interchange in education

Shareen Abramson

Abramson, S. (Summer , 2006). Interchange in education. Co-Inquiry Journal, 1(2).

© All rights reserved. This publication is protected by copyright and permission should be obtained from the author prior to any prohibited reproduction, storage in a retrieval system, or transmission in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or likewise. The author can be contacted at: shareena@coinquiry.org

Interchange is a communicative act that involves the negotiation of ideas conveyed in signs and symbols. Throughout life, meaning grows from interchange as one engages with people, objects, events and symbolic systems. In this ongoing, dynamic process, sharing and co-constructing ideas are critical to the discovery of meaning. Filled with expressing, experiencing, feeling and thinking as well as inquiry, relationship, commitment, development and learning, interchange represents the story of a lifetime. For society, the interchanging of ideas translates into education, commitment to others, cultural and economic development and innovation.

Like navigating a convolution of LA freeways, living in a multitude of interchange provides the twists, turns, changes, complications, elaborations and surprises that make each person’s journey very special and one-of-a-kind. Relationships facilitate interchange and are strengthened through regular interchange. In the discourse of interchange, thoughts are explored, revised and expanded in order to make sense of ideas and gain new insights. Over time, the process of interchange deepens understanding of the world, oneself and others and changes one’s outlook. As a result, “knowing,” the ultimate goal of interchange, emerges in the continual negotiation of meaning between the self and other.

The Concept of Interchange

The concept of interchange derives from theories of communication and social interaction from the fields of language, literacy, linguistics, mass communication, philosophy, psychology and human development. Relevant for understanding educational issues in today’s diverse society, interchange encompasses three specific areas of cross-disciplinary research: 1) inquiry, a method for studying problems and identifying solutions (Dewey, 1938); 2) semiotics, the study of signs and symbols engendering language, thought and culture (Eco, 1976); and 3) intersubjectivity, a state of awareness concerning another's perspective and the sharing of meaning. (Crossley, 1996; Trevarthen & Aitken, 2001). These areas and the importance of interchange in early education are explored in this paper as well as in future issues of the Co-Inquiry Journal.

An individual may engage in interchange with: 1) family, friends, community, others, 2) environment, objects, materials, nature, events and/or 3) language, culture, history, knowledge values and ideas. Through the process of interchange, the individual seeks personal and shared meaning. As new insights arise, thinking is transformed.

Interchange also fosters empathic relationships, respect for differences and commitment to the well-being of others. "Meeting minds" or "seeing the world through the eyes of another" are metaphorical descriptions of this intersubjective state.

Interchange with objects, events, etc. can also contribute intersubjective meaning. For example, in reading a book or viewing a work of art, an individual may experience a sense of connection with the consciousness of another. Moreover, cultural objects, events and symbols as well as natural phenomena transmit meaning to the mind. For example, a campfire, a birthday present, working with clay, driving a sports car, the sound of falling rain or the scent of a rose can create an intersubjective state and feeling of oneness.

Forms of Interchange

There are innumerable forms of interchange. Direct interchange occurs continually in relationships and firsthand experience. While verbal dialogue is a primary form, interchange can also include physical actions such as body language or gestures, creative expression in music, art, dance, photography or film including experiences with objects and other phenomena. In the social context of home, classroom, organization, or community, interchange among larger groups of people becomes increasingly complex and varied. Interchange also includes engaging with ideas represented in symbols, for example: reading a novel, studying a historical event, making a work of art, perusing a map, building a house, celebrating a cultural event or holiday, obeying a law, applying an ethical principle or honoring a religious belief. These forms of interchange are more abstract, internalized and indirect.

The Continuum of Interchange

The quality and productiveness of interchange can be viewed as a continuum that moves from minimal communication toward optimum communication. At the lower end, the communicative value of interchange is next to nil because neither party understands the ideas of the other. At the continuum’s higher end, interchange demonstrates mutual effort, reciprocity and respect for the others’ ideas. As more people take part, the complexity of interchange increases.

To explore the continuum further, four types of interchange are described: no change, exchange, interchange, group interchange and the network of interchange.

When neither party considers the other’s need for meaning, interchange falters. Talking without listening to the other or arguing is typical of poor interchange. Teachers who give long, boring lectures and assign “busy work” show a lack of appreciation for students’ desire to understand the meaning of what they are learning. These kinds of interactions hamper the construction of meaning. Therefore there is “no change” in meaning or understanding of ideas.

Exchange is an important beginning for real interchange. Exchange tends to be a straightforward transaction, like trading ideas or buying and selling of goods and services. Exchange has a specific goal in mind: to make an equal or favorable swap for the benefit of the separate entities.

Unfortunately at the lower end of exchange, interactions can become detached and mechanistic, an input for an output or an upload of a credit card number for a download of information. When confounded by the strong desire for financial gain or profit, a chilling effect weakens relationships with others. Such minimal exchange is nearly closed, offering only bits and pieces of information in order to manipulate or control. In contrast, at the higher end of exchange, a relationship may develop over time that eventually leads to more meaningful interchange and more openness. In this period of uncertainty where doubt, conflict and self-interest often cast a shadow, exchange may be a realistic starting point that can lead to deeper interchange.

The definition of each prefix distinguishes exchange from interchange: ex means “out ” and inter means “between.” Thus in exchange, meaning is sent out already complete, whereas for interchange, meaning develops as ideas mingle in “the space between.” In the synergy of interchange, individuals openly share interpretations and give value to having a relationship.  As thoughts are expressed without fear or defensiveness, the relationship becomes grounded in ongoing communication and concern for the other. No longer needing to possess ideas, participants contribute to the co-construction of meaning. As a result, perspectives shift and become more inclusive. Stimulating and satisfying, interchange leads to greater awareness of others and their ideas, a feeling of connectedness and sense of optimism. While the outcome of interchange may not be agreement, better understanding of other perspectives encourages respect, communication and caring.

With the increasing number of participants and flow of ideas, small group interchange demands more effort to bridge differences and find meaning. Because group interchange can go astray as competing perspectives are expressed, a plan for meeting or structured dialogue such as co-inquiry may help to facilitate interchange.

Interchange among a large group has the potential to create a community with a shared vision and purpose. For a body such as a professional association or interest group with a particular focus or a shared enterprise, establishing a network of interchange has significant potential for positive educational action. On the internet, different strategies for networked communication such as in forums, chat rooms, blogs, etc. expedite virtual meaning-making among a large group. Interchange among a participant network can build leadership teams, give impetus to collaborative projects and help frame new policies.

The Meaning of the Sign

Interchange is made possible by the sign, the fundamental mode for conveying ideas. The natural gift of every person, the capacity for making and interpreting signs distinguishes human experience and thought. All signs communicate meaning. Moreover, anything can function as a sign—a gesture (hug), word (elephant), graphic (happy face), object (wedding ring), event (birthday). A sign has three aspects: expression, interpretation and response. For example, a driver sees a road sign (an expression of meaning), realizes it’s a stop sign (interprets it), and slows the car to a stop (response).

While the sign-making capacity appears innate, to have interchange with another, signs must have the potential to be understood. To maximize interchange, signs have evolved into organized communication systems. In these systems, signs, such as letters or numerals, denote common, agreed-on meanings, and thus can be utilized as symbols by a group of people. Examples of symbolic systems include verbal and written languages but also non-linguistic systems, like mathematics, music, choreography, culinary arts, computer languages and many more.

Communicative literacy refers to the essential ability to utilize these standard symbolic systems to convey meaning to others. To engage in varied forms of interchange, communicative literacy must be acquired. Individuals learn to communicate in many different contexts, at home, in the community and in the workplace. For most people, formal education provides the major avenue for developing proficiency and expanding their repertoire of communicative literacy abilities.

Facilitating Interchange in Early Education

Early childhood programs already recognize the importance of social relationships, firsthand experiences and early literacy development. In placing greater emphasis on the acquisition of communicative literacy, early educators must not only value communicative literacy, they must be able to plan and organize educational experiences that facilitate interchange and encourage children to communicate ideas in a variety of ways. While a balance of approaches is necessary, co-inquiry projects where children investigate problems afford numerous opportunities for developing and practicing communicative literacy in early education. Experiences in utilizing materials, observing nature, interviewing experts and others, and exploring the community invite interchange and the expression of ideas in symbolic languages.

Teachers and those in other helping professions typically enjoy interchange. They want to share meaning with children and families concerning educational content. Additionally, most early educators have a wealth of knowledge and strategies for literacy instruction. Teachers themselves frequently possess strong abilities in verbal and written English and have a love of literature. However, expertise in other areas of symbolic communication such as visual and performing arts, sciences, etc. may be lacking. In addition, educators need strategies for creating situations for interchange with parents. Teacher training and professional development programs must prepare teachers who are able to facilitate interchange and possess communicative literacy in order for early education to offer children these kinds of experiences.

Play as Interchange. Many early educators misunderstand the purpose and meaning of play. For example, the statement, “play is a child’s work” implies that play is content to be learned and mastered. Because parents see their children continually playing at home, they worry that children are missing out when play is the featured curriculum in the early childhood classroom. Discrepant beliefs about play can result in a chasm of doubt and distrust between early educators and parents.

In reality, the term “play” may be a misnomer. In fact, play is a form of interchange that continues across the life span. However the behaviors that constitute play change as the individual acquires greater communicative literacy and learns more ways to convey meaning symbolically. By redefining play as interchange, early educators can help parents interpret the actions of children as research. In their play, children make hypotheses about their world and others, find out how things work, investigate the properties of objects and discover ways to express meaning.

