Early Childhood Curriculum Approaches - Coursework Example

EARLY CHILDHOOD CURRICULUM APPROACHES The purpose of this essay is to critically discuss the features of different early childhood curriculum approaches and to compare and contrast these approaches with the principles, strands and philosophy of Te Whaariki and the New Zealand context of early childhood education. The discussion will also include comparison of two selected approaches with my own personal teaching philosophy. The two approaches that I have selected for discussion are the Montessori Approach and the Reggio Emilia approach. Te Whaariki is basically a bi cultural document regarding early childhood education setting (Pakai, 2004). It encompasses an approach that teaches young children while transmitting the culture and values of the child and simultaneously respecting the culture of the other children. It is designed for bicultural children to learn and respect the values of both the parents (Ministry of Education , 1996, cited in NZTC, 2009). This approach is commonly followed in the early childhood educational setting in Aotearoa / New Zealand. Within the Te Whaariki approach, the implementing authority has the freedom to incorporate any teaching approach of their choice or preference (Pakai, 2004). The Te Whaariki was first released in 1996 (Ministry of Education 1991, cited in May, 2002). The Purpose of this document was to provide an early childhood curriculum for Aotearoa that was parallel to the curriculum prevalent in New Zealand. The document faced both, resistance and appreciation (May, 2002). While writing this document, the writers were to reflect the treaty of Waitangi partnership between the Maori and Pakeha (May, 2002). The theme of child empowerment was important for Maori (Reedy, 1995, cited in May, 2002). According to May (2002), the Te Whaariki was apparent in some of the educational centers of New Zealand by 2000. Research indicated that Te Whaariki was difficult to implement because it did not lay out a curriculum, rather, it encouraged the systems to weave their own curriculum while following the outline laid in Te Whaariki (May, 2002). The Montessori Method was developed by Dr. Maria Montessori in the 1900’s. She was doing research on how to teach children with special needs about science and technology when she came up with this method. In the Montessori Method, the class room has multiple activities available. It is full of small workshops. The child is independent to work on any one (Seldin, 1995). The learning is student directed. The method believes in teaching the child through the medium he or she chooses. The teacher observes the children and teaches them indirectly (Rambusch, 1992). The Montessori curriculum consists of Language, sensorial, Mathematics and cultural subjects, (Montessori, 1963). According to Lillard (1972), the Montessori classroom is not a traditional classroom in which the teacher is in charge. Here, the students determine their own mode of learning . There are workshops in the class room for the child to chose for, however, these workshops do not offer enough variety to meet present day’s fast growing world’s standards. Therefore the Montessori syllabus is not rich enough to empower the child to move independently in the world outside the classroom. Te Whaariki on the other hand believes that that the early childhood curriculum should be designed in such a way that it enables the young learners to find solutions by themselves. The environment provided to them is rich enough to build the self directing ability in them (Fall, 2009). An important principle of Te Whaariki is that of holistic development. It means that curriculum should be designed to develop the cognitive, social, cultural, emotional, physical and spiritual dimensions of the child’s personality. (Nuttal, 1993). The Montessori approach, like the Te Whaariki, follows the principle of Holism principle (Seldin, 1995). Montessori Method is a form of education in which the children’s entirety: spirit, mind and individuality is kept in consideration. (Rambusch, 1992). The third principle of Te Whaariki is that of Family and community. It aims at creating consistency in learning environment and the child’s immediate community, family and neighborhood. According to Ritchie (2002), cited in NZTC (2009), in Te-Whariki, the teacher’s role is to work as if functioning within a family or a community. This principle has not been emphasized in the Montessori approach (Seldin, 1995). It emphasizes more on independent work choices by the child, encouraging individual work rather than group activities. The last principle of Te Whaariki is that of relationships. The Montessori Method also considers teaching through and about relationships (Lillard, 1972). In the Montessori Method, although the children are supposed to work independently, they are allowed to freely interact with each other, they involve in mutual give and take relationships, without any intervention on the teacher’s behalf. This helps them in understanding about interaction with others (Fall, 2009). There is only one piece of each tool in the Montessori classroom. Each child has to wait for his or her turn to use it. This is a unique way to teach the child the realities of the world and develop the habit of waiting for one’s own turn for everything they need in life. (Montessori, 1967, cited in: Fall, 2009 ). Now let’s see how the Montessori approach relates to or differs from the Te Whaariki in terms of strands. The first strand is that of well being. Montessori and Te Whaariki are similar in their approach towards well being. Both focus on the provision of a safe and nurturing environment for the children. Well being and nurturing of the learner is the foremost goal in both the approaches (Seldin, 1995). The other strands of Te Whaariki are: belongingness, contribution, exploration and communication. Montessori and Te Whaariki both stand for belongingness, but differ in approaches to communication, exploration and contribution. A typical Montessori classroom lacks regular teacher-child and child-child verbal communication. The teacher is more an observer and less a communicator (Coventry, 2009). Exploration is also hindered or limited in the Montessori classroom since the workshops available are not of diverse nature as is the outside world. Due to lack of focus on community and role of its members, the Montessori Method does not lay much stress on contribution like Te Whaariki does (Coventry, 2009). According to Reed (1995), cited in Pakai (2004), Te Whaariki encourages the transmission of and respect of all languages, belief systems and cultures. The Montessori Method is not much influenced by the culture in which it is being operated. Te Whaariki is also more multicultural than Montessori. Montessori Method is not dependent on the culture in which it is being applied while the Te Whaariki has an in built multiculturalism which enables it to incorporate multicultural values (Pakai, 2004). Montessori Method sought uniformity rather than diversity. The Reggio Emilia Approach was designed and applied by Loris Malaguzzi in Italy after the World War II (Kedzlie, 2007). In this method, the teacher is a partner to the student in learning. The teacher mutually participates in the child’s activities and teaches through that. The Reggio classroom has well designated spaces or rooms for different activities (Ardjewska & Coutts, 2004). There is a common place, an eating place and a playing place. The teachers do one long term project with each child other than the smaller activities. This project is selected from the area of the child’s interest. In this method the teacher documents and assesses the work of child for her own help and improvement of the child (Ardjewska & Coutts). The Reggio Emilia approach sees the child as a competent learner has produced a strong child-directed curriculum. (Ardjewska & Coutts, 2004 ). Te Whaariki and Reggio Emilia share the principle of empowerment. Like Te Whaariki, the Reggio Emilia approach also advocates that a learning capacity should be built in the child rather than making him or her learn some specific knowledge. The classroom environment is rich enough to empower the child and to develop an ability of problem solving among the young minds (Nicole and Leigh, 2007). According to Thornton and Brunton 2007, (cited in Holt, 2007) the Reggio Emilia approach view the child as powerful, strong, competent and confident being. Holistic Development is another principle of Te Whaariki. For holistic development of the child the Reggio Emilia approach suggests a classroom with a complete environment. It has a variety of learning materials, aesthetic aspect, social environment and interaction with culture; all this is made available in one class room so that the child not only just learns, but develops in entirety (Thornton & Brunton, 2007). The third principle of Te Whaariki is family and community. It implies that the learning of children should be in accordance to their cultural world. All cultures should be respected and the child’s family and community should be involved somehow in his or her learning (Nuttal, 1993). The Reggio approach encourages community building with help of children, their parents and families. This encourages the child in his or her social life (Ardjewska & Coutts, 2004 ). Thus the Reggio Emilia approach shares the Te Whaariki principle of Family and community. Reggio Emilia environment is characterized by special rooms known as the Piazza, the Atelier, kitchen and courtyard (Thornton & Burnton, 2007). Each room has a special function linked with one or another social operation. The fourth principle of Te Whaariki is that of relationships. Interaction provides a social network to the child and gives a platform to try out their ideas with adults and other children. (Nuttall, 1993.). The Reggio Emilia classroom also provides the children with endless opportunities of interaction with the environment, with other children and with the teacher. The child learns a lot through such relationships (Malaguzzi, 1993). Belongingness is an important strand of Te Whaariki. It helps in developing civic sense among young individuals. The child belongs to the class room and is concerned with his or her contribution to it (Nuttal, 1993). Children share a common environment in Reggio Emilia approach and they do have a sense of belonging to it like the Te Whaariki’s principle of belonging advocates. Contribution is another strand of Te Whaariki. In Reggio Emilia approach, contribution of each child is not only acknowledged and treasured, but it is also documented and assessed by the teacher (Nicole &Leigh, 2007). This process of documenting is also common in Early Childhood educational set up in New Zealand. The feature of documentation is also found in the Montessori Method. It is very useful for the teacher. It enables her to keep a record of each child’s milestones achieved. Communication is an important strand in both the approaches. The teacher provides verbal, non verbal and symbolic forms of communication to the child in the Reggio approach. The child uses arts and sciences as tools and mediums to learn. The teachers also communicate with parents and documentation helps a lot in this process. In Reggio Emilia approach, the children are able to learn through senses; by touching, hearing and seeing; this overlays with the Montessori Method (Rinaldi, 1993). The above statement describes that the Reggio Emilia classroom provides a lot of opportunities of exploration for the child. He or she learns by exploring the rich environment provided in the classroom. Te-Whariki shares this strand of exploration with Reggio Emilia Approach. The main common features of underlying philosophy of both the approaches are of empowerment, exploration and contribution. The Reggio Emilia philosophy however differs a little when it comes to the implementation details. The Reggio Emilia approach is quite popular in Early Childhood Educational schools of New Zealand. A study was conducted by Kedzlie (2007) to find out the parent’s understanding of the Reggio Emilia approach in a small catholic school of New Zealand. It was reported that the parents were in constant interaction with the teachers and the teaching was also in accordance with the community. However, this study was restricted to a small sample, and it can’t be generalized to the whole country. Most schools in New Zealand follow the Te Whaariki approach since it has been specially designed for Aotearoa / New Zealand by the Ministry of Education (May, 2002). According to the Reggio philosophy, children must have control on the direction of their learning (Rinaldi, 1993). Te Whaariki also gives directional freedom but its teaching philosophy is interlinked to the NZ community, changing needs of family and social ties (Nuttal, 1993). Reggio Emilia philosophy respects the social ties and community of each child but it is more focused yield independent beings. My personal teaching approach is much inspired by some features of the Montessori Method. I believe that children can be taught in several ways. They can learn anything through any medium with the teacher’s effort. So, I appreciate Montessori’s freedom of choice of materials and play for the child. He or she has to learn the basics, why not teach them through the play medium that they themselves choose? My classroom is specially influenced by the sensorial teaching of Montessori. Senses doubtlessly play an important role in learning. I try to involve use of senses to the maximum in my classroom. I try to keep my teaching as practical as possible, but I also register the fact of limited choice of materials available. This method applied alone is not so appropriate according to me, because enough diverse material can’t possibly be provided within the classroom. Young learners are adults of the future. Their hard work is selfless. It is purely to learn. Unlike adults, who often have to work to earn. While teaching, I make sure that all my pupils are getting freedom of choice. I let them do want they enjoy doing, and then I devise ways of teaching them all they need to learn through the play medium that they themselves have chosen. Doorways of learning are opened in the minds of children through sensory stimulation. The more use of their senses they will learn at this age, the better learning capacity they will possess as adults. I always keep the Montessori sensorial material in my classroom and I teach the children to order, contrast and compare different concepts through it. Such activity I believe not only polishes the children’s sensory abilities but also transforms them into better candidates for learning in the future. Reggio Emilia is a very innovative approach and fits in very well in the New Zealand context of early childhood Education. Some of its basic points are similar to the Te-Whariki philosophy. Inspired from the Reggio Emilia classroom, I try to keep my classroom well equipped in accordance. I don’t have enough space for the Reggio components of classroom, i.e., the Piazza and the kitchen but I try to allot corners of the same room to serve theses purposes so that the pupils know that this is the place to sit in lunch time and this is the common place etc. Also inspired by Reggio’s concept of children’s hundred languages, I observe my pupils at play and try to discover the best language of each pupil. I then communicate with them accordingly. If I feel that a student understands more quickly through symbols, I give him or her more symbolic activities. If I see that a student is more interested in music, I devise musical activities for such students. This feature of Reggio is easily fitted in to the Te Whaariki, which also encourages lots of ways to communicate. The most unique feature of the Reggio Emilia, which I believe has helped me a lot in refining my teaching methods, is that of documentation and assessment. Documentation not only helps me in maintaining a record, but it also helps me in improving my teaching skills. It provides me with data to refer to, if I feel that one or another of my pupils is not learning enough. That data is my resource library which guides me if I get stuck with a child. Assessment and documentation also makes it easy for me to communicate with the families of my pupils. While designing the long term project, I again fall back on this documentation for guidance. To sum up, it can be said that all the three approaches, i.e. the Montessori, the Reggio Emilia and Te-Whariki are prevalent in New Zealand in one form or another and are considerably similar to each other to some extent. All New Zealand Early Childhood education centers must follow the Te Whaariki framework, since it has been specially designed in the context of Aotearoa / New Zealand. However, they do differ in their philosophy and modes of implementation. The Montessori approach is more independence oriented as compared to the other two. Its discriminating features are its sensorial materials and mixed age grouping. The Reggio Emilia approach is more community and family oriented. It focuses greatly on development of learning capacity of the child in accordance to his or her culture. Te-Whariki also lays stress on learning within the cultural context. The main discriminating features of the Reggio Emilia approach are documentation and assessment plus the long term projects. On the whole, the all three approaches have their plus points and an integrated use of these can be very beneficial for teachers and young learners. References Coventry, A. (2009). The Montessori teacher’s Role. Retrieved from: http://classroom-issues.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_montessori_teachers_role_as_observer on 21 July 2010. Fall, D.J. (2009). Montessori and social cohesion. Young children’s lived experiences in Aotearoa New Zealand. Retrieved from: http://www.aare.edu.au/08pap/fal08670.pdf on 15 June 2010. Kedzlie, M.F. (2007). Parental understandings and perceptions of the Reggio Emilia approach in a small New Zealand Catholic primary school . Abstract. Retrieved from: http://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/handle/10092/2831 on 15 June 2010. Lillard, P. (1972). Montessori: A modern Approach. New York, Schocken. Malaguzzi, L. (1993). For an Education based on relationships. Young Children, 49(1), 9-12. May, H. (2002). Early childhood education and care in Aotearoa-New Zealand: An overview of history, policy and curriculum. McGill Journal of Education, 1-15 Montessori, M. (1963). Education for a new world. Mdras, India: Vasantha Press Nicole, M & Leigh, C. (2007). Assessment: Influenced by Reggio Emilia. Retrieved from: http://www.bearpark.co.nz/files/u1/Bear_Facts_Term_2_2007.pdf on 21 July 2010 Nuttal, J. (Ed.). (2003) Weaving Te Whaariki. Aoteora New Zealand’s early childhood curriculum development in theory and practice. New Zealand Tertiary College (NZTC), (2009). Study Guide B321 Curriculum Approaches. New Zealand Tertiary College: Auckland Pakai, E. (2004). Te Whaariki- The curriculum for early childhood education in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Retrieved from: http://reach.uvic.ca/PPT/Pakai_paper.pdf on 15 June 2010. Rambusch, N.M. (1962). Learning how to learn. Baltimore, MD: Helicon Rinaldi, C. (1993). The emergent curriculum and social constructivism. In Edwards, C; Gandini, L & Forman, G. (Eds.), The hundered languages of children: reggio Emilia approach. (pp 101-111). Norwood, NJ: Albex Seldin, T. (1995). Basic elements of the Montessori approach. Retrieved from: http://www.montessori.org/sitefiles/montessori_basics_handout.pdf on 15 June 2010 Read More