Paper presented at the 2002 International Education Research Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education,

Brisbane, December 1^st to 5^th, 2002

Despite a substantial amount of critical review of Piagetian theory over the past ten to twenty years (see, for example, Donaldson, 1978; Walkerdine, 1984; Bruner & Haste, 1987; Fleer, 1992; Inagaki, 1992; O'Loughlin, 1992), the work of Piaget continues to inform practice within many western-world early childhood settings, including those within Australia. Although authors such as Bidell (1992) and Rogoff and Chavajay (1995) have emphasised that in Piaget's later work there was an acknowledgement of the influence of contexts on development, what has persisted within early childhood education, as well as other areas of education such as mathematics education and science education, are his earlier ideas on cognitive development. Piagetian theory has lead to a particular view of children as 'individuals' who actively construct their own understandings of the world in a pre-determined, stage-like, universally applicable manner, independent of their contexts (see, for example, Bee, 1999; Berk, 2000). A concern with this perspective, however, is that in some circumstances it has resulted in researchers and educators having preconceived notions of what is 'appropriate' and expected of children at various ages and stages. As a consequence, what can arise is a somewhat deficit view of many children, particularly those who have not yet reached a specific 'universal' developmental milestone, or those whose life experiences do not match those of the dominant culture. In other words there is an overlooking, dismissing or ignoring of the diversity and complexity of many children's lives - particularly those children from contexts other than the minority western world on which these 'universals' are based.

Claims have been made that 'in the past twenty years we have seen a major theoretical shift away from the child-as-solitary learner' (Sylva [1995) cited in Siraj-Blatchford & Siraj-Blatchford, 2001). However, the Piagetian approach continues to be influential in many early childhood research projects (Woodhead & Faulkner, 2000), particularly science and maths education research projects with young children as participants (see, for example, Dove, 1998; Ravanis & Bagakis, 1998; Spiropoulou, Kostopoulos, & Jacovides, 1999; Taiwo, Ray, Motswiri & Masene, 1999, Clarke, Rowley, Gervasoni, Horne, McDonough & Cheeseman, 2001). For some academics and researchers, though, there is a concern that many of these studies are inclined to ignore contexts, and certain activities within those contexts, other than to specify them as variables in research design (Graue & Walsh, 1995; Cannella & Bailey, 1999).

Graue and Walsh (1995, p.141) argue that:

Yet there is a tendency in research focusing on cognition in children to examine thinking and understanding as though it occurs in a vacuum, being separate from the kinds of activities and experiences in which they participate (Rogoff & Chavajay, 1995), and free from cultural, institutional and historical influences (Wertsch, 1991). It is taken for granted that within research it is not only possible, but preferable, to study the individual, or aspects of intellectual functioning in the individual, in isolation (Wertsch, 1991). This, as Lemke (2001) notes, reflects a particular cultural premise, in which scientists and researchers from English-speaking western-world contexts maintain that 'individual mind must be the natural unit of all valuing and meaning-making communities' (Lemke, 2001, p.312) (my emphasis).

At a time when psychologists and other researchers in a variety of countries are reconsidering universalist notions of child development (Mayall, 1999; Woodhead, 2000), there is a need within early childhood research and practice, and science education research and practice, to consider alternate ways of studying children and their thinking. From this point of view there is much that adopting a sociocultural framework might be able to offer.

Sociocultural theory originates in the work of Vygotsky and his Soviet colleagues in the early decades of the twentieth century (John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996). It is an approach that recognises that child development is a social process having historical and cultural relativity (Woodhead, 2000), with an emphasis on relationships between people, contexts, actions, meanings, communities and cultural histories (Edwards, 2000), as well as cultural tools and artefacts.

The notion of internalisation has been useful, and continues to be widely used in developmental psychology (Matusov, 1998), however, authors such as Rogoff (1990) and Matusov (1998) comment that with an internalisation model there is an implication that learning occurs as a result of the moving of external, social activity to internal, individual functioning. That is, there is a discontinuity between internal and external, individual and social. In contrast, the participation model sees social and individual activities as mutually constituting each other, and inseparable from sociocultural activity. Changes occur in the activity itself and the individual's participation in the activity (Matusov, 1998).

Furthermore, participation is a social activity even when that activity is conducted alone (Wenger, 1998). For example, as I write this article, I am conscious of the audience for the article, and conversations I have had with colleagues concerning aspects of sociocultural theory. While I am physically alone, I am mindful of the presence (in this case, distal) of others. Further, I am conscious of how being engaged in the writing process is changing aspects of my understanding of sociocultural theory, and therefore preparing me for future writing tasks I might undertake on the same topic in the future. In effect, it is a process that has been described as transformation of participation, in which a person develops through involvement in an activity, changing to be engaged in the situation at hand in ways that contribute both to the on-going activity and to the person's preparation for future involvement in similar events or activities (Rogoff, 1998).

Consequently, in order to gain an understanding of children's thinking it can be helpful to consider more than how individuals perform on tasks that are designed to test the extent of their internalisation of external sources of information, or what particular stage they have reached within a so-called 'universal' developmental sequence. From a sociocultural perspective what can be useful is the consideration of how children participate in ongoing activities, how they adjust their involvement and responsibility for the activity, how they collaborate with others, and change their understanding in dynamic and mutually beneficial ways. As Rogoff (1990, p.196) suggests:

Three ideas that can be useful in understanding children and their learning and development are those of participatory appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship (Rogoff, 1995, 1998). In the first of these, participatory appropriation, the emphasis is on going beyond simply what a particular child knows or can do, to considering the process by which children transform their understanding of and responsibility for activities through their participation in those activities. The process of guided participation is a term to describe the mutual involvement, communication and coordination of children and their partners as they participate in socioculturally relevant experiences. The third is the concept of apprenticeship, or how less experienced individuals are actively guided and supported in their involvement in culturally relevant activities towards mature participation in that community of practice (Rogoff, 1995).

Another important concept within sociocultural theory is the use of cultural tools (both material and psychological) in the development of understanding. As Lemke (2001) points out, we grow and live within a range of different contexts, and our lives within these communities and institutions give us tools for making sense of, and to, those around us. Further, Bodrova and Leong (1996, p. 17) suggest that we 'teach to arm children with tools, and children appropriate these tools to master their own behavior, gain independence, and reach a higher developmental level'.

Vygotsky described psychological tools as those that can be used to direct the mind and behaviour, while technical tools are used to bring about changes in other objects (Daniels, 2001). Examples of cultural tools include language, different kinds of numbering and counting, writing schemes, mnemonic technical aids, algebraic symbol systems, art works, diagrams, maps, drawings and all sorts of signs (John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996; Stetsenko, 1999). An important aspect of tools is that they do more than simply assist in the development of mental processes. They also essentially shape and transform them (Cole & Wertsch, 1996). According to Vygotsky, tools 'mediate social and individual functioning and connect the external and the internal, the social and the individual' (John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996, p.236). As such they could appear to fit within an internalisation model.

However, from the perspective of a participation model tools are far more than things that connect the internal with the external. Tools cannot be separated from the activity in which they are embedded, or from the thinking of the child, nor the meaning, purpose, relevance and value being appropriated to them by the child and others. For example, while a child is drawing, she is using a number of different psychological and technical tools. She is manoeuvring a pencil (or stick or pen or other implement) on a surface (paper, sand, slate, fabric), but at the same time she is utilizing and manipulating personal experiences, images and feelings, present, past and possibly of the future. She is using knowledge and conceivably creating knowledge. There will also be influences from the guidance (encouragement, support, modelling, direction, perhaps even criticism) of others at the present time or during past drawing experiences. There may be problem solving required regarding the type of drawing implement being used and the surface being drawn upon. There may be an impact at either a conscious or subconscious level of the value placed upon drawing within the community or institutional setting, and an 'accepted' way of doing drawing within that context, the purpose of that specific drawing experience, accompanying emotional responses, and so on. Therefore, it is almost impossible to be able to designate a boundary between the internal and external, or the social and individual, and even the technical tool and the psychological tool. As Matusov (1998) argues, within the participation model social and psychological planes mutually constitute each other and are inseparable from each other. Skills and functions are embedded in sociocultural activity.

Acknowledging the view that inherent within the sociocultural approach is the notion that individual, social and cultural processes are interrelated, Rogoff (1995, 1998) has proposed that the use of three foci of analysis, personal, interpersonal, and community or contextual, can be useful in interpreting children's development and thinking. She emphasises that while one of these foci may be in sharply defined, the others remain involved but in the background, as the following figures illustrate.

In Figure One, below, a research lens is applied to the personal focus of analysis within the activity, highlighting the child on the left, and what he is doing. Although the focus is on him, the interpersonal relationships and the contextual remain 'in the picture'. In addition, within this sociocultural framework, the attention goes beyond simply what this child 'knows' or can do, to examine the process by which people transform their understanding of and responsibility for activities through their own involvement in those activities (Rogoff, 1995).

In Figure Two, the focus shifts from this child, to analysis of the interpersonal plane - interactions between the boy and the adult. This includes an examination of the mutual involvement, communication and coordination of individuals and their partners, as well as the guidance and support of others, either face-to-face or more distally (Rogoff, 1995). In conventional research methods this plane is rarely examined adequately, and therefore much important and relevant information is often missed.

In Figure Three, the research lens focuses on contextual or community factors, including the tools being used (in this case, the books, stories, writing and perhaps the teddy bear, as well as psychological or mental tools), seating arrangements, and other less visual but important factors such as the forms of communication used within this context, the genres of conversation, codes of behaviour, the skills and ways of learning emphasised, the value placed by the community or institution on this type of activity, and so on.

Rogoff (1995, 1998) has emphasised that while one lens brings a certain aspect of the activity into focus, the others remain less distinct in the background. She argues that researchers can not gain an adequate understanding of children's learning and development by highlighting the individual child in isolation - as is common in many studies.

While Rogoff (1997, 1998) originally referred to these as planes of analysis, she has now called them foci of analysis, as many readers appeared to consider them as levels of analysis, and treat them as is they are separate entities, 'bounded off from each other in a hierarchically nested structure' (Rogoff, Topping, Baker-Sennett & Lacasa, 2002). This notion, however, detracts from the main concept - that within sociocultural activity people, contexts, actions, meanings, communities and cultural histories are all mutually constituted.

Therefore, bringing a sociocultural perspective such as this to any study of children means that it is not simply the child, as a single unit of analysis, nor a group of children, that can be examined, as if in a vacuum. Instead, consideration of three interrelated stories - a trilogy of the personal, interpersonal and community or contextual factors - can present a more complex and thorough picture of children's understandings.

The remainder of this article focuses on research that I have been undertaking, talking with young children about certain natural phenomena. The investigation was conducted in the junior primary and preschool classes of a school in the outer southeastern suburbs of Melbourne, Australia. The age range of the children was three- to eight years-of-age. Prior to the commencement of the study I spent a number of months acting as a participant observer within the school, getting to know the children, teachers, and the school and preschool contexts. The actual research activity consisted of conversations or dialogues, with the children completing drawings as we talked. Within this particular school and preschool context drawing is used frequently in classroom work, with the children appearing to enjoy it. It thus is a significant cultural tool within the setting. The aspects of the study that I shall highlight relate to conversations I had with certain children concerning their ideas about the rain. I had prepared a list of possible questions to ask the children, with the focused part of each discussion beginning with 'I wonder if you can tell me how you think rain happens?' However, the actual chat was very informal, with children's responses and participation in the activity determining the direction of the conversation.

It is important to acknowledge that the research endeavour which I undertook is itself a cultural artefact, and thus becomes part of the sociocultural activity. The conversations I conducted, as much as I tried to keep them informal, were semi-structured and led by myself. They followed a particular research format which is itself a cultural intervention, formed by all kinds of historical, political, social and cultural traditions, values and ways of behaving (Robbins, in press, a). The impact of this on the conversations must be recognised.

There has been limited previous research conducted on children's understandings of the rain. The little that has been reported has been about studies that have generally investigated broader topics such as the water cycle (see, for example, Bar, 1989; Taiwo, Ray, Motswiri & Masene, 1999), and weather (for example, Stepans & Kuehn, 1985; Russell,Bell, Longden & McGuigan, 1993; Dove, 1998; Spiropoulou et al, 1999), and carried out with children aged at least five years of age (and, in the main, much older). Without exception these studies, of children in Israel, Botswana, the United States, the United Kingdom and Greece, are based firmly on the work of Piaget and his early twentieth century investigations of children's conceptions of meteorology and the origin of water (Piaget, 1973), particularly their thoughts about the rain and clouds. All focus on how children move from 'naïve ideas' (Stepans & Kuehn, 1985), 'misconceptions' (Dove, 1998; Spiropoulou et al, 1999), 'erroneous concepts' (Stepans & Kuehn, 1985), 'untutored innocence' (Russell et al, 1993), or other deficiency model terms, towards a 'correct', 'scientific' western-world view of these phenomena. Following the classic Piagetian model, development of understanding is characterised by an internal set of cognitive restructurings. In each study, children's understandings have been discussed without attention to interpersonal factors, or to contextual issues other than a mention of the nationality of the participants.

Piaget maintained that children pass through three stages of development in their conceptions of the rain, though he acknowledged that sometimes explanations may be mixed (Piaget, 1973). The first of these, he termed integral artificialism (a fundamental belief that natural phenomena are artificially 'manufactured') where the child states that rain is man-made or from God. The second stage, he referred to as mitigated artificialism (a diminished or moderated form of artificialism) with examples being that rain comes from clouds, which are indirectly related somehow to man or God (for example, rain comes from clouds - which are made of smoke from houses and which obey humans, move with humans or come to water plants or clean houses, et cetera - or the smoke 'fetches' water from the sea). Finally, in the natural processes stage, children use numerous explanations that have been learned (such as that rain is condensed water vapour), or original answers such as rain coming from clouds, which are regarded as 'heat', 'wetness' or 'perspiration'.

Had I chosen to undertake a simplistic method of analysis, I, too, could state, as have earlier studies, that children's thinking 'fits' within these three stages or 'boxes'. For example, Lucas (5.10) told me that the 'Rain Maker' has a machine and when he pulls a trigger the rain comes out of the sky (integral artificialism), while Leisel (5.2) said that God makes the rain 'with some magic' (integral artificialism). Jessica (5.7) said that rain starts when the 'wind pushes', and additionally that the clouds 'soak all some water up and then they feel, um firsty (sic), so then they drink some water, then they let the water fall down, an' (sic) that's ... when the rain comes down' (mitigated artificialism). Dermot (5.4) declared that steam floats up because it is smoke, and that the 'steam comes up from, ummm, the fire, or some ...cooking, and then it...joins up there, and then it goes into the clouds' (mitigated artificialism). Raoul (6.9) stated that rain happens because of water 'dissolving up into the sun and going back into the clouds' and 'it goes really heavy, with these ice blocks, an'(sic) they go really heavy and they fall' (natural processes). Phillip (7.10) told me that clouds bring water up to the sky, and when they move over the land it starts raining. He then went on:

However, categorising children's responses in this manner, using a Piagetian framework and looking for what it might be expected children would say, presents a very simplistic view of both the conversations I conducted with the children and their participation in the discussions. Furthermore, it does not adequately convey the dynamic nature of either conversation or cognition (Welzel & Roth, 1998). Needless to say, I have rejected this approach in my data analysis. What has been omitted from these examples above is the rich and extensive conversational exchanges, collaboration and sharing of roles in the activity, and reciprocal guiding and leading that occurred, at times, between child and researcher in attempts to reach some sort of shared understanding, as well as the valuable and sometimes seemingly insignificant contextual factors.

