Phonetic Pedagogical Practices

Although The National Literacy Strategy (NLS) analytic phonetic approach is no longer continued in the early years curriculum, it has been beneficial in providing direction for introducing young children to phonological awareness and phonetic development of the sounds in the alphabets. Even though there is no evidence of using new technology to support phonetic development, within the systematic and synthetic approach of the Letters and Sounds early years curriculum (EYFS 2010, 2011), two areas of appropriate phonetic pedagogical practices have emerged from the other various activities enlisted in the curriculum (ie. songs, rhyme, magnet and sand play, etc.), that can be found to help drive and extend phonetic learning forward, with the young children.

74

4.3.1. Informal and Engaging

Learning in the early years is very much a social and socialising activity for young children. Early years literature (DfE National Guidelines 2011) suggests that early years settings should look to provide informal and engaging learning opportunities for young children to develop their speaking and listening skills. There is more to reading than just the study of systematic phonetics and this is more noticeable in the early years of young children where structured instruction, assessment and procedures, as applied by the systematic synthetic route, are deemed too formal for young children’s playful learning settings.

Janet Moyles (Gaunt 2011), early years consultant and former chair of TACTYC (Association of Training, Advancement and Co-operation in Teaching in Early Childhood Education), argues that a formal programme of phonic study for children in their early years is inappropriate. Young children are at a stage where phonological awareness and phonemic recognition through various engaging activities is enough. She argues that various approaches to learning, with techniques of syllable clapping of their names, the use stories and favourite words, nursery rhymes and singing songs can encourage children to develop their awareness of words that are composed of smaller units of sound and children can come to see how smaller units can be identified, played with and combined in new ways (DfE National Guidelines 2011).

In providing for an informal learning setting, the Early Years Foundation Statutory (EYFS) framework suggests that learning with young children should take place in playful learning settings. This in its true essence is the basis for early years education. This type of playful learning is in line with the nature of early years pedagogy (see chapter 3.2.1), in which the literature suggests that pedagogic instructions with the young children should look to occur in playful

learning settings and should look to be positive and an enriching experience for the young children. Therefore, by combining the informal phonetic learning through the nature of playful learning, requires creating appropriate conditions for young children so that they can:

“.... interact with others: engage frequently in worthwhile talk and attentive listening, build a good stock of words, explore how language works, understand what is said to them and be able to respond appropriately” (Rose 2006, Aspect 2, p.15).

Key features of a rich and purposefully engaging curriculum in the Letters and Sounds early years curriculum is considered crucial to the range and depth of language experience by the children (EFYS 2012). Literature shows that engagement is crucial to effective literacy learning (Guthrie and Wigfield 2000; Justice et al., 2003; Mc William, Scarborough and Kim 2003), where engagement can be related to the child’s attentiveness, persistence and enjoyment.

“Engaging children in interesting and worthwhile activities has always been at the heart of discussion and is found to pave the way to make a good start in phonemic awareness with young children” (Rose 2006, p.3).

Engaging activities have found to exploit: the power of story, rhyme, and drama to use of various songs to fire children’s imagination and interest to engage children’s curiosity about language (Yopp and Yopp 2000). In the new Letters and Sounds (2010, 2011) early years curriculum, information is made available of how to enliven phonetic

75

simple but imaginative techniques, such as mnemonics and physical movements, to support the children’s recall of the relationship between letters and sounds. Yet, there is no information to show how technology, and in this context new technology, can be used as and informal and engaging activity, in encouraging phonetic awareness.

The early years literature shows that although early years classrooms have an influx of technology filtering into their settings (see chapter 2), there is very little evidence to show how some of the newer forms of technology have been used as informal and engaging experiences, with respect to phonetic acquisition, for the young children. There are early experiences to indicate that even when computer were taken away, there was still the enthusiasm for learning to persist (Moxley & Warash 1990-1991). Presented with comparable paper and electronic resources, kindergarten and first-grade students preferred to wait for an opportunity to use the electronic version, even if a print version was immediately available (Mitchell and Fox 2001). This type of technology instruction can have a powerful effect on the child’s motivation to learn.

Bruce Perry (1999) argues that technologies can be very powerful because they rely on one of the most “powerful genetic biases that we, as humans, do not have; the preference for visually

presented information. The human brain has a tremendous bias for visually presented information” (Kneas 1999, p.1), and can keep individuals engaged for long periods of time. He advises that there a number of specialised software applications that allow children with multimedia presentation of content so that they can better understand and process the material. With some more appropriate designs of software, children are able to see words and see a visual image and also hear the sounds – all the same time. This does not work as a limitation, as some researchers would argue, but by combining these sensory-modalities, it helps a child to more efficiently internalise information about a topic. Indeed, some of the newer forms of technologies are constantly evolving at a phenomenal speed, with new designs that are able to fuse both narrative dialogue and educational content together, with reasons to make the whole education an engaging experience (Shalom Fisch et al., 2008).

