How does the setting support the development of …public.don.ac.uk/universitycentre/departments/earlyyears...often will seem as though they have forgotten about the object ‘out

1 | P a g e

How does the setting support the

development of schematic play for

children under two?

2 | P a g e

Abstract

This action research project explores the development of

Schematic Play in children from birth to two year old and

focuses on how the setting supports this through:

professional knowledge and understanding, planning and

the learning environment. The researcher has identified

many surrounding theorist and pioneers including: Issacs

(1930), Frobel (1840), Spencer (1882), Piaget (1953) and

Vygotsky (1962). These are a few who have contributed to

the theoretical perspectives around schemas and play, as

well as interlinking both aspects to form the focus topic of

‘Schematic Play’ and research question “How does the

setting support the development of schematic play for

children under two?” The literature focuses widely on

cognitive development: Prenatal development, cognition,

environment, schemas, play and schemas in play with

Piaget (1953) identified as the most influential for this particular project. Piaget

(1953) has impacted the route of the research thought the identified sensori-motor

stage of development and provided a secure motive when considering the ethical

legitimacy to proceed. The action research methodology gave the researcher the

option to identify any need for change whilst adopting triangulation of multiple

methods. Observations, questionnaires and interviews were highlighted as methods

of data collection to gain a variety of perspectives and depth to the findings.

Observations provided evidence of the schematic play traits current whereas

questionnaires were developed to unpick professional perspectives.

This research has found that in comparison with literature, the setting

does not provide wide opportunities for children to develop their

schematic play traits due to participants lack in understanding.

Findings show a foundation of understanding towards schematic

play but 100% of participants agreed they would benefit from

further training or information.

3 | P a g e

1. Literature Review

1.1 Prenatal Development

Prenatal brain development is seen as one of the most influenced aspects of

children’s growth with evidence from 1001 Critical Days (2015); pregnancy plays an

important role in the maturation of a healthy brain (APPG, 2015; Poston, 2015).

Infants are born with 25% of their brain already developed from the experiences they

have whilst in the womb as a foetus (APPG, 2015). The most influential impacts on

the foetal brain are dependent on both the mother’s stable emotional health and her

physical health. Also a nutritional enriching diet is vital to provide nutrition to the

unborn foetus – these combined influence cognitive maturation and result in life-long

effects (APPG, 2015). DiPietro (2009) studied foetal relationship and her research

suggested that both parents develop two differing relationships with their child: one

inside the womb and one outside. The foetal brain inside the womb begins to receive

signals through stimuli in connection with hearing, touch, movement and parental

emotions, these emotions from the mother can be transferred to the foetus through

an important phase which she identified as ‘mother-foetus relationship’ (Szekeres-

Bartho, 2002; Van Den Burgh, 2010;). Further research to support this study is not

widely available however; 1001 Critical Days (2015) in current literature which

identifies the important role of nutrition and mental health, which is supported by

cross-parliamentary groups on a large scale (APPG, 2015).

Early intervention is significant for those who do not receive the

best start in life; intervention occurs in the form of many

services including Education and Health (EIF, 2015). The 1001

Critical Days (2015) is at the forefront of intervention as it

enforces the need to create strong foundations for children with

a focus on the importance of intervention during conception up

to the age of two (APPG, 2015). Early intervention was

identified by Allen (2011), his work focused differently with

insight into the effects of child deprivation and the impact a lack

of stimulation can have on children from birth up to the age of

three years old. Allen (2011) examined the links between

4 | P a g e

environments, deprivation and children’s brain development in connection to the

severity of impact these factors can have on children whist outside of the womb

(Allen, 2011). These findings on prenatal brain development support the need for

intervention and enriched environments to support children in gaining the best start

in life cognitively, whilst ensuring secure foundations for life-long learning and

development.

1.2 Cognition and Schemes

Cognition was widely studied by Piaget (1953) and Vygotsky (1962), both theorists

identified the process of knowledge construction for children however, Vygotsky

(1962) expanded the work of Piaget (1953) by elaborating on the importance of

social and sociocultural interactions. Piaget (1953) developed theories of cognitive

development including: schemes, schemas and stages of development. Holistically

his work explored at how children understand and interpret the world around them.

Piaget (1953) also devised age appropriate stages based on the process of cognitive

development and the development of thought (Sutherland, 1992; Smidt, 2009).

Piaget (1953) identified four pre-dominant stages, within each stage he proposed

three interlinking sub-stages consisting of: assimilation, accommodation and

equilibrium. These stages outline the ways in which children receive information,

accommodate new information and adapt their prior knowledge to store new

knowledge and concepts. The first pre-dominant stage Sensori-motor is identified as

the most significant to children under two. This stage suggests that as children begin

to explore their ideas and understanding they combined both their senses and

physical skills to cognitively reason information,

within this key aspects include: exploration,

experiences, senses, interactions and movement

(Louis et al. 2011; Dowling, 2013). Piaget (1953)

believed within this age children are both: born with

innate schemas such as looking and listening as

well as learn from their experiences however,

children need to learn how to control their schemas

and draw benefits from their experiences to enable

5 | P a g e

flourishment of the mind (Beswick, et al, 2008). Alongside this children need to

develop their physical development and challenge themselves through aspects such

as lifting and moving (Bee, 2000; Shinskey and Jachens, 2014).

