THE STORYCRAFTING METHOD & VIDEO
Monika Riihelä 2001 Stakes Finland
THE STORYCRAFTING METHOD - INCREASES CHILDREN'S PARTICIPATION
The Storycrafting method comprises six principals:
Making an open situation, without hidden intentions for the
encounters both in professional and every day settings.
- Giving the opportunity to equal participation.
- Giving the opportunity for exact documentation by the staff.
- Giving the opportunity for narration of free choice.
- Literal retelling, repetition of the story, for a deeper
understanding.
- Creating interrelationships between children with the help of
their own narratives.
STORYCRAFTING VERSUS STORYTELLING
The Storycrafting method differs from the traditional and
still very useful storytelling in a couple of ways. Men have told
stories to each other through the history. It is a good way to get
acquainted with traditions, with other people, different cultures
etc. It is also very useful in the contacts with children. The
Storycrafting method does not replace the benefits of storytelling,
but it brings something new and particular to the relation between
attendants. The difference to storytelling is that in
storycrafting you actively make situations for concrete sharing,
by writing down the heard story and by retelling it. In addition
you don't evaluate the content of the story or the way the
narrative is dictated.
The Storycrafting method lies on a dynamic assumption of knowledge.
It means that it is presumed that every human being, no matter of
age, sickness or disabilities the narrator has a lot of knowledge
and also the right to express it. In addition the Storyride method
changes the specialist-centred and client-lowering professional
dialog of three sequences where the specialist 1) makes the
question, 2) the client answers the question and 3) the
professional estimates the answer. The dynamic assumption of
knowledge results in a more democratic conversation, where both
participants have the equal opportunities to express initiatives,
to evaluate and to participate. (See Riihelä 1996.) Storycrafting
has also proved to give a deeper understanding of the child's
problems in therapeutic and pedagogical settings. Employees who
have applied Storycrafting in their work, have noticed, that the
amount of time working with children increases compared to the
feelings of great loss of time when using traditional methods.
They have begun to listen, instead of only hearing to their
clients and to understand instead of evaluate. The storycrafting
situation itself has given the staff new meanings and a lot of
energy. It has created shared meanings and collectivness in the
group. It has given disabled children self-respect and pride about
their own capacities. Children's own stories that have been mailed
to other countries have made the children curious about the other
country and eager to know more about the foreign culture. Children
with vulnerable life experiences and living in orphanages have
been given a new imaginative possibility to tell about their
problems by using symbols and in personal, self-made fairy tales.
Children who get used to tell own narratives also learn to demand
for attention and participation. Children also learn to read and
write during the storycrafting process. (Karlsson 2000.)
Storycrafting method can be used:
As an interview –method
As a therapeutic –method
As a method for documentation
As a write- and reading –method
To handle with many problems, like speech disabilities, insulting
treatment, physical and psychic illness
To make persons co-operate in groups and to avoid enhance
To improve co-operation between adults and children
To change working practises towards more client-centred habits.
STORYCRAFTING IN PRACTICE
You can use the Storycrafting method in practice: With one person
or in groups; At home or outside; In parental advice; In day-care
settings; In school; In therapy; In special education; In
social-work and in adult education.
Adults often find it difficult to understand the way children
think. The world of children with its richness of images does not
always coincide with that of reason-based adults. A grown-up often
listens to a child in adult's own terms.
In my opinion there is a gap between children and adults and this
gap gives rise to many misunderstandings. In order to momentarily
comprehend things from the children's point of view, we have to
become more sensitive and listen to them without prejudice. The
traditional methods that focus on children's developmental stages
or on the problems of the individual have often proved
insufficient in practice. The complications that affect the whole
community are often forgotten when the difficulties are examined
simply as the children's problems. Traditional individual methods,
tests and tasks designed to evaluate performance and abilities,
can make the child feel guilty which affects the self-esteem that
becomes dominated by the vicious circle: - I am bad because I
can't learn and since I won't learn I'm bad.
The most important thing in dialogues is to catch the meaning of
the situation and the intentions of the other. Oftentimes the
situation loses its meaningfulness from the child's perspective
because the adults ask the children about things they already know
about. This is why the children in some way have to be told, that
"Everyone has their own way of thinking. I am interested in
how you think. Since I am the other person I cannot know your way
of thinking." Once a child said to me with a surprised
expression: "You mean you are interested in what I'm thinking?"
The aim of the situation in storycrafting is clearly explained to
the child. The adult will not evaluate the child's response by
characterising it right or wrong, but tell that he or she expects
to hear something that this particular child is thinking. There
are advantages allowing the children tell their own stories or
draw pictures. Children feel that the adult is interested in what
they draw and say. Children feel that the adult does not expect a
ready answer but that they have permission to think of one. The
adult and the children have time to get acquainted with each other.
The child can follow up how spoken language is turned into written
language.
Inhibited children sometimes need encouragement or hints; "What
would you prefer to draw?" " Would you make a boy's or a
girl's story?" etc. If a child has a totally negative
attitude towards telling a story you have to wait for an other
opportunity to storycrafting. Sometimes children have to be
restrained if there does not seem to be an end to the story. One
way is to tell the child that one piece of paper is all we have
strength for and that the story has to end when the sheet is full.
Here is an example of a story told by a 9-year-old boy to the
school psychologist in January 1986 (Riihelä 1991).
Petteri's story
The sun shines in the sky.
The birds sing and the crickets play
and it's a nice summer's day.
Flowers are flowering and it's summer at last.
Winter is far behind.
And the grass is green.
The ant has a little nest at the foot of the tree.
Fish swim around in the water.
Gulls fly around in the sky.
The little furry balls are dandelions.
Fish jump now and then.
The little fisherman does not catch any fish whatever he does.
Big fish chase the smaller fish.
The little bird has a nest on the rock.
A little motor boat casts fishing nets.
The magpie has a nest in a green tree.
A little squirrel runs across the green.
Autumn comes again.
Mushrooms begin to grow
and the downpours come.
Gradually rain turns into sleet.
Finally winter comes.
Children play excitedly.
Trees have already dropped their leaves.
Children have to keep going inside.
The Storycrafting method is based on children's viewpoint. Their
own thoughts become heard, documented and the source for
activities. For many children telling stories is great fun and a
natural way to express themselves. In the Storycrafting situations
things take place on children's terms. Their reactions and wishes
mould the situation; for example no child is forced to take part.
Nobody is forced to tell stories, and the adult writes down only
what the child approves. Permission to use the story is obtained
from the child and his/her guardian; names are published only with
the permission of the child and the parent.
STORYCRAFTING IN THE STORYRIDE PROJECT
The Storycrafting method has been used most extensive in the
Storyride network project co-ordinated by Finnish National
Research and Development Centre for Welfare and Health (Stakes).
The project started in 1995 on collaboration with 23 Finnish
municipalities and professionals in social and health care,
parishes, individual day care centres and family day care units
and other institutions. The method for Storycrafting was further
developed in this network in order to record children's stories
and to construction of their own network of stories. The focus of
the project was, on the one hand, the paradigm dilemma, which
occurs between generations, children and adults, in society, in
the sciences, in children's institutions, and in cultural contexts.
On the other hand, the focus was on the stories that children told
to adults and their peers, the meaning adults attribute to these
stories, the position of children's independent initiatives in
everyday life in child services and in storytelling culture in
general.
Today the collaboration continues with universities, colleges, day
care centres and cultural organisations in Nordic countries. The
Nordic Council of Ministers have supported the project. In
addition, in 1999, the Storycrafting method was accepted as a
preferable therapeutic method in the European Network on promoting
Mental Health for 0 – 6-year-old children.
Target group of the
project
Storyride project is mainly implemented in local, regional and
national networks in five Nordic countries. In 1996 the project
became a network for children and adults in other Nordic countries.
In 1997 England and Greece joined to the network, and in 1998 did
Estonia. The follow up of the project was carried in 1995-1997,
but the activities continue and will spread ahead.
The project also involves parents, primary health care nurses,
teachers, child carers and other professionals in contact with
children. In Finland several thousands professionals have
participated in the training programs. The settings for the
implementation of the project have been manifold. The method have
been used e.g. in children's own homes with their parents and
grandparents, in crèches, clinical settings, nursery schools and
pre-school settings. Almost every room and space is appropriate
for the method: the sandbox, hall floor, playground, forest outing,
story room, etc.
Project objectives
Main objective of the project has been to create children's
own network by creating direct contacts between children. The
children are given the opportunities to produce their own culture,
which is documented and published. In addition children's thoughts
and initiatives are listened to and taken seriously. Children play
an influential role and can concentrate on matters they regard as
important. Another objective is to prevent problems (children at
risk) and create possibilities to intervention through positive
action.
The project also includes a specific developmental tool for
changing working habits. The aim is to find new ways of listening
to children. By listening to children professionals get to know in
a personal way the children with whom they are working with.
Another aim is to create means to include children in the planning
and implementation of activities. The project tries to open the
eyes and ears of the adult towards the individual child and create
a deeper understanding of childhood and children.
When a child or a group of children have told a story of their own
choice it will be sent to another group of children in a different
day care centre, school, orphanage etc. in the own country or
abroad. There the story mail is read and the new listeners tell
their own response which is then sent back to the original group.
Thus the story mail chain goes on its way.
Storycrafting and the network have opened up possibilities to use
creative methods in day care centres, schools and other
institutions. Children are also involved in working in groups when
they tell stories and listen to other children's stories. Children
experience how their own stories and spoken language is
transformed into letters and/or published texts. The communicative
function of language attains a personal meaning when children
listen to their own stories and those stories of other children
being read out loud. Children get their opportunity to hear other
children's thoughts from different parts of their own country and
abroad.
