How Children Imbue Recycling Symbols with Meaning

Despite research that shows students need multiple ways of interacting to learn, visual language is often treated as though it is the most effective form of teaching communication. Yet, scholars argue, visual information is always coded and interpreted in relation to particular cultures and contexts. To better understand interpretation of information within these cultural and contextual frames, this paper's authors observed video footage of four- to five-year-old children in several Swedish preschools sorting refuse into designated bins. They did so to address three research questions: (1) How are explanatory illustrations being used in natural science studies and mathematics education? (2) How do students make sense of such visual information, particularly in relation to environmental education and refuse recycling? (3) What problems and difficulties do these young students encounter when interpreting illustrations?

The authors conducted the study in two parts. In the first part, they conducted a survey to take an inventory of science software used in 10 preschools in Sweden. Through this survey, the authors identified an education entertainment program called Ants in the Pants that was used in 7 of the 10 preschools. This software involves an animated world within a forest where players follow a pathway and encounter games, activities, and environmental information along the way.

To begin, the authors had four pairs of preschool children play with the game in whatever way they liked. Next, the authors asked the children to play a specific activity within the game, called “Sort the Refuse,” in which players click on pieces of trash, both organic and nonorganic, and attempt to drag the pieces of trash to the correct bin. They can choose one bin from among five: glass, metal, plastic, paper, and batteries. These bins are marked with symbols meant to illustrate each of these material types. Because the children playing are able to drag only the proper type of refuse onto the proper bin, the authors observed that the players used a trial-and-error strategy.

To understand how children would respond in a more open-ended scenario, the authors followed these observations with a refuse-sorting task of their own creation. The authors sampled a total of 30 children (19 girls, 11 boys) from three public preschools. All children were fluent in Swedish (for their age), although two were not native Swedish speakers. Researchers divided the children into groups of two or three for a total of 13 groups; the investigation was conducted one group at a time in a nearby room familiar to the children. The session leader then asked the children to sort the refuse items and, later, to explain why they had placed the items on each respective receptacle. This helped the researchers understand the children's sorting strategies in relation to what the symbols represented to them. The bins used in the study employed the same symbols as those used in the Ants in the Pants “Sort the Refuse” game. The session leader introduced the task and gave instructions; each 15-minute session was recorded using two video cameras, one placed close to the activity and the other placed further away. The researchers collected, in total, 210 minutes of video documentation, transcribed the videos verbatim, and coded the video data based on the way the children attempted to make sense of the recycling symbols.

From these analyses, the authors constructed four categories of sense-making strategies: (1) the material of which each item was composed (glass, plastic, or metal); (2) the type of each object (bottle, sheet, or can); (3) the appearance of each item (shape and color); and (4) the function each item served (container or wrapper). The children would often use these sense-making strategies in parallel; for example, for one item, they would sort based on the material while, for another, they would sort based on its appearance.

The authors share specific dialogue from the video transcripts to support these findings, emphasizing four other important findings from the study. First, only 5 out of the total 30 children interpreted the iconic symbols as representing material, and even those who did still put items into the wrong bins due to confusion about the composition of the items. Second, these five children were the only ones consistent in selection and bin placement. Third, the children most often correctly sorted glass and paper. Last, some children expressed the desire for more bin options; this usually occurred when the children made sense of the symbols as being in accordance with one of the four categories of sense-making strategies (material, kind of object, appearance, or function), but still could not identify a suitable bin for the item.

The study illustrates that sorting refuse is not innate but, rather, a cultural and social activity built upon social agreements. The authors identified that the children mastered two established functions of language and signs: the ideation function and the interpersonal function. However, the authors found that the third function of signs, known as the textual function, produced three potential stumbling blocks for children that included the following challenges: (1) assigning the intended meaning to the symbol; (2) recognizing and communicating the composition; and (3) remaining with one way of interpreting each symbol and communicating why it was chosen. The authors conclude by discussing implications for teaching, including the authors' central point that educators should not assume an inherent connection between any sign and what it represents. They also emphasize that visual games can be useful learning tools when given appropriate context.