URBS 4/581—Selected Topics:
Growing Up in Cities
Notes
I. Reconnaissance—“It takes a village to raise a child”
a. My interests
i. How do children grow up?
ii. What do we want our children to become? Can we influence that?
b. Quick overview of the “history of the child”
i. Naturalist observation
1. Wild Boy of Averyon
2.
ii. Early theories of childhood
1. GS Hall & children’s play (especially with dolls)
2. A Binet & children’s intelligence
3. M Montessori & children’s schooling
iii. Children in the environment
1. Anthropological studies of childrearing
a. M Mead, Sex and Temperament
b. Whiting & Child, Child Training and Personality
c. Sears, Maccoby & Levin, Patterns of Childrearing
2. Sociological studies of children’s development
a. L Hoffman, Working Mothers
b. R Coles, Children of Crisis (5 vols.)
iv. Children in the City
1. T Alexander, Human Development in an Urban Age
2. NIH (NICH&D), “Children in the Man-Made Environment (1971 & 1973)
3. Children’s play environments
a. R Dattner, Design for Play (1969)
b. M Allen, Planning for Play (1968)
c. A Bengtsson, Adventure Playgrounds (1972)
4.
5. A-M Pollowy, The Urban Nest (1977)
6. K Lynch, Growing Up in Cities (1977)
7. International Year of the Child (1979)
8. UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1990)
c. Reflection
i. With a few exceptions, blinkered focus on nuclear family and school settings. But children also experience
1. foster care/”broken” families/group homes—children in crisis
2. day care & “substitute” care
3. Scouts, etc.—early service learning & volunteering
4. Church—more than just worship
5. Library
6. Recreation—formal and informal
7. “Neighborhood” is sometimes defined as the home range of a child. But (home) range differs by age & physical ability (in some respects, aged & infirm have similar issues) and stage in family life-cycle
ii. Key definitions
1. “City”—not necessarily “metropolitan”
2. “Community”—can be neighborhood, town, community of association, etc.
iii. A research agenda (1981)
1. Use of city (more information about the way children really use the city)
2. Significance of uses (to the child)
3. Level of intervention
4. Policy influence (responsive to policy makers’ needs)
iv. Possible issues
1. What are the differences between children’s perceptions & uses of their environments and that of adults?
2. What is the difference, in behavior and in personality, between children who are raised in high-rises and children who are raised in ground-floor dwellings? (consider the impact both of density and of physical barriers to movement)
3. What has been the impact of the automobile on the child’s experience of the city environment?
4. What is the impact of residential turnover rate on a child’s development?
5. What are the public health issues related to growing up in cities? (epidemic, nutrition, environmental stressors, etc.)
6. Who are the role models for children in cities? What do city children learn from these role models?
II. Studying Children—What is available for working with children? What are the advantages & disadvantages of each?
a. Issues in data collection (Driskoll, 2002, pp. 177-179)
i. Allocate sufficient time
ii. Strive for complete, accurate data
iii. Be cost-effective
iv. Explore non-traditional data sources
v. Document your sources
vi. Collect images as well as words & numbers
vii. Distinguish between “facts” and “impressions”
viii. Maximize opportunities for participation
b. Ways of Studying Children (Almy & Cunningham, 1959)
i.
Observation: The
ii. Study Children in Their Groups (informal observation & sociometric observation)
iii. Ask Children About Themselves (self-report, class discussion, casual conversation, written reports, questionnaires)
iv. Study the Way Children Express Themselves (written, oral, dramatic play, role-playing, music, dance, art)
v. Study the Child Through Others (Parents as a resource, other informants)
vi. Study the Records
c. Research with Human Subjects: Children
i. For a basic description of the work of the IRB (Institutional Review Board), which oversees research with human subjects, see http://krypton.mnsu.edu/~tony/Human%20Subject%20Research.ppt
ii. Children are a protected category of research subjects
1. They cannot give informed consent to participate in research. They can (and should be asked for) give assent, but the parent or guardian should be asked for consent.
2. They are, by definition, vulnerable subjects and so the investigator bears a special responsibility to protect them from harm.
iii. If you will be doing research with children,
1. you must complete a Human Subjects Review form, available at http://www2.mnsu.edu/graduate/facstaff/proposalguidelineshtml.htm
2. If your project qualifies, you might also want the Level I Review checklist, available at http://www2.mnsu.edu/graduate/facstaff/irbLevel1Checklist.pdf
3. a full description of MSU’s IRB is available from MSU’s Office of Research at http://www2.mnsu.edu/graduate/facstaff/irbForms.shtml
d. Secondary Data (Driskoll, 2002, pp. 180-194)
i. Maps & photographs
ii. Visual survey/photogrid
iii. Physical environment data
iv. Social & economic information
v. Political, legal, & cultural information
vi. Historical information
vii. See Children’s Defense Fund. (2003) Kids Count Databook. Available on Web at http://www.cdf-mn.org/PDF/KidsCountData_03/DataBook_2003.pdf
e. Interviews
i. Fred Hill, “Lives & Times of urban adolescents” Activities which are reported the most are not necessarily enjoyed the most.
ii. Inappropriate for younger children (5-6 year-olds find them awkward) or abstract concepts (“poverty”) (Mauthner, 1997).
1. Explore abstract subjects through concrete examples (“I feel happy/sad…” cards, or photos of situations).
2. Let child set the agenda (don’t ask too many questions—listen instead)
3. Useful to ask child to describe specific events (and then probe for meaning)
4. Pay attention to level of language used and euphemisms (children use different ones)
iii. Focus Groups can be particularly useful with younger children, especially if they already know (and like) each other (Mauthner, 1997).
