What were your overall impressions of the art studio as a literacy environment? Studying these photographs live with a group of early childhood teachers, we agreed that they showed ample presence of print. Print in varied forms was distributed throughout the play environment -- for example, in the dictated stories on the art pieces, in the assorted books in the storybook reading area, in labels and signs, and even on the color wheel. But we noticed there was not much children's writing evident in these images, and that sometimes the print seemed to be placed too high, as in the “I like cookies” information next to the computer area. One of the teachers in our discussion group mentioned that due to space limitations in her classroom, she often moves older, more familiar print material higher up the wall to make room for newer, more current print at children's eye level. This may be the case in this classroom, too.

As for proximity, we thought that the print and writing tools seemed well within children's physical reach and that, based on the lesson and our own sense of what was probably going on, literacy activity was well matched to the children's lived experiences. All had visited the art museum, for example, so had some acquaintance with the artists and their work. Although highly authentic, the one item we questioned was the color wheel, which some thought too abstract for young children: a color bar or rainbow might be more meaningful and informative at this age. For the most part, we agreed, the physical evidence suggested that children could relate to the fundamental artistic elements of color, shape, object, and style, which were presented in plain language and connected to good examples. They could listen to stories and information in the storybook area, and share in writing their own stories in the bookmaking center. As photographs 4 and 5 show, children were given opportunities to use their own language to express their thinking through the dictations that documented their observations, ideas, and creative expression. In sum, reading and writing activity was within the reach of these children's hands and minds, thus accessible to them as a tool for exploring, thinking, and learning.

From our discussion, we decided, however, that the productivity of the environment was less developed than the features of presence and proximity. Some cited the lack of displayed children's writing as an indicator that children may not have been sufficiently challenged to explore and use the print-sound code in their play and project work. Others questioned how children were encouraged to use print to complete activities, such as following steps to mix colors or documenting their own work. We saw little evidence of play-inspired writing as a result of role-taking and pretend-play stories, though this is not to say that it did not occur. But others pointed out that, according to the lesson plan, the children did collectively make a big book, which they enjoyed reading and rereading. They also kept personal journals and composed individual pieces about the five artists' work as well as their own. This recounting and explaining allowed many opportunities to practice matching sound and letter, talk and print, and also to rehearse getting meaning from print. The environment, in sum, was moderately productive in our judgment in that it prompted children to read, write, and grapple with the print-sound code in purposeful ways.

All in all, we viewed the atelier as a good print environment that offered children examples and opportunities to use reading and writing in their play and projects. Based on your observations, you may agree. Although, like us, you may have observed some room for improvement, we all recognize that the pictures alone do not give us access to the full richness of the classroom setting -- but enough to stimulate thinking in relation to our own practice.

Go to the next page