Advertisement

Early childhood, breakfast, and related tools: analysis of adults’ function as mediators

  • Haizea BelzaEmail author
  • Elena Herrán
  • M. Teresa Anguera
Article
  • 22 Downloads

Abstract

This study presents the results of a systematic, 3-month-long observation of the verbal and gestural interactions which took place between a preschool teacher and six children aged between 23 and 34 months during breakfast at Emmi Pikler preschool in Budapest. The aim was to analyze access to the conventional use of everyday tools during this activity. The complementary nature of the lag sequential analysis and polar coordinate analysis techniques enabled an in-depth exploration of how the adult–object–child triad evolved and varied in each case. The results revealed that the gradual introduction of tools and adaptation to each child’s individual differences, in accordance with their specific level of autonomy, helped children regulate their conduct toward increasingly socialized mealtime behaviors.

Keywords

Early childhood education Mealtime Uses of tools Systematic observation Lag sequential analysis Polar coordinate analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The third author gratefully acknowledge the support of a Spanish government subproject Integration ways between qualitative and quantitative data, multiple case development, and synthesis review as main axis for an innovative future in physical activity and sports research [PGC2018-098742-B-C31] (2019-2021) (Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades, Programa Estatal de Generación de Conocimiento y Fortalecimiento Científico y Tecnológico del Sistema I+D+i), that is part of the coordinated project New approach of research in physical activity and sport from mixed methods perspective (NARPAS_MM) [SPGC201800X098742CV0]. In addition, she thanks the support of the Generalitat de Catalunya Research Group, GRUP DE RECERCA I INNOVACIÓ EN DISSENYS (GRID). Tecnología i aplicació multimedia i digital als dissenys observacionals [Grant number 2017 SGR 1405].

Compliance with ethical standards

The research project was approved by the ethics committee at the authors’ university, as well as by the management team of the participating preschool. The teacher’s informed consent was obtained.

