education as a mechanism for achieving Dewey’s goals of active, integrated learning. The approach is to examine Settlement Music School’s Kaleidoscope Preschool Arts Enrichment Program as a model, reviewing the pedagogical approach and research on program outcomes. Findings are that music, dance, and visual arts can be used to teach skills in language, literacy, science, mathematics, and social/cultural learning. Program outcomes indicate particular benefits for children from racial/ethnic minority groups as well as those with developmental delays. Comparison research documents an overall advantage of Kaleidoscope’s arts-integrated pedagogy for vocabulary growth and emotional functioning. The research is limited in that between-child comparisons have lacked random assignment. Yet within-child experiments and between-child quasi-experiments suggest that arts-integrated education offers advantages for the ‘‘whole child.’’ Practical implications include that early childhood professionals may use the arts to facilitate multimodal learning and emotion regulation, as well as bridge the gap that often separates home from school for children

Learning Across the Early Childhood Curriculum Advances in Early Education and Day Care, Volume 17, 135–151 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 0270-4021/doi:10.1108/S0270-4021(2013)0000017011

135

136

ELEANOR D. BROWN

from racial and ethnic minority backgrounds. A social implication is that, although the arts are often viewed as supplemental, they can provide mechanisms for the development of skills in core early learning domains. Additionally, arts integration may offer solutions to the challenges faced by learners from diverse backgrounds and with diverse needs. This chapter makes an original and valuable contribution by reviewing both pedagogy and research from Kaleidoscope, providing a compelling model of how Dewey’s goals of active, integrated learning may be realized. Keywords: Child; early childhood; education; arts; arts enrichment

Rafael sat on the side of the room with his knees pulled up to his chin and arms wrapped around them. He rocked back and forth, seemingly numb to his surroundings, and perhaps for good reason. Rafael and his mother, a Spanish speaking Mexican immigrant, had been living with his uncle for the past year since Rafael’s father died of a heart attack the year before. They had been struggling already to find stability when Rafael’s uncle was shot on a street corner at the start of the school year. Laden with grief and anger and threatened with homelessness, Rafael’s family was now living in chaos. Each day, the teachers looked into Rafael’s glazed over eyes and pulled for words that did not come. Yet one day, as the teacher invited the children one by one to come and say their names as their hands beat the big djembe drum, Rafael stood and joined the circle. He waited for his turn and then said his name as his hands drummed the beats. Rafael had started preschool a month before, but one might say he showed up for the first time this day. Gradually, Rafael began to participate in all of the class activities. But his engagement and expression remained highest in music, dance, and visual arts. John Dewey probably would not have been surprised by Rafael’s educational experiences. Dewey claimed that ‘‘Art is the most effective mode of communication that exists’’ (1934, p. 219) and Rafael’s interest in the djembe drum might have been predicted by Dewey’s argument that ‘‘if knowledge comes from the impressions made upon us by natural objects, it is impossible to procure knowledge without the use of objects which impress the mind’’ (1916, pp. 217–218). Indeed, although Dewey wrote in the context of the early 1900s, his teachings continue to be relevant to education in the 21st century, as current issues such as economic hardship, family instability and chaos, and cultural and linguistic diversity critically challenge children’s emotions and learning.

Arts-Integrated Early Childhood Education

137

In this chapter, I examine early childhood arts education as a mechanism for achieving Dewey’s goals of active, integrated learning by examining theoretical as well as empirical tenets that support the use of arts-integrated learning to address present issues in early childhood education. I examine Settlement Music School’s Kaleidoscope Preschool Arts Enrichment Program as a model, and consider how music, dance, and visual arts can be used to teach skills in core early childhood domains. Finally, I review our lab’s research on program outcomes of Kaleidoscope. This research suggests that arts-integrated experiential education may provide advantages in school readiness and promote equal opportunities for children from diverse backgrounds and with diverse needs. As Dewey notes in Experience and Education, ‘‘Give the pupils something to do, not something to learn; and the doing is of such a nature as to demand thinking; learning naturally results’’ (1938, p. 181).

THE ARTS IN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION Dewey recognized the value of the arts, stating in Art as Experience, ‘‘Works of art are the most intimate and energetic means of aiding individuals to share in the arts of living’’ (1934, p. 336); he proposed the integration of music, dance, and visual arts with reading, writing, arithmetic, science, and social studies. Indeed, children hold a natural interest in the arts, and an arts-integrated environment may provide a fertile ground for cultivating connections with subject matter in core school readiness domains. To some extent, early childhood educators include the arts as standard practice, and the arts occupy a particularly important role in a few models such as Reggio Emilia (Lee Nardo, Custodero, Persellin, & Fox, 2006). Yet arts-integrated pedagogy is limited in most school programs (see Bresler, 1995, on models of arts integration). Lee Nardo et al.’s (2006) study of teachers in NAEYC-accredited preschools revealed that arts components such as music were typically used for a small amount of time each day, and primarily to enrich the classroom environment. Full integration of the arts is particularly rare in programs that serve children at risk for educational difficulties. Concomitantly, artsintegrated pedagogy may hold the potential to realize Dewey’s goal of engaging children in meaningful learning as opposed to rote training and address current educational challenges such as how to promote accessibility for children with developmental difficulties; inclusivity for children from diverse racial/ethnic backgrounds; and development of social-emotional skills for children facing stressors related to poverty, racism, and family instability and chaos. Ultimately, arts-integrated pedagogy may further Dewey’s goal of

138

ELEANOR D. BROWN

education as a vehicle for social change by providing equal educational opportunities for children from diverse backgrounds and with diverse needs.

Accessibility for Children with Developmental Difficulties Dewey argued that we all learn best when our entire bodies are engaged and events are registered by multiple senses. The multiple modes of learning provided by the arts may be particularly important for children with developmental delays, including but not limited to those related to poverty. The accessibility of education depends on providing opportunities for children of different developmental levels to engage meaningfully and experience success; music, creative movement, and visual arts instruction may provide these opportunities (Darby & Catterall, 1994; Eisner, 1998). In particular, a combination of verbal and nonverbal means for expressing and realizing knowledge may make the classroom more accessible to students with language delays, as well as for English language learners (Gregoire & Lupinetti, 2005).

Inclusivity for Children from Diverse Racial/Ethnic Backgrounds Dewey argued that in order for education to be most effective, content must be presented in a way that allows the student to relate the information to prior experiences, and suggested that school should be a carefully crafted extension of a child’s home life. This argument suggests the particular importance of arts-integrated learning for children from racial and ethnic minority backgrounds. Indeed, the arts hold a central position in the cultural backgrounds of most racial and ethnic minority groups. Learning through the arts may help children from diverse backgrounds to bring their individual realities into the classroom (Allen & Boykin, 1992; Griffin & Miller, 2008; Young, 1990), thereby bridging the gap that separates home from school and furthering Dewey’s ideal of bringing meaning to education.

Development of Social-Emotional Skills for Children Facing Environmental Stressors Dewey stressed that the content students learned in school should be secondary to their process of learning how to live, and their development of the habits of heart and mind necessary for democratic citizenship, such as willingness to

Arts-Integrated Early Childhood Education

139

cooperate, share in decision-making, work perseveringly, and serve the community. Were present day constructs imposed on his ideas, we might conclude that Dewey would have wanted all children to acquire a social-emotional skillset necessary for successful participation in formal schooling and a democratic society. Current social forces, however, particularly threaten the development of this skillset, as poverty, racism, and growing levels of family instability and chaos, all relate to social-emotional challenges for young children (Evans & Wachs, 2010). Arts-integrated education may offer a solution. When integrated into educational settings, music, creative movement, and visual arts can give children appropriate means for expressing emotions in school and teach important emotion regulation strategies. For example, in music, young children might learn concrete strategies such as that various songs elicit different emotions and thus can be used to change the way one feels. Also, in creative movement, children might learn that moving creatively can be used to release bodily tension. Emotional benefits of the arts include increases in motivation and self-esteem (Trusty & Olivia, 1994). Additionally, research suggests that participation in the arts may increase sociability and interpersonal skills, and decrease behavioral and emotional problems (Wright, Alaggia, & Sheel, 2006). Lobo and Winsler (2006) randomly assigned preschool children from a large Head Start program to either an experimental dance or attention control group. Participation in the experimental dance program related to greater positive changes with regard to social competence and internalizing and externalizing behavior problems, as rated by parents and teachers, who were blind to children’s group assignment. Although the design did not identify mechanisms of effect, one possibility is that dance and other art forms provide children with positive outlets for their emotional energy. This explanation would be supported by Dewey’s idea that children cannot so much be directed, as redirected. Arts-integrated environments may be ideal for redirecting the negative emotions stimulated by environmental stressors and helping children to develop the social-emotional skills required for academic success and democratic citizenship.

Social Change Dewey conceptualized education as playing a critical role in constructing and shaping society. In contrast to a traditional view of schools as conduits to feed the needs of the existing society, Dewey viewed the educational system as one that should be designed to promote social progress. That arts-integrated

140

ELEANOR D. BROWN

learning might promote accessibility and inclusivity, therefore accords with Dewey’s conceptualization of education as a vehicle for social change. I highlight Settlement Music School’s Kaleidoscope Preschool Arts Enrichment Program because it is the only program I know that uses a fully integrated model of arts enrichment to serve economically disadvantaged children at risk for school difficulties. The Kaleidoscope model provides a unique window into the possibilities for using arts integration to further Dewey’s goals of active, experiential education, and creating social change. Arts-integrated pedagogy may engender social progress particularly by equalizing educational opportunities for children from diverse backgrounds and with diverse needs.

SETTLEMENT MUSIC SCHOOL’S KALEIDOSCOPE PRESCHOOL ARTS ENRICHMENT PROGRAM In 1896, Dewey opened a laboratory school in Chicago in order to conduct an educational experiment that would successfully challenge conventional attitudes about childhood education, including the notion that the ‘‘R’s’’ must be taught through rote exercises. Nearly a hundred years later, Settlement Music School launched Kaleidoscope Preschool to conduct their own experiment and discover whether the arts might be tapped to teach the ‘‘R’s’’ to young children at risk. In Art as Experience, Dewey (1934) shifts the focus of art process from the works of art that are created to the development of an experience. Similarly, the founders of Kaleidoscope shifted their focus from training children to create art, to using the art process to provide varied channels for acquiring school readiness skills. In particular, the founders expected that children from racial and ethnic minority backgrounds might benefit from the cultural relevance of arts education, and that those showing poverty-related developmental difficulties might benefit from multiple modes of learning. Since its start, Kaleidoscope has offered preschool education that includes a daily schedule of early learning classes taught by credentialed early childhood educators, as well as music, creative movement, and visual arts classes, used to teach core school readiness skills. Since the mid-1990s, Kaleidoscope has served as a Head Start site and has received accreditation through the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). The process through which the arts classes provide opportunities for growth in school readiness skills has been standardized in order to meet Head Start performance goals. The daily

Arts-Integrated Early Childhood Education

141

schedule is built around multiple early learning and arts class periods which are structured to incorporate various cultural traditions and opportunities for personal expression, and integrated to promote skill development in core early childhood domains. The curriculum is guided by early learning themes and traditional early learning domain outcomes. Pedagogical examples from Kaleidoscope demonstrate the potential for an arts-integrated embodiment of Dewey’s experiential education ideals to address 21st century social challenges.

