How do social relationships in early childhood settings support and influencechildren’s creative thinking?

Sue Greenfield and Sue Robson Early Childhood Research Centre, Roehampton University,UK

EECERA

Prague, August 2007

s.greenfield@roehampton.ac.uk

s.robson@roehampton.ac.uk

Froebel Research Fellowship Project, ‘The Voice of the Child: Ownership and Autonomy in Early Learning’(2003-2008)

David J. Hargreaves – DirectorHiroko Fumoto Sue GreenfieldSue Robson

Research questions

Three strands:

Children’s perspectives: What are the children’s perspectives on their activities in early childhood settings, and how do they reflect upon these?

Parents/ carers’ perspectives: What opportunities do parents provide for children to engage in creative thinking?

Teachers’ perspectives: How are teachers’ experiences of relating to young children shaped by children’s developing creative thinking, and vice versa?

Participants

• 3 Early Childhood Settings: 1 Children’s Centre, 1 Private Workplace Nursery, 1 Foundation Stage Unit in Primary School

• 12 children: 5 girls; 7 boys (M=4 years 3 months) • 40 parents (questionnaire), 6 parents (interview)• 6 early childhood professionals (8-14 children each) 65

children: 27 girls, 38 boys (M=4 years 3 months), 65 pairs of teacher-child relationships

Research design

Short-term longitudinal studyParents:• 1 PhaseChildren:• 1 PhaseTeachers:• Phase 1: the beginning of a school year• Phase 2: the end of a school year

Research instruments

• Observations, analysed using Analysing Children’s Creative Thinking (ACCT) Framework (children)

• Reflective Dialogues, analysed using C.IndLe Coding Scheme (Whitebread et al) (children)

• Student-Teacher Relationship Scale (Pianta, 2001) (professionals)

• Evaluation of Children’s Creative Thinking (ECCT) Questionnaire (professionals and parents)

• One-to-one semi-structured interview (professionals and parents)

Accessing children’s perspectives

Children’sRights

Vygotsky

Pramling

Forman

try to access children’s

perspectives?

do we access children’s

perspectives?

HOW do we access

children’s perspectives?

WHYtry to access

children’sperspectives?

Method

• 12 children: 5 girls; 7 boys (M=4 years 3 months) in 3 settings

• Videotaped episodes of child-initiated play activities, analysed using ACCT Framework;

• Audio recorded reflective dialogues, using semi-structured interview schedule, conducted by practitioner, analysed using C.IndLe Coding Scheme.

The ACCT Framework and Daniel’s observation

Type of behaviour Observation of Daniel

EXPLORATIONExploringEngaging in new activityKnowing what you want to do

Moves log onto its side.

Goes to area with herbs and cut logs.

‘We’re finding animals…Nope.’

‘Oh it’s been caught and it’s broken – someone killed it.’

Knocks all of the logs over in turn with his hands.

‘It’s all done now’

ENJOYMENT & INVOLVEMENTTrying out ideasAnalysing ideasSpeculatingInvolving others

PERSISTENCEPersistingRisk takingCompleting challenges

Reflective Dialogues

Examples of questions

• Did you have an idea about what you wanted to do?• Are you pleased with what you did? (Why?)• What do you think was the best idea you had?• Do you think you are good at telling other people about

your ideas?• Do you get ideas from other people?• How do you feel if an idea you have doesn’t work?• What do you think you are good at?

Metacognitive Knowledge – of person, tasks and strategies• I saw Christopher doing it so it made me have an idea so I told Jack.• They think it’s a game but it’s not a game it’s just tunnels, it’s good

tunnels.

Metacognitive Regulation – planning, monitoring, control andevaluation• We’re going to get the purple string out today.• They’ve done it all wrong.

Emotional and Motivational Regulation – emotional/motivationalmonitoring and control• I didn’t like it when they sweeped all the sand.• Because it’s my favourite thing to do.

C.IndLe Coding Scheme (Whitebread et al )

Reflective Dialogues- analysis using C.IndLe

An excerpt from Daniel and Kelly’s Reflective Dialogue

I: So what was your best idea when you were in the garden looking for all the bugs?

D: Um I don’t know, actually.: Well, you seem to have had lots of ideas. What was your

favourite one that you’re doing?D: Um, knocking them all over, see if there’s ants, big ants…

and, and I couldn’t find them.I: Oh, why was that do you think?D: Cos they was…cos it didn’t… cos they wasn’t under them

logs, they wasn’t under them logs, only the other logs.I: Oh, that was a shame. So how did you feel when you couldn’t

find the ants?D: Sad.

Preliminary findings: Children’s strand - metacognitive behaviour in Reflective Dialogues

Sample of 83 units of metacognitive behaviour:Metacognitive Knowledge: 41

Of persons: 22Of tasks: 5Of strategies: 14

Metacognitive Regulation: 20Planning: 15Monitoring: 5Control: 1Evaluation: 1

Emotional and Motivational Regulation: 20Monitoring: 18Control: 2

Preliminary findings: Children’s strand - Metacognitive Behaviour in Reflective Dialogues and Observations

0

10

20

30

40

50

M K M R E R

units

of b

ehav

iour Reflective

Dialogues

Observations

M K: Metacognitive Knowledge

M R: Metacognitive Regulation

E M: Emotional and Motivational Regulation

Parents’ and Carers’ Perspectives

Aims and Objectives • To scrutinize links between home and school;• To identify opportunities for creative thinking at

home;• To discover whether parents are aware of what their

child does at school;• To elicit views of parents about:

– Whether they could be given more knowledge about this

– Whether they want more knowledge about this.

Family Partnership Model

Partnership

Helper qualities Helper skills

Process outcomes

Parent characteristics

Method

• 6 parents: 2 from each of 3 settings

• 40 Questionnaires (Evaluation of Children’s Creative Thinking) to parent/carers;

• Audio recorded semi-structured interviews.

Qualitative data: Daniel’s mother

‘we just don’t know what they’re doing at school. It’d be handy if they told us more cos they…..well the only time we get information is when we come to parents evening like…’

‘No. (pointing to video) that’s not Daniel, not at all. He’s always got children telling him what to do. He don’t play on his own.

Daniel….he’ll try something once and if it goes wrong he won’t go back and do it again he just walks away. Yet here he’s completely different.’

Preliminary findings: Parents’ and carers’ strand

• Teachers and parents exchange information, but do not always engage in reciprocal communication;

• Information about children’s creative thinking is rarely shared;

• Parents expressed a lack of confidence in and understanding of their ability to support children’s creative thinking at home.

Teachers’ perspectives: Method

• 6 teachers: 2 from each of 3 settings

• 65 Questionnaires (Evaluation of Children’s Creative Thinking) and Student-Teacher Relationship Scales (Pianta, 2001), at beginning and end of a school year;

• Audio recorded semi-structured interviews.

Teacher-child relationships and creative thinking

‘… that is such a sensitive thing and somehow…sometimes just the tiniest thing that you do can enable a child to think more creatively…the tiniest thing…and sometimes it’s just a question of pushing a pencil a bit nearer to them.’

Preliminary findings: Teachers’ strand

• Teachers’ lack of confidence in working with some children, particularly boys, may be affecting the quality of teacher-child relationships with them;

• The ways professionals evaluate children’s creative thinking does have a predictive value on their perceptions of teacher-child relationships, although they seem to create the environment regardless of their perceived relationships with them.