Temperatura de ruido

“Although there has been extensive discussion of Piaget’s theory, relatively little attention has been given to his research methodology” (Duveen 2000, p.1). Piaget’s (1896 – 1980) Methodology has much in common with that used by psychiatrists in diagnostic interviews, which typically involves face-to-face interaction and active dialogue between the researcher and participant, where the researcher actively asks the questions and the participant offers verbal answers. In child development studies, Piaget’s Methodology consists of Interviews and Teaching Experiments where the former is used to guide questioning to better understand the cognitive processes of the child’s development and the latter to investigate what might be going on in the child’s communication process to help develop and establish the dialogue. Claparede points out that psychology might usefully support the work of those teachers willing to study one’s pupils, and consequently, “research in cognitive development has been heavily

influenced by Piaget’s pioneering work, and as a result, interview methods have continued to figure prominently” (Claparede 1930, p.86, cited in Bond and Tryphon 1988). In his first book, The Language and Thought of the Child (Piaget 1926), the originality of the Piagetian clinical method in exploration of a child’s thoughts resides in the methodological principle, where the flexibility and subtlety of the ‘in-depth’ interview needs to be modulated by the systematic search for the logico-mathematical processes underlying the reason of learning put forward” and the testing of its processes (Munari 2000).

This research adopted Piaget’s Methodology as the interviews used with young children is similar to a conversation between children and adults, where the aim is for children to disclose as much as possible about their ways of thinking and the contents of what they know. Here, content refers to elements or materials of knowing, or the experience of events, activities, notions or ideas

(Doverborg and Pramling 2000). This is a two-way exchange of dialogue which allows for the researcher to obtain information of the child’s current level of knowledge and the gaps in which understanding can be provided.

Piaget’s Methodology consists of two types of questioning approaches: Clinical and Non-Clinical approach (also known as the critical interview and semi-structured interview methods). The Clinical Interview includes interviewing children with the aim to encourage the child to talk freely about particular topics, without a standard set of questions involved. Clinical Interview questioning is based on the individual child’s responses to previous questions. On the other hand, Piaget’s Non-Clinical Interviews are more structured than the Clinical Interview in that the researcher follows a standard protocol and provides for rigid and controlled measures (Duveen 2000). One of the biggest criticisms of Piaget’s Methodological Non-Clinical Interviews approach is that by adopting a structured interview, ‘less opportunity to pursue lines of questioning that an individual child’s answers suggest might be interesting’ drawing upon constructionist assumptions.

98

“This becomes even more difficult if the interview script is very rigid and it can be difficult to resolve the confusions that may arise if a child misunderstands a particular question and it can be difficult to make the sequence of questions flow naturally if a child gives an unexpected answer” (What-When-How.com, p.1)

This research adopted a semi-structured format of questions to interview and followed an inductive and qualitative approach. As this study is firmly embedded in the social constructivist position, it looked to extend Piaget’s Interviews approach, where the researcher (turned facilitator) can provide for an ‘extended’ dialogue during the structured, questioning process. In the instance that the interview moves off course, the researcher (turned facilitator) can then steer the dialogue back to the interview questions, at an appropriate time, so as to continue with the research.

“In practice, though, most interviewers aim to achieve an appropriate balance between consistency and flexibility, rather than adhering to an absolutely rigid script” (What-When-How.com, p.1)

By leaning more towards a social constructivist position, the interview is characterised by the following points as discussed by many researchers (Rubin and Rubin 2005, Bryman 2004; Gubrium and Holstein 2002):

 Using interviews with young children advocates the aim to understand the child’s world from their own viewpoint.

 The researcher is not neutral and therefore not value free but actively involved in constructing meaning with the children.

 The nature of the interviews depends on the nature of the questions and the responses given.

In this way, knowledge is considered valid if it is authentic, that is, it is the true voice of the participants in the research. Taking this approach, this research focused on social constructivist knowledge which is more ‘local’ and ‘specific’ to the particular research project, conducted in particular circumstances and with particular participants (i.e., age dependant); thus, becoming valid within tight limits.