PEDAGOGICAL EXAMPLES FROM KALEIDOSCOPE Arts-Integrated Experiential Education In a sophisticated realization of Dewey’s goals of active, integrated education, Kaleidoscope successfully taps the arts to foster skill development in core school readiness domains. In the month of November, for example, the early learning theme relates to ‘‘Groups and Change’’ and a strategy that teachers employ is ‘‘Experimentation.’’ One week, in music, children experiment with sound through echo imitation in the stairwell and exploring the different types of sounds musical instruments make. Then they experiment with grouping voice and instrumental sounds by pitch and other categories. In dance, children experiment with the different ways a particular body part can move and then categorize the movements along dimensions such as speed and emotion. In visual arts, they experiment with print making using natural materials. They take a nature walk to collect materials and group them by categories such as texture. In all of these classes, children build not only science skills related to experimentation, but also language, literacy, mathematics, and social and cultural learning competencies, for example, language and literacy skills by building vocabulary related to sound, movement, and nature. These examples from Kaleidoscope reflect Dewey’s notion that schools can capitalize on children’s natural interest in experimentation in order to develop advanced research and information literacy skills. They also demonstrate the type of experiential education that allows children at varied developmental levels to ‘‘hook-in’’ and participate meaningfully.

Building Bridges from Home to School Like most Head Start programs, Kaleidoscope incorporates varied cultural traditions in ways that help to realize Dewey’s goal of extending children’s

142

ELEANOR D. BROWN

home environments into the classroom. Kaleidoscope is unique, however, in using multiple arts as well as early learning classes to accomplish this goal, and thus provides distinctive opportunities for inclusivity and plurality. For example, in autumn, Indian cultural traditions are included as children learn about Diwali, the Hindi ‘‘festival of lights.’’ At Kaleidoscope, children develop language and literacy skills such as vocabulary by learning Hindi vocabulary words in early learning classes; writing prerequisites by copying Indian mandala designs in visual arts; and reading prerequisites by following Indian song-stories in music and dance, singing and moving in response to pictorial cues. To develop math skills, children learn about patterns by repeating their mandala designs with variation in visual arts, as well as clapping and moving to the beat in music and dance. In this way, core school readiness skills are practiced through multiple modes of learning, and children from varied cultural backgrounds have opportunities to see their individual realities reflected and celebrated in the classroom, fostering pride and engagement.

Developing Social-Emotional Skills In accordance with Dewey’s interest in teaching students how to live, the Kaleidoscope curricular model may particularly benefit children’s socialemotional growth because of the opportunities for emotion expression and regulation afforded by the arts. For the theme of self-expression, for instance, a typical Head Start program might give children opportunities to practice labeling facial expressions of emotions as well as express themselves through creating journals in regular early learning classes. At Kaleidoscope, children additionally receive opportunities to explore the theme in arts classes. The visual arts class allows children to express themselves through media such as painting or collage, for example, as well as discuss how pieces of visual art make them feel. In music, children use their voices and other instruments to reproduce sounds that humans and other animals make to express emotions. Also, in dance, children use creative movement to perform different emotions for their classmates to identify. In the various arts classes, children participate in guided exploration of how to use sound, movement, and visual media, respectively, to express and change their emotional state. The arts thereby provide exceptional opportunities for redirecting children’s negative emotions in the service of successful community participation and learning.

Arts-Integrated Early Childhood Education

143

RESEARCH ON KALEIDOSCOPE’S PROGRAM OUTCOMES Dewey almost certainly would have argued that standardized assessments are problematic in their inability to fully capture the transformations that occur when students’ hearts and minds are meaningfully engaged in an active, integrated educational environment. As he stated in Democracy and Education, ‘‘Were all instructors to realize that the quality of mental process, not the production of correct answers, is the measure of educative growth something hardly less than a revolution in teaching would be worked’’ (1916, p. 207). Yet in an era marked by mounting pressure to document pedagogical effectiveness via test scores, progressive educators at all levels must take an interest in the measurable program outcomes of active, integrated educational environments. Several years ago I set out to investigate outcomes of Kaleidoscope’s arts-integrated program, and several studies have since been conducted by my lab. Research from my lab reveals the success of the Kaleidoscope curricular model for cultivating the development of school readiness skills via arts integration. The studies my colleagues and I have conducted provide support for the idea that an arts-integrated curriculum particularly benefits children at risk for school problems, including those with developmental delays, those from racial and ethnic minority backgrounds, and those with the types of social-emotional challenges that often result from environmental stressors related to poverty, racism, and family instability and chaos. Moreover, the results of the research suggest that children participating in Kaleidoscope’s arts-integrated program outperform their peers with regard to school readiness and social-emotional functioning. This implies that arts-integrated pedagogy may provide not only a successful mechanism for realizing Dewey’s goals of an active, integrated curriculum but also an innovative solution to present day challenges related to the education of young children at risk. In the following subsections I detail my lab’s studies on school readiness and social-emotional functioning as well as discuss limitations and future directions for research on arts-integrated pedagogy. School Readiness within Kaleidoscope In an initial study, Brown, Benedett, and Armistead (2010) used Kaleidoscope’s curriculum-based checklists to assess whether the arts classes were used successfully to advance the development of core school readiness skills. The

144

ELEANOR D. BROWN

checklists corresponded to each class in the daily schedule: early learning, music, creative movement, and visual arts. Each checklist included items tapping traditional early learning content areas: language, literacy, mathematics, science, and social and cultural learning. Specific items, however, differed depending on what class the checklist corresponded to. In the mathematics area, for example, the early learning checklist included items such as ‘‘forms a three-part pattern,’’ the music checklist included ‘‘alternates claps and pats with beat,’’ the creative movement checklist included ‘‘moves with the musical beat,’’ and the visual arts checklist included ‘‘repeats a subject with variation.’’ These examples reflect the varied ways that teachers intended for children to practice mathematics skills through early learning and arts classes. Because each teacher observed children only in the class he or she taught – early learning, music, creative movement, or visual arts – the ratings could be completed only if children practiced target skills in all classes as intended. The research found that, indeed, children were practicing skills in the targeted core early learning domains via their arts classes. In addition, we found a notable pattern of growth with regard to children’s achievement, as measured by the checklists. I will highlight here three key results. First, a quasi-experimental design compared end-of-attendance achievement for children with one year versus two years of program attendance. We used an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with age as a covariate. We found the expected dose–response relationship: Children with two years of Kaleidoscope participation showed greater end-of-attendance achievement than their peers with just one year of program attendance. This suggested that growth in the targeted school readiness skills could not be attributed to maturation or typical early childhood experiences alone, but rather related specifically to participation in this arts-integrated program. Second, results of hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) supported the cultural relevance of arts-integrated pedagogy: Even within Head Start preschools, an achievement gap typically separates children from racial and ethnic minority backgrounds from their majority group peers at program entry and exit, but this gap was not found at Kaleidoscope, where children from minority racial and ethnic groups showed achievement equal to their majority group peers. This suggests that something about Kaleidoscope’s arts-integrated model provides an advantage compared to typical preschool programming for low-income children from racial and ethnic minority backgrounds better allowing them to demonstrate what they know and make achievement gains. Third, HLM results also suggested the accessibility of arts-integrated pedagogy for children with developmental delays. As expected, these

Arts-Integrated Early Childhood Education

145

children showed lower initial achievement than their typically functioning peers. However, they demonstrated equal growth over the year. This implies that the arts-integrated curriculum allowed children of varied developmental levels to engage meaningfully and make achievement gains. These findings for achievement within Kaleidoscope motivated a comparison study which I will also describe.

School Readiness at Kaleidoscope versus an Alternative Brown et al. (2010) compared children attending Settlement Music School’s Kaleidoscope Preschool Arts Enrichment Program to those attending a nearby alternative on receptive vocabulary, a well-documented predictor of school success. Both preschools were Head Start sites and were accredited by NAEYC. Also, both used the Creative Curriculum (Dodge & Colker, 1992) which is used by many Head Start programs. Children attending both preschools participated in the arts in their early learning classes in ways that would be typical in most Head Start programs, for example, by drawing pictures and singing songs. Only at Kaleidoscope, however, did children participate in daily music, creative movement, and visual arts classes; and these classes were uniquely structured to teach skills in language, literacy, math, science, and social and cultural learning. Using a quasi-experimental design, Brown et al. (2010) compared children’s receptive vocabulary at start- and end-of-year and found that children at Kaleidoscope showed similar start-of-year scores but significantly higher end-of-year scores. Specifically, on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Third Edition (PPVT-III; Dunn & Dunn, 1997), children at Kaleidoscope began the year with a mean standardized score of 80.68 (SD=11.12) and ended the year with a mean of 95.43 (14.03); whereas children at the alternative began at 76.92 (15.26) and ended at 81.35 (12.82). An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) showed that, controlling for start-ofyear vocabulary, preschool type predicted the end-of-year scores. These findings suggest the arts may offer an important school readiness advantage for children at risk.

Social-Emotional Functioning A national spotlight has recently focused on the importance of socialemotional skills for children’s ‘‘readiness to learn’’ (Raver & Knitzer, 2002),

146

ELEANOR D. BROWN

and, with this in mind, Brown and Sax (2013) studied the impact of arts integration on social-emotional functioning for children attending Kaleidoscope. I will highlight three key results. First, within Kaleidoscope, a dependent samples t-test revealed that children showed significantly more observed positive emotions such as interest, happiness, and pride (t(152)=3.94, po.001) in music, dance, and visual arts classes (M=4.35, SD=.60), as compared to traditional early learning classes (M=3.95, SD=1.26). Second, a multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) indicated that children at Kaleidoscope showed significantly (F(1, 177)= 155.20, po.001) greater levels of overall observed positive emotions (M=4.25, SD=.61) than peers attending a comparison preschool that did not include full integration of the arts (M=2.64, SD=.77). These results suggest that an arts-integrated curriculum may stimulate the types of positive emotions that foster engagement, learning, and pro-social behavior. Third, across the school year, children at Kaleidoscope showed greater growth in teacher-rated levels of positive and negative emotion regulation. Specifically, for positive emotion regulation skills, children at Kaleidoscope improved from a fall mean of 14.13 (SD=4.07) to a spring mean of 20.24 (10.33) and those at the alternative actually declined from a fall mean of 13.52 (2.68) to a spring mean of 12.32 (2.27). For negative emotion regulation problems, children at Kaleidoscope improved from a fall mean of 29.01 (8.88) to 18.90 (9.17); whereas those at the alternative showed a lesser decline in problems from fall (M=27.03, SD=6.82) to spring (M=25.23, SD=6.72). A repeated measures MANCOVA found that the difference in growth between preschools was significant, even after controlling for sample demographics. This matched hypotheses that integrated arts activities would provide children with appropriate outlets for their emotions and foster the development of emotion regulation skills. The implication is that an integrated arts curriculum has the potential to promote not only skill development in core pre-academic domains but also social-emotional readiness to learn.

Limitations and Future Directions The results discussed here, which show an advantage of arts integration for children’s school readiness and social-emotional functioning, are specific to Settlement Music School’s Kaleidoscope Preschool Arts Enrichment Program. The focus on Kaleidoscope is important, particularly because this is the only preschool I know of that uses the arts in such a full, structured, and intentional way to educate young children at risk. Kaleidoscope’s model

Arts-Integrated Early Childhood Education

147

provides an excellent test of the potential for an arts-integrated embodiment of Dewey’s ideals to address key challenges facing our present day educational system. Still, the results may not apply to programs that integrate the arts in other ways or serve other populations. The comparison studies also suffer from the limitations associated with quasi-experimental designs. In particular, although preschools and participants were matched on key demographics, children were not randomly assigned to preschool type. Future studies with random assignment to preschool type would be important for making definitive claims. Future research should build on the studies by Brown and colleagues to further explore the benefits of arts-based curriculum as a mechanism for achieving Dewey’s goals of active, integrated learning. Two investigations currently underway in my lab will be useful in this regard. One is a comparison study that examines multiple indicators of school readiness. Preliminary findings suggest that the advantages of Kaleidoscope extend beyond receptive vocabulary and include a variety of pre-literacy, pre-math, and pre-science skills. Another study in progress examines the impact of arts programming on the stress hormone cortisol. Preliminary findings suggest that the effects of arts-integrated learning can be documented on a biological level. Specifically, arts-integrated pedagogy seems to mitigate the effects of poverty-related stressors on children’s physiological health, with important implications for their education and overall well-being. Although Dewey perhaps would not have been surprised, I believe he would have been pleased that arts-integrated curricula designed to engage children’s hearts and minds would have a demonstrable impact on human biology.

CONCLUSIONS Within a few years of starting his lab school in Chicago, Dewey listed a set of guiding principles that would guide progressive educators for years to come. These principles have been put into exemplary and unique practice through the arts-integrated curriculum developed through Settlement Music School’s Kaleidoscope Preschool. For example, Dewey suggested that students begin learning through experimentation and develop interests in traditional subjects to help them gather information. At Kaleidoscope, children experiment with various artistic media and gain language, literacy, mathematics, science, social, and cultural learning skills as they pursue their natural curiosity. Dewey believed that students are part of a social group in

148

ELEANOR D. BROWN

which everyone learns to help each other, and, indeed, at Kaleidoscope, social endeavors in music, dance, and visual arts require classmates to work together to accomplish common goals such as creating a mural, interpretive dance, or song with vocal and instrumental parts. Dewey articulated that students should be challenged to use their creativity to arrive at individual solutions to problems, and children at Kaleidoscope accept such challenges daily as they experiment to find out what materials, for example, will allow them to achieve a desired effect of a tree they want to construct in visual arts, and discover not just one but many elegant solutions. Furthermore, Dewey articulated his belief that the child, not the lesson, should be the center of the teacher’s attention – that each child has individual strengths that should be cultivated and grown. This principle is enacted seamlessly through the arts programming at Kaleidoscope as children are nurtured to bring their individual realities into the classroom and hook into the curriculum in accordance with their unique interests and competencies. In Dewey’s lab school, we might have seen vibrant communities of children working on practical projects of cooking or construction, intentionally arranged to promote skill development in mathematics, science, or moral learning. At Kaleidoscope, the communities of children would be similarly vibrant, but working on artistic endeavors of creating music, dance, or perhaps a sculpture of a boat in visual arts that would later be used in socio-dramatic play. Anecdotes from Dewey’s school include descriptions of building connections not only within the classroom but also with activities in the community; for example, a school trip to a farm which inspires the children to later enact in the classroom the activities of a grocery store where food from a farm might be sold. With this in mind, I include the following scenario from Kaleidoscope. As an October chill bites the air, children at Kaleidoscope pull jackets and sweatshirts on and follow Miss Martha, the music teacher, outside for a ‘‘listening walk.’’ ‘‘Shhh y’’ Miss Martha reminds them, ‘‘Be as quiet as you can. Listen to all the sounds you hear.’’ With the exception of a stray word or sniffle here or there, the children are remarkably silent, listening; some with heads tilted toward the sounds they are trying to discern. Their silence on the walk is in striking contrast to their effervescent chattering when they return to the classroom and try to describe what they have heard. Miss Martha makes a chart on poster paper, noting the sounds children heard and asking them to draw connections to other sounds and instruments. In an extension of this exercise, children attempt to match the sounds from the nature walk with instruments they create from objects collected on a prior excursion, such as stones, leaves, nut shells, acorns,

Arts-Integrated Early Childhood Education

149

seeds, and small pebbles, and place these in a container to rattle. They form hypotheses about the sounds their instruments will make. It is both irrelevant and at the same time important that these children are from impoverished and low-income families. Although they live a short bus ride away, most have never enjoyed the experiential education afforded by Philadelphia’s Please Touch Museum or the Franklin Institute Science Museum. Some of them suffer from a paucity of stimulation at home, where television and electricity have been cut off. An even greater number face disruptive levels of chaos, with a television that is never turned off or parental figures who fight late into the night. Some have never heard English at home. Most have heard gun shots; it even happens during the school day occasionally. All are slotted to attend elementary schools where their individual realities will be far removed from the core content that will be taught. If Dewey could listen and watch as the children conduct experiments to see if the sounds produced by their ‘‘do it yourself’’ instruments match those they heard on the listening walk, he might be pleased with this 21st century embodiment of his model of progressive education. He might agree that the arts-integrated pedagogy at Settlement Music School’s Kaleidoscope Preschool achieves his core aims in a manner that is well suited to address key current challenges related to inclusivity for children from varied racial and ethnic backgrounds, accessibility for children with developmental difficulties, and social-emotional skill development for children facing environmental stressors related to poverty, racism, and family instability and chaos. As these children at risk for school failure enter an early childhood environment where their hearts and minds are engaged, and outgrow their peers with regard to traditional measures of school readiness as well as newer indicators of social-emotional functioning that tap important aspects of democratic citizenship, I believe that Dewey would be optimistic about the potential for this arts-integrated instantiation of his ideals to promote social change. In Democracy and Education, he insists: Democracy cannot flourish where the chief influences in selecting subject matter of instruction are utilitarian ends narrowly conceived for the masses, and, for the higher education of the few, the traditions of a specialized cultivated class. The notion that the ‘‘essentials’’ of elementary education are the three R’s mechanically treated, is based upon ignorance of the essentials needed for realization of democratic ideals. Unconsciously, it assumes that these ideals are unrealizable y. (1916, p. 200)

The research from my lab supports the notion, that Settlement Music School’s Kaleidoscope Preschool has successfully tapped the arts to teach

150

ELEANOR D. BROWN

the R’s, and perhaps more importantly, to teach children at risk how to learn, and how to live. This model demonstrates that arts-integrated pedagogy can be implemented to realize the ideals of Dewey’s progressive education movement and of a democratic society.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to thank the families, teachers, and staff who contributed the research included in this chapter. I especially appreciate the contributions of Tarrell Davis, Director of Early Childhood Programming at Settlement Music School’s Kaleidoscope Preschool. I also wish to thank my former graduate students Mallory Garnett and Blanca Velazquez, and the many undergraduate student research assistants who have contributed to the West Chester University Early Childhood Cognition and Emotions Lab (ECCEL).

REFERENCES Allen, B. A., & Boykin, A. W. (1992). African-American children and the educational process: Alleviating cultural discontinuity through prescriptive pedagogy. School Psychology Review, 21, 586–596. Bresler, L. (1995). The subservient, coequal, affective, and social integration styles and their implications for the arts. Arts Education Policy Review, 96, 31–37. Brown, E. D., Benedett, B., & Armistead, M. E. (2010). Arts enrichment and school readiness for children at risk. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25, 112–124. Brown, E. D., & Sax, K. L. (2013). Arts enrichment and preschool emotions for low-income children at risk. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28, 337–346. Darby, J. T., & Catterall, J. S. (1994). The fourth R: The arts and learning. Teachers College Record, 96, 299–328. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York, NY: Macmillan. Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. New York, NY: Penguin. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Macmillan. Dodge, D. T., & Colker, L. J. (1992). Creative curriculum for early childhood. Washington, DC: Teaching Strategies, Inc. Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1997). Peabody picture vocabulary test, 3rd ed.: Manual. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. Eisner, E. (1998). Does experience in the arts boost academic achievement? Arts Education Policy Review, 100, 32–39. Evans, G. W., & Wachs, T. D. (Eds.). (2010). Chaos and its influence on children’s development: An ecological perspective. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Gregoire, M. A., & Lupinetti, J. (2005). Supporting diversity through the arts. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 41, 159–162.

Arts-Integrated Early Childhood Education

151

Griffin, J. P., & Miller, E. (2008). A research practitioner’s perspective on culturally relevant prevention: Scientific and practical considerations for community based programs. The Counseling Psychologist, 35, 850–859. Lee Nardo, R., Custodero, L. A., Persellin, D. C., & Fox, D. B. (2006). Looking back, looking forward: A report on early childhood music education in accredited American preschools. Journal of Research in Music Education, 54, 278–292. Lobo, Y., & Winsler, A. (2006). The effects of creative dance and movement program on the social competence of head start preschoolers. Social Development, 15, 501–519. Raver, C. C., & Knitzer, J. (2002). Ready to enter: What research tells policymakers about strategies to promote social and emotional school readiness among three- and four-year-old children. New York, NY: National Center for Children in Poverty, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health. Trusty, J., & Olivia, G. (1994). The effects of arts and music education on students’ self-concept. Update. Applications of Research in Music Education, 13, 23–28. Wright, R., John, L., Alaggia, R., & Sheel, J. (2006). Community-based arts program for youth in low-income communities: A multi-method evaluation. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 23, 635–652. Young, B. (1990). Art, culture, and ethnicity. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.

CHAPTER 8 INTEGRATING EARLY LITERACY AND OTHER CONTENT CURRICULUM IN AN ERA OF INCREASED ACCOUNTABILITY: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Elizabeth Anderson and Nicole Fenty ABSTRACT From John Dewey to Herbert Kohl, many theorists and practitioners have explored the use of a developmentalist model as a way to harness the natural instincts and interests of young children to foster meaningful learning. Yet, the concept of meaningful learning in early childhood education today is quickly shifting away from the developmentalist model and its emphasis on authentic learning, toward a social-efficiency model that emphasizes the use of state curriculum standards, standardized assessments, and evidence-based instructional approaches. As the early childhood curriculum pendulum swings, early childhood programs find themselves at risk for becoming more ‘‘business like’’ and less representative of the kind of reflective and risk-taking environments

Learning Across the Early Childhood Curriculum Advances in Early Education and Day Care, Volume 17, 153–177 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 0270-4021/doi:10.1108/S0270-4021(2013)0000017012

153

154

ELIZABETH ANDERSON AND NICOLE FENTY

Dewey envisioned leaving educators struggling to use child-centered practices in an era of increased accountability. Considering some of the significant challenges facing early childhood programs and educators, it is critically important for the field of early childhood to begin examining the ways in which the curriculum and instructional procedures being utilized may, or may not, be illustrative of Dewey’s vision of active, dynamic, and integrated early learning experiences and, to what degree. One way to promote meaningful instructional integration is to consider the natural connections that exist across content areas. A logical beginning is to use literacy as an anchor for meaningful learning across the preschool curriculum. In this chapter the authors engage in a review of the literature as it relates to the integration of early literacy and content curriculum and discuss implications for future practice. Keywords: Early childhood education; literacy; content curriculum; learning standards; authentic learning

From John Dewey to Herbert Kohl, many theorists and practitioners have explored the use of a developmentalist model as a way to harness the natural instincts and interests of children to foster meaningful learning. Yet, the concept of meaningful learning in early childhood today appears to be shifting away the developmentalist model and its emphasis on authentic learning toward a social-efficiency model that emphasizes state curriculum standards, standardized assessments, and evidence-based instructional approaches. The implementation of standards-based accountability reforms that in some states include Pre-Kindergarten Common Core Standards is creating a new set of challenges for early childhood programs and educators (Brown, 2011). As the early childhood curriculum pendulum swings, early childhood programs find themselves at risk for becoming more ‘‘business like’’ and less representative of the kind of reflective and risk-taking learning environments that Dewey envisioned. At the same time, early childhood educators find themselves at risk for becoming increasingly concerned with meeting new requirements for curriculum standards, assessment practices, and instructional approaches that are less representative of child-centered practices. The result is a growing tension between providing the integrated and authentic learning experiences Dewey envisioned and implementing higher learning standards, creating an urgent need to reexamine current approaches to professional preparation.

