9_developmental Trajectories Of The Self.pdf

Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 14 (2017) 38–50

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Learning, Culture and Social Interaction journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/lcsi

Full length article

Developmental trajectories of the Self in children during the transition from preschool to elementary school

MARK

Mónica Roncancio-Morenoa,⁎, Angela Uchoa Brancob,1 a b

Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Colombia University of Brasilia, Brazil

AR TI CLE I NF O

AB S T R A CT

Keywords: Self Development Meaning-making I-positions Transition process

The aim of this paper is to discuss how do children co-construct their Self developmental trajectories, in the transition process from preschool to primary school. Two approaches, Dialogical Self Theory (DST) and Sociocultural Psychology, were the basis for the analysis. Methodologically, we developed a study about one year in the schooling context, with interviews, observations and semi-structured task of children, parents and teachers. Three children were selected for a microgenetic analysis, Helena, Giselle and Anderson. The analysis demonstrated, that children co-construct their Self developmental trajectories internalizing actively the cultural suggestions of significant social others and in the meaning-making process oriented to the emergence of I/self positionings. The children created, each on his/her way, signs or new I/self positionings to deal with the transition process.

1. Introduction The study of Self developmental trajectories of children in transition from preschool to elementary school is a topic of recent interest (Cavada, 2016; Hviid & Villadsen, 2015; Roncancio-Moreno & Branco, in press). Our study of children's Self development and Self meaning-making processes builds on the theoretical contributions of both cultural psychology (Branco & Valsiner, 2012; Bruner, 1990; Valsiner, 2007, 2014; Zittoun, 2016) and the Dialogical Self Theory (DST) (Hermans & Hermans-Konopka, 2010). Although the academic literature concerning children transitions is growing (Dehnes, 2015; Wong, 2015), there is still a gap in the investigation of the meaning-making processes related to the development of Self in children. Methodologically, the use of single techniques as observation of children's actions or the analysis of their narratives is not enough to understand their developmental pathways. Two questions have oriented our research, which we here illustrate with empirical data: How do children co-construct their developmental trajectories? How significant others contribute in the co-construction of a child's account of themselves? First, we will present some of the theoretical foundations of the research. Then we explain the broader project we carried out to identify and analyze—during children's transition from preschool to elementary school—the meaning-making processes related to the dialogical Self development of three children (Roncancio-Moreno, 2015; Roncancio-Moreno & Branco, in press). The study consisted of the first author's Ph.D. dissertation (Roncancio-Moreno, 2015), advised by the second author. The three case studies consist of the investigation of Giselle, Helena and Anderson, each child with a unique developmental trajectory, or different pathways in the coconstruction of their Self development. We analyze these three trajectories by focusing on the relationships with significant social

⁎ Corresponding author at: Research group Desarrollo, Afectividad y Cognición, Carrera 5 # 39-00 Piso 2 Edificio Manuel Briceño, oficina 215, Bogotá, DC, Colombia. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M. Roncancio-Moreno), [email protected] (A.U. Branco). 1 Institute of Psychology, UnB, 70.900, Brasília, Brazil.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2017.05.002 Received 5 April 2017; Received in revised form 17 May 2017; Accepted 22 May 2017 Available online 30 June 2017 2210-6561/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 14 (2017) 38–50

M. Roncancio-Moreno, A.U. Branco

others in their family and educational contexts. The study used several data collection procedures—as observation and semi-structured activities—with a particular emphasis on the narratives produced by both children and adults taking part of children's transition processes. Our aim is to contribute to developmental psychology by providing psychologists with a new theoretical tool concerning selfevaluation processes in children, as we elaborate on dynamic constructs to refer to what has been traditionally conceptualized as selfesteem or self-concepts (Freire & Branco, 2016). 1.1. Self trajectories in children development: a dialogical and cultural approach In this section, we present the two main theories that sustain our research. On the one hand, cultural psychology (e.g. Bruner, 1990; Valsiner, 2007, 2014) and, on the other, the dialogical perspective on the Self (e.g. Hermans & Hermans-Konopka, 2010). Our focus is on meaning-construction processes and the study of human development from a sociogenetic, dialogical and constructivist approach, since cultural psychology sees the individual as an active constructor of its own development (Valsiner, 2014). According to Zittoun (2016), sociocultural psychology bears on four assumptions: 1) it understands the uniqueness of human beings, 2) it is a dialogical psychological perspective that studies the individual in interaction with his/her semiotic and developmental context, 3) it focuses on different levels, microgenetic, ontogenetic and sociogenetic; and, 4) it emphasizes individual meaningmaking processes. In the current research, we adopt these four assumptions. Our definition of Self derives from the Dialogical Self Theory (DST) proposed by Hermans and collaborators (Hermans & HermansKonopka, 2010), and is in tune with the sociocultural approach: “Self and culture are conceived of in terms of a multiplicity of positions among which dialogical relationships can develop” (Hermans, 2001, p. 243). From this perspective, the Self is not one single psychological stance, is not self-contained, on the contrary, it is dialogical and its construction depends on the culturally-contextualized significant social others with whom the individual is related. The Dialogical Self is, then, dynamic and can transform itself in the irreversible time all along individual's experiences in the life course. In accordance with the definition of Self provided by the DST, we consider that individuals can position and reposition themselves along their development. We have named these positions as I/ self positionings (Freire & Branco, 2016; Roncancio-Moreno, 2015), because of the dynamic nature all positions within the context of the Dialogical Self System (Branco, 2015). As we argue in this paper, the notion conveyed by the concept of I/self positionings (Branco, Freire, & Roncancio-Moreno, 2016; Roncancio-Moreno, 2015) is central to make sense of the individual—in our case children—as active and constructive subjects. This concept was inspired by Herman's I-Position's concept (Hermans, 2001), but it is more flexible, complex and dynamic. It fits better a developmental approach and builds on the dual nature of the dialogical Self, active and reflexive. The inclusion of the term I/self instead of simply referring to the ‘I’ is due to the fact that such positionings may take both and active stance (the I, as proposed by Mead, 1934) as well as a reflexive stance (the self, as proposed by Mead, 1934). Individuals can, therefore, move from one I/self positioning to another easily the Self System is dynamic and in constant development, as it interacts with different social others in different cultural contexts. For instance, in context A, a child's ‘bright-student’ I/self positioning prevails (as in Math classes), while in context B, a ‘clumsy learner’ positioning may dominate (as in soccer classes). From our perspective, the development of Self (Lopes de Oliveira, 2016; Roncancio-Moreno & Branco, 2015) occurs, particularly, during transition periods (Zittoun, 2016). Transition periods are moments in the life course in which the Self is especially transformed (Zittoun, 2014). Individuals' life courses are not characterized only by regularities and continuities, for there are many points of bifurcation in which their development can be reoriented, taking another path (Zittoun, 2009). Consequently, repositioning and reconfiguration processes occur, allowing for the transformation of the very sense of identity, and, from such reconfigurations, novelties—and new ‘I/self positionings’ (Branco et al., 2016; Roncancio-Moreno, 2015)—can emerge. When significant changes take place in the subject's socio-affective interactions as a whole, the transition can turn into a rupture, promoting more significant selfconfiguration changes, i.e., causing actual shifts in the relationships between the individual, the objects, and social others, rearranging personal meanings. Zittoun (2009) emphasizes the need to study the dynamics of these reconfigurations. In institutional transitions (for instance, from preschool to the first grade of Elementary School), we can often identify developmental ruptures in the flux of children experience. Children, while coping with a new educational setting, can transform the meanings of many things, and particularly those about themselves, leading to changes in their dialogical selves. As developmental researchers, we should, then, able to analyze the microgenesis of such processes, and to investigate the different ways by which children co-construct their dialogical Self along their life experiences. 1.2. About trajectories: a life course perspective The study of developmental trajectories in children is not a new topic. In recent years, psychologist have examined developmental trajectories in order to assess different aspects of children's lives: competence and value beliefs (Fredricks & Eccles, 2002), acquisition of academic skills in transition processes (Burchinal, Peisner-Feinberg, Pianta, & Howes, 2002), bullying (Pepler, Jiang, Craig, & Connolly, 2008), aggressive behavior (Malti, McDonald, Rubin, Rose-Krasnor, & Booth-LaForce, 2015), among others. However, most researchers have focused their attention on quantitative measures that leave aside the central role of individual sensemaking processes that takes place along children's experiences throughout time (Hviid, 2012). We argue that children's Self trajectories should be investigated from a life course perspective, and some researchers have carried out studies in this direction (Freire & Branco, 2016; Mattos & Chaves, 2015; Roncancio-Moreno, 2015). The interest in the study of Self developmental trajectories in children appears, then, as an opportunity to explore the emergence of relevant processes concerning children's I/self positionings along their experiences. 39

Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 14 (2017) 38–50

M. Roncancio-Moreno, A.U. Branco

In certain moments of the child development—institutional transitions (Zittoun, 2009)—longitudinal and microgenetic studies can allow researchers to investigate the emergence of new meanings and the co-construction of different Self trajectories. The study of the dynamics of trajectories requires, however, a careful follow-up of children's experiences and the way in which they relate to the world and their contexts. Children's significant others are crucial in this process because counting on significant others' perspectives and voices is a fundamental part of the landscape of Self. To focus on children's trajectories, we need to use an idiographic approach (Salvatore & Valsiner, 2009), taking into account children's subjective experiences in various contexts and interactions with different significant others. The central point of this approach is to study the individual as unique and immersed in sociocultural contexts semiotically mediated (Valsiner, 2014) by numerous, complex, and often contradictory cultural messages. Moreover, it is necessary to highlight the dimension of affectivity in the arena for the constitution of self-configurations, and the study of such processes must tale this into account. 1.3. Children's narratives and social interactions Following our theoretical and methodological approach, we investigated self-transformation as we constructed data with research participants and relevant others in family and school settings (teachers). Many procedures operated as sources of information in the research (Roncancio-Moreno, 2015), involving observation, informal interactions, as well as recorded and video-recorded narratives and interactions. Traditionally, researchers investigate the Self using tests, questionnaires, and self-referring or cognitive behavioral markers, to assess self-concepts and self-recognition strategies (Damian & Robins, 2012; Jia, Lang, & Schoppe-Sullivan, 2016). However, current reviews show that new methodologies are emerging to study children's self even in the first years of life. In the search for indicators of relevant relationships, studies target the interactions children establish with their caregivers and significant others, who are central to children's Self development (Bertau, Gonçalves, & Raggat, 2012; Komatsu, 2015). A key aspect regarding children's interactions with caregivers and their social context is communication and metacommunication. Branco, Pessina, Flores, and Salomão (2004) argued that communication is not based only on verbal reports, because nonverbal metacommunication (Bateson, 1991; Leeds-Hurwitz, 2012) is especially relevant to meaning-making processes. Metacommunication is an important dimension of communication. It refers to the quality of communication processes themselves mainly through nonverbal signs such as gestures, voice intonation, facial expression etc. (Branco et al., 2004). Taking into account the central role of communication in human development, recent studies adopted a narrative approach, using children autobiographies (Bellgard, 2005), story reading (Komatsu, 2012; Lysaker, 2006), drawings (Akseer, Lao, & Bosacki, 2012) and structured interviews (Komolova, Pasupathi, Wainryb, & Lucas, 2016). Nevertheless, if we consider nonverbal signs as central to the quality of the relationships, we also have to make use of observation techniques, as the use of video in different research situations. Our research used interviews, observation techniques and different semi-structured activities for data collection, and included the immersion of the researcher in the educational context under investigation, namely, preschool and first-grade classrooms (RoncancioMoreno, 2015). The aim was to identify—and then analyze—indicators of meaning-constructions while the participants of social interactions negotiated them. By focusing on children's interactions with peers and teachers, as well as children's and adult's narratives in the school context, the goal was to analyze meaning-making processes and their relevance concerning children's Self development. 2. The study The study took place in two public schools in Brasília, Brazil, during the last semester of 2012 and the first semester of 2013 (Phase 1 and Phase 2). Phase 1 took place in a public preschool; Phase 2 was carried out in a public Elementary School. All parents signed a participation consent. After selecting one specific classroom in the preschool, and before any other procedure, the researcher attended to the preschool's activities with children for eight weeks. Thus, she was able to develop a good rapport with children, which later was fundamental for data collection. After the immersion period, the researcher selected seven children to participate of the study. Table 1 describes the procedures used in the two phases of the research. Phase 1—preschool—consisted in producing data from four different sources: (1) children and teacher's social interactions observations: field notes and eventual video recording; (2) children's personal journals, (3) individual interviews; and (4) two semiTable 1 Data collection procedures. Phase 1

Phase 2

Preschool

First Grade

Time of Immersion in the Educational Contexts (over one year) July to December 2012 (almost every day in school, observations)

January to June 2013 (three days per week in school, observation)

Drawing journal

Cube of emotions

Drawing journal

Doll school

Field notes

Individual interviews: children, parents, teachers Video recorded daily routines

Doll school

40

Frog story: (by Max Velthuijs) Field notes

Individual interviews: children, parents, teachers Video recorded daily routines

Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 14 (2017) 38–50

M. Roncancio-Moreno, A.U. Branco

structured activities, namely, the ‘doll school’ and the ‘cube of emotions’ activities. Each of the seven children received a copybook (journal) where they should draw whatever they wanted. The researcher constantly discussed with children about their drawing and other activities she promoted, and eventual informal conversation. Individual interviews were carried out with participants, their mothers and teachers. The individual interview with the teacher was carried out in the teachers' room at school, in December 2012. Parents' interviews took place in each child's home, in December 2012, without the child's presence. Interviews with children were carried out in the computers' room at school, without any interruption. All interviews were recorded in audio. Both interviews with parents (one) and the teacher (one) were oriented to ask about children's experiences and possible indicators of children's self positionings. The doll school activity aimed at observing how children would relate to each other making use of available objects. Finally, we used a “cube of emotions” decorated with simple face designs showing different emotions (happy, sad faces…), which allowed for questions and conversation about children's feelings. Both activities (doll school and cube of emotions) were filmed with a digital camera. Phase 2 took place when children became first graders. We made use, again, of individual interviews, the doll school activity, drawing journal and school observations (field notes and video recording). The individual interview with the teacher was carried out in June 2013, in the teacher's room at school. The interview with Giselle's parents took place in June 2013, in a coffee shop close to the school, without the girl's presence. The interviews with Anderson's and Helena's mothers were carried out in their homes, in June 2013. Interviews with children were carried out in the computers' room at school, with no interruption. All interviews were recorded in audio. To assess how children would relate to contextual situations and character's attributes, we replaced the Cube of Emotions by a reading activity, telling them a story about a green frog's self-esteem issues (Frog is Frog, by Max Velthuijs). Both the doll activity and the story telling activity were filmed by a digital camera. 2.1. The children Initially, seven five-years-old children participated in the study, three girls and four boys. For the microgenetic idiographic analysis, though, only three were subjects of the in-depth case studies, so selected due to their very diverse trajectories: Helena, Giselle, and Anderson. They were five years-old at the beginning of the research, and six years-old by the end. Helena - She was the youngest of three siblings and the only daughter. She lived with her mother and brothers. Her parents divorced when she was three and, since then, she had not seen her father. In preschool, Helena described herself as friendly, liked to play with a little bear and with two friends. She loved animals and wanted to be a veterinarian in the future. Interviewed during preschool, she said she did not like to play with dolls (Barbies), nor with a particular group of girls, what observations confirmed. She described herself as a solitary, lonely girl, and she stated that sometimes she was sad because she missed her father very much. In the first year, Helena described herself as good at rope jumping and at performing splits. Helena considered herself as competent at reading and writing. During observations, we noticed that she usually had problems to participate in the girls' games, and preferred to play with boys. Giselle – She was the younger of two daughters and lived with her parents and an older sister, Barbara. In preschool, Giselle described herself as a very friendly and beautiful girl. She loved playing especially with Barbie dolls, with other girls. In the first grade, Giselle described herself as a good drawer and a capable learner. Anderson – He was the younger of two children—the older brother was his half-brother by her mother side. The family had recently moved to Brasilia from another Brazilian city. During the preschool period, he lived with both parents, but the father left home after the divorce just as Anderson entered the first grade. In preschool, he described himself as a competent writer and reader, and said that since he was a baby he was intelligent. He enjoyed playing, especially with video games and toys that were “different” from girls' toys. In the first grade, he described himself as not intelligent anymore, but reassured the researcher he as a very good video game player. 2.2. Data construction Two aspects were central for data construction: (1) interactions in the educational contexts, and (2) children's, teachers' and parents' narratives. To investigate children's trajectories, we used an analytical framework that took into account the following sources of information:

• Children: narratives about themselves and their experiences at school and family; child-child and teacher-child interactions. • Teachers: narratives about the child's development, peer interactions, academic performance, and teacher's relationship with the child's family. • Families: Mother's narrative about the child and child's development in general (in Giselle's case, the father participated in the interview).

The analytical framework integrated narratives and observed interactions in different contexts using a microgenetic approach (Branco & Valsiner, 1997). Therefore, we were able to identify what was recurrent or contradictory in children interactions and narratives, as well as in the adults' discourses. The procedures for data analysis were: 1. Transcription of all interviews and observations recorded. 2. Selection of episodes for microgenetic analysis. 41

Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 14 (2017) 38–50

M. Roncancio-Moreno, A.U. Branco

3. Identification, in the narratives and observations, of self-evaluations and specific actions/interactions' indicators of I-self positionings: we searched for indicators of Giselle's, Helena's, and Anderson's positionings about themselves, as they positioned social others. The indicators were communicative and metacommunicative markers: verbal expressions, affective tones, emphasis, pauses, body postures, gestures, facial expressions etc. 4. Microgenetic analysis aiming at the construction and integration of data concerning meaning-making processes for each child. 2.3. Children's trajectories Next, we present the results of the three case studies—Helena, Giselle, and Anderson—regarding each child's dialogical Self development. Each child had a unique way to co-construct meanings during transition processes, and new I/self positionings emerged as several factors and conditions changed, from Phase 1 to Phase 2. In short, we can say about their trajectories: (1) Helena: with her mother support at both phases, she presented an optimistic Self development trajectory, due to the appreciation of her special skills in the first grade; (2) Giselle: had a somewhat ambivalent Self development trajectory, resulting in tensions, at the first grade, due to the co-existence of old and new self-meanings; (3) Anderson: went through a problematic Self development trajectory, with a deconstruction, in the first grade, of previous positive self-meanings experienced in preschool. In the analysis of the three case studies, we found, according to a sociocultural perspective, the relevance of communication and metacommunication, cultural canalization and anticipation processes (Branco, 2015; Valsiner, 2014; Zittoun, 2015). Three basic guidelines oriented the research construction of each child trajectory: (1) The expectations and meanings concerning social and affective relationships, recurrent in preschool and in the first grade; (2) the role of significant others; and (3) relevant changes in selfmeanings from preschool to Elementary School. 3. Results 3.1. Helena - optimistic Self development trajectory due to social appreciation of her special skills Helena's case is an example of a successful transition from preschool to Elementary School. She experienced a positive, reassuring trajectory characterized by the creation of new meanings related to her good athletic performance, used strategically by her firstgrade teacher to anticipate her success in the future. Phase 1 (preschool). Helena's oriented her interests to individual activities such as puzzles and reading. Her relationships with peers, especially with girls, were impregnated with tensions. She mentioned that she did not like to play with the girls because they insisted on playing with dolls (Barbie dolls), and she was not interested. However, we observed that, in fact, Helena was (and felt) rejected by the girls. Excerpt 1 (Interview) Researcher: I noticed that sometimes you do not play with the girls. Helena: I like to play with Kevin and Luciana [sad facial expression] R: Hummm, and with whom do you not like to play? T: [pause] With Sophia. R: Why? T: Sometimes the girls just want to play with Barbies, and I don't like to play much with Barbies, I don't like Barbies, just a few dolls that I have… [sad facial expression, leans her head on the table]. Helena also mentioned difficulties in her relationship with the teacher. During classwork, the teacher frequently called for Helena attention, particularly during transitions between different activities (while children waited for a new assignment), and complained about her task performances. We observed several instances of the teacher screaming at her. Excerpt 2 (Video of classroom activities). Teacher is trying to arrange children at a round table. Helena is walking and playing around in the classroom, other children are walking and playing, too. Teacher: Helena! (screams), sit down! (screams), we need to do the activity, come on! Helena sits down and starts a conversation with a classmate. Teacher: Helena, come on! (screams louder) [Other children are doing the same as Helena, but the teacher only screams at her] Helena's relationships with her mother and brothers were very good. She felt especially supported by her mother, who talked about Helena as an independent child: Excerpt 3 (Mother's individual interview) M: So, what I … I think it's [autonomy] her trademark, she is independent, she has personality! [confident, sure] 42

Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 14 (2017) 38–50

M. Roncancio-Moreno, A.U. Branco

M: I told you, since she was a little girl she has been independent! She is mature, I see her as mature, she is a little girl, but she's mature. Concerning her father, Helena felt sad because of his absence, something she revealed in the interview and in other contexts. Some of the verbal indicators of this feeling were: “I miss him …” [low tone of voice, sad], “I only saw him one day, one day only!” [sad and angry]. The recurrent emotional indicators she expressed were sadness, anger, and impotence. Excerpt 4 (Cube of emotions) Researcher: When do you feel sad? Helena: Every day! [smiles, but looks somewhat ambivalent] R: Why? T: Because of my dad, he lives in another house, he's separated, we never saw my father again. Not even Henry… [changes the tone of voice to sadness]. R: Really? T: Huhum [nodding, sad] R: How long ago was that? A long time? T: Huhum. A long time ago… In short, during Phase 1: (1) mother had a very positive view of her daughter; (2) teacher had a difficult relationship with the girl, characterized by rejection; (3) father did not live with Helena, and had not seen her for a long time; she always remembered him, and complained about his absence; and (4) girls at preschool rejected Helena, but she had a good relationship with boys. Phase 2. By the end of Phase 1 and throughout Phase 2 Helena participated of a new environment: her mother enrolled her in a gym for children. Every day, after school, Helena practiced swimming, ballet and judo, among other activities, in this new context. In the first two months of the first grade, the relationship with the new teacher first attempted to impose the new rules of the Elementary School contexts by screaming at the students. Motor restraints and discipline became the fundamental rules to control children's behaviors and routines. Sometimes, however, seeing Helena's deep sadness, the teacher cheered her up, and invited her to practice, in the classroom, what she had learned in the gym. This strategy opened new and positive possibilities for the child's I/self positionings, and Helena felt happy and accepted by her classmates. The teacher, with time, developed a very affectionate relationship with the girl, encouraging self-confidence in Helena with affection and attention. Helena felt accepted by the teacher and began to establish good relationships with her classmates. Excerpt 5 (Interview with the teacher) Helena likes to read and to play. She is very good at sports (…) She is creative, she is a very competent student... she has an immense creativity, she is very affectionate, warm, it is a pleasure to work with Helena. Excerpt 6 (Field notes) Helena shows me a gift that Gaby gave to her; it is a little book made of drawings and letters with their names. I ask her why Gaby gave this to her, and she says that Gaby is always giving things like that to her. In Phase 2, Helena's mother persists with her very positive view about the girl, what certainly helps the girl to position herself even better in the future. Excerpt 7 (Interview with the mother) She has a good of sense about right things, like ‘my mother would not like me to do this or this’, just as I told you, she understands the rules and responsibilities. (…) I'm very proud of her maturity; I think she has a personality since she was a baby; she's decided, very well settled. In Phase 2, Helena began to recognize her own capacities and skills as an athlete: Excerpt 8 (Storytelling – the Frog) Researcher: What are you good at? Helena: At doing splits and rope jumping! [firm and joyful] In the excerpts above, we see the action of different affective-semiotic operators generated by the dialogical relations of Helena with significant social others within developmental contexts (family, gym, and school), and within her intra-psychological world. In Phase 2, she then constructed a new positioning characterized by her athletic performance. She recognized herself as a competent girl, and this became a powerful resource for her development. 3.2. Giselle - ambivalent Self development trajectory, resulting in tensions due to the co-existence of old and new self-meanings Giselle's case is an example of an ambivalent Self development trajectory. Throughout the research, she co-constructed, among others, positive meanings related to her leadership, drawing skills and reading and writing capabilities. Those, however, revealed tensions with significant others: father, mother, sister and the teacher. The father, for example, showed a tendency to put the girl down, due to a constant comparison with his older daughter, considered brighter and more beautiful than Giselle. Phase 1 (Preschool). In this phase, Giselle was the most popular girl among her peers. They considered and treated her as beautiful 43

Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 14 (2017) 38–50

M. Roncancio-Moreno, A.U. Branco

and as being a leader, generating a dynamic in the classroom context that favored her. The teacher, also, praised Giselle. The following excerpt enlightens what usually happened: Excerpt 1 (Video record of free play) Giselle plays with a group of six girls in the classroom backyard. There is a board on the wall. Giselle suggests to the girls to play as if she is the teacher and they the students. The girls accept to play with her. During the development of the game, Giselle pretends to be the teacher. With gestures, she produces the sounds of certain words and pretends to write them. She asks the girls what results from the combination of the letters ‘P’ and ‘A’, and do this about other syllabic combinations. Giselle evaluates whether the result is right or wrong, and corrects her peers, even though she does not know how to write. Excerpt 1 above shows how Giselle positions herself as a leader, and such observations were recurrent during preschool. She felt comfortable taking initiatives, and girls followed her. At the same time, the teacher recognized her as a leader in the classroom. Excerpt 2 (Interview with teacher) Researcher (R): Did you notice Giselle's leadership within the class? Teacher (T): Very much!!! [emphasis] She was the one in charge; everything had to be her way. (…) T: Everything has to be her way, she is the one who leads, the one who commands, if things are not the way she wants, it does not work, right? The teacher admired and recognized Giselle as the class leader, particularly in the girls' group. During the observations, we identified how much she valued Giselle's actions, what was central to encourage the girl's social interactions and her meaning constructions about herself. At preschool, Giselle achieved success as a leader and broadened her developmental possibilities. Leadership operated as an I/self Positioning that regulated most of Giselle's actions in that context, a leadership that was recognized by relevant social others, as peers and the teacher. Her relationships in preschool were guided by her role as a leader, and she seemed to be very aware of the admiration she inspired. Concerning the family context, even though her father did not recognize her as socially skilled, her mother highlighted Giselle's social abilities. Excerpt 3 (Interview with mother) Giselle is highly charismatic, reserved, I think she is going to be that kind of adult, systematic; on the other hand, she is selective with this charisma, she does not show this charisma with anyone. She is a cheerful person, I say, ‘she came to the world to be happy’ ... Giselle is highly charismatic, she jokes, is highly affectionate, she laughs a lot. The mother stressed Giselle's capacity to be a charismatic girl, although she did not mention her as a leader. Along her narrative, we noticed she admired that in her daughter, and deemed Giselle as a capable and happy child. The recognition of Giselle's social skills, by her mother, provided the girl with feelings of security in her interactions with social others. Thus, her mother was a significant other who pushed the girl forward regarding her development. Concerning Giselle's literacy competence, she experienced a lot of ambivalence deriving from the simultaneous cultural suggestions coming from the father, who devalued her performances, and from the preschool context, where the teacher praised her achievements. In the family, her father did not hold Giselle as a competent girl; instead, during the interview, he mentioned that his daughter Bárbara had a much better “cognitive development” than Giselle. From the data of his interview, we can argue that he expected the girl to have developmental problems and likely fail. Excerpt 4 (Interview with father) What worries me is the issue of learning, because you compare with what you have as a reference. When Barbara went to her first year, she was almost reading, she knew everything. Giselle did not. Giselle has some difficulties, a kind of lack of interest, so when I want to force her to do an activity, I already feel a resistance in her, that worries me, the level of knowledge with which she will get by the end of the first year, this is very different from the knowledge that Barbara got. On the other hand, the teacher admired her competence, and highlighted them in front of the whole group. In one occasion, the teacher showed to the group some of Giselle's drawings and said: “Look how beautiful is this mermaid! Giselle drew it, you should draw like this, very beautiful!” According to Giselle words, she viewed herself as intelligent and not intelligent at the same time: Excerpt 5 (Giselle's interview) Researcher (R): What do you like to do in the classroom? Giselle (G): Do the homework! R: Who do you think is the smartest student in the classroom? G: (points to herself with a pencil, four times, confident) Sometimes I am. R: And another time? G: No. R: Who is it at another time? Who's the smartest classmate? G: Me. (…) 44

Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 14 (2017) 38–50

M. Roncancio-Moreno, A.U. Branco

R: And who is the least intelligent? G: I think is me, too! (smiles). R: Why? G: Because yes. R: When are you less intelligent? G: Sometimes I'm not… [intelligent or not intelligent?] (smiles). During preschool, thus, the girl dealt with contradictory messages coming from family and preschool regarding her competences. The excerpt above shows the intense ambivalence in the way Giselle perceives herself: after all, is she the most or the less intelligent in class? During her preschool phase, the contradiction was very explicit in the girl's speech. The coexistence of opposing positionings reveals the dynamics between her affective-semiotic fields, a dynamics impregnated with tensions and expressed by ambivalent meanings coming from family and preschool social contexts. In short, Giselle's leader positioning resulted from the convergence of various voices (mother's, teacher's, peers') and this provided some stability to her dialogical Self system. Being a leader contributed to the establishment of bonds of friendship and opened various scenarios for Giselle as a developing subject. Phase 2. The enrollment in the first grade of Elementary School framed the beginning of new achievements, mainly concerning reading and writing abilities now especially valued by the school culture, as well as by her father in the context of the family. Her narratives in the first grade revealed a stronger tension between being intelligent or dumb. Mostly, she succumbed to the view of herself as not intelligent—anticipated by her father—but she also believed to be capable of overcoming this condition. In her words: “I am dumb, but I am learning.” Here, we identified a process of meaning self-negotiations regarding the opposing I/self positionings. Along her first-grade experiences, we identified various transformations in Giselle. First, the new educational context implied new challenges, and socialization skills were no more the most valuable vis-à-vis literacy, what made Giselle feel insecure about her competences. She was a leader at preschool, but now she was not expected to lead within play contexts anymore; instead, her schedule was full of classwork and academic activities oriented to learn how to read and write appropriately. A strong tension emerged in the first two months of the first grade: Giselle refused to go to the school and, during classwork time, she delved into her drawing book. Her teacher, who had a particular sensibility to recognize children's abilities, encouraged her interest in drawing. Excerpt 6 (Field notes) The teacher proposes an activity to the group that includes drawing, on a sheet of paper, the body contours of one of the children. The teacher asked Giselle to do the task: “Now Giselle will draw the contours of David's body, because she is very good at doing that!” Giselle felt proud of being selected to carry out this activity, she did it smiling, showing confidence. As previously noticed, since the preschool Giselle expressed a particular drawing ability, and now, at the first grade, she seemed very confident about it. Excerpt 7 (Storytelling- the Frog) Researcher (R) reads the frog story: “[the frog speaking] You are all very smart. I do not know how to do anything. I'm just a mediocre green frog…”. Anderson: You [the frog] just know how to jump... R: But jumping is an interesting thing. What kind of stuff can you do better than other people? Giselle: (raises her hand and smiles) I can draw very well! Excerpt 8 (Giselle's individual interview) R: What do you think about the school classwork? G: I prefer to draw! The construction of Giselle's I/self Positioning as a good drawer was generated by her active internalization of the voices of several adults (mother and teachers at preschool and first grade) and the demands of the new school context. Significant others operated as promoters of this positioning. When the preschool teacher declared the excellence of Giselle's work in front of her classmates, she was doing an “anticipated recognition” (Mattos, 2013) of the girl's abilities, something that she was not yet, but could become (an excellent drawer). The teacher realized an anticipation about the girl's skills. This allowed for the construction of a positioning as a good drawer that, until that moment, was only beginning. Then, Giselle used ‘drawing’ as self-regulatory strategy, as symbolic resource (Zittoun, 2006) to deal with the tension between being or not intelligent or competent in school. In sum, Giselle's trajectory revealed an intense dynamic in her dialogical Self system, characterized by tensions but, also, by the emergence of powerful signs, such as drawing, which helped her to deal with transition processes. The first grade educational context required the girl to rearrange her positionings, from being a leader to being a good drawer. Later on, she was able to maximize her drawing resources, encouraged by teacher and mother, what seemed to empower her and support her dialogical Self development. 3.3. Anderson - problematic Self development trajectory, with a progressive deconstruction of previous positive self-meanings Anderson's case is an example of problematic Self development trajectory. Throughout the research, we detected tensions concerning his literacy process that became progressively dominant. In the preschool, he seemed confident, was among the first students to complete the tasks, and was pleased with the feedbacks from his teacher. During Phase 2, though, his feelings changed negatively, 45

Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 14 (2017) 38–50

M. Roncancio-Moreno, A.U. Branco

and increasingly revealed lack of confidence and sadness. Phase 1. The tension between being or not competent for writing and reading had already emerged in preschool. On one hand, he felt smart and capable, and both the teacher and his father promoted this view about himself. He showed self-confidence and joy, and seemed comfortable in the classroom context. Excerpt 1 (Anderson's interview) R and A are talking about a child who knows the numbers R: What about you? Do you know the numbers? A: I know! I even know how to read! (confident, joyful, smiles) R: Can you read? A: Some things! (confident) (…) A: Since I very young I'm smart! Even playing with balls, I win! (enthusiastic) The preschool teacher had, and demonstrated, positive affective feelings about Anderson. During the interview, she talked about the boy with joy, clearly stating her empathy for him. Excerpt 2 (Interview with teacher) Anderson, he came here to school this year and I think I fell in love with him and he with me (laughs); I don't know if it's because he reminds me of my son, don't you think? (…) he progressed a big lot, he is very smart as well. He is progressing in literacy. Our observations confirmed that the teacher constantly communicated and metacommunicated with empathy towards the child, with messages that favored internalization. Consequently, the boy actively internalized her suggestions, increasing his self-confidence. Concerning his academic performance, the teacher said he was very intelligent. She often provided positive feedbacks to Anderson's performances, encouraging confidence and constructive self-evaluations. During the interview, she made positive attributions similar to those we had observed in the classroom. Regarding his family context, Anderson said his father helped him with his homework and that they used to draw and stick figures from magazines in a copybook together. While talking about this activity with his father, he was happy and mentioned how much he liked to study with him. Hence, Anderson's father was a very significant other who promoted his confidence in his academic skills. In contrast, his mother's very high expectations contrasted to her evaluations of Anderson's literacy performances at preschool. She felt frustrated by his writing and reading performances, and made it clear to the teacher, to the researcher, and, very likely, to the boy himself. Excerpt 3 (Interview with mother) R: What did you expect [from preschool]? M: I expected him to read this year! (emphatic, worried) Because he has been in the school since he was three! [emphatic, worried] And everything that he knows today, he knew, practically, last year, do you understand? I don't think that he's progressed, he stopped learning! He stopped! You understand? (emphatic, worried, frustrated) Excerpt 4 (Interview with mother) R: Have you ever talked with Anderson about his transition to the new school? M: No, I decided not talking anymore about that because he cried! (emphatic) (…) He cried! And he said that he would not go, because he wanted to stay in the kindergarten, because there were children his age... and that he was not prepared, because he could not read or write! How would he go to school without knowing how to do things that other kids can do, right? He didn't want to be the slow one. The mother herself said she was permanently communicating her dissatisfaction with her son performance to Anderson's teacher, but, also, to the boy as well. However, during preschool, we did not notice Anderson's difficulties; on the contrary, he showed to be a good reader and writer to his age, and committed to classroom activities. The mother's frustration was not constrained to Anderson's performance, she also criticized the way the preschool teacher developed her activities. Anderson, however, seemed to resist his mother's disqualifications and negative feedbacks, possibly due to the support by his father, and to the positive feedbacks and empathy provided by the teacher. The negative messages by his mother, though, were also actively internalized by him. Anderson possibly strived to resist his mother's voice, and was able to deal with the challenges of the literacy process at the preschool. He had good relationships with his classmates, enjoyed playing in the classroom, and had a good performance at academic activities. In short, in Phase 1, constructive meanings predominated in Anderson dialogical Self system, he felt competent and self-confident. Phase 2. At the beginning of his first grade year at the new school, the boy seemed focused and enthusiastic about literacy activities. However, as activities gained complexity, he became insecure and highly anxious. His relation with the new teacher turned complicated, and the teacher did not the time or the patience to care for his difficulties with the academic tasks. The tension concerning reading and writing tasks grew worse, generating a lot of distress in the boy, expressed in different ways. He often complained ‘I don't know how to write!!!!’, showing a facial expression of anxiety close to crying. To compensate for this, Anderson developed a sort of self-regulation mechanism, and he elaborated a strong feeling of competence related to be very good at playing video games. Excerpt 5 illustrates the emergence of a new negative I/self Positioning charged with about his capacities; this happened 46

Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 14 (2017) 38–50

M. Roncancio-Moreno, A.U. Branco

at the very beginning of the first year of primary. Excerpt 5 (Storytelling – the Frog) R: Who knows how to read? G: My sister knows! (enthusiastic) A: I can read just a little bit (enthusiastic) R: So, what can you read, Anderson? A: Just a few words… R: What about Gigi? G: No. R: And write? Who can write? A: Meeeeeeee!! (confident, joyful). No, no, no, I cannot read a few words. But I can write. Q: And you, Gigi? G: No… A: None of this? (asks G and points at the book) R: Sure? [asks G] G: Humhum A: I'm good at writing a little bit. I'm good to help. As in the individual interview, during the storytelling Anderson expressed the tensions he experienced about his difficulties. The ambivalence is clearly marked above in the dialogue, and he uses the terms ‘just a little bit’, acknowledging that his achievements are not good enough. The configuration of a I/self Positioning as a competent child suffered a substantial transformation over the first few months of the first year, and became much weaker than previously. The negative feedbacks he received from his classroom activities and from the teacher seemed to have a devastating impact upon him, especially because the teacher criticized his performance more often than his peers'. Over a few months in the first grade, Anderson's anxiety and sadness increased, and his I/self Positioning as incompetent clearly emerged and dominated his I/self Positioning as a competent student. Excerpt 6 (Video recorded observations) The teacher walks by each table helping children to write correctly. The teacher arrives at Anderson's table. A: (talks to teacher) I don't know how to write!!!! [in distress, begins to cry]. The teacher helps Anderson to write. He stops crying. Excerpt 7 (Video recorded observations) The teacher finishes an explanation about a classwork to the group. Immediately after the explanation, Anderson asks her: ‘Aunty, please, help me!!!’ (anxious and about to cry). The teacher does not answer the boy's call, and Anderson remains sitting there doing his homework and crying. The emergence and empowerment of Anderson's I/self Positioning as an incompetent child was the result of the convergence of different semiotic mediators. On the one hand, the change of educational institution entailed a new value system, and teacher's expectations basically concerned the literacy process. On the other, his mother's voice gained more and more power over the boy's dialogical Self system, due to his father's absence (parents were divorcing, father left home). Anderson, then, created a new strategy to deal with, and compensate for, the tension deriving from negative self-meanings, and a new I/self Positioning emerged in the first grade: the good videogames player. Excerpt 8 (Storytelling - the Frog) R: What things can you do better than other people? Giselle: (raises her hand immediately, smiles) I can draw!!! R: You can draw, nice! A interrupts: Me too!!! And I'm a good video-game player!!! I am a good player with all kinds of videogames (joyful, confident]. R: Videogame? A: Yes! Videogames! (smiles with confidence). Excerpt 9 (Drawing copybook) Anderson talks with the researcher about the frog story during the copybook session. R: What do you do better than anyone else? A: I can do two things. To play [videogames] and to help. In the copybook session, the main subject of the boy's drawings were scenes of videogames, including thieves (always present in these games). In the interview with his mother, she mentioned that what mostly motivated Anderson were the video games. The emergence of this I/self Positioning was the result of Anderson's intra-psychological negotiations, which came forth as a way of generating a sense of competence, since positionings related to being competent in reading and writing were constantly deconstructed by his mother and teacher. Thus, the emergence of ‘I am a good videogame player’ operates as a self-regulating mechanism to balance the dynamics of the 47

Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 14 (2017) 38–50

M. Roncancio-Moreno, A.U. Branco

boy's dialogical Self system, buffering the negative messages sent to him by significant others' voices. The tension between ‘competence versus incompetence’ ended up generating this novelty in the system. Hence, new signs were created by the subject to deal with the adverse conditions. 4. Discussion and conclusions The present study was carried out from a cultural psychology theoretical approach, integrated with concepts of a Dialogical Self Theory. Its goal was to analyze and make sense of children's developmental trajectories along their transition from preschool to the first grade, by identifying the dynamic configuration of children's dialogical self system along such period of time. The ideographic and longitudinal approach to Giselle's, Helena's and Anderson's trajectories allowed for the investigation of Self developmental processes, as each child's I/self Positionings—concept theoretically developed along our studies about the topic (Branco, 2015; Freire & Branco, 2016; Roncancio-Moreno, 2015)—were identified and analyzed in terms of emergence, extinction and transformation within their dialogical Self systems. The use of several methodological tools allowed for the access to different aspects of children's lives. In this regard, children, parents, teachers and peers provided valuable information about the dynamic of the Dialogical Self System of each child during their transition period. Social interactions, observed in the videos, field notes, semi-structured tasks, together with the narratives produced by the participants, were the core of the investigation of the children's meaning-making process about themselves. The analysis revealed that each trajectory is unique and each child used different affective-semiotic resources for living through the transition process. Indeed, the transition from preschool to Elementary school not only involved changes in the institutional rules and scholar routines, but the transformation of children's self-meanings as well, with the emergence of novel configurations (Hviid, 2012). During Phase 1 and Phase 2—for a period of approximately one year—we mapped the existence, emergence and transformation of I/self positionings. As Zittoun (2015) argues, transitions entail identity redefinitions, learning and sense making. Consequently, transitions are opportunities for development. There are some common elements to the three trajectories. First, Helena, Giselle and Anderson, each on his/her own way, internalized the voices of significant others and put them actively into dialogue with their own voices. They created new I/self positionings to deal with the tensions in their Dialogical Self System. The emergence of a new I/self positioning is coherent with Hermans and Hermans-Konopka (2010) statement about the creation of a third position to negotiate between opposite I-positions. We claim that this emergence is occurs because the system operates to release tension and achieve a reasonable level of integration and stability. The emergence results from the dynamics of Dialogical Self System resources in interaction with several catalytic conditions—significant social others and activities—that enable new developments (Valsiner & Cabell, 2012). This emergence, resulting from the tension between change and stability, could “imply that novel aspects appear and dominate some periods of the child's life, whereas already given aspects seem to dominate other periods of life and thus keep the system more stable” (Hviid, 2012, p. 38). Second, it has been clear that expectations and meanings communicated by significant social others are fundamental in selfnegotiations and, consequently, in the construction of a child's future. We can understand imagined, future-oriented meanings and expectations as anticipated recognition (Mattos & Chaves, 2013) of success or failure. Parents and teachers were, in this study, powerful agents of cultural canalization who contributed to children's trajectories. Children actively internalized the social and affective suggestions coming from significant others, and created new meanings. For instance, in the cases of Helena and Giselle, some significant others projected them as successful in future. In Helena's case, it was the mother and the first-grade teacher; in Giselle's, the mother and both teachers (preschool and first grade). In Anderson's case, though, the anticipated recognition by his mother and the first grade teacher positioned the boy as failing in the immediate future. Thus, such messages may guide children's development (as in self-fulfillment prophecies, Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968), for such messages operate as a sort of cultural canalization of I/self positionings along ontogenesis. Significant others' anticipations, therefore, may orient, with varied power, an individual's Self development. Concerning the particular construction of each trajectory, the study was instrumental in revealing that, as each trajectory is unique, the way of dealing with tensions is specific to each child, and mobilize different signs and affective-semiotic processes. In Helena's case, the signs were related to the body and its movements, cultivated in several cultural settings—such as gym, school, family, and these contributed to the production of relevant self-meanings, which may work as a promoter sign. As Mattos and Chaves (2013) explain, “promoter signs work interweaving multiple levels of meaning, giving a new configuration to the ‘architecture of self’ in space-time” (p.115), thus enabling human development. For Giselle, drawing performed the role of promoter sign. It helped her to negotiate the tensions that emerged in her first year of Elementary school, related her difficulties in relation to literacy. In Anderson's case, the promoter sign related to videogames, and as he considered himself an expert player, this operated as a resource that enabled him to achieve a certain stability in his Dialogical Self System. Such promoter signs and resources do not completely eliminate the tensions arising from opposing affective-semiotic fields (such as ‘intelligent versus dumb’, ‘accepted versus rejected’), but help to relatively integrate and stabilize the Self system. This research has theoretical and pedagogical implications. Theoretically, we contribute to the field of developmental psychology by showing how children co-construct their life trajectories being agentive and recursive actors (Hilppö, Lipponen, Kumpulainen, & Virlander, 2015; Johnson, 2017). In this way, we are also taking into account the children's perspective, which is necessary to study their development (Hviid, 2008, 2012). We also highlight the relevance of the expectations regarding the future and how messages from social others especially affect children via affective-semiotic processes. By drawing the three trajectories, we invite the reader to think about the nature of human development as nonlinear, dynamic and open processes uniting past and present experiences with an imagined, anticipated future (Carré, Valsiner, & Hampl, 2017; Valsiner, 2014), in the configuration those 48

Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 14 (2017) 38–50

M. Roncancio-Moreno, A.U. Branco

affective-semiotic signs that ultimately guide the individual's actions, feelings and thoughts. Helena, Giselle, and Anderson demonstrate the dynamic quality of human Dialogical Self development. Pedagogical implications include the construction of dialogical practices and good quality interactions and relationships at educational cultural contexts in order to empower children's agency and foster their development. As a final remark, we argue that it will be fruitful for future research to broaden the scope of studies about children's Self development and agency, taking into account the potential of their active participation in the co-construction of their own life course. Conflict of interest The authors declare no conflict of interest. Funding This work was supported by a scholarship provided by CAPES Brazil. Acknowledgements This paper is dedicated to the memory of Helena, who passed away last December. She demonstrated, in her short life, to be a dedicated athlete and a lovely daughter. The researchers want to thank the children who participated in this study, their families and the schools. References Akseer, T., Lao, M. G., & Bosacki, S. (2012). Children's gendered drawings of play behaviours. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 58(2), 300–305. Bateson, G. (1991). Pasos hacia una ecología de la mente. Buenos Aires: Planeta. Bellgard, T. (2005). Examining “self” in five-year-olds' personal stories: A narrative analysis of coherence. Retrieved from http://psych.hanover.edu/research/ thesis07/bellgardpaper.pdf. Bertau, M. C., Gonçalves, M., & Raggat, P. (2012). Dialogic formations: Investigations into the origins and development of the dialogical self. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Branco, A. U. (2015). Values and their way of guiding the psyche. In J. Valsiner, G. Marsico, S. Sato, & V. Dazzani (Eds.), Psychology as a science of human being: The Yokohama Manifesto (pp. 225–244). Cham: Springer. Branco, A. U., Freire, S., & Roncancio-Moreno, M. (2016). Emergência e desenvolvimento dos Posicionamentos Dinâmicos de Si. Aporte ao Sistema de Self Dialógico. VI Simpósio de Pesquisa e Intercâmbio Científico em Psicologia. Maceió, Brazil, 7 a 10 de junho. Branco, A. U., Pessina, L., Flores, A., & Salomão, S. (2004). A sociocultural constructivist approach to metacommunication in child development. In A. U. Branco, & J. Valsiner (Eds.), Communication and metacommunication in human development (pp. 3–32). Greenwich, Connecticut: Information Age. Branco, A. U., & Valsiner, J. (1997). Changing methodologies: A co-constructivist study of goal orientation in social interaction. Psychology and Developing Societies, 9(1), 35–64. Branco, A. U., & Valsiner, J. (2012). Cultural psychology of human values. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Burchinal, M., Peisner-Feinberg, E., Pianta, R., & Howes, C. (2002). Development of academic skills from preschool through second grade: Family and classroom predictors of developmental trajectories. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 415–436. Carré, D., Valsiner, J., & Hampl, S. (2017). Representing development: The social construction of models of change. London and New York: Routledge. Cavada, P. (2016). Starting first-year primary: Children's transitions in classroom learning activities (Doctoral Dissertation)University of Copenhagen, Faculty of Social Sciences. Damian, R. I., & Robins, R. W. (2012). Investigations into the human self: A naturalist perspective. Social Cognition, 30, 431–448. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/soco. 2012.30.4.431. Dehnes, H. (2015). Children's experiences of continuity in the transition from kindergarten to school: The potential of reliance on picture books as boundary objects. International Journal of Transitions in Childhood, 8, 3–13. Fredricks, J. A., & Eccles, J. (2002). Children's competence and value beliefs from childhood through adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 38(4), 519–533. Freire, S., & Branco, A. (2016). O self dialógico em desenvolvimento: um estudo sobre as concepções dinâmicas de si em crianças. Psicologia USP, 27(2), 168–177. Hermans, H. (2001). The dialogical self: Toward a theory of personal and cultural positioning. Culture & Psychology, 7, 243–281. Hermans, H., & Hermans-Konopka, A. (2010). Dialogical self theory: Positioning and counter-positioning in a globalizing society. New York: Cambridge University Press. Hilppö, J., Lipponen, L., Kumpulainen, K., & Virlander, M. (2015). Sense of agency and everyday life: Children's perspective. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 10, 50–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2015.10.001. Hviid, P. (2008). Next year we are small, right? Different times in children's development. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 23(2), 183–198. Hviid, P. (2012). “Remaining the same” and children's experience of development. In M. Hedegaard, K. Aronsson, C. Hojholt, & O. S. Ulvik (Eds.), Children, childhood and everyday life: Children's perspectives (pp. 37–52). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Hviid, K. P., & Villadsen, J. W. (2015). Ruptures and repairs in the course of living: Challenges to developmental psychology. In A. C. Joerchel, & G. Benetka (Eds.), Biographical ruptures and their repair: Cultural transitions in development (pp. 57–82). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing. Jia, R., Lang, S. N., & Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J. (2016). A developmental examination of the psychometric properties and predictive utility of a revised psychological selfconcept measure for preschool-aged children. Psychological Assessment, 28, 226–238. Johnson, S. (2017). Agency, accountability and affect: Kindergarten children's orchestration of reading with a friend. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 12, 15–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2016.09.003. Komatsu, K. (2012). Temporal reticence of the self: Who can know myself? Integrative Psychological Behavior, 46, 357–372. Komatsu, K. (2015). Otherness is everywhere to bring about your self: An inquiry into the whimsical emergence of children's selves. In J. Valsiner, G. Marsico, S. Sato, & V. Dazzani (Eds.), Psychology as a science of human being: The Yokohama Manifesto (pp. 287–297). Cham: Springer. Komolova, M., Pasupathi, M., Wainryb, C., & Lucas, S. (2016). Children's and adolescents' conceptions of personhood: A narrative approach. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 1–10. Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (2012). Balancing depth with breadth: A metacomunicative perspective on the ViSA group analysis of common data. Education et Didactique, 6(3), 103–106. Lopes de Oliveira, M. C. (2016). Desenvolvimento do self e processos de hiperindividualização: interrogações à Psicologia Dialógica. Psicologia USP, 27(2), 201–211. Lysaker, J. (2006). Young children's readings of wordless picture books: What's ‘self’ got to do with it? Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 6(1), 33–55. http://dx.doi.

49

Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 14 (2017) 38–50

M. Roncancio-Moreno, A.U. Branco

org/10.1177/1468798406062174. Malti, T., McDonald, K., Rubin, K., Rose-Krasnor, L., & Booth-LaForce, C. (2015). Developmental trajectories of peer-reported aggressive behavior: The role of friendship understanding, friendship quality, and friends' aggressive behavior. Psychology of Violence, 5(4), 402–410. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0039685. Mattos, E. (2013). Desenvolvimento do self na transição para a vida adulta: um estudo longitudinal com jovens baianos (Doctoral dissertation)Instituto de Psicologia, Universidade Federal da Bahia. Mattos, E., & Chaves, A. (2013). The architecture of self-in-motion: Exploring young people's construction of “becoming”. Interacções, 24, 106–136. Mattos, E., & Chaves, A. (2015). “Becoming-professionals”: Exploring young people's construction of alternative futures. In G. Marsico, V. Dazzani, M. Ristum, & A. Bastos (Eds.), Educational contexts and borders through a cultural lens (pp. 131–155). New York: Springer. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society: From the standpoint of a social behaviorist. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pepler, D., Jiang, D., Craig, W., & Connolly, J. (2008). Developmental trajectories of bullying and associated factors. Child Development, 79, 325–338. Roncancio-Moreno, M. (2015). Dinâmica das significações de si em crianças na perspectiva dialógico-cultural (Doctoral Dissertation)Universidade de Brasília, Brazil. Roncancio-Moreno, M., & Branco, A. U. (2015). Desenvolvimento do Self Dialógico nos Primeiros Anos de Vida: Teoria e Pesquisas. Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa, 31(4), 425–434. Roncancio-Moreno, M., & Branco, A. U. (2017). Self development, human values and the construction of children's trajectories in educational context. Cultural psychology of educationSpringer (in press). Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Salvatore, S., & Valsiner, J. (2009). Idiographic science on its way: Towards making sense of psychology. In S. Salvatore, J. Valsiner, S. Strout, & J. Clegg (Eds.), YIS: Yearbook of idiographic science (pp. 9–19). Rome: Firera. Valsiner, J. (2007). Culture in minds and societies. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Valsiner, J. (2014). An invitation to cultural psychology. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Valsiner, J., & Cabell, K. H. (2012). Self-making through synthesis: Extending dialogical self theory. In H. J. M. Hermans, & T. Gieser (Eds.), Handbook of dialogical self theory (pp. 82–97). Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. Wong, M. (2015). Voices of children, parents and teachers: How children cope with stress during school transition. Early Child Development and Care, 185(4), 658–678. Zittoun, T. (2006). Transitions. Development through symbolic resources. Greenwich, CT: InfoAge. Zittoun, T. (2009). Dynamics of life-course transitions - a methodological reflections. In J. Valsiner, P. C. M. Molenaar, M. C. D. P. Lyra, & N. Chaudhary (Eds.), Dynamic process methodology in the social and developmental sciences (pp. 405–430). New York: Springer. Zittoun, T. (2014). Transitions as dynamic processes — A commentary. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 3(3), 232–236. Zittoun, T. (2015). Imagining one's life: Imagination, transitions and developmental trajectories. In S. M. Gondim, & O. D. Bichara (Eds.), A psicologia e os desafios do mundo contemporaneo (pp. 127–153). Salvador: Ufba. Zittoun, T. (2016). A sociocultural psychology of the life-course. Social Psychological Review, 18(1), 6–17.

50