The professionals participating the Storyride have meetings with
other Storycrafting educators to exchange their experiences. The
project also involves counselling. Storycrafting educators
encourage others in their area to join in the project.
Storycrafting educators form their own networks maintaining
co-operation with various parties, e.g. library and hospitals.
This sort of collaboration has created joint responsibility for
the implementation of the project.
Evaluation of the project
The Storycrafting method and the Storyride project are based on
the evidence of latest scientific child research about the
marginal position of children in the community and their
inaudibility in child institutions (e.g. Riihelä 1989, 1991,
1996, 2000, Karlsson 1999, 2000, James & Prout 1990, Bruner
& Haste 1990/1996, Qvortrup 1994, Corsaro 1997, Alanen 1992).
Recent research on learning, education and prevention is also
applied as a supporting framework (e.g. Karlsson & Riihelä
1991, Rauste-v.Wright 1999, Bruner 1996, Cole 1996).
In spring 1995, interviews took place with professionals in
pre-school and early education. These professionals were from
network of 13 early education development centres in the so-called
Somersault Ride project. These interviews showed that, amongst
other things, they wanted to develop ways to listen to children in
educational activities, as well as in other work with children. In
addition, there was a search for some kind of common thread
through all the development centres' activities. They wanted
methods which would allow children to spontaneously express their
thoughts and ideas as part of their daily routines in day care
centres, pre-school and early education, and also in the daily
planning activities. In addition, there was a desire for some
co-operation with families.
To satisfy these hopes and expectations, we began to give training
in the Storycrafting method and to build up the Storyride network.
From the research point of view, also the story project was taken
as a measure of quality: the plan was to observe how the
participating adults' relationship to their own work would change
during these two years. The children would be able to conduct
conversation within the framework of their own network. At the
same time a concrete forum for discussion was created for the
personnel.
At a meeting of the participants the Storycrafting idea was
received with comments like the following: "Good, a concrete
tool. This is just what is wanted." "An excellent way to
develop your own work." "Just great when the content in
the network comes from the children. The focus is child-centred."
The opinions of the children's parents concerning Storycrafting
and the project was also taken into account and their permission
was obtained for their children's participation.
Liisa Karlsson (1999, 2000) has been the main researcher on the
Storyride project. The research included qualitative and
quantitative evaluation on the process and effects. The method has
shown considerable positive results and as a consequence:
The children's own initiatives and thoughts are now heard and seen
in an other way than earlier.
The children's self-confidence, self-knowledge and self-esteem
have increased.
The children have become courageous enough to be spontaneous and
to take the initiative.
The children and adults have been pleased with and enjoyed the
activity.
The group spirit has increased (Storycrafting is a fast and
efficient tool for getting acquainted).
The staffs' attitudes and practices have become more observable to
the child.
The personnel have begun to appreciate children's thoughts and
become more sensitive to listening to the children.
Activities are developed on the basis of children's ideas and with
the children.
The adults' ability to move into conversation with children has
improved.
Using the method has had preventive effects and has also dealt
with existing problems.
Children are activated e.g. children with dysphasia diagnosis have
begun to use significantly more speech and to communicate more
(Kemppainen 2001). In addition, storycrafting is as positive way
to talk about difficult matters, e.g. discussions about custody
have been started with a story chosen and told by the child. Many
professional groups in seven countries have experienced the method
as being suitable for their own work.
There are certain features of the project that are primarily
responsible for the success of this project. One feature is that
the simple, easy and inexpensive method is used over a prolonged
period. In addition to the training of story adults, the costs
consist of pen, paper and possibly postal charges and an envelope.
The starting point of the method is the same, but its further
development is open to changes depending on the participants and
the context of the situation. Although the method is apparently
easy, it nevertheless requires that the adults should be trained /
initiated and they should understand the idea. This avoids
incorrect application, such as interpretation or correction of
stories or laughing at "silly stories". One important
feature of the project is that the professionals have contacts and
discussions with each other.
THE BACKGROUND OF THE STORYCRAFTING
METHOD
The traditional paradigm in child research and in practice
with children leads to many misunderstandings. But assuming that
the knowledge is dynamic leads also to an acceptance of children's
knowledge. The method focuses on a democratic dialog between the
child and the adult, with two sequences in stead of three, which
is typical for institutional settings (Riihelä 1996). In a
cultural aspect it could be observed, that it is not only the
adults who produce culture. Children do it as well and in their
own way, which in special occasions differs from adult's culture.
Real listening includes sharing of thoughts, experiences and
feelings. Children need to be seen and heard and to have
opportunities for participation.
The child has traditionally been considered inferior to the adult.
A child has to "grow up" in order to be big enough to
understand for example the intentions of other people. The adult
is the one that knows. It is difficult to break this
underestimating pattern according to children. The knowledge that
they already possess is often ignored. This becomes a problem for
many children to such an extent that they start feeling stupid and
ignorant. They feel they will never learn. The fact that the words
and the concepts used by children and those used by the educators
differ so much leads to misunderstandings and cause major problems.
This can result in a more or less conscious power struggle about
who is right and who is wrong. Children should have the
opportunity to use the knowledge they have already acquired in a
planned and conscious way in new situations. Children's thinking
contains, at a very early age the structure of the logic that
forms the base in adults' thinking. The ability to think, however,
develops differently in people. Through thought, notions are
combined with observations and experiences into multifaceted
constructions. Talking about own experiences are important part of
this process. Thought and action are linked with each other.
It has traditionally been thought that real theoretical thinking
is possible only after puberty. Traces of independent theoretical
thinking can, however, be found much earlier. As children learn to
speak during their second year, they have already used a vast
number of theoretical concepts when learning to construct
sentences from words and fitting them into coherent and relevant
interaction. But even much earlier, children interpret people's
expressions, voice tone and body language and draw their own
conclusions. Children learn very early to understand what others
want and they apply this knowledge to their own behaviour.
Superficially it appears that the child is simply imitating others
but nobody could manage to copy everything that comes. Children
independently select, from the wide range of alternatives, what
they want to apply to their own activities.
Many problems occur in the interaction between child and adults,
when adults ask questions and children have to answer them. The
children make efforts to guess the adult's aims, to do things
correctly, to give the kind of answer they presumed that the adult
wants.
Many children were suspicious of the interview (in my study about
the time concept and co-operative learning, in Riihelä 1989).
"Why do you ask me that when you know it yourself?" The
children gave answers based on what they felt about the question
and the situation in hand. If a question is designed in such a way
that it only had one correct answer, the adults with their facial
expressions gives hints to the children about which direction to
go in for the correct answer. In these situations the children's
answers are more an indication of social sensitivity than the
child's own thoughts.
The question of knowledge is broad. We have a lot of knowledge
about children and childhood. Adults sort these knowledge and
place parts of it in different "boxes". One part is our
own individual childhood experience, which is often found to be
too subjective to be useful in general terms. Other parts could be
about one's own children, about the neighbour's children, about
child development theories, about children's lives in Majority or
Minority countries. Some part of this knowledge is expressed in
written texts, but most of it is attained in everyday life, by
thinking, speaking, listening, and by sharing experiences. The
latter kind of knowledge belongs to the spoken languages. Life is
firstly experienced in a spoken language. Later on it can be
reflected in written texts.
I'll give you an example from the Storyride project. A
five-year-old boy, named John, loves to tell stories to his
teacher, who is a good listener. She writes the stories down,
reads them aloud, and gives John the possibility to correct them.
The stories are born in companionship, in the shared world of
telling and retelling. These stories have turned out to be
different from one another. There seems to be an endless diversity
in the way you can express yourself using stories. And this
diversity is as wide in the stories of small children as in those
of older.
But to get back to John, he is so interested in Storycrafting that
he makes approximately ten stories per day. In only two years John
have told over 700 different stories. Comparing John's 700 stories
with what we know from developmental psychology about the stages
and skills of 5- and 6-year-old children, or about the optimal
vocabulary of children at this age, we will have two pieces of
knowledge about John which are impossible to join together.
General knowledge about 5 to 6-year-olds gives a very tame
impression of John's abilities compared to what he is capable of
telling about himself through his own stories. Theories and facts
about human development in general are in deep contrast with
people's own ways of looking at their lives.
The profundity of the spoken language opens wide vistas into the
variety of shared experiences in human life. This story from the
Storycrafting video, told by Niko 6 years, is a good example of
the many ways children combine together issues that the adults
don't associate together. In addition, the main characters in the
story can move very fast and in a surprising way from one place to
another. " … Bopman drank electric coffee … Mökelö had
some tea and Bopman electric tea." And suddenly: "They
decided to go skating and aeroplanning and fly to
America.""Mökelö was in the forest. He met Bopman
there. They started to collect mushrooms into the rucksack. They
decided to go skating and aeroplanning and fly to America. It's
winter there. They made a snowman. – Don't then laugh at me!
Then they went to the swimming pool – and to the shop to buy
popcorn, sweeties, milk and coffee, and Bopman drank electric
coffee. They wanted to go to the florist, too, after which they
went aeroplanning to Europe. It was raining in Europe, and they
left for home. At home Mökelö had some tea and Bopman electric
tea. The end!"Perhaps spoken language and shared experiences
are the main path to understanding human behaviour. I would like
to underline the importance of cultural psychology in
understanding of childhood (see Bruner 1996). The difficulty in
speaking about culture in the psychological sense is that there
are so many cultures: not only nations, or the groups within
nations, but even every family has its own culture and in the
family every member belongs also to other cultures. There are many
cultures that we do not know yet. The vast material of children's
own stories shows that we have neglected one kind of literary
culture: children's own story-literature. One reason for this
neglect is found in how we define teaching and learning,
upbringing and education.
There is widespread agreement that teaching is to "give"
skills and knowledge and learning is to receive them. We need a
paradigm shift of 180° degrees. To illustrate what happens when
you shift the view in the opposite direction I will give an
example from another field. 500 years ago there was a well-known
conformity about the position of the Earth and the Sun. Almost
everybody knew that the Sun circles the Earth. But Galileo made
meticulous calculations about the movements of the planets in the
sky and he proved, as we know, the opposite. Today it is still
difficult to believe in Galileo's arguments, because every evening
you can see with your own eyes that the sun sets, circles around
the Earth and comes back at the opposite side of the horizon the
next morning. There will be a similar paradigm shift regarding the
relationship between adults and children, between teaching and
learning. I will say that we got to know from the experiences of
the Storycrafting method that the function of teaching and
learning is probably the opposite of the traditional understanding.
Telling one's own stories seems to be a way of teaching. Children
teach teachers and other children to listen, to be sensitive to
the thoughts and feelings of the storyteller. Children teach
adults to share the very moment the child has decided to express.
The teacher will know something about the child or the group of
children that is not yet written in any theory or in any
curriculum. And the teacher is in fact learning. He who has to
teach should sit down to learn, and he who has to learn should
stand up to teach in order to learn and get a deeper understanding
of the subject.
Children's culture of Storycrafting as an
agent of change in intergenerational discourse
The stories told by children are traditionally treated as an
indication of how they, the children, are getting on in their
personal development, and how they develop their skills in
handling words and concepts in the "right" way. A
paradigm shift is also necessary to understand children's own
storytelling culture as a part of the field of human culture,
which is created by people of all ages, genders, and cultures.
Children's own culture has long been hidden, and the aim here is
to achieve for it a legitimate space in the arena of human
interaction and culture.
The generation problem has similar features to the gender question.
Not until women themselves started to give their own meanings to,
for example, historical and linguistic questions did the
differences and similarities between the genders become visible (Bogdan-Biklen
1992). There was a shift in both focus and method of the research.
However, children will never be as interested in academic
investigation as men and women, so we have to be conscious that
there is no chance of obtaining the perspectives of children in
"pure" forms.
According to Peter Moss' analysis (1997, p. 23), seeking for an
alternative paradigm for understanding work with small children
means that the central question deals with diversity and democracy.
Using the paradigm of diversity, limited participation will be
replaced by broad access to the process of definition, power
concentration will give way to power distribution, few voices will
make way for many, and an assumption of rational objectivity will
be challenged by recognition of the essential subjectivity of the
process (Pence & McCallum, 1994).
Some theoretical models have been set out in investigations
(Nelson 1986, Corsaro 1997) which observe children's democratic
and subjective position both in the context of research and in
practice. Key concepts to be used are the collective sharing of
positive power, and the concepts of children's personal culture
and their personal views on the environment in child services. We
intend to seek ways to identify the conditions that permit
children to act in a democratic intergenerational situation and to
be understood in their own way.
The open process of the Storycrafting methods gives space for
children's independent initiatives. Children's own stories, from
this viewpoint, have been largely ignored in previous
investigations. We speak of children's culture, but we do not mean
the culture created by the children themselves. Additionally,
children's institutions are maintained for children, but
children's spontaneous striving to build their own meanings,
stories, and activities, has been largely unquestioned. Children's
viewpoints have received little attention up till now.
Interaction that includes Storycrafting and documentation still
does not, in itself, create the potential for achieving fresh
diversity and democracy in the relationship between generations.
Professionally-created, official, institutionalised scripts reduce
children's rights to act spontaneously as subjects in their own
daily lives, alongside adults and their culture (Riihelä 1996,
73). Children are treated as the target of examination or
professional work in service provision. In fact the basis of
reciprocal dialogue in social interaction imply sensitivity to
listen, and a readiness to take part in developing scripts which
are individual and collaborative, within peer groups, and between
generations. Elements in the formation of the children's subject
position include the view of children as active individuals
guiding their own culture, the view of knowledge as a dynamic
process. At the root of these viewpoints are for the counterparts
listening for one another's expectations, intentions, and
producing of a joint script.
The method of Storycrafting (in Finish: "saduttaa", in
Swedish: "sagotera") could be a joyful bridge across not
only the gaps between teachers and pupils, but also across the gap
between cultures and between everyday life and sciences. Heraklit
assumed 2500 years ago that you are able to descend into the same
river only once. Life is like a stream. Some of the processes in
life are translated into stories. And the spoken stories are all
different. Possibly the heart of the quality in childhood services
is not to be found in individual skills and knowledge, but between
people in suddenly passing moments of collectively told narratives.
Children need the freedom to play, investigate and try, make
mistakes and correct them and choose where and with whom to apply
their curiosity, intellect and emotions without anybody
synchronising or dimensioning their work in a random manner. At
the same time, however, children are able to participate in broad
and active interaction.
Static versus dynamic notion of knowledge
In the past it was sufficient, as a measure of learning, to
know parts of holy texts by heart and to be able to read passably.
Learning was based on authority and learning by heart. The notion
of knowledge skills has become more complex and current teaching
is often even accused of excessive theoretical and knowledge
emphasis. Demands for reducing the amount of knowledge and
increasing practicality have been expressed. Nevertheless,
knowledge as well as emotion and action are important. When
children act happily while learning new things, the amount of
knowledge increases rather than decreases. One could also think
that knowledge in itself is not meaningful but what is important
is to know how knowledge is be constructed. (See Karlsson &
Riihelä 1991.)
A static notion of knowledge leads to a passive attitude to
knowledge. It is considered to be an unchanging unit of
information that the learner simply receives. This notion has been
challenged by a new demand to develop education and teaching in a
way that would be based on a different kind of idea, a dynamic
notion of knowledge. Static knowledge is either right or wrong.
Facts and classifications are emphasised in the learning. The
static notion of knowledge does not take account of the life
conditions of the learner. The child is given a few opportunities
to apply the new knowledge to his or her own life. The learning
process becomes a superficial cramming of details which rarely
leads to a mastery of the whole and thinking is limited to
learning from memory.
The static notion of knowledge has been important for the transfer
of the culture. The static notion of knowledge is also
subordinating. It lacks criticality and its reliability is not
questioned. Static does signify durability, something that is
lasting and at rest.
In the teaching of mathematics for instance, there is seldom paid
enough attention to the fact that numbers represent the
relationship between a measure and what is being measured. One can
most easily remember the abstract meaning of numbers. "Two
times two is four, is it not? If the reader is certain that this
is an absolute, incontestable truth, he will never become a good
mathematician but in the best case a good counter... Truth is
absolute only when you multiply (or add) abstract units (such as
written symbols) or objects that are more or less identical:
building blocks, balls or other 'absolutely hard' impermeable
pieces. Let us combine two lots of two drops of water. Whatever
the result is, it will hardly be four. Maybe it will be one drop
of water, maybe 44 small pearls of water. Two times two is four
only provided that what is being multiplied consists of such
particles of material that will not change as a result of this
operation..... The incompatibility between calculated and actual
numbers is a sign to a physicist of some previously unknown
phenomenon occurring during the experiment which, through its
unanticipated nature, has made the calculations null and void."
(Iljenkov 1984.)
According to the dynamic notion of knowledge, knowledge is correct
only in certain circumstances. Dynamic does in fact signify
something based on action, something vigorous that functions
through its own energy. Knowledge is seen as relative. Our
knowledge changes and develops. Earlier theories are refuted or
adjusted until it is shown that a new theory is only one certain
point of view of whatever is being researched. The development of
science means an increase in the scientific image of the world.
Galileo's conception of the world was better than that of Ptolemy
simply because it covers a wider spectrum.
Every person, child or adult applies the knowledge he or she has
constructed. A certain statement is truthful when looked upon and
justified from a certain angle. A lie or a misconception is borne
from a different angle than a correct piece of information. Angles
vary ad infinitum and justifications may often seem insufficient
and even incorrect to another person. When a child claims that
night arrives when the sun sets into a cloud, it is consistent
with the observation that, during a sunny day, there are clouds on
the horizon behind which the sun disappears in the evening. This
observation by a child is very important to him or herself as well
as to others since the mode of observation illuminates a certain
angle of events to do with the sunset. When another child offers
another idea of how night begins, a debate might follow and
possibly also the need for further study. This is an example in
which case children are given the opportunity to deal with a
subject from their own starting points while exploiting their own
experiences. Dynamic knowledge evolves according to the user and
is pertinent to the situation in which the knowledge is being used.
Regularities in change will be studied, theories formed and
applied. In other words, there is an on-going quest for the
correlation between the different bits of knowledge.
Unexpected points of view often crop up in children's comments, as
illustrated by children's stories heard and collected by Kornei
Chukovsky (1975):
" - Now the horse has put its tail on and is going out for a
walk. Mother hears this and interrupts: - You can't remove a
horse's tail and put it back on again. It grows out of the horse.
The daughter answers: - You are stupid mother, I'm playing!"
" - I'm losing my patience with you, mother shouted nervously.
- It doesn't matter, I'm good at finding things that have been
lost, answered the lively boy."
" - Where have you come from? the mother asks her son. - Why
do you ask that, you gave birth to me yourself."
A dynamic conception of knowledge is unequivocally associated with
skills, emotions, equality, imagination and reflection. We should
try to find such structures of knowledge that would help us to
understand the changing world.
Dynamic knowledge is adopted through the processing of thinking.
Experience and reasoning take turns. Culture is transferred and
adapted to fulfil the needs of the following generation. Knowledge
is accentuated through active search. Creative learning and
thinking skills becomes the aims of education and teaching.
Today the interest in context-based research is increasing, but
there are great difficulties in comprehending the child’s world.
When we try to gain insight into children’s and adults’ shared
social activities through research and written reports, what
invariably remain concealed are the children’s own experiences
and their orally expressed knowledge of particular situations.This
problem directs us to one of the main problems in child research,
namely to the application of theoretical orientations that does
not understand children as subjects, but objects of adults'
activities. Objectification has a long tradition which emphasises
general, written and context-free knowledge at the expense of
local, oral and empirical (Toulmin 1999). Using traditional
concepts of knowledge prevents particularly children's
participation in both the production of research knowledge and in
the organisation of practical work.
The usual situation is that different professionals are trying
help a child, e.g. to support John in his learning problems. The
focus is on John, who is set in the centre. Both John and his
parents are interviewed to gain deeper understanding about the
situation. Different professionals are involved to examine the
situation and they all are expressing their opinions about
possible solutions. In this way, John is being examined from
different view points, beginning from different disciplines and
theoretical backgrounds. Everybody sees John differently, and
John's own opinions are just one small part of the whole totality.
This collected information is used to create the strategy for
solving the problems.
The focus becomes different when the child is not in the centre
anymore, but the question is more about the producer of the
knowledge in the situation. The problem is approached on focusing
on what knowledge and whose knowledge is used or left unused in
research, education and teaching. Knowledge is taken to include
not only scientific and cognitive knowledge, but also such things
as experience, perception, and feeling. No matter on what age or
developmental phase the person is, everybody has experiences and
knowledge related to his or her own life. One can justifiably
claim that even before birth and before the speech phase, children
have experiences, perceptions and feelings.
The question "What or whose knowledge is used / not used?"
can be answered on the basis of many theoretical reflections and
thoughts. To solve John's problem one could jointly examine the
situation where the problems are visible. A certain episode, e.g.
failure in mathematics class could be examined: one could
investigate the learning environment, and who's experiences and
knowledge is being applied in the class. How is the air in the
class room, does it include a lot of carbon dioxide? Have the
teacher and the children eaten enough, have they had enough rest
and hysical exercise to improve their concentration and cognitive
skills? Are children only doing calculations that the teacher
introduces or are the problems based on children's questions and
interests? Is the teacher the one who is talking in the class or
are children having a dialogue with each other? Who are paying
attention to John's problems? The teacher, classmates or John
himself? Are there some misunderstandings between people that are
related to John's problems? Does other children see Johns problem
as a problem or is it only teatcher's observation? Does John have
problems in his perception, problems that may prevent him seeing
and understanding things the similar way as the other children?
The laws of nature including chaos and change are crucial sources
of human knowledge. It depends on the given situation to what
extent some parts of the natural phenomenon becomes the focus of
examination. Furthermore, knowledge is produced by, on the one
hand, the child and the child group and on the other, by adult and
the adult group. And still, both child and adult communities
produce knowledge.
When research focuses on the producers of knowledge (in the broad
sense), children and adults are offered the chance for a
non-objectifying dialogue and the shaping of shared knowledge. In
child-related research the biggest problem is to render visible
and significant the knowledge of child and childhood.
Research (Riihelä 2000) has been based on the knowledge gained
through listening to children’s stories. Work with children was
arranged in a new way so that in the day care centre all the
children were asked to tell their own stories. Their narratives
and their thoughts were transcribed as such, and were used on
different occasions, for instance when the adults were planning
the activities with the children. That is because the children do
not usually tell the story of their lives, instead they tell a
story that is specific and intended for the situation at that
moment. This Storycrafting method, which respects children’s own
knowledge and experience, has opened up a new channel of
interaction, which gives the floor also to children.It was
interesting to follow Johanna’s expression when the teacher read
her story out loud to the whole group. Johanna had been heard her
own story already many times. But never the less she even in the
front of the video camera entered deeply into the plot. In the
moment when the dragon in the story is showing its teeth, she
touches her own set of teeth with her tongue. The Storycrafting
method provides an open situation. There are no rules that the
participants would not be aware of. The rules are also set so that
either the adult or the child can follow them. The adult has
specified the framework for the activity in advance. During the
activity, the rules, that is the progress of the story, its plot
and narrative style, are at the disposal and control of the child
or the group themselves.
Material produced on the Storycrafting
project
Karlsson, L. (fi) 1996. Satuverkon kutojat. Aiheita,
STAKES 31/ 96.
Karlsson, L. (sv) 1996. Barnperspektiv och barnkultur:
Sagofärden. Aiheita, STAKES 32/ 1996.
Karlsson, L. (sv) 1996. Sagofärden, barnets eget
sagonätverk- barnperspektiv och barnkultur. Kvalitetsproject med barn
rapport 1/1996. In Med rötter i klassisk-humanistisk kultur. Nordisk
Ministerråd.
Karlsson, L. (en) 1998. Giving the floor to children -
what happens when adults concentrate on listening to the child, pages
92-26 in Visible Child - invisible Quality, Themes 5/ 1998, STAKES.
Karlsson, L. 1999. (fi) Saduttamalla lasten kulttuuriin.
Ammattilaisverkostolla työn kehittämiseen yhdessä lasten kanssa.
Karlsson, L. 2000. (fi) Lapsille puheenvuoro.
Ammattikäytännöt murroksessa. Giving children the floor. Transition
in the tradition of professional practice. Helsingin yliopiston
käyttäytymispsykologian tutkimusyksikkö. Edita & Stake.
Kemppainen, K. (ed.) (fi) 1998. Kissa lähti kävelylle
ja hiiripiiri. Kotkan kaupunki.
This and the next book consist entirely of fairy tales told by
children.
Kemppainen, K. & Riihelä, M. 2000 (eds) (fi, sve,
da, is, no) Voitko olla? E du me mej? Voitko olla? E du me mej? Vil du
varæ med meg? Er du med mig? Viltu vera me'mm? Children tell their
stories in Finland and in the Nordic countries. Helsinki: Edita &
Stakes.
Riihelä, M. 1991. (fi) Aikakortit - tie lasten
ajatteluun. (Timecard - the way to children's thinking). Helsinki:
VAPK-kustannus.
Riihelä, M.1996. (en) How do we deal with children's
questions. Semantic aspects of encounters between children and
professionals in child institutions.Stakes. Saarijärvi: Gummerus
Kirjapaino oy.
Riihelä, M. 1996 - 1998. (ed.) A newspaper of
children's stories in five Nordic languages Lasten satulehti (four
issues). STAKES, Porvoo: Uusimaa Oy.
Riihelä, M. 1998 (en) Children and adults share the
world in stories, pages 61-65 in Visible Child - invisible Quality,
Themes 5/ 1998, STAKES.
Riihelä, M. 2000. (en) Playing researchers, Filminova,
Edita & Stakes.
Riihelä, M. 2001. (en) Storycrafting -video with
handbook. Stakes.
Rutanen, N.1999. (en) What do children tell in their own
stories? Narrative Inquiry
vol 9.1.
Rutanen, N. 2000. (fi) Kivi ois muurahaiselle vuori.
Edita & Stakes. Various day
care centres' and other locations' home-made storybooks and story
walls.
Various master's thesis from Finnish Universities
Other references
Alanen, L. 1992. Modern childhood? Exploring the 'child
question' in sociology. University of Jyväskylä. Reports A:50.
Applebee, A. N. 1978. The Child's Concept of Story.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Bogdan, R. & Biklen, S. 1992. Qualitative research
in education. Needham Heights: Simon & Schuster.
Bruner, J. 1996. The culture of education. Second ed.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J. & Haste, H. 1990. Introduction. In J.
Bruner & H. Haste (eds.). Making sense. The child's construction
of the world. Rev. ed. London: Routledge, 1 - 25.
Chukovsky, K. 1975. Från två till fem år. Om barns
språk, dikt och fantasi. Övers-våla: Tofters tryckeri ab.
Cole, M. 1996. Cultural psychology: a once and future
discipline. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Corsaro, W. A. 1997. The sociology of childhood.
California: Pine Forge Press.
Iljenkov, E. 1984. Opi ajattelemaan oikein. Helsinki:
KSL-Offset.
Karlsson, L. & Riihelä, M. 1991. Ajattelu alkaa
ihmetyksestä. Ryhmätyöstä yhteistoiminnalliseen oppimiseen.
Helsinki: Valtion Painatuskeskus.
Qvortrup, J. 1997. A voice for children in statistical
and social accounting: A plea for children's right to be heard. In A.
James & A. Prout (eds.). Constructing and reconstructing childhood.
Contemporary issues in the sociologycal study of childhood. London:
Falmer Press, 85 - 106.
Moss, P. 1997. The Paradigm of Quality.
Nelson, K. 1986. Event knowledge: Structure and function
in development. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Pence, A. & McCallum, M. 1994. Developing Cross
Cultural Partnerships: Implications for Child Care Quality Research
and Practice. In Moss P. & Pence A. (eds.) Valuing Quality.
London: Paul Chapman.
Pitcher, J. & Prelinger, E. 1963. Children tell
stories. New York: International Universities press.
Prout, A., & James, A. 1990. A New Paradigm for the
Sociology of Childhood? Provenance, Promise and Problems. In James, A.
& Prout, A. (eds.) Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood:
Contemporary Issues in the Sociological Study of Childhood. London:
The Falmer Press, 7-34.
Toulmin, S. E. 1999. Knowledge as shared procedures. In
Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen & R-L. Punamäki (eds.). Perspectives
on activity theory. Cambridge University Press, 53 - 64.
Rauste-von Wright, M. 1999. The function of curriculum
and the concept of learning. (In print.)
Riihelä, M. 1989. Lasten ryhmäoppiminen ja aikakäsite
koulupsykologin työn kohteena. Kouluhallituksen julkaisuja 20.
Helsinki: Valtion painatuskeskus.
The video text: children's
stories
To the top
To the beginning of the children are
telling pages
Contact person:
