critical review of a research paper

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=gecd20

Early Child Development and Care

ISSN: 0300-4430 (Print) 1476-8275 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gecd20

Connections between children’s involvement in dramatic play and the quality of early childhood environments

Natalie Robertson, Bonnie Yim & Louise Paatsch

To cite this article: Natalie Robertson, Bonnie Yim & Louise Paatsch (2018): Connections between children’s involvement in dramatic play and the quality of early childhood environments, Early Child Development and Care, DOI: 10.1080/03004430.2018.1473389

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2018.1473389

Published online: 27 May 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 67

View Crossmark data

Connections between children’s involvement in dramatic play and the quality of early childhood environments Natalie Robertson , Bonnie Yim and Louise Paatsch

Arts and Education, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia

ABSTRACT Dramatic play is a typical activity that provides many benefits for preschool children’s learning and development. This paper presents the findings of a mixed-method study that examined the level of preschool children’s involvement in dramatic play and the connection between this involvement and the quality of the classroom environment. The study assessed the involvement of 101 children’s involvement in dramatic play across four preschool classrooms. The quality of each classroom was evaluated using the Early Childhood Environmental Rating Scale – Revised. Furthermore, video observations were collected to capture children’s interactions with physical elements of the classroom environment and their teacher. The findings have highlighted a positive connection between the quality of the classroom and the level of children’s involvement in dramatic play. Specifically, early childhood educators were shown to have a crucial and much needed role in guiding children’s involvement in dramatic play.

ARTICLE HISTORY Received 20 April 2018 Accepted 3 May 2018

KEYWORDS Early childhood; dramatic play; play; involvement; preschool

Dramatic play

Play is positioned in this paper as a child’s activity of creating an imaginary situation where meaning is transferred from one object or situation to another, and adopting and enacting roles (Vygotsky, 1978). Often referred to as ‘dramatic play’ or ‘pretend play’ within the field of early childhood edu- cation and care, Vygotsky (1978) asserted that play is the predominate activity of children in the pre- school year. Elkonin (2005) also affirms that children’s dramatic play is complex and innovative, and is inclusive of the following six behaviours: (1) substituting the meaning of objects and actions; (2) role enactments where children undertake the persona of someone else to enact situations; (3) complex themes driven by pretend actions and events; (4) rich dialogue and narration to plan the play, label objects, or to tell a story; (5) collaboration with peers; and (6) play episodes that persist over several hours.

The importance of dramatic play for learning and development is through the child’s use of imagin- ation to develop a creative re-working of events that they have seen or heard in order to make meaning from them (Vygotsky, 1978). Research suggests that in the process of restructuring their understanding of the world through play, children engage in rich cognitive processes, including problem solving, reflective thinking, self-regulation, attention and perspective taking; all of which are associated with higher-order thinking (e.g. Bodrova & Leong, 2007; Karpov, 2014). Leontiev (1981) proposes that dra- matic play provides the most optimal opportunity for learning and development in the preschool year which include gains in executive function (Karpov, 2014), language and literacy (Holmes, Romeo, Ciraola, & Grushko, 2015; Stagnitti & Lewis, 2015), and social skills (Reunamo et al., 2014).

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

CONTACT Natalie Robertson [email protected]

EARLY CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND CARE https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2018.1473389

Involvement

During complex cognitive activities, such as play, children display and experience high levels of invol- vement. Laevers’ (1994) describes involvement as an aspect of human activity where intense energy, concentration and satisfaction is experienced in such a way that all of one’s senses are attuned to one focus. Laevers categorizes involvement according to nine indicators of cognitive activity that include (1) Concentration; (2) Energy; (3) Complexity and creativity; (4) Intense facial expression and posture directed to the activity; (5) Persistence in activity; (6) Precision of activity; (7) Reaction time to stimuli; (8) Verbal utterances related to the activity; and (9) Satisfaction.

Involvement is the result of the child’s interaction with their environment and is motivated by their internal drive for the need to gain knowledge from that environment (Laevers, 1994). To fulfil this need, children’s participation in activities are intrinsically motivated out of their interest of the activity and the need to master their own reality (Carlton & Winsler, 1998). When a child is involved, their activity releases energy that induces pleasure and satisfaction which results in a narrowing of atten- tion to concentrate and persist in one activity where actions become deliberate and precise. Laevers argues that the release of energy and excitement through involvement supports a complex cognitive response to the stimuli available in their immediate environment that allows for abstract thinking where ‘worlds and ideas are felt more strongly and deeply’ (Laevers, 1994, p. 162).