Focusing under two years, the sensori-motor stage has emphasised the importance

of object permanenc’. Piaget (1953) suggested that babies do not have the

understanding as to what happens to objects when they leave their sight and quite

often will seem as though they have forgotten about the object ‘out of sight out of

mind’ concept (Clare, 2012; Bertenthal, 2013). This does not necessarily have to

occur with a removable object it can relate to people to. If an adult is to hide their

face in games such as ‘peek-a-boo’ babies will often look puzzled as they are

unaware of what is going to happen (Bertenthal, 2013). Object permanence

develops widely during the babies first to second year and objects start to have

‘roles’ in their lives for example: toys for shaking, ball for rolling. This in when

children begin to make important cognitive links between symbols representing

objects and understanding that objects exist even when out of sight (Bertenthal,

2013; Shinskey and Jachens, 2014).

Schemes are the constructions of knowledge made within the brain from birth

however, it is when the child or baby takes action that the scheme becomes a

schema. Schemas develop on a wide spectrum from: holding and looking, throwing,

moving and other physically exerting areas of development (Lindon, 2007). Piaget

(1953) strongly believed playing was an important role in a child’s own learning

journey, suggesting that children act solely as active participants in their own

development of knowledge (Bee, 2000; Lee and Gupta, 2003). Both Piaget (1953)

and, later on, Athey (1972) identified schemas as repeated patterns of behaviour

however, Athey’s (1972) research took a more hands on approach towards schemas

by identifying the need to observe schemas in action (Athey, 2007). Schemas have

no ending and children develop their own schemas as part of their own development,

age and ability. Most babies will learn the same early schemas during the early

stages of development, which are holding, looking and listening. As the child

develops they will embark on their own individual schemas depending on their own

personal interest or for the purpose of reasoning new information in their own mind

(Bee, 2000).

6 | P a g e

1.3 Environmental Influences

Environmental influences are supported by the work of Bronfenbrenner (1970) and

Bowlby (1969). Bronfenbrenner’s theory (1970), the ecological systems approach

stated that children are part of the economy in which they grow and develop

(Bronfenbrenner, 1970). This means that children mature naturally as part of the

process of everyday life and do not become themselves without input from their

environments (Lindon, 2007; Bronfenbrenner, 1994). This theory is best described

as the ‘Russian Doll theory’ (Lindon, 2007) with the child right in the centre and the

influences surrounding them displayed by the dolls on the outer side, the closer the

doll then the more impact this will have on the child. Bronfenbrenner (1970) identified

these outer influences and circles as sub-systems (Lindon, 2007; Bronfenbrenner,

1994). There are five sub-systems with the ‘microsystem’ most directly influencing

the child and this includes impact from family, peers and day-to-day settings. The

microsystem is where children need the highest positive influences to support

cognitive stimulation; what children access and observe will influence them in many

ways so positive influential environments promote life-long foundations (Macleod-

Brudenell, 2004).

Bowlby (1969) can be integrated into this through his focus on attachment theory,

secure attachments in particular have shown effects on children’s emotional

development and their resilience to explore (Macleod-Brudenell, 2004). Through

promoting secure attachments children will have the security to engage in unfamiliar

surroundings as they will feel comfort from a consistent adult who will be represented

as a secure base (Macleod-Brudenell, 2004; Taylor and woods, 2005). The key

person approach is vital in settings to ensure strong bonds with children develop

(Elfer et al, 2003). Elfer (2003) identifies two impacts to this approach: the child and

the adult. Key people are expected to develop good relationships with parents to

inevitably support the child most effectively; to gain a home-setting relationships

where communication around the child can take place comfortably between the

parent and the practitioner. Positive relationships also transfer onto the child and will

create an all-round parent, child, practitioner relationship (Elfer et al, 2003).

7 | P a g e

The environment itself needs to be stimulating to intrigue children’s need for

engagement whilst aiming towards age, ability and stage appropriate activities. The

Early Years Foundation Stage (DfE, 2014) statutory framework states that in order

for children to achieve their full potential then good quality early years combined with

good enough parenting secures a happy, enjoyable learning environment (DfE,

2014). Enabling environments are identified within the Development Matters

document (DfE, 2012); it is paramount to create an environment that reflects the

children’s abilities to scaffold their learning through a variety of relevant resources

promoting extended learning opportunities such as risky play (EE, 2012; DfE, 2014).

1.4 Schemas in Play

Schemas are expressed widely in children’s play, this is known as ‘Schematic play’.

Play is seen as one of the most important aspects of child development as it occurs

naturally and gives children the freedom to gain experiences, use their imagination

whilst expressing themselves in any way they desire (Dowling 2010; White, 2012).

Isaacs (1930) argued that play is ‘child work’ and children are ‘active learners’ which

is also supported by Piaget (1953). Children need to be given adequate time to

explore, engage and develop themselves independently through their surroundings

(Willan, 2011). As well as this children need freedom to think for themselves and

develop their independence which is identified as an important life skill (Hutton,

2016). Children will learn cognitive skills such as problem-solving but also emotional

and social skills which will support them in the future (Bruce, 2004). Free-flow play is

the most influential for children as it allows them to develop their ideas, consolidate

their learning and effectively take into consideration their actions whilst embedding

new knowledge which is similar to the process of schemas: assimilation,

accommodation and equilibrium (Mayers, 2006; Bruce 2005). Schematic play is

beneficial to development as it is a naturally occurring process; it acts as a ‘scaffold’

towards self-understanding through its repetition of actions. Vygotsky (1978)

developed the scaffolding theory highlighting the importance of adult and peers

support however, schemas are innate behaviours and vary depending on the child’s

stage of understanding (Bee, 2000).

