Please include the following for full credit:
• 3 key points from the article
• 2 quotes that speak to you with an analysis of why they are significant to development
• 1 Question (with an answer to your own question): You may question the findings, analyses, method, and conclusions. You may offer ideas for future research or how to build on the study. Superficial questions such as definition clarifications will not qualify for credit.
learningeducationhuman development
Cultural patterns of collaboration and communication while
working together among U.S. Mexican heritage children
Maricela Correa-Chávez ⁎
California State University, Long Beach, United States
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 13 November 2015
Received in revised form 9 August 2016
Accepted 15 August 2016
Available online 9 September 2016
To examine the cultural organization of collaboration, 50 U.S. Mexican-heritage sibling pairs
(ages 6–11) were videotaped as they participated in a puzzle construction activity. Half were
from families with more recent connection with rural practices, and limited schooling (“pueblo
families”) and half from “high schooling families” (more connection with middle-class prac-
tices, higher schooling). Children were given a previously constructed model, parts to construct
another, and left alone. Every 10 s coders noted how the siblings coordinated either: jointly en-
gaged, checking-in, solo, or off-task and if collaboration was organized either verbally, nonver-
bally, or with multiple means. Children from “Pueblo” families engaged jointly and used
nonverbal and multiple means of communication more than children from “high schooling”
families who more often worked solo, were off-task, and used talk to communicate. Results
are linked to practices in Indigenous American communities where children’s Learning by Ob-
serving and Pitching In is common.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Collaboration
Nonverbal communication
Learning by Observing and Pitching In
Children from immigrant families
Talk
1. Introduction
This study examined the cultural organization of collaboration among sibling pairs of Mexican heritage whose families had
varying experience with Indigenous and Western cultural practices. Of particular interest was whether children from families
that presumably have more experience with Indigenous forms of organizing teaching and learning would coordinate more collab-
oratively compared to children whose families have more experience with middle class European American cultural practices (as
indexed by extensive maternal schooling). A secondary question examined cultural patterns in how children communicated while
they were collaborating. The need to understand variability in forms of collaboration and communication is especially important
in light of the fact that among Mexican immigrants to the United States there is large variability with school experience (National
Task Force on Early Childhood Education for Hispanics, 2007). An emerging body of literature suggests Mexican mothers with
fewer grades of school may have more experience with a form of organizing learning common in Indigenous communities of Me-
soamerica called Learning by Observing and Pitching In (LOPI) (Correa-Chávez, Mejía-Arauz, & Rogoff, 2015; Rogoff, Paradise, Mejía-
Arauz, Correa-Chávez, & Angelillo, 2003).
1.1. Learning by Observing and Pitching In
A long line of research has shown that in communities with Indigenous North and Central American histories children have
wide access to family and community activities and are treated as “legitimate peripheral participants” (Lave & Wenger, 1991).
Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 11 (2016) 130–141
⁎ Corresponding author at: CSULB, Psychology Department, 1250 Bellflower Blvd., Long Beach, CA 90840-0901, United States.
E-mail address: Maricela.correa@csulb.edu.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2016.08.001
2210-6561/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Learning, Culture and Social Interaction
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/lcsi
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.lcsi.2016.08.001&domain=pdf
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2016.08.001
mailto:Maricela.correa@csulb.edu
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2016.08.001
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/22106561
www.elsevier.com/locate/lcsi
LOPI details the cultural organization of this form of teaching and learning where children are included in family and community
activities and frequently pitch in, or help out ongoing activity out of their own initiative (Alcalá, Mejía-Arauz, Rogoff, Coppens, &
Dexter, 2014; Rogoff, 2014; López, Najafi, Rogoff, & Mejía-Arauz, 2012; Mejía-Arauz, Correa-Chávez, Keyser Ohrt, & Aceves-Azuara,
2015).
This collaboration and initiative in activity is often evident in the ethnographic reports of children working with adults in com-
plex tasks from helping to run small business, to running errands, to translating, and caring for sibling (Lancy, 2008; Ochs &
Izquierdo, 2009; Mejía-Arauz et al., 2015). Additionally, the helpfulness reported is not only limited to the home environment,
Mexican and Central American descent students in one Los Angeles area school volunteered to help out in school even when
they were on vacation in addition to helping out at home (Orellana, Dorner, & Pulido, 2003). Interviews with mothers provide
more support for these observations and also indicate that often children participate in these activities from their own initiative,
without being forced or cajoled into helping (Alcalá et al., 2014; Coppens, Alcalá, Mejía-Arauz, & Rogoff, 2014; Mejía-Arauz et al.,
2015). This study builds on the ethnographic work showing cultural differences in children’s helpfulness and on the work of
Rogoff and her colleagues who have suggested that a key part of childhood in communities with Indigenous histories involves
collaboration and initiative in participating in family and community activities (Correa-Chávez et al., 2015; Rogoff et al., 2003).
These cultural patterns of encouraging helpful collaboration at home and in the community are often different than the patterns
of work encouraged by school.
1.2. Cultural patterns of collaboration
Traditionally schools have been places where individual work is prioritized and collaboration is either actively discouraged
(called cheating) or simply not encouraged in day to day interactions where the teacher/whole class or teacher/individual student
format predominates (Mehan, 1979). When children from a traditionally organized classroom were asked to collaborate, they
often used test and quiz formats rather than interactions where they built off other one another’s efforts (Matusov, Bell, &
Rogoff, 2002). Of particular importance to this study is the fact that children must learn the cognitive skills of effectively collab-
orating with one other people, and just as modes of interaction vary across cultural communities, forms of organizing collabora-
tion should also vary across cultural communities (Correa-Chávez & Rogoff, 2005).
Research suggest that working together in a way that skillfully blends with ongoing interaction appears to be a skill learned
early on in interaction with others in communities with Indigenous history. Mayan toddlers were more likely to request help
from their already occupied mothers using gaze, touch, and body posture compared to European American toddlers who rarely
used those methods in asking for help (Rogoff, Mistry, Göncü, & Mosier, 1993). Among school aged children, U.S. Mexican heritage
children were ten times more likely to wait patiently and check that an adult was not busy before asking her for help compared
to European American children who loudly and frequently interrupted ongoing activity (Ruvalcaba, López, Rogoff, Correa-Chávez,
& Gutierrez, 2015).
Skills at observation and integration in ongoing activity may be related to the different forms of collaboration observed in com-
munities that have Indigenous history. When working on a collaborative project with multiple participants, Mayan mothers with
2 or fewer years of schooling were more likely to build off the work of participants. Mayan mothers with 12 or more years of
schooling were more likely to subdivide the project into smaller tasks (Chavajay & Rogoff, 2002). Similarly when 3 siblings
were engaged with a novel science exhibit U.S. Mexican heritage siblings coordinated in a way that rarely interrupted ongoing
activity, but rather blended agendas between participants. European American siblings were more likely to interrupt ongoing ac-
tivity and organize the activity through turn taking rather than working together (Angelillo & Rogoff, 2005). Even when working
on individual projects, U.S. Mexican heritage children whose families were more familiar with the ways of rural Mexico and had
fewer years of schooling were more likely to engage as a group compared to U.S. European heritage children and Mexican heri-
tage children whose mothers had 12 or more years of schooling (Mejía-Arauz, Rogoff, Dexter, & Najafi, 2007).