1. This technique puts them in a situation that is already familiar—talking together—and makes them less self-conscious.
2. It structures the interview around themes rather than question-and-answer.
3. Gender and age composition are important issues (older children and males tend to dominate conversation).
f. Participant Observation
i. Particularly useful with younger children (Mauthner, 1997). Permits both observation and unstructured inquiry.
ii. Key issues (Fine & Sandstrom, 1988)
1. Role of researcher
2. Trust
3. Adult-role-related ethical issues
4. Knowing the culture
iii. Guided tours (Ladd, 1970)
iv.
Drawings & interviews (
g. Controlled Observation
i. Can be useful source of information, provided observer is not seen as “lurking.”
ii. Provides information on how many do what where, but does not provide interpretation of the behavior.
h. Structured Activities
i. Drawings
1. Elkisch (1945)—“It is assumed that expressions of younger children (in drawings) are less disguised” (p. 27). Criteria for coding for psychological impact include:
a. Rhythm/Rule (flexibility vs. uniformity)
b. Complex/Simple (differentiation vs. primitive)
c. Expansion/Compression (contact potential—exploration vs. isolation)
d. Integration/Disintegration (order vs. chaos)
e. Realism/Symbolism (world of objects vs. inner world)
2. Lystad (1974)—coding drawings and stories for content
a. Setting
i. Orientation (reality/fantasy)
ii. Treatment of subject (matter-of-fact/humorous)
iii. Characteristics of locale (urban/suburban/rural; near natural features like water, forest, etc.)
iv. Locale in relation to main character of work (home/school/work; in community/outside community)
b. Actors
i. Type of actor (human/animal/inanimate/supernatural)
ii. Type of human involvement (with sibling, parent, family/with other adults/with other children; child alone; adult alone/with other adults)
iii. Racial or ethnic characteristics
iv. Type of animal involvement (pets/zoo animals/predators/domestic animals)
v. Type of supernatural involvement (good/bad guys)
vi. Main character (child/other child/adult/animal/inanimate/supernatural being)
vii. Affect shown among characters (positive/negative/both)
viii. Complexity of main figure (one action/ambivalence or more than one process)
ix. Activity of main figure (action only/action & thought/thought only)
c. Needs of actors
i. Basic needs (physiological/safety/love—of people or of animals/independence & freedom/achievement & strength)
ii. Problems in solving needs (physical/psychological threats)
iii. Life passages (birth/puberty/marriage/old age/death)
iv. Needs in relation to self (concern with self alone/self & others/others alone)
d. Means of satisfying needs
i. Social institutions involved (political/economic/leisure/familial/religious/educational)
ii. Cognitive relationships (rational/irrational)
iii. Affective relationships (intimate/apart)
iv. Goal orientation (individual/group goals)
v. Stratification (hierarchical/non-hierarchical)
vi. Manner in which needs are met (self-direction/conformity to norms)
vii. Sex-related activity (girl/boy/boy-girl/none)
viii. Age-related activity (child as child/adult; adult as adult/child)
e. Satisfaction of needs
i. Satisfactions (success due to self/others; failure due to self/others)
ii. View of self (positive/mixed/negative)
iii. View of people’s capabilities in the world (control own lives/controlled by others)
iv. View of world in general (friendly/uncertain/hostile)
3. Meaning of images can change with the times (Gondor & Gondor, 1969)—“sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.”
4. John Dean, “Housing Design & Family Values”—Asking people what they want, they will overlook wants that are currently satisfied. Drawing forces them to fill these in.
5. Muscovitch, “Child’s Perception of the Neighborhood” (CMHC, 1980) 6-9 year-olds:
a. Schools show up as important (but not central, even when planned to be)
b. So do playgrounds
c. Shopping with parents is also high
d. Difference in play between s/f and m/f areas
6. Galia Weiser “City streets: The child’s image as a basis for design,” Innovation in Play Environments, PF
Wilkinson, ed.. NY:
a. “My street” ranges from 50-150 meters (no age given).
b. Space is defined by large elements (houses & trees) which are drawn schematically in 2 dimensions, and defined by small-scale elements (fences, edge of sidewalks, garden, grass, signposts, garbage cans, and flowers) which are described in 3 dimensions.
c. Space is drawn circularly (or in an elipse, if dominated by a main street).
ii. Doll play (Brower)
1. time-consuming, difficult to codify
III.
Theories of
Development—No one is born completely formed. Just as the human body goes through major
changes in the progress toward adulthood, so does the human personality. What are the stages and dimensions of
psychological development toward adulthood?
a. Overview: In our culture, childhood (in retrospect) is imagined to have been a time of innocence, both for the individual (all children are born good, and fall from grace later) and for society (society and life were so much simpler “back in the day”). The English critic, Raymond Williams, wrote a book about this (Country and City). At his father’s funeral, he overhead people saying how much simpler things were back when his father was a boy. So Williams went back to the literature of his father’s youth, and found the authors writing about how things were so much simpler back in their fathers’ time. He traced an unbroken line of reminiscence of “simpler times” going all the way back to Piers Plowman (and he speculated that he could have traced it all the way back to Adam and Eve, had the literature still been extant).
