Cultural patterns of collaboration and communication whilewo

Cultural patterns of collaboration and communication while
working together among U.S. Mexican heritage children
Maricela Correa-Chávez ⁎
California State University, Long Beach, United States
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 13 November 2015
Received in revised form 9 August 2016
Accepted 15 August 2016
Available online 9 September 2016
To examine the cultural organization of collaboration, 50 U.S.
Mexican-heritage sibling pairs
(ages 6–11) were videotaped as they participated in a puzzle
construction activity. Half were
from families with more recent connection with rural practices,
and limited schooling (“pueblo
families”) and half from “high schooling families” (more
connection with middle-class prac-
tices, higher schooling). Children were given a previously
constructed model, parts to construct
another, and left alone. Every 10 s coders noted how the
siblings coordinated either: jointly en-
gaged, checking-in, solo, or off-task and if collaboration was
organized either verbally, nonver-
bally, or with multiple means. Children from “Pueblo” families
engaged jointly and used
nonverbal and multiple means of communication more than
children from “high schooling”

families who more often worked solo, were off-task, and used
talk to communicate. Results
are linked to practices in Indigenous American communities
where children's Learning by Ob-
serving and Pitching In is common.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Collaboration
Nonverbal communication
Learning by Observing and Pitching In
Children from immigrant families
Talk
1. Introduction
This study examined the cultural organization of collaboration
among sibling pairs of Mexican heritage whose families had
varying experience with Indigenous and Western cultural
practices. Of particular interest was whether children from
families
that presumably have more experience with Indigenous forms of
organizing teaching and learning would coordinate more collab-
oratively compared to children whose families have more
experience with middle class European American cultural
practices (as
indexed by extensive maternal schooling). A secondary question
examined cultural patterns in how children communicated while
they were collaborating. The need to understand variabi lity in
forms of collaboration and communication is especially
important
in light of the fact that among Mexican immigrants to the
United States there is large variability with school experience
(National
Task Force on Early Childhood Education for Hispanics, 2007).

An emerging body of literature suggests Mexican mothers with
fewer grades of school may have more experience with a form
of organizing learning common in Indigenous communities of
Me-
soamerica called Learning by Observing and Pitching In (LOPI)
(Correa-Chávez, Mejía-Arauz, & Rogoff, 2015; Rogoff,
Paradise, Mejía-
Arauz, Correa-Chávez, & Angelillo, 2003).
1.1. Learning by Observing and Pitching In
A long line of research has shown that in communities with
Indigenous North and Central American histories children have
wide access to family and community activities and are treated
as “legitimate peripheral participants” (Lave & Wenger, 1991).
Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 11 (2016) 130–141
⁎ Corresponding author at: CSULB, Psychology Department,
1250 Bellflower Blvd., Long Beach, CA 90840-0901, United
States.
E-mail address: [email protected]
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2016.08.001
2210-6561/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Learning, Culture and Social Interaction
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/lcsi
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.lcsi.2016.08
.001&domain=pdf
mailto:[email protected]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/22106561
www.elsevier.com/locate/lcsi
LOPI details the cultural organization of this form of teaching
and learning where children are included in family and
community
activities and frequently pitch in, or help out ongoing activity
out of their own initiative (Alcalá, Mejía-Arauz, Rogoff,
Coppens, &
Dexter, 2014; Rogoff, 2014; López, Najafi, Rogoff, & Mejía-
Arauz, 2012; Mejía-Arauz, Correa-Chávez, Keyser Ohrt, &
Aceves-Azuara,
2015).
This collaboration and initiative in activity is often evident in
the ethnographic reports of children working with adults in
com-
plex tasks from helping to run small business, to running
errands, to translating, and caring for sibling (Lancy, 2008;
Ochs &
Izquierdo, 2009; Mejía-Arauz et al., 2015). Additionally, the
helpfulness reported is not only limited to the home
environment,
Mexican and Central American descent students in one Los
Angeles area school volunteered to help out in school even
when
they were on vacation in addition to helping out at home
(Orellana, Dorner, & Pulido, 2003). Interviews with mothers
provide
more support for these observations and also indicate that often
children participate in these activities from their own initiative,
without being forced or cajoled into helping (Alcalá et al.,
2014; Coppens, Alcalá, Mejía-Arauz, & Rogoff, 2014; Mejía-
Arauz et al.,
2015). This study builds on the ethnographic work showing

cultural differences in children's helpfulness and on the work of
Rogoff and her colleagues who have suggested that a key part of
childhood in communities with Indigenous histories involves
collaboration and initiative in participating in family and
community activities (Correa-Chávez et al., 2015; Rogoff et al.,
2003).
These cultural patterns of encouraging helpful collaboration at
home and in the community are often different than the patterns
of work encouraged by school.
1.2. Cultural patterns of collaboration
Traditionally schools have been places where individual work is
prioritized and collaboration is either actively discouraged
(called cheating) or simply not encouraged in day to day
interactions where the teacher/whole class or teacher/individual
student
format predominates (Mehan, 1979). When children from a
traditionally organized classroom were asked to collaborate,
they
often used test and quiz formats rather than interactions where
they built off other one another's efforts (Matusov, Bell, &
Rogoff, 2002). Of particular importance to this study is the fact
that children must learn the cognitive skills of effectively
collab-
orating with one other people, and just as modes of interaction
vary across cultural communities, forms of organizing
collabora-
tion should also vary across cultural communities (Correa-
Chávez & Rogoff, 2005).
Research suggest that working together in a way that skillfully
blends with ongoing interaction appears to be a skill learned
early on in interaction with others in communities with
Indigenous history. Mayan toddlers were more likely to request
help

from their already occupied mothers using gaze, touch, and
body posture compared to European American toddlers who
rarely
used those methods in asking for help (Rogoff, Mistry, Göncü,
& Mosier, 1993). Among school aged children, U.S. Mexican
heritage
children were ten times more likely to wait patiently and check
that an adult was not busy before asking her for help compared
to European American children who loudly and frequently
interrupted ongoing activity (Ruvalcaba, López, Rogoff, Correa-
Chávez,
& Gutierrez, 2015).
Skills at observation and integration in ongoing activity may be
related to the different forms of collaboration observed in com-
munities that have Indigenous history. When working on a
collaborative project with multiple participants, Mayan mothers
with
2 or fewer years of schooling were more likely to build off the
work of participants. Mayan mothers with 12 or more years of
schooling were more likely to subdivide the project into smaller
tasks (Chavajay & Rogoff, 2002). Similarly when 3 siblings
were engaged with a novel science exhibit U.S. Mexican
heritage siblings coordinated in a way that rarely interrupted
ongoing
activity, but rather blended agendas between participants.
European American siblings were more likely to interrupt
ongoing ac-
tivity and organize the activity through turn taking rather than
working together (Angelillo & Rogoff, 2005). Even when
working
on individual projects, U.S. Mexican heritage children whose
families were more familiar with the ways of rural Mexico and
had
fewer years of schooling were more likely to engage as a group
compared to U.S. European heritage children and Mexican heri -

