Day 5: May 22

• Classroom Observation:  Scuola Media Statale A. Manzoni
• The Rest of the Day
• References

 Scuola Media Statale A. Manzoni

The school is located in an older building that used to be the home of a rich person. It therefore has tight rooms that offer limited mobility between and within classrooms. The students stay in the same room all day while the teachers travel between rooms, though both the teachers here and my foreign exchange student from Italy explained that it the norm in the country. I observed English, math, science, technology, and social studies classes. All but the science class were in the same room, and both classes had between 21 and 23 students. Both classes were diverse, though I found out the true nature of the diversity in the second classroom (Nigeria, India, Russia, Ghana, Romania, Albania, and Algeria were among the countries I noted that were represented by the students). Contrary to what I believed, this school is not a Reggio school, though is a public school in Reggio Emilia. 

Because the dynamic of the setting, pedagogical approach, and classroom management differed between teach teacher, I will first discuss commonalities under the themes of my observation protocol and then delve into the unique aspects of each class. 

Setting

        Each room had large wooden doors to separate the class from the hallway. While I understand the necessity of individualized classrooms due to the type of building in which the school runs, it was a stark contrast from the two Reggio preschools. The doors did not have windows on them, making the space feel confining. Because of the size of the rooms, students were arranged in two columns with two or three seats in a column. The chairs and desks were separate, and the desks were individual. This made it easy for students to rearrange the classroom for a test, or if they were causing a disruption. Each classroom only had a chalkboard that was not used and a SMARTboard, at which the teacher or student presenter needed to stand because there was no tablet connected to the board. The person talking was therefore almost always at the start of the class. Both classrooms had windows as well as student work on the walls, though the student work was more on display rather than the documentation known in schools implementing the Reggio approach like I saw yesterday and what is described in the literature (Malaguzzi, 1993/1994; McNally & Slutsky, 2017). The students in both classrooms were generally loud and constantly wanting to move about, though the room I was in for the science class operated differently than the room I observed the other classes. After the two Reggio preschools I observed, I found the setup to be boring and the overall atmosphere to be stifling--especially since I had thought I was observing middle school classes implementing the Reggio approach but instead found myself in schools that mirrored my experiences in the United States. 

 SMARTboard during the math lesson

Materials

        The materials were typically the same in all classes, where students were using a writing utensil and paper to do work. The teacher was working at Other than this though, the materials differed for each course. 

Other

        I spoke with the technology teacher about her lesson because it seemed to align with the math unit the same group of students was learning and with the science unit the second group of students was learning. She told me that she is in communication with both math and science as often as possible, but that there were not always opportunities to do so. Again, this is a stark contrast to the dedicated time Reggio schools set aside for professional development, collaboration, and a sharing of ideas discussed both by the teachers at Otello Sarzi yesterday and research (Malaguzzi, 1993/1994; McNally & Slutsky, 2017).

English

        Instead of showing each other respect the Reggio approach touts (Malaguzzi, 1993/1994; McNally & Slutsky, 2017; Wurm, 2005), the teacher and the students were talking over each other. The students knew the expectations like those at Otello Sarzi, yet did not usually follow through with those expectations. The teacher explained to me and Robin that the Reggio approach is better for the younger students but is tough at the middle school level and higher, which reflects the research I have done on Reggio-inspired middle schools (Fox, 2023; Hesterman, 2011; Hill, 1999). 

        The materials students used were a textbook in which they could write, a writing utensil, and a notebook for dictation. I liked that the teacher was teaching the students English in a more bilingual context, where she would talk in English for most of the time and in Italian throughout. During the dictation process, she played a recording through the SMARTboard, repeated the words, and helped the students spell them out. Although she displayed the entire transcription at the end for students to check their work, the practice indicated that the teachers wanted to help the students learn how to listen and write in English. There was no peer review though, and the students were expected to remain quiet for most of the time. If they were not, the teacher admonished them and, at one point, asked why they were being worse than usual. After observing those same students in other class contexts, I wonder if some of the misbehavior was due to the disrespect the teacher gave to them, or if it is because some struggle with English enough that they are trying to avoid it. When talking to some of the students later, their understanding of the English language was much lower than I thought, given how the teacher was talking with them. 

Math

    The math teacher explained that she was also the science teacher for that group of students, though the science class I observed next had a different teacher. The lesson was in using GeoGebra to create angles and analyze the work based on known definitions. Different students were given different responsibilities, and they were more receptive to the directives of the math teacher than the English teacher. While different, the lesson reminded me of research I used in my literature review for my dissertation on high school students constructing aspects of circles and their definitions using GeoGebra (Thapa et al., 2022). The lesson I observed did not fully embody the theory of social constructivism as Thapa et al. (2022) did, since the students were already given the definitions, but it was something familiar for me to compare to. 

        The materials included a touchscreen Chromebook from a hallway cart, a writing utensil, and a guided handout that first explained how students could draw and measure and angle and then went into the analysis. The lesson took much longer than I anticipated, first because there were internet issues the teacher helped with and then because most of the students were talking instead of working forward on their own. The teacher had to walk around to each student before moving forward. She explained to me, Robin, and Dr. Gess that she had to model a lot with GeoGebra this year because the students were in the first year at the middle school, and needed more scaffolding and modeling before becoming more autonomous in the second and third years. 