But the scholarly literature is much more nuanced. Each stage of development has its own agenda, its own typical challenges and failures and triumphs; life never is, nor ever was, “simple.”
b. Key theorists
i. Sigmund Freud (1856-1939): Freud’s is primarily a theory of emotional development. In his theory, the child is born with a mass of instinctual energy (which he called the “id”—Latin for “it”). The work of society is to tame—break, if you will—this animal instinct and civilize it, for it is by civilizing that we become human (in the psychological sense). The uncivilized Wild Boy of Averyon, while genetically human, was not a human person.
This process of civilizing works through guilt (externally imposed rules) and shame (internalizing those rules). The realization that there are rules that one must follow—in other words, learning—Freud calls the “superego” (not in the sense of “superior ego,” but in the sense of “that which stands above the ego”).
The result of the taming of the raw animal spirit by the discipline of civilizing rules (i.e., the conflict between the id and the superego) is the “ego” (Latin for “I”). The ego is the conscious self—batted about between the id (raw emotion and desires) and the superego (sense of responsibility and guilt) and trying to make sense of it all.
This process follows a natural and normal (albeit painful and chaotic) process.
· In the beginning, the child simply acts to satisfy needs and wants—when hungry, the baby cries until fed; when full, the baby fills the diaper. Freud calls this the “oral” stage, since the major activity at this time focuses on the mouth (eating, crying, etc.) The child at the breast does not differentiate between the mother and the self—it is all one thing.
· In time, the mother (for Freud, it is always the mother who first socializes the child, since it is the mother who nurses the child) teaches the child s/he needs to learn self-control—to wait to get fed, to control bowels and bladder, etc. Freud calls this the “anal” stage, since learning to control the bowels is the difficult, but ultimately gratifying, task of this stage. In this stage, the “good” mother of the oral stage becomes a “bad” mother who frustrates the child’s desires to persevere in oral-stage satisfactions.
· Having developed a superego (having learned control), and therefore having developed an ego (a sense of the “I”—and the “not-I”), the it dawns on the child that there are other people in the world than oneself—not only is there a mother who is sometimes good and sometimes evil, but there is a father who is trying to get between the child and the mother. This jealousy of others Freud calls the “Oedipal” stage (after the Greek story of Oedipus, the King of Thebes, who killed his father and married his mother), after the primordial experience of jealousy that every boy child experiences (initially, Freud did not pay much attention to the female side of this equation, although Freud and his students later dubbed it the “Electra” complex, after the Greek story of the young women who revenged her father’s death by killing her mother).
· Having learned to control the physical body and to control his emotions, the boy passes into a stage that Freud called “latency” (because there are no major crises). This is a stage of consolidating the gains of the previous stages, and deepening one’s knowledge. This is the stage of “childhood,” and continues until the stage of puberty, when the child explores and develops an adult form of sexual behavior and expression.
I have, of course, oversimplified. But this gives the broad outlines, which will make it easier to make sense of the reading from Freud’s lectures.
ii. Erik Erikson (1902-1994): Erikson started out as a student of Freud, but broke with him fairly early on. Erikson was more interested in the social side of human development (in fact, some would argue that the interpretation I gave above of Freud sounds suspiciously like Erikson). He described 8 stages in the development of “man” (nonsexist language had not become common yet when Erikson was writing), going from birth through old age and death. Each of the stages is marked by a specific “task” which has to be mastered—or, failing that, will carry forward a basic personality weakness into each of the following stages until the missed task is finally (if ever) completed. As a result, Erikson’s stages carry both a “positive” and a “negative” face. It is also significant that Erikson sees the process of development continuing throughout adulthood (although each stage takes longer to complete), rather than stopping with the resolution of puberty (as in Freud).
Erikson’s description of the eight stages (in the assigned reading) is written in fairly clear language, and you do not need me restate it.
iii. Jean Piaget (1896-1980): Piaget was a Swiss psychologist (he started out as a naturalist) who was interested in the stages of cognitive development. He began almost all of his work by observing his own children as they developed (he was trained as a naturalist, remember). He used those observations to develop hypotheses, which he subjected to “thought experiments” (“experience pour voir,” as he called them in French—“experiments to see”) and then turned into classic experimental designs with random samples of children. With Freud and Erikson, it was possible to move from one stage into another without necessarily having solved the challenges posed by the prior stage. In Piaget’s system, the only way it is possible to move to the next stage is by successfully solving the challenge of the present stage—each successive stage builds on the learning from the previous stage; it is not possible to skip stages, nor (under normal circumstances) to revert to a prior stage once a later stage is mastered.
· In Piaget’s system, children start in the “sensorimotor” stage. The whole world is all magic. Things happen. Objects appear. They disappear (Go figure). At this stage, the baby is not “thinking” at all—it is experiencing everything, storing it up. In time, all that stored experience starts to fall into patterns; the baby starts to develop expectations—the beginning of thinking (“operations,” in Piaget’s terms). There are no expectations separate from the experience—but the body begins to develop patterns and responds to them. A baby cries when a stranger looms over the crib, or a crawling child refuses to crawl off a step (even if the space is covered with a clear glass and it is perfectly safe). At this stage, the child babbles or speaks one- or two-word sentences, but does not really have speech yet.
· The next stage is called “pre-operational” (typically, ages 3-7). The child now behaves “for a reason,” but that reason is often “because.” Fantasy and reality are often conflated. Rocks and clouds and animals are given human motivations and emotions (when a child in this stage says that it is raining because the sky is sad, it is not a cute metaphor—the child means it). There is real thought, real effort to put explanations to the events in the world, but the explanations are often magical in nature. In a sense, it is the early sensorimotor stage all over again, only this time with thoughts and words and not just raw sensation.
