In this second edition of Play in the Early Years, Marilyn Fleer provides a comprehensive introductionto pedagogyand playinearlyyears educationsettings. Drawingonclassical and contemporarytheories, this textexamines social, cultural and institutional approaches to play, and explores a range of strategies for successfullyintegratingplayintoearlyyearsandprimaryclassrooms.
Thoroughly revised to include the latest methods and research into early years development and learning, this latest edition features new material on intentional teaching, play as learning, digital play, and discipline-specific content including STEM, arts and sustainability. Two new chapters discuss post-structuralist and cultural-historical conceptions of play, and extended practical examples link pedagogical practice to the Early Years Learning Framework and the Australian Curriculum.
The text is pedagogically rich, with classroom vignettes and photographs designed to help students connecttheoryto practice, while reflectionquestions and researchactivities encourage in-depthreflectionand extend learning. Eachchapter issupportedbyadditional contentonthecomprehensivecompanionwebsite,which provideslinkstovideos,readingsandsupplementaryactivities.
Freshly presented in a new full-colour layout and written in an accessible and engaging style, Play in the Early Years remains an essential resource for preservicestudentsandpractitionersalike.
Marilyn Fleer is the Foundation Chair of Early Childhood Education at Monash University.
This publicationis copyright Subjecttostatutoryexceptionandtothe provisions of relevantcollective licensingagreements,noreproductionof anypartmaytake place withoutthe writtenpermissionof Cambridge UniversityPress
The Australian Copyright Act 1968 (the Act) allows a maximumof one chapter or 10% of the pages of this work,whichever is the greater,tobe reproducedand/or communicatedbyanyeducational institutionfor its educationalpurposes providedthatthe educationalinstitution(or the bodythat administers it) has givena remunerationnotice toCopyrightAgencyLimited(CAL) under the Act
For details of the CALlicence for educationalinstitutions contact:
Exceptas permittedunder the Act(for example a fair dealingfor the purposes of study,research, criticismor review) nopartof this publicationmaybe reproduced,storedina retrievalsystem, communicatedor transmittedinanyformor byanymeans withoutprior writtenpermission All inquiries shouldbe made tothe publisher atthe address above.
Cambridge UniversityPress has noresponsibilityfor the persistence or accuracyof URLs for externalor third-partyinternetwebsites referredtointhis publicationanddoes notguarantee thatanycontentonsuch websites is,or willremain,accurate or appropriate
Please be aware that this publication may contain several variations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander terms and spellings; no disrespect is intended Please note that the terms ‘Indigenous Australians’ and ‘ Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ may be used interchangeably in this publication.
What is play? How does play develop? What is the relationship between play, learning and development? This book looks at these central questions from the perspectives ofchildren, families, educators and whatis knownfromresearch. We begin this journey in this first chapter by looking at your ideas and the writings of othersonthetopic‘Whatisplay?’
This chapter has been designed to give you the following experience and understandings:
Throughmakingexplicityour ownviewsonplay,youwill movefroman intuitivetoaconsciousunderstandingofthesocial,psychological and critical valueofplay.
Youwill gaininsightsintothemultipleperspectivesonwhatplayis(this chapter) andthechapter will laythefoundationstoenableyoutocritique differenttheoretical perspectivesonplay(later inthebook).
Engagingwiththe book
This book has been designed to support your learning journey through consideringthe value ofplayfor the child,andthe theories andpractices of play within the birth to age 8 sector. We take a theoretical and practical explorationofplay, specificallyforegroundinghow childrenmake meaning of play, how we as professionals support the development of play and the pedagogical practice of play, and how we value and advocate for play in the community. We assume that play needs to be supported, and throughout this bookdiscuss ways inwhichthis canoccur inthe school,preschool and after-school contexts, as well as in the home and a range of play and care settings. Although we focus specifically on the birth to 8 years sector, we also focus on the play practices and beliefs of adults. As you read the
Whatisplay?
When you hear the word ‘play’, what comes to mind? Create a concept map of everythingthatyouthinkis associated withplayor draw animage ofplayinaction inpreschool andinschool.
Researchingplay1.1
Concept mapof play
Usingtheconceptmapof‘play’ showninFigure1.1, record everythingyou associate withthis word. Alternatively, draw images of childrenat playin arangeofsettings.
Figure 1.1Conceptmapoftheword‘play’
Using the content of your concept map, create a definition of play. Take your key ideas and definition, and compare these with the key ideas and definitions of others in your group. It should become evident that there are many different definitions of play. If we examine the literature, we will also find a diversity of ways of defining play (Rautio & Winston 2013). An example is shown in Figure 1.2. In their research into the views of student teachers in the United States, Sherwood and Reifel (2010) noted a range of characteristics of play. They were unable to identify a consensus of play characteristics, instead clustering the responsesintoabroadrangeofcharacteristics,asshowninTable1.1.
As you read through these characteristics, note whether you agree or disagree. Consider whether these characteristics reflect your cultural community. The characteristics shown are in line with research by Sherwood and Reifel (2010). However, you may identify other characteristics.
Burghardt(2011) states that there have beenhundreds of books and thousands ofresearchpapers writtenover the past100 years thatfocus onplay. Yet, as Wood (2014) suggests,while manypeople recognise playwhentheysee it,theymayhave a lot of trouble defining it. You may also have had difficulty with this when you created your concept map of play and then created your own working definition.
Studying play is a serious scholarly activity in early childhood education and in schools. Some examples from the literature follow in Table 1.2, where you will noticeabroadrangeofwaysofdefiningplay.
In his comprehensive analysis of the range of definitions of play, Burghardt (2011) suggests thatthe definingcriteria, suchas ‘fun’ or ‘intrinsicallymotivating’, are difficultto applyto observations ofyoungchildrenand infants atplay. How do we know the play was actually ‘self-chosen’, and that children’s play is about ‘expressing intrinsic motivation’? As Burghardt suggests, it is difficult to distinguish between ‘rough-and-tumble’ play and ‘bullying’. He also suggests that the characteristics of playthat particular authors recommend intheir definitionare not usually weighted. That is, we do not know which characteristic is more
important – for instance, is showing pleasure in play more important than creating animaginarysituation? Whatdoyouremember aboutyour ownplayexperiences as a child? Were they happy? Can our own memories of playing provide further insightsintowhatisplay?
I grew up on a farm. We had at our disposal in the paddock large fallendown trees, which had been pushed together These fallen trees, with their roughbark, brokenbranches and exposed roots, became our ships. Groups of boys and girls would congregate around these trees, naming their ships andcollectivelycreatingtheir adventures.Theseweregenderlessships.We would jump from ship to ship, totally engrossed in our latest imaginary adventure. We imagined violent seas, storms encroaching upon our fleet, stealingeachother’s ships, beingpirates and savingpeople fromdrowning. We created our imaginary world of ships. We controlled our imaginary world.Wefeltpowerful.(Ella,15years)
Memories of childhood are often about fantasy or social play. In early childhoodeducationandinsomeschools,playhas beenseenas the central concept that underpins this area of teaching, regardless of how it is named or defined (Ridgway, Quinones & Li 2015). In most European-heritage communities around the world, play is valued both pedagogically in the teaching community and conceptually in the academic community, and it is also valued for its own sake by most families (Wood 2014, 2015). Why is play so highly valued in these communities,andwhydosomanypeopleremember theplayoftheir childhood?
Researchingplay1.2
Childhoodplaymemories
What play memories do you have from your childhood? Think back and documentonememorythat feels significant toyou.
Whenwe spoke to practisingteachers inAustralia about their playmemories, theymentionedthattheir play:
capturedanimportantfeelingstate–itfelt‘good’,‘happy’,‘safe’ or ‘risky’
The play memories of the Australian teachers we interviewed were different from the playexperiences of the childrentheytaught. These teachers identified that play for the childrenintheir centres and classrooms was aboutusingmanufactured toys, being supervised by adults, having organised play spaces (e.g. a playroom) and playtimes (e.g. play dates organised by the parents, driving children to another child’s home), use of safe equipment (playgrounds carefully policed), ageappropriate toys (with infants, toddlers, preschoolers and school children having differentkindsofsafetoys) andnon-messyactivities.
Adults.Mostlytheplacesthataffordedleisureor pleasurablememories namedby487oftheuniversitystudentsincludednatural settings, restaurants,departmentstoresandcinemas,aswell asplaywithchildrenin school (e.g.huntinggames,sandboxplay).
Reflection
In the play memories discussed above, did you notice similarities across ages? Whatwere the differences younoticed? Whydo we saythatchildren play and adults work? Do you think adults play in the same way as children? Does age matter? Reflect upon your own play across a range of ages.Whatdoyounoticeaboutyour ownplaydevelopmentover time?
It is interestingto note the playmemories that were important inthe Swedish context. We cansee similarities withthe Australianteachers interms ofmentioning ‘nature’ as animportantplace to playfor children, butalso somewhere to enjoyas adults. Researchshows that children’s earlyexperiences of nature have a positive and lasting effect (Payne 2010). Further to this research, another study was undertakeninSwedenof 111 adults aged from22 to 63 years (half of whomwere experienced preschool teachers, with the others studying a degree in early childhood education), who were interviewed about their play experiences as children(Sandberg&Vuorinen2008). The types oftoys withwhichthese teachers andstudentteachersrecall playingtendedtofall intosixcategories:
other toys(e.g.MyLittlePony,Lego,weapons,cars,boardgames).
The toys that dominated the play of school-aged children tended to be skipping ropes, balls and natural materials. However, the mostpopular game was doll play. The favourite memories ofplayingas a preschool-agedchildtendedtobe doll play andplayingwithsofttoys.
It is interesting to notice that the most popular play activity in this Swedish studyofmostlyfemale earlychildhood teachers and studentteachers was playwith dolls. However, the play memories suggest that the school-aged children played with the dolls in different ways from the preschool-aged children. Fashion and other adult representation of play featured for the older children, while for the younger childrenthe playwas about families, feedingand lookingafter babies and softtoys.
Reflection
Reflect upon what might be seen as progression in play development. In playingwithdolls inthe ways described inthe Swedishstudy, do youthink this represents some formofprogressioninplay? How would youdecide? What might be evidence of more mature or complex forms of play? How would you decide whether the play was more mature or complex? What criteria might they use? Perhaps age does not matter, but opportunities and timetoplaydo.
What is interesting about Sandberg and Vuorinen’s (2008) study is the perception by the participants that the play of children in the past (the teachers’ memories of their own play) was different from the play of children today (their observations of children at play). The teachers and student teachers ‘perceived
deficiencies in the imaginative and creative abilities of children, as well as in children’s ability to initiate and start play’ (2008, p. 140). The older participants suggested that ‘children no longer can, or need to use their imagination in play’ because many toys are ‘ready-made and made for a specific use’; these were viewed as limiting the children’s abilities to use the toys in a range of creative ways. For example, ‘childrentodayhave “trouble” playing, and children were not seen as being as capable of initiating play’ (2008, p. 140), as the following commentsuggests:
Do you agree with these negative conceptions of play? If you asked teachers in Australia and New Zealand about play, do you believe you would have the same result as Sandbergand Vuorinen? Could the different environment and cultural community determine thinking about play across generations?
Sandberg and Vuorinen’s (2008) study also notes that participants believed thatchildren’s opportunities for playingwitha range ofage groups had diminished, and that children had fewer children to play with, while at the same time children had access to an increased number of toys (compared with previous generations). The teachers felt that children’s parents were thought to be interrupting and controllingchildren’s play, and even limiting the amount of free time available to children at home. This comment is consistent with research by Wong (2012) into HongKong-Australianfamilyhome practices. Wongalso noted thatparents closely scheduled children’s time, thus reducing opportunities for free play. In addition, it was felt that children were passive consumers of media, and this meant fewer
Ground Plan of Elizabethan Court.