 Guided handout in math

        I did witness some social constructivism as students worked with each other on how to manipulate the platform and build conceptual understanding. Others were called up to model what they did, but the teacher did almost all of the talking for those students, which is opposite of the Reggio approach (Malaguzzi, 1993/1994; McNally & Slutsky, 2017). The dynamic nature of the class and freedom for students to move around and help each other more made this a more interesting class to observe.

Technology

        Although I observed this class after science, the first group of students was present. They were creating equilateral triangles with drafting tools and were meant to use what they learned the previous to construct Sierpiński's triangle. The lesson aligned with the math lesson on angles and the science one on plants. The students used drafting tools while the teacher showed a video on the SMARTboard. Students were not necessarily discouraged to help each other, though the teacher did desire less movement and more quiet than the math teacher. Although the process was the same as the previous day, the teacher spent almost the entire class pausing after a short time in the video so students could construct the triangle. One student was not there the previous class and told me they did not want to do (nor did they want help from me or a classmate).

 The technology tools

        The video showed students how to draw everything in the same way as opposed to the creative mimicking I witnessed in the Reggio schools. The only individualization was the size of the triangles. Because the teacher had to go to every student and did not walk around while discussing how the triangle was created, the students did not get to start on the Sierpiński aspect of the triangle. It is unfortunate that the students were not given more autonomy to move forward with the work and were not more encouraged to help each other with the tool manipulations.

History

        My observation in this class was short since I was only there for half of the class and the students were taking the test. A key difference between the Italian students and students from the U.S. though was that no student complained they were not prepared to take the test and no one started early even though the teacher read through every question of the test. She showed a great understanding of the students and their learning needs which does not fall under a single pedagogical method, but is a good practice. The students were also required to fold up a sheet of paper, which the teacher explained would be used after the test for students "to accurately archive their checks."

Science

        The science class was my favorite to observe because of both the students and the teacher. The teacher knew which student was most proficient in English and asked them to introduce each student and then explain the diversity of the class. We then all watched one group of six students to the second part of a presentation on plants--the first part was completed by another group prior to this day. The students needed to complete paper-based peer reviews using rubrics of levels one to 3, with 1 being the lowest and 3 the highest. They had to note the participation of each presenter, the overall presentation, the depth of classification for each plant, and exposition. 

        This presentation was on aquatic and terrestrial plants, and student ownership of the work was evident on the Canva slides. They were allowed to be creative; one student even made a paper puppet to demonstrate carnivorous plants. The noise level of the students was high, and not only because I had a group of six around me where any one of them would start translating for me. One student asked me not to take out Google translate because they wanted to practice their English. Even the teacher was talking during the presentation though, indicating that noise is a normal part of the class--which I observed in the Otello Sarzi school as well. Still, the students were able to complete the peer reviews, and told me that each group would receive the forms, as well as any comments on the presentation written on back of the form. I was concerned how students would feel about feedback that was not anonymous, until the teacher asked for questions and statements at the end of the presentation. While I did not understand most of what the students said, I recognized that they were offering constructive suggestions and positive feedback about the presentation. I felt that I was in a safe space where students were free to respectfully speak their minds and learn from each other--not only with the content but also how to discuss that content. It felt like a pocket of a Reggio-inspired class, especially since they celebrated the diversity of the students (Edwards & Gandini, 2015; Malaguzzi, 1993/1994; McNally & Slutsky, 2017).

The Rest of the Day

We were thankfully driven in today because we woke up early. I was up at 3:30 to finish the second draft of my dissertation. And I thought I wouldn't need that alarm this trip...

Tori and I went to the Reggio Emilia library for free wifi and to get some work done. I typed up the observation reflection during that time, which I feel like I needed because I am going to be too tired tonight. In the library, I found a Vespa book! It reminds me though that I definitely want to bring home a Brandon Sanderson book in Italian.

The pasta making of tortelli was at first devastating because I felt inadequate, but I definitely improved. It was a very neat experience.

 

 Spinach filling  Pumpkin filling

 1      2      3

 Final product

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

Fox, A. (2023). The Reggio Emilia approach in the United States [Master’s thesis, Oklahoma State University]. SHAREOK Repository. https://hdl.handle.net/11244/338912

Hesterman, S. (2011). Extending Reggio Emilia principles in the middle school context: A western Australian case study. Educational Practice and Theory, 33(1), 73–91. https://doi.org/10.7459/ept/33.1.05

Hill, L. T. (1999). TeacherWork: A journey to recast the Reggio Emilia approach for a middle school within the context of power, politics, and personalities [Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University]. Virginia Tech Electronic Theses and Dissertations. http://hdl.handle.net/10919/29475 

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

Thapa, R., Dahal, N., & Pant, B. P. (2022). GeoGebra integration in high school mathematics: An experiential exploration on concepts of circle. Mathematics Teaching Research Journal, 14(5). 14-32.

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