Involvement in dramatic play

In recent years, there has been concern that children’s play skills are declining, affecting the complex- ity of cognitive activity and therefore learning experienced by children in the activity (Bodrova & Leong, 2007; Pyle & Danniels, 2017; Smirnova, 2013). However, such research findings have not inves- tigated whether children’s involvement is at a lower level than expected. Observation of involvement makes it possible to determine the complexity of an individual’s activity, despite the level of their play skills. As such, although children may not display complex play skills; they could still be involved at a high level, indicating that at their current level of play skill, they are still experiencing a form of higher order thinking.

Studies that have examined children’s involvement in play have often been focussed on the time spent in an activity or attention towards objects within an activity (Holmes & Romeo, 2013; McWilliam & Casey, 2008). While the findings from these studies have illustrated that dramatic play is a frequent activity of preschool children’s interest, research shows that a presence within a dramatic play space or use of object in a pretend way do not necessarily indicate that the child is involved in an activity of complex focussed attention (Robertson, 2016; Smirnova, 2013). Consequently, the intricacies of chil- dren’s characteristics of involvement have not been as deeply examined in the process of them undertaking activity associated with dramatic play. Using Laevers (1994) concept of involvement, a more comprehensive understanding of the complexity of children’s behaviours in dramatic play can be gained. The purpose of this paper is to examine the level of children’s involvement in dramatic play within four preschool classrooms in the city of Melbourne, Australia.

Classroom quality and involvement

Laevers (1997) argues that the level of children’s involvement is a reflection of the quality of the class- room environment in which they are situated in. Specifically, Laevers identifies that the provision of a rich physical environment that encompasses a well-planned space with access to novel play spaces that reflect children’s interests is crucial for their involvement. Laevers also argues that the social environment of a classroom is equally important for high levels of involvement. The social environ- ment encompasses interpersonal pedagogical processes, including respectful educator-child relationships, positive behaviour guidance strategies and educators’ involvement in children’s play.

2 N. ROBERTSON ET AL.

The importance of both physical and social aspects of the classroom environment for children’s involvement is well documented in the literature. Some research studies have demonstrated the long term impacts that educators’ interactions and the arrangement of play spaces have upon chil- dren’s current and future learning and development (Mashburn et al., 2008; Sylva, Melhuish, Sammons, Siraj-Blatchford, & Taggart, 2010). For example, studies that have focussed on children’s dramatic play advocate for the importance of the spatial arrangement for children’s involvement in the activity (Mawson, 2010; Michalopoulou, 2001). In particular, Oncu and Umek (2010) places specific emphasis on the organization of play spaces and availability of open-ended props that provide opportunities for children to enter the imaginary world.

Research has shown that specific aspects of the social environment are associated with a higher level of complexity of dramatic play activity. For example, a play-based curriculum that values child- centred learning and intentional teaching is recommended (Sylva et al., 2010). Pyle and Danniels (2017) propose that a play-based curriculum consists of two forms of play; free play and guided play. Researchers argue that free play; activity that is spontaneous and directed by the child, sup- ports children’s optimum involvement in dramatic play. For example, Paley’s (2004) exploration of the influence of educators’ interactions with children in dramatic play, showed that children’s invol- vement was negatively interrupted when educators entered the play episode. Further studies report similar findings, leading to the recommendation that play as a natural activity of children’s learning, should belong solely to the child (Harper & McCluskey, 2003; Wilcox-Herzog & Kontos, 1998).

In contrast, guided play is also reported to have benefits for children’s involvement in dramatic play. Guided play is an activity that is also child-directed but involves the teacher as a co-player using intentional teaching strategies (Pyle & Danniels, 2017). Siraj (2014) explains that in guided play, educators’ involvement with children in sustained shared thinking enables a context where edu- cators can intentionally guide children’s exploration and knowledge of the world, including people, places, properties of objects, and the laws of nature. With this greater conceptual knowledge of their world, children are provided with enriched opportunities to extend their vocabulary as well as their role enactments and situations within a play episode (Fleer, 2014). Furthermore, the complexity of children’s dramatic play skills can be enhanced in guided play (Lindqvist, 2010; Stagnitti & Lewis, 2015).

The current study examined the children’s level of involvement in dramatic play in four preschool classrooms and explored the connection between the physical and social provisions of a classroom environment and children’s involvement in dramatic play. The design of this study allowed for the investigation of the following two questions:

(1) What is the level of children’s involvement in dramatic play? (2) What are the connections between the quality of the classroom environment and children’s

involvement in dramatic play?

Methodology

Research participants

A total of 101 children (Mean age 5 years, 54 males and 47 females) enrolled in four preschool class- rooms located in Metropolitan Melbourne, Australia participated in the study. Each classroom was led by a 4-year degree qualified teacher and assisted by an educator holding or working towards a Diploma of Education and Care (or equivalent). The four female teachers and four female educators from the selected preschool classrooms participated. Random sampling (Collins, Onwuegbuzie, & Jiao, 2006) was used to select and invite teachers from a sampling frame of 140 preschool classrooms within a 5 km radius of the University that the researchers are employed. All children enrolled at the four preschools were invited to participate through parental consent.

