The Simple Interactions Tool provides a common visual language to describe human interactions across developmental contexts. It includes four dimensions - or lenses - through which we can notice and describe developmental interactions: Connection, Reciprocity, Inclusion, and Opportunity to Grow. Over the next two newsletters, we are going to offer updated explanations on the tool’s dimensions as a refresher for anyone who has previously learned about the tool or who’s new to it. In fact, this is the first time in almost ten years that we revised the text descriptions on our website - our own learning and understanding has evolved and deepened over this time period too!
As you use the tool, keep this in mind–teaching and learning are not separate from feeling and connecting. In fact, all four dimensions are distinct from one another yet interdependent with each other. Once, a workshop participant asked, “How can we make sure the 4 dimensions do not become yet another checklist of four boxes?”
What a good question! The best imagery we could come up with is to think of each dimension as a thread of a unique color, the interaction as the process of weaving together four different threads, and the relationship as the strong and tightly woven braid.
While we are very curious about how everyone sees and uses the tool, we generally do not recommend using the tool for assessing or evaluating an individual person (e.g., teacher evaluation). We designed the tool originally for the purpose of observing and learning about interactions. While we acknowledge that, at least on paper, Z can seem “better” than “Y”, and “Y” can seem “better” than “X”, we do not think the tool should be used to make such judgments about actual interactions. While some people may strive to have interactions between “Y” and “Z” modes of interaction, we find that even “X” modes of interaction can be authentic, human, and developmentally necessary in particular situations and contexts.
Now, we will look closer at the four dimensions.
As you use the tool, keep this in mind–teaching and learning are not separate from feeling and connecting. In fact, all four dimensions are distinct from one another yet interdependent with each other. Once, a workshop participant asked, “How can we make sure the 4 dimensions do not become yet another checklist of four boxes?”
What a good question! The best imagery we could come up with is to think of each dimension as a thread of a unique color, the interaction as the process of weaving together four different threads, and the relationship as the strong and tightly woven braid.
While we are very curious about how everyone sees and uses the tool, we generally do not recommend using the tool for assessing or evaluating an individual person (e.g., teacher evaluation). We designed the tool originally for the purpose of observing and learning about interactions. While we acknowledge that, at least on paper, Z can seem “better” than “Y”, and “Y” can seem “better” than “X”, we do not think the tool should be used to make such judgments about actual interactions. While some people may strive to have interactions between “Y” and “Z” modes of interaction, we find that even “X” modes of interaction can be authentic, human, and developmentally necessary in particular situations and contexts.
Now, we will look closer at the four dimensions.
Connection
When you observe people together, whether 1-on-1 or in a group, you often get an intuitive sense of whether they seem connected or disconnected, really "with" each other or distant.
We identify three common modes of mutual emotional expressions in an interaction.
When you observe people together, whether 1-on-1 or in a group, you often get an intuitive sense of whether they seem connected or disconnected, really "with" each other or distant.
We identify three common modes of mutual emotional expressions in an interaction.
- X: The adult and child(ren) interact with each other in a negative or hostile way, or there is a sense of distance and detachment between the adult and child(ren).
- Y: The adult and child(ren) appear unmatched emotionally, with one side more enthused, positive, or expressive than the other.
- Z: The adult and child(ren) are mutually present or in tune with one another, whether sharing positive affect or simply attentiveness and awareness.
Reciprocity
When we engage with others, whether to provide care, play, talk, learn, or teach, we take on different roles. The root word for “reciprocity” is to receive. The dimension of Reciprocity is trying to capture the many different forms of giving and receiving within an interaction.
We identify three common modes of the roles of engagement in joint, reciprocal activities.
In cultures where individual agency and initiative are particularly valued, there is a tendency to prefer “child-directed” or “youth-led” interactions over “adult-led” or “adult-directed” ones. However, in our own fieldwork and others’ cross-cultural research, we find that it is developmentally necessary for children to experience diverse modes of Reciprocity. Often, adults do have to lead and direct, even when children are resistant. Sometimes, children are quite happy to follow adults’ lead to learn and emulate and find a great sense of “mattering” by contributing to adults’ activities rather than initiating their own. That is why we did not put a “child-led” illustration at the Z end of the dimension. Our analysis of engagement roles considers the specific activity contexts rather than adhering to culturally-specific preferences or ideologies.
What is important is not the particular mode we happen to be in at the moment, but how and why (developmentally) we move between the modes.
When we engage with others, whether to provide care, play, talk, learn, or teach, we take on different roles. The root word for “reciprocity” is to receive. The dimension of Reciprocity is trying to capture the many different forms of giving and receiving within an interaction.
We identify three common modes of the roles of engagement in joint, reciprocal activities.
- X: Interaction with one-sided direction from an adult and children resist or disengage.
- Y: Interaction with one-sided direction from an adult and children comply or engage.
- Z: Interactions where the adult and child(ren) share a balanced, reciprocal partnership (it is difficult to tell who is directing or who is following).
In cultures where individual agency and initiative are particularly valued, there is a tendency to prefer “child-directed” or “youth-led” interactions over “adult-led” or “adult-directed” ones. However, in our own fieldwork and others’ cross-cultural research, we find that it is developmentally necessary for children to experience diverse modes of Reciprocity. Often, adults do have to lead and direct, even when children are resistant. Sometimes, children are quite happy to follow adults’ lead to learn and emulate and find a great sense of “mattering” by contributing to adults’ activities rather than initiating their own. That is why we did not put a “child-led” illustration at the Z end of the dimension. Our analysis of engagement roles considers the specific activity contexts rather than adhering to culturally-specific preferences or ideologies.
What is important is not the particular mode we happen to be in at the moment, but how and why (developmentally) we move between the modes.
Inclusion
While we are not supposed to have a favorite dimension (like parents with multiple children), some of us consider Inclusion to be the most important of the four dimensions because of our shared commitment to a fair and equitable learning environment for all people. We find that it is critical to pay attention to the “least among the group” and understand how they access or lose opportunities for human interactions - not just in quantity, but also in quality.
When you walk into any place with more than one child, you may notice some children appear to be participating less than the rest for reasons ranging from ability to temperament, the social and emotional state of the child, and the social and physical contexts. As observers, it is important not only to look at what kind of interactions are taking place overall, but also, “Who is (not) included?”
Observing inclusion starts with noticing children who seem least likely or able to engage with a larger group. There are three common modes of Inclusion:
While we are not supposed to have a favorite dimension (like parents with multiple children), some of us consider Inclusion to be the most important of the four dimensions because of our shared commitment to a fair and equitable learning environment for all people. We find that it is critical to pay attention to the “least among the group” and understand how they access or lose opportunities for human interactions - not just in quantity, but also in quality.
When you walk into any place with more than one child, you may notice some children appear to be participating less than the rest for reasons ranging from ability to temperament, the social and emotional state of the child, and the social and physical contexts. As observers, it is important not only to look at what kind of interactions are taking place overall, but also, “Who is (not) included?”
Observing inclusion starts with noticing children who seem least likely or able to engage with a larger group. There are three common modes of Inclusion:
- X: Children are not included (passively or actively) in the group, either temporarily and self-selected (e.g., “I’d like some alone time”) or constantly and externally imposed (e.g., “I am not welcomed”).
- Y: An adult intentionally attends to a child separately, but does not yet invite or involve them to be a part of the larger group.
- Z: An adult invites and includes the “least among the group” to join the community of peers.
Opportunity to Grow
Teaching and learning happen when adults interact with children by offering both challenges and support. In an interaction, it is possible to identify whether children are afforded the opportunities to make progress, even if progress is not immediately visible. It also helps to be open-minded about what can be developed in a particular interaction: content knowledge, procedural skill, social and emotional capacity, trust, confidence, and much more. Just because we are observing a math class does not mean only math skills are developing, and just because we are observing a play session does not mean only social-emotional capacity is growing.
Common modes of interaction within Opportunity to Grow include:
The illustration of this dimension is very closely modeled after Lev Vygotsky’s classical definition of “Zone of Proximal Development” in constructivist learning theory. While most relationship tools don’t include learning components, from our fieldwork, we become convinced that interactions for learning and teaching are woven into feelings, agency, and belonging, and vice versa. Students do not just feel recognized when a teacher says hello at the door, but also when the teacher acknowledges their effort on the homework and test, pushes them to think deeper, or matches demanding learning challenges with both instructional and emotional support.
Teaching and learning happen when adults interact with children by offering both challenges and support. In an interaction, it is possible to identify whether children are afforded the opportunities to make progress, even if progress is not immediately visible. It also helps to be open-minded about what can be developed in a particular interaction: content knowledge, procedural skill, social and emotional capacity, trust, confidence, and much more. Just because we are observing a math class does not mean only math skills are developing, and just because we are observing a play session does not mean only social-emotional capacity is growing.
Common modes of interaction within Opportunity to Grow include:
- X: An adult assigns children unreachable tasks without any support, or repeats unchallenging tasks.
- Y: An adult provides incrementally more difficult challenges and scaffolds children for steady progress.
- Z: An adult stretches children with a desirable level of difficulty that pushes them beyond their comfort zones. As appropriate, the adult withdraws (fades) some of the scaffolds children have gotten used to in Y.
The illustration of this dimension is very closely modeled after Lev Vygotsky’s classical definition of “Zone of Proximal Development” in constructivist learning theory. While most relationship tools don’t include learning components, from our fieldwork, we become convinced that interactions for learning and teaching are woven into feelings, agency, and belonging, and vice versa. Students do not just feel recognized when a teacher says hello at the door, but also when the teacher acknowledges their effort on the homework and test, pushes them to think deeper, or matches demanding learning challenges with both instructional and emotional support.