Understanding Schemas and Emotion in Early Childhood

Cath Arnold

• Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd
• Year: 2010
• ISBN:
  9781446246542
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Early Childhood Education

This book makes explicit connections between young children?s spontaneous repeated actions, and their representations of their emotional worlds. Drawing on the literature on schemas, attachment theory and family contexts, the author takes schema theory into the territory of the emotions, making it relevant to the social and emotional development strand in early childhood education.

Based on research carried out alongside children, parents, workers and co-researchers at the world-famous Pen Green Nursery, and using case studies of a small number of individual children, the author shows new links between cognition and affect. The book includes a brief summary of a method of Child Study, using video and reflections on video sequences.

This book will be of interest to students and practitioners on Early Childhood undergraduate and postgraduate courses, as well as those taking modules on schema theory.

1

Early Years Practitioners and Parents
Engaging in Child Study

Michelle, one of the nursery workers, had been on a course the day before. Claudette had worked as a supply worker to ‘cover’ Michelle’s group. On her return, one of the children, James, made the following comment to Michelle: ‘You weren’t here last night and Claudette covered you all up’.

(Here James seemed to use his concrete experiences of ‘covering’ or enveloping to understand the fact that Michelle was not at nursery and that Claudette was there. Even the adults used the metaphor of ‘covering’ to express the concept that when one worker is not there carrying out her role, another replaces her.)

This chapter introduces:

• The important tradition of Child Study in Early Childhood
• How we approached children and families to carry out this study of children
• Carrying out observations and the different tools we have used
• Interpretation of observations using schema theory and psychoanalytic theory

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

We have a strong tradition both in the UK and in the field of Early Education, of making observations of young children engaged in play and conversation in order to understand their development and learning (Bartholomew and Bruce, 1993; Isaacs, 1930/1966, 1933; Piaget, 1951). Within education and care settings, we observe in order to make plans for each child’s learning. At the Pen Green Centre and other early childhood settings, parents have been central to making observations of their own children as they know their own children best (Whalley, 1997, 2007). When we observe, we are trying to understand what each child is trying to learn about, so that we can tune in to and support their cognitive and emotional concerns. Workers, who are with children every day, can get to know children and families well but they also depend on parents supplying information from home, including who are important adults and other children to their child. Knowing about where families go and who they meet up with during the week can enable Early Years Educators to have genuine and meaningful conversations with children when their parents are not around.

LOOKING BACK AT OUR TRADITION OF CHILD
STUDY

OBSERVATION TECHNIQUES FROM EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION

Susan Isaacs’ accounts of young children’s development and learning in the Malting House School, Cambridge, early in the twentieth century, has provided a way of recording and interpreting children’s spontaneous actions, that is still relevant in the twenty-first century. Isaacs took cognition and emotions into account and produced two books on the children’s development, one focusing on ‘intellectual growth’ and the second focusing on the children’s ‘social development’ (1930/1966, 1933). The important learning for us today, was that Susan Isaacs did not compartmentalise these aspects. She used the rich, detailed observations of children, gathered over time, to understand their intellectual and emotional development. She presented the observations first and then made her analysis and interpretations. These first-hand observations can be treated as raw data, even today, nearly 80 years later.

Here is an example from Isaacs’ writing showing the determination and resourcefulness of one child:

17.10.24 (Date) The children had been carrying water out into the garden in cans and jugs, and as there were some damp feet, Mrs. I. Said ‘No more today’. Tommy (2;8) (age) was doleful when Mrs. I. would not let him take any more, and passing back through the school room, he saw the vases on the tables, full of flowers. Without saying anything, he put down his can on the floor, and took each of the four vases in turn, lifting the flowers out, pouring the water into his can, and putting the flowers back, and the vase back on the table. He then walked out into the garden smiling, and saying to the others, ‘Tommy has some water now!’ (Isaacs, 1930, p. 120)

We can draw a great deal from this one observation. Practically, Isaacs states the exact date, the age of the child being observed and enough detail for the reader to grasp what happened without getting lost in too much detail. Many workers trained in the UK have been well trained to observe and to record detail, but that detail can be irrelevant and not critical to what happened; for example in this case, it was not important to know the grip Tommy used to carry the can.

With regard to pedagogy, we can deduce that there was a fair amount of freedom but that boundaries were set, that is, ‘No more today’. However, there was also flexibility. Whoever observed Tommy was truly interested in what he would do next. That deep interest in children’s spontaneous actions is important.

As far as Tommy’s development is concerned, at 2 years 8 months, he seemed to be interested in containing and transporting materials. He may have been able to use his containment schema at thought level with regard to his understanding that vases may contain water (even if the water cannot be seen). We are not told whether the vases were opaque, translucent or transparent. Even if the vases were transparent, he was able to come up with a plan to transfer water from the vases into his own can, demonstrating some flexibility in thinking and problem-solving. At the least, he could see that carrying more water outside was ‘functionally dependent’ on him transferring or transporting it from one container into another (Athey, 2007, p. 119). He also demonstrated some satisfaction in achieving his personal goal.

A contemporary of Susan Isaacs took a similar approach to the study of young children’s development in New York, early in the twentieth century. The children who attended ‘The Nursery School’ ranged in age from 14 months to 3 years. Harriett Johnson’s account also contains photos, showing how very rich the experiences offered to the children were (Johnson, 1972, pp. 170–1). Like Isaacs, and more recently Chris Athey, Johnson stated her beliefs clearly at the beginning of her account, ‘The duty of the educator is to see that the capacities of each stage are fully realized, not that the stages succeed each other as rapidly as possible’ (Johnson, 1972, p. xxxi).

Johnson gathered narrative observations to try to capture learning in action in young children. Johnson illustrated how individual children mastered skills over time, for example, using a slide or hammering nails. She followed Philip’s progress, over time, in using both the indoor and outdoor slides. Here is a short excerpt from her observations. She was interested in his use of the slide and his control of his own body. The slide was high and Philip was practising going down head first on his stomach.

24 months (Philip’s age) – Adult table was placed under the chute so that the children could climb and slide from the ‘half-way station’. Philip was very appreciative of this arrangement which was placed for some older children. He continued after the others had left. They had pulled up an adult chair to stand in and once he stopped there to call ‘Bye, bye, bye’ at least a dozen times. He also paused on top of the table to shout ‘Dah,dah’. He gave every evidence of elation and joy. (Johnson, 1972, p. 175)

Philip seemed to be repeating his actions in order to master his use of the slide. Using schema theory to interpret his actions, he was exploring an oblique trajectory, feeling the angle and resulting speed. He had probably mastered sitting and sliding down, and now he was varying the position of his body in order to experience the angle and speed differently. In emotional terms, he was deliberately taking on a challenge. He ‘marked’ or acknowledged this challenge with the language of separation by saying ‘Bye, bye, bye’. This may have simply represented his departure onto the slide. It may also have represented his departure from his earlier state of not being confident about sliding down on his stomach to practising and becoming more confident. Philip may have been echoing language used by his parents or workers in similar situations that he had subsequently internalised as a way of behaving in times of challenge or struggle. He was very pleased with himself, what Trevarthen (2003) and then Tait (2005) have called ‘chuffed’ with himself.

The important point about making narrative observations is that we begin by observing and can then make links with any curriculum framework. We can also use any theory as a framework to deepen our understanding of children’s actions and interactions. In this book, we use schema theory and attachment theory to deepen our understanding. We could also make links with the Early Years Foundation Stage Guidance, currently used in settings in England.

AN OBSERVATION TECHNIQUE FROM THE FIELD OF PSYCHOANALYSIS

The Tavistock method of Infant Observation Training involves the observer in visiting a newborn and family weekly for two years. The observation is recorded afterwards and is presented as the material for a work discussion group. The observer is open to the feelings evoked in him/her. Rustin (1989, p. 7) describes the method: ‘The practice of systematic observation of the development of infants provides the observer with an opportunity to encounter primitive emotional states in the infant and his family, and indeed in the observer’s own response to this turbulent environment.’