The cultural patterns in collaboration found in the research may be learned in interaction as children work alongside adults in
meaningful family and community activity. However this pattern of involvement tends to change as schooling becomes more
prominent in family life. Studies examining the helping behaviors of Mexican children at home have consistently found that as
parents have more school experience children contribute less often and less meaningfully to the family, and childhood is reframed
as a time where children are supposed to be dedicated primarily (if not exclusively) to school (Alcalá et al., 2014; Coppens et al.,
2014; Mejía-Arauz, Keyser-Ohrt, & Correa-Chávez, 2013). However as previously stated, traditional schools do not tend to pro-
mote collaboration (Matusov et al., 2002), focusing instead on individual accomplishments and verbal competency (Hart &
Risley, 1995).
1.3. Talk and joint activity in collaboration
Although some scholars have focused on the role of talk in collaboration, if children are accustomed to integrating themselves
into community and family work without interrupting others, collaborative interactions may rely heavily on the act of working
together (joint activity) as an organizer in addition to talk. In some circumstances engaging in large amounts of talk may not nec-
essarily lead to the most fruitful collaboration. For example nonverbal interaction and modeling were common and effective
teaching strategies for young siblings working together (Azmitia & Hesser, 1993) as well as for college students working together
(Azmitia & Crowley, 2001). In some cases, such as in designing structures “rapid prototyping,” (building and testing ideas with
131M. Correa-Chávez / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 11 (2016) 130–141
minimal discussion) led to designing better structures than collaborations involving intensive discussion (Apedoe, Mattis,
Rowden-Quince & Schunn, 2010).
However in communities where people have had many years of schooling, as well as in schools themselves, talk is often pri-
oritized as a marker of engagement and learning (Dixon, Levine, Richman, & Brazelton, 1984; Kim, 2002). In teaching interactions
between Zinacantec Mayan siblings, children with only a few years of school used more talk when teaching a younger sibling
compared to children who had not been to school. The children who had not been to school tended to use more bodily closeness
and bodily guidance as teaching tools (Maynard, 2004). When children were placed in groups of three with an adult who was
teaching them a new task, European American children were more likely to communicate with one another using talk, whereas
U.S. Mexican heritage children whose families had few years of schooling (and whose families had immigrated from rural Mexico)
were more likely to engage in multiple nonverbal turns at communication called nonverbal conversation (Mejía-Arauz et al.,
2007). The results from these studies as well as previous cultural research indicate that the patterns of verbal communication
many believe are necessary for collaboration are cultural in nature and may be related to familial participation in the cultural in-
stitution of school.
1.4. Schooling as a cultural practice and familiarity with indigenous ways
The institution of school has organized child life and learning in many middle class communities for generations, although its
role is often overlooked (Hernandez, 1997; Rogoff, Correa-Chávez, & Navichoc-Cotuc, 2005). Many practices common in schools
such as engaging in child focused activities, and mini language lessons, are common in communities that have an extensive his-
tory with school, but uncommon in other communities (Gaskins, 1999; Lancy, 2008; Morelli, Rogoff, & Angelillo, 2003; Scribner &
Cole, 1973).
In Mexico, mass schooling was also important as a way of forging a national “Mexican Identity” out of the many Indigenous
groups of the country following the 1910 revolution. Part of the goal of schooling was to “modernize” the countryside by replacing
Indigenous languages and traditions. As a result of these efforts many rural communities of Mexico no longer consider themselves
Indigenous even though many still engage in some traditional practices and ways of life (Flores, Urrieta, Chamoux, Lorente
Fernandez, & López, 2015). Migration to the United States has been most common from these rural areas (Consejo Nacional de
Población, 2001). Silva et al. (2010) and López et al. (2010) argue that in many immigrant Mexican communities in the United
States with limited schooling people may be familiar with the cultural pattern of LOPI. Therefore in this study, children’s patterns
of behavior in interaction are not seen as arising from a deficit, or “lack” of knowledge of school ways, rather from engagement
with another cultural form of supporting learning.
According to the U.S. National Task Force on Early Childhood Education for Hispanics (2007), among Mexican immigrant
mothers of 8 year old children, 48.6% completed high school, and 51.4% had fewer than 11 years of school. Maternal participation
in the cultural practice of school has far reaching implications for children of the next generation, as mothers may organize inter-
actions with children in ways that reflect the organization of school (Richman, Miller, & LeVine, 1992; Rogoff et al., 1993).
The different forms of interaction are also seen over generations where children whose mothers have many years of schooling
tend to exhibit forms of interaction and group organization common to school. Mexican heritage children in the U.S. whose
mothers averaged 7 grades of school relied more on observation as a source of information compared to Mexican heritage chil-
dren in the U.S. whose mothers had 12 or more years of schooling (Mejia-Arauz, Rogoff & Paradise, 2005). The U.S. Mexican her-
itage children whose moms had fewer years of schooling also attended simultaneously to multiple ongoing events more often
than U.S. Mexican heritage children shoes moms had 12 or more years (Correa-Chávez, Rogoff, & Mejía-Arauz, 2005). Mayan chil-
dren whose mothers averaged 3 grades of schooling attended more to information directed to others compared to Mayan children
whose mothers averaged 12 or more years (Correa-Chávez & Rogoff, 2009). Additionally U.S. Mexican heritage children whose
mothers averaged 7.5 years of schooling attended more to other’s activity compared to U.S. Mexican heritage children whose
mothers had 12 or more years of schooling (Silva et al., 2010; López et al., 2010).
Although many patterns of teaching and learning seem to change with increased parental participation in school, it is impor-
tant to point out that increased schooling in Indigenous communities is associated with many other demographic changes. Fam-
ilies with more schooling tend to have fewer children in the family, more limited involvement in the extended family, more urban
experience, different migration patterns, and occupations requiring credentials — all of which might influence child life (LeVine,
LeVine, & Schnell, 2001; Richman et al., 1992). Therefore in this study, school experience is used a proxy for increased familiarity
with European American middle class cultural patterns of child rearing and child learning and not seen as the sole or “active in-
gredient” in changing community patterns.
1.5. Present study
This study examines how U.S. Mexican heritage siblings whose families have differing cultural backgrounds with regard to fa-
miliarity with school ways of organizing learning, or familiarity with LOPI engage in joint activity when they are working together
on a difficult task. Few studies have focused on the cultural aspects of nonverbal communication in collaboration among children.
In previous work some studies have focused on cultural aspects of collaboration in the presence of adults (Chavajay & Rogoff,
2002), and others have focused on nonverbal conversation in situations where children were working individually (Mejia-
Arauz et al., 2007). However in this study the sibling pairs were working independent of any adult supervision — free to organize
their interaction anyway they saw fit while working on something together. Additionally as siblings, the children likely already
132 M. Correa-Chávez / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 11 (2016) 130–141
had a repertoire of communicative tools at the ready thereby making it likely they would use nonverbal aspects of communication
if they so desired.
Based on previous comparative and ethnographic data it was expected that there would be differences in the patterns of co-
ordination, with the sibling pairs whose families have more recent immigration from rural areas of Mexico and less extensive ex-
perience with school (pueblo group) engaging collaboratively more and the sibling pairs from families more familiar with middle
class ways through extensive schooling and related cultural practices (high schooling group) engaging more in solo work. It was
also expected that children from the pueblo families would organize their collaborative interactions relying more on nonverbal
and multiple means of communication compared to children from the high schooling families.
2. Method
2.1. Participants and their communities
All of the children were in school in the United States and were recruited through afterschool clubs at three public elementary
schools in the Los Angeles area. All three schools were in areas that have large Latino populations and where the schools serve
almost exclusively Mexican heritage children. Almost all of the schools’ students (93%) participated in a free or reduced-price
lunch program. The majority of the children’s families (46 of the 50 sibling pairs) had historical roots in Mexico, 2 of the sibling
pairs’ families were from Guatemala and 2 from El Salvador (which were included because of a similar history of Indigenous prac-
tices and access to schooling). Parents provided family demographic information in responding to the permission slip sent home
from school.
All 24 mothers in the “pueblo group” were born outside the United States: 21 in Mexico, 1 in El Salvador, and 2 in Guatemala.
Among the fathers in this group 17 were born in Mexico, and 3 in Guatemala (4 declined to provide information). All of the
mothers in this group completed their education outside of the United States, and typical occupations for the mothers included
cook, garment worker, and housekeeper. Of the 16 fathers who provided schooling information, 14 had 9 or fewer years of
schooling and 2 had more than 9 grades. All of the fathers that reported schooling information completed school in Mexico. Typ-
ical occupations for the fathers included gardener, busboy, mechanic, and cook.
At the time of the study 8 families in the pueblo group had only the 2 children that participated in the study, 10 families had 3
children and 6 families had 4 children. Seventy percent of the children in the pueblo group reported speaking mostly Spanish at
home and 46% reported having visited Mexico. Twelve of the sibling pairs were of the same gender (5 pairs of sisters, and 7 pairs
of brothers). In the 12 mixed gender sibling pairs, 7 had a sister as the older sibling. Average ages of the siblings were 9 and 7
½ years (see Table 1). All of the children were in the prescribed grade for their age (for example 7 year olds in second grade).
While participating in the activity, 16 of the 24 pairs used mostly English during the puzzle activity, 7 pairs used mostly Spanish
and one pair used both English and Spanish.
In the “high schooling” group, 16 of the 26 mothers were U.S. born, 9 were born in Mexico, and 1 in El Salvador. Eighteen of
the mothers in this group completed their schooling in California and typical occupations included teacher, home maker, nurse,
and office manager. Nine of the fathers were born in the U.S., 11 in Mexico, 1 in Guatemala, and 1 in El Salvador (4 declined
to provide information). Of the 19 fathers who provided schooling information, 3 had 9 or fewer years of schooling, 7 completed
high school, and 9 attended school beyond high school (14 the fathers completed their schooling in California). Typical occupa-
tions for the fathers included customer service representative, graphic designer, salesman, and teacher.
Table 1
Maternal schooling paternal schooling, gender, and age of siblings.
Mexican-heritage
Pueblo
24 sibling pairs
(48 children)
Mexican-heritage
High schooling
26 sibling pairs
(52 children)
Average maternal schooling
(Information available on all 50 mothers)
7.3 grades
(Range: 4–11 grades)
SD = 2.1
14.3 grades
(Range: 12–16 grades)
SD = 1.8
Average paternal schooling
(Information available on 35 fathers)
8.3 grades
(Range 6–12 grades)
SD = 1.9
13.0 grades
(Range 8–16 grades)
SD = 2.6
Older sibling
Gender 12 girls, 12 boys 15 girls, 11 boys
Average age 9.3 years
(Range 8–10 years)
9.1 years
(Range: 7–11 years)
Younger sibling
Gender 10 girls, 14 boys 14 girls, 12 boys
Average age of focal child 7.4 years
(Range: 6–10 years)
7.0 years
(Range: 6–10 years)
133M. Correa-Chávez / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 11 (2016) 130–141
At the time of the study 8 families in the high schooling group had only the 2 children that participated in the study, 11 fam-
ilies had 3 children, 3 families had 4 children, and 2 families had 5 children. Forty percent of the children in the high schooling
group reported speaking Spanish at home and 23% reported having visited Mexico. Seventeen of the siblings in this group were
same gender (10 pairs of sisters, and 7 pairs of brothers). In the 9 mixed gender sibling pairs, 5 had a girl as the older sibling.
Average ages of the siblings were 9 and 7 years, and all of the children were in the prescribed grade for their age. During the puz-
zle activity, 25 of the 26 pairs whose mothers had high schooling used mostly English during the puzzle activity, and one pair
used both English and Spanish.
Chi-square analyses showed that there were differences between the groups in how likely they were to speak Spanish at home
(X2 (1) = 5.27, p b 0.05), how likely the children were to have gone to Mexico to visit (X2 (1) = 3.93, p b 0.05), and language
used during the activity (X2 (2) = 8.91, p b 0.05). Among the 35 sibling pairs who provided both maternal and paternal schooling
information, there was a 0.82 correlation between maternal and paternal schooling (p b 0.01) such that the more schooling the
mother had, the more school the father tended to have.
2.2. Procedure
As part of a larger study the sibling pairs were invited to be videotaped as they worked together to construct a three-
dimensional honey bee puzzle. The puzzle was chosen because it was very difficult to put together with many pieces similar
looking pieces, therefore the children would benefit from working together as they constructed it. It was also a puzzle that had
been discontinued by its manufacturer therefore it was unlikely the children had experience with that particular puzzle. This
was confirmed when we asked the children if they had ever constructed a puzzle like it before. All of the children reported having
had some experience with 3D puzzles either at school or at home (usually involving dinosaurs or buildings), but no child had ex-
perience with the honey bee puzzle presented.
The children were seated together at a long rectangular table opposite the video camera. The female Research Assistant
(RA) then brought an already completed honey bee model that had been glued together and placed it in front of the chil-
dren on the table. “Now you are going to work together to make a puzzle that looks like this (hands them the model). You
can look at this one and touch it and move it around as much as you want. Here are all of the pieces you need to make an-
other one (lays out all of the parts on the table in front of the children). I have to go outside for a little while, but if a piece
breaks you can go outside and let me know and I’ll get you another piece. You can be as loud as you want while you are
here.”
The RA left the room for 10 min to ensure the children would feel comfortable talking, gesturing, and being loud with one
another as they worked on the puzzle. This was also done to emphasize to the children that they would be figuring out how
to construct the puzzle on their own without the help of the RA. The instruction “you can be as loud as you want while you
are here” was also meant to emphasize to the children that this space was different from school and they did not need to behave
or use “inside voices” as they worked. After 10 min the RA walked back into the room and sat in a corner doing some “work” in
her notebook until the children finished. If the siblings had not finished by 15 min, the RA checked on them asking them if ev-
erything was OK and if they wanted to continue. If any pair wished to stop at this point they were allowed to do so, otherwise the
RA went back to “work” and waited for the siblings to finish. Once they were done, they were taken back to their after school club
by the RA.
2.3. Coding
The videotape record was divided into 10 s segments during which a bilingual coder unaware of the hypothesis of the study
identified how the pair was organized as they completed the puzzle: either jointly engaged, checking in, solo, or off task. Ten sec-
onds was chosen because this amount of time was long enough that the children could build off of one another’s ideas and ac-
tions, but not so long that other forms of interaction might be missed or lost. Only one form of interaction was coded per
segment. In order to not miss any segments involving collaboration, any segment that contained joint engagement and any
other form of social organization, for example “checking in,” was coded as joint engagement. Although this meant that collabora-
tion could take place for 4 s only, and still be coded collaboratively, this approach was actually conservative in that it was possible
that it slightly reduced the possibility of finding differences between the groups. If any segment contained checking in and either
solo or off task, it was coded as checking in, and if any segment contained solo and off task it was coded as solo. Again, this may
have led to fewer segments coded as off task.
Although each 10 second segment was coded independently, the information from neighboring segments was used to make
sense of what was occurring in any one segment. So for example if both children were looking for a particular piece because
they had both agreed to try to find it in the previous segment, and they both spent the 10 s looking for it they would have
been coded as collaborative rather than solo since they were both working on something together that they had previously agreed
upon. The four main categories: Jointly engaged, checking in, solo, and off task are described in more detail below. Additionally if
a segment was coded as jointly engaged, the coder also identified if the children were coordinating with one another primarily
through nonverbal joint activity, primarily through talk, or through multiple means of communication (these are also described
more fully below at the end of this section).
134 M. Correa-Chávez / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 11 (2016) 130–141
2.3.1. Jointly engaged
A segment was coded as jointly engaged if it was evident both children were coordinating with one another in a cohesive
fashion as they contributed to their overall progress on the puzzle. Often this meant both children were working together on
the same part of the puzzle. It was possible for one child to be in observing or supportive role if it seemed that it was part of
helping or contributing to the other child’s efforts and the children seemed aware of one another’s actions. Body position was es-
pecially important in coding a segment as jointly engaged, the children tended to be oriented to each other in a way that was
consistent with working together. Figs. 1 and 2 provide examples of the children’s body orientation. The siblings on the left are
oriented towards each other and visibly working on the same part of the puzzle. The children to the right are also working on
the puzzle but from their position and body posture it is not evident that they are supporting one another as they work on
the same thing. Body position was not the only indicator of joint engagement. Coders took note of what the children did in pre-
vious or following segments to see how the sibling’s activities built or did not build on each other’s. The following is a verbal de-
scription of a 10 s segment that would have been coded as jointly engaged:
A brother and a sister are working on the puzzle. The sister is seated to the left of her brother and very near to him (about a
hand’s distance apart). She holds the partially completed honey bee body in her right hand, while looking on the table for a part
she needs. She glances at her brother who is holding a different piece and she shifts the angle of the honey bee body in her right
hand so he can see it better. He looks at the glued together model on the table then at her partially completed puzzle, looks down
at the pieces on the table, and finds the one she needs. He takes it and hands it to her. She takes it and places it where it belongs.
Then again she starts looking for a piece as she shifts the angle of the partially completed puzzle so her brother can see. (A similar
pattern continues…).
2.3.2. Checking in
A segment was coded as “checking in” if both children were checking in with each other as they worked on different aspects
of the puzzle. They did not appear to be coordinating their actions with one another, but they were not working completely in-
dependently from one another as evidenced by the questions about what the other one was doing, or brief glances to check in on
the other sibling. For example as one child was working on the tail and the other on the wings one sibling asks, “what are you
doing now?” Or one sibling pauses her work to assess what the other is doing. In segments coded as checking in it did not appear
that the siblings were aware of what the other was doing already, but they were finding out. However this did not mean they
were working together as in jointly engaged. In one segment coded as checking in:
A brother and a sister are seated side by side with at least a foot of distance between them. The sister is looking for leg pieces
and the brother is placing pieces of the tail on the body. As the sister looks for the pieces she is also singing an old jazz song. The
brother is ignoring her singing as he tries to find all the remaining parts of the tail. In the middle of her singing the sister stops
and turns to look at her brother and asks what he is doing. He says, “I know how to do this, let me do this.” She nods, and each of
them goes back to what they were doing earlier, she sings as she looks for leg pieces and he continues working on the tail.
2.3.3. Solo
A segment was coded as solo if both children were working solo on the puzzle, side-by-side but not coordinating or commu-
nicating with each other for the entire 10 s.
2.3.4. Off task
A segment was coded as off task if both children were engaged in something other than building the puzzle such as flying the
model bee around, engaging with something else in the room, or goofing off for the camera. Because the focus was on the pair’s
coordination if only one child was off task the segment was not coded as off task, but rather as solo.
Figs. 1 and 2. Siblings constructing the puzzle through joint engagement or solo work.
135M. Correa-Chávez / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 11 (2016) 130–141
2.3.5. Off task talk
Any segment in which the children engaged in talk about something other than constructing the puzzle was coded as contain-
ing off task talk. Unlike other coding categories off task talk could co-occur with any of the coded forms of engagement (although
it almost always occurred in solo and off task segments).
After identifying the form of interaction of the children, the coders went back to any segment coded as jointly engaged to de-
termine if their collaboration was done primarily through talk, through nonverbal joint activity, or through multiple means of
communication.
– Jointly engaged through nonverbal joint activity included segments where the siblings were communicating with each other
by engaging in joint activity. For example a child could hand his sister a piece of the wing she had been looking for without
the sister asking for it, or they could both be working together to get a piece into a slot by helping one another rotate that
piece. In these segments there was no talk about how to continue with the puzzle. The talk (if there was any) was limited
to a word or two, for example saying a name to call attention. However the coordination between the siblings was organized
primarily through joint activity and close observation to one another and to the task. The segment illustrating joint engage-
ment earlier was one that was coded as jointly engaged through nonverbal joint activity.
– Jointly engaged primarily with talk included segments where the coordination between the siblings was primarily evident in
the talk between them. For example a child could say, “I don’t think we should start with the head. We should do it some
other way,” or “why don’t you look for the small legs and I’ll look for the big legs,” or “let’s try to figure out where these
go.” When a segment was coded as jointly engaged through talk the children were not visibly working on something it togeth-
er. This could often resemble a “division of labor” strategy with children assigning one another small tasks. It could also in-
clude instances of verbal help on something the children were doing or description of pieces or steps in the process. For
example one child is looking for a piece while her sister describes it as she studies the model, “It’s a piece with two circles
and a point at the front. The point is really long and the circles are small.” The coding manual however did not distinguish
the kinds of speech used in the segments coded as jointly engaged primarily with talk. An examination of the kinds of talk
used would be interesting, but beyond the scope of this study.
– Jointly engaged through multiple means included segments where the collaboration was organized both through joint activity
and talk. For example the siblings are working at putting two pieces together and as they work together one says, “I don’t think
this is where it goes, let’s try the other one you have.” The second sibling then holds up the piece and looks questioningly at
the first. The first sibling nods and together they work together at placing the piece. For a segment to be coded as “jointly en-
gaged through multiple means” neither the joint activity nor the talk seemed to be primary in the 10 s, rather both seemed to
play an equal role in organizing joint activity. It was possible that a segment was coded as jointly engaged through multiple
means on the basis of just a few sentences. However those sentences were vital to the current activity in which the children
were engaged and they could not have advanced in their efforts without them.
2.3.6. Reliability
Coding was conducted by a trained research assistant blind to the hypothesis of the study, and one-third of the data was coded
by the author who was also trained on the coding manual for reliability. Pearson’s correlations between the two coders were as
follows: jointly engaged r = 0.98; checking-in r = 0.95; solo r = 0.99; off task r = 0.99; off task talk r = 1.0; jointly engaged
with talk r = 0.94; jointly engaged nonverbally r = 0.90, joint engaged multiple means =0.94. Although the questions in this
study only involved the total use of the forms of collaboration for each pair, segment by segment agreement was also examined
and was good.
3. Results
Analyses focused on the first 15 min of interaction. This was done because half the children in each cultural group fin-
ished within the first 15 min (12 pueblo and 14 high schooling group), and many who had not finished by then tended
to become increasingly frustrated and uninterested after that time (as evidenced by an increase in the segments coded as
“off task” after 15 min) and some pairs requested to stop at that point in time. Proportion of time segments were used to
analyze the data because sibling pairs varied in how long they took to complete the puzzle. However although the individ-
ual pairs varied, there were no significant differences in amount of time spent on the puzzle between the cultural groups.
The average time coded was 13.5 min for the pueblo group (range 7.5–15 min) and 13.8 min for the high schooling
group (range 7.8–15 min). No significant gender differences were found across the sample or within each background
group for any of the analyses reported.
The coded data showed that children tended to engage similarly across multiple segments if they were jointly engaged or
working solo. Across all the data only 7.4% of the segments coded as jointly engaged were neither preceded nor followed by an-
other segment where the children were jointly engaged (SD = 8.0), for solo only 31.9% of the solo segments were neither pre-
ceded nor followed with other segments coded as solo (SD = 30.4). Predictably, this pattern was different for checking in
segments where 58.7% of the coded segments were neither preceded nor followed by another segment coded as checking in
(SD = 27.4).
136 M. Correa-Chávez / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 11 (2016) 130–141
3.1. Different forms of interaction in siblings from Mexican pueblo and Mexican high schooling families
As expected, the sibling pairs from pueblo families engaged jointly while constructing the puzzle in proportionally more time
segments than children from the high schooling families (39.6%), F (1, 48) = 8.11, p b 0.01. The children from the pueblo families
engaged jointly in 58% of the time segments (95% CI [49.1%, 66.9%]) compared to 29.8% of segments for the siblings from the high
schooling group (95% CI [28.8%, 49.9%]). Engaging jointly was the most common form of interaction used among the children
from the pueblo families and the confidence intervals indicate that that the patterns for this form of interaction are dramatically
different between the two cultural groups.
Additionally there was a trend for children from the pueblo group to engage in longer stretches of collaborative interaction.
Although there were no differences between the groups in the number of clusters of collaboration in the coded data (the average
number of clusters of collaboration was 8.25 and 8.15 for the pueblo and high schooling groups respectively), among children
from the pueblo families these stretches of collaboration tended to be longer. The pueblo group’s collaboration clusters averaged
1 min and 15 s (or 7.5 segments) compared to 40 s (4.2 segments) for the high schooling group. However these result were not
significant at the 0.05 level (F (1, 48) = 3.35, p = 0.07).
Also as expected, the siblings in the high schooling group worked separately from each other in solo activity more often than
the siblings from the pueblo families, F (1, 48) = 4.52, p b 0.05. The children from the high schooling families worked solo in
45.3% of the time segments (95% CI [36.1%, 54.5%]) compared to 31.1% of time segments for the children from pueblo families
(95% CI [23.6%, 38.6%]), and this was the most common form of interaction among the siblings from the high schooling group.
There were no differences between the groups in the percentage of segments organized by checking in with each other. The
children in the pueblo group organized by “checking in” in 10.4% compared to 13.2% of the time segments for the high schooling
group.
Although being off task was rare among both groups, it was more common for the siblings from the high schooling families to
be off task in 1.9% of the time segments (95% CI [0.5%, 3.2%]) compared to 0.4% of time segments (95% CI [0.0%, 0.8%]) for the
siblings from pueblo families, F (1, 48) = 4.32, p b 0.05. Because the coding scheme was conservative with regard to “off task”
(coding prioritized all other forms of interaction before off task and could only be coded if both children were disengaged
from the activity for the entire segment), it is possible that this behavior was not fully captured by the coding scheme used in
this study. However the difference between the groups is corroborated by the finding that sibling pairs from the high schooling
families were also more likely to engage in off topic discussion or chat while building the model, in 6.7% (95% CI [1.0% , 12.5%]) vs.
1.5% (95% CI [ 0.44% , 2.5%]) of the session’s time segments, F (1, 48) = 3.14, p b 0.05. Additionally the confidence intervals do
point to different patterns between the sibling pairs in both cultural groups. These patterns are consistent with the idea that in
communities with extensive schooling children are less likely to be alert to others’ activities (Correa-Chávez & Rogoff, 2009).
Table 2 shows the means and standard deviations for each form of organization and for off topic chat.
3.2. Different amounts of talk, nonverbal joint activity, or multiple means of communication in collaboration
Due to differences in rates of joint engagement between the two cultural groups, proportions were used to examine what per-
cent of the sibling’s collaborative joint engagement was organized through nonverbal joint activity, through talk, or through mul-
tiple means of communication. Six sibling pairs that were jointly engaged less than 10% of the time segments were excluded from
the analysis. This was done because their numbers were so low that including their data would have been misleading. One pair
only jointly engaged for one segment overall (1% of the time segments). Whichever way the siblings communicated in that one
segment would have resulted in 100% of those sibling’s collaborative interactions being categorized as either involving nonverbal
joint activity, talk, or multiple means of communication. At the highest end of those excluded were 2 sibling pairs who engaged
jointly for 6 segments, but again a score of 50% for them would have only reflected 3 segments out of the entire activity. Exclud-
ing these 6 pairs resulted in 24 pairs from the pueblo group and 20 pairs in the high schooling group being included in the
analysis.
Table 2
Means percent (and standard deviations) of session’s time segments using different forms of social organization.
Mexican-heritage
Pueblo
Mexican-heritage
High schooling
Organization of interaction
Engaged jointly 58.0 (21.0)** 39.6 (24.2)**
Checking in 10.4 (8.6) 13.2 (7.6)
Solo 31.1 (17.6)* 45.3 (22.9)*
Off task 0.4 (0.9)* 1.9 (3.3)*
Off task chat
1.5 (2.4)* 6.7 (14.2)*
Communication used while jointly engaged
Primarily by nonverbal joint activity 30.2 (3.2)* 21.0 (2.8)*
Multiple means of communication 43.7 (15.5)* 36.2 (7.4)*
Primarily by talk 26.4 (14.6)** 42.6 (15.4)**
137M. Correa-Chávez / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 11 (2016) 130–141
Consistent with prior research (Mejia-Arauz et al., 2007) when the sibling pairs from the pueblo families were engaged jointly
they used proportionally more nonverbal joint activity compared to the pairs from the high schooling families, F (1, 42) = 4.34,
p b 0.05. When they were jointly engaged, children from the pueblo families used nonverbal joint activity 30.2% of the time (95%
CI [23.5%, 37.0%]) compared to the pairs from the high schooling families who used nonverbal joint activity 21.0% of the time (95%
CI [15.1%, 27.0%]). The siblings from the pueblo group were also more likely to use more multiple means of communication when
jointly engaged, 43.7% vs. 36.2% of the time, F (1, 42) = 3.94, p b 0.05 (95% CI for pueblo backgrounds [37.2%, 50.3%] and high
schooling backgrounds [32.8%, 39.7%]).
Also consistent with previous research (Maynard, 2004, Mejia-Arauz et al., 2007) siblings from the high schooling families
were proportionally more likely to coordinate their joint engagement through talk, 42.6% of the time (95% CI [35.7%, 49.4%])
vs. 26.4% for pueblo siblings (95% CI [20.4%, 32.8%]), F (1, 42) = 12.40, p b 0.01. Although the coding used in this study did
not distinguish the types of speech used in interaction, these findings are consistent with the idea that children from more highly
schooled families might be using more division of labor strategies in working together compared to children from pueblo families.
However this speculation would require a separate study focused on the kinds of speech used to verify this conjecture.
(Including the 6 excluded pairs from analysis revealed similar patterns for talk and multimodal communication. However in
this case there was no difference between the groups for nonverbal joint activity because the few segments (1–6) that these
pairs engaged jointly tended to involve nonverbal joint activity.)
4. Discussion
Consistent with previous work showing collaboration as important in the social organization of groups with Indigenous histo-
ries, Mexican heritage siblings from pueblo families were more likely to organize their interactions collaboratively through joint
engagement where the siblings worked with one another and built off one another’s efforts. Joint engagement was the most com-
mon form of social organization for the children from the pueblo families. Conversely, the Mexican heritage children from the
high schooling families were more likely to work solo on the puzzle, and this was the most common form of social organization
in this cultural group. The children from high schooling families were also more likely to be off task which is consistent with the
idea that they are less accustomed to observing ongoing interaction for their own learning.
The results of this study are also consistent with the ethnographic literature which suggests that as children participate in the
important activities of their communities and families they may be learning the skills of engaging with others in joint activity.
School has traditionally emphasized individual activity and achievements and forms of engagement with children that are
often modeled on school tend to emphasize individual rather than joint or group accomplishments (Dixon et al. 1984; Morelli
et al. 2003). The forms of interaction seen in this study seem to be related to intergenerational patterns of participation in com-
munity institutions and activities particularly in school and through LOPI.
4.1. Patterns in the use of talk and nonverbal means of communication in interaction
The results of this study also showed cultural variation in the ways of organizing collaboration with the children from the
pueblo families using proportionally more nonverbal joint activity and multiple means of communication in organizing their
joint engagement and the sibling from the high schooling family using proportionally more talk. These findings are consistent
with prior work showing Mexican triads from pueblo families organized interaction through nonverbal conversation more
often than European American triads who organized interaction more through talk (Mejia-Arauz et al., 2007). The finding are
also consistent with the idea that in communities where children are expected to observe and pitch in they may do so in ways
that do not disrupt ongoing activity (for example by talking about things that are obvious to the participants). Additionally if sib-
lings in the high schooling families were less familiar with LOPI, and engaged in many child focused activities that privilege talk
over joint activity, they may be less attuned to one another and less accustomed to communicating through joint activity.
These results are important because while scholars have long noted the myriad ways in which children’s lives are organized,
many still view patterns of organization and communication based on school models and middle class European American ways
as normative and “effective” while other ways are viewed as deficient. One current example is evident in academic and policy
research around closing the language gap in which researchers argue that having fewer words directly addressed to a child in in-
fancy are related to a child’s failure in school and subsequent poverty (Hart & Risley, 1995; Fernald, Marchman, & Weisleder,
2013).
However this study shows that children whose families organize learning through LOPI are skilled in collaboration and can ac-
complish this collaboration in ways that are different than what is often seen in school-like settings with its emphasis on words.
Additionally results showed that neither group was “better” at finishing the puzzle in the first 15 min of the activity. This finding
is important as many of the policy projects aimed at “fixing” children from non-dominant groups and their families (especially
with regard to language use) assume this will lead them to succeed in school. Policy initiatives such as the Thirty Million
Words Initiative (tmw.org) and Too Small to Fail (toosmall.org) exemplify this orientation and promote the idea that we can
cure social ills by making children from nondominant groups talk more and engage in ways that are familiar to highly schooled
communities (see Avineri et al., 2015).
However an interesting observation from this data is that the in the coded interaction of the sibling pair with the highest
amount of collaborative segments (100%), only 16% of those segments involved talk. Although this pair is an extreme example,
many of the collaborative segments especially among the children from the pueblo families were ones where the children
138 M. Correa-Chávez / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 11 (2016) 130–141
http://tmw.org
http://toosmall.org
were able to collaborate in the process of working together often without talk. Presumably the children were using skills at ob-
servation that have been reported in other studies with children of similar backgrounds (Correa-Chávez et al., 2005; Correa-
Chavez & Rogoff, 2009; López et al., 2010), although this was not coded here.
4.2. Changing patterns of interaction, increased schooling, and other populations
The differences in joint engagement and patterns of communication between the children in the pueblo group and the high
schooling group contribute to the body of work suggesting that participation in school may compete with traditional forms of or-
ganizing learning in communities of Indigenous heritage (Chavajay & Rogoff, 2002; Correa-Chávez & Rogoff, 2009; López et al.,
2010; Mejia-Arauz et al., 2007; Silva et al., 2010). It is likely that parents who have spent 12 or more years in schools would in-
teract with children in ways that are consistent with the interactional patterns common to school. Parents may replace more col-
laborative multiparty forms of engagement which often rely on multiple means of communication with child focused rather than
community focused activity (Crago, Annahatak & Ningiuruvik, 1993; Richman et al., 1992).
However it is also important to highlight that different patterns of schooling were associated with a number of differences be-
tween the two groups including: recency of immigration to the U.S., parental occupations, fluency in English and in Spanish, and
extent of experience in México. There are likely other values and practices that differ between the groups, such as extent of in-
teraction with extended family, proximity to family, or involvement in extracurricular lessons that likely also contribute to
children’s experience with group interactions. It would be useful in future research to examine ways that people can build a
broader repertoire of learning practices (Gutierrez & Rogoff, 2003), or if it is usual for one form of interaction to compete with
(or replace) another.
Rather than framing one form of interaction as better or worse than another we should encourage children to develop a rep-
ertoire of cultural practices that they can draw upon across situations to face a range of challenges some of which may resemble
school problems and others which may require more collaborative solutions. This is especially important given the changing de-
mographics of the school age population where many of the children are already coming to school familiar with other cultural
ways of organizing life and learning. This was already the case in the schools from which this data was collected where the stu-
dent body was made of predominantly of children whose families came from Mexico and Central America often with very little
schooling.
Similar patterns of changing demographics are doubtless found in many communities around the world. The patterns of inter-
action found in this study and others operating within a LOPI framework have until now been found in communities that have
historical roots in Mexico, Central America, and other Indigenous communities of North and South America (see Correa-Chávez
et al., 2015). The question of whether we would find similar patterns in other communities in the world where schooling has
not been prominent historically is an empirical question that can only be answered with increased research. Doubtless there
would be some similarities with patterns found in this study and other populations, but likely also differences based on
cultural-historical patterns underlying children’s roles in their various communities. More research is needed to understand the
cultural nature of learning across different communities and the specific forms of interaction common to those communities.
4.3. Limitations and future directions
This study links patterns of participation in LOPI with patterns of collaboration and communication in interaction. However
one limitation is that the study did not follow children across multiple contexts to observe the patterns of participation outside
of the afterschool environment. Further studies should examine the behavior of children across home, school and other contexts
to examine how these patterns might be similar or different. For example some recent work shows that Mexican Heritage chil-
dren whose families have high schooling may help more in home situations compared to more school-like situations (López &
Rogoff, 2015). More work is needed to understand if patterns of help are being used across contexts for some children and not
others, and how children are developing the multiple patterns, if they are.
Additionally it would be of interest in future research to see if the cultural patterns of collaboration found in this study were
amplified due to the fact that the participants were siblings. Although there were differences in how much the siblings collabo-
rated in the different cultural groups, there was still a good deal of collaboration among the siblings in the high schooling group.
This is consistent with the research showing more collaboration, and more multimodal collaboration among siblings compared to
peers (Azmitia & Hesser, 1993). It might also be fruitful in future research to see if the patterns are similar to those found among
European American siblings who presumably have less familiarity with the ways of organizing learning and interaction through
LOPI. Previous research comparing children of Indigenous heritage and children of European American heritage has tended to
find a more stark contrast between children from pueblo families and European American children (Correa-Chávez et al., 2005;
Mejía-Arauz et al., 2007). It would be interesting to see if the patterns found among the siblings in the high schooling group
would be similar to what one would find among European American siblings, or if they would be different than both European
American and Mexican Pueblo siblings.
4.4. Implications for practice
U.S. census data shows that children from immigrant families made up 20% of the children in the country, and children with at
least one parent from Mexico make up the largest group of children from immigrant families in 26 U.S. states (Hernandez et al.,
139M. Correa-Chávez / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 11 (2016) 130–141
2007). Similar migration patterns from countries were LOPI is common may also be seen in other countries in the world. It is
therefore useful to know more about the ways of life of children from Mexican immigrant families, as well as the variation
that exists in these families. This study provides both by examining the cultural patterns of participation in institutions and com-
munity traditions among families of Mexican heritage, and by examining how that participation is related to different forms of
interaction and communication in children.
Children for whom LOPI is a more common form of interaction and communication may benefit if teachers and administrators
recognized the benefits of collaboration through multiple means and built upon it. Research has shown that European American
children have a difficult time recognizing nonverbal forms of collaboration when shown videos of interactions (Roberts & Rogoff,
2012) however it is an empirical question whether or not adults can recognize it in schools. By knowing more about the strengths
that children from rural Mexican immigrant families bring with them to the school context educators in the U.S. and Latin
America may be able to design educational spaces that make use of and build on these strengths. However, learning the skills
of fluid collaboration might be a beneficial skill for all children to learn. As the population of the world changes and as workplaces
increasingly rely on teamwork and collaboration it would be useful for all children to have a repertoire of practices that they can
draw from across situations including, among others, the skills of collaboration and multiple forms of communication.
Acknowledgments
Many thanks to the students, parents, and teachers from Moffett Elementary School as well as its principal Joann Isken. Thank
you to Angelica López, Barbara Rogoff, Kris Gutierrez, and Omar Ruvalcaba for comments and suggestions; and to Juanita Correa
for work on coding. Funding for this research came from the AERA and UC LMRI postdoctoral fellowship.
References
Alcalá, L., Mejía-Arauz, R., Rogoff, B., Coppens, A. D., & Dexter, A. L. (2014). Children’s initiative in contributions to family work in Indigenous-heritage and cosmopolitan
communities in Mexico. Human Development, 57(2–3), 96–115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000356763.
Angelillo, C., & Rogoff, B. (2005, September). Coordination among siblings of European American middle-class and Mexican-descent engaging with a science exhibit.
Paper presented at the meetings of the International Society for Cultural and Activity Research, Seville Spain.
Apedoe, X. S., Mattis, K. V., Rowden-Quince, B., & Schunn, C. D. (2010). Examining the role of verbal interaction in team success on a design challenge. In the proceedings
of the 9th annual international conference of the learning sciences. 1. (pp. 596–603).
Avineri, N., Johnson, E., Brice Heath, S., McCarty, T., Ochs, E., Kremer-Sadlik, T., … Paris, D. (2015). Invited forum: Bridging the “language gap”. Journal of Linguistic
Anthropology, 25(1), 66–86.
Azmitia, M., & Crowley, K. (2001). The rhythms of scientific thinking: A study of collaboration in an earthquake microworld. In K. Crowley, C. D. Schunn, & T. Okada
(Eds.), Designing for science: Implications from everyday, classroom, and professional settings (pp. 51–82). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Azmitia, M., & Hesser, J. (1993). Why siblings are important agents of cognitive development: A comparison of siblings and peers. Child Development, 64, 430–444.
Chavajay, P., & Rogoff, B. (2002). Schooling and traditional collaborative social organization of problem solving by Mayan mothers and children. Developmental
Psychology, 38, 55–66.
Consejo Nacional de Población (2001). Migración México–Estados Unidos. Gobierno de México: Dirección de Comunicación Social.
Coppens, A. D., Alcalá, L., Mejía-Arauz, R., & Rogoff, B. (2014). Children’s initiative in family household work in Mexico. Human Development, 57(2–3), 116–130. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1159/000356768.
Correa-Chávez, M., & Rogoff, B. (2005). Cultural research has transformed our ideas of cognitive development. Newsletter for the International Society for the Study of
Behavioral Development, 1. (pp. 7–10) serial 47.
Correa-Chávez, M., & Rogoff, B. (2009). Children’s attention to interactions directed to others: Guatemalan Mayan and European-American patterns. Developmental
Psychology, 45, 630–641.
Correa-Chávez, M., Rogoff, B., & Mejía-Arauz, R. (2005). Cultural patterns in attending to two events at once. Child Development, 76, 664–678.
Correa-Chávez, M., Mejía-Arauz, R., & Rogoff, B. (Eds.). (2015). Advances in child development and behavior. Children learn by observing and contributing to family and
community endeavors, Vol 49, Series editor J. Benson.
Crago, M. B., Annahatak, B., & Ningiuruvik, L. (1993). Changing patterns of language socialization in Inuit homes. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 24(3), 205–223.
Dixon, S. D., LeVine, R. A., Richman, A., & Brazelton, T. B. (1984). Mother-child interaction around a teaching task: An African-American comparison. Child Development,
55, 1252–1264.
Fernald, A., Marchman, V., & Weisleder, A. (2013). SES difference in language processing skill and vocabulary are evident at 18 months. Developmental Science, 16(2),
234–248.
Flores, R., Urrieta, L., Chamoux, M. N., Lorente Fernandez, D., & López, A. (2015). Using history to analyze the Learning by Observing and Pitching In (LOPI) practices of
contemporary Mesoamerican societies. Advances in Child Behavior and Developments, 49, 314–340.
Gaskins, S. (1999). Children’s daily routine in a Mayan village: A case study of culturally constructed roles and activities. In A. Göncü (Ed.), Children’s engagement in the
world (pp. 25–81). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Gutierrez, K., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or repertoires of practice. Educational Researcher, 32(5), 19–25.
Hart, B., & Risley, T. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore: P.H. Brookes.
Hernandez, D. J. (1997). Child development and the social demography of childhood. Child Development, 68, 149–169.
Hernandez, D. J., Denton, N. A., & Macartney, S. E. (2007). Children in immigrant families — The U.S. and 50 states: National origins, language, and early education (Child
Trends Report, Report # 2007-11). Retrieved from the University at Albany, SUNY Research Briefs Series: Child Trends & the Center for Social and Demographic
Analysis.
Kim, H. S. (2002). We talk therefore we think? A cultural analysis of the effect of talking on thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(4), 828–842.
Lancy, D. F. (2008). The anthropology of childhood: Cherubs, chattel, and changelings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
LeVine, R. A., LeVine, S. E., Richman, A., Tapia Uribe, F., Correa, C. S., & Miller, P. M. (1991). Women’s schooling and child care in the demographic transition: A Mexican
case study. Population and Development Review, 17, 459–469.
LeVine, R. A., LeVine, S. E., & Schnell, B. (2001). “Improve the women”: Mass schooling, female literacy, and worldwide social change. Harvard Educational Review,
71(1), 1–35.
López, A., & Rogoff, B. (2015). Cultural differences in children’s helping without being asked. Manuscript submitted for publication.
López, A., Correa-Chávez, M., Rogoff, B., & Gutiérrez, K. (2010). Attention to instruction directed to another by U.S. Mexican-heritage children of varying cultural back-
grounds. Developmental Psychology, 46(3), 593–601.
140 M. Correa-Chávez / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 11 (2016) 130–141
http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000356763
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0010
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0010
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0015
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0015
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0020
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0020
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0025
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0025
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0030
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0035
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0035
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0040
http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000356768
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0050
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0050
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0055
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0055
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0060
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0065
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0065
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0070
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0075
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0075
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0080
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0080
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0085
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0085
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0090
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0090
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0095
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0100
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0105
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0110
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0110
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0110
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0115
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0120
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0125
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0130
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0130
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0135
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0135
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0140
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0145
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0145
López, A., Najafi, B., Rogoff, B., & Mejía-Arauz, R. (2012). Collaboration and helpfulness as cultural practices. In J. Valsiner (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of culture and psy-
chology (pp. 869–884). NY: Oxford University Press.
Matusov, E., Bell, N., & Rogoff, B. (2002). Schooling as cultural process: Shared thinking and guidance by children from schools differing in collaborative practices. In R.
Kail, & H. Reese (Eds.), Advances in child development and behavior. Vol, 29. (pp. 129–160). Cambridge University Press.
Maynard, A. E. (2004). Cultures of teaching in childhood: Formal schooling and Maya sibling teaching at home. Cognitive Development, 19, 517–535.
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Mejía-Arauz, R., Rogoff, B., & Paradise, R. (2005). Cultural variation in children’s observation during a demonstration. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29,
282–291.
Mejía-Arauz, R., Rogoff, B., Dexter, A., & Najafi, B. (2007). Cultural variation in children’s social organization. Child Development, 78(3), 1001–1014.
Mejía-Arauz, R., Keyser, U., & Correa-Chávez, M. (2013). Transformaciones culturales y generacionales en la participación colaborativa de niñas y niños de una
comunidad p’urhépecha. Revista Mexicana de Investigación Educativa, 59, XVIII.
Mejía-Arauz, R., Correa-Chávez, M., Keyser-Ohrt, U., & Aceves-Azuara, I. (2015). Collaborative work or individual chores: The role of family social organization in
children’s learning to collaborate and develop initiative. Advances in Child Behavior and Developments, 49, 25–51.
Morelli, G., Rogoff, B., & Angelillo, C. (2003). Cultural variation in children’s access to work or involvement in specialized child-focused activities. International Journal of
Behavioral Development, 27, 264–274.
National Task Force on Early Childhood Education for Hispanics (2007, Januaryn). Para nuestros niños: A demographic portrait of young Hispanic children in the United
States (Policy Brief No. 1). Washington D.C.: Garcia, E.
Ochs, E., & Izquierdo, C. (2009). Responsibility in childhood: Three developmental trajectories. Ethos, 37(4), 391–413.
Orellana, M. F., Dorner, L., & Pulido, L. (2003). Accessing assets: Immigrant youth’s work as family translators or “para-phrasers”. Social Problems, 50, 505–524.
Richman, A. L., Miller, P. M., & LeVine, R. A. (1992). Cultural and educational variations in maternal responsiveness. Developmental Psychology, 28, 614–621.
Roberts, A. L. D., & Rogoff, B. (2012). Children’s reflections on cultural differences in ways of working together: “Talking with hands and eyes” or requiring words.
International Journal of Educational Psychology, 1(2), 73–99.
Rogoff, B. (2014). Learning by observing and pitching in to family and community endeavors: An orientation. Human Development, 57(2–3), 69–81. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1159/000356757.
Rogoff, B., Mistry, J., Göncü, A., & Mosier, C. (1993). Guided participation in cultural activity by toddlers and caregivers. Monographs for the Society for Research and Child
Development, 58 Serial No. 236.
Rogoff, B., Paradise, R., Mejía Arauz, R., Correa-Chávez, M., & Angelillo, C. (2003). Firsthand learning through intent participation. Annual Review of Psychology, 54,
175–203.
Rogoff, B., Correa-Chávez, M., & Navichoc-Cotuc, M. (2005). A cultural/historical view of schooling in human development. In D. Pillemer, & S. H. White (Eds.), Devel-
opmental psychology and social change. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Ruvalcaba, O., Rogoff, B., López, A., Correa-Chávez, M., & Gutierrez, K. (2015). Children’s avoidance of interrupting others’ activities in requesting help: Cultural aspects
of considerateness. Advances in Child Behavior and Developments, 49, 187–206.
Scribner, S., & Cole, M. (1973). Cognitive consequences of formal and informal education. Science, 182, 553–559.
Silva, K., Correa-Chávez, M., & Rogoff, B. (2010). Cultural variation in children’s attention and learning in events not directed at them: Patterns in a U.S. Mexican com-
munity. Child Development, 81(3), 898–921.
141M. Correa-Chávez / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 11 (2016) 130–141
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0150
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0150
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0155
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0155
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0160
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0165
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0170
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0170
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0175
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0180
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0180
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0185
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0185
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0190
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0190
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0195
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0195
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0200
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0205
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0210
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0215
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0215
http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000356757
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0225
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0225
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0230
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0230
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0235
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0235
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0240
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0240
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0245
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0250
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-6561(15)30066-0/rf0250
Cultural patterns of collaboration and communication while working together among U.�S. Mexican heritage children
1. Introduction
1.1. Learning by Observing and Pitching In
1.2. Cultural patterns of collaboration
1.3. Talk and joint activity in collaboration
1.4. Schooling as a cultural practice and familiarity with indigenous ways
1.5. Present study
2. Method
2.1. Participants and their communities
2.2. Procedure
2.3. Coding
2.3.1. Jointly engaged
2.3.2. Checking in
2.3.3. Solo
2.3.4. Off task
2.3.5. Off task talk
2.3.6. Reliability
3. Results
3.1. Different forms of interaction in siblings from Mexican pueblo and Mexican high schooling families
3.2. Different amounts of talk, nonverbal joint activity, or multiple means of communication in collaboration
4. Discussion
4.1. Patterns in the use of talk and nonverbal means of communication in interaction
4.2. Changing patterns of interaction, increased schooling, and other populations
4.3. Limitations and future directions
4.4. Implications for practice
Acknowledgments
References
