Hyperlinks to contribution to other student's blogs

Jodine Garrick: http://jodinepeopleplacesthingsevents.blogspot.co.nz/2015/09/entry-four.html?showComment=1443405853789#c4243859635377053427

Sharlene Wilson: http://mitpeopleplacesthingsevents.blogspot.co.nz/2015/09/entry-four.html?showComment=1443407367435#c7369649976611799316

Tegan O'Rourke: http://socialsciencesandearlychildhood.blogspot.co.nz/2015/08/blog-project-entry-four.html?showComment=1443411201824#c5469260995934893799


References:

Stephen, C., & Plowman, L. (2013).Digital technologies, play and learning. Early Childhood        Folio, 17(2), 3-8.

Ministry of Education. (1996). Te Whāriki: He Whāriki Mātauranga mō ngā Mokopuna o    Aotearoa: Early Childhood Curriculum. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media Limited.

Entry Five

This provocation experience incorporated technology by making use of binoculars to gain insight of the world around us. It also incorporated social studies because the learning experiences brought out how the people and things help them revisit their past experiences (Ministry of Education, 2007). Children were interested for short periods of time but would move away from the learning experience of using the binoculars and then would come back ask if they could use them again. Children started searching through their funds of knowledge and started explaining to me where they have seen a binoculars being used. Majority of the children knew what the binoculars were and how to use it. They understood the smaller side is used to look through. They could identify the literal environment like for example the trees and the different teacher’s cars in our centre. “Look *Melissa’s car is right near to my face” said *Ron.

A child told me that she used binoculars when she went on holiday to Africa and saw the monkeys and lions in the forest. She exclaimed that the texture of the binoculars was cool and that she has one but not as cool as the one I brought in. Another child told me that he saw a man using binoculars when he was in Fiji. One that specifically intrigued me was another boy saying he could see a koala in the trees just outside our centre and that they were hiding. Altogether the children could see the chickens and that they were trying to escape from the coop.  “Look they the chickens are trying to escape” said *Oneal. Lastly, another boy said that the binoculars was actually a telescope and could use it to look at the moon. I enjoyed learning the depths of the different children’s knowledge they had and I found out new things about them and how good some of them are at using their imagination (Fleer & Jane, 2011).

I brought in the binoculars because the children were very interested in what the sheep and other farm animals were doing just outside the centre. They would constantly look to try and see but with no success they would say, “I can’t see what they are doing”. I tried to help them bring the lens of their wider world in closer. I wanted them to see clearly what the animals were doing and what the animal’s environments looked like (Ministry of Education, 1996). I found that bringing them in for that purpose only lasted a few minutes. This learning experience brought forward that different children in the centre have been exposed to different things. When bringing things such as binoculars into the centre, it brings about the sharing between child and teacher and they also relive the different events that took place in their lives (Ministry of Education, 1996).

I believe the provocation was successful and that the children were really intrigued by the use of the binoculars. They took care of the binoculars especially when I said that I had borrowed them. More importantly, I think they enjoyed not having any boundaries on how to make use of the binoculars in the centre and that they could explore with them and have as much turns with the binoculars as possible. Ministry of Education (1996) emphasises how teachers should allow children to develop self-confidence when we provoke their thinking and we allow the learning experience to explore new aspects of children in the centres.

In summary, I would  have liked to support their learning with more in-depth open-ended questions and allowed  time for them to tell what they saw and  why they enjoyed the activity so much that they would return every time (Ministry of Education, 2007). I would also try to find out ways we could extend on the use of the binoculars maybe for instance trying to track down a telescope and see if they realise the differences between the telescope and the binoculars.s

References:

Fleer, M., & Jane, B. (2011). Design and technology for children. Frenchs Forest, Australia: Pearson            Australia. 

Ministry of Education. (1996). Te Whāriki: He whāriki mātauranga mō ngā mokopuna o Aotearoa: Early childhood curriculum. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media. 

 Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand curriculum. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media. 

Fleer, M., & Jane, B. (2011). Design and technology for children. Frenchs Forest, Australia: Pearson Australia. 

*No real names used

Entry Four

I evaluated one child using digital literacy on the computer we have in my centre. She enticed me because I was unsure whether she could explain what she was doing on the game we have at the centre. She helped me understand that it depends on what exposure to digital technology they were allowed to at home with her parents. At my centre we have a computer that has an alphabetic game (O'Rourke & Harrison, 2004). *Selena recognised the letter Z and she started filling in the alphabet backwards starting from Z, I would have thought she would have started from the letter A. The chickens in the game have four rows of letters and a chick is allocated to one letter in each of the rows. She explained to me “when you put the right letter in, the chick can sleep”.  I found this quiet interesting and I questioned her more on what else she understood about how the game worked. She explained that she had the game at home on her tablet and her mum showed her how to recognise which letter is what (Stephen & Plowman, 2011). She explained that there is a time limit and if she does not get all the chicks in the right bed then the chicks will not be able to sleep.

