Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Presentation1_AABSS_Marsili
Similar to Presentation1_AABSS_Marsili (20)
Presentation1_AABSS_Marsili
- 1. I N R U R A L C O M M U N I T I E S NORMAL CAREGIVER CHILD CONFLICT Sperry, D. E., Marsili, E. T., & Sperry, L. L.
- 2. OUR RESEARCH WORK: CHARACTERIZATION OF DISCORDANT DISCOURSE WITHIN WORKING-CLASS EUROPEAN AMERICAN FAMILIES Our research work Social and economic gaps are difficult to narrow. Children of poor or working class parents tend to remain poor or working class while children of middle or upper class parents tend to remain upper or middle class (Lareau, 2011). What we know and do not know Research demonstrates variation between the discourse within the home environment of low SES families versus middle SES families (Laureau, 2011; Miller & Sperry, 2012). Little research has focused on interlocutor-child discordant discourse (how children are told “no”). Our study How diverse is the discordant discourse within low SES European American families? Our hypothesis We expect little linguistic diversity in the ways in which children are told “no” in lower SES European American families.
- 3. OUR RESEARCH WORK: CHARACTERIZATION OF DISCORDANT DISCOURSE WITHIN WORKING-CLASS EUROPEAN AMERICAN FAMILIES Study population Children 20 to 42 months old from 10 European American families from a working-class community in rural Indiana Program Videotaped naturalistic observations; 30 minute duration Observations bimonthly for 22 months Transcription of dialogue Data set includes 2-3 transcripts for each of 10 children Analysis Conversational analysis (Duranti, 2007) Coded discordant speech acts (Searle, 1969) Calculated the rate per hour and total frequency of token speech acts. Approach & Method Qualitative research (Patton, 2002) Direct observation Grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1990)
- 4. PARTICIPANTS Child* Age of Sample (in months) Bridget 20 22 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 40 --- Bryan --- 22 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 42 Charlotte --- 22 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 42 Christy --- --- 24 --- --- 30 --- --- --- --- --- --- Derek 20 --- 24 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 42 Dexter 20 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 40 --- Eric 20 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 42 James --- --- 24 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 42 Jessica 20 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 40 --- Kristen --- --- 24 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 40 --- *Identified by pseudonyms
- 5. CODES WAYS OF SAYING “NO” OR Order SA Sarcasm EX Explanation PT Protest PH Prohibit PV Provocation UR Urge PM Promise CO Correction TH Threat CR Criticism TP Third Party Criticism RR Repeat Request WA Warning DC Denial/Contradiction IN Interruption TQ Teaching Question SH Shame
- 6. EXAMPLES OF VERBAL STRATEGIES FOR SAYING “NO” Category of “No” Example Order Caitlyn (22 mos) is trying to put on her own sock and has given up. Grandmom: Put on your sock. Prohibition Dalton (20 mos) is fussing about which book to read. M: Quit. Explanation Robbie (34 mos) is crying because Dad has left. M: Honey, Daddy’s just taking out trash. Urge Jaymie (28 mos) and Mom are outside when Mom notices a bug on Jaymie’s shirt. M: Come here. Promise Sarah (26 mos) is crying because she wants Mom to sit in a particular lawn chair on the porch that is broken. M: It’s okay. Daddy will straighten it up. Category of “No” Example Order Caitlyn (22 mos) is trying to put on her own sock and has given up. Grandmom: Put on your sock. Prohibition Dalton (20 mos) is fussing about which book to read. M: Quit. Explanation Robbie (34 mos) is crying because Dad has left. M: Honey, Daddy’s just taking out trash. Urge Jaymie (28 mos) and Mom are outside when Mom notices a bug on Jaymie’s shirt. M: Come here. Promise Sarah (26 mos) is crying because she wants Mom to sit in a particular lawn chair on the porch that is broken. M: It’s okay. Daddy will straighten it up. Category of “No” Example Order Caitlyn (22 mos) is trying to put on her own sock and has given up. Grandmom: Put on your sock. Prohibition Dalton (20 mos) is fussing about which book to read. M: Quit. Explanation Robbie (34 mos) is crying because Dad has left. M: Honey, Daddy’s just taking out trash. Urge Jaymie (28 mos) and Mom are outside when Mom notices a bug on Jaymie’s shirt. M: Come here. Promise Sarah (26 mos) is crying because she wants Mom to sit in a particular lawn chair on the porch that is broken. M: It’s okay. Daddy will straighten it up.
