Advertisement

International Journal of Early Childhood

, Volume 44, Issue 2, pp 171–184 | Cite as

The Puppets Communicative Potential as a Mediating Tool in Preschool Education

  • Mirella Forsberg Ahlcrona
Original Article

Abstract

This article describes a puppet as a mediating tool in early childhood education and the puppets communicative properties, potential and use in preschool. In the empirical section, the puppet consists and functions as a starting point for children’s interaction, narratives and different ways of communication. The research interest is directed towards the content of communicative processes where the puppet is present between the teacher and the children, towards children’s ways of expressing the meaning of the puppet, and towards the motives that are generated in the interaction between the puppet and the children in different activities. The overall aim is to generate knowledge of the puppet’s relational, linguistic and action-related potential as a mediating tool for children’s communication and learning in preschool.

Keywords

The puppet as a tool Communication Activity Motive Mediation 

Résumé

Cet article décrit les marionnettes comme instrument de médiation en éducation infantile, de même que les propriétés, le potentiel et les utilisations des marionnettes pour la communication à l’école maternelle. La section empirique de l’article décrit en quoi consistent les marionnettes et comment elles fonctionnent comme point de départ de l’interaction, du récit et de divers moyens de communication des enfants. La recherche s’intéresse au contenu des processus de communication entre l’enseignant et les enfants, en présence de la marionnette, à la manière dont les enfants expriment le sens de la marionnette ainsi qu’aux motifs générés dans l’interaction entre la marionnette et les enfants dans différentes activités. Le but général est de développer les connaissances sur le potentiel des marionnettes aux plans relationnel, linguistique et relatif à l’action, comme outil de médiation pour la communication et l’apprentissage des enfants à la maternelle.

Resumen

Este artículo describe cómo se pueden utilizar los títeres como instrumento de mediación en la educación infantil. Se comentan las capacidades comunicativas de estos títeres, su potencial y su utilización en el nivel preescolar. En la parte empírica del artículo, se comenta cómo el títere puede ser el punto de partida para la interacción entre los niños, para generar relatos y para diferentes tipos de comunicación. Se enfoca el contenido de la comunicación entre el profesor y los niños, la manera en la que los niños expresan lo que significa el títere y los motivos que los niños adscriben a éste. El propósito del artículo es generar un conocimiento sobre cómo los títeres pueden servir al desarrollo relacional, lingüístico y de actuación de los niños y niñas.

References

  1. Änggård, E. (2006). Barn skapar bilder i förskolan.[Children create drawings in preschool]. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
  2. Bakhtin, M. (1988). Det dialogiska ordet. [The dialogical word]. Gråbo: Anthropos.Google Scholar
  3. Bakhtin, M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. (Eds.). C. Emerson & M. Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bernier, M., & O’Hare, J. (Eds.). (2005). Puppetry in education and therapy: unlocking doors to the mind and heart. Bloomington: Authorhouse.Google Scholar
  5. Björklund, E. (2008). Att erövra litteracitet. Små barns kommunikativa möten med berättande, bilder, text och tecken i förskolan. [To conquer literacy. Yang children’s communication with narratives, pictures and signs in preschool]. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
  6. Blumenthal, E. (2005). Puppetry and puppets: an illustrated world history. London: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
  7. Brédikyté, M. (2000). Dialogical drama with puppets (DDP) as a method of fostering children’s verbal creativity. Vilnius: Vilnius Pedagogical University.Google Scholar
  8. Brown, B. (2005). Combating discrimination. Persona Dolls in action. Wiltshire: Cromwell Press Ltd.Google Scholar
  9. Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of Meaning. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Bruner, J. (2002). Making stories. Law, literature, life. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Cole, M. (2009). The development of mind. Selected works of Aleksei Nikolaevich Leontyev. Marxists Internet Archive. PO Box 1541; Pacifica, CA 94044; USA.Google Scholar
  13. Engeström, Y. (1990). Learning, working and imagining: twelve studies in activity theory. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.Google Scholar
  14. Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamäki, R.-L. (Eds.). (1999). Perspectives on activity theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Eriksen Ødegaard, E. (2007). Meningsskaping i barnehagen. Innhold og bruk av barns voksnes samtalefortellinger. [Narrative meaning-making in preschool]. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
  16. Fangen, K. (2005). Deltagande observation. [Participating observations]. Malmö: Liber.Google Scholar
  17. Forsberg Ahlcrona, M. (2009). Handdockans kommunikativa potential som medierande redskap i förskolan. [The puppet’s communicative potential as a mediating tool in preschool]. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
  18. Forsberg Ahlcrona, M. (2012). Förskolans didaktik och dockan som redskap—kommunikation och skapande i förskolan. [Preschool didactic and puppet as a tool—communication and creation in preschool]. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
  19. Gjems, L. (2006). Hva lærer barn når de forteller? En studie av barns læringsprosesser gjennom narrativ praksis. [What children learn when they make narratives? A study about children’s learning through narrative practice]. Oslo: Unversitetet i Oslo.Google Scholar
  20. Gjems, L. (2009). Å samtale seg til kunskap. Sosiokulturelle torier om barns learing om språk og gjennom språk. [Through conversation to knowledge. Sociocultural theorys about childrens lerning about language and through the language]. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget Vigmostad & Bjørke AS.Google Scholar
  21. Glibo, R. M. (2000). Lutkvarstvo i scenska kultura. [Puppetry and scenic culture]. Zagreb: Ekološki glasnik.Google Scholar
  22. Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1995). Ethnography. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Hamre, I. (2002). The learning process in the theatre of paradox. In E. Majaron & L. Kroflin (Eds.), The puppet—what a miracle! (s. 3–14). Zagreb: The UNIMA Puppets in Education Commission 2002.Google Scholar
  24. Hamre, I. (2004). Learning through animation theatre. Denmark: UNIMA.Google Scholar
  25. Helgesen, A. (1999). Figurteatrets historie: Europeisk teaterhistorie fra en annen kant. [Figure theatre history: European theatre history from another perspective]. Vollen: Tell førlag A/S.Google Scholar
  26. Hunt, T., & Renfro, N. (1982). Puppetry in early childhood education. Austin: Renfro Studios.Google Scholar
  27. Jurkowski, H. (1988). Aspects of puppet theatre: a collection of essays. Penny Francis (Ed.). London: Puppet Centre Trust.Google Scholar
  28. Kaplan, B. (2005). Dockteater bakom taggtråd. Kulturens kamp mot ondskans våld i Theresienstadts ghetto 1941–1945. [Puppet theatre behind barbed wire. Cultural struggle against the evil in Thersienstads ghetto 1941–1945]. Västra Frölunda: Frölunda Kulturhus.Google Scholar
  29. Kelly, A. (2003) (Ed.) Special issue on the role of design in educational research (Special issue). Educational Researcher, 32(1).Google Scholar
  30. Klerfelt, A. (2007). Barns multimediala berättande.En länk mellan mediakultur och pedagogisk praktik. [Children’s digital story telling and cultural meaning: a link between educational practice and mass media]. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
  31. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Leontiev, A. N. (1977). Verksamhet—medvetande—personlighet. [Activity—consciousness—personality]. Göteborg: Progress Moskva/Fram bokförlag.Google Scholar
  33. Linell, P. (1998). Approaching dialogue. Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  34. Majaron, E., & Kroflin, L. (Eds.). (2002). The puppet—what a miracle!. Zagreb: The Unima, Puppets in Education Commission.Google Scholar
  35. Max Prior, D. (Ed.). (2009). Animated bodies: a review of puppetry and related arts. UK: The Puppet Centre Trust.Google Scholar
  36. Meschke, M. (2000). Internationalism and puppet theatre: definitions and applications. The worldwide art of puppetry. I UNIMA 2000 (s. 50–59).Google Scholar
  37. Säljö, R. (2000). Lärande i praktiken. Ett sociokulturellt perspektiv. [Lerning in practice. A sociocultural perspective]. Stockholm: Prisma.Google Scholar
  38. Säljö, R. (2005). Lärande & kulturella redskap. Om lärprocesser och det kollektiva minnet. [Learning & cultural tools. About learning processes and kollektiv memories]. Stockholm: Norstedts Akademiska Förlag.Google Scholar
  39. Stern, D. N. (2003). Spädbarnets interpersonella värld. Ett psykoanalytiskt och utvecklingspsykologiskt perspektiv. [The interpersonal world of the infant. The psychoanalytic and a developmental approach]. Stockholm: Natur och Kultur.Google Scholar
  40. Stetsenko, A. P. (1999). Social interaction, cultural tools and the zone of proximal development: In I S. Chaiklin, M. Hedegaard & U. Juul Jensen (Eds.) Search of a synthesis. Activity theory and social practice. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Strandberg, L. (2006). Vygotskij i praktiken. Bland plugghästar och fusklappar. [Vygotskij in practice. Among the crammer and the crib]. Stockholm: Norstedts Akademiska Förlag.Google Scholar
  42. Tillis, S. (1992). Toward an aesthetics of the puppet: puppetry as a theatrical art. New York: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  43. van Oers, B. (Ed.). (2003). Narratives of childhood. Theoretical and practical explorations for the innovation of early childhood education. Amsterdam: VU University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Vygotskiy, L. S. (1995). Fantasi och kreativitet i barndomen. [Fantasy and creativity in childhood]. Göteborg: Daidalos.Google Scholar
  45. Vygotsky, L. S. (1971). The psychology of art. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  46. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  48. Wallerstedt, C. (2010). Att peka ut det osynliga i rörelse. [Pointing out the invisible in motion: a didactic study on time in music]. Göteborg: Högskolan för scen och musik, Göteborgs universitet.Google Scholar
  49. Walther, M. (2009). Dockor som sceniskt uttryck. [Puppets as a scenic expression]. Stockholm: Dramatiska institutet.Google Scholar
  50. Wertsch, J. V. (Ed.). (1985). Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: a sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. London: University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Wright, S. (Ed.). (1991). The arts in early childhood. Australia: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  54. Wright, S. (2003). Children, meaning-making and the arts. Australia: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  55. Wright, S. (2010). Understanding creativity in early childhood. Meaning-making and children’s drawing. SAGE publications Ltd.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institution of Communication and InformationUniversity of SkövdeSkövdeSweden

Personalised recommendations