Integrating Early Literacy and Other Content Curriculum

155

DEWEY’S VISION In the reflective and risk-taking learning environments that Dewey envisioned, children engage in curricular activities that center on problem solving. The primary purpose of learning is not to force children to acquire knowledge for the sake of acquiring knowledge, but to acquire knowledge as a way to satisfy their own purposes or natural curiosities. According to Dewey (1990), the key curricular principles that should guide learning objectives are (1) to motivate learning through physical activity, (2) to create opportunities and occasions for the meaningful use of literacy, (3) to support written expression and numeracy, and (4) to reduce the amount of time spent learning new concepts due to a higher degree of meaningfulness. In these environments, learning is recognized for its value in the present, not its value in the future. As a developmentalist, Dewey also emphasized the importance of the teacher’s role in facilitating the implementation of these curricular principles using guiding questions, rather than direct instruction or fixed outcomes (Dewey, 1990). Some of the curricular questions Dewey encouraged educators to ask themselves include the following: What can I do to bring the school into closer relation with each child’s home and neighborhood life, and how can I do it? What can I do to introduce subject matter across content areas so that it has positive value and real significance in each child’s life? What content area topics can be carried out that use every day experiences and occupation as a background? These questions, among others, have guided early childhood curriculum and instructional practices for many years.

THE DECLINE OF THE DEVELOPMENTALIST MODEL With so many possibilities as a curriculum model for authentic and meaningful learning, one may wonder why the use of a developmentalist approach appears to be declining in so many early childhood programs. Several possible reasons come from a curricular perspective. One reason may be its apparent lack of coherence. This is most likely the result of different early theorists having somewhat disparate ideas as to what instructional approaches best exemplified the developmentalist model. Kliebard (2004) explains these differences by comparing William Kilpatrick’s project method with Dewey’s emphasis on a ‘‘broad fields’’ integrated curriculum. Another

156

ELIZABETH ANDERSON AND NICOLE FENTY

possible reason for this decline may be that there is no set curriculum. Without clear guidelines for specific learning objectives and activities, there is growing concern that in a developmentalist model some children, particularly those from low-income families, may not receive adequate instructional support for school readiness skills, especially in the areas of early language and emergent literacy (Copple & Bredenkamp, 2009). In an effort to counteract the issue of lack of coherence and clear guidance in early childhood curricula, Pre-Kindergarten Common Core Standards are being adopted in many states to support instruction at the preschool level. A primary guiding principle for these standards is the notion that preschool-age children are active learners who acquire knowledge through purposeful play and integration of content across a variety of domains (New York State Education Department, 2012). Because of the inherent connection between language and emergent literacy and other content area domains and their impact on other early learning experiences, as well as later overall academic achievement, researchers have recommended using literacy as the foundation for integrated instruction across content domains (Strickland, 2010).

INCREASED ACCOUNTABILITY AND CURRICULUM STANDARDS To support Pre-Kindergarten Common Core Standards, early childhood programs, especially those that are publicly funded, are increasingly being held accountable for the immediate and long-term academic success of the children they serve (Brown, 2011). In this climate of increased accountability, the critical role early language and emergent literacy play in positive school outcomes has come to the national forefront of early childhood educational issues (Hutinger, Bell, Daytner, & Johanson, 2006). PreKindergarten Common Core Standards are being developed in many states to mirror the new common core at the elementary level, especially in the areas of English/language arts and literacy. As greater attention is drawn to closing the achievement gap prior to kindergarten entry, early childhood educators are increasingly being asked to integrate their programs and instructional practices into high-stakes standards-based K-12 education systems (Brown, 2011). The debate as to whether or not increased standards and greater accountability in early childhood education, including the areas of early language and emergent literacy, will successfully close the achievement gap continues. While this debate continues, this integration has initiated the narrowing of early childhood education’s curricular scope

Integrating Early Literacy and Other Content Curriculum

157

by steering toward a more traditional education model that includes discrete learning objectives, whole group lessons, teacher-directed activities, and tight schedules (Copple & Bredenkamp, 2009). Although new Pre-Kindergarten Common Core Standards highlight the importance of instructional practices for young children that are grounded in purposeful play and integrated across content curriculum, the complexity of planning integrated lessons and the pressures of new standards and assessment protocols can lead early childhood educators and programs to use more traditional teacher-directed models for instruction (Zhbanova, Rule, Montgomery, & Nielsen, 2010). One of Dewey’s (1938) main concerns about the use of a more traditional education model is that it imposes adult directed curriculum standards, subject matter, and methods ‘‘upon those who are growing slowly toward maturity’’ (pp. 18–19). Recent changes in early childhood education and learning standards for young children suggest that Dewey’s concerns could be realized. The tension between an emphasis on higher learning standards, teacher-directed activities, and evidence-based instructional methods and maintaining the active, dynamic, and integrated learning experiences that Dewey envisioned is growing. In its 1996 position statement, the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) challenged the early childhood field to move from an ‘‘either/or’’ orientation (e.g., either higher learning standards and evidence-based instructional methods or integrated and authentic learning experiences) to ‘‘both/and’’ ways of thinking (e.g., both higher learning standards/evidence-based instructional methods and integrated/authentic learning experiences). Since that time, early childhood education has become even more integrally connected to a larger national education policy agenda that now mandates high-stakes tests and teacher and school evaluation based on test scores (Carlsson-Paige, 2012). With a national education policy agenda calling for increased academic accountability, the field of early childhood education faces new and perhaps even more significant challenges than ever before, as it seeks to promote authentic learning and child-centered practices while meeting new standards-based accountability reforms (Brown, 2011).

CHALLENGES TO DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE PRACTICE One of the significant challenges currently facing early childhood education is how to use developmentally appropriate practices in ways that align with new Pre-Kindergarten Common Core Standards and still support physical

158

ELIZABETH ANDERSON AND NICOLE FENTY

and social/emotional development (Morrow, 2004; Neuman & Roskos, 2005). This challenge becomes even greater when it comes to supporting emergent literacy. The first challenge is how an integrated, or more developmentalist literacy instructional model, emphasizes supporting children in acquiring early literacy skills through authentic activities across content curriculum and throughout their daily routines. In contrast, a more traditional or structured literacy instructional model focuses on a few skills or concepts of print (e.g., understanding that print goes from left to right, understanding the difference between upper and lower case letters, and understanding that print conveys information), letter knowledge, phonemic awareness (i.e., the ability to hear and manipulate sounds), expressive vocabulary (i.e., the ability to use words in speaking and writing), receptive vocabulary (i.e., the ability to understand words that are read or heard), and listening comprehension within discrete lessons. The challenge is how to intentionally use authentic activities to effectively embed early literacy skills that align with the new learning standards as part of the classroom’s daily routine (including nonstructured times such as arrival, dismissal, playground, transitions, and so forth) and across content curriculum (math, social studies, art, science). Another challenge confronting the field of early childhood education is how to establish a better balance between instructional approaches that are considered explicit, thematic, spontaneous, and playful (Morrow & Gambrell, 2004). A developmentalist approach emphasizes that the primary root of all activity that is educative is in the instinctive, impulsive attitudes and activities of the child, and not in the presentation and application of external materials (Dewey, 1902). In contrast, a more traditional model emphasizes a teacher-directed presentation with the application of external materials. The challenge is how to utilize structured curricula that may include scripted lessons and/or specific materials in a way that still supports the natural instincts of young children through active activities and authentic learning. A third challenge facing early childhood education is how to best support educators so that they can develop the knowledge and skills necessary to implement the array of new curricula that center around school readiness skills successfully (Lieber et al., 2010; Pianta, 2007) and align with early learning standards (Burchinal et al., 2009). Although it is widely recognized that there are now significantly more options for research-based preschool curriculum, especially in the area of literacy, much less is understood about the sustainability of implementation once a program has adopted a curriculum (Lieber et al., 2010). The challenge is how to provide

Integrating Early Literacy and Other Content Curriculum

159

professional development to early childhood educators that allows them to implement new curriculum and/or instructional interventions with fidelity using an integrated approach. An approach that is compatible with practices appropriate to children’s age and developmental status and responsive to the social and cultural contexts in which they live (Copple & Bredenkamp, 2009). In order to be most effective, early childhood educators seek to very intentionally combine explicit instruction, sensitive and warm interactions, responsive feedback and oral language engagement (Downer, Sabol, & Hamre, 2010). Suggested by some to be the surest path to school readiness, there is now growing concern that some of the new research-based curricula (usually in literacy), especially those that include scripted teacher-directed instruction, may provide only a temporary improvement in children’s academic performance at the risk of undermining their enthusiasm for learning or reducing the amount of attention their teachers can give to other critically important domains of their development (Stipek, 2006). There is additional concern that academic achievement around a specific set of content standards may not best reflect what a child has learned or the ways in which he/she has developed since entering a particular program (Brown, 2011; Wien, 2004). The challenge is how to support children’s immediate and long-term skill development across disciplines holistically, grounded in language and literacy, while monitoring progress that captures what, and in what ways, a child has learned over time.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS Given the challenges facing early childhood programs, it is critically important for the field of early childhood education to begin examining the ways in which the curriculum and instructional procedures being utilized may, or may not, be illustrative of Dewey’s vision of active, dynamic, and integrated early learning experiences and, to what degree. In this chapter we will engage in a review of literature as it relates to the integration of early literacy and content curriculum. In order to more closely examine the tension between the current emphasis on higher learning standards for young children and the integrated and authentic experiences Dewey envisioned, we will use the following five questions to guide the review as to the results, discussion, and implications for future practice: 1. What types of research designs were employed in studies that examined early literacy and the content curriculum?

160

ELIZABETH ANDERSON AND NICOLE FENTY

2. What early literacy skills were addressed in studies that examined early literacy and the content curriculum? 3. Which content curriculum areas were addressed? 4. What instructional procedures were implemented in studies that examined early literacy and the content curriculum? 5. How effective were the interventions that were implemented in studies that examined early literacy and the content curriculum?

METHOD Search Procedures and Selection Criteria To answer the aforementioned research questions, an electronic search of three online databases, EBSCOhost, Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), and PsychINFO, was conducted. The criteria for the initial search included articles published between 1995 and 2012. The following descriptors were used: early literacy, content curriculum, integrated curriculum, preschool, early childhood, science, mathematics, and social studies. The articles identified from the initial search were examined. The search was further narrowed by excluding theoretical and conceptual articles, as well as articles that did not meet the age criteria of 3- to 6-year-old children. The final list consisted of eight articles that met the following criteria: (a) empirical research (i.e., experimental, quasi-experimental, and mixed methods), (b) published in peer-reviewed journals, (c) participants were between 3- and 6-years old, and (d) articles that discussed the integration of language/literacy and the content curriculum.

FINDINGS The articles collected address the behaviors of preschool-age children, their teachers, and their parents across a variety of literacy skills (i.e., oral language, listening comprehension, vocabulary, and letter recognition) and content area disciplines (i.e., physical education, social emotional learning, mathematics, social studies, science, art). The results of the research review will be presented according to the content areas addressed in the eight articles. Due to a dearth in the number of content areas represented in the articles collected, some content areas have been combined based on

Integrating Early Literacy and Other Content Curriculum

161

similarity and also information addressed in the articles. The structure of the review by content area will be as follows: (a) mathematics, (b) science and social studies, and (c) related content (i.e., social emotional learning, physical education, and art). Within each content area, participant characteristics, literacy skills addressed, instructional procedures, and findings will be examined. A summary of the results is provided in Table 1. Mathematics The connection between mathematics and literacy is sometimes not readily apparent. However, upon further reflection, several connections exist between the two content areas. First, oral language is an important way for students to work through difficulties with mathematical concepts through verbalizations. Also, many mathematical concepts can be very abstract (e.g., measurement and money) and the use of stories can be used to contextualize these concepts. In this section we summarize how researchers (Fantuzzo et al., 2011; Sarama et al., 2012) have examined the connection between mathematics and literacy. Participant Characteristics The two studies examining the integration of mathematics and literacy included approximately 3,500 students ranging in age from 3 to 6 years. Participants in both studies were located in preschool classrooms that served low-income communities. Participant demographics included African American, Hispanic, and Caucasian students with African American students making up the majority (i.e., over half) in both studies. Literacy Skills Addressed and Instructional Procedures The two sets of researchers who examined mathematics and literacy were somewhat different in their approach. Fantuzzo et al. (2011) focused on the integration of a mathematics curriculum with a variety of literacy strategies while Sarama et al. (2012) investigated the effects of using a mathematics curriculum that included a heavy focus on the use of oral language. Fantuzzo et al. (2011) reported on the development and field trial of a yearlong curriculum that focused on comprehensive mathematics integrated with alphabet knowledge and phonemic awareness, print concept, vocabulary,

Significantly higher scores for treatment group on the posttest scores including oral speech and written speech

Mathematics

1,415 students ranging 35 hours of upfront Language, listening comprehension from 35 to 70 months PD and throughout study; teacher teams for planning

70 Head Start classrooms

Fantuzzo, Gadsden, and McDermott (2011)

EPIC (evidence-based project for integrated curriculum); the program included an increased use of oral language to explain

Physical Oral speech – children education required to define movement skills; written speech – children were required to fill in or to copy the correct word, to circle capital and small letters, and to fill in words

Language, vocabulary, and emergent literacy

67 Preschool children (34 girls and 33 boys), ages 4–6 in Northern Greece

Preschool classrooms

Derri, Kourtessis, Goti-Douma, and Kyrgiridis (2010)

No significant differences between treatment and control in alphabet knowledge and vocabulary; significant differences were found in

Preschool children in language-enriched physical education improved their language skills

Physical education

Physical activity intervention versus a language-rich physical activity intervention

Not addressed

Statistically significant differences between treatment and control in vocabulary, phonological awareness, on task behavior, and aggression

Social emotional learning

The lessons include modeling stories and discussions and using puppet characters, photographs and teacher role-play demonstrations

Vocabulary, grammar, phonological awareness, and print knowledge

Language, vocabulary, and emergent literacy

Findings

Content Area

Instructional Procedures

Literacy Skills Addressed

Head Start, special Children 4–6 years old, Not addressed special education education, and (n=26), head start typical preschool (n=35), typical classrooms preschool classrooms (n=11)

Three day training before the study; one day booster midyear

Teacher Preparation

Connor-Kuntz and Dummer (1996)

356 children in two cohorts of 4-yearolds

Participants

44 Head Start classrooms

Setting

Summary of Studies.

Bierman et al. (2008)

Author/Date

Table 1.

Head Start classrooms

Preschool and Head Start classrooms

Community-based preschool setting

Preschool classrooms

French (2004)

Gonzalez et al. (2011)

Phillips,Gorton, Pinciotti, and Sachdev (2010)

Sarama, Lange, Clements, and Wolfe (2012)

2,064 preschool students, age range (59–64 months)

181 preschool children

Not addressed

Letter recognition, oral language, story retell

30 hours of upfront Oral language and and ongoing vocabulary training; twice monthly mentoring

Building blocks math Mathematics curriculum, learning mathematics in normal activities such as play, art, and song

Art as a way of learning The arts (i.e., program – involved the dance, drama, integration of language music, visual with the arts arts)

No significant differences between the treatment and control group in letter recognition but significant difference on the oral language measure and a general mathematics measure

Significant differences between treatment and control groups in the areas of print knowledge and vocabulary

Significant difference between treatment and control in general receptive vocabulary, science expressive and receptive vocabulary, and social studies and expressive and receptive vocabulary

Worlds of Oral Reading Science, social studies and Language Development (WORLD) intervention, small groups; shared book reading (informational and storybooks), target vocabulary words, predicting, main idea of text

Receptive and expressive vocabulary

148 low-income preschool children

One week PD training prior to implementation; met two to three times during implementation to review progress

Significant difference between treatment and control in student’s receptive and expressive vocabulary; some science concepts

Science Start Curriculum: Science students reflect and ask, plan and predict, observe, report and reflect, includes read alouds

Receptive and expressive vocabulary

children’s listening comprehension and general mathematics ability

195 Head Start students Not addressed

and rationalize understanding of math concepts

164

ELIZABETH ANDERSON AND NICOLE FENTY

listening comprehension. Instruction was built into the daily classroom routine and included: (a) interactive storybook reading that focused on mathematical key concepts and vocabulary and (b) oral language (i.e., teacher/student dialogue regarding key concepts, vocabulary, and visual cues displayed on bulletin boards to reinforce vocabulary). Sarama et al. (2012) investigated the effects of an intensive prekindergarten mathematics curriculum, Building Blocks, on the oral language and letter recognition of children over the course of approximately 30 weeks. The Building Blocks intervention was grounded in learning mathematics in normal activities such as play, art, and song. The program included an increased use of oral language to explain and rationalize understanding of mathematical concepts. Findings Researchers in both studies assessed a variety of content area skills in the areas of literacy and mathematics to determine the efficacy of the target interventions. Fantuzzo et al. (2011) examined the impact of their intervention (i.e., an integrated mathematics curriculum that included a variety of literacy strategies) on student alphabet knowledge, vocabulary, listening comprehension, and general mathematics skills (e.g., number skills, number comparison, and number literacy). Sarama et al. (2012) examined the impact of their intervention (i.e., a mathematics curriculum with a heavy focus on the use of oral language) on letter recognition, oral language, story retell, and general mathematics skills (e.g., counting, comparing and ordering numbers, and number recognition). Fantuzzo et al. (2011) found no significant differences between treatment and control groups in alphabet knowledge and vocabulary. However, significant differences were found in children’s listening comprehension and general mathematics ability. Sarama et al. (2012) found no significant differences between the treatment and control group in letter recognition, but did find a difference on the mathematics measure and oral language measure, which examined complexity of student utterance.

Science and Social Studies The connections between literacy and science, as well as literacy and social studies, are more obvious than the connection between literacy and

Integrating Early Literacy and Other Content Curriculum

165

mathematics. Both science and social studies are heavily reliant on connected text to convey information. Therefore literacy skill practice in oral language, vocabulary, and comprehension can easily be integrated with content area instruction. Science and social studies are both similar to mathematics, however, in that many concepts (e.g., space) can be abstract especially for young children. Literacy strategies that incorporate the use of children’s literature or graphic organizers can help students understand important concepts in a particular content area. In the next section, we summarize how researchers have examined the connection between science, social studies, and literacy.

Participant Characteristics The two articles (French, 2004; Gonzalez et al., 2011) examining the integration of science only or science and social studies with literacy included 209 preschool students ranging in age from 4- to 5-year-olds. French (2004) did not provide specifics about the background and demographics of their student participants. A majority (68% on free and reduced lunch) of the students in the Gonzalez et al. (2011) study were from low-income households. There was a great deal of diversity in the Gonzalez et al. (2011) study. Student participants included African Americans, Hispanics, Caucasians, and Asians with African Americans and Hispanics making up almost half of the sample.

Literacy Skills Addressed and Instructional Procedures Both studies examined the integration of science and literacy but Gonzalez et al. (2011) also examined the integration of social studies and literacy. French (2004) examined the impact of the Science Start curriculum. The curriculum was implemented for two months and involved investigation of science concepts through the use of several literacy strategies: (a) science focused read alouds to introduce instructional modules, (b) reflecting and asking questions, and (c) planning and predicting. The Gonzalez et al. (2011) study also involved an integration of content and literacy. Science and social studies themed informational texts and storybooks were used during the 18-week intervention. Texts were relatively short (i.e., could be read and discussed in 20 minutes), included age appropriate vocabulary, content focused vocabulary, and were structured so that students could

166

ELIZABETH ANDERSON AND NICOLE FENTY

identify the main idea and supporting details during instruction. Teachers engaged in activities before reading (e.g., previewing and predicting), during reading (e.g., questioning), and after reading (e.g., summarizing). Findings Researchers in both studies examined a variety of literacy, science, and social studies skills to determine the impact of their respective intervention strategies. French (2004) found significant differences between pre- and post-assessments for receptive and expressive vocabulary, as well as science content knowledge related to student understanding of color and shadows. Gonzalez et al. (2011) found significant differences between treatment and control groups in the areas of general receptive vocabulary, science expressive and receptive vocabulary, and social studies expressive and receptive vocabulary. There were no significant differences between treatment and control on measures of general expressive vocabulary. Related Content (Art, Physical Education, Social Emotional Learning) The connection between literacy and related ‘‘nontraditional’’ content areas may, like in the case of mathematics, not seem immediately obvious. However, literacy has the potential to support student understanding of related content areas such as art, physical education (PE), and social and emotional learning (SEL). There are many components of literacy such oral language and vocabulary that lend well to related content areas. In this section we summarize how researchers have examined the connection between related content areas and literacy. Participant Characteristics The four studies that examined the integration of related content (i.e., art, PE, and SEL and literacy) included 676 participants. Three hundred fifty-six students participated in the study on SEL, 139 participated in the two studies on PE, and 181 students participated in the study on art. Across all four studies, participants ranged in age from 3 to 6 years. All participants were participating in preschool classrooms. Only the study conducted by ConnorKuntz and Dummer (1996) included information about socioeconomic (SES) status. Connor-Kuntz and Dummer (1996) reported that student

Integrating Early Literacy and Other Content Curriculum

167

participants came from a range of low to high SES backgrounds. ConnorKuntz and Dummer (1996) were also the only researchers to explicitly report the inclusion of students with special needs in their study. Although Bierman et al. (2008) did not specifically report demographics in their article, but participants attended Head Start. Connor-Kuntz and Dummer (1996) and Derri et al. (2010) reported that a majority of their participants were Caucasian. Phillips et al. (2010) and Bierman et al. (2008) reported that a majority of their participants were of Hispanic and African American origin.

Literacy Skills Addressed and Instructional Procedures The studies that focused on related content and literacy were similar in their attempt to truly integrate literacy and the respective content areas. Bierman et al. (2008) examined the integration of literacy and SEL. Researchers used Research Based Developmentally Informed (REDI), an SEL intervention, to focus on how literacy strategies such as shared reading, letter walls, and sound games can help to support social skills such self-control, problem solving, and emotional expression. To do this, researchers engaged in both integrated and ‘‘add on’’ instructional interventions. Shared reading and targeted vocabulary instruction were integrated with the SEL program so that selected storybooks and vocabulary focused on social skills. Literacy strategies such as letter walls and sound games were an ‘‘add on’’ to the SEL program in that there weren’t any direct connections between the two, but students were purposefully exposed to these strategies. Researchers (Connor-Kuntz & Dummer, 1996; Derri et al., 2010) examined PE and literacy and found similarities in the implementation of instructional interventions. Both examined similar literacy skills (e.g., language, vocabulary, and emergent literacy) and similar PE skills (e.g., movement and manipulative skills). Specifically, both studies integrated the use of oral language to allow teachers and students to communicate about different kinds of movement and manipulative skills. Derri et al.’s (2010) research involved word and letter recognition tasks connected to PE skills, such as movement and manipulation. Phillips et al. (2010) examined the integration of literacy and the arts through a professional development model entitled, ‘‘Art as a Way of Learning’’ (AWL). The primary focus of the study involved how oral language and vocabulary can be used to reinforce student understanding and involvement with visual and performing arts content (i.e., dance, drama, music, visual arts).

168

ELIZABETH ANDERSON AND NICOLE FENTY

Findings There were similarities across the four studies that examined the integration of literacy and related content. Oral language skills, vocabulary, and emergent literacy skills (e.g., print knowledge, alphabet knowledge) were among the most common literacy skills assessed across the literature. There were differences across the four research studies regarding whether or not content area knowledge of skills were formally assessed from pre- to post- or across treatment and control. Bierman et al. (2008) assessed participants in both literacy and SEL content. Vocabulary, grammar, phonological awareness, and print knowledge were among the literacy skills assessed. SEL skills such as aggression and on task behavior were also assessed in this study. Researchers found statistically significant differences between treatment and control groups in the literacy areas of vocabulary and phonological awareness. There were no significant differences in the areas of grammar and print knowledge. Furthermore, statistically significant results were also found across areas of SEL. Connor-Kuntz and Dummer (1996) examined student oral language and motor skills in an effort to determine the efficacy of integrating literacy and physical education. Significant results were found in both areas. In comparison, Derri et al. (2010) assessed literacy skills and found the integration of literacy and physical education yielded significant differences between treatment and control groups in the areas of oral and written language. Like Derri et al. (2010), Phillips et al. (2010) assessed literacy skills and found significant differences between treatment and control groups in the areas of print knowledge and vocabulary.

TEACHER PREPARATION Teacher knowledge and practice can have a significant positive impact on student achievement (Goldhaber, 2002; Wenglinsky, 2002). Professional development (PD) is one method that can be used to impact teacher knowledge and practice. Researchers have suggested that professional development involving consistent feedback, follow-up, and job-embedded training is effective at impacting teacher knowledge and practice (Birman, Desimone, Porter, & Garet, 2000). In this section we summarize how researchers have examined teacher PD in an effort to change teacher practice and subsequent student achievement.

Integrating Early Literacy and Other Content Curriculum

169

Participant Characteristics Two of the eight articles included in this review explicitly addressed the characteristics of the teachers who implemented study interventions. Gonzalez et al. (2011) included 21 preschool teachers in their study, which examined the integration of social studies, science, and literacy. Eighty-six percent of the teachers held a bachelor’s degree and 5% held a master’s degree. Seventy-six percent of the teachers were certified in elementary education and 81% were certified in early childhood education. Teachers in the study had an average of 8.24 years experience. Phillips et al. (2010), in their study about the integration of the arts and literacy, included both professional artists and early childhood education teachers. The professional artists were part of community-based organizations and the early childhood teachers worked for a community-based preschool. The average age across both the artists and teachers was 37. The artists all had bachelor’s degrees with 36% of them having master’s degrees. Twenty-five percent of the teachers had a high school diploma. The artists had an average of 19 years experience while the teachers had an average of 10 years of experience.

Training Procedures Four of the eight articles offered details about the training procedures provided to teachers regarding the integration of literacy across content areas. The Bierman et al. (2008) study, which evaluated the integration of SEL and literacy, provided teachers with three days of training at the beginning of the school year, followed by a one day booster training session midyear. During the initial training sessions, teachers were provided with curricular materials, activities, manuals, and kits. Teachers also received weekly mentoring support from experienced teachers. These experienced teachers provided modeling, coaching, and ongoing feedback. Teacher assistants working in the intervention classrooms were given one hour of training each week. Fantuzzo et al.’s (2011) study provided teachers with a total of 35 hours of training before beginning the intervention and ongoing professional development throughout the intervention. Teachers were also involved in teacher teams that included teachers, teacher assistants, and mentors who had previous experience with the intervention program. Teaching teams

170

ELIZABETH ANDERSON AND NICOLE FENTY

were provided support throughout the study through weekly and quarterly meetings to plan instruction and discuss obstacles. Gonzalez et al. (2011) provided teachers with one week of training prior to the implementation of the study. During this initial training, teachers were provided with a rationale for the study, materials, procedures, and an opportunity to practice lesson components. Teachers received manuals, detailed lesson plans, and materials. They were also provided with the opportunity to meet two to three times during project implementation to review progress and resolve obstacles to instruction. The professional development in the Phillips et al. (2010) research study consisted of four components. First, early childhood teachers and artists were provided with 30 hours of initial multiple-day training (30 hours) in AWL’s core principles (i.e., art as language, children using art, art leads learning, teachers guide learning). Second, ongoing training and supervision was provided for two hours during monthly in-service sessions. Third, mentoring was provided at least twice monthly during study implementation. Fourth, coaching consultation was available throughout the intervention.

Findings Three of the articles discussed findings as it relates to teacher implementation. All three articles examined teacher fidelity because of the importance in experimental designs. Bierman et al. (2008) examined fidelity of teacher implementation through teacher self-report and through independent observations. Teachers reported their own fidelity of implementation at 93% and independent observations reported teacher fidelity at 75%. Fantuzzo et al. (2011) examined fidelity of teacher implementation through self-report and supervisor rating. Teachers reported their own fidelity at 88% which matched supervisor rated teacher fidelity. Gonzalez et al. (2011) examined fidelity through external observations and found teachers implementation fidelity at 85%.

DISCUSSION While data from this small scale literature review are limited, findings do point to some interesting areas to consider for further research. First, this review suggests even when early childhood professionals value the

Integrating Early Literacy and Other Content Curriculum

171

integration of literacy across content curriculum, the process is complex and challenging. Integration of literacy across content curriculum often exists to varying degrees, ranging from ‘‘an increased emphasis’’ on a second content curriculum to a comprehensive integration of two or more content curricula. This review also suggests that the complexities and challenges inherent in integrating literacy across content curriculum integration can be exaggerated in experimental studies, given what can be seen as the increased rigor and rigidity of this type of research. It is interesting that the majority of the articles collected for this review fell under the umbrella of ‘‘related content.’’ It may be that due to the nature of instructional pedagogy in preschools, experts in that area may believe that literacy may lend itself better to content areas that are less traditional. The instructional interventions conducted in the area of ‘‘related content’’ seemed more integrated than those conducted in more traditional content areas. The literature highlights the importance of true instructional integration between literacy and the content areas for supporting optimal outcomes. In studies that included a content focused connected text component (i.e., informational text or narrative), such as the French (2004) and Gonzalez et al. (2011) studies, teachers were better able to contextualize content concepts for students. It is interesting to note, that both of these studies also had an oral language component that allowed for in-depth content focused discussion of content concepts. Whether it was the storybook component coupled with the oral language component that yielded statistically significant results, or if one or the other of the strategies would have been effective alone, was difficult to ascertain. In studies (Fantuzzo et al., 2011; Sarama et al., 2012) that did not include as strong a content focused connected text component, components that were measured but not addressed directly (i.e., letter recognition, alphabet knowledge, and vocabulary) during instructional interventions were not significantly impacted. Further it would appear, at least for the sample of students in these two studies, that students show increased gains when given explicit instruction of skills. This review also suggests that the wide variety of instructional approaches employed when integrating literacy across content curriculum plays a significant role in the degree to which the benefits are maximized. The ways in which early childhood educators engage in the curriculum integration process may initially be guided by personal orientation or professional development, but are then greatly impacted by the program context. Despite a professional orientation, early childhood educators had vastly different

172

ELIZABETH ANDERSON AND NICOLE FENTY

experiences integrating literacy across content curriculum. Findings from this review suggest that some of the reasons why educators’ experiences integrating literacy across content curriculum may vary considerably are based less on professional orientation, and more on contextual factors such as the quality of professional development (prior to implementation and/or ongoing consultation) and access to materials (detailed manuals and kits containing all of the materials needed for implementation). The findings suggest that the higher the quality of the professional development and the greater the access to the necessary materials, the more positive the outcomes for children. In order to be most effective, early childhood educators need to develop a more comprehensive set of professional competencies. These competencies include a complex synthesis of factual and conceptual knowledge, professional dispositions, and the ability to implement specific strategies and approaches. For example, an early childhood educator must now possess an understanding of theories of child development (e.g., Dewey, Vygotsky, Piaget, and others), exhibit particular professional dispositions (e.g., acknowledges and honors the beliefs, values, and traditions of all children) and be able to implement specific evidence-based strategies and practices that support the integration of literacy across content curriculum (e.g., plans and implements interventions to help children meet learning goals). Due to the complex nature of these competencies, this review highlights the importance of early childhood educators continuing to assess their level of competency in a variety of areas, including the knowledge, dispositions, and skills necessary to effectively integrate literacy across content curriculum, and consider how they might work toward greater mastery.

Limitations Although the results of the studies included in this review of the literature are encouraging, there were only a limited number that met the requirements for inclusion. Much of the research examining the integration of literacy and the content areas is being conducted at the elementary, middle, and secondary levels of school. With the recent increased emphasis on curriculum standards at the preschool level, the amount of research in this area should increase in the years to come. In addition, inconsistencies in the type of information provided in each article (e.g., participant demographics, procedures, and findings) made it difficult sometimes to

Integrating Early Literacy and Other Content Curriculum

173

conduct in-depth analysis across studies. Finally, the exclusion of articles that were theoretical or that described a technique or strategy in the absence of data collection led to an imprecise reflection of the number of publications in recent years that have focused on the integration of content area literacy at the preschool level.

Next Steps According to Dewey (1990), educational relevance is more than a gathering of empirically grounded facts and principles; it is more a point of view. This review highlights many important points that warrant additional follow-up. First, while the research we reviewed noted the value of integrating literacy across content curriculum, it also identified several challenges that can occur during this process. Because research has highlighted the link between integrating literacy across content curriculum and improved child outcomes, it is critical to address these challenges. A major issue is that the vast majority of early childhood teacher education programs continue to approach content curriculum (e.g., literacy, math, science) as discrete fields in professional preparation. Rarely do faculty members from individual disciplines collaborate with each other around designing courses and/or plans of study that effectively promote the integration of literacy across content curriculum. Yet, if we want early childhood teacher education students to be able to effectively integrate content curriculum for young children, there needs to be more attention in the design and structure of early childhood teacher education programs, so that the knowledge, dispositions, and skills required for this integration can be fostered. Greater attention must be given to moving early childhood teacher education students away from content-specific training toward opportunities for dialogue and practice around integrating literacy across content curriculum. Additionally, by sharing these experiences during professional preparation, early childhood teacher education students will be more likely to develop the degree of reflective attention required to bring about the necessary changes in their modes of instruction (Dewey, 1990). Effective and motivating teaching requires developing a solid knowledge base of what each child knows and understands, including skills and interests, and using this knowledge to plan appropriate and varied learning opportunities (Stipek, 2006). Moreover, everything depends on the quality of these learning opportunities (Dewey, 1938). This points to the need for professional preparation programs to both model how to integrate literacy across

174

ELIZABETH ANDERSON AND NICOLE FENTY

content curriculum during coursework and provide clinically rich fieldwork opportunities that support early childhood teacher education students’ active involvement in planning, implementing, and assessing activities that align with Pre-Kindergarten Common Core Standards and provide active and authentic learning experiences for young children. The experimental research that has been conducted on integrating literacy across content curriculum also highlights the importance of providing adequate resources (e.g., staff and curriculum materials) to early childhood programs. This points to the critical need for highly trained staff and access to research-based curriculum materials, as well as the need to empower early childhood educators so that they know how to best take advantage of these resources. If the field of early childhood education is to effectively address the issue of lack of coherence in early childhood curricula and more effectively meet the National Association for the Education of Young Children’s (NAEYC’s) challenge to move from an ‘‘either/or’’ orientation to ‘‘both/and’’ ways of thinking, it will require early childhood educators to think and behave in new ways. This review suggests that these expanded roles do not necessarily come naturally. Proactive efforts such as professional development and ongoing consultation around promoting authentic learning and child-centered practices, while meeting new standards-based accountability reforms need to be taken to better support early childhood educators during this process. Clearly our small scale literature review findings are only one part of the kind of research that needs to inform further efforts to integrate literacy across content curriculum using ‘‘both/and’’ ways of thinking. In the future, it would be useful to see how, using similar measures within one content curriculum, experimental research can examine the ways in which integrating literacy across content curriculum can improve outcomes for children, and then determine the optimal ways for early childhood educators and families to support these efforts.

