ࡱ> 6( *J/ 0|DArialgsRomanXX)x: 0DGaramondRomanXX)x: 0 DTimes New RomanXX)x: 00DWingdingsRomanXX)x: 0@DSimSungsRomanXX)x: 0@0.  @n?" dd@  @@`` x{     U #8!*B,.- ()  () ACTDE]H   %9  3  v w xz{ p0e0e AA18c8c     ?1d0u0@Ty2 NP'p<'pA)BCD|E||@86576yʚ;0)~;ʚ;g4dddddx: 0ppp@ <4dddd$ 0X) <4BdBd$ 0X:___PPT10DSimSun|Z~0:P-XX|x: 0|DArial|Z~0:P-XX|x: 0| ppZ___PPT9<4?  %)IEECERA 2007 Working within the ZPD? Exploring interpretations of projects8J b.=b,,I ]Sarah Chicken, University of the West of England Professor Trisha Maynard, Swansea University^Z^Aims. To explore how Reggio pedagogues appear to interpret  working within the ZPD through an exploration of projects. To investigate how Welsh teachers interpreted Reggio projects and to consider what this might tell us about their construction of teaching and learning and how these teachers might interpret  working within the ZPD . M " + P >f""Context  Foundation Phase for Wales  play-based curriculum for all 3-7 year olds by 2010 \Z&GWhy? 1960s/1970s: A child-centred approach? 1970s/ 1980s: Concerns expressed about the lack of engagement with subjects; perceived over-complexity and informality of pedagogy 1988: A National Curriculum for England and Wales 2000+: Concerns expressed about an over-emphasis on subjects; perceived over-formality of pedagogy.PBPBWhat are projects? &Hadow (1931), Plowden (1967), Katz and Chard (1989): Projects run along side other parts of the curriculum;  Systematic instruction of basic skills. Groups of children engaged in problem solving; Context dependent upon the interests of children; Reggio Socio-constructivist or socio-constructionist  a reinterpretation?; Organic nature  no pre-determined curriculum  all knowledge is open to question; May have a fantastical nature  e.g. how to catch a shadow. Focus upon the process of learning;  Authentic contexts ; 5PPPPP5`aWhat is the ZPD?"~Different interpretations lead to different practice (Wells 1999)  It is treated as an attribute, not of the student alone, but of the student in relation to the specifics of a particular activity setting. In other words, the zone of proximal development is created in the interaction between the student and the co-participants in an activity, including the available tools and the selected practices, and depends on the nature and quality of that interaction as much as on the upper limit of the learner's capability. (Wells, 1999) ZPD as an  interactive space ?*@E  HReggio interpretations of elements of the ZPD displayed through projectsII Research MethodsResearch team - Seven teachers and two researchers Socio cultural approaches - Action Research Seminars - Supporting reflective practice but also input about Reggio philosophy Observations and interviews Interviews and recordings of seminars transcribed and analysed Field notes of observations, seminars, internet and telephone conversations analysed Documentary evidence: photographs, final reports and reflective journals analysedZ   2+Findings (1)-How were projects interpreted?,,3 Findings (2) ]What might interpretations of projects indicate about constructions of teaching and learning?^^(Concluding thoughts While Reggio teachers appeared to interpret the ZPD as an  interactive space , the teachers in the Welsh study appeared to interpret it as the distance between one pre-determined subject goal (knowledge and skills) and the next. (Progress was linear  movement through a series of targets and goals.) In this way the Welsh teachers had a different and possibly a more simplistic view of the ZPD than the Reggio pedagogues. This is not surprising given the cultural and contextual differences. It is interesting to note that the educational context in England and Wales shifted in the latter part of 20thCentury towards a focus on subjects and an attempt to simplify conceptions of the learning process. How might the Foundation Phase be interpreted? z.0PP-{b  b  b  4-{ I  0 References(1)Central Advisory Council for Education (1967) Children and their Primary schools ( The Plowden Report). London: HMSO. Consultative Committee on Education (1931) The Primary School, (The 1931 Hadow Report) London: HMSO. Dahlberg, G., Moss, P. & Pence, A. (1999) Beyond Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care, Routledge: London. Edwards, C. (1998)  Partner, Nurturer, and Guide: The Role of the Teacher. in Edwards,C., Gandini, L. & Forman,G. The Hundred Languages of Children. The Reggio Emilia Approach  Advanced Reflections, (2nd edition). London: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Katz L.G. & Chard S.C. (1989). Engaging children s minds: The project Approach Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing CorporationZ.