The Routledge International Handbook of Early Childhood Play [1 ed.] 2016048059, 9781138833715, 9781315735290

Citation preview

The Routledge International Handbook of Early Childhood Play

Historical changes in play are taking place in childhood all over the world, with the digitalisation of children’s lives. Researchers are worried about the disappearance of advanced forms of play and the prioritization of time spent with loving adults, supporting play with babies and toddlers. At the same time, our understanding about the crucial importance of individual development is becoming clearer. The Routledge International Handbook of Early Childhood Play explores these issues and more. It proposes the importance of adult participation in play, as adult guidance brings the possibility of moral, cultural and symbolic elements to children’s play, and enhances the educational opportunities in adult-child joint play. The book also examines the aesthetic dimension of play and its role in the development of imagination and creativity. With contributors from many parts of the world, this unique handbook brings together the latest research and highlights practice which focuses on play. This is an essential and engaging read for all students, academics, teachers and practitioners with an interest in play. Tina Bruce, CBE, was formerly Director of the Centre for Early Childhood Education, University of Roehampton. She has a long and distinguished publishing career and was coordinator of the Early Years Ministerial Advisory Group for ten years, contributing to the ‘Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage’, ‘Birth to Three matters’, and the English Early Years Foundation Stage. Pentti Hakkarainen is Professor of the Department of Developmental and Educational Psychology at the Lithuanian University of Educational Sciences. Milda Bredikyte is Associated Professor of the Department of Developmental and Educational Psychology and a coordinator of research and teaching activities of the Play Research Laboratory at the Lithuanian University of Educational Sciences.

The Routledge International Handbook Series

A full list of titles is available at: www.routledge.com/Routledge-International-Handbooks-of-Education/bookseries/HBKSOFED Recently published titles include: The Routledge International Handbook of the Arts and Education Edited by Mike Fleming, John O’Toole and Loira Bresler The Routledge International Handbook of Dyscalculia and Mathematical Learning Difficulties Edited by Steve Chinn The Routledge International Handbook of Young Children’s Thinking and Understanding Edited by Sue Robson and Suzanne Flannery Quinn The Routledge International Handbook of Education, Religion and Values Edited by James Arthur and Terence Lovat The Routledge International Handbook of Creative Learning Edited by Julian Sefton Green, Pat Thomson, Ken Jones and Liora Bresler The Routledge International Handbook of Teacher and School Development Edited by Christopher Day The Routledge International Handbook of the Sociology of Education Edited by Michael W. Apple, Stephen J. Ball and Luis Armando Gandin The Routledge International Handbook of Critical Education Edited by Michael W. Apple, Wayne Au and Luis Armando Gandin The Routledge International Handbook of Lifelong Learning Edited by Peter Jarvis The Routledge International Companion to Multicultural Education Edited by James A. Banks The Routledge International Handbook of English, Language and Literacy Teaching Edited by Dominic Wyse, Richard Andrews and James Hoffman The Routledge International Handbook of Higher Education Edited by Malcolm Tight, Ka Ho Mok, Jeroen Huisman and Christopher C. Morpew

The Routledge International Handbook of Early Childhood Play

Edited by Tina Bruce, Pentti Hakkarainen and Milda Bredikyte

First published 2017 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2017 selection and editorial matter, Tina Bruce, Pentti Hakkarainen and Milda Bredikyte; individual chapters, the contributors The right of the editors to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Names: Bruce, Tina, editor. | Hakkarainen, Pentti, editor. | Bredikyte, Milda, editor. Title: The Routledge international handbook of early childhood play / edited by Tina Bruce, Pentti Hakkarainen and Milda Bredikyte. Description: New York : Routledge, 2017. | Series: The Routledge International Handbook Series Identifiers: LCCN 2016048059 | ISBN 9781138833715 (hardback) | ISBN 9781315735290 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Play—Handbooks, manuals, etc. | Early childhood education—Activity programs. Classification: LCC LB1137. R67 2017 | DDC 372.21—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016048059 ISBN: 978-1-138-83371-5 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-73529-0 (ebk) Typeset in Bembo by Keystroke, Neville Lodge, Tettenhall, Wolverhampton

Tina Bruce: In appreciation of Friedrich Froebel (1782–1852), who pioneered the educative importance of play. Milda Bredikyte and Pentti Hakkarainen: To the memory of Swedish researcher Gunilla Lindqvist, whose ideas have inspired our work.

Contents

Contributorsxi Introduction from the editors

1

PART I

Selected historical approaches to children’s play

7

  1 Ponderings on play: Froebelian assemblages Tina Bruce

9

  2 Locating play today Suzanne Flannery Quinn   3 Play birth to three: Treasure Baskets and Heuristic Play, the legacy of Elinor Goldschmied (1910–2009) Anita M. Hughes and Jacqui Cousins

22

33

  4 Cultural-historical play theory Elena Smirnova

46

  5 Aesthetics of play and joint playworlds Beth Ferholt and Monica Nilsson

58

  6 Pretend play and child development Pentti Hakkarainen, Milda Bredikyte and Ildar Safarov

70

Contents PART II

Play in different cultures

85

  7 Characteristics of pretend role play Irina Ryabkova, Elena Smirnova and Elena Sheina

87

  8 Conceptions of play activity and its application in Mexico Yulia Solovieva, Eduardo Alejandro Escotto Córdova, Ana María Baltazar Ramos and Luis Quintanar

97

  9 Introducing social role-play to Colombian children 5–6 years Yulia Solovieva and Claudia Ximena González-Moreno

108

10 Play and art in a Japanese early childhood setting Kiyotaka Miyazaki

125

PART III

Socio-dramatic play

135

11 Changing our world: dialogic dramatic playing with young children137 Brian Edmiston 12 Children’s socio-dramatic play typologies and teacher play involvement within the breadth of the zone of proximal development151 Eleni Loizou 13 Playing on the edge: adventure, risk and challenge in play outdoors168 Helen Tovey PART IV

Observing and intervening in play

181

14 Chimp and child: are there similarities in their play? John Matthews

183

15 Play with infants: the impulse for human storytelling Colwyn Trevarthen

198

viii

Contents

16 Observing children’s triadic play Luisa Molinari, Ada Cigala, Paola Corsano and Elena Venturelli 17 Pooh Bear’s turn! An Australian study of adults using special toys to develop play complexity from within children’s imaginary play Sue March and Marilyn Fleer 18 Self-regulation and narrative interventions in children’s play Milda Bredikyte and Pentti Hakkarainen

216

230 246

PART V

Play environments, toys and partners

259

19 Playworlds and the pedagogy of listening Beth Ferholt and Monica Nilsson

261

20 Collaborative play with dramatization: an afterschool programme of ‘Playshop’ in a Japanese early childhood setting Hiroaki Ishiguro

274

21 Digital playworlds in an Australian context: supporting double subjectivity289 Marilyn Fleer 22 The developmental potential of toys and games Elena Sheina, Elena Smirnova and Irina Ryabkova

305

PART VI

Development and learning in play

313

23 The interplay between play and learning Galina Zuckerman

315

24 Play, creativity and creative thinking Sue Robson

328

25 Play with social roles as a method for psychological development in young children Yulia Solovieva and Luis Quintanar

ix

340

Contents PART VII

Play and children with special needs

355

26 Games as a tool for facilitating cognitive development Tatiana Akhutina and Antonina Romanova

357

27 The promise of play as an intervention to develop self-regulation in children on the autism spectrum Sonia Mastrangelo 28 Musical play and play through music in early childhood Adam Ockelford and Angela Voyajolu

376 395

Index407

x

Contributors

Tatiana Akhutina, Professor, Head of Laboratory of Neuropsychology at Moscow State University, Russia. Her research interests include neuropsychology and neurolinguistics. Her recent research themes are diagnostics, intervention and prevention of children’s learning difficulties as well as skills of programming and guiding learning. Milda Bredikyte, Associate Professor at the Lithuanian University of Educational Sciences, founded the Play Research Laboratory in 2002 in Kajaani, Finland and in 2013 in Vilnius. She has research interests in children’s play, narratives, creative drama, puppet theatre and storytelling. Tina Bruce CBE, Honorary Professor at the University of Roehampton, formerly head of the Froebel Nursery Research School; resident expert on ‘Tuning into Children’, BBC Radio 4 series; coordinator Ministerial Advisory Group 1998–2008; international work includes training staff in the newly established kindergarten training college in Cairo for the British Council; awarded International Woman Scholar, University of Virginia Commonwealth; led the Froebel Trust Project team working in Kliptown Township, South Africa, training staff in an early childhood school and crèche for children 1–6 years. Ada Cigala, Assistant Professor of developmental psychology at the University of Parma, vice-coordinator of the PhD Program in Psychology. She acts as educational consultant and trainer for ECEC coordinators and teachers. Her research is focused on socio-emotional development. Paola Corsano is Professor of developmental psychology at the University of Parma, Italy. She has a long-standing interest in processes of socialisation from childhood to adolescence. She has published books and articles on social and solitary play in infancy and loneliness in adolescence.

Contributors

Jacqui Cousins volunteers in Totnes Children’s Centre, is a teacher, researcher, university lecturer, grandmother who works with WARchild and is an adviser with the UN for their gypsy division of ‘The Association for Threatened People’ and for their ‘Voice of Young People’ projects. She guided the Elinor Goldschmied Archive Project for the Froebel Trust. Brian Edmiston is Professor of drama in education at the Ohio State University, USA. For over thirty years Brian has been writing about what he has learned by playing with children and adults. Eduardo Alejandro Escotto Córdova, PhD, is a university teacher and researcher at the National Autonomous University of Mexico City. His research interests focus on speech development in early childhood education, inner speech, children’s play activity, speech impairments of children and adults. Beth Ferholt is Assistant Professor in the Department of Early Childhood and Art Education at Brooklyn College, City University of New York. She studies playworlds, perezhivanie, and early childhood education practices in which children are understood as culture and knowledge creators. Suzanne Flannery Quinn is a senior lecturer of Early Childhood Studies at the University of Roehampton, Froebel College, London, UK. Suzanne has research interests in play as a socio-cultural activity and pedagogic documentation as a form of democratic pedagogy. Marilyn Fleer holds the Foundation Chair of Early Childhood Education at Monash University, Australia. Her research interests focus on early years learning and development, with special attention on pedagogy, play, culture, science, and design and technology. Claudia Ximena González-Moreno, PhD, and Lecturer at the University of Rosario and Javeriana University in Bogota, Colombia. Claudia has research interests in the development of symbolic function in the play activity of young children. Pentti Hakkarainen, Professor Emeritus of educational sciences, University of Oulu and currently Professor of developmental psychology, Lithuanian University of Educational Sciences, has introduced narrative play pedagogy and initiated field experiments of play worlds based on classic stories in Finland and Lithuania. Anita M. Hughes, mother, grandmother, teacher, chartered educational psychologist and counsellor, works in early childhood, originally alongside Elinor Goldschmied. She has made two films and published three books. Currently the focus of her work is counselling for families with children on the autism spectrum. Hiroaki Ishiguro is Professor at the Department of Education at Rikkyo University, Tokyo. He focuses on theoretical investigations of learning and development from a xii

Contributors

socio-historical perspective. He engages in qualitative research on play and literacy in early childhood education and afterschool. Eleni Loizou is Associate Professor of early childhood education at the University of Cyprus. Her research interest in play is mainly focused on the pedagogy of play unfolding children’s play skills, teachers’ forms of involvement and informing teacher education. Sue March is a research assistant and PhD student at the Faculty of Education, Monash University, Australia. Her research interests include fairy tales, play, multi-age groups, child development and early childhood science, engineering and technology. Sonia Mastrangelo, Associate Professor at Lakehead University Orillia, Canada, consultant and clinician in the Miller Method for children with autism spectrum disorder, and a self-regulation facilitator with the MEHRIT Centre. Her research interests include self-regulation, autism spectrum disorder, therapy, and play. John Matthews’s research is about the development of early symbolisation in early childhood. Matthews also studied the precursors of symbolic thought in a family of captive chimpanzees. Currently he is Visiting Research Fellow in the Department of Psychology, University of Portsmouth, England. Kiyotaka Miyazaki is Professor at the Faculty of Human Sciences, Waseda University, Japan. He studies the teaching – learning processes, children’s play activities, and art activities in the elementary schools and early childhood education settings from the theoretical view of the dialogic pedagogy. Luisa Molinari, PhD, is Professor of educational psychology at the University of Parma, Italy, where she coordinates the PhD programme in psychology. She is the author of several books and international articles on children’s peer cultures, teacherstudent interactions, and quality of educational process. Monica Nilsson is a former early childhood education teacher and an associate professor of Preschool Didactics at Jönköping University, Sweden. Her research interests include change and didactical development; play, exploration and learning in early childhood education; and more particularly playworlds, a form of adult-child joint play. Adam Ockelford is Professor of music at the University of Roehampton, London, where he is Director of the Applied Music Research Centre. He has a long-standing interest in how musicality develops in children, including those with special abilities or needs. Luis Quintanar is Professor of Puebla Autonomous University, Mexico, Dr Honoris Causa of National University of Perú, and founder of the Master’s Degree Program xiii

Contributors

in Neuropsychological Diagnosis and Rehabilitation. He has research interests in the neuropsychological development of adults and infants. Ana María Baltazar Ramos has a PhD in pedagogy of education, and is a university teacher at the faculty of Higher (Postgraduate) Studies Zaragoza at the National Autonomous University of Mexico City. Sue Robson was a nursery and infant teacher before working in higher education. She was Principal Lecturer and Subject Leader for early childhood, and is currently Honorary Research Fellow at the University of Roehampton. Sue is a National Teaching Fellow and a trustee of the Froebel Trust. Antonina Romanova, PhD, Head of Neuropsychological Division at the Psychological-Pedagogical Center of Moscow City. Her scientific interests are oriented to children’s learning difficulties and cognitive defects, especially to play-based diagnostic methods and rehabilitation. Irina Ryabkova, PhD, is a psychological expert at the Centre for Psychological and Pedagogical Expertise of Games and Toys, Moscow State University of Psychology and Education. The focus of her research is the elaboration and realisation of play ideas in young children’s free play. Ildar Safarov, PhD, Gestalt therapist in Petrozavodsk, Russia. His research interests are focused on human relations in therapy and children’s play, and the elaboration of mathematical models of Lewin’s psychological theory. Elena Sheina is Head of the Centre for Psychological and Pedagogical Expertise of Games and Toys, Moscow State University of Psychology and Education. The focus of her interests is the developmental potential of toys in children’s play. Elena Smirnova, Professor of psychology at Moscow State University of Psychology and Education, and founder of the Center of Play and Toys. Her research interests focus on the ontogenesis of children’s volition in interaction, self-concept and moral development, and new approaches in early education. Yulia Solovieva is Professor of Puebla Autonomous University, Mexico, Dr Honoris Causa at National University of Perú, and director of the Master’s Degree Program in Neuropsychological Diagnosis and Rehabilitation. She has research interests in the cultural-historical approach to neuropsychology, education and child development. Helen Tovey was Principal Lecturer in early childhood education, University of Roehampton. She is a Froebel-trained nursery teacher, former head teacher and member of the Froebel Trust Education Committee. She has published widely with special interest in outdoor play.

xiv

Contributors

Colwyn Trevarthen, Professor Emeritus of psychology, University of Edinburgh, has applied human brain science to study how infants’ movements animate cultural learning in intimate, affectionate play. Musician Stephen Malloch and Colwyn edited Communicative Musicality: Exploring the Basis of Human Companionship. Elena Venturelli is a post-doctoral scholar in developmental psychology at the University of Parma. Her research interests are family relations and early childhood development in different contexts (families and educational services). Angela Voyajolu is a PhD student at the University of Roehampton’s School of Education. Her research is focused on the musical development of children in the early years. She also works as a music therapist with both children and adults. Galina Zuckerman (Tsukerman), PhD, Professor of educational psychology, Leading Researcher at the Psychological Institute, Russian Academy of Education, Moscow, is investigating the role of education in child development.

xv

Introduction from the editors

Pentti Hakkarainen This play handbook appears during a challenging period in the historical development of early childhood. There is growing evidence concerning the general importance of play in early childhood development of animals and humans. At the same time surveys show that advanced forms of human play are disappearing from different societies. It has been difficult to demonstrate cultural consequences of the disappearance of play on general psychological development, but animal experiments indicate changes in the brain architecture of non-playing individuals. In this book a chapter replicating El’konin’s survey study carried out fifty years ago showed a remarkable drop in children’s pretend play. In human children less advanced play might be a factor behind lower level of self-regulation. A huge challenge of today’s play research is to develop a unifying play theory.There are at present many empirical play research and development projects, but few integrating theoretical studies. A recent large review study about the developmental impact of play on child development demonstrated that both play and development are understood extremely differently in the studies. Growing numbers of studies do not contra pose any more cultural and biological-genetic explanations of children’s play. Interaction of general causal factors is preferred in explanations. The handbook tries to present recent theoretical elaborations of cultural historical approaches to children’s pretend play and ongoing experimenting on playworld concept and practices. Playworld projects are attempts to compensate for the disappearance of multigenerational children’s play cultures from today’s societies. Playworlds are children’s and adults’ joint play environments aiming at more advanced imaginary play. At the same time playworld is the adult’s didactic tool of indirect play guidance. The complexity of adult participation and play guidance is connected to children’s empowerment in play activities. Play is genuinely the children’s own activity and children have to feel true ownership and willingness to transform ideas into play

Introduction from the editors

actions, which adults have hinted at. This is why tales and stories are often used as stimulus material in joint playworld construction. Cultural tools of social interaction are emphasised in play-supported learning and development by stating that culture is the source of development, not just environment. But often, natural forms of acting are changed into cultural ones. In these cases an explanation of learning and development presupposes a description of the mechanism of how cultural form replaces a natural one at different stages.

Tina Bruce This book contributes to the much needed development of what Gabbay and May (2016: 403–3), researchers in the medical world, call mindlines. Just as the medical world requires of those working with patients and families on a daily basis the ability to deal with the theoretical, research-based and national guidelines which inevitably lead to ‘multifarious considerations’ and enable them to ‘rapidly unconscious complex decision making’ with ‘contextual adroitness that goes beyond mere technical expertise’, so it is for those working in the world of early childhood education. This book will have failed in what it needs to do unless, in accessible and practical ways, it reaches the daily work of practitioners. In the gathering together of this handbook a community of theorists and researchers has developed between the editors, who have strong connections in a variety of ways to the authors working in universities, institutions and practitioner networks in many parts of the world. This has led to the possibility of collecting together evidence from a wide range of sources which, as Pentti has outlined in his introduction, give a flexible framework that is, albeit complex, which can be used to support practitioners working directly with children and their families. Practitioners who develop mindlines, Gabbay and May suggest, do so across a lifetime of their professional work, melding evidence, such as in this book, with tacit knowledge through experience and continual learning. They, like the authors in this book, are acutely aware that the sheer quantity and breadth of theory and research on play, however much they make it a priority to read, will still leave them with conflicting demands. Reading the evidence and trying to connect their practice to this will partly be informed by their training, and it is a fact that in many parts of the world practitioners receive little or poor training, and have low status and payment.Their own experience, together with that of colleagues, their work with local demands and the requirements of national guidelines and curriculum frameworks, and their experience of dealing with various kinds of conflicts, will all strongly influence the way they connect with the theory and research world they might (though often don’t) link into by reading and attending conferences for practitioners and studying on courses.Those practitioners with mindlines, Gabbay and May (2016: 403) have found in their fifteen-year longitudinal study, have developed what they call ‘knowledge in practice in context’ which enables them to deal with the ‘fuzzy logic’ of everyday professional life. This book offers connection to communities of practice by the contributing authors and others in other dialogic spaces. Some authors work closely with practitioners through the research they undertake, engaging in exploratory talk together as they do so. Others 2

Introduction from the editors

teach courses in universities attended by practitioners in leading roles, who take what they learn into practice with colleagues.There are existing networks of practitioners both formal and informal who encourage practitioners to develop mindlines in the field of early childhood education, and particularly exploring the importance of play. By meeting together regularly and teasing out issues, sharing reading, inviting academics and researchers to explain their work, they are strengthened in their professional knowledge. It is important to recognise that the authors in the book do not come from every part of the world. Amita Gupta (2016: 154) suggests that ‘a postcolonial framework allows for an examination of the interplay between the dominant discourse and more local understandings on child development’. She goes on to say that ‘there needs to be an awareness of the “other”, but the recognition that we ourselves are an “other” amongst “others”’. Approaches to working in contexts where researchers do not wish to impose Western theory and ways of thinking benefit from the Asset Based Community Development (ABCD) framework because they set up exploratory dialogic spaces with communities which help them to find their own way into play, rather than imposing Western ways that are not always comfortable in the cultural context. Two pro bono teams working with the Froebel Trust are undertaking two projects using the ABCD approach, in Kolkata (since 2013), and in Soweto (since 2008), where attempts to follow a postcolonial approach to developing play is leading the work. However, with the top down introduction of national curriculum frameworks in India and South Africa, which are based on Western education, this approach is hard to develop and apply. Mathias Urban (2016) in a recent lecture at the International Froebel Conference in Kassel pointed out that politicians and funding bodies such as the World Bank are imposing this increasingly in different parts of the world. Gupta is right to raise the issue of Western domination in looking at play. In different contexts and cultures it is important to support practitioners in developing mindlines, with trusted colleagues from the world of practice, academia and research, so that ideas, theories and research can be tried out, transformed and exploratory discussions of play are a part of this. What shall we do when we play with the children on Monday, and who decides how we shall do that, are serious questions that needs answering.

References Bruce, T., Louis, S., and McCall, G. (2014). Observing Young Children. London: Sage. Gabbay, J., and May, A. (2016). Mindlines: making sense of evidence in practice. British Journal of General Practice, 66(649), 402–3. Urban, M. (2016). Froebel meets the World Bank: Challenges and possibilities for holistic approaches to practice and policy in a globalised early childhood context. Lecture given at the International Froebel Society, 24 June 2016, Evangelisches Froebelseminar Kassel.

Milda Bredikyte I would like to add a very personal and emotional perspective towards children’s imaginary play to the nice introductions written by my very dear co-editors Tina and Pentti. I have been researching children’s play for more than twenty years and during 3

Introduction from the editors

these years I have been trying to answer the question: why is play important for a child’s development? What aspects of play are crucial? Could imaginary play be replaced by other more purposeful learning or other activities? I don’t have final answers but some that I have seem to be really important. Play is the first independent activity of which the child keeps control. Play is the space where children are able to practise their ideas and all possible skills in an independent manner. In other situations young children are guided by the adult and have to accept adult imposed rules and themes. In a way adults are constantly ‘dragging’ children to their developmental level in this way underestimating the most important and the most interesting period of their development. AsVygotsky (1977) pointed out in his famous lecture in 1933, the child’s imagination manifests itself through play activity, so probably for that reason he named this type of play imaginative play. And precisely through developing imaginative play a child’s thinking moves from the here/now to there/then to somewhere/sometime and finally to anywhere/anytime, as described by Donaldson (1992). This is the most important move in a child’s mind as the child becomes free from situational constraints and can move freely in their imaginary worlds. From my point of view this sense of freedom in one’s mind is the most important asset of the human brain, which is mainly formed through play activity. In two words I would say that play activity makes us free dreamers, and free builders of our future world. Free dreaming is always connected with creativity and improvisation and no wonder that through imaginary play children learn creative improvisation, which is absolutely necessary for everyday social interactions (Sawyer, 2001). Vygotsky formulated in 1931 (2004) that all forms of human creative activities spring out from play activity having in mind not just social interactions but all human cultural creativity. I see child’s play activity as a nonverbal form of narration – a child uses play as a medium to create narratives about themselves and the world. It is also interpretive activity where the child’s own point of view is of greatest importance. The child tries to formulate and express in an active form (play) their understanding of the events and the world. In this context I totally agree with El’konin (1989), who concluded that pretend role-play orientates children towards the universal meanings of human activity and the sense of life. Quite a hot topic often arises concerning the adult position in children’s play. Very often adults ask: ‘to step or not to step’ into children’s play? Serious arguments would be on both sides but my answer is yes! Of course, in an appropriate manner and time, but definitely, yes. I have many reasons for saying so, but I will mention only two of them. First, I don’t believe that the adult who never truly and deeply played with a young child can really comprehend the essence of play activity. Second, play is probably the only activity organised and carried out by the child and the adult has an opportunity to follow the child’s logic and ‘learn’ their way of doing things. An important aspect of play activity is that this is the first independent, self-initiated and self-organised activity of the child (Hakkarainen, 1990). By playing with children we can grasp – or, better to say sense – what is really important for them, what bothers them, what they dream about. This is a very rare opportunity and we should use it. 4

Introduction from the editors

In recent years I have become very interested in my own experiences of playing with children, trying to understand why it is so important for me to be accepted into child’s play. Here is an account of my own experiences after participation in play with a 2-year-old boy: Today I had an exceptional experience from playing with Joe. I never played with him before, always felt certain resistance or distrust . . . I had a feeling that he is ignoring all our trials to play with him, but today . . . For the first time Joe accepted me in his play! Together with Joseph we were hunting big and dangerous animals in an unknown island! I couldn’t understand a word of what he was telling me but from his facial expression, and his behaviour I could feel approval and appreciation. Several times we flew through the corridor shooting here and there but most of the time we were just sitting in our ‘boat’ in a state of total happiness, satisfied. From time to time exchanging glances and smiles. I wished this moment to last forever . . . Feeling of togetherness was fantastic: we are in our small safe ‘boat’ watching the ‘world’ around us. The very first conclusion after analysing my own experiences was that shared play experience helps to build a relationship and creates a more stable connection with a child. It might turn into long-term relationships and friendships: ‘my friend robber’ says Joe (four years old now). I understand that this is a very personal choice but for me being accepted by the child is the most rewarding thing and an indicator that professionally I am moving in the right direction. Concluding I would like to say that for me it is a great honour to be a co-editor of this book, bringing together so many wonderful authors who are passionate about children and their most fascinating activity – play.

References Donaldson, M. (1992). Human Minds. London: Allen Lane. El’konin, D. B. (1989). Izbrannye psikhologicheskie trudy, Tom 1 [Collected Psychological Works,Vol. 1]. Moscow: Pedagogika. Hakkarainen, P. (1990). Motivaatio, leikki ja toiminnan kohteellisuus [Motivation, Play and Object-orientation of Activity]. Helsinki: Orienta Konsultit. Doctoral thesis JY. Sawyer, R. K. (2001). Creating Conversations: Improvisation in Everyday Discourse. Cresskill, New Jersey: Hampton Press, Inc. Vygotsky, L. S. (1977). Play and its Role in the Mental development of the Child. In M. Cole (Ed.), Soviet developmental psychology. White Plains, NY: M. E. Sharpe, pp. 76–99. Vygotsky, L. S. (2004). Imagination and creativity in childhood. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 42(1), 4–84.

Acknowledgements We should like to thank Alison Foyle and Aiyana Curtis at Routledge and Elin Lewis and Lesley Jones who understand how to empower authors and editors. 5

PART I

Selected historical approaches to children’s play

Approaches presented in this section do not form a comprehensive systematic analysis of different historical play theories.They rather present different disciplinary approaches, which in our mind are relevant in answering today’s challenges. The Froebelian approach in the three first chapters represents philosophical educational understanding about play: Smirnova picks up Vygotsky’s psychological basic ideas about child development and pretend play, and the playworld approach expands the culturalhistorical play approach by combining Vygotskian psychology of art to play theory. The last chapter has elaborated a non-linear system model from Kurt Lewin’s analysis of social relations and Gestalt therapy practices, which reveals a system state of role relations in children’s pretend play.

1 Ponderings on play Froebelian assemblages Tina Bruce

Introduction The founder and creator of kindergartens (1837) was Friedrich Froebel (1782–1852), who came to the view that play was deeply educative if supported and encouraged by adults. Play transforms from being part of childhood into work that inspires, is worthwhile and is conscientiously performed (Brehony 2016). He therefore built play into his kindergarten curriculum, at first in prescribed, adult-led ways, but as his observation skills of children at play developed he became shocked at the way practitioners interpreted the adult role. He came to trust the children more, and to realise the importance of quality in training for kindergarten teachers. This led to a more open and flexible approach to the play of children. He extended this thinking to babies and toddlers. His last work was published in 1844 with the now obsolete and misleading title ‘Mother Songs’ which were in fact for parents and grandparents, as well as older siblings, who he realised appreciate support in understanding the importance of play for tiny children, and in developing emergent play in the home context. In this chapter a Froebelian approach to play is reflected on, and just as Froebel became unsettled and troubled enough to change the assemblage (Osgood 2016: 160) of his own thinking on play, two further assemblages are presented following his setting an example in having the courage to do this in the light of new evidence through his observations and discussions with close colleagues. The second assemblage came as a result of the way his early followers, after his death in 1852, returned to the original rigid prescriptive practices of his earlier work. His schools were closed in Saxony in 1851, regarded as revolutionary and irreligious, causing his students and colleagues to flee to different countries of the world. Bertha and Johanne Ronge in England, for example, prescriptively imposed their own interpretations of Froebelian education (Bruce 2016: 21). The Revisionist Froebelian Movement emerged which threw away the prescriptive, practical aspects of his curriculum but kept the principles of the practice (Bruce 1987, 2016). This was the result of the establishment of small kindergarten training colleges (children 2–7 years) 9

Tina Bruce

such as the Froebel Educational Institute, at the turn of the nineteenth century. Lecturers began to draw on the work of emergent disciplines such as psychology as evidence supporting Froebelian education. Highly trained Froebel teachers rapidly became heads of nursery/infant departments in other colleges, and Her Majesty’s Inspectors (HMIs) of schools and colleges. Until then Froebelians had trained through locally based courses validated and endorsed through what became the National Froebel Foundation (NFF). This gave opportunities for middle-class mothers, with permission from their husbands, to train and found small home-based kindergartens in their homes, which husbands considered a respectable way for their wives to work. It also gave rise to very rigid practices. The nursery school movement was another important strand in spreading revisionist Froebelian practice, based on Froebelian principles. There was a shift away from the prescribed practices to an emphasis on the Froebelian principles (Brehony 2000; Bruce 1987; Bruce in Miller and Pound 2010; Bruce 2015a; Bruce in David, Goouch and Powell 2016).These pervaded government reports (Hadow 1933; Plowden 1967; Starting with Quality 1990) influenced by Froebelians advocating principles and the importance of play in primary schools This chapter puts forward the urgent need in the UK for a third period of assemblage of Froebelian work on play, which interrogates the important issue of the role of the adult.

Towards a third assemblage of Froebelian work on play: some useful tools for a strong future Authors in this handbook emphasise the importance of the adult role in relation to developing the play of children. At times the emphasis is on the adult creating and managing the indoor and outdoor environment with equal status. Nature, with gardens, forests and streams, has a central place in Froebelian education. Dowling (2013) describes the physical environment as the third teacher. Kalliala, a Froebel-trained teacher and academic at the University of Helsinki, highlights the crucial nature of observation for Froebelians, and the need for the adult to be externally passive and internally active (Kalliala 2004). The following chart clarifies how best the adult can help children to develop their play. The prescriptive approach, with close adherence to Froebel’s original ways of working on play, results in the adult’s contribution being high, while the child’s is low. Children are taken to the shop, the adult leading shop play on return. The opposite applies when the adult involvement is low and the child’s is high. The adult might provide shop materials after the visit, for children to indulge in ‘free play’ which is often a laissez-faire approach to play. Another approach to the adult role is ‘by the book’. The adult might tell a story and the children quite literally act it out, or sing the song and rhymes with actions correctly performed.The approach favoured by the author is interactive (Bruce and Meggitt 1996) with both adults and children making a high contribution, playing together. The interactive adult takes very seriously Kalliala’s reminder that Froebelians need to act on their observations with sensitive, moment-by-moment responses. But how? The Engagement Scale, first developed by Professor Ferre Laevers (1994) has been widely disseminated internationally through the work of Professors Pascal and Bertram. 10

Ponderings on play

Figure 1.1  The role of the adult in relation to children’s play in early childhood (inspired by Roberts and Tamburrini (1981).

It helps practitioners explore the emphasis they are (probably unwittingly) putting in the way they develop children’s play.The relationship between autonomy, sensitivity and stimulation is key to the adult role. Autonomy is about helping children to play independently but having a trusting relationship with adults so that they can seek out but also be given the right help at the right time in the right way. Sensitive adults are good observers, aware of how and when they are needed, and how and when they need to hold back (Smilansky 1986). A stimulating adult is also a good observer, but goes beyond supporting the play. Stimulation means that children are extended in their play, to develop what Bredikyte and Hakkarainen call mature play (Bredikyte 2011). The author of this chapter (Bruce 1991, 2012, 2015a) sees this as a process of deepening the play, so that children wallow in it, concentrate and are totally immersed in, for example, the Treasure Basket (Goldschmied, see chapter 3) or the group pretend play scenario. The phrase ‘Observe, support, extend’ (Bruce 1987; 1997: 97) clarifies the role of the adult in developing play in early childhood and beyond 7 years into middle childhood, adolescence and adulthood. These three tools (balancing high/low child/adult contributions to the play; the nature of the engagement of the adult in the play; and the ability to directly or indirectly teach play through bringing together the ability to observe, support and extend play) strengthen the role of the adult. This foregrounds the Froebelian tenet that children need freedom with guidance (Liebschner 1992).The balance of what this means needs reviewing. These tools offer guidance in undertaking this unsettling task.

Navigating free-flow play through twelve features (Bruce 1991) The above tools enable reflection about the adult role in children’s play by the practitioners themselves. But more specific detail of what characterises play is needed 11

Tina Bruce

if families and practitioners are to be supported in looking afresh at what play is all about in the world of today. In the home situation parents and grandparents need their confidence to be built in developing play. If parents have not experienced mature, deep play themselves they will find it difficult to understand what it is, or why it is important. Once they know they become deeply committed to it (Athey 1990; Bruce 2012, 2015a; Bruce, Louis and McCall 2014). There is, in the UK, and Kalliala reports this in the Finnish context (Kalliala 2004), muddle for parents who try to be both friends and guides to their children.The issue of freedom with guidance is huge in developing home play. Swinging from laissez-faire and letting children do as they wish in totally free play to being very controlling so that play is constrained or even extinguished in favour of what is supposed to be proper learning is a real issue. Froebelians have always worked closely with families, and it can be argued that kindergartens were the first community schools. Supporting families to develop play at home necessitates articulating what is important about play, and why it should be encouraged. Convincing colleagues, policy makers and politicians untrained in early childhood education is another challenge requiring clear articulation, backed up with evidence from research and theory.When policy makers and politicians feel unclear and unable to control events, they impose prescriptive ways, resulting in narrow schooling rather than education.The plethora of national curriculum framework documents now in many countries is the result. The English EYFS (2012) document gives surface attention to mature, free-flowing play alongside a fierce inspection regime. At the International Froebel Society Conference in Kassel (2016) the president, Professor Mathias Urban, emphasised the importance of practitioners being trained in a clear philosophical framework alongside working towards greater social justice. In order to improve articulation strengthened with evidence about play, Froebelians urgently need to revisit their philosophical framework (Bruce in Miller and Pound 2010; Bruce in David, Goouch and Powell 2016). Osgood (2016: 159) advocates ‘unsettling received wisdom’. However, navigational tools are needed to achieve this in articulating play and embedding deep, mature play in the lives of the children practitioners spend time with and the families to whom they are committed. They contribute to ‘a set of core objectives and shared political commitments’ (Osgood 2016: 161). Following the imposition of the English National Curriculum and Ofsted regime (1989), the author gathered together strong themes from the literature on play, which were commonly held by researchers and theorists, characterising them as twelve features of play. They have served as navigational tools for practitioners in the UK and are widely used in training practitioners on early childhood education and care courses (Bruce and Meggitt 1996; Bruce, Meggitt and Grenier 2010; Bruce, Meggitt and Manning-Morton 2016) but have also impacted on policy makers and politicians, inspectors and heads of schools. They are embedded in the legally enshrined Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage (2000) and Birth to Three Matters (2002) in England and later the Early Years Foundation Stage (2008). In Scotland they are referenced in the document Building the Ambition (2014) which also emphasises the importance of training practitioners to develop play with children. 12

Ponderings on play

To address reliance on received wisdom regarding play, through understandable caution about leaving the safe comfort zone that accompanies what is thought to be known, the wording of each feature of play is regularly framed into a new assemblage, ‘generated through interactions and relationships with the worlds in which we are enmeshed’ (Osgood 2016: 158). New evidence arrives, and philosophy changes through the disruptive impact of postmodernism (Osgood 2016) and subsequent post-human philosophy, with current fascination of what makes dialogic spaces (Lambirth 2016). The twelve features continue to provide navigational tools in new assemblages (Osgood 2016: 158) through which to ponder mature and deep play, impacting in forwardlooking ways that are practical and fit for current purpose, and opening up new worlds.

Feature one Play feeds on real experience. It would be unethical to deprive children of normal experience on purpose, but there have been contexts (such as Romanian orphanages) that demonstrate that this constrains development, including the ability to play. Everyday life experiences provide the stuff of play. Preparing meals together, going shopping, making mud pies in the garden, planting vegetables, walking to the river, the park, catching a bus, walking the dog, seeing kittens born, playing on a bomb site . . . the list is endless. Children learn through their senses, their movements and through people in the cultural and community context in which they grow up.The chapter on Treasure Baskets and Heuristic play for babies and toddlers, describing the work of the Froebelian Elinor Goldschmied and those who are taking forward her work (Hughes and Cousins), demonstrates the importance of offering carefully chosen objects in the presence of a loved and significant adult. The Froebel Nursery Research School was based in the beautiful grounds of the Froebel Institute, of which the author was head and referred to as Mrs B in the book (Athey 1990). A group of families with children from birth to five years participated. When the observations of children were analysed three-quarters of the representations children made in drawings, constructions, dances they choreographed, music they composed, subjects they told stories about, or play observed could be traced back to an experience provided in the nursery which was exerting an influence on both the free-flow play and the representations. To put this in Froebelian terms, the symbolic life of the child was linked to the first-hand real and direct experiences offered.

Feature two Catherine Garvey (1977), who worked with Jerome Bruner, makes the case for children feeling in control as they play. In play there is no necessity to conform or bow to the pressures of external rules, outcomes, targets or adult-led ideas. Rules, in play, can be broken, created, changed and challenged. This enables children to face life, deal with and face situations, work out alternatives, change how things are done and cope with their future. Often, when they form a group as part of the adjustment before the play can flow, children will initiate games with definite rules, such as hopscotch, skipping rhymes, catch, or football as reported by the Opies (1988) in their major 13

Tina Bruce

observational studies of street games, songs and rhymes. Once the children of mixed ages are established in the game it often transforms, becoming play so that the children control the rules rather than receiving them. The older children lead. The younger children do their bidding. Children, through their play together come to realise that they can have some control over their lives. In play, rather than in games, children can, as Susan Isaacs (1968) suggested, escape into and out of play as it is under their control. Christopher does try to enter the ongoing play, now that he realises it is play, but his syncopation is off. I would gladly teach him the method if I could, but my rhythms don’t work either. He must watch the children, find his own style, and practice a great deal. One thing I can do for Christopher is to stop jumping in so quickly. By substituting my own cadence too often, I may be delaying his adaptation to the rhythm of the group. (Paley 1986: 84)

Feature three Play is a process. It has no products. When the play episode ends or fades, it vanishes as quickly as it arrived. Unlike a formal dance or song, written story, painting or constructed model, it cannot be set into a static, concrete result or finalised form. This is a great strength of play. It cannot be pinned down. It flows, and has all the hallmarks of improvisation. No one owns it or knows what will happen next, and it depends on the people playing and what they are playing with. There may be play props but not necessarily. Froebelians have always encouraged play using natural materials in Treasure Baskets, in Heuristic play and pretend play. When it comes to pretend play, solitary, paired or group, it is important for children to have clear guidance about the props they may purloin. Found props are to be encouraged, but taking another child’s transitional object (teddy bear) or the best china tea set from the cabinet at home is not allowed. Once children have clear boundaries they respect them, and this develops both self-discipline (Bruce 2015a: 30) and community-minded behaviour. Providing alternatives is the best way forward. Having a cheap set of china crockery, or using wooden offcuts as food instead of the expensive set of wooden unit blocks helps, but it is also of benefit to the development of creativity if children are encouraged to make their own props. Even 2-year-olds will readily use acorn cases for cups and leaves for plates, or twigs for cutlery. They will mix bread dough from water and mud in the garden, or pretend to make pastry using playdough. The less literal the toys provided the more the imagination works. Having plastic food constrains play and is an expensive irrelevance because children will probably decide a plastic apple is a potato. Why spend money on this plastic toy? If children learn to make their own props they can make things as they need them to be. The children leading the group play will make clear what the prop stands for with what Bateson calls the ‘announcement’, or by prescripting (Bateson 1956: 45; Nelson and Seidman 1984). The journey from literal to more abstract play is encouraged if literal props are not dominant. Children begin to imagine props when nothing tangible suits their needs, pretending to telephone or eat. Even toddlers do this. 14

Ponderings on play

Children use wooden blocks (Gura 1992), workshop materials such as clay and malleable provision giving opportunities for the reversible and irreversible transformation of materials through making props in woodwork, sewing, collage, painting and drawing, construction, stick laying, parquetry and more. Froebel introduced these into family life and the kindergartens that he founded, naming them the Gifts and Occupations.

Feature four There are several things in life that children cannot be forced to do. These include eating, sleeping, toileting and play. Children choose to play. Play is intrinsically motivated and emerges when the conditions are right, and then it flows and becomes sustained. In the past more children in the world than now learnt to play through older siblings, when play was quite literally, in the main, a child’s world. Now, with issues of safety about playing out in the street, urban isolation of families, and the pattern of placing children in single age groups in day-care centres and schools, children are less likely to play in mixed-age groups. Although children are more challenged nowadays in developing deep, mature free-flow play, child leaders still teach other children. Fein and Kinney (in Slade and Wolf 1994: 193) give an example of Kirsten, a master player (age 5 years) who helps Annie, who is the same age. Annie is out of her depth in pretend play that goes beyond the literal. Kirsten guides other children, to include Annie in the play about going to parties, and in doing so the play of all the children is enriched.The lifting from literal to more abstract is central to the Froebelian approach to play, and the adult role in enabling this is crucial. Elsa First (in Slade and Wolf 1994: 115) observed how 2-year-olds typically initiate the Leaving Game, which usually lasts for about three weeks of intensive play and involves the child leaving the co-player saying ‘I’m going’ with the instruction ‘You cry’. First sees this as an early social dramatic play involving two characters, with dialogue and plot, which the child controls.

Feature five Children rehearse possible futures or pasts in their play and learn to function in advance of what they can actually do in the present. This opens up role play which is given great focus in UK settings, often with literal dressing-up clothes rather than suggestions in the form of pieces of material which can be draped to become skirts or capes tied on, or hats and shoes which in simple symbolic ways transform children into different roles. A child might role play being a policeman, space woman, pirate, princess, soldier, robber, killer or mother who maltreats her children. Baddy or violent roles are not tolerated in some cultural contexts in which the view is strongly held that role playing a baddy, or anyone using violence, the child might become bad or violent, whereas telling a story from literature or a traditional story containing baddies and violence, and acting these out is seen as acceptable. Who controls the story and the characters, and therefore the result of the story is of central importance. Nicolopoulou and Ilgaz (2013) emphasises the central place of narrative and character in pretend play. 15

Tina Bruce

Control of the props is another aspect to be explored, as literal reality style props are very different from props made by the children. This has already resulted in the beginnings of fascinating seminars between the Froebel Trust team and staff of the primary school in the University of Johannesburg, and the early childhood setting they work with in Soweto. Penny Holland (2010) looked at how in the UK context zero tolerance of gun play in early childhood settings is prevalent with similar concerns for the staff in Johannesburg and Soweto, and the raising questions for schools based on army bases in the UK, where children wish to role play being soldiers while their fathers are on active service. Erikson (1963) argued that childhood play is a metaphor for the future life of a child, and this needs to be added into these important discussions. Froebel believed that in their play children explore good and evil.

Feature six Play lifts children from the here and now so that they can recast the past and create alternatives to the way things have been, are and could be. As a contrast to the role play of feature 5, in feature 6 children can become monsters, dogs, elves, clouds or butterflies. With the emergence of walking, talking and pretend play, McKellar (1957) places the imagination as a rearrangement of past experience in new and fascinating ways. The past can be visited. So can outer space or under the sea. Froebel (1887: 55) suggested that play is ‘not trivial, but highly serious and of deep significance’. Later,Vygotsky also saw play as a leading contributor to development in early childhood: In play a child always behaves beyond his average age, above his daily behaviour; in play it is as though he were a head taller than himself. As in the focus of a magnifying glass, play contains all the developmental tendencies in a condensed form and is itself a major source of development. (Vygotsky 1978: 102) Transformation from literal to abstract, what Froebel called the symbolic life of the child, is key to understanding the features of play: External forms of play are only hints of the inner forms, like the tips of an iceberg. Creative, imaginative play is enormously spacious; it can accommodate all possible experiences of the young child and provide the space to explore those experiences and enact them with other children. When we observe children playing we can follow the visible events, the external narrative. (Bredikyte 2011: 203) The richer the first-hand experiences of children, the richer the literal play can be, and this aids the transformation into more abstract forms of play. The transitions between the iterative process of playing with objects, engaging in literal play and steadily maturing sophisticated free-flow play (Bruce 1991) are important for developing minds.

16

Ponderings on play

Feature seven Many children today, in different parts of the world, have little opportunity for solitary play, especially if they are in daily group care. Personal space is important. It gives time for reflection, consolidation, mulling things over, considering things, what is known, what is puzzling, frightening or a comfort. For babies, play with the Treasure Basket gives opportunities for solitary play, or play with one or two babies sharing the basket. But crucially, the adult is there too, interested and observing, smiling if the baby shows them an object, taking it when offered, but staying quiet and giving the message that this is the baby’s time for personal space and the play that is part of that. Babies will often spend as much as an hour concentrating on play with the Treasure Basket in the quiet, interested company of an adult with whom they have a close and loving relationship. Froebelians value solitary play (giving children the space and time to be in control of their play) but might fail to recognise that the presence of the familiar, loved adult is crucial.Winnicott (1969: 29) makes clear the importance of companionship and the feeling of being separate, but also of belonging for toddlers as autonomy progresses. The Froebelian approach emphasises the need for knowledge and understanding of self in relation to others and the universe. Winnicott argues that enjoying our own company is a positive thing and a sign of emotional maturity.The journey towards this begins when babies and toddlers enjoy personal space while in the company of people they love and are comfortable with. They become creative as they play. This connects with Vygotsky’s assertion (Vygotsky 1978) that the highest forms of thinking begin in social relationships. Later solitary play allows children to engage in small world pretend play, perhaps with a doll’s house, farm, hospital or street scene. Or there may be an imaginary friend or dog. Sometimes solitary players join with each other, and a child making a castle of wooden blocks permits a child making a road to reach the castle entrance, so that the play transitions into a joint play scenario. Famous writers such as H. G. Wells, the Brontë sisters, and E. E. Nesbitt all spent time in solitary play as children. The author of this chapter confesses that she still has her doll’s house which was important aged 8 years in moving house and spending time alone during the transition into a new location.

Features eight and nine Children play with each other, in pairs and groups but adults also join children in their play. The last period of Froebel’s life led to his work on the Mother Songs.This terminology is now offputtingly out of date, tethered to 1844. These stress the relationships between parents and grandparents or older siblings in the family, singing with babies and toddlers (Powell, Werth and Goouch 2013), and using finger plays and body actions to accompany them (Bruce and Spratt 2011). The parent can push against the baby’s legs when changing the baby, singing whilst doing so. Or, as they play with the baby on their lap (and/or toddler and young child), adults introduce the names of their fingers and other body parts, such as Tommy Thumb, but also the thumb stands for a person (Tommy), or an animal in nature (a bee) and the hand can become a bee hive, house or hammer. This transformative element gives a nuanced, layered and

17

Tina Bruce

abstract but tangible experience paving the way for later dramatic play and helping children move beyond the literal. Froebel’s Movement Games use the whole body, either on the spot or moving about, again emphasising the symbolic aspects with people, nature, buildings, places and events. There are songs of travelling, walking, hopping songs and songs with narratives and characters rehearsing more complex stories such as Sleeping Beauty or Rapunzel. This opens the young minds, for example, in the garden to making dens inhabited by elves, or flowers that become children in a class in school. Anything can happen! There is an urgent need for Froebelians to investigate the powerful ways in which colleagues undertaking research are currently exploring ways of joining children in their social pretend play, so that it moves beyond the literal and becomes free flowing, sophisticated and mature. Chapters in this handbook address such aspects.

Feature ten Free-flow play is characterised by deep concentration, such that children are not easily distracted and wallow in their play. Concentration is of great importance in later school learning, but wallowing is deeper than this. Froebel emphasised the need for children to make the inner outer and the outer inner. ‘In play a child develops and masters the structure of their own thinking. They lay the foundations of expression of the child’s emotional experiences and release their spiritual potential’ (Bredikyte 2011: 203).

Feature eleven In play children try out and apply their recent learning.They show mastery, competence and technical prowess. They show us what they know about driving a car, paying for shopping, dealing with a crying baby, climbing the rigging as a pirate, and that play fighting is not real fighting when warding off a monster. Piagetian theory had a massive impact on practice for half a century, and his thinking still holds useful aspects, such as equilibration. Equilibration is like a balancing act, between the constant adapting and modifying of what was previously known but found lacking (accommodation), and applying what is known and understood (assimilation). In play, assimilation predominates.

Feature twelve Play is an integrating mechanism (Bruce 1991; Rogers 2015), allowing flexible, adaptive, imaginative, innovative behaviour. It helps children (who become adults) decide what to do when they don’t know what to do. It aids the development of grounded, whole people, able to keep balancing their lives in a fast changing world. ‘The plays of childhood are the germinal leaves of all later life’ (Froebel 1887: 54).

Conclusion This chapter has briefly gathered together three assemblages of Froebelian practices in relation to early childhood play. The first was in Froebel’s time and courageously 18

Ponderings on play

initiated by him.The next was a reaction caused by the unsettled concerns in England of Froebelian leaders in colleges and inspection services about the rigid interpretations of Froebelian practices. This led to a principled approach (Bruce 1987, 2015b), which abandoned the earlier practices. The third assemblage is in process. In the current hostile climate in the UK practitioners are clinging to received wisdom regarding play, which has become muddled. Froebelians have traditionally risen to challenges, and indeed led the way, especially where play is concerned. The time is right to make anew assemblages of what emerges as characterising Froebelian play.

Bibliography Athey, C. (1990) Extending Thought in Young Children: A Parent Teacher Partnership. London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd. Bateson, G. (1956) The Message ‘This is play’. In B. Schaffner (Ed.), Group Processes. New York: Josiah Macy. Bredikyte, M. (2011) The Zones of Proximal Development in Children’s Play. Oulu: University of Oulu. Brehony, K. (2000) English revisionist Froebelians and schooling of the urban poor. In M. Hilton and P. Hirsch (Eds.), Practical Visionaries: Women, Education and Social Progress 1790–1930. Harlow: Pearson Education, pp. 69–91. Brehony, K. (2016) Working at play or playing at work? A Froebelian paradox re-examined. In H. May, K. Nawrotzki and L. Proschner (Eds.), Kindergarten Narratives on Froebelian Education. London: Bloomsbury Press. Bruce, T. (1987) Early Childhood Education. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Bruce, T. (1991) Time to Play in Early Childhood Education and Care. London, Sydney, Auckland, Toronto: Hodder and Stoughton. Bruce, T. and Meggitt, C. (1996) Childcare and Education. London: Hodder Education. Bruce,T. (1997) Adults and children developing play together. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 5(1), 89–99. Bruce, T. (2010) Froebel Today. In L. Miller and L. Pound (Eds.), Theories and Approaches to Learning in the Early Years. London: Sage, pp. 55–70. Bruce, T., Meggitt, C. and Grenier, J. (2010) Child Care and Education. London: Hodder Education. Bruce, T. and Spratt, J. (2011) Essentials of Literacy from 0–7: A Whole Child Approach to Communication, Language and Literacy. London: Sage. Bruce, T. (Ed.) (2012) Early Childhood Practice: Froebel Today. Sage: London. Bruce, T., Louis, S. and McCall, G. (2014) Observing Young Children. London: Sage. Bruce, T. (2015a) Early Childhood Education, 5th edn. London: Hodder Education. Bruce,T. (2015b) Endpiece. In J. Moyles (Ed.) The Excellence of Play, 4th edn. Maidenhead: Open University Press, McGraw Hill. Bruce, T. (2016) Friedrich Froebel. In T. David, K. Goouch and S. Powell (Eds.), The Routledge International Handbook of Philosophies and Theories of Early Childhood Education and Care. London: Routledge. Central Advisory Council for Education (1967) Children and their Primary Schools (The Plowden Report). London: HMSO. Corsaro, W. (1979) ‘We’re friends, right?’ Children’s use of access rituals in a nursery school. Language in Society, 8, 315–336. Damasio, A. (2004) Looking for Spinoza. London:Vintage/Random Press. Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) (2008) Early Years Foundation Stage. Nottingham: DCSF. Department for Education (DfE) (2012) The Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage. Cheshire: DfE.

19

Tina Bruce Department of Education and Science (DES) (1990) Starting with Quality: The Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Quality of the Educational Experience offered to 3 and 4 year olds. London: HMSO. Department for Education and Skills (DfES) (2002) Birth to Three Matters. London: DfES. Dowling, M. (2013) Young Children’s Thinking. London: Sage. Erikson, E. (1963) Childhood and Society. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Fein, G., and Kinney, P. (1994) He’s a nice alligator: observations on the affective organisation of pretense. In A. Slade and D.Wolf (Eds.), Children at Play: Clinical and Developmental Approaches to Meaning and Representation. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 188–206. First, E. (1994) The leaving game, or I’ll play you and you play me: The emergence of dramatic role play in 2 year olds. In A. Slade and D. Wolf (Eds.), Children at Play: Clinical and Developmental Approaches to Meaning and Representation. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 111–133. Froebel, F. (1887) The Education of Man. Translated by R. Hailmann. New York: Appleton. Garvey, C. (1977) Play. London: Collins/Fontana Open Books. Gura, P. (Ed.) (1992) Exploring Learning: Young Children and Blockplay. London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd. Gussin Paley, L. (1986) Molly is Three. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hadow (1933) Report of the Consultative Committee. London: HMSO Holland, P. (2010) We don’t Play with Guns Here: War, Weapons and Super Hero Play, 2nd edn. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Hughes, A. (2015) Developing Play for the Under Threes:The Treasure Basket and Heuristic Play, 2nd edn. London: Routledge. Isaacs, S. (1968) The Nursery Years. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Kalliala, M. (2004) Play Culture in a Changing World. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Laevers, F. (1994) The Innovative Project: Experiential Education. Katholieke Universiteit, Leuven, Belgium: Research Centre for Early Childhood and Primary Education. Lambirth, A. (2016) Dialogic space theory. In T. David, K. Goouch and S. Powell (Eds.), The Routledge International Handbook of Philosophies and Theories of Early Childhood Education and Care. London: Routledge, pp. 165–175. Liebschner, J. (1992) A Child’s Work: Freedom and Guidance in Froebel’s Educational Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Lutterworth. McKellar, P. (1957) Imagination and Thinking. London: Cohen and West. Meggitt, C., Manning-Morton, J. and Bruce, T. (Eds.) (2016) Child Care and Education. London: Hodder Education. Nelson, K. and Seidman, S. (1984) Playing with scripts. In I. Bretherton (Ed.), Symbolic Play. New York: Academic Press, pp. 45–72. Nicolopoulou, A. and Ilgaz, H. (2013) What do we know about pretend play and narrative development? American Journal of Play, 6(1), 55–81. Opie, I. and Opie, P. (1988) The Singing Game. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. Osgood, J. (2016) Postmodernist theorising in ECEC. In T. David, K. Goouch and S. Powell (Eds.), The Routledge International Handbook of Philosophies and Theories of Early Childhood Education and Care. London: Routledge, pp. 157–164. Piaget, J. and Inhelder, B. (1969) The Psychology of the Child. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Powell, S., Werth, L. and Goouch, K. (2013) Mother Songs in Daycare for Babies. Report to the Froebel Trust Research Committee, Canterbury Christ Church University Research Centre for Children, Families and Communities, 9 September. Qualifications and Curriculum Agency (QCA) (2000) Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage. London: QCA. Roberts, M. and Tamburrini, J. (Eds.) (1981) Child Development 0–5. Edinburgh: Holmes McDougall. Rogers, S. (2015) Pretend Play and its integrative role in young children’s thinking. In S. Robson and S. Quinn (Eds.), Routledge International Handbook of Young Children’s Thinking and Understanding. London/New York: Routledge, pp. 282–293.

20

Ponderings on play Scottish Government (2014) Building the Ambition: National Practice Guidance on Early Learning and Childcare and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014. Smilansky, S. (1986) The Effects of Socio-Dramatic Play on Disadvantaged Pre-School Children. New York: John Wiley. Urban, M. (2016) Froebel meets the World Bank: Challenges and possibilities for holistic approaches to practice and policy in a globalised early childhood context. Lecture given at the International Froebel Society, 24 June 2016, Evangelisches Froebelseminar Kassel. Vygotsky, L. (1978) Mind in Society:The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. London and Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Winnicott, D. (1969) The capacity to be alone. In D. Winnicott (Ed.), The Maturational Processes and the Facilitating Environment: Studies in the Theory of Emotional Development. London: Karnac Books.

21

2 Locating play today Suzanne Flannery Quinn

What, where, and when is play for young children: initial complications The task of locating play is complicated by the range of activities that can be called play.This is further complicated by using the word play to signify nearly anything that children do, and furthermore, by associating play with idealised, romantic notions of childhood itself. More complications arise at this point, because of individual differences in young children, and differences that occur due to the rapid growth and change that occur in the early years of life. We tend to assume that all children can, should, and do, play. It’s just what children do. Or is it? Thinking or subscribing to the thought that play is almost anything a young child does disregards their agency, and minimises our empathy for the broad range of children’s experiences: children play, but they also work at things, struggle with things, spend time observing things, and try to make sense of things. Many different things, in many different ways, by many different people, in many different places! In order to do any of the things that children do, including play, children must also eat (and many are hungry), rest (and many do not have adequate and stable shelter), and have health and well-being (and many do not). So as we begin to try to locate play, we must do so with the understanding that play is not just anything that all children do, and that the experiences of young people (in play or in other activities) are not the same. We think we know what play is by its most prominent characteristic: it’s enjoyable, and this is a good thing. But thinking that play is just an enjoyable, good thing that children can and should do is not only an over-simplification, but it also places play at the mercy of a struggle for power that involves questions of what is enjoyable and good for young children, and who decides.There are many perspectives, those of developmental scientists, theorists, educationalists, governments, businesses, practitioners/teachers, parents, and children. Some have more power than others to make decisions about what is enjoyable or good for children, and where, when, or if these enjoyable and good things happen. Play itself can get lost in the landscape of desires, intentions, and actions 22

Locating play today

of people who are making decisions in the interests of young children. If we want to locate play, we must not over-simplify our understandings of play as just an enjoyable good thing, but we must recognise its complexity, and begin to understand the range of perspectives that contribute to our ideas about play as more than just a good thing for children.

A microscopic view: play moves It is difficult to locate play, because it moves – in and out of a variety of activities that people and other animals engage in, at all ages. For young humans, activities as diverse as pretending to bake a cake, building block structures, or participating in sports, could all be identified at first glance as play, but upon closer examination, they may not be. Taking the lead of Caillois and Henricks (see Henricks 2010), I propose that the characteristics of play that move it into and out of activities are generally related to the amount of control the player(s) have over the activity, and the ability of the player(s) to use and act on their imagination. Both control and imagination involve freedom (to play or not to play) and choices (how and what to play). The imaginative aspect of play involves the understanding, on the part of the players, that the activity is at the same time real and not real. All of these aspects of play can fluctuate, depending on the circumstances and contexts surrounding the activity, which can change play into something that is not play, or something in-between, and can travel in the opposite direction, changing something that is not play into something that is.These fluctuations can occur within an activity, but can also be used to judge different activities that seem similar. A young child who has decided to pretend to bake a cake on a stove they made out of disused cardboard boxes in their garden using sticks and mud is likely playing. They had the freedom to choose to play and how to play, and they used their imagination to pretend that by putting mud and sticks on a cardboard box (a real activity), they were baking a cake (even though it was not really a cake). However, if the same child were asked to act out baking a cake by an adult in a school setting for the purpose of determining whether or not the activity will help them to develop their vocabulary, the activity begins to seem less like play, and more like a learning task, even if it is enjoyable. The difference is in the control the child has over the activity. The activity that is more like play is the activity that involved their choices that involved materials, places, times, and outcomes of the activity. In the activity that is less like play, adults were making most of the choices, with predetermined outcomes. In another example, imagine a young child using blocks to build a tower along with friends during ‘free play’ time at a nursery school. Some children have started to build an enclosure for their small world animals, and they are trying to figure out how to make a gate to the enclosure to let the animals go in and out. One child has the idea to turn two blocks sideways so that they look different from the others, and another child thinks that doesn’t look quite right and tells them ‘that’s not good!’ so they add another block to the top and proudly exclaim ‘it’s a door for the tall ones’ much to the satisfaction of their friend who trots the horse through the door and says ‘just right’. The children are working on a problem of their own making. They have decided to use the blocks and use their imaginations, and they have decided what to do and how to do it with resources 23

Suzanne Flannery Quinn

available to them. Most would agree that they are playing with the blocks. If the same children were asked to make a block tower as part of a developmental assessment, to determine their abilities against established norms, the activity might not be considered play. Completing a developmental assessment has the connotation of work, due to the goal of the activity being set by a person other than the child, and the use of the information to make determinations about the child’s abilities.The complication is that the activity in the first scenario offers flexibility in the choice of materials and in the outcome of the construction, while a nearly identical activity, done for the purposes of assessment, is narrowed by limited choices and predetermined outcomes. I would also suggest that the child being assessed is likely aware of this difference, as well. In a final example, young children who have decided to organise to play a game of football on pitch in the park can be considered to be at play. Even though the game has rules, the game is ‘played’ according to those rules. The children pick sides, and the ‘best’ players get picked first. The youngest child does not get picked until the end, and when they are picked it is clear that they weren’t wanted. When the game begins, they rarely get passed the ball, and when they do get the ball, they are afraid to make a mistake. Rather than advancing towards the goal they pass the ball right away to a child next to them who is yelling at them aggressively to pass it. They want to play, but feelings of enjoyment are tempered by anxiety and perhaps self-doubt. The ball gets stolen, and the other team scores the final point – they have ‘won’. They are pleased, they are the champions, they are the best! And everyone on the losing team blames the youngest child who they didn’t want to play on their team.This is play.The players chose the activity, the game has rules, and the players can play as they want, within those rules.The game is real, the players are really passing, kicking, and scoring goals – but it is also imaginative – the winners have not really ‘won’ anything other than the game, and the children who are on the losing team can be consoled in that ‘it’s only a game’. But for the youngest child who gets blamed, they probably feel terrible. Play is not always enjoyable for everyone. This does not make the play a bad thing.We can imagine that the child who feels terrible develops a sense of resilience, perhaps by being comforted by others who have empathy for their feelings, or perhaps they redeem themselves over time by developing skill at the game, and scoring some goals and becoming the new hero. Or maybe they make the decision to never play football again, but find something that they decide is more enjoyable to play. In the examples I offer, we take a microscopic view of play, and we see that it moves. It is circumstantial, and situational. It can be located in the moments where there is control and imagination, for the players. It can be located in homes, in schools, or in neighbourhoods. It can be located in solitary activities, in peer interactions, or in group games. But it is not just an enjoyable, good thing for children, and it can be manipulated by the intentions and purposes set by people other than the players. How do these manipulations gain entry into play?

A macroscopic view: locating play in policies, practices, and discourses Within the United Kingdom, and in many countries throughout Europe and beyond, policies have a direct influence on what, where, and when children play. Policies that 24

Locating play today

affect the families of young children have a significant impact on young children, for example, policies related to social benefits, affordable housing, nutrition, transportation, the use of public spaces, as well as family law, and employment. The policies that most directly influence children’s experiences and their play are those related to the provision and funding of a range of early years services (childcare as well as education). These policies have implications for the cost of the services, the locations of the services, the qualifications of the workforce, and curriculum. For example, in England there is a statutory curriculum for all children under the age of five, called the Early Years Foundation Stage, or the EYFS (DfE 2014). Similarly, across the United States of America, all fifty states have (different) guidance on early years curriculum, developed by the individual states, although the guidance is not statutory as it is in England.Within Europe, and in other parts of the world, there are similar policies that have a direct effect on children’s early experiences outside their homes. Many children under the age of compulsory schooling (which varies by country) spend time in early childcare settings, or nurseries. While there is variability between countries and states, the rate of participation in Europe of 3-year-old children in preprimary education was 82%, and 91% for children who are four (Eurodice/Eurostat 2014). In the US, the participation rate for children who are three is 35% and 61% for children who are four (Education Week Research Center 2015). For children under the age of three, participation in centre-based childcare/education is much lower. But it is difficult to get an accurate picture, as the statistics from the US are presented as a percentage of children in childcare under the age of four whose mothers are employed (24%) rather than as a percentage of all children in this age range. Information on centre-based childcare for children under three in Europe shows great variability, with 30% of children under three attending some kind of ‘formal’ childcare as the average across Europe, but 74% in Denmark, and less than 10% in eight countries.While there is variability, the trend is that as children get older, more of them spend time in formal care and ‘pre-school’ or ‘school’ settings, and for more hours per week. Curriculum policies directly affect children in formal childcare, early childcare settings or school settings. Most curriculum for young children makes mention of ‘play’ as an activity for young children. In most curriculum for young children, play is viewed as a good thing for children, and is generally located within goals for learning. This is the nature of curriculum that has an emphasis on ‘school readiness’ and ‘closing the achievement gap’ and ‘outcomes’ which are prominent discourses in many industrialised countries. Within these documents, play is used to signify activities that children take part in, and as a context for learning. Rarely is play described explicitly in terms of the relative amount of control and imagination that the children might have in their activities, and nearly always the purposes and outcomes of play are linked to learning (whether the child has control over the activity or not). According to Eurydice/Eurostat (2014), most countries in Europe recommend that early care and educational settings adopt approaches that have a balance between adultled and child-initiated activities, and a balance of group and individual activities. According to the report, the principle of ‘free-play’ is used in approximately half of the countries in the EU. The recommendations are usually broad, and in many countries 25

Suzanne Flannery Quinn

settings are free to develop their own curriculum or to interpret the curriculum according to local desires. In North America, curriculum guidance (which differs by state) generally takes the lead from the National Association for the Education of Young Children’s position statement on Developmentally Appropriate Practice (2009) which states that ‘play is an important vehicle for devel­oping self-regulation as well as for pro­moting language, cognition, and social competence’ (p. 14) and recommends that ‘active scaffolding of imaginative play is needed in early childhood settings if children are to develop the sustained, mature dramatic play that contributes significantly to their self-regulation and other cognitive, linguistic, social, and emotional ben­efits’ (p. 15). These curriculum policies are not only shaped by general discourses of play as a good thing that is linked to early learning, but they also shape the discourses of practitioners/teachers and families who begin to talk about and think about play as a ‘characteristic of effective teaching and learning’ as in the EYFS (DfE 2014: 9), or a ‘primary context for learning’ as in the California Preschool Curriculum Framework (California Department of Education 2010: 5), to take just two examples. These discourses translate into practices and experiences for young people that locate play within outcomes for learning, under the guidance, direction, and ‘scaffolding’ of adults who are under pressure from the emphasis on providing ‘quality’ services, and ‘accountability’ that is measured by predetermined learning ‘outcomes’. In England, for example, the discourse of play acknowledges that there is a benefit to children leading their own play, but emphasis is on the links to learning, and the need for ‘planned and purposeful play’ (DfE, 2014: 9). The planning of the play is the responsibility of the practitioner/teacher, and the purpose of the play is linked to learning outcomes. From these examples, we take a macroscopic view and see that curriculum policy tends to restrict the movement of play towards predetermined learning outcomes.The manipulations of play by adults gain entry into play via the policy. The policy, by law, but also by its language, has power. This makes it all the more important to develop awareness of policy processes, and to carefully and critically consider the discourses around play and childhood. How do these discourses develop?

Looking back: discourses of play from the ‘founder of the kindergarten’ Friedrich W. A. Froebel was a nineteenth-century German pedagogue, who was a pioneer and advocate for the education for very young children, and the training of professional teachers, most of whom were women. Froebel was the founder of the ‘kindergarten’ (c.1840), which was a unique educational setting for young children. His ideas about early care and education have a legacy that has spread throughout the world through the teachers that he educated who set up kindergartens and training centres. Froebel’s legacy has also been carried forward by those who were inspired by his wisdom regarding the principle of unity which guides learning, the importance of play, the value of learning through nature and outdoor learning environments. Play is located prominently within Froebel’s original ideas about the kindergarten, as an activity that is an expression of the child’s soul. On the surface it seems that Froebel had a romantic view of childhood and play, but it was not an over-simplified nor unconsidered view. For Froebel, play was recognised as complex, meaningful, and very important. 26

Locating play today

Froebel did not invent play, nor was he the first to suggest education for very young children, but his influence was strong, particularly in the kindergarten movements in both the UK and the US. Therefore, looking back on Froebel’s ideas might help us locate play discourses that helped to shape our ideas about education and play for very young children. For Froebel, and those inspired by his pedagogy, early education is based on a recognition of the strengths and abilities of the young learners and an emphasis on activity and engagement in order to awaken the young person’s consciousness (Brehony 2009). Influenced by Pestalozzi, he believed that through education, we strive to ‘make the outer inner – and the inner, outer’ and that education, as a self-directed process, should ‘lead man to a clear knowledge of himself, to peace with nature, to unity with God’ (Froebel, c.1826, trans 1912: 32). Central aspects of Froebelian practice and pedagogy are outdoor experiences, gardening, songs and games, the use of ‘gifts’ and engagement in what he called ‘occupations’. Froebel’s original gifts are a series of specifically designed objects that were meant to be given to children to explore and create. The objects were designed to be used in open-ended play activities, and each gift was meant to help the child begin to understand the properties or affordances of objects in relation to him/herself and the surrounding world. The gifts have symbolic as well as practical qualities. For example, the first ‘Gift’ was a set of soft coloured spheres, suitable for infants. Each sphere was tied to a string so that the child’s mother or other caring adult could use the object to play with the child. For Froebel, the sphere was a symbol of unity and connectedness, and it was also an enjoyable object that could help a child to recognise the properties of the shape in motion, and an object that could assist a caring adult to play with a child. Froebel’s occupations are activities that help the learner to develop practical skills in relation to his/her emerging capacities (physically and intellectually). The occupations are activities such as modelling clay, paper folding, cutting, weaving, drawing, painting, and sewing. A key distinction between the gifts and the occupations is that the materials used in gift play are meant to demonstrate that matter, in the form of these solid objects, can only be transformed, and not changed, altered, or destroyed. Gifts are presented in the form of a ‘whole’ which is comprised of parts that are returned to their original state.The materials used in occupations demonstrate that modifications can be made to alter the form and purpose of matter into new creations. For example, paint and paper can be used to create representational art in the form of a painting. Froebel saw education as a process of recognising the unity between ourselves, others, nature, and God. He wrote: In childhood there is a four-fold development of life – the child’s own inner life; his life in relation with parents and family; his life in relation, common to him and them, with a higher invisible Being; and, especially, his life in relation with nature, regarded as endowed with life like his own. (Froebel, c.1826, trans 1912: 50) His pedagogy involved the facilitation of the learner’s active interaction with the environment. According to his principles, an essential means of engagement with the world around us is in the form of play. He accorded play as an expression of human 27

Suzanne Flannery Quinn

spirituality, and is well known for articulating that ‘play is the highest expression of human development in childhood for it alone is the free expression of what is in the child’s soul’ (Froebel, c.1826, trans. 1912: 50–51). Froebel’s distinct notion of play is one that recognises play as providing a means for discovery of the unity of self and other with a universal Spirit, which is evident in one of his most renowned quotes: play is the purest and most spiritual product of the child, and at the same time it is a type and copy of human life at all stages and in all relations. So it induces joy, freedom, contentment, inner and outer repose, peace with all the world. From it flows all good. (Froebel, c.1826, trans. 1912: 50–51) For Froebel play might be free flowing and child led, but it could also be adult guided, as in his Mother Songs (Froebel, 1920), which were songs and pictures with accompanying finger plays.These songs and games were designed to help mothers and fathers and the women who trained to be kindergarteners (kindergarten teachers) to use song and movement to help the child become aware of the wider world, nature, and the community. The topic of many Mother Songs was related to roles within the village, such as the shop man, the gardener, and the baker. The songs came with words and pictures, and instructions for the adult to guide the play. In the song called the baker, the adult is suggested to play a game with the child pretending to bake a cake. Froebel believed that the natural environment had a special significance to a person’s unfolding understanding of the unity and harmony of all things. He wondered, ‘why does man, wandering through gardens and fields, meadows and groves, fail to open his mind, and refuse to listen to the lesson which nature silently teaches?’ (Froebel, c.1826, trans. 1912: 33). This question guides a Froebel-inspired educator to appreciate the importance of the natural environment, and to have outdoor experiences readily available for young people. Froebel’s legacy has had a profound influence in many parts of the world, but particularly for German, British and North American early education. In its 170 years, the Froebelian legacy has been alive through the spirit of revision (Nawrotzki 2006; Read 2011) and through migration (May 2006).Within this time period, practices and technologies have adapted. Despite revision of practice, key principles can be identified as distinctly Froebelian: the concept of unity or connectedness, the value of the natural environment, and the importance of play as a context for early learning. A Froebelian pedagogy would encourage the learner to take initiative, and the pedagogue to nourish the child’s need to seek the unity between all things which emerges as the child grows into consciousness, and into an understanding of her/himself as a physical-mindfulspiritual being.The role of a Froebelian teacher is to inspire the child to ‘live and act in harmony with unity’ (Froebel, c.1826, trans. 1912: 83). Because Froebel saw all humans as growing in consciousness, he believed that teachers in the act of teaching are also increasing their own knowledge and insight as a result (Froebel, c.1826, trans. 1912: 154). For Froebel, the school is much more than a place where knowledge is imparted from teacher to pupil. A school is a place for living and learning. He wrote: ‘a true 28

Locating play today

school, therefore, implies the presence of an intelligent mind which partakes in the nature both of the pupil and of the external world, and so can link them together in language and understanding’ (Froebel, c.1826, trans. 1912: 80). Froebel calls on parents and teachers and the whole community to simply ‘come, let us live with our children’ (Froebel, c.1826, trans. 1885: 53). His emphasis was not so much on the outcomes of education in terms of discrete skills or areas of learning, but on living with children. This was the spirit of the kindergarten. In the origins of the kindergarten, we can locate play within the discourses of encouraging children to learn about the relationships between themselves and others, in spirit and in nature. For Froebel, play was not located in discourses of outcomes and accountability. However today, 200 years later, we have seen a shift from a view of play and early education as a benefit for children’s holistic development to a view of play and early education as a benefit to society via children’s development. How did progress take us in this direction?

Discourses of development and progress: the problem of looking forward As we consider what might have caused a shift in discourses of play and early education as a benefit for children’s holistic development to those that articulate play and early education as a benefit to society via children’s development, we might begin with a closer look at the discourses of development itself, and the emergence of developmental theories during Froebel’s time and the early kindergartens which merged with sciences over the last two centuries, creating ‘developmental science’. Sutton-Smith (1997) suggests that play within a developmental science paradigm is located in discourses of progress. Play, then, is thought of as an activity that guides us in a direction, towards something desired. Play, therefore, enhances development, and seemingly, it naturally can be linked to, and used for, the purpose of learning. But if we are looking at play in this way, as an activity that enhances our development, and ensures our progress, the questions we must ask are: who decides what the goals of development are? And who determines the destiny of such progress? There are many topics of interest within developmental science, which has grown to include a range of specialities (language development, physical development, cognitive development, emotional development, to name a few), and sub-disciplines (for example, those who study speech, literacy, health, movement, memory, etc.). Some developmental science has involved the study of play because it is an activity that children engage in (as a context for child development), while some developmental science has taken up the topic of the ‘development of play’. The work of developmental science involves methods of research that require phenomena to be defined and measured, and possibly linked with the antecedent abilities of the people they are observing and the subsequent outcomes for these people. Their challenge is in part due to the expectation of their professional task, to prove or disprove the benefits of play according to the tenets of their paradigms. This is a problem that can be worked out by the tools they use to navigate their work. For example, if a developmental scientist is interested in the relationship between play and 29

Suzanne Flannery Quinn

vocabulary learning, they could design a play intervention by setting a protocol for what ‘play’ is to occur, and set a measurement for vocabulary learning, and determine if the ‘play’ aided in the learning of vocabulary by comparing a group of similar children who had a play intervention with a group who did not. In a study like this, Han et al. (2010) found that children who experienced a play intervention (which involved acting out selected vocabulary words from story books, with a specific play script led by adults) showed a steeper growth trajectory in relation to their vocabulary development. In an example of the play intervention in their carefully designed study, adults read a story about baking a cake to children, and guided the children in pretending to bake a cake, following a carefully designed script. The purpose of the make-believe activity was to reinforce the learning of the word bake. In the guided play script, the adult was meant to encourage the children to pretend to mix the ingredients together, allowing the child to be the leader, put the pretend cake in a pretend oven and pretend to bake it. Studies like this one are often used to support the idea that play enhances learning, and that play should be an integral component of early years curriculum, particularly for children ‘at risk’ (for school failure, or for social problems, and the economic consequences related to those problems). The link between play and learning is one that most people who care for and work with young people would embrace enthusiastically, because it can be used to advocate for the inclusion of play in policies that concern and affect young people, primarily policies related to early childhood education and care. However, I am going to suggest that we take a critical stance and carefully deconstruct not only the notions of ‘play’ within studies of child development such as Han et al.’s (2010), but further, how these notions of play get interpreted in policy and curriculum, and feed the discourses of play and early education as ‘progress’. Han et al. (2010) have titled the publication of their research on play intervention ‘Does play make a difference? How Play Intervention Affects the Vocabulary Learning of At-Risk Preschoolers’. An important and provocative question! One that would catch the attention of practitioners and scholars who are giving evidence to policy makers. Theirs was a well-designed study, and I take it as an exemplar, not for the purposes of singling it out for critique. But we can use the study to think about some very important issues that are related to locating play within discourses of learning, outcomes, and progress, in the context of early childcare settings, and against the backdrop of discourses of deficit and disadvantage. Perhaps our first question might be: are the children ‘playing’ when they are being guided to make believe they are baking a cake, for the purpose of their vocabulary development? You may have a quick yes or a quick no, and then get stuck in-between. You may be tempted to create a checklist and tick boxes.This is not particularly useful. Instead of spending energy on trying to fit the activities onto a matrix that defines play, let’s consider that play is complex, and it can move, into and out of activities. Using this perspective, I would suggest that the activity does not begin and end as play, because the script is set by the adults and the outcomes are predetermined. However, play moves in when the child takes control and uses their imagination. Does this kind of play allow the child to express what is in their soul? It might, we cannot know, for 30

Locating play today

we cannot measure the soul. Does the play resemble Froebel’s ideas about play, for example in the Mothersongs? Very much so. Does that make it play? I’m not sure, but I am happy to see that the ‘play’ seems to make a difference! The problem is not with the play, or with the research, but with how the findings of ‘a steeper growth trajectory’ in the research might be interpreted, and used, and put into practice that might make its way into early childhood settings, particularly for children ‘at risk’ in a policy climate that has targets for particular kinds of progress and is focused on outcomes and accountability. If policymaking entities (such as governments) are looking for a particular kind of progress, and they are relying solely on the navigational tools of developmental science to find play today, what direction are they headed in? It seems that the direction is towards what is measurable, and towards what we can be accountable for, which limits and confines the movement of play.This is of particular concern when there are targets to ‘close the achievement gap’ between children ‘at risk’ (who are usually poor and ethnic minority) and children who are not at risk (who are usually economically comfortable and enjoy the benefits of belonging to majority culture). This is a concern, because rather than investing in policies that would ease the burdens of poverty through social assistance, and investing in programmes to support racial and gender equality, we want to intervene in children’s play. In light of this, what other navigational tools might we use to help us locate play today?

Looking around: participating in democracy and locating play through critical consciousness Policies and policy processes related to young children are of crucial importance to anyone who cares for and about young children (Dahlberg and Moss 2005).Yet policies and politics can make some practitioners/teachers of young children feel uncomfortable, due to the perceived personal and professional risks that must be taken to think differently about such things as play, developmental science, educational goals, and issues of social justice.This discomfort can be used as a call for action and solidarity to participate in democracy in our efforts towards living with children. Democracy requires participation. Learning about policy and political aspects of working with young children and their families requires the cultivation of critical consciousness, what Freire (1970) describes as the personal development of an understanding of your life, in and with the world. Underpinning this consciousness is the belief that we are all capable of transforming, producing, deciding, creating, and communicating with the world. Freire suggests that the consciousness is raised by reflecting upon your life ‘within the very domain of existence, and question[ing] [your] relationship with the world’ (Freire 1970: 52). From a critical perspective, we can begin to locate play within the questions that we ask ourselves in response to the discourses around play, as we develop an understanding of our lives, with children, and with the world. How do we feel when we play with young children? How do we think that children feel about play? How can we think and talk about play in ways that resist the dominant discourses? 31

Suzanne Flannery Quinn

References Brehony, K. J. (2009). Transforming theories of childhood and early childhood education: child study and the empirical assault on Froebelian rationalism, Paedagogica Historica, 45(4–5), 585–604. California Department of Education (2010). California Preschool Curriculum Framework Volume 1. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education. Dahlberg, G. and Moss, P. (2005). Ethics and Politics in Early Childhood Education. Contesting Early Childhood. London: Routledge Falmer. Department for Education (DfE) (2014). Early Years Foundation Stage. Available online: www. gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/335504/EYFS_ framework_from_1_September_2014_with_clarification_note.pdf (accessed 7 February 2017). Education Week Research Center (2015). Early Childhood Education in the US: An analysis. Education Week, published online 2 January 2015. Available online at: www.edweek.org/ew/ qc/2015/early-childhood-education-in-the-us.html (accessed 7 February 2017). European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice/Eurostat (2014). Key Data on Early Childhood Education and Care in Europe. 2014 Edition. Eurydice and Eurostat Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Freire, P. (1970). Cultural Action for Freedom. Harmondsworth: Continuum. Froebel, F. (c.1826, trans. 1885). The Education of Man, trans. Josephine Jarvis. New York: A. Lovell and Company. Froebel F. (c.1826, trans. 1912). Froebel’s Chief Writings on Education (Rendered into English), trans. S. S. F. Fletcher and J. Welton. London: Edward Arnold. Froebel, F. (1920). Mother’s Songs,Games and Stories. Rendered into English by F. Lord and E. Lord. London: William Rice (Original work published 1843). Han, M., Moore, N.,Vukelich, C. and Buell, M. (2010). Does play make a difference? How play intervention affects the vocabulary learning of at-risk pre-schoolers. American Journal of Play, (summer), 82–105. Henricks, T. S. (2010). Caillois’s Man, Play, and Games. An Appreciation and Evaluation. American Journal of Play (fall), 157–185. May, H. (2006).‘Being Froebelian’: An Antipodean Analysis of the History of Advocacy and Early Childhood. History of Education: Journal of the History of Education Society, 35:2, 245–262, DOI: 10.1080/00467600500528586. National Association for the Education of Young Children (2009). Position statement on developmentally appropriate practice. Washington, DC: NAEYC. Nawrotzki, K. D. (2006). Froebel is Dead; Long Live Froebel! The National Froebel Foundation and English Education. History of Education: Journal of the History of Education Society, 35:2, 209–223, DOI: 10.1080/00467600500528503. Read, J. (2011). The Froebel movement in Britain 1900–1939. Doctoral thesis, University of Roehampton, London. Sutton-Smith, B. (1997). The Ambiguity of Play. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

32

3 Play birth to three Treasure Baskets and Heuristic Play, the legacy of Elinor Goldschmied (1910–2009) Anita M. Hughes and Jacqui Cousins

Introduction Anita M. Hughes I had the good fortune to work with Elinor Goldschmied in the early 1980s, when she was actively disseminating her ideas about the Treasure Basket in the UK. This collaborative work led to our research into the exploratory play of toddlers (10–20 months) which we named Heuristic Play. The Treasure Basket and Heuristic Play became widely known following the film we made, Heuristic Play with Objects, in 1992 and the publication of the book, People Under Three (Goldschmied and Jackson 1994). Elinor and I collaborated in film-making, training and research until she ‘retired’ at age 90 in the year 2000, but we were friends till her death in 2009.

Jacqui Cousins Professional courses with the National Children’s Bureau (NCB) in 1987 provided training with Elinor Goldschmied whom I had known since my own challenging childhood. Elinor used the films referred to by Anita Hughes but, later, I watched her Italian films of 1952. This enabled me to discuss my diagnostic and therapeutic work and Elinor’s way of working with traumatised infants in a variety of settings. I had just started research on empowerment and autonomy from babyhood for the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). Thus began a rich professional relationship with Elinor as a ‘critical friend’.

Elinor Goldschmied Elinor Goldschmied (1910–2009) was undoubtedly one of the greatest pioneers of the twentieth century in infant childcare, play and development. She introduced the Treasure Basket, Heuristic Play and the Key Person approach. Quick-witted, irreverent, 33

Anita M. Hughes and Jacqui Cousins

politically motivated from a left-wing position, she was ahead of her time regarding the philosophy and practice of childcare. Psychologically astute and disinterested in public acclaim, Elinor revelled in intellectual debate yet had no time for intellectual snobbery. She confounded all establishments, health, educational, social and political with her candid observations, outspoken views and down-to-earth practical approach. She became passionate about babies’ play and emotional well-being following her work in orphanages in Italy immediately after the Second World War (in the late 1940s) and was politically active all her life, seeking to inspire and influence good practice in childcare in Italy, Spain and the UK.

The value of play: in search of a definition (Anita and Jacqui) Play is at the heart of being alive and it begins the moment a baby is born, during those first intimate moments of eye-to-eye contact between mother and baby, and play has a place in our lives till the day we die. Without play, using our bodies and minds in harmony, life lacks creativity, meaning and joy. The study of play as a focus of serious research took off in the second half of the twentieth century. In common with Elinor Goldschmied, the authors of this chapter each studied erudite explanations and examples of play in action and its great importance for the holistic and healthy development of all children. Winnicott (1988: 55) wrote of play: ‘Play is immensely exciting. The thing about playing is always the precariousness of the interplay of personal psychic reality and the experience of control of actual objects.’ Play is precarious because it is about taking oneself out of one’s comfort zone and to the edge of what is familiar. It involves taking a leap into the unknown and requires feelings of trust and security in one’s environment and relationships. It is that leap which triggers those feelings of excitement and being fully alive. Bettelheim (1987: 171) wrote of play: ‘Play is crucially important, because while it stimulates the child’s intellectual development, it also teaches him without his being aware of it the habits needed for such growth, such as stick-to-itiveness, which is so important in all learning. Perseverance is easily acquired around enjoyable activities such as self-chosen play.’ No skill is ever learnt and no artistic impulse is ever given expression without the ability to concentrate and persevere and we learn to concentrate best through self-chosen play. Early childhood pioneers like Friedrich Wilhelm Froebel (1782–1852), Maria Montessori (1869–1952) and Rudolf Steiner (1861–1925) exerted an international influence on early education while many others followed. Margaret Macmillan and Susan Isaacs each worked in the Froebelian tradition.When she was 18 years old, they guided Elinor in her training as a Froebelian teacher. They knew and understood her respectful view of childhood itself and the rights of all children to play and learn at their own pace. Of course there were others who held that view.There still are. Deeply moving was a speech about this at a UN conference in 1978 when the 12-year gestation period for the UNCRC began. The Polish delegation celebrated the centenary of the birth of their hero, a brave Jewish doctor and writer Janusz Korczac. He chose to die with 34

Play birth to three

his orphans at Treblinka but left compassionate words embedded in the UNCRC which still inspire us, Children are not the people of tomorrow, but are people of today. They have the right to be taken seriously, And to be treated with tenderness and respect. They should be allowed to grow into whoever they were meant to be – ‘The unknown person’ inside each of them is our hope for the future. (Josephs 1999: 4) In 1989, Elinor told that story again at an NCB meeting. She had made an immediate connection between those powerful words and a fundamental principle that underpins the daily practice of teachers in the Froebelian tradition. In 1987, Professor Tina Bruce, a leading Froebelian scholar, clarified that same ‘child-centred’ perspective. In her book, Early Childhood Education, she provided us with ten common principles worthy of further study as the bedrock of the early childhood tradition today. Despite so much political opposition in Britain where ‘play’ is so often misinterpreted and misunderstood, this first principle still underpins our professional work in the training and professional development of our teachers: ‘Childhood is seen as valid in itself, as part of life and not simply as preparation for adulthood. Thus education is seen similarly as something of the present and not just preparation and training for later’ (Bruce 1987: 10; 2015: 20). In 1989, Dr Gillian Pugh, chief executive at the NCB, stressed that all agencies responsible for the play of young people needed to work together to agree a clear definition of ‘play’.That consultation process, guided by her, took months for such a large and disparate group to begin to share a common language and negotiate shared understandings. The different age phases resulted in many differing perspectives and interpretations. It was inevitable that those with a responsibility for the play of children from babyhood to the age of eight focused much attention on their holistic development and the freeflow, imaginative or fantasy play at the heart of early childhood education in nurseries and schools. Those with more experience of the older children focused on sports activities and more structured games for time out of school.

A collaborative definition of ‘play’ Despite differences, a definition was achieved. Sadly in 2017 it is still ignored by many who have political power and responsibility for the emotional well-being, holistic development and learning of children in their early years and onwards. Play is an essential part of every child’s life and vital to their development. It is the way children explore the world around them and develop and practise skills. It is essential for physical, emotional and spiritual growth, for intellectual and educational development, and for acquiring social and behavioural skills. Play is a generic term applied to a wide range of activities and behaviours that are satisfying to the child, creative for the child and freely chosen by the child. Children’s play may or may not involve equipment or have an end 35

Anita M. Hughes and Jacqui Cousins

product. Children play on their own and with others.Their play may be boisterous and energetic or quiet and contemplative, light-hearted or very serious Every child needs to play and has a right to play, but opportunities to play are often limited by external factors – discrimination, the effects of disability and special needs, insufficient space and environmental factors, poverty and other social conditions. Play services are the means by which new opportunities for play are created. (National Children’s Bureau 1989) Elinor shared with such colleagues attempting to define play many concerns about excessive political interference in our professional work. She described how Susan Isaacs in the 1930s put into action her ‘child-centred’ philosophy in her beautiful Cambridge school and garden which often challenged the status quo. Elinor spoke about the tangible trust and respect shown to the children by all the adults there. Children are born as young people not pressurised to grow up too soon. The children Elinor said she had observed were totally free to choose and engage in all kinds of play. Some spent hours (like Elinor did as a child) with proper magnifying glasses to investigate every plant and living creature; others fantasised as they dressed up and invented their own imaginative worlds; one small boy climbed to the top of a shed roof and found a safe way to the ground – so much better than being lifted down.

Play and learning in the first three years of life (Anita) In my book, Developing Play for the Under 3s (Hughes, 2016), I describe five aspects of learning, all of which relate to play. They are: * * * * *

Secure and loving relationships (Key Persons in group day care) A healthy balance between anxiety and curiosity Risk-taking effort and creative tension Feeling comfortable with making mistakes An appropriately stimulating environment

However, I feel it is worth examining a couple of these aspects in a little more detail. While curiosity is the driving force that underpins all learning, the ‘other face’ of curiosity is anxiety, which provides a natural caution that is a safety net when trying something new. As curiosity propels us outward, so anxiety holds us back and when the two are in healthy balance then action is bold, sensible and pleasurable. This push/pull emotional see-saw is something that is going on every day of our lives. In order to achieve and monitor a healthy balance for the youngest of babies and children they need secure and loving relationships with caregivers who are understanding, patient and nonintrusive but who can share in a child’s delight. (This is part of the Key Person’s role, which Elinor felt was so important in relation to the development of play.) If a child has become ‘paralysed’ with anxiety and associated distress, he will not be able to play and be active.This means he will be unable to learn. If this 36

Play birth to three

anxiety becomes prolonged, then memories will be stored in the amygdala (the part of the brain that controls emotional response) that will trigger the ‘flight’ or ‘freeze’ response whenever faced with those kinds of situations again. (Hughes 2016:18) Another aspect – vital for learning and play – is about the making of mistakes, which, for older children and adults, can become negatively associated with feelings of failure. However it is only through the failure to achieve what you originally intend that you enjoy playing and can learn. This is because ‘making a mistake’ offers the opportunity to modify how an activity is carried out to achieve a desired intention. In this way new ideas and ways of doing things are discovered. Indeed the most significant scientific discoveries (such as the discovery of penicillin) have been made through experiments ‘going wrong’ in the laboratory. What I love about watching babies and young children playing is that they have no sense of failure, feeling perfectly competent and happy when (to the adult eye) their handling of objects or manipulating their bodies is clumsy or lacking in skill. Sadly it is through the socialisation from older children and adults that very young children learn that failure is something to be avoided and to feel ashamed about.

Thinking, learning and noticing Thinking begins at the point of noticing; making a note in our minds about the presence of something and then deciding whether or not it is familiar. As thinking becomes more sophisticated, with the advent of language, then the object of what is noticed begins to be categorised. What is more, the affect (our emotional response) plays more and more of a part, where preference and avoidance also influence thinking and behaviour. Noticing also arouses curiosity, stimulating an increased level of attention and interest.You cannot make someone curious about something, but you can draw their attention to it and help them to notice it. Recently I was walking in the woods and a friend drew my attention to an early solitary bluebell in bloom. I then found myself noticing green clumps of sprouting leaves and individual bluebells everywhere. The more I looked, the more bluebells I saw! I then became curious about the details of the flowers’ exquisite appearance. I had walked in those woods many times but had never really paid such close attention to the bluebells before. A key contributor to the development and understanding of children’s play and learning was Jean Piaget (1896–1980). Influenced by Darwin’s theories of evolution, Piaget became fascinated with the notion that children’s play is a developmental process and suggested that children naturally go through four distinct stages of development, which has dominated developmental theories ever since and even influences educational policymaking today. Piaget also believed that children were not passive, waiting to have knowledge given to them; rather, they were more like little scientists who, through self-directed experimenting (doing and thinking), were constructing their own meaning, understanding and reality in the world. Piaget named the first stage of development as the Sensorimotor Stage (from birth to two years), where infants learn through exploration of the world using their five 37

Anita M. Hughes and Jacqui Cousins

senses. The Treasure Basket is a resource for the seated baby (5–10 months) and the open-ended materials for facilitating Heuristic Play provide the best opportunity for learning at this stage.

Elinor Goldschmied and the Treasure Basket Elinor also held the belief that children could and should learn for themselves and was keen that even before a baby could move about, they should be given the opportunity to reach and choose items to explore and experiment with. It was with this in mind that Elinor came up with the idea of the Treasure Basket when she was working in orphanages in Italy in the late 1940s.These babies had no toys and were being offered no sensory stimulation whatsoever. However, the value of a Treasure Basket transcends culture and era and its principle is relevant to all babies anywhere. You will probably find a Treasure Basket in most early childhood settings in the UK as it has become widely known about. The concept of the Treasure Basket is brilliantly simple, yet to this day it is regularly misunderstood. I hope to explain it in clear and practical terms that Elinor would have appreciated. Ideally the basket itself should be a round, low and rigid-sided wicker basket (with no handles) of about 30 cms in diameter and 12 cms in height, filled with between 80 and 100 different items, safe and small enough for a seated baby to handle, but varied in substance, texture, appearance and smell. Items can be made from leather, wood, fabric, rubber, metal and glass alongside the wondrous objects that can be found in the natural environment such as shells, pebbles and pine cones. It is best to avoid any objects made from plastic: they are not only dull in taste, smell and texture, but a baby’s world has enough plastic in it as it is. Remember too how babies learn initially through all their senses so they will need simple objects which appeal to each of the five. Watch how many of these simple, natural materials go straight into their tiny mouths. Observe too the different personality traits in evidence. There will be babies who simply sit and watch while others throw everything out of the basket or cling on to only one thing of great interest.The babies are in charge but we the adults have the responsibility to keep them safe and provide things to encourage their innate curiosity, appeal to their interest and curiosity, and enable them to develop and enjoy learning as they play. It is a basic human urge to make sense of our world, find meaning in it and to feel some control over it.When babies, at around 4 months, begin to reach out in order to grasp and hold objects, they are taking their first step towards physical control and recognition of their surroundings. Their play is all about examining and getting to know the characteristics of any objects that come within their reach. They do this by looking, holding, shaking, banging or mouthing them. If a baby had language they would be asking, ‘What is this object like?’ The Treasure Basket provides scores and scores of possible sensory experiences that are exciting, interesting and immensely satisfying for a curious baby at the mouthing stage (around 5–10 months). What is more, this exploratory activity is constantly creating new and vital neuronal connections in a baby’s developing brain, facilitating accelerated learning and intelligent thinking. We need to recognise the importance of offering the Treasure Basket in an atmosphere of love, safety and unrushed peacefulness and that the baby is with someone 38

Play birth to three

with whom they have a securely attached relationship. The caregiver needs to be sitting, in comfort, close to the baby and to be responsive and attentive without unnecessary chatter or the intrusive offering of materials. Our society has become obsessed with the notion that there should be a continuous verbal commentary to ensure babies develop satisfactory language skills. While babies do need to hear language and be offered plenty of social interaction, they also need peace and quiet in order to be able to think and concentrate. Playing with objects in the Treasure Basket is largely non-social and a baby’s pleasure and satisfaction is derived directly through sensory contact with those objects. Concentration and learning is disrupted when caregivers either initiate comment or select and hand items to the baby. If more than one baby is playing beside the same basket, some early social exchanges and copying (like shaking an object) between babies is often observed, but this is done at the babies’ instigation. It is also important that the caregiver feels comfortable with all the objects in the basket to avoid communicating any unnecessary anxiety. If not, then it is better that the object of concern (for the adult) is removed. The Treasure Basket also offers choice of which, whether and when to pick up objects, giving a baby his first experience of selecting and decision making. Contrary to popular belief, 100 objects are not overwhelming and we have regularly observed babies urgently rummage to select a new item from a familiar basket! One of the striking features of a baby’s play with a Treasure Basket is focused concentration and a baby can easily concentrate for forty minutes or more, laying the foundation of a much needed skill. Concentration is enhanced by the shared pleasure between caregiver and baby through mutual glances, smiles and gestures. It should be made clear here that the Treasure Basket is not suitable for a toddler. The items will simply get scattered. (In a group day-care context babies and toddlers need to be separated for Treasure Basket play.) However the Treasure Basket can have great value for older children (from age three onwards) and Sue Gascoyne (2012) has written an excellent book about this.

Heuristic Play (Anita) When a baby begins to move about, their curiosity about the world of objects (and indeed their own body) begins to change. If they had language they would ask, ‘What can I do with this object?’ The word ‘heuristic’ derives from the Greek word ‘eurisko’ meaning to discover, find or gain an understanding. Heuristic also refers to a process of internal search through which one discovers the nature and meaning of experience. This is exactly what toddlers of 10–20 months are doing in their play. A toddler wants to make things happen. They develop an interest in causality, the cause-and-effect relationships between objects. They want to explore the effect of their actions upon objects. To begin with, things seem random and in chaos but soon patterns and order emerge. Different outcomes stimulate thinking and a greater understanding about the nature of different materials. Greater understanding is immensely satisfying and motivating. So failing to get a brick to bounce, for example, or a large ball to slide down a small tube generates curiosity and it certainly does not imply failure! Heuristic Play is more 39

Anita M. Hughes and Jacqui Cousins

than a set of typical actions with objects: it is a natural and creative way of living and is the basis of all future problem-solving, scientific and mathematical learning. Young children will be experimenting in a whole range of different ways: filling and emptying, slotting, selecting and discarding. Posting, piling and balancing, rolling, pushing, throwing and shaking. Recognising differences and similarities and pairing like with like. There is also banging and the beginning of tool use, screwing and unscrewing, sequencing and repeating cause and effect. Through all this activity and experimentation they are mastering the learning tools for life. They learn about concepts such as rollability, flexibility, rigidity, one and many, size differences, creating patterns, movement, the resistant quality of materials and many more fundamental concepts. The magic is that these concepts are being understood before the use of expressive language.There is also a place for providing Heuristic Play sessions for older children (2–4-year-olds), provided only open-ended materials are on offer and the principles of setting up the play session are the same as for toddlers, which include the adults staying quiet but responsive.

Materials to promote Heuristic Play Containers are an extremely important starting point, as filling and emptying, together with moving objects from one place to another are activities of primary interest. Some suggestions for containers could include tins (of various shapes and sizes), yoghurt pots, cardboard or wooden boxes, slide boxes, egg boxes, flower pots, purses, handbags, baskets and even wide-topped plastic bottles. Objects can be natural, household or recycled and the list from the Treasure Basket is a good starting point (Hughes 2016: 47–50).The difference between the Treasure Basket and materials for Heuristic Play is that there is only one of each object in the basket, but one needs plenty of the same objects for Heuristic Play. When a good collection of tins, containers and materials has been put together you are ready to start a Heuristic Play session. Storing materials in ‘shoe bag’ type drawstring bags is ideal. For a nursery setting it is suggested one should aim to provide the group with ten to fifteen bags each with each containing fifty or so items of the same type. In this way, there is plenty of material for a small group. Collections of items might include large corks, keys, shells, chains, balls, curtain rings and so on. It is best if the material is brought out for a specific play session, otherwise it will become muddled up with other play things. Ideally it would be wonderful to offer a daily Heuristic Play session, but in practice this may not be possible.The important thing is for practitioners to plan with colleagues scheduled sessions when they and their children can be uninterrupted for about an hour.

Setting up a Heuristic Play session   1 A clear space (preferably carpeted) is necessary, emptied of other play material and undisturbed by other activities.   2 Provide a comfortable adult chair for the Key Person.   3 When setting out materials, use the whole space to avoid crowding of the children. 40

Play birth to three

  4 To maintain interest, vary the collections of materials you put out at any one time.   5 For each child in the group three containers (preferably large tins) are adequate. Always provide containers at each session.   6 The adult facilitates play by sitting quietly and attentively, only responding if a child offers something or is in some kind of difficulty.   7 It can be helpful to provide a large cardboard box nearby, if a child begins to kick or throw any of the materials. The adult can then encourage the child to place (rather than throw) items into the box, directing their energies to more purposeful ‘filling’.   8 It has been calculated that if one child is given four bags, each containing fifty items, they could (theoretically) create 1,387,142 combinations!   9 It is helpful for the adult to do unobtrusive re-ordering of the material when necessary, maintaining an inviting appearance in the space. 10 Allow about an hour for a Heuristic Play session with twenty minutes of that time set aside for joint ‘clearing up’ with the children. (They love this as it is a great ‘sorting’ and ‘filling’ activity in its own right.)

Treasure Baskets and Heuristic Play: Vision into Action (Jacqui) In 1989, I was able to stay with Elinor and watch her early Italian films of 1952. This was (for many, many reasons) one of the most moving experiences in my life. Elinor was aware that I was going to work in a paediatric clinic in Göttingen, Germany to help with small groups of Romanian orphans and their young inexperienced carers. Elinor and I spent long hours together while she shared her way of working with the traumatised infants shown in her films. She knew that I would have very limited materials but would be able to use (as she always did) imagination, creativity, insatiable curiosity and love for humanity, to bridge gaps in my resources. We discussed how Treasure Baskets and Heuristic Play might be used in a diagnostic way and for playful therapeutic work in a variety of settings. I shared with Elinor how I had already put some of my vision into action with very disadvantaged and depressed inner-city communities. Of particular interest was how beneficial Treasure Baskets had been to those very young mothers who had little space at home and very limited resources, such as the Traveller and Gypsy mothers with whom I had previously worked in Plymouth. They had very lively babies and other young children who had a natural curiosity but very limited space for them to play. They all lived in beautiful, pristine caravans but were surrounded by mud, dangerous lorries, unmade roads and toxic waste. At that time, there was no designated Traveller or Gypsy site except on a disgusting council rubbish dump. My gifts of small Treasure Baskets provided the individual babies with many long explorations of sensory materials of various fruits and small objects already in their vans. They gave us many hours of relaxed talk and great fun in watching while we sat nearby to drink our tea. It was more complex to provide play facilities for the older mobile infants who were naturally becoming very frustrated by their confinement. However, liaison with the local head teacher of a nursery and infant school enabled the mothers to be given their own special room in her school.They decorated it themselves in a traditional style 41

Anita M. Hughes and Jacqui Cousins

and we went to local recycling ‘scrap stores’ to gather and set up Heuristic Play with their older infants. They preferred to keep everything in the plastic ‘stacker-boxes’ boxes they were more used to and interpreted all Elinor’s work with the kind of freedom they cherished.We did not then have Anita’s film or books to give us guidance. However, they did have their own ‘Treasure Chest’ for some curious objects and to keep ‘Granny’s Memories’! There was a small garden where play with the nursery children and friendships with their mothers happened naturally. Play countered many prejudices which some local Plymouth families had about Travellers and Gypsies and the prejudices they had about them. In 1992, I began research on empowerment and autonomy from babyhood with the UNCRC.While familiar as an early years’ advisor and lecturer with the traditional abiding concerns in Britain about the ‘protection and provision’ for children, the UNCRC now stressed the need for their ‘participation’ in all consultation processes such as those necessary to implement Articles 12 and 13. In brief, Article 12 made clear that all children have the right to express their opinion and have that opinion taken into account in any matter or procedure affecting them; whilst Article 13 outlined children’s right to express their views, obtain information and access information regardless of frontiers. As a member of the UN Association for Threatened People (Gypsy division) and UN Peace Child it was my responsibility to find creative ways in which the youngest children, their families and carers could become involved in that consultation process. A team of developmental psychologists conducted diagnostic work in collaboration with UN colleagues in France, Germany, Austria and Scandinavia. We were all engaged with the assessment and design of therapeutic play and educational programmes to address the major difficulties of the young orphans of Romania and other refugees being supported by my charity, WARchild. Treasure Baskets and Heuristic Play became our diagnostic tools.

Shared meanings need definitions Elinor was very particular that people understood the deeper political reasons for working in the way she always had. It is therefore necessary to define all the terms used: Empowerment . . . is the process whereby people as individuals or in groups or communities, acquire skills, knowledge and confidence which enable them to make choices to effect changes in their lives. (Thomas 1990: 17) Autonomy (1) the concept of autonomy means acting in accordance with oneself. Autonomous actions are those that have been freely chosen, that are willingly self-regulated, and those for which one accepts full responsibility . . . regulation through choice is characterised by flexibility and the absence of Pressure.   Autonomy (2) [referring to that definition] . . . sometimes, unfortunately this is interpreted to mean that children should be allowed to do whatever 42

Play birth to three

they want to do. On the contrary, autonomy means that children determine the ‘right’ thing to do based on their beliefs and understandings of themselves and their families and act accordingly. (Deci and Deci 1987: 1024–37)

Observations In 1995 Elinor and I wondered how Treasure Baskets and Heuristic Play could be managed in settings that had more babies, lively toddlers, fewer staff, less designated space and different routines. Before introducing Treasure Baskets and Heuristic Play at a ‘drop-in’ centre in my home town of Totnes, we had the benefit of discussions with an experienced head teacher, her staff and families. We watched Elinor’s films made by Anita Hughes with parents and carers who attended regularly with their infants. They had already noticed how quickly their babies became bored with their plastic toys and how soon tussles between toddlers could turn to frustrated tears or real anger. We sat comfortably to watch the film Infants at Work and built reciprocal relationships with our families as their babies made choices in their play, demonstrating individual differences. While one tasted and tested as many objects as she could reach, a baby boy explored a metal whisk in great detail for more than ten minutes before handling and tasting a lemon. He pulled a face, shuddered and returned again to the whisk. Having such a range of interesting things to stimulate their curiosity and being offered uninterrupted concentration, the infants worked for an hour while Key Persons watched nearby.

A Key Person approach Elinor developed this approach in the 1990s and it is fundamental for the well-being, learning and play of babies and children in group care or early education settings.This is an approach or way of being and working with babies and young children which focuses on coming to know and understand them as individuals (Elfer, Goldschmied and Selleck 2012). It encourages practitioners in their settings to support specific children as they become more involved in the group or social situations by having a deeper and more meaningful relationship with them and their families. This approach is underpinned by the belief that, for all children, but in particular for those living in poverty, or who are otherwise disadvantaged, it is their needs and rights that are paramount in their holistic development, rather than political or other social or institutional systems which have inevitable organisational constraints. Key persons are in the best position to be alongside the children, to watch and listen to them and use Vygotsky’s scaffolding approach to guide their language and learning (for a full definition and explanation of the cultural implications of scaffolding in action see Rogoff 1990). For both Jacqui and Anita, it was such a pleasure to report back to Elinor after our work with Treasure Baskets and Heuristic Play. In all our evaluations, irrespective of the settings, the adults who had struggled hard not to intervene in the play spoke 43

Anita M. Hughes and Jacqui Cousins

of not only the length of time their infants concentrated, but they too enjoyed a more peaceful, calm and spiritual time. It is our hope that the reader will also find opportunity to have such experience.

References and further reading Bettelheim, B. (1987) A Good Enough Parent. London: Thames and Hudson. Bowlby, J. (1969) Attachment. London: Pelican. Bruce, T. (1987) Early Childhood Education. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Bruce, T. (2015) Early Childhood Education. Fifth edn. London: Hodder Education. Cousins, J. (1996) Children in Charge: The Child’s Right to a Fair Hearing. In M. John (Ed.), Empowerment and Autonomy from Babyhood. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, p. 191. Cousins, J. (1997) A Study of Teachers’ Theorising from Experience (PhD thesis University of Exeter, Devon, England). Cousins, J. (1999) Listening to Four Year Olds. London. NCB. Deci, E. and Ryan, R. (1987) The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. Journal of personal and social psychology, 53(6): 1024–37. Donaldson, M. (1978) Children’s Minds. London. Fontana. Elfer, P., Goldschmied, E. and Selleck, D. (Eds) (2012) Key Persons in the Early Years: Building Relationships for Quality Provision in Early Years Settings and Primary Schools. Second edn. London: David Fulton. Garvey, P. (1976) Play. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Gascoyne, S. (2012) Treasure Baskets and Beyond: Realising the Potential of Sensory-rich Play. Berkshire: Open University Press. Gerhardt, S. (2004) Why Love Matters. Hove: Brunner-Routledge. Goldschmied, E. and Hughes, A. (1992) Heuristic Play with Objects. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Goldschmied, E. and Jackson, S. (1994) People Under Three: Young Children in Daycare. London: Routledge. Holly, M. (1984) Keeping a Personal-Professional Journal. Deakin University,Victoria, Australia. Hughes, A. (1991) I Don’t Need Toys. Suffolk: Concord Media. Hughes, A. (2009) Problem Solving, Reasoning and Numeracy in the Early Years Foundation Stage. London: Routledge. Hughes, A. (2016) Developing Play for the Under 3s: The Treasure Basket and Heuristic Play. Third edn. London: Routledge. Jackson, S. and Forbes, R. (2014) People Under Three: Play,Work and Learning in a Childcare Setting. London: Routledge. Josephs, S. (ed.) (1999) A Voice for the Child: the Inspirational Words of Janusz Korczac. London: Thorsons. Montessori, M. (1988) The Absorbent Mind. Oxford: Clio Press Ltd. National Children’s Bureau (1989) A UN Charter for Children’s Play. London: National Children’s Bureau. National Voluntary Council for Children’s Play (1992) A Charter for Children’s Play. London: NCB. Orr, R. (2003) My right to play: a child with complex needs. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Rich, D., Drummond, M-J, Myer, C. (2008) Learning: what matters to children. UK: Rich Learning Experiences. www.richlearningexperiences. Rich, D., Drummond, M-J, Myer, C. and Dixon, A. (2014) First-hand experience: what matters to children. UK: Rich Learning Experiences. www.richlearningexperiences. Rogoff, B. (1990) Apprenticeship in Thinking. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Selleck, D., Hughes, A. and Cousins, J. (2014) Elinor Goldschmied: A Pioneer for Play with People Under Three. Early Education Journal: The British Association for Early Childhood Education, spring (72):10–12.

44

Play birth to three Thomas, A. (1990) Cynon Valley Project. The Hague: Save the Children:Van Leer Foundation. Tizard, B. and Hughes, M. (1984) Young Children Learning. London. Fontana. UNICEF, Convention on the Rights of the Child: UNCRC. www.unicef.org.crc. Winnicott, D. (1988) Playing and Reality. London: Pelican.

Further DVD resource material Discovered Treasure:The Life and Work of Elinor Goldschmied 1910–2009 (2013) The Froebel Trust. Available online at www.froebeltrust.org.uk.

45

4 Cultural-historical play theory Elena Smirnova

Introduction The cultural-historical approach to children’s play is part of Vygotsky’s general theory of the origin and development of the higher mental functions. Before considering Vygotsky’s views on play, we should recall some of the main proposals and problems formulated in that theory. Only in such a broad content can we truly grasp the more specific problems of the psychology of play. A specifically human feature of the higher mental processes is mastering one’s own behavior with the help of special ‘tools of culture’, ranging from the most primitive ones (such as strings on the fingers, notches, lots, etc.) to verbal signs, which Vygotsky perceived as the most essential, external material form of thought and action. Underlying instrumental-semiotic processes are the child’s relations with other people. Only through these relations does the child interact with the objective world and them. Vygotsky formulated the well-known law of mental development: ‘Every function in the cultural development of the child appears on the scene twice and on two planes – first on the social plane and then on the psychological level; first among people, as an interpsychic category, and then, inside the child, as an intrapsychic category’ (Vygotsky 1983: 145).The interpsychic form of action is cultural because it introduces the sign. Through it the sign acquires and realizes its meaning by transforming the perceived external situation into a meaningful structure. According to Vygotsky, during the process of sign formation (i.e. when the transition is made from natural to signmediated perception or action) the objective situation of the action acquires meaning. The transition from natural to mediated action is made when both the intellectual and the affective are at work.Vygotsky wrote, ‘Thought is not born of other thoughts. It has its origin in the motivating sphere of consciousness, a sphere that includes our inclinations and needs, our interests and impulses, and our affect and emotion. The affective and volitional tendency stands behind thought’ (Vygotsky 1982: 357). Central to cultural historical theory is the principle of development. Different forms of human activity do not remain constant and unchanging in the course of human history. 46

Cultural-historical play theory

Every form of activity has its historical origin and cultural content, determined by the place, the time and the traditions of the society in which this form of activity occurs.

The essence of play in cultural-historical theory Developing this provision, D. B. El’konin,Vygotsky’s student and follower, put forward the hypothesis about the historical origin of different periods of childhood. Through his historical and ethnographic analysis he showed that role play emerged in the course of society’s historical development as a result of the child’s changing place in the system of social relations. In the early stages of human history, when society’s productive forces were at a primitive level and it could not feed its young, children entered the world of adults by actually participating in their work. At later stages, in order to participate in adult labor activity, children had to have special training and practice with smaller-size tools of labor, adapted for children. As tools of labor became more sophisticated, it did not make sense to exercise with their smaller-size replicas. A new form of children’s activity emerged, pretend role play, in which children reproduced those spheres of adult life that they had not yet entered, but after which they aspired. At the same time, this marked the beginning of a new period in the child’s development, which may be regarded as a period of role play, and which is traditionally seen as 3 to 7 years in Russia. Therefore, the origin of play does not relate to innate, instinctive forces, but to the specific conditions of the child’s life in society. If we view child’s play in terms of the cultural historical theory, we can see that a young child’s behavior is characterized by a unity of contradictions. Their behavior is direct and sign-mediated, voluntary and involuntary, affective and intellectual, individual and common, situational – dependent and independent of the situation. This paradoxical unity of contradictory features reveals itself most clearly when a child (3 to 7 years) acts out a role in a play which involves both behavioral features of toddlers (impulsive, situational, affective behavior) and future forms of the child’s activity (symbolic, mediated behavior, independent of the situation). This is not a fusion of two different forms of behavior, however. It is a special and unique kind of child’s activity which is quite exotic and puzzling to the psychologist. Vygotsky advanced the view that pretend symbolic play is the leading activity from 3 to 7 years. It should be pointed out that Vygotsky differentiated between the predominant and leading forms of activity: the predominant activity is the one that takes up most of the time, while the leading activity is the one which determines mental and personal development. Play may not be the predominant form of children’s activity; however, it is during play that the main new mental formations emerge during the period 3 to 7 years, and that is why it is the leading activity (Vygotsky 2005). In what follows we are going to make a case for this view in the context of Russian psychology.

Play and symbolization According to El’konin’s view, the child’s development in play proceeds along two lines, in two principal spheres of the child’s relations to reality – on the one hand, in the sphere of relating to objects, and, on the other, adults. 47

Elena Smirnova

Let us first consider the child’s relationship with the objective world.Traditionally, this is linked with the development of intelligence, with the emergence of the symbolic function, when the mind and action of the child goes beyond the scope of a situation. Vygotsky (following Lewin) emphasized that until the age of three the child was totally dependent on the situation. This dependence on the perceived field reveals itself both in the child’s actions and utterances.Vygotsky believed that this dependence on the situation resulted from the unity of the affect and perception (Vygotsky 1984: 343). Perception in early age is the initial point of the affective-motor reaction. It is interesting that Vygotsky, unlike Piaget, did not analyze the sensory-motor, but instead focused on the affective-motor reaction, in which perception and action relate through affect. Since a situation is always given in perception and perception is not separated from affect and, consequently, from movement, the child is dependent on the situation in which he/she finds him/herself. After three years of age, in developed forms of play activity, the child demonstrates a totally different and even contrary type of behavior.The child does not act according to the situation they perceive but in an imaginary situation in their mind, ascribing names and functions to objects, which are unfamiliar to them. According to Vygotsky, the creation of an imaginary, make-believe situation is the key element of play, which sets it apart from other kinds of activity. He defined the main characteristic of child play as the divergence between the real and imaginary situations: a child at play starts acting ‘not from an object but from a thought’, not in a real but in an illusory, imaginary situation (Vygotsky 2004: 212). Due to these characteristics of play, it serves as a base for forming and effectively developing the major new characteristics of this period: creative imagination, image thinking, self-awareness, etc. The development of these characteristics facilitates the build-up of consciousness and the internal plane of action as specifically human features. But the question is: how can such a rapid change in the child’s thinking and behavior occur within such a short period of time? In order to answer this question, it is first of all necessary to analyze how certain objects in play are replaced by others (i.e. to study the special features of play symbolism), and, second, to consider the genesis of the symbolic function, that is, we must try to understand what enables the child to use objects ‘symbolically’ in make-believe situations. It is well known that Piaget was the first to pose the problem of symbolism in play. He linked it to the development of representative intelligence, believing that the main precondition for this was the emergence of a symbol, that is, the relation between the signifier and the signified. However,Vygotsky rejected such an approach, which, in his view, could result in an intellectualistic understanding of play. He wrote, ‘If play is understood as symbolism, it is thereby turned into a system of some signs generalizing objective reality which no longer has anything specific for play’ (Vygotsky 1983: 65). Play is not cognitive or intellectual activity: it is the child’s practical activity and it is always connected with the child’s real (and not symbolic) interests and emotions. It is well known that a considerable number of objects can be used to replace others. However, there are certain limits to the use of objects in play that at first glance appear to be the result of the outward similarities between the signifier and the signified.What 48

Cultural-historical play theory

determines these limits? Vygotsky’s experiments provide a preliminary answer to this question. During an experiment children were requested to participate in a tonguein-cheek play of supplying new names to familiar objects. For example, a book was used to designate a house, keys – children, a knife – a doctor, a pencil – a nurse, etc. A simple story with these objects would be shown to 3- to 5-year-old children, for example, a doctor came to a house, where a nurse opened the door for him; he examined the children and gave them medicine, etc. It turned out children had no difficulty in following the plot and that the similarity of objects did not play any important role in reading this ‘object notation’. The main condition was that objects allowed certain gestures or actions to be performed with them. Children rejected objects only when they could not be used to make the required gesture. El’konin pointed out that this study raised the problem of the function of activity in establishing the relationship between word and object. The relations between the object, action and word received a more in-depth and thorough treatment in the research by El’konin (1978). In his investigation he compared how objects were renamed during play (i.e. in the course of play actions) and outside the context of play. He found that children had no difficulties in and raised no objections to merely renaming an object. Even 3- and 4-year-olds easily agreed to call a dog a car or a box a plate. However, when an object is used during play, children feel more confident about calling an object by a new name, especially if the action the child has to perform with this object in the play contradicts his experience. For instance, during play, children found it very difficult to call a cube a dog and to play with it as if it were a little dog, while they easily agreed to play with a pencil as if it were a knife. In the next set of experiments the discrepancy between the functions of an object during play and in a real life situation became even greater. In the context of one and the same play, a pencil became a knife, and a knife a pencil, that is to say, children were ‘to cut’ with the pencil and ‘to draw’ with a knife. However, most children between three and five did not accept the replacement, when next to the replacement object there was a real one, performing the same function. Seeing the object reinforced the link between perception and action and weakened the connection between word and action. Under these circumstances, the child is stimulated to action by his perception of the object and not by the object’s play name. Interpreting the results of these experiments, El’konin came to the conclusion that to be able to substitute an object and transfer the function of one object to another, a word must incorporate into itself all possible actions with the object and become a carrier of a system of objective actions (El’konin 1978: 242). Under certain conditions, the connection between word and action can be stronger than that between the object being perceived and action. Play provides practical experience for the young child in using words, where a word is separated from an object and becomes a carrier of actions. As Vygotsky put it, thanks to play: ‘thought becomes separated from a thing, and action originates from thought and not from a thing’ (Vygotsky 2004: 212). However, from 3 to 7 years a child is still unable to act out a play in their mind, without some external, practical actions. They must necessarily have a point of reference in another object with which they can perform the same action as with an 49

Elena Smirnova

absent, imagined object. In this connection, a question arises – is this object a symbol of what is absent? According to Piaget, an objective symbol during play is an image of a designated object given in another material form. However, experiments by El’konin demonstrated that replacement of objects performs many functions during play and their resemblance with the designated object can be small. A little stick, for example, is very unlike a horse and can hardly evoke the image of it. Moreover, that same stick can be a knife, a tree, a snake, etc. ‘It all depends on the word a child uses to name it and the meaning he attributes to it in each specific moment of play’ (Vygotsky 1983: 245). That is why Vygotsky abandoned the understanding of play as symbolism. He preferred to speak about the transfer of meanings from one object to another and not about symbolism. This transfer becomes possible thanks to the generalizing function of the word, which incorporates into itself the experience of the child’s actions with an object and transfers into another thing, designated by this word. Thus, during play, action is separated from a concrete thing, and a word is separated from an object that it initially was ascribed. As a result, the child is not bound by the situation and can act in a make-belief world, that is, described by words. How and why is the meaning (and word) separated from an object and transferred to another object? Is this the logical outcome of the child’s cognitive development, the maturation of their nervous system, or does this result from special training? To answer these questions, we should turn to the genesis of play activity.

The origin of pretend play Vygotsky’s followers viewed the origin and development of the child’s actions with objects during play as inherently linked with their interaction with adults. This is the main feature distinguishing Vygotsky’s school from the school of Piaget, where the relations ‘child-object’ and ‘child-adult’ were treated independently. Numerous research indicates that play does not emerge without guidance from adults. Children who have no experience of playing with adults or older children are unable to invent play substitutions or generate an imaginary situation. Our observations show that young children in closed childcare centers, with little exposure to adults, develop role play and acquire a degree of sophistication in this much later than children of the same age growing up in the family (Smirnova, 1999). These data, together with the information about the genesis of play in phylogenesis, prove that play is of social and not biological origin, and should be sought in the child’s relations with adults, and not in the body or the nervous system of an individual child.Yet how is it possible to teach play? It is, after all, the child’s independent, creative activity and in no way can it be reduced to a reproduction of acquired skills. To answer this question, let us try to analyze the process of how 18-month- to 3-year-old children develop their first play replacements in their relations with adults. In doing this, we shall rely on the research that builds on Vygotsky’s tradition (Galiguzova 1993; Smirnova 1999). At first children play only with realistic toys that have a fixed use and employ them in accordance with their intended purpose.They show no interest in play replacements practiced by adults and have no desire to imitate them. 50

Cultural-historical play theory

At the next stage, the child displays an interest in the substituting actions of an adult and, immediately after observing them, imitates those actions with the same replacement objects. However, this is formal, automatic imitation.The child does not remember the object they used in their actions and is not aware of the meaning of the substitution. It is all the same to them what objects are used to perform a specific action, and the child easily accepts and reproduces any actions of an adult with any objects. The main feature of this imitation is the pattern of the action itself. After some practical play interaction, the child engages in an independent delayed imitation of the substituting actions by an adult. Children seem to like certain substitutions demonstrated by adults and enjoy reproducing them, using their own initiative. However, they still do not initiate substitutions themselves. At this stage, children begin to be more discriminatory toward replacement objects. For example, after having started to feed a doll with a toothbrush at the request of an adult (using it as a spoon), all of a sudden, the child stopped, and, as if correcting their mistake, took a toy spoon and went on with the feeding; he then used the toothbrush to brush the doll’s teeth. At the next stage, in addition to imitational substitutions, they begin to carry out their own replacements, which appear to be variations on the actions of an adult. However, the child’s actions are not yet substitutions in the strict sense of the word, since they occur only in the child’s actions and not in their mind. When an adult asks the child to name the objects the child is using in play, he gives their real and not play names. For instance, a boy is clearly cooking food. He stirs something in a pot, blows on it, and tastes it. In answer to a question from an adult ‘What are you cooking in the pot?’ he replies ‘Sticks and rounds’. There are also instances when objects get double names, for example,‘a ball-apple’ or ‘a ring-biscuit’; however, these names are very unstable and are often changed. The object still does not have an independently created play name. It is important to emphasize that at first children always act with an object during playing in a substituting manner and only later give it a new play name. In the early stages of the development of play (as distinct from its subsequent phases), the child is unable to give a new play name to an object before performing an appropriate action with it. Another important condition for the renaming of an object during play is the child’s emotional involvement in play and the actions of an adult. Children accept and repeat a new play name for an object only if the adult shows an enthusiastic interest in playing with substitute toys and if the child ‘becomes infected’ with his enthusiasm. If, however, the adult simply demonstrates new actions with the objects and comments upon them, children limit themselves to imitation only and do not ascribe a play name to the object, that is, they do not make the transition to independent substitutions. Applying a play name to an object comes as a discovery and radically changes the nature of the child’s actions.The new meaning embodied in the word brings the object to life, as it were, making it possible to visualize how and in what situation to use it. Let us consider a situation in which a little girl is feeding a doll with a little ball. When an adult asks, ‘What is the little doll eating? An egg?’, the girl smiles and, as if recognizing a familiar object in the ball, begins to unfold a whole sequence of play actions with the ball – she blows on the ‘egg’, saying ‘it’s hot, soon it’ll be cool’, she peels it, puts some salt on it, and only after this gives it to the doll to eat with the following words, ‘The egg is yummy, it is no longer hot . . .’, etc.When the child renames an object during play 51

Elena Smirnova

for the first time – this usually happens when the child accepts and repeats the renaming suggested by an adult – discovering a new way of acting with objects.The child begins to introduce their own, sometimes very imaginative replacements in their play. The renaming of objects moves closer to the beginning of the play action, becoming an increasingly conscious process and always preserving an affective element in it. Thus, an analysis of the process leading to the emergence of play activity in terms of Vygotsky’s theory reveals the following regularities. Play paves the way for the transition from direct actions to actions mediated by signs as ‘tools of culture’, that is, words. As a result, action originates from a word (or thought), and not from a thing. This transition occurs with an active and direct participation of an adult. The replacement function, just as any function, is initially divided between the child and the adult, and exists in the interpsychic form. In time, the child makes this function their own and it becomes intrapsychic.The introduction of the sign (i.e. the renaming of an object) transforms the externally perceived situation in the mind of the child into a meaningful structure. Perception is mediated by word, and former objects and actions acquire new meaning.The transition from action to mediated action occurs as the affective and intellectual elements combine to form one unit; the transfer of meaning from one object to another is possible only when the child is emotionally involved in play, only when play actions are significant in affective terms. However, the child’s development during play does not only manifest itself in their relationship with objects and in breaking the bonds with the ‘objective situation’. The other line of development relates to the child finding their bearings in the world of people and human relations. We should point out that Vygotsky himself did not specifically address this problem. However, his followers devoted considerable attention to it and carried out a number of important studies in line with the tradition of the cultural historical approach.

The transition from object to role play For the child, an adult is the centre of any situation. In early childhood, the ‘child-adult’ relationship develops from the ‘proto-we’, into which the child’s ‘I’ is totally incorporated, to the ‘I-myself ’, where a child opposes their own actions, carried out independent of the actions performed jointly with adults. In a child’s pretend role play, two opposite images and two kinds of adults emerge. One is a model, an ideal (an adult knows how and can do anything). The other is real (the adult bans and scolds). The conflict between the ideal and real adult is the child’s internal conflict that is resolved in role play. Here a new form of interaction with a model adult, present in the role image, emerges and the contradiction is removed between ‘I want to’ and ‘I am not allowed yet, I cannot’, ‘I’ and ‘not I’. The dual, spontaneous-reactive nature of role behavior is unique, in a sense, and is rarely captured in a concrete experimental study.The questions formulated by Vygotsky and his follower El’konin about play – whether it is living out an image (merging) or working with an image (comparison), a volitional act or action prompted by a spontaneous impulse. This question reflects the paradox of play and does not allow simple answers. The formula ‘the adoption of a role’ combines two opposite directions of movement. 52

Cultural-historical play theory

The first is – identification, merging (I with the other).The second is discrepancy (I and other); however, if the task is to understand role play as an expanding zone of new mental formations (self-regulation, mediation, and other accomplishments), then the focus is on the relations between role positions of players and the investigation emphasis on such elements of role play as model, rule, norm, that is, all that is oriented toward the future, the child’s forthcoming studies at school. The principal studies of role play in Russian psychology proceeded along these lines.The works by Soviet psychologists, devoted to the special features of play and non-play behavior in children 3 to 7 years, contain numerous facts to support the view that the adoption of an adult role makes it much easier for the child to abide by a rule. For example, in her investigation, Manuilenko (1948) asked children to remain motionless under different circumstances – on instructions from an adult and in a group game where a child assumed the role of a guard. The results showed that 4- to 6-year-old children could stay immobile much longer when they were acting out a role, compared to a non-play situation. Investigators of role play provide the following explanation for the nature of play self-regulation. The rule, contained in a role, is related precisely to this role and only through this role to the child himself. This makes it much easier for the child to grasp the rule, because it appears to be placed outside, as it were. It is still very difficult for a child (3 to 7 years) to evaluate their actions and to submit them consciously to a given rule, since this requires an analysis of their own behavior. During play, a rule is alienated, it is given in a role, and the child follows and monitors his or her behavior through a mirror, as it were, – the role. (Slavina 1948: 177) Thus, when the child performs a role, they split in two, as it were, exercising reflection. For the child, the role model emerges both as a guideline for behavior and a standard in monitoring it. Any adult (or character) can serve as a role model during play. The child takes the other’s activity as a basis for the role they adopt. Initially, at about 3 years, children imitate only individual actions with objects that are part of activity (the so-called ‘object play’), and subsequently they reproduce relationships, and the social functions of adults in a developed form of role play. The transition from object play to role play was studied in experiments by Slavina (1948). She found that the play of 3- to 4–year-old children was characterized by a special kind of contradiction. On the one hand, in terms of its real content, their play was a simple, uniformly repeated reproduction of familiar actions with toys. When children played ‘family’ or ‘kindergarten’, they performed separate actions, not joined by a common system – they would pretend to grate carrots, wash up or cut bread, but in no way using these actions to develop the play, for example, to feed a doll or a play partner. On the other hand, in their individual actions, children perceived themselves as acting out a certain event (e.g. a family dinner) or performing a certain role (e.g. that of granny or mom).The attempts to remove the role element from the object play failed. Children aged 3–4 years needed practical actions even in this fictitious role (which was virtually not acted out by children) and an imaginary situation. 53

Elena Smirnova

These data allowed D. El’konin to conclude that a role is introduced into the child’s actions from outside through situational toys that suggested to children how to use them. These toys emerged as the central element of play in terms of their meaning. Comparing the play of children 3 and 4 years old with that of children 4 to 7 years of age, we can say that in the first case the child masters the human action, and in the second case an objectified human being. As role play becomes more sophisticated, the aspect relating to the handling of objects moves into the background and the meaning of human relations becomes the main content of play. This is how El’konin describes this process: The principal paradox inherent in the transition from object to role play is that, when it occurs nothing changes in children’s objective surroundings, but everything in their mind. The child still has the same toys – dolls, little cars, cubes, cups, etc. Moreover, at early stages in the development of role play, no significant, changes take place in actions themselves.The child bathed a doll, gave it food, put it to sleep. Now he appears to be carrying out the same motions with the same doll. What has happened? All these objects and actions with them are now incorporated into a new system of the child’s relations to reality, into activity that is different in terms of the emotions it generates in and the attractiveness it has for the child. Thanks to these new features, the same actions acquire new meaning. When the child becomes ‘mom’ and a doll ‘a baby’, bathing, feeding and cooking turn from object actions into ‘looking after the baby’. These play actions now give expression to the maternal feelings toward her baby – love, kindness, or, maybe, opposite feelings, depending on the specific conditions of the child’s life and the specific relations that surround him. (El’konin 1978: 276–7) The transition from an externally defined theme of a game and elaborate play actions involving a conventional object, to content in which an adult is represented first and foremost by meaning is the central feature of play activity. According to the tradition of Vygotsky’s school, the development of play should be studied not in terms of how the themes of play change (household, adventure, professional, etc.), because this reflects only the formal aspect of play activity, but in terms of changing contents (its meaning). As El’konin demonstrated, at different periods (from 3 to 7 years) the same theme of play can have totally different meanings. At a lower level of development in role play, actions with certain toys are directed to other participants in the play, for example, the actions of a mother feeding her baby. The role is only nominally present in the play and in fact it does not determine the action. At a higher level the principal meaning of the play is linked to the observance of the rules prescribed by the role and the ensuing actions, including those that express the nature of relations with other players.The role is defined before the play begins and determines the child’s behavior. By 6–7 years, actions that relate to the interaction with other people and the interdependence of role functions move to the foreground. It is important to point out 54

Cultural-historical play theory

here that object substitution and all that is related to external attributes (i.e. the play props) stand in reciprocal relations to the role – a reduction in one means an increase in the other. This special feature of play was repeatedly used in experiments to shape play activity. In the process the objects and operations in the play were reduced to a minimum and regarded as a pure convention, which served to promote active role behavior and role interactions among children. As El’konin emphasized, the established levels of role behavior are not so much age periods (children of the same age may be at different play levels) as phases of development of the role play itself. As the content of the play evolves and the role relations develop, the child’s attitude to the assumed role also changes. When a child defines ‘I’ and separates him/herself from an adult, this is the initial condition for and the result of role play. The very first assuming a role and pronouncing the phrase ‘I am like . . .’ (e.g. dad, doctor, etc.) is, in a sense, symbolic – by saying ‘I am like’ the child shows to the adult that he is crossing the line. Performing a role in this instance can be both in the form of a direct contact and emotional, it is probably this immediacy that ensures the integrity of play behavior and the very phenomenon of play from 3 to 7 years. By about 7 years of age when creative role playing nears its term, the ‘I role’ develops into an attitude whereby children develop an ability to oppose their own point of view and adopt the position defined by the role. A separation of ‘I’ is the logical result of role identifications: ‘during play, the child learns to identify his “I” by creating fictitious points of identification, i.e.,“I” centres’ (Vygotsky 2004: 228).This line of development is linked with the acceptance of the role, with the child’s relations to self and adults.

Conclusion Thus, according to Vygotsky, thanks to pretend play the child develops the following new elements: •

Awareness of own inner processes.

In play, the transition is made from motives that have the form of affective, direct, unconscious desires to generalized intentions.A desire to be like an adult or other characters (stronger, big, and courageous) does not precede play, but is its result. El’konin specifically emphasized this point, objecting to attempts to derive play from the child’s need to live together with an adult and from other so-called ‘inner trends’. Play does not gratify the child’s desires but specifies and clarifies them for them (El’konin 1978: 277). •

Self-regulation behavior.

During play, a child constantly suppresses their direct actions of the moment in order to comply with the rules of the game and the assumed role.The paradox of play is that the child derives their greatest pleasure during play as they make an effort to do something or check some of their actions. While the child conforms to rules, at the same time they act in a way to have as little resistance as possible.Vygotsky expressed 55

Elena Smirnova

this contradiction of play in the formula ‘a rule that has become an affect’. According to Vygotsky, it becomes possible to overcome natural behavior and to promote selfregulation outside the framework of play. Due to play, meaning is separated from the action by another action. This is a way to a pure manipulation with the meanings of actions, that is, to a volitional choice, decision, a clash of motives, etc., to processes that are a long way from realization (El’konin 1978: 293). •

Self-regulation of thinking.

Just as the separation of meaning from action during play paves the way for truly volitional behavior, the separation of meaning from a thing makes it possible to overcome the natural attitude to the word (the confusion of a word with an object and of a meaning of a word), that is, it leads to a manipulation of pure meanings and conceptual thinking. Play action itself with meanings separated from objects remains direct and affective in nature, without becoming a conscious symbolization: ‘the child does not symbolize in play; he desires, he fulfills his desire and experiences the main categories of reality’ (El’konin 1978: 292). Vygotsky perceived the principal contradiction of play in the discrepancy between the conventionality of the meaning field, in which a playing child lives and moves, and the direct situational dependent way of movement within it. This contradiction of play finds its resolution at about 7 years, where the conventionality of the field and the movement in a meta-reality (linguistic, mathematical, etc.) corresponds to the unnatural, sign-mediated mode of action. Thus, according to Vygotsky, the child’s development during play, in spite of different new elements, has one direction. The child becomes increasingly less dependent on the situation – in behavior, thinking and self-awareness. This process is made possible thanks to the mediatory function of the sign, above all – the word. In conclusion let us point out once again that contradictions in play perform a useful function and have special significance for the child’s subsequent development. Role play is an intermediary transitional form between early (3 to 7 years) and later childhood (7 to 12 years) and is partly responsible for removing the dividing lines between these two age periods. This relates to the mutual interaction of action with a thing to action with meaning, orientations in the external, objective and the internal sense field, links to a real and relations to an ideal social adult. That is why studying play activity is very important for developmental psychology, the theoretical groundwork for which was laid by Vygotsky: Play is the main way of the child’s cultural development . . . Action in the imagined field, in the make-believe situation, the creation of voluntary intention, formation of life plan and motives associated with the will – all these arise in play and put it at the highest level of development, carry it to the crest of the wave, make it the ninth wave in the development of preschool age. (Vygotsky 2005: 92)

56

Cultural-historical play theory

References Bugrimenko, E. A. (1980). Rolevaya igra как sredstvo organizatsii samokontrolya [Role play as a means of organizing self-regulation]. Doshkol’noe vospitanie, 10, 35–38. El’konin, D. B. (1960). Detskaya psikhologiya [Child psychology]. Moscow: Prosveshcheniye. El’konin, D. B. (1978). Psikhologiya igry [Psychology of play]. Moscow: Pedagogika. Galiguzova, L. N. (1993). Tvorcheskie proiavlenia v igre detei rannego vozrasta [Creative expressions in young children’s play]. Voprosy Psichologii, 2, 17–25. Galiguzova, L. N. (1990). Razvitiye tvorcheskogo voobrazheniya v igre detei rannego vozrasta [The development of creative imagination during play in early age children]. In Obshchenie i psikhicheskoye razvitiye [Communication and mental development]. Moscow, pp. 46–51. Manuilenko, Z. V. (1948). Razvitiye proizvolnogo povedeniya u detei doshkolnogo vozrasta [The development of self-regulated behavior in children of preschool age]. APM RSFSR. Vol. 14, pp. 48–66. Slavina, L. S. (1948). O razvitii motivov igrovoi deyatelnosti v doshkolnom vozraste [On the development of motives of play activity in preschool age]. Izvestiya APN RSFSR. Vol. 14, pp. 11–30. Smirnova, E. O. (1999). Doshkolnik [The preschool child]. In Osobennosti psikhicheskogo razvitiya u detei, rastushchikh v detskikh domakh i internatakh [Peculiarities of mental development in children growing up in children’s homes and boarding schools]. Moscow: Pedagogika, pp. 150–174. Vygotsky, L. S (1982). Sobranie sochinenii [Collected Works].Vol. 2. Moscow: Pedagogika. Vygotsky, L. S (1983). Sobranie sochinenii [Collected Works].Vol. 3. Moscow: Pedagogika. Vygotsky, L. S (1984). Sobranie sochinenii [Collected Works].Vol. 4. Moscow: Pedagogika. Vygotskii L. S. (2004). Igra i ee rol’ v psikhicheskom razvitii rebenka. In Psikhologiya razvitiya rebenka. Moscow: EKSMO, pp. 200–234. Vygotsky, L. S. (2005). Appendix: From the notes of L.S.Vygotsky for lectures on the psychology of preschool children. In D. B. El’konin’s Psychology of Play (II). Journal of Russian and East European Psychology,Vol. 43 (2), 90–97.

57

5 Aesthetics of play and joint playworlds Beth Ferholt and Monica Nilsson

Introduction The ideal of modern Western childhood, with its emphasis on the innocence and malleability of children (Aries, 1962; Fass, 2007), has combined with various social conditions to promote adults’ direction of children’s play towards adult-determined developmental goals, and adult’s protection of children’s play from adults. However, new forms of play, in which adults actively enter into the fantasy play of young children as a means of promoting the development and quality of life of both adults and children, have emerged relatively recently in several countries: Sweden, Serbia, Finland, Japan and the United States (Marjanovic-Shane et al., 2011). These new forms of play, although very different, fit under the umbrella term of playworlds. Because playworlds are unlike other forms of play, they are useful tools for the study of many topics in many fields, as well as for the development of early childhood practice. In this chapter we describe two playworlds and discuss some of the things that we as researchers learned from their development. Further discussion of the theoretical basis of these two playworlds can be found in Ferholt and Nilsson (2014). Each of the two playworlds was developed within the context of a research project. One generated data for a pilot study designed at the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition (LCHC) at the University of California, in San Diego, to see what would happen if we imported Gunilla Lindqvist’s (1995) creative pedagogy of play, a key component of which is playworlds, into the United States. Members of LCHC had observed Lindqvist-inspired playworlds at Pentti Hakkarainen’s laboratory, Silmu, in Kajaani, Finland (Bredikyte and Hakkarainen 2011; Hakkarainen et al. 2013). The playworld of this first research project took place with 4- to 5-year-old children and their two teachers in an early childhood class over the course of four months. The second research project was also undertaken by researchers at LCHC and also took place in the United States. Its participants included 5- to 7-year-old children and their teacher in an elementary school on a military base over the course of fourteen months. Several different studies emerged from this project, covering topics including narrative development, methods for the study of play and perezhivanie (or “intensely emotional-lived-through-experience”). 58

Aesthetics of play and joint playworlds

Playworlds have been independently inspired by Vygotsky’s theories of play and art and creativity (1971, 1978, 1987, 2004), as well as by a variety of other theories of play, art and creativity, and by local practices (Marjanovic-Shane et al., 2011). In this chapter we will first introduce Lindqvist’s (1995) interpretation of the Vygotskian theories in which playworlds are based and then present playworlds within Lindqvist’s (1995) creative pedagogy of play. We will then describe and discuss the two playworlds of the research projects named the Baba Yaga Playworld and the U.S. Narnia Playworld.

The theoretical basis of playworlds In contemporary Western European and American biological, psychoanalytic, cognitive-developmental and cross-cultural psychological theories of play we find the assertions that children’s play is in no way fundamentally similar to adult activities, and that adult knowledge, experience or developmental stage is a teleology for children’s play. However, Lindqvist (1995, 2001a, 2003), the designer of the first playworlds in Sweden and the author who coined the term “playworlds’’, reinterprets Vygotsky’s theory of play (1978, 1987, 2004) to argue that children’s play is an early form of the artistic and scientific endeavors of adulthood, and, therefore, produces new and intrinsically valuable insights – insights which can be of value to adults and children alike. Lindqvist (1995, 2001a, 2003) reinterprets Vygotsky’s theory of play through his Psychology of Art (1971), and through a modified reading of “Imagination and Creativity in Childhood” (2004), to focus on Vygotsky’s assertion that children’s play is a creative cultural manifestation in humans.

Vygotsky’s theory of play Support for Lindqvist’s claim can be found in Vygotsky’s “Imagination and Creativity in Childhood” (2004) and “Imagination and its Development in Childhood” (1987). As Lindqvist (1995, 2003) argues, it is in these works that Vygotsky discusses the human process of creative consciousness, the link between emotion and thought, and the role of imagination. This foregrounds the issue not only of the link between reality and imagination, but also issues of reproduction and creativity (production). Vygotsky begins by defining the creative act as “any activity that gives rise to something new” (2004: 2). To hone this definition he makes a distinction between “reproductive” activity, in which “nothing new is created,” but, instead, there is “a repetition of something that already exists” (2004: 2), and a “combinatorial or creative activity” in which one is “not merely recovering the traces of stimulation that reached my brain in the past” (2004: 3). In creative activity,Vygotsky writes, “I never actually saw this remote past, or this future; however, I still have my own idea, image, or picture of what they were or will be like” (2004: 4). This basic distinction is what allows anyone who is engaged in creative activity, including children, to produce something novel: If human activity were limited to reproduction of the old, then the human being would be a creature oriented only to the past and would only be able 59

Beth Ferholt and Monica Nilsson

to adapt to the future to the extent that it reproduced the past. It is precisely human creative activity that makes the human being a creature oriented toward the future, creating the future and thus altering his own present. (Vygotsky, 2004: 3) The creative activity that Vygotsky (2004: 4) is discussing is imagination. He writes that imagination is an important component of all aspects of cultural life, essential to the artist and the scientist alike. “Absolutely everything around us that was created by the hand of man, the entire world of human culture, as distinct from the world of nature, all this is the product of human imagination and of creation based on this imagination.” Vygotsky quotes Ribot, writing that all human-made objects, every one, can be called “crystallized imagination” (2004: 5). Vygotsky is describing the role of imagination in the production of artifacts, as defined by cultural-historical activity theory: those aspects of the material world that have been modified over the history of their incorporation into goal-directed human action (Illyenkov, 1977). Vygotsky is arguing that imagination is an essential aspect of all thought. As Cole (Pelaprat and Cole, 2011) explains, human conscious experience is a process, a process that requires not just our phylogenetically constrained abilities and our culturally organized experience, but also our active reconciliation or “filling-in”, our imagining, as we try to make sense of our world. Cole notes that the Russian word normally translated as imagination, voobrazzhenie, is made of three roots. The translation of the word according to these three roots is into-image-making. Therefore, in the language in which Vygotsky was thinking and writing, within the word imagination was the concept that all representation is in part the result of an active processing by an individual, and also the concept that it is imagination that allows us to move “into” this process. When Vygotsky (2004: 3) describes “the human being (as) a creature oriented toward the future, creating the future and thus altering his own present” when he asserts that imagination is essential to both the artist and the scientist, he is moving towards an even broader claim, the claim that we can think because we can imagine. Vygotsky explicitly argues that all humans, including children, are creative: There is a widespread opinion that creativity is the province of a select few . . .This is not true. If we understand creativity in its true psychological sense as the creation of something new, then this implies that creation is the province of everyone to one degree or another; that it is a normal and constant companion in childhood. (Vygotsky, 2004: 33) It is not only those at the height of their creative abilities who can produce something of worth to others of all ages, meaning that even a child in play might inspire an adult. Vygotsky (2004: 6) concludes: “If we understand creativity in this way, it is easy to see that the creative processes are already fully manifest in earliest childhood.” Furthermore, he writes: “We can identify creative processes in children at the very earliest ages, especially in their play . . . all these children at play represent examples of the most authentic, truest creativity” (Vygotsky, 2004: 6). 60

Aesthetics of play and joint playworlds

Vygotsky continues by arguing that there is no strict line between fantasy and reality. A child at play is creatively reworking impressions he has acquired, combining them to construct a reality that meets his needs and desires.“It is this ability to combine elements to produce a structure, to combine the old in new ways that is the basis of creativity” (Vygotsky, 2004: 7). With regard to the question how a child’s imagination differs from an adult’s, Vygotsky argues against those who claim that fantasy is richer and more diverse in childhood than adulthood. He writes that the theory behind such claims mistakes the undemanding and tolerant quality of child fantasy, the fact that children can indeed make anything out of anything, for richness of imagination.These theories also mistake the fact that the products of children’s fantasy are obviously very different from adult reality as support for the idea that children live more in the world of imagination than in the real world. And children’s interest in fantasy stories and in distortion (particularly exaggeration) is another fact mistaken as support for this idea. Vygotsky argues that children’s experience is poorer than adults’; that their interests are simpler, more elementary, and so also poorer than adults’; and that children’s relationships with the environment are not as complex, subtle or diverse as that of adults. Therefore, “the child can imagine vastly less than the adult” (2004: 29). Those who conclude otherwise are using the term imagination to refer to all that is unreal, that is how they come to their incorrect conclusions. The child “has greater faith in the products of his imagination and controls them less, and thus imagination, in the everyday, vulgar sense of this word, that is, what is unreal and made up, is of course greater in the child than in the adult” (2004: 29). In truth the child’s imagination is only equal to the adult’s with regard to the elements used for the construction of imagination, reality, and the emotional roots of imagination. Children and adults both engage in the process of imagination, but at different levels. In “Imagination and its Development in Childhood” (1987), Vygotsky elaborates upon his arguments in “Imagination and Creativity in Childhood” (2004). He argues that there is a complex relationship between realistic thinking and activity of advanced forms of imagination. And he concludes: “In sum, the apparent, metaphysical, and primal opposition that has been established between realistic and autistic1 thinking is both fictive and false. The differences between realistic and autistic thinking are not absolute but relative” (1987: 348). Vygotsky claims in this chapter that imagination is an integral aspect of realistic thinking.The two are interdependent.And in the observation of imagination linked with creativity, which is imagination directed towards reality, there is no boundary between realistic thinking and imagination.This is so because “no accurate cognition of reality is possible without a certain element of imagination, a certain flight from the immediate, concrete, solitary impressions in which this reality is presented in the elementary acts of consciousness” (1987: 348). Invention and artistic creativity require realistic thinking and imagination. In these processes: “The two act as a unity” (1987: 349). The above is the central thrust of Vygotsky’s argument in “Imagination and its Development in Childhood” (1987). Lindqvist also points out that Vygotsky stresses the fact that imagination faces forward, that those who imagine are capable of producing the new. Vygotsky writes: 61

Beth Ferholt and Monica Nilsson

The essential feature that distinguishes imagination from other forms of mental activity is that it does not repeat combinations of accumulated impressions but builds a new series of impressions from them. The very foundation of the activity that we refer to as imagination is the introduction of something new into the flow of our impressions, the transformation of these impressions such that something new, an image that did not previously exist, emerges. (Vygotsky, 1987: 339) Vygotsky explains that earlier theories of psychology were not able to understand imagination because they considered all forms of human mental activity to be associative combinations of accumulated impressions, and therefore had to attribute imagination to other functions. However, imagination does what other functions cannot do: it creates the new. According to Vygotsky associative psychology reduced imagination to memory, while idealist psychology tried to show that memory is just a special form of imagination, as perception is a form of imagination that constructs our perception of reality. The idealist psychologists argued that creative imagination is inherent in consciousness, that consciousness creates a priori forms, and that these forms produce all our impressions of external reality.

Lindqvist’s theory of play Lindqvist (1995, 2001a, 2003) argues that in “Imagination and Creativity in Childhood” (2004),Vygotsky links his ideas about art to his theory of play. Here he describes the imaginary process as creative interpretation and play as an early basis for children’s creativity. Therefore Lindqvist also turns to Vygotsky’s theory of art (1971), as she reinterprets Vygotsky’s work and develops her own theory of play. For Lindqvist it is essential that we remember Vygotsky’s theory of play “is an all-embracing cultural theory, which combines emotion and thought, aesthetics and rationality” (1995: 16). She (1995, 2003) argues that for Vygotsky it is the exaggerations of imagination that give science the ability to recognize the new. Emotions and imagination are in a dialectic relationship, as the images of our imagination provide our emotions with an internal language, and emotions influence our imagination. Therefore, emotion and thought are related. Also, for Vygotsky, it is the exaggerations of imagination that give art the ability to recognize the new. And there is a dialectic relationship between imagination and reality, considered to be accessible by the rational. Imagination develops creativity because it is an emotional and intellectual process that takes fragments of reality and transforms them. These newly made fragments re-enter reality. In Lindqvist’s view (2003), the way that Vygotsky links emotions to thought gives aesthetics a new role in the process of consciousness. According to her (1995), in Vygotsky’s theory of play, play is the activity through which children become conscious of the world. Also, Lindqvist (1995: 40) writes “Play does not keep emotion, thought and will separated from one another.” Lindqvist agrees with El’konin (2005) concerning the importance of Vygotsky’s (1987, 2004) claim that imagination and realistic thinking act as a unity in the processes 62

Aesthetics of play and joint playworlds

of invention and creativity, but she argues that El’konin did not sufficiently focus on Vygotsky’s assertion that children’s play is a creative cultural manifestation in humans.2 Lindqvist states that a significant result of this oversight was that El’konin’s work promoted adult intervention in children’s play that stifles the creative potential of children’s play, rather than a creative approach to children’s play, which fosters this potential. Also, Hakkarainen (2008) has developed Lindqvist’s emphasis on the narrative aspects of play, particularly in relation to the development of symbolization, language and thought.

Playworlds within Lindqvist’s creative pedagogy of play Lindqvist reinterprets Vygotsky’s theory of play with the expressed purpose of designing, implementing and studying a pedagogy in which adults assume a creative approach to children’s play. Sutton-Smith (1997: 50) writes that “extrinsic academic, social, moral, physical, and cognitive play functions, with a progress-oriented thrust, have been the major focus of most child play scientists”. Lindqvist’s “creative pedagogy of play” (1995) permits the study of play and culture in early childhood settings, the study of the aesthetics of children’s play, and the study of play as an activity in which children produce results that draw upon, but do not mimic adult achievements in any of the categories listed above. Lindqvist’s creative pedagogy of play promotes the study of joint adult-child play in which children’s ability to produce results in play that are novel to both adults and children is a central feature. In Lindqvist’s creative pedagogy of play interaction between adults and children is structured around a piece of literature, or another work of art.The adults and children work together to “bring the literature to life” (1995: 72) through drama (or, in some cases, dance – although we will here discuss the dramatic playworlds). They assume roles, characters from the literary piece, and “make use of the intrinsic dynamism between world, action and character in drama and play” (1995: 72). Concretely, through joint scripted and improvisational acting and set design the children and adults transform their classroom into a world inspired by a book (and, in the process, the book they are working from into a world inspired by their activity). Lindqvist gives rich and concrete examples in her publications (1989, 1992, 1995, 1996, 2000, 2001a, 2001b, 2002) of implementations of her creative pedagogy of play. Lindqvist’s pedagogy is designed to investigate how aesthetic activities can influence children’s play, and the nature of the connections between play and the aesthetic forms of drama and literature. She is trying to find a “common denominator” of play and aesthetic forms, a denominator which she calls “the aesthetics of play” (Lindqvist, 1995). Lindqvist considers one of the most important conclusions of her investigation to be that the development of adult-child joint play is made possible through the creation of a common fiction, which she calls a “playworld” (1995).The playworld is created through the activity of bringing the actions and characters in literary texts to life through drama. It is the interactive space in which both children and adults are creatively engaged.

The two playworlds All playworlds can be described as combinations of adult forms of creative imagination (art, science, etc.), which require extensive experience, with children’s forms of creative 63

Beth Ferholt and Monica Nilsson

imagination (play), which require the embodiment of ideas and emotions in the material world (Vygotsky’s (1978) “pivot”). Again, the following two playworlds fit under this broad umbrella: children and adults bring a piece of children’s literature to life through scripted and improvisational acting, costume and set design, and multimodal rehearsal and reflection.

The Baba Yaga playworld The Baba Yaga playworld was inspired not only by playworld work in the Nordic countries, particularly Hakkarainen’s (2008) work in Finland and Lindqvist’s (1995) work in Sweden, but also by playworld work in Japan and Serbia (Marjanovic-Shane et al., 2011). This multinational inspiration was made possible through a fortuitous convergence of scholars at LCHC. It was based in many versions of the Baba Yaga Russian folk tale about a witch who lives in a hut with chicken legs. We merged these versions of the tale into a single power point display, which we displayed on the wall and which was read aloud by a character who was the “narrator” of the playworld. The researchers came to the classroom once a week, at first just to talk, draw and play with the children, and then later in costume to act out various portions of the composite Baba Yaga tale. The acting sessions began with scenes that were more scripted and in which the children participated only as audience members, and culminated with an acting session during which the children were invited into the story by the adults, who were in role. After acting sessions there were related projects that were guided, but fairly open ended, such as painting and drawing the events of the day, making small huts-with-chicken-legs sculptures, painting the actual hut without its chicken legs, etc. As the semester progressed, the children began with the characters to bring the story to its conclusion, that is, to save the hedgehog from becoming Baba Yaga’s stew. After the adult acting portion of the project had finished, the children began to play the Baba Yaga stories with intense engagement, and to invite the adult participants into their play scenarios. The children’s teachers were not participants in this playworld, so these invitations took place only during the researchers’ weekly visits to the classroom. For the rest of the week the children played without adults. At this point in the project the researchers sensed that there was great opportunity for the children to develop the playworld, but it was just at this point that the teachers decided that the project was over. Several aspects of the Baba Yaga playworld interested the researchers, but there was not enough data gathered in response to any questions to generate conclusions. The researchers began to design a project that would allow for the investigation of the following aspects of playworlds: the development of a close-knit community of children in the classroom and the role of gesture in this process as the children in the Baba Yaga projects appeared to develop an increased awareness of each other, to look out for each other when they became scared of Baba Yaga or were having trouble expressing themselves, etc., and they were often imitating the stomping of Baba Yaga’s chicken-legged hut (this hut had appeared in person in their classroom during the playworld); both the children and the adults appeared to be markedly emotionally involved in the playworld; the children who were having the most difficulties according 64

Aesthetics of play and joint playworlds

to the teachers, for instance a child who hardly spoke at all and a child who often disrupted the class, appeared to be the most engaged in the playworld and to overcome some of their teacher-identified “difficult” behaviors in the playworld; there were instances during the playworld when the ethical responsibility of the researchers and teachers came to the fore, in this case when one child began to have nightmares about the hut on chicken legs and the one American researcher wondered if the researchers had “scared” this child; and that it was through the making of a film of the playworld for an outside audience that many of these most interesting aspects of the playworld came to the researchers’ attention, while editing the film for aesthetic results appeared to increase communication between researchers, and increase understanding, of some key elements of the playworld. A concrete result of the Baba Yaga playworld was the formation of the International Playworld Network (IPWN).The IPWN is a group of playworld scholars who have now been collaborating in their playworld research, through joint conference presentations, playworld conferences and international research projects, for two decades.

The U.S. Narnia playworld The U.S. Narnia playworld was designed to respond to some of the unanswered questions that arose in the Baba Yaga playworld. The first priority of the researchers was to find a U.S. setting that could tolerate a playworld that would continue until the child participants wanted it to end, or until the end of the school year, whichever came first. The site chosen was the classroom of one teacher, a visual artist who teaches in public elementary schools on a U.S. military base. Although playworlds in the U.S. have not proliferated, they have continued to be created in this teacher’s classroom. There have been five playworlds to date including the U.S. Narnia playworld, which was based on C. S. Lewis’s novel, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.The other playworlds have been based on Norton Juster’s The Phantom Tollbooth, Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, L. Frank Baum’s The Wonderful Wizard of Oz and Madeleine L’Engle’s A Wrinkle in Time. In the U.S. Narnia playworld the first half of the novel was read aloud to the children before the acting began but the second half of the novel was never read to the children. Instead, over the course of the project the children became more active participants, collectively writing and directing their own resolutions to the novel’s central conflicts. Over the one-year period during which the playworld took place there were fourteen playworld sessions in which some or all of the participants enacted parts of the novel. Following the enactments, the children, researchers and teacher would engage in group discussion followed by free play and/or art activities. Most of these fourteen sessions included all four researchers, who played the child heroes of the playworld. The teacher joined during the seventh of these sessions, playing the evil White Witch, and the children joined during the eighth of these sessions, as themselves. For the final of these sessions the children were the primary planners of the adult-child joint play. All the playworld sessions involved set pieces and props created by both the adults and children, including some props that were designed to appeal to the participants’ senses of touch, smell and sound. By the time half these sessions were completed the 65

Beth Ferholt and Monica Nilsson

teacher, who had been moving the set pieces to the side of the classroom at the end of each playworld session, began to leave the set pieces in place throughout the week. The classroom was filled with the large, colorful structures, and the teacher conducted all of his classroom activities in and around a cardboard dam, cave, castle, etc. After the final session of adult-child joint acting, the children decided to present a play of the playworld to their families.This initiated a series of child-conceived sessions that were unanticipated by the adults. Their teacher, with some input from one of the researchers, helped the children to design, direct and rehearse this play. The time the class spent on this process continued to grow until it was taking whole days and crowding out other scheduled activities. The children presented the play to their parents in the final week of the school year. After the school year was complete, the adults continued the playworld through many different forms of playful analysis, including adult-adult interaction that incorporated filming, drawing and painting. Whereas the Baba Yaga playworld research project data included only audio, video recordings of the acting and art activities and field notes by the research participants, the U.S. Narnia playworld project combined a pre- and post-test quasi-experimental design with participant-observer ethnography. Ethnographic data included field notes, audio and video recordings, interviews, and e-mail correspondence. Field notes were written after each site visit by the four participating researchers and by an external observer. The teacher also wrote field notes. Audio and video recordings were made of all playworld sessions and of all interviews. Data analysis of ethnographic data included two types of analysis: analysis of discourse and communicative exchanges using transcriptions from the video and audio recordings and the juxtaposition of the material of a playworld with poetic representations of this playworld (Ferholt, 2010). These second methods of analysis merged with the design of the research project, collection and analysis of the data, and presentation of the findings. Furthermore, insofar as collaboration with the teacher included ongoing researcher-teacher joint analysis in a form that mimics the playworld, the playworld itself can be described as having still been in progress through this second method of analysis. Evidence from the U.S. Narnia playworld that has been analyzed to date demonstrates that participation improves children’s narrative and literacy skills (Baumer et al., 2005), and that playworlds can lead to the socio-emotional development of both adults and children (Ferholt, 2009; Ferholt and Lecusay, 2010). Analysis of this data has also been used to expand Vygotsky’s concept of the zone of proximal development to include development of adults participating in the zone with the child (Ferholt and Lecusay, 2010). Cross-cultural projects which include the U.S. Narnia playworld data include a study of imagination and the use of psychological tools in playworlds that were created in different countries but were based on the same work of literature (Hakkarainen and Ferholt, 2014), and collaborative analysis of agency and engagement in a U.S. playworld (Ferholt and Rainio, 2016). Work in progress also focuses on the fact that U.S. playworlds have provided unique evidence of the synergy between emotion and cognition, a notoriously difficult process to study, but also one recognized to be of central importance to cognitive and social development. This work includes a study of perezhivanie in the U.S. Narnia playworld (Ferholt, 2009; Ferholt, 2015; Ferholt and Nilsson, 2016a). 66

Aesthetics of play and joint playworlds

Conclusion We began this chapter with the assertion that, because playworlds are unlike other forms of play, they are useful tools for the study of many topics in many fields, as well as for the development of early childhood practice. It seems fitting to conclude this chapter by mentioning some of the most promising, preliminary hypotheses, which we are in the midst of investigating and which derive from our most recent research project, the playworld of the Princess and the Basement Troll in the Shark’s Ocean. In this study we suspect that some children have moved from hesitating in play to leading play through their participation; that the playworld has deepened the teachers’ listening to the children and their “becoming closer to each other as pedagogues but also becoming closer to the children”; that the teachers’ relationship to the children has changed in other significant ways because of playing with the children in the playworld: that the teachers, after participating, now want to play with rather than document the children; that through the playworld the children’s voices are being heard and respected in new ways by their teachers; that the playworld itself could be characterized as “an art form that allows one to let go of time and space”; that the children’s play outside the playworld, after their participation in the playworld, is now more focused on story and plot, more joyful, uses different language than it did before the playworld and moves into different worlds than it did before; that children like their teachers to take part in their play (the children consistently invite teachers to play with them, even in their homes, after participating in the playworld with their teachers. This did not happen before); and that teachers learn with the children in new ways, discovering the small things that the children encounter from a new perspective, after their participation in the playworld.

Notes 1 Here Vygotsky is referring to Piaget’s use of the term “autistic” in Piaget’s earlier work. Piaget does not use the word to refer to what is now thought of as the disability of autism, but to refer to a stage of development during which children’s thoughts are not directed towards the real world. 2 El’konin ends his summary of theoretical research on play with a quote from S. L. Rubinshtein’s 1946 response to Vygotsky’s 1933 lecture: In play there is indeed a flight from reality, but there is also a penetration of reality. For this reason there is no escape, no running away from reality to a putative special, makebelieve, fictitious, unreal world. The lifeblood of play, everything that it embodies in action, it takes from reality. Play goes beyond the bounds of one situation and abstracts from particular aspects of reality in order to reveal others still more deeply. (1946: 592) (2005: 93–94) In this quote Rubinshtein may be discussing the creative quality of play, but it is unclear whether or not this is the case from the context El’konin provides. And El’konin himself states that “play is directed at the future and not at the past” (2005: 67). However, he is referring to his assertion that play is a central means by which higher forms of human needs evolve. This process is not necessarily creative.

67

Beth Ferholt and Monica Nilsson

References Alvesson, M., and Skoldberg, K. (1994). Tolkning och reflektion – vetenskapsfilosofi och kvalitativa metoder [Interpretation and reflection: The philosophy of science and qualitative methods]. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Aries, P. (1962). Centuries of Childhood. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Baumer, S. (2013). Play Pedagogy and Playworlds. Encyclopedia on Early Childhood development. Retrieved 13 April 2016 from: www.childencyclopedia.com/Pages/PDF/BaumerANGxp1. pdf. Baumer, S., Ferholt, B., and Lecusay, R. (2005). Promoting narrative competence through adult– child joint pretense: Lessons from the Scandinavian educational practice of playworld. Cognitive Development, 20, 576–590. Bredikyte, M., and Hakkarainen, P. (2011). Play intervention and play development. In C. Lobman and B. E. O’Neill (Eds.), Play and Performance. Play & Culture Studies,11, pp. 59–83. Lanham, Ma: University Press of America. Dahlberg, G. and Lenz Taguchi, H. (1994). Förskola och skola: om två skilda traditioner och om visionen om en mötesplats [Preschool and school:The two different traditions and a vision of a meeting place]. Stockholm: HLS publishers. El’konin, B. D. (2005). The psychology of play. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 43(1), 1–98. Fass, P. (2007). Children of a New World. New York: New York University Press. Ferholt, B. (2009). Adult and Child Development in Adult-Child Joint Play: The Development of Cognition, Emotion, Imagination and Creativity in Playworlds. University of California, San Diego. Ferholt, B. (2010). A multiperspectival analysis of creative imagining: Applying Vygotsky’s method of literary analysis to a playworld. In C. Connery,V. John-Steiner and A. MarjanovicShane (Eds.), Vygotsky and Creativity: A Cultural-Historical Approach to Play, Meaning-Making and the Arts. New York: Peter Lang. Ferholt, B. (2015). Perezhivanie in Researching Playworlds:Applying the Concept of Perezhivanie in the Study of Play. In S. Davis, B. Ferholt, H. Grainger-Clemson, S-M Jansson, and A. Marjanovic-Shane (Eds.), Dramatic Interactions in Education: Vygotskian and Socio-Cultural Approaches to Drama, Education and Research. London: Bloomsbury. Ferholt, B., and Lecusay, R. (2010). Adult and child development in the zone of proximal development: Socratic dialogue in a Playworld. Mind Culture and Activity, 17(1), 59–83. Ferholt, B., and Nilsson, M. (2014). Vygotsky’s theories of play, imagination and creativity in current practice: Gunilla Lindqvist’s “creative pedagogy of play” in U. S. kindergartens and Swedish Reggio-Emilia inspired preschools. (R) Perspectiva, 32(1), 919–950. Ferholt, B., and Nilsson, M. (2016a). Perezhivanija as a means of creating the aesthetic form of consciousness. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 23. Ferholt, B., and Nilsson, M. (2016b). Early childhood perezhivaniya. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 23. Ferholt, B., Nilsson, M., Jansson, A., and Alnervik, K. (2015). Creativity in education: Play and exploratory learning. In Thomas Hansson (Ed.), Contemporary Approaches to Activity Theory: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Human Behavior (pp. 264–284). Hershey, Pennsylvania: IGI Global. Ferholt, B., Nilsson, M., Jansson, A., and Alnervik, K. (2016). Current playworld research in Sweden: Rethinking the role of young children and their teacher in the design and execution of early childhood research. In J. M. Iorio and W. Parnell (Eds.), Disrupting Early Childhood Education Research: Imagining New Possibilities (pp. 117–138). New York: Routledge. Ferholt, B., & Nilsson, M. (2016). Perezhivaniya as a Means of Creating the Aesthetic Form of Consciousness. Mind Culture and Activity, Published online: 21 Jul 2016, pp. 1–11. Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis Publisher. Ferholt, B., and Rainio, A. P. (2016). Teacher support of student engagement in early childhood: embracing ambivalence through playworlds. Early Years, 36:4, 413–425.

68

Aesthetics of play and joint playworlds Hakkarainen, P. (2008). The challenges and possibilities of a narrative learning approach in the Finnish early childhood education system. International Journal of Educational Research, 47, 292–300. Hakkarainen, P., Bredikyte, M., Jakkula, K., and Munter, H. (2013). Adult play guidance and children’s play development in a narrative play-world. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 21(2), 213–225. Hakkarainen, P., and Ferholt, B. (2014). Creative Imagination in Play-Worlds:Wonder-full Early Childhood Education in Finland and the United States. In K. Egan, A. Cant and G. Judson (Eds.), Wonder-full Education: The Centrality of Wonder in Teaching and Learning Across the Curriculum. New York: Routledge. Illyenkov, E.V. (1977). The problem of the ideal. In Philosophy in the USSR: Problems of Dialectical Materialism. Moscow: Progress. Lewis, C. S. (1950). The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Co. Lindqvist, G. (1989). Från fakta till fantasi [From Facts to Fantasy]. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Lindqvist, G. (1992). Ensam i vida världen [Lonely in the wide world]. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Lindqvist, G. (1995). Lekens estetik. En didaktisk studie om lek och kultur i förskolan. Forskningsrapport 95: 12, SKOBA, Högskolan i Karlstad. [The Aesthetics of Play. A Didactic Study of Play and Culture in Preschools]. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Uppsala studies in Education 62. Stockholm/Sweden: Almqvist & Wiksell International. Lindqvist, G. (1996). Lekens möjligheter [The possibilities of play]. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Lindqvist, G. (2000). Historia som tema och gestaltning [History as theme and gestalt]. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Lindqvist, G. (2001a). When small children play: How adults dramatize and children create meaning. Early Years, 21(1), 7–14. Lindqvist, G. (2001b). The Relationship between Play and Dance. Research in Dance Education, 2(1), 41–53. Lindqvist, G. (2002). Lek i skolan [Play in school]. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Lindqvist, G. (2003).Vygotsky’s theory of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 15(4), 245–251. Marjanovic-Shane, A., Ferholt, B., Nilsson, M., Rainio, A. P., and Miyazaki, K. (2011). Playworlds: An Art of development. In C. Lobman and B. O’Neill (Eds.), Play and Culture. Play and Culture Studies,Vol. 11 (pp. 3–31). Maryland: University Press of America. Nilsson, M., Ferholt, B., Granqvist, A. K., Johansson, E., and Thure, J. (forthcoming). Lek, lycka och lärande! En berättelse om lekande och utforskande barn och pedagoger i förskolan. (Play, joy and learning: A story about playing and exploring children and adults in preschool). Malmö: Gleerups. Pelaprat, E. and Cole, M. (2011). “Minding the Gap”: Imagination, Creativity and Human Cognition. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, December, 45(4), 397–418. Starrin, B. (1994). Om distinktionen kvalitativ-kvantitativ i social forskning [On the distinction qualitative-quantitative in social research]. In B. Starrin and P. G. Svensson (Eds.), Kvalitativ metod och vetenskapsteori [Qualitative Method and Theory] (pp. 11–39). Lund: Studentlitteratur. Sutton-Smith, B. (1997). The ambiguity of play. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1971). The Psychology of Art. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Imagination and its Development in Childhood. In The collected works of L. S.Vygotsky. New York: Plenum Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (2004). Imagination and Creativity in Childhood. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 42(1), 7–97.

69

6 Pretend play and child development Pentti Hakkarainen, Milda Bredikyte and Ildar Safarov

Introduction Vygotsky (1977) argued in his lecture on play: “Action in the imaginary field, in the imagined situation, building of voluntary intention, the construction of life plan, motives of willing — all this emerges in play” (Vygotsky 1977: 96). Vygotsky’s description has been interpreted as a promise that all child’s play promotes development. But Vygotsky was writing about social pretend role play. Vygotsky’s list of what develops in social pretend role play gives us a general idea about his approach to development. Imaginary actions, intentions, motives and life plans are not separate knowledge and skills, but psychological systems, personal driving forces and future oriented tendencies. In his lecture on play Vygotsky tried to reveal what in pretend play could explain qualitative changes, which might be indicators of development. A central contradiction in pretend play was between visual and sense field (which is about the domination of ideas) instead of realistic perception of the environment. Playing children use imagination and create imaginary situations for play environment. Children construct social rules for play interaction. Meanings of objects in play are subordinated to play ideas. The methodological difference between cultural historical explanation of development and traditional Western approach is clear in the following examples. Lillard et al. (2013a: 2) collected empirical studies, which claimed that “play is crucial to positive development”. The goal was to reveal if causality is found in research projects making the claim. When we compare studies included in the Lillard et al. review and Vygotsky’s cultural historical approaches there are important differences. First, the concept of development is radically different: domains and skills in the review vs. higher mental functions and psychological systems. Second, the cultural historical approach supposes that advanced play has the greatest developmental impact and the quality of play should be enhanced (El’konin 1978, 1989). Third, children today attain the same level 70

Pretend play and child development

of play approximately two years later than fifty years ago (Smirnova and Gudareva 2005) and advanced role play seems to disappear in the whole world (Miller and Almon 2010, Nicolopoulou 2010, Singer et al. 2008, Smirnova and Gudareva 2005), which seems to lead towards a lowering of the level of self-regulation.

Advanced make-believe play and child development Vygotsky did not elaborate in detail how pretend socio-dramatic play produces changes in child development. His hypothesis suggests the existence of a specific type of play rules, which first regulate actions in social space between children (in roles) and then is transformed to individual self-regulation of higher psychological (cultural) processes. These rules are children’s interpretations of the adult world because reality (meaning of objects) is subsumed to children’s sense making to which Vygotsky refers: What passes unnoticed by the child in real life becomes a rule of behaviour in play . . .Therefore, to imagine that a child can behave in an imaginary situation without rules, i.e., as he behaves in a real situation, is simply impossible. If the child is playing the role of a mother, then she has rules of maternal behaviour. The role the child plays, and her relationship to the object if the object has changed its meaning, will always stem from the rules, i.e., the imaginary situation will always contain rules. In play the child is free. But this is an illusory freedom. (Vygotsky 1977: 83) Here Vygotsky emphasizes the contrast between everyday real life situations and a pretend role. Imaginary play situations “force” the child to notice and follow the rules, but rules in real life do not have this power, yet. Strelkova’s (1986) empirical work is an excellent example showing this difference. In individual discussion twenty-four 6-year-olds said that they understood what helping younger children meant and that they were ready to help them. They were taken in pairs to the playroom where a 3-year-old child tried to solve a difficult puzzle. The pair started to play and after ten minutes the experimenter asked them to help the small one because he/she is tired. Out of the twenty-four children (twelve girls and twelve boys) only two interrupted their play and started helping. A week later the children were shown a film of the tale The Wonderful Adventures of Nils by Selma Lagerlöf. Now the invitation to help was connected with a tale: “The little hamster picks berries and nuts. He/she is small and tired and mother is far away.” Twenty children actively helped and took care of the small child. In the third session the narrative frame was eliminated and this time seventeen children did not react to the helping invitation and seven helped for a while (Strelkova 1986). El’konin elaborated Vygotsky’s ideas on the cultural historical approach to the study of children’s play. He rejected the didactic use of play and playfulness in order to add what children are interested in as contributing towards learning knowledge and skills. He analysed the effects of play on four domains of development: motivation, cognitive egocentrism, cognitive actions and arbitrary behaviour. He supposed that advanced 71

Hakkarainen, Bredikyte and Safarov

play is the children’s activity, which has adults and the system of their relationships as the object. He characterized advanced play in general terms as having the following properties: 1 2 3 4

Objects are substituted with imaginary objects or symbolic content (e.g. a spoon is indicated with a symbolic movement) Roles become more consistent and interaction more solid Play scenarios integrate several themes and they are of high quality Planning of play is extended (El’konin 1978, 1989).

In an earlier project the authors have encountered play-planning practices, which gave us reason to name them as “typical play actions of children’s (pretend) play activity” (Hakkarainen 1990). During a play session lasting 40 minutes in a Finnish day-care centre, 4–6-year-old children left their roles, negotiated a continuation and returned to their roles over twenty times. We can suppose that negotiation about play events and roles is connected to the improvisational and dialogic character of the role interactions. “As if ” communication between role characters gives an open alternative to the next role character who can accept the previous move and add his own next step using the improvisation rule “yes . . . and” or she/he can reject the previous move on the plea that “you cannot say so”. A negative answer often starts negotiation “out of roles” or totally stops the play. Why do rules have a central place in Vygotsky’s play analysis? The reason is clearly stated in his writings on the development of self-regulation from 3–7 years. In his approach co-regulation and other regulation is a prerequisite of self-regulation. As we argue above advanced role play at every turn regulates the child’s role behaviour. In order to track the changes of self-regulation in early childhood and plan appropriate interventions we have to follow the developmental trajectory of subjects in childhood activities. Some stages are verified in the psychological research, with the following indicated: In our play laboratory children had a rule: “Don’t run on the stairs!” A boy (20 months) hurried down the stairs mumbling, “Don’t run on the stairs! Don’t run on the stairs!” The words were clearly directed to him, but they did not regulate his running, yet. It seems that there is only a strong association between the rule and its domain. Perhaps at this age the child’s self-awareness is not clear enough in order to lend the rule the power to regulate him. He did not comprehend that it is he who is running. His understanding was limited to the place: no running on the stairs! He was not yet a conscious subject of his own actions. Self-regulation is not possible before the child is able to act as an independent subject in relation to his environment.This starts from the crisis at three years.Vygotsky elaborated Köhler’s result from a comparison of the developmental trajectories of apes and children in which he stated: “an ape is a slave of its own visual field” (Vygotsky 1978: 28). In other words an ape cannot create alternatives to the present stimulus field, but the child starts after the crisis at three years to take into account situations outside their present visual field. Vygotsky picked up the idea and proposed as a competing alternative environment the “sense field”, an environment of ideas, which can offer an 72

Pretend play and child development Table 6.1  Developmental trajectory of interactive subjects in childhood – Symbiotic mother-child dyad as subject – Me myself (the crisis at three by Vygotsky) – Me – I and me in role or somebody else as imaginative subject – Collective subject of joint play actions of several children – Subject of self-change

alternative to ordinary cultural meaning-making by replacing meaning with pretend characteristics. A real child is changed to child into a child in a role. For the first time in their life the child demonstrates stubbornness by demanding something not because they want it badly, but because they demanded it. Logic is turned upside down.They want something because they said so. At the same time they contradict adults’ wishes and demands. The child firmly keeps their position and does not let adult proposals and demands change it. Their firmness is accompanied by the demand to do everything themselves even if the task is too complicated and overwhelming.This is one of the background factors why children move to the world of play where imagination helps them into the amazing actions of a hero. A child’s stubbornness and demand to do everything themselves is in sharp contradiction with the need for feedback from adults.The child needs positive feedback from actions emphasizing their independence and confrontation in relation to the adult. The child wants positive reaction to their fantasy products, breaking the rules, demonstrative affects, false explanations, and boasting of their non-existing talents. They can be very positive and nice in day care, but stubborn, disobedient with the mother. They may not understand that they insult other people just by demonstrating their own independent existence. Slobodcikov et al. (2003) suppose that the forms of co-living with the adults change at this crisis. Successful joint manipulation of objects together with an adult changes to a child’s striving for independent action. Models for action and relations between people still come from the adult. Adults become models of action subjectively as well objectively. With the crisis the child becomes a subject of their life space and inner world. At the 3-year-old transition the independent inner life of the child appears and motives of action are separated from actions. The child is for the first time able to compare different motives and struggle of motives becomes possible (El’konin 1960). Bozhovich (1978) claims that behind the child’s internal contradiction in this crisis is their relation to the adult. The child has the need to act independently and the parallel need to satisfy the demands of adults. The final contradiction thus is between “I want” and “I have to”. The existence of simultaneous strong to contrary directions stretching affective tendencies (doing as I want and meeting the demands of adults) creates in the child unavoidable inner conflict and with this complicates his internal psychological life. At this developmental stage the contradiction between “want” and “must” forces the child to make a choice, arouses 73

Hakkarainen, Bredikyte and Safarov

contradictory emotional “perezhivanie”, establish ambivalent relation towards adults and contradictory child behavior. (Bozhovich 1978: 33) We accidentally collided with this contradiction in a Finnish day-care centre. A girl named Susan started in the centre at the age of three and half years. The girl’s finger tops were stained with colours when she came home from day care. The parents supposed that the children had been finger painting together. But there was a contradiction between “must” and “want”.The strict rule of the centre forced children to stay for at least half an hour in bed for an afternoon rest. Susan did not want to have a nap, but half an hour under the blanket was a “must”. She prepared for this time by drawing a human face on each finger top and started to play under the blanket. This is an example of director’s play where the child does not take a role, but organizes role relations and play events.

The primacy of social relations in advanced make-believe play Vygotsky presented in his theory of cultural development a radical idea of two stages of development. The first is the interpsychological social relationship between people, in which new higher mental functions first appear and can then be internalized by individuals. The essence of Vygotsky’s ‘‘genetic law’’ is described: An interpersonal process is transformed into an intrapersonal one. Every function in the child’s cultural development appears twice: first, on the social level, and later, on the individual level; first between people (interpsychological), and then inside the child (intrapsychological). This applies equally to voluntary attention, to logical memory, and to the formation of concepts. All the higher functions originate as actual relations between human individuals. (Vygotsky 1978: 57) Vygotsky’s hypothesis about interpersonal origin of new higher mental functions supports focusing on social relationships between individuals in the analysis of early childhood development. In his lecture plan and lecture on play Vygotsky does not mention directly general genetic law. He talks instead about sense making (the sense field dominates over the visual field), rules connected to play roles, conscious willing, and the emancipation of words from objects. The main genetic contradiction he defined as movement in a semiotic field, like movement in a real one (Vygotsky 2005). These characteristics motivated him to say that play is the source of development and creates the zone of proximal development. But we have to remember that Vygotsky was talking about children’s socio-dramatic, pretend play, which is interpsychological. He comments in a general way on the relationship between the two levels of development and emphasizes the importance of social relations in the development of individual mental functions:

74

Pretend play and child development

In contrast to Piaget, we believe that development proceeds not towards socialization, but toward converting social relations into mental functions.The role of group in child development is presented in a completely new light. The usual question is how does one child or another behave in a group.We ask how does the group create higher mental functions in one child or another. (Vygotsky 1997 (vol. 4): 106–107) The role of communities in the definition of developmental stages is also seldom taken into account in the cultural historical approach. One exception is the study of Slobodcikov et al. (2003). They defined an interactive community as an individual’s developmental space. For them interactive community is a more fruitful concept for defining stages of development than leading activities (like El’konin 1999). The distance from a leading activity to individual mental functions was too wide. The problem of how social relations are transformed (internalized) to individual psychological processes is not solved, yet. Stages can be compared to a map of communities. “Only within such a community can an individual develop all of the psychological functions necessary for existence inside it, transform these functions, and begin to construct new ones” (Slobodcikov et al. 2003: 54). Capacities are objectified in communities and they are available to participating individuals. The authors reject the idea that a model of developmental stages must be a linear chain of formal temporal segments, but rather represent an “epigenetic ensemble” (Erikson 1982), in which all stages are present simultaneously. How can the stages be present simultaneously? Erikson’s idea was that the critical contradictions at each stage can never be finally resolved in a person’s lifetime. At a new stage old contradictions are met again in a transformed shape. “Thus, the basic trust, openness to the world, independence, and initiative that develop in childhood, as well as all the other developmental trends, are reconfirmed when a person masters each subsequent new community and new activity” (Slobodcikov et al. 2003: 55). Play activity understood in Vygotskian terms as pretend role play (contradiction between visual and sense fields) starts from the crisis around three years.This crisis and its symptoms (“me self ”) demonstrate the agony of self-discovery and its transformation into joint role play. The play age (3–7 years) is transformed into the school years with systematized school learning after the childhood crisis (at 7 years in Vygotsky’s periodization).

Analysis of social role relations in make-believe play El’konin (1978) demonstrated in his book how adult life and people’s social relations attain the status of object (content) of role play. But today’s play research has approached the study of social relations from individual positions. As a result the construction of joint play actions (sovokupnie igravie deistviya), joint initiatives and joint imaginary space is impossible to grasp in interventions or analyses. Starting from individual positions is contrary to Vygotsky’s general idea of the cultural origin of development. From the individual point of view we can grasp “the mirror” effect of a dual subject, which helps the child to compare role character with personal actions as self. But this does not help 75

Hakkarainen, Bredikyte and Safarov

to see the system character of joint play of several children and explain, for example, how and why the storyline of pretend play was jointly created. We suppose that children are able to construct cultural ideal forms as joint play actions as relationships systems. Impetus to investigate system relations of pretend play came from psychotherapy. The process model was developed combining observations from different Gestalt therapy systems and general system theory. In the relationship process model previous phase is a precondition for the next qualitative change. The model can be applied to ongoing social relationships between several selves following the possible growth of cooperative activity starting from the first sensations and withdrawal from joint activity at the end (Safarov 2009). The most interesting aspect of the model is the relationship phases of constructing the motivational prerequisites of cooperative activity.Yaroshevski’s (2007: 261) analysis of Vygotskian categories hinted how it would be possible to have an influence on the motivation of change: “behind the term ‘meaning’ [znacenie] there is the category of ‘psychological image’ and behind the term of ‘sense’ [smysl ] the category of ‘motivation’”. In a nonlinear model of relationships meaning and sense making are active at different phases. Dynamic relationship systems start from motivation phases (appearance of sense).Then the meaningful unfolding of action starts. Experiencing the sense leads to finding the individual and collective meaning of action. Once meaningful action is started, it is irreversible. An external observer perceives it as a sudden shift from contemplation to doing. In the relationship field, sense is expressed using cultural forms. When participants have agreed about sense, constructing common and personal meanings can start, and acting in accordance with the established commitment is possible. For an external researcher a sudden change in relationships is difficult to anticipate. Often a change is unpredictable even for participants. But we can predict dynamical quality of the process. It is lawful in Lewin’s sense and thus free from specific content. There are some main parameters in the model, which we should know in order to describe and analyse dynamic changes: role in the situation (structural constituent), emotional dynamics in the role (emotions that feed role in activity) and sense-based choice of the meaning (turning experienced sense into meaningful cultural form and behaviour). There are two types of nonlinearity in social relationships: 1 2

irreversible qualitative changes in relationship flow; irreversible qualitative changes in relationship field.

The analysis is focused on two processes: 1) phases of the development of relationships and 2) phenomena observed, analysed and interpreted on the basis of Lewinian theoretical concepts, the Gestalt-therapeutic approach and nonlinear dynamic system theory. The following phases are discerned in the relationship development of human selves. More intensive mutuality and self-involvement in joint activity are required in consecutive phases.The following phases are based on sequence of phases of Gestalt-therapy contact cycle (cycle of experience). They show the general nonlinear dynamics of wave-like relationship system based on sense and meaning-making of perceptible situation: 76

Pretend play and child development Table 6.2  Phases of relationship development Phase A – Sensation Phase B – Mutual awareness Phase C – Negotiations on shared sense Phase D – The arising of shared sense and joint oscillating system Phase E – Negotiations on joint action Phase F – Cooperative action trials Phase G – Energy/action growth in cooperative activity Phase H – Flow of relationships Phase I – Withdrawal from joint activity

Gestalt theory informed analysis and interpretation of the child-initiated pretend play “Little Red Riding Hood” is presented below. We focus on two episodes in demonstrating relationship dynamics between the players. A more detailed analysis is available in Safarov’s thesis (Safarov 2009: ch. 4). The following categories are used in relationship analysis and interpretation: 1 Human in ‘‘life space’’ (Lewin): facts, connections and self 2 Actual Gestalt: need, goal or sense 3 Attention direction, modes of awareness 4 Mode of activity on contact boundary 5 Deliberate regulation of relationships on contact boundary 6 Contact interruptions 7 Interventions 8 Attitudes of persons making interventions 9 Effects of interventions The social role relationship model was developed on the basis of psychotherapy approaches and dynamic system theory, but its “test bench” was child-initiated pretend role play.We supposed that ideal forms of social relationships were introduced through oral storytelling, dramatizations and role characters.These interventions left a mark on children’s independent play.

Analysis of relationship phases in pretend play Three girls – Lotta (6:2), Liina (3:10) and Noora (3:5) – started their play after several steps of dramatizations of the classic folk tale “Little Red Riding Hood”. The tale was told to the children with a transformer puppet a month before their joint play. The puppet visited the children’s homes after the presentation. Students asked children to dramatize the story of “Little Red Riding Hood” for the other children using the puppet. Lotta performed the role of “Little Red Riding Hood” twice before joint play. The girls understood that the original Red Riding Hood is the transformer puppet (turning the puppet upside down, the grandmother appears under the skirt, and turning the back of grandmother the wolf appears). The joint play starts with a 77

Hakkarainen, Bredikyte and Safarov

quarrel about ‘‘Little Red Riding Hood”. Lotta has the original transformer puppet in her hand and Liina has a flower princess table theatre puppet, which is beautiful, but has a simple stick as feet. The history of the girls’ relationships is that Lotta came to the children’s group in the November of 2002, and at this point had known Liina and Noora for about six months. However, she did not have close relationships or advanced play interaction with them. Liina and Noora had known each other for about seven months and had common play experience at home.

The initial situation Lotta has the Little Red Riding Hood transformer puppet with wolf and grandmother under the dress. Liina has the flower princess puppet, which she is taking for her Little Red Riding Hood. Liina is sitting on sofa; Lotta is crouching in front of it, busy with her puppet. Liina’s puppet lies on the sofa. Play takes place on the couch.

Nonlinear dynamics of play episodes Play episodes are not analysed here in detail. The symbols in brackets are referring to the phases of the nonlinear model of relationships.

Episode 1: Unsuccessful trials of relationship building At the beginning of the play the girls compete for the role of Little Red Riding Hood. They look intensively at their puppets, and fiddle with them. They compete with one another (control of other) in high expressiveness, both verbally and nonverbally. Their real experience, as Little Red Riding Hood does not meet, because both insist on own ideas and exclude common plot. There is no possibility of negotiating the same competing claim. Their pretend personalities are the same, and they cannot elaborate a shared sense of play. Each girl’s attention is fixed on her own puppet. They are persisting affectively using a puppet. There is tension, showing through their own pretend personalities, and captured by the competitive goal. The girls are psychologically isolated from one another, even if they are pushing one another physically. They have influence on the common life space without mutual coordination or attunement. The puppets push each other, and the girls yell loudly.Thus they focus, feel, see and sensate themselves like the only Red Riding Hood. This collides with joint play situation and interrupt orientation in common plot.Their attentions are caught by uncoordinated choices, and they are stuck at phase A.Therefore the girls are expressing themselves to one another in mutual isolation and with increasing energy.Their accessibility to one another is low. Mutual expressiveness becomes higher at every moment of the interaction. Each one is fixated on their own (same) pretend personality and the puppet. This entails verbal and nonverbal tension manifestation on the common boundary against one another. Attention towards the interaction is weak and unstable. It is demonstrated by Lotta’s turning away from the relationship place – the sofa – towards the adult behind the camera. 78

Pretend play and child development

The girls, involved in self-expression more and more, are displacing their interactions into irreality (Lewin). They are fantasizing about virtual “Grandma” but this does not help. They are trying to use fantasies to make authoritative statements in order to expand one another’s boundaries or to defend oneself from the other. LIINA: “Grandma” said, that I am “Little Red Riding Hood” – “Grandma” said, that LOTTA:

I am “Little Red Riding Hood” But my “Grandma” said that I am “Little Red Riding Hood”

The girls’ attention is busy with the uncoordinated affectively charged puppet roles and fantasies. Therefore, they cannot proceed to self-awareness, sharing and mutual awareness. In common with the self-expression collision, this excludes development of a mutual perception and investigation in phase A. Thus, neither has a chance to see and to hear the other. In this unpromising situation, the adult behind the camera intervenes: ADULT (BEHIND CAMERA): Two “Little

Red Riding Hoods”?

Liina glances at the adult for a short while, smiles, and moves to the right from the relationship place. Her left hand goes on moving the puppet on the sofa in the life space of the joint play. Lotta looks at her puppet. A silence sets in for a while. Then Liina’s left hand with a puppet continues moving on the sofa, but her gaze is still away. The adult made an intervention with the same expressiveness as the girls, calling attention and querying. The adult kept the girls’ attention inside the relationship process, focused them on inappropriate role choices in a common situation. The adult’s attitude towards the play participants was not charged by any expectations of “how it should be”, simply accepting their initiatives in play. The educator widened the awareness of the girls, calling their attention to the frustrating hopeless mode and content of their interactions. Both girls turned their attention to the other’s puppet. They began to negotiate. They compared their puppets, sometimes in the roles, sometimes as themselves, looking carefully at the puppets’ clothes.Thus, they moved into the beginning of a new mutual investigation (phase A) and saw some novelty in the other (phase B). However, their utterances were still self-expressive and insisting, and full of resistance. The conflict destroyed the relationship.

Episode 2: Successful trial of relationship building Before this episode, Noora arrives. She has a table theatre puppet “Bear” in her hand. It makes the play situation closer to the familiar tale of “Little Red Riding Hood” (the villain may be a Bear as well as a Wolf ). She climbs up to the sofa, contacting the physical common ground of play, and entering the common life space of a play. Lotta sees that, looking at Noora for a while. Liina stays on the sofa with Noora, still fantasizing, this time about a trip to Oulu. Lotta makes a visual attunement to the Liina-Noora’s joint system (phase B for the three-girls system). She begins to transform her Little Red Riding Hood puppet to 79

Hakkarainen, Bredikyte and Safarov

Grandmother as if offering attunement into a familiar common plot. Liina stares at the puppet, stops fantasizing and also starts visual attunement. Noora, with Bear in hand, turns her attention to Lotta’s puppet, also making possible common coordination. The three girls’ attentions at the moment are focused on building the common ground. Lotta continues a verbal attunement to the Liina-Noora joint system. All these efforts make phase B for the three-girl system stable. Now they are looking for a kind of common plot together. They start interacting on development of shared sense (phase C trials). Looking for the shared sense becomes active psychological force (Lewin) supporting the flow of joint play. Lotta is constantly attuning to Liina verbally and nonverbally, appreciating and accepting her as she is. Liina tries to continue controlling Lotta verbally, as she did several times before, but she does it with a lower intensity. Liina manifests much more nonverbal attunements to Lotta, keeping the same accessibility and expressiveness as Lotta does. She stays, looking alternatively at Lotta’s puppet and at her own and probably makes the cognitive attunement also. At that moment, Noora sees “Grandma’s” and “Little Red Riding Hood’s” coherence (phase D). She seems to accept the current event with the appearance of shared sense and a renewed topic in the relationship. Noora takes the Bear in her hand and moves to the other end of the sofa proposing the beginning of a joint play activity. Then she approaches Liina and Lotta who are near the other end of the sofa, growling loudly to their puppets. She also attunes to them, looking alternatively at them or at the Bear puppet. Noora growls really loudly and angry. Liina and Lotta look at her. Then Liina turns to Noora and talks to the Bear, attuning to suggested role relationships.

Figure 6.1  The phase diagram of the relationship between Liina and Lotta: the interrupted trial of phase A

Figure 6.2  Successful construction of joint role actions

80

Pretend play and child development

This is a crucial moment of a mutual attunement and the three-girl system construction. It indicates the elaboration of a shared sense of play (in phases A–D). After the appearance of the Grandmother puppet Noora begins a mutual attunement in action and joint activity trials (phases E–F).An attunement in action lasts the whole play activity. This is manifested, for instance, in mutual attunement and coordination between Liina and Lotta: the touches between puppets and the gaze alternations between the girls in play activity. The mutual attunement, starting with the shared sense delivery lasts to the end of the whole relationship activity and supports the flow of relationship in play. The relationship is also oscillating between two “levels” – the level of involvement in play activity intertwined with the orientation episodes out of a play activity.

Discussion Direct causality between play and child development has not been strongly established in play research (Lillard et al. 2013a, b). Researchers may not study the same phenomena in spite of the use of the same concepts and methods. We have approached make-believe play and child development using Vygotsky’s “general genetic law” as the starting point. This approach argues that we should study development in two stages, on the interpsychological and intrapsychological level, as social relations and internalized individual psychological processes. We wanted to focus on social relations in children’s pretend play or, in other words, what kind of social system children construct between role characters. In the analysis of social system and relations between role characters Lewin’s theory and therapy approaches based on it was used. A model of system relations was first constructed, which was applied in play analysis. Analysed child-initiated play demonstrates how system relations between children’s role characters as a whole make sense. In the observation of the play episodes above, we are focused on the relationships in pretend play, which lasted about eight minutes. But this play is one part of activities going on over a month. The folk tale “Little Red Riding Hood” was told to children using the transformer puppet as a prop. After storytelling the puppet was given to Liina’s home for over three weeks. So she had an opportunity to play with it for a long time (we do not know how much she used the puppet in her play at home).This may in part be the reason why she was quarrelling with Lotta who took the role of “genuine” Little Red Riding Hood. In any case adult intervention was not limited to the one comment, “Two Little Red Riding Hood’s!” Students organized two children’s puppet shows the same day as the child-initiated pretend play analysed above took place.The same three girls took part in one puppet show and then later on started their self-initiated pretend play. Adult intervention in the children’s relationships was longer than just one comment during pretend play. The analysis of this pretend play was carried out with the help of the relationship model based on Lewinian theory. At the end of the relationship analysis children’s physical positions were equal to their psychological positions (the Grandmother moves 81

Hakkarainen, Bredikyte and Safarov

between her grandchild and the growling Bear which intimidates the child).This is an excellent example of how the physical and psychological positions may coincide. The system relations of the three girls at the end of a short period reflect the ideal form of the original tale. This is children’s interpretation of the ideal form, which was first available to children a month earlier in oral storytelling and again earlier on the same morning in the children’s dramatization. In dramatizations a longer and more complex excerpt represented the ideal form (e.g. “The Hunter” arrived to save the Little Red Riding Hood from the stomach of the wolf). A more “compressed” version of the ideal form was used because of the young age of Liina and Noora. Lotta sounded a “fanfare” in the children’s expressiveness through dramatization with “The Hunter’s” arrival. Noora apparently recollected this episode because she started to search for a new stick puppet after rejecting the Bear. But the bell called the children to the closing circle. Dynamic system analysis of children’s social relations in pretend play teaches us a lesson about causality between play and development. Ideal forms embedded in tales and human actions are not norms, but rather invitations to experiment with them in pretending (Zinchenko and El’konin 2002). The pretend mode of experimenting should be easier than genuine change in daily life. For children ideal forms may offer psychological tools, which help the children to change personal psychological systems (e.g. self-regulation). Zuckerman (2007) and Hakkarainen et al. (2013) argue that for adults helping children by supporting their initiatives is a new and difficult challenge. The analysis above demonstrates that the time perspective of pretend play is quite complicated and shows that system causality is even more entangled. Some situations affecting child-initiated play may not be associated with the carefully videotaped play session. Ideal forms (subtext of the tale) were introduced in oral storytelling and dramatization using puppets. Adult–child joint actions (sovokupnoe deistvie, El’konin, 1984, 1989; El’koninova, 2014) are therefore separated from each other across a month. In this observation, the children’s own dramatizations before noon apparently refreshed their earlier experiences about the tale and launched into child-initiated role play. Little Red Riding Hood-pretend play demonstrates how the unit of development is both difficult to grasp as a system structure and to locate in time. Simple, direct linear causal effects are impossible between play and development. Elaborated playworld methodology was applied in play intervention to Little Red Riding Hood.Adult intervention was constructed in four steps proceeding from a selected theme to children’s independent “free” play activity (Bredikyte 2011: 106). Intervention aims at children’s initiatives in themes introducing cultural ideal forms (in tales, stories, dramatizations, etc.). Intervention in this connection is more invitation to use imagination in play than concrete content for learning. Looking for classical causality between pretend play and child development is not a relevant explanation for children’s play or development.

References Bozhovich, L. I. (1978). Etapy formirovaniya licnosti v ontogeneze [Stages of individual personality development], Voprosy psikhologii, 24(4), 23–35. Bredikyte, M. (2011). Zones of proximal development in children’s play. Acta Univ. Oul. E 119. Oulu: University of Oulu.

82

Pretend play and child development El’konin, B.D. (1994). Vvedenie v psikhologiyu razvitiya [Introduction to psychology of development]. Moscow: Trivola. El’konin, B. D. (1999). Toward the problem of stages in the mental development of children. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 37(6), 11–30. El’konin, D. B. (1960). Detskaia psikhologiya [Child psychology]. Moscow:Ychpedgiz. El’konin, D. B. (1978). Psikhologiya igry [Psychology of play]. Moscow: Pedagogika. El’konin, D. B. (1989). Izbrannye psikhologiceskie Trudy [Collected psychological works]. Moscow: Pedagogika. El’koninova, L. I. (2014). Polnota razvitiya sjuzetno- rolevoi igry [Developmental level of socio-dramatic role play]. Kulturno-istoriceskoe psikhologiya, 1, 54–62. Erikson, E. H. (1980). Identity and the life cycle. New York: W. W. Norton & Company Inc. Hakkarainen, P. (1990). Motivaatio, leikki ja toiminnan kohteellisuus [Motivation, Play and Objectorientation of Activity]. Helsinki: Orienta Konsultit. Hakkarainen, P., Bredikyte, M., Jakkula, K. and Munter, H. (2013). Adult play guidance and children’s play development in a narrative play-world. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 21(2), 213–225. Lillard, A. S., Lerner, M. D., Hopkins, E. J., Dore, R. A., Smith, E. D. and Palmquist, C. M. (2013a). The impact of pretend play on children’s development: A review of the evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 1–34. Lillard, A. S., Hopkins, E. J., Dore, R. A., Palmquist, C. M., Lerner, M. D. and Smith, E. D. (2013b). Concept and theories, methods and reasons: Why do children (pretend) play? Reply to Weisberg, Hirsh – Pasek, and Golinkoff (2013); Bergen (2013); and Walker and Gopnik (2013). Psychological Bulletin, 139, 1, 49–52. Miller, E. and Almon, J. (2010). Crisis in the Kindergarten.Why children need to play in school. College Park, MD: Alliance for Childhood. Nicolopoulou, A. (2010). The alarming disappearance of play from early childhood education. Human Development, 53, 1–4. Safarov, I. (2009). Towards modelling of human relationships. Acta Universitatis Ouluensis E104. Oulu: Oulu University Press. Singer, D., Singer, J., D’Agostino, H. and DeLong, R. (2008). Children’s Pastimes and Play in Sixteen Nations: Free-play Declining? The American Journal of Play, 1(3), 2–7. Slobodcikov,V. I. and Zuckerman, G. A. (2003). Integral periodization of general psychological development. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 41(6), 52–66. Smirnova, E. O. and Gudareva, O. V. (2005). Sostayanie igrovoi deyatel’nosti sovremennyh doshkolnikov [Level of play activity of pre-schoolers today]. Psikhologiceskaya nauka I obrazovanie, 2, 76–86. Strelkova, L. P. (1986). Usloviia razvitija empatii pod vlijaniem hudozhestvennogo proizvedenija [Conditions for the development of empathy under the influence of a literary work]. In A. V. Zaporozhets and Ya. Z. Neverovits (Eds.), Razvitie sotsialnyh emotsii u detei doshkol’nogo vozrasta, pp. 70–89. Moscow: Pedagogika. Sutton-Smith, B. (1997). The Ambiguity of play. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Sutton-Smith, B. (2006). Play & ambiguity. In K. Salen and E. Zimmerman (Eds.), The game design reader, pp. 296–313. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1977). Play and its role in the mental development of the child. In M. Cole (Ed.), Soviet Developmental Psychology: Selection from Soviet Psychology, pp. 76–99. New York: M. E. Sharpe. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society:The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). The Collected Works, Ed. R. W. Rieber, vol. 4. New York: Plenum Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (2005). Appendix. From the notes of L.S.Vygotsky for lectures on the psychology of preschool children. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 43(2), 90–97. Yaroshevskii, M. G. (2007). L. S. Vygotsky: v poiskah novoi psikhologii [L. S.Vygotsky: in search of new psychology]. Moscow: URSS.

83

Hakkarainen, Bredikyte and Safarov Zinchenko,V. P. and El’konin, B. D. (2002). Psikhologiya razvitiya (po motivam L.Vygotskogo) [Psychology of Development (interpreting L. Vygotsky)]. Retrieved from: http://sbiblio. com/biblio/archive/elkonin_psihrazv (accessed 20 May 2015). Zuckerman, G. (2007). Child–adult interaction that creates a zone of proximal development. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 45(3), 31–58.

84

PART II

Play in different cultures

This section offers a glimpse of play in four different countries: Russia, Mexico, Columbia and Japan. A common factor in the chapters is a more or less clear connection to cultural historically coloured understanding of play. A survey in Moscow is a replication of El’konin’s study fifty years ago. His ideas about play development and levels are adopted directly and data is collected using the same research methods in order to guarantee comparability of studies.The Mexican chapter analyses two aspects: how play activity is introduced in recent early childhood curriculum documents and what aspects of play are selected for research focus in two top universities. The Colombian chapter reports results of an intervention study, in which symbolic tools for use in children’s joint play were introduced step by step. Developmental effects of these tools are promising. The Japanese chapter introduces the concept of Hakken to Boken (discovery and adventure). In a Japanese private kindergarten a famous artist organised a summer school and used professional tools, which aroused strong emotions. This experience was used as a starting point for Hakken to Boken.

7 Characteristics of pretend role play Irina Ryabkova, Elena Smirnova and Elena Sheina

Introduction Vygotsky (2004) advanced the view that pretend symbolic play is the leading activity in early childhood (3–6 years). This kind of play is about the creation of imaginary space (either with the help of special tools or without them) – in three kinds of play: role play, symbolic play, or pretend play. Discrepancy between real and imagined situation is the main characteristic of pretend role play. Objects and subjects get new names and functions.The playing child proceeds ‘from thought rather than from the object’ in an imagined situation instead of a real one. However, a child (3–6 years) is still unable to act out a play scenario in their mind, without some external, practical actions. A young child must necessarily have a point of reference in another object so as to perform the same action as with an imagined object. For children between the ages of 3 and 6 this type of play is the leading activity, ensuring development of the child. This play may not be the predominant form of children’s activity. However, during this phase of childhood this kind of play determines the emergence of new mental formations.This type of play is the basis for developing imagination, image thinking, self-control, voluntary behaviour, self-awareness, etc. In pretend play children can do what they aren’t able to do in real life, that is, think out fascinating plots, overcome impulsive desires, follow rules, be patient and persistent. It is important that these abilities occur freely and voluntarily, without pressure and control from the adult. Pretend play is undoubtedly the leading activity from 3 to 6 years. D. El’konin, Vygotsky’s follower, showed that from 3 to 6 years play significantly changes. He showed that only a high level of pretend play, being the leading activity, could stimulate the development of new abilities. An advanced level of play assumes completeness of creation of the imaginary situation. That is why it is important to evaluate the level of pretend play that is typical for contemporary children (El’konin 1978). Our research aims at working out a diagnostic method for pretend play and identification of a level of development of contemporary young children’s play. 87

Ryabkova, Smirnova and Sheina

The structural components of pretend play We have developed a diagnostic method for pretend play level (Smirnova and Ryabkova 2010, 2011). The assessment of such a level is based on the structural components of the imagined situation. This situation includes: - - - - - -

plot or general play content, subject (role), interaction with partners, objects to act with, sequence of actions, space for the activity.

Thus, our method includes assessment of the following patterns: 1 2 3 4 5 6

play plot, role presentation, amount of actions, children’s play interaction, using toys and materials, creation of play space.

Each of these parameters in children’s play can be carried out at a different level – through a realistic plan, substitution or through a replacement plan, or an imagined plan. These parameters differ at each point of the phase from 3 to 6 years. We will consider the particular significance of these indicators at different ages. The role development includes three stages of formation in this age. 1

2

3

Role in action. Actions are very detailed and repetitive, the role manifests itself in the form of play actions and is determined by the nature of the action; it is unnamed and unlabelled. Play episodes are short and emotional involvement is weak – children are often distracted and switch to other actions. Role in plot. A role becomes the main content of the play; the plot determines the actions. First of all the actions are not specified. The main tool is role-play talk – intonation, emotionally charged statements that the child uses for role expression and communicating with partners. However, the attitude to partners is rather formal, lacking real interaction. Role in relationship. Actions are associated with the attitude towards other partners (roles); interaction becomes the main content of the play. Children address their words and actions to their partners and focus on their actions. The role performances of children become interrelated. Actions become more and more diversified. Creative display of events and relationships get better. Emotional involvement in the play is highly expressed. This level corresponds to the bestdeveloped pretend play form.

88

Characteristics of pretend role play

Play actions are the main indicators of development, showing completeness of the plot and the role. Repetitious actions reflect lack of ability to create a story. As a contrast, huge variety in related and diverse play actions shows a child’s ability to create and realize a complete story. Play actions develop from stereotypical, fragmented and repetitious towards concise, internally connected, consistent and diverse. At a high level of play actions are often not performed, just mentioned because the child holds what is happening in mind. In this kind of advanced pretend play, practical actions are replaced by gesture or by verbal designations. Play interaction at first occurs sporadically and is limited in observation and imitation of others. However, 4-year-olds are trying to cooperate in play more often, and the partner gradually becomes an important, even integral part of the play. During high level of play children are able to agree on a general theme of the play/roles, plan actions a few steps forward, and to support role-based dialogue, including unexpected utterances from the partner. The toys and material. Mainly, 3–4-year-old children use real objects or realistic toys and item-substitutions are auxiliary tools. By 5–6 years, children replace items using substitute objects, gestures or words more often. Play space usually is not constructed by small children. The play space is ignored as irrelevant, and is not an important aspect. For example, for a child it is important to feed the doll. It does not matter where the feeding takes place. However, for the majority of 5-year-old children it becomes important to create the place where the play events would occur, that is, to live in a house, to sell in the store, to sleep in a bedroom, etc. Older children (5–6 years), who do not define the play space, usually show low results of other components of their play as well.Their play behaviour is quite chaotic. Developed play includes compliance borders and desire to define and construct such borders. Plot is indirectly linked to the level of play development, as it reflects the player’s experience. Household plots are typical for 3–4-year-old children. Older children begin to ‘destroy’ situations where there is routine quiet, showing the usual course of events.They add an element of surprise and introduce unpredictability to the play, with situations requiring special courage and power to overcome the arising conflicts. We call such plots as adventure. Such plots include all kinds of ‘robbers’, ‘distant journeys’, ‘war’, unexpected ‘disasters’, etc. Finally, for 5–7-year-olds, children’s fantastic stories become clearly unreal, impossible events. It is important to realize that fantastic stories are almost inaccessible to small children. It might be fun to play ‘Winks fairies’ or ‘Spider-Man’, but the full play is not observed. Even well-developed play present in the play of children 6 to 7 years breaks down when met with a magic content. Magic reduces the play to separate, simple and dynamic play actions (such as climbing walls, fighting or fairy dressing). The children lose the plot. In the following study a child’s play was evaluated using these parameters as low, middle or high, except in relation to ‘plot/script’. For estimating these patterns special scales were constructed. Each age stage has its own characteristics of structural components, which can determine the development of the play.

89

Ryabkova, Smirnova and Sheina

Empirical study of pretend play 1 The play parameters The study of pretend play was carried out by psychologists of the Centre for Psychological and Pedagogical Expertise of Games and Toys of the Moscow State University of Psychology and Education.We examined 112 children in the age group 5–6 years old in Moscow kindergartens (Smirnova and Ryabkova 2013). A group of five to ten children were invited to play in familiar surroundings. The set of toys and their location remained the same. Two specialists observed each group. Observers did not interfere in the children’s play and pretending. Observation was based on the structural components of the play. The following parameters were fixed in the protocol: The role in play was evaluated as follows: - - -

role in action – low level of play role in plot – average level of play role in relationship – high level of play.

The play actions are determined by the amount of actions within one plot. For example, a child prepares porridge: pours the cereal into the pan, puts it on the fire, salts, tastes, and serves it on the plates (five actions). Three levels of play action were conditionally allocated: - - -

fewer than five actions – low level fewer than ten – average level eleven and more – high level.

Interaction with the partner includes a number of interactions, that is, role-based references and responses to the partner and references about the play.We have identified three conventional levels of play interaction intensity: - - -

five and fewer interactions – low level five to ten interactions – average level eleven and more references – high level. Toys and materials of the play are evaluated in terms of the conventionally used items:

- -

-

actual objects and realistic toys are used as intended, for example, a toy or a real comb for grooming substitutions are made from objects, toys or materials such as fabric/paper which have visual likeness. A ball is like an apple/meatball. A stick is like a pencil/ caterpillar. But they are not used for their intended purpose, such as bouncing the ball imaginary objects. The child acts with an imaginary object.

90

Characteristics of pretend role play

Play space. We fixed on three ways of the organizing space: - - -

real space of the room (real door as a door in play) or fixed play-corners (hairdresser, shop, kitchen) – low level spaces constructed by the children using benches, fabric and other materials – average level spaces described by children which are imaginary, for example: ‘Here we have like the ocean, and here is the shore’, ‘the table will be a rock’ – high level.

We fixed the plot of the play in the form of generalized topics, and the processing of results was attributed to one of three groups – household, adventure or fantasy (magical roles, events and transformations). During the investigation we were also interested in the position of caregiver, which could be assigned to one of three options: - - -

neutral – the tutor is not involved in the play authoritarian – teacher directs the actions of the children, gives instructions or limits their actions support – the caregiver is included in the play as a participant, encouraging children in playing and acting in an imaginary situation.

All indicators of the play were entered on a special form. A conclusion about the level of the child’s play was made on the basis of the total data for all parameters (except the position of the educator and the plot): • • •

predominance of high values for all parameters, not more than one or two average values – high level predominance of average values (not more than one to two high or low values) – average level predominance of low values – low level.

The results Pretend play was observed among only 67% of 5–6-year-old children. Of the observed children, 33% preferred assembling puzzles, painting, walking around the room, staring out the window, etc. after being offered the invitation to play. Their indicators were not included in the summarized data because they did not show any pretend play at all. The following data represents a sample of seventy-five children. We will compare our indicators to the results received by El’konin fifty years ago (El’konin 1978; Smirnova and Gudareva 2004). The role position. Fifty per cent of the children did not accept any play roles and did not engage in role-playing interaction with partners. Their actions were repetitive, for example, the boys raced cars across the carpet; the girls combed the doll-mannequin’s hair; girls put the toy kitten to sleep several times, etc.

91

Ryabkova, Smirnova and Sheina Table 7.1 The play parameters level Evaluation/parameters High of observation Role

Play actions

Middle

Role is flexible in Role is performed interaction with partner strictly following the role ‘scenario’ More than 10 actions From 5 to 10 actions

Object

More than 10 addresses From 5 to 10 acts ‘in role’ position addresses to partner ‘in role’ position Imaginary object Substitute object

Space

Is indicated in words

Interaction

Is modelled

Low No role, real position Fewer than 5 in the same plot Fewer than 5 communication acts ‘in role’ position Real/realistic (including a toy) Real/realistic (including markers of space)

Forty-seven per cent of children performed specific role-playing actions, that is, they recreated the logical sequence of actions, the actions were performed formally, play was lacking creative moments. For example, playing mother, the girl was cooking, feeding a doll, washing dishes without any interaction with partners. When pretending to drive the car, the boy spins the wheel, stops at traffic lights, etc.These children tried to perform a specific action in role playing, presenting themselves as the mother or driver. Only two girls out of the seventy-five children observed showed a high level of role implementation with role relationships and emotional involvement in play (3% of the sample). It should be noted that according to El’konin’s research this option of play was typical for 5-year-old children fifty years ago. The number of play actions was extremely low, the majority of children (90%) showed no more than five actions in the play (e.g. the hairdresser prepared a workplace, combed the client, painted her nails, and cleaned the workplace). Only 10% of children showed six to ten actions (i.e. the average level), and high level (more than ten actions) was not shown at all. Verbal play interaction was also very poor, that is, the number of messages and responses from the roles position did not exceed five during thirty minutes. Most of the children did not engage in verbal role communication; role-playing dialogues took place very rarely. At the same time, emotional and practical interaction was often observed during the play. Sometimes after one or two play actions children started running about for several minutes, and then returning the same play actions were repeated several times. Only 8% of children showed a high level of play communication. Comparing this with data reported by El’konin (1978) this result is significantly lower – 5–6-year-olds were characterized then as using meaningful verbal play interaction, while emotionalpractical communication corresponded to 2–4 year olds. 92

Characteristics of pretend role play

Toys and materials. Most children (60%) only used realistic toys in their play. Substitutes (average level) were only used by 25% of children, and only 15% used imaginary objects.This indicator is ambiguous to interpret because realistic toys prevail over objects-substitutes in the play equipment. Play space creation. About 70% of the children only used spaces for the play designated in the study as low level.These were mostly fixed play areas (stove, shop shelf with wooden vegetables, hairdresser or barbershop, etc.). Sometimes children drove cars on the tracks of the carpet or used dolls houses. About 20% of children identified a play space, for example: ‘this will be the sea’, ‘this will be our home’. Only 10% of children designed the play space with soft modules, blocks, chairs, or other materials. This situation can be connected with the fact that in many Moscow kindergartens the play environment has a rigid and fixed character and can’t be changed by children (for example, tables and chairs for classes that are mostly forbidden for use in play). Open-ended materials which offer opportunities for children to create their own play spaces are either limited or impossible. The observed indicators of play (role, play action, object, interaction, space) were found to be rather low. Overall, the play of older children – 5–6 years – was at a low level with tendency to middle. A low play level (which corresponds to the age of three according El’konin’s data) was observed in 63% of children 5–7 years, while an average level was found in only 34% cases. Only 3% of children showed a high level of pretend play (see Table 7.2). The plot.The majority of play plots were fairly stereotypical and repetitive.Typically they had a realistic and household character. Sixty-seven per cent of children preferred playing family, doctors, hairdresser, etc. A large number of stories were associated with caring for a doll. ‘Feeding’, ‘sleeping’, ‘walking’, ‘bathing daughter’, etc. were observed among girls. It also included playing ‘daughters and mothers’ and the modern version of this plot ‘Barbie doll family’. Some children were playing animals (‘the cat and its owner’, ‘family of birds’, ‘the dog and the owner’); it is interesting that the children took the role of animals with greater pleasure than they did human roles. Twenty-eight per cent (mostly boys) chose adventure stories, mostly related to films (‘racing cars’, ‘submarines’, ‘the life of homeless cats’, etc.). In some cases these stories Table 7.2  The play parameters level, % of children Parameters level Parameters

High

Mid

Low

Role Play action Interaction Object Space General

3 0 8 15 20 3

47 10 32 25 10 34

50 90 60 60 70 63

93

Ryabkova, Smirnova and Sheina

were connected with a chase, defence and attack (‘pirates’, ‘cops and robbers’, ‘the bandits and friends’, ‘Ghostbusters’, ‘the pursuit of criminals’, etc.). Five per cent of children participating in the play developed a fantastic plot, mostly borrowed from modern cartoons or computer games (wrestling with virtual creatures showing superhuman abilities, battles with dinosaurs, and fairies). However, these plots were only observed in play that consisted of individual actions. They were not integrated into the whole story (see Table 7.3). No link between the plot and the level of play was found. Finally, the position of caregiver was among the parameters of the play we were interested in. We assumed that the level of play depends on it. Our data show that children’s play is in the main not supported by the adult, that is, the caregiver doesn’t participate in the children’s play (56%). Thirty-nine per cent of teachers presented an authoritarian position with tight control of the play.The most relevant position, support, was observed in only 5% of cases – with the caregiver participating in the play as one of the players and supporting the process by unobtrusive comments, helping children to organize the space, etc. A low level of play prevails when the adult adopts a neutral position.This emphasizes the importance of the adult’s role in developing play activity. Adults bring a cultural pattern and play models. The neutral educator position is in fact worse than the authoritarian position in its possibilities for developing the children’s play. A high level of play was only observed in this study when a leading position was adopted by the caregiver. Of course this result can’t be generalized as the high level of pretend play was observed extremely rarely.

Table 7.3  The connection of the plot with the play level, % of children Play level Plot

High

Mid

Low

Total

Household Adventure Fantastic

3 0 0

21 13 0

43 15 5

67 28 5

Table 7.4 The dependence of the level of play from the position of an educator, % children Play level Caregiver position

High

Mid

Low

Total

Neutral Authoritarian Support Total

0 3 0 3

16 13 5 34

40 23 0 63

56 39 5 100

94

Characteristics of pretend role play

Discussion Our results showed that the level of role play in the children studied (5–6 years) is significantly lower than that recorded half a century ago. The play of most children today is at a low level. Children who are seven play as if they were 3-year-olds. Most experienced teachers have noted that children’s play is less developed than it was before, especially commenting on a decrease in the frequency and duration of role play. The main reason is lack of free time in Moscow kindergartens where the daily routine is overloaded with various classes and free play is only allocated a time of about 30–40 minutes a day. In spite of the fact that pretend play is regarded as the leading activity for children 3–6 years in Russian psychology, in practice little attention is paid to it. Cognitive development and training is considered by parents and teachers to be more important than play. Another reason for the decrease in levels of play is the inability of children to create the imagined situation – to accept and hold a role, to develop a plot, or to create play space. Children are unable to play meaningfully and peacefully during free time – they are romping, fighting, pushing. As a result educators are filling the children’s free time with relaxing exercises or resorting to disciplinary actions.This situation testifies that the ability and desire to engage in pretend role play is not an inborn ability of children. The development of high-level play demands certain conditions. During the observations taken during this study, some factors were singled out which affect the play of children. One of these is the environment of Moscow kindergartens. Rigidly structured space (fixed areas for play). Other factors are a predominance of realistic toys, the lack of open-ended materials for play, and toys with prescribed, predetermined functions, the presence of ‘closed’ toys (e.g. mechanical function, knocked out checks or head mannequins with hair).These encourage the children to engage in stereotyped activities and manipulation, which constrains the play so that it remains at an early level, and is less creative. In groups where there were open-ended materials and toys, with flexible space, the play was more developed. For example, in one of the groups a special plastic building depicted a mountain with a cave. This building was actively used by the children for a variety of stories and stimulated different plots (‘home’, ‘outdoor kitchen’, ‘hospital’, ‘home of the dinosaurs’, ‘the lair of beasts’, ‘refuge of robbers’, etc.). We can assume that favourable conditions contribute to the development of the pretend play. The position of caregiver is another influential factor. In most of the studied groups this position was neutral, for example, teachers were engaged in filling out the forms and paid little attention to the activity of children, responding to their cries and appeals only. In these groups we recorded a low level of play. It is desirable that the teacher participates in a supportive role in the children’s play. Role play is a cultural phenomenon. Therefore, it requires cultivation and support from adults.

References El’konin, D. B. (1978). Psikhologiya igry. Moscow: Pedagogika. Smirnova, E. O. and Gudareva O. V. (2004). Igra i proizvol’nost’ u sovremennykh doshkol’nikov. Voprosy psikhologii. 1, 91–103. Smirnova E. O. and Ryabkova I. A. (2010). Struktura i varianty syuzhetnoi igry doshkol’nika. Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie.3, 62–70.

95

Ryabkova, Smirnova and Sheina Smirnova, E. O. and Ryabkova, I. A. (2011). Tipologiya syuzhetnykh igr doshkol’nika. Voprosy psikhologii. 3, 42–48. Smirnova, E. O. and Ryabkova, I. A. (2013). Psikhologicheskie osobennosti igrovoi deyatel’nosti sovremennykh doshkol’nikov. Voprosy psikhologii.2, 15–23. Vygotsky, L. S. (2004). Igra i ee rol’ v psikhicheskom razvitii rebenka. In Psikhologiya razvitiya rebenka. Moscow: EKSMO, pp. 200–223.

96

8 Conceptions of play activity and its application in Mexico Yulia Solovieva, Eduardo Alejandro Escotto Córdova, Ana María Baltazar Ramos and Luis Quintanar Introduction The range of Mexican specialists working with play activity (psychologists, pedagogues, teachers, psychiatrists) relate themselves in the main to one of three perspectives.These are: historical and cultural psychology, psychoanalysis and cognitive approach (Solovieva and Quintanar 2013a; Schaefer and O’Connor 1988). Although there is a quantity of free provision offered and financed by governmental, federal and public universities where play activity is used in practice, with considerable numbers of children involved, attendance tends to be transitory or irregular. Often short periods are offered, in the summer or for one month, and results of impact are not recorded. Provision in private institutions is limited but of greater quality. Play activity with children from 3 to 5 years is organized and programmed by federal government as a fundamental psychological and pedagogical instrument in public schools. It is also sometimes used both as an instrument for psychological research and an object of research.Two prestigious and important national universities where such research has been promoted are the National University of Mexico (UNAM) and the Autonomous University of Puebla (BUAP). The importance of play activity is mentioned in official programs of the Secretary of Public Education (SEP), which is responsible for education programs in all thirtytwo federal states. The national constitution rules education in Mexico with the help of specific education laws, giving three levels of education: basic, medium and superior. Other levels of initial and continuous education are also mentioned such as institutions for newborns, kindergartens and education including parents, special education, adult education, employment training and so-called open systems. The first level is for 3-year-old children; the second for 4-year-olds and the third level for 5-year-olds. This last age group (5-year-olds) forms 13.4% of the basic level. It is compulsory in Mexico as it is written into the General Laws of Education and Reform of Education (SEP 2012). However, regulatory mechanisms are lacking.

97

Solovieva, Escotto Córdova, Baltazar Ramos, Quintanar

The fact that national policy places play activity as a central instrument at the basic stage has multiple implications. Although not specifically mentioned, since no teacher is required to follow a particular theoretical line or approach, Vygotsky and Piaget certainly seem to shadow the official policy documents. However, the only compulsory aspect is the inclusion of play activity as a fundamental component from 3 to 5 years. The document says that play activity is important for the individual, social and personal development of the children (SEP 2012). These three lines of development are considered separately. However, concrete details about the implementation, strategies, levels or methodology of play activity are not given. SEP only mentions that the play activity is ‘‘a form of activity which permits children to express themselves with their energy and necessity to move and to acquire complex forms, which leads to the acquisition of competences’’ (SEP 2011: 21). The Programme of the State of Jalisco in Mexico confirms that socialization and communication are necessary features of the 3 to 5 years age group, but at the same time states that ‘‘children’s own theories are presented as natural aspects of development and may be noticed in interactions in pairs, which is a strong motivation for learning’’ (Cervantes Ríos 2009: 45).

Research with play activity at the Faculty of Superior Studies Zaragoza (UNAM) The Faculty of Superior Studies Zaragoza (UNAM) provides two main lines of research related to the topic of play activity. Both lines are based on a historical and cultural perspective in psychology. One line has been developed in the Laboratory of Psychology and Neuroscience. The objective of this research is to study internal language, initial phases and characteristics in children 3 to 5 years using toys and dolls (Escotto-Córdova 2011, a, b). The second line has been implemented in the University Clinic Zaragoza within the Program of Early Stimulation in children 3 to 5 years. The focus is on language development, cognition, socialization, motor behaviour and self-care.

Play activity as an instrument for early stimulation of development The University Clinic Zaragoza (UNAM) develops research projects with the application of play activity as an instrument for early stimulation in children developing typically (Baltazar-Ramos 2015). The project works with parents to share with them how it is possible to stimulate children individually, in groups and at home, by applying play activity as a central method of the programme. Before starting the programme, children are assessed (Baltazar-Ramos and Escotto-Córdova 2014) using the official scale for evaluation of development by the Portage Guide (Bluma et al. 1978). This scale established a series of behaviour and activities, which children typically achieve at certain ages. Areas of development classify behavioural manifestations: speech, socialization, cognition, motor development and self-assistance. The assessment may be accomplished by observation of the child in situations of testing but also by asking the parents about types of behaviour at home. For example, the assessor asks parents if the child can recognize geometric figures such as a triangle and square. The same tasks are presented to the child during direct assessment. The types of 98

Conceptions of play activity

behaviour and tasks established by the Portage Guide are seen as objectives to be achieved when children have difficulties or additional needs and challenges. Based on the observations of the assessment process, different kinds of play activity are proposed for each individual child, to address the needs and challenges of that child. The work with the parent and child together is also used in play activity. The activities are recommended for forty minutes and are divided in the following way: fifteen minutes for an individual session, fifteen minutes for activities in a group, five minutes for explanation and presentation of activities to be fulfilled at home and, finally, five minutes for feedback in relation to the accomplished activities. All sessions are normally recorded by mutual agreement of all the adult participants. The parents are informed constantly about the whole process. The types of games leading into play activity are various and might include: • • • •

• •

games with roles, games with rules, creative games (drawings and paintings), games for speech development, in which the child has to repeat some verbal expression (e.g. singing the song: “the fly is on the wall, is on the wall, is on the wall” and so on. Later on the rule for singing might be changed, so that the child has to use the vowel “a”, vowel “i”, vowel “e” and so on. In Spanish, the word “fly” includes the opened and stressed vowel “o” (mosca). During this game, particular words, known and simple for children, are used for each example of five basic vowels of Spanish); games with a kind of scientific content (e.g. how a volcano may be created by us? Some chemical substances might be used during such a game); table games (Lego, domino with colours, numbers and figures, constructive table games).

It is important to notice that parents take part actively in all kinds of mentioned games. An example of sessions would be if a child is not able to recognize five basic colours, the parents would be told that the objective during the session is to differentiate these colours within playing activities. Five kinds of games, one for each colour, would be proposed during the session. For example, during constructive games the emphasis would be specifically on one of the colours.The same would apply when drawing and during table games with rules. Reading stories mentioning these colours would also be recommended.The parents are advised to use these activities and to choose the ones they enjoy. If a parent hesitates to make a choice, the psychologist would advise, but it is important to emphasize that no activity would be imposed on either child or parent, as their willing participation is of central importance. During the session, the psychologist would stay in touch with the parents, observe the process and when needed give recommendations, suggest changes and orientations, but only if required. This would be the initial individual stage. After fifteen minutes, participants would continue to take part in activities within groups. All children present at the time would be held together and different games would be offered both for parents and children. Activities might include singing in 99

Solovieva, Escotto Córdova, Baltazar Ramos, Quintanar

groups emphasizing particular words. Each participant would sing only one line of the song one by one. For example, the song “coloured cards” might be used. For this song, each participant needs a card of different colours. Participants start to sing one by one: “/tan tan/, /who is this?/, /the old Inés/,/what does she want?/, /a card /, /which colour?/, /blue/”. At this moment, a participant who has a blue card has to run quickly. All those with cards of different colours have to act one by one during the song. Another game for groups of children “a plane”. For this game, a big figure divided in squares has to be outlined on the floor. The figure has the shape of a plane and has wings and a cabin.There are three squares to complete the wings on each side. Each square is of a particular colour. Another big square would be a cabin for the passengers and a circle is the pilot’s cabin. At the beginning of the game, a participant has to throw a ball onto a particular square (marked by colour) and name the colour. Later on, the participant has to “walk” into the plane step by step, following simple instructions, such as: jump with one foot on the red square, get to the blue square or run to the yellow one, and so on. Each participant has to pass through the “plane” stepping on different squares (colours) according to particular instructions. Each participant continues until they reach the pilot’s cabin and afterwards they decide who is going to be the next and who may change the rules of the game or the whole game. Although the main emphasis is on knowledge of colours, additionally, the use of speech in a joint activity between parents and children is stimulated. The participants give each other instructions and follow precise rules. Each participant makes particular movements according to the rules, so that the game is also useful for equilibrium, handiness, knowledge of parts of the body, geometric figures, as well as the other aspects. Another kind of activity is a game with roles, for example,“a restaurant”.This game emphasizes social rituals of courtesy, such as saying thank you, please, and how to behave in public. Children can also learn how to choose and ask for a dish in the restaurant, how to pay the bill, how to count money and so on. The adult explains to the children who will take the role of the chef, who will be in charge of the restaurant, who will be the waiter and where customers will sit. Cards and photographs represent meals, and the menu, with a choice of dishes and prices. The waiter conducts the customer to their table and introduces him/herself by name. Later, the administrator in charge would bring the menu. After the customer has chosen what to eat, the waiter would take the order to the cook.The cook chooses the photograph according to the order. The parents are told that the objective of the game is to learn how to behave in the restaurant. The children may also learn how to use the spoon, the knife and fork during the meal.The names of the meals and the rules are always explained before the game. During the game, the psychologist assists at every moment and helps to organize the game. At the table, the parent might tell the child the options for meals and show corresponding photographs. The parents may also explain the prices and how much money they might spend, how to use their spoon, knife and fork and all other aspects of the procedure. The parent might say that it is not allowed to talk with a full mouth, that it is not nice to put elbows on the table, how to clean the mouth, use napkins and how to call the waiter. Later on the child might be shown show how to settle the bill. In this game, real coins might also be used in order to stimulate understanding of the 100

Conceptions of play activity

whole amount and the change. At the end of the game, there is a feedback session between all the participants, both children and parents. The children might be asked what did they do during the play activity, what did they ask for, how was the waiter’s treatment of them, was the restaurant nice or not, how much did they spend, which roles would be interesting for the next time and so on. The parents might be invited to analyse the mistakes and difficulties they noticed during the play activity and the necessity for constant reflection on the social communication, application of courtesy words and of responding to others with proper “restaurant” behaviour. The play activity stimulates social behaviour such as courtesy, diverse roles and rules, solution of conflicts, social verbal expressions, use of instruments, but it also actively establishes relationships between parents and children and the responsibility of the parents for the education and development of their children. The authors of the programme believe that its advantages are not only stimulation of one or another area of development, but also that the parents/carers learn to stay in touch with their own child and with other children of a similar age. All participants are encouraged to learn how it is possible to solve problems and conflict, how to interact with children and other adults in groups. The theoretical background of the programme is Vygotsky and Luria’s general approach and the objective of formation of conscious regulation and voluntary activity of children 3 to 5 years (Luria 1984). First, the child learns to regulate his/her own behaviour by hearing the external speech of other participants (parents, teacher or other children). Later on, through the help of constant verbalization together with others, the child begins to regulate independently. The last stage would be that of internalized conscious regulation as an individual and voluntary process (Luria 1984).

Research on inner speech within play activity A project at the Laboratory of Psychology and Neurosciences (UNAM) studies inner speech and regulatory function of conscious and voluntary activity in play situations (Escotto-Córdova 2011a). This research is also based on the historical and cultural psychology of Vygotsky and Luria. It involves the observation of individual children while they are at play. No children with disabilities were included, or children with physical or mental illnesses. Children freely chose and played with dolls and toys in the room.The toys included a teddy bear, doll, a family, superheroes, wooden objects, furniture from a house, kitchen and so on. The children were videotaped at play, permission from parents having been given previously. Based on the taped observations of the children, the play was then organized into five categories: 1 2 3 4 5

the particular scene; a literal transcription of words and/or sounds produced by each child; a description of the behaviour of the child using the toys and objects; the sense and meaning of the child’s speech and behaviour (for example: the child is asking what the father wants to eat); the time of speech and behavioural production within the scene. 101

Solovieva, Escotto Córdova, Baltazar Ramos, Quintanar

All the children started to play immediately while seated at the table with toys. They started to produce dialogues with the dolls and toys together with manipulation, interactions, actions of dressing and undressing of dolls, and so on. The observation of this individual play has led us to four important conclusions. 1.  The inner speech from 3–5 years has been expressed in the play in an egocentric external form. This corresponds with Vygotsky’s thinking on egocentric speech in children (1993) and Piaget’s initial studies (1976).This kind of soliloquy or egocentric speech is necessarily dialogical and polyphonic. The child produces a dialogue with other characters, with toys and dolls and represents the actions “on the scene” within the play. From this point of view, oral expressions or egocentric speech are social in origin. The child’s development from 3 to 5 years is characterized by play activity, through which the child acquires and internalizes dialogical interactions. This begins at an early age with the participation of adults and is predominant during the period 3–5 years. The play activity and games with toys manifest the world of dialogue as an important phase of development for this age group of children. 2.  The younger the child, the greater the dependence on the objects for play activity. Little children (about 2 to 3 years) need objects (toys) for representation and for dialogues with the characters within the situations at all times. By about 5 years typically, children begin to imagine the characters by verbal sign and the object is of secondary importance, needed only as an external support, although the importance of an object never disappears during this period of childhood. For example, a child may play with a doll and can suddenly say that there is a “thief ” referring to another character, which is not represented by any object and can be evoked only by a word. The transition of oral egocentric speech to silent egocentric speech requires the use of speech as an abstract reference to characters. Language, which permits the child to mention and name both characters and objects during the previous stage, can now help the child to evoke characters and objects in an abstract way. It is interesting to note that such a transition might be understood as a transition from a concrete to an abstract image. We may suppose that the inner speech is formed out of the oral egocentric speech of a child during the years from 3 to 5.This period is an important ontogenetic period for the formation and profound progression of inner speech from verbal reference to objects and characters by an adult and through the egocentric selfexpressions of children in play situations with external objects. 3.  A child of three reproduces dialogues with toys and dolls within a family context. A child may say to the toy: “Do not do it”, “Behave yourself ”, “Eat soup”, “Put on your dress” and so on. A child may evoke an adult with whom they usually interact. It is not often that a child may exchange replica between characters in dialogue (it may be a mother and only later a daughter, without a simultaneous exchange of replicas within a dialogue). Children from 4 to 6 years gradually start to exchange these replicas: a daughter may answer a mother’s question. A child starts to assume the roles of different characters and may speak on their behalf with a fluent dialogue: daughter and mother, superhero and a villain and so on. 4.  The participation of characters in dialogues expressed through the oral egocentric speech of a child becomes broader with age.A child, who may exchange representations of characters in a play dialogue, takes part as if talking to him/herself. From a 102

Conceptions of play activity

psychological point of view, it is possible to claim that dialogical egocentric speech forms the background to conscious self-awareness. “I am conscious of myself only as a measure of my consciousness of the other person inside of me’’ (Vygotsky 1997: 57). Consciousness implies dialogue with oneself as if one was another person. Consciousness of self is of a dialogical nature, which appears with the development of inner speech oriented to the other (Bajtín 1993). Both speech and consciousness may be developed through play activity during the childhood years from 3 to 5 years. The child, from a very young age, interacts with and understands the world through the speech of others (parents and family). This stage transitions into a dialogue with self as if that self was another person (Escotto-Córdova 2011b).The play with toys and dolls of the young child are important evidence of the process of the dialogical way in which inner speech and consciousness develop.

Research with play activity in the Neuropsychological Diagnostic and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Psychology of Puebla Autonomous University (BUAP) Research with play activity with children from 3 to 5 years (organized as part of the Masters programme of study in the university) was directed towards its use as a method for development. The main lines of this research are: 1 play with social roles as a method for the development of voluntary activity at verbal level and as significant activity for the symbolic development of children 3 to 5 years; 2 Play with material objects and elementary symbolic play as a method to support the development of children with different types of neuropsychological syndrome. A series of studies took place in early childhood institutions in Tlaxcala and Puebla with children from both private and public institutions.These were fulfilled as Masterlevel dissertations in neuropsychology at the Faculty of Psychology.There was a control and experimental group. In both groups the level of the child’s voluntary actions of perceptive, representative and verbal level were assessed. Later on special programmes of gradual inclusion in an organized and structured way were applied with children from the experimental group. The children from the control group participated in official programmes proposed by SEP. The main difference between the two programmes was in the attention given to the level of development of the child’s intellectual activity and the way children were gradually taken through the programme (Talizina 2009). This means that the tangible playing out of roles, rules and characters were used on the first stage. The participation of adults in continually supporting the children with constant orientation was an essential part of this. Orientation was used for verbal expressions and for representative actions within play with social roles. At the next stage, the need for orientation was less and appears more in the form of suggestions and the introduction of new and interesting elements into the content of the play. During the last stage, the dialogues of the children in their roles and characters became more complex, longer and included appropriate 103

Solovieva, Escotto Córdova, Baltazar Ramos, Quintanar

grammar and broad vocabulary. Children showed more initiative and made proposals for the introduction of roles, rules and elements for the content of the play activity. In a different study, aspects of voluntary activity (García, Solovieva and Quintanar 2013) and of symbolic development (Bonilla 2013) were tested before and after implementation of an experimental programme (for a 6- to 8-month period) in both groups. Progress in child-initiated play activity and in symbolic function was observed in the experimental groups. The changes were recorded through the qualitative and quantitative analysis of results in both the initial and final assessment and analysis of the level of play activity during sessions.The changes were more significant than in the control group. Similar results were obtained with children from official and private kindergartens. In all the studies, play activity conditions (the structural organization and the inclusion of joint play with social roles within the whole group of children) formed a more significant role for positive development of new psychological formation in this age group – 3–5 years – than the control groups. In different studies, children from 5 to 6 years old were participants of control and experimental groups (Lázaro et al. 2009; García, Solovieva and Quintanar 2013). A special study took place in a boarding school with children aged from 6 to 9 years old who had no previous experience of play activity. An experimental programme with the inclusion of roles and rules was organized with initial and final assessment. In this study positive results were obtained within the group of children, without any comparison with control groups. Children showed better results in tasks for verbal regulation, reflection and voluntary actions and movements after implementation of the experimental programme (Lázaro et al. 2014). A broad and rich programme for the gradual introduction of play activity is being used in an experimental early childhood institution in the city of Puebla, founded by two authors of this chapter. Play activity is being systematically applied daily during the three years of education (3 to 5 years) in this private kindergarten.The programme has no similarity with the official programmes of SEP, which the research cited in this chapter demonstrates does not guarantee a high level of symbolic development or other psychological formations in this age group (Solovieva and Quintanar 2013b; Bonilla, Solovieva and Jiménez, 2012). Research with children with neuropsychological syndromes showed that play activity is a powerful method for development. For example, in cases of children with attention deficit disorder “as an official diagnosis” given by a child neurologist or psychiatrist, elements of play with tangible social roles were applied both in individual sessions and in groups for 100 sessions. All children included in the programmes showed significant progress in regulation and control of their activity, spatial orientation, graphic tests and general tones of activation (Solovieva, Quintanar and Bonilla 2004; Solovieva and Quintanar 2006). The results show positive effects of introducing symbolic games and play activity with roles and rules.The main finding of these results is to offer an alternative in cases of attention deficit disorder at the 3 to 5 years age to the traditional pharmacological treatment by methylphenidate. The authors want to stress that the latter way of thinking is predominant in Latin American countries. Play activity is never considered to be a powerful method of addressing neuropsychological syndromes such as attention deficit disorder. 104

Conceptions of play activity

In addition, important positive changes in the personality of children with attention deficit disorder were obtained in one study. After participation in the programme, children with attention deficit disorder showed positive solutions in conflict situations, broader motivation and acceptance of a variety of roles as well as better communicative abilities (Solovieva, Reyes and Quintanar 2010). These results seem to be important as some studies mention aggressive behaviour and communicative difficulties in children with this diagnosis. Once again, the special organization of games leading to play activity at this age can be used as an appropriate method for the solution to these problems. It is important to mention that children with quite different characteristics are regularly described and even diagnosed as being on the autistic spectrum. It is not the place in this chapter to critique the term “autism”. Instead we would like to stress that gradual inclusion of children with serious communicative difficulties and even with a total absence of oral direct speech in game-like interactions with objects (toys and dolls) and an adult can produce very positive effects (Morales et al. 2012, 2014; López, Solovieva and Quintanar 2013).We are convinced that neuropsychological assessment together with psychological assessment directed to the identification of the level of play activity is a powerful platform for the creation of valid forms of interactive support for the child’s positive development. The use of objects and the directed interaction within play activity may lead to proximal development. This contrasts with the use of traditional cognitive and behavioural therapy, the result of which is adaptation to defect instead of overcoming development challenges. Following the programme of play activity children with autism started to use directed dialogical oral speech and could take part in more complex play later. Results also led to positive learning at school, participation in music classes, the reading of books, learning the English language and good marks in primary school (Morales et al. 2014). All these studies confirm the importance of play activity for children’s development from 3–9 years (Solovieva and Quintanar 2013a) and propose a systematic way for both its introduction and inclusion at home and in early childhood institutions. Play activity, the authors of the chapter are convinced, is not as the SEP programme suggests, a “natural expression” which is part of spontaneous development. Play activity needs to be introduced to children and to be part of the cultural experience of each child according to very clear psychological necessities. Such necessities are: voluntary activity, reflection, symbolic function and the gradual development of consciousness through external dialogue. At the same time, play activity may be used broadly within neuropsychological assessment to achieve significant positive results, starting not from chronological age and the results of psychometrical testing, but instead from the psychological age and level of rector activity, which may be determined only by qualitative methods (Solovieva 2014, Solovieva and Quintanar 2014).

Conclusions The practical implications of play activity in Mexico have two main orientations: therapeutic purpose and pedagogical practice for early childhood development (from 3 to at least 6 years). This second purpose may be divided into two main positions: public official programmes and psychological research provided by universities. 105

Solovieva, Escotto Córdova, Baltazar Ramos, Quintanar

Official early childhood programmes are based on the view of development that in all aspects of personality development from 3 to 5 years there is a spontaneous and natural process. Psychological research is more related to the historical and cultural approach in psychology and shows that play activity is a powerful method for encouraging voluntary action, which becomes child initiated and results in reflective development. From this point of view, play activity is not a spontaneous manifestation of the child’s inner world, but a principal cultural activity, which may guarantee the positive development in a broad range of ways from 3 to 5 years.

References Bajtín, M. M. (1993). Construction of enunciation. In: Adriana Silvestri and Guillermo Blanck: Bajtín and Vygotski: semiotic organization of conscience. Barcelona, Anthropos, pp. 245–276. Baltazar-Ramos, A. M. (2015). Influence of speech on human development. 1st International Congress of Psychology: Paths and perspectives in Psychology. Faculty of Superior Studies Zaragoza, National Autonomous University of Mexico. Baltazar-Ramos, A. and Escotto-Córdova, E. A. (2014). Early Stimulation and Guide Portage as a Program. Electronic Journal of Psychology of FES Zaragoza-UNAM, 4 (8), 42–56. Bluma, S., Shearer, M., Frohman, A. and Hilliard, J. (1978). Manual. Guide Portage for preschool age. Wisconsin, Cooperative Educational Service Agency. Bonilla, M. (2013). Formation of symbolic function in preschoolers by playing activity. PhD dissertation in educational science. Mexico, Iberoamericana University. Bonilla, M., Solovieva Yu. and Jiménez, N. (2012). Assessment of level of symbolic development at preschool age. Journal CES Psicología, 5 (2), 56–69. Cervantes Ríos, J. C. (2009). Development of protho-concepts in history. A proposal from historical and cultural psychology. Mexico, University of Guadalajara. El’konin, D. B. (1989). Selected psychological works. Moscow, Pedagogy. Escotto-Córdova, E. A. (2011a). Inner speech as a polyphonic and dialogical discourse. A case. Journal CES Psicología (4), 1, 72–83. Escotto-Córdova, E. A. (2011b). Inner speech as dialogical discourse. Its theoretical importance for explanation of consciousness and thinking. Germany, Editorial Académica Española. García, M., Solovieva, Yu. and Quintanar, L. (2013). Development of new formations within games and fairy tales in preschool children. Culture & Education, 25 (2), 183–198. Lázaro, E., Solovieva,Yu., Cisneros, N. and Quintanar, L. (2009).Activities with games and fairy tales for the psychological development of preschool child. International Journal Magisterio, 37, 80–85. Lázaro, E., Quintanar, L., Solovieva,Yu., Torres, S. and Salazar, S. (2014). Program for stimulation of psychological development in children with abuse. In: M. Perez, A. Escotto, J. Arango and L. Quintanar, Neuropsychological rehabilitation. Strategies in infancy and with adults. Mexico, Manual Moderno, pp. 21–32. López, A., Solovieva, Yu. and Quintanar, L. (2013). Neuropsychological correction of children with severe retardation in development. Case study. In:Yu. Solovieva and L. Quintanar (Eds.), Neuropsychological education in children. Mexico, Trillas, pp. 201–222. Luria, A. R. (1984). Conscience and speech (2nd Edition). Madrid,Visor. Morales, A., Solovieva,Yu., Lázaro, E. and Quintanar, L. (2012). Neuropsychological correction of a girl with autism. Journal Imágenes Infancia. University of Caldos, 10(2), 51–70. Morales, A., Solovieva, Yu., Lazaro, E., Quintanar, L. and Machinskaya, R. (2014). Neuropsychological and neurophysiological analysis of a girl with autism: longitudinal study with results of correction. Revista Chilena de Neuropsicología, 9 (E2), 72–79. Piaget, J. (1976). Speech and thinking of infant. A study upon the logic of an infant. Buenos Aires: Guadalupe.

106

Conceptions of play activity Schaefer, Ch. E. and O’Connor, K. J. (1988). Manual for game therapy. Mexico, Manual Moderno. SEP (Secretary of Public Education) (2011). Program of studies 2011, guide for preschool teacher. Basic preschool education. Mexico, http://es.slideshare.net/Pilill/programa-de-estudio-2011-gua-parala-educadora-educacin-bsica-preescolar. SEP (Secretary of Public Education) (2012). Federal Government. Educational system of Mexican United States. Principal statistics, school year 2010–2011. Mexico, General Direction of Planning and Programs, Secretary of Public Education, www.planeacion.sep.gob.mx/Doc/ estadistica_e_indicadores/principales_cifras/principales_cifras_2010_2011.pdf. Solovieva,Yu. (2013). Development from historic and cultural approach: educational research in Spain and Mexico. Culture & Education, 25 (2), 131–135. Solovieva, Yu. (2014). Neuropsychological intervention in infancy: diversity of possibilities. Revista Chilena de Neuropsicología, 9 (E2), 46–48. Solovieva,Yu., Quintanar, L. and Bonilla, R. (2004). Neuropsychological correction: an alternative for treatment of children with attention deficit disorder. Spanish Journal of Neuropsychology, 6 (3–4), 171–185. Solovieva,Yu. and Quintanar, L. (2006). Methods for neuropsychological correction of preschool Mexican children with attention deficit disorder. Cultural-Historical Psychology, 3, 60–67. Solovieva,Yu., Reyes,V. and Quintanar, L. (2010). Sphere of personality in children with attention deficit disorder and in preschoolers without pathology. Journal of Clinical Science, 11 (1), 16–24. Solovieva,Yu. and Quintanar, L. (2013a). Playing activity at preschool age. Mexico, Trillas. Solovieva, Yu. and Quintanar, L. (2013b). Evaluation of symbolic development in preschool Mexican children. Culture & Education, 25 (2), 167–182. Solovieva, Yu. and Quintanar, L. (2014). Principles and objectives of neuropsychological correction and development in children. In: H. Patiño and V. López, Prevention and assessment in psychology. Mexico, Manual Moderno, pp. 61–74. Talizina, N. F. (2009). Application of activity theory in teaching. Mexico: Autonomous University of Puebla. Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). Conscience as a problem of psychology of behavior. In: Amelia Álvarez and Pablo del Río (Eds.), Liev Semiónovich Vygotski. Selected works, T. I. Problems of general psychology. 2nd Edition. Madrid,Visor, pp. 39–60. Vygotsky, L. S. (1993). Thinking and speech. In: Amelia Álvarez and Pablo del Río (Eds.), Liev Semiónovich Vygotski. Selected works, T. II. Problems of general psychology. Madrid,Visor, pp. 9–348. Vygotsky, L. S. (2001). Imagination and art in infancy. Mexico: Ediciones Coyoacán.

107

9 Introducing social role-play to Colombian children 5–6 years Yulia Solovieva and Claudia Ximena González-Moreno

Introduction Play activity is the intermediate step during the transitional period that takes place in a child’s development and learning between approximately 6 and 7 years of age, which promotes the development of children’s personality, motivation, thinking and understanding of the world (Hakkarainen 2009). Play may be considered from two points of view: as a spontaneous natural activity and as a culturally mediated activity. The first concept is close to a classical psychological understanding of play in childhood, as the free activity of a child’s egocentric personality (Piaget 1994).The concept refers to the cultural historical theory of development in childhood. In this framework, play, like all other activities, arises from culture and not from evolutionary and natural manifestations. Each activity can be studied from the point of view of its structure, content, and stages of development. Each activity has to be introduced by somebody else. In other words, it is not a consequence of natural impulses in the child but an external plan of actions, which have to be introduced or presented by an adult. Introduction may be involuntary or organized joint activity between children and adults (El’konin 1980;Vygotsky 1995; Bredikyte 2011, 2012; Solovieva and Quintanar 2012).The organization of joint activity between child and adult may create the zones of proximal development.The adult might include the child into the role play such that there is participation and engagement between the adult and other children in making representative actions together. This makes individual internalization of higher mental functions and symbolic actions possible. This can only happen if the content of the activity is accessible and new for a child at the same time. In order to elaborate this idea, examples are considered in which role-play activity is accessible but not new, or new without being accessible to the child.

Accessible play activity and orientation If play activity is accessible it does not produce any developmental effect for the child. The child may be joyful, happy and pleased with the activity and agree to carry out 108

Introducing social role-play

similar kinds of ‘nice’, pleasant and frequently repeated play actions. From the developmental point of view, no real changes take place. The whole activity can pass to a repetitive, inflexible level instead of leading into the acquisition of creativity, flexibility and new developmental formations (Vygotsky 2001) from 3 to 6 years (Davidov 2008; El’konin 1980). Examples are the development of voluntary activity (Leont’ev 2009; Salmina and Filimonova 2001), imagination (Davidov 2008; Ilienkov 2009), the use of symbolic means (Salmina 1988, 2010; Solovieva and Quintanar 2012), cognitive curiosity and general motivation (Talizina 2009). Accessible but only known types of play or cognitive tasks cannot create zones of proximal development. If play is new, but not an accessible activity, the child may show frustration or lack of any interest in participating. An undesirable situation, in our view, is the situation where the child ‘apparently’ starts to take part in an adult-led play activity but without any reflexive or conscious understanding of the situation. Reflection is an essential feature of any voluntary action and might be understood as a creative and conscious fulfilment of an action instead of mechanical repetition or imitation. According to Gal’perin, the orientation base of action gives essential information or conditions, which permit participation in the activity from the very beginning. The orientation base of action contributes to the ability to carry out an action as a reflexive and conscious process. It is an essential part of any human activity. In the case of play activity, the orientation base of action satisfies these criteria: 1) orientation helps children to understand the whole context and key elements in the play activity; 2) it guarantees understanding of the meaning of the action of representation in role play for the subject; 3) it permits the creation of a plan for future execution of the whole play; 4) orientation provides the necessary means for modifying, changing and correction as the play activity progresses in groups of children (Gal’perin, 1998). For us, conscious and voluntary understanding of the whole situation and the child’s understanding of their own part in it are particularly interesting. Mechanical and repetitive, inflexible actions mean the absence or lack of adequate orientation. We are convinced that one of the causes of ‘learning disabilities’ is ‘teaching disabilities’. This relates to the lack of elaboration or presentation of appropriate orientation in the pedagogical process from 3 to 6 years and in school age during the transitional period. Traditional teaching, all over the world, uses mechanical and repetitive tasks, in which the participation of the child is unconscious and involuntary. For the child, from 3 to 6 years, who is never encouraged to make or follow a play idea, who has no understanding of problems and no initiative for the solution of problems, the introduction of new inaccessible play tasks does not create any zone of proximal development. Innovative adults direct the child’s activity and contribute positively to the appearance of child initiatives and this transforms the voluntary understanding on the part of the child (Zuckerman 2007). We are convinced that the adult’s orientation and role contributes not only to the child’s understanding but also to transformation and flexible modification of experience. Social role play as a dominant type of activity is considered to be an essential part of learning from 3 to 6 years (El’konin 1980). Play as a process-oriented activity is based on a common goal of interaction and the mutual efforts of all children in a group (El’konin 1999). Social role play is not an individual activity, but a collectively organized 109

Solovieva and González-Moreno

joint process. An important functional part of play activity is part contributed by the orientation, which the child receives in order to bring about intellectual, communicative, interactive and symbolic actions during the play. External orientation helps to carry out the play action and its common objectives with the help of material, materialized and perceptual means. Material forms of actions refer to the usage of concrete objects (toys); materialized means refer to usage of material symbols as substitutes of concrete objects and perceptual means are symbols, which might be drawn or presented as cards, pictures, illustrations and so on (Solovieva 2014).

Analysing social role play Analysis of social role play can be carried out from a structural or functional (as a process) point of view (Solovieva 2004). Structural components of play activity (activity, actions, operations) and functional components (needs, motives, goals, orientation, execution and verification) are simultaneously accomplished during the play process (Solovieva 2014). Orientation permits evaluation of the whole situation, exploring problems, and it proposes a plan for solution, elaborates a strategy for solution of the problem and identifies the necessary operations. Execution consists of developing sequential operations during the process of orientation. The verification of results is related to operative evaluation of success during execution and participation in role plays. A principal feature of a play action in social role play is the form of execution, which partially corresponds to the levels of intellectual development, where forms of material, materialized, perceptual and verbal actions may be identified. Other features of an action can be described according to the level of generalization, consciousness and automatization (Talizina 1988; Gal’perin 1992, 2009). According to Leont’ev 1981, play operations do not correspond to real operations, but play actions are like real actions. The main difference is in motivation. Play actions are independent of objective results. Play includes real actions with real objects and real operations, but the operations are carried out in imagined situations. Non-correspondence between operations and actions in play is the reason for imagined situations. Rubinstein 1989, p. 69 describes the role of imagined situations as follows. Everything which is essential in play is genuinely real. Emotions, wishes and ideas are real and genuine. Genuine are also questions solved in play. Emotions, wishes and ideas are the player’s emotions, wishes and ideas, because the role is herself/himself in new, imagined situations. Imagined are only situations in which the player places her/himself, but the emotions experienced are real emotions. (Hakkarainen 2003: 235) We believe that it would be useful to characterize play activity both from a structural and a functional point of view. Structural analysis reveals how activity is organized. Functional analysis demonstrates how the process proceeds. Structural consideration identifies precisely the motive, objectives, operations and orientation base of action. Functional consideration reveals elements of the play process. Social role play requires 110

Introducing social role-play

such components as: roles (characters), rules connected to roles, and symbolic materialized, perceptual or verbal means. With verbal level of symbolization we understand usage of verbal expressions for representation of the events in social plays, for example: ‘talk to the patient as the doctor does’ (Solovieva and Quintanar 2012). Role play starts with hidden rules and changes gradually into activity governed by open rules (Hakkarainen 2009).Vygotsky (1977) emphasized that in role play the child constantly has to repress immediate impulses and act according to the role taken (cited in Hakkarainen 2009: 66). Another important component of the role play is the imaginary situation (Vygotsky 1995).‘Play, and children’s play especially, is characterized by symbolic actions in imagined situations. Real objects and actions are substituted by other objects and symbolic actions’ (Hakkarainen 2003: 232). Imagination serves as a tool for creating an imaginary situation where a fictitious ‘I’ can act a desirable role. However, to reach this illusory wish fulfillment the child has to pay a price. Every imaginary situation contains rules of behavior; the essence of the rules is that one has to act in a particular way, defined by the chosen role. I would argue that it is only from the ‘outsider’s’ view an illusionary wish fulfillment. From ‘inside’, from the child’s role position, it is real to a certain point. While performing concrete actions the child both motionally and physically is ‘living through’ the situation.This ‘experiencing’ gives him/her a feeling of fulfillment and satisfaction. (Bredikyte 2011:75) Gal’perin’s model of ‘systematic formation of mental actions and concepts’ (Gal’perin 1992, 1998) has systematically been used in experimental study and play observation (El’konin 1980, 1995) as well as in the assessment of the level of children’s symbolic development (Bonilla, Solovieva and Jiménez 2012). Experimental data reveals low levels of development in symbolic function of substitutions of objects, images and verbal expressions. Children from 3 to 6 years have difficulties with reflexive creative representation in common situations. We believe that the gradual introduction and organization of play activity may help to support the development of symbolic function together with child-initiated activity in spontaneous play (Salmina and Filimonova 2001; García, Solovieva and Quintanar 2013; Lázaro et al. 2009). Development was even registered in groups of severely deprived children living in orphanages (Lázaro et al. 2009) and suffering from brain damage of different degrees (Morales et al. 2012; González-Moreno, Solovieva and Quintanar 2014b).

Intervening in social role play In this chapter we present our intervention to social role play and its developmental effects with children 3–6 years.The material draws on a PhD thesis (González-Moreno 2016a). In this study we tried to find an answer to the question how children acquire and use external and verbal symbols in social role play? The development of the symbolic function is important in both education and psychology (Salmina 1988; Vygotsky 1995; Solovieva and Quintanar 2012). Lack of 111

Solovieva and González-Moreno

conceptual clarity and experimental evidence results in an ambiguous understanding of play and development. In traditional psychology, development is the sum of different maturing functions. Development of symbolic function is therefore analysed separately from other psychological phenomena (Piaget 1961). Vygotsky, the creator of nonclassical psychology, elaborated a systemic approach to human consciousness and proposed the use of systemic units of analysis in the development. The development of symbolic function is a result of the child’s play and other cultural activities.

Experimental procedure This study was based on the formative experimental method proposed by Vygotsky (1995) and elaborated by Gal’perin (1998).This method,‘may be called an experimentalgenetic method in the sense that it artificially elicits and creates a genetic process of mental development’ (Vygotsky 1997: 68). We studied the process of play through intervention with a group of urban children from low social status. Our participants had no previous experience of social role play. So, we started to introduce this activity from the very beginning. During the formative process all the structural and functional aspects of play were revealed.The intervention was based on a methodology proposed by El’konin (1980), Bredikyte (2011), Bredikyte and Hakkarainen (2011), Solovieva and Quintanar (2012). The whole procedure corresponded to the possibility of converting self-experience into a comprehensive conscious process according to Bruner (1988). The process of the formation of social role play was divided into five stages. Play themes of the first four stages correspond to social situations of real life in society. The fifth and last stage included fantastic or magic situations (topics) proposed and created by the children themselves.

Participants Twenty children between 5 and 6 years took part in the study. The average age of the children was 5.1 years, and eleven boys and nine girls participated. The institution belonged to a district with vulnerable economic and social life conditions.Vulnerable conditions refer to extreme poverty and the low levels of primary education of the children’s parents. Tables 9.1 and 9.2 show the educational level and occupation of mothers and fathers of the children.

Procedure Our play intervention programme lasted eight months and consisted of a total of 130 sessions.The daily sessions lasted two hours.The sessions were taped on video with the permission of parents and the director of the institution. In every session each child had an opportunity to change their role if they wanted and with the agreement of all children. Children changed roles daily: if today Brianna was a seller of jewellery, tomorrow she could be a visitor in a museum. 112

Introducing social role-play Table 9.1  Educational level of children’s parents Level of education

Mother

Father

Primary school Unfinished secondary level Secondary level

8 9 3

9 8 3

Table 9.2  Occupation of parents Occupation

Mother

Father

Housewife Domestic servant Shop assistant Peddler Driver Construction worker

14 4 2 0 0 0

0 0 6 4 7 3

Each session started with a conversation between the researcher and the children. The conversation aimed at familiarization with communication, in which all the contexts may be changed, modified, constructed and reconstructed by all the participants in the dialogue. Participants sat in circles in order to facilitate the emotional inclusion of the children.The children always had an opportunity to express their own opinion or thought about characters, objects, roles, means and topics in general. Afterwards each child created a symbol corresponding to the role (character) and also roles necessary for a play performance. Later on, the symbols were distributed in the classroom according to the location of objects taken into account with the theme. Such spatial distribution was achieved also in dialogical orientation between the adult and children. During the performance, the adult (researcher) helped children to find appropriate verbal expressions, actions with objects, election of symbolic means.The adult helped children whenever needed. The organization of whole activity, independence and initiative was progressively transformed from adult to the children. At the end of each session children took part in conversation about both the positive and negative details of the performance. Each session was divided into orientation, performance and control with the children consistently included in every element of the play activity. The researcher took part in all the play sessions, interpreting characters and organizing the activity at the same time. The children were able to ask and express anything they wanted about the theme and also to give their emotional reactions. When children started to say something and didn’t know how to continue, the adults proposed possible variants of verbal expression or material actions. This moved the boundaries of the zones of proximal development. Without help children would not have been able to continue their play. The researcher managed to encourage the 113

Solovieva and González-Moreno

children to reflect on their play activity. When the researcher noticed that children were able to explore a theme using coherent verbal expressions, concrete and symbolic actions, the play activity moved to the next qualitative level. Sessions took place in the Educational Institution of one the districts in the city of Bogota (Colombia), which was chosen because the symbolic development of the children was extremely poor (González-Moreno, Solovieva and Quintanar 2014b; González-Moreno 2015, 2016a). The stages of play activity represent a gradual growing of the level of development, starting with the absence of group activity in children’s lives, or the more complex use of symbolic means (González-Moreno 2016b, 2016c).The stages are formed according to the degree of completeness of actions and topics. These stages were (GonzálezMoreno 2016a, 2016c): 1) thematic social role play using objects (thirty sessions); 2) thematic social role play with typical role costumes and actions with substitute objects (thirty sessions); 3) thematic social role play roles with objects and substitute objects in various types of situations (thirty sessions); 4) thematic social role play with increasing initiative and proposed new plays (twenty sessions); 5) narrative social role play (twenty sessions). 1. Thematic social role play with objects. At this stage inclusion of concrete objects was absolutely necessary in order to guarantee productive responses, interest and possibility to start playing in the group. Presence of abstract rules and norms only was not enough for organization of collective play activity. Play topics at this stage were: ‘hospital’, ‘restaurant’, ‘selling of ice cream’, ‘selling fruits’, ‘shoe shop’, ‘hair cutting’, ‘selling pizza’, ‘selling bread’, ‘library’, ‘car repairing’, ‘supermarket’ and ‘country farmhouse’. 2. Thematic social role play with the typical role costumes and actions with substitute objects. At this stage the children were able to accomplish object substitutions. Materialization of roles by representing a specific feature of each role was chosen or proposed by an adult. The topics at this stage were: ‘movie theatre’, ‘bank’, ‘painters of savage animals’, ‘sculptors’, ‘watch repairing’, ‘designers of mobile phones’, ‘designers of kites’, ‘birthday in family’, ‘reparation of controls for TV’, ‘train’, ‘illustrators of books’, ‘hotel’, ‘farm’, ‘zoo’, ‘designers clues to find treasures’, ‘plumbers’, ‘safari’, ‘picnic’, ‘camping’, ‘carpenters’, ‘coffee producers’, ‘engineers of road repairing’. 3.  Thematic social role play with objects and substitute objects in various types of situations. At this stage the children could use materialized means (concrete substitutes of objects and toys) and not simply concrete objects. Role-play actions became more complex, profound and coherent in relation to the whole situation and to the performance of each character.The topics at this stage were: ‘horse racing’, ‘city traffic’ ‘the architects’, ‘designer’s magical musical instruments’, ‘designer’s houses for magical animals’, ‘painters’, ‘art gallery’, ‘designer’s magic keys to travel to special places’, ‘football match’, ‘repairing of telephones’, ‘airport’, ‘museum’, ‘designers of magic castles’,‘cooks of food magic’,‘gardeners of magical flowers’,‘mechanics of magic cars’, ‘designer of maps that allow you to travel through time’, ‘designer’s puppets’. 4.  Thematic social role play with increasing initiative and proposed new plays. At this stage the children demonstrated a more profound elaboration of play and 114

Introducing social role-play

introduced new initiatives into the play activity. The children consistently began to propose new characters, rules, symbolic means, objects and actions for play performance. The topics proposed by the children on the basis of experience from three previous stages were: ‘Christmas’, ‘journalists’, ‘scientists’, ‘hospital’, ‘cooks of food that grows’, ‘firemen’, ‘sailors’, ‘jewel makers’, ‘pilots’, ‘paleontologists’, ‘circus’, ‘researchers of the life of insects’, ‘restaurants’, ‘shop for pirates’, ‘inventors’, ‘day of fishing’, ‘island of pirates’, ‘theatre of magic stories’, ‘the country of magical dreams’, ‘the trip to the moon’, ‘photo studio’. 5.  Narrative social role play. At this stage, an adult (researcher) told imaginary stories. Children performed as characters of these fantastic stories and tales after storytelling. Children’s characters combined features of social life and cultural context of children’s life with some new fantastic features. In the chosen topics knights, princes, kings, magicians and so on appeared. The children chose for example the following topics: ‘Pinocchio does not want the soup’,‘Three pigs building the house’,‘Enchanted castle’, ‘Looking for a treasure’, ‘Searching for disappeared puppet’, ‘Little wolves were worried’, ‘The mission on the shore of the sea’, ‘How the biggest dinosaur was frightened on the beach’, ‘The superheroes’, ‘The sand castle’, ‘The water castle’, ‘Hidden stars’, ‘The wish of the princess of mice’, ‘The great miracle of heroes and villains’, ‘The dinosaurs and the flowers dreamed’, ‘The prince, who swallowed too much food’, ‘The fallen stars’, ‘The flowers from the magic land’, ‘Captured in the forest’, ‘Dangerous escape’, ‘Magic castle’, ‘The trip to the stars’.

The implementation of social role play Important changes took place in the content of play during interventions.We analysed qualitatively the central content of play. We included such elements of content as the argument and process (roles, rules, objects, expressions, etc.).Table 9.3 shows important qualitative changes of content. The topic ‘photo studio’ is described here as an example of social role play. This is an example of the fourth stage of developing social role play. Important changes were noticed in the use of functional components of social role play. Earlier an adult helped children to realize the majority of verbal and non-verbal actions in the play. At this stage, children started to introduce their own initiatives using new elements in the play. The orientation and external help from the adult were significantly decreased. During this session, for the first time, functional parts of the play, such as performance and control, took place simultaneously. At the beginning, as orientation, the researcher proposed a conversation about the topic ‘photo studio’ and asked what roles, rules, and actions would be possible and impossible in this play. The children managed to direct their actions to specific objectives in the play. They were also able to reflect on their play at the end. They choose the roles according to their wishes. Orientation was carried out in thirty minutes. The role-play activity lasted one hour. Table 9.4 presents the content of ‘photo studio’. Dialogue about the topic of ‘photo studio’ took place before starting the play. Excerpt 1 presents an example of how symbolic means were created during orientation. 115

Table 9.3  Changes in elements of play content during interventions Element of play

Initial stage

Final stage *

Play with conscious, coherent structure of actions, which were performed according to previously established elements. Presence of conscious subordination of each action to the concrete goal of the play * Creative sequence of actions * New elements of play actions based on children’s initiatives. Some fantastic, unexpected details are added to the whole procedure, which is rich and profound. The interest and motivation of all children is high during the whole process * Roles External adult help is Children are highly motivated and interested necessary in play events in performing the roles independently in and actions accordance with the theme * The means of expression acquired by children are rich and flexible: actions, gestures, movements, facial expressions, phrases and social expressions are in accordance with the social context and used freely (not mechanically) * Accurate role performance guarantees playmates’ comprehension of roles * Children act and comprehend acting of each participant; their acting has effect on them and the others Use of objects Objectives of actions with *Children start to consider their own and objects are proposed by other’s specific objectives in relation to selected an adult only roles Symbolization Selection of symbols only *Created symbols can mediate performance in with the help of an adult accordance with social or imaginary situations. Symbolic means start to regulate play and become a constant structural element required and consciously used by children * Rules Difficulties in accepting Children learn to subordinate their actions rules, tendency to act and behaviour to rules, which are defined and impulsively discussed before the play * External rules are All participants follow rule interaction and accepted, but they do not discussion have an influence on children’s attitudes (absence of internalization) * Verbal Children need the Children use characteristic expressions of a expressions continuous support of role on their own initiative researcher for use of expressions that are part of the role

Argument

Argument is not transformed to a coherent play process, few actions with objects The arguments are stereotyped (situations, actions and expressions are similar)

Table 9.4  Content of the play ‘photo studio’ Content of play Actions

Description

The children created the symbols of roles and placed them in correct places in the classroom. Later on, appropriate symbols of the topic and appropriate rules were agreed on (do not shout loudly, do not eat, do not run in the photo studio). After preparations the children started the play The order of play actions was the following: the cleaning lady opened the photo studio and hung up the symbol (the studio is open). The clients entered the studio and asked the secretary for queuing numbers.The secretary gave the numbers.The assistant revised the turns and the wishes of the clients. The photographer took photos of each client in turns. Each client was advised how to pose for their photo (sit down, raise your head, turn your head to the right/left/up, down, stand up and so on) in order to have nice pictures. Each client received a card for payment and made the payment at the cash desk and got the pictures from the assistant. The administrator supervised the whole process, greeted the clients and thanked staff for an accomplished job. At the end of the day, the assistant together with the cleaning lady hung up the ‘closed’ sign. Each client received one or two pictures Roles Photographer (2 children), assistants (2 children), the cashier (1 child), secretary (1 child), cleaner (1 child), administrator (1 child), clients (12 children and the researcher) Verbal Children used e.g. the following verbal expressions: ‘dear clients, welcome to our interaction photo studio’, ‘we can take pictures for you here, our pictures are very nice and not so expensive’, ‘we take the best photographs in our studio’, ‘please, come here, please, follow me’, ‘dear sir (madam), please, tell us, what kind of photos you need? We take your pictures very quickly’, ‘good afternoon, sir, cashier’, ‘how much do I owe you’, ‘five coins’, ‘thank you very much, mister photographer, I like my photos very much’, ‘we shall be waiting for you next time for more pictures’, ‘no sir, please, do not sit on this chair, I’ll show you where you should sit’, ‘raise your hat a little bit, please’, ‘we cannot shout so loudly here because we are taking photos, please, do not run here, you can distract the others and you may fall down and hurt yourself, sir’, ‘sir client, please, you can enter the studio right now, it is your turn now, look on your number and the assistant will show you the way’, ‘I would like to take my picture with this little dog!’, ‘I would like my picture with this cat!’ ‘I would like to put on this dress like a princess!’, ‘it would be better to put on the crown!’ Symbolic Division of the roles: children chose their roles in accordance with their own means wishes Symbols for the play: each child prepared the symbol according to their chosen role Distribution of the space for the play: spatial distribution of characters and objects of the play was determined with the help of prepared signs: ‘photo studio’, ‘open’, ‘closed’ Turns for entering the studio: the children created the symbols to indicate whose turn it was to enter the studio next and take pictures (coloured cards with geometric small, medium and big figures).The secretary distributed cards in order to organize the turns of the clients. She started with light colours and small figures proceeding to stronger colours and bigger figures. As there were two photographers, two groups were organizing the clients. For example: photographer 1 had the ‘landscape’ background and photographer 2 had the ‘castle’ background.The children also used cards (tickets) for payment. E.g. if the clients chose only one picture, they ‘paid’ with one ticket; if they choose two pictures, they paid with two tickets and so on. Rules of the play: ‘do not run’, ‘do not eat’, ‘do not shout loudly’. Some other symbols for appropriate and inappropriate actions according to the topic of the play were proposed. For example: Action is in accordance with the role: Inappropriate play actions:

Figure 9.1  Symbols of ‘photo studio’ play.

Introducing social role-play

Excerpt 1 Creating symbols before the ‘photo studio’ play. RESEARCHER: Today,

we might play ‘photo studio’ or ‘firemen’. What do you think? (DP, BOY): What is a photo studio? RESEARCHER:  A photo studio is a place where people come to take photos (DP):  Ah, I know, one day I went to take photos and liked it a lot (RM, BOY): Yes, I want to play ‘photo studio’ (CI, BOY):  I would also like to have my own photos (EC, BOY):  And we might make symbols for photo studio RESEARCHER: Which roles could we propose for this play? (MV, GIRL):  A person who cleans the studio, a man who takes photos, a man who administers the studio, and one who collects money (HS, BOY):  The assistant who takes pictures, helps the clients and the photographer RESEARCHER:  Actually, the photographer himself will take pictures (SB, GIRL): We have to say that nobody can eat in the photo studio (HS):  Nobody can run! RESEARCHER:  And why so? (MV):  Because the photos can be spoiled and someone may fall down and get hurt (RM): We cannot scream loudly either! RESEARCHER:  Can’t we scream? (RM):  Because the photographer has to concentrate and take pictures nicely (MV): We can put some nice clothes on to take pictures! (AI, BOY): And we can use something with what we want take pictures! And also something to represent the camera! RESEARCHER: What can’t the photographer do? (JL, BOY):  Ay, I am a photographer and I will not collect coins and cannot go with the cash register or to another place, because I have to take pictures all the time and I will not open the door. . . RESEARCHER: What will the administrator do and why do we need him? (JG, BOY):  I will not clean the studio but I can supervise how all of them do their job! After the play the researcher gathered the children together to reflect on the whole play process (roles, rules and actions). She raised the following questions: did you like this play? What was the best part of the play? How did the photographers behave? Do you remember what each character was doing? What did the men who clean the studio do? What did the administrator do? And what did the assistant do? What was the job of the secretary? Reflection lasted thirty minutes. Orientation made it possible to guarantee conscious and voluntary performance and reflection on the play process, used objects and symbolic means (cards). Because of creating and using the symbols in the play, the children understood what the symbols meant. Children’s verbal expressions reveal this (Excerpt 2):

119

Solovieva and González-Moreno

Excerpt 2 Children’s discussion regarding symbols. RESEARCHER:  What symbols (the cards) have we prepared for this play and why? (CI):  I used the background ‘landscape’ because some clients like to take a picture with

the landscape knew to which photographer we wanted to come, because there were two of them (AI):  This sign told us ‘do not eat’ because we didn’t want to spoil the pictures and we want to take home nice pictures! (RM):  We

The children discussed the distribution of the roles in this social role play. No external help in the orientation was necessary.The children’s verbal expression used in the play corresponded perfectly to the purpose. Diverse objects and symbolic means were also correctly applied. Substitutions of concrete objects and pictures with representations of some objects were necessary for the play. All the dialogues were performed independently without any external help. Other characteristics in this session were that the sequence of actions was completed according to the roles and rules of the topic. The children’s behaviour was oriented to the proposed goals. The rules gave guidance to the whole activity. The whole process took place in an imaginary situation (an imagined photo studio instead of the real classroom). Children were involved and interested in the play. No one lost the objective or refused to take part in the play. Positive emotions accompanied the whole process.The repertoire of actions was broad. The children were consciously engaged and showed a reflective attitude before, during and after the play process.

Discussion The developmental abilities of children aged 3 to 6 years are effectively promoted in active play participation giving space to personal involvement (Solovieva and Quintanar 2010; González-Moreno and Solovieva 2014a, 2014b; González-Moreno 2015, 2016a, 2016b, 2016c). ‘We can focus on two revealing factors about children’s abilities in the play: 1. Use cultural tools in their interaction, and 2. To initiate joint activities with others using cultural tools, signs, symbols, and concepts’ (Hakkarainen 2009: 70). According to cultural historical psychology, symbolic function, voluntary activity, imagination and reflection are important new formations. Acquisition of new developmental formations from 3 to 6 years facilitate the process of conceptual learning later at school age (Talizina 2009; Solovieva and Quintanar 2014a). The emphasis on academic aspects of school readiness does not best promote development at this age (Solovieva and Quintanar 2012). The narrow interest of teachers, psychologists and parents on cognitive development and of the repetitive acquisition of letters and numbers and tasks for fine motor development definitely has negative effects on the development of children from the age of 3 to 6 years and diminishes their potential learning motivation (González, Solovieva and Quintanar 2014a, 2014b). In Bruner’s words ‘the acts of imagination can contribute the senses to the experience’ (Bruner 1998: 5) and the experience permits to understanding the 120

Introducing social role-play

significance of human actions (Vasilyuk 1991). The experience of social role play in our sessions had a positive effect on development and understanding of the meaning of joint social actions. The present research shows that the zone of proximal development gradually converts to the zone of actual development during the process of collective role play. External adult orientation at the beginning of play can considerably promote advanced stages of the programme (our example of ‘photo studio’ play). Children gradually acquire self-orientation for verbal actions and for use of objects and symbolic means during the play.The organization of social role play permits the achievement of higher levels of creative and imaginary situations as a part of children’s individual internal experience (Petrovsky 1985). Children’s initiatives did not appear from the very beginning, but became a part of children’s activity during our intervention. The same happened with creativity and imagination – features, which are so essential to development from 3 to 6 years (Vygotsky 2007), that do not appear automatically, but as a result of the orientation activity between children and an adult.The children started to plan concrete, symbolic and verbal actions in a joint play topic. Play behaviour became flexibly oriented and directed to discussed goals as a feature of voluntary play activity (Leont’ev 2009; Salmina and Filimonova 2001). ‘Children take a position “inside” an imaginary situation. Children become attracted not only by the exciting events of the characters but become interested in the social meaning of the whole situation of representations of social situations in groups as important aspect of the imaginary situation’ (Bredikyte 2011: 65). We suppose that the play activity (voluntary play) analysed above is a step towards narrative play. According to Bruner (1988), each narration is related to human intentions, which might be intuitively recognized. For this author, the image of a character is the essence of the story. In our experience, the conscious notion of each character of the play can prepare the notion of a character of the story at the next stage of development.‘The elementary form of the relation between the fantasy and reality consist of the invention which may be composed of only on the bases of the elements of the reality existed in previous experience’ (Vygotsky 2007: 16). Our data shows how the play with social characters may help to enrich children’s experience, even in cases of limited and poor conditions of social and cultural life. In social role play, the child acquires two kinds of relations to the role and starts to differentiate these relations. On the one hand the child creates an imaginary situation in the play. On the other hand, the child starts to plan, organize and develop the whole content of play events. The taking of roles makes it possible to produce diverse kinds of actions, which cross the boundaries of everyday acting in a social context.The child acquires interactive experience of representation, which is broader and cannot be reduced to the concrete context of life. Our data confirm the thinking of Bruner (1988: 23), who said that ‘activity helps to order the experience’. The child starts to regulate the activity of other children and afterwards regulates their own activity. We can add that this also makes it possible to regulate self-experience and to move into the concrete experience of limited social context (poverty, appositive cultural relations, and so on). 121

Solovieva and González-Moreno

The use of external means of encouraging symbolic function was a useful instrument which promotes the development of play regulation. Symbolic function has to be understood not only as an essential part of cognitive development, but also as a real necessity in developing self-regulation. Social role play is a useful methodology for activity theory, which can be used working with children 3 to 6 years to support development and the basis for later school learning. The foundations for later school learning cannot be viewed only as cognitive development, excluding child’s creative and voluntary personality. An essential aspect of play activity from 3 to 6 years is the inclusion of collective social acting and subordination to play rules (El’konin 1980). As a consequence, children become able to construct the actions and to perform according to the plans of action. Such features of activity and personality are relevant both from developmental and pedagogical points of view.

Conclusions The advanced forms of thematic social role play allow the development of more complex forms of symbolic functioning. Social role play is an activity type, which may positively transform and enrich the social experience of young children. The gradual development of play activity from 3 to 6 years can be understood as a qualitative method, which facilitates study and introduces this activity from the very beginning. Social role play may be successfully used in groups of young children who live in poor social contexts.The activity provides broad and rich collective experience, which can later become the individual experience of each child. The zone of proximal development is an important concept for developmental psychology, which can explain essential qualitative changes in the play activity in young children.

References Bonilla, M., Solovieva,Yu. and Jiménez, N. (2012).Valuation of level of development of symbolic development at preschool age. Journal CES Psychology, 5(2), 56–69. Bredikyte, M. (2011). The zones of proximal development in children’s play. University of Oulu: Faculty of Education. Bredikyte, M. (2012).The Act of Cultural Mediation in Children’s Play. Forum Oświatowe, 2(47), 81–100. Bredikyte, M. and Hakkarainen, P. (2011). Play intervention and play deve­lopment. In: C. Lobman and B. O’Neill B (eds), Play and performance. Lanham: University Press of America, pp. 59–83. Bruner, J. (1988). Realidad mental y mundos posibles. España: Gedisa. Davidov,V.V. (2008). Sessions on general psychology. Moscow: Academy. El’konin, D. B. (1980). Psychology of play. Madrid: Pablo del Río. El’konin, D. B. (1995). Psychological development in infancy. Moscow: Academy of Pedagogical and Social Sciences. El’konin, D. B. (1999). Psychology of play. Moscow:Vlados. Gal’perin, P. (1992). Stage-by-stage formation as a method of psychological investigation. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 30(4), 60–80. Gal’perin, P.Ya. (1998). Psychological activity as an objective science. Moscow: Aca­demy of Social and Pedagogical Sciences.

122

Introducing social role-play Gal’perin, P.Ya. (2009). About formation of concepts and mental actions. In: L. Quintanar (comp.). The formation of functions within development in infancy. Mexico: Trillas, pp. 45–56. García, M., Solovieva,Yu. and Quintanar, L. (2013). Development of new formations by games and tales in preschool children. Culture & Education, 25(2), 183–198. González-Moreno, C. X., Solovieva, Y. and Quintanar, R. L. (2014a). Social role-play: Contributions to development in preschool. Advances in Latin American Psychology, 32(2), 287–308. González-Moreno, C. X., Solovieva,Y. and Quintanar, L. (2014b). Educational policies and activities for preschool children: Reflections from the cultural-historical approach and activity theory. Rev Fac Med. 62(4). González-Moreno, C. X. and Solovieva,Y. (2014a). Symbolic function in preschoolers: emergent theme of research. Thinking about infancy. Reality and Utopia. Bogotá: Pontific Javeriana University, pp. 171–202. González-Moreno, C. X. and Solovieva,Y. (2014b). Proposal of a method for studies on symbolic function formation in infantile age. Psychological thesis, 9(2), 58–79. González-Moreno, C. X. (2016a). The social role-play as a media for the formation of the symbolic function in preschool children. PhD thesis. Doctorate Interinstitutional in Educacition. University Iberoamericana of Puebla. México: Puebla. González-Moreno, C. X. (2016b). Reflection about the role of pedagogue in initial education: an experience from the research in the classroom. Rev. A & H, 3(4), 35–52. González-Moreno, C. X. (2016c). Social role-play by stages to promote the formation of symbolic function by levels of development in preschool children. Tipica, Boletin Electronic of School Health, 12(2), 78–93. Hakkarainen, P. (2003). Play and motivation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen and R. Punamäki (eds), Perspectives on Activity Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 231–249. Hakkarainen, P. (2009). Development of motivation in play and narratives. In S. Blenkinshop (ed.), The Imagination in Education: Extending the Boundaries of Theory and Practice. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 64–78. Ilienkov, E.V. (2009). School has to teach how to think. Moscow: Academy of Education of Russia. Lázaro, E., Solovieva,Yu., Cisneros, N. and Quintanar, L. (2009). Activities with games and tales for psychological of preschool child. Journal Magisterio, 37, 80–85. Leont’ev, A. N. (2009). Psychological bases of development and teaching in infancy. Moscow: Sense. Morales, A., Solovieva,Yu., Lázaro, E., and Quintanar, L. (2012). Neuropsychological intervention in a case of a girl with diagnosis of autism. Journal Images of Infancy. University of Caldos, 10(2), 51–70. Petrovsky, A. (1985). Evolutive and pedagogical psychology. Moscow: Progress. Piaget, J. (1961). The formation of the symbol of the child. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica. Piaget, J. (1994). La formación del símbolo en el niño. Imitación, juego y sueño. Imagen y representación. Bogotá: Fondo de Cultura Económica. Salmina, N. G. (1988). Sign and symbol in education. Moscow: Moscow State University. Salmina, N. G. (2010). Indicators of preparation of children for school. In: Yu. Solovieva and L. Quintanar(eds), Handbook of psychological development in re school age. Mexico:Trillas, pp. 67–74. Salmina, N. G. and Filimonova, O. G. (2001). Diagnosis and correction of voluntary activity in preschool and school children. Mexico: Tlaxcala Autonomous University. Solovieva, Y. (2004). El desarrollo intelectual y su evaluación. Una aproximación histórico-cultural. Mexico: Puebla Autonomous University. Solovieva,Y. (2014). Intellectual activity from historic and cultural paradigm. Mexico: CEIDE. Solovieva, Y. and Quintanar, L. (2010). Handbook on psychological development at preschool age. Mexico: Trillas. Solovieva,Y. and Quintanar, L. (2012). Playing activity at preschool age. Mexico: Trillas. Talizina, N. F. (1988). Direction of the process of acquisition of knowledge. Moscow: Moscow State University. Talizina, N. F. (2009). Activity theory applied to learning process. Mexico: Puebla Autonomous University.

123

Solovieva and González-Moreno Vasilyuk, F. (1991). The Psychology of Experiencing. Harvester W M Wheatsheaf: A division of Simon & Schuster International Group Translated from the Russian. Vygotsky, L. S. (1977). Thought and language.Theory of the cultural development of the psychic functions. Buenos Aires: The Pleyade. Vygotsky, L. S. (1995). Selected works.Vol. III. Madrid:Visor. Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). Collected works. Vol. 4. New York: Plenum Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (2007). Imagination and Art in infancy. Madrid: Akal. Zuckerman, G. (2007). Child-adult interaction that creates a zone of proximal development. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 45(3), 31–58.

124

10 Play and art in a Japanese early childhood setting Kiyotaka Miyazaki

Introduction In this chapter, I will introduce a specific concept of early childhood education that has been developed in a Japanese kindergarten.This proposes that children are expected to experience art and imaginative play as closely related activities. The kindergarten refers to the concept as Hakken to Boken, or Discovery and Adventure. This programme has two characteristics. First, explorative activity in the real and imagined world plays an important role both in children’s art and in their imaginative play. Second, the curriculum is designed for children’s art and imaginative play to interact productively and enrich each other. The kindergarten developing this concept is Ibi Youchi-En (kindergarten) in Ibigawa in the Gifu prefecture of central Japan. It is a private school located in a country area. Its founders, Kensuke Saki (managing board director) and Midori Saki (principal), have been accumulating their knowledge in the practice and have been developing the unique concept of Hakken to Boken for early childhood education since the kindergarten’s foundation around thirty-five years ago. This kindergarten is contributing, through the author of this chapter, to an international research project for early childhood education based on the Vygotskian perspective known as “The Playworlds Project” (MarjanovicShane et al. 2009; Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition 2016). However, their concept is the product of the practitioners’ daily practices at the kindergarten, and not an adaption or enhancement of any theory or thought outside their practice. In this chapter, the view of Hakken to Boken will be introduced in the practitioners’ words first. Then, an analysis from my standpoint as a researcher will be presented.

Japanese early childhood education Before presenting the concept of Hakken to Boken, let me briefly describe the dominant view of early childhood education in Japan on which Hakken to Boken is based and which the latter is simultaneously attempting to go beyond. In Japan, the term commonly 125

Kiyotaka Miyazaki

used in reference to early childhood education is Hoiku, which translates as “early childhood care and education” according to the research association of the area (Japan Society of Research on Early Childhood Care and Education 2016). Specific elements of care are thought to be important for early childhood education in Japan. The dominant view of Hoiku is Jiyu-Hoiku, or children-centred care and education. The national curriculum for kindergarten is designed in line with this view. One Japanese dictionary for Hoiku defines Jiyu-Hoiku as “respecting children’s free activities”, adding “children are thought to develop spontaneously through play that generates children’s interest” (Tashiro 2000: 112; translated into English by the author). In this view, children’s play is considered to be the central activity in Hoiku. In the national curriculum guidelines, play is characterized as follows: Comprehensively achieving the aims outlined in Chapter 2, through playcentered instruction, and based on the idea that play—a child’s voluntary activity—is an important aspect of learning, which cultivates a foundation for the balanced development of physical and mental. (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology 2010: 1) As for art, the term is not popular in early childhood education in Japan. The term hyogen, or “expression”, is used in place of the term “art”. Hoiku’s aims and content are divided into five areas, of which hyogen is one, in the national curriculum.The national curriculum guideline characterizes hyogen as follows:“Developing rich feelings and the ability to express oneself, and enhancing creativity by expressing experiences and thoughts in their own words” (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology 2010: 13).

Practitioner views on Hakken to Boken Starting with the idea of Jiyu-Hoiku, the practitioners at Ibi kindergarten have been trying to go one step further and develop their own unique idea of Hakken to Boken. As the development of their ideas began in art education, it was a suitable area to start the analysis of the Hakken to Boken concept. Kensuke Saki, who is responsible for art at Ibi kindergarten, talked about Hakken to Boken as follows: [It is important for children] to encounter things in which they have an interest. It could be art, or it could be science . . . “Hakken to Boken” (discovery and adventure) is [an activity] exploring unknown. It is interesting. It might be interesting. There can be many errors . . . “Hakken to Boken” includes the world we do not know.There must be many hidden unknowns. That is why “Hakken to Boken” never ends. (Saki and Miyazaki 2015: 173; translated by the author) In the dominant view of Japanese early childhood education, art is considered a form of self-expression in children. In Hakken to Boken, it is an activity toward the unknown. In other words, it is the exploration of something new. 126

Play and art in a Japanese setting

On early childhood education in general, Midori Saki, who is responsible for education, wrote as follows: A child’s world appears in the act of exploring freely, and expressing what he/she is seeking within space and time. It is here he/she can become immersed and enjoy activities by trial and error. That is, the space and time that accepts children as they are. (Saki and Miyazaki 2015: 13; translated by the author) Midori Saki emphasizes the importance of exploration and trial and error, as Kensuke Saki does for art education. Playing freely is not enough. It is vital for children to experience exploration through play.

Art activities Hereafter, Hakken to Boken will be analysed from the researcher’s point of view. First, an art production activity will be analysed in detail, using a case the practitioners at Ibi kindergarten believe represents a typical example of Hakken to Boken. Michi, a 5-yearold, drew a picture titled “Change Man”.The title of the picture came from a popular TV animation movie Dengeki-Sentai Change-Man, or Lightning Attack Squadron ChangeMan. Change Man is a robot-like figure. It is a so-called “transformer”, which can change from a fighter into an armoured vehicle by moving its parts in different ways. The children had been playing with a Change Man figure made from blocks, transforming it into various forms before the session began. It took four days for Michi to finish the picture. Below is an outline of the production process of the picture. Day one 1) Kensuke Saki told the children, “Let’s draw on paper something that you love.” Michi drew with a crayon a tower-shaped “Shuttle Base”, which is, according to Michi, the spaceship of Change Man. Day two 2) Michi added Change Man fighting a bad alien to his picture, using watercolours. 3) He started by stamping dark-blue watercolour with his hands onto the picture. 4) Motifs that he had previously drawn on the picture were painted over with watercolour and became invisible. Day three 5) Michi continued hand stamping with various colours and enjoyed his hand movements playing a fight. 6) As Michi added various colours to the picture with hand stamping, the surface of the picture got darker 7) Michi started scratching the surface with his nails and the wooden handle of a brush. 127

Kiyotaka Miyazaki

Day four   8) Michi pasted a car and Change Man on the paper, made by cutting the shapes from a sheet of newspaper.   9) He painted watercolours onto the pasted car and Change Man. 10) He drew a tank with white watercolour. 11) He cut out the face, arms, and legs of Change Man from a sheet of newspaper and glued them to each of the four sides of the paper: the face at the top, one arm on the left and one on the right, and two legs at the bottom. He then drew eyes, ears, and a mouth onto the face. 12) The paper on which Michi had made the picture now became the torso of Change Man and, finally, Michi declared that the paper was a monitor and that the picture of Change Man drawn on it was the image on the monitor. This process is Michi’s exploration toward “his Change Man”. One important feature of Michi’s exploration was a denial of some of his own production. This occurred first from stages 3 to 7 and second at stage 11 as per the flow of production shown above. From stages 3 to 7, Michi painted over by hand stamping what he had done so far. Motifs he had drawn, such as Change Man and a bad alien, became invisible. At stage 11, the paper was denied its status as showing the whole of Change Man. Denying the old production opened up room for a new creation. In the first instance, Michi again tackled the motif of Change Man in stage 8 by pasting a paper cutout in the form of Change Man. However, denial of the old production does not necessarily mean it is discarded completely. Sometimes the old production is repurposed and takes on a new meaning, which is what occurred in stages 11 and 12. Denial of the status of the paper as showing the whole of Change Man occurred simultaneously with the new characterization of the paper as representing the body of the newly created Change Man. The paper obtained new meaning in stage 11, and this meaning was further developed in stage 12: as a body with a TV monitor on its front side. Needless to say, Michi had a clear image of what he wanted to draw – that is, what Change Man looked like – at the start of the drawing process, as he had previously learnt a lot about Change Man from TV animation films. Throughout the process of creating the picture, Michi changed his image of Change Man on the paper. He started with one image on the paper, denied it, created a new image, and then repeated the process. This was Michi’s exploration toward his Change Man. Michi’s experience of exploration is not unique, nor was it accidental. In Hakken to Boken, teachers actively intervene during the children’s activities to encourage their creative exploration in the art classes.Two characteristics of Kensuke Saki’s intervention could be seen in his art class for the oldest children in their final four months at kindergarten. These are known as Kaite Tsukutte, or “Drawing and Making”. In this class, the children made one artwork on a theme of their choice. First, the children were asked to stick to one piece of paper, a big piece of cardboard in most cases, which they themselves chose at the beginning. They were then instructed not to throw the paper away even if they felt they failed in their drawing. When they disliked their drawings, the teachers recommended that they paint over it and start again on top.The art class was held about ten times in a four-month period and the children were asked 128

Play and art in a Japanese setting

to participate in all the classes. Sometimes, the children felt their work was finished once they had covered the whole drawing surface. Even if they felt their work was finished, the children were asked to sit in front of their works at least once in a class hour. With these two interventions, children are given the opportunity to examine their work repeatedly and to try something new in their work. Kensuke Saki said the following: “Children would feel their work was completed in their own way. I want them to have a sense that there is more. I want them to make their images clearer from trying more” (Saki and Miyazaki 2015: 223; translated by the author). Finally, let us compare the Hakken to Boken view of art with previous art theories. Two art theorists emphasize the importance of exploration in much the same way as Hakken to Boken: Wartofsky (1979) and Berlyne (1971). According to Wartofsky, art is a tertiary artefact. Tertiary artefacts “can come to constitute a relatively autonomous ‘world’ in which rules, conventions and outcomes no longer appear directly practical, or which, indeed, seem to constitute an arena of non-practical, or ‘free’ play or game activity” (Wartofsky 1979: 208). He added that, though tertiary artefacts are detached from real world practice, they still have some indirect relationships. They provide the “possibility of a practical alternative”, or a “perceptual hypothesis”. As such,Wartofsky believes that art production is, in itself, an experimental exploration of the possibilities for real world practice. However, his theory focuses on the function of the artwork and not the process of the art production, which is the focus of Hakken to Boken. Berlyne (1971) characterized art as “specific exploration”. Specific exploration is “a response to conflict and uncertainty resulting from incomplete perception” (Berlyne 1971: 289). Consequently, art activity is reduced to some kind of perceptual problemsolving, according to his theory, which is too narrow to define the characterization of exploration in art production, as shown in the above example of Hakken to Boken.

Imaginative play In addition to the art activities, children’s imaginative play is central in early childhood education in the Hakken to Boken concept. Every year, one theme is set at Ibi kindergarten, such as “the earth, soil, and space”, or “bugs and their transformations”. In each class, the children, together with the teachers, develop one imaginative world in which the children enjoy various forms of imaginative play. The theme works as a starting point for the development of the imaginative world. The idea is similar to the theory of playworld developed by Lindqvist (1995) and Hakkarainen (2004), in which children and teachers collaboratively create a meaningful imaginative world. The difference is that, in Hakken to Boken, they do not stick to one storyline. The project of Hakken to Boken lasts one year, and the imaginative world develops and changes throughout the year.Various stories are generated at different times of the year. Some last longer, whereas others last just one day. In 2007–8, for example, the theme for the year was “the earth, soil, and space”. In one class, children developed the imaginative world of a space station. It commenced in May, the second month of the new school year in Japan. One day in May, the teacher in charge of the class observed that two boys had built a structure with wooden blocks and were reading an illustrated book about space inside it. 129

Kiyotaka Miyazaki TEACHER: What are you doing? CHILDREN:  [We are] studying. TEACHER:  About space? CHILDREN: Yes. TEACHER: This is a space station for studying space, is CHILDREN: Yes, we are building a space station.

it?

The teacher proposed the word “space station” and the children accepted the proposal. This was the beginning of the space station, which lasted throughout the year as the base for various other imaginative play activities. It started as a place for studying space. In the last days of May, the space station was elaborated on further in various ways. One child said, “It is good for the space station to have a telescope” and a telescope was mounted. Another child “discovered” an alien around the space station and recorded the news of the discovery in “the space station information notebook”. Furthermore, some children added push buttons for the space station to travel to various places in space. The children did not just elaborate on the space station’s meaning as a place for information gathering but also developed another meaning for it: as a vehicle for travelling into space. One day, the children discovered a meteorite in the kindergarten’s play area. The teachers had actually placed a stone there. The children questioned what it was. They studied illustrated books and developed story that aliens had dropped the meteorite and that the aliens might possibly visit the kindergarten. Aliens “appeared” and were even “caught” at the space station.The next day, a child wanted to write a letter to the aliens and a postbox was made. Writing letters to aliens became one of the most popular activities after that. About fortnight later, the children enshrined the meteorite in the space station. Around the same day, the teacher took some of the children’s letters out of the postbox. The children thought that the number of letters had decreased because the aliens had visited the kindergarten and taken them away. The children then sailed the space station out to investigate where the aliens had come from. At the same time, the teacher put up a poster of the summer workshop inside the space station. Stars and galaxies were shown on the poster that Kensuke Saki had made. The children made adventurous trips to the stars and galaxies with the space station and determined that the meteorite had come from the moon. Finally, the story developed as follows: the children of the people on the moon visited the kindergarten, but it became impossible to return home and they had got lost. The children also noticed something in the poster that was actually a model of the mud mountain that the teachers were planning to build in the coming summer art workshop. They talked among themselves about it and decided that the mountain was the source of power for the space station.They expected that they could communicate with the people on the moon from the top of the mountain. In summer, their expectations were realized. They built a mud mountain in the art workshop with a sculptor and climbed the mountain at night to communicate with the people on the moon. After the summer vacation, the space station gained a new meaning and additional imaginative play took place. The children became interested 130

Play and art in a Japanese setting

in the ways of life and the styles of houses in the various countries on earth.The space station became the vehicle used to travel around the world. All the class members got into the space station and enjoyed travelling to many different places. As these episodes show, the space station took on various new meanings in the course of the year and worked as the reference point from which the children developed new imaginative plays. In November, various imaginative plays that children of the class had developed were composed into an operetta and it was put on for the children’s families as an imaginative play on the stage. In the imaginative play of Hakken to Boken, children experience the creation of a meaningful world. In the process of creating an imaginative world, Hakken to Boken places great importance on children’s experience of exploration. Here children are encouraged to explore the real world, especially cultural artefacts, to look for information they can use to generate imaginative worlds. In the case of the space station, cultural artefacts the teachers had gathered and provided for the children played an important role in stimulating the children’s imagination. An example is how the poster inspired the children to develop their stories about the mud mountain. The poster played an important role right from the start.The teacher put it on the wall of the classroom when the new school year started in April. As soon as the poster was presented, it attracted the children’s attention. They asked many questions about the stars and galaxies depicted in it, for example, “What is this?” “Is this one Saturn?” and “Is it an exploded star?” They started to investigate these things in books the teacher had made available. These books were another useful resource for the children to learn about space. Children looked at these books to find answers to the questions they had and used what they discovered to make their imaginative world richer. Typically, these books were used to seek information that was used to enhance the space station in the last days of May. They discovered not just a telescope but also other things such as space suits, a belt to hold one’s body to the space ship, an alien probe, and so on, and they put them into the space station. Children’s imaginations are not created solely in their inner worlds. To produce creative imagination, they need rich information about the real world that is not only directly but also indirectly experienced through cultural artefacts. Exploring information from both their direct and/or indirect experiences is important for children in order to develop their imaginative ability. This view, which has been developed by the practitioners of Hakken to Boken, is in some ways similar to Vygotsky’s (2004/1930) famous view on imagination, though it is not an adaptation of his. [T]he creative activity of the imagination depends directly on the richness and variety of a person’s previous experience because this experience provides the material from which the products of fantasy are constructed. The richer a person’s experience, the richer is the material his imagination has access to . . . The implication of this for education is if we want to build a relatively strong foundation for a child’s creativity, what we must do is broaden the experiences we provide him with. (Vygotsky 2004/1930: 14–15) 131

Kiyotaka Miyazaki

Exploration does not just provide resources for children’s imaginations but is also motivated by the imagination. Sometimes, the development of imaginative play activities motivates children to commit to seeking new information. A typical case occurred in the 2006–7 project, which had the theme of “bugs and their transformations”. In the summer art workshop of that year, children enjoyed the theatrical play performed by the actors. In the workshop, the “bugs” played by actors appeared at the kindergarten and danced with the children. Children were not told, at least not explicitly, that these “bugs” were actually played by actors. Though some children were scared when the bugs first appeared, all the children noticed that they were people after a while. After the summer vacation, the children recollected the bugs and drew pictures of them. They named them “Hatena-Mushi”, or “bugs in question”. One of them was named “the green bug” as its body was painted green. It also had a big drill at the top of one of its arms. Children made costumes for the “bugs”, wore them, and played as the “bugs in question”. Children also played outside and explored bugs and things relating to the “bugs in question” in the kindergarten’s garden. One day, the children found out that an acorn, which had been buried in the garden, was lost. The children and the teacher talked about it later in the classroom. TEACHER: Yesterday, we

found out that an acorn had been buried in the garden near a house next to the gym. We tried hard but could not dig it out. However, today, it’s gone. Why do you think it has disappeared, Hiro? HIRO:  I have no idea. GIRL A:  I’ve got it! It is because of the “bug in question.” GIRL B:  It must have fallen into a hole that the “bug in question” made with its drill. In the girls’ case, they had enjoyed the imaginative world of “bugs in question” and had often role played as “bugs in question”. Their imagination motivated them to explore the real world for something relating to the “bugs in question”. New facts in the real world were discovered and given new meaning based on the imaginative world they already possessed.

The relationship between art and imaginative play The children’s play and their art activity were inseparable in the programme of Hakken to Boken. As shown so far, exploration plays an important role in both play and art activities. Furthermore, each provides resources for exploration of the other and generates activities that are more productive. As for the relationship between art and play, some authors, like Sutton-Smith (1997), argue that there is no empirical evidence. However, in the case of Hakken to Boken, the creative relationship between the two is substantial, as outlined in the next section. First, the artworks produced in the children’s art activities were used in their imaginative play as tools to mediate the development of new play. In 2007–8, the children built a mud mountain with a professional sculptor in the summer art workshop. After the summer vacation, the mud mountain became a place for children to play. One day, the children discovered a meteorite near the mud mountain and displayed it 132

Play and art in a Japanese setting

on the top of the mud mountain. On another day, the children saw a frog climbing up the mountain and talked to each other about whether it would go up to the moon. On yet another day, the children made a small mountain at the top of the mud mountain where they “communicated” with the people on the moon. Furthermore, they planted a large patch of grass on top of the mud mountain and imagined that they could climb up it into space after it grew. Later, the grass died and the children said that the grass must have been thirsty because it was busy communicating with the people on the moon in the night. Next, they watered the grass and added to it with other grasses and a spray of olive. Activities like these happened from time to time. On the other hand, children’s imaginative play activities sometimes provide new topics for their art activities. As noted above, there is an important art class titled “Drawing and Making” for the eldest children, which is held more than ten times in their final four months in the kindergarten. Though the theme is free, children would often get the idea from the imaginative play they had experienced so far. In the “Drawing and Making” class of 2007–8, the children drew pictures. The contents of all the children’s drawings more or less related to the imaginative world of space they had enjoyed that year. The titles that the children had given to the drawings demonstrated this. All the titles contained at least one word relating to space, such as “alien”, “moon”, or “stars”. One-third of the titles contained the words “lost alien”, the character that appeared in the children’s imaginative play. Other examples include “A town of the lost alien”, “Looking for the lost alien”, “To meet the lost alien”, “The construction site on the moon”, and “The town on the moon”. These are also closely related to the imaginative play the children enjoyed, as the moon was where the lost aliens came from. In Hakken to Boken, children’s imaginative play is one of the information resources in which they explore topics and other items for their art activities.

Conclusion Hakken to Boken emphasizes the importance of artistic experience for children’s development. In this respect, this view seems similar to the concept of the early childhood education of Reggio Emilia. To conclude this chapter, these two concepts will be compared briefly. Reggio Emilia thinks that “epistemology and aesthetics are synonymous” (Vecchi 2010: 14). This view is very similar to the view on art activities of Hakken to Boken for which the exploration is the most important aspect of art activities. Artists work collaboratively with teachers in both practices. However, there is one big difference between the two practices: the status of children’s imaginative play activities in early childhood education. It is one of the two most important elements of early childhood education for Hakken to Boken. In contrast, it is not so much valued in Reggio Emilia, at least “no more so than the complex and long-term project” (Edwards et al. 1998: 274). It is not yet clear why Reggio Emilia doesn’t place emphasis on children’s imaginative play activities: there is not much mention on play in the literature on Reggio Emilia. At least we can say that Hakken to Boken sees the possibilities in children’s imaginative play activities which Reggio Emilia does not see. Imaginative play activities are not only based on children’s explorations in the real and the imaginative worlds, but also motivate 133

Kiyotaka Miyazaki

children’s explorations. Imaginative play activities and artistic experiences of children can enrich each other. Imaginative play activities provide children with resources with which they produce their art works. Artworks children produce are used as tools in children’s imaginative play activities. This is why the imaginative play activities are important for children’s development for Hakken to Boken.

References Berlyne, D. E. (1971) Aesthetics and Psychobiology. NY: Appleton Century Crofts. Edwards, C., Gandini, L., and Forman, G. (Eds.) (1998) The Hundred Languages of Children: The Reggio Emilia Approach—Advanced Reflections. Westport, Conn: Ablex Publishing. Hakkarainen, P. (2004) ‘Narrative learning in the fifth dimension’. Outline, 1: 5–20. Japan Society of Research on Early Childhood Care and Education (2016) About the JSRECCE. Available at: http://jsrec.or.jp/?page_id=1348 (accessed 20 April 2016). Lindqvist, G. (1995) The Aesthetics of Play: A Didactic Study of Play and Culture in Preschools. Uppsala: Uppsala University Press. Marjanovic-Shane, A., Ferholt, B., Miyazaki, K., Nilsson, M., Rainio, A., Hakkarainen, P., Pesic, M. and Beljanski-Ristic, L. (2011) ‘Playworlds: An art of development’, in C. Lobman and B. O’Neill (Eds.), Play and Performance: Culture Studies, vol. 11. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (2010) Course of Study for Kindergarten. Available at: www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/shotou/new-cs/youryou/eiyaku/__ icsFiles/afieldfile/2011/01/13/1298368_1.pdf (accessed 20 April 2016). Saki, M. and Miyazaki, K. (2015) Hakken to Boken:Art to kyoudou suru Hoiku no Tankyu [Discovery and Adventure: A Quest for the Early Childhood Education and Care Collaborating with Arts]. Tokyo: Sogensha. Sutton-Smith, B. (1997) The Ambiguity of Play. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Tashiro, K. (2000) ‘Jiyu- hoiku’ [Children-centered care and education], in S. Moriue and R. Kashiwame (Eds.), Hoiku Yougo Jiten [Dictionary of Terms in Early Childhood Care and Education]. Kyoto: Minerva Shobou. The Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition (2016) Playworlds: A recently emerging form of adult-child joint play. Available at: http://lchc.ucsd.edu/playworlds (accessed 20 April 2016). Vecchi,V. (2010) Art and Creativity in Reggio Emilia: Exploring the role and potential of ateliers in early childhood education. London: Routledge. Vygotsky, L. S. (2004/1930) ‘Imagination and creativity in childhood’. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 42: 7–97. Wartofsky, M. W. (1979). Models: Representation and the scientific understanding. Dordrecht: Reidel.

134

PART III

Socio-dramatic play

A challenge for adults when they are playing with children is the difficulty in constructing symmetric relationships and life in a child’s world. Intervention cannot be a replacement of the object of children’s perezhivanie with the realistic adult meanings and explanations. Dialogic dramatic play in the first chapter of this section beautifully demonstrates the main task for adults as cultural mediators and co-constructors of socio-dramatic play. The second chapter presents a case study of one in-service teacher’s intervention in children’s socio-dramatic play in Cyprus. The PROPEL play evaluation scheme introduced by Bodrova and Leong is recommended to be used as a starting point in adult intervention. Tovey presents a research survey on adventurous outdoor play and focuses specifically on the function of risk in this kind of play. Her conclusions display adult-child discrepancy in risk experience.

11 Changing our world Dialogic dramatic playing with young children Brian Edmiston

Introduction On the playground of our university child-care centre a 4-year-old boy imagining he is Spiderman leaps toward me exuberantly. Though David1 only grunts a ‘Gotcha’, I recognize Spiderman’s web-generating wrist flick as he pretends to throw a web over me while actually tossing some sand. I accept his move, hold my arms down, and pretend to be caught in a web. When I give a web-muffled shout, ‘Let me go! What did I do?’ he responds, ‘You’re a bad guy.You’re in prison.’ After pretending to struggle for a second, I relax my arms, and switch to speaking with my regular voice: ‘Hey, the sand might get in someone’s eye.’ I wrinkle up my face rubbing my eyes. Dropping the pretence, and flicking my wrist, I add, ‘How about you imagine the web without throwing the sand. OK?’ David leaps off as Spiderman, without sand in his hand. When people engage in dramatic playing (also referred to as socio-dramatic play, fantasy play, or pretend play) they may imagine they are whomever they wish as if they are interacting with anyone in any place. Children on the playground and actors onstage pretend to be other people. So may young people in classrooms, and so may adults. As The Beatles might have put it, children and adults can ‘change their world’ as they pretend together in spaces that stretch ‘across an imagined universe’. Though playing with children is not widely encouraged in early childhood, many benefits of adult participation are well documented (Kitson, 1994; Bennett,Wood, and Rogers 1997; Bodrova and Leong, 2001; Lindqvist, 1995, 2001; Hakkarainen, 2004; Baumer, Ferholt, and Lecusay, 2005; Edmiston, 2008; Ferholt and Nillson, this volume). While recognizing that there are multiple understandings of the meaning, purpose, and value of play in early childhood education (Brooker and Edwards, 2011), I adopt a pedagogical orientation. In this chapter, I argue for participation by an adult who intends to create more ‘dialogic’ meaning-making with children than is likely when children pretend alone. As a teacher-researcher (and as a parent-researcher) I have participated for over thirty years with young children in extended dialogic dramatic playing (Edmiston, 2005, 2008, 137

Brian Edmiston

2011, 2014a, 2014b; Edmiston and Taylor, 2011). I’ve also had countless brief playful exchanges like the one with David-as-Spiderman.The following questions run through this chapter: why engage in dialogic dramatic playing with children? When is dramatic playing dialogic? And how might our world change when we play with children?

Dramatic playing as dialogic meaning-making People make meaning socially in dialogic interactions. For Bakhtin, people create (or ‘author’) understanding in dialogue using ‘dialogic imagination’: through imagination each person enters into the consciousness of another, responds to that other perspective, and experiences dialogue between different views that is ‘open’ in the sense that the interaction ‘reveals ever newer ways to mean’ (Bakhtin, 1981: 346). Bakhtin’s theory that understanding is authored dialogically through experiencing competing viewpoints on events is complementary to Vygotsky’s (1978) theory of children’s meaning-making mediated in dialogue with an adult who has more complex understanding (Edmiston, 2014b). In this chapter I primarily focus on a Bakhtinian approach. Whereas a dialogic experience of an interaction opens up space for making meaning between people, a monologic experience closes down meaning-making, is passive or resistant to adopting other viewpoints, and ‘contributes nothing new’ to a person’s understanding (Bakhtin, 1981: 281). A person’s ‘utterances’ (deeds as well as words) are dialogic or monologic in their effect on who gets to participate in authoring understanding from moment-to-moment. A monologue is a single ‘authoritative’ voice with a static orientation toward understanding. In contrast, dialogue only exists when a person, experiencing two or more voices interacting, dynamically creates new meaning. Dialogue and monologue are not in a binary relationship. Rather, when people of any age interact, including when they are playing, each may shift between a more dialogic or more monologic stance. When I was pretending with David-asSpiderman I was making meaning that I couldn’t have authored alone. But was David? That depends on how dialogic his stance was in our interaction: unlike over a longer period, in this case I could have little effect in such a brief exchange. In this chapter I take issue with White’s assumption that there is little benefit in young children and adults playing together, and that adult participation in play is likely to be a ‘manipulation’ by an ‘outsider’ who is ‘too central from a dialogic point of view’ and likely to ‘shut down dialogue’ (2016: 67, 112, 123). Rule clarifies that ‘dialogic spaces’ are ‘characterised by openness and underpinned by values of trust, love, mutual respect and epistemological curiosity’ (2015: xx). Adults, like children, may use their power to dominate, impose meaning, and exclude others including in the context of dramatic playing that never occurs in ‘neutral spaces’ (Paley, 1992; MacNaughton, 2005; Rainio, 2008; Wood, 2011; Löfdhal, 2011). Though I agree with White’s characterization of playing as a ‘very special dialogic space for authoring’ (White, 2016: 112), adults desiring mutual respect and dialogic meaning-making may position themselves as open to dialoguing, playing, and authoring with children. Adults may use power with and for children intending to create dialogic spaces for co-authoring in dialogic dramatic play. Dramatic playing can be a core mode of meaning-making in classrooms not only for young people of any age but also for adults playing collaboratively with them. 138

Changing our world

Pretending can be a portal into improvised explorations of how we might act and be if life and the world were different. In dramatic playing we can transform our world. In addition to developing cognitive understanding, pretending alongside children creates possibilities for additional social, emotional, cultural, and ethical meaningmaking. If we play with children and dialogue with them in fictionalized worlds about imagined deeds that may run the full range of human action and emotion, then we may extend possibilities for considering with children how they might live their lives. Such is the potential of dialogic dramatic playing.

Meaning-making when playing in spaces in real-and-imagined worlds When we read or tell stories, as Bruner (1986) puts it, in imagination we experience a ‘landscape of action’ (the events of a plot) and a ‘landscape of consciousness’ (our experience of being someone elsewhere as we imagine the story’s events) in ‘possible worlds’.When we imagine ‘what if we were those characters’, we are in the ‘subjunctive mood’ where ‘we are trafficking in human possibilities rather than in settled certainties’ (Bruner, 1986: 26). As Lindqvist (2001) discovered, it is the world of a story that activates young children’s imagination in dramatic play, especially when adults play key roles and dramatize events. ‘Play is imagination in action’, as Vygotsky (1976: 539) succinctly puts it. Rather than view play and imagination as belonging only to a special province of childhood, we can understand playing with possible perspectives and using imagination socially to embody a character’s actions and enact events as extending ‘across the lifespan’ (Goncu and Perone, 2005). As adults develop trusting pedagogical relationships with children it makes sense for adults to bring their ability to imagine and play – as well as dialogue – into the classroom. Provided adults actually play and dialogue with children. Though as Vygotsky (1976) stressed, the meaning of imagined action and objects takes precedence over their everyday sense (for example, in imagination I may experience my hand flicking sand as Spiderman throwing a web from his wrist’s webshooter), pretend play is still experienced in the real world of physical matter as well as in an imagined world.When playing we still engage emotionally with other people who have feelings (sand in my friend’s eye will hurt) in encounters that have social rules (Spiderman will hear and respond if the ‘bad guy’ speaks) in a fictionalized cultural world within an imagined universe (in the story-world of Spiderman that resembles our world, Spiderman believes that, ‘with great power comes great responsibility’, a principle that also applies in our own world: with the power to fling sand comes the responsibility to not get it in people’s eyes). Dramatic playing loosens our connection with – but does not disconnect us from – our real-world experience and our everyday lives in relation to other people. I don’t view pretending as an escape from life but rather as a way to add on to and potentially transform our usual ways of interacting and making meaning. Drawing on spatial theory, I characterize playing as happening in ‘real-and-imagined’ dialogic spaces that may open up instantaneously (Edmiston, 2014a). How we act in those spaces can be negotiated in everyday real spaces, as with what happened in my brief exchange with 139

Brian Edmiston

David about throwing sand. Leaping like Spiderman he encountered me in an imagined landscape of action and pretended to capture me-as-a-bad-guy. My question, ‘What did I do?’ shifted us into a landscape of imagined consciousness as he explained in response, ‘You’re a bad guy. You’re in prison.’ Our further exchange about not throwing sand was in a landscape of action and consciousness in the real world, about how our imagined actions can affect others. Dialogic imagination in social situations is a cultural and psychological tool that people use to take up someone else’s perspective and make meaning with others in dialogue. Though in everyday interactions people may only minimally imagine from another person’s viewpoint using what Maxine Greene calls ‘social imagination’ (Ayers, 1995: 322), you can’t participate in collaborative pretend play unless you imagine you are acting from a perspective that you embody which is other than your everyday viewpoint (for example, that of Spiderman or a ‘bad guy’) and you respond to how others address you (as I did, with David-as-Spiderman). However, a child cannot dialogue with a peer, or with an adult, unless they have a shared experience of an event (which in play is real-and-imagined) and respond meaningfully to the other person’s utterance. Like David, I was imagining an event in the real-and-imagined world of Spiderman’s when we had a dialogic exchange that transformed our world as we collectively acted as if we were elsewhere. David’s everyday world might also have been changed if he’d used sand differently when he was pretending to be Spiderman.

Dialogic and monologic meaning-making I conceptualize exchanges between people over time as moving back-and-forth on a continuum: as people interact in social situations the meaning each person makes may become more dialogic or more monologic, whether or not they are pretending. At both extremes of the continuum are monologic exchanges where neither person is using social imagination to dialogue with the other’s ideas to author meaning. From a power perspective, one person is attempting to impose his or her meaning on the other. On the one hand, upset children arguing about who plays which parts in pretend play is an example of participating in an ‘oppositional’ monologic interaction. Similarly, a teacher is being monologic when forcing reluctant or resistant students to do something. No one is actually listening or responding to the other’s monologue. Paradoxically, people pretending to argue have to do so dialogically since they must listen and allow the other’s ideas to shape their real-and-imagined response. On the other hand, children participate in ‘compliant’ monologic interactions when they passively follow directions from a teacher who may tell them what to do or what an event means. Similarly, children may reluctantly comply with a dominant peer who, for example, assigns roles or imposes meaning that others passively accept. At both extremes of this continuum, people are not making meaning dialogically by hearing and responding to ideas that come from the viewpoint of another. All are adopting monologic stances. In contrast, the more people use dialogic imagination to build meaning in response to others’ ideas, the more dialogic their interactions overall. From a power perspective, people are using their power collaboratively both to co-author shared meaning and to 140

Changing our world

author personal meaning. A person authors meaning in a dialogic interaction not just when they say and do something but when they do so in response to what another says and does. In dialogue, meaning is made between people. David-as-Spiderman responded to my suggestion by not flicking sand and was probably allowing my viewpoint to affect his previous perspective. And I-as-a-bad-guy was able to talk with a child who ordinarily might have shied away from a strange adult. We both had a dialogic stance toward our brief interaction. Though one person’s utterance may be monologic, it can be ‘dialogized’ if received dialogically by another and answered in a dialogic exchange. Before he encountered me I had noticed the leaping boy-as-Spiderman acting monologically in relation to other children, as he had not seemed to hear any response they gave.Yet, when I addressed him dialogically he responded and thereby opened up the possibility for dialogue. Bakhtin was critical of pretend play from a dialogic viewpoint because he assumed that individual children are being monologic and cannot create meaningful dialogic images (as opposed to just imagining possibilities) and thus have no way of getting ‘outside’ a viewpoint (1990: 74). He did not consider the dialogic potential of adults playing with children: adults may provide an outside perspective so that children may engage in dialogue. When dialogic interactions become the norm, teachers and young people expect to be heard and responded to as they collaboratively create more dialogic spaces that build an increasingly dialogic classroom community culture. Johnston summarizes: A dialogic classroom is one in which there are lots of open questions and extended exchanges among students [and teachers] . . . in which there are multiple interpretations and perspectives – classrooms in which facts are considered in different contexts and in which people challenge each other’s views and conclusions. (Johnston, 2012: 52) Of course, many exchanges in a dialogic classroom will be monologic. Some people will tend to adopt a more monologic stance than others and be closed to change. However, when the expectation for children and adults alike is that interaction ought to be dialogic and that monologic exchanges may be dialogized, then a norm of dialogue (even in response to monologue) may be maintained, thus creating a shared dialogic expectation that can extend into dramatic playing.

Making dramatic playing more dialogic Dramatic playing becomes more dialogic the more participants are able to get outside their everyday and individual imagined perspectives to experience and dialogue with other viewpoints: possible ways of interacting in imagined worlds that may be similar to or very different socially, emotionally, culturally, and/or morally from their everyday world. Furthermore, when players dialogue to author meaning about the consequences of those imagined actions, they both experience and may consider how they might act differently when they try out those possibilities in the pretend world and/or in their everyday world. 141

Brian Edmiston

There was extended dialogic dramatic playing in June 2014 during a seven-day intensive class I taught for seventeen undergraduate and graduate students. I spent two mornings working with Sarah Felter and her class of sixteen 3–5-year-old children at our university Child Care Center, many of whom spend two years with her. About half had parents from overseas.We all pretended to encounter and then help a troll. All were given the choice to participate and all played with or alongside peers as well as with adults: their teachers, the university students, and myself. All made meaning about a story through talking, moving, singing, laughing – and playing – together. As I illustrate below, playing with adults may make all children’s play more dialogic (and less monologic) for three main reasons: • • •

additional meaning-making resources dialogue with different perspectives creating inclusive dialogic spaces

Making additional resources available Ten minutes in Sarah Felter’s classroom would be enough time to appreciate how dialogic – and joyful – her classroom is. In this Reggio-inspired classroom, children are often presented with resources as ‘provocations’ that invite explorations and questions.Wooden and magnetic blocks are available for building; a water table is filled with bubbles; books abound; kitchen supplies and dress-up clothes are available for pretending. Adults facilitate engagement and talk with children about whatever they notice. Outside, children use big-wheeler tricycles, run around, sit together in a playhouse, hide behind bushes, and dig in sand. The children I worked with in 2014 had recently heard a version of a folktale Sarah introduces every year: they had regularly been pretending in the world of The Three Billy Goats Gruff. On the day I came to plan, Sarah noted,‘the children love pretending to butt like a goat or roar like a troll’. She observed that the children’s dramatic playing in the story world had focused on repeating the encounter between the goats and the troll and in general tended to be very repetitive with almost no reciprocal talk among children except when she participated. Sometimes she would mediate children’s play on the playground, so that they could take whatever role they desired as she pretended alongside them. Later, I heard several children repeat key words from the tale as they stomped the ground like goats: ‘Trip, trop, trip, trop.’ As they chased one another or crouched by rocks, others (including those whose first language was not English) yelled words that were close to the troll’s: ‘Who’s that crossing over my bridge?’ Some moved around with friends, playing in the sand or in the bushes. Most engaged in energetic, largely parallel play with only minimal interaction. As the children played, in their universe there were many ripples of joy but also, at times, tears of sorrow. Though most children were only beginning to negotiate, Sarah thought that the interactions of some were becoming more dialogic: some girls enjoyed shopping together as ‘mommy goats’, like mothers in the real world. Other children were frequently monologic. Peter was often oppositional while Melissa tended to be compliant. Peter argued with other dominant boys and almost literally butted heads. 142

Changing our world

However, Sarah recognized play’s potential for interaction: Peter had often pretended to be the littlest goat in the previous year, asking Sarah to be the troll; this year he had taken on the role of the biggest goat, butting her-as-the-troll into the river. Peter had also been pretending to be Elsa from Disney’s Frozen: he loved to dress up, move, and sing, giving what Sarah called ‘solo performances’ that entertained her and those children who watched. But working with others was challenging for Peter. He was one of a few children not to make lasting friends. Sarah thought children avoided him because they got tired of being ‘bossed around’.Though he had innovative ideas for pretending, he would order another child to be a character, telling them what to do and say, sometimes leaving them in tears. Thus, in his interactions he was often oppositionally monologic, as he required other children to be monologically compliant. Melissa was at the other end of the spectrum. Like Peter she liked to dress up, though they were always in parallel universes. One of the younger children in the room, she was hesitant about asking to play with other children, and when she did she tended to compliantly follow their lead. However, like Peter, she loved it when Sarah led activities in which anyone could join in: singing, dancing, and pretending. In the time we worked with the children we introduced additional meaningmaking resources: material (a puppet, fabric), cultural (a new narrative, songs, music), socio-emotional (different possible relationships), cognitive (ideas about trust), and moral (how, why, and if we might act intending to build trust, and later how to find a lost family).

Dialogic playing with power and positioning Adults and children are invariably in asymmetrical power relationships. Adults who are teachers have the authority to use their power to control children’s behaviour and the meaning they make, thus ‘positioning’ children with more or less power to act and/or make sense of events (Harré and Langenhove, 1999). Narratives are dynamic cultural resources. When we pretend we may play with power and possible perspectives and positions as we use embodied dialogic imagination to interact, experience, and reflect on the meaning of our actions in imagined worlds as if we were the people in those stories (Edmiston, 2008). Through dramatic playing we can create more symmetrical relationships. That’s what Sarah was doing on the playground when she followed the children’s lead pretending to be a goat or troll. Dramatic playing can be thought of as choosing to live life as if in another world for short periods of time while imagining we are people adopting positions with more or less power than we have in the contexts of everyday life. Pretending to be elsewhere may access the actions, feelings, and consciousness of people interacting with and positioning one another according to social rules, cultural norms, or ethical beliefs that may resemble or differ from those in our everyday world. Adults can extend those possibilities for children. Many of the children playing in the world of The Three Billy Goats Gruff chose to be characters with relatively greater power: the troll who scares the goats from underneath the bridge and could eat them, or the biggest goat who headbutts the troll into the river. Others chose to have relatively less power: the littlest goat who crosses 143

Brian Edmiston

the bridge first having to get past the troll. However, the children’s play without an adult was largely monologic, as they would re-enact an encounter alone, or in parallel play, or only engage with another child for brief moments. Playing with Sarah, who narrated and mediated interactions, meant that anyone could pretend to enact events from the story, though their meaning-making focused almost entirely on plot and action rather than the landscape of consciousness. When I planned how we would meet the children I knew that if as adults we were to engage in dialogic dramatic play, then we would have to create contexts with more symmetrical power relations. We would have to begin by building ‘trusting relations’ with the children, which as McDermott (1977) argues, are essential for learning. I intended to use pretend play to shift our relative power relationships.

Dialogic playing to build trust among adults and children The children had little reason to trust us when we arrived. Suddenly having as many adults as children in the room must have felt overwhelming for many. I deliberately began our first session by positioning the children with as much power as possible relative to us. I had asked the adults to be sitting when Sarah brought the children into the day room where we met. The children encountered the piece of furniture we had moved into the room that they had used in their classroom to represent the bridge for ‘Trip, tropping’ goats and hiding trolls. I had added a long blue cloth to represent the river and some mats for rocks. I asked the children about the story they had read and if they would like to show us their version of the story before we shared ours. Peter was the first to volunteer and was eager to play all the parts! Soon all the children followed his lead (with some keeping close to an adult). I offered to join in as if I were the troll, allowing anyone to pretend to headbutt me. Again following Peter’s lead there was soon much laughter with me-as-the-troll repeatedly falling down and calling out for help. The expected asymmetrical adultchild and teacher-student power relationships having been playfully inverted, I invited the children to go to any of the other adults in the room so that everyone could pretend to be goats and trolls. Soon lots were taking turns falling down. Our relationship with the children had become more symmetrical. Now we could begin co-authoring a new narrative with the children. By playing with the children all had not only begun to have feelings of trust, we had also begun to play with how people may build trust (one of Sarah’s class goals): as we laughed together, took turns, and collaborated while using embodied dialogic imagination in relation to an event in a story all enjoyed. We had become additional resources for the children’s meaning-making.

Dialogically playing with different perspectives I asked the children if they would like to hear a new story. Nearly all watched closely when I held up a troll puppet that I moved as I narrated, using different voices to show how the biggest Billy goat (represented by my hand and fingers) butted the troll who had fallen off the bridge and into the water, hitting her head on a rock, 144

Changing our world

and crying out in pain as the river carried her downstream until she was far away from the goats. I enacting the tale again and then introduced Lisa-as-the-troll. An early years teacher and graduate student, she wore a furry sweater and had crouched down with her long, frizzy hair that she wore loose now pulled forward over her face. She was moaning, rocking, and clutching her head. As we had prepared, when I moved toward her she cried out and then went still and silent as she curled into a foetal ball. When I had planned with the students in my class, we had wanted to introduce the children to a critical perspective they would likely not have invented alone.We would do so by playing with how we-as-trolls positioned ourselves relative to the children. Rather than a stereotypical ‘bad guy’ troll, with the university students I had invented a back-story of a female child troll who had got lost and hidden under the bridge. We had agreed that Lisa would represent the troll as afraid of others and if asked would recall how she had been butted by the goat and hurt in the fall. Adapting an idea from Frozen, we decided that the troll could transform into a rock at will, returning to her troll form only when she felt safe. Once Lisa and I had established and dramatized the narrative event, all the other adults would similarly be available to represent the troll for the children. Now their play could be more dialogic: using a game-like structure, the children would encounter an adult-as-a-troll that could turn into a rock but would only return to being a troll when the children had said or done anything that would have made the troll feel a little safer. Then adult and child could reflect on why that might be. We had planned that if a child wanted to they could reverse roles (and the power relationships) so that the child would pretend to be a troll turning into a rock, with the adult now trying to make the child-as-a-troll feel safer. As I describe below, many children were exuberantly able to do with an adult what they could not do alone. Using embodied dialogic imagination the children played with how they might position themselves as they improvised pretend interactions with an adult-as-a-troll who maintained that perspective. The children could immediately experience the effects of their actions, and try out other possibilities. If the children played with and switched roles and positions they made meaning by moving inside and outside the position of a troll who was afraid but could come to feel safer because of the other’s actions.

Dialogic playing to explore how people might act to build trust Using embodied dialogic imagination to enter this world of trolls, we intended to play dialogically: with children we would explore how people build trust (or not) by allaying someone’s fears (or not), depending on how they used their power to position one another through their words and deeds. Then we would attempt a brief reflective dialogue about what seemed to have ‘worked’ and try out alternative actions. A couple of children were drawn to approach Lisa-as-the-troll. I asked the group what they might do. Suggestions included give her a hug and stroke her head. One child reached out saying, ‘I’ll be your friend.’ Lisa-as-the-troll responded by literally opening up her body but then putting her head down again when one of the children 145

Brian Edmiston

spoke loudly. Working publicly with this child I helped him and a few other attentive children reflect on how gentleness seemed to work while roughness didn’t. Then, as planned, all of the adults took up a physical posture similar to Lisa’s and I invited the children to approach any adult. For the next ten minutes everyone played together. Without some trusting feeling toward a child-as-goat the adults-as-trolls-asrocks were not to turn back into trolls.The plan was that children would be positioned to watch for reactions and be responsive. Neither yelling nor pushing would work! Adults were not to instruct but rather engage in collaborative playful interactions both as trolls and as themselves talking about the trolls, which at least for some children seemed to open up a more dialogic space for exploring how trust may be built.

Creating inclusive dialogic spaces I had not realized that Peter had been resisting the entire idea of helping the troll. He and Laura, the adult he had chosen to work with, neither played nor dialogued. Peter did not want to help the troll, saying to Laura, ‘We should tie her up.’ We had not discussed this possible response by a child, Laura didn’t know how to respond, and she inadvertently participated in creating extended oppositional monologic interactions that excluded Peter. Mary, another graduate student, identified a core problem: ‘Most adults tend to talk over children, trying to make the children say what they want them to.’ Only during reflective analysis after the first session did Laura come to realize that she was never in dialogue with Peter’s utterances, which were actually reasonable within the wider context of the world of trolls: why trust a troll if it had threatened to eat us up? If adults and children had been able to respond to Peter’s perspective this might actually have led to some dialogue about how people know whether to trust someone or not. As Laura noted: I kept retelling Peter that we were supposed to be helping the troll but he wanted to tie the troll up and turn her into a pineapple. Now I realize he and I could have run with his story. If we’d had an open-ended conversation he could have pretended to tie me up and told me why. On the second day, our plan was to present the children with another crisis: the troll was lonely and wanted to find her lost family. Could they help? Anticipating possible oppositional discourse from Peter, I spoke with him as he arrived, shared the backstory we had invented, and asked if he could go along with our narrative from the previous day. He didn’t reject the idea. Positioning him to be able to use his power for the group I asked him if he wanted to help me and the other adults to set up some of the material resources I had brought in to represent a cave (black fabric to spread over chairs), a mountain (green fabric to lay along the long stone seat in front of the fireplace), as well as the river and rocks (blue fabric and mats) from the day before; he did.

146

Changing our world

Dialogizing utterances I began by narrating and inviting children (along with Lisa-as-the-troll) to show and tell us the story we had co-authored the previous day: the troll had learned to trust us as we helped her feel better and recover from her injuries. Then I introduced the new problem by asking Lisa-as-the-troll to tell us why she was now crying. She said that she had been separated from her family and was lonely. I asked for thumbs up from the children if they wanted to help. Peter emphatically put his thumb down! Many of the adults made clear later that they felt concerned. Though I did too, fortunately I maintained a dialogic stance. I asked Peter why he didn’t want to help. Speaking loudly enough to be heard by the thirty plus people in the room Peter gave a perfectly logical non-empathetic answer: ‘Because we don’t know where they are.’ What had seemed to be an oppositional monologic response actually wasn’t since Peter was not rejecting the idea of helping but rather questioning how we might do so. In response, I positioned Peter dialogically and made him visible to the group as a resource of new ideas. ‘I’d never thought of that. Thanks, Peter. Does anyone know how we might know where to look?’ I used my authority as the teacher to do something he could not do unaided: uplift and present his idea to the group to create a more inclusive dialogic space in which others could respond to his question. His utterance would begin to be dialogized if there was dialogue in response. It was Melissa who answered quietly: ‘We need a map.’ Fortunately I heard her response and replied, ‘Yes! Then we would know where we might look. What do you think, Peter? Would a map work?’ He somewhat tentatively gave a thumbs up. I suggested that the layout we had created was like a huge 3D map that we could move around on. Peter and the other children were soon exploring the set-up with adults: walking on the fireplace-as-the-mountain, stepping on cushions-as-rocks in the river, and crawling under fabric-as-a-cave. Only later did I discover that the children had been making maps for several weeks. Now all could apply their cultural resource of mapping in a new context and in doing so extend their conceptual understanding of real maps into maps of imagined places. Later, Sarah commented on the significance of what happened for Melissa. Melissa had never spoken to the whole group. She was never loud enough to be heard. And she had never really answered Peter before. The way she shared her idea and then how it was taken up was amazing for her. I watched her beaming. For the first time, Peter and Melissa had participated in public dialogue: he asked a question, she made a suggestion, and both were heard and answered in response.Their ideas were dialogized and seen to make a difference for others.Turning to the fireplaceseat I asked the children if they would like to pretend it was a mountain that they were climbing. Allowing Peter to use his power (but now dialogically for the whole group), I asked him if he could show us how to climb up and walk carefully so that we wouldn’t fall down as the troll had done. Other children suggested obstacles for climbers that I then represented with my arms for Peter to ‘dialogue’ with and navigate. Following his lead, the other children lined up and with adults creating more obstacles 147

Brian Edmiston

all were soon practising climbing the mountain, then walking on stepping stones to cross the river, and crawling through a tunnel using flashlights. The adults sang a variation of the Rodgers and Hammerstein’s song from The Sound of Music as some children and adults made appropriate sounds: ‘We climbed the mountain, crossed over the stream, searched in every cave, till we found her family.’

Collaborative inclusive dialogic spaces We concluded by collaboratively experiencing another inclusive adult-introduced dialogic space. During time outside, when many of the children (including Peter and Melissa) continued to play with adults, using the fabric and cushions, Sarah and I set up the classroom for the children as if it was the cave where the children had agreed the troll’s family would be found. As they returned, I introduced the set-up playing Grieg’s Hall of the Mountain King. I turned off the lights in response to one child’s suggestion that it would create a more cave-like atmosphere, and I produced a dozen flashlights that everyone agreed to take turns using. We dialogued briefly about what caves are like and how people might be brave: some wanted to go through the cave alone while others held hands with a peer or an adult. The children discovered the adults pretending to be the troll’s family and we ended with everyone singing one of their favourite songs: Make New Friends.

Conclusion: playing with children to change the world I believe that maturity is not an outgrowing but a growing up: that an adult is not a dead child but a child who survived. I believe that all the best faculties of a mature human being exist in the child, and that if these faculties are encouraged in youth they will act well and wisely in the adult, but that if they are repressed and denied in the child they will stunt and cripple the adult personality. And finally, I believe that one of the most deeply human, and humane, of these faculties is the power of imagination. (Ursula Le Guin, 1979: 44) In this chapter I’ve explored some of the advantages and challenges of adults’ dialogic dramatic playing with children. Like Ursula Le Guin, I believe in the power of imagination.When used dialogically with children, imagination is a potential pathway across a universe of imagined worlds that we may all embody and enter together. Like Le Guin, I believe that the best faculties of the mature human being exist and should be nurtured in the youngest of children, including taking action to create joy and build trust in classrooms. Our worst faculties also exist in the child, including the ability to exclude and lose others’ trust. Rather than repress or deny any of those faculties children need to be able to experience them and dialogically reflect on how actions can create different consequences. Recognizing that I am a child who has grown into adulthood helps me empathize, connect, and be open to playing and dialoguing with all children, including those experiencing or creating sorrow as well as joy. 148

Changing our world

Experiences across spaces in a real-and-imagined universe entered through dramatic playing can feel as real as everyday life. Shared experiences in dialogic spaces can begin to transform the world of a child who may have felt that little or nothing was ever going to change. Someone who has become used to being excluded or excluding themselves from dialogue may be included in collaborative dialogic activities that are changed by their participation. Likewise, children may be changed: someone unused to experiencing shared joy may laugh, sing, and pretend with others. Not that these activities shouldn’t happen in everyday life – they should. However, when we play dramatically and dialogically with children using embodied dialogic imagination, all may collaboratively change real as well as imagined worlds, and thereby begin to transform how we experience ourselves and how we might engage with others.

Note 1 With the exception of the classroom teachers, the names of all children and adults are pseudonyms.

References Ayers. W. (1995) Social imagination: a conversation with Maxine Greene, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, vol. 8, no. 4, 319–328, DOI: 10.1080/0951839950080401. Bakhtin, M. M., Holquist, M. and Liapunov, V. (ed.), Liapunov, V. (trans.) (1990) Art and answerability: early philosophical essays, Austin, TX: Texas University Press. Bakhtin, M. M., Holquist, M. (ed.), Emerson, C. and Holquist, M. (trans.) (1981) The Dialogic imagination, Austin, TX: Texas University Press. Baumer, B., Ferholt, B. and Lecusay, R. (2005) ‘Promoting narrative competence through adult– child joint pretense: Lessons from the Scandinavian educational practice of playworld’, Cognitive Development, vol. 20, no. 4, 576–590. Bennett, N.,Wood, E. and Rogers, S. (1997) Teaching Through Play:Teachers’Thinking and Classroom Practice, Buckingham: Open University Press. Bodrova, E. and Leong, D. J. (2001) The Tools of the Mind Project: A Case Study of Implementing the Approach in American Early Childhood and Primary Classrooms, Geneva, Switzerland: International Bureau of Education, UNESCO. Brooker, E. and Edwards, S. (ed.) (2011) Engaging Play, Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press. Bruner, J. (1986) Actual Minds, Possible Worlds, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Edmiston, B. (2014a) Transforming Teaching and Learning with Active and Dramatic Approaches: Engaging Students Across the Curriculum, New York and London: Routledge. Edmiston, B. (2014b) ‘Dialogue and positioning in dramatic inquiry: Creating with Prospero’, in Davis, S., Ferholt, B., Grainger, H., Jansson, S., and Marjanovic-Shane, A. (eds), Dramatic Interactions in Education:Vygotskian and Sociocultural Approaches to Drama, Education and Research, London: Bloomsbury Publishers. Edmiston, B. (2011) ‘We are hunters and gatherers of values: Dramatic play, early childhood pedagogy, and the formation of ethical identities’, in Rogers, S. (ed.), Rethinking Play and Pedagogy in Early Childhood Education: Concepts, Contexts, and Cultures, London and New York: Routledge. Edmiston, B. (2008) Forming Ethical Identities in Early Childhood Play, London and New York: Routledge. Edmiston, B. (2005) ‘Coming home to research’, in Diaz Soto, L. and Swadener, B.B. (eds), Power and Voice in Research with Children, New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishers. Edmiston, B. and Taylor,T. (2011) ‘Using power on the playground’, in Brooker, E. and Edwards, S. (eds), Engaging Play, Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.

149

Brian Edmiston Goncu, A. and Perone, A. (2005) ‘Pretend play as a life-span activity’, Topoi, vol. 24, 137–147. Hakkarainen, P. (2004) ‘Narrative learning in the fifth dimension’, Critical Social Studies, vol. 6, no. 1, 5–22. Harré, R. and Langenhove, L. V. (1999) ‘The dynamics of social episodes’, in Harré, R. and Langenhove, L.V., Positioning theory: Moral contexts of international action, Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Holland, D., Lachicotte, W., Skinner, D. and Cain, C. (1998) Identity and agency in cultural worlds, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Johnston, P. (2012) Opening Minds: Using Language to Change Lives, Portland, ME: Stenhouse. Kitson, N. (1994) ‘Please Miss Alexander: will you be the robber? Fantasy play: a case for adult intervention’, in Moyles, J. (ed.), The Excellence of Play, Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press. Le Guin, U. (1979) The language of the night: essays on fantasy and science fiction. New York: Putnam. Lindqvist, G. (2001) ‘When Small Children Play: How adults dramatise and children create meaning’, Early Years: An International Research Journal, vol. 21, 7–24. Lindqvist, G. (1995) Aesthetics of Play: A Didactic Study of Play and Culture in Preschools, Uppsala, Sweden. Löfdhal, A. (2011) ‘Who gets to play? Peer groups, power and play in early childhood settings’, in Brooker, E. and Edwards, S. (eds), Engaging Play Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press. McDermott, R. (1977) ‘Social relations as contexts for learning in school. Harvard Educational Review’, vol. 47, 198–213. MacNaughton, G. (2005) Doing Foucault in Early Childhood Studies: Applying Poststructural Ideas, London and New York: Routledge. Paley,V. G. (1992) You Can’t Say You Can’t Play, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Rainio, A. P. (2008) ‘Developing the classroom as a “figured world”’, Journal of Educational Change, vol. 9, 357–364. Rule, P. N. (2015) Dialogue and Boundary Learning, Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986) Thought and language, ed. and trans. A. Kozulin, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. (1976) ‘Play and its role in the mental development of the child’, inBruner, J. S., Jolly, A. and Sylva, K. (eds), Play: Its role in development and evolution, New York, NY: Penguin Books. Wood, E. (2011) ‘Reconceptualizing the play-pedagogy relationship: From control to complexity’, in Brooker, E. and Edwards, S. (eds), Engaging Play, Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press. White, E. J. (2016) Introducing Dialogic Pedagogy: Provocations for the EarlyYears, London: Routledge

150

12 Children’s sociodramatic play typologies and teacher play involvement within the breadth of the zone of proximal development Eleni Loizou Introduction The goal of this chapter is to focus on socio-dramatic play and unfold the state of children’s scenario and role enactment along with the corresponding teacher’s involvement to facilitate mature forms of play. With the use of an in-service teacher case study and the in-depth analysis of her play practices and reflection, I will highlight children’s level of scenario and role enactment, and show different breadths of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) along with the corresponding teacher interventions to facilitate mature forms of play.

Literature review Early childhood (EC) education highly endorses play in the discourse of appropriate pedagogy and teaching strategies. Most texts, reports and pedagogical guidelines for EC education quite often make reference to play through: play-based curricula, playful activities, teaching mathematics or literacy through play, etc. Play is “a dominant pedagogical force in early childhood education” (Ailwood 2003: 287) and is often related to learning. Nevertheless, they are often examined separately since play is considered as children’s work and learning is the outcome of the teacher’s actions (Pramling Samuelsson and Asplund Carlsson 2008, cited in Wallerstedt and Pramling 2012). This stance prevents us from making the connection and considering the play elements in learning and the learning elements in play (Pramling Samuelsson and Johanson 2006). 151

Eleni Loizou

Play as explored in this study refers to socio-dramatic play during which two or more children take upon roles (role enactment), use materials in ways to support their roles (symbolism), pretend to be someone they are not (pretend play) creating a scenario (narrative) with personal or social themes while interacting with peers (communicative skills). Play is the activity during which children learn and develop. Vygotsky supported that during play children behave “beyond their average age” and are “a head taller” than themselves (Cole et al. 1978: 102). It is widely agreed that children who develop mature forms of play exhibit cognitive flexibility, self-regulation, pay attention and stay on task despite destruction, expand their working memory, communication and social skills as well as academic skills (Vygotsky 1966; Leong and Bodrova 2012; El’konin 2005; Bredikyte and Hakkarainen 2011). Current research is exploring children’s mature forms of play in order to provide an explicit framework of how children play and consider play’s potential to learning and development. Leong and Bodrova (2012) in their proposed curriculum Tools of Mind – in order to help teachers be aware of the mature levels children’s play can reach – have developed a way to assess and scaffold play, the PRoPELS. PRoPELS is an acronym for Plan, Roles, Props, Extended time frame, Language and Scenario, the vital elements of mature play. Leong and Bodrova (2012) also categorize play into five stages which include: 1. First scripts, 2. Roles in action, 3. Roles with rules and beginning scenarios, 4. Mature roles, planned scenarios, and symbolic props and 5. Dramatization, multiple themes, multiple roles, and director’s play. In the analysis of these play elements and stages Leong and Bodrova highlight learning and development details such as cause-andeffect relationships, symbolic substitutions and metalinguistic awareness. Also, they emphasize that scaffolding comes after detailed observations, and assessment of the above mentioned elements and stages for mature play. Drawing on the work of Vygotsky focusing on the Zone of Proximal Development I acknowledge the importance of teacher involvement in expanding the zone of play development for each child towards mature forms of play. Teacher’s play involvement has been investigated through diverse perspectives; multiple types of roles teachers can take (e.g. facilitator, co-player, assessor, play tutor) and the levels of guidance they can provide (e.g. direct, indirect, non-involvement, outside and inside intervention) are often highlighted (Trawick-Smith and Dziurgot 2011, Jones and Reynolds 2011; Hakkarainen et al. 2013). Even though teacher training programmes promote play they do not always support teachers enough in implementing play practices. I argue that teachers need to have the knowledge and the skills to observe children’s play, assess children’s play skills and recognize their play needs in order to effectively intervene and support children towards mature forms of play. In Cyprus since 2009 there has been an Educational Reform (ER) with guiding principles to reconstruct the educational system in ways that will endorse democratic and humane schools. The distinctive change in the EC curriculum was the play emphasis: play as a form of organizing learning and one which promotes development. The attempt was to reconceptualize and deepen the discourse and practices of play. Even though play has always been part of the EC curriculum and teachers always made reference to its importance (Loizou and Avgititou 2014), their knowledge of seeing play as more than just playful activities is limited. A lot of teachers often acknowledge 152

Children’s socio-dramatic play typologies

the importance of play theoretically but practically they act inversely (Cheng Pui-Wah 2011). In order to ensure support to the teachers I developed a teacher’s guide (Loizou 2016) that includes information about the children’s expected play actions in reference to the scenario (e.g. the child gets involved in play using real materials, taking on roles without scenario) and the role enactment (e.g. the child uses materials and in this way is led to taking on a role). In addition, the specific guide includes a teacher intervention schema which highlights the ways teachers can intervene in children’s play in response to specific play needs (e.g. the teacher suggests play choices that have to do with the roles or the scenario). The use of this guide was examined with in-service and preservice teachers and outcomes suggest that, along with the necessary professional development, it supported teachers in beginning to develop a play pedagogy: they learned to reflect, plan and assess their own play practice and children’s socio-dramatic play skills (Loizou in press). Through the in-depth analysis of a single in-service EC teacher I will provide evidence from a naturalistic setting about children’s play skills during socio-dramatic play and the impact of teacher involvement responding to the following research questions: 1 2

What is the state of children’s scenario and role enactment during socio-dramatic play in an EC setting (a kindergarten)? How does the EC teacher intervene to facilitate mature forms of play according to the children’s state of scenario and role enactment?

Methodology I chose to investigate and describe the play practices of a single in-service teacher in order to thoroughly examine her actions during play, the context of play, the relationships and processes during play within a naturalistic setting (Mukherji and Albon 2012).

Anna’s play perspective Anna (pseudonym) is an EC teacher with a Bachelor degree in ECE and a Master in ICT in education. She has four years of experience and is dedicated to children and teaching. During her studies, especially pedagogy courses, she explored the concept of play and how important it is for children’s development and learning. Nevertheless, at the beginning she was sceptical about how children learn through play. She was not convinced that she would be able to enhance skills and concepts of specific subject area learning goals through and within play. Also she was worried about not being able to take on a role and become a co-player with the children. At the beginning of the process of reflecting on play and considering the use of a teacher guide about play (part of a larger study, see Loizou in press), she was mainly observing children’s play, provided suggestions or asked questions to enhance their roles and scenario. Then reluctantly she began to become part of children’s play and interact with them within their scenarios by being a co-player and taking on a role. She is one of those teachers who 153

Eleni Loizou

persists in taking advantage of any opportunity that arises to “teach” and accomplish her pre-planned learning goals for the different subject areas. And this is evident even when taking on a role and participating in children’s scenarios: she is capable of introducing, suggesting or creating the need within the scenario to write, count or draw something thus managing to appropriately weave in literacy and mathematical skill development. Anna participated in a larger study which investigated how the use of a teacher guide about play affects teachers’ play practices. Therefore she was involved in several play-oriented professional development activities, such as theoretical seminars about the importance of play, children’s expected play actions and teachers’ potential interventions and practical workshops on improvisation and creative drama (see Loizou in press). During these programmes she had the opportunity to reflect on how the children in her classroom were involved in socio-dramatic play and her own involvement and impact on their play maturity.

School and classroom context The university-based school is the only one in the country and serves children from 4 months to 6 years old. There are three classrooms of child care, two classrooms for 3–5-year-olds and a kindergarten for 5- to 6-year-olds.The school has a child-centred, play-based philosophy and highly respects children’s rights and participation within the framework of a learning community. The curriculum followed is the same as the public school system and teachers develop projects according to children’s needs and interests. In every classroom there are two teachers and twenty-five children. All of the teachers have a Bachelor degree in ECE and a Master degree in the field of education. Anna is a teacher in the kindergarten classroom in which there are twenty-five children of the ages of 4.8–5.8 and she collaborates with another EC teacher. During morning hours, 7.30–10.45a.m., the children in her classroom are involved in free and/or structured play in the different learning centres which evolve according to the project being explored during each period. Children have the opportunity to choose freely where to play and with whom to play, following the specific classroom rules in terms of the number of children in each centre. They are capable of negotiating their own play issues and when necessary they ask for help from their teachers. During the data collection period of this study the project that the children were involved with was titled “The young cooks; Eat Well”. This project was the outcome of the need to guide children towards healthy nutrition and making the right food choices. So, different learning centres were developed in the classroom to support the teachers’ goals in terms of nutrition. Some examples of learning centres that provide opportunities for socio-dramatic play are: restaurant, nutritionist’s office, confectionary, the gym, cooking TV show, etc. Each centre was developed with the help of the children and as a result of a previous discussion or experience that the children had. For example, the gym was developed because the children were pretending to use materials in the classroom as weights and lift them up, exercising their body, and others were dancing to exercise their muscles. 154

Children’s socio-dramatic play typologies

Data collection As mentioned earlier the data of this study is part of a larger study which examined how the use of a teacher’s guide about play affected teachers’ play practices (Loizou in press). Video recordings: data was collected over a period of a semester, five months. Specifically, Anna videotaped herself three times during socio-dramatic play, during the morning hours of free and/or structured play, for thirty minutes on each video. Reflective journal: Anna kept a reflective journal during the period of five months in which she expressed her actions, emotions and thoughts about implementing play practices through the description of multiple play episodes. Some guiding questions provided for her to guide her reflective process included the following: does play respond to children’s needs? Is your role less important? Why? Can you still record learning and development through play? How do you participate in children’s play? Conversational interviews: during different phases of the data collection I had informal and formal conversations with Anna either because she initiated it or because I wanted to ensure that she had the support she needed. For example, at the beginning we discussed her definition of play and how she considered play supporting the implementation of the curriculum. As time progressed we discussed the challenges she was facing in implementing play practice for longer periods of time and being part of children’s play.

Data analysis Data was analysed by employing the teacher guide (Loizou 2016), in terms of children’s socio-dramatic play skills and teacher’s intervention schema. Specifically, the elaborated children’s expected actions during role enactment and scenario development, as described in the teacher guide, were employed to categorize children’s play involvement level. After reading and re-reading the transcribed play episodes from the videos and the reflective journal of the teacher, the children’s play involvement was categorized in the following three levels: 1

2

3

Low scenario and role play involvement where children were physically present within a specific learning centre but did not show any interest or attempt to be involved in the specific play context. Moderate scenario and role play involvement where children were physically present within a specific learning centre and showed some interest in participating in the specific play context either through un-sequenced actions or words but with no set scenario. High scenario and role play involvement where children were physically present in a specific learning centre and showed much interest in participating in the specific play context by taking on roles, using actions and employing words that suggested a scenario was evolving.

Then, in reference to the teacher’s involvement, it was noted first whether it was direct or indirect involvement, and then a qualitative description was given: the actual action 155

Eleni Loizou

and reasoning of the involvement was provided (e.g. asks questions to guide children towards specific roles), as drawn again from the teacher intervention schema explored in the teacher guide. Finally, quotes from her reflective journal were chosen to support her involvement choices during the different episodes and elaborate her thinking process.

Findings Data from this study, the following play excerpts, will illustrate the different play contexts that exist in an early childhood classroom suggesting the different levels of play skills children have and the multiple ways a teacher can intervene to respond to specific play needs.The presentation of the play excerpts will be progressive according to the level of children’s skills and the quality of teacher intervention needed. Each episode will include the status of children’s play involvement, the teacher’s direct or indirect involvement and reflection.

Play excerpt 1 Data Source: Reflective Journal Learning Centre: the nutritionist’s office The context: the specific learning centre was developed after a visit by a mother of a child in the class, who is a nutritionist, who provided children with information on nutrition and how she acts with clients in her office.The centre included the computer (children could use Word to type), posters with healthy foods and the food pyramid, pictures of foods on cards, pen and paper, pretend food toys, a scale, the name of foods on cards. Anna and the children talked about possible roles they can play in the specific play area. Two boys are sitting at the learning centre of “the Nutritionist”. I [Anna] observe them sitting on the computer playing with the keyboard for a while and not really enacting any roles or developing a scenario. TEACHER (T):  Excuse me, is this the nutritionist’s office? BOY 1 (B1):  Hmm, yes! T: Good, because I was passing by and decided to enter.

I put on a lot of weight lately and would like to know what to do? B1: Diet! T: Can you give me one? Which one of you is the nutritionist? B1: Me. T: The other gentleman? Who is he? B2: I am his assistant. T: Oh! ok.

156

Children’s socio-dramatic play typologies

B1: you

will eat (checks on the pictures with the healthy foods) eggplant, cauliflower, meat and lentil. T: I do not like eggplant. B1: But you should because these are the healthy ones. T: I do not believe you. What is this pyramid with foods? Show me where it says that these are healthy foods. B1: The ones that are at the top you should eat few and the ones that are at the bottom you can eat a lot. T: So which ones are at the top? B2: The sweets madam, the oily and fatty foods!!! T: Oh my god, I can’t stop eating sweets. But no sweets at all? B1: Very few. T: How many? B1: You can eat once a week. T: That’s good. And these foods on the bottom, you said I have to eat a lot? B2: You can eat bread and cereal every day. T: How many? B1: One or two bowls of cornflakes and two slices of bread [exact words of the nutritionist who visited our classroom and talked to us about healthy diet]. T: Thank you! I am in a hurry so can you write on a piece of paper what I should eat so that I put it on my fridge. B2: I will get some paper. Both children copy the name of the foods they suggested at the beginning and give me their paper

Children’s play involvement during play excerpt 1 The play excerpt described above provides a characteristic example of the low scenario and role play involvement where the children exhibited limited abilities in taking on a role and developing a scenario. Even though the two boys were in a specific learning centre which has the potential of elaborating the roles of the nutritionist and the client, it was only with the support of Anna that they began to respond to her questions and in this way enact a role and improvise a single episode. Children’s scenario and role actions are described in Table 12.1, providing the framework of the low scenario and role play typology.

Teacher involvement during play excerpt 1 In the above play excerpt Anna exhibited multiple play intervention actions in order to support children to participate in socio-dramatic play; support players’ interaction and dialogue development, begin to unfold a scenario; at least improvise an episode, and take on specific roles consistent with the type of the learning centre that they 157

Eleni Loizou Table 12.1  Children’s low scenario and role play involvement before and after teacher intervention Before teacher intervention Children’s scenario actions

Children’s role actions

A group of children (2 or more):

A group of children (2 or more):

Get involved in play using real materials, taking on roles without scenario

Use materials and in this way are led to taking on a role

After teacher intervention Get involved in play taking on a particular role based on the preset scenarios

Pretends that she has taken a role without stating it and uses the relevant materials

Accept new ideas that have to do with the flow of events, the heroes/roles, or the use of materials in the role

Say and do things connected to the role assigned to them in the same play context

Respond to the creation of a problem in the scenario

were in. Specifically, through indirect involvement Anna takes on a role and asks questions in order to help the children think of their potential role and scenario (e.g. they are nutritionists and she is a client). She then asks questions and makes suggestions trying to help children develop their thinking within the context of a role and/or scenario (that of the nutritionist) and also creates challenges within the scenario (pretends not to like the food they are suggesting). Moreover, she asks subject area questions and uses language that does not interrupt play (e.g. what is this pyramid you are talking about?). Anna, having observed children’s play needs and the low level of role and scenario involvement, attempts through multiple ways to guide and support their play actions towards a more advanced state. The type and duration of Anna’s involvement is crucial to the development of the play episode.

Teacher reflection during play excerpt 1 During her reflection Anna commented on the children’s play needs, her specific focused actions to support them and the outcome of her involvement. Specifically she stated: I liked the specific episode because it involved a beginning, a middle and an end. I created with the children a scenario (it was one of the learning goals of the project) since they were not involved in sociodramatic play at all. Also, through this scenario the children recalled and transferred their knowledge for healthy foods in the specific context of play. I could have asked the children to mention and write more healthy foods but was afraid of losing them, they would get off the scenario, so I did not. 158

Children’s socio-dramatic play typologies

Anna, like many other teachers, has learned to work with specific subject area learning goals in mind, thinking how she can enhance skills through play, sometimes violating the actual play development and children’s interests. But during the above play episode she consciously avoided her planned learning goals and considered the actual needs of the children, she focused on their interests, on how they would enjoy play and especially sustain their involvement. This is apparent from the following reflection comments: I could have asked them to write my diet down, the foods and the quantity. In the specific episode I did not insist on these because one of the children rarely participates in socio-dramatic play and I wanted him to participate as much as possible. Also the other child is rarely interested in writing during structured activities but in this episode he was very willing to do so. This shows how through the context of play children can practice writing.

Play excerpt 2 Data Source: Reflective Journal Learning centre: the gym The context: the specific centre as explained earlier was developed because of children’s interest and initiations: they were pretending to be exercising and using classroom toys as weights. Anna provided children with small weights, ropes, hoops and a red furniture to use as pedestal. At the learning centre the gym, the girls are on the floor doing different exercises, and talking among themselves. I [Anna] approach them in the role of the “physical fitness instructor”, get on the pedestal and begin to talk in a loud voice. T:

Welcome to my gym “the perfect body”. Today we will do some exercises for the whole body. The four girls who are there, begin to laugh and shout “gymnastics!” I begin to show different floor exercises and with the gym equipment (hoops, weights) and all the girls repeat after me. Four more children approach and they immediately join in.They do this for some time and then I propose to the children to change roles. So each child takes on the role of the physical fitness instructor. Almost all children go through this role and each one shows different exercises for the rest to copy. I encourage whoever is in the role of the physical fitness instructor to provide better explanation of the different exercises and to make sure they correct anyone who is not doing them appropriately. Some of the children used appropriate words while taking on the specific role:“Bend

159

Eleni Loizou

your body like a turtle”, “With gymnastics your body will become fit”, “Try once more, you can do it.” The following day, one of the children suggested that they should have music while exercising and I helped them by moving the CD player within the specific learning center.

Children’s play involvement during play excerpt 2 Play excerpt 2 shows how the children participated in play by taking on a specific role based on a previously discussed scenario, using specific actions, language and materials to support their role. The context of play was such that an improvised event, that of the physical fitness instructor and her “trainees” was developing with the children accepting to add new ideas to the event. Table 12.2 unfolds the scenario and role play skills exhibited by the children before and after Anna’s intervention, highlighting a moderate level of play involvement.

Table 12.2 Children’s moderate scenario and role play involvement before and after teacher intervention Before teacher intervention Children’s scenario actions

Children’s role actions

A group of children (2 or more):

A group of children (2 or more):

Get involved in play taking on a particular role based on a preset scenario

Pretend that they have taken a role without stating it and use the relevant materials After teacher intervention

Accept new ideas that have to do with the flow of events, the heroes/roles, or the use of materials in the role

Say and do things that are connected to the role given to them during play, for a short period of time

Enriches the scenario through interaction and uses realistic materials for a long period of time (at least 25 minutes)

Interact with others to play, having a specific role

Make suggestions for the scenario Involved in scenarios that last more than one day

160

Children’s socio-dramatic play typologies

Teacher involvement during play excerpt 2 During the gym play excerpt Anna’s involvement was mainly indirect focusing on specific play skills. Specifically, she participated in children’s play indirectly by taking upon a role for a short period of time, pretending to be the “physical fitness instructor” in order to help children begin to evolve their scenario and add more events. She enacted a specific role in order to be a role model and provide information for the play episode. Moreover, she used indirect involvement: she was out of role and encouraged children to be more convincing in their role by using the appropriate wording to describe how the trainees should do the exercises.

Teacher reflection during play excerpt 2 In her reflections, Anna is satisfied with the specific play episode because she was able to help the children extend their scenario in terms of duration and events, enrich the specific roles and help them extend it for several days. I did not follow the classroom rule about the number of children in a specific center. All of the children went through the role of the “physical fitness instructor”. It was one of my favorite episodes not just because I had taken on a role but also because everyone was having fun. The children continued the specific scenario for several days and gave me the opportunity to enrich their scenario. Every day the children asked me to play “Gym” and they used appropriate language making reference to specific exercises “abs” “dorsal”.

Play excerpt 3 Data Source: Video recording Learning centre: the confectionary The context: the confectionary was developed after the children visited a bakery and observed the process of making, baking and packaging cookies. At the beginning, in the specific area there was a piece of furniture which had sweets (e.g. cookies, lollipops, candies) attached to it and it was like a booth where children could stand behind and pretend to sell sweets, while others were pretending to be the customers. Five children, two boys and three girls are interacting at the learning centre called the confectionary. BOY 1 (B1):  Come people we have nice sweets! GIRL 1 (G1): Yes, come to buy the best sweets.You have never tasted such sweets. G2:  I want to buy one! G1: What would you like? I have them here, come and see to choose.

161

Eleni Loizou

G3:  (in a child’s role) Mom, I want this candy. G1: We have them in other colors as well. G2:  I would like this one and this one, two lollipops

and this cake.

After having observed them for some time, Anna suggests that they should write down their orders. Two of the children bring paper and pencil and write down the amount and the type of sweets being ordered. Afterwards, taking up on the suggestion of one of the girls, Anna helps set up the area where the sweets are being packaged. This space was created behind the booth: they brought in a table, added wrapping paper, ribbons, boxes, sellotape, scissors and other materials they would use to package the orders. As Anna explained to me in one of our conversational interviews, she considered the packaging area “a good opportunity for more children to participate in the specific learning center and also a chance to participate in creative play which some of them really enjoy”. Soon another boy joins in and one of the girls says “come to play with us, we need more help packaging the sweets”. The children decide that half of them should be the people who make the desserts and the others the people who sell them. Anna also suggests that they could include pieces of paper cut in the shape of biscuits. She then takes on a role and intervenes as a customer. T:  Hi, I would like a muffin with vanilla and chocolate please. G3  (In a new role): Let me ask if we have any. (Turns to g2 and

says): Can you make a muffin with vanilla and chocolate? G2: Yes, we can! B1:  Let me see if we have vanilla. G3: We can, do you want anything else? T: Yes, actually I have a birthday tomorrow and I need to order a lot to treat my friends.You better write them down so that you remember. [G3 and B2 write down my order and give it to the makers who begin to make my sweets.] B2:  Come in an hour to pick them up. Anna leaves and then after a couple of minutes returns to get her order. Anna in her reflection comments: The days that follow, different children participate in this learning center taking on the roles of confectioners, sellers, cashiers and customers.They take the same actions in the following sequence: make an order, write it down, package the sweets, sell and take them.

162

Children’s socio-dramatic play typologies

Children’s play involvement during play excerpt 3 The final play episode is an example of high scenario and role involvement since children are independently playing, having specific roles, interacting, using specific materials (realistically and symbolically) and developing a narrative. Children’s play quality was further enhanced by Anna’s involvement and their play level can be considered advanced.

Teacher involvement during play excerpt 3 Anna during this episode observed children’s play and decided to intervene in order to provide new information within the context of their scenario and help elaborate their interactions and their narrative. So, at first she suggests that the children could write down their orders and then takes on the role of a customer. Anna in the role of Table 12.3 Children’s high scenario and role play involvement before and after teacher intervention Before teacher intervention Children’s scenario actions

Children’s role actions

A group of children (2 or more):

A group of children (2 or more):

Get involved in play taking on particular roles based on preset scenarios

Say and do things connected to the role that they have taken

Enrich scenario through interaction and use of realistic or symbolic materials for an adequate time frame (at least 20 minutes)

Interact with others and are involved in dialogue

Interact with others and are involved in dialogue

Differentiate actions according to the role and scenario development

Enact scenario following the basic structure of a story

While enacting a role they use appropriate language, tone of voice and facial expressions, use of gestures and body movements, use of materials in realistic and/or symbolic ways

After teacher intervention Accept or suggest new ideas events, about the roles, the setting, where the scenario takes place, or the use of materials

Interact and invite others to converse in order to develop the scenario for a long period of time (at least 30 minutes)

In and out of role guide others for the development of the scenario

Say and do things related to the different roles chosen in the same play context

Involved in scenarios that last more than one day

163

Eleni Loizou

the customer adds a new element to the scenario and makes a large order. In this way she is developing the scenario and she is also implementing one of her pre-planned literacy learning goals, for the children to write. Anna, in one of our conversational interviews said that the specific children were used to including writing in their play so when she suggested it they gladly included it in their scenario.

Teacher reflection during play excerpt 3 This was an example of play were children were highly involved and were capable of supporting their roles and enacting a scenario. Anna in her reflection was satisfied in adding a new element to the children’s scenario, elaborated their play and also guided them in developing their writing and arithmetic skills. I believe that it was important that I participated in their play when they were playing freely and introduced the idea of making orders (writing and arithmetic) and in their daily scenario they followed the specific process, adding their own elements. This kind of play provides the opportunity to focus on mathematical exchanges (pay, receipt and change). Since the scenario allows space for these learning goals to be achieved we should focus and aim to support these skills.We should not just accept “here is the money, give me the change” but elaborate on adding and subtracting. During our last conversational interview and when discussing the specific play excerpts, I asked Anna to comment about the relationship between play and learning. She said that during free play, when she does not intervene, she sees how children develop skills that have to do with their social development, oral language, collaboration, etc., but when she wants to ensure a specific learning goal is achieved, she has to intervene and create the context, unfold the need for the children to act in ways that will lead them towards the accomplishment of the specific goal.

Discussion The literature on play often takes for granted that all children can play, that they all develop the necessary skills for mature play and that they can all learn through play (Grieshaber and Mcardle 2011). It is important to consider play as a form of language (as in the case of the mother tongue) which develops naturally but still needs to be systematically scaffolded with experiences and activities. Zuckerman defines the ZPD as “the place where new interactions are generated and established” (2007: 51) and states that adult-child interaction is new every time, since every child and situation is different. The data from this study allow us to create a set of play typologies, focusing on the level of role and scenario involvement. The three typologies developed low, moderate and high show that within a classroom, children have different play abilities and thus the level of play development and learning potential is diverse. It is important to stress there is a flow of children’s actions and these typologies are a flexible framework that highlights the state of children’s play. Consequently, according to these typologies 164

Children’s socio-dramatic play typologies

the “breadth of their ZPD” (Zaretskii 2009: 75) is different and teachers need to consider the “actual and potential level of development” (Zuckerman 2007: 45) in order to intervene and support children effectively. “Supporting higher forms of play is a very challenging task for the teacher” (Hakkarainen and Bredikyte 2015: 41) because not any type of interaction can support play development and will spontaneously create opportunities for children to enhance their play skills and learning. In contemplating the process of assessing the level of development, Zaretskii (2009) acknowledges the importance of considering the processes that have matured; consequently making clear and good observations of children’s play skills, and then examining those that are still maturing; accordingly making the right choices in terms of intervention. In order to do so, we expect teachers to consider play as a behaviour that can be observed and a process of mind (Van der Aalsvoort et al. 2015). This study shows how Anna was very observant and knew the children and their abilities quite well and that is the reason her involvement corresponded to the play typology exhibited by the children. The use of both direct and indirect involvement (e.g. asking questions, taking on a role, making suggestions or connections with subject area goals) was chosen in reference to the children’s play needs in terms of role and scenario development. Even though the three typologies suggest that children within the same classroom context are at different levels, the way the teacher intervened supported them to move a step further in their abilities, within the breadth of each one’s ZPD. She intervened within the ZPD of each group, and with her actions supported children to move a step further in their development, asserting that “collaborative make-believe play is enormously spacious” (Hakkarainen and Bredikyte 2015: 40). Not all children moved towards mature forms of play but in all three episodes, as expressed by the teacher as well, the experience was successful because the children acted above their individual abilities. Anna, during this process of enacting play practices, focusing on her involvement and reflecting on her actions, developed a list of principles that a teacher should consider when implementing play practices and consciously participating in children’s play to support it towards mature forms. These principles include the following: • • • • •

first observe children while playing and accordingly intervene follow children’s scenario and participate when necessary either to enrich the scenario or help to develop one, when there is not one if you are a co-player, observe while in role, and if you are observing intervene through a role take advantage of the opportunities provided through play to introduce and enhance subject area concepts, knowledge and skills while playing, observe children again so that you can assess and document their learning and development and use this information for future actions

The above principles provide a framework of teacher intervention which acknowledges play as a context and a process of learning; one which is best supported through observation, active participation, respecting children’s choices and interests, and making the connections with learning and development. Broadhead suggests that children can 165

Eleni Loizou

progress, develop and learn through and at play “from within and beyond the child”, suggesting that other than the child’s own capabilities the “learning-teaching environment” (2006: 194) is an equally important variable in children’s learning and development.

Conclusion This study proposes different play typologies according to children’s level of role and scenario involvement which create a different breadth of ZPD. Teachers’ successful interventions involve appropriate and constant observation, active participation (e.g. being a co-player, taking on a role, incorporating literacy or mathematical elements) within children’s play themes. Successful play experiences and development have a different value for each child, group of children and play situation, since not all children reach mature forms of play, and not every teacher intervention can support them towards mature forms of play.

Acknowledgement I am grateful to Andria Christodoulou for her classroom play explorations and reflections.

References Ailwood, J. (2003) “Governing Early Childhood Education through play”. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 4(3): 286–299. Bredikyte, M. and Hakkarainen, P. (2011) Play Intervention and Play Development, vol. 11. In C. Lobman and B. E. O’Neill (eds), Play and Performance: Play and Culture Studies. America: University Press of America, pp. 59–83. Broadhead, P. (2006) “Developing an understanding of young children’s learning through play: the place of observation, interaction and reflection”. British Educational Research Journal, 32(2): 191–207. Cheng Pui-Wah, D. (2011) “Learning through play in Hong Kong: policy or practice?” In S. Rogers (ed.), Rethinking play and pedagogy in early childhood education. London: Routledge. Cole, M., John-Steiner, V., Scribner, S. and Souberman, E. (Eds.) (1978) Vygotsky, L. Mind in society.The development of higher psychological processes. USA: Harvard University Press. El’konin, D. B. (2005) “The Psychology of Play: Chapter 1”. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 43 (1): 22–48 (original work published in 1978). Grieshaber, S. and Mcardle, F. (2011) The trouble with play. Berkshire, UK: Open University. Hadley, E. (2002) “Playful Disruptions”. Early Years: An International Research Journal, 22(1): 9–17. Hakkarainen, P., Bre˙dikyte˙, M., Jakkula, K. and Munter, H. (2013) “Adult play guidance and children’s play development in a narrative play-world”. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 21(2): 213–225. Hakkarainen, P. and Bre˙dikyte˙, M. (2015) How play creates the zone of proximal development. In Sue Robson and S. Flannery Quinn (eds), The Routledge International Handbook of Young Children’s Thinking and Understanding. London: Routledge. Jones, E. and Reynolds, G. (2011). The play’s the thing:Teachers’ roles in children’s play. 2nd edn. New York: Teachers College Press. Leong, D. J. and Bodrova, E. (2012) “Assessing and scaffolding make-believe play”. Young Children, 67(1): 28–34.

166

Children’s socio-dramatic play typologies Loizou, E. and Avgitidou, S. (2014) “The Greek-Cypriot Early Childhood Educational Reform; introducing play as a participatory learning process and as children’s right”. Early Development and Care, 184(12): 1884–1901. Loizou, E. (2016) Play skills and Teacher’s role (socio-dramatic and imaginative play). Early Childhood Research Lab: Nicosia. Available at www.researchgate.net/publication/303495511_Teacher_ PLAY_Guide (accessed 25 May 2016). Loizou, E. (in press) “Towards Play Pedagogy: Supporting teacher play practices with a teacher guide about socio-dramatic and imaginative play”. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal. Mukherji, P. and Albon, D. (2012) Research methods in early childhood. An introductory guide. Los Angeles: SAGE. Pramling Samuelsson, I. and Johansson, E. (2006) “Play and learning—inseparable dimensions in preschool practice”. Early Child Development and Care, 176(3–4): 441–441. Pramling Samuelsson, I. and Asplund Carlsson, M. (2008) “The Playing Learning Child:Towards a pedagogy of early childhood”. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 52(6): 623–641. Trawick-Smith, J. and Dziurgot, T. (2011) “‘Good-fit’ teacher-child play interactions and the subsequent autonomous play of preschool children”. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26(1): 110–123. Van der Aalsvoort, G., Prakke, B., Howard, J., Konig, A. and Parkkinen, T. (2015) “Trainee teachers’ perspectives on play characteristics and their role in children’s play: an international comparative study amongst trainees in Netherlands, Wales, Germany and Finland”. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 23(2): 277–292. Van Oers, B. (2003) “Learning resources in the context of play. Promoting effective learning in early childhood”. European Early Childhood Education Journal, 11(1): 7–26. Van Oers, B. (2010) “The emergence of mathematical thinking in the context of play”. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 74(1): 23–37. Vygotsky, L. ([1966]1977) Play and its role in the mental development of the child. In Soviet developmental psychology: An Anthology, ed. M. Cole.White Plains: NY: M.E.Sharpe, pp. 76–99. Wallerstedt, C. and Pramling, N. (2012) “Learning to play in a goal directed practice”. Early Years, 32(1): 5–15. Zaretskii,V. K. (2009) “The zone of proximal development”. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 47(6): 70–93. Zuckerman, G. (2007) “Child-adult interaction that creates a zone of proximal development”. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 45(3): 43–69.

167

13 Playing on the edge Adventure, risk and challenge in play outdoors Helen Tovey

Adventurous play outdoors is a long-standing feature of provision for young children. Friedrich Froebel, the pioneer of the kindergarten, argued that children should have opportunities for being ‘brave and daring’ in their play outdoors. Climbing trees, playing in streams, making dens, exploring the local landscapes were just some of the experiences available to children. He recognised the sense of joy and freedom to be gained from exploring beyond the limits of everyday experience. Even a walk outdoors was, for a toddler, ‘like a voyage of discovery and each new object is an America, a new world to explore’ (Froebel in Lilley 1967: 112). He believed that we should respect children’s awareness of their own abilities and focus on the benefits of challenging activities rather than just the risks. Using an example of tree climbing he argued that, To climb a new tree is . . . to discover a new world; . . . If we could remember our joy when in childhood we looked out beyond the cramping limits of our immediate surroundings we should not be so insensitive to call out, ‘Come down you will fall’. (Froebel, in Lilley 1967: 126) Froebel believed that children who experience increasing challenges in play are safer than those who have been protected from them. It is the children who lack experience who are much more likely to face danger. Susan Isaacs, another pioneer of early childhood education working in England in the 1930s made a similar point when she addressed a safety conference in London. If you are going to keep children safe . . . you must provide places in which they can get the thrills they need; there must be trees they can climb and ways in which they can safely get the experience of adventure and the sense of challenge that they crave. (Isaacs 1938: 4) 168

Playing on the edge

But where is the adventure and sense of challenge in play today? As play is increasingly subject to targets and outcomes, constrained by demands for ‘school readiness’ amid a prevailing climate of risk aversion, what opportunities are there for children to be daring and adventurous in their play and learning outdoors? This chapter examines evidence of the value of adventurous play outdoors, reports on a small-scale research project investigating practitioners’ perspectives of such play and considers the implications for policy and practice.

Adventurous play Being adventurous is about being curious, wanting to try new things, and exploring the unknown. It involves being bold, having a go, taking risks and learning from mistakes. It includes a willingness to push boundaries, test limits and tolerate uncertainty. Adventurous play can thrive outdoors where the potential space, freedom and variety of terrain invite curiosity and exploration and offer unique challenges for play and exploration. A distinctive feature of play outdoors is children’s propensity to seek situations they perceive to be risky or ‘scary’ where risk is the central feature of the play. Such play often involves: • • • •

height, motion and speed; inverting usual body posture, for example tipping, spinning, rolling and hanging upside down; joy in precariousness and unpredictability; deliberately seeking out situations of uncertainty where the outcome is unknown.

The simultaneous experience of risk and challenge, fear and exhilaration, feelings of being ‘on the edge’ of danger, characterise such play. We can see this in babies’ delight in being thrown up in the air, bounced vigorously or tipped backwards by a trusted adult, in young children’s joy in balancing along a wobbly bridge, rolling down a grassy slope or swinging on the end of a rope. Stephenson (2003), researching outdoor play in New Zealand kindergartens, observed children’s deliberate attempts to search out ‘scary’ situations. She concluded that the significant elements which made an experience seem ‘scary’ to a 4-year-old were attempting something never done before, feeling on the borderlines of ‘out of control’ often because of height or speed and overcoming fear (Stephenson 2003). Sandseter (2007) identified similar features in her research on play in nature kindergartens in Norway and included play with great heights and play with speed in her attempts to categorise what she termed ‘risky play’. Both noted that children typically increase the challenge or level of risk as they repeat their play, suggesting that it is not just the feelings of joy that motivate children but the desire to experience the borderlines of fear and exhilaration. Such play has similarities to notions of ‘deep play’ (Hughes 2003) and ‘edgework’ (Lyng 2005). It also links with what Kalliala (2006, drawing on Caillois 2001) refers to as ‘dizzy play’, that is play which often has a freewheeling, spinning, exhilarating quality. Such 169

Helen Tovey

play is characterised by ‘an attempt to momentarily destroy the stability of perception and inflict a kind of voluptuous panic on an otherwise lucid mind’ (Caillois 2001: 23). The phrase ‘voluptuous panic’ captures the simultaneous feelings of joy and fear that such play can engender. Greenland argues that such dynamic play, what she refers to as ‘full-bodied, wholehearted movement play’ (Greenland 2009: 1), is central for children’s neurological development and vital for later learning. In a twelve-year research project on developmental movement play she noted that given a choice, ‘spin-tip-roll-fall’ play followed by ‘push-pull-stretch-hang-buffet about’ play were the most frequent activities children engaged in and the ones which involved them the most. Such movements, she argued, are central to aspects of well-being such as vitality, self-assurance and confidence. They also stimulate children’s vestibular and proprioceptive senses, that is, their sense of balance and awareness of their own body in space which are vital for later learning. Adventurousness and daring can also be seen in imagined play scenarios where children enjoy deliberately scaring themselves by confronting an imagined ‘big bad wolf ’, ‘scary monster’ or evil character. Such play often includes chasing, escaping, capturing, and rescuing. Corsaro (2003), in his ethnographic study of children’s peer culture noted that scenarios involving fear and danger such as tidal waves, fires, earthquakes and poison are frequent themes in children’s play. He argued that through such play children are trying to gain control over their lives and share that sense of control with each other. Bravado, daring, and power can also underpin much superhero play in which children venture into new, imagined worlds where they can safely explore universal themes of capture and rescue, being lost and found, courage and fear, power and powerlessness, life and death. Robson in Trudell (2010: 209) made a powerful case for this wilder, darker play which she argued grapples with universal themes which underpin the stories, myths, legends and folk tales across the globe. Yet such themes can be perceived as disruptive or dangerous to some practitioners who show reluctance to allow any play involving pretend violence (Holland 2003). Such dramatic play outdoors may also include active physical play, where children engage in running, fleeing, chasing, mock fighting, rolling, grappling, and tumbling. Central to this play is the ability to signal ‘this is play and is not for real’ (Bateson 1956). Such play signals include exaggerated gestures, laughing and grinning which are very different from the gestures and expressions used in real fighting such as frowning, grimacing and glaring. Clearly the play is high risk. Players need to exercise considerable self-restraint to control their physical movements to ensure that the playful punch does not have the force of the real punch and that the feigned aggression or fear is not perceived as real aggression or fear. The players have to communicate a complex message that although the pretend actions stand for threat, aggression and hostility in reality, in play they stand for the complete opposite, that is for friendship and enjoyment. The risk of players misinterpreting the signals is high although research (e.g. Jarvis and George, 2010) suggests that, in practice, this rarely happens and children develop finely tuned social and communication skills to encode and decode the signals. Jarvis noted that many adults found difficulty in tuning in to these subtle signals and tended to 170

Playing on the edge

perceive rough and tumble play as aggressive and dangerous. Their interventions were poorly matched to children’s intentions and often served to disrupt or curtail the play.

What is the value of risk-taking in play? Risk is part of being fully alive. Life is full of varied risks and we have to learn how to recognise and manage them. Babies would never learn to crawl, to negotiate steps, to stand up, and children would not learn to run, climb or ride a bike without being prepared to risk, tumble and learn from the consequences. This willingness to take risks is an important learning disposition. Dweck’s (2000) emphasis on what she terms a ‘mastery’ approach to learning – a disposition to have a go, try something out and relish challenge, in contrast to a ‘helpless’ approach characterised by fearfulness and fear of failure is useful.There is a danger that when we repeatedly say to children ‘Mind out’;‘Be careful’;‘Don’t do that!’;‘Come down, you’ll fall’, we can inadvertently develop this ‘helpless’ attitude to learning by projecting our own anxiety.We communicate a view of children as vulnerable rather than potentially competent. Risk-taking allows children to push their own boundaries to the limit of their capabilities. It requires some assessment of the degree of challenge involved in the risk as against one’s own confidence and capability. Such self-assessments are vital for children’s developing understanding of safety as well as their developing self-regulation in play. Adventurous play also appears to be positively associated with emotional well-being and resilience. For example, Kloep and Hendry (2007) argue that mistakes, providing the consequences are not too severe, can offer protection against the negative effects of future failure. Managing fear and uncertainty and holding your nerve are important aspects of emotional well-being and resilience and it appears that risky play has an important role in reducing anxiety about ‘scary’ situations (Sandseter 2009) and can help children to cope physically and emotionally with unexpected events. SuttonSmith (2001) argues that in play a strong emotion such as fear is evoked without being fully experienced. Such an emotion is then met with a secondary emotion such as daring, or resilience, allowing children to gain a sense of mastery over the primary emotion. ‘The player is able to be in control of being out of control and so enjoy a sense of both risk and mastery simultaneously’ (Gordon and Esbjörn- Hargens 2007: 216). The positive emotions of exuberance, confidence, vitality, flexibility, self-esteem and ‘being in touch with yourself ’ are amongst the key indicators of children’s overall well-being (Laevers, cited in Greenland 2009). As in other aspects of play, risk-taking allows children to vary the familiar, to try out new ideas or ways of doing things, and to be innovative in their thinking, for example by finding different ways of coming down a slide. As Bruner (1976) has argued, such play can contribute to greater flexibility in thinking and doing as new combinations of behaviour can be tried. Such flexibility can be an important element in innovative and creative thinking (Claxton 1999; Sutton-Smith 2001). Adventurous play outdoors can offer rich opportunities for children to combine materials and ideas in original ways and to pursue seemingly irrational ideas such as rolling down a slope inside a barrel or transforming an unsteady plank into a galloping horse. 171

Helen Tovey

Being adventurous and taking risks are recognised as important characteristics of effective learners. In England, the Early Years Foundation Stage non-statutory guidance, Development Matters, states that an effective learner is willing to ‘have a go’ through initiating activities, seeking challenges, showing a ‘can-do’ attitude, taking a risk, engaging in new experiences, and learning by trial and error (Early Education, 2012). Tishman et al. (1993) identified the ‘disposition to be broad and adventurous’ and the ‘disposition toward wondering, problem-finding and investigating’ as the first two of seven dispositions that are characteristic of a good thinker. Indeed risk underpins many of the metaphors we use to refer to creative, imaginative and hypothetical thinking.We ‘hazard’ a guess,‘dare’ to be different,‘venture in the mind’, generate ‘bold’ ideas and take ‘imaginative leaps’ in our thinking. The oft-quoted cliché ‘thinking outside the box’ implies going outside the defined, enclosed parameters of the known to generate new ways of seeing and thinking. An in-depth study of play in an early years unit (Broadhead and Burt 2012) found that the outdoor area was a rich context for exciting open-ended play with found and recycled materials. There was evidence of persistence and involvement as children engaged in problem-setting and problem-solving and in imaginative transformations. The play was sustained over time, developing in complexity. Interestingly the authors noted that despite the potentially ‘risky’ nature of the play where children would often deliberately seek to increase the level of challenge, for example, by adding obstacles to a bridge made from planks and crates or increasing the gradient of a sliding slope, there was no change in the number of accidents as compared with previous contexts where more traditional outdoor play equipment was in use. Indeed the researchers noted the degree of self-regulation and calculated risk-taking as children considered their own levels of confidence and competence before attempting something they considered to be risky. Further research, for example Robson and Rowe (2012) identified outdoor play and socio-dramatic play as particularly effective contexts for young children’s creative thinking. Child-initiated activities, often in pairs or small groups, featured the highest levels of children’s involvement and persistence and were associated with trying out and analysing ideas, flexibility and originality, imagination and hypothesising. It seems that such play outdoors, which is dynamic, engaging, adventurous, where materials can be combined or transformed in original ways, where problems are found and solved, provides rich opportunity for the development of creative thinking, self-regulation and metacognition, all crucial in the development of higher-order thinking. Despite this evidence on the value of risky adventurous play, research by Maynard and Waters (2007) found that teachers’ concerns about safety were a limiting factor in their provision of challenging outdoor experiences. Others have highlighted the risk aversion which has inhibited provision for play outdoors (Gill 2012). So how do early years practitioners perceive risk and adventure in outdoor play? How do these perceptions shape provision and practice?

Practitioners’ perceptions of risk in play The research focused on perception of risk and play outdoors in four early years settings in two south London boroughs, a reception class, a nursery school, a children’s 172

Playing on the edge

centre and a private nursery. One-to-one semi-structured interviews were carried out with twenty early years practitioners. The research used photo-elicitation interviews to gain practitioners’ perspectives. This involved the use of eight A4-sized colour photographs of children involved in challenging play outdoors as prompts for discussion.They included images of children balancing along a narrow beam, moving head first down a slide, hanging upside down from a climbing bar, playing on a moveable ladder propped against a wall, riding wheeled toys at speed down a slope, climbing a tree, constructing with open-ended recycled materials and so on. Practitioners were also invited to bring their own photographic examples of adventurous, challenging play outdoors. The established technique of photo-elicitation is useful in establishing rapport, sharing experiences and probing meanings associated with the photographs and the experiences (Loeffler 2004). An image can capture and communicate a situation more powerfully than words alone and can therefore elicit a response, stimulate imagination and recall and act as a provocation for discussion. It can also allow a more equal partnership in that participants in the research can bring their own images to contribute to the discussion.

Key research findings Some contrasting perspectives emerged from the data. Rather than a shared approach to adventurous play there was evidence of risk aversion and anxiety, a lack of autonomy in decision making but also of positive approaches to risk in play, where adventurous play was valued and celebrated.

Risk aversion and anxiety The majority of practitioners showed a reluctance to allow adventurous or risky play and anxiety about possible adverse outcomes. Aspects of play that were considered too risky included climbing high, hanging upside down on bars, jumping off equipment, speeding on wheeled toys and using apparatus in an unconventional way. Most of these involve height, speed or motion and are precisely those aspects of play outdoors that were most valued by children in research by Stephenson (2003) and Sandseter (2007) discussed earlier in the chapter. Additional photographs contributed by practitioners showed features such as a wall that children liked to balance along, the roof of a wooden hut children liked to climb on and an area of long grass they wanted to play in. All of these were considered as potentially dangerous places for play and therefore not permitted. A frequent response to the photographic images was the phrase ‘that wouldn’t be allowed’. For example a photograph of a girl sliding head first down a slide prompted the following response: That wouldn’t be allowed . . . our children have to sit on the slide to go down . . . I think it’s a shame because it’s not very exciting for them.   Why wouldn’t it be allowed?   It’s just always been like that – I suppose someone might hurt their hands. 173

Helen Tovey

Photographs prompted considerable ‘what if ’ speculation, revealing a tendency to focus on what might go wrong. For example one practitioner looked at an image of children engaged in construction play with crates and gutters and said ‘I admit it looks exciting but what if the crates fell down? I can see an accident waiting to happen.’ Similarly another looked at an image of a child hanging upside down from a bar and said ‘Oooh is there safety surface underneath? What if she lost her grip?’ Rather than discuss issues or weigh up possible risks a small number of practitioners, in this case a manager, preferred to err on the side of safety: ‘Children must be safe . . . I tell my staff – “if in doubt – don’t’’. I know it’s sad and the children miss out but we can’t take any risks with children’s safety.’ Significantly staff in the same setting interpreted children’s challenging play as challenging behaviour and reported that the more restrictions they imposed the more attractive the play became to children: ‘We ended up in conflict with a particular group of boys who wanted to climb on the roof of the wooden hut.’ Similarly practitioners reported that media-related dramatic play or play that could be construed as aggressive or dangerous was not allowed, yet continued to be attractive to certain children. A pervasive sense of anxiety emerged from the interviews and many practitioners described how they felt permanently on high alert outside and anxious about what might happen. Some practitioners tried to make provision for more challenging play but lack of support from other team members or from those in higher authority caused them to feel vulnerable and potentially liable for blame in the event of an accident: ‘We kept the milk crates though they’re banned in other nurseries . . . but I’m always thinking what if . . . what would happen if a child hurt themselves and I would get the blame.’

Autonomy in risk-related decision-making Although most practitioners were reluctant to allow physical risk-taking in the outdoor area, it would be wrong to suggest that they were necessarily risk averse. For some there was a tension between what they believed to be right for children and what they were told to do by a higher authority. A sense of powerlessness emerged with some practitioners following decisions made by others even though they believed them to be wrong as these examples illustrate: We were told . . . to get rid of the slide ’cos it was too high. Now we have a small plastic one which the children hardly use. It’s so boring but who am I to argue? We didn’t have a choice.   The head told us to stand by the climbing frame all day but I don’t agree with it because there’s just as likely to be an accident on the brick wall [of the sand pit] but I have to do it and I do get scared that someone will have an accident and the parents will sue. [Emphasis added] Other practitioners were more willing to ignore or subvert such restrictions in order to provide more challenging play opportunities: 174

Playing on the edge

We really encourage children to be confident and take risks and touch wood we haven’t had any accidents but I have a very supportive head. She tells us to hide the milk crates and take away the high planks when the inspectors come. Despite their anxiety about risk the majority of the practitioners responded in the affirmative to a question asking if children can be ‘too safe’. They recognised the dangers of over-protecting children and frequently made reference to their own childhood experiences, expressing regret that these opportunities were diminishing: It’s not about mollycoddling them. They need some freedom to play and do things for themselves. They learn from mistakes . . .We’re wrapping them up in cotton wool these days and it’s sad but the world’s a different place now. Nevertheless eight of the twenty practitioners, nearly half of the participants in the study, considered that children could ‘never be too safe’ and that safety was the main consideration outside: ‘You can never be too careful.’ Safety was viewed as an absence – for example ‘removing risk’, ‘no accidents’, ‘nothing dangerous’, ‘safe from harm’ – rather than seen as a positive feature of an enabling environment.

Risk as an enabling feature of children’s play Alongside this evidence of anxiety about children’s adventurous play, one group of practitioners revealed a very different approach. Risk-taking in play was not something to be avoided and eliminated but was instead something to be developed and celebrated. Photographs prompted such comments as: ‘that’s great’, ‘exciting’, ‘wow, confident child!’ and images of children dropping down a fire-fighter pole and balancing along an unsteady rope bridge were provided as examples of challenging play. Links were made between physical risk-taking and other areas of children’s learning: That looks great! We have those ladders and it’s a bit wobbly and scary but they [the children] love it . . . and sometimes they push back with their feet just to enjoy that scary moment when it’s nearly tipping over. It’s all learning isn’t it.   What sort of learning?   Well, about balance and stability.They learn the same things when they go on the rope bridge and when they play with blocks and the blocks begin to wobble, when it’s unstable, so they’re making a link between what their bodies do and what the blocks do. These practitioners reported that outdoor play involved adventure, challenge, confidence. Safety was viewed not as an absence of risk or harm but as helping children achieve their intentions and learn safe ways of doing things. Issues of risk and safety were negotiated with children. For example, in one setting children’s desire to run with 175

Helen Tovey

sticks had been a difficult issue but ‘we showed children how to carry sticks safely and insisted that very long sticks were carried by two children’. Open-ended resources such as planks, crates, gutters and tubes were perceived as a rich source of challenge outdoors. Children spend hours constructing with the crates and planks. Because it’s risky and exciting they stick at it and want to keep going. Yesterday they created a huge obstacle course across the playground. It was amazing – they had to work together and to keep testing their ideas to make sure it was stable enough. They were deciding what was safe – not us – but it still included some scary parts – like jumping from a plank into a tyre. Instead of viewing parents as potential critics or sources of blame, practitioners in this setting saw parents as partners in the controversial debates on risk and safety. Practitioners shared their professional understanding with parents and listened to their concerns. Rather than promising a safe environment at all times they chose to tell parents that absolute safety could not be guaranteed: We have a big poster with photos in the entrance hall which says ‘Risky play is encouraged here’. We want children to be daring . . . We tell parents we can’t guarantee accidents won’t happen . . . but we explain all the things we do to promote safety. A supportive team, knowledge about children’s play, an ability to tune in to children’s intentions in play, a willingness to discuss difficult issues with parents and an environment which offered sufficient space and time and opportunity for adventurous play were identified as significant aspects in their approach to adventurous play outdoors.

Discussion A number of issues emerge from this research. All practitioners acknowledged the widespread desire of young children to seek out potentially risky, challenging play outdoors confirming the findings of research such as that of Stephenson (2003) and Sandseter (2007). However their reported responses to such play revealed very different perceptions on risk, with some seeing it as of potential value and others seeing it as of potential danger. Risk control measures that were designed to reduce uncertainty and anxiety appeared to have the paradoxical effect of increasing anxiety, perhaps because of the intensity of the focus on potential danger outdoors. It also appeared that restricting risk-taking actually increased some children’s attempts to take risks resulting in potential conflict with practitioners. Pellegrini and Smith’s (1998) reference to the ‘rebound effect’ following deprivation of physically active play could be relevant here. In the setting where practitioners reported fewer overt risk control measures and more opportunities for risk and challenge adults reported comparatively little anxiety while still emphasising their responsibility for children’s safety. 176

Playing on the edge

There has to be some concern for those practitioners who reported spending a considerable part of their working lives in a state of anxiety for their own personal and professional reputation, and fear that any accident could be viewed by others as a result of their own lack of care or judgement. Such anxiety can impede positive learning relationships outdoors. It can also lead to adults assuming predominately supervisory, monitorial roles outdoors, roles that were so strongly criticised by researchers such as Hutt et al. (1990) and more recently Bilton (2012: 21) who found that ‘stopping children doing something’ was a frequent adult intervention in outdoor play. However, given the evidence on the value of risk-taking in children’s play outside discussed earlier, the impact of such a culture of risk aversion on young children’s learning and their developing dispositions to be confident risk takers is of considerable concern. Clearly dispositions are not all positive. Children can learn to be fearful, to avoid risk and challenge and stick to the rules or they can learn to be reckless and seek some thrill and excitement from transgressing adult rules (Waters and Begley 2007; Kloep and Hendry 2007). Some practitioners in this research seemed to have little autonomy to make professional judgements for themselves and were constrained as much by the risk aversion of others as by their own views. In contrast, where there was a shared philosophy on the value of risk-taking and adventurous play and a supportive team that had debated approaches to children’s risk-taking, practitioners appeared more confident to support children in taking risks and to see risk not as a threat or danger but as a positive feature of children’s play and learning. Helping children to assess and manage risk for themselves, for example by guiding children in safe ways of carrying long sticks, was seen as important for children’s developing understanding of safety as well as their developing autonomy and self-regulation in play. The research also highlights the very different perspectives on children’s play. Those practitioners who supported risky play did so because they saw the value in such play and could identify the potential learning within it. As Sandseter (2007) noted when practitioners regard risky play as positive and necessary they are willing to support children’s reasonable risk-taking even when this exceeds their own tolerance.

Implications for policy and practice It appears from the research findings that there is an urgent need for the issues of risk-taking, adventure and play to be debated within early years teams. Without a shared understanding of the value of adventurous play outdoors and without a shared sense of trust within the team, staff can be left feeling anxious, vulnerable and unsupported. Engaging parents in such a debate is essential if shared understandings are to be achieved and parents are to be seen as partners rather than critics or potential litigators. Curriculum and inspection frameworks which promote a positive and balanced approach to adventurous play can support practitioners in feeling confident to provide such experiences. The Scottish Care Commission (SCC) in Scotland, UK, has issued a powerful position statement on risk in play which could be usefully considered by other legislative bodies. 177

Helen Tovey

We support early years providers ‘taking a positive approach to risk . . . moving away from a traditional deficit model that takes a risk-averse approach, which can unnecessarily restrict children’s experiences . . . to a more holistic risk-benefit model’. SCC (2016: 2) The UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE), often the focus of mistaken blame for overzealous regulation of children’s play, makes it very clear that children need to take risks in play. It states for example that ‘children will often be exposed to play environments which while well managed, carry a degree of risk and sometimes potential danger’.‘The HSE want to make sure that mistaken health and safety concerns do not create sterile play environments that lack challenge and so prevent children from expanding their learning and stretching their abilities’. Its key message is unequivocal ‘no child will learn about risk if they are wrapped in cotton wool’ (HSE 2012: 1). The HSE recommends that play providers replace the traditional risk assessments with assessments that weigh up the risk and the benefit of a particular experience. Practitioners are therefore required to keep in mind two goals, that of protecting children from serious avoidable harm as well as providing them with stimulating adventurous play opportunities. Such a balanced approach can be found in the document Managing Risk in Play Provision (Ball, Gill and Spiegal 2013), which provides a useful framework for early years settings. If we want a generation of confident children willing to embrace risk and challenge, then it is important to develop confident adults who have a deep understanding of the issues surrounding risk-taking in play and who feel well supported by their management and inspection teams. Second, a characteristic of adventurous play is that players often deliberately seek out experiences where they feel ‘on the edge’ between safe and unsafe, whether in real or imagined contexts. Practitioners need to engage with this aspect of play outdoors and tune in to children’s own play themes, recognising that such play can be rumbustious at times but when supported can be sustained, collaborative and complex.This requires knowledge of young children’s play and an approach which recognises children as adventure seekers and risk takers. It means looking critically at the environments we provide to ensure that children have sufficient time, space and opportunity to engage in experiences that they find challenging but which do not expose them to unexpected, preventable harm. This would include communicating a positive attitude to challenge so that it is something to be relished rather than feared. Adults can also model a flexible innovative approach to play contexts – ‘that’s a good idea, let’s try it’ – rather than the more rigid and cautious ‘we can’t, we’re not allowed, it’s not safe’. As some practitioners in this research suggested we must see the potential learning in play, not just the potential danger. Lastly, a recognition of the significant role of the adult in adventurous play is crucial. As in many areas of learning, children need the support of experienced others who can help them recognise and assess risk for themselves, who can teach safe ways of doing things where appropriate but who also encourage a ‘can do’ attitude and a positive disposition to adventurous play. Helping children to assess risk for themselves, 178

Playing on the edge

for example, by showing them safe ways of carrying sticks as was reported in this study, can help develop understanding of safe ways of doing things and ensure that other children’s safety is not put at risk. Freedom with guidance was advocated by both Froebel and Isaacs (Tovey 2016). Instead of promoting a ‘safe’ environment we should focus on creating an environment that is ‘safe enough’ for children to act on, transform, seek out challenges and take risks. This is not a recipe for complacency; rather it is a plea for a balanced approach where the benefits of particular experiences are weighed against the possible risks. For example the experience of sliding head first down the slide provides experience of speed, friction, head first and even head first backwards. Rather than expending effort trying to stop children from sliding head first we should support them in finding ways to do it safely.

Conclusion This chapter has explored some aspects of children’s adventurous play outdoors, play that is often physical, fast moving, risky and unpredictable which as this small-scale research study has found, adults can sometimes find unsettling, disturbing or unsafe. It has argued that such play offers essential learning experiences for growing bodies and minds. This is not to suggest that all play outdoors should be risky and challenging. Children feel confident to be adventurous from a sense of security. The familiar, the everyday routine and the calm, quiet spaces are important anchor points. However, if we deny children chances to be bold and adventurous we risk creating a generation of children who may be reckless in their pursuit of thrills and excitement or risk averse, lacking the essential resilience to take and manage risks for themselves, but also lacking the disposition to be bold and adventurous thinkers and learners.

References Athey, C. (2007) Extending Thought in Young Children. London: Paul Chapman. Ball, D., Gill, T. and Spiegal, B. (2013) Managing Risk in Play Provision: implementation guide. London: Department for Children, Schools and Families. Bateson (1956) The message ‘this is play’. In B. Schaffner (ed.), Group Processes. New York: Josiah Macy. Bilton, H. (2012) The type and frequency of interactions that occur between staff and children outside in Early Years Foundation Stage settings. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 20(3): 403–421. Broadhead, P. and Burt, A. (2012) Understanding Young Children’s Learning through Play. London: Routledge. Bruner, J. (1976) Nature and Uses of Immaturity, in J. Bruner, A. Jolly and K. Sylva (Eds), Play its Role in Development and Evolution. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Caillois, R. (2001) Man, Play and Games, trans. M. Barash. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Claxton, G. (1999) Wise up: the challenge of life long learning. London: Bloomsbury Publishing plc. Corsaro,W. (2003) We’re Friends Right? Inside Kid’s Culture.Washington DC: Joseph Henry Press. Dweck, C. (2000) Self Theories: Their role in motivation, personality and development. Hove: Psychology Press. Early Education (2012) Development Matters in the Early Years Foundation Stage. London: Early Education.

179

Helen Tovey Gill,T. (2012) No Fear: growing up in a risk-averse society. London: Calouse Gulbenkian Foundation. Gordon, G. and Esbjörn-Hargens, S. (2007). Are We Having Fun Yet? An Exploration of the Transformative Power of Play. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 35(1): 198–222. Greenland, P. (2009) Developmental Movement Play: Final Report and Recommendations. Leeds: Jabadao. Health and Safety Executive (2012) Children’s Play and Leisure Promoting a Balanced Approach. Available online at: www.hse.gov.uk/entertainment/childs-play-statement.htm (accessed January 2017). Holland, P. (2003) We Don’t play with Guns Here:War,Weapon and Superhero play in the early years. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Hughes, B. (2003) A Playworker’s taxonomy of play types. London: Playlink. Hutt, S. et al. (1990) Play Exploration and Learning: A Natural History of the Pre School. London: Routledge. Isaacs, S. Lecture to National Safety Congress (1938) in National Froebel Foundation Bulletin (1960), no. 125. London: National Froebel Foundation. Jarvis, P. and George, J. (2010) Thinking it Through: Rough and Tumble Play. In J. Moyles (ed.), Thinking about Play: Developing a Reflective Approach. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Kalliala, M. (2006) Play Culture in a Changing World. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Kloep, M. and Hendry, L. (2007) ‘Over-protection, over-protection, over-protection!’ Young people in modern Britain. Psychology of Education Review, 31(2): 4–8. Lilley, I. (1967) Friedrich Froebel. A selection from his writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Loeffler, T. (2004) A photo elicitation study of the meanings of outdoor adventure experiences. Journal of Leisure Research, 36(4): 536–556. Lyng, S. (2005) Edgework: The Sociology of Risk Taking. Abingdon: Routledge. Maynard, T. and Waters, J. (2014) Exploring Outdoor Play in the Early Years. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Pellegrini, A. and Smith, P. (1998) Physical Activity Play:The Nature and Function of a Neglected Aspect of Play. Child Development, 69(3), 577–598. Robson, S. and Rowe, V. (2012) Observing young children’s creative thinking, engagement, involvement and persistence. International Journal of Early Years Education. 20(4): 349–364. Sandseter, E. (2007) Categorising Risky Play. How can we identify risk taking in children’s play? European Early Childhood Education Research, 15(2): 237–252. Sandseter, E. (2009) Children’s expressions of exhilaration and fear in risky play. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 10(2): 92–106. Scottish Care Commission (2016) Position Statement on play, http://hub.careinspectorate. com/media/272671/children-young-people-bulletin-wk-ending-29-january-2016.pdf (accessed 2 March 2016). Stephenson, A. (2003) Physical risk taking: dangerous or endangered? Early Years, 23(1): 35–43. Sutton-Smith, B. (2001) The Ambiguity of Play. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Tishman, S., Jay, E. and Perkins, D. (1993) Teaching thinking dispositions: From transmission to enculturation. Theory into Practice, 32(3): 147–153. Tovey, H. (2007) Playing Outdoors, Spaces and Places, Risk and Challenge. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Tovey, H. (2016) Bringing the Froebel Approach to your Early Years Practice, 2nd edn. London: Routledge. Trudell, P. (2010) A Place for Play. In J. Moyles (ed.), Thinking about Play: Developing a Reflective Approach. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Waters, J. and Begley, S. (2007) Supporting the development of risk-taking behaviours in the early years: an exploratory study. Education 3-13, 35(4), 365–337.

180

PART IV

Observing and intervening in play

This section combines two interrelated research methods of play research. Intervening in play cannot be successfully focused without careful observations.The first two chapters are directed to ‘natural’ play forms and the gradual enculturation of human play (companionship play).A fundamental question is how natural play forms are transformed to cultural ones and what happens to natural forms. The three next chapters study play interaction and toys and narratives as tools of adult interventions. Interventions aim at enhancing developmental potential of imaginary make-believe play.

14 Chimp and child Are there similarities in their play? John Matthews

Introduction Robert and Rara Robert (1 year 7 months 14 days), holding a large pine cone, guides it through space with its pointed end pointing directly away from him. He detects and uses its longer axis which can be imagined running lengthways through the centre of the pine cone. With the splayed scales of its rounded ‘rear’ end in his hand and the other end pointing forward, this missile-shaped object penetrates the space ahead into which he follows. As he moves with his ‘toy’, he makes soft, babbled vocalizations which seem associated with the movements he makes the pine cone perform. Rara (2 years 1 month 19 days) holds in her left hand a baton-shaped bundle of leafy stems, raised high above her head, flying it through graceful curves in the air, one end leading a flightpath following its longer axis.The index-finger of the hand grasping the bundle is left free and pointing forward into the direction of travel. Rara is silent as she physically follows and visually tracks the ascending and descending flight of her improvised toy. The two observations are similar in form and content. Both infants find an object they can pick up easily. Whilst they themselves move through space, they move their hand-held objects along with them, held closely before their watching eyes.The main difference between the two observations is that Robert is a young, human primate, in a London early years centre and Rara, a young, non-human primate, a captive chimpanzee in a zoo. Robert plays with a pine cone provided by educators, along with other objects and toys. Rara’s ‘toy’ is one of a stack of similar, tied-up bundles provided by the keepers for the chimps to eat. Human and chimpanzee play are uncannily similar in many important ways. Because both primates come from the same evolutionary ancestor, a study of chimpanzee play gives us valuable insights into the nature of the human child’s play. 183

John Matthews

I studied children’s development for about four decades in London and the Far East. Additionally, I made a three-year study of chimpanzees’ play at Singapore Zoo. I will draw upon both these studies to help illuminate the principles which underlie the play and emergent symbolism of the very young human primate. We are concerned only with self-generated, spontaneous play. Although the toy may come in many forms, for these particular infants it is probably the long axis running through both objects that is the strongest influence in their selection. It is not simply the object’s length which makes it attractive but rather the relationship between length and width, proportions destined to be true of other favoured objects of childhood. This ratio allows both objects to be handled easily and also encourages a smooth, forward-moving, linear path through space.

Front and back Of great significance is that, when both infants thrust their objects through space they respect a front or working end (to adopt pertinent ropeworkers’ terminology, Budsworth 2004) of the object, pointing this end forward. Additionally, with the hand holding her bundle, Rara ‘points’ her index finger before it, leading its direction of travel. The front end of an animal is usually its face, upon which the portals of the senses are situated. It was a huge step in evolution when primeval creatures formed a leading, front end and at last had somewhere to go. Both infants represent a state of affairs that has a prehistory going back millions of years. The selection and use of a stick as a probe with working end taking the lead whilst the other acts as handle had profound consequences for prehumans.The tool, in all its manifestations, originates in the way in which these two infants detect and use what they understand and use as a rather special end – or, better, beginning – of the object. Yet, though tool use is deeply implicated here and whilst at around this time both infants are learning to use simple tools, in these two observations, no tool use occurs. The actions the infants perform with the objects serve no utilitarian purpose, rather, they are ludic or in the state of play. Each player holds his or her object easily, though the sheaf of stems that Rara moves so effortlessly would be too heavy for Robert – a fact that alerts us to one of the differences between the two species.

Togetherness As Robert handles and looks at the pine cone, he makes soft, tuneful, babbling vocalization. There is a synchrony between his almost musical speech and the actions he performs with the pine cone. His speech and movement go together. When he was a newborn, the speech of his mother stimulated him to move all his limbs as well as his facial features and fingers in a process called synergy (Condon 1975), when motive and sensory systems of both caregiver and infant empathically echo each other (Trevarthen 2003 and this volume). Now, playing solo, an object stands for the ‘other’ and, in a mutually reciprocal relationship, narrative and movement stimulate each other continuously. Is he making a commentary on what he is doing? 184

Chimp and child

Or is he telling a story about what is happening? Or is this a dialogue between him and the object as person? Does he take on the voices of two characters, in effect, turning himself into a fictional person too (Vygotsky 1966)?

Language as play: human and chimpanzee vocalization One inescapable difference in Rara’s play is that, unlike her human counterpart, I don’t hear her make any vocalization when she moves her bundle of sticks through space. A chimpanzee’s vocal system is different from a human’s and although they make a range of cries they cannot produce speech sounds like ours. However, until recently, scientists concentrated on chimpanzee communication and focused their attention on the pant-hoot cry, an instinctual response to the finding of food or sex, or the expression of fear or anger. In contrast, recent research suggests that chimpanzees do sometimes use their voices in ways not locked into instinctual needs or desires. For example, Hopkins, Taglialatela and Leavens (2007) report captive chimpanzees inventing new vocalizations, like grunts and ‘raspberries’, used as signals to attract humans. Such vocalization, though novel, is nevertheless still made in the service of communication but do chimpanzees use their voices in play, like human children? To answer this question, we have to consider the possibility that the source of speech may be soundless. We know that language need not be verbal. Alan and Beatrix Gardner (1966) and Roger Fouts (1997) ‘talked’ to chimpanzees in sign language. Recently, attention has turned to primate facial movements when they make lip-smacking and kissing actions which, unlike pant-hoots, are learned and under conscious control. The macaque monkey (Ghazanfar, Takahashi, Mathur, Fitch 2012) and the orang-utan (Lameira, Hardus, Bartlett, Shumaker, Wich and Menken 2015) perform facial actions at the same tempo as that made by the human facial skeletal and muscular system when forming speech. This may be the forerunner of language in prehumans. My chimpanzees accompany many forms of swinging, touching and teasing play, as well as rough and tumble play, with voiceless mouthing movements reminiscent of speech. Sometimes, they imitate my own mouthing movements when I speak to them. In some forms of play, the individual primate will seem to analogue the actions of another. In one instance I observe a young orang-utan shaking a chain rhythmically as if to emulate the prolonged, regular barking of a sea lion, out of sight but not earshot. Of interest is that, whilst the orang-utan makes these actions, he also makes a range of mouthing movements including the pursing of lips. I couldn’t get close enough to hear if my chimpanzees made any vocalizations whilst playing with objects but Birute Galdikas (2005) reports wild chimpanzees doing so. Of especial interest is that Desmond Morris notes that the painting chimpanzee Congo made novel vocalizations whilst making new types of brush strokes (Morris 1962, 2009). These findings are important, because, although in my observation Rara is silent, the new research suggests that some non-human primates (including chimpanzees), like human infants, are capable of associating vocalization with other actions of their bodies. In humans, this is part of the dawning of representational and symbolic thought. 185

John Matthews

Two kinds of representational play Chimpanzees’ rough and tumble play, mentioned above, is a kind of play I call whole body play (or wb play) because all the body is involved. I differentiate wb play from close up field of view and action play (or cu fov & a) which is when a hand-held object or toy, or sometimes just a finger is manipulated a few centimetres directly before the eyes. Rara’s and Robert’s play are of this latter mode, in which the infant is concerned with maintaining a field of view. They physically organise and control how they look at the object which they animate before their eyes.

The uses of looking In this kind of play, the child consciously takes over the involuntary act of looking. The infant purposefully adapts her vision to capture an optical sample.This is a specially designed vision, in this case involving an object held, animated and viewed close to the eyes. The rest of the body is of no concern to the child other than supporting the ephemeral theatre conjured before the eyes. Because she has already developed the muscular and skeletal strength to produce the actions, she no longer has to think about how to make them. Instead, she is free to rearrange them to form an original dynamic assembly (Thelin and Smith 1994). In the two observations with which we started, it happens that both modes of play, whole body and close up field of view and action, are coordinated together, with the former supporting the latter. Movement through space is partly prompted by the demands of the emergent play narrative whilst other parts are cued by the happenstances of the body’s locomotion through space as well as any accidental perturbations which arise. This means that, for these two infants, play is a constantly evolving interaction between the mind and what is available at any given moment within the environment. Chimpanzees (and orang-utans) have essentially four hands and I will refer to these as front-hands and foot-hands.They may use all four to manipulate and view an object which interests them, as well as to play with it in their cu fov & a. Human infants retain the vestiges of foot-hands for a little while. For example, it is one day before her first birthday that I see, for the last time, Amelie use her two feet to pick up a wooden block. However, though chimpanzees will use their foot-hands throughout their lives, like most of us humans it is the front-hands they favour when it comes to the close observation and animation of the object or toy. In this situation, the role of their foothands is a subsidiary, supportive one, assisting the maintenance of a view largely organised by the front-hands in conjunction with vision. That, for both primates, the front-hands can operate directly before the forward-facing eyes is of great significance, for this state of affairs allows the natural evolution of a visual praxis.

What play is Robert, like other humans, as well as other complex mammals including our close cousins the great apes and more distant relatives including the manta ray (Marshall 2009) has access to two interpenetrating modes of consciousness. 186

Chimp and child

We, all of us (including the animals listed above), are capable of two, quite different orientations to the world. On the one hand, in order to survive, we use adaptational actions to accommodate to the external environment. Included within this class of action are object-mastery and tool use. However, our learning could never even start were it not for another, very different orientation to actions and objects and to the movements we ourselves make. In play we gain access to an arena of activity which is released from adaptational constraints and in which the components of task-demands and object-mastery are set free from immediate concerns about survival and come to be regarded as a language in itself. By relinquishing the object (or movement) from its function and from the language that goes with it, and liberating the components of the actions involved in handling it (or in managing a movement) from their usual adaptational constraints, we temporarily uncouple ourselves from routinised procedures and rule-bound systems. Later on in childhood such novel interactions may be the basis of imaginary or hypothetical realities but initially they reveal and make use of the objective properties of the world more thoroughly than fixed procedures of adaptation can ever do. This is a startling paradox, for, in releasing the object from reality and giving it over to our wishes and desires in a subjective world, where its use is driven by emergent ideas rather than the object itself, we simultaneously come to know it objectively (Lorenz 1944–1948). Our non-play state demands effort for mastery in order to focus upon only those aspects of the object and our relationship with it which can be utilised in the interests of survival.The price we pay for this efficiency is that our adaptive actions are stripped of variability and become routinised. In contrast, because in play we are freed from pressure to adapt, novel interactions with objects and events are permitted which reveal to the player hitherto concealed characteristics and qualities (the hidden straightness of a pine cone, the streamlining of a bundle of sticks). Because actions are liberated from practical use, dynamic ensembles may be reassembled in new ways. The benefit for the animal struggling to survive is that in play the mind becomes, technically speaking, creative. Novel solutions to problems emerge, unavailable to the non-playing animal. But, more than mere survival, play allows us to enjoy a dialectical relationship with reality.

Play and representation We learn through a dynamic, physical and mental interaction with the threedimensional environment and with the people within it. Chimpanzees, in their arboreal lifestyle, famously extend this three-dimensionality but human actions too are three-dimensional – albeit along a generally horizontal plane. Like chimpanzees, from babyhood we investigate how to move through space in a 1G gravity field. The basis of both Rara’s and Robert’s play is the representation of self-locomotion through this gravitational field. All life seems very sensitive to gravity. Even plants know which way is up (Chen, Rosen and Masson 1999). At the time of writing, astronaut Tim Peake, floating weightless in space (where there is no ‘up’ or ‘down’), tests this – with the help 187

John Matthews

of some heavy, Earth children (Ghosh 2016). We don’t know what gravity is, yet it makes us what we are (Burford 1998). After being born, our main desire, aside from eating, is to move of our own volition. Self-locomotion develops from polymorphous, synergistic action to an essentially linear passage through space and time.The representation of locomotion is initially embedded in surprisingly complex ensembles of action, in themselves developed forms of sensorimotor play. These ludic actions are based upon the rhythm of self-movement.

Timing and rhythm Holding a bracelet and hurriedly creeping toward me on hands and knees, Henry (9 months 15 days), fits into his locomotion a kind of forward chuck of the bracelet, an action somewhere between dropping and throwing. His new, improved drop fits – or perhaps helps create – the urgency of his forward motion. As he creeps rapidly toward me, he drop-throws the bracelet before him and, as soon as he reaches it again, picks it up and drop-throws it forward once more, to hurry after it, throw it forward again and so on, without breaking his forward moving rhythm. The symmetry of the body and the regular intervals taken by arms and legs to move forward make a rhythmical locomotion syncopated by drop-throws of the bracelet, which tick out a steady and accurate timing of his progress, dividing it into measured phrases. Rara (3 years 7 months 14 days) has a piece of wet cloth in one of her front-hands. Issuing from the natural rhythm of her knuckle-walking (chimps can walk on all fours with the knuckles of front-hands turned downward against the ground), she makes a controlled series of pushes of the cloth along a smooth, wooden platform, stopping for a moment after each push, the cloth remaining pressed to the floor, before she moves on again, moving the cloth further on too, in one, brief push. With the wet cloth, she makes a discontinuous series of what we might think of as dashes (neither dots nor a single line) in water, on wood. The series of stops or stages of the cloth is based upon the natural, momentary pauses between each push as she moves forward.

Translation Such rhythmical events are examples of what I term translation, in which one action is fundamentally altered by combining it with another action. In each of the two observations just described, a locomotive routine transforms the character and potentialities of grasping and dropping, or grasping and pushing, respectively. These are quite complex translations but they start from simpler versions. For example, a monotonic cry is altered into a kind of ululation by the vibrations caused when the baby shakes her head at the same time. When the baby can walk or run, further translations of speech and song are made by the regular impact of the feet.

Locomotion represented My observations reveal a general process in which combinations of actions initially fused together unconsciously are gradually taken apart and consciously reassembled in 188

Chimp and child

a variety of ways. It shouldn’t surprise us then that the act of locomotion is often the first phenomenon to be represented in drawing. The observation of the ape with the wet cloth makes one think of children’s first drawings. Drawing, in itself, is one way of taking apart, putting back together and thinking about such dynamic assemblies. First of all, close up field of view and action play may pivot around an animated body part, hand, finger, fist or foot, for example, but soon a hand-held object is used. A little later still, it may be that the ludic action takes precedence and the object may be relinquished altogether. Certainly, the object doesn’t necessarily have to be a toy with a likeness to any moving animal: ‘Sho die. Faab. Pah wa. Zhub a dub dub de flar la’, sings Amelie (1 year 2 months 26 days), whilst handling an empty, cylindrical, transparent, plastic container within her cu fov & a and banging it repeatedly against the door, the wall, the radiator – all surfaces she can reach from a stationary, standing position. When Amelie bangs the container against a surface, her downward, hitting action is a vertical arc, one of a trio of basic actions of exploration made with arms and hands (Matthews 2003). The other two actions are the horizontal arc, a side-to-side, fanning action of the arms and hands and the push pull, a movement of the arm and hand to and from the self. These are also employed by the chimpanzee (Matthews 2011). The actions give the infant immediate information about the world. Additionally, they can be released from their exploratory and investigatory roles to become vehicles of expression. We can already see the interaction of the ludic and non-ludic in the above observation of Amelie with her plastic container. She associates her song with the movements and sounds she makes with it. By moving from one surface to the next, variations in the impact sounds of the plastic container subtly influence her subsequent intentions and the course of her play. Vygotsky calls the toy the pivotal object because (he says) it is the lever with which the child separates words from objects and meanings from actions (Vygotsky 1966). Of course, the object has first of all to be graspable and manoeuvrable in one hand. Additionally, it will acquire other, more mysterious qualities which make it attractive, some derived from olfactory and gustatory information. This is laid over visual, kinaesthetic and tactile information to form a palimpsest of meaning. Nearly any object can be used in play. An extreme example is when Rara the chimpanzee, aged 3 years 5 months 29 days, lugs a slab of concrete around but even Amelie’s plastic container only just qualifies as a toy because it is barely graspable.

Transformation This development happens within a social and interpersonal environment and the ‘good-enough’ carer (Bettelheim 1987; Winnicott 1971) responds to the suggestions surfacing from the infant’s play.

Continuous and discontinuous motion The children have heard a rhyme about ducks. ‘Is that a duck?’ asks educator Sabrina of Shayla (1 year 6 months 22 days) who has put a white sock onto her hand as if as a 189

John Matthews

mitten. Shayla touches her white, gloved finger against the linoleum floor in a series of little taps, as if making a small figure walk. I call this a tapwalk. Then she makes a very different action when she pushes her white mitten across the shiny linoleum, rather like Rara pushed her piece of cloth across the shiny platform. ‘What’s the duck doing, Shayla? Walking? Swimming?’ asks Sabrina. Notice how this observant teacher amends her first suggestion, that the duck is ‘walking’, because she realises that, rather than the series of discrete, individual steps of an instant ago, the child now causes the object to perform a smooth, continuous motion, more like ‘swimming’. This teacher wants the child to hear accurate language. The distinction between continuous, seamless movement along a linear course and a passage of movement broken into individual steps is helped along by the teacher’s last suggestion that the duck is swimming. This same distinction, between two basic types of locomotion, is understood and practised by the chimpanzee too. This next example, unlike Shayla’s, is in whole body or wb play.

Unbroken movement versus movement broken Kimoni (1 year 2 months 3 days old) is trying to make himself spin around in a circle whilst hanging by one arm and hand from a beam above, as he has seen his brothers and Rara do. He thrashes about, not knowing how to get the circular motion started, so his mother, Ganga, gives him a little push and helps him move into a smooth rotation. By doing this she adds the next step (so to speak) to his learning. When Sabrina suggests to Shayla that her sock-covered finger is a ‘duck’, she too gives her infant a ‘little push’ – a linguistic one. One week later, the pair of chimpanzees are again high up in their wooden construction. Ganga hangs her left hand down to her son below who takes it in his right. Using his mother’s hand as a supporting pivot, Kimoni rotates clockwise above the surface of the platform but instead of the smooth, continuous circle he learnt last week, he stamps out an orbit in a series of little steps of his foot-hands on the platform immediately below. In human infancy, the distinction between, first of all, the point and the moving point and then between continuous and discontinuous movement is soon represented in drawing, in terms of lines and dots. This is also true of chimpanzees who draw and paint – we have already seen Rara make a line of ‘dashes’.

Falling and dropping One of the first facts of life in a 1G gravitational field is that of falling. Falling is dangerous – and not only for those of us who live in trees. It is too dangerous even to practise. It has to be investigated by dropping things.There is a sense then, that dropping is already a representation – a representation of a fall.

Time Amelie (4 months 25 days), in L’s arms, momentarily holds a tablemat, drops it and sees it hit the floor. 190

Chimp and child

I sense that it is really only at this moment – when the object hits the floor with a loud crack – that she suddenly realises what happened just an instant before, when she let go of the object. She seems to mentally sort out the event but in reverse, by tracing backward from its conclusion to its inception. Are time and memory constructed back to front? First of all, the infant dwells in a timeless place, called by Margaret Donaldson the point mode (Donaldson 1993). What is gone and what is to come are perceived only gradually by virtue of the overall shape of an episode. Practice at recovering the shapes of events leads you to suspect the existence of time. The sense of time passing comes about because the infant tracks, backwards or forwards, rhythmic interludes implicit in the unfolding event. This provokes recollection and anticipation. She gradually enters what Donaldson terms the line mode when she begins to experience the passage of time and so develops a personal history. Perceiving the passage of time may be based upon the way, as neonates, we interpret the trajectory of an object momentarily passing behind a screen but reappearing to continue on its way (Spelke 1985). The mind takes over an understanding about the destiny of objects and applies it to the passage of time. Amelie (6 months) grasps with her right hand and with it catches up handfuls of mashed pear but immediately drops the food. It disappears from sight.Then she makes an up and down waving action of her right arm and hand – a modified vertical arc – toward the vicinity where the food fell, as if marking the spot in space and time where something vanished. Kimoni (4 months) sits with Ganga, his mother, on the sawn-off top of a tall tree. The baby chimpanzee lets fall from his left hand a leafy stem down the long drop to the ground. He watches its descent with interest, looking along the length of his dangling arm as if along the sight of a gun barrel, or along a pointer. The baby chimpanzee continues to look down toward where the little branch fell and, just like Amelie, makes a series of up and down waving actions or vertical arcs with his same left hand. It’s as if he celebrates or emulates the fall of the branch, or indicates (‘points’ to) its present location, or possibly all these things at once. He refers to the position in time and space at which something noteworthy happened and around which emergent ideas already congregate. There isn’t the space here to describe how, in humans, directed waving of the arm and hand develops to become pointing. Curiously, although my chimpanzees have ways of showing each other what they are looking at or interested in, and although they come close to performing a pointing action (in our first observation of Rara she indicates a direction of travel with her leading index finger) they do not unequivocally point out something to another – a fact that may be a clue to a difference between the minds of chimp and child. In humans, on the other hand, the development of pointing plays a crucial role in emergent language (Butterworth 2003).

Making something last Techniques of representation Because an experience is pleasurable, the infant finds ways to prolong it. Repetition is one of the techniques used to achieve this. Sucking milk is an early example. Along 191

John Matthews

with other simple seeming actions, including deceleration, curtailment and stillness, it will develop to form an emergent technique of representation. Movement is another experience babies enjoy.They get pleasure from learning how to produce it and they try to prolong it. Repeating it is one way to do this. Repetition tries to duplicate an experience: Amelie (1 month 25 days) makes strong, vertical arcing movements of her right arm which become like reaching movements, especially when she can hear her mother.

Movement The prolongation of an action gives it time to become an idea. When Amelie repeats a waving movement it becomes something different from what it was when it started. Making movement last longer in play allows time for the child to develop an understanding about what is going on and to enjoy her thoughts and feelings about it. Play becomes, as Vygotsky (1966) says, a new kind of desire. Moving along on the free flow of play (Bruce 1987 and present volume) is like riding a wave, allowing the infant to experience the pleasure of thinking and feeling set free: Manzu (7 years 7 months) has found a perfectly straight stick of hard wood, about 30 cms in length. He hammers it in vertical arcs against a rock several times. Sharp sounds ring out which, with repetition, become a regular series, rhythmical and potentially countable. Eventually, if the right materials come to hand, the technique of repetition is represented in drawing:

Marking the spot Nkosi the chimpanzee (7 years 2 months 3 days) holds a big stick of charcoal palmerfashion in his left hand and, using a vertical arc, strikes a wooden post with the stick, seven times, making seven black spots appear, one at a time, at chosen sites on the wood. Henry the human (11 months 1 day) stabs a coloured pencil down in vertical arcs upon paper, making three pink dots. In a surprisingly short time, the vertical arc becomes very accurate, with in-flight decisions made about the placing of dots.The repetitive becomes the reiterative which in turn becomes a pattern, an intriguing structure of lasting interest which, as development moves along, offers a bouquet of possibilities, mathematical, linguistic and aesthetic.

Stillness Stillness can also be prolonged: Amelie (1 year 2 months 22 days) sees a dog in the distance she wants to look at. She squats down to the ground to get a good and steady viewpoint. She consciously selects an optical sample from her own chosen viewing position (or station point), framing a visual composition whilst cutting out any distracting movement of her own. Amelie’s squatting action forms a ‘looking position’, explains H, her mother. 192

Chimp and child

Walking on water It is another blistering hot day in Singapore Zoo. Nkosi (6 years 5 months 18 days) starts to wade across a little pool by a little waterfall. The pool can be traversed in a second yet he doesn’t cross it immediately but delays for a moment, placing the solepalm of one foot-hand flat against the cool water, barely breaking its surface. It’s as if he is walking on water. It’s as if he stops time.

Deceleration The infant slows down time in order to closely observe the motion of an object within her own field of vision:

The sound of no hand clapping (1) Deirdre (11 months 28 days) stretches both arms symmetrically outward from each side of her body and brings her hands in slowly toward her midline to clap them but so slowly that when her palms meet no sound is made. She drastically changes a familiar action by altering just one of its dimensions – its speed.

The sound of no hand clapping (2) Standing facing me on a flat rock, Nkosi (5 years 3 months 17 days) makes a theatricallooking clapping but extremely slowed down, starting, like Deirdre, with arms outstretched laterally and then moving very slowly inward, symmetrically, to meet at the midline in front of his chest, where he makes a pretended and silent clap. In a manner almost identical to that of Deirdre, he practises the components of clapping but set free from their product – the clap. This is like the infrastructural investigation we use in learning language (Bickerton 1981).

Boo! Fright and laughter ‘Boo!’ Natalia the educator exclaims through a stretchy, fabric tunnel to Joaquin (1 year 2 days) hesitating at the other end, wondering whether to enter the tube. In a huge paradox, the teacher’s word ‘boo’ impossibly startles and reassures simultaneously, suggesting that being frightened is fun. Additionally, because her voice goes through the tunnel, her single syllable manages to describe its main axis. Joking could be useful evolutionarily speaking (see also Athey 1977). Perhaps, when prehumans got to see the funny side of things it helped them confront daunting situations and think about what to do. Arthur Koestler (1964) thought that humour is the collision between two types of logic. Because no harm is done, the paradox is that even the normally dangerous is funny. But being scared in the play state is enjoyable only if the caregiver is known and trusted. Such is the case with Joaquin and Natalia. The interaction maintained by this 193

John Matthews

clever teacher employs only one word of the English language yet her support for the infant is perfect. Education driven only by audit (and no theory) is incapable of evaluating teaching at this level. Joaquin is not in fact playing right now – he is too busy finding out about the apparatus. How does it behave? What’s it made of? Will it harm me? He is, in Piaget’s terms, accommodating to the object. In contrast, in the following observation, Nkosi is in deep play – with an electrified tunnel.

Deep play High up in a tree in the zoo, electrified wires form a barrier designed to prevent the chimpanzees climbing any further. However, there is a narrow tunnel through the crisscrossed wires. Nkosi (6 years 10 months 21 days), crouching before it, prepares to jump through it. Yet, even if he successfully avoids electrocution he still faces a 20 metre drop on the other side. After several minutes of careful calculation, Nkosi hurls himself through the tunnel, avoiding contact with the electrified wires. As he exits, he somersaults in space to safely grasp the trunk of the tree. This is an example of deep play. It is death defying and has an agonistic aspect. Agonistic play is a competition with yourself when you practise being the person you want to be when no one is watching. Nkosi’s involvement in play is 100% yet there is nothing to be gained (in a utilitarian sense) from his action and a great deal to lose. Why risk it? To answer that question we have to firstly appreciate that he lives out his days like a permanent prisoner of war. Unlike Joaquin, Nkosi has enough experience and knowledge of the nature of his tunnel to be able to perform a dangerous act yet remain in deep play. In Piagetian terms, he has accommodated to the precise form of the electric fence and its painful potential and so can assimilate it into his play mode. He knows things about this electric fence unknown to anyone else, even its human makers.

Conclusion Starting from undifferentiated bundles of actions fused together unconsciously, the infant gradually sorts these out into separate strands and realises that they may be put together in different ways. This can only happen because of an interaction between play and adaptive actions within a supportive, interpersonal environment. Because play is liberated from adaptation, the infant is able to form emergent techniques of representation with which they can alter the nature of their actions and their perception of time. Sometimes this requires only the addition or subtraction of a dimension (its speed, for example), sometimes the subtraction or addition of another action (speech, for example). By combining and recombining, they are able to create a potentially infinite number of dynamic assemblies from a finite number of actions. Consciously putting actions practised separately back together again, they construct analogies between different sensory and communications systems.The different threads of a range of developmental trajectories are woven together to form an interiorised 194

Chimp and child

representation of the world which has linguistic, logical, mathematical, geometrical and aesthetic correlates and which forms the substructure of all intellectual and emotional engagement with the world. At present, teachers are discouraged from learning theory and this results in serious pedagogical mistakes. The level of dynamic and topological thinking described in this chapter is vital to the infant. They should not be hurried on prematurely toward a world of straight line and measurement. Pretend play, both full bodied and miniaturised versions, is neither generally understood nor properly supported. Agonistic play is especially undermined. For example, toy-gun play has nothing to do with violence – on the contrary, suppressing it is the act of violence. Additionally, rough and tumble play desperately needs reappraisal by early years educators (Jarvis 2007). Kathy Sylva et al. (1980) are quite wrong to claim that it is devoid of cognitive value, for it is multilayered in symbolism. Similar ludic development occurs in chimpanzees too except, arguably, in speech – though we have yet to explore more fully a range of chimpanzee vocalisations outside the instinctual pant-hoot type and we still do not have a full developmental sequence of chimpanzee vocalisation from birth (Plooij et al. 2014).The link between non-human, animated facial expression (sometimes voiceless) and human speech is important (Ghazanfar et al. 2012; Lameira et al. 2015). In both chimp and child, learning is self-generated and even has what Colwyn Trevarthen (2003) describes as a ‘temporary autonomy’ if things go wrong between caregiver and infant. However, if it is to flourish and eventually supply the basis for adult thinking and feeling, it does require intelligent interpersonal and social support based on what we know so far about primate development. In contrast, education by audit can only be destructive. It is utterly useless to discuss early childcare merely in terms of allowing women to go to work. Early years education should include 50% men anyway – it is scandalous that it is dominated by women to the tune of over 99%. This is at present one of our failures in early years provision. By ‘provision’, I don’t mean just buildings, materials and personnel but the application of knowledge. The planning for early years play should be at least as good as that for chimpanzees in a reasonably managed zoo. In our so-called, technologically advanced societies, support for human play falls far short of this.

References Athey, C. (1977) Humour in children related to Piaget’s theory of intellectual development. In Chapman, A. J. and Foot, H. C. (Eds.), It’s a Funny Thing, Humour. Oxford: Pergamon Press, pp. 215–18. Bettelheim, B. (1987) A Good Enough Parent: The Guide to Bringing Up Your Child. London: Thames and Hudson. Bickerton, D. (1981) The Roots of Language. Ann Arbor: Karoma Publishers Inc. Bruce, T. (1987) Early Childhood Education. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Bruce, T. (1991) Time to Play in Early Childhood Education. London: Hodder & Stoughton. Bruce, T. (2015) Early Childhood Education. Fifth edn. London: Hodder Education. Budsworth, G. (2004) The Ultimate Encyclopedia of Knots and Ropework. London: Hermes House.

195

John Matthews Burford, E. (1998) Gravity and the Creation of Self: An Exploration of Self Representations Using Spatial Concepts. London and Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers Ltd. Butterworth, G. (2003) Pointing is the royal road to language for babies. In Sotaro, K (Ed.), Pointing: Where Language, Culture, and Cognition Meet. Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, pp. 9–33. Chen, R., Rosen, E. and Masson, P. H. (1999) Gravitropism in higher plants. Plant Physiology, June, 120(2): 343–350. Condon, W. (1975) Speech makes babies move. In Lewin, R. (Ed.), Child Alive. London: Temple Smith, pp. 81–90. Donaldson, M. (1993) Human Minds: An Exploration. London: Penguin Psychology. Fouts, R. (with Tukel Mills, S.) (1997) Next of Kin: My Conversations with Chimpanzees. New York: William Morrow. Galdikas, B. (2005) Great Ape Odyssey. New York: Harry N. Abrams inc. Gardner, A. and B. (1966) Project Washoe. Reno: University of Nevada. Ghazanfar, A. A.,Takahashi, D.Y., Mathur, N. and Fitch,W.T. (2012) Cineradiography of Monkey Lip-Smacking Reveals Putative Precursors of Speech Dynamics. Current Biology, July 10, 22(13): 1176–1182. Ghosh, P. (2016) Tim Peake asks for help with space plant experiment. BBC TV News, 29 January 2016. Hopkins,W. D.,Taglialatela, J. P. and Leavens, D. (2007) Chimpanzees differentially produce novel vocalizations to capture the attention of a human. Animal Behaviour, 73(2): 281–286. Jarvis, P. (2007) Monsters, magic and Mr Psycho: a biocultural approach to rough and tumble play in the early years of primary school. Early Years: An International Research Journal, 27(2): 171–188. Koestler, A. (1964) The Act of Creation. Arkana: Penguin Books. Lameira, A. R., Hardus, M. E., Bartlett, A. M., Shumaker, R. W., Wich, S. A. and Menken, S. B. J. (2015) Speech-like rhythm in a voiced and voiceless orangutan call. PLoS One. 10 (1): e116136 (accessed 20 November 2015). Lorenz, K. (1944–1948) The Natural Science of the Human Species: An Introduction to Comparative Behavioural Research (The Russian Manuscript, 1944–1948). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Marshall, A. (2009) Andrea: Queen of the mantas. Natural World Television Series, BBC TV, London. Matthews, J. (2003) Drawing and Painting: Children and Visual Representation (new edn). 0–8 Series, Series Editor T. Bruce. London: Paul Chapman. Matthews, J. (2011) Starting from Scratch: The Origin and Development of Expression, Representation and Symbolism in Human and Non-human Primates. London and New York: Psychology Press, Taylor and Francis. Morris, D. (1962) The Biology of Art: A Study of the Picture-Making Behaviour of the Great Apes and its Relationship to Human Art. New York: Borzoi Books: Alfred A. Knopf. Morris, D. (7 December 2009) personal communication. Piaget, J. (1951) Play, Dreams and Imitation in Childhood. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Piaget, J. and Inhelder, B. (1956) The Child’s Conception of Space. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Plooij, F. X., van de Rijt-Plooij, H., Fischer, M. and Pusey, A. (2014) Longitudinal recordings of the vocalizations of immature Gombe chimpanzees. Scientific Data 1, Article number: 140025 (2014) doi:10.1038/sdata. Published online 19 August 2014 www.nature.com/articles/ sdata201425 (accessed 7 November 2014). Spelke, E. (1985) Perception of unity, persistence and identity: thoughts on infants’ conceptions of objects, in Mehler, J. and Fox, R. (Eds.), Neonate Cognition: Beyond the Blooming, Buzzing Confusion. New Jersey: Erlbaum, pp. 98–113. Sylva, K., Roy, C. and Painter, M. (1980) Childwatching at playgroup and nursery school. London: Grant MacIntyre. Thelin, E. and Smith, L. B. (1994) A Dynamic Systems Approach to the Development of Cognition and Action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

196

Chimp and child Trevarthen, C. (2003) Keynote paper: Feeling chuffed: Mother and baby conversation. Pen Green Research and Development Centre for Early Childhood, Corby, Northants, England, 28 June 2003. Vygotsky, L. S. (1966) Play and its role in the mental development of the child, Soviet Psychology, 12 (6): 62–76. Winnicott, D. (1971). Playing and Reality. London: Tavistock.

197

15 Play with infants The impulse for human storytelling Colwyn Trevarthen

Introduction: the nature of play Asking what play gives to human life is like asking what growth, flowering and coming to fruit with seeds does for plant life.We play to make sense of life in activity.We move our bodies with rhythms of imagination, and display emotions as expressions of feeling that value our experiences so we can cooperate in social life. Play in moving has evolved to use a muscular body with many parts, to invent projects that sustain vitality of the Self, and to animate a community. Everyday movements for eating a meal, or settling to sleep, are perceived by social partners to be both playfully self-indulgent and performed with expression.They tell a story of feelings in activity, which are sensed as either gracious or awkward. Animal intelligence grows by generating its future in activity, not just by obeying stimuli. The impulse to play gives initiative and value to what the senses may know. That is also how a child’s consciousness gains new powers at every stage of life, not only by fabricating representations of past experiences in thought or language and testing their abstract rules, logically; or by learning to define good and bad behaviour with a moral code (Trevarthen 2015; Trevarthen and Bjørkvold, 2016). Young animals play to experiment with how to move joyfully when they try to master new skills in engagement with the world (Panksepp 2005). The most active species have heavy bodies with hundreds of muscles to control, and several inquisitive special senses, each separately mobile to select perceptual information for purposes of the moment. All these parts need a single Self-centred imagination for what will happen when movements are excited in synchrony and with the right sequencing, taking adventures through extended periods of time and into other places. By sensing one another’s playful movements animals develop social habits of cooperation and competition, and signal them to share understanding of how to use the resources of the environment together as a ‘life world’, and how to avoid dangers (von Uexküll 1957). Communities prosper and the young are brought up to know

198

Play with infants

how to behave with signals of self-interest and emotional evaluation that are imaginative and intimately responsive. This is true for human cultures as well (Bruner 1996). Both body and brain of a human being are made for this life of learning in company before a baby is born.

A developmental psychobiology of human play, recognizing its motives The ‘self-organising’ systems of the embryogenic Intrinsic Motive Formation (IMF) in brainstem and limbic cortex are of key importance in regulation of post-natal cognitive growth. They create the infant’s curiosity, and above all they control and express sympathetic and mimetic awareness of attendant persons and their human responses. Infants’ motives and emotions powerfully attract, respond to and evaluate other persons in communication. They continue to attract and transform relationships and collaborative awareness throughout childhood. Some motives are formed to recollect experiences and predict the advantages and risks of life in the physical world. Others seek intimate acquaintances in fellowship with intentional and emotional human beings. It is the latter that animate the peculiarly human cultural learning. (Trevarthen and Aitken 2003: 107) The impulses for intelligent awareness are created by the ‘self-making’ of a multicellular organism shaped for moving as an individual. Human beings show patterns of motivation in activity from about 8 weeks after conception when a well-formed embryo, about 2 cm long, makes first movements (Trevarthen 2001). By the end of the second month the main components of the brain are adaptive in design and engaged with the body. The brainstem is being formed to integrate intentions for moving within an Emotional Motor System before the cerebral hemispheres begin to know the reality of an outer world (Damasio 2010; Panksepp 2005; Tucker 2007). Eyes, vestibular canals and cochlear, face and mouth, and the hands – all organs that will animate conversations with companions in future life – are differentiating their special human forms in the fetus (Figure 15.1A). For example, human eyes, unlike those of other mammals, are formed with white scleras that enable us to perceive accurately where someone else is looking, especially if they are looking toward ourself. Core regulatory mechanisms of the brain that direct purposeful activities in selfrelated time and space are laid down in the first 3 months after conception, but the cognitive systems of the cerebral cortex needed for building knowledge of an outside world do not form until later. The motivating and life-maintaining structures adapted for intimate communication of purposes and interests form a link for regulation of gene instructions and the acquired adaptations of the developing mind. Defects in this epi-genetic link contribute to developmental disorders, including autism and schizophrenia, that affect maturation of playful relationships and learning. After birth, before speaking, an infant loves to play with a companion, building trust in games that invent meanings and make fun of them (Trevarthen in Bullowa 1979). A baby wants to tell stories by sharing displays of body movements (Figure 15.1B) – as 199

Colwyn Trevarthen

adults do in every community whatever its level of technology or politics, when they honour ancestors by dancing and performing rituals with song in group celebrations to mark important events (Birdwhistell 1970;Turner 1982).The desire for participation in culture comes to life in shared activity of the body. And by sharing play it can learn to read books or other artificial media, or use computing machines to regulate presentations of text and pictures. As experienced educators of young children know, play is necessary for cultural learning. Vygotsky (1967) called convivial play the child’s work. It prepares skills for the artful compositions of a ‘story-making creature’ (Bruner 1996: 122–123). Mastery of the moment with innate ‘human sense’ is created imaginatively through time and space in dreams and memories that extend modes of consciousness in conventions of activity, building what Margaret Donaldson calls ‘common sense’ (Donaldson 1992: 248). Cultural life depends on what the anthropologist Victor Turner (1982) describes as The Human Seriousness of Play. We have different experiences, but aim to follow the same ambitions as others, and we enjoy negotiating how cooperation should develop. Acting together brings new powers, new aesthetic experiences and new moral responsibilities. All these need signs or signals that transfer intentions and feelings between imaginative minds of persons who appreciate and identify one another, and the first signs are distinctive acts of the body, especially the head and eyes and hands that move to select important objects in a world that may be shared.

Kinesic play: expressing motor images In live conversations what is said is supported by movements of the body with their own code of vitality, which Ray Birdwhistell named as ‘kinesics’. Infants show and respond to the ‘kinesics’, or Daniel Stern’s ‘vitality dynamics’ in all acts of orientation and the expression of feelings for communication (Stern 2010). Play, especially physical, ‘rough-and-tumble’ play, feels exciting because strong shared moving with the whole body brings immediate rewards and also takes risks – the delight of moving well, or the fear of an accident (Panksepp 2007). It is highly emotional. For all social animals play becomes the joyful language of cooperation and the essential way to take a role in rhythms of a common sense of what the shared world affords. Stephen Malloch and I have defined playful searching for shared meaning as ‘communicative musicality’ (Malloch and Trevarthen 2010). Nikolai Bernstein, a young Russian physiologist, proved, by making refined measurements from films, that we move our body in time and space with ‘motor images’ of the forces that will be experienced, governing them with ‘prospective control’ (Bernstein 1967). He studied the actions of toddlers, who run, hop, skip, jump, or creep rather than walk with dignified steps, and he showed that they are ingeniously exploring the ‘degrees of freedom’ in their mastery of the body’s inertia, playing with the risks of bipedal locomotion, not losing control. Children learning to eat with a spoon, or inventing stories (Bruner 1996), are also playing with rules they are making up, not just overcoming ignorance of what to do.Teachers need to give time and space for the childish spirit of play, not imprison it with prescriptive rules of how to be intelligent or obedient. 200

Play with infants

The elaboration of intuitive values in play Research on the play of young children reveals that it is guided by aesthetic feelings of grace in curiosity, and by feelings of moral kindness or teasing, which control the energy of self-expression and share it. Their feelings give ‘spiritual’ value to meanings to be shared, and wants to be appreciated (Hay and Nye 2006). Even a newborn baby, inheriting the most complex body among animals, besides making powerful appeals when distressed, has a gracious sense of humour and can smile when receiving a gentle touch or hearing a mother’s voice expressing affection. A 2-month-old enjoys the ‘primary inter-subjectivity’ of a rhythmic musical conversation, taking turns with happy sounds (Trevarthen in Bullowa 1979), or expressions of being sad and fearful when lonely, or surprised by strange experiences or an unfamiliar voice. By 6 months games are played in routine, storytelling ways with special poetry (Figure 15.2, Table 15.1). They become favourite tricks to share with loved ones, rituals that can be used to tease the sense of fun that comes from challenging expectations, and making jokes about them (Reddy, 2008).Toddlers, with stronger and more agile bodies, seek more independence from parental care or guidance and enjoy rough-and-tumble play with their friends, like puppies, kittens, or baby rats. They are motivated to explore life in a community that will cultivate artificial cultural habits that may be defined in symbols of language. Throughout a life, with changes in pursuit of intimate relations and the development of mature skills of action and communication, the colour and rhythm of playful actions and narratives brings rewards to sports, musical performances, and in practice of skills at all levels of technical sophistication, or of provocative absurdity. I use examples from the play of young children at different ages to clarify the vital functions of human storytelling play, and to show how developments in body and brain lead to the special form of creativity we call the meaning-making of culture, with its sober symbolic representations. Cultural meaning is taught at school as recollections of inventive experience by a curriculum of instruction, the facts of which have to be brought back to playful life if the learner is to remember them and master their use well (Trevarthen, Gratier and Osborne 2014; Trevarthen and Bjørkvold 2016). When a question asked is not motivated by curiosity and evaluated by pleasure in shared practice, the answer will not be remembered as meaningful. Support for an appreciation of the creative motives we are born with comes from the psychobiology of infant play, the study of the evolution of animal play, and the neuroscience of its genesis of motives for play in the embodied brain. Finally I consider how findings of these sciences may be applied to advise and evaluate policies of early childcare and education.

Play into making sense of language: from collaborative inventions to mythical truths The development of playful learning in childhood shows cycles of adventurous energy, or ‘ergotropic’ efforts, separated by periods when ‘trophotropic’ well-being is restored and experience and skills are consolidated (Trevarthen and Aitken 2003). The same

201

Colwyn Trevarthen

changes are identified in Brazelton’s ‘Touchpoints’ programme, a clinical approach sensitive to expressions of need that occur at particular ages, planned for assisting maternal care or early education when there are problems with a young child’s socioemotional life (Brazelton 1992). Study of the human initiatives for moving with imagination, the feelings that regulate them from before birth, and how motives and feelings are communicated through the first two years before speech proves that childish play follows a course prescribed in developments of organs in body and brain. Age-Related Changes (ARCs) or Periods of Rapid Change (PRCs) in behaviours and responses chart a progress in the inherent aims of play (Trevarthen 2001; Trevarthen and Aitken 2003;Trevarthen and DelafieldButt 2015) (Figure 15.2, Table 15.1). The same developments were observed by Piaget (1962), but with an overriding interest in ‘genetic epistemology’ – how infants and young children, acting and experiencing as individual egos, develop concepts to discriminate, identify and group objects of knowledge for practical, manipulative use. He described a process of ‘equilibration’ between playful ‘assimilation’ and ‘accommodation’ to objective environmental conditions. I have found it more natural to conceive the same changes as transformations in attitudes toward other persons, whose actions and feelings are recognized in communication from birth. Study of the behaviour of children as partners in dialogues, games and sharing use of tools confirms that the development of shared cultural knowledge gives objects and actions social or moral values as well as practical or aesthetic ones.

Neonatal play, and developments before term The first month of life is a challenging time when a human being meets a new environment.Within the first hours after birth, as Dr Brazelton demonstrated, a baby may show a remarkable intelligence as a person, with motives adapted for communication by subtle emotions, including smiles, small ‘coo’ vocalizations and gestures of the hands (Brazelton in Bullowa 1979).The whole body may be coordinated in orientations that direct gaze and automatic ‘pre-reaching’ movements of the hands, arms and legs to track a slow moving object that attracts the infant’s attention (Trevarthen 2015). This early state of ‘arousal’ is the optimal time for eliciting imitations of expressions of the eyes, face, mouth and hands. After this, however, there is normally a period when the newborn retreats into a sleepy state with rather automatic ‘reflex’ responses to maternal support, comfort and feeding, need for which is expressed with cries of distress. Emese Nagy (2011), a doctor and psychologist who has pioneered sensitive discoveries in communication with newborns, remarks that while neonatology, the study of the responses of newborns to care of physiological state in hospital, is well recognized in medical practice, a psychology of newborns hardly exists. She presents, ‘an intentional, intersubjective neonate’, with evidence that, ‘the neonate’s early social preferences and responses indicate a unique, sensitive, experience-expectant stage of development’ (Nagy 2011: 3). Her studies prove that the newborn can contribute to an affective relationship with a dialogue of expressive movements by reciprocal imitation. This is supported by other studies which establish that a calm and alert newborn 202

Play with infants

can engage in ‘play’ with movements of the eyes, face, mouth, voice or fingers, which react imitatively to another person as a social companion in mental life, not just a caregiver for the body (Kugiumutzakis and Trevarthen 2015). Human motives for intimate playfulness in expressions of feelings are confirmed by observations of premature newborns and foetuses in utero (Trevarthen 2015). Research using ultrasound movies of foetuses to observe them moving inside their mothers’ bodies reveals intentionality and display of feelings or states of animation in face movements and in gestures of the hands directed to touch the body. The foetus learns to recognize the mother’s voice before birth, and foetal mouth movements show reactions to sounds in the speech environment outside the mother’s body. Knowing of the mother as a special companion who shares in states of distress and well-being quickly leads to discovering others who may be responded to in intimacy. We are led to accept that development of impulses to be a sociable human person begin months before birth, and may be detected in patterns of movement that explore feelings of the self and that discriminate, and react to, feelings in others. How the child’s person develops depends on individual dispositions, as well as on the environment of human biological and psychological support. A newborn who is awake and in good spirits is an expressive, sensitive and playful human being, attractive for other persons and ready to share expressions of purpose and feelings.

Practising protoconversal play and its grammatical rules The interpersonal consciousness present at birth changes around 4 to 6 weeks (Figure 15.2, Table 15.1). As the baby’s mind becomes more alert and curious, sight guided by precisely directed looking of the two eyes moving in synchrony transforms not only the infant’s experience of a new world, but also their expressiveness in communication (Trevarthen in Bullowa 1979). This development leads to what Mary Catherine Bateson called ‘proto-conversations’ – playful dialogues mediated by exchange of precisely timed visible and audible expressions of intimate awareness in face-to-face and eye-to-eye contact. When she studied films of a mother with her 9-week-old, Bateson, an anthropologist and linguist, was astonished by the ‘delighted, ritualized courtesy’ of the exchange, and the leading part the infant played. She concluded that, ‘these periods of mutual gaze may provide contexts in which the vocalizations become increasingly meaningful’ (Bateson in Bullowa 1979: 73). She suggested that, ‘at the pre-linguistic level we can see that the child is playing a “grammatical” game’ (76). Two-month-olds are alert to another person’s interest, seeking eye-to-eye contact with responsive smiles, like those that confirm communication in conversations between adults. They make complex movements of their lips and tongue in ‘prespeech’, along with many gestures, and appealing coos (Trevarthen in Bullowa 1979). They appear to be prepared for language (Figure 15.1). The phenomenological philosophers Edmund Husserl and Maurice Merleau-Ponty interpreted the functions of mature language as products of an intuitive ‘inter-subjective’ awareness of human beings in company. Welcoming their insight I called the abilities of the young infant to enter into collaborative patterns of dialogue a ‘primary inter-subjectivity’ (Trevarthen in Bullowa 1979: 321; Trevarthen 1980: 325). 203

Figure 15.1

Play with infants

My colleague Lynne Murray made experimental perturbations with mother-infant dialogues to test the infant’s sensitivity for the timing or ‘contingency’ of the mother’s responses which so impressed Bateson (Murray and Trevarthen 1982; Murray et al. 2016). In the first experiment Lynne asked the mother to look at the baby for a minute with an expressionless ‘blank face’ in the middle of a proto-conversation. Then she designed a double video system where mother and infant communicated from separate rooms by means of full-sized video images in colour presented on a screen through which the responses of the baby could be recorded. After they became engaged in a good conversation she replayed one minute of the mother’s communication. Both ways of interrupting the real-time live engagement with the infant’s expressions immediately led the infant to become withdrawn and sad, with dull expressions and low pitched vocal expressions or cries of distress.

Communicative musicality of play with the voice A musician, Stephen Malloch, advanced our understanding of the dynamic emotional regulations of play with infants by applying advanced musical acoustic techniques to measure the essential ‘communicative musicality’ of intimate vocal communication in proto-conversations and baby songs and games (Malloch and Trevarthen 2010; Trevarthen 2015). He proved the matching sensibility of infant and adult for the rhythm, expressive tone or quality, and the organization of bouts of play into compositions of narrative, with ‘introduction’, ‘development’, ‘climax’ and ‘resolution’, and frequently with a reflective ‘coda’ confirming a memorable event (Figure 15.1B). The features that Malloch discovered correspond to the ‘vitality dynamics’ of human intercourse discovered by the pioneering psychiatrist and infancy researcher Daniel Stern, who enriched our conception of the ‘present moments’ of an active interpersonal world with a pre-verbal child, and its significance for creation of cultural achievements in friendship, and for therapeutic support of emotional health (Stern 2010). In the following months, these and other games are also shared with other family members, enriching their affectionate relations and appreciation of the infant’s playful personality. After 3 months infants’ bodies become stronger and their conscious regulation of movements is more complex, with richer expressions of convivial playfulness for the attention of familiar companions (Figure 15.2, Table 15.1).

Rituals of delight performed with pride in action games and baby songs Daniel Stern began his work by studying games of a mother with her 3.5-month-old twins. This is a second time of change in infants’ actions with awareness, and in communication. With increase in the strength of the body in the third to fifth month revealed in more confident support of the head with stronger and more selective reaching out with the arms and hands aided by improved vision and sense of touch, infants direct attention to a world more distant from their bodies, and may show less interest for close face-to-face play with the mother (Figure 15.2, Table 15.1). They are also becoming more expressive of their feelings with face and mouth movements and vocalizations. 205

Colwyn Trevarthen

In studies to trace development of communication during the first year, Penelope Hubley charted how mothers respond to this change of interest, first by being more provocatively playful, and then by bringing objects that attract the baby into the stories or games they invent together for fun (Hubley and Trevarthen 1979). Their playful performances together develop into enjoyable rituals, features of which are remembered and recognized by the baby with pleasure at later times. Infants begin to imitate rhyming sounds in nursery songs, and the pattern of movements in an action game, such as ‘Round and Round the Garden’, or ‘Clappa-Clappa Handies’. And they display to their partner expressions of pride in making the response in the ‘conventional’ way. The increasing playfulness signals a change in Self-Other awareness, which is presented as ‘self-consciousness’ that reacts to being observed. Vasudevi Reddy has pioneered studies that reveal humorous avoiding or displaying behaviours that signal ‘coyness’ and ‘showing off ’. From this time babies express stronger social awareness by becoming more ‘fun’, enjoying and contributing to teasing with careful attention to timing. Numerous examples illustrating the developing richness of self-consciousness, and both marking and remembering of playful performances of ‘joking, teasing and mucking about’ that excite and play with others’ expectations, are presented by Reddy in her book How Infants Know Minds (Reddy 2008). After four months, as the infant’s interest becomes more focused in handling and exploring objects, play with a parent is led to become sharing and teasing with the objects that become ‘toys’ in what Hubley called ‘person-person-object games’ (Figure 15.2, Table 15.1). This object-interest of the infant, identified by Piaget (1962) as the period of ‘secondary circular reactions’, transforms play in the family leading companions to make tempting offers and provocative withdrawals to excite purposeful and emotional responses from the infant. Experiments with objects lead to games in which objects are grasped, held up, banged against surfaces or thrown. This anticipates changes a few months later that lead the infant to find a mirroring of interest in objects chosen to be of special interest for the other person, beginning the learning of conventional practice with ‘tools’, and the naming of actions and objects with words.

Developing a self-other conscious personality in companionship: setting limits of trust and playing a part in shared knowledge At six months the baby grows in self-consciousness as the impulse to play explores new ways of testing the limits of other persons’ interest and knowledge, and this is accompanied by a strong sense of humour, by which they express to others emotional evaluations of what they do and know. Family recognize that the baby is becoming a ‘clown’ and a sensitive performer, requiring appreciation as a recognized person whose cleverness is admired in familiar company. With this developing personality the infant is also watching how other persons attend to objects and is interested to imitate gestures such as pointing, clapping or waving. Increased self-consciousness is also exhibited in a strong response of caution with a stranger who approaches offering communication. This has been identified as ‘stranger fear’, but the behaviour may also be appreciated as ‘shame’, the infant attempting to withdraw and hide, in contrast to the display of ‘pride’ shown when 206

Figure 15.2

Fixates eyes with smiling. Proto-conversations develop. Mouth and tongue imitations, then vocal and gestural imitations. Distressed by ‘still-face’ and video replay test. Not attentive to mother unless she assists the infant’s playful interest in ‘person-person’ games. Mirror recognition and self-conscious mannerisms.

Looking at other’s hands. Imitation of clapping and pointing. Right-hand gestures of expression*. ‘Person-person-object’ games in which a parent facilitates and ‘teases’ the infant’s enjoyment of recognition and manipulation of objects, which become recognized as accepted ‘toys’. Persistent manipulation, rhythmic Babbling. Playful, self-aware imitating of actions. Showing off with pride, banging of objects. Crawling, sitting, and showing avoidance or shame with an unfamiliar person, called ‘stranger and pulling up to stand. fear’. May exclude other from manipulation of objects. Combines objects with Cooperation in tasks with manipulation and combining of objects; follows discrimination, ‘executive thinking’. gaze and pointing; complies with requests. Utterances as declarations with Categorizes experiences. Walking. ‘joint attention’*. Signs of ‘executive thinking’ and categorization of objects. Protolanguage combining gesture and vocalization. Clowning with familiar companions. Self-feeding with hand. Cultural learning. First words. Imitation or ‘mimesis’ of conventional mannerisms. Recognizes eating utensils and other ‘tools’ and uses them appropriately.Varies storytelling play with imaginative use of objects as agents or tools.

* These developments occur earlier in girls.

G 60

F 40

E 32

D 18

C 12

B 6

Tertiary Circular Reactions Experimenting with novelty

Coordination of Secondary Circular Reactions. Using objects intentionally. Object Permanence

Secondary Circular Reactions. Perceives objects

First habits. Primary Circular Reactions

Simple reflexes

Early imitation of expressions of face, mouth, eyes and hands, with provocation for an exchange or ‘dialogue’. May smile to voice or touch. Seeks eye-to-eye contact.

A New born

Regulation of sleep, feeding and breathing. Coordinated binocular gaze. Innate ‘pre-reaching’ with or without an object seen. Pre-reaching declines. Reaching to fixated object develops as swipes and grabs. Smooth visual tracking, with strong head support. Reaching, touching and catching. Maturation of binocular stereopsis*. Interest in surroundings increases. Accurate reach and selective grasp. Manipulative play with objects.

Piaget: Stages of cognitive development

Developments in communication of intentions and feelings. Cooperative awareness in affectionate relationships

Age in weeks Somatic and cognitive developments. Object directed actions

Table 15.1  Developmental changes affecting play in the first 18 months of infancy

Play with infants

presenting a learned performance to company that is known and trusted. We propose that these strong feelings at this stage of development are adapted to guide development of a new level of cooperative awareness that becomes evident after nine months.

Sharing tasks and meanings: playing with purposes to share use of the known world. Learning ‘how to mean’ before speaking Development of Secondary Intersubjectivity or cooperative awareness at the end of the first year, discovered by Penelope Hubley’s studies (Hubley and Trevarthen 1979), confirms the theory that the playful impulses of infants, and the intuitive responses of affectionate parents which favour emergence of companionship in understanding, are adaptations evolved to make cultural practices germinate and grow before words are understood by the child. Michael Halliday’s theory of protolanguage as a sociocultural form of communication that establishes to the foundations of verbal semantics (Halliday in Bullowa 1979), and the anthropological evidence presented by Ray Birdwhistell (1970) and Victor Turner (1982) of the universal features of expressive body movements that accompany and support all ways of communicating ideas and experiences with feelings of value, complement the evidence from the study of infants.

Conventional labelling of topics and objects in playful stories of discovery: wording the meaning of gestures in games, and to identify toys and their uses A 1-year-old shows how play with purposes and feelings in movement, and in tune with the playful actions of companions, develops the special human abilities for sharing conventions of culture. It fosters the use of particular objects as tools for imaginative projects, including having a meal and going out in society appropriately dressed. Curiosity for other people’s intentions also leads the child to imitate gestural or vocal signs that refer to them, and then to learn what words mean and imitate them. The walking 2-year-old starts boldly to talk in sentences, taking part in family adventures with self-conscious willfulness or pride in knowing, discovering a growing sense of purpose in activity, retaining memories that are shared in imaginative stories, some of which may never be forgotten.This work in ‘story-making’ is playfully learned and made into convivial games. Jacqueline Nadel (2014) has studied how toddlers who have little or no language enjoy play on stage where they can invent and vary games by imitating each other, and she has shown how imitation of playful actions can be used to encourage and support communication with children who are avoidant, including those diagnosed with autism. Three- to five-year-olds love exuberant play with their strong and agile body senses, and teasing games with peers, exploring the local ecology with bold fantasy and with dramas of engagement, using any territory as a playground that becomes a place of learning. They are very sociable, but can also find pleasure on their own, using careful concentration on detail to make intriguing discoveries with clever hands, 209

Colwyn Trevarthen

eyes and ears.The ‘character’ of each child is different. Different personalities are becoming marked. At every step along the way the child’s individual curiosity and invention is ready to respond to any friendly teacher who will enjoy life in joint activity, and the fanciful stories composed in cooperation. The child’s invention and curiosity wants to be respected, and admired, in warm friendship. (Trevarthen and Bjørkvold 2016)

Conclusion: lessons from the psychology of infant play for practices of education and therapy The roots of all sciences and arts in every instance arise as early as in the tender age, and that on these foundations it is neither impossible nor difficult for the whole superstructure to be laid; provided always that we act reasonably as with a reasonable creature. (John Amos Komensky (1592–1671), known as Comenius, in The School of Infancy. Quoted by Quick 1910: 144–145)

Changing educational practice for early years and life benefits Understanding that infants, though they have no language for rational thoughts or purposes, have rich talents for showing intentions and feelings, supports teachers of early years and affectionate parents in their belief that play is the generator of shared meaning from birth. Before obeying the needs of instruction in a curriculum for language, literacy and numeracy (or ‘grammar, logic and rhetoric’, the trivium of training for skills of a ‘free man’ in a rich industrial culture of Hellenistic Greece and the Roman Empire), a child needs to share the joy of a curious life with companions. This insight from Comenius the Moravian philosopher, pedagogue and theologian who wrote The School of the Mother’s Breast (1628), School by Play (1630) and The Gate of Languages Unlocked (1631), and who became world famous as a teacher and creator of schools who elucidated the best principles for educating children from birth to the age of six, when formal teaching may be appropriate, appreciates the infant’s playful creativity and its contribution to human learning. In the nineteenth century Robert Herbert Quick, in a masterly review of educational reformers, described a growing science of education intended to help parents and teachers welcome the initiatives of all children to share interests and feelings about the world in imaginative ways. Quick recorded the insights of the Jesuits of the sixteenth century, who criticized the restriction of teaching to book learning and said young children must exercise their bodies, and Rabelais who ridiculed the absurd idea of ‘pouring in’ formulated knowledge. Following them, Pestalozzi and Froebel worked as teachers to reduce misfortunes of young children obliged to work too soon at prescribed tasks, promoting their freedom to enjoy sociable learning at play in nature. James Mark Baldwin at the end of the nineteenth century anticipated the discoveries of the physiologist Charles Sherrington’s classic The Integrative Action of the Nervous 210

Play with infants

System, and the science of intentions in movement as the foundation of consciousness, thoughts and communication. Baldwin proposed that all life actively tests its awareness, retaining the vitally good and pleasurable relations with the environment and suppressing bad and unpleasant stimulation. He named these as ‘circular reactions’ because an initiative for action repeats itself to test stimulation. He inspired Piaget’s theory of active learning and Vygotsky’s explanation of the social development of thought and language with the child as playful agent (Vygotsky 1978), and he opened the way to understanding how ‘self-imitation’ leads to reciprocal imitation with others as the key motive of communication (Nadel 2014). But in his time Baldwin’s enlightened understanding was rejected by the reductive psychology of behaviourism. It gained recognition only in the writings of certain philosophers, including Bergson, James, and Dewey. In the 1920s Alfred North Whitehead argued for appreciation of the first ‘romantic’ stage of the educational experience, and retention of its creative energy through to university. He observed, with caution, that in school childish imagination is transformed into the stage of ‘precision’ which concerns ‘exactness of formulation’. He helped Susan Langer develop a philosophy of art in movement, presented as Philosophy in a New Key (Langer 1942). Jean Piaget (1962), following Immanuel Kant, inspired an empirical psychology that perceives the child as an experimenter, striving to master movements of manipulation, building practical concepts, and concentrating on what can be learned to ‘construct’, for individual use, a growing set of rational ‘schemas’ for perception of physical reality. He describes the infant mind as ‘egocentric’. He failed to notice that attractive expressions by eyes, face, voice and hands show more than ‘pleasure in mastery’ of a practical task, and did not appreciate that ‘circular reactions’ are, as Baldwin showed, readily shared with teachers, if they are not too preoccupied with reason and unreceptive to playful invention. In the past half century Jerome Bruner, an educator who already in the 1940s insisted on the importance of a child’s purposes and feelings for learning, expanded his philosophy of education in a new way by leading work in the Center for Cognitive Studies at Harvard to study the convivial enjoyment of intentions and problem-solving by infants. He incorporated ideas from comparative primatology and the evolutionary theory of manipulative intelligence and how it may be ‘scaffolded’ by a teacher’s cooperation. Margaret Donaldson also led a move to more natural and ‘creative’ or ‘facilitative’ tests of the imaginative powers of toddlers with evidence that 3 and 4-year-old children appreciate other persons’ points of view to experience a world shared purposefully and with emotional evaluation.They communicate imaginative experiences, enjoying differences of belief, as long as they do not receive imperative correction (Donaldson 1992). The foundations of education, in every culture, are in the development from birth of human motives to test and expand active experience, and to share it with companions, ‘storytelling’ for fun (Bruner 1996; Trevarthen, Gratier and Osborne 2014), with emotions of ‘human sense’ (Donaldson 1992).To understand how we can best support the growth of this curiosity and sociability in infants and toddlers, we can learn from researchers in the arts, especially music, the most intimate and versatile of the ‘imitative 211

Colwyn Trevarthen

arts’ of Adam Smith, by which the passions of human liveliness are shared most directly. This is the belief of Loris Malaguzzi of Reggio Emilia in Italy, who gives the ‘hundred languages’ of childhood in play with all sorts of media freedom to discover their use in skills of everyday life.‘The program is based on the principles of respect, responsibility, and community through exploration and discovery in a supportive and enriching environment based on the interests of the children through a self-guided curriculum’ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reggio_Emilia_approach). That is how childish enthusiasm grows to motivate the learning of conventional practices and beliefs no matter how complex and artificial they may be, thus supporting the traditions and inventions of a culture (Rogoff 2003).

Transformation of psychotherapy with play Like school education, the medical professions of paediatrics, psychiatry and psychotherapy have also had to overcome a neglect of the creative virtues of infant play. Sigmund Freud, searching for the origins of sadness in emotional illness presumed, like Piaget, that infants are born with no self-awareness, or awareness of other’s interests and feelings. Shocking evidence on the damaging effects of isolating babies in institutions lacking intimate human care and affection was presented by René Spitz and John Bowlby. This awoke recognition that babies, born with very limited powers of independent action, need affectionate parenting. In later publications Spitz attended to the more joyful and provocative ways older infants learn with loving companions (Spitz 1957). T. Berry Brazelton changed paediatric care by revealing the personal powers of newborn infants and encouraging parents, as well as doctors, in their affectionate response to the infant spirit (Brazelton in Bullowa 1979). Daniel Stern transformed psychodynamic theory with evidence that 3-month-old babies enjoy sharing games of purposeful movement and he developed a powerful theory of innate ‘vitality dynamics’ with which we move with controlled elegance in the emotive ‘common sense’ of an interpersonal world shared from the time we were infants (Stern 2010). He appreciated the natural source of aesthetic pleasure as follows: We naturally experience people in terms of their vitality. We intuitively evaluate their emotions, states of mind, what they are thinking, and what they really mean, their authenticity, what they are likely to do next, as well as their health and illness on the basis of the vitality expressed in their almost constant movements. The time-based arts, music, dance, theatre, and cinema, move us by the expressions of vitality that resonate in us. (Stern 2010: 3) Stern’s description of the emotional benefits of infantile play led to a new approach to psychotherapy developed by the Boston Process Change Study Group. Within the psychoanalytic movement, Carl Jung and Donald Winnicott accepted the importance of dynamic non-verbal expressions of feeling in intimate and enjoyable engagements as the source of cultural meaning and recognized their potential 212

Play with infants

for therapeutic practice.Winnicott, as a paediatrician working to relieve the emotional distress of children, considered that playing, at all stages of life, is the key to emotional and psychological well-being. The ‘true self ’ experiences well-being with humour in art, in sport and in enjoyment of meaning in conversation. Like Stern, Winnicott believed psychoanalysis was helpful when it becomes a pleasurable experience of creative discovery in a genuine intimate relationship. The Australian psychiatrist Russell Meares developed, with Robert Hobson, a ‘conversational model’ which accepts the sharing of playful invention as a motivation for strengthening self-confidence. In The Metaphor of Play: Origin and Breakdown of Personal Being, Meares (2005) uses the evidence from infant psychology to interpret experience with patients in sensitive engagements that aim to reinforce positive impulses and recollections in self-awareness. Particularly interesting is the extension of this work by Judith Pickering (2015) to discover the musical fundamentals of the psychoanalytic relationship by recording changes in ‘acoustic resonance’ or the tone of voice of both patient and therapist speaking about their feelings and memories and applying Malloch’s method to measure ‘communicative musicality’. To conclude, I acknowledge the great influence for my work of Jerome Bruner’s insight into the story-making mind that lives to master playful employment of a versatile body in collaborative relationships that enrich understanding. That is the creative nature of ‘human being’, and how it grows in sympathy of companionship. Why are we so intellectually dismissive towards narrative? . . . Storytelling performs the dual cultural functions of making the strange familiar and ourselves private and distinctive. If pupils are encouraged to think about the different outcomes that could have resulted from a set of circumstances, they are demonstrating useability of knowledge about a subject. Rather than just retaining knowledge and facts, they . . . use their imaginations to think about other outcomes . . . This helps them to think about facing the future, and it stimulates the teacher too. (Bruner 1996: 39–40)

References Bernstein, N. (1967). The Coordination and Regulation of Movements. Oxford: Pergamon. Birdwhistell, R. (1970). Kinesics and Context. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Brazelton, T. B. (1992). Touchpoints: Emotional and Behavioral Development. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Bruner, J. S. (1996). The Culture of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bruner, J. S. (2002). Making Stories: Law, Literature, Life. New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux. Bullowa, M. (Ed.) (1979). Before Speech: The Beginning of Human Communication. London, Cambridge University Press. Damasio, A. R. (2010). Self Comes to Mind: Constructing the Conscious Brain, Pantheon. Donaldson, M. (1992). Human Minds: An Exploration. London: Allen Lane/Penguin Books. Hay, D. with Nye, R. (2006). The Spirit of the Child: Revised Edition. London: Jessica Kingsley Publications. Hubley, P. and Trevarthen, C. (1979). Sharing a task in infancy. In I. Uzgiris (Ed.), Social Interaction During Infancy: New Directions for Child Development, 4. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 57–80.

213

Colwyn Trevarthen Kugiumutzakis, G. and Trevarthen, C. (2015). Neonatal Imitation. In James D. Wright (editorin-chief), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Vol. 16. Oxford: Elsevier. pp. 481–488. ISBN: 9780080970868. Langer, S. K. (1942). Philosophy in a New Key: A Study in the Symbolism of Reason, Rite, and Art. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Malloch, S. and Trevarthen, C. (Eds.) (2010). Communicative Musicality: Exploring the Basis of Human Companionship. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Meares, R. (2005). The Metaphor of Play: Origin and Breakdown of Personal Being. London/New York: Routledge. Murray, L. and Trevarthen, C. (1985). Emotional regulation of interactions between two-montholds and their mothers. In T. M. Field and N. A. Fox (Eds.), Social Perception in Infants. Norwood, N J: Ablex, pp. 177–197. Murray, L., De Pascalis, L., Bozicevic, L., Hawkins, L. and Sclafini, V. (2016). The functional architecture of mother-infant communication, and the development of infant social expressiveness in the first two months. Scientific Reports, 6:39019. December 2016. DOI: 10.1038/srep39019. Nadel, J. (2014). How Imitation Boosts Development in Young Infants and in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nagy, E. (2011). The newborn infant: A missing stage in developmental psychology. Infant and Child Development, 20: 3–19. Panksepp, J. (2005). Beyond a joke: From animal laughter to human joy? Science, 308, 62–63. Panksepp, J. (2007). Can PLAY diminish ADHD and facilitate the construction of the social brain?. Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 16(2): 5–14. Piaget, J. (1962). Play, Dreams and Imitation in Childhood. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Pickering, J. (2015). Acoustic resonance at the dawn of life: musical fundamentals of the psychoanalytic relationship. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 60(5): 618–641. Quick, R. H. (1910). Essays on Educational Reformers. New York: D. Appleton. Reddy,V. (2008). How Infants Know Minds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Rogoff, B. (2003). The Cultural Nature of Human Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Spitz, R. A. (1957). No and Yes: On the Genesis of Human Communication. New York: International Universities Press. Stern, D. N. (2010). Forms of Vitality: Exploring Dynamic Experience in Psychology, the Arts, Psychotherapy and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Trevarthen, C. (1980). The foundations of intersubjectivity: development of interpersonal and cooperative understanding of infants. In D. Olson (Ed.), The Social Foundations of Language and Thought: Essays in Honor of J.S. Bruner. New York: W. W. Norton, pp. 316–342. Trevarthen, C. (2001).The neurobiology of early communication: Intersubjective regulations in human brain development. In A. F. Kalverboer and A. Gramsbergen (Eds.), Handbook on Brain and Behavior in Human Development. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer, pp. 841–882. Trevarthen, C. (2015). Infant Semiosis:The psycho-biology of action and shared experience from birth. Cognitive Development, 36C, 130–141. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2015.09.008. Trevarthen, C. and Aitken, K. J. (2003). Regulation of brain development and age-related changes in infants’ motives:The developmental function of ‘regressive’ periods. In M. Heimann (Ed.), Regression Periods in Human Infancy. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 107–184. Trevarthen, C. and Bjørkvold, J.-R. (2016). Life for learning: How a young child seeks joy with companions in a meaningful world. In D. Narvaez, J. Braungart-Rieker, L. Miller-Graff, L. Gettler and P. Hastings (Eds.), Contexts forYoung Child Flourishing: Evolution, Family and Society. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 28–60. Trevarthen, C. and Delafield-Butt, J. (2015). The infant’s creative vitality, in projects of selfdiscovery and shared meaning: How they anticipate school, and make it fruitful. In S. Robson and S. F. Quinn (Eds.), The Routledge International Handbook of Young Children’s Thinking and Understanding Routledge: Oxford, pp. 3–18. Trevarthen, C., Gratier, M. and Osborne, N. (2014).The human nature of culture and education. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 5, 173–192. doi: 10.1002/wcs.1276.

214

Play with infants Turner, V. (1982). From Ritual to Theatre: The Human Seriousness of Play. New York: Performing Arts Journal Publications. von Uexküll, Jakob (1957). A stroll through the worlds of animals and men: A picture book of invisible worlds. In Claire H. Schiller (ed.), Instinctive Behavior: The Development of a Modern Concept. New York: International Universities Press, pp. 5–80. Vygotsky, L. S. (1967). Play and its role in the mental development of the child. Soviet Psychology, 5(3): 6–18. (Republished in Bruner, J. S., Jolly, A. and Sylva, K. (eds) (1985). Play – Its Role in Development and Evolution. Harmondsworth: Penguin.) Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society:The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Edited by M. Cole,V. Steiner, S. Scribner and E. Souberman. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Winnicott, D. W. (1965). The Maturational Process and the Facilitating Environment. London: Hogarth.

215

16 Observing children’s triadic play Luisa Molinari, Ada Cigala, Paola Corsano, Elena Venturelli

Introduction Observational methods have been widely used in studying children’s play. T   raditionally, these methods were applied in different ways, depending on the level of analysis that is used for gaining an understanding of children’s experiences with peers. Three levels of analysis have typically guided observational research into children’s play (Rubin, Bukowski, and Laursen, 2009). First, scholars have focused on individual constructs, such as social competence or skills, aggressiveness, withdrawal (Hartup, 1989; Newcomb, Bukowski, and Pattee, 1993; Rubin, 1980). On this level, observation in laboratories as well as in ecological settings has generally been conducted following close grids of individual behaviour. Second, dyadic relations have also been considered as an appropriate level of analysis, able to account more fully for the social and relational context of behaviour. Focusing on this level, researchers have mostly conducted observations using grids that are effective for grasping and gaining understanding of interpersonal processes, such as social reciprocity or interpersonal synchrony (Hinde, 1992; Martin, Fabes, Hanish, and Hollenstein, 2005). Third, from a socio-cultural perspective, a line of research has appreciated the importance of collective, communal activity in the way children’s play is used to negotiate, share and create friendship and culture with one other (Corsaro, 2011; James, Jenks, and Prout, 1998). In this case, scholars relied overall on ethnographic methods based on a participatory and reflexive approach to children’s worlds (Christensen and James, 2000) that was insightful for understanding peer relations at group level. From our point of view, however, there is another important but often overlooked level of analysis, which is focused on the observation of triadic children’s play.  As several authors have argued (Lavictoire, Snyder, Stoolmiller, and Hollenstein, 2012), the experience of playing in triads warrants particular attention from all scholars interested in interpersonal interaction research, as it differs significantly from both the dyadic and the group or collective play. Notwithstanding its relevance, research into triadic 216

Observing children’s triadic play

children’s play is still limited, and this might be due to the theoretical and methodological challenges that researchers encounter when they get closer to this field of study. The centrality of this issue for the understanding of human relations was established long ago in the system approach, which considered triads as the basic unit of interaction analysis in family and peer contexts (Minuchin, 1985; Pincus, 2001). In accordance with the seminal ideas of this approach, research into children’s play has confirmed that triads have properties that dyads do not. For example, while a child has no alternative interaction partner in a dyad, the complex dynamics of triadic interaction create multiple possibilities for alliances helping children to experiment with cooperation, conflicts, or negotiation (Vuchinich, Emery, and Cassidy, 1988). Moreover, three-party play is challenging because it fosters the children’s capacity to assume various positions and to make the transition from one position to another. In a dyadic interaction a child can adopt only one of two positions. S/he can either be active or non-active. In a triadic interaction a child can also position him or herself as being peripheral, though still   his skill is crucial as it is connected to the children’s ability involved in the play activity. T to join and leave interactions, a skill that children are expected to master from a very early age, for example when they have to make the transition from interaction with the mother to interaction with the educator in early childhood settings. Because of these properties, triadic play represents a social context that creates opportunities for types of interaction that are qualitatively different from those observable in dyads. In this chapter we focus on the observation of children’s triadic play. We start by referring to research on peer cultures, which has been insightful in describing rituals for gaining entry into ongoing interactions. We then examine the psychological literature on triadic play that highlights the qualitative features of three-party play. We conclude the chapter by presenting the method and some results from our own observational research on triadic play among Italian children 3 to 6 years of age.

Access rituals in peer cultures Through long and participative ethnographic research in American and Italian early childhood settings, Corsaro (2003; 2011) developed the interpretive reproduction approach, which turned out to be particularly effective in capturing the innovative and creative aspects of children’s participation in their relational worlds. In this approach, special emphasis was placed on children’s participation in routines that, for their takenfor-granted character, provide children with a feeling of security and enable them to deal with the ambiguities of everyday life. Among the many routines that were observed and described in detail by Corsaro and collaborators (Corsaro and Eder, 1990; Corsaro, Molinari, and Rosier, 2002), for the purposes of this chapter we consider particularly interesting the routine of gaining entry into the interactive space. Even though Corsaro did not confine this routine to triadic interactions, as he was more interested in collective and communal play, the dynamics that are at work when children enter or leave an ongoing interaction are very much the same as the ones that can be observed in the three-party play experience. The premise for the interpretation of the routine of gaining entry into the interactive space is that children from 3 to 6 years are well aware that interactions 217

Molinari, Cigala, Corsano and Venturelli

with their peers are fragile, as there are multiple possibilities for disruption in early childhood play settings. This is why they tend to keep control over shared activities and to protect their ongoing interactions from the entry of others. Numerous examples of children’s protection of their interactive space have been provided by ethnographic studies in early childhood settings. Corsaro advanced an interpretation for the need to protect ongoing peer interactions that contrasted with the view of selfish or uncooperative behaviour. With the defence of interactive space, which is often justified with reference to affiliation (“we’re friends, right?”), children express their desire to keep sharing what they are already sharing and demonstrate an awareness that the entry of other children may constitute a threat to the interacting community they have established. To this claim, we add that from a psychological viewpoint the dynamics that are triggered when two or more children are playing and a third party is trying to enter are also interesting because they constitute excellent exemplars of peer triadic interactions and of the skills that children are required to master when they engage in a transition process from one position to another. Let us consider an episode taken from Corsaro’s observational work on American children 3 to 6 years (2011: 158). Two girls, Jenny and Betty, are playing around a sandbox in the outside courtyard of the school. They are putting sand in pots, cupcake pans, and teapots. A third girl, Debbie, comes up to the sandbox and stands observing the two girls. After watching for a few minutes, Debbie reaches the sandbox for a teapot. Jenny takes the pot away from Debbie and mumbles “No”. Debbie backs away then she walks over to Betty, takes a pot and spoon, begins putting sand in the pot and says “I’m making coffee”.“I’m making cupcakes”, Betty replies. Then Betty turns to Jenny and says “We’re mothers, right, Jenny?” “Right”, says Jenny. The three “mothers” then continue to play together. This interaction illustrates the challenge that young children face when they want to enter an ongoing interaction (Debbie) or to protect their interactive space (Jenny and Betty). In this example, Debbie was eventually able to gain access to the play area and to make the transition from a peripheral (observational) position to a more active one. The dynamics involved in this exchange, which are rather complex for young children, can be considered typical of triadic interactions. In this kind of situation, children develop abilities that are clear precursors to the adult skills used in similar situations, such as when they want to join an ongoing conversation. Learning to make the transition from one interaction to another is a skill at work in everyday interactions, both at home, where children are often called to enter and leave interactions with mother, father or siblings, and at school, with their friends or educators, and for this reason they constitute a subject of study that warrants analysis and a full understanding. However, despite the importance of this issue, there are only a limited number of studies in developmental psychology based on the observation of triadic play interactions. We will briefly review some of them. 218

Observing children’s triadic play

Observation of triadic play interactions in psychological research The field of observational research on triadic interactions in play situations has typically considered different types of play (i.e. structured and non-structured). In some of the studies, a natural environment was preferred while in other cases the observations were undertaken in a laboratory. The various authors have considered several aspects involved in triadic interactions, such as the type of play, the interactive dynamics, the emotional expressiveness, and the communication, and have analysed the effects of different variables, such as age, gender, type of friendship, social status, and the presence of internalizing or externalizing behaviours. Among the studies that sought to understand at what age children are able to interact in triads and the further development and refinement of the necessary skills, we will start by referring to the work conducted by Selby and Bradley (2003) with qualitative observations of infants under the age of one year. On the grounds of their results, which provided evidence for the presence of triadic interactions at a very early age, we can conclude that a rudimentary capacity for triadic interaction, which may pre-date language, seems to be present. A few years later, Ishikawa and Hay (2006) conducted a study on interacting triads of newly acquainted 2-year-old children.To describe triadic interaction among young peers, in this research observations were carried out using the Peer Interaction Coding Scheme, which had been developed in a series of previous studies of early peer interaction that were analysed for the occurrence of social conflict and pro-social behaviour (Hay, Castle, Davies, Demetriou, and Stimson, 1999). In this work, a primary coder transcribed the video records using a micro-analytic coding system that can be applied to both dyadic and triadic settings. In this system, each child’s behaviour was categorized in respect to predetermined social actions and reactions. An action is a behaviour that a child directs towards a peer, e.g. the offer of an object from one child to another. A reaction is a behaviour that depends on the peer’s prior action, e.g. the acceptance of the object that has been offered. In general, the content of the interactions coded with the coding scheme pertains to the children’s mutual use of space and resources. Given that different actions and reactions can occur simultaneously or in rapid sequence, the stream of interaction was parsed into episodes of alternating moves that were made by the different actors. An episode begins with the first action directed by one child to a peer and ends with the last move that preceded a period of at least 30 seconds when no moves occurred. Different types of patterns of social influence were identified. A pattern of influence, which was called direct, was dyadic: it occurred when child A initiated an action towards child B, who then returned some behaviour to A; the third member of the group was not involved in the interaction. Other patterns of influence instead involved all the members of the triad. T   hree types of triadic patterns were observed: a transitive pattern, when A initiated an action towards B, who then directed an action towards C; a parallel pattern, when A and B directed an action towards C; a circular pattern, when A initiated an action towards B, and C then directed an action back to the primary initiator A. In line with the conclusions of Selby and Bradley (2003), the findings provided evidence that, although the predominant interaction pattern in triads of children of an early age was

219

Molinari, Cigala, Corsano and Venturelli

dyadic, 2-year-old girls and boys were capable of triadic interactions, and also that triadic interaction was more likely to occur when the children were not in conflict. For further evidence about the development of the ability in older children to play in triads, we refer to some of the results described by McLoyd, Thomas and Warren (1984) who video-recorded and systematically analysed play sessions during which 3- and 5-year-old children were asked to play as they preferred in groups of three. By comparing the interactions occurring in younger and older triads, these authors reported that 5-year-old children were more likely to be engaged in play exchanges involving all three children and to maintain the triadic state for longer. In greater detail, the results reported that about 67% of the interactions among 5-year-old children were triadic, while this was the case for only 28% of the interactions among younger children. Triads comprising 3-year-old children were instead more engaged in exchanges involving two of the three children present in the session, who were also more likely to perform solitary or parallel play. Moreover, the authors analysed the presence of verbal meta-communication during children’s interactions. In their model, metacommunication included any verbal message concerning interpretations of others’ verbalizations and behaviours, and the appropriateness of behaviour in the specific play context (e.g. statements about the organization of play, components of play or the rules that governed play).The analyses of the observations on this point indicated that verbal meta-communication was more frequent among older triads, and that it facilitated the preservation of the triadic interactive state. This finding suggests that the capacity to sustain triadic interaction may depend on verbal skills. In conclusion, the study’s results corroborate the idea that the ability to communicate with more than one person at a time improves as toddlers acquire larger vocabularies and communicative fluency. Gender differences in triadic play were at the core of the observational study conducted by Lansford and Parker (1999) on school age children. These authors were particularly interested in describing the interpersonal processes that occur in triads of boys and girls and to explore the variability from triad to triad.The participants in their study were fifty-six triads of same-sex 3rd, 4th, and 5th-grade children. The children were observed in a laboratory during an intimate discussion, a cooperative puzzle task, a competitive game, and free play. The observers coded triadic interactions using the Triadic Interactions Q-sort (TIQS, subscales: On Task, Individualism vs. Collective Orientation, Exuberance, Intimacy, Hierarchical Structure and Leadership Imbalance, Responsiveness, Aggression,Triadic level of Coordination of Behaviour) and individual process ratings (Information Exchange, Contention and Conflict, Hierarchy) for each triad. After the observational session, the children were individually asked to reflect on their experience and to indicate whether they would have preferred a dyadic session as compared to the triadic one they were exposed to (“attitudes”). The results revealed that the girl triads were more intimate, exchanged more information, and were less aggressive than the boy triads. Analyses of within-gender variability revealed two prototypical types of triads among boys and only one among girls. Girls and boys expressed similar attitudes towards triadic interactions in the post-session interviews. However, the girls’ attitudes, but not the boys’, were closely linked to the quality of interactions during the session. Specifically, among girls, lower rates of aggression, higher coordination, more effective work on tasks and more interpersonal responsiveness among members, 220

Observing children’s triadic play

were significantly associated with the preference for or attitude towards triadic over dyadic interactions. The description of the age and gender effects on the capacity to be engaged and maintain triadic interactions is of great interest to developmental psychologists. The type of affect and emotions displayed in the course of triadic interactions was also the focus of some research. This was the major point of the longitudinal study of Lavictoire, Snyder, Stoolmiller and Hollenstein (2012), who extended previous research on triadic peer interaction by investigating the patterning of affective states that occur within interacting triads. Measures of affect, especially negative affect, have often been the topic of peer interaction research, but most authors have documented them at an individual level (Hymel, Rubin, Bowden, and LeMare, 1990; Renshaw and Brown, 1993). Instead, the primary aim of Lavictoire and colleagues’ study was to examine the type of affect shared by three interacting peers of varying socio-metric status and its association with children’s conduct problems. The participants were 267 boys and girls who were followed from kindergarten entry to first grade exit. The mean child age at kindergarten entry was 5.5 years, and 7.2 years at the exit of first grade. All of the children were observed several times during their kindergarten year. Triads were formed through combinations of samegender participants from the same classroom, randomly sampled for offering each target child the opportunity to interact with peers in various combinations of sociometric status, externalizing, and internalizing. Teachers’ ratings of child behavioural problems (i.e. internalizing or externalizing behaviours) were obtained both in kindergarten and first grade. The range of each child’s affect during the interaction was coded in real time with the Specific Affect Coding System (Gottman, Coan, Carrere, and Swanson, 1996).The codes of this system were based on facial expressions, physical behaviours and voice tone, and were recorded continuously so that the affective state for each of the three children was captured at every moment of the interaction. The codes were broken up into four categories (Hollenstein, Granic, Stoolmiller, and Snyder, 2004) based on positive, negative and neutral behaviours: Aversive (criticism, domineering, contempt, belligerence, threats, disgust, and anger), Withdrawn (sadness, fear, tension, defensiveness, stonewalling, and whining), Neutral (the absence of any discernible affect), and Positive (interest, validation, affection, humour, and enthusiasm). The results showed that children who engaged in triadic interactions characterized by more aversive affect were identified as having conduct problems. Moreover, the authors described several triadic affective states that persisted in some groups but not in others. In particular, mutually aversive peer interaction was revealed to be one of the mechanisms at play for rejected children with externalizing or internalizing conduct problems. Finally, from our point of view, a major contribution to the literature on triadic play comes from the detailed analysis of the interactive processes that are observable in triads. In order to better understand this point, we refer to the already cited pioneering work of McLoyd et al. (1984), who devoted particular attention to the dynamics involved in the social organization of boys’ and girls’ triads of 3- and 5-year-old children during play sessions. The authors’ primary interest was more in the patterns 221

Molinari, Cigala, Corsano and Venturelli

and sequences of social organizational states (solitary or interactive) than in the relative frequencies of the different states. Each triad was observed in a mobile laboratory transported to the school during two 30-minute sessions separated by no more than four days, one in which toys with gender-specific functions (e.g. dolls, trucks) were available, and one in which toys with relatively ambiguous functions (e.g. pipe cleaners, cardboard cylinders) were present. Each one-minute interval, the dominant state of social organization was coded into one of three categories. (a) Triadic organizational state, which included exchanges among all three children. In this case, the children responded to each other’s behaviours, directives, requests and questions and made their behaviours contingent to that of the others. The criterion for a triadic state was evidence that the behaviour of all three children was directed towards a shared goal. (b) Dyadic organizational state, observable whenever two children were actively engaged in a shared exchange. (c) Solitary organizational state, which was detached in case each of the three children was engaged in some solitary behaviour. There might be some verbal exchanges between the children, but all of them were clearly committed to independent activity. The sequential analysis of organizational states indicated that younger and older children did not differ in their tendency to initiate triadic interactions when the preceding state was solitary, but older triads were more likely to shift from the dyadic to the triadic state. For the gender effect, boy triads were more likely than girl triads to remain in a solitary state and less likely to shift to and remain in a dyadic state, while no gender differences were found in the transition probabilities when the preceding state was triadic. The type of available toys also made a difference. Triads were in fact more likely to remain in a solitary state in the presence of gender specific toys than in the presence of non-gender specific toys. From our point of view, what is particularly interesting in this study is the focus on the movements and sequence from one interactive state to another. This actually concerns the process that children go through each time they face the task of moving from one particular interaction to another, as was evident in the observations of the access rituals in the research on peer cultures. Overall, the psychological literature on children’s triadic play confirms that triads are indeed a specific interactive context. The gravity of the triadic attractors (Hollenstein, 2007) creates dynamics that developmental psychology should be interested in understanding for at least two reasons. First, in the triadic interactive space each participant can experience different roles and is therefore involved in interactions that are more complex and articulated as compared with the dyadic exchanges. Second, the observation of the process undergoing triadic interactions can improve our understanding of how children make the transition from an interactive form to another. Our claim is that when interacting in triads children go through a series of micro transitions, defined as rapid changes in the behaviours of group members that can take place several times over a short period and that imply temporary changes from a peripheral to an active position or vice versa (Cigala, Venturelli, and Fruggeri, 2014). The ability to go through micro transitions is crucial for the development of social competences, as it requires each member of the triad to pay attention to the information 222

Observing children’s triadic play

coming from the others and to be connected to them. This is a requisite for the triad to be able to deconstruct and restructure their relational space in the course of interactions (Venturelli and Cigala, 2015). This claim constitutes the starting premise of our own research, which will be briefly presented in the following paragraph.

Triadic interactive play among peers: an observational study of Italian children The main objective of the study was to investigate the competence of young children during triadic interactive play. In particular, there were two specific purposes of the research. First, we analysed the children’s social competence in joining and quitting interactions; second, we assessed the children’s emotional state during these movements. To this end, we conducted observations in a semi-structured play setting that allowed us to detach the children’s ability: 1) to stay in various triadic states or configurations, assuming different roles; 2) to move from one configuration to another, that is, to deconstruct and reconstruct different triadic interactive spaces.

Participants and method Twenty-four children (twelve females, twelve males) of 4 to 5 years of age (mean age=55 months) from Italian middle-class families participated in the study. The average age of the parents was thirty-eight for the mothers and thirty-nine for the fathers. All the children attended four kindergartens in a city in northern Italy. Contacts with the families and the children were obtained through the kindergartens’ authority. Prior to data collection, an informed written consent was acquired from both parents, in line with the ethical norms laid down by the Italian Psychological Association. All the children were video-recorded during sessions of semi-structured play in groups of three. The task they were asked to perform was partly borrowed by previous research on triadic family interactions models (Fivaz-Depeursinge and Corboz-Warnery, 1999; Cigala, Fruggeri, and Venturelli, 2013; Cigala, Venturelli, and Fruggeri, 2014). In greater detail, each triad was asked to play in four different interactive configurations and to make three micro transitions. Imagine a triad composed of children Anna (A), Luca (L) and Marco (M). The children were given the following instructions: You three can play together by modelling Dido [a type of modelling clay]. When playing, you should follow some simple rules according to which for some time you can play and for some time you just look. First, ANNA plays with LUCA, while MARCO watches their play. Then, LUCA plays with MARCO, while ANNA watches them. Then, MARCO plays with ANNA, while LUCA watches. In the end, all three of you will play together. Let me see if you have understood: how do you start playing? The instructions were repeated as long as needed, with the researcher inviting the children to repeat them to make sure that they had understood. The researcher also provided a graphic illustration to facilitate the children’s understanding. 223

Molinari, Cigala, Corsano and Venturelli

When the researcher was sure that the children had properly understood the instructions, she gave the go ahead to the play session: I repeat that this is the game: you play a little and then you change over. You play this game yourself without me saying anything. If you follow the rules, I won’t say anything. But if after a while I see that you forget that you have to change, I’ll tell you that it’s time to change. So you can prepare to switch. Okay? Ready? Go! The play setting was organised with the aim of giving children the chance to play in four different configurations. In the triad, made up of the three children named above, the configurations are as follows. First configuration, Anna and Luca play, Marco watches ((A-L) M); second configuration, Luca and Marco play, Anna watches ((L-M) A); third configuration, Marco and Anna play, Luca watches ((M-A) L); fourth configuration, all three children play ((A-L-M)). Moreover, each time they move from one configuration to another they go through a micro transition. In case they are able to complete the sequence, they go through three micro transitions (from configurations: 1 to 2, 2 to 3, 3 to 4). All the play sessions took place in the kindergarten that the children attended and were video-recorded. A secluded location of the school was used as the setting, so that triads could engage in the interaction without being disturbed by the voices of other children or by the activities going on at that moment.

Coding system The coding system included different measures of analysis, regarding: a) the understanding of the instructions; b) the configurations; c) the micro transitions. a) Instructions. For each participant, the following indexes were assessed: 1) the degree of concentration and focus, 2) the degree of understanding, 3) the level of participation upon completion. Assessment was carried out on a 4-point Likert-type scale (1=Insufficient, 2=Poor, 3=Good, 4=Very good). b) Configurations. For each participant, the following indexes were analysed: 1) respect for the role: presence or absence of the child’s capacity to fulfil his/her role both actively (when playing with one or two partners) and peripherally (when watching); 2) attention and responsiveness to the signals of their companions (assessed on a 4-point Likert-type scale: 1=Insufficient, 2=Poor, 3=Good, 4=Very good); 3) emotional tuning both in the active and peripheral role (assessed on a 4-point Likert-type scale: 1=Negative, 2=Neutral, 3=Positive, 4=Very positive). In Table 16.1 we provide a description of the behaviour corresponding to each level of assessment for indexes 2 and 3. c) Micro transitions. For each child, the following indexes were assessed: 1) pre announcement of the configuration’s change (presence or absence), 2) role in micro transition: the child fosters the micro transition, hinders it, follows the others. Assessment was carried out on a 3-point Likert-type scale (0=never; 1=sometimes; 2=more), 3) attention and responsiveness to companions (see Table 16.1), 4) emotional 224

Observing children’s triadic play Table 16.1 Description of child attention, responsiveness and positive emotional tuning assessment in the configurations Attention and Responsiveness

Emotional Tuning

Levels

Levels

Description

4 Very good

Attention, responsiveness, rephrasing of signals by all members; contingency between responses is complementary 3 Attention, responsiveness and rephrasing of Good signals by two members shortly followed by the third; contingency between responses is consecutive and fluid (some members start the process and the other actors follow it almost immediately) 2 Attention, responsiveness, and rephrasing of Poor signals are present sometimes; contingency between responses is consecutive but difficult (the actions of the members take place at different times) 1 Absence of attention, responsiveness and Insufficient rephrasing of signals; contingency between responses is rare or absent

Description

4 Presence of Very positive positive emotions 3 Positive

Presence of positive and neutral emotions

2 Neutral

Presence of neutral emotions and few negative emotions

1 Negative

Presence of negative emotions, almost complete absence of positive emotions

tuning (see Table 16.1), 5) triadic relational dynamic of micro transition (Cigala,Venturelli and Fruggeri, 2014) visible in the processes of detachment, entrusting, welcoming, joining in. In Table 16.2 we provide a description of such processes. Two independent judges (K=0.73–0.92) carried out the coding for each configuration (maximum number: 4) and for each micro transition (maximum number: 3).

Results The descriptive analyses carried out on the three considered indexes showed a complex set of results. As far as the instructions were concerned, the children were generally careful and focused (M=3.46). They generally displayed a very good understanding of the task (M=3.42) and the completion of the instructions was good as well (M=3.00). The measure of configurations was analysed in its different indexes. 1) In regard to respect for the role, almost half of the children (n=10) respected both their peripheral and active roles (with one or two companions), seven children did not respect the peripheral role, six of them respected neither the peripheral nor the active role. Finally, only one child respected the peripheral role but not the active one. 2) Attention and 225

Molinari, Cigala, Corsano and Venturelli Table 16.2 Description of the processes involved in the triadic relational dynamics of the micro transitions Processes

Description

Detachment

Verbal, corporal, and expressive movements allowing one or more members to separate from the ongoing interaction and relate to other members or choose the role of the observer Verbal, corporal, and expressive movements through which the active member prepares another member for a new interactional involvement Verbal, corporal, and expressive movements through which the partner shows a willingness to become involved in the interaction Verbal, corporal, and expressive movements through which the partner proposes or consolidates a new interactive configuration

Entrusting Welcoming Joining

responsiveness to the companions’ signals was “poor-good” (M=2.62). 3) The level of emotional tuning was “positive” (M= 2.95). The micro transitions results are as follows: 1) The pre announcement was detected in just six children; 2) In relation to the role played, the children behaved in different ways.The most frequent role was “to follow the behaviour of the others”, followed by that of “fostering” the micro transition and, less frequently, “to hinder” it. 3) The attention and responsiveness was between poor and good (M=2.72). 4) The emotional tuning was “neutral-positive” (M=2.58), that is, slightly less positive than in the configurations. 5) Finally, the results concerning the triadic relational dynamics of micro transitions revealed a great deal of variability. What is noteworthy is the scarce presence of the entrusting process, which was mostly expressed in terms of a suggestion of actions aimed at the transition. The joining process was the most present, followed by the detachment and the welcoming processes. The correlations between indices of configuration and micro transition showed some interesting relationships. In particular, attention and responsiveness to the companions during micro transitions was positively associated with the same variable measured in configurations. Again, attention and responsiveness was related to the ability to respect the role in the various configurations (i.e. either active or peripheral) and to the emotional fine tuning in configurations and micro transitions. Finally, attention and responsiveness was also related to the presence of the pre announcement, to the role of fostering the micro transition, and to the presence of the triadic dynamic relational processes. On the whole, these data stress the importance, during triadic play, of the child’s capacity to respond and to be attentive to the signals of others. In particular, the children who turned out to be the most competent in picking up the signals of change launched by their peers also showed more competence in respecting the active or peripheral role in the various interactive forms. In conclusion, the study provides evidence that children aged 4 to 5 years are able to take on both an active and a peripheral role when interacting in triads. In the educational settings, this ability is crucial as it allows children, during interactions with 226

Observing children’s triadic play

others, to wait for their turn. Furthermore, our observations reveal that children enjoy being engaged in triadic play, as they showed positive emotions, and they also appeared to be “directors” in the micro transitions, by fostering the change, detecting and amplifying the signals of their companions and implementing processes that facilitate micro transitions.

Conclusions The literature review confirms that children’s triadic play represents an interesting field of research that authors have investigated from different points of view. Some of the studies have focused on the occurrence of triadic play and the influence played by variables such as gender, the children’s age and the object of play. Other authors have instead analysed the quality of triadic play, with particular emphasis on interpersonal factors, such as the type of meta-communicative language and emotional expressiveness. Finally, research has also studied interactional dynamic unfolding in triadic play, which is observable when children make the transition from one interactive state to another, and the processes of change in the interactive position, i.e. active or peripheral. We argue that the latter field of investigation is particularly relevant for the development of social competence, as it highlights children’s ability to “move” within the triadic interactive space in a competent and flexible way, sharing a common focus with the two other children. In particular, our study shows that in triadic play the most competent children are those who are able to coordinate, be attentive and be responsive to the signals of the other by taking on different interactive positions (active and peripheral) and sharing the pleasure of the ongoing experience. These are only preliminary insights in the area of study on the dynamics of children’s triadic play, and scholars still have a long path ahead of them in this field. In particular, new methods of observation and adequate coding systems have to be identified that include categories capable of capturing the procedural and triadic level of interaction, bearing in mind that interactions at the triadic level require social skills that differ from those at dyadic level. In parallel, research should highlight how this “triadic competence” can impact children’s social and emotional adjustment, for example in terms of emotional regulation, conflict resolution, peer acceptance and pro social behaviour. Another interesting future perspective would be to explore whether a relationship exists between the competence that children reveal in the triadic play and those involved in other relevant contexts, such as the family (Cigala, Fruggeri and Venturelli, 2013). Finally, longitudinal studies could be helpful to verify the predictive value of the triadic competence on emotional, cognitive and social developmental outcomes. In conclusion, we wish to stress that the empirical evidence on the triadic play has important practical implications in several other fields, and primarily in the educational context, where children often experience different triadic interactive spaces (Lansford and Parker, 1999). Training teachers and educators in the specific categories of triadic play could well prove to be a valuable tool for sustaining them in the observation and promotion of triadic play among children. 227

Molinari, Cigala, Corsano and Venturelli

References Christensen, P., and James, A. (2000). Research with children. Perspectives and practices. London and New York: Falmer Press. Cigala, A., Fruggeri, L., and Venturelli, E. (2013). Family microtransitions: An observational study. Marriage & Family Review, 49, 8, 717–736. Cigala, A., Venturelli, E., and Fruggeri, L. (2014). Family functioning in microtransition and socio-emotional competence in preschoolers. Early Child Development and Care, 184, 4, 553–570. Corsaro, W. A. (2003). “We’re friends, right?” Inside kids’ culture. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press. Corsaro, W. A. (2011). The sociology of childhood. 3rd Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. Corsaro, W. A., and Eder, D. (1990). Children’s peer cultures. Annual Review of Sociology, 16, 197–220. Corsaro, W. A., Molinari, L., and Rosier, K. (2002). Zena and Carlotta: Transition narratives and early education in the United States and Italy. Human Development, 45, 323–348. Fivaz-Depeursinge, E., and Corboz-Warnery, A. (1999). The primary triangle. New York: Basic Books. Gottman, J., Coan, J., Carrere, S., and Swanson, C. (1996). Predicting marital happiness and stability from newlywed interactions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 5–22. Hartup, W. W. (1989). Social relationships and their developmental significance. American Psychologists, 44, 120–126. Hay, D. F., Castle, J., Davies, L., Demetriou, H., and Stimson, C. (1999). Prosocial action in very early childhood. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 40, 905–916. Hinde, R. A. (1992). Human social development: An ethological/relationship perspective. In H. McGurk (Ed.), Childhood social development: Contemporary perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Hollenstein, T. (2007). State space grids: Analyzing dynamics across development. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31, 384–396. Hollenstein, T., Granic, I., Stoolmiller, M., and Snyder, J. (2004). Rigidity in parent-child interactions and the development of externalizing and internalizing behavior in early childhood. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 32, 595–607. Hymel, S., Rubin, K. H., Rowden, L., and LeMare, L. (1990). Children’s peer relationships: Longitudinal prediction of internalizing and externalizing problems from middle to late childhood. Child Development, 61, 2004–2021. Ishikawa, F., and Hay, D. F. (2006). Triadic interaction among newly acquainted 2-year-olds. Social Development, 15, 1,145–168. James, A., Jenks, C., and Prout, A. (1998). Theorising childhood. Cambridge: Polity. Lansford, J. E., and Parker, J.G. (1999). Children’s interactions in triads: Behavioral profiles and effects of gender and patterns of friendships among members. Developmental Psychology, 25, 1, 80–93. Lavictoire, L. A., Snyder, J., Stoolmiller, M., and Hollenstein, T. (2012). Affective dynamics in triadic peer interactions in early childhood. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 16, 3, 293–312. McLoyd, V. C., Thomas, E. A. C., and Warren, D. (1984). The short-term dynamics of social organization in preschool triads. Child Development, 55, 1051–1070. Martin, C. L., Fabes, R. A., Hanish, L. D., and Hollenstein, T. (2005). Social dynamics in the preschool. Developmental Review, 25, 299–327. Minuchin, P. (1985). Families and individual development: Provocations from the field of family therapy. Child Development, 56, 289–302. Newcomb, A. F., Bukowski, W. M., and Pattee, L. (1993). Children’s peer relations: A metaanalytical review of popular, rejected, neglected, controversial, and average sociometric status. Psychometric Bulletin, 113, 99–128. Pincus, D. (2001). A framework and methodology for the study of nonlinear, self-organizing family dynamics. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 5, 139–173.

228

Observing children’s triadic play Renshaw, P. D., and Brown, P. J. (1993). Loneliness in middle childhood: Concurrent and longitudinal predictors. Child Development, 64, 1271–1284. Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W. M., and Laursen, B. (Eds.) (2009). Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups. New York: Guilford Press. Rubin, Z. (1980). Children’s friendships. Glasgow: Fontana. Selby, J. M., and Bradley, B. S. (2003). Infants in groups: A paradigm for the study of early social experience. Human Development, 46, 197–221. Venturelli, E., and Cigala, A. (2015). Daily welcoming in childcare centre as a microtransition: an exploratory study.  Early Child Development and Care. 10.1080/03004430.2015.1044987. Vuchinich, S., Emery, R. E., and Cassidy, J. (1988). Family members as third parties in dyadic family conflict: Strategies, alliances, and outcomes. Child Development, 59, 1293–1302.

229

17 Pooh Bear’s turn! An Australian study of adults using special toys to develop play complexity from within children’s imaginary play Sue March and Marilyn Fleer Introduction It is a remarkable fact that the child starts with an imaginary situation when initially this imaginary situation is so very close to the real one. A reproduction of the real situation takes place. For example a child playing with a doll repeats almost exactly what her mother does with her . . . (Vygotsky 1933/1966: 16)

Here Vygotsky notes that initially in play there is little difference for the child between the real situation and imaginary situation. But the difference between play actions and real actions is central to understanding what play is and how it develops. Vygotsky (1933/1966) defined the essence of play as the creation of an imaginary situation, where the contradiction between the visual (real) field and sense (fantasy) field creates the possibility for the development of play complexity, which in turn develops the child’s imagination. Yet recent research undertaken in the US and in Russia suggests that there is an ongoing decline in the frequency and quality of children’s play and what has become evident is that children do not progress to mature forms of play as defined by cultural-historical theory (see Bodrova 2008; Kravtsova 2014). Significantly, it is not just children who have been found to have difficulties with developing their play. Maximov’s (2009) research shows that some adults too did not develop play complexity as children. In both Russia and Finland it has been found that student teachers needed to be taught how to play with children if they were to support children’s play development (Kravtsova 2014; Hakkarainen et al. 2013). This research points to the importance of adults’ involvement in children’s play development. Research into the problem of adult involvement in children’s play has also been undertaken in the context of five early childhood centres in Australia (Fleer 2015) where it was found that teachers generally did not position themselves inside the imaginary situation or engage in sustained collaborative play with children. The 230

Pooh Bear’s turn!

findings of this study sit in contrast to the playworlds research of Hakkarainen and Bredikyte (2014) where the joint play of adults and children actively builds play complexity because adults who become involved in children’s play succeed in supporting the development of play complexity. As found in the study by Fleer (2015), adult involvement in play is difficult to encourage or support. Most students in Hakkarainen and Bredikyte’s (2014) seven-year study of 110 children, 69 families and 200 student teachers, participating in an afterschool play club, found it difficult to successfully intervene in children’s play.Those who were successful were able to move the play activity of the children to a higher level, expanding the borders of the ZPD (Hakkarainen et al. 2013). Less is known about how families become involved in children’s imaginary play in naturalistic studies (see for example Haight and Miller 1993). Ugaste (2005) found that mothers did not participate in their children’s solitary games, whereas Li (2014) noted that when they do, families demonstrate support for children’s imaginary situations through parents role playing with their children when learning their heritage language. Another form of support that has been shown to be effective in helping children’s emerging forms of role play is that of the child’s special toy (Smirnova 2011). However, little research has been directed to identifying how the adult’s relation with the child and the child’s special toy can or does support the development of play complexity.To fill this gap, this chapter presents a case study in which adult interaction with a child and their special toy in the imaginary situation was captured in the preparation for and transition to her childcare centre. Specifically, we examine the family’s support for the extended role-play scenario of one child, Angela (4.2), around her recent birthday party as enacted with and through her special toy, Pooh Bear. A new term, collusion in the imaginary situation, is introduced to capture holistically both the mutual positioning and consciousness of mother and child acting together in the imaginary situation with the special toy. The chapter begins with a brief discussion of the cultural-historical literature on role play in the lives of young children where we examine adult involvement in their play. The concept of positioning is introduced in relation to role play where a child’s relation with her special toy is discussed. This is followed by the study design where we introduce the participants of the broader study and the focus family that is reported in this chapter (pseudonyms are used throughout). A discussion of the findings is presented and the conclusions are drawn.

What is known about role play in the lives of young children? Through El’konin’s (2005a) extensive research we know that historically role play did not exist in the lives of children who participated directly in the work of the community, and that it arose when children’s position in society changed to one where they needed to imagine the work of adults because they could not participate in it directly. El’konin (2005b) introduces his theory about the historical origin of children’s role play in relation to his memory of playing with his two daughters at home one day. The children refused to eat the porridge he had prepared for them but gladly ate the porridge when he adopted the role of kindergarten teacher and they role played being 231

Sue March and Marilyn Fleer

at kindergarten eating their lunch. El’konin solved the problem from within the imaginary play. El’konin signalled the change in the relation between adult and child when an adult adopts a role and sensitively guides the play of children. El’konin’s research was important for establishing role play as a cultural form of development and a form of cultural expression (see Göncü, Jain and Tuermer 2007). Kravtsov and Kravtsova (2010) situate role play within a complex of play types that develop in relation to children’s imagination development. Thus, role play per se is typically preceded by a child firstly changing the meaning of objects and directing them in play, then assuming a role, before adding a plot or storyline to form role play. In reviewing the literature we note that role play has been classified according to various typologies. For example, Hakkarainen and Bredikyte (2014) foreground the narrative aspect of role play, emphasizing the need for a common story or narrative and for adult support to develop joint play. Smirnova and Ryabkova (2010) explain that role play contains both a play plot and has psychological content. In developed Western post-industrial contexts the content of role play involves children in working out the system of social relations of adults and becoming conscious of their place in that system. In contrast to the conditions that El’konin (2005a) wrote about, and current conditions for children in many parts of the world (see Göncü and Vadeboncoeur 2016), the case study in this chapter reflects the ‘child-centric’ values (see Gaskins 2014) of the Anglo-Australian middle-class community in which it took place. Fleer (2014a) has shown that role play is enacted differently in families according to the specific characteristics of the family and local community. In the community where this study took place, not only do children not have the opportunity to participate in adult work, parents also cultivate friendships through their childcare networks. As we will see children role play adults organizing the social lives of their children, as encapsulated in the affectively laden cultural practice of planning and inviting children to the fourth birthday party. Smirnova and Ryabkova (2010) consider that narrative role play involves adopting a role and acting on behalf of that role. Their typology includes ‘classic’ role play, in which the partners interact ‘in two planes, real and role-driven’ (Smirnova and Rybakova 2010: 55).This idea extends D. B. El’konin’s concept of the unit of play from one isolated role, to the relation between two roles. Kravtsova (2014: 24) asserts that ‘plot role play’ helps to realize the imagined plot through roles in play. The subject of play is represented simultaneously through two sides of play, consciousness of own self and playing self, which Kravtsova (2014: 25) names as ‘double subjectivity in play’. Hakkarainen et al. (2013) extend the idea of the unit of play in more complex forms of advanced role play to that of the collective subject, comprising several double subjectivities, in which joint play of adults and children creates the ZPD for all participants. A greater understanding of the relation between double subjectivities in advanced role play is important for understanding the true significance of adult involvement in children’s play. Double subjectivity is foundational to the Golden Key School methodology of Kravtsova and colleagues in Russia (Kravtsov and Kravtsova 2014) where adult involvement in developing children’s play complexity is advocated. In these multi-age schools, adults participate and take roles in the imaginary situation through the use of 232

Pooh Bear’s turn!

simple props, such as putting on a grey cap to indicate going into role as the wolf from a fairy tale, taking the cap off to plan the play, and passing the cap to another adult to indicate that they will now model the in-role position. As with Hakkarainen and Bredikyte’s (2014) playworlds research, the teachers create tension through dramatic approaches and clever problem formulations that invite children into the play with the adults supporting the children’s own independent play elaboration. In their playworlds methodology, Hakkarainen et al. (2013) have found that ‘in-role’ adult involvement in children’s play is essential for play complexity to develop. In particular it is needed at the beginning of role play. But how should adults enter into play situations with children? Hakkarainen et al. (2013) recommend differentiated strategies in relation to the child’s level of play development.They have identified four universal steps for intervening in children’s play. The first of these is to observe closely and ‘try to catch the child’s play idea’ focusing on the child’s initiative. Next an adult should ‘step into’ children’s play and expand upon those initial ideas of the child, then get involved in joint play with the child or group of children. They consider that the highest level of joint play development happens when the participants ‘reach togetherness with a flow of mutual experience’ (Hakkarainen et al. 2013: 224).This idea of togetherness and flow of mutual experience has been noted elsewhere as an intense, developed form of intersubjectivity (Göncü 1993) between adult and child in sustained shared imaginary situations (Fleer 2010).These approaches are quite different to those adopted by many teachers in Australia accustomed to an ‘emergent curriculum’ approach (see Fleer 2015). A new approach is needed to encourage such teachers to enter into the play of the children in their care. We now examine the role of the special toy, which offers one possibility to encourage adult involvement.

What is known about role play through a special toy? Smirnova and Ryabkova (2010) identify another kind of role play, ‘role play through a toy’, in which the role is assigned to an ‘image toy’ and implemented through it. Smirnova (2011: 36) has shown that the ‘character toy’ is a tool of play that helps a child go beyond the limits of a perceived situation, to embody another person and act on behalf of that person, that is, to assume an image of a person. Vygotsky (1994: 61–62) named such tools as signs, saying that, ‘The inclusion in any process of a sign remodels the whole structure of psychological operations, just as the inclusion of a tool remodels the whole structure of a labour operation.’ Role play with a special toy becomes complex as the toy ‘takes up the words, actions and feelings of the child, and “addresses” those to the partner’ (Smirnova 2011: 56). The partner could be another child, an adult or another toy. Smirnova (2011: 37) explains that ‘two essential processes take place simultaneously, with a (special toy) in the centre’. The first is that children speak on behalf of the toy, ‘objectivating’ their own experiences. In this chapter we will see how the focus child from our study, Angela (4.2), speaks on behalf of her special toy, Pooh Bear, in her squeaky ‘Pooh Bear voice’. Smirnova suggests that such behaviour affords an insight into the inner world of the child as they put their words and thoughts into the mouth of the special toy, as it becomes an ‘expressive symbol(s) of their [child’s] inner world’ 233

Sue March and Marilyn Fleer

(2011: 37). In the context of Hakkarainen and colleagues’ recommended first step for successful play intervention, close observation aimed at ‘catching the child’s play idea’ can also be afforded through a special toy.That is,‘By watching children’s play (through a special toy) one can understand their inner world and the things that excite them’ (Smirnova 2011: 37). The second process that takes place through a special toy is that they ‘contribute to children’s social and every day concepts and familiarize them with the patterns of social and family life’ (Smirnova 2011: 37). Kravtsova (2014) views these two processes from a ‘double subjectivity’ point of view, noting that play makes possible both self-awareness and understanding of the surrounding world. In the study reported below, in Angela’s Anglo-Australian middle-class community, the fourth birthday party assumes a particular societal importance as a symbol of progressing to ‘big kinder’ and as a family practice of planning and organizing this social event. Through an extended role play Angela repeatedly re-enacts the scenario of ‘Pooh Bear’s birthday party’ at home and with a group of friends in her childcare centre. Through this process Angela has the possibility for understanding the complex concept of birthday (see Klavir and Leiser 2002) in relation to the everyday concept of planning and organizing a birthday party as a cultural celebration. In this way, a toy that affords animation by a child ‘allows pre-schoolers to acknowledge and transform themselves and their own behaviour’ but this will only happen if a child is able to vitalize and animate the toy and, importantly for the case study in this chapter, ‘this ability, like the ability to play, can be communicated only by an adult or an older child who knows how to play and who can involve the children in play’ (Smirnova 2011: 39). Further below we will consider the way in which Angela’s family supports her in ‘animating’ Pooh Bear and involving her in role play through the toy. Next we consider the concept of positioning in children’s play as this is a key dimension of understanding how a special toy can help develop play complexity.

The concept of positioning in children’s play Smirnova and Ryabkova (2010) examined play interactions when children were in role and in the real situation. In line with El’koninova (2007, as cited in Smirnova and Ryabkova 2010), they found that role-driven interactions were of a two-step nature, involving a challenge in the play and a response, which was either accepted or rejected. In contrast to El’koninova, they found that real relations also involved the two-step process of challenge and response where ‘the children make proposals, express their displeasure with the partner’s act, discuss play and plan it’ (Smirnova and Ryabkova 2010: 55). Both in-role and real interactions appear to draw upon special forms of positioning. The concept of positioning in children’s play has been extensively researched and developed for early childhood education by Kravtsova and colleagues in relation to the reciprocal positioning of children and adults in relation to each other (subject positioning, such as above/below, equal and independent) and in relation to the situation in which the communication is taking place (situational positioning) (Berezhkovskaya and Kravtsova 2006). Situational positioning includes the pre-situational position (where the person adopts a pre-determined position and is unable to adjust to the 234

Pooh Bear’s turn!

situation at hand), the in-situational position (typical of young children who are absorbed inside a play situation), the above-situational position (the meta-play position, where a child temporarily occupies a ‘point outside’). According to Kravtsova (2008), if a child does not experience the above-situational position, their imagination will not fully develop. The highest level of situational positioning, the out-of-situational position represents a high level of personality development, which adults in Golden Key Schools are expected to develop. In order for children and adults to relate effectively with one another using these mutual positioning strategies there needs to be both a common context (field of meaning) and at least two different points of view, or positions, which co-exist within this field of meaning (subject and situational positioning). Angela and her family created a common context through the sustained imaginary situation ‘Pooh Bear’s birthday party’. When two adults in an early childhood context work together and create a dialogue between two positions, this is known as pair pedagogy (Berezhkovskaya and Kravtsova 2006), and this is essential for the common context to grow and to help children’s play develop. We will see how Angela’s family creates ‘a dialogue between two or more positions’ through Angela’s relation with her special toy, enabling the play to develop. Smirnova and Ryabkova (2010) consider the position of the child in play to be one of the most important considerations in understanding play. By position, they refer to the child’s concept of self, or what Kravtsova (2014) names as ‘I-image’. ‘In role play the child’s “I” is conditionally identified with the position’ (Smirnova and Ryabkova 2010: 55).These authors outline three positions of the player: assuming a role, directing the action, and the real position (outside the play). In role play the child adopts a role and acts on behalf of that role, becoming immersed in ‘the other’. But simultaneously the child ‘views her/himself as a spectator of the play that takes place’ (2010: 55). This latter idea has been expressed by Kravtsov and Kravtsova (2010) as a double subjectivity in play. The tension evident in moments of double subjectivity gives rise to the possibility for adult involvement. Kravtsova (2008) suggested that in order to communicate with a child inside the imaginary situation (in-situational position) adults must learn to use materials as children do. In the case study presented next, we will examine how the mother relates to the child’s special toy inside the imaginary situation, an in-role relation with both the child and her special toy.

Situating the study The data presented in this chapter is from the first named author’s PhD study which took place in a childcare centre in a small rural, coastal town to the south of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. The town has a growing middle-class residential population, of predominantly white, Anglo-Australian heritage. The methodology for the study was based on Russia’s Golden Key Schools (projective method – see Kravtsov and Kravtsova 2014) and took the form of a fairy tale festival over six weeks at Seaview House community centre. The centre offers a number of services including community education, clubs for the elderly and a childcare centre led by a degree-qualified teacher and a team of vocationally qualified educators. 235

Sue March and Marilyn Fleer

Summary of participants and method Participants in the larger study included three educators and a multi-age group of twenty-five children (age range 1.8 to 5 years, mean age 3.4). Forty hours of video data were collected in the centre. In addition three focus families took part in the study. The first named researcher, accompanied by a colleague, visited each volunteer focus family between two and three times and video recorded the children’s play and interactions at home. Semi-structured interviews were also conducted with the parents. The parents also video recorded family activities for the researcher. Twenty hours of video data of focus family participants were collected, including five hours of Angela’s family. Data were analysed using Fleer’s (2014b) three iterative layers of analysis using the concepts of subject/situational positioning and pair pedagogy.

Introducing the focus family participants Angela (4.2) lives with her mother (Sandra), father (Marcus) and two older siblings, Rosie (18) and Seb (15) about 15 minutes’ drive from Seaview House. Angela’s mother works as a yoga teacher in another part of Seaview House on Fridays whilst Angela attends the childcare group. As well as observing Angela in her children’s centre over the six weeks of the project, two visits were made to the focus family home. Following the researcher’s final visit, a video camera was left with Angela’s family to record a bedtime story session. The family were instructed that the researcher would be interested in family interactions that involved fairy tale or story reading/telling, imagination and imaginary play.

Findings In this section the findings of the study are presented in relation to how the special toy affords the possibility for developing the complexity of Angela’s role play. In the broader PhD study, the special toy was also found to be significant in facilitating teachers’ pedagogical positioning within the imaginary situation (Fleer 2015) for developing the play complexity of a group of children in the collective context of the children’s centre. In this paper we examine in detail the development of play complexity in the context of the family home as supported by the family.

Angela’s family supports her role play through Pooh Bear According to the mother Angela’s imagination is enacted with and through her special toy, Pooh Bear, ‘who’ accompanies her everywhere, even to childcare, where her teacher has noticed Angela’s special relation, ‘Pooh Bear exists for Angela I think’ (interview data). Bears are a family tradition and Angela’s father and siblings all have fond memories of having a special teddy bear in their lives. The family values and supports her imagination through, for example, participating in imaginary scenarios that she directs, including brother Seb recording an iPad video of Angela running a yoga class, with Pooh Bear as the audience and the rest of her family as the participants.

236

Pooh Bear’s turn!

Here she has to imagine her mother’s work (El’konin 2005a). Angela’s parents support the relation with her special toy in other ways, including speaking to Pooh Bear directly: after reading a bedtime story to Angela, her father moves some toy bears off her bed, saying ‘Come on you bears, move over and make room for Angela.’ They encourage her to speak in her ‘Pooh Bear voice’. Mother said that sometimes she ‘has to do Pooh Bear’s voice for him’. The family video recording begins on a morning that she is attending childcare and establishes that the family have been planning for Pooh Bear and Angela’s doll, Madeline, to continue the birthday party imaginary situation at childcare. Mother is holding the video camera and Angela ‘animates’ Pooh Bear by speaking in ‘Pooh Bear voice’ (PBV) and by shaking ‘him’ for the camera/her mother, who asks (addressing the bear directly): MOTHER: Who’s coming Pooh Bear? ANGELA (PBV):  Um, Gemma . . . and . . . Alana MOTHER:  And whose birthday is it again? ANGELA:  Um . . . Madeline’s. MOTHER: Where is she? ANGELA:  I’ll go and find her.

and Lara and Oliver!

As Smirnova (2011: 37) notes, ‘Character toys . . . open the way for animation, vitalisation and the assumption of children’s experiences and feelings.’ In addressing Pooh Bear and recognizing Angela’s double subjectivity, with Pooh Bear as her ‘other self ’ mother seems to be acting in role. She seems to be positioning Angela as Pooh Bear (i.e. in role) who is preparing a birthday party for Madeline. We start to see the complexity of the double subjectivity here, enacted through role relations. Mother uses the below position, pretending she has forgotten, ‘Whose birthday is it again?’ in order to draw Angela into the imaginary situation. This is important because the adult is leading the child in establishing the imaginary situation. As Angela replies to the last question, the ‘Um’ is in the squeaky, high-pitched voice she adopted to answer the first question as Pooh Bear, but after a pause in which she rolls her eyes up and towards the living room, she answers ‘Madeline’s’ in a voice closer to her own. We can infer here that Angela has been able to act in role as Pooh Bear in the ‘role play through a toy’, but having realized she does not know where the doll is, she moves closer to the real situation as she goes to look for the doll, ‘animating’ Pooh Bear as if ‘he’ is looking for Madeline (thus, through Pooh Bear, moving back into role). Mother, daughter and toys then have breakfast together in role.

Pooh Bear plays I-spy Next we examine the video data recorded by the family on the journey to Seaview House, during which Angela’s mother drops her brother Seb (15) at school, then sister Rosie (18) at art college and she and Angela continue on to the childcare centre. Angela’s mother is sitting in the driving seat as Rosie gets in the car with the video camera rolling. Angela’s toys, Pooh Bear and Madeline, are strapped 237

Sue March and Marilyn Fleer

into the rear middle seat next to Angela, who is buckled up in her child seat. Rosie sits in the rear passenger seat next to Pooh Bear and Madeline and behind Seb who is silent for the journey. ROSIE: MOTHER: ROSIE: ANGELA: ROSIE:

Ready to go! Oh, you mean the other guys? They’re ready! Yeah [touches Pooh Bear’s arm]. They’re strapped in their seat belts, they’re safe.

Here Rosie and mother position themselves within the imaginary situation of Pooh Bear taking Madeline to childcare where ‘he’ (Pooh Bear, Angela’s ‘other self ’) is going to prepare a party to celebrate Madeline’s birthday. Rosie’s initial statement ‘Ready to go!’ is potentially ambiguous as to whether it is in the imaginary situation or not (although she does use a high cadence which indicates pretence – see Lillard 2007). Mother makes it clear both that Rosie’s statement is in role by clarifying that she is not referring to Angela, but to the toys, the ‘other guys’ and also that she (mother) is speaking to Rosie in role in the imaginary situation. Here mother is potentially guiding both Angela and Rosie in developing the play. Mother and Rosie directly address each other within the imaginary situation, modelling role relations for Angela using a form of pair pedagogy, which creates the ZPD for Angela. Angela is positioned in the imaginary situation in the role of an adult (her mother) responsible for the children’s safety, which she confirms by touching Pooh Bear’s arm as if checking, or showing, that ‘he’ is strapped in properly. Rosie narrates the gesture by confirming that the (animated) toys are strapped in, ‘They’re strapped in their seat belts, they’re safe,’ thus guiding Angela in developing the play. Hakkarainen et al. (2013) propose that understanding the child’s intention is the essential prerequisite for adult guidance in children’s play, and Rosie shows that she is attuned to this. Here, role and real relations are further complicated by the fact that Pooh Bear accompanies Angela everywhere, including to childcare. In the imaginary world of Angela’s life with Pooh Bear, ‘he’ can be considered the experienced childcare attender (as Angela’s other self) taking Madeline (the newcomer) to the childcare centre. The relation between the players (mother, Rosie, Angela, Pooh Bear and Madeline) are complex even at this beginning stage of the play that is about to unfold. Smirnova and Ryabkova (2010) say that the structure of role play through a toy, in which a role is assigned to an image toy and implemented through that toy, becomes complicated because the role-driven communication is made indirect through the toy.These relations go beyond a straightforward distinction of real relations and role relations. The concept of double subjectivity helps to unpack this complexity as each of the players is conscious of creating and developing the imaginary situation that is going to accompany Angela to childcare that day and is aware of each other’s positioning towards this collective intent. On the journey they continue to build emotional anticipation of the excitement of the birthday party scenario that has been discussed and planned at home prior to departure. The car trip proceeds with Angela going over the plans for the birthday party with Rosie and their mother supporting Angela to remember which toy’s birthday it is and 238

Pooh Bear’s turn!

what the plans are. We get a clue as to Rosie’s view of the role of Angela’s toys in her life when she says ‘and you’ve got Pooh Bear friends at home’.Their mother’s relation with the toys is more nuanced and enters in role more smoothly and stays within the imaginary situation for metaplay commentaries and discussions. Rosie seems to need help in establishing and maintaining in-role participation as the journey proceeds. Several times in the first few minutes of the journey she stepped out of role and asked questions similar to those of the students in the unsuccessful play interventions in Hakkarainen et al.’s (2013) study. One example is presented here. MOTHER: Now what’s happening today, Angela? ANGELA: Madeline’s birthday [Claps hands in a

stylized way, possibly portraying pretend excitement]. Blow up balloons and . . . make a present [short pause, then continues] . . . make a present ROSIE: What sort of present? ANGELA: Well I don’t know, but Oliver will tell me MOTHER: And do you all sing? ANGELA: We all sing [stylized hand clapping, singing] Happy birthday to you. [Normal voice] Like that. MOTHER: Yeah ROSIE: That was a very good song that you . . . As with the ‘unsuccessful’ students in Hakkarainen et al. (2013), Rosie takes the position of ‘outside observer’ or typical teacher position in a classroom. On this occasion Angela does not allow this comment to pull her fully out of the imaginary situation that she and her mother have been building together since she got up: ANGELA: [Interrupting] And he opens the presents . . . MOTHER: Pooh Bear does? ANGELA: Yeah MOTHER: But it’s not his birthday today. ANGELA: [Realizing her mistake] No, it’s Madeline’s. MOTHER: Pooh Bear nearly missed out on coming, Rosie, did ROSIE: Did he?

you hear?

Here Angela remains within the imaginary situation, but (possibly distracted by Rosie’s outside observer/above positioning) has reverted to the previous week’s scenario of Pooh Bear’s birthday party. As her ‘other self ’, the repeated scenario of Pooh Bear’s birthday is more immediately relatable to Angela. Pooh Bear organizing Madeline’s birthday party, changes the toys’ in-role relation and puts Angela into a new role, that of organizing the party through her special toy. Thus we see that the play is already developing in complexity and in terms of the imagination required to ‘hold’ the scenario. Her mother corrects her,‘But it’s not his birthday today,’ then talks directly to Rosie within the imaginary situation ‘Pooh Bear nearly missed out on coming, Rosie’ and Rosie responds as a player directly to their mother ‘Did he?’ In the last two exchanges, mother and Rosie were acting in ‘pair pedagogy’ (Berezhkovskaya 239

Sue March and Marilyn Fleer

and Kravtsova 2006), creating conditions for the scenario to flourish and for Angela to participate. Mother has skilfully pulled all the players together, maintaining the integrity of the Madeline’s birthday party imaginary situation and supporting the development of the play complexity. After several minutes first Seb, then Rosie are dropped off at school and college and Angela remains in the car alone with her mother (Rosie has left the video camera running). Now mother no longer has Rosie to act with in pair pedagogy, and finds a new way to help Angela develop the play. Next we witness what appears to be a familiar game between mother and daughter. ANGELA: Mum? MOTHER: Yes darling? ANGELA: Wanna play I spy? MOTHER: Ok. ANGELA:  Pooh Bear’s turn first. MOTHER:  Ok, go Pooh Bear.

Hakkarainen et al. (2013) showed that successful adult interventions are those that build on the initial play ideas of the children where the adults understand the child’s level of play development. Angela’s assertion, ‘Pooh Bear’s turn first’ establishes the toy in role as one of the players and thus indicates the presence of an imaginary situation (beyond the game of I-spy). Here, mother speaks directly to Pooh Bear, modelling role relations for Angela. Interestingly the game of I-spy, a more developed type of play, a game with rules, has been incorporated into the role play in the imaginary situation of Pooh Bear, Angela’s other self going to childcare, demonstrating the complex, iterative nature of play development. This affords Angela the opportunity to work out in play her own place in the system of adult relationships driven by the general desire to act as an adult (El’konin 2005b). The role play of the game begins. ANGELA (PBV):  I spy with my little eye MOTHER: Pink!? ANGELA (PBV): Yes. MOTHER:  Is it a flower? ANGELA (PBV): Yeah! (smiles) MOTHER:  Oh I’m right, first guess!

something beginning with . . . umm . . . pink!

In this first turn, Angela has played the role of Pooh Bear, using her Pooh Bear voice, so that both she and her mother understand her position in the play. In regard to Angela choosing ‘something beginning with . . . umm . . . pink’, two interpretations are possible here: First, this is how Angela and her mother usually play the game, congruent with Angela’s perceptual mastery of relating colours to objects, or second, Angela is adapting the game to the level of Pooh Bear in role as a child going to ‘his’ childcare centre. In either case, in this turn, the rules of the ‘game within a role play’ (I-spy in the imaginary situation) are established: mother uses the beginning letter and child (Angela/Pooh Bear) uses the colour. In the real relation (Angela playing I-spy 240

Pooh Bear’s turn!

directly with her mother) Angela might not have been happy that her mother had guessed right first time, but in the role relation of her ‘other self ’, Pooh Bear playing with her mother, Angela/Pooh Bear declares her mother correct with a very happy and excited ‘Yeah!’ Vygotsky (1933/1966: 14) said that in play the rule becomes an affect, and ‘to carry out the rule is a source of pleasure’. Here Angela illustrates Kravtsova’s notion of double subjectivity where she is ‘happy as a player’ but (potentially) sad in reality. In the next turn Angela alternates between speaking (and thinking/ feeling) as Pooh Bear and as herself, with her mother supporting her to keep the appropriate voice, prompting Angela to remind her whose turn it is: ANGELA:  My turn! MOTHER: Your turn. ANGELA:  I spy with my little eye something beginning with . . . green and white. MOTHER:  Green and white . . . is it a sign? ANGELA (PBV):  Is it a sign, is it a green and white sign Angela? ANGELA: Yes it is. [Clapping excitedly] Pooh Bear’s turn! MOTHER:  Oh ok, Pooh Bear’s turn. ANGELA: You didn’t guess it. MOTHER:  No. Pooh Bear obviously [pause] pipped me at the post didn’t he? ANGELA: Yeah.

Here we see how Angela experiences with/as Pooh Bear the excitement of winning the turn. She actually asks herself a question as Pooh Bear and answers it as herself, making it clear that this is a role play involving three players. Angela again relates her affect to her ‘fictitious I’, her other self as Pooh Bear as she claps excitedly when he wins. Here, as Vygotsky (1933/1966: 14) said, in play ‘the action is completed not for the action itself but for the meaning it carries’ and a ‘dual affective plan occurs’. At the end Angela and her mother clarify what has happened in the role play (that Pooh Bear won the turn) and that both players understand what has happened. We notice how her mother is attuned to Angela thinking and feeling as Pooh Bear, and in fact the family (as we have seen) actively support and encourage this doubleness of thinking and feeling. The relation of the adults towards Angela’s double subjectivity in play is something that has not been theorized in the literature. Angela also shows an understanding of her mother playing two roles – real mother and mother in the play. In the final section of this vignette, Angela, in the role of Pooh Bear, is able to realize the societally constructed rules of the game: ANGELA (PBV):  I spy with my little eye something beginning with . . . T! MOTHER:  T!? Telephone pole? ANGELA (OWN VOICE/PBV): Noo. MOTHER: Tree? ANGELA: Telepho . . . t, t, t. MOTHER: You guess Angela. I don’t know. . . your turn Angela. ANGELA:  Um, no it’s not my turn. MOTHER: You’ve gotta guess. Because Pooh Bear did it so you can guess

241

can’t you?

Sue March and Marilyn Fleer

As Pooh Bear, Angela acts a ‘head taller’ than herself, using the beginning letter rather than colour. Her mother may have noticed the subtle change in Angela’s voice as her answer ‘Noo’ is ambiguous as to which role she is playing. Then mother firstly acts in role (inside the imaginary situation), reminding Angela that it is her turn to guess the answer to Pooh Bear’s question. But Angela mistakes this for her mother acting in the real situation, thinking that she is reminding her that it is her turn to say I spy. Then mother uses meta-language (planning the play) to remind Angela that since Pooh Bear ‘did it’ (i.e. posed the question), Angela has to guess the answer. We note that she does not step completely outside the imaginary situation, but corrects Angela from within the imaginary situation. Both adult and child seem to be ‘conspiring’ to keep the imaginary situation going. ANGELA: T, t , t. MOTHER: Topsy turvy? ANGELA (PBV): No. MOTHER: Turtle. ANGELA: Teapot. MOTHER: Teapot!? I can’t see a teapot, can you? Angela: T, t, t . . . but I can’t see a turtle. MOTHER:  I can’t see a turtle either; I was making ANGELA: You were cheating. MOTHER:  Cheating oh.

that up. That’s naughty.

Here the conversation finally returns to a discussion between mother and daughter. The role play comes to an end as the pretence possibly gets too silly for both of them to keep up and the role relations give way to real relations.

Conclusion In the quote at the beginning of this chapter, Vygotsky foregrounds children’s early experience with imaginary situations and the involvement of special toys like a doll or teddy bear. Given that adult help has been found to be needed in the beginning of pretend role play (Hakkarainen et al. 2013) and that the support of a special toy has been established as helpful in these initial moments in play (Smirnova 2011), a theorization of adult help in relation to children’s special toys in role play through a toy is needed. This study has shown how one family supports their child’s relation with her special toy, helping her to plan the play, adopting roles in the play, speaking directly to the toy, baking cakes for the toy’s party and generally sustaining the role play. They support her in making conscious role and real relations thus building her understanding of her place in the social relations of her family and community and gaining a conceptual grasp of important aspects of her life. The analysis has shown how the subject and situational positioning between the adults/older siblings and child in this family setting has contributed to establishing and maintaining the imaginary scenario of the toys’ birthday parties.The positioning ideas 242

Pooh Bear’s turn!

outlined earlier (Berezhkovskaya and Kravtsova 2006; Smirnova and Ryabkova 2010; Hakkarainen et al. 2013; Fleer 2015) are useful in understanding the relation between the child and her toy and between the adult(s) and the child. But it was found in this study that they do not fully explain the relation between all the players together (adult, child and toy). The relation between the adult and child has been conceptualized in terms of subject positioning. The relation between the child and her special toy as one of double subjectivity. Finally the relation between the adult and special toy in relating to the child in the imaginary situation is understood as a form of pair pedagogy. When all these things are happening together a new relation emerges. The situation with a toy is more nuanced and complex, with double subjectivity jointly experienced and understood between the players at the peak of joint role play. The term collusion in the imaginary situation is introduced here to capture the complexity, intersubjectivity and holistic nature of such moments. Colluding is generally understood to mean coming to an understanding or conspiring together. Although the word has acquired some negative connotations over time, in returning to its Latin root (col- meaning with, together or jointly and ludere meaning play) we find its essence in the idea of ‘playing together’. The new concept collusion in the imaginary situation encapsulates this essential quality as evidenced, for example, when mother and child ‘conspired together’ to maintain the imaginary situation of Pooh Bear playing I-spy. The term collusion in the imaginary situation is therefore used to explain the essence of the relation between subject positioning, double subjectivity and pair pedagogy in joint role play through a toy as evident in the data from this family. These key relations are shown in the model in Figure 17.1.

Figure 17.1 Model of the relations between child, special toy and adult in joint role play through a toy

243

Sue March and Marilyn Fleer

The concept of collusion in the imaginary situation introduced here helps make visible the special quality of interaction where adults are attuned to the child’s social situation of development in relation to the imaginary situation. It also captures the reciprocity between adults and children as they draw each other into the imaginary situation and mutually develop it through the relation with the special toy.We argue that the support of parents in developing children’s double subjectivity in play requires further investigation if we are to fully understand how adults support children to develop play complexity with the support of a special toy.

References Berezhkovskaya, E.L. and Kravtsova, E.E. (2006) Experimental psychological theatre: an introduction to practical psychology – communicating/relating [Eksperimental’ny psychologichesky teatr: obshchenie], vol. 1, Moscow: Russian State University for the Humanities,Vygotsky Institute of Psychology. Bodrova, E. (2008) ‘Make-believe play versus academic skills: A Vygotskian approach to today’s dilemma of early childhood education’, European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 16: 357–69. El’konin, D.B. (2005a) ‘On the historical origin of role play’, Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 43: 49–89. El’konin, D.B. (2005b) ‘The psychology of play’, Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 43: 11–21. Fleer, M. (2010) Early learning and development: Cultural-historical concepts in play, Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. Fleer, M. (2014a) Theorising play in the early years, New York: Cambridge University Press. Fleer, M. (2014b) ‘Beyond developmental geology: A cultural-historical theorization of digital visual technologies for studying young children’s development’, in M. Fleer and A. Ridgway (eds.), Visual Methodologies and Digital Tools for Researching with Young Children: Transforming Visuality. International Perspectives on Early Childhood Education and Development 10, pp. 15–34, Dordrecht: Springer. Fleer, M. (2015) ‘Pedagogical positioning in play – teachers being inside and outside of children’s imaginary play’, Early Childhood Development and Care, doi:10.1080/03004430.2015. 1028393. Gaskins, S. (2014) ‘Children’s play as cultural activity’, in L. Brooker, M. Blaise and S. Edwards (eds.), Sage handbook of play and learning in early childhood, London: Sage Publications. Göncü, A. (1993) ‘Development of intersubjectivity in social pretend play’, Human Development, 36: 185–98. Göncü, A., Jain, J. and Tuermer, U. (2007) ‘Children’s play as cultural interpretation’, in A. Goncu and S. Gaskins (eds.), Play and development: Evolutionary, sociocultural, and functional perspectives, pp. 155–78, New York: Lawrence Erlbaum. Göncü, A. and Vadeboncoeur, J.A. (2016) ‘Returning to play: The critical location of play in children’s sociocultural lives’, in S. Douglas and L. Stirling (eds.), Children’s play, pretense, and story: Studies in culture, context, and autism spectrum disorder, pp. 294–313, New York: Psychology Press. Haight, W.L. and Miller, P.J. (1993) Pretending at home: Early development in a sociocultural context, New York: State University of New York. Hakkarainen, P. and Bredikyte, M. (2014) ‘Understanding narrative as a key aspect of play’, in L. Brooker, M. Blaise and S. Edwards (eds.), Sage handbook of play and learning in early childhood. London: Sage Publications. Hakkarainen, P., Bredikyte, M., Jakkula, K. and Munter, H. (2013) ‘Adult play guidance and children’s play development in a narrative play-world’, European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 21: 213–25.

244

Pooh Bear’s turn! Klavir, R. and Leiser, D. (2002) ‘When astronomy, biology, and culture converge: Children’s conceptions about birthdays’, The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 163: 239–53. Kravtsov, G.G. and Kravtsova, E.E. (2010) ‘Play in L.S.Vygotsky’s nonclassical psychology’, Journal of Russian and Easter European Psychology, 48: 25–41. Kravtsov, G.G. and Kravtsova, E.E. (2014) ‘The projective method as the basis of continuous education’, in A. Blunden (ed.) Collaborative projects, Leiden and Boston: Brill. Kravtsova, E.E. (2008) ‘The problems and practices of communication: Subject positioning within the Golden Key program’, paper presented at Vygotsky symposium, Monash University, Peninsula campus, 17 December. Kravtsova, E.E. (2014) ‘Play in the non-classical psychology of L.S. Vygotsky’, in L. Brooker, M. Blaise and S. Edwards (eds.), Sage handbook of play and learning in early childhood, London: Sage Publications. Li, L. (2014) ‘A visual dialectical methodology: Using a cultural-historical analysis to unearth the family strategies in children’s bilingual heritage language development’, in M. Fleer and A. Ridgway (eds.), Transforming Visuality: Researching Childhood, pp. 35–53, Dordrecht: Springer. Lillard, A. (2007) ‘Guided participation: How mothers structure and children understand pretend play’, in A. Göncü and S. Gaskins (eds.), Play and development: Evolutionary, sociocultural, and functional perspectives, pp. 131–53, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Maximov, A.A. (2009) Personal features of computer games’ addicts, doctoral dissertation, Russian State University for the Humanities, Moscow. Smirnova, E.O. (2011) ‘Character toys as psychological tools’, International Journal of Early Years Education, 19: 35–43. Smirnova, E.O. and Ryabkova, I.A. (2010) ‘Structure and variants of a preschooler’s narrative play’, Psychological Science and Education, 3: 51–57. Ugaste, A. (2005) ‘The child’s play world at home and the mother’s role in the play’, doctoral thesis, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland. Vygotsky, L.S. (1933/1966) ‘Igra i ee rol v umstvennom razvitii rebenka’, Voprosy psikhologii, 12: 62–76, translated as:Vygotsky, L.S. (1967) ‘Play and its role in the mental development of the child’, Soviet Psychology, 5: 6–18 (original work published 1933). Vygotsky, L.S. (1994) ‘The problem of the cultural development of the child’, in R. van der Veer and J.Valsiner (eds.), The Vygotsky reader, pp. 57–72, Oxford: Blackwell.

245

18 Self-regulation and narrative interventions in children’s play Milda Bredikyte and Pentti Hakkarainen

Introduction Our approach, which we call developmental (narrative) play pedagogy, is based on cultural-historical psychology and especially on Vygosky’s and El’konin’s writings on play and early development. In our opinion play is not a tool for ‘academic’ learning but an activity in which prerequisites for further learning develop.The main legacy of the cultural-historical approach to play (Zaporozhets, El’konin, Leont’ev, Korotkova, Smirnova and others) is that constant development of play from elementary to advanced forms should be the central focus of adults. Instead of training academic skills teachers should develop pedagogical strategies supporting children’s play development.

How we understand imaginative play In his lecture in 1933 Vygotsky (1977) concentrated on pretend role play. His central question was why children abandon realistic meanings and move to the world of imagination. Children make correct observations, but play is constructed from imaginary situations, people, objects and actions. This does not happen in elementary play forms, only after the identity crisis at about three years. In Minick’s (1987) opinion, ‘Vygotsky saw the development of the child’s play activity as providing the foundation for the emergence of new forms of behaviour and for the development of forms of imagination and abstract thought that are connected with them’ (p. 30). We believe that the meaning and value of imaginative play is not understood well enough, not only by parents and teachers but also by many researchers. Singer (1994), one of the defenders of make-believe play, nicely wrote: Pretend play . . . is . . . the foundation of a long-term incorporation and consolidation of major human characteristics: our human imagination, our capacity through consciousness to form experiences into stories, to 246

Self-regulation and narrative interventions

manipulate memory representations of our physical and social worlds into new scenarios. (p. 7) We are convinced that imaginative play is the most complex and most significant activity for the development of a young child’s consciousness and as current research confirms (Elkind 2007; Singer et al. 2008) it is endangered activity. Better understandings of the processes that are employed in the course of play are needed for psychology, education and parenting practices. Kravtsov and Kravtsova (2010) define clearly what distinguishes play from non-play activity. In their opinion, regardless of the nature and content of play activity, in a true psychological sense activity can be called ‘play’ only if a player, no matter a child or an adult, acquires the ability to be above the situation. This means to see the self and the situation from internal and external points of view simultaneously. Ariel (2002) noticed the same aspect of imaginative play: ‘a player has to be both inside of the play and outside it, a self-observer’ (p. 140). Kravtsov et al. (2010) define this position as double subjectivity. What is more interesting is that in their opinion a double point of view is necessary to comprehend the psychological essence of play. It is necessary for play researchers and for the teachers working with children as well. In fact, Kravtsov et al. repeated Vygotsky’s claim that proper play starts only when the imaginary situation is created.

From actions to thoughts – the purpose of play According to Vygotsky (1997),‘a child’s symbolic play may be understood as a complex system of speech aided by gestures’ (p. 135). In general, Vygotsky (1997) saw ‘play, drawing, and writing . . . as different moments of an essentially single process of developing written language’ (p. 142). We argue that play is the primary form of a child’s thinking at an early age. Play actions can be understood as materialized thoughts (needs, wishes, ideas) of which a child is not completely conscious. First play actions are the only possible forms of expressing ideas and the substitution of language. A child uses play as a medium to create narratives about themselves and the world. We understand narrative as ‘a universal mode of thought’ and ‘a form of thinking’ (Bruner, 1986; Donald, 1991; Nelson, 1998) and view the development of narrative thought in children as a necessary step towards formal thinking. Developing play activity supports the transition from situational constraints and episodic memory towards the creation of imaginary situations and symbolic world models.The child moves from concrete ‘visible thinking’ (gestures, actions) to thinking in words ‘invisible’ (in one’s imagination/mind). The main feature of mature narrative play is the ability of the players to develop shared ideas and to construct a plot (storyline) together. We call this form of play narrative role play and use the following criteria to define it: – –

Social/collective in character (several participants) Imaginative (based on productive imagination) 247

Milda Bredikyte and Pentti Hakkarainen

– – – –

Creative (not stereotypical and repetitive) Developing over time, lasting several months or longer (developed by individual children, a group of children or adults) Challenging (demands action at the highest level of play skills) Having a narrative structure (a storyline is constructed during play)

This type of play constitutes a motivating storyline, and its enactment provides exciting experiences,‘perezhivanie’ and results in a new and deeper understanding of phenomena. In play analysis, it is important to keep in mind the fact that mature forms of play activity proceed on two planes, as Vygotsky (1977) has indicated. For the researcher who is analysing children’s play, it is crucial to look not just at the child’s external actions but to try to find out the real meaning (the child’s initial idea, sense) and the content of the child’s play actions that are behind the external form. This deeper understanding can be ‘opened’ by observing children’s play for a longer period of time or stepping into the play and ‘provoking’ the child to respond, thus revealing the basic idea and the level of child’s play skills.

Play development in early childhood From 3 to 7 years, children increasingly master complex ways of constructing play activities. They start from object-oriented actions, then move to short everyday life episodes; the role is already present because the child acts as someone else (mother, doctor, driver), but is not aware of that. Later the child moves to role-oriented play by taking different roles and naming them. In parallel children become involved in construction play and simple games with rules. From about 5 to 7 years play activity is developed in a group of children (two–four children) through the construction of the plot. Roles become secondary and subordinate to the plot. Children develop complex narratives based not only on everyday life experiences but also on favourite games, stories, TV programmes, etc. From cross-cultural, anthropological and historical research on play we know that play varies in different cultures and in different historical periods. In some cultures children do not play, or play differently (Schwartzman 2009; Göncü and Klein 2001). In non-Western cultural contexts play is usually handed on from generation to generation of children, without adult support (Rogoff, 1998, 2003). Current research of children’s play (Postman 1982; Elkind 1982, 2007; Frost 2010, Smirnova and Ryabkova 2013) reveals that developed forms of imaginative play are disappearing and many children become involved in all kinds of highly structured, mechanical computer games from a very early age. Apparently for that reason many early years curriculum frameworks underline the importance of imaginative play for children and propose ways of enhancing play activities in educational institutions. Bruce (2005) writes that the adult role is crucial in helping children develop their play activities. In her opinion ‘helping children to play requires the most sophisticated teaching strategies of all’ (p. 3). She proposes very concrete play support strategies, which teachers should use when: (1) observing children’s play, (2) supporting and extending play, and (3) engaging in the play. 248

Self-regulation and narrative interventions

Singer (1995) proposes that ‘parents can enhance their child’s development of imaginative skills through storytelling, reading, and even through floor play with them and also through toleration, indeed enjoyment, of the child’s pretend games’ (p. 18). Bondioli and Savio in their review on fresh research of children’s imaginative play, report that researches provide evidence to the firm belief that play is an ecologically determined activity whose quality is strongly affected by contextual elements Never is evolution to be expected; it does not depend only on maturation and it is highly affected by the circumstances . . . there is no evidence of a clear and precise correlation between symbolic play abilities and age; the development of pretend play and of the abilities related to it depends both on maturation’s aspects and mostly on favorable conditions – i.e. inner conditions of emotional confidence and external conditions such as: playing opportunities, suitable space, suitable time and suitable materials, possibility of sharing play with more expert acquainted peers, adults’ appreciation. (Bondioli and Savio 2009: 12) They propose that children’s make-believe play should be observed and assessed using appropriate tools like SPARS (SPARS is an observation tool revealing children’s symbolic play abilities created by Bondioli and Savio) and teachers should intervene and train children to enhance their play abilities. A similar opinion is held by Bodrova and Leong (2007) and their Tools of Mind project, Mikhailenko and Korotkova (2001), and others.

Adult play interventions The question might arise why do we need adults to intervene in children’s play? Why is a play environment and time for play not enough? An answer is found in Vygotsky’s concept of ‘general genetic law’.According to Vygotsky (1997), higher mental functions first appear in social interactions between people and later become individual functions of the child. First, new functions are social relations between people and later they are internalized to individual higher functions. Following this line of thinking, children need to interact with someone who is playing on a higher level in order to develop individual higher mental functions. According to Vygotsky, play age (from 3 to 7 years) includes two crisis periods (at 3 and 7 years).We propose three qualitatively different types of help for the whole play age. Different types of adult help focus on different aspects of development and learning in a play context. Adult play help has a different function at different stages of the developmental trajectory of play age. We can divide play ages roughly into three qualitatively different periods depending on the initiative in interaction. •

•

At the beginning of play age (around 2–3 years) adult initiative in modelling play behaviour is very important. The continuity of role actions and understanding of the conventionality of play has to be supported by the adults Between 3 and 5 years, children’s own initiative is crucial. The adult’s initiative has a secondary role, and needs to help in co-construction of a motivating storyline. The adult is a play partner, helping to implement children’s ideas 249

Milda Bredikyte and Pentti Hakkarainen

•

After five years there is a need for adult help in enriching the moral challenge and symbolism of play. Children are independent players, and the adult observes and supports

It is important to have in mind that the cultural-historical approach emphasizes that play skills are not inborn abilities of the child and they don’t develop and mature gradually together with the growing child. Mature forms of play can only be achieved through playing. A child’s movement from elementary to advanced forms of play is intertwined with the development of general abilities in children, such as: general creativity, motivation, imagination, volition and self-regulation, understanding of other person’s point of view, etc.

Play and self-regulation abilities in young children There are several recent studies demonstrating regular connection between children’s pretence abilities and executive function (e.g. Carlson et al. 2014, Meyers and Berk 2014, Flanagan 2014, Carlson and White 2013, van Reet 2013, Kelly and Hammond 2011). An interesting result from an earlier study (Saltz et al. 1977) demonstrated that one year training in thematic pretence might result in positive results of impulse control. Improvement in executive function was supposed to be the result of symbolism in imaginative activities. A radical claim of these researchers was that training using symbolic content like fairy tales could be even more effective in relation to impulse control than pretend role positions taken by children. A similar line of thinking can be found in White’s (2012) argument that short experiences in pretend play (less than 10 minutes) could improve performance of subsequent executive function task. In the cultural-historical tradition attempts are made to enhance the structural quality of children’s pretend play. But the goal is to influence the quality of play, not directly in individual children’s executive functions. In an experimental study Mikhailenko and Korotkova (2001) compressed the structure of folk tales (Propp 1986) as a method of revealing an appropriate tool of plot construction. Bodrova and Leong (2007) added a planning task to children’s pretend play session in their Tools of Mind early childhood programme. A central point of departure of the programme is that all plays are not equal and do not have equal impact on child development. Today more and more children start their education without being able to play with other children. In the Tools of Mind programme play is closely connected to the development of self-regulation. This programme is created in the USA and is based on Vygotsky’s and El’konin’s play theory.The goal of the programme is to help children reach a mature level of play before school. We argue that social role play is the best space for the development of selfregulation in young children. The reason is the specific character of role play. Every participant has to follow certain rules they have defined by themselves and adapted to chosen roles. This is a very hard task for the young child and usually they can control role behaviour only episodically but they are able to regulate another player’s behaviour more easily.When children start role play by choosing roles and performing first play actions they create a frame that starts regulating their choices. Players can perform actions connected with the roles and theme of their play otherwise the whole 250

Self-regulation and narrative interventions

play would fall apart. In order to keep the play frame children constantly control each other, demanding ‘right’ actions from play partners. The main structural elements of play are: pretend role, play actions and theme. The mode of acting is constant co-regulation of actions between players. These are also the first steps of self-regulation. By participating in social play activities children are learning to follow certain rules and to adjust their behaviour to the behaviour of their play partners. The most important thing is that in play children voluntarily choose to regulate their behaviour not because adults demand them to do so. Being the first independent freely chosen activity, play has a very high motivational status for the child and for that reason has a great potential to develop self-regulation.

‘Field experiment’ – development of self-regulation in play As part of a project on the development of self-regulation in children’s play carried out at the Research Laboratory of Play in Lithuanian University of Educational Sciences, a ‘field experiment’ was organized. Methods and tools developed at the university laboratory were used in ordinary day care centre classrooms in the city of Vilnius.The main goal of this stage was to test the effectiveness of our play intervention model in regular ECEC classrooms.

Methods Observation checklist The checklist for the evaluation of the level of play was based on the characteristics of play used by the group of researchers from the Toys and Play Research Centre, MSUPE (Smirnova and Ryabkova 2013). The checklist includes seven parameters of play activity: (1) play objects, (2) self-position of the player, (3) play partner, (4) play space, (5) play actions, (6) play script/narrative, and (7) the main content of play. Each parameter of play observation is ranked on four different levels (from simple activity to more complex), for example, self-position of the player: – – – –

Child has no role Child has a role, but does not keep to the rules of the role or is inconsistent Child has a role and keeps to the rules of the role Child is flexible and freely improvises roles

The second part of the checklist is meant to evaluate the child’s self-regulatory behaviour during group play. Following theoretical ideas from B. D. El’konin, G. Zuckerman, A. L. Venger and other cultural-historical scholars, Gabeeva (2007) elaborated criteria of self-regulation for primary school children.We modified Gabeeva’s criteria, taking into account diagnostic tools for early age children developed by Galiguzova et al. (2013). The checklist was elaborated by the Lithuanian research team (Bredikyte, Brandisauskiene, Sujetaite-Volungeviciene). 251

Milda Bredikyte and Pentti Hakkarainen

This second part of the checklist also consists of seven criteria of child’s behaviour during play activity: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

Readiness to step into group play Ability to coordinate one’s activities with those of other children Amount of the effort the child puts into creating a play Ability to solve problems that arise during play Child’s interest in joint play and their emotional regulation Amount of adult assistance needed during play Resistance towards external interferences in play

Each criterion of self-regulatory behaviour is ranked in four levels, from the lowest to the highest form of behaviour, for example, the amount of adult assistance needed during play: • • • •

Only plays under the direction of an adult Plays on their own and carries out play actions, often asks for help if faced with an obstacle Tries to find own solution, asks for help only if a solution cannot be found Organizes and develops play activity by themselves

Play intervention Goals of our interventions were: • • •

To promote joint play in the classroom To help children develop their ideas and promote independent play initiatives To involve the teacher in the process of observation and documentation

To follow changes in children’s play and self-regulation skills, a checklist for the evaluation of the level of children’s play and self-regulation skills was used. The team of researchers carried out four first steps during their visits to the classrooms and the last step was left to the permanent providers of the centre. • • • • •

I step. Observation through immersion into the atmosphere and ongoing activities of the group II step. Introduction of a new playworld through ‘in role’ participation of adults (researchers) III step. Co-construction of a playworld: ‘in role’ participation of adults (researchers) and children IV step. Reflection and sharing on joint experiences through painting/drawing, oral storytelling, etc., planning further playworld events V step. Children’s independent construction of own playworlds

252

Self-regulation and narrative interventions

Participants During the last stage of the project we carried out play interventions in three day care classrooms – three teachers and fifty-seven (3–6 years) children: twenty-eight boys and twenty-nine girls participated.

Procedures Four researchers participated in the interventions. They carried out four play sessions, about 90 minutes each.Video or audio records were made from all sessions. In addition ECEC teachers were writing observations. Before and after the intervention the checklist for the evaluation of the level of children’s play and self-regulation skills was filled for each individual child. Reflection with the teachers followed each play intervention session. Feedback from the teachers in the format of e-mails, phone calls or face-toface meetings were organized between play sessions. During intervention we followed two major principles: (1) dialogue, and (2) improvisation. In the following researcher-led sessions are described: First play session.The goal of our first meeting with the children was to get to know children through participation in everyday group activities. Before coming to the classroom we discussed our visit with the teacher. We agreed that we would visit the classroom and stay during free playtime. Two researchers videotaped the activities and two were involved in all the activities with the children. During the morning meeting we introduced ourselves, explaining that we are the teachers who teach kindergarten teachers to play with children. And because we want to play better we came to learn to play from the children in their classroom, as we know that they are really ‘master players’. In all three classrooms children were very positive and some of them invited us to join their play at once. After the morning meeting children split into small groups and started their favourite play activities.We moved slowly from one group to another observing carefully and from time to time getting involved in some play activities. We could see that from the beginning of our participation in the classroom our presence had captured the children’s attention. Most children would observe us, ask questions, talk to us and would not start their play. Others, on the contrary, would start ‘showing’ their play to us, even demanding our attention. After about 30–40 minutes many children finally became involved in some kind of play activities and we noticed our presence disturbing them less and less. It was very important for us to see what types of play activities are present in the classroom.What are the themes and topics of children’s play and what is the level of children’s play skills? We performed the evaluation later, watching video. The checklist for the evaluation of the level of children’s play and self-regulation skills was used. The research team filled in the first part of the checklist and the teacher filled the second self-regulation part. After the session the research team reflected, observed video material and discussed possible playworld themes for the following play session. Choosing a theme of play that is relevant to children was very important. After the first play session we asked for feedback from the classroom teachers, discussed our observations and proposed several play themes for the next play session. In collaboration with the teacher we planned the

253

Milda Bredikyte and Pentti Hakkarainen

second play session.This time we were aiming to develop joint play involving most of the children (fourteen–nineteen children). The second play session started after the morning meeting when researchers invited children on an exciting journey. In all three classrooms we developed different themes and different playworlds. Still all playworlds started from a trip on a ship, an airplane or a train to magic places: River Amazon, Magic Forest and enchanted Sea World. We wanted to make the plot of the play attractive to the children and to involve the whole group. Our observations from the first play session along with teachers’ comments helped us to grasp appropriate topics and to construct interesting events for the playworld. Together with children we constructed joint playworlds lasting from 30 to 40 minutes. After the play session, children were invited to sit down and reflect on shared experience. Such reflection helped us to understand which events captured children’s attention, what themes attracted them and it was easier for us to plan further events. Very often children would say what they want to happen next in our playworld. Children’s, teacher’s and our own reflections were very important for the planning of following play sessions. The third play session was planned differently in all three classrooms but the main goal was to develop the playworld further. We kept close communication with classroom teachers, getting feedback and quite detailed accounts from the events that were happening in the classrooms. In all three classrooms children got inspired by our joint play sessions and they were developing some episodes and ideas on their own. In order to inspire them even more and to give them new ideas on how to develop the playworld we started writing letters from the playworld characters and sent a book describing adventures in a Magic Forest. Children responded to our letters immediately. The third play session was a continuation of the playworld and ended with a reflection. This play session was very different from the previous one.The children were ready for the session, they were waiting, had many new ideas, were much better organized and very eager to play. Even those children who were quite resistant and not so eager to join imaginary world were eagerly participating in the playworlds. For us it was very important that children were using their imagination and were eager to share aloud their fantasies with us. For example, when we were flying in the airplane a girl exclaimed: ‘look, look through the window, I see the desert!’ She started describing what she could see in the desert. Other children joined her in describing what they could ‘see’ in the desert. Before, during the second play session, when the researchers tried to involve children in such ‘image making’ episodes not many children were ready to join. In general all children were active, better concentrated, listening to each other, following the events, very eager and positive.The playworld session was more intense but shorter, followed by a long reflection.We proposed to draw playworld events on a long sheet of paper. That was a successful decision as children had more time and space to put their experiences together. They were drawing and describing their drawings in words. We used children’s ideas to plan the last play session. The fourth play session aimed to create a logical ending for the whole playworld. It was a challenging task to come up with good endings for all three playworlds. In fact some solutions came at the very last moment but we managed to surprise the children. We could see that new playworlds started to emerge in the children’s minds during our last 254

Self-regulation and narrative interventions

play session and we were pleasantly surprised when in a few weeks teachers told us that the children continued to develop their playworlds without our participation.

General changes in children’s imaginary play and self-regulation skills After four play interventions we received feedback from the teachers: (1) children started independently developing diverse and more complex plots of play; (2) they became more flexible, interacting with their peers and started using different models of behaviour; (3) children’s play groups increased; (4) children’s activities became more creative; (5) individual children started creating their own play narratives; (6) children who used to play alone joined group play activities more easily and were able to stay until the end. We also attempted to describe the relation between child’s play and self-regulation statistically. The research results suggested that after play intervention children developed imaginary play of a higher level. The number of children who started playing with substitute and imaginary objects doubled. Children more freely changed and improvised their roles; the number of players without a role decreased by half. After playing with adults, the number of children capable of creating and constructing their play environment doubled. The number of children repeating realistic everyday experiences in their play episodes was halved. There was a ten-fold increase in the number of children developing fantasy plots. Self-regulation skills before and after intervention also showed changes, with a significantly increased number of children adjusting their actions to the actions of other children. More children tended to continue their play (making proposals or taking into account the suggestions of other players), tried to control themselves and the situation, showed initiative in solving a problem or finding a solution that satisfied all players (e.g. ‘there will be two knights’). Children’s attention and concentration changed during joint play: the number of children who, in the case of external disturbances, continued playing and maintained the quality of play increased fivefold. Children used various strategies to continue their play, for example, attempted to control their own behaviour and the situation (‘I will have a meal now, wait for me, and then we will continue’). Also evident was that children’s play remained unaffected by outside provocations. Players between the ages of three and four did not get distracted by another toy, and older children had their own clear idea of play, which they managed to develop further.

Discussion We aimed to test the effectiveness of the adult intervention model into children’s play in regular ECEC classrooms. Research results confirmed that the level of children’s play and self-regulation skills rose after interventions. We did not expect such quick effects. We have performed narrative play interventions for more than ten years in a laboratory environment. In this project we ‘tested’ our play intervention model in regular kindergarten classrooms with unfamiliar children. Play interventions significantly changed play situations in all three classrooms. All children improved their 255

Milda Bredikyte and Pentti Hakkarainen

play skills, individual children started to develop their own play narratives, children’s play groups increased, and the teachers became involved in the process of observation and documentation of children’s play.We believe that they also became more skilful in supporting children’s play initiatives and developing playworlds in their classrooms. Our observations and data obtained using the checklist for the evaluation of the level of children’s play and self-regulation skills confirmed our assumption that mature forms of imaginative play require higher self-regulation skills from the children. We believe that the checklist might serve teachers as a practical tool, helping to evaluate not only the actual level of child’s play and self-regulation skills, but also to anticipate further developmental steps.

Acknowledgements The project ‘Development of Self-regulation in Play’ that was carried out during 2012–2015 in the Research Laboratory of Play in Lithuanian University of Educational Sciences in Vilnius was financed by the EU Structural Funds (Subsidy Contract No VP-3.1-ŠMM-07-K-02-066).

References Ariel, S. (2002). Children’s Imaginative Play:A Visit to Wonderland.Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Bodrova, E., and D. Leong. (2007). Tools of the Mind: The Vygotskian Approach to Early Childhood Education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall. Bondioli, A. and Savio, D. (2009). SPARS: Symbolic Play Abilities Rating Scale. Italy: Edizioni junior. Brėdikytė, M. (2011). The Zones of Proximal Development in Children’s Play. Finland, Oulu: University of Oulu. http://herkules.oulu.fi/isbn9789514296147/isbn9789514296147.pdf (accessed 17 August 2016). Bruce, T. (2005). Learning through Play: Babies, Toddlers and the Foundation Years. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Bruner, J. S. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Carlson, S. M., and White R. E. (2013). Executive Function, Pretend Play, and Imagination. In M. Taylor (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Development of Imagination (pp. 161–174). New York: Oxford University Press. Carlson, S. M.,White, R. E., Davis-Unger,A. C. (2014). Evidence for Relation between Executive Function and Pretense Presentation in Preschool Children. Cognitive Development, 29, 1–16. Donald, M. (1991). Origins of the Modern Mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Elkind, D. (1982). The hurried child. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Elkind, D. (2007). The Power of Play. Philadelphia, PA: Da Capo Press. El’konin, D. B. (1999). Toward the problem of stages in the mental development of children. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 37(6), 11–30. Flanagan, O. (2014). How Pretense Enhances Creativity. In E. S. Paul and S. B. Kaufman (Eds.), The Philosophy of Creativity: New Essays (pp. 214–220). New York: Oxford University Press. Frost, J. L. (2010). A history of children’s play and play environments. New York & London: Routledge. Gabeeva, L. N. (2007). Razvitie samokontrolia u detei mladshego shkolnogo vozrasta kak faktor ih uspeshnoi uchebnoi dejatelnosti [Development of self-regulation in elementary school children as a factor of their successful learning activity]. Thesis. Retrieved from www.library.bsu.ru/ cgi-bin/irbis64r_12/cgiirbis_64.exe?LNG=&C21COM=2&I21DBN=DISR&P21 DBN=DISR&Z21ID=&Image_file_name=pdf%5Cgabeeva_ln.pdf&IMAGE_FILE_ DOWNLOAD=1 (accessed 17 August 2016).

256

Self-regulation and narrative interventions Galiguzova, L. N., Meshcheriakova, T.V., Ermolova, S. J., Smirnova, and E. O. (2013). Diagnostika psikhicheskogo razvitia rebenka. Mladencheskij i pannij vozrast. [Diagnostics of mental development of the child. Early childhood.] Moscow: Mozaika-Sintez. Göncü, A. and Klein, E. L. (Eds.) (2001). Children in Play, story and school. New York:The Guilford Press. Hakkarainen, P. and Bredikyte, M. (2008). The zone of proximal development in play and learning. Cultural – historical Psychology, 4(4), 2–11. Kelly, R., and Hammond, S. (2011). The Relationship between Symbolic Play and Executive Function in Young Children. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 36, 21–27. Kravtsov, G. G., and E. E. Kravtsova. (2010). Play in L.S. Vygotsky’s Nonclassical Psychology. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 48(4), 25–41. Meyers, A. B., and Berk, L. E. (2014). Make-believe Play and Self-regulation. In L. Brooker, M. Blaise, S. Edwards (Eds.), Sage Handbook of Play and Learning in Early Childhood (pp. 43–55). London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Mikhailenko, N. and Korotkova, N. (2001). Kak igrat s det’mi [How to play with children]. Moskva: Akademicheskij Project. Minick, (1987). Prologue. In The Collected Works of Vygotsky, L.S. (Ed. R. W. Rieber and A. S. Carton),Vol. 1. New York: Plenum Press. Nelson, K. (1998). Language in Cognitive Development. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Postman, N. (1982). The disappearance of childhood. New York: Delacorte. Propp,V. (1986). Istoricheskyje korni volshebnoi skazki. [Historical Roots of the Fairytale]. Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo Leningradskogo Universiteta. Rogoff, B. (1998). Cognition as a collaborative process. In W. Damon, D. Kuhn, and R. S. Siegler (Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology (pp. 2, 679–729). Toronto: John Wiley & Sons. Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York: Oxford University Press. Saltz, E., Dixon, D., and Johnson, J. (1977). Training Disadvantaged Preschoolers on Various Fantasy Activities: Effects on Cognitive Functioning and Impulse Control. Child Development, 48, 367–380. Schwartzman, H. B. (2009). Commentary: Play – Culture. In C. D. Clark (Ed.), Transactions at Play. Play & Culture Studies,Vol. 9. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America. Singer, J. L. (1995). Imaginative play in childhood: Precursor of subjective thought, daydreaming and adult pretending games. In A. D. Pellegrini (Ed.), The future of play theory (pp. 187 – 220). Albany: State University of New York Press. Singer, D. (1994). Imaginative play and adaptive development. In J. H. Goldstein (Ed.), Toys, Play, and Child Development. New York: Cambridge University Press. Singer, D., Singer, J., D’Agostino, H. and DeLong, R. (2008). Children’s Pastimes and Play in Sixteen Nations: Free-play Declining? The American Journal of Play, 1(3), 2–7. Smirnova E. O., and Ryabkova I. A. (2013). Psikhologicheskie osobennosti igrovoi deyatel’nosti sovremennykh doshkol’nikov. Voprosy psikhologii.2, 15–23. van Reet, J. (2013).The Relationship between Temperament and Pretense in Young Preschoolers. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 33(4), 383–401. Vygotsky, L. S. (1977). Play and its Role in the Mental Development of the Child. In M. Cole (Ed.), Soviet developmental psychology (pp. 76–99). White Plains, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The Collected Works (Ed. R.W. Rieber and A. S. Carton),Vol. 1. New York: Plenum Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). The Collected Works of Vygotsky L. S. (Ed. R. W. Rieber),Vol. 4. New York: Plenum Press. White, R. E. (2012). The Power of Play. A Research Summary of Play and Learning. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Children’s Museum.

257

PART V

Play environments, toys and partners

In playworlds adults have a dual task: genuine involvement in play and indirect guidance of children’s play by planning and (in role) participating. The Playshop programme follows the logic of playworlds. The focus of Australian digital playworlds is double subjectivity in role play. The child’s real me and me in role are related to each other. The developmental potential of toys and games is associated with activities children carry out with them.

19 Playworlds and the pedagogy of listening Beth Ferholt and Monica Nilsson

Introduction Playworlds were introduced by the authors in Chapter 5. The playworld that we will discuss in this chapter, The Princess and the Basement Troll in the Shark’s Ocean, fits under the broad description of playworlds, in that it is a combination of adult forms of creative imagination (art, science, etc.), requiring extensive experience, with children’s forms of creative imagination (play), which require the embodiment of ideas and emotions in the material world. It also fits within the subcategory of the type of playworld that Lindqvist designed, in that it is children and adults bringing to life a piece of children’s literature through scripted and improvisational acting, costume and set design, and multimodal rehearsal and reflection. The playworld of the Princess and the Basement Troll in the Shark’s Ocean developed within the context of a research project that took place in three Reggio Emilia-inspired Swedish early childhood settings over the course of two years, with a focus on one group (classroom) of 3-year-old children. Lindqvist (1995) praised Reggio Emilia pedagogy while criticizing it for its lack of emphasis on play and narrative aesthetics, and it is this critique that inspired the studies of this research project. The Pedagogy of Listening and Exploration (Rinaldi, 2006; Åberg and Lenz Taguchi, 2005), which has been developed in Reggio Emilia in Italy and has become increasingly widespread within the Swedish system of early childhood education, takes exploration, not play, as its central component. There is little work conceptualizing exploration or theorizing the relationship between exploration and play, which is the hallmark not just of the Swedish but also many other nations’ early childhood education settings. In Sweden this lacuna in the literature can be felt both in traditional early childhood settings, where there is little or no focus on exploration, and in those that are inspired by the Reggio Emilia approach, where there is little focus on play. Within the Reggio Emilia approach and the literature concerning this approach, play is often regarded as an expression of traditional Froebel-inspired early childhood 261

Beth Ferholt and Monica Nilsson

didactics that are based on a vision of the child as “nature” (Dahlberg and Lenz Taguchi 1994). Play is also referred to in the Reggio Emilia approach when something called “playful learning” is discussed, but playful learning is not play. In this chapter we will present a model of an early childhood educational activity that we understand to be a hybrid of the playworld activity and the pedagogy of listening. In the model, meaning-making is present in both play and exploration and meaning-making in both of these activities requires imagination. In the model learning, defined as leading to human development (Vygotsky 1978), not as the product of teaching school-related subject matter, is an outcome of both play and exploration. We believe that this model could be a tool for the development of a field of early childhood education, which would consider both play and exploration as its key components. The model effectively challenges the recurring dichotomy between play and learning in the field by adding a third element: exploration. The dichotomy between play and learning is prevalent in early childhood settings in elementary schools, in early childhood teacher education, and also in the theorizing of early childhood education, regarded in the USA as from birth to seven years. Within this dichotomy learning is often characterized by the teaching school-related subject matter or curriculum goals (see for example Pramling Samuelsson and Asplund Carlsson 2008). Furthermore, this play-learning dichotomy has a tendency to link play to imagination and learning to reality and a tendency to support play’s use as a tool in school-type education. Bennet (2005) conducted a study based on thematic reviews of early childhood education (ECE) and care policy, carried out by expert teams in twenty OECD countries, in which he contextualizes this phenomenon. Bennet (2005: 12) describes the social pedagogy tradition, adopted by Nordic and Central European countries, thus “Confidence is placed in the child’s own learning strategies and centers of interest, that is, on learning through relationships, through play and through educator scaffolding at the appropriate moment.” This view that early childhood education should promote a “holistic view of the child” based on “care”, “socialization”, “learning together” – is in line with the idea in, for example, the Swedish curriculum of “broad developmental goals” and the “social pedagogy” tradition (Skolverket, 2011). By contrast, the “readiness for school” tradition emphasizes “focused cognitive goals” (Bennet, 2005: 8) and the acquisition of knowledge, skills and dispositions associated with learning through classroom experiences (OECD, 2006). Bennet (2005: 14–15) raises the question of what the relationship might be between these two seemingly contradictory traditions, when he discusses inadequate pedagogical theory and practice such as, for example, “too great a focus on academic goals, or on the other hand, excessive suspicion of ‘schoolification’ and reluctance to orient children toward learning goals valued by parents, schools and society”. He elaborates: Today, literacy, numeracy and technology proficiency are some of the skills that are fast becoming indispensable in modern living. How best to include these aspects of contemporary culture – and in what form – into the kindergarten curriculum remains a challenge. Deconstructing notions of 262

Playworlds and the pedagogy of listening

play and learning, and clarifying the cultural assumptions that often lie behind may help to some extent in addressing the seeming contradiction between the child’s autonomy and her participation in numeracy and literacy activities. (Bennet 2005: 20) One might ask if holistic or “social” pedagogy and teaching or “school readiness” are compatible or if they are ontologically and epistemologically contradictory. The model that we present in this chapter can be conceived of as a response to this question. The model is both a preliminary representation of what we observed in the playworld described below, and a tool to help us think about meaning-making within two pedagogies’ resulting practice(s). To be clear, the model we present in this chapter represents a pedagogical practice that melds playworlds and the pedagogy of listening. Our concern is with play as it occurs and could occur in practice, not with play from a particular theoretical perspective. And our model, because it describes a practice, does not exclude the work of others: we are primarily making a didactical and a pedagogical contribution to the field of early childhood education.

The playworld of the Princess and the Basement Troll in the Shark’s Ocean An early childhood setting in Lindqvist’s research project in Karlstad, Sweden, in which she designed and studied playworlds, would turn into Villa Villekulla or Moominvalley (the setting of famous Swedish/Finnish children’s books). Play became an arena that offered the children the opportunity to create meaning in the encounter between their inner and outer worlds (Lindqvist 1995), sometimes in dialogue with other children, sometimes with teachers and sometimes with themselves. However, Swedish settings have undergone profound changes since a new curriculum was introduced in 1998. The focus has increasingly come to be, as it is in other Western countries, on teaching/learning, and specifically on learning in relation to “academic” subjects such as maths, science and language. Play no longer has the same status as it once had. Simultaneously in Sweden, there has been a proliferation of postmodern practice and scholarship that does not ask why children play, but instead stresses the value of play in and of itself. These scholars and practitioners see play as a dialogical meeting, a rebellion against authority, or as life itself (see for example Steinsholt 2000; Øksnes 2011), and are therefore critical that play is seen as a tool for learning and development. As teaching/learning emerges as the primary focus, there is a need to problematize and understand play, which has previously been a hallmark of early childhood education, in new ways and particularly in its relation to learning and teaching. As Bennet puts it in the above quote, there is a need for “[d]econstructing notions of play and learning”. It was towards this end that the two-year-long playworld research project producing the playworld of the Princess and the Basement Troll in the Shark’s Ocean was designed. 263

Beth Ferholt and Monica Nilsson

The goal was to come to understand and to learn about what would happen to children, educators and educational activities when playworlds, which are sympathetic to some postmodern critiques, were introduced in a setting that can be described as having postmodern overtones, that is, a Reggio Emilia-inspired setting guided by learning as “exploratory”. The pedagogy of exploration holds that children have and develop theories and hypotheses about the world that should be considered equally possible to those of adults (Lenz Taguchi 2009). Thus, from the point view of the child as culture and knowledge creator, there are similarities between Lindqvist’s (1995) creative pedagogy of play with its playworld activity, and the pedagogy of listening and exploration. Both these approaches differ from a view of learning as reproduction of knowledge in terms of predefined learning goals. One difference between the two is that in the pedagogy of listening play is not emphasized, while play is the central aspect of playworlds. In playworlds exploration has not been emphasized, but instead the focus has been on play, imagination and meaning (Lindqvist 1995). The aim of the project was to transcend the impasse between learning and play as competing foci, and come to a better understanding of what happens in playworlds, through exploring the meeting of the adult-child joint play activity of playworlds and this “exploratory learning” setting. Data collected through this study included: field notes documenting our participation in all study-relevant activities including play activities, parent meetings and staff meetings; audio recordings of open and semi-structured interviews with the teachers, as well as of teachers’ weekly reflection and planning meetings; photographs and video of play activities, including photographs by a visual artist; participantproduced materials including teachers’ pedagogical documentation and the children’s artistic products. An abductive, analytic process (Alvesson and Sköldberg 1994; Starrin 1994), that is, an interactive interplay between ideas and observations, and between parts and the whole (Starrin 1994), was used. In the playworld of the Princess and the Basement Troll in the Shark’s Ocean, the three teachers incorporated playworlds into their pedagogy of listening. At first they acted out stories, such as Little Red Riding Hood, with the children. The children had roles, as did the teachers, but the story was not coming to life in the sense that Lindqvist intended. The teachers then chose a story about a princess who is wakened by a noise and leaves her bed with sword in hand to discover the cause of the noise: the Basement Troll. They read the story to the children and then the princess (a teacher in role) appeared outside the classroom window, acting out the beginning scenes of the story. The children were very surprised and, on their own, ran outside to be with the princess. They played together and then the teachers began to work out the issues that arise when it is a teacher’s first time in a playworld: how to support each other in the acting sessions, how to engage children, how to end acting sessions, etc. The teachers then made use of the pedagogy of listening techniques of documentation, reflection and revisit. The teachers showed the children the video of the first acting session and the teacher who was playing the princess again went outside to act, and was joined by the children. This acting and playing evolved over the course of the year until many of the children who had not previously been involved were 264

Playworlds and the pedagogy of listening

involved, all of the teachers were acting in role, and the many props that the teachers used – a suitcase, a pair of boots, some gloves – took on a life of their own in the classroom. Even the youngest children in the classroom and those who were navigating various difficulties began to ask for the playworld to continue for longer and longer periods of time, sometimes into their lunchtime. The children began to ask the teachers to put on their costumes first thing in the morning and the teachers began to become tired of playing in the playworld. Some of the teachers wanted to change roles but the children asked them to remain in their original roles. There were four aspects of this playworld that were unexpected or revealing for the researcher participants, most of whom were experienced with playworlds prior to the project. One unexpected aspect of this playworld was the change in the teachers’ ways of relating to each other. More aspects of the teachers’ identities outside the setting began to be an integral part of their working relationships, and they discussed this change with each other. See our other chapter in this volume for more on this topic. Two other unexpected and revealing aspects of this playworld related to the role of artists in the process of the playworld’s creation and documentation. An accomplished professional actress, Gunilla Röör, was able to discuss the playworld with the teachers and they found this to be very helpful. The teachers were given “tools” with which to remain in character, further the narrative and understand the playworld by this actress. A visual artist took still photographs of the playworld, which formed a new type of outside-produced documentation, which was then worked with by teachers and children, and used in presentations of the playworld, to great effect. The fourth aspect of this playworld that was unexpected for the two researchers took place after the researcher participants in the project had ended their regular participation. The teachers worked with the children to develop the playworld in such a way that it began to encompass all areas in the room. They added sharks, which were of interest to the children, through various explorations, which included many of the hundred languages, and this process brought a certain rhythm or flow to the classroom activities. The teachers described this rhythm or flow in their narration of what they called the “best day ever”: This week we have had such a wonderful flow. We pedagogues feel that we are so happy about what we are doing and we hope that the children are feeling the same thing. We all feel the same wonderful feeling of getting together with the children that we did when we worked with the “Tigers’ tails” (an exploratory project from a previous year). We have been drawing sharks and swimming among our drawings of the painted sharks. We have been sewing shark costumes. We have been looking at fact books [scientific books, about sharks]. We have been exploring water on the light board the children have gone between activities and found their interests in the rooms they want to be in. They have been standing next to the sewing machine and watching at the same time as they have been reading in the facts books in order to choose to go into atelier and draw what they are talking about. Someone [a child] has explored water at the light board and then gone into the atelier and swum in the pictures. 265

Beth Ferholt and Monica Nilsson

The teachers reflected upon the day: The adults have had different areas of interest based on what we see the children are interested in. When we organize ourselves in the morning and divide into different groups we can see that the day gives us more. We have a focus and the children are pushing what we are doing forward, because they can see that we are excited. We do have a structure with each group that we, the pedagogues, have an idea for and interest in what we are doing but at the same time let the children float between the groups and bring thoughts from one group to the other group. This makes the big group flow and interest grow into something big and fantastic. Often we work in different groups in each room and we used to have this idea to not disturb or be interrupted, but now we do not see one approach as more correct than the other . . . but it was fun that they went in between the activities and we believe they felt freedom and joy and that ideas and thoughts could be carried out directly. Researchers and teachers alike are still trying to make sense of what this hybrid playworld-exploration activity looked like, and can tell us. In this playworld the teachers and researchers jointly developed knowledge in what we came to understand as a primary contribution of the project, in this case a methodological contribution: early childhood education research from within (Nilsson et al., forthcoming). A group of three early childhood teachers and two teacher educators/researchers in early childhood education worked together to create the research project, analyse the data and present the findings. This was driven by questions and concerns that arose from the practices and participants, as much as it was driven by questions that originated in the academy from research and researchers. Data from this playworld project is still under analysis, although some preliminary findings have been published (Ferholt et al. 2014, 2016). Researchers are pursuing findings concerning play, exploration and learning, and their relationship in early childhood activities, and also the role of aesthetics in these roles and relationships. It appears that playworld projects are often able to support findings in areas that were unanticipated when the projects were conceived (Engeström 2011).

A model of early childhood educational activity that encompasses both play and exploration Our starting point in the playworld project and model (see Figure 19.1) is that imagination and realistic thinking are both necessary components of play. As Vygotsky (2004) points out, rich experiences in the “real” world enable creativity and imagination. Within the pedagogy of listening children are considered to be culture and knowledge creators rather than just reproducers of knowledge (Dahlberg and Lenz Taguchi 1994). Moreover, within the pedagogy of listening children are understood to be developing theories and hypotheses about the world that should be considered to be equally possible to those of adults (Lenz Taguchi 2012). 266

Playworlds and the pedagogy of listening

Figure 19.1  Model of an early childhood educational activity that encompasses both play and exploration

This understanding is a radical departure from most modern, Western, including Nordic, understandings of early childhood educational activities, and has been celebrated and theorized to some extent (see for example Dahlberg et al. 2007; Elfström 2013; Lenz Taguchi 2009; Lind 2010; Olsson 2009).

Pedagogical approaches, activities and actions Within the model two pedagogical approaches meet and relate to each other (playworld and the pedagogy of listening). By play activity we mean collective imaginative play and by play actions we mean what constitutes the content of this play activity and pushes it forward (Jensen 2008). Play action means performing an imaginary action, for example, drinking (air) coffee from a rock or, as Vygtosky describes this, ‘the child operates with an alienated meaning in a real situation’ (Vygotsky 1978: 190). The settings followed year-long project themes, a common process in the pedagogy of listening. The teachers were experienced with this method as they had been choosing and following such themes for over a decade. The theme work was driven by the teachers’ efforts to support the children’s exploration and the teachers documented the work in PowerPoint presentations that were completed each semester. What clearly emerges in this extensive documentation is that the project themes, which are shared by the three settings and ten groups each year, generate different sub-projects in the different children’s groups. One project theme was, for example, “A child’s relationship to a place”, and this generated in one group a sub-project on sound, music notation and dance (Ferholt et al. 2014). The sub-projects depend on the children’s interests and on planned and unplanned, interesting and unexpected events that occur during the year. We use the concept of exploratory activity when we refer to such shared and collective, exploratory, theme-based sub-projects. We borrow 267

Beth Ferholt and Monica Nilsson

from Hutt (1976: 211) who claims that exploratory actions are characterized by investigative behaviour and states that “Implicit in the behaviours we termed ‘exploration’ was the query: What does this object do?” We will elaborate on this point below.

Meaning-making in play Based on analysis of the data we have collected, we hypothesize that the creation of meaning that occurs in play and that which occurs in exploration are motivated and take place in different ways. Based on Vygotsky’s theory of play (1933/1981), in which meaning dominates over objects and actions, imagination is about creating and recreating the world based on the child’s needs and interests. This may involve changing the components in the existing world, or creating entirely new, possible worlds: a possible world with many different events, relationships and stories was created by the participants within this playworld activity. We have a tentative hypothesis that this type of meaning-making in play takes place in an interaction that Aspelin and Persson (2011) call co-existence. Their understanding of co-existence is partially inspired by Martin Buber’s philosophy. The authors describe co-existence as an encounter in which there is no goal beyond the encounter itself. They write: Co-existence signifies a personal encounter between man and man. The term has ontological meaning, i.e. human essence is assumed to be realized in this event. Co-existence cannot be defined using conventional behavioral concepts. It stands for an existential meeting in which one person is immediately present vis-à-vis another. In the domain of co-existence, no means are used and no medium stands between persons. Co-existence is characterized by unpredictability and it lacks elements of planning and calculation. Co-existence is a goal in itself; i.e. meaning is inherent in the relationship. (Aspelin and Persson 2011: 10) Meaning emerges via co-existence, or through being together in the shared creation of, and in encounters within, possible (play)worlds. And it is this joint meaning-making that creates the “being together’’. Co-existence as an end in itself is comparable to the idea that play has a value in itself (Gadamer 1997; Steinsholt 2000; Øksnes 2011), which does not exclude the effects of the play in terms of symbolic and abstract thinking (Vygotsky 1978).

Meaning-making in exploration Exploration has not been conceptualized to the same extent that learning and play have. This may be because acceptance that exploration exists in childhood requires belief that young children are participating in early scientific activity. This is hard to accept if one believes, as many adults do, that children live in a world divorced from a “real” world. Vygotsky’s relevant insights on this matter are not widely read and 268

Playworlds and the pedagogy of listening

understood, in part because Vygotsky’s understanding of the relationship between imagination and realistic thinking contradict the work of many foundational play theorists. We think that meaning-making in exploratory activities and in play is driven by curiosity and the desire to explore and understand the world the children live in. What we mainly see as the expression of meaning-making in exploration, which we see less frequently in play, is children’s discussions (in many different “languages”) and testing of theories about how the world is constructed. With reference to Vygotsky, we think that to create a theory about phenomena in the world requires imagination. Cole and Pelaprat (2011) explain something similar when they say that human conscious experience is a process that requires not only our innate abilities and our culturally organized experiences but also our active “filling-in”, our imagination, as we create meaning and understandings of the world. We return to Aspelin and Persson (2011) to understand meaning-making in exploration. In this paper they describe co-existence, which we discussed above as related to play, in relation to cooperation, which we believe is related to exploration. Again, our thinking concerning the work of Aspelin and Persson in relation to the model is preliminary and warrants further study. However it appears to us that while in play the play is the priority, and thus relations to others and to objects in play require the “immediate presence” mentioned in the previous quote on co-existence, in exploration one uses objects to attain goals (hypotheses): Co-operation represents a process in which individuals coordinate their actions. The process is mediated by social patterns, such as linguistic and paralinguistic rules. Co-operation has an external as well as an internal aspect. On the one hand, it stands for interpersonal communication; on the other, it covers interaction between a subject and his/her surrounding. In the domain of co-operation, people use tools or other means in order to attain different kinds of goals. The activity is defined by some degree of predictability and reticence. Co-operation is created by purposeful action, i.e. it includes goals outside of the relationship. (Aspelin and Persson 2011: 10) In exploration there is an external as well as an internal aspect. Aspelin and Persson argue that both co-existence and cooperation occur and are necessary in education and teaching, and we agree.

Relationships between play and exploration The model displays overlap between play and exploration, indicating the relationships (see Hutt 1976, below) between the two. As we have said above, we have found some preliminary hypotheses concerning exploration in the literature, and some of this literature also discusses exploration in relation to play. Hutt (1976) discusses the difference between play and exploration and argues that there are differences in actions within play and exploration. Exploratory behaviour is said to precede play in human 269

Beth Ferholt and Monica Nilsson

development. Exploring is induced by external stimuli, while play is generated by the child’s motives: I have tried to draw some distinctions between exploration and play. These behaviours can be differentiated on a number of grounds. Investigative, inquisitive or specific exploration is directional, i.e. it is elicited by or oriented towards certain environmental changes . . . The goal is “getting to know properties”, and the particular responses of investigation are determined by the nature of the object . . . Play, on the other hand, only occurs in a known environment, and when . . . the child feels he knows the properties of the object in that environment; this is apparent in the gradual relaxation of mood, evidenced not only by changes in facial expression, but in greater diversity and variability of activities. (Hutt 1976: 211) Hutt (1976: 211) concludes, “Implicit in the behaviours we termed ‘exploration’ was the query: What does this object do? While implicit in the behaviours we termed ‘play’ was the query: What can I do with this object?” We find this characterization interesting, although we have not yet studied it in our own work. Where we have suggested, above, that in play meaning dominates over objects and actions (Vygotsky (1978: 98) writes “This characterizes the transitional nature of play; it is a stage between the purely situational constraints of early childhood and adult thought, which can be totally free from real situations.”), while in exploration it is the object of the activity that justifies the creation of hypotheses, we are inspired by the work of Hutt (1976) and Hutt et al. (1989) in our analysis of our existing data.

Learning Learning is an elusive concept and there are, therefore, a variety of different definitions of learning, which depend upon a range of ontological and epistemological assumptions. Roger Säljö divides and describes learning theories based on different ontological and epistemological positions. In his latest book (Säljö 2015), he describes behaviourism, cognitivism, the neuroscientific perspective, pragmatism, socio-cultural perspectives and situated learning. Being responsible for analysing children’s development and learning requires that teachers of young children have access to theories and concepts that they can use in their analyses. As we mentioned above, we believe that in current early childhood research, which will provide tools for teachers and practitioners in early childhood educational settings, there is a tendency to confuse learning with teaching and learning is too easily understood to be the learning of school-related and adult-predefined knowledge material. We propose instead that learning is about change and that, as change can have many different reasons for existing, learning, should be understood from many different perspectives. Instead of connecting learning to subject matter and predefined learning objectives, with the risk that this will lead to a striving for knowledge, defined as that which is easily measureable and can be evaluated for various purposes, we suggest that learning 270

Playworlds and the pedagogy of listening

is connected to human development (Vygotsky 1978). Learning is connected to becoming a learner, to psychological tools, to general abilities, and to motivation.

Conclusion We believe that there is a need to theorize play in relation to learning in such a way that exploration becomes an obvious and given component of early childhood education. Exploration also needs to be conceptualized, in its own right and theorized in relation to play. With the model we have presented we have described an early childhood activity in which the basic components are play and exploration, and in which learning is taking place in both of these activities. We offer this model not only to scholars in the field but also directly to early childhood teachers, in the hope that they can develop their work within “modern” early childhood traditions of play, care, education and learning, and simultaneously within “postmodern” approaches which stress exploration. Gopnik (2015) and other cognitive scientists demonstrate through recent research that teaching in the form of transmitting information leads to young children being less curious and less likely to discover new information. We believe that the relationship between play and learning as presented in the early childhood education research needs to be reviewed and challenged because the current dichotomy between learning and play, which pairs imagination with fantasy and reality with facts, is not only incorrect but also helps to promote the creation of school-like settings and activities for young children. Hopefully the model, generated through the study of a playworld/pedagogy of listening hybrid practice – a model that presents early childhood learning as taking place in any activity but in early childhood activities particularly in play and in exploration, and imagination as both an aspect of understanding reality in knowledge creation and an aspect of the creative process – can be of use in remedying this situation.

References Åberg, A. and Lenz Taguchi, H. (2005). Lyssnandets pedagogik – etik och demokrati i pedagogiskt arbete. Stockholm: Gleerups. (Pedagogy of Listening. Democracy and ethics in early childhood education). Alvesson, M. and Skoldberg, K. (1994). Tolkning och reflektion – vetenskapsfilosofi och kvalitativa metoder [Interpretation and reflection: The philosophy of science and qualitative methods]. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Aspelin, J. and Persson, S. (2011). Co-Existence and Co-Operation: The Two-Dimensional Conception of Education. Education, 1(1): 6–11. Bennet, J. (2005). Curriculum Issues in National Policy-Making. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 13(2), 5–23. Dahlberg, G. and Lenz Taguchi, H. (1994). Förskola och skola: om tva skilda traditioner och om visionen om en motesplats [Preschool and school: The two different traditions and a vision of a meeting place]. Stockholm: HLS publishers. Dahlberg, G., Moss, P., and Pence, A. (2007). Beyond quality in early childhood education and care: Postmodern perspectives. London: Falmer Press. Elfström, I. (2013). Uppföljning och utvärdering för förändring: pedagogisk dokumentation som grund för kontinuerlig verksamhetsutveckling och systematiskt kvalitetsarbete i förskolan [Monitoring and evaluating change: Pedagogical documentation as a basis for continuous organizational

271

Beth Ferholt and Monica Nilsson development and systematic quality work in preschool]. Department of Child and Youth Studies (doctoral dissertation). Stockholm University. Engeström, Y. (2011). From design experiments to formative interventions. Theory & Psychology, 21(5): 598–628. Ferholt, B., Nilsson, M., Jansson, A. and Alnervik, K. (2014). Creativity in education: Play and exploratory learning. In Thomas Hansson (Ed.), Contemporary Approaches to Activity Theory. Hershey, Pennsylvania: IGI Global. Ferholt, B., Nilsson, M., Jansson, A. and Alnervik, K. (2016). Current playworld research in Sweden: Rethinking the role of young children and their teacher in the design and execution of early childhood research. In J. M. Iorio and W. Parnell (Eds.), Disrupting Early Childhood Education Research: Imagining New Possibilities. New York: Routledge. Gadamer, H-G. (1997). Truth and method. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group. Gopnik, A. (2015). Why Preschool Shouldn’t Be Like School. Slate Magazine. Retrieved 3 June 2016: www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2011/03/why_preschool_shouldnt_be_ like_school.html. Hutt, J. (1976). Exploration and Play in Children. In J. S. Bruner, A. Jolly, K. Sylva (Eds.), Play – Its Role in Development and Evolution. New York and Middlesex: Penguin Books. Hutt, J., Tyler, S., Hutt, C. and Christopherson, H. (1989). Play, exploration and learning. London and New York: Routledge. Jensen, M. (2008). Lekteorier [Play theories]. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Lenz Taguchi, H. (2009). Going Beyond the Theory/Practice Divide in Early Childhood Education: Introducing an Intra-Active Pedagogy. London and New York: Routledge. Lenz Taguchi, H. (2013). Varför pedagogisk dokumentation? (Why pedagogical documentation?) Stockholm: Stockholm University’s Publishing House. Lind, U. (2010). Blickens ordning: Bildspråk och estetiska lärprocesser som kulturform och kunskapsform [The order of the glance/gaze: Imagery and aesthetical learning processes as cultural formation and knowledge formation] (doctoral dissertation). Institutionen för didaktik och pedagogiskt arbete, Stockholms universitet. Lindqvist, G. (1995). The aesthetics of play: A didactic study of play and culture in nursery schools (doctoral dissertation). University of Karlstad. Marjanovic-Shane, A., Ferholt, B., Miyazaki, K., Nilsson, M., Rainio, AP, Hakkarainen, P., Pesic, M., Beljanski-Ristic, L. (2011). Lekvärldar – An Art of Development. Play and Culture Series, 11. Association for the Study of Play (TASP). Nilsson, M. and Ferholt, B. (2015). Vygotsky’s theories of play, imagination and creativity in current practice: Gunilla Lindqvist’s “creative pedagogy of play” in U. S. kindergartens and Swedish Reggio-Emilia inspired preschools. Perspectiva, 32(1): 919–950. Nilsson, M., Ferholt, B., Granqvist, A. K., Johansson, E., and Thure, J. (forthcoming). Lek, lycka och lärande! En berättelse om lekande och utforskande barn och pedagoger i förskolan. (Play, joy and learning: A story about playing and exploring children and adults in preschool). Malmö: Gleerups. OECD (2006). Starting Strong II: Early Childhood Education and Care. Paris: Education and Training Division, OECD. Øksnes, M. (2011). Lekens flertydighet: om barns lek i en institutionaliserad barndom [The ambiguity of play: on children’s play in an instititionalized childhood]. Stockholm: Liber. Olsson, L. M. (2009). Movement and experimentation in young children’s learning: Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari in Early Childhood Education. London and New York: Routledge. Pelaprat, E. and Cole, M. (2011). “Minding the Gap”: Imagination, Creativity and Human Cognition. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 45(4): 397–418. Pramling Samuelsson, I., and Asplund Carlsson, M. (2008). The Playing Learning Child: Towards a Pedagogy of Early Childhood. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 52(6): 623–641. Rinaldi, C. (2006). In Dialogue with Reggio Emilia listening, researching and learning. New York: Routledge.

272

Playworlds and the pedagogy of listening Säljö, R. (2015). Lärande – en introduktion till perspektiv och metaforer [Learning – an introduction to perspectives and metaphors]. Malmö: Gleerups publishers. Skolverket. (2012). Uppföljning, utvärdering och utveckling i förskolan – pedagogisk dokumentation. Stödmaterial [Follow up, assessment and development in preschool – pedagogical documentation]. Stockholm: Skolverket. Starrin, B. (1994). On the distinction qualitative-quantitative in social research. In B. Starrin and P. G. Smith (Eds.), Qualitative Methods and Theory (pp. 11–39). Lund: Student Literature. Steinsholt, K. (2000). Lett som en lek [Light as a play]. Tapir Akademisk Forlag. Vygotsky, L. S. (1971). The psychology of art. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Imagination and Its Development in Childhood. In The Collected Works of LS Vygotsky, R.W. Rieber and A. S. Carton (Eds.). New York: Plenum Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (2004). Imagination and Creativity in Childhood. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 42(1): 7–97.

273

20 Collaborative play with dramatization An afterschool programme of “Playshop” in a Japanese early childhood setting Hiroaki Ishiguro

Introduction: play for childhood development and the zone of proximal development Most educational researchers agree that play is an activity of central importance for childhood development. Leont’ev (1965) calls play a “leading activity’’ before school. He suggests the following three attributes for play. (1) “It is the activity in whose form other, new types of activity arise, and within which they are differentiated.” For example, instruction in the narrowest sense of the term, which first develops already in preschool childhood, arises first in play, i.e. precisely in the leading activity of that stage of development. The child begins to learn by playing.” (pp. 359–360) (2) Leading activity is the activity in which particular psychic processes take shape or are reorganized. The child’s processes of active imagination, for example, are moulded first in play, and the processes of abstract thinking in studies. (p. 360) (3) Leading activity is the activity on which the main psychological changes in the child’s personality observed at a given period of development depend in the closest way. It is precisely in play that the preschool child, for example, assimilates people’s social functions and appropriate 274

Collaborative play with dramatization

standards of behavior [partly abbreviated by the author], and this is a very important moment of the moulding of its personality. (p. 360)   Play leads the development of all psychological domains in early childhood. It continues to promote development even after children enter an elementary school at 6 years old. Play is the leading activity before school and is later replaced with academic learning once children reach school age at 6 years. Work then becomes the leading activity for working adults. Leading activity is the activity that facilitates development. Vygotsky (1933/1966) was the first to propose play as a leading activity in early childhood education. He also insisted that “play creates the zone of proximal development of the child” (Vygotsky 1978: 108). He explains that “action in the imaginative sphere, in an imaginary situation, the creation of voluntary intentions and the formation of real-life plans and volitional motives – all appear in play and make it the highest level of preschool development” and, consequently, that “the child moves forward essentially through play activity. Only in this sense, play can be termed a leading activity that determines the child’s development” (Vygotsky 1978). His idea of “play as a leading activity” corresponds to the first and the second attributes proposed by Leont’ev (1965). It means that the third attribute of play (i.e. to assimilate “people’s social functions and appropriate standards of behavior”) is not a main reason to call play a leading activity. However, Vygotsky’s followers (e.g. Leont’ev; El’konin 1978) underlined “role play” as a main play activity in children’s transformative period from early childhood settings from 3 to 7 years and then to school. Lindqvist (1995) reconfirms that role play is not part of Vygotsky’s paradigm. She summarized the followers’ position as “play is a reproduction of social activities”. Therefore, she called their approach the “social-realistic approach”. In this approach, play is an activity that imitates the real everyday roles of adults. Children can try out the expected activities in society. She contrasts this approach with Vygotsky’s “dynamic” approach as the following: “Vygotsky sees no opposition between reality and imagination, but regards play as the creative interpretation process where imagination is both a prerequisite for and a result of the play action” (Lindqvist 1995: 55). The terminology of “role play” used by Leont’ev and El’konin implies that children imitate stereotyped roles of adults in the real world. More importantly for Lindqvist (1995), the child is a creator. She likes to know how to create novel human roles and actions in play activity. From Lindqvist’s point of view, Vygotsky’s followers are likely to underestimate children’s creativity in play. She points outs that in play, children can imagine novel situations that they have not experienced before. Children can reformulate the meaning of known objects in their everyday life into the new meaning during play. The known object can be given a new meaning during play, where an ordinary stone is treated as a precious gem. Newman and Holzman (1993/2014) criticized the popular interpretation of “socialization”. They (1993/2014: 95) insist that it should be called “societization”, where existing societal norms are assimilated by children. They postulate that “socialization” is realized through human creativity and it refers to the process societies are reformed by newcomers. 275

Hiroaki Ishiguro

Children learn various behaviours adults make in their everyday lives. Certainly, adult behaviour can be used as models for developing children. Children can however change and create new norms of behaviour. Children can change the meaning of given environments and objects through their imagination. Vygotsky describes the close relationship between experience and imagination as the following: A child’s play is not simply a reproduction of what he has experienced, but a creative reworking of the impressions he has acquired. He combines them and uses them to construct a new reality, one that conforms to his own needs and desires. (Vygotsky 1930/1967/2004: 11–12) The essential nature of play is improvisation, even if the form of play is similar to common behaviours in everyday life. The meaning is extemporaneously generated through the process of play. It has a situated sense in the context of play activity. For example, a child can pretend a stick is the thin elder sister of another girl in her family role play. She makes her story specific to the play. The child seems highly engaged in the play’s story. The story can give situation-specific meaning to objects. Consequently, familiar objects can have new meaning in the story. Nachmanovitch (1990) stated that improvisation is the key for opening creativity and that all art performance should be improvised in context. Performance art is the activity that frees the adult’s mind from common-sense restrictions which is similar to the contribution of play for children. Theatre play can extend the degree of freedom for adults as well as play for children. Play feeds imagination and creativity in both conscious theatres play and unconsciously improvised play. In their early years, children’s play can foster cognitive and social abilities in various psychological domains. Hirsh-Pasek, Golinkoff and Eyer (2003) point out that all intelligence originates from play. Play is usually said as the antonym of learning or work. Furthermore, it is said that unlike play, learning and work activities have specific, attainable goals. However, while the goal of play is obscure, play certainly has a goal. The objective of play is not predefined before the play starts. It can be changed anytime but a general direction is found during the play. Play also has tasks to be attained during the activity, which are just like learning and work tasks. Tasks embedded in play are also not prepared before play but are generated during play. If there is no task, there is no play. Tasks generate situated meaning for all the actions and objects during play. We know well that learning or work often function like play. When people voluntarily engage in the activities, they do so in the same manner as they engage in play. Play is essentially a voluntary activity even if it includes psychological costs for the players. Vygotsky (1978) showed a case where children voluntarily obey a strict rule even though they are not normally willing. They play and obey the internal rules within play for their own comfortability. The meaning of their play rules completely differs from the standard legal rules. could one suppose that a child’s behavior is always guided by meaning, that a preschooler’s behavior is so arid that he never behaves with candy as he 276

Collaborative play with dramatization

wants to simply because he thinks he should behave otherwise? This kind of subordination to rules is quite impossible in life, but in play it does become possible; thus, play also creates the zone of proximal development of the child. In play a child is always above his average age, above his daily behavior; in play it is as though he were a head taller than himself. (Vygotsky 1978: 102) Children’s behaviour in play can predict their psychological state in their proximal future of everyday life. In other words, play can create conditions that facilitate children’s development. A good example can be seen from our “Playshop”, which will be discussed in a later section. The children participated in the dramatization of our original story, “Magic Carpet”, where they pretended to fly on a magic carpet. They were going to go to a fantasy world apart from the real world via flying on it. When more than seventeen children and one teacher positioned themselves on the carpet’s narrow space (about 2 square meters), they were huddled together so that they would not fall off. Most children usually preferred to go around the room but they all paid attention to positioning their bodies inside the carpet. They joyfully obeyed the strict rule of “stay inside the carpet while flying”. They were absolutely free in play but they willingly accepted the rules.

The issue of “free play” and the role of the adult in children’s play in a Japanese context The adult’s role in supporting children’s play has been controversial for educational researchers. Ellis (1973) listed Dewey and Stern as representatives who insisted that play is voluntary and that only intrinsic reward embedded in play is effective for initiating play. Thus, play is never motivated by extrinsic rewards. It is generally agreed that play is born spontaneously and intrinsically from children’s minds and that children should be absolutely free in play and they need to play in situations where others don’t interrupt them. This thus presumes that adults prevent children’s play. Lindqvist (1995) quoted Froebel’s pedagogy of play as follows: According to Fröbel, play is the natural outlet for the child’s expression of self activity, and the most pure and divine product of preschool children. Through play, the child develops physically, spiritually and morally. Play gives feelings of happiness, freedom, satisfaction and being at peace with the world. (Lindqvist 1995: 24) From the Froebelian point of view, children must be absolutely free during their play activity. When they are free, the ideal activity will be spontaneously invoked. Adults must not guide them to ensure that children have a completely unrestricted environment for their play. Vygotskian concept insists that play should be stimulated or supported by adults, especially teachers. Here, adults as “head taller” can facilitate children to play for the sake of playing. The difference between these two views on 277

Hiroaki Ishiguro

play corresponds to the difference of notion of agency and active engagement in social activities. This dispute is closely related to the general issue of the relationship between “teaching and learning” discussed by Vygotsky (1978). Froebelian philosophy of early childhood education has been influencing Japanese early childhood educational policy since the early nineteenth century, which were the pioneering days of Japanese educational policy. In Japan, there have been two main types of early childhood institutions for children 3–5 years and neither is compulsory. The first type is the kindergarten, which is administered by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, which is seen as an educational institution for children from age 3 to 5. Currently, kindergarten enrollment of 2011 for children age 3, 4, and 5 respectively is 41.4%, 53.6%, and 54.8% (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology 2013). Day care centres form the other type of institution and these are administered by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. As of 2013, the enrollment rates for children less than 1 to 5 years old are 10.8% (under 1), 33.9% (ages 1 and 2) and 43.7% (ages 3 to 5) (Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare 2013). The Centre for Early Childhood Education and Care (Nintei Kodomoen) was founded in 2005 but is not on expected track yet. It is an integrated institution combining kindergarten and a day care centre. Both kindergarten and day care guidelines apply here. The Japanese day care centre is required by law to maintain an exclusive kitchen facility for sanitary and nutritional reasons but the kindergarten is not. The first Japanese early child education guidelines (Hoikuyouryou) were published in 1948 by the Ministry of Education as a tentative plan just after the Second World War. This defined “free play” as the activity in which children voluntarily engage with various toys and equipment. The last guidelines for kindergartens in 2008 (Youchien-Kyouikuyouryou) noted that “play is voluntary and is the main activity for early childhood promoting children’s harmonious development in body and mind”. The childcare guidance for a day-care centre (Hoikusho-Hoiku-Shishin) in 2008 proposed “total care for children through everyday activity and a teacher is there expected to develop play activity for children”. It also noted that “children can cultivate their thinking, imagination, social skill and situational adaptability through play activity and their feeling of satisfaction, their sense of accomplishment, their experience of questioning and conflict through their play activity which facilitates their development”. The role of the adult in children’s play has been historically controversial in these guidelines. In the initial versions from 1948 to 1964, the guidelines strengthen free play without adult intervention. But the last guidelines do not deny either children’s free play or teacher guidance, instead stressing the need for teachers to create environments where children can play freely. Then the practical execution depends on the practitioner’s interpretation of the notions of “free” and “guidance”.

The critical situation of play in the lives of Japanese children A chronological comparison of children’s play in their everyday life from 2 to 6 years during the last three decades in Japan (Goto 2011) shows the results of multiple-choice questionnaires conducted in 1990, 2000, and 2010. There were 5,907 out of the 278

Collaborative play with dramatization

10,501 parents who participated in the centre for physical health checking for their children all over the nation who responded to the questionnaire in 2010. The most popular play in 1990 was to ride a bicycle or a tricycle (68.9%) but the popularity has successively decreased to 53.9% in 2000, and to 43.4% in 2010. The trend may be related to residential environments, where children might not have large spaces in traffic-free areas and parents fear accidental injuries. The other popular play was tag (27%) and hide-and-seek (25.7%) in 1990 but these were excluded in the following investigations. There is no explanation in the report but it might be related to difficulty in finding the space and peers to play with after school. The number of young children living in the greater Tokyo area playing with peers after school decreased from 1995 to 2015; kindergarten from 72.9% to 44.5% and day-care centre from 25.2% to 9.2%. Conversely, young children playing with their mother after school has alarmingly increased from 55.1% in 1995, 68.6% in 2000, 80.9% in 2005, 83.1% in 2010, and 86.0% in 2015 (Benesse Corporation, 2015). This suggests that the diverse experience of children’s lives, especially play, has shrunk in Japan. Even the Cabinet Office (Government of Japan, 2015) reports that the varied experience in a nature environment decreased outside school time from 2006 to 2012 in each grade for elementary school children with school becoming the main place offering various kinds of children’s activity. Children play mainly in their home, early childhood setting or school. This means we have to pay attention to the quality of play, both in early childhood settings, school and after school time. How do children in Japan play? In 2000 “pretend play’’ was added to the questionnaire choices of the survey (Goto, 2011) and it shows that 64% of children in 2000 and 68.3% of children in 2010 are estimated as children who engage in pretend play by parents. If we think that pretend play is a matter of spontaneous play for human beings, the ratios are not high. They must be 100%. Parents might not recognize it as a valuable activity to choose specially. The computerized game may be the centre of interest in these kinds of investigations. Japan is one of the leading nations in developing computer games, and youths and adults engage in the games ubiquitously. Parents recognized computer games as a popular activity for their young children in the surveys (1990, 2000, and 2010: 11.8%, 11% and 17.3%, respectively). The operations involved may be difficult for young children. By contrast, television viewing is regarded as play for young children: 26.0% in 1990, 26.3% in 2000, and 50.9% in 2010. Television doesn’t require a specific skill for a user. The report also points that “baby-sitting by TV and video” is problematic in relation to healthy development. More than 90% of the respondents in the survey of 2010 gave the choice “always” (43.8%) or “often” (46.2%) for the question of that “do you have an occasion to leave children to watch a television or a video owing to your business”. Neither TV viewing nor computer games require large spaces and/or peers in order to participate. This contrasts strongly with socio-dramatic play or exploration play in the field. What do young children do in early childhood settings as opposed to at home in relation to play? Unfortunately, there isn’t a strict scientific survey of this. But Japanese teachers in kindergarten recognized bodily physical play (tag, jumping rope) (70.9%), handicraft (53.5%), playing with sand and outdoor play in nature (42.1%) as popular play for kindergarteners (Japanese association of principals of kindergarten and early 279

Hiroaki Ishiguro

childhood centre, 2015). It is unclear whether the listed items truly correspond to what children actually play in kindergarten. The teachers, like the parents described above, definitely don’t perceive imaginative or fantasy play as a central play activity for their children. Both parents and teachers seem to think that most important play for young children is physical play and object manipulation. What do teachers think about the social, cognitive and emotional aspects of play? Free play is in fact almost treated as a filler activity in Japanese early childhood institutions, which is allowed between teacher-initiated activities. The time is always unfixed and it may be suddenly stopped by teachers before children satisfy or complete their play. This situation cannot give children opportunities to engage in rich play because they cannot organize their play activities by themselves. The first reason why teachers deprioritize children’s self-organization of play is typically a lack of space and the assignment of a large number of children to one adult. The Child Welfare Act stipulates that there should be one teacher to three under 1-year-old children, one teacher to six 1- to 2-year-old children, one teacher to twenty 3-year-old children and one teacher to thirty beyond 4-year-old children in a nursery day-care centre. As for the kindergarten, one teacher is assigned a maximum of thirty-five kindergarten-aged children by the national criteria. These adult–child ratios place a heavy burden on both groups of teachers. Their salaries are relatively low in contrast with other professionals and an early resignation rate is therefore very high in both kindergartens and day-care centres. Kato and Suzuki (2011) remark that half the early childhood institutions investigated by them had more than one person leaving their job within three years of their employment. The second reason might be an ideological one. Many teachers, especially low career teachers, might think that “free play” is leaving children so that they can play according to their free will, when they stay away from adults. In summary most young Japanese children need to be in kindergarten or nursery day-care centres during their daily life. Therefore, the quantity and quality of their activities, including play, depend on what the early childhood setting may prepare. However, teachers have no time to give detailed attention and care to their children’s work and to be absorbed in playing with children. It is also problematic to extend the zone of proximal development (Vygotsky 1978) for teachers themselves as well as children. The situation becomes a negative spiral for both teachers and children.

Playshop: a play workshop for young children Playshop is the early child programme of play. It adopts “the instrumental method” (Vygotsky, 1930/1981) and it is a flexible, process-oriented programme in which play is part of “an emergent curriculum” (Hendrick, 1997: 22). It has been executed since 2003. The project is a practical study for children and it also gives participants an adequate environment for play and learning. This idea is based on Vygotskian theory for development and learning. The Playshop is executed for the Azukarihoiku (leaving care programme) of Japanese educational policy for kindergarten. Children in the kindergarten usually come home after lunch but an increasing number of parents now hope to leave their children in care for longer for a number 280

Collaborative play with dramatization

of reasons, especially since the introduction of the new after-school programme for the kindergartens. Playshop aims to create opportunities for children to think and participate in play activities with adults. We had tried implementing various kinds of play: physical play (e.g. tag, outdoor play), play of natural scientific research, or traditional game play. Drama play was arranged as a main activity from 2005. We introduced interesting stories as seeds of interest for children 3–6 years. Most of them were based on famous popular tales: the ant and grasshopper based on Aesop’s Fables, the moon exploration based on The First Men in the Moon written by H. G. Wells, The Magic Lamp based on One Thousand and One Nights (Arabian Nights’ Entertainments) and the Koropokkur (the little people), based on Ainu’s famous folk tale of Hokkaido, Japan. We now focus on collective play with improvised dramatization of famous tales as a core of the daily programme. Then the pedagogic idea of playworld (Lindqvist, 1995), which takes “an educational practice that includes adult-child joint pretense and dramatization of texts from children’s literature combined with the production of visual art” (Baumer, 2013: 1), is implemented into the programme. Playshop is also an experimental research field to study how young children’s development can be promoted with adults in the after-school programme. The story embedded in the programme is semi-prescribed by adults, but it develops situationally through the participants. The Playshop was held once a week for a couple of hours in Miharu kindergarten’s after-school time for the first few years. The kindergarten is in Sapporo which is the central city of Hokkaido region of Japan. Sapporo has about 2 million people. The parents of the regular kindergarteners applied to voluntarily participate in the programme for a term (about 3 months). About ten or twenty children usually participated in a single term. Their age ranged between 3 and 6 years. The Playshop has been carried out as an intensive course recently. Playshop has four main goals. The first goal is to develop afterschool programmes for kindergartens. The second is to set an experimental site for university researchers including students to conduct their research on children’s development and learning through play. The third is to study the psychological character of play through dramatization for children and adults. The fourth is to clarify the adult’s role in facilitating play during the period of early childhood. The Playshop has been available for kindergarten teachers as their in-service training session. Furthermore, the Playshop may provide an opportunity for teachers to reflect on how their daily pedagogical practice affects the children.

The organization of Playshop Playshop is organized into three dimensions. The first dimension indicates various participants: peers (children), university researchers who have an aim to study their own interests of play in the field (i.e. professors and graduate students and undergraduate students working on their theses), kindergarten teachers, and voluntary assistant students. Peers share their ideas to resolve the conflicts they encounter during their dramatization. Parents often gather in the last session to be an audience for the children’s presentation. They are also interlocutors for the children about the story 281

Hiroaki Ishiguro

they experienced in their home. In fact, children wanted to talk about their experience in Playshop with their parents, and their parents also liked to ask what happened there. This discussion not only promotes children’s understanding of their experience but also feeds their imagination concerning the target story. The second dimension is the daily programme which has four phases: listening to a picture-drama (Kami-Shibai), dramatization, drawing, and the children’s presentation with their drawn pictures. After an ice-breaking session, children in the first phase listen to the picture-drama and then they are involved in the fantasy world depicted by the picture-drama. It might give them some indication of what they will experience in the dramatization. They dramatize the story with adults in the second phase. This includes preparations for the dramatization, such as costumes and accessories. Adults guide children along the main plot prescribed by the picture-drama. The children also come up with their own ideas to develop the story, supported by the adult’s interested inquiries. After the dramatization they move into the reviewing process by drawing pictures and talking amongst themselves. Some children voluntarily talk to the other children about their stories using the pictures they have drawn in the last phase. They often imitate narrative styles of the picture-drama in the first phase and use the typical wordings of popular stories. It means that they learn narrative formulae in Playshop. The last phase was omitted sometimes due to the time limitation. Four phases are sequentially arranged in the daily programme. The core story is kept through the term as the project work. Then the activity each day is interconnected. Participants explore and create a whole big story throughout one term. Their collective improvised story in the dramatization phase becomes the resource of picture-dramas in the following weeks. The pictures drawn by children in the previous week were often adopted for the picture-drama of the next week. The fourth dimension is a psychological one. Thinking, emotion, and imagination are closely interrelated: they are interdependent and inter-restricted. Vygotsky (1932b/1997) insisted that “the development of imagination is linked to the development of speech, to the development of the child’s social interaction with those around him, to the basic forms of the collective social activity of the child’s consciousness” (p. 346). Imagination is the thought mediated with language: a baby who doesn’t have a concept of a ghost doesn’t fear it. Vygotsky (1932b/1997) also pointed out that imagination is a highly emotional activity.

Development and learning through playworld in the Playshop What do children learn in Playshop? It focuses on the process but not the product. It is what and how they develop and learn through the dramatization that we are concerned with. The story requires children to represent more than one aspect of the story (Adam, 1984) and participants in the dramatization of the story necessarily encounter various affairs. Quite a few children 3–6 years of age have their own idea of how to overcome difficulty in the story. However, they are not good at organizing their ideas by themselves. When adults guide their discussion, children easily find their way. Adults and children can share responsibility in advancing the story in 282

Collaborative play with dramatization

play. The programme can promote mainly two specific areas: the collaborative social problem-solving skill and thinking in the way of narrative mode.

Collaborative social problem-solving As Vygotsky (1932b/1997) stated, imagination is not the spontaneous appearance of a childish thought; rather, it is a higher mental functioning mediated by speech. Their imagination develops when adults guide their way through their conversation because imagination needs discursive organization. An adult often guides discussion by asking what is happening, how can we do this, or why do we do so. It accelerates the intrapsychological discursive thinking as well as interpsychological discourse with others. The primary feature of dramatization in Playshop is that children are conscious of problem solving embedded in the dramatized story. Children accidentally find problems anywhere during dramatization and adults accompanying them ask what is problematic and how to solve it. The challenge is not to quiz children about “what was inside?” or “were there elves?” for example, after finding the hole in the side of an oak tree. This leads to social conflict which often produces individual internal contradiction or discrepancy among participants. Children must decide on one way to negotiate the way ahead with their peers. This brings high emotional tension. For example, when one child playing “Moon Exploration’’ proposed getting material from the hole of a tree, the other child hesitated to do so because of the way the elves he had imagined might feel. In these situations, children have to persuade other children who might hold different opinions. It is a kind of “social problem solving”, which is defined as “the process of problem solving as it occurs in the natural environment or real world” (D’Zurilla, Nezu and Maydeu-Olivares, 2004: 11). “The natural” or “real” is stressed in contrast to experimental or artificial situations. However, children in the playworld encounter real feeling both in the fantastic situation as well as the real one. When a child feels insecure against a swinging curtain in a room, he or she is involved in an emotional affair by imagining a ghost (Vygotsky, 1933/1966). Social problem-solving skill is required to decrease distress intrapersonally and interpersonally. Children can exercise the skill well supported in Playshop. Collective play might create social problems but in Playshop children become conscious of the problem and make a collective effort to solve it through their discussion with adults. Children often give an incredible solution when they have encountered and dealt with a difficulty during dramatization. For example, the children who played genies in the Magic Lamp found their solution for their emotional control. They should obey the witch with the lamp, who is master of the lamp genie strictly according to the rule of the story. However, they didn’t want to obey her because they disliked a bad witch. They therefore fell into a dilemma. They were thrown into conflict and could not go ahead. After a long discussion about it, the children reformulated the rule of obedience itself. They actually obeyed the witch in their behaviour but they decided to strongly express their anger to her. They changed the meaning of obedience from the “inevitable obedience” to the “occupational duty given to the role of the lamp genie”. They collectively invented a way to both conform to and 283

Hiroaki Ishiguro

resist the rule. They acquired a new aspect of “keeping rules” through their experience in dramatization. The word meaning always develops (Vygotsky1932a/1997). Even the same word changes its meaning depending on the situation. A word also has a different meaning for the internal conceptual network of the user because the meaning is produced in the process of generalization. For example, the word “work” has a different meaning for a school child and an adult. Collective improvisational drama play can offer opportunities to learn a new meaning for a given word in a new context. The development of imagination implies that children can find new meanings for known things and events. As children can imagine richly, they can think flexibly about the emergent affairs. The imagination is evoked in a purposeful activity so that play based on a story can be a prominent activity for it. It may promote in children the possibility to develop their emotional and cognitive abilities so as to break through a situation of conflict. Collective management to treat troublesome affairs can facilitate discursive thinking for children. Children in Playshop can extend their zone of proximal development so that they exceed their “actual developmental level” (Vygotsky 1978: 85) in everyday activity. An adult asks children to confirm what they want to solve when they encounter difficulties at the critical moment of drama. This guidance is a kind of scaffolding (Wood, Bruner, and Ross, 1976). Adults, through the inquiries they make of them, support children in neatly organizing their thinking. It is important to define what is issued and feasible conditions for it. Because of their developmental level, young children often find it difficult to keep in mind the problem compared with older children in school (Gathercole, 1998). They are easily flustered by their sense of insecurity in facing unfamiliar affairs so that they can’t think calmly. When children have experienced social problem-solving situations with adults, then they can increasingly fix problems and confirm the condition in situ. They can also predict possible future affairs through narrative causation embedded in a story. It means that acquisition of various kinds of narrative extend their zone of proximal development in imaginative thinking.

Developing narrative as a cognitive tool Why can an imaginative dramatization prepare a rich circumstance for social problemsolving skills? It stimulates the narrative mode of thinking, especially in children but often in adults too. Purposeful activity which changes a given situation always requires imaginative thinking. People with rich imaginations can overcome difficulties in everyday situations too. The story usually sets challenges that have to be overcome by a protagonist. In dramatization, any child can become a protagonist who advances a story from their point of view because each child represents their own story in the situations they encounter. The activity involved in changing the situation consequently requires a new script or an alternative version of the story. Bruner (1986) places narrative modes of thinking on equal terms with logical modes. He doesn’t consider them as primitive modes of thinking or precursors before paradigmatic (i.e. logical-scientific) thoughts. We often rely on narrative modes in explaining something to others. The Japanese philosopher Noe (2005) criticizes the 284

Collaborative play with dramatization

commonplace idea that logic in natural science simply reflects the structure of nature itself, which is called logical-positivism. He asks how we can know about particles that we cannot directly see. He also asks how we can believe that an ancient king really existed. Of course, our belief partly depends on natural phenomena. But this is only half of our resource for knowing. The other half is social discourse. Our belief doesn’t only depend on the facts themselves but also on the discourse or the network referring to the facts. Scientific facts are mediated by narratives about them too. Therefore, Noe (2005) insists that knowledge of science requires a “hermeneutic” of science. From this perspective, logical-scientific modes of thinking also need “narrative acts”, which are the acts of making sense of the world or the universe through narration and logical positivism is one mode involving narrative acts. Then learning narrative acts can build a foundation of any academic knowledge learning too. Hakkarainen (2008) proposes narrative play as a transitive activity for formal schooling and then he positions narrative learning in the middle of unstructured free play and formal learning activity. Egan and Gajdamaschko (2003) emphasize that narrative can also convey emotional meaning. Therefore, it can create deep understanding even in children who are not yet fluent users of language. Egan (2005) shows various kinds of narrative devices to encourage students’ imagination in a classroom setting. Regarding the development of thinking in children, the narrative mode of thinking is usually considered to be a more primitive mode, which precedes logicalscientific mode. Kayo (1992) opposes this conceptualization as too naive. Both modes of thinking exist simultaneously long after the early childhood period. He shows that children who use animistic words in talking about animals and plants simultaneously refer to them in scientific words. Both modes of thinking easily shift each other in explaining natural phenomena. Both modes have their own history in our discourse society. Either of them may be used or not, but one can’t be replaced by another. The distinction between the scientific mode and the narrative mode is related to two types of concepts proposed by Vygotsky (1932/1997). It is often said that everyday concepts should be replaced by scientific concepts after school age. But either of these concepts is supported by its universe of discourse. Bozhovich (1978/2004, 1979/2004) insists that thinking with everyday concepts doesn’t correspond to a certain developmental stage or period. It is a unique form of thinking which has its own course of development. He paraphrases it as “intuitive thinking” (Bozhovich, 1979/2004: 69). It isn’t voluntarily evoked and controlled. But it has a very important role in creative thinking and is not inferior to logical thinking. Intuitive thinking coexists with logical-scientific thinking. A narrative act is in a sense a transformative device, where incomprehensible facts can be sorted into comprehensible events because narrative can produce a sequential flow and causal relations inside an event and among events. Narrating doesn’t represent what already exists but it organizes and creates what might be. There is no difference between scientific explanation and literary narrative in this regard. The difference is in the way the beginning relates to the end. Scientific explanation is to link the beginning to the end through a direct line. The literary description unfolds in terms of cultural, personal, or non-existing relations. Therefore, a story is a good tool through which to understand new knowledge (Egan, 2005). 285

Hiroaki Ishiguro

The narrative mode of fantasy can be accompanied with a scientific mode of thinking even for young children. For example, in a series of “moon explorations”, many children felt fear for the artificial moon ground that they saw first. One 5-yearold boy said “Here we are in the room of our kindergarten because I can see the blackboard belonging to our regular classroom.” He was fearful of the moon’s surface so he talked about the factual matters, which made his fear manageable. Then he could regulate his impulses in the situation. In comparison, the 3- and 4-year-old children were often driven by their emotional fear. Some of them cried and clung to their teachers. Dewey insists that “impulses and desires that are not ordered by intelligence are under the control of accidental circumstances” (1938: 123). The younger children couldn’t control their feelings at all. The 5-year-old boy had a hypothesis of “where he was” and found evidence to verify his hypothesis. It is scientific narrative with a hypothesis testing and his telling of this to his peers is a piece of logical persuasion. Even though he is fearful, he can still find pleasure in play in terms of his intelligence. He actually enjoyed the double feeling of fear and safety through crossing the boundary between the imaginative and real world. An effective way to inhibit spontaneous desires is to transform objects, and that is the meaning of it for the actor. Adults can change the meaning of objects or events entirely through their thinking. But children usually need supportive environments to perceive the same object and event from multifaceted views. When we expect children to drive rich imaginative thinking, we should prepare rich environments through which they can engage in their produced goal-oriented actions.

Conclusion In this chapter, the role of play in children’s development was discussed first. There is a big discrepancy about free play and the adult’s role in children’s play among researchers and practitioners. One view argues that children’s spontaneous play has priority, and the other insists on a supportive function for the adult in developing children’s play. Japanese policy and practice in relation to play in early child care and education has kept see-sawing between two poles. They can coexist. It depends on the situation and a good balance between two poles should be sought in each socioecological context. The challenges facing practitioners working in day-care centres and kindergartens in terms of space and adult/child ratios has been discussed in an earlier section of this chapter. The Playshop afterschool programme has been located in a specific kindergarten as an experimental site concentrating on play which focuses on the collaborative dramatization with adults. It adopts the notion of playworld (Lindqvist, 1995) but it values social problem-solving (D’Zurilla and Nezu, 1982) in dramatization with narrative modes of thinking. The programme also contributes to cultural literacy learning of narrative formulae, frames, and perspectives through drama-pictures, dramatization and presentation of child-made stories. Children can live in another world that is different from their everyday life during the programme. We don’t insist that all play should be as Playshop or that all the play of children should be supported by adults, or that children should dramatize all the time. We would like to bring 286

Collaborative play with dramatization

various kinds of play opportunities as part of the critical period of play which occurs during early childhood to all children living in Japan. Play during the early childhood period offers fundamentally important activities for later learning and development.

Acknowledgements I wish to thank Yuki Fujino, Sachiko Uchida, Madoka Hasegawa, Azusa Kobayashi, Shigemitsu Azuma and the children and the parents for their contribution to Playshop. I would also like to thank Tina Bruce, Pentti Hakkarainen and Milda Bredikyte for their supportive comments on the draft.

References Adam, J. M. (1984) Le récit. Presses Universitaires de France. Baumer, S. (2013) Play pedagogy and Playworlds. In Tremblay, R. E., Boivin, M. and Peters, R. De V. (Eds.), Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development [online]. Montreal, Quebec: Centre of Excellence for Early Childhood Development and Strategic Knowledge Cluster on Early Child Development, 1–5. Benesse Corporation (2015) The quick-look data of fifth survey of preschool life (http://berd. benesse.jp/up_images/research/press151125.pdf, accessed 20 May 2016). Bozhovich, L. I. (1978/2004) Developmental phases of personality formation in childhood (I), Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 42 (4), 35–54 [Voprosy psikhologii, no. 4, 1978, pp. 23–35]. Bozhovich, L. I. (1979/2004) Developmental phases of personality formation in childhood (II), Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 42 (4), 55–70 [Voprosy psikhologii, no. 2, 1979, pp. 47–56]. Bruner, J. (1986) Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cabinet Office, Government of Japan (2015) Annual Report on the youth and the children in Japan (www8.cao.go.jp/youth/whitepaper/h27honpen/pdf/b1_03_02.pdf, accessed 27 May 2016). Dewey, J. (1938) Experience and Education. New York: Macmillan. D’Zurilla, T. J., Nezu, A. M. and Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2004) Social Problem Solving: Theory and Assessment. In Chang, E. C., D’Zurilla, T. J., and Sanna, L. J. (Eds.), Social problem solving: Theory, research, and training. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 11–27. Egan, K. and Gajdamaschko, N. (2003) Some Cognitive Tools of Literacy. In Kozulin, A., Gindis, B., Ageyev, V. S. and Miller, S. M. (Eds.), Vygotsky’s Educational Theory in Cultural Context. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 83–98. Egan, K. (2005) An Imaginative Approach to Teaching.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Ellis, M. J. (1973) Why people play. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. El’konin, D. B. (1978). Psikhologiya igry [Psychology of play]. Moscow: Pedagogika. Gathercole, S. (1998) The Development of Memory, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 39(1), 3–27. Goto, M. (2011) Report of diachronic study held in 2010 of the infant health by Labour and Welfare Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (https://www.niph.go.jp/soshiki/07shougai/ hatsuiku/houkoku120617.pdf, accessed 20 May 2016) [In Japanese]. Hakkarainen, P. (2008) The challenges and possibilities of a narrative learning approach in the Finnish early childhood education system. International Journal of Educational Research, 47, 292–300. Hendrick, J. (1997) First steps toward teaching the Reggio Way. Upper Saddle River, NJ: PrenticeHall, Inc.

287

Hiroaki Ishiguro Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R. M. and Eyer, D. (2003) Einstein never used flash cards: How our children really learn and why they need to play more and memorize less. Emmaus, PA: Rodale Press. Japanese association of principals of kindergarten and early childhood centre (2015) The survey for children’s better life experience through play (http://kokkoyo.com/pdf/b-no027.pdf, accessed 20 May 2016) [In Japanese]. Kato, M. and Suzuki, K. (2011) A Study on the Early Retirement of New Childcare Teachers: From the Investigation of Kindergarten Day Nurseries’ and Child Welfare Institutions’ Personal Accounts. Bulletin of Tokoha Junior College, 42, 79–94 [In Japanese]. Kayo, F. (1992) Studies on the contradiction of make-believe play: Towards the “Mental Movement” paradigm. Japanese Research Association of Psychological Science, 14(1), 1–19 [In Japanese]. Leont’ev, A. N. (1965) Problems in the Development of the Psyche, 2nd edn. Moscow: Mysl’. Lindqvist, G. (1995). The Aesthetics of Play. A Didactic Study of Play and Culture in Preschools. Acta Universitatis Uppsaliensis. Uppsala Studies in Education 62. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. Ministry of Education (1948) Hoikuyouryou [Early child education guidelines]. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan (2013) International comparison of educational index, 2013 (http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/toukei/data/ kokusai/1332512.htm, accessed 13 June 2016) [In Japanese]. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (2008) Hoikusho-Hoiku-Shishin [Childcare guidance for a day-care centre] [In Japanese]. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (2013) The current state of day care nursery (http:// www.mhlw.go.jp/file/04-Houdouhappyou-11907000-KoyukintoujidoukateikyokuHoikuka/0000022681.pdf, 9 January 2016) [In Japanese]. Nachmanovitch, S. (1990) Free Play: Improvisation in Life and Art. Los Angeles: J.P. Tarcher, Incorporated. Newman, F. and Holzman, L. (1993/2014) Lev Vygotsky: Revolutionary Scientist. New York: Psychology Press. Noe, K. (2005) Monogatari no tetugaku [The philosophy of story]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten Publishers [In Japanese]. Vygotsky, L. S. (1930/1967/2004) Voobrazhenie i tvorchestvo v detskom vozraste [Imagination and Creativity in Childhood]. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 42 (1), 7–97. Vygotsky, L. S. (1930/1981) The instrumental method in psychology. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology. Armonk, NY: Sharpe, pp. 134–143. Vygotsky, L. S. (1932a/1997) Thinking and Speech. In Rieber, R. W. and Carton, A. S. (Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. (Cognition and language) Vol.1, Problems of general psychology. New York, London: Plenum Press, pp. 39–243. Vygotsky, L. S. (1932b/1997) Lektsii po Psikhologii [Lectures on Psychology]. In Rieber, R. W. and Carton, A. S. (Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. (Cognition and language) Vol. 1, Problems of general psychology. New York, London: Plenum Press, pp. 289–358. Vygotsky, L. S. (1933/1966) Play and its role in the Mental Development of the Child. Soviet Psychology, 5 (3), 6–18. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind in Society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Wood, D., Bruner, J. and Ross, G. (1976) The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Child Psychiatry, 17, 89−100.

288

21 Digital playworlds in an Australia context Supporting double subjectivity Marilyn Fleer

Introduction Digital play has been introduced into the literature to name an emerging new way of playing (e.g. Edwards 2014; Ellis and Blashki 2007; Johnson and Christie 2009; Linderoth, Lantz-Andersson and Linderstrom 2002; Moore 2014; Stephen and Plowman 2014; Thai et al. 2009; Verenikina and Kervin 2011). Stephen and Plowman (2014: 336) note that digital play is defined as a “model of play that derives from screen-based computer games”. In contrast, a cultural-historical conception of play sees children traditionally engaging in three-dimensional physical and social worlds, where they create imaginary situations, changing the meaning of actions and objects to give a new sense to the situation (Vygotsky 1966). So how might digital play relate to this cultural-historical conception of play, which has recently been brought to pedagogical life in the contemporary context of playworlds (Hakkarainen et al. 2013; Lindqvist 1995)? Much of the longstanding literature presents a binary between play that features digital devices and play that occurs without these devices, sometimes named as “traditional play” (vs contemporary play), “concrete real world play” (as opposed to iWorld play), or “spontaneous play” (vs digitally programmed play or gaming). Bridging these differing worlds, as suggested by some researchers (Nuttall et al. 2013), is necessary if teachers are to be able to understand and harness quality play opportunities for children (Edwards 2014). In warning against the emerging binaries between “digital and embodied play” Stephen and Plowman (2014: 336) argue that this conceptualization “is being eroded by a new generation of technologies with tangible [that is, touchable] interfaces facilitating seamless movement between digital and non-digital resources and play narratives”. What the emerging literature is suggesting is that conceptualizing the relations between the various forms of play, including digital play, together, is a productive way forward for advancing our understandings of the contemporary play of young children. 289

Marilyn Fleer

Despite the conceptualization of play in the literature on digital technology suggesting a binary between playing on digital devices and playing without them, there are a growing number of empirical studies that give examples of how children move between or are simultaneously in both the real world and the virtual world. For instance, Björk-Willén and Aronsson (2014) in their analysis of the literature suggest a form of merging is prevalent, where gaming on and off screen involves the same play themes across both platforms. They state that the “gaming involved complex participation frameworks, covering both screen collaborations (with the duck Anki and other game characters) and off-screen collaboration with co-participant peers” (p. 331). The interactions surrounding the use of digital devices suggested that the children worked towards joint performances in their play. These digital play behaviours noted by Björk-Willén and Aronsson (2014) in their research are consistent with the general play interactions of children as they jointly create an imaginary situation together. Rather than digital play being positioned as one end of a binary to traditional play, these studies show the same psychological conditions for children’s development, where play involves the creation of an imaginary situation, in which children collectively change the meaning of actions and objects, and give a new sense to the same situation – as was originally conceived by Vygotsky (1966). In this chapter, Digital playworlds is introduced as a term to capture holistically both digital play and playworlds, rather than position digital play as a binary against playworlds. Although playworlds have been around since 1995 (Lindqvist 1995), the introduction of digital devices that can be easily used by children from birth to six years is relatively new. What these devices offer for children’s engagement in their playworlds is less understood, particularly for the potential to amplify the development of children’s play in these collective imaginary situations. This chapter seeks to fill this gap by presenting a case example of a playworld in action in an early childhood setting in Australia, where digital devices were used to support the development of children’s play.

Playworlds in an inner city early childhood setting The case study is drawn from research that examined young children’s learning of science in playful settings where both digital play and playworlds were supported. The early childhood setting is located in an inner city suburb in a major city in Australia. The early childhood setting is spacious, with a large outdoor play area that contains a lot of natural materials, trees, and plants. The outdoor area is large enough to support a compost bin, a pond and a birdbath. The centre is surrounded by highrise buildings, a busy shopping and restaurant streetscape, and a culturally diverse community. The children who participated in the research were mostly from Vietnamese, Indian or Anglo-Australian cultural heritage backgrounds with one to three families who were of African, Chinese, Greek or East Timorese backgrounds. A mix of socioeconomic backgrounds featured. Most families live within walking distance of the early childhood setting. The centre has an overall director, and two classrooms which each have two teachers. Both classrooms participated in the playworlds with research participants of sixteen 3-year-old children (3.6–4.5, mean 290

Digital playworlds in an Australian context

age of 4.1) and ten 4-year-old children (4.7–5.9, mean age of 5.3). A total of twentysix children with a mean age of 4.6 years were included in the study. The research team followed three of the teachers (one European heritage, one Vietnamese heritage and one Chinese/Timorese heritage) and the children over four weeks, visiting approximately twice a week and documenting for a full day on each occasion (total of eight visits). Digital video observations were made using two cameras, so that more children could be followed, and so that the different interactions between the teachers and children could be recorded. The teachers were also informally interviewed at the end of each session, and on occasions at the beginning of the day before the children arrived. The teachers were usually invited to reflect on how the playworlds had been experienced that day or previous days when the research team had not been there. All interviews were video recorded. A total of 59.6 hours of video data were generated for the study. Playworlds as a pedagogical approach was introduced to the teachers through a comprehensive professional learning programme by the research team. In line with Lindqvist (1995), we wanted to create a collective imaginary situation so that the children and the teachers could meet together in a jointly created playworld, where the teachers could create a setting where they could dramatize together with the children. We specifically sought to engage the teachers in science through supporting them to charge their environment with, as Linqvist (1995: 72) suggests, emotions that would “fuel and inspire the imagination of both children and adults”. The teachers introduced the idea of a microscopic playworld to the children, drawing upon digital devices, hand lenses and a digital microscope for magnification of the world not visible to the children. The professional development sought to explain, engage, and work with the teachers to identify a complex story as the basis for the playworld, to draw out science content that could enhance the playworlds, and importantly to role play and discuss the critical role of the teachers in creating, maintaining and developing their play. Important here was to discuss how play in playworlds is distinctly different to childinitiated imaginary play. As Lindqvist (1995: 35) has identified in her research “Play is based on actions and dialogue and does not often include a plot. For this reason, the pedagogue needs to inspire the child to play, in order to develop the dramatic nature of play.” Lindqvist, in drawing upon Vygotsky’s (1966) conception of play, argues that play is theatrical when it comprises an author, a director, an actor and an audience. She states that the dramatic instruments of tension, contrast, symbols, rituals and rhythms are key for drama, but also for supporting the development of children’s play. She suggests similarities in classical drama can also be made, when the features of introduction, escalation, climax, descent and crisis are observed. However, in Australia with longstanding beliefs in conceptualizing play as something owned and enacted by children, considering play in the way described by Lindqvist is very new for many teachers, who would fear they would be interfering with children’s natural play if they were to use drama pedagogy (Fleer 2010). Lindqvist (1995: 37) makes the important point that in “role-play, everyone is free to make their own interpretations, whereas in drama, everyone has to be part of the common fiction”. With these distinctions in mind, and with a firm understanding that play creates meaning, the teachers created 291

Marilyn Fleer

the conditions for a children’s playworld by introducing the story of the Wishing Chair series by Enid Blyton, so that the children could role play going on a series of adventures. To connect with the children’s previous imaginary pirate play, the teacher introduces the device of the wishing chair in the context of a pirate adventure. Later, the adventures became scientific explorations of the children’s microworlds.

Introducing playworlds The teacher is sitting on the mat with another teacher and fourteen children all seated in a circle. Connected to the circle of children and teachers is an adult chair, which has been introduced as the wishing chair. The teacher holds up a large book and says, “This book here is a VERY big book with lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, of even more stories, about children who go on an imaginary journey.” She points to her head to emphasize the word imaginary, and then says “Thinking inside of your head.” She then opens the book and says, “This has got so many words in all of these stories, but I am going to invite two of our pirate friends to come and sit on our wishing chair, Howard and Faye would you like to come and sit on our special wishing chair, over there, do you think you can sit together on the wishing chair?” The teacher signals the direction of the chair to the children, and they in turn smile and immediately begin to move towards the chair. Howard says “because it is too big for us”. One child walks and the other frog jumps towards the chair as the teacher says, “Let’s see what happens when you both try to get on it.” The teacher holds up another book, a picture book of an adventure of pirates, and suggests that Howard and Ann take on the role of being wicked pirates. “Perhaps we can pretend that Howard and Ann are the pretend pirates in this adventure.” Lindqvist (1995: 124) argues that, “It is a book, which ought to have the ability to inspire children to play.” After reading the story the children discuss their pirate play plans. ANN: Oh, well we are working on a new ship for our pirate ship TEACHER: Have you. BEN: You know our pirate ship . . . [inaudible] TEACHER: Do you know that Howard and Faye have been pretending to be pirates

for a very long time. And sometimes their games are fun . . . we also play postman. sometimes their games are a bit scary.

HOWARD: And TEACHER: And

The role of the adults is critical for creating the conditions for a collective imaginary situation, where Lindqvist notes in her own research that “The establishing of a playworld was however dependent on the adults’ attitude to the theme and to what children’s literature they liked – largely, in other words, their whole attitude to children’s culture. If one of the adults was not interested, this fact would influence the course of events” (p. 132). During the interviews with the teachers they reflect on the introduction of the chair to support the idea of introducing a collective imaginary situation (Fleer 2013; Fleer and Peers 2012; Fleer and Richardson 2003). 292

Digital playworlds in an Australian context TEACHER 1: Teacher

2 what did you think about having the chair in here for all of the session? TEACHER 2: It was amazing, really amazing. You can see how Howard and how Ann, like you say, pretending whilst they are sitting there in the chair, they DID, and after that when I went outside, and they just keep the games on, and they would play out the pirate ship over there, full of imagination. TEACHER 1: I was hopeful that the chair would be a chance for the children to see that we are using a new idea of triggering play and imagination out there. TEACHER 2: Even Patrick when he tried to stand up and watching, “What’s going on?” and then he sat on my lap. TEACHER 1: And every day we will have that chair in there (pointing to the area where the group time is held), I think we will have it in that position, and if there are opportunities for children to think imaginatively about their ideas, or their games, or what’s in their head, then we can invite them to come and sit on the wishing chair, and say “Where do you think this might take us now?” Triggering play and imagination out there. Key to the success of playworlds has been how the teacher engages the children through the storyline. Lindqvist (1955: 140) has suggested that, “The ties between story and play are so strong that they are on many occasions inseparable.” The teacher does not just introduce the story, but what is shared must be developed. The children have to feel themselves as part of the story or narrative that is being shared. Lindqvist (1995) noted in her own expansive research of working with groups of teachers over the course of twelve months that the story is read many times, told, role played, and then over time the original story transforms as children go on adventures and imagine themselves being in a new imaginary situation. Lindqvist (1995) used theatre pedagogy to develop the pedagogy of playworlds for early childhood settings. She stated that, “Those who act at the theatre strive to transform themselves, to play a role, to be someone else” (Lindqvist 1995: 175). This was the new pedagogical sense that Lindqvist brought to the concept of playworlds. This sense is captured in the quote below, but could also be seen emerging in the way the teachers were introducing the Wishing Chair series by Enid Blyton to the children: The literary characters, dramatized by the adults, step out of their literary texts and invite the children into the world which they represent. The adults become mediators between the fictitious world and the day-care centre, and establish a dialogue with the children. (Lindqvist 1995: 209–210) Through the empirical work of Hakkarainen et al. (2013) into successful adult intervention in narrative role play they identified the need for dramatic scripts that will engage adults, and that will motivate and emotionally engage all players, including the adults who take an active role in the play. These characteristics were introduced 293

Marilyn Fleer

to the teachers during the professional development programme so they could create engaging playworlds with the children. Key to our research and also for the success of playworlds was how the play becomes a conscious dramatization.

Digital placeholders As part of the professional development of the teachers, we also invited them to consider how they could draw upon the digital tools we provided to enhance and develop the play so that the scientific journeys could be undertaken in their playworlds. For example, we discussed the following ideas with the teachers: What we would like to do over the course of the project as they [children] get to understand how to use the magnifying glass, we have simple microscopes and soil or water samples, to get the idea of magnifying, but also the digital microscope. Another thing to introduce them to, is to look through the iPad camera to magnify as they are taking photographs. The children can take photographs and magnify through the iPad. To get the children to think about their play, where they are invited to “replay” their play, and video recording their play, hopefully to do with imagination, microlife, show them the video clips, if they role-played being a microscopic creature. The children were given four large and three small iPads and an iPod touch device and invited to document their playworld as they experienced it. The children were also invited to use the digital tools in the garden, so that their microworld could be documented. That is, the children were encouraged to represent what they were finding, to draw, and to photograph. The children used the digital devices to video record and photograph their play, as well as using the images to support their imagining and seeing of their microworld. These activities were noted by the teachers during interviews at the end of a day of investigating and role playing in the playworlds: “Today we went into the digging patch, looked under logs, and explored the life. Children imagined themselves in the microworld looking at soil, compost, pond water.” The digital tools supported the children to role play because the microscopic images they had documented on the iPads acted as digital placeholders of what they were finding whilst being in their imaginary microscopic playworld. The children were simultaneously in the real world using tools to explore, such as hand lenses and iPads, whilst also being on an adventure looking for life in this world filled with small and microscopic organisms, that in reality they had to initially imagine, and only later when they examined pond water through a digital microscope, could they see some organisms not visible to the human eye. It was only later that the children at home and in the centre, Googled for more images of microscopic organisms on family iPhones and on the iPads provided. The teachers and children were supported by the joint creation of a big book, which was entitled, “The adventures of the microworld”. The big book acted as a cultural device to help the children both imagine and to make conscious what they were exploring through their iPads (zooming in on small things in their environment, 294

Digital playworlds in an Australian context

such as in the compost bin), and using the digital microscope and iPad to see microscopic organisms from their environment, whilst also engaged in role playing being on microscopic adventures. Lindqvist (1995: 135) says that, “The theory of cultural-history [sic] emphasizes the correspondence between the form of consciousness and the cultural forms of society. In children’s play, the form of consciousness is manifested and reflected as a meeting between the internal and external worlds.” In our study, the children were simultaneously engaged with looking for things they had to imagine from their microworld book, whilst at the same time using the digital tools to see some of the organisms within the outdoor area of their early childhood setting. For example, the teacher and the children regularly examined their outdoor environment by lifting up logs and other objects, and used iPads and magnifying lenses to observe the organisms living there: TEACHER: Malcolm

you go and choose the log you want us to look under, today might be a really good day for findings things . . . because the ground’s been made very wet with the rain. MALCOLM: Bugs love the rain. TEACHER: Bugs love rain do they? MALCOLM: Yeah, because I watched it on television. TEACHER: I am going to have to use all of my muscles here (teacher is lifting a log, children immediately help) MALCOLM: I had “Bugs Life”, and they’re so funny . . . The children and the teacher find worms and imagine all the colours of the worms, then count them, then ask about what else they can see. They find a slug. TEACHER: I

wish I had a magnifying glass with me so we could see it a bit more clearly. MALCOLM: I can see it clearly, but you can’t, but you can’t see its face because they are so tiny. Further discussions about the slugs takes place, children retrieve magnifiers and digital devices to study the organisms more closely. Eventually one child says, “It’s trying to camouflage itself.” . . . “That one is trying to camouflage itself for other people.” In line with Bodrova (2008) who has discussed the importance of providing a common excursion for children where the roles and rules of society are explicitly examined, and subsequently more easily role played when back in an early childhood setting, the teachers in this playworld sought to enrich the in situ experiences (incursions) of the children by imagining another layer of life that was living with them in their early childhood setting. The digital tools and hand lenses supported this investigation, and were critical for coming to understand the concept of “microscopic”. The microscopic world represented a real world challenge for the children. The digital experiences also supported the children with imagining the microscopic journeys they engaged in during group time where collective imaginary situations were being initiated by the teachers. 295

Marilyn Fleer

Realistic problems to solve In the empirical work of Hakkarainen (2010), children were presented with realistic problems to solve within the structure of the playworlds. All those who have introduced playworlds have focused on developing a fictitious narrative. Although playworlds foreground the need to solve a realistic problem that is related to fictitious imaginary situations, in the playworlds in our study, the children had a different kind of problem to solve. They needed to understand magnification if they were to imagine the microscopic world that formed part of their outdoor early childhood setting environment. This is in line with Hakkarainen’s (2010) important point about a narrative forming, but narrative logic not being used to solve the problems that develop. This was also evident in the microworlds being explored by the children in our study. For instance, during our visits to the centre we engaged in conversations with teachers about how the playworld was being interpreted by the children and what they needed to do to develop the play and thinking further. The teachers reported that the children looked at the illustrations of microscopic organisms that were made available, did Google searches, and began to draw, naming their illustrations, and inventing words to name them. During interviews, the teachers commented on how they could draw up and maintain what was emerging: How else can we keep this conversation going? Would the children respond to be part of a spoken story? They have only had stories and books. Using the wishing chair device, I am wishing for something to happen . . . The teachers also reported that they were constantly listening, engaging and amplifying the collective imaginary situations that were developing. For instance, the idea of naming children as microbes using the term “Wee Wee” emerged during children’s play: “Malcolm Wee Wee, that became Sophie’s Wee Wee, and Totty Wee Wee, and Mummy Wee Wee.” Hakkarainen et al. (2013) argue that a higher form of thinking is needed to interpret and keep the play alive, but also to support its development. For instance, “We believe that professionals working with young children not only have to support the development of ongoing play, but also have to present and model higher forms of play” (Hakkarainen et al. 2013: 216). In our study we observed that the teachers drew upon the made-up language of the children for naming organisms (real or not) in their microscopic world, by using these in the oral stories they jointly created with the children at group time. For example, an excerpt of a group session is presented. This narrative has been developed to capture the early discussions about the microscopic life they had Googled, dramatized, and discussed in the context of their outdoor area (pond water, tadpole water, compost bin). Each “Wee Wee” name was referenced to a child in the group. TEACHER: One day when I opened up the compost bin, I saw lots of little creatures

wriggling all around . . . were they?

CHILD: What

296

Digital playworlds in an Australian context TEACHER: They

were things called, Matilda Wee Wees, Sharon Wee Wees, and they were wriggling. And the Faye Wee Wees and the Howard Wee Wees were giggling. CHILDREN: Giggling [laughing]. TEACHER: And the Chantelle Wee Wees and the Wayne Wee Wees were rolling over, and the Hasnie and the Marion Wee Wees were waving their feet into the air. All the children (including the teachers) did the actions in the story, including waving their feet into the air. TEACHER: And

the Deb Wee Wee and the Alex Wee Wee were shaking their hands [the children all shake their hands, giggle and look at each other and to the teachers who are also doing the actions]. TEACHER: And the Fiona Wee Wee and the Jack Wee Wee were rolling their hands [the children and teachers all roll their hands]. TEACHER: And all of these creatures were wiggling into the middle of the mat. CHILD: Can we do that? TEACHER: I don’t know can you wiggle into the middle of the mat? The children and the teachers wiggle into the mat, giggling and smiling at each other, happily embracing being the Wee Wee creatures. TEACHER: And all of these creatures [long pause] looked at each other [short pause],

and stood up [children stand], and turned into bananas . . . peel a banana, chop the banana, mash the banana, mash, mash, mash, eat the banana, munching sounds, and “go bananas” [children and teachers scream and turn on the spot]. (This is a reference to the bananas in the context of the food scraps that were found rotting in the compost bin.) TEACHER: And magically the bananas turn back into bananas [children and teacher move arms above head] and they bend down . . . What was evident in the playworlds in our study was that the teacher supported the children to imagine their experiences of investigating microlife in their environment, as dramatization of Wee Wees. The term Wee Wees introduced by some of the children, fitted their collective imagining of microlife, but also their humour to play with words. Many of the words to name the microlife sounded strange, and using the term Wee Wee as a placeholder for all the microscopic life appealed to the children. The narrative allowed for a playfulness in reconciling both what they could see with the human eye and what they saw through the digital tools and hand lenses. The logic they drew upon to make sense of the organisms was clearly a scientific approach, rather than narrative. The concept of magnification was needed to understand their journeys into their microscopic world. Because the problem was scientific, they had to engage in a scientific approach. Yet they could also playfully change the meaning 297

Marilyn Fleer

of words and actions to illustrate the organisms in the compost bin – clearly a developmental concept, fitting with Vygotsky’s original conception of play. It is suggested by Lindqvist (1995: 209) that “Through their physical presence, the adults have brought to life the literary texts and made it possible for the children to enter the playworld.” The teachers were always with the children as they simultaneously explored the microworld in the early childhood setting, but also as they drew upon and expanded the collective imaginary situations of the “Wee Wees”, as noted by Lindqvist (1995: 209–210), “More than anything else, the adults’ characters have persuaded the children to enter the fiction.” In our experience of playworlds in Australia, the teachers experienced the playworld, not always knowing what direction it would go. For example, during interviews the teachers were invited to reflect on their role and planning for playworlds they had undertaken for the day: RESEARCHER: What are you doing today? TEACHER 1: I’ve got no idea, it’s just a matter

of where the children are up to with some of that, and it is about us [pointing to Teacher 2] feeling confident in, I guess, our creative thinking to draw those ideas in of the research project (playworlds). Not all of the children are on that page, that can do it. But for those who are, I’d like to think we are spontaneous enough to be able to pick up on that. What I am going to have to remember is how to draw the other children in.

Because the children were aged 3.6 to 5.9 the role of the teacher was central for framing, maintaining and expanding the narrative and the scientific logic being used to solve real problems. Hardest of all appeared to be the teachers’ role in being inside the play, taking on a role, as is characteristic of playworlds (Fleer 2015). However, as this section has shown, the teachers listened for, expanded and contributed to the collective imaginary situation of the playworlds over the course of four weeks.

Transition rituals Hakkarainen (2010: 79) states that “In all playworlds some kind of psychological tools was used in transitions from classroom to imaginary playworld.” In our study, the teachers had two cultural devices to achieve this transition. The teachers introduced to the children a fabric tunnel that the children crawled through as a device to support them to imagine being inside the microscope or be a part of the microscopic world they were investigating in the outdoor area. In our interviews with teachers they suggested that the cultural device of a fabric tunnel had been successful for supporting the children’s imagination and for continuing the playworld adventures: TEACHER: Part

of that thinking and experience about what it is to be tiny, enjoyed when Wayne and Jackie used the tube of fabric – crawling through. Howard also joined in. They often don’t spend time together, so Howard was inspired to join in and that was fabulous. I am a bit of a spur of the moment person, as we did at the end of 298

Digital playworlds in an Australian context

the morning with the mats and hats, and “imagine if ’’. I was pleased that most of the children gave that a go. RESEARCHER: . . . the wriggling, they were able to role play TEACHER: To interpret that . . . RESEARCHER: . . . crawling through the microscope. The second cultural device was an inflated plastic bubble that was 1 metre tall, 3 metres long and about 1 metre wide (depending upon how much air pressure was evident inside the bubble). The plastic bubble was inflated by a continuing blowing fan which created a safe and fresh internal environment. A slit in the side of the bubble allowed children and adults to freely go in and out of the bubble. The teachers explored the bubble during their professional development, discussing how it would be used to support the children’s adventures in the microscopic playworld. Three teachers and the research assistant Sue are seated inside the bubble discussing how the bubble could act as a pedagogical device for transitioning into an imaginary situation: TEACHER 1: If

we said this is a really big bubble of water, a big drop of water, what might be inside the water? We are the things that live in the water. TEACHER 2: In the water. And this is a big drop of water. We are just pretending. SUE: So now that they have done their investigations . . . TEACHER 1: We are going to look at some water through the microscope, what can we see? We might be able to see some of those things that we were trying to pretend today, the little bits that turn around, inside the water . . . SUE: You could be little water fleas? TEACHER 1: Yes. SUE: Daphnia? TEACHERS: Yes, Daphnia. That’s the one. SUE:  Little protozoa. If we investigate them, then they will have a different way of . . . in there. For instance, the amoeba absorb them, and that might be a nice way to experience them . . . TEACHER 2: Yes, they move differently, you know the one with hair . . . TEACHER 3: Yes. TEACHER 1: So what’s the one with hair? TEACHER 2: Bacteria. SUE: What would we call it [the bubble]? TEACHER 2: Because we have been looking at water in a microscope, I think we have to say it is a big drop of water. We are really tiny . . . What became evident in our research was that the collective imaginary situations were in themselves a placeholder for collective play. The teachers needed a pedagogical device not so much to transition the children into the imaginary world, although that was its ultimate role, but rather as an object that children together used to help them 299

Marilyn Fleer

be in the imaginary situation. This is in line with Vygotsky’s conception of play, where young children use an object to act as a placeholder to support the imaginary play. The teachers introduced the plastic bubble to the children, and together they gave a new sense to the bubble – it was a drop of water. This changed the meaning of the situation, whereby the children collectively imagined being inside a drop of water. The pedagogical device of the bubble allowed the children to all be in the same imaginary situation, because the teachers and the children were using the bubble as a placeholder for a drop of water. The bubble acted as a pivot to take the children from what they could see in reality (a plastic bubble) and to imagine they were inside a drop of water, on a journey looking for microscopic life, or being microscopic organisms themselves. For example, what follows is the dialogue between Teacher 1 and two children who are inside the drop of water: TEACHER 1: Imagine

if this was alike a drop of water You’re inside the drop of water. What might you do? ALICIA: Good. TEACHER 1: Oh you are going swimming under this A. FIONA: Swim. Good ALICIA: Hey we go in the waterrrrrrr . . . TEACHER 1: Can you see outside the drop of water? FIONA: Yep

It is evident that through introducing the plastic bubble to represent the drop of water, that the teacher directs the play on the basis of a collective imaginary situation that the children have been exploring scientifically through their everyday adventures and activities in the early childhood setting. The teacher and the children begin to develop a common play script as the agreed plot for further play. The cultural device of the plastic bubble creates a situation where the children see a plastic bubble, but change its meaning through the support of the teacher, to being inside a drop of water. The teacher uses the cultural device to change the meaning of objects and actions, giving a scientific sense to an imagined problem of understanding both the microscopic world, but also engaging in the concept of magnification. In this situation, Hakkarainen (2010: 80) argues that, “Children are inside the problem situation and emotionally involved.” In our study we used the fabric tunnel and the inflated plastic bubble to create the conditions to engage children emotionally and to be inside the imaginary situation. Hakkarainen (2010) discusses the use of a cardboard box fixed to a doorframe to mark the boundary between the playworld and the classroom. He has also discussed actions where in the elaborated fairy tale of Rumpelstiltskin the children turn their jackets inside out, with the opening of the jacket being at the back, to signal that a spell has been cast and they must walk backwards. In our study we found that the bubble and the fabric tunnel supported the children with imagining magnification. We noted that it was the digital devices that supported the ongoing exploration of their outdoor environment at the microscopic level and which was key content for enriching the children’s playworlds. The digital devices acted as placeholders, but also 300

Digital playworlds in an Australian context

as will be shown in the next section, the devices acted as pivots for supporting a new way of imagining their early childhood setting environment.

Contradictions It is suggested by Hakkarainen (2006) that in play it might be easier for children to take on the perspective of another because children have to coordinate their roles in role play. Children need to pay attention to non-verbal cues, to the intended use of an object in play, and to the role actions of other children during role play. The question asked by Hakkarainen is why do children choose to use substitutions in play? Hakkarainen (2006) argues that using objects in the wrong way allows children to give a whole new sense to a situation: “This tension between meaning making and sense making is the driving force of development in play” (p. 214). Hakkarainen (2006: 214) discusses the idea of a “double subject” where the child knowingly is acting out being another role and through this is able to “gradually find his or her real self”. That is, “Play actions draw away from real person and real subject, but paradoxically this makes the child more conscious about his or her possibility to decide on play actions. The child starts to understand himself as the subject of emotional experience, ‘perezhivanie’” (p. 214). In our study we saw evidence of this interesting contradiction. For example, during the interview with the teachers, it is reported that: Jackie drew Howard amongst it all (microscopic organisms), Jackie is six years old and imagining Howard being really tiny in a great bit rotifer . . . Over there (looking at the children’s drawings) we have a couple of bacteria that are linking together and all of this (here) is the amoeba, experience around it . . . Jackie was most interested what they discovered in their Google images. By Jackie drawing Howard as part of the microscopic world, a contradiction presents itself to the children. Here Howard is microscopic in size. In their explorations of the compost bin and the pond water, the children see with the human eye one thing, but when they draw upon the digital tools, a new environment becomes visible to them. Contradictions become evident between the lived visible world of the children and their journeys into the microscopic world of the outdoor area of the early childhood setting. The children are being small in an adult world whilst also being giants in a microscopic world. Imagining themselves inside a drop of water, imagining themselves going through a fabric tunnel to be inside the microscope, and drawing their friends amongst the microscopic organisms, creates a double subjectivity for the child. Kravtsov and Kravtsova (2010) discuss the concept of double subjectivity in the context of play, where play creates the opportunities for children to consciously move in and out of an imaginary situation. Here the child can simultaneously perceive themselves and the situation from both an internal and an external point of view. Kravtsov and Kravtsova (2010) have argued that experiencing these contradictions are important for children’s development. Playworlds as discussed in this chapter have provided the conditions for creating a double subjectivity that helps children think in new ways about their early childhood setting environment. Playworlds as a pedagogical 301

Marilyn Fleer

approach generates contradictions, or crises as Vygotsky describes, which in turn act as a source of development for children’s play but also for children’s development.

Conclusion It is well understood in the cultural-historical literature that play is a form of cultural development. Yet most play theorists and researchers introduce the value of play, but rarely discuss what pedagogical features support the development of play and through this the development of the child. Playworlds as originally introduced by Lindqvist (1995) and those who have expanded on this original research (see Hakkarainen 2010) gives pedagogical insights into how this may be achieved. In fact, Hakkarainen (2010: 79) has argued that playworlds should be thought of “as psychological super tool”, because “Basic human values and dual oppositions (good – bad, fair – unfair, pretty – ugly etc.) collide in playworld story lines and force each participant to reflect own relation toward opposite value positions. Such cultural tensions in playworlds forms a substratum for making sense of life phenomena” (p. 79). What has been shown in this chapter is that when digital devices were introduced into the children’s playworlds the children’s play was amplified. The contradictions between being small in an adult world and being a giant in a microscopic world created the conditions for the development of children’s play. Experiencing the early childhood setting environment with digital tools meant that children could access a microscopic world not visible to the naked eye. Children were changing the meaning of objects and actions, as is characteristic of a cultural-historical conception of play, where a new sense is created – in this study it was a microscopic sense. This scientific reading and the forms of logic needed to understand what the digital devices were showing was, as Hakkarainen (2005) has stated, different to the narratives being created by the collective imaginary situation. The contradictions between scientific logic and narrative logic helped make conscious to children the idea of microscopic life. In this sense, playworlds did act as a super tool but only through the use of the digital tools because in this study they amplified the children’s play, and supported the children to see their environment in a new scientific way. In developmental education as theorized and researched by van Oers (2012), children are encouraged by teachers to reconstruct a scene from a story (e.g. using materials they recreate the scene and plot). In his work with school-aged children, van Oers (2013: 246) has shown that During this reconstruction play, children keep complying with the play format and start playing the part of the story again on the replica. In doing this kind of play, young children are making important steps in play development, as they are not actually playing out a role but projecting an imagined role script onto externalized agents. Actually the children are directors of the play from a meta-position. The digital tools supported this meta-position because they thought differently about what they could see with the naked eye, whilst also seeing with the digital device. 302

Digital playworlds in an Australian context

The digital devices allowed the children to document organisms, and physically magnify them on the screen, observing their form and their actions, which they later dramatized with their teachers. Taken together, the study found that the digital devices acted as digital placeholders and digital pivots to enhance play in children’s playworlds. The digital devices helped the children to effectively engage with the contradictions that presented themselves (magnification – being small in an adult world, being big in a microscopic world), and through their use in playworlds, amplified the children’s play in scientific ways, which in turn created new conditions for children’s development.

Acknowledgements I would like to acknowledge the research assistance of Sue March (Team Leader), Yijun (Selena) Hao, Hasnat Jahan and Carolina Lorentz Beltrāo.

References Björk-Willén, P. and Aronsson, K. (2014) Preschoolers’ “Animation” of Computer Games, Mind, Culture, and Activity, 21:4, 318–336, doi: 10.1080/10749039.2014.952314. Bodrova, E. (2008) Make-believe play versus academic skills: A Vygotskian approach to today’s dilemma of early childhood education, European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 16:3, 357–369. Edwards, S. (2014) Towards contemporary play: Sociocultural theory and the digital consumerist context, Journal of Early Childhood Research, 12:3, 219–233. El’konin, D. B. (1989) Izbrannye psikhologicheskie trudy, Moscow: Pedagogika (referenced in Hakkarainen 2005). Ellis, K. and Blashki, K. (2007) The digital playground: Kindergarten children learning sign language through multimedia, Association for the Advancement of Computers in Education Journal, 15: 225–253. Fleer, M. (2010) Early learning and development: Cultural-historical concepts in play, Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. Fleer, M. (2013) Collective imagining in play, in I. Schousboe and D. Winther-Lindqvist (eds.), Children’s play and development: Cultural-historical perspectives. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer, pp. 73–88. Fleer, M. (2015) Pedagogical positioning in play – teachers being inside and outside of children’s imaginary play, Early Child Development and Care, 185:11–12, 1801–1814, doi: 10.1080/ 03004430.2015.1028393. Fleer, M. and Peers, C. (2012) Beyond cognitivisation: Creating collectively constructed imaginary situations for supporting learning and development, Australian Educational Researcher, 39: 413–430, doi: 10.1007/s13384-012-0073-9. Fleer, M. and Richardson, C. (2003) Collective mediated assessment: Moving towards a sociocultural approach to assessing children’s learning, Journal of Australian Research in Early Childhood Education, 10:1, 41–55. Hakkarainen, P. (2005) Editor’s introduction, Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 43:1, 3–10. Hakkarainen, P. (2006) Learning and development in play, in J. Einarsdottir and J. T. Wagner (eds.), Nordic childhoods and early education: Philosophy, research, policy, and practice in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, Charlotte, Information Age Publishing, pp. 183–222. Hakkarainen, P. (2010) Cultural-historical methodology of the study of human development in transitions, Cultural-Historical Psychology, 4: 75–81.

303

Marilyn Fleer Hakkarainen, P., Bredikyte, M., Jakkula, K. and Munter, H. (2013) Adult play guidance and children’s play development in a narrative play-world, European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 21:2, 213–225. Johnson, J. E. and Christie, J. F. (2009) Play and digital media, Computers in the Schools, 26:4, 284–289, doi: 10.1080/07380560903360202. Kravtsov, G. G. and Kravtsova, E. E. (2010) Play in L.S. Vygotsky’s nonclassical psychology, Journal of Russian and Easter European Psychology, 48:4, 25–41. Linderoth, J., Lantz-Andersson, A. and Linderstrom, A. (2002) Electronic exaggerations and virtual worries: Mapping research of computer games relevant to the understanding of children’s game play, Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 3:2, 226–250. Lindqvist, G. (1995) ‘The aesthetics of play: A didactic study of play and culture in preschools’, doctoral dissertation, Uppsala Studies in Education 62: 234, Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Moore, H. L. C. (2014) ‘Young children’s play using digital touch-screen tablets’, unpublished PhD thesis, Austin, TX: The University of Texas. Nuttall, J., Edwards, S., Lee, S., Mantilla, A. and Wood, E. (2013) The implications of young children’s digital consumerist play for changing the kindergarten curriculum, КУЛЬТУРНОИСТОРИЧЕСКАЯ ПСИХОЛОГИЯ, 2: 54–62. Stephen, C. and Plowman, L. (2014) Digital play, in L. Brooker, M. Blaise and S. Edwards (eds.), The SAGE Handbook of play and learning in early childhood, Los Angeles, CA: Sage, pp. 330–341. Thai, A. M, Lowenstein, D., Ching, D. and Rejeski, D. (2009) Game changer: Investing in digital play to advance children’s learning and health, New York, NY: Joan Ganz Cooney Center. Online. Available: www.joanganzcooneycenter.org/pdf/Game Changer (accessed 30 June 2009). van Oers, B. (ed.) (2012) Developmental Education for Young Children: Concept, Practice and Implementation, Springer, Dordrecht DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-4617-6.
 van Oers, B. (2013) An activity theory view on the development of playing, in I. Schousboe and D. Winther-Lindqvist (eds.), Children’s play and development. Cultural-historical perspectives, Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer, pp. 231–250. Verenikina, I. and Kervin, L. (2011) iPads, digital play and pre-schoolers. He Kupu, 2:5, 4–19. Vygotsky, L. S. (1966) Play and its role in the mental development of the child, Voprosy psikhologii, 12:6, 62–76.

304

22 The developmental potential of toys and games Elena Sheina, Elena Smirnova and Irina Ryabkova

Introduction Adults usually consider toys as fun, or didactic tools without focusing on evaluating their contribution and impact on the play and psychic development of a child. In most cases toys are chosen and bought spontaneously, according to external, superficial attributes (such as attractiveness, price, desire to please child, etc.). This does nothing good to promote the quality of play and the child’s development. However, a toy is the most traditional cultural tool created by adults to develop children. Toys promote children’s learning about the world and themselves, realizing their creativity, expressing feelings and communicating. Nowadays toys of a new generation that greatly differ from the traditional ones have achieved great popularity. That’s why it is very important to understand their impact on children’s development and to evaluate their developmental potential. In relation to this, professional psychological and pedagogical evaluation of toys takes into account not only their hygienic or aesthetic properties, but also the potential psychological effect on a child’s development, which is of central importance. This must be based on scientific criteria for assessing the potential impact of a toy on a child’s development.

A scientific foundation for the psychological and pedagogical evaluation of toys The cultural-historical and activity theory of mental development is the theoretical basis of our evaluation approach. According to this approach, the essence of ontogenetic development is the assimilation of cultural and historical experience in the course of child–adult joint activity (Vygotsky 1984b; Leont’ev 1977). Mastering experience takes place through the child’s cultural activity. This ensures the transfer from inter- to intrapsychical form, encouraging the appearance of new individual 305

Sheina, Smirnova and Ryabkova

psychic and personal features. Each type of a child’s activity is realized in particular ways in promoting the mastery of various aspects of cultural experience, at first through joint activity with adults, and later in the independent activity of a child. Toys are the only accessible cultural means that can be used for independent activities at an early age, creating the zone of proximal development.1 The independent activity of a child with a toy is called ‘play’. In talking about toys, we have in mind two meanings of the term ‘play’. In the wide sense, play is any child’s activity with toys or play material. In the narrow sense, play means creation of an imaginary situation with toys or without them. The play activity of a child may be considered as a special form of transfer and mastering of cultural experiences that reflects the character of children’s life in society. This means that a toy is a specific means of objectifying the tasks of psychological and personal development at all ages. The main requirement for a toy is an ability to expand those types of activities that most efficiently contribute to the leading activity.2 The tasks and means of mental and personal development are qualitatively different for each period of age. The main function of toys at all stages of child development is to encourage a child’s age-appropriate activities. The requirements and evaluation criteria for toys are based on the structural and substantial characteristics of children’s activity – play (in the wide sense of the term). According to Leont’ev’s theory (1977) these are: 1 The motivational basis of the play, which corresponds to the attractiveness of toys for a child, 2 The purpose of toys for a certain type of children’s activity determines the play action ensuring a toy’s developmental potential, 3 The operational basis of play, which provides an opportunity to execute the play action. (Smirnova 2008: 19) The interests and tasks of the adult (the toy as a means of education and development) and the child (the toy as an object for play) are combined in a toy. On the one hand, the toy should encourage education and development in order to be useful for the child’s future. And, on the other hand, it should be attractive and entertain the child, bringing the pleasure of the moment. The specificity and originality of a toy as a mediator between child and adult is not only the combination, but the interdependence of these two seemingly contradictory functions. In order to stimulate meaningful children’s toy activity (i.e. which contributes to development), it should serve the child’s interests, being consistent with the child’s needs as well as attractive. The attractiveness of toys is an important requirement for toys that encourages independent, self-initiated activity in a child. Only then does a toy make a child act as it provides the motivational component of play activities. A toy of itself does not directly influence a child’s development, but it mediates the activity of a child, developing all the human mental functions (attention, thinking, feeling, and others). In fact, it is difficult to say, for example, what a doll develops – 306

Developmental potential of toys and games

attention, feelings, social skills, or anything else. Therefore, we evaluate the development potential not of a toy but of a play action with it. A toy as an object of children’s play (or activity tool) determines the character of the play, inspiring the direction and possible variations of play. In other words, toys support a child’s actions. To enhance the developmental functions of a toy, it should suggest adequate and culturally consistent guidelines for a child’s play action, leading the child towards what should be done with it and how to encourage the child to realize the toy’s potential. Suggestions for children’s self-initiated actions and their clearness for the child are two indispensable qualities of all developmental toys. Suggestions for an activity with the toy may be more or less open, inviting rigid activity or allowing a child’s initiative. For example, the traditional stacking toy suggests one way to construct. Many modern versions allow construction in different ways, with different shaped parts (for example, an arc instead of rings or several holes), etc. If a child plays well, they are able to create a variety of activities with the traditional stacking toy. In most cases, playing with such stacking toy is not interesting for the child. Where play is undeveloped, the stacking toy will limit the child’s actions and potential. More diverse and varied experience in using mental function is better for a child’s development. Play is a free and independent activity. A toy should open up horizons for the child’s creative and meaningful activity. It should offer a wide range of variants. Objects that presuppose useful yet stereotyped and monotonous actions can only be used for exercises and training, but not for playing. It is very important for a developmental toy to be open to a variety of actions. The developmental potential of a toy depends on the character and variability of play action and its relation to the needs and potential of the age. For example, a doll as a substitute for a person as a partner in pretend play always reflects the experience of a child. That is why Barbie is too complicated for a toddler. It requires wider experience than is yet available in the child’s social context. Yet, at the same time, this doll’s image interferes with the realization of the actions that a child can understand, such as to rocking to sleep, feeding from a spoon, punishing for disobedience, etc. The content of a play action (what kind of actions can be performed with the toy and in what type of play it can be used) determines the age range in which the toy may have a maximal developmental effect. Play actions should not contradict each other. For example, there are some table-games based on material for older pupils (reading, counting, etc.), but the rules for the play activity address children 3–6 years. As a result, there is a failure to evoke the interest either of children 7 to 12 years or 3 to 6 years. The operational possibilities of a toy contribute to its developmental potential. The play material should correspond to practical play activities because the child realizes them independently. Purely physical descriptions such as the size and weight may also either encourage or discourage the child. The feasibility of practical actions with a toy is also determined by several factors, including the toy’s durability and reliability. These requirements are not purely technical. They are directly related to play activities and ensure the possibility of playing with a toy. 307

Sheina, Smirnova and Ryabkova

Different types of children’s activities and classification of toys and play materials The basis of child development is connected with the specific types of child’s activities. These developmental activities include: • • • •

Cognitive-explorative activity Play Productive activity Physical activity

Each age phase has a specific dominating type of activity, which develops and effectively shapes the new mental functions and skills corresponding to this or that age (El’konin 1989). Each type of activity requires special material and has characteristics indicating the age range and types of objects/toys, providing specific kinds of child’s activities.

Cognitive-explorative activity During the years 3 to 6 cognitive-explorative activity substantially transforms. It changes from children’s experimenting with objects to operating with sign systems. This type of activity includes the following cognitive activities: experimentation, cognitive activity with visual material (pictures, diagrams, etc.), learning. A child’s experimentation is a practical transformation of conditions for studying real objects and their properties. There are special toys for the understanding of physical laws, relationships and connections between objects. The complexity of the objects for experimentation increases when a child grows up. Experimentation is the basic cognitive-explorative activity. It is formed in infancy as manipulation and aims at learning non-specific properties of objects. The child acts with the object regardless of its cultural meaning and significance of the properties. Whether it is a cup, a ball or a doll, a child makes the same actions with them: shakes, sucks, throws, knocks, etc. This activity is called ‘manipulative’ and there are special toys for it: rattles, hanging toys, play mats, etc. They engage and develop the sensorimotor sphere of a child. Later, a child’s attention focuses on specific properties of an object; there is an intensive mastery of cultural modes of action with objects. Acting with real objects, the child masters their cultural meanings: they learn that a comb is for combing, a shovel is for digging, etc. Besides comprehension of a cultural action, children start to pick out specific properties of objects and their significant characteristics (e.g. shape, colour, size). There are special toys for this purpose: stacking toys, cups, etc. Playing with such toys, a child becomes independent and develops awareness of their potential that contributes to the development of their personality. The activity allowing for identifying the specific properties of objects is called ‘object-related activity’. Gradually developing experimentation, a child wants to find out what is inside the object, how it functions and the motive ‘what if . . .’ becomes conscious. The child 308

Developmental potential of toys and games

begins to wonder how the conditions change affects the result of their actions. The child begins to consider specific properties of objects to make their little experiments. Dynamic toys, special sets for experimentation, etc., are intended for this kind of activity.

Play At an early age play substitutions becomes possible. At the age of three, pretend play (in a narrow sense of this term) is well formed and becomes the leading activity. This type of play includes director play, role play, dramatization and other ways of playing. The main characteristic of all ways/variants of play are the difference between real and imagined situations. The child begins to act ‘out of the idea, but not out of a thing’ (Vygotsky 2004: 212), not in a real, but in a mentally imagined situation. The main task of toys intended for play is helping the child to go beyond the perceived situation, to take a new image (role) and to act on behalf of it. Character toys are needed for such play, primarily the ones that embody the image of a man or an animal, as well as depicting the transport, houses, puppet equipment, etc. Such toys stimulate the child to animation, creation of a story, an imaginary space. The main point of this activity is to transform a real object (a toy) into an imaginary one. Therefore, the main requirement for this kind of toy is openness to a child’s imagination. This launches self-expression of a child: their experience, knowledge, feelings. Creating imaginary characters and events at the same time helps to master the world of human relations and knowledge. Toys for different types of play have their own specifics. Small-sized toys allowing a child to perform different play situations are needed for director’s play. The small size makes the situation visible: limited real space contains large imaginary space. Such play requires a lot of small dolls, cars, houses, landscape elements, etc. Materials for role play include character toys of a larger size that can serve as play props and various role attributes (specific objects and markers of role). It is possible to play without transport, buildings and landscape elements of the landscape if comparing with director’s play. Dramatization involves special character toys such as characters of fairy tales, cartoons, books, etc. The main requirement of all pretend play toys is the potential to construct various plots with them and their openness to child’s own ideas. During early childhood pretend play is the main but not the only activity. Games appear in a child’s life together with this kind of play.

Games Games have a special emphasis in the development of young children before beginning their formal schooling (at 7 years in Russia). This specific type of play activity is fundamentally different from all others. First of all, a game is always a joint activity. It cannot be individual and necessarily presupposes partners. In a game, actions follow formalized and conscious rules. 309

Sheina, Smirnova and Ryabkova

Pretend play has implicit rules of a role. These rules correspond with the child’s individual personal understanding of the play situation. Games, on the contrary, have definite rules that do not allow individual interpretations and are obligatory for all participants. The importance of games comes from the necessity of normative regulation development. As a cooperative activity, games require compliance with the rules (norms) mandatory for all participants. There is a requirement not only of self-regulated behaviour, but also for mutual normative regulation – a necessary component of moral and social development of a child. This activity helps the formation of the conditions and necessity for children to master normative ways to implement the basic principles of justice within an independent children’s activity, without supervision and pressure from adults. A child’s own experience of losing a game is very important, more important than failures in other activities. Many children suffer from the slightest failure as if it is a catastrophe. They take offence at everyone, refuse to participate and even cry. The experience of failure and recognition of peer success in the game inures a child to hardships and regulates their reactions to situations of frustration. Games promote mastery of a variety of typical interaction norms: sequence, sharing functions, distribution of functions within the group, the norms of justice, etc. There are several typologies of games, based on different grounds. We suggest classifying games by the criteria of a way to achieve winning: 1 2 3

Physical competency games, Mental competency games, Games based on luck.

Any game imposes certain requirements. A manual game should include the obvious rules for children: clear beginning and end, the transition to the next participant of activity, etc. Unlike pretend play, games always have a predetermined outcome – winning. The criteria for winning must be presented clearly and impersonally, since they determine the time of the end of the game cycle. A game is an independent activity, but not a didactic tool. Didactic games that are specifically created by adults for children could help in mastering some skills and knowledge, but this is not the main task of a game. The main thing is to win in strict compliance with the rules. Of course, every game teaches, stimulating a child’s physical and mental efforts, promoting a child’s development. For example, answering questions, remembering where pictures are, thinking about a strategy for further moves, quick counting, etc. However, the knowledge and skills have a secondary importance for a game. Therefore, another requirement is compliance with the rules and action in the game to the mental and physical abilities of a child. Sometimes there is a mismatch between quite complex educational tasks and simple rules, or, on the contrary, a complex structure of a game and answers to primitive questions. In the first case the game action is reduced to the implementation of learning tasks (the game is transformed into a purely didactic tool). In the second case, the didactics have a 310

Developmental potential of toys and games

formal character. Thus, lack of didactics is not a disadvantage of a game, since their role is not about assimilation of knowledge or skills. Didactics presuppose the optimal level of difficulty, allowing children to realize their potential.

The productive activity The productive activity aims at obtaining a certain product. It involves the transformation of materials to shape them. In early childhood, this activity promotes the formation of symbolic thinking, creative abilities, purposefulness, persistence and so forth. As distinct from play, these types of activity aim at a certain material result; hence, the idea about it (its image) should be presented in a child’s imagination from the very beginning and guide their actions. Such activity helps a child to master new skills: modelling, cutting out, drawing, etc. Despite the obvious differences between playing and productive activities, the dynamics of the development of productive activities in its ontogenesis coincides, largely, with the logic of play development. In early age (3–4 years), the child perceives building from blocks, the process of drawing or collecting mosaics as playing. By the middle of early childhood period (4–5 years), these activities are included in pretend play. By the end of the early childhood years (5 years and later), a child creates a certain product deliberately, as a realized aim, so that productive activity is clearly separated from playing. There are following types of children’s productive activity: modelling, depictive activity, and craft. There is a huge variety of materials for children’s productive activities, but there are only three types of such activities in terms of the psychological evaluation: designers, building materials and mosaic. Materials for productive activity have two different functions. On the one hand, the child masters new methods of action and new skills. On the other hand, these materials allow for creation and realization through design by giving it material form. Any assessment of the basic properties of materials used for productive activities should take into account the extent to which it allows the child to bring to fruition their creative ideas. The materials intended for productive activity should encourage a child’s independent activities by offering operational possibilities. An adult helping the child master new action methods should not limit the child’s activities, so that the child should be able to master the material.

The physical development The physical development of young children requires appropriate equipment, encouraging and promoting various movements (climbing, jumping, running, etc.). Gymnastic equipment is necessary for children’s physical development (e.g. slides, benches, balls, gym mats, ninepins, etc.) but they are not regarded as toys and are not objects of toy evaluation. 311

Sheina, Smirnova and Ryabkova

Conclusion The requirements for a toy depend on the type of activity and the child’s age. The fit between a child’s age and developmental possibilities provided by a toy is the key criterion of the toy’s evaluation. A toy’s attractiveness, the type of play activities and the possibilities to operate with a toy have to correspond to a certain period of a child’s development. It is clear that the level of importance of particular criteria and their contents are highly determined by a particular toy type and the child’s age to which a toy is addressed. For example, in a toddler’s object play a toy must direct the toddler’s actions and in this case strict orientation is more important than its openness to a child’s imagination. In pretend play, when children create an imagined situation, openness of a toy to a child’s imagination is important, that is, an opportunity to attribute a toy with an image and plot. In any case our expertise assesses a toy in terms of its potential for stimulating the age-appropriate activity in a particular age/stage of development.

Notes 1 ‘Zone of proximal development’ is one of the key notions of Vygotsky’s theory, meaning the gap between a child’s abilities/skills in cooperation with an adult, and a child’s self-initiated abilities/skills for the moment (Vygotsky 1984a). 2 ‘Leading activity’ is one of the key notions of Activity Theory, promoted by A. N. Leont’ev (1977). Each stage of a child’s development implies a certain type of leading activity that determines mental development at this particular stage.

References El’konin D. B. (1989) K probleme periodizatsii psikhicheskogo razvitiya v detskom vozraste. In Izbrannye psikhologicheskie trudy. Moscow: Pedagogika, pp. 60–77. Leont’ev A. N. (1977) Deyatel’nost’. Soznanie. Lichnost’. Moscow: Politizdat. Smirnova, E. O., Salmina, N. G., Abdulayeva, E. A., Filippova, I. V., Sheina, E. G. (2008) Psihologo-pedagogicheskie osnovanija jekspertizy igrushek [Psychological educational foundations for expert examination of toys]. Voprosy psikhologii. no 1, 16–25. Vygotsky L. S. (1984a) Orudie i znak v razvitii rebenka. Sobranie sochinenii. Vol. 6. Moscow: Pedagogika. Vygotsky L. S. (1984b) Voprosy detskoi (vozrastnoi) psikhologii. Sobranie sochinenii. Vol. 4. Moscow: Pedagogika, pp. 243–385. Vygotsky L. S. (2004). Igra i ee rol’ v psikhicheskom razvitii rebenka. In Psikhologiya razvitiya rebenka. Moscow: EKSMO, pp. 200–223.

312

PART VI

Development and learning in play

Children’s play and school learning are often understood to be opposite categories excluding each other and learning in play is assessed using school learning as criterion. But playful learning is gaining more popularity nowadays. A paradoxical claim put forward argues that the best method for preparing a child to school learning is advanced make-believe play. The first chapter of the section demonstrates how playful learning can develop children’s awareness and creativity. The second explores child-initiated creative play. Experimental play development in Kepler-college for Mexicans with young children shows how a systematic play programme enhances general psychological development.

23 The interplay between play and learning Galina Zuckerman

Introduction Teachers of young children long ago accepted the idea that it is in the delight of play that children acquire their countless abilities, knowledge and skills. Our great-greatgrannies used to play “Pat-a-cake” and “This little piggy” with their children, unaware of the fact that in this process the children were developing what the scientists call fine motor skills, sense of rhythm, memory and visual-auditory-motor coordination. In such cases even the most enlightened parents do not realize that they are laying down the psycho-physiological basis of future reading and writing skills. Until quite recently, reading, writing, and scholarly wisdom have been taught in a solemn mode, dramatically setting apart the age of playful fun and the age of schooling. Nowadays, role play is universally allowed as a means of motivating the learning effort. For example, there are plenty of Internet sites suggesting ‘‘play for literacy’’, and parents can pick one up to their taste and playfully prepare the child for school. Similarly accepted is role play in the primary school. There are many play-mode methods for developing academic skills, and role play has become an indispensable tool in making learning meaningful, avoiding the toil of drilling. However, even now role play is not admitted to the ‘‘Holy of Holies’’ in education which involves learning tasks aimed at discovering and mastering new concepts and new ways of acting with the help of concepts (Davydov 2008). In this chapter, I will focus on how role play is gaining new school territories by penetrating into the very heart of teaching: introducing new concepts. I will draw on my two-decade-long experience of creating educational role plays and their testing when teaching 5- to 8-year-old children to read and write at home, in kindergarten and in school.

315

Galina Zuckerman

From everyday to scientific notions of role play When discussed from a common-sense point of view, play comprises multiple activities of children, such as making pies in the sandbox or running around and fussing across the lawn, dressing dolls or online shooting games, checkers or mother-and-daughter play. All these activities fit into the definition coined by the International Play Association (IPA): ‘‘play is communication and expression, combining thought and action; it gives satisfaction and a feeling of achievement’’ (IPA n.d.). A somewhat different vision of play has been developed in the school of Lev Vygotsky (Vygotsky 1967). Role play becomes the leading factor in the psychological development of a child from three to six years due to the gap between the visible, tangible reality and imaginary, fantasy situation. When these two planes are simultaneously present in a child’s mind and behaviour, role play becomes the leading source of development, shapes the zone of proximal development of imagination and arbitrariness. Daniel El’konin (El’konin 1999) compared the status of role play to the first violin in the ensemble of activities molding children’s development during the early years. Playing starts long before children are 3-year-olds (the average statistical beginning of early childhood education) and does not end when children go to school where the specially organized learning activity becomes the leading factor in shaping a child’s mind, behaviour and attitude.

The imaginary situation and the heroes of conceptual role plays Starting from the ideas of Vygotsky and his followers that the imaginary situation is the most important attribute of play, we have tried to define the features of makebelieve situations which are essential for discovering and mastering the conceptual contents of the learning activity (Bugrimenko and Zuckerman 1987). In other words, what external and internal realities must be drawn into the role play to make the understanding of concepts its by-product? Discriminating between a play plot and its content as suggested by El’konin helps us answer this question (El’konin 2005). The plot of the play is the facet of reality that children represent in their play. It is the human relationships between adults in their social life that constitute the content of play activity. For example, when children reproduce their school experience in role play, the content of their play is the relationship between the teacher and the children, while the plot can be borrowed from mathematics, reading or art lessons. In the mathematics lesson, children would act out the interaction between the brilliant child and the considerate teacher, rather than the interaction between two parts of an equation. Our ambition is to make the rigor of play serve conceptual thinking which has not yet matured in children under 8 to 10 years of age (Davydov 2008). When the content of play mirrors the concepts under study, we will call such plays conceptual. In order to determine the contents of conceptual play, we must first identify the relationships represented by these concepts. At the same time we must remember El’konin’s formula according to which relations are played out between humans and not between the objects. It means that after identifying the conceptual relations, we 316

The interplay between play and learning

have to embody them into some living creatures. Let us clarify this point using as an example the introduction of 5- to 6-year-old children to literacy (Zuckerman and Shkoljarenko 1997). The initial step in teaching literacy in Russian is to establish the relationship between letters and sounds of speech. The ability to represent the sounds of speech with letters is the basis of writing, the ability to translate script into speech sounds underlies reading. Anyone who is learning to read and write in Russian is mastering these relationships between letters and sounds with a greater or lesser degree of awareness of regularity of sound-letter association. Thus, the child at the threshold of learning literacy has to accomplish the work of the linguist.This means that the child has to examine the laws regulating the relationships between the sounds and the letters and to implement these relationships when writing and reading. In linguistic terminology, the child must master the sound-letter form of words. Words (and other linguistic units) when apprehended as meaningful forms (Zaliznyak 2005) are the basis of the conceptual introduction to the teaching of language (Aidarova 1983). What particular human relationships are represented by the conceptual relations between the form and meaning of the word? In our curriculum, the phonetic form of words as abstracted from their meaning is personified by a fairy tale called ‘‘Soundlings’’. They are the keepers of sounds in the Country of Living Words. Their main duty is to build meaningful words from separate sounds.The Soundlings are tiny airy creatures with drawings on their wings that help ‘‘read” the Soundlings’ names.To illustrate, the moon drawn on the wings marks the Soundling [M], Soundling [S] has a drawing of the sun or stars or spider, etc. and is employed in building any word comprising the sound [S]. The imaginary situation generates the plots for endless play involving the Soundlings; these plots grow from the peculiar characteristics of the Country of Living Words. The words spoken correctly (and later correctly written) create their own subjects.You say correctly “MILK”, and your drink appears, but if you pronounce the word wrongly, the drink will taste badly, and drinking it is not safe. To pronounce the sound correctly in the Sounding Woods, a province of the Country of Living Words and the homeland to the Soundlings, is quite simple – you intone the first sound of the word: MMMMMMMilk. The Soundlings personify the form of the word: for example, they feed on sounds, without paying attention to the meaning of the words they “eat”. Indeed, instead of SSSandwiches or SSSausages, you may feed the Soundling [S] with SSSand or SSSocks. But if you offer the Soundling [S] your favourite CHOCOLATE, you are at considerable risk of poisoning the poor little souls.

Episode 1. One of the earliest stages of the introduction to literacy. Children are learning to discern the first sound of the word TEACHER:  Look

at the picture (Fig. 1). This Soundling is unwell. In order to help him we must learn his name. But he is so weak, he cannot move his lips. CHILDREN’S VOICES:  SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS. There is SSSun on his wing . . . This is Soundling [S]. 317

Galina Zuckerman

Figure 23.1  A sickly Soundling with a sun depicted on his wing TEACHER:  Only

words starting with [S] can save this poor invalid. And he will need a lot and quickly! And please emphasize the first sound: it is healing. I will start: SSSail. CHILDREN’S’VOICES:  SSSoup, SSSong, SSSalmon, SSStick . . . The teacher takes on the role of the patient, and reacts to each child’s suggestion by the comment and pantomime. TEACHER:  I feel stronger. Thanks! Already I can lift my head. Yes, my voice grows stronger. But I still cannot fly. And I have a sore throat. Please give me another portion of the medicine! CHILDREN’S’ VOICES: HONEY. No!!! Honey will poison him! This is a wrong sound! It is a child with naive linguistic consciousness who in response to the provocative question of the teacher, “What medicine would you give to the ailing Soundling?” comes back from play into a real-life situation and talks about honey, drugs or vitamins. The naive linguistic consciousness lacks the notion of phonetic form of the word embodied by Soundlings.The play dialogues such as above enlighten two indissoluble facets of the word: its phonetic form and its meaning. If such words as PILL, MEDICINE, etc., do not appear in the discussion by itself, the teacher takes on the role of a person with the naive linguistic consciousness and provokes contradiction between two points of view: purely phonetic and purely semantic. To this end, the teacher leaves the Soundling position and wonders theatrically: TEACHER: 

I do not understand why the patient was not offered the PILL? And maybe it will help to give HONEY? Who is ready to give the ailing Soundling [S] some fragrant, tasty and healing HONEY? And who would never give HONEY to this Soundling? And why?

318

The interplay between play and learning

Educational targets of the conceptual plays The conceptual content of the role play described above is the relationship between the phonetic form of the word and its meaning. This relation is basic to the whole conceptual framework of language education and should therefore be introduced at the very first step of learning. Later, when the children are taught to perceive and simultaneously retain the meaning, form and their relationship in linguistic phenomena at any level of language: morpheme, word, sentence, etc., they start operating this relationship and observe the linguistic phenomena through the magnifying glass of the general notion of meaningful form. At the same time, it is almost impossible to make the abstract idea of the relationship between the form and the meaning operational at the very start of learning when many children fail to differentiate between form and meaning of the word in most simple, naive situations. For example, when responding to the question “Which word is longer, SNAKE or CATERPILLAR”, a child with a naive linguistic consciousness responds: “Of course, snakes are long and caterpillars are much shorter!” The children are asked to compare the phonetic forms of these two words, but instead, they compare the objects signified by these words (Bugrimenko and Zuckerman 1987). However, this feature of naive language consciousness will not prevent children from mastering the initial skills needed to recognize the sounds in words, mark them with the letters, or even reading and understanding the text at least on a superficial level. The main limitation of naive language consciousness, wherein the external phonetic form of the word and its meaning are not discerned, will be revealed when the understanding and creation of the text are guided by the internal, or inner form of the word, or the way of expressing the content (Potebnya 1993). The child’s ability to operate with the internal form of the word is revealed most distinctly when it comes to determining the meaning of unfamiliar words upon their structure and the context, or to recognizing the minor differences in synonyms. The internal form of the word is a footprint of the process by which the particular word was created or a trace left in the word by the movement of thought when the word was born. Apprehending the internal form of the word is necessary both for the aesthetic experience of poetic speech and for any “advanced user” of the language who seeks to dig down to the bottom of the utterance (Zaliznyak 2005). When constructing the conceptual plays that help introduce such complex concepts as the form and meaning of the word at the early stages of learning to read and write, we are not trying to raise linguists and poets. Rather, our ambitious educational task is to bring to fruition the humans who seek to use their own texts, both oral and written, in their attempt to be understood precisely, and to dig out from the texts of other people the exact message delivered by the author. Why do we come forward with this seemingly remote challenge before the child has learned the alphabet? We proceed from the idea forwarded by Vasilii Davydov (Davydov 2008) that at the very beginning of teaching we should “plant the germ cell” from which the completely developed system of notions will later grow in a specifically patterned educational environment.

319

Galina Zuckerman

Playing and developing skills Reading competence is unlikely to grow directly from the technical skills of reading and writing. Nevertheless, neglecting skills for reading would ruin the most ambitious plans of educators. Mastering written language is a strong motive for present-day children who live in the continuous presence of tempting written texts. However, the path from the inability to write and read towards the ability to do it fluently is very long, usually taking more than a year. For a young child, literacy as a distant goal (access to books and the Internet) has no immediate motivating appeal at every step of the movement towards this goal. Mastering literacy can be enhanced by introducing play that will facilitate this long journey. The second episode gives an example of play focused at recognizing the first and the last sound in the word.

Episode 2. Example from the play “Sound ropes” TEACHER:  You learned to cure the Soundlings so well that the Sound-bane, their main

enemy, decided to trap you. Right now we all fell into a deep pit.To scramble out, we need a very strong rope: by using it, we will quickly climb up and come to the aid of the Soundlings. Presently they are fighting with the Sound-bane, and many Soundlings are wounded and need urgent help.   The Soundlings have sent us a letter. Herein is the secret of weaving the toughest ropes in the Country of Living Words. Let us read this letter [Figure 23.2]. I have understood only one thing: the ovals stand for words.Who has already read the first word? [indicates the drawing of a boat] CHILDREN:  BOAT. . . RIVER.

с

Figure 23.2  The letter from Soundlings with a secret of creating sound ropes

320

The interplay between play and learning

Nudged by teachers’ hints the children decipher the message of the Soundlings: the ovals stand for the words, the square stands for the last sound of the first word which is the same as the first sound of the second word as noted by the equal sign in the square.The second word is TIGER. Consequently, the first word is not a RIVER, but a BOAT. TEACHER: Our

rope is short: BOATTT – TTTIGERRR . . . The next link starts with the sound . . . CHILDREN: RRR . . . RAVEN! TEACHER: RAVENNN . . . And so on. Children suggest words and form a rope with their own arms: the child who found the word RAVEN holds the hand of the child who found the word starting with [N] . . . In several minutes all the children are holding hands.The learning task has been completed successfully, and the satisfied teacher praises the children and lets them out for recess. And yet children are still holding hands and look at the teacher with a puzzled frown. TEACHER: Why don’t you go to relax? CHILDREN: But we’re still in the pit!!!

This unforgettable episode showed us how seriously children take role play in their learning. For the teacher, the main event that happened for the first time is that the class was able to distinguish both the first and the last sound in a word. In her diary, the teacher will write:“The task of the lesson was focused on the search for the ending sound in a word.” But for the children, the task was entirely different: to scramble out of the pit and to hurry to the aid of the embattled Soundlings. Discerning the first and last sounds in words, building the chains of words according to the rules set out in the schematic letter from Soundlings – these actions are only the means of achieving the goal of the role play. The goal of the children is trustingly derived from the play story set in the form of a narrative. Then, what is the function of narrative in educational play?

Narrative components of educational plays When beginning to teach young children to read and write, an adult can envisage, more or less clearly, the ultimate goal (language and reading competence) and longterm path towards this goal through a system of linguistic concepts.What will encourage children at the earliest stages of learning to follow their teacher through the labyrinth of concepts? Enthusiastic curiosity of the children (which is still far from stable and insatiable inquiry) and loyalty towards their teacher is common to many young children at a school threshold.The approach suggested in this chapter makes the path of learning enjoyable. But what will make this path meaningful? In the educational context, meaningfulness involves the ability to build connections, to merge the individual discoveries into the cognitive path on the concept map, to put 321

Galina Zuckerman

together the individual observations on words into a coherent pattern of language, to combine certain actions with words into the methods necessary for comprehending and further on, for building the text. We address the ability for systemic thinking gradually taking shape in schoolchildren by the end of primary education (Davydov 2008). Of course, at the beginning of this journey in cognitive development, it is the adult who primarily strives to maintain the final target and integrate the individual efforts made by the children. Nonetheless, when children do not participate in this integration work together with the adult, they risk failing to become self-sufficient in systemic thinking. This is an apparently contradictory educational problem. In order to retain the integrity of the learner’s mind by linking each new concept to the previous one and to conjecture the following concepts, we must address the systemic thinking of the learner. To master systemic thinking, one should capture the whole through the connection of its parts. Nobody has managed to solve this problem while staying within the conceptual and scientific description of the events that occur in numerous lessons, when teaching 6 to 8-year-olds. However, it is possible to accomplish such a task by means of a narrative description that adds a new dimension to cognition – and that is the scope of imagination. Narrative is different from the conceptual description in at least three characteristics. It has a plot, the characters, and their relationships represented in their actions (Bruner 1991; Vuorinen and Hakkarainen 2014). Even when the characters of the narrative personify scientific concepts, such as the Soundlings, their actions are meaningful in both senses: linguistic and human.Their relationships are full of emotions and are motivated by the logic of human relations and actions, not only with the links between concepts. It is clear that to follow the Soundlings, as they build their sound houses (or, in the school-proper language, models of phonetic form of words), to help the Soundlings in their work, to figure out the secrets of the Sound Woods and shield it from its enemies – is not the same as to build phonetic models in notebooks, watch classmates as they do it on the blackboard, look for errors in the models and learn to distinguish between vowels and consonants (a great secret of the Soundlings: the vowels are cared for by the Sound-girls while the Sound-boys are in charge of the consonants). It is impossible to say beforehand what motivation will prevail in each individual child. Is the child motivated primarily for role play or for academic studies? But it is not difficult to guess which class will better remember the events of previous studies: the one that gladly carried out bare instructions of the teacher, or the class where the same tasks were woven into the plot of the Soundling story? The following example describes the arrival of the first phonetic models in the educational narrative (Zuckerman and Shkoljarenko 1997). This fragment of the narrative can be read to children or turned into a script for real learning-and-play actions. Sound City was founded in ancient times, when the language was not yet invented, and the Country of Words was almost uninhabited. Words were few, because no one had yet figured out how to name forest, sky or grass. Unnamed beings roamed our Earth, but they had already learned how to WWWhistle, MMMurmur, SSSnort or HHHiss. It was then and there that the Soundlings – the keepers of Sounds arrived. 322

The interplay between play and learning

Figure 23.3  Three Soundlings are greeting Mister Rat on his arrival to the Sound Woods

They settled on both banks of the Ringing River – and began to build cosy houses to all those who came to their lands. At first the Soundlings were rather inept builders because they used the first available sounds. As soon as a new animal would come to the Sound Woods, the Soundlings ran immediately to construct a new house. It was built by the Soundlings who were first to welcome the new resident. Once Mister Rat came to the City. Look who has met him (Figure 23.3): Adult! Together with your child, mull over the images on the wings of the Soundlings (candle, apple, and tree), call these Soundlings by their names [K], [æ] and [T]. Help your child solve the riddle:What word is made together by three Soundlings? [K æ T]. The friendly hosts immediately rushed to welcome a grey animal with a long thin tail. In no time they built a three-window cabin and wished the newcomer a happy housewarming. But Rat slept badly in his new abode and in the morning complained of a headache and of a monster that started at dawn to scratch at the door with its claws, meowing under the windows and even trying to force Rat out from his new home. – This is my house! – brawled the whiskered thug. – Look at my name over there! 323

Galina Zuckerman

Adult! Ask your child: “What do you think, who was the thug?” Help the child to hear that while the words RAT and CAT comprise the same number of sounds, their initial sounds are different. The cabin, where Rat slept so badly was built from the sounds forming the word CAT. Would this trouble be the only one to occur in the wonderful City of Sounds? The Soundlings became aware that the new settlers rapidly turned into rather nasty characters. The timid doe was kicking every traveller, the bear stopped greeting other newcomers and tried to step on all their paws, the squirrel threw cones all around, and everybody was complaining that they did not feel at home in their sound houses. Only CAT who settled in the RAT’s cabin claimed that it never met more convenient housing, more pleasant a place and the climate healthier than anywhere in the world. Now the Soundlings understood what their fault was: the sound house must be built not with first available sounds but with those that make up the name of its owner. The following lessons may seem a bit monotonous, but only to those who learn the content of these lessons from the teacher’s journal: “Exercises in constructing the phonetic models of words.” Children started rebuilding the City of Sounds. They were settling the tenants in multi-storey houses with different numbers of windows on each floor. Who will occupy a four-window apartment: the waiting list includes a fox, a butterfly, a frog and a swallow? And who will settle in an apartment with five windows – a kangaroo or a camel? Here are the Lion and the Dragonfly arguing about the houses (Figure 23.4).

Figure 23.4  The Lion and the Dragonfly are in dispute for their right to live in the castle

324

The interplay between play and learning

Who of them will live in a castle, and who will get the cottage with four windows? The children must invent and play out the dialogue of two newcomers opening with the line: “I am the king of animals!” The latter task is diagnostic. When the children have already learned to focus on the sound form of the word, they will correctly estimate the number of windows in the sound houses: nine windows of the castle correspond to the nine sounds in the word DRAGONFLY. If children decide that the castle is appropriate for the king of animals, it would mean the predominance of a naive, purely object-oriented concept of the word. If the discussion in the classroom is built around the contradiction between the size of the tenant and the assigned housing on the one hand and the length of the tenant’s name on the other, then we already encounter the linguistic concept of language form signifying a meaning. These stories about erecting the Sound City exemplify how the narrative built into the learning activity helps children at the early stages of mastering literacy to integrate a long chain of training exercises, and to find variety and amusement in these everyday tasks.

Conclusion For 5- to 6-year-olds, the role play, narrative and learning activity are critical for creating a zone of proximal development for learners (Hakkarainen 2015). During this period, role play is the fountainhead of the children’s initiative and independence. These are exactly the components missing at the earliest steps of learning activity. The narrative aspect maintains the integrity and coherence of individual tasks assigned by the teacher, coloring them emotionally and adding extra meaning to every action by the child. The nature of the help provided by the teacher early in their school life will determine the future of the children’s learning activity. If the teacher uses the play and narrative only as powerful motivators for learning and not as a way of introducing new concepts, interest in the conceptual content of education will develop mainly in those children who come to school with a fair supply of curiosity and an established taste for intellectual effort. As shown above, conceptual role play and narrative both serve future cognitive independence. Let us emphasize the following features of the conceptual role plays: 1

2

3

The role play characters personify concepts. Acting on behalf of these characters, children perform the actions that help discover these concepts. The logic of actions performed by such heroes is based on the concepts. Role playing helps the child to hold simultaneously the existence of alternative points of view on the subject matter, and in this way lays down the foundation for future positional thinking: the ability to retain and to coordinate the different facets of the conceptual contradictions. Learning cooperation will grow out of the relations between play characters as an ability to coordinate different, even conflicting points of view on the subject of the discussion when building joint action. 325

Galina Zuckerman

4 The narrative for conceptual role plays binds together the fragments of the learning experience into the individual biography for each learner. 5 Due to the narrative, children have an opportunity to weave their own connotations into the plot of the play and feel themselves to be co-authors of the learning process determining its future track. When conceptual role play and the accompanying narratives become the foundation of the future system of concepts, we will find that the plots, their play characters and fairy-tale conventions of the play are already forgotten by most children of about 8–9 years of age. Learning and conceptual plays form the scaffolding (the term introduced by Jerome Bruner) which the adult builds to mold the future system of concepts in the zone of proximal development of the child entering school. When the connections between concepts and real world are established with the support of models and without the help of play mediators, these scaffolds are dismantled. The conceptual grid presented through models becomes the framework supporting the child’s thinking. The conceptual plays described above provide for the periods of study when first concepts are introduced, when the conceptual grid has not yet been set and children have no means to bind together the fragments of experience gained in the classroom into a holistic view of the subject matter of the study.When the conceptual plays have done their job, they depart from school life. But the accompanying narratives will stay if the teacher turns them into the pillars supporting future reading competence. Initially oral, the narratives become written by 7 to 9 years and start evolving from semi-fictional to popular science and finally into actual scientific texts. However, this evolution is beyond the scope of this chapter which is about the symbiotic relationship between play and learning – two activities leading the child’s development at the transition from 3 to 6 years into school childhood.

Acknowledgements The study was supported by the Russian Foundation for Humanities (RFH) according to the research project No 16-06-00096 a «Development of written speech in elementary school children through conceptual narrative».

References Aidarova, L. I. (1983). Child development and education. London: Central Books. Bruner, J. (1991). ‘The narrative construction of reality’, Critical Inquiry, 18: 1–21. Bugrimenko, E. A. and Zuckerman, G. A. (1987). Chtenije bez prinuzdenija [Learning to read with ease]. Moscow: Pedagogika. Davydov,V.V. (2008). Problems of developmental instruction: A theoretical and experimental psychological study. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publ. El’konin, D. B. (1999). ‘Toward the problem of stages in the mental development of children’, Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 37: 11–30. El’konin, D. B. (2005). ‘The psychology of play’, Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 43: 11–21.

326

The interplay between play and learning Hakkarainen, P. (2015). ‘Constructing transitory activity system in play-world environment’, in B. Selau and R. Fonseca de Castro (eds), Cultural-historical approach: educational research in different contexts. Porto Alegre: Edipucrs. International Play Association (n.d.). IPA Declaration of the Child’s Right to Play. Available at http://ipaworld.org/ (accessed 4 July 2016). Potebnya, A. A. (1993). Thought and language. Kiev: Sinto. Vuorinen, M. and Hakkarainen, P. (2014). ‘Preservice teaching practice in narrative environment’, Cultural-Historical Psychology, 10: 118–124. Vygotsky, L. S. (1967).‘Play and its role in the mental development of the child’, Soviet Psychology, 5: 6–18. Zaliznyak, A. A. (2005). ‘Vnutrennyaya forma slova’ [The internal form of the word]. Available at www.krugosvet.ru/enc/gumanitarnye_nauki/lingvistika/VNUTRENNYAYA_FORMA_ SLOVA.html?page=0,2 (accessed 4 July 2016). Zuckerman, G. and Shkoljarenko, J. (1997). Kak Winnie-Pooh and vse-vse-vse naucilis citat. Skazkabukvar [How Winnie-the-Pooh and All-All-All learned to read. Story ABC book]. Moscow: Intor.

327

24 Play, creativity and creative thinking Sue Robson

Introduction Creativity has become a key international educational priority in the twenty-first century (Wyse and Ferrari 2015). It is suggested that creativity is ‘core to progress in knowledge societies’ (Collard and Looney 2014: 348). A central rationale is concerned with its role in supporting the needs of industry and the development of individuals capable of originality and innovation (Hoffmann and Russ 2016). In this chapter I want to argue that such a rationale, whilst it may be valuable, also risks losing sight of the importance of young children’s creativity for who and what young children are now, rather than what they may become. In so doing, I focus on the idea that young children (and adults!) are inherently creative, and that, in young children in particular, this manifests itself in a symbiotic relationship between young children’s play and their creativity, an idea which goes back to the theories of Friedrich Froebel (1907/1826). For Vygotsky (2004), children’s play is the creative reworking of their impressions, not just a reproduction of their experiences. Duffy (2006: 180) argues that ‘creativity and imagination must be at the heart of the experiences we offer children to promote their learning, development and well-being’. Throughout the chapter, findings from the Froebel Research Fellowship project, ‘The Voice of the Child’, funded by the Froebel Trust, will be looked at alongside other research and theory.

Creativity and creative thinking Creativity as a concept has often been seen as the preserve of arts-based activities, and it continues to feature much more frequently in curricula for arts-related subjects, particularly the visual arts and music (Wyse and Ferrari 2015). Such a conception may be damaging to children’s creative development (Bruce 2011; Glăveanu 2014; Prentice 2000), and leads Runco to argue that ‘the best approach may be to completely 328

Play, creativity and creative thinking

avoid the noun, creativity, and instead only use the adjective, creative’ (2014: 132). In this chapter, therefore, the term creative thinking is used often in preference to the more overarching (and perhaps potentially misleading) term creativity, particularly as a way of emphasising the idea that creativity is a ‘universal capability’ (Siraj-Blatchford 2007: 7), a ‘habit of ordinary life’ (Sternberg 2012: 3), visible across the broadest range of everyday contexts. Distinctions are often made between this type of creativity, generally referred to as ‘little c creativity’ (Craft 2003; Kaufmann 2003) and the ‘Big C’ creativity of eminent artists and musicians, but as Runco (2014) points out, they both start with the individual and their original ideas and insights. Are there, though, differences between creativity and creative thinking? The National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education (NACCCE), chaired by Professor Sir Ken Robinson, defines creativity as ‘imaginative activity fashioned so as to produce outcomes that are both original and of value’ (1999: 29), whilst Sternberg defines creative thinking as ‘thinking that is novel and that produces ideas that are of value’ (2003: 325–6). These shared ideas of imagination, originality or novelty, and value are features of most standard definitions of creativity (Kaufmann 2003). Sternberg’s use of ‘novelty’ highlights that, to count as creative, someone’s idea does not have to embody thinking that has never occurred before in anyone. Rather, creative thinking is thinking which is new for that individual. The inclusion of ‘value’ also implies that creativity is inherently social. Amabile suggests that ‘A product or response is creative to the extent that appropriate observers independently agree it is creative’ (1996: 33). Collard and Looney (2014) summarise a range of personal traits related to creativity, which they assert that all individuals can develop. These include curiosity, willingness to tolerate ambiguity, effort, persistence, and the ability to generate a variety of ideas. They also cite affective traits such as self-efficacy, self-esteem and intrinsic motivation. Hypothesising, and making leaps of the imagination require confidence on the thinker’s part, and a willingness to take risks, suggesting that motivation may be particularly central (de Jesus et al. 2013; Amabile 1996). Amabile’s ‘intrinsic motivation hypothesis’ of creativity suggests that ‘the intrinsically motivated state is conducive to creativity, whereas the extrinsically motivated state is detrimental’ (1996: 107). Significantly, such intrinsic motivation is a widely accepted feature of young children’s play (Bruce 1991).

Play In the context of this chapter, the focus is on play as children’s self-initiated, selfdirected activity, in contrast to activities instigated by adults. This should not be taken to mean that adult-directed or adult-led activities have no place in work with young children: there is general acceptance that both child- and adult-initiated activities contribute to children’s development (Fuligni et al. 2012, Sylva et al. 2010; Wood 2013). However, child-initiated play may provide children with unique opportunities to develop their imaginations and playful forms of thinking (Wood 2015) and support opportunities for children to develop, inter alia, their creative thinking (Craft, McConnon and Paige-Smith 2012), prosocial behaviour (Vitiello et al. 2012), 329

Sue Robson

cooperative and problem-solving capabilities (Ramani 2012) and self-regulation (Robson 2016). These are all significant factors contributing to young children’s creativity. There is a strong body of evidence to support the idea that fostering children’s control and ownership of their activities, particularly in the context of self-initiated play, is important for enhancing their creativity (Craft et al. 2014; Davies et al. 2013).

The project The project featured here was carried out as a collaborative venture between a university-based research team and a London-based Maintained Nursery School Centre for Children and Families. Participants were thirty children aged 3–4 years, two researchers and a range of teachers, nursery officers and other professionals. Each researcher was attached to one of two home bases. Episodes of child-initiated play and adult-directed/led activity were video recorded over a period of five months, in all areas. These were coded using the Analysing Children’s Creative Thinking (ACCT) framework (Fumoto et al. 2012), an abbreviated version of which is set out in Table 24.1. This observation-led framework draws particularly on the work of Sternberg (2003), Craft (2003) and NACCCE (1999) and is underpinned

Table 24.1 The Analysing Children’s Creative Thinking framework (NB ‘Example’ column omitted for reasons of space: full figure can be seen in Robson 2014) Category E: EXPLORATION E1: Exploring E2: Engaging in new activity E3: Knowing what you want to do

Operational Definition

Child is keen to explore, and/or shows interest in the potential of a material or activity. Child is interested in becoming involved in an activity and taking an idea forward. The activity could be of his/her own choice or suggested by another child or adult. Child shows enjoyment or curiosity when choosing to engage in an activity.

I: INVOLVEMENT & ENJOYMENT I1: Trying out ideas Child shows evidence of novel ways of looking and planning: uses prior knowledge or acquires new knowledge to imagine and/or hypothesise, or to show flexibility and originality in his/ her thinking. I2: Analysing ideas Child shows either verbal or behavioural evidence of weighing up his/her idea, and deciding whether or not to pursue it. I3: Speculating Child makes a speculative statement or asks a question of him/ herself, or of other children or adults, relating to the activity. I4: Involving others Child engages with one or more children or adults to develop an idea or activity: may articulate an idea, seek to persuade others, or show receptivity to the ideas of others.

330

Play, creativity and creative thinking

Category P: PERSISTENCE P1: Persisting

P2: Risk taking P3: Completing challenges

Operational Definition

Child shows resilience, and maintains involvement in an activity in the face of difficulty, challenge or uncertainty. He/she tolerates ambiguity. Child displays a willingness to take risks, and to learn from mistakes. Child shows a sense of self-efficacy, self-belief and pleasure in achievement: shows conscious awareness of his/her own thinking.

by a view that young children’s creative thinking can be inferred by observing their everyday behaviour, consistent with Sternberg’s (2012) conception of creativity as a habit of everyday life. Further information on its development is available in Robson (2014).

Data analysis and discussion Fifty-two recordings were analysed and coded, featuring episodes that ranged in length between 1 minute 30 seconds and 43 minutes 37 seconds, with an average of 7 minutes 10 seconds (SD=5m 55s). The wide variation in length occurs because the approach to data collection was event driven. Episodes were categorised as either child-initiated (activity wholly initiated by the child) or adult-directed/led (child directed to activity by an adult/child directed to an activity led by an adult).Table 24.2 shows the distribution of types of activity according to whether they were child- or adult-initiated, and occurred indoors or outdoors.The predominance of child-initiated episodes reflects the centre’s emphasis on promoting children’s opportunities for choice and self-direction. Results of the coding of all fifty-two episodes are shown in Table 24.3, with frequency counts of the behaviours observed coded according to the ACCT (Fumoto et al. 2012) categories. A 10 x 2 chi-square test was performed on this frequency table, indicating that there was a significant association between the frequency distributions of the ten categories for the two types of activity (χ2 = 34.21, df = 9, p< 0.05). It is evident that some aspects of young children’s creative thinking behaviour occur more frequently than others (in particular ‘Trying out ideas’, ‘Analysing ideas’ and ‘Involving others’) and also that these occur more frequently in activities initiated by the children. Other aspects, such as ‘Engaging in new activity’, are associated more strongly with adult direction and involvement. Overall, the data indicate that childinitiated play was more likely to result in higher levels of creative thinking than activities directed or led by adults, a conclusion consistent with the views of Craft et al. (2008) and Fleer and Peers (2012), who see play as a cultural device for actualising creativity. Davies et al. (2013) advocate the value of ‘playful’ approaches as a means of supporting creative development. 331

Sue Robson Table 24.2 Recorded episodes, categorised by child-initiated, adult-directed/led groups, and indoor/outdoor contexts Activity

Child-initiated Adult-directed/led TOTAL Indoor    Outdoor Indoor    Outdoor

2D (mark-making, printing) Free play (e.g. boys exploring box of magnets and toy cars) Pretend play 3D (clay, dough, paper construction, woodwork) Gardening Construction Sand and water Music Puzzles Mathematical activity TOTAL (Indoor/outdoor) TOTAL

5 4

6

11 8

4

4 2

4

8 8

6 2 1 1

3 3 1

22

12

3

1 1 1 15

34

5 4 4 2 1 1

3 18

52

Table 24.3 Observed behaviours in the three ACCT categories of Exploration, Involvement and Enjoyment, and Persistence

E1: Exploring E2: Engaging in new activity E3: Knowing what you want to do I1: Trying out ideas I2: Analysing ideas I3: Speculating I4: Involving others P1: Persisting P2: Risk taking P3: Completing challenges TOTAL

Child-initiated

Adult-directed/led

TOTAL

4 4 17 200 66 15 106 34 8 27 481

3 11 16 64 27 11 60 8 1 11 212

7 15 33 264 93 26 166 42 9 38 693

(34 child-initiated, 18 adult-directed/led activities)

Does context and content matter? Are there, however, particular contexts or types of play that may be more associated with creativity than others? The remainder of this chapter looks, in particular, at pretend play, problem-solving in play and playing outdoors, alongside the importance 332

Play, creativity and creative thinking

of interactions between both children and adults and children and children for their impact on young children’s creative thinking.

Pretend play An analysis of the data from the project showed that, of all activities, pretend play, particularly socio-dramatic play, was most likely to lead to higher levels of creative thinking behaviour. As Rogers (2015) says, such types of play are often encouraged in early childhood settings, in the pedagogical practice of providing role-play scenarios such as shops and cafes. As she also emphasises, however, the children’s creativity is often most richly expressed (and most evident) in their own self-invented scenarios, in which they explore both a wider range of themes and engage in far more complex narratives than those suggested by adult-created scenarios.The extract below shows Sapphire and Amanda in just such a self-generated episode, as they play with a doll, and engage in a rich discussion that includes trying out ideas, imagining and hypothesising, negotiating and making efforts to persuade your co-player, alongside clear evidence of their evolving theory of mind: SAPPHIRE: This

is for baby, bibs are for babies [she has difficulty fitting it on the doll’s neck, and takes it off and puts it on the floor]. That doesn’t work, that one. [Amanda bends down, picks it up and holds it out.] No, that is for babies. AMANDA: This one? SAPPHIRE: That’s your bib and this one is a baby’s bib. AMANDA: You know what, I don’t have a baby. SAPPHIRE: No, you are the little baby and I am your mummy and this is your little sister.You are the big baby and this is your little sister. AMANDA: Pretend I’m the little two year old baby. [Sapphire nods and Amanda puts her hand on Sapphire’s arm.] SAPPHIRE: [smiling] No, you say goo goo. AMANDA: But I say baby words. SAPPHIRE: This is your little sister. A range of studies have suggested links between pretend play and creativity, particularly divergent thinking and pretence (Hoffmann and Russ 2016; Johnson, Christie and Wardle 2005). As Mottweiler and Taylor (2014) stress, such links do not provide evidence of causality, although Vygotsky (2004) emphasises the value of pretend play for young children’s creative and flexible thinking, and Saracho (2002) cites evidence which she sees as pointing to a conclusion that pretend play does develop young children’s creative thinking. It may be that, as suggested at the beginning of this chapter, there is a symbiotic relationship between the two, with one supporting the other: Reunamo et al. (2014) found that the ‘active’ pretend players in their study were significantly more creative in pretend play than others who tended to engage more in rule-bound games such as ball and board games, or those who were less focused in their activities. 333

Sue Robson

Problem-solving in play In looking at problem-solving as a context for creativity, the emphasis is on children’s own self-initiated problems encountered as they play. These begin in our earliest days: how will we persuade the adult holding us to carry on playing that Peekaboo game with us? How will we manage to put on our coat without anyone helping us? In settings, children’s problem-solving efforts are apparent in all aspects of their activity. Bergen (2002), for example, suggests that there is a reciprocal relationship between pretend play and problem-solving, and the episode of Sapphire and Amanda (above) seems to support this, as both girls solve the problem of how to persuade your co-player to do what you want, and face the challenges of how to express yourself in your role. In the current project we found that interactions between children, particularly in self-initiated play, were more supportive of problem-solving than either interactions between children and adults or in adult-initiated activities. This was particularly apparent in ACCT framework subcategories such as developing an idea, instructing a co-player, disagreeing/persuading, defending an idea and extending another child’s idea. Nandeep shows his skill in solving the immediate problem of not being allowed to make ‘guns’ in the nursery: Nandeep, Kai and Ryan have constructed long sticks from construction materials, which they are pointing at one another, making gun noises. Adult A walks by. KAI:

[to Adult A] This is a gun. [to Kai] We’re not allowed to have guns. NANDEEP: [to Adult A, waving his stick] This is a firework! RYAN:

Playing outdoors The majority of outdoor play we recorded showed high levels of creative thinking, whether children were alone or with others. Significantly, most of this play was child-initiated, and invariably without adults involved, or even present. Some of the activities recorded outdoors were ones unique to the context: digging and gardening, for example, but many episodes involved activities that could (and did) take place indoors and out, for example, mark-making and construction. Davies et al. (2013) conclude that there is reasonable evidence from a range of studies to suggest that just being out of the classroom can foster creative development in play. They suggest that this may be because outdoor spaces are seen as more owned by the children than those indoors often are, and also that such spaces may be more conducive to collaboration and collective activity, identified below as significant for children’s creativity. Rogers and Evans (2008) suggest that outdoor play spaces are more conducive to flexibility and open-endedness, and afford children opportunities to create play spaces for themselves more so than indoors. The following episode shows this flexibility and sense of ownership and collaboration in action: 334

Play, creativity and creative thinking

A group of boys have got a quoit stuck in a tree. They are trying to get it down, throwing hoops at the tree. Nishaan picks up a plastic block. He tries to throw it, but it goes forward not up. He strides off purposefully and comes back holding some flexible twigs. He passes them to Miss Walker, who has arrived to watch. TADHG: [carrying

three interlocking plastic building blocks in a short tower] I got the idea. [He puts the blocks next to the tree and stands on them, but they fall over.] Jawad runs back holding another block which he fits onto the top of Tadhg’s model. BEN: Miss Walker, what about a ladder?  Joseph comes back, carrying a cube-shape made from large construction apparatus. He shows it to Miss Walker, and talks about someone climbing on it. MISS WALKER: Who, you or me? JOSEPH: You. ZAYYAN: Be careful. MISS WALKER: I will be careful, Zayyan. If I fall can you help me? TADHG: You can stand on it [he climbs up] Easy [shrugging his shoulders]. MISS WALKER: Can you reach? TADHG: [reaches up] No. [He fetches 3 more sections of cube. He places one more section, but still cannot reach.] RAFFERTY: [to Miss Walker] Stand on it tippy toes. NISHAAN: [turns and reaches for another piece] We need more. BEN: [holding his hand up] Hey, hey, I got it! [He runs off and comes back with long sticks.] Canning (2013) suggests that outdoor spaces give children opportunities for seeing the world in new ways, and, linking this with pretend play, that outdoor environments provide a context for creating worlds of make believe. At the same time, Davies et al. (2014) warn that the potential of creative outdoor play spaces may be under-utilised in practice with young children.

Interactions and relationships Children’s interactions with one another as they play may be particularly supportive of their creative thinking development, especially when the play is self-initiated. In the current study this was particularly the case when the context was collaborative: we found high levels of the ACCT category of Involvement and enjoyment in over threequarters of the group cooperative play episodes, about 60 per cent of the pair play episodes, falling to about half of the solitary play episodes. Malaguzzi (1998) suggests that the optimum conditions for developing creativity in young children are the kinds of interpersonal exchanges that occur in group play episodes, as children negotiate 335

Sue Robson

conflict, compare ideas and agree on courses of action, as in the episode above of the boys retrieving the quoit. Holmes et al. (2015) found that, in their project, lower creativity scores were associated with higher incidences of solitary, onlooker and parallel play. A range of evidence leads Davies et al. to conclude that ‘there is strong evidence that pupil creativity is closely related to opportunities for working collaboratively with their peers’ (2013: 86). This should not be taken to mean that adult interactions with children are inimical to creativity.We found that adults played a vital role in supporting children’s engagement in new activities, were more successful in supporting children’s speculative thinking than their peers, and that children were also often more receptive to ideas when these came from an adult rather than from another child.The key feature seemed to be about the kinds of roles adults took up.When they acted as supporters, facilitators, and models of creative thinking, children responded positively, in contrast to those times when adults were more directive.The following extract from a much longer episode illustrates this, as teacher Rebecca supports Zak, initially by ensuring his freedom to make use of the resources in imaginative ways, and then through her sensitive interventions which help to lead to a successful conclusion to his self-set activity: Teacher Rebecca is kneeling on the floor with Adam, Jamal and Zak. They are making a construction in newspaper, using masking tape to stick it together. Zak stands up and unrolls the tape, pulling a length out, which he lets fall to the floor. He presses the tape to the floor. Crawling backwards, he unrolls the tape and pushes it onto the floor. He sits on a chair and picks up a pair of scissors. He puts the scissors between his knees and unrolls the tape. He moves the tape towards his face, as if to bite it off, but then winds it around his head.With the tape around his head, he moves the scissors towards the back of his head, but seems to understand that this will not work, and pulls the tape off. The roll end falls to the floor, and using a ‘shearing’ action, he tries unsuccessfully to cut the tape. REBECCA: [coming over and picking up the roll] Do you want me to hold this? [She

holds it out towards him. Zak succeeds in cutting the tape.] ZAK: I’ve got a long piece. REBECCA: A long piece, it is a long piece. ZAK: I’ll have more? REBECCA: How long? This long? [kneels

in front of him, with c20cm of tape unrolled.] ZAK: A big one. [Zak stands up, and cuts a piece of tape c50 cm long, and takes it from Rebecca. He sits down and sticks the end of the tape to the seat of his chair, patting it down.] REBECCA: [holding out the tape, unrolled to him] There you go Zak. [Zak pats the chair] You’re sticking it to the chair, okay. Davies et al. (2013) point to the importance of fostering adult/child relationships based on mutual respect, in which dialogue plays a central role, whilst Reunamo et al.’s 336

Play, creativity and creative thinking

(2014) conclusion that adults should not ‘interfere’ when young children’s creativity flows is a reminder of the need for adults to develop sensitive understandings of when to stand back and when (and how) to intervene.

Conclusion The place of play in education and care settings continues to be somewhat ambivalent. A range of studies (see Hoffmann and Russ 2016) attest to the value attached to it by parents, practitioners and managers, whilst at the same time documenting a continued decline in young children’s opportunities for free play.This chapter has emphasised the mutually beneficial relationship between young children’s self-initiated free play, of all kinds, and their creativity and creative thinking, in an effort to add to the evidence in support of halting, and hopefully reversing, such a decline. A number of specific contexts, namely pretend play, problem-solving in self-initiated play and outdoor play, have been highlighted as particularly valuable environments for the support and development of creativity and creative thinking. These three contexts share some similarities, notably the opportunities each may afford for, inter alia, imagining, hypothesising, speculating, articulating ideas, and negotiating with others, all of which are important characteristics of creative thinking (Fumoto et al. 2012). The value of collaboration and cooperation, between co-players and also between adults and children, is emphasised. I began this chapter by arguing for a view of young children’s creativity that was based on them as ‘beings’, not ‘becomings’. I want to end it by returning to the idea of creativity as a key twenty-first-century priority for education. The evidence which attests to young children’s creativity is clear and incontrovertible (Davies et al. 2013; Wyse and Ferrari 2015). This being so, an emphasis on supporting its development in early childhood, in the context in which it may be most likely to be apparent, namely, young children’s self-initiated play, is both justified and necessary.

Bibliography Amabile, T. M. (1996) Creativity in Context. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. Bergen, D. (2002) The Role of Pretend Play in Children’s Cognitive Development. Early Childhood Research and Practice, 4(1). Online. Available HTTP: http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v4n1/ bergen.html. Bruce, T. (1991) Time to Play: Play in Early Childhood Education. London: Hodder. Bruce,T. (2011) Cultivating Creativity, For Babies,Toddlers and Young Children, second edn. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Canning, N. (2013) ‘Where’s the bear? Over there!’ – creative thinking and imagination in den making. Early Child Development and Care, 183(8): 1042–1053. Collard, P. and Looney, J. (2014) Nurturing Creativity in Education. European Journal of Education, 49(3): 349–364. Craft, A. (2003) Creative thinking in the early years of education. Early Years, 23(2): 143–54. Craft, A., Cremin, T., Hay, P. and Clack, J. (2014) Creative primary schools: developing and maintaining pedagogy for creativity, Ethnography and Education, 9(1): 16–34. Craft, A., McConnon, L. and Paige-Smith, A. (2012) Child-initiated play and professional creativity: enabling four-year-olds’ possibility thinking. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7(1): 48–61.

337

Sue Robson Craft, A., Cremin, T., Burnard, P. and Chappell, K. (2008) Possibility thinking with children in England aged 3–7. In A. Craft, T. Cremin and P. Burnard (Eds), Creative Learning 3–11 and How We Document it, pp. 65–73. Stoke on Trent: Trentham Books. Davies, D., Jindal-Snape, D., Digby, R., Howe, A., Collier, C. and Hay, P. (2014) The roles and development needs of teachers to promote creativity: A systematic review of the literature. Teaching and Teacher Education, 41: 34–41. Davies, D., Jindal-Snape, D., Collier, C., Digby, R., Hay, P. and Howe, A. (2013) Creative learning environments in education – A systematic literature review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 8: 80–91. de Jesus, S. N., Rus, C. L., Lens,W. and Imaginário, S. (2013) Intrinsic Motivation and Creativity Related to Product: A Meta-Analysis of the Studies Published Between 1990–2010. Creativity Research Journal, 25(1): 80–84. Duffy, B. (2006) Supporting Creativity and Imagination in the Early Years, second edn. Buckingham: Open University Press. Fleer, M. and Peers, C. (2012) Beyond cognitivisation: creating collectively constructed imaginary situations for supporting learning and development. Australian Educational Researcher, 39(4): 413–430. Froebel, F. (1907/1826) The Education of Man (trans. W. N. Hailmann). New York: Appleton. Fuligni, A. S., Howes, C., Huang,Y., Hong, S. S. and Lara-Cinismo, S. (2012) Activity settings and daily routines in preschool classrooms: Diverse experiences in early learning settings for low-income children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27: 198–209. Fumoto, H., Robson, S., Greenfield, S. and Hargreaves, D. J. (2012) Young Children’s Creative Thinking. London: Sage. Glăveanu, V. P. (2014) Revisiting the ‘Arts Bias’ in Lay Conceptions of Creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 26(1): 11–20. Hoffmann, J. D. and Russ, S.W. (2016) Fostering Pretend Play Skills and Creativity in Elementary School Girls: A Group Play Intervention. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 10(1): 114–125. Holmes, R. M., Romeo, L., Ciraola, S. and Grushko, M. (2015) The relationship between creativity, social play, and children’s language abilities, Early Child Development and Care, 185(7): 1180–1197. Johnson, J., Christie, J., and Wardle, F. (2005) Play, development and early education. Boston, MA: Pearson. Kaufmann, G. (2003) What to measure? A new look at the concept of creativity. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47(3): 235–251. Malaguzzi, L. (1998) History, Ideas and Basic Philosophy. In C. Edwards, L. Gandini and G. Forman (Eds), The Hundred Languages of Children, second edn, pp. 49–97. Westport, CT: Ablex. Mottweiler, C. M. and Taylor, M. (2014) Elaborated Role Play and Creativity in Preschool Age Children. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8(3): 277–286. National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education (NACCCE) (1999) All Our Futures: Creativity, Culture, and Education. London: DfEE. Prentice, R. (2000) Creativity: a reaffirmation of its place in early childhood education. The Curriculum Journal, 11(2): 145–158. Ramani, G. B. (2012) Influence of a Playful, Child-Directed Context on Preschool Children’s Peer Cooperation. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 58(2): 159–190. Reunamo, J., Lee, H-C., Wang, L-C., Ruokonen, I., Nikkola, T. and Malmstrom, S. (2014) Children’s creativity in day care. Early Child Development and Care, 184(4): 617–632. Rogers, S. (2015) Pretend play and its integrative role in young children’s development. In S. Robson and S. Flannery Quinn (Eds), The Routledge International Handbook of Young Children’s Thinking and Understanding, pp. 282–293. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Rogers, S. and Evans, J. (2008) Inside Role-Play in Early Childhood Education. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

338

Play, creativity and creative thinking Robson, S. (2016) Self-regulation, metacognition and child- and adult-initiated activity: Does it matter who initiates the task? Early Child Development and Care, 186(5): 764–784. DOI: 10.1080/03004430.2015.1057581. Robson, S. (2014) The Analysing Children’s Creative Thinking framework: development of an observation led approach to identifying and analysing young children’s creative thinking. British Educational Research Journal, 40(1): 121–134. Runco, M. A. (2014) ‘Big C, Little c’ Creativity as a False Dichotomy: Reality is not Categorical. Creativity Research Journal, 26(1): 131–132. Saracho, O. (2002) Young Children’s Creativity and Pretend Play. Early Child Development and Care, 172(5): 431–438. Siraj-Blatchford, I. (2007) Creativity, Communication and Collaboration: The Identification of Pedagogic Progression in Sustained Shared Thinking. Asia-Pacific Journal of Research in Early Childhood Education, 1(2): 3–23. Sternberg, R. J. (2012) The Assessment of Creativity: An Investment-Based Approach. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1): 3–12. Sternberg, R. J. (2003) Creative Thinking in the Classroom. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47(3): 325–338. Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I. and Taggart, B. (2010) Early Childhood Matters: Evidence from the Effective Pre-school and Primary Education Project. London: Routledge. Vitiello, V. E., Booren, L. M., Downer, J. T. and Williford, A. P. (2012) Variation in children’s classroom engagement throughout a day in preschool: Relations to classroom and child factors. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27: 210–220. Vygotsky, L. S. (2004) Imagination and Creativity in Childhood. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 42(1): 7–97. Wood, E. (2015) Thinking differently from the perspective of play. In S. Robson and S. Flannery Quinn (Eds), The Routledge International Handbook of Young Children’s Thinking and Understanding, pp. 19–30. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Wood, E. (2013) Play, Learning and the Early Childhood Curriculum. London: Sage. Wyse, D. and Ferrari, A. (2015) Creativity and education: comparing the national curricula of the states of the European Union and the United Kingdom. British Educational Research Journal, 41(1): 30–47.

339

25 Play with social roles as a method for psychological development in young children Yulia Solovieva and Luis Quintanar

Introduction It is well known that the years 3 to 6 are a crucial stage of a child’s development, and this can be argued from different psychological conceptualizations (Obukhova 2006). The psychoanalytic position highlights the importance of positive emotions and affects through free and spontaneous social contacts among children (Klein 1987). No specific goals are set for their interactions either with or without external means or objects. The emotions of the children are the focus. The genetic epistemological viewpoint of Jean Piaget presents the 3- to 6-year-old period as a time when children develop egocentric speech, egocentric personality and concrete operations (Piaget 1976, 1986). These theoretical frameworks emphasize spontaneous forms of natural development, with no specific need to organize or influence development. It seems to be enough to provide a space with different objects and toys, so that the children manipulate them freely in order to ‘discover’ some logical relations through their physical actions. In these situations they may use egocentric speech and positive emotions. The cognitive approach to psychological development has no specific proposals for the study of psychological ages, except in relation to the maturation of diverse brain cortical and subcortical structures in the context of experimental cognitive and neurophysiological research. In general, it is possible to argue that diverse aspects of development can be taken into account and that the child may develop separately different kinds of intellectual abilities (Gardner 2005). The Behaviourist conception, although not so popular at theoretical level, is still very strong in educational practice at all levels. Teachers use repetition, concrete examples, demonstrations with no generalization and memorization as dominant 340

Play with social roles

methods of developing knowledge (Skinner 1938). The Behaviourist conception of development studies simple and complex manifestations of human behaviour and its expression in social contexts. Frequently more integrated methods of developing personality are not included in such considerations, with the exception of observation and the realization of the importance of behavioural reactions. The theories mentioned can be united through determining the basis of development. Development is considered as a spontaneous, self-driven process, which depends on genetic (structural) and social factors. There is no discussion or consideration of specific ways to organize activities. Nor are there proposals and discussion about the introduction of interactions or communication between children. These are only included in the programmes as empty declarations and not as methods which may be used positively or negatively for development. Development is presented as a spontaneous process and interaction is a postulation of the presence of social relations between people with no specificity according to age, stage of development of types of activities or concrete collaborations. It is curious that Behaviourism, with no specific solutions for the organization of development, is the influence that dominates in the practice of education. Early childhood practice (3 to 6 years) is no exception. ‘Operant learning’ is applied almost without exception in institutions in Mexico. Children come to kindergarten not to play but to ‘learn’ just as they will later in school. Play is seen as damaging and is used as recreation or as ‘free activities’.The term ‘free activities’ has no specific meaning. But does it mean doing nothing? No rules, no roles, no verbal expressions? Just to move and talk freely? It is not surprising that some doctors, psychologists and parents are strongly against including play in early childhood institutions. If play is considered to be a free activity without structure or goals, why is it necessary to spend time developing this kind of ‘freedom’? Official early childhood programmes in many countries reject play as a specific and useful activity. Instead, programmes include the learning of letters, words and digits by copying and reproduction. There is emphasis on singing, repetition of songs and poems for children, exercise of motor function development, participation in empiric explanations about traffic regulation and norms of living. ‘Proper’ behaviour (which is a great problem in Mexican culture) and presentation of examples and explanations of universal values are given a central place. Such are the types of activity broadly applied in Mexican early childhood institutions (Secretaría de Educación Pública 2004, 2005a, 2005b, 2011a, 2011b). Another approach, arising from cultural historical psychology, permits consideration of the aims of the education of children 3 to 6 years, not only as preparation for school learning but as a specific qualitative period of development with particular requirements for both the activity and personality of a child. From this point of view the term ‘preparation for school’ does not mean knowledge of letters and digits, but the formation of new developmental achievements as spontaneous activity, imagination, symbolic representation and broad possibilities in verbal communication and expression (Salmina and Filimonova 2001; Vygotsky 1995; El’konin 1995; Salmina 2013a). According to the cultural history development perspective, such new formations do not appear spontaneously as a phenomenon of consciousness, but can only be 341

Yulia Solovieva and Luis Quintanar

formed (developed) within particular kinds of social interaction. But the term ‘social interaction’ is not enough, because, being too broad, it cannot be precise about the types of communication or joint actions of children. No communication can arise without a goal between participants in the communication. Little children will not see each other and start to communicate or interact for no reason. It is not easy for them to establish specific goals spontaneously or immediately. According to activity theory (Leont’ev 2003), human activity always involves motive, goals, means and orientation. In order to guarantee new developmental achievements from 3 to 6 years, it is necessary to be precise about which kind of activity may be accessible and qualitatively useful for a child’s development. Unlike children from 1 to 2.5 years, who use toys and objects simply, at about 3 years or so, children wish to take part in social representational joint actions with partners. Toys and objects may be involved as a means in such actions, but not as a motive for the action. Such actions cannot just be called communication and interaction, because it is necessary to determine the goal (journey or direction) of a communication.We can say that the term ‘play with social roles’, according to El’konin’s conception, is still the best way to describe new qualities of activity and personality from 3 to 6 years in most children (El’konin 1980). This may be proposed as a guide to activity in this age group, but we need to note that it is not predominant and is mainly absent in Mexican early childhood education.

Levels of development in play from 3 to 6 years Play actions might be understood as actions with no practical goal either as actions of simple imitation. The goals of play actions are the goals of representation. The actions of representation appear in the early childhood, but only after practical manipulation with the objects. Manipulation with external objects starts approximately at the age of 5 or 6 months (Lisina 2009). At 8 months a baby manipulates a cup. By 10 months the baby manipulates cups, but also performs cultural actions and starts to play, ‘drinking’ from the cup. In other words, the child uses concrete objects and toys to represent an action with the object. But there is no obvious goal, yet. According to Vygotsky representational actions can never appear spontaneously. First, the child learns to use practical objects in collaboration with an adult. Only after that is it possible to develop symbolic representation.Where there is social deprivation, organic or functional brain reason, this is apparent. Specialists, perhaps observing an 8-year-old child, might typically note the absence of language, but not of action with objects. However, the symbolic representational aspect with a goal is absent. Piaget’s famous descriptions of his daughter who symbolically represented ‘dead duck’ at the market, is an example of substitution when the substituted object is present or absent (Piaget 1961). Symbolic or representative actions cannot be observed in apes (Tomasello 2013), but are very rich and diverse at the age of 2 to 4 years in children. At this age, symbolic actions soon convert into complex symbolic play, when the child is able to show more than one isolated representative action, in a chain of combined and related one to another play actions. 342

Play with social roles

During symbolic representative play it is possible to observe the wonderful phenomenon of speech development: egocentric speech according to Piaget (1961) and an external form of internal speech according to Vygotsky (1992, 1995). External egocentric expressions are not isolated or unrelated to the activity of the child. They appear during participation in the complex symbolic playing and use of material objects and toys (Obukhova 2013;Vygotsky 1992; Neverovich 2013). Symbolic play is an essential manifestation of positive psychological development during early childhood. In typical development, actions with real objects, and the first representations and rich symbolic play take place within family development. Difficulties are only noticed by specialists when other external aspects, like language disabilities, are persistent and severe. But the absence of adult support for participation in joint actions, absence of toys or of opportunities for representation coalesces into an obstacle for positive development of communication and cognition in childhood. Symbolic development as substitution and representation mark the beginnings of symbolic representation and development into generalization and schematization, without which the acquisition of conceptual thinking is impossible (Salmina 1988; Davydov 2000; Ilienkov 2009). In our previous studies we have identified the low level of symbolic development in Mexican children 3 to 6 years as a consequence of the absence of activities, which may guarantee such development (Solovieva and Quintanar 2013).We have concluded that it is necessary to introduce specific symbolic operations of play from 3 to 6 years in order to change this situation (Solovieva and Quintanar 2012). An example would be displaying price and product tags in shop play. A chain of symbolic actions stimulates the child to relate symbolic actions to different kinds of social situations, diet of animals, doll play, bathing, clothing, clinics, hospitals, shopping, etc.Why? Possibly the child imitates everything adults do in society. But this doesn’t explain psychological mechanisms of changes in the play. Psychologists often argue that it happens due to social interaction. But the whole of human life is social interaction. The question is what kinds of social interaction are necessary to guarantee each period of development in general and each level of play development in particular? The specificity of cultural historical theory by Vygotsky was not social interaction, but to characterize precisely qualitative periods of a child’s development associated to dynamic changes in social situations, psychological age (Vygotsky 1996; El’konin 1995; Veresov 2006) and lines of development. Such dynamic changes might be understood as new possibilities in using complex symbolic means and the possibility to take part in social representations in groups (play). According to our opinion, such changes might be studied as levels of development and not as examples of different kinds of interactions. Other authors emphasize different types of interaction connected to traditions and customs in some societies (Rogoff 1993), but not qualitative types of activities, which may support or pose obstacles for psychological development. Traditional interaction in society does not always support development of children from 3 to 6 years, and may even prevent it. For example in middle-class families in the city of Puebla, children of 3 to 4 years usually stay at home most of the time.They may play with toys or watch TV ‘freely’ with no adult guidance. Children do not ask questions, talk much about what they see and do or ask for help. Adults do not involve 343

Yulia Solovieva and Luis Quintanar

children in practical activities instead doing everything for them without explanation. The children express practical and emotional needs using simple verbal structures. There is a paucity of passive structures, temporal or causal connection in their speech. Later they have difficulties in telling stories or answering questions about stories or movies. When 6-year-olds enter kindergarten, and later primary school, they are not used to complex forms of talking. Cognitive actions needed in comprehensive reading, productive writing or mathematical abilities are practically absent. Methods of teaching in primary schools, and the way that teachers understand the term ‘preparation for school’ need to be addressed (Solovieva et al. 2014). In our experimental school, with the introduction of play activity, and orientation which includes questions and mutual group answers (starting at 3 years), children become used to expressing what they think, asking questions and describing their actions verbally, expressing opinions about the actions of the others and listening to more complex verbal expressions produced by adults (teachers). Soon children started to talk constantly at home with their parents, who were not used to this, and asked us to stop teaching their children to ‘speak’! Instead of playing with the children they asked us to include copying letters and numbers, which is part of the traditional Mexican educational tradition. But the problem is that this kind of social interaction from 3 to 6 years doesn’t support new developmental formations. In our practice, the play activity we introduced, such as a veterinary clinic at Kepler College in Puebla, helped to guarantee better levels of speech expression and communication in the 3to 4-year-olds. Rich symbolic actions pave the way for introducing ‘play with social roles’, which represents a more complex stage of early childhood development. This kind of play becomes ‘play with rules’, albeit simple ones. According to El’konin (1980), the only rule is the role. If the child accepts a social role (for example to act as if a doctor), the play, for example ‘hospitals’, can start.The basic requirements for such play are a group of children (typically 3 to 6 years) and the acceptance of the role allocated to them. In cultural historical theory (adopted in our small college), there is not a ‘social or biological obligation’, or a spontaneous process. Traditionally, early childhood institutions in Mexico use any kinds of play without any consideration of the level of development of children. Any kind of social contact is considered as a benefit for children. But there is a powerful possibility for the complex development of activity and personality from a period of actions with objects and symbolic play to a transition into play with social roles. Our proposal is based on the possibility of gradual development of joint play activity (play with social roles), starting with the use of objects and toys and passing gradually to the complex level of perceptual and verbal symbols. This contrasts with the traditional and official approach to early childhood education (3 to 6 years) in Mexico. We propose consideration of specific levels of development and the introduction of play activity. The first period refers to play with objects and toys. In this period the child starts ‘to lose’ the practical goals of the actions and show intent to represent actions instead of real fulfillment: ‘how the doll eats’ or ‘how the cow sleeps’. This period is important for generalization of actions common in the culture of the child. 344

Play with social roles Table 25.1  Levels of play activity in childhood Period of development

Object (motive) of actions

New qualitative acquisitions

1 Playing with objects and toys

Representation of actions by losing of practical aims in the actions with common objects and toys

Generalization of actions with objects of culture

2 Symbolic actions

Representation of actions with absent Generalization of features object of objects; substitutions of on object by another

3 Sequences of symbolic Beginning of imaginary situation actions: symbolic playing

Generalization of situations; multiples representative abilities

4  Play with social roles

Generalization of communicative actions

Imaginary social situation with roles and rules

The second period might be understood as a period of initial and firstly isolated simple symbolic actions of substitutions. During this period, the child starts not only to represent actions with the toys, but also to use one object instead of the other. For example, the child might use a ‘pencil as a spoon’ or ‘a pen as a plane’.This period is essential for initial substitution, generalization of the features of the objects and toys and an important step on the path of more complex symbolization. The third period is the period of long and dynamic sequences of symbolic actions or the period of symbolic playing. The period might be characterized as the first moment of appearance of imaginary situations and multiple means of representations. The fourth period is properly the period of plays with social roles when the children play in groups and represent social characters. This period is completely symbolic. The social role serves as a means of voluntary representation and the rule of the game at the same time. For example, the child takes the role of the doctor of the hospital and their behaviour starts to be subordinated to this role. The child starts to act and to speak ‘as a doctor’. Table 25.1 summarizes our proposal to consider the levels of development of play activity in childhood.

The structure, contents and organization of play with social roles It is possible, in cultural historical theory, to give a detailed analysis of the structure and content of each kind of activity (Talizina 2007; Gal’perin 1998).Within the structure of activity it is also possible to describe and study different kinds of orientation, which may be useful for introduction and participation in this activity. From this point of view it is not enough only to study different kinds of social interaction as a manifestation of social relations. It is necessary to study different kinds of activities according to developmental (not chronological) age. In case of difficulties or alterations in development, it is possible to study the functional mechanisms in this activity from a neuropsychological or neurophysiological point of view (Quintanar and 345

Yulia Solovieva and Luis Quintanar

Solovieva 2002; Quintanar, Solovieva and Lázaro 2002; Solovieva and Quintanar 2007, 2014; Akhutina and Pilayeva 2012). As we have previously mentioned, if children can use verbal means, actions with objects and symbolic actions for representation, it is possible to include them in a group of play with social roles. According to the structure of activity, it is possible to identify motive (concretization of necessity of activity), goal (direction of activity), means (verbal and non-verbal means of expression) and external or internal orientation (Leont’ev 2003). Following this conception, we understand the motive as the object, which attracts the whole activity. For example, during the actions of construction, the motive might be the model of the construction (a castle).The attraction helps to achieve the goal of the construction.The means of the construction are the operation of the hands, motor and visual coordination and observation of the model. We propose using the concept of the structure of activity instead of the terms motive, goal and means of social role play (Solovieva and Quintanar 2012). The object of the play is social communication with children and adults.The goal, which is not so conscious at the very beginning, can be expressed as aspiration to represent a specific social role.The means involves all kinds of actions with objects, symbolic representation, actions with symbols, verbal expressions, movements and so on, according to each kind of play (table game, social role play, play with rules, etc.). The orientation is the form of presentation of the whole situation with roles and actions to the children. First, this orientation is external, because it is an adult who presents the situation to the children and helps with questions and answers about the contents of the play. Later on, children acquire more and more initiative to include roles, rules, objects, symbolic means and verbal expression in the play. A complex level results after a year, when children can choose topics, roles and the whole context for the play. We are sure that it is possible to achieve this level with most children at the age of 5 years approximately. However, it is only possible if we have started at 3 years and have enough time and physical space to provide such activity. Table 25.2 presents structural elements of social role play as a daily activity. Choosing the subject for play activity involves the problem of considering the process of the play. It is useful to remember that El’konin (1980) proposed to separate Table 25.2  Structure of play activity Structural components of playing activity

Description

Necessity Motive Goal Means (operations)

Broad social communication with adults and other children Representation of imaginary communicative situation Representation of concrete roles Verbal expressions, gestures, movements, emotional expressions, reactions, objects, symbols, etc. Constant dialogical conversation, presentation of examples, group questions and answers, etc.

Orientation

346

Play with social roles

topic and content from each other. The topic is a generalized social situation, which children understand and easily identify from actions they can represent. Examples are ‘hospital’, ‘railway station’, ‘designers’, ‘airport’. Play activity, specifically social role play means that the situation is not real, but imaginary. The children have to imagine that they are ‘in roles’ and to represent the whole situation according to the topic. Such activity may have sense only if it is considered as a group activity and not as an individual one. Social role play is never solitary or spontaneous. According to Leont’ev (2003), the types of motive differentiate activities, and in the case of play activity the motive is always related to social communication. We can say that social role play is always communicative, and a group activity aiming to represent imaginary situations with roles accepted by each participant. It makes no sense to call such activity ‘free’, ‘spontaneous’ or ‘solitary’. The content is the process of realization of the topic by a stable group of children. Each time it is necessary to establish roles, actions of each character and means of the play. By means of the play we understand verbal expressions, operations with objects and toys, operations with symbolic means for rules and for substitutions of the real objects (Bonilla, Solovieva and Jiménez 2012). We believe that other proposals are also very useful and interesting and that there is always a great chance to create something new in the contents of concrete play. We propose to consider essential elements of contents of play activity. The topic might be understood as the theme of imaginary social situations with roles and rules (for example, ‘hospital’, ‘supermarket’, ‘veterinary clinic’, and so on). The roles are the characters, who will take part in the representation of the topic. The rules are the norms of behaviour during the representation of the topic (who and when may enter to see the doctor?).The objects are the part of the environment which might be used during the play.The symbols are external (materialized) and graphic means (signs) created or proposed for representation and determination of the absent rules, norms and actions (how can we represent an injection? How can we eat if we have no spoons? How do we know who will enter first?) Table 25.3 illustrates some variants of consideration of the contents for concrete plays. Table 25.3  Contents of playing activity Elements of contents of games with social roles

Description

Topic Roles

Imaginary social situation with roles Social character, which may be easily comprehended and accepted by children; elementary rule of the game Accepted necessity of acting during the game; norm or mode of actions Concrete objects and parts of context, which may be used during the game External materialized or graphic means created or used during the game to determine absent objects, rules, norms, orders

Rule Objects Symbols

347

Yulia Solovieva and Luis Quintanar

Social role play can be used as a method for developmental formation from 3 to 6 years. Such formations are: voluntary activity, symbolic function, imagination, cognitive motivation, and reflection in communication. We understand voluntary activity as the possibility to follow an established goal or proposal of activity (Luria 2013).This may be to complete the drawing, play a game with other children, represent a role, listen to a story, etc. Symbolic function involves the use and creation of signs in order to formalize the situation or to represent some rules of behaviour (Salmina 1988, 2013b). By this we mean, for example, not only understanding traffic signs, but also using them and even the child proposing their own signs to determine a specific situation. An example would be the receptionist in a clinic representing each patient using a coloured square which determines the order in which they are seen by the doctor. Another example is a card with a closed mouth as the sign of ‘operation in the hospital’, so that no one can scream loudly for a while. Imagination makes possible the anticipation of results of the actions of self and others (Gal’perin 2000; Davydov 2000). This is formed through acting in imaginary situations with the roles and rules of the play activity. Cognitive motivation is an aspect of the personality of children which will be forming throughout childhood. Cognitive motivation from 3 to 6 years can be understood as a general interest and curiosity for new knowledge, new communication and new actions in general. With this as a base it is then possible later on at about 6 years to support motivation related to learning to read and learning particular subjects. By about 6 years, children become able to reflect on their own feelings and the feelings of others, to show compassion, communicate wishes, and understand the positive and negative results of their own and the actions of others. This is the result of continuous participation in the play activities of play with social roles. Our previous studies show that children who do not experience participation in this kind of play do not show this positive development (Gonzáles, Solovieva and Quintanar 2011). Table 25.4 shows how different elements of the contents of play support these new developmental formations in children 3 to 6 years. According to Table 25.4 it is possible to evaluate how the concrete contents of the play can impact on the development of activity and personality of the children. It is possible to modify and enrich the contents of play activity through the carefully thought through organization of play as a collective rather than solitary or spontaneous activity of children. Each pedagogical session consists of three phases: orientation, execution and verification (Table 25.5). Each is previously introduced by the teacher with the help of dialogue, questions and group answers including all the children in the groups. It is important to mention that the temporal distribution of these phases during the session is quite relative, so that orientation and verification may constantly be accompanied by execution of the play.We believe that it is useful for the teacher to take into account these three phases from a methodological point of view, but not as a strictly timed proposal for the play activity in one session. In planning play activity on our experimental site, we take into account the following parameters: relation to the role, verbal expression during the play, maintenance 348

Play with social roles Table 25.4 The relationship between new developmental formations from 3 to 6 years and elements of the contents of play with social roles New developmental formations of preschool age

Actions within play

Elements in the contents of play

Voluntary activity

Actions according to social roles, process of playing, taking into account rules and situations with the participation of the others

Presence of roles and rules

Symbolic function

Acting according to proposed rules during the play: turns, prohibitions, permissions, usage of help, absent objects, which are needed for the game

Externalization of rules with the help of external symbols proposed and used by children during the play

Imagination

Constant usage and ideas for imaginary objects and situations during the games

Dialogues and comments, questions and answers in groups about proposals of new features for the contents of the play

Reflection in communication

Constant usage of external oral expressions during the play related to the possibility of taking into account positive and negative behaviour and the results of joint actions; no rejection of any proposal of reflection or positive solutions of conflict situations during the play

Dialogues and comments in groups about mutual behaviour with the possibility of being critics and making corrections

Cognitive motivation

Constant consideration and respect for any new question or proposal made by a child during the play, no rejection of funny proposals and no negative reaction from the teacher

Proposals of new, curious, interesting and funny situations

Table 25.5  Description of three phases of organization of play in groups of children Orientation

Group conversation, questions and collective answers about social situation, roles, objects, possible actions of roles, symbols to produce and to use, rules, examples of verbal expressions, objects and their distribution according to the topic

Execution

Group acting according to the topic, dialogues, movements, usage of objects and symbols

Verification

Mutual valuation, critical thoughts and reflection of all positive and negative aspects of the procedures of the play

349

Yulia Solovieva and Luis Quintanar Table 25.6  Parameters for qualitative registration of advances in game activity Parameters

Description

Role acceptance

Independently With external help No acceptance

Verbal expression according to the role

Independent dialogue Dialogue with external help No expressions according to the role

Maintenance of the goal of the game

Acting according to the role Acting with external help No actions according to the goal (role)

Initiative

Presence of initiative for roles, rules, acting, situations, symbolic means Initiative only for some elements of the contents Absence of initiative

Use of symbolic means

Independently With external help No acceptation

Use of concrete objects

Independently With external help No acceptation

of the goal, initiative, use of symbolic means and real objects. All of these may be considered in qualitative analysis of progress of children in play activity, for example, at the beginning, middle and end of the school year. Table 25.6 presents the description of possible variants of absence or presence of these parameters. Our experience of implementing of play activity in the age groups 3 to 4, 4 to 5 and 5 to 6 years has shown constant, gradual improvement according to all the parameters mentioned. We can say that at the very beginning the children show high dependence on the guidance of the teacher so the external help of the adult is essential. Later on we noticed important qualitative changes in the process of playing. Children started to use appropriate verbal expressions and to answer the questions of their characters. The dialogues made sense according to social situations and the duration of the play became considerably longer. Children became able to follow the aim of the play collectively and to choose objects and symbols more independently. By about 6 years of age children chose practically all elements for the contents and even the topic by themselves. The external help from the adult came to be unnecessary. For example, a ‘car competition’ involved children representing the drivers, judges and rules. During this game, the children proposed all the characters, actions and even the symbolic means. The teacher drew on the board all signs proposed by the group of 350

Play with social roles

children in the process of joint discussion and creative elaboration of the signs for each participant of the game ‘car competition’.

Discussion The results of our pedagogical qualitative research across nearly five years show great possibilities for using social role play as a method for the development of Mexican urban children from 3 to 6 years. All essential developmental formations of this age group may be achieved through play activity. Play should be used as a daily activity in groups and not as recreation or free time between ‘serious sessions of learning’. The inclusion of symbolic function into the contents of the play equips children for school. According to Davydov (2008), symbolic function permits the identification of features of objects, and the substitution of one object by another according to this feature. The objects become generalized by a child and part of their activity as a rule or norm of action and behaviour. It was possible to see these kinds of qualitative changes in the children. The children started not only to fulfil the rules in the play, but also to use symbolic means in order to organize their own behaviour. External symbols, used in the contents of the play, gave an opportunity to reflect on the essence of general features of communicative situations. For example, symbolic means were used to repair a watch or telephone, or construct buildings according to a prepared plan in a social role play of ‘constructors’ and ‘engineers’. From 3 to 6 years the symbolic function permits children not only to see the world as a multitude of diverse features, but also to find out selectively the features required for social communicative situations. According to Ilienkov (2009), a symbolic plan starts from the imagination from 3 to 6 years, while from 6 to 12 years it would be possible to elevate the level of symbolization in order to achieve operations with abstract concept of usage of models. This author claims that the symbol serves the creation of external models at materialized, graphic and verbal levels (Ilienkov 2009). These models are necessary as forms of abstraction, in which essential relations between objects and phenomenon could be expressed in a tangible and visible manner (Davydov 2008). Through the implementation of symbols into the content of play we tried to follow these theoretical positions. Symbols to organize the order of procedure of the play, external rules and representation of essential elements of imaginary situations were used in the play. Our results confirm the practical importance of Vygotsky’s words about creation and the use of symbolic means representing particularity and principal paths for the cultural development of human children (Vygotsky 1995). The basis of the structure of cultural forms of behaviour is mediated activity through symbols and signs historically created by the society (Asmolov 2000, 2001). Leont’ev (1984) affirms that play activity offers positive changes for children 3 to 6 years and represents a valuable basis for later learning at school. The discovery of varied verbal and non-verbal actions within imaginary situations highlights the emotional character of young children. Positive affective behaviour during play sessions helps to develop the ability to reflect and communicate.The theoretical position taken in this chapter rejects understanding of the child’s play as ‘spontaneous auto realization’ or ‘free play’, according to which the child already has some internal personality ready 351

Yulia Solovieva and Luis Quintanar

to be discovered by others (Fortuny 1998; Lowenfeld and Brittain 1992; Gómez, Palacios 1996; Belver, Moreno and Nuer 2005). Our experience shows the necessity of considering the place of play activity highlighting social role play within the organization of early childhood education. We believe that our reflections may open up the possibility of reclaiming an important position for play in early childhood education today.

Conclusions • •

•

Social role play is a useful method, which may guarantee development of new developmental formations from 3 to 6 years. Theoretical and practical reconsideration of the aims and the contents of early childhood education (3 to 6 years) may only be accomplished by a serious revision of current conceptions of play activity. Consideration of the structure of play activity and of the elements of the contents might be very useful for its implementation with young children.

References Asmolov, A. G. (2000). Del otro lado de la conciencia: problemas metodológicos de la psicología no clásica. Moscú, Sentido. Asmolov, A. G. (2001). Psicología de la personalidad. Principios del análisis psicológico general. Moscú, Sentido. Akhutina, T. V. and Pilayeva, N. M. (2012). Overcoming learning disabilities: a Vigotskian-Lurian neuropsychological approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Belver, M., Moreno, C. and Nuere, S. (2005). Arte infantil en contextos contemporaneos. Madrid: Envida. Bonilla, M., Solovieva,Yu. and Jiménez, N. (2012).Valoración del nivel de desarrollo simbólico en la edad preescolar. Revista CES Psicología, 5(2):56–69. Davydov,V.V. (2000). Tipos de generalización e la enseñanza. Moscú, Sociedad Pedagógica de Rusia. Davydov,V.V. (2008). Sesiones de psicología general. Moscú: Academia. El’konin, D. (1980). Psicología de Juego. Madrid: Pablo del Río. El’konin, D. B. (1995). Desarrollo psicológico de las edades infantiles. Moscú – Voronezh: Academia de Ciencias Pedagógicas y Sociales. Fortuny, J. (1998). Cuadernos de pedagogía. El dibujo como expresión de pensamiento. En: M. Moreno. Ciencia, aprendizaje y comunicación. Barcelona, Laia: pp. 155–171. Gal’perin, P. Ya. (1998). Actividad psicológica como ciencia objetiva. Moscú, Instituto de Ciencias Pedagógicas y Sociales. Gal’perin, P.Ya. (2000). Cuatro conferencias sobre psicología. Moscú, Escuela Superior. Gardner, H. (2005). Arte, mente y cerebro. Una aproximación cognitiva a la creatividad. Barcelona: Paidos. Gómez Palacios, M. (1996). La lectura en la escuela. México: SEP. González, C., Solovieva, Y. and Quintanar, L. (2011). Actividad reflexiva en preescolares: perspectivas psicológicas y educativas. En: Universitas Psychologica, 10(2): 423–440. Ilienkov, E.V. (2009). Escuela debe enseñar a pensar. Moscú: Academia de educación de Rusia. Klein, M. (1987). Obras Completas. El Psicoanálisis de niños.Tomo 2. Buenos Aires: Paidos. Lisina, M. I. (2009). Formación de la personalidad del niño. Moscú: Piter. Leont’ev, A. N. (1984). Actividad, conciencia, personalidad. México: Cartago. Leont’ev, A. N. (2003). Génesis de la actividad. En: A. N. Leont’ev. Formación de la psicología de la actividad. Moscú: Sentido. Serie: Clásica viva: pp. 373–385.

352

Play with social roles Lowenfeld,V. and Brittain, W. L. (1992). Desarrollo de la capacidad creadora. Buenos Aires: Kapelusz. Luria, A. R. (2013). El desarrollo de la actividad constructive en el preescolar. En:Yu. Solovieva and L. Quintanar, Antología del desarrollo psicológico del niño en la edad preescolar. México, Trillas: pp. 138–167. Neverovich,Ya. Z. (2013). El desarrollo de lso movimientos objetales en el niño preescolar. En: Yu. Solovieva and L. Quintanar, Antología del desarrollo psicológico del niño en la edad preescolar. México, Trillas: pp. 189–196. Obukhova, L. F. (2006). Psicología del desarrollo por edades. Moscú, Educación Superior. Obukhova, L. F. (2013). Conocimiento verbal y la experiencia práctica oncreta en el pensamiento de los niños de edad preescolar. En: Yu. Solovieva and L. Quintanar, Antología del desarrollo psicológico del niño en la edad preescolar. México, Trillas: pp. 224–234. Piaget, J. (1961). La formación del símbolo en el niño. México, Fondo de Cultura Económica. Piaget, J. (1976). Problemas de la psicología genética. Barcelona, Ariel.Quintanar, L. and Solovieva, Yu. (2002). Análisis neuropsicológico de las alteraciones del lenguaje. Revista de Psicología General y Aplicada, 55(1): 67–87. Piaget, J. (1986). Seis estudios de psicología. Barcelona, Ariel. Quintanar, L., Solovieva, Yu. and Lázaro, E. (2002). La aproximación de Luria en la evaluación neuropsicológica de escolares de ciudad y del campo en México. Revista de la Universidad Estatal de Moscú, 14(4): 85–94. Rogoff, B. (1993). Aprendices del pensamiento. El desarrollo cognitivo en el contexto social. Barcelona, Paidos. Salmina, N. G. (1988). Signo y símbolo en la educación. Moscú, Universidad Estatal de Moscú. Salmina, N. G. (2013a). Indicadores de la preparación de los niños para la escuela. En:Y. Solovieva and L. Quintanar, Antología del desarrollo psicológico del niño en la edad preescolar. México,Trillas: pp. 67–74. Salmina, N. G. (2013b). La function semiótica y el desarrollo intelectual. En: Y. Solovieva and L. Quintanar, Antología del desarrollo psicológico del niño en la edad preescolar. México, Trillas: pp. 75–86. Salmina, N. and Filimonova, O. (2001). Diagnóstico y corrección de la actividad voluntaria en niños preescolares y escolares. México, Universidad Autónoma de Tlaxcala. Secretaría de Educación Pública (2004). Programa de Educación Preescolar 2004. México, Secretaría de Educación Pública. Secretaría de Educación Pública (2005a). Curso de Formación y Actualización Profesional para el Personal Docente de Educación Preescolar Volumen I. Programa de Educación Preescolar 2004. México, Secretaría de Educación Pública. Secretaría de Educación Pública (2005b). Curso de Formación y Actualización Profesional para el Personal Docente de Educación Preescolar Volumen II. Programa de Educación Preescolar 2004. México, Secretaría de Educación Pública. Secretaría de Educación Pública (2011a). Programa de Estudios 2011. Educación Básica. México, Secretaría de Educación Pública. Secretaría de Educación Pública (2011b). Programa de Estudios 2011. Guía para la Educadora, Educación Básica, Preescolar. México, Secretaría de Educación Pública. Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms. An experimental analysis. Cambridge, MA: B. F. Skinner Foundation. Solovieva, Yu. and Quintanar, L. (2007). Análisis neuropsicológico de la acción escolar. Revista General de Psicología Aplicada, 60: 217–234. Solovieva,Yu. and Quintanar, L. (2012). La actividad de juego en la edad preescolar. México: Trillas. Solovieva,Yu. and Quintanar, L. (2013). Evaluación del desarrollo simbólico en niños preescolares mexicanos. Cultura y Educación, 25(2): 167–182. Solovieva,Yu. and Quintanar, L. (2014). Syndromic analysis of ADDH at preschool age according to A.R. Luria concept. Psychology & Neuroscience, 7(4): 443–452. Solovieva,Yu., Lazaro, E., Rosas,Yu., Quintanar, L., Escotto, A. and Sánchez J. (2014). Mathematics acquisition in Mexico: Research on teaching, acquisition difficulties and correction. Psychology & Neuroscience, 7(4): 481–491.

353

Yulia Solovieva and Luis Quintanar Solovieva, Yu., Rosas, D., Lázaro, E. and Quintanar, L. (2014). Formation of Skills Prior to the Acquisition of Basic Grammar Categories. British Journal of Education, Society & Behavioural Science, 5(2): 142–157. Talizina, N. F. (2007). La esencia de la aproximación de la actividad en psicología. Metodología e Historia de la Psicología, 2(4): 157–162. Tomasello, M. (2013). Los orígenes de la comunicación humana. Madrid, Katz Editores. Veresov, N. (2006). Leading Activity in Developmental Psychology. Concept and Principle. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 44(5): 7–25. Vygotsky, L. (1992). Obras Psicológicas Escogidas.Tomo 2. Madrid:Visor. Vygotsky, L. (1995). Obras Psicológicas Escogidas.Tomo 3. Madrid:Visor. Vygotsky, L. (1996). Obras Psicológicas Escogidas.Tomo 4. Madrid:Visor.

354

PART VII

Play and children with special needs

In order to sketch the impact of play on the higher nervous system and through to the development of higher mental functions, the Vygotskian-Lurian idea of functional brain organisation is presented in the first chapter. The system is composed from three functional units: the first unit provides an optimal level of activation of other brain structures, the second carries out processing of auditory, visual, visual-spatial and kinesthetic (somato-sensory) information, and the third is involved in the programming, regulation and control of human actions. The developmental impact of play is interpreted as interaction of these three units. The challenge for using play as a therapeutic method is wide variability of autism spectrum symptoms. Two successful approaches are presented in the second chapter. The third chapter introduces the model of musical development in the early years, which is juxtaposed with the development of play forms. The trajectory of musical development offers an interesting starting point for diagnosing and intervention for children with special needs.

26 Games as a tool for facilitating cognitive development Tatiana Akhutina and Antonina Romanova

The important role of games in developing cognitive and executive functions in children age 3 to 6 years is very well known (Vygotsky, 1967; El’konin, 1978; Bruner et al., 1976; Bodrova, Leong, 2007; Singer, Golinkoff, Hirsh-Pasek, 2006; Bergen, 2002, etc.). As a result many teachers and psychologists began using play to develop cognitive functions and, above all, self-regulation functions (Venger, D’yachenko, 1989; Boguslavskaya, Smirnova, 1991; Karabanova, 1997; Bodrova, Leong, 2007; Diamond et al., 2007; Bredikyte, Hakkarainen, 2011). This is supported by experts in neuroscience (Blair, Diamond, 2008; Halperin, Healey, 2011). The aim of our work is to show the mental functions that primarily need to be developed in children 5/6 years old, and to describe games that contribute to their formation. The Vygotskian-Lurian neuropsychological approach to the understanding of mental development and functioning, to assessment and intervention in academic settings is used (Vygotsky, 1993, 1997, 1998; Luria, 1973, 1980; Akhutina, Pylaeva, 2012).

Vygotskian-Lurian child neuropsychology The Vygotskian-Lurian science of neuropsychology studies the functional structure and brain organization of higher mental functions (HMFs). On the basis of culturalhistoric concepts Vygotsky and Luria created the theoretical foundations of neuropsychology with its main principles (Vygotsky, 1997, 1998; Luria, 1965, 1980; see also Khomskaya, 1996; Akhutina, 2003). In accordance with them, HMFs “have a social genesis, a systemic structure, a dynamic development” (Luria, 1965: 390). Perception, memory, language, reading, writing, mathematics, all of them, were formed in a process of interaction between child and adult. They all consist of components. For example, the conversion of sounds to letters and letters to sounds are the components of writing and reading. The whole process of writing consists of processing auditory information, as well as kinesthetic, visual, and visual-spatial information, serial movement organization, executive functions; and selective activation and its 357

Tatiana Akhutina and Antonina Romanova

maintenance. Such components have their special functional roles and special localizations in the brain. The goal of neuropsychological analysis is to find what components of HMF are disturbed in the case of some impairment of mental development. In the handbook Best Practices in School Neuropsychology Dawn Flanagan and colleagues note that a Luria-based approach in school neuropsychology is ideal because it is not merely one that seeks to label dysfunction, but rather it is a system where the brain’s mechanisms responsible for dysfunction are delineated and connected directly to the actual performance of real-world tasks, in this case academic skills. (Flanagan et al., 2010: 112) To better understand the suggestions made later in the chapter, it is worth emphasizing that Luria described the functioning of all HMF as an interaction of three brain/functional units. The first unit includes the brain stem and subcortical structures (basal ganglia, and limbic system). It provides an optimal level of activation of other brain structures. The second unit comprises the temporal, occipital and parietal lobes of the cortex that carry out processing of auditory, visual, visual-spatial and kinesthetic (somato-sensory) information. The third unit includes the frontal lobes, it is involved in programming, regulation and control of human actions (executive functions) (Luria, 1973, 1980). For example, to draw a flower the child must not be sleepy or hyperactive (function of the first unit), to have the motivation and a plan of how to find a sheet of paper and a pencil, how to draw (function of the third unit), to have a visual image of a flower and visual spatial skills to make a drawing (functions of the second unit). If any of these components of drawing functional structures does not operate well, the drawing will be unsuccessful. However, the problems with different components manifest in different ways. The neuropsychological analysis allows differentiating of the problems a child has. Neuropsychology first appeared as the basis of studies of patients with brain lesions, but now it also studies the neuropsychological characteristics of healthy people and children. An important concept of neuropsychology of normal development is the uneven development of separate components of HMFs. In our book (Akhutina, Pylaeva, 2012) we argue that the typical heterochronic maturation of brain structures that is defined by the genetic program of the species varies because of the influence of the individual genetic program, social (environmental) factors, and the individual’s activity (cf. Egorova, Maryutina, 1992). The structural-functional self-organization of HMFs is determined by the probabilistic interaction among these factors. In the course of this interaction some functional groups undergo faster development, whereas others develop in a less favorable way, which results in the uneven development of components of HMFs. As the well-known neurophysiologist Dubrovinskaya (1996: 26) asserted, “Significant intra-individual variability represents not the accidental and undesirable deviation from the average norm but a natural phenomenon beneficial for the population as a whole. These are different not ‘bad’ or ‘good’ variations of the norm.” Thus, each person and child has strong and weak 358

Facilitating cognitive development

components of HMFs. The potential ability to compensate for functional weaknesses can be used as an indicator that separates normal from abnormal: if a child can compensate and accommodate to social demands, we say that this child undergoes normal development. A social situation might enhance development of some functions at the expense of others, or the situation might be unfavorable for the successful development of certain functions. For example, adults might actively stimulate speech and verbal thinking and pay little attention to the development of movement dexterity, visual-motor coordination, drawing, and self-regulatory skills. It has been found that children who grow up in an urban environment as compared to those growing up in the country have worse scores in visual-spatial tasks (Polyakov, 2004), and one of the reasons for it is that they spend less time playing active outdoor games, games that require orientation in space like “hide-and-seek” and so on. In a different scenario, some children at an early age have been left with very little interaction with adults such as reading and discussing books together. All of these circumstances, when combined with genetic predispositions, can cause pronounced unevenness in the development of HMFs that is impossible to offset in the highly demanding environment of modern learning institutions and that consequently leads to later school difficulties and further development of learning disabilities. Children with the risk of learning disabilities make up a large part of first-graders. Thus, the study of 47,600 children (6/7 years of age) at the beginning of the first school year, using the methods of “Graphic dictation” by El’konin (El’konin, Venger, 1988) revealed good preconditions of maturity of educational activity only in 68% of the children. Only half of the tasks were performed by 20%, and the rest completed fewer than half the tasks (6.7%) or no tasks (5%). Similar results were obtained by other methods of assessment of school readiness (Analytical report, 2012). These facts show the necessity of prevention of learning difficulties in kindergartens that can and even need to be carried out through game techniques.

Why games are important for children’s development One of the major factors leading to greater disproportionality of development in modern urban children is reduced participation in collective games. Games, organized by the children themselves in mixed-age teams, are strong facilitators of harmonious mental development. Spontaneous, self-organized group children’s games contribute to the formation of different mental functions including: •

executive functions, i.e. the functions of the third brain unit: – – – – –

motivation to follow rules, voluntary regulation, the ability to shift from one activity to another, creative thinking, the serial organization of movements. 359

Tatiana Akhutina and Antonina Romanova

•

functions of the second brain unit: – – –

•

gross and fine motor skills, visual and visual-spatial functions, auditory-verbal memory.

functions of the first brain unit: – –

an increase in physical working capacity, sustaining attention in active games due to the high motivation to participate. ease of switching from a high motor activity to its sharp decrease, and vice versa.

Let us consider the well-known game “Hide-and-seek” from the point of view of development of different components of HMF.

Hide and seek In order to determine who will be a seeker (leader), children use counting-out rhymes (memorizing of rhymes develops auditory-verbal memory). If this lot fell to a child who does not want to seek and wants to hide, they must overcome their reluctance for further participation in the game (the subjection to the conditions of delayed gratification is an important component of executive functions). The leader counts to thirty or says a counting-out rhyme, the others hide at this time. For all participating children it is important to analyze where they can hide, and invent a plan on how to hide and how to seek. Thus, it is better for a leader to not move far away from the home base, so that children hiding cannot easily reach the home base and be saved (executive functions and visual-spatial skills). For children who are hiding it is important to wait patiently for the moment when it is safer to leave the shelter and run to the base (it trains children in shifting from action to waiting that requires the interaction of the first and the third brain units). Young children often hide in the same place or run to the same place as the other children do (when constantly participating in games, this aspect of the executive functions is gradually being developed). In addition, small children cannot take into consideration whether they are visible from the side (their spatial functions and skills of application of Theory of mind still require development). Motivation in free children’s games is different from the motivation in the same games organized by adults. An adult might try to involve every child in a game. If a child does not follow some rule, an adult can give a clue what to do. In the same situation children usually exclude an unsuccessful or naughty child from the game, saying: “You are still young!” It creates an increased motivation to follow rules and be attentive while playing. Increased motivation contributes to better consolidation of training skills. If a child is emotionally involved in a game, it results in a natural increase of activation and in efficiency of brain functioning. Why do children get less tired while playing a game, and quickly get tired of the formal school type of activities? 360

Facilitating cognitive development

The condition of fatigue is largely dependent on the functions of the first brain unit. When a child wants to play a game, the emotional system of maintaining activation of the cortex acts; changing to game activities allows the young child to become less tired. When an adult makes a child sit at the table and sets tasks, the child is required to restrain motor activity and to be purposefully engaged in, for example, drawing. Such voluntary activities require selective activation and participation of another later emerging system of maintaining activation of the cortex, which depends on the cooperation of other structures of the first and the third units. Thus, developing motivation in the form of games is a convenient way to maintain an optimal level of activation.

Which mental functions require priority support in their development? School begins at 6/7 years of age in Russia. Readiness for the social demands of this next stage of development is one of the goals of early childhood education. The foundation of successful learning is willingness to participate in the following of social demands and good development of cognitive functions. The results of observations of the 6/7-year-olds and researches of the state of their HMF show that children display the following difficulties (in order of frequency): 1

Decreased work ability, attention fluctuations, weakness of mnemonic processes, trace imprinting processes (i.e. symptoms of the first (“energy”) unit weakness) 2 Insufficient development of executive functions 3 Visual-spatial difficulties 4 & 5 Auditory and visual difficulties (Akhutina, Pylaeva, 2012: 67–68). Data suggesting that weakness of functions in the first unit is the most common in children requiring psychological and educational support is supported by many researchers (Lebedinskiy et al., 1982; Glozman et al., 2007; Waber, 2010). It does not occur without accompanying cortical symptoms, i.e. symptoms of the second and/or third brain units (Akhutina, Matveeva, Romanova, 2012). Thus, the weakness of the first – energetic – unit (clearly detectable in children with ADHD and ADD and close to the ADD syndrome sluggish cognitive tempo) exacerbates the state of learning difficulties. The neuropsychological analysis of learning disabilities (LDs) allowed the distinguishing of three main forms of LDs: 1. Difficulties in developing academic skills in children with predominant weakness in programming and control of actions and serial organization of movements: because of difficulties switching between tasks and the small volume of programming (working memory), these children experience problems with problem-solving, and counting, reading, writing, discourse (the so-called compositional skills) (Achutina, Obuchova and Obuchova, 2001; Akhutina, 2004; Polonskaya, 2002; Akhutina, Pylaeva, 2012; Diamond, 2005; Hooper et al., 2002; Swanson, Berninger, 1996; Swanson, Siegel, 2001). 361

Tatiana Akhutina and Antonina Romanova

2. Difficulties in developing academic skills in children with predominant weakness in the analytical (left-hemispheric) strategy of processing auditory and kinesthetic information (and in some cases also visual information): their challenges are in the phonological processing necessary in writing and reading, vocabulary and short-term verbal memory. Dyslexia involving phonological processing is the most extensively researched type of LD (Akhutina, 2004; Akhutina, Pylaeva, 2012; Castles, Coltheart, 1993; Shaywitz and Shaywitz, 2005; Fletcher et al., 2007). 3. Difficulties in developing academic skills in children with weakness in the holistic (right-hemispheric) strategy of processing visual, visual-spatial, and auditory information: children with an extensive vocabulary and syntax suffer difficulties in the semanticpragmatic aspect of verbal functions, in writing (surface/spatial dysgraphia), in counting, and in mathematical problem-solving (Akhutina, 2004; Akhutina, Pylaeva, 2012; Rourke, Finlayson, 1978; Rourke, 1995; Castles, Coltheart, 1996; Chittooran, Tait, 2005). Because evidence suggests that a game helps maintain the optimum level of activity, it is advisable to exercise the child’s executive functions and self-regulation, cognitive processing of auditory information, and processing of visual-spatial and visual information. We consider games for 5–7-year-old children to contribute to develop these functions, and our aim is not only to introduce new games, but to show from a neuropsychological point of view how already well-known games can develop the functions of a child.

Games developing executive functions All games have rules, and following rules is not possible without executive functions, so all the games develop the child’s self-regulation. In this section we will focus on a narrower class of active games that develop action by instructions. Following the instruction of an adult is a necessary prerequisite for the development of action through self-instructions, the premise of planning of voluntary actions (Vygotsky, 1997a: 106; see also Akhutina, Pylaeva, 2012: 14). Following instructions requires the participation of such components of executive functions as inhibitory control (to do what was asked, not what the child has got used to doing), working memory (the child remembering well what they were asked to do and how to do it), and cognitive flexibility (easy switching from one phase of action to another) (Diamond et al., 2007). At 6/7 years of age children with the deficit of executive functions reveal the following features of task completion: – – –

These children have difficulty initiating tasks. Their orienting activity is chaotic and incomplete. Their plans are simplified and unstable, and the children tend “to slide” to the more simplistic version of the task completion, often failing to carry the task through to the end. – They repeat parts of the program or the whole program and fail to inhibit inappropriate answers (e.g. when writing a sentence they may repeat an element of the letter, a whole letter, a syllable, or the whole word). 362

Facilitating cognitive development

– – –

They are impulsive and get easily distracted by outside stimuli. They do not compare results with the model of task performance or the plan. They find it difficult to switch from one task to the other, stop the activity that they are engaged in, and move to a different activity that they consider a chore (Akhutina, Pylaeva, 2012).

If we analyze the notebooks of 6/7-year-olds with weakness of executive functions, we will find that they make most errors at the beginning of the task, and especially at the end of it. This is due to difficulties in switching to the task and rapid fatigue, that is, problems of interaction between the first and third brain units. In this regard, in the described games we also include those whose aim is to develop the interaction of the first and third brain units by training the transition from the active movement to the “freezing” (standing still), a state of rest and vice versa.

Description of the games In presenting the rules of the games, we partially used the materials of different popular Internet sites.

Musical statues Tell your children to dance, dance, dance, but once the music stops they have to freeze into funny musical statues. Whoever moves, laughs or smiles will be out of this party game. Bodrova and Leong (2007) offer a different version. When the music stops, children are shown a schematic drawing of a certain pose to copy, for example, “feet shoulder width apart, right hand raised”. In a Russian Marine figure the teacher says: “The ocean is shaking, one; the ocean is shaking, two; the ocean is shaking, three – the marine figure, freeze!” Children imitate sea waves, moving and making smooth movements with their hands. On the last word children have to freeze. Whoever moves or laughs will be out of the game.

Simon Says One player, Simon, issues instructions to the other players, which should only be followed if prefaced with the phrase “Simon says”, for example, “Simon says, jump in the air”. Players are eliminated from the game by either following instructions that are not immediately preceded by the phrase, or by failing to follow an instruction which does include the phrase “Simon says”. Simon can trick the players by saying one thing but doing another. He can say, “Simon says, hop on your leg”, but show another movement. This game is similar to the neuropsychological tests Go-No-Go Tasks (Baron, 2004: 169–170; Luria, 1980). Its aim is to train children to inhibit actions in accordance with the adult’s instruction, refrain from impulsive action, and be able to concentrate. This game is usually used either at the beginning of classes as a “warm-up”, or in the 363

Tatiana Akhutina and Antonina Romanova

middle of it to switch children to another form of activity. Children enjoy playing this game while resting. Other games similar to the Go-No-Go Tasks could be less and more difficult. The simple variant is when children follow only one rule/instruction (“Edible – inedible”, “Sparrows and crows”). For example, in “Sparrows and crows” children are standing in front of a leader. The leader says: “We will play the game ‘The sparrows and crows’. What do you think the sparrows are, big or small?” (The leader squats and presses his or her hands to the chest – “They are small”). And the crows? (The leader gets up and throws his or her hands out to the sides – “They are big”). “Show sparrows. Show crows. Now, when I say ‘Sparrows’, you should sit down. When I say ‘crows’ stand up and dissolve hands. And if I call another word, you are doing nothing.” More difficult variants of the Go-No-Go tasks require fulfillment of two rules, where the second rule is opposite to the first. Head-to-Toes task and “River and shore” are the examples of such games.

Head-to-Toes On the first step children should show their head when the leader says “head”, and their toes/legs when the leader says the corresponding. The second step is exactly vice versa: children show their head when they hear the word “toes/legs”, and their legs or toes when a leader says “head”. This game was offered by Claire Cameron-Ponitz and colleagues to train and also to measure behavior regulation/executive functions (Cameron-Ponitz et al., 2008; McClelland et al., 2014). The effectiveness of this game for diagnostic measuring of executive functions was also checked by Romanova et al. (2016). They found that the game can show the state of executive functions even better than so-called school-like games.

Hands – feet – head This is a more complex game much in use, which is suitable for encouraging executive functions in children with LD. The leader says: Now I’m going to call you parts of the body, and you will show them. But be careful! You will show that part of the body, which I have called earlier. Let’s practice.When I say “Hands”, you do not show anything.Then I call “Legs”. What do you show? Hands. Correct! I called them earlier. Then I say “Head”. What do you show? Legs. That’s right, because I called them earlier. This task involves maintaining the previous command in the working memory, breaking the performance of the current command and actions in accordance with the instructions stored in the working memory. Children have to switch to fulfilling a previous instruction, one that was previously inhibited, and perform it. This game trains all the important components of the executive functions: inhibitory control, working memory, and cognitive flexibility. 364

Facilitating cognitive development

Games similar to the Verbal Fluency Tests invite children to call out animal names (semantic fluency), or words beginning with a particular sound/letter (letter fluency). According to Baron, for “the ability to self-monitor, initiate, and shift characterizes performance on such tasks, inhibition of rule-breaks is required, making it more a test of EF (executive functions)” (Baron, 2004: 171). In addition, the need to remember the words called out, and not to repeat them, helps train the auditory-verbal memory. To make the tasks look like a game, the rules of implementation can be changed. The game can be offered to a group of children (two–ten participants in a group), who in turn must call out words related to a specific category.

Who will call more? This game can include different verbal categories such as “food”, “toys”, “games”, etc. Children compete to call out “tasty” words, taking turns saying a word, such as, “candy”, “cheese”. When the response is delayed the others count to five. If a child does not come up with a word during this time, they lose. If a child repeats the word called before by another child, the children and a leader shout: “It has already been called!”, and a child must quickly change the word to another one. The winner is the one who is able to call out more words than the others. As proposed categories, one may use names of plants, food, toys and games. For training executive functions and functions of processing of auditory-verbal information you can use the tasks where children have to call words starting with a certain sound (see below).

Invitation to the ball In this old Russian game the leader says, Madame has sent you one hundred rubles and the invitation to the ball. She has written: You can buy what do you like, Yes or No do not say, Black and White do not take. - Will you go to the ball? Then the leader asks questions provoking a child to use forbidden words in response. This game loads the inhibitory control and working memory. Training inhibitory control is very useful for hyperactive and impulsive children. The ability to shift (cognitive flexibility) and working memory are also required in the majority of games above. The opportunity for children to plan their own actions in these games is not represented and is only necessary in Hide-and-seek. In planning, a specific method “School of Attention” by Pylaeva and Akhutina (1997/2008) can greatly help in the development of precursors of these functions. The book is also published in Finnish, Spanish, Slovak and Greece (Akhutina, Pylaeva, 1995; Akhutina, Pilaeva, 2004/2012; Achutina, Pylajeva, 2009; Akhutina, Pylaeva, 2015a). In this method game motivation is also used, for example, the children help Pinocchio (see Akhutina, Pylaeva, 2012: 98–110). 365

Tatiana Akhutina and Antonina Romanova

Games developing auditory information processing This section focuses on the development of phonological processing, phonemic awareness, vocabulary and verbal memory. Processing auditory information contributes to the enrichment of speech and is necessary for the prevention of dyslexia. When the development of auditory and kinesthetic information processing functions is delayed, both reading and writing are affected, and that leads to the development of phonological dyslexia and dysgraphia. In the process of reading or writing children might confuse sounds that are similar in pronunciation and phonation; they are slow in correlating a letter with its sound, and reading and writing skills do not become automatic. In developing the individualized educational program for such children it is important to remember that delays in phonological processing and phonemic awareness are accompanied as a rule by poor vocabulary and poor short-term verbal memory, which are also caused by difficulties in processing auditory information (cf. Snowling, 2000, who showed that problems of short-term memory and naming in adults with dyslexia could be more permanent than problems in phonological processing). Thus remedial work with these children cannot be limited only to reading and writing skills; it is also critical to develop their vocabulary and verbal memory (Akhutina, Pylaeva, 2012: 59). In the games for developing the ability to differentiate sounds, it is important to move from simple to more complex differences. The simplest task is comparing words that differ by omission or inclusion of one sound (box – ox, pace – space, pay – play, and so on). The next level is distinguishing words that differ by one sound and compared sounds are very different (mug – rug, boy – toy, dog – log), and the most difficult task is to differentiate words with similar sounds that differ by one phonological feature, for example, pairs of voiced/unvoiced consonants (duck – tuck, vine – fine, crow – grow). This hierarchy of difficulties is addressed in the games.

Who has sensitive hearing? The leader pretends to be a doctor checking hearing. “We will check your hearing. I’ll call a couple of words. Words in a pair may be different or similar. If you hear different words, you should clap your hands. If the words are similar, you do not clap. Let us try. Boy – Toy, similar or different?” First, the leader utters words very clearly, and praises children after their responses. Then pairs of words are given in a quicker (spoken) tempo. For the first lesson it is better to start with simple differentiations and only try to use more complicated ones. Depending on the success of children in follow-up lessons verbal material can be complicated.

To catch or not to catch? This game is based on the Go-No-Go test, but now children have to take into account the sound structure of words. The leader says: “I’m going to throw you the ball. If I say the word with sound [S], you must catch it. If there is no sound [S], you drop the 366

Facilitating cognitive development

ball.” If the leader wishes to see the reaction of each child, it is better to choose the option: clap or not to clap. The leader begins with clearly distinct words (salt, salute, salad, cat, soup, rat, sun, map . . .) and gradually brings them closer (saucer, scarf, shark, school, sheep, zoo . . .).

Who will call more? This game reflects the Semantic Fluency Test using narrower semantic groups, such as clothes, furniture and transport. The leader gives the same instruction (see above). Children who successfully manage the game “To catch or not to catch?” can begin to call the words beginning with a particular sound, for example, with the sound [r] or [m]. The sounds should differ from the ones that are used in the Letter Fluency Test adopted in the country. The first variant of the game develops the child’s vocabulary, the second promotes the development of phonological processing.

Cities Russian adults play this game, calling the names of cities. However, by the same rule of naming words beginning with the last sound of the previous word, you can call any of the words (or the words of a predetermined subject area). For example, table – lamp – pen – nut. The game promotes the development of sound analysis. Children can play this game with their parents, older brothers and sisters. It is important that adults have to have “problems”: from time to time they “could not” immediately come up with a word or are “mistaken”, but mistakes, especially at first must be obvious, so that the child can see them. For example, table – lamp – land (“Oh, mistake, I forgot, it is necessary to invent a word to the last sound!”).

Rhymes Inventing words with the same last syllable is a rather difficult task for preschoolers. Therefore they need a support. For example, children can be offered a set of pictures that allow the recalling of rhyming words. If there are words “mouse and cook” in the list of the leader, she puts the pictures “house” and “book” on the table. If the number of pictures with rhyming names will be greater than one, the game will be more interesting. The leader says: “Children, do you know, what is poetry? Give me an example.” The leader reads one of the poems that was called by the children, emphasizing the rhyme, which makes children conclude that in the verses there are words that sound similar, and thus explains the meaning of the word “rhyme” to children. “We all will be as poets, we will find rhymes. One little mouse lived in a . . . Find the right word! Look at the pictures! Have you guessed? That’s right – house. And if I have a word ‘cook’ in the poem, what word will suit (will rhyme)?” If children already have some skills to find rhymes, pictures can be given to children as cards. The leader says a word, and a child is looking for the one whose name rhymes 367

Tatiana Akhutina and Antonina Romanova

with the given word among his/her pictures, and puts it on the table. The fastest is the winner.

I know five names . . . The first player starts to hit a ball so that it bounces off the ground, saying, “I know five girls’ names. Anna – one, Kate – two, Lucy – three, Mary – four, Helen – five”. The rhythm of speech and the hitting of the ball is similar: while hitting once a player calls one word. Then they move on to the next topic, for example: I know five boys’ names (names of animals, birds, flowers, trees, etc.). If a player slips, misses the ball or is thinking for a long time, the ball moves to the next participant. This game begins with a very simple theme for children, which facilitates getting the game started (children often have difficulty initiating tasks). Further the requirements for finding words increase. The game trains the processes of extracting words from memory, switching from word to word, and from topic to topic.

Long story Teacher says: We’re going to compose a story. Everyone repeats exactly what the previous participant has said, and adds one new word. I begin, I was walking . . . PLAYER 1: I was walking through the forest PLAYER 2: I was walking through the forest in the morning PLAYER 3: I was walking through the beautiful forest in the morning PLAYER 4: I was walking through a beautiful green forest in the morning PLAYER 1: I was walking with a dog through a beautiful green forest in the morning

Verbal snowball OLGA: Olga is kind VANYA: Olga is kind, and Vanya is intelligent NASTYA: Olga is kind, Vanya is intelligent, and Nastya is beautiful DIMA: Olga is kind, Vanya is intelligent, Nastya is beautiful, and Dima is cheerful OLGA: Olga is kind, Vanya is intelligent, Nastya is beautiful, Dima is cheerful,

and what is more Olga is attentive . . . The last two games train auditory-verbal memory and contribute to the development of vocabulary and skills of sentence construction. On the whole in this section we have considered how to develop phonological processing, phonemic awareness, auditory-verbal memory and vocabulary.

Games developing visual-spatial functions The development of visual-spatial functions is a long and fragile process. Experienced teachers may encounter students with well-developed speech who are emotionally 368

Facilitating cognitive development

sensitive and easily hurt. When listening to such students, one might assume that they should be making good grades, but by 9 years of age the children’s notebooks reveal a significant number of writing mistakes and they struggle with reading words (global reading). Rourke reports the “syndrome of nonverbal learning disabilities” (Rourke, 1995) and Akhutina and Pylaeva (2012) describe its remediation. Work on visual-spatial functions is based on the following directions: – – – –

orienting in one’s own body space and verbalization of body parts, movements of objects in space in accordance with the verbal instructions, direct and mirror orientation in the relationship “right–left”, understanding of reversible logical-grammatical constructions.

Activities at 5/6 years include games aimed at mastering the space of a notebook paper and geometric figures, letters, and numbers and for younger children games identifying body parts. Parents and teachers think that their 6-year-old children are well aware of parts of their body and their names. This can be easily checked by asking children to name the shoulder, elbow, palm, or fingers. For some children it can be difficult to cope with this task, especially if you ask a child to close their eyes and call the parts of the body the adult touches.

Who will call more? (Parts of the body) The teacher says “We are going to compete in naming parts of the body. You should name and show the part of the body. For example, I say ‘head’ and show it, one of you says ‘nose’ and shows it, and then the next one says and so on.” You already know the rules: not to slow down with the answer and not to repeat the words that have already been called. Children take turns. If one delays the others count to five. If a child does not come up with a word or shows the wrong part of the body, he or she loses. The winner is the one who calls and correctly shows the most names of body parts. Necessity to show parts of the body is due to the fact that some children may know rare words, for example, “wrist, shin”, but do not know exactly what they mean. In such children it’s recommended to examine their development of drawing, construction and other skills that require visual-spatial functions.

Hopscotch Hopscotch requires the correct drawing of rectangles. Their opposite sides must be parallel, and angles should be straight, that is, spatial relations must be sufficiently adhered to. Throwing a bat and hitting the intended square requires good visualmotor coordination. It is also important for developing jumping and the prohibition not to step on the line. Ready-made outlines in outdoor areas prevent children from practicing the important part of drawing the shapes which develop visual-spatial functions. 369

Tatiana Akhutina and Antonina Romanova

Robot One child is a robot. The others hide an object and “the robot” finds it according to the commands (forwards, left/right, etc.) of the others. For 6-year-olds “the robot” can stand facing the group of children so players need to “re-encode” spatial information. This game develops orientation in space and verbalization of spatial relationships.

Tower building A favourite pastime of children is in constructing houses, towers and castles, often with plastic cubes. The pre-planning stage is important. To stimulate this process, an adult might ask “What tower will it be? How many storeys will it contain?” Or “What castle are you building? How many rooms will there be?” After the initial questions the adult pauses so that the child can make the plan tangible. If a pause is prolonged, the adult asks another question. Building according to the plan, but not a simple manipulation of the cubes develops executive and visual-spatial functions.

Construct the figure There is a diversity of materials for constructing a whole object from the parts such as Segen boards, puzzles, Kohs blocks, cards and Lego. The simple version of the play is construction figures of real objects: a house, a pine tree, a butterfly, and a flower (see Figure 26.1; more complicated figures are presented in Figure 26.2). Practicing construction of the figures using models is followed by constructing from memory and finally by figure drawing. For these games to have developmental impact there must be verbalization of spatial actions which accompanies or precedes actions. At first the adult is speaking and then the child does so itself (Akhutina, Pylaeva, 2012:

Figure 26.1.  Examples of the models for constructing the figures of real objects (from Akhutina, Pylaeva, 2015b).

Figure 26.2.  Examples of the more complicated models for constructing the figures of real objects (from Akhutina, Pylaeva, 2015b).

370

Facilitating cognitive development

chapters 14–15). In this way the concepts of “top”, “bottom”, “to the right”, and “to the left” from the child’s point of view are either introduced or practiced (as well as combinations of several of these concepts, for example, “upper right corner”, etc.). The described version is like a board game more suitable for the individual child’s play accompanied by an adult. Group playing on the floor requires other material: equal-size rectangular triangles made from linoleum of two or four colors. Children can construct one track with a repetitive pattern.

Building models Children, especially boys, like to build models of cars, airplanes, ships, etc. Children from 3–7 years can only manage this with the help of adults, who can encourage its development into a serious hobby promoting the development of the three-dimensional perception of space and the overall executive and visual-spatial functions.

Dominoes The composition of numbers is one of the most important and complicated topics that children study when 7/8 years old (Akhutina, Pylaeva, 2012: chapter 18). The game of dominoes promotes the global perception of configurations of points and the global assessment of the quantity (up to six). It also allows us to develop analytical strategies of perception, and contributes to the understanding of the composition of numbers. Learning to play starts with a stage where everyone puts all their figures–dominoes on the table, and all participants collectively decide what move the first player and the next one can make. Such discussion contributes to the verbalizing of the solution of mental task, outer speech gradually becomes inner. So this game also contributes to the development of inner speech and thinking.

Find a bead This game was invented by our colleague Irina Kamardina. It trains the ability to understand and make reversible sentences with words “on”, “under”, “right” and “left”. A tower built with matchboxes, and three beads of different colors. The lower floor of the tower consists of five boxes, each next row contains one box less. The boxes are of five different colors: white, red, blue, green and yellow. As in the game “Robot”, children hide the beads in the boxes, and one of the children has to find it according to the description of the place it is located. The seeker asks questions such as “In what row is the bead hidden?” Children have to describe its location. For example, “It’s in the row which is under the row with four boxes.” “Where is the bead in a row?” A possible answer: “It is on the right/left of the blue box.” The game trains the use of complex logical-grammatical structures and executive functions as they are needed for children to give indirect descriptions and prevent direct answers to questions. 371

Tatiana Akhutina and Antonina Romanova

In this last section we have considered games that develop visual-spatial functions: body schema, left-right orientation, use of “spatial” words and construction. The chapter has described why games are necessary for child development and how games contribute to the formation of executive functions, auditory analysis and visual-spatial functions. We have shown what mental functions should be developed in 5/6-year-old children and described games that contribute to the formation of these functions.

Acknowledgement Thanks are expressed to O. Kuzeva, V. Guseva, D. Khakimova, and D. Sumina for their help in compiling the material for the article and preparing the article for publication.

References Achutina, T. V., Obuchova, L. F., Obuchova, O. B. (2001) ‘Schwieringkeiten bei der Aneignung von Grundkenntnissen der Mathematik durch Kinder im Grundshulalter und die Gruende dafuer’ [The difficulties in acquisition of the basis of mathematical knowledge and their causes], in W. Jantzen (Hrsg.), JederMensch kann lernen – Perspektiven einer kulturhistorischen (Behinderten-) Paedagogik [Every person can learn – Perspectives of culturalhistorical (special) pedagogy], 178–203, Berlin: Luchterhand. Achutina, T. V., Pylajeva, N. M. (2009). ˇSkola pozornosti [School of Attention]. Bratislava: Dialog. Akhutina, T. V, Pylayeva, N. M. (1995). Tarkkaavaiseksi Oppiminen. Suunnittelun ja Kontrollin taitojen neuropsykologisten kuntoutuksen ohjeita ja tehtavia [If your child is inattentive: The neuropsychological method of planning and control functions remediation]. Helsinki: Kehitysvammaliitto. Akhutina, T. V. (2003) ‘L.S. Vygotsky and A.R. Luria: Foundations of Neuropsychology’, Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 41 (3–4), 159–190. Akhutina, T. V. (2004) ‘Writing: Assessment and remediation’, in T. V. Akhutina, J. M. Glozman, L. I. Moskovich, D. Robbins (Eds.), A. R. Luria and Contemporary Psychology: Festschrift celebrating the centennial of his birth, pp. 125–144, New York: Nova Science Publisher. Akhutina, T. V., Pilayeva, N. M. (2004/2012). Metodica para el Desarollo y la Correccion de la Atencion en Ninos Escolares. Mexico: Universidad Autonoma de Puebla. 2nd edn 2012. Akhutina, T. V., Matveeva, E. Yu., Romanova, A. A. (2012) ‘Application of the Luria’s principle of the syndrome analysis in processing of neuropsychological assessment data of children with developmental disorder’, Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta [The Moscow University Bulletin], Series 14. Psychology, 2, 84–95, Online. Available HTTP: http:// msupsyj.ru/pdf/vestnik_2012_2/vestnik_2012-2_84-95.Pdf (accessed 9 February 2017). Akhutina, T. V., Pylaeva, N. M. (2012) Overcoming learning disabilities: A Vygotskian-Lurian Neuropsychological Approach, New York: Cambridge University Press. Akhutina, T. V., Pylaeva, N. M. (2015a). School of Attention [In Greece]. Fylatos Publishing. Akhutina, T. V., Pylaeva, N. M. (2015b) Preodolenie trudnostey uchenia: neyropsikhologicheskiy podkhod [Overcoming learning disabilities: Neuropsychological Approach], Moscow: Academia. Analytical report (2012) Analiticheskij otchet «Gotovnost’ pervoklassnikov k obucheniiu v shkole v 2010/2011 uchebnom godu» [Analytical report “Readiness of first graders to learn in school in the 2010/2011 academic year”], Institut soderzhaniia i metodov obucheniia RAO. http:// ismo.ioso.ru/.

372

Facilitating cognitive development Baron, I. S. (2004) Neuropsychological evaluation of the child, New York: Oxford University Press. Bergen, D. (2002) ‘The role of pretend play in children’s cognitive development’, Early Childhood Research and Practice, 4: 1–12. Online. Available HTTP: http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/ v4n1/bergen.html (accessed 9 February 2017). Blair, C., Diamond, A. (2008) ‘Biological processes in prevention and intervention: The promotion of self-regulation as a means of preventing school failure’, Development and Psychopathology, 20: 899–911. Online. Available HTTP: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ articles/PMC2593474/ (accessed 9 February 2017). Bodrova, E., Leong, D. J. (2007) Tools of the mind: The Vygotskian approach to early childhood education, 2nd edn, Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice Hall. Boguslavskaya, S. M., Smirnova E. O. (1991) Razvivajushchie igry dla detej mladshego shkol’nogo vozrasta [Developing games for children in primary school age], Moscow: Prosveshchenie. Bredikyte, M., Hakkarainen, P. (2011) ‘Play intervention and play development’, in C. Lobmann, B. E. O’Neill (Eds.), Play and performance: Play and Culture Studies, vol. 11, pp. 59–83, Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America. Bruner, J. S., Jolly, A., Sylva, K. (1976) Play: its role in development and evolution, New York: Basic Books. Cameron-Ponitz, C., McClelland, M. M., Jewkes, A. M., Connor, C. M., Farris, C. L., Morrison, F. J. (2008) ‘Touch your toes! Developing a direct measure of behavioral regulation in early childhood’, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23: 2141–158. Online. Available HTTP: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885200607000373 (accessed 9 February 2017). Castles, A., Coltheart, M. (1993) ‘Varieties of developmental dyslexia’, Cognition, 47: 149–180. Online. Available HTTP: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/001002779390003E (accessed 9 February 2017). Castles, A., Coltheart, M. (1996) ‘Cognitive correlates of developmental surface dyslexia: A single case study’, Cognitive Neuropsychology, 13: 25–50, Psychology Press Ltd. Chittooran M. M., Tait, R. C. (2005) ‘Understanding and Implementing Neuropsychologically Based Written Language Interventions’, in R. C. D’Amato, E. Fletcher-Janzen, C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of school neuropsychology, pp. 777–803, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Diamond, A. (2005) ‘Attention-deficit disorder (attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder without hyperactivity): A neurobiologically and behaviorally distinct disorder from attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder with hyperactivity’, Developmental Psychopathology, 17: 3807–3825. Online. Available HTTP: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1474811/#!po= 0.892857 (accessed 9 February 2017). Diamond, A., Barnett, S., Thomas, J., Munro, S. (2007) ‘Preschool program improves cognitive control’, Science, 318(5855): 1387–1388. Online. Available HTTP: http://science. sciencemag.org/content/318/5855/1387 (accessed 9 February 2017). Dubrovinskaya, N. V. (1996) ‘Neirofisiolog v shkole’ [Neurophysiologist at school], Shkola zdorov’ya [School of Health], 1: 24–35. Egorova, M. S., Maryutina, T. M. (1992) ‘Razvitie kak predmet psikhogenetiki’ [The development as a subject of psychogenetics]. Voprosy psikhologii [Problems of Psychology], 5–6: 5–15. Online. Available HTTP: www.voppsy.ru/issues/1992/925/925005.htm (accessed 9 February 2017). El’konin, D. B. (1978) Psikhologiya igry [Game psychology], Moscow: Pedagogika. El’konin, D. B., Venger A. L. (1988) Osobennosti psihicheskogo rasvitia detei 6–7- letnego vozrasta [Features of psychological development of children 6–7 years of age], Moscow: Pedagogika. Flanagan, D. P., Alfonso, V. C., Ortiz, S. O., Dynda, A. (2010) ‘Integrating Cognitive Assessment in School Neuropsychological evaluations’, Best practices in school neuropsychology: Guidelines for effective practice, assessment, and evidence-based intervention, pp. 101–140, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

373

Tatiana Akhutina and Antonina Romanova Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L., Barnes, M. A. (2007) Learning Disabilities: From Identification to Intervention. New York: Guilford. Gal’perin, P. Y. (1969) ‘Stages in the development of mental acts’, in M. Cole, I. Malzman (Eds.), A Handbook of contemporary Soviet psychology, pp. 249–273, New York, NY: Basic Books. Glozman, Zh. M., Ravich-Shcherbo, I. V., Grishina, T. V. (2007) ‘Neirodinamicheskie faktory individual’nykh razlichii v uspeshnosti shkol’nogo obucheniya’ [Neurodynamic factors of individual differences in successful school study], in V. A. Moskvin (Ed.), Neiropsikhologiya i psikhofiziologiya individual’nykh razlichii [Neuropsychology and psychophysiology of individual differences], pp. 103–113, Belgorod: POLITERRA. Halperin, J. M., Healey, D. M. (2011) ‘The influences of environmental enrichment, cognitive enhancement, and physical exercise on brain development: Can we alter the developmental trajectory of ADHD?’, Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 35(3): 621–634. Online. Available HTTP: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763410001284 (accessed 9 February 2017). Hooper, S., Swartz, C., Wakely, M., DeKruif, R., Montgomery, J. (2002) ‘Executive functions in primary school children with and without problems in written expression’, Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35: 57–68. Online. Available HTTP: http://ldx.sagepub.com/ content/35/1/57.short (accessed 9 February 2017). Karabanova, O. A. (1997) Igra v korrektsii psihicheskogo rasvitiya rebenka [Play in the correction of child’s development], Moscow: Rossiyskoye Pedagogicheskoe Agenstvo. Khomskaya, E. D. (1996) ‘Rol’ L.S. Vygotskogo v tvorchestve A.R. Luriya’ [The role of Vygotsky in the works of Luria], Voprosy psikhologii [Problems of psychology], 5: 72–83. Online. Available HTTP: www.voppsy.ru/journals_all/issues/1996/965/965072.htm (accessed 9 February 2017). Lebedinskiy, V. V., Markovskaya, I. F., Lebedinskaya, K. S., Fishman, M. N., Trush, V. G. (1982) ‘Kliniko-neyropsikhologicheskiy i neyrofiziologicheskiy analiz anomaliy. . .’ [Clinical-neuropsychological and neurophysiological analysis of abnormalities of mental development of children with symptoms of “minimal brain dysfunction”.], in E. D. Khomskaya, L. S. Tsvetkova, B. V. Zeigarnik (Eds.), A. R. Luria i sovremennaya psikhologiya [A.R. Luria and contemporary psychology], pp. 62–68, Moscow: Moscow University Press. Luria, A. R. (1965) ‘L.S. Vygotsky and the problem of localization of functions’. Neuropsychology, 3(4): 387–392. Online. Available HTTP: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/0028393265900126 (accessed 9 February 2017). Luria, A. R. (1973) The working brain: An introduction to neuropsychology, trans. B. Haigh, New York: Basic Books. Luria, A. R. (1980) Higher cortical functions in man, New York, NY: Basic Book. Lyon, G. R., Fletcher J. M., Barnes, M. C. (2003) ‘Learning disabilities’, in E. J. Mash, R. A. Barkley (Eds.), Child psychopathology, 2nd edn, pp. 520–586. New York: Guilford Press. McClelland, M. M., Cameron, C. E., Duncan, R., Bowles, R. P., Acock, A. C., Miao, A., Pratt, M. E. (2014) Predictors of early growth in academic achievement: the head-toesknees-shoulders task, Frontiers in Psychology, 5: 599, Publishing on the Internet, Switzerland: Frontiers Research Foundation. Online. Available HTTP: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ articles/PMC4060410/ (accessed 9 February 2017). Polonskaya, N. N. (2002) ‘Neyropsikhologicheskiy podkhod k korrektsii trudnostei resheniya zadach mladshimi shkol’nikami’ [Neuropsychological approach to the remediation of difficulties of solving problems by junior pupils], Shkola zdorov’ya [School of Health], 2: 53–56, Moscow. Polyakov, V. M. (2004) ‘Neuropsychological screening of child populations’, in T. V. Akhutina, J. M. Glozman, L. I. Moskovich, D. Robbins (Eds.), A. R. Luria and contemporary psychology: Festschrift celebrating the centennial of his birth, pp. 93–104, New York: Nova Science Publisher. Pylaeva, N. M., Akhutina, T. V. (1997/2008) Shkola vnimaniya. Metodika razvitiya i korrektsii vnimaniya u detei 5–7 let (Metodicheskoe posobie i Didakticheskii material) [School of attention.

374

Facilitating cognitive development The method of development and remediation of attention in 5- to 7-year-old children (Toolkit and didactic material)], Moscow: “Intor.” 4th edn, St Petersburg: Piter. Romanova, A., Gusevs, V., Khakhimova, D., Akhutina, T. (2016) Otsenka proizvol’noy regulyatsii u starshikh doshkol’nikov s pomoshch’yu podvizhnykh igr [Evaluation of voluntary regulation of the senior preschool children with the help of mobile games]. Report on the Fifth Anniversary International Scientific and Practical Conference “Education and training of young children”, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Russia, 12–14 May 2016 . Rourke, B. P., Finlayson, M. A. J. (1978) ‘Neuropsychological significance of variations in patterns of academic performance: Verbal and visual-spatial abilities’, Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 6(1): 121–133, Publishing on the Internet, New York: Springer New York*. Online. Available HTTP: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00915788 (accessed 9 February 2017). Rourke, B. P. (Ed.) (1995) Syndrome of Nonverbal Learning Disabilities: Neurodevelopmental Manifestations, New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Singer, D., Golinkoff, R. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2006) Play=Learning: How Play Motivates and Enhances Children’s Cognitive and Social-Emotional Growth, New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Snowling, M. J. (2000) Dyslexia, 2nd edn, Oxford: Blackwell. Swanson, H. L., Berninger V. W. (1996) ‘Individual Differences in Children’s Working Memory and Writing Skill’, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 63: 358–385. Publishing on the Internet, US: Academic Press Inc. Online. Available HTTP: www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S0022096596900545 (accessed 9 February 2017). Swanson, H. L., Siegel, L. (2001) ‘Learning disabilities as a working memory deficit’, Issues in Education, 7: 1–48, Publishing on the Internet, US: Arizona State University. Venger, L. A., Dyachenko, O. M. (1989) Igry i uprazhneniya po rezvitiyu umstvennyh sposobnostei u detei doshkol’nogo vozrasta. Kniga dlya vospitatelei detskogo sada [Plays and exercises for preschool children’s cognitive skills development. A book for kindergarten teachers]., Moscow: Prosveshchenie. Vygotsky, L. S. (1967) ‘Play and its role in the mental development of the child’, Soviet Psychology, 5(3): 6–18. Vygotsky, L. S. (1993) The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. Vol. 2: The fundamentals of defectology (abnormal psychology and learning disabilities), in R. W. Rieber, A. S. Carton (Eds.), New York, NY: Plenum Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1997a) The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. Vol. 3: Problems of the theory and history of psychology, in ed. R. W. Rieber, J. Wollock, London, UK: Plenum Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1997b) The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. Vol. 4: The history of the development of the higher mental functions, in ed. R. W. Rieber, New York, NY: Plenum Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1998) The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. Vol. 5: Child psychology, in ed. C. Ratner, New York, NY: Plenum Press. Waber, D. (2010) Rethinking learning disabilities: Understanding children who struggle in school, New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

375

27 The promise of play as an intervention to develop self-regulation in children on the autism spectrum Sonia Mastrangelo

Introduction Play is a multi-dimensional phenomenon that occurs naturally for most children as they move through the early years. Their play continues to develop in sophisticated ways as they enter adolescence. Children typically move through the various stages of play and are able to add complexity, imagination and creativity to their thought processes and actions. However, for many children with autism spectrum disorder, the various stages of play do not necessarily develop in a chronological fashion, and in fact they often need direct intervention on how to engage in various forms of play. Difficulties in motor planning, expressive and receptive communication, imitation, and fine and gross motor movements are just some of the many obstacles that may hinder the quality of their play experiences. More specifically, children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) experience challenges with communication such as: responding inappropriately in conversations, misreading nonverbal interactions, or having difficulty building friendships appropriate to their age. Additionally, they may be overly dependent on routines, highly sensitive to changes in their environment, or intensely focused on inappropriate items (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). The symptoms fall on a continuum, with some individuals showing mild symptoms and others having more severe manifestations. The DSM-V classification identifies the following key features of ASD: a) Persistent deficits in social communication and social interaction across multiple contexts, as manifested by:

376

The promise of play

•

•

•

 eficits in social-emotional reciprocity ranging from: abnormal social D approach, to failure of normal back-and-forth conversation, to reduced sharing of interests, emotions, or affect, to failure to initiate or respond to social interactions. Challenges in nonverbal communicative behaviors used for social interaction ranging from poorly integrated verbal and nonverbal communication, to abnormalities in eye contact and body language, to deficits in understanding and use of gestures, to a total lack of facial expressions and nonverbal communication. Deficits in developing, maintaining, and understanding relationships ranging from difficulties adjusting behavior to suit various social contexts, to difficulties in sharing imaginative play or in making friends, to an absence of interest in peers. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2013)

b) Restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior, interests, or activities, as manifested by at least two of the following: •

•

•

•

S tereotyped or repetitive motor movements, use of objects, or speech (e.g. simple motor stereotypies, lining up toys or flipping objects, echolalia, idiosyncratic phrases). Insistence on sameness, inflexible adherence to routines, or ritualized patterns or verbal nonverbal behavior (e.g. extreme distress at small changes, difficulties with transitions, rigid thinking patterns, greeting rituals, need to take same route or eat [the same] food every day). Highly restricted, fixated interests that are abnormal in intensity or focus (e.g. strong attachment to or preoccupation with unusual objects, excessively circumscribed or perseverative interest). Hyper- or hyporeactivity to sensory input or unusual interests in sensory aspects of the environment (e.g. apparent indifference to pain/temperature, adverse response to specific sounds or textures, excessive smelling or touching of objects, visual fascination with lights or movement). (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2013)

Due to the wide range of abilities among children and the variability of symptoms, play intervention programs for those with ASD need to be modified according to the capabilities of each particular child. Unfortunately, many long-standing intervention programs are based on behaviorist paradigms developed in the 1960s where the focus is on extinguishing surface behaviors (i.e. hand flapping, toe walking, etc.). The research evidence reveals that therapies and programs need to ‘catch up’ to what has been revealed in the scientific literature. Current evidence seems to favor multiple deficits involving multiple neurobiological and psychological mechanisms. The complex interweaving

377

Sonia Mastrangelo

of these deficits and mechanisms in varying forms for each individual helps explain the unusually large heterogeneity of autism, and the wide spectrum of presentations of the disorder. What may be most unique about the patterns described under the autistic spectrum umbrella is the large number of functional developmental deficits involved (e.g. higher-level abstract thinking, empathy, affective reciprocity, functional language, sensory modulation, motor planning, emotional arousal and regulation, and the organization and attention involved in the executive processing of information) and the critical role of each in the development of the social competence that is generally deficient in autism. In fact, there is far more support for a comprehensive functional developmental approach to interventions for autism and other developmental problems than for circumscribed approaches that work only with selective cognitive skills, symptoms or surface behaviors (without attention to underlying processing or developmental deficits). (Tsakiris 2000: 725–6) A paradigm shift needs to occur whereby strict and rigid behavioral approaches begin to embrace a more child-centered view that includes engaging children on the spectrum with developmentally charged interventions that incorporate play as a major tenet of their intervention programs. Since children on the autism spectrum vary considerably in their ability to play, some will demonstrate sophisticated play skills at specific play stages. This wide disparity among the children makes intervention planning challenging at times, and often results in a universal, ‘one-size fits all’ approach whereby play becomes a small ‘add on’ component to an already existing program. Incorporating developmental models of play (such as the DIR/FloortimeTM and Miller Method approaches) allows us to be more adept at considering the unique profiles of children on the autism spectrum. One of the most important facets of play for children on the autism spectrum is that a socially and mutually engaging component is present and developmental models that include play as a central focus of their programs, easily lend themselves to promoting peer play in inclusive educational environments. The overall goal is to ensure that children generalize the many skills they learn during play experiences to a variety of contexts and people. If we begin to make play an integral component of every child’s daily educational intervention program and home life, then we are one step closer to moving the child toward developing self-regulation.

Sensory processing challenges in children with ASD Over the past decade, there have been new insights and discoveries made on the neurobiological challenges experienced by children on the autism spectrum. More specifically, scientists have highlighted the particular sensory integration challenges experienced by this population. Understanding the sensory system in relation to autism spectrum disorder helps in recognizing the possible difficulties children may encounter during their play experiences. Unfortunately, sensory integration is not commonly discussed as a potential cause for both the academic and social difficulties 378

The promise of play

encountered by children with autism spectrum disorder. According to Greenspan and Wieder (1998), it is useful to think of the sensory system in terms of sensory reactivity – the way we take in information through the senses – and sensory processing – how we make sense of the information we take in. Our bodies are comprised of two distinct areas, the vestibular system, which is sensitive to gravity and movement and influences muscle tone, balance, and arousal, and the proprioceptive system, which provides awareness of movement and the position of the body in space and which influences motor control and body schema. Within each child the five senses along with the proprioceptive and vestibular may either be under-reactive or over-reactive. Children who are under-reactive are those ‘who do not respond to small or moderate amounts of stimulation in the area of sensitivity. This is also known as hyposensitivity where the channel is not open enough and, as a result, too little of the stimulation gets in and the brain is deprived’ (Bogdashina 2003: 53). Conversely, those who are overreactive may be easily agitated or overloaded by small amounts of stimulation. Hypersensitivity is used to describe this reaction to sensory input since the channel is too open. The abundance of stimulation can often lead to behaviors that are perceived as negative (see Table 27.1 for a breakdown of children’s responses to sensory input depending on reactivity levels). Children with ASD typically have compromised sensory systems that are overreactive in some areas and under-reactive in others. The sensory dysfunction can affect the child’s ability to play. For example, a child who is hypersensitive to noise (auditory system) but is hyposensitive to movement (vestibular system) may desperately want to engage in reciprocal play with a group of children who are swinging from the high bars in the gymnasium, however the noise level in the gym, coupled with the echoing Table 27.1  Children’s over-/under-reactivity responses across sensory domains Sensory system

Under-reactivity/hyposensitivity

Over-reactivity/hypersensitivity

Auditory system

– may fail to respond to ordinary speech – requires loud, highly rhythmic sounds to capture attention – poor ‘listening skills’ or appears not to hear – bangs objects – likes vibration

– speech or television may be extremely bothersome – vacuum cleaners, kitchen utensils, and humming lights are usually problematic – quiet, gentle sounds are tolerable – covers ears – light sleeper

Tactile system

– enjoys pressure – insensitive to pain – can be self-injurious – enjoys tight clothes – hugs tightly – enjoys rough and tumble play

– feels pain at the slightest touch – specific fabrics or a gentle pat may be extremely irritating – may experience difficulty with hair-washing, cutting – avoids getting messy – dislikes certain food textures (continued)

379

Sonia Mastrangelo Table 27.1  Children’s over-/under-reactivity responses across sensory domains (continued) Sensory system

Under-reactivity/hyposensitivity

Over-reactivity/hypersensitivity

Visual system

– does not react to color, bright lights, etc. (or may be attracted to bright lights) – may only see the big picture (the forest) but not the minute details (the trees) – always stares at objects (creates visual stimulation-spinning objects) – moves fingers/objects in front of the eyes

– overreacts to lights, color, shape or detail which prevents them from seeing the ‘big picture’ – squinting, limited eye contact – frequently covers eyes – looks at minute objects, picks up small pieces of dust

Proprioceptive system

– low muscle tone – weak grasp (often drops things) – appears floppy; leans against people or walls – rocks back and forth

– turns whole body to look at something – difficulty manipulating small objects – places body in strange positions

Vestibular system

– in constant motion – daredevil behaviors – erratic arousal levels – rocks back and forth – enjoys swings, merry-go-rounds

– avoids movement – fearful when feet leave ground – dislikes upside down play – possibly toe walks – fearful going up/downstairs

Taste (oral) system

– eats anything (pica) – mouths/licks objects

– poor eater – uses tip of tongue for tasting

Olfactory system

– smells self, people, objects – seeks strong odors – bedwetting

– runs from smells – wears the same clothes – moves away from people

voices and humming fluorescent lights, may be so irritating that he decides to resort to a safe corner in the gym with his ears covered. Greenspan and Wieder note that children’s sensory reactions can also change depending on the context: Children with severe impairments are usually under- or over-reactive in several areas. To add further complexity, a child’s reactivity may change from one moment to the next. Stress, fatigue, or high emotion can cause a child’s reactivity pattern to change. Sometimes the reactivity varies within a sensory area. For example, a child may be oversensitive to sounds in a certain frequency range and under-reactive to those in another. As a result, children with sensory impairments may miss or misperceive critical bits of information as they learn to interact with the world. Learning to pay attention, learning to engage with others, and learning to communicate may all be affected. (1998: 37) 380

The promise of play

The senses enable children to take in information, however it is the processing system that helps them understand the information received. Therefore, children with sensory processing difficulties in one or more of the domains will be affected emotionally, physically, cognitively and socially. Gaines (2002) looked at the relationship between sensory processing dysfunction and play in children with autism spectrum disorders. She suggests that it may be too difficult for some children to move along the developmental play ladder because of sensory integrative dysfunction. Therefore, the range of behaviors we typically associate with the disorder are not the result of defiance, non-compliance or an unwillingness to play, but instead are the result of physiological reactivities to specific inputs. Ayres (1979) defines sensory processing/sensory integrative dysfunction as, ‘a difficulty organizing the flow of sensory impulses in a manner that gives the individual good, precise information about himself or his world’ (p. 50). Since there is no one clear pattern of sensory processing difficulties among all children with ASD, intervention programs must be highly individualized and a sensory profile assessment administered by an occupational therapist is often extremely useful. Gaines (2002) discovered that children who have difficulty in more than one sensory modality will also have greater difficulty progressing in their play. In her account of a child who has difficulty managing multiple incoming sensations, she asserts that extra time is needed for that child to examine a toy to learn its sensorimotor properties and that development of high level skills in relation to that toy (function/symbolic use) may take longer to emerge. Furthermore, children who were less impacted by the need to seek sensation and were less impacted by oral-sensory difficulties spent more time in symbolic play (Gaines 2002). The results of this study suggest that early forms of play (sensorimotor) may be more greatly affected by sensory processing difficulties whereas later forms of play (functional and symbolic) may be more dependent on cognitive processes. Play tends to develop in a sequential fashion, and since children on the autism spectrum demonstrate difficulties in the earliest forms of object-directed play, it is inevitable that more sophisticated levels of play will pose a challenge. The case of Michael. An occupational therapist recently observed a child with autism spectrum disorder in his regular grade two classroom as he picked up various objects, threw them up in the air, and watched them fall to the ground. The child’s educational assistant was insistent that this behavior be curtailed since it was disruptive to the rest of the class and she believed that the child was simply seeking attention. Her strategy was to ignore the behavior or to place the child in a time-out situation every time he dropped objects. The occupational therapist realized that the falling objects served as a visual stimulus for this child. As objects came to the ground he watched their trajectory using his peripheral vision. The occupational therapist quickly met with the special education team and provided the necessary strategies and interventions to facilitate the boy’s need to track objects peripherally while respecting the school’s philosophy of inclusion. Her suggestions included: giving the child opportunities to throw objects in a turn-taking situation with other peers during appropriate times (such as physical education), providing frequent opportunities for visual stimulus within the context of game playing situations with peers (such as tracking an infra-red flashlight in a dark room with other students), and allowing the student to do some 381

Sonia Mastrangelo

research on falling objects with peers within the framework of the science curriculum (such as experiments on the speed of falling objects and determining which will fall to the ground first). In essence, the occupational therapist suggested accommodating the child’s program in an effort to meet his sensory needs while keeping inclusion at the forefront. All of her suggestions could be facilitated through play.

The benefits of play: a neuroscientific perspective The benefits of play on the brain have been well documented in the literature (Panksepp 2010; Pellis and Pellis 2014: 3). In his opening chapter on the many benefits of play, Brown reveals that, Neuroscientists, developmental biologists, psychologists, social scientists, and researchers from every point of the scientific compass now know that play is a profound biological process that has evolved over eons in many animal species to promote survival. It shapes the brain and makes animals smarter and more adaptable. In higher animals it fosters empathy and makes possible complex social groups. For humans, play lies at the core of creativity and innovation. It prompts us to be continually joyous, physically active, combats obesity and enhances overall health and well-being. It can interrupt the damage done by chronic stress, and even gives the immune system a bounce. (Brown 2009: 3) Researchers have discovered that the experience of play actually changes the connections of the neurons in the prefrontal cortex and that without play experiences, those neurons remain the same. It is those changes in the prefrontal cortex during childhood that help wire up the brain’s executive control center, which has a critical role in regulating emotions, making plans and solving problems (Pellis and Pellis 2014). In essence, play is what prepares a young brain for life, relationships and schoolwork. For example, with detailed studies on rats, Pellis, Pellis and Reinhart (2010) have shown that the experiences derived from rough and tumble play during the early years serve to modify the development of the neurons of the prefrontal cortex and it is these changes that likely mediate the effects of play on the development of social competency.

The development of self-regulation in children with ASD through play In order to understand the importance of developing self-regulation through play in children on the autism spectrum, it is necessary to begin with a definition of the word since it has become popularized in the literature yet often remains misunderstood, misinterpreted, or defined in different ways. Burman, Green, and Shanker (2015) reveal that self-regulation has multiple discursive meanings, which is a challenge for psychological scientists because experimental findings can conflict needlessly as a result of clashing assumptions in setup, interpretation, and intent. Although there is no precise, general, and widely accepted definition for self-regulation, the explanation 382

The promise of play

provided by Baumeister and Vohs (2011) serves children on the autism spectrum well because while engaged in various forms of play (i.e. object, symbolic, and peer), they are able to practice the skills outlined below. They describe self-regulation as the ability to: 1

Attain, maintain, and change one’s level of energy to match the demands of a task or situation. 2 Monitor, evaluate, and modify one’s emotions. 3 Sustain and shift one’s attention when necessary and ignore distractions. 4 Understand both the meaning of a variety of social interactions and how to engage in them in a sustained way. 5 Connect with and care about what others are thinking and feeling—to empathize and act accordingly. Play serves as a springboard for children with ASD to learn the aforementioned selfregulatory skills in a naturalistic, enjoyable, and motivating fashion. For example, interactions with other children around objects (typically seen during peer play), has been associated with the development of relating successfully to others, including the regulation of affect and the recognition that other people have minds distinct from one’s own (Williams 2003). Additionally, Lillard et al. (2013) report that kids who engage in frequent, pretend play have stronger self-regulation skills and although more research is needed to determine if the link is causal the data are consistent with this possibility. For example, both players must arrive at a set of agreed upon rules for pretend play to occur and adopting shared understandings might help kids develop better self-regulation over time. In a research study conducted by Vieillevoye and Nader-Grosbois (2008) on pretend play and the development of self-regulation in children with intellectual disabilities, they discovered that with increased mental age, the children’s selfregulation improved as well as their self-attention and self-motivation. Additionally, when the language abilities increased, the self-regulatory levels improved. Their linguistic level was linked positively to the overall self-regulation level, to the selfregulation level in different scenarios, and to several self-regulatory strategies, which confirmed their hypothesis that children who present superior linguistic levels can use speech to control and manage their behavior and to develop their self-regulatory strategies therefore needing less adult regulation (Vieillevoye and Nader-Grosbois 2008). Their study also revealed that, When the individual and dyadic pretend play levels increased, the overall self-regulation improved and also the self-regulation in several scenarios and the different self-regulatory strategies. Moreover, the more the different pretend play components were of a good standard, the better the selfregulation. The use of pretend play as a strategy improves the quality of problem solving. The development of creativity in pretend play promotes planning, self-regulation and problem solving in subsequent activities. (Vieillevoye and Nader-Grosbois 2008: 267) 383

Sonia Mastrangelo

Pretend and peer play In revisiting the definition of self-regulation provided in the previous section, it becomes apparent that both pretend (or symbolic) and peer play have the potential to develop self-regulatory capacities in children on the autism spectrum. Ungerer and Sigman (1981) have noted that the number of pretend play acts exhibited by children on the autism spectrum is correlated with their level of expressive and receptive primary language skills. In addition to this link with language, pretend play also relies on social awareness. As the play scenarios become more complex they almost always contain themes which model common social interactions. During pretend play children use their language to: make metarepresentations and manipulate them, make inferences about causes and predictions about future events, distinguish reality from fantasy, and to express mental experiences. Pretend play characterizes the ability to believe, expect, hope, and manipulate relations in others (Singer and Singer 1990). A child who is engaged in pretend play in which objects are transformed is likely to be enhancing skills in the use of imagery, in reshaping mental representations and in forming more and more coherent scripts (Singer and Singer 1990). Children who engage in pretend play may be attempting to re-construct sights, sounds, smells, textures, and tastes as part of their games and in this way may actually be practicing their ability to self-regulate.

Peer Play Children with autism spectrum disorders often have a difficult time establishing and maintaining relationships with peers. Within the school setting these challenges become even more apparent and may include some or all of the following: inability to greet others; difficulties with imitation, following instructions, sharing toys, and taking turns; and an inability to ask for help and request objects/events. This is largely due to the nature of the disorder that prevents children from processing input from inside their bodies so that it can be related to external events. Dysfunctions of the brain stem interfere with the child’s capacity to interact effectively with others and it often appears as though they are perpetually out of synchrony with messages sent to them (Miller and Miller 1989). This deficit in social interaction and reciprocity is one of the primary diagnostic and defining characteristics of autism spectrum disorders and is often complicated by the impairment of communication and imagination. The social play of young children with autism is often characterized by less proximity to peers, reduced levels of social initiations, fewer responses to social overtures, and more solitary activities than seen in the play of children with other developmental disabilities (Watson, Baranek and DiLavore 2003). In her literature review of social interventions with demonstrated empirical support, Rogers (2000) emphasizes the important role peers play in developing social and communication skills in children with autism spectrum disorder. Peer-mediated techniques for increasing interactions between typically developing students and those with autism spectrum disorder have included: (a) teaching peers to persistently initiate contact with a child who has autism spectrum disorder (e.g. sharing, helping, giving, 384

The promise of play

affection and praise), and (b) teaching peers by role playing with adults so that the learned techniques can be used with a child with autism spectrum disorder. These studies have been successful in maintaining high rates of social reciprocity for both parties and decreasing inappropriate behaviors. Peer tutoring using incidental teaching, adult instruction in social games, social skills groups and circle of friends are all welldocumented interventions that effectively involve peers to promote social engagement (Rogers, 2000) and ultimately contribute to a child moving from co-regulation to self-regulation. Prizant et al. (2000) suggest a transactional approach to peer play intervention that incorporates both developmental and ecological features. The key principles of the transactional approach include: (a) engineering environments so that naturally occurring interactions and play routines are consistent, predictable and familiar, (b) controlling for novelty within interactions and the environment, (c) fostering shared control/reciprocity among social partners, (d) acknowledging unconventional verbal and social play behaviors as purposeful and intentional, (e) enhancing intrinsic motivation through highly predicable joint action routines, (f) creating multiple opportunities for expressing communicative intent to establish joint attention and social interactions, and (g) systematically transferring active participation and support from the adult to peers (p. 198). Furthermore the movement toward full inclusion of young children with disabilities in regular education classes and childcare settings has accentuated the need to promote reciprocal peer interaction among children of varying abilities (Zercher, Hunt, Schuler, and Webster 2001).

Vygotsky: connections between play and self-regulation From a Vygotskian perspective, play is valued for its social aspects. Moreover, Vygotsky (1966) believed that play is the leading source of development for young children and that it should not be defined on the basis of the pleasure it gives the child. He cautioned us to think about play as an affective activity rather than an intellectualized cognitive one. From a Vygotskian perspective, the rationale for play is that it allows the child to move forward developmentally, frees the child from the concrete situation and leads to abstract thought. More specifically, Vygotsky (1978) regarded pretend play as the foundation for the development of self-regulation. The social origin of self-regulation was strongly emphasized by Vygotsky (1997). His genetic law of cultural development emphasized that at first self-regulation develops as an interpersonal function when an adult regulates a child’s behavior. Eventually the child begins to regulate other people’s behavior so that the former interpersonal function becomes an intrapersonal function because the child has mastered true self-regulation. Vygotsky (1997) further argued that, ‘higher order/ self-regulated forms of behaviour develop through the acquisition of semiotic systems including language, signs, symbols, etc. Being at first external, these systems are gradually internalized by the child and become a method of self-regulation’ (Savina 2014: 1694). The early years are a sensitive period for the development of self-regulation skills since this time is marked by considerable gains in behavioral inhibition, working 385

Sonia Mastrangelo

memory, and verbal self-regulation (Savina 2014). Given the importance of play in young children, it is a natural, enjoyable, and easily implemented intervention to foster self-regulation skills. Vygotsky’s notion of guided participation through scaffolding has influenced many play intervention models that are currently being used with children on the autism spectrum.

The DIR/FloortimeTM intervention model One intervention that places play at the center of therapy for children with ASD is the Developmental, Individual-Difference, Relationship-Based Model (DIR) (also known as FloortimeTM). Wieder and Greenspan’s (2003) DIR framework examines the functional developmental capacities of children in the context of their biological make-up, their family relationships, and interactive patterns. The strategies derived from this model are anchored in the understanding of each child’s unique profile and enable parents and professionals to construct an intervention plan focused on these individual characteristics (Greenspan and Wieder 2006). The approach is unique in that it takes into account the individual sensory profiles of the children and gives serious consideration to how it might impact their capacity for play and the development of self-regulation. The D represents the developmental capacities that emerge during the child’s early years, and include shared attention and engagement, back and forth interactions, problem-solving, creating play ideas and abstract thinking. The I represents individual differences in sensory motor processing and regulation which need to be taken into account and treated to support development (e.g. auditory or visual spatial processing gaps). The R represents the relationship and environment necessary to provide the interactions through which the development of emotional, social and cognitive capacities are nurtured, practiced and enhanced (Wieder and Greenspan 2003). For many children on the autism spectrum, Wieder and Greenspan (2003) believe that an emotional milestone is often being mastered during play. This could mean [for example] acquiring the ability to feel calm and focused. It’s hard to start working on so basic a skill when your child is already two, three, or even older. It is tempting to work instead on language skills, colour recognition, or some other age appropriate behaviour, but such an approach is not effective. (p. 425) During spontaneous floor-time play sessions, adults follow the child’s lead by utilizing affectively toned interactions, gestures and words coupled with exaggerated affect to move the child up the symbolic ladder. The adult must establish a foundation of shared attention, engagement, simple and complex gestures, and problem-solving in order to usher the child into the world of ideas and abstract thinking (Wieder and Greenspan 2003: 425). The key elements of floor time are broken down into the following stages of which stages 5 and 6 demonstrate the importance of pretend and symbolic play to the development of the whole child: 386

The promise of play

Stage 1: Self-regulation and shared attention (interest in the world): focuses on harnessing all senses and motor capacities to help the child stay calm and regulated in order to draw him/her into shared attention. Includes enjoyable interactions that include looking at faces, hearing voices, touching and movement. (p. 427) Stage 2: Engagement and relating: involves encouraging the child to engage positively as seen when the child brightens, smiles, references (looks), moves, vocalizes or reaches. The idea is to encourage growth of intimacy. The relationship is deepened to include the full range of feelings such as assertiveness, anger/sadness, etc. Relationships are continually emphasized to develop a sense of security, intimacy, caring and empathy. They also support the work needed to develop motor planning, language, and positive attitudes towards new learning. (pp. 427–8) Stage 3: Two-way intentional communication: entails following the child’s lead and challenging him/her to communicate through exchanges of gestures and emotional signals about his/her interests, needs, or intentions. The adult is animated and shows affect through tone of voice and facial expressions. Affect cues (signals) are used to entice the child and generate purposeful social gestures (facial expressions, making sounds, reaching, pointing, throwing, movement, etc). Reciprocity is established by challenging the child to [interact with the adult], by helping the child achieve his/her goal and later build obstacles to add steps. A circle of communication is opened when the child exhibits some interest or initiates a behaviour (i.e., the child looks at a toy) and the parent/caregiver follows the child’s lead by picking up the toy and showing it to the child. The child closes the circle by reaching for the toy, while acknowledging (looking, smiling) at the parent. (p. 428) Stage 4: Purposeful complex problem solving communication: the child and adult work up to a continuous flow of 30 or more back and forth circles of communication. For example, the child takes a parent by the hand, walks her to the door, points to indicate that he/she wants to go out, and perhaps vocalizes a sound or word to further signify intentions. The adult expands the conversation by asking where the child wants to go, what he/she needs, who else will come, what they will get, [why they are going] etc. (p. 428) Stage 5: Creating and elaborating symbols (ideas): at this stage the child is encouraged to relate to sensations, gestures and behaviours, and to the world of ideas which can be shared in pretend play. The adult lets the child initiate the idea for play and joins the child as a character through dramatization in 387

Sonia Mastrangelo

direct roles or using figures to elaborate themes and expand the range of emotions (e.g., jealousy, fear, assertiveness, anger). Play provides the distance from real life and immediacy of needs to differentiate self from others through empathic roles (i.e., the child pretends to be a mommy, comforting her frustrated baby who broke his toy. (pp. 428–429) Stage 6: Building bridges between symbols (ideas): involves challenging the child to connect his/her ideas together by seeking his/her opinion, enjoying his/her debates, and negotiating for things he/she wants using logical reasons. The adult promotes pretend play, words, and/or visual symbols to elaborate a partially planned pretend drama or to engage in logical conversation dealing with causal, spatial and/or temporal relationships between themes. The child is encouraged to create connections between feeling states (I feel happy when). This capacity is essential for separating reality from fantasy, modulating impulses and mood, and learning how to concentrate and plan. (p. 429) Greenspan and Wieder (1998) also provide general guidelines for teachers and parents to follow when engaging a child with autism spectrum disorder in play. These include staying patient and relaxed, empathizing with the child’s emotional tone, being aware of your own feelings, monitoring your tone of voice and gestures, following the child’s lead, interacting, and tuning in to the child’s multiple developmental levels (pp. 128–129). One of the most important guidelines, following the child’s lead, requires the teacher or parent to look for ways to turn all child actions during play into interactions. This involves treating all behavior as purposeful and as an opportunity to build two-way communication (p. 128). In their direct experience working with children who have autism spectrum disorder, Greenspan and Wieder (1998) report that early intervention coupled with daily opportunities for symbolic play help the child move up the developmental ladder. Through idea-laden play and expanding use of words, the child begins to learn that symbols stand for things (i.e. empty box in which he bathes his doll is a symbol for a bathtub; therefore, the word bathe is a symbol for his activity in the tub). In their explanation of symbolism, Greenspan and Wieder (1998) note that, ‘each symbol is an idea, an abstraction of the concrete thing, activity or emotion with which the child is concerned. As he/she experiments more and more with symbolic play and words, he/she becomes increasingly fluent in the world of ideas’ (p. 83). For the children with autism spectrum disorder it is important to expose them to the world of symbolic play, visualization and imagery. For example, when a child wants juice, make the teddy bear thirsty too. With this form of play, imagination grows and the capacity for creating new ideas gradually flourishes (Greenspan and Wieder 1998). Greenspan and Wieder (1998) also note that, ‘a child needs interaction. He needs to bump up against your responses and to create counter responses of his own and this will happen only if the adult is a character inside the drama’ (p. 223). 388

The promise of play

Greenspan and Wieder (1998) provide a list of useful strategies and suggestions for helping the child with autism spectrum disorder build a symbolic world:   1 Identify real-life experiences the child knows and enjoys and have toys/props available to play out those experiences.   2 Respond to the child’s real desires through pretend actions; (e.g., if the child puts his/her foot in a pretend pool ask ‘Is it cold?’)   3 Encourage role-playing with dress-up, props, puppets.   4 Use a specific set of figures/dolls to represent family members.   5 Substitute one object for another when props are needed (e.g., spoon is a birthday candle).   6 Help the child elaborate on intentions—ask who is driving the car, where it is going, whether he has enough money, did he remember the keys etc.   7 Insert obstacles into the play (e.g., make the bus block the road).   8 Use play to help the child understand and master ideas/themes which may have frightened him/her (fantasy vs. reality).   9 Match your tone of voice to the situation during play (e.g., pretend to cry when the character is hurt). 10 Discuss the child’s abstract themes such as good guy/bad guy, separation/loss, and various feelings such as fear, jealousy, and anger. (pp. 194–201) For the interventionist it is important to remember that, It is easier for the child with autism spectrum disorder to see things as they are, not as they could be and therefore the move into make-believe needs to be practiced. Symbolic play involves abstract thinking which allows us to imagine, to understand others, to conceptualize things that aren’t right in front of us, to calculate time, space, speed, rate of change and to see the consequences of our actions. Without the ability to think abstractly we are limited to the here and now. We cannot plan. We can only react. (Greenspan and Wieder 1998: 192) For many children with autism spectrum disorder symbolic play begins as something rote and mechanical. One parent described her child’s symbolic play in the following way: Dylan’s play still had a flat quality to it. People and animals went through their paces mechanically with no emotion. They woke up, ate meals, went to school or work, went home. They never fought, never got frightened. There were no good guys and bad guys, no scary monsters, none of the fantasy elements that so often populate children’s play, through which they work out their feelings and develop reality testing. (Greenspan and Wieder 1998: 52) 389

Sonia Mastrangelo

The rote quality that might be observed in children’s symbolic play could be attributed to the fact that it also requires motor-planning ability. If children with autism spectrum disorder merely push a car or train back and forth without having it go anywhere, they cannot sequence the next action. They might be unable to use a doll to drive the car because doing so is a two-step process (it also requires a higher level of abstract thinking). More complex symbolic play requires even greater language and motorplanning ability. This includes setting up a tea party, serving people, putting away dishes. It may also include driving a car to the pretend swimming pool, going swimming, drying off and going home. Expressing these ideas requires longer sequences of actions (Greenspan and Wieder 1998: 68). Of special importance for symbolic play is the capacity to sustain the object in thought, that is, to develop an image, cognitive map, or plan of it in its physical absence.

The Miller Method Approach for children with ASD Miller and Miller (1989) present a cognitive developmental approach towards play for children with autism spectrum disorder. This approach provides some structure within a child-centered approach to play. Miller and Miller (1989) note, ‘for most of the children on the spectrum, play with another—like other forms of interaction— must be carefully structured before the child can learn to initiate activity independently’ (p. 373). The following reciprocal activities are used in this approach: 1

Reciprocal ball pushing—Children are placed on stools facing each other with a large ball between them suspended from the ceiling. The placement of the ball prevents it from escaping the orbit of the children’s reach and keeps it within their visual field. Staff place the children’s hands on the ball directly in front of them and help them push it to each other. (p. 373) 2 Block building—With this activity the teacher initially helps the children participate hand-over-hand in placing the blocks on top of one another. The teacher sits behind each child helping him/her alternate block building by loudly placing one block on another (the loud smack of the blocks helps the children orient to the blocks and to each other). Pacing and monitoring the turn taking is important and the notion of ‘first you, then me’ is stressed. (p. 374) 3 Blowing—The children face each other and the object of the game is for the child to blow an object across the table to another object (e.g., cotton ball) and to keep the other child from blowing the ball on the floor. The teacher assists by making a channel out of several long blocks so that the ball remains oriented properly between the two children. (p. 375) When introducing reciprocal play exchanges, Miller and Miller (1989) provide us with a summary of activities ordered in terms of difficulty. 390

The promise of play

1

2 3

4

5

6

7

8

Hand-to-hand transfer. An engaging object such as a small car is located next to each child’s hand on the table.The child picks up the object and must put it in the hand of the other.The child giving the object points to or touches and names the other child as he/she is receiving it. Passageway transfer. Using a narrow passageway located at eye level, the child must pick up the object and push it to the other, again naming the receiver. Using an instrument to pull to self.The child uses an instrument (such as a plate) and places an object on the plate. The receiver must now act by pulling the plate towards the self. Using an instrument to push to other. The sender uses a plate (or any other object) to push an object away from his/her body to the other child. Before the receiver acts, self and other references are established. Using an extended instrument to push to other. An instrument (such as a rake) is used as an extension of the body directly from the hand. The sender must push an object (losing sight of it) to another child.The other child then repeats the process. Using an instrument not directly extended from the body (traveler). The sender picks up an object, opens a box, puts the object in the box, closes it, and then pushes the box away from him/herself to the receiver who begins pulling the box with a string toward him/herself. Roles are then reversed. Using a vehicle requiring problem solving. The child places an object (such as a small car) on a slope so that it will roll down to the other child. The child must make the board slope by lifting up the board to enable the object to roll.The other child repeats the process so that the object rolls in the opposite direction. Using hands to push an object around detours to the other. The sender is given a series of detours and he/she must solve the problem of detours and plan a path to the receiver. (p. 375)

Miller and Miller (1989) also propose a variety of large group interactions such as swinging on the large ball (each child has a turn pushing or being pushed), and using broken objects to encourage group interaction (children must work together to fix a broken ping pong table in order to begin a game). According to Miller and Miller (1989), ‘before a child is asked to take turns carrying a passenger on his/her tricycle or pulling a child in a wagon, the teacher must have already determined that this skill is in each child’s repertoire’ (p. 377). This reciprocal pattern can be introduced during dramatic play (dress-up and make-up play) where children can comb each other’s hair or put hats, necklaces and bracelets on each other. The adult turns over control of these tasks to the children as soon as they begin to perform the activity independently and successfully (p. 377). The Miller Method also provides a theoretically grounded approach to preparing children on the autism spectrum for peer buddy programs. Miller and Miller’s (1989) cognitive developmental systems theory approach recognizes that all children are born with the nature to explore, communicate with, cope with, and make contact with others and their environment. When this development is interrupted due to autism for example, children may become frozen at an early stage of development, or may 391

Sonia Mastrangelo

approach more advanced stages of development in an incomplete or distorted manner. The Miller Method introduces a specific program to directly address developmental lags. For example, if a child has never gone through the 9–11 month old stage of ‘experimentally’ dropping things to learn how they fall, a therapist may deliberately introduce a dropping system by showing the child how to drop things so that they land with a satisfying ‘clunk’ in a pan, and will then shift that pan so that the child learns to drop in different locations and with different people. It is suggested that the type of interventions and remedial techniques that could help children with autism spectrum disorder should relate to people and objects in the environment in order for them to move up the developmental ladder (Miller and Miller 1989). Furthermore every child, regardless of how withdrawn or disorganized he/she appears to be, is trying to find a way to cope with the world, and the best way to introduce peer buddies to the child is to understand the child’s likes/dislikes. Miller and Miller (1989) suggest recognizing the antecedents which may cause negative behaviors in the child with autism spectrum disorder (such as lighting, offensive smells and loud noises), and emphasizing the importance of sharing these stressors with peer buddies.

Conclusion The change towards a more holistic approach to working with children on the autism spectrum has been a positive step in realizing the potential of children on the autism spectrum to build and maintain meaningful friendships through play. Since selfregulation is a significant predictor of school engagement and success in typically developing children, self-regulatory skills such as sustaining and shifting attention, monitoring emotions, and maintaining and/or changing one’s level of energy to meet the demands of a situation can certainly be practiced during pretend and peer play by children on the autism spectrum. The development of self-regulation is crucial for success in school and the establishment of healthy relationships for children with ASD. In recognizing the multi-benefits of play, incorporating a wide array of play opportunities, and including play as the central focus of an intervention program, children with ASD are afforded the opportunity to experience learning in enjoyable and authentic ways.

Further questions for consideration 1 2 3

Can the universal definition of play be applied to children on the autism spectrum? Is language necessary to mediate play? Is the child with autism spectrum disorder showing a deficit in play or is he/she simply rejecting play? 4 When children with autism spectrum disorder are taught to play, how do we know if they are exhibiting deferred imitation or spontaneous play? 5 If they have learned how to play have they acquired the understanding of what they are actually doing? 6 When assessing children’s ability to play, are we looking at their performance or competence or both? 392

The promise of play

7

If a child with autism spectrum disorder can only ‘produce play’ when directed by the adult, do we deem them ‘competent players’ or ‘performance players’?

References American Journal of Play (2010). Science of the brain as a gateway to understanding play: An interview with Jaak Panksepp. 2(3), 245–277. American Psychiatric Association (2013). DSM-5 Autism Spectrum Disorder Fact Sheet. Retrieved at: https://psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/dsm/educational-resources/dsm-5-factsheets (accessed 3 April 2016). Ayres, J. (1979). Sensory integration and the child. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services. Baumeister, R. F., and Vohs, K. D. (eds.) (2011). Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Bogdashina, O. (2003). Sensory perceptual issues in autism and asperger syndrome. New York: Jessica Kingsley Publishers Ltd. Brown, S. (2009). Play: How it shapes the brain, opens the imagination, and invigorates the soul. New York, NY: Avery/Penguin Group USA. Burman, J. T., Green, C. D., and Shanker, S. (2015). On the meanings of self-regulation: Digital humanities in service of conceptual clarity. Child Development, 86(5), 1507–1521. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2013). Diagnostic Criteria for 299.00 Autism Spectrum Disorder. Retrieved from: www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/hcp-dsm.html (accessed 3 April 2016). Gaines, E. C. (2002). The relationship between sensory processing and play in children with autistic spectrum disorders. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 63(4-B), 2055. Greenspan, S. I., and Wieder, S. (2006). Engaging autism: Using the floortime approach to help children relate, communicate, and think. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press. Greenspan, S. I., and Wieder, S. (1998). The child with special needs: Encouraging intellectual and emotional growth. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Lillard, A. S., Lerner, M. D., Hopkins, E. J., Dore, R. A., Smith, E. D., and Palmquist, C. M. (2013). The impact of pretend play on children’s development: A review of the evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 139(1), 1–34. Miller, A., and Miller, E. E. (1989). From ritual to repertoire: A cognitive-developmental systems approach with behavior-disordered children. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Panksepp, J. (2010). The basic affective circuits of mammalian brains: Implications for healthy human development and the cultural landscapes of ADHD. In Carol M. Worthman, Paul M. Plotsky, Daniel S. Schechter and Constance A. Cummings (Eds.), Formative experiences: The interaction of caregiving, culture, and developmental psychobiology (pp. 470–501).New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Pellis, S. M., and Pellis, V. C. (2014). Play and the socially competent brain. Interaction, 28, 20. Pellis, S. M., Pellis, V. C., and Reinhart, C. J. (2010). The evolution of social play. In Carol M. Worthman, Paul M. Plotsky, Daniel S. Schechter and Constance A. Cummings (Eds.), Formative experiences: The interaction of caregiving, culture, and developmental psychobiology (pp. 404–431). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Prizant, B. M., Wetherby, A. M., and Rydell, P. J. (2000). Communication intervention issues for young children with autism spectrum disorders. In A. M. Wetherby and B. M. Prizant (Eds.), Autism spectrum disorders: A transactional developmental perspective (pp. 193–224). Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes Publishing Co. Rogers, S. J. (2000). Interventions that facilitate socialization in children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 30(5), 399–408. Savina, E. (2014). Does play promote self-regulation in children? Early Child Development and Care, 184(11), 1692–1705.

393

Sonia Mastrangelo Singer, D. G., and Singer, J. L. (1990). The house of make-believe: Play and the developing imagination. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Tsakiris, E. (2000). Evaluating Effective Interventions for Children with Autism and Related Disorders: Widening the View and Changing the Perspective. In ICDL Clinical Practice Guidelines: Redefining the Standards of Care for Infants, Children, and Families with Special Needs (pp. 725–817). Bethesda, Maryland: Interdisciplinary Council on Developmental and Learning Disorders. Ungerer, J. A., and Sigman, M. (1981). Symbolic play and language comprehension in autistic children. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 20, 318–337. Vieillevoye, S., and Nader-Grosbois, N. (2008). Self-regulation during pretend play in children with intellectual disability and in normally developing children. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 29(3), 256–272. Vygotsky, L. (1997). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky, vol. 4: The history of the development of higher mental functions. Ed. Robert W. Rieber, Trans. Marie J. Hall, Preface Joseph Glick. New York, NY: Plenum Press. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. (1966). Play and its role in the mental development of the child. Soviet Psychology, 12, 6–18. (Original work published in 1933.) Watson, L. R., Baranek, G. T., and DiLavore, P. (2003). Toddlers with autism: Developmental perspectives. Infants and Young Children, 16(3), 201–214. Wieder, S., and Greenspan, S. I. (2003). Climbing the symbolic ladder in the DIR model through floor time/interactive play. Autism: The International Journal of Research and Practice, 7(4), 425–435. Williams, E. (2003). A comparative review of early forms of object–directed play and parent– infant play in typical infants and young children with autism. Autism: The International Journal of Research and Practice, 7(4), 361–377. Zercher, C., Hunt, P., Schuler, A., and Webster, J. (2001). Increasing joint attention, play and language through peer supported play. Autism: The International Journal of Research and Practice, 5(4), 374–398.

394

28 Musical play and play through music in early childhood Adam Ockelford and Angela Voyajolu

Introductory statement Play is central to young children’s engagement with music, and music can form an important strand in many other forms of play. This chapter investigates children’s musical play and play through music, viewed through the lens of the Sounds of Intent in the Early Years framework of musical development, drawing on case studies to illustrate the points that are made.

Introduction Alice, aged four, is at home in the garden with her father’s guitar resting on her legs. She strums the open strings, singing her own version of Sleeping Bunnies to her little brother, Sam, who is lying down. Alice exclaims ‘Wake up bunnies!’ and sings ‘Hop little bunnies, hop, hop, hop’. Sam, aged two-anda-half, stands up as Alice declares ‘My turn!’ and the children exchange roles. Music is an intrinsic part of Alice’s life and this is vividly apparent in her world of play. As in the Sleeping Bunnies scenario, she often incorporates familiar songs as she engages in pretend play with others, as well as when she is on her own. In addition to her singing, since she was a few months old, Alice has enjoyed experimenting with the variety of instruments that are available in her toy box at home, relishing their sensory qualities, and testing out what they can do through exploratory play. She also responds actively to the music that she is exposed to in different environments. For example, she likes to watch her favourite internet videos of children’s songs at home, following the actions and singing along – a twenty-first century form of social play, giving her skills and knowledge that she will be able to take with her into the nursery and helping her to interact with other children. While out and about she dances joyfully to recorded music heard in a shop with her mother, pretending to be a pop star. Each of these snapshots contributes to a 395

Adam Ockelford and Angela Voyajolu

picture of Alice’s engagement with the different manifestations of music in her life, and how play is a vital part of every one. Various perspectives have been taken as researchers have sought to understand and analyse children’s musical play. It is likely to be self-initiated (Countryman, 2014), spontaneous and may well involve social interaction (Marsh and Young, 2016). That is, it may well comprise activities that children initiate of their own accord in which they may choose to participate with others voluntarily. Like other modes of play, these activities are enjoyable, intrinsically motivated, and controlled by the players. They are free of externally imposed rules, but may involve rules developed by the children who are playing. They are ‘everyday’ forms of musical activity. (Marsh and Young, 2016: 462) Similarly, Lagerlöf (2015: 304) explores musical play through a socio-cultural lens, following the view that ‘music is not seen as an individual capacity but as something relational, a set of practices constituted between people with different forms of cultural tools’ and refers to Vygotsky’s understanding of play as a process in which we use something already familiar in a new way. Others have focused on factors that may encourage or inhibit children’s musical play within the context of parent and child music sessions. Strategies such as allowing children the time and space to be themselves, and offering them the resources to encourage exploration are likely to promote self-directed play. Contrast this with music sessions that solely impose ‘traditional’ musical materials on children and that involve correcting ‘mistakes’, which may ultimately suppress a child’s musical imagination (Berger and Cooper, 2007: 9). Clearly, a balance is important: the greater children’s cultural knowledge, the more internalised information they will have from which they can develop their own ideas. But children develop an understanding of music by experimenting with it, by playing with it – by taking fragmentary musical ideas and joining them together in original ways, creating what Helmut Moog (1968) termed ‘potpourri’ songs. These are not imperfect renditions of the models that adults provide. They are not ‘mistakes’. They are children’s way of working out how music works. Koops (2012) also found that adult involvement such as ‘requesting’ may inhibit a child’s spontaneous playing through music, while the availability of objects such as instruments and toys, the inclusion of pretend play, and an environment set up for free play, each had a positive impact. Furthermore, a difference was seen for some children in that creative musical free play was observed at home, but not at nursery. To be creative, children need to feel relaxed and confident, and to know that their efforts will be appreciated, however far they may seem to be from the musical exemplars that adults provide. Indeed, singing has been identified as an important element in family play (Mang, 2005; Barrett, 2011; Trehub and Gudmondsdottir, 2017). Susan Young is among those who have studied children’s exploration and manipulation of instruments during free play. For example, she found that collaborative instrumental play between peers primarily occurred through non-verbal social 396

Musical play and play through music

interaction and involved processes such as the imitation and expansion of musical ideas. She observed that the ‘processes of musical collaboration; the ability to entrain, to match rhythm and dynamic intensity, to follow and anticipate’ are often overlooked in more formal educational contexts, and suggests that these characteristics of social and interactive engagement should be given more prominence (Young, 2008: 9). Taking all these studies into account, here we will take a fresh approach to exploring children’s musical play using the Sounds of Intent in the Early Years framework of musical development.

Sounds of Intent in the Early Years The aim of the Sounds of Intent in the Early Years (SoI-EY) project is to better understand young children’s musical engagement and development in all its forms and contexts (Voyajolu and Ockelford, 2016). The primary source of data for SoI-EY has been hundreds of observations of children in the early years engaging in musical activity, while its theoretical underpinning derives from ‘zygonic theory’ (Ockelford, 2013; Ockelford and Voyajolu, 2016), which seeks to explain how music makes sense to us all, quite intuitively (Ockelford, 2017). SoI-EY is related to an earlier project simply called Sounds of Intent (SoI) (Ockelford, 2008; Vogiatzoglou, Ockelford, Welch and Himonides, 2011), which focuses on the musical engagement of children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities. The SoI framework illustrates how children develop musically by setting out six levels of musical development. Four of these (2, 3, 4 and 5) usually occur within the early years. We call them: Level 2 – ‘Sounds interesting’ Level 3 – ‘Copy me, copy you’ Level 4 – ‘Bits of pieces’ Level 5 – ‘Whole songs, in time and in tune’

Level 2 Sounds interesting Within this level of musical development, babies and young children react to an increasing variety of sounds, learn to make sounds themselves and interact with others using sound. In the three months before birth babies can already hear internal and external sounds within the womb and respond in utero to sounds such as their mother’s voice, speech and music (DeCasper et al., 1994; Lecanuet, 1996; Kisilevsky and Hains, 2011). Babies playfully explore the vocal sounds they can make from birth – expressing their needs, cooing and babbling on their own and with others.They scrutinise objects using all their senses – including hearing – as well as responding to the sounds which surround them (Papoušek, 1996;Trevarthen, 2007; Mampe et al., 2009; Wermke and Mende, 2009). This playful exploration – our human curiosity – continues through infancy and even into adulthood (Ockelford, 2013).

397

Adam Ockelford and Angela Voyajolu

Level 3 Copy me, copy you Building on Sounds interesting, children’s musical play gradually enters a new phase, as infants start to enjoy copying others and being copied. They begin to listen to and create patterns in sound, anticipating what may happen next. We hear this in babies’ distinct, repeated vocal patterns when babbling (Papoušek and Papoušek, 1989; Papoušek, 1996). Infants are also capable of imitating pitches (Kessen et al., 1979), pitch contours (Kuhl and Meltzoff, 1982) and vowel-like harmonic resonances (Legerstee, 1990). Children re-create patterns of sounds they hear in the environment and make their own patterns of sound with everyday objects or instruments as well as with their voices. Countryman, Gabriel and Thompson (2015), in their work on spontaneous vocal play, provide examples of children ages seven, eight and twelve engaging in ‘musical repetition’, which corresponds to the notion of pattern suggested here.This illustrates how the SoI-EY levels overlap and continue through a child’s maturation; one does not replace another, it builds on it.

Level 4 Bits of pieces Here, children learn that music is made up of distinctive groups of notes, that psychologists call ‘chunks’. Children sing short themes from nursery rhymes or familiar jingles that they have heard; or they may combine them to make up their own songs; they create their own short melodies too – the ‘potpourri’ songs mentioned above. This playful creativity in singing has long been documented in the literature, from Moog (1968), to Hargreaves (1986) and, more recently, Welch (2006). Children are quite likely to create these songs while they appear to be concentrating on something else; playing with toys or looking at pictures or play make-believe games. Mang (2005: 10) observes that even children’s ‘learned songs . . . were seldom rendered in their complete form’, but were modified playfully and spontaneously according to a child’s feelings and ideas of the moment.

Level 5 Whole songs, in time and in tune Through exposure to thousands of hours of music, children in the early years learn that the music of their culture tends to use the same underlying patterns of notes over and over again. As children are better able to control their voices and develop a feel for the regular ‘beat’ in music, they begin to sing and play in time and in tune on their own and with others. It has been suggested that children’s ability to sing in tune occurs at approximately the age of five (Hargreaves, 1986). However, other studies suggest that this ability may present itself sooner depending on the richness of the musical environment to which a child is exposed (Tafuri, 2008) and where the singing takes place. For example, Trehub and Gudmondsdottir (2017) note that children’s ability to sing in tune may be more apparent in the natural environment of the home, where the mother acts as musical mentor for her child – scaffolding the infant’s efforts in an intimate setting.

398

Musical play and play through music

Beyond these levels (2, 3, 4 and 5), Sounds of Intent Level 1 can be observed in the context of children and young people with profound learning difficulties, some of whom appear to make no response to sound, while Level 6 represents musical ‘maturity’, a phase that usually occurs during adolescence. Here, young people become fully aware of the social impact of music and its place within wider culture. As well as the four levels of musical development, the SoI-EY framework sets out three ways in which children engage with music. These are reactive (listening and responding to sound and music), proactive (making sound and music on their own) and interactive (musical engagement that occurs with others). The SoI-EY framework can be illustrated as a set of concentric circles divided into three segments, one for each domain (reactive, proactive and interactive). Level 1 of the framework is innermost and Level 6 is on the outside (see Figure 28.1).

Figure 28.1 The Sounds of Intent Early Years framework of musical development

399

Adam Ockelford and Angela Voyajolu

The levels within the framework are specifically not age-related. The SoI-EY model is intended to encourage those working with and caring for young children to open their ears and listen to how children engage with music, free from any preconceptions as to what abilities are likely to emerge when. As an example: our own research suggests that some children can engage with music at Level 5 as early as 18 months; however, for others this may not occur until the age of 6 or 7. The main factor in this variability appears to be the richness of the musical experiences that children are offered – something that other researchers have observed, notably Tafuri (2008). Additionally, as Trehub and Gudmondsdottir (2017) show, the way that children engage with music is highly dependent on context.

Observing musical play through the lens of Sounds of Intent in the Early Years The SoI-EY framework can be used to gauge a child’s level of musical development within any context and activity, whether at home, in care or education, within structured and unstructured situations, including free play; each observation adding to an understanding of a child’s way of engaging with music. The following are examples of observations taken within the first phase of the Sounds of Intent in the Early Years project (Voyajolu and Ockelford, 2016). These examples focus on musical play both in the context of child-initiated spontaneous activity as well as scenarios in which an adult scaffolds musical play to guide children in their learning and musical engagement. Building blocks in sound A three-year-old girl, Emma, is playing outside in the garden of the nursery on her own building a tower out of wooden blocks. As she builds, she sings fragments of two songs – ‘Roly, poly, roly, poly, up, up, up’ and ‘The wheels on the bus’, connecting them together – a ‘Level 4’ activity in terms of the SoI-EY framework. This is the Sounds of Intent level where, perhaps, musical play is most readily apparent. Emma is playing with the musical materials just as she is playing with the blocks – assembling them in different ways for her own interest and amusement. What lessons can we draw from Emma’s example? First, that play involving manipulating and reconfiguring materials is not limited to physical objects – sounds will do just as well. Indeed, playing with musical materials is important since it engages children in planning over time, in sequencing that uses memory and anticipation. Second, that this type of ephemeral play is all too easy to overlook. Early Years Practitioners can immediately see the pile of blocks that Emma has created, but unless they were observing carefully over a period of time, would they have noticed her musical creation, which was produced in parallel with the block tower? And third, would they have regarded Emma’s song as an immature version of nursery rhymes that she had been taught, or would they celebrate it for what it is: a piece of new musical invention – perfect in its own right and on its own terms? 400

Musical play and play through music

Constructing sounds from Lego An 18-month-old boy, Luca, and two friends, supported by an Early Years Practitioner, are playing with some pieces of Lego, turning them over and over and seeing how they can fit together. Then, by accident, Luca knocks one piece against another, and suddenly a whole new world of possibilities opens up! With a few seconds the friends have made a Lego percussion band. What does the Early Years Practitioner do? It would be all too easy to ‘correct’ the boys, indicating that Lego is not intended to be used as a soundmaker. But no, taking a base piece in one hand and a brick in another, she shows them how to make a range of scraping sounds. The boys try to copy her, some with more success than others! The game goes on for 10 minutes, as different sounds are made and combined and copied. In terms of levels of musical development, the boys’ exploration of the sounding qualities of everyday objects in a new way shows engagement at SoI-EY Level 2, while copying and taking turns indicates interaction at Level 3. What does this scenario tell us about musical play? First, that what constitutes ‘music’ to children’s ears may be rather broader than adults’ usual definition. But for young children, the objects in their world make up a potential orchestra – and the sound of scraping Lego may be no less attractive than that of a commercially produced ‘guiro’, for example. Second, that by entering a child’s arena of musical play, it can be celebrated and extended (rather than curtailed). And third, many different abilities and types of understanding, from fine motor skills to social interaction, can be rehearsed effortlessly through musical play. Cardboard tubes, loudhailers and sirens A small group of boys and girls aged around three-and-a-half are playing with short lengths of cardboard tube that are wide enough for them to use as pretend loudhailers. One of the children starts to make siren sounds, neenaw, nee-naw, and soon the room is full of the sound of fire engines and police cars as everyone joins in (SoI-EY, Level 4). Then the sirens become a chant, and a new song emerges as the children march round in time with their musical creation. (SoI-EY, Level 5). This snapshot shows how readily musical sounds can be the catalyst for pretend play, and can feed the imagination just as effectively as visual images. It also shows that, for young children, musical sounds in the environment (the sirens) are grist to their creative mill, and that they can shift effortlessly from the symbolic meaning of sound (a fire engine is coming) to the same motif used purely to make abstract patterns of melody that constitute a song. It is important for adults to recognise the fluidity of children’s thinking, and to resist pigeonholing what they do into boxes that are convenient for assessment. Sometimes, it can be the very flexibility of thought that occurs in musical play that can be the most important thing.

401

Adam Ockelford and Angela Voyajolu

Playing without words A three-year-old girl, India, is playing with a boy of similar age, Jamie. The two children are sitting next to each other in the garden and they each have a drum. India taps her drum with a beater then reaches over and shows Jamie how to do the same with his drum. Why does she do that? Because she knows that language doesn’t work for Jamie. He is on the autism spectrum and is developmentally delayed. India begins to play again, and the Jamie watches carefully and copies. After a time it seems that he is taking the lead. He stops and then she stops. He starts again, and she follows him (SoI-EY, Levels 3 and 4). The game continues for three or four minutes. Then the boy stands up abruptly, and marches off banging his drum. India follows him. Here, a rich social interaction has occurred without a word having been spoken. Music is the medium of the children’s communication, and through it they can show understanding and even empathy; they can exert an influence on one another and cede or take control. Music enables children to play together who may otherwise be isolated. It is the perfect medium of social inclusion, an activity that all Early Years Practitioners should feel comfortable to encourage and utilise in supporting groups of children with diverse abilities and needs. For children who come to early years provision in the UK without knowing English, music can be the perfect playful activity in which they can participate on equal terms immediately.

Linking a developmental model of play with the Sounds of Intent in the Early Years framework Taking these case studies into account, it is possible to map the SoI-EY musicdevelopmental framework onto stages in the evolution of different styles and kinds of play in the early years (see Figure 28.2). Level 2, ‘Sounds interesting’ corresponds to exploratory, sensorimotor play, when it is the qualities of objects that are important. Level 3, ‘Copy me, copy you’ equates to early social and early symbolic play, when imitation is paramount. Level 4, ‘Bits of pieces’ matches ‘construction’ play and ‘pretend’, when children enjoy making things, and imagining that they and their creations can be something else. Finally, Level 5, ‘Whole songs, in time and in tune’ reads across to ‘conventional’ play – ‘games with rules’ – when learnt customs and ways of doing things prevail. It is important to appreciate that the stages of play that are identified are found both within musical play, and may also occur as elements in other types of play. For example, in the scenario above, the children’s siren sounds, which started out as musical imitation, soon became a part of a wider game in which the children pretended to be fire engines. And children with delayed language or with problems in understanding social situations may well be able to engage in more advanced musical play than in other forms of play that require language or the ability to read social situations in the complex flow of a nursery. 402

Figure 28.2  Mapping the development of play onto the Sounds of Intent Early Years framework

Adam Ockelford and Angela Voyajolu

Conclusion: recommendations for promoting playful music-making and playing through music In conclusion, we would like to make a series of simple recommendations that will promote both musical play and play through music. 1

2

3

4

5

6

Ensure children have access to a range of musical instruments and other everyday sound-makers to encourage exploration and free play. Practitioners can discreetly model this for children who find taking the initiative challenging. Celebrate whatever the children offer in their music-making: the way that children come to understand music is through playful experimentation and manipulation of the musical ideas that they hear in the environment; don’t treat their efforts as imperfect attempts to reproduce what adults do. Be broad-minded in what constitutes ‘music’: for young children, the world is a band waiting to be played. Give them the time and space – inside and outside – to relish the sound making properties of everyday objects, and to utilise the musical sounds that abound in the environment. Recognise musical play whenever and wherever it occurs. It may be less obvious, less tangible, than paintings or creations made out of cardboard, but it is no less important for the children concerned and no less creative. Capture the children’s efforts on video for them to enjoy in the days, months and years to come. They will be very proud of their efforts! Use musical play as the glue of social inclusion, particularly for children who find language problematic (through being on the autism spectrum, for example) or who are in the early stages of learning English. Music can scaffold language development by offering predictable patterns of rhythmic speech. For some children, music can even serve as a proxy for language, fulfilling the role that words would otherwise do. Above all, enter as a willing participant into children’s musical play. We are all musical, and none of us loses the early instinct to play in the domain of sound. To play with the qualities of sounds and the patterns they can make is a key part of our human heritage. Have fun!

References Barrett, M., 2011. Musical narratives: A study of a young child’s identity work in and through music-making. Psychology of Music, 39 (4), 403–423. Berger, A., and Cooper, S., 2007. Musical play: a case study of preschool children and parents. Journal of Research in Music Education, 51 (2), 151. Countryman, J., 2014. Missteps, flaws and morphings in children’s musical play: Snapshots from school playgrounds. Research Studies in Music Education, 36 (1), 3–18. Countryman, J., Gabriel, M., and Thompson, K., 2016. Children’s spontaneous vocalisations during play: aesthetic dimensions. Music Education Research, 18 (1), 1–19. DeCasper, A., Lecanuet, J., Busnel, M.-C., Granier-Deferre, C., and Maugeais, R., 1994. Fetal reactions to recurrent maternal speech. Infant Behavior and Development, 17 (2), 159–164.

404

Musical play and play through music Hargreaves, D., 1986. The developmental psychology of music. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kessen, W., Levine, J., and Wendrich, K. A., 1979. The imitation of pitch in infants. Infant Behavior and Development, 2, 93–99. Kisilevsky, B. S., and Hains, S. M. J., 2011. Onset and maturation of fetal heart rate response to the mother’s voice over late gestation. Developmental Science, 14 (2), 214–223. Koops, L., 2012 Music Play Zone ll: Deepening parental empowerments to be music guides for their young children. Early Childhood Education Journal, 40(6), 333–314. Kuhl, P. K. and Meltzoff, A. N., 1982. The bimodal perception of speech in infancy. Science, 218 (4577), 1138–1141. Lagerlöf, P., 2015. Musical make-believe playing: three preschoolers collaboratively initiating play ‘in-between’. Early Years, 35 (3), 303–316. Lecanuet, J.-P., 1996. Prenatal Auditory Experience. In: I. Deliège and J. Sloboda, eds. Musical Beginnings: Origins and Development of Musical Competencies. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–25. Legerstee, M., 1990. Infants use multimodal information to imitate speech sounds. Infant Behavior and Development, 13, 343–354. Mampe, B., Friederici, A., Christophe, A., and Wermke, K., 2009. Newborns’ cry melody is shaped by their native language. Current biology : CB, 19 (23), 1994–1997. Mang, E., 2005. The referent of children’s early songs. Music Education Research, 7 (1), 3–20. Marsh, K., and Young, S., 2016. Musical Play. In: G. E. McPherson, ed. The Child as musician: A handbook of musical development. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 462–484. Moog, H., 1968. The Musical Experiences of the Pre-School Child. London: Schott. Ockelford, A., 2008. Music for Children and Young People with Complex Needs. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ockelford, A., 2013. Applied Musicology: Using Zygonic Theory to Inform Music Education, Therapy, and Psychology Research. New York: Oxford University Press. Ockelford, A., 2017. Comparing Notes: How We Make Sense of Music. London: Profile Books. Ockelford, A., and Voyajolu, A., 2017. The development of music-structural cognition in the early years: a new study offering a perspective from zygonic theory. In: G. Welch and A. Ockelford, eds. New Approaches to Analysis in Music Psychology and Education Research using Zygonic Theory. London: Routledge. Papoušek, M., 1996. Intuitive parenting: a hidden source of musical stimulation in infancy. In: I. Deliège and J. Sloboda, eds. Musical Beginnings: Origins and Development of Musical Competencies. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 88–112. Papoušek, M., and Papoušek, H., 1989. Forms and functions of vocal matching in interactions between mothers and their precanonical infants. First Language, 9, 137–157. Tafuri, J., 2008. Infant musicality: New research for educators and parents. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Limited. Trehub, S. E., and Gudmondsdottir, H. R., 2017. Mothers as singing mentors for infants. In: G. Welch, D. M. Howard, and J. Nix, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Singing. New Yorl: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–20. Trevarthen, C., 2007. First things first: infants make good use of the sympathetic rhythm of imitation, without reason or language. Journal of Child Psychotherapy, 31 (1), 91–113. Vogiatzoglou, A., Ockelford, A., Welch, G., and Himonides, E., 2011. Sounds of Intent: Interactive Software to Assess the Musical Development of Children and Young People With Complex Needs. Music and Medicine, 3 (3), 189–195. Voyajolu, A., and Ockelford, A., 2016. Sounds of Intent in the Early Years: A proposed framework of young children’s musical development. Research Studies in Music Education, 38 (1), 93–113.

405

Adam Ockelford and Angela Voyajolu Welch, G., 2006. The musical development and education of young children. In B. Spodek and O. Saracho (eds), Handbook of research on the education of young children. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 251–267. Wermke, K., and Mende, W., 2009. Musical elements in human infants’ cries: In the beginning is the melody. Musicae Scientiae, 13 (2 Suppl), 151–175. Young, S., 2008. Collaboration between 3- and 4-year-olds in self-initiated play on instruments. International Journal of Educational Research, 47 (1), 3–10.

406

Index

accessible play activity 108–10 access rituals 217–18 accidents 177 ‘acoustic resonance’ (Pickering) 213 acting 251 action games 205–6 action play (a) 186 actions 49, 117 activation 361 active engagement 277–8 active physical play 170, 176 see also risk-taking ‘active’ pretend players 333 see also pretend play activity theory 342 actual objects (toys and materials) 90 adaptational actions 187 adaptational constraints 187 ‘adoption of a role’ 51–2, 52–3 adult-as-trolls 145–6 adult guidance 28, 30–1, 284 adult intervention 177, 230–1, 249–50 adults: building trust 144; imagination 61; imitating 51; models of action 73; playing as ‘manipulation’ 138; real/model 52; role in play 10–11, 138, 230–1, 248–9; ‘step into’ children’s play 233; supporting new activities 336 advanced make-believe play 71–4 “adventures of the microworld” (big book) 294–5 adventure stories 93–4 adventurous play 89, 169–71 see also risk-taking

aesthetics of play 62–5 affective-motor reaction 48 agency 277–8 Age-Related Changes (ARCs) 202 aggression 170 agonistic play 194, 195 Aitken, K. J. 199 Akhutina, T.V. 369 aliens (imaginative play) 129–30 Amabile, T. M. 329 Analysing Children’s Creative Thinking (ACCT) 330–2, 335 Angela (child) 231, 236–42 animal intelligence 198 Anna (EC teacher) 153–5, 159–61, 165 anxiety 36–7 apes: developmental trajectories 72; symbolic or representative actions 342 see also chimpanzees; primates arguing 116, 140 Ariel, S. 247 Aronsson, K. 290 art: as expression 126; and imaginative play 132–3 art activities 127–9 “as if ” communication 72 Aspelin, J. 268, 269 assessment processes 98–100 asymmetrical power relationships 143 attention deficit disorders 104–5 auditory information processing 366–8 Australian digital playworlds 290–301 ‘authoritarian’ voices 138 see also monologic meaning-making

407

Index autism spectrum disorders (ASD) 376–92; cognitive developmental approach 390; DSM-V classification 376–7; hypersensitivity 379–80; hyposensitivity 379–80; multiple incoming sensations 381; peer play 384–5; play activities 105; pretend play 384; self-regulation 383; sensory dysfunction 379–80; social interaction and reciprocity deficit 384; spontaneous floor-time play sessions 386–90 “autistic” (Piaget) 61n1 automatic ‘reflex’ responses 202 Autonomous University of Puebla (BUAP) 97, 103–5 autonomy 11, 42–3, 174–5, 177 Aversive category (SPAFF) 221 awareness of inner processes 55 Ayres, J. 381 Azukarihoiku (leaving care programme, Japan) 280–1 Baba Yaga folk tale playworld 64–5, 66 baby songs 205–6 baddy roles 15 Bakhtin, M. M. 138, 141 baking a cake activity 23 Baldwin, James Mark 210–11 Ball, D. 178 Bateson, Mary Catherine 203 Baumeister, R. F. 383 behavioral approaches 377–8 Behaviourist conception 340–1 Bennet, J. 262–3 Bergen, D. 334 Berlyne, D. E. 129 Bernstein, Nikolai 200 Bertram, A. D. 10 Best Practices in School Neuropsychology (Flanagan) 358 Bettelheim, B. 34 ‘Big C’ creativity 329 see also creativity Bilton, H. 177 Birdwhistell, Ray 200, 209 Birth to Three Matters (2002 England) 12 Bjørkvold, J.-R. 209–10 Björk-Willén, P. 290 Blyton, Enid 292, 293 Bodrova, E. 152, 250, 295, 363 body movements 199–200 Bogota (Colombia) 114 Bondioli, A. 249 Boston Process Change Study Group 212 boundaries 14, 171

Bowlby, John 212 boy triads 220 Bozhovich, L. I. 73–4, 285 Bradley, B. S. 219 brainstem 199 Brazelton, T. Berry 202, 212 Bredikyte, M. 16, 111, 231, 232, 233 Broadhead, P. 165–6 Brown, S. 382 Bruce, T. 11, 35, 248 Bruner, Jerome 13, 121, 139, 171, 211, 213, 284 Buber, Martin 268 “bugs and their transformations” theme (Ibi kindergarten) 132 “bugs in question” (“Hatena-Mushi” Ibi kindergarten) 132 building models 371 Building the Ambition (2014 Scotland) 12 Burman, J. T. 382 Caillois, Roger 23 California Preschool Curriculum Framework (California Department of Education 2010) 26 ‘can-do’ attitudes 172 Canning, N. 335 care policies 262–3 causality 39 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 376–7 centre-based childcare 25 Centre for Early Childhood Education and Care (Nintei Kodomoen, Japan) 278 challenging play 168–79 “Change Man” drawing (Michi) 127–8 character toys 233, 237, 309 ‘child-adult’ relationship 50, 52 ‘child-centred’ philosophy (Isaacs) 36 child development: advanced make-believe play 71–4; mature forms of play 152; and play 81; pretend play 55–6, 70–82; self-regulation 56; symbolic play 47–8, 343 child-initiated play activities 104 child initiatives 109 ‘child-object’ 50 children: assessing risks 178–9; concept of self 235; as culture and knowledge creators 266; divorced from a “real” world 268; imagination 61; “must” and “want” contradiction 74; not able to play 250; picking sides in football 24; playing with adults 138; playing without adults

408

Index 50; real and virtual play 290; relating to adults 235; relationship with objective world 48; role model 53; social relationships 17; stubbornness 73; substituting actions 51 children-centred care and education (Jiyu-Hoiku) 126 chimpanzees: and children 183–95; ludic development 195; use of four hands 186; vocalization 185 see also apes; primates circular pattern of social influence 219 ‘circular reactions’ (Baldwin) 211 Cities game 367 ‘classic’ role play 232 ‘closed’ toys 95 close up field of view play (cu fov) 186 co-existence 268 cognitive approaches 340 cognitive development: ASD 390; and games 359–72; more important than play 95; play dependent on 381; systemic thinking 322 cognitive-explorative activities 308–9 see also experimenting cognitive flexibility 152, 362, 364, 365 cognitive motivation 348 Cole, M. 60, 269 collaborative inclusive dialogic spaces 148 collaborative play 274–87; imaginary situations 291, 298–301; problem solving 283–4 Collard, P. 329 collective games 359 collective play 121, 281 see also role play colluding 243 collusion in the imaginary situation 231, 243–4 Colombia 114 Comenius (John Amos Komensky) 210 ‘common sense’ (Donaldson) 200 communication 113, 209 ‘communicative musicality’ (Malloch and Trevarthen) 200, 205 communities, role of in developmental stages 75 community-minded behavior 14 comparative primatology 211 see also apes; chimpanzees; primates competition 198 ‘compliant’ monologic interactions 140 computerized games 279 concentration 39 conceptual role play 316–19, 325–6 configurations (triadic play) 224–5 Congo (chimpanzee) 185

connectedness (Froebel) 28 consciousness of self 103 Construct the figure game 370–1 containers 40 content of play activities 55, 316, 347, 348–50, 351 contexts 332–3 ‘contingency’ (timing) 205 continuous motion 189–90 continuous verbal commentaries 39 contradictions 47, 55–6, 301–2 control 14–16, 23 conversational interviews 155 ‘conversational model’ (Meares & Hobson) 213 conversations 113, 200 convivial play 200, 209 cooperative activities 76, 198, 310 see also games; social relationships cooperative awareness (Secondary Intersubjectivity) 209 co-regulation of actions 251 see also self-regulation Corsaro, W. A. 170, 217–18 Cousins, J. 36–7 creating a scenario (narrative) 152 creative acts 59–60 creative pedagogy of play (Lindqvist) 63 creative thinking 328–37; and creativity 328–9; definition 329; frequency in activities 331; playing outdoors 334–5; pretend play 333; and risk 172 creativity 328–37; ‘Big C’/‘little c’ 329; and creative thinking 328–9; definition 329; group play 335–7; and imagination 60, 121; and intervention 121; and pretend play 333; priority for education 337; problem-solving 334; and relationships 335–7 see also imaginative play cross-cultural projects 66 “crystallized imagination” (Vygotsky) 60 cultivation of critical consciousness 31 cultural development theory (Vygotsky) 74 cultural devices 294, 298, 299–300, 331 cultural experiences 306 cultural historical psychology 341–2 cultural historical theory 46–56; comparative studies 70–1; mental development 305–6; periods of child development 343; and play 47; play as culturally mediated activity 108; play skills and inborn abilities 250; structure of activities 250, 345–6 cultural ideal forms 76 cultural learning 200

409

Index cultural life 200 cultural meaning 201 cultural research 248 cultural tools 305 see also toys curiosity 36–7 Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage (QCA) 12 curriculum policies 12, 25–6 Cyprus, Educational Reform (ER) 152 David-as-Spiderman (4 year old) 137–41 Davies, D. 334, 335, 336 Davydov,V.V. 319, 351 day care centres 278 deceleration 193–4 Deci, E. 42–3 deep play 12, 169, 194 democracy 31 Denmark 25 dependence 48, 102 detachment process (triadic relational dynamics) 226 Developing Play for the Under 3s (Hughes) 36–7 development: assessments 24, 98–100; changes affecting play 208; early childhood (3 to 6 years) 120, 342–5; of play 54, 248–9; play action 307; role of communities 75; spontaneous, self-driven process 341; of thinking 285 developmental discourses 29–31 Developmental, Individual-Difference, Relationship-Based Model (DIR, FloortimeTM) 386–90 Developmentally Appropriate Practice (2009 NAEYC)) 26 developmental movement play project (Greenland) 170 developmental (narrative) play pedagogy 246 developmental psychobiology 199–200 developmental psychology 222 developmental science 29–30, 31 developmental stages 75 developmental trajectory of interactive subjects in childhood 73 Development Matters (Early Education) 172 Dewey, J. 286 dialectic relationships 62 dialogic experiences 138 ‘dialogic imagination’ (Bakhtin) 138, 140–1 dialogic interactions 138, 141–2 dialogic meaning-making 138, 140–1 dialogic playing 142–4

dialogic spaces 138, 149 dialogizing utterances 147–8 dialogues: of children in roles 103–4; mother-infant 203–5; participation in 102–3; with peers 140; with toys and dolls 102 didactic games 310 digital playworlds 289–302; digital and non-digital resources 289–90; meaning 290; placeholders 294–5; tools 294, 302–3 direct pattern of influence 219 discontinuous motion 189–90 Discovery and Adventure (Hakken to Boken) see Hakken to Boken (Discovery and Adventure) discrepancy (I and other) 53 ‘dizzy play’ (Kalliala) 169–70 Dominoes 371 Donaldson, Margaret 191, 200, 211 double subjectivity 232–3, 247, 301 Dowling, M. 10 drama play (Playshop, Japan) 281 dramatic playing 139–44, 170 dramatizations 277, 281–4, 286, 309 “Drawing and Making” (Kaite Tsukutte Ibi kindergarten) 128–9, 133 dressing up 143 dropping: and falling 190; objects 381–2 DSM-V classifications, ASD 376–7 Dubrovinskaya, N.V. 358 Dweck, C. 171 dyadic organizational state 222 dyadic pattern of influence 219 dyadic relations 216 dynamic changes in social situations 343 dynamic cultural resources 143 see also narratives dynamic emotional regulations of play 205 dynamic non-verbal expressions 212–13 dynamic play 170 dynamic relationship systems 76 dynamic system analysis 82 dysgraphia 366 dyslexia 366 early childcare settings 25 see also kindergartens early child education guidelines (Hoikuyouryou) 278 early childhood (3–6 years): aims of education 341–2; cognitive motivation 348; development 120, 342–5; inner speech 102; as objectified human being

410

Index 54; play development 248–9; pretend symbolic play 47, 87; role play 53; social interaction 343–4 see also infants; play activity early childhood education: care policy reviews 262–3; literature review 151–3; rejecting play 341 early childhood educational activity model 262, 266–7 Early Childhood Education (Bruce) 35 Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS England) 12, 25, 26 “earth, soil, and space” theme (Ibi kindergarten) 129–31 ecologically determined activities 249 ‘edgework’ (Lyng) 169 education: and care settings 337; foundations 211–12; parents’ level 113 educational plays 321–5 Educational Reform (ER), Cyprus 152 effective learners 172 Egan, K. 285 ‘egocentric’ infants/children (Piaget) 108, 211 egocentric speech 102, 343 El’konin, B. D. 62–3, 251 El’konin, D. B.: action, object and word in play 49–50; conceptual relations 316–17; development in play 47–8; historical and ethnographic analysis 47, 71–2; ‘inner trends’ 55; ‘play with social roles’ 342, 344; pretend play studies 91–3; pretend symbolic play 87; role play 231–2, 275, 316; self-regulation 55–6; separating topic and content of play 346–7; situational toys 54; social role relations 75 El’koninova, L. I. 234 Ellis, M. J. 277 Elsa (Frozen Disney) 143 embodied dialogic imagination 143, 144–5 emergence of play activity 52 emergent language 191 Emotional Motor System 199 emotional well-being 171 see also adventurous play emotions 62, 171 empowerment 42 Engagement Scale (Laevers) 10 England: Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage (QCA) 12; Development Matters (Early Education) 172; Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) 12, 25

entrusting processes (triadic relational dynamics) 226 “epigenetic ensemble” (Erikson) 75 epistemology, and aesthetics 133 equilibration 18 ‘ergotropic’ efforts 201–2 Erikson, E. H. 16, 75 ethnographic data 66 European Union 25–6 Eurydice (Eurostat) 25 Evans, J. 334 evolutionary theory of manipulative intelligence 211 exaggerated gestures 170 exaggerations of imagination 62 execution of play activities 110, 348, 349 executive functions 250, 362–3 experimenting 40, 198, 308–9 see also cognitive-explorative activities exploration 129, 131–3, 261, 265–6, 268–70 exploratory activity 267–8 extended dialogic dramatic playing 141–2 external egocentric expressions 343 external orientation 110, 121 external orientation of activity 346 external symbols 351 see also symbolic function extrinsic rewards 277 Eyer, D. 276 facial actions 185, 203 Faculty of Superior Studies Zaragoza (UNAM) 98 failure 37, 310 falling 190, 381–2 fantasy and reality 61 fatigue 361 fear 170–1, 177 features of play (Bruce) 13–18 feeling in control 13–14 feigned aggression 170 Fein, G. 15 Felter, Sarah 142–3, 144 Ferholt, B. 58 Find a bead game 371–2 Finland 230 First, Elsa 15 first (“energy”) unit weakness 361 first-hand experiences 16 five aspects of learning (Hughes) 36 five stages of play (Leong and Bodrova) 152 Flanagan, Dawn 358 Fleer, M. 231

411

Index flexibility 171 flexible innovative approaches 178 FloortimeTM (DIR intervention model) 386–90 foetuses in utero 203 football 24 foot-hands (chimpanzees) 186 formation of mental functions 359–60 formative experimental methods 112–15 foundation of successful learning 361 Fouts, Roger 185 ‘free activities’ 341 freedom with guidance 12 free flow play (Bruce) 13, 18 free play 25–6, 95, 277–8, 360 Freire, P. 31 Freud, Sigmund 212 Froebel Educational Institute 10 Froebel, Friedrich W. A. 26–9, 34; adventurous play outdoors 168; features of play 13–18; free play 277; Gifts and Occupations 15; kindergartens 9; living with children 29; Mother Songs (1920) 17, 28; Movement Games 18; notion of play 28; solitary play 17; unity 27–8 Froebel Nursery Research School 13 Froebel Trust 16 front end of objects 184 front-hands (chimpanzees) 186 functional analysis of social role play 110–11 functional developmental capacities 386 Gaines, E. C. 381 Gajdamaschko, N. 285 Galdikas, Birute 185 Galperin, P.Ya. 109, 111, 112 games 357–72; activities 350; auditory information processing 366–8; and development 309–11, 359–61; executive functions 362–5; and fatigue 361; visual-spatial function 368–72 see also toys Gardner, Alan and Beatrix 185 Garvey, Catherine 13 Gascoyne, Sue 39 ‘genetic epistemology’ (Piaget) 202 “genetic law” (Vygotsky) 74, 81 Gestalt therapy 76–7 ‘gifts’ (Froebel) 15, 27 Gill, T. 178 girl triads 220–1 goal (direction of activity) 346 goats pretend play story 144–8 Golden Key Schools (Russia) 232–3, 235

Goldschmied, Elinor 13, 33–4, 36, 41–3; Key Persons 43; Treasure Basket 38–9 Golinkoff, R. M. 276 Go-No-Go Tasks 363–4 Gopnik, A. 271 gravity 187–8 Green, C. D. 382 Greene, Maxine 140 Greenland, P. 170 Greenspan, S. I. 379, 380, 386–90 grinning 170 group activities 99–100, 335–6 gun play 16 Gypsy mothers 41–2 Hakkarainen, P.: “double subject” 301; narrative play 285, 293; playworlds research 129, 231, 232, 233, 238, 300; psychological tools 298, 302; realistic problem solving 296; social role play 110 Hakken to Boken (Discovery and Adventure) 125–33; art activities 127–9; imaginative play 129–32; play and art 132–3; teacher intervention 128–9 Halliday, Michael 209 hands 186 hands – feet – head games 364–5 Han, M. 30 “Hatena-Mushi” (“bugs in question” Ibi kindergarten) 132 Hay, D. F. 219 Head-to-Toes game 364 health and safety see safety Health and Safety Executive (HSE, UK) 178 ‘helpless’ approach to learning (Dweck) 171 Hendry, L. 171 Henricks, T. S. 23 heterochronic maturation of brain structures 358 heuristic play 13, 39–43 “Hide-and-seek” 360–1 higher mental functions (HMFs) 74–5, 357–61 high scenario role play 164 Hirsh-Pasek, K. 276 Hobson, Robert 213 Hoiku (“early childhood care and education”) 126 Holland, Penny 16 Hollenstein, T. 221 Holzman, L. 275 home-based kindergartens 10 see also kindergartens

412

Index homes 12 Hopkins, W. D. 185 Hopscotch game 369 How Infants Know Minds (Reddy) 206 Hubley, Penelope 206, 209 Hughes, Anita 36–7 Hughes, B. 169 human conscious experience 60 human history 47 human-made objects 60 Human Seriousness of Play (Turner) 200 humour 193–4 Husserl, Edmund 203 Hutt, J. 270 Hutt, S. 177 hyogen (“expression”/“art”) 126 hyper/hyposensitive reactions 379–80 hypothetical thinking 172 Ibi Youchi-En kindergarten (Ibigawa, Japan) 125–34; “bugs in question” (“HatenaMushi”) 132; “Drawing and Making” art class 133; “earth, soil, and space” theme 129–31 identification (I with the other) 53 I know five names . . . game 368 Ilgaz, H. 15–16 Ilienkov, E.V. 351 ‘image toy’ (Smirnova and Ryabkova) 233 imaginary objects 90 imaginary play 231–2 imaginary situations 48, 71, 111, 121, 246, 316–17 imagination 16, 23, 60–2, 121, 130–2, 348 “Imagination and Creativity in Childhood” (2004 Vygotsky) 62–3 “Imagination and its Development in Childhood” (1987 Vygotsky) 61 imaginative play 129–32, 132–3, 170, 247, 248–9, 297–9 see also creativity imitating playful actions 209 improvisation 276 ‘I-myself ’ child-adult relationship 52 inclusive dialogic spaces 146 independent activities 306 individualized educational programs 366 infants: automatic ‘reflex’ responses 202; developmental changes 208; dialogues with mothers 203, 205; dynamic emotional regulations of play 205; playful impulses 209; pre-linguistic grammatical games 203; thrusting objects 184; vestiges

of foot-hands 186 see also early childhood (3–6 years) Infants at Work (film) 43 inflated plastic bubble 299–300 inhibitory control 362, 364, 365 inner speech 101–3 ‘inner trends’ (El’konin) 55 innovative adults 109 innovative thinking 171 see also risk-taking ‘in-role’ adult involvement 233 institutions isolating babies 212 instructions (triadic play) 224–5 instrumental-semiotic processes 46 integrating mechanisms 18 Integrative Action of the Nervous System (Sherrington) 210–11 intelligence 276 intelligent awareness 199 interacting triads 219, 221, 222–3 see also triadic play interactions: and creativity 335–7; movements and sequences 222; with peers 152; role play 90 interactive community 75 interactive space 217–18 internal orientation of activity 346 International Froebel Society Conference (Kassel 2016) 12 International Play Association (IPA) 316 International Playworld Network (IPWN) 65 interpersonal consciousness 203 interpretive reproduction approach (Corsaro) 217 interpsychic form of action 46 interpsychological social relationships 74–5 ‘inter-subjective’ awareness 203 intimate playfulness 203 ‘intrinsic motivation hypothesis’ (Amabile) 329 Intrinsic Motive Formation (IMF) 199 “intuitive thinking” (Bozhovich) 285 intuitive values in play 201 invitation to the ball game 365 Isaacs, Susan 34, 36, 168 Ishikawa, F. 219 isolating babies 212 Japan 125–33; “art” (hyogen “expression”) 126; Azukarihoiku (leaving care programme) 280–1; Child Welfare Act 280; computerized games 279; curriculum guidelines 126; day care centres 278; early

413

Index child education guidelines (Hoikuyouryou) 278; early childhood settings 279–80; Hakken to Boken (Discovery and Adventure) 125–33; Jiyu-Hoiku (children-centred care and education) 126; kindergarten adult–child ratios 280; kindergartens 125, 278; Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology 126; popular play 278–9; pretend play 279 Johnston, P. 141 joining process (triadic relational dynamics) 226 joint activities 309–10 see also games joint play actions (sovokupnie igravie deistviya) 75 joint playworlds 58–67 joint role actions 80 joint role play 243 see also role play joking 193–4 Jung, Carl 212–13 Kaite Tsukutte (“Drawing and Making” Ibi kindergarten) 128–9, 133 Kalliala, M. 10, 12, 169–70 Karlstad (Sweden) 263 key persons 43 kindergartens: adult–child ratios 154, 280; home-based 10; Japan 278, 280; locating play 29; Moscow 90–5; New Zealand 169; university-based 154 kindergarten training colleges 9–10 ‘kinesics’ (Birdwhistell) 200 kinesthetic information processing 366 Kinney, P. 15 Kloep, M. 171 known objects 275 Koestler, Arthur 193 Köhler, Wolfgang 72 Komensky, John Amos (Comenius) 210 Koops, L. 396 Korczac, Janusz 34–5 Kravtsova, E. E. 232–3, 235, 247, 301 Kravtsov, G. G. 232, 235, 247, 301 labelling of topics 209–10 Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition (LCHC, UC San Diego) 58 Laboratory of Psychology and Neurosciences (UNAM) 101–3 Laevers, F. 10 Lagerlöf, P. 396 ‘landscape of action’ (Bruner) 139

‘landscape of consciousness’ (Bruner) 139 Langer, Susan 211 language as play 164, 185 language skills, and pretend play 384 Lansford, J. E. 220 laughing 170 Laura (teacher) 146 Lavictoire, L. A. 221 law of mental development (Vygotsky) 46 “leading activity” (Leont’ev) 274–5, 306n2 learning: curiosity 36–7; defining 270–1; and play 30, 315–26; risk-taking 171; self-generated 195; through exploration 37–8; and ZPD 326 learning disabilities (LDs) 109, 359, 361–2 Leavens, D. 185 Leaving Game 15 Le Guin, Ursula 148 Leong, D. J. 152, 250, 363 Leont’ev, A. N. 110, 274–5, 306, 347, 351 level of play development 89 see also plot Lewin’s theory 81 Li, L. 231 Lillard, A. S. 70, 383 Lindqvist, Gunilla: adults’ role in playworlds 292, 298; books inspiring play 292; creative pedagogy of play 63; Froebel’s pedagogy of play 277; imagination 291; imaginative play 129; interpreting Vygotskian theories 59, 61–3, 275; playworlds 58, 263; Reggio Emilia pedagogy 261; role play 275; “socialrealistic approach” 275; stories activating imagination 139; theatre pedagogy 293; theory of cultural history 295; theory of play 62–3 Lisa-as-the-troll (early years teacher) 145–6, 147 literacy 317, 320 literal play 14, 16 literature on play 12 Lithuanian University of Educational Sciences (LEU) 251 ‘little c creativity’ 329 see also creativity “Little Red Riding Hood” folk tale 77–82 locating play: critical consciousness 31; policies 24–6 locomotion 187–9 logical-scientific modes 284–5 Loizou, E. 152 Long story game 368 looking 186 Looney, J. 329

414

Index low scenario role play 157–8 ludic development 188, 195 Luria, A. R. 101, 358 Lyng, S. 169 macaque monkeys 185 Macmillan, Margaret 34 made-up language 296–7 magic 89 Maintained Nursery School Centre for Children and Families (London) 330–1 make-believe play 74–7 Malaguzzi, Loris 211–12, 335 Malloch, Stephen 200, 205 managing fear 171 Managing Risk in Play Provision (Ball, Gill and Spiegal) 178 manipulating external objects 342 Manuilenko, Z.V. 53 March, S. 235 marking the spot 192 Marsh, K. 396 mastering experience 305–6 ‘mastery’ approach to learning (Dweck) 171 materialized thoughts 247 materials 40 Matthews, J. 185 mature forms of play 152 mature language 203 mature narrative play 247–8 Maximov, A. A. 230 Maynard, T. 172 McDermott, R. 144 McKellar, P. 16 McLoyd,V. C. 220, 221–2 meaningful forms (Zaliznyak) 317 meaningfulness 321–2 meaning-making: dialogic 138–9, 140–1; in exploration 268–9; monologic 140–1; in play 268; real-and-imagined worlds 139–40; resources 142–3 ‘meaning’ (znacenie) 76 means of expression 346 Meares, Russell 213 mediated action 46 Melissa (child) 147 mental competency games 310 mental functions 359–60, 361–2 Merleau-Ponty, Maurice 203 Metaphor of Play (Meares) 213 Mexico 97–106; national constitution rules 97; ‘operant learning’ 341; Programme of the State of Jalisco 98; research projects

(BUAP) 103–5; research projects (UNAM) 98–103; Secretary of Public Education (SEP) 97 Michael (ASD child) 381–2 Michi (5-year old) 127–8 microscopic worlds 298–9 micro transitions 222–3, 224, 226 see also triadic play Miharu kindergarten (Sapporo, Japan) 281 Miller, A. 390–2 Miller, E. E. 390–2 Miller Method Approach 390–2 Minick, N. 246 “mirror” effect of dual subjects 75–6 mistakes 37 Miyazaki, K. 126, 127 model/real adults 52 model relations in joint role play 243 moderate scenario role play 160 modes of consciousness 186–7 modes of play 186 monologic meaning-making 138, 140–1, 143, 144 Montessori, Maria 34 Moog, Helmut 396 Moominvalley playworld (Villa Villekulla) 263 Morris, Desmond 185 Moscow kindergartens study 90–5 Moscow State University of Psychology and Education 90 mother-infant dialogues 203–5 Mother Songs (Froebel) 17, 28 motionless experiments 53 motivation: activities 346; differentiate activities 347; free/organized play 360–1; infants 199; for intimate playfulness 203; and ‘sense’ (smysl) 76 ‘motor images’ (Bernstein) 200 Mottweiler, C. M. 333 movement 51–2, 190, 192 Movement Games (Froebel) 18 mud mountain (Hakken to Boken) 130–1, 132–3 multiple incoming sensations 381 see also autism spectrum disorders (ASD) Murray, Lynne 205 musical play 395–404 musical statues game 363 mutual attunement 81 mutual experiences 233 Nachmanovitch, S. 276 Nadel, Jacqueline 209

415

Index Nader-Grosbois, N. 383 Nagy, Emese 202–3 naive language consciousness 319 Narnia playworld (US) 65–6 “narrative acts” (Noe) 285 narrative modes of thinking 284–5, 286 narrative role play 115, 232, 247–8, 325–6 narratives 143, 247, 321–5 National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education (NACCCE) 329 National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), Developmentally Appropriate Practice (2009) 26 National Children’s Bureau (NCB) 33, 35–6 national constitution rules (Mexico) 97 National Froebel Foundation (NFF) 10 National University of Mexico (UNAM) 97, 101; Faculty of Superior Studies Zaragoza 98 natural environment (Froebel) 28 naturalistic studies 231 natural to mediated action transition 46 neonatal play 202–3 neurological development 170, 382 neuropsychological analysis 358, 361–2 Neuropsychological Diagnostic and Rehabilitation (BUAP) 103–5 neuropsychological syndromes 104–5 neuropsychological tests 363–4 Neutral category (SPAFF) 221 Newman, F. 275 New Zealand 169 Nicolopoulou, A. 15–16 Nilsson, M. 58 Noe, K. 284–5 nonlinear model of relationships 76, 78–81 non-play states 187 non-verbal language 185 non-Western cultural contexts 248 normative regulation development 310 Norway 169 noticing, and curiosity 37 notion of play (Froebel) 28 nurseries 25 see also kindergartens nursery school movement 10 obedience 283–4 object in play 48–50, 102, 209–10, 346 object-interest (Piaget) 206 object play 53 object substitution 55

observational research: ACCT 332; self-regulation in play field experiment 251–2; triadic interactions 219–27 ‘observe, support, extend’ (Bruce) 11 ‘occupations’ (Froebel) 15, 27 Ockelford, A. 397 Ofsted (England) 12 ‘on the edge’ adventurous play 178 ontogenetic development 305 open-ended play materials 27, 95, 172, 176 ‘operant learning’ 341 Opies, I. 13–14 Opies, P. 13–14 oppositional monologic interactions 140, 143, 147 oral egocentric speech 102 orang-utans 185 see also chimpanzees organizational states 222 organization of play in groups 348, 349 orientation 103, 108–10, 346, 348, 349 outdoor play 169, 172, 177 over-reactivity sensory reactions 379–80 Paley,V. 14 parents: and children assessments 98–9; debates on risk and safety 176; educational level 113; occupation 113; playing with children 17; understanding play 12 Parker, J.G. 220 participation in culture 200 participation in routines 217 Pascal, C. 10 passage of time 191 past experience 16 see also imagination patterning of affective states 221 patterns of social influence 219 peace and quiet 39 pedagogical approaches 267–8, 291 see also playworlds pedagogical qualitative research 351 pedagogy of exploration 261, 264 pedagogy of listening 261–71; children as culture and knowledge creators 266; playworld activity 262; playworlds 264; Reggio Emilia 261 peer cultures 217–18 Peer Interaction Coding Scheme 219 peer play 384–5 see also autism spectrum disorders (ASD) Pelaprat, E. 269 Pellegrini, A. 176 Pellis, S. M. 382 Pellis,V. C. 382

416

Index perception 48 Periods of Rapid Change (PRCs) 202 personality traits 38 personal powers of newborn infants (Brazelton) 212 personal space 17 ‘person-person-object games’ (Hubley) 206, 207 Persson, S. 268, 269 Pestalozzi, Johann Heinrich 27 Peter (child) 141–8 phase diagram of relationships 80 Philosophy in a New Key (Langer) 211 phonetic word forms 319 photo-elicitation interviews 173–4, 175 ‘photo studio’ social role play 115–20 physical competency games 310 physical development 311 Piagetian theory 18 Piaget, Jean: ‘dead duck’ substitution 342; development of 3 to 6-year-olds 340; egocentric speech (Piaget) 343; empirical psychology 211; genetic epistemology 202, 340; initial studies 102; objectinterest 206; objective symbol during play 50; self-directed experimenting 37; symbolism in play 48 Pickering, Judith 213 pivotal objects 189 see also toys play: adult role 10–11, 138, 230–1, 248–9; as antonym of learning or work 276; children not able to 250; culturally mediated activity 108; as damaging 341; defining 34–6, 48, 126; as desire 192; as experimentation 198; and exploration 269–70; features 13–18; five stages (Leong and Bodrova) 152; form of language 164, 185; and learning dichotomy 262; learning outcomes 26; and non-play activities 247; process-oriented activities 109; and representation 187–8; social origin 50; undeveloped 307 play actions 88–9, 90, 92, 247, 267, 307, 342 play activity 97–106; collective imaginative play 267; cultural experience 105; dependence on objects 102; development levels 344–5; development of symbolic function 111; early stimulation 98–101; functional components 110–11; inner speech 101–3; neuropsychological syndromes 104–5; orientation base of action 109; planning 348–50; social role play 110–11; stimulating social

behavior 101; studies 104; voluntary play 121 see also early childhood (3–6 years) play ages 249–50 play analysis 248 play complexity 230 play content 116 play development 248–9 playful dialogues 203 playful impulses 209 playful learning 201–2, 262 playful movements 198 playfulness signals 206 playful searching for shared meaning 200 playing outdoors: adventure, risk and challenge 168–79; creativity 334–5 play in nature kindergartens 169 play interactions 89 play intervention 30, 112–15, 252 ‘play is imagination in action’ (Vygotsky) 139 play names 51–2 play parameters 92, 93 play-planning practices 72 play practices 153, 165 play rules 276–7 Playshop afterschool programme (Japan) 280–4 play signals 170–1 Play skills and Teacher’s role (Loizou) 152 play space 89, 91, 93 play the rule (Vygotsky) 241 play typologies 164–5 ‘play with social roles’ (El’konin) 342, 344 see also social role play playworlds 261–71; Baba Yaga playworld 63–5; introducing stories 292–4; Narnia playworld (US) 65–6; pedagogy of listening 262, 264; ‘in-role’ adult involvement 233; studies 58–9; Vygotskian theories 59–62 see also pedagogical approaches pleasurable experiences 191–2 plot 89, 91, 93, 94, 232, 316 Plowman, L. 289 pointing actions 191 point mode (Donaldson) 191 policies: politics and democracy 31; risk-taking, adventure and play 177–9 policymaking 12, 31 political interference 36 Pooh Bear (special toy) 231, 236–42 Portage Guide 98–9 positioning 143–4, 234–5

417

Index position of caregiver 91, 94 positive affective behavior 351 Positive category (SPAFF) 221 positive feedback 73 postmodernism 13, 263–4 ‘potpourri’ songs (Moog) 396 power 140–1, 143–4 practical activities 48 predetermined learning outcomes 26 prefrontal cortex 382 pre-linguistic grammatical games 203 premature newborns 203 ‘preparation for school’ 341–2, 344 preprimary education 25 prescriptive approach 10 pretence abilities 250 pretend play: and ASD 384; child development 55–6, 70–82; creativity and creative thinking 333; dialogic interactions 141; dialogic meaningmaking 140–1; dynamic system analysis 82; early childhood 47; empirical studies 90–4; goats and trolls 144–8; ideal and real adult 52; improvised explorations 139; Japan 279; narrative and character 15–16; origin 50–2; peer play 384–5; problem-solving 334; props 14; real life situations 71; relationship phases 77–8; and self-discovery 75; self-invented scenarios 333; and self-regulation 383; structural components 88–9; toys 309 see also role play; symbolic play ‘primary inter-subjectivity’ (Trevarthen) 201, 203 primates 185 see also apes; chimpanzees; comparative primatology Princess and the Basement Troll in the Shark’s Ocean playworld 67, 261, 263–6 Prizant, B. M. 385 problem solving 23–4, 283–4, 296–8, 334 process, feature of play 14–15 productive activity 311 progress 29 prolongation of an action 192 PRoPELS (Plan, Roles, Props, Extended, Language and Scenario) 152 proprioceptive system 379 props 14, 16 ‘prospective control’ (Bernstein) 200 protoconversal play 203–5 ‘proto-conversations’ (Bateson) 203 protolanguage theory (Halliday) 209 ‘proto-we’ child-adult relationship 52

‘provocations’ 142 psychoanalysis 212–13 psychological development 340, 343 ‘psychological image’ 76 psychological research 106 psychologists 210–13 Psychology of Art (Vygotsky) 59 psychology of newborns 202–3 public dialogues 147 Puebla (Mexico) 103 Pugh, Gillian 35 pushing boundaries 171 see also risk-taking ‘push-pull-stretch-hang-buffet about’ play 170 Pylaeva, N. M. 369 Qualifications and Curriculum Agency (QCA) 12 Quick, Robert Herbert 210 Rara (chimpanzee) 183–8 reading 317, 357 see also words reading competence 320 real and imagined situations 48, 71, 139–40 real experiences 13 realistic thinking and imagination 61 real/model adults 52 ‘rebound effect’ 176 recent learning 18 reconstruction play 302–3 Reddy,Vasudevi 206 reflection 109 reflective journals 155 reflexive creative representation 111 Reggio Emilia 133, 261–2 Reinhart, C. J. 382 relationship process model 76 relationships: building 79–81; and cooperative activities 76, 77–8; and creativity 335–7 repetition 191–2 representational play 13, 186–8 see also symbolic play Research Laboratory of Play (LEU) 251 research with play activity 103–5 resilience 171 see also adventurous play “restaurant,” role playing 100–1 restricting risk-taking 176 Reunamo, J. 333, 336–7 Revisionist Froebelian Movement 9 revision of practice (Froebel) 28 Rhymes game 367–8 rhythmical events (translation) 188

418

Index Ribot, Théodule-Armand 60 rigidly structured space 95 risk assessments 178 risk aversion 172–4, 177 risk control measures 176 risk-taking: adventurous play 169, 171–2, 177–9; decision-making 174–5; enabling feature of play 175–6; ‘rough-and-tumble’ play 200 see also active physical play; adventurous play rituals of delight 205–6 Robert (1 year infant) 183–4, 186 Roberts, M. 11 Robinson, Ken 329 Robot game 370 Robson, S. 170, 172 Rogers, S. 333, 334 Rogers, S. J. 384 role behavior 52, 55 role development 88 role-driven interactions 234 role enactment 152, 153 role implementation 92 role in action 88 role in play 90 role in plot 88 role in relationship 88 role play: empirical studies 92; expanding zone of new mental formations 53; feature of play 15–16; high scenario 164; historical origin 231–2; intermediary transitional form 56; interpretation of Vygotskian theories 275–6; level of 95; low scenario 157–8; moderate scenario 160; with objects 52–5; play plot and content 232; psychological development 316; “restaurant” 100–1; special toy 233–4 see also pretend play role position 91 roles: elements of play content 116; enactment and symbolism 152; ‘photo studio’ 117 Ronge, Bertha and Johanne 9 Röör, Gunilla 265 Rosie (college student) 237–9 rough and tumble play 186, 195, 200, 382 Rourke, B. P. 369 Rowe,V. 172 Rubinshtein, S. L. 63n2 rules 72, 116, 310 Runco, M. A. 328–9 Russia 230, 317–18 Russian psychology 53

Ryabkova, I.A. 232, 233, 234, 235, 238 Ryan, R. 42–3 ‘safe enough’ environments 179 safety 172, 175–6, 178–9 Saki, Kensuke 125, 126, 128 Saki, Midori 125, 126, 127 Säljö, Roger 270–1 Sandseter, E. 169, 173, 177 Saracho, O. 333 Savio, D. 249 scaffolding approaches (Vygotsky) 43 scared in play 169, 193–4 school readiness 120–1, 263 schools 28–9 Scotland 12, 177–8 Scottish Care Commission (SCC) 177–8 Seaview House community centre (Melbourne, Australia) 235 Secondary Intersubjectivity (cooperative awareness) 209 Selby, J. M. 219 self-consciousness 206, 209 self-directed experimenting 37 self-discipline 14 self-generated learning 195 self (‘I-image’ Kravtsova) 235 self-invented scenarios 333 see also pretend play self-locomotion 187–9 self-organized group children’s games 359–60 Self-Other awareness 204, 206 self-regulation: behavior 55–6; definition 382–3; field experiment 251–5; independent subject 72; mode of acting 251; and play 250–1; thinking 56 “sense field” (Vygotsky) 72–3, 74 sense making (Vygotsky) 74 ‘sense’ (smysl), and ‘motivation’ 76 sensitivity 11 sensorimotor stage (birth to two years) 37–8, 381 sensory dysfunction 379–80 sensory processing 378–82 Shanker, S. 382 shared experiences 140, 149 Sherrington, Charles 210–11 Sigman, M. 384 silent egocentric speech 102 Simon Says game 363–4 Singer, J. L. 246–7, 249 situational positioning 234–5

419

Index situational toys 54 Slavina, L. S. 53 Slobodcikov,V. I. 73, 75 Smirnova, E.O. 231, 233, 233–5, 237, 238, 306 Smith, P. 176 Snyder, J. 221 social awareness 384 social contact 344 ‘social imagination’ (Greene) 140 social interaction 342, 343–4, 384 “socialization” 275 social organizational states 221–2 see also triadic play social origin of play 50 “social” pedagogy 263 “social-realistic approaches” (Lindqvist) 275 social relations 74–5 social relationships 17, 76, 82 social role play 108–22, 340–52; defining 109–10; developmental formation 348; imaginary situations 121, 347; levels of development 345; ‘photo studio’ study 115–20; play events 121; self-regulation 250–1; structural and functional analysis 110–11; structure and organization 345–50; studies 112–15; symbolic function 111–12, 351 social role relationship model 75–7 social situations 140, 359 “societization” (Newman and Holzman) 275 socio-dramatic play 151–65; contexts 154; data collection and analysis 155–6; meaning 152; play excerpts 156–64; play practices 153–4 solitary organizational state 222 solitary play 17 sound houses 322–5 sound-letter form of words 317 ‘Soundlings’ fairy tale 317–25 sound ropes 320–1 Sounds of Intent in the Early Years framework (SoI-EY) 397–404 South Africa 16 Soweto (South Africa) 16 space station (imaginative play) 129–31 “Sparrows and crows” game 364 SPARS (observation tool) 249 spatial theory 139–40 special toys (Smirnova) 231, 233–4 special toy study (Melbourne, Australia) 235–42 Specific Affect Coding System 221

“specific exploration” (Berlyne) 129 speech development 101–2, 343 Spiegal, B. 178 ‘spin-tip-roll-fall’ play 170 Spitz, René 212 spontaneous actions (Vygotsky) 289 spontaneous play: adults’ role 277; ASD 386–90; child development 359–60; cultural historical theory 108; and digital play 289; and free play 351–2; organization of play 111 spontaneous-reactive role behavior 52 stages of play activity 114–15 statutory curricula 12, 25 Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage (DfE 2012) 12 Steiner, Rudolf 34 Stephen, C. 289 Stephenson, A. 169, 173 stereotyped activities 95, 275 sterile play environments 178 Sternberg, R. J. 329 Stern, Daniel 200, 205, 212 stillness 192 stimulation: adventurous play opportunities 178; autonomy and sensitivity 11; imagination 130–2 Stoolmiller, M. 221 stories, reading or telling 139 ‘story-making’ 209 storytelling 201, 211 ‘stranger fear’ 206 Strelkova, L. P. 71 structural analysis of social role play 110–11 structure of play activity 88–9, 345–6 stubbornness 73 ‘subjunctive mood’ (Bruner) 139 substitutions 51, 90, 309, 343 superhero play 170 Sutton-Smith, B. 29, 63, 132, 171 Sweden 261 symbolic actions 343, 344, 345 symbolic development 343 symbolic function 122, 348, 351 symbolic life (Froebel) 16 symbolic play 342–5 see also pretend play; representational play symbolic representation 342–3 symbolism, and role enactment 152 symbolism in play (Piaget) 48 symbolization 116, 117–20 symmetrical relationships 143 sympathetic emotional appraisal 204

420

Index “syndrome of nonverbal learning disabilities” (Rourke) 369 system approach 217 see also triadic play ‘systematic formation of mental actions and concepts’ model (Galperin) 111 systemic thinking 322 system relations of pretend play 76 Taglialatela, J. P. 185 Tamburrini, J. 11 Taylor, M. 333 teacher intervention 128–9, 164–5 teachers: digital tools 294; learning theory 195; play involvement 152, 230; reflecting on playworlds 158–9, 292–3, 296; relating to each other in playworld 265 teaching: literacy 317–18; mechanical and repetitive tasks 109 ‘teaching disabilities’ 109 see also learning disabilities (LD) tertiary artefacts (Wartofsky) 129 thematic social role play 114–15 themes in play 170 thinking, and noticing 37 Thomas, A. 42 Thomas, E. A. C. 220 Three Billy Goats Gruff folktale 142–3, 143–4 three-dimensional actions 187 three-girl system construction 81 three-party play see triadic play time 190–1 Tishman, S. 172 Tlaxcala (Mexico) 103 To catch or not to catch? game 366–7 togetherness 184–5, 233 Tommy Thumb game 17 Tools of Mind curriculum (Leong and Bodrova) 152, 250 Tower building game 370 toys 305–12; actual, substitutions and imaginary 90; attractiveness 306; cognitive-explorative activities 308–9; creativity 307; cultural tools 305; developmental potential 307; dramatizations 309; mediating activities 306–7; physical development 311; as pivotal objects 189; play action 307; play substitutions 309; pretend play 309; productive activity 311; realistic and substitutes 89, 93; requirements and evaluation 306 see also games transactional approach to peer play 385

transformation 189 transition from action 52 transition rituals 298–301 transitive pattern of social influence 219 translation (rhythmical events) 188 Traveller mothers 41–2 Treasure Baskets 13, 17, 38–9, 41–2, 43 Trevarthen, C. 195, 199, 200, 205, 209–10 Triadic Interactions Q-sort (TIQS) 220 triadic organizational state 222 triadic play 216–27; gender differences 220–1; interacting 219, 221, 222–3; observational study 223–7; quality 227; relational dynamics 226; social competency 227; system approach 217 troll pretend play/story 144–8 Tsakiris, E. 377–8 Turner,Victor 200, 209 twelve features of play (Bruce) 13–18 Ugaste, A. 231 UN Association for Threatened People (Gypsy division) 42 unbroken movement 190 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) 34–5, 42 under-reactivity sensory reactions 379–80 Ungerer, J. A. 384 United Kingdom 16, 24–5; Health and Safety Executive (HSE) 178 United States of America 25, 26; Narnia playworld 65–6 unit of play (El’konin) 232 unity (Froebel) 28 unity of contradictions 47 see also contradictions universal themes 170 university-based school (Cyprus) 154 University of California San Diego 58 University of Johannesburg 16 UN Peace Child 42 Urban, Mathias 12 use of objects in play 48–9, 116 ‘utterances’ (deeds and words) 138 van Oers, B. 302 Venger, A. L. 251 verbal expressions 113–14, 116 Verbal Fluency Tests 365 verbal interactions 92, 117 verbal meta-communication 220 Verbal snowball game 368 verification phase of group play 348, 349

421

Index vestibular system 379 video recordings 155 Vieillevoye, S. 383 Villa Villekulla playworld (Moominvalley) 263 violent roles 15 visual-spatial function development 368–71 visual stimuli 381–2 ‘vitality dynamics’ (Stern) 200, 205, 212 vocabulary development 30 vocalizations 184–5, 202 Vohs, K. D. 383 voluntary activities 104, 109, 276, 361 Voyajolu, A., 397 Vygotskian-Lurian child neuropsychology 357–9 Vygotsky, Lev: affective-motor reaction 48; contradiction of play 56; convivial play 200; cultural development theory 74; dependence and unity of affect and perception 48; emotion and imagination 282, 283; experience and imagination 276; fantasy and reality 61; formative experimental method 112; ‘general genetic law’ 74, 81, 249; highest forms of thinking 17; imagination 61–2, 131, 230; “Imagination and Creativity in Childhood” (2004) 59, 61; “Imagination and its Development in Childhood” (1987) 59, 61; inner speech 102, 343; law of mental development 46; mature forms of play 248; meaning-making 138, 139, 268–9; narrative and logical-scientific modes 285; objects in play 48–9; play as a transforming act 16; play as cultural manifestation 63; play becoming desire 192; play rules 71, 72, 241, 276–7; and playworlds 59; pretend play 70, 246, 333; Psychology of Art 59; representational actions 342; rich experiences 266; role play 233, 316; scaffolding approaches 43; self-regulation 55–6, 385–6; “sense field” 72–3; sense making 74; social-realistic approaches 275; symbolic play 48, 50, 87, 247; theory of play 59–62; toys as pivotal objects 189; zone of proximal

development 275, 306n1 see also cultural historical theory Warren, D. 220 Wartofsky, M. W. 129 Waters, J. 172 Wee Wee creatures 296–8 welcoming process (triadic relational dynamics) 226 ‘what if ’ speculation 174 see also risk-taking White, E. J. 138 Whitehead, Alfred North 211 Who has sensitive hearing? game 366 whole body play (wb play) 186 Who will call more? game 365, 367 Who will call more? (Parts of the body) game 369 Wieder, S. 379, 380, 386–90 Winnicott, D. 17, 34, 212–13 Wishing Chair (Blyton) 292, 293 Withdrawn category (SPAFF) 221 within-gender variability 220 wooden blocks 15 words: learning meaning through drama 284; relationship between phonetic form and meaning 319; relationship with object and action 49 see also reading working memory 362, 364, 365 writing 317, 320, 357 Yaroshevskii, M. G. 76 “Young cooks; Eat Well” project 154–65; data analysis 155–6; data collection 155; play excerpt 1 (nutritionist’s office) 156–9; play excerpt 2 (gym) 159–61; play excerpt 3 (confectionary) 161–4 “young cooks; Eat Well” project: data analysis 155–6; data collection 155 Young, Susan 396–7 Zaliznyak, A. A. 317 Zaretskii,V. K. 165 zone of actual development 121 Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) 121, 152, 164–5, 306n1 Zuckerman, G. 164, 251 ‘zygonic theory’ (Ockelford) 397

422