Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
PROSODIC, POSTMODERN PICTURE BOOKS AS PLAYFUL MEDIATORS
FOR FACILITATING IDEATION, IMPROVISATION,
AND EXPRESSIVE LANGUAGE IN EARLY CHILDHOOD
by
Linda Tamsen Fynn
A thesis submitted to Sonoma State University in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS IN EDUCATION
------------------------------------------------------
Johanna Filp-Hanke. Ph.D. Chair
------------------------------------------------------
Karen Grady. Ph.D.
------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Agnew. M.A.
------------------------------------------------------
Date
ii
Copyright 2015
By Linda Tamsen Fynn
iii
Authorization for Reproduction of Master’s Thesis I grant permission for the print or digital reproduction of this thesis in its entirety, without further authorization from me, on the condition that the person or agency requesting reproduction absorb the cost and provide proper acknowledgment of authorship. I grant permission for the print or digital reproduction of parts of this thesis without further authorization from me, on the condition that the person or agency requesting reproduction absorb the cost and provide proper acknowledgment of authorship. DATE: __________________ ___________________________________ Signature ___________________________________ Street Address ___________________________________ City, State, Zip
iv
PROSODIC, POSTMODERN PICTURE BOOKS AS PLAYFUL MEDIATORS
FOR FACILITATING IDEATION, IMPROVISATION,
AND EXPRESSIVE LANGUAGE IN EARLY CHILDHOOD
Thesis by Linda Tamsen Fynn
ABSTRACT Early childhood should be filled with opportunities to develop creative thinking in playful, engaging ways, both formally and informally. Yet general misconceptions about creativity often lead educators to either ignore or dissuade creative behavior while current high stakes testing in schools impacts priorities in early childhood programs. This action research aims to offer a playful practice using the postmodern picture book Charlie Parker Played Bebop as a mediator for facilitating creative thinking between adults and children in early childhood. An increase in expressive language, original ideas, the evolution of their quality, and the deepening of their meaning, were visible in the combination of quantitative and qualitative data, demonstrating the potential for facilitating creative thinking in the context of adult-child relationships in early childhood programs. Chair: ___________________________________ ______________ (signature) date MA Program: Education Sonoma State University
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
A pickup truck of thanks to my husband Eduardo and a scooter full of thanks to
my daughter Malín for allowing me to take over every available surface in the
kitchen and living room with stacks of books, paper, post its, and sharpened
pencils. Also, thanks for the hours of solitude in our home so I could focus on
finishing my writing! Buckets of thanks to Mum, for all of the walks, talks,
consultations, reminders, and encouragement, while I synthesized my ideas. A
fire engine full of thanks to the kids who read Charlie Parker with me (you know
who you are)! Lastly, a song of thanks to everyone who has expressed interest
in, support of, and excitement about, this fascinating world of young children and
their endless capacity for creative thinking.
vi
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 1 PICTURE BOOKS AS LIBERATING STRUCTURES .................................................................................................. 4 MENTAL HEALTH, COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT, CREATIVE THINKING, INTERACTIVE READING, AND
POSTMODERN PICTURE BOOKS ............................................................................................................................ 5 EARLY CHILDHOOD INTERVENTIONS ................................................................................................................... 6 EXPECTATIONS OF INTELLECTUAL CAPACITY AND CREATIVE THINKING ..................................................... 8
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................ 10 RESEARCH ABOUT CHILDREN AND CREATIVITY .............................................................................................. 10 THE RELATIONSHIP IS THE KEY FOR YOUNG CHILDREN ................................................................................ 13 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF EXPECTATIONS................................................................................................................ 14 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF BEING TAUGHT ............................................................................................................... 15 DIALOGIC READING ............................................................................................................................................... 16 SHARED READING, INTERACTIVE READING, DIALOGIC READING, READ-ALOUDS, OR INTERACTIVE
READ ALOUDS? ...................................................................................................................................................... 20 DIALOGIC READING INVENTORY ......................................................................................................................... 22 CHALLENGES OF DIALOGIC READING ................................................................................................................. 24 TEXT AND ILLUSTRATIONS .................................................................................................................................. 25 POSTMODERN PICTUREBOOKS ............................................................................................................................ 25
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................... 28 READING SESSION ................................................................................................................................................. 29 CHARLIE PARKER PLAYED BEBOP: A POSTMODERN PICTUREBOOK ........................................................... 31 MY TEACHING APPROACH ................................................................................................................................... 36 DATA COLLECTION ................................................................................................................................................ 37 DATA ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................................................................... 38 VALIDITY ................................................................................................................................................................. 39 SETTING .................................................................................................................................................................. 40
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS.......................................................................................................................... 43 TRANSCRIPTIONS .................................................................................................................................................. 45 FIRST SESSION: TEXT ........................................................................................................................................... 45 SECOND SESSION: TEXT ....................................................................................................................................... 45 ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................................................ 46 FIRST SESSION: SCATTING ................................................................................................................................... 47 SECOND SESSION: SCATTING ............................................................................................................................... 48 FIRST SESSION: MIDDLE ...................................................................................................................................... 49 SECOND SESSION: MIDDLE TEXT ........................................................................................................................ 51 FIRST SESSION: SECOND SCATTING ................................................................................................................... 52 SECOND SESSION: SECOND SCATTING ............................................................................................................... 53 FIRST SESSION: CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................. 54 SECOND SESSION: CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................... 55 QUANTITATIVE RESULTS ..................................................................................................................................... 55 FIRST SESSION: NEW IDEAS ................................................................................................................................ 56 SECOND SESSION: NEW IDEAS ............................................................................................................................ 57 FIRST SESSION: CHILDREN’S IDEAS .................................................................................................................... 58 SECOND SESSION: CHILDREN’S IDEAS ............................................................................................................... 59 OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS ................................................................................................................................... 61 DIRECTIVE QUESTIONS ......................................................................................................................................... 62
vii
COMMENTS ............................................................................................................................................................. 62 QUALITATIVE OBSERVATIONS ............................................................................................................................ 63 ECHOING ................................................................................................................................................................. 63 PAUSES .................................................................................................................................................................... 64 PHONEMIC AWARENESS ....................................................................................................................................... 64 CREATING MEANING: ORIGINAL IDEAS ............................................................................................................. 65 WISHFUL THINKING ............................................................................................................................................. 65 THE THIRD SESSION: QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS ................................................................................................ 66 CONFOUNDING FACTORS ..................................................................................................................................... 67
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................... 69 READING SESSION ................................................................................................................................................. 69 EXPECTATIONS ...................................................................................................................................................... 70 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FACILITATING CREATIVE THINKING .................................................................... 72 CHARACTERISTICS OF WORD PLAY .................................................................................................................... 72 INTERACTIVE READING ........................................................................................................................................ 73 CHALLENGES .......................................................................................................................................................... 74 FUTURE RESEARCH ............................................................................................................................................... 74 CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................................................... 75
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 76
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
Creative thinking is being valued everywhere from The White House to
The Bay Area Discovery Museum. Progressive schools are recommending
books focused on new trends in innovative teaching practices valuing creativity,
including Tony Wagner’s (2012) Creating Innovators: The Making of Young
People who will Change the World, and Ken Robinson’s (2011) Out of Our
Minds: Learning to be Creative. Even the movie industry has produced stories
like Legoland, addressing the struggle between creativity and conformity, adults
dominating children, the importance of belonging, and the value of original
thought. Creative thinking has become increasingly relevant and necessary in
the contemporary world, not only in reaction to technological changes, but also
as proactive innovation, driving cultural evolution (Runco, 2004). Many
economists, educators, and entrepreneurs point to innovation and ingenuity as
essential skills in the world economy. The National Council of Teachers of
English (NCTE) asserts that the very definition of early literacy needs revision,
based on the complex communication we must translate in our multimedia world
(Hill & Nichols, 2012). However, while experts focus on the importance of
innovation and creativity, many educators are actually concerned about the
negative impact school may be having on creative thinking (Runco, 2004),
especially with the downward push of No Child Left Behind (Beghetto, Kaufman,
Hegarty, Hammond, & Wilcox-Herzog, 2012) and The Common Core (National
Association for the Education of Young Children, 2012) with their focus on direct
2
instruction and skill acquisition and less emphasis on the creative process
(Eckhoff & Urbach, 2008). Direct instruction from teachers became more
prevalent in early childhood with the founding of Head Start in the 1960s, a
program designed to address social inequities and school preparedness for
underserved children (Beghetto et al, 2012) and continues today. The effects of
this mindset are so far-reaching that The American Academy of Pediatrics has
now warned the public that child-driven play is being replaced by academics and
organized activities at a cost to the child’s healthy development. Sadly, with this
loss of child-driven play, we also sacrifice the most important access point for the
development of creative thinking in early childhood.
While creative thinking continues to be undeveloped as a priority in
educational mandates (Eckhoff & Urbach, 2008; Runco, 2004) educators could
integrate creativity as a central component of early childhood education in
meaningful, coherent ways (Eckhoff & Urbach, 2008) and document the value of
their practice. Creative thinking can produce rich, surprising outcomes where
children develop new ideas because they are encouraged to take risks and make
mistakes instead of following directives that can inhibit flexible thinking and
experimentation (Gopnik, 2012a). While there are strong, differing opinions
about the definition of creativity, many agree that, at minimum, it requires original
ideas that are appropriate and relevant (Runco, 2004). In early childhood, this
can mean ideas that are original to the child, or the situation, not necessarily the
world.
3
It is time to create the space for new ideas in order to support children as
they develop and deepen the ability to improvise, create, and experiment. I was
reflecting on four questions during the action research: Can postmodern picture
books be playful mediators for creative thinking and expressive language in the
adult child relationship? Can the practice stay playful and complex, instead of
reverting to simplistic skill acquisition? What practices emerged as effective and
relevant? How did children respond to the intervention? Composition, the
creative act, is considered a higher stage of development than replication, yet
assessments often focus on narrow definitions of skill acquisition more than
complex skills like creative thinking in early childhood education. In higher
education we are expected to formulate our own opinions when we study
theories and expert opinion, because developing original ideas deepens our
understanding through reflection and synthesis, creating a powerful relationship
with knowledge. This should be our intention from the very beginning.
As a music specialist working with two to three year-olds, generating
original ideas is my fundamental aim, offering children ownership and a sense of
agency while cultivating their composition skills. In music there is always the
space to invite children’s ideas; every melody, every song, can potentially be a
different song, with new lyrics and meaning, existing as a liberating structure, a
complex organic form offering constraints that can help focus and develop
creative thinking (Davis, Sumara, & Luce-Kapler, 2000). Even though my focus
is primarily in music, I chose to research creative thinking in a medium that is
used on a daily basis by early childhood educators. My attention turned to
4
picture books as playful mediators for creative thinking and expressive language.
Reading picture books with children has the potential to be a powerful exchange,
with opportunities to cultivate creative thinking through improvisation and idea
generation using definable, responsive practices within the constraints of a
liberating structure.
Picture Books as Liberating Structures
Picture books can be found in every quality early childhood program.
Typically, they are used in a straightforward way: adults read the books while
children listen, look at the illustrations, and are sometimes able to comment on
the ideas and ask questions about content they find engaging or confusing.
There is typically an underlying assumption that the story is “fixed” in print, it
does not change with each reading, even if we engage with the content, we are
simply becoming more familiar with the existing story. But picture books can
offer a more interactive, collaborative experience for teachers and children that
allow educators to engage children creatively, offering them a sense of agency
and ownership. The liberating structure, in the form of a book, provides an entry
point into the creative process. So we “do” the book instead of simply reading
the book, seeing the book as an active process, a tool for scaffolding, rather than
an inalterable form, with room for flexible, instead of fixed, thinking. I plan to
assess and define how I cultivate an interactive session for a specific book we
“do” by examining my own teaching practice in order to offer suggestions for
further research on specific practices that actively develop creative thinking in
adult-child interactions.
5
Mental Health, Cognitive Development, Creative Thinking, Interactive
Reading, and Postmodern Picture Books
Six areas of study have informed the analysis of my action research: infant
and early childhood mental health, cognitive development, creative thinking,
education, interactive reading, and the genre of postmodern picture books.