The literature evidence, therefore, shows that combining informal and engaging experiences is especially important with young children as it demonstrates that this area of learning needs to be made playful and motivating, rather than the chore it can become if conceived and presented too rigidly. This can be especially important when looking to apply technology, within a systematic and synthetic phonetic approach, with young children in their early years settings. Unfortunately, there is also evidence to show that teachers believe that learning can be shaped and guided by the design of technology and as a result will take a back seat in computer mediated instructions. Clements, Nastasi and Swaminathan (1993) advocate that this is not good instructional practice and computer use facilitated or mediated by a practitioner is not consistent with best practice, in the early years.

4.3.2. Phonetic Scaffolding

The importance of young children learning co-operatively in language-rich contexts, should not look to be undervalued and it is generally agreed that early years settings should ensure that at least one member of staff, interacting with the children, is fully able to lead on literacy instructions, especially in developing advanced phonic work (National Standards 2007-2008). Rose (2006) advises that just as it is important for early years practitioners to know about the structure of

76

language and study of phonics, it is just as for them to become aware of each child’s individual nature of learning, so that they can build upon the child’s various interests and experience. This is particularly interesting and is in line with the nature of pedagogy again, as the role of the

practitioner is argued to be beneficial in guiding and developing learning opportunities (see chapter 3.2.2).

In an early study in the Netherlands (Reitsma and Wesseling 1998), it was observed that children who received phonemic awareness instruction through the use of software application significantly outperformed classmates who received no instruction at all and performed on par or just slightly below a group of children who worked directly with the teacher. However, the children who received instruction from both the teacher and the computer improved significantly more than those children who only worked with the teacher. Similarly, in a study by Mitchell and Fox (2001), kindergarten and first grade students who were at risk for reading problems received software instruction on blending phonemes. The results show that these students improved their skills, as much as a group of peers, who worked directly with a teacher. A third group of children, who had no practitioner intervention and only computer mediated instructions showed no improvement at all in phonetic development.

This type of thinking supports the Regio Emillia early years education model of which its distinct pedagogical quality places greater importance on explicit adult involvement, in actively supporting and enhancing children’s interaction, through means of scaffolding within the child’s interest (see chapter 3.3.3). This can be reflected in a more recent study (2007) byVoogst and McKenney (2007) who used technology supported software, PictoPal, to support the development of emergent reading and writing skills in four to five year old children. Where the first half of the study

findings indicate that children were able to use the technology independently after a few instructed sessions, a second follow up study showed a statistically significant learning effect using the technology when the children were accompanied by a practitioner or parent volunteer. The study showed that the interactions between the child and the involved practitioner fostered dialogue and reflection and reinforced immediate feedback mechanism that were not already present in the software (Voogst and McKenney 2007, pg 92).

There is literature evidence to show that it is not sufficient for practitioners to give children access only to technology, but regardless of the efficiency of the software, it is when the practitioner assists and guides the child, that full benefits can be realised.

“The aim is to embed the Phase One adult-led activities in a language-rich provision that serves the best interests of the children by fully recognising their propensity for play and its importance in their development through various activities” (DfE 2007, p.3).

Much of the literature points to the role of the practitioner in guiding and steering learning with young children (see chapter 3). It would also seem that same concept applies to the crucial role of the practitioner in scaffolding phonetic interests, for extending and enriching phonetic development with the children. Whilst there is evidence to show that technology can play a role in enriching phonetic awareness, there are implications that the involvement of the practitioner along with informal and engaging learning sessions are important phonetic pedagogical practices, when looking to apply new forms of technogy in an early years setting.

77

4.4.

To Summarise

The literature suggests that the use of technology can help make a phonetic program of study more effective but it would seem that its value would depend upon the quality of the overall phonetic approach of study and the implementations of appropriate pedagogical phonetic practices, with children in their early years.

Whilst there is evidence to suggest that young children’s home lives are becoming increasingly shaped by their engagement with a wide range of new technologies, to the extent, that most early years settings now include a wide range of technologies (i.e. digital cameras, Internet, and in some cases, iPads), there is to date, no implications within the early years guidelines of integration the uses of new technology, in the early years curriculum. This is particularly directed towards using the systematic and synthetic approach, established within the Letters and Sounds EYFS curriculum (EYFS 2012; DfE 2008), for children to practice blending phonemes and matching them to letters (EYFS 2012).

“Having considered a wide range of evidence, the review has concluded that the case of systematic phonic work is overwhelming and much strengthened by a synthetic approach” (Rose 2006 p.20)

What is made clear is that phonetic learning in the early years is very much an informal and socialising event for children. Children in their early years learn through playful learning activities and the literature shows that engaging young children in interesting and worthwhile pre-reading activities helps pave the way for the great majority of young children to make a good start on more formal measures of phonic work by the age of five when they enter primary schooling. This is supported by the active role of the practitioner. Rose (2005) suggests for learning experiences to create conditions in which children can interact with the practitioner, engage frequently in worthwhile talk and provide for attentive listening, where the importance for young children is to learn co-operatively within language-rich contexts with their practitioners and/or peers. These phonetic pedagogical practices are found to be valuable in creating appropriate conditions for young children to learn.

