
























































Instructions for authors, subscriptions and further details:

http://ijep.hipatiapress.com

Amy L. D. Roberts & Barbara Rogoff 1

1 ) University of California, Santa Cruz, United States of America

Date of publication: June 24th, 201 2

Roberts, A., & Rogoff, B. (201 2). Children’s Reflections

on Two Cultural Ways of Working Together: “Talking with Hands and Eyes”

or Requiring Words. International Journal ofEducational Psychology, 1(2),

73-99. doi: 1 0.4471 /ijep.201 2.06

http://dx.doi.org/1 0.4471 /ijep.201 2.06

http://dx.doi.org/10.4471/ijep.2012.06


IJEP– International Journal ofEducational Psychology Vol. 1 No. 2

June 2012 pp.73-99

Children’s Reflections on
Two Cultural Ways ofWorking
Together:“Talking with Hands
and Eyes” or Requiring Words
Amy L. D. Roberts & Barbara Rogoff

University ofCalifornia, Santa Cruz

Abstract

Forty-four pairs of Mexican-heritage and European-heritage US children were asked

to characterize differences between two contrasting cultural patterns of working

together in video clips that showed a) Mexican Indigenous-heritage children working

together by collaborating, helping, observing others, and using nonverbal as well as

verbal communication, and b) middle-class European-American children working

alone and using predominantly verbal communication.

Through experience in two cultural settings, bilingual Mexican-heritage US children

may become familiar with these contrasting cultural patterns that have been identified

in research. Mexican-heritage US children characterized the clips in ways that

corresponded with researchers’ descriptions more often than did European-heritage

children, when discussing working together and helping but not when discussing

communication.

The children from the two backgrounds differed in their treatment of talk. In

addition to talking more overall, half of the European-heritage US children

considered talk a requirement for working together or helping, excluding nonverbal

communication as a way of working together or helping. In contrast, the Mexican-

heritage US children included nonverbal communication as a means of working

together and helping, and some seemed to include nonverbal communication as a

form oftalking.

Keywords: communication, collaboration, nonverbal, culture, Intent

Community Participation

2012 Hipatia Press

ISSN 2014-3591

DOI: 10.4471/ijep.2012.06



74 Roberts & Rogoff- Children's reflections on cultural patterns

contrasting cultural patterns of interaction found in previous research.

One cultural pattern has been noted among Mexican Indigenous-

heritage children: working together with collaboration and helping,

attentiveness to others, and extensive nonverbal communication (with or

without talk); the other pattern has been observed to be common among

middle-class European American children: working primarily solo with

reliance on talk.

Many bilingual Mexican-heritage US children are likely to experience

these contrasting approaches for working together across their home and

school environments. Having experience with two cultural approaches,

and transitioning between them, may encourage children to identify and

reflect on the cultural practices they are exposed to (Orellana, 2009;

Zentella, 1997). In contrast, middle-class European American children

are likely to experience similar ways of working together at home and at

school, which may make it less likely for them to identify other ways of

organizing interaction.

In addition to investigating the correspondence of children’s reflec-

tions with the two patterns, we were interested in insights that the

children might offer regarding cultural differences in ways of working

together. As we will discuss, the children’s comments revealed

unexpected cultural differences in whether they considered working

together to be done exclusively through talk and whether nonverbal

conversation is a kind oftalk.

his study examined whether bilingual Mexican-heritage US

children viewing video clips of other children would be more

likely than middle-class European American children to identifyT

Two Cultural Patterns of Interaction

Research in Indigenous-heritage communities of the Americas has noted

children’s extensive collaboration and help in ongoing community

activities, observation of others’ efforts, and use of nonverbal

communication (with or without talk) in reference to ongoing activity

(Cazden & John, 1971; Chamoux, 1992; Chavajay & Rogoff, 2002;

Correa-Chávez, Roberts, Martinez Pérez, 2011; de Haan, 1999; de Leon,

2000; Gaskins, 1999; Mejía-Arauz, Rogoff, Dexter, & Najafi,



75IJEP– International Journal ofEducational Psychology, 1(2)

2007b; Paradise, 1994, 1996; Philips, 1972; Rogoff, Mistry, Göncü, &

Mosier, 1993). These common ways of working together in Indigenous-

heritage communities of Central and North America are posited to form

a cultural pattern, called learning through intent community

participation (Rogoff, Paradise, Mejía-Arauz, Correa-Chávez, &

Angelillo, 2003; Rogoff, Moore, Najafi, Dexter, Correa-Chávez, &

Solís, 2007; see also Paradise & Rogoff, 2009).

A contrasting cultural pattern emphasizes solo engagement and

reliance on verbal communication out of the context of ongoing, shared

activity, such as in Western schooling (Candela, 2005; Lipka, 1994;

McNaughton, 2005; Philips, 1972; Sharan & Sharan, 1992; Rogoff et

al., 2007). Children from highly schooled communities tend to engage

in activities individually, even in the presence of a group, rather than in

multi-way group engagements that have commonly been found in

Indigenous-heritage communities of the Americas (Chavajay & Rogoff,

2002; Mejía-Arauz et al., 2007b; Rogoff et al., 1993, 2003). Middle-

class European American children are likely to experience heavy use of

talk and a focus on solo work at both home and school (Heath, 1983;

Keller et al., 2006; Laosa, 1980; Tapia Uribe, LeVine, & LeVine, 1993).

Children’s Reflections on Cultural Patterns in the Organization of

Interaction

Many bilingual Mexican-heritage US immigrant children may be

familiar with the forms of working together prevalent in Indigenous-

heritage communities of the Americas as well as those of schools

(Correa-Chávez, Rogoff, & Mejía-Arauz, 2005; Mejía-Aráuz, Rogoff,

Najafi, & Dexter, 2007b; Mejia-Arauz, Rogoff, & Paradise, 2005).

Mexican immigrants to California often come from rural communities

in Michoacán, Jalisco, Guanajuato, and more recently Chiapas and

Oaxaca, Mexico, where prior generations in many communities

considered themselves Indigenous (López, Correa-Chávez, Rogoff &

Gutiérrez, 2010; Passel, 2004). Ethnographic accounts of rural Mexican

communities often describe practices that have also been observed in

Indigenous communities, including collaboration, helping, observation,

and extensive nonverbal communication (Lorente, 2006; López, Najafi,



Rogoff, & Mejía-Arauz, in press).

There are only a few studies of children’s reflections on cultural

practices. Young children associated their ethnic group membership

with participation in cultural routines such as attending church (Marks,

Szalacha, Lamarre, Boyd, & Coll, 2007). Similarly, bilingual children

are especially aware of properties of language and quickly distinguish

when to use which set of linguistic tools as well as the significance of

their choices regarding participation in language communities

(Bialystok, Craik, Green, & Gollan, 2009; Brown, 2006; Orellana, 2009;

Zentella, 1997). The privileged status of school ways may accentuate

distinct patterns of interaction for children from nondominant

communities (Erickson, 1987; Hurtado & Gurin, 2004).

With practices somewhat uniform across settings, middle-class

European American children may have limited opportunities to reflect

on the dominant cultural practices of US schools or on the differences

between these and other ways of organizing learning. In addition,

privileged status may make it difficult for middle-class European

American children to notice or discuss racial and ethnic differences.

The Present Study

Our study examined children's reflections on differences in the ways

triads of Mexican and US Anglo children, shown in four video clips,

worked together as they folded an origami frog during a scripted

demonstration. We selected clips that epitomized the cultural contrasts

in children’s interactions found in prior research (reviewed above). Two

clips showed Mexican Indigenous-heritage children collaborating,

helping, attentive to each other’s folding, and using nonverbal

conversation. The other two clips showed middle-class European

American children working primarily solo and chatting, with limited

helping, observing each other, or nonverbal conversation.

We expected the bilingual Mexican-heritage US children to be more

likely than middle-class European American (“Anglo”) children to

identify the following differences that correspond with patterns found

by researchers:

76 Roberts & Rogoff- Children's reflections on cultural patterns



• More collaboration and helping in the Mexican Indigenous-heritage

clips, using more attention to each other and nonverbal

communication (with or without talk),

• More solo work and more exclusively verbal communication among

the children in the middle-class European American clips.

Method

Participants

The participants were 23 pairs of monolingual Anglo children and 21

pairs of bilingual Mexican-heritage US children with likely roots in

parts of Mexico with Indigenous histories, all attending California

elementary schools. Most of the children were in fourth or fifth grades

(ages 9-11); a few children from both backgrounds were in sixth grade;

grade levels did not differ significantly across the two backgrounds. All

pairs were of the same gender; 12 pairs from each cultural background

were female. Children were contacted through their schools or after-

school centers. The children’s parents provided information on family

demographics, nation of origin, and languages spoken in the home in a

short telephone or printed questionnaire.

Almost all the Mexican-heritage US children were born in the US (of

the 62% whose parents responded to the question, only 8% were born in

Mexico). Most of their parents were born in Mexico (only 16% were

born in the US). About half of the Mexican-heritage US parents had

completed high school (M = 10 grades); 63% worked in service jobs

such as hospitality work, childcare, or landscaping. All the Mexican-

heritage US pairs reported that they spoke Spanish at home; in 9 of the

21 pairs at least one child also spoke English at home. Most of the

Mexican-heritage pairs (76%) had visited Mexico; all had family in

Mexico and 3 children had gone to school there.

All of the Anglo children whose parents responded to these questions

(83% did so) were born in the US and had parents who were born in the

US and had completed at least 12 grades (M = 15 grades). Parents

worked a wide range of jobs such as cashiers, administrative assistants,

77IJEP– International Journal ofEducational Psychology, 1(2)

We also explored the children’s explanations of the cultural patterns they

saw for potential insights; interesting patterns appeared in their

reflections about nonverbal communication and talk.



scientists, and CEOs. All of the Anglo pairs spoke English exclusively at

home. Less than half (35%) had been to Mexico, usually to a resort or

on a cruise; only 2 children reported having family or friends in Mexico

and none had gone to school there.

Procedure

The videotaped sessions took place at a quiet table in the children's

school or afterschool center. The bilingual Mexican-heritage research

assistant (RA), blind to the hypotheses of the study, followed a script

using the language the children preferred, either English or Spanish. In

all but one case the interview was held predominantly in English,

although several Mexican-heritage US pairs spoke in Spanish to each

other and in English to the RA.

The RA first engaged in a warm-up with each pair (decorating a paper

bag to keep their origami frog in and conversing). Then she showed the

pair how to fold an origami frog, in preparation for viewing videoclips

of other children folding the same figure according to the same script.

The origami folding script was designed to be informal, encouraging

children to help each other and primarily showing rather than telling the

children how to make the folds without controlling children’s attention

or progress (see Mejía-Arauz et al., 2005). The RA then showed the

clips to each pair, after which she invited them to view the clips again

without her so they could discuss the differences in how the children in

the clips interacted. After the children reported their initial ideas of

differences, the RA prompted them with questions related to differences

observed in research.

Viewing the clips. The pairs of children watched four 20-second clips

of children making the origami frog, selected from a previous study

(Mejía-Arauz, Roberts, & Rogoff, 2007a). The four clips consisted of a

triad of girls and a triad of boys from Guadalajara, Mexico, and a triad

of girls and a triad of boys from California. The children in the Mexican

video clips were of Indigenous descent, with Indigenous Mexican

features; they whispered a few words in Spanish (indecipherable to

native speakers). The children in the US clips were white and spoke in

English.

78 Roberts & Rogoff- Children's reflections on cultural patterns



We selected clips that clearly showed the differences seen in previous

research. The two Mexican Indigenous-heritage triads collaborated,

helped, observed each other, and used nonverbal conversation; the two

middle-class European American triads worked alone and chatted. The

clips were similar in other respects, such as the children’s enjoyment of

the activity and being at the same point in folding (a segment in which

an adult was present but not involved with the children).

The clips were played by clicking on still-frame images on a simple

menu screen presented on a laptop computer (see Figure 1). Children

were shown both clips from one place and then both clips from the other

place. The order of presentation of the clips from the two places was

counterbalanced, as was their left-right position on the screen.

The RA explained that the children in the clips were from a school in

Mexico and a school in California, referring to the clips as “the ones

from Mexico” and “the ones from California.” (Here we abbreviate the

Mexican Indigenous-heritage clips as MexIndigH clips and the

79IJEP– International Journal ofEducational Psychology, 1(2)

Figure 1. The menu screen ofthe DVD used to present the four video clips



middle-class European American clips as MCEurAm clips.)1

The RA asked the pair to focus on the differences between the two

schools in how the children work together, explaining that she was

interested in their insights because they are kids and might see things

that adults could miss. She told them that the children in the videos were

shown how to make the frog in exactly the same way as they were and

that all the children in the clips finished the folding correctly. She

showed each pair the four clips without asking questions or prompting

children to talk about what they saw. If they began to discuss the clips,

the RA waited before playing the next clip to allow for conversation

between the children; she did not enter in.

After watching all four clips with the children, the RA told them that

she was going to let them look at the clips together, without her, to get

ideas of the differences in how the kids work together on the folding.

She checked that the children knew how to play the clips on their own,

then asked them to let her know when they were "ready to talk about

their ideas about differences in how the kids from the two places work

together," and then she sat at a table a few feet away. Both children’s

conversations with and without the RA present were recorded and

analyzed.2

Reflecting on differences. When the children told her they were ready

(or after 5 minutes if they had not called her), the RA rejoined them and

asked, “What differences did you notice in how the kids from the two

places worked together on the folding?” After the children reported

what they noticed, the RA asked a series of focused questions, querying

the children ifneeded to clarify which clips they referred to.

The questions in the first half of the interview were designed to elicit

the children's characterizations of differences in how the children from

the two places worked together:

1. Did kids from one place work together more on the frogs?

2. Did kids from one place workalone more on the frogs?

3. Were there differences in how much the kids from the two places

paid attention to how the other kids were folding? How did they

pay attention to each other?

4. Were there differences in how much the kids from the two places

80 Roberts & Rogoff- Children's reflections on cultural patterns



helped each other fold? What did they do?

5. Were there differences in how the children from the two places

communicated?

6. Did the kids from one place talk less than others?

7. Were the groups that talked less communicating in some other

way? How?

The second half of the interview dealt with children's explanations of

the reasons for, and the origins of, the differences they had just

described:

1. What makes them work together differently? What do you think?

2. How do you think they learned to work together in those ways?

3. Do you think the differences relate to where the kids are from?

Why?

4. Which place is most like how you worked together when you

folded the frog? What did you do that was most like them?

5. Which of those ways is more like how your parents would want

you to act?

The videotaped sessions lasted an average of 25 minutes (SD = 3.2),

with no significant difference between the two backgrounds in the

length of the interview. A procedural check of 50% of the data verified

that the script was followed with all participants, with only occasional

slight changes in the wording of questions (which did not change their

meaning).

Coding

A bilingual Mexican-heritage coder, blind to the hypotheses, first

recorded the pair’s words and nonverbal communication, as well as

relevant contextual information. She then identified each pair’s (not

individual children’s) statements of differences that related to our

questions, in 5 topics (listed below), and she coded whether these

statements corresponded with previous research. She also coded the

pair’s explanations of the differences they reported. Fifty percent of the

data were coded for reliability. The 5 topics were:

• working together or working alone included statements such as:

“did it as a group,” “cooperated,” “did it by themselves,” “were

independent,” or “ignored the others”,

81IJEP– International Journal ofEducational Psychology, 1(2)



• helping or not helping included statements such as: “fixed it for

them,” or “showed them how,”

• payingattention to each other or notpayingattention to each other

included statements such as: “watched each other,” “monitored her

folds,” or “spacing out”,

• talking more or talking less included statements such as: “were

talkative,” “were quiet” or “didn’t talk”,

• other forms ofcommunication included statements such as “talked

with their hands and eyes” and “communicated with looks”.3

Raw number ofstatements regarding each topic. The coder segmen-

ted the children’s comments into topic statements— stretches of

conversation that stick to a single topic, ending when a new topic

emerges or there is a significant pause in the conversation (such as

pausing to play a clip). A topic statement could last for a few words or

many conversational turns by one or both children. The raw number of

topic statements was reliable across coders: working together, r = .90;

helping, r = .93; paying attention, r = .94; amount of talk, r = .96; other

communication, r = .96.

Correspondence with research. Each topic statement was coded for

whether the children characterized the clips in ways that correspond

with previous research — i.e., saying that the MexIndigH clips showed

more collaboration, helping, paying attention to each other, or

nonverbal conversation, or saying that MCEurAm clips showed more

working alone or talking. The rare cases in which children claimed that

there were no differences between the groups or characterized the two

clips from the same place differently were judged as contradicting

research. If children changed their characterization of a clip within a

topic statement, their final opinion was coded for that topic statement.

Confusing statements in which the coder could not tell whether the

children’s views were consistent with or contradicted the research were

counted in the analysis of the raw number of statements of each topic

but were not included in the analysis of correspondence with research.

(About 10% of statements were confusing, mostly in the topic of

helping — seemingly due to Anglo pairs trying to figure out whether it

is possible to help without talking — discussed later).

82 Roberts & Rogoff- Children's reflections on cultural patterns



Because the pairs sometimes changed their characterization of a topic

in different topic statements across the session, our measure of

correspondence with research was the percent of each pair’s topic

statements for each topic that corresponded with the patterns found in

research. The percentage was calculated out of all topic statements that

corresponded with research, contradicted research, were inconsistent, or

showed disagreement within the pair of children. (Confusing statements

were excluded from the calculation ofpercentages.)

The percentage of topic statements that corresponded with or

contradicted research was reliable: working together, r = .97 and .99,

respectively; helping, r = .97 and .99; paying attention, r = .90 and .88;

amount oftalk, r = .98 and .91; other communication r = .83 and 1.

Cultural explanations ofdifferences. The coder determined whether

the pair explained the differences between the two places in terms of

cultural practices, citing communities' customary ways of working

together as enduring practices and generalizing beyond individual habits

or features of the particular event. For example, “kids from there are

used to working in groups more” or “kids from Mexico use sign

language.” (The remaining explanations often focused on imagined

personality or situational differences that went beyond the information

provided in the clips or by the researchers, such as that children in the

clip were quiet because they are shy or did not know the other children.)

The coding ofcultural explanations was reliable, r = .83, p < .01.

Results

We first present the raw frequency of statements on each topic, and then

report the extent to which the children’s reflections were consistent with

cultural patterns identified in research. Finally, we examine whether the

children gave cultural explanations ofthe differences they noted.4

Raw Number of Statements of Each Topic

The Anglo children talked significantly more than the Mexican-heritage

US children, producing 47% more topic statements overall. This pattern

of more talking by the Anglo pairs appeared within all 5 topics,

83IJEP– International Journal ofEducational Psychology, 1(2)



and was significant for all topics except helping and paying attention

(see Table 1).

Table 1

Mean raw frequency (and SD) and significance ofstatements in the 5 topics

andoverall, across the two backgrounds

Mexican-heritage US Anglo significance

Working together 3.1 (1.9) 4.8 (2.9)

Helping 7.4 (4.0) 8.4 (5.8) t = .71, p = .25

Paying attention 2.3 (1.8) 2.8 (3.3) t = .63, p = .27

Amount oftalk 3.9 (2.5) 7.9 (3.1) t = 4.75, p < .001

Other communication 2.2 (1.6) t = 2.51, p < .01

Total topic statements 17.8 (6.1) 26.1 (10.5) t = 3.24, p < .01

t = 2.33, p = .01

Tellingly, the Anglo children’s greater amount of talking was most

notable in their reflections on the amount of talking of the children in

the clips. This was partially due to their struggles with determining

whether MexIndigH clips could be working together or helping if they

were not talking. For example, after an Anglo child characterized the

MCEurAm clips as working together and talking (“They're doing it all

together, and they're talking”), he puzzled about the MexIndigH clips

without coming to a conclusion, “they're not talking at all but they're

still doing it, so it's...”.

The majority of pairs from both cultural backgrounds talked about all

5 topics.5 For both backgrounds, the topic of helping was the most

frequently mentioned (among the Mexican-heritage US children, almost

twice as much as other topics); amount of talk was the next most

common topic, then extent of working together, next extent of paying

attention, and the least commonly mentioned topic was use of other

forms ofcommunication.

84 Roberts & Rogoff- Children's reflections on cultural patterns

1.1 (1.0)



There were no main effects for gender in the raw frequency of topic

statements, and only one gender interaction: The Mexican-heritage US

boys mentioned paying attention more often than Mexican-heritage US

girls, F(1, 19) = 5.48, p < .05.

Correspondence with Research Patterns

Our analysis focuses on the extent to which children’s reports of cultural

differences correspond with research describing MexIndigH children

collaborating, helping, attentive to each other’s folding, and using

nonverbal conversation, and MCEurAm children working primarily solo

and chatting. Mexican-heritage US pairs described the clips in ways that

correspond with research in 82.5% of statements overall. At least 80%

of their statements corresponded with research for all topics except

paying attention (see Table 2). In contrast, a significantly lower

percentage of Anglo pairs’ descriptions corresponded with research

(67.5% overall). Less than 60% ofAnglo pairs’ statements corresponded

with research for all topics except for talk and other communication

(which agreed with research in over 90% ofstatements).

Differences between the two backgrounds in statements that contradict

research followed the same pattern as statements that correspond with

research, but were more extreme. (See Table 2.) The most marked

difference between cultural backgrounds was in the topic of working

together, where Anglo pairs contradicted research in 63% of their

statements, compared with 19% for the Mexican-heritage US pairs.

We tested our prediction — that Mexican-heritage US children would

identify cultural patterns consistent with previous research more often

than Anglo children — with planned comparisons. These are conserva-

tive, focused analyses appropriate to directional predictions (Rosnow &

Rosenthal, 1996). In general, our prediction was upheld (See Table 2).

85IJEP– International Journal ofEducational Psychology, 1(2)



Correspond with Research

Topic
Mexican-

heritage US
Anglo Planned

comparisons

Working
together

Helping

Paying
attention

Amount
oftalk

Other com-
munication

Overall

Mexican-
heritage US

Anglo Planned
comparisons

81.1 (33.5) 36.2
(38.6)

t(41) = 4.04,
p < .001

84.9 (18.3) 57.7
(33.8)

t(42) = 3.26,
p = .001

71.3 (37.7) 57.2
(45.3)

t(36) = 1.06,
p = .15

81.0 (35.9) 93.5
(10.1)

t(42) = -1.60,
p = .059

86.7 (35.1) 91.6
(24.3)

t(32) = -.48,
p = .32

82.5 (13.9)
67.5
(15.4)

t(29) = 2.82,
p < .01

18.9 (33.5)
63.0
(38.0)

t(41) = 4.00,
p < .001

15.2 (18.4)
41.7
(33.4)

t(42) = 3.22,
p = .001

24.5 (34.3)
42.8
(45.4)

t(36) = 1.41,
p = .17

15.1 (32.1)
4.0
(7.1)

t(42) = -1.60,
p = .059

13.3 (35.1)
7.4
(24.2)

t(32) = -.59,
p = .29

12.7 (13.0)
27.7
(16.6)

t(29) =2.82,
p < .01

Although the findings fit our prediction in the topics of working

together and helping, the difference went in the opposite direction for

amount of talk. This pattern seems to stem in part from differences in

children’s ideas about talk: Some Mexican-heritage US children seemed

to regard nonverbal communication as talk, thereby judging the

MexIndigH clips as including more talk than indicated by researchers

who have coded these particular clips, and than the general patterns

noted in previous research. In turn, many Anglo children seemed to

exclude nonverbal communication as a way of working together and

helping, thereby judging the MexIndigH clips as including less working

together and helping than the coding of these clips by researchers and

than general patterns noted in research. We examine the evidence for

these interpretations below.

Working together and Helping. In line with our expectations,

86 Roberts & Rogoff- Children's reflections on cultural patterns

Table 2

Mean percentage (and SDs) of statements in the 5 topics and overall that

corresponded with or contradicted research patterns, across the two

backgrounds, andsignificance

Contradict Research



Mexican-heritage US children's comments showed greater correspon-

dence with research than did Anglo children’s, by stating that

MexIndigH children work together and help each other more than

MCEurAm children. (See Table 2.) Children from both backgrounds

often drew connections between the topics of working together and

helping, such as in reasoning, “They worked together by helping each

other.”

The Anglo children’s lower correspondence with research for working

together and helping was due in part to a view that because children in

MexIndigH clips did not talk much, they did not work together or help.

Half of the Anglo pairs (11 of 23) mentioned verbal communication as

necessary for working together or helping, compared to only 1 such

instance among the 21 US Mexican heritage pairs, Chi2 (1) = 9.1, p =

.003. For example:

One pair, when asked why they thought the children in the

MCEurAm clips worked together more, referred to the MexIndigH

children and explained, “because they don't talk.”

A child responded to the RA’s question “Do kids from one place

work alone more on folding the frog?” by commenting “Yeah.

Mexico. Definitely… because they’re all quiet…”

Some Anglo pairs may have missed the frequent nonverbal interactions

in MexIndigH clips, but others saw them and did not seem to consider

them relevant, as in the following examples:

A pair explained that the MexIndigH boys “were helping each

other more” than the girls from that background because “She was

demonstrating how but she wasn't talking about it. [The boys did

more helping] ‘cause they were talking about it.”

87IJEP– International Journal ofEducational Psychology, 1(2)

A child commented that the MexIndigH girls were “less talkative,”

and the partner agreed, “They aren't helping each other or telling them

what to do.” The first child laughingly elaborated, “Yeah. They're just

kinda playing around with them and... stealing them [referring to a girl

in the clip taking over work on girl’s figure].” The second child

clarified that “They were showing them” and the first child specified

the need to talk for helping: "Yeah, but they weren't exactly like,



There was only one gender difference in statements corresponding

with or contradicting research. Girls from both cultural backgrounds

described working together in ways that correspond with previous

research more often than boys, F = 4.53, p = .04. This difference was

most notable among Mexican-heritage US participants, F = 10.33, p <

.01.

Amount of talk and Other communication. Both Mexican-heritage

US and Anglo children's statements discussing the extent of talk

corresponded highly with research, in saying that the MexIndigH

children talked less than the MCEurAm children. Contrary to

expectation, the Anglo children’s statements corresponded at least as

much with research as did those of the Mexican-heritage US children,

almost significantly more than the Mexican-heritage US children.6

Children from both cultural backgrounds also noted that the

MexIndigH children communicated in ways other than talk (ns), such as

“with their eyes and their hands,” “looking at each other instead of

talking,” “body language kinda,” “helping each other, like by eyes…

and like with their hands… like if they could help them, like, fold,”

“One person held up the other person’s frog and like they pointed to

something and then they – and then the other person like nodded and

then the person did something with it.”

Despite the children’s general agreement across cultural backgrounds

about the extent of talk and other communication, there seemed to be

differences in the ways talk was conceptualized. Three Mexican-

heritage US pairs stated that children in the MCEurAm clips talked less,

although these clips contained many more spoken words than the

MexIndigH clips. Their comments suggested that they may have

considered nonverbal communication to be a form of talk and, perhaps,

they may have excluded the kind of off-task chat that occurred in the

MCEurAm clips. For example, one Mexican-heritage US pair stated that

the MCEurAm children were not communicating and gave the MexIndigH

children’s helping as evidence that they were communicating. Another pair

88 Roberts & Rogoff- Children's reflections on cultural patterns

talking,” and contrasted the clip with the MexIndigH boys’

clip, “They're talking. They might be helping each other.”



noted that the children in the MexIndigHclips “talk with their hands and

they [referring to the chatting in the MCEurAm clips] just talked about

all kinds ofthings.”

Thus children from the two backgrounds often differed in their ideas

about spoken words and nonverbal communication. Whereas some of

the Mexican-heritage US children seemed to include nonverbal

conversation in their definition of talk, many of the Anglo children

seemed to see spoken words as necessary for working together or

helping.

Paying attention. The trend for the Mexican-heritage US children’s

characterizations of paying attention to correspond more often with

research, compared to Anglo children’s characterizations, did not reach

significance. (See Table 2.)

Cultural Explanations of Differences

Few pairs of either background explained the differences between

places despite interview questions geared to elicit these explanations.

The pairs that gave explanations generally gave only one or two across

the whole session. The explanations given by children of both cultural

backgrounds usually focused on the MexIndigH clips or contrasted the

MexIndigH clips with the MCEurAm clips. This may suggest that

children from both backgrounds see the middle-class European

American ways ofinteracting as the norm.

Mexican-heritage US pairs gave cultural explanations of the

differences they saw more often than Anglo pairs (12 vs 9 of the pairs,

respectively, t = 1.86, p < .05). The most common cultural attribution

that emerged from the data was related to the Mexican cultural practice

of respeto (consideration). Seven of the Mexican-heritage US pairs

referred to the MexIndigH children as showing more respeto as a reason

for the differences in the clips. When asked the interview question

concerning whether respect related to the differences in how much

children in the videos talked, five Anglo pairs mentioned that the

MexIndigHchildren were respectful.

Some Mexican-heritage US pairs elaborated with connections bet-

ween respeto and taciturnity that focused on not disturbing the activities

of others and helping others when possible. One pair said

89IJEP– International Journal ofEducational Psychology, 1(2)



that talking through the whole video would be disrespectful. Another

child explained,

“People in classes don’t have to scream because the teacher might

be doing something, or the teacher might be taking a test with this

kid… if you’re done and somebody’s not you have to be quiet

because they’re still not finished.”

One pair characterized the MCEurAm children as acting immature and

disrespectful, by contrasting them with a MexIndigH child who “was

honoring and like, not going crazy”. Some of the Anglo children also

elaborated, noting that the MexIndigH children’s respectful approach

allowed their peers time for quiet concentration, allowed others to

focus, and avoided interrupting their work.

Three of the Mexican-heritage US pairs mentioned helping as a way

of showing respeto and two of these pairs suggested that this helping

included not speaking. One group said, “The Mexicans are helping and

being really quiet so people don’t get really distracted.” Another pair

explained that Mexican kids learn to work the way they do because

“they've seen so many people help each other that they just knew… if

somebody needed help that they could help them.” The Mexican-

heritage children’s explanations fit with portrayals of respeto as a

practice of mutual support and recognizing the individual as a part of a

larger whole (López et al., in press; Ramírez Sánchez, 2007;

Ruvalcaba, Rogoff, López, Correa-Chávez, & Gutiérrez, 2011; Valdés,

1996).

A few cultural explanations focused on schools, teachers, and parents

of one place or the other encouraging children to work together or work

harder. One Mexican-heritage US pair said, “In Mexico the teachers

show how to work together,” and an Anglo pair explained “a lot of

schools in California really focus on like, working together. Like you

learn that in kindergarten.” Three Mexican-heritage US pairs explained

that teachers and parents make children work harder in Mexico.

Some of the remaining cultural explanations dealt with issues of

poverty or resources (offered by 2 Mexican-heritage US pairs and 2

Anglo pairs). For example, two Mexican-heritage US pairs suggested

90 Roberts & Rogoff- Children's reflections on cultural patterns



that Mexican practices were influenced by economic hardship and the

need to appreciate opportunities to learn and work, such as “They’re

poor. So they take more care in their work.”

No explanations were offered to explain why Anglo pairs talked more.

This is consistent with the suggestion that children from both

backgrounds acknowledged middle-class European American ways of

interacting as normative.

Discussion

Our findings indicate that compared with Anglo children, bilingual

Mexican-heritage US children more often identified cultural differences

between Mexican and Anglo children’s ways of working together and

helping in accord with patterns found in previous research. The pattern

was similar but not significant in the topic of paying attention to each

other. The finding that Mexican-heritage US children commented much

more about helping than the other topics may fit with the centrality of

helping without being asked (being acomedido) in some Mexican

communities (López et al., in press; Ramírez Sánchez, 2007).

The pattern of greater correspondence with research by the Mexican-

heritage US children was not upheld in the children’s statements

regarding which groups talked more or communicated in other ways:

The Anglo children’s statements were at least as likely to correspond

with research. However, the children’s explanations yielded interesting

differences in what counts as talk and the role of talk in working

together and helping. We discuss these below after considering the

expected findings in working together and helping.

Awareness of Cultural Patterns of Working Together

The finding that the Mexican-heritage US children discussed working

together and helping in ways that corresponded with research more

often than the Anglo children may relate to their bicultural experience

giving them greater sensitivity to noticing cultural practices. Bicultural

experience may allow children and adults to move more fluidly across

91IJEP– International Journal ofEducational Psychology, 1(2)



cultural contexts, to adapt more readily to distinct cultural practices, and

enhance understanding of others’ perspectives (Orellana, 2009;

Quintana, 2008). Such a “transcultural disposition” (Orellana, 2009)

may enhance social-emotional understanding and performance on

theory of mind tasks (Hoffman, 2008), as well as reflections on use of

different languages and registers across contexts (Zentella, 1997).

Although children who have experience with more than one repertoire

of cultural practice may develop an understanding of culture and of

which approach to use in which situation (Gutiérrez & Rogoff, 2003;

Rogoff, 2003), this experience can be challenging. Indeed, learning the

social conventions of schools may require significant cognitive effort

for children unfamiliar with them, because they are neither self-evident

nor often explained (Buchanan-Barrow, 2005; Smetana, 1993). In the

US, the social organization common in schools is often treated as

normative, which may create difficulties for children whose home

practices differ from what they encounter in school (Delpit, 1995).

Awareness of multiple cultural ways may provide a measure of

protection to minority children against feeling alienated or unwelcome

in schools where cultural patterns of interaction may differ from those

of their homes and where home practices may be deprecated (Hurtado &

Gurin, 2004; Yosso, Smith, Ceja, & Solorzano, 2009). Acknowledging

and appreciating distinct cultural practices may enable minority children

to establish a positive sense of community and a positive group identity

(Apfelbaum, 1979).

Cultural Differences in Concepts of Talk and Nonverbal

Communication

The Anglo children talked more in discussing the differences between

the clips, themselves exemplifying one of the cultural differences found

in prior research: More extensive talk has been noted among European

American middle-class populations than among Indigenous-heritage

populations of the Americas under some circumstances (Deyhle &

Swisher, 1997; Paradise & Rogoff, 2009).

Many of the Anglo children seemed to regard verbal talk as necessary

for working together and helping. They struggled with how to

characterize the clips showing Mexican Indigenous-heritage children

92 Roberts & Rogoff- Children's reflections on cultural patterns



collaborating nonverbally, and half of the Anglo pairs claimed that

helping or working together could not occur without words. This is

consistent with interviews that suggest that European American middle-

class adults interpret talk as an indicator of learning and engagement

(Kim, 2002; Li, 2005). The Anglo children in this study tended to focus

on talk as the normative means of interaction. One Anglo child said that

the middle-class European American children “were like more outgoing,

talking to each other like a normal child.”

In contrast, several US Mexican-heritage children seemed to use a

more inclusive definition of talk as including nonverbal communication,

“talking with their hands and eyes.” This finding fits with the idea that

emphasis on articulate nonverbal as well as verbal communication is

common in some Indigenous and Mexican-heritage communities

(Mejía-Arauz et al., 2007a, b; Ruvalcaba et al., 2011).

The findings may also relate to the cultural value ofrespeto, a form of

consideration valued in Mexico, in which people pay attention to the

direction of the group, use subtle forms of communication, and avoid

interrupting others’ activities (Ruvalcaba et al., 2011; Valdés, 1996; see

also Deyhle & Swisher, 1997). About half of the Mexican-heritage US

children characterized extensive talk as lacking in respeto or being rude

(e.g., “It is rude to talk through the whole video”).

In sum, the study indicates that bilingual Mexican-heritage US

children’s reflections on how other children help and work together

correspond more with research identifying cultural patterns of

interaction than do those of middle-class European American children.

The insights provided by the children’s reflections support the idea of

distinct cultural patterns of social organization (Rogoff et al., 2003,

2007). The US Mexican-heritage children’s reflections are consistent

with a pattern of community contribution involving collaboration,

helping, and communicating in ways that do not interrupt the activities

of others, such as using nonverbal conversation. In contrast, the Anglo

children’s reflections point to an emphasis on talk as a key aspect of

working together and helping others.

The findings suggest that schools and other mainstream institutions

could build on bilingual children’s possible greater awareness of cultural

patterns. In addition, their service to children would benefit

93IJEP– International Journal ofEducational Psychology, 1(2)



from an awareness of distinct cultural patterns in how children view

working together, helping, and the role of talk and nonverbal

conversation.

94 Roberts & Rogoff- Children's reflections on cultural patterns

Acknowledgments

We are grateful for the thoughtful reflections of the children in this study and for the
participation of Valencia and Bay View elementary schools, the Santa Cruz Boys and
Girls Club, La Familia Center, and Barrios Unidos. We also appreciate the children
whose videoclips were used in the interviews. We thank Andrea Martinez and Juanita
Correa for their work in data collection and coding and Maureen Callanan, Kris
Gutiérrez, Rebeca Mejía Aráuz, Maricela Correa-Chávez, Brigitte Jordan, Nancy Trinh,
Suzanne Gaskins, Kathryn Burleson, Carly Friedman, Debbie Siegel, and Paloma
Visscher for their comments on the study and the manuscript. The research was funded
by the National Science Foundation Center for Informal Learning and Schools (NSF #
ESI-0119787/SFE), a grant from the National Science Foundation (# 0837898; any
opinions, findings, and conclusions are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect
the views of the NSF), a training grant from the National Institutes of Health
(#T32HD046423-10), and an endowed chair from the University of California at Santa
Cruz.

1 Children from both backgrounds often referred to the clips as “Mexican” and
“American” or “from the US.” A few Anglo children referred to the clips as “Spanish”
and “English.” Three Mexican-heritage US pairs used filial terms, such as “us
Mexicans”, “our people,” or “we do it like this.”
2 The few statements that occurred spontaneously, prior to questioning, fit the same
pattern as statements in response to the questions.
3 The patterns were similar within and between backgrounds when complementary
topics (MexIndigH work together vs. MCEurAm work alone, helping vs. not helping,
paying attention vs. not paying attention, and talking more vs. talking less) were
examined separately. Therefore, we do not distinguish these complementary ways of
describing differences.
4 We also examined negative value judgments, which used disparaging words, tone, or
expression. The few pairs who made these averaged about 1 per session (ns). Eight were
about the MexIndigH children. Four Anglo pairs suggested that the MexIndigH children
were immature or inexperienced and two characterized them as less smart or less able
than the MCEurAm children. The two negative value judgments made by Mexican-
heritage US children regarding the MexIndigH clips characterized them as
unsophisticated and dirty or less smart because their teachers help them less.

Two pairs from each background made negative value judgments about MCEurAm
clips; they suggested that the children in the MCEurAm clips were messing around or
acting immature and disrespectful. In addition, one of these pairs from each cultural
background suggested that the children in the MCEurAm clips were less smart or less
able.

Notes



References

95IJEP– International Journal ofEducational Psychology, 1(2)

Apfelbaum, E. (1979). Relations ofdomination and movements for

liberation. In W. G. Austin, S. Worchel (Eds.), The social

psychology ofintergroup relations. (pp. 188-204). Monterey, CA:

Brooks/Cole.

Bialystok, E., Craik, F.I.M., Green, D.W., & Gollan, T.H. (2009).

Bilingual minds. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 10,

89-129.

Buchanan-Barrow, E. (2005). Children's understanding ofthe school. In

Barrett, M., & Buchanan-Barrow, E. (Eds.), Children's

understanding ofsociety. (pp. 349-369). NY: Psychology Press.

Brown, B. A. (2006). “It isn't no slang that can be said about this stuff”:

Language, identity, and appropriating science discourse. Journal

ofResearch in Science Teaching, 43(1), 96-126.

Candela, A. (2005). Students’ participation as co-authoring ofschool

institutional practices. Culture & Psychology, 11(3), 321–337.

Cazden, C., & John, V. (1971). Learning in American Indian children. In

M. L. Wax, S. Diamond, F. O. Gearing (Eds.), Anthropological

perspectives on education (pp. 252-272). NY: Basic.

Chavajay, P., & Rogoff, B. (2002). Schooling and traditional

collaborative social organization ofproblem solving by Mayan

mothers and children. Developmental Psychology, 38(1), 55-66.

Chamoux, M. N. (1992). Aprendiendo de otro modo. In M.-N. Chamoux

(Ed.), Trabajo, técnicas y aprendizaje en el México indígena (pp.

73-93). Mexico City: Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios

Superiores en Antropología Social, Ediciones de la Casa Chata.

Correa-Chávez, M., Rogoff, B., & Mejía Arauz, R. (2005). Cultural

patterns in attending to two events at once. ChildDevelopment,

76, 664-678.

5 Eight Mexican-heritage US pairs and 5 Anglo pairs did not mention one or more of the
5 topics, ns. The most commonly omitted topic was that ofother communication.
6 In addition to the planned comparison, a regular t-test also showed no significant
difference between the backgrounds in the percent of topic statements about talk that
corresponded with research.



Correa-Chávez, M., Roberts, A. L. D., & Martínez Pérez, M. (2011).

Cultural patterns in children’s learning through keen observation

and participation in their communities. In: J. Benson (Ed.).

Advances in ChildBehavior andDevelopment, Vol 40, (pp. 209-

241).Waltham, Massachusetts: Academic Press.

de Haan, M. (1999). Learning as cultural practice: How children learn

in a Mexican Mazahua community. Amsterdam: Thela Thesis.

de León, L. (2000). The emergent participant: Interactive patterns in the

socialization ofTzotzil (Mayan) infants. Journal ofLinguistic

Anthropology, 8, 131-161.

Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children. NY: New Press.

Deyhle, D., & Swisher, K. (1997). Research in American Indian and

Alaska Native education. In M. W. Apple (Ed.), Review of

Research in Education, 22, 113-194.

Erickson, F. (1987). Transformation and school success. Anthropology

andEducation Quarterly, 18, 335-356.

Gaskins, S. (1999). Children’s daily lives in a Mayan village. In A.

Goncü (Ed.), Children's engagement in the world. (pp. 25-60).

New York: Cambridge.

Gutiérrez, K., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways oflearning:

Individual traits or repertoires ofpractice. Educational

Researcher, 32(5), 19-25.

Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Hoffman, E. (2008). Assessing the relationship between childhood

bilingualism andsocial-emotional understanding. Dissertation

Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and

Engineering, 68 (10-B).

Hurtado, A. & Gurin, P. (2004). Chicana/o identity in a changing U.S.

society, Quién soy? Quiénes somos? Tucson: University of

Arizona Press.

Keller, H., Lamm, B., Abels, M., Yovsi, R., Borke, J., Jensen, H.,

Papaligoura, Z., Holub, C., Lo, W., Tomiyama, A. J., Su, Y.,

Wang, Y., & Chaudhary, N. (2006). Cultural models, socialization

goals, and parental ethnotheories. Journal ofCross-Cultural

Psychology, 37(2), 155-172.

Kim, H. S. (2002). We talk, therefore we think? A cultural analysis of

Roberts & Rogoff- Children's reflections on cultural patterns96



the effect oftalking on thinking. Journal ofPersonality and

Social Psychology, 83, 828-842.

Laosa, L. M. (1980). Maternal teaching strategies in Chicano and

Anglo-American families. ChildDevelopment, 51, 759-765.

Li, J. (2005). Mind or virtue: Western and Chinese beliefs about

learning. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 190-

194.

Lipka, J. (1994). Schools failing minority teachers. Educational

Foundations, 8, 57-80.

López, A., Correa-Chávez, M., Rogoff, B., & Gutiérrez, K. (2010).

Attention to instruction directed to another by U.S. Mexican-

heritage children ofvarying cultural backgrounds.

Developmental Psychology, 46(3), 593-601.

López, A., Najafi, B., Rogoff, B., & Mejía-Arauz, R. (in press).

Collaboration and helping as cultural practices. In J. Valsiner

(Ed.), Oxfordhandbookofculture andpsychology. NY: Oxford

University Press

Lorente, D. F. (2006). Infancia Nahua y transmision de la cosmovisión.

Boletín de Antropología, 20(37), 152-168.

Marks, A. K., Szalacha, L. A., Lamarre, M., Boyd, M. J., & García

Coll, C. (2007). Emerging ethnic identity and interethnic group

social preferences in middle childhood. International Journal of

Behavioral Development, 31, 501-513.

McNaughton, S. (2005). Classroom discourse and culture. Culture and

Psychology, 11(3), 377-384.

Mejía Arauz, R., Roberts, A. L. D., & Rogoff, B. (2007a, July).

Cultural variation in children's organization ofparticipation

through nonverbal conversation. XXXI International Congress

ofPsychology, Mexico City.

Mejía Arauz, R., Rogoff, B., Najafi, B., & Dexter, A. L. (2007b).

Cultural variation in children’s participation in a shared activity.

ChildDevelopment, 78(3), 1001-1014.

Mejía Arauz, R., Rogoff, B., & Paradise, R. (2005). Cultural variation

in children's observation during a demonstration. International

Journal ofBehavioral Development, 29, 282-291.

Orellana, M. F. (2009). Translating childhoods: Immigrant youth,

language, andculture. NJ: Rutgers University Press.

97IJEP– International Journal ofEducational Psychology, 1(2)



Paradise, R. (1994). Interactional style and nonverbal meaning:

Mazahua children learning how to be separate-but-together.

Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 25(2), 156-172.

Paradise, R. (1996). Passivity or tacit collaboration: Mazahua

interaction in cultural context. Learning andInstruction, 6(4),

379-389.

Passel, J. (2004). Mexican immigration to the US. Retrieved from

Migration Information Source website:

http://www.migrationinformation.org/usfocus/display.cfm?ID=20

8

Philips, S. U. (1972). Participant structures and communicative

competence. In C. Cazden, V. John, & D. Hymes, (Eds.).

Functions oflanguage in the classroom. (pp. 245-253). Long

Grove, Illinois: Waveland.

Quintana, S. M. (2008). Racial perspective taking ability. In S. M.

Quintana & C. McKown (Eds.), Handbookofrace, racism, and

the developing child. Hobokin, NJ: Wiley.

Ramírez Sánchez, M. A. (2007). “Helping at home”: The concept of

childhood and work among the Nahuas ofTlaxcala, Mexico. In

B. Hungerland, M. Liebel, B. Milne & A. Wihstutz (Eds.),

Working to become. (pp. 87-98). Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley

Publishers.

Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature ofhuman development. NY:

Oxford University Press.

Rogoff, B., Mistry, J., Göncü, A., & Mosier, C. (1993). Guided

participation in cultural activity by toddlers and caregivers.

Monographs for the Society for Research in ChildDevelopment,

58(8), 1-174.

Rogoff, B., Paradise, R., Mejia Arauz, R., Correa-Chávez, M., &

Angelillo, C. (2003). Firsthand learning through intent

participation. Annual Review ofPsychology, 54, 175-203.

Rogoff, B., Moore, L., Najafi, B., Dexter, A., Correa-Chávez, M., &

Solís, J. (2007). Children’s development ofcultural repertoires

through participation in everyday routines and practices. In J.

Grusec & P.D. Hastings (Eds.), Handbookofsocialization. (pp.

490-515). NY: Guilford.

Rosnow, R., & Rosenthal, R. L. (1996). Contrasts and interactions

98 Roberts & Rogoff- Children's reflections on cultural patterns



99

Amy L. D. Roberts is Assistant Professor in the Department of

Developmental Psychology at Roosevelt University, United States

ofAmerica.

Barbara Rogoff is a UCSC Foundation Distinguished Professor of

Psychology in the Department ofPsychology at the University of

California, Santa Cruz, United States ofAmerica.

Contact Address: Direct correspondence to Amy Roberts at

Roosevelt University, Rm 360-N, 1400 N. Roosevelt Blvd,

Schaumburg, IL 60173 or at aroberts06@roosevelt.edu

IJEP– International Journal ofEducational Psychology, 1(2)

redux. Psychological Science, 7(4), 253-257.

Ruvalcaba, O., Rogoff, B., López, A., Correa-Chávez, M., & Gutiérrez,

K. (2011). Nonverbal respeto in requests for help by Mexican

heritage andEuropean-heritage children.Manuscript submitted

for publication.

Sharan, Y., & Sharan, S. (1992). Expanding cooperative learning

through group investigation. NY: Teachers College Press.

Smetana, J. G. (1993). Understanding ofsocial rules. In M. Bennett

(Ed.), The development ofsocial cognition. (pp. 111-141). NY:

Guilford.

Tapia Uribe, F. M., LeVine, R. A., & LeVine, S. E. (1993). Maternal

education and maternal behavior in Mexico. International

Journal ofBehavioral Development, 16(3), 395-408.

Valdés, G. (1996). Con respeto. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia

Press.

Yosso, T. J., Smith, W. A., Ceja, M., & Solórzano, D. G. (2009). Critical

race theory, racial microagressions, and campus racial climate for

Latina/o undergraduates. HarvardEducational Review, 79, 659-

690.

Zentella, A. C. (1997). Growing up bilingual. NY: Blackwell.