Interpersonal neurobiology has now established the importance of integration for
mental health, through positive relationships, an organized mind, and integrated
brain functions. The quality of the relationships between adults and children
during interactive picture book readings are a crucial component for supporting
both mental health and cognitive development simultaneously. Also, creative
thinking as a complex process (Blake & Giannangelo, 2012) supports the
integration of brain functions. Research in cognitive development reveals the
importance of understanding knowledge in children as we address creativity
(Gopnik, 2012a, 2012b). Studies have now shown that even infants possess
more domain knowledge than we thought possible. This new information
changes our expectations of children’s capacities, and in turn, requires us to
refine how we engage with children and reconsider what we think is possible.
Knowledge in a specific domain or discipline facilitates the development of
creative thinking in that domain (Feldhusen & Ban Eng, 1995), and since
language and picture books are two of the most consistent elements in many
children’s lives, at home or in their early childhood program, this would be a
natural medium for developing creative thinking. Interactive reading aims to
enrich language skills and support literacy by actively engaging children in
6
expressive language and creative thinking while reading picture books with
adults. Postmodern picture books change the ways we interact with the story we
are reading, using meta-fictive devices, techniques that reveal the nature of text
and expose hidden assumptions, challenging the reader to interpret visual text
and verbal text (Pantaleo, 2014). Interactive reading addresses how we engage
children with picture books and the genre of postmodern picture books explores
what picture books can communicate to the reader through meta-fictive devices.
Both of these practices change the way children and adults engage with picture
books together and challenge educators to think differently about the possibilities
picture books provide in early childhood programs and with care providers. They
also represent two potential resources for facilitating creative thinking in the
context of adult-child relationships in early childhood programs.
Early Childhood Interventions
In the mid 1990s national attention turned to early childhood, when the
Carnegie Task Force published Starting Points, naming a “quiet crisis” that was
leaving children under 3 and their families without the resources they needed to
thrive (Puckett, Marshall, & Davis, 1999). Meanwhile, the Reiner Foundation
funded a national campaign, producing “I Am Your Child”, a television show
examining the unmet needs of families, especially young children, in the United
States. In science, studies in neuroscience and brain development added even
more media attention on the importance of early childhood. “The Decade of the
Brain” focused on brain plasticity, and brought attention to the long-term
structural and functional changes experiences can make, impacting memory and
7
learning (Twardosz, 2012). With national attention on early childhood, Ronald
Kotulak, a journalist at the Chicago Tribune, reviewed studies and interviewed
researchers, receiving a Pulitzer Prize for his comprehensive assessment of
early brain development research. While this attention was much needed, the
slant toward neuroscience and brain development frustrated some early
childhood experts, who felt the research had simply confirmed established best
practices, and led to “quick fixes” based on limited research, such as purchasing
classical music for all parents of newborns when a study on adults showed the
benefits of listening to classical music on the growth of the brain. On the other
hand, the general public began to understand the value of early childhood
experiences, and the National Research Council Committee on Integrating the
Science of Early Childhood Development was founded as a multidisciplinary
group, publishing From Neurons to Neighborhoods, examining the impact of
early childhood experiences on everything from brain development to socio-
emotional development. Breakthroughs in neuroscience have now offered the
field of education new insights, showing that in order to self-regulate and
maximize brain function, babies and young children need to be in the context of a
regulated, positive relationship (Brandt, 2014; Nelson, Parker, & Siegel, 2014).
From the importance of serve and return interactions on brain wiring and
architecture (Brandt, 2014), to the benefits of the interdisciplinary study of
interpersonal neurobiology (Nelson, Parker, & Siegel, 2014), early childhood
relies on positive, empathic relationships to learn.
8
Expectations of Intellectual Capacity and Creative Thinking
The field of psychology has continued to evolve, having authoritatively
established early childhood as a sophisticated stage of development (Gopnik,
2010). We have discovered that babies generally understand personal
preferences by the age of 18 months, and they seem to have a basic
comprehension of physics. Amazingly, it is thought that three and four year-olds
have an elemental understanding of biology, psychology, and some sense of
human development. Currently, researchers are asking questions about how
adult communication styles impact the behavior of children, with two studies
showing a change in creative behavior based on the communication of the adult
administering the test (Gopnik, 2012b). These developments can inform early
childhood practices in significant ways as long as we consider the research as an
ongoing inquiry, instead of making oversimplified assumptions about the
implications of a single study (Puckett et al, 1999).
Early childhood is finally gaining the attention it has long deserved, and
along with this gain in respect and importance, we must also allow ourselves to
envision a paradigm shift, where care providers discard fixed thinking and
predictable outcomes and embrace flexible thinking and a growth mindset. We
are faced with the challenge of integrating creative thinking, placing it at the
center of a play-based program grounded in best practices. My action research
aims to develop ways to engage with picture books, seeing them as mediators
for ideation and improvisation in the context of caring adult relationships.
9
In my literature review I will address current best practices in education for
developing creative thinking, consider the influence of psychology and
neurobiology in early childhood, examine postmodern picture books, and assess
shared, interactive reading for its strengths and weaknesses. After which I will
present my methodology and research results, offering an analysis of the
strategies I used to engage children in idea generation and improvisation while
reading the postmodern picture book Charlie Parker Played Bebop. Finally, I will
discuss the implications of my findings and mention other interests that emerged
from engaging in action research.
10
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Best practices in early childhood education provide opportunities for
creative thinking and play to intersect in an integrated, seamless way. As a
progressive, Dewey imagined open communication, with creative problem
solving, at the center of the learning process, and believed self-realization and
self-expression should be nurtured within a democratic environment focused on
process-oriented learning (Gutek, 1997). He also charged the educator with
facilitating, versus controlling, the learning process. With these ideals in mind,
we will examine research aimed at understanding creative thinking in early
childhood. Drawing from a multidisciplinary perspective, research from the field
of education and psychology reveals the many ways creative thinking impacts
our personal experience and the larger world. The practice of interactive reading
offers us insights into ways of engaging with picture books while the
characteristics of postmodern picture books facilitate the deconstruction of
hierarchies and provide opportunities to reveal hidden narratives to the reader.
All of these domains offer important insights when considered as a whole. The
practice of approaching creative thinking in early childhood with a
multidisciplinary mindset reminds us that young children are integrated learners,
and so we must challenge ourselves to be integrated thinkers.
Research about Children and Creativity
In 1950, at the American Psychological Association Conference, Guilford
convinced the field of psychology to research creativity in the context of learning
(Saracho, 2012a). Shortly after, in 1963, Torrance presented at the Association
11
for the Education Study Conference, proposing to focus on developing creativity
through study and assessment. Then, in 2003, The Association for Childhood
Education International (ACEI) again called for an increased focus on theory and
research, but specifically to cultivate children’s creativity, yet some claim
creativity in early childhood still remains under-researched (Cheung, 2012).
Saracho (2012a) recently edited an updated overview of current creativity
research in early childhood, with 19 articles written by a total of 39 different
experts from the field, addressing theory, processes, experiences, perspectives,
and implications for education. This edited collection provides a comprehensive
assessment of the issues needing further study, that educators should consider
as they examine their programs as well as their own teaching practice. Focusing
on macro and micro aspects of creative thinking in early childhood, from policy
issues to implicit teaching theories, as well as definitions of creativity, the
compilation captures varied perspectives, and the ways we can study, cultivate,
and strengthen the value and presence of creativity in our programs and our
world.
Understanding creativity is an essential part of advocacy and practice.
While definitions of creativity, and the creative process, continue to be debated in
the field, neurological studies have changed the mindset of some, who now
describe creativity as a complex concept, involving a process made up of many
components, including brain architecture (Blake & Giannangelo, 2012). Pointing
to an active process that applies questions like “what if” or “how can” to a
creative task, researchers believe this application requires an internal structure
12
that accesses a flexible, fluid mindset. Seeing creative thinking as a teachable
skill set rather than a fixed personality trait is one of the biggest shifts in
research. Developing every child’s creative potential, rather that trying to
“discover” the children who possess creative abilities has changed the landscape
of creativity research. For many educators, this is an important paradigm shift,
illuminating their essential role in offering programs that support the development
of creative thinking in every child.
While creative thinking requires a flexible, fluid mindset, implicit theories
about creativity in the classroom reveal contradictions in education about the
value of creativity (Saracho, 2012b). On the one hand, teachers value creativity
as a concept, but on the other hand, their response in the classroom often
reflects a negative attitude toward creative behaviors, which are perceived as
disruptive, unexpected, or challenging. Unfortunately teachers often misinterpret
or ignore creative behavior, missing the opportunity to reinforce creative thinking
in early childhood, a crucial stage of development for creative thinking, and a
time when children are most influenced by their teachers’ positive or negative
views of them. “It seems the educational systems are caught between their
desire to nurture the creative spirit and their concern for what might happen if
they did” (Blake & Giannangelo, 2012, p.306).
Saracho’s (2012a) edited collection offered important insights and
comprehensive studies, informing my research in numerous ways. From
considering the range of definitions debated in the field, to grasping the
distinction between implicit theories and classroom practice, as well as
13
discerning the power of general versus specific domains of creativity, the
compilation summed up the current priorities in this multidisciplinary field.
The Relationship is the Key for Young Children
In infancy, serve and return interactions between a baby and a caregiver literally
build the brain (Brandt, 2014). Loving back and forth exchanges between a baby
and their primary adult care providers wire the brain, building the architecture that
will be a foundation for the rest of the baby’s life. These exchanges continue for
the early years, and by the age of five, most of this brain development has
become established. Mindsight is another sophisticated form of communication,
requiring attunement to the child’s internal state in order to move them toward
regulation and integration (Nelson et al, 2014). “The internal subjective mental
world of the child’s feelings, thoughts, memories, and states of mind are honored
for what they are and linked through attuned communication” (Nelson et al, 2014,
p. 133). Mirror neurons, part of the resonance circuit, allow adults to perceive
what the child is feeling, linking them emotionally, and allowing the child to be
seen and felt, crucial parts of healthy attachment. Two key elements for
integration, both in the dyad and in the child’s brain, are valuing differences and
encouraging interconnections. Interestingly, these are two elements mentioned
in many writings about creativity as well (Saracho, 2012b; Beghetto, 2012).
“Mindsight involves the sensing of the internal world of another and of the self,
and then incorporating the interoceptive and emotional correlates of “feeling felt”
through resonating cognitively, emotionally, and physically” (Nelson et al, 2014,
p.136). Allowing the child to be who they are, without judging or agendas, while
14
staying mindful and attuned with them, develops the child’s ability to be mindful
and resonate with themselves and with others as they mature. Care providers
outside of the home can also consciously nurture and support these abilities.
The Psychology of Expectations
In psychology, Gopnik (2012a), a leading thinker in early childhood
development, has studied babies and children using innovative methods to
understand what they know and how they learn, including a looking time
technique that reveals when a baby is surprised or sees something unexpected,
because they look for longer periods of time at the event. In one study, babies
maintained their gaze for longer periods when watching a toy car seem to roll
through an impenetrable wall, versus when observing objects that moved
according to the everyday laws of physics (Gopnik, 2010). In another study,
babies were offered a bowl with broccoli and a bowl with goldfish crackers, and
the babies preferred the crackers. Then the experimenter showed and stated a
personal preference for the crackers half of the time and a preference for the
broccoli half of the time. When the experimenter established a preference for
broccoli over goldfish crackers, 14 month-olds still gave her a goldfish cracker,
the food they preferred themselves. On the other hand, 18 month-olds
understood that she could prefer a food they disliked, and handed her a piece of
broccoli instead of the goldfish cracker they would choose to eat. This
sophisticated understanding of personal preferences reveals a young child’s
ability to distinguish between their own experience and the perspective of
someone else. These studies were two of many that refuted Piaget’s theory that
15
babies and young children were illogical, and unscientific (Gopnik, 2012a).