tage children whose mothers had 12 or more years of schooling
(Mejía-Arauz, Rogoff, Dexter, & Najafi, 2007).
The cultural patterns in collaboration found in the research may
be learned in interaction as children work alongside adults in
meaningful family and community activity. However this
pattern of involvement tends to change as schooling becomes
more
prominent in family life. Studies examining the helping
behaviors of Mexican children at home have consistently found
that as
parents have more school experience children contribute less
often and less meaningfully to the family, and childhood is
reframed
as a time where children are supposed to be dedicated primarily
(if not exclusively) to school (Alcalá et al., 2014; Coppens et
al.,
2014; Mejía-Arauz, Keyser-Ohrt, & Correa-Chávez, 2013).
However as previously stated, traditional schools do not tend to
pro-
mote collaboration (Matusov et al., 2002), focusing instead on
individual accomplishments and verbal competency (Hart &
Risley, 1995).
1.3. Talk and joint activity in collaboration
Although some scholars have focused on the role of talk in
collaboration, if children are accustomed to integrating
themselves
into community and family work without interrupting others,
collaborative interactions may rely heavily on the act of
working
together (joint activity) as an organizer in addition to talk. In
some circumstances engaging in large amounts of talk may not
nec-
essarily lead to the most fruitful collaboration. For example

nonverbal interaction and modeling were common and effective
teaching strategies for young siblings working together
(Azmitia & Hesser, 1993) as well as for college students
working together
(Azmitia & Crowley, 2001). In some cases, such as in designing
structures “rapid prototyping,” (building and testing ideas with
131M. Correa-Chávez / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction
11 (2016) 130–141
minimal discussion) led to designing better structures than
collaborations involving intensive discussion (Apedoe, Mattis,
Rowden-Quince & Schunn, 2010).
However in communities where people have had many years of
schooling, as well as in schools themselves, talk is often pri-
oritized as a marker of engagement and learning (Dixon,
Levine, Richman, & Brazelton, 1984; Kim, 2002). In teaching
interactions
between Zinacantec Mayan siblings, children with only a few
years of school used more talk when teaching a younger sibling
compared to children who had not been to school. The children
who had not been to school tended to use more bodily closeness
and bodily guidance as teaching tools (Maynard, 2004). When
children were placed in groups of three with an adult who was
teaching them a new task, European American children were
more likely to communicate with one another using talk,
whereas
U.S. Mexican heritage children whose families had few years of
schooling (and whose families had immigrated from rural
Mexico)
were more likely to engage in multiple nonverbal turns at
communication called nonverbal conversation (Mejía-Arauz et
al.,

2007). The results from these studies as well as previous
cultural research indicate that the patterns of verbal
communication
many believe are necessary for collaboration are cultural in
nature and may be related to familial participation in the
cultural in-
stitution of school.
1.4. Schooling as a cultural practice and familiarity with
indigenous ways
The institution of school has organized child life and learning in
many middle class communities for generations, although its
role is often overlooked (Hernandez, 1997; Rogoff, Correa-
Chávez, & Navichoc-Cotuc, 2005). Many practices common in
schools
such as engaging in child focused activities, and mini language
lessons, are common in communities that have an extensive his-
tory with school, but uncommon in other communities (Gaskins,
1999; Lancy, 2008; Morelli, Rogoff, & Angelillo, 2003;
Scribner &
Cole, 1973).
In Mexico, mass schooling was also important as a way of
forging a national “Mexican Identity” out of the many
Indigenous
groups of the country following the 1910 revolution. Part of the
goal of schooling was to “modernize” the countryside by
replacing
Indigenous languages and traditions. As a result of these efforts
many rural communities of Mexico no longer consider
themselves
Indigenous even though many still engage in some traditional
practices and ways of life (Flores, Urrieta, Chamoux, Lorente
Fernandez, & López, 2015). Migration to the United States has
been most common from these rural areas (Consejo Nacional de

Población, 2001). Silva et al. (2010) and López et al. (2010)
argue that in many immigrant Mexican communities in the
United
States with limited schooling people may be familiar with the
cultural pattern of LOPI. Therefore in this study, children's
patterns
of behavior in interaction are not seen as arising from a deficit,
or “lack” of knowledge of school ways, rather from engagement
with another cultural form of supporting learning.
According to the U.S. National Task Force on Early Childhood
Education for Hispanics (2007), among Mexican immigrant
mothers of 8 year old children, 48.6% completed high school,
and 51.4% had fewer than 11 years of school. Maternal
participation
in the cultural practice of school has far reaching implications
for children of the next generation, as mothers may organize
inter-
actions with children in ways that reflect the organization of
school (Richman, Miller, & LeVine, 1992; Rogoff et al., 1993).
The different forms of interaction are also seen over generations
where children whose mothers have many years of schooling
tend to exhibit forms of interaction and group organization
common to school. Mexican heritage children in the U.S. whose
mothers averaged 7 grades of school relied more on observation
as a source of information compared to Mexican heritage chil -
dren in the U.S. whose mothers had 12 or more years of
schooling (Mejia-Arauz, Rogoff & Paradise, 2005). The U.S.
Mexican her-
itage children whose moms had fewer years of schooling also
attended simultaneously to multiple ongoing events more often
than U.S. Mexican heritage children shoes moms had 12 or more
years (Correa-Chávez, Rogoff, & Mejía-Arauz, 2005). Mayan
chil-
dren whose mothers averaged 3 grades of schooling attended

more to information directed to others compared to Mayan
children
whose mothers averaged 12 or more years (Correa-Chávez &
Rogoff, 2009). Additionally U.S. Mexican heritage children
whose
mothers averaged 7.5 years of schooling attended more to
other's activity compared to U.S. Mexican heritage children
whose
mothers had 12 or more years of schooling (Silva et al., 2010;
López et al., 2010).
Although many patterns of teaching and learning seem to
change with increased parental participation in school, it is
impor-
tant to point out that increased schooling in Indigenous
communities is associated with many other demographic
changes. Fam-
ilies with more schooling tend to have fewer children in the
family, more limited involvement in the extended family, more
urban
experience, different migration patterns, and occupations
requiring credentials — all of which might influence child life
(LeVine,
LeVine, & Schnell, 2001; Richman et al., 1992). Therefore in
this study, school experience is used a proxy for increased
familiarity
with European American middle class cultural patterns of child
rearing and child learning and not seen as the sole or “active in-
gredient” in changing community patterns.
1.5. Present study
This study examines how U.S. Mexican heritage siblings whose
families have differing cultural backgrounds with regard to fa-
miliarity with school ways of organizing learning, or familiarity
with LOPI engage in joint activity when they are working

together
on a difficult task. Few studies have focused on the cultural
aspects of nonverbal communication in collaboration among
children.
In previous work some studies have focused on cultural aspects
of collaboration in the presence of adults (Chavajay & Rogoff,
2002), and others have focused on nonverbal conversation in
situations where children were working individually (Mejia-
Arauz et al., 2007). However in this study the sibling pairs were
working independent of any adult supervision — free to
organize
their interaction anyway they saw fit while working on
something together. Additionally as siblings, the children likely
already
132 M. Correa-Chávez / Learning, Culture and Social
Interaction 11 (2016) 130–141
had a repertoire of communicative tools at the ready thereby
making it likely they would use nonverbal aspects of
communication
if they so desired.
Based on previous comparative and ethnographic data it was
expected that there would be differences in the patterns of co-
ordination, with the sibling pairs whose families have more
recent immigration from rural areas of Mexico and less
extensive ex-
perience with school (pueblo group) engaging collaboratively
more and the sibling pairs from families more familiar with
middle
class ways through extensive schooling and related cultural
practices (high schooling group) engaging more in solo work. It
was

also expected that children from the pueblo families would
organize their collaborative interactions relying more on
nonverbal
and multiple means of communication compared to children
from the high schooling families.
2. Method
2.1. Participants and their communities
All of the children were in school in the United States and were
recruited through afterschool clubs at three public elementary
schools in the Los Angeles area. All three schools were in areas
that have large Latino populations and where the schools serve
almost exclusively Mexican heritage children. Almost all of the
schools' students (93%) participated in a free or reduced-price
lunch program. The majority of the children's families (46 of
the 50 sibling pairs) had historical roots in Mexico, 2 of the
sibling
pairs' families were from Guatemala and 2 from El Salvador
(which were included because of a similar history of Indigenous
prac-
tices and access to schooling). Parents provided family
demographic information in responding to the permission slip
sent home
from school.
All 24 mothers in the “pueblo group” were born outside the
United States: 21 in Mexico, 1 in El Salvador, and 2 in
Guatemala.
Among the fathers in this group 17 were born in Mexico, and 3
in Guatemala (4 declined to provide information). All of the
mothers in this group completed their education outside of the
United States, and typical occupations for the mothers incl uded
cook, garment worker, and housekeeper. Of the 16 fathers who
provided schooling information, 14 had 9 or fewer years of

schooling and 2 had more than 9 grades. All of the fathers that
reported schooling information completed school in Mexico.
Typ-
ical occupations for the fathers included gardener, busboy,
mechanic, and cook.
At the time of the study 8 families in the pueblo group had only
the 2 children that participated in the study, 10 families had 3
children and 6 families had 4 children. Seventy percent of the
children in the pueblo group reported speaking mostly Spanish
at
home and 46% reported having visited Mexico. Twelve of the
sibling pairs were of the same gender (5 pairs of sisters, and 7
pairs
of brothers). In the 12 mixed gender sibling pairs, 7 had a sister
as the older sibling. Average ages of the siblings were 9 and 7
½ years (see Table 1). All of the children were in the prescribed
grade for their age (for example 7 year olds in second grade).
While participating in the activity, 16 of the 24 pairs used
mostly English during the puzzle activity, 7 pairs used mostly
Spanish
and one pair used both English and Spanish.
In the “high schooling” group, 16 of the 26 mothers were U.S.
born, 9 were born in Mexico, and 1 in El Salvador. Eighteen of
the mothers in this group completed their schooling in
California and typical occupations included teacher, home
maker, nurse,
and office manager. Nine of the fathers were born in the U.S.,
11 in Mexico, 1 in Guatemala, and 1 in El Salvador (4 declined
to provide information). Of the 19 fathers who provided
schooling information, 3 had 9 or fewer years of schooling, 7
completed
high school, and 9 attended school beyond high school (14 the
fathers completed their schooling in California). Typical
occupa-

tions for the fathers included customer service representative,
graphic designer, salesman, and teacher.
Table 1
Maternal schooling paternal schooling, gender, and age of
siblings.
Mexican-heritage
Pueblo
24 sibling pairs
(48 children)
Mexican-heritage
High schooling
26 sibling pairs
(52 children)
Average maternal schooling
(Information available on all 50 mothers)
7.3 grades
(Range: 4–11 grades)
SD = 2.1
14.3 grades
(Range: 12–16 grades)
SD = 1.8
Average paternal schooling
(Information available on 35 fathers)
8.3 grades
(Range 6–12 grades)
SD = 1.9
13.0 grades

(Range 8–16 grades)
SD = 2.6
Older sibling
Gender 12 girls, 12 boys 15 girls, 11 boys
Average age 9.3 years
(Range 8–10 years)
9.1 years
(Range: 7–11 years)
Younger sibling
Gender 10 girls, 14 boys 14 girls, 12 boys
Average age of focal child 7.4 years
7.0 years
11 (2016) 130–141
At the time of the study 8 families in the high schooling group
had only the 2 children that participated in the study, 11 fam-
ilies had 3 children, 3 families had 4 children, and 2 families
had 5 children. Forty percent of the children in the high
schooling
group reported speaking Spanish at home and 23% reported
having visited Mexico. Seventeen of the siblings in this group
were
same gender (10 pairs of sisters, and 7 pairs of brothers). In the
9 mixed gender sibling pairs, 5 had a girl as the older sibling.
Average ages of the siblings were 9 and 7 years, and all of the
children were in the prescribed grade for their age. During the

puz-
zle activity, 25 of the 26 pairs whose mothers had high
schooling used mostly English during the puzzle activity, and
one pair
used both English and Spanish.
Chi-square analyses showed that there were differences between
the groups in how likely they were to speak Spanish at home
(X2 (1) = 5.27, p b 0.05), how likely the children were to have
gone to Mexico to visit (X2 (1) = 3.93, p b 0.05), and language
used during the activity (X2 (2) = 8.91, p b 0.05). Among the 35
sibling pairs who provided both maternal and paternal schooling
information, there was a 0.82 correlation between maternal and
paternal schooling (p b 0.01) such that the more schooling the
mother had, the more school the father tended to have.
2.2. Procedure
As part of a larger study the sibling pairs were invited to be
videotaped as they worked together to construct a three-
dimensional honey bee puzzle. The puzzle was chosen because
it was very difficult to put together with many pieces similar
looking pieces, therefore the children would benefit from
working together as they constructed it. It was also a puzzle that
had
been discontinued by its manufacturer therefore it was unlikely
the children had experience with that particular puzzle. This
was confirmed when we asked the children if they had ever
constructed a puzzle like it before. All of the children reported
having
had some experience with 3D puzzles either at school or at
home (usually involving dinosaurs or buildings), but no child
had ex-
perience with the honey bee puzzle presented.
The children were seated together at a long rectangular table

opposite the video camera. The female Research Assistant
(RA) then brought an already completed honey bee model that
had been glued together and placed it in front of the chil -
dren on the table. “Now you are going to work together to make
a puzzle that looks like this (hands them the model). You
can look at this one and touch it and move it around as much as
you want. Here are all of the pieces you need to make an-
other one (lays out all of the parts on the table in front of the
children). I have to go outside for a little while, but if a piece
breaks you can go outside and let me know and I'll get you
another piece. You can be as loud as you want while you are
here.”
The RA left the room for 10 min to ensure the children would
feel comfortable talking, gesturing, and being loud with one
another as they worked on the puzzle. This was also done to
emphasize to the children that they would be figuring out how
to construct the puzzle on their own without the help of the RA.
The instruction “you can be as loud as you want while you
are here” was also meant to emphasize to the children that this
space was different from school and they did not need to behave
or use “inside voices” as they worked. After 10 min the RA
walked back into the room and sat in a corner doing some
“work” in
her notebook until the children finished. If the siblings had not
finished by 15 min, the RA checked on them asking them if ev-
erything was OK and if they wanted to continue. If any pair
wished to stop at this point they were allowed to do so,
otherwise the
RA went back to “work” and waited for the siblings to finish.
Once they were done, they were taken back to their after school
club
by the RA.
2.3. Coding

