|
Asia-Pacific
Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 7, Issue 1, Article
5 (June, 2006) Beverley JANE Online reflections about tinkering in early childhood: A socio-cultural analysis
|
|
|
Asia-Pacific
Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, Volume 7, Issue 1, Article
5 (June, 2006) Beverley JANE Online reflections about tinkering in early childhood: A socio-cultural analysis
|
The data and analysis from a socio-cultural perspective
The study design described above, generated qualitative data in the form of e-journal entries that were readily accessed from the online discussion section of WebCT. Many trainees reflected on their involvement in the 'Tinkering with toys' activity (Figure 1) and wrote e-journal entries that contained vivid descriptions of their feelings about tinkering when they were young girls. The data so obtained were analysed from a socio-cultural perspective derived from the work of Vygtosky (1987) who emphasised the importance of children's life experiences and natural conversational contexts.
As I read the data I took notice of the activities that these trainees participated in as young girls in their home environment. I attended to the significant relationships, artefacts, actions and histories within those contexts and activities. Rogoff's (1998) three foci - the personal (or individual), interpersonal and community/institutional (or groups of people) - became a useful tool in the process of analysing participation in these activities. "Using personal, interpersonal and community/institutional planes of analysis involves focusing on one plane, but still using background information from the other planes, as if with different lenses" (Rogoff, 1998, p. 688). These planes of socio-cultural analysis are inseparable, mutual, and show the individual's participation or involvement in the cultural context. The different foci enabled me to consider various factors, such as shared understandings and interpersonal relationships that support or structure these understandings. I used the community/institutional lens to highlight specific community constructions of science and technology, and the value that is placed on science within that community. With one focus foregrounded, the others in the background (yet still part of the analysis), the multiple pathways to learning within the community became transparent. "Foregrounding one plane of focus still involves the participation of the backgrounded planes of focus" (Rogoff 1995, p. 140).
Socio-cultural theory, in particular Rogoff's (1998) interlocking planes related to activity, formed a helpful framework to analyse the journal entries. A personal plane of analysis enabled me to focus on how the trainees were changed by the tinkering process. I concentrated on the role of the individual trainee, while keeping the interpersonal and community planes in the background. The interpersonal plane of analysis allowed me to focus on the social context and how the family members communicated with each other and the trainee. Furthermore the interpersonal process and the social context were considered. The community/institutional plane of analysis allowed me to focus on the trainees' participation with others in culturally organised activities and the cultural tools used. Rogoff (2003, p. 182) recognises that "from a sociocultural perspective, it is no surprise that children, as they observe and participate in the gendered roles of their communities, are quick to take them on." I did not prioritise any particular plane, nor considered it in isolation from the other planes of analysis. I analysed the e-journal entries by looking for patterns in the socio-cultural activities mentioned, by foregrounding in turn, the personal, interpersonal, community aspects associated with the tinkering activities, while simultaneously holding the other aspects in the background, yet taking all three aspects into account.
Copyright (C) 2006 HKIEd APFSLT. Volume 7, Issue 1, Article 5 (June, 2006). All Rights Reserved.
