Sistemas de medida de diagramas de radiación

findings from the pre-pilot telephone interviews suggested that there was an apparent gap in knowledge of what is as an appropriate pedagogy when using technology with young children, this stage was dedicated to working closely with the children and practitioners, observing the

interactions between the participants, and in determining what really was happening. In this stage, the researcher worked closely with the practitioners in collecting data of their current situation, making sense of the information provided, and even modifying the line of inquiry in response to developing understandings. This stage focused on developing awareness and recognition of the alphabets, as found in the Letters and Sounds EYFS curriculum.

For the pilot studies three early years settings were chosen. Unfortunately, one of the early years settings was unable to access a robust internet connection for an extended period of time, and therefore was not able to continue with the test pilot. This became an area of concern for this setting as they were unable to access new forms of technology that require an internet connection. As a result, only two early childhood settings actively participated in the test pilots. Prior to the start of the test pilots, an interview with the preschool managers was recorded in order to gather more general information about the children’s use of technology in the classroom; their current use of the computer, the different types of educational websites children use, how and when the

children use the computer, and some of the challenges they face, whilst in the process of instructing phoneme recognition with the children.

Based on the responses by the preschool manager(s), it was determined that both preschools have to date, not used any educational websites within their settings. It was however, noted that the preschools were keen to introduce the use of the Internet as an emerging form of new technology, and progressively the CBeebies online application software, Alphablocks, into their classroom learning environment.

“I like Alphablocks and would definitely choose it, particularly for this age group. It also follows the phonic study for the EYFS which is good for us” (Appendix 11a, p.223)

131

“....We are keen to introduce the Internet because most of the time the children come in asking to do something specific that they have done at home with their parents, like number charts or a math program which can be very beneficial but we are not able to carry this on with them” (Appendix 12a, p.242).

The findings from the face to face interviews suggested that children use the computer everyday; where the younger children are provided with an induction early on and as they become more confident, are left to explore at their own will. In considering the various ways the children use technology in the classrooms and how often it was used, it would seem that technology is an integral part of the EYFS curriculum and is encouraged to flourish in the early years setting.

“The children used it every day: sometimes on their own, sometimes on their own and sometimes with their friends” (Appendix 11a, p.222).

“We use the computers with preschool every day. Again, the children themselves in the upper school use the computer every day. If we go over now, we will find that someone is on it. My thinking is that we are a computer literate world and its part of their learning” (Appendix 12a, p.241).

The responses from the interviews additionally suggested that there are various ways to encourage phonetic awareness and recognition with the young children. It would seem that the more

alternatives there are to explore, the better for the children where “they it pick it up through various activities...and the children don’t know they are learning” (Appendix 11a, p.225).

“There is no specific way. We do it in role play. We do it in literacy table. ICT games on software – V-TECH. Magic Bus and The caterpillar. We use magnetic letters, books, reading, and singing....the basic sort of things (Appendix 11a, p.225).

“We have songs. We have it displayed in different ways. We have posters. We do the letters and sounds program now. We do storytelling as well. There are lots of different activities we do with the young children” (Appendix 12a, p.246).

In questioning the current pedagogical strategies for encouraging children to learn the sounds of the alphabets, it would seem that active learning experiences are encouraged (following the

High/Scope early years model, see chapter 3.3.2). The practitioners highlight that children get restless very quickly and they “find it difficult to keep them engaged for more than 5 minutes at a time, so we are always trying new things out” (Appendix 11a, p.225).

“There is a lot of adult interaction with the children. Just try to find out what their interests are (and then) look to engage them with it. We engage them with a lot of characters that they can associate themselves with – ones that they are familiar with” (Appendix 11a, p.225).

The background information collected in these interviews prior to this research indicated that although the preschools did not use online educational websites at present, they were very keen to implement its purpose within their early years classroom. While the findings indicate that children are using technology every day, either on their own, with an adult, or with their peers, it was also recognised that practitioners use various forms of hands-on activities to encourage phonetic

132

acquisition with the young children, mainly so that they can keep them engaged for periods of time. Based on the responses of these interviews, stage 2 of Action Research commenced with its four part design strategy of planning, acting, observing, and reflection/analysis.

8.2.1. Planning

In determining what constitutes an appropriate pedagogy whilst using technology with young children, the following distinct pedagogical qualities were highlighted and discussed with the preschool managers/early years practitioners (see chapter 3.4):

1. A balanced mix of adult-initiated and chosen child-initiated activities, where although freely chosen, are yet potentially instructive (Regio Emillia);

This includes two scenarios of practitioner-led sessions with a large group of children and child-led session including a small group of the practitioner and two children.

2. Active learning where children learn through active experiences with people, material, events and ideas (High/Scope).

This included a balanced distribution of practitioner-led instructions for the first ten minutes of the session, and child-driven independent exploration for the last ten minutes (with assistance offered if required).

