Introduction

Conflict is a natural phenomenon in interpersonal relationships (Chen, 2003). It is of vital importance for healthy social, cognitive, and psychological development (Arcano-McPhee et al., 2002) as long as it is managed constructively (Stevahn et al., 2000). Piaget (1932) suggested that interpersonal conflict, and particularly that between peers, provides a natural opportunity for children to face diverse points of view and to begin considering others’ opinions as different to the own. According to Wallon (2007), these situations of opposition provide children with a feeling of independence and contribute to their individuation process.

When it comes to educational settings, empirical studies have shown that, traditionally, a prevailing notion in early childhood practice was that children’s conflicts had to be avoided and brought to an end as quickly as possible (Malloy & McMurray, 1996). Many educational environments used to be more concerned with maintaining peace by ending conflict instead of using it as a learning opportunity (Bayer et al., 1995). However, theorists have pointed out that conflicts are not only necessary, but they are also an inevitable part of early childhood classrooms (Shantz, 1987). This has led to the idea that conflicts can be considered as readily available, practical educational tools (Arcano-McPhee et al., 2002). Therefore, it is concluded that they represent an opportunity to help children develop strategies for the peaceful resolution of differences with others (Chen, 2003).

In this sense, literature on positive practice in this field underlines that educators’ recognition of what a conflict might have meant for the involved children and, even, their guidance or assistance in its resolution are vital to ensure a healthy coexistence in a group (Tardos, 2013, 2014). Despite the important role educators have in managing conflict resolution in a way that benefits children, research on this topic has been scarce, and even more when it comes to the earliest stages of Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) (0–3 years). For that reason, after reviewing the contributions of the existing literature on children’s conflict management in early educational settings, this paper presents a study to delve into a pedagogical approach that, throughout its long-standing positive experience, has developed an integral proposal to manage children’s conflicts in the early years: Pikler-Lóczy education.

Children’s Conflict Management in Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC)

Opposed to the lack of research efforts to understand the nature of children’s conflicts claimed by researchers some decades ago (Bayer et al., 1995; Shantz, 1987), studies on children’s conflict resolution have increased in the recent years. A general conclusion is that children are able to resolve conflicts on their own, but that they frequently let disputes unresolved when adult mediation is missing (Killen & Turiel, 1991). So, while children are able to solve or learn to solve their own conflicts, teachers are urged to offer assistance as needed (DeVries & Zan, 1994). Therefore, educators’ role in children’s disputes in the classroom has been investigated by different authors. Most studies agree on the benefits of teachers having a mediator role in children’s conflicts (Singer & Hännikainen, 2002) and using cooperative strategies to reach a solution (Jenkins et al., 2008).

However, an important consideration regarding teachers’ interventions is found in their duty to assess the situation before deciding whether to mediate or not ―thus, being contingent with the support each child needs (Myrtil et al., 2021)― as direct intervention has been found to interrupt the natural cycle of conflict resolution (Majorano et al., 2015). In this sense, the importance of the presence of teachers has been highlighted (Church et al., 2018), as it enables them to have deep insights of the ongoing conflict (Singer & Hännikainen, 2002). In this thorough assessment of children’s conflicts and the subsequent accompaniment of the conflicting parties (Chen, 2003) to generate and implement mutually agreeable solutions (Bayer et al., 1995), teachers need to consider the stances of both opponents. If children are capable to address and solve their own conflict (Killen & Turiel, 1991) teachers should not intervene at all. But, when the involved parties are unable to resolve the situation, they should be supported in their efforts at resolution, aiming to avoid further violence (Chen, 2003). Teachers need to use dialogue among conflicting parties (Baumgarter & Strayer, 2008), which helps children progress from less developed strategies to more complex forms of negotiation (Arcano-McPhee et al., 2002) and assists them in expressing their emotions and using their own strategies to settle disputes (Yang et al., 2021).

The assessment of the situation and the consideration of different children’s perspectives enables the establishment of a firm foundation for children’s healthy emotional regulation and the development of positive social strategies. This is particularly important considering that, in their engagement in peer conflict management, teachers socialize children to the norms and expectations of the preschool, often constitutive of those of the larger society (Moore, 2020). The ultimate goal is that children learn how to provide solutions that are agreeable for everyone involved (Arcano-McPhee et al., 2002).

The Importance of Studying Children’s Conflict Management in the Early Stages of ECEC (0–3 Years)

These contributions highlight the importance of studying conflict resolution in preschools and determining appropriate strategies to turn these episodes into opportunities for children’s healthy social development. The aim of this paper is to delve into the educational management of children’s conflicts in the classroom considering all the participating parties involved (Majorano et al., 2015): the children themselves ―including the different roles of the conflicting children― and the educator’s intervention. To do so, we believe it is necessary to take the habitual context of the classroom and the conflicts that arise naturally as a reference. In fact, previous studies have claimed that research needs to consider the use of naturalistic observations of children to obtain accurate and representative data of conflictual interactions (Ashby & Neilsen-Hewett, 2012). Therefore, we opted to use observational methodology (Caprara & Anguera, 2019) to assess conflict episodes in educational contexts.