I quite enjoyed the activity the child because I learned new things about *Selena and could understand that she was critically thinking about what alphabet to use. I also liked that I learned that her family spends time with teaching her basic recognition of letters. They do not let her go on her own tangent with her tablet. It also helped me understand that when children work with alongside a knowledgeable other they tend to pick up things faster (Ministry of Education, 1996). The only thing I would have done differently would be the amount of children I did the activity with. When doing a learning experience with one child gave me one perspective whereas if I had done it with a group it would have somewhat displayed the levels of exposure each child would have with digital technology in their homes (Fleer & Jane, 2011). It would have given me an indication of what the parents do to help digital technology have a good influence on children. Additionally, the experience lasted for twenty minutes which I think was quite a good amount of time considering Selena had done each letter of the alphabet herself and she could explain to me what she was doing when I prompted her with questions (Talay-Ongan, 2005).

Another thing I found interesting was that when *Selena explained that the chicks needed to be placed with the correct letters else they couldn’t sleep suggested she felt responsible for the well-being of a virtual character. She took her job really seriously and displayed an emotional attachment to her getting the correct letters matched up with each other seemed vital for her. I realised how quickly she became enthralled in the game. It illustrated me how quickly she connected her emotional state with digital technology. That is why it is important that children have a limit of one game per child because else they will sit at the computer desk all day in our centre. She told me she liked using the mouse of the computer because it allowed her to move it around to her left-hand (Stephen & Plowman, 2013).The outcome of the evaluation for me was thought-provoking and it showed me her perseverance of completing the task she had at hand.

References:

Fleer, M., & Jane, B. (2011). Design and technology for children. Frenchs Forest, Australia: Pearson Australia.  

Ministry of Education. (1996). Te Whāriki: He whāriki mātauranga mō ngā mokopuna o Aotearoa: Early childhood curriculum. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media.  

O’Rourke, M., & Harrison, C. (2004). The introduction of new technologies: New possibilities for early childhood pedagogy. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 29(2).

Stephen, C. & Plowman, L. (2013). Digital technologies, play, and learning. Early Childhood Folio, 17(2), 3-8.  

Talay-Ongan, A., & Ap, E. A. (Eds.). (2005). Child development and teaching young children. Southbank, Australia: Thomson Social Science Press.  

*No real names used.

Entry Three

There are many ways that technology can influence children. Children have different sorts of experiences and are exposed to how things work in their world. The positive influence that technology can have on children is that they can retrieve and research information independently (Plowman & Stephen, 2013). When children have questions about the things that go on in the world around them they pose these to parents and teachers. Children can gain experience on the internet on for example how an earthquake works and how certain animals feed. Bolstad (2004) argues that digital technology is good for children when it is utilised in a way that assists them to build on the knowledge they already have. In the digital world each child can be seen as capable and “barriers are reduced” and technology strives to bring about inclusion across all children that attend early educational settings (Bolstad, 2004). Technology also helps for children to stimulate themselves independently but with the hovering of teachers every five minutes to make sure children are not getting frustrated or if they require help with digital processes of educational games. When teachers allow themselves to be educated around the safety and protection of appropriate software for children to use, it assists teacher and child when they understand the content being interacted with (Minitry of Education, 2007).

The detrimental effects that technology can have on children are that there is no limit to information they can gain from the digital world (Fleur & Jane, 2011). They will find themselves, without a knowing other, spending much time on the internet or on the technological device they have. It was about twenty years ago children would play outside all day and they were masters of imaginary games and technology is causing communication breakdown between children and their families (Bolstad, 2004). At dinner time children do not spend time with their families they would prefer to get engrossed in their tablets and even the television. Subsequently, This leads to children getting frustrated with their parents when the device has been taken away from them. When children spend perpetuated periods of time hours on the technological device it will limit their innovative thinking and it opposes the capabilities to accomplish optimum sensory and motor development (Bolstad, 2004). Children will lose interest in the centre curriculum and prefer to take part in the virtual world of educational games. When children have social issues, they will find themselves relying on the digital device because they do not see the importance of communicating with other children.

My idea on technology is that it could be a positive when used correctly. The children in my centre are allowed ten to fifteen minutes for computer use. The computer is setup with drawing tools and educational games only, so they have no internet connected to their computer. It is just for safety and protection and allow the internet be surfed alongside a teacher. Some digital software is not age-appropriate so it is in the best interest for children that their computer has no internet and which tends to capture the mind of the young (Fleur et al, 2011). That’s why the child and teacher need to work in collaboration when the child is engaging in digital technology. Teachers in that way can crack down on the time is spent and children are allowing each other to have turns (Ministry of Education, 1996).  Children need to be exposed to digital technology because that is where the world is heading and they will be at a disadvantage if they do not experience the positives of technology. When technology is used with no boundaries for children they will be thrilled by their digital technology so much they will not feel the need to make real relationships with the people around them (Ministry of Education, 1996). 

References:

Bolstad, R. (2004). The role and potential of ICT in early childhood education: A review of New Zealand and international literature. Wellington: New Zealand Council of Educational Research.

Ministry of Education. (1996). Te Whāriki: He whāriki mātauranga mō ngā mokopuna o Aotearoa: Early childhood curriculum. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media. 

Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand curriculum. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media.  

Stephen, C. & Plowman, L. (2013). Digital technologies, play, and learning. Early Childhood Folio, 17(2), 3-8.  

Talay-Ongan, A., & Ap, E. A. (Eds.). (2005). Child development and teaching young children. Southbank, Australia: Thomson Social Science Press.