8 | P a g e

The most commonly observed schematic play in under 2 year olds are rotation,

enclosing, enveloping and transporting. These involve mainly physical actions and

are evident during the first two years as children develop their own movements and

senses (Atherton and Nutbrown, 2013). Rotation is linked to the Sensori-motor stage

when children develop an interest in things which turn or through patterns such as

spirals and circles (Louis et al, 2011). Schematic play can be viewed as ‘negative

behaviour’ especially when trajectory or transportation is identified. Recent studies

reported that practitioners need to have specific knowledge in areas of learning,

especially schematic play as this supports a wide scope of learning within cognition.

Through this review of research the researcher has devised the following research

question: “How does the setting support the development of schematic play for

children under two?”

2. Research Findings

2.1 Research Overview

The researcher has conducted the proposed action research project solely on one

provision to effectively evaluate the planned question - “How does the setting

support the development of schematic play for children under two?” The following

findings show the key data exposed when collating evidence in support of the

question. In relation to the methodology section triangulation of multiple methods

were sought to gain rich qualitative data, including: Questionnaires, interviews and

observations.

2.2 Integrating Play and Learning

Question eight from the questionnaires intrigued the researcher when analysing the

participant’s ideology on what they believed a schema is. The answers given differed

from playing alone to the ways in which children make mental connections in their

learning, however, all participants answered with either play and learning highlighted

as a definition for schemas. Participant 2 and 7 gave similar answers in the

questionnaires stating:

“A child who plays in a certain way,”

(Participant 2:Q8)

9 | P a g e

“A child during play is focused on a specific aspect, such as rotation.”

(Participant 7:Q8)

As the extract shows above, even though both of these answers are worded in

differing ways – play in certain ways and play as focused on a specific aspect, the

researcher is aware that the participants understand the basis of a schema and that

the participants have knowledge that schemas are followed due to ‘specific aspects’

as identified for rotation by participant 7. Both participant 3 and 8 build further on the

ideology by introducing the concept of ‘learning’:

“A child who has a certain type of learning.”

(Participant 3:Q8)

“The way in which children make connections in their learning through organised and

repetitive play.”

(Participant 8:Q8)

Furthermore, participant 3 and 8 unfold schemas more linked to theory as they

identifying the importance of individual learning whilst highlighting the concept of

repetitive play which support cognitive reasoning– this links to both Piaget (1953)

and Athey (1972) as both theorist recognises schematic play as repetitive behaviour.

Overall this shows that collectively the participants have a foundation to the basis of

understanding around schemas but are not 100% sure on the specific definition

furthermore, participant 1 merges the ideology of both aspects of play and learning

by stating:

“A Repeated Pattern of play that aids a child’s individual learning and development.”

(Participant 1:Q8)

Upon reflection of this, both Isaacs (1930) and Frobel (1840) theories has been

identified in this statement as the answer given suggests children as active learners

in their own work “aids a child’s individual learning”, whilst developing an imperative

aspect of cognition. Combining all three key features play, individual learning and

cognition, the researcher believes that Paget’s (1953) theory of schematic play has

been identified, as Piaget (1953) recognised the process of schemas as naturally

occurring within children’s day to day play. This also supports the work of Athey

10 | P a g e

(1972) through repeated patterns of behaviour. This further endorses Vygotsky’s

view of self-understanding of the world around us, through the engagement in

repetitive actions (Anderson et al, 2014). Evaluating all responses from question

eight, participant 1’s explanation was the closest out of them all in relation to the

literature and theory. This participant was one of the highest qualified with current

studies in Early Childhood.

“NVQ Level 2 + 3, FdA Early Childhood Policy and Practice, Working towards BA

Early Childhood Studies.”

(Participant 1: Q2)

Underpinning this theme is question nine in the questionnaire:

“On a scale of 1-5 how strongly do you agree / disagree with the following

statement?

(1 being strongly disagree and 5 being strongly agree)

Schemas in Children’s Play are such an important concept when it comes to

the development of our children that it’s worth taking the time to understand

them so you can facilitate them when you see them.”

The researcher used this quote as they believe it was relevant towards assessing

participant’s awareness of schematic play and the scale of importance they felt

schemas were to child development. The participants rated themselves between one

to five on how much they agreed with this statement, from this 100% of participants

marked themselves from three (neither agree nor disagree) and above: 12% three,

50% four and 38% five (Figure 1). These findings are significant when analysing

participants knowledge because although they do not fully understand the exact

definition of schemas, this response rate towards the importance of schemas

demonstrates 88% of participants have enough understanding to label them as an

‘important concept’ in a child’s learning process and only 12% of participants rating

themselves unsure (Scale 4 and 5).

11 | P a g e

Figure 1: A pie chart to show participants opinions on a statement by Nature-

Play.co.uk (2012).

(Appendix 12:g)

Due to the project being an action research methodology, the researcher will target

those 12% of participants to support their knowledge further through a variety of

methods.

Participant 8 makes an empowering statement:

“Understanding schemas helps us to support and develop children’s learning. It

allows us to understand how children organise their thoughts and progress in their

understanding of the world around them.”

(Participant 8:Q9)

When analysing this response in the questionnaires, although it is not necessarily

key to the theme integrating play and learning, it provides a foundation for the

researcher when analysing as this shows that even the participants believe in

promoting understanding around schematic play. This is imperative when

considering question 11:

“Have you observed any schemas within children play within you room?”

