Cooperation: Learning Language as a Social Dance

by Siri Ming

Learning to talk is about becoming a partner in a culture’s dances.

—Betty Hart and Todd R. Risley

Part 1—Cooperative contexts for learning

I have been involved in language-based early intervention in one way or another for most of my career. While much of that work has focused on precise, individualized development of VB and/or RFT-based programming to better establish flexible generative language, it has always begun with establishing a context for learning that is fun and engaging. I used to frame this as establishing “instructional control”, in the sense that we cannot provide instruction unless we have a willing learner who is happy to be with us (and you can see that in the flowchart that accompanies the first volume of my Using RFT to Promote Generative Language handbook series with Ian Stewart and John McElwee). This term is a great example of how words have different functions for different people based on our learning histories. In my very early training, I had always thought “instructional control” was a technical (although admittedly not very well-defined), neutral term that just meant that discriminative stimuli have been established that make a particular response more likely (and this term is also often used in conjunction with descriptions of rule governed behavior—responding to instructions). I was taught to establish instructional control by making sure I was a wonderful source of reinforcement; my learners had access to many choices; tasks were functional, interesting, and at an appropriate level of difficulty; and that I was responsive to my learner’s motivation as well as continuously shaping (rather than forcing or very directly prompting) engagement and attention. In my VB world, we talked about part of this process as “pairing”. However, through my consultation I have found the ways these ideas are put into practice vary widely, and have found the terms themselves to be rather unhelpful in a lot of circumstances. And so, as we update our handbook, I’ll also be changing the language I use to describe these foundational repertoires—for both learner and teacher. I now think this process can much better be described as establishing a cooperative context for learning (just as Evelyn Gould, Julia Fiebig and I have talked more generally about establishing cooperative contexts for behavior change in our text, Understanding and Applying RFT ).

As Hart and Risley so beautifully noted, learning language is a social dance, and requires collaborative partnership between caregivers and children. There is now an emerging multi-disciplinary consensus (see Darling-Hammond et al., 2020) on the broad implications of current research on the science of learning and development in terms of the kinds of relationships and contextual supports needed to foster resilience, promote healthy development and learn effectively: relationships that are positive, supportive, reciprocal, and that foster trust are key factors in promoting well-being and healthy development. That is, “children learn best when they are actively engaged in learning that is meaningful, socially interactive, iterative, and joyful” (Nesbitt et al., 2023, p 141). Ala’i and colleagues (Ala’i-Rosales et al., 2019) also emphasize this point in their call for a preventative approach to problem behavior, highlighting the need for a nurturing instructional environment that focuses on promoting safe, effective, and joyful engagement with others. Thus an important foundation for any early childhood intervention program will always be to establish the learning context as one in which trust has been established, good things happen, and exploration and engagement may be easily shaped during fun, reinforcing activities. 

To be clear, “cooperation” does not equate to “doing what I want you to do,” even though this is commonly how the word is used—and indeed, what the term “instructional control” implies, another reason I’m changing how I talk about this aspect of intervention. Cooperation can be described as  “mutualistic collaboration” (Tomasello et al., 2012, p 673), implying a bidirectional, relational process of working together towards a common goal. Within the context of early intervention (and education more generally), this view implies that a cooperative learning environment is one in which both teacher and learner are working together with shared intention. This implies that learners are not simply complying with instructions to avoid punishment or access social approval, but rather that both teachers and learners are engaged in activities together that are meaningful—they are participating in a shared experience. Of course what is “meaningful” in a shared experience will be very different for an infant or toddler vs an older child, adolescent or adult, both in terms of the impact of languaging skills as well as differing motivations. But the critical point here is that the experience is about “us”, not about “me”—communication during the experience is not solely imperative or instrumental (i.e., getting you do to what I want), but is helpful to the communicative partner or is simply an opportunity to share something about the experience. Communicative partners are “co-operat[ing] as they engage with others” (Tomasello, 2019, p 3). 

There are several foundational repertoires that are particularly critical to establishing cooperative contexts for learning (and behavior change more generally), including joint attention and promoting tolerance of adversity. I’ll be addressing these early repertoires in the next blog post. In the meantime, I invite you to reflect on the conditions you’ve seen to result not only in the best learning (whether for clients or for yourself), but also the most joy for all involved. How does this perspective on the importance of establishing cooperative contexts for learning fit those experiences?

References

Ala’i-Rosales, S., Cihon, J. H., Currier, T. D. R., Ferguson, J. L., Leaf, J. B., Leaf, R., McEachin, J., & Weinkauf, S. M. (2019). The Big Four: Functional assessment research informs preventative behavior analysis. Behav Anal Pract, 12(1), 222–234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-018-00291-9

Darling-Hammond, L., Flook, L., Cook-Harvey, C., Barron, B., & Osher, D. (2020). Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development. Applied Developmental Science, 24(2), 97–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2018.1537791

Nesbitt, K. T., Blinkoff, E., Golinkoff, R. M., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2023). Making schools work: An equation for active playful learning. Theory Into Practice, 62(2), 141–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2023.2202136

Tomasello, M. (2019). Becoming human: A theory of ontogeny. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. 

Tomasello, M., Melis, A. P., Tennie, C., Wyman, E., & Herrmann, E. (2012). Two key steps in the evolution of human cooperation. The interdependence Hypothesis. Current Anthropology, 53(6), 673–692. https://doi.org/10.1086/668207