Day 4: May 21

Otello Sarzi - Nido Scuola

I was not allowed to get many pictures, but I have included a few I was able to take.

Setting

The first thing I noticed with the setting in this school is how no space seemed to be wasted. The walls were covered in student work and other documents, which will be later described in the Materials section. Some desks had chairs while others did not; sliding boxes could be used as a chair or a desk; reading areas had pillows or foam mats that could be moved around. All the rooms had doors with glass windows, though only one room with students had a closed door. Not only did the overall layout align with the Reggio approach (Malaguzzi, 1993/1994; McNally & Slutsky, 2017; Wurm, 2015), but the educators in the school explained that it also gave students the freedom to work through different atelier activities that the students and teachers agreed on at the start of the day.

The rooms were each set up differently that corresponded with how the room was used.

• One of the infant rooms was closed, and students were working through a balancing and walking activity with the teacher.
• Another infant room had a reading area with mats, toy animals, natural materials, paper on a table with no chairs, and paints on a table with chairs. Although it was not explained, it seemed that the low tables and materials without chairs encouraged collaboration and independent exploration (Malaguzzi, 1993/1994; McNally & Slutsky, 2017; Wurm, 2015). The table with chairs though was higher, and seemed to be the main activity on which the teacher was focusing with the particular students. The chairs thus indicated to me as an outsider that activities at those areas required more attention and less mobility away from the activity.
• The preschool room was one of the most intricate and the one where I spent the most time. As with yesterday’s school, there was an area with a projector displaying a famous place in the country that students had to recreate using recycled materials. The teacher in that section was continuously asking questions about the materials the students were using, why they were using them, and their overall process. More about the teachers will be described in the Pedagogy section. At one point the creation toppled and the students shrugged and went back to reconstructing the building. I discuss this more in the classroom management section. In that same area, children were working on building with blocks and sliding boxes around to either sit or work on to rearrange their workspace and take ownership of the learning (Malaguzzi, 1993/1994; McNally & Slutsky, 2017; Wurm 2015). The room had a nook with toy animals, and the students in that area were explaining to our group what each animal was, the sounds they make, and playing with the toys. There was another area with a table and chairs, where students were working with another teacher on drawing a picture of an image provided. If students needed more paper she gave it to them, and did not stop talking with the students about their work and process, and thoughts about the work. That area also had a home economics area where students could play with a kitchen set, laundry area, making a bed, or setting a table.
• The preschool room opened up to the garden atelier. This and the other three ateliers will be described in the Materials section. However, all mirrored the Reggio approach of ateliers by providing open and collaborative spaces that are not only connected to certain classrooms but also the main part of the building in different ways (Malaguzzi, 1993/1994; McNally & Slutsky, 2017; Wurm, 2017). Students in the ateliers were not always monitored by an adult, and provided different ways for students to express themselves (garden, expressive, and animation), or help the school (kitchen).

The spaces downstairs are intended for collaborative activities and common projects with older students from other schools and community members. The teachers focus on what students want and what their ideas are, and will ensure there is co-planning between the teachers and students to use the space in a way that ensures the city center is the teacher of the service. This really shows how the Reggio approach actively and purposefully ensure the community is involved in the learning process (Malaguzzi, 1993/1994; McNally & Slutsky, 2017).

Materials

As previously noted, no space in the building was wasted. Walls were covered in student work, which were also hanging from the ceiling and displayed on tables or cabinets. The hallway also had a small projector showing a video of students working on past projects, likely to bring visitors into the learning process (Malaguzzi, 1993/1994; McNally & Slutsky, 2017; Wurm, 2017). I realized though that the student work went beyond the work I am accustomed to seeing hung in the United States. Indeed, these instead fully documented the work and progress of the students, with documentation that included the students’ own words and thinking. I knew what the activity was, and the media used were also displayed. Pictures of students working as well as their final product were also shown, along with their meanings of the work. It is one thing to be told that students are part of documentation (Edwards & Gandini, 2015; Malaguzzi, 1993/1994; McNally & Slutsky, 2017) and another to witness.

Every room had paper, wooden, natural, and plastic materials and toys, and at least one table with chairs. There were also writing utensils , such as pencils and markers, though paints were also involved if they were part of a given activity. Separate areas like the ateliers had clay—clay seemed to be the medium of choice for the day. However, the purpose of the materials was evidently purposeful, and truly showed me what it meant to bring in different disciplines, cultures, nature, and society in the learning process.

