This article was downloaded by: [North Dakota State University]On: 21 October 2014, At: 16:33Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Early Childhood Teacher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujec20

Play in preschool classrooms: Perceptions of teachersand childrenArlene Brett a , Diana Martinez Valle‐Riestra b , Meryl Fischer b , Liz Rothlein b & Marie Tejero

Hughes ba School of Education , University of Miami , P.O. Box 248065, Coral Cables, FL, 33124–2040,USA Phone: Tel.: +1–305–284–2529 E-mail:b School of Education , University of Miami , P.O. Box 248065, Coral Cables, FL, 33124–2040,USAPublished online: 25 Apr 2008.

To cite this article: Arlene Brett , Diana Martinez Valle‐Riestra , Meryl Fischer , Liz Rothlein & Marie Tejero Hughes (2002) Playin preschool classrooms: Perceptions of teachers and children, Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 23:1, 71-79, DOI:10.1080/1090102020230112

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1090102020230112

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in thepublications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representationsor warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not theviews of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoevercaused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Pergamon

Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 23 (2002) 71-79

Journal y

ChildhoodTeacher

Education

Play in preschool classrooms: perceptionsof teachers and children

Arlene Brett*, Diana Martinez Valle-Riestra, Meryl Fischer,Liz Rothlein, Marie Tejero Hughes

School of Education, University of Miami, P.O. Box 248065, Coral Cables, FL 33124-2040, USA

Accepted 3 January 2002

Abstract

This study examined the perceptions and practices of certified preschool teachers and children regarding play.A sample of 102 Pre-Kindergarten regular (Pre-K regular) teachers and 61 Pre-Kindergarten with disabilities(Pre-K with disabilities) teachers in an urban school district were surveyed. A sub-group of 46 teachers and72 4-year-old children were interviewed. In contrast to teachers in a previous study who did not have teachercertification, the teachers in the present study believed that play supported children's learning and developmentand indicated that play was an integral part of their curriculum. Approximately 30% of the teachers who wereinterviewed said they did not allow children's rough and tumble play either because they thought it was dangerousor it would promote aggression. All of the Pre-K with disabilities teachers and half of Pre-K regular teacherssaid they provided support for play of children with disabilities in their classes. Their reported support focusedmore on cognitive aspects of play than on social interactions. Children's ideas about play were similar to thosein the 1987 study. © 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Inc.

1. Introduction

The role of play in the development and ed-ucation of young children has been a topic ofinterest in the early childhood literature sinceFriedrich Froebel presented his ideas about playin the Kindergarten curriculum early in the nine-teenth century (Osborn, 1991). Since that timemany studies have documented the role of play inchildren's social, emotional, cognitive, and physicaldevelopment (Creasy, Jarvis, & Berk, 1998; Fisher,1992; Roskos & Newman, 1998; Rubin, 1980;Youngblade & Dunn, 1995). In the most recentdecade the educational significance of play has beenreaffirmed by the National Association for the Edu-cation of Young Children (NAEYC), which supports

*Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-305-284-2529.E-mail address: abrett@umiami.ir.miami.edu (A. Brett).

play as the core of a developmental^ appropriatepreschool program (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997).

In spite of the emphasis on play in the literature,there has been some disparity between the findingsof the research and the actual beliefs and practices ofpreschool teachers. In a 1987 study by the authors,preschool teachers defined play as fun, exercise, orfree activity and said that they allocated only a spe-cific time each day for play. These teachers, whofor the most part were not certified to teach and hadonly the minimum training required by state and lo-cal agencies, believed that children learn by engag-ing in structured, teacher-directed activities, not fromplay activities of their own choosing. Many of theteachers viewed play and learning as separate entitiesand some of them said they allowed children in theirclassrooms to play only after their assigned work hadbeen completed (Rothlein & Brett, 1987).

Subsequent studies of early childhood teachersby Kemple (1996) and Bennett, Wood and Rogers

1090-1027/02/$ - see front matter © 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Inc.PII: S1090-1027(02)00132-0

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:33

21

Oct

ober

201

4

72 A. Brett et al./Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 23 (2002) 71-79

(1997) found that unlike the teachers in the 1987study, these teachers indicated a strong commit-ment to play. Their actual practices, however, didnot match their stated beliefs. Kemple (1996) foundthat although preschool and Kindergarten teacherssaid they believed in the value of sociodramaticplay, there was considerable variation in the amountof time provided for this type of play, with someteachers allowing as little as 15min a day. In theirstudy of early childhood teachers in British schools,Bennett et al. (1997) compared what teachers saidabout the value of play with observations of theiractual practices. Although >the teachers' responsesindicated that they believed play was important,in practice the curriculum was dominated by moreformal activities.