We now pass out through the doorway under the Nymph of Fontainebleau, and enter a vestibule in the Renaissance style. Here, on the ceiling, is a copy of a painting from the Sala del Cambio (Exchange) at Perugia, in Italy, by Perugino, the master of Raffaelle, who assisted Perugino in the work. The painting represents the Seven Planets, with Apollo in the centre, as the personification of the Sun. The wall of the Renaissance Court to the left of the entrance is decorated with arches, and a frieze from the terra-cotta originals in the Certosa; the singing boys in the frieze are of great merit. The bronze monument in the centre of this wall is that of Lewis of Bavaria, a very interesting example of late German Gothic, remarkable for the finish of its details. In the centre of the gallery are placed Germain Pilon’s “Graces,” a charming example of the French school of sculpture. The four angles under the Perugia ceiling are occupied by four statues, also by Pilon; these statues are all now in the Louvre, and the very remarkable bronze monumental effigy in the centre, against the garden, is from the Museum at Florence; it is ascribed to Vecchietta of Sienna. On either side of the doorway are parts of Goujon’s doors from St. Maclou, at Rouen.
On the back wall, to the right of the doorway, are richly ornamented arches, from the large cloisters in terra-cotta of the Certosa, and also bas-reliefs and specimens of the Renaissance style
from various parts of Italy. The central monument of Bernard von Gablenz is an exceedingly fine example of the style as practised in Germany, at the close of the 16th century. After examining these objects, we turn into the narrow court adjoining the Renaissance Court, and find ourselves in
THE ELIZABETHAN COURT.
The architectural details in this Court are taken from Holland House, at Kensington, a fine old mansion made interesting to us by many associations. Elizabethan architecture, which was in its flower during the latter half of the 16th century—more than a hundred years after the revival of classical architecture in Italy—shows the first symptoms of the adoption of the new style in England. The Elizabethan style—the name reaches back over the century—is characterised by much-pierced stonework, rectangular ornamentation, and a rough imitation of antique detail applied to masses of building, in which many Gothic features were still retained as regards general form, but altered as to ornament. The style being in its very nature transitory, it gradually gave way, although characterised by a certain palatial grandeur and striking picturesqueness, before the increasing knowledge which England obtained of Italian architecture, until we find it entirely displaced in the first half of the 17th century by the excellent style of building introduced by Inigo Jones. We must add, that, although it has no pretensions to the character of a regular or complete system, yet few who have visited the great Elizabethan mansions scattered over England can have failed to admire their picturesque and solid appearance, their stately halls, corridors, staircases, and chimneypieces, and the beautiful garden terraces, which form so important a feature in their general design.
Façade from Elizabethan Court.
The kneeling effigies in the gallery at the back of this court are from the Hertford monument in Salisbury Cathedral, and represent the sons of the Countess of Norfolk, who lay on either side of her. The Court contains several tombs of the period. The first is that of Sir John Cheney, from Salisbury Cathedral: a soldier who distinguished himself in the wars of the Roses, and was attached to the party of Henry VII. The original effigy is in alabaster, a material much used during the early part of the 16th century. The next monument is that of Mary Queen of Scots from Westminster Abbey, executed in the beginning of the 17th century, and displaying in its treatment all the characteristics of the Elizabethan style. Under the arch in the centre is the bust of Shakspeare, from his monument in
architecture; and their absence in buildings of a later period (the 17th and 18th centuries, for instance) led to a coldness of character, which happily promises at the present day to find its remedy.
The Court before which we stand is founded on a portion of the finest palatial edifice in Rome,—the Farnese Palace, commenced by the architect Antonio Sangallo, for Cardinal Farnese, and finished under the direction of Michael Angelo. A curious fact in connexion with the original building is, that the stones which compose it were taken from the ancient Coliseum, within whose mighty walls the early Christians suffered martyrdom; so that, in truth, the same stones which bore witness to the faith and courage of the early devotees, served afterwards to build for the faith triumphant a palace in which luxury, worldliness, and pride found a genial home.
especially interesting as serving to indicate the state of art in the 16th and 17th centuries respectively. The remaining statues, viz.,— the Slave, now in the Louvre, the Christ in the Church of S. Maria Minerva, Rome, and the Pietà in St. Peter’s, Rome, are by Michael Angelo. The visitor may now enter the loggia, which, like its companion on the other side of the Court, is ornamented with copies of Raffaelle’s frescoes from the Vatican; in the centre of this side of the Court is placed Michael Angelo’s celebrated monument of Lorenzo de’ Medici, from the church of San Lorenzo at Florence; the reclining figures on each side of the statue of Lorenzo represent Dawn and Twilight. At the back of this monument within the arcade is the fine bronze door by Sansovino from St. Mark’s, Venice, on which he is said to have laboured from twenty to thirty years. The projecting heads are supposed to be portraits; amongst them are those of Titian, Aretino, and of the sculptor himself. Proceeding onwards, the beautiful composition of Jonah and the Whale, by Raffaelle, is from the Chigi Chapel at Rome. Passing into the gallery on the Garden side, we remark in the four angles portions of the pedestals of the Venetian standards, from the Piazza of St. Mark, Venice. The painted ceilings of this gallery deserve special attention. The first on entering the gallery is from an existing example at the “Old Library,” Venice; the last is from the “Camera della Segnatura,” by Raffaelle, at the Vatican; beneath which is the wonderful statue of Moses, by Michael Angelo,—a production the grandeur of which amounts to sublimity, expressing in every line, with, the noblest conception, the inspired lawgiver and appointed leader of a nation.
VESTIBULE TO THE ITALIAN COURT.
[18]
The decoration of the vestibule is founded on the very elegant Casa Taverna at Milan, by Bernardino Luini, a pupil of Leonardo da Vinci, and affords an excellent idea of the peculiar painted mural ornament prevailing in Italy at the commencement of the 16th century. The doors are from the Palace of the Cancellaria at Rome,
by Bramante, the famous designer of St. Peter’s in that city, and the immediate predecessor of the great architects of the 16th century. The vestibule itself is rich in very beautiful water-colour drawings after the old masters, by Mr. West. These drawings are well worthy of study, since they afford admirable specimens of the manner of many old masters, who are but poorly represented in the National Gallery.
[18]
See “Handbook to the Italian Court,” by M. Digby Wyatt and J. B. Waring.
Monument of Lancino Curzio.
Sacrarium of the Maddelena from Certosa.
Madonna della Scarpa.
Ground Plan of Italian Vestibule.
We now pass out of the gallery into the Vestibule, by turning through the pillars to the right. The monuments on the external wall of the vestibule afford excellent examples of the later Renaissance style. Amongst them may be particularly noted the monument of Lancino Curzio (nearest the gallery), from Milan, by Agostino Busti, evincing that delicate execution for which the sculptor was famous; underneath is the tomb of St. Pelagius Martyr, from Genoa; and, in the centre of the wall, the central altar of La Madonna della Scarpa, from the Leno Chapel in the Cathedral of St. Mark, Venice—an elaborate specimen of bronze casting, completed early in the 16th century by Pietro Lombardo and others. The upper part of the monument nearest the Nave is an excellent example of the Renaissance style, being the Sacrarium of the Chapel of the Maddelena at the Certosa, Pavia; the bas-relief in the centre is by Donatello, and the remaining portions of the composition are from Sansovino.
Façade of Italian Vestibule.
We have now completed our survey of one of the most interesting features of the Crystal Palace. We have performed our promise to guide the visitor through the various Fine Art Courts, bringing before his notice some of the principal objects that have adorned his road, and endeavouring, by our brief remarks, to heighten the pleasure he must necessarily have experienced from the sight of so noble an assemblage of architectural and sculptural examples. Much however requires patient examination and study—examination that will yield fresh beauty, and study that will be rewarded by permanent and useful knowledge. For guidance and help we refer the visitor to the handbooks of the several Courts. The mission of this little work, as