As participants need to be aware of what they are looking for when observing

children. Even though 100% of participants answered ‘yes’ to the above question, it

is debatable how much knowledge they hold on the different schemas from Piaget

(1953) theory (Figure 2). As a whole when taking this into account: the participant’s

observations and again their answers provided when describing what a schema is,

Scale 1 0%

Scale 2 0% Scale 3

12%

Scale 4 50%

Scale 5 38%

Q9 - "On a scale of 1-5 how strongly do you agree/disagree with the statement?"

(1 Strong Disagree, 5 Strongly Agree)

Scale 1

Scale 2

Scale 3

Scale 4

Scale 5

12 | P a g e

the ideologies are greatly different and the segregation between both play and

learning is where this stems from.

Figure 2: A graph to show participants identification of Schemas

(Appendix 12:i)

Question 13 contradicts the findings from question 11 as 75% of participants agreed

that schemas can be seen as inappropriate behaviour when focusing on the

transporting or trajectory schemas. Also if participants have lack of understanding in

the different types of schemas then they can be easily seen an inappropriate play

(Figure 3). However, if participants state to have observed schemas then this argues

why they agreed to schematic play being seen as negative behaviour because

participants should disagree if they personally do not find certain schemas to be

negative, they should be wanting to enhance play opportunities.

Figure 3: A graph to show participant opinion on the quote (Question 13)

0

2

4

6

8

10

Yes No

Num

ber

of

Part

icip

ants

Participants Answer - Yes/No

Q11 - "Have you observed any Schemas in children's play?"

13 | P a g e

(Appendix 12:k)

The probing question in support of this identifies participant ideology on

inappropriate play highlighting two aspect: participant’s agreeance to inappropriate

play on behalf of their observations on other professionals having little knowledge

and secondly in agreeance because they have little knowledge themselves.

Participant 4 highlights a key concept to the research question as they state:

“Children learn and play in different ways and are unique, children test boundaries

that are in place which may seem ‘inappropriate’ but it is a way in which children

learn.”

(Participant 4:Q13).

This demonstrates that schemas can come across as children testing boundaries

rather than demonstrating the schema itself, the concept of children testing

boundaries could be wrongly applied especially in the age bracket under two years

old when children are in their most emotional phase (also known as the ‘terrible twos

stage’) however, both Participant 1 and 2 state differently as they suggest:

“When a person has knowledge on schemas and their benefits to children’s learning,

they may see this behaviour as undesirable as appose to facilitating learning”


“Because there is lack of understanding and knowledge.”


These findings show a two way argument between what appropriate behaviour may

be and the theme surrounding knowledge and understand. Both participant 1 and 2

Agree, 75%

Disagree, 25%

Q13 - Agree/Disagree Question on 'innapropriate behavour'

Agree

Disagree

14 | P a g e

have reflection upon this question in the eyes of a professional observing the

practice of another whilst identifying the need for clarification on the benefits to this

developmental process. It is important to be able to segregate the individual schema

from inappropriate play and the most effective way is through knowing the child’s

individual personality (Caro, 2012). It is evident that a range of schemas have been

identified in the children’s play as shown in figure 4. Trajectory and transporting

schemas are identified as the main schemas which may be misinterpreted.

Figure 4: A pie chart to show the participants observed schematic play traits

(Appendix 12:j)

This shows overall play and learning are two ideologies in connection with schematic

play and collectively there is a foundation of knowledge on the basis of schemas.

The findings have drawn on ‘inappropriate behaviour’ and highlighted qualifications

and education of participants and the need to consider individuals knowledge,

understanding and training.

2.3 Planning and Activities

Question 4 is imperative when beginning to unpick this theme as it shows that 100%

of participants have a role and responsibility to observe and plan for children during

the daily routine of the setting. In addition to this, the participants stated what

aspects of planning they follow when fulfilling development opportunities.

Participants: 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7 all state that they plan for children by following PLODS

(Planned Lines of Development) which are specific to the individual child as well as

Rotation 18%

Trajectory 21%

Enclosure 3% Enveloping

4%

Transporting 29%

Positioning 18%

Connection 7%

Q12 - "Which of the folowing schemas have you observed?"

Rotation

Trajectory

Enclosure

Enveloping

Transporting

Positioning

Connection

15 | P a g e

weekly planning which is group based. The weekly planning incorporates weekly

interests of the room. In addition to this participant 2, 4 and 8 answer more in depth

into how they support children generally in the day to day care of children.

Participant 2 identifies a key aspect when considering development and this includes

the child’s voice. For planning to be successful the child needs to have an interest in

the activities to be engaged in them for a prolonged period, this factor is also

underpinned by the UNCRC (1989) rights of the child.

“Observe, assess, plan, based on their own interests and abilities.”

(Participant 2:Q5)

Both participant 4 and 8 highlight the child’s interest as an important factor and

participant 8 also states their role in observing the child, this finding shows that they

actively engage in children play to identify their preferences.

“I plan for children using the EYFS and base it on their individual interests.”

(Participant 4:Q5)

“Observing their play and development, planning activities to help them progress

within specific areas.”

(Participant 8:Q5)

Drawing from these answers, it is evident that the setting has a wide range of steps

in place to support children’s development through individual PLODS and weekly

planning. However, the findings show a contradictory response as three out of eight

participants believe that the environment does not support schematic play (Figure 5).

Figure 5: A graph to show participants response to environment support

16 | P a g e

(Appendix 12:l)

However when reflecting back on both: the most important aspects of child

development (question 5) and participants observations on schemas (question 11),

there is clear evidence that the participants can identify children who express

schemas and have understanding that all aspects of development are imperative to

the holistic child so again this finding effects how the settings supports schematic

play as overall development is not being taken into consideration as the environment

is not stimulating. When critically analysing this finding, there is no comparison to

education between the participants as they all hold a mixture of levels including:

“NVQ Level 2 + 3, FdA Early Childhood Policy and Practice, Working towards BA

Early Childhood Studies.”