1.1. Rough and tumble play

One particular aspect of preschool children's play,rough and tumble play, has received attention in theearly childhood literature in recent years. Rough andtumble play is the vigorous and active physical playthat includes wrestling, play fighting, rolling around,chasing, laughing, and screaming (Pelligrini, 1988).Rough and tumble play is a social activity and istypically playful and non-aggressive. The occurrenceof rough and tumble play increases through thepreschool and primary years and is more prevalentin boys than girls (Hart, DeWolf, & Burts, 1993a;Pelligrini & Smith, 1998). Rough and tumble playin various forms is common to children of mostcultures. Data suggest that popular children's roughand tumble play is positively correlated with so-cial problem solving and may provide practicefor games with rules, while it tends to move intoaggression and fighting for sociometrically re-jected children (Hart, McGee, & Hernandez, 1993b;Pelligrini, 1988; Pelligrini & Smith, 1998). Teachershave difficulty distinguishing rough and tumble playfrom aggression and tend to spend a lot of time try-ing to discourage children's rough and tumble play(Schaefer & Smith, 1996).

1.2. Play of children with disabilities

Currently, many early childhood programs in-clude both children with disabilities and typicallydeveloping children. Studies have indicated thatchildren with atypical physical, cognitive, and/oremotional development play less effectively thantypically developing children. Children with disabil-ities initiate interactions less frequently, may havea tendency to use more direct and disruptive strate-gies, and may be less successful in their attemptsto enter social play situations. In addition, children

with disabilities may be restricted in their naturalexperiences, have less variety in their play themes,and engage in less symbolic and sociodramaticplay as compared to typically developing children(Guralnick, Connor, Hammond, Gottman, &Kinnish, 1996; Hughes, 1998; Minnett, Clark, &Wilson, 1994; Roberts, Brown, & Rickards, 1995).Teachers may need to arrange the physical environ-ment to promote play and facilitate learning of appro-priate play entry behaviors in order for children withdisabilities to express ideas clearly and interpret theirpeer's communications with them (Hughes, 1998;Hughes, Dote-Kwan, & Dolendo, 1998; Lieber,1993; Malone, 1997; Sheldon, 1996).

File (1994) found that teachers provided a verylow level of support for the social play of play of chil-dren with disabilities and much more support for thecognitive aspects of play. McChesney-Johnson (1994)studied teachers' perceptions of appropriate prac-tices during play of children with diverse abilities.Teachers' proposed actions fell along a low directive(watching, being available, and setting up the envi-ronment) to high directive (intervening, enforcingrules, and supervising) continuum, with very littledifference between the responses of Pre-Kindergartenregular (Pre-K regular) and Pre-Kindergarten withdisabilities (Pre-K with disabilities) teachers.

1.3. Children's perceptions of play

Studies of children in early childhood settingshave found that young children viewed play as a largepart of their experience (Reifel, 1988). Preschooland Kindergarten children also made a clear dis-tinction between play and work. They labeled ac-tivities as play or work based on the context of theactivity rather than on its intrinsic characteristics.Play included the activities children chose to dothemselves. Play was voluntary and self directed.Children labeled the things they were required todo as work. An activity was play if the childrenchose it themselves; the same activity was workif it was assigned and supervised by the teacher(Cunningham & Wiegel, 1992; King, 1979, 1982;Wing, 1995). Preschool children also described playas having fun, being happy and doing things theyliked. They associated play with outdoor play, play-ing with specific items, games, playing with people,dramatic play, and art activities. Children said whenthey were not playing they watched television, slept,ate, colored, or did nothing (Rothlein & Brett, 1987).Holmes (1991) found that young children separatedplay into categories based on certain features. Theycategorized their play activities based on such at-tributes as number of players, type of play, territory,and materials.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:33

21

Oct

ober

201

4

A. Brett et al./Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 23 (2002) 71-79 73

1.4. Purpose of the study

The purpose of this study was to compare the per-ceptions and reported practices regarding play of cur-rently certified preschool teachers in Pre-K regularand Pre-K with disabilities classrooms with those ofteachers in a 1987 study by the authors. Most of theteachers in the 1987 study were not certified. Currentchildren's perceptions of play were also comparedwith those of children in the 1987 study. Two addi-tional issues addressed in the current study were roughand tumble play and provisions for play of childrenwith disabilities. Specifically, this study addressed thefollowing questions:

• Are current preschool teachers' perceptions andself-reported practices regarding play differentfrom those of the teachers in the 1987 study?

