Tuesday, 28 January 2014

"Eso es una guarrería"

(I again jajaja)

I did the exercise 7 a few days ago with my cousins; they have 3 and 6 years. It was the situation:
Me: Candela (3), look at this picture.
She: …
Me: What do you see?
She: Nothing.
And she left.
Now with Javier (6)

Me: Javier, look at this picture.
He: “Eso es una guarrería”
Me: Why?
He: Beacuse they are without clothes.
Me: Do you see something else?
He: M… no.
Me: Can you see the bottle?
He: Ah! Yes, of course.
Me:  I can see some dolphins.
He: …
Me: Can you see them?
He: … well… I think so…

In this moment Candela came.

She: Javier, what are you looking for? There is nothing.
He: “¡Sí, hay una guarrería!” 
She: It is a lie (looking at the picture)
He: Laura, why doesn´t Candela see nothing?

And their mum interrupted us.

My interpretation:
Candela wasn’t interested by the pictures, maybe due to external factors. Moreover, she didn’t find a meaning of it, she is not prepared yet.
The first Javier saw was the couple, and then the bottle. Sometimes we focus our attention on striking things or acts. And this keeps out to see the common or the basic structure. To see it, it is necessary to do a complex exercise. Javier did it with my help. And then, the common seems too evidence.
I think he didn´t see the dolphins but he tried to find them. It was funny because he was looking for them in the water. Meantime, I was surprised; I hadn’t thought this exercise would be so.
When Javier said to Candela there is a “guarrería”, she came attracted by this. But she didn’t accept we could see something. Javier, in return, accepted I could see dolphins or Candela couldn´t see nothing, but he didn´t know why. He still doesn´t know it.
In relation with Kegan´s theory:
Candela can´t consider points of view different to hers. She can´t differentiate the subjective perception of the object. And she can´t do cause-effect connections. She has a big attachment to momentary and immediate things, a self-centered sociality and her feelings are impulsive.
Javier accepts the object has properties independently his perceptions. He accepts other people have different points of view. But with the picture he can´t do generalisations, take out some topics and compare them.
I can “play” with the object, I am independent of it. I can take out topics and make connections between them. For example, I can reflect about the striking, the society and why this scene is considered a “guarrería” by kids.
I like these tree levels and their differences and similarities. 

1 comment:

  1. Great analysis. This is the kind of answer I was trying to generate, the kind of reflection, the kind of relationship between a task and ideas ( theoretical grounded or not, It is easier to begin with theories and then use them to think and even going beyond them). I will give another good example soon, If all of you want to continue playing and thinking.

    By the way... I think it can be useful to compare your elaboration with this one I received recently (as part of your final task):

    First, the student states that he has just decided to anwer this optional question because he wants to get a higher grade (a motivation... but probably not the best motivation ;) It is funny because it is also implied that he could also get a lower grade because depending of the answer.

    So you better evaluate it:

    "Bajo mi punto de vista creo que el niño vería delfines, que es lo que más me ha costado ver a mí. Vería esto porque le resultará más normal ver delfines que una mujer y un hombre en la botella desnudos y por lo que parece haciendo cosas que los niños no comprenderían a los cuatro años.
    El pequeño por lo tanto vería delfines dentro de una botella mientras que el adulto a una pareja haciendo cosas que hacen las parejas."

    And that was all....



    Thanks. Laura