The Difference between Play Behavior in Play Lab among Children Aged 2 and Above
Abstract
Research on the pre-school play has been declining over the years as more focus has been put on instilling discrete skills such as Mathematics and Literacy. Duncan et al. 2007; Romano et al. 2010 seem to agree that this research shift can be attributed to the significant correlation between discrete skills and future academic achievements (Gold, 2014). According to Nicolopoulou (2010), playtime has been reduced because the academic standards have prescribed skills that ought to have been taught at every age level and also because of the “high-stakes achievement testing at younger ages.” As a result, most researchers agree that many parents do not make enough effort to ensure that their children engage in physical play. Play labs are designed to incorporate research on child development through play. Children from wealthy families are sent to pre-schools and nurseries that embrace this model because of its numerous benefits to children in shaping their thinking and interaction with the world.
Vast arrays of methods have been employed in studying children’s play. However, there seems to be no consensus as to the appropriate methods to study play. Rubin Fein & Vandenberg (1983) did define play components that could be researched, including the psychological behavior, observable behavior, and contexts of occurrences. This study sought to establish whether there exist gender differences among 40 children aged 2 and above (2-to-5; 19 girls and 21 boys). The “engineering thinking play” observation measure, a developed construct focusing “on early design-and construction-related thinking and behavior,” was used as an index of the children’s various behaviors in paralleling thought-processes and behaviors that influence the engineering process (Muentener et al., 2018). The study concluded that gender differences in the number of events in measuring early engineering thinking play among the 2-year-old and those above the age of 2. Besides, age significantly influenced the type of play the children engaged in, with the cohort of 2-year old going for the activities that required at least two partners.
In contrast, those above the age of two were more likely to engage in solo games or with partners. Physical aggression was also more reported among the boys, which was observed to increase with age. Play lab was also associated with an increased level of interest in children’s play, suggesting it could benefit children’s development in multiple domains.
Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION
- Background of the Study
Researchers have written a considerable body of research hinting at the significant role children’s plays have in children’s development and learning. Researchers in the fields of developmental psychology, neuroscience, and educational studies have specifically managed in hypothesizing how the play might impact child outcomes, thereby only establishing associations as opposed to causal relationships. Since then, significant research and theory have evolved, exploring evidence of causal relationships between play and aspects of development. Various empirical studies have shown the importance of children’s play in cognitive development, academic achievement, and social status.
According to Cardon & Ils De Bourdeaudhuij (2008), play is an essential aspect of children’s growth as it has both social and physical benefits (Gold, 2014). Denham, Blair, Schmidt & De Mulder (2002) also observe that play is a determining factor in the kind of interaction a child is likely to develop as he/she grows (Gold, 2014). Piaget (1973) found out that play could contribute significantly to the development of cognitive and logical reasoning and lays the foundation for the future development of discrete skills, especially mathematics abilities in children as they grow up. By providing children with engaging materials as they play, some researchers suggest that this could be a practical approach to developing early cognitive abilities and thinking instead of a classroom setting. The approach has been used to test Piaget’s findings that children’s intelligence development resulted from the children’s effort to construct simple logico-mathematics structures developed through early exposure in plays outside the classroom. Bandura’s Social Learning Theory is also vital in explaining children’s choices of play materials and play behaviors.
Villalobos (2009) observed that using a classroom approach in teaching discrete skills could be attributed to girls’ negative attitudes towards science, technology, engineering, and mathematics during early childhood compared to boys (Gold, 2014). There is a need for further research to establish behaviors concerning gender and environment that affect future attitudes towards discrete subjects such as Mathematics. Block play significantly influences children’s cognitive development. Caldera et al. (1999), Park, Chae & Boyd (1998) note that playing with blocks is positively correlated with children’s understanding of sizes and shape (Gold, 2014)s. Further, Sutton (2011) found out that children playing with loose parts such as sand, water, and stones demonstrated behaviors related to developing construction-related thinking in children (Gold, 2014).
- Statement of the Problem
The play of a typical child constitutes looking around, walking, holding objects, and social interactions with others around them, all happening simultaneously (Muentener et al., 2018). This study purposed to establish whether there exist gender differences between play and construction and design-related thinking using early engineering thinking play among children aged 2 and over. The study sought to explore the age’s influence in creating differences in play behavior among children aged 2 and above. With the inclusion of imagined playground materials meant to present a unique play context, loose parts designed to encourage children’s creativity, the study sought to draw implications about future research on environmental differences in shaping play behaviors with materials designed to stimulate creativity and imagination. Age differences in the mean rates per hour of physical, social, and engineering behaviors were compared in the same play environment to establish differences.
- Objectives of the Study
General Objectives
To investigate the difference of play behavior in play lab between children aged two and over two.
Specific Objectives
- To establish the role of the playing environment in shaping play behavior.
- To determine whether different play behaviors could be attributed to gender differences.
- To establish whether age differences could result in different play behavior.
Significance of the Study
The study will help convince various pre-school management the importance of play in children’s overall development and suggest that children’s play be set aside. In recent decades, children’s play is becoming a thing of the past. With all this technology buzzing, children nowadays spend most of their time engrossed on social media and entertainment sites. Besides, the pressure to achieve and the emphasis placed on Mathematics and Literacy resulted in playtime being deducted.
Delimitations of the Study
According to Bakeman & Gottman (1986), researchers in children’s play behaviors mostly find themselves grappling with the question of what kind of behaviors to record.
Chapter 2. Literature Review
2.1 The Importance of Play
The whole idea of children’s play can be traced back to the early 19th century with Schiller’s (1800; 1954) observation that children engaged in playing to expend excess energy (Gold, 2014). Contemporary theorists, among them Freud, Erickson, and Piaget differed in their opinions about children’s play, especially concerning intellectual development (Gold, 2014). Freud advocated for the “pleasure principle” as the main motivation for play. Freud suggested that the desire to act out what children would like to be when they grew up determined their play behavior. Freud also highlighted the role of play in helping children master unpleasant experiences by re-enacting them during play. Erickson championed the idea that plays developed in steps as the child progressed to adolescence. On the other hand, Piaget believed that play stimulated intelligence among children. According to Piaget, the interactions with the environment as the children work towards “piecing together ideas about objects and experiences” laid structural foundations of intelligence. More recently, Nicolopoulou (2010) wrote that children’s play is a vital activity that develops their imagination and learning, helping children make sense of the world around them (Gold, 2014). The importance of play has been overlooked as more emphasis is placed on the instruction of discrete skills in Mathematics and Literacy.
2.2. Theories of Young Children’s Differences in Play Behavior
Social learning theory developed by Bandura and Piaget’s theories on cognitive development and Mathematical education are used in explaining children’s play behavior and ultimately help explain children’s play differences in age and gender in the context of physical, social, and engineering thinking play (Gold, 2014). According to Bandura’s social learning theory, learning is developed through observing and imitating. Barr, Viera & Rovee-Collier (2001) posit that learning through observation was vital in developing children’s knowledge and social skills (Gold, 2014). Further, the authors note that while social learning goes on through adulthood, it is more important in the early stages as children seek to navigate their environment and satisfy their curiosity. In this case, playing with blocks can be related to children’s creativity and behavior, as observed in different children.
According to Piaget, children are generally curious (Gold, 2014). So as they experiment to satisfy their curiosities, they embrace trial-and-error processes to learn which behaviors are critical in accomplishing tasks. Using Piaget’s reasoning that pre-school aged children (in this case, the aged 2) lack concrete logic to manipulate information, we could explain the age differences in play behaviors. Furthermore, the more social play children involved themselves in, the more they were likely to challenge each other’s ideas and explanations about their surrounding environment. Combined with curiosity, the children can advance their creativity and imaginations as they learn and challenge each other.
Fleer (2012) describes the play as being multi-dimensional (Gold, 2014). Therefore, the social learning theory combined with Piaget’s cognitive and mathematics development theories may be important in understanding play behavior differences among children aged 2 and over 2.
Chapter 3. Research Methods
3.1. Methods
Quantitative Research
The primary quantitative angle employed was direct observation of play behavior and analyzing the findings. Parents and teachers were also involved in answering questionnaires.
Categorizing Play Behavior
The quantitative research approach allows for the use of codes and categorization for data analysis. The categories are selected in such a way that they meet the researcher’s study objectives.
3.2. Stakeholders Involved
Stakeholders would be an individual or group of individuals with a legitimate interest in the research, including teachers at the pre-school level, parents and guardians, schools’ administrations, among others.
References
Gold, Z. S. (2014, August). PRESCHOOLERS’ PHYSICAL, SOCIAL, AND ENGINEERING PLAY BEHAVIORS: DIFFERENCES IN GENDER AND PLAY ENVIRONMENT. Purdue e-Pubs | Purdue University Scholarship Online. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1466&context=open_access_theses
Muentener, P., Herrig, E., & Schulz, L. (2018, May 31). The efficiency of infants’ exploratory play is related to longer-term cognitive development. Frontiers. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00635/full