• What are preschool teachers' beliefs and prac-tices regarding rough and tumble play?

• What provisions or adaptations do preschoolteachers make to encourage play for childrenwith disabilities in their classrooms?

• How do current preschool children's percep-tions of play compare with those of children inthe 1987 study?

2. Method

2.1. Participants

All Pre-K regular and Pre-K with disabilitiesteachers in a large, urban school district in the South-eastern United States were asked to participate inthe current study. In this diverse district, over 85%of the children are from minority backgrounds (51 %Hispanic and 34% Black, non-Hispanic).'15orTy-eightpercent of the Pre-K regular and Pre-K with dis-abilities in the district (n = 163, 102 Pre-K regularteachers and 61 Pre-K with disabilities teachers)completed a survey, and a sub-group of 46 teachers(23 Pre-K regular and 23 Pre-K with disabilities)were interviewed. In addition, 72 4-year-old children

(46 in Pre-K regular and 26 in Pre-K with disabilitiesclassrooms, 35 boys and 37 girls) from the classesof the teachers interviewed also participated.

Teachers who responded to the survey were pre-dominately female (n = 160) and had an average of12 years teaching experience with six of those yearsin Pre-K regular or Pre-K with disabilities settings.All of the teachers had at least a bachelor's degree,and 57% also had a graduate degree. They were allcertified to teach young children and/or children withdisabilities, and many of the teachers were certifiedin more than one area. Table 1 shows the certificationareas of the teachers in the Pre-K regular and Pre-Kwith disabilities classrooms.

2.2. Measures

Three instruments were used to collect data forthis study: the teachers' survey, the teachers' inter-view guide, and the children's interview guide. Theinstruments were constructed by making revisionsto measures that had been used in a previous study(Rothlein & Brett, 1987). Items on rough and tumbleplay and support for play of children with disabilitieswere added. The teacher survey and interview werefield tested by the researchers and graduate studentsenrolled in a child development course. Minor revi-sions were made to the protocols based on feedbackfrom the field testing.

2.2.7. Teachers' surveyThe purpose of the teacher survey was to de-

termine perceptions and practices regarding playin the classroom. The survey consisted of 4-point

.Likert-type items (1 = Strongly Disagree; 4 =Strongly Agree) and two open-ended items. The Lik-ert items measured teacher beliefs about the impor-tance of play and their practices regarding integrationof play in the curriculum. The two open-ended itemsasked teachers what percent of their class time wasspent in play activities and asked them to define play.Demographic data were also requested, includinghighest degree, years of teaching, areas of certifica-

Table 1Certification areas of teachers in Pre-K regular and Pre-K with disabilities classrooms

Certification areas

Early Childhood Education (%)Pre-K/Primary Education (%)Early Childhood Special Education (%)Exceptional Student Education (%)Elementary Education (%)

Pre-K regular teachers(n = 102)

8948

81280 .

Pre-K with disabilitiesteachers (ii = 61)

2321236420

Note: Column totals are more than 100% because many of the teachers were certified in more than one area.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:33

21

Oct

ober

201

4

74 A. Brett et all Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 23 (2002) 71-79

tion, number of children with disabilities in the class,and types of disabilities represented in the class.

2.2.2. Teachers' interview guideThe teachers' interview guide consisted of

semi-structured questions with appropriate follow-upprobes. The interview was used to obtain informationon teachers' beliefs and practices regarding roughand tumble play and what provisions or adaptationsthey made to encourage play for children with dis-abilities. The items on rough and tumble play wereprefaced with the following definition: "Rough andtumble play includes wrestling, play fighting, rollingaround, chasing, laughing, and screaming." Teach-ers were then asked if they allowed their studentsto engage in rough and tumble play and to give thereasons why they did or did not allow this type ofplay. The second open-ended questions asked teach-ers what special provisions or adaptations they madeto encourage play for children with disabilities orspecial needs in their classrooms.