Furthermore, we wanted to deepen in the early stages of ECEC (0–3 years), given the scarce attention they have received in comparison with other educational stages (Majorano et al., 2015). Specifically, we aimed to delve into the everyday reality of Emmi Pikler Nursery School, located in Budapest (Hungary). This educational setting follows the ideas of the Pikler-Lóczy education (Pikler, 1969; Pikler & Tardos, 1968), an educational approach oriented to the early years and developed by Dr. Emmi Pikler. The interest in this early educational approach is justified by its solid long-standing experience providing daily care and education to babies, infants and young children, throughout which it has developed a particular positioning around young children’s conflicts.

Educational Management of Young Children’s Conflicts in the Emmi Pikler Nursery School

In this educational approach, conflict is considered vital in socialization, a process that leads children to become active members of their society (Tardos & Vasseur-Paumelle, 2018). It is not surprising that tensions arise during the socialization process, especially when it happens in the school context. Precisely, school represents the first secondary socialization context for children (Tardos, 2013): while primary socialization takes place within the family, secondary socialization is the one that happens in other institutions (Berger & Luckmann, 1968), such as school (Tardos & Vasseur-Paumelle, 2018). Moreover, given the increase of enrollment rates in the first stage of early childhood (0–3 years), nowadays both socializations overlap, which brings more complexity to the management of school socialization. In order to understand what the management of socialization in the nursery school entails, we need to consider that this context is regulated by different traditions to the family ones (Tardos, 2013); in addition, compared to those in the family, school rules are usually more strict, less individualized, and directed to the group as a whole, of which the child and his/her individuality are just a part (Tardos & Vasseur-Paumelle, 2018).

In this environment, where there is permanent social interaction, it is unavoidable that jealousy, opposition or rivalry will arise, especially when notions of the self begin to emerge, around a child’s second birthday (Kálló, 2015). Aiming to make this process as calm and smooth as possible, children’s conflict prevention is emphasized. If the educator is a permanent observant of what happens to and between children, she can notice some dangers in time and prevent the emergence of numerous conflicts (Tardos, 2014). Material requirements are very important in the preventive duty (Kálló, 2015; Szöke, 2016; Tardos, 2014), such as the selection of toys adapted to children’s developmental level and current interests, and the offer of an adequate quantity of materials based on the number of children they are directed to (Tardos, 2014). Lastly, the stable and predictable organization of daily activities, following children’s needs (Szöke, 2016), and the trusting relationship between children and educators are basic so children in the group relate to each other peacefully (Tardos, 2013).

However, discrepancies are inevitable sometimes. If the conflict has already exploded, the educator makes sure that children reach a mutually beneficial resolution. Otherwise, these situations will escalate (Kálló, 2015). However, the educator’s intervention is not immediate, unless physical violence arises or children hurt each other (Tardos, 2014). She first observes from a distance if children can solve the conflict on their own (Tardos, 2013, 2014). If they are unable to reach a solution, the educator approaches them and intervenes verbally first: she describes the facts, makes a proposition, or gives an idea; it is often necessary to talk to children in order to show them a resolution to the problem (Tardos, 2013, 2014). If this is still insufficient or the conflict gets worse, the educator intervenes directly, separating children if it is deemed necessary (Tardos, 2014). The main idea is that the educator responds to each individual child’s demands and needs, so she is always adaptive to the particularities of the situation (Tardos, 2013).

Throughout this process, the educator never blames any of the children; instead, she offers her assistance without dramatizing, so children can find a way out of the problem (Tardos, 2013). This is considered the most adequate way to communicate social expectations, thus, facilitating the internalization of desirable behaviors towards objects or other children (Dehelán et al., 2018). The ultimate goal is to help children find peaceful solutions to their conflicts, taking the other party’s perspective into account while explaining their own reasons, ensuring that they learn to defend their interests (Szöke, 2016).

The Present Study

In this research we aim to deepen the understanding of the educational management of conflicts between young children in the Emmi Pikler Nursery School and its effects in children’s behavior. To do that, as previously indicated, we selected observational methodology (Caprara & Anguera, 2019) and used complementarity of data analyses (Escolano-Pérez et al., 2019; Santoyo et al., 2017) to study the management of children’s conflicts during free play, a moment when they have the opportunity to play in a space purposely designed to awaken their playful activity (Tardos, 2014). Specifically, we focus on free play episodes because they represent a key context in secondary socialization (Tardos, 2013; Tardos & Vasseur-Paumelle, 2018) and, therefore, are prone to the emergence of relations that, occasionally, can turn into conflicts (Kálló, 2015).

The specific objectives of this research are, first, to explore the details of the educator’s intervention and, particularly, the relational elements that shape it in each of the moments the conflict goes through: burst, intervention with both conflicting parties and resolution. Considering that one of the basic principles of this educational approach is the educator’s constant adaptation to the particularities of each situation, we expect that her relational behavior adapts to the circumstances of the moment and, more specifically, to the participant to whom the intervention is directed, so her intervention with victim and instigator would be especially distinct from each other. Second, we aim to unravel the temporal distribution of this intervention from the beginning to the end of the conflict. Given the stability of daily moments and routines in this nursery school, we expect that this also applies to conflict episodes, so the temporal distribution of the moments they go through would present a common internal structure. Third, concerning children’s behavior and assuming that between children involved in a conflict there are always different roles ―the child affected by the conflict, or victim, the one who provoked it, or instigator; and other children, spectators or disaster observers, more or less involved in the situation―, we aim to discover which behaviors from victim and instigator lead to the educator’s intervention. It is expected that particular behaviors provoke the conflict and, consequently, trigger the beginning of the educational intervention, as Pikler educators’ decision to intervene is always guided by the support children need in the ongoing conflict. Finally, we aim to deepen understanding of children’s behaviors once the educational intervention is over. It is expected that children’s overall behavior after the educator’s mediation differs largely to that before, which would show the benefits of the educational intervention in children’s conflicts due to the educator’s efforts to always find a satisfactory resolution for both parties.

Method

The goal of this study was to conduct a thorough analysis of the educational intervention towards conflicts that emerge during young children’s (1½ to 3 years of age) free play at Emmi Pikler Nursery School. To do so, we conduct a systematic observation (Caprara & Anguera, 2019) of the reality of our interest aiming to capture all the particularities that define the educational management of peer conflicts in the Pikler-Lóczy education.

Design

Following Anguera and colleagues’ (2011) proposal on observational designs, the present study is (N/F/M): nomothetic ―it analyses the educational activity of an experienced educator and the behavior of children involved in the observed conflicts, follow-up ―observations were made once a week during a three-month period and without interruption, ensuring within- and between-sessions follow-up (Anguera et al., 2021; Portell et al., 2015a), and multidimensional ―multiple aspects of the reality were considered for analysis. Both direct and indirect systematic observation (Anguera et al., 2018) were used.

Participants

The participants of this study were an experienced Pikler educator and those children in her group who were involved in the studied conflict situations. The selection of the educator to be observed was made between the professional team of the Emmi Pikler Nursery School and its manager, and it is justified by the educator’s long and positive experience working in this institution under the principles of the Pikler-Lóczy education. Specifically, she was trained in the original institution —the foster home that preceded the current educational center— and has been part of the educational team of the institution ever since, for more than 30 years. Moreover, she has witnessed and been an active asset in the transformation the institution has gone through during the last decades, one of which being the challenge of adapting the educational model to welcome and educate young children who live with their families and attend the nursery school for some hours every day.

Regarding the children, they were all from Hungarian middle-class families and were already adapted to the nursery school daily routines. Out of the 10 children in the observed group, all but one were part of at least one conflict. They were 5 girls and 4 boys, all aged between 22 and 36 months.

The educator and all children’s families provided informed, written consent to be video-recorded and to participate in this research. Moreover, the study was approved by the Ethical Committee of the University of the Basque Country.

Instruments

Observation Instrument

An important step in observational studies consists in designing a purposely built instrument, based on the objectives of the study. Between the different options proposed in observational methodology, we chose to design a field format (Anguera, 2001; Caprara & Anguera, 2019). Field formats are very flexible instruments which permit to organize behaviors of interest following the objectives of the research. These behaviors are based on the theoretical framework and organized in dimensions. For this study, we developed the “Educational management of conflicts between children” field format, which later permitted us to conduct the systematized recording of the observed sessions (Caprara & Anguera, 2019). To develop the field format we paid attention to physical or instrumental and human or relational aspects (Wallon, 1985) of the educator’s and children’s behavior. These aspects, instrumental and relational, constitute the main dimensions of our observation instrument.

The instrumental dimension is formed by the actions performed by participants and some material aspects that define them. Moreover, we also included a subdimension to specify the phase of the conflict when each observation occurred. Subdimensions corresponding to the instrumental dimension are shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Subdimensions included under the instrumental dimension
Full size table

The relational dimension helps one to understand how the participants perform the actions defined by the instrumental dimension. Given our interest in deepening both verbal and nonverbal elements of participants’ behavior, we included subdimensions corresponding to both direct and indirect observation (Anguera et al., 2018). While the first of these pays attention to aspects that are fully perceivable through observation (Bakeman & Quera, 2011), the latter aims to analyze what participants say verbally. Overall, we included four level I subdimensions that unfolded in a series of level II subdimensions, specific to each participant: educator (Table 2) and children (Table 3). Level I subdimensions were (Weick, 1968): linguistic or verbal behavior, extralinguistic or paraverbal behavior, spatial or proxemic behavior (Hall, 1966) and nonverbal or kinetic behavior (Ekman & Friesen, 1969; Poyatos, 1986).

Table 2 Subdimensions included under the educator’s relational dimension
Full size table
Table 3 Subdimensions included under child(ren)’s relational dimension
Full size table

Each level II subdimension includes a list of mutually exclusive behaviors and their corresponding codes. Codes corresponding to subdimensions are included in the previous tables. The whole field format, including behaviors for each subdimension, can be found in the Supplementary Material.

The aforementioned dimensions and subdimensions create a hierarchical system that enables the following development of a thorough systematized recording, which serves to get a detailed picture of the educational intervention towards conflicts between children. The development of the systematized recording will be explained in the “Recording and Coding” section.

Recording and Analysis Instruments

Sessions were video-recorded with a SONY DCR-SR37 camera. The systematized recording of the video-recorded sessions was performed in Excel. Data analyses were performed using HOISAN version 1.6.3.3.6. (www.menpas.com) (Hernández-Mendo et al., 2012) and the THEME free software, v. 6 Edu (http://patternvision.com/products/theme) (Magnusson, 2000). Vectors resulting from polar coordinate analyses were graphed using R free application (https://jairodmed.shinyapps.io/HOISAN_to_R_2022) (Rodríguez-Medina et al., 2022). Quality control analyses were also conducted using HOISAN.

Procedure

Before observations began, we contacted the management team of Emmi Pikler Nursery School to share the aims of this research with them and ask for their approval. Then, they selected the group for observations to be carried out. Once informed consent was gained from the educators and children’s families, a specific day of the week was established to conduct observations. These were made once a week, during a predefined three-month period. The same time frame was respected every day, and video-recordings were taken without interruption, thus, respecting within- and between-session consistency (Portell et al., 2015).

Specifically, we observed free play sessions early in the morning, which began when children finished breakfast and lasted until they dressed up to play outside. We conducted 16 observation sessions that lasted between 1 h and 1 h 30 min. Given our interest in conflicts that could arise during free play, the next step consisted in visualizing observation sessions to find the interested episodes. The aim of the study was to capture the educational management of children’s conflicts, having a close look to the intervention with both parties involved in those episodes. Moreover, we wanted to have a thorough picture of studied conflicts, from their very beginning to their resolution. Having these aspects in mind, the research team established five basic criteria for conflicts which needed to be met in order to be considered for the study: (1) there is a clear confrontation between children; (2) children involved have unequal roles, victim and instigator ―so the child who initiated the dispute (e.g., by pushing another child or taking an object from him/her) would be considered the instigator and the affected child, the victim; (3) the child in the victim role protests against this situation; (4) there is an intervention from the educator; (5) the episode is complete, that is, it covers the conflict from the beginning to its resolution. Exclusion criteria were: (1) episodes of inequality between children where the victim does not protest; (2) situations in which the educator does not intervene; (3) incomplete conflicts or those in which the educator’s or children’s speech and/or image is missing. Video-recordings were then visualized to identify episodes that met these criteria. A total of 25 conflict episodes were identified and used for analysis.

Recording and Coding

Once conflict episodes were identified, we used the purposedly designed observation instrument to develop the systematized recording of selected conflicts. The elaboration of the systematized recording followed the guidelines of indirect observation (Anguera et al., 2018). This way, the educator’s and children’s verbal messages were coded and later identified in their corresponding time frames. Then, elements corresponding to direct observation were recorded using pertinent codes.

This way, we were able to elaborate on a list of configurations through the codes included in the observation instrument. Each of these configurations consists of a code chain corresponding to concurrent behaviors —a maximum of one behavior per subdimension, given their mutual exclusivity— so the codification results in a database that takes the form of a code matrix. This permitted us to obtain a very comprehensive recording of the episodes of interest (Anguera et al., 2007).

Data Quality Control and Instrument Validity

Quality control analysis was also conducted in two phases. First, we performed analyses to guarantee the quality of indirect observation data. Three observers participated in the interobserver quality control analysis, in which we calculated Krippendorf’s (2013) canonical concordance. A 10 % of the total sample was recorded independently by each of them in order to assess their level of agreement. Intraobserver quality control analysis was also performed for indirect observation, using Cohen’s (1960) kappa coefficient. In both cases we obtained almost perfect agreement values (Landis & Koch, 1977): 0.88 in the interobserver analysis and 0.90 in the intraobserver analysis.

Then, procedures were repeated with the whole recording. In this case, Krippendorf’s (2013) canonical concordance showed a 0.78 level of agreement in the interobserver analysis, that is, between the three observers ―substantial―, and Cohen’s (1960) kappa showed a 0.95 agreement in the intraobserver analysis, almost perfect (Landis & Koch, 1977).

Obtained results (see also, Sagastui et al., 2023) demonstrate the designed instrument’s pertinence to systematically observe and analyze the interested episodes.

Moreover, various arguments justify the ad hoc designed field format’s validity. On the one hand, its ecological validity (Bronfenbrenner, 1977) is clear given that the environment experienced by the observed subjects had the properties that it was supposed to have. Specifically, observational methodology is considered an integrative methodological approach optimal to quantify biopsychosocial aspects in everyday contexts (Portell et al., 2015) because it captures spontaneous behavior in settings that are natural to the observed participants (Escolano et al., 2017). On the other hand, content validity is guaranteed since the team that developed the instrument counts with a comprehensive training in the Pikler-Lóczy education and experience conducting research around it.

Data Analysis

We used three data analysis techniques with the aim to answer the proposed objectives: (1) Lag sequential analysis, (2) T-Pattern detection and (3) Polar coordinate analysis.

Lag sequential analysis (Bakeman & Gottman, 1997) shows regularities and possible associations in the observed behaviors through the calculation of observed and expected probabilities (Bakeman & Quera, 2011). A behavior is chosen based on the interests of the study (i.e., given behavior), and those that happen before and after it (i.e., target behaviors) are calculated through retrospective and prospective lag sequential analysis. A behavior’s likelihood of appearing in a specific lag is higher than the effects of chance when its result, known as adjusted residual, is higher than 1.96 (p < 0.05). Concurrence of behaviors can be studied too, considering results in lag 0. Precisely, that was the option we used. We studied the educator’s instrumental action, the role of the child in the foreground of her attention and the verbal, paraverbal, proxemic and kinetic aspects that defined her behavior in each of the interested phases of the conflict: instigator acts and victim protests (EXP2), intervenes with victim (INT1), intervenes with instigator (INT2) and marks ending (FIN).

T-Pattern detection (Magnusson, 2000) was used to meet the second objective. This technique assumes that human behavior is characterized by incidental and sequential structures that are invisible and undetectable to the naked eye (Magnusson, 2000). Theme software is a powerful tool developed to obtain T-Patterns through an algorithm that examines all coded behaviors and the different combinations between them, obtaining those that form behavioral patterns appearing multiple times during observation sessions. The key concept in this process is the critical interval, as it enables the delimitation of admissible temporal distances between successive identical or similar occurrences aiming to discover the existence of temporal patterns within. In our case, we investigated patterns in the educator’s intervention based on the phases of the conflict, aiming to discover a potential time-based distribution of such phases. To do so, we first prepared a systematized recording suitable for the mentioned analysis. Therefore, we just maintained codes corresponding to the phase of the conflict. Moreover, we eliminated reiterations and just left the leaps between the different codes of the interested subdimension. We created a data file for each conflict and performed analyses by concatenating them into a multi-sample file, to detect common patterns in the studied episodes. The following search parameters were set in Theme for the detection of T-Patterns: (a) frequency of occurrence > 3; (b) significance level p < 0.005; (c) redundancy reduction of 90%; (d) deactivation of the fast requirement at all levels and selection of the free critical interval setting; (e) validation of results through the randomization of data in five occasions, accepting only patterns for which the probability of randomized data coinciding with real data was zero.

Finally, we used polar coordinate analysis. This technique integrates prospective and retrospective lag sequential analyses to discover associations between behaviors. Particularly, a behavior (i.e., focal behavior) that is thought to trigger some connections with other behaviors of interest (i.e., conditional behaviors) is chosen. Sequential analyses are performed and then, Z results are calculated, with a minimum delay range between − 5 and + 5. These values are then used to calculate prospective and retrospective ZSum parameters (Cochran, 1954). Obtained results are graphically presented through vector maps, which show the complex network of interactive associations between the studied behaviors quantitatively and qualitatively through the length and angle of the vectors, respectively. So, the quadrant where each vector is located indicates if the relationship between the focal and conditional behaviors is one of activation or inhibition. The meanings of quadrants are the following:

  • Quadrant I: The focal and conditional behaviors activate each other.

  • Quadrant II: The focal behavior inhibits and is activated by the conditional behavior.

  • Quadrant III: The focal and conditional behaviors inhibit each other.

  • Quadrant IV: The focal behavior activates and is inhibited by the conditional behavior.

We used polar coordinate analysis to discover children’s behaviors, both that of victims and instigators, that triggered the educator’s intervention, and those behaviors that occurred as a result of this intervention. Therefore, we stablished the codes corresponding to the intervention with victim (INT1) and instigator (INT2) as focal behaviors and those corresponding to children’s behaviors as conditional, and we paid attention to results in quadrants II and IV.

Results

Our first objective was to discover the educator’s behavior (i.e., instrumental and relational) in each of the interested phases of the conflict. Results are shown in Table 4.

Table 4 Positive significant adjusted residuals showing concurrence between the phase of the conflict and educator’s instrumental and relational behavior
Full size table

Results show that, as we expected, the educator uses a particular set of behaviors depending on the phase the conflict is in. Therefore, they are proof that the educational management of children’s conflicts are adaptive to what each of the studied phases requires. When the conflict has exploded and the victim is protesting (EXP2), the educator is still doing some action directed to the material environment (e.g., A201, A204, P906). She is not close to children yet (P5B01, P5B02) but is paying attention to the victim’s reaction (H3B01, P603). She either observes in silence (VE100), giving children the opportunity to find a solution to their problem, or she may opt to verbally intervene (VE209, VE503), which is strengthened by some gestures (P905, P911, P1002). At this point, she may start approaching children (P606), which can be a signal of the imminent beginning of her intervention (P1102).

When the intervention is directed to the victim (INT1), the educator mostly accompanies this child while passing through the emotion he/she is living as a result of the conflict. She does that both verbally ―i.e. VE203, VE303, VE309― and through other relational aspects: the educator uses a low pitch (P205), she is physically close to the victim (P3B03, P5B04, P602) and focuses her gaze in this child (P1007). Other behaviors show that she may also help the child to move on and look for an alternative or a new activity (VE308, VE407), or she can stay with the child for longer and accompany a complex activity he/she initiates (A212, P605, P901, P1106).

The educator’s intervention with the instigator (INT2) shows her intention to regulate this child’s behavior by insisting on the child’s understanding of classroom rules (VE408, VE409). While doing so, she uses her regular pitch (P201), she is at the child’s height (P3B01) or in a semi vertical position (P3B02), close to the child (P5B03) and face to face (P601). Moreover, the educator seeks the child’s collaboration in resolving the conflict (A220, VE405, VE406, P1103). She does that while standing between children (P907) and with her arms open (P1005). We posit that the instigator “opens up to mediation” (H3B07) at the end of the intervention. In this case, the educator invites the child (P914, P915) to an emotional self-regulation (VE401).

Finally, the educator marks the ending of her intervention (FIN) through kinetic elements (P904, P1107, P1109). At this point, she starts to focus on activities beyond victim and instigator which, instead, are related to the classroom management once again (A203, A206, VE102, VE105, VE210, P903).

T-Pattern analysis enabled us to discover the temporal distribution of the phases of the conflict. Using the previously specified search parameters, we obtained a total of 188 T-Patterns. Different filters were used to select relevant T-Patterns in accordance with the study objectives. Given our interest to assess the educator’s intervention in children’s conflicts from their burst to their resolution, and the implication of both parties involved in these episodes, we looked for T-Patterns including the following phases: “instigator acts and victim protests” (EXP2), “intervenes with victim” (INT1), “intervenes with instigator” (INT2) and “marks ending” (FIN). To do that, we used a quantitative filter so that only patterns with a minimum length of 4 would be kept. Qualitative filters were: (a) we kept T-Patterns including the interested phases of the conflict (i.e., EXP2, INT1, INT2, FIN) and (b) the remaining ones were dropped. After applying these filters, T-Patterns reduced to 16 (Fig. 1). This means that the interested phases of the conflict do present a stable internal structure. Moreover, we did find patterns that contain intervention with both victim (INT1) and instigator (INT2) in all the studied conflicts. We selected T-Pattern number 1 (Fig. 2) to deepen in a conceptual reflection of its meaning and implications since it’s the one with the most complex structure. This reflection is supported by previously discussed theoretical ideas and is presented in the Discussion section.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Obtained T-Patterns, frequency and length

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

T-Pattern number 1

Full size image

Polar coordinate analyses served us to discover children’s behaviors that triggered the beginning of the educator’s intervention in both the victim’s and the instigator’s case and those behaviors children showed after this intervention.

When it comes to the victim (Fig. 3), he/she shows an emotional response (AN101) before the educator’s intervention, accompanied by a particular vocal behavior (RN104) and several centrifugal gestures (RN409, RN411, RN414). But, after the educator’s intervention, the victim shows a determined attitude: he/she rejects the educator’s suggestion (VN404) and describes the object he/she has at the moment (VN506), which is mainly a substitute one (A3B03). At this stage, the victim is still tense, so he/she jumps around (RN202).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Polar coordinate significant results in Quadrants II and IV. Intervention with victim (INT1) as focal behavior and children’s behaviors as conditional: individual action (AN1), action with object (AN2), function of object (A3B), verbal behaviors ―social conventions (VN1), claim (VN2), solicitation (VN3), answer (VN4), expression (VN5)―, vocal behavior (RN1), static behavior (RN2), centripetal gestures (RN3), centrifugal gestures (RN4) and mediating gestures (RN5)

Full size image

Concerning the instigator (Fig. 4), several behaviors indicate an evident agitation before the intervention. The instigator refuses to share an object: defends it (AN202), takes it off another child (AN207) or rejects any other option (AN208). There is also a verbal manifestation of his/her desires: claims space (VN201), rejects another child’s action (VN408) or prohibits it to the child (VN409). The instigator shares facts about the recent situation (VN504, VN506, VN508). Relational elements also evidence his/her agitation, through his/her vocal (RN103) and proxemic behavior (RN201, RN202) and the mainly centrifugal gestures that accompany them (RN404, RN407, RN410, RN412, RN413). Mediating gestures are also a signal that the child defends his/her object (RN502, RN506). Results in quadrant IV indicate that the instigator shows a completely different behavior once the intervention is over: he/she accepts the object the educator has offered (AN202), which is either a substitute toy (A3B03) or a complex material (A3B04); his/her verbal expressions point at new thoughts and projects (VN505, VN510), showing he/she has moved on to some new activity; and relational elements show a clear lack of tension (RN200).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Polar coordinate significant results in Quadrants II and IV. Intervention with instigator (INT2) as focal behavior and children’s behaviors as conditional: individual action (AN1), action with object (AN2), function of object (A3B), verbal behaviors (i.e., social conventions (VN1), claim (VN2), solicitation (VN3), answer (VN4), expression (VN5)), vocal behavior (RN1), static behavior (RN2), centripetal gestures (RN3), centrifugal gestures (RN4) and mediating gestures (RN5)

Full size image

Discussion

This research has fulfilled the goal to assess and describe the educational management of children’s conflicts carried out in the Pikler-Lóczy education. Obtained results are proof of the thorough protocol followed by the observed educator and point out some guidelines that can potentially contribute to a quality early childhood practice and young children’s positive social development.

When a conflict arises in the classroom, the educator first notices it and observes it from a distance (Tardos, 2013, 2014). That is, her intervention is not immediate; as long as children are not violent to each other, she gives them time to reflect about the problematic situation so that she can get more insights about it and in order to give children the opportunity to discuss and look for a convenient solution on their own, without the educator’s support (Kálló, 2015; Tardos, 2013, 2014). If the conflict persists, her intervention begins. Results confirmed that she first intervenes verbally (Tardos, 2013, 2014): the educator’s intervention with victim and instigator includes the use of multiple verbal messages, which aim to foster both children’s active involvement in the resolution of the conflicting situation, as it directly affects both of them. If this verbal intervention doesn’t lead to children’s active resolution of the ongoing conflict or if children are violent (Tardos, 2014), the educator intervenes directly, using various and more direct instrumental actions. This educational intervention is fundamentally oriented to clarify the situation and to propose a possible solution to implicated children, which may or may not be accepted. Therefore, the amount of interventions the educator will have to use differs from one conflict to another and from one protagonist to another. Finally, the educator makes sure that the conflict is solved and that both parties are happy with its resolution (Kálló, 2015; Szöke, 2016).

Moreover, the results provide evidence that the educator involves both children, victim and instigator, in all phases the conflict goes through, from the beginning to its resolution (Kálló, 2015). She makes sure of it by switching her attention from victim to instigator and vice versa a number of times during her intervention. This would indicate that the course of the intervention goes through different moments of negotiation (Arcano-McPhee et al., 2002), so the educator mediates between both parties (Singer & Hännikainen, 2002) aiming to guarantee a mutually agreeable solution (Bayer et al., 1995; Kálló, 2015). These results demonstrate that the studied educational management of conflicts between young children meets the ideas proposed in the literature of the Pikler-Lóczy education.

Results obtained on children’s behavior analyses indicate that the described educational intervention also turns out to be beneficial for their socialization in the early years (Moore, 2020; Tardos & Vasseur-Paumelle, 2018). Specifically, children’s behavior reflects the educator’s strategy to actively involve victim and instigator in the conflict resolution, so that the solution is beneficial for both parties. In fact, children’s behavior evolves while the conflict goes on, showing different nuances before and after the educator intervenes, which is proof of the effectiveness of the educational intervention. Each conflicting party’s behavior before the educator intervenes shows what the conflict situation entails for each of its protagonists. On the one hand, the victim shows a clear emotional response towards the event, a direct consequence of the instigator’s action towards him/her. On the other hand, the instigator displays a higher number of relational behaviors. This happens due to his/her greater interest in the conflict, being the one who has caused it, and also because of the precise developmental stage he/she is in: his/her self is beginning to arise, which usually involves that the child opposes others in an attempt to show his/her emerging personality and character (Kálló, 2015).

It was also demonstrated that these delicate situations turn out to have positive consequences in both parties involved in them, as a result of the educator’s thorough intervention. Even if the conflict triggered a highly emotional reaction in him/her, the victim doesn’t lose himself/herself in the process, as shown by the determined behavior apparent once the conflict has come to an end. Results in the instigator’s side also show a very different behavior compared to that previous to the educator’s intervention. The child in this role accepts a proposal or suggestion from the educator and moves on to a new project.

These results evidence that the studied educational management of conflicts in the nursery school has a beneficial impact on the involved children’s behavior, both victim and instigator. We posit that the evident change in both parties’ attitude and behavior is a direct consequence of the educator’s differentiated intervention with each protagonist as well as her evident effort to negotiate with victim and instigator aiming to reach a resolution that benefits both of them (Bayer et al., 1995; Kálló, 2015). The main argument around the importance of taking conflicts in the classroom as a learning opportunity (Arcano-McPhee et al., 2002) rather than a situation to be ended as quickly as possible (Malloy & McMurray, 1996), points to their potential to help children develop conflict resolution skills (Chen, 2003) and to promote a healthy social, cognitive, and psychological development in the early years (Arcano-McPhee et al., 2002). Moreover, it recognizes children’s right to express their desires and defend their interests, as well as to oppose the limits imposed in a specific situation; the correct management of such situations promotes that secondary socialization in the early years evolves peacefully (Berger & Luckmann, 1968; Tardos & Vasseur-Paumelle, 2018).

The basic ideas constitutive of the educational management of such episodes proposed by the Pikler-Lóczy education, demonstrated by the results of this research, meet some interesting conclusions of previous studies, such as the importance of educators being present in order to have an insight about the conflict (Church et al., 2018; Singer & Hännikäinen, 2002), assessing the situation (Chen, 2003) and assisting as needed (DeVries & Zan, 1994; Myrtil et al., 2021). Thanks to the attentive attitude of Pikler educators and their constant observations in the classroom (Tardos, 2014), they can prevent the emergence of numerous conflicts (Tardos, 2013, 2014). When discrepancies are unavoidable and, consequently, a conflict emerges, they avoid directly intervening in the first place, so they give children the right to express their desires and have an active role in solving their disputes; this way, Pikler educators aim to support children’s opportunities to develop their social competence (Majorano et al., 2015). Moreover, Pikler educators opt for a cooperative response to children’s conflicts (Jenkins et al., 2008) in which they adopt a mediator role (Killen & Turiel, 1991; Singer & Hännikäinen, 2002).

In this regard, it is important to underline the importance of giving value to every situation that occurs in the daily classroom dynamic, especially considering the sensitivity of children’s developmental stage at this age and the particularities of the school environment. Regarding the former, between the second and third year, the child’s personality is still being forged. In this process, children’s experiences have a vital and determining impact. Thus, the physical and human environment around them must be taken care of down to the smallest detail, thus making the path to individuation as pleasant as possible.

As for the particularities of the context, it should be emphasized that the nursery school is the first environment of secondary socialization (Berger & Luckmann, 1968) for the child. Not only that, but early schooling means that primary and secondary socialization overlap. Unlike at home, in the nursery school children share time, space and materials with other children, usually of a similar age. This, together with the sensitivity of this developmental stage already mentioned, makes educators’ duties a task of great responsibility, as they have to face the challenge of socializing children in a collective environment while respecting their individuality and guaranteeing their integration into the society to which they belong.

Regarding the methodological perspective of this research, its innovative approach has made it possible to design and apply a strategy where complementary observational methods were used. This was key given the complexity of the studied educational approach and, particularly, the intrinsic characteristics of the observed episodes. Therefore, the applied methodological framework permitted us to reach conclusions that would be impossible using the techniques in isolation; instead, we could assess the convergence between results (Santoyo et al., 2017), which led us to a rigorous, objective and exhaustive evaluation of the interested educational reality (Escolano-Pérez et al., 2019).

Hence, we scientifically demonstrated that the ideas theoretically presented by the Pikler-Lóczy education are actually applied in their current educational practice. All in all, we were able to describe and deepen into an educational management of conflicts between young children that is proven to be optimal in the process of promoting children’s good behavior towards objects as well as their colleagues (Dehelán et al., 2018) and accompanying them in their socialization process through which they become active members of the society they live in (Moore, 2020; Tardos & Vasseur-Paumelle, 2018).

A limitation of this research is the impossibility to provide a more extensive reflection on the obtained results in a scientific paper, given the numerous conducted analyses and the comprehensive educational intervention studied. Also, the complexity of the methodological perspective itself, due to the convergence of various aspects, may have led to limitations when presenting data. Therefore, future research should focus on a specific aspect of the studied conflicts and try to go deep in it, as long as the whole picture is still considered. In this sense, it would be interesting to analyze the verbal aspect of conflict episodes more thoroughly, aiming to delve into the study of this kind of data and to get more insights about the interesting verbal intervention Pikler educators use in children’s conflicts. This would result in relevant findings when it comes to making children aware of the situation, the alternative paths to a peaceful conflict resolution and the development of personal tools to face different social encounters. Also, given that in this study we could only observe one educator, future research should try to observe more educators, in order to make our conclusions more generalizable. This future line of research could be beneficial as it would lead to even more conclusive results, which could result in the generalization of the conclusions already obtained and new findings. This would mean the possibility of outlining a roadmap regarding the challenges of current early education in order to promote better practice with young children, which would entail individual benefits for children and their families as well as societal benefits.