UMIST: DRAFT – Please do not quote without permission

Jane Payler, University of Southampton

Sociocultural influences on the learning processes of four-year-olds: evidence for tentative links between learning outcomes of children, sub-cultures of pedagogy and patterns of interaction in a pre-school and reception class.

Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Manchester, 16-18 September 2004

Introduction

In England, there is a common curriculum, the Foundation Stage Curriculum (2000), for children from three years to the end of the reception year (between ages of almost five and almost six years). Yet children’s experiences of the Foundation Stage Curriculum vary according to the sub-culture of pedagogy of the setting, their identity within it and their season of birth. In counties where children begin Reception in the September before their fifth birthday, some spend only two years in the Foundation Stage whilst others have three, depending on birthdates (see Appendix i for timeline of the study children’s Foundation Stage experiences).

The study, from which this paper derives, followedthe experiences of ten children in two settings through the year from when they are four to almost five years old,five of themin a pre-school and five in a reception class in a primary school. Though very close in age, for some it is their second of three years in the Foundation Stage; for others, it is their second and final year before being launched into Year 1 of the National Curriculum. The study, a two-site ethnographic case study, used a combination ofparent diaries, observed staff/child and parent/child assessments, interviews and extensive video and audio recordings, allowing detailed analysis. In Stage 1(Spring 2002), I examined the sub-cultures of pedagogy in the two settings, and in Stage 2 (Sept to July 2002/3), the children’s learning outcomes as viewed by the staff, parents and children, and the processes influencing their learning. Stage 2 also focused on the interactions between children, adults and children, and children and resources. Staff and children’s interactions, taken to be multimodal communications (Kress and Van Leeuwen, 2001;Wells, 2001), were analysed for broad patterns occurring in the settings. Selected episodes were then analysed for the micro-processes evident in the moment-by-moment construction of interactions, paying attention to actions, words, bodily spacing and use of resources, though this second level of analysis is not presented here.The study uses both levels of analysis to trace possible links with the learning outcomes of the children. In this paper, a broad overview of the first level of analysis is presented.

Theoretical underpinnings

The study draws on Vygotskian theory, making use of the concepts of mediation and situated learning in sociocultural historical contexts (Vygotsky, 1986; Rogoff and Lave, 1984). This view of learning, and of the home, pedagogical and societal influences on it, takes cultural context not as something which surrounds learning or pedagogical sub-cultures, but as something which is effectively woven through and re-enacted in each part of the learning process (Cole, 1996; Rogoff, 2003). It looks beyond specific situations to individual’s movements between situations and the learning implications for this. I use Dreier’s concept of learning in personal trajectories of participation to address individual learning as part of multi-faceted collectives, which considers links between a person’s participation in numerous different learning situations, each influenced by the societal arrangements, subject to ‘resources and constraints’ (Dreier 2002:3). Also used are Bernstein’s theoretical concepts to examine how the resources and constraints operate in pedagogical settings, considering modality, pedagogical identity and discourse by looking at the levels of classification and framing, and at distinctions between visible and invisible pedagogies, regulative and instructional discourse, and horizontal and vertical discourse, linking them to wider societal power relations (Bernstein, 1996 and 1999). Hasan’s work (in Cloran et al, 1996) offers a detailed way of linking back between educational and home settings in considering the ontology, enactment and reproduction of power relations and discursive practices, which children learn by taking part in day to day communication. The ways in which individuals contribute to and make sense of this learning is addressed by reference to Dreier’s notion of the ‘personal action potency’ each individual brings to bear on learning and learning contexts (Dreier, 2002:3), which is taken to be agency tempered by resources and constraints. Individual learner identities are both formed by and indirectly contribute to the agency, resources and constraints which comprise personal action potencyand so have a powerful role to play in children’s learning trajectories.

What is already known about interaction in educational settings around the age of school entry?

The research evidence on interaction around school entry can be drawn together into five main strands of investigation. The first strand provides evidence of differences between intended and experienced curricula (Anning, 1998; Bennett and Kell, 1989; Adams et al, 2004) and intended and experienced patterns of interaction (Orchard,1993; Sylva et al, 1980; Tizard et al, 1983; Willes, 1983), and efforts to effect changes in these (Pascal, Bertram and Ramsden, 1997; Wood and Bennett, 1998;Oliveira-Formosinha, 2001).

The second strand relates to the nature of successful adult guidance or teaching as involving contingency and responsiveness (Wells and Nicholls, 1985), capturing or recruiting interest (Wood, 1988), staying one step ahead of the learner by gradually making the task more complex (Bruner, 1985), creating joint understanding and guiding the child to make links (Rogoff and Lave 1984, Rogoff 1990; Edwards and Mercer 1987; Mercer 1995) or participating in ‘sustained shared thinking’ (Siraj-Blatchford et al, 2003), and noting fully the social, affective and intellectual aspects of children’s understanding (Thornton, 1995; Donaldson, 1978; David and Goouch, 2001).