2.2.3. Children's interview guideThe children's interview guide consisted of

semi-structured questions with appropriate follow-upprobes. The children were asked the following ques-tions: What kinds of things do you do when youplay? What do you do when you are not playing?and What is your favorite thing to do when you play?

2.3. Procedures

The survey was mailed to all Pre-K regular andPre-K with disabilities teachers in the district (n =340). As an incentive, all teachers who completed thesurvey were registered in a drawing to win a gift cer-tificate for teaching supplies. A follow-up letter and asecond set of surveys were sent to those teachers whohad not responded within 1 month of the initial mail-ing. Following the survey, the researchers and grad-uate students conducted the teachers' and children'sinterviews. The graduate students all had experienceworking with young children and were given specificinstruction on how to conduct the interviews.

As suggested by Miles and Huberman (1994),three flows of analysis were applied for summa-rizing the data in the teacher and child interviewsand open-ended survey responses. The first flowof analysis involved two researchers independentlysummarizing the written interview data. Key themeswere identified and the researchers met to discusstheir findings. The second flow of analysis includedthe development of data summaries on each theme.This included written summaries of key topics (e.g.,definition of play, favorite play activities). Thesedata summaries were presented to the research teamand findings were negotiated using the group mindprocess (Lincoln & Guba, 1989). The third flow ofanalysis involved drawing conclusions and verifyingfindings. Contradictory evidence was examined andfirmly established conclusions reported. In addition,nonparametric and descriptive statistics were used toanalyze the Likert-type items on the teacher survey.

3. Results

3.1. Teacher survey

Teachers rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale (1 =Strongly Disagree; 4 = Strongly Agree) how muchthey agreed with items that measured their beliefsabout play and their practices regarding integration ofplay in the curriculum. As shown in Table 2, the rat-ing scores were similar for teachers in both programs.The Mann-Whitney statistic revealed that differencesbetween the ratings of teachers in Pre-K regular class-rooms and teachers in Pre-K with disabilities class-rooms were not significant. In response to the ques-tion on how much time they spent on play, teachers inPre-K regular classrooms reported that they spent anaverage of 55% (SD = 24) of the school day on playactivities. Teachers in Pre-K with disabilities class-rooms reported spending an average of 64% (SD =23) of time on play.

Teachers provided a variety of definitions of play,and many of the definitions included more than onetheme. The definitions were analyzed and categorizedinto the following themes: learning and knowledge,

Table 2Mean scores on teacher survey of beliefs and reported practices regarding play

Pre-K regularteachers (n = 102)

Pre-K with disabilitiesteachers (n = 63)

Play and learning are separate entities"Play is critical to development and learningPlay is an integral part of my curriculum

3.81 (0.6118)3.94 (0.2376)3.79 (0.6346)

3.84 (0.3652)3.91 (0.2809)3.83 (0.5302)

Note: Maximum score = 4.a Scores for this item were recorded.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:33

21

Oct

ober

201

4

A. Brett et al. /Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 23 (2002) 71-79 75

language development, exploration and discovery,child's work, amusement and fun, social interactions,creativity and imagination, and child initiated behav-ior. Learning and knowledge included the followingideas: children construct knowledge during play, playpromotes learning in a meaningful way, and childrenactively learn through play. Language developmentthemes were: during play children communicateideas, explore language and ideas, and have an op-portunity to develop language skills. Exploration anddiscovery statements included: through play childrenmake sense of their environments, they are involvedin active exploration, and they make discoveriesthrough their own actions. Amusement and fun in-cluded: play is pleasurable and spontaneous, childrenfind it deeply satisfying and rewarding, and playis interesting and freely chosen. Social interactionideas were: during play children learn how to interactwith each other and work together and play pro-vides an opportunity for socialization. Creativity andimagination themes included role-playing, pretend-ing, experiencing, creating, and use of imagination.Child initiated statements included: children choosematerials and how to use them, make decisions, andcontrol difficulty level. Table 3 shows the percentageof Pre-K regular and Pre-K with disabilities teacherswho provided each of the themes.