EARLY CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND CARE 3

The curriculum of the four selected preschool classrooms was guided by the Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF; DEEWR, 2009) during the research period, which involves play-based, child- initiated, adult-guided learning experiences in both indoor and outdoor environments. This paper presents findings from a larger research study, and specifically focuses on children’s involvement in dramatic play in the indoor environment. Ethics approval was received from the university and the Department of Education prior to data collection.

Research design and data collection

The study adopted a mixed method design due to its ability to triangulate data in order to delve deeply into the research problem (Creswell & Plano-Clark, 2011). Quantitative data were collected using the Leuven Involvement Scale for Young Children (LIS-YC) (Laevers, 1994) and the Early Child- hood Environmental Rating Scale – Revised (ECERS-R) (Harms, Clifford, & Cryer, 2005). Qualitative data were collected using video observations and field notes of 4–5 year old children participating in dra- matic play.

Leuven involvement scale for young children (LIS-YC) The LIS-YC (Laevers, 1994) consists of nine signals of involvement including: (1) concentration; (2) energy; (3) creativity; (4) facial expression and posture; (5) persistence; (6) precision; (7) reaction time; (8) verbal utterances/language; and (9) satisfaction. Each child-participant was observed six times during dramatic play activities over a 3-week period, for a period of two-minutes per session. Prior to the children being observed using the LIS-YC (Laevers, 1994) it was necessary to establish whether they actively participated in a dramatic play episode. Elkonin’s (2005) criteria of dra- matic play was used to determine whether children were involved in the activity.

Each of the nine signals was rated according to low, medium or high. The overall session was scored according to a 5-point Likert scale ranging from ‘no activity’ to ‘sustained intense activity’. To determine the total mean score of each child’s involvement in dramatic play, the sum of all obser- vations was divided by the number of observations. A mean score between 1 and 5 was possible. For the purpose of this study, the mean score of overall involvement and the mean score for each of the nine signals of involvement were reported.

Early childhood environmental rating scale – revised (ECERS-R) The ECERS-R (Harms et al., 2005) was used to measure the global quality of the classroom environ- ment. The ECERS-R is recognized as a valid and reliable scale in examining constructs of quality in preschool classrooms (Peisner-Feinberg & Burchinal, 1997). The ECERS-R consists of 43 items, across seven subscales. Five subscales were employed because they examined factors specific to the quality of the physical and social environment. The five subscales include: (1) space and furnishings; (2) language and reasoning; (3) activities (e.g. fine motor, art, music, blocks etc.); (4) interaction; and (5) programme structure (e.g. free play, group time etc.). Two subscales [(1) Per- sonal care (i.e. Hygiene and nutrition); and (2) Parents and staff (Administration)] were not employed in this study as they were deemed by the researchers as not appropriate for the focus of the study.

Each item within the five selected subscales comprises of seven levels of quality that include a detailed description of each level ranging from 1 = Inadequate; 3 = Minimal; 5 = Good; and 7 = Excellent. An item was scored by assessing the description under quality level 1 (Inadequate) and progressing upwards until an indicator was not met. A mean score was determined for each subscale by aggregating its comprising individual items. The overall rating of the four selected preschool classrooms was calculated as the average of each subscale’s score. Obser- vations using the ECERS-R took place over one day (six hours) in each of the four selected pre- school classrooms.

4 N. ROBERTSON ET AL.

Video observations and field notes In order to investigate the ways in which the preschool teachers and educators support children’s involvement in dramatic play, video-recorded interactions between the teachers/educators and the children were collected throughout the period of three weeks per classroom. Video observations and field notes of the physical environment in which these interactions took place were also recorded. A total of 800 minutes of video data across all four preschool classrooms was collected along with extensive field notes that recorded the following:

. Who was involved in the interaction/action,

. What happened in the interaction, and

. The outcome of the interaction/action upon children’s involvement in dramatic play.

Data analysis

Quantitative data collected by the LIS-YC and the ECERS-R were scored and analysed using the IBM SPSS 22.0 for statistical analysis. An alpha level of ≤ .05 significance was employed for all statistical tests. Qualitative data, including transcriptions of video-recorded interactions and field notes were thematically analysed using Leedy and Ormrod’s (2013) 3-step process in QSR NVivo 11.0. Table 1 out- lines the three steps that were used in the thematic analysis.

Findings

Level of children’s involvement in dramatic play

Results showed that the overall mean score of the LIS-YC for the 101 children across four preschools (M = 3.51, SD = 0.68) was maintained at level 3.5 (out of a maximum of 5 levels). Table 2 shows the mean scores of each of the nine signals of involvement in dramatic play. Results show that the two highest rating signals were concentration (3.89) and expression (3.69). Overall, the children were not involved in any of the nine signals at a sustained intense level. At a level 3.5, children were busy in their dramatic play activities but showed only limited capabilities in their involvement with moderate creativity.