References

  1. Adamson, L. B., Bakeman, R., & Deckner, D. F. (2004). The development of symbol-infused joint engagement. Child Development, 75(4), 1171–1187.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00732.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adamson, L. B., Bakeman, R., Deckner, D. F., & Nelson, P. B. (2014). From interactions to conversations: the development of joint engagement during early childhood. Child Development, 85(3), 941–955.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anguera, M.T. (1990). Metodología observacional. In J. Arnau, M.T. Anguera & J. Gómez (Coord.), Metodología de la investigación en ciencias del comportamiento (pp. 123-236). Murcia: Universidad de Murcia.Google Scholar
  4. Anguera, M. T. (1997). From prospective patterns in behavior to joint analysis with a retrospective perspective. In In Colloque sur invitation «Méthodologie d’analyse des interactions sociales». París: Université de la Sorbonne.Google Scholar
  5. Anguera, M. T. (2003). Observational methods (general). In R. Fernández-Ballesteros (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Psychological Assessment (Vol. 2, pp. 632–637). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Anguera, M. T., & Izquierdo, C. (2006). Methodological approaches in human communication: from complexity to perceived situation to data analysis. In G. Riva, M. T. Anguera, B. K. Weiderhold, & F. Mantovani (Eds.), From communication to presence: Cognition, emotions and culture towards the ultimate communicative experience (pp. 207–226). Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar
  7. Anguera, M. T., Magnusson, M. S., & Jonsson, G. K. (2007). Instrumentos no estándar. Avances en Medición, 5(1), 63–82.Google Scholar
  8. Anguera, M. T. (2010). Posibilidades y relevancia de la observación sistemática por el profesional de la psicología. Papeles del Psicólogo, 31(1), 122–130.Google Scholar
  9. Anguera, M. T., Blanco-Villaseñor, A., Hernández-Mendo, A., & Losada, J. L. (2011). Diseños observacionales: ajuste y aplicación en psicología del deporte. Cuadernos de Psicología del Deporte, 11(2), 63–76.Google Scholar
  10. Hernández-Mendo, A., Castellano, J., Camerino, O., et al. (2014). Programas informáticos de registro, control de calidad del dato, y análisis de datos. Revista de Psicología del Deporte, 23(1), 111–121.Google Scholar
  11. Belza, H. (2015). Comenzar el día en la escuela infantil: Observación sistemática de la educadora Pikler- Lóczy, dando de desayunar. En E. Bernaras y López, M. (Ed.) Nuevos retos en la investigación psicodidáctica [Electronic resource]. Bilbao: UPVGoogle Scholar
  12. Tarragó, R., Iglesias, X., Lapresa, D., & Anguera, M. T. (2016). Complementariedad entre las relaciones diacrónicas de los T-patterns y los patrones de conducta en acciones de esgrima de espada masculina de élite. Cuadernos de Psicología de Deporte, 16(1), 113–128.Google Scholar
  13. Anguera, M.T. (2017). Transiciones interactivas a lo largo de un proceso de desarrollo: Complementariedad de análisis. In C. Santoyo (Coord.), Mecanismos básicos de toma de decisiones: Perspectivas desde las ciencias del comportamiento y del desarrollo (pp. 179-213). Mexico: CONACYT 178383/UNAM.Google Scholar
  14. Castañer, M., Barreira, D., Camerino, O., et al. (2017). Mastery in Goal Scoring, T-Pattern Detection, and Polar Coordinate Analysis of Motor Skills Used by Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. Google Scholar
  15. Velasco, C. S., Jonsson, G., Anguera, M. T., & López-López, J. A. (2017). Análisis observacional de la organización acerca de la persistencia en el trabajo académico en el aula, aplicando análisis de datos complementarios. Anales de Psicología, 33(3), 497.Google Scholar
  16. Rodríguez-Medina, J., Rodríguez-Navarro, H., Arias, V., et al. (2018). Non-reciprocal Friendships in a School-Age Boy with Autism: The Ties that Build? Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 48(9), 2980–2994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Herrán, E. (2018). Claves de la educación Pikler-Loczy: Compilación de 20 artículos escritos por sus creadoras. Budapest: Asociación Pikler-Loczy de Hungría.Google Scholar
  18. Belza, H., Herrán, E., & Teresa Anguera, M. (2019). Early childhood education and cultural learning: systematic observation of the behaviour of a caregiver at the Emmi Pikler nursery school during breakfast / Educación temprana y aprendizaje cultural: observación sistemática de la conducta de la educadora Pikler durante el desayuno. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 42(1), 128–178.Google Scholar
  19. Bakeman, R. (1978). Untangling streams of behaviour: sequential analysis of observation data. In G. P. Sackett (Ed.), Observing behaviour, vol. 2: data collection and analysis methods (pp. 63–78). Baltimore: University of Park Press.Google Scholar
  20. Bakeman, R., & Adamson, L. B. (1984). Coordinating attention to people and objects in mother–infant and peer–infant interaction. Child Development, 55(4), 1278–1289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1989). Observación de la interacción: introducción al análisis secuencial. Madrid: Morata.Google Scholar
  22. Bakeman, R., & Quera, V. (1996). Análisis de la interacción. Análisis secuencial con SDIS-GSEQ. Madrid: Rama.Google Scholar
  23. Bakeman, R., & Quera, V. (2011). Sequential analysis and observational methods for the behavioral sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Basilio, M., & Rodríguez, C. (2011). Usos, gestos y vocalizaciones privadas: De la interacción social a la autorregulación. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 34(2), 181–194.  https://doi.org/10.1174/021037011795377593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Basilio, M., & Rodríguez, C. (2016). How toddlers think with their hands: social and private gestures as evidence of cognitive self-regulation in guided play with objects. Early Child Development and Care, 187(12), 1–16.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2016.1202944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Bruner, J. (1983). Child’s talk: learning to use language. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  27. Clark, H. (2005). Coordinating with each other in a material world. Discourse Studies, 7(4–5), 507–525.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605054404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Cochran, W. G. (1954). Some methods for strengthening the common X2 tests. Biometrics, 10(4), 417–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Connolly, K. J., & Dalgleish, M. (1989). The emergence of a tool-using skill in infancy. Developmental Psychology, 25(6), 894–912.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.25.6.894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. David, M., & Appell, G. (1986). La educación del niño de 0 a 3 años: experiencias del Instituto Lóczy. Madrid: Narcea.Google Scholar
  31. Falk, J. (1971). Table of development inspiring educational behaviour of adult. Magyar Pszichologiai Szemle, 28(1), 54–57.Google Scholar
  32. Falk, J. (2018). Los fundamentos de una verdadera autonomía en el niño pequeño. In E. Herrán (Ed.), Claves de la educación Pikler-Loczy: Compilación de 20 artículos escritos por sus creadoras (pp. 89–114). Budapest: Asociación Pikler-Loczy de Hungría.Google Scholar
  33. Gesell, A., & Ilg, F. L. (1937). Feeding behavior of infants: a pediatric approach to the mental hygiene of early life. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company.Google Scholar
  34. Gest, D. S., Holland-Coviello, R., Welsh, J. A., Eicher-Catt, D. L., & Gill, S. (2006). Language development subcontexts in Head Start classrooms: distinctive patterns of teacher talk during free play, mealtime, and book reading. Early Education and Development, 17(2), 293–315.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15566935eed1702_5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hallam, R. A., Fouts, H. N., Bargreen, K. N., & Hallam, K. P. (2016). Teacher-child interactions during mealtimes: observations of toddlers in high subsidy child care settings. Early Childhood Education Journal, 44(1), 51–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hernández-Mendo, A., López-López, J. A., Castellano, J., Morales-Sánchez, V., & Pastrana-Brincones, J. L. (2012). HOISAN 1.2: Programa informático para uso en Metodología Observacional. Cuadernos de Psicología del Deporte, 12(1), 55–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hevesi, K. (2018). El desarrollo de la relación a través del lenguaje entre niños de uno y dos años institucionalizados y sus cuidadoras. In E. Herrán (Ed.), Claves de la educación Pikler-Loczy: Compilación de 20 artículos escritos por sus creadoras (pp. 235–244). Budapest: Asociación Pikler-Loczy de Hungría.Google Scholar
  38. Ishiguro, H. (2016). How a young child learns how to take part in mealtimes in Japanese day-care center: a longitudinal case study. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 31(1), 13–27.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-014-0222-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Krippendorff, K. (2013). Content analysis. An introduction to its methodology (3rd. ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  40. Lareo, S. (1984). Enfermas mentales crónicas en pisos: un estudio ecológico y conductual en esta alternativa de asistencia psiquiátrica comunitaria. Informaciones Psiquiátricas, 96, 163–179.Google Scholar
  41. Moro, C., & Rodríguez, C. (1998). Towards a pragmatical conception of the object: the construction of the uses of the objects by the baby in the pre-linguistic period. In M. C. D. P. Lyra & J. Valsiner (Eds.), Child development within culturally structured environments. Construction of psychological processes in interpersonal communication (Vol. 4, pp. 53–72). Stamford, Connecticut: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
  42. Moro, C., Dupertuis, V., Fardel, S., & Piguet, O. (2015). Investigating the development of consciousness through ostensions towards oneself from the onset of the use-of-object to first words. Cognitive Development, 36, 150–160.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2015.09.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nelson, K. (1996). Language in cognitive development: Emergence of the mediated mind. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Nelson, P. B., Adamson, L. B., & Bakeman, R. (2008). Toddlers’ joint engagement experience facilitates preschoolers’ acquisition of theory of mind. Developmental Science, 11(6), 847–852.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00733.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nelson, P. B., Adamson, L. B., & Bakeman, R. (2012). The development progression of understanding of mind during a hiding game. Social Development, 21(2), 313–330.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2011.00638.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Palacios, P., & Rodríguez, C. (2015). The development of symbolic uses of objects in infants in a triadic context: a pragmatic and semiotic perspective. Infant and Child Development, 24(1), 23–43.  https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.1873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pikler, E. (1971). Examinations on developmental and educational psychology in national methodological institute for infant care and education. Magyar Pszichologiai Szemle, 28(1), 46–51.Google Scholar
  48. Quera, V. (2018). Analysis of interaction sequences. In E. E. Brauner, M. Boos, & M. Kolbe (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of group interaction analysis (pp. 295–322). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rodríguez, C., & Moro, C. (1999). El mágico número tres. Cuando los niños aún no hablan. Barcelona: Paidós.Google Scholar
  50. Rodríguez, C., Estrada, L., Moreno-Llanos, I., & de los Reyes, J. L. (2017). Executive functions and educational actions in an infant school: private uses and gestures at the end of the first year. Estudios de Psicología, 38(2), 385–423.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02109395.2017.1305061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Sackett, G. P. (1980). Lag sequential analysis as a data reduction technique in social interaction research. In D. B. Sawin, R. C. Hawkins, L. O. Walker, & J. H. Penticuff (Eds.), Exceptional infant. Psychosocial risks in infant-environment transactions (pp. 300–340). New York: Brunner/Mazel.Google Scholar
  53. Tomasello, M., & Farrar, J. (1986). Joint attention and early language. Child Development, 57(6), 1454–1463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., Call, J., Behne, T., & Moll, H. (2005). Understanding and sharing intentions: the origins of cultural cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(5), 675–735.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X05000129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Turnbull, K. P., Anthony, A. B., Justice, L. M., & Bowles, R. (2009). Preschoolers’ exposure to language stimulation in classrooms serving at-risk children: the contribution of group size and activity context. Early Education & Development, 20(1), 53–79.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10409280802206601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Valsiner, J. (1987). Culture and the development of children’s action. Chichester, England: Wiley.Google Scholar
  57. Vincze, M. (1971). Examinations on social contacts between infants and young children reared together. Magyar pszichologiai szemle, 28(1), 58–61.Google Scholar
  58. Vincze, M. (2018). La comida del bebé: Del biberón a la autonomía. In E. Herrán (Ed.), Claves de la educación Pikler-Loczy: Compilación de 20 artículos escritos por sus creadoras (pp. 207–232). Budapest: Asociación Pikler-Loczy de Hungría.Google Scholar
  59. Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Instituto Superior de Psicologia Aplicada, Lisboa and Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Developmental Psychology and EducationUniversity of the Basque Country (Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea-Universidad del País Vasco)LeioaSpain
  2. 2.Department of Developmental Psychology and Education, University of the Basque Country (Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea-Universidad del País Vasco)Escuela Universitaria de MagisterioLeioaSpain
  3. 3.Faculty of Psychology, Institute of NeurosciencesUniversity of BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations