Author: Andre Coleman

This essay will identify how adults can support learning through play and will analyse the value of this approach. It will consider historical and current perspectives of child development. The key areas of discussion will be learning through role play and supporting children with additional needs. It will recognise the importance of symbolic play, contingent response and the use of sustained shared thinking. Historically children were perceived in different ways, from ‘evil and wicked’ to ‘innocent and easily corrupted’. Childhood has been constructed and reconstructed. (James & Prout 1997:7) The behaviourist approach, views the child as a ‘blank slate’ conditioned through external factors and places an emphasis on step by step learning. Psychologists such as Watson and Skinner considered children to learn by experiences given by adults to ‘shape’ or ‘mould’ them. Practitioners need to explain the boundaries for behaviour to children for them to encourage self control and enable them to think about their behaviour. Giving ‘time out’ has been seen to discourage this. (Bruce 2005:47)

The Nativist approach believes that children are ‘pre programmed’ and will ‘unfold’ in their development. (Bruce 2005:3) This approach sees the adult role as a facilitator offering help but not controlling learning. Rousseau’s approach can be seen in today’s view of adults observing and monitoring the early learning goals. He suggested that play was ‘instinctive’.

The interactionist approach views children as partly pre programmed and partly blank slates. Kant originated this approach, and believed the adults’ role in supporting learning was to provide a suitable learning environment to explore. He also states that adults should supervise and assist when required. This view can be seen through the curriculum today which offers both adult led and child led activities. The importance of interactions between children and adults, through sustained shared thinking, is highlighted in projects like EPPE (2003) as discussed in child and childhoods.

The different approaches discussed can be seen to have had an impact in practice throughout today’s education, it is important that practitioners have a good knowledge of these approaches in order to understand how best to support learning.

Historically all children play unless there are factors that prevent them from doing so, such as children’s health or living conditions. During the 18th Century children were sent to work, so would have had little time to play, however, this does not mean they did not. Play in the 1920’s was a form of relaxation which was considered to be practice for life. (Bruce 2005). More recent thinking understands play as problem solving and creativity.

Play underpins the delivery of the statutory framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage, which aims to help children achieve the five Every Child Matters outcomes of staying safe, being healthy, enjoying and achieving, making a positive contribution and achieving economic well being. (Dfes 2007:7) It suggests the role of the practitioner is one of observing and using the information gained to plan for children’s next steps in learning. Children need a challenging and interesting environment with a balance of adult led and child initiated activities, in order to problem solve and investigate through their play. It is the practitioners’ role to create and maintain this environment so that children develop their communication and creative skills. Children’s achievements are collected over time and learning diaries are produced, unlike the EYFS profiles (2003) these diaries have no emphasis put on testing children.

Montessori’s approach values the child, the environment and the teacher. She believed children were spontaneous learners needing adult support during periods of development. She stated the adults’ role was

“to ensure that the environment provides for the developmental needs of each individual child; observation serves as the key tool for establishing these developmental needs” (Isaacs 2007:13)

She believed in ‘scaffolding’ children’s learning. In her opinion the role of the adult was to consider health and safety in the provision and to provide defined spaces for learning experiences and problem solving activities. She considered the child could lose their freedom if adults were too communicative with them. She stated that practitioners needed to have a sound understanding of child development and an ability to understand the need for real life experiences. Although her approach gives time for children to explore with little adult intervention she considered play to be unnecessary, believing toys were tools to enable learning. Her approach however, contrasts with the views of the EYFS, which states the importance of learning through play and the significance of social interactions between adults and children.

Bruner suggests that good practitioners tune into the ‘incipient intention of the child and act accordingly’. (Bruce 2001:53) suggesting the child’s developing plan or aim should be observed and then supported and encouraged. He values play and considers that when children play with other children this emphasises the importance of social and emotional well being and interactions. He stresses the importance of turn taking and social rules. He states that in a role play situation children are able to use problem solving and increase in language acquisition. He experimented using two groups; one being taught, the other playing and concluded that the group allowed to play outperformed the taught group as they were able to explore and problem solve. He views the adult role as ‘scaffolding’ the child through their development by starting where the child is and supporting them to move on.

A more recent view by Moyles (2001) considers there are emotional, physical and intellectual values in supporting learning through play. She describes four principles of play, as being functional, constructive, rule governed and socio-dramatic. In a recent study she found that effective practitioners are able to use their knowledge to support children’s learning by building on what children can do and by evaluating the process of observations and planning for next steps. She states that children should be supported in their play and practitioners should value the input by parents.

It is important to be clear that play is not in place of planning, or indeed an easy option. ‘Teachers TV’ discusses how practitioners should inform parents about the importance of play and how children’s learning can be supported. Practitioners need to communicate with children in ways they understand, if children feel secure and relaxed they will become active learners who develop independence. Adult support in Early Years education is important in that it may be the first time a child has played alongside others, Key people offer support to children and their families during their time at pre schools and work in partnership to inform planning and extend a child’s interests and learning.

The 1967 Plowden report considers the individual child and building on what they already know and understand. It states practitioners should have a flexible approach to the curriculum and monitor the environment. It states that play is central to children’s growth and development. The report is critical of testing and figures, stating “not assume that only what is measurable is valuable”. However, in 1976 the curriculum was shaped by political forces which discarded the ‘child centred’ opinion of the Plowden report. The Thatcher years produced good test results in schools and with it the added pressures from OFSTED to use league tables and highlight results. New labour continued with this by introducing the literacy and numeracy hour. It was not until 20 years later that ‘child centred’ education was highlighted again.

The Rumbold report (Des 1990) states play as being an important part in children’s learning, and states that practitioners need to be sensitive and know when to intervene and become involved in children’s play. It states that children should be given time to play. Practitioners should watch children and use these observations to inform planning for assessment and extend learning. (Macleod-Brudenell 2004:227) In order to achieve this, the adult needs to plan the environment so children can explore, practice ideas, interact, take risks, think imaginatively, express anxieties or fears and communicate with others. Steiner considers the whole child, and believes that an important factor in children’s development is the social interactions children have with others. Through play he believes children can develop their feelings and ideas and make good relationships with others. He believes the adult should be supportive and not to use play as a tool to get a pre determined outcome as it will deprive children of freedom to choose open ended creative play. He states the adults’ role is to teach by example not instruction.

Froebel considered the natural, spiritual, emotional and intellectual aspects of child development and states the important factor is to ‘begin where the learner is’ (Bruce 2005 :26) He believed that through play the adult can observe what is needed to support and extend learning. However, Froebel’s work could be criticised because he limited his research to boys. He states that play is central to pedagogy. Froebel made a distinction between play and work and considers

“play is what children are involved in when they initiate the task and work is what they do when they fulfil a task required by an adult” (Bruce 2005:19)

Which shows that when a child is asked to do complete something by an adult, it means the child loses possession of their original idea.

Role play can happen anywhere and is unrestrictive and impulsive. It is important for children to be able to imitate and explore the world around them. Children can be imaginative and creative in their play and escape into fantasy worlds. Children interact with each other and often play above their actual age, as suggested by Vygotsky. (MacLeod-Brudenell 2004:213) Practitioners should offer props to promote role play and through observing and supporting will have an understanding of when to become involved in their play. Inclusive practice involves practitioners offering ideas and asking open ended questions to extend children’s learning, communication and language skills. Research shows that sustained shared thinking is important in extending children’s learning and by practitioners having a special partnership with children in their settings. (EYFS 4.3) Therefore in order for the children to learn through role play adults need to respect and value the children’s play and consider the child’s ideas and interests. As Inclusion is paramount to practice practitioners should be aware of discriminatory play and intervene sensitively if encountered. Sustained shared thinking is the process of working together to develop ideas and enable children to make connections in their learning. By using sustained shared thinking in play the adult can support the child’s thought process. Through an awareness of the child’s interests the practitioner can offer encouragement and ask open ended questions to support and extend learning.

Piaget, a constructivist, considered how children played for enjoyment, and believed children ‘assimilate’ or incorporate new knowledge with what they already know. This absorbing of experiences is described as ‘schema’, where patterns of repeated behaviour help the child learn. He believed children had to work through stages to learn, where they could experiment and explore. He suggested older children no longer need play as have developed abstract thinking. This view can be seen in today’s education associated with key stages, where more emphasis has been given to play in the Early Years Foundation Stage. The National curriculum and EYFS reflect the Governments strategies to enable all children to access a relevant and balanced curriculum. (Moyles 2007:4) Since 1995 the law states children have to be assessed at age 7 and aged 11 and throughout the Early Years practitioners complete assessment files based on the early learning goals.

Learning matters criticises Piaget’s approach by stating he may have lacked knowledge of the social impact, as children who are from different cultures, gender, race or social classes may need help to learn.

Recent research into perspectives used in Early Years education has shown that there is a significant lack of information concerning learning through a child’s viewpoint. Lindon, (2001) states practitioners should value the opinions of children and be more receptive to their views.

More recent thinking by Chris Athey (1990) a constructivist, considers that schemas help children think for themselves and can be used to support and extend learning through play. She states practitioners should work in partnership with parents in sharing experiences and children’s interests. She believes children are active learners.

http://www.nurseryworld.co.uk/news/719740/Train-thought (15/1/10)

Vygotsky’s ‘zone of proximal development’ considered that in play children behave beyond their age. He believed children learn more from child initiated play as he believed children set their own levels in control of learning (Bruce 2005: 64). He understood the need for an environment that had clear boundaries for children, with adults who respond effectively and help children to think for themselves. He suggests play to have the skills children need to reach their potential. He believes children acquire language and learn through role play and through social and cultural interactions, stating the role of the adult is through guidance.

Learning matters is critical of Vygotsky ‘s views of ‘zones’ as they consider them to be vague in their definitions. It is understood that the zones describe the adults’ role in supporting and extending what the child can do.

Research has shown that children develop through adult’s interacting with them. Adults can support learning through ‘contingent response’ where adults react sensitively to children’s behaviour. Children are seen to benefit from the social and emotional contacts with adults. Practitioners should actively respond to children’s positive behaviour and play giving praise and approval. Through the use of books, media and use appropriate language and communication practitioners support play and extend learning.

It has been suggested by Postman that Childhood is disappearing, children have less freedom and less places to play. TV and computer technology has advanced and children are encouraged by their parents to stay in because of parental fear for their children’s safety. However, the Government’s ‘play strategy’ intends to improve and develop play facilities throughout the country.

Practitioners should observe and use their knowledge to plan and provide for all individual children. Children who have any additional need which may include disability or a condition that affects their learning or development may need extra help within the provision. The Children’s Act of 1989 discusses that practitioners need to identify ‘in need’ children, support their development and enable all children to participate in all areas within the provision. (Bruce 2005:40). The Act states that, children ‘in need’ be categorised according to their specific needs. Early years Action is based on existing knowledge within the provision. If external support is needed the child is considered to be Early Years Action Plus. Therefore, practitioners need to be able to identify and support children. Individual play plans are useful in considering intended learning objectives and desired outcomes over a short period. Through play, practitioners can identify a child’s interests, adapt the environment and modify activities to support the child. With support from parents the child’s development can be monitored and reviewed. It is important to monitor and evaluate the curriculum linking this with children’s individual progress. Practitioners support children by formative assessment, whereby they collect information about individual children over a period of time, and summative assessment where they bring everything learnt about each child and decide on their next steps in learning. It is important that practitioners working with other professionals communicate and share information regarding children with additional needs.

Children with Autism need more adult support within a provision to enable them to learn through play. The practitioner can use ‘symbolic’ play to help the child develop skills needed to extend learning, as children with autism do not tend to use pretend play they use functional or repetitive play. The adults’ role is very important in helping the child to focus and become motivated. The practitioner can teach social skills by involving other children in play. It is important that practitioners offer resources that promote symbolic play throughout the provision. Play therapists use symbolic play to help children cope with fears or problems, as they are able to express feelings. Research evidence shows that children’s level of involvement in an activity is an indicator of their current levels of learning and development. (Moyles 2006) However, it is important that information is collected by multiple professionals before any judgements are made.

The reflective practitioner considered how an over stimulating environment as stated by Elizabeth Jarman has an adverse effect on children’s learning. Therefore practitioners need to provide an environment that is accessible for all children and is interesting and enjoyable. Through quality improvement the provision is monitored and checked to see if the Every Child Matters outcomes are covered in planning.

Practitioners who regularly reflect on practice and keep up to date with research can make improvements to how observations and planning is done and therefore extend children’s learning and development through play. Recent studies have shown how observations are useful in interpreting behaviours and understanding interests. (Maynard 2009:207) It considered what children like to explore and time spent at activities, as well as the social interactions and attachments made. Although target setting and literacy and numeracy strategies have meant there are more pressures put on teaching staff and children, it has been researched that less emphasis should be put on measurable results, tick charts and making children complete activities to get results. Practitioners now observe and use these observations to inform individual planning to extend a child’s learning through play. Good quality teaching occurs when there is a good knowledge of how to observe play, knowing when to intervene and how to interact to extend learning. Through quality improvement the provision is monitored to make sure the Every Child Matters Outcomes are covered in planning.

In conclusion play and the adults’ role in supporting learning through play has extremely important benefits for children’s happiness, physical, cognitive and social development. Childcare settings should be welcoming, have sufficient resources, practitioners should be good role models and allow children time for uninterrupted play. (Bruce 2001) Research has shown that interrupting children’s play affects cooperation and social interactions. (Broadhead 2004:3)

Play can happen anywhere and is unrestrictive and impulsive. Children concentrate for long periods in their play, if given time to do so. Through play children can relax and let their imaginations create anything they choose.

It is known children are active learners, who learn best when allowed to become deeply involved in their chosen activities. To become independent learners’ practitioners should let children investigate and problem solve for themselves. (Whitebread 2003:17) With highly qualified and experienced practitioners guiding and supporting them they can experiment and develop skills needed to help them move on in their learning. Practitioners should be good role models as suggested by Owen, who nurture children and provide a stimulating environment which is free flow. Trained practitioners are aware of the individual needs of the children in their care and understand the importance of play based learning. It is therefore, the role of the practitioner to plan, support, intervene when necessary and extend children’s learning. (Macleod-Brudenell 2004:50)

Practitioners who regularly monitor the provision reflect upon theories and choose which seem ‘fit for purpose’ as they extend learning as ‘learning matters’ describes, practitioners should consider

“sometimes pointing out new horizons, sometimes setting a challenge, sometimes gently guiding and sometimes leaving well alone”

Therefore, the practitioner has multiple roles in supporting learning through play. They are described as being ‘facilitators’ enabling learning to happen. They ‘scaffold’ and support learning and development. They provide an encouraging environment for learning to occur and are able to adapt responsively to the needs of individual children. However, they should have regard for maintaining a balance of adult and child led activities. It is important for practitioners to understand how children learn and the significance of theoretical approaches. They should also realise the importance of emphasising play.

Resilience as described by many writers is a complex term and therefore needs to be understood in the context. Resilience is normally sought in the child, family and community (Phillips, G. 2008). As professionals, attending training courses helps us to seek something that may assist us in our understanding of those areas. This keeps us in seeking mood and all the time, we tend to keep attention outside ourselves. When we as practitioners recognise resilience in ourselves, we can them be able to facilitate resiliency, thereby linking theory to practice (Phillips, G. (2008).

DEFINING RESILIENCE

There are many definitions of resilience by different authors. In this context therefore, resilience is defined by Share and Lowlor (2009: 269) as ‘ability to thrive, mature and increase competences in the face of adverse circumstances’. Overall, when loved one’s absence or presence remains a mystery, meaning and purpose are essential to finding the health and life. After 9/11, some survivors believed that their loved one’s being in the Twin Towers at the time of the attack was predestined or God’s will. Many who believed this continue to trust in God to see them through their travels while they move forward with their lives (Boss, P 2006:97). Some characteristics associated with resilient children include cognitive proficiency (especially intellectual curiosity and problem solving), autonomy, good social skills and internal locus of control (Share and Lowlor (2009: 269).

‘Resilience is the capacity to transcend adversity – may be seen as the essential quality with care planning and provision should seek to stimulate as a key outcome of the care offered’ (Gilligan, R. 1997: 14)

It is suppressing how resilient people are despite having experienced high risk situation, such as war, disaster, loss, and adversity during childhood and adolescence (Waaktaar, T. Chrisrtie, H, J. Borge, A. Torgersen, S. 2004: 164).

Adult who promote resilience make family and institutional supports available to children. They empower children to become independent, responsible, and empathic at altruistic and to approach people and situation with hope, faith and trust (John, M. 1997: 24). However, adults can help children identify resilience behaviours more easily in themselves and others, such as using vocabulary to reinforce these feeling and beliefs that promote resilience and to guide their own children’s behaviour. Therefore, the greater their opinion for acting in the ways that help children met situation such as crisis in their lives with greater strength and hope John, M 1997: 26). Therefore, the most critical key to resiliency is the ability to hold two opposing ideas at the same time. Whatever part is taken, the search for the meaning is much more difficult when the loss is unclear (Boss, P. 2006: 97).

