PHOTOGRAPHS AT HEADINGTON QUARRY FOUNDATION STAGE SCHOOL, OXFORD, BY JUSTIN THOMAS
Interactions with young children are profoundly important for supporting and extending their learning. They are so much a part of the daily experience of both practitioners and children that it is easy to assume they come about readily and naturally. The research that underpins my new book Interacting or Interfering? challenges this assumption. It would seem that something about the role of educator – as opposed to parent, carer or interested adult – puts pressure on practitioners to say things, and say them in ways that are sometimes unnatural and often unhelpful.
Research into interactions between adults and young children in a variety of contexts suggests that by adopting the role of educator, adults sometimes force their own agenda onto children at an age when children are often highly motivated and driven by an agenda of their own, and do not welcome the interference.
INTERACTIONS AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT
For babies who are fortunate, a loving communication with their parent begins from birth. This communication is not based, of course, on words but is the result of what Hobson (2002) describes as a ‘veritable rainbow’ of gestures, sounds and facial expressions. This non-verbal communication is vital for developing the close bond that is necessary for baby – and parent – to thrive, and will lead to the exchange and understanding of meanings on which so much of the baby’s development will depend.
Once in nursery or a childcare setting, the baby relies on their early childhood practitioners being equally responsive. When communication depends on so many non-verbal cues, then effective practitioners are those who view the babies in their care as effective communicators with a great deal to ‘say’. It is these practitioners who are attentive to each gesture, sound and grimace and who are concerned with interpreting the infant’s messages as best they can.
Many of a baby’s future skills in speech, language and communication will depend on the responses of the practitioners with whom they first interact. A child who struggles to speak will often struggle to access the curriculum and, particularly, to write.
Children with poor speech, language and communication can become withdrawn or present with challenging behaviour. Language difficulties can impact emotional development, and many children can become withdrawn socially, often ending up playing alone and less liked by others in their group or class. For all of these reasons, and so many more, no early years educator should ever let a potential conversation pass them by.
It is not only the amount of language that influences development but also the way in which language is used by adults in the home that researchers have found to affect the acceleration of a young child’s language learning and thinking.
In the home, interactions are particularly effective because they arise from the moment, coming out of what a child has chosen to do or what has grabbed the child’s attention as they engage in everyday activity. At nursery or school, conversations too frequently originate from the adult and are about an agenda that the adult deems to be valuable.
The parent at home is usually part of the context of what is taking place, they are a natural ‘partner’ in an exchange of ideas and possibilities, and the daily life of the home provides a shared focus of attention for the parent and child. At nursery and school, there can be a conflict of interest between what the child wants to pursue and the direction in which the practitioner wishes them to go.
Parents also appear to intuitively adjust their responses to the child’s level of competence – both in terms of language and understanding. Because they know their child so well, they are able to tune in to their needs and respond in ways that recognise their individuality. At nursery and school, practitioners increasingly have to introduce children to skills and concepts that they may find too challenging and which are not appropriate to their stage of development.
Finally, in the home, children ask the questions and the adults are there to supply the answers, whereas researchers frequently note that in nursery and school, practitioners pose a series of questions that the child is expected to answer, rather than the other way round. There is much to be learned from examining why interactions in the home appear to lead to the development of language and thinking so much more effectively than in many educational settings.
ADULT-LED AND CHILD-LED LEARNING
For many young learners, the problem comes in nurseries or classrooms where the adults’ agenda matters more than their own. Young children have such innate curiosity and an unquenchable thirst to explore and to raise questions that there is an immediate tension in settings where practitioners believe the most effective learning comes from the verbal input of the practitioners themselves.
It is in such settings that adults do more talking than children, where adult conversation manipulates children’s thinking and where the adult voice is dominant, constantly interrogating what children are doing and interfering with learning that is already effectively taking place.
The tension has arisen, I believe, because of increasing demands to introduce young children to skills and understanding for which many are not yet ready – or in which many are not yet interested. However, these expectations exist, and one way, it seems, to meet the adult agenda without damaging the child’s agenda is to examine what both offer, and then to consider how the role of the practitioner changes when interacting in each situation.
From the moment a baby is born, they explore the world as far as they can reach it, experiencing sounds, touch, taste and smell in an ongoing quest to make sense of their new world. But the fortunate baby is also picked up. A warm and attentive adult says, ‘Look… unless I show you this you might not know about it or learn about it’; ‘Unless I show you this, you might struggle and give up, and I can help.’ But knowing when to make such an intervention, when to step in rather than step back, is the trickiest of judgements to make.
Making this judgement is helped by considering what adults bring to a learning situation that they initiate and what children gain when they initiate learning for themselves.
