REPRESENTING GUIDED INTERACTION IN A SOCIOCULTURAL FRAMEWORK

This paper considers some methodological problems in representing interactions between young children, technology and practitioners. It is based on work for an ESRC TLRP-funded project Interplay: Play, Learning and ICT in Pre-School Settings, the purpose of which is to identify ways of enhancing young children’s learning with a range of technologies. Sociocultural theory underpins the research design because children’s competences are not simply operational but encompass an understanding of the roles of technologies in work and play and are developed in a social context. This theoretical perspective needs to translate to empirical work but representations of interaction in the literature are not always consistent with a sociocultural account of the data. Guided interaction is central to this study as a way for us to conceptualise ways of supporting technology-mediated learning and as a heuristic for practitioners and its representation is an important part of both analysing and defining guided interaction. The video-recorded data serves as a stimulus for assisted reflection and is central to identifying what constitutes interaction (eg gesture, gaze, dialogue) with the artefact, the adult, the cultural setting and, in turn, the patterns and behaviours that constitute guided interaction. The problem is how to develop representations that i) are quick and easy to produce, ii) provide information which is quick and easy to understand, iii) provide information which would not normally be available from simple observation, iv) emphasise the context of use by providing information on the interrelationship of task, interface and social dimensions, v) are applicable for multiple users, and vi) are adaptable for other systems and contexts of use. The discussion leads to some suggested principles for representing guided interaction. Introduction In its analysis of situated social practices, the theoretical assumptions of a sociocultural perspective lead to a focus on activity rather than the focus on individuals’ internalised learning associated with a more cognitive or behaviourist approach. This focus on activity leads to interaction as a unit of analysis and the individual’s cognitive development is seen as the product of the activities and cultural practices that they engage in with others. Wertsch (1991, p.86) comments that the way in which this relationship between psychological processes and social context must ultimately be addressed is ‘in connection with the basic theoretical constructs and units of analysis’. However, this paper is concerned not so much with the unit of analysis as with its representation and how this relates to sociocultural theory, an aspect that is not generally attended to with the same level of detail. Researchers with a sociocultural orientation are, perhaps, more likely to be drawn to the use of video as a form of data capture because it appears to lend itself to capturing the Draft paper: not for citation Representing guided interaction 2 ‘big picture’ and is suited to representing some of the complexities of social life and activities that are mediated by artefacts. As part of Interplay: Play, Learning and ICT in Pre-School Settings, we wanted to identify ways in which practitioners could support children’s developing competences with ICT within the social context of the playroom. To this end, we needed to find a way to represent their interactions so that we could identify guided interaction and provide illustrations of it within the framework of playroom practice. This paper discusses some of the methodological issues we encountered in representing interactions between young children, technology and practitioners with the aim of elaborating our understanding of the concept of guided interaction. Following reflection on the provenance of the term and a description of the context of Interplay we discuss here i) the sociocultural framework of this study, ii) some of the issues that have emerged in using video as the source for representing multimodal interactions and iii) some principles for representing guided interaction. At the time of writing, we conceive of this paper as a work in progress, to be refined as analysis continues. Background to guided interaction Our contribution to the ESRC’s Teaching and Learning Research Programme goal of enhancing outcomes for learners is to identify ways of enhancing young children’s experiences with information and communication technologies (ICT) in pre-school settings. The concept of guided interaction was identified in earlier research studies, where it had been used to refer specifically to computers and the use of interactive media. It included the ways in which the interface can offer guidance (Plowman, 1992, 1996a) and the ways in which attention to narrative in the design of interactive media can guide navigation and comprehension (Plowman, 1996b). Guided interaction in this context was conceptualised primarily as a design issue relating to communication between the computer and the student. Observations in schools showed that children were reluctant to seek human or machine help, used random clicking, could not interpret dialogue boxes and lacked strategies for dealing with problems encountered at the computer. The agent guiding interaction was the computer responding to user input and, at this time, the concept of guided interaction did not explicitly encompass a pedagogical role as teachers were usually absent from the locations in which computers were used. Nevertheless, this scenario had parallels with our more recent studies in pre-school settings where adults are always present and in Interplay we have expanded the concept from its earlier emphasis on design to include the role of situated human help in guiding children’s interactions, the focus of the discussion here. In this context, the agent guiding interaction is an adult. The context of Interplay Scottish pre-school provision is distinct from formal school education whether it is offered in nursery classes in primary schools or standalone nurseries. Practitioners do not view themselves as teachers but see their role as monitoring and responding to children’s progress and facilitating development through both the activities they provide and the conversations that prompt and extend children’s thinking. Sessions are characterised by extended periods of ‘free play’ with some brief adult-led group activities. The culture of pre-school settings values learning through play and child-initiated activities but this approach can lead to unproductive interactions when children choose Draft paper: not for citation Representing guided interaction 3 the computer as a free play activity. Although the use of the term ‘unproductive’ seems inappropriate in a free play context we found that children were not finding their computer play rewarding either in terms of pleasure or in terms of achievement. For example, children aged three and four are usually unable to follow text instructions and so can encounter basic operational difficulties which preclude even getting started if they do not have adult support. Earlier research (Plowman & Stephen, 2003, 2005; Stephen & Plowman, 2002, 2003) showed that practitioners focussed on computers, not recognising diverse technologies in the playroom as ICT and there was a dominance of reactive rather than proactive supervision. We found that in all settings practitioners had responsibility for a number of activities or a particular area of the room. This meant that supervision of children playing at the computer was limited, opportunistic and competed with other supervisory duties. Children rarely asked for help so adults became involved with computer play only if they noticed a need for intervention. Computers were often located in corners away from sand and water or high levels of traffic so were not within peripheral vision. Where they were visible, a casual glance was not adequate for assessing the state of play at a computer in the same way as it would be for other playroom activities. Within this complex environment, practitioners are familiar with providing highly contingent responses to children but this did not extend to children’s play with ICTs: most supervision consisted of overseeing turn-taking and ensuring that children did not cause damage rather than providing individualised assistance. Lack of intervention by practitioners was due to one, or a combination of, the following factors: • resistance to approaches that could be perceived as too instructional • a desire for children to find out for themselves • not being aware that children need help • limited confidence with ICT • priority being given to interventions required elsewhere in the playroom. Although we recognise the dominant role of play in young children’s learning, our focus on guided interaction challenges the widespread belief that free play is a sufficient condition for learning in the context of ICT. Play is young children’s characteristic mode of activity but it also offers opportunities for support for learning (Bennett, Wood & Rogers, 1997). Our aim, therefore, was to identify ways in which pedagogical actions by adults can support children’s encounters with ICT in the playroom and to conduct the study with the active participation of pre-school practitioners. This paper does not detail these processes, some of which are described in the companion paper, but focuses on the issues involved in finding ways to represent guided interaction. Children’s competences with computers and other technologies are not simply operational but encompass an understanding of the roles of technologies in work and play and are developed in the social context of the home and elsewhere. In a study related to Interplay, we found (McPake et al, 2005) that children at home were developing competences in three areas: technical, cultural and learning. Most children of three or four had more exposur