- 7. SA PT PV PM TH TP WA IN SH Rate Per Hour 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 Frequency 23 21 14 13 9 7 17 2 3 OR EX PH UR CO CR RR DC TQ Rate Per Hour 18 12 11 8 5 4 2 3 3 Frequency 252 163 150 106 67 58 23 38 31 RESULTS
- 8. MOST FREQUENT TOKEN TYPES OR Order EX Explanation PH Prohibit UR Urge CO Correction Rate Per Hour 18 12 11 8 5 Frequency of Tokens 252 163 150 106 67
- 9. FREQUENCY OF TOKEN TYPES 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 OR EX PH UR CO CR RR DC TQ SA
- 10. CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISON Alabama (over 22 hours) UR Urge OR Order PR Prohibit RR Rapid Request CR Criticism Rate per Hour 47 47 27 24 23 Indiana (over 14.5 hours) OR Order EX Explanation PH Prohibit UR Urge CO Correction Rate per Hour 18 12 11 8 5
- 11. CONCLUSION Based on previous research (Lareau, 2011), we expected little linguistic diversity in the ways in children are told “no” in lower SES European American families. However, these results indicate a wide variety in the types of discordant discourse present in the home environments of the low SES children observed in this study. 18 types of discordant discourse were identified in the coded transcripts of the small sample set described today, indicating diversity in child-interlocutor discordant discourse.
- 12. NEXT STEPS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH • Conduct the same research with middle class children • Expand the study to include school-aged children • Study discordant discourse in classroom settings versus home settings for low and middle SES children
- 13. REFERENCES Alink, L. R. A., Mesman, J., Van Zeijl, J., Stolk, M. N., Jaffer, F., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., Van IJzendoorn, M. H., Koot, H. M. (2009). Maternal sensitivity moderates the relation between negative discipline and aggression in early childhood. Social Development, 18, 99-120. Briggs, J. L. (1992). Mazes of meaning: How a child and a culture create each other. In W. A. Corsaro & P. J. Miller, (Eds.), Interpretive approaches to children’s socialization. In New Directions for Child Develoment, No. 58. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Dix, T. (1991). The affective organization of parenting: Adaptive and maladaptive processes. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 3-25. Eisenberg, N. (1992). The caring child. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ely, M. with Anzul, M., Friedman, T., Garner, D., & Steinmetz, A. M. (1991). Doing qualititative research: Circles within circles. London: Routledge Falmer. Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press. Huang,, K.-Y., O’Brien Caughy, M., Lee, L.-C., Miller, T., & Genevro, J. (2009). Stability of maternal discipline practices and the quality of mother-child interaction during toddlerhood. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30, 431-441. Geertz, C. J. (1972). Deep play: Notes on the Balinese cockfight. Daedalus, 101(1 Winter). Kuczynski, L., Kochanska, G., Radke-Yarrow, M., & Girnius-Brown, O. (1987). A developmental interpretation of young children's noncompliance. Developmental Psychology, 23, 799-806. Laible, D. & Thompson, R. (2002). Mother-child conflict in the toddler years: Lessons in emotion, morality, and relationships. Child Development, 73(4), 1187-1203. Laible, D., Panfile, T., & Makariev, D. (2008). The quality and frequency of mother-toddler conflict: Links with attachment and temperament. Child Development, 79, 426-443.
