Constructs provided in the first year

This section provides data pertaining to the research questions:

How do Year 1 children understand what helps their learning during the CA Programme? What impact does the CA Programme have on children’s constructs?

The individual interviews using either the context of a CA or a mathematics lesson aimed to elicit

children’s constructs regarding what helps their learning. Each child was given the opportunity to complete all s/he wanted to say before the interview was terminated.

Constructs are bi-polar as explained by Kelly (1955) and during the interviews neither the construct nor its opposite pole was privileged as similarities and differences were treated with equal importance and all judgements were suspended. However, for the purpose of this study the positive poles were prioritised in analysis as it was this pole that the children mostly used to engage in discussion. Tables illustrating opposite poles are provided in Appendix 6.1. As described in the Methodology, Chapter 4, each construct and its opposite pole were recorded in a table so that individual child contribution could be easily

identified. At the start of the interview, name cards for each child in the group were placed on the table. The cards were read so that the child was clear about whom each card referenced. On each occasion, the child was then asked: “Can you say what you think helps your learning in CA/mathematics?” In order to obtain the opposite pole children were asked after each construct was mentioned: “Do you all do this in the same way?” The children then looked at the name cards and chose children whom they thought were in some way the same and then identified the opposite pole by choosing names of children that were in some way different. Each construct and its opposite pole were written on cards. Children were asked to say how each construct helped their learning. Salmon (1988) maintains that it is our personal construct systems which allow us to read our lives because constructs are essentially interwoven within a personal

system of meaning. This being the case, it was hoped that by hearing the children’s constructs it would be possible to interpret their lived experience of learning within their group and identify what was most impacting upon their learning.

The following table indicates the positive pole of each construct provided by children in each interview. The purpose of this table is to note the constructs provided by the children thus showing their development through the year.

Table 6.1: The positive poles of the constructs produced in the first year of the study

.

Bi-polar constructs

At each point in the year the children were able to produce constructs in answer to the question of what helped their learning. They were also able to produce the opposite pole of each construct. For example, have to work was a construct said by many of the children in September. When the children looked at the name cards, they could separate them and say, “these ones work like me but these ones play or chat all

Constructs September Constructs March Constructs July

Have to work Listen Listen Read Talk Talk The teacher Explain Explain Do numbers Share Share

Learn times tables Solve a problem Solve a problem Put your hand up Look Look

Go to school Think Think Do what you are told Ask Ask

Your mum Sort Describe things Your dad Discuss Discuss

Work hard/sensibly Put things in order Understand Make sense Remember Agree and disagree Kind Use your brain

Not argue Work out what thinking you need Helpful Try

Get right Do sums Confused Copy off board Play Put hands up Order Get lots of stars Feel objects Keep quiet Difficult Be bored Try Finish your work Give suggestions Keep work tidy Do sums Learn times tables Copy Be clever

Hard Do what teacher says Can’t do things Do homework Answer questions Be grown up Want to play Do work sheets Get stars Read Get finished Don’t be naughty Keep tidy Don’t talk Hands up Easy

the time”. Children had neither difficulty in producing constructs nor in identifying differences between themselves and others in their group. The opposite poles were always coherent with the construct produced implying that the children understood the task and could identify without difficulty similarities and differences between children in the group. These constructs gave insight into how the children viewed themselves and some of their peers at this early stage of schooling.

Constructs vary over time

The table demonstrates that in September there is little variety in the children’s responses. Children appear to realise that they have to work which includes reading and working with numbers. Adults figure highly in that mums, dads and teachers are mentioned. It may be that children think that co-operating with adults is very important to their learning as they mentioned several constructs that relate to their behaviour ie going to school, doing what you are told, putting up your hand. These are behaviours frequently promoted by significant adults in our society so the children may well have been told to do these things on numerous occasions. The children could not explain how these constructs helped their learning so it may be that they were at the earliest stage of awareness of the process of being a learner and not yet engaged in how to learn. According to Kelly (1955) a person develops hypotheses and tests these out so it may be that the children had not had sufficient explicit experience of being a learner to test these

hypotheses in order to make sense of and explain the process of learning.

The table indicates that by March the constructs were very different from those in September. Many of the constructs produced by the children on this occasion were active verbs thus suggesting an initial

understanding of their participation in the learning process. The children distinguished between not doing something and being unable to do something. For example, some children said that they needed to understand the problem in order to learn but that sometimes children could not understand. This indicates that children had already experienced times when they were able to do things and other times even when they tried, they were unable to succeed. This could imply then that children were developing their understanding of their personal part in the learning process experienced that some aspects were difficult for them. According to Barnes and Todd (1978) each of us can only learn by making sense of our experiences and constructing a world for ourselves. It would seem that these children are already constructing a world where some aspects are too difficult or complex for them. The children were unable to provide any solution or way forward but appeared to consider that they were incapable. For example, “I can’t understand the problems sometimes so I can’t help get them right. You can’t do it if you don’t understand, can you?” (Tiffany, Group A1).

In March some constructs still relate to exterior behaviours. For example, Hands up, keep tidy. These related to classroom management strategies used by the teacher which if not adhered to some form of admonishment took place. The children could not explain how putting their hands up helped them to learn but they could describe their teachers’ reactions to their non-co-operation. In these cases children were

constructing a world where management strategies and keeping the teacher happy were interwoven with what it meant to be a learner.

It was expected that by July constructs regarding learning would have become more complex as a result of the normal development that takes place during an academic year as children mature and develop. In July, children indicated the difference between engaging in something (listening), not being able to do something (can’t make sense) and choosing not to do something (won’t talk). This may indicate that the children were now more aware of their part in learning and also their capacity to choose how to be involved in the learning process. Children were able to discuss their constructs in a way which indicated understanding of them as skills helping their learning. For example, “you think in your head it gives you

ideas because your brain tells you answers”. (Weena, C1) This suggests that Weena has developed and

integrated her understanding of “thinking”, a process that she may first have heard in the group. This echoes Vygotsky’s (1978) notion that children develop understanding of concepts as they integrate language that they hear in the social space. If children integrate concepts in this way it is a reasonable assumption that they integrate skills that facilitate learning. In this case because Weena can explain her constructs it can be assumed that she integrated this skill and used it during lessons.

Summary

In summary, the above table indicates that over time, children’s constructs change. From September where there appears to be no real understanding of a personal responsibility through to July where many constructs indicate that children understood that they have an active role in the learning process and choices to make regarding engaging with learning. Children were also aware that some aspects of learning were difficult for them even when fully engaged and making an effort to learn.

The next section looks at these constructs in more detail by providing constructs differentiated by school so that CA and non-CA constructs can be compared.