This article was downloaded by: [Pontificia Universidad Javeriana - Biblioteca General]

On: 11 June 2009

Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 773338646]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Early Child Development and Care

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713640830

Adult response to children's exploratory behaviours: an exploratory study

Amy Chak a
a
Department of Early Childhood Education, The Hong Kong Institute of Education, Tai Po, Hong Kong

First Published on: 12 June 2008

To cite this Article Chak, Amy(2008)'Adult response to children's exploratory behaviours: an exploratory study',Early Child
Development and Care,99999:1,
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/03004430802181965
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03004430802181965

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Early Child Development and Care
2008, 114, iFirst Article

Adult response to childrens exploratory behaviours:

an exploratory study
Amy Chak*

Department of Early Childhood Education, The Hong Kong Institute of Education, Tai Po, Hong
Downloaded By: [Pontificia Universidad Javeriana - Biblioteca General] At: 09:42 11 June 2009

Kong
(Received 25 March 2008; final version received 2 May 2008)
Taylor and Francis Ltd
GECD_A_318363.sgm

Early
10.1080/03004430802181965
0300-4430
Original
Taylor
02008
00
Dr
awchak@ied.edu.hk
000002008
AmyChak
Childhood
&Article
Francis
(print)/1476-8275
Development(online)
and Care

Childrens interest in exploration is the hallmark of their curiosity. As people who are
significant in organising childrens environment, how teachers and parents respond to
childrens exploratory behaviours may promote or hinder the childs desire for further
investigation. With reference to Kurt Lewins concept of total situation, various
hypothetical scenarios on childrens exploratory behaviours in different contexts were
designed to solicit teachers and parents interpretation of the behaviour, how they might
respond in the situation and the rationale behind their response. The findings indicated
that the decision of adults in allowing children to explore is influenced by a combination
of child, adult and situational factors.
Keywords: curiosity; exploratory behaviour; teachers response; parents response; Kurt
Lewin

Introduction
Childrens interest in exploration is the hallmark of their curiosity. Researchers maintain
that there are a considerable range of individual differences in exploration (Henderson,
1988; Kreitler & Kreitler, 1986, 1994). Various factors account for such diversity.
Commonly cited sources of variation mainly focus on the characteristics of the child, such
as disposition, age, gender and the attractiveness of the stimulus in a particular situation
(Trudewind & Schneider, 1994). Researchers predominantly focus on the interaction
between the stimulus and the child. However, comparatively little attention has been paid
to the influence of social and contextual factors in facilitating childrens exploration.
Young children depend on adults to provide a stimulating environment for their explora-
tion. Additionally, the adults interaction with the child during his or her exploration may
potentially promote or hinder the childs desire for further investigation. Therefore, the
facilitation of childrens exploration involves a complex and dynamic interplay between
the characteristics of the child, interpersonal factors and situational factors. This article
examines the responses of teachers and parents to childrens exploration.
In recent years, early childhood educators have encouraged parents and teachers to support
the curiosity and exploration of children (Arnone, 2003; Gaylen, 1998; Green, 2002).
However, this theme has not aroused much interest among researchers. Furthermore, curiosity
research from previous decades which studied adultchild interaction was predominantly on
the interaction between the parent and the child, whereas the interaction among teachers and

*Email: awchak@ied.edu.hk

ISSN 0300-4430 print/ISSN 1476-8275 online

2008 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/03004430802181965
http://www.informaworld.com
 2 A. Chak

their young students has received little attention. Several classic studies from the 1970s to
early 1980s confirmed that parental behaviours influence childrens curiosity and exploration.
In these studies, the modelling of curious behaviour by an adult was positively related to the
childs exhibition of exploration: high parental exploratory behaviour was observed to be
strongly related to high exploratory behaviour in children (Johns & Endsley, 1977), and the
novel curiosity of the mother was highly correlated with the childs novel curiosity (Endsley,
Hutcherson, Garner, & Martin, 1979). Parents non-attention was negatively related to chil-
drens exploration such as attentive observation and manipulation of objects (Saxe & Stollak,
1971). Henderson (1984a) affirmed the significance of a supportive environment: children
exhibited higher levels of exploratory behaviours in supportive sessions with an adult
Downloaded By: [Pontificia Universidad Javeriana - Biblioteca General] At: 09:42 11 June 2009

compared with sessions where they explored independently. Bradbard and Endsley (1980)
concluded that an atmosphere of adult attentiveness, sensitivity and support has a facilitative
effect on the childs exploration. However, it is worth highlighting that the research findings
are correlational rather than causal; that is, parental and child behaviours go together
(Endsley et al., 1979). Furthermore, research also suggests that the parent and child interaction
is far from unidirectional but is dynamic and has a reciprocal influence: it is likely that child
characteristics also affect parental behaviour. Saxe and Stollak (1971) found that the mothers
of high-curious-high-prosocial children expressed significantly more positive feelings than
the mothers of high-aggressive-low-curious children.
Henderson and his colleagues have conducted substantial research which demonstrates
that parents need to vary their response in accordance with the childs level of curiosity.
They cautioned teachers and parents not to assume that all children would explore sponta-
neously in all conditions (Henderson & Moore, 1980). Since low-exploratory children
could and would explore when given assistance, but did not do so spontaneously, they
concluded that the parental presence itself was not sufficient to enhance the exploration of
low-exploratory children. What is required is a social context that provides a collaborative
interest between parent and child in the novel aspects of the environment (Henderson,
1984b, p. 1245). Henderson, Leone, and Loy further observed that adults interacting with
children who were highly curious require a completely different pattern of interacting. They
state that:

In circumstances where childrens intrinsic motivation was high, they narrowly interpreted a
prohibition so as to maximize the opportunity to explore and when contingencies are not
explicit, external controls are not salient, [they] may be likely to push the limits of compliance.
(1985, p. 63)

The majority of the research on childrens curiosity and exploration, including the
examination of parentchild interaction, has been conducted within a laboratory setting;
few studies have taken place within a natural context. However, natural settings provide a
wider variety of stimuli to the child for exploration. They also impose differing demands on
the adult that influence the interaction with the child and consequently the childs explor-
atory behaviour. Fortner-Wood and Hendersons (1997) comparison of childrens explora-
tion in a grocery store and in a laboratory setting revealed differences in their exploratory
behaviour. Recognising that natural physical and social contexts are not neutral, Schneider
and Unzner (1994) examined childrens exploratory behaviours and parental responses to
their exploration in a familiar setting, a home, and in a less familiar one, a supermarket.
Probably due to the more powerful stimuli offered in the supermarket the children engaged
in a more complex sequence of exploratory behaviours than at home (Schneider & Unzner,
1994, p. 191). The mothers behaviours also differed in the two settings. At home, when the
 Early Child Development and Care 3

mothers tended to be involved in their own tasks, they seldom interfered nor stimulated
their childrens exploration; whereas in the supermarket they exhibited more tutoring
behaviours rather than allowing their children to explore freely.
In everyday interactions, the adult and the child may not share the same agenda.
Hendersons (1991) concept of situation definition is useful for understanding whether the
goals of the child and the parent match. He found that when the parent and the child have a
shared definition, the parent actively supports the exploration of the child. Parents and
teachers, as significant others of young children, are important mediators in childrens
exploration: they are the key persons involved in introducing children to new and interest-
ing events, in providing them with opportunities to explore and in assisting them in devel-
Downloaded By: [Pontificia Universidad Javeriana - Biblioteca General] At: 09:42 11 June 2009

oping a varied repertoire of exploratory behaviour (Sussman, 1989). Researchers have also
noted that a stimulus that is too complex or demanding for a child may hinder or frustrate
rather than promote exploration (Spielberger & Starr, 1994). When there is a mismatch in
goals, would the adult misinterpret the behaviour of the child? A childs act of touching an
item in a department store may be interpreted as an interest to know more about it or as
misbehaviour. Even if interpreted correctly, would different circumstantial factors affect an
adults decision about whether to allow the child to explore? This study aims to understand
the conditions in which teachers and parents would allow or not allow a child to explore and
the reasons behind their decisions. Although observation in natural contexts is the ideal
method to understand adultchild interactions, it also poses limitations. For example, the
difficulty of controlling factors such as the consistency of the natural situation, and the
types of exploratory behaviours that the subjects may experience, make comparisons diffi-
cult. In this enquiry, hypothetical scenarios were constructed and used to solicit adults
views of young childrens exploratory behaviours. This approach overcame the above-
mentioned limitations and enabled the examination of a variety of contexts and control for
the exploratory behaviours to be examined. However, there is an obvious drawback in that
the study does not involve directly observing the actual response of the adult in a given situ-
ation, and therefore makes it difficult to understand the dynamic changes that happen within
an interaction.
Kurt Lewins field theory, which states that behaviour has to be derived from a total-
ity of co-existing facts (Lewin, 1951/1997, p. 187), is useful to aid understanding of the
complex dynamics of the child and adult factors involved in an interaction in a specific
context. The theory is also useful for the construction of the hypothetical scenarios to be
used in this study. The key concept total situation, which is described as a persons life
space whereby the environment and the person have to be considered as one constellation
of interdependent factors, is particularly useful to the present study. Specifically, the
total situation described the effect of a given stimulus depends upon the stimulus
constellation and upon the state of the particular person at that time (Lewin, 1951/1997,
p. 337). A persons life space may be understood at two levels: the general life situation
and the momentary situation influencing ones behaviour at a particular moment. An indi-
viduals general life situation encompasses a broader sphere of experience, disposition
and beliefs serving as a background that affects the state of the person and thus their reac-
tions in the momentary situation: such an influence varies in different momentary situa-
tions (Lewin, 1936).
Lewins concept of total situation is used as the organising framework for designing
the hypothetical scenarios. In the context of childrens exploratory behaviours, the response
of the adult to a childs behaviour is affected by the total situation of the adult, the child
and situational factors at that particular moment. The following four factors may be taken
into account in a stimuluschildadult interaction:
 4 A. Chak

(1) the adults general life situation, such as his or her view of childrens curiosity and
exploratory behaviours;
(2) the adults momentary situation, such as the presence of a situational demand in the
particular context and moment (e.g. a situational demand for teachers may be the
need to attend to a group of children in a structured group activity, and a situational
demand for a parent may be the time pressure when grocery shopping);
(3) the childs general life situation, such as his or her level of curiosity, or age; and
(4) the childs momentary situation, such as the type of exploratory behaviour mani-
fested through the presence of the stimulus in the particular situation and the context
of the situation.
Downloaded By: [Pontificia Universidad Javeriana - Biblioteca General] At: 09:42 11 June 2009

Selected aspects of the factors of an adults momentary situation, the childs general life
situation and the childs momentary situation were used as criteria for designing the hypo-
thetical scenarios. The adults general life situation, in terms of their views of childrens
exploration, may partially be reflected in their responses to these scenarios.1

Methods
Participants
The participants of this study were recruited from a larger study in which 321 participants
(195 teachers and 126 parents) responded to a questionnaire on teachers and parents
perceptions of childrens curiosity and exploratory behaviour. The preschool teachers were
recruited from an in-service training programme2 (40%) and from 12 preschools (60%). The
parents were recruited from 7 of the 12 preschools and all had at least one child of preschool
age. At the end of the questionnaire, the participants were asked to indicate whether they
would be willing to take part in an interview. Nineteen preschool teachers were successfully
interviewed, all of whom were female. Thirty-seven percent of the teachers had less than
5 years working experience, and an equal number (32%) had 59 years and over 10 years
working experience respectively. Fourteen parents participated in the interview. Of the 14
parents, 6 (43%) were male and 8 (57%) were female. The majority of the parents (10) had
received a secondary school education, with one having received only a primary school
education and three a tertiary education.

Procedure
A pilot study was undertaken to generate ideas for designing hypothetical scenarios and
interview questions. Fourteen preschool teachers enrolled in an in-service training
programme and 19 parents with a child in preschool participated in the pilot. The partici-
pants were asked to describe an event that illustrates the manifestation of a childs curiosity.
Thirty-three events were collected and were sorted by age and type of exploratory behav-
iour. Those that illustrated conspicuous curious behaviours were used as a stimulation to
construct the hypothetical scenarios. A total of eight hypothetical scenarios were
constructed, with four vignettes for teachers and four vignettes for parents. To test for face
validity, four teachers and two parents were asked to comment on whether the vignettes
were representative of everyday situations and on whether (1) the description might be
misinterpreted as indicating behaviours other than the manifestation of curiosity; (2) they
were open-ended enough to allow a range of responses; and (3) the teachers and parents
would have a similar interpretation of the degree of situational demand on the adult.
 Early Child Development and Care 5

The main study was conducted through face-to-face interviews. The vignettes and the
interview questions were written on index cards. For each vignette, the participant was
shown an index card and this was read out by the interviewer, after which three open-ended
questions were asked. The interview was conducted in Chinese and the average length of
the interview was about 30 minutes. All of the interviews were tape-recorded, transcribed
and subjected to content analysis. For each vignette, the common responses in each question
were categorised.

Materials
Downloaded By: [Pontificia Universidad Javeriana - Biblioteca General] At: 09:42 11 June 2009

Three factors the adults momentary situation, the childs general life situation and the
childs momentary situation were used as criteria for designing the hypothetical scenarios.
The specifications are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Criteria for the design of the hypothetical scenarios.

Factors Vignettes for teacher Vignettes for parent
Adults specific Probable situational demand (2)a At home (2), in the community (2)
situation Free of situational demands (2) Probable situational demand (3)
Free of situational demands (1)
Childs general Assumes the behaviour of a highly Assumes the behaviour of a highly
situation curious child curious child
Three to six years old One to six years old
Childs specific Child alone (2), child with teacher At home (2), in the community (2)
situation (1), child in structured group Variation in stimuli
situation (1) Variation in exploratory
Variation in stimuli behaviours
Variation in exploratory behaviours
Note: aIndicates the number of vignettes with this characteristic.

Tables 2 and 3 illustrate the hypothetical scenarios designed for teachers and parents.
The adults general life situation, specifically his or her view of childrens curiosity and
exploratory behaviours could be partially captured through their responses to the hypothet-
ical scenarios. Three open-ended questions were asked after each vignette:

(1) Why do you think the child behaves this way?

(2) Would you respond in this situation?
(a) If yes, how would you respond? Why would you respond in this way?
(b) If no, why would you not respond?
(3) In this vignette, the child is using (insert exploratory behaviour described in
vignette) to know or understand. In general, under what circumstances would you
allow or not allow this behaviour? Please explain.

Results and discussion

This study sought to examine the potential responses of teachers and parents to childrens
exploratory behaviour, and the assumptions and rationale behind these responses. It is
assumed that the responses of adults vary according to their own situational factors and the
general and situational factors of the child.
 6 A. Chak

Table 2. Hypothetical scenarios for teachers (translated version, original in Chinese).

Probable Childs
situational exploratory
Hypothetical scenarios demand for adult behaviour
Vignette 1 Safety Manipulation
During free play time, four-year-old Joe goes to the bathroom Epistemic
by himself. You (teacher) are in the bathroom helping
another child, you observe that Joe opens the water tank of
a toilet and is looking inside
Vignette 2 No specific Epistemic
Downloaded By: [Pontificia Universidad Javeriana - Biblioteca General] At: 09:42 11 June 2009

During the free time after school, three-year-old Jane asks: Do demand
you have daddy and mommy?
You (teacher) reply: Yes.
Jane: Do you have a home?
You: Yes.
Jane: Do you eat lunch?
You: Yes, teachers also eat lunch.
Jane: I havent seen you eat lunch before. Do you need
to sleep?
Vignette 3 Children are to Manipulation
Three-year-old Jane is participating in a movement activity follow
with a group of children. You (teacher) bring out a large instructions in
piece of cloth for the children to make waves together. a structured
You ask them to move the cloth up and down. Jane follows group activity
your instructions and moves the cloth up and down, she then
tries to move the cloth side-ways
Vignette 4 No specific Manipulation
Six-year-old Jack takes out an atlas from the book corner and demand Perceptual
spends 15 minutes looking at the maps in it. He then goes to Epistemic
the art corner, takes a piece of paper and pencil and spends
12 minutes drawing a map

Interpretation of the childs behaviour

Teachers
For the four vignettes presented to the teachers, regardless of the type of exploratory behav-
iours used by the child, they interpreted the purpose of the childs behaviour as to satisfy
curiosity. All of the teachers in Vignette 1 interpreted that the childs motive was to seek
epistemic knowledge: they wanted to know what was inside the water tank, and liked to
investigate to find out. For Vignette 2, 84% of the respondents felt that the child wanted to
know; 20% stated that the childs questioning was related to the developmental stage of a
three-year-old and 10% of the respondents interpreted that the child wanted to build a rela-
tionship with the teacher.3 The majority of the respondents recognised the childs motive
as epistemic interest. For Vignette 3, the respondents inferred that the child wanted to try
and experiment with different methods (84%), and wanted to create (16%). The majority
identified that the childs motive stemmed from curiosity or creativity. A few teachers also
interpreted the childs behaviour negatively, with 16% suggested the possible motive of the
child was not wanting to listen to the teacher or disturbing the ongoing activity. For
Vignette 4, 54% of the respondents said the child was interested in and attracted by the
stimulus, 37% said that the child wanted to know more and to express his or her own
 Early Child Development and Care 7

Table 3. Hypothetical scenarios for parents (translated version, original in Chinese).

Probable Childs
situational exploratory
Hypothetical scenarios demand for adult behaviour
Vignette 5 No specific Manipulation
You (parent) are reading the newspaper and notice that six- demand Perceptual
year-old Jack is not in the living room. You check out his Epistemic
bedroom and find that he has opened up a broken alarm
clock and is concentrating on dismantling the parts
Vignette 6 Has own agenda Epistemic
Downloaded By: [Pontificia Universidad Javeriana - Biblioteca General] At: 09:42 11 June 2009

You (parent) have just picked up four-year-old Jane from the

child care centre and you decide to drop by the supermarket
to pick up some groceries before heading home to cook
dinner. In the fruit section of the supermarket, Jane excitedly
points to the durian: Today my teacher has taught us about
this special fruit called durian. She walks closer to examine
it and finds that one of them has burst open. She then asks:
Why is this open? You reply: Because it is ripe. Jane asks
further: Why are ripe ones open? .
Vignette 7 Expensive item Manipulation
You (parent) and five-year-old June pass by the section of a Perceptual
department store that sells massage recliners. The Epistemic
salesperson is inviting shoppers to try out the products. June
walks over to a recliner, carefully examines the buttons on
its arms, she then sits on the recliner and operates a button
feeling the movement.
Vignette 8 Safety Perceptual
While playing with a ball in the crib, 1.5-year-old John Epistemic
accidentally bumped his head on the edge of the crib. He
stops and rubs his head with his hand, looks at the crib for a
few seconds, then slowly bumps his head on the edge. He
stops and rubs his head, and tries one more time.

ideas, while 32% interpreted the act as imitation of content via drawing. There was more
variation in the interpretation of the childs motive in this vignette. Suggested motives
ranged from epistemic interest to imitative behaviour. This may be due to the complexity of
the childs behaviour described in this vignette.

Parents
For the four vignettes presented to the parents, the respondents mainly interpreted the
purpose of the childs behaviour as a desire to know. For Vignette 5, 86% of the parents
viewed the childs behaviour as indicating that they wanted to know and 21% viewed it as
indicating a functional purpose: that they wanted to fix the clock. For Vignette 6, almost
all (93%) of the respondents identified that the childs purpose was an interest to know the
unknown, with 14% stating that asking questions was characteristic of this age. For
Vignette 7, all of the respondents viewed the purpose of the childs behaviour as being a
desire to know what is new, to investigate, try out and manipulate the object; 14% of the
respondents said that the child might be attracted by the sales description, thus they wanted
to test out the object. There was more discrepancy among the parents in their interpretation
 8 A. Chak

of the motive of the childs behaviour in Vignette 8. The behaviour was positively viewed
by 71% of the parents, some of whom thought that the child acted for fun or wanted to
try again to understand, and some of whom thought that the child was using his or her
body, senses and experience to explore. This group of respondents felt that the child was
not attempting to hurt himself. However, 21% of the respondents stated that they did not
understand the childs motive or thought that the behaviour was abnormal. This discrep-
ancy in interpretation is likely to be related to the design of this vignette: the age of the child
may cause the parents to be more concerned about safety than consider other possible expla-
nations for the childs behaviour.
Overall, both the teachers and the parents were able to interpret the motive of the childs
Downloaded By: [Pontificia Universidad Javeriana - Biblioteca General] At: 09:42 11 June 2009

exploratory behaviours. Where there were discrepancies, they appeared to be related to the
complex design of the vignettes.

Response to the childs behaviour

Teachers
The data revealed that the specific context of an incident and the teachers view towards
childrens exploratory behaviour interact to influence how they decide to respond to a
particular situation. Of the four vignettes, two of them (Vignettes 2 and 4) were designed
without any situational demand, while some situational demand was imposed on the teacher
in Vignette 1 (concern for safety) and in Vignette 3 (in a structured group activity). Overall,
the teachers descriptions of their responses to these vignettes indicated that although they
recognised the childs motive, to some degree, the specific context influenced their
responses to the childs exploratory behaviours. In Vignette 2, when the teachers interpreted
the circumstance as free of situational demand, the majority of them (84%) stated that they
would respond to the childs questions. The following reasons were given: wanted to
satisfy the childs curiosity, did not want to disappoint so that the child would continue to
ask questions in the future, wanted to promote the childs exploration and thinking and
wanted to enhance the relationship. A similar pattern was observed in vignette 4, where
all of the respondents were willing to let the child have enough time to explore by himself
or herself.
The responses of the teachers in Vignettes 1 and 3 appeared to be more bounded by the
constraints imposed by the situation. All of the respondents in Vignette 1 stated that the
primary concern was for safety and 63% of them chose a moderate to high level of inter-
vention. Over half of the respondents recognised the childs desire to know: however, due
to concerns about safety and hygiene, rather than letting the child explore on his or her own,
they preferred to investigate the matter together with the child or as a whole group. Ten
percent of the respondents would verbally warn or stop the childs exploration because of
concern about possible danger. The situational demand in Vignette 3 was related to concern
for the child to follow the teachers instruction. Although the respondents agreed on the
childs motive as wanting to try different methods and that there were many ways of
performing the movement, 25% of them reasoned that due to the need to consider class-
room order or being concerned about being affected by the flow of activity designed by
the teacher, they would first request the child to follow the teachers instructions, then
would encourage the children to explore different methods.
The data also indicated the teachers view on childrens exploration influenced their
decision. Given the same context, there were considerable variations in the teachers
responses. In Vignette 1, while all of the teachers were concerned about safety and recogn-
ised the importance of supervision, they varied in the degree of freedom they gave to the
 Early Child Development and Care 9

child to explore by himself or herself and the need for direct intervention by the teacher.
Thirty-seven percent of the respondents preferred to let the child explore by himself or
herself while they would stand back and observe the childs behaviour to ensure safety. They
reasoned that it was the responsibility of the teacher to satisfy the childs curiosity and that
direct intervention might affect the childs exploration. On the other hand, 63% of the
respondents viewed safety as more important than giving the child the opportunity to
explore by himself or herself. Similarly, in Vignette 3, there was a subtle variation in the
teachers responses. While all of the teachers encouraged the child to explore various alter-
natives and valued their creativity, they differed in the timing of carrying out the suggestions
offered by the child. A quarter of the respondents, who regarded the importance of main-
Downloaded By: [Pontificia Universidad Javeriana - Biblioteca General] At: 09:42 11 June 2009

taining classroom order and the need to follow instructions, would prefer to implement the
teachers plan first. Three quarters of the respondents appeared to be more flexible and
would follow the childs or other childrens ideas promptly. Their rationale included:
wanted to enhance childrens creativity, valued the children taking the initiative, wanted
to promote variety and wanted to encourage different perspectives. In Vignette 4, while
the respondents generally agreed that they would allow the child enough time to explore,
would encourage the child to share his or her findings afterwards, and would seek oppor-
tunity to extend his or her exploration, they varied in the timing of their involvement in the
childs exploration. Fifty-eight percent of them preferred to pay attention to but not disrupt
the child so that he or she could concentrate on his or her exploration, while 42% would
enquire while the child was exploring to understand what he or she was doing and to see if
he or she needed help. This subtle difference in the timing of involvement may reflect the
teachers view on autonomy and whether and when there is a need to scaffold the child.

Parents
The data on the responses of the parents to the childs exploratory behaviours also revealed
an interaction between the situational context and the adults view towards childrens explo-
ration in influencing their decision. Of the four vignettes, only one was free of situational
demand (Vignette 5), while Vignettes 6, 7 and 8 imposed a varying degree of situational
demand on the adult, including time constraints (Vignette 6) and safety concerns (Vignettes
7 and 8). The results show that in Vignette 5, which had no particular situational demand,
most parents were willing to allow the child to explore. Around 80% of them felt no restric-
tion was necessary, while 20% voiced their concern about the nature of the object, whether
it was safe to manipulate, and whether it was still usable. For the parents who explicitly
voiced these concerns, it could be interpreted that their apprehension towards the childs
exploration was influenced by the characteristics of the object.
For Vignette 6, all of the parents responded to the childs quest for information, thus it
appeared that they did not interpret the imposed time constraint as a concern. Half of them
felt that lack of response to the childs questions might affect their desire to know in the
future. For Vignette 7, how the parent interpreted the responsibility held for any damage to
an expensive item affected their willingness to let the child explore. Around 70% of the
respondents considered the situation as an opportunity for the child to ask questions, to
compare with their own experience of chairs at home and that the salespersons role was
to decide whether to allow the child to manipulate the buttons. Around 30% of the parents
felt that this was their responsibility; that is, they would not let the child explore because of
their concerns about damaging the property and about safety.
The design of Vignette 8 led the parents to be very cautious when interpreting the
motive of the childs behaviour and this affected their subsequent responses. As mentioned
 10 A. Chak

previously, more parents were puzzled by the motive of the childs behaviour in Vignette 8
than in the other vignettes. All of the parents were concerned about safety. However, only
around 30% of the respondents would allow the child to continue to explore under their
observation; the majority of respondents (70%) would stop the childs action. It was
also likely that the age of the child would was implicitly considered by the parents in their
evaluation.
There was indication that parents view on childrens exploration influenced their deci-
sion about how to respond to the child. Variation in the parents responses could be
observed in the two vignettes that imposed no situational demand and high situational
demand. Where there was no situational demand (Vignette 5) among the parents (80%) who
Downloaded By: [Pontificia Universidad Javeriana - Biblioteca General] At: 09:42 11 June 2009

allowed the child to explore with the alarm clock, 30% said they would not disturb the child
while 50% said they would try to understand the reason behind the childs act, would see
if he or she needed any assistance or would provide information about the alarm clock.
Where there was high situational demand (Vignette 8), although all of the parents were
concerned about safety, those who were willing to let the child explore (30%) chose to
observe the childs action closely, while around 70% were so concerned about the child
getting hurt that they would stop the child immediately. They expressed that they would
find ways to protect the child and would help the child understand the danger of such
action. The variations of the parents responses in these two vignettes appeared to follow a
similar pattern. It seemed that the assumptions of the parents about the childs competence
and their trust in the childs ability to make his or her own judgement affected how much
guidance and protection they would render to the child during his or her exploration.
It is not surprising that both the teachers and the parents responses to the childrens
exploratory behaviours were influenced by the specific context. They were more willing to
allow the children to explore when they interpreted the situation as free of situational
demand. As expected, given the age of the children in the vignettes and that the age group
characteristically engage in manipulatory exploration, the primary consideration for both
groups of respondents was whether the circumstance was safe for the children to explore.
The views of the adult also influenced his or her response. It appeared that the adults
consideration on whether to exercise his or her authority mediated a childs exploratory
behaviour, be it in the form of a direct demand for compliance (Vignette 3) or a subtle need
to supply information (Vignettes 4 and 5).

Circumstances that would or would not allow various exploratory behaviours

For each vignette, the participants were asked in general under what circumstances would
they allow or not allow the child to engage in various exploratory behaviours. The following
exploratory behaviours were included: manipulation of objects (Vignettes 1, 5, 8), ask ques-
tions (Vignettes 2, 6), explore with different methods (Vignettes 3, 4, 7).

Teachers
Since the responses of the teachers revealed similar patterns across the exploratory behav-
iours, they are grouped together for analysis. The data indicated that the teachers decision
on whether to allow or not allow the children to engage in exploration was influenced by
two factors: safety and the curriculum design. They explained that adults presence and super-
vision was paramount for the children to engage in any type of exploration. Furthermore,
the design and structure of the preschool curriculum along with the method of instruction
strongly affected the decision of the teachers. Background information about the operation
 Early Child Development and Care 11

of preschools in Hong Kong would help to understand their concerns. In general, most
preschools in Hong Kong follow a rather structured half-day programme with a relatively
strong orientation towards developing basic reading and writing skills and knowledge build-
ing.4 In order to fulfil academic requirements, at times the teachers take a didactic approach
to learning and teaching. Given the context of this kind of preschool environment, the teachers
commonly agreed that the degree of freedom given to the children to explore freely was
affected by the curriculum design. They voiced that exploration by children themselves is
rather limited during the designated sessions in which the teachers have to fulfil the planned
curriculum, which include class time and the learning and practice of writing and arithmetic.
Several teachers stated that as they were concerned about disturbing other children and affect-
Downloaded By: [Pontificia Universidad Javeriana - Biblioteca General] At: 09:42 11 June 2009

ing their own concentration, they would discourage children from asking questions when they
were working on the desktop exercises. The teachers stated that in activities such as music
and movement, physical exercise and arts and craft, which are relatively free and have fewer
restrictions, the children were allowed to try different methods to attempt their tasks. The
teachers overwhelmingly considered free play as the ideal time for children to engage in
exploration. During this time period, children were free to explore according to their interests
and had relatively more time for more in-depth exploration. The teachers tended to appreciate
the value of exploration that the children engaged in during free play because it could facilitate
self-initiated learning and a positive learning attitude. Although they understood and encour-
aged childrens exploratory behaviours, given the context described above, they claimed that
they had to juggle their efforts between fulfilling the academic requirements and allocating
enough time for children to engage in exploration on their own.

Parents
Parents tended to differentiate their responses according to the different types of exploratory
behaviour. With regard to manipulative exploration, they were more concerned about the
nature of the item, its safety and the childs ability to manage the item. Expensive and
household items, items in public places or items belonging to others were considered neces-
sary to be out of the childs reach. Furthermore, they believed adult supervision was crucial
while the child was engaging in manipulative exploration. In general, the parents had
positive feelings about asking questions as a form of epistemic exploratory behaviour.
However, their primary concern was when to encourage such a conversation with the child.
Less than one-third of the respondents felt that they would encourage their child to ask ques-
tions any time: among them some explained that since they were housewives they were
more available to their child. Over 40% preferred to engage in this type of conversation
when they have time, which meant when they were more relaxed and not in a hurry or
while engaging in less important tasks. A few respondents considered the place (e.g. at
home) or the content (e.g. not adult matters) as affecting whether they would or would not
encourage their child to ask questions.
Overall, regardless of the type of exploratory behaviour, the teachers readiness to facil-
itate the childrens exploration was affected by the curriculum design of the preschool. The
parents showed more concern over their childs manipulative exploratory behaviour,
screening whether the nature of the item was suitable for exploration. This difference
between the parents and the teachers may be due to differences in the environment, whereby
in the preschool setting, items available for children to explore were predominantly educa-
tional materials already pre-selected, thus teachers were less concerned about the items
chosen but more concerned about the availability of the opportunity for exploration. On the
other hand, it is understandable that parents were vigilant in determining whether the nature
 12 A. Chak

of an item was appropriate for exploration because their child was exposed to a wide range
of items, both at home and in public places.

Concluding remarks
This study had borrowed Kurt Lewins concept of the total situation to understand whether
the responses of adults to childrens exploration are affected by a constellation of adult,
child and situational factors. General life situations and specific situations of both the adult
and the child are assumed to contribute to the adultchild interaction in a particular moment.
This study has used hypothetical scenarios to examine adults decisions regarding how they
would respond to various exploratory behaviours of children in different contexts. The data
Downloaded By: [Pontificia Universidad Javeriana - Biblioteca General] At: 09:42 11 June 2009

have to some extent illustrated that the decision of adults in allowing children to explore is
influenced by a combination of child, adult and situational factors. The respondents inter-
pretation of the situational demand in a specific context interacted with their consideration
of the childs age. This resulted in safety being the paramount concern in whether or not to
allow a child to explore. Given the same situational context, variation in the decision of
adults is influenced by their own personal views on curiosity and exploration. The parents
varied in their interpretation of a childs ability and the suitability of an item for exploration.
Teachers in this study were commonly affected by the academically oriented preschool
curriculum, which in turn is influenced by the demands of the educational system in Hong
Kong. The teachers struggled to balance their professional value that childrens curiosity
and exploration should be promoted and their need to fulfil the expectations of the academic
curriculum in order to facilitate childrens transition to primary school. On the other hand,
due to childrens exposure to a wide variety of settings in everyday life, parents appeared to
exert greater control than teachers in allowing children the freedom to explore. Therefore,
parents and teachers face a web of complex factors in deciding whether and when children
can explore.
This study is an initial exploration of the factors that influence the response of the adult
to the childs exploratory behaviour. The use of hypothetical scenarios in this study is a
compromise between the completely structured tasks in laboratory settings and observation
of childrens spontaneous behaviours in natural settings. The evident limitation of this
method is the inability to capture the dynamics of the total situation of the childadult inter-
action in a particular moment as discussed in Lewins field theory. This approach attempts
to take into account variations in parent, child and situational factors. However, it cannot
assess their actual behaviours in the particular moment or the moment-to-moment changing
nature of the interaction. How the adult judges whether and when to allow the child to
explore, to offer support to the child or to scaffold the childs exploration can only be
assessed through direct observation of the momentary situation in natural settings.
The initial findings of this study have generated some questions worthy of further exam-
ination. For example, how do adults actually resolve the dilemma of contextual demand and
promoting childrens curiosity? Specifically, how do teachers juggle their professional
values and curriculum demands in everyday practice? How do parents make time to engage
in epistemic conversation with their children? How would adults alter their decisions with
childrens increasing age?

Notes
1. A comprehensive application of the concept, requiring direct observation of the dynamic interac-
tion between the stimulus, the child and the adult in different situations, is beyond the scope of
this study.
 Early Child Development and Care 13

2. The in-service training programme was a 3-year part-time higher diploma programme offered by
a local university. The student teachers who enrolled in this programme were qualified early
childhood education teachers with at least 2 years working experience.
3. Some respondents identified more than one reason and the categories are not mutually exclusive.
4. In the daily schedule, time periods are allocated for writing practice or learning simple arithmetic.
For 4- to 6-year-olds, this includes both Chinese characters and the English alphabet and words.
Usually in the writing session, the children learn to write the character/word taught for that day;
they begin practising during class and it is to be completed as homework. Other sessions may
include: small group discussions (also referred to as class time) on various themes, music and
movement, physical exercise and arts and craft. Time for free play, where children are free to
choose to enter different corners and stay as long as they desire, may be compromised to accom-
modate the scheduled activities.
Downloaded By: [Pontificia Universidad Javeriana - Biblioteca General] At: 09:42 11 June 2009

Notes on contributor
Amy Chak is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Early Childhood Education at the Hong
Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong. Her research interests include curiosity and exploration,
imagination, and adultchild interaction.

References
Arnone, M. (2003, August). Using instructional design strategies to foster curiosity. ERIC Digest,
pp. 34.
Bradbard, M.R., & Endsley, R.C. (1980). How can teachers develop childrens curiosity? Young
Children, 35(5), 2132.
Endsley, R.C., Hutcherson, M.A., Garner, A.P., & Martin, M.J. (1979). Interrelationships among
selected maternal behaviors, authoritarianism, and preschool childrens verbal and nonverbal
curiosity. Child Development, 50, 331339.
Fortner-Wood, C., & Henderson, B. (1997). Individual differences in two-year-olds curiosity
in the assessment setting and in the grocery store. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 158(4),
495497.
Gaylen, N. (1998). Encouraging curiosity at home. Science and Children, 35(4), 2425.
Green, M. (2002). Teachers helping parents to raise the level of curiosity in young children. ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED467754.
Henderson, B. (1984a). Social support and exploration. Child Development, 55(4), 12461251.
Henderson, B. (1984b). Parents and exploration: The effect of context on individual differences in
exploratory behavior. Child Development, 55(4), 12371245.
Henderson, B. (1988). Individual differences in exploration: A replication and extension. Journal of
Genetic Psychology, 149(4), 555557.
Henderson, B. (1991). Describing parent-child interaction during exploration: Situation definitions
and negotiations. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 117(1), 7989.
Henderson, B., Leone, C., & Loy, L. (1985). Childrens exploratory behavior and the generalization
of a prohibition. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 146(1), 5764.
Henderson, B., & Moore, S.G. (1980). Childrens responses to objects differing in novelty in rela-
tion to level of curiosity and adult behavior. Child Development, 51, 457465.
Johns, C., & Endsley, R.C. (1977). The effects of a maternal model on young childrens tactual curi-
osity. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 131, 2128.
Kreitler, S., & Kreitler, H. (1986). Types of curiosity behaviors and their cognitive determinants.
Archives of Psychology, 138, 233251.
Kreitler, S., & Kreitler, H. (1994). Motivational and cognitive determinants of exploration. In H.
Keller, K. Schneider, & B. Henderson (Eds.), Curiosity and exploration (pp. 259282). Berlin:
Springer-Verlag.
Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lewin, K. (1951/1997). Resolving social conflicts and field theory in social science. Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Saxe, R.M., & Stollak, G.E. (1971). Curiosity and the parent-child relationship. Child Development,
42, 373384.
 14 A. Chak

Schneider, K., & Unzner, L. (1994). Preschoolers exploratory behavior: The influence of the social
and physical context. In H. Keller, K. Schneider, & B. Henderson (Eds.), Curiosity and explora-
tion (pp. 177197). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Spielberger, C.D., & Starr, L.M. (1994). Curiosity and exploratory behavior. In H.F. ONeil, Jr. & M.
Drillings (Eds.), Motivation: Theory and research (pp. 221243). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sussman, R. (1989). Curiosity and exploration in children: Where affect and cognition meet. In
K. Field, B.J. Cohler, & G. Wool (Eds.), Learning and education: Psychoanalytic perspective
(pp. 245266). Madison, CT: International Universities Press.
Trudewind, C., & Schneider, K. (1994). Interindividual differences in the development of explor-
atory behavior: Methodological considerations. In H. Keller, K. Schneider, & B. Henderson
(Eds.), Curiosity and exploration (pp. 151176). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Downloaded By: [Pontificia Universidad Javeriana - Biblioteca General] At: 09:42 11 June 2009