MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2074311568 · doi:10.1002/icd.702

International perspectives on early childhood research: a day in the life. Edited by Julia Gillen and Catherine Ann Cameron. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, USA, 2010. pp. 208. Price £50. ISBN 978‐0230232495.

2011· article· en· W2074311568 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Josephine Roß

Notice bibliographique

RevueInfant and Child Development · 2011
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueEarly Childhood Education and Development
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésThrivingWrightPsychologyHistoryVisual artsArt historySociologyArtSocial science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The goal of this book is to highlight a new methodology for gaining international perspectives on early childhood. The authors filmed a ‘day in the life’ of seven 2-year-old girls ‘thriving’ in seven different locations (Canada, Italy, Peru, Thailand, Turkey, UK, and USA). From these observations, five common themes emerged; the development and socialization of musicality, emotional security, eating, notational systems, and humour. These topics form the main content of the book (Chapters 3–7), flanked by introductory and concluding chapters focusing on the methodology used (Chapters 1, 2, and 8). It is striking that ‘day in the life’ observations have not previously been filmed. Earlier works have necessarily relied on written records (Barker & Wright, 1951). However, even modern works have missed the opportunity to faithfully record a ‘day in the life’, for example, filming using time sampling methods taken over a week to represent a typical day (Tudge, 2008). As the authors note, the latter precludes objective review of the data gathered, whereas the former gives a disjointed view of the child's activities. To circumvent these problems, this project dispatched two field researchers to each location; one to film for a minimum of 6 h, and the other to take field notes that could be used to support understanding of the film. Footage and field notes were viewed (first individually) by two distal researchers, who then worked together to create a 30-min compilation video. This footage was later used as an elicitor for discussion with the child's family. As a result, an incredibly rich data set representing a variety of objective and subjective perspectives is secured. To illustrate, in Chapter 3, the authors describe how initial difficulties in interpreting foreign utterances blurred the distinction between speech and musical vocalization. This highlighted the interaction of visual and audio streams in video footage, leading to analysis of all instances of rhythmic activity (vocal and physical) occurring during the day. Although families varied in their explicit recognition of the importance of musicality, rhythmic communication was used reciprocally to strengthen the bond between the child and their caregivers in all the countries observed. The socialization of emotional security is the direct focus of Chapter 4. It appeared that receiving positive physical contact (rocking, soothing, patting) and independently exploring their environment was common to all the children. Although responses to the question ‘What makes a strong child?’ varied cross-culturally, the importance of finding a balance between giving emotional support and fostering self-reliance was highlighted by all parents. Traditionally underplayed in childhood studies (and emphasized in the current volume only following repeated viewing of the ‘days’), the activity of eating showed perhaps the largest geographical differences (Chapter 5). Although some caregivers (Italy, Peru, and UK) instituted clearly delineated mealtimes, in other countries (Canada and Thailand) eating activities were largely child led. Nevertheless, in all instances, children showed a continued determination to incorporate (or substitute) play with eating. Geographical differences were also found in the socialization of notational systems (Chapter 6). For example, although drawing was modelled by a relative expert in some countries (Peru, Thailand, Turkey, and UK), in others children were left to their own devices (Canada and USA). In contrast, reading development was universally supported through joint activity with reading materials. Finally, in Chapter 7, humour is identified as a common feature of many interactions occurring during the ‘days’. The authors highlight the reciprocal use of wordplay, clowning, teasing, and physical play in fostering (and displaying) children's emotional and cognitive engagement with their home environment. Despite some notable exceptions, what emerges from these chapters is that the similarities in the seven girl's experiences were larger than the differences. Indeed, rather than considering the seven countries representative of a culture, the authors insist that we consider these individual examples of children ‘thriving’ in different environments. Thus, although the book offers an international perspective on early childhood, it is cautious in drawing any conclusions concerning enculturation. Similarly, although the issue of resilience is identified as a major theme, the authors acknowledge that the common conception of resilience (as triumph in the face of adversity) is not represented here. Where this volume makes its real contribution is in illustrating how a relatively simple observational methodology can be used to guide and inform our exploration of early childhood. With the exception of emotional security and notational systems, the themes identified in this project (which emerged strongly despite the small and geographically disparate sample) are currently under-researched. As a result of this ambitious attempt to highlight several novel issues, the thematic chapters are often regrettably short. Nevertheless, they make clear that the issues identified, which would remain hidden without this innovative method, are of upmost importance. It is clear then, that the authors have succeeded in their aim to highlight the value of the methodology employed. As the proverb suggests, walking a day in another's shoes is an informative experience.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,014
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,048

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0030,006
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,006
Communication savante0,0080,008
Science ouverte0,0010,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,007
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0140,005

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,046
Tête enseignante GPT0,290
Écart entre enseignants0,244 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2011
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueInfant and Child DevelopmentMême sujetEarly Childhood Education and DevelopmentTravaux en français237 207