(Participant 1: Q2)

“Working towards Early Years Level 3.”

(Participant 3: Q2)

“Currently doing my NVQ Level 3 Child Care.”

(Participant 4: Q2)

As an overall finding, the answers given to question 14 in response to the

environment is solely the opinion of the participant due to the lack in connection

between qualifications. Participant 3 and 4 may be connected due to their position in

education and poor understanding and knowledge may play an aspect to this but the

answer from a degree level participant highlights a need for adaptation. In this

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Yes No

Num

ber

of

Part

icip

ants


Q14 - "Do you think your room environment supports children who express Schematic Play?"

17 | P a g e

instance the researcher believes the environment is not fulfilling its purpose by

providing opportunities for children to explore their schematic learning whilst

following the voice of the child.

Expanding on from this, participant 3 states:

“I think there could be ways we could explore schemas more.”

(Participant 3:Q14)

This suggests that the participants believe they need to explore schemas more

widely, through the terminology ‘we’ this leads the research to believe participant 3

would gain benefits from a whole group session or the team of professionals to

receive further information. Furthermore Participant 7 have reflected directly on their

personal observation of their key children rather than generally towards all children.

“During observations of my key children I have noticed one to show trajectory

scheme. The child continued to climb around the room and onto the furniture. For a

PLOD I planned an activity on physical development using the soft play, mats and

wooden ramps to create a safe environment that allowed the child to climb and

explore independently.”

(Participant 7:Q16)

This is evident that the participants have followed children’s schematic play and do

support their learning through activities however, whilst carryout these activities

participants are not always aware that the child is following a schemas as to many

professional it can be seen as just an interest of the child. Participants 1, 2, 5, 6 and

8 all identify different activities they have carried out to support children including:

soft play, transporting sand activities, climbing, posting and the use of the role-play

area. However the researcher feels that if the participants have enough knowledge

to create mini activities then they have potential to expand this minimal

understanding to eventually allow for further development opportunities. Participant 1

provides good examples of effective practice:

“Sand/ water – filling and emptying (trajectory),

blanket, fabric and material (enveloping and enclosure),

Blocks / train tracks (connection and positioning),

18 | P a g e

Small world / sensory objects (transporting),

Cars, trains etc. (rotation)”

(Participant 1:Q16)

The researcher believes that a degree develops further understanding of key

concepts on the developing child including expansions on: theory and literature.

Participant 4 who is currently studying level 3 stated:

“I haven’t I have only observed”

(Participant 4:Q16)

This suggests that participant 4 has not supported schematic play within the setting

which provides an important finding because upon reflection of participant 4’s

questionnaire, it is also evident that they answered unaware to schemas in question

6 as well as outlining the need for extra support and training.

As well as this Participant 3 states:

“I don’t feel as a room we have much to support schemas, so could put a lot more

into practice and areas of development.”

(Participant 3:Q16)

This response identifies that not all participants are in agreeance towards the setting,

environment and individual supporting schemas and additionally recognises the

need to focus more on developing aspects of the environment. The research has

found some interesting findings especially based around the understanding of

participants and the lack of intervention on schematic play. Although there is

evidence to state participants are providing schematic opportunities, five out of eight

participant’s state that the weekly planning is not support children in this

developmental area.

2.4 Knowledge, Understanding and Training

19 | P a g e

As a whole drawing from all the findings identified it is evident that knowledge and

understanding dominates the outcome for this project with 100% of participants

feeling they would benefit highly from more information and training around this

developmental area for children (Figure 6).

Figure 6: A graph to show participants opinion on developing their knowledge

further

(Appendix 12:p)

This theme reoccurred frequently throughout the questionnaires with evidence from

section 5.2 and 5.3 highlighting participants lack in knowledge, from this it is

apparent in question 19 that the setting does not provide information surrounding

schematic play nor does it provide training as identified in question 20. In figure 33 it

shows that 100% of participants agreed to lack in information and figure 34 shows

100% of participants agreeing to lack in training – these figures are significant when

reflecting on how the setting supports schematic play especially when developing the

professional’s everyday practice. This contradicts importance of child development

as schemas are seen as one of the most influential aspect to children’s cognitive

development, many theorists including Piaget (1953) supports schemas as cognitive

reasoning towards understanding the world around them (Lindon, 2007). If Piaget

(1953) states that schemas are a process in which children assimilate and

accommodate new information then both: figure 7 and 8 show that the setting does

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Yes No

Num

ber

of

Part

icip

ants


Q21 - "As a continually developing professional, do you feel further information on Schemas would be benefitial?"

20 | P a g e

not support schematic play through either verbal or non-verbal forms of

communication, this places an emphasis on the participant’s individual

understanding and motivation to gain that knowledge if they wish to do so.

Figure 7: A graph to show setting support (1)

(Appendix 12:n)

Figure 8: A graph to show setting support (2)

(Appendix 12:0)

There is evidence in the lack of participants understanding, especially when referring

back to question 13 on aspects of inappropriate behaviour of children, 75% of

0

2

4

6

8

10

Yes No

Num

ber

of

Part

icip

ants


Q19 - "Has the setting provided information on Schemas and Schematic Play?"

0

2

4

6

8

10

Yes No

Num

ber

of

Part

icip

ants


Q20 - "Has the setting provided training on Schemas and Schematic Play?"