Psychologists focused on early childhood have started viewing babies and
children as young scientists, using spontaneous play to experiment, make
relevant observations, and draw conclusions. This deep shift in expectations
impacts all areas of cognitive development. Creative thinking is inextricably
linked to cognitive development, and current research is showing scientists and
educators that hypothesis testing, as well as causal inference, are developing
from infancy. While policy makers have acknowledged the socio-emotional
needs of humans from infancy to three years old, their intellect is a new field of
study, one that is revealing a profound understanding of the world, and a
capacity to absorb knowledge in sophisticated ways. This should inform every
area of cognitive development, including creative thinking. If we expect children
to think creatively from a very young age, then we will provide them with rich,
multifaceted ways to develop those abilities in their domains of knowledge.
The Psychology of Being Taught
The child’s awareness of being taught is another important contribution
psychology has made to creative thinking and the field of education. When
children simply observed an experimenter operating a toy that required only the
last two steps to activate it, but the experimenter added unnecessary actions at
the beginning, often, the children simply performed the last two actions when
they were given the toy. However, when the experimenter told the child they
were instructing them on how to use the toy, the children followed all of the steps
performed by the experimenter most of the time. In a study performed by
16
Bonawitz (Gopnik, 2012b), children were given a toy consisting of four tubes,
each designed to perform a unique action, from lighting up to squeaking. In the
A scenario the toy is bumped, and it squeaks, then the child is left to play with the
toy. In the B scenario, the experimenter tells the child it is their own toy,
demonstrates the tube that squeaks, and leaves the child with the toy. In the A
scenario, children proceeded to discover all of the toy’s properties. In the B
scenario, they simply replicated the demonstration without exploring the toy any
further, failing to discover the other three tube functions. Receiving direct
instruction seemed to inhibit children, causing them to replicate instead of
experiment in creative ways. “Even preschoolers know when they are being
taught, and quickly take on information from teachers. But explicit teaching can
also narrow the range of hypotheses that children are willing to consider”
(Gopnik, 2012b, p. 1627).
Dialogic Reading
Dialogic reading, a specific method of interactive reading, was first
developed in 1988 (Morgan & Meier, 2008) as an intervention for improving
language and literacy. The communication model uses two acronyms; PEER
and CROWD (What Works Clearinghouse, 2007). The PEER acronym (prompt,
evaluate, expand, repeat) describes a linear communication model intended to
engage adults and children in a rich language exchange while supporting
emergent reading skills. For example, asking “what is that”, evaluating the
answer, then modeling the correct answer or praising and expanding on the
answer by adding more details. The model also includes the adult repeating, or
17
asking the child to repeat, certain words or phrases. The CROWD sequence
(completion, recall, open-ended, “wh” prompts, distancing) offers prompts meant
to cultivate language and critical thinking skills in specific developmental stages.
The adult allows the child to complete sentences, asks them what they recall
about a story, asks open-ended questions, uses “wh” prompts like “what is that?”
and relates the story to the child’s own life. In dialogic reading, instruction is
sequential, and each stage requires mastery before moving to the next level
(Flynn, 2011). The first level requires identifying 75% of the illustrations correctly
through single word responses to “what” prompts. The second level requires
longer phrases or sentences expanding on the illustrations, and the third level
incorporates open-ended questions and distancing, asking children to go beyond
the existing illustrations through storytelling and associations with their own life.
In this model, only the most advanced children would have the opportunity to
answer open-ended questions or make associations with their own life, typically
at around four to five years old. The same book can be used through all of these
phases, and the goal is to facilitate the child’s telling of the story. The adult
listens more and reads less while the child listens less and speaks more.
In their landmark study of the method, now named “dialogic reading”,
Whitehurst et al (1988) studied the language of 29 children aged 21 to 35 months
old from the Long Island, New York area with normal development and middle-
class, stable families. After examining research analyzing the ways parents read
books with their children during shared reading, dialogic reading was designed to
replicate the most effective methods found in parent-child dyads that encouraged
18
language and literacy skills. Practices like asking descriptive questions, open-
ended questions, encouraging expansions, and responding to children’s answers
in positive ways, were believed to contribute to gains in literacy. Half of the
families were simply asked to read storybooks with their children. The other half
of the families were trained to change the way they communicated during story
time, by adding three distinct practices. First, using prompts like “what is that?”
instead of yes no questions or questions that would simply lead to pointing and,
depending on the child’s abilities, adding more open-ended questions like “where
do you think the cat is going?”. Second, responses to the child’s answers would
both elaborate on the visual information, “yes, that striped orange cat is sitting on
a bumpy log” and the parent would offer praise and corrective feedback. If it was
a dog, not a horse, the reader would model the correct answer, but not as a
criticism. Third, the parent would be responsive to the child’s responses, noticing
their progress and adjusting accordingly. For four weeks both groups audio
taped story time three to four times a week, kept a log of all storybook readings,
and were instructed to use picture books with simple, eye-catching illustrations.
At the end of four weeks, the children received three language assessments,
which were administered a second time, nine months later. The study found a
significant increase in expressive language in the experimental group, as well as
longer utterances and less use of single words than the control group. Nine
months after the intervention, while differences had diminished, there was a
lasting impact on the experimental group. This meant dialogic reading was
relevant to research focused on expressive language, and while the rigid
19
structure was unappealing, there were specific practices that offered value and
merited consideration.
After almost twenty years, the US Department of Education published a
revised report on dialogic reading (What Works Clearinghouse, 2007) that
assessed the effectiveness of the dialogic reading intervention. Five studies
were included, two of which were conducted by Whitehurst et al in 1994, four of
which met all What Works Clearinghouse evidence standards, and one of which
was included with reservations. There were more than 300 preschool aged
children, mostly from low-income families, participating in the studies measuring
the intervention’s impact on oral language and phonological processing. It was
found that while they did not see positive effects in phonological processing,
there were significant improvements in oral language. Meanwhile, proponents of
dialogic reading researched parent-child dyads, low-income parent-child dyads,
low-income children in educational settings, and the combination of low-income
children at home and in educational settings.
Dialogic reading continues to receive attention from educators, explaining
its merits and offering instruction for implementation (Morgan & Meier, 2008;
Flynn, 2011). Increasing engagement and learning through dialogue, and
receptive and expressive language through elaboration are two of the most
significant benefits cited (Morgan & Meier, 2008), while considering the role
dialogic reading can play for children with development delays or language
impairment (Flynn, 2011), however, these authors are referencing earlier studies,
20
simply reiterating the findings from the past and reviewing the methods used to
implement “dialogic reading”.
Some, however, question the current claims of dialogic reading (Hindman,
Connor, Jewkes, & Morrison, 2008) advising more thorough, comprehensive,
consistent research strategies in order to obtain clearer results about the benefits
of shared book reading to specific age groups and ability levels, the importance
of studying both decoding and meaning making, and the benefits and layers of
complexity in de-contextualized language. While others remind educators to
consider how the importance of pedagogy, book choices, the relationship
between children and adult, as well as the development of language skills impact
efficacy during interactive read-alouds (Lennox, 2013). Lastly, a reminder is
made to consider the advantages of integrated reading practices between home
and school, as well as the need to look beyond shared book reading to other
practices that develop literacy skills (Hindman et al, 2008).
Shared Reading, Interactive Reading, Dialogic Reading, Read-Alouds, or
Interactive Read Alouds?
Researchers used various terms to discuss interactive reading, causing
confusion about which specific practice they were referencing, and while dialogic
reading used specific methods, some critics of dialogic reading referred to it as
shared reading, interactive reading, or an interactive read-aloud, possibly
because the term “dialogic reading” was coined by the authors and does not
represent the practice of dialogic teaching. Shared reading, while used by some
when referring to interactive reading, is an established practice of reading in an
21
adult-child dyad where the adult reads a story to the child, without expecting the
child to tell the story. Interactive reading was the term I chose to use so I would
not confuse shared reading, in the traditional sense, dialogic reading, as a
specific method, nor mislead the reader where my intention is to clarify. While
emergent literacy skills were not the focus of my study, dialogic reading was the
most researched practice of interactive picture book readings in the field of
education. The higher stages of dialogic reading, open-ended questions and
distancing, were practices included in my study that were also used in other
forms of interactive reading, sometimes labeled interactive read-alouds. Dialogic
reading practices also expanded on children’s utterances, by adding more
descriptive words for illustrations in the picture book, and while I intended to
elaborate in a slightly different way, it was still a pertinent application. Lastly,
since creativity seems to be a mixture of general and specific domain knowledge
(Beghetto et al, 2012), focusing on research and assessments in the domain of
picture books should offer insight into the complexities of cultivating creative
thinking and expressive language with picture books, even if, and maybe
especially if, the approach is flawed. Interactive read-alouds, the term used by
some of the authors reviewed in this section, have the potential to inform literacy
practices if used as a playful way to deconstruct the adult-child hierarchy, offering
early childhood educators an access point for cultivating agency by handing the
story back to the child. The quality of the relationship between the adult and
children must be placed at the center of any interactive practice in early
childhood education (Barclay, 2014) and skillful teachers with pedagogical
22
knowledge play a key role in developing literacy skills (Lennox, 2013). There is
no “quick fix” or straight and narrow road that will address the needs of every
child. As educators, our ability to be adaptive and responsive, assessing each
child and providing them with the support they need, will do far more than any
single “method” or strategy. Interactive reading is one of many ways educators
can support emergent literacy, and integrating ideation and improvisation to
develop creative thinking will only enrich the practice.
Dialogic Reading Inventory
The significance of the interactive reading research conducted has led to
the development of a comprehensive assessment tool labeled DRI, Dialogic
Reading Inventory (Dixon-Krauss, Januszka, & Chae, 2010). Dixon-Krauss et al
conducted a quantitative study in order to construct the DRI, a measure for
parent-child reading practices. Twenty-three parent-child pairs in an Even Start
program for families in the southeast part of the United States were in home-
based and program based settings, with children aged three to five years old.
They were videotaped for one five to ten minute session while reading one of two
randomly assigned picture books: The Wheels on the Bus or Where’s Spot?
Their interactions were scored according to four categories typically used in
reading assessment models: print awareness, phonological awareness,
comprehension, and attention to text. The DRI was developed as a mediated
assessment in order to provide more information about a child’s skill levels in the
present and future by measuring performance in the context of a dyad, where the
23
child receives both support and scaffolding from the adult. Using both content
and construct validity, the study found parents initiated 311 responses while
children initiated 101. Between books, adults initiated 173 responses with
Where’s Spot and 138 responses with Wheels on the Bus while children
responded 62 times for Wheels on the Bus and 39 times with Where’s Spot?.
Since The Wheels on the Bus has a repetitive language pattern and Where’s
Spot has a cumulative sequence pattern the researchers believed the adults
probably focused on increasing comprehension in Where’s Spot by engaging in
more dialogue with the child. The study was designed to analyze and quantify
reading behaviors in dyads. It offered an interesting example of the varied ways
interactive reading manifests with different picture books. This study reinforced
the importance of selecting a picture book with intention when conducting an
intervention, since the two books brought out different behaviors in the dyads.
While the DRI intends to measure reading comprehension in relation to dialogic
reading, it fails to assess and account for decontextualized meaning talk, even
though dialogic reading is meant to encourage open-ended questions and
distancing at the higher levels of engagement, theoretically providing the space
for new ideas and associations. Again, this reminds us that while dialogic
reading aims to move beyond the first two stages of engagement with picture
books, educators and researchers both focus on skill-acquisition instead of
creative thinking. Unfortunately, dialogic reading has presented a linear model
for emergent literacy skill development, oversimplifying a complex process, and
encouraging the use of assessments limited to skill acquisition, instead of
24
observations that prioritize the quality of the relationship and the exchanges
between adult and child in their analysis.
Challenges of Dialogic Reading
Even though dialogic reading claims to put the story into the hands of
children, it builds on an existing hierarchy, creating a rigid, linear structure,
instead of facilitating responsive engagement and communication. The dialogic
reading model would require deconstruction to align the practice with the origins
of its name, dialogic teaching. The Dialogic Inquiry Tool (DIT) is used in older
classrooms to assess dialogic teaching practices (Reznitskaya, 2012). It departs
from the focus on skill-acquisition in dialogic reading into a deeper, more open-
ended exploration of knowledge, the process I aim to facilitate. The most salient
point I would like to convey addresses the need to avoid all questions that follow
the traditional recitation model, reinforcing the authority of the teacher and
directing the thinking of the student. For example, dialogic reading uses prompts
with correct answers in mind, like asking a child “what is that?” when pointing to a
specific animal. While the DIT is not a tool used in early childhood education, we
would do well to benefit from the underlying assumptions that guide the deeper
philosophical position in the dialogic teaching practice. Namely, that we are
meant to facilitate children’s engagement with knowledge during dialogues, not
test them on their existing knowledge. We will discover what they know if we are
responsive and observant. A well-placed, probing question is better use of
precious shared reading time than a single-answer prompt, or question.
Unfortunately, the present “dialogic reading” model turns interactive reading into
25
skill acquisition, following the model of teacher directed instruction at Head Start,
instead of creating a rich, playful interaction between adults and children.
Text and Illustrations
Dialogic reading focuses solely on illustrations as the source for
embellishment and open-ended questions. Adults are directed to choose picture
books with minimal words and focus on the illustrations as the source of
dialogue. Yet text offers many opportunities for embellishment and open-ended
questions too, offering multi-faceted ways to engage with picture books. Literacy
research still has many gaps in understanding (Hindman et al, 2008) and while it
has been established that both shared book reading and an interactive read-
aloud contribute to emergent literacy, it is short-sighted to narrow reading
practices down to simplistic picture books with little text for all children, when we
have so much to learn about the complexities of developing literacy, from the
impact of the environment, to the benefits for individual children, each with their
own skill level, history, preferences, and temperament.
Postmodern Picturebooks
As an emerging field of research, postmodern picture books offer us
insight into deconstructing hierarchies and revealing hidden assumptions about
stories by using meta-fictive devices to disrupt their typical structure. Pantaleo
(2014) explores these characteristics in The Metafictive Nature of Postmodern
Picturebooks, from narrators who speak directly to the reader, to disruptions in
time, intertextuality, and stories within stories. These devices, and others, aim to
reveal our expectations about picture books, forcing the reader to be active
26
participants in constructing meaning. Sipe (2002) valued the way postmodern
picture books required children to actively engage with the story, and offered the
possibility that Dresang (1999) was right to assert that children have a new
understanding of text as changeable, informed by exposure to a multimedia
world. Two essential strategies for competent readers in the contemporary
world, cracking the code and making meaning, are engaged by postmodern
picture books (Simandan, 2010), and as educators, we are the ones responsible
for facilitating new ways of knowing and reading the world (Rogers, 1999).
Studies with elementary-aged children have shown a deep engagement with,
and understanding of, meta-fictive devices and their purpose (Sipe & Pantaleo,
2008). Postmodern picture books could potentially support the higher aims of
interactive reading because they aspire to transform the reading experience into
an active conversation with the book. As the world of postmodern picture books
gains more recognition (Nolde, 2009), research in the field of early childhood
could provide important insights into the development of creative thinking and
cultivating a growth mindset from infancy to adulthood.
Domain knowledge supports the development of domain specific creativity
(Baer, 2012) and in an interactive picture book reading we can observe
interpersonal relationships, language, pretend play, and picture books. These
four domains of knowledge become integrated in the complex exchange between
adult and child. Six fields of research: neurobiology, psychology, education,
creativity, dialogic reading, and postmodern picture books, intersect when we
27
choose to use a postmodern picture book in an interactive reading session,
expecting very young children to be capable of ideation and improvisation.
28
Chapter 3: Methodology
In order to document a practice that is transferable I focused on specific,
definable practices I have developed successfully with songs and applied them to
the picture book. Using a picture book allowed me to assess the impact of
scaffolding on idea generation and improvisation with children who were only
familiar with using songs in this way. I also hoped to gain additional insights by
changing the medium. In the same way I ask children to use any song as a
guide for creating new ideas, could I use another medium as a guide for
facilitating idea generation and improvisation? Would my results offer further
understanding of this practice and its benefits? Hubbard and Power (2003)
remind us that “…teacher research matters more than ever because it gives
teachers a touchstone for their beliefs, a firm foundation for practices, and a
haven to return to whenever they wonder if their questions matter (p.x).”
While I use songs as the medium for generating ideas and encouraging
improvisation for my intervention, I was interested in developing these ideas
further by integrating a picture book into my practice. After observing play-based
approaches to music that still lacked frequent input from young children, I was
motivated to cultivate and refine a teaching practice that would continuously and
actively invite ideas from children. I’ve also wanted to facilitate creativity by
defining liberating structures that allow children, and teachers, to use a familiar
medium while adding their own ideas into the mix. My aim was to develop
flexible versus fixed thinking using a constructivist, inquiry-based approach to a
29
typically fixed medium in order to study improvisation and idea generation,
characteristics of creative thinking.
As a music specialist, I have focused on idea-generation and dramatic
play in the programs where I have worked with young children for the past three
years. Intuitively, I have developed a practice that has become definable in an
organic, responsive way. I facilitate creative thinking by asking the children to
add their ideas into the songs we do, changing the power dynamic between child
and adult. I actively ask them to change the subject, the object, the description,
or the movement, in other words, the nouns, adjectives, and verbs, in every song
we sing. For instance, The Itsy Bitsy Spider could change to The Itsy Bitsy
Mouse, or the spider could sleep on the waterspout, instead of climbing up, and
then we all become mice, or sleep on the waterspout. I see myself as a
facilitator, handing the song back to the children so they have ownership of both
their ideas and the song itself. My hope is that this encourages children to feel
ownership of their own ideas in the company an adult, shifting the power dynamic
between adult and child.
Reading Session
My aim was to create the space for children to feel comfortable adding
new ideas to an existing picture book, through scaffolding and skillful questions
while engaging with an adult in a safe, supportive relationship. I modeled adding
my new ideas to the existing text, and asked the children for their ideas. As an
improviser I did not create an exact script or fixed lesson plan beforehand,
instead I applied the strategies I used in music to the picture book, knowing I
30
would adapt my lesson plan creatively as a facilitator as we were “doing” the
book. Ultimately, my aim was to create a safe environment that encouraged the
children to generate new ideas in meaningful ways and I felt a fixed script or rigid
lesson plan would dampen the spirit of risk-taking and improvisation I wanted to
model and encourage. Hubbard and Power (2003) outline strategies for
interviewing children, which applied equally to an interactive reading session.
Active listening, flexibility, and an improvisational style combined with enough
time and the use of open-ended questions created a playful, informal mood
during the intervention. The many collaborative moments I experienced with the
children throughout my action research assured me that I was responsibly
orienting my inquiry in order to understand them.
Initially I observed my teaching practice while keeping a journal to
document my self assessment in order to identify the specific skills I valued
developing the most as an early childhood music specialist. Next I worked on
ideas for writing my own picture book titled Will You Write a Song with Me? After
I wrote the first draft of the book, I used the journal, memos, and self-assessment
to uncover why the book seemed to be adding an unnecessary complication to
my research. Generating original ideas with musicality in young children was the
initial focus I felt most compelled to facilitate and document, and at this time I
was already reading Chris Raschka’s (1997) Charlie Parker Played Bebop, which
I realized offered the most important elements I was hoping to create in Will You
Write a Song with Me, namely, a playful, liberating structure written with
musicality.
31
Charlie Parker Played Bebop: A Postmodern Picturebook
Charlie Parker Played Bebop was already published, proven in the
classroom, and accessible to any teacher in the country. This book has simple,
compelling illustrations, engaging, rhythmic text, and even uses scatting, a form
of improvisation in jazz music. As a postmodern picturebook it also engages
metafictive devices categorized by Pantaleo (2014);
A. a character who looks directly at the reader,
B. a nonlinear timeline,
C. placing one illustration of Charlie Parker upside down,
D. switching between a typical sentence structure and scatting,
E. borderless images, with all of the illustrations spilling off of the page.
Charlie Parker Played Bebop encourages participation, with carefully chosen
words structured in a rhythmic, expressive form. I analyzed my results phrase by
phrase, requiring me to number each page of text, allowing me to track my
interpretation of the transcription more easily. Interpreting the text offered me
insights into the complex layers this book affords.
1. “Charlie Parker played be bop.”
2. “Charlie Parker played saxophone.”
3. “The music sounded like be bop.”
The use of bebop as a repeating word adds a singsong, catchy refrain children
can remember and repeat, over and over. I found this word naturally encourages
the use of musicality, and modeled turning the word into a descending two-note
phrase, which the children echoed. The first three illustrations, each on the left
32
hand page, feature Charlie Parker playing his saxophone, drawn from three
different angles. On every right hand page, the text is followed underneath by an
overshoe with feet, walking toward the end of the page, adding the feel of a
walking beat to the text.
4. “Never leave your cat alone.”
On the left hand page, the cat looks over its back toward the reader, not quite
making eye contact, with a cloud of scribbles above its head. The reader can
both sense the possibility of trouble from the cat, and also, feel the beautifully
placed rhyme of saxophone and cat alone.
5. “Be bop.”
6. “Fisk, fisk.”
7. “Lollipop.”
8. “Boomba, boomba.”
9. “Bus stop.”
10. “Zznnzznn.”
11. “Boppitty, bibbitty,”
12. “bop. BANG!”
This section of the text has walking birds illustrating the first two-page spread,
then walking lollipops, then walking bus stops, and finally, all of them together in
a cacophony of sound: “Boppitty, bibbitty, bop. BANG!” The use of scatting in the
second section inspired me to integrate this musical element throughout the
book, and allowed frequent invitations to participate in word play. In jazz,
scatting is used as musical play with words, changing them, rearranging them,
33
inventing them, and experimenting. This form of improvisation is an engaging
medium for young children, and encourages spontaneity and fun. When a jazz
musician scats, it has the spirit of playfulness, spontaneity, and suspense.
13. “Charlie Parker played be bop.”
14. “Charlie Parker played no trombone.”
15. “The music sounded like be bop.”
16. “Barbeque that last leg bone.”
The first illustration in this section shows Charlie Parker playing saxophone from
another angle. In the second illustration he is scratching his head with a finger
on his right hand while looking down at a trombone he is holding with his left
hand. The line “Charlie Parker played no trombone” introduces the idea that
some things don’t belong in this book, as in, “no trombone”. The trombone is out
of place, it stumps Charlie Parker, and the reader momentarily orients back to the
world outside of the story, a metafictive device to remind us that we are reading a
constructed story, where things were left out, edited, or deleted. In the same way
we each find certain things perplexing in life, while other things seem to come
naturally. Charlie Parker, while mastering the saxophone, is flummoxed by a
trombone. The third illustration in this section has a classic postmodern picture
book characteristic, flipping the illustration of Charlie Parker playing his
saxophone upside-down, with the illustration on the right hand page and the text
on the left hand page. A bird stands above the text on the left hand page looking
down at Charlie Parker to the right, who has blue sky below his head. The final
illustration in this section maintains the text on the left and the illustration on the
34
right, with a big leg bone on a barbeque filling up the page. On the left, the text is
below three overshoes with walking feet, who are heading toward the leg bone
on the grill. Again, another sophisticated rhyme, no trombone and last leg bone,
is unusual, compelling, and paired with an engaging graphic.
17. “Alphabet, alphabet, alphabet, alph,
Chickadee, chickadee, chickadee, chick,
Overshoes, overshoes, overshoes, o,
Reeti-footi, reeti-footi, reeti-footi, ree.”
The second scatting section is condensed into one page. Four lines of text are
dropping down the page, but while the first three are evenly spaced apart, the
final line is jammed into a small space right below “overshoes, overshoes,
overshoes, o”, giving it a playful, almost invasive quality, as if someone else is
intruding and making their own noises. “Reeti-footi, reeti-footi, reeti-footi,ree” is a
sound one could easily imagine coming from a child as they are listening to a
picture book, just as it could be a sound coming out of the saxophone, sneaking
onto a page meant for the other three lines with illustrations to support them.
18. “Charlie Parker played be bop.
Charlie Parker played alto saxophone.
The music sounded like hip hop.
Never leave your cat…”
19. “a-lone”
The final section of text is also condensed into a one-page format on the left,
summing up the storyline, with an illustration of Charlie Parker on the right,
35
playing his saxophone from yet another angle. However, something is missing.
The cat adds a wrinkle to the neat, concise ending. On the last two-page spread,
the cat is between the two syllables “a-lone”, looking directly at the reader with a
grumpy expression and dark scribbles above its head, as if this character had the
last laugh, and was actually the most important character in the book.
While I did not knowingly seek out a postmodern picture book, I now
realize that many of the picture books I find most engaging and exciting use
metafictive devices. In The Book With No Pictures (Novak, 2014, pp. 4-7) we
find a very clear metafictive device:
“Here is how books work:
Everything the words say, the person reading the book has to say.
(turn page)
No matter what.
(turn page)
That’s the deal.
That’s the rule.
So that means…
Even if the words say…
36
(turn the page)
BLORK.
Wait-what?
That doesn’t even mean anything.”
Metafictive devices create a more interactive relationship to text and images
while revealing the hidden subtext to the reader (Pantaleo, 2014).
My Teaching Approach
Lisa Delpit, an educational activist, encourages teachers to be prepared
for the complexities of the classroom by utilizing three practices (Hubbard &
Power, 2003). First, be willing to learn from children in their context, with humility
and respect. Second, using inquiry as a guide, consider how you can
understand your students in order to meet their needs. Third, be generous with
your observations, allowing other teachers to benefit from your work. These
strategies are at the heart of action research and allowed me to reconsider the
potential worth of sharing my findings, refocus my reflections on the needs of the
children, and finally, lead me to change my intervention mid-stream. This
intervention aimed to define specific strategies that were meaningful and
replicable in any classroom, regardless of philosophy, allowing children and
teachers to benefit from this practice. However, my approach was deeply
informed by progressive teaching practices with a constructivist foundation.
Defining my core teaching theories gave me insights into the underlying
37
motivation for my inquiry, and informed my revision of the intervention I had
originally planned. Remaining creative and flexible also gave me permission to
change course in the middle of my investigative phase, ensuring my study was
focusing on my deeper, less defined questions. My question remained open-
ended and fluid in order to make space for unexpected results as I tried to
articulate the questions I hoped to ask and examine. The first phase allowed me
to clarify my inquiry, in order to design my action research, with field notes, a
journal, creative writing, and memos. I then finalized the details of my reading
sessions and created a checklist of potentially relevant categories to observe and
assess.
Data Collection
I was motivated to conduct action research where I work as a music specialist
for half an hour every week because I wanted my discoveries to be informed by the
rich practice I had already established (Hubbard & Power, 2003), so I led three
reading sessions in the North Oakland home-based early childhood program.
Integrating analysis into the data collection process allowed me to continually adjust
both my research parameters (timing, location) and the ways I engaged with the
children during the reading (tone, speed, intention). I collected quantitative data on
two three year-olds for two six-minute book readings and qualitative data on all of
the children for all three readings. I created a priori categories, then edited and
refined the communication strategies post hoc after analyzing the tally sheet and
identifying the most relevant research categories. Using the voice memo function on
my phone to record all of the book readings, then transcribing the recordings,
38
allowed me to focus on the quality of the book reading during the intervention,
without focusing on documentation. Once I transcribed the book readings I used
colored highlighters to identify specific categories, and went through the
transcriptions many times in order to both identify and tabulate every category I
identified as relevant that could be heard in a transcribed audio recording. Finally, I
selected the following specific communication strategies I used, and the children’s
responses, for analysis:
1. Modeling idea generation
2. Open-ended questions
3. Directive questions
4. Children’s new ideas; sounds and words
5. Children’s comments
Data Analysis
“Patience, a willingness to make mistakes, and playfulness can lead us to
a deep seeing of the underlying patterns beneath surface appearances.”
(Hubbard & Power, 2003, p.90). Using the Constant Comparison Method of
Glaser and Strauss (Hubbard & Power, 2003), I identified categories related to
specific concepts while analyzing my data, then integrated the separated
categories into the larger picture. Once I clarified my findings, I considered the
theoretical assumptions I had started with and focused on the validity of my
findings. I asked myself if the new information offered me insights into my
inquiry. “In seeking to explain the material you are collecting, you enter into a
dialogue with it, questioning it further, finding new meanings and different
39
rhythms.” (Hubbard & Power, 2003, p.88) Grounded Theory, an important
contribution from Schatzman and Strauss (Hubbard & Power, 2003), also
informed my data analysis, reminding me to step back and allow patterns to
reveal themselves as I analyzed and categorized my transcriptions.
Crystallization, a more recent contribution from Richardson (Hubbard & Power,
2003), uses a multi-disciplinary analysis of research findings. I turned to therapy
and creative writing to inform my research more deeply. Creative writing helped
me in the early stages of research, as I worked to define my intervention, and in
the final stages, as I integrated and synthesized my findings. For parallels to
psychotherapy, I consulted my mom, Gillian Fynn, a licensed LCSW who works
at a community health clinic in West Berkeley named Lifelong, as well as having
just completed a multidisciplinary certification in infant mental health. I was
looking for more connections between underlying themes in my research and
discovered that contemporary best practices in therapy focus on skillful questions
and a less hierarchical power structure, where the therapist is no longer seen as
the expert with the information on how to “fix the patient”, instead, the goal is to
empower clients and give them a sense of agency. This approach paralleled my
findings that the combination of skillful questions and a less hierarchical adult-
child dynamic cultivates agency and creative thinking.
Validity
For process validity (Hendricks, 2013) I recorded the book reading as a voice
memo, creating an audit trail, then transcribed the full sessions into a running log.
For transferability I included a thick description of the setting, the research, and the
40
children. I documented and shared the results for outcome validity, and I engaged in
detailed, extended analysis and assessment for catalytic validity. For triangulation I
used a journal, self-assessment, a lesson plan, voice memos, transcriptions of the
readings, a checklist, a graph, and a tally sheet, as well as written memos and
anecdotal records (Hubbard & Power, 2003) to collect, organize, and analyze data.
Setting
This action research took place at a North Oakland daycare serving twelve
children between the ages of one and a half to 3 years old, five days a week.
Three of the children in my group were three years old, one was two years old,
and one was one and a half years old. All of the children were middle/upper
middle class, four were Caucasian and one was African American. Three of
them had started at the daycare in the fall of 2014, and two of the three year-olds
had already been in the program for a full year. The first book reading took place
in the main indoor space, a 300 square foot room, where there is a couch and a
carpet in the corner. After music class I invited the four children whose parents
had signed waivers, if they would like to stay and read a book with me. The first
time, all four children stayed and we spent 6 minutes reading and embellishing
Charlie Parker Played BeBop. The next week, one child decided to leave for
snack and all of the other children followed suit. I took a two-week break in case
the children needed time between research sessions, but after speaking with the
director and one of her child-care providers, we decided they were probably
ready to go after half an hour of music, to eat snack at their usual time. We
agreed to try the research before music the following week. While we had
41
planned to use the same spot for the reading, it was raining the following session
and all of the kids were inside, so I took the four with signed waivers up to the
reading loft, a three foot by six foot space in the southeast corner of the room.
The second and third sessions both took place in the reading loft, but I decided to
omit the third session from my main research numbers because of too many
confounding factors. One of the older children chose not to participate, possibly
because it was hot in the loft, one of the children integrated another book into the
reading, and we had several interruptions from other children climbing up the
ladder, wanting to join in. When I assessed the three sessions, I realized the first
two sessions provided meaningful quantitative and qualitative data, while the
third session only offered qualitative data. I used the first two sessions to
analyze the numbers, and assessed the third session for further insights into the
study.
I chose this site for my research because half of the children are here for
the second year in a row, and they are familiar with my style of teaching. Every
week I use songs to generate original ideas, and the children are very
comfortable adding fire engines, race cars, rabbits, jumping, rolling, or sleeping
into any song we sing. They now expect to be able to add ideas throughout
music, from concepts to song choice, as well as movements, or associations they
are making with their own lives. While I was initially hoping to have more
children participate in the study, only five parents filled out the consent forms
over the course of two months. Initially I delayed the research in order to include
more children, but once I had four, I decided to proceed, and then one more
42
family filled out their consent form, totaling five. The two children who were most
vocal during the reading attended both the first and second reading, are both
three year-olds, and have been attending music with me since the fall of 2013.
They had already heard the book a few times in the 2013-2014 school year
ending in May, but I had never read the book in the summer or fall of 2014 until
the three reading sessions in November and December. The other two children
in each session were younger and had only started music in the fall of 2014.
While they participated by echoing the book, or my ideas, only one of them
added one new idea between the first and second reading. For this reason I
decided to focus on the two older, more experienced children when analyzing my
quantitative data, since this would offer me the most clarity and information
relative to my focus. I then assessed all three sessions for qualitative data, and
included the younger children in my analysis.
43
Chapter 4: Results
The action research validated the use of a picture book as a playful mediator for
modeling and facilitating ideation, improvisation, and expressive language in
early childhood. The results indicated the value of further studies to assess and
document the use of prosodic, postmodern picture books, as well as other
liberating structures, to facilitate playful, complex exchanges that develop
children’s creative thinking, demystify the process for educators, and empower
children to lead the narrative while engaging with adults in meaningful ways.
With this study I documented my teaching practices, illustrated how they
facilitated expressive language and the generation of new ideas, and recorded,
transcribed, and analyzed the children’s ideas. Each of the teaching practices
were intended to support creative thinking with the children, and the children’s
contributions were analyzed for significance. In the first session, I offered more
ideas, asked questions, and provided scaffolding as input. By the second
session, the children added more ideas while there was a reduced need for
scaffolding or input from me. In the first session I contributed a total of 29 ideas
and questions and the children had 28 ideas. In the second reading I added 12
ideas, four of which were reinforcing prosody, and the children added 49 ideas.
The children’s increase in expressive language, original ideas, the evolution of
their quality, and the deepening of their meaning, were visible in the combination
of quantitative and qualitative data. This increase and deepening between the
first and the second reading further demonstrated the creative potential of young
children and the effectiveness of playful scaffolding. The following chart
44
illustrates how my input decreased while the children’s ideas increased, followed
by a list of practices and behaviors that were quantified for analysis:
1. Modeling idea generation
First Session: 12 sounds, 10 words
Second Session: 0 sounds, 10 words
(Four of the words in the second session were spoken multiple times, without
pauses, intended to reinforce prosody)
2. Open-ended questions
First Session: five open-ended questions
Second Session: two open-ended questions
3. Directive questions
First Session: two directive questions
Second Session: no directive questions
Second Session: 5 new sounds, 33 new words
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1st Session 2nd Session
IDEA GENERATION
Table 1
My Input
Child Ideas
45
4. Children’s new ideas: sounds and words
First Session: 18 sounds, 10 words
Second Session: 5 sounds, 38 words
5. Children’s comments
First Session: no comments
Second Session: six comments
Transcriptions
In the following transcription, the italicized words were spoken by the
children and the plain words were spoken by the researcher. Also, in some
sections of the transcription children spoke at the same time. When this
happened, I placed the second, simultaneous word or phrase below in
parentheses. Whenever I added a new idea I tried to show myself thinking, by
pausing and making a “thinking” facial expression, in order to model self-
reflection.
First Session: Text
The first time I read the first four lines of text with the children, one of them
remembered the hook, “be bop” immediately, and then children kept repeating it
at the end of each line.
Second Session: Text
The second time I read the first four lines of text, they continued using the
refrain “be bop”, one of them tried out the word “sax-phone” and they were ready
46
to add ideas immediately after I added one of my own ideas: “Never leave your…
doooooog alone”
“Never leave your cat… alone alone
Never leave your… dooooog alone Never leave your… smell alone Never leave your smell alone Never leave your… toys alone Never leave your toys alone No, never leave your kid alone Never leave your kid alone Never leave your dinner alone Never leave your dinner alone Never leave, never leave your phone alone Never leave your phone alone Never leave your light alone Never leave your light alone Never leave your lifejacket… No (laughing) Those are for boats Those are for boats, yeah, it’s true”
Analysis
This example illustrates the quality and meaning of the ideas that were
generated, as well as the desire of the child to clarify the definition of the object
they had included. This comment, “those are for boats” was meaningful to me
47
because it conveyed a desire to communicate their idea clearly, referencing the
real world context where lifejackets would be found.
First Session: Scatting
The first time I read the scatting section in the middle the children
repeated be bop while I read the scatting in the text and added two ideas of my
own: “Chirp chirp chirp chirp chirp” and “Hamburger”. Then I said “Hmmm…
What Else?” and one of the children said “nothing else” so I responded with
“nothing else, nothing else, nothing, nothing, nothing else” to the tune of “na-na-
na-na-na-na”, the classic children’s sing-song game melody. After this I
continued reading, and once we had repeated “Boomba Boomba” two times, one
of the children said “Poomba Poomba”. The children had not added new sounds
to existing words in the book, so when one of them started this, I tried to extend it
for as long as possible. To me, this was an exciting development that I had not
encountered when we added new ideas to existing songs, because the ability to
play around with specific words in a free-form way during music was not a skill
set I had managed to facilitate. This led to many fun, sophisticated ideas
evolving from each word that erupted out of the group.
“Boomba Boomba Boomba Boomba Boomba Boomba Boomba Boomba (Poomba Poomba) Poomba Poomba Toomba Toomba Toomba toomba toomba (Foomba Foomba Foomba fonga)
48
Fonga” After I read “bus stop”, added “race track”, and then asked “What else?
Hmmm… What else?” One child repeated “lollipop” from the earlier text, which I
echoed. Then we continued playing with sounds.
“Znnn Znnn HinHinHin Hin Hin Gin Hin Hin Bin Hoopa Hoopa Doopa Hoofa Foofa boopa Foofa Foofa Choopa Booga Boga Baka (Tamsen laughs) Boppity Bibbity Bop BANG! Bibbity Bop Bang (Bity Bop Bang) Bang… Chang… Ka-kang kang kang krrrrrrrrang Kachang” “Blpblipang” (lots of experimenting with tongue sounds) “Chika Bang Chika Bang Chika Bang Hang Hang”
Second Session: Scatting
The second time I read the scatting section in the middle we added some
treats, and pretended to eat them up. Then some new ideas emerged around
the bus stop theme.
“Bus Stop Bus Stop Truck Stop Truck Stop Car Stop Car Stop
49
Phone Stop Phone Stop Bicycle Stop Book Stop Book Stop We’re on a book stop Book Stop” At the end of this section the children wanted to share something about the loft,
where we were reading the book, on our book stop. It had recently been built
and I had never been in the loft with the children. When one of them started
showing me something that was important to them, I had to decide whether or
not I would pause the reading of the book and focus on something else, or try to
focus back on the book. So I listened and responded to them before returning to
the text, but then realized I needed to spend a little more time observing their
shared excitement about touching the roof. This was relevant to the action
research because it valued their communication, and while the action research
made me task focused, I needed to maintain my open style of communication
that encouraged associations, revelations, and any communication important to
the children.
First Session: Middle
The first time I read the middle portion of the story one of the children
invented the word “tucar” in order to add an idea, and a bit later, the word
“mwawe”. In this section the children are working their way toward making
meaning. Even though most of the words lack relevance, I accept every idea as
a brave risk, knowing this process will deepen if I allow the children space and
time to experiment and explore. In brainstorming techniques all ideas are invited,
regardless of quality, relevance, or function, in order to lower inhibitions and help
50
facilitate risk-taking. The first layer of exploration resembled a brainstorming
session.
“Charlie Parker played Bebop! Charlie Parker played noooooooooh trombone Charlie Parker played no drums No drums He played no… tucar! Tucar! He played no… guitar He played no… shakers No What else? He played no… hair No Hair! No Clouds No Clouds! No No No Mwawe No what? Mwawe No water? Nope And then he said… he never say… Uh, he never say… Tree! (Beck) He never say… Rocketship! Rocketship! He never said rocketship He never say… Leaves! He never say leaves! The music sounded like … Log! Log! (Bebop) (Bebop) Bebop! Log!”
51
Second Session: Middle Text
The second time I read the middle portion of the story there was a steady
stream of ideas, most of which had relevance and meaning.
“Charlie Parker played Bebop Bebop Bebop Charlie Parker played no trombone Or… air No air Or glasses No glasses No hat No hat No Ilah No Ilah Charlie Parker played no Ilah No Book No Book No Utah No Utah No baby No Baby No books No books No, no Bee No bee No dragonfly No dragonfly Charlie Parker played/ no fish no fish no sharks no sharks No light fight no light fight No light fight? I like that , light fight No light fight glass light fight glass No Light light flash No light glass No spaceship No spaceship No bird No bird
52
No stripes What? No lion No lion? No lion No bookhouse No bookhouse? This is like a bookhouse No teacher No teacher No school No school No, no hospital no hospital No doctor, or hospital or dentist No way No hospital or toy No hospital or toy or doctor or dentist The music sounded like… Bebop Bebop Bebop He’s upside down! What?! He’s upside down (He’s upsidedown) Barbeque that last leg bone Mmmmmm are you hungry lion? Nm nm nm Let’s eat that up, let’s eat that up”
First Session: Second Scatting
The first time I read the next section of scatting I sensed the children
getting a bit restless, and I wanted to keep them engaged with the book, so I
picked up the pace and stopped leaving pauses. While the pace was faster, it
was hard to imagine where they would find a moment to add an idea if they had
one. They didn’t add any ideas and this confirmed the need to include silence in
order to allow the space for their voices. Next I added sneakers, shoes, and
pants to the scatting before asking the children for more ideas. After this they
53
were a bit stuck, so I started asking a directive question, “what’s on there?”, while
pointing to things in the room that were close by.
“Hmmm Stripes… What else? Stripes! Stripes! What Else? What’s on there? What’s on there? Numbers! Numbers! Oh, and what about here? White! White! (Circles) Circles! Circles Circles Circles Circles White White White White White All over here, circles MmmHmmm round and round and round and round Round and round and round”
Second Session: Second Scatting
The second time I read the second section of scatting I picked up the pace
again, but there were lots of sounds and words when I asked for more ideas.
After one of the children sang a shookey refrain I decided to reinforce the sing-
song, rhythmic nature of words and point to each child’s clothing to find a word to
sing about, using flower, zipper, letter, and bear.
“Alphabet, alphabet, alphabet, alph Chickadee Chikadee chickadee chick Overshoes overshoes overshoes oh Reeteetooty Reeteetooty Reeteetooty Reeeee
54
What Else? Pow atong atong atong atong Pong pong pong pong pa pong Vagi Vagi vagi vagi vagi Shopey shopey shopey shopey shopey Doggy Doggy doggy doggy doggy Dopey Dopey dopey dopey dopey Dopey’s from Snow White! (Shookey) Shookey Shookey Shookey (Dopey’s from Snow White! Shookey Shookey) Flower, flower, flower, flower Letters letters letters letters Zipper, zipper, zipper, zipper Bear bear babear babear”
First Session: Conclusion
The first time I read the conclusion of the book one of the children
returned to the very first idea they had introduced: “He, he played nofing.” This
was repeating an idea, but originally, it was not intended as an idea. Repeating it
as an idea showed the value of the adult echoing an idea as a valuable
contribution in order to affirm the child’s importance in the co-constructed
improvisation. We then continued exploring sounds and ended in laughter.
“Charlie Parker played Bebop Bebop
55
(Bebop) Charlie Parker played… alto saxophone (Bebop) (He, He played nofing) He played nothing… Charlie Parker played nothing! The music sounded like Hip Hop Hip Hop Hip Hop Fip Fop Fip Fop Chip Chop Lip Bop Lip Bop Tip Top Bah Bushkkk Bah Bushkkk Woyoogin Woyoogin Bauk Bauk Silly sounds and laughing Never Leave your cat… Alone Alone”
Second Session: Conclusion
The second time I read the conclusion of the book one of the children
noticed the emotional state of the cat.
“Never leave your cat alone
He’s mad! (laughing) He looks a little mad”
Quantitative Results
1. Modeling idea generation
First Session: 12 sounds, 10 words
Second Session: 0 sounds, 10 words
(Four of the words in the second session were spoken multiple times, without
pauses, intended to reinforce prosody)
2. Open-ended questions
56
First Session: five open-ended questions
Second Session: two open-ended questions
3. Directive questions
First Session: two directive questions
Second Session: no directive questions
4. Echoing their ideas
First Session: 10 new sounds, 12 new words
Second Session: 5 new sounds, 33 new words
5. Children’s new ideas: sounds and words
First Session: 18 sounds, 10 words
Second Session: 5 sounds, 38 words
6. Children’s comments
First Session: no comments
Second Session: six comments
First Session: New Ideas
For the first session I added 22 new ideas; 12 sounds and 10 words.
Sounds:
Toomba Toomba
Hin Hin Hin
Hoopa Hoopa Doopa
Foofa Foofa Choopa
Chang… Ka-kang kang kang… krrrrrrrrrrang… Kachang
Chicka Bang Chicka Bang Chicka Bang Hang Hang
57
The music sounded like Choopa Doopa
Chip chop
Tip Top
Words:
Chirp Chirp Chirp Chirp
Hamburger
Race Track
Charlie Parker played no drums
He played no… guitar!
He played no… shakers!
Sneakers, sneakers
Shoes, sneakers, sneakers
Pants pants pants pants pants
Round and round and round and round… round and round and round
Second Session: New Ideas
For the second session I added 10 new words and no new sounds.
Words:
Never leave your doooooog alone
Cupcake
Cookie
Ice Cream
Truck Stop
Bicycle Stop
58
Flower, flower, flower, flower
Letters, letters, letters, letters
Zipper, zipper, zipper, zipper
Bear, bear, babear, babear
The decrease in my new ideas was a direct result of idea generation originating
with the children.
First Session: Children’s Ideas
For the first session the children added 23 new ideas, 18 sounds and 10 words.
Sounds:
Poomba poomba
Foomba foomba foomba fonga
Hin hin gin
Hoofa foofa boopa
Booga boga baka
Blpblipang
Tucar
Mwawe
Fip fop
Lip bop
Bah bushshshk
Woyoogin
Bauk
Words:
59
Nothing else
Hair
Clouds
Tree
Rocket ship
Leaves
Log
Numbers
White
Circles
Second Session: Children’s Ideas
For the second session the children added 43 new ideas; 5 sounds and 38
words. Their sounds decreased by 13 and their words increased by 28. Not only
did the number of words increase, both children were generating their own ideas
continuously with full engagement.
Sounds:
(The sounds followed the scatting section, near the end of the book)
Pow
Pong
Vagi
Shopey
Shookey
Words:
60
Smell
Toys
Kid
Dinner
Phone
Light
Lifejacket
Cake
Car stop
Phone stop
Book stop
Doggy
Dopey
Or Air
Or Glasses
No Hat
No Ilah
No Book
No Utah
No Baby
No Books
No Bee
No Dragonfly
61
No Fish
No Sharks
No Light Fight
No Light Fight Glass
No Light Fight Flash
No Spaceship
No Bird
No Stripes
No Bookhouse
No Teacher
No School
No Hospital
No doctor, or hospital, or dentist
No hospital or toy
Open-Ended Questions
The use of an open-ended question, specifically “what else?” was
intended to encourage the children to share their own ideas, and to stimulate
idea generation. For the first session I asked this open-ended question five
times, and for the second session I asked “what else?” two times. In the first
session, after asking “Hmmm… What Else?” one of the children replied “nothing
else”, so I sang “nothing else, nothing else, nothing, nothing, nothing else”. This
transformed what was originally not intended as an idea, into a valid contribution
to the group reading. The second time I asked “what else” one of the children
62
restated “lollipop”, an idea from earlier in the text, which I then echoed. For the
next “what else?” one of the children said “He played no… hair” then “no clouds”,
after which five more new ideas flowed out easily. The fourth time I asked “what
else” a child repeated my idea of “stripes” which I echoed, and then I asked “what
else” again, and they had no ideas, so I started asking directive questions. In the
second session I asked “What else?” after I added “cupcake” and “cookie”, and
one of them responded with “cake”. The next time, I asked “what else?” after I
read straight through the second section of scatting because I wanted to invite
them to start adding ideas again, which they did without hesitation.
Directive Questions
In the first session they were stuck, so I chose to “jumpstart” their idea
generation by pointing to things in the environment and asking directive
questions. In order to jumpstart the children’s thinking about sources of new
ideas I actively modeled finding ideas in the immediate environment by pointing
at a specific object, in this case it was a carpet with numbers, and a carpet with
white circles, and asked them directive questions, “What’s on there, what’s on
there? What about here?” in order to facilitate idea generation. For the first
session this took place two times in a row and for the second session I never
asked directive questions because they were never lacking in new ideas.
Comments
Comments and observations were another element the children
contributed during the reading, making 6 comments and observations during the
second session that revealed deep engagement and a collaborative spirit
63
intended to convey the meaning of their contributions, possibly to each other, and
definitely to me, as their music teacher. For instance after saying “never leave
your lifejacket” and I said “no”, the same child clarified by stating “those are for
boats” and I responded by saying “those are for boats, yeah, it’s true”. In another
instance, after reading “lollipop” in the text, adding cupcake and cookie, then
having one child add “cake”, he clarified by saying “those are dessert”. Another
child said “Dopey’s from Snow White!” after someone said “Dopey”, which I then
repeated as a refrain. At the end of the story, after reading the text “never leave
your cat alone” one of the children said “he’s mad!” and I responded with “he
looks a little mad”. The children were reflecting on elements of the book, finding
ways to make meaning and integrate their world with the world of the book.
Qualitative Observations
Echoing, pauses, phonemic awareness, ideas with meaning, and wishful thinking
were the qualitative categories that informed my analysis of the results.
Echoing
Echoing the children’s spoken words was a teaching practice I identified
during the research that seemed to contribute to idea generation. Echoing was
used as a way to value children’s contributions while encouraging additional
ideas. While I echoed existing text, I was also interested in the impact of echoing
the children’s new ideas in order to value and encourage ideation. I echoed 15
new sounds: 10 the first time and 5 the second, and 45 new words: 12 the first
time and 33 the second time.
64
Pauses
During the reading I used pauses as a way to create space for children to
add their own ideas. This could be considered scaffolding during these sessions
because the pauses were in conjunction with open-ended questions, and the
pauses modeled taking the time to allow idea generation to occur. I also noticed
that when I left no space between lines of scatting, there was no idea generation.
Phonemic Awareness
In the first session the children played with rhyme and sounds as the main
source of idea generation. I continued the word play for as long as possible, both
to reinforce the exploration of verbal creativity and also to see how long the
children could extend the play. This exchange was exciting for me, because I
chose Charlie Parker Played be bop for its musicality, and especially because it
contains scatting in the text. This allowed me to experiment with scatting in a
way I had never done during music time. On the 8th page of text, “Boomba
Boomba”, one of the children started playing with rhyming and sounds, changing
“boomba boomba” to “poomba poomba”, both a rhyme and a mirror of one word
repeating, with two syllables. After repeating “poomba poomba” I introduced
“toomba toomba” and while one child repeated “toomba, toomba, toomba”
another said “foomba foomba foomba fonga”. He rhymed with the prior idea, and
also used the same amount of syllables for the rhyming word. The first vowel
sound of the last word was changed, and another “foomba” and then a “fonga”
were added, with a pulse count of four, so the line extended and it created an
expressive musical dynamic. This also happened with “hoofa foofa boopa”,
65
which had followed “hoopa doopa doopa”, and “booga boga baka”, which
followed “foofa foofa choopa”. I would consider this sophisticated word play, and
many adults would struggle to generate such a spontaneous, musical phrase of
nonsense words. It happened with short phrases also. “Hin hin gin” followed
“hin hin hin” and “fip fop” and “lip bop” followed “hip hop” and “chip chop”. Again,
these rhymes also mirrored the shape of the words preceding them and used the
same number of syllables.
Creating Meaning: Original Ideas
In the second reading the children’s choice of words reflected a deeper
integration of meaning between the text and their own ideas. I read “never leave
your cat alone” then I added “never leave your dooooooog alone”. The first
sentence from the children was more nonsensical, “never leave your smell
alone”, after which they added concepts that reflected an understanding of the
phrase, and a leap to create new meanings.
1. “Never leave your… toys alone.”
2. “No, never leave your kid alone”
3. “Never leave your dinner alone”
4. “Never leave, never leave your phone alone”
5. “Never leave your light alone”
6. “Never leave your lifejacket…”
Wishful Thinking
Halfway through the second session the children created meaning in a
second, surprising, way, by combining meaning and wishful thinking, desires, or
66
personal wishes. After I read “Charlie Parker played no trombone” they
immediately started generating ideas and after seventeen ideas, switched into
wishful thinking, safely exploring taboos in the context of fantasy.
18. “No bookhouse”
19. “No teacher”
20. “No school”
21. “No, no hospital”
22. “No doctor, or hospital, or dentist”
23. “No hospital or toy”
This was the moment I saw socio-emotional development as an additional benefit
of ideation in a liberating structure. It provided an avenue for children to express
desires, fears, and wishes in a safe space, and allowed an adult to hear about
concerns of the child.
The Third Session: Qualitative Analysis
For this reading, the older child opened up another book and started to
generate ideas from the illustrations. Once he had added “car stop, smoke stop”,
and “fire stop” from illustrations in his book, I looked at the book too, and said
“train stop”. I wanted to value and reinforce his ingenious idea, adding images
from his book into the book we were “doing”. We continued this practice until the
end of Charlie Parker and I integrated the ideas as fluidly as possible, while still
bringing in the text from Charlie Parker and combining the two books in creative
ways. This generated many ideas, and the intertextual integration added a layer
of richness, fun, and complexity. A second practice he integrated was asking
67
open-ended questions about the characters in his book, which were not part of
the text. I don’t know if this was a new practice, or something he had done
before with a teacher, but it seemed new based on the time he spent thinking
about how to combine some of the ideas.
“Why would a hippopotamus drive a car?
Why would a kangaroo, why would a kangaroo bake?
Why would a giraffe give someone a penny?
Why would a camel, why would a camel, why would a camel, why would a, why
would a mouse sweep?
Why would a, why would, why would a seal, why would a seal be a pirate?
Why would a, why would a tiger go ice-skating?
Why would a wolf play hokey?”
Confounding Factors
Timing: The first session took place after music, and the second and third
sessions took place before music. For the first session they may have been in a
“music” mindset, or tired out. To me, they seemed enthusiastic and engaged.
For the next two sessions they might have been less interested before music
time, but again, I found them to be extremely engaged and enthusiastic.
Location: The first session was on the rug, once the other children had gone
outside for snack, and the second and third sessions were in the loft, while the
rest of the children played below us because it was raining outside. The first
session was ideal, because we met where music usually takes place, and the rug
is very comfortable, with plenty of room. The loft was pretty crowded with five of
68
us for the second session and then four of us for the third session. It was also
hot, because the heat was on, and it is near the ceiling.
Pressure: The intervention may have caused performance pressure, because the
children knew I was doing a project for school, and only a few of them were
called on to participate, as I did not have waivers from everyone in the program.
69
Chapter 5: Discussion
Reading Session
I read the book Charlie Parker Played Bebop with a small group of children,
aiming to facilitate idea generation and improvisation in a playful way that would
invite them to “change things up” and give them agency and ownership of the
process. I also documented my own teaching practice, so I could analyze it
critically with breadth and depth. I found the children responded to the
experience with engagement, excitement, and curiosity. They made big leaps
from the first reading to the second reading, increasing their ideas significantly,
creating meaning and relevance, and even using the text to state personal
wishes. In the first reading they also took many risks, trying things out without
knowing quite where to go. My own practice was responsive, integrating their
ideas, adding my own ideas, and responding to their cues to pace the reading
and shift gears, in order to maintain engagement in a playful, yet meaningful,
way. Along with agency, originality, relevance, and expressive language, I also
heard a deep musicality from the children, with prosody embedded in every
sentence. In addition, children referred to their personal life in the first two
readings and to another book, intertexuality, in the third reading.
The playful interaction both created a safe space to experiment and take
risks, while providing enough scaffolding for the children to be in the zone of
proximal development and jump to a new level of engagement with the text,
giving them agency and also increasing original ideas as well as relevancy and
meaning. The three year olds were able to make outside connections and
70
respond to open-ended questions in meaningful ways. We should offer this age
more opportunities to develop these skills in relationship with adults, instead of
waiting until they are older to expose them to ideation and improvisation in an
intentional way. The one and a half year old child was also able to participate by
echoing parts he heard during the first reading, adding one of his own ideas in
the second reading, and adding a nonsense rhyme during the third reading
session and a repeating, sing-song word at the end. Mixed ages offer younger
children the opportunity to learn from older children as they gain mastery of
ideation and improvisation.
Expectations
After only one full reading with scaffolding the three year-olds made links and
associations, leading to more and more relevant, meaningful, and complex ideas.
The facilitation happened because I thought they were capable of using language
text to make connections beyond the picture book and develop ideation and
improvisation skills. Our expectations of children’s needs and abilities shape our
implicit theories about care, pedagogy, potential, and creativity, and if we fail to
perceive them, we may lose hidden sides of the child without even realizing it.
Gopnik’s (2012,a) studies have shown us that even babies are capable of
extremely sophisticated thinking, well beyond what Piaget ever envisioned. Even
though some would wait until children were four to five years-old to develop more
sophisticated levels of communication, as is mistakenly advised by dialogic
reading protocol, we may be missing a developmental stage of creativity at the
age when the child is ready, when it can both inform their world in complex ways
71
and allow them to develop new skills when they might need an interesting
challenge. Young children are capable and competent, able to understand,
process, and integrate more than we expect.
We have a significant impact on the skills and abilities children are able to
develop through play, materials, scaffolding, skillful communication, and
expertise. What if we believed children should only look at books once they
knew how to read letters? We now know this would cause an unnecessary gap
in learning. I used sign language with my daughter, even though she is not deaf,
because Dr. Joseph Garcia (2002) realized he could use sign language to
communicate with his sons after working in the deaf community and noticing that
hearing children were able to communicate with deaf parents in sign language
much sooner than hearing children could communicate verbally with hearing
parents. By nine months old, babies were signing up to seventy-five words,
whereas spoken language typically amounted to about ten words. He realized
children were able to communicate more words through signs at an earlier age
because the ability to manipulate the fingers and hands develops sooner than
fine motor control of the tongue and mouth. In our family, we were able to have
conversations about shared experiences, reinforcing memories, because our one
year-old daughter could reference a moment in the past by signing, for instance
referring to a dog we saw at the park. We were able to both understand her de-
contextualized association and communicate with her about a shared moment.
Dr. Garcia revealed an unseen ability, and has since documented significant
findings in this area of study. Profound realizations like this remind us that we
72
need to be “problem finders” as educators and researchers, in order to reveal our
gaps in understanding so we can support the whole child in early childhood
programs.
Recommendations for Facilitating Creative Thinking
Combining knowledge from the fields of education, psychology, and
neurobiology, while studying my own practice in-depth, revealed four key
elements for facilitating ideation and improvisation in early childhood.
-Small groups
Small groups are ideal for allowing children to build on each other’s ideas and
have enough space to share their own ideas (Morrow & Smith, 1990).
-co-regulation
Mindsight establishes a state of co-regulation, where the adult is attending to the
children’s body language, speech rhythms, and emotional states in order to
connect and communicate (Nelson et al, 2014).
-skillful communication
Being responsive and respectful while scaffolding with skillful open-ended and
directive questions, establishes open lines of communication (Denton, 2007).
-liberating structures, domain knowledge
Facilitating creative thinking requires domain knowledge (Baer, 2012) and
constraints intended to both focus, and develop, ideas (Davis et al, 2000).
Characteristics of Word Play
Nonsense words
Rhyming nonsense words
73
Words with no relevance
Words with relevance to the picture book
Words with relevance to the child’s personal life
While these characteristics seemed to be an evolution of the word play, starting
with nonsense words, evolving into rhyming nonsense words, they were also
dependent on the text in the book. For instance, even though the children had
progressed to words with relevance, when we entered the scatting section, which
has an exploratory, spontaneous feel, they returned to more spontaneous word
choices, nonsense words, and rhyming nonsense words.
Interactive Reading
While I focused on dialogic reading because it was the most researched
form of interactive reading, the structure is rigid and dogmatic. Even though the
focus on children’s expressive language, and the inclusion of open-ended
questions and distancing were similar to my interactive reading intervention, the
fundamental approach in dialogic reading lacks imagination, adaptability, and
complexity, three important facets of dialogic teaching. The most valuable
practices from dialogic reading were also present in other forms of interactive
reading: asking open-ended and distancing questions. Creative thinking is
integrative, so creative explorations in literacy, while developing domain
knowledge, offer children the opportunity to access higher brain functions from
the beginning. If three year-olds can consistently respond to open-ended
questions and distancing, and one and a half year-olds develop these skills over
74
time, waiting until they have mastered labeling illustrations means they will miss
opportunities to develop more complex thinking at a younger age.
Challenges
While the intervention was fun and engaging, there was a certain amount of
performance pressure. I prefer a more organic process, instead of engaging in
three interventions in a row that could inhibit later exploration. The third reading
had three confounding factors: one less child, an added book, and two
interruptions, so I chose to analyze the quantitative data from the first two
interventions in order to focus on the scaffolding that occurred both in the first
reading and from the first to the second reading. Also, I was working with
children who were familiar with my approach, and with whom I have a strong
bond as their music teacher. I realize that in another situation, it may take more
readings to arrive at such a level of playfulness and comfort. Lastly, I don’t know
how comfortable other adults would feel with improvisation and idea generation.
The practice was challenging, and I drew on my improvisational skills in music to
integrate the children’s ideas and respond in a meaningful way.
Future Research
I would like to conduct a long-term quantitative and qualitative study of interactive
reading sessions, with one to three year-olds, utilizing picture books with
musicality to develop prosody, focusing on illustrations and text for ideation and
improvisation, while assessing the quality of the adult-child interactions.
75
Conclusion
Picture books and other liberating structures offer opportunities for rich,
complex engagement with children. In the context of a regulated, positive
relationship, we use prosodic, postmodern picture books to engage with
language and facilitate ideation and improvisation, developing original, relevant,
meaningful ideas, all in a playful, humor-filled way. Using domain knowledge
from four areas: interpersonal relationships, language, pretend play, and picture
books, the complex exchange between the adult and the children is integrated
and transformed. By combining six fields of domain knowledge: neurobiology,
psychology, education, creativity, interactive reading, and postmodern picture
books, adults are able to expect a young child to be capable of ideation and
improvisation in an interactive reading of a postmodern picture book.
Again, with pressure from No Child Left Behind and Common Core, to
shift the focus to direct instruction and skill acquisition, care must be taken not to
lose the gains educators have made in understanding best practices for early
childhood education. Educators and policy makers should consider early
childhood as a play-driven stage, where integrated learning helps develop
complex, emotional, intelligent, happy children. The NAEYC has stated its
commitment to the whole child, and actively facilitating creative thinking would be
an essential component of developing fully formed human beings.
76
References
Baer, J. (2012). Domain specificity of creativity: Implications for early childhood
education. In O. N. Saracho (Ed.), Contemporary perspectives on
research in creativity in early childhood education (pp. 45-62). Charlotte,
NC, US: IAP Information Age Publishing.
Barclay, K. (2014). Conducting interactive reading experiences. YC: Young
Children, 69(5), 78-83. Retrieved from EBSCO database Sonoma State
University.
Beghetto, R. A., Kaufman, J. C., Hegarty, C. B., Hammond, H. L., & Wilcox-
Herzog, A. (2012). Cultivating creativity in early childhood education: A 4
C perspective. In O. N. Saracho (Ed.), Contemporary perspectives on
research in creativity in early childhood education (pp. 251-270).
Charlotte, NC, US: IAP Information Age Publishing.
Blake, S. & Giannangelo, D. M., (2012). Creativity and young children: Review of
literature and connections to thinking processes. In O. N. Saracho (Ed.),
Contemporary perspectives on research in creativity in early childhood
education (pp. 293-315). Charlotte, NC, US: IAP Information Age
Publishing.
Brandt, K. (2014). Core concepts in infant-family and early childhood mental
health. In Brandt, K, Perry, B. D., Seligman, S., & Tronick, E. (Eds.) Infant
and early childhood mental health: Core concepts and clinical practice
(pp.1-20). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.
Cheung, R. P. (2012). Teaching for creativity: Examining the beliefs of early
77
childhood teachers and their influence on teaching practices. Australasian
Journal Of Early Childhood, 37(3), 43-51. Retrieved from EBSCO
database Sonoma State University.
Davis, B., Sumara, D. J., & Luce-Kapler, R. (2000). Engaging minds: Learning
and teaching in a complex world. Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Denton, P. (2007). The power of our words. Turner Falls, MA: Northeast
Foundation for Children, Inc.
What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report. Revised. Dialogic Reading.
(2007). Author. Retrieved from EBSCO database Sonoma State University.
Dixon-Krauss, L., Januszka, C. M., & Chae, C. (2010). Development of the
dialogic reading inventory of parent-child book reading. Journal Of
Research In Childhood Education, 24(3), 266-277. Retrieved from EBSCO
database Sonoma State University.
Dresang, E. T. (1999). Radical change: Books for youth in a digital age.
Contemporary Issues In Technology & Teacher Education, 8(3), 278-282.
Retrieved from EBSCO database Sonoma State University.
Eckhoff, A., & Urbach, J. (2008). Understanding imaginative thinking during
childhood: Sociocultural conceptions of creativity and imaginative thought.
Early Childhood Education Journal, 36(2), 179-185. doi:10.1007/s10643-
008-0261-4
Feldhusen, J. F., & Ban Eng, G. (1995). Assessing and accessing creativity: An
78
integrative review of theory, research, and development. Creativity
Research Journal, 8(3), 231. Retrieved from EBSCO database Sonoma
State University.
Flynn, K. S. (2011). Developing children's oral language skills through dialogic
reading: Guidelines for implementation. Teaching Exceptional Children,
44(2-), 8-16. Retrieved from EBSCO database Sonoma State University.
Garcia, J. (2002). Sign with your baby: How to communicate with infants before
they can speak. Seattle, WA: Northlight Communications, Inc.
Gopnik, A. (2010). How babies think. Scientific American, 303(1), 76-81.
Retrieved from EBSCO database Sonoma State University.
Gopnik, A. (2012a). Nurturing brain development from birth to three.
Zero To Three, 32(3), 12-17. Retrieved from EBSCO database Sonoma
State University.
Gopnik, A. (2012b). Scientific thinking in young children: Theoretical advances,
empirical research, and policy implications. Science, 337(6102), 1623-
1627. doi:10.1126/science.1223416
Gutek, G. L. (1997). Philosophical and ideological perspectives on education.
(2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Hendricks, C. (2013). Improving schools through action research; a reflective
practice approach (3d ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson.
Hill, S. E., Nichols, S., (2012). Early literacy: Towards a semiotic approach. In B.
Spodek, O. N. Saracho (Eds.), Handbook of research on the education
of young children (3rd ed.) (pp.147-156). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence
79
Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Hindman, A. H., Connor, C. M., Jewkes, A. M., & Morrison, F. J. (2008).
Untangling the effects of shared book reading: Multiple factors and their
associations with preschool literacy outcomes. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 23(3), 330-350. Retrieved from EBSCO database Sonoma
State University.
Hubbard, R. S. & Power, B. M. (2003). The art of classroom inquiry: A handbook
for teacher-researchers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Lennox, S. (2013). Interactive read-alouds an avenue for enhancing children's
language for thinking and understanding: A review of recent research.
Early Childhood Education Journal, 41(5), 381-389. doi:10.1007/s10643-
013-0578-5
Morgan, P. L., & Meier, C. R. (2008). Dialogic reading's potential to improve
children's emergent literacy skills and behavior. Preventing School Failure,
52(4), 11-16.
Morrow, L. M., & Smith, J. K. (1990). The effects of group size on interactive
storybook reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 25(3), 213-231.
Retrieved from EBSCO database Sonoma State University.
National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). (2012). The
Common Core State Standards: Caution and Opportunity for Early
Childhood Education. Washington, DC: Author.
Nelson, B. W., Parker, S. C., & Siegel, D. J. (2014). Interpersonal neurobiology,
80
mindsight, and integration: The mind, relationships, and the brain. In
Brandt, K, Perry, B. D., Seligman, S., & Tronick, E. (Eds.) Infant and early
childhood mental health: Core concepts and clinical practice (pp.129-144).
Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.
Nolde, R. (2009). The changing face of children's picturebooks: An analysis of
Caldecott and Children's Choice award winners in the digital age.
International Journal Of The Book, 6(3), 35-41. Retrieved from EBSCO
database Sonoma State University.
Novak, B. J. (2014). The book with no pictures. New York, NY: Dial Books.
Pantaleo, S. (2014). The metafictive nature of postmodern picturebooks.
Reading Teacher, 67(5), 324-332. Retrieved from EBSCO database
Sonoma State University.
Puckett, M., Marshall, C. S., & Davis, R. (1999). Examining the emergence of
brain development research. (Cover story). Childhood Education, 76(1), 8.
Retrieved from EBSCO database Sonoma State University.
Raschka, C. (1997). Charlie Parker played be bop. New York, NY: Simon &
Schuster.
Reznitskaya, A. (2012). Dialogic teaching: Rethinking language use during
literature discussions. Reading Teacher, 65(7), 446-456.
doi:10.1002/TRTR.01066
Robinson, K. (2011). Out of our minds: Learning to be creative.
Oxford: Capstone.
Rogers, T. (1999). Literary theory and children's literature: Interpreting
81
ourselves and our worlds. Theory into practice, 38(3), 138. Retrieved from
EBSCO database Sonoma State University.
Runco, M. A. (2004). Creativity. Annual Review Of Psychology, 55(1), 657-687.
doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141502
Saracho, O. N. (Ed). (2012a). Contemporary perspectives on research in
creativity in early childhood education. Charlotte, NC, US: IAP Information
Age Publishing.
Saracho, O.N. (2012b). Teachers’ perceptions and behaviors on creativity. In O.
N. Saracho (Ed.), Contemporary perspectives on research in creativity in
early childhood education (pp. 355-375). Charlotte, NC, US: IAP
Information Age Publishing.
Simandan, V. M. (2010). Voices of the stinky cheese man: A comparative study
of two postmodern picture books. Journal Plus Education / Educatia Plus,
6(1), 157-168. Retrieved from EBSCO database Sonoma State University.
Sipe, L. R. (2002). Talking back and taking over: Young children's expressive
engagement during storybook read-alouds. Reading Teacher, 55(5), 476.
Retrieved from EBSCO database Sonoma State University.
Sipe, L. R. & Pantaleo, S. (Eds.). (2008). Postmodern picturebooks : Play,
parody, and self-referentiality. New York: Routledge.
Twardosz, S. (2012). Effects of experience on the brain: The role of
neuroscience in early development and education. Early Education And
Development, 23(1), 96-119. Retrieved from EBSCO database Sonoma
State University.
82
Wagner, T. (2012). Creating innovators: The making of young people who will
change the world. New York, NY: Scribner.
Whitehurst, G. J., Falco, F. L., Lonigan, C. J., Fischel, J. E., DeBaryshe, B. D.,
Valdez-Menchaca, M. C., & Caulfield, M. (1988). Accelerating language
development through picture book reading. Developmental Psychology,
24(4), 552-559. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.24.4.552
