Symbolic Play in Preschool and Primary Settings

r Research in Review
Symbolic Play in Preschool and
Primary Settings
Patricia Monighan Nourot and Judith L. Van Hoorn
A preschool teacher hears from parents that they fear that Andrew
won't be ready for kindergarten if his major activity at school is play.
Of course play is important,- but what about real learning, like the
ABC's and adding and subtracting? Won't he be at a disadvantage?
A second grade teacher incorporates "activity time" into each day's schedule. During this time children invent and pursue projects of their own choosing.
The principal of the school visits on a day when a group of boys are preparing
the advertising copy for their "Model 500" robot that they have built from
cardboard boxes and$rt materials over several days' time. The principal
questions the value of such playful activity in the second grade curriculum.
,jiiPfe\
a
awareness that play is complex and mull
ti faceted. One of the major issues teachj
ers and researchers struggle with is thy
precise nature of the relationship of playj
to the concepts and skills valued by oiuj
educational system (Greenberg, 1989T
.Monighan-Nourot, 1990). By becoming]
knowledgeable about the research,on]
play, teachers can better meet the needy
of the children they servt as well asl
justify play to parents, administratorsg
and other teachers.
Part of the appeal of play is its com33
rom conference ballroom to
growing consensus breaks down, howplex and even paradoxical nature. Fori}
teachers.' lounges to state departever, when we try to put developmenteachers this paradox is reflected in di-3
ments of education, early childtally appropriate practice into practice,
lemmas about supporting play in thej
hood educators are agreeing on the
and one of the central issues that emerge
classroom: Can, we understand it and!
importance of developmental ly approas teachers attempt to define the best
support it without destroying its veryl
priate practice (Bredekamp, 1987). The
practice for young children is the role of
nature? (Fein, 1985; Sutton-Smith, 1986)j
play in the curriculum (Kagan. 1990).
We have framed this review with ques-^
Patricia Monighan Nourot', Ph.D., is
Many teachers who understand the
tions drawn from our own experiencesl
Associate Professor and Coordinator of value of play in the early childhood curand from discussions With teachers of]
Early Childhood Education, Sonoma State riculum are able to "hold the line" with •
young children who want to know (1)1
University, Rohnert Park, California For parents and/or administrators by articuhow to defend the inclusion ol play in thel
many years, she was a preschool and
lating the reasons why play should be a
curriculum, (2) how to understand andl
primary teacher.
central feature of life in their classrespect the differences seen in the ways]
Judith L Van Hoorn, Ph.D., is Asso- rooms. Other teachers, who know in-. different children play, and (3) how-toj
ciate Professor of Educational Psychology tuitively that play is important, find that
facilitate play in their classrooms.
at University of the Pacific Stockton, Cali- they are unable to provide reasons lor
fornia. She is a former Head Start teacher,
How can teachers defend play]
including play in programs for young
with a special interest in science
children.
They
may
try,
olten
unin the curriculum?
education.
successfully, to resist pressures that unDrs. Nourot and Van Hoorn are two of dermine the role of play in their settings.
Early childhood educators can help.
the coauthors of Looking at children's
others understand the relationships be3
Thus
early
childhood
educators
struggle
play: A bridge between theory and practween children's use of symbols in playj
tice, and with colleagues are finishing a to formulate meaningful, convincing arand their use of symbols in the academic!
guments
for
play
as
it
is
viewed
in
the
new book entitled Play at the center of the
curriculum. Concepts valued in thy
larger context of lifelong education.
curriculum.
What answers can teachers give? Per- . school curriculum such as reading, wntr
7Viur is one of a regular series of Reing, and problem solving are all based on!
haps
the most frequently quoted cliches
search in Review columns: The column in
the expectation that children are capa?
are
"Play
is
the
child's
way
of
learning"
this issue was edited by Celia Cenishi,
Ph.D., Associate Professor of Curriculum or "Play is the child's work." But what do ' ble of a certain level of abstract, syrrj]
bolic thought (AJmy, Monighan,Scales &^
and Teaching at Teachers College,
such phrases really mean? Research on
Columbia University.
Van Hoorn, 1984).
children's play increasingly reflects ihe
F
S0m*^
40
Young Children • Seplembcr 1991J
Play s u p p o r t s s y m b o l i c
development
In its complex forms play is characterized by the use ol symbols to represent objects, ideas, and situations not
present in the immediate time and place.
Play also provides occasions lor children lo encounter the perspectives of
others and to negotiate important new
perspectives on objects, ideas, and leelings (Garvey, 1977; Schwartzman, 1978;
Vygolsky, 1976). Research demonstrates
relationships between play and the development ol literacy, problem solving,
perspective taking, and creativity.
Both Piaget (1962) and Vygotsky
(1976) identify play as central to the
development of a child's ability to use
symbols. This characteristic of early
Research on children who are popular
with peers indicates that children whose
thinking is flexible frequently come up
with unique alternatives for=4^solving
disputes and suggesting compromises.
childhood play is the one most thoroughly studied by child development
researchers (Rubin, Fein, & Vandenberg,
1983). Teachers see children using
symbols as they build a castle with
blocks, as well as when they transform
roles and situations in their dramatic
play, e.g., when Lisa uses a box as a cash
register for her store.
teachers should include both high-realism and low-realism toys for pretend
Play in classrooms in order lo accommodate
a full ran^e of developmental
fl -stages.
^
loii/i" Children • Si-pli-mlm U*:l)
Infant caregivers, parents, and researchers have discovered that beginning at about the age of 18 months the
human mind spontaneously engages
in symbolic thought, as evidenced by
the use of language and pretend play
(Fein, 1981; Fenson & Ramsay, 1980;
McCune, 1985). These symbolic activities rely on children's abilities to create
meaning in their minds and to express
that meaning through gesture (driving a
pretend car), language and intonation
("OK, honey, it's bedtime," said to a
•doll), and objects (sand and rocks used
to make a birthday cake.) This ability to
.translorm objects or situations through
the use ol imagination into meanings
that are different Irom the original object
or situation lorms the foundation for
intellectual development and communication.The use of symbols is not characteristic of all play, but symbolic behavior
• does form the basis of many of the intellectual concepts related lo play and is
characteristic of the constructive and
pretend play of preschool and primarygrade children.
Much ol the research on the play of
young children has sought to documenl
a sequence ol progressive symbolic distancing. As children mature, they are
able to use objects that are increasingly
discrepant in form and/or function from
the objects the child wishes to symbolize (Fein, 1981; Fenson & Ramsay, 1980;
McCune, 1985; Sigel. 1987). For example,
Pederson, Rock-Green, and Elder (19S.J)
report a series ol studies thai demonstrate thai 2- and 3-year-olds have dilliculty using objects that do not resemble
the object lo be symbolized, such as
using a block lor a hamburger. Researchers in classroom settings h3ve documenied younger children's preference
lor replica objects and have indicated
that ihis changes lo a preference lor
unstructured objects, such as blocks or
slicks, as children's capacities lor men-
y^^fck
/re.
.V
V V
.jfp"»s
lal represenlalion mntiiri- (I'ul.iski. 1!)7();
Fein, 1981).
The implication kir Icwhcrs is thai
younger children may need toy replicasof objects, such as kilchenware or vehides. As children develop, they gradually move toward using objects thai
closely resemble their make-believe
ideas, such as using a cup lor a phone.
Older preschoolers and primary-grade
children are likely to preler unstructured props such as blocks, cardboard
packing, or marbles, which they may
appropriate for many dillerent uses in
their make-believe play (Curry & Arnaud,
1984). McLoyd (19S6) recommends thai
teachers provide both hiyh-realism and
low-realism toys lor prelend play in
classrooms in order to .iccommodaie
the lull range ol developmental slages.
Research on children's role playing
also indicates lhat as children's representational concepts develop, they are
increasingly able to create make-believe
roles and situations without the use ol
costumes or props, using more subtle
behaviors, such as gesture, language,
and intonation, lo mark their transformations into prelend roles (Black,
1989; Matthews, 1977; Wall, Pickert, &
Gibson, 1989).
Researchers have also studied chil-
d r e n ' s creaiion ol -imaginary companions (Manoseviiz, Fling, & Preniice,
1977; Partington &. Grant. 1984). They
lound lhat approximately 30% of children between the ages ol three and six
create imaginary friends lor themselves,
using symbolic concepts to transform
objects, roles, and situations into a
whotfy^rmaginary or mental realm. Partington and Grant suggest thai imaginary
. playmates help children to bridge their
solitary fantasy play to socially oriented
play by providing an imaginary peer (or
peers) whom they can control. As such,
play with imaginary companions represents a tool for both symbolic expression and mastery ol social skills.
S y m b o l i c p l a y r e l a t e s to the
d e v e l o p m e n t of literacy
Infant caregivers, parents, and researchers have discovered lhat beginning at
about the age of 18 months, the human mind spontaneously
engages in
symbolic thought, au'denced by the use of language and prelend play.
Parents and educators are rightfully
concerned about language development
and foundations for literacy. Recent research on the development of symbolic
thought has linked pretend play to language development (Ervin-Tripp, in
press; Fenson, 1984; Genishi & Dyson, •
1984). O t h e r research locuses on
school-related literacy and play (Isenberg & Jacob, 19S3; Wolfgang & Sanders,
1981). Children's schooling with regard
.to the written symbols ol language and
mathematics calls on the ability to per(orm symbolic transformalions. For example, the teacher in the introductory
anecdote could explain to Andrew's parents that his ability to understand thai H
and K, bat and 14 are combinations of
lines that represent sounds, words, and
numbers rests in part on his capacity to
use a block to represent a truck or a
telephone. Likewise, children's capacity
to enter the "as if or hypothetical realm
of books in which animals talk, such as
that created by E. B. White in Charlotte's
Web, or children's ability lo create such
hypothetical frames ol relerence themselves when telling or writing stories
rests on concepts constructed in dramatic play (Bruner. 1986; Roskos. 19S8;
Sachs. Goldman. & Charlie, I9S4; WilT
liamson & Silvern, J990). Their ability to
use explicit language to negotiate multiple roles and to describe hypothetical
situations, such as lhal ol the robot design team, housekeeping play, or episodes ol superhero adventures, draws
on the same capacities in symbolic "
thought as those needed to write a poem
Young Children • Si-plciiilier l!WI
z-^BX
or a slory (Pellegrini, DeSlclano, &.
Thompson, 1983).
Heath (1983) lound thai children who
entered school as sophisticated players
enacted a wide range ol themes and
events. These children were Irequently
successlul in literacy experiences at
school. Pellegrini (1980) lound significant relationships between the complexity ol symbolic play and achievement in r e a d i n g and writing lor
kindergartners and first graders.
;;
Play may contribute
to this ability by
allowing children to
play through their
ideas, much the
way that adults talk
through alternatives
to problems they
face.
Olhers (lsenberg & Jacob, 1985;
Jacob. 19S4; Schrader, 1989; Vukelich,
1990) have studied literacy in play, such
as when the robot design team prepared
the adverlising copy or when children
consult a pretend menu or grocery list,
write a check, or read a book lo a doll.
Others have discussed play in literacy.
underscoring the importance ql playful
thought processes in literacy activities
(Dyson, 1990, 1991; Daiule, 1989).
S y m b o l i c p l a y r e l a t e s to
thinking and p r o b l e m solving
Play is also thought to be relaled lo
Ihe construction of logical-maihematical knowledge. Play represents a predominance ol assimilative thinking in
which concepts thai children bring lo a
situation lake precedence over the need
lo imitate or accommodate to a model
presented by an adull. Play brings children a wide array pi opportunities to
develop categorization concepts, such
as selective alteniion lo the relevant
Cues of objects, and also allows them lo
I'nnsiruct categories at Iheir own pace.
I'uiiiiii l'lnlilr.-n • Si-pk-mbcr I'.MH
For the past iwu weeks Marie has been working almost daily with a set ol thick crayons,
consisting ol eight colors. Today something is
new. She chooses a large box ol thin crayons,
containing a total ol 40 colors. She picks out
all Ihe crayons that have a red color and
arranges them separately from crayons ol
orange and pink shades. As she colors a piece
ol scrap wood with multiple shades ol red.she
comments, "This is lor my mom." Lily sils
down next lo her. Marie turns, ollering a crayon. "Do you want a redder one?" (Van Hoorn,
Nourol, Scales, & Alward, manuscript submilted lor publication).
Another quality thought lu be related
lo children's play and creativity is the
development of divergent thinking, or
the ability to enterlain alternative possibilities in a given situation (Christie,
1983; Pepler & Ross, 1981). The flexibility in thinking thai allows one lo solve a
probleir^ftgm a fresh perspective or use
a tool in a unique way is a component ol
effective problem solving (Adams, 1976).
Play may contribute to this ability by
allowing children to play through their
ideas, much the way that adults talk
through alternatives to problems they
Because the source ol development is
face and imagine consequences from
from within the child, these categories
varying perspectives. This process also
become part of the child's mental netleads to the discovery ol new problems
works. In this way, as Marie demonor new questions to be asked as children
strates, children integrate new experibecome familiar with materials, play,
ences into structures ol thinking they
and think more deeply about their expehave already developed. Some researchrience (Pepler, 1986).
ers have found that more mature play in
preschoolers is positively related to soSeveral researchers have studied relaphisticated classification skills (Johntionships among children's play experison. Ersriler, & Lawton, 1982; Rubin &
ences and their perlorrnance ol tasks ol
Maioni, 1975).
divergent thinking and creativity (Dansky, 1980a, b; Johnson, 1976; Pepler &
S y m b o l i c p l a y r e l a t e s to
Ross, 1981). These tasks included probcreativity a n d i m a g i n a t i o n
lems that required children lo think ol a
variety of alternative uses for an object
Qualities that are sometimes taken for
or to list objects that lit a given criterion,
granted when reviewing the value of play
such as naming all red things. Children
for future development are creativity
who were involved in play experience
and imagination. Much'has been written
groups before the tasks were given conconcerning the nature of curriculum ap-.
sistently perlormed better than children
propriate to prepare children for the
who engaged in nonplay activities prior
uncertain future ol the 21st century, and '
to the task, although, as Smith, Dagleish,
more speculation will surely proliferate
and Herzmark (1981) point out, it is not
in the next decade. One avenue lo
clear whether such gains are the resull
achieve this educalional goal is to foster
ol the play experiences perl se or the
adaptive, flexible, and creative thinking.
adults' intervention. '
Singer (1973) and Singer and Singer
(1985) have written extensively about
Some researchers suggest that structhe contribution ol play to the imaginatured materials may limit playful and
tive thinking of children. In the Singers'
novel activity (Halliday & McNaughton,
view, make-believe play is essential, to
1982; Pepler & Ross, 1981). Teachers
the development of the capacity lor inmust be cautious about the cues they give
ternal imagery and contributes lo the
children about materials when .considerdevelopment ol creativity by opening
ing the ways that the children arrange or
children to experiences lhat stimulate
demonstrate the use ol materials. Play
curiosity and Ihe exploration ol alterna- • contexts, loo, affect the relationship ol
live situations arid combinations. For
play lo creativity. Johnson (1976) and
example, the children on the robot team
Grilling (1980) lound thai prelend play
tried out several methods lor adding
with peers facilitated divergent probflexibility lo the robot's arms and delem-solving concepts. In a study ol the
cided as a group which script lo tape lor
use of slory play with 3-, 4-. and 5-year
its speech. The Singers' research also
old children, one ol the authors and her
emphasizes the psychosocial benefits of
colleagues lound thai enactment of dicimaginative play: Children who engage
tated stories with peers led to creative
in much make-believe are likely lo be
responses lor the staging of events, the
happier and more flexible when they
creation ol slage props, and Ihe repreencounter new situations.
sentation ol characters, as groups ol
•1.)
z*^^.
f " ' '
children talked through the dilemmas ol
converting dictated stories lo stage productions (Nourot, Henry, & Scales,
1990). Finally, individual dillerences
may affect children's performances.
Dansky (1980b) lound that those chil' dren who were already pretend players
benefited the most from play experiences that called for divergent thinking.
Divergent thinking has social applications as well. Research on children
who are popular with peers indicates
that children who are flexible in their
thinking frequently come up with unique
alternatives for resolving disputes and
suggesting compromises (Hazen &
Black, 1984; Rogers & Ross. 1986;
Trawick-Smith, 1988). This ability to
imagine alternatives has been studied in
the domains of perspective taking as
well. In Piaget's theory (1962), one important marker of the move Irorn the
sensorimotor intelligence of infancy to
the more logical operational intelligence
ol middle childhood is the ability to decenter Irom one's own perspective and
imagine from the physical, cognitive,
and emotional viewpoints of others.
Studying this aspect of problem solving
in classroom settings, some researchers
(Cole &. LaVoie, 1985;Connolly & Doyle,
1984; Rubin & Maioni, 1975) lound that
children's levels of dramatic play correlated with perspective-taking abilities.
Dramatic role playing is thought to contribute to the development ol this ability
as children take on imaginary roles and
play out make-believe themes consistent with those roles (Johnson, 1990).
Playing a waiter in a restaurant. Jerry
asks his customer, "Do you want French
fries with your hamburger," and then
translates the order into Vietnamese lor
Bich, the cook.
Children also formulate and test hypotheses concerning the nature ol the
social world as they play roles, and they
communicate implicit rules about those
roles and the use ol objects to their
peers (Corsaro, 1985; Elgas, Klein, Kantor. &. Fernie, 198S). When one child's
version of a role conflicts with that ol
another child, the opportunities lo revise
and negotiate hypotheses are ample.
Four-year-old Mara and three-year-old Juan
are playing with a hospital bed. medical
props, and two dolls. They agree to have their
patients share Lhe toy bed.bul there is only
one pillow. Mara lakes a blanket and lolds it
several limes, placing il under the head ol tier
doll. "Now we both have pillows," she concludes, and the play continues, uninterrupted
by disputes (Van Hoorn, Nourot, Scales. &
Alward, manuscript s u b m i t t e d lor
publication).
Researchers studying children's play
with other children have speculated that
the conflicts and negotiations occurring
as children shilt Irom "In play" to "out of
play" action lead children to consider
the perspectives of others because they
want the play to continue (Corsaro, 1985;
Doyle &. Connolly, 1989; Garvey, 1977;
Reilel & Yeatman, in press). The teacher's role is critical here. Genishi & DiPaolo (1982) report that the teacher's
presence and availability influenced the
course of preschoolers' arguments. Pel. legrini (1984) reports that less complex
•pretend play occurs in the presence of
an adult, indicating that adult proximity
may discourage children from negotiating their own solutions lo conflict.
Sutton-Smi th (1986) and Eisner (1990)
remind us that creativity and imagination are more than cognitive constructs
such as divergent thinking in problem
solving. Imagination is present in a multitude ol contexts of human experience,
ranging Irom the objective and verifiable
to the subjective and absurd. As teachers,'we must not lose sight of the joyfulness and incongruity that often accompany children's imaginative play,
and ol the variety of backgrounds and
experiences that children bring to
school that influence their play.
How can teachers understand
and respect the differences
they see.in children's play?
In linking play lo developmental^ appropriate practice, teachers' understanding ol the role of play in the normal
development ol symbolic thinking, problem solving, and creativity is important.
Play also provides an understanding of
the range ol individual and cultural dillerences in classrooms, another aspect
of developmentally appropriate practice.
From a psychological perspective, researchers lor Project Zero at Harvard
University have studied children over
lime as they develop their personal repertoires ol symbolic expression. This is
seen in pretend play and related activities such as drawing, music, and language (Woll & Gardner. 1979). The re-
searchers describe stylistic dillerences
between "pallerners" and "dramatists"
in dramatic play, art, and storytelling.
Pattemers are concerned with lhe properties and spatial arrangements ol objects, while dramatists are more interested in interpersonal relationships and
naxrajjves ol events.
Social class and cultural
differences in children's play
Recent research is just beginning to
carefully document the elfects of social
class and cultural differences on children's play (Corsaro & Schwarz, in
press; Curry, 1971; Genishi & Galvan,
1985; Health, 1983, 1985; Jacob, 1984; .
McLo.yd, Ray, & Etter-Lewis, 1985;
Schwartzman, 1978; Sutton-Smith &
Heath, 1981), although much work was
done in the 1970s that laid the foundation for efforts today.
Interpretation of these differences has
made this area of research particularly
controversial. Writing from an anthropological perspective, Schwartzman
(1978,1984) suggests that the "deficits"
some researchers have described in
both culturally and economically diverse populations may really be "differ-^
ences," misinterpreted by researchers
who are bound to preconceived ideas •
about what play ought to be. Similarly,
other writers (Eilerman, 1971; McLoyd,
1982) have pointed out that children
who differ culturally or economically
Irom the predominantly middle-class
researchers .may exhibit imaginative
play in ways unfamiliar to the researchers or on a "time table" different from
that proposed by Piaget.
What have researchers found? Much
of the research in the. field was stimulated by Smilansky's finding thai the play
of Israeli middle-class children was
more complex than that ol the play of
Israeli children Irom low socioeconomic
levels (Smilansky, 1968). Subsequently,
several researchers lound significant differences between the play ol children
Irom high and low socioeconomic levels
in the United States, Canada, and England (Grilling, 1980; Fein & Stork, 1981;
Rubin, Maioni, & Hornung, 1976; Tizard,
Philps, & Plewis, 1976a,b), while another
did not (Golomb, 1979). The premise
behind much ol this research is that
children ol poverty have less stimulation
and perhaps less parental acceptance ol
the value ol play in learning (Tizard el
Vnnnn Children • September IHiH
In its complex forms, play is characterized by the use of symbols to represent
objects, ideas, and situations not present in the immediate time and place.
Symbolic play relates to thtitdeoelopment of literacy.
al., 1976). This parental attitude is reflected in the amount of private space
provided (or play, parental modeling
ol make-believe activities, and eflorts ol
parents lo help children make sense
ol new experiences (Udwin & Shmukler,
1981). McLoyd (19S2) calls lor more
carelul consideration ol lhe dillerences
between home and school environments, teacher-child interactions, and
attention 10 nonverbal aspects ol pretend play.
Sutton-Smith & Heath (1981) describe
two major styles of imaginative expression seen in play and language thai may
illuminate cultural and social class dillerences in play. In the oral style, children's expressions are related to real life
events, are coordinated with responses
ol others in the group, and may locus on
play with sounds and metaphors ol language. In the literate style, children express themselves in ways that more
closely resemble most school literacy
tasks by focusing on experiences lhat
are distant Irom real lile and on individual performances outside the conicxi
ol the group.
Another variable lhat warrants carelul
attention when 'observing lhe play of
children Irom diverse backgrounds is
setting (Grilling. 19SU). Children who are
capable ol engaging in complex play
may not do so in certain sellings.such •is
Ymiiiu Cluiih.-n • Si-|jii'm!i--i I'.l'.M
the traditional classroom. Tizard and
colleagues (1976a,b) report that children in England Irom low socioeconomic backgrounds exhibit more complex
levels of play outdoors ihan indoors.
McLoyd (1982) and Pellegrini (1984)
note that the presence ol an adult may
make some children war)' of playing in
lully expressive ways, while others report adult presence as stimulating to the
language and play ol working-class children (Miller & Gan-ey, 19S4; Smilansky,
196S;Sylva, 1984). An implication ol this
research is that when teachers assess
children's symbolic play as lacking in
complexity, they should reassess the
environment. Curry (1971) tells of Navajo children who did noi play in the
housekeeping corner until the furniture
was moved next to the walls lor cleaning
one day, and the room thus resembled
their familiar context ol a round hogan.
T h e play of boys a n d girls
differs
Generally, research indicates lhat
"girl toys." "boy toys," and each sex's
themes and topics for play have noi
changed much in the last 50 years. Boys
are still more likely lo engage in roughand-tumble play, aggressive themes, and
play witii vehicles and building materials (DiPielro. 19K1; Fagot & Patterson.
1969). Girls are more likely lo engage in
sedentary indoor play, more domestic
roles and themes, and goal-orienled
construction or craft projects (Johnson
& Ershler, 1981; Wall el al., 1989). Carpenter & Huston-Stein (1980) speculate
that girls' preferences lor some of these
activities^rnay reflect their desire to stay
close to the teacher rather than their
preference for the activity per se. Since
teachers reportedly give more attention
lo boys in the classroom (Liss, 1986),
perhaps girls' preference lor teacher-led
activities represents bids lor attention.
Halliday & McNaughton (1982) suggest
that the structured nature ol teacherguided tasks may, in lact, limit girls'
opportunities to use materials in novel
ways and to negotiate conflicts without
reliance on adults.
Some studies indicate that contemporary children may be more flexible in their gender-stereotyped play,
perhaps due to the influence of the feminist m o v e m e n t ( H a l l i d a y & McNaughton, 1972). The majority of studies
agree that cross-gender toys and activities are more commonly observed in
girls' play than in boys' (Fagot & Leinback, 1983; Liss, 1986), and that stereotypic play increases with age, perhaps
because ol the inlluence ol parents or
peers (Serbin, Conner, Burchardt, & Citron. 1979; Wall et al., 1989).
There may also be more than meets
the eye going on in gender-stereotyped
play. Abraham and Lieberman (19S5)
compared the play of nine girls in situations using baby dolls and Barbie dolls.
They lound that the Barbie-doll play
suggested more themes than the babydoll play, which was limited in complexity and often degenerated into aggressive play. They speculate lhat
playing roles through the teenage Barbie
rather than as the baby's mother offers a
wider' range of imaginative possibilities
in doll play. In research in her own preschool classroom, Monighan-Nourot reported lhat girls olten used Barbies as
"laser" weapons and boys nurtured iheir
"action figures" (Monighan-Nourot,
Scales. Van Hoorn, & Almy, 1987). Just
the possession ol a toy considered to be
stereotyped does not mean it will be
used in stereotypical ways. In fact,
Carlson-Paige and Levin (1987) recommend lhat teachers guide children to
imagine alternative scenarios to violent
or television-based play with their loys.
45
^
1
f^-
In a unique study ol the play ol a sevenyear-old girl, Kelly-Byrne (1989) calls lor
both teachers and researchers to consider how girls and boys are differently
socialized and how those experiences
affect their play. Black (1989), echoing
. this poinL lound that girls were more
interested in sustaining interaction in
play, while boys were more inlerested in
having their ideas accepted by their
peers. Paley (1984) cautions teachers
not to intervene with loo much vigor in
the play of boys and girls and to allow
them to find their own way to their understandings of gender.
Rough-and-tumble play is a Irequent
accompaniment to pretend play and has
recently become a topic (or researchers.
DiPietro (1981), Pellegrini &. Perimutter
(1988), and Humphreys & Smith (1987)
maintain that this type of play is a positive socializing experience lor young
children, particularly boys, in our society, and is often misinterpreted by
teachers as violent play. Rough-andtumble play differs sharply Irom overt
aggression. In rough-and-tumble play,
children laugh as they tumble in their
play and are able to separate Irom one
another after the play, unlike real fighting. Rough-and-tumble play is more
likely to occur in soft spaces, such as the
rug area indoors or the grass outdoors,
whereas overt aggression occurs primarily during property disputes. The
play fighting of rough-and-tumble play
occurs, open-handed rather than with
closed fists, and children alternate the
roles of aggressor and victim. Negotiating these role exchanges exercises
children's perspective-taking abilities
(Corsaro. 1985).
In understanding individual differences, social class and cultural variations, and gender differences in play,
the teacher's keen observational skills
are essential. In this way teachers see
b e n e a t h the surface of behavioral
stereotypes and appreciate the dynamics ol development lor each child.
How can teachers support
play in preschool and primary
classrooms?
The teacher's role in setting the stage
lor play is highly active and mulli(aceled. Everything the teacher does is
an intervention. We can think ol interventions on a conlinuum Irom more in-
direct to more direct. For example, preparing the environment and scheduling
the day lall at the more indirect end of
the continuum, while intervening as a
matchmaker, peacekeeper, or coach are
more direct interventions (Van.Hoorn,
Nourot, Scales, & Alward, manuscript
submitted lor publication).
Warner (1963) and Wassermann (1990).
Children need adequate time lo move
Irom the exploration ol objects into play
with them and lo construct, elaborate,
and refine the products of their imaginations (Reilel, 1984; Reifel & Yeatman,
1991). This is true with play media as
diverse as dramatic play, block play, and
Teachers can support play in preschool
and primary classrooms by preparing the
environment and scheduling blocks of
time for play, intervening as matchmaker,
peacekeeper, or coach.
S e t t i n g the s t a g e f o r p l a y
Teachers assume multiple roles as
they intervene during p-lay. As "artist
assistant" (Griifin, 1982), the teacher
helps to remove clutter around an ongoing play episode so that the children
can maintain their thematic focus. As
"peacemaker," the teacher helps children resolve disputes, e.g., by suggesting
alternative roles or materials or by interpreting children's motives. As "guardian ol the gale," a sensitive teacher can
help a child gain access to play without
violating the rights of the players in an
ongoing episode. As "matchmaker," the
teacher deliberately helps particular
children play with one another. In the
role ol "parallel player," the teacher uses
similar material and plays next to the
child, thereby suggesting new variations. As "spectator," the teacher helps
children extend their play by commenting on it Irom "outside the play
theme," e.g., "Are you using the cash
register today?" Teachers can also act as
play "participants" by taking active roles
in children's play ("Yes, I'm so hungry, I
would love a tacol").
As "play tutor" or "coach," teachers'
interventions are more direct. In this
role, the teacher models and directs the
child's play and reinforces the child's elforts lo symbolize and interact. Because
this strategy represents a very direct
role lor the adult, we believe th3t it must
be used sparingly and with great care.
Scheduling the day so that children
have a lengthy free choice or "breathing
out" lime is recommended by Ashlon-
play with computers. Tizard and colleagues (1976a,b) caution that too many
choices of play activities may distract
children, a caution echoed by MonighanNourot and colleagues (1987), who call
lor a careful balance of the novel and the
familiar in play accessories and activity
choices. Distraction may be reduced,
however, by provision of well-bounded
play areas with clear pathways to con-'
nect them. Teachers who provide children with well-protected niches for their
play better enable children to concentrate on and sustain their play (Corsaro, 1985;"Ramsey & Reid, 19S8).
O r c h e s t r a t i n g c h i l d r e n ' s play
Much of the research linking play to
aspects ol intellectual and social competence is based on studies in which '
adults coach children in their play. As
with studies linking play experiences to
cognitive variables such as perspective
taking or convergent and divergent .
thinking, the role of adult attention versus the role of independent play is a
topic ol debate. Christie (19S2), Grilling
(1983), Smilansky (1968), Smilansky-&
Shelarya (1990). and Woodard (1984) are
among those who oiler guidelines for
intervening in children's play that respect children's autonomy in their play
and allow teachers to facilitate its development. Christie (1985) categorizes
these coaching strategies into (1) modeling of make-believe objects and roles,
(2) verbal guidance as either a spectator
or a participant in children's spontaneous play, (3) thematic fantasy play
^1
tutoring in which teachers structure the
enactment of lairy tales, and (4) imaginative play training in which adults engage
children in activities designed to enhance their make-believe imagery and
expression (See De Mille, 1967; Singer &
Singer, 1985 lor specific activities). The
above educators concur with Kleiber
and Barhelt (1980) that intervening
in the least obtrusive manner possible
and phasing out ol children's play are
guidelines lor using any of the playcoaching strategies.
In addition, some research indicates
that teachers' intervention in play may
reduce gender-stereotyped play. Early
research by Fagot and Patterson (1969)
suggested that preschool t e a c h e r s
tended to create environments more
conducive to the quiet and constructive
play ol girls, and that these teachers'
attitudes and the environment contrasted sharply with the needs ol boys'
play. Bianchi and Bakeman (1983) report,
that continued teacher encouragement
of cross-gender friendships, efforts to
diminish stereotyping through stories
and modeling, and inclusion of both genders in all school activities can change
these patterns of behavior over time.
S t r a t e g i e s for a s s e s s i n g p l a y
One of the ways that research influences classroom practice is through
the establishment ol developmental
norms. To return to the point made at
the beginning ol this article, play is an
essential feature ol developmental^ appropriate curriculum and assessment.
Carelul observation ol children's play
supports teachers' eflorts to understand
both age-related and individual differences in children's development. Research oilers .tools that teachers may find
valuable lor keeping track of the development of play in their classrooms and
planning lor its enhancement. The most
popular scheme lor tracking the development ol play is the system designed by
Nmilansky (1968). Drawing on the work
tl Piagel (1962), Smilansky traces the
omplexiry ol play Irom the early luncional or practice play in infancy through
he constructive and dramatic play of
ymbol-making in early childhood and
mally lo the games with rules which are
liaracleristic ol middle childhood.
In recent years, several researchers
ave combined Smilansky's system with
ial ol Parten (1932). Parlen traced the
•iimi; Children • September 1991
development ol social play Irom onlooking behavior lo solitary, parallel, and
associative play,and finally to cooperative
play at its most complex level. Through
their work, researchers using Parlen's
system combined with Smilansky's have
illuminated the role of solitary play and
the role of constructive play in development (Rubin, Maioni, & Hornung,
1976; Rubin, 1982). Even more recently,
there has been a shilt toward emphasizing teachers' interpretations of play to
document and support development
and learning (Griilin, 1982; Paley, 1984).
In play, teachers are able to see age. appropriate concepts emerge and may
use play to assess and support the development of individual children. For
example, the second grade teacher who
observes the robot design team over
several play periods notes that JoAnna
has become the electrical engineer who
invents the system for lighting the
robot's eyes. Brian has taken on the role
ol composing on the computer the promotional literature describing the features of the "X-100" model versus the
"X-500" model: The "100" model serves
food, and the "500" model cleans your
house. Anecdotal observations ol these
children's negotiations with their peers,
photographs of the robot under construction, and copies of the promotional
fliers go into the portfolios of the children who created the project.
Conclusion
Play is complex in its processes, antecedents, and consequences in the lives
of children. Researchers continue to
struggle lo define play and to measure it
(Matthews & Matthews. 1982; Rubin,
Fein. & Vandenberg, 1983; Smith, Takhvar, Gore. & Vollstedt, 1986). Teachers
and parents debate its role in the curriculum, and children continue to remind us that it is a compelling and essential pari of childhood. -In some
interesting research, King (1987) has
studied children's definitions of play and
their understanding ol its relationship to
work. The quality of play most olten
mentioned by kindergartners is that it is
something that children are Iree to
choose lor themselves, rather than
having adults make decisions lor them
regardless o( how much they may enjoy
the task. As children mature, their definition ol play becomes more psycho-
logical in nature, emphasizing the factor
of enjoyment. Teachers need to carelully
consider this child's-eye view in planning for play in their classrooms—even
an activity thai may be "fun" Irom the
adult's perspective may not elicit a playful mode ol thinking from children if the
activity is maqdaasd. In contrast, activities that may appear work-like to adults
may be approached by children who are
eager to try them from a freely chosen,
playful stance. .
Even with a growing body of research
on play to bolster the conviction that
play is essential to the learning of young
children, the precise nature of play experiences in learning and development
remains a provocative mystery (Fein,
1985). Perhaps it is the mystery itself
that intrigues both the researcher and
the teacher, lor play appears to exemplify the multilaceted nature of human experience, thought, and feeling.
References
Abraham, K_, & Lieberman, L (1985). Should
Barbie go lo preschool? Young Children, 40
(2) 12-15.
Adams, J. (197.6). Conceptual blockbusting: A
pleasurable guide to bener problem solving.
New York: W. W. Norton.
Almy, M., Monighan, P., Scales, B., & Van
Hoorn, J. (1964). Recent research on play:
The perspective ol lhe teacher. In L. Katz
(Ed.). Current topics in early childhood education. Vol. 5, (pp. 1-25). Norwood, NJ:
Ablex.
Ashton-Warner. 5. (1963). Teacher. New York:
Simon & Schuster.
,
Bianchi, B., & Bakeman, R. (19S3). Patterns ol
sex typing in a/i open school. In M. B. Liss
(Ed.), Social and cognitive skills: Sex roles
an d children i play (pp. 219-233 ). New York:
Academic Press.
Black, B. (1989). Interactive pretense: Social
and symbolic skills in preschool play
groups. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 35(A),
379-397.
Bredekamp, S. (1987). Deuelopmentolly appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving young children from birth
through age 8 Washington. DC: National
Association lor the Education ol Young
Children.
Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible
worlds. Cambridge. MA: Harvard Universiry
Press.
Carlson-Paige. N.. & Levin, D. (1987). The war
ploy dilemma. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Carpenter, C.J.. & Huslon-Siein. A. (1980).
Activity structure and sex typed behavior
in preschool children. Child Development,
51. B62-S72.
Christie, J. F. (19S2).Sociodramalic play training. Young Children. 37(4). 25-32.