To persist with using a Piagetian viewpoint as the major means for studying children ignores the many important influences on their thinking. It tends to trivialise and ignore the depth and complexity of their thinking, and can promote responses regarding the 'cuteness' of children's ideas. It treats knowledge as though it is only individualistic, when often knowledge is the result of shared thinking. It continues to perpetuate the view that there is one view of what is correct - an adult, western (minority) world, 'scientific' perspective. Further, it privileges certain children over others; those who are verbally skilled, proficient in the language of the researcher (usually English), live within a western world context, are confident with adults, and can work well individually (as opposed to those who are more competent working with others). While this continues to be the only perspective presented, our knowledge of children's thinking is likely to remain static, not progressing.

Furthermore, from a sociocultural viewpoint, questions could be asked concerning the extent to which a theory that was formulated seventy years ago in a western-European context with its own social, cultural, historical and political impacts can continue to be the major influence on how we investigate and interpret children's understandings within a range of present day contexts, cultures and settings. Would the adoption of a different framework present an alternative picture of children's understandings?

As stated, within this particular study I am not interested in group or individual children's development of understanding through particular stages towards 'mature' thinking and the acquisition of 'scientific' concepts. Instead, I am exploring how children's participation in a conversational activity (and, in an indirect way, my own participation) changes during the course of the experience, how roles and responsibilities vary, and how culturally significant tools are used by children while taking part in this activity.

Therefore, in looking at the transcripts of the conversations, it seemed inappropriate to concentrate only on what the children had to say about the rain, ignoring the many other aspects of the experience. Attempting to classify what they had to say according to arbitrary categories risked losing the complexity and richness of their thinking. It seemed far more productive and meaningful to examine the experience from the perspective of the personal, interpersonal, and community foci, as Rogoff has suggested.

There are a number of questions, therefore, to consider when looking at the following transcripts, including:

• Who is the 'expert' and who is the 'novice' within the experience?
• How do the roles of the participants change or coordinate?
• Is there evidence of any change in the participants during the process, which contributes to the unfolding event?
• What specific cultural tools are being used in the activity, and what purposes are these tools serving - for example, organising thinking, communicating with another, expressing ideas...?
• How is the cultural institution of 'research' impacting on (or even hindering) the experience?
• What other cultural factors, such as values and belief systems, are impacting on the situation? (Robbins, in press, b)

Ollie is four years and seven months at the time of this conversation, a portion of which is included here. Perhaps what he says could be 'fitted in' to one of Piaget's stages of development in thinking about the rain - but it would provide a very limited image of the power and ingenuity of his ideas.

Had I used a more traditional approach in this interview, and the others conducted, Ollie may not have been given the opportunity to engage in this extended conversation. The discussion may have been drawn to a close after Ollie's initial response (and his thinking categorised as showing evidence of artificialism), or when he began singing Rain is Falling Down (on the assumption that his thinking was wandering). Yet it can be these apparent cognitive meanderings that tell us a great deal about the child's participation in activities and the development of their thinking (Robbins, in press, a).

For Ollie (and a number of other children in this study) singing appears to be an important cultural tool that helps him organise and express his thinking, as does gesturing, pausing, talking to himself, planning actions and drawing. These cultural 'tools' are evident also in the discussion with Uma (6.5), parts of which (in the interests of space) are included below.

Within sociocultural theory, cognitive development of children is intrinsically interrelated with their participation in sociocultural activities (Rogoff and Chavajay, 1995). These transcripts, part of two extended conversations, demonstrate some of the multiple factors that influence the thinking of children. These include direct experiences, topics and issues taught at school or home, family (including member of the extended family), shared understandings, and tools and artefacts such as television, books of various kinds, songs, crayons, contextually relevant beliefs and ways of behaving, counting, to name a few. It is also evident that these tools, as well as the ones mentioned earlier in relation to Ollie, serve to assist children's thinking and enable them to stay 'on task' for considerable periods of time.

