Implementation support for Te Whāriki

As we all know, ongoing professional learning is vital. The MOE were able to announce that $4 million has been budgeted for professional learning and development programme to support teachers, educators and kaiako across the early learning sector to engage with the updated curriculum. See https://education.govt.nz/early-childhood/teaching-and-learning/ece-curriculum/te-whariki/

Photo credit: Pixabay

Technology enables access in ways unheard of 21 years ago with reference to live-streamed sessions and use of websites. It was therefore unsurprising perhaps that the PLD contracts are led by the fabulous CORE-Education team who have led the way in this domain.

 

 

The revision team began work alongside revising the curriculum document on resources that are included now on: http://tewhariki.tki.org.nz/en/weaving-te-whariki  I will be excited to see what is selected for development of resources on this site and how these relate to the learning outcomes. Keep up-to-date by checking for new material on: http://tewhariki.tki.org.nz/en/teaching-strategies-and-resources/

If you participate in any PLD sessions of any kind, let me know what you engage with around working theories 😉

Reference:

Ministry of Education. (2017). Te Whāriki. He whāriki matauranga mō ngā mokopuna o Aotearoa: Early childhood curriculum. Wellington: Ministry of Education.

 

 

Photo credit: IMG_5747 (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) by AIBakker

Te Whāriki (2017) is launched

What a privilege it was to be on the team that revised Te Whāriki (see https://education.govt.nz/early-childhood/teaching-and-learning/ece-curriculum/te-whariki/the-writers-of-the-update/). We were so fortunate to have the leadership of Nancy Bell and the wisdom and experience of our kuia and kaumatua who led the original curriculum development 21 years ago. We were also pleased with the engagement of the ECE community who provided us with considered and thoughtful feedback that made the final version both richer and contemporary (see https://education.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Early-Childhood/ONLINE-Te-Whariki-Update-Long-v21A.PDF).

The new document was launched just before Easter this year and is exciting both in its content and its visual presentation.

 

 

 

 

 

Kathy Wolfe, the chief executive of Te Rito Maiaha offers the following report of the launch of the document: https://www.ecnz.ac.nz/te-wh-riki-and-te-wh-riki-a-te-k-hanga-reo-launch

Kathy notes that “the updated document is visionary, fresh and engaging and has not lost its core purpose.”  She identifies seven key shifts:

  • deciding what matters
  • using the learning outcomes
  • assessment practice
  • broad and deep curriculum
  • affirming children’s unique cultural identities
  • involving parents and whanau
  • personalised pathways from early learning to school and kura

A few thoughts from me:

Significantly, the document has had a symbolic whāriki (p. 11) gifted to us by a weaver, rather than the kete-like symbol of 1996.

 The vision for children remains, but recognises children in the present as well as future as being competent, confident and capable.

“Underpinning Te Whāriki is the vision that children are

competent and confident learners and communicators, healthy in mind, body and spirit, secure in their sense of belonging and in the knowledge that they make a valued contribution to society. (p. 5)”

 

Te Tiriti o Waitangi commitments begin the document to highlight the bicultural commitments of the curriculum. The principles, strands and goals remain and stand the test of time in their foresight of being about children’s holistic learning and the skilful and thoughtful role kaiako (our new word for all those who educate children) play in creating and engaging with teaching environments that foster this learning. Whakatauki are used throughout the document to highlight key ideas about children, their families and histories, and important messages and metaphors about learning and teaching. For example:

Ehara taku toa i te toa takitahi engari he toa takitini.
I come not with my own strengths but bring with me the gifts,
talents and strengths of my family, tribe and ancestors. (p. 12)

The most significant change is reducing the learning outcomes from 118 to 20. This is more manageable for teachers to engage with and pay attention to in children’s learning over time. More on these in a future post … to highlight where working theories sit and belong in the new document.

Reference:

Ministry of Education. (2017). Te Whāriki. He whāriki matauranga mō ngā mokopuna o Aotearoa: Early childhood curriculum. Wellington: Ministry of Education.

Of blog posts, olives and anchovies

I greatly appreciate, that despite my neglect, many people continue to access this blog and read a range of posts. I hope that this is because the word is slowly spreading in the early childhood community—and beyond—that there are some useful ideas and provocations here for teachers (and perhaps researchers too).