This study also adopted Piaget’s Methodological Teaching Experiments approach, in the latter half of this research, to validate the application of the appropriate pedagogy (as developed throughout the research), when applied with the new technology. Piaget’s Teaching Experiments are more experimental in nature and follow a controlled and ‘contemporary experimental psychology’ setting. They are more readily compatible with the research paradigms, methods of statistical analysis, and scientific reporting styles that are dominant in the positivism epistemology. The emphasis therefore is often on producing quantifiable observations and making gross

generalisations in order to facilitate replication (Gill and Johnson 2002) within a research. This type of positivist objective position is opposite to the interpretivist social constructive

epistemological design highlighted in Piaget’s Interviews.

As this study follows the pragmatist epistemology and can afford to combine both methodologies of qualitative and quantitative design, what is of more relevance is the pragmatic paradigm which

99

places the research problem as central, and applies all approaches to understanding the problem (Creswell 2003, p.11). This research is not solely aimed at gathering a selection of studies from which generalisations can be made, but as Yin (1989) indicates, more as an attempt to replicate and validate an ‘experimental’ design. Therefore, by using Piaget’s Teaching Experiments, and

adopting a positivist approach, this research looked to validate knowledge by seeking to replicate it (Hughes 2005, p.33). This study is further extended and concluded by the use of Laever’s Well- Being and Involvement Methodological Scales, which were used in determining whether the pedagogy applied with young children can provide for the quality of well-being, within a new constructued form of learning environment as well as provide for the involvement with young children, through the appropriateness of dialectical inquiry between the participants.

6.2.1. Piaget’s Non-Clinical Interviews

“The most important single factor influencing learning is what the learner already knows. Ascertain this and teach him accordingly” (Ausubel 1968, p.18).

This research used Piaget’s Non-Clinical Interviews (instead of Clinical Interviews), using a semi- structured format of questions, for the following two reasons:

 Often, Piaget’s Clinical Interviews are conducted by teachers and/or practitioners who are currently in professional practice within childhood settings (Doverborg and Pramling 2000) and who have a good understanding of the child’s thinking processes and of the child’s current level of knowledge, upon which to understand the child’s responses and provide for feedback in determining what constitutes as an appropriate or non-appropriate response. As this research during this stage was mainly researcher led, who functioned as the facilitator in using the Clinical Interview Approach, the researcher would require ‘high levels of skills, sensitivity and experience in interpreting children’s responses to the point that Piaget recommends at least a year of ‘daily practice’ before passing beyond the inevitable fumbling stage of the beginner (Donaldson 2005; Piaget 1926, p.8-9).

Realistically, this was not a feasible option for the researcher and one too risky with high expectations.

 The heavy reliance on my skill and intuitions, as a researcher with limited experience, of which the variations of forms within the interview itself can raise major concerns about generalizability and replicability of findings (Duveen 2000). Piaget (1929) emphasises that in conducting Clinical Interviews, the researcher needs to steer a middle course to avoid dangers of “...systematisation due to preconceived ideas and incoherence due to the absence of any directing hypothesis” (p.9). In other words, the researcher has to try to avoid leading the child in a particular direction through suggestions, while at the same time making the most of the opportunities to formulate and test hypotheses about the nature of the child understands. Throughout the interview, one must be sensitive to the suggestibility which can easily develop in an interview situation (Doverborg and Pramling 2000).

Children are used to accommodating their words to those of an adult and a less experienced researcher can easily fall into this trap if they are not familiar or have been trained in the ‘sensitivity’ of interviewing children.

Reflecting on this, although I have my own children and have vast experiences in extracting information out from young children, there is still an element of risk involved with my role as the facilitator in designing the clinical interview with the children,

100

particularly in instances where I may be biased towards the the questions and the answers to expect.