#PP4H U/+     o  u   :References (2)|Malaguzzi, L. (1998) History, Ideas, and Basic Philosophy. An Interview with Lella Gandini in Edwards, C., Gandini, L., Forman, G. The Hundred Languages of Children. The Reggio Emilia Approach - Advanced Reflections, (1st edition). London: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Rinaldi, C. (1993) The Emergent Curriculum and Social Constructivism, in Edwards, C., Gandini, L., Forman, G. The Hundred Languages of Children. The Reggio Emilia Approach - Advanced Reflections, (1st edition). London: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Wells, C. G, (1999) Dialogic Teaching: towards a socio- cultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wood E. & Attfield J. (1996) Play, learning and Early Childhood Paul Chapman Publishing, London. Wood, D., Bruner, J. & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, 17, 89-100. }ZVz(VIMF#r*vM        v/l # )458  0` 3333ff3` 3333f33ff3` "3333̙ff3` Kf3̙` &e̙3g3f` f333̙po7` ___f3̙;/f9` ff3Lm` ff3LmNLm>?" dd@*?nAd@q<nAqFLK#M n?" dd@   @@``PR    M`2p>> 4,`(    Hh? ?" `}  X Click to edit Master title style!!  l  HT? ?" `<$ 0  RClick to edit Master text styles Second level Third level Fourth level Fifth level!    S    6К #" `] `}  \*     6Ġ #" ``   V*      6 #" `] `}  V*      C @ABCDE FjJ@3"0`B  s *DjJ"0 `0H  0޽h ? ___f3̙;/f9 w ___PPT10W .  +FD ' = @B D ' = @BA?%,( < +O%,( < +D ' =%(D ' =%(D' =ABBB@B0B%())))?D' =1:Bvisible*o3>+B#style.visibility<*!%(D' =ABBB@B0B%())))?D' =1:Bvisible*o3>+B#style.visibility<*!.%(D' =ABBB@B0B%())))?D' =1:Bvisible*o3>+B#style.visibility<*.:%(D' =ABBB@B0B%())))?D' =1:Bvisible*o3>+B#style.visibility<*:G%(D' =ABBB@B0B%())))?D' =1:Bvisible*o3>+B#style.visibility<*GS%(+8+0+0 + Edge`  5 0 p}(    HX-? ?"@ - X Click to edit Master title style!!  %  H8-? ?" <$ 0 - [#Click to edit Master subtitle style$$    6 #" `] `} - \*     6Đ- #" `]}   V*      6- #" `] `} - V*      C @ABCDE F8c@3"@`B  s *DjJ"  H  0޽h ? ___f3̙;/f9___PPT10.  +[W_D' = @B DJ' = @BA?%,( < +O%,( < +D' =%(D)' =%(D' =ABBB@B0B%())))?D' =1:Bvisible*o3>+B#style.visibility<*$%(+8+0+0 +5 0 @*(    0D- P2  - X*   0-  2 - Z* d  c $ ?vj  -  0- [ 0 - RClick to edit Master text styles Second level Third level Fourth level Fifth level!     S  6- P  - X*   60-   - Z* H  0޽hW ? 3380___PPT10./@ 8(    0  P2    >*   0r   2   @*   6X  P    >*   60      @* H  0޽hW ? 3380___PPT10.pl6 0L0 0 0(   x  c $P-  - x  c $-c ` Y - H  0޽h ? 33___PPT10u..6+D=' = @B + 5 0L0 `L(  ~  s *-  -   c $J1 N - "p`PpH  0޽h ? 33___PPT10i.2Nj+D=' = @B + 5 0L0  6(   x  c $P1g  1 ~  s *Q1 ` 1 H  0޽h ? 33___PPT10i.+D=' = @B + 5 0L0 (6(  (~ ( s *4f1 `}  1 x ( c $ g1 Y, 1 H ( 0޽h ? 33___PPT10i.+D=' = @B + 5 0L0 06(  0~ 0 s *,1 `}  1 x 0 c $Ȗ1 `< 1 H 0 0޽h ? 33___PPT10i.{Ћe+D=' = @B + 5 0L0 T8v(  8p TZ T8 #""wTZ 8 <1? Z _Vygotsky - Verbal Symbolic and expressive languages viewed as tools for cognitive development.``P@08X 8 <p1?T  XRole of Language @` 8 <1?L Z  ,Interaction essential in knowledge construction  hence projects All participants can hold this role (Wells, 1999) Context laden Resources, situation*s #P@08X 8 <T1?TL   ^Knowledge- able other  @` 8 <  ?"`ZL  Strong , capable, curious ( Malaguzzi, 1993) Protagonist in the learning situation Partner, nurturer and guide (Edwards, 1998) Scaffolder, (Wood, Bruner and Ross, 1976) Intelligent action ( Wood and Attfield, 1996)P@08X 8 <  ?"`TL  `Role of learner/ adult  @`+  8 < ?Z oNever only one truth Multiple perspectives (Dahlberg, Moss and Pence, 1999) Focus upon process (Rinaldi, 1993)ppP@08X  8 < ?T [Nature of knowledge @``B  8 0o ?TZ`B  8 0o ?TZ`B  8 01 ?TL ZL ZB 8 s *1 ?T Z `B 8 0o ?TZZB 8 s *1 ?`B 8 0o ?ZZ`B 8 0o ?TTL `B 8 0o ?TT`B 8 0o ?TL T`B 8 01 ?L ZB 8 s *1 ?L ~ 8 s *h" Z   H 8 0޽h ? 33___PPT10u..xA+D=' = @B + 5 0 @<(  @~ @ s *5  `}   ~ @ s *6  `Y   H @ 0޽h ? 33___PPT10u..-/+D=' = @B + 5 0L0 0 S2(  ~  s *A  `   t jF S #" <F     <xO ? cF Initial observations were teacher-dominated in terms of dialogue and content. Reggio discourse taken on quickly - uncertain how to proceed. Started from Scheme of work  What do you want to learn about? Children discussed which insect that they were most interested in finding out about. Children placed in groups such as  the Snails ,  Worms and investigated problems such as  what do snails eat? ,  Where do worms live? Children not able to move from designated groups. Most activities completed alone.  Group discussions often between one child and the teacher. Ffion felt she needed to  negotiate the direction of learning. Ffion s colleagues were concerned about  when do you tell the children the right answer? Ffion felt that the project had made her value colour mixing and observational drawing. At the end of the research she asked  Was this a project? Nf !  3 }  >8;T  @@``  <,r ?c F .Cerys felt that  Reggio and the Foundation Phase are the same . Reggio discourse was taken on very quickly. Children were placed by the teacher into ability groups such as  The Farm and asked: What do you want to know? Projects were started with props and questions  in case the children did not have ideas& some children require intervention. All activities were planned by the teacher. Children were seated in ability groups and worked independently. Verbal language was used to ask children what they would like to do or what they knew. Art used to make representations of project artefacts e.g. clay horses and painting Angel fishes. Throughout observations there was a difference between rhetoric and practice. Z 1   . O u   @@``  <,e ? jc v Ffion, (4-5)    @@``  <| ?j c \ Cerys, (3-4)    @@```B  0o ?jjZB   s *1 ?cc`B   0o ?FF`B   0o ?jFZB   s *1 ? j F`B   0o ?jFH  0޽h ? 33___PPT10u..