| 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 | There was a notable 
difference in social status between the children of this group and those of the 
others. Coming from one of Leeds' more affluent areas, with parents who included 
architects and senior managers, the children had more middle-class voices and 
styles of expression, as well as being more conscious of standards of 'good behaviour'. 
Interestingly, however, beyond some advantages of articulacy, this did not make 
them superior videographers. The children appeared, 
from the first-week group interview, to be interested and concerned about the 
environment, but often in quite a passive way. Their knowledge of environmental 
problems, from school and other sources, was quite comprehensive, and well spread 
throughout the group. This is what previous research suggests we might expect 
for middle-class children (Lyons & Breakwell, 1994). They knew, for example, about 
various kinds of pollution, and recycling, were all familiar with the process 
by which acid rain is produced, and were aware of the dangers to and function 
of the ozone layer ('protects us from the sun', said several of them immediately). 
Their awareness of the problems of nuclear power, and why rainforests are being 
felled was, however, patchy. Quite unlike children 
in some of the other groups in this study, however, these children had been immersed 
in a culture of knowledge-gathering, such that their level of knowledge about 
the environment was perhaps less impressive than at other schools where there 
was little or no peer credibility attached to being so informed. Asked about aspects 
of their local area which were environmentally disappointing, the children had 
some difficulty; uppermost in their minds seemed to be the school dustbins, although 
pollution in the River Aire was also suggested. In some ways these 
polite middle-class children were less effective film-makers than their counterparts 
at other schools. Their patience often meant that greater amounts of dull material 
were recorded at greater length, where the more assertive working-class children 
would simply have switched the camera off and moved on to the next setup. Their 
more passive approach to video-making also meant that they seemed not to think 
of doing different things with, for example, their presenters in shots. It is 
certainly not to be denied that these children's articulacy, as well as a general 
inclination to work reasonably hard in school time, made for an intelligent and 
engaging video. The point is rather that the levels of creativity and ideas put 
into their video were equal, but were no greater, than at any of the less well-heeled 
schools. By the final week 
of the project, when interviewing each other, the children were quicker to produce 
pro-environmental responses than they had been at first, and seemed to have an 
enhanced appreciation of the local area, as well as awareness of its problems 
- pollution in particular. Their enjoyment of the project was also clear. Summary Unlike those at 
other schools, these children had a general interest in producing good schoolwork, 
which might have made the extent to which they had been genuinely concerned about 
the subject less clear. However, as time went on, it became apparent that most 
of them did have a broad interest in the environment, the local aspect of which 
was focused by the project. The children did not suggest grand visual ideas, or 
much of a structure for the video, but simply made competent material of a relatively 
unplanned nature. In contrast to children in other groups, they were, at least 
initially, sometimes less confident on both sides of the camera, perhaps due to 
an upbringing which might more often have emphasised the importance of behaving 
respectfully towards expensive technology, and maintaining dignity when under 
surveillance. |