The videotape record was divided into 10 s segments during
which a bilingual coder unaware of the hypothesis of the study
identified how the pair was organized as they completed the
puzzle: either jointly engaged, checking in, solo, or off task.
Ten sec-
onds was chosen because this amount of time was long enough
that the children could build off of one another's ideas and ac-
tions, but not so long that other forms of interaction might be
missed or lost. Only one form of interaction was coded per
segment. In order to not miss any segments involving
collaboration, any segment that contained joint engagement and
any
other form of social organization, for example “checking in,”
was coded as joint engagement. Although this meant that
collabora-
tion could take place for 4 s only, and still be coded
collaboratively, this approach was actually conservative in that
it was possible
that it slightly reduced the possibility of finding differences
between the groups. If any segment contained checking in and
either
solo or off task, it was coded as checking in, and if any segment
contained solo and off task it was coded as solo. Again, this
may
have led to fewer segments coded as off task.
Although each 10 second segment was coded independently, the
information from neighboring segments was used to make
sense of what was occurring in any one segment. So for example
if both children were looking for a particular piece because
they had both agreed to try to find it in the previous segment,
and they both spent the 10 s looking for it they would have
been coded as collaborative rather than solo since they were
both working on something together that they had previously
agreed
upon. The four main categories: Jointly engaged, checking in,

solo, and off task are described in more detail below.
Additionally if
a segment was coded as jointly engaged, the coder also
identified if the children were coordinating with one another
primarily
through nonverbal joint activity, primarily through talk, or
through multiple means of communication (these are also
described
more fully below at the end of this section).
Interaction 11 (2016) 130–141
2.3.1. Jointly engaged
A segment was coded as jointly engaged if it was evident both
children were coordinating with one another in a cohesive
fashion as they contributed to their overall progress on the
puzzle. Often this meant both children were working together on
the same part of the puzzle. It was possible for one child to be
in observing or supportive role if it seemed that it was part of
helping or contributing to the other child's efforts and the
children seemed aware of one another's actions. Body position
was es-
pecially important in coding a segment as jointly engaged, the
children tended to be oriented to each other in a way that was
consistent with working together. Figs. 1 and 2 provide
examples of the children's body orientation. The siblings on the
left are
oriented towards each other and visibly working on the same
part of the puzzle. The children to the right are also working on
the puzzle but from their position and body posture it is not

evident that they are supporting one another as they work on
the same thing. Body position was not the only indicator of
joint engagement. Coders took note of what the children did in
pre-
vious or following segments to see how the sibling's activities
built or did not build on each other's. The following is a verbal
de-
scription of a 10 s segment that would have been coded as
jointly engaged:
A brother and a sister are working on the puzzle. The sister is
seated to the left of her brother and very near to him (about a
hand's distance apart). She holds the partially completed honey
bee body in her right hand, while looking on the table for a part
she needs. She glances at her brother who is holding a different
piece and she shifts the angle of the honey bee body in her right
hand so he can see it better. He looks at the glued together
model on the table then at her partially completed puzzle, looks
down
at the pieces on the table, and finds the one she needs. He takes
it and hands it to her. She takes it and places it where it
belongs.
Then again she starts looking for a piece as she shifts the angle
of the partially completed puzzle so her brother can see. (A
similar
pattern continues…).
2.3.2. Checking in
A segment was coded as “checking in” if both children were
checking in with each other as they worked on different aspects
of the puzzle. They did not appear to be coordinating their
actions with one another, but they were not working completely
in-
dependently from one another as evidenced by the questions
about what the other one was doing, or brief glances to check in

on
the other sibling. For example as one child was working on the
tail and the other on the wings one sibling asks, “what are you
doing now?” Or one sibling pauses her work to assess what the
other is doing. In segments coded as checking in it did not
appear
that the siblings were aware of what the other was doing
already, but they were finding out. However this did not mean
they
were working together as in jointly engaged. In one segment
coded as checking in:
A brother and a sister are seated side by side with at least a foot
of distance between them. The sister is looking for leg pieces
and the brother is placing pieces of the tail on the body. As the
sister looks for the pieces she is also singing an old jazz song.
The
brother is ignoring her singing as he tries to find all the
remaining parts of the tail. In the middle of her singing the
sister stops
and turns to look at her brother and asks what he is doing. He
says, “I know how to do this, let me do this.” She nods, and
each of
them goes back to what they were doing earlier, she sings as she
looks for leg pieces and he continues working on the tail.
2.3.3. Solo
A segment was coded as solo if both children were working solo
on the puzzle, side-by-side but not coordinating or commu-
nicating with each other for the entire 10 s.
2.3.4. Off task
A segment was coded as off task if both children were engaged
in something other than building the puzzle such as flying the

model bee around, engaging with something else in the room, or
goofing off for the camera. Because the focus was on the pair's
coordination if only one child was off task the segment was not
coded as off task, but rather as solo.
Figs. 1 and 2. Siblings constructing the puzzle through joint
engagement or solo work.
11 (2016) 130–141
2.3.5. Off task talk
Any segment in which the children engaged in talk about
something other than constructing the puzzle was coded as
contain-
ing off task talk. Unlike other coding categories off task talk
could co-occur with any of the coded forms of engagement
(although
it almost always occurred in solo and off task segments).
After identifying the form of interaction of the children, the
coders went back to any segment coded as jointly engaged to
de-
termine if their collaboration was done primarily through talk,
through nonverbal joint activity, or through multiple means of
communication.
– Jointly engaged through nonverbal joint activity included
segments where the siblings were communicating with each
other
by engaging in joint activity. For example a child could hand
his sister a piece of the wing she had been looking for without
the sister asking for it, or they could both be working together

to get a piece into a slot by helping one another rotate that
piece. In these segments there was no talk about how to
continue with the puzzle. The talk (if there was any) was
limited
to a word or two, for example saying a name to call attention.
However the coordination between the siblings was organized
primarily through joint activity and close observation to one
another and to the task. The segment illustrating joint engage-
ment earlier was one that was coded as jointly engaged through
nonverbal joint activity.
– Jointly engaged primarily with talk included segments where
the coordination between the siblings was primarily evident in
the talk between them. For example a child could say, “I don't
think we should start with the head. We should do it some
other way,” or “why don't you look for the small legs and I'll
look for the big legs,” or “let's try to figure out where these
go.” When a segment was coded as jointly engaged through talk
the children were not visibly working on something it togeth-
er. This could often resemble a “division of labor” strategy with
children assigning one another small tasks. It could also in-
clude instances of verbal help on something the children were
doing or description of pieces or steps in the process. For
example one child is looking for a piece while her sister
describes it as she studies the model, “It's a piece with two
circles
and a point at the front. The point is really long and the circles
are small.” The coding manual however did not distinguish
the kinds of speech used in the segments coded as jointly
engaged primarily with talk. An examination of the kinds of talk
used would be interesting, but beyond the scope of this study.
– Jointly engaged through multiple means included segments
where the collaboration was organized both through joint
activity
and talk. For example the siblings are working at putting two

pieces together and as they work together one says, “I don't
think
this is where it goes, let's try the other one you have.” The
second sibling then holds up the piece and looks questioningly
at
the first. The first sibling nods and together they work together
at placing the piece. For a segment to be coded as “jointly en-
gaged through multiple means” neither the joint activity nor the
talk seemed to be primary in the 10 s, rather both seemed to
play an equal role in organizing joint activity. It was possible
that a segment was coded as jointly engaged through multiple
means on the basis of just a few sentences. However those
sentences were vital to the current activity in which the children
were engaged and they could not have advanced in their efforts
without them.
2.3.6. Reliability
Coding was conducted by a trained research assistant blind to
the hypothesis of the study, and one-third of the data was coded
by the author who was also trained on the coding manual for
reliability. Pearson's correlations between the two coders were
as
follows: jointly engaged r = 0.98; checking-in r = 0.95; solo r =
0.99; off task r = 0.99; off task talk r = 1.0; jointly engaged
with talk r = 0.94; jointly engaged nonverbally r = 0.90, joint
engaged multiple means =0.94. Although the questions in this
study only involved the total use of the forms of collaboration
for each pair, segment by segment agreement was also examined
and was good.
3. Results
Analyses focused on the first 15 min of interaction. This was
done because half the children in each cultural group fin-
ished within the first 15 min (12 pueblo and 14 high schooling