Excerpt 1 shows a typical dramatic play episode evident of level 3 involvement across the four classrooms. In this particular interaction, children appeared to be busy in the scenario and demon- strated some capability in the expression of their actions and verbal interactions. However, the chil- dren’s intermittent concentration and persistence in maintaining the story and role were limited during the observation. When the children started chasing each other, their focus diverted to another activity which illustrated limited energy and precision in upholding their role. Furthermore, when their focus returned to the scenario they were unable to continue where they left off, preferring to swap roles and repeat the same scenario again. This illustrates limited creativity in their role and some dissatisfaction in the activity.

Results of a one-way between-groups Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) further showed that there was a significant difference (F (3, 101) = 2.939, p = .037) in the levels of involvement across the four

Table 1. Thematic analysis process.

Step Process

Characteristics of focus were defined

. Physical space and furnishings supporting involvement in dramatic play were examined

. Social environment (i.e. adult-child and child-child interactions) that supported involvement in dramatic play were examined

Material was broken down Relevant video data was broken into 1- to 2- min intervals Material was coded Each material was examined and coded at instances of each characteristic

EARLY CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND CARE 5

classrooms. Findings of the Tucky HSD test indicated that the mean LIS-YC score of Classroom 2 for the measurement of children’s involvement (M = 3.28, SD = 0.33) was significantly lower than Classroom 4 (M = 3.71, SD = 0.74). A medium effect size of 0.83 using eta squared was found. No significant differ- ence was found in any comparisons of LIS-YC scores between Classroom 1, 3 and 4. These findings suggest that children in Classroom 1, 3 and 4 displayed similar levels of involvement in dramatic play.

Similarly, differences in the levels of involvement were evident from the video data from Class- room 2 when compared with the other three classroom. Excerpt 2 illustrates a typical episode of chil- dren’s involvement in dramatic play in Classroom 2. The children were responsive to each other, as they were responding to each other’s interaction. However, there was limited energy and creativity in their interactions and actions and they did not build upon the ideas of each other with enthusiasm. In addition, their concentration and persistence in the role were not sustained for the duration of the 2- min observation. The broken concentration demonstrates some dissatisfaction in the activity.

Excerpt 3 illustrates a sample episode of children’s involvement in dramatic play in Classroom 4. Some clear differences in the signals of involvement were evident when compared to the dramatic play episode that took place in Classroom 2 (as represented in Excerpt 2). For example, children in Classroom 4 demonstrated a higher level of concentration and persistence in their role as they sus- tained a role for the duration of the 2-min observation. Furthermore, the children demonstrated a higher level of precision, energy and creativity than compared with children in Classroom 2 when they built upon the ideas of each other to enhance their role, enacted the persona and physical actions of their role, and used metacommunicative ‘pretend I’ statements in their verbal language. The children also displayed a greater level of response to each other through their collaborative inter- actions to develop the story in the play episode.

Table 2. Levels of children’s involvement.

Indicators Mean Std. Deviation

Concentration 3.89 0.70 Energy 3.61 0.71 Creativity 3.31 0.77 Expression 3.69 0.72 Persistence 3.55 0.79 Precision 3.48 0.76 Reaction time 3.49 0.73 Verbal language 3.55 0.86 Satisfaction 3.55 0.73

Excerpt 1. Level 3 involvement from Classroom 1.

6 N. ROBERTSON ET AL.

Connections between the quality of the classroom environment and children’s involvement in dramatic play

The ECERS-R was used to measure the quality of each of the four preschool classrooms. Table 3 shows scores for each of the five subscales for the four selected preschool classrooms. Results show that Classroom 3 scored the highest for overall quality with a rating of ‘Excellent’ compared with the

Excerpt 2. Children’s involvement behaviours in Classroom 2.

Excerpt 3. Children’s involvement behaviours in Classroom 4.

EARLY CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND CARE 7

other three classrooms. Specifically, Classroom 3 scored ‘Excellent’ in four of the five subscales with Activities receiving a score of ‘Good’. In contrast, Classrooms 1 and 4 scored an overall rating of ‘Good’ while Classroom 2 scored an overall rating of ‘Minimal’. The lowest scoring subscale for Classrooms 1, 2 and 4 was ‘Language and Reasoning’.

