Understanding Schemas and Young Children

From Birth to Three

Frances Atherton, Cathy Nutbrown

• Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781446293751
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Early Childhood Education

Shortlisted for the 2013 Nursery World Awards! ?This exciting book will greatly enhance understanding of learning throughout the early years, and reinforces the importance of responsive professionals who understand children?s schemas. Atherton and Nutbrown have brought together socio-cultural and cognitive learning theories with ease, and their metaphors are brilliantly evocative?
-Dr Anne Meade, Consultant

?This book is drawn from a study carried out with rigour and contains several gems, such as the ?bike and slide exploration?; the idea of adults engaging in ?a dialogue of conceptual correspondence? with children; and tables outlining ?what the children might have been thinking?. A great read!?
-Dr Cath Arnold, Pen Green Early Years Centre

?This is an exciting and illuminating account of babies and toddlers, following their schema fascinations with determination and competence, as they continually explore and experiment and come to know their world. This book captivated me. It should be in every early childhood education setting?
-Pam Cubey

This is the first book to focus specifically on Schemas and children under three. The authors trace the development of schemas from motor level through to symbolic representation, and show how to use schema theory to understand young children?s learning and behaviour.

This accessible and student-friendly book includes:

-activities and discussion points

-links to policy and practice

-descriptive observational material

-a look at the ethics of this kind of research

-numerous photographs and illustrations

-suggestions for follow-up reading

The book is aimed at early childhood professionals and practitioners in ECEC settings, as well as those on initial training courses, teacher education, Early Years courses, and higher degrees.

Part 1 Knowing about Schemas

Introduction

This book explores the schematic underpinnings of learning in a group of seven children aged from eight months to 23 months, over a period of 18 months. The study took place in the collaborative and mutually supportive atmosphere of a Children's Centre where the young children, who became part of the research, attended on a sessional basis.

They busied themselves in an environment filled with tempting activities and opportunities for discovery and exploration. The practitioners paid careful attention to what the children were doing and talked with them as they played, noting many observations of important happenings. They also made time for listening and talking with parents and carers each day, usually at ‘picking-up’ and ‘dropping-off’ time, so that significant moments could be discussed. This relational aspect of practice was also imperative in the study. Opportunities to share insights so that understandings could deepen were vital.

The study which underpins this book investigated the schematic behaviour of young children asking the question: How are young children pursuing their schemas? It focused on aspects of thinking, learning and development that young children reveal in their schematic behaviour. In addition, the observations and insights were used to consider how adults can support young children as they pursue their schemas, and the implications of schema identification on the learning experiences of young children.

Observations of children, interviews with parents, and parents’ notes and photos of aspects of their children's behaviour at home appear throughout this book. They reveal the depth and complexity of young children's thinking, and the necessary unhurried nature of research with young children. The important aim throughout the study was gradually to ‘come to know’ Annie, Florence, Tommy, Nell, Patrick, Henry and Greg, and in doing so to capture the minute detail of the astonishing ‘thinking things’ they were doing. Observations and insights were shared, at appropriate times, with the children's parents and significant others.

Opportunities to talk and listen with the parents about their children, fostering an openness and sense of mutual discovery through conversations where our shared understandings of the child were enriched, were vital. Photographs and written observations became an eloquent means through which familiar actions became better known, differently known. From the beginning, the parents were happy to talk about instances of their child's playful escapades at home, while enjoying examples from the setting. These were opportunities for exchanging understandings, for bringing familiar events about their child together, to come to know them in a different way.

Through an understanding of schemas, children's behaviour may be viewed from an alternative perspective. This complementary consideration enables adults to accompany children as they explore and investigate in a way which attunes to their forms of thinking and so provides a match for their conceptual concerns, in priority over their associative preferences.

Children's choices, and their fastidious inclinations towards objects around them in the learning environment, are important and so deserve respect. Adults working with children, however, must observe carefully so as not to let to children's partialities about environmental content distract them from identifying the particular ways children use similar or dissimilar objects in an exploration of form.

This schematic view of children's behaviour is necessary if the desire to unravel the intricacies of children's patterns of thinking is to be realised. If children's actions, talk and markings are interpreted schematically, a new and different understanding can emerge. This can allow for seemingly unfathomable behaviour to be reconsidered – even understood. To embrace a knowledge of schemas, and to be open to accept a new interpretation of children's behaviour, is illuminating. Children articulate their thinking expressively in their behaviour and so the challenge for adults is to hear, see and understand what is contained in the subtlety of children's actions, representations and talk.

The essence of the research was – through close and sensitive observations taken over many months – to come to know more clearly what children were thinking. As relationships evolved, Frances became an accepted adult in the Centre and an ease of belonging developed. She made observations of Annie, Florence, Tommy, Nell, Patrick, Henry and Greg over a period of more than 12 months. At the start of the study, Annie was eight months old, Florence was 13 months, Tommy was 16 months, Nell was 17 months, Patrick was 18 months, Henry was 20 months and Greg was 23 months old. Frances's involvement in their setting environment could not be hurried. She made a quiet and careful entry into their domain, and only gradually involved herself more directly with the children.

Once relationships were secure, Frances's imperative was to capture the detail of what the children were doing as they played. In this, a perceptive discernment of their thinking could be more clearly understood and, from this, more carefully matched intervention was the result.

Chapter 1 Schemas and the Youngest Children

Introduction

This chapter reviews research on the importance of the first years in a child's learning and development. It also looks at schemas and relationships in learning. First, it considers how precious the first years of early childhood are in terms of learning and development. This is followed by a reflection on definitions of schemas. It explores the individual, isolated nature of schemas along with the relational and social. There is an examination of the characteristics of relationships within the learning environment between adult and child and the place for attuned intervention. The importance of accompanying children conceptually is examined and the complexity of the role of the adult in the learning environment is identified.

This chapter takes as its premise Malaguzzi's claim that children are ‘strong, powerful, competent learners with the right to an environment which is integral to the learning experience’ (Malaguzzi 1998). Nurse and Headington (1999) acknowledge the ‘preciousness’ of the first years of early childhood, so this chapter considers the characteristics of young children's physical and social learning environments in an attempt to reveal what may epitomise the best support for young children's thinking and learning. Nutbrown (2001: 66) confirmed the ‘crucial importance’ of the early years for children's learning, which David and Powell (1999: 2) recognised as ‘an important period of change and development in children's thinking and ability to make sense of the world’. Within this context, the distinctive role of well-trained and well-qualified, reflective and evaluative professional practitioners is crucial to dynamic learning, alongside the unique and important role of parents in children's learning and development.

The ‘Preciousness’ of Early Childhood

Brierley (1994), drawing on studies of the brain, concluded that the period between birth and puberty was critical in terms of learning but that the first five years are when brain growth is particularly rapid, with the first two years being the time of most rapid growth (Friedman 2006). This ‘most critical learning phase’ (Shore 1997: 51) is one which ‘deeply influences the rest of development’ (Gopnik, Meltzoff and Kuhl 1999: 190). It is a ‘unique’ phase, which Hurst and Joseph (1998: 12) confirmed as the period where learning is at its ‘easiest’ and much of what is learned ‘remains for life’. Smidt (2006) also noted the rate of brain development in the very early years, while Hannon (2003) recognised the importance to brain development of the formation of the connections which Brierley (1994) specified were key in the development of intelligence during the first three years.

Development takes place and important brain connections are made when very young children are actively involved in exploration, discovery and interactions (Learning and Teaching Scotland 2005) and, as Friedman (2006) states, the relationship between appropriate stimuli in the early years and brain development is dramatic. In their work exploring cultural communities, Wang, Bernas and Eberhard (2005) support the imperative of a personal response to children's individual priorities. They note that young children's learning potential was improved when practitioners took into account ‘the diversity children bring to early childhood settings [which] enriches the learning environment, both for the teachers and the children’ (Wang et al. 2005: 284). If appropriate stimuli are to be a feature of early childhood settings, then practitioners must be aware of what is ‘appropriate’ for each child. To effect a particular and precise response, the practitioner must take into account what is significant for the child, what is unique about the child, what makes the child the person they are.

Cameron (2005: 597) referred to ‘empathic response cues’ in her work with young children to elicit children's participation. A physical environment which motivates, supported with a perceptive, comprehending adult, is vital in supporting young children's development. Shore (1997: 51) highlighted the significance of these first physical and social encounters for the young child with ‘babies’ very first experiences having dramatic impacts on the architecture of their brains’, which Schiller and Willis (2008) suggested were reinforced as early experiences were repeated.

Clarke and Clarke (1998: 435), in their exploration of the long-term effects of negative early experiences, acknowledged that ‘different processes may show different degrees of vulnerability to adversity … with cognitive the best buffered’. This did not absolve early years educators from accountability in terms of quality practice, but suggested that the perception of these first few years as consequential for the long term may be flawed, concluding that ‘early learning effects can fade and disappear, [however] under stress such effects might be reactivated’ (1998: 435).

Shore's (1997: 51) warning that ‘early experiences – positive or negative – have a decisive impact on how the brain is wired’ attached significance to this early phase of life. Sylva, Melhuish, Sammons, Siraj-Blatchford and Taggart's study (2011: 119) affirmed the importance of early years’ experiences for young children. Their exploration of the medium- to long-term impact of pre-school quality on children's developmental outcomes found that ‘high quality learning experiences at either home or pre-school setting can boost the development of children, thus acting as “protective” factors’. The influence of the environment on young children in the early years, acknowledged in its broadest connotation, is a significant responsibility to accept if children are to be nurtured appropriately. Understanding the nature of quality – what is encompassed within this and what may comprise a quality experience – is an intricate complexity, one with far-reaching implications.

Experiences impact on the brain such that ‘the brain changes in radical ways over the first few years of life. … It actively tries to establish the right connections … in response to experience’ (Gopnik et al. 1999: 195). This was acknowledged in the Department for Children, Schools and Families’ (DCSF) evaluation of the Neighbourhood Nurseries Initiative, which recognised that ‘the provision of educational opportunities during the early years is related to later school success’ (DCSF 2007: 52).

The suppleness of the brain in the early months of life led Gardner (1984) to challenge those working and caring for young children to be aware of their response to the complex thinking, learning and developmental needs of the young child. He asserted that to ‘build upon knowledge of these intellectual proclivities’ was essential in practice (Gardner 1984: 32).

Selleck (2001) and Goldschmied and Jackson (2004) reminded us of this astonishing capacity for children under three years of age to learn, and Gopnik, Meltzoff and Kuhl (1999: 189) confirmed this as ‘the time when we learn most and when our brains as well as our minds are most open to new experience’. Rosen (2010: 102) also confirmed this in her consideration of children's perceptions of their impact on curriculum development in stating that ‘children are viewed by teachers and appear to view themselves as competent and capable – a view that underpins a children's rights approach’. There is a collective understanding of capability and an inferred responsibility here; children appear to know their own competencies and rely on the adults working with them to accept, respect and respond to these proficiencies with sensitivity, empathy and challenge.

In the light of this, Brierley (1994) suggested that early years’ policy and practice should be underscored by knowledge of brain and sensory development and went further in outlining a set of principles for the education of young children in different settings. Smith, Duncan and Marshall (2005) support Brierley's (1994) understanding of the capabilities of young children's minds. They stated that ‘children clearly have something useful and important to say about their activities and have the competence to tell us’. However, they went on to specify that adults need ‘to provide the appropriate scaffolding’ (Smith et al. 2005: 485).

Penn (2005: 37) acknowledged the value of early experiences as a foundation upon which later ones can build, but supported Hannon (2003) and Clarke and Clarke (1998) in suggesting that the notion of this being critical may be exaggerated. Penn reminded us of the adaptability of children and the possibility of change ‘in all kinds of ways at all ages’ (2005: 37). Gardner's (1984: 33) proposal that there were ‘points of maximum flexibility and adaptability’ implied that the enduring permanency in terms of influence of early childhood experiences may be misplaced. What could be described as critical, however, was an acknowledgement of Nutbrown's (2006) principle that children should be at the centre of the learning environment. Indeed, the curriculum for early years should be driven by a ‘learner- and person-centred ethos [which] affords children's minds the respect they deserve’ (Nutbrown 2006: 125). This place, with the child at the centre of the learning environment, was reflected in the Department for Education's championing of the importance of play in young children's learning and development (DfE 2012). It recognised the complexity of play, its potential, its enabling function, its countless possibilities, and its essential role in supporting children to be themselves, whatever that may be.

Thus, if we are to capitalise on children's potential in the early years and their ability to learn, which Brierley (1994: 29) described as ‘in a state of flood readiness’, the message is clear. Do we channel the torrent of young children's potential with a creative curriculum and with adults being attuned to children's needs, or do we dam the flow of possibilities with a focus on irrelevant, meaningless and inappropriate activities accompanied by well-meaning but ill-informed adults?

In considering the ‘preciousness’ of early childhood, we can see the importance of early education experiences for young children, and this has far-reaching implications. The early experiences which form the foundation for later learning include both the physical activities and opportunities to which the child has access, and the social relationships with the adults the child encounters.

Schemas

Made popular through the work of Athey since the late 1980s (see Athey 1990), understanding about schemas has become part of practice in some early education and care settings. There are many different definitions of schema but no single characterisation is able to satisfy, as no single definition encompasses the complexity and perspectives which emerge. McVee, Dunsmore and Gavelek (2005: 556) reflected this in highlighting the dichotomy between ‘the knower and the known’: from one perspective, ‘schemas are formed within individuals … a disembodied, in-the-head proposition’, whereas from the other perspective, ‘schemas (or cognitive structures or representations) are transformed as a result of transactions with the world’. This discrepancy was acknowledged by Beals (1998: 11), who asserted that ‘schemata are not individual, isolated constructions, but culturally shared patterns of organising knowledge and experience’, and supported by Rogoff (1990: 27), who confirmed that ‘context [is] inseparable from human actions ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Publisher Note
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Acknowledgements
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• About the Authors
• Foreword
• Part 1 Knowing about Schemas
• Introduction
• Chapter 1 Schemas and the Youngest Children
• Chapter 2 Observing Children: Spotting Schemas
• Part 2 How do Children Under Three Pursue their Schemas? ‘All about Henry’
• Chapter 3 Henry's Containing and Enveloping Schema
• Chapter 4 Henry's Back and Forth Schema
• Chapter 5 Henry's Dynamic Vertical Schema
• Chapter 6 Henry's Mark Making and Figurative Representations
• Part 3 Developmental Journeys: Tracing Developments in Children's Thinking from Motor to Symbolic Behaviours
• Chapter 7 Containing and Enveloping Schema
• Chapter 8 Going through a Boundary Schema
• Chapter 9 Dynamic Vertical Schema
• Chapter 10 Stories from Home
• Epilogue
• References
• Author Index
• Index