Abstract
Affording children’s agency is an important pedagogical underpinning of a high-quality early childhood program. Yet little is known about how teachers’ interactions create spaces for children’s agency. From the perspectives of ethnomethodology and conversation analysis, this paper investigates how teachers and children navigate agency through their collaborative interactions that relate to classroom participation. Drawing on 170 h of video recordings of classroom interactions in nine preschool classrooms, this paper discusses the teachers’ use of ‘I wonder…’ formulations in their interactions with children. In total, there were 17 occasions where the teachers used this formulation to create a space for agency for children to make decisions regarding their participation in classroom experiences. The ‘I wonder…’ formulation is suggested as a strategy for teachers to use when inviting classroom participation at times when children really do have a choice. These findings contribute to understanding children’s agency and point to practical strategies for teachers to afford children agency within the bounds of classroom life. Building and using a repertoire of pedagogic strategies to encourage child participation and agency is demonstrable evidence of high-quality teacher–child interactions.
Résumé
Permettre l’agentivité des enfants est une importante fondation pédagogique d’un programme de grande qualité destiné à de jeunes enfants. Et pourtant, on connaît peu de choses sur la façon dont les interactions des enseignants créent un espace pour l’agentivité des enfants. Du point de vue de l’ethnométhodologie et de l’analyse conversationnelle, cet article étudie comment les enseignants et les enfants négocient l’agentivité dans leurs interactions collaboratives liées à la participation en classe. Basé sur 170 heures d’enregistrements vidéo d’interactions en classe dans neuf classes maternelles, cet article discute de l’usage de l’expression «Je me demande si…» utilisée par les enseignants dans leurs interactions avec les enfants. Au total, on a pu compter 17 occasions où les enseignants ont utilisé cette expression pour créer un espace pour l’agentivité pour que les enfants prennent des décisions relatives à leur participation à des expériences en classe. La formulation «Je me demande si…» est suggérée aux enseignants comme stratégie à utiliser pour inviter les enfants à participer en classe quand les enfants ont un véritable choix. Ces résultats contribuent à mieux comprendre l’agentivité des enfants et signalent des stratégies pratiques pour que les enseignants permettent l’agentivité des enfants dans les limites de la vie en classe. Construire et utiliser un répertoire de stratégies pédagogiques pour encourager l’agentivité et la participation des enfants sont des preuves démontrables d’interactions enseignant-enfant de grande qualité
Resumen
El hecho de promover la autonomía de los niños y las niñas, con respecto a un programa para la niñez temprana es importante desde un punto de vista pedagógico. Sin embargo, poco sabemos con respecto a cómo las interacciones de los maestros crean espacios para dicha autonomía. Desde la perspectiva de la etnometodología y del análisis de la conversación, este estudio investiga cómo los maestros y los niños exploran la autonomía a través de sus interacciones colaborativas que se relacionan a la participación en clase. Basado en 170 horas de grabación de video de interacciones en clases llevadas a cabo en nueve aulas de nivel preescolar, este estudio trata el uso de la fórmula “Me pregunto…” por parte de los maestros y con respecto a sus interacciones con los niños/as. En total, observamos 17 ocasiones en las que los maestros utilizaron esta fórmula para crear un espacio que permita la autonomía de los niños y las niñas, para tomar decisiones con respecto a su participación en experiencias en el aula. La fórmula “Me pregunto…” se sugiere como estrategia para ser utilizada por los maestros al invitar la participación de la clase cuando los niños/as verdaderamente tienen una opción. Estas conclusiones contribuyen a la comprensión de la autonomía de los niños/as y nos guían hacia estrategias prácticas para que los maestros promuevan dicha autonomía dentro de los límites de la vida en el aula. La construcción y el uso de un repertorio de estrategias pedagógicas para alentar la participación del niño y la niña, su autonomía es evidencia verificable de interacciones de gran calidad entre el maestro y el niño/a
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Antaki, C., & Kent, A. (2012). Telling people what to do (and, sometimes, why): Contingency, entitlement and explanation in staff requests to adults with intellectual impairments. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(6–7), 876–889. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.014.
Aronsson, K., & Cekaite, A. (2011). Activity contracts and directives in everyday family politics. Discourse & Society, 22(2), 137–154. doi:10.1177/0957926510392124.
Australian Children’s Education & Care Quality Authority. (2013). Guide to the National Quality Standard. Canberra: ACECQA. Retrieved from http://www.acecqa.gov.au/national-quality-framework/the-national-quality-standard.
Baker, C. (1997). Ethnomethodological studies of talk in educational settings. In B. Davies & D. Corson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (Vol. 3, pp. 43–52). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Corsaro, W. A. (2005). The sociology of childhood (2nd ed.). California: Pine Forge.
