Task constraints during mother-infant interactions: Their influence in representational knowledge

GARIBOLDI, M. BELÉN; SALSA, ANALÍA M.

San Francisco

Congreso; 47th Annual Meeting of the Jean Piaget Society; 2017

Jean Piaget Society (JPS)

In order for children to engage in social activities, they need to master a variety of cultural tools including external representation systems such as drawing, writing and numerals. Children have to acquire two aspects of representational knowledge: they first learn about formal properties (name of the system and its units, types of marks, spatial disposition and composition rules) and then about referential function (what each system represents) (Tolchinsky and Karmiloff-Smith, 1992). Four-year-olds are able to distinguish between drawing, writing and numerals based on those formal properties (Brenneman, Massey, Machado & Gelman, 1996; Gariboldi & Salsa, 2016; Yamagata, 2007).Children construct knowledge about representation systems when they take part in sociocultural practices with adults, who mediate their cognitive processes (Rodríguez, 2007; Rogoff et al, 1995; Vygotsky, 1978). Several studies have focused in activities that children partake in at home and may foster their learning about drawing (Braswell & Callanan, 2003; Peralta & Salsa, 2001), writing (Aram & Levin, 2001; Treiman et al, 2015) and numerals (Levine et al, 2010; Mix et al, 2012). This study´s innovative approach is to compare their knowledge about those three systems when applied to two different tasks: a shared book reading task and a joint production one. A set of studies shows that task restrictions (conditions of representational use, the way in which stimuli are presented, context of task demands) have an impact on the knowledge that children exhibit about representations (Klein et al, 2009; Martí & Garcia-Mila, 2010; Tolchinsky-Landsman & Karmiloff-Smith, 1993). Our goal is to examine how task restrictions may affect the joint construction of knowledge about drawing, writing and numerals between children and their mothers. Specifically, we aim to analyze (1) which representational system was the focus of attention and (2) which aspect of knowledge about representations, their formal properties and/or their referential function was elaborated during the interactions. We expected the shared reading task to lead especially to elaborations about referential function due to its communicative nature. Likewise, the need to represent information in the production task would prompt elaborations about formal properties, e.g., descriptions of the types of marks that dyads have to produce.METHODParticipants: 30 medium SES mothers with their 48-months-old children. We assigned dyads to two conditions based on the task they had to perform: Reading (n = 15) and Production (n = 15).Materials and procedure: in the shared reading task, dyads were given a book and were told to look at it together. Each page included the drawing of an animal, its written name and the numeral for the amount of specimens (1 to 9). In the joint production task, dyads were provided with a sheet of paper and some pencils and instructed to create an identity card with information about the child. They had to make a drawing of the subject and write their name and age. We filmed all sessions and transcribed the dialogue for further analysis.CODING AND ANALYSISThe interactions were analyzed in two levels: (1) focus of attention (what representational system is being discussed by the dyads) and (2) representational knowledge (which aspect of system knowledge they are discussing). That allowed us to identify events, i.e., fragments of interaction in which dyads cited specific information about the formal properties or referential function of drawing, writing or numerals.Events about formal properties included mentions of the system?s name (drawing, letters or numbers) or its units (A, L, four), descriptions of the type of marks and their spatial disposition or graphic demonstrations on how to produce the representations. Events about referential function consisted of identifications or descriptions of the referents of the drawing or writing and elaborations on the quantity depicted by numerals.Once those events were identified, we analyzed them with non-parametric statistics (Mann-Whitney?s U) in search of differences between the two tasks with regard to both levels of analysis.RESULTS1.FOCUS OF ATTENTION Reading dyads elaborated more events about drawing (Mdn = 20) than Production ones (Mdn = 12.5; U = 34, p = .003). Attention to the writing system was higher in Production interactions (Mdn = 6.5) when compared to Reading (Mdn = 3.5; U = 53.5, p = .040). Lastly, there were no significant differences in attention to numerals between both tasks (Mdns Reading = 4.5, Production = 4.5; U = 88.5, p = .661).(2) REPRESENTATIONAL KNOWLEDGE Drawing: Reading dyads focused more in the referential function of drawings (Mdn = 20), than Production dyads (Mdn = 10.5; U = 25.5, p = .001). In contrast, there were more events about its formal properties in Production interactions (Mdn = 1) than in Reading ones (Mdn = 0; U = 26.5, p < .001). Writing: Production dyads elaborated more events centered on its referential function (Mdn = 3) and its formal properties (Mdn = 4) than Reading ones (Mdns referential function = 0.5, formal properties = 1.5). Nonetheless, differences were significant only for events about the referential function of writing (U = 44, p = .012).Numerals: there were no significant differences between conditions for their formal properties (Mdn Reading = 2.5, Production = 2.5; U = 97, p = .963) nor for their referential function (Mdn Reading = 1, Production = 1; U = 90, p = .700).In summary, the shared reading task led to elaborations about the referential function of drawing since dyads talked about the identity and quantity of the animals depicted. However, when referring to writing and numerals, elaborations on referential function were scarce. Mothers elaborated about formal properties naming the systems and their units. In the production task, dyads talked about the drawings? referents and named the system. As expected, there were more elaborations about the formal properties of writing and numerals than in the reading task, but the differences were not significant.