NYU Why is it called The Moccasin Telegraph and the way in which information is gathered by the Native Americans Discussion Journal of Research in Childho

NYU Why is it called The Moccasin Telegraph and the way in which information is gathered by the Native Americans Discussion Journal of Research in Childhood Education
ISSN: 0256-8543 (Print) 2150-2641 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujrc20
Preschoolers’ Play Behaviors With Peers in
Classroom and Playground Settings
Sook-Young Shim , Joan E. Herwig & Mack Shelley
To cite this article: Sook-Young Shim , Joan E. Herwig & Mack Shelley (2001) Preschoolers’ Play
Behaviors With Peers in Classroom and Playground Settings, Journal of Research in Childhood
Education, 15:2, 149-163, DOI: 10.1080/02568540109594956
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02568540109594956
Published online: 03 Nov 2009.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 706
View related articles
Citing articles: 17 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ujrc20
Jou rnal or Rese a rch in Ch ildh ood Educ at ion
2UOI. Vo l. 15. No.2
Copyr ight 2(KII hy the Associu tin n for
Childhood Educa tio n Inte rnatio na l
11256-85 4J/lI1
Preschoolers’ Play Behaviors With Peers in
Classroom and Playground Settings
Sook-Young Shim
Sookm yung Women ‘s Uni versi ty
Seoul. Kor ea
Joan E. Herwig
Mack Shelley
Iowa Stat e University
Abstract. Th e p urp ose of th is study wa s to examine th e relationsh ip between
d ifferent setti ngs for young children ‘s play behaviors with p eers. Forty-one
chi ldre n from 2 to 5 years of age (twenty-one 2- and 3-year-olds and tw enty 4- and
5-year-olds) enrolled in three chi ld care p rograms participated in this st udy . Th e
chi ldren were video taped for five minutes each on four d ifferent days, both indoors
and outdoors (tota l of40 m inutes). Th e A ssessm ent Profil e for Early Chi ld hood
Programs desc ribed the qu al ity of the child care program, and additional
measures desc ri bed the pl ayground setting. Chi ld ren’s play behaviors were
categorized using the Parten -Smilan sky Sc ale, which com bines social pl ay categories and cognitive play categories into 16 categories of peer interaction. R esult s
showed that the children were more lik ely to engage in th e most complex form of
p eer play (i.e., interactive dramatic play) out doors than in doors. In outdoor pl ay,
the older ag eg roup wa s more likely to interact with peers than was th eyounge r age
g roup . Th e outdoor playground offered older preschoolers particular typ es ofplay
expe riences (i.e., fun ctional play and d ram atic play) more read ily than th e
classroom . These findi ngs rein force th e importan ce of both the in door and th e
outdoor env iron me nts for prom oting more complementary pl ay behaviors and
p eer in teractions.
During the preschool years, children spend
long periods of time in play with others.
Peers are important social agents in young
children’s development and learning. Interactions with peers offer unique contributions to the growth of social and emotional
competence,to the acquisition ofsocial skills
and values, and to the development of the
capacity to form relationships with others
(see Berndt & Ladd, 1993). Early childhood
programs are one of the primary settings
This research was supported by fund s from the
Iowa State Un iversity Colle ge of Family a nd Con sume r Science Deve lopmen t Fund. Th is st udy was
sub mitted by th e firs t a uthor to the Gr aduate
College, Iowa State U niversity, a s parti al fulfill ment for t he req ui re ments of a Doct or of Philosophy degree.
where young children meet peers, learn
social skills, and form peer r elationships.
Recent research on children’s play seeks
ways to promote peer interactions in educational settings (Dempsey & Fr ost, 199 3;
Howe , Moller, & Chambers, 1994; Lamb,
Sternberg, Knuth, Hwang, & Brober g, 1994;
Pe trakos & Howe , 1996 ). Influences of t he
environment on children’s play behaviors
and development have been stated theoretically (Lew i n, 1931 ; P iaget, 1962 ;
Vygot sky, 1967 ) and investigated empiricall y (Hart , 1993; Wachs, 1985 ; Wohl will ,
1983 ). For example, Lewin (1931) proposed a rationale for em phas izing the ecological features of the physical envir onme nt
that affect social interaction . Alt hough
children move in and out of certain envi149
SHIM,HER~G,ANDSHELLEY
ronments, the influence of a particular environment potentially remains with the
ch ild, sin ce the interactions of children
have been affected by that environment.
How the child interacts with people-as
well as with objects-is greatly affected by
sit u a t ion a l and en vir on m ent a l factor s.
Lewin claimed that behavior (B) is a function of the interaction between the person
(P) an d the environment (E) : B = [(PE).