To reorientate you, this blog is about the concept of “working theories”, an innovative learning outcome in the New Zealand early childhood curriculum, Te Whāriki,  that captures the ways children might make sense of their experiences and grow their knowledge and understandings. Throughout, I have referred to the definition that Sarah Jones and I developed:

“Working theories are present from childhood to adulthood. They represent the tentative, evolving ideas and understandings formulated by children (and adults) as they participate in the life of their families, communities, and cultures and engage with others to think, ponder, wonder, and make sense of the world in order to participate more effectively within it. Working theories are the result of cognitive inquiry, developed as children theorise about the world and their experiences. They are also the ongoing means of further cognitive development, because children are able to use their existing (albeit limited) understandings to create a framework for making sense of new experiences and ideas. (p. 36)”

Here’s an opportunity to consider that notion and definition. What kinds of prior ideas, experiences and knowledge might children have brought to the food tasting experiences shared in the following video? The slow motion recording helps us to see their embodied reactions. Observation is such an important skill for teachers to practise when young children cannot express their thinking. In this case it helps is to analyse the kinds of working theories they might be testing out and revising as they explore these tastes and textures…

Do you remember the first time you tasted an olive? Or an anchovy? A new video captures those moments.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/food-wine/videos/8646624/Can-you-remember-your-first-anchovy?cid=app-iPhone

Reference:

Hedges, H., & Jones, S. (2012). Children’s working theories: The neglected sibling of Te Whāriki’s learning outcomes. Early Childhood Folio, 16(1), 34-39. http://www.nzcer.org.nz/search/site/early%20childhood%20folio

Celebrating and revising Te Whariki

Kia ora tatou

Time has flown by! My plans for a monthly blog post have clearly been derailed…

It is twenty years since our internationally-acclaimed early childhood curriculum was released by the Ministry of Education. Its development was remarkable, and included some “flying under the radar” of policy officials (see Sarah Te One’s chapter in Joce Nuttall’s edited book “Weaving Te Whariki” if you are unfamiliar with this story). Since then the sector has largely continued to fly under the radar until the Taskforce report of 2011 and Advisory Group on Early Learning (AGEL) report in 2015 which both recommended a careful look at the ways Te Whariki was being interpreted and used in the sector. The AGEL report also recommended an update and revision of the curriculum.

Earlier this year Nancy Bell was appointed Director of Early Learning at the Ministry (what happened to ECE?) and in July asked for expressions of interest in participating in this update. To cut a long story short I was honoured to be selected to be part of the writing team to update and revise the document – in a relatively short time frame compared to the three years allotted to the original document. As Nancy said, ECE has always had a spirit that tackled tasks head-on. We have met regularly and written and rewritten furiously in between as kaitiaki for this precious taonga. We are fortunate that the original writers and significant others in the sector, along with a range of teachers/kaiako across the country, have provided us with helpful and constructive feedback. The MOE changed a lot from the 1993 draft that lost a lot of the spirit, complexity, context and detail of the 1996 document and we are hopeful we can put this to rights in this revision. Part of my responsibilities in this mission has been to revise early sections of the document. I am of course trying to highlight working theories more explicitly and only time will tell if I have been successful … .

Meantime it’s been wonderful to hear of celebrations around the country for our curriculum document. This post highlights a video made by NZEI, an excellent video apart from one thing – you guessed it! Nothing about working theories and all about learning dispositions. This has prompted me to take a few minutes just before another trip to Wellington for a writers’ hui to post the link and remind us all that:

Attention to children’s working theories – their ideas, critical thinking, and emerging and ongoing meaning making – is the partner to learning dispositions in creating children with strong identities as learners, equipped with the knowledge, skills, strategies, attitudes, expectations and values to take them further in lifelong learning.

Enjoy the video.

 

References:

Ministry of Education. (2015). Report of the Advisory Group on Early Learning. Wellington: Author. http://www.education.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Ministry/consultations/Report-of-the-Advisory-Group-on-Early-Learning.pdf  

Early Childhood Education Taskforce. (2011). An agenda for amazing children: Final report of the Early Childhood Education (ECE) Taskforce. http://www.taskforce.ece.govt.nz/reference-downloads/

Digital technologies, intuition and hunches

This week has seen an important announcement about 21st century learning and expectations of teachers with digital technologies to at last be formally integrated into the New Zealand Curriculum.

https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/nz-curriculum-include-digital-technology

I began to wonder what this might mean for early childhood education, including reigniting debates about teachers incorporating any activities involving screen time into their programmes. While use of movies/DVDs might be confined to special occasions, use of the internet and You Tube on both computers and large screens at group times is becoming more common, but presents some dilemmas for teachers.