However, reading through these transcripts does injustice to the study and the children within it. These are merely extracts of longer conversations in a series of dialogues, and what has not been presented here is the numerous other factors and processes that are impacting on the study but are beyond the scope of this paper. Nevertheless, I found it necessary to examine these in order to gain an adequate understanding of the children presented here. Important aspects include not only the contextual tools mentioned above and previously, but also the interpersonal relationships and issues, such as changes in the way the children, and myself, participate in the dialogues as they progress. Examples are a decreased control by myself of certain aspects of the conversation I had initially thought important, and increased emphasis on allowing the children to set the direction of the conversation. I was also conscious of how following certain research traditions, such as asking all children the same questions, in the same order, tended to be counter-productive in acknowledging the children's rights to determine the course of the activity. There was also greater recognition on my part of mental tools, such as extended pauses in the conversation (sometimes up to twenty seconds), which allowed the dialogue about rain to continue in mutually beneficial ways and contributed to the building of joint understanding.

These are examples of the significance of transformation of participation within activities. My own involvement changed in ways that contributed both to the ongoing activity and to my preparation for involvement in subsequent interviews. However, the change in my own behaviour had an impact on the children's participation. Thus, it provides an illustration of how it is not simply the child as a single unit of analysis that needs to be examined but also factors such as the interpersonal relationships, and hence it can be very useful to write oneself, as a researcher, into the analysis. No matter how rigorous, formal or standardised the approach that is applied to the research methods, there are inevitably a multitude of interpersonal and contextual factors that impact on the study.

As Moll (1992) argues

To continue to examine children's thinking as though it occurs in a vacuum may do little to advance our understanding of the complexity, depth and richness of their ideas - particularly within the early childhood years. Persisting with the use of a Piagetian framework ignores or dismisses the multitude of influences on their thinking, and treats knowledge as though it is only important when it 'belongs' to individuals. It also maintains the notion that children, regardless of their contexts, and what is important within those contexts, universally pass in chronologically-ordered and hierarchically-arranged stages along a continuum of development to eventually think and reason in a 'mature' fashion like adults. From this perspective children will always be viewed as 'deficient' in their thinking - particularly if they do not happen to live within the western-world context in which this framework was developed.

Bringing a sociocultural perspective to the research context provides the opportunity to question some of these 'accepted' ways of thinking about children, and broadens the focus from the individual child as a unit of analysis to include three interrelated stories - a trilogy of the personal, interpersonal, and community or contextual factors - thus presenting a more authentic, complex and thorough picture of their understandings.

Research practices that examine the taken-for-granted traditions of researching with young children, and employ contextually relevant tools and ways of behaving, as well as focusing on relationships and interactions (as this study has been attempting to do) can be helpful in providing insights into children's transformation of participation in activities, and the dynamic nature of their understandings. Providing opportunities for children to develop and represent their thinking in a variety of culturally relevant ways (in this case, drawing and singing) is important, as is considering the contexts in which their thinking is embedded. Allowing thinking to develop to its maximum level of complexity takes time (Welzel & Roth, 1998), and, thus, paying attention to and supporting young children's apparent cognitive wanderings and extended pauses, may in fact reveal that they are capable of quite complex and divergent thinking.

Using Rogoff's (1995, 1998), three lenses, therefore, can offer a powerful tool to help researchers focus on aspects of young children's thinking that are often overlooked. To comprehend adequately each of the three foci (personal, interpersonal and community) requires some background consideration of the contribution of the others (Rogoff et al, 2002). In order to understand young children we need to consider not merely individual children and their participation in activities, but importantly the mutual contributions of others, communication, collaboration, and interrelationships (both proximal and distal), and the contextual factors, values and traditions in which those activities are embedded.

I wish to thank sincerely the children, staff, parents and school community who participated with me in the study on which this article is based. I am also grateful for the professional guidance and support of Professor Marilyn Fleer, Monash University.

Early childhood education, research methods, sociocultural perspectives

Sections of this paper, primarily relating to the transcripts, were presented at the Tenth Annual Australian Research in Early Childhood Education Conference, Canberra, 25^th-27^th January, 2002

Jill Robbins, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Education, Monash University, Peninsula Campus, Frankston, Victoria, 3199. Specialisations: Cognition in early childhood, early childhood science, sociocultural perspectives of early childhood education. Email: jill.robbins@education.monash.edu.au

Bee, H. (1999) The Growing Child: An applied approach. NY: Longman.

Berk, L. (2000) Child Development, 5^th edn. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Donaldson, M. (1978) Children's Minds. London: Fontana.