The reasoning behind this approach is that,
by understanding how children interact
wit h the en vir onm ent and persons within
that environment, we can understand how
the envir onm ent promotes children’s play
behaviors wit h peers . In this r egard,
children’s play behaviors with peers can be
eva lu ated by focu sing on specific aspects of
the play environment.
A number of studies have investigated
the physical play en vir onm ent that influen ces children’s play behaviors with peers
as both discriminative stim uli and reinforcers. Most ofthese studies have focus ed
on peer interactions in the preschool classroom settin g: 1) the physical arrangement
of materials and learning centers (Howe et
al., 1994; Petrakos & Howe, 1996), 2) the
d esign and organization of classrooms
(F ield , Masi, Goldstein, P erry, & Parl, 1988;
H owe s & Rubenstein, 1981 ), and 3) the
quality of program (Lam b et al. , 1994;Teets,
1985). For exa m ple, Petrakos and Howe
(1996) found that dramatic play centers
designed for groups facilitated social interactions by allowing children to focus on
each other (e.g., double seating in the train)
a n d to engage in complementary role play
(e.g., ticket seller and buyer). Relatively
few studies have examined how the outdoor play environment influences children’s
play behaviors with peers (e.g., Frost, 1986;
Hart, 1993; Hartle, 1996; Henniger, 1985;
Ladd , P rice, & Hart, 1988). Studies of
outdoor play have demonstrated that outdoor playgrounds stimulate as much or
more socia l playas indoor envir onme nt s do
(H ar tle, 1996; Henniger, 1985), and that
play activities enhance indoor classroom
learning (H a r t, 1993). For example, on the
outdoor playground, slides, sandboxes, and
large toys designed for several children to
use together facilitate children’s peer play
by allowing the children to talk with a n d
physically contact each other (Wor t ham &
Wortham, 1989). The nature of the outdoor
play environment offers unique opportuniti es for continued exploration of peer relations in relativel y unconstr ain ed ,
child-directed socia l environments (H a r t,
1993). However, these stu dies overlooked
the pos sibility that the quality of the
outdoor en vir on m en t m ay h ave an im portant role in influencing ch ildren ‘s peer
play. Thus , it is n ecessary to con sider th e
contextual features of the outdoor envi ronment, a s we ll a s t he cla ssroom env ironment, by me asuring the indep enden t
quality of children’s indoor a nd outdoor
play environments.
Several empirical st u dies h av e dem onst r at ed that ea ch play environment (class room and playground)influences children ‘s
play behaviors in different wa ys (Gr een ,
1933; Henniger, 1985 ; Pack , 1995; Sanders
& Harper, 1976; Tizard, Philps, & Pl ewi s ,
1976a, 1976b). For exam ple, while funct ional play such as swinging, clim bing, a n d
running wa s facilitated by out door play
envir onme nt s, con structive play a nd pretense play were more often fostered by
indoor settings (H a rtle & J ohnson, 1993).
Adults in these studies gave less information and made fewer sugges t ions to children in outdoor versus indoor environments,
and there were fewer verbal initi ation s
out door s from both adults to children and
childr en to a du lt s. The outdoor play environment appeared to facilitate more fantasy play in older children than in you nger
ch ildren (San de rs & H arper, 1976 ). The
indoor play env ir onme nt see me d to promote more constructive play for children
overall an d more dramatic play for you n ger
children (Hennigar, 1985 ).
Based on previous studies, the pu rp ose
of this st udy was to exa mine different effects of the indoor and outdoor settings on
the peer play of younger and older preschooler s. The secon d purpose ofthe st u dy
was t o determine the influen ce of ea ch play
envir onment on children’s play beha vior s
150
PRESCHOOLERS’ PLAY BEHAVIORS WITH PEERS
with peers in different ways.
Taken together, these studies present
several methodological limitations. First,
previous researchers did not consider the
contextual features of each setting (i.e. ,
quality ofindoor and outdoor environments)
in their studies (e.g., Green, 1933; Henniger,
1985; Tizard et al., 1976a, 1976b). According to ecologically oriented psychologists,
the interactive social context elicits and
organizes certain kinds of behavior. The
kinds of behavior that are elicited depend
upon the characteristics of that setting.
Thus, it is possible that indoor and outdoor
play environments for children differ in
quality and play opportunity. Research is
needed to consider the contextual features
of each setting to better understand the
relationship of these play environments.
In addition, contextual factors of centers
(e.g., facilities, equipment, amount of program structure) have been compared, since
these factors are likely to affect the children
in centers (e.g., Clarke-Stewart, 1984). The
contextual factors are also related to quality of program, such as physical space, curriculum, caregiver-child interactions, indoor
and outdoor play spaces, materials and activities, and health and safety. These features of the center environment have been
measured by the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (Har m s & Clifford, 1980)
or the Assessment Profile for Early Childhood Programs (Abbott-Shim & Sibley,
1992). Thus, assessment of the quality of
child care centers may provide more information about how the play environment of
each center differently influences children’s
peer interactions.
Second, rather than relying on a single
assessment approach, several researchers
have recommended using multimethod,
multisource, and multisetting information
to obtain a comprehensive assessment of
young children’s peer interactions (e.g.,
Achenbach, McConaughy, & Howell, 1987;
Brown, Odom, & Holcombe, 1996). These
more detailed examinations of peer interactions allow investigators to better understand the variables that explain the
similarities and differences in children’s
social responding (e.g., behavioral differences exhibited in various settings or with
different people) (Brown et al. , 1996). More
research is needed to examine the effects of
different settings (i.e., classroom and outdoor playground) on the same group of
children’s play behaviors with their peers.
Finally, it has been common practice for
researchers to combine behavioral data
gathered from both indoor and outdoor play
settings for analyses. These analyses overlook the effects of repeated measures analyses on children’s behaviors, although the
same children were observed in two different settings-classroom and playground
(e.g., Henniger, 1985; Tizard et al., 1976a,
1976b). Without using repeated measures
analyses, there is a substantial increase in
error variance, since the effect of child
differences becomes a source of the variance. Research is needed to consider the
influence of the repeated measures effects
due to child differences, and to obtain more
representative explanations of the differences between children’s play behaviors
with peers in the classroom and on the
playground.
The present study was designed to consider the contextual features of each setting and assess the quality of the child care
center, in order to understand how the play
environment of each center differently influences children’s peer interactions. The
researchers also examined the effects of
different settings (i.e., classroom and outdoor playground) on the same group of
children’s play behaviors with their peers.
Finally, in the present statistical analysis,
each child was observed four times, one
time per child on each of four different
days. The models used accounted for this
repeated measures structure by using each
child as a natural blocking unit, with four
repeated measures of each behavior on each
child.
Method
Participants
The participants were forty-one 2- to 5year-old children (i.e ., twenty-one 2- and 3year-olds and twenty 4- and 5- year-olds )
151
SHIM , HERWIG , AND SHELLEY
en r olled in three child care programs located in a midwestern university community of 50 ,000. In child care center A, the
participants were 8 (5 girls, 3 boys) 2- and
3-ye ar -olds (M =36 months, SD =1.97 ), and
8 (5 girls, 3 boys) 4- a nd 5-year-olds (M =57
months, SD = 2.25 ). In child care center B,
the participants were 6 (1 girl, 5 boys) 2and 3-year-olds (M =44 months, SD =1.68),
a n d 8 (3 girls, 5 boys) 4- and 5-year-olds (M
= 59 months, SD = 2.24). In child care
ce nter C, t he participants were 7 (4 girls, 3
boys) 2- and 3-year-olds (M = 43 months,
SD = .71 ), a n d 4 (2 girls, 2 boys ) 4- and 5ye a r -old s (M = 54 months, SD = 1.03 ).
Overall, the 2- and 3-year-olds ranged in
age from 25 to 50 months (M = 41 months,
SD = 5 months ); the 4- a nd 5-year-olds
r anged in age from 48 to 69 months (M = 57
months, SD = 5 months). There were 35
European-American children and 6 Asian
childr en r epresented across the three child
care centers.
Quality of Pr ograms
Quality of ch ild care program. The
Asse ssment Profile for Early Childhood
Programs (Abbot t-Sh im & Sibley , 1992)
wa s used to describe the activities, or ganization, and overall quality of each child
care classroom environment. The research
version is an observation ch ecklist designed
for a ssessing the day-to-day quality of care
provided to children, and is consist ent with
t he National Academy of Early Childhood
Programs’ Accreditation Criteria. This instru m en t includes 87 dichotomous items
that m ea sure classroom materials and
cla ssroom arrangement, the a ctivity plans
a n d the var iety of act ivit ies, multicultural
awar eness , var iety of teaching strategies,
independent learning and individualization, teacher attitudes, and child assessment. Cor r elat ion ofthe Assessment Profile
wi th the E arly Childhood Environment
Rating Sca le (H a r m s & Clifford , 1980 )
r anged fr om .74 t o .78, with a median of .74
(Sca r r , Eisenberg, & Deater-Deckard,
1994). The Asses sment Profile was design ed for indoor u se only.
Each cl assroom was r ated sim u lt a –
neously and indep endently by the fir st a u thor, and by a graduate student who was
unaware of th e research obj e ctiv e s.
Intercoderreliability wa s es t a blished minimally at 92 % for all three centers befor e
data collection beg an. Int ercoder reliability of the Assessment Profile between the
two raters was calculated with the followingformula: l-[(number of Ob server Ajudgments-number of Ob server B ju dge me nts )/
(n u mber of Observer A judgments + number of Ob server B judgment s)] (Emmer &
Millett, 1970). The reliability of t he As sessment Profile was .94 for child care
center A, .98 for child care center B, a nd .96
for child care center C.
Quality of ch ild care playground . The
outdoor play environm ent was evaluate d
for complexi t y and va riety of equ ipm ent
and materials, a nd for the number of play
spaces per child, by u sing the prot ocols
presented by Kritchevsky, Prescott, and
Walling (1969). Complexity was coded into
sim ple, complex, or su per units, and weights
were assig ned t o each unit a s sim ple
(weight e I ), com plex (weight e d), and su per
(weigh t e B). A sim ple unit ha s “one obvious
u se and does not have subparts or a j uxt aposition of material s which en able a child
to manipulate or improvise” (Krit che vsky
et al. , 1969, p. 10). Examples of sim ple
units are swings, a jungle gym , a n d t r icycle s. A com plex unit h a s “su b-pa r t s or
juxtaposition of two essentially different
play materials which ena ble t he chi ld to
manipulate or improvise” (Krit chevsky et
al., 1969, p. 10 ). An example is a san d area
wit h play materials (su ch a s pails a nd shovels ). A su pe r unit ha s “one or m or e a dditi ona l play materials (i.e., t hree or m or e
play materials juxtaposed )” (Krit chevsky
et al., 1969, p. 10 ). Examples are a san dbox
with play material s and water, a jungle
gym with movable climbing boards , a n d a
blanket. The weigh tings r eflected t h e number of children that each unit could acco mmodate. For example, if the playgr ou nd
has 6 riding ve hicles , 1 j ungle gym with
boards, a nd 1 sand area wi t h play m aterials and water, the number of weighted play
spa ces would be 6, 4, a nd 8, r espectively.
152
PRESCHOOLERS ‘ PLAY BEH AVIORS WITH PEERS
The weighted frequencies for each play
unit were summed and then divided by the
number of children present to create a
score for play spaces per child. This number represents the potential number of play
choices available to a child at a given outdoor playtime. Kritchevsky (1967) recommended that a minimum of2.5 play spaces
per child always be available. Prescott
(198 1) argued that good s pa ce for free selection time required 4 to 5 play spaces per
ch ild . In addition, the play environment
was evaluated for variety; that is , how
many different types of materials and equipment were available. A variety score was
created by summing the number of different types of available activities.
The complexity, variety, and number of
play spaces per child for each playground
was evaluated by videotaping at two differen t times: before the children entered the
playground (t im e 1) and 10 minutes after
the children entered the playground (time
2). Each playground was rated for each
measure by the same individuals as above,
using written listings of outdoor playground
equipment and materials from one day of
videotaping. Intercoder reliability between
the two raters was calculated with the
following formula: (t h e proportion of observed agreements – the expected proportion of agreements )/(l – the expected
proportion of agreements) (Kot z, Johnson,
& Read, 1988). Intercoder reliability, measured before the children entered the playground and 10 minutes after they began
playing on the playground, was 1.00 and
.94 for the playgrounds, respectively.
Tea ch er Questionnaire. Teachers completed a brief questionnaire that reported
their highest level of education, current
teacher licensure, and teaching experiences.
Two teachers were high school graduates,
one teacher had an associate’s degree, two
teachers had bachelor’s degrees, and one
teacher had graduate credits beyond a
master’s degree. Three teachers in the
programs had no teacher licensure, one
teacher had elementary teacher licensure,
one teacher had a substitute teacher license, and one teacher had both K-6 licen-
su r e and pre-kindergarten-kindergarten
licensure. The three teachers of the 4- and
5-year-olds had the most years of t eaching
experience, with a range of6 to 11 years of
teaching young children. One of the teachers of the 2- and 3-year-old age group had
15 years of teaching experience, and the
other two were in their first year of teaching.
Instruments
Th e Parten-Smilan sky Play S cale .
Children’s play behaviors were categorized
using a modified form ofthe ne sted PartenSmilansky Play Scale (Rubin, Watson, &
Jambor,1978). This scale combines soci al
play categories (i.e., solitary play, parallel
play, group play) with cognitive play categories (i.e., functional play, constructive
play, dramatic play, games with rules ).
These categories were collapsed into three
social play categories (i.e., solitary play ,
parallel play, interacti…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment