Good Practice in the Early Years

Janet Kay

• Publisher: Continuum
• Year: 2012
• ISBN:
  9781441154309
• Edition: 3
• Topic: Pedagogía
• Subtopic: Educación infantil

This third edition of Good Practice in the Early Years includes chapters on current key issues for early years practitioners such as multi-professional working, inclusion, child protection and children's rights and participation. As well as exploring key areas of good practice, the contributors explore the dilemmas that can arise from implementing good practice. An invaluable resource for all early years and childhood students and practitioners, this guide provides case studies and exercises to encourage readers to develop their understanding and knowledge of good practice in all early years settings.

1

Play in Early Years Education

Philippa Thompson

---

Chapter Outline

Introduction

Early pioneers: an historical perspective on play

Policy and curriculum: where does play fit in?

What is play – just playing?

The role of the adult

Listening to children

Time to play

Contexts for play

Conclusion

Introduction

So much has been written about play in early childhood that it can seem overwhelming when you are new to the theoretical perspectives. It seems everyone has an opinion on play – its value, its status, what it is and how it should be harnessed to provide a quality learning experience for children in their earliest years (0–8). This chapter aims to bring together some of the more recent theories on play and to give them a context within early childhood education. The starting point is that play was around long before the ‘play pioneers’ (the play theorists who first explored the meanings of play) began to see its value, and that it is driven by the child (intrinsically motivated).

Bringing different perspectives together may challenge the views of those who have only considered play as an ‘add on’ or a ‘tool’ to support children along their stages of development. This chapter challenges this perception and identifies good practice implicitly through this discussion.

Many early childhood educators appear to feel passionately that young children have a right to play and that they should not be faced with formal learning activities too soon. When asked to expand on this theory, the arguments appear to weaken as perhaps a definition of play is difficult to provide (Moyles et al., 2002). It could also be argued that there is certain hostility towards the concept of play because it is not easily quantifiable and therefore not easy to understand. Many Early Years Foundation Stage practitioners will recognize comments such as “well, you only play” as a response from curriculum leaders to questions concerning curriculum provision in a through primary school. According to many, the assumption is that the real learning only happens when more formal activities are introduced.

The key points that will be considered in this chapter aim to raise questions for consideration, rather than give answers. Those working in this field need to develop their own philosophy based on experience embedded within a theoretical perspective. The aim is to provide understanding of the concept of play within the field of early years and to discuss the role of play in quality early years provision. So how does the case for play become convincing? What do those working in the field of early years need to know and understand about play?

This chapter covers the following:

• Early pioneers: an historical perspective on play
• Policy and curriculum: where does play fit in?
• What is play – just playing?
• The role of the adult
• Listening to children
• Time to play
• Contexts for play.

Early pioneers: an historical perspective on play

To be able to develop an understanding of play and its controversial role in the education of young children, it is necessary to consider the historical context. To understand the development of ideas about play over time helps those who want to become advocates of play to be able to see that current perspectives and theories are not new, but grounded in research. This section provides an overview of the ideas of the key play pioneers and how their perspectives have been acknowledged and developed by modern-day theorists.

Rousseau

Whilst we could go as far back as Plato, this section will begin with Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–78), most well-known for his mainly fictional characterization of the growth and development of a young boy (Emile). Rousseau was concerned with what he considered to be the pointless questioning of children by adults, who he saw as interrupting the thinking and reasoning that children themselves would develop through their play. He appeared frustrated by the constant ‘testing’ of children, rather than adults using informed judgements to make decisions about children’s knowledge and understanding (Frost, 2010). The assumption could be made that Rousseau would not have enjoyed some of the practice we still see today, for example, children being shown flash cards of shapes, colours, words, pictures and being asked to repeat their names ‘parrot fashion’ and out of context. Rousseau pioneered the idea that adults could observe children at play, for example with blocks, and consider how a child was using their knowledge of shape to construct buildings and patterns – a far deeper understanding of the child’s knowledge should come from this.

Case study: Play and numbers

Jack’s mum and dad attended parents’ evening for the first time following his entry to Year One at a through Primary School. Comments were fairly positive until the parents were told that Jack (aged 5 years 8 months) needed to work on his ‘number bonds’ (0–10) as he had scored 8 out of 10 in a computerized test. Jack’s mum, a strong believer in supporting Jack to develop ideas and concepts through play, challenged this assumption. This was based on an observation of her son at play the previous day with two close friends – Emily (7 years 8 months) and Lucy (4 years 6 months). The children had sat at the top of the stairs and were estimating the number of stairs before counting them by bouncing down to the bottom on their bottoms with shrieks of laughter! This soon turned in to a game where one child had to bump down the stairs a certain number and another child had to bump down the number that they would have to add to make a total of ten (Jack deciding that they should only do numbers up to 10 as Lucy was ‘only 4’!) This then turned into a competition to see who could reach the bottom first, so problem-solving was key if you wanted to win. The children called the two mums (who had been eavesdropping), who suggested they made some numbers and then pulled them out of a hat. The children became very excited and wrote numbers from 1 to 20. A number was pulled out and all had to work out how many to bump down to make 10. Jack was extremely fast at this and soon wanted numbers to make 20, which he completed with ease. The game lasted over an hour, with the mums tiring before the children, and with Lucy taking the role of number caller.

The following parents’ evening Jack’s parents were told that Jack was felt to be ‘gifted and talented’ at mathematics.

Reflection point

Consider the summary of the work of Rousseau in the context of this Case Study.

• What are your initial thoughts?

The test that was used to measure Jack’s knowledge was a computer test in which children had to click on the appropriate number.

• Why do think Jack scored 8 rather than 10 when clearly the day before he had demonstrated a depth of knowledge?

Pestalozzi

Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi (1746–1827) reformed the development of children’s education, following the ideas of Rousseau. He supported the idea that adults should follow children’s interests and give children time to gain experience and develop. It is suggested that he deplored the rote-learning approach, and felt that the belief that there is a ‘correct’ answer to all questions should not be encouraged (Nutbrown et al., 2008; Frost, 2010). Pestalozzi believed that teachers had the role of nurturing children’s wellbeing rather than applying harsh punishments, and this underpinned the concept of the child as a person who could grow and develop in the right conditions.

Pestalozzi’s approach to learning could be seen as ‘playful’, or, in other words, he saw the intrinsic motivation that children have to play. He also considered that children have a certain readiness to take on ideas and concepts at particular times – an idea that more recently has been supported by research in neuroscience (Frost, 2010).

Case study: Following children’s interests

Having witnessed the ‘twisters’ in America on the television news, Tom (aged 6 years 3 months) wanted to know how a tornado was formed. The first answer given was not one that satisfied him. He knew it was a strong wind and had figured out that it was called a ‘twister’ because it ‘twisted round and round’ (his interest in all things rotating being strong at this time). He wanted to know how it was formed and why it had destroyed people’s homes. Tom’s dad spent the evening researching this concept so that he could talk it through with Tom the following day. Tornados are expected to feature in Tom’s play while he makes sense of this new concept. This had already happened previously from the age of 3 when he wanted to understand the cause of an eruption of a volcano. Ideas were gathered then developed into imaginative play with dinosaurs/lava/molten rock, which then continued to feature in his play for three years in different guises.

Reflection point

Consider the idea that Pestalozzi mooted, that there are times when children have a certain readiness to take on new learning.

• Do you think Tom would have gained as much from waiting until this new concept was taught in school?
• Why?

Froebel

Freidrich Froebel (1782–1852) studied under Pestalozzi and developed his own approach to the use of play, which was embedded into the curriculum and which focused on the natural play environment. Similarly to Pestalozzi, Froebel concentrated on ‘learning by doing’. He suggested that the sensory experience of handling open-ended materials which he called ‘gifts’ was the passage to exploring meaning and developing hypotheses. This worked alongside the development of ‘occupations’ that provided some skills based learning intended to provoke creativity.

Froebel developed a fascination with play in early childhood, seeing it as a tool for learning. However, the best approach to achieving this was ambiguous in Froebel’s time. Play as a tool for learning (and whether in fact it should be viewed as this at all) is a concept that has still not been clarified in recent curriculum documentation in England (DCSF, 2008; Tickell, 2011).

MacMillan and Isaacs

Margaret MacMillan (1860–1931), her sister Rachel (1859–1917) and Susan Isaacs (1885–1948) all made contributions in terms of how they felt children’s play should be supported and nurtured. The Macmillans created the first open air nursery and used this to improve the health and well-being of disadvantaged children. This is echoed today in the principle that young children need to develop their ideas outdoors as well as indoors, and that outdoor play affords children many benefits in their early years (see Bilton, 2002, 2004; Tovey, 2007; White, 2008; Ouvry, 2003; Garrick, 2004).

Susan Isaacs was one of the key pioneers of the role of observation in the understanding of children’s play. She supported the idea of recording children’s thoughts and ideas to try to understand the child from the inside out with little adult ‘interference’ (Howard and McInnes, 2010). Observation is now seen as a key element of quality early years practice, as a way of understanding children’s play and how children make sense of the world. There is still work to be done on how practitioners understand the role of observation, but the practice has been embedded. Isaacs also stressed the importance of social interactions, and her belief that children’s work is play is widely known, if perhaps disputed. This is a difficult...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Contents
• Contributors
• Introduction
• 1 Childhood
• 2 The Marshal Marriage
• 3 The Chaste Widow
• 4 The Countess as Lord
• 5 The Montfort Marriage
• 6 Family, Faction and Politics
• 7 Reform, Revolution and War
• 8 1265
• 9 After Evesham
• Conclusions
• Index