Schema musings

This post is a bit disconnected for two reasons. First, I wrote it in my head at 3.00 am two days ago. Second, it's a work in progress. I'm primarily jotting down some ideas so I can go back to them later - probably to disagree with myself!


I wrote in a comment on Susan's blog a while back that schemas to me were verbs rather than nouns. That is, they are about a child doing something (such as rotating, or thinking about rotation) rather than a topic area or item of interest.

This is in part why I've always had a small difficulty with "circularity" as a schema. Rotation is fine, but I haven't yet experienced a child who is into circularity for its own sake. I suspect that exploring rotation (creating and exploring circular motion) may well lock in place cognitive structures that allow adults or older people to enjoy circularity in the abstract, whether in art (as in the curve of a sculpture) or just the aesthetically pleasing circle made by a doorknob.

(Can you make a circle without rotating? Yes, if you use a stamp, or if you place two semi-circle blocks together etc). The unknowable question is what is going on in the child's mind as they view the product. Are their eyes following the curve - that is, rotating? And during the process - is it circularity they are exploring, or something else?).

I'm about a third of the way through Nikolien's new schema book. (van Wijk, Nikolien (2008) Getting Started With Schemas: Revealing the wonder-full world of children's play. New Zealand Playcentre Federation). In the list of common schemas, one schema stuck out for me - "spatial relationships". Spatial relationships isn't a verb! Then I thought further that actually it is a verb, it's just called something different for grammatical purposes. I can think of this schema as "relating" in a spatial sense. The relationship may be under, over, through, diagonally, through a city or in different countries.

A key link is that thinking is doing. It's just a bit more complex and slippery! And harder for an observer to interpret.

Which brings me to a part in the book which gave me a rather disconcerting experience. Nikolien reminds us of Piaget's ideas about stages of development (with abstract thinking appearing relatively late in the piece). She then says, however, that there is evidence of abstract thinking in young children. As it was referenced, I wondered who had said that. My eyes drifted down to the footnote. I said that? I flipped to the references proper. Oh yes, so I did. (But in a very simple way through illustration-by-anecdote, rather than in an academic, published sense).

Another thread of thinking. Children - and probably bigger people too in the main - learn best by doing. You will learn more by baking a cake than have someone tell you about baking a cake, or reading about baking cakes, pictorially or with text. This is another reason I suspect that in verbs schemas find strength.

So what of figurative schemas? I would still argue that the action of making the figure is far more important than the end product - the action of dabbing, zigzagging, or creating a curve. Of course, seeing the mark made as a result is an important part of the experience, but it is richest if it is linked to the action of making it. Using the rotation example, other people's circles are indeed very interesting, but making your own circles is what really creates that state of flow, which Susan writes briefly about here. (She writes much more elsewhere in her blog). It is with the action that you get the deep engagement, that perhaps feeds the ability to appreciate in the abstract.

Flicking ahead, I see Nikolien writes about a musical schema. I am intrigued, and will look forward to reading about this, as I think it challenges my schema model.

Anyway, I'm about to hit the "publish post" button on this draft. I hope my later self doesn't find this too incoherent or embarrassing....