3.2. Rough and tumble play

Teachers were asked if they allowed children toengage in rough and tumble play. Of the 23 Pre-Kregular teachers who were interviewed, 13 said theyallowed rough and tumble play, 9 said they did notallow it, and 1 teacher said only occasionally andwith limits. Of the 23 Pre-K with disabilities teachersinterviewed, 15 said they allowed rough and tumbleplay, 5 said they did not allow it, and 2 said occasion-ally and within limits. One teacher said the childrenin her class were not physically able to participate in

this type of play because of their disabilities. Typicalresponses of teachers who allowed rough and tum-ble play were that it was a natural aspect of play, thechildren love this activity, it is good for them to re-lease tension, and they need to pretend and expressthemselves. Teachers who prohibited rough and tum-ble play activities did so for one of two reasons, safetyor aggression. Statements about safety included: "Ifeel it is dangerous and can lead to injuries of otherchildren."; "Someone will get hurt." Typical of teach-ers who were concerned about promoting aggressionwere such statements as: "I do not allow play fightingof any kind. It is not the type of behavior I believeshould be encouraged."; "It will become a continuousbehavior later on." Teachers who allowed rough andtumble play to a limited extent among their childrensaid that it was appropriate at certain times and onlyfor certain children.

3.3. Adapting for children with disabilities

The teacher survey indicated that 50 of the 102Pre-K regular teachers and all of the Pre-K with dis-abilities teachers had children with disabilities in theirclasses. Table 4 shows the types and percentage ofchildren with disabilities in each program.

The follow-up interview of teachers revealed that10 of the 23 Pre-K regular teachers interviewed hadone or more children with disabilities in their classes,while all 23 of the Pre-K with disabilities classesincluded children with disabilities. Of the 10 Pre-Kregular teachers who had children with disabilities intheir classrooms. 5 said that they made no specialprovisions or adaptations for play. Typical statementsfrom these teachers were: "We do the same activity forall of them."; They follow the regular kids."; and "Par-ents don't want them to have special treatment." Onlyone of the Pre-K with disabilities teachers made nospecial provisions for the six children with disabilitiesin her classroom, all of whom were hearing impaired.

Table 3Teachers' definitions of play

Definitions of play Pre-K regularteachers (n = 102)

Pre-K with disabilitiesteachers (n = 63)

Learning and knowledge (%)Language development (%)Exploration, discovery (%)Child's work (%)Amusement, fun (%)Social interactions (%)Creativity, imagination (%)Child initiated behavior (%)

4623231715773

43302119852i

Note: Column totals equal more than 100% because some teachers identified more than one theme in their definitions of play.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:33

21

Oct

ober

201

4

76 A. Brett et al./Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 23 (2002) 71-79

Table 4Percent of children with disabilities by program

Class size (mean)Percent of classes having one or more

children with disabilities (%)

Percent of classes with category representedSpeech/language disabled (%)Learning disabled (%)Cognitively disabled (%)Physically impaired (%)Severely emotionally disturbed (%)Visually impaired (%)Deaf or hearing impaired (%)Multiply impaired (%)Traumatic brain injury (%)

Pre-K regularteachers (n = 102)

20.33 (3.13)50

50136

10431-1

Pre-K with disabilitiesteachers (n = 63)

12.47 (4.38)100

79645448232012127

Note: Column totals equal more than 100% due to more than one disability category per class.

Pre-K regular teachers who made provisions forchildren with disabilities listed speech and languageactivities, moving and positioning children, and pro-viding special materials such as larger pegs andspecial scissors. Pre-K with disabilities teachers alsolisted language activities, positioning, and specialmaterials. In addition they used communication sys-tems, switches and other adaptive/assistive technol-ogy, extra supervision, picture schedules, hands-onvisual curriculum, multicultural anti-bias curriculum,individualized play activities, pairing with more so-cial children, modeling play, and teaching childrento play.

3.4. Children's favorite play activities

The questions on the children's interview onwhat kinds of things they did when they played andwhat was their favorite thing to do when they playedyielded almost identical answers. The most frequentresponse children gave pertained to outdoor play ac-tivities such as riding a bike, playing basketball, andplaying on the playground. The next most frequentlymentioned activity by children was playing withdolls and stuffed animals. Children also said theyliked wheel toys, construction toys, action figures,dramatic play, and art activities.

In response to the question about what they didwhen they were not playing, children reported sleep-ing or sitting down, cleaning up, watching televisionor movies, and engaging in school activities. Typicalresponses were: "I just kind of sit in my bed and takea little rest." and "I feel sad when I'm not playing.You don't have to play everyday, but I like to."

4. Discussion

In contrast to the preschool teachers surveyedmore than a decade ago who viewed play andwork as separate entities (Rothlein & Brett, 1987),the responses of the both the Pre-K regular andthe Pre-K with disabilities teachers in this studyclearly reflected the literature on the role of playin developmentally appropriate preschool settings(Bredekamp & Copple, 1997). Teachers said theybelieved play was critical to the development ofchildren and that they devoted a significant amountof time in their daily curriculum to play. All of thePre-K regular teachers and half of the Pre-K withdisabilities teachers were certified in Early Child-hood Education, Pre-K/Primary Education, or EarlyChildhood Special Education, all of which requirecoursework in child development and early child-hood education. The remainder of the teachers inthe Pre-K with disabilities program were certified inExceptional Citizen Education. All certified teachersare required to have course work in their field ev-ery 5 years, therefore it is likely that in addition toinitial certification, many of these teachers had beenexposed to recent literature on the role of play inchildren's development and learning.

The beliefs and reported practices of the currentteachers are more compatible with the NAEYC posi-tion on play than those of teachers in the earlier studywho had little formal preparation in early childhoodeducation. These findings support the importance ofthe certification requirements for preschool teachers.However, observational studies have found that al-though teachers said that play had an important role

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:33

21

Oct

ober

201

4

A. Brett et al./Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 23 (2002) 71-79 77

in the early childhood curriculum, in many cases playwas secondary to teacher-directed activities in theirclassrooms (Bennett et al., 1997; Kemple, 1996).The same may be true for the teachers in this study.We cannot assume that play was as fully integratedas teachers reported unless observations confirmthe accuracy of reported practices. Even thoughteachers believe in play, constraints of time andpressures to teach basic skills may cause teachers tolose confidence in using play as a learning medium(Bennett et al., 1997).

There was very little difference between the re-sponses of Pre-K regular and Pre-K with disabilitiesteachers regarding children's participation in roughand tumble play. The majority of teachers in bothgroups said they allowed rough and tumble play be-cause it was natural behavior for preschool children,it provided a way for children to exercise and releaseenergy, and it was a form of social communication.The teachers who prohibited this type of play did sobecause it was potentially dangerous or because theythought it would validate and promote aggression.The reasons given by the teachers both for and againstrough and tumble play are similar to those reported inthe literature (Johnson, Christie, & Yawkey, 1999).

Early childhood professionals are concernedabout violence in children's lives and want to dis-courage aggressive behavior that may lead to vi-olence (NAEYC, 1993). Teachers have difficultydistinguishing rough and tumble play, which isnatural and harmless, from true aggression andincorrectly assume that rough and tumble playwill escalate into real fighting (Pelligrini, 1998;Schaefer and Smith, 1996). Rough and tumble playis a particular form of motor and social play. It ispretend fighting which seems to be similar to realfighting but is different in that it tends to occurbetween friends, and children take turns being incontrol (Pelligrini, 1998; Pelligrini & Smith, 1998).Children like the free and symbolic features of roughand tumble play and it may be an ideal context forthem to practice motor skills.

Some of the teachers in this study were fa-miliar with rough and tumble play, while othersseemed to confuse it with aggression and real fight-ing. Although rough and tumble play has beenthe subject of recent research literature, a sam-pling of textbooks on child development and earlychildhood curriculum revealed that about half ofthem did not mention rough and tumble play at all(Branscombe, Castle, Dorsy, Surbeck, & Taylor,2000; Eliason & Jenkins, 1999; Feeney, Christensen,& Moravcik, 2001;Gonzalez-Mena, 1998; Hendrick,2001; Seefeldt & Barbour, 1998). The textbooks thatdid address rough and tumble play had only a one ortwo paragraph summary of research and recommen-

dations for teachers (Brewer, 1998; Driscoll & Nagel,1999; Henniger, 2002; Morrison, 2000, 2001).Preschool teachers need to understand the devel-opmental nature of rough and tumble play, how todifferentiate it from aggressive and hostile activi-ties, and how to capitalize on the potential benefitsof this type of play for children with a range ofabilities.

A majority of the teachers in this study hadchildren with disabilities in their classrooms, and al-though many of them provided adaptations for play,support for social interaction among children waslimited. Similar to File (1994), most of the teachersprovided •support for the cognitive aspects of play,while very few addressed the social aspects.

Some of the teachers said they providedno special adaptations or support for childrenwith disabilities. Research has shown that thepresence and support of a teacher plays a keyrole in the play of children with disabilities(Hestenes & Carroll, 2000; Hughes, 1998). Childrenwith disabilities need scaffolding for play. Teachersmust support and enhance the opportunity for suc-cessful play for children with disabilities by prepar-ing a safe environment and intervening when play isunsuccessful (Mendes, 1998).