Core Education is always a great place to go to read about related ideas. An interesting blog post of Karen Spencer’s is:

What is digital fluency? |

Comments in this post about the creation of knowledge, the importance of dispositions, and Burch’s “hierarchy of competence” (which you can read more about at https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newISS_96.htm) led me to think more about the concept of intuition.

Earlier I shared Bruner’s (1960) idea about intuition and ways we had applied this to children’s working theories in our project. Bruner indicated that intuition is:

“the intellectual technique of arriving at plausible but tentative formulations without going through the analytic steps by which such formulations would be found to be valid or invalid conclusions. Intuitive thinking, the training of hunches, is a much-neglected and essential feature of productive thinking not only in formal academic disciplines but also in everyday life. A shrewd guess, the fertile hypothesis, the courageous leap to a tentative conclusion – these are the most valuable coin of the thinker at work, whatever his line of work” (pp. 3-4).

Burch’s hierarchy of competence explains how intuition operates at two levels. I often use the analogy of learning to drive a car when explaining working theories and this hierarchy also explains well how we utilise instinctive knowledge, turn that into more formal knowledge and then that this becomes the way we do intuitively judge speed, distance, directions and so on when driving.

Back to Karen’s post, thinking about her questions poses challenges for ECE centres. She asks:

  1. What kinds of literacy learning opportunities are offered at your school, ECE centre or kura – and how do these deliberately teach the skills and competencies to navigate online spaces successfully?
  2. Consider the competencies that you seek to develop with your learners: what do these look like when developed in digital contexts?
  3. To what extent are learning areas explored in ways that invite higher-order engagement, problem-solving and authentic use of technologies? Are learners doing more than searching for information? Are they applying it in ways that are real and connected to the world around us?

This led to me thinking about connections between ECE and schooling again – and in further exploring Core Ed blog posts I located: Seriously, what is school for? |

This post is fascinating for two reasons:

  1. It includes the importance of “hunches” in the related diagram – hunches links well to working theories.
  2. The valued outcomes are social, emotional and dispositional  – and therefore connect to ECE well.

We have some data about use of You Tube by teachers that has caused debate. I’ll post about that next time given its topicality related to 21st century learning and learners.

Photo credit: Reese, Hacker.” (CC BY 2.0) by donnierayjones

Children’s interests and inquiries

Fundamental to my work on children’s working theories is exploring their interests and inquiries and ways teachers choose wstart-them-younghose, which and how to engage with these to create curriculum. I try to encourage teachers – and researchers – to look beyond the surface/obvious and really think about children’s underlying curiosities about life and the world they live in, and the working theories that then arise from these.

This kind of research involves getting as close to the worlds and perspectives of children as possible and trying to interpret these curiosities from a range of evidence from children themselves, families and teachers. As I have commented before, it would be so much easier if we could read children’s minds! It takes many data sources over time to figure out very young children’s interests and inquiries. With 3-5 year olds, it is possible to ask them directly about their interests and see what they say. In both my PhD and in the TLRI we did this to help to corroborate and validate some interpretations, and see what we might have missed to that point.

The idea of children as “life theorizers (Inagaki & Hatano, 2002, p. 126) has been posted earlier. In the TLRI we worked further on this idea. We worked hard together to identify what seemed to matter most to children amongst the themes we found. We realised that the notion of identity was central to their range of inquiries and came up with the following fundamental inquiry as underpinning children’s interests, inquiries and working theories:

How can I build personal, learner, and cultural identities as I participate in interesting, fulfilling, and meaningful activities with my family, community, and culture?

Children’s identities included personal (‘Who am I?’, ‘Who are my parents/family?’, ‘What does it mean to be a girl/boy?’), learner (‘Who am I as a learner?’, ‘What learning strategies can I build here?’, ‘How will teachers help me learn?’), and cultural (‘Where do I come from?’, ‘Who am I as a member of a family/culture/ community?’). The latter incorporated inquiry into a shared national identity (‘What features do “New Zealanders” share?’). These interests and the ways they were expressed served to create a sense of multiple personal and shared identities for the children as members of peer groups, families, and wider communities and cultures.

The questions of importance that followed from this were interpreted as:

  • What can I do, now that I am bigger, that the older children do?
  • What do intelligent and responsible adults do?
  • How can I make special connections with people I know?
  • How can I make and communicate meaning?
  • How can I understand the world I live in?
  • How can I develop my physical and emotional well-being?
  • How can I express my creativity?

For those who can access it, this work has been published recently:

Hedges, H., & Cooper, M. (2016). Inquiring minds: Theorizing children’s interests. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 48(3), 303–322. DOI: 10.1080/00220272.2015.1109711

Ethics permissions, and principles and practices I value and adhere to, mean that we can’t share any photos or video excerpts on line from our interviews with children. However, I came across the following via Twitter (which despite my misgivings in an early post has turned out to be a great way to keep in touch with many things educational) advertising Story Park which in many ways supports our findings. You may be interested in viewing these excerpts of interviews with children about their interests – and matching them with our ideas:

What are children really interested in? – YouTube

Photo credit: Start them young 🙂” (CC BY-SA 2.0) by KaseyEriksen

Working on working theories

Recently, I have presented on working theories in Christchurch and Wellington. I have been fortunate to have Daniel Lovatt with me on both occasions, and Niky Veele also in Christchurch. As teacher-researchers, Daniel and Niky also facilitated workshops for teachers about noticing, recognising, responding to, recording and revisiting working theories. In Christchurch I facilitated one on “theories” – as I said there it’s not often an academic gets asked to talk about theory so it was easy to say yes! I used many of the ideas that have been overviewed in this blog.

Thank you to Raewyn Penman and KidsFirst Kindergartens for hosting us in Christchurch and enabling us to share our work with teachers from all over the South Island. Thank you to Judith Loveridge and the Victoria University autumn seminar series team for the opportunity to meet and share with teachers from the greater Wellington area. As we have commented in both places, each time we present and/or write it helps to clarify our thinking a little further. Perhaps some of those teachers may now join in as readers of this blog, continue their discussion and thinking about working theories with their colleagues and inspire their work with children and families further.

I am attaching the edited powerpoint (no videos or photos) from the Wellington keynote to this blog. It will be a bringing together of many ideas already discussed in previous posts.

Hedges & Lovatt keynote presentation notes.

Baking and cooking: useful knowledge

Rogoff (2003) has suggested that some repeated activities that children engage in—that to my mind therefore represent their ongoing interests—may be universal. It is certainly very common to see children enacting food preparation and meal routines in early childhood settings. Children’s knowledge of food preparation and storage could be supported by teachers who have some science content knowledge.

I came across this article by “Nanogirl” Michelle Dickinson, a fabulous scientist who makes science accessible and attractive to children, and adolescents who are considering their future studies and careers. The article is useful knowledge for early childhood teachers to have as children bake and cook in sociodramatic play in centres.

http://nzh.tw/11615389

You can learn more about Michelle and her Nano girl mission at:

http://www.medickinson.com/nanogirl/

“Easter bunny” anyone? Working theories about superheroes

An Easter holiday break is ahead. Now there’easter bunnys an occasion ripe for working theories! Perhaps as part of the magic and joy of childhood, adults promote imaginary characters associated with significant holiday breaks. The Easter bunny anyone? Santa/Father Christmas? And let’s not forget the tooth fairy. These characters provide interesting opportunities for children to believe in enjoyable aspects of Western family life, and to eventually question and challenge related aspects of the world and associated beliefs.

In addition, how do children reconcile these characters with further fictional characters in books they read and movies they see? Those characters can take on a life of their own as children draw on these in their sociodramatic play and develop scripts that act out themes that are fundamental human values and actions. Think Elsa and Frozen, Superman and his various similarly-motivated friends… Any parent or teacher will have examples of children who become quite obsessed with such characters, take on their identity, and explore of good and evil, what being a friend means and so on.

In our TLRI project (Hedges & Cooper, 2014), a discussion about characters and superheroes arose amongst children. Niky saw this as an opportunity to develop and extend children’s working theories while also ensuring that children’s beliefs were respected. She developed a project approach to curriculum that explored “real and pretend”.

