Children’s participation in a school-preparation letter activity

Introduction

In Norway, a good transition and collaboration between pre-school and school has become an important education policy goal (Ministry of Education and Research, 2016). After a decade with focus on this issue, every pre-school has established routines for cooperation between pre-school and school, and all pre-schools emphasize school-preparation activities (hereafter SPA) (Lillejord et al., 2015; Rambøll Management, 2010; Sivertsen et al., 2015). SPA refer to various activities among the oldest children in pre-school (5- to 6-year-olds), and they are often called school starters. The focus is promoting a social community among the children and the social competences, knowledge and abilities the children need when entering primary school (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2017a). The future perspective is an important contextual frame for SPA, since pre-school is a part of the educational system and a starting point for lifelong learning as a political aim (Ministry of Education and Research, 2013, 2016; Rambøll Management, 2010).

Although the organization of SPA differs between countries, many preparatory activities are much the same across Europe. SPA include visits to the primary school, meeting with the future teacher, aesthetic and thematic (long-term) projects, a focus on social and practical skills relevant to school, and the building of solid friendships (Ackesjö, 2013; Corsaro and Molinari, 2005; Huf, 2013; Lappalainen, 2008; Sivertsen et al., 2015). There are, however, limited empirical studies of children’s partaking in SPA. On one side, children take part in educational institutions and are part of an institutional practice, which imposes certain restrictions and predetermined activities such as doing SPA. On the other side, children are active and competent agents that can influence relations, decisions and structures of activities through individual and collective actions (Hardman, 2001; James and Prout, 2015; Mayall, 2002).

This study concentrates on data from Norway. The Norwegian context is interesting since SPA are widespread and debated, but there is scarce research about SPA. First, 98% of all 5-year-olds go to pre-school (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2017b), and at ‘every’ pre-school, the school starters form an exclusive group and practice SPA, often for some hours or a day each week (Rambøll Management, 2010; Sivertsen et al., 2015). Cross-sectional surveys have described and given an overview of the content of SPA (Rambøll Management, 2010; Sivertsen et al., 2015; Zambrana, 2015), but it is also important to study how children participate with peers and the pre-school teacher in SPA, and how pre-school teachers facilitate SPA. Second, pre-schools should care for children and support play activities, while laying the foundation for lifelong learning and skills development (Lillejord et al., 2015). This dual expectation is central to debates about the room for play versus structured activities in pre-school, about making pre-school compulsory for 5-year-olds and on the content of the final year (Haug, 2013; Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2017b). Pre-schools have substantial freedom when deciding about SPA, but several policy documents have argued that the framework plan should be more explicit on the content and organization of SPA (Ministry of Education and Research, 2013, 2016). Research can inform discussions about SPA, and this study will illustrate some ways children take part in SPA, and how pre-school teachers organize and support children in SPA.

The data used in the article were from a 7-month fieldwork in a pre-school called Apple Garden. Various forms of SPA took place on a weekly basis, such as activities focused on letters, numbers and drawing, special projects, regular walks and longer trips. Apple Garden was dedicated to learning how to spell the children’s names, and a letter-based activity was practised regularly. Children’s contributions and the collective of school starters were emphasized both in the letter activity and other SPA at Apple Garden. The empirical part of the article will describe the diversity of SPA at Apple Garden, and it will give a fine-grained analysis of children’s participation in the letter activity over time.

The research question is as follows: How do children participate in a school-preparation letter-based activity? Studying children’s participation involves an examination of how 12 children take part in, interact and contribute to the letter activity. The analytic concepts participation framework and stancetaking are central to the analysis of three video excerpts. The social aspect of the activity is important, and in addition to spelling names, the children compete and support each other, and construct playful action when puzzling out their names.

Literature review

Previous studies on SPA have included quantitative studies, interview studies and observation studies. The future perspective is an important contextual frame for SPA, and some quantitative-oriented studies on SPA in European countries have been about the transition from pre-school to school and later school achievement (Barnett, 1996; Corsaro and Molinari, 2005; Lago, 2014). In Norway, cross-sectional surveys and interviews have informed about the distribution and content of SPA (Rambøll Management, 2010; Sivertsen et al., 2015; Zambrana, 2015). In these studies, pre-school managers and teachers reported a broad understanding of the aims of SPA, and key areas included social and practical competences and basic skills (colours, letters and numbers). Moreover, ‘all’ pre-schools practised various forms of SPA on a regular/weekly basis, and letter-based activities were common. There were variations in the organization of SPA between pre-schools, and variations as regards children’s participation in SPA (Rambøll Management, 2010; Sivertsen et al., 2015; Zambrana, 2015).

Studies on SPA in other European countries have taken an ethnographic approach. Pre-school teachers and children were observed doing SPA and priming events, and the children were interviewed about their anticipations and experiences regarding the transition to school. These studies showed that preparatory activities helped children to make sense of their future school context, that more time was allocated for play in pre-school than in the first year of school, that pre-school teachers were perceived as guides and supporters for the activities in pre-school, and that children were motivated by what they would do in school (Ackesjö, 2013; Corsaro and Molinari, 2005; Lago, 2014; Lappalainen, 2008). Huf’s (2013) study in Germany and the United Kingdom, and Corsaro and Molinari in Italy (2005) argued that collective routine activities in pre-school were important for a positive entry into school. Corsaro and Molinari (2005) observed that Italian children’s participation in SPA/priming events were positive in terms of adjusting to new rules, schedules and participation structures in school. They also pinpointed that SPA prime children for school, especially as a group of peers preparing for the transition together.

Prior ethnomethodological-oriented video-based studies in pre-school and school have focused on language and interaction. An Australian study showed how 4-6 year old children used language and pre-existing rules to control the interactions of their peers (Cobb-Moore et al., 2009). Another Australian study of children aged 4-5 years examined competition and collaboration in a peer group (Theobald and Reynolds, 2015). A Swedish pre-school study investigated peer interaction among children at the computer during free play (Bevemyr and Björk-Willén, 2016). In Israel, pre-schoolers displayed both discursive conventions from the adult culture and child-unique argumentative techniques (Zadunaisky Ehrlich and Blum-Kulka, 2010). A study of school girls in the United States found that peer conversations built both social organization and argumentation competences (Goodwin, 1990). A Swedish study of primary school children and second-language conversations found playful recyclings, like metapragmatic play, to be recurrent features in the classroom (Cekaite and Aronsson, 2004).

The previous Norwegian studies on SPA have mainly gathered information from pre-school managers and pre-school teachers. Using a combination of video recordings and field notes, the empirical data in this research project can answer other research questions about how SPA are practised and how children take part in and influence SPA. Studies from other countries have focused on children’s contributions as active and competent agents in pre-school (Bevemyr and Björk-Willén, 2016; Cobb-Moore et al., 2009; Corsaro, 2015; Zadunaisky Ehrlich and Blum-Kulka, 2010), and this article will build on these studies when analysing the social interaction that is unfolding between children and between adults and children during a school-preparation letter-based activity.

Peer culture and participation framework

Peers refer to a cohort or group of children who spend time together on an everyday basis (Corsaro, 2015). Children’s peer culture is a stable set of activities or routines, artefacts, values and concerns that children produce and share, and it is public, collective and performative (Corsaro, 2015; Goffman, 1974). In children’s peer culture, their social relations unfold, including their friendships, joy, humour, creativity and play, community spirit and peace. Also conflicts, disputes, social differentiation and alliances take place (Corsaro, 2015; Goodwin, 1990; Kyratzis, 2004). The notion interpretive reproduction places focus on children as a social group of participants, who both create and innovate through their participation, as well as contribute to cultural production and change (Corsaro, 2015). At the same time, interpretive reproduction implies that children are constrained by the existing social structure, such as those found in educational institutions.

Studying children’s participation means examining how they take part in and contribute actively to a situation, event or process, which further opens up possibilities of studying social organization among peers and their relations to adults (Corsaro, 2015; James and Prout, 2015). Children assert complex social competences, and they deal with and respond to adult-imposed rules through play, humour, creativity and rebellion (Corsaro, 2015; Goodwin, 1990; Hutchby and Moran-Ellis, 1998; Powell et al., 2006). Children might seek to use ‘holes’ in the adult structure to exert an influence on activities of their own (Mayall, 2002; Powell et al., 2006).

