This article was downloaded by: [The University of Manchester Library]On: 13 October 2014, At: 06:58Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Early Child Development and CarePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gecd20

A factor analysis of youngchildren's playOlivia N. Saracho aa Department of Curriculum and Instruction , College ofEducation, University of Maryland , College Park, Maryland,20742, USAPublished online: 09 Jul 2006.

To cite this article: Olivia N. Saracho (1993) A factor analysis of young children's play, EarlyChild Development and Care, 84:1, 91-102, DOI: 10.1080/0300443930840108

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0300443930840108

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions andviews of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. Theaccuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independentlyverified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liablefor any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectlyin connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Early Child Development and Care, Vol. 84, pp. 91-102Reprints available directly from the publisherPhotocopying permitted by license only

© 1993 Gordon and Breach Science Publishers S.A.Printed in the United States of America

A factor analysis of young children's play

OLIVIA N. SARACHO

Department of Curriculum and Instruction, College ofEducation, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland20742, USA

(Received 2 September 1992)

The Play Rating Scale (PRS) was used to observe 2400 three- to five-year-oldchildren's play behaviors. Factor analysis clearly identified two factors, the firstdominated by communication of ideas through parallel play in the physical,manipulative and dramatic forms of educational play and the second byparticipation in physical and in communicative block play. Each scale was reliableand correlations among the items ranged from .10 to .52. The findings haveimportant implications for the study of young children's play and support theconstruct validity of the PRS and the Saracho model on which it is based.

Historically, the issue of play has been debated with both advocates and criticsstrongly justifying their arguments. Nevertheless, current researchers and educatorson play must methodically and decisively document the value of play in children'slives to nationally push the schoolwork toward more play in the school. Researchersand educators must meet the challenge of ensuring the children's rights to play(Spodek & Saracho, 1987).

The issue of the children's educational play needs to be resolved. The national goalto increase academic achievement in the schools can be met through play. There aretwo debated rages. On the one hand, A Nation at Risk (Goldberg & Harvey, 1983)demands that time on task be increased; that is, traditional methods, the basics ofeducation, and an extended school day must be strictly adhered. On the other hand,research shows that play affects cognitive and social development, which ultimatelycan increase academic achievement. The role of play as a learning medium has beenignored. Fortunately, the quantity and quality of research on play supports theimportance of educational play in early development. It has been found that play hasa central role in the adaptability, learning, cognitive development, socioemotionaldevelopment and early education of young children.

Cognitive play can be observed as children transform objects and roles in their playas they simultaneously become cognizant of the original identity and performance ofthe object. The complexity in children's symbolic play develops their ability tosubstitute language for play actions and objects (Saracho, 1986).

Since play is an important component in the children's cognitive development, thisrelationship needs to be explored. In understanding this relationship, four possibleforms of educational play (e.g., physical, manipulative, block and dramatic) and a

91

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:58

13

Oct

ober

201

4

92 O. N. SARACHO

range of social behaviors from children in pre-school classrooms need to be examined.A valid and reliable instrument which assesses the different play behaviors within thefour forms of educational play will be used in settings where children use play toexpress their own learning interest. This research identifies factors underlying theplay of three- to five-year-old children.

METHOD

Subjects and Raters

The subjects consisted of 2400 children ages three, four and five (400 boys and 400girls from each age group). An attempt was made to obtain a heterogeneous sampleby randomly selecting subjects from early childhood classrooms in Head Start, childcare centers, nursery schools and university early childhood programs from differentparts of the country (e.g., California, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, andTexas). This wide range of settings helped to provide children from differentsocioeconomic and ethnic groups. Ten adult males and ten adult females served asraters, and each observed approximately equal numbers of boys and girls. Raterswere given detailed instructions which had been provided by Saracho (1984). Theraters were trained by observing and rating children's play from videotapes in anearly childhood setting which was not used in the present study.

Research Materials

The Play Rating Scale (PRS, Saracho, 1984) was used to observe and record thechildren's play. The PRS has four subscales consisting of four different forms ofeducational play (e.g., physical play, block play, manipulative play and dramaticplay). Each subscale integrates four play behaviors describing the children'sfrequency of play, ability and creativity to communicate ideas, social levels ofparticipation in their play, and manifestation of leadership.

Forms of Educational Play

1. Physical Play involves large actions of children such as running, jumping or riding atricycle.2. Block Play includes the child's use of small unit blocks or the large floor blocks.3. Manipulative Play involves children's handling of relatively small pieces of equip-ment such as puzzles, Cuisenaire rods or peg sets.4. Dramatic Play requires that the child acts out a role which might represent her/hislife experiences (Saracho, 1984, p. 223).

Play Behaviors

1. Communication of ideas. Since language can create symbols, the construction and use

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:58

13

Oct

ober

201

4

A FACTOR ANALYSIS OF YOUNG CHILDREN'S PLAY 93

of a symbols system are considered nonlinguistic media (e.g., graphic, music,gestural). Language performance in conversation or in thinking is not essential insymbolic play. In symbolic play, children are allowed to substitute language withactions and use language as a primary companion to actions. Symbols are codedwhen children communicate meanings. The play behavior, communication of ideas,is recorded when children express their ideas in play using language or symbols suchas a word, picture, gesture, object, or combination of these.2. Social participation. Five of Parten's (1932) sequential social participationcategories are used: solitary play, onlooker behavior, parallel play, associative playand cooperative play.

(a). Solitary play is recorded when children play independently by themselves.Children must be in an isolated area or within speaking distance of other children.They can pursue their own activity without reference to what other children aredoing.

(b). Onlooker is recorded when children spend most of their time looking at othersplay. They can stand or sit within speaking distance of their peers to observe thechildren who are playing.

(c). Parallel play is recorded when children play independently beside otherchildren.

(d). Associative play is recorded when children play with other children. All of themembers of the group engage in a similar or identical activity. Children do notsubordinate their individual interests to those of the group, but they select theiractions to meet their wishes. They merely engage in whatever happens to draw theirattention.

(e). Cooperative play is recorded when division of labor, group censorship andcentralization of control occurs within the group. Children usually play in a groupthat is organized to develop some material product, to achieve some competitive goal,to dramatize situations of adult and group life, or to play formal games.3. Leader or follower. The children's decision on how to engage in the play activity isrecorded. If they initiate their own play activities, their behavior is recorded as leader;while if they rely on others, their behavior is recorded as follower.

Measurement. The PRS provides detailed instructions for recording the observations.Its brief descriptions for each characteristic help the observers achieve higherreliability. The PRS provides both a description and a number for each play behaviorwithin the subscale to denote the quantity and quality of each characteristic.Quantity and quality characteristic measures assist in differentiating between thefrequency with which the characteristic is observed and the degree or intensity of theobserved characteristic, which facilitates reliability.

Reliability. The PRS has high reliability estimates: (1) intra-class correlationsranges from .87 to .95, (2) Spearman-Brown formula yields a reliability estimate of.93, and (3) inter-observer reliability among four observers ranges from .92 to .96.

Procedures

Children were observed for a period of approximately four months. Observers sat in

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:58

13

Oct

ober

201

4

94 O.N.SARACHO

the classroom during the children's play period and recorded the children's play.Observers recorded anecdotal records on 5" X 7" cards to further explore thechildren's play behavior on the PRS. They recorded the children's play behaviors asthey participated in the different educational areas of physical, block, manipulative,and dramatic play. Abbreviated codes for the behaviors most frequently observed inthe different play areas were used to facilitate the recording of play. The cards werecarefully examined throughout in search of similar patterns in the children's play.The different patterns were recorded and tallied to be used to transfer the behaviorsdenned on the play scale. The PRS was used to record the children's form ofeducational play and play behaviors.

Data Analysis

The data on the PRS were analyzed and the results are presented in factor analysisand correlations for each play behavior and form of educational play. Principalcomponents extraction with varimax rotation collapsed the ratings of 16 items intotwo factors. All of the items with loadings greater than .50 were included in eachfactor. According to Kerlinger (1986), with a sample of 200 a loading of .18 issignificant at the .01 level. Some factor analysts perfer loadings with more than .30.For this analysis, a higher degree of relationship (.50) was used. Items in these factorsaccounted for approximately 30% of the variance; while those items not listed underthe unique factors accounted for the remaining variance (including error variance) ofthat variable. Reliability was assessed by computing coefficient alphas on the 16items.

RESULTS

Play Rating Scale

Interrelationships in the children's play were investigated through principal axisfactor analysis with orthogonal (varimax) rotation. Table 1 displays the two factors,Figure 1 presents the factors geometrically, and Table 2 shows the coefficient alphas.

The results shown in Table 1, clearly reveal two factors, the first dominated bycommunication of ideas through parallel play in the physical, manipulative anddramatic forms of educational play and the second by participation in physical and incommunicative block play. An oblique (promax) rotation yielded a similar patternand a correlation of between factors.

Factor I, "Communication of ideas through parallel play in the physical,"manipulative, and dramatic forms of educational play," accounted for 84 percent ofthe total play behaviors rotated variance. The five high-loading items and theirloading on this factor were:

Physical PlayCommunication of ideas .55Social levels .50

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:58

13

Oct

ober

201

4

A FACTOR ANALYSIS OF YOUNG CHILDREN'S PLAY 95

Manipulative PlayCommunication of ideas .64Social Levels .57Leadership .57

Dramatic PlayCommunication of ideas .72Social levels .63Leadership .56

An examination of the high-loading items suggests that young children engaged inthe physical, manipulative and dramatic forms of educational play. They alsocommunicated ideas in parallel play in the manipulative and dramatic play areas.Moreover, the children initiated their own manipulative and dramatic play activitiesas often as they relied on others.

HORIZONTAL FACTOR 1 VERTICAL FACTOR 2

xxxxxx

5 *xX 1X 6XX 8 7 2X <1X 3XXx 13 16* 9 1215 11XX

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Figure 1. Representation of Play Variables and Factors

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:58

13

Oct

ober

201

4

96 O. N. SARACHO

Table

ItemNo.

1 Factor loadings of play

Dimension

items (n = 2400)

Factor

Factor 1

Loadings

Factor 2

1 Frequency of physical play2 Communication of ideas in physical play3 Social levels of participation in physical play4 Leadership in physical play5 Frequency of block play6 Communication of ideas in block play7 Social levels of participation in block play8 Leadership in block play9 Frequency in manipulative play

10 Communication of ideas in manipulative play11 Social levels of participation in manipulative play12 Leadership in manipulative play13 Frequency in dramatic play14 Communication of ideas in dramatic play15 Social level of participation in drmatic play16 Leadership in dramatic play

EigenvaluesProportion of variance accounted for

.15

.55*

.50*

.43- .06

.45

.46

.40

.27

.64*

.57*

.57*

.36

.72*

.63*

.56*4.89

.84

.55*

.40

.33

.89

.69*

.52*

.41

.44

.14

.11

.14

.10

.17

.14

.12

.16

.91

.16

* Factor loadings of more than .50.

Factor II, "Participation in physical and in communicative block play," accountedfor 16 percent of the total rotated factor variance. The three high-loading items andtheir loading on this factor were:

Frequency of physical play .55Frequency of block play .69Communication of ideas in block play .52

An inspection of the high-loading items indicates that the preschool childrenfrequently engaged in physical and block play but communicated ideas in block play.

To present factors and variables geometrically, the factors are identified as the axesand the variables as lines, or vectors, which are drawn in what is called a Cartesiancoordinate space. The factor matrix from which this figure was constructed is fromTable 1. Variables were plotted alone. All weights are positive. Figure 1 contains adiagram of the two factors and sixteen variables. Variables in the plot that arephysically close to a factor are highly related to that factor.

Reliability. The reliability of the children's play behaviors was determined byassessing the generality across items (coefficient alpha). Coefficient alphas were basedon correlations of the children's play behaviors on the items from the PRS. The

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:58

13

Oct

ober

201

4

Table 2 Inter correlation matrix of play items

Variable1 2 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

123456789

101213141516

1.00.40.35.37.39.21.24.20.19.16.10.29.18.16.19

1.00.48.52.12.52.37.37.11.34.35.13.48.33.29

1.00.40.13.33.46.26.11.43.28.19.32.43.27

1.00.14.33.27.44.16.22.37.20.32.24.35

1.00.40.29.30.19.08.01.17.05.06.11

1.00.49.50.13.29.30.12.46.31.27

1.00.36.13.42.26.17.35.44.26

1.00.06.23.41.15.33.27.35

1.00.21.31.25.13.11.16

.41

.49

.13

.47

.30

.31

1.00.33.23.36.47.28

1.00.09.34.30.38

1.00.45.37.42

1.00.52.52

1.00.38 1.00

Figure 1. Representation of Play Variables and Factors

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:58

13

Oct

ober

201

4

98 O. N. SARACHO

ratings on the children's play behaviors were assessed based on the agreement onitems within the children.

Correlations among the play behaviors in the PRS were designed to measure thereliability of these items as shown in Table 2. These correlations vary from . 10 to .52.

Validity. Since the teacher and teacher aide were the most familiar with thechildren, they rated each child using the four five-point subscales in the PRS.Teachers rated each child independently upon completion of the observationschedule. Teacher ratings were summed across subscales and teachers to form fourgroups. The 95% confidence intervals for the means of the four groups did notoverlap. Teacher and teacher aide agreements on each of the subscales were 85%,90%, 82%, and 86%.

Anecdotal Records

Anecdotal records indicated variations in parallel play and an emersion of a newcategory, emergent play behaviors.

Parallel Play. Children were observed using various forms of parallel play in thephysical, manipulative and dramatic play areas. The observers' anecdotal recordssuggested that parallel play, playing next to each other, should be expanded into fivelevels.

Level I: Indifference in Parallel Play. Children engage in parallel play, but do notinteract or have any contact between their peers.Level 2: Awareness in Parallel Play. Children engage in parallel play and become awarethat other children are present.Level 3: Body Language in Parallel Play. Children engage in parallel play and use bodylanguage (eye winking, staring, smiling, sticking out tongues, etc.) as a form of simplesocial play. In this level, children still play parallel to each other, although socialbehaviors are communicated through body language.Level 4: Sharing in Parallel Play. Children engage in parallel play but share materials inan activity using reciprocate or complimentary actions without becoming sociallyinvolved.Level 5: Socializing in Parallel Play. Children engage in parallel play but share materialsin an activity and become socially involved at a minimum level.

Emergent Play Behaviors. A category could be added under emergent play behaviors,where children indicated first signs of play, but their social behaviors were simple andundeveloped. Emergent play behaviors were observed where children visuallyexamined objects and then in an undeveloped mode manipulated them. Emergentplay behaviors also included behaviors where children asked for help and conversedduring simple play.

The study be Bakeman and Brownlee (1980) supports the above observations tosome extent. They found that the metamorphosis from parallel play to associative andcooperative play may occur in a matter of minutes instead of months and that theparallel play of 32 to 42 month-old children seems to operate in the flow of activitiesas a progression to associative and cooperative play.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:58

13

Oct

ober

201

4

A FACTOR ANALYSIS OF YOUNG CHILDREN'S PLAY 99

DISCUSSION

Children's play behaviors were explored in four forms of educational play (e.g.,physical, block, manipulate and dramatic). A valid and reliable instrument on playand anecdotal records were used with children ages three to five. A factor analysisindicated two factors: (1) Communication of ideas through parallel play in thephysical, manipulative and dramatic forms of educational play and (2) Participationin physical and in communicative block play. These factors indicate the importanceof communicating ideas and participating in the different play areas, which requirethe use of a variety of play materials. Therefore, communication of ideas, play areasand play materials will be discussed in the following sections.

Communication of Ideas

Research shows that children develop language through play. When children assumevarious roles during play, they develop social language, flexible and expressive tones,and the comprehension of rules underlying the conversation patterns of the rolesplayed (Martlew, Connolly, McLeod, 1978). Curry (1985) found a relationshipbetween play and language to the development of the sense of self. As childrenacquire language comprehension their symbolic play moves into a more advancedstage. Play and language provides young children with an expressive performance(Saracho, 1986). Children communicate ideas using language or some type oflinguistic media. They use their language and symbolic systems in planning theirthoughts, communicating their ideas and interpreting the ideas of others. Languagein conversation or in thinking is not necessary in logically developing symbolic play.Symbols mentally construct codes to communicate meanings. Children use play toexpress symbolic functioning.

Language promotes social and symbolic play (Saracho, 1986). The enterprisingenigma in the children's symbolic play is based on the children's ability to exerciselanguage as a substitute for actions or as its primary associate. Language playcultivates metalinguistic awareness (Cazden, 1974), which develops the child'scompetence to envision, discuss and invent language. The complicated structure ofchildren's play in their early years of linguistic growth expands on the main object(Lunzer, 1959). Activity with objects is imperative in understanding impartial reality,but using language as a play element is crucial to master language (Cazden, 1974).

Play Materials

In the play areas, children communicate ideas using objects. For example, inmanipulate play children maneuver relatively small pieces of equipment such aspuzzles, Cuisenaire rods or peg sets.

Several studies (e.g., Alstyne, 1976; Barker, Dembo, & Lewin, 1943; Bott, 1928;Herring & Kock, 1930; Phillips, 1945; Westby, 1980) show that play materialsstimulate young children to engage in a variety of actions, influencing their behaviorin different situations. Children's curiosity is raised with a new toy, although it may

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:58

13

Oct

ober

201

4

100 0. N. SARACHO

not maintain their interest. Experiences are more superficially exploratory with newtoys during the children's early play period (Herring & Kock, 1930). Youngchildren's curiosity is aroused more with materials of high realism-realistic miniaturefurniture and bendable dolls appropriately dressed than with materials of lowrealism-crudely constructed, block like furniture and sexless stuffed and undresseddolls (Phillips, 1945). High-structure play objects (e.g., tea set, stove, sink combi-nation, refrigerator, ironing board, dolls) increased the three and a half-year-olds'non interactive pretend play. Both 3- and 5-year-old children were found to be morereceptive to the functional ambiguity of low-structure play objects (pipe cleaners,cardboard boxes, metal cans, construction paper, styrofoam cups, paper bags, blocks)and increased the incidence of substitutions. Trucks ranked highest in attractivenessand the merit of ascending order for other toys such as tops, acorns, tinker toys, andbooks (Herring & Kock, 1930).

Bridges (1927, 1929) studied three- and four-year-old children's choices of thedifferent play materials. The outcomes indicated that at age three, children preferredcylinders, bricks, and color pairs. Cylinders were the most popular for short periods oftime. At age four, children preferred to trace around metal insets with colored crayonsto draw simple patterns. Other popular choices included the Montessori cylinders,color matching, and large bricks for the three-year-olds and the Montessori dressingframes, cylinders, metal insets for tracing, wooden insets, and colored cubes for thefour-year-olds. Unpopular selections were the Montessori pink tower, sweeping withbrush and pan, lacing material in frames, and playing with stuffed animals and achina tea set for the three-year-olds and the inset cards (which were never used),placing numbers against counting rods, word building, drawing with crayons, andchalking on the board for the four-year-olds.

Bott (1928) also found age differences. Two- and five-year-old children showeddistinct preferences for specific toys according to their age. Beans appealed more toyounger children, while jigsaw puzzles appealed more to older children.

Play Areas

Children communicate their ideas or participate in the play areas. All of the areasseem to be significant. Saracho (1984) supports this outcome. She found that three- tofive-year-old children engaged in physical, manipulative, block and dramatic play.

In this study, physical and block play were the major components for factor 2.Alstyne (1976) found that blocks were popular materials for 2- to 5-year-olds. Herringand Kock (1930) provides evidence that blocks had more popularity and social valuethan any of the other play materials. The next popular play materials related tophysical play such as sand, a house corner, kiddy cars, and a seesaw, while thoseunpopular play materials included a blackboard, animals, and dolls (Herring &Kock, 1930). In examining the duration of play, the interest increased for blocks andballs (Alstyne, 1976), which supports the present study's outcomes.

EDUCATIONAL APPLICATIONS

The results support the concept that play provides young children with opportunitiesto learn about their world and has educational or developmental implications.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:58

13

Oct

ober

201

4

A FACTOR ANALYSIS OF YOUNG CHILDREN'S PLAY 101

Research provides evidence that there is a relationship between play and learning.Play helps young children understand the world. For example, children build withblocks to symbolize their understanding of the world. Their block structures rangefrom simple construction to elaborate patterns, displaying dramatic content. Blocksreinforce the children's learning of geography, science and mathematics (Saracho,1984), which are cognitive constructs.

Teachers can become facilitators of learning through play by being supportive andindirect in their teaching. Specific forms of play and learning activities range fromactivities requiring minimal adult intervention to activities that are highly structuredby adults.

The cited studies support the results of the present study that play materialsdevelop the children's particular competence in their development. The use of theplay materials differs with each age group (Kawin, 1934; Westby, 1980). Playdevelops gradually and continuously. The children's age determines the selection oftoys and their function. Play materials can be adapted to different play experiences.Even though toys have flexibility in their classifications, children's ages are thegeneral guide in the selection of toys.

Play materials can be classified based on the need in the play experience anddevelopment. Early childhood classrooms generally provide miniature represen-tations of the objects of life around children (e.g., dolls, doll furniture, wagons,engines). Such toys elicit role taking or dramatizations of the serious and meaningfulexperiences of adults. Such toys provide children part of the knowledge, meaning,standards and skills incorporated in the domestic and industrial experiences of theyoung children's world. Children use the toys to understand life, to assume the rolesof others, and to understand the feelings of others. Teachers can teach skillscoordinating the senses and muscles with such toys as hoops, tops, balls, slides,seesaws, and swings.

Artistic and literary play materials such as pictures and books can help childrenlearn to create valuable and aesthetically pleasing objects. Toys are more than artisticornaments or mechanical aspects, they can motivate intellectual or aesthetic play justlike books and pictures. The young children's physical development is important inselecting play materials that will enhance their physical and intellectual development.Play materials that teach specific skills or concepts should be selected for use in theplay activities.

Children use cognitive constructs when they modify objects in role playingsituations. At the same time, they are aware of the object's original identity andfunction. In symbolic play, young children develop duality of object and role, ofreality and appearance. They use an intuitive kind of reversibility, performingreversible transformations that are perceptually inapparent (Piaget, 1962).

Researchers need to identify discrete play variables that show strong relationshipsbetween cognitive play and optimal environments to develop the young child'sintellectual development. Children's logical skills develop in the maturational processand diverse interactions in their environment.

The studies reviewed provide a knowledge base about children's play, which can beassociated with theories of early childhood development and learning (such as thosesuggested by Piaget or Bruner). Educators who become aware of these relationships

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:58

13

Oct

ober

201

4

102 0.N.SARACHO

are able to suggest teaching strategies to incorporate play in teaching. Since play isdifficult to define and research outcomes often conflict or lack clarity, teachers need tobe careful not to misinterpret the value of play and view it as having meager practicalutility. Teachers must identify their educational goals and then look for playalternatives as they plan. They must become keen observers and evaluators ofeducational goals in relation to the children's play to make it more potent.

Teachers must become sensitive to the learning generated through a playcurriculum. Such a curriculum allows teachers to socialize and prepare youngchildren for the world of family-and work-related adult roles. Teachers need to beaware of the body of knowledge that exists about education and play and tocommunicate it to colleagues, supervisors, and parents. Such knowledge is alsonecessary in order to make worthwhile decisions in planning a play curriculum.

References

Alstyne, D. (1976) Play behavior and choice of play materials of preschool children. New York: Arno Press.Bakeman, R. & Brownlee, J.R. (1980) The strategic use of parallel play: A sequential analysis. Child

Development, 51, 873-878.Barker, R.B., Dembo, L. & Lewin, L. (1943) Frustration and regression: An experiment with young

children. In R.R. Barker, J.S. Kounin, & H.F. Wright (Eds.), Child behavior and development, (pp. 441-458)New York: McGraw-Hill.

Bott, N. (1928) Observation of play activities in a nursery school. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 4, 44-88.Bridges, K.M.B. (1927) Occupational interest of three-year-old children. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 34,

415-423.Bridges, K.M.B. (1929) The occupational interest of attention of four-year-old children. Pedagogical

Seminary and Journal of Genetics Psychology, 36, 551-570.Cazden, C. (1974) Play with language and metalinguistic awareness: One dimension of language

experience. The Urban Review, 1, 23-29.Curry, N.E. (1985) Where have all the players gone? Journal of Children in Contemporary Society, 17(4), 93 -

111.Goldberg, M. & Harvey, J . (1983) A nation at risk: The report of the national commission on excellence in

education. Phi Delta Kappan, 65, 14-18.Herring, A. & Kock, L.H. (1930) A study of some factors influencing the interest span of preschool

children. Pedagogical Seminary and Journal of Genetic Psychology, 38, 249-279.Kawin, E. (1934) The function of toys in relation to child development. Childhood Education, 11 (3), 122–

133.Kerlinger, F.N. (1986) Foundations of behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Lunzer, E.A. (1959) Intellectual development in the play of young children. Educational Review, 11(3), 205-

217.Martlew, M., Connolly, K. & McLeod, C. (1978) Language use, role and context in a five-year-old. Journal

of Child Language, 5, 81-99.Parten, M.B. (1932) Social participation among preschool children. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,

27, 243-269.Phillips, R. (1945) Doll play as a function of the realism of the materials and the length of the experimental

session. Child Development, 16, 145—166.Piaget, J . (1962) Play, dreams, and imitation in childhood. New York: International Press.Saracho, O.N. (1984) Construction and validation of the play rating scale. Early Child Development and Care,

17, 199-200.Saracho, O.N. (1986) Play and young children's learning. In B. Spodek (Ed.), Today's kindergarten:

Exploring the knowledge base, expanding the curriculum, (pp. 91—109). New York: Teachers' College Press.Spodek, B. & Saracho, O.N. (1987) The challenge of educational play. In D. Bergen (Ed.) Play as a learning

medium (pp. 9—22). Exeter, New Hampshire: Heinemann.Westby, C.E. (1980) Assessment of cognitive and language abilities through play, Language, Speech, and

Hearing Services in Schools, 1 1 , 154–168.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

anch

este

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

6:58

13

Oct

ober

201

4