Kei Tua o te Pae

Endnotes – Kōrero tāpiri

1 C. Edwards, L. Gandini, and G. Forman, eds (1998). The Hundred Languages of Children: The Reggio Emilia Approach – Advanced Reflections. Westport, CT: Ablex, 2nd ed.

² C. Rinaldi (2006). In Dialogue with Reggio Emilia - Listening, Researching and Learning. London: Routledge, p. 65. The Hundred Languages of Children was the name of an exhibition conceived by Loris Malaguzzi. “Since 1981, the Reggio exhibition ‘The Hundred Languages of Children’ has travelled the world, accompanied by speakers from Reggio: in this time, it has had well over a hundred showings in more than 20 countries” (p. 19). Rinaldi asks why this local experience (at Reggio Emilia) has such global appeal. She adds: “The appeal, in part at least, arises from the alterity of Reggio, and the provocation it offers … Reggio speaks to those of us who long for something else, another belonging. It gives comfort and hope by being different, by showing the possibility of different values, different relationships, different ways of living. For example, visitors to Reggio are usually coming home with a strong feeling that children, parents and politicians are really participators in the schools, that Reggio has managed to involve them and created an interest and participatory engagement. To create such an interest, pedagogical documentation has been a fantastic mediator and tool” (p. 19).

³ G. Forman and B. Fyfe (1998). “Negotiated Learning through Design, Documentation, and Discourse”. In C. Edwards et al. (1998), op. cit., chapter 13, p. 248.

⁴ Ministry of Education (2007). The New Zealand Curriculum for English medium Teaching and Learning in Years 1–13. Wellington: Learning Media, p. 12.

⁵ Barbara Rogoff (2003). The Cultural Nature of Human Development. New York: Oxford University Press. Rogoff adds these to literacy and mathematics as “cultural tools for thinking” (p. 258). She writes a chapter about them, together with other conceptual systems and technologies that “support and constrain thinking”.

⁶ Gunther Kress (2003). Literacy in the New Media Age. London: Routledge.

⁷ Susan Hill (2007). “Multiliteracies: Towards the Future”. In Literacies in Childhood, ed. L. Makin, C. Jones Diaz, and C. McLachlin. Australia: MacLennan and Petty, 2nd ed., p. 56.

⁸ ibid., p. 57. The references included in this quote are: S. Hill and S. Nichols (2006). “Emergent Literacy: Symbols at Work”. In Handbook of Research on the Education of Young Children, ed. B. Spodek and O. Saracho. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 153–165; and New London Group (1996). “A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies”. Harvard Educational Review, vol. 60 no. 1, pp. 66–92. See also N. Hall, J. Larson, and J. Marsh (2003). Handbook of Early Childhood Literacy. London: Sage.

⁹ Hirini Melbourne (1991). “Whare Whakairo: Maori ‘Literary’ Traditions”. In Dirty Silence: Aspects of Language and Literature in New Zealand, ed. G. McGregor and M. Williams. Essays arising from the University of Waikato Winter Lecture Series. Auckland: Oxford University Press, p. 129.

¹⁰ ibid., p. 137.

¹¹ ibid., p. 137.

¹² ibid., p. 134.

¹³ Early Childhood Learning and Assessment Exemplar Project Advisory Committee and Co-ordinators, 2002.

¹⁴ Ministry of Education (1996). Te Whāriki: He Whāriki Mātauranga mō ngā Mokopuna o Aotearoa / Early Childhood Curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media, p. 72.

¹⁵ ibid. A sociocultural framework has been defined for Kei Tua o te Pae by the principles of curriculum and assessment in Te Whāriki, the national early childhood curriculum for Aotearoa New Zealand.

¹⁶ In a 2003 paper entitled “Opportunity to Learn: A Language-based Perspective on Assessment”, Assessment in Education, vol. 10 no. 1, pp. 27–46, James Gee makes the following comment about reading and writing: “Reading and writing in any domain, whether it be law, biology, literary criticism, rap songs, academic essays, Super Hero comics, or whatever, are not just ways of decoding print, they are also caught up with and in social practices. Literacy in any domain is actually not worth much if one knows nothing about the social practices of which the literacy is but a part. And, of course, these social practices involve much more than just an engagement with print … But knowing about a social practice always involves recognising various distinctive ways of acting, interacting, valuing, feeling, knowing, and using various objects and technologies, that constitute the social practice” (pp. 28–29; ellipsis in the original).

¹⁷ Allan Luke and Peter Freebody (1999). “A Map of Possible Practices: Further Notes on the Four Resources Model”. Practically Primary, vol. 4 no. 2, p. 5. See also Peter Freebody and Allan Luke (2003). “Literacy as Engaging with New Forms of Life: The ‘Four Roles’ Model”. In The Literacy Lexicon, ed. G. Bull and M. Anstey. Frenchs Forest, NSW: Prentice Hall, 2nd ed., chapter 4, pp. 52–65.

¹⁸ Research in Australia that investigated the literacy practices in seventy-nine early childhood services found that even in centres deemed to have high-quality practices, teachers tended to make assumptions about children’s home experiences that were based on stereotypes rather than actual knowledge gleaned from the families themselves. See L. Markin, J. Hayden, A. Holland, L. Arthur, B. Beecher, C. Jones Diaz, and M. McNaught (1999). Mapping Literacy Practices in Early Childhood Services. NSW: University of Newcastle.

¹⁹ L. C. Moll, C. Amanti, D. Neff, and N. Gonzales (1992). “Funds of Knowledge for Teaching: Using a Qualitative Approach to Connect Homes and Classrooms”. Theory into Practice, vol. 31 no. 2, pp. 132–41; and N. Gonzalez, L. C. Moll, and C. Amanti (2005). Funds of Knowledge: Theorizing Practices in Households, Communities and Classrooms. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. For a connection with New Zealand research, see C. Jones (2006). “Continuity of Learning: Adding Funds of Knowledge from the Home Environment”. Set: Research Information for Teachers, no. 2, pp. 28–31.

²⁰ Peter Freebody and Allan Luke (2003, op. cit., p. 56), suggest that “effective literacy in complex print and multimediated societies requires a broad and flexible repertoire of practices. This repertoire we have characterised as a set of ‘roles’, later ‘practices’, that participants in literacy events are able to use as a ‘resource’”. These practices are (not in any particular order): breaking the codes (recognising and manipulating the units); participating in the meanings (for example, composing narratives using the tools, see Leone Burton, 2002); using texts functionally (participating in the social practices, see James Gee, in endnote 16 of this book); and critically analysing and transforming texts (understanding that texts represent viewpoints that can be changed). The Leone Burton (2002) reference is: “Children’s Mathematical Narratives as Learning Stories”. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, vol. 10 no. 2, pp. 5–18.

²¹ Barbara Rogoff (2003), op. cit.

²² Barbara Rogoff (2003, op. cit.) includes “observing and listening in”, p. 317, as a significant part of “intent participation in ongoing shared endeavours”, p. 299.

²³ Ministry of Education (1996), op. cit., p. 14.

²⁴ James Greeno writes, “Acting with conceptual agency in a domain means treating the concepts, methods, and information of the domain as resources that can be adapted, evaluated, questioned and modified.” In J. G. Greeno (2006). “Authoritative, Accountable Positioning and Connected, General Knowing: Progressive Themes in Understanding Transfer”. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, vol. 15 no. 4, pp. 537–547.

²⁵ James Greeno (1991). “Number Sense as Situated Knowing in a Conceptual Domain”. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, vol. 22 no. 1, pp. 170–218.

²⁶ ibid., p. 175.

²⁷ ibid., p. 176. The metaphor of a kitchen has also been picked up by Schoenfeld in A. H. Schoenfeld (1998). “Making Mathematics and Making Pasta: From Cookbook Procedures to Really Cooking”. In Thinking Practices in Mathematics and Science Learning, ed. J. G. Greeno and S. V. Goldman. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 299–319.