Excerpt 4 shows the difference in children’s involvement in dramatic play between Classroom 2 (lowest scoring classroom) and 3 (highest scoring classroom). In Classroom 2, the dramatic play area, typically considered to be an area where active play occurs, was positioned next to the reading area; an area that typically evokes passive activity. Involvement in dramatic play was inter- rupted for the children, Laura and Simone, by a crowded space that combined active and passive play suggesting difficulties with the classroom design. Furthermore, the teacher disrupted children’s involvement in dramatic play when she reprimanded the children for moving items from other areas of the classroom to support their dramatic play. In contrast, the physical design of Classroom 3 was less crowded whereby furniture was used to create play spaces into well-defined areas. Moreover, active and passive areas were well separated. Teachers in Classroom 3 allowed children to move items, such as books, around the classroom as they needed to in order to support their play, as long as the activity was safe and the items were put away after the activity had finished.

The daily programme for all four classrooms was structured by large periods (approximately 2 hours) of child-directed play (consisting of both free play and guided play). Each period of play

Table 3. Comparison of ECERS-R scores by classroom.

ECERS-R Sub-scales Centre 1 Centre 2 Centre 3 Centre 4

Space and furnishings 4.75 3.87 6.83 5.75 Language and reasoning 3.50 2.25 6.25 4.25 Activities 4.00 4.11 5.44 5.00 Interactions 6.20 3.20 7.00 5.40 Programme structure 5.00 3.33 6.00 5.00 Total 4.69 3.55 6.27 5.20

Excerpt 4. Connection between space and furnishings and involvement in dramatic play.

8 N. ROBERTSON ET AL.

was separated by routines, including meals, rest and whole group music or story time. Despite these similarities in curriculum arrangements, Classroom 2 demonstrated a large difference in their scores for the ECERS-R subscale of programme structure when compared with Classrooms 1, 3 and 4. Two possible key reasons for this difference in quality levels relate to (1) Flexible environments, and (2) Guided play pedagogy.

During periods of child initiated activity, Classrooms 1 and 3 offered a flexible environment where children were able to flow between the indoor and outdoor environment. A key benefit of this approach is that children had a larger space to play. This is illustrated in Excerpt 4 where the children in Classroom 3 were able to expand their play into other spaces without infringing on the play of other children. In contrast, the curriculum in Classroom 2 was arranged so that children had one period of free play inside, and one period of free play outside. All children in Classroom 2 were required to play in the same environment at the same time. As illustrated in Excerpt 4, the different play activities undertaken by children were likely to encroach on the play spaces of others. Conse- quently, place spaces often became overcrowded, which may have interfered with the time children had to develop a dramatic play episode with high involvement.

A second possible reason for the difference in the scores relating to programme structure between Classroom 2 and Classrooms 1, 3 and 4, relates to the amount of guided play that was implemented by teachers and educators. In Classroom 2, it was common for the teacher and educator to follow a free play approach, only intervening in moments where it was believed that children’s safety was at risk or to restore social order. Excerpt 5 shows an interaction between the teacher and a group of children during dramatic play. The children were scolded for driving their bikes too fast and at no time was the reason for their activity taken into consideration and intentionally used to redirect the behaviour by expanding or building on the story. This resulted in reduced involvement in the dramatic play episode and the termination of the children’s imagined story.

In comparison to the interactions evident in Classroom 2, it was common for teachers and educa- tors in Classroom 3 to use a guided play approach. Teachers frequently observed and analysed the constructs of children’s dramatic play before initiating an interaction. Excerpt 6 illustrates a moment where Grace, the teacher in Classroom 3, uses a potentially unsafe situation to expand upon chil- dren’s dramatic play in order to restore children’s safety and increase their involvement. Pyle and Danniels (2017) identify that these types of interactions are a form of guided play whereby the teacher acknowledges the child’s innate joy in playful learning, and uses strategies that respond to their instinct to play. In using guided play, Grace guided children towards key constructs of dra- matic play, including giving objects new meaning and conceptualizing roles, and imagination.

The guided play pedagogy was also connected with a higher score in the ECERS-R subscale Language and Reasoning where teachers interact with children to: (1) support their communication skills through informal language; and (2) develop children’s reasoning skills through sustained shared thinking. For example, in Excerpt 7, Annette the educator from Classroom 3, engages with two chil- dren in guided play to encourage social interaction, and model positive social interactions to increase their communication. After this guidance, Fred and David (children) begun to work together to develop a story about Annette’s illness. LIS-YC data showed an increase in the children’s involvement from low (M = 2.20) to high (M = 4.40).

Excerpt 5. Connection between programme structure and involvement in dramatic play: Classroom 2.

