Intersubjectivity

One of the principles of working with children within their zones of proximal development is the maintenance of intersubj ectivity between participants. "Underlying interaction within the

ZPD

is intersubjectivity, the process of constructing and reconstructing joint purposes between the child and hislher interacting partner" (Rogoff, 1 998, p.429). Verba (1 994) described intersubj ectivity as the participants' belief that they are jointly attending to the same aspect of the situation in which they are involved. Through negotiating with peers, children learn that others may not share their view, and how skilfully they negotiate has implications for their popularity and their identity fonnation. Children have been found to use different skills of negotiation with their peers than they do with adults (Verba, 1 994) and certainly children benefit from opportunities of free play in which they make their own decisions and solve their own problems and conflicts.

I

will argue that, when teachers share their power with children, in.an atmosphere o f co-constructive learning, children are empowered to use their skills

_of negotiation and planning with adults as well as with their peers.

Lindfors ( 1 999), believing power is a real issue in any classroom, in fact, in any human interaction and especially during inquiry dialogue in the classroom, asked the following questions related to the use of power in the classroom:

Whose purposes? Whose expressive ways? Whose content? Whose stance? Who has the right to decide what shall participants talk about? Whose agenda is to be honoured? Whose knowledge is relevant? Whose is central?

And who has the right to set the tone, the way of turning towards the topic and towards each other? (p. l 54)

Davies, ( 1 990) would describe teacher-child interactions as being discursively constituted, with both the adults and the children fulfilling their consigned roles without conscious choice. It is important that teachers do intervene appropriately in children's play to encourage cognitive gain from their experiences of intersubjectivity. Verba's ( 1 994) research indicated children are able to develop intersubjectivity between each other with very little verbal communication as they "share meanings and achieve interpersonal coordination of actions in social play" (p. 1 27) and at a very early age.

In the engaging in "effort after shared meaning" (Valsiner, 1 988, p.1 1 9), the role of the adult in supporting children's developing higher mental functioning,-Q r as a more expert peer supporting other adults' learning, is a crucial one. The major task for adults in maintaining intersubjectivity is to remain in touch with the learners' understandings within the zone of proximal development. Intersubjectivity also implies that both (or all) parties in a discussion develop a shared meaning, each contributing from their own knowledge and experiential base (Goncu, 1 993 ; Rogoff 1 998; Rommetveit, 1 985; Verdonik, 1 988). The development of intersubjectivity means each participant understands and adjusts actions to what the others are saying and each learns from the other. This· process of developing a joint understanding between participants is quite different from Piaget's conception of two minds meeting, each using the ideas of the other to advance her or his own ideas. Rogoff ( 1 998) described Piagetian processes, as involving decentering, or perspective taking, "which are individual processes working on socially provided information" (p.685). In Piagetian terms, the social exchange provides an opportunity for individuals to explore their own ideas, to clarify aruL test them through hearing them spoken and perhaps by being challenged by others. In

contrast, Vygotsky's fol lowers argue that collaboration is more conducive of learning and that participants each contribute to the understandings being developed (Azmitia,

1 988).

Research has found that, while children's collaborative abilities and processes develop, their strategies of developing intersubjectivity remain constant (Brownell & Carriger, .1 99 1 ; Goncu, 1 993; Verba, 1 994). Goncu ( 1 993) found, when studying the play of 3-

and 4-and-a-half-year-olds, that intersubjectivity is developed and maintained in several

ways. These included responding to extensions with extensions, as when children

extend their partners' ideas, which were extensions of their own, and through

introductions or acceptances rather than with a message of disagreement or an irrelevant

act. Evidence that even babies of nine months are aware of cognitive contradictions, are

able to develop intersubjectivity and to predict behaviour and collaborate, is seen in

their "tricking" during games such as peek-a-boo. Verba ( 1 994) found infant

interactions indicated the presence of collaboration. Infants are able to transform their

activities in relation to others' actions and interventions and even engage in an

elementary form of tutoring (Verba, 1 994). Researchers such as Brownell and Carriger

( 1 99 1 ) and Verba, (1 994) found children of 1 3 months to four years share meanings

through inferential processes of looking at one another, smiling, vocalising and

gesturing, which provide some understandings of intentions.

In

a laboratory study of

unfamiliar pairs of toddlers engaged in collaborative problem-solving, Brownell and

Carriger ( 1 99 1 ) found that compared with younger children of 1 2, 1 8 or 24 months, 3 0-

month-old toddlers collaborated more and seemed to possess a mutual awareness of

their peers' behaviour in relation to the goal, and their efforts were in part conditional

on their recognition of one another's joint relationship to the outcome

(intersubjectivity). Even from birth, babies demonstrate a primordial intersubjectivity, in

being active stimulus seekers and already oriented in one way or another towards the

world and towards others (Crossley, 1 996). In their later social play, intersubjectivity

becomes more visible, even in the absence of verbalisation, as children understand play

themes such as rough and tumble as being different from aggression, and j ointly

interpret play actions as pretence in contrast to reality (Goncu, 1 993; Howes, 1 998). The

co-construction of learning between teachers and children taps into children's well­

developed skills of maintaining intersubjectivity, the sophistication of which many

teachers seem unaware.

In developing intersubjectivity, or shared meaning, it is not essential that partners make

In document Professional development making a difference for children : co constructing understandings in early childhood centres : a thesis presented in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Education at Massey University, Palmerst (Page 35-37)