БXq+D=' = @B + 5 0L0 P \b(  r  S  9     \ #"      <d ?  \ h Recognised a difference between Reggio discourse and previous language - unsure how to proceed. Initially felt the teacher should teach skills and have control. Started from her usual scheme of work:  minibeasts . Asked children what they knew. Wanted all children to find out about insects. During hot weather children wanted to make fans and buses for butterflies. Rhian concerned:  butterflies don t need fans! Attention shifted to a small group of interested children. Felt her role was changing - becoming more able to stand back  not always easy. Allowed children to choose involvement and collaborative partners  but battled with external pressures. Amazed at  streetwise children who came up with creative solutions whilst  brighter children struggled. Resolved to pay more attention to the analysis of thinking: her  slow awakening . Began to annotate different  work : valuable but time-consuming. Moved towards discussion of issues with small groups of self-selected children  but worried about  content .  Did I ever really listen to their ideas? Would I have valued or let them explore them anyway?.. They have to jump through our hoops to get recognition for their  intelligence .           , A  @@``  <P ?  Initially felt  projects and her usual  topics were the same. Started with scheme of work -  growing - What do you know? What do you to find out? All children involved. Grew plants and looked for information. Chose who they worked with. Children became concerned about a real problem  how to protect plants from footballs. A small group of self-selected children worked on this problem. Conversations became focused on helping children to find a solution.  I could see it happening in front of my eyes& . the class began to bubble& .the language was rich and enthralling. Felt had underestimated the use of art as a  thinking tool . Towards the end of the project:  we want everyone to be at the same level but & is it really necessary for everyone to be able to make an electrical circuit by the end of year two?  It had been a challenge and a luxury to focus on children s learning . X}i + 9 r a     @@``  <  ?"`  v Rhian, (5-6)    @@``  <  ?"`  \ Rachel (5-6)    @@```B  0o ?ZB  s *1 ?`B   0o ?`B   0o ?ZB   s *1 ?  `B   0o ?H  0޽h ? 33___PPT10u..H+D=' = @B +h 5  0L0 [S`X(  X~ X s *t    -l ,, X #",, X < ? , XWelsh teachers @` X < ?  [Reggio pedagogues @` X <1 ? T   @` (X <(= ? ,, p(Not seen as relevant  activities do not facilitate interaction Children perceived to have quantifiable knowledge deemed as  knowledgeable others Change in some settings where teachers began to use more  open projects  teachers questioned nature of intelligence and ability @` 'X <E ?  , y1All participants can hold this role Context laden22 @` &X <O ? , _Knowledge-able other  @` %X <XS ? ,  8Weak? Empty vessel? Transmitter of given information Guide in the sense of guiding in a given direction- towards  certain knowledge External pressure impacting on interpretation of role, interpretation of children and interpretation of knowledge. @` $X <c ?  PStrong, capable and curious ( Malaguzzi, 1993) Protagonists in the learning process Partner, nurturer and guide ( Edwards, 1998) Scaffolder (Wood, Bruner and Ross, 1976) Intelligent action (Wood and Attfield, 1996)FBV @` #X <Pp ?  ^Role of learner/ adult @``B ,X 0o ?,ZB -X s *1 ? , `B /X 0o ?,,,`B 0X 0o ?,ZB 1X s *1 ?,ZB 2X s *1 ?  ,`B 3X 0o ?,,,ZB X s *1 ?,H X 0޽h ? 33___PPT10u..+D=' = @B +55 0L0 ( A (   l w A #""w  << ?w XWelsh teachers @`  <p ?w [Reggio pedagogues @`  < ?w T   @`   < ?B x0Only one truth  factual information. Projects seen as a way of imparting factual knowledge. Product not process. Behaviourist /Socio  constructivist? @`U   < ?B Never only one truth. Multiple perspectives (Dahlberg, Moss and Pence, 1999). Focus upon process (Rinaldi, 1993). Socio constructivist/ constructionist? @`  <̵ ?B [Nature of knowledge @`T  <$ ?B Language primarily perceived as a tool for transmission of information (at least initially). Emphasis upon VERBAL language. Art seen in terms of skills. @`   <H ?B MSymbolic and expressive languages viewed as tools for cognitive development. NN @`  < ?B XRole of language @``B   0o ?wwZB   s *1 ?BB`B   0o ?`B  0o ?wZB  s *1 ?wZB  s *1 ?w`B  0o ?wZB  s *1 ?H  0޽h ? 33___PPT10u..+D=' = @B + 5  0L0 l0(  lx l c $\ w `j   x l c $ z<   H l 0޽h ? 33___PPT10i.l+D=' = @B + 5 0L0 *(  x  c $  `}   r  S ` M'g   H  0޽h ? ___f3̙;/f9___PPT10u..k;+D=' = @B +} 5 0 $(  r  S 8  `}   r  S   `   H  0޽h ? ___f3̙;/f9___PPT10i.ME+D=' = @B + 0 P((  d  c $vj   1  s * 1[ 0  1 1. What did I want to find out? Could the ZPD (or my interpretation of the ZPD) be used as a frame for investigating learning? this will depend on how you interpret the ZPD How you interpret what it means to learn too! H  0޽hW ? 3380___PPT10.$ 0 [Sp(  d  c $vj    G  s * [ 0T   <4___PPT9 +Used to draw up a framework for comparison ," ,+ H  0޽hW ? 3380___PPT10.j~ 0 $(  $d $ c $vj     $ s *p [ 0    x@2. Background FP  play based, more process than product NC teachers have worked for almost 2 decades within a rigid framework in terms of curriculum, assessment and inspections, Sats removed but many schools still level children (and use English SATs) Doing projects and doing Reggio  what does this mean???? That s what we used to do  particularly form teachers who would have worked before 1989 Or teachers in nursery classes Again what is important to draw out in this slide, focus has now changed slightly New Right too informal pendulum!H $ 0޽hW ? 3380___PPT10.o( 0 1),(  ,d , c $vj     , s *) [ 0    Projects are open to interpretation but these are our interpretation of well known examples of a project approach Crossing boundaries ReinterpretationsH , 0޽hW ? 3380___PPT10.p_ 0 4o(  4d 4 c $vj     4 s *6 [ 0    YECloset to own thinking and congruent with learning inside RE projectsH 4 0޽hW ? 3380___PPT10.`}@ 0 <P(  <d < c $vj     < s *T< [ 0    :3. What did I do? Worked on a framework - how do reggio pedagogues appear to interpret elements of working within the ZPD through the use of projects? Why these headings? Focus upon the social aspect of learning Cross reference of literature (H < 0޽hW ? 3380___PPT10.z> 0 DN(  Dd D c $vj     D s *F [ 0    8 H D 0޽hW ? 3380___PPT10.{H* 0 p:(  pd p c $vj     p s *X [ 0x   `X___PPT9:2    Within this study, we focused not on the Welsh teachers' normal classroom practice but on how they responded to our encouragement to explore Reggio-inspired approaches. This, and in particular their reluctance to fully engage with Reggio philosophy and approaches, helped to make visible teachers' practice. While the framework provided a useful tool for comparing how teachers in Reggio and Wales approached learning - we are not suggesting that either Reggio teachers or the teachers in Wales were consciously attempting to work within the ZPD in this particular way - our interpretation. What you have here are two clear ''messages' emerging from this paper (other than the theme of interpretation and the context of projects): 1) You have provided a framework to identify how Reggio teachers construct teaching and learning and, through this, an indication of how they might interpret the ZPD (as an interactive space) 2) You have used this framework to identify how the Welsh teachers constructed teaching and learning and through this, an indication of how they might interpret the ZPD (as the distance between one pre-determined subject goal and the next). The apparent differences between the R and W teachers were unsurprising given the cultural and contextual differences... Significant that the educational context in England and Wales shifted in latter part of 20C towards a focus to subjects and tried to simplfy conceptions of the learning process. The proposed Foundation Phase for Wales appears to reflect a sociocultural perspective but Reggio appears to reflect a constructionist perspective & too much uncertainty for Wales! lR" m" " 6bb n,P  $ H p 0޽hW ? 3380___PPT10.oB  0   0R (  ^  S vj       c $x [ 0    H  4. What does this mean? Did a pattern emerge? Role of adult/ Lerner Weak and transmitter  needed to go from schemes of work Ability groups  linear what children need to know for the next class or stage Worried when children wanted to make fans for butterflies, angel fish etc because it was not factually correct External pressure  accountability Knowledgeable other Not seen as important often children were sat in groups BUT working independently  teacher viewed as the expert Where collaborative work occurred there was an expectation that  more able children would excel  teachers were very surprised when this was not the case  Question ability and who may be  the more knowledgeable other only happens where teachers become consciously are aware that discourse of Reggio may be difference in practice Language Emphasis upon verbal language for instructional purposes Often children sat in groups but having a 1:1 conversation with the teacher only Role of art underestimated but this may have been a limitation of the research Where it begins to be recognised there is also concern about how time consuming this might be. Epistemology Knowledge like a tangle of spaghetti Knowledge linear and skills necessary for the next level Strong , capable, curious Protagonist in the learning situation Partner, nurturer and guide scaffolder, assisted performance Intelligent action B.PPPPP P9P P_PPPP.     9 _H  0޽hW ? 3380___PPT10.N -۰ 0 ,(  ^  S vj      c $ [ 0    " H  0޽hW ? 3380___PPT10.PP3G 0 @ W(   d   c $vj       s * [ 0    A4. What happened?H   0޽hW ? 3380___PPT10.{t. 0 >(  ^  S vj      c $ [ 0    4Started with scheme of work  growing - What do you want to find out? All Children grew plants and found out information. Children become concerned about a real problem  How to protect plants from footballs! A small group of self selected children work on this problem  I could see it happening in front of my eyes& . the class began to bubble. JZ'LMH  0޽hW ? 3380___PPT10.` 0 ,(  ^  S vj      c $ [ 0    " H  0޽hW ? 3380___PPT10.#G r FYpc=fik`nq Qpd#D(0h_02pj6M7:V[:1'7( *J/ 0|DArialgs-C<$0<z[ 04DGaramond-C<$0<z[ 04 DTimes New Roman<$0<z[ 040DWingdingsRoman<$0<z[ 04@DSimSungsRoman<$0<z   On-screen Shows-s A Arial GaramondTimes New Roman WingdingsSimSunEdgeJEECERA 2007 Working within the ZPD? Exploring interpretations of projectsAims\Context Foundation Phase for Wales play-based curriculum for all 3-7 year olds by 2010 What are projects? What is the ZPD?IReggio interpretations of elements of the ZPD displayed through projectsResearch Methods,Findings (1)-How were projects interpreted? Findings (2)^What might interpretations of projects indicate about constructions of teaching and learning? Slide 11Concluding thoughtsReferences(1)References (2)  Fonts UsedDesign Template Slide Titles-@Garamond-<z[ 04@DSimSungsRoman<$0<z[ 04@0.  @n?" dd@  @@`` |     U #8!*B,.- ()  () ACTDE]H   %9  3  v w xz{ p0e0e AA18c8c     ?1d0u0@Ty2 NP'p<'pA)BCD|E||@86576yʚ;0)~;ʚ;g4ddddTz[ 0ppp@ <4dddd 0,C <4BdBd< 0:___PPT10DSimSunؤ0ؤz[ 0ФDArialؤ0ؤz[ 0Ф ppZ___PPT9<4?  %)IEECERA 2007 Working within the ZPD? Exploring interpretations of projects8J b.=b,,I ]Sarah Chicken, University of the West of England Professor Trisha Maynard, Swansea University^Z^Aims. To explore how Reggio pedagogues appear to interpret  working within the ZPD through an exploration of projects. To investigate how Welsh teachers interpreted Reggio projects and to consider what this might tell us about their construction of teaching and learning and how these teachers might interpret  working within the ZPD . M " + P >f""Context  Foundation Phase for Wales  play-based curriculum for all 3-7 year olds by 2010 \Z&GWhy? 1960s/1970s: A child-centred approach? 1970s/ 1980s: Concerns expressed about the lack of engagement with subjects; perceived over-complexity and informality of pedagogy 1988: A National Curriculum for England and Wales 2000+: Concerns expressed about an over-emphasis on subjects; perceived over-formality of pedagogy.PBPBWhat are projects? &Hadow (1931), Plowden (1967), Katz and Chard (1989): Groups of children engaged in problem solving; Context dependent upon the interests of children; Projects run along side other parts of the curriculum;  Systematic instruction of basic skills. Reggio Organic nature  no pre-determined curriculum  all knowledge is open to question; Focus upon the process of learning;  Authentic contexts ; May have a fantastical nature  e.g. how to catch a shadow. Socio-constructivist or socio-constructionist  a reinterpretation?5PPPPP5+What is the ZPD?"~Different interpretations lead to different practice (Wells 1999)  It is treated as an attribute, not of the student alone, but of the student in relation to the specifics of a particular activity setting. In other words, the zone of proximal development is created in the interaction between the student and the co-participants in an activity, including the available tools and the selected practices, and depends on the nature and quality of that interaction as much as on the upper limit of the learner's capability. (Wells, 1999) [ 04@0.  @n?" dd@  @@`` |     U #8!*B,.- ()  () ACTDE]H   %9  3  v w xz{ p0e0e AA18c8c     ?1d0u0@Ty2 NP'p<'pA)BCD|E||@86576yʚ;0)~;ʚ;g4ddddTz[ 0ppp@ <4dddd 0,C <4BdBd< 0:___PPT10DSimSunؤ0ؤz[ 0ФDArialؤ0ؤz[ 0Ф ppZ___PPT9<4?  %)IEECERA 2007 Working within the ZPD? Exploring interpretations of projects8J b.=b,,I ]Sarah Chicken, University of the West of England Professor Trisha Maynard, Swansea University^Z^Aims. To explore how Reggio pedagogues appear to interpret  working within the ZPD through an exploration of projects. To investigate how Welsh teachers interpreted Reggio projects and to consider what this might tell us about their construction of teaching and learning and how these teachers might interpret  working within the ZPD . M " + P >f""Context  Foundation Phase for Wales  play-based curriculum for all 3-7 year  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~ olds by 2010 \Z&GWhy? 1960s/1970s: A child-centred approach? 1970s/ 1980s: Concerns expressed about the lack of engagement with subjects; perceived over-complexity and informality of pedagogy 1988: A National Curriculum for England and Wales 2000+: Concerns expressed about an over-emphasis on subjects; perceived over-formality of pedagogy.PBPBWhat are projects? &Hadow (1931), Plowden (1967), Katz and Chard (1989): Groups of children engaged in problem solving; Context dependent upon the interests of children; Projects run along side other parts of the curriculum;  Systematic instDocumentSummaryInformation8&(Root EntrydO)@KH$ Current User/SummaryInformation( PowerPoint Document(   !"#$%'()*+,-./0123456_CSarahSarahOh+'0 hp    (4<>Working within the ZPD? Exploring interpretations of projectsnsrkEdgeng Sarahg 35aMicrosoft PowerPointD? @D@@p!?1@ u4$6 Gg  @  Yruction of basic skills. Reggio Organic nature  no pre-determined curriculum  all knowledge is open to question; Focus upon the process of learning;  Authentic contexts ; May have a fantastical nature  e.g. how to catch a shadow. Socio-constructivist or socio-constructionist  a reinterpretation?5PPPPP5+,What is the ZPD?"~Different interpretations lead to different practice (Wells 1999)  It is treated as an attribute, not of the student alone, but of the student in relation to the specifics of a particular activity setting. In other words, the zone of proximal development is created in the interaction between the student and the co-participants in an activity, including the available tools and the selected practices, and depends on the nature and quality of that interaction as much as on the upper limit of the learner's capability. (Wells, 1999) ZPD as an  interactive space ?