Early childhood educators initiate learning that they believe will be of interest and value to the young child or, as children move into the school system, learning what others have decreed should be part of the curriculum. In these cases, the practitioner has clear objectives, steers the learning, asks questions to clarify understanding, models language and behaviours, makes links between established ideas and new ones, challenges and extends children’s thinking and shares their own experience, knowledge and skills. The role of the practitioner in this case is dynamic and the control over the children’s learning is largely in their hands.
By contrast, learning that is initiated by the child stays under the control of the child. The child ‘decides how to play, how long to sustain the play, what the play is about and who to play with’ (DCSF 2009). Having control of their learning, and building on the successes brought about by it:
- encourages children’s imagination and creativity
- enables children to follow through ideas and approaches of their own
- leads to problem-solving and using initiative
- often involves collaboration and co-operation as children get older
- can involve risk-taking and making mistakes, which children become confident enough to rectify
- involves intense concentration and perseverance because children are self-motivated
- develops self-believe and resilience.
All of these are life skills, vital for young children as they learn to piece together their own internal cognitive jigsaw of the world (Fisher 2013).
If a child leads the learning, it does not mean that the practitioner has no role. Often children turn to their adults as audience, to affirm what they are doing or to invite them into their activity. But the secret is to join in without taking over; to follow the child’s thinking and to be the adult the child needs in order to achieve their own goals.
If the integrity of play is to be maintained then the practitioner must be sensitive to all these learning possibilities and adjust their role accordingly. The effective practitioner tunes in to what the child is trying to achieve and makes a split-second decision about whether the learning needs their support. Tuning in requires stillness – observation, listening and thinking – before intervention.
Only when practitioners wait, watch and wonder are they likely to make good decisions about whether their intervention will help or hinder the learning taking place. The attentive and sensitive practitioner asks themselves questions rather than bombarding children with them: ‘I wonder why they are pursuing this idea?’; ‘I wonder whether this play arose from the explorations yesterday afternoon?’; ‘I wonder whether they are getting frustrated with that?’
If practitioners take the time to talk to themselves first, they are less likely to talk too much, and unnecessarily, to children and to interrupt their learning. Even asking, ‘What are you doing?’ means that the child or children have to stop what they are doing in order to answer the question. Being clear about who is leading an activity will enable sensitive practitioners to decide the role they should adopt to best support the learning taking place.
DEFINING AN EFFECTIVE INTERACTION
Only when practitioners are clear about who is leading the learning can judgements be made about the effectiveness of an interaction. What is wholly appropriate and necessary if the adult agenda is being pursued is entirely different from the effectiveness of an adult in supporting a child to meet their own agenda.
When making judgements about the effectiveness of the interactions in the research underpinning Interacting or Interfering?, the practitioners involved in the Oxfordshire Adult-Child Interaction Project agreed that to be ‘effective’, an interaction needed to enhance learning or development. The word ‘enhance’ emphasised that any interaction left the child with something positive that they would not otherwise have had. This may be something:
cognitive: ‘If you hold it up higher, perhaps it will run down faster’
social: ‘Maybe if you take the pen and make a chart on the board, then everyone will get a turn?’
emotional: ‘Yes, your mummy went to work, didn’t she? And then she’s coming back to collect you’
dispositional: ‘That’s great, because do you know, you couldn’t do that on Monday and you’ve practised so hard that now it looks easy’
metacognitive: ‘I need to think a bit about that. You’re good at remembering but sometimes I have to write things down.’
The project participants, who were all filmed on nine separate occasions, interacting with the children for whom they were responsible (aged from six months to six years) realised that interference often came when:
- they did not know the child well enough
- there were insufficient places (indoors and out) where children were relaxed enough to talk to adults
- they did not take the time to tune in to children’s thinking before trying to engage them in conversation
- they were insufficiently clear about who was leading the learning and what role to adopt
- they used inappropriate body language (not down at child level) or tone of voice (patronising rather than genuine and natural)
- they tried to force a reluctant talker to talk
- they bombarded children with questions.
QUESTIONS: EFFECTIVE AND INEFFECTIVE
Relentless questioning is something observed by many researchers to inhibit young children’s learning (Elstgeest 1985, Siraj-Blatchford and Manni 2008, Davis and Torr 2015). Many of these questions are asked for the benefit of the practitioner (to check a child knows or remembers something) rather than for the benefit of the child (to consolidate, extend or provoke their thinking).
Here again, the context of the interaction can help make decisions about the appropriateness of the question asked. If a practitioner and children are engaged in learning initiated by the adult, then there are times when the practitioner will need to ask questions that clarify what a child already knows or whether they remember what has been taught. The purpose of adult-led learning is to focus children’s thinking on something specific – some materials, a skill, a concept – and, therefore, the practitioner always has an eye on their own objectives for that experience.
In child-led learning, the role of the adult is to follow children’s thinking, yet too many adult questions run the risk of highjacking children’s own ideas and manipulating them to think about things that suit the practitioner’s purposes rather than their own. In child-led situations there is rarely a reason for asking a question to which the practitioner already knows the answer. Questions that enhance child-led learning are usually those which:
- show interest/clarify (following up something that has already been said): for example, ‘So, it sounds as though you live in the roof?’; ‘Did Matilda go to the party too then?’
- ponder (encouraging creative thinking): for example, ‘I wonder where bubbles go when they pop?’; ‘I wonder if bear felt better when the light came on?’
- pose possibilities (planting an idea): for example, ‘Maybe you need to find something for Johnny to stand on?’; ‘Do you think another block might help keep it steady?’
One important way of ensuring that questions, of any kind, have value is to wait for the answer. Once again, research suggests that practitioners give children very little time to respond – let alone think about – what they might want to say (or, if the interaction is with a non-verbal child, to watch for the signals that they are giving).
It is recommended that, having asked a question, practitioners wait at least three and up to ten seconds before saying anything else. Yet frequently, practitioners ask another question too soon, or answer the question themselves, or don’t listen to the answer when it comes because they are already thinking about the next question to ask.
If we want children to think then we must wait. Silence, in the middle of an interaction, is frequently golden and practitioners (and children) benefit from adults being comfortable with the stillness that frequently accompanies higher-order thinking. Waiting for a child to think before expecting them to respond leads to:
- an increase in the number of correct answers (in adult-led situations)
- an increase in the length of responses
- an increase in the incidence of speculative responses (‘maybe…’)
- an increase in the frequency of pupils’ own questions
- a decrease in ‘no’ answers and ‘I don’t know’ responses (Rowe 1986, Dillon 1990).
Rather than swamp children, and their thinking, with questions, practitioners can adopt other strategies that work more effectively and encourage more conversation. Making statements, rather than asking questions, seems to encourage more sustained exchanges. Children appear less anxious when faced with a statement, rather than a question that they feel has to be answered correctly. Nor do they have to stop their activity in order to answer a statement but can just ponder and respond if they choose. Some examples would be:
Embellishing
Child: ‘My mum’s gone to the market.’
Adult: ‘Yes, there’s a market there on Wednesdays.’
Talking about the future
Child: ‘My baby’s asleep.’
Adult: ‘Mmm… When your baby wakes up she probably won’t be tired any more.’
Adding something personal
Child: ‘My cat got sick and went to the vet.’
Adult: ‘My cat went to the vet with his bad leg. It made me feel so sad.’
INTERACTING, NOT INTERFERING
Interactions are a crucial way in which early years practitioners can enhance and extend children’s learning and development. Nevertheless, that does not mean that practitioners should talk all the time. Deciding when to talk and how much to talk are vital judgements to be made day in and day out in both nurseries and Foundation Stage classrooms.
If practitioners talk all the time then children just switch off. If they don’t say enough then a wonderful learning opportunity might be missed. Effective early years practitioners take the time it takes to tune in to children’s learning before deciding when and whether to speak, so that when they do, their interactions enhance children’s learning and do not run the risk of interference.
REFERENCES
Siraj-Blatchford, I and Manni, L (2008) ‘Would you like to tidy up now?’, Early Years. Vol 28, No 1
Davis, B and Torr, J (2015) ‘Educators’ use of questioning as a pedagogical strategy in long day care nurseries’, Early Years. Vol 36, No 1
DCSF (2009) Learning, Playing and Interacting. DCSF
Dillon, J (1990) The Practice of Questioning. Routledge
Elstgeest, J (1985) ‘The right question at the right time’, in Harlen, W Primary Science: Taking the plunge. Heinemann
Fisher, J (2013) Starting from the Child. OUP
Fisher, J (2016) Interacting or Interfering? Improving Interactions In The Early Years. OUP
Hobson, P (2002) The Cradle of Thought: exploring the origins of thinking. Pan Books
Rowe, M (1986) ‘Wait time: slowing down may be a way of speeding up!’, Journal of Teacher Education. Vol 37, No 43
READER OFFER
Interacting or Interfering? Improving Interactions In The Early Years (Open University Press) by Julie Fisher draws on research to reflect on the impact of adult-child exchanges on early learning. The book:
- identifies the key components of effective interactions
- shows how implementing these can better scaffold and support children’s learning and development
- exemplifies key messages
- provides prompts you can use to analyse and improve your own practice.
To take advantage of a 20 per cent discount with free P&P, order via: www.mheducation.co.uk/interacting-or-interfering-improving-the-quality-of-interactions-in-the-early-years
