Problemas de los fundamentos teóricos del lenguaje políticamente correcto: ¿quitar la

As I described in chapter 3, I entered the field by implementing Dyson and Genishi’s (2005) notion of “casing the joint”. This meant I paid attention, in part, to the classroom space in terms of how participants made meaning and how the classroom resources were used to determine which semiotic demands were placed on students. Thus, the study’s

preliminary focus included examining resources available to students as well as how the spatial layout of the classroom would impact how group collaborations were constructed.

The grade one classroom was part of an association of independent schools in Canada. This independent school didn’t belong to the public system governed and funded by the province. As such, the school charged tuition fees for students (scholarships and

financial aid available). The school adopted a Reggio Emilia approach, as its institutional curriculum, which focused on student-led learning. Students had access to multiple physical resources, to potentially express their meaning making and understandings with their peers and the educator. However, the classroom drew on the Ontario programmatic curriculum as the educator explained in the interview.

Central to the Reggio Emilia8 approach is the idea of ‘hundred languages’, a term which defines “a highly democratic approach to meaning-making, recognizing and valuing multiple forms of communication beyond language” (Cowan, 2015, p. 11). In Reggio classrooms, students are presented with material opportunities to “work through” (p. 2). For example, “natural materials (clay, wire, paint, light)…as well as ‘digital languages’ (Scuola Comunale Dell’Infanzia Diana, 2012)” (p. 2). The Reggio classroom utilizes an “emergent (continuously developing) curriculum” (Schroeder- Yu, 2008, p. 128) which involves the meaning making of the students, and the context of the classroom curriculum (Hočevar, Šebart, & Štefanc, 2013). Likewise, various multimodal texts (such as

documentation) by the educator are used to consider “what directions to pursue” (p. 128).

Semiotic pedagogical processes are exemplified with the Reggio process of

documentation. The presence of this within this classroom, is described within this chapter. Student meaning making or their “learning process” (McNally & Slutsky, 2017, p. 1929) is continuously documented using questioning, “participant observation…on- going dialogue with others” to “inform practice” or “improve and enrich planned experiences” (p. 1929). Documentation types may include “samples of a child’s

work…photographs…comments written by the teacher…transcriptions of the child’s discussions…and comments made by parents” (Schroeder-Yu, 2008, p. 127).

It is important to note that scholars (e.g., Cowan, 2015) have examined fundamental differences “between Reggio Emilia and multimodality” (p. 13). For example, that “the term ‘language’ in ‘hundred languages’ is at odds with a multimodal approach” (p. 13) because language is decentralized and “conceptualizing modes as ‘languages’ might be considered (as) limiting” (p. 13, see educator interview, chapter 5).

The classroom was large enough to house a living green wall, a salmon hatchery, and various resources such as wooden building blocks, iPads, and Apple computers. Due to its size, the classroom was sometimes split into two separate classrooms using a divider. Sometimes, half of the class (approximately ten students) participated in another

discipline taught by another educator while the teacher participant taught the other half of the class. The classroom I viewed also used a cross curricular approach. While

Mathematics and Language each had their own instructional period, they were combined at times, such as during calendar time. Similarly, Social Studies and Science were both covered during the “Investigative Research” instructional period.

Upon entering the classroom, a carpeted seating area could be seen to the left (see figure 5.1) with labelled reading and portfolio bins for student access. Manipulatives were abundant in the classroom. High on the wall was a pottery word wall made in a previous year. Below were various posters, photographs, and transcriptions of what students had learned or made. The educator’s desk and the living green wall were to the right of the classroom entrance. A constant sound of water trickling through each plant could be heard throughout the classroom.

Figure 5.1. Carpeted area with labelled bins.

A whiteboard area was in front of these spaces. This is the area where most lessons took place. Specific content areas, were indicated with various items, such as a number chart, that were on the whiteboard. Padded trapezoid shaped benches formed a semi-circle around the whiteboard for students to sit at. Wobbly stools (stool with a base that was not flat) were wedged between two separate benches for students to use (see figure 5.2). These stools throughout my time within the classroom were alternatively used as a prop, table, and seating option. The space between the benches and the whiteboard was carpeted. Behind this area was circular desks for students to use during the activity portion of the lesson.

Figure 5.2. Seating area.

An additional seating area, where there was a couch, was visible if one is facing the whiteboard. This area is not visible in the photo above. This space contained a couple of computers, a tank filled with plants, and an aquarium that could house animals used for an investigative research project. In addition, various resources in bins could be found here, like wooden building blocks, tree branches, an abacus, a table with a light

underneath, and buttons. This space had large windows that filled the classroom with natural light. In the back corner was a salmon hatchery, tools for students to use that they labeled themselves (e.g., markers, pencil crayons, see figure 5.3), and a sink. If one were to move through the classroom divider, an additional couch and carpeted area, a circular table, and chairs could be found, which students occasionally occupied during whole class lessons to complete their activities.

Figure 5.3. Student made labels for markers.