· The next stage is called “concrete operations” (typically, ages 8-11). Now cause and effect begins to make sense, but the young child can still get easily tangled up in the abstraction of words and thoughts. As long as the child can manipulate the environment, the child can reason through a causal chain. But make the child sit still and try to explain it just by looking and thinking, and it all gets confused (often, the child will revert to pre-operational patterns). This is the stage of rules—you do it “because those are the rules.”
· The final stage is “abstract operations,” which typically take from 12-15 to completely accomplish. In this stage, the child is freed from manipulating the concrete world and is able to do it “virtually,” through thought. The young person begins to entertain “conditions contrary to fact” (“Suppose the moon were made of green cheese—what sort of spacecraft would you need to land on it?” “Suppose the queen (in chess) could only move 4 spaces in any direction, and pawns could only move in an L like a knight. How would you play the game then?”)
A fascinating extension of Piaget’s ideas can be found in Lawrence Kohlberg’s theory of moral development, which postulates a similar progression in moral thinking (from pain/pleasure to superstition to “following the rules” to self-directed moral guidance).
c. Brim & Kagan, Constancy and Change (1980)
i. Orville Brim & Jerome Kagan, a sociologist and a psychologist, challenged the Western notion of “development” as continual progress “upward.” They argue that there is no necessary reason to believe that the traditional idea that the experience of the early years necessarily constrain the characteristics of adolescence and adulthood. The Chinese, for instance, “believe that the structure of the present exerts a profound influence on current phenomena. Since future contexts cannot be predicted easily, the informativeness of the past is limited; hence there is less interest in origins.” (p. 5) Further, each cohort ages uniquely, since the events of the world have their effect on the various cohorts at different times in their development. Kagan argues elsewhere (American Psychologist, 1979) that “variety” is more important than any specific interaction or the frequency of interaction. He argues that “…no regimen of early care is best for all psychological qualities; one must specify the characteristic and its evaluation by the larger culture” (p. 889). In that same issue of American Psychologist, Willard Hartup describes the range of social systems within which children develop (family, peer group, school, others) and considers the interdependency between the family and the other systems. In other words, it may not be that there is no such thing as cause-effect relationships, but it may be that there are a great number of causes at work and only some of them work together to produce the observed result. At a later stage, a different set of forces (in play, perhaps, previously, but not apparent in their effects) may come to the fore.
ii. In any event, Brim & Kagan trace a number of elements in the intellectual history of the idea of the possibility of human change:
a. Supernatural force/natural cause
b. Transmogrification/transfiguration
c. Desire to change/need to maintain identity
d. Individual need for change/societal tolerance of change
d. Urie Bronfenbrenner, Contexts of Child Rearing, American Psychologist., 1979
i. “We know much more about children than about the environments in which they live or the processes through which these environments affect the course of development. As a result, our ability to address public policy concerns regarding contexts of childrearing is correspondingly limited.” P. 844
ii. “primacy of interpersonal process on the evolution of behavior” p. 845
iii. “The pervasive use of a dyadic parent-child model leaves out of consideration the possibility that forces external to the two-person system could influence its effectiveness and outcomes.” P. 846
e. Asset
Development: In the 1990s, the focus
shifted to monitoring multiple factors which might affect a child’s
development, whether operating in isolation or in consort. Peter Benson, founder of the Search Institute
in
IV.
Play—the Work of
the Child
a. Play is the work of the child—it is the “typical” behavior of children, and it is central to understanding the “culture” of these exotic creatures, children.
b. The Psychology of Play (Millar, 1968):
The term “play” is usually applied to behavior which, to the observer, appears to be neither the result of a plan nor out of the person’s control. Frequently, it is recognizable behavior occurring in the wrong context.
Over the years, a number of theories have been advanced to explain why human beings engage in play behavior. They include: Surplus energy (it’s a way of burning off excess energy). Recapitulation (it’s going back over past lessons & skills, running variations on the theme). Practice of skills (it’s an evolutionary strategy for keeping key skills honed). Attitude (it’s not the behavior that makes it play, but the motivation behind the activity—with the right attitude, anything can be play). More sophisticated theories, based on personality theory, include: Instinct theory (play is ‘irrelevant’ behavior which is left over from the evolutionary process). Vacuum activities (internal hormonal states trigger responses in the absence of the usual stimuli). Displacement (occurs when an ongoing activity is checked; the remaining energy is displaced into playful behavior). Learning (play is an exploratory response to novelty and change). Piaget (play is assimilative behavior, repeating an action to consolidate the experience).
There are a number of types of play. Sometimes it is general motor activity in response to environmental conditions (think of kids on the playground at recess). Sometimes it is functional behavior occurring out of context (“practice play”—like practicing hitting a tennis ball against a wall). A more complicated form of the same idea is social play (think of kids “playing house”). And sometimes it is just exploration and manipulation of the environment for no discernable reason (like a kid lying on the grass watching ants go marching by). General exploration play can take many sub-forms. Practice play, for example, can be exploration in response to a novel stimulus, or it can be manipulative play to produce changes, or it can combine the two into repetition with variation (“ringing the changes”) of some response.
A key element in play is determining what captures a child’s attention. Novelty and change of all kinds attract attention, but puzzling objects sustain attention longer than simple novelty. Complexity also compels attention. Also, anything that is “significant” (reinforcing or expected) will be more likely to be noticed.