21 | P a g e

participants believed that schemas can come across as inappropriate behaviour

which is a big percentage of the participants however, participant 1 stated:

“When a person looks at knowledge on schemas and their benefits to children’s

learning, they may see this behaviour as undesirable as oppose to facilitating

learning.”

(Participant 1:Q13)

This response is key to the proposed question on how the setting supports

schematic play because if there are knowledgeable others within the setting then

their understanding could be reflected onto others. On the other hand, this must not

be the case as not all participants are aware of this developmental stage. In child

development a degree is desirable, reflecting on participant 8 who holds a degree

they focus schemas solely on the physical aspect of learning again this mix in

participants ideology plays an emphasis on participant’s knowledge and

understanding and the need for further training.

“I often see these types of behaviour Children explore their physical development in

different ways.”

(Participant 8:Q13)

As well as this, the participants must feel their room in which supports children’s

development is not enriching enough to enhance schematic play as 100% of

participants made suggestions to improving the environment.

“More information on schematic play, courses offered, to develop practitioner

knowledge.”


“More areas of play-such as tuff spots and separate areas to relate to different types

of schemas-posting, boxes etc.”


The two above extracts represent the different answers given to question 15 when

recommending improvements in the room. Reflecting on first sub-theme participants

1, 2, 4, 7 and 8 recommended: training, courses and information as ways in which

22 | P a g e

they feel they would benefit most effectively with participant 7 highlighting the need

for these types of implementation to take place during staff meetings.

“During a meeting the focus could be training on schematic play, so that the room

has a better knowledge. Ways of supporting it can be discussed and introduced.”

(Participant 7:Q15)

These responses are significant when referring to professionals in a settings as it

shows acknowledgment of personal lack in understanding, to be a successful

continuously developing professional identifying where they feel most weak in

knowledge is imperative. 100% of participants identified the need for improvement

within the topic of schematic play. The second sub-theme suggests the need for

better resources and focus more on adapting the setting by constructing activities

and areas of play (Participant 3, 5, 6). Overall both of these findings are important

especially the focus on participant’s knowledge and understanding, the researcher

feels that as a team schematic play is not indefinitely embedded into the

practitioner’s everyday practice. Due to the answers provided, the action research is

focusing more on this aspect with 100% of participants showing interest in wanting to

know more about this topic area (Figure 9).

Figure 9: A graph to show participants opinion on developing their knowledge

further

(Appendix 12:p)

0

2

4

6

8

10

Yes NoNum

ber

of

Part

icip

ants


Q21 - "As a continually developing professional, do you feel further information on Schemas would be benefitial?"

23 | P a g e

Additionally, participant 2 states:

“I feel I would benefit from further training in this area, and I would be able to provide

more for a schemas as I would have more understanding. I believe every practitioner

should be trained in these areas of play.”

(Participant 2:Q23)

This participant has acknowledge the benefit schematic knowledge would have on

their practice and shows passion in wanting to provide children with more learning

opportunities. Although participant 2 gives a personal opinion they also support the

need for unity of knowledge and understanding to effectively enhance the provision,

care and education for children.

Participant 3 gives an alternate view:

“As a parent and practitioner I would take great interest in developing my knowledge

on schematic play and learning.”

(Participant 3:Q23)

Even though participant 3 is a professional in the setting, they recognise the benefits

this would having their own children and again similar to participant 2 feel they would

benefit from developing their knowledge further. Both of these participants are either

level three or working towards a level three qualifications but have such great

interest in wanting to know more information regarding this developmental stage.

When working in this age, schematic play is imperative to cognition so to receive a

100% agreeance to gaining more knowledge, the researcher feels they have

conducted a successful project. Underpinning this is question six, 13% of

participants recognise they have no awareness of schemas or schematic play

(Figure 10).

24 | P a g e

Figure 10: A graph to show Participants awareness of overall Schemas /

Schematic Play

(Appendix 12:e)

Overall Figure 11 identifies the different ways in which participants feel they would

access information more beneficial, the outcome shows that 35% of web links to be

the most effect form of information sharing and information leaflets to be the second

best form by 25%. The researcher has taken into consideration the participants

responses and suggests that due to this being an action research projects, they will

look into and conduct an information sheet containing relevant information around

schemas. Due to 15% of participant preferring email communication, the researcher

will suggest this form of information sharing for those who wish to develop more

knowledge with the facility to gain paper copies if needed.

Figure 11: A pie to show how participants would access further information

most effectively

Yes 87%

No 13%

Q6 - "Are you aware of Schemas / Schematic Play?"

Yes

No

25 | P a g e

(Appendix 12:q)

3. Conclusion and Recommendations

In conclusion of the findings, the research has provided many aspects surrounding

the proposed question which will benefit the practitioner and child, these include:

participants awareness on schemas and the support children receive on schematic

play through the environment and planning process. The upmost key finding overall

identified, is answers and results relating to the participant’s prior: education,

knowledge and understanding around schematic play. From these themes, the

researcher has identified the following answers for the research question: “How does

the setting support the development of schematic play for children under two?”

Although participants could identify schematic play, there was not a collaborative

ideology on schemas resulting in fragmented descriptions of what they believed a

schema is. In order to support schemas fully, a basic understanding of knowledge

needs to be sought. Schematic plays has been observed but is not 100% supported

by all participants which contradicts the answers provided in question 5 “in your

opinion, which aspects of child development are most important” because 100% of

participants answered all aspects to be important. Relating to literature surrounding

schemas and Piaget’s (1953) sensori-motor stage of development, all participants

working with children between the age of birth to two years should have awareness

of this cognitive developmental stage as it is identified as the most significant to

children under two (Louis et al 2011). Concluding this, it is evident that the setting

and participants are not consistent in supporting schemas with clear identification

Internet Link/ Weblink

35%

Information Leaflet 25% Articles

10%

Email 15%

Recommended Reading - Books

10%

Other - Training (Stated by

participant) 5%

Q22 - "How would you access further information?"

