This article was downloaded by: [Tulane University]On: 11 October 2014, At: 18:06Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Early Child Development and CarePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gecd20

The Box, a Naturalistic Experimentwith Young Children: The SameObject as Mediating Factor forDifferent ActivitiesMichael Glassman a & Kimberlee Whaley aa Department of Human Development & Family Sciences ,The Ohio State University , 1787 Neil Avenue, 135 CampbellHall, Columbus, OH 43210‐1295Published online: 07 Jul 2006.

To cite this article: Michael Glassman & Kimberlee Whaley (1999) The Box, a NaturalisticExperiment with Young Children: The Same Object as Mediating Factor for DifferentActivities, Early Child Development and Care, 156:1, 63-71, DOI: 10.1080/0300443991560105

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0300443991560105

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions andviews of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. Theaccuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independentlyverified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liablefor any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectlyin connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly

forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

8:06

11

Oct

ober

201

4

The Box, a Naturalistic Experiment withYoung Children: The Same Object asMediating Factor for Different Activities

MICHAEL GLASSMAN and KIMBERLEE WHALEY

Department of Human Development & Family Sciences, The OhioState University, 135 Campbell Hall, 1787 Neil Avenue, Columbus,OH 43210-1295

(Received 14 August 1999)

There have been a number of theories suggesting that there are qualitative differencesin the way that children of different ages and adults perceive the world. The most famousof these theories is Piaget's genetic epistemology, describing and documenting dif-ferences in understandings of the physical and social worlds. In this paper we makethe argument that there are also qualitative differences in the way children of differentages recognize the same objects as mediating devices for their activity. The objectas mediating factor is based on the child's everyday experience with similar objectscombined with his/her ontological development. A naturalistic experiment in which thesame object was introduced into an infant/toddler classroom and a preschool classroomis presented as an example of these types of differences. The recognition that objectshave very different meanings for children of different ages has important implicationfor the way teachers in general, and early childhood educators in particular, think aboutthe introduction of materials into their classrooms.

Key words: Young children, object mediation

t has been hypothesized that humans attempt to understand the world throughL theoretical lens that gives the objects and phenomenon within it meaningPepper, 1942). It is the same for children as for adults; except that for childrenhese hypotheses may be dependent on age and experience, and change throughlevelopment Children of different ages see the world in qualitatively different ways,Age related qualitative differences in cognition have been discussed and docu-nented by Piaget (e.g., 1924,1926), as well as many developmental and educationalheorists working in the Piagetian tradition. What we propose here is not as muchelated to specific developmental stages of thinking (i.e., is not based on a genetic:pistemology), but follows the same principle that children of different ages un-lerstand the world in qualitatively different ways. It is these understandings thatletermine the way these objects are used in activity.

63

Early Child Development and Care, 1999, Vol. 156, pp. 63-71Reprints available directly from the publisherPhotocopying permitted by license only

© 1999 OPA (Overseas Publishers Association) N.V.Published by license under

the Gordon and Breach Publishers imprint.Printed in Singapore.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

8:06

11

Oct

ober

201

4

64 M. GLASSMAN and K. WHALEY

To a certain degree the idea we propose here reflects the notion that objects inthe world are embedded with meaning, and it is this meaning that guides activity(Vygotsky, 1987, Leontiev, 1981). The internalized symbolic representation of theobject mediates the individual's activity. Generally, the symbolic representation ofobjects is seen as a cultural phenomenon. For example, a person from a warriorculture and a person from a culture that puts a great emphasis on building struc-tures both see the same hammer. The warrior sees the hammer as an instrumentof aggression to be used in warlike activities. The builder sees the exact samehammer as an instrument of practical application to be used in activities such ascarpentry. In these two scenarios, understandings of the way objects are to be usedin activity are derived over the course of cultural/social history.

Understandings of how objects are to be used in activity are also developed overindividual social and/or ontogenetic history. Individuals at different stages ofdevelopment understand the same materials in very different ways. These develop-mental differences in understanding of objects have just as much impact on goaldirected activities as cultural understandings. The young child sees the same ham-mer as the builder and warrior. However, while the adults understand the hammeras an instrument for activity defined by the broad social context, the young childsees it as an instrument to be used in affective play in the immediate context. Thehammer becomes incorporated into socio-dramatic play scenarios. The builder andthe warrior see the hammer as an instrument of practical application: "these areimportant tools of my trade and not to be played with". The differences are bothdevelopmental and cultural. The child growing up in the culture will eventually seethe hammer as an instrument of practical application; but at this moment its onlymeaning is in activity, and therefore its only meaning, is in the immediate contextas an instrument of play. Perhaps a more tragic example are the differences in theway individuals of different ages understand guns.

There are in development much finer distinctions than simply between child andadult. If a child at two sees an object differently from an adult, a child at two willalso see an object differently from a child at five. There is, in arcades, a game thatuses a type of the hammer we have been discussing. Small alligators pop up fromholes in a table, and the point of the game, for older children and adults, is tofigure out how to hit as many alligators as possible with the hammer. Any casualvisitor to an arcade with this type of game will recognize that children of differentages will play the game very differendy. The youngest children often just bang thehammer, and become uirilled by the activity of banging. After banging the hammerthey often look up at the adult with them with a smile or a laugh. Children a litdebit older start to concentrate on the activity of actually hitting the alligators. Thismight involve attempts to figure out where the alligators will come up and/or howmuch time they will have to hit them. Children of this age have the steady, seriouslook of trying to figure out the best solution to the problem of the alligators. Theyounger children in this age group are often times frustrated, while the older onesfind some success. The oldest children and the adults who play to win their youngerchildren prize tickets often take a more practical approach to the game, flailingwildly, trying to hit as many alligators as possible in as short a period of time. The

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

8:06

11

Oct

ober

201

4

NATURALISTIC EXPERIMENT WITH YOUNG CHILDREN 65

pop up alligator game engenders three very different types of activities in the threedifferent gross age groupings. The youngest children use the object in a socialactivity; children just a little bit older use the object in a cognitive activity, and theoldest players use the object in practical activity (getting as many tickets as possiblefrom the game). The pop up alligator game is actually three different objects forthree different age groups.

This notion of developmental differences in the conception of objects as medi-ating forces in activity incorporate aspects of Vygotsky, Piaget, and Dewey. FromVygotsky (1987) we take the idea of symbolic mediation of activity. However,wesuggest that this symbolic mediation is primarily dependent on the child's engage-ment with objects in everyday activity. Everyday activity is, in turn, dependent onculture, as well as the physical, cognitive and social development of the child. Therecognition of the tremendous impact of everyday action is reflective of Piaget, andhis emphasis on age related individual action and experience in the developmentof thinking (Chapman, 1988 ). However, both Vygotsky and Piaget see the symbolicrepresentation necessary for the types of mediation of activity we are proposing inthis paper as beginning at around two years of age. Vygotsky and Piaget pose animportant question for early childhood education. Can we hypothesize children'suse of symbolic representation leading to semiotic mediation prior to two years ofage, and at the same time maintain the notion of qualitative differences in thinkingbased on age and/or experience with materials? We believe that it is possible,drawing partially from a third educational theorist: John Dewey.

Dewey (1916) suggested that it is impossible to separate the mind of the individualfrom the activity in which the individual is engaged. Symbolic representation is aquality that we usually ascribe to mind; but the way in which theorists such as Piagetand Vygotsky discuss it is as a separate capability of the mind that can be used innavigating particular activities. Dewey suggests that this creates a duality betweenmind and object The understanding of objects as mediating factors inactivity is nota quality of the development of mind, but a quality of the development of activity.Based on experience, subject to physical, cognitive and social restrictions, childrenengage in activity with certain objects and develop a sense of objects, a symbolicrepresentation of objects, that in turn helps to direct activity. These generalunderstandings of objects change as the child develops, but they have just as muchmeaning in mediating relationship to the object of the activity for the eighteenmonth old as they do for the five, fifteen, or fifty year old. This is important becauseit is this understanding of the object that determines interest in, and eventuallydiscipline for, the activity related to the object of desire.

THE OBJECT AS MEDIATING FORCE IN ACTIVITY: A NATURALISTICEXPERIMENT

The Box

A science museum in a mid-sized Midwestern city was developing an experimen-tation area specifically designed for very young children (birth - five). One of the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

8:06

11

Oct

ober

201

4

66 M. GLASSMAN and K. WHALEY

aims of the group designing the area was to develop objects of interest specificallydesigned for that age group. One of the objects developed was a small, soundproducing box. The box was a black rectangle, approximately six inches long andfour inches wide. There was a silver antennae attached to one comer of the boxthat extended up approximately eighteen inches in a straight line. The box pro-duced sound by sensing bodies in motion in its general area. Motion within a certainradius caused the box to emit sound, and changing direction, depth, or speed couldchange the quality of the sound. The quality of the sound could also be changeddramatically by touching the antennae. Touching of the antennae created thequickest, most obvious transformations in sound, but there was no obvious directionfor the activity to take (e.g., creating distinct sound patterns through movement)and therefore no possible aims for the activity.

Infants and Toddlers

The box was brought in to an infant/toddler classroom (ten children, ages six weeksto three years) and placed on a table. The teachers approached the box and invitedthe children to play with them. The first to approach the box were three almostthree year old girls, the oldest children in the classroom. Two of the girls soon lostinterest and moved away to another activity. Elaine, the third girl, continued playingwith the box. By this time James, a young boy of 18 months, had come over andwas excitedly playing with the box. He waved his hand quickly up and down, smilingat the fast paced noises emanating from the box. At the same time another younggirl, Sarah (11 months), who had been brought over by an assistant teacher, becamefrightened of the box and started crying. The assistant teacher quickly moved Sarahacross the room to a place away from the box, but where she could still observethe activity, and held her on her lap in an attempt to comfort her. Another boy,Ivan (24 months), also became afraid of the box; and while interest kept him inthe general vicinity, he was reticent about approaching the box. A lead teacher satnear the box with Michael (4 months) on her lap.

For a time James and Elaine were the only children playing with the box. Jamescontinued to be very excited by the activity. James then started to make eye contactwith Michael and Ivan. James took Michael's hand in his own, and started wavingthe two of them together in much the same motion he had been using to wavehis hand alone. He had a broad smile on his face, and his eyes went betweenMichael, the box, and Ivan. It seemed obvious that James believed that the motionshe was making with Michael were causing the sounds (This was, in fact, not thecase; James and Michael's hands were too far way from the box at this point). Ivan,noticing the interaction between James and Michael became caught up in theexcitement and started to approach the box. Ivan touched the box and smiled, thentouched it again. Soon Ivan was part of a crowd of children who were playing withthe box, changing its sound through the movements of their hands and bodies andsmiling at each other.

The teacher holding Sarah on her lap was still sitting on the other side of theroom. Sarah continued to watch the action that was occurring around the box, and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

8:06

11

Oct

ober

201

4

NATURALISTIC EXPERIMENT WITH YOUNG CHILDREN 67

had stopped crying, but she showed no interest in joining her classmates. At thispoint Sarah, and the two older girls who originally played with the box and thenwalked away were the only (mobile) children in the room not part of the communitysurrounding the box. One of the observers asked the assistant teacher holding Sarahto move next to die teacher who was still holding Michael on her lap. At first theassistant teacher was reticent, believing that Sarah would certainly start to cry again.After a second request the assistant teacher moved next to the teacher with Michael.James almost immediately noticed Sarah, made eye contact widi her, and thengrabbed her hand in almost exacdy die same way he had grabbed Michael's hand.James started moving their two hands togedier up and down in the same, familiarmotion. There were a number of children crowded around the box so diere weremany sounds. Sarah quickly became engaged witii James, and slid off die lap of dieassistant teacher. She slowly moved towards the box. Even diough diere were moresounds, of a more diverse quality, tiian when she burst into tears earlier in die activity(because diere were more children actively playing widi die box), she no longerseemed to be afraid. Sarah started playing widi die box widi die same energy andcuriosity as James, Ivan, and die odier children.

Preschoolers

A technician from die science museum dien brought die box into die preschoolclassroom. This was a mixed age classroom (widi 20 children between tiiree andfive years of age). The box was placed on a chair in a corner of die room. Theteachers did not introduce die instrument into die classroom but die natural activityof setting the box up and plugging it in drew die attention of almost every childin die room. Immediately a group of boys gadiered around die machine, while asmall cluster of girls remained in die background. One of die oldest girls in dieclassroom, Alice, joined die boys in looking at die box, while two of her compatriotsremained in die background. The technician turned on die machine and diechildren gadiered around die box started to laugh at die strange noises it made.The children started experimenting widi die box, touching it in different ways tosee what type of noises it would make. Some of die children started touching dieantennae, which caused die most dramatic and immediate changes in die sound.

Approximately half of die preschoolers gadiered around die box quickly lostinterest in die box and moved away from it, and on to odier activities. The onlychildren who were still engaged widi die box were die older (54-64 mondis) boys.Alice was still sporadically engaged widi die box, experimenting widi it along witiidie boys one moment, and moving over to activities widi some girls on die odierside of die room die next. Sylvia, one of die younger girls in die class (46 mondis)was drawn by die boys' attention to die box and approached it. Mary, one of dieolder girls in die class, who had been watching from fifteen feet away ran to Sylviaand pulled her away, telling die younger girl diat die box "is dangerous" and she"shouldn't go near it" Sylvia obeyed Mary and moved to join a young female friendin anodier activity.

The central activity was still creating dramatic alterations in die sound by touching

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

8:06

11

Oct

ober

201

4

68 M. GLASSMAN and K. WHALEY

the antennae. After a short while even the older boys started to lose interest in thebox and began to wander away from it. The technician (a male adult), who hadbeen standing off to the side watching the children, quickly stepped in and dem-onstrated how movement of bodies caused sound to increase, fade, and change inrhythm using his hands. This drew a group of six older boys back to the box. Aslong as the technician used the box to demonstrate cognitive activity, such ascreating discernible sound patterns through movement, the interest of the boys wasmaintained. A solid core of four boys remained watching, while other boys cameand left. No girls were near the box; even Alice had lost interest and was playingon the other side of the room.

The boys watched the technician, but they did not engage in experimentationthemselves. The technician moved into the background once more, and once againthe boys seemed to lose interest in the box. The technician quickly returned to thebox, again showing how sound patterns could be created through movement. Themore time and effort the technician put into demonstrating the phenomenon, themore involved and interested the boys became. The more interest shown by thechildren surrounding the box, the more boys came over to the box. There washowever still no experimentation by the boys. They no longer even touched theantennae. No girls approached while the technician was demonstrating the box.Eventually the boys started to lose interest in the box, even with the techniciandemonstrating it They started to wander away until there were no children left nearthe box.

ANALYSIS

The episodes described above suggest that, on a very general level, the childrenin the infant/toddler classroom and the children in the preschool classroomunderstood the box in very different ways. This different understanding mediatedtheir activity with the box, and their relationship with others in activity involvingthe box. For the children of the infant/toddler classroom the box became a socialobject. This was probably not true for the older children who first approached it.There was little social interaction at this point and the two oldest girls quickly movedaway. Some of the children, such as Ivan and Sarah, did not seem to have any ideawhat role this object should play in dieir activity. The children who seemed unableto place the object of the box into some workable framework were either afraidof the box, or simply ignored it

The eighteen month old James seemed to be the first one to understand the boxas a social object. The fact that it was a social object for James was obvious fromthe fact that he was intent to bring his classmates into the activity. The interest inthe object came from socially interacting with others while engaged in object relatedactivity. This allowed James to transfer his understanding of the object to the otherchildren in his age group. In other words, understanding the box as a social object,and using it as such in activity, was within the zone of proximal development ofat least some of James' classmates. James was unable to distinguish between childrenwho would or would not be able to have the same understanding of the object that

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

8:06

11

Oct

ober

201

4

NATURALISTIC EXPERIMENT WITH YOUNG CHILDREN 69

he had, so he could not be considered a mentor. But the nature of the activity, asmediated by his conception of the box, had an effect on the students who wereable to have a similar understanding. James took Michael's hand because hisunderstanding of the box demanded that type of social activity, even though Michaelwas not developmentally at the point where he could be drawn into the same typeofactivity. In contrast Ivan and Sarah were, through James' activity, able to developan understanding of the box similar to that of James.

The preschoolers' obviously had a very different understanding of the box. Theyoungest children ignored the box, much like the oldest children in the infant/toddler room. But even the older children who showed interest in the box did notengage in social activity (other than the girl who pulled her friend away from itbecause it was bad). The children who showed interest in the box lined up in asemi-circle, rarely even making eye contact with each other. The box was not anobject that fostered social types of activities for these children. The major activitiesthese children engaged in with the box were touching the antennae to createdramatic changes in sound, and watching an older, more knowledgeable individualdemonstrate how movement creates interesting sound patterns. All attention andinterest was on how the technician was using this box to create this phenomenon.This suggests that these older preschoolers saw the box as something that neededto be figured out as part of a cognitive activity, rather than something to formrelationships with in a social activity. But these children had not yet developed thecognitive capabilities to actually use the box in experimental activity (Chapman,1988) other than the transparent and immediately gratifying actions of touchingthe antennae. But this touching of the antennae has not possibilities of developinginto an aim driven activity.

To put it in Vygotskian terms, the understanding necessary to engage in mean-ingful (directed, aim based) cognitive activity with the box was beyond their currentcapabilities. The box itself was unable to promote the interest/motivation necessaryto sustain directed (aim driven) activity. It may however have been within the zoneof proximal development of some of the children. This is why an adult experiment-ing with the box was able to draw interest. (The same adult who set up the boxin the infant toddler room did not even attempt to experiment with the box infront of those children; perhaps sensing that such activity was not within their zoneof proximal development.) However, children being in the zone of proximal de-velopment is not the same as children being able to engage in directed activity.Modeling can establish interest, but it does not actually move the children to thenext level of understanding. Only the children themselves can do that. Thus theadult was able to maintain the children's interest in the box through experimen-tation for a limited period of time before the children wandered off.

DISCUSSION

The issues raised by the natural experiment of the box brings to the forefront someimportant points about how teachers might treat and use materials in their class-rooms. Children of different ages have very different understanding of the same

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

8:06

11

Oct

ober

201

4

70 M. GLASSMAN and K. WHALEY

objects, and it is this understanding that drives activity. This is especially importantfor preschool teachers because of how quickly young children's understanding ofobjects in the world develop. It is also important for teachers of mixed age class-rooms who must learn to balance the different ways children of different agesunderstand the materials that are used in activity in the classroom.

In a general sense the types of materials that a teacher introduces into theclassroom have an enormous effect on the types of activity in which children willengage. Dewey (1916) suggests that teachers act as guides in education, helpingchildren to establish activity and maintain some level of goal directedness for thatactivity. One of the best ways that teachers can do this is by introducing relevantmaterials into die classroom environment that elicit children's interest in ways thatallow them to use these materials in aim driven activity. The teacher can not forceinterest on children, but they should have an awareness of what children's interestin materials might be and what types of activity such interests might involve. Thismeans teachers must engage in extraordinary balancing acts, taking into accountdie way children of a certain age might understand objects in activity, the motivationschildren have to engage in activities widi those objects during different points ofdevelopment, and the relationship between understanding, motivation, and diechildren's zone of proximal development in die activity. The teacher must acceptdiat activity will be determined by the child's understanding of die object S/hemust be open-minded enough to recognize when children do not understand theobject in die way diat die teacher originally hypodiesized. S/he must be awareenough to recognize if current understanding of the materials matches die currentabilities of die children, and under what circumstances there is an educationalmatch between die two.

The box was almost a perfect match between die infant/toddlers understandingof die object and die current abilities of die children. The box was understood asan object to be used in social activity, and die children were able to use to box asa social object in dieir activity. The match in die preschool classroom was morecomplicated. The understanding of die box did not match die children's capabilitiesto use die box in goal directed activity; die children understood the box as an objectto be used in cognitive activity but were unable to use it for experimentation.However, die children were able to maintain at least some interest in die box whenit was die center of a mentor/neophyte relationship. A child's zone of proximaldevelopment is often a very complex issue diat demands planning, open mindedness,and flexibility on die part of die teacher. It can range anywhere from quickunderstanding and use of die object (as shown in die infant/toddler example) toan interest stirred only dirough explicit modeling by an adult/mentor.

The relationship between teacher, child, and materials is dynamic and complex.Yet choice and preparation of materials may be die most important aspect forteachers of young children. It demands a tiioughtful consideration of children'sinternal understanding of objects, based on development and social history,and die way in which diat understanding creates interest and/or motivation foractivity.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

8:06

11

Oct

ober

201

4

NATURALISTIC EXPERIMENT WITH YOUNG CHILDREN 71

References

Chapman, M. (1988). Constructive Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education. New York: The Free Press.L.eontiev, A.N. (1981). Problems of the development of the mind. Moscow: Progress Press.Pepper, S. (1942). World Hypotheses. Berkeley: University of California Press.Piaget, J. (1924). Judgment and reasoning of the child. New York: Harcourt Brace.Piaget, J. (1926). The child's conception of the world. Savage, MD: Littlefield Adams.Vygotsky, L. (1987). The Collected Works of L.S. Vygotsky, Vol. I. New York: Plenum Press. (Original works

published prior to 1934).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

8:06

11

Oct

ober

201

4