Joy in Inquiry and the Playful and Productive Adaptation of Practice

• In Event: 29.065 - Pedagogies of Joy :) Reigniting Conversations About the Intersectionalities of Joy Within Learning Pathways

Abstract

Objectives
Emotions are often conceptualized as important to science interest development, but recent work emphasizes affect as inherent to scientific inquiry itself (Jaber & Hammer, 2016). An endogenous definition of inquiry, recognizing inquiry as a members’ phenomenon (Keifert, 2015), attends to the role of affect in participants’ inquiry experience. In this paper, I attend specifically to joy and play in a young girl’s engagement in and broadening of a family inquiry practice.

Perspectives/Theoretical framework
I draw upon two theoretical perspectives to define inquiry—Dewey’s (1938/1981) inquiry and Sacks’ (1967/1992) members’ phenomenon. These perspectives allow me to understand children’s experiences within moments of inquiry, including children’s interactional, epistemic, and affective accomplishments (Keifert, in preparation).

Methods
Drawing upon interactional analysis traditions (e.g., Jordan & Henderson, 1995), I analyzed 200 hours of video data from a longitudinal video-ethnographic study of inquiry as a members’ phenomenon (Keifert, 2015, in preparation). Here, I examine the role of joy and play in one particular moment as a 7 year-old pushes the boundaries of her family inquiry practice.

Results
By age 2y 10m Catherine Lundin proposed and revised thought experiments (Brown & Fehige, 2014) as part of her family’s practice of asking “what if” questions to playfully explore phenomena such as water temperature, crickets, and spiders (Keifert, 2015). In this instance, Catherine (7y 0m) and Dad imaginatively explored rolling up glue from their hands to make “glue balls”, and pretending those balls were boogers to give to Catherine’s older brother, Stuart (10y 0m). After imagining Stuart eating the glue booger, Dad explained why “it’s not a healthy choice” because boogers are “germs covered in slime from your body.” This thought experiment allowed imaginative exploration of a phenomenon—boogers—and related ideas—germs, bodies—in a way an experiment could not (Gendler, 1998; Kuhn, 1964/1977).

Later, Catherine enacted the thought experiment as a prank. Catherine offered Stuart a glueball saying, “Stuart, want my booger?” As Stuart declined, Dad warned, “Do not eat that Stuart. It's not, it's not a healthy choice.” Dad then asked, “Didja, did you actually offer it to him?” Catherine, grinning, replied “Yeah.” Dad replied, “Is kinda weird Catherine” and Stuart added, “Just kind of.” After enacting the thought experiment as a prank, Catherine was admonished by Dad and Stuart. Nonetheless, upon viewing this video, Catherine, Stuart, Dad, and Mom all laughed at Catherine’s “prank”.

Significance
Joy was central to Catherine’s family inquiry practice, as in other family explorations (see Goodwin, 2007), students’ classroom inquiry (e.g., students’ “pleasure in the ways they could generate and pursue ideas for themselves”; Jaber & Hammer, 2016, p. 172), and scientists’ work (e.g., Barbara McClintock description of “the joy of going at it”; Keller, 1983, p. 185). Accepting joyful exploration as inherent to inquiry positions us to design for children’s engagement in inquiry as a members’ phenomenon. Moreover, recognizing children’s playful ways of violating practice norms sheds light on how children as newcomers to communities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991) playfully and productively adapt practices.

Author

• Danielle Keifert, University of California - Los Angeles