IPA/USA E-Journal 2013

Transcription

Fall 2013
www.Ipausa.org
president's message
Thank you for your interest in this issue of the IPA/USA e-journal.
We are committed to supporting the child’s right to play and to
serving as an advocacy organization via publications, conferences,
and networking. You can make a difference by joining IPA/USA.
Simply download a membership application at our website,
www.ipausa.org. Membership in the IPA/USA affiliate
automatically enrolls you in our parent organization, the International
Play Association, and includes international publications and
discounts for international conferences.
IPA/USA officers look forward to working together to make this
a vibrant organization to support the child’s right to play. The
Executive Board includes:
 Dorothy Sluss, President;
 Ladonna Adkins, Vice-President;
 Marcy Guddemi, Treasurer;
 Danielle Marshall, Secretary;
 Joanne Cemore, Member at Large;
 and Joyce Hemphill, Member at Large.
We are especially indebted to Georgiana Duarte, who serves as
Editor in Chief of the e-journal. We also extend special thanks to
Cynthia Gentry who has served as webmaster for the past two years.
If you are interested in taking a more active role in IPA/USA services
and activities, please contact one of the board members.
An exciting new initiative is the establishment of a partnership
with the US Coalition for Play. We are excited to collaborate with
them during their 2014 Conference on the Value of Play which will
be held on February 15-19 at Clemson University, South Carolina.
This collaboration will create meaningful outcomes for participants
by encouraging exchange of ideas through discussion and
conversation.
Keep on playing,
Dorothy Sluss
Dorothy Sluss
President, International Play Association, USA
[email protected]
2
editor's message
Dear IPA/USA Members:
This spring, our journal was delayed for a
number of important changes in schedule and
submissions. It is with great joy we are back
on schedule to share some very reflective and
thoughtful articles. These articles illustrate the
challenges of play, the language and cognitive
benefits, personal reflections on the joys and
constructs of play, and a research study
detailing how children learn and build
foundations for later learning. The authors in
this issue have contributed from a research
lens, a personal reflective perspective of
history and emotion to that of strong voices of
advocacy of parents, children and adults.
These articles are professional and personal as
they reveal the many voices of research and
advocacy in play.
The first article in this issue carefully
examines current kindergarten expectations,
IPA/USA e-journal Fall 2013
and the role of play in curriculum. Guddemi,
Fite and Selva have systematically
investigated the Gesell Development
Observation-Revised, the psychometric
results and implications for tasks and subtasks
on the GDO-R, developmental and academic
criteria for success, and how children learn
through play. The extensive results inform
and support that the GDO-R is a reliable and
valid measurement tool, but that the child’s
developmental level clearly contributes to his
other success for learning. Equally important,
they assert that many children are not
developmentally ready for rigorous academic
work, but rather a learning environment that
embraces play, relevant curriculum strategies,
and not rote memorization. They argue that
children could have been engaged in
meaningful play and building a foundation for
the academic core.
The second article written by Matilde
Sarmiento, a teacher/ parent conducts a case
study of her four year old in a preschool in
Barcelona, Spain. Sarmiento documents the
frustration of play being challenged and not
understood by families, community, and
public policy as not valuable in the child’s
development. She affirms the research of
many researchers and parents in asking the
important questions about the importance play
and its role in appropriate and meaningful
curriculum. Sarmiento speaks and moves
between the worlds of teacher and parent as
she struggles with observations of
inappropriate classrooms where academics
are stressed, and the multitude of decisions
that she must make to ensure that her child
has the right to play, and has a quality setting
“to play” where the teachers also understand
the importance of play.
The third fascinating article speaks to the
need for children re-connecting with nature in
her article entitled, “Artful Play at the
Backyard Easel”. Geneser details how
children talk, share, describe, and dramatize
3
while they are painting, and how this
discourse is shaped by their emotional and
physical environments. She illustrates
through scenarios of children engaging in art
outside the importance of careful listening
and observing a child’s play. She argues that
outdoor environments matter as she describes
the importance of express language, artistic
endeavors and symbolic play. Through the
play of Sophie, she points out the need to
carefully listen and learn from their play. The
author explains the numerous ways that
outdoor play support, extend and enrich
language development. After reading this
article, you may be eager to go and observe
children dig in the worm bin!
The fourth article of the journal is a
resurrection of play by Laurel Moldawsky
Silber and Barbara Moldawsky Stern. They
revive the importance of play through their
lens of memories as sisters in play, but also as
researchers who study play. They cite
research and current studies that examine the
value of play, and eloquently point out that
children are stressed out. They reflected
upon their early experiences, learning, joys,
challenges of play and reflect upon how play
contributed to their own development and
learning. They as they struggle with the
existing challenges of the neglect and absence
of play, they examine their own personal
journey as children. The article is both
personal and professional as they call for
awareness, commitment and activism on
behalf of play. As you read this article, and
complete the journal, you will find yourself
drifting to early memories of play, examining
your own research and advocacy and
wondering and affirming why play is so very
important.
And finally, there is a brief history of IPA and
IPA/USA that you will find fascinating. Our
roots go back almost 100 years!
Warm regards.
Georgianna Duarte
[email protected]
Design and layout: Marcy Guddemi
4
CONTENTS
Chapter
1
Title
Page
Where Is the Play? Current Kindergarten Expectations
Unsubstantiated: Findings from Gesell Institute’s Study of
Preschool Children
Marcy Guddemi, Kathleen Fite, and Gitta Selva
6
2
Her Favorite Four Letter Word – Play
Matilde A. Sarmiento-Arribalzaga ………………………………. 21
3
Artful Play at the Backyard Easel: Thinking, Talking and Painting
Outdoors
Vivien Geneser…………………………………………………… 30
4
Resurrecting Play for the Next Generation
Laurel Moldawsky Silber and Barbara Moldawsky Stern
5
37
International Play Association (IPA) and the American Affiliate
IPA/USA: A Brief History
Marcy Guddemi and Joe Frost…………………………………… 46
5
Where Is the Play?
Current Kindergarten Expectations Unsubstantiated:
Findings from Gesell Institute’s Study of Preschool Children
Marcy Guddemi, Kathleen Fite, and Gitta Selva
abstract
Note: The authors would like to acknowledge the work of Andrea Sambrook, research project
coordinator, and Bruce Randel, psychometrician, for this study.
Educators and parents are increasingly concerned about the effects of high-stakes
testing on children who may not be developmentally ready to perform tasks
according to the rigorous standards of today’s kindergarten curriculum (Copple
& Bredekamp, 2009; Almon & Miller, 2011). In response to this issue, and to
provide renewed validity evidence for the ©2007 Gesell Developmental
Observation (GDO), Gesell Institute of Child Development conducted a
nationwide study to collect new data with almost 1,300 children ages 3 to 6
years. New data is presented for 17 of the 19 original tasks on the GDO, and
additional measures of overt behavior and social/emotional/adaptive skills.
Results confirm that children are able to perform developmental items within
tasks according to a sequential trajectory of increasing difficulty, relative to their
chronological age in six month intervals, and that performance mastery on items
does not occur at the same time for all children of the same age. In addition,
results support the continued validity and reliability of the revised GDO, now
named the Gesell Developmental Observation-Revised (GDO-R), as an
instrument to determine a child’s developmental level along a continuous path of
growth and learning. Also discussed are the importance of establishing effective
and appropriate academic goals and the role of play on a child’s developmental
assessment results.
Introduction
Cultivating expectations that are not
appropriately aligned with the child’s
development creates unrealistic levels for
achievement of young children. As the
problematic No Child Left Behind
legislation saw many children indeed left
“behind,” American educators and policy
makers advocated for more consistent and
rigorous standardized benchmarks for
learning for younger and younger
children, resulting in the Common Core
State Standards in 2010 for Grade
Kindergarten to 12 in Math and Literacy.
While these standards represent a
widespread initiative to try to close the
achievement
gap
and
provide
accountability through test scores, many
early childhood advocates question their
appropriateness and even whether or not
they are achievable. One of the most
alarming aspects is that most Common
Core advocates eliminate the use of play
as a learning medium.
Many policy and decision makers
appear to be obsessed with the educational
idea that sooner is better than later when it
comes to learning core knowledge. Jean
6
Piaget (1896-1980), an influential Swiss
child psychologist, referred to the
American fixation that children should
learn “sooner and faster” as “the
American disease” (Guddemi and Zigler,
2011). Drilling children to memorize
academic facts at earlier ages will not
result in greater achievement for the vast
majority of children, due to the
developmental
trajectory of
child
development and individual differences
among children (Almond & Miller, 2011).
Also, increased testing intervals will not
help or hasten the process. In fact,
standardized testing is very unreliable
with young children under the age of
seven. Experts have determined that there
is only a 40% correlation between results
of intelligence tests administered prior to
kindergarten and results on achievement
tests in third grade (Kim & Suen, 2003).
Informed
parents,
educators,
and
advocates of young children seek effective
ways to establish academic goals for
young children which correspond
appropriately to developmental level,
including social, emotional, and adaptive
capacities.
Arnold Gesell, PhD and MD,
developed the first assessment of human
development, identifying the ages and
stages of child development based on his
maturationist theory (Gesell, 1925). He
published the original Gesell assessment,
known today as the Gesell Developmental
Observation (GDO). It was updated in
1940 and 1965. In 1979, Ames, Gillespie,
Haines, and Ilg published Gesell
Institute’s The Child from One to Six:
Evaluating the Behavior of the Preschool
Child with updated technical data for the
GDO. This was the last time a study was
conducted using the GDO solely for the
purpose of collecting scientific data. A
handful of other small-scale studies and
dissertation research projects were
conducted in the last 30 years for a variety
of purposes, mostly surrounding issues of
school
readiness
and
transition
classrooms. In 2007, minor edits were
made to the GDO by the Institute, and in
2011 the newly revalidated and revised
Gesell
Developmental
ObservationRevised (GDO-R) was published.
The (GDO-R) evaluates a child’s
performance on a series of developmental
and academic tasks in relation to the
sequential ages and stages of typical child
development in the cognitive, motor,
language, and social/emotional/adaptive
domains. The results of the GDO-R
reveal a child’s Developmental Age and
Performance Level Ratings in each of five
domains at a point in time.
A
Developmental Age may differ from the
child’s chronological age, being lower or
higher, or be the same. Knowing each
child’s Developmental Age enables
educators to customize developmentally
appropriate academic experiences based
on play and curricula to best meet the
learning needs of every child.
This paper presents some of the
psychometric results and implications for
tasks and subtasks on the GDO-R,
indicating the typical ages at which
specific developmental and academic
tasks needed for realistic, developmentally
appropriate success in kindergarten are
mastered. Also discussed is the role of
play as a learning medium as it relates to
child development.
Literature Review
Experts have stressed the significance of
the kindergarten year as it relates to the
child’s development and the child’s ability
to succeed within the school environment.
Kindergarten sets the tone for learning
and future school success (Black, 2008;
Guddemi & Zigler, 2011). Embarking on
new
learning
creates
numerous
opportunities for the development of the
child not only in areas of cognition, but
7
also in social, emotional, and physical
growth, as well as in his/her growth as an
individual within a community. Lifelong, vital skills are acquired through the
appropriate
play-based
learning
opportunities presented within the
kindergarten environment (Galinsky,
2010).
With an increased and emphasis
placed on rigorous academic new
standards and accountability, educators
and parents are faced with new challenges
relating to a new definition of school
readiness and the academic curriculum in
kindergarten.. Schools play an important
role in readiness; however, various
schools have different expectations
regarding readiness. A child may be
considered prepared for one school
environment and not prepared for another
based on that particular school’s
expectations for readiness (Maxwell &
Clifford, 2004). Because play has been
eliminated from most kindergartens,
parents and educators are concerned as the
pressures and demands within early
learning environments have increased.
Kagan and Lowenstein (2004, pg. 59)
proposed that many view play as an
“oxymoron to school readiness.” Today’s
kindergarten academic expectations are
set essentially at the achievement levels of
first grades 20 years ago (Miller &
Almon, 2009).
Although there is much discussion
relating to the readiness of incoming
Kindergarten children, it is a school’s
responsibility to educate children who are
legally of age to attend school. Most
states require children to attend school by
a certain age regardless of their readiness
or skill level. On the flip-side there is also
a need for schools to be ready for the
child. It is widely accepted that school
readiness is multidimensional (National
Education Goals Panel, 1997; Ewing
Marion Kauffman Foundation, 2002) and
encompasses the following areas: physical
well-being and motor development, social
and emotional development, language
development, approaches to learning, and
cognition
and
general
knowledge
(National Education Goals Panel, 1997).
Therefore, for a school to be ready for the
child all of these areas must be addressed
by the school--and a play-based
curriculum is the best way to do so
(Guddemi & Zigler, 2011). Furthermore,
it is essential that schools, communities,
and families acknowledge gaps in each
child’s educational abilities that can occur
based not only on individual differences
in normal development, but also on such
factors as birth weight, nutrition,
television viewing, parent-child ratio,
children’s exposure to language and
literacy, and parental involvement and
participation in the child’s well-being.
Despite a national focus on early
childhood education, current research
indicates that educational gaps continue to
exist, and that achievement gaps occur
prior to the beginning of elementary
school (Langham, 2009). It has been
suggested that high quality early
education that aligns with high quality
kindergarten through third grade programs
plays a critical role in attempting to close
educational
gaps,
and
potentially
contributes to enhancing the child’s
development, school readiness, and future
school success. Long-term effects of a
quality pre-kindergarten experience can
affect grade retention, placement, special
education, and school dropout rates
(Mead, 2008; Barnett, 1993; Campbell et
al., 2002). Unfortunately, not all children
have the opportunity to participate in a
high quality play-based pre-kindergarten
program.
A consistent characteristic of high
quality preK and K programs is the
reliance on developmentally appropriate
practices for each child based on each
8
child’s
needs.
Developmentally
appropriate practice (DAP) is defined by
the National Association for the Education
of Young Children (NAEYC). DAP is a
means
to
meet
a
child’s
educational/instructional needs by first
understanding where a child is
developmentally and then providing both
challenging and achievable experiences
based on the child’s stage of development.
The organization supports educators in
“promoting young children’s optimal
learning and development” (Copple &
Bredekamp, 2009, p.16). NAEYC’s DAP
encourages educators to provide learning
opportunities that will enhance all areas of
a child’s development and to understand
that a child’s development follows a welldocumented, sequential order. DAP is
based on being aware that each child
develops at his/her own unique rate and
that learning opportunities need to be
challenging, but within the child’s ability.
Understanding a child’s development are
keys to setting expectations that are
appropriate and to planning curriculum
that meets the child’s needs and abilities.
Early educators need to adhere to methods
and practices of teaching that foster a
child’s development with learning being
concentrated in all areas of development –
cognitive, social, emotional, language,
and physical (Kagan & Reid, 2009).
Developmentally
appropriate
practice also means using play as a
medium for learning. “Play is the work of
the child” is frequently heard as one
reason that children need to learn through
active, hands-on interactions with their
environment and with others. There is
much research to show that “play-filled”
classrooms have better outcomes than
direct instruction classroom on reading
and math scores (Golinkoff, Hirsh-Pasek,
& Singer, 2006; Bodrova & Leong, 2007).
Of particular interest is the research on
mature, sustained, pretend play with
others and the increased development of
prefrontal cortex of the brain that is
responsible for Executive Functioning,
namely skills such as self-control,
flexibility,
and
working
memory.
Unfortunately, many adults view play as
frivolous and meaningless, or the opposite
of work (Almon & Miller, 2011).
In order to plan developmentally
appropriate practice, assessing the
readiness or where a child is on the path
of development is essential in determining
what play experiences a child is ready for.
This use of readiness assessments should
never exclude children from learning
opportunities, but rather help determine
how and what educational and learning
experiences should be developed and/or
modified
to
meet
the
child’s
developmental level (Gullo, 2005).
Through documentation and assessment,
an educator is better able to understand
the child. These instruments offer insight
into a child’s development and his ability
to learn, making learning visible to the
educator (Seitz, 2008). Since learning is
multi-dimensional, it is important for an
assessment to be used as a tool to help
educators better understand children, their
development, and how they learn
(Tomlinson, 2008).
Research on the GDO-R
The purpose of Gesell Institute’s GDO
Study was to provide updated technical
data, validity, and reliability evidence for
17 of the 19 original tasks on the ©2007
GDO with three to six year old children
(see Table 1 in the Appendix). Two tasks,
which were intended for assessing older
children, were omitted. Another purpose
of the GDO Study was to include Overt
Behavior (Task 20) and to strengthen the
social/emotional/adaptive domain by use
of the new Parent/Guardian Questionnaire
and Teacher Questionnaire (Task 21).
The criterion that shaped this study, and
9
ultimately the scoring rubrics in this
revision, was based on three sources of
information:
1. Scientific data collected on a
nation-wide sample of 1287
children ages three to six years
old. This technical data provides
information about how children
across the U.S. performed on
GDO-R tasks, and it can be used
to compare a child’s performance
to that of typically developing agematched peers.
2. Knowledge and experience of
professionals who teach and work
with children in each age band. A
panel of nationally recognized
experts with extensive experience
in the field of child development
agreed
upon
the
GDO-R
Performance Level Definitions as
a means for examiners to confirm
a child’s overall results on the
GDO-R.
3. Well-established research findings
and
theoretical
frameworks.
Children grow and mature through
a series of predictable stages in a
sequential
order.
Their
development
is
dynamic,
continuous, and reflects a pace
unique to each child.
The sample included a diverse group
of sites (N=53) in terms of the type of
school, region of the country (23 states),
size, and population served (i.e., ethnicity
and percentage eligible for free and
reduced lunch). Refer to Figure 1 for
sample distribution by state and Tables 2
to 4 for demographics of participating
sites. Sites volunteered to be part of the
study. Almost all sites were current users
of the GDO and thus should be considered
a sample of convenience. (See complete
Technical Report for more details.)
Results
Presented here are five tables to
demonstrate the points made in the
following implications. Please refer to
Table 5 (Cubes), Table 6 (Copy Forms),
Table 7 (Identifying Letters), Table 8
(One-to-One
Correspondence
and
Conservation), and Table 9 (Calculations)
in the Appendix. Complete psychometric
data can be found in the Technical Report
(Gesell, 2012).
Overall results confirm that
children
are
able
to
perform
developmental items (subparts of the task)
according to a sequential trajectory of
increasing difficulty, relative to their
chronological age in six month intervals,
and that performance mastery on items
does not occur at the same time for all
children of the same age. The tables, even
at a glance, show the developmental
trajectory by following the color-coding.
Dark grey means that 70% or more of the
children at that age band could complete
the task. Solid Performance Expectations
are foreseeable for that age group. The
light grey shading means that 50-69% of
all children at that age band could
complete the task; thus for this group the
outcome is a Qualified Performance
Expectation. White means fewer than
50% of all children could perform the
task; thus this group has No Performance
Expectation or Not Yet.
The data presented here and in
the complete Technical Report confirm
that not all children arrive at the same
time
at
important
developmental
milestones. The data helps us understand
when most children might arrive at these
milestones, and when we can have solid,
qualified, or no expectation yet.
Implications
The most valuable implication of Gesell
Institute’s research is that the GDO-R has
renewed reliability and validity evidence
to support its continued use as a
10
developmental instrument to evaluate
growth and development of children age
3-6 years, and inform instruction for
developmentally appropriate activities.
The results from this study also support
the original findings for developmental
tasks as originally published by Arnold
Gesell. Children are developing and
reaching the major developmental
milestones at about the same time as they
did when Dr. Gesell first started collecting
date over a century ago (Gesell, 1925).
A few of the important implications of
the research for educators nationwide
include the following:
1. Perceiving oblique lines is a
prerequisite to letter formation and
writing
two
essential
expectations in the kindergarten
curriculum of today. Building the
Gate (Task 1 - Cubes) and copying
the Triangle (Task 4 - Copy
Forms) require that the child not
only perceive the oblique angle of
the cube or the form, but is able to
reproduce the structure in 3-D or
on paper.
The GDO study
documents that this developmental
capacity is solid only by age 5
(Task 1 - Cubes - Gate) and 5.5
(Task 4 - Copy Forms - Triangle).
Educators must be alert to both
chronological variations in age and
developmental level in order to
properly balance the pace and
sequence of daily learning
activities for each child.
2. Children correctly identify letters
in the alphabet in a graduated
process that is affected by age,
experience and exposure to the
printed word.
As such, the
average 4.5 year old can
successfully
identify
approximately 12 letters of the
alphabet, and by a year later, at
5.5, they can identify 21-22 letters.
Educators who attempt to teach
writing letters before the age of 5.5
(when most children can perceive
and execute oblique lines of
letters) are doing their young
students a disservice, which may
possibly result in a child
internalizing failed attempts at
writing before his or her
developmental capacity for the
task exists. Taking the time to
understand how developmental
level can be leveraged for teaching
will benefit both children and
teachers.
3. Educators who are able to
recognize when a child is
beginning to conserve 10 or more
items will likely find that the child
can also begin to succeed at simple
calculations which have final
answers less than 5 (beginning
around 5.5 years and solid
expectation by 6). Until a child
can conserve item sets of 13 -20,
his or her success at calculations
will likely remain the product of
memorization or chance, as
opposed to concepts of true
numeracy.
Conclusion
The results of this study, based on a
culturally and socio-economically diverse
sample of children three to six years of
age in seven age bands, provide evidence
that
children’s
performance
on
developmental and academic tasks, as
measured by the Gesell Developmental
Observation-Revised,
occurs
in
a
sequential progression of mastery that
increases with age. In addition, the results
provide evidence that not all children of
the same chronological age arrive at each
developmental level for the same tasks at
the same time.
Thus, there exists
variation
in
performance
on
11
developmental and academic tasks
between children of the same age. Future
research should include a more intensive
analysis of the data by weighting variables
such as child ethnicity, geography, and
socio-economic level to pursue solidity in
the findings.
It is essential that educators, policy
makers, and parents understand the
significance of developmental level in
setting standards and planning appropriate
curriculum (content and instructional
strategy) for children. By using robust
observational methods coupled with
comprehensive developmental assessment
tools, educators can utilize each child’s
unique developmental profile to plan
curriculum
that
respects
the
developmental level and potential of the
child.
Utilizing
standardized,
performance-based
instruments
to
understand an individual developmental
level, cultural and social influences, and
individual interests and needs of each
child allows for consistency of
expectations, appropriate goals for
learning, and proper accountability in the
educational system.
The results of the GDO Study
presented here strongly support the GDOR as a reliable and valid developmental
measurement tool, and confirm the
essential role that a child’s developmental
level contributes to his or her success for
learning today and for preparation as a
citizen of tomorrow. The study also
confirms that many children are not
developmentally ready for the rigorous
academic work mandated by the Common
Core. Young children learn through playbased curricula. Memorizing content that
the child is not developmentally ready to
master is a waste of time in two ways.
One,
the
child,
through
rote
memorization, is not really learning; and
two, the child could have been playing
and truly learning and building the
foundation that will support the more
rigorous common core when the child is
ready to understand.
Authors:
Marcy Guddemi, PhD, MBA As Executive
Director of Gesell Institute of Child
Development, Marcy leads her team
“promoting the
principles
of
child
development in all decision-making for young
children.” She is widely recognized as an
expert in early education, learning though
play,
and
developmental
assessment.
[email protected]
Kathleen Fite, EdD As Distinguished Alumni
and professor of education at Texas State
University, Kathleen is an advocate for
children worldwide, has worked as a writer,
consultant, researcher, educator, and leader at
many levels. She is a Gesell International
Ambassador and serves on the Gesell Institute
Advisory Council. She also serves on the
Executive Board for the Association of
Childhood Education International. She has
taught public school and undergraduate
through doctoral level university classes.
Gitta Selva is the Director of Programs and
Editorial Services at Gesell Institute of Child
Development. She previously worked at
Queensland University of Technology’s
School of Learning and Professional Studies
in Brisbane, Australia, and Yale University’s
Center in Child Development and Social
Policy. She co-authored several scholarly
articles on teacher education and service
learning. [email protected]
Gesell Institute of Child Development
310 Prospect St.
New Haven, CT 06511
203-777-3481
[email protected]
12
References
Almon, J., & Miller, E. (2011). The crisis in early education: A research-based case for
more play and less pressure. College Park, MD: Alliance for Childhood.
Barnett, W. S. (1993). Benefit-cost analysis of preschool education: Findings from a 25-year
follow up. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 63(4), 25-50.
Black, S. (2008). Early education, later success. American School Board Journal, 196(9),
61-63.
Bodrova, E., & Leong, D. J. (2007). Tools of the mind: The Vygotskian approach to early
childhood education (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Campbell, F. A., Ramey, C. T., Pungello, E. P., Sparling, J., & Miller-Johnson, S. (2002).
Early childhood education: Young adult outcomes from the Abecedarian project.
Applied Developmental Science, 6, 42-57.
Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in early
childhood programs: Serving children from birth through age 8. Washington, DC:
National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation (2002). Set for success: Building a strong foundation
for school based on the social-emotional development of young children. Kansas City,
MO: Author.
Galinsky, E. (2010). Mind in the making. New York City: Harper-Collins..
Gesell, A. (1925). The mental growth of the pre-school child: A psychological outline of
normal development from birth to the sixth year, including a system of developmental
diagnosis. Macmillan.
Gesell Institute of Child Development (2012). Gesell developmental observation-revised
and Gesell early screener technical report ages 3-6. New Haven, CT: Author.
Golinkoff, R. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Singer, D. (2006). Play=learning: A challenge for
parents and educators. In D. Singer, R. M. Golinkoff, & K. Hirsh-Pasek (Eds).
Play=learning: How play motivates and enhances children’s cognitive and socialemotional growth. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Guddemi, M., & Zigler, E. (2011). Community early childhood LEADership e-kit [CDROM]. New Haven, CT: Gesell Institute of Child Development.
Gullo, D. (2005). Understanding assessment and evaluation in early childhood education.
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Kagan, S. L., & Lowenstein, A. E. (2004). School readiness and children’s play:
Contemporary oxymoron or compatible option? In E. Zigler, D. Singer, & S. BishopJosef (Eds). Children’s play: The roots of reading. Washington, DC: Zero to Three
Press.
Kagan S. L., & Reid, J. (2009). Invest in early childhood education. Phi Delta Kappan,
90(8), 572-576.
Kim, J., & Suen, H. K. (2003). Predicting children’s academic achievement from early
assessment scores: A validity generalization study. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 18(4), 547-566.
Langham, B. A. (2009). The achievement gap: What early childhood educators need to
know. Texas Child Care Quarterly. Retrieved November 21, 2012 from
http://www.childcarequarterly.com/fall09_story2a.html
Maxwell, K., & Clifford, R. (2004). Research in review: School readiness assessment.
13
Young Children & Assessment. Washington, D.C.: NAEYC.
Mead, S. (2008). Find success in early childhood education. American School Board
Journal, 195(11), 25-29.
Miller, E., & Almon, J. (2009). Crisis in the kindergarten: Why children need to play
in school. College Park, MD: Alliance for Childhood.
National Education Goals Panel. (1997). The national education goals report: Building a
nation of learners. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Seitz, H. (2008). The power of documentation in the early childhood classroom. Young
Children, 63(2), 88-92.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2008). Learning to love assessment. Educational Leadership, 65(4), 8-13.
14
Appendix
Figure 1
Sample Distribution by State
Note. Participating states (N=23) are indicated by a star.
Table 1
GDO-R Tasks
Task #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Task Name
Cubes
Interview
Name and Numbers
Copy Forms
Incomplete Man
Right and Left
Visual I
Visual III
Naming Animals
Interests
Prepositions
Digit Repetition
Comprehension Questions
Color Forms
Three-Hole Form Board
Action Agents
GDO©2007
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
GDO-R
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
15
17
18
19
20
21
Identifying Letters and
Numbers
Numeracy
Motor (Fine and Gross)
Overt Behavior
Social, Emotional, and
Adaptive
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics for Participating Sites (N=53): School Type
School Type
# Sites
#GDO-R Assessments
Private
Public
33 (62%)
584 (45%)
20 (38%)
703 (55%)
South
West
Table 3
Descriptive Statistics for Participating Sites: U.S. Region
Region
Participating States
# Sites
# GDO-R
Assessments
Northeast
CT, MA,
ME, NY,
PA
20 (38%)
672 (52%)
Midwest
KS, MI, MN,
ND, OH, SD
9 (17%)
201 (16%)
AL, FL, GA,
KY, LA, NC,
SC, TN, TX
18 (34%)
288 (22%)
AZ, CA, CO
6 (11%)
126 (10%)
Table 4
Descriptive Statistics for Participating Sites: Ethnicity and SES
Ethnicity
Mean percent
African-American
14.8 (34.1)
American Indian
2.9 (.6)
Asian American
4.5 (1.0)
Caucasian not Hispanic
60.7 (42.8)
Hispanic
15.3 (28.1)
Other
1.8 (1.2)
% Eligible for Free/Reduced Lunch
28.2 (35.64)
Enrollment
N
Mean # children enrolled
168
Note. Numbers in parentheses are standard deviations. Eligibility for Free/Reduced Lunch
program is used as a representative variable in the sample for lower socioeconomic level.
16
Table 5
P-values for Cubes Task by Age Band (polytomous items)
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
(n=53) (n=130) (n=186) (n=264) (n=278) (n=221) (n=152)
Tower
0.86
0.91
0.93
0.94
0.97
0.99
1.00
Train
0.61
0.68
0.83
0.91
0.93
0.96
0.94
Bridge
0.51
0.66
0.87
0.94
0.98
0.99
1.00
Gate
0.07
0.21
0.32
0.64
0.80
0.89
0.93
Steps (6)
0.06
0.05
0.14
0.32
0.49
0.65
0.81
Steps (10)
0.02
0.02
0.05
0.16
0.35
0.52
0.74
Note. In Cubes, examiners were instructed to administer each item, and provide a DEMO if
required. Each item was scored using three categories: Successfully completed without
DEMO (2), Successfully completed with DEMO (1), Unsuccessful (0).
Table 6
P-values for Copy Forms Task by Age Band
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
(n=53) (n=131) (n=185) (n=261) (n=278) (n=220) (n=153)
Scribble
0.81
0.87
0.90
0.91
0.95
0.91
0.79
Stroke – Vertical
0.75
0.87
0.85
0.92
0.95
0.93
0.82
Stroke –
Horizontal
0.74
0.80
0.83
0.91
0.95
0.92
0.83
Circle
0.74
0.85
0.94
0.98
0.99
1.00
0.99
Cross
0.30
0.53
0.67
0.87
0.94
0.97
1.00
Square
0.23
0.25
0.36
0.71
0.83
0.93
0.98
Triangle
0.08
0.15
0.12
0.35
0.55
0.73
0.90
Divided
Rectangle
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.12
0.26
0.41
0.65
Diamond –
Horizontal
0.02
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.19
0.34
0.48
Diamond –
Vertical
0.02
0.04
0.05
0.07
0.19
0.34
0.58
3-D Cylinder
0.00
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.07
3-D Cube Faceon
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
3-D Cube Pointon
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
Note. In Copy Forms, examiners were instructed to administer each item, and to administer
demonstrations (DEMOS) if required. However, for the purpose of the study, each item was
scored (0, 1) regardless of any DEMO required.
17
Table 7
P-values for Identifying Letters Task by Age Band
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
(n=50) (n=125) (n=172) (n=229) (n=232)
A
0.12
0.15
0.34
0.60
0.80
B
0.06
0.14
0.30
0.54
0.69
C
0.06
0.14
0.31
0.50
0.71
D
0.04
0.14
0.20
0.47
0.66
E
0.06
0.10
0.24
0.48
0.69
F
0.02
0.13
0.20
0.45
0.59
G
0.06
0.12
0.20
0.42
0.59
H
0.02
0.10
0.20
0.48
0.62
I
0.00
0.10
0.13
0.34
0.52
J
0.04
0.14
0.20
0.47
0.65
K
0.06
0.20
0.21
0.49
0.63
L
0.04
0.11
0.19
0.45
0.66
M
0.06
0.16
0.24
0.46
0.66
N
0.04
0.12
0.19
0.47
0.63
O
0.06
0.15
0.34
0.57
0.75
P
0.06
0.12
0.23
0.47
0.66
Q
0.02
0.16
0.22
0.42
0.60
R
0.02
0.13
0.22
0.46
0.65
S
0.08
0.11
0.21
0.51
0.70
T
0.04
0.14
0.22
0.48
0.66
U
0.04
0.07
0.17
0.38
0.56
V
0.02
0.08
0.13
0.36
0.56
W
0.06
0.16
0.25
0.42
0.64
X
0.02
0.17
0.33
0.54
0.72
Y
0.04
0.14
0.23
0.46
0.60
Z
0.04
0.14
0.23
0.48
0.65
Mean p value
.05
.13
.23
.46
.65
Mean number of
1.18
3.41
5.9
12.04
16.83
letters identified
(3.10)
(6.74)
(8.25)
(10.23) (9.67)
5.5
(n=184)
0.89
0.86
0.87
0.82
0.83
0.84
0.79
0.84
0.64
0.83
0.82
0.82
0.82
0.81
0.90
0.88
0.83
0.85
0.89
0.85
0.80
0.74
0.83
0.91
0.82
0.83
.83
21.6
(7.38)
6.0
(n=139)
0.96
0.94
0.92
0.92
0.94
0.93
0.93
0.94
0.81
0.93
0.94
0.94
0.93
0.95
0.94
0.94
0.90
0.91
0.93
0.93
0.91
0.89
0.91
0.97
0.93
0.96
.93
24.07
(4.86)
18
Table 8
P-values for One-to-One Correspondence and Conservation Tasks by Age Band
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
(n=53) (n=128) (n=171) (n=231) (n=219) (n=179) (n=135)
4 pennies, count
them
0.43
0.55
0.74
0.85
0.94
0.99
0.99
Altogether
0.23
0.25
0.38
0.62
0.79
0.85
0.93
10 pennies, count
them
0.13
0.27
0.43
0.59
0.80
0.87
0.87
Altogether
0.08
0.08
0.26
0.46
0.72
0.80
0.85
13 pennies, count
them
0.06
0.14
0.18
0.45
0.60
0.80
0.86
Altogether
0.02
0.04
0.10
0.34
0.54
0.74
0.82
20 pennies, count
them
0.02
0.06
0.08
0.27
0.45
0.67
0.81
Altogether
0.02
0.02
0.06
0.24
0.43
0.64
0.76
Table 9
P-values for Calculations Task by Age Band
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
(n=44) (n=107) (n=147) (n=208) (n=214) (n=179) (n=137)
2+2
0.08
0.17
0.25
0.44
0.64
0.77
0.87
2+3
0.04
0.13
0.17
0.39
0.53
0.68
0.84
5-2
0.07
0.13
0.21
0.35
0.50
0.63
0.77
7+3
0.01
0.07
0.08
0.19
0.35
0.48
0.70
6-4
0.08
0.11
0.21
0.27
0.34
0.51
0.66
14+3
0.00
0.02
0.03
0.08
0.18
0.30
0.55
16-4
0.00
0.02
0.06
0.09
0.15
0.25
0.41
Note. Children were scored using three categories; Successfully completed without pennies
(2), Successfully completed with pennies (1), or Unsuccessful (0).
Descriptions of Tasks
Task 1: Cubes
This set of items requires the child to
reproduce block structures built by the
examiner: The Tower, the Train, the Bridge,
the Gate, Steps with 6 cubes, and Steps with
10 cubes. The ability to reproduce the
structures successfully and the approach to the
item used by the child provides information
about horizontal and visual perception, fine
motor coordination, attention span, spatial
judgment, and short term memory. Children
are able to successfully build the Tower (10
cubes) by 3.0 years, the Train (4 cubes) by 4.0
years, the Bridge (3 cubes) by 4.0 years, the
Gate (5 cubes) by 5.0 years, the Steps (6
cubes) by 6.0 years, and finally the Steps (10
cubes) at 6.0 years.
Task 4: Copy Forms
The child is asked to copy a Circle,
Cross, Square, Triangle, Divided Rectangle,
Vertical and Horizontal Diamonds, and
ultimately 3-dimensional shapes (cube and
cylinder) according to his/her age and
demonstrated ability. Some age 6 children
were not administered the first three items
(Scribble, Horizontal and Vertical Stroke)
when the examiner believed the items were
too easy for these children. In this case, the
children received a missing score that was
19
treated as incorrect for the analyses, leading to
the lower p-values for these items for age 6
children. Children are able to copy the Circle
by 3.0 years, the Cross and the Square by 4.5
years, the Triangle by 5.5 years, and the
Divided Rectangle only after 6.0 years of age.
Task 17: Identifying Letters and Numbers
a) Identifying Letters
This task requires a child to identify
random capital letters. This task is dependent
on prior exposure and knowledge of the
alphabet. Children are able to identify a
mean of 17 letters by the time they are 5.0
years and eligible to enter Kindergarten.
b) Identifying Numbers
This task requires a child to identify
numerals 1-12 by name. This task is
dependent on exposure to and knowledge of
numbers. Children are able to identify a mean
of 8 numbers by the time they are 5.0 years
and enter Kindergarten.
Task 18: Numeracy (Counting, One-to-One
Correspondence, Conservation, and
Calculations)
a) Counting
Counting reveals the child’s
experience with and ability to remember
numbers in a sequence. Children were
allowed to count up to 40. As age increases,
children’s ability to count to higher numbers
increases as well. By age 4.0, children can
count correctly to approximately 10. By age
5.0, they count to about 24, and by age 6.0, to
34.
b) and c) One-to-One Correspondence and
Conservation
One-to-One Correspondence
evaluates the child’s understanding that each
item is represented only once by a number
name. Children learn to count with one-toone correspondence before they learn to
conserve the same number of items; e.g., the
child counts one-to-one by pointing to each of
10 pennies, but when asked, “how many
altogether?” the young child often tries to
recount, or push them physically together with
his or her hands. By age 4.5, children are able
to count 4 pennies, but may not be able to
conserve 4 pennies. By age 5.0, children can
both count to 10 and conserve 10 items. They
begin to have some success at counting to and
conserving 13 pennies, but it is not until the
age of 5.5 when they can both count and
conserve 13, but not likely 20 items until the
age of 6.0.
d) Calculations
The calculation task demonstrates a
child’s ability to compute simple
mathematical problems without counting.
Beginning at age 5.0, children show emerging
ability to successfully complete calculations
with digits less than 10 where the answer is
less than 5 (with or without using pennies.)
20
Her Favorite Four Letter Word – Play
abstract
Matilde A. Sarmiento-Arribalzaga
The overall purpose of this single case study is to describe the experiences of a
preschool child participating in an early childhood program that uses play as its
premise to develop curriculum and the child. Although “play” is just a four
letter word, in today’s educational environment the word is viewed negatively.
These preliminary findings support the need to
advocate and begin thinking about a new preschool pedagogy that takes into
account the similarities of play and learning from the child’s perspective.
Play is so important that its significance in
children’s lives is recognized by the
United Nations in Article 31 (Leisure,
play and culture) as a specific right in
addition to, and distinct from, a child’s
right to recreation and leisure. "Children
have the right to relax and play, and to
join in a wide range of cultural, artistic,
and
other
recreational
activities."(http://www.unicef.org/crc/).
Unfortunately, over the last several
decades the physical and social
environments in which preschool children
develop has changed significantly. In
traditional
early
childhood
(EC)
classrooms, preschool children rarely have
long uninterrupted blocks of time to play
indoors or outdoors, by themselves or
with their peers. Instead we see a growing
number of young children spending
substantial time in settings that are strictly
structured for educational and assessment
purposes (Almon, 2003; Bodrova &
Leong, 2005; Christensen & Kelly, 2003;
Stipek, 2006).
Despite warnings from as early as
1987 from the National Association for
the Education of Young Children
IPA/USA e-journal, Fall 2013
(NAEYC), in 2003 the U.S. federal
government began using standardized
tests in programs such as Head Start to
measure achievement in literacy and
number skills (Almon, 2003, Rothstein,
2004). This coupled with most states
already using standardized testing in the
kindergarten level for readiness and
screening tests given before entering and
graduating from kindergarten, the
preschool educational experience is no
longer just about the sandbox, dramatic
play, blocks and finger-painting. Instead
preschoolers find themselves being drilled
on letters, dividing words into syllables
and spelling (Almon, 2003; Christensen &
Kelly, 2003; Clements & Fiorentino,
2004).
As elementary schools in the
United States become more test driven
there is a direct impact on what
preschoolers are expected to learn in an
EC setting. This coupled with the limited
hours that preschoolers are in school and
the pressure for them to be ready for
elementary, play in the EC classroom is
usually replaced by structured and
teacher-led activities that are believed to
21
help them be successful academically. In
today’s test driven educational systems,
many including parents and EC teachers
have forgotten that learning through play
during EC is basis for later critical
thinking and thus paving the way for
academic success (Ashiabi, 2007;
Bredekamp, 2005; Carlsson-Paige, 2001).
In spring 2002, legislation was
introduced by the Senate H.E.L.P.
Committee to make more funds available
to EC programs in all 50 states. The
committee estimated that a total of one
billion dollars per year would be allocated
towards helping the Early Care and
Education Act address the importance of
physical,
social,
and
emotional
development as well as early literacy in
preschoolers. In theory this was a positive
development but in practice, the
legislation allowed for bonuses to be
given to states that can could show gains
in children’s school preparedness; it has
become the driving force to pressure
preschoolers to do better and to learn
faster (Johnson, 2006; Olfman, 2003;
Oliver & Klugman, 2007).
Rather than allow children to engage
in play, teachers under pressure to prepare
students for standardized tests are turning
to planned lessons and even lectures. All
this mad rush to learn being guided by a
mistaken belief that an early emphasis on
academics will lead to creating better
students. There is also pressure from
parents, who believe that their children
benefit from direct instruction and early
formal academic lessons. As a result,
parents and teachers have begun to teach
preschool and kindergarten children as if
they were in a more advanced grade
(Buchanan & Cooney, 2000, Elkind,
2007; Fisher, Hirsh-Pasek, Golinkoff, &
Glick, 2008, Oliver & Klugman, 2004,
Stipek, 2006).
Although “play” is just a four letter
word in today’s educational environment,
the word is viewed negatively and can
spark lively discussions. Consequently EC
programs have begun to take the word out
of their curriculum to placate parents and
legislation. Many parents misguidedly
prefer that their young children focus on
academics and prefer classrooms that are
more academically oriented. They believe
that knowing the letters of the alphabet,
being able to count to 20 or more, and
using pencils and paint brushes are
essential for a preschooler to be successful
in elementary (Buchanan & Cooney,
2000; Fisher, Hirsh-Pasek, Golinkoff &
Glick, 2008, Heidemann, 2010; Oliver &
Klugman, 2004).
Sadly this all indicates a true lack of
understanding of "play" as the learning
opportunity instead of "play" as
something children do between learning
activities/lessons or as a reward for having
done their work quickly (Blakemore,
2003; Elkind, 2003; Garvey, 1993;
Golinkoff, Hirsh-Pasek, Eyer, 2004). This
lack of understanding is why during the
fall of 2009 with the experience and
knowledge of a former EC teacher and
Department of Education university
professor in the United States, a parent
made the decision to relocate to Spain in
order to 1) provide her toddler a different
preschool education experience, 2)
provide the toddler a trilingual education
opportunity and 3) document toddler's
language development over the period of
5 years. For the purpose of this article, the
focus will be on the toddler's preschool
education experience and the role “play”
has had on her social, intellectual, and
physical development (Buchanan &
Cooney, 2000; Casby, 2003; Garvey,
1993; Golinkoff, Hirsh-Pasek, & Eyer,
2004; Iverson, 2010; Vygostsky, 1976,
1978).
The parents' experience with the
conditions of public preschools in the
United States over a period of 15 years
22
caused her great distress and concern as
the child approached preschool age. The
parent realized that there was the
possibility of sending the child to a
preschool where the toddler would find an
EC setting featuring scripted teaching,
computerized
learning,
standardized
assessment and possible elimination of
physical education and recess of being
eliminated or replaced by Accelerated
Reader, Voyager, etc… depending on the
school, district and program they were
part of. While many of the EC programs
attempt to provide a “quality preschool
education,” they actually undermining a
child’s natural ability to learn by
pressuring them with their "academic
readiness" agenda (Almon, 2003; Fisher,
Hirsh-Pasek, Golinkoff & Glick, 2008;
Olfman, 2003; Oliver & Klugman, 2006).
Phrases such as “bridging the preKelementary school divide” and “creating
seamless transitions from kindergarten to
elementary school” which are common
discussion topics in terms of preschool
curriculum are in reality detrimental to EC
programs (Oliver & Klugman, 2007; ).
They tend to diminish the importance and
the reality of how children develop
socially, cognitively, and emotionally and
that they do so very differently from older
children in elementary school (Bar-Haim
& Bart, 2006).
The purpose of this article is not to
put forth a negative critique of all EC
programs in the United States, but mainly
to advocate for the need to begin thinking
about a new preschool pedagogy that
takes into account the similarities of play
and learning from the child’s perspective.
As an educator but more importantly as a
parent this individual wanted the child to
have the environment needed to allow this
child to learn and expand her mind. The
mother firmly believes the child can only
achieve this by having access to quality
EC
education
that
allows/fosters
independence and nurtures a child's ability
to discover things on their own. She is a
child after all and her favorite four letter
word is PLAY (Carson, 2001; Doctoroff,
2001; Olfman, 2005; Piek, Dawson, Smith
& Gasson, 2008).
What I Know About Play
as a Parent and a Teacher
As a parent the most important thing she
has done is support healthy play by giving
the child space, time to play and having
readily available simple play materials
that were not store bought. For many
months the family's pots, pans, spoons,
sheets and pillowcases were exclusive
domain of the child’s imagination and
play activities. The child was allowed to
be part of physical work that was done
around the house such as sorting laundry,
putting away groceries, taking care of a
garden, hammering nails, measuring both
with rulers and measuring cups during
baking. Park time was a daily routine and
t.v. viewing time was limited. At the age
of 3 the child's daily life of play and work
held no distinctions- if asked what she
was doing when assisting with sorting
laundry she would answer “playing.” The
child like all other children was born with
an urge to learn and continually develop
new skills (Ashiabi, 2007; Bodrova &
Leong, 2005; Buchanan & Cooney, 2000;
Vygotsky, 1976; 1978).
23
Having worked extremely hard at
home to ensure that the child's
development was priority, the parent felt
she had to find the ideal EC classroom
setting that would respect the child's
innate drive to learn and not strip her of
her confidence in directing her own
learning. The parent wanted an EC
classroom that would not be hurrying the
child along and burning her out. Piaget,
whose research explains how children
advance cognitively when they are
engaged in a naturalistic hands-on
exploration of the real world, informed the
parents' expectations. As a side note,
American educators often asked Piaget
how the stages of cognitive development
could be accelerated. Piaget called this
“the American question” (Duckworth,
1979, p.303).
Many studies today claim that
children create knowledge when they play
(Belka, 2004; Bodrova & Leong, 2005;
Buchanan & Cooney, 2000; Oliver &
Klugman, 2004; NAECS, 2001). Play
gives children opportunities to be in
control of what is happening and what
they know. It is also linked to growth in
memory, self-regulation, oral language,
and recognizing symbols (Casby, 2003;
Elkind, 2003, 2007; Garvey, 1993;
Golinkoff, Hirsh-Pasek & Eyer, 2004). It
has been linked to higher levels of school
adjustment
and
increased
social
development. Play can also develop
literacy skills and impact other areas of
academic learning (a view held by
Piagetian and Vygotskian theories of child
development) (Ashiabi, 2007; Bredekamp,
2004; Clements & Fiorentino, 2004;
Vygotsky, 1976, 1978).
The preschool
Upon the family's arrival in Barcelona,
Spain the search for a preschool began.
School visits, school administration
interviews, and word of mouth led the
parent to a PK-12th grade consortium (a
school that is funded 50% by the
government and the remaining 50% is
paid by parents as tuition) school that had
“play” as part of their EC curriculum.
After initial meetings with the school
administrator and the EC director
(interesting to note that the director
herself teaches in the EC department) the
parent was allowed to meet and interview
the EC teachers that would be responsible
for the child’s day to day activities. The
EC director and teachers demonstrated a
true understanding of play as a natural,
essential part of every healthy child's
social,
emotional
and
intellectual
development.
A typical day
On any given day a stroll through the
child’s preschool and you will see
children digging in dirt, building with
sticks and rocks, planting seeds, hanging
from trees, playing hide-and-seek, and
exploring their natural surroundings. The
child's preschool embraces play as
premise for existence and expect children
to run, jump, dig, explore, talk, build,
paint, and sing. This school’s central
feature focuses on a child-centered
approach where children are allowed to
free play from the moment they walk into
classroom at 9 AM.
The school day by U.S. standards is
extremely long- 9 AM - 5:30 p.m. Initially
24
this was of great concern to the parent, but
after discussing the daily schedule and
having the preschool director explain the
rationale behind the 5:30 p.m. dismissal
time; it made sense. By the time the
children are dismissed at 5:30p.m., they
have had time allocated to do 30 minutes
free play time block as soon as the
children arrive (rationale- free play to get
them moving and ready for their day at
work/play), a 45 minute free play time
block after a 30 minute lunch, a 30 minute
nap/relaxation time block, snack time, and
a 45 minutes physical activity block
(swimming, tennis, or ballet). At the end
of the day parents are expected to pick up
children and just go about their daily
lives without the pressure of having to
take them to after school activities (parks
are plentiful and full of children running,
playing and enjoying themselves between
5:30 p.m. - 7 PM) (Bar-Haim & Bart,
2006; Belka, 2004; Bredekamp, 2004;
Carlsson-Paige, 2008; Casby, 2003;
Clements & Fiorentino, 2004).
The classroom and playground by U.S.
standards also have confined space and
limited equipment. In contrast to a U.S.
preschool classroom, where children are
bombarded with an overabundance of toys
and other play objects, as well as by an
overload of sense impressions, this child's
classroom has limited toys and only child
made art projects, stories, and drawings
are on display. There is no massive overstimulation just a fairly simple but
pleasing environment that is childcentered and owned (Doctoroff, 2001;
Heidemann & Hewitt, 2010; Kowalski,
Wyver, Masselos & deLacey, 2005).
The playground consists of 4 large
trees that provide shade. There is no
swing set, no slide, no playground
equipment just a few soccer balls that
many times go unnoticed and ignored
because children are so engrossed in
playing, running, chasing each other,
playing tag, digging in the dirt, collecting
sticks, leaves, rocks and anything else
they might find. With the limited play
materials children seem to become
inventive often times making or finding
what they needed to complete their selfdirected and made up games (Bar-Haim &
Bart, 2006; Blakemore, 2003; Carson,
2001; Doctoroff, 2001; Iverson, 2010;
Olfman, 2005; Pate, Pfeiffer, Trost,
Ziegler & Dowda, 2004; Payne & Issacs,
2008).
Typically within the first 15 minutes
of the children's arrival to the classroom,
they change into their smocks and the
learning environment is completely
transformed with play material made
available. A group of 24 children can
easily create six or seven play areas for
themselves because the classroom itself
has no designated earning centers since
they function under the premise that the
entire school and its grounds are for
learning. There is always a fair amount of
negotiation that takes place as the children
sort out who is going to use what and in
which areas.
When a child engages in meaningful
activities such as play, their imagination is
stimulated and this leads them to create
and use methods that are unconventional –
something that cannot be taught (Ashiabi,
25
2007; Bar-Haim & Bart, 2006; Belka,
2004; Carlsson-Paige, 2008; Doctoroff,
2001; Elkind, 2007; Iverson, 2010).
During the 2012-2013 academic
year, the child was completing year 2 of
the EC program. The child was in P-4 and
next academic year (2013-2014) will be in
P-5, which is equivalent to the U.S.
kindergarten. The child has never brought
homework home but is asked to bring one
favorite book to school on a daily basis.
She speaks three languages (Catalan,
Castellano and English), swims like a fish,
dances like a ballerina, kicks like a soccer
player, milks a cow like a farmer, loves to
garden, slays dragons and can be cutest
princess when not covered with band-aids.
The parent measures the child's EC
program effectiveness and academic rigor
by using the premise that evidence of the
curriculum is visible in the way the child
plays. When observing the child playing,
one will see that she is having fun, but
take a closer look and one sees much
more learning happening. The child
knows her numbers, letters, can retell all
the most popular fairytales with different
endings depending on what occurred at
school that day. Evidence of learning is
also clearly present in the child's
drawings. After a field trip to the Picasso
Museum, the child produced a selfportrait and with much excitment
explained to the parent how she was able
to create it "using Picasso's painting style"
- these were the child's words. The child's
play is dynamic, multisensory, interactive,
creative, and imaginative. Clearly
developing skills (problem solving, basic
literacy, math and science) that will lay
the foundation for academic succeed in
the future. The child loves schools, paper,
pencils, colors, paint, rocks, sticks, mud,
water, and truly knows how to PLAY!
Final thoughts
The last two years of collecting
work samples, observing the child on the
playground, and playing with the child
have yielded preliminary findings that
clearly supports the premise that children
learn naturally from, but teachers and
parents must have an active role in
ensuring that children have enough time
and opportunities to play. It is thus
important for parents to look for a
preschool that adopts and promotes play
to develop their curriculum. Preschools
that incorporate play as a means to fill
rather than promote learning and
development is a waste of time and
resources. Preschoolers that are pushed
too early to accomplish tasks that their
brains are not able to handle yet may
experience frustration, stress and anxiety.
Without a doubt a child that is continually
expected to do work that he/she is not
academically ready for, will become
averse to it and in the long run, we run the
risk that the child will be turned off to
learning.
There is still a great need for
research on the relationship between
quality play and development of specific
academic skills; however, perhaps
because
the
typical
EC
school
environment does not allow sufficient
time for children to engage in extended
play, this line of research has not been
extensive (Almon, 2003; Belka, 2004;
Bodrova & Leong, 2005; Carlsson-Paige,
2008; Christensen & Kelly, 2003;
Clements & Fiorentino, 2004; Elkind,
26
2003,
2007;
Fisher,
Hirsh-Pasek,
Golinkoff, & Glick, 2008; Johnson, 2006;
Olfman, 2003).
Thus, one major challenge of this
type of EC education for all is to be able
to articulate to policy makers how
children's development of the types of
cognitive skills that are demonstrated in
play are important (or even more
important) for academic readiness and
later school success than memorizing the
standard set of information officially
targeted as early childhood competencies.
Even if play has not yet been
demonstrated to be the cause of long-term
school success, the evidence is clear that it
is an integrated coexisting component of
young children's developmental progress
(Vygotsky, 1976, 1978).
Unfortunately, most of the present
research evidence has come from smallscale cross-sectional studies that may
seem irrelevant to educators and policy
makers; therefore the other challenge to
researchers is to mount some more
extensive and practice-oriented studies
(preferably longitudinal) to investigate
play/cognition relationships in diverse
early childhood settings. Educators should
resist policies that reduce time for play
experiences in preschool and work to
increase funding for research on
play/cognition relationships in early
childhood. We must stop politicizing
education and instead focus on the
question of what children need for their
long-term
emotional,
social
and
intellectual development (Almon, 2003;
Bodrova & Leong, 2005; Buchanan &
Cooney, 2000; Christensen & Kelly,
2003; Elkind, 2003; Heinemann & Hewitt,
2010; Johnson, 2006).
To
reverse
the
significant
deterioration play is undergoing, parents
and educators need to work together to
bring it back to its core in early childhood
programs. In the current climate of school
readiness- workbooks, standardized tests
and forcing children to learn things before
they are developmentally ready will not
improve the educational system. Play in
EC helps stimulate physical, social,
emotional, and cognitive learning and
needs to be given the status it deserves in
EC curriculum. When play becomes part
of the curriculum, then it will improve the
quality and scope of play.
After all PLAY is just a four letter
word!
Author
Dr. Matilde A. Sarmiento-Arribalzaga is an
independent Education Consultant that has
served as an Assistant Professor for the
University of Texas System in the Department
of Education specializing in Bilingual
Education. She is currently conducting
research in Barcelona, Spain.
27
References
Almon, J. (2003). All work and no play...How educational reforms are harming our preschoolers. In S. Olfman (Ed.), The vital role of play in early childhood Education
(pp. 17-42). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group.
Ashiabi, G.S. (2007). Play in the preschool classroom: Its socioemotional significance
and the teacher's role in play. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35(2), 199-207.
Bar-Haim, Y., & Bart, O. (2006). Motor function and social participation in kindergarten
children. Social Development, 15(2), 296-310.
Belka, D. (2004). Substituting skill learning for traditional games in early childhood.
Teaching Elementary Physical Education, 15(3), 25-27.
Blakemore, C. (2003). Movement is essential to learning. Journal of Physical Education,
Recreation and Dance, 74(9), 22-25, 41.
Bodrova, E., & Leong D.J. (2005). High quality preschool programs: What would
Vygotsky say? Early Education and Development, 16(4), 435-444.
Bredekamp, S. (2004). Play and school readiness. In E. Zigler, D. Singer, & J. BishopJosef (Eds.), Children’s play: The roots of reading. Washington, DC: Zero to
Three Press.
Buchanan, M., & Cooney, M. (2000). Play at home, play in the classroom: Parent/ profess
ional partnerships in supporting child play. Young Exceptional Children, 3(4), 9-15.
Carlsson-Paige, N. (2008). Reclaiming play: Helping children learn and thrive in school.
Exchange, 180, 44-48.
Carson, L. M. (2001). The “I Am Learning” curriculum: Developing a movement awareness in young children. Teaching Elementary Physical Education, 12(5), 9-13.
Casby, M. W. (2003). The development of play in infants, toddlers, and young children.
Communication Disorders Quarterly, 24(4), 163-174.
Christensen, A. & Kelly, K. (2003). No time for play: Throwing the baby out with the
bath water. Reading Teacher, 56(6) , 528-530.
Clements, R., & Fiorentino, L. (Eds.) (2004). The child’s right to play: A global
approach. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Doctoroff, S. (2001). Adapting the physical environment to meet the needs of all young
children for play. Early Childhood Education Journal, 29(2), 105-109.
Duckworth, E. (1979). Either we're too early and they can't learn it or we're too late and they
know it already: The dilemma of applying Piaget. Harvard Educational Review,
49(3), 297-313.
Elkind D. (2003). Thanks for the memory: The lasting value of true Play. Young
Children 58(3), 46-50.
Elkind D. (2007). The power of play: How spontaneous, imaginative activities lead to
happier, healthier children. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press, Inc.
Fisher, K., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R. & Glick, R. (2008). Conceptual split? Parents’
and experts’ perception of play in the 21st century. Applied Developmental
Psychology, 29, 305 – 316.
Garvey, C. (1993). Play. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Golinkoff, R., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Eyer, D. (2004). Einstein never used flashcards: How
our children really learn- and why they need to play more and memorize less. New
York: Rodale Books.
Heidemann, S., & Hewitt, D. (2010). Play: The pathway from theory to practice. St.
28
Paul, MN: Redleaf Press.
Iverson, J. M. (2010). Developing language in a developing body: The relationship
between motor development and language development. Journal of Child
Language, 37, 229-261.
Johnson, J. (2006). Play and the development of the young child in USA today. In M.
Levin, D.E., & Carlsson-Paige, N. (2006/1987). The war play dilemma: Everything
parents and teachers need to know (2nd ed.). NY: Teachers College Press.
Kowalski, H., Wyver, S., Masselos, G., & deLacey, P. (2005). The long-day childcare
context: Implications for toddlers' pretend play. Early Years An International
Journal of Research and Development, 25(1), 55-65.
National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education.
(2001). Recess and the importance of play: A position statement on young children
and recess. Washington, DC: Author.
Olfman, S. (2003). All work and no play … How educational reforms are harming our
preschoolers. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers/Greenwood.
Olfman, S. (2005). Where do the children play? In S. Olfman (Ed.), Childhood lost:
How American culture is failing our kids (pp. 203–216). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Oliver S.J. & Klugman, E. (2004). Speaking out for play-based learning: Becoming an
effective advocate for play in the early childhood classroom. Child Care Information
Exchange, 155, 22-25.
Oliver, S.J., & Klugman, E. (2006). Play and standards-driven curricula: Can they work
together in preschool? Exchange, 170, 12-14.
Oliver, S. J., & Klugman, E. (2007). Building a play research agenda: What do we know
about play? What new questions do we need to ask? Exchange 173, 4-17.
Pate, R .R., Pfeiffer, K. A., Trost, S. G., Ziegler, P., & Dowda, M. (2004). Physical activity
among children attending preschools. Pediatrics, 114, 1258–1263.
Payne, V. G., & Isaacs, L. D. (2008). Chapter 12: Fundamental locomotion skills of
childhood. Human motor development: A lifespan approach (7th ed.) (pp. 299-327).
New York: McGraw Hill.
Piek, J., Dawson, L., Smith, L., & Gasson, N. (2008). The role of early fine and gross
motor development on later motor and cognitive ability. Human Movement Science,
2(5), 668-684.
Rothstein, R. (2004). Class and schools: Using social, economic, and educational reform to
close the black-white achievement gap. New York: Teachers College Press.
Stipek, D. (2006). No Child Left Behind come to preschool. The Elementary School
Journal, 106, 455-467.
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 31.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1976). Play and its role in the mental development of the child. In J.
Bruner, A. Jolly, & K. Sylva (Eds.), Play: Its role in development and evolution
(pp. 536-552). New York: Basic Books.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
29
Artful Play at the Backyard Easel:
Thinking, Talking and Painting Outdoors
abstract
Vivien Geneser
Children often talk while painting and this discourse is influenced by their
physical and emotional environment. By listening carefully and offering
reflective feedback, an astute teacher can effectively facilitate the young
artist’s thought processes and thus impact the corresponding language
experience and art product. In this example, the researcher encouraged the
artist to share her thoughts during a painting session at a backyard easel. In a
quest to portray how the outdoor environment influenced the artist’s
narrative, and how this factor contributed to her experience, the transcript
from the session was evaluated for evidence of the correlations between her
expressive language, artistic endeavors, and symbolic play. The goal of this
study was to provide insight into the ways that children reveal their inner
worlds while participating in guided art activities, and to show how
educators can facilitate language development and share in the wonder and
enjoyment of an outdoor classroom.
Easel art talk
“Open it please. Thank you. Add more. It
is mine. Uh, oh!” (a spill) “It is so pretty!
It is pink! It is you! It is brand new.”
(fresh paper) “Can you hear that? It is my
brand new brush. It is so messy in the
brush. Sorry. I want green. I want green
now. Can I have green please?”
Twenty-seven month old Sophie
stood on a box next to the easel under a
tree in the backyard and painted to her
heart’s content, which was-on this dayapproximately one hour and fifteen
minutes. Sophie had arrived earlier with
eager anticipation of her time at the easel.
As usual, she began by greeting the cats,
birds, dogs, and her friend, Wilson, before
announcing her readiness for painting.
Sophie brought her enthusiasm, artistic
skills, cultural literacy, and emerging
symbolic concepts of representation to the
session. The researcher escorted her to an
easel in the back yard and provided
brushes, paints, and white paper.
According to Vygotsky (1962,
1978), people learn to think and to talk
based on their early social circumstances
and language experiences. Language
serves as a tool to guide the process and
contributes to who we are and who we
become as thinkers and doers. In the
following vignette, an assessment of
Sophie’s lively narrative during the
painting session provides insight into the
overall development of a precocious
young learner.
“Ooh. Wow. It is so pretty. Did
you hear that?” (Sophie made a pounding
noise with the brush.) “I’m painting. Do
you want some there? What is that? There
you go. Orange, Vivien, orange!”
30
Sophie could easily articulate the
terminology for the painting activity:
paint, paper, brush, and paint jar. She
was also able to correctly identify all of
the paint colors. The words and terms
were part of her daily vocabulary; which
are also known as her “everyday
concepts” (Bodrova & Leong, 1996, p.
58). Although Sophie had chronologically
progressed beyond the infamous toddler
“language explosion” stage (Woolfolk &
Perry, 2012, p. 158), she continued to
impress her friends and family members
with regular additions to her expressive
vocabulary.
She demonstrated her
metalinguistic awareness by using
numerous nouns and adjectives in her
daily speech. For example, in the first
quote, she identified the paint as “pretty”,
and the paper and brush as “brand new”.
Later, the brush got “messy”. Her
awareness of social rules was also keen.
Every segment of the narrative includes
evidence (please, thank you, sorry) of her
desire to assimilate into the prevailing
social milieu (Bodrova & Leong, 1996).
Symbolic play
“Open, please open. It’s mine. It is
orange. Draw a triangle please.” (The
reseaacher declined.) “OK.” (Sophie
drew the triangle herself and added eyes.)
“She can sing. Do you want me to make
her sing?” (She poured paint on the
paper.) “Shapey, shapey, shapey!”
At first, Sophie delighted in the
sensation of the color on white paper, and
then she personalized the effort. Her
triangle became a character with “eyes” to
see, and then a “mouth” to sing. With a
simple flick of the wrist, she transformed
her sketch into a character. Evidence of
abstract thought emerged from the
motorific exertion as she translated the
marks into meaning, a uniquely human
achievement (Sheridan, 2006). Next, by
naming her creation “Shapey”, she
highlighted the pervasive use of symbols
in human culture (Gardner, 1982).
Symbols (such as geometric shapes) are
an indicator of the child’s ability to
recognize that something can represent
something else, but the meaning can be
elastic (Vygotsky, 1978). Ideally, the
early
learning
environments
and
experiences of children will collaborate in
tandem to prepare them for a future world
filled with a vast array of symbols.
“Shapey” emerged as a new pal.
Sophie offered the paintbrush to the
researcher and asked her to complete the
composition. Instead, the researcher
encouraged her to continue painting
independently, and invited both Shapey
and Sophie to participate as sing-along
partners with “Little White Duck”, a
familiar tune. Sophie began to sing, and
then completed her portrait of “Shapey”,
who “sang” along, too. In this moment,
Sophie entered into Vygotsky’s infamous
“Zone of Proximal Development”
(Bodrova & Leong, 1996), as she
demonstrated that she could increase her
artistic ability with an appropriate amount
of guidance. Sophie extended her grasp
slightly beyond the familiar as she became
more comfortable with a task that was
previously too challenging.
As Sophie transfered orange liquid
from the jar on the easel tray-outside her
brain-she also perceived the color-within
her brain-and, in her consciousness, she
accomplished the feat of internalization
(Vygotsky, 1962, 1978). Then she applied
color to the paper on the easel with an
expressive gesture, and correlated it to an
image from her memory, as she
transitioned
from
imagination
to
experimentation to representation and
back again; completing the cycle of
concept formation. The act of painting
provides a method for sorting visual
stimuli, and connecting the work of the
hands with speech trains the brain to pay
attention and facilitates meaning making
efforts (Sheridan, 2006).
31
“Oh!” Sophie babbled and
hummed while painting. “It is like soap.”
She switched to white paint, then
continued to hum and sing while she
painted with the soap-like substance.
Sophie picked up the white paint, shook it,
and was disappointed by the result: “I got
it all o’er me!” Since she was already
covered in paint, she attempted finger
painting with the tempura paints for a few
minutes. Later, she painted with both
hands, using two paintbrushes, one that
was dipped in red paint, and the other one
in blue paint.
Once again, Sophie demonstrated
that she was able to conceptualize
comparisons when she described the white
paint as being like soap (the Ivory soap in
the bathroom) (Smith, 1993). By using
white paint to symbolize soap, a nonexperiential depiction, she demonstrated
that she had moved beyond painting for
“motoric pleasure” and had transitioned
into the stage of representation while
engaging in artistic efforts (Kellogg,
1967). She was also engaging in a
bilateral activity by using both hands
simultaneously, an activity which serves
an important function by connecting the
two hemispheres of the young brain
(Sheridan, 2006).
The artist as rebel
“Draw a big M, please.” (Again, the
researcher declined, but offered verbal
encouragement: “You can do it.”) Sophie
opened the brown paint. “A blue, blue, a
green? Oh, no, brown. It is green;
GREEN! Green like the grass! It is
yummy.” Sophie attempted to empty the
jar on the paper and laughed. “It is like
chocolate. It is like chocolate pudding. It
is like pizza. Out of the way, Mommy!”
The mood changed as Sophie
teased the researcher. She tested her limits
by threatening to pour brown paint on the
paper. She recognized the color as brown
but called it blue. As she said blue, she
looked up with a mischievous expression.
Then, she argued that it was green and
laughed aloud. Finally, she acknowledged
that it was brown-brown like chocolate
pudding- and poured the entire jar on the
paper. When the researcher intervened,
she called her “Mommy”. The teasing
antics were indicators of an emerging self
concept (Bodrova & Leong, 1996) as she
challenged the status quo.
Sophie observed that the brown
paint had the qualities of pudding, so she
pretended that it was chocolate pudding,
and entered into the realm of play
(Bodrova & Leong, 1996). In this
example, Sophie began her pretend
dialogue at a point when she was faced
with an unrealizable situation (the jar of
paint was not edible), so she initiated the
mode of play to gratify her desire to
relieve the tension. She entered into “an
imaginary, illusory world in which the
unrealizable desires can be realized and
this world is what we call play”
(Vygotsky, 1978, p. 93).
Sophie invited her assistant to
enter into this world of play but the
researcher signaled her decline by
cleaning up the glob of paint dripping
from the bottom of the easel. So, Sophie
communicated a change of perspective by
code switching. She changed her label for
the researcher from her first name;
“Vivien”, to a nomenclature; “Mommy”.
The name change indicated her rebellion.
It signified a change in the relationship, as
if “Vivien” was a painting pal, but
“Mommy” was an authority figure.
Nevertheless, the researcher appreciated
that she managed to control her impulse to
spill more paint (Bodrova & Leong, 1996)
Artful play
“This is green.” Sophie began to sing.
“Now, blue. Sky blue! Blue-blue-blue!”
She sang with clicks and clacks and beat
her paintbrush to the rhythm of her tune.
32
Sophie used her paintbrush in two
ways; as a tool for art and as an
instrument for rhythm. She alternated
between the two purposes and then
combined the playful gestures (Bodrova &
Leong, 1996). As she sang, she swayed,
hummed to herself, and directed her storysong to a bird at the feeder, expressing the
spontaneous thoughts that formed while
she engaged in her work. Throughout the
entire activity, Sophie’s movements
represented an outward expression of her
inner language as her tools were
repurposed. The paintbrush became a
drumstick, and was transformed from an
instrument for expressing color and form
to an instrument for expressing rhythm.
Next, it became a pivot for another
activity as she reentered her inner world
of private thought (Bodrova & Leong,
1996). With the paintbrush as pivot,
Sophie was able to transcend her
environment. She entered into an
imaginary world of make-believe, into a
place where she could make music with
drums (Vygotsky, 1978). Yet, here in the
backyard, under a canopy of trees, she
also needed to use it while painting, so she
switched back to the process of painting
on paper. On this day, Sophie’s creative
expression encompassed art, music, and
dance, and utilized multiple talents.
Activities that facilitate graphic
representation such as drawing and
painting serve multiple functions. The
internal mechanisms of private speech
were helping Sophie process new ways to
think about the activity, the tools, the
people, and the various roles that people
play in her life. Sophie’s inner dialogue
fostered her imagination as she explored
various perspectives, ideas and concepts
in her mind (Bodrova & Leong, 1996).
Social and emotional skills
Wilson appeared from inside the house.
As he approached Sophie and greeted her,
he said: “Hi, Sophie!”, but her only
response was to smile. She watched him
pet the dog, Bonnie, before retreating into
the house. Although Sophie watched
Wilson intently, she didn’t answer his
salutation and, as soon as he was out of
sight, she looked back at the paper and
resumed painting. Then, in an apparent
effort to refocus on the task at hand, she
requested a new color: red.
Sophie and Wilson were fast
friends but, in this encounter, she did not
speak to him. It was an unusual
occurrence, which seemed to indicate that
she felt self conscious. If so, this marked a
new phase in her social development. As
to Wilson (age 17), he seemed surprised,
yet nonchalant. Later, she engaged in
conversation with him but, during the
painting session, she was reticent.
Perhaps she preferred to stay on task with
the painting project (Bodrova & Leong,
1996).
“No, it is my turn. Open please.
Thank you. It is my magic word.” (“Is
thank you a magic word?” asked the
researcher.) “Yes. Do a triangle please.
Do a circle please.”
Sophie demonstrated familiarity
with the norms of socialization by
recognizing “please” and “thank you” as
magic words. By representing “thank
you” as a magic concept, she was demonstrating a new language acquisition, which
also reflected her recent social interactions. As Sophie’s range of community
expanded, she acquired more rules about
proper, or polite communication.
The self-control that Sophie
exhibited during this painting session
involved the complexity of the mental
work of thinking about the creative
process such as making meaning from
splashes of paint, and it also was
connected with the physical exertion of
managing the artistic mediums and tools
with little hands (Bodrova & Leong,
1996). Woven into this scenario were the
socially internalized rules that Sophie
33
demonstrated when she stopped short of
pouring the whole jar of paint on the
paper. Each successful painting session
and each productive experience will
contribute to Sophie’s ability to see
herself as a competent doer. On this
particular day, she exhibited behavior that
illuminated her budding self-regulatory
mechanisms, which are essential elements
for success in the social world. Each
mannerly effort reflected some aspect of
her social conditioning (Vygotsky, 1978).
“En plein air”
Consistent with the artistic tradition
known as “en plein air”, Sophie drew
inspiration from the outdoor environment.
“En plein air” is a term that refers to the
philosophy of nineteenth century Impressionist painters such as Claude Monet,
Camille Pissarro, and Auguste Renoir,
who advocated painting outdoors in the
open air for the sake of feeling the fresh
air, utilizing natural light, and capturing
the essence of the sky as it changed colors
throughout the day.
More recently,
painter and art educator, Ev Hale has
promoted the practice of painting “en
plein air” as a way for artists to enhance
their awareness of nature. She believes
that the artists’ creative energies are
replenished by the elements of an outdoor
environment. Furthermore, Hale asserts
that artists who paint “en plein air” are
able to develop new world views, while
also improving their artistic development
(Hales, 2012).
Educator as “artist apprentice”
Sophie likewise preferred the experience
of an outdoor easel. She happily led the
endeavor as she explored every color of
paint. She painted prolifically and,
throughout the session, Sophie shifted
from expressive art to artful play. The
researcher facilitated her artistic efforts
by serving as a supportive listener and
also by providing materials and verbal
support as needed. In this capacity, one in
which the adult’s role is less didactic and
more collaborative, the contribution of the
adult who is assisting can be classified as
an “artist apprentice” (Van Hoorn, et al,
2007, p. 116).
Despite this apparently minimal
involvement, the researcher’s presence
was essential to Sophie’s artistic process
because
she
contributed
subtle
observational comments regarding colors
and technique, and assisted with the
logistics (Sedgwick, 2002). By gently
providing support for Sophie’s artistic
efforts, she also served as a reflective
partner in the creative process, thus
supporting the philosophy of art therapist
Judith Rubin, who believes that “the adult
offering art must provide a framework or
structure within which the child can be
free to move and to think and to fantasize,
not a structure which imposes, controls,
and makes a child dependent” (Rubin,
1978, p. 30).
Art is basic
Art is a branch of learning that
appeals to the imagination, as well as a
means of creative expression that reflects
the inner world of the individual who is
producing the representation. John Dewey
claimed that art is the human’s primary
way of engaging in the world (Dewey,
1934). If you observe a group of
chattering youngsters on the verge of
painting, you will witness how they
become solemn and intent when they are
presented with a colorful tray of paints
(Sheridan, 2006). They seem to be
enchanted by the effort, as they engage in
the manipulation of the colors and the
creation of a composition. Often, it
appears to be purely a sensational
experience, as when they paint with
feathers, yet the opportunity for
expression also lends itself to the creation
of a composition in which meaning is
conferred (Bodrova & Leong, 1996;
34
Sheridan, 2006; Smith, 1993).
For all artists, but especially young
children, painting is “an adventure with
color and paper” (Smith, 1993, p. 3).
Making sense of paint as a medium can be
a daunting task, yet it is a very desirable
pursuit. The act of painting functions as a
treat of the senses that facilitates one’s
ability to focus (Sheridan, 2006). When
children maintain a cognitive focus and
resist distractions, they are developing
their attentional skills. Furthermore, the
child’s thoughts and observations are
stimulated by the visual tactile experience
such as the colors of paint and the novelty
of various art supplies. Art experiences
offer “novel, challenging learning that’s
usually coherent and relevant” (Jensen,
2006, p.226).
Art is basic to the preschool
curriculum because of the role it plays in
fostering the child’s imagination and
visual skills. Thus, it is also one of the
crucial building blocks for future literacy.
Furthermore, it is a deeply satifying
experience. Painting with preschool-aged
children
satisfies
their
need
to
communicate through visual means, to
feel competent with art materials and to
make sense of their world (Smith, 1993).
Participating in art activities helps
children build their social skills, language
skills, attention skills and observation
skills. When children produce art they are
using a visual form to express their
encounter with the world (Fineberg, 2001)
and this helps them to see the world in
new ways. The experience of drawing or
painting facilitates the child’s visual
acuity. As the young artist transfers
interpretations into visual forms, the
motorific efforts can be manipulated to
represent people, experiences and
observations (Sheridan, 2006). Art
activities
also
provide
important
opportunities for students to represent
their understanding of symbols.
Scholars have long explored the
connection between art and cognitive
development in early childhood. Teachers
who study child art develop insight into
the child’s inner world as they begin to
understand the cognitive mechanisms of
the creative process, which will ultimately
benefit their teaching practice (Bodrova &
Leong, 1996; Dewey, 1934; Gardner,
1982; Jensen, 2006; Kellogg, 1967;
Lowenfeld, 1964; Rubin, 1978; Smith,
1993; Sheridan, 2006; Vygotsky, 1962,
1978).
Conclusion:
Art experiences provide a necessary
balance between intellect and emotions
and serve to facilitate language
development
in
young
children
(Lowenfeld, 1964). Outdoor artistic
projects can be as whimsical as summer
“pudding paintings” or as meaningful as
acrylic paintings that are framed for
posterity. Thus, through a variety of
activities and mediums, teachers and
parents can facilitate children’s language
development with outdoor art activities
that promote private speech, interactive
communication, attention skills, and help
children connect their inner thoughts with
marks on paper.
Sophie’s
painting
session
illuminated the important connection
between art and learning. By providing
guided painting sessions outdoors,
educators can optimize the experience for
young artists because the child’s sense of
wonder is enhanced by painting “en plein
air”.
Finally, with Sophie’s parting
words: “Let’s go look in the worm bin”,
we concluded our painting session at the
backyard outdoor easel.
35
Author
Vivien Geneser, PhD is an Assistant
Professor, Early Childhood at Texas A&M
University-San Antonio. She has taught Head
Start, private preschools, and public school
first grade. She is interested in creativity and
arts and play.
[email protected]
References
Bodrova, E. & Leong, D. J. (1996). Tools of the mind, The Vygotskian approach to early
childhood education. Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ
Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. Berkeley Publishing: New York, NY
Fineberg, J. (2001). Discovering child art: Essays on childhood, primitivism, and
modernism. Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ
Gardner, H. (1982). Art, mind and brain: A cognitive approach to creativity. Basic Books:
Cambridge, MA
Hales, E. (2012). Painting en plein air: Teaching -techniques, tactics, tips. Kindle Edition.
Amazon Digital Services, Inc.
Van Hoorn, J., Nourot, P., Scales, B. (2011). Play at the center of the curriculum
Pearson: Upper Saddle River, NJ
Jensen, E. (2006). Enriching the brain: How to maximize every learner’s potential. JosseyBass Education: Hobeken, NJ
Kellogg, R. (1967). The psychology of children’s art. Random House: New York, NY
Lowenfeld, V. (1964). Creative and mental growth. MacMillan: New York, NY
Rubin, J. (1978). Child art therapy. Van Nostrund Reinhold Co.: New York, NY
Sedgwick, F. (2002). Enabling children’s learning through drawing. David Fulton
Publishers: Great Britain, UK
Sheridan, S. (2006). How marks change minds. Drawing/Writing Publications: Addison,
ME
Smith, N. R. (1993). Experience and art: Teaching children to paint. Teachers College
Press: New York: NY
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind in society. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA
Woolfolk, A. and Perry, N. (2012). Child and adolescent development. Pearson: Upper
Saddle River: NJ
36
Resurrecting Play for the Next Generation
abstract
Laurel Moldawsky Silber and Barbara Moldawsky Stern
As a child psychologist and elementary school Principal, the co-authors have had
a bird’s eye view of the misguided cultural shift in attitudes undermining access
to free play. Through a memoir of their own childhood play as sisters occurring
during the 50’s and 60’s, the authors share how critical play had been to their own
self-development. Through a cross-disciplinary professional and personal
interweaving of the multiple strands that inform our thinking on play this
narrative offers a rich illustration of the many benefits of play for children and the
adults they will become. This article contributes to raising awareness regarding
the detrimental effects of the play deficit. It concludes with a call for activism on
the part of adults to correct for the misguided path we have taken in contemporary
society and to resurrect play.
As educator, child psychologist, mothers
and sisters we have deepened our
appreciation of the fact that self-defining
experiences and core memories that
reflect who we are today are significantly
connected to the way we played as
children. This recognition, coming
through a retrospective lens, startles us
when we note the decrease in children’s
play in our current times (Elkind, 2001).
It is well documented in the child
development literature that play for young
children
is
important
for
their
development in the cognitive, language,
creative, social, neurobiological, physical
and emotional domains. It is one of those
common sense findings that are, in fact,
increasingly substantiated by multidisciplined research (Elkind, 2007,
Brown, 2009, Ginsburg, 2007, Linn, 2008,
Siegel, 1999, Singer & Singer, 2005,
Hirsh-Pasek, 2009, Zigler, 2004).
As an elementary school principal
(Stern) and a child psychologist (Silber),
we consider this a serious problem. How
do young people find meaning in their
lives and integrate experience without
access to play? How will they learn to
regulate their minds and bodies and come
to know who they are, what they are
capable of, what they feel passionate
about, and how to solve the world’s
problems? Moreover, are they having any
fun?
37
The grim statistics about childhood
depression, anxiety disorders (CDC,
2013),
attention
deficit
disorders
(Froehlich, et.al 2007), childhood obesity
(Wang & Beyhoun, 2007) and the newly
identified “nature deficit disorder” (Louv,
2005) all suggest we have become deeply
out of step with children’s developmental
needs. By encroaching on children’s right
to play we have compromised many
aspects of their self-development. They
are bombarded with external stimulation
without adequate opportunity to build the
internal scaffolding for processing their
experience. Without play they are stressed
out.
In sharing our own play
experiences here, we offer a case study of
what was happening when we played
together as sisters, and we also consider
our professional, parenting, and adulthood
experiences to reflect on the longitudinal
value of our childhood play. We are thus
joining a chorus of voices—Alliance for
Childhood, US Play Coalition, IPA/USA,
National Institute for Play, Ultimate Block
Party, KaBOOM, the Philadelphia
Declaration of Play, The Gesell Institute
of Child Development and others—
advocating for the reintroduction of play
into children’s lives.
Our Play
We grew up along with two younger
brothers in an intact middle-class
suburban family during the 50s and 60s.
Our family settled into a northeastern U.S.
community and stayed put, so we came to
know our environment well. We played
together and apart in our downstairs
playroom, our shared bedroom, backyard
playhouse and tree house, and the hidden
places of our home, our street, the woods
and brook at the bottom of our steep hill,
on the forbidden rooftop (we could reach
it by crawling out of our bedroom
window), and later at a cottage on a lake.
Our play often included our brothers and
neighborhood kids of all ages. It didn’t
include our parents.
We knew, however, that our
parents valued play because they
implicitly conveyed this message: “You
are responsible to create your own fun.”
Consequently, fun was registered as a
legitimate pursuit, and we proceeded to
construct our own space to play. That
space was not monitored, filmed, tested,
or supervised. Our free play had no
coaches, teachers, scout leaders, or
facilitators, nor the related prizes and
trophies to evaluate our progress and
support our self-esteem. We created
elaborate games and the rules to govern
our play completely on our own. If a
problem occurred and we went to our
parents, the response was often, ”I guess
you’ll have to figure that out.”
From our current vantage point as
professionals and parents, we see the
significance of our generationally
bounded childhood play, and we want to
differentiate the multiple aspects of that
play to articulate its value. The whole is,
of course, more than the sum of the parts,
but we will explore what play is made of
and how it benefitted us.
Finding voice
Who gave me (Stern), at age 10, the
notion to write “The Timber Hill News”
(named for the street we grew up on)? The
38
idea did not arrive from the outside in a
prepackaged kit; I thought it up myself. I
was preoccupied at the time with Lois
Lane, or more likely with the fact that
Superman loved Lois Lane, and I decided
to try out the feel of being a journalist.
With pads in hand, my friend Wendy and
I went house to house ringing doorbells
and asking for news.
“The Timber Hill News” had a
lifespan of only four editions in six weeks,
as our interest ran its natural course and
we moved on, but the effect was powerful.
Grown-ups gave us their news and read
our paper. They didn’t laugh at us. We all
learned at an early age that we had the
right to be spokespersons, to write down
our thoughts, and to share them with our
community. Juxtapose this with the
experience of a child who receives a
newspaper-making kit, complete with
stories to print! Such a well-meaning gift
allows little chance to define oneself or to
find one’s voice.
My experience, on the other hand,
helped shape my abilities and contributed
to the formation of my identity as a school
principal. Inspired by Lois Lane, I turned
off the television set and actively imitated
her character and behavior. I involved my
friends, my sister, and our neighbors and
played the role of a woman in charge of
communicating important information. I
was figuring out how the world works and
exploring my place in it as I externalized
my ideas into play. Besides having fun, I
gained the kind of self-confidence that
helps regulate anxiety. Had my parents
asked me to type, practice spelling, write
stories, and count money as exercises in
skill development, what would have
happened to the fun, to the ability to make
meaning, and to the integrative
possibilities for developing my identity?
Taking risks
Many of the games we played and the
places we explored involved some risk.
We were free to roam the neighborhood
until the 6:00 whistle blew from the town
firehouse, signaling that dinner would be
on the table and we had better be sitting
down ready to eat it. Aside from that
somewhat
dated
expectation,
we
experienced less anxiety and judgment
about our behaving independently. What
did we do in that time away? Here are a
few examples.
Hellerinkel’s was a neighborhood
candy store that could be reached by
walking up two hills, crossing a very busy
road, and then cutting behind several
stores on an even busier road. It was an
important rite of passage when we were
deemed “old enough to go to
Hellerinkel’s”—that we could be counted
on to walk there and back by ourselves
within an agreed-upon time frame. Our
39
physical world expanded and with that
came a sense of trust and possibility.
In our everyday life there were
many risks. We walked about a mile to get
home from school and had to cross a
bridge over a brook. We often got
sidetracked by the brook and would end
up playing there, sometimes getting
“soakers” from wading or building dams.
Once there was a group of older boys on
the bridge who wouldn’t let me (Stern)
pass unless I paid a toll. In a panic, I
scooted around the bridge and waded
through the icy water in my school shoes
and ran all the way home. Despite my
fear, I figured out a way to outsmart them.
Along with neighborhood friends,
we both enjoyed exploring the new houses
under construction in our suburban
development. It was intoxicating to most
suburban children of this generation, as
our towns were exploding with growth.
On the weekends when the workers
weren’t there, we would steal pieces of
lumber and drag them home to make
things. We would also play house in the
houses. Everybody played their parts—
father, mother, teenagers (always those
mysterious teenagers!), and little ones. For
what seemed like hours and hours we
would have pretend family lives in the
various unfinished rooms. The only time
we got into trouble was when our brother
Brian jumped off an open deck and went
tumbling down a steep hill. He didn’t
break a bone, but our parents got clued in
about where we were playing, which
became a problem. Once the adults were
aware of our play world, it became less
tantalizing.
Interestingly, the low level of
parental participation and higher level of
risk in our activities could be viewed as
neglectful in today’s terms. Attitudes have
changed and safety has become
paramount, but wasn’t there value in
having some risk in our play? We gained
a sense of personal power. We felt
ownership over our environment and
entitled to explore it. The opportunity for
a child to experience mastery and become
more confident is lost if all risk is avoided
and all activities are supervised. Children
then internalize the attitude of fear and the
notion that they could not possibly be
trusted to problem-solve. In our
excursions to Hellerinkel’s and in our
construction-site
play
we
learned
something about negotiating in the outside
world on our own terms. We were not
visitors to our parents’ world, extensions
of their plan, but rather people in our own
right. These days we see a hidden paradox
in our efforts as parents to protect
children: we have set them up to enter the
world without an ability to assess risk.
In 2003, as a parent of a12-yearold, I (Silber) was invited by other parents
to join a “walk pool”—a group of parents
who took turns meeting children after
school once weekly to walk them across
the street to Hebrew School. I thought to
myself, “A walk pool? How would I have
felt if my parents assessed the risk as too
great and not allowed me to go to
Hellerinkel’s?” Feeling unpopular, and
risking the shaming judgment of being an
inattentive parent, I declined the invitation
and said my son could walk across the
street without an adult’s presence. He
found a friend, and together they found
their way.
How did such risk become defined
as too great—so great that the chance for
independent exploration was lost?
Attachment researchers Bowlby (1969),
Ainsworth (1978), and Main (1995) have
observed that children who feel securely
attached move off a literal or figurative
parent’s lap into exploratory play and then
return. The findings underscore the
importance of having both an attachment
and access to independent space for a
child’s self-development. My sister
increased her sense of security, for
example, as she put into action her idea of
40
a newspaper and as she found her own
way home. My son had his parents’
blessings for walking to and from school
and felt that he could be trusted. Such
experiences lay down an internal
foundational resource that supports
autonomous functioning and a feeling of
security. That sense of security is a feeling
not easily quantifiable, and yet when
children enter an unknown space, what
else do they fall back on?
Managing time and space
Back when family lives were less hectic,
we experienced the total glory of waking
up on a Saturday and knowing we had the
whole day in front of us. We had some
chores to do, but in our minds there was
an expansive feeling of endless hours in
which we could “make it up.” We rolled
over in bed, got a pad of paper and a
pencil, and started planning/negotiating
over the “Seven Games” we would play
that day. The planning part could take
more time than the playing part, and that
was fine. On the list would go things, such
as Monopoly, Barbies, cards (War, Fish,
or Spit), riding bikes, building a fort,
baking something, even getting around the
room without touching the floor. We
might agree to take breaks for breakfast
and lunch and many snacks, or we could
incorporate food into the games. For
example, relay race instructions might be
to run across the room to a snack tray, eat
crackers and peanut butter, sing, and then
run back. Sometimes Wendy and Sally,
the sisters two doors down, joined in
negotiating the choices and in playing the
Seven Games. We’re not sure how old we
were—somewhere in middle childhood
before pre-adolescence.
The point is, we believed that the
day was ours to plan. We didn’t need
anyone to drive us anywhere. Whether or
not we played all the games was
irrelevant. There were times when we got
pulled away by chores or neighborhood
games or books we were in the middle of.
At other times, the Seven Games stretched
into the night and Sunday. To children
such extended free time is a luxury. But
to today’s parents it may seem like time
wasted, opportunities lost for future
enhancement.
Our own children did not
experience the uninterrupted days of play
that we remember from our childhood.
We both worked outside our homes, and
our children could not be there alone. Like
our contemporaries, we struggled to find
balance and to decide how our children
should use their time, given the cultural
expectations and realities of modern
family life. Our children often did afterschool sports, lessons and other structured
activities, and we did our share of parental
driving. We know firsthand that creating
more unscheduled time for children to
play goes against prevailing cultural
attitudes and realities.
But we believe that the lack of
unscheduled time is itself hugely
consequential. Just as children feel
grounded with a sense of place, they also
directly benefit from having a sense of
time that is their own to construct. In the
way a dream functions for the sleeper,
allowing the mind to sort out experience
while the physical self sleeps, free play
allows children (now awake) a chance to
reflect on experience, to make sense of it,
to map it out and come to know and
represent it. By attributing meaning to
experience and organizing it, children are
literally developing their minds and the
neural pathways of the brain. Dream
research shows that dreams are critical to
neuro-bio-social-psychological
development, and we are discovering
through research that the same holds true
for play (Cartwright, 2010). Like Max, the
protagonist in Maurice Sendak’s Where
the Wild Things Are, children use dreams
and play to sort things out. They are
constructing the inner scaffolding of the
41
mind through the recontextualizing of
experience with memory. It is this kind of
mental organizing that allows for
abstraction, greater flexibility, and
problem solving. When children build a
foundation for organizing experience, they
are in a better position to tolerate paradox
and to see and hold multiple perspectives,
skills so necessary to adult development.
The strong foundation gained
through free play also stimulates
experimentation, role modeling, and
creativity. As a child, I (Silber) recall the
pleasure of making mud pies with berries,
leaves, and pebbles from the yard. I used
picnic benches to affect the look of bakery
shelves for my pies to be displayed. I
never cared what they tasted like; I knew
no one would eat them. Later, as a parent,
I enjoyed hearing my then eight-year-old
daughter instruct her imaginary students
in the pretend schoolroom she set up in
our basement. Her free play seems to have
been an organizing experience then and
now, as she is currently taking education
classes in college.
The absence of real consequences
in pretend play reduces risk about making
mistakes. One gets to experiment with the
possibilities and use whatever is at hand to
create something new. It is also in these
moments that children get the chance to
try out the language and roles of the adults
they observe. They play out the problems
in their lives that preoccupy them, scare or
confuse them. They bring what excites
them into dramatic play to try to make
sense of it. The mastery they experience
in the play lays down a foundational sense
of trust for using autonomous thought so
necessary to functioning in the real world.
In our school and therapeutic playroom
we have the privilege to be with children
in the midst of this pretend play and it is a
joy to hear them working out solutions to
problems, negotiating with their peers and
trying on different roles with their own
ideas. We increasingly also see children
unfamiliar with and reluctant to enter this
play universe.
Without the chance to actively
integrate real and imagined experiences
and to find coherence through play,
children feel a sense of disconnection
when they are bombarded with stimuli
and have no time to attribute meaning and
put their own stamp on what is happening.
Hyperactivity,
distractibility,
and
impulsivity associated with attention
deficit disorders may reflect, in part, this
insufficiency of attaching meaning to
experience. Our minds continually
organize and reorganize experience for
mastery and self-development. Without
time to act on experience, to play with it,
we find difficulty seeing it and
referencing it, and we feel disorganized
because internally, we are. Paradoxically,
we require a slower childhood to keep
pace with development in a faster world.
Solving problems and building
community
The kids on Timber Hill seemed to like to
play at our house best. This was probably
because our mother didn’t mind the mess
associated
with
play.
She
was
unconcerned about the elaborate forts,
castles, stores, and teepees that we built in
our playroom with stuff we gathered
around the house. Periodically she would
simply rake it all into a big pile in the
middle of the room and either ask us to
put it all away or put it away herself.
We would then begin again with
the great new space created in the middle
of the room. Just as the space and
materials were redesigned in the physical
realm, our minds were given over to
reimagining other uses for the toys and
materials. For example, what began as a
bunch of blocks and towels became a fort
and later a ship, illustrating that the
process underlying play is metaphor and
abstract thought—finding other ways to
look at things. We let new constructions
42
emerge; from nothing comes something,
and then something else. Players often had
different ideas for how to use the same
materials, but it was also comforting to
return to the same construction or game
over and over again.
As a principal is wont to do, I
(Stern) was fond of organizing everyone
and directing elaborate productions—
plays, dances, and musicals. One example
was “The Runaway Rebels,” a
conglomeration of Parent Trap, Circus
Boy, and Swiss Family Robinson (movies
of the day) all rolled into one. We hung a
blanket in the middle of the garage from
the two supporting poles and set up
seating on the other side of the “curtain.”
All along the way we solved problems and
made decisions about the tickets,
advertising, and refreshments. In the time
that was unscripted we created our own
script: instead of running away, we
pretended, worked it out together, and
wrote a script about—what else?—
running away. Childhood offered many
chances for rehearsals of all kinds.
Community games, like kickball,
took place at the top of our hill. The street
that ran perpendicular to Timber Hill was
relatively flat, perfect for kickball and
dodgeball games. In the spring, summer,
and fall, when it was still warm and light
enough to play outside, right after dinner
around the same time every night kids
would gather at the top of the hill for a
pickup game. We never heard kids say
they couldn’t play because they had to do
homework. If there was any homework in
those days, we do not remember it having
much significance.
Moreover, we always seemed to
haveenough players for two teams. We
were all ages, brothers and sisters, and
everyone got on a team. When cars came
we would jump to the side, and then we
would chant, “Car, Car, C-A-R, Stick
your head in a jelly jar.” There were
scuffles over rules and calls, but somehow
we would settle them so the game could
go on. If not, sometimes a fight broke out
and the game ended and kids scattered.
We worked at creating cohesiveness and
inclusiveness in the community because
we were all commonly invested in
continuing the play. We wanted to come
back the next night because it was fun.
We needed the other players. When I
(Silber) first rode my two-wheeler, my
father let go of the back of the bike, and it
was past these kids that I rode. It meant
something to me that they witnessed my
achievement.
Shifting cultural expectations
Over the past few years, we have
presented workshops on the topic of play,
and we ask participants to share memories
of important play experiences they had as
children. Typically within seconds,
everyone starts sharing memories with the
persons sitting next to them. The room
buzzes with a felt excitement. People hold
these memories dear, like buried treasures.
Next we ask participants how
these play experiences contributed to
shaping their adult selves? We hear
anecdotes about gaining confidence,
learning how to relate to others, feeling
pleasure, taking risks, and being
inventive. We also hear great stories about
humorous
antics
and
memorable
experiences unique to various cultures and
socioeconomic levels.
What would it take to give
children in our current world the
opportunity for more play? It would take
the combined efforts of parents, teachers,
community leaders, policy makers, and
business executives to adjust the balance
of work and family, to reduce homework
requirements, and to give over
neighborhood and park spaces for the
purpose of children creating their own
play. It would require a seismic attitudinal
shift for adults to stop assuming that
children are “wasting” time if they are not
43
learning a skill or completing an
assignment. Educators and psychologists,
as arbiters of what children need to grow,
would have to educate society about the
importance of play.
If
it
can’t
happen
in
neighborhoods, can we allow play to
inhabit more of the school day in our
kindergartens and preschools? Can afterschool programs adjust their curricula and
provide safe spaces for children to
manage their own time, choose their own
activities, organize their own games, and
maybe even just have quiet time to reflect
and think? Can the training for educators
and psychologists emphasize curriculum
that has play as the centerpiece for young
children? Can school administrators adjust
policies to build in play?
Perhaps in the recent decades, with
the explosion of information about
parenting, we have effectively stirred
parental anxiety to such a pitch—scared
parents out of their minds, so to speak—
that we’ve lost a connection to what we
innately know to be true (Warner, 2005).
Play brings us joy throughout our lifetime
and is the basis of discovery, human
advances, and creativity. It is the very
foundation of our adult selves.
As for the two of us, in this work
we are drawing on our best play skills and
our adult sense of responsibility to try to
make a difference for children. We
rehearsed for this moment in the way we
played, and our play continues to be a
vital resource and spur to action. We
mine the gold of that hopeful time and
combine it with our professional skills as
we face the huge challenge of
transforming cultural attitudes that
undermine child development. Like the
old days when we were working on the
“The Timber Hill News,” we are reporting
on what we see. We need the community.
You in?
Acknowledgements:
The authors wish to acknowledge their
parents, Drs. Stanley and Patricia
Moldawsky, who were great champions of
play for their four children beginning in
early childhood and throughout the
lifespan. They always demonstrated a
great respect for play, and both
encouraged and allowed their children to
fully explore their neighborhood and
community, pursue their interests, and
take the time needed to reflect on and
integrate their experiences.
Secondly the authors wish to
acknowledge their cousin and playmate
Mary Russell Curran, who graciously
shared her editing skills in reading several
drafts of this paper and offering her
insights.
Authors:
Laurel Moldawsky Silber, Psy. D., Child
Psychologist in Private Practice, Adjunct
Assistant Professor at Institute for
Graduate Clinical Psychology at Widener
University,
Chester,
PA.,
faculty,
founding member of the Philadelphia
Declaration of Play and Ambassador for
the Decade of Childhood
[email protected]
Barbara Moldawsky Stern, MBA, MS, 6th
Year in Educational Leadership, Retired
Principal of Darcey School Early
Childhood Center, Cheshire, CT, current
President, Board of Directors, Gesell
Institute of Child Development, New
Haven, CT
41 Marvel Road
New Haven, CT 06515
203-387-0056
[email protected]
44
References
Ainsworth, M., M. Blehar, E. Waters, and S. Wall. ( 1978) Patterns of Attachment: A
Psychological Study of the Strange Situation. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum,
Bowlby, J. (1969)Attachment and Loss. New York: Basic Books, Inc.,
Brown, S., and C. Vaugh. (2009) Play; How it Shapes the Brain, Opens the Imagination,
and Invigorates the soul. New York: Penguin Group Inc.
Cartwright, R. The Twenty- Four Hour Mind: The Role of Sleep and Dreaming on Our
Emotional Lives.(2010) New York: Oxford University Press
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Mental Health Surveillance Among ChildrenUnited States, (2013) 2005-2011. MMWR/ 62(02); 1-35,.
Elkind, D. The Hurried Child: Growing Up Too Fast Too Soon. Cambridge, MA: Perseus,
2001.
Elkind, D. (2007) The Power of Play. Cambridge, MA: Perseus.
Froehlich, T., B. Lamphear, J. Epstein, W. Barbaresi, S. Katusic, and R. Kahn.(2007)
"Prevalence, Recognition, and Treatment of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder
in a National Sample of US Children." Arch Pediatric Adolescent Medicine 161 (857864.
Ginsburg, K. (2007)"The Importance of Play in Promoting Healthy Child Development and
Maintaining Strong Parent-Child Bonds." Pediatrics 119.1 : 182-91.
Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R., Berk, L., and Singer, D. (2209) A Mandate for Playful
Learning in Preschool: Presenting the Evidence. New York: Oxford University Press,.
Linn, S. (2008) The Case for Make Believe; Saving Play in a Commercialized World. New
York: W. W. Norton &Co, Inc.
Louv, R. (2005)Last Child in the Woods; Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit
Disorder. Chapel Hill: Algonquin Books.
Main, M. (1995)Attachment Theory: Social, Developmental and Clinical Perspectives in
Goldberg, et.al. Recent Studies in Attachment. New York: Analytic..
Siegel, D. (1999)The Developing Mind. New York: Guilford.
Singer, D., and J. Singer. (2005)Imagination and Play in the Electronic Age. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard UP.
Wang, Y., and M. Beyhoun. (2007)"The Obesity Epidemic in the United States-Gender,
Age, Socioeconomic, Racial/Ethnic, and Geographic Characteristics: A Systematic
Review and Meta-Regression Analysis." Epidemiologic Reviews 29.
Warner, J. (2005)Perfect Madness; Motherhood in the Age of Anxiety. New York:
Riverhead Books.
Zigler, E., Singer, D., and Bishop-Josef, S.(2004) Children's Play: The Roots of Reading.
Washington, DC: Zero To Three Press.
45
International Play Association (IPA) and the American Affiliate IPA/USA:
A Brief History
Marcy Guddemi and Joe Frost
The origin of the International Play
Association and its affiliates in nearly 50
countries is close to 100 years old. In
1923, Save the Children founder
Eglantyne Jebb drafted The Declaration of
the Rights of the Child. Jebb believed that
the rights of a child should be especially
protected and enforced. These ideas were
adopted by the International Save the
Children Union, in Geneva, on February
23, 1923 and endorsed by the League of
Nations General Assembly on November
26, 1924 as the World Child Welfare
Charter.
These proclamations, however, were not
enforceable by international law, but
rather only guidelines for countries to
follow. Consequently, on November 20,
1959 the United Nations General
Assembly adopted a much expanded
version as its own Declaration of the
Rights of the Child, adding ten principles
in place of the original five. Principal
Nine of the 1959 Declaration of Rights
addresses the child’s right for “full
opportunity to play and recreation…”
November 20th has been adopted as the
Universal Children's Day as ongoing
celebration of that event.
Interest in providing quality play
opportunities for children had been
gradually increasing over the decades
before the signing of the Declaration of
the Rights of the Child and in 1955 a
major seminar on playgrounds was held in
Europe.
The need for international action was
evident. In 1961 IPA was born in
Scandinavia and held its first conference
in Copenhagen that year.
IPA has held eighteen (18) International
Conferences
1961– Copenhagen
1964 – Zurich
1967 – London/Liverpool: Recreation
and Play
1969 – Paris: Creative Play
1972 – Vienna: Play and Creativity
1975 – Milan: Adventure Playgrounds
and Children’s Creativity
1978 – Ottawa: Play in Human
Settlements
1981 – Rotterdam: Growing up in an
Adult World – Beyond Play &
Recreation
1984 – Ljubljana: Innovation –
Participation – Action
46
1987 – Stockholm: Creativity through
Play
1990 – Tokyo: Play and Education
1993 – Melbourne: World Play Summit
1996 – Espoo: Dimensions of Play
1999 – Lisbon: The Community of Play
2002 – Sao Paulo: Culture and Play in
Urban Spaces
2005 – Berlin: Play: Learning for Life
2008 – Hong Kong: Play in a Changing
World
2011 – Cardiff: Playing into the Future –
Surviving and Thriving
2014 -- Istanbul
The United Nation’s International Year of
the Child in 1979 injected IPA with new
energy. Though IPA began its life with an
emphasis on adventure playgrounds it
gradually changed its focus to play itself
and to the child’s right to play. In the
1980’s IPA was effective in establishing
the word “play” in article 31 of the UN
Convention on the Rights of the Child
Thus, in 1989, the Convention on the
Rights of the Child, which strengthened
the Declaration of Rights of 1959, was
adopted by UN General Assembly. On
September 2, 1990 it became international
law with one notable exception: the US
signed the Charter but has not ratified it.
The Convention consists of 54 articles
that address the basic human rights to
children everywhere are entitled. Article
31 specifically addresses the child’s right
play.
The American Association for the Child’s
Right to Play (IPA/USA) was formed in
Philadelphia in 1973 as the USA affiliate
of the International. The beginning of
IPA/USA started with playground creator
and author Paul Hogan’s 1967 trip to
Europe.
Hogan was checking out
adventure playgrounds in London with
Lady Allen of Hurtwood when he first
learned about IPA and began attending
their meetings.
Actually, the United
States had IPA members before the
affiliate was formed by Hogan. Mrs.
Thomas Hess of Greenwich, Connecticut,
was the first American member and
Pacific Oaks College and Children’s
School in Pasadena, California, was the
first American organization member,
having joined in 1969.
By the
early 1970’s
IPA/USA
membership had grown to the point that a
national representatives was selected to
send to IPA World Council meetings
which are held at the triennial IPA
meetings. The first USA representative
was Paul Hogan who attended the 1975
Milan meeting two years after IPA/USA
was formed.
The first president of
IPA/USA was not “elected.”
While
attending that 1975 conference, Hogan
met Muriel Otter, the IPA secretary. She
“cornered him and made him president of
IPA/USA.” He consequently started
PlayPlans magazine and began to secure
subscribers and more members for
IPA/USA.
Elaine Ostroff followed Paul as USA
Representative to International. Donna
Seline attended the Ottawa IPA
conference in 1978 and was appointed
USA national representative by IPA
President, Polly Hill of Canada. Seline
organized a regional IPA/USA conference
in 1980 at the University of Minnesota
with keynote speakers Polly Hill and
Brian Sutton-Smith.
A subsequent
47
national IPA/USA conference was held in
1983 at the University of Minnesota with
keynote speakers Janet McLean and Joe
Frost.
In June 1983, The International
Conference
on
Play
and
Play
Environments; sponsored by IPA/USA
and twelve other state, national, and
international organizations; was held at
the University of Texas. This was reputed
to be the largest gathering of play scholars
ever convened, with more than 500
participants from twelve nations. At this
conference, plans were initiated for a
more formal organization of IPA/USA
and for the 1986 national conference in
Cincinnati. In July, 1985, Donna Seline
submitted her resignation as national
representative, effective April, 1986.
In February 1986, Donna Seline initiated
calls for nominations for a formal Board
of Directors for IPA/USA and a mail
election was held. Elected for two-year
terms were Joe Frost (President and U.S.
Representative), Sue Wortham (Treasurer
and Membership Coordinator), Marcy
Guddemi (Newsletter Editor), and Board
members Jay Beckwith, Harris Forusz,
Roger Hart, Robin Moore, and Barbara
Sampson.
An USA/IPA national conference was
organized by Harris Forusz in 1986 and
was hosted by Adventure Playgrounds,
Inc. and the University of Cincinnati.
Formal resolutions were agreed upon,
including a pronouncement of support for
the IPA 1977 Declaration of the Child’s
Right to Play adopted in Malta in 1977
and revised in Vienna in 1982. Additional
details for modifying Incorporation and
Bylaws documents were addressed.
Robin Moore and Joe Frost participated in
the 1986 World Council IPA meeting and
special International Year of Peace
seminar in Birmingham, UK. During this
period a number of adventure playgrounds
were developed in the U.S. By 1987, IPA
included members from fifty countries.
Thirty-five Americans attended the 1987
World Congress in Stockholm. By 1988
IPA/USA membership had grown to 165.
In 1988 Tom Jambor was elected
president and in that year the national
conference was held in Washington, D.
C., directed by Barbara Sampson, Robin
Moore, and Donna Seline.
Board
members were Tom Jambor (President),
Helge Stapel (Treasurer), Marcy Guddemi
(Newsletter Editor), and Board Members
Duraid Da’as, Robin Epstein, Harris
Forusz, Paul Hogan, Lulu King, Mary
Lillie, Ruth Morrison, Jack Pentes, Donna
Seline, Randy Smith, Frank Rudloff, and
William Weisz. In January 1989, this
expanded Board met in Cincinnati and
made plans for expanding revenue,
newsletter, membership, and creating a
clearinghouse on information. At the
Tokyo conference in 1990, Robin Moore
of IPA/USA, already an IPA international
officer, was the first American to be
elected IPA president.
With these patterns in place, IPA/USA
programs continued to expand to the
present time, including community
PlayDays,
annual
play
advocacy
presentations at national conferences,
semi-annual
national
IPA/USA
conferences, promoting the international
IPA
conference,
preparing
and
distributing materials for parents and
school administrators promoting advocacy
and reinstatement for school recess, media
campaigns for recess and outdoor play,
and multiple efforts to support and gain
awareness of the value of play and the
child’s right to play. National conferences
were held jointly with The Association for
the Study of Play conferences at the
Strong Museum of Play in 2007 and at
Georgia State University in 2010. In 2010,
48
Olga Jarrett was the outgoing President
and Tom Reed was the newly elected
president.
Play Resources
o
o
o
o
o
Book Reviews
IPA Brochures
IPA Working Paper on
Children’s Play
PlayRights Magazine
Resources and Links
IPA/USA is the American Affiliate of
the International Play Association:
Promoting the Child's Right to Play. The
purpose of this organization is to
protect, preserve, and promote play as a
fundamental right for all humans.
Membership is open to any individual,
group, or organization which endorses
the right of children to play, stated in the
United Nations' Declaration of the
Rights of the Child (1959), Article 7,
paragraph 3: "The child shall have full
opportunity for play and recreation
which should be directed to the same
purposes as education; society and the
public authorities shall endeavor to
promote the enjoyment of the right...”
and in the Convention on the Rights of
the Child (1989), Article 31:
1. States Parties recognize the
right of the child to rest and
leisure, to engage in play and
recreational activities appropriate
to the age of the child and to
participate freely in cultural life
and the arts.
2. States Parties shall respect and
promote the right of the child to
participate fully in cultural and
artistic life and shall encourage
the provision of appropriate and
equal opportunities for cultural,
artistic, recreational and leisure
activity.
IPA/USA holds a national conference
every three years and sponsors or
cosponsors workshops and symposia
from time to time. A quarterly
newsletter, available on the website,
features articles on play environments,
safety, toys and materials, play
leadership, and the role of play in child
development.
IPA
International
publishes an international journal called
PlayRights and hosts a World
Conference every three years.
IF YOU BELIEVE THAT:
 Play, along with the basic needs of
nutrition, health, shelter, and
education, is vital for the
development of the potential of
all children, Family participation
needs to be strengthened by
support systems such as a play
leadership, and
 Environments and programs to
meet children's real needs should
be created.
IF YOU ARE CONCERNED THAT:
 Society is indifferent to the
importance of play,
 Schools are indifferent to the
importance of play,
 Children are increasingly living
with inadequate provision for
survival and development,
 Children are increasingly living in
inappropriate housing settings
with less spaces to play,
 Children
are
neglected
in
environmental planning,
 Cultural
traditions
are
deteriorating and that children
are
Increasingly
exploited
commercially,
 Children are constantly exposed to
war, violence, and destruction,
 "Winning at all costs” dominates
children's sports and play,
49
THEN
PLEASE
CONSIDER
BECOMING A MEMBER OF IPA/USA
and become a part of an international,
interdisciplinary
organization
that
supports and works for the Child's Right
to Play.
IPA
is
an
international
nongovernmental organization founded in
1961.
It provides a forum for exchange and
action across disciplines and across
sectors.
University of Texas at Austin, where he
taught for 34 years. He has authored or
co-authored 18 books, several having
been translated into other languages, as
well as six volumes of original papers,
reports and articles. Dr. Frost has also
served as editor for many texts. He is
known all over the world for his more
than 30 years of work on early childhood
and children’s play environments. He has
also served as a consultant for
playgrounds worldwide and is a past
president of both the Association for
Childhood Education International and
International Play Association/USA
IPA’s purpose is to protect, preserve
and promote the child’s right to play as
a fundamental human right. ~Article 31
of the United Nations Convention on the
Rights of the Child
“That every child has the right to rest and
leisure, to engage in play and recreational
activities appropriate to the age of the
child and to participate freely in cultural
life and the arts.
That member governments shall respect
and promote the right of the child to
participate fully in cultural and artistic
life and shall encourage the provision of
appropriate and equal opportunities for
cultural, artistic, recreational and leisure
activity.”
Authors
Marcy Guddemi, PhD, MBA, is the
Executive Director Gesell Institute of
Child Development. She is the current
Treasurer of IPA/USA, Past President of
IPA/USA, and Past Secretary of IPA. She
has also served as Newsletter Editor and
Secretary of IPA/USA.
Joe Frost, EdD., L.H.D., is the Parker
Centennial Professor Emeritus at the
50

IPA/USA E-Journal 2013

Transcription

Similar documents

Spring 2013 - ipa region 15

Alcoholmeter - BFS Pressroom Solutions

IPA Direct Insight Conference Call Series: Closed End Funds

Kermit The Hop Sell Sheet

Fiche-NordTerreTextile

Howl`s Moving Castle

2013 - INSIDE Public Accounting

Newsletter engl. - ipa-project

marketing execution

In The Spotlight - Atlantic Business Magazine