Internet Link/ Weblink

Information Leaflet

Articles

Email

Recommended Reading - Books

Other - Training (Stated byparticipant)

26 | P a g e

throughout findings that this result is due to the individual’s lack of knowledge,

support and training.

The following recommendations are presented:

1) The researcher has considered developing an information leaflet including

web links and article to support practitioners’ knowledge and understanding.

2) Results to be presented in an information presentation to promote discussion.

3) In order to promote increased involvement of practitioners next time,

interviews could be carried out in group sessions in the form of an informal

chat to initiate conversation surrounding the topic area.

Reference List:

Abbott, L and Nutbrown, C (2001). Experiencing Reggio Emilia: Implications

for Pre-school provisions. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Allen, G. (2011). Early Intervention: The Next Steps. An Independent Report

to Her Majesty’s Government. London: Cabinet Office.

Anderson, G., Spainhower, A., and Sharp, A. (2014) YC: Young Children.

"Where Do the Bears Go?" The Value of Child-Directed Play. Vol. 69. (Issue

2). P8-14.

APPG (2015) Building Great Britons. The 1001 Critical Days: The Importance

of the Conception to Age Two Period. London: 1001 Critical Days.

Athey, C. (2007) Extending thought in young children. (2nd Ed). London: Paul

Chapman

Atherton, F. and Nutbrown, C. (2013) Understanding Schemas and Young

Children: Birth to Three. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Bee, H. (2000) The developing Child. (9th Ed). London: Allyn and Bacon -

Pearson Education.

BERA (2011) Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research. London: British

Educational Research Association.

27 | P a g e

Bertenthal, B. (2013) Child Development. Differential Contributions of

Development and Learning to Infants' Knowledge of Object Continuity and

Discontinuity. Vol. 84. (Issue 2). Pp413-421.

Beswick, C., Featherstone, S., Hayes, L,. Louis, S. and Magraw, L. (2008)

Again! Again! Again!: Understanding Schemas in young children. London.

Feathersone education.

Brock, A., Jarvis, P., and Olusoga, Y. (2014) Perspective on Play: Learning

for Life. (2nd Ed). Oxon: Routledge.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994) International Encyclopaedia of Education.

Ecological Models of Human Development. Vol. 3. (Issue 2). Pp37-43.

Bruce, T. (2005) Developing Learning in Early Childhood: 0-8 years. 2nd

edition. London: Paul Chapman Publications.

Caro, C. (2012) Nature Play. Schemas in Childrens Play. [Online] Available

from: http://www.nature-play.co.uk/blog/schemas-in-childrens-play (Accessed

15.12.15).

Charles, E., and Rivera, S. (2009). Object permanence and method of

disappearance: looking measures further contradict reaching

measures. Developmental Science. Vol. 12 (Issue 6). pp991-1006.

Clare, A. (2012). Creating a Learning Environment for Babies & Toddlers.

London: Sage Publication

Denscombe, M (2014). The Good Research Guide: for Small-Scale Social

Research Projects. (4th ed). Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Department for Education (2014) Statutory Framework for the Early Years

Foundation Stage. Runcorn: Department for Education

Derby.ac.uk (2009) University of Derby. Research Onion Diagram (Based on

Saunder’s et al, 2009 diagram). [Online] Available from:

https://onion.derby.ac.uk/ (Accessed 16/11/15).

Dowling, M. (2013) Young Children’s thinking. London: Sage Publications.

Dowling, M. (2010) Young Children’s Personal, Social and Emotional

Development. (3rd Ed). London: Sage Publication

http://www.nature-play.co.uk/blog/schemas-in-childrens-playhttps://onion.derby.ac.uk/

28 | P a g e

Early Education (2012) Development Matters in the Early Years Foundation

Stage (EYFS). London: Early Education.

EIF (2015) Early Intervention Foundation. Publications. [Online] Available

from: http://www.eif.org.uk/publication/ (Accessed 26.12.15)

Elfer, P., Goldschmied, E., and Selleck, D. (2003) Key person in the Nursery:

Building relationships for Quality Provision. Great Briton: David Fulton

Publishers.

Gillard, D. (2011) Education in England. Educations in History: A Brief

History. [Online] Available from:

http://www.educationengland.org.uk/history/chapter03.html (Accessed

26.12.15).

Green, B. (2010) Journal of Instructional Psychology. Understanding Schema,

Understanding Difference. Vol. 37. (Issue 2) Pp 133-145.

Greig, A., Taylor, J., and MacKay, T. (2010) Doing Research with Children.

(2nd ed). London: Sage Publication.

Guba, D (1990) The Paradigm Dialog. London: SAGE Publication.

Halpenny, A and Pattersen, J. (2013) Introducing Piaget: A Guide for

Practitioners and Students in Early Years Education. London: Taylor and

Francis Ltd.

Homan, R. (1991) The Ethics of Social Research. London: Longman.

Hughes, F. (2010) Children, Play and Development. (4th Ed). London: Sage

Publication.

Hutton, L. (2016) Family Education. I Did it All By Myself! An Age-By-Age

Guide to Teaching your Child Life Skills: Raising an Independent Child.