Another key element in play is often (but not necessarily) fantasy and imitation. In make-believe play, a child explores feelings and emotions in much the same way that perceptions of the external world are explored. Through repetition, the child can lessen the impact of even the strongest impression. Imitation, on the other hand, is a sort of “practical fantasy.” Children are more likely to imitate someone who is held in high prestige, perhaps because of individual characteristics or because of “status prestige,” such as gender or income. Finally, “social play” appears to proceed through a series of developmental steps, from solitary play to parallel play (playing side by side, but not interacting) to associative play (playing “together,” although not particularly adjusting to each other’s actions) to cooperative play.
There are, of course, individual differences in play which can be attributed to a number of influences: Intellectual ability, for example, can have an effect on the status of the individuals when they participate in social play (although it appears that there are few other clear effects due to cognitive ability). Boys tend to be more boisterous (or, “boy-sterous”) and play more complicated games (although the research demonstrating this is quite old, and gender roles may have been transformed since then); girls were found to play more with language and to rely more on their peers in play situations. In terms of stimulation from early experience, children who were raised in institutions tend to be less advanced in social and language skills, but it does not appear to affect their motor development. Parental attitudes also play a role. Permissive parents produced children who were more outgoing, inquisitive, and original; and boys in father-absent homes were less aggressive. Finally, cultural studies have shown that American children have more free time and more toys. American parents feel responsible for making their children happy. The Nyansongo, for example, have no toys and free time only after their chores are completed; play is not encouraged. The Rajputs have ample free time, but few toys. Okinawan children also have free time and few toys, but they make their own and engage in more imaginative play. Some studies have demonstrated that fewer toys are correlated with more social contact. On the other hand, children with more toys engage in less social contact, but they also show more exploratory behavior.
c. Play as a Learning Medium (Sponseller, 1974).
Play as a medium implies several key components:
· A condition in which supports the growth and development of cognitive structures
· A means by which a child works out thoughts and feelings
· A means for a child to communicate thoughts and feelings to others
· A supportive environment for a young child’s activity
· A technical means for actively expressing learning
Play can be defined, not as an activity but as the reason for an activity. Any activity done for its own sake is play. Eva Neumann (Elements of Play, 1971), for example, described a continuum from work to play, involving three factors: Control (play uses internalized control, rather than the external controls of a work environment), Reality (play suspends reality), and Motivation (play is internally motivated, rather than, for example, being motivated by money or power—these things turn play serious). Lieberman (1965) found that playfulness correlates with divergent thinking, and is marked by spontaneity (physical, social and cognitive), manifest joy, and a sense of humor. Piaget argued that spontaneous play should predominate, to permit the child to take in reality in his/her own egocentric way.
Sponseller also identifies a number of theories which have been used to explain playful behavior. Some of the oldest theories talk about it as releasing surplus energy, others as providing relaxation from strenuous exertion. Some consider it “pre-exercise” (sort of a rehearsal, if you will), others as “recapitulation” (replaying the main event). Psychoanalytic (Freudian) theory considers play to be a cathartic activity (an emotional release) which allows the child to express and master difficult situations; Piaget considers it to be representation (an intellectual activity) by which the child manipulates the world to see how it fits cognitive schemas (“ideas,” sort of). Michael Ellis (Why People Play, 1973) argues that it is motivated by a desire to achieve competence or to seek arousal (“get a thrill”).
Whatever the motivation, Krown (1974) argues that play can be shaped. This is done, for example, by startling a person out of vagueness into purposeful activity. Sometimes all it takes is new material to stimulate play activity (add one refrigerator box and see what happens), or asking a question or two to stimulate more detailed observation and play (“How do you think the astronauts feel when they are in the shuttle?”). Sponseller & Lowry (1974) categorize play into three categories—symbolic, practice, and games.
In any event, the ability to play with an object or concept is a prerequisite for discovery learning, and it is necessary if one is to use or invent strategies for problem solving. In fact, Sponseller argues that type of play and learning activity are paired along a continuum, depending on how much active guidance is given and whether the emphasis is on product or process:
|
Type of Play |
Type of Learning |
|
Free play |
Discovery |
|
Guided play |
Guided discovery |
|
Directed play |
Reception |
|
Work/play |
Rote |
|
Work |
Drill/repetitive practice |
d. Folklore
As adults, we often delude
ourselves that children learn everything of importance from us. But in fact, they have a rich cultural life
which continues beneath the recognition of the adult society in which it is
embedded. It is a rich cultural
tradition, with a long and honored tradition.
V.
The Environment
a. Impact of Environment on Behavior
First, it is absolutely essential
to determine that the environment has an effect on behavior. If there is no causal relationship, then it
makes no sense to waste time and effort trying to modify the environment. As Herbert Gans
pointed out years ago (People and Plans, 1968),
people are very adaptable to physical environments (after all, they can live in
the tropics and in the
Nonetheless, there are a number of studies that demonstrate that there is at least some direct relationship between the physical environment and human behavior:
· A number of studies have established a relationship between meteorological events and behavior (see Moos & Insel, Issues in Social Ecology, 1974). Among them: lunar cycles and homicide and suicide; temperature and aggression; approaching stormy weather and accidents.
· John B Calhoun (“The role of space in animal sociology,” Journal of Social Issues, 1966) shows how increasing spatial density can have a negative effect on social behavior in a colony of rodents, leading eventually to totally dysfunctional behavior.
· Terrence Lee (“Urban neighborhood as a socio-spatial schema,” Human Relations, 1968) has shown that one’s home range is “pulled” in the direction of a major attractor (shopping center, school, etc.).
· Elizabeth Richardson (The Environment of Learning, 1967) reviews a number of effects of the physical environment on learning—from such simple things as movable desks & chairs arranged in pods rather than rows, to large-scale factors such as room size and lighting levels.
· Melvin Webber (“Order in diversity: Community without propinquity,” in Cities and Space, 1963) demonstrates how functional distance (distance along line-of-travel rather than crow-flight) can influence social interaction.
In time, this work has led to the development of “community psychology” (see, for example, Julian Rappaport’s Community Psychology: Values, Research and Action NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1977), which focuses on community intervention to improve mental health, learning outcomes, and discouraging criminal and antisocial behavior.
Children are a special case in all of this. Sandra Scarr (1979, p. 810) pointed out, “It is necessary to study children’s behavior in context.” Behavior has meaning, and meaning is given by [the] larger context and the child’s understanding of it. Howard Andrews, in “Managing urban space for children,” wrote that “children are regular and natural users of the total environment, not just the spaces which adults—planners, or otherwise—provide especially for them.” The basic issues for children in their use of space are competence (control) and self-regard (identity).
Maton (1990) found that youth involvement in meaningful activities relates strongly to well-being and satisfaction, both for college populations and for black male and pregnant female teenagers (half of whom had dropped out of school).
A particularly important dimension
of this issue is the impact of homelessness on children. The recent Wilder Research report, “Homeless
in Minnesota 2003” found that, in 2003, between 10-12,000
b. Children’s use of space
Perez & Hart (1980) argue that the primary consideration for children’s use of and satisfaction with physical space is the issue of accessibility. They are concerned with how far they can go (and what forces restrict them). Within that range, they are concerned with the richness of the environment. They further point out that accessibility increases with age. First graders experience primarily restricted movement, being permitted to range away from home only with their parents. Third graders experience a larger “free range,” but usually still within eyesight or hearing of the home. By the fifth grade, boys range freely (girls remain at about the third-grade level). Once into adolescence, the distance a child can travel alone increases, but the child is also less interested in exploring spaces and focuses more on getting from one destination to another.
Colin Ward (1978), in a rambling, discursive book, catalogued a wide range of urban children’s environments based on his observations of city children. The names he gives to the experiences are as telling as his descriptions. “Paradise Lost?” refers to his conclusion that childhood has remained fairly similar across the ages, despite our memories of how much better life used to be. “Happy Habitat Revisited” describes how children can live in squalor and poverty, yet recall it (sometimes) with fondness. He also points out that there are three ways that children (indeed all people) evaluate their environment—antiquarians (who prefer stability and constancy), explorers (who enjoy diversity, but come back home), and neophiliacs (who are always searching for the latest, newest thing). He also notes that privacy and isolation are not the same thing. Children need privacy, but flee isolation. He also talks about homeless children (“Adrift in the City”) and the suburban children (“A Suburban Afternoon”). He points out how children take advantage of small, forgotten corners of space (“Colonizing Small Spaces”) and using existing spaces for “other” purposes (“Adapting the Imposed Environment”)—like opening a fire hydrant to create water play. He also points out that children who have a driving interest experience the city differently, because they learn how to use the city to pursue their avocation. Children move around the city differently than adults—they tend to walk, or bike, or skateboard—or hitch rides on the back of trucks & busses. School, of course, is a central part of the life of most children—even though some of them it is experienced as an alienating environment. Also, by the time they reach mid-adolescence children are often participating in paid work (stocking the shelves of the supermarket, preparing and selling fast food, or working at a retail store). The city-wise child, he claims,
Bruno Bettleheim, a child psychologist, uses his own memories of childhood to structure “the child’s perception of the city” (1981). He argues that it is people who structure the urban experience, not the physical environment. If those close to a child experience the city as exciting and enriching, so will the child. While the city (necessarily) encompasses a great number of people in a (relatively) small space, it is a (relatively) few of them who are significant. He quotes Shakespeare, who wrote “The people are the city.” Bettleheim develops a parallel between the mother and the city (pointing out that cities are often referred to in the feminine), between the immediate neighborhood and the womb (both are a “matrix within which one lives”). As the child identifies with the mother and the family of origin, the child also identifies with the neighborhood and the city. Having said this, he then points out how the image of the city in much of the schoolbook reading is negative. Usually, the city is just a cardboard background against which the real action of the story is played out. While there are many examples of the pleasures of country living, there are few offered for city life. When city life is portrayed, the children read it as empty & purposeless. It is, he suggests, little wonder that Americans have so little respect for their cities and when they grow up aspire to suburban and country living!
Other researchers
have developed different lists of key environments. Clare Cooper Marcus evaluated 50
environmental biographies from students in her planning classes (Marcus,
1978). She found that outdoor places
figured heavily (only 3 students recalled only interior spaces), despite the
fact that behavioral studies of children (Lynch, 1977) show that they spend the
vast majority of their time indoors (65% on weekends, 90-95% on school
days). These outdoor spaces are often
“special places” of childhood, and are often not the yard or patio that was their parents’ domain. The environmental biographies often recalled
“hiding places,” private spaces set apart from parents and even siblings and
other children. Some of these hiding
places were manufactured (culverts, shacks, porches and closets); others were
molded from the natural landscape; still others were custom-built (tree houses
and forts). Comparing the experiences of
American children with those of international students, Marcus was struck by
the narrowness of American—particularly suburban—children’s experiences. They have little opportunity to observe
adults in their work environment or to encounter the full range of a
community’s life. She argues that the
suburban environment, selected because it is “good for the children,” may in
fact be a deprived environment for children.
Charles Zerner (1977) did anthropological
fieldwork among children in
Not all the environmental impacts are physical. In a classic article, Dexter Dunphy (1963) described how the primary socialization of the child by the family is replaced by the peer group in adolescence, creating the conditions for the young adult to separate from the family of origin. This proceeds in a series of stages. In early adolescence, children run in isolated, single-sex “cliques.” Over time, the cliques begin to interact across the gender divide (but only as a group). Then the higher-status members in the cliques begin to form their own heterosexual clique (“crowds,” in Dunphy’s terms). Eventually the cliques all become mixed gender “crowds” (or gangs or groups or…). Finally, in late adolescence, the crowd disintegrates into a loosely associated group of couples.
c. Buildings for Children
So, what have we done to children with the spaces we have created?
Holme & Massie compared the behavior of children who
were growing up in planned, medium density housing and in old, very dense central
city housing near
“In the new, planned medium
density pedestrian-segregated environment of Elm Green in
tended to be individual, passive, and home oriented…. In the Heygate area of Southwark, on the other hand,
which is old and unplanned with bad, overcrowded housing and traffic-congested streets, children appear to
play away from home and in groups; their play was more active and included games of a traditional nature.”
(Holme & Massie, 1970, p. 58)
While their study is drawn on the
British experience, which includes a tradition of much higher housing density
than is typical in the
One could look at the built environment for children as a collection of settings with their own design considerations—the home, the street, the school (and daycare center), the playground, as well as a residual category for the “undesigned” spaces that are so important to children. There are a great number of “rules of thumb” for the design of these spaces—ballusters on porches should be no further apart than 6” (to prevent children from slipping through them) and should be vertical rather than horizontal (to prevent children from climbing them). Glass enclosures (doors, low windows, etc.) should have horizontal bars at about a child’s shoulder-height to prevent them from pushing on (and through) the glass. Curbs should be cut down to the grade of the road at corners, to permit strollers and tricycles to cross. Children’s play areas should permit adults to observe the children, but at a discreet distance to encourage the children’s independence. And so on. Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 9503, spells out in detail the furnishings and the physical facility required for day care centers which house infants, toddlers, preschoolers, and school-age children (see http://nrc.uchsc.edu/STATES/MN/mn_2.htm ) and the facilities required for a licensed day care (see http://nrc.uchsc.edu/STATES/MN/mn2.htm ).
But the major findings underscore the importance of access, networking, and self-determination. AE Parr (1967) points out that, while adult mobility has been greatly increased, there is little discussion of the correlate—children’s mobility has been greatly reduced as a result of the hazards created by adult transportation. Further, he claims, children have lost the opportunity to observe adult speech and behavior as they all, adult and child, walked to work/school in the morning. John Dean, in Housing Design & Family Values, argued that the “greatest influence of housing design is the way it modifies the numbers and kinds of social environments to which family members are exposed.” (p. 132). Dorothy Smith, in Household Space and Family Organization, wrote that “…spatial arrangements structure the ways in which people become directly accessible to one another.” (p. 55). Robin Moore (1980) argued that the ultimate design for children is “anarchic,” a completely self-regulated place which does not distinguish between work/play or education/recreation. He was echoing the work of Simon Nicholson (1970), who argued for what he called a “theory of loose parts.” Undesigned spaces which are stocked with raw materials permit the children to engage in what Nicholson called “environmental education”—they can learn to create their own spaces and explore their own interests. He concluded that it was important to give top priority to where children are (rather than building spaces for them somewhere apart, give them the opportunity to transform the spaces they already occupy) and to let children play a part in the design process. Ten years after Nicholson, Paul Davidoff (1980) also called for full participation by children in designing spaces for themselves.
VI.
Designing for
Children
a. Policy making
To begin with, “policy” is the process by which the government sector interferes with the free operation of the private, non-profit, or personal sectors in order to correct some deficiency or flaw in the operation or outcomes of that sector. In other words, policy is a governmental plan for changing the way things operate in order to achieve a better outcome than what is likely to occur without intervention.
Any policy analysis will have four parts: Definition of the problem, Criteria for making a choice, Alternative choices available, and feasibility analysis. We will consider each of these in turn, drawing heavily on the work of MacRae & Wilde, Policy Analysis for Public Decisions.
Problem definition: Always be aware of the difference between the “problem situation” and the analyst’s problem. Usually, as you delve into a problem, you will find your focus diverging from that of the general public. While the substantive concerns of those who have come to specialize in an issue may determine the policy, the concerns of the general public will determine its acceptance (think of Hillary Clinton’s abortive effort to develop single-payer health care). A “problem situation” arises when people notice a “significant discrepancy” between what they perceive happening and what they think should be happening. Usually, this concern is based on some underlying (and usually unexpressed and sometimes even unacknowledged) values. From the analyst’s point of view, these initial problems usually have to be redefined before they can be analyzed. Some “problems” may be inescapable (broken hearts seem to go with adolescence), or may go away of their own accord (like most acne). Some observed “problem” behavior may, in fact, be “typical” (like children darting into traffic). Often problems are stated in terms of finding blame, which generally works against rational analysis (the current “no child left behind” debate might be a good example). Sometimes problems that seemed so obvious are completely recast with the discovery of new data (before the diagnosis of ADHD, a number of children were labeled as willfully disruptive). In coming to a definition of the problem, the analyst must always look behind the initial definition because that definition is always related to an apparent “cause.” Sometimes the causal relationship withstands scrutiny; often it does not. Redefining the problem can create a more general coalition is support of the problem; on the other hand, it can also diffuse the issue and lose the initial clarity it brought with it. In any event, do not attempt to analyze a problem when there is no hope of implementing a solution. Policy is the marriage of an issue with resources to solve it; if there are no resources, there is no problem.
Criteria for Choice: Before jumping to solutions or a family of possible solutions, take the time to lay out in advance the rules by which you (and anyone following your analysis) will know whether you have arrived at an acceptable solution. There are two essential criteria for choosing among alternative solutions: desirability and feasibility. The desirability of a solution is determined by its clarity (quantification goes a long way to clarify what is going on), consistency (ability to reconcile values—and “disvalues,” or shortcomings), and generality (usefulness of a solution over a wide range of circumstances). Feasibility is a subjective criterion; it is a measure of the willingness of people to act on a solution. Often desirability and feasibility do not coincide (Jesus advised the rich young man to sell all he had and follow around with the disciples if he wished to obtain eternal life; the young man turned away disappointed).
Alternative Choices: First, name each alternative. Then define each of them precisely—use behavioral terms if it all possible. Then analyze the consequences of each alternative, assuming a) that all the specified activities are accomplished and b) assuming only some of the activities are accomplished. This “risk assessment” or “robustness test” can uncover major differences between alternatives—all of which accomplish their end if everything goes as planned, but have very different consequences under less ideal conditions. You can look for alternatives from a number of sources. Always, one alternative is the “do nothing” alternative; never forget it. You might also find alternatives in the operation of the market, in the experience of others, or from scientific research. Whatever their source, the choice among alternatives will depend on the prediction of their consequences (both intended and unintended consequences). Among the more insidious of the unintended consequences is the tendency of people to react to the actions you are trying to elicit (sometimes they will try to give you what they think you want—whether or not it really is what you want—and sometimes they will attempt to purposely withhold it).
Feasibility Analysis: Assessment of feasibility begins as soon as the analysis begins. Determine potential support and opposition—and develop your support (don’t try to dissuade your opposition; it is enough if they just don’t push their point). This can be done through persuasion, communication, organizing, mobilizing public support, bargaining (which includes threatening), and public demonstration. In practice it can also include deception and force, but these are not considered ethical tools in an analysis.
b. Policy for children
Fred Hill, in “Lives & times of urban adolescents” (a study of ninth graders), points out that the provision of environmental opportunities for children to flourish is more amenable to manipulation for socially desirable ends than several other factors (which may be more important but are beyond the scope of government to influence). Or, as Ollie says in the Pogo cartoon, “You gotta learn to solve the problems you can get at!”
There have been a number of studies focused on developing policy for children. In 1976, the National Research Council (sort of a government think tank) came out with Toward a National Policy for Children and Families. The Carnegie Council (a nonprofit think tank) published All Our Children in 1977. The United Nations declared 1979 as “The International Year of the Child,” followed by the Convention on the Rights of the Child in 19xx. The Childrens Defense Fund, a nonprofit organization founded in 1973, issues a steady stream of studies and policy reports dealing with children (see http://www.childrensdefense.org/ ). More recently, the Minnesota Council on Foundations has completed a study of children’s issues and the funding for them, called “Supporting Minnesota’s Youth” (see http://www.mcf.org/mcf/giving/youthreport.htm ).What these studies have found is that a series of trends are affecting the lives of children: more families are living in cities and suburbs, more women are working, families are smaller and increasingly are single-parent. As the NRC report put it, “Because of urbanization and its attendant anonymity and impersonality, the separation of workplace and residence, increased segregation by age, and the growing secularization of society, the family is less likely to receive support in its child-rearing responsibility from the extended family, the neighborhood, and the community.” That report recommends that policy for children focus on family economic resources, health care (physical & mental), child care, special services, and legal status of children. There has been some interest in this, such as the “Child Friendly Cities website (http://www.child-friendly-cities.org ) and the “Kid Friendly Cities” report card (http://www.kidfriendlycities.org/2001/ )
A number of issues remain, however, in setting policy for children. First, there is little research on children in their natural settings. For example, what are the effects of the absence of either the father or the mother for long parts of the day? What are the needs of children in single-parent households? What are the effects of full-day vs. part-day daycare and kindergarten? What are the effects of taking children to one’s workplace? Second, there is a lack of systematic experimentation and evaluation of proposed programs. Often policy is based on anecdotal evidence rather than controlled, scientific assessment. Third, despite the work of the Children’s Defense Fund and others, there are not a commonly agreed-on set of social indicators that affect children. At a minimum, such indicators should include measures of physical health, educational achievement, and psychological well-being/social development.
c. Growing Up in Cities Project
The Growing Up in Cities project comes out of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (first promulgated in 1989). The Convention stresses that children should be involved in planning as it affects them in their cities. Besides the two texts for this course, several articles have been published which also use this participatory process for planning (Smith & Barker, 2000; Loukaitou-Sideris, 2003). The key to this movement is the stress on planning with children, rather than planning for children. These projects have demonstrated amply that children, even as young as 5 years of age, have information and opinions about how they should be living their lives. They have also demonstrated that adults can engage children in a process which makes use of this information. So far, there have been no studies assessing the relative effectiveness of this process (ie, do designs created with children work better than designs created just using expert adult input?), in part due to the lack of consensus about what criteria would be used for such an assessment (if adults choose the criteria, won’t that predetermine the answer?).
© 2004 A.J.Filipovitch
Revised 26 May 2004