- 14. REFERENCES Lareau, A. (2011). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life, 2nd edition. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods; 3 Edition . Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage Publications, Inc. Sperry, L. L., Bigelow, M. T., Lantto, K., Phelps, C., & Ko, E. (2006, April). Discordant family interactions in two U.S. subcultures. Paper presented at the biennial meetings of the Conference on Human Development, Louisville. Sperry, L. L., Floress, M. T., Gile, B., Renn, J., & Sperry, E. D. (2007). Everyday discordant interactions in African-American families of two-year-old children. In P. Brewer, & M. Firmin (Eds.). Proceedings of the Ethnographic and Qualitative Research in Education Conference (pp. 69-79). Cambridge: Cambridge Press. Miller, P. J., & Sperry, D. E. (2012). Déjà vu: The continuing misrecognition of low-income children's verbal abilities. In S. T. Fiske & H. R. Markus (Eds), Facing Social Class: How Societal Rank Influences Interaction. New York: Russell Sage. Sperry, D. E. & Sperry, L. L. (2011, March). Listening to all of the words: Reassessing the verbal environments of young low-income children. Presented at the biennial meetings of the Society for Research in Child Development, Montreal. Sperry, D. E., Sperry, L. L., & Hamil, M. (2008, April). Socialization in progress: Discordant interactions in families with two year olds. Presented at the biennial meetings of the International Conference on Infant Development, Vancouver. Strauss, A. C. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Vernon-Feagans, L. (1996). Children’s talk in communities and classrooms. Cambridge: Blackwell.
Editor's Notes
- As you know, social and economic gaps are difficult to narrow. Research such as that of Dr. Annette Lareau demonstrates that children of poor or working class parents tend to remain poor or working class, while children of middle or upper class parents remain upper or middle class. Research attempting to answer the question of why the socio-economic class of parent is so important in their children’s future socio-economic class has focused in part on the differences in the language and discourse in the home environment, but little has narrowed that focus to normal caregiver-child discordant discourse, or how children are told, “no”. To begin this exploration, our research question here is how diverse is the discordant discourse within low socio-economic European American families? Based on Lareau’s notion of the differences between the “concerted cultivation” of middle class children verses the “natural growth” orientation of lower class families, we expect little linguistic diversity in the ways in children are told “no” in lower SES European American families.
- This presentation summarizes the results from a small sample set of a larger study. The study population here includes 10 children from 10 low income European American families from a working class community in rural Indiana. Low income was defined as the family having an income that would have qualified a school-aged child for free or reduced lunch. The children were between the ages of 20 and 42 months during the time of data collection. The children were videotaped via naturalistic observations, generally for 30 minutes during each observation. The observations took place bimonthly over a period of 22 months. The videotaped dialogue was transcribed, and this data set includes 2-3 of these transcripts for each of the 10 children. 22 of the transcripted observations were analyzed in the smaller sample set we are presenting today. A conversational analysis was performed in which interlocutor-child discordant utterances were identified. For the purposes of this study, a discordant utterance is defined as any speech act that communicated “No, this interaction cannot proceed as it going” (c.f., L. Sperry, D. Sperry, & Hamil, 2008). For example, parents may want their 2 year olds to stay out of the grass where fire ants lurk, not play with the can opener, learn that a wasp is a type of bug, or understand that wet diapers need to be changed. If children protest in any way, interchanges are coded as discordant. “ (Sperry et al 2012) The discordant speech acts were coded according to token type. The total frequency of each token type and the rate per hour of each was calculated. This was a qualitative research study using direct observation as the method, where the observer strove to be as unobtrusive as possible. (Patton) This qualitative study utilized grounded theory in its approach, where discordant discourse was the subject of the generative question, and the categories of which emerged organically from initial and subsequent analysis of the transcripts. This approach led to contextually relevant details being collected, coded, and analyzed. (Patton)
- The distribution of the 10 participants is shown here, there were 5 females and 5 males who were observed at various ages, from 20 months to 42 months of age. While the observations were videotaped every 2 months, the 22 transcriptions coded and analyzed for today’s discussion are labeled in this table.