[Online] Available from:

http://life.familyeducation.com/slideshow/independence/71434.html (Accessed

28.12.15).

Lee, G. and Gupta, D. (2003) Children’s Cognitive and Language

Development. United Kingdom: The Open University.

http://www.eif.org.uk/publication/http://www.educationengland.org.uk/history/chapter03.htmlhttp://life.familyeducation.com/slideshow/independence/71434.html

29 | P a g e

Lindon, J (2007). Understanding Child Development: Linking Theory and

Practice. United Kingdom: Oxon. Hodder Arnold Publication.

Louis, S., Beswick, C., Magraw, L. and Hayes, L. (2011) Again! Again! Again!

Understanding Schemas in Young Children. London: A&C Black Publisher ltd.

Macleod-Brudenell, I. (2004) Advanced Early Years Care and Education.

Oxford: Heinemann.

Mac Naughton, G. and Hughes, P. (2011) Doing Action Research In Early

Childhood Studies: a step by step guide. Berkshire: Open University Press.

Mac Naughton, G., Rolfe, S, A., and Siraj-Blatchford, I. (2004) Doing Early

Childhood Research: International Perspective on Theory and Practice.

Berkshire: Open University Press.

Mayers,R. (2006) Scholar Works. Environmental Learning: Reflecting on

Practice, Research and Theory. Vol 12. (Issue ¾). Pp.359-470.

Nutbrown, C. (2012) Nutbrown review: Foundations for Quality - The

independent review of early education and childcare qualifications: Final

Report. Cheshire: Department for Education

Poston, L. (2015) Abbott Nutrition Health Institute. Pregnancy Nutrition:

Impact of undernutrition and over nutrition during pregnancy. [Online]

Available from: http://anhi.org/conference-summaries/the-112th-abbott-

nutrition-research-conference/pregnancy-nutrition-impact-of-undernutrition-

and-overnutrition-during-pregnancy (Accessed 17.10.15).

Prado, E. and Dewey, K. (2014) Nutrition Reviews. Nutrition

and brain development in early life. Vol. 72. (Issue 4) Pp. 267.

Roberts-Holmes, G. (2011) Doing your Early Years Research Project: a step

by step guide. (2nd ed). London: Sage Publication.

Seale, C. (2008) Researching Society and Culture. (2nd ed). London: Sage

publication.

Shinskey, J. and Jachens, L. (2014) Child Development. Picturing Objects in

Infancy. Vol. 85. Pp1813-1820

http://anhi.org/conference-summaries/the-112th-abbott-nutrition-research-conference/pregnancy-nutrition-impact-of-undernutrition-and-overnutrition-during-pregnancyhttp://anhi.org/conference-summaries/the-112th-abbott-nutrition-research-conference/pregnancy-nutrition-impact-of-undernutrition-and-overnutrition-during-pregnancyhttp://anhi.org/conference-summaries/the-112th-abbott-nutrition-research-conference/pregnancy-nutrition-impact-of-undernutrition-and-overnutrition-during-pregnancyjavascript:__doLinkPostBack('','ss~~JN%20%22Child%20Development%22%7C%7Csl~~rl','');

30 | P a g e

Silverman, D. (2001) Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analysing

Talk, Text and interaction. (2nd ed). London: Sage Publication.

Smidt, S. (2009) Introducing Vygotsky: A guide for practitioners and students

in early year’s education. Oxon: Taylor and Francis Group.

Simon, M, K. (2011) Dissertation and scholarly research: Recipes for success.

Seattle: WA Dissertation Success.

Sutherland, P. (1992) Cognitive Development Today: Piaget and his Critics.

London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd.

Szekeres-Bartho, J. (2002) PubMed.gov. Immunological relationship between

the mother and the foetus. Vol.21. (Issue 6) Pp. 471-95.

Taylor, J. and Woods, M. (2005) Early Childhood Studies: An Holistic

Introduction. (2nd Ed). London: Hodder Arnold

Thornton, L. and Brunton, P. (2009) Understanding the Reggio Approach:

Early Years Education in Practice, Routledge.

Trochim, W. (2006) Research Methods Knowledge Base: Qualitative

Research. [Online] Available from:

http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/qualapp.php (Accessed 18.11.15).

UNICEF UK (2014) UNICEF for every child in danger: UN convention on the

rights of the child. [Online] Available from: http://www.unicef.org.uk/UNICEFs-

Work/UN-Convention/ (Accessed 18.11.15)

UNICEF UK (1989) UNICEF for every child in danger: UN convention on the

rights of the child. [Online] Available from:

http://www.unicef.org.uk/Documents/Publication-pdfs/UNCRC_summary.pdf.

(Accessed 26.12.15)

Van den Bergh, B. (2010) Infant & Child Development. Some Societal and

Historical Scientific Considerations Regarding the Mother–Foetus

Relationship and Parenthood. Vol. 19. (Issue 1) pp. 39-44.

White, R. (2012) The power of Play: A research summary on Play and

Learning. Minnesota: Minnesota Children’s Museum.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12650238http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12650238http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/qualapp.phphttp://www.unicef.org.uk/UNICEFs-Work/UN-Convention/http://www.unicef.org.uk/UNICEFs-Work/UN-Convention/http://www.unicef.org.uk/Documents/Publication-pdfs/UNCRC_summary.pdf

31 | P a g e

Willan, J. (2011) Gender and Education. Past papers, Future thinking: The

legacy of Susan Isaacs. Vol. 23. (Issue 2). Pp151-165