Testing and Interchange. The current preoccupation with standardized testing presents an impediment to developing children’s communicative literacy. Testing interrupts interchange in the classroom and the precious time available for the acquisition of communicative literacy. A form of exchange, testing requires children to demonstrate knowledge on narrowly defined, predetermined skills in exchange for a score. Today’s tests rarely require the demonstration of communicative literacy in multiple areas of expression. Instead test scores rank learners and teachers in schools in comparison to arbitrary, circumscribed standards of performance in basic reading and mathematics.

While education should promote interchange, some experts and policy-makers want only exchange: input this educational product or textbook and output knowledge and a set of skills. To achieve a standard output, many schools require “pacing” charts that detail the day’s instruction. When “delivered” according to a schedule that does not allow time for interchange, educational concepts and skills remain meaningless objects in the minds of many learners.

Contrary to the exchange view, education based on constructive interchange takes time and respects individual learners’ attempts to make sense. As the instrument for interchange, communicative literacy, using multiple symbolic systems to convey meaning, is the key to language, knowledge, culture, values and ideas. Thus interchange and communicative literacy sustain a democratic society. Learning environments that foster interchange and develop communicative literacy therefore benefit not only children, but also teachers, parents and the community.

A Preschool Interchange:

The Roads Project

To view weblog documentation for the Roads Project, go to http://www.fanslerece.org/coinquiry/2006/07/roads_project.html

At the beginning of the year and new to preschool, many of the children don’t know each other and lack confidence in working together. In the morning activities, several children enjoy playing with blocks and small cars. As they race the cars on the blocks, the children seem able to negotiate differences that arise. Using a notepad attached to a clipboard to record, the teacher documents her observations of the children and the children’s comments during these interactions. The teacher takes digital photographs of their constructions and use of the cars. For example, Brian (4.9) works with several other children to connect their separate roads together. Later in the morning, the teachers print the photos and post them in plastic sleeves on the “daily journal” wall strip. When Brian’s mom comes to pick him up, she sees the photo, reads the documentation and discusses the experience with the teacher and her son. She shares with the teachers that Brian plays with cars at home for long periods of time.

At a group meeting, the children and teachers discuss roads and look at the photos taken during their activities. One of the teachers documents, the discussion, taking notes and photos.

A teacher asks: “What is a road?”

Reyna (4.0)” It’s like a street. It’s like driving.”

Jacob (3.6): “It has signs with it and dots with it.”

Christopher (4.10). Roads are where we drive cars when we go to the store.”

Braelen (4.10): “It’s where you race on and where you drive on. The pipes are under the road.”

Colton (4.1): “A motorcycle. It’s a road motorcycle drive, go beep beep. My mommy go to work and my daddy go to work.”

Joey (4.1): “Street is like metal stuff, glass. Trucks drive on it.”

The next day, the class discusses the documentation from the previous day. Then the children draw their roads. A group goes outside to build the road that Kayla (4.3) has drawn. Using her drawing, Kayla shows the others where to put the blocks. She wants them to use the long blocks (middle right). Kayla, Brain (4.9) and Jantzen (4.9) test the road with the cars.

Next the children decide to build Jantzen’s circular road. Using the same strategy for building Kayla’s road, they place the blocks end-to-end. But they only make a straight line!

Teacher: Does the road look the same as the drawing?”

Jantzen refers to his drawing and looks back at the block road. He seems dissatisfied because the road is not the same as the drawing.

Jantzen (4.9). “It’s not round.”

The children experiment, connecting the blocks in different ways, debating the best way to place the blocks. Jantzen begins to manipulate two of the blocks. He discovers that if one corner of the block touches another, he can adjust their

position until they form a curve. The other children assist in modifying the road using Jantzen’s strategy. Finally, they test the new road to see if it works.

Co-Inquiry Questions

To understand the value of interchange and how communicative literacy is acquired in an early education classroom, discuss this episode on the Co-Inquiry Blog using the co-inquiry process.

 Consider the following questions:

Who are the participants in the preschool interchange?

Discuss how relationships, experiences and ideas contribute to the interchange.

How has the teacher organized a learning experience that allows interchange and communicative literacy?

What are some of the examples of children’s communicative literacy in the vignette that you find interesting?

What questions do you have about this interchange?

How might the teacher continue to research and develop children’s communicative literacy in studying and building roads?

How does communicative literacy support interchange?

For more examples of interchange in early education, see the Box Project at

http://www.fanslerece.org/coinquiry/2006/07/investigating_boxes.html

and the Sibling Project at

http://www.fanslerece.org/coinquiry/2006/07/siblings_project.html

References

Crossley, N. (1995). Intersubjectivity: The fabric of social becoming. London: SAGE.

Dewey, J. (1938). The logic of inquiry. New York: Holt.

Eco, U. (1976). A theory of semiotics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Trevarthen,C. & Aitken, K. J. (2001). Infant intersubjectivity: Research, theory and clinical applications. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 42(1), 3-48.