The analytic concept participation framework can be useful when studying children’s participation. Introduced by Goffman (1974) and developed by Goodwin and Goodwin (2004), the notion is a means of analysing interactional positions in a group. Speakers and hearers join in a common course of action, and talk is systematically modified to account for the hearer. This encompasses not only linguistic structure in the stream of speech but also prosody and embodied action in a range of different ways (Goodwin, 2017). With such a framework, it is possible to analyse how peers orient towards each other and take different opportunities to participate in the activity (Corsaro, 2015; Goodwin, 2007).

Stance is referred to as an intersubjective, emergent and public activity (Du Bois, 2007). Linguistic expressions and embodied actions open up for the opportunity to see stancetaking as a resource that participants use to accomplish social action (Goodwin, 2007; Hutchby and Moran-Ellis, 1998). Stancetaking represents a detailed way of studying participation. Stance can be understood as disjunctive, and several types of stance have been suggested (Du Bois, 2007; Du Bois and Kärkkäinen, 2012; Goodwin, 2007; Goodwin and Goodwin, 2004). This article places an emphasis on epistemic stance and affective stance. Epistemic stance is when participants are positioning themselves so they can appropriately experience, properly perceive, grasp and understand relevant features of the events in which they are engaged (Goodwin, 2007). Affective stance is emotions towards others that are generated by the organization of participation in interaction, often necessary to keep the activity proceeding and often accompanied with intonations, gestures and body postures (Goodwin, 2007).

Methods

The data were from a fieldwork in Apple Garden pre-school. Twelve 5- to 6-year-old children were video-recorded when practising SPA from November to May. In all, 37 hours of video recordings were collected. All pre-school teachers and children gave their informed and written consent to participate (the parents on behalf of their children). The group of children was heterogeneous with regard to ethnic background and gender, comprising six girls and six boys. The pre-school teachers Evelyn and Elsa were in charge of SPA. All participants were anonymized in publications from the project. The research project was ethically approved by the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (NSD).

Various forms of SPA took place indoor and outdoor. A first step in the analysis of data consisted of creating a content log to get an overview of the data material (Heath et al., 2010). The content log then served as a starting point for categorizing various activities and looking through the recorded material, in search for features of organization, patterns and repetitions, or courses that seemed interesting. The field notes were used as supplements in this process.

The most common preparation activity was a letter-based activity that took place around a long table and focused on spelling the children’s names. One reason for studying the letter-based activity was that the recordings allowed for analyses of progress and change in the activity over time. A second reason was that the organization of the activity was beneficial for recording talk and embodied action between the children and with the pre-school teachers. A third reason was that the letter activity was carried out with the whole group of children. Like most other preparation activities at Apple Garden, the social aspect of the letter-based activity was important for the children’s engagement.

Analytically the article draws upon ethnomethodology (EM). A central topic for EM is the social practices of people in everyday situations, and the practices and methods people use for understanding, producing and maintaining a shared sense of social order (Garfinkel, 1967). An ethnomethodological view is useful in studying the everyday practices of children from within their own worlds and relates particularly to peer culture as an activity or routine that children produce and share collectively (Corsaro, 2015). Within EM, there is theoretical, methodological and empirical diversity, but conversation analysis (CA) has emerged as the most visible and influential form of ethnomethodological inspired research (Maynard and Clayman, 1991). When combining EM and CA, the interest lies in how participants interpret and respond to talk and actions as interaction progresses in a sequential manner, and in how the participants organize and make sense of their activities in a given social context (Francis and Hester, 2004; Garfinkel, 1967; Goodwin, 2007; Hutchby and Wooffitt, 2008). A reason for the concern with language use and embodied action is that people make use of talk and other sign systems connected to talk, such as gestures, gazes and body positions, when they carry out joint action. Both talk and embodied action are resources that the children use for participating in the activity and for managing social relations, and the analysis aims to show how the children orient towards each other and take different opportunities to participate in the activity (see also Corsaro, 2015; Goodwin, 2017; Goodwin and Goodwin, 2004).

Much of children’s activities are embodied, fast moving and highly complex, and video can help capture the complexity of the activities (Corsaro, 2015). In this study, the analysis of talk and embodied action in a letter-based activity provides a means to see into the details of children’s social worlds as they are being negotiated and constructed, and give some insight on how children organize and accomplish activities (Corsaro, 2015; Goodwin, 2007; Goodwin and Goodwin, 2004; Hutchby and Moran-Ellis, 1998).