Teachers need to know which techniques serveto help children with disabilities participate morefully in play (Tobias, 1994). Children with disabili-ties are not a homogeneous group. The support andadaptations they need for play depend to some ex-tent on the nature, severity, and combination of theirdisabilities. Teachers should to be able to providethe necessary support and still maintain the freechoice and independent nature of play. If there istoo much teacher intervention, then it is no longerplay in the perception of the child (Mendes, 1998).McChesney-Johnson (1994) identified a continuumof teacher interventions in the play of young chil-dren with diverse abilities, from low directive tohigh directive, based on child sensitive and situationsensitive rationale. Teachers in inclusive classroomscan observe the effect their behaviors are having onchildren's interactions and then make appropriatemodifications in the type of intervention they are pro-viding (Hestenes & Carroll, 2000), keeping in mindthat the goal of inclusive early childhood programsshould be to encourage all children to participate tothe fullest extent (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997).

Although teachers' beliefs and reported prac-tices are different from those in the previous study,preschool children's ideas about play were similar tothose in the 1987 study (Rothlein and Brett, 1987).Children said that play was their main pastime,and their favorite play activities were basically thesame as those of the children in the previous study.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:33

21

Oct

ober

201

4

78 A. Brett et al./Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 23 (2002) 71-79

Preschool teachers in the current study believed thatplay is a basic activity of childhood and is essen-tial for optimum development and learning. Similarto their teachers, preschool children also believedplaying is the norm and is naturally what they do.

References

Bennett, N., Wood, L., & Rogers, S. (1997). Teachingthrough play: Teachers' thinking and classroompractice. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Branscombe, N. A., Castle, K., Dorsy, A. G., Surbeck, E.,& Taylor, J. B. (2000). Early childhood education: Aconstructivist perspective. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Bredekamp,S., & Copple, C. (1997). Developmentally appropriatepractice in early childhood programs (Revised edition).Washington, DC: National Association for the Educationof Young Children.

Brewer, J. (1998). Introduction to early childhood education(3rd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Creasy, G., Jarvis, P., & Berk, L. (1998). Play and socialcompetence. In O. Saracho & B. Spodek (Eds.), Multipleperspectives on play in early childhood education(pp. 116-143). Albany, NY: State University of NewYork Press.

Cunningham, B., & Wiegel, J. (1992). School work andplay activities: Child and teacher perspectives. Play andCulture, 5(1), 92-99.

Driscoll, A., & Nagel, N. (1999). Early childhood educationbirth—8: The world of children, families, and educators.Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Eliason, C., & Jenkins, L. (1999). A practical guide to earlychildhood curriculum (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice-Hall.

Feeney, S., Christensen, D.. & Moravcik, E. (2001). Whoam I in the lives of children? (6th ed.). Upper SaddleRiver. NJ: Prentice-Hall.

File. N. (1994). Children's play, teacher-child interactions,and teacher beliefs in integrated early childhoodprograms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 9(2),223-240.

Fisher, E. (1992). The impact of play on development: Ameta-analysis. Play and Culture, 5, 159-181.

Gonzalez-Mena, J. (1998). Foundations: Early childhoodeducation in a diverse society. Mountain View, CA:Mayfield.

Guralnick, M., Connor, R., Hammond, M., Gottman,J., & Kinnish, K. (1996). The peer relations ofpreschool children with communication disorders. ChildDevelopment, 67(2), 471-489.

Hart, C. H., DeWolf, M., & Burts, D. (1993a). Parentaldisciplinary strategies and preschoolers' play behaviorin playground settings. In C. H. Hart (Ed.), Childrenon playgrounds: Research perspectives and implications(pp. 271-314). Albany, NY: State University of NewYork Press.

Hart, C. H., McGee, L., & Hernandez, S. (1993b).Themes in the peer relations literature: Correspondenceto playground interactions portrayed in children's

literature. In C. H. Hart (Ed.), Children on playgrounds:Research perspectives and implications (pp. 130-161).Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Hendrick, J. (2001). The whole child: Developmentaleducation for the early years (7th ed.). Upper SaddleRiver, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Henniger, M. (2002). Teaching young children: Anintroduction (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: PearsonEducation.