EARLY CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND CARE 9

Discussion

This paper presented an examination of 101 children’s level of involvement in dramatic play in four preschool classrooms and an exploration of the connection between the physical and social pro- visions of a classroom environment and children’s involvement in dramatic play. A moderate level of involvement (level 3.5 out of 5) in dramatic play was found across the four selected classrooms. Children were observed as being continuously busy within the activity of dramatic play, but they demonstrated limited energy, motivation and creativity (Laevers, 1994). Laevers emphasizes that to be involved, the experience must be proximal to the child’s developmental level; any experience that is too easy or too difficult will not produce high level involvement. At a moderate level of invol- vement, it is unlikely that children are experiencing deep-level thinking in an activity that is proximal to their level of development. These findings support the concerns that children’s dramatic play in the preschool year may no longer be at a level of complexity that supports learning (Smirnova, 2013). While the measurement of play skills were not a focus of this paper, the level of involvement of children observed was associated with repetitious story lines, broken attention within the play episode and fragmented persistence in role enactments.

Laevers (1994) suggests that when examining children’s involvement, one must consider the environment in which the involvement is occurring. Consequently, the measurement of involvement

Excerpt 7. Connection between interactions and involvement in dramatic play.

Excerpt 6. Connection between programme structure and involvement in dramatic play.

10 N. ROBERTSON ET AL.

not only provides an insight into the level of children’s internal processes within an activity, but may also provide an indication of the quality of classroom provisions for children’s learning. The current study examined the quality of four preschool classrooms using ECERS-R. The findings showed that higher ECERS-R ratings, were associated with higher levels of involvement, while lower ECERS-R ratings were associated with lower levels of involvement. These findings support Laevers’ suggestion that involvement is a reflection of classroom quality.

Findings also highlighted the importance of the design of the physical environment in supporting children’s dramatic play. As noted by Rogers and Evans (2007) dramatic play needs space in order for children to create complex play episodes. Furthermore, involvement is dependent upon uninter- rupted time for children to pursue their goals and motives (Howe, Abuhatoum, & Chang-Kredl, 2014). In the case of the children in Classroom 3, findings showed that they experienced less disrup- tions and more time in their dramatic play when play spaces were not crowded, supporting the reported link between children’s level of involvement and factors of time and space. Furthermore, these children were provided with greater choices within these larger spaces that enabled the foster- ing of higher levels of play. Such findings suggest that early childhood teachers and educators should design spaces for dramatic play with an intention to sustain children’s involvement in the activity. This is particularly important given the difficulty these children experienced in returning to the same level of involvement when their episodes were disrupted and the possible impact constant dis- ruptions may have on developing more complex play skills (Robertson, 2016).

Another significant finding from this current study related to the importance of the design of space where it was shown that frequent disruptions to children’s involvement in dramatic play occurred when active and passive play spaces were positioned in the same area, or next to each other. Findings showed that while the inclusion of books within a dramatic play space can be ben- eficial for children’s literacy development and also enhance their dramatic play episodes, a more sup- portive practice to foster children’s involvement in dramatic play was to include books as a prop, and keep the reading area separated from the dramatic play space. In order for play spaces to be inten- tionally designed for dramatic play, the findings suggest that it is important for early childhood tea- chers and educators to become observant of how children utilize the space both physically with objects and also socially with peers. This way it can be ensured that the placing of furniture and objects enhance the complexity of play and children’s overall levels of involvement, rather than cause conflict.

Children’s involvement in dramatic play in the current study was also found to be connected with the quality of the social environment. The ECERS-R rates the social environment according to the pro- visions for free play, guided play, interactions that support children’s language and reasoning skills, supervision and relationships (Harms et al., 2005). The findings showed that the children in the current study displayed higher levels of involvement in dramatic play when teachers and educators engaged with them in guided play pedagogy. Teachers and educators in Classrooms 1, 3 and 4 enacted an indirect role in the children’s play through the use of questioning from outside of the play episode in order to prompt further representational thought, as well as deepen role and script development. While this pedagogical approach has been found to improve the complexity of children’s dramatic play (Loizou, 2017), the current study showed that it also increased and sus- tained children’s involvement. Specifically, the findings of the current study showed that in using guided play, teachers and educators were able to increase and sustain children’s involvement in dra- matic play by prompting them to further promote their creativity and/or to make connections with prior real-life experiences.

In contrast to the guided play pedagogies used in Classrooms 1, 3 and 4, teachers and educators in Classroom 2 implemented free play pedagogies, showing value in children’s individual construction of knowledge through self-initiated activity. Research findings from previous studies have rec- ommended that free play pedagogies are the optimum approach to enhance children’s involvement in dramatic play (Harper & McCluskey, 2003; Paley, 2004; Wilcox-Herzog & Kontos, 1998). However in the current study, free play pedagogies were connected with lower involvement in dramatic play,

EARLY CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND CARE 11

suggesting that there are benefits in both free play and guided play when supporting children’s involvement.

In contrast to the findings by Paley (2004) that reported that free play provides children with greater autonomy and time to play, the current study found that this was not the case for all children. For example, the free play pedagogies evident in Classroom 2 showed that the teacher and educator often adopted a supervisory role which was associated with a higher number of interactions that mediated children’s play in order to uphold classroom rules and safety. The teacher and educator’s concern over possible misuse of a classroom play space interrupted children’s involvement in play and overlooked the significance of the intention behind the children’s actions. Accordingly, children were not guided towards processes associated with higher involvement, including persistence, con- centration, precision and creativity. Such findings show that more support may be needed for tea- chers and educators at their different educational level to achieve a balance of the implementation of guided play and free play pedagogies to support children’s dramatic play.

The findings of the current study suggests that teachers and educators need to be attuned to the needs of children in the play and be intentional in their approach to join. Teachers and educators may not need to impose on children’s dramatic play through methods of direct participation, as is suggested in previous literature (Gmitrova, 2013; Hakkarainen, Bredikyte, Jakkula, & Munter, 2013; Smiliansky & Shefatya, 1990). In contrast, the findings showed that subtle prompts to assist children’s planning, managing and reflecting on their activity through open-ended questioning were found to be efficient source of guidance for children’s involvement in dramatic play.

Conclusion

This study aimed to examine children’s level of involvement in dramatic play and to explore the con- nection between children’s involvement in dramatic play and the provisions of quality within the physical and social environment. In contrast to previous studies of involvement which have focussed on the time spent within the activity or presence within a play space (Holmes & Romeo, 2013; McWil- liam & Casey, 2008), the current study provided a more in-depth examination of children’s levels of involvement in dramatic play and its connection to the quality of the classroom environment. Through this examination, the findings have highlighted a positive connection between quality class- room and levels of involvement in dramatic play. Teachers and educators were shown to have a crucial and much needed role in guiding children’s involvement in dramatic play. Specifically, the findings showed that intentional practice is needed to design physical environments and to interact with children for the purpose of supporting their dramatic play. Ensuring that teachers/educators have developed an awareness of high-quality play environments through their training programmes is essential for their understanding of how to best guide children’s involvement in dramatic play.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors

Dr Natalie Robertson is the Course Director of the Bachelor of Education (Early Years) at Deakin University, Victoria, Aus- tralia. Natalie obtained an undergraduate degree in early childhood education in 2011 and completed her Doctorate of Philosophy at Deakin University in 2017. She has worked in the field of early childhood education as a teacher, edu- cational leader, lecturer and researcher. Natalie’s research uses mixed methods approaches that focuses on the interests of play-based learning, and early childhood curriculum and pedagogy.

Dr Louise Paatsch is an Associate Professor in Language and Literacy in the School of Education at Deakin University, Victoria Australia. She obtained her primary teachers’ qualification at the Australian Catholic University, Victoria in 1984, Graduate Diploma in Special Education (Hearing Impaired) at Deakin University, Victoria in 1988, Master of Edu- cation at the University of Melbourne in 1997, and Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Melbourne in 2007. She

12 N. ROBERTSON ET AL.

has worked widely in the field of early years education as a classroom teacher, teacher of the deaf, researcher, and research supervisor. Louise’s research uses mixed methods approaches that focus on oral language, play, and literacy development, as well as investigates teacher talk, inclusive education, professional learning and teachers as researchers.

Dr Bonnie Yim is an Associate Professor and the Course Director of the Bachelor of Early Childhood Education Honours (BECE-Hons) and BECE(International) courses at Deakin University. Bonnie’s research interests include early childhood education and policy, child development, curriculum development and evaluation, cross-cultural studies, active learning engagement, and teacher education. She is an active researcher and has published widely in these areas. Bonnie has been conducting joint-research with Griffith University, RMIT, LaTrobe University, the SEED Institute in Singapore, and Yew Chung Community College in Hong Kong. Bonnie is also an early years consultant in Australia, Singapore, Mainland China, Hong Kong and Indonesia.

ORCID

Natalie Robertson http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8480-2235

References

Bodrova, E., & Leong, D. J. (2007). Tools of the mind: The Vygotskian approach to early childhood education (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Merril Prentice Hall.

Carlton, M. P., & Winsler, A. (1998). Fostering intrinsic motivation in early childhood classrooms. Early Childhood Education Journal, 25(3), 159–166.

Collins, K., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Jiao, Q. G. (2006). Prevalence of mixed-methods sampling designs in social science research. Evaluation & Research in Education, 19(2), 83–101.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano-Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. (5th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage. Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR). (2009). Belonging, being & becoming: The early

years learning framework for Australia. Canberra: Commonwealth Government. Elkonin, D. B. (2005). The psychology of play. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 43(1), 11–21. Fleer, M. (2014). Theorising play in the early years. Port Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. Gmitrova, V. (2013). Teaching to play performing a main role – effective method of pretend play facilitation in preschool-

age children. Early Child Development and Care, 183(11), 1705–1719. Hakkarainen, P., Bredikyte, M., Jakkula, K., & Munter, H. (2013). Adult play guidance and children’s play development in a

narrative play-world. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 21(2), 213–225. Harms, T., Clifford, R., & Cryer, D. (2005). Early childhood environment rating scale: Revised edition. New York: Teachers

College Press. Harper, L. V., & McCluskey, K. S. (2003). Teacher–child and child–child interactions in inclusive preschool settings: Do

adults inhibit peer interactions? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 18(2), 163–184. Holmes, R. M., & Romeo, L. (2013). Gender, play, language, and creativity in preschoolers. Early Child Development and

Care, 183(11), 1531–1543. Holmes, R. M., Romeo, L., Ciraola, S., & Grushko, M. (2015). The relationship between creativity, social play, and children’s

language abilities. Early Child Development and Care, 185(7), 1180–1197. Howe, N., Abuhatoum, S., & Chang-Kredl, S. (2014). “Everything’s upside down. We’ll call it upside down valley!”: Siblings’

creative play themes, object use, and language during pretend play. Early Education and Development, 25(3), 381–398. Karpov, Y. V. (2014). Vygotsky for educators. Port Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. Laevers, F. (1994). The innovative project experiential education and definition of quality in education. In F. Laevers (Ed.),

Defining and assessing quality in early childhood education (pp. 159–174). Leuven: Leuven University Press. Laevers, F. (1997). Assessing the quality of childcare provision: “Involvement” as criterion. Researching Early Childhood, 3,

151–165. Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2013). Practical research: Planning and design (10th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education. Leontiev, A. N. (1981). Problems of the development of mind. Moscow: Progress Publishing. Lindqvist, G. (2010). When small children play: How adults dramatise and children create meaning. Early Years: An

International Journal of Research and Development, 21(1), 7–14. Loizou, E. (2017). Towards play pedagogy: Supporting teacher play practices with a teacher guide about socio-dramatic

and imaginative play. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 25(5), 784–795. Mashburn, A. J., Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., Downer, J. T., Barbarin, O. A., Bryant, D., & Howes, C. (2008). Measures of class-

room quality in prekindergarten and children’s development of academic, language, and social skills. Child Development, 79(3), 732–749.

Mawson, B. (2010). Environmental influences on independent collaborative play. International Research in Early Childhood Education, 1(2), 2–12.

EARLY CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND CARE 13

McWilliam, R. A., & Casey, A. M. (2008). Engagement of every child in the preschool classroom. New Jersey: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.

Michalopoulou, A. (2001). A spatio-pedagogical approach to symbolic play as kindergarten activity in early childhood. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 9(2), 59–68.

Oncu, E. C., & Umek, E. (2010). Preschool children’s using of play materials creatively. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 4457–4461.

Paley, V. (2004). A child’s work: The importance of fantasy play. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Peisner-Feinberg, E. S., & Burchinal, M. R. (1997). Relations between preschool children’s child-care experiences and con-

current development: The cost, quality, and outcomes study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 43(3), 451–477. Pyle, A., & Danniels, E. (2017). A continuum of play-based learning: The role of the teacher in play-based pedagogy and

the fear of hijacking play. Early Education and Development, 28(3), 274–289. doi:10.1080/10409289.2016.1220771 Reunamo, J., Lee, H. C., Wang, L. C., Ruokonen, I., Nikkola, T., & Malmstrom, S. (2014). Children’s creativity in day care. Early

Child Development and Care, 184(4), 617–632. Robertson, N. (2016). The complexity of preschool children’s dramatic play behaviour and play styles in Australia: A mixed

methods study. Asia-Pacific Journal of Research in Early Childhood Education, 10(2), 71–92. Rogers, S., & Evans, J. (2007). Rethinking role play in the reception class. Educational Research, 49(2), 153–167. Siraj, I. (2014). The role of sustained shared thinking, play and metacognition in young children’s learning. In S. Robson &

S. Quin (Eds.), The routledge international handbook of young children’s thinking and understanding. Abington Oxon: Routledge.

Smiliansky, S., & Shefatya, L. (1990). Facilitating play: A medium for promoting cognitive, socio-emotional and academic development in young children. Maryland: PS&E Publications.

Smirnova, E. (2013). Play in a modern pre-school education. Psychological Science and Education, 3, 92–98. Stagnitti, K., & Lewis, F. M. (2015). Quality of pre-school children’s pretend play and subsequent development of semantic

organization and narrative re-telling skills. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 17(2), 148–158. Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Taggart, B. (2010). Early childhood matters: Evidence from the

effective pre-school and primary education project. Oxon: Routledge. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University

Press. Wilcox-Herzog, A., & Kontos, S. (1998). The nature of teacher talk in early childhood classrooms and its relationship to

children’s play with objects and peers. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 159(1), 30–44.

14 N. ROBERTSON ET AL.