Although this intense and time-consuming course is intended to be part of the training for child psychotherapy, Rustin (1989, p. 8) points out that ‘it has also proved very valuable for professional development of other workers in a variety of roles with children’.

MAKING CHILDREN’S DEVELOPMENT AND LEARNING VISIBLE

One way of making children’s development and learning visible, and the focus of discussion, is through pedagogical documentation. We, at Pen Green, have learned a great deal from the Reggio Project. We have been challenged to think in different ways, acknowledging the importance of the group as well as individuals within each group. In Reggio, the workers focus on children’s projects and each project is beautifully documented. A great deal of their documentation includes children’s detailed drawings or photographs of sculptures or paintings, that often give insights into children’s thinking and feeling. Carla Rinaldi (2006, p. 68) has written about the purposes and advantages of pedagogical documentation:

To ensure listening and being listened to is one of the primary tasks of documentation (producing traces/documents that testify to and make visible the ways of learning of the individuals and the group) as well as to ensure that the group and each individual child have the possibility to observe themselves from an external view while they are learning …

Documentation makes revisiting and reviewing our thinking possible. Rinaldi also speaks about observation, not seen as ‘an individual action’ but ‘a reciprocal relationship’ (2006, p. 128). Rather than seeing observation as the task of one person, who tries to be objective, Rinaldi says ‘Instead we have a world of multiple interacting subjects who construct reality starting from different points of view’ (p. 128). She sees observing as ‘not so much perceiving reality as constructing reality’ (p. 128).

HOW WE APPROACHED CHILDREN AND FAMILIES TO CARRY OUT THIS STUDY

Workers and parents at the Pen Green Centre have built a tradition over 26 years of engaging in Child Study, to understand and provide exciting possibilities for children and as part of workers’ own professional development. So, when we embarked on a new study, many parents using the nursery, were aware of what had gone before. Rather than attempting to be ‘objective’ by choosing to study children in a randomised way, we began by building on relationships with families we already knew and who were interested. Rigour does not necessarily come from being objective but from being aware of our subjective view.

As workers, we approached the parents, who we thought might be interested, individually at first. We explained what the study might involve and how the parents might engage with us in studying their children. It was important to indicate how much material we would gather and how often and where we would meet with families to discuss and interpret our nursery observations and to hear about observations made at home. As always, we were flexible about how often and where we met. In a study of ‘Involving parents in their children’s learning’, focusing mainly on cognition, we had found meetings where parents viewed and discussed their own and each other’s children’s development and learning to be hugely successful. In this project both workers and families seemed more comfortable discussing emotions in smaller groups or in a one to one dialogue.

ETHICS

An important aspect of any Child Study is ethics. I have found making initial contact with anyone, who might participate in a study, and talking through with them, as individuals, what might happen, critical to any study. Although confidentiality and anonymity may be desirable, the use of photographs and video material has made it almost impossible to anonymise the people involved.

In order to gain permission for this study, I spent time with parents and with children before any filming was done. Occasionally children felt ...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• About the Author
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Dedication
• Conventions Used in this Book
• Outline of this Book
• Foreword by Margy Whalley
• Introduction
• 1 Early Years Practitioners and Parents Engaging in Child Study
• 2 Ewan: Developing a Ritual for Separating
• 3 John: Exploring Lines and Connecting and Coming to Understand Separations
• 4 Caitlin: Containing, Enveloping and Transporting
• 5 Edward: Exploring ‘Together and Apart’ and Moving from ‘Vertical’ to ‘Horizontal’ with Objects
• 6 Sam: Enveloping, Containing and Seriating to Understand Separation and Loss and the Distribution of Power
• 7 Susan: Containing, Enveloping and Going Through Boundaries
• 8 Cara: Trying to Make Sense of a Death in her Family
• 9 The Inside Story: An Early Years Practitioner Studying Children’s Emotions
• 10 Conclusions and Theorising about Schemas and Emotions
• Bibliography
• Index