Here are two examples of documentation (minus the photos for ethical reasons) of conversations and activities that occurred between Niky and some boys during this time to explore children’s understandings:

First:

Over the last few months there have been lots of discussions about what is real and pretend. Transformers have been the topic of debate for some of our boys. When the interest in transformers first came up, almost all of the children thought they were real. Children have since explored this interest through role play, drawings, building and creating and teachers have challenged children’s theory about transformers being real through showing them the digital making of transformers and also that we can make it look like they are flying when they really aren’t.

Niky: “Are transformers real”?

Isaac: “Pretend coz they don’t come to our house”.

Hunter: “They are real. They stay on the movies. It’s on TV so it can’t come out to see us”.

Hal: “Pretend. That’s why you showed what all happened, what it looks like. Remember you showed us on the computer”? (Referring to when we watched the making of Transformers).

Hunter: “I saw him real on TV. He’s not real he can’t come to your house. He stays on the channel. He’s real on the TV”.

And the second:

Many of our children have shown an interest in television and movie characters including transformers, super heroes and Ben Ten. Over time we have had conversations with children about these characters and whether they are real or pretend. As children view these TV/movie shows they are developing working theories about what they are seeing and often try to makes sense of it through role play.

Through conversations we have discovered that many of our children believe that these flying, gun shooting, bomb throwing, fighting characters are real. With today’s advancements in technology the graphics on these shows can look extremely realistic, especially when accompanied with real actors alongside computer generated images.

I wanted to challenge children’s working theories to give them another perspective about what is real and what is pretend. After all how scary would this world be if you truly thought there were robots that could transform and shoot you? Also how worrying to think that some programmes are teaching our children that you can shoot someone and they can get back up without being hurt at all?

To challenge the children’s working theories about what is real and pretend in terms of superheroes and tv characters, I suggested to Milan and Hal that I could make it look like they were flying in a photo (using photo shop). Milan was super excited [about the resulting photo] and ran to show Hunter. Hunter seemed really shocked and asked me:

“When was Milan flying because I didn’t see him?”

Hunter then also went through the process of making a “flying picture”.

Hal and Hunter’s words are recorded in the following learning story describing their developing understanding of how to make it appear that someone is flying:

How to make it look like you’re flying…

Hunter: “We lied on the table.”

Hal: “Then we put our heads up.”

Hunter: “Take a picture.”

Hal: “And then we printed it out and then we cut it out.”

Hunter: “Then we print the sky.”

Hal: “Then we glued us on the sky picture.”

Hunter: “And we weared our capes.”

 

Enjoy the Easter break ahead and the various working theories it encourages thinking about – for both children and adults …

 

Photo credit:  Easter Bunny” (CC BY 2.0) by  somewhereintheworldtoday 

Reclaiming “joy” in learning

Kia ora tatou

Thank you to all thbaby-with-play-ballsose who came to our seminar last week – the lecture theatre was almost full, and as I said, I was delighted to see so much interest from teachers, and pleased that working theories may at last be coming up the list for attention.

What I find interesting in the international social media space are the posts about ensuring that learning is meaningful and enjoyable, something that a focus on working theories fosters. These posts often come from countries with highly prescribed curricular documents where teachers struggle to justify incorporating learning processes alongside academics.

One example is:

http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/01/joy-the-subject-schools-lack/384800/

What do you think about the notion of “joy” in learning? We can certainly see when we light a spark in children’s eyes through our pedagogical engagement with them, listening to them, and taking their ideas and theories seriously.

If you scroll all the way to the comments you will see Hannah Frank posit that joy and serious learning are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, that is so – as children ponder, explore, ask questions and so on they are also absorbing everyday and conceptual knowledge they can use more productively the next time they encounter that content and puzzle. This again supports the importance of building curriculum around children’s working theories.

The Nobel prize winning economist James Heckman runs an excellent research organisation that looks at longitudinal outcomes of education in order to justify investment in early education. He (or his team) often publish, including via blogs and tweets, about the value of social and emotional outcomes alongside academic outcomes. He sometimes calls these “soft skills” – I am not sure what I think about that term… Nevertheless, this again supports that learning is about much much more than academics.

See http://heckmanequation.org/

Photo credit: publicdomainpictures.net