Download the PDF of this article
We know from a great deal of research that, as humans, we are intrinsically motivated to learn through repeating patterns of action – for example, by repeatedly dropping objects from a height, children come to expect the object to usually fall to the ground. Piaget and Athey called these repeated actions ‘schemas’.
Commonly observed schemas are: trajectories/lines (up/down, side to side and oblique), transporting (carrying stuff around), rotating, connecting, enveloping, enclosing, ordering, one-to-one correspondence, containing (oneself or objects) and going through a boundary.
Athey thought of these actions as partial concepts that combine with each other to become more complex ideas. For example, ‘ordering’ objects in ‘lines’ and applying a ‘one-to-one correspondence’ can become ‘counting’, a complex concept when understood fully. Piaget and Athey claimed that our actions become our thoughts.
As early years educators, once we recognise a child repeating an action, we can offer more resources with which the child can carry out the action, thus widening and deepening their knowledge of the likely outcome.
Athey (1990) also advised articulating a child’s actions, thereby making the child ‘more conscious of his or her doing’. More recently, Atherton and Nutbrown (2013), studying birth to three-year-olds, emphasise that ‘tuning in conceptually’ to children’s actions allows the child ‘to hear the language that complements his thinking’. So rather than interrupting with ‘How many…?’ or ‘What colour?’, an adult can skilfully ‘tune in’ to a child’s thinking by describing what they see the child doing in that moment.
Neither suggests that a child would imitate the language offered. However, my hypothesis is that the child’s subsequent use of this language might demonstrate a deeper understanding of what was being explored conceptually, rather than merely associatively. My granddaughter sparked my interest in this link between language development and schemas and I then went on to gather more evidence by observing two other children – Gabriella’s cousin Anya and a colleague’s son, Henry.
OBSERVATIONS
Gabriella
One morning, over the space of two hours, my granddaughter Gabriella, then aged three years, eight months, engaged in eight short conversations with me. She made a number of comparisons and used language I had not heard her using before:
She talked about Anya, who is two years younger than her, noting ‘her being bigger than Anya’ and ‘Anya being smaller than her’.
When playing with two bears, and speaking as the big bear, she told the baby bear, ‘You’re smaller than me.’
After announcing there was a ‘competition’ to see who had the ‘loudest voice’, she pretended to be the teddy, shouted loudly and said that he ‘winned’.
She talked about how old the animal figures were (three, four or two’), role-played two of them: ‘I am four’ (in a deep voice); ‘I only two’ (in a meek voice) – then said, ‘My dad’s bigger than you.’
She matched the big animals with their small counterparts and said, ‘This is the daddy. This is the baby. This is the sister.’
She went on to refer to what Anya can do and reach.
Later she referred to ‘light and dark butter’ contained in ‘pale pink and cerise cups’.
It seemed obvious to me that the schematic thread running through all of this data was ‘seriation’, ‘arranging a collection of things systematically with regard to some dimension along which they differ’ (Gruber and Voneche 1977). Gabriella was arranging things (sometimes in her mind) along dimensions of size, sound, age, what each can do or reach and colour.
According to Athey, children firstly use absolute size notions – for example, ‘I am big, you are little’ – and later develop the comparative terms that Gabriella was using. After checking the diary data on Gabriella (gathered from when she was a baby), I realised she had been exploring ‘seriation’ in her actions for at least 18 months prior to using the comparative and superlative terms.
Anya
At one year, eight months, Anya had been exploring ‘going inside’, ‘going through a boundary’ and ‘enveloping’ or ‘covering’ herself or objects. She moved from using her whole body to go ‘inside’ to putting objects ‘inside’ containers.
At two years, two months, some of her expressive language showed a concern with ‘inside’: ‘Mummy take boots off’ (feet are ‘inside’ boots); ‘Open the door’ and ‘Go through the gate’ (to see what’s ‘inside’); and ‘I put nappies in box’.
At two years, four months, she began to announce her intentions (‘Going to put playdough in there’ and ‘Gonna see what’s in my cupboard’) and make judgements about size and space (‘I need a bigger blanket’ and ‘I’m going to park zebra in that little gap’).
It seemed that Anya’s thinking had developed particularly in relation to ‘size’ and ‘fit’ and that, rather than trying things out each time, she could estimate what was needed and what would fit.
Henry
Henry had a passion for vehicles and the strongest pattern in his play, since he was very young, had been ‘trajectory’ and ‘line’. His parents supported his interest and regularly filmed him playing.
At three years, nine months, Henry’s play was complex and involved storylines demonstrating the concepts he had grasped. He lined up several vehicles along the back of the settee, with the first three at right angles to the rest:
Henry ‘That’s why there is a traffic jam.’
Mother ‘Three are facing towards the road?’
Henry ‘Police do that to stop the bad guys from going really fast’ (a reference to speed and morality).
Mother ‘Why are the other ones like this?’
Henry ‘That’s why they hit the brakes – that’s why they’re in the traffic jam – that one’s at the front.’ (He understands the function of the brakes and also has some sense of what might happen when you travel ‘really fast’, another reference to morality.)
At three years, ten months, Henry was once again making a line with vehicles and, on this occasion, counting them one by one (‘1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6’). His mother helped him to understand the concept of ‘6’ by drawing six lines on a piece of paper, counting them and writing the numeral ‘6’ next to the six lines.
Henry mentioned one vehicle ‘having an engine at the back’ and knows this is an exception in the ‘category’ of cars. His thinking has moved on from making ‘lines’ to creating complex stories that communicate his thinking and understanding.
THE LINK
When we articulate a child’s actions, our focus is not just on the ‘content’ (what the child is playing with) but is also on the ‘form of thinking’ (what the child is doing with what he is playing with). Like any human interest, the child ‘in action’ offers the best time for them to seek more understanding and for us to offer language that matches their interest.
Children are building up systems of knowledge, and we can contribute at an optimum time by offering ‘conceptual’ language that matches their actions, rather than ‘associative’ language – for example, when we observe a child covering a doll with a blanket, we can ask if they are being ‘mummy’ (associative) or we could comment on the covering action and whether we can see the doll under the cover (conceptual).
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
These children were observed at home with sensitive and knowledgeable adult play partners. Knowledge of schemas meant that the adults were able to ‘tune in’ to the children’s thinking. Often, as early years practitioners, we are unsure about how best to support children’s play without taking over, so the advice to accompany the child’s actions with words is useful.
Although we sometimes question (to understand), merely articulating what a child is doing in the moment makes no demands on the children, rarely distracts them, and they feel understood. The language may emerge several months later when a child has a fuller understanding of the concept(s) being explored.
AFTERWORD
Anya now has a younger brother, Rhys, so I have been keenly observing him.
From 11 months, he seemed interested in ‘containing’ objects, often putting them in and tipping them out. By the age of two, he can say lots of single words, but ‘big’ and ‘empty’ seem significant.
MORE INFORMATION
Athey C (2007) Extending Thought in Young Children: A Parent-Teacher Partnership. Sage
Atherton F and Nutbrown C (2013) Understanding Schemas and Young Children. Sage
Turner M (1996) The Literary Mind: The Origins of Thought and Language. Oxford University Press
For a full version of this article, see Early Child Development and Care online, DOI: 10.1080/03004430.2018.1427087
Additional information for Nursery World by Dr Cath Arnold