In providing for a well planned systematic and synthetic approach, with appropriate phonetic pedagogical practices, Stephen Heppell, professor of new media environments at Bournemouth University, advocates that technology is “the key that unlocks the door and children should be using technology imaginatively and creatively” (cited in Cole 2010, p.1). What is awaited is for new research to make this all possible.

78

5. Research Philosophy

“Epistemology asks, how do I know the world? What is the relationship between the inquirer and the known? Every epistemology...implies an ethical – moral stance towards the world and the self of the researcher” (Denzin and Lincoln 2000, p.157)

The review of the literature has identified a gap of an appropriate pedagogy whilst using new technology with young children, with respect to phonetic awareness. As a result, this has prompted an interest in this area of study and has identified the substantial research focus:

Research Question: To what extent can new technology be used appropriately in extending

learning and development with young children?

1. In what ways can early years technology based classroom settings provide for an appropriate learning environment with young children?

2. In what ways can existing early childhood technological practices provide for appropriate use of new learning technology, within early years settings?

3. What is the relationship between effective pedagogical qualities, in early childhood education, and in determining an appropriate pedagogy, whilst using new learning technology?

4. To what extent can the appropriate pedagogy applied with new learning technology, support phonetic awareness and learning in early childhood education?

5. To what extent can the appropriate pedagogy applied with new learning technology, support the quality of well-being and involvement with young children, in a planned learning setting?

Early research in investigating the role of pedagogy in ICT (Plowman and Stephen 2005, 2007; Siraj-Blatchford 2003, 2005, 2007) have often adopted an interpretive frame of reference, taking into consideration Vygotksy’s social constructive philosophy established in the early years, and the feelings, emotions and subjective analysis of the participants in the study. The analysis of the interventions and data collected tend to originate in forms of observations, interviews, documentary analysis and anectodal evidence. These methods have been found to be successful with young children in their early years and illuminate the findings from an interpretivist view based on the truth value of the social reality, which stress the need to study the details of the situation to understand the reality or perhaps the reality surrounding the participants.

While the Interpretivist approach is applicable to this research and is relevant to the first three stages of this study, it does not suitably encapsulate the later stage of this research. In determining an appropriate pedagogy, whilst using new technology with young children, a last stage of well- being and involvement uses Laever’s Scales (1997), which adopts a more objective frame of reference and a quantitative approach of numerical analysis of data. These scales were adopted into this study with the intention to establish the appropriateness of the proposed pedagogy and in validating the quality of care and exchange of instructional practices, between the practitioners and the young children in a planned learning setting. The paradigm associated with Laever’s Scales are also found to be holistic in nature, in that they are created for young children in the early years, and

79

that the assessments are based in real life circumstances, by using observations of naturalistic inquiry. However, by using these observations in a controlled environment, they adopt an objective stance in assessing the quality of an education setting (Stein 2006), thereby providing a positivist frame of reference.

Therefore, in order to investigate the research area and questions, this study adopted the research philosophy of pragmatism to allow for a combination of both positivism and interpretivism paradigms within the research design processes. This research is interested in using pragmatism as an instrument to conduct research with an appropriate degree of epistemological and

methodological awareness in order to find the truth. Whilst there is great debate regarding the uses of mixed methods within the pragmatic epistemology, this study shows how using the mixed methods approach pragmatically has heightened the practical relevance of philosophical

pragmatism to research methodology, in particular, but not exclusively to mixed methods research choice of design.

The following section will illustrate the reasons for adopting Pragmatism as the choice of research philosophy. It will discuss the nature of Epistemology, consider the benefits and limitations of the Positivist and Interpretivist paradigms and will conclude with the reasons for selecting the Pragmatic approach for this study.

5.1.

Epistemology

The research philosophy relates to the development of knowledge and the nature of the knowledge itself. In terms of research, this simply means ‘developing knowledge in a particular field’ (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill 2009). Where it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that one research philosophy is better than another, as always, which is ‘better’ depends on the design of the research questions (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill 2009). In determining an appropriate

philosophy for this study, the important issue is not so much whether the research should be philosophically informed, but rather how well the researcher can reflect upon the philosophical choice selected and defend it in relation to the alternatives that could have well been adopted (Johnson and Clark 2006). This research has adopted Robson’s (1993) dictum of being ‘deliberately promiscuous.’ It is not restrained to one particular approach and has made use of different methods of choice to meet particular design issues.

Epistemology, as part of the research philosophy design, determines what constitutes as acceptable knowledge in a field of study. Indeed, it would be suggested that those who take a particular epistemological view take on a particular paradigm, or a way to “see the world and organise it into a coherent whole” (Hughes 1994, p.31). It has been argued that “to be located in a particular paradigm is to view the world in a particular way” (Burrell and Morgan 1979, p.24). Just as a picture frame ‘frames’ a picture, a paradigm ‘frame’ influences how we see the picture within it and likewise, so the choice of paradigm that influences the research design. Bryman (2004, p.453) identifies a paradigm as a cluster of beliefs and dictates, which for scientists in a particular

discipline influence what should be studied, how research should be done (and) how results should