The transcription of three video excerpts draws upon key CA concepts such as sequential, inferential and temporal order of talk (Francis and Hester, 2004). A simplified version of Jefferson’s (1984) transcription notation is used. The transcription notation was developed for exploring reconstruction of moment-by-moment interactions. A close exploration of sequences and actions in the three excerpts, as well as interactional features of talk and action, are presented. The original language is Norwegian, in which the excerpts were first analysed, and then translated into English. To describe the choreography of interacting bodies and the participants’ orientations to the material environment, line drawings are included with the transcripts. The drawings are representations of screenshots from the video (Melander, 2009).

The video recordings and transcripts used in the article were presented and discussed in several seminars, workshops and labs, in Norway and abroad. This was important to ensure that other researchers could confirm the findings.

Various forms of SPA

At Apple Garden, one or two weekdays were dedicated to SPA, and they called it the ‘School starter club’. The club would last 2 hours or a whole day, and four categories of activities were identified in the content log. One category of SPA was shorter trips to nearby forests or playgrounds. Another category was longer trips to a school, a farm, a museum and a recycle centre. A third category was special projects on energy (district heating, recycling and the making of a waterwheel), bonfire (collecting wood, making a bonfire and eating by the fire) and write dance (dancing and drawing pictures to music). A fourth category was regular activities focused on letters, numbers and drawing. The children wrote their names on a PC, and they performed an activity about clapping names and puzzle names regularly. There were activities with numbers and counting, and the children learnt plus and minus with a game called ‘Santa’s and buttons’. There was focus on pencil grip, and the children drew to different topics or did free drawing.

The collective of children was focused upon at Apple Garden, and all types of SPA (trips, projects, regular activities) were carried out with the whole group of children together. The children would cooperate and create various things together in the special projects and on their trips, and they were sometimes asked to draw pictures together from these experiences. In activities focused on drawing, numbers and letters, the seating at a long table or on the floor made it possible to follow the activities collectively. For example, the children often drew pictures inspired by each other, or they helped each other create parts in the pictures like raindrops, hearts or balloons. In write-dance sessions, they encouraged each other on the dance floor to do similar moves, and they decorated the walls with the drawings made to the music.

The pre-school teachers at Apple Garden also focused on children’s contributions. On shorter trips, the children influenced on decisions on where to stop for breaks and where to eat, and these days were dedicated to free play and physical activity. The pre-school teachers would initiate activities on club days, but most often they took a facilitating approach during the activities. The adults encouraged the children to be supportive and helpful to each other. At times the pre-school teachers had a more leading role in SPA, for example, when they talked about topics like waterwheels and recycling.

An in-depth analysis of a letter-based activity exemplifies how children participated in SPA at Apple Garden. The purpose of the letter activity was to prepare the children to recognize their own name on the desks, pegs, drawers and books to orient themselves in a new school area. On 12 occasions, the school starters sat and puzzled out their names with small pieces of paper marked with their letters. A central feature of the letter activity was the routine of introduction and procedure. The children were seated around the table, followed by the pre-school teachers handing out envelopes, and then the children and pre-school teachers clapped each child’s name. After this procedure, the children took out the letters to spell the names. Another central feature was the location of the letter activity at the long table that gathered all children as a group. Although each of the children did the puzzle individually, the closeness in space made it possible to follow other’s performances (see also Goodwin, 2017). This collective focus was the same whether the activity was a trip, a project, drawing, a number game or the letter activity.

Competition in the letter activity

Studies of children’s verbal debates and arguments have shown that conflicts and competition often serve to strengthen interpersonal alliances and to organize social groups (Corsaro, 2015; Goodwin, 1990; Kyratzis, 2004). The first excerpt from November was the third time the puzzle activity took place. Those present were the pre-school teachers Evelyn and Elsa, and the children Andrew, Alice, Adrian, Amy, Aaron, Andrea, Alfred, Allison, Arthur, Abigail and Alexander. As shown in excerpt 1, the children oriented to the activity as a competition and they formed alliances within the peer group (Figure 1).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Excerpt 1, line 24, Alice leans towards and looks at Adrian, Adrian looks back at Alice and nods his head, and Amy watches the two from the side-line.

In line 1, Evelyn opens the activity by giving an instruction, and the children respond by saying ‘Yeh’ and open their envelopes (line 2). Lines 12–20 show how the children are eager to complete the task first, and they mark this by saying ‘finished’. Amy states that she was the first to be done, smiling to the rest of the group (line 12). By uttering this, she orients to the situation as a competition and takes a stance as the ‘winner’ of the task (Du Bois, 2007; Goodwin, 1990). The affective stance by Amy triggers a response from Alfred, replying that the activity is not about finishing first (line 13). Here Alfred takes an epistemic stance about the activity. He explains what he sees as the purpose of this activity based on his prior knowledge from institutional talk about it (Du Bois, 2007; Melander, 2012). Amy responds to Alfred by looking down at her letters (line 14). Adrian, Aaron, Alice, Amy and Alfred also align with Amy, stating that they have finished the task (lines 15–20). The children seem to orient to the activity as a competition, and affective stances are recourses that the children use to engage in the activity (Goodwin, 1990; Melander, 2012). The children mark when they have completed the task, by saying ‘finished’ in a faster and louder way than their normal talk. This way of participating creates alignment among the peers regarding who are the quickest to complete the task.

Allison claims that also she finished first, while looking at Amy (line 21). She takes an affective stance where she positions herself among the winners. Andrew responds to this statement by uttering that Amy was done first (line 22), aligning with her. Alice joins in, claiming that she and Adrian were the first (line 23). Her embodied action displays her effort to align with Adrian, by leaning towards and looking at him. By saying ‘mm’ and nodding his head, Adrian supports Alice’s claim and aligns with her (line 24). Amy watches the two from the side-line (line 25). Alice replies by smiling to the other children, sharing her alignment with Adrian (line 26). Amy responds through an affective stance and claims that she was the very first to be done (line 27).

Evelyn says to the whole group that it is not a competition about finishing first, and she repeats this in a louder voice when Alice and Amy overlaps (lines 28–29). Alice overlaps loudly with a ‘no’ and disagrees with Amy and her claim (line 30). Amy protests by uttering ‘yes’ and looks straight back at Alice, also overlapping Evelyn’s talk (lines 31–32). The affective stances show how eager the two girls are to be first, and their embodied expressions also underline their eagerness and interaction as they bend forward and stare at each other. Then Amy makes an epistemic stance where she says that she has the shortest name, due to her knowledge about the number of letters in her name (line 33). A pause occurs (line 34). Then Evelyn again explains to all the children that it is not a competition about finishing first and that they all finish at different times because some have long names and some have short names (lines 35–36).

This excerpt shows that alignment and disalignment, through stancetaking, become central features of how the children participate. The competition is not easily won by one peer, but is argued over and discussed in the peer group, as an intersubjective and emergent activity (Corsaro, 2015; Du Bois, 2007). The letter-based activity entails more than just spelling names. It is also an activity where children get experience in debating, finding arguments, building alliances and competing, due to the organization of it in a bigger group. In other words, it builds argumentative competences (Goodwin, 1990; Zadunaisky Ehrlich and Blum-Kulka, 2010).

This excerpt shows how this group of peers actively and collectively interprets and reproduces the activity to contain a new aspect: the competition, which contrasts to doing it individually and correctly (Corsaro, 2015). Evelyn and some of the children try to balance the activity as non-competitive, but engaging into the activity by competing seems to create eagerness among the children. This may create a perception of the activity as more exciting. The competitive aspect might also be due to the activity’s focus on completing an individual task, in which early completion is the hallmark of a competent school starter.

Peer support in the letter activity

The competitive aspect became less and less prominent over time. The decreased interest in competing could be due to the children’s increased competence in letters and in spelling. Prior studies have shown that children provide support to each other (Corsaro, 2015), and the school starters were able to assist each other and contribute to each other’s fulfilling of the task. Excerpt 2 was from April, and the peers supported each other in achieving the spelling of Andrea’s name by the re-presentation of parts of a previous utterance (often called recycling) (Cekaite and Aronsson, 2004) (Figure 2). Those present were the pre-school teachers Evelyn and Elsa, and the children Amy, Andy, Alice, Adrian, Andrea, Aaron, Allison, Alfred and Abigail.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Excerpt 2, line 20, Alice looks at Andrea and spells Andrea’s name, and Amy watches Alice spelling and the letters.

Evelyn instructs the children to open their envelopes and take out their letters (line 1). Andrea is busy with spelling her name on the table (line 11). She notices that she has forgotten the R-letter and looks up at Evelyn and takes an epistemic stance to share this with her (line 12). Evelyn laughs and responds by saying both ‘Andea’ and ‘Andrea’ thereby illustrating the difference in the two names (line 13). Andrea and Evelyn form an alliance; Andrea seeks support for having noticed her wrong spelling, and Evelyn responds to her in a humorous mode. Andrew and Alice who sit opposite from Andrea recycle Andrea’s name, taking epistemic stances by putting weight on R to display the letter’s significance and to share her name in the correct way (lines 14–15). Evelyn overlaps with Alice and suggests that Andrea can put her R in the middle of her letters (line 16), which she does (line 17). Then Andrew recycles Andrea’s name again twice, leaving the A at the end out, but still placing an emphasis on R (line 18).

The recycling that Andrew, Andrea, Alice and Evelyn make might contribute to sensitize the children to both pragmatic and formal linguistic aspects of language use, but it might also contribute to expressing audience alignments (Cekaite and Aronsson, 2004; Goodwin and Goodwin, 2004). Andrew and Alice form an audience alignment with Andrea in which the sound of her name first is displayed in the right way, after which Andrew recycles the name without A and Andrea responds to Andrew by saying her name correctly ‘Andrea’. Andrea also adds ‘like that’ (line 19), taking an epistemic stance and showing that she now has spelled her name correctly.

Then Alice shows her knowledge by spelling Andrea’s name from across the table, emphasizing every letter while she points to them (line 20). Amy follows carefully from the other side of the table (line 21). Alice looks at Evelyn (line 22). By nodding and smiling, Evelyn supports and confirms the way Alice spelled the letters (line 23). Then Aaron, who is sitting next to Andrea, says ‘Yes (.) Andrea’, taking an epistemic stance in which, he places an emphasis on every letter. He displays that Andrea is now spelled correctly (line 24).

This excerpt shows how the children and Evelyn explore the letters in Andrea’s name. Without the R, the letters make another word – Andea. This recycling also exemplifies how meaning is intersubjectively constructed in different types of stancetaking, and how competences are distributed and shared across the group of peers (Du Bois, 2007; Goodwin and Goodwin, 2004). Children’s recycling may as well be regarded as strategic moves in their conversations to achieve communicative goals, such as display of shared interest and accomplishment of one-upmanship in their peer interactions (Corsaro, 2015; Goodwin, 2017). By taking stances and supporting each other’s utterances, the children form alliances around the table and explore the activity together (Du Bois, 2007).

Playfulness in the letter activity

Previous studies have found silly words and word play important in children’s interactions (Cekaite and Aronsson, 2004). More humorous and creative use of the letters was a central aspect of children’s way of participating and negotiating about the framework in the letter activity. Each time the children did the letter activity, they initiated a playful shift, such as to spell and read the name backwards or mixing the letters. Evelyn and Elsa always confirmed such shifts, but they also instructed that everyone had to finish spelling correctly first. This was an important mark of the rules and institutional structure in the letter activity.

There was room for playful and unserious activities after the ‘formal part’ of the letter activity. Excerpt 3 was from April, and it illustrated how the peers explored the frames of the activity by combining letters and making prolonged names (Figure 3). Those present were the pre-school teachers Evelyn and Elsa, and the children Amy, Andrew, Alice, Adrian, Andrea, Aaron, Alfred and Abigail.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 3.

Excerpt 3, lines 31–32, Alice and Andrew mix the letters and Adrian laughs, and all of them look at the letters.

Lines 1–11 show how the children are attending to each other’s interactional contributions. Adrian makes Alice aware that he has combined his and Alice’s letters and put them together in a long line saying ADRIANALICE (lines 1–2). Alice responds to this by turning towards him (line 3) and adjusts her letters so they lie nicely on a line (line 4), then she laughs and shakes her body (line 5). Alice makes Andrew aware of what she and Adrian have made (line 6). Andrew looks at the line of letters and adds his letters too, aligning with the two peers (lines 7–8). Now the name says ADRIANALICEANDREW. Then Andrew calls for Elsa’s attention, so she can see the long name (line 9). Elsa responds with a ‘wow’ and smiling, taking an affective stance to show her surprise by what they have managed (line 10). Andrea sits on the other side of the table and says that she finds the name lengthy, and she shares what it says to the rest of the group (line 11). In the sequence, the children accomplish both affective stances (to join in) and epistemic stances (to show interest) when excitement over one peer’s idea is displayed. The long name is read out load, and this creates a joint focus around the table, where the prolonged name is the centre of attention.

In lines 24–34, the children create new and playful ways of using the letters. Some letters are written on blue paper and some on purple paper, and Adrian starts to mix his blue and Alice’s purple letters. He shows his enthusiasm by saying, ‘Wow’ and asks for Alice’s attention, before he looks at Evelyn standing next to him (lines 24–25). Evelyn confirms the initiative by smiling back at him (line 26). Alice aligns with Adrian immediately by saying ‘yes’ twice, and they mix Adrian’s blue letters with her purple ones (line 27). Andrew has noticed what the peers have started and joins in too. He supports and aligns with the playful approach by saying ‘yes’ and laughing (lines 28–29). Alice responds to Andrew’s enthusiasm by aligning with him and making a little jump (line 30). Alice mix the letters into the long name and keep the order of the system by saying out loud ‘Purple, blue, purple, blue’ (line 31). Adrian watches and laughs at the long name they have made together (line 32), before he again looks at Evelyn (line 33). Evelyn responds by laughing with Adrian and the two peers, showing her support for the initiative they have taken together (line 34).

Adrian uses the word write when he combines Alice’s and his name. Andrew sees what he is doing as something he can describe as ‘write’, which differs from spelling. He expands the frame of the activity, calls it ‘write’ and invites Alice to participate. Adrian, Alice and Andrew align into each other’s ideas and invitations, both by saying ‘yes’ and by moving their letters into the long name. They also show their alignment by sharing a playful and exciting mode with their embodied actions (look and lean towards each other, making small jumps and laughter). Thus, distributed expertise and epistemic stance merge with affective stance and are shown both through the peer talk and embodiment.

The children initiate, join into and include each other in new ways of using the letters. However, it is not to be overlooked that the expansions in the activity take place within the consent and the support of the pre-school teachers. Adrian seeks Evelyn’s attention twice, and Evelyn responds to the initiatives by smiling and by laughing. Andrew seeks Elsa’s attention when they have first made the long name, and Elsa shows her surprise and smiles. The ways the children and the adults align show that the children are invited to expand the activity further.

In the mixing of letters, the peers display collaborative competences where they support each other in constructing creative and playful action (Corsaro, 2015; Goodwin and Goodwin, 2004; Hutchby and Moran-Ellis, 1998). Such a competence can only be demonstrated in situ where the social impact of others’ actions in the setting is included. This reproductive interpretation of the activity is one in which the participants explore action together, and where they are in need of each other’s support and alignment to be creative.

Discussion

The types of SPA that took place at Apple Garden were trips, projects and regular activities focused on drawing, numbers and letters. The article paid particular attention to an often-practised letter-based activity, and the following research question was asked: How do children participate in a letter-based activity in pre-school?

An overall finding was that the letter activity consisted of so much more than just the aim of spelling one’s name. The children oriented to each other as competitors (excerpt 1), they supported each other (excerpt 2) and they constructed playful action around the long table (excerpt 3). Thus, the letter-based activity shed light on the importance of collective activities, and how the children established a shared culture with each other and with the pre-school teachers supporting them (see also Corsaro, 2015; James and Prout, 2015). The children took part in a group, and they were provided with rich experiences in how to be part of a peer culture in which they created and explored participation frameworks (see also Goodwin, 1990; Powell et al., 2006). Their competences were displayed through the construction of action with their peers and the pre-school teachers (see also Hutchby and Moran-Ellis, 1998).

The seating at the long table was important. An interactive space unfolded between the participants around the long table, and the children oriented to the activity as a group with different ideas, arguments and requests. They used stances and alignments to create and maintain social order, and they created different participation frameworks that amused them (see also Goodwin and Goodwin, 2004; Mayall, 2002; Powell et al., 2006). The children were also often seated at the long table in activities focused on numbers and drawing and collaborative projects, and such activities were also carried out with the whole group of children together.

The competitive aspects in the early rounds of the letter-based activity (excerpt 1) could be interpreted as social comparison, or as hierarchy building of who was the better school starter, or as a way of making the activity more exciting (see also Goodwin, 2017; Kyratzis, 2004). Both affective and epistemic stances were used as resources to join in and to challenge each other. The children made alliances and supported each other, and that could also be a way to strengthen or managing friendship (see also Corsaro, 2015; Goodwin, 1990). When disagreements about who finished first came to the surface, the pre-school teacher tried to modify the discussion.

In the later rounds of the activity (excerpt 2), the children established a participation framework where both speakers and hearers were joined in a common course of action to help each other to spell the names. The children showed interest in each other’s names through recycling and loud spelling (see also Cekaite and Aronsson, 2004; Corsaro, 2015; Goodwin and Goodwin, 2004). Meaning was intersubjectively constructed, and competences were shared across the group of peers (see also Du Bois, 2007; Goodwin and Goodwin, 2004). Support for each other could also be found in other preparation activities at Apple Garden, such as children helping each other when drawing or creating shared drawings. Prior studies of pre-school children have also pointed to the importance of collaboration and competition (Cobb-Moore et al., 2009; Theobald and Reynolds, 2015).

When all the children had finished spelling correctly, the children changed the activity into a playful encounter (excerpt 3). This shift initiated by the children could be seen as a way of dealing with adult-imposed rules and routines (see also Corsaro, 2015; Mayall, 2002). Collaborative competences were used when the children created new words with the letters, and having fun seemed a prominent goal (see also Bevemyr and Björk-Willén, 2016; Hutchby and Moran-Ellis, 1998). The children aligned with each other in making long names and a colour system of the letters. Affective and epistemic stances were displayed both through the stream of speech, and through prosody and embodied action in a range of different ways (see also Goodwin, 2017). Similar to the structure of the letter activity, activities with numbers and counting often had a ‘formal part’ first, and then more playful activities and games with numbers afterwards.

The pre-school teachers played an essential role in assisting the spelling and the less formal part. In the early rounds of the activity, the less formal part was led by the pre-school teachers since the children were unable to read the names backwards or in the wrong order. In the later rounds of the activity, the children could mix and play with the letters with less support from the pre-school teachers. An emphasis on children’s contributions was also found in other preparation activities at Apple Garden, such as when children were involved in decisions on trips or when children managed games with numbers. The introduction to the spelling (clapping hands and spelling) was led by the pre-school teacher, and taking a leading role corresponded to other activities, such as talking about complex topics (waterwheels, recycling).

Conclusion

Preparation activities at Apple Garden consisted of trips, projects and regular activities, and they were done together as a group. This was a central feature of organizing SPA and it gave room for building a social community among the school starters. The article focused on children’s participation in a letter-based activity over time, and it showed how the children used a range of various competences and abilities and contributed to form the activity. The social aspect of the letter-based activity seemed to be a driving force for the children’s engagement. The pre-school teachers allowed for the children to influence on the activities, and there was room for competing, for supporting, and for doing the spelling playfully and with a humorous mode.

The study provided insight in children’s participation in a letter-based activity and also other forms of SPA. The longitudinal aspect was a strength of the study, as it showed how much children contributed to the letter-based activity, and the different ways the pre-school teachers facilitated the activity. The findings from the study could offer educators greater awareness about possibilities for child participation and involvement in SPA. An important limit to the conclusions was lack of similar qualitative studies of SPA in Norway. For comparison purposes, the article connected the findings to similar studies in other countries.

This study looked into a relatively unexplored activity, and many questions remain for future research about SPA. How do children participate in SPA and letter activities at other Norwegian pre-schools? How well are competences focused upon in SPA suited for entering school? Compared to pre-school, to what degree can children take part in exploring and negotiating upon activities in the first year of school? Thus, the findings of this study suggest further research on how pre-schools can support children’s involvement in SPA, and how well SPA relate to school.