group), and many who had not finished by then tended
to become increasingly frustrated and uninterested after that
time (as evidenced by an increase in the segments coded as
“off task” after 15 min) and some pairs requested to stop at that
point in time. Proportion of time segments were used to
analyze the data because sibling pairs varied in how long they
took to complete the puzzle. However although the individ-
ual pairs varied, there were no significant differences in amount
of time spent on the puzzle between the cultural groups.
The average time coded was 13.5 min for the pueblo group
(range 7.5–15 min) and 13.8 min for the high schooling
group (range 7.8–15 min). No significant gender differences
were found across the sample or within each background
group for any of the analyses reported.
The coded data showed that children tended to engage similarly
across multiple segments if they were jointly engaged or
working solo. Across all the data only 7.4% of the segments
coded as jointly engaged were neither preceded nor followed by
an-
other segment where the children were jointly engaged (SD =
8.0), for solo only 31.9% of the solo segments were neither pre-
ceded nor followed with other segments coded as solo (SD =
30.4). Predictably, this pattern was different for checking in
segments where 58.7% of the coded segments were neither
preceded nor followed by another segment coded as checking in
(SD = 27.4).
Interaction 11 (2016) 130–141
3.1. Different forms of interaction in siblings from Mexican

pueblo and Mexican high schooling families
As expected, the sibling pairs from pueblo families engaged
jointly while constructing the puzzle in proportionally more
time
segments than children from the high schooling families
(39.6%), F (1, 48) = 8.11, p b 0.01. The children from the
pueblo families
engaged jointly in 58% of the time segments (95% CI [49.1%,
66.9%]) compared to 29.8% of segments for the siblings from
the high
schooling group (95% CI [28.8%, 49.9%]). Engaging jointly
was the most common form of interaction used among the
children
from the pueblo families and the confidence intervals indicate
that that the patterns for this form of interaction are
dramatically
different between the two cultural groups.
Additionally there was a trend for children from the pueblo
group to engage in longer stretches of collaborative interaction.
Although there were no differences between the groups in the
number of clusters of collaboration in the coded data (the
average
number of clusters of collaboration was 8.25 and 8.15 for the
pueblo and high schooling groups respectively), among children
from the pueblo families these stretches of collaboration tended
to be longer. The pueblo group's collaboration clusters averaged
1 min and 15 s (or 7.5 segments) compared to 40 s (4.2
segments) for the high schooling group. However these result
were not
significant at the 0.05 level (F (1, 48) = 3.35, p = 0.07).
Also as expected, the siblings in the high schooling group
worked separately from each other in solo activity more often
than

the siblings from the pueblo families, F (1, 48) = 4.52, p b 0.05.
The children from the high schooling families worked solo in
45.3% of the time segments (95% CI [36.1%, 54.5%]) compared
to 31.1% of time segments for the children from pueblo families
(95% CI [23.6%, 38.6%]), and this was the most common form
of interaction among the siblings from the high schooling
group.
There were no differences between the groups in the percentage
of segments organized by checking in with each other. The
children in the pueblo group organized by “checking in” in
10.4% compared to 13.2% of the time segments for the high
schooling
group.
Although being off task was rare among both groups, it was
more common for the siblings from the high schooling families
to
be off task in 1.9% of the time segments (95% CI [0.5%, 3.2%])
compared to 0.4% of time segments (95% CI [0.0%, 0.8%]) for
the
siblings from pueblo families, F (1, 48) = 4.32, p b 0.05.
Because the coding scheme was conservative with regard to “off
task”
(coding prioritized all other forms of interaction before off task
and could only be coded if both children were disengaged
from the activity for the entire segment), it is possible that this
behavior was not fully captured by the coding scheme used in
this study. However the difference between the groups is
corroborated by the finding that sibling pairs from the high
schooling
families were also more likely to engage in off topic discussion
or chat while building the model, in 6.7% (95% CI [1.0% ,
12.5%]) vs.
1.5% (95% CI [ 0.44% , 2.5%]) of the session's time segments,
F (1, 48) = 3.14, p b 0.05. Additionally the confidence intervals

do
point to different patterns between the sibling pairs in both
cultural groups. These patterns are consistent with the idea that
in
communities with extensive schooling children are less likely to
be alert to others' activities (Correa-Chávez & Rogoff, 2009).
Table 2 shows the means and standard deviations for each form
of organization and for off topic chat.
3.2. Different amounts of talk, nonverbal joint activity, or
multiple means of communication in collaboration
Due to differences in rates of joint engagement between the two
cultural groups, proportions were used to examine what per-
cent of the sibling's collaborative joint engagement was
organized through nonverbal joint activity, through talk, or
through mul-
tiple means of communication. Six sibling pairs that were
jointly engaged less than 10% of the time segments were
excluded from
the analysis. This was done because their numbers were so low
that including their data would have been misleading. One pair
only jointly engaged for one segment overall (1% of the time
segments). Whichever way the siblings communicated in that
one
segment would have resulted in 100% of those sibling's
collaborative interactions being categorized as either involving
nonverbal
joint activity, talk, or multiple means of communication. At the
highest end of those excluded were 2 sibling pairs who engaged
jointly for 6 segments, but again a score of 50% for them would
have only reflected 3 segments out of the entire activity.
Exclud-
ing these 6 pairs resulted in 24 pairs from the pueblo group and
20 pairs in the high schooling group being included in the
analysis.

Table 2
Means percent (and standard deviations) of session's time
segments using different forms of social organization.
Mexican-heritage
Pueblo
Mexican-heritage
High schooling
Organization of interaction
Engaged jointly 58.0 (21.0)** 39.6 (24.2)**
Checking in 10.4 (8.6) 13.2 (7.6)
Solo 31.1 (17.6)* 45.3 (22.9)*
Off task 0.4 (0.9)* 1.9 (3.3)*
Off task chat
1.5 (2.4)* 6.7 (14.2)*
Communication used while jointly engaged
Primarily by nonverbal joint activity 30.2 (3.2)* 21.0 (2.8)*
Multiple means of communication 43.7 (15.5)* 36.2 (7.4)*
Primarily by talk 26.4 (14.6)** 42.6 (15.4)**
11 (2016) 130–141
Consistent with prior research (Mejia-Arauz et al., 2007) when
the sibling pairs from the pueblo families were engaged jointly
they used proportionally more nonverbal joint activity compared
to the pairs from the high schooling families, F (1, 42) = 4.34,
p b 0.05. When they were jointly engaged, children from the
pueblo families used nonverbal joint activity 30.2% of the time