Craven, A., & Potter, J. (2010). Directives: Entitlement and contingency in action. Discourse Studies, 12(4), 419–442. doi:10.1177/1461445610370126.
Cromdal, J. (2006). Socialization. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language & linguistics (2nd ed., Vol. 11, pp. 462–466). North Holland: Elsevier.
Cromdal, J. (2008). Childhood and social interaction in everyday life: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(8), 1473–1476. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VCW-4TTDYVS-1/2/2360f00273a0af6d1ce853c718be12e0.
Curl, T., & Drew, P. (2008). Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 41(2), 129–153. doi:10.1080/08351810802028613.
Danby, S. (1997). The observer observed, the researcher researched: The reflexive nature of phenomena. In AARE Conference, Australian Association for Researching Education Annual Conference Researching Education in New Times. Brisbane, 30 Nov–4 Dec, 1997.
Danby, S. (1998). The serious and playful work of gender: Talk and social order in a preschool classroom. In N. Yelland (Ed.), Gender in early childhood (pp. 175–205). London: Routledge.
Danby, S. (2002a). Language and social practices: Everyday talk constructing school-literate practices. In L. Makin, C. Jones Diaz, & C. McLachlan (Eds.), Literacies in early childhood: changing views challenging practice (pp. 55–71). Eastgardens NSW: MacLennan and Petty.
Danby, S. (2002b). The communicative competence of young children. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 27(3), 25–30.
Danby, S. (2009). Childhood and social interaction in everyday life: An epilogue. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(8), 1596–1599. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2008.06.015.
Danby, S., & Baker, C. (1998a). How to be masculine in the block area. Childhood, 5(2), 151–175. doi:10.1177/0907568298005002004.
Danby, S., & Baker, C. (1998b). “What’s the problem?”—Restoring social order in the preschool classroom. In I. Hutchby & J. Moran-Ellis (Eds.), Children and social competence: Arenas of action (pp. 157–186). London: Falmer Press.
Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations for the Council of Australian Governments (DEEWR). (2009). Belonging, being and becoming: The early years learning framework for Australia. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved from http://nla.gov.au/nla.arc-109966.
Drew, P., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2014). Requesting—from speech act to recruitment. In P. Drew & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Requesting in social interaction in social interaction (pp. 1–34). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Edwards, C., Gandini, L., & Forman, G. (1998). Introduction: Background and starting points. In C. Edwars, L. Gandini, & G. Gorman (Eds.), The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia approach-advance reflections (2nd ed., pp. 5–26). Westport: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Enfield, N. J. (2014). Human agency and the infrastucture of requests. In P. Drew & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Requesting in Social Interaction (Vol. 26, pp. 35–55). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi:10.1075/slsi.26.
Esser, F., Baader, M., Betz, T., & Hungerland, B. (2016). Reconceptualising agency and childhood: An introduction. In F. Esser, M. Baader, T. Betz, & B. Hungerland (Eds.), Reconceptualising agency and childhood: New perspectives in childhood studies (pp. 1–16). New York: Routledge.
Gowrie South Australia. (2015). Sense of agency. Retrieved from http://www.gowriesa.org.au/sites/default/files/rs-sense-agency.pdf.
Heath, C., Hindmarsh, J., & Luff, P. (2010). Analysing video: Developing preliminary observations. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Heinemann, T. (2006). “Will you or can”t you?’: Displaying entitlement in interrogative requests. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(7), 1081–1104. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.013.
Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. New York: Polity Press.
Houen, S., Danby, S., Farrell, A., & Thorpe, K. (2016). “I wonder what you know…” Teachers designing requests for factual information. Teaching and Teacher Education, 59, 68–78. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2016.02.002.
James, A., Jenks, C., & Prout, A. (1998). Theorizing childhood. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press in association with Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
James, A., & Prout, A. (1997). Constructing and reconstructing childhood: Contemporary issues in the sociological study of childhood (2nd ed.). London: Falmer Press.
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: studies from the first generation (p. 300 p.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishng.
Kendrick, K. H., & Drew, P. (2016). Recruitment: offers, requests, and the organization of assistance in interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 49(1), 1–19. doi:10.1080/08351813.2016.1126436.
Lee, Y. (2007). Third turn position in teacher talk: Contingency and the work of teaching. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(1), 1204–1230. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2006.11.003.
Lindstrom, A. (2005). Language as social action: A study of how senior citizens request assistance. In A. Hakulinen & M. Selting (Eds.), Syntax and lexis in conversation: Studies on the use of linguistic resources in talk-in-interaction (pp. 209–233). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Mashford-Scott, A., & Church, A. (2011). Promoting children’s agency in early childhood education. Novitas-ROYAL, 5(1), 15–38. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&profile=ehost&scope=site&authtype=crawler&jrnl=13074733&AN=61291005&h=VkjCdfn06r0eacbIg5XM4OaI/TTyATA0eOsb303quFSmfBXIMbf8BWJCF4uyX4rXUcMkbm5dvRSwgcy6NewsBg==&crl=c.
Mayall, B. (2002). Towards a sociology for childhood: Thinking from children’s lives. Buckingham: Open University Press.
McHoul, A. (1978). The organization of turns at formal talk in the classroom. Language in Society, 7(2), 183–213. doi:10.1017/S0047404500005522.
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
New Zealand. Ministry of Education. (1996). Te Wha-riki: He Wha-riki Mo-taurangamo-nga- Mokopuna o Aotearoa: Early childhood curriculum. Wellington, N.Z: Learning Media.
Rauniomaa, M., & Keisanen, T. (2012). Two multimodal formats for responding to requests. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(6–7), 829–842. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.003.
Raymond, G. (2006). Questions at work: yes/no type interrogatives in institutional contexts. In P. Drew, G. Raymond, & D. Weinberg (Eds.), Talk and interaction in social research methods (pp. 115–135). London: Sage.
Sacks, H. (1995). Lectures on conversation, volumes I and II. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sandberg, A., & Ärlemalm-hagsér, E. (2011). The Swedish national curriculum: Play and learning with fundamental values in focus. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 36(01), 44–50.
Schegloff, E., & Lerner, G. (2009). Beginning to respond: Well-prefaced responses to Wh-questions. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 42(2), 91–115. doi:10.1080/08351810902864511.
Siry, C., Wilmes, S., & Haus, J. (2016). Examining children’s agency within participatory structures in primary science investigations. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction.,. doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2016.01.001.
Speier, M. (1976). The child as conversationalist: Some culture contact features of conversational interactions between adults and children. In M. Hammersley & P. Woods (Eds.), The process of schooling: A sociological reader (pp. 98–103). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd.
Stivers, T., & Sidnell, J. (2016). Proposals for Activity Collaboration. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 49(2), 148–166. doi:10.1080/08351813.2016.1164409.
Theobald, M., & Danby, S. (2016). Co-producing cultural knowledge: Children telling tales in the school playground. In A. Bateman & A. Church (Eds.), Children’s knowledge-in-interaction: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 111–126).
Theobald, M., & Kultti, A. (2012). Investigating child participation in the everyday talk of a teacher. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 13(3), 210–225.
United Nations. (1989). Convention on the rights of the child, 20th November 1989, Treaty Series, vol. 1577, p. 3. Retrieved from http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b38f0.html.
Warden, C. (2012). Nature kindergartens and forest schools (2nd ed.). UK: Mindstretchers.
Acknowledgments
The study was funded by the Australian Research Council (DP110104227), with ethics approval by Queensland University of Technology’s University Human Research Ethics Committee (Reference No.: 1100001480) and Charles Sturt University’s Research Ethics Office (Reference No.: 2012/40). We thank the teachers, children, and families of the Crèche and Kindergarten Association for their participation in this study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix: Transcript Notation
Appendix: Transcript Notation
Transcription Notation
The transcription system used to transcribe conversational data was developed by Gail Jefferson (2004). The following notational features were used in the transcripts presented in this chapter. The following punctuation marks depict the characteristics of speech production, not the conventions of grammar.
bu-u- | Hyphens mark a cut-off of the preceding sound. |
[ | A left bracket indicates the overlap onset |
] | A right bracket indicates where the overlapped speech ends |
= | No break or gap between turns |
(0.3) | Number in second and tenths of a second indicates the length of an interval |
(.) | Brief interval (<0.2) within or between utterances |
so:::rry | Colon represents a sound stretch of immediately prior sound |
↑ | Shifts into high pitch |
↓ | Shifts into low pitch |
hey? | A question mark indicates a rising intonation |
dog¿ | A Spanish question mark indicates a substantial rise that ends up in the mid to mid-high end of the speaker’s range |
here, | A comma indicates a continuing intonation with a slight rise |
did. | A full stop indicates falling, final intonation |
b oots | Underline indicates stress or emphasis via pitch or amplitude. |
°soft° | Softer, quieter sounds |
.>quick< | Talk is speeded up |
<slow> | Talk is slowed down |
.hhh | A dot prior to h indicates an in-breath |
hhh | Indicates an out-breath |
() | The talk is not audible |
(house) | Transcriber’s best guess for the talk |
together! | An exclamation mark indicates an animated tone |
dr-dirt | A single dash indicates a noticeable cut-off of the prior word or sound |
((walking)) | Annotation of non-verbal activity |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Houen, S., Danby, S., Farrell, A. et al. Creating Spaces for Children’s Agency: ‘I wonder…’ Formulations in Teacher–Child Interactions. IJEC 48, 259–276 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13158-016-0170-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13158-016-0170-4