THREE THEORIES OF RESILIENCE

(1) The Child’s Sense of a Secure Base : The growth of a child is influenced by secure attachments which supply him/her with a reliable secure base (Bowlby 1988). Furthermore, it encourages and renders safe exploration of the child’s inner world. A young person’s sense of secure base therefore is cultivated by a sense of belonging within supportive social networks, attachment relationships to reliable and responsible people and by routine and structures in their lives (Gilligan, R. 1997: 15-16).

However, I HAVE factors is one of the external supports and resources that promote resilience in children according to John, M. (1997: 26-27). I HAVE factors includes: trusting relationships, (parents, other family members, teachers, and friends who love and have the interest and welfare of the child), structures and rules at home, (parents who provides rules and routine expects the child to follow them, for example, the task the child is expected to perform, when the rule is broken, the child is helped to understand what he/she did wrong). Others includes: access to health, education, welfare and security services which is available to the child.

(2) The Child’s Self Esteem: this is based on person’s sense of their own worthiness and competences. Rutter (1990) came up with two types of experience which is important in influencing self esteem in young children and they are, secure and harmonious love relationship, and success in accomplishing tasks by others as central to their interests. Also success in an endeavour which the person values may do much to combat a sense of failure in other spheres of one’s life (Rutter, 1990 cited Gilligan, R. 1997:17). Therefore, factors such as I AM are the child’s internal and personal strengths. These are feelings, attitudes, and beliefs within the child, for example, a resilient child would say: I am proud of myself: this means the child knows that he/she is an important individual and is proud of who he/she is and what he/she is capable of doing and can achieve. I am autonomous and responsible: the child can do a lot with his/her initiative and be responsible and accountable for his/her actions or mistakes. I am filled with hope, faith, and trust: the child knows and believes that he/she has hope and there are people and institution which he/she can trust and have faith in. Finally, the child will realise that he/she is loveable and his/her temperament is appealing, he/she is loving, empathic and altruistic (John, M. 1997: 28).

(3) Sense of Self Efficacy: this is a situation were parenting style influences whether a child acquires a sense of internal control with regards to attaining desired outcomes. Some factors which promote child’s self efficacy includes the parent / caregiver beliefs in the child’s own sense of control, responsiveness, consistency, warmth, praise, support and encouragement to the child’s to engage / participate in his/her environment (Sandler et al, 1989 cited Gilligan, R. 1997: 17).

Moreover, I CAN factor helps to promote the child’s sense of efficacy because; it is the child’s social and interpersonal skills. Children acquire these skills by constant interaction with others and those who educate them, for example, a resilient child would say: I can communicate: at this stage, the child expresses thoughts and feelings, also be empathetic towards others. I can solve problem: the child can assess a situation of a problem, finds out what needs to be done to resolve the issues and if help is needed form others. Also I can manage my feelings and impulses; I can gauge the temperature of myself and others, and finally seek trusting relationship (John, M. 1997: 29).

PRACTICAL WAYS OF PROMOTING RESILIENCE

In promoting resilience, any work with children must be similarly in the contexts of their families, school, communities, and the large society (Grotherg, E, H. 2003: 5) Therefore, as a social care practitioner, it is important to know that we are only able to influence that portion of resilience that is amenable to influence through social experience. We cannot affect the degree of resilience that a person has temperamentally due to what they have inherited through their genes (Gilligan, R 2001: 6).

As a Social Worker, we can encourage purposeful contact between the child, the family, and other key adults for the child’s past, encourage positive school experience, encourage friendships with peers, actively foster interest, strong social network, involvement and talents in sports, music, hobbies or cultural pursuits, help the child to rehearse, and discuss problem solving and coping skills and strategies. Also, each of these I AM, I HAVE, and I CAN factors suggest numerous actions children, parent / caregiver, and practitioner can take to promote resilience (Gilligan, R. 1997: 18-21)

This Scenario was adopted from the International Resilience Project by Grotberg, E, H. (2003: 30)

A nine year old boy went out of the house even after his father told him not to go out. The father did not know about this until he realized it was late and the boy was not at home.

You will promote resilience if you talk to him when he returns and ask why he broke the rules (I HAVE); if you make clear that his behaviour is not acceptable even with his excuses, and that he is responsible for what he did (I AM); and if you talk with him about what needs to be done to prevent this kind of behaviour in the future (I CAN). He will learn from his experience to use resilience to face this adversity, to learn from it, and to behave in a more responsible way in the future. You do not promote resilience if you yell at him or spank him when he comes home, and accuse him of being a bad boy. Then you make him feel guilty, but resentful, and you have given him a label of ‘bad boy’, which will influence his idea of himself in the future. He will have difficulty dealing with a future adverse situation, even one that he creates, because he lacks resilience and none is being promoted.

“The most difficult thing is not spending enough time with my dad really. He might like expect me to phone him, but he’s a parent so he should be taking care of me and phone me. If he really cared he’d phone me every weekend and see how I was getting on at school, spend time with me and help me to do my course work (“What Children from Single Parent Families Have to Say” 13). This is what a typical child living in a single parent family might say when he feels ignored by one of his parents. This could be shocking to some people who believe that single parenthood doesn’t greatly affect a child’s life or attitude (McLanaham 1). But the fact is that not all children who grow up in single parent families are able to maintain a successful life, most of these children might suffer from great difficulties in making a transition to adulthood (Mather 1). These children are more vulnerable to poverty which increases the dangers of growing up in a single parent household to more than just economical ones. Poverty might even cause an increase in the risks of dropping out of school, disconnecting from labor forces, and ending up as a thieves stuck in a room with not even a single parent aside (Mather 1). Early studies suggest that growing up with one parent had no long term effects on the child, but more recent reports show that the effects of parental breakup might sometimes extend to having the children intentionally damage their bodies and some might even commit suicide due to major psychiatric diseases (Single-parent Children at Increased Risk of Suicide). Adolescents who had grown up with only one of their parents during their childhood are twice as likely to suffer from poverty, have low academic achievements, and suffer from low levels of social and emotional well-being (McLanaham 1).

Poverty is one of the main problems that most single-parent children suffer from. Unlike children living with a regular family, single-parent children usually have only one parent to provide income (Family and Community 10). Without the support of their husbands, single mothers face a difficult challenge in maintaining a stable economy for their family. These mothers have limited financial sources and can’t easily afford to cover their children’s education, child care, and health care costs (Mather 2). For this reason, most of them tend to live with their parents or with other relatives to gain their financial support (Mather 2). Some of these mothers tend to find another option which is returning to school and resuming their education in order to find adequate jobs with reasonable salaries (Family and Community 10). If the father was too busy to take care of his recent family, he should at least ensure that his child’s mother has a good educational rank and good job trainings to ensure that his children successfully pass to the stage of adulthood (Mather). He can’t just leave everything on the mother; he has major responsibilities which he should never ignore towards a child which is in total need of both of his parents.

Most parents miss the fact that their children could understand all what is going on around them; these children realize that their parent can’t afford all what they need and crave for. As a result, they try to minimize their requests and stick to demanding for nothing but the necessities. In a way or another, the children become the ones nurturing their parent instead of them being the ones nurtured. These children’s parent often has no enough money to afford the cost of school trips or any extra activities which blocks any attempt of being able to build any social relationship, what’s amazing and shocking at the same time about most of these children is that they rarely complain and don’t ask for more than what’s available (“What Children from Single Parent Families Have to Say” 25). Poverty could thus damage both financial and social aspects of a child’s life.

Many factors play important roles in the children’s development and affect the way they think and act. These factors include neighborhood characteristics, schools, and peer networks. But the most important factor which affects the child’s growth is the parents themselves who provide the major source of social support in the children’s lives (Mather 1). With the mothers busy finding a way to provide income for their children, the child grows not only with a single parent but also with no parents at all, and the bad effects are thus doubled. These children always demand contact with the non-resident parent and complain about the way he/she is ignoring their presence. Their biggest concerns are the problems among their resident parent, their non-resident parent, and themselves (“What Children from Single Parent Families Have to Say” 13). They always think about every fight that happens and they even sometimes blame themselves. In addition to spending no time with their parents, these children also spend no time with their friends. The lack of money they face causes them difficulties in getting along with their peers; they feel excluded when their friends do activities that require money which they themselves don’t have (“What Children from Single Parent Families Have to Say” 25).

After having suffered from poverty at an early age, children in single parent households become more vulnerable to mental and psychiatric diseases (Single-parent children at increased risk of suicide). The simplest problems could appear as major ones in their view; they need much more care and attention than other children. But the painful fact is that not only do these children face financial poverty, but also time poverty; they repeatedly complain about how much they need attention from their parent who always comes tired from work and needs a long relaxing sleep (“What children from single parent families have to say” 14). These parents can’t realize the fact that their supervision of their children at this stage is extremely important to enhance their well-being. This single parent has less time to monitor his/her children closely, and eventually he/she knows nothing about where his/her children are, who they are with, and what they’re doing (Why Single Parenthood Affects Children 24). Some of these children take advantage of this situation and commit actions like suicide in order to escape from what they think is an unbearable situation (Single-parent Children at Increased Risk of Suicide). This lack of parental monitoring terribly affects the child’s behavior and causes him lots of psychological and emotional problems. Whether or not their mother was remarried, these children are susceptible to the risk of depression which increases with the increase of conflicts among their biological parents (Kawachi et al).

With all the problems they are facing, single parents obviously have no time to get involved in their children’s school activities and usually have no enough money to set high academic goals for their children. These are the major factors which are well known to endanger the academic achievement of children. The more the parents are involved in their children’s school, the less are the problems that their children face in their education. With the lack of a stable educational background, these children face many difficulties in being enrolled in quality universities and eventually in finding quality jobs (Why Single Parenthood Affects Children 24). The poverty of their parents affects their educational achievements in different manners; the ones who grow up poor mostly have lower literacy rates, higher rates of dropping out of school, and even higher delinquency rates (The Causes and Consequences of Children’s Poverty).

The minds of these children are often busy with their parents’ problems and they have no time to think about their school or about anything related to their education. They are full of nothing but psychological problems and free of academic aspirations. Most of them face difficulties in attending school and thinking about anything other than their parents’ divorce. With all the stress upon them, their academic achievements become less and eventually end up having them drop out of school. While going through a divorce, parents should pay close attention to their children to make sure that they face a low amount of stress. They have to make sure that their children understand very well that they will do anything to reduce the impact of divorce upon their lives (Hawkins). Anger might overcome these children and lead to severe problems at school, some of them might not be able to control their anger and engage in fights with their schoolmates because they only want someone to argue with to relief themselves; they even sometimes engage in fights with their teachers. The more the time he gets involved in fights, the less the time he spends in classroom (Hawkins).

But the fact is that many children raised by single parent mothers grow up to be quite successful. These children are probably the ones who had responsible parents who knew how to treat their children in order to sustain a peaceful life. If this parent took his child out for dinner of even sat with him peacefully on the dinner table in an attempt to listen, his child might happily seize this chance and complain about all what he’s suffering from instead of committing suicide or tearing his skin apart. One hour per day is quite enough to solve the child’s social issues. As for the parent living in poverty, keep it to yourself and never complain about this problem near your children even if you have to live without many things that you are used to. When the children see their parents suffering, they might blame themselves and think that they are the reason for their parents’ depression. Try to find ways to afford even the simplest school trips to help your children fit into the outside world and forget about living with a single parent. It would be a responsible act of the parent if he/she gives his/her child’s school a visit once per week to ask about his/her academic performance and to check whether he/she is facing problems. Single-parenting is not a disaster if the parents were responsible and knew how to act.

Positive reinforcement is the conveyance of a stimulus that has the preferred effect on strengthening a certain behavior while punishment is the introduction of a stimulus that has an effect of declining certain behavior. Positive reinforcement is a method applied to strengthen good deeds and do away with bad behavior in children. Positive reinforcement also instills a sense of self-worth and inspires self-belief in children. The most common forms of positive reinforcement given to children include, praising or rewarding a child which raises the child chance of cleaning his/her room.

Punishment is used to refer to addition of something aversive so as to discourage the behavior. The most general case involves reprimanding a child for disobedience. The reason why the children change behavior after a punishment is that they always relate reprimanding with negative behavior. Since children fear reprimanding children therefore avoid involving in negative behavior which calls for punishments.

Positive reinforcements versus punishments as means for learning

Proponents of positive reinforcements argue that use of reprimanding to boost learning in children is an aversive method that is painful and uncomfortable. According to (Coon, 2005), people and conditions related with punishments have a tendency of becoming feared, disliked and relented. This aversive attitude of punishments makes it particularly poor as means used to for making children to learn. When used as a means to promote learning in children, punishments will only instill fear and children will not be willing to learn.

Supporters of positive reinforcement suggest that positive attention can be used to keep improving the children’s behavior. Natrajan, (2003), argues that a parent might try to set future goals with the child and this promotes the child to learn quickly. On the contrary, punishments instill fear in the children and they develop a low regard on any goal that might be set by the parent. Natrajan, (2003), further argues that punishments cannot be used in goal setting.

Positive reinforcements can work well with children by giving them tangible items or praising child for a task well done or even a hug. The children will learn to improve their behavior since they like rewards and gifts. Advocates of punishments argue that, when children get used to being rewarded with tangible items in order to involve in positive behaviors. In such a situation rewards and gifts can become a problem when they are too expensive for the parent to provide. According to Natrajan, (2003), gifts and rewards can be ineffective in promoting learning in children since children can develop an attitude that they have to be given rewards in order to perform specific tasks. In addition, advocating for a rewarding culture in children does not instill a sense of responsibility in them and children learn to perform tasks only because they expect to be paid.

Advocates of positive reinforcement also argued that parents have been worried that positive attention might lead to ruining their children. However, supporters of positive reinforcement have maintained that positive attention encourages the children to yearn doing good in order to get support of parents. Proponents of positive attention, argue that rewards or commending children can ruin them only when given while not due.

Proponents of positive reinforcements suggest that it would work well when a parent notices her child wrong things, by commenting something negative about the behavior. According, to Natrajan, (2003), such a comment from a parent might act as a reward for the undesirable behavior and the child will change since the children have realized the parent is not happy with the behavior. Supporters of positive reinforce also advocate for a parent to wait and notice when the child does something right and takes the opportunity to explain the wrong behavior.

Proponents of positive reinforcements argue that when commending the child the focus should be on the parent’s feeling rather than criticizing the child. An example is when a parent notices her child assisting another child in a home care, the parent should commend the child with words such as “that makes meaˆ¦..proud of you.”In such a situation the child feels esteemed and this promotes the good behavior.

Advocates of punishments suggest that while using punishments as a means of teaching children, then, the punishments should be mild. According to, (Coon, 2005), when the punishments are too mild they can become ineffective. For instance, a child who is fond of snatching toys form her sister should not only be punished but the sister should also be congratulated for sharing toys with the others. According to, (Coon, 2005), reprimanding informs the person the response was not right but it does give the person the direction of the right thing.

In circumstances that pose immediate hazard to children, like a situation where a child reaches for something hot or a picking a toy that rolls in the middle of the road, mild reprimanding will be applicable to stop disaster. Reprimanding in such circumstances works best if it produces actions that are incompatible with the response the individual wants to suppress. For instance, when a child stretches his/her hand to reach a hot stove, its best to reprimand the child by slapping the outstretched hand so that it is withdrawn immediately.

Advocates of punishments argue that reprimanding lowers the possibility that a response will be repeated. According to (Coon, 2005), for punishments to be effective they need to be given after the undesired response takes place. A punishment works effectively by reducing the frequency of occurrence of the undesirable behavior.

According to (Coon, 2005), the effectiveness of punishments in bringing to an end the undesirable behavior depends on their timing, strength and regularity. Reprimanding work best when it takes place when undesirable behavior is being witnessed and immediately afterwards and when it is applied each time such a response occurs.

Advocates of punishments suggest that severe reprimanding following a situation that could have resulted to danger is extremely effective in bringing to an end to a behavior. For example, when a 12 year old child gets a shock by putting his/her finger in a light socket that may be the last time the child ever tries such. In many situations reprimanding on temporarily only suppress the behavior and responses restrained by mild punishments more often than not resurface.

Supporters of positive reinforcements, according to Perry, (1973), argue that reprimanding cannot eliminate such vices like lying in children. Rutter, (1987), maintains that reprimanding only motivates the children to be better at lying and use the refined lying skills to other situations in which lying may advance their interests. He further adds that when children become experts in lying there is no any height of punishments that will change their behavior.

According to (Rutter, 1987), use of positive reinforcement is more effective in stimulating learning in children than use of caning. For example, offering a piece of candy for a child who scores high marks on a test promotes the child to do better in future tests. In addition, use of verbal praise, such as telling the child “well done my child” stimulates a child to improve the performance in future tests.