For these reasons, this study adopted Piaget’s Non-Clinical Interviews, in another three preschool settings, where it took a semi-structured format of questions to interview and followed an inductive and qualitative approach of asking questions “based on current interpretations of the child’s

language and actions to create critical questions to ask and the types of learning to encourage” (Steffe 1991, p.177). In allowing for this research to adopt the social constructivist position, the Non-Clinical approach of questioning is ‘extended’ to allow for extension of free-flow dialogue to take place between the adult and child, where the researcher can bring the child back into the research and guide the conversation onto the next question and so on; althought still having a semi- structured format in place.

This type of free-flow and yet guided conversation is reflective of the Vygotskian early years philosophical perspective which encourages for learning to occur first and foremost on a social plane, before it is internatlised and made sense by the learner. It expands on the theory of

constructivism put forward by Piaget (1973) where young children have the potential to construct meaning from prior understandings and meaning with the added emphasis of learning in a more social, cultural and history context, and which is the by product of interactions with the

practitioners and peers (even though there are not deliberate attempts to provide for interactions). This type of learning potentially can be reflective of the Communication and Collaboration approach (Siraj-Blatchford, I., 2007)(see Chapter 3) , which takes a view similar to Vygotsky’s work (1978), and one which is more interested in using language for interactions as the driving force behind cognitive development. In attempting for learning to take place, the child must be found to be actively involved in the process, within a safe and healthy environment, and there is to be mutuality between learner and practitioner, where collaboration and negotiation is possible, despite the asymmetrical nature of the relationship (Bruner 1996). For developing effective Piaget Non-Clinical Interviews, the role of collaboration is potentially very influential so as to provide for opportunities for the co-construction and joint interactions of possible solutions in the learning process; in which the more experienced peer or practitioner and the child can learn together and construct new knowledge (Doise and Mugny 1984).

The Non-Clinical Interviews involve the interviewer (researcher turned facilitator), an observer (the practitioner), and the children selected for the research. The purpose of the early childhood

practitioner in these interviews is to provide familiarity for the child, help the interviewer (researcher turned facilitator) to understand the student’s responses, and provides for feedback in determining what constitutes a good response and/or a spontaneous, non-informative response. The Non- Clinical Interview worked as an instrument for stimulating the thinking ability and learning development of children. Donaldson (2005) states that children who have often dealt with interview questions of the type which compel the child to describe or elucidate something, questions like “what does this mean?” can see their own role in the communication situation. Therefore, in order to develop a method of learning as to how and what children think, one must place them in situations where they need to think (Doverborg and Pramling 2000). While the children, in this study, are old enough to use and understand language reasonably proficiently, the Non-Clinical Interview included both verbal and non-verbal activities.

101

“Clinical Interviews provide details of how students currently understand a particular concept. They reveal areas where students are confused, but cannot reveal how best to create a change in student’s thinking, as this would violate the rule that one should not teach during the interview” (Engelhardt et al., 2003- 2004, p.4).

This is the core essence of Piaget’s Non-Clinical Interviews so that when adults include children in a thinking process, “the children begin to think about things which they had not reflected on before” (Doverborg and Pramling 2000, p.10). While it soon became apparent that the Communication and Collaboration early years pedagogy was the most appropriate type of instructional approach to use with young children, there was still the growing concern that a well constructed, semi-structured interview is still not sufficient. The Communication and

Collaboration approach was found to be highly effective in providing for interaction and

connection between the participants, but along with the more appropriate pedagogical strategies of Open Questioning, Modelling, Prompting, Probing and Showing Genuine Interest, areas of phonetic learning, particularly of Letters and Sounds, was found to extend learing and become more effective.

This type of reflective practice perhaps would have gone unnoticied if I, as the facilitator, did not conduct the interiews, for it is more common practice and almost second nature to effective practitioner practice, and would not have been made explicit during the observations. As Houle (1980) suggests it is new knowledge “…that occurs as a direct participation in the event of life” (p. 221). It is through learning and reflection that new knowledge is achieved in everyday experiences and it is through this way that most of us do our learning in forms of senses and primary

experiences (Jarvis 1995).

