Precis 3; Fiese, 1990
This study aimed to investigate the relation between social context and interaction and the complexity of toddler’s symbolic play. It was predicted that toddlers would engage in more complex forms of play when the social context included their mothers, that the introduction of a modelling task would further facilitate symbolic play. 57 toddlers and their mothers were observed under 4 play conditions in which the amount of social interaction available was varied: (1) child play alone, (2) child play with mother, (3) child modelling mother, and (4) child play with mother following the modelling condition. Videotapes of the observations were coded into four scales for each condition: a measure of child play, maternal attention directing, reciprocity, and maternal intrusion. Results found the children’s level of play was rated as least complex during solitary play, significantly more complex when playing with their mothers, and most complex when involved in the modelling task with their mothers. There was a higher degree of involvement and reciprocal turn-taking under the modelling condition. Categorical analyses found there was a significantly greater percentage of exploratory play when the children were playing alone when compared to their play with their mothers. More symbolic play was observed when the mothers and children were playing together than when the children were playing alone. Exploratory play was positively related to questioning and maternal intrusions and negatively related to physical attention directing and high involvement and maternal intrusiveness and questioning were negatively related to symbolic play. The findings in this study provide strong support that social interaction may influence the complexity of symbolic play. The findings suggest that reciprocal forms of interaction lead to or act as a scaffold for more symbolic forms of play and that mother's attempts to redirect the child's play or uninvolvement in the child's play may encourage more simple sensorimotor forms of play. Although this study does not directly assess Vygotsky's proposed zone of proximal development, it does however highlight ways in which apprenticeship interactions may influence symbolic processes. This study shows how young children clearly benefit from the presence of a play partner, not only does the parent direct play but is also able to allow the child self-direction within the context of turn-taking and reciprocity.
The main theories that will be examined in this paper will be the nativist, social constructivist and sociocultural theory. These theories will be explored in relation to their appropriateness to understanding how children make meaning communicating in a social context. The first article mentioned in this paper explores the nativist versus constructivist approach to language development in children. The other two articles presented in this paper use sociocultural and social constructivist approaches. Researchers have showed how early literacy activities are based on a number of forms of representations, including play, drawing and modelling, and have argued for a valuing of such representations within the classroom. Grillo (1989) views literacy as one type of communicative practice within a larger social context, de-emphasizing both reading and writing as the sole indicators of literacy. The latter two studies mentioned in this paper have focused on understanding the broader context in which literacy develops, investigating drawing and play and recognising their importance as a way of communicating and seek to observe and assist children in order to support them when engaging in experiences.
The nativist perspective is a solely verb centric approach to understanding communication and is limited to the ability of the participants to speak, read and write using words (Stein, 2000). It fails to encompass the influences and experiences that different children have and largely ignores other forms of meaning making and symbolism, focusing primarily on language. “What is most significant… is that the substance of the language – the curricular content – is represented in the image, not in the language” (Kress, 2000, p338). The nativist approach also presents a problem when it comes to applying the claims of the theory as it may present a barrier for some children who are not fluent or culturally grounded in that language. Siegal (2006) claimed that images, gestures, music, movement, animation, and other representational modes of meaning making are on equal footing with language. Research that has made use of multimodality in classrooms has resulted in success in learning, thinking and understanding amongst children whom practitioners who view learning from a nativist perspective, as solely linguistic, had previously identified as ‘struggling’ or ‘learning disabled’ (Siegal, 2006, p73). The nativist debate that is presented in the article by Akhar (2004), therefore alone is not sufficient when it comes to providing children with opportunities to engage in meaningful activities, as viewing linguistic knowledge as solely modular, innate and unaffected by non-linguistic influences can restrict the support available to certain children who may not be reaching the expected developmental stages or levels. A more holistic view of children is needed, in order to do this; other ways need to be considered to open avenues for meaning-making in the classroom. The other side of the debate in the article by Aktar (2004) presents the constructivist theory, which claims that adult linguistic knowledge is shaped by experience (Tomasello, 2000). This approach acknowledges that children are not merely passive receivers of language and meaning, instead the child is looked upon as an active leaner in this process. However, little emphasize is placed on the social context in which learning takes place, the importance of social context and interactions with more advanced individuals is presented in the articles by Frisch (2006) and Fiese (1990).
Vygotsky (1978, p46) stated that; “Within a general process of development, two qualitatively different lines of development, differing in origin, can be distinguished: the elementary processes, which are of biological origin, on the one hand, and the higher psychological functions of sociocultural origin, on the other”. Vygotsky’s research highlights the importance of cultural context and the role of other people in helping children learn and in motivating them to explore particular concepts connected to their social environment at different times. The second two studies presented in this paper support the claim that social context can influence the level of meaning making in young children. The study by Fiese (1990) found that play was least complex during solitary play. It highlights the ways in which interactions with more experienced individuals can influence symbolic processes. For Vygotsky (1978, 1987), children's cognitive development has to be understood as taking place through their interaction with other members of the society who are more conversant with the society's intellectual practices and tools for mediating intellectual activity (Rogoff, 1995). The social constructivist approach highlights the importance of a child’s interactions with caregivers and other adults as developing their ability to communicate through symbolic representations of that language. Existing evidence indicates that the beginning of children’s literacy and language development occurs through oral language interaction with the adults around them (Bissex, 1980; Chall & Snow, 1982). Parents, in playing and talking with their children, provide valuable language and pre-literacy experiences for them (Morrow, 1997).
Willats (2005) believes that there are ‘rules’ underpinning the ability to draw, he claimed that; ‘Whereas in language the rules are conventional… in drawing they are derived from the laws of optics and the design features of the human visual system’. However, the study presented in this paper by Frisch (2006) highlights that the drawing process is a reflection of the child’s social relations and contextual conditions, as are many other forms of meaning making. It is widely acknowledged that all learning takes place within the context of a situation or activity. During the child’s early years, the family’s culture has a significant influence on the child’s literacy development. It is therefore important for educators to understand the cultural context of children as they develop their language and literacy skills (Narey, 2009). Language and the communicative skills associated with its symbolic representation grow and develop out of a context that includes culture, history and socio-economic influences (Narey, 2009). Paulo Freire emphasized the critical connection between language and the socio-cultural and historical context in which communication takes place. “The language that we use to talk about this or that and the way we give testimony are, nevertheless, influenced by the social, cultural and historical conditions of the context in which we speak and testify” (Freire,1998, p58).
The sociocultural approach appears to be most appropriate when it comes to assisting children in communicating and meaning making, however, this does not mean it cannot be questioned. It is unlikely that all children receive such secure, stimulating home or school environments that are usually presented in sociocultural studies. The study by Fiese (1990) used primarily white children from two –parent homes. It followed the Hollingshead (1974) social status classification scale, which combines information on the education and occupational status of the parent. Only 1% of parents in this study were of the lowest education and occupational status. Thus, the findings may not be generalizable for children across all social and cultural backgrounds. This is a classic example of representation bias within the field of socio-cultural research. The study by Frisch (2006) uses qualitative data, which is subjectively open to interpretation. If the study was to be repeated it is unlikely that exactly the same results would be found. It is also important to recognise that the social context that is presented in these studies may be of just one particular type and that findings may not always be transferable across all situations and settings. It should also be noted that the social context can be very different at home, school, across cultures
It can be concluded that the sociocultural and social constructivist theories are able to offer the most holistic approach when it comes to making sense of how children make meaning. The importance of social and cultural context in these theories appears to be vital for child development and can still be assimilated to other approaches such as constructivist and nativist that examine only part of the package. Rogoff (1995, p141) gives the example; ‘it is incomplete to focus only on the relationship of individual development and social interaction without concern for the cultural activity in which personal and interpersonal actions take place’.
References
Akhtar, N. (2004). Nativist versus constructivist goals in studying child language. Journal of ChildLanguage, 31, 459-462
Bissex, G.L. (1980). A child learns to write and read. Harvard University Press: Massachusetts.
Chall, J. S., & Snow, C. (1982).Families and Literacy: The Contributions of Out of School Experiences to Children's Acquisition of Literacy. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Education
Freire, P. (1998). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Fiese, B. H. (1990). Playful relationships: A contextual analysis of mother-toddler interaction and symbolic play. Child Development, 61: 1648-1656
Frisch, S.N. (2006). Drawing in pre-schools: a didactic experience. The International Journal of Art and Design Education 25, no. 1: 74-85
Grillo, R.D. (1989). Dominant languages. Language and hierarchy in Britain and France. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hollingshead, A. A. (1975). Four-factor index of social status. Unpublished manuscript, Yale University, New Haven, CT
Kress, G. (2000) The Futures of Literacy. Rapal Bulletin 42, 1–19.
Morrow, L. M. (1997). Literacy development in the early years: Helping children read and write (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Narey, M. (2009) Making meaning: constructing multimodal perspectives of language, literacy, and learning through arts-based early childhood education. Springer science + business media. Newyork.
Rogoff, B. (1995). In J.V. Wertsch, P. del Rio, & A. Alvarez (Eds.), Sociocultural studies of mind (pp. 139-164). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Reprinted (2008) in K. Hall & P. Murphy (Eds.), Pedagogy and practice: Culture and identities. London: Sage.
Siegel, M. (2006) ‘Rereading the Signs: Multimodal Transformations in the Field of Literacy Education’, Language Arts 84(1): 65-77.
Snow, C. (1983) Literacy and language: Relationships during the pre-school years. Harvard Educational Review 55, 165–89
Stein, S. (2000). Equipped for the Future Content Standards: What Adults Need to Know and Be Able to Do in the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy
Taylor, D. (1983) Family Literacy. London: Heinemann Educational.
Tomasello, M. (2000). Do young children have adult syntactic competence? Cognition, 74, 209–253
Vygotsky, L. (1962) Thought and Language Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Vygotsky, L. (1978) Mind in Society Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Willats J. (2005) Making Sense of Children’s Drawings. USA Laurence Erlbaum