Advocates of punishments argue that reprimanding is stronger and lasts for a long time as compared to positive reinforcement. According to (Coon, & Mitterer, 2008), in case a parent has a particular task which they wish their children to perform, and after accomplishing the task badly they are reprimanded on the other hand when they do them well they are reinforced mildly and they will accomplish the task mediocre. According to (Perry, 1973), when a parent displays discontent with the child when the accomplishment is poor then, the children are likely to change the situation.

Cameron (2006), argues that the society has used punishments rather than positive reinforcements to promote desirable behavior although the results have not always been positive. Teachers have been known to reprimand children who do not complete their homework with the hope that students will be able grow a sense of accountability for their work. In addition, Cameron (2006), argues that parents condemn their children’s working routines so that they can instill high standard of success. Punishment systems have been created and maintained as means of accomplishing aims of high output, contentment with success, concern for others and so on.

Use of punitive means as a means to encourage learning should not be used since reprimanding is among the main source of external have power over peoples characters. Cameron (2007), argues that since disciplinary means have resulted to serious negative effects has lead to society condemning the usage of any external form of influence. Many researchers have also condemned use of punishment as a means of learning since it involves external control of human behavior and has negative effects. Punishments should not be used as a means to promote learning since students enjoy school environment and work hard particularly when there is a properly set positive reinforce system. Children admire and enjoy learning do so without being punished. Positive reinforcement works by making children self-motivated to accomplish their goals.

Advocates of positive reinforcement argue, punishments should not be used promote learning, since use of punitive systems has not been able to encourage learning but instead it has resulted to bitterness, sense of low self-worth, dissatisfaction and attempts to overthrow those in power. Cameron (2007) argues that use of disciplinary means has backfired.

Typically children, learn by early interactions with the caregivers to use socially appropriate skills to meet their needs. According to Stormont et al., (2007), this pattern of communication is governed by principles of positive reinforcements. This principle of positive reinforcement demonstrates that when the character is contingently obeyed by an object or events find strengthening, they are likely to continue to use the behavior. For instance majority of the children have continued to request for an item using polite language like please and this behavior reform those who comply.

Advocates positive reinforcements argue that use of punishment to enhance learning in children is an aversive method that is painful and uncomfortable. According to (Coon, 2005), people and conditions related with punishments have a tendency of becoming feared, disliked and relented. This aversive attitude of reprimanding makes it particularly poor as means used to for making children to learn.

Advocates of positive reinforcements suggest that, it is among the best method of instilling a learning behavior in children. According to (Rutter, 1987), when positive reinforcements are used correctly, it can have good results in influencing children behavior. Rutter, (1987), further maintains that children adapt quickly and are willing to act in behaviors that are desired by their parents.

Supporters of positive reinforcement in addition imply that use of reprimanding should be discouraged in children upbringing. Hawes& Shores (2001), also support that yelling to children when they have been found involved in undesirable behavior as a form of punishment. The advocates of positive reinforcement argue that instead of yelling at children’s for wrong doing, parents should reward them when the behavior is desirable so that the rewards add to stimulate the good behavior.

Advocates of punishments as a means to promote learning suggest that reprimanding should be used as a means of training when children display risky and dangerous behavior. Perry (1973), maintains that a parent cannot use positive reinforcement such as a reward to bring an end to dangerous behavior running into traffic. Use of punishment would be the best remedy to discourage such wrong behavior.

Supporters of punishments have also suggested that very negative reprimanding to be effective is changing children behavior. If two children are fighting over a toy, the best remedy to bring an end to the fight over the toy would be by removing the toy (Perry, 1973).

Advocates of positive reinforcement argue that among the benefits of using positive reinforcement particularly in a classroom setup is that children become more attentive and take more interest in learning. Contrary, to this when the cane is applied to reprimand wrong responses; the children develop fear of participating actively in classrooms. Hawes, & Shores (2001), maintain that when children are commended or rewarded with touchable items for right answers they develop desire to learn and enhanced participation in classroom.

Advocates of positive reinforcements argue against using punishments as a mode of instilling behavioral change in children. Rutter (1987) suggests that positive reinforcement is a better psychological means of bring out behavior change in children and at the same time it’s simpler to utilize. According to (Perry, 1973), parents are required to weigh the consequences of using punishments and those of positive reinforce and then make the best choice.

My own view is that I support the use punishment when children engage in wrong behaviors. According to the Bible ‘spare the rod and spoil the child’ suggests that children should be reprimanded in order to stop undesirable behavior. Considerable punishment need to be applied to bring about behavioral change. The timing and intensity of the punishments should be dependent upon specific stimulus expected from children. For example, if a parent finds a 12 year putting objects in power socket, the child should be reprimanded and informed of hazards of electricity. The choices of whether to use positive reinforcement or punishments depend on the parent or the caregiver.

The primary purpose of this essay is to describe and discuss the positive influence of video games on children. This study also considers the question of how influence video games children and what the positive effects of videos games on children.

Some people want to play video games which causes many negative side effects on children, but video games can also be good for developing cognitive, physical, and many more hidden skills. Furthermore, they can also be cheaper than television. Although there are the negative side effects of video games, I have found evidence of many positive effects games have on children. Video games are looked down upon by parents as time waster, and worse, some education experts think that these games corrupt the brain. Violent video games are readily blamed by the media and some experts as the reason why some youth become violent or commit extreme anti social behaviour. However, many scientists and psychologists find that video games can actually have many benefits, the main one being making kids smart. Video games may actually teach kids high-level thinking skill that they will need in the future.

In this essay, the purpose of the report and statement of the problem are explained beriefly. Moreover, Problem solving and logic, Skills Development, Building Self Esteem and another Positive Effects of Video Games are explained in this essay. When this essay is written, some publication is examined without plagiarism.

If closely watched, games can be more educational than TV. According to some gamers, they prefer playing games than watching TV, due to the interactivity. The cost of cable is also on the rise which goes to show that gaming, in the long run, is cheaper than TV. The child will want to solve the problem in the game because it intrests them more then a boring story problem at school. Games can help to improve motivation for children with learning disabilities by not only giving them a postive way to vent stress but lets the child see a problem visualy which can help them be more prosistent to solve a problem. Another positive effect of video games can also be used as a reward for good behavior or good grades in school, which motovates the child.

There are many cognitive skills you can learn from gaming such as quick thinking or processing information quickly and the skill to think about a number of things, at the same time. In shooting games, the character may be running and shooting at the same time. Video games children who play action based video and computer games make decision 25% faster than other children witout sacrificing accuracy. Other studies suggests that most expert gamer children can make choices and act on them up to six times a second and four times faster than most peopele, and can pay attention to more than six things at once without getting confused, compared to only four by the average person. Video games have found their use in schools as well as medical profession and the effects that they have made in these are certainly significant. Video games are known for their appeal to children, they can be naturally used for teaching, due to their interactive nature. They provide an effective teaching tool for schools. These schools use video games to engage children in an activity which requires them to perform a task repeated for their learning and are rewarded for their skills. Furthermore, video games have also been seen as a great help for children who are suffering with psychological problems such as inferiority complex and lack of self-confidence. For axample, psychological therapists have used video games as part of their treatment for children with such psychological problems. Furthermore, video game has many positive effects in student’s learning process and it also has benefits in real life. For instance, when you play a video game, it makes you think and increase your logic. There are many games that have strategic and puzzles genre, which is want us to think to solve the problem in the game, it needs accurate of our mind in order to not lose. It will benefit in real life of students or children if they are faced by a problem, Apart from student’s learning process, game also can increase concentrating of mind and sometimes increase our languages vocabularies. In fact, they also have many benefits for children and students in real life.

Another important positive effects of videos game are creative and fun intended. This offers a chance to foster the creativity potential amongst children. It teaches them some essential skills like strategic thinking, innovative thinking and co-operation. It also creates investigative skills amongst children. Some games also aids to the educational value. Children can learn calculations quickly and also develop an attitude which motivates them to always move ahead in life in order to achieve something.

Improves the Child’s Attention to Detail. Video games get children’s attention. Children can remember things they did in video games very easily. They want to win so they pay attention. This is one of the very positive effects of video games on children. Some of the mental skills enhanced by video games include which is planning, resource management and logistics. The player learns to manage resources that are limited, and decide the best use of resources, the same way as in real life. For example, developing reading and math skills that young gamers force themselves to read to get instructions, follow storylines of games, and get information from the game texts. Also, using math skills is important to win in many games that involves quantitative analysis like managing resources. Another mental skill is about Memory. For example, playing first person shooter games such as Call of Duty and Battlefield series enables players to effectively judge what information should be stored in their working memory and what can be discarded considering the task at hand, according to a study published in the Psychological Research.

To sum up, video games increase your kid’s self-confidence and self-esteem as he masters games. Your kid can transfer this attitude to real life and games that involve multiple players encourage your child to work cooperatively to achieve his goals. Your kid learns to listen to the ideas of others. Video games can make your kid creative. The best way to learn is when the learner is having fun at the same time and most of video game provide it to the children and video games allow you and your kid to play together and can be a good bonding activity and video games introduce your kid to computer technology and the online world. You should recognize that we are now living in a high tech, sophisticated world and with a good selection of games, the positive effects of video games on children can be gained. Finally I think, playing video games is safer than having your teens do drugs, alcohol and street racing in the real world.

Play is important for the child’s holistic development including their physical, language, social, emotional and cognitive development. Play allows children to learn naturally from the world around them to gain life skills and understanding Play allows children to freely explore the world around them, without adult direction. Play allows the child to create, challenge, imagine, engage and explore satisfying activities for both themselves and others. Children may use equipment; play alone or with others, in energetic or calm manner. Play is a vital component for a child’s development and lives and is essential to be promoted where possible (Play England, 2007).

Play is the primary and natural medium of communication for children (Axline, 1947). Children may not have the capacity to use words to express themselves, but with the assistance of play therapists, communication and understanding can occur between both the child and therapist. As children do not have the same abilities to communicate and express themselves verbally and as effectively as an adult can, play gives children the opportunity to express their emotions and experiences. This can provide a foundation to build relationships with the play therapist and others, allowing their needs and requirements to be known and to gain a better understanding of themselves (Landreth, 2002).

Play therapy then, is a medium of therapy in which play is used, to observe children engaging in play. By providing resources of play materials and knowledge of theory around play therapy, therapists can identify and examine the child’s underlying issues.

Wilson & Ryan, (2005) state that the importance of play therapy is to allow children move from being unaware of their hidden, unconscious feelings they may have as a result of life experiences, and gain an understanding of their emotions and experiences enabling them to come to terms with feelings. O’Connor and Schaefer (1994) maintain “the aim of play therapy is to bring children to a level of emotional and social functioning or level with their developmental stage. This can allow usual developmental process to be resumed.

Play Therapy is an active process between both the play therapist and the child. It allows the child to explore their surroundings at his or her own pace. The child has his or her own schema of their issues which may be current and of conscious awareness or, hidden in the past and possibly buried in the unconscious. These issues whether of conscious awareness or not may affect the child’s daily lifestyle influencing feelings and behaviour. Play therapy is child centred and the play therapist focuses on play as the first and paramount medium of therapy, with speech the second medium of therapy (British Association of Play Therapists, 2008).

The Irish Play Therapy Association (2013) claim, Play Therapy is an effective method of therapy for children who display or encounter many difficulties or issues. Behavioural difficulties may include depression, aggression, anxiety and other issues relating to difficult encounters or life experiences of abuse, death of a family member, divorce or separation and trauma (www.ipta.ie, 2013).

A history of Play Therapy

Play Therapy dates back as far as 1909 in Europe with the work of Sigmund Freud (1909/1955) and the first documented psychoanalytic therapeutic work focusing on a child was the case of “Little Hans”. Freud discovered the child’s phobias through observations of his play behaviours and dreams. This case encouraged further development of Freud’s work and eventually the development of play therapy.

While Freud used interpretation of the unconscious motivation of a child building a relationship with the child, but he came to the understanding that unlike adults, children do not decide to enter into psychoanalysis. Without consent or understanding the therapist brings the child into this analysis. Anna Freud (1946) followed her father’s interest of play, but developed her own theories. She held that adults undergoing psychoanalysis are required to provide the therapist with information to assist the session, however with children the background information is expressed usually, but not always by the parent.

Melanie Klein (1955) believed the use of psychoanalysis could benefit children in a variety of ways, even if their development was atypical. Klein also believed in using observations with children during their play and behavioural actions and not through their expression of speech as is used within adult psychoanalysis. Klein therefore introduced toys into her sessions to promote play and allow observation of actions to occur.

Virginia Axline working in America was influenced by Carl Rogers work on non- directive client centred psychotherapy. Therefore, Axline built on Roger’s theory resulting in a new therapeutic approach for working alongside children, known as non – directive play therapy. As in adult psychotherapy, the relationship between the therapist and the child in play therapy is based on being genuine, on acceptance and trust.

The theory is that if children are given the opportunity to freely express their feelings and emotions they will resolve these issues themselves, using play experiences and the assistance of their play therapist in order to achieve this (Wilson & Ryan, 2005). Axline (1950) stated that non- directive play therapy is “a play experience that is therapeutic because it provides a secure relationship between the child and the adult, so that the child has the freedom and room to state himself in his own terms, exactly as he is at that moment in this own way and in his own time” (p. 68).

Axline based her theory on her work with a young boy called Dibs. Axline held that Dibs healed himself through no direction over a period of time. She said “No-one ever knows as much about a human being’s inner world as the individual himself. Responsible freedom grows and develops from inside the person”. (Wilson & Ryan, 2005).

Axline, unlike Freud and Klein who both focused primarily on psychoanalysis, believed children would do their best to meet their full potential and by providing a therapeutic relationship and approach which would support that development. Many therapists today base their work on Axline’s (1947) eight principle guidelines

Axline’s principles outline,

The importance of developing a relationship between the therapist and client from the beginning.

Accepting the child and who they are without judgement.

Provide the child with a safe environment to express their feelings completely.

The therapist is alert and available to provide the child with feedback to assist the client’s behaviour,

The therapists provides the child with a scaffold to learn how to cope and solve their own problems and to respect their choices.

The therapist is required not to direct the child in any manner, unless where the child’s safety is at risk. The therapist allows the child to lead the session and the therapist follows their lead.

The therapist is patient and understands it is a gradual process requiring time.

The therapist provides limits that are essential to assist the therapy into a sense of reality and provide the client with information in relation to their responsibilities within the relationship (Axline, 1947).

Based on Axline’s theory of non-directive play therapy, Landreth (2002) developed his theory of Child Centred Play Therapy. Landreth (2002) states the relationship between the child and the therapist must be different from other types of relationships the child has experienced. The relationship between the two is to ensure the child feels safe and comfortable to be expressive within their play, allowing natural communication to occur. He believes the true foundation to the relationship within child centred therapy is that of the bond between the therapist and child (Landreth 2002).

Another influential contribution to the area of play therapy is the work of David Levy (1938). Levy’s Release Therapy allows children release their anxieties through controlled play set out by the therapist. Levy provided free play therapy based on Klein’s theory of free play. Toys are introduced into the settings that are related to the event that requires intervention and the child plays freely with the chosen toys.

Growth of Play Therapy

Child psychotherapy has established a strong tradition across Europe and has grown significantly. In Ireland, child psychotherapy has grown more slowly in comparison to American and Europe. However, professionals’ interest in play as a therapeutic intervention has developed gradually over the past decade. Practioners are becoming more increasingly aware of the seriousness of emotional issues experienced by children and the difficulties that may arise. These children are likely to require more serious treatment that may not be available to them.

Play Therapy Theories and Approaches

There are two techniques used within Play Therapy, non- directive Play Therapy and Directive Play Therapy. Non – directive play therapy approaches are referred to as , “child-focused,” “client – centred” and “unstructured”, where components of directive play therapy are described as “structured,” “directive” and “focused” Gil (1994).

Gil (1994), elaborates on various directive play techniques, including behavioural or gestalt, but suggests that non directive play therapy is a more child focused approach. He explains that non-directive play therapy provides the child the freedom to participate in their own way throughout the session, allowing the therapy to move in specific direction required for the session.

Within structured play therapy, the play therapist plans activities adapting a directive play approach. During the formation of a relationship between the therapist and client within directive Play Therapy a less directive technique is used. This allows the therapist to build a foundation to the relationship and over time, directive techniques are weaned into the relationship (Jones, Casado and Robinson, 2003).

Similarly, supporting this concept, Berting (2009) suggests that building on the concept on developing a therapeutic relationship using a less directive approach is best practice, before proceeding with more directive activities in the core area of the play therapy session. He also suggests observing the child’s need to be able to or prepared to carry out directive play therapy.

Non-Directive Play Therapy ( who are the key people in NDPT and explain what you will discuss

With over 60 years of influential work, Axline’s contribution to non – directive play therapy was outstanding. He is known as the founder of non – directive play therapy and his work still influences play therapists in many ways. He believed the play therapist should have very little influence on the clients play and the client should communicate through their play, which is still a core principle today.

The idea of reaching your full potential as a child in play therapy was originally proposed by Axline (1947). He explained the theory of progressing towards full potential occurs because of the formation of the therapeutic relationship, and not that of specialised techniques.