Hestenes, L., & Carroll, D. (2000). The play interactions ofyoung children with and without disabilities: Individualand environmental influences. Early ChildhoodResearch Quarterly, 15(2), 229-246.

Holmes, R. (1991). Categories of play: A Kindergartener'sview. Play and Culture, 4, 43-50.

Hughes. F. (1998). Play in special populations. In O.Saracho, & B. Spodek (Eds.), Multiple perspectiveson play in early childhood education (pp. 171-193).Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Hughes. M., Dote-Kwan. J., & Dolendo, J. (1998). A closelook at the cognitive play of preschoolers with visualimpairments in the home. Exceptional Children, 64(4),451-462.

Johnson, J., Christie, J., & Yawkey, T. (1999). Play and earlychildhood development. New York: Addison-Wesley,Longman.

Kemple, K. (1996). Teachers' beliefs and reported practicesconcerning sociodramatic play. Journal of EarlyChildhood Teacher Education, 17(2), 19-31.

King, N. (1979). Play: The Kindergartener's perspective.Elementary School Journal, 80(2), 80-87.

King. N. (1982). Work and play in the classroom. SocialEducation, 46, 110-113.

Lieber, J. (1993). A comparison of social pretend playin young children with and without disabilities. EarlyEducation and Development, 4(3), 148-161.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba. E. (1989). Naturalistic inquiry.Newbury Park. CA: Sage.

Malone, M. (1997). Preschoolers' categorical and sequentialtoy play: Change over time. Journal of EarlyIntervention, 21(1), 45-61.

McChesney-Johnson, K. (1994). Teacher directivenessin the play of young children with diverseabilities (Doctoral dissertation. The Pennsylvania StateUniversity, 1994). Dissertation Abstracts International,56, 02A.

Mendes, G. (1998). Can I play too? Reflections on theissues for children with disabilities. In D. Fromberg, &D. Bergen (Eds.), Play from birth to twelve and beyond:Contexts, perspectives, and meanings (pp. 401-408).New York: Garland.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative dataanalysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Minnett, A., Clark, K., & Wilson, G. (1994). Play behaviorand communication between deaf and hard of hearingchildren and their hearing peers in an integratedpreschool. American Annals of the Deaf, 139(4), 420-429.

Morrison, G. (2000). Fundamentals of early childhoodeducation (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice-Hall.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:33

21

Oct

ober

201

4

A. Brett et al. /Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 23 (2002) 71-79 79

Morrison, G. (2001). Early childhood education today (8thed.). Upper Saddle River, NI: Prentice-Hall.

NAEYC (National Association for the Education of YoungChildren) (1993). NAEYC position statement on violencein the lives of children. Washington, DC: Author.

Osbom, D. K. (1991). Early childhood education inhistorical perspective (3rd ed.). Athens, GA: DayePress.

Pelligrini, A. (1988). Elementary-school children's rough-and-tumble play and social competence. DevelopmentalPsychology, 24(6), 802-806.

Pelligrini, A. (1998). Rough and tumble play fromchildhood through adolescence: Differing perspectives.In D. Fromberg, & D. Bergen (Eds.), Play from birthto twelve and beyond: Contexts, perspectives, andmeanings (pp. 401-408). New York: Garland.

Pelligrini, A., & Smith, P. (1998). Physical activity play:The nature and function of a neglected aspect of play.Child Development, 69(3), 577-598.

Reifel, S. (1988). Children's thinking about their earlyeducation experiences. Theory Into Practice, XXVII, 62-66.

Roberts, S., Brown, P., & Rickards, F. (1995). Social pretendplay entry behaviors of preschoolers with and withoutimpaired hearing. Journal of Early Intervention, 20(1),52-64.

Roskos, K., & Newman, S. (1998). Play as an opportunityfor literacy. In O. Saracho, & B. Spodek (Eds.), Multipleperspectives on play in early childhood education(pp. 100-115). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Rothlein, L., & Brett, A. (1987). Children's, teachers', andparents' perceptions of play. Early Childhood ResearchQuarterly, 2(1), 45-53.

Rubin, K. (1980). Fantasy play: Its role in the developmentof social skills and social cognition. In K. H. Rubin(Ed.), Children's play (pp. 69-84). San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.

Schaefer, M., & Smith, P. (1996). Teachers' perceptionsof play fighting and real fighting in primary school.Educational Research, 38, 173-181.

Seefeldt, C., & Barbour, N. (1998). Early childhoodeducation: An introduