TELEs and Kindergarten Response
Hi Ross,
I have been thinking about your question regarding Kindergarten and the TELE approaches. I am constantly thinking of my high school context which I think is quite different than Kindergarten due to the level of autonomy, responsibility, and prior learning (schema). My idea of KG is that students are learning to socialize appropriate, develop gross motor skills, develop fine motor skills (pre-writing activities), whole numbers, reading readiness (listening to a story, recognizing conventions in storybooks), and recognizing the alphabet. I expect there are things I have missed based on my current knowledge, i..e I’m not sure what else we want them to get out of their play time or more specific Math/Science concepts we want them to understand.
Since I have never examined the Ontario Kindergarten documents (The Kindergarten Program, 2006), I took a look today and what jumped out at me in the Table of Contents under Teaching/Learning Approaches is:
- Learning Through Inquiry
- Learning in Real-Life Contexts
- Learning Through Exploration
- Language Development and Literacy
- Early Numeracy Development
Note how much this chart for inquiry is like the GEM cycle (pg. 12):
Here are the examples of questions that teachers and students may ask during the process:
Generate… (pg. 12)
Evaluate… (pg. 12)
Modify… (and possibly move back to generate) (pg. 13)
Bear with me as I am attempting to connect this process that seems to be inherent in the ‘idea’ of KG in Ontario, but it then has to be applied specifically to the content we want them to learn which I think is the difficulty in determining how these TELEs fit with KG — my conclusion is that GEM fits perfectly.
Under Early Numeracy Development there is discussion about using their prior schema that they bring with them from their life experiences and then building on those experiences. I find it interesting that there is not a concrete list of specific learning expectations, but here are the examples given (pgs. 17-18):
- manipulating objects (fitting shapes together, exploring sizes of shapes)
- making comparisons (taller/shorter)
- making observations (heavier/lighter)
- asking questions (Who has more cookies?)
It’s suggested that they engage in problem solving as well, so the teacher should pose questions, provide time for students to investigate, and then develop possible answers/solutions which is in line with Furtak (2006), and not simply telling students the answers. There’s also importance placed on their learning the language of math, but it’s not further described. An earlier document that was the report on early math in Ontario due to the concern over EQAO standardized test results in grade 3. It’s described that the children should be learning through active means that involve talking, investigating and reasoning (Early Math Strategy, 2003), and the newest document regarding full-day Kindergarten is consistent as well with the previous documents with the addition of creating a community of learners which is consistent with the TELEs we have studied, but again how to do this is not really explained (The Full-Day Early Learning – Kindergarten, 2010). Problem solving is deemed of particular importance, but not the total lack of specific guidance for teachers as to what exactly they are to teach (Early Math Strategy, 2003, pg. 12):
Under EduGAINS, however, a website for ministry developed resources (which has a specific MathGAINS section), there is a guide to effective Math instruction for KG-3 which lists the following areas: number sense and numeration, geometry and spatial sense, measurement, patterning and algebra, and data management and probability (LNS Math Resources).
Here’s a list of the learning expected in Kindergarten:
- Number Sense and Numeration – counting forwards and backwards, understanding that the count of a group of items will always be the same, one-to-one correspondence for small numbers, cardinality, greater than and less than, and count from 1 – 30
- Geometry – shape recognition
- Measurement – describe measurement attributes, use non-standard units to measure, choose non-standard units to measure, beginning awareness of ruler, clock, mass balance; early understanding of area, capacity and mass; begin to learn estimation strategies; read analogue clock, dates on calandar, and name months of year in order; relate temperature to seasons
- Patterning and Algebra – recognize, identify, and describe patterns in their environment, stories, songs, poems, and chants; repeating (extending or creating) pattern in colour, size, shape or action; understanding of counting patterns
- Data Management and Probablity – similarities and differences, sort objects according to attributes (obvious and less obvious attributes), explain sorting rules, collect data with teacher guidance
Conclusion
I believe that there is a place for the GEM cycle TELE in the Kindergarten class with very simple focused applications that allow for the learning expectations listed above. I think that right now teachers are using the GEM cycle in Kindergarten quite actively and have been doing so for a very long time but without technology. I also think that the collaborative aspect of the peer collaboration may be lacking, i.e. students complete their practice tasks or experimentation but do not discuss their work with each other. Even in terms of scientific inquiry which fits under data management and probability, I have seen teacher-guided inquiry, but not with the use of digital technology. More so, physical manipulatives and large charts on the wall are used.
Very specific objects need to be used, like an analogue clock, for instance, which a student can experiment with or a number chart where colour can be used to identify patterns. I was recently given this site, Mathies, from our Math Lead person in the school board with links to what has been determined very useful learning objects to be used in Ontario schools (some of which require a password). In exploring it, I see quite a bit of potential for a teacher to guide students using the GEM model even in Kindergarten.
References:
Furtak, E. M. (2006). The problem with answers: An exploration of guided scientific inquiry teaching. Science Education, 90(3), 453-467.
EduGAINS. (nd). LNS Math Resources: A Guide to Effective Instruction in Mathematics (Kindergarten to Grade 3. Retrieved March 22, 2014 from http://www.edugains.ca/newsite/lns/guidetoinstructioninmathkto3.html.
Ontario Ministry of Education. (2003). Early Math Strategy: The Report of the Expert Panel on Early Math in Ontario. Queen’s Printer for Ontario. Retrieved March 22, 2013 from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/reports/math/math.pdf.
Ontario Ministry of Education. (2006). The Kindergarten Program, revised. Queen’s Printer for Ontario. Retrieved March 22, 2013 from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/elementary/kindercurrb.pdf.
Ontario Ministry of Education. (2010). The Full-Day Early Learning – Kindergarten Program, draft version. Queen’s Printer for Ontario, Retrieved March 22, 2013 from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/elementary/kindergarten_english_june3.pdf.
A peer in the class had asked the following:
You mention lots of positive attributes and situations under which you might use the various TELEs but I’m curious what attributes you felt they lacked or were weak on vs other methods? I teach KG so while I understood the TELEs approaches I don’t always understand the content thus I can’t be as confident judging how well they would work.