*@E  HReggio interpretations of elements of the ZPD displayed through projectsII Research MethodsResearch team - Seven teachers and two researchers Socio cultural approaches - Action Research Seminars - Supporting reflective practice but also input about Reggio philosophy Observations and interviews Interviews and recordings of seminars transcribed and analysed Field notes of observations, seminars, internet and telephone conversations analysed Documentary evidence: photographs, final reports and reflective journals analysedZ   2+Findings (1)-How were projects interpreted?,,3 Findings (2) ]What might interpretations of projects indicate about constructions of teaching and learning?^^(Concluding thoughts While Reggio teachers appeared to interpret the ZPD as an  interactive space , the teachers in the Welsh study appeared to interpret it as the distance between one pre-determined subject goal (knowledge and skills) and the next. (Progress was linear  movement through a series of targets and goals.) In this way the Welsh teachers had a different and possibly a more simplistic view of the ZPD than the Reggio pedagogues. This is not surprising given the cultural and contextual differences. It is interesting to note that the educational context in England and Wales shifted in the latter part of 20thCentury towards a focus on subjects and an attempt to simplify conceptions of the learning process. How might the Foundation Phase be interpreted? z.0PP-{b  b  b  4-{ I  0 References(1)Central Advisory Council for Education (1967) Children and their Primary schools ( The Plowden Report). London: HMSO. Consultative Committee on Education (1931) The Primary School, (The 1931 Hadow Report) London: HMSO. Dahlberg, G., Moss, P. & Pence, A. (1999) Beyond Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care, Routledge: London. Edwards, C. (1998)  Partner, Nurturer, and Guide: The Role of the Teacher. in Edwards,C., Gandini, L. & Forman,G. The Hundred Languages of Children. The Reggio Emilia Approach  Advanced Reflections, (2nd edition). London: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Katz L.G. & Chard S.C. (1989). Engaging children s minds: The project Approach Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing CorporationZ.#PP4H U/+     o  u   :References (2)|Malaguzzi, L. (1998) History, Ideas, and Basic Philosophy. An Interview with Lella Gandini in Edwards, C., Gandini, L., Forman, G. The Hundred Languages of Children. The Reggio Emilia Approach - Advanced Reflections, (1st edition). London: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Rinaldi, C. (1993) The Emergent Curriculum and Social Constructivism, in Edwards, C., Gandini, L., Forman, G. The Hundred Languages of Children. The Reggio Emilia Approach - Advanced Reflections, (1st edition). London: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Wells, C. G, (1999) Dialogic Teaching: towards a socio- cultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wood E. & Attfield J. (1996) Play, learning and Early Childhood Paul Chapman Publishing, London. Wood, D., Bruner, J. & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, 17, 89-100. }ZVz(VIMF#r*vM        v/l # )458  ` 3333ff3` 3333f33ff3` "3333̙ff3` Kf3̙` &e̙3g3f` f333̙po7` ___f3̙;/f9` ff3Lm` ff3LmNLm>?" dd@*?nAd@q<nAqFLK#M n?" dd@   @@``PR    M`2p>> `(    HC? ?" `} C X Click to edit Master title style!!  @  H|C? ?" ` C RClick to edit Master text styles Second level Third level Fourth level Fifth level!    S    6PC #" `] `} C \*     6C #" ``  C V*      6\C #" `] `} C V*      C @ABCDE FjJ@3"0`B  s *DjJ"0 `0H  0޽h ? ___f3̙;/f9___PPT10i.  +D=' = @B + Edge 5 pQ(    H+C? ?"@   X Click to edit Master title style!!    H ? ?"    [#Click to edit Master subtitle style$$    6  #" `] `}   \*     6  #" `]}    V*      6  #" `] `}   V*      C @ABCDE F8c@3"@`B  s *DjJ"  H  0޽h ? ___f3̙;/f9___PPT10i.  +D=' = @B +6K0 0 0(   x  c $     x  c $X c ` Y   H  0޽h ? 33___PPT10i.6+D=' = @B + 5K0 (6(  (~ ( s *,, `}  , x ( c $, Y, , H ( 0޽h ? 33___PPT10i.+D=' = @B + 5K0 T8v(  8p TZ T8 #""wTZ 8 <X,? Z _Vygotsky - Verbal Symbolic and expressive languages viewed as tools for cognitive development.``P@08X 8 <?T  XRole of Language @` 8 <Lz ?L Z  ,Interaction essential in knowledge construction  hence projects All participants can hold this role (Wells, 1999) Context laden Resources, situation*s #P@08X 8 <%?TL   ^Knowledge- able other  @` 8 <0 ?"`ZL  Strong , capable, curious ( Malaguzzi, 1993) Protagonist in the learning situation Partner, nurturer and guide (Edwards, 1998) Scaffolder, (Wood, Bruner and Ross, 1976) Intelligent action ( Wood and Attfield, 1996)P@08X 8 <X: ?"`TL  `Role of learner/ adult  @`+  8 <C?Z oNever only one truth Multiple perspectives (Dahlberg, Moss and Pence, 1999) Focus upon process (Rinaldi, 1993)ppP@08X  8 <4E?T [Nature of knowledge @``B  8 0o ?TZ`B  8 0o ?TZ`B  8 01 ?TL ZL ZB 8 s *1 ?T Z `B 8 0o ?TZZB 8 s *1 ?`B 8 0o ?ZZ`B 8 0o ?TTL `B 8 0o ?TT`B 8 0o ?TL T`B 8 01 ?L ZB 8 s *1 ?L ~ 8 s *PZ   H 8 0޽h ? 33___PPT10i.xA+D=' = @B + 5 @<(  @~ @ s * Z `}   ~ @ s *D `Y  H @ 0޽h ? 33___PPT10i.-/+D=' = @B + 5K0 0 S2(  ~  s *$j `   t jF S #" <F    <? cF Initial observations were teacher-dominated in terms of dialogue and content. Reggio discourse taken on quickly - uncertain how to proceed. Started from Scheme of work  What do you want to learn about? Children discussed which insect that they were most interested in finding out about. Children placed in groups such as  the Snails ,  Worms and investigated problems such as  what do snails eat? ,  Where do worms live? Children not able to move from designated groups. Most activities completed alone.  Group discussions often between one child and the teacher. Ffion felt she needed to  negotiate the direction of learning. Ffion s colleagues were concerned about  when do you tell the children the right answer? Ffion felt that the project had made her value colour mixing and observational drawing. At the end of the research she asked  Was this a project? Nf !  3 }  >8;T  @@``  <?c F .Cerys felt that  Reggio and the Foundation Phase are the same . Reggio discourse was taken on very quickly. Children were placed by the teacher into ability groups such as  The Farm and asked: What do you want to know? Projects were started with props and questions  in case the children did not have ideas& some children require intervention. All activities were planned by the teacher. Children were seated in ability groups and worked independently. Verbal language was used to ask children what they would like to do or what they knew. Art used to make representations of project artefacts e.g. clay horses and painting Angel fishes. Throughout observations there was a difference between rhetoric and practice. Z 1   . O u   @@``  <s? jc v Ffion, (4-5)    @@``  <0?j c \ Cerys, (3-4)    @@```B  0o ?jjZB   s *1 ?cc`B   0o ?FF`B   0o ?jFZB   s *1 ? j F`B   0o ?jFH  0޽h ? 33___PPT10i.БXq+D=' = @B + 5K0 P \b(  r  S 49     \ #"     <,?  \ h Recognised a difference between Reggio discourse and previous language - unsure how to proceed. Initially felt the teacher should teach skills and have control. Started from her usual scheme of work:  minibeasts . Asked children what they knew. Wanted all children to find out about insects. During hot weather children wanted to make fans and buses for butterflies. Rhian concerned:  butterflies don t need fans! Attention shifted to a small group of interested children. Felt her role was changing - becoming more able to stand back  not always easy. Allowed children to choose involvement and collaborative partners  but battled with external pressures. Amazed at  streetwise children who came up with creative solutions whilst  brighter children struggled. Resolved to pay more attention to the analysis of thinking: her  slow awakening . Began to annotate different  work : valuable but time-consuming. Moved towards discussion of issues with small groups of self-selected children  but worried about  content .  Did I ever really listen to their ideas? Would I have valued or let them explore them anyway?.. They have to jump through our hoops to get recognition for their  intelligence .           , A  @@``  <P,?  Initially felt  projects and her usual  topics were the same. Started with scheme of work -  growing - What do you know? What do you to find out? All children involved. Grew plants and looked for information. Chose who they worked with. Children became concerned about a real problem  how to protect plants from footballs. A small group of self-selected children worked on this problem. Conversations became focused on helping children to find a solution.  I could see it happening in front of my eyes& . the class began to bubble& .the language was rich and enthralling. Felt had underestimated the use of art as a  thinking tool . Towards the end of the project:  we want everyone to be at the same level but & is it really necessary for everyone to be able to make an electrical circuit by the end of year two?  It had been a challenge and a luxury to focus on children s learning . X}i + 9 r a     @@``  <P ?"`  v Rhian, (5-6)    @@``  < ?"`  \ Rachel (5-6)    @@```B  0o ?ZB  s *1 ?`B   0o ?`B   0o ?ZB   s *1 ?  `B   0o ?H  0޽h ? 33___PPT10i.H+D=' = @B +\ 5 K0 [S`X(  X~ X s *D   -l ,, X #",, X <8? , XWelsh teachers @` X <l?  [Reggio pedagogues @` X <? T   @` (X <$? ,, p(Not seen as relevant  activities do not facilitate interaction Children perceived to have quantifiable knowledge deemed as  knowledgeable others Change in some settings where teachers began to use more  open projects  teachers questioned nature of intelligence and ability @` 'X <3?  , y1All participants can hold this role Context laden22 @` &X <(=? , _Knowledge-able other  @` %X <@? ,  8Weak? Empty vessel? Transmitter of given information Guide in the sense of guiding in a given direction- towards  certain knowledge External pressure impacting on interpretation of role, interpretation of children and interpretation of knowledge. @` $X <S?  PStrong, capable and curious ( Malaguzzi, 1993) Protagonists in the learning process Partner, nurturer and guide ( Edwards, 1998) Scaffolder (Wood, Bruner and Ross, 1976) Intelligent action (Wood and Attfield, 1996)FBV @` #X <HN?  ^Role of learner/ adult @``B ,X 0o ?,ZB -X s *1 ? , `B /X 0o ?,,,`B 0X 0o ?,ZB 1X s *1 ?,ZB 2X s *1 ?  ,`B 3X 0o ?,,,ZB X s *1 ?,H X 0޽h ? 33___PPT10i.+D=' = @B +)5K0 (     A (   l w A #""w  <t ?w XWelsh teachers @`  < ?w [Reggio pedagogues @`  < ?w T   @`   <4 ?B x0Only one truth  factual information. Projects seen as a way of imparting factual knowledge. Product not process. Behaviourist /Socio  constructivist? @`U   < ?B Never only one truth. Multiple perspectives (Dahlberg, Moss and Pence, 1999). Focus upon process (Rinaldi, 1993). Socio constructivist/ constructionist? @`  < ?B [Nature of knowledge @`T  < ?B Language primarily perceived as a tool for transmission of information (at least initially). Emphasis upon VERBAL language. Art seen in terms of skills. @`   <Ի ?B MSymbolic and expressive languages viewed as tools for cognitive development. NN @`  < ?B XRole of language @``B   0o ?wwZB   s *1 ?BB`B   0o ?`B  0o ?wZB  s *1 ?wZB  s *1 ?w`B  0o ?wZB  s *1 ?H  0޽h ? 33___PPT10i.+D=' = @B + 5K0 *(  x  c $ `}   r  S M'g  H  0޽h ? ___f3̙;/f9___PPT10i.k;+D=' = @B +} 5 $(  r  S ! `}   r  S L& `  H  0޽h ? ___f3̙;/f9___PPT10i.ME+D=' = @B +r\3 jm 1p C(02 h6 bW'c:{?  :n6( *J/ 0|DArialgs-C<$0<z[ 04DGaramond-C<$0<z[ 04 DTimes New Roman<$0<z[ 040DWingdingsRoman<$0-- @ !Y--'̙-- %((P0P--'̙--%---'@Garamond-. f32 y EECERA 2007 ."SystemH-@Garamond-. f3+2 aWorking within the ZPD? !       .-@Garamond-. f332 QExploring interpretations of           .-@Garamond-. f32 projects   .-@Arial-. @2 ,`&Sarah Chicken, University of the West             .-@Arial-. 2 E` of England   .-@Arial-. :2 d`"Professor Trisha Maynard, Swansea      .-@Arial-. 2 }` University    .-՜.+,0 ZPD as an  interactive space ?*@E  HReggio interpretations of elements of the ZPD displayed through projectsII Research MethodsResearch team - Seven teachers and two researchers Socio cultural approaches - Action Research Seminars - Supporting reflective practice but also input about Reggio philosophy Observations and interviews Interviews and recordings of seminars transcribed and analysed Field notes of observations, seminars, internet and telephone conversations analysed Documentary evidence: photographs, final reports and reflective journals analysedZ   2+Findings (1)-How were projects interpreted?,,3 Findings (2) ]What might interpretations of projects indicate about constructions of teaching and learning?^^(Concluding thoughts While Reggio teachers appeared to interpret the ZPD as an  interactive space , the teachers in the Welsh study appeared to interpret it as the distance between one pre-determined subject goal (knowledge and skills) and the next. (Progress was linear  movement through a series of targets and goals.) In this way the Welsh teachers had a different and possibly a more simplistic view of the ZPD than the Reggio pedagogues. This is not surprising given the cultural and contextual differences. It is interesting to note that the educational context in England and Wales shifted in the latter part of 20thCentury towards a focus on subjects and an attempt to simplify conceptions of the learning process. How might the Foundation Phase be interpreted? z.0PP-{b  b  b  4-{ I  0 References(1)Central Advisory Council for Education (1967) Children and their Primary schools ( The Plowden Report). London: HMSO. Consultative Committee on Education (1931) The Primary School, (The 1931 Hadow Report) London: HMSO. Dahlberg, G., Moss, P. & Pence, A. (1999) Beyond Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care, Routledge: London. Edwards, C. (1998)  Partner, Nurturer, and Guide: The Role of the Teacher. in Edwards,C., Gandini, L. & Forman,G. The Hundred Languages of Children. The Reggio Emilia Approach  Advanced Reflections, (2nd edition). London: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Katz L.G. & Chard S.C. (1989). Engaging children s minds: The project Approach Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing CorporationZ.#PP4H U/+     o  u   :References (2)|Malaguzzi, L. (1998) History, Ideas, and Basic Philosophy. An Interview with Lella Gandini in Edwards, C., Gandini, L., Forman, G. The Hundred Languages of Children. The Reggio Emilia Approach - Advanced Reflections, (1st edition). London: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Rinaldi, C. (1993) The Emergent Curriculum and Social Constructivism, in Edwards, C., Gandini, L., Forman, G. The Hundred Languages of Children. The Reggio Emilia Approach - Advanced Reflections, (1st edition). London: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Wells, C. G, (1999) Dialogic Teaching: towards a socio- cultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wood E. & Attfield J. (1996) Play, learning and Early Childhood Paul Chapman Publishing, London. Wood, D., Bruner, J. & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, 17, 89-100. }ZVz(VIMF#r*vM        v/l # )458r ? d:nRoot EntrydO)`dT Current User&SummaryInformation( PowerPoint Document(       !"#$%'()*+,-./0123456_PCPCarahOh+'0 hp    (4<>Working within the ZPD? Exploring interpretations of projectsnsrkEdgeng Sarahg 35aMicrosoft PowerPointD? @D@@p!?1@ u4$6 Gg  @  Y