These findings from the interviews between the researcher (turned facilitator) and the young children provided for further development of an appropriate pedagogical strategies, when used in phonetic enriched technology. Piaget’s Non-Clinical Interviews were then followed by Piaget’s Teaching Experiments to “unite what is most expedient in the methods of test and or direct

observation” (Piaget, 1926 p.7). The last stage of this study looked to validate the appropriateness of the pedagogy and took the form of a more deductive and quantitative approach.

6.2.2. Piaget’s Teaching Experiments

“Piaget’s Teaching Experiments mimic more closely the actual classroom environment “and one can discover whether a possible technique will produce a change and follow that change” (Engelhardt et al., 2003 – 2004, p.4).

A distinguishing characteristic of the Teaching Experiment is that the researcher can act as the teacher (i.e. facilitator) (Steffe 1991, p.177) in providing for guidance to his/her peers and/or children. The Teaching Experiments are conducted in more controlled measures, where the researcher takes the role as an observer, having transferred knowledge over to the practitioner, and takes more of a back seat to provide for an objective view of the interactions that occur during the teaching episode [i.e. between the early childhood practitioner and children].

In this research design, with a further three preschools, the researcher initially takes the role as the facilitator to demonstrate the appropriate pedagogical strategies applied with technology, and transfers this knowledge over to the early years practitioner, so that the he/she can take the form of

102

a more ‘knowledgeable’ partner in scaffolding learning with the young children. Based on current interpretation of the child’s language and actions, the practitioner can make decisions concerning situations to create, critical questions to ask, and the type of learning to encourage (Steffe 1991, p.177). These on-the-spot decisions represent a major modus operandi in Teaching Experiments and early years practitioner(s) have the responsibility for making them.

“Children’s thoughts can be distinguished not only by the interests which guide it and by its means of expression, but also by its logical structure and method of functioning” (Piaget, 1924/1972, p.199).

The Teaching Experiment is purely an exploratory tool (Steffe 1991), derived from Piaget’s Interviews, and is aimed at investigating what might be going on in the children’s minds during the communication process. These processes, applied within the research, typically involved

formulating and testing hypotheses about aspects of the child’s learning capacity in order to learn what the child already knows and how much further knowledge can be produced. By applying the appropriate pedagogy and strategies, the formulation and tests of hypothesis can be used by the practitioner to stretch the child to the limits of his or her conceptual adaptability and endurance (Cobb and Steffe 1983)

“It is my belief that the researcher (and teacher) can best formulate and test hypothesis and interpret the results of the tests in intense interactive

communication with the child (so that a close personal and trusting relationship can be formed)” (Steffe 1991, p.178).

Piaget’s Teaching Experiments were helpful in determining the gaps of knowledge in the practitioner’s instructive style. While it would seem that the transference of the theoretical knowledge in delivering the appropriate pedagogy and pedagogical qualities may have been

sufficient and self-explanatory in some cases, further areas of becoming familiar with technology, a general lack of technical skills and confidence in using technology quickly became apparent with the practitioners. Although not originally intended, the researcher took an active role in

demonstrating some instructive sessions prior to the practitioner leading the sessions with the young children. Kolb (1984) identifies experiences translated through reflections in concepts and highlights conditions under which learners can learn better; one such as learners as divergers, who learn better when allowed to observe and collect a wide range of information. This helped in shaping some of the outcomes that came out of the research.

Piaget’s Teaching Experiments were used to validate the appropriate pedagogy and pedagogical strategies that can be applied, when using technology with young children in their classrooms. In determining whether this appropriate pedagogy can provide for the quality of well-being and involvement, with children in their early years, a further evaluation of Laever’s Well-Being and Involvement scales of Methodology were conducted.

6.3.

Method 3: Laever’s Scales of Well-Being and Involvement