The third strand offers clear evidence of the effects of expectations on patterns of interaction and, ultimately, on learning outcomes. This includes the effect of children’s expectations, with regard to the purpose and ‘reading’ of the situation, on understanding and performance (Donaldson, 1978; Gauvin and Rogoff, 1986; Thornton, 1995; David and Goouch, 2001; Brooker, 1996).It also encompasses teachers’ expectations with regard to links between gender, age, behaviour and academic performance(Childs and McKay, 2001; Daniels, Shorrocks-Taylor and Redfern, 2000), the wider influence of the expectations of government and of society for teacher performance and children’s learning outcomes, and of teachers’ perceptions of parents’ expectations. Such expectations impact upon assessment methods and, in turn, how the curriculum and pedagogy are experienced – in short, the interactions in the educational setting(Nutbrown, 1998).

The fourth strand identified the specific and characteristic nature of ‘school’ discourse, its impact on restricting interaction and maintaining control, and its potential for making explicit though more often leaving implicit the nature, purposes and principles of the learning to be undertaken (Willes 1983; Sinclair and Coulthard 1975; Mercer, 1995; Edwards and Maybin, 1987; Edwards and Mercer, 1987). It also identified the potential for change in classroom discourse, leading to improved learning (Wegerif, Mercer and Dawes, 1999).

The fifth strand reveals the impact of similarities or differences between children’s previous learning experiencesand the children’s performance (and teachers’ perceptions of their abilities) in educational settings. Previous learning experiences include language use, access to resources, values attached to experiences and resources, and types of support available, whilst performance is influenced by the expectations and opportunities mentioned above (Heath, 1983;Jowett and Sylva, 1986;Kenner, 1996; Wells, 1981; Walkerdine and Sinha, 1981; Brooker, 2000; Gregory et al, 2004).

Less well-researched are the specifics of the interactive interface and the learning opportunities of different aspects of interaction in the reality of the busy early years settings.In this paper, I consider the evidence for tentative links between the learning outcomes of the children and the patterns of interaction in the two settings. The paper highlights the ways in which elements of the pedagogic sub-cultures impact on the interactions afforded and how these affordances may have a part to play in exacerbating or minimising differences in young children’s learning outcomes.

Children’s learning outcomes

The sample

The sample children in the study were selected to be as close in age as possible (birthdays ranged from mid July to mid September) from the same geographic location. The settings were broadly representative of institutional early education experienced by the majority of four year olds in the county of study: for those whose fourth birthdays fell between the beginning of July and the end of August (around 3750 children*), almost the whole of their year was spent in a reception class, whilst those whose birthdays fell between the beginning of September and the end of December (around the same number*) spent almost the whole of their year in one of the nursery providers listed in Table 1, the majority in pre-school.

Table 1: Nursery Education Establishments for Four Year Olds in County of Study

(Approximately 15000 four year olds in the county*)

Maintained nursery schools2

Maintained nursery units12

Independent schools50

Day nurseries130

Pre-schools650

(*Figures from discussion with Early Years Development and Childcare Partnership EYDCP, March 2002).

Evidence of the children’s learning prior to and during the academic year came from

  • Interviews with the children and their parents at home. (Although addressed to include both parents, the majority of the data, and certainly the interview data, came from the mothers).
  • Parent diaries kept over the year.
  • Recorded achievements akin to a streamlined baseline assessment in November 2002 and June 2003, drawing on data from practitioner records, informal discussions and assessments in the home and setting. (Baseline assessment was used in the reception setting at that time and therefore it was decided to use this as the guide to assessing all the sample children’s recorded achievements).

For the purposes of this paper, I draw mainly on the data from the streamlined baseline assessment (see Appendix ii for details of the assessments used and the criteria for scoring). The limitations of these assessments are fully acknowledged with regard to the effects of the location, timing and assessor, the emphasis on literacy and numeracy, the degree of sensitivity of the criteria for grading to register changes to children’s learning over the year, and the shortcomings of applying scores to disparate behaviours in specific situations based on judgements, then aggregating the scores and treating them mathematically. The small size of the sample, whilst appropriate in the context of the broader qualitative study, means any quantitative results should be treated cautiously. Further statistical analysis would be inappropriate given the small numbers involved; the results presented are particular to the children and settings represented. Nonetheless, the value of the study is in examining and making visible the detailed processes involved in the children’s learning, which can be enlightening in a broader sense. Also, the assessments form only part of the information on the children’s learning and have proved useful as rough indicators, highlighting issues and questions for further scrutiny which are addressed in other parts of the study. In spite of the shortcomings, the assessments provided a perspective on the children’s experiences over the year which yielded surprisingly similar issues to those arising from other methods.

The children’s results

As Figure 1 shows, although the children in the two settings started from quite different positions, the school children had gained considerable ground by the end of the academic year, particularly in literacy skills. However, field notes and observation data indicated there may have been some underestimation of the school children’s initial achievements because of the manner and timing of early assessments.

The pre-school children’s recorded progress was highest in counting, handwriting, writing and personal skills (Figure 2). Number, speaking and listening, social skills and drawing showed less progress, but, in the case of the first four of these, the scores were initially high. The school children’s recorded progress was highest (1000%, not shown on Figure 2) in drawing, which started from a remarkably low position, in reading, writing, handwriting, number and counting. By June/July 2003, the school children had exceeded the children’s scores in reading, writing and drawing. The pre-school children’s scores remained ahead of the school children’s in number skills, speaking and listening, personal and social skills and counting.

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3 shows how the total scores in each setting were comprised of quite different patterns for individual children. In pre-school, although all children made a small amount of progress,Stuart made the most progress from the lowest start point. By the end of the year, the range in children’s mean scores had narrowed from a difference of 0.9 to 0.6. In pre-school, Stuart’s progress had been largely in literacy and mathematical skills, Henry made progress in interpersonal skills and mathematics, whilst Carly’s progress was more evenly spread. Lloyd’s only recorded progress was in interpersonal skills. In school, individual children’s mean scores showed much greater initial variation and by the end of the year, the range had widened further from a difference of 1.7 to 3.9. Although all children in the school sample had made progress, Robert and George made the most progress from initially higher scores, leaving Tom and Paul further behind.Robert and George made considerable progress in all areas but particularly in literacy, where Robert’s mean score increased by 3.4. Paul and Tom made some progress across the board, the most notable being Paul’s progress in mathematical skills by an increase of 1.5 in the mean scores.

Figure 3

The impression presented in the results and borne out in the observations was of the pre-school children being brought up to a certain level in preparation for the transition to school. Progress beyond that level was not readily facilitated by the activities, resources and interaction offered. The results for the school children again matched the impressions I had gained from the observations and recordings: the school curriculum and mode of delivery highlighted and exacerbated the differences between children, inadvertently encouraging rapid development in some, whilst others’ lesser achievements became more apparent.

How did the learning outcomes reflect the pedagogical sub-cultures?

The pre-school was a community run playgroup, affiliated to the Pre-school Learning Alliance, which operated on five two-and-a-half hour sessions each week from a Victorian village hall, requiring all resources to be brought out and packed away into cupboards at the beginning and end of each session. Five members of staff were on duty at any one time to care for up to twenty-four children in each session. The reception class was part of a primary school catering for around 250 children from the ages of four to eleven years. The reception class catered for up to thirty children, though there were twenty-four for most of the year of study, with one teacher and one Learning Support Assistant. There were clearly discernible differences in what was learnt in each setting and who appeared to benefit most, reflected in the assessment scores and observations.

Pre-school

Pre-school’s aims, from its playgroup beginnings and associations, were dominated by goals for personal and social development through a largely invisible pedagogy, weakly classified and framed. What was emphasised most was freedom of choice of play, within a limited selection of activities chosen by staff, restricted by the physical setting and resources. It was punctuated by short periods of compulsory whole group routines such as registration and snack time. It is not difficult to see how this encouraged children’s personal development in which, on the assessment criteria, a score of 6 could be obtained for ‘Initiating activity, selecting and using resources independently’. The first hour of each session was based around children doing just that, supported by staff where necessary. Younger, less confident children coped with the openness of such sessions by staying at one or two activities with more structured spaces (for example, the playdough table), often with the help of an adult. Certainly, it was noticeable that Stuart, the least confident of the pre-school sample children, progressed from choosing to spend much of his time at either playdough or the maths activity table into a more varied pattern of movement by the end of the year.

It was also clear that maths activities relating to counting of objects and children and of number recognition featured on a daily basis in pre-school life and were emphasised regularly. The counting was often linked to real purpose and joint effort, each contributing what they could, with, for example, children given apparent responsibilityfor counting the number in the group to tally with the register. A maths activity table was always set up in the main hall which children often chose to do. It was almost always supported by an adult, often by the supervisor, for at least part of the free play session, which in itself tended to attract children to it. Stuart in particular sought the company of the supervisor and so often seemed to be at the maths activity table.

Another skill which was routinely encouraged at pre-school was the recognition of the child’s written name. On arrival each morning, the children, helped by the parent or carer bringing them to pre-school, were encouraged to find their own plastic baskets, placed around the edge of the floor in the quiet room, in which to put their personal belongings. The baskets were labelled by a photograph of the child with the name printed below. At snack time, each child had a similarly printed name card, without the photograph, placed at one of several tables, which the children were to find, with help if necessary. Discussions were usually heard between staff and children about initial letters and sounds as the children looked for their names.