Opening and closing interactive spaces: early years pedagogy and four year old children’s contributions to it in two English settings.
Dr. Jane K. Payler
University of Southampton, Southampton. United Kingdom
Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Glamorgan, 14-17 September 2005
Abstract
This paper draws on a study of the sociocultural influences on the learning processes of ten four-year-old children throughout their second year of the Foundation Stage (Payler, 2005). The ten children, very close in age, were in one of two early years settings in England: a community-run pre-school playgroup with a largely invisible pedagogy (Bernstein, 1996) and a reception class in a primary school with a more visible pedagogy.
Following a paper presented at the BERA New Researchers Conference 2004 (Payler, 2004), this paper recaps briefly on the different interactive patterns which were available to and co-constructed by children in the two settings. Drawing on children’s experiences in specific teaching and learning episodes, the paper examines how the pedagogies of the settings created open or closed interactive spaces, inviting, building on or limiting children’s contributions. The study goes beyond words to consider a range of communicative modes, the ‘communicational ensemble’ (Kress and Van Leeuwen, 2001:111), used in creating interactive space. It draws on diagrams, outline drawings from video stills and detailed transcription incorporating gaze, body positioning, tone of voice and use of resources to examine the factors involved in shaping the interactive learning experiences of children in the two settings.
The paper shows how the pre-school pedagogy provided opportunities for more open, negotiated space between adults and children, in which children’s agency was encouraged and supported, and for collaboration, creating shared meanings. The reception class pedagogy offered more closed adult-controlled space, creating ‘classroom’ meanings. Children’s access to and use of interactive space in reception varied according to staff perceptions of children’s ability and identity, as did the encouragement of children’s agency. The findings suggest that although both early years settings work to the same Foundation Stage curriculum, their sub-cultures of pedagogy ensured that the curriculum was differently enacted in each, offering quite distinct interactive opportunities for children in which learning was mediated in different ways.
Introduction
Current national policy on early years education and local policy on school entry (though alsoa common policy nationally) means that young children have widely differing experiences of the Foundation Stage depending on their date of birth and the settings they attend. Both factors determine the length of time they have in the Foundation Stage, the style of pedagogy they encounter, the age at which they encounter it and they ways in which they can participate.Such early experiences are known to have an impact upon children’s subsequent achievements and dispositions (Schweinhart et al, 1986 and 1997; EPPE, 2004). This paper reports on part of a study of the influences on learning experiences of two groups of four year old children (Payler, 2005). Their Foundation Stage timelines, common to the experiences of many four year olds in England, are illustrated in Figure 1 below, showing that those with birthdays after 31 August had an extra year in the Foundation Stage, spent in pre-school.
Figure 1: Timeline of sample groups’ Foundation Stage experiences
Payler (2004) reported on the pedagogic sub-cultures the sample children experienced during the year from when they were 4 to 5 years of age and how these pedagogic sub-cultures gave rise to different patterns of interaction and patterns of achievement. It showed how children at pre-school had more opportunity to take part in open ‘interactive spaces’, whereas the children in reception had their interactive opportunities contained in more closed formats, particularly for children judged by the reception staff to be of ‘below average’ ability.In this paper, the focus shifts from broad interactive patterns to consider the detail of what goes on minute by minute within specific episodes. It looks at what constituted the daily reality of learning experiences for young children and how this impacted upon children’s possible participation and development of learner identities. In so doing, it invites reflection on how policy impacts on pedagogic sub-cultures, on practice and on what and how children learn.
Theory and methods
The study adopted a sociocultural model of learning, influenced by the work of Vygotsky (1986; 1994), and Rogoff (2003) in which learning is culturally and historically specific, mediated through social relationships and in which the ‘whole situation’ is the focus of the research. It used constructs from Bernstein (1996) to cast a sociological lens on the evidence. The study was also influenced by the work of Edwards and Mercer (1987)and Mercer (1995), which emphasized the importance of looking in detail at interaction as the point at which teaching and learning meet and dialogue is opened. However, this study looks beyond verbal interaction. It considers the full range of communicative modes used by adults and children to create and participate in interactive space. In so doing, it builds on the work of Kress and Van Leeuwen (2001) and Kress et al (2004). The study also builds on the work of the EPPE (2004) project in which ‘sustained shared thinking’ is identified as a factor in high quality, effective provision. This study looks in some detail at what goes on within episodes of sustained shared thinking and the influences that make such episodes regular or rare events within a pedagogic sub-culture. It considers, too, learning as trajectories of participation by children (Dreier, 2002) and shows the interactive factors that shape and influence their possible participation. Throughout, it should be remembered that the children were very close in age, from very close geographic areas and were all working ostensibly to the second year of the same Foundation Stage curriculum. Their experiences, however, varied according to their date of birth in relation to school entry dates and, for those in reception, according to their ‘ability’ as perceived by the staff.
The study drew on a corpus of data which included 102 hours of video/audio recording from September 2002 to July 2003, 32 hours of which were analysed in a maximum of one minute intervals. The study involved several levels of analysis. The first level was an ethnographic analysis of the sub-cultures of pedagogy of the two early years settings and of the children’s style of interaction and learning in the home. The secondanalysed broad patterns of children’s and adults’ interactions in the two settings, using taxonomies devised for the study, which provided a backdrop or ‘landscape’ for the more detailed analysis of micro-processes of interaction – the third level. This third level involved developing a detailed means of transcribing teaching and learning episodes. The episodes were set within their contexts by including descriptions of time, place, participants, their relationships and the relevant history of these. The transcriptions included actions, words, gaze and diagrams – for example, of the children’s constructions in progress – and outline tracings of video stills to convey the multifaceted communicative ensemble. The analysis also captured the way in which context is not just something an episode happens within, but which the episode creates(Cole, 1996). The aim was to explore the features of episodes that shaped the ways in which children could participate and the likely influence of these on the children’s learning and formation of learner identities. In the fourth and final level of analysis, critical features already identified were used as markers to track similar features across the recorded data for the year, checking for saliency, along with other themes and issues influenced by the theoretical framework.
Findings and discussion
In this paper, I illustrate findings from the third level of analysis with evidence from two teaching and learning episodes, one each from pre-school and reception. These exemplify the different ways in which the pedagogies of the two settings, pre-school and reception, opened or restricted space for children’s meaningful participation. Both were typical, frequently occurring styles of interaction in the settings. In each, the target child for the observation and recording was a boy aged four years. Theirbirth dates were twelve days apart and their initial assessments (based on an adapted version of the baseline assessment used by the school) placed them at second to the lowest achievement for the sample children in their setting. The episodes both relate to a numeracy activity in a small group led by a teacher/practitioner.
Episode 1: ‘Polyhedrons’ at pre-school, 5.3.03
Jill, the deputy supervisor, had joined Henry,target child for that day’s recording, as he approached the maths activity table, set up with shaped construction pieces. They sat down together and began constructing and talking. They were joined at the table by Lloyd,a close friend of Henry’s at pre-school. The episodetraces the boys’ involvement in construction and conversation, supported and at times prompted by Jill.
The episode took place mid-morning in the main hall of the pre-school, part of the indoor ‘free choice’ play session in which children selected activities from those on offer and moved around freely with their choice of companions, supported by staff. The room was noisy and lively. Several other activities were on offer at the same time. The position of the participants at the table is illustrated in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Layout of Episode 1 ‘Polyhedrons’
Participants
Adult:Jill
Child: Henry
Child 2: Lloyd
Res:Position of researcher with video camera. Audio recorder on table.
The ethnographic part of the study showed the pre-school pedagogy to be largely invisible, weakly classified and framed, with a distinct emphasis on individual children’s interests and social and emotional development. As part of ensuring curriculum coverage, however, a mathematics activity was freely available daily, supported by a member of staff. This episode at the maths table in many ways exemplified the pre-school sub-culture of pedagogy: the maths/construction activity formed the backdrop for individual and joint exploration of social worlds and meaning-making.
Jill was Henry’s key worker. She saw her role as engendering self-confidence in the children: ‘Whatever they do, it’s brilliant!’ (Staff group interview, 13.5.02). Henry was seen as a sociable child, very capable in his gross motor skills, but less confident in the use of fine motor skills (key worker file entry, 25.11.02 and informal conversation with key worker, 5.3.03).
In this episode, although opportunity to learn about shape and construction had been the initial objective in setting up the activity, the ethos of pre-school meant that the objective was flexible and would be shifted to suit individual children. Early on, Jill began to model a simple repeating pattern using the coloured shapes and invited Henry to attempt a similar pattern. Henry declined, preferring instead to continue with his own modelling. Jill accepted this, shifting the objective to include supporting and encouraging Henry in his model-making, and helping to extend his thought through conversation. Jill invited the boys to interpret their models, co-constructed interpretations where none were initially forthcoming and invited links between the interpretations and the boys’ home and wider experiences. She picked up on subjects the boys introduced, talked ‘around’ them in an exploratory way and prompted reasoned thought.
Distinctive features of Episode 1
Several distinctive features characterised this episode and contributed to its success in promoting deep involvement in the children, in enabling it to be a positive learning experience which was challenging but in which Henry was positioned as a successful learner, participating fully in co-constructing his learning experiences. These were affirmation and congruence, sharing of control, easing shifts between contextualized and decontextualised interaction, and blending support and challenge.
Affirmation and congruence
Throughout, Jill’s responses to the children were both affirming and congruent. By affirmation, I mean that the responses validated the children’s contributions, though not always necessarily agreeing with them. She validated their actions, the results of their actions, their viewpoints, experiences, interpretations, intentions, and their ‘right’ to be included in the activity and conversation or choice not to be. By congruence, I mean that Jill’s responses were accordant in all modes of communication. The verbal messages were congruent with those conveyed via tone of voice, gaze, bodily position, facial expression, speed of response and with the context of the response. This congruence conveyed a deep sense of sincerity. Both, I suggest, contributed to the children’s growing confidence, sense of themselves as capable learners and to their willingness to participate, and risk making contributions.
Affirmation was consistently conveyed by Jill in several ways:
1. Use of body. Her positioning, direction and length of her gaze, hand position and gesture and the tilt and proximity of her head were all used to indicate respect and inclusion for the children’s actions and opinions, illustrated in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Rows 73 and 74
Use of body position and gaze to include both boys in conversation and give credence to their contributions
2. Timing in her responses. E.g. Jill immediately acknowledged a difficulty Henry was having, locating the source of the problem in the nature of the activity and the resources, not the child. She modelled a possible solution, but then waited, observing closely as Henry made several unsuccessful attempts before she made a further verbal suggestion. When Henry’s attempt was still unsuccessful, she quickly offered further physical and verbal assistance, immediately withdrawing them as soon as one successful attempt had been achieved. The timing, tailored to a close monitoring of Henry’s needs and reactions, had the effect of validating his efforts whilst ensuring a level of successful outcome, thus avoiding failure and frustration.
3. Echoing or completing children’s utterances when left unfinished. This had the effect of validating children’s contributions, so encouraging more, jointly constructing meaningsand emphasizing understanding.
4. Use of words. This was initially the most obvious form of affirmation in the video recording, but it is only in its combination with other forms of affirmation that it shifts from being routine, almost meaningless praise (‘Fantastic’; ‘Wonderful’; ‘Brilliant’) into a sincere, tailored and meaningful form of feedback and encouragement (‘…an interesting way of putting it together’). In Excerpt 1 below, for example, Jill asked about holiday plans and Henry offered information about swimming lessons. She accepted his response and made the possible connection between the two, holidays and swimming lessons, explicit.
Excerpt 1: Rows 90-91, Episode 1
Row no. / Time / Jill’s actions / Jill’s speech / Henry’s actions / Henry’s speech / Lloyd’s actions and speech90 / 10.44.37 / Taking apart own pieces.
Gaze to H. / So are you going on holiday this year d’you know / Still constructing.
Gaze to construction, head close to it to see better. / Well I’m going-
I’m going um –
Er for my swimming lessons –
t t sometime
91 / 10.47.48 / Still manipulating own construction. / J>H
Oh that’s a good idea
It’s nice to be able to swim when you’re on holiday -
So where d’you go for swimming lessons / He adds an extra piece on the edge of the ‘wheel’ shape. / -// I I / ???
//I’m going to ???
The congruence of Jill’s responses was conveyed through the match between the messages expressed in different modes and was a very distinctive feature of the interactions in pre-school. Excerpt 2 illustrates congruence clearly.
Excerpt 2: Rows 21-23, ep.1
Row no. / Time / Jill’s actions / Jill’s speech / Henry’s actions / Henry’s speech21 / 10.32.22 / Touches H’s arm to attract his attention, body close to his.
Taps own pieces of polyhedron with finger in emphasis / Henry Henry
I’m gonna find some of these these little flowers
See if you can make the same pattern as me can you
Look I’ve got - / Holds construction pieces. Gaze alternates to J’s pattern and his pieces.
22 / Places shapes carefully, gaze down.
Gaze to Henry / Turns body to right slightly away from J and begins to manipulate shapes attempting to fix them together. / Actually I’m doing this
23 / 10.32.39 / Gaze to H. Turns body towards him and leans closer to him, giving his actions her full attention. / What are you making then
Something different / Fixes two pieces together. / Yep
Jill’s words suggested it was valid for Henry to have his own ideas of what to do with the construction shapes. Her actions, turning her body towards him, leaning closer, gazing towards him and then watching his actions intently, all conveyed the same message and an interest in what his ideas might be. Considering possible alternative actions helps to clarify the strength of the congruent message. Consider instead the potential for a mixed message if her words had remained the same, but her actions instead were comprised of turning her body slightly away from Henry, gazing and leaning closer to another child, perhaps one who was willing to follow her suggestion. The resultant effect of the congruence was to provide an open space for Henry’s meaning-making and to offer herself as an interested companion.
Sharing control
Although Jill as Deputy Supervisor, the adult in the episode and a long-standing trained member of staff clearly held most power in this situation, it was customary in pre-school for power to be temporarily shelved and for a degree of control to be shared with children. This was linked to the sub-culture of pedagogy of the setting in which children’s freedom of choice of activities, how to carry them out and with whom, were given high priority for at least part of the session.