Ray, Blanco, Sullivan, and Holliman (2009) support Axline’s theory by stating the play therapists develops a relationship with the client by building on their acceptance.. In return, the client develops self-acceptance which results in moving towards their full potential.

Today, play therapists continue to build on the foundations of non-directive approach guided by Axline’s creative work, the area of non-directive play therapy continues to progress, more than 60 years later.

Client-centred play therapy.

Developing the ideas of Axline (1947) and Moustakas (1959), Landreth (2002) improved their theories to develop client – centred play therapy. “In Play Therapy Virginia Axline (1947/69) suggests that the individual has within himself the ability to solve his own problems, and that in play therapy, where conditions for growth are optimal, the child reaches for independence” (Axline, 1955). She expressed the importance of the therapist to allow the child to explore and investigate the room and toys with his own initiative with support of the experience and the relationship (Axline, 1955).

Star this section from Moustakas

Moustakas (1959) felt children required the need to feel they were understood gain self – directed skills in order to grow. These skills could be achieved through client – centred play therapy, focusing on the client’s direction throughout the session.

Astramovich (1999) supported the client – centred therapy approach stating it focuses on the growth and development of the child, and this can be achieved by the child directing their own play through the session.

Directive Play Therapy
Explain to the reader what approaches you will cover:

McMahon (1992) states directive play therapy aims to prepare children for an event that is about to occur, for example surgery or other unpleasant events. Directive play therapy works towards treating the child’s anxieties they may be unaware of. McMahon (1992) suggests the directive approach is closer to psychotherapy than to Axline’s non – directive theory. She elaborates on the therapist having the skills to deal with unexpected circumstances which may arise, and always be prepared and accept the child’s response.

Oaklander (1978) holds that there are the benefits of fantasy and projective methods to use in directive play therapy. He suggests asking children to draw their family as symbols or animals, directing their play to observe their emotional needs. The use of Gestalt methods is expanding over time, the theory behind this approach is beneficial to the child to deal with their feelings they are experiencing at the present, instead to going too far back towards traumatic experiences (McMahon, 1992).

Cognitive Behavioural play therapy

“Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is a form of psychotherapy originally developed for adults, and aims to identify and modify negative thinking styles that cause negative emotions and the maladaptive behaviours associated with those thinking styles” (Knell & Dasari, 2009).

Cognitive behavioural play therapy is a sensitive approach seen to be effective when working with children based on CBT from 8 years and above with various disorders. Cognitive behavioural play therapy is used to teach children strategies to change their negative thinking and views in order to develop positive thinking and understandings (Knell & Dasari 2009).

Green (2008) elaborates on the various styles of the cognitive behavioural approach used within play therapy including, changing their cognitive development, discussing and eliminating senseless beliefs or ideas and cognitive misrepresentations. The play therapist modifies the cognitive behavioural therapy to suit the needs of the child within play therapy.

Gestalt play therapy

Gestalt play therapy, according to Oaklander (2001), focuses on the holistic views of the child, including their body, their emotional state, and their mind. Gestalt Play therapy focuses on the child’s ability to understand how to express their emotions and is essential for a healthy understanding of their own emotions. Oaklander (2001) supports his theory by developing a variety of ways to express ones emotions. Oaklander (2001) suggests clay, art, crafts and puppets to help assist the expression of emotions through play in a directive manner. “The Gestalt work focuses on the “what” and “how” rather than the “why” as found (Oaklander 2001) found.

Alderian Play Therapy

Within Adlerian Therapy, the therapist focuses on and examines the lifestyle of the client and tries to form a relationship of respect and trust with the client in order to set and reach their goals. Adlerian play therapy is a little different as it sets out to appeal to the child but is focused on the Adlerian method just in a child friendly manner. (Morrison 2009).

Kottman (2001) suggests Adlerian play therapy may use techniques from non- directive and focused play therapy in order to the help the child build confidence, courage and abilities by using the Adlerian play therapy method.

It is believed within the Adlerian method behaviours carried out by the client are intentional and by using the Adlerian method of play therapy, children can learn to develop coping mechanisms and strategies as suggested by Kottman and Warlick (1989).

Psychoanalytic play therapy

Melanie Klein, Anna Freud, studied under the Freudian psychoanalysis each developing their beliefs. Both individuals had a major influence of the development of psychoanalytical play therapy

Melanie Klien believed all play was symbolic; in contrast to this Anna Freud believed it was the replay of real life events. Anna believed play therapy was allowing children to talk about the conscious feelings and thoughts and to act out the unconscious; however Klien in contrast to Anna Freud made interpretations from the unconscious meanings to from their play and felt strongly this was the correct understanding (McMahon 1992).

Freud argues for the importance of building a relationship between the therapist and the client in order to provide adequate therapy to the client. She did not believe in interpreting the clients play until the relationship was developed amongst both parties (Cattanach, 1992). Klien argues against Freud, emphasising the importance to begin interpretation without the foundations of a relationship with the child resulting in delays to the therapy (Cattanach, 1992).

Parental / Primary Carer Involvement

The input and involvement of the primary carer is significant when providing Play Therapy to Children. Involvement provides positive outcomes to both the therapist and the child. The therapist can receive back ground information of the problem, the events and behaviours, the primary carer can provide the therapist with information in relation to the child’s progress. Primary carer involvement provides security, stability and emotional support for the child if the therapy may become distressing for the child. A parent’s emotional availability is suggested to be the tool to success of Play Therapy (Wilson & Ryan, 2005)

Primary carer’s may be unaware of what Play Therapy is, and how it is used. As the primary carer brings the child to the centre weekly it is suggested that the therapist should provide adequate information and assistance in relation to the treatment and their part in the therapy (Wilson and Ryan 2005).

The therapist should ensure they don’t replace the parent – child relationship although their relationship is significant for successful results and progress. Play Therapists can involve parents in a variety of ways, for instance the therapist can ask for the parent to sit in on the therapy to assist the settling period, therapist provide feedback to the parents, after each session or after a particular period of time. This can allow therapists provide parents with advice and ideas of how to bring the therapy into the home and provide consistency (Landreth, 2001 and McGuire & McGuire, 2001).

Training

There are independent organisations that within their own country have their own play therapy training; however they adopt the standards of Play Therapy International’s standards. Their training is recognised and certified. Play Therapy Ireland, Play Therapy United Kingdom and Play Therapy Canada are well developed and link with Play Therapy Ireland through their practice. Other countries are gradually developing their own Play Therapy International standards.

The Children’s Therapy Centre are the only APT approved provider in Ireland. Their courses are recognised by the Irish Association for Play Therapy and have approved quality assurance standards with both FETAC and HETAC.

Conclusion

In this chapter a review of the current literature relating to play therapy was addressed. ……… I will present a small scale study carried out on the perception of Play Therapists. In the next chapter I will outline and discuss methods for gathering data for this study. A

This cross-sectional survey research investigated play preferences of children with and without developmental delays who were between 3 and 7 years old. Parents completed questionnaires regarding their child’s play activity and context preferences. Valid results were obtained for 166 children, 83 of whom had developmental delays. Preference ratings were compared by gender, age, and delay status. Play preference did not differ by gender. Rough-and-tumble play and computer/video game play increased with age, whereas object exploration decreased. Children with developmental delays had higher preferences for rough-and-tumble play and object exploration and lower preferences for drawing and coloring, construction, and doll and action figurine play than typically developing children. This comparison of children’s play preferences across ages, gender, and developmental status enhances our understanding of how these variables influence children’s play.

ABSTRACT

This cross-sectional survey research investigated play preferences of children with and without developmental delays who were between 3 and 7 years old. Parents completed questionnaires regarding their child’s play activity and context preferences. Valid results were obtained for 166 children, 83 of whom had developmental delays. Preference ratings were compared by gender, age, and delay status. Play preference did not differ by gender. Rough-and-tumble play and computer/video game play increased with age, whereas object exploration decreased. Children with developmental delays had higher preferences for rough-and-tumble play and object exploration and lower preferences for drawing and coloring, construction, and doll and action figurine play than typically developing children. This comparison of children’s play preferences across ages, gender, and developmental status enhances our understanding of how these variables influence children’s play.

Play is a primary childhood occupation and as such deserves the utmost attention from the occupational therapy profession. In the past, many authors have written about play as a means to measure other skills (Bundy, 1993) or as a reflection of child development (Sparling, Walker, & Singdahlsen, 1984). Play has been observed, categorized, labeled, and studied by researchers in many fields (Cole & la Voie, 1985; Fein, 1981; Gesell, 1940; Parten, 1932; Saunders, Sayer, & Goodale, 1999). Previous research has clearly demonstrated that children progress through stages and exhibit differing play preferences over time (Cole & la Voie, 1985; Fein, 1981; Lowe, 1975). Recently, occupational therapy scholars have stressed the importance of examining play as an occupation rather than analyzing its component parts (Bundy, 1993; Couch, Deitz, & Kanny, 1998, Knox, 1997; Parham & Primeau, 1997).

Influences on Play Preferences

Many variables (e.g., gender, culture, environment, and age) influence a child’s play occupations. This descriptive study explores young children’s play preferences and investigates how play choices vary according to the child’s age, gender, and typical development versus developmental delay status.

Gender

Research has repeatedly demonstrated gender differences in the play of typical children (Caldera, Huston, & O’Brien, 1989; Connor & Serbin, 1977; Meyer-Bahlburg, Sandberg, Dolezal, & Yager, 1994; Saracho, 1990). In early studies of preferences related to gender, researchers found that girls preferred dolls and house toys and boys preferred blocks and transportation toys (Fein, 1981). Recent research continues to find gender-related differences in many aspects of play beginning at early ages. For example, as early as 1 year of age, children make different toy choices based on their gender (Servin, Bohlin, & Berlin, 1999). At 18 months of age, boys preferred to play with trucks and trailers, whereas girls preferred doll-related activities (Lyytinen, Laakso, Poikkeus, & Rita, 1999).

Gender differences are found in many aspects of play. Boys are more likely to choose physical and block play over dramatic and manipulative play, and girls are the reverse (Saracho, 1990). Although boys are more likely to enjoy vigorous or active play, girls are generally rated as more playful (Saunders et al., 1999) and more likely to enjoy both dyadic interaction (Benenson, 1993) and smaller play groups than boys. Within dramatic or fantasy play, the type of fantasy play performed differs by gender. For example, girls use more verbal pretending and choose different play themes (Wall, Pickert, & Gibson, 1989) and demonstrate less aggressive content (von Klitzing, Kelsay, Emde, Robinson, & Schmitz, 2000). Girls’ fantasy themes tend to be complex and abstract. In contrast, boys’ play is more physically vigorous and they tend to choose simpler fantasy themes, such as playing superheroes (Pellegrini & Bjorklund, 2004).

Boys and girls also differ in play with computers and video games. Boys generally play video games more frequently and for longer time periods (Kafai, 1998), and they tend to play games in which competition is important. Girls like games with in-depth social interactions and character development; they appear to enjoy participating in a story more than participating in a competitive game (Salonius-Pasternak, 2005).

Age

A child’s age is related to both play skills and play preferences for the type and context of play. Developmental changes in play skill have been found in a variety of studies of children’s play. For example, pretend play first emerges between 1 and 2 years of age and increases in prevalence and frequency throughout the preschool and kindergarten years (Fein, 1981). Play preferences have been shown to begin early in life. Infant toy preferences are noted by mothers as early as 3 months of age, and by 1 year of age almost 90% of infants have a favorite object (Furby & Wilke, 1982). Children have also demonstrated changes over time in their preference for specific forms of play, such as physical play.

In one study of physical play, the authors found that preference for each of three types of physical play peaks at a different age (Pellegrini & Smith, 1998). Rhythmic stereotypes dominate during infancy, exercise play peaks during the preschool years, and rough-and-tumble play is most common during middle childhood. Age also interacts with gender to affect the choices. For example, the preferences of young children for gender-segregated groups begin to change in pre-adolescence (Brown, 1990), as do the gender-specific preferences for indoor and outdoor play (Pellegrini, 1992). Age may be less of a factor in play development in children with disabilities (Sigafoos, Roberts-Pennell, & Graves, 1999).

Developmental Delay or Disability

Multiple studies have demonstrated that children with physical disabilities play differently than children who are developing typically. Children with physical disabilities spend more time in passive activities (Brown & Gordon, 1987) and may demonstrate less active involvement with objects (Gowen, Johnson-Martin, Goldman, & Hussey, 1992). Children with physical disabilities spend more time with adults than with their peers and participate more in passive activities, such as television watching, than in active and varied play experiences (Howard, 1996). In addition, children with physical disabilities, cerebral palsy in particular, may be less playful than their typically developing peers (Okimoto, Bundy, & Hanzlik, 2000).

Based on previous research, it is unclear whether children with disabilities have different play preferences or merely have an inability to access various forms of play. One study demonstrated that children with mild motor disabilities held preferences similar to children without disabilities (Clifford & Bundy, 1989). In a study investigating object play preferences in children with an autistic spectrum disorder, Desha, Ziviani, and Rodger (2003) found that the children (41 to 86 months old) engaged predominantly in functional play and preferred toys with salient sensorimotor properties (toys that produced sound or movement with minimal effort). Other research has suggested that children with autism prefer toys and play situations that are structured and predictable (Ferrara & Hill, 1980).

Contextual Variables

Contextual factors may affect play occupations. Researchers have demonstrated that children have fairly stable preferences for play partners, including the gender of play partners (Hay, Payne, & Chadwick, 2004; Martin & Fabes, 2001), play settings, and play objects (Knox, 1997). Other studies suggest that the physical environment impacts children’s development of play occupations. For example, outdoor play provides children with opportunities for sensory exploration (e.g., in dirt, water, sand, and mud), learning about space, and vigorous physical activity. Indoor play offers opportunities for quiet play, reading, drawing, construction, and computer games (Clements, 2004).

Research Questions

The literature on children’s play preferences suggests that children have clear preferences that are influenced by gender, age, and developmental status. Examining the current play choices and preferences of children is important to further understand the development of play occupations and what variables influence a child’s play choices. This study investigated the play preferences of children with and without developmental delays who were between 3 and 7 years old. The specific research questions that guided our survey research were the following:

1. Do boys and girls differ in their play activity preferences?

2. Do children’s play activity preferences differ by age in early childhood years?

3. Do play activity preferences differ between children with developmental delays who receive therapy services and children with typical development?

Methods

Sample

Convenience sampling was used to recruit parents of children with typical development or with developmental delays (who received occupational, speech, or physical therapy services) who were between 3 and 8 years old to complete a survey describing play preferences. A total of 330 surveys were provided to parents of typically developing children and children with developmental delays in the Northeast and the Midwest regions in the United States. In the Midwest, participants were obtained through a large childcare center and two preschools. All participants in the Northeast were obtained through two large private practice clinics. To obtain a sample of typically developing children in the Northeast, parents of children receiving therapy services in the clinics were asked to complete a survey for a sibling without developmental problems.

Instrument

The survey was based on Takata’s instrument (Takata, 1969) that measures play preferences and the categories were modified to reflect modern play activities. The survey required parents to respond to a list of play activity preferences for one of their children. Studies have demonstrated that mothers can accurately rank play activities (Tamis-LeMonda, Damast, & Bornstein, 1994) and parent report has been used previously in research of children’s play preferences (Finegan, Niccols, Zacher, & Hood, 1991).

The survey listed play activities and contexts and asked parents to rate their child’s preference for each activity and context. Parents were also asked to provide information about age, disability status, and gender. The parents were asked about play preferences within a 3-month period because other researchers have suggested that play preferences remain relatively stable within this period of time (Finegan et al., 1991). Parents were not asked questions regarding their nationality, race, ethnicity, social class, or socioeconomic status because these factors have not been demonstrated to be related to play preferences (Meyer-Bahlburg et al., 1994). To pilot test the survey, two peer reviewers commented on the items and then six parents completed the survey and were asked to comment on its format and clarity and the amount of time it took to complete. Minimal revisions were made to improve clarity.

The final survey listed 37 play activities in 11 categories of play and 11 contextual variables. The survey used a 4-point Likert scale for scoring, with each play activity rated from highly preferred (4) to not preferred (1), and respondents could also select not applicable. Individual activities were listed under broader categories (e.g., gross motor play, creative play, and pretend play). The second part of the survey asked for the child’s preferences for specific play environments, including social context (e.g., friends or family) and physical contexts (e.g., inside or outside). A third section asked for descriptive information about the child (e.g., gender, birth date, diagnosis, if any, and services received).

Data Analysis

Demographic data and preference ratings were summarized using descriptive statistics. Children were combined into age groups by year by rounding to the nearest year. Although specific diagnoses were identified for the children, the children were grouped into those with and without developmental delays for purposes of analysis. To reduce the data, the individual activities were combined into play categories (e.g., gross motor, rough-and-tumble play, and pretend play). The 33 activities were collapsed into 9 play categories and the 11 contextual variables were collapsed into 4 play contexts. The figure identifies how the items were combined into categories.

When computing mean scores, the responses “not applicable” and “not preferred” were combined as a score of “1” because both responses indicated that the child did not engage in that play activity. Using each play category and play context, a three-way analysis of variance with gender, age, and disability status as the independent variables was computed. Scheffe post-hoc analyses were used to compare individual age groups. Effect sizes (Cohen’s d) were calculated for gender and developmental status comparisons. Although a Likert scale produces ordinal data, parametric statistical procedures were selected over non-parametric statistical procedures based on research demonstrating that these statistics result in the same conclusions as non-parametric tests (Glass, Peckham, & Sanders, 1972), they are preferable in most cases, and they do not increase the likelihood of a Type I or Type II error (Nanna & Sawilowsky, 1998; Rasmussen & Dunlap, 1991). Use of parametric statistics allowed us to examine the interactions among the variables.

Results

Sample

A total of 175 surveys were returned. Only five surveys for 8 year olds were returned; therefore these were omitted from the analysis. Of the 170 remaining, 166 were sufficiently complete to use in the analysis. Demographic data for the sample are presented in Table 1.

Gender

The three-way analysis of variance identified no significant differences in play activity preferences between boys and girls (effect size ranged from .01 to .26). Table 2 lists the mean scores, analysis of variance results, and effects sizes for the primary play categories. Play preferences were remarkably similar for boys and girls, with equivalent preference for gross motor play, rough-and-tumble play, video and computer games, drawing and coloring, dolls, and pretend play. The interaction for gender and age was significant for doll play preference. Three- to four-year-old boys preferred play with dolls and action figurines more than 3- to 4-year-old girls. In contrast, 5- to 6-year-old boys preferred play with dolls and action figurines less than 5- to 6-year-old girls. Play contexts were also compared by gender. Boys (m = 2.03) and girls (m = 1.95) were equally neutral about playing alone (F [1,156] = .074; p = .786). Both boys (m = 2.63) and girls (m = 2.60) equally preferred to play with friends (F [1, 156] = .031; p = .860) and equally preferred indoor (mean range: 2.73 to 2.80) and outdoor (mean range: 2.75 to 2.86) play.

Age Groups

Play preferences were compared by age groups. Table 3 shows which play categories were significantly different for age groups between 3 and 7 years old. In this early childhood age span, changes in play preferences were few. Preference for rough-and-tumble play changed significantly from 3 to 7 years old. Rough-and-tumble play was preferred most at 5 years old and was only somewhat preferred at 7 years old. Preference for video and computer games increased significantly in this age range. Video and computer game play was scored between not preferred and neutral at 3 years old and was somewhat preferred by 7 years old. Preference for drawing and coloring and construction increased from 3 to 7 years old, but these differences were not significant.

Preference for pretend play differed significantly across the age groups, with low preference scores at the youngest and oldest ages and higher preference scores at 4 and 5 years old. Doll and action figurine play was also highest at 4 years old; however, changes in doll play preference were not significant across age groups. When play contexts were compared across the age groups, children showed no differences in preference for playing alone (range: 1.88 to 2.23; F [4,156] = 1.3; p = .272) or with friends (range: 2.27 to 2.93; F [4,156] = 1.95; p = .105) or for playing indoors (range: 2.35 to 2.86; F [4,153] = .793: p = .531) or outdoors (range: 2.50 to 2.91; F [4,152] = 1.23; p = .300). The least preferred play context across all ages was alone.

Children With and Without Developmental Delays

Play preferences of children with developmental delays were compared to those of children with typical development. Mean scores, analysis of variance results, and effect sizes are presented in Table 4. Children in the delayed and non-delayed groups equally preferred gross motor play, but rough-and-tumble play was preferred more by children with developmental delays, demonstrating a moderate effect (d = .52). In the quiet play categories, typically developing children preferred drawing and coloring more than children with developmental delays. For drawing and coloring, there was also an interaction with gender: preferences of boys with developmental delays (m = 2.57) were lower than those of boys with typical development (m = 3.42), but girls were equivalent in the two groups (developmental delays m = 3.13; typical development m = 3.19). In children with developmental delays, preference for doll and action figurine play was significantly less and preference for object exploration was slightly greater than for children without developmental delays.

Although pretend play did not differ in these groups, the interaction of age and developmental delay status for pretend play preference was significant. In younger children (3 and 4 years old), those who were typically developing preferred pretend play; this preference reversed by 7 years old when preferences of children with developmental delays were significantly higher than typically developing children for pretend play. Play preferences for these two groups of children are rank ordered in Table 5. The five most preferred play forms for children with typical development were gross motor, drawing and coloring, reading and watching television, construction, and rough-and-tumble play. The five most preferred play forms for children with developmental delays were rough-and-tumble play, gross motor, reading and watching television, drawing and coloring, and construction.

Preferred play contexts also differed for the two groups. Although both groups were neutral about playing alone, children with developmental delays showed a lower preference for playing with friends (m = 2.29) than children with typical development (m = 2.93) (F [1,156] = 13.11; p < .001; d = .57). Children with and without developmental delays were similar in their preference for indoor (range: 2.66 to 2.86) and outdoor (range: 2.72 to 2.87) play.

Discussion

Gender Comparisons

A surprising finding was that boys and girls held the same or similar play preferences. For example, we found no differences between boys and girls in doll and action figurine play or pretend play. In contrast, most of the research literature has concluded that boys and girls prefer different types of play. In older studies (Fagot, 1974, 1978; McDowell, 1937), girls and boys preferred different toys (i.e., girls preferred dolls and house toys, whereas boys preferred blocks and transportation toys). During the preschool and early childhood years, boys are more likely to adopt fantasy and aggressive play (e.g., monsters or fighting) and girls are more likely to play house (Fein, 1981). One possible reason for our finding that boys and girls were similar in play preferences is that we broadly defined doll play to include play with action figurines (e.g., Batman, Spiderman, and robots), which are considered boy toys. With dolls defined this broadly, boys and girls did not differ.

In the research literature, pretend play is not the only play category where boys and girls differ. In two studies of children between 4 and 12 years old, boys preferred rough-and-tumble play and girls preferred quiet play (Finegan et al., 1991; Saracho, 1990). Saracho (1990) found that boys are more likely to prefer physical and block play over dramatic and manipulative play, and girls were the reverse. In a review of electronic play, Salonius-Pasternak (2005) reported that boys spend more time in video and computer game play than girls. Our study found no differences between boys and girls in preference for gross motor, rough-and-tumble play, or video game activities. Gym sets, trikes and bikes, and playgrounds were preferred play activities for both genders.

When genders are compared, preferences of boys and girls were remarkably similar. Boys were slightly, but not significantly, higher than girls in rough-and-tumble play (d = .26), and other areas that differed in previous studies (e.g., preference for video and computer games and drawing and coloring) were equivalent. The equivocal results between our study and those that preceded it may be explained by their different methodologies (e.g., our survey used parent report and listed both boy and girl examples of the play categories). Gender differences may not exist when broad play categories are measured.

Age Comparisons

When the ages of the children were compared, three categories showed significant differences across age groups. Rough-and-tumble play increased from 3 to 5 years old, and then decreased from 5 to 7 years old. As preference for rough-and-tumble play decreased, preference for video and computer games increased.

Other researchers (Salonius-Pasternak, 2005) have documented the increase in computer game play, which begins at 7 years old and peaks in adolescence. As documented in the literature, pretend play increases during the preschool years (3 to 5 years old) and decreases after 6 years old (Fein, 1981), when rule-governed games begin to dominate play (Parham & Primeau, 1997). Other categories showed expected trends, but differences among the age groups were not significant. Gross motor play (defined as bike, trike, tag, and gym set activities) did not decrease across the age groups and was consistently a highly preferred activity. Drawing and coloring, construction, watching television, and reading activities remained somewhat preferred throughout the age range.

The development of play skills has been well documented by researchers (Rosenblatt, 1977; Takata, 1969); however, most research has focused on the first 2 to 3 years of life, which is when play skills change dramatically. Our study captured ages during which play preference is stable for certain forms of play and evolving for others. Takata (1969) conceptualized 4 to 7 years old as one play epoch. Dramatic role playing, social role playing, and realistic construction characterize this epoch. Play preferences appear to change substantially after 7 years old, which is when children prefer games with rules and social play in the context of organized games. Our findings regarding the effect of age on play preferences, which were significant but not dramatic, may reflect that our age range was essentially one play epoch (Takata, 1969).

Differences Between Children With and Without Developmental Delays

In our sample, children with developmental delays were primarily children with sensory integration dysfunction, autism, pervasive developmental disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or general developmental delays. Children with these diagnoses often have motor planning difficulty, sensory processing problems, and social and communication limitations without frank motor, manipulation, and mobility impairments. The play preferences of children with developmental delays were consistent with the performance limitations associated with these development disorders.

Children with developmental delays preferred rough-and-tumble play significantly more than children with typical development. This preference may reflect the sensory needs of children with autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, pervasive developmental disorder, or sensory integration disorder. Rough-and-tumble play, such as wrestling and rough housing, provides children with deep tissue pressure and joint compression, which is the proprioceptive input that helps their systems organize and calm (Baranek, 2002; Blanche & Schaaf, 2001). In addition, rough-and-tumble play does not demand fine motor skills or precision performance; it is play in which almost every child can participate and succeed.

The other play category in our study preferred significantly more by children with developmental delays was object exploration. Object exploration reflects basic sensory motor play that predominates in children 1 to 3 years old and decreases during the preschool years as more skillful and symbolic play emerges. The higher preference by children with developmental delays probably reflects preference for simpler, lower demand play activities. In other play forms, typically developing children showed higher preference; they preferred drawing and coloring and dolls and action figurines more than children with developmental delays. These play forms require fine motor and manipulative skills, and they require higher levels of cognitive ability, imagination, pretend, and understanding of symbols.

In addition, the interaction of pretend play, age, and developmental delay was significant. At younger ages, pretend play was preferred more by children with typical development; this reversed at older ages, when pretend play was preferred more by children with developmental delays. Therefore, the children with developmental delays developed an interest in pretend play at older ages, which is when interest by children with typical development was diminishing. This finding contrasts with that of Sigafoos et al. (1999), who found that children with disabilities did not exhibit play forms beyond sensorimotor and functional play. Our contrasting findings may be explained because the children in our sample were less severely involved.

Both groups were neutral (mean range: 1.81 to 2.45) for doll and action figurine play and pretend play. This neutral preference may reflect that the time spent in pretend play is minimal when compared to other play forms. Fein (1981) suggested that preschool children spend between 10% and 17% of their time in pretend play, which reflects only a small portion of boys’ and girls’ total play time. Sigafoos et al. (1999) observed that children with developmental delays spent 10% of their time in pretend play. When the types of play are rank ordered by preference, pretend play and doll and action figurine play have the lowest preference scores.

Numerous studies have documented differences in play when children with disabilities were compared to children without disabilities. Research demonstrates differences in play skills (Mogford, 1977), object and social play (Sigafoos et al., 1999), and playfulness (Clifford & Bundy, 1989; Okimoto et al., 2000). Sigafoos et al. (1999) followed preschool children with developmental disabilities for 3 years and documented that they primarily engaged in exploratory (28%) and functional play (57%) and that these percentages did not change over time. Baranek, Reinhartsen, and Wannamaker (2001) described the play of children with autism as lacking in imitation and imagination, containing fewer play repertoires, exhibiting decreased play organization, and exhibiting limited social play. Their play tends to lack flexibility and creativity (Craig & Baron-Cohen, 1999). Functional play seems to dominate in children with autism with minimal evidence of pretend or symbolic play (Libby, Powell, Messer, & Jordan, 1998).

Differences in children with sensory integration dysfunction have been identified by Parham and Mailloux (2005) and may be more subtle than the differences seen in autism (Desha et al., 2003). The play of children with sensory integration dysfunction is often limited in play scenarios because they avoid certain play experiences that cause sensory feedback discomfort and they have restricted action repertoires due to perceptual difficulties and dyspraxia (Knox, 2005; Parham & Mailloux, 2005). Using a sample of preschool age children (4 to 6 years) with sensory integration dysfunction, Clifford and Bundy (1989) did not find significant differences in play materials preferences but did find differences in how the children used toys. Our sample with developmental delays, which included autism, sensory integration dysfunction, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, showed trends similar to the literature in that the children preferred simple play forms (i.e., object exploration and rough-and-tumble play) to more complex and skilled play forms (i.e., drawing and coloring and pretend play).

When all play preference categories are ranked, the order of preference differed between groups, but the top five preferences were the same. The primary difference between the groups was in rough-and-tumble play (ranked first for children with developmental delays and fifth for children with typical development). Object exploration was the least preferred for children with typical development and dolls were least preferred for children with developmental delays.

Consistent with the literature that describes problems in social play in children with developmental delays, children with typical development had significantly higher preferences for playing with friends (d = .57) than children with developmental delays. Playing alone was significantly more preferred in children with developmental delays. Response to these items may reflect the child’s preference or may relate to actual play opportunities and experiences. Delays in communication and social interaction may create barriers for children with developmental delays to play with peers (Baranek et al., 2001; Tanta, 2004).

Clinical Implications

The findings of our study confirm the importance of physical play because, almost universally, the study participants enjoyed, and often preferred, physical play. At the same time, the participants balanced their preference for physical play with more sedentary play forms, such as reading, watching television, drawing and coloring, and construction. The range of preferences may indicate the need for relaxation as one aspect of play (Parham & Primeau, 1997). Children seem to have broad and varied play preferences because 6 of the 11 play forms were rated as somewhat to highly preferred. Individual play preferences appear to be best defined by the player and cannot be assumed based on age, gender, or disability status.

Of concern is the preference of children with developmental delays t

In English preschools, play is an integral part of the curriculum, founded on the belief that children learn through self-initiated free play in an exploratory environment (Hurst, 1997; cited in Curtis, 1998). It was only in the early 1920s that play was linked directly to children’s development. The writings of such early educationists, as Froebel, the Macmillan sisters, Montessori, Steiner, and Susan and Nathan Isaacs, sowed the seeds for play being the basis for early childhood curricula.

According to Froebel, play is “the work of the child” and a part of “the educational process” (ref). The Plowden Report (CACE, 1967) suggests that play is the principal means of learning in early childhood. “In play, children gradually develop concepts of causal relationships, the power to discriminate, to make judgements, to analyze and synthesize, to imagine and formulate” (The Plowden Report (CACE, 1967 (p.193).

In our society, play serves countless important purposes. It is a means by which children develop their physical, intellectual, emotional and social skills. Much has been written about the definitions, functions and characteristics of play, for example Janet Moyles (1989) writes that “Play is undoubtedly a means by which humans and animals explore a variety of experiences in different situations for diverse purposes.” (Moyles 1989, p i).

There are two conflicting opinions on the value of play, Early Years practitioners and some parents consider that play is the best way for young children to get a concrete basis for later school and life success. While other parents, practitioners and politicians believe that play is a waste of time. (quote). As a practitioner it is important to understand the true value of play and to advocate children’s right to play.

This essay analyses the elements of an early years setting that support and encourage learning, comparing it with an alternative early year’s settings, while evaluating the importance of effective communication with babies and young children. It will also debate the importance of differentiation and inclusion in planning the early year’s curriculum. In addition the essay will include compare and contrast different settings to see how they relate to known theories of child development. Furthermore plans of play-based activities will be included to show support of the curriculum in the setting.

Profile of setting.

The school where I am currently in placement is situated within a woodland area surrounded by houses in Colchester, Essex. The school is currently providing education for 4-11 year olds and has approximately one hundred and sixty children on role. The school was originally formed in 1890, but was moved to its current site in the 1970s after a fire broke out. The school is a Church of England school and encourages the children to have a Christian view, with assembles and signs around the school. The feel of the school is a friendly, supportive, family originated environment, which is child focused. The type of child who attends the school is on average a child who will always do their best no matter what their background. The schools community is mixed race but has a high percentage of mainly white British families, the school has 38% free school meals, in August ’09 had the highest jobseeker allowance attendance and has a high percentage of families on housing and benefits. The area that the school is situated is a renovation area that the Local Council are trying to regenerate. Within the two wards Essex County council and Colchester Borough Council the community have 2.3% rented housing and 10.5% housing. The Local Authority average is 11.85% which has almost double over the years. The school is above Local authority avenge and above national avenge which explains the percentage of free school meals. Lots of the house holds in the community have no formal education and there is a high percentage of children that are involved in social care. There are 4 children on the child protection register, 3 children which are ‘looked after’ and 1 child on the child in need plan. The school has an equal amount of boys and girls in each class but there are one or two classes that have slightly more boys than girls which can inflict on learning styles and standards.

The vision of the school is:

“We are a welcoming, happy and caring church school, where creativity is encouraged and everyone has confidence in their own abilities. We promote good social skills and participation in the Christian ethos of our school. We value others whatever their background or beliefs and respect our environment. We always aim high and do our best, cherish our friendships and respect everyone’s right to learn. We ensure that the key skills, vital for a successful future are taught to all of our children. We strive for a bright and wonderful future!” (Ref)

The school works with a number of organisations in the community. One is Child First, which is the collaborative name for the three Local Delivery Groups (LDG) of the schools in Colchester. The group first emerged out of the desire of Head Teachers in East Colchester, who wanted to improve the life chances for the children in their schools. With the arrival of the Extended Schools Agenda, it was a natural progression to extend the group to include all schools in Colchester.

Also lying at the heart of the community is the church, which has a congregation of around 100 people. With differing ages, a variety of backgrounds and Christian experiences, the school finds itself strongly united to the church as a reverend from the parish visits the school regularly.

Also the Ormiston Children and Families Trust works with the school to promote the wellbeing of children and young people through projects based around the Eastern Region. The Ormiston Centres work in partnership with Essex County Council, voluntary and statutory organisations, families and communities they are managing the seven Children’s Centres in Colchester.

LO1 – Compare setting with an alternative – analyse the elements of a chosen early years setting that support and encourage learning, comparing it with alternative early year settings.

What does the setting do to support and encourage learning?

Current setting:

The Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) applies to children from birth to the end of the reception year. In our school all children join us at the beginning of the school year in which they are five. At present we have an intake of 28 children. Most have been to settings that exist in our community and many have attended the pre-school located on the school campus.

At the school we recognise that every child is a competent learner who can be resilient, capable, confident and self assured. We recognise that children develop in individual ways, at varying rates. Children’s attitudes and dispositions to learning are influenced by feedback from others; we use praise and encouragement, as well as celebration/ sharing assemblies and rewards, to encourage children to develop a positive attitude to learning.

In the Foundation Stage we set realistic and challenging expectations that meet the needs of our children. We achieve this by planning to meet the needs of boys and girls, children with special educational needs, children who are more able, children with disabilities, children from all social and cultural backgrounds, children of different ethnic groups and those from diverse linguistic backgrounds.

We meet the needs of all our children through:

Planning opportunities that build upon and extend children’s knowledge, experience and interests, and develop their self-esteem and confidence;

Using a wide range of teaching strategies based on children’s learning needs;

Providing a wide range of opportunities to motivate and support children and to help them to learn effectively;

Providing a safe and supportive learning environment in which the contribution of all children is valued;

Using resources which reflect diversity and are free from discrimination and stereotyping;

Planning challenging activities for children whose ability and understanding are in advance of their language and communication skills;

Monitoring children’s progress and taking action to provide support as necessary.

At the school we recognize that the environment plays a key role in supporting and extending the children’s development. This begins by observing the children and assessing their interests, development and learning, before planning challenging but achievable activities and experiences to extend the children’s learning.

We make regular assessments of children’s learning and we use this information to ensure that future planning reflects identified needs. Assessment in the EYFS takes several different forms. These provide information which is then combined to inform detailed pictures of whole individuals.

The classrooms are organized to allow children to explore and learn securely and safely. There are areas where the children can be active, be quiet and rest. The school has excellent outdoor area provision. This has a positive effect on the children’s development. Being outdoors offers opportunities for doing things in different ways and on different scales than when indoors. It offers the children to explore use their senses and be physically active and exuberant. We plan activities and resources for the children to access outdoors that help the children to develop in all 6 areas of learning.

At the school we recognize that children learn and develop in different ways and at different rates. We believe that all our children matter and we give them every opportunity to achieve their best. We do this by taking account of our children’s range of life experiences when planning for their learning.

Active learning occurs when children are motivated and interested. Children need to have some independence and control over their learning. As children develop their confidence they learn to make decisions. It provides children with a sense of satisfactions as they take ownership of their learning.

Children should be given opportunity to be creative through all areas of learning, not just through the arts. Adults can support children’s thinking and help them to make connections by showing genuine interest, offering encouragement, clarifying ideas and asking open questions. Children can access resources freely and are allowed to move them around the classroom to extend their learning.

Different setting:

The Montessori’s’ principle insight was that children are not merely ‘small adults’ they have distinct and different thought processes and desires. What we may call play is a young child’s work. The role of the educator is to provide the child with the opportunity to fulfil their desire to learn, both academically and socially. To use the latest educational catch phrases, Montessori education is “multi-modality, differentiated instruction.” (Ref).

The Montessori method is split into five ‘areas’. ‘Practical Life’, ‘Sensorial’, ‘Mathematics’, ‘Language’, and ‘Cultural’. The Practical Life area improves the child’s coordination and motor control, developing the pincer grip which is a requirement of writing. The Sensorial area refines the child’s senses of the world around them, again preparing for language, and also for maths, serializing length and other physical characteristics. The Mathematics area provides numerical concepts in concrete form, using beads, cards, and spindles. The Language area teaches letters, then their phonetic sounds, and then builds words. The Cultural area extends the child’s understanding beyond the classroom, teaching science, geography, botany, zoology and history.

The teachers at a Montessori school observe their children in great detail asking the questions, what does this child understand? What is the next concept this child needs to learn?

Obviously, a Montessori classroom will not look like a normal classroom. Rarely, if ever, will you find the whole class sitting with their books out looking at the teacher show them how to fill in a worksheet. Instead you will see children, some in groups, some by themselves, working on different concepts, and the teacher sitting with a small group of children, usually on the floor around a mat.

Some people talk about the lack of “structure” in a Montessori Classroom. They hear the word “freedom” and think “chaos” or “free for all”. They seem to think that if all children are not doing the exact same thing at the exact same time that they can’t possibly be working or that they will be working only on the things that they want and their education will be lopsided. Children will be given a work plan or a contract and will need to complete an array of educational activities just like in a more traditional classroom. The main difference being that the activities will be at each child’s “maximum plane of development”, will be presented and practiced in a way that the child understands, and the child will have the freedom to choose which he/she does first.

LO2 – Communication – Evaluate the importance of effective communication with babies and young children.

Communication is a complex and important skill that is fundamental to human relationships, because humans appear primed to communicate from birth and we often underestimate the skills that must be developed if babies and children are to become sociable and effective communicators. The play experiences children need in order to become skilful communicators are those that encourage them to want to communicate with others and include not only verbal but also non-verbal responses such as movement of their whole body.

LO3 – Differentiation

Differentiation is the recognition of and commitment to plan for student differences. A differentiated classroom provides different avenues to acquire content, to process or make sense of information and ideas, and to develop products.

Differentiation can be referred to as an educational philosophy that requires teachers to modify their learning, teaching and assessment whilst adjusting the curriculum to the needs of children with SEN rather than expecting pupils to fit the existing curriculum (Cole 2008 cited in Rogers, 2007).

The history of differentiation in education can be linked to two influential psychologists. Vygotsky proposed that learning can be mediated through the intervention of others. This recognises that by having knowledge of what a child already knows should inform the next stage of learning and what interventions are necessary to enable successful learning. Gardner (1993) proposed a ‘theory of multiple intelligences’ in which people have different intelligences and learn in many different ways. Gardner conceived that schools should therefore offer ‘individual-centred education’ (Florian et al, 2006 cited in Humphreys and Lewis 2008b) in which learning is tailored to the child’s individual needs.

Lo4 – 2 different early year curricula.

The idea behind Forest Schools is that it is a long term sustainable approach to outdoor play and learning. It’s about providing children with holistic development; it looks at every area in terms of their physical development, intellectual development and cognitive skills, also looking at their linguistic and language, both verbal and non-verbal. Forest Schools also looks at their emotional, social development and spiritual development.

What’s interesting about the culture in some Scandinavian countries is being in and out doors are a part of how the family and culture works. But in Britain children are getting more and more isolated from the natural world. Forest Schools is very much about giving children the opportunity to learn in and from nature.

Forest Schools is also about free play, it’s about self directed learning but it’s also about allowing the children to develop freedom and choice in order to be able to become competent and effective adults.

In Every Chid Matters it states that ‘every child should make an equal contribution’. (Ref). The only way that children can do this is if they have sound self-esteem and sound emotional well-being and sound social skills and function in as many social situations as they choose. Forest Schools is about allowing children given their developmental dependant age the ability to be able to achieve social comfort.

Forest Schools is an inspirational process that allows children to access the outdoor space in order to grow and develop into successful, happy rounded individuals. There is a misconception that Forest Schools is for Early Years; some of the most successful projects have been with older young people, adults with mental health problems and children in secondary education. (Ref). The ……….about allowing children and young people to grow with a sense of value of who they are and giving a positive contribution. It’s all about using nature as the teacher as opposed to being adult lead.

LO5 – Activity Plans and Evaluation.

Plan – (see appendix …….), Rationale behind choice of activity and Learning Objective.

This activity was chosen as the reception class were looking at the Handa Surprise book and focusing on healthy foods. The day the activity was carried out a new student was present with his mother which added extra pressure for all the professionals. The learning environment offered opportunities for the children to experience tasting different fruits as the kitchen area was adjacent to the table in which the activity was carried out. It setting also had a large copy of the story so all the children were able to see the story (for Communication, Language and Literacy) and had the provisions to create the masks (Creative Development).

I thought the topic would lend itself to the next day’s topic of healthy lunchboxes, which the whole school were focusing on. I chose to focus on any existing knowledge the children may have of different fruits and try and extend their understanding of way fruits are good for us. This leads into Early Learning Goal (…) of ‘…………………………..'(QCA, 2000).

My main learning objective, therefore, was to introduce the children to new fruits and tastes, using language and listening to each other to find out what each child thought, in an accessible and enjoyable environment, so to encourage respect for each other’s views and turn taking.

What happened?

The week before carrying out the activity, i prepared the resources needed in school and discussed the other activities that my fellow practitioners would carry out. This involved printing, cutting and laminating the necessary pictures and masks. Also finding all the different fruits that were in the story. One fruit in particular i was unable to find but i improvised with a fruit drink that was made from the fruit so at least the children were able to taste the favour.

I carried out this activity with a mixed ability group of 9 children. I began by asking the children to wash their hands as they were going to be eating fruit. When all the children were back in their seats, i gave each of them a bowl and a cup. I asked the children if they could remember the fruits in the story of Hands Surprise which was read earlier. The children seemed to have a positive attitude about being able to remember. With a small copy of the book i asked the children which was the first fruit that the monkey took out of Handa’s basket. When answered in cut the banana in pieces and gave each child a piece and asked questions such as ‘what does the banana taste like?’ ‘How does it feel?’ ‘Do you like the banana?’ The children gave mostly good descriptions of the fruit and used appropriate vocabulary such as ‘creamy’, ‘slippery’ and ‘lovely’. I carried out the same routine of cutting the fruit into sections and passing a section to each child and asking them to describe what it tasted like and how it felt and whether they enjoyed it. With the Guava fruit which was the fruit i could not purchase i informed the children of the situation and showed them the picture of the fruit on the carton of juice. I gave each child a taste and asked their option, the overall option was that the fruit tasted ‘delicious’ but one child said that they ‘didn’t like it’. The most interesting discussion came when i asked the children what they thought the passion fruit would look like inside, one child said that ‘it might look like an orange’, the same child that said the banana was creamy (extension). Overall most of the children enjoyed the fruit tasting apart from one (standard) child who kept giving negative reactions to the fruit saying that he ‘doesn’t eat fruit at home’. I was happy that a least he tried some which i gave great encouragement to.

While the fruit was being eaten i passed around picture cards of the fruit and asked each child in turn to pronounce the name of the fruit after me, most children had no problems with the pronunciations but one child struggled with ‘avocado’.

I encouraged each child to have a little taste of each fruit and if they didn’t like it then they didn’t have to eat it and ‘well done for trying’ was always encouraged. The extension child suggested that ‘trying different fruits was good for us’, ‘as fruit was good for us’. Which then lead a child that was refusing to try a certain fruit, tried it? At one point the dismissive child asked if we were finished and could go and play.

Once all the children had tried all the fruit and we had discussed them and i asked the final question which was everyone favourite and their least favourite, the overall result being orange best, avocado worst. I explained that the children could go put their bowls in the sinks and wash their hands and then go and play.

Evaluation.

I believe this activity resulted in all the children achieving the main learning objective of introducing the children to new fruits and tastes, using language and listening to each other to find out what each child thought and to encourage respect for each other’s views and turn taking. The idea that the children’s peer could influence the decision of another child ……………………………..

An effective learning environment does not leave children entirely to their own devices, but builds on what they can already do and challenges them to try new things. The role of the practitioner is vital in this process and sits within the social constructivist approach to learning. This theory was popularised by Vygotsky (1978, in Smith, 1999), who identified the ‘zone of proximal development’, (ZPD) as being a reason why children’s learning can be helped by others. Smith (1999) explained:

‘The ZPD is the distance between the child’s developmental level and his or her potential level of development under the guidance of adults or more competent peers’ (Smith, 1999: 429).

As this was a ‘hands on’ activity, the children were taking an active part in their own learning progress. It was Piaget (1966, in Smith, 1999) who first postulated that the child is a ‘lone scientist’, processing information and constructing meaning through encounters with their world. Most of the children focused their attention to the fruits they enjoyed using positive language and engaging in the ability to use words to describe what something tasted like or felt. One child tried to extend the activity to see who the fruit sounded when bounced on the table saying ‘ the orange sounded like a ball’, this then encouraged the children to continue testing the sounds of fruit by knocking on them. The (extension) child asked ‘if there was nothing in the fruit would it sound the same’?

The relative success of this activity highlighted that children of this age learn best through concrete experiences. When working with children of this age group it is preferable to adopt teaching strategies which allow for plenty of practical activities and exploration.

The fact that one child lost interest in the activity, implies that I might need to develop this activity in some way to keep the attention of the less able or enthusiastic children. This was particularly notice when asking some children to use descriptive words to describe the fruit, as some children just repeated the word that their peer before them used. The language of one child was not as developed as the other children in the group, and this excluded them from full participation.

On reflection, a different teaching strategy could have been employed to involve them more fully into the activity. It could be that they were more of a kinaesthetic learner than the others, as he keep looking at the children playing, so maybe using an activity that involved movement may have kept his attention.

Also the activity was extended longer than anticipated as i had the cut each individual fruit into segments. If this activity was done again in the future maybe cutting the fruit into segments before the activity took place would be a more successful approach.

As a result of this evaluation, i would have changed my plan to include more opportunities for the children to be involved in the activity in a more physical way, perhaps by using safety acceptable knives the children could help me cut the fruit. This may help some of the children with their fine motor skills as well. Also another way of engaging less able children might include asking them to participate in the preparation of the resources, maybe by asking them to bring their favourite fruit from the story in so they feel they have a more ‘personal’ involvement. Finally, the only thing I would change would be to ask the children to put on aprons, as it got very messy, including me, as i too got very messy.

Conclusion

In conclusion recently there has begun to be a realization in the UK that play is important. There has been a surge of initiatives funded by government , such as Arts Council projects on creativity in schools and communities, the publication of Excellence and Enjoyment by the National Primary Strategy (DfES, 2003). This is putting a major emphasis on the importance of embedding the Foundation Stage and the Birth to Three Matters Framework in the work of local authorities across the maintained, voluntary and private sectors.

Increasingly, research findings indicate the importance of the first years of education. Children’s ability to use spoken and written language fluently and with confidence and for a range of purposes enables them to access at an early age what education has to offer. The adults working in early year’s settings and classrooms have both the opportunity and responsibility to affect the future learning of their pupils in a far reaching and powerful way.

Play is, it seems, about the universe and everything. It often has to function in a hostile environment, but when it is encouraged, supported and extended, it makes a major contribution to, and sophisticated impact on the development of individuals and humanity as a whole.

From 2008, child minders, nurseries, pre-schools and reception classes are required to pursue the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS), and will be checked under this framework by OfSTED. The EYFS has been planned to provide support and direction to all those working with children up to the age of 5 in how best to enable children to feel safe and supported and to extend their learning and development.

In EYFS, stress is placed upon understanding that each child and their family are unique, with different needs and concerns. Effective practitioners should be asking themselves ‘What sort of child is this and how am I going to support their development and learning?’ The EYFS has rightly set the relationship between practitioner and child at its core because we have a very special, influential and vitally important role as we support, facilitate, model, reflect, evaluate and engage with children along their learning journey.

Children’s learning and development is presented in 6 areas (personal social & emotional development; communication, language and literacy; problem solving, reasoning and numeracy; knowledge and understanding of the world; creative development; physical development) which bring together the skills, knowledge and experiences appropriate for babies and children as they grow, learn and develop.

Children’s development is presented under six overlapping phases (birth – 11 months, 8 – 20 months, 16 – 26 months, 22 – 36 months, 30 – 50 months and 40 – 60 months). This overlap is intended to emphasise the fact that there can be big differences between the development of children in different areas of learning, and between children of similar ages.

I particularly like this fact as it reinforces the important principle that children learn and develop in different ways and at varying rates but also that all areas of learning and development are equally important and inextricably interconnected.

E2 –
Forest Schools

The are a number of points where Forest Schools encourage and inspire children of any age through positive outdoor experiences.

Forest Schools aim to develop:

The personal development of the children so that there personal confidence, self esteem, self awareness, and social skills improve

A wider range of physical skills

Understanding of natural and man made environments

Understanding of environmental issues

Self Regulation, Intrinsic Motivation, Empathy, Good social communication skills, Independence and a positive mental attitude.

Forest School create a unique learning environment that is used to encourage a range of individuals, community groups and larger organisations to utilise their local open space for interactive play, health, recreation and personal development uses. The children would be encouraged to learn through play in the forests and develop their imagination through play

Forest Schools originated in Sweden in the 1950s when children started to be taught outside. They learnt about the natural world and the environment through songs, stories and practical activities with woodland materials. The first Forest School in Britain was initiated by Bridgwater College ten years ago.

Forest Schools use the outdoors to help children learn practical and social skills as well as independence. From as young as five years old, children can sit around a camp fire and learn how important it is to treat fire respectfully.

Child Care and Education – pg 289

Reggio Emilia

Started in Italy in the late 1940’s after the war. The aim is based on the ideas that a child is creative competent learner who discover in collaboration with adults and other children so they develop social learning. The basic idea of Reggio is believing in the importance of discovery, both indoor and outdoor, learning environments are stimulating and that children should reflect on their learning and document their own learning.

There are seven points that Reggio is based on

Creative thinking / using their imagination

Exploring and discovery / finding things out on their own

Free play

Following childrens interests / doing what they enjoy

Valuing, encouraging all ways children express themselves

Asking children to talk about ideas and to expand on them

Asking children to re-visit their ideas

There are also some central approaches to the Reggio Emelia approach

Low adult to children ratios

Teachers as learners and reflective practioners.

Child Care and Education – pg 289

Child Development – pg 155

What is child development theories?

Child development theories are an organized set of principles that are designed to explain and predict something. Over the years, psychologists and other scientists have devised a variety of theories with which to explain observations and discoveries about child development.

In addition to providing a broader framework of understanding, a good theory permits educated guesses-or hypotheses-about aspects of development that are not yet clearly understood.

These hypotheses provide the basis for further research. A theory also has practical value. When a parent, educator, therapist, or policymaker makes decisions that affect the lives of children, a well-founded theory can guide them in responsible ways.

Child development theories can also limit understanding, such as when a poor theory misleadingly emphasizes unimportant influences on development and underestimates the significance of other factors.

It is therefore essential that theories are carefully evaluated and tested through research, whose results often lead to improvements in theoretical claims. In addition, when theories are compared and contrasted, their strengths and limitations can be more easily identified.

There are four primary child development theories: psychoanalytic, learning, cognitive, and sociocultural. Each offers insights into the forces guiding childhood growth.

Each also has limitations, which is why many developmental scientists use more than one theory to guide their thinking about the growth of children.

Below are some major child development theorists and their theories.

Arnold Gesell
Main Theory

Development genetically determined by universal “maturation patterns” which occur in a predictable sequence.

Gesell’s classic study involved twin girls, both given training for motor skills but one given training for longer than the other.

There was no measurable difference in the age at which either child acquired the skills, suggesting that development had happened in a genetically programmed way, irrespective of the training given.

A child learns to whether or not an adult teaches him/her, suggesting physical development at least is largely pre-programmed.

By studying thousands of children over many years, Gesell came up with “milestones of development” – stages by which normal children can accomplish different tasks. These are still used today.

Sigmund Freud
Main Theory

Experiences in early childhood influence later development. Assumes sexual factors are major factors, even in early childhood.

Freud’s work was heavily criticised for lack of substantial evidence. He regarded basic sexual instincts as being the driving force behind virtually all behaviour.

He regarded the development of personality as being the balance between the Id, the Ego and the SuperEgo. The Id strives for unrealistic gratification of basic desires, the SuperEgo strives for unrealistic moral responsibility and conscience while the Ego acts to compromise these two opposing forces.

There are many unproven aspects to Freud’s work, for example Freud theorised that characteristics like generosity or possessiveness were related to childhood factors like parental attitudes to toilet training.

B.F.Skinner
Main Theory

Reinforcement and punishment moulds behaviour. Children are conditioned by their experiences.

Skinner maintained that learning occurred as a result of the organism responding to, or operating on, its environment, and coined the term operant conditioning to describe this phenomenon.

He did extensive research with animals, notably rats and pigeons, and invented the famous Skinner box, in which a rat learns to press a lever in order to obtain food.

Alfred Bandura
Main Theory

Learning takes place by imitation. This differs from Skinner’s “conditioning” because there is more emphasis on inner motivational factors.

Bandura’s theory known as “Social Learning Theory” has been renamed “Social Cognitive Theory” to accomodate later developments of the theory.

Bandura is seen by many as a cognitive psychologist because of his focus on motivational factors and self-regulatory mechanisms that contribute to a person’s behaviour, rather than just environmental factors.

This focus on cognition is what differentiates social cognitive theory from Skinner’s purely behaviouristic viewpoint.

Lev Vygotsky
Main Theory

Development is primarily driven by language, social context and adult guidance.

Lev Vygotski was a Russian psychologist who died prematurely. His most productive years were at the Institute of Psychology in Moscow (1924-34), where he developed ideas on cognitive development, particularly the relationship between language and thinking.

His writings emphasised the roles of historical, cultural, and social factors in cognition and argued that language was the most important symbolic tool provided by society.

Jean Piaget
Main Theory

Development takes place in distinct stages of cognitive development. Adults influence but the child is building their own thinking systems.

Jean Piaget is known for his research in developmental psychology. He studied under C. G. Jung and Eugen Bleuler.

He was involved in the administration of intelligence tests to children and became interested in the types of mistakes children of various ages were likely to make.

Piaget began to study the reasoning processes of children at various ages. Piaget theorized that cognitive development proceeds in four genetically determined stages that always follow the same sequential order.

Erik Erikson

Theorist Erik Erikson also proposed a stage theory of development, but his theory encompassed development throughout the human lifespan.

Erikson believed that each stage of development is focused on overcoming a conflict. Success or failure in dealing with conflicts can impact overall functioning.

E3 –

The guidance states that “Play underpins the delivery of all the EYFS” and there are constant reminders throughout the guidance for practitioners to facilitate child initiated learning through play. As the keystone to being an effective practitioner is tuning into children’s interests and thoughts so that we can tap into what they know and love to stimulate and inspire, play is also at the heart of the EYFS’s delivery and can be so motivational for everyone involved. Just as an onion adds essential flavour to hundreds of recipes, so too can the EYFS. By using it, delving deep into the many layers and learning from all of the supporting materials we can enrich young childrens’ lives by being reflective and well equipped facilitators enjoying the learning journey with them!

The Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) is about improving life chances for all children, by giving them the opportunity to have the best possible start, regardless of their family circumstances or the setting they attend. The EYFS will be designed to deliver improved outcomes for all children, across every area of learning and development. We know that there are particular gains for disadvantaged children from early access to high quality care and education and we will focus on closing the achievement gap between those children and others.

2. Through the Childcare Bill, we seek to establish a single coherent phase of development for all young children, as announced in the 10 year strategy for childcare ‘Choice for parents, the best start for children’. We will provide a flexible system that fosters and supports their development from birth, where they will interact with adults that are appropriately trained and experienced; in environments that are safe, caring and loving. The approach of practitioners will be age appropriate, ensuring that there are different activities for children of different ages and at different stages of their development. Through the EYFS parents can feel secure knowing that all settings will allow children to progress at a pace that’s right for them as individuals, taking account of any particular needs they may have.

3. For young children, care and learning are indistinguishable. Care cannot be considered to be of good quality unless it provides opportunities for children to learn and develop. Learning cannot be considered to be of good quality unless it is provided within an environment where all children feel safe, secure and included. By applying the same system to all providers we will ensure a level of consistency and quality across all settings. The child’s needs do not change depending on the setting and nor should the standards and quality experienced by the child

The Early Years Foundation Stage – is a central part of the ten year childcare strategy:

– Ensuring a consistent approach to care and learning from birth to the end of the Foundation Stage.

– Incorporating elements of the National Standards.

– Has a play-based approach

– Focuses on stages of development rather than chronological, age based teaching and learning

The overarching aim of the EYFS is to help children achieve the Every Child Matters five outcomes:

1. Staying safe

2. Being healthy

3. Enjoying and achieving

4. Making a positive contribution

5. Achieving economic wellbeing

The EYFS aims to help children achieve the 5 outcomes by:

1. Setting standards

2. Promoting Equality of opportunity

3. Creating a framework for partnership working

4. Improving quality and consistency

5. Laying a secure foundation for future learning and development

PRINCIPLES

The EYFS principles are grouped into 4 themes

1. A unique child.

Principle – Every child is a competent learner from birth who can be resilient, capable, confident and self-assured

2. Positive Relationships

Principle – Children learn to be strong and independent from a base of loving and secure relationships with parents and/or a key person

3. Enabling Environments

Principle – The environment plays a key role in supporting and extending children’s development and learning

4. Learning and Development

Principle – Children develop and learn in different ways and at different rates and all areas of learning and development are equally important and inter-connected.

WELFARE REQUIREMENTS

There are 5 Welfare Requirements

1. Safeguarding and promoting children’s welfare

2. Suitable person

3. Suitable premises, environment and equipment

4. Organisation

5. Documentation

LEGAL REQUIREMENTS

For each Welfare requirement there are:

General requirements

Specific requirements

Statutory Guidance to which providers should have regard (Further information is provided in the Practice guidance)

STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT

There are six stages of development and each one is matched, in all 6 areas of learning, to a photo of a baby or child in the practice guidance. The stages overlap:

1. Birth to 11 months

2. 8 to 20 months

3. 16 to 26 months

4. 22 to 36 months

5. 30 to 50 months

6. 40 to 60 months (can be 71 mths for a September born child)

Stages are more important than ages and every area of development IS EQUALLY IMPORTANT;

Physical, cognitive, linguistic, spiritual, social, emotional.

In order for children to learn successfully they need to be in a secure environment which is physically comfortable. Children can spend long days in a setting and need to have space where they can relax and rest.

Babies and young children make learning connections in their brains faster and better in an enriched environment. Adult interactions which help support and extend their learning make a big difference to learning, as does physical activity during the session.

E4 and B1 –

The theorists, Piaget, and Vygotsky, both had views on the significance about the role of play and learning in the early years, and both found it to be a crucial part of a child’s development. Piaget’s idea of self discovery proposed that children needed minimal adult interactions to help them learn through life, this was his lone scientist theory’ (Lindon 2001). He believed that the children tried, without adult help, to make sense of the world and understand what was going on around them. He had similar thoughts on his theory of child language acquisition. Not only this, but he had a notion that play was a window that reflected the goings on in the life of a child. However, Vygotsky argued differently. He proposed that children are social learners, and liked to explore and discover new things with the help of adults, not without. This was his scaffolding theory and the zone of proximal development’, the ZPD (Whitebread, 2003). Furthermore, Bruner argued that when the children are older they stop learning new things, and start to build on what they already know (Lindon, 2001). If children were left to teach themselves, as Piaget suggests, the children may not learn all they need to know, such as Maths. The subject of Maths needs adult interaction and teachings thus making sure that the children understand correctly, and that the necessary information is being learnt. Furthermore, some children, even in a play situation, will continually return to the same area and objects because it is their comfort zone. Evidently this way the child will fail to benefit from the learning

A number of ‘popular theorists’ had different approaches to a child’s learning and development which is linked to intellectual and social development.

Bowlby popularised the ideas that a baby must have an emotional bond with its mother during the first two years of its life. He said that if this bond was not developed during that time there would be a negative impact for the child and would lead to a lack of ‘social, emotional and intellectual’ development. Bowlby was the first theory to focus on the formation of parent-child relationships. It explained the connection between relationships that occur early in our lives and those that happen later, including romantic ones. Attachment theory has generated thousands of scientific studies, and has led to changes in many childcare policies, such as those allowing parents to stay with their children in hospitals.

Bandura took a very different approach to developmental psychology and demonstrated that children learn development from role models. Bandura’s approach is an extension of behavioral theories which emphasise the way we learn behaviour from others, our environment, experiences and so on. Bandura was particularly interested in the way children learn new behaviours through observing and imitating role models. They learn from sibling, brothers, sisters,friends.

Bandura’s Social Learning Theory modified traditional learning theory which was based on stimulus-response relationships. It considered learning to be no different among infants, children, adults, or even animals. Bandura’s approach is influential in the treatment of problem behaviors and disorders.

Piaget was cognitive development. His influential approach to child development is called the structuralist approach. He argued that younger children do not have the capabilities to think in the same way as older children and those children have to go through a process of cognitive development in order to achieve the abilities of an older child or adult. Piaget believed that there are a number of stages that all children go through in the same order. Piaget argues that these stages are instinctive.

Piaget’s Cognitive-Developmental Theory created a revolution in human development theory. He proposed the existence of four major stages, or “periods,” during which children and adolescents master the ability to use symbols and to reason in abstract ways.

Learning can be based on a spiral approach (Janet Moyles 1989) which starts with free-play which allows children to explore e.g. To explore water using equipment provided. If the child is ready the model progresses to structured play where the teacher uses his/her observations of the children’s freeplay to direct the children’s exploration e.g. To explore how to change the size of a splash. Can you make a small splash, can you make a big splash? It is important to allow children the opportunity to practise the skill they have mastered through lone and peer supported play.

When the child is ready i.e. can change the size of the splash, the model moves on. The child can then have the opportunity to make sense of what they have learned by making their own decisions and choices to apply the skill to solve a problem e.g To apply their understanding of changing the size of a splash to make a controlled splash. Can they have a competition to see who can make the biggest splash and smallest splash? Children who have not developed the skill to control their splash may need more free-play and directed play. Further opportunity should be given for the child to master their skill. The child can then be further challenged by applying their skill to a different context and/or resources. Which ball/object do they think will makes the biggest/smallest splash? Predict and test. Sequence objects according to the size of splash they make.

“Children’s play reflects their wide ranging and varied interests and pre-occupations. In their play children learn at their highest level. Play with peers is important for children’s development.”

Through play our children explore and develop learning experiences, which help them make sense of the world. They practice and build up ideas, and learn how to control themselves and understand the need for rules. They have the opportunity to think creatively alongside other children as well as on their own. They communicate with others as they investigate and solve problems. They express fears or re-live anxious experiences in controlled and safe situations.

Active Learning

“Children learn best through physical and mental challenges. Active learning involves other people, objects, ideas and events that engage and involve children for sustained periods.”

Active learning occurs when children are motivated and interested. Children need to have some independence and control over their learning. As children develop their confidence they learn to make decisions. It provides children with a sense of satisfactions as they take ownership of their learning.

E5 –

Observing children is different from being alert and noticing what is happening around you. Observations have to be focused and carried out in an order to plan for and assess children in a purposeful manner

The information below gives advice on the following on some principles for observational assessment, and how to put them into practice:

1. Assessment must have a purpose.

2. Ongoing observation of children participating in everyday activities is the most reliable way of building up an accurate picture of what children know, understand, feel, are interested in and can do.

3. Practitioners should both plan observations and be ready to capture the spontaneous but important moments.

4. Judgements of children’s development and learning must be based on skills, knowledge, understanding and behaviour that are demonstrated consistently and independently.

5. Effective assessment takes equal account of all aspects of the child’s development and learning.

6. Accurate assessments are reliant upon taking account of contributions from a range of perspectives.

7. Assessments must actively engage parents in developing an accurate picture of the child’s development.

8. Children must be fully involved in their own assessment.

However observations are only as good as the importance of record keeping as a tool to help practitioners, children and their parents reflect on children’s attainment and progress.

E6 –

A multi professional approach when working with children and parents is important as it helps children not ‘to slip through the net’.

Communication is the biggest part of the multi – professional team, as everyone needs to know what is going on.

The multi professional approach team is made up of a lot of different agencies, they are agencies including Schools and teachers, Hospitals and doctors, Social workers, Police and many more. They all work together to help parents and children to stop tragic cases such as death, child abuse, etc.

Multi professional approach allows professionals share knowledge about a family needs so that the parents don’t have to ask the same questions over and over again.

The professionals are aware of each others roles in supporting the family so that conflicting advice can be minimise. It is essential that each agency communicates well and understands not only there role and responsibilities but the others agencies as well.

Parents/guardians are the most important people in a child’s life, and recognise the importance of this. We have a responsible role that involves sharing care of the child with parents/guardians; listen to parents/guardians, as they are the ‘expert’ on their child.

E7 and D1 –

Every Child Matters is a fundamental part of the curriculum. The new aims for the curriculum – agreed by school leaders, teachers and other education professionals – and the new emphasis on personal development are closely linked to Every Child Matters, promoting learners’ wellbeing and enabling them to develop their potential as healthy, enterprising and responsible citizens. The new personal, learning and thinking skills framework seeks to develop the qualities and skills that learners need for success in learning and in life.

Every Child Matters states that every child, whatever their background or circumstances, should have the support they need to: be healthy, stay safe, enjoy and achieve, make a positive contribution, achieve economic wellbeing

These five outcomes need to be at the heart of everything a school does and reinforced through every aspect of its curriculum – lessons, events, routines, the environment in which children learn and what they do out of school.

The following sections, which can be accessed via the links on the left-hand side of this page, look at the place of Every Child Matters within the whole-school curriculum, and at the types of learning experience – both in and outside lessons – that schools can design to meet each outcome.

ECM in the curriculum

Be healthy

Stay safe

Enjoy and achieve

Make a positive contribution

Achieve economic wellbeing

Early Years Curriculum

Early Education

Providers involved in the care and education of young children from birth to five follow statutory guidance from the Department for Children, Schools and Families. This guidance is intended to support practitioners to meet the diverse needs of all children, enabling them to enjoy and achieve.

Children birth to three years

Care, learning and development for babies and children up to three is available at a variety of settings including day nurseries, registered pre schools and childminders. Practitioners use the Birth to Three Matters Framework to support the young children in their care. The Framework:

values and celebrates babies and children

recognises their individuality, efforts and achievements

recognises that all children from birth develop and learning though interaction with people and exploration of the world around them

recognises the ‘holistic’ nature of development and learning

The child is at the centre of the Birth to Three Matters Framework. It identifies four Aspects, which celebrate the skill and competence of babies and young children and highlights the links between growth, learning, development and the importance of the environment in which they are cared for and educated.

These four ‘Aspects’ are

A Strong Child

A Skilful Communicator

A Competent Learner

A Healthy Child

All children, whichever provision they attend, will experience a play based curriculum of planned, independent and adult led activities. These experiences may take place indoors and/or outdoors and will aim to develop knowledge, skills and understanding in the following areas:

Personal, Social and Emotional Development

Helps children to mix and form relationships with individuals and groups, playing and learning co-operatively. Children are supported to develop a positive sense of themselves and an awareness of the needs and feelings of others

Communication, Language and Literacy

Children are supported to develop skills in talking and listening, reading and writing. They are introduced to a rich learning environment where these skills are valued.

Mathematical Development

Mathematical understanding is developed through a variety of practical activities based on every day situations. Children are supported to develop mathematical ideas and use related vocabulary while taking part in sorting, matching, ordering, counting, pattern making and working with numbers, shapes and measures.

Knowledge and Understanding of the World

Children are encouraged to be curious, to ask questions, to experiment and solve problems to help them make sense of the world they live in. A variety of practical experiences build the foundation for later learning about science, design and technology, information and communication technology, history, geography and religious education.

Physical Development

Young children are supported to develop physical control, co- ordination and manipulation, confidence and ability to move in different ways and handle large and small equipment. Children learn how their bodies work and how to stay active, safe and healthy.

Creative Development

Children have opportunities to take part in a range of creative experiences. As their imagination develops they have opportunities to communicate and express their ideas and feelings in a number of ways through artwork, music, dance and role play.

These six areas of learning are of equal importance and through activities and experiences children learn and develop in a holistic manner.

E8 –

We recognise that p

b. The basic concept of Piaget’s theory of cognitive development.

As we know, the famous theory of cognitive development was found by Jean Piaget. He was born in 1896 (Newkirk, 2009). Newkirk also mentioned that Piaget was a theorists and also a biologist. Besides,the author reported that Piaget did observing his own children and attracted to changes that occured and developed in children’s mind and the factors behind these changes. In addition, Gartrell (2011) also stated that Piaget’s method by questioning the children is called as clinical method. Children started to develop their understanding through their surrounding based on four stages of cognitive development. As mentioned by Gartrell the stages are the sensorimotor stage, preoperational stage, concrete operational stage and lastly formal operations stage.

The first stage is sensorimotor stage which starts when the babies were born until age of 2 years old while second stage starts around the age of 2 to 7 years (Santrock, 2011). The author also claimed about the other stages, that are the third stage, concrete operational stage which lasts from 7 until 11 or 12 years old and lastly moving to the fourth stage is formal operations stage. Compared to the other three stages earlier which involving babies and children, this last stage is involving with the adolescence and adulthood. This is the highest stage in cognitive development because this is where a person can make such reasoning and hypothesis (Santrock, 2011) for example, not only concrete events but also towards abstract events such as feelings or inferencing scientific experiments.

Furthermore, Santrock (2011) proposed that there are two basic tendencies that will go together with these four stages, which are organization and adaption. Ormrod (2011) stated that organization is possibility of a person to handle their process of thinking. It is also called as schemes which means the building block of intelligent behavior. Next, adaption is the process of an individual to adapt to the environment (Ormrod, 2011). In the same way, Ormrod stated that there are two basic processes in adaption which are assimilation and accommodation.

According to Krause, Bochner and Duchesne, cognition is the mental processes involved in perceiving, attending to, understanding and recalling information’ (2007, p43). Piaget’s theory of cognitive is underline into the consciousness of mind and thinking. As children are developing, their way of thinking started to change from time to time accordingly to the four stages. Piaget was not really interested into the knowledge having by the children but he was more fascinated by the way of children think, observe their surrounding and how they express it into speeches (Krause et al., 2007). The authors too found that Piaget and his theory are important because he is the first theorists that came out with such theory about development of children from the aspect of cognitive and his idea is still be using untill now even though it has been years.

c. Discuss how the Piaget’s theory apply to child development.

Self development is very important in children’s life because it develop in them while they are growing up. In Piaget’s theory of cognitive development, he focused of four stages of children development that are, sensorimotor stage as the first, secondly is preoperational stage, next concrete operational stage and last but not least formal operations stage.

As explained earlier, sensorimotor stage is occured from the birth untill the age of 2 years. According to Krause et al.,(2007), infants in this stage will begin to develope their reflexes by doing some motor activities and senses. They are trying to understand the world around them. For example, infants will show happy expression or laughing when we are teasing and cuddling with them, this shows that infants started to make sense things around them but with limited abilities because it is only based on what they get through their senses. In sensorimotor, there are sub-stages that divided into 6 categories, that are reflexes, primary circular reactions, secondary circular reactions, coordination of reactions, tertiary circular reactions and early representional thought (Brenda, 2010). The first sub-stage is reflexes, according to Brenda (2010) this sub-stage is occured from the birth of the infants until 1 month old. During this stage, infants understand their surrounding by using simple reflexes for example they will starting to smile. Next, primary circular reactions sub-stage is when the infants are 1 to 4 months. Variety of actions will be perform. For instance, infants are sucking his or her thumb, and as a result they will repeat the same actions because it pleasure them. As it goes on, third sub-stage is secondary circular reactions which occured during 4 to 8 months. Brenda (2010) mentioned in this sub-stage, the infants will be doing the same actions but it extends out to the environment such as replacing sucking their thumbs with rubber toys. In other words the infants are having improvement in their reactions. Moreover, in fourth sub-stage which is coordination of reactions from the age of 8 to 12 months. They will begin to show clear actions and observe others behavior other than starting to develop ability in recognizing the things that had been shown to them. As example, instead of sucking thumb, infants will replace it with their toys. They may squeeze their rubber toys, when it goes “mooo mooo”, they will get excited and squeeze it again. Krause et al.,(2007) proposed that the infants also will understand that their toys are exist even though they cannot be seen or touch it or called it as “object permanance”. For example, a doll at first was played by infant, when we put and hide it under blanket the infant will be able to look for it. Infants who do not reach this sub-stage will not be able to look for it, but they will just not realize it. As the infants are growing up to become toddlers, the sub-stages also moving to the next, tertiary secular reactions where occured during toddler age 12 to 18 months. This is the time where toddlers will learn the concept of trial-error experiments with the purpose of getting attention (Brenda, 2010). Specifically, one of the activity might be doing by toddlers is hitting fork and spoon on the dining table, just to know what will happen, what sound will come out, and what are the reactions they will get from others. Krause et al. called this process as ‘goal-directed or intentional action’ (2007, p46). Last but not least sub-stage is early representional talk, from the toddlers at age of 18 until 24 months old (Krause et al., 2007). Based on the authors, this last sub-stage is where we can see the toddlers start to imitate others. During this stage, people around them need to be careful and only if possible showing them the good side especially their parents. This is because since parents are the closest people in toddlers life, they will observe what their parents are doing. For example, if the mothers usually sweeping the house at the morning, the toddlers will observe it and will do the same action of sweeping the house even though it is without the broom. As I experienced this too, during my visits to my auntie’s home, she has a 19 months old toddlers. I realized that her child keep following my way of reading magazines and drinking coffee from my mug. Even though the objects are not with the baby, but she followed my actions. In my opinion, parents need to get close with toddler to help their growth and try to play game with them such as peek-a-boo game because this will help the children to strenghten their “object-permanance” ability and moving to the next stages as Piaget had observed.

The second stage that apply to child development is preoperational stage, which occured within the age of 2 to 7 years old. Newkirk (2009) proposed that children in this stage will develop from several aspects. They will be more capable in the usage of language skills for instance they can explain the objects by replacing it with pictures or words. But they still not be able to speak like adult, they can at least use one or two-words sentences to delivered messages. According to Newkirk, imagination level of children in this stage will usually increase and they are more curious to all things instead of being logical. Unlikely the first stage, in this second stage children will spend more of their time by putting role while they are playing. For instance, children always pretend a box is a house for them to shelter. Even myself experienced that during my childhood. I built my so-called ‘home’ by using boxes and I create my own ‘family members’ using my dolls to stay in that house, I even pretend cooked meals for my ‘family’. This prove that children’s imagination during this stage is very high but they still need supervision from parents in case they are exposed to unappropriate elements. Krause et al. (2007) noted that there are three main characteristics of preoperational stage which are egocentrism, centration and animism. The author define egocentric as the person who is unable to share another person’s idea or view because the person considered that all view are the same with he or she. Piaget’s had done with the Three Mountain Tasks model experiments, and as the result the children expects that the person on other side of the model is seeing the same view as them (Krause et al., 2007). Next is centration, the authors described the meaning as the children focus on one feature of problems while ignoring other features. For example, children will not understand if we tell them “Your sister is my daughter” because their ability is limited. Moving on, the last characteristic is animism. In this characteristic, the authors claimed that children belief that all things have lives. They considered inanimate objects have emotions and feelings like them. For example, a girl who age 3 years old always talk with her teddy bear as the teddy bear is alive and answers her.

Piaget’s third stage in child development is concrete operational stage which is from the age of 7 to 11 years (Santrock, 2011). During this stage, children are able to logically think about the concrete events and starting to eliminate their egocentrism which means they started to learn to view other’s perspective too. Even though they are getting capable in the usage of logic but they still having the difficulty in understanding the hypothetical concepts (Krause et al., 2007). The authors also claimed that there are several processes in this stage that involve in child development, that are reversibility where the children have the ability to think about the reverse event such as in mathematical solving problems where they need to add and subtract and add it back, secondly is seriation which menas the ability to mentally put things in order according to its features for example size, weight, and height. Next is compensation, where the children have the ability see that something is increase because of something is decrease such as the height is increasing because of the width s decreasing and vice versa. Besides, the fourth is classficiation which means the ability that children have to name and identify the sets or group of the objects by its features such as size, colours and appearance. Class inclusion is the fifth processes mentioned by the authors which bring the meaning of ability to understand that a small amount of groups can be combine to form a large group as Krause et al. called it as ‘multiple classification’ (2007, p53). For example a car can be include into it’s brand name such as Proton or under large group of vehicles. Last but not least the processes found by Krause et al. (2007) is conservation, whereby children at last know that quantities, or lenghts are not related at all to the arrangement or appearance of the things. For example, a child is presented with two same sized of bowls filled with flour, but when one of the full bowl flour is pour into jar with different sized he and she or he will still know that the quantity of the flour is the same either it is in bowl or jar.

Lastly, the fourth stages in Piagetian is formal operations which occur to 11 years old children and beyond (Santrock, 2011). As we can see, this is the highest level of child development in Piaget’s theory as it goes until our adulthood. Santrock stated that in this stages people continue to develop ability of thinking with presence of abstract concept. Logically, children begin to take notes about the possibility of the consequences of every events they experienced and also started to think in a formal way. Besides, Krause et al. (2007) suggested that children in this stage are already know how to use deductive and inductive reasoning. As the author define deductive reasoning as the potentiality of children to use a general principle to determine a specific outcome, on the other hand inductive reasoning is using and observing specific outcome to include general principles. In this final stage also children will develop their problem solving activities. When entering adoloscence, they are able to do systematic planning in their life and also make a hypothesis, inference far better than stages before (Brenda, 2010). Overall, that are the four stages that involve in child development until adolescence.

d. Discuss how the Piaget’s theory apply children in preschool and early primary levels.

Preschool children are basically who are still develop their cognitive abilities in stage two, preoperational. As stated by Krause et al. (2007) regarding applying Piaget’s theory into preschoolchildren who are still in stage two, there will be at least two parties that involved in helping to apply this cognitive theory to children firstly parents, secondly educators or teachers.Moreover, by introduce to children this concept means we are letting them to be independent and explore their world by themselves.

Preschool children who are basically age between 4 to 6 years are in preoperaional stage. As I explained in previous sub-questions, children in this stage has become more capable in obtaining language skills and using it to represent objects but still limited because they cannot reached the events where explanation need to relate with concrete logic. Firstly as parents, they must give freedom to their children especially preschool children to play with their friends since children in this stage will spent more of their time with playing (Krause et al., 2007). Nowadays, majority of parents always having misconceptions, they think that they cannot let their children play too much, in fact they should not too strict in controlling their children. What parents should do is by letting their children play with their friends but make sure to supervision who are their friends. Logically, according to Krause et al., by giving children chance to play, they will explored their world while interacting with friends (2007). Create a safe-mode place for them to play so that they feels your attention towards them, during this process children will encounter some problems. This is the right time to let them be independence by solving their problems but with supervision. Even though at first they might not really capable in solving it but it will be better as they go through this process and get knowledge from what we called as hands-on experiences (Krause et al., 2007). Besides, Ormrod suggested that parents should always communicate with their children especially who are in this stage. This is because children may feel left out if their parents are too busy and even do not have time to spend with them. In other way, this also a good opportunities to increas the level of self-esteem of the children.

On the other hand, teachers also play an important role in applying preoperational stage towards preschool children. Newkirk found out that since children during this stage will usually be in egocentrism state, they do not realize about other perspectives (2009). So, as a teacher need to know how to handle this situation for example letting the children having conversation with the peers in class will enhance their understanding of others’ world or teachers can create a questions and answers session with the preschool students. The purpose of doing that is because to increase the self esteem of children and to let them hear others views too so that their level of egocentrism can be decrease. As an educators,creactivity is needed to attract preschool children in learning such as by using visual aids to stimulate the children’s mind (Newkirk, 2009). Examples of visual aids are like bringing props such as the real fruits if teachers want to teach about type of fruits in class. After finished teaching, teachers can serve the students with the fruits, and let them have the hands-on experience. The author also did mentioned that in order to develop preoperational stage between the children, use things that are different for examples cue cards written words and ask them to create sentences based on cards that they have or teachers can ask the preschool students to work in a group. In addition, interactions with peers will help the preschool children to improve their cognitive development or it is called as disequilibrium (Ormrod, 2011). Why talking with peers can help the children? This is because, logically the children and peers are at the same age level, so they can be more understanding between their group.

How can we know if the children are applying preoperation stage in their cognitive development? Krause et al. (2007) described that the development at each cognitive stages is called as milestones. In this preoperational stage, Krause et al. also reported the children’s milestones development is from the aspect of thinking and language skill whereby they know to replace objects with drawing, words or gestures. As for instance, when children are at shopping mall, they are able to tell their parents by pointing to the things that attract them such as toys and dolls. Besides children also learnt to produce sound for example while they are playing with their soldier toys, they can make sound like “dush dush” to indicate the soldier toys they are playing with are fighting. In contrast, children who do not develop well in this stage will no be able to differentiate between the living things and inanimate objects. For example, they are treating the real cats and cat doll the same as both have feelings, emotions and know how to feel hungry whereas only the living things can feel all that.

In a nutshell, children will reached each stages when the readiness come and they still need to be taught to guide to the right path. Krause et al. (2007) did proposed that teachers and parents should not teach their children the highest level of stages if it is not the right time by means the children are just not ready yet.

e. Summary.

In conclusion, I agreed with propose suggested by Ormrod (2011), Piaget’s theory have its own benefits and disadvantegous. As Piaget’s idea was the first to talk about cognitive development among children, his idea is the famous one and still be used even until today. In my opinion, Piaget’s theory had changed people’s view about children development. Even though as reported by Newkirk (2009), children development are not always moving from each stage according to the age that Piaget’s planned, but they still will moving according to the stage either it is fast or late. Last but not least, implementation of cognitive theory in children development is very effective as it will be very helpful towards the children themselves as this theory help to influence children in the aspects of biological maturation, activities, social experiences and equilibration.