(95%
CI [23.5%, 37.0%]) compared to the pairs from the high
schooling families who used nonverbal joint activity 21.0% of
the time (95%
CI [15.1%, 27.0%]). The siblings from the pueblo group were
also more likely to use more multiple means of communication
when
jointly engaged, 43.7% vs. 36.2% of the time, F (1, 42) = 3.94,
p b 0.05 (95% CI for pueblo backgrounds [37.2%, 50.3%] and
high
schooling backgrounds [32.8%, 39.7%]).
Also consistent with previous research (Maynard, 2004, Mejia-
Arauz et al., 2007) siblings from the high schooling families
were proportionally more likely to coordinate their joint
engagement through talk, 42.6% of the time (95% CI [35.7%,
49.4%])
vs. 26.4% for pueblo siblings (95% CI [20.4%, 32.8%]), F (1,
42) = 12.40, p b 0.01. Although the coding used in this study
did
not distinguish the types of speech used in interaction, these
findings are consistent with the idea that children from more
highly
schooled families might be using more division of labor
strategies in working together compared to children from pueblo
families.
However this speculation would require a separate study
focused on the kinds of speech used to verify this conjecture.
(Including the 6 excluded pairs from analysis revealed similar
patterns for talk and multimodal communication. However in
this case there was no difference between the groups for
nonverbal joint activity because the few segments (1–6) that
these
pairs engaged jointly tended to involve nonverbal joint
activity.)

4. Discussion
Consistent with previous work showing collaboration as
important in the social organization of groups with Indigenous
histo-
ries, Mexican heritage siblings from pueblo families were more
likely to organize their interactions collaboratively through
joint
engagement where the siblings worked with one another and
built off one another's efforts. Joint engagement was the most
com-
mon form of social organization for the children from the
pueblo families. Conversely, the Mexican heritage children
from the
high schooling families were more likely to work solo on the
puzzle, and this was the most common form of social
organization
in this cultural group. The children from high schooling
families were also more likely to be off task which is consistent
with the
idea that they are less accustomed to observing ongoing
interaction for their own learning.
The results of this study are also consistent with the
ethnographic literature which suggests that as children
participate in the
important activities of their communities and families they may
be learning the skills of engaging with others in joint activity.
School has traditionally emphasized individual activity and
achievements and forms of engagement with children that are
often modeled on school tend to emphasize individual rather
than joint or group accomplishments (Dixon et al. 1984; Morelli
et al. 2003). The forms of interaction seen in this study seem to
be related to intergenerational patterns of participation in com-
munity institutions and activities particularly in school and

through LOPI.
4.1. Patterns in the use of talk and nonverbal means of
communication in interaction
The results of this study also showed cultural variation in the
ways of organizing collaboration with the children from the
pueblo families using proportionally more nonverbal joint
activity and multiple means of communication in organizing
their
joint engagement and the sibling from the high schooling family
using proportionally more talk. These findings are consistent
with prior work showing Mexican triads from pueblo families
organized interaction through nonverbal conversation more
often than European American triads who organized interaction
more through talk (Mejia-Arauz et al., 2007). The finding are
also consistent with the idea that in communities where children
are expected to observe and pitch in they may do so in ways
that do not disrupt ongoing activity (for example by talking
about things that are obvious to the participants). Additionally
if sib-
lings in the high schooling families were less familiar with
LOPI, and engaged in many child focused activities that
privilege talk
over joint activity, they may be less attuned to one another and
less accustomed to communicating through joint activity.
These results are important because while scholars have long
noted the myriad ways in which children's lives are organized,
many still view patterns of organization and communication
based on school models and middle class European American
ways
as normative and “effective” while other ways are viewed as
deficient. One current example is evident in academic and
policy
research around closing the language gap in which researchers

argue that having fewer words directly addressed to a child in
in-
fancy are related to a child's failure in school and subsequent
poverty (Hart & Risley, 1995; Fernald, Marchman, & Weisleder,
2013).
However this study shows that children whose families organize
learning through LOPI are skilled in collaboration and can ac-
complish this collaboration in ways that are different than what
is often seen in school-like settings with its emphasis on words.
Additionally results showed that neither group was “better” at
finishing the puzzle in the first 15 min of the activity. This
finding
is important as many of the policy projects aimed at “fixing”
children from non-dominant groups and their families
(especially
with regard to language use) assume this will lead them to
succeed in school. Policy initiatives such as the Thirty Million
Words Initiative (tmw.org) and Too Small to Fail (toosmall.org)
exemplify this orientation and promote the idea that we can
cure social ills by making children from nondominant groups
talk more and engage in ways that are familiar to highly
schooled
communities (see Avineri et al., 2015).
However an interesting observation from this data is that the in
the coded interaction of the sibling pair with the highest
amount of collaborative segments (100%), only 16% of those
segments involved talk. Although this pair is an extreme
example,
many of the collaborative segments especially among the
children from the pueblo families were ones where the children
Interaction 11 (2016) 130–141

http://tmw.org
http://toosmall.org
were able to collaborate in the process of working together
often without talk. Presumably the children were using skills at
ob-
servation that have been reported in other studies with children
of similar backgrounds (Correa-Chávez et al., 2005; Correa-
Chavez & Rogoff, 2009; López et al., 2010), although this was
not coded here.
4.2. Changing patterns of interaction, increased schooling, and
other populations
The differences in joint engagement and patterns of
communication between the children in the pueblo group and
the high
schooling group contribute to the body of work suggesting that
participation in school may compete with traditional forms of
or-
ganizing learning in communities of Indigenous heritage
(Chavajay & Rogoff, 2002; Correa-Chávez & Rogoff, 2009;
López et al.,
2010; Mejia-Arauz et al., 2007; Silva et al., 2010). It is likely
that parents who have spent 12 or more years in schools would
in-
teract with children in ways that are consistent with the
interactional patterns common to school. Parents may replace
more col-
laborative multiparty forms of engagement which often rely on
multiple means of communication with child focused rather than
community focused activity (Crago, Annahatak & Ningiuruvik,
1993; Richman et al., 1992).
However it is also important to highlight that different patterns

of schooling were associated with a number of differences be-
tween the two groups including: recency of immigration to the
U.S., parental occupations, fluency in English and in Spanish,
and
extent of experience in México. There are likely other values
and practices that differ between the groups, such as extent of
in-
teraction with extended family, proximity to family, or
involvement in extracurricular lessons that likely also
contribute to
children's experience with group interactions. It would be useful
in future research to examine ways that people can build a
broader repertoire of learning practices (Gutierrez & Rogoff,
2003), or if it is usual for one form of interaction to compete
with
(or replace) another.
Rather than framing one form of interaction as better or w orse
than another we should encourage children to develop a rep-
ertoire of cultural practices that they can draw upon across
situations to face a range of challenges some of which may
resemble
school problems and others which may require more
collaborative solutions. This is especially important given the
changing de-
mographics of the school age population where many of the
children are already coming to school familiar with other
cultural
ways of organizing life and learning. This was already the case
in the schools from which this data was collected where the stu-
dent body was made of predominantly of children whose
families came from Mexico and Central America often with very
little
schooling.
Similar patterns of changing demographics are doubtless found

in many communities around the world. The patterns of inter-
action found in this study and others operating within a LOPI
framework have until now been found in communities that have
historical roots in Mexico, Central America, and other
Indigenous communities of North and South America (see
Correa-Chávez
et al., 2015). The question of whether we would find similar
patterns in other communities in the world where schooling has
not been prominent historically is an empirical question that can
only be answered with increased research. Doubtless there
would be some similarities with patterns found in this study and
other populations, but likely also differences based on
cultural-historical patterns underlying children's roles in their
various communities. More research is needed to understand the
cultural nature of learning across different communities and the
specific forms of interaction common to those communities.
4.3. Limitations and future directions
This study links patterns of participation in LOPI with patterns
of collaboration and communication in interaction. However
one limitation is that the study did not follow children across
multiple contexts to observe the patterns of participation
outside
of the afterschool environment. Further studies should examine
the behavior of children across home, school and other contexts
to examine how these patterns might be similar or different. For
example some recent work shows that Mexican Heritage chil-
dren whose families have high schooling may help more in
home situations compared to more school-like situations (López
&
Rogoff, 2015). More work is needed to understand if patterns of
help are being used across contexts for some children and not
others, and how children are developing the multiple patterns, if
they are.