• In multiple rooms with clay and paint, students were provided an image or model from which to create an art piece that reflected the model. Based on the documentation of student work and my own observations, all age ranges were welcome to work with the given materials. Except for the light room, which also had hanging opaque decorations of work, students were working with a single color (black marker, red paint, slate clay, etc). In this room, students were using a model of a wire arch to create their own unique arches with different colored clay. This room embodied a STEAM thought process too, where students were given an item to think about, brainstorm and draw what they wanted their arch to be like, implement a design process to create the arch , and reflect on their work through discussions with the teacher, who monitored how and why the students implemented a particular imaginative process (Gess, 2017; Wells, 2016).
• In the garden atelier, plants were growing, and images of students working in that garden were displayed. Natural materials comprised the majority of the materials. 
• The expressive atelier had foam, plastic cylinders, clay, drawing and painting materials, and displays of student work on recycled materials and other tables. A group was in this room working on clay animals, and I was able to witness how the teachers document work. This will be described in the Pedagogy/Classroom Management section. 
• The optical chamber was the most unique area to me. It was connected to two ateliers and the hallway, and contained a dressing area, albeit larger than the one in the school yesterday. This area had steps leading down to a landing that had a large window looking out to the city. An older student was helping a younger student dress, other students were modeling by going up and down the steps, and I was able to see how students would find inspiration in nature and their community (Edwards & Gandini, 2015; Malaguzzi, 1993/1994; McNally & Slutsky, 2017; Wurm, 2015). It felt like STEAM in action, where the arts manifest in the visual and performing arts, the liberal arts in societal reflections, the language arts in how students' work is transcribed by teachers regarding plays and modeling, and science as students watch nature change and could model those changes. It also mirrored Vygotsky's (1978) view of social constructivism where students are more apt to learn from each other through play.

               

Pedagogy/Classroom Management

The ways in which education is documented in the school was evident in my observations and in the material around the school. While the latter is described above, it was interesting to see how the teachers implemented different observation protocols without breaking stride, ensuring that each student in the room was attended to. Columns consisted of how students collaborate, the reflections of the adults, and how the students implement the imaginative process. The Reggio pedagogy of encouraging everyone to participate in the documentation though by how students' voices were embedded in the observation protocols and publications, teachers reflected on student output and growth in each part of the documentation, and the community members were included in different ways. Too, students were consistently asked about how and why they were doing what they were doing (Malaguzzi, 1993/1994; McNally & Slutsky, 2017). 

I was surprised that there was little need for classroom management at this school. No student touched the open paints or other materials on display as part of the documentation process. When a building of recycled materials fell, the children did not have a tantrum. The educators explained that they first give students the chance to resolve issues on their own, as part of the growing process is learning how to set boundaries and talk through differences. They intervene if the students continue and, in calm voices, try to understand what is wrong and help them manage a resolution, modeling how to listen to issues. Students also know how to behave in different spaces and will remind each other if someone starts acting out. The explanations provided by the staff aligned well with Vygotsky's (1978) theory of social constructivism.

Other

Someone from my group asked about how the school helps students transition to upper primary grades. We were told that the school does not do that but instead focuses on the natural progression of student interest in literacy and numeracy. The teachers follow students' curiosity in how they reflect on their drawings, models, and conversations. As students begin asking "How many...?" and "How do I write...?" the teachers begin to help students focus on skills that are needed at upper levels.

I felt that the time spent at the school was perfect. We had about one hour for observations only, which prevented cognitive overload and allowed me to see everything I could. Longer time would also make me feel intrusive, even though Reggio schools often have observers (McNally & Slutsky, 2017).

The Rest of the Day

The day overall was not bad, minus my knees hurting after riding on the back of an electric bike that made me and Tori feel amazing and becoming dehydrated after dancing for almost two straight hours. The best thing about dancing was that little kids ended up joining us. I do wish the dances were real dances and not children's dances. We also learned about how we will be working in our small groups for the next three days we're in schools, for which I was grateful.

    Me dancing with some other UofSC people

References

Edwards, C. P., & Gandini, L. (2015). Teacher research in Reggio Emilia: Essence of a dynamic, evolving role. Voices of Practitioners, 10(1), 89-103. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/famconfacpub/105

Gess, A. H. (2017, November). Steam education: Separating fact from fiction. Technology and Engineering teacher, 77(3), 39-41.

Malaguzzi, L. (1994). Your image of the child: Where teaching begins. (B. Rankin, L. Morrow, & L. Gandini, Trans.). Child Care Information Exchange, 96, 52-61. (Original work published 1993, June).

McNally, S. A., & Slutsky, R. (2017). Key elements of the Reggio Emilia approach and how they are interconnected to create the highly regarded system of early childhood education. Early Child Development and Care, 187(12), 1925-1937. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2016.1197920

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S., Scriber, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Harvard University Press.

Wells, J. G. (2016, March). PIRPOSAL model of integrative STEM education: Conceptual and pedagogical frame- work for classroom implementation. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 75(6), 12-19.

Wurm, J. (2005). Working in the Reggio way: A beginner’s guide for American teachers. Redleaf Press.