CONCLUSION Now that increased standards and accountability have found their way into early childhood education, it is likely that they are here to stay. In response, greater attention must be given to early childhood education away from content-specific curriculum and instructional practices toward more effectively integrating literacy across content curriculum. In these reflective and risk-taking early childhood environments, children will acquire

Integrating Early Literacy and Other Content Curriculum

175

knowledge as a way to satisfy their own curiosity while meeting new curriculum standards. This knowledge will be acquired through purposeful play and integration of content across a variety of domains. Children’s learning will be recognized for its value in the present and its value in the future. This review suggests that it is possible for the field of early childhood education to fully embrace ‘‘both/and’’ ways of thinking. And, when programs and educators begin to fully embrace this notion, it can result in improved child outcomes. Stipek (2006) suggests that the good news is that educators can engage and motivate young children through child-centered practices adapted to their varying interests and skills. When the field of early childhood education begins to embrace this good news, it can expect to see an increasing number of educational programs serving young children intentionally. Authentic activities embedded with early literacy skills and aligned with the new learning standards throughout the classroom’s daily routine (including nonstructured times such as arrival, dismissal, playground, transitions) and across multiple disciplines (e.g., math, social studies, art, science) have the potential to support improved school readiness for all children. This review suggests that it is possible to create the reflective and risktaking learning environments that Dewey envisioned within the current climate of new standards and increased accountability. In order to realize this vision, early childhood educators will need to learn new ways of integrating literacy across content curriculum based on an expanded set of competencies. Researchers have found that future instructional practice of preservice educators is most positively impacted by inclusion of field experiences in an effort to complement coursework (Alger, 2007; Conley, Kerner, & Reynolds, 2005). In order to support educators during this process, they must be provided with the clinically rich fieldwork opportunities and mentoring necessary for developing these competencies during professional preparation.

REFERENCES Alger, C. L (2007). Engaging student teachers’ hearts and minds in the struggle to address (il)literacy in content area classrooms. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 50, 620–630. Bierman, K. L., Domitrovich, C. E., Nix, R., Gest, S. D., Welsh, J. A., Greenberg, M. T., y Gill, S. (2008). Promoting academic and social-emotional school readiness: The Head Start REDI program. Child Development, 79(6), 1802–1817.

176

ELIZABETH ANDERSON AND NICOLE FENTY

Birman, B. F., Desimone, L., Garet, M. S., & Porter, A. C. (2000). Designing professional development that works. Educational Leadership, 57(8), 28–33. Brown, C. (2011). Searching for the norm in a system of absolutes: A case study of standardsbased accountability reform in pre-kindergarten. Early Education and Development, 22(1), 151–177. Burchinal, M., Kainz, K., Cai, K., Tout, K., Zaslow, M., Martinez-Beck, I., et al. (2009). Early care and education quality and child outcomes (OPRE Research-Practice Brief #1). Retrieved from http://www.childtrends.org/files/child_trends-2009_5_21_rb_earlycare.pdf Carlsson-Paige, N. (2012). My view: Obama, Romney need to know one thing about early childhood education – Start over. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/PS1Ykn. Conley, M. W., Kerner, M., & Reynolds, M. J. (2005). Not a question of ‘‘should’’ but a question of ‘‘how’’: Integrating literacy knowledge and practice into secondary teacher preparation through tutoring in urban middle schools. Action in Teacher Education, 27, 22–32. Connor-Kuntz, F. J., & Dummer, G. M. (1996). Teaching across the curriculum: LanguageEnriched physical education for preschool children. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 13, 302–315. Copple, C., & Bredenkamp, S. (Eds.). (2009). Developmentally appropriate practices in early childhood programs serving children birth through age 8. Washington DC: NAEYC. Derri, V., Kourtessis, T., Goti-Douma, E., & Kyrgiridis, P. (2010). Physical education and language integration: Effects on oral and written speech of preschool children. Physical Educator, 67(4), 178–186. Dewey, J (1902). The child and the curriculum. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Collier. Dewey, J. (1990). The school and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Downer, J., Sabol, T. J., & Hamre, B. (2010). Teacher-child interactions in the classroom: Toward a theory of within- and cross-domain links to children’s developmental outcomes. Early Education and Development, 21(5), 699–723. Fantuzzo, J. W., Gadsden, V. L., & McDermott, P. A. (2011). An integrated curriculum to improve mathematics, language, and literacy for Head Start children. American Educational Research Journal, 48(3), 763–793. French, L. (2004). Science as the center of a coherent, integrated early childhood curriculum. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 138–149. Goldhaber, D. (2002). The mystery of good teaching: Surveying the evidence on student achievement and teachers’ characteristics. Education Next, 2(1), 50–55. Gonzalez, J. E., Pollard-Durodola, S., Simmons, D. C., Taylor, A. B., Davis, M. J., Kim, M., & Simmons, L. (2011). Developing low-income preschoolers’ social studies and science vocabulary through content-focused shared book reading. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 4, 25–52. Hutinger, P. L., Bell, C., Daytner, G., & Johanson, J. (2006). Establishing and maintaining early childhood emergent literacy technology curriculum. Journal of Special Education Technology, 21(4), 39–54. Kliebard, H. M. (2004). The struggle for the American curriculum. New York, NY: Routledge Falmer. Lieber, J., Butera, G., Hanson, M., Palmer, S., Horn, E., & Czaja, C. (2010). Sustainability of a preschool curriculum: What encourages continued use among teachers? NHSA Dialog, 13(4), 225–242.

Integrating Early Literacy and Other Content Curriculum

177

Morrow, L. M. (2004). Developmentally appropriate practice in early literacy instruction. The Reading Teacher, 58, 88–89. Morrow, L. M., & Gambrell, L. B. (2004). Using children’s literature in preschool: Comprehending and enjoying books. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Neuman, S. B., & Roskos, K. (2005). Whatever happened to developmentally appropriate practice in early literacy? Young Children, 60(4), 22. New York State Education Department. (2012). Guiding principles for the development of the New York State prekindergarten foundation to the common core. Retrieved from http:// www.p12.nysed.gov/ciai/common_core_standards/pdfdocs/nyslsprek.pdf Phillips, R. D., Gorton, R. L., Pinciotti, P., & Sachdev, A. (2010). Promising findings on preschoolers’ emergent literacy and school readiness in arts-integrated early childhood settings. Early Childhood Education Journal, 38, 111–122. Pianta, R. C. (2007). Early education in transition. In R. C. Pianta, M. J. Cox & K. L. Snow (Eds.), School readiness & the transition to kindergarten in an era of accountability (pp. 3–10). Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing. Sarama, J., Lange, A. A., Clements, D. H., & Wolfe, C. B. (2012). The impacts of an early mathematics curriculum on oral language and literacy. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27, 489–502. Stipek, D. (2006). Accountability comes to preschool: Can we make it work for young children? Phi Delta Kappan, 6, 740–747. Strickland, D. S. (2010). Essential readings on early literacy. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Wenglinsky, H. (2002). How schools matter: The link between teacher classroom practices and student academic performance. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(12). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/291 Wien, C. A. (2004). Negotiating standards in the primary classroom: The teacher’s dilemma. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Zhbanova, K. S., Rule, A. C., Montgomery, S. E., & Nielsen, L. E. (2010). Defining the difference: Comparing integrated and traditional single-subject lessons. Early Childhood Education Journal, 38, 251–258.

ABOUT THE EDITORS John A. Sutterby, series editor, is Associate Professor at the University of Texas at Brownsville in the Department of Educational Psychology and Leadership Studies. His research interests include family involvement for English language learners, outdoor play and playgrounds, and bilingual education. He has served as series editor for Advances in Early Education and Day Care for the last three years. Lynn E. Cohen, volume editor, is Associate Professor in the Department of Special Education and Literacy at LIU/Post. She is the project director for a university school partnership, providing administrative support for a preschool classroom. Dr. Cohen has presented and keynoted at numerous international, national, state, and regional conferences on a variety of topics. Her research is related to the social and philosophical dimensions of children’s discourse in school settings. Her latest research and publications aim to theorize Mikhail Bakhtin in the context of early childhood play and adult–child interactions. Recently, she co-edited Play: A Polyphony of Research, Theories, and Issues, Play & Culture Studies, Volume 12. Sandra Waite-Stupiansky, volume editor, is Professor of Early Childhood Education and Reading at Edinboro University of Pennsylvania. She has a Ph.D. from Indiana University, Bloomington. Her areas of research include recess in elementary schools, play, and moral development. She teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in early childhood education, child development, and math/science education. She has been the managing editor of Play, Policy, and Practice Connections, an online publication of the Play, Policy, and Practice Interest Forum of the National Association for the Education of Young Children since 1995. Recently, she co-edited Play: A Polyphony of Research, Theories, and Issues, Play & Culture Studies, Volume 12.

179

ABOUT THE AUTHORS Elizabeth Anderson is Assistant Professor of Early Childhood Education at Binghamton University, State University of New York. Her research interests include early childhood professional preparation and supporting positive academic, mental health, and health outcomes for all children. Mira T. Berkley is Associate Professor of Early Childhood Education and the Chair of the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at SUNY Fredonia. She has been involved in the field of early childhood care and education for over 30 years. Before working in higher education, she spent 15 years as an early childhood classroom teacher. She is an advocate for play-based experiential learning which she has had the opportunity to explore in the United Kingdom and in northern Italy. Eleanor D. Brown is Associate Professor of Psychology at West Chester University, where she directs the Early Childhood Cognition and Emotions Lab (ECCEL). For five years, Dr. Brown has partnered with Settlement Music School’s Kaleidoscope Arts Enrichment Preschool to study the arts’ impact. She is internationally recognized for her scholarship on children in poverty, as well as her research on arts programming. Early Childhood Research Quarterly published her 2010 paper ‘‘Arts Enrichment and School Readiness’’ and her 2013 paper ‘‘Arts Enrichment and Preschool Emotions.’’ Dr. Brown served as the Early Childhood Research Expert for the NEA/HHS Joint Convening on the Arts and Human Development; her work was highlighted as model research in the associated NEA/HHS white paper that framed a research agenda for the arts. Nancy Edwards is a Clinical Faculty and a Literacy Coach at the Delaware Center for teacher education at the University of Delaware. Her area of interest is designing curriculum in the areas of mathematics, science, language, and literacy. She teaches courses in early childhood curriculum, mentors pre-service and in-service teachers, and provides professional development for teachers in Delaware. Drawing on over 30 years of teaching

181

182

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

experience, she provides teachers with practical examples of active learning experiences while deepening children’s conceptual understanding. Nicole Fenty is Assistant Professor of special education at Binghamton University, State University of New York. Her research interests include content literacy, the new Common Core State Standards, teacher education, and special education. Lucia M. Flevares, of the College of Education and Human Ecology, at The Ohio State University, is motivated by questions of how teachers and learners use communication and representations to express ideas, issues of cognition in whole-class and individual children’s mathematics learning. From prekindergarten to elementary grades, Flevares has examined facilitation of children’s cognitive participation in mathematics through communication and discourse, representation use, problem-solving activities, and assessment. Her work also investigates learning in early childhood science and integrated mathematics and science for preservice teachers. Myae Han is Associate professor in the Department of Human Development and Family Studies at the University of Delaware. Her areas of research include early childhood education, early literacy, and play. She has directed three federally funded Early Reading First programs and serves as a president of The Association for the Study of Play (TASP) and the Literacy Development in Young Children (LDYC) SIG of the International Reading Association. Soo-Young Hong is Assistant Professor in the Department of Child, Youth and Family Studies at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. She received her Ph.D. in Human Development and Family Studies with a specialization in Developmental Studies from Purdue University. Her research focuses on early childhood professional development in the area of science education, and she has published research on effective approaches to teaching young children science concepts, vocabulary, and scientific problem-solving skills. Dr. Hong has also published research on preschool children’s attitudes and behavior toward peers with disabilities in inclusive early childhood classrooms. Michael Jabot is Professor of Science Education at SUNY Fredonia. He has been involved in science education research across the nation and internationally. Most recently he has served on the Lead Writing Team