Additionally it would be of interest in future research to see if
the cultural patterns of collaboration found in this study were
amplified due to the fact that the participants were siblings.
Although there were differences in how much the siblings
collabo-
rated in the different cultural groups, there was still a good deal
of collaboration among the siblings in the high schooling group.
This is consistent with the research showing more collaboration,
and more multimodal collaboration among siblings compared to
peers (Azmitia & Hesser, 1993). It might also be fruitful in
future research to see if the patterns are similar to those found
among
European American siblings who presumably have less
familiarity with the ways of organizing learning and interaction
through
LOPI. Previous research comparing children of Indigenous
heritage and children of European American heritage has tended
to
find a more stark contrast between children from pueblo
families and European American children (Correa-Chávez et al.,
2005;
Mejía-Arauz et al., 2007). It would be interesting to see if the
patterns found among the siblings in the high schooling group
would be similar to what one would find among European
American siblings, or if they would be different than both
European
American and Mexican Pueblo siblings.
4.4. Implications for practice
U.S. census data shows that children from immigrant families
made up 20% of the children in the country, and children with
at
least one parent from Mexico make up the largest group of
children from immigrant families in 26 U.S. states (Hernandez
et al.,

11 (2016) 130–141
2007). Similar migration patterns from countries were LOPI is
common may also be seen in other countries in the world. It is
therefore useful to know more about the ways of life of children
from Mexican immigrant families, as well as the variation
that exists in these families. This study provides both by
examining the cultural patterns of participation in institutions
and com-
munity traditions among families of Mexican heritage, and by
examining how that participation is related to different forms of
interaction and communication in children.
Children for whom LOPI is a more common form of interaction
and communication may benefit if teachers and administrators
recognized the benefits of collaboration through multiple means
and built upon it. Research has shown that European American
children have a difficult time recognizing nonverbal forms of
collaboration when shown videos of interactions (Roberts &
Rogoff,
2012) however it is an empirical question whether or not adults
can recognize it in schools. By knowing more about the
strengths
that children from rural Mexican immigrant families bring wi th
them to the school context educators in the U.S. and Latin
America may be able to design educational spaces that make use
of and build on these strengths. However, learning the skills
of fluid collaboration might be a beneficial skill for all children
to learn. As the population of the world changes and as
workplaces

increasingly rely on teamwork and collaboration it would be
useful for all children to have a repertoire of practices that they
can
draw from across situations including, among others, the skills
of collaboration and multiple forms of communication.
Acknowledgments
Many thanks to the students, parents, and teachers from Moffett
Elementary School as well as its principal Joann Isken. Thank
you to Angelica López, Barbara Rogoff, Kris Gutierrez, and
Omar Ruvalcaba for comments and suggestions; and to Juanita
Correa
for work on coding. Funding for this research came from the
AERA and UC LMRI postdoctoral fellowship.
References
Alcalá, L., Mejía-Arauz, R., Rogoff, B., Coppens, A. D., &
Dexter, A. L. (2014). Children's initiative in contributions to
family work in Indigenous-heritage and cosmopolitan
communities in Mexico. Human Development, 57(2–3), 96–115.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000356763.
Angelillo, C., & Rogoff, B. (2005, September). Coordination
among siblings of European American middle-class and
Mexican-descent engaging with a science exhibit.
Paper presented at the meetings of the International Society for
Cultural and Activity Research, Seville Spain.
Apedoe, X. S., Mattis, K. V., Rowden-Quince, B., & Schunn, C.
D. (2010). Examining the role of verbal interaction in team
success on a design challenge. In the proceedings
of the 9th annual international conference of the learning
sciences. 1. (pp. 596–603).

Avineri, N., Johnson, E., Brice Heath, S., McCarty, T., Ochs,
E., Kremer-Sadlik, T., ... Paris, D. (2015). Invited forum:
Bridging the “language gap”. Journal of Linguistic
Anthropology, 25(1), 66–86.
Azmitia, M., & Crowley, K. (2001). The rhythms of scientific
thinking: A study of collaboration in an earthquake microworld.
In K. Crowley, C. D. Schunn, & T. Okada
(Eds.), Designing for science: Implications from everyday,
classroom, and professional settings (pp. 51–82). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Azmitia, M., & Hesser, J. (1993). Why siblings are important
agents of cognitive development: A comparison of siblings and
peers. Child Development, 64, 430–444.
Chavajay, P., & Rogoff, B. (2002). Schooling and traditional
collaborative social organization of problem solving by Mayan
mothers and children. Developmental
Psychology, 38, 55–66.
Consejo Nacional de Población (2001). Migración México–
Estados Unidos. Gobierno de México: Dirección de
Comunicación Social.
Coppens, A. D., Alcalá, L., Mejía-Arauz, R., & Rogoff, B.
(2014). Children's initiative in family household work in
Mexico. Human Development, 57(2–3), 116–130. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1159/000356768.
Correa-Chávez, M., & Rogoff, B. (2005). Cultural research has
transformed our ideas of cognitive development. Newsletter for
the International Society for the Study of
Behavioral Development, 1. (pp. 7–10) serial 47.
Correa-Chávez, M., & Rogoff, B. (2009). Children's attention to
interactions directed to others: Guatemalan Mayan and
European-American patterns. Developmental

Psychology, 45, 630–641.
Correa-Chávez, M., Rogoff, B., & Mejía-Arauz, R. (2005).
Cultural patterns in attending to two events at once. Child
Development, 76, 664–678.
Correa-Chávez, M., Mejía-Arauz, R., & Rogoff, B. (Eds.).
(2015). Advances in child development and behavior. Children
learn by observing and contributing to family and
community endeavors, Vol 49, Series editor J. Benson.
Crago, M. B., Annahatak, B., & Ningiuruvik, L. (1993).
Changing patterns of language socialization in Inuit homes.
Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 24(3), 205–223.
Dixon, S. D., LeVine, R. A., Richman, A., & Brazelton, T. B.
(1984). Mother-child interaction around a teaching task: An
African-American comparison. Child Development,
55, 1252–1264.
Fernald, A., Marchman, V., & Weisleder, A. (2013). SES
difference in language processing skill and vocabulary are
evident at 18 months. Developmental Science, 16(2),
234–248.
Flores, R., Urrieta, L., Chamoux, M. N., Lorente Fernandez, D.,
& López, A. (2015). Using history to analyze the Learning by
Observing and Pitching In (LOPI) practices of
contemporary Mesoamerican societies. Advances in Child
Behavior and Developments, 49, 314–340.
Gaskins, S. (1999). Children's daily routine in a Mayan village:
A case study of culturally constructed roles and activities. In A.
Göncü (Ed.), Children's engagement in the
world (pp. 25–81). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Gutierrez, K., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning:

Individual traits or repertoires of practice. Educational
Researcher, 32(5), 19–25.
Hart, B., & Risley, T. (1995). Meaningful differences in the
everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore:
P.H. Brookes.
Hernandez, D. J. (1997). Child development and the social
demography of childhood. Child Development, 68, 149–169.
Hernandez, D. J., Denton, N. A., & Macartney, S. E. (2007).
Children in immigrant families — The U.S. and 50 states:
National origins, language, and early education (Child
Trends Report, Report # 2007-11). Retrieved from the
University at Albany, SUNY Research Briefs Series: Child
Trends & the Center for Social and Demographic
Analysis.
Kim, H. S. (2002). We talk therefore we think? A cultural
analysis of the effect of talking on thinking. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 83(4), 828–842.
Lancy, D. F. (2008). The anthropology of childhood: Cherubs,
chattel, and changelings. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate
peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
LeVine, R. A., LeVine, S. E., Richman, A., Tapia Uribe, F.,
Correa, C. S., & Miller, P. M. (1991). Women's schooling and
child care in the demographic transition: A Mexican
case study. Population and Development Review, 17, 459–469.
LeVine, R. A., LeVine, S. E., & Schnell, B. (2001). “Improve
the women”: Mass schooling, female literacy, and worldwide
social change. Harvard Educational Review,
71(1), 1–35.
López, A., & Rogoff, B. (2015). Cultural differences in

children's helping without being asked. Manuscript submitted
for publication.
López, A., Correa-Chávez, M., Rogoff, B., & Gutiérrez, K.
(2010). Attention to instruction directed to another by U.S.
Mexican-heritage children of varying cultural back-
grounds. Developmental Psychology, 46(3), 593–601.
Interaction 11 (2016) 130–141
http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000356763
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0010
http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000356768

López, A., Najafi, B., Rogoff, B., & Mejía-Arauz, R. (2012).
Collaboration and helpfulness as cultural practices. In J.
Valsiner (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of culture and psy-
chology (pp. 869–884). NY: Oxford University Press.
Matusov, E., Bell, N., & Rogoff, B. (2002). Schooling as
cultural process: Shared thinking and guidance by children from
schools differing in collaborative practices. In R.
Kail, & H. Reese (Eds.), Advances in child development and

behavior. Vol, 29. (pp. 129–160). Cambridge University Press.
Maynard, A. E. (2004). Cultures of teaching in childhood:
Formal schooling and Maya sibling teaching at home. Cognitive
Development, 19, 517–535.
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the
classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Mejía-Arauz, R., Rogoff, B., & Paradise, R. (2005). Cultural
variation in children's observation during a demonstration.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29,
282–291.
Mejía-Arauz, R., Rogoff, B., Dexter, A., & Najafi, B. (2007).
Cultural variation in children's social organization. Child
Development, 78(3), 1001–1014.
Mejía-Arauz, R., Keyser, U., & Correa-Chávez, M. (2013).
Transformaciones culturales y generacionales en la
participación colaborativa de niñas y niños de una
comunidad p'urhépecha. Revista Mexicana de Investigación
Educativa, 59, XVIII.
Mejía-Arauz, R., Correa-Chávez, M., Keyser-Ohrt, U., &
Aceves-Azuara, I. (2015). Collaborative work or individual
chores: The role of family social organization in
children's learning to collaborate and develop initiative.
Advances in Child Behavior and Developments, 49, 25–51.
Morelli, G., Rogoff, B., & Angelillo, C. (2003). Cultural
variation in children's access to work or involvement in
specialized child-focused activities. International Journal of
Behavioral Development, 27, 264–274.
National Task Force on Early Childhood Education for
Hispanics (2007, Januaryn). Para nuestros niños: A
demographic portrait of young Hispanic children in the United

States (Policy Brief No. 1). Washington D.C.: Garcia, E.
Ochs, E., & Izquierdo, C. (2009). Responsibility in childhood:
Three developmental trajectories. Ethos, 37(4), 391–413.
Orellana, M. F., Dorner, L., & Pulido, L. (2003). Accessing
assets: Immigrant youth's work as family translators or “para-
phrasers”. Social Problems, 50, 505–524.
Richman, A. L., Miller, P. M., & LeVine, R. A. (1992). Cultural
and educational variations in maternal responsiveness.
Developmental Psychology, 28, 614–621.
Roberts, A. L. D., & Rogoff, B. (2012). Children's reflections
on cultural differences in ways of working together: “Talking
with hands and eyes” or requiring words.
International Journal of Educational Psychology, 1(2), 73–99.
Rogoff, B. (2014). Learning by observing and pitching in to
family and community endeavors: An orientation. Human
Development, 57(2–3), 69–81. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1159/000356757.
Rogoff, B., Mistry, J., Göncü, A., & Mosier, C. (1993). Guided
participation in cultural activity by toddlers and caregivers.
Monographs for the Society for Research and Child
Development, 58 Serial No. 236.
Rogoff, B., Paradise, R., Mejía Arauz, R., Correa-Chávez, M.,
& Angelillo, C. (2003). Firsthand learning through intent
participation. Annual Review of Psychology, 54,
175–203.
Rogoff, B., Correa-Chávez, M., & Navichoc-Cotuc, M. (2005).
A cultural/historical view of schooling in human development.
In D. Pillemer, & S. H. White (Eds.), Devel-
opmental psychology and social change. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Ruvalcaba, O., Rogoff, B., López, A., Correa-Chávez, M., &

Gutierrez, K. (2015). Children's avoidance of interrupting
others' activities in requesting help: Cultural aspects
of considerateness. Advances in Child Behavior and
Developments, 49, 187–206.
Scribner, S., & Cole, M. (1973). Cognitive consequences of
formal and informal education. Science, 182, 553–559.
Silva, K., Correa-Chávez, M., & Rogoff, B. (2010). Cultural
variation in children's attention and learning in events not
directed at them: Patterns in a U.S. Mexican com-
munity. Child Development, 81(3), 898–921.
11 (2016) 130–141

http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000356757
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-
0/rf0250Cultural patterns of collaboration and communication
while working together among U.�S. Mexican heritage
children1. Introduction1.1. Learning by Observing and Pitching
In1.2. Cultural patterns of collaboration1.3. Talk and joint
activity in collaboration1.4. Schooling as a cultural practice and
familiarity with indigenous ways1.5. Present study2.
Method2.1. Participants and their communities2.2.
Procedure2.3. Coding2.3.1. Jointly engaged2.3.2. Checking
in2.3.3. Solo2.3.4. Off task2.3.5. Off task talk2.3.6.
Reliability3. Results3.1. Different forms of interaction in
siblings from Mexican pueblo and Mexican high schooling
families3.2. Different amounts of talk, nonverbal joint activity,
or multiple means of communication in collaboration4.
Discussion4.1. Patterns in the use of talk and nonverbal means
of communication in interaction4.2. Changing patterns of
interaction, increased schooling, and other populations4.3.
Limitations and future directions4.4. Implications for
practiceAcknowledgmentsReferences

Cultural patterns of collaboration and communication whilewo

Cultural patterns of collaboration and communication whilewo

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Cultural patterns of collaboration and communication whilewo

Similar to Cultural patterns of collaboration and communication whilewo (20)

More from OllieShoresna

More from OllieShoresna (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Cultural patterns of collaboration and communication whilewo