CONICET | Buscador de Institutos y Recursos Humanos

The relationship among (inter-)action, context and child development is a central theoretical issue in Psychology, especially for thoseperspectives strongly committed to a social conception of ontogenesis. That would be summary around two ideas: (a) the socialinteraction or inter-subjectivity is the basis of qualitative developmental changes; (b) these social interactional forms are involved intospecific activity systems, which are constituted by not only other significant people and the interactive dynamics established with them,but also sustained on material and concrete conditions. Here, we propose the concept of socioeconomic context (SEC) according tothat socio-cultural perspective since it is not highlighted the real and objective conditions that define the SEC although the culturaland relational aspects associated with them.This poster aims to analyze the characteristics of children peer collaboration process according to age (four, eight and twelve yearsold) and SEC (advantaged and disadvantaged contexts; ASEC and DSEC, respectively), in a block construction task. The data wasprocessed from an alternative approach based on the French version of Multidimensional Data Analysis (MDA). MDA emerged as aperspective with less determinist goals than traditional statistics. The search of a structure present in the data is the basic principlethat guides the logic of this analysis, in a more inductive than deductive context, which particularly revalorize theindividual-observation role. The MDA proposes two complementary factorial and classification methods used in a sequence of stagesthat allows a reduction without losing the data complexity point of view.Participants are 82 children (41 dyads) from Rosario (Argentina). Twenty-six children were from preschool (M=4.7; SD=0.3), 28children were from third year (M=8.7; SD=0.3), and 28 children were from seventh year (M=12.6; SD=0.4). Forty six of theseparticipants were ASEC and the other 36 were DSEC. Each child worked in a dyad with a same age and gender partner. Participantsof ASEC were from two private schools located in the downtown area of the city. Most of them lived in urban areas with access topublic services (transport, electricity, sewers, natural gas, etc.) Parents were professionals, teachers, business owners, governmentemployees, and clerks, all of them had completed at least secondary school and in several cases had university education. Participantsof DSEC were from a school located in a very poor and marginal area in the city, where the presence of laying out of the streets wasrare. They lived in those slums and had a low family income. The houses in this type of slums were poorly built. Parents were mainlyoccasional workers construction, gardening and carpentry, peddlers, garbage collectors, or unemployed. Only in a few cases parentshad a permanent job. Most mothers were housewives, although others worked in domestic service. Most parents had not completedprimary school. Children of eight and twelve years old used 500 Lego blocks. Four years old children use the same materials thanolder children but with developmental adaptations. All developmental adaptations of materials were performed by an ecologicalrequirement, considering the specific conditions of each age group. Children were asked to collectively build a house making their besteffort with the given materials, trying to take decisions in a shared way. The interaction was videotaped and transcribed in verbal andnon-verbal aspects. Then it was analyzed by a system of exhaustive and mutually exclusionary socio-behavioral categories (molarunits): Dissociation, Dominance-Submission, Implicit Cooperation, Explicit Cooperation, Collaboration, Conversation Related toTask without Execution, Conversation Unrelated to Task without Execution (Castellaro & Roselli, 2015a). The interaction was dividedin regular intervals of 10 seconds. Each interval was coded by one social modality category. Each dyad was considered according themost observed category during the total task. When one of the categories applied in >50% of regular intervals, the dyad was codedas it. However, if there was not any category occupying the >50% of intervals, the dyad received a mixed code according to themost frequent modality of interaction. On the other hand, we complemented previous categories with a second group of verbal codes(Castellaro & Roselli, 2015b). We divided total of each type of message by the total time of task. We applied a MDA to simultaneouslyanalyze all categories using the Software SPAD® 5.6 version (Système Portable pour l?Analyse de Données). The modality ofinteraction and SEC were considered as active nominal variables; the age was considered as illustrative nominal variable; eachcategory of message (independently) was considered as continue illustrative variable.The factor 1 was defined by socioeconomic condition. On the one hand, DSEC was related to implicit cooperation modality(distribution of individual functions in a spontaneous nonverbal way) and requests for help. On the other hand, ASEC was linked toboth explicit cooperation and collaboration modalities (explicit verbal division of individual functions and the collaboration -in strictsense- oriented to both children working as a collective subject), with agreement attempts and organizational messages. The factor 2was mainly defined by explicit cooperation (linked to both planning and directive messages), opposing to other modalities of highersocial integration (implicit and explicit cooperation, more collaboration). The analysis of classification showed cluster 1 is defined byASEC and the modalities of higher social integration mediated by explicit language. Cluster 3 linked DSEC with explicit cooperation.Whereas the Cluster 2 is constituted by a few cases (n=3) from DSEC that worked in an implicit cooperative way exclusively.The main contextual differences in children peer collaboration could be related to the modality of social coordination rather than its level or quantity. Also, the findings refer the classical distinction between cooperation and collaboration which is linked to differentconceptual theories about the sociocognitive interaction (Dillembourg, 1999; Barkley, Cross & Mayor, 2005). On the other hand, theFrench version of MDA (Benzecri, 1965) provides an alternative and complex way of processing data. This is particularly important inthe field of social sciences, where the object presents a higher level of complexity and does not enable simple reductions, providing anexploratory perspective.