Play and Its Importance for Children Lives - Term Paper Example

 Play And Its Importance For Children Lives INTRODUCTION During their childhood, young individuals must cope with many new changes like transition from home or kinder-garden to school. They are transferred into a new different environment, with new faces, new rules, and new expectations, in the environment where parents expect their child to be safe, nurtured and, what is important, will be learning. However, what will not change is the “play-like” mentality with which children approach to learning. As a result, large amounts of time are devoted to play in a child’s early preschool years (Shim et al, 2001). While school leaders may shun play because they feel it is wasted time, compelling research supports the notion that children benefit from their play in social (Shim et al., 2001), cognitive (NAEYC, 2001) and physical (NAEYC, 2001) domains. Additionally, types of benefits children attain from different types of play, for instance, outdoor play, are unique to particular setting and cannot be achieved anywhere else (NAEYC, 2001). From the critical perspective, play can be described when viewing it as the action of playing, rather than as a noun (Scarlett et al, 2005). Viewed as a verb, playing can more easily be defined as something that one experiences and initiates on their own terms (Scarlett et al., 2005). This very general definition of play, however, makes it difficult to determine when someone is engaged in play. Therefore, six specific criteria established by Rubin, Fein, and Vandenberg (1983) to distinguish if an activity is considered play or not are very useful. According to these researchers, an activity is referred to as play if it is intrinsically motivated, is dominated by the participants, incorporates active involvement from the participants, is free of rules imposed on participants from external sources, focuses on the process rather than a product, and finally, is an activity that is believed by the participants to be real. This paper aims to discuss various aspects of children play, its functioning in children lives, and different theories that discuss and explain the significance of play for children development. CHILDREN PLAY AND ITS CLASSIFICATION During a child's preschool years, long periods of time are devoted to play (Shim et al., 2001) and this play occurs on many levels. Children may engage in onlooker play, solitary play, parallel play, associative play and cooperative play. Onlooker play consists of a child who watches other children play and is aware of the other children’s actions; however, he/she does not choose to engage in that particular play situation (Barbakoff & Yo, 2002). Solitary play can be described as playing independently with no consideration to what other children in the environment are doing (Frost et al, 2005). In parallel play, a child is still playing independently, but their choice of activity brings him/her in close proximity to their peers (Frost et al., 2005). In addition, during parallel play a child uses toys similar to the other children around him/her (Frost et al, 2005). Associative play marks the level when children begin to play with others. In this level of play children begin to share toys and communicate with each other, although they do not necessarily all have the same play objectives (Barbakoff & Yo, 2002). Cooperative play represents more organized play with harmonious play objectives. At this level the child plays in a group to achieve a specific goal, create some product with the available materials, and/or engage in forms of dramatic play (Frost et al, 2005). The levels of play children engage in can vary, and a child can move in and out of these various levels during individual bouts of play (Barbakoff & Yo, 2002). In addition to fluctuating play levels, play types may change as well. According to Piaget, types of play engaged in by children are closely linked to the children's cognitive development (as cited in Frost et al, 2005). Functional play is considered the most basic type of play and involves repetitive actions, mostly with the intent to practice a previously learned task (Frost et al., 2005). In very young children repeatedly grasping a rattle for the sake of grasping would be an example of functional play (Frost et al., 2005), whereas for older children functional play could be described as bouncing or shooting a basketball (Shim et al., 2001). Following functional play on the developmental scale is symbolic play, described as play that symbolically represents a child’s thoughts and is demonstrated through their construction (e.g., building with blocks, modeling clay) and dramatic (e.g., role playing) play behaviors (Frost et al., 2005). Piaget’s (1962) categorization of play types aligned with the cognitive stages of a child's development. Piaget believed children's play and intelligence are integrated, and that actions involved in play are representative of their intellectual development. Specifically, once a child has the capacity to think symbolically their type of play will progress from non-symbolic practice games, to more make-believe and symbolic games, to finally engagement in more formal games with rules (as cited in Scarlett et al., 2005). In contrast, Pellegrini and Smith (1998) categorized their play types in reference to the physical component of development which consisted of three different categories: rhythmic stereotypic play, exercise play, and rough and tumble play. Rhythmic stereotypic play involves gross motor movement at the most basic level, such as body rocking or swinging one’s foot back and forth. This play is most likely controlled by involuntary neuromuscular maturation. Exercise play is represented by gross motor movements (e.g., running, climbing, chasing) in a playful context. Thirdly, vigorous play behaviors such as wrestling, kicking, and play fighting are indicative of the final play type, rough and tumble play. While both exercise play and rough and tumble play are inclusive of vigorous physical behavior, the social interaction necessary for rough and tumble play does not have to exist in exercise play. The frequency with which children participate in each level and type of play is dependent upon their developmental stage and their environment. A child’s progression from onlooker and solitary play to more social levels of play is considered a positive developmental step and children should progress through these steps as they grow older (Frost et al., 2005). Similarly, Piaget’s categorization of types of play was related to a child’s cognitive development. Thus, each of his play types was accompanied by an approximate age (i.e., infancy-practice games; early childhood-symbolic games; late childhood-formal games with rules at which a child would be developmentally ready to engage in that particular type of play) (Frost et al., 2005). In Pellegrini and Smith’s (1998) review of physical activity in relation to gender and age trends, they noted that as children progress through their first year of preschool greater incidences of exercise play are reported. At the end of the preschool years and into the early primary school years the rate of rough and tumble play increases. Another factor that impacts play levels and play types is the environment. For example, Shim et al.’s (2001) study of approximately 40 children, found that the presence of solitary functional play and parallel functional play was 3.86 and 6.1 times more frequent, in the outdoor versus indoor settings, respectively. Even more interesting was the greater likelihood for preschoolers to engage in more social pretend play outdoors despite the accessibility to more dramatic play materials found indoors in the classroom. PLAY AND ITS BENEFITS FOR CHILDREN As vividly pointed in by Gallahue (1989), “play is the way in which children explore and experiment with the world around them as they build up relations with that world, with others, and with themselves” (p. 458). Through this exploration and experimentation, children begin to move beyond their egocentricity, understand multiple viewpoints, and practice social skills important for later adult interaction (Rogers & Sawyers, 1988). Some of these important social skills include resolving peer conflicts, cooperating, turn-taking, and sharing (Rogers & Sawyers, 1988). In addition to rehearsing different social roles and practicing skills necessary for later adult behavior (Pellegrini & Smith, 1998), play also helps to meet children’s emotional needs, providing them with the opportunity to achieve status within a group and gain a sense of personal worth (Gallahue, 1989). Not only does play enhance a child’s social abilities, but it also provides an arena through which children can learn through trial and error (Gallahue, 1989). According to Rogers and Sawyers’s (1988) review of the cognitive benefits achieved through play, it is believed that play enhances creativity and aesthetic appreciation, enables children to transform reality into symbolic representations, provides opportunities to practice newly learned skills, and supports children’s language and literacy development. Some of the potential cognitive benefits of children’s play outlined by Rogers and Sawyers (1988) are evident in other research. For example, Johnson’s (1976) study examined the relationship between fantasy play and cognitive functioning among 63 preschool children. According to the findings, engaging in social fantasy play facilitated divergent thinking in young children. These findings are supported by Barnett’s (1990) research that contended play positively impacts problem-solving ability and Frost et al.’s (2005) suggestion of advanced intellectual development in preschoolers who engage in more social dramatic play. These benefits of social dramatic play are believable when considering what social dramatic play entails. When a child plays out a story, he/she is forced to actively become involved in the experience, form mental representations of the story so he/she can later physically mimic these events, and then coordinate his/her representations with another peer or a group of peers (Barnett, 1990). The final learning domain enhanced through play is the physical domain. Movement experiences through play help to develop children’s bones and muscles, and increase their agility, balance, reaction time, and overall coordination (McCall & Craft, 2000). In addition, play provides a child with many practice opportunities to aid in their development and understanding of movement concepts (Sanders, 2002). It can be argued that these learned movement concepts (e.g., body awareness, space awareness and effort) in addition to development of fundamental motor skills, are key predictors to a child’s later commitment to physical activity because they lay a foundation for later engagement in sports and other physical activities. An increasing amount of literature supports the notion that benefits of unstructured play, and more specifically outdoor play, do exist (NAEYC, 2001). In addition, these types of benefits are unique to the outdoor setting and learning occurs in a way not possible inside a normal classroom (NAEYC, 2001). A child’s involvement in physical play, outside of the classroom, provides an arena for all three learning domains (i.e., social, cognitive, physical) to be addressed. Practically, settings in which children have the opportunity to participate in physical play offer many social opportunities for young children to learn to work with others, to recognize differences and similarities, and to break down cultural barriers (Sanders, 2002). As a result, the many relationships formed by young children benefit a child's social development. Within their peer relationships children can practice important social skills such as cooperation, sharing, and conflict resolution (NAEYC, 2001). In rough and tumble play specifically, Pellegrini and Smit (1998) observed the relationship between social problem solving abilities of popular versus rejected kinder-gardeners, second graders, and fourth graders. Findings supported that popular children’s play was positively related to measures of social competence, specifically social problem solving abilities. In addition to conflict resolution, free play experiences allow children to develop a respect for rules, learn to become effective communicators, increase self-discipline, and gain appreciation for other peer cultures (Barnett, 1990; NAEYC, 2001). Finally, and possibly most importantly, one cannot overlook that movement simply helps children feel good about themselves (McCall & Craft, 2000). In addition to social benefits, a child may also benefit cognitively from physical play experiences. When viewed as a break from teacher-led activities alone, play is beneficial for children in schools (Pellegrini and Smith, 1998). Pellegrini and Smith’s (1998) work supports the notion that breaks in academic tasks, especially for preschoolers, provide attentional benefits. Beyond play being beneficial because it is a break, it is clear that the hands-on and exploratory nature of play helps children develop their cognitive abilities (NAEYC, 2001). When assessing children’s outdoor environment, a number of content areas surface in which children are challenged to explore. These content areas include experiencing natural elements such as wind, trees, and dirt; understanding physics on a see-saw and swings; using math for keeping score in games and counting; and, developing language abilities through explaining tasks to peers, seeking information about their outdoor environment and describing actions in which they just took part (NAEYC, 2001). All these broad areas available for a child to explore during outdoor play require the child to use a variety of skills and responses (Barnett, 1990). Therefore, play indirectly provides children with a flexible approach (i.e., variability in skills used) to their environment which contributes to children's ability to problem solve in a variety of situations. Lastly, it is logical to assume that engagement in physical play leads to physical benefits in young children. Physical movement is an essential ingredient for healthy development and growth (NAEYC, 2001). Unfortunately, according to a report released by UK international healthcare company the 2004 data estimates that approximately 14% of UK boys and 17% of girls are obese (BUPA, 2009). These results are indicative of children being deprived of or simply not engaging in physically active play. Interestingly, in Pellegrini and Smith’s (1998) review of physical play behaviors in young children, if a child was deprived of the opportunity to play, when finally given the chance to be physically active through play, the child participated in longer duration and more intense bouts of physical activity than if they were never neglected the opportunity to play. The researchers suggested that overcompensation of physical activity by children who we deprived of physical play opportunity suggests some apparent need for physical play. When examining the benefits children reap from engaging in physical play this need is better understood. Play places new body control demands on children which allows them to learn more about their body’s capabilities and to practice physical skills (e.g., running, balancing, hanging, swinging, kicking and catching) (NAEYC, 2001). Many physical play activities also rely on the use of eye-hand coordination, such as catching a football, dribbling a basketball, or climbing on structured equipment (Bjorklund & Brown, 1998). This development of eye-hand coordination is linked to increased levels of spatial cognition, more frequently seen in boys than girls. In addition, this playful form of exercise helps shape muscle fibers, benefits muscle and bone growth, enhances a child's agility and reaction time, and increases overall strength and endurance (McCall & Craft, 2000; NAEYC, 2001). These physical adaptations are evident in Pellegrini and Smith’s (1998) review which showed that children who frequently engaged in vigorous games were more fit than children who did not. Simply put, early exposure to physical play provides children with the opportunity to move. According to McCall and Craft (2000), the many movement opportunities experienced through physical play are critical during their first years of life, especially during the preschool years. This period of motor development is crucial for a child’s later proficiency in movement, and the learning of fundamental movement skills (i.e., movements and combinations of movements) should not be overlooked during the preschool years (Poest et al, 1990). Knowing that young children who are successful movers early on will use these movement experiences to learn new movements is critical when assessing later participation in physical activity (McCall & Craft, 2000). In other words, movement involved in early play may help lay a foundation of skills for children to successfully engage in later, more adult physical activity. Unfortunately, trends of over 100 three to four year olds recorded by Jackson et al. (2003) have shown at such a young age a decline in consistent engagement in physical activity and an increase in physical inactivity. Deal (1993) explored physical activity patterns of 11 preschool-aged children during a developmental movement program and found that the intensity of preschoolers’ activity levels was highly variable and that they often engaged in movement activities that required high heart rates for very short periods of time. In the study, preschool boys’ and girls’ intensity levels ranged from high to low, with approximately 18% of their time devoted to vigorous activity and only 14% at a low intensity. According to Deal (1993) this fluctuation may be due in part to children’s tendency to fatigue quickly; however, after only a brief rest period they have shown the ability to immediately continue with vigorous bouts of play. Finn et al. (2002) identified possible factors which may influence physical activity patterns in young children. Researchers placed accelerometers on 214 children, ages three to five, for a 48-hour period. According to their findings, parental influence and the childcare center environment both proved to be influential factors in predicting activity levels of preschool-aged children. More active children were more likely to have a father with a lower body mass index (BMI). The researchers inferred that a lower BMI was indicative of higher activity levels, and therefore parents who were more active were likely to have children that were more active. The childcare center environment was also significantly indicative of a child’s physical activity level. While the factors associated with the childcare environment were not specifically examined in the study, the researchers hypothesized that the amount of space available and/or the quality of programming in the childcare setting influenced physical activity levels. PLAY AND CHILDREN PLAY CHOICE In general some outdoor activities appeal more to preschoolers than others (Cullen, 1993). For example, in a study of 40 five year olds in Western Australia scooters, tricycles, and playing on fixed equipment proved to be a favorite activity choice among both girls and boys. However, Cullen’s (1993) findings differ from the more common notion that one is more likely to observe specific types of activities dominated by one gender only. Connor and Serbin (1977) found it more likely for both boys and girls to desire to participate in activities that match their gender, such as boys playing with blocks and girls playing with dolls. It is evident that children conform to these gender-matching roles very early in age. As a result of conforming to these gender-roles, children frequently participate in playing considered socially acceptable for boys-only or girls-only. Concerns have surfaced about possible effects in social, cognitive, and physical learning as a result of participating in boys-only and girls-only playing (Mead & Ignico, 1992). Mead and Ignico (1992) surveyed approximately 500 elementary school students using the 24-Item Physical Activity Stereotyping Index. Results demonstrated that boys quickly defined gender-appropriate behaviors and were more likely to categorize play activities according to gender. Practically, boys prefer activities that include complex rules and elements of power, strength, speed, endurance and competition. In Fagot’s (1977) observation of approximately 200 preschool-aged children, it was clear that boys preferred to use transportation toys, build with blocks, ride tricycles, and engage in outdoor sandbox play. In other research, boys were found to spend significantly more time than girls in the grass and vehicle paths and use between 1.2 and 1.6 times as much space in the outdoor play area than girls (Harper & Hule, 1998). In contrast to the boys, research showed that girl-preferred play do not revolve around speed, power, and competition, but rather involve static, fine motor activity, and cooperation (Mead and Ignico, 1992). According to Mead and Ignico (1992), girls’ play has more restricted body movement, has very few rules, occurs in very small groups, and is by nature cooperative. Girls will spend more time indoors engaging in craft activities or dramatic kitchen play rather than being outdoors (Harper & Hule, 1998). In Harper and Hule’s (1998) study, girls spent significantly more time in art activities or doll play than boys. These findings support Fagot’s (1977) research which identified art, kitchen play, dolls, and dress-up as the top four feminine-preferred activities. According to Carvalho and Smith (1990), many social scientists would attribute such differences in boys’ and girls’ play to cultural pressure and adult reinforcement. In our society cross-gender behaviour has different consequences for boys versus girls (Fagot, 1977) which may explain why boys are more likely to determine gender-appropriate behaviors. For example, in Fagot’s (1977) study boys received more teacher and peer criticism when engaged in doll play or dress-up while girls exploring with male-preferred activities rarely suffered the same criticisms. This finding indicates that during early childhood, girls experience more flexibility in their choice of play activities (Fagot, 1977). However, whether or not girls take advantage of this latitude is uncertain. As stated above, activity choice can be impacted by adult reinforcement (Mead and Ignico, 1992). Unfortunately, gender-typed messages conveyed to young children have implications for future development. Physically the boys are at an advantage because the elements of power and speed characteristic of male activities are comprised of fundamental motor skills (Mead and Ignico, 1992). I n contrast, the restricted bodily movement stereotypically found in girls’ play does little to foster fundamental development of motor skills (Mead & Ignico, 1992). Mastering these fundamental motor skills at an early age are key ingredients for a child’s potential for successful involvement in later sport activities (Gallahue, 1989). PLAY AND GROUP SELECTION From the practical perspective, by almost three years of age children are already more inclined to play with same-sex peers (Neppl & Murray, 1997). Once children have reached four years of age and enter preschool, they are three times more likely to play with same-sex peers than they are with opposite-sex peers (Neppl & Murray, 1997). As children progress through preschool and grow older, this tendency to select same-sex peers will become even more pronounced. In Neppl and Murray’s (1997) examination of social dominance in preschool play patterns, they found that children in same-sex groups demonstrated greater social interaction. Ausch’s (1994) findings further characterized same-sex groups as more talkative and where individual members interacted in closer proximity to each other as opposed to children playing in mixed-gender pairs. While boys and girls both generally choose to play with peers of their same sex, there are key differences between how boy-play groups and girl-play groups interact. Benenson’s (1993) examination of dyadic interaction, defined as “reciprocal actions, such as conversing, questioning, directing, touching, or gesturing, between two children...” (p. 548) revealed that girls were more likely to form dyadic interactions than boys. Boys were more frequently involved in larger play groups versus dyadic interactions. This tendency for boys to want to form larger play groups may be a result of boys being socialized to interact with larger groups of children (Neppl and Murray, 1997). Once in these larger play groups boys will define roles for their game play and establish some form of hierarchy among the group (Neppl & Murray, 1997). In girl-play groups this hierarchy is non-existent and their relationships are categorized as more inclusive and intimate. Children understand with little hesitation that they belong either in a boy-group or a girl-group, but why such an attraction for same-sex play groups in young children? One possibility may have to do with the tendency of boy-groups to form hierarchies, as noted above. This male behavior of stratifying and dominating group members is clearly not evident in girl-group play styles and therefore may be a turn-off to girls (Neppl & Murray, 1997). This notion is further supported by hypothesis that behavioral compatibility (i.e., behaviours unique to one particular sex attract peers of that same sex) may influence peer selection. A second hypothesis, supported by a socialization-personality perspective, is that since males and females are shaped differently by society they would be more inclined to interact with a person more like them; thus they choose same-sex partners more frequently. This perspective further states that being similarly shaped would probably lead to similar personalities, and maybe more importantly, similar activity preferences. The potential for gender to influence activity preferences was examined by Eisenberg et al.’s (1984) study on the relationship of preschoolers’ peer interaction to their sex-typed toy choices. In the study, 51 children were selected from three different preschool classes and observed for approximately nine weeks. The researchers found that a girl would be less likely to play with a boy, and vice versa, because they had different preferences for toys. In this case their group selection revolved around their toy selection; that is, both boys and girls preferred playing with their sex-specific toy (i.e., dolls for girls and blocks for boys) and thus, children of different sexes were not likely to interact. Furthermore, once children were already engaged in play with a sex-appropriate toy they were more likely to be approached by a peer of the same gender. REFERENCES Ausch, L. (1994). Gender comparisons of young children’s social interaction in cooperative play activity. Sex Roles, 31, 225-239 Barbakoff, S., & Yo, Y. P. (2002). Levels of social play: Observing and recording preschoolers. St. John’s University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 472748). Barnett, L. A. (1990). Developmental benefits of play for children. Journal of Leisure Research, 22, 138-153 Benenson, J. F. (1993). Greater preference among females than males for dyadic interaction in early childhood. Child Development, 64, 544-555 Bjorklund, D. F., & Brown, R. D. (1998). Physical play and cognitive development: Integrating activity, cognition, and education. Child Development, 69, 604-606. BUPA. (2009). Obesity in Children. Available at Accessed August 16, 2010 Carvalho, A. M., & Smith, P.K. (1990). Playground activities for boys and girls: Developmental and cultural trends in children’s perceptions of gender differences. Play & Culture, 3, 343-347 Connor, J. M., & Serbin, L. A. (1977). Behaviorally based masculine- and feminine activity-preference scales for preschoolers: Correlates with other classroom behaviors and cognitive tests. Child Development, 48, 1411-1416 Cullen, J. (1993). Preschool children's use and perceptions of outdoor play areas. Early Child Development and Care, 89, 45-56. Deal, T. B. (1993). Physical activity patterns of preschoolers during a developmental movement program. Child Study Journal, 23, 115-134. Eisenberg, N., Tryon, K., & Cameron, E. (1984). The relation of preschoolers’ peer interaction to their sex-typed toy choices. Child Development, 55, 1044-1050 Fagot, B. I. (1977). Consequences of moderate cross-gender behavior in preschool children. Child Development, 48, 902-907 Finn, K., Johannsen, N., & Specker, B. (2002). Factors associated with physical activity in preschool children. The Journal of Pediatrics, 140, 81-85 Frost, J. L., Wortham, S. C, & Reifel, S. (2001). Play and child development (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall. Gallahue, D.L. (1989). Understanding motor development: Infants, children, adolescents (2nd ed.). Ann Arbor, MI: Benchmark Press, Inc. Harper, L. V., & Hule, K. S. (1998). Free play use of space by preschoolers from diverse backgrounds: Factors influencing activity choices. Merrill-Palmer Quality, 44, 423-452. Jackson, D. M., Reilly, J. J., Kelly, L. A., Montgomery, C, Grant, S., & Paton, J. Y. (2003). Objectively measured physical activity in a representative sample of 3- to 4-year-old children. Obesity Research, 11, 420-425 Johnson, J. E. (1976). Relations of divergent thinking and intelligence test scores with social and nonsocial make-believe play of preschool children. Child Development, 47, 1200-1203. Mead, B. J., & Ignico, A. A. (1992). Children’s gender-typed perceptions of physical activity: Consequences and implications. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 75, 1035-1042. McCall, R. M., & Craft, D. H. (2000). Moving with a purpose: Developing programs for preschoolers of all abilities. Champaign, IL: HumanKinetics 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. Denver, CO: Center for At-Risk Education. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED 463047). Neppl, T. K. & Murray, A. D. (1997). Social dominance and play patterns among preschoolers: Gender comparisons. Sex Roles, 36, 381-393. Pellegrini, A. D., & Smith, P. K. (1998). Physical activity play: The nature and function of a neglected aspect of play. Child Development, 69, 577-598. Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams and imitation in childhood. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. Poest, C. A., Williams, J. R., Witt, D. D., & Atwood, M. E. (1990). Challenge me to move: Large muscle development in young children. Young Children, 45, 4-10 Rogers, C. S., & Sawyers, J. K. (1988). Play in the lives of children. Washington D.C.: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Rubin, K., Fein, G. G., & Vandenberg, B. (1983). Play. In P.H. Mussen (Series Ed.) & E.M. Hetherington (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and social development (4th ed., pp. 693-774). Sanders, S.W. (2002). Active for life: Developmentally appropriate movement programs for young children. Champaign, IL: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Scarlett, W. G., Naudeau, S., Salonius-Pasternak, D., & Ponte, I. (2005). Children’s play. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage Publications Shim, S. Y., Herwig, J. E., & Shelley, M. (2001). Preschoolers' play behaviors with peers in classroom and playground settings. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 15, 149-163 Read More