3. Providing for the quality of meaningful and shared dialogue interactions, between the practitioners and children (Regio Emillia-High/Scope).

This included the practitioner’s dialectical instructional process and the social interactions with the children.

4. The quality of well-being and involvement of the young children, in a planned, supportive learning environment, within challenging and yet achievable experiences for the young children (EXE).

This consisted of a twenty minute planned learning session, within the child’s natural classroom setting.

The following is outlined:

Stage 2:

(Preschool 1): total of 12 children resulting in 6 studies (Preschool 2): total of 12 children resulting in 6 studies. (Preschool 3): None (no internet connection).

Total number: 24 children yielding 12 studies.

Process:

 Cycle 1 consisted of a practitioner-led session with a big group of children (5-7) for approximately twenty minutes in a separate room of the early years setting.

133

The first ten minutes was dedicated to introducing the software, and the last ten minutes dedicated to children and practitioner interaction (in a large group).

 Cycle 2 consisted of a blend of both practitioner and child-led session (between 2/3 children) starting off with approximately ten minutes of practitioner-led instruction with the teacher. In the last ten minutes, where the child on his/her own provided for means of active, exploratory play had the option to call upon the practitioner if any difficult arose. The last ten minutes included less interaction by the practitioner.

Duration:

Each session lasted no longer than approximately 20 minutes to ensure that health and safety standards were adhered to, for the young children as they use the technology

Time:

Morning and afternoon free-play sessions over two day period.

Setting:

Early years classroom to ensure as close as to a natural environment for the children.

8.2.2. Action

The second stage in Action Research undertook the action planned for the changes and evaluating its effects. Within this step, focus was paid to the practitioner and child interactions, in driving forward the attention and interests of the child, within a learning capacity (Iram-Siraj Blatchford 2005).

Action/Intervention: To apply the appropriate pedagogical qualities, whilst using

Alphablocks, so as to encourage the phonemic awareness of the letters and sounds, with young children in their early years.

In this stage, there were iterations of many cycles. The first cycle consisted of practitioner-led sessions consisting of one practitioner, the researcher and a large group of seven to eight children. Spiralling off this cycle, the large groups were modified to group children closer to their age range i.e, 3-4 year old and 4-5 years olds. This immediately reduced the groups to four to five children in session.

The second cycle consisted of a smaller group of child-led sessions, which included one

practitioner, the researcher and two children (regardless of gender). Again, spiralling off this cycle, the small group was then modified to group children closer to their age range (again, regardless of gender). An additional third spiral consisted of a blended approach of practition-led and child-led session. This group included the practitioner, researcher and two children who were similar in age range, and where the learning session was conducted in the early years classroom setting. There

134

were two further mini-spirals of enquiry which were conducted in a seperate, quiet room vs. a corner in the early years classroom, which was less accessable to activities in the playroom.

8.2.3. Observations

The third stage in Action Research observed the actions planned between that of the practitioner and child interactions, in both the practitioner-led and child-led sessions (with some iterations of a blended approach in researcher-led and child-led sessions). The following was noted:

Observations: Preschool 1 and 2

Group Sessions – Comprising of 5-7 children at a time.

Practitioner-led sessions:

 Practitioners were inundated by the technical infrastructure difficulties, and as a result, the twenty minute learning session ended early. The practitioners were unsuccessful in resolving the technical issues (Appendix 11b).

 Practitioners did not feel confident in conducting the learning session and requested the researcher to facilitate the instructional process (resulting in the practitioners adopting the role as an observer).

 Practitioners were mainly occupied with keeping the children calm and collected throughout the session. The practitioners were observed taking a more passive role and making observations/notes.

In the instances where the researcher was requested to facilitate the instructional process, the following was observed and videotaped:

Researcher-led sessions:

 More attention was focused on me, instead of the children participating together in a collaborative learning experience. There was more focus on conversational dialogue (Appendix 12b).

 There was less hands-on active experiences for the children in the group; where it was found that I was more hands-on the laptop/computer.

 The group session was found to be of high pace, with only some dominating children providing responses. As a result, the frequent feedback was found to be less constructive and applicable for all the children involved.

 The lesson plan included very specific learning targets, which was not always appropriate for each child’s progress.

135

Observations: Preschool 1 and 2

children have very basic skills of phonetic knowledge, and others were able to combines phonemes to construct words. As a result, it was difficult to pace the learning for particular groups of children (Appendix 12b).

Child-led sessions – Comprising of 2/3 children at a time

Child-led sessions (practitioner):

 There was good rapport between the practitioner and child.

 There was good understanding by the practitioner of the child’s current competence and level of phonemic knowledge to build upon.

 Good use of dialogue and there were some good demonstrations of Open Questioning.

However,

 More attention was given to the technical difficulties of the infrastructure, setting, and child’s technical motor ability, in which twenty minutes was over just by troubleshooting.

 Some practitioners had not familiarised themselves with the software and so there was much confusion as to what to do next.

 At times the child was more in control of the technology and direction of the software, leaving the practitioner ‘lost in space’.

 At times, the practitioner would leave the child to continue using the software whilst attending to another child (due to lack of staff) or off on a ten minute break.

 Often, the practitioner would turn towards me to ask ‘if this is what is wanted?’ and ‘is this what I need to do?’ (Appendix 11b). There was limited observation of the child’s level of progress and monitoring of outcomes.

 When a child was left to explore in the last ten minutes of the session, they were found to be distracted when there was no guidance and/or conversation taking place between the practitioner and child. It was observed in some cases, that the technical difficulties could not be resolved and the children left the session to carry on with another activity in the classroom.

 In both preschools, I was asked to provide a demonstration of the learning session. In most cases, I was left with the child to facilitate the learning session in the early years classroom. This occurred on a number of occasions.

136

Observations: Preschool 1 and 2

Child-led sessions (researcher):

 There were less technical hindrances, and the dialogue with the children was more context-driven. I was able to steer the learning session with technical difficulties i.e. re-starting the session.

 Children were found to be more involved with me and were found to be more confident whilst using the technology.

 I aimed to followe a roughly structured lesson plan – including that of introduction of software and free flow exploratory play. The ‘instructive’ processes were found to bring some awareness of the child’s level of understanding and progress through the session. There were instances where some children were linking sounds to words, and were also splitting the words into individual phonemes (Appendix 12b).

 There was more control over the smaller group sessions which consisted of two children, within the particular age ranges of 3-4 years and 4-5 years. This helped streamline the phonetic learning session (Appendix 11b) where it was observed that some children remembered the Alphablocks images and the sounds that were linked to them. Others remember the Alphablocks movements, and through this, the sounds attached to them.

 The learning sessions were completed within twenty minutes of time.

8.2.4. Reflections

The last stage in Action Research reflected upon the effects and impact of the intervention in action. The pilot data was collected and evaluated with the preschool practitioners and early years managers. The following was discussed and analysed:

In the event where the practitioner-led session took place with large groups of children, the majority of children were found to be actively involved in watching and interacting with the software. However, they had limited opportunity in using the computer and in being ‘hands-on’. Yet, in the majority of smaller child-led sessions, where the children were intentionally left to explore on their own and were observed to be more ‘hands-on’, it was found that the children become easily distracted and need to be re-guided to the activity.

“I quite liked the practitioner-led and child-led learning sessions. They both fit very well into the EYFS model. But, I think they need to be blended more together. So, where the teacher leads the session for the first ten minutes, that is

137

a good thing, but when the child is leading their own session for the last ten minutes without any guidance, we can see that this can be quite a negative experience for the child. I think some children feel quite alone in the whole process” (Appendix 11c, p.236).

“In the past, we have often showed the children what to do and let them get on with it. If they need help, they call out, but today I observed that children don’t always call out and try to make do, or if they do call out that I am not always available to help them, and by the time I am ready to help they have moved on and beyond the problem...”(Appendix 12c, p.256)

The practitioners from the pilots confessed that they were not confident whilst using Alphablocks in a learning type of environment. They were unsure of the appropriate pedagogic instructions to be applied, and requested for me to take a more active role in facilitating the instruction so that they can make observations and take notes.

“I think you made more of a conscious effort to include the children when using the software. Sometimes, I think it’s easier to let the software do the teaching and we can often rely on it is as form of teaching method but this is not necessarily the right thing to do...” (Appendix 11c, p.237)

“I think I paid more attention to their (the children’s) technical motor abilities and how they used the mouse and what they could do and not do, which used up most (of) our time at the computer...I also think you were more natural in your delivery. You seemed to know the software more, and (were) in a way, more confident about the technology” (Appendix 12c, p.257).

In discussions with the preschool practitioners, it was noted that not only does the Alphablocks software have the potential to encourage phoneme recognition through approaches of systematic methods, but they found that the children were engaged for sustained periods of time.

“The (new media) websites were very conducive in the learning environment. Some children, who have often struggled with (engagement), were able to sit down for the full twenty minutes, watching the episode. ...we noticed that they were also taking part in repeating the sounds of the alphabets and especially during game play when they had to know the sounds of the alphabet to make the word. In contrary to what we see in our classroom. Often, these children are so difficult to engage...” (Appendix 11c, p.235)

It was also observed that some children were able to remember the phonetic sound by associating it with the Alphablock image. Some other children were able to become aware of the sound through features of movement, for instance the Alphablock ‘X’ which represents the action of a hero, in which case it was observed that the boys remember the sound of the letter. Some children

remembered the storyline of the individual games and the letters involved in the narrative (much of this is to do with the repetition of the sounds attached to the letters in the narrative).

“Alphablocks has so many different things happening at the same time. Some children picked up on the bright images. Some other children were really into