Research_on_Play

Running head: PLAY AND EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT Dwelling in Possibility: The Importance of Play in Early Child Development Nicole Stone Arizona State University I dwell in possibility A fairer house than prose More numerous of windows Superior of doors -Emily Dickenson Dwelling in Possibility: The Importance of Play in Early Child Development Engaging in play is a vital part of development throughout childhood, providing children with a place to dwell that is as far and wide as their imagination can take them. Engaging in play provides opportunities for children to grow in areas of gross and fine motor skills, cognitive functioning, necessary physical exertion, social skill development, and language acquisition. The role of play in child development has long been discussed among social scientists, and pioneers in the field such as Piaget and Vygotsky have spoken to its importance. Play has been analyzed and compartmentalized by age. In many ways it has changed through time and technology, but the wonder and excitement accompanying a child’s discovery of something novel, a new object of play, is timeless. Play is not specific to any geographic location, socioeconomic class, or ethnicity. Play opens its numerous windows and doors to any child and it is a social worker’s duty to ensure that the child is allowed to dwell there for as long as he/she developmentally needs. In order to gain a better understanding of the importance of play in early childhood development, we must look at established theories, analyze current research, and apply it to the children we encounter. Many former theorists observed play and formed explanations for it. In 1932, Mildred Parten observed and sorted play into six categories that we still use today. She believed that young children first engage in unoccupied and solitary play. The former describes play that is not goal directed and the latter describes play in which a child is occupied by a task but plays alone (Ashford, LeCroy, & Lortie, 2006). This play is typical of two- and three-year-old toddlers. The third category, onlooker play, describes when a child watches other children play, questioning them and participating verbally, but does not become involved. A child standing among peers playing dress-up, offering advice about a jacket or hat and asking why one boy’s pretend name is King Henry, would be an example of onlooker play. Parallel play occurs when children play alongside one another, often using the same toys, but never engaging in playing together. This type of play is common among young children and could easily be seen in a sandbox where two children are seated side-by-side building their own castles. The fifth play category, associative play, is exhibited in children playing actively together. Associative play provides children with opportunities to develop social skills and is utilized in games like follow-the-leader. The final play style, cooperative play, is primarily seen among school-age children. This style allows children to engage in an organized activity with lots of social interaction. Competitive games, sports, and class activities provide cooperative play. Later theorists built upon Parten’s six play styles and expounded upon the necessity of play. In 1962, Vygotsky spoke about the importance of imaginative play, and a few years later Piaget stated that a child’s cognitive skills are refined and advanced during play (Ashford, et. al., 2006). Another theory explains play as the fulfillment of a child’s need for exploration, inquisition, surprise, and novelty. In recent decades, social scientists have combined the plethora of valid theories to view play as functions of both social interaction and cognitive ability (Ashford, et. al., 2006). This perspective divides play into five categories, beginning with the sensorimotor play present in infancy and practice play in toddler years. Sensorimotor play allows infants to explore their sensorimotor abilities and practice play provides opportunities for the development of motor coordination and cognitive ability through repetitive behaviors and motions. Pretense/symbolic play occurs around preschool age when children use their physical environment to symbolically represent something else; pretense play occurs in the world of pretending. Social play involves social interaction with peers and may coincide with Parten’s idea of associative play, with an emphasis on physical activity. The final play category developed by modern theorists is that of constructive play. Children combine previous play skills to organize and create their own play projects. One might recall the days when recess turned into an elaborate game of princesses, knights, and dragons, when invisible boundaries walled the swing set dungeon and housed the monkey bar castle. With a solid foundation of theory to stand upon, current scholars continue to explore the necessity of play for children in our ever-changing world. One recent scholar questioned the current purpose of play in early childhood education by comparing established assumptions about play against the reality seen in every day life (Ailwood, 2003). First, he criticized the notion that play equates with pleasure and fun. In reality, play often results in pain, a knock on the head or scratch from tree climbing. He argued that adults who help perpetuate the idea that play always means fun may also perpetuate the idea that anything outside of play is not pleasurable. Then, he criticized the common idea that play is only a part of childhood when children should be taught that play is a part of life, regardless of age. It marginalizes the imagination to a few decades and it creates separate spheres of childhood and adulthood. Without the ability to play, adults would not be able to interact with children and play together with them as equals. Ailwood’s (2003) concerns regarding play certainly raise questions about play and its current place in our society. Another current approach to discussing childhood play is focused upon the growing concern for children who lack the space to play. Just over one decade ago, social scientists began to see an increasing need to help children in urban settings find appropriate space to play (Noschis, 1992). Unfortunately, recent decades have only seen increases in this problem. In 2006, even more urban children are living in cramped quarters and are kept from exploring the natural world just beyond their concrete slab. A lack of play space has affected children throughout decades; hopefully, the presence of macro-practice social workers and the modern knowledge of play’s importance can slow the pace of an ever-growing problem. This modern knowledge is intricately tied to the technology of our information age. While technology has provided us with priceless information, it has also provided children with a destructive hindrance to play. According to Singer & Singer (2005), “the almost overwhelming proliferation of the electronic media- film, cable television…video games…in-home play stations and computers…may be interfering with reading skills and with the more effortful penetrations into art, literature, and science…” (p. 3). When Parten, Piaget, and Vygotsky observed children, technology had yet to impact types of play and the amount children play. Playing video and computer games do not stimulate social or cognitive development in the way these respected theorists found necessary, and we can only speculate their disapproval on the way technology has inhibited play. Many parents in this electronic age see their child’s ability to manipulate modern technology as evidence of their intelligence. However, in situations where children have the choice to read a book, play a video or computer game, or watch television, the child will often pick the “easiest” choice (Singer & Singer, 2005). The choice is likely to be an electronic one. While the aforementioned modern scholars have honed in on the hindrances to play at a macro level, many view play as a micro level task for individual families. One recent study examined father-toddler play among low-income families (Roggman, Boyce, Cook, Christiansen, & Jones, 2004). They found that the quality and quantity of play a father engages his young child in correlates with social competence, cognition, emotional regulation, and peer associations. Furthermore, the quality of play interaction depends on the quantity; fathers who spend more time with their children end up playing more often (Roggman, et. al., 2004). This research places responsibility in parents’ hands to promote play in their own children and does not focus on education, technology, or geographic location as important factors in promoting play during early childhood development. Another recent study places the responsibility to play directly into children’s own hands, stating that “child-oriented” play was found to be most influential on children’s cognitive development (Kowalski, Wyver, Masselos, & DeLacey, 2004). In other words, children promote, encourage, and expand upon play engaged in by other children. In addition, they found that older siblings influenced younger siblings in play behavior and activity. Contemporary scholarship continually addresses the topic of children at play from every angle, and we have theories from decades past to thank. The research of today is entirely built upon the credibility of previous work, and no one seems to be challenging the established idea that play should be a natural part of childhood, necessary for cognitive and social development. Instead, current research is exploring the ways that play is helped or hindered. Technology, environment, family, and adult behavior all play parts in influencing children’s play activity. As in so many other aspects of life and development, one explanation does not rule out the others; rather, each new perspective serves to enhance and enrich our knowledge. Current research strongly supports the idea that play, as we have always known it, should not change with the times. Technology, while a vital part of our world, should not interfere with a child’s ability to imaginatively explore and actively play. A parent who places their child in front of a screen, the ever-available pseudo babysitter, is inhibiting the physical and cognitive development needs of the child. In addition, adults should not force children into compartmentalizing play, nor should they give children unrealistic ideas about what play should be like. A parent who plans elaborate activities, continually filling their child’s schedule with exciting, entertaining ways to play is a hindrance to the imaginative play Vygotsky advocated for. As social workers, we must be mindful of the environment our child clients live and play in. Children living in cramped urban settings, children without fathers, and children isolated from siblings or peers are also at risk for missing out on the developmental benefits of age-appropriate play. A parent who allows their child to live in a tiny, one bedroom apartment on the 25th floor may need our assistance in finding alternative settings for the child to play. A father who is depressed, over-worked, or disengaged from his child may need our help to improve his own mental health or his parenting skills. A parent whose child does not have access to other children his own age may need our resources to locate group play settings. Unlike technology or education, these examples will most definitely cross a social worker’s path. It is our responsibility as helping professionals to improve the quality of life for every person we touch. In the area of child development, we must fully comprehend the reasons behind play and value its great importance. We must understand the risks that presently threaten children’s need to play, and we must prepare for future challenges. We must protect the space where children are free to dwell in possibility. References Ailwood, J. (2003). Governing early childhood education through play. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 4(3), 286-297. Ashford, J., LeCroy, C.W., & Lortie, K. (2006). Human Behavior in the Social Environment: A Multidimensional Perspective (3rd ed.) Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/ Cole. Kowalski, H.S., Wyver, S.R., Masselos, G., & DeLacey, P. (2004). Toddlers’ emerging symbolic play: a first-born advantage' Early Child Development and Care, 174(4), 389-400. Noschis, K. (1992). Child development theory and planning for neighborhood play. Children’s Environments, 9(2), 1-11. Roggman, L.A., Boyce, L.K., Cook, G.A., Christiansen, K., & Jones, D. (2004). Playing with daddy: social toy play, Early Head Start, and developmental outcomes. Fathering, 2(1), 83-108. Singer, D.G., & Singer, J.L. (2005). Imagination and Play in the Electronic Age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.