Play is an important, multifaceted part of child development. It can be defined simply as child-chosen and intrinsically motivated activities (Lillard, 2013; Trawick-Smith & Dziurgot, 2010; Frost, Wortham, & Reifel, 2008). Play has many components, which include free choice, object play, physical play, sociodramatic play, peer interaction, and interactive lessons, just to name a few (Lillard, 2013; Frost et al, 2008). Through utilizing these forms of play, children acquire proficiency and knowledge of various social, cognitive, physical, and cultural skills (Frost et al, 2008; Lindsey & Mize, 2000; Pellegrini, 2008; Rike, 2004; Staempfli, 2009; Trawick-Smith & Dziurgot, 2010).
It is important to note that Piaget’s Constructivist theory is one of the predominant theories shaping how children and adults play today. According to Constructivist theory, children use the knowledge they already have and the environment presented to them to construct new and deeper meanings of the world around them (Frost et al, 2008; Staempfli, 2009). When school districts mandate that academics be pushed down to younger grades, they ignore constructivist theory (Lillard, 2013). Play is a natural state of being for children and they enter into it so easily, so when they are asked to learn knowledge and skills not inherent in play, it can have negative consequences (Lillard, 2013; Shine & Acosta, 2000).
Playing with adults is beneficial to children because higher levels of play are achievable when playing with an older, more experienced person (Lindsey & Mize, 2000; Trawick-Smith & Dziurgot, 2010). Adults fulfill many roles in children’s play experiences. Parents, schoolteachers, and, less commonly in America, play leaders are all important for children’s play and development. As an instrumental part in children’s learning, it is important to discuss the roles of these adults in children’s play.
The Changing Nature of Play
With the rise of technology, there seems to have been a decline in play, especially outdoor and free play (Staempfli, 2009). Children are spending more time in front of a screen or participating in structured activities like sports or music lessons; and they are spending less time playing on a playground or even in their own yards. In addition to a rise in technology usage as a form of play, outdoor play environments such as adventure playgrounds are disappearing. This happens for several reasons. Many play environments may loose funding for their continued usage and upkeep, while others are losing their appeal due to parental concerns: Reasons for these changes are diverse and multilayered, rooted in ever-evolving sets of social and parental expectations and the children’s needs for entertainment and self-expression. Parents are struggling with competing, rational, and emotive judgments (personal and social in nature) about positive and negative risks associated with play. (Staempfli, 2009, p. 268)
Parent-Child Play
As the child’s first play partner, parents are instrumental in establishing and maintaining play behaviors. By playing with their parents, students learn skills like social competence and emotional understanding (Lindsey & Mize, 2000). Researchers say that horizontal play, where parents and children have equal parts in the play experience, is the most effective way to help children get the most out of their play experience (Lindsey & Mize, 2000; Shine & Acosta, 2000). However, studies show that parents do not enter fully into pretend play with their children very frequently because they are either reluctant to role-play or because they feel it necessary to use the moment to explicitly teach their child something (Shine & Acosta, 2000). In contrast, parents, especially fathers, are more apt to enter into physical play (Lindsey & Mize, 2000). Lindsey and Mize discovered that parents are more likely to play equally when physically playing (2000). Another important aspect of parent-child play is that parents will often scaffold their child’s play (Cress, Moskal, & Hoffmann, 2008). If they see that their child is having difficulties, they will step in and structure the child’s play so that the child can achieve success in the chosen activity. Parents should use caution, however, that they do not structure their child’s play too much. Beyond safety restrictions, children’s play should not become overly structured as this lessens the benefits of the play experience and can obstruct play (Cress et al, 2008; Lindsey & Mize, 2000). Shine and Acosta’s observations of parent-child interactions at museum exhibits shows that when parents try to structure their child’s play, the children tend to ignore the parent and often stop playing altogether (2000).
Teacher-Child Play
Playing to Learn
In an effort to improve academic achievement in America, policy makers have been asking teachers to use “the didactic teaching methods appropriate for older children in preschool settings” (Lillard, 2013, p. 157). Teachers would rather use Constructivist practices like hands-on learning and learning through play, as these are more natural for the learning styles of children. This is supported by the success of the Montessori program through the years. Started in 1907, this program still uses a guided play-based model for teaching children ranging from birth through twelve years of age, where learning materials are available for students to access whenever they want to play with them. Research shows that students in high-fidelity Montessori schools tend to do better in school than students who have not received instruction in the Montessori style. Lillard attributes this to a couple of factors of the Montessori program (2013). First, activities are student chosen, so students can work using the modality that suites them best in that moment and they are intrinsically motivated. Second, activities are student-centered. Montessori learning materials are designed so that students can see and correct their own mistakes, without any adult assistance. Similarly to parents, teachers need to be mindful of the kind and level of assistance when intervening in students’ play. Research shows that the more involvement of teachers, the lower the level of social play among the students (Trawick-Smith & Dziurgot, 2010). It is suggested that, when a teacher gives a play intervention, they teach the students the specific skills they need and then leave them to play on their own. Trawick-Smith and Dziurgot suggest that the goal for play is to be able to play autonomously since student-directed, autonomous play has been linked to cognitive benefits for development (2010). When students direct their own play without adult guidance or intervention, the students usually have more and better peer interactions, spontaneously communicate more frequently, and play high-quality play for longer amounts of time (Trawick-Smith & Dziurgot, 2010).
One area that Maria Montessori thought was not beneficial to children was sociodramatic play. She felt that it was more beneficial for children to do real work instead of pretending and felt that pretend play was lying to the children. On the other hand, there is no research to suggest that pretend play is harmful to children (Lillard, 2013). Other researchers say that pretend play has many benefits for children, which include cognitive advances and the ability to recognize and understand other’s thoughts and emotions (Lindsey & Mize, 2000; Rike, 2004; Shine & Acosta, 2000).
Recess
Recess is a time for students to take a break from having to concentrate. It allows students to be physically active, while giving them free choice of their activities. The debate about the necessity of recess started in the 1980’s and continues today, with naysayers saying that recess is not necessary in schools because students learn aggression and it is a waste of valuable academic time (Pellegrini, 2008). Neither of these claims has ever been proven. In fact, research has shown that recess improves productivity and social competence. Many of the people who want to get rid of recess recognize that students require movement in their days, so they compensate by increasing Physical Education (PE) classes. According to Pellegrini, this is not the same as having recess because PE is still a class that requires rigorous active engagement, therefore is not a true mental break for students (2008). Recess should be a time for free play, with out too much imposed structure.
As time without a break increases, student productivity decreases, therefore, it is crucial that students receive breaks (Pellegrini, 2008). Teachers use brain breaks as a way to improve student productivity. Brain breaks are usually a five to ten minute break from work to complete a physical activity. The reason so many teachers use brain breaks is because students tend to learn best in spurts of learning rather than learning everything at once, called “distributed practice” (Pellegrini, 2008). Their brains need time to assimilate the new information before they can begin to synthesize it. Taking a brain break or going to recess can help facilitate assimilation of new knowledge. Research suggests that recess goes beyond being just a brain break and providing students’ minds a much needed break (Pellegrini, 2008). Because students want to play with their friends, they are greatly motivated to use higher levels of social cognition. This leads to growth in social skills, including inhibiting bully-type behavior.
While America and the United Kingdom (UK) are both debating the benefits of play for the same reasons, in practice, they are very far apart. In America, most elementary schools let students have ten to thirty minutes of daily recess, while in the UK, elementary and middle school students have an average of 83 to 93 minutes of recess a day (Pellegrini, 2008). American students usually get one time to play at recess, while students in the UK receive 2 to 3 breaks throughout the day. The consequences of this disparity become evident when comparing educational statistics. Out of forty reported nations, the UK is sixth in its overall educational quality, eighth in cognitive skills, and second in educational attainment. In contrast, America is fourteenth in overall educational quality, eleventh in cognitive skills, and twentieth in educational attainment (Pearson PLC, 2014).
Play Leaders
Out of all of the roles adults play in children’s lives, the role of play leader is perhaps the least defined. A play leader is an adult who aids children in their play without taking away the child’s “freedom, independence, and creativity (Frost et al, 2008 p. 374). These leaders may work at zoos, museums, camps, and adventure playgrounds, among other things. Many exhibits designed for child interaction at zoos and museums are developed by play leaders and intended for either parental involvement or free play with adult supervision. In this role, the play leader designs the play environment, but rarely guides play beyond that. Camps are designed to be a fun play experience intermixed with social interactions (Clark & Nwokah, 2010). In this role, the play leader guides the play experience in a given environment.
Adventure Playgrounds
Adventure playgrounds were started in Europe by C.T. Sorensen after World War II as a way to safely guide children’s play in the aftermath of the war (Frost, Wortham, & Reifel, 2008; Staempfli, 2009). Originally known as “junk” playgrounds, these play environments provide children, parents, and play leaders the opportunity to work with real-world materials as they develop positive risk management. Because of the nature of these playgrounds, they rely heavily on donations to keep them up and running (Staempfli, 2009). While these kinds of play environments are prevalent in Europe, there are only three adventure playgrounds still open in America. European adventure playgrounds are commonly associated with a community resource center and feature play areas that include a community garden, animal husbandry, a fire pit for cooking, sand and water areas, and an area to build in. In contrast, American adventure playgrounds are usually just a junkyard to build in and occasionally they include a community garden (Staempfli, 2009).
Personal Reflection
I became interested in the topic of adult-child interactions in play quite recently. It started three years ago when I shockingly found myself having to defend my use of learning centers in the classroom. My principal wanted me to give up my scheduled centers time in preference to spending more time doing worksheets. The real fuel to the fire came when I took my first graduate level class. Going into graduate school, I knew I wanted to learn more about play, so I chose it as my research topic. I narrowed my topic down to technological play because I am a very technologically savvy person and thought that this topic would be the most interesting to me. After I got into the research, I found out I was wrong. I still wanted to research play, but I no longer knew which area of play to examine, so I got in touch with my Play Environments teacher from my undergrad school. After talking with her, she put me in contact with a researcher who is in the midst of trying to piece together the research she did on a Houston adventure playground before it closed twenty years ago. When I admitted that I did not know anything about adventure playgrounds, she asked me to read “Reintroducing Adventure Into Children's Outdoor Play Environments” (Staempfli, 2009). After reading this article, I was intrigued about the different roles adults play in children’s play. The more I dived into this topic, the more I wanted to know. There is a plethora of information on parent-child play and teacher-child play, but there is relatively little research on play leader-child play.
Summary
While
play can involve many different things, in its simplest definition, it
can be defined as freely chosen, child-driven, and intrinsically
motivated. Adults help to scaffold children’s play so that they can
experience success. Parents play a crucial part in their child’s
development. By playing with their parents, children can learn social
and emotional skills. Teachers also play a vital role in children’s
play as they help students learn effectively through guided play. The
freedom of recess is another important factor. Recess allows students’
brains to rest so that they can assimilate the new knowledge they have
gained. Play leaders are adults who work in various settings outside of
the school and home. These leaders have the unique job of teaching
students, while helping them develop positive risk management. More
research is needed on the subject of the effects of play leaders on
child development.
References
Clark,
M. K., & Nwokah, E. E. (2010). Play and learning in summer camps for
children with special needs. American Journal of Play, 3(2), 238.
Retrieved from http://www.journalofplay.org/sites/www.journalofplay.org/files/pdf-articles/3-2-article-play-learning-summer-camps.pdf
Cress, C.
J., Moskal, L., & Hoffmann, A. (2008). Parent directiveness in free play
with young children with physical impairments. Communication diorders
quarterly , 29(2), 99-108. doi: 10.1177/1525740108315257
Frost, J.
L., Wortham, S. C., & Reifel, S. (2008). Play and child development
(3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, USA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Lillard, A.
S. (2013). Playful learning and Montessori education. American journal of
play , 5(2), 157-186. Retrieved from
http://www.journalofplay.org/sites/www.journalofplay.org/files/pdf-articles/5-2-article-play-learning-and-montessori-education_0.pdf
Lindsey, E.
W., & Mize, J. (2000). Parent-child physical and pretense play: Links to
children's social competence. Marrill-Palmer quarterly , 46(4),
565-591. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/23092565
Pearson PLC.
(2014, January). Index - Which countries have the best schools?
Retrieved 12 11, 2015, from The Learning curve:
http://thelearningcurve.pearson.com/index/index-ranking
Pellegrini, A. D.
(2008). The recess debate a disjuncture between educational policy and
scientific research. American journal of play , 1(2), 181-191. Retrieved
from
http://www.journalofplay.org/sites/www.journalofplay.org/files/pdf-articles/1-2-article-the-recess-debate.pdf
Rike, E.
(2004). Imaginative play and neurology of creative growth in infants sthrough
adults: exchanges between Elizabeth Rike and Karl Pribram. In R. L. Clements, The
child's right to play a global approach (pp. 277-292). Westport,
Connecticut: Praeger.
Shine, S.,
& Acosta, T. Y. (2000). Parent-child social play in a children's museum. Family
Relations , 49(1), 45-52. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/585700
Staempfli,
M. B. (2009). Reintroducing adventure into children's outdoor play
environments. Environment and behavior , 41(2), 268-280. doi: 10.1177/0013916508315000
Trawick-Smith,
J., & Dziurgot, T. (2010). 'Good fit' teacher-child play interactions and
the subsequent autonomous play of preschool children. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 110-123. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2010.04.005
No comments:
Post a Comment