About the Authors

183

for the Next Generation of Science Standards (NGSS) which will shape the science standards that states will use as they move forward with science education reform. His current research focuses on the use of Big Ideas in the shaping of learning progressions around Education for Sustainability (EfS) and how these curriculum interventions in classrooms help shape student actions. Constance Kamii conducted research under Jean Piaget in Geneva, Switzerland, for 15 years on a half-time basis. The other half-time was spent doing classroom research with teachers in the United States, developing a curriculum for young children based on Piaget’s theory. Her publications include Young Children Reinvent Arithmetic, Young Children Continue to Reinvent Arithmetic, 2nd Grade, and Young Children Continue to Reinvent Arithmetic, 3rd Grade. She has developed a way of teaching arithmetic based on Piaget’s constructivism. Karen W. Lindeman is Assistant Professor at Edinboro University of Pennsylvania in the Early Childhood department. Her past experiences include prekindergarten and kindergarten teacher, Early Intervention service provider, and Teacher of the Deaf. Her research interests include authentic assessment in the Early Childhood classroom, Infant Sign Language, and Early Childhood RTI (Response to Intervention). Victoria J. Molfese is Chancellor’s Professor in the Department of Child, Youth and Family Studies at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. She received her Ph.D. in Developmental Psychology from The Pennsylvania State University. Dr. Molfese has published journal articles, books, and book chapters in the area of cognitive development in infants, children, and adults. She has written grant proposals in support of research activities, including an NIH-funded longitudinal research grant on electrophysiological and behavioral predictors of language and cognitive development in children. Her work has been funded by grants from National Institutes of Health, March of Dimes, U.S. Department of Education, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Kellogg Foundation, and NASA. Joy Faini Saab is Chair and Associate Professor of the Department of Curriculum and Instruction/Literacy Studies, Social and Cultural Foundations, Educational Leadership Studies and the Director of the Office for Diversity and Global Initiatives in the College of Education and Human Services at West Virginia University.

184

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Jamie R. Schiff is a Doctoral Student at The Ohio State University whose research centers on preservice teacher preparation to document how to support the mentor/preservice teacher/supervisor triad. She holds a Master’s degree in educational leadership and taught elementary school for seven years, experiences she will apply to preservice teacher preparation upon completion of her doctorate. She has also worked on studies of learning and instruction in prekindergarten mathematics classrooms and using children’s literature in mathematics learning. Sam F. Stack Jr. is Associate Chair and Professor of Social and Cultural Foundations in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction/Literacy Studies, Social & Cultural Foundations, Educational Leadership Studies in the College of Education and Human Services at West Virginia University. Julia Torquati is Associate Professor in the Department of Child, Youth and Family Studies at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. She earned her Ph.D. in Family Studies from the University of Arizona. Dr. Torquati’s research focuses on environmental education in early childhood, professional development for teachers in the domain of environmental education, and the influence of natural settings on children’s cognition and self-regulation. In addition, Dr. Torquati has published research on predictors of quality in early care and education, family processes related to children’s social competence, and family relationships in homeless families. Carol Vukelich is the L. Sandra and Bruce L. Hammonds Professor in Teacher Education, Director of the Delaware Center for Teacher Education, and Deputy Dean of the College of Education and Human Development at the University of Delaware. Her research and teaching interests include children’s early literacy development and teachers’ professional development. She has co-authored and co-edited three books on children’s language and literacy development. She and her colleagues are the recipients of three Early Reading First grants, each designed to improve young children’s language and early reading skills through enhancing their teachers’ knowledge about teaching these important skills to young children.

INDEX Accountability reform, 154, 157, 174 Actions, mental and physical, 62 Aesthetics, 119–121, 124 Art, 13, 41–42, 78, 82–83, 96, 101, 105–106, 115–122, 125–129, 132, 136–137, 139–140, 142, 158, 160–161, 163–164, 166–167, 170, 175 Arts, 9, 37, 95–98, 101, 103–106, 109, 111, 115, 118, 122, 124, 129, 132, 135–150, 156, 163, 167, 169 Arts-integrated, 135, 137–141, 143–147, 149–150 Arts-integration, 137, 140, 146 At risk, 16, 19, 137, 140, 143, 145–146, 149–150, 153–154 Authentic learning, 37, 153–154, 157–158, 174 Bowling, 60–61, 65–66, 68 Children’s literature, 51, 79, 165 Classification, 10, 60, 62, 81 Coaching, 18–19, 27, 169–170 Collaboration, 6, 24–27, 42, 44, 96, 102, 109, 116 Communication, 6–7, 27, 41–42, 45, 81, 96, 99, 101, 109–110, 115–117, 119, 121, 124–126, 128–129, 136 Community, 8, 25–27, 36–37, 43, 48–51, 53, 109–110, 115–116, 118–119, 121, 124–125, 128–131, 139, 142, 148, 163, 169 185

Comprehension, 84, 158, 160, 162–165 Conceptual change, 2–4, 14, 26–27, 41 Conservation of number, 71 Content curriculum, 153–155, 157–161, 165, 167, 169, 171–175 Content knowledge, 1, 6, 18–19, 22–25, 73–76, 80, 84–85, 166 Content vocabulary, 73, 75, 77, 79, 81, 83–85, 87–89 Creativity, 96, 101, 104–106, 109, 117, 132, 148 Critical Thinking, 42, 96, 101, 109 Dance, 82, 118, 120, 132, 135–137, 139, 141–142, 146, 148, 163, 167 Democracy, 116, 119, 125, 128–129, 131–132, 143, 149 Design-engineering, 103 Developmentally appropriate, 1, 39, 44, 73, 90, 95–96, 98, 100, 105, 109, 157 Developmentally appropriate practices, 44, 105, 157 Dewey, John, 74, 115–119, 121, 125, 127, 129, 131, 136, 153–154 Digital technologies, 98–100 Early childhood, 1–2, 7–9, 13–15, 17–20, 23–24, 26–27, 33–35, 37–41, 43–53, 57–58, 72–73,

186 75–78, 84, 90, 95–107, 109–112, 115–116, 119, 135–137, 139–141, 143–145, 147, 149, 153–160, 169–175 Early childhood curriculum, 1, 33, 57–58, 73, 75, 95, 115, 135, 153–155 Early childhood education, 8–9, 44, 47, 98, 100, 105, 110, 116, 119, 135, 137, 139, 141, 143, 145, 147, 149, 153–154, 156–159, 169, 174–175 Early childhood mathematics, 33–53 Early literacy, 74, 77, 153–155, 157–161, 165, 167, 169, 171, 173, 175 Economic disadvantage, 140 Education, 1–3, 5, 7–9, 11, 13–15, 17–23, 25–27, 33–35, 44, 46–47, 52, 57, 73–75, 90, 95–96, 98, 100–102, 105, 110, 115–117, 119, 121–122, 128, 130–131, 135–141, 143, 145, 147, 149–150, 153–154, 156–162, 166, 168–169, 173–175 Elementary mathematics, 41–43 Emotion, 120, 129, 135, 139, 141–142, 146 Environment, 7, 12, 15–17, 26, 38, 48, 51, 68, 74–75, 77–78, 89–90, 97, 109–111, 116, 118–120, 122, 137, 143, 149 Environmental education, 75 Executive function, 5, 7 Head Start, 8, 139–142, 144–145, 162–163, 167 Imagination, 87, 104–106, 109, 115–117, 119, 122, 124

INDEX Inquiry-based instruction, 25 Integrated curriculum, 44, 46, 143, 145–147, 155, 160, 162 Integrated learning, 34, 38, 44–45, 52, 135–138, 147, 157 Jenga, 58–62 Language, 2, 4, 8–9, 13, 16–17, 19, 23, 26–27, 37, 41, 43–44, 75–77, 80, 82, 85, 98, 111, 117–118, 125, 127, 132, 135, 138, 141–142, 144–145, 147, 156, 159–168, 170–171 Learning, 1–4, 6–9, 13–19, 21–27, 33–34, 36–42, 44–47, 49–52, 57, 73–81, 83–85, 87, 89–90, 95–96, 98, 102, 115–118, 121, 128, 130–132, 135–138, 140–142, 144–148, 153–164, 166–167, 170, 172–175 Learning standards, 2, 8, 77, 154, 157–159, 175 Lining Up the 5s, 67–68 Literacy, 8–9, 13–14, 19, 41–43, 48, 74, 76–77, 90, 99–100, 110–111, 135, 141–142, 144–145, 147, 153–162, 164–169, 171–175 Logico-mathematical framework, 60–61 Logico-mathematical knowledge, 57–61, 67, 71–72 Low-income, 77, 144, 149, 156, 161, 163, 165 Math, 17, 23, 42, 58, 70, 75, 90, 95–97, 106, 109, 111, 132, 142, 145, 147, 158, 163, 173, 175

Index Mathematical modeling, 33–43, 45, 47–51 Mathematical representations, 35 Mathematics, 2, 8–9, 13–14, 16–19, 23, 27, 33–37, 40, 43–47, 49–51, 57–60, 70, 95, 97, 106, 111, 135, 141, 144, 147–148, 160–166 Metacognition, 4–5, 7 Music, 89, 95, 105–106, 118, 120, 132, 135–142, 144–149, 163, 167 Nature, 1, 6, 8, 12, 15, 18, 23, 27, 38, 43–44, 46, 67, 73–87, 89–90, 99, 101, 104, 110, 119–120, 122, 137, 141, 148, 171–172 Numerical relationships, 61–63 Outdoors, 74, 78–80 Pedagogical content knowledge, 1, 18–19 Pedagogy, 14, 25, 52, 118, 121–122, 127, 130, 135–137, 140, 143–144, 147, 149–150, 171 Physical knowledge, 58–61 Physical-knowledge activities, 57–63, 65, 67–72 Pick-Up Sticks, 57, 60–63 Play, 13, 16, 51–52, 57, 64, 68, 72, 75, 77–79, 96–97, 100–102, 105–107, 109–111, 118, 122, 132, 148, 156–157, 162–164, 175 Problem solving, 7, 33, 36–37, 40–41, 43–45, 50, 52, 126–127, 155, 167 Professional development, 1–3, 5–7, 9, 11, 13–15, 17–21, 23–27, 34,

187 42, 44, 51, 53, 116, 159, 167–172, 174 Project-based learning, 37, 52, 102 Projects, 42, 44, 46, 77, 104, 110, 130, 148 Racial/ethnic minority, 135 Reggio Emilia, 38, 115–119, 121, 125, 127–131, 137 Scaffolding, 2, 16, 45–46, 128 School readiness, 8, 137, 140–147, 149, 156, 158–159, 175 Science, 1–15, 17–27, 41, 43, 46, 58–59, 73–77, 80, 84–85, 90, 95–97, 102–104, 106, 109, 111, 131–132, 135, 137, 141, 144–145, 147–149, 158, 160–161, 163–166, 169, 173, 175 Science activities, 9, 13–14, 27 Science vocabulary, 74, 90 Screen technologies, 98, 104 Self-regulation of learning, 7 Seriation, 58, 60, 62, 65 SES, 57, 166–167 Social-conventional knowledge, 58–60 Social-emotional, 19, 137–139, 142–143, 145–146, 149 Spatial relationships, 60–62, 65 Special needs, 167 Systems thinking, 2, 22–23 Teacher preparation, 34, 44, 46, 51, 162, 168 Teacher professional development, 14, 21, 34, 53 Technology, 9–10, 12, 20, 37, 95–102, 105–106, 109–111 Temporal relationships, 60–62, 65

188 The Balance Game, 60–61, 64–65 Tools, 4, 9–10, 18–19, 24, 26–27, 43–44, 50, 97–98, 100–101, 104, 110

INDEX Vocabulary, 7, 12, 17, 73–77, 79–81, 83–85, 87–90, 135, 141–142, 145, 147, 158, 160–168, 171 Vocabulary teaching, 77, 84, 90