Estudios sobre la obra de Suárez (artículos y libros)

Identifying children engaged in cognitive challenge in this study meant that children had to be seen focusing on tasks that were slightly difficult for them, where they struggled to achieve the solution. The quantitative data demonstrated that Questions at task level and Express a challenge were the most frequently used events to create challenge. Lesson transcripts showed that these two events were used with the same purpose, that of encouraging the children to engage in difficult tasks. However, the teachers noticed that they often set up the challenges in loose terms by neither being explicit in their language nor clear about the task. The teachers discussed the importance of using appropriate and clear language within each schema when introducing the challenge.

In the first year, lesson transcripts demonstrated that three teachers used appropriate and relevant language to the schema of seriation. However, Miss Arum tended to slip into that of classification. For example in Lesson 10 Miss Arum told the children: “Put the stones in order.” (Lesson 10, event 3) but later added: “Put the smallest ones here and the biggest ones here. “ (Lesson 10, event 7) This example demonstrated that Miss Arum tended to move into the language of classification rather than hold firmly to seriation language. In fact, no stone was the same size as another. By confusing the language of the schema when inviting the children to make two lots of stones, Miss Arum confused children in the thinking about ordering into thinking about grouping.

In Lesson 23, Miss Arum used appropriate language to express challenge according to the schema of rules as in this example: “There is one big rule about this town. What is a rule? Trucks are not allowed in

Shopping Town” (Lesson 23 events, 21, 22, 26). However, in Lesson 24 rules got mentioned only once at

event 80 (the lesson ended at event 91) when Miss Arum asked: “What are your rules?” Until that point in the lesson, children were thinking up a game by deciding how to use the given equipment but they were not thinking of rules. By the lack of mention of “rules”, the group were not encouraged to think in the appropriate way about the task. An obvious link (bridging) which was not made would have been to the previous week’s lesson which had clearly emphasised “rules”.

In the lesson using rolling bottles, Miss Arum was very clear with regard to separating the bottles into rollers and non-rollers, the classification element of the lesson. However, with regard to the question regarding what makes some bottles roll and others not-roll, she did not ask one question. Since this was the key schema of the lesson it could be assumed that the children did not get the most from this lesson in terms of expected challenge.

In the example in Table 7.3 using the causality schema, Miss Arum did not use the word “cause” once. The whole lesson was conducted (109 events) without any specific question or comment in relation to the

schema. In the demonstration of this lesson during the PD, the teacher/researcher modelled the challenge as:

You need to look at the first picture, think about what it shows, then look at the next picture and think about what has happened. For example, look at the candle here in the first square and look at it again here in the third square. Now, there is a question mark in between. You need to think what picture could go in place of the question mark to show what caused the candle to change from this to this. And here, what happened to the ice lolly to change from this to this? What caused these events to happen? What made the things change?

This demonstration provides a very different format from that being used by Miss Arum.

In the classification lessons, Miss Bramble frequently asked children to make groups. One example of this is: “I want you to put them into groups of things that are matching or the same” (Lesson 13, event 65). In Lesson 10, Miss Bramble asked the children to order the stones from big to small in one line: “Do this big

to small. Put them in one line. Do it together” (Lesson 10, event 41). Later in the same lesson the children

decided on a different way of ordering and Miss Bramble recapped: “So now we want tallest to shortest” (Lesson10, event 94). The language maintained was that of seriation: putting things in order according to an agreed criterion. Miss Bramble was also clear in the schema, spatial perception. For example, as she distributed the cards of the pictures of the crossroads she encouraged the group to look and to discuss with a partner which card represented the view they could see.

What I want you to do is look at these cards with your partner. When you look at these cards sometimes there are pictures of things you can’t see. Look at them all and find the one that shows the picture that you can see.

(Lesson 16, event 13) However, using the time sequence schema, on each occasion Miss Bramble asked the group to make a story but she expressed this differently in each of the three lessons. In the first, Lost Boot: Lesson 8, she did not mention ordering, making sense or thinking. The children could have come up with any story and produced a rationale for it without difficulty. However, in the second lesson, Cooking: Lesson 12 Miss Bramble told the children that the cards were mixed up and she was having difficulty in ordering them.

The problem is that I can’t put them back together in the right order. I think there is a story here somewhere. Do you think you can make a story together as a group?

(Lesson 12, event 52-55) In these events, Miss Bramble referred to “a problem”, “order”, “story”, “think” and working “together as a

group”. These were all the ingredients required to make this a challenge in this schema so were helpful

introductions to this task. However, in Lesson 21: Cat and Snail story, the third in the time sequence schema, Miss Bramble gave only one instruction about the task: I want you to talk together and make a

Miss Daisy was also unclear in her instructions at times. In the spatial perception schema she asked the children to talk to their partner to find the picture illustrating the view they had of the crossroads.

“Right, we’ve got some pictures but they’re not all right. For example, some have the bus stop in the wrong place. What I want you to do is talk in pairs and find the picture of the things from where you are sitting”.

(Lesson 16, event 30-32) In terms of the schema, the weakness in this example was that Miss Daisy said the pictures provided for the challenge were not right. She could have strengthened the understanding of the schema had she said that the pictures were taken from various different sides of the road to show what somebody on that side of the road could see.

Miss Daisy used the language of the schemata appropriately in most lessons. In classification, one example of her introducing the challenge was: “Look, this is messy. I want you to make them neater. Put

them in piles so that all the things in one pile are the same.” (Lesson 4, event 29) Miss Daisy used

accurate language in seriation lessons too as in the Stones lesson: “What I want you to do as a group is to

put the stones in order. I want biggest to smallest. “(Lesson 10, event 20)

Three observed lessons used the schema: Time Sequence. In each of these lessons children were asked to order cards to make a story. The lesson transcripts indicated that Miss Daisy suggested on each occasion that there was a right order, a way of making sense that the group must consider. She also encouraged the notion that there may be several correct ideas but that the children needed to explain what they were thinking so that their ideas could be understood by the group. In the following example, she encouraged the children to put the pictures of the giant in order to make a story about his lost boot and to be ready to explain their choice.

“Right, I want you to put the giant’s pictures in the right order so as to make a really good story. We are going to make one story. If you don’t want a picture there, you need to say why.. Give reasons…not right or wrong. Who’s going to start?”

(Lesson 8, events 13-18) Miss Daisy usually used short focused questions. For example, in the schema causality she asked, “Why

are these rolling?” (Lesson 20, event 149): “So what do we need to make a shadow?” (Lesson 22, event

22). She was generally clear and accurate in her language, however, in the lesson on Transformations Miss Daisy was less specific. She did not focus on the cause of any of the situations but just commented on something missing in the pictures. “Here we have something missing in the sequence” (Lesson 25, event 27). “What has changed?” (Lesson 25, event 43) These were the only two references that in any way could be construed as relating to the schema and even these were rather oblique

In the transcripts of the second year, all teachers were seen to introduce the challenges in a more focused and clear way. The language of the schema was generally accurate.

Miss Arum addressed the use of language of the schema “causality” and lesson transcripts showed that she used “cause” several times in each lesson of this schema. For example: “What caused these bottles

to roll and these ones to stay still on the ramp?” (Group A2, Lesson 20, event 95). However, she used

Lesson 24: Making a game as a PE lesson for the whole class and the emphasis on thinking was somewhat lost. Miss Arum mentioned in the initial instruction about deciding upon rules for the game but there was no other mention of rules during the lesson. When the children played the games that other groups had created they were not asked to play and then change one rule as the lesson required. This suggested that the aim of the lesson was not met and that this would not have advanced children’s thinking abilities.

Miss Bramble was more attentive to providing explicit instructions for the tasks in lessons. Lesson transcripts showed that Miss Bramble was attentive to the schema being used in lessons and used language appropriate to most of the schemata in lessons. It can be assumed that this clarity would give the children the best opportunity to develop the thinking in the schema used.

Miss Comfrey also used the language of the schema appropriately in most lessons. She asked children to put objects into groups such as in the following example: “I am opening a button shop. Can you sort them

out so that I can put them in the shop?” (Group C2, Lesson 6, events 16-17). In Lesson 10, she invited

children to order the stones: These stones are all in a mess. I want you to put them in an order. What sort

of order?” (Lesson 10, event 28) Throughout the lesson, Miss Comfrey stayed focused on ordering

according to a different criterion each time so the children were being given good modelling of the schema they were using. With regard to the schema, spatial perception, Miss Comfrey was also clear in her instruction. She asked the children to work with their partners to work out the picture to choose.

You’re going to work in pairs, helping each other. I want you to choose the picture that you can see, the one of the things you can see here.

(Lesson 16, events 31-32) Miss Daisy appeared to focus more on cause and effect in Lesson 25 than in the first year. She frequently asked about the cause: “What caused this to happen? Look at the candle. What caused it to go from this

to this?“ (event 35) “What caused the ice lolly to be like this?” (event 59)

It seemed that the teachers were much more attentive to introducing the challenge clearly and with the appropriate language of the schema.

The second issue in this theme was that the teachers noticed that they frequently reduced the challenge for the children. Having heard through the constructs that children found challenges helpful to their learning, the teachers were inspired to ensure that all children experienced the challenges as somewhat difficult.

In the first year, the lesson transcripts indicated that Miss Arum asked several short questions and

particularly used the question ”Why?” frequently. These short questions appeared to encourage children to continue to work at the challenges and provide explanations. However, at other points in lessons, Miss Arum could be seen to bring the challenge to a rather hasty solution by her intervention in providing a solution. In the following extract the group was discussing where in the story the cook should wash her hands. Before agreement on a solution had been reached, Miss Arum suggested an order for the story.

G: Well, she can wash her hands after the carrots then. Tif: I think she should do it before the carrots.

T: Why do you think that?

Tif: ‘Cos my mum says.

T: But your mum is not here?

Jack laughs loudly

Tif: No but she tells me before I eat my tea – wash my hands.

T: OK So shall we put that here, then the carrots and then the bread?

(Lesson 12, events 56-63) At this point, Miss Arum moved the cards into her order which discouraged further discussion and explanation of children’s ideas. The lessons frequently came to a sudden end in this way.

Lesson observations also showed that Miss Arum frequently short-circuited the thinking by providing a huge clue to “solving the problem”. One example of this was in Lesson 7 when the children were classifying blue animals in one hoop and sheep in another. They were finding it difficult to agree where they should put the blue sheep. Within a few seconds, she intersected the hoops (Lesson 7: event 94) effectively ending the challenge. Another example was in Lesson 8: Lost Boot when only a story from two children was accepted. The lesson finished after only 46 events. A further example came in Lesson 22: Shadows when the children were trying to work out what is needed to make a shadow.

T: What if I just had the torch?

A: No.

T: Why?

N: We can make shadow without the tree, we can make it more bigger but not get shadow.

T: How did you work out we needed both the torch and the tree?

(Lesson 22, events 32-36) In fact no child had mentioned needing both the torch and the tree and the results can be seen later in the lesson when the group still did not understand that both light and object are required to make a shadow.

Miss Comfrey, like Miss Arum, frequently asked questions which gave clues to the answer she appeared to want. For example, when describing pictures of the giant looking for his boot, the children were asked:

T: What do you think the giant is doing?

M: He’s in his kit….

T: Do you think he’s making a cup of tea?

M: Yes.

(Lesson 8, events 140-143) The children had had no opportunity to say what they thought the giant was doing when Miss Comfrey made her suggestion. He actually was not making a cup of tea but the children all agreed that he was. Since this programme is aimed at developing children’s own thinking this tendency to give the children ideas was unhelpful.

Miss Comfrey also short-circuited the thinking at times. In the following example she suggested that light bottles did not roll down the slope just as a child was about to explain what she thought. In fact, it is the lightest bottles that roll down and also the heaviest. However, this fact did not get discussed as the children agreed with Miss Comfrey and she left them with that idea.

T: Why did these roll down and these didn’t roll?

C: ‘Cos of rice.

M: ‘Cos if there’s a bit more…

T: Do you think they don’t roll down because they’re very light?

M: Yes.

(Lesson 20, events 173-177) In the second year, it can be seen that teachers encouraged the children to focus on the challenges while neither suggesting solutions nor short circuiting the thinking. Sometimes, the time for the end of the lesson arrived without the children having solved the challenge. Teachers asked children to keep thinking about the challenge until later in the week when they would be given time to discuss. On Friday afternoons, teachers timetabled a 15 minute slot to discuss further ideas about that week’s challenge.