- 18 speech act types of discordant utterances were identified and are shown in this table. I will define the most common types: A speech act is coded as an ORDER when the interlocutor tells the child to do or say something. For example, “Put the glass down.” An explanation occurs when the speech act contains an EXPLANATION for the discordant utterance. For example, “They’re pretty breakable,” after an initial prohibition or order has been given. A speech act is coded as PROHIBIT when the interlocutor prohibits the child’s stated objective, when the action is in the immediate or far-off future. For example, “No, don’t touch.” An URGE is generally one word and urges the child to cooperate with the situation; they are mild attention getting devices and are generally positive such as “Honey” or “It’s Okay.” Be aware that some speech acts contain more than one token type depending on the context and words contained in the utterance.
- ORDER - Caitlyn (22 mos) is trying to put on her own sock and has given up. Grandmom: Put on your sock. PROHIBITION - Dalton (20 mos) is fussing about which book to read. M: Quit. EXPLANATION - Robbie (34 mos) is crying because Dad has left. M: Honey, [UR] - Daddy’s just taking out trash. URGE - Jaymie (28 mos) and Mom are outside when Mom notices a bug on Jaymie’s shirt. M: Come here. PROMISE - Sarah (26 mos) is crying because she wants Mom to sit in a particular lawn chair on the porch that is broken. M: It’s okay.[UR] - Daddy will straighten it up.
- This table summarizes the results of coding the participant transcripts. Frequency of tokens was calculated by summing the total number of occurrences of each token type. The rate per hour was calculated by dividing the frequency of tokens by the total number of observational hours. For this data subset, the total number of hours was 14.5 hours. As you can see, the types of discordant discourse were quite diverse, and all categories were represented in the data. *If asked: Most of the direct observation took place in 30-minute intervals, in some cases the observation lasted for 40 minutes, 50 minutes, and one was 3 hours.
- The most frequent token types identified in the transcripts of this sample set were ORDER, EXPLANATION, PROHIBIT, URGE, and CORRECTION.
- 10 of the 18 categories of token types are summarized here by their relative frequencies, with RAPID REQUEST and SARCASM occurring least frequently among the top 10 categories.
- As mentioned earlier, this data is a small part of a larger cross-cultural study that compared caregiver strategies between low income African American families from rural Alabama and low income European Americans from rural Indiana. I want to highlight some interesting findings from the Alabama study as compared to the findings from the small sample set. This table indicates the 5 most frequent types of saying “no” for the Alabama families versus the Indiana families that I discussed earlier. Most striking is the difference in the rate of the speech acts. For example, if you look at the rate of utterances across the rows, regardless of the category type, you will see that the rate of speech acts is significantly higher for the African American families from Alabama as compared to the European American families from Indiana. The five most frequent token types observed within the African American families included: URGE, ORDER, PROHIBIT, RAPID REQUEST, and CRITICISM. The data suggests that the character of caregiver-child discordant discourse is culturally mediated.
- While based on Lareau’s notion of the differences between the “concerted cultivation” of middle class children verses the “natural growth” orientation of lower class families, we expected little linguistic diversity in the ways in children are told “no” in lower SES European American families. However, these results indicate a wide variety in the types of discordant discourse present in the home environments of the low SES children observed in this study. 18 types of discordant discourse were identified in the coded transcripts of the small sample set described today, indicating diversity in child-interlocutor discordant discourse.
- Because SES gaps are difficult to narrow, I suggest executing the same study for middle class children between the ages of 20 and 42 months to determine whether there are differences in the types and frequencies of discordant discourse. I suggest expanding this research to school aged children for low and middle SES children to determine and allow for a comparison of discordant discourse in the home versus school environment. While previous studies have focused more broadly on the differences in classroom discourse versus home discourse in low SES children, I am suggesting that we focus the study on a more particular subset, which is discordant discourse, in order to determine whether a disconnect between the ways in which a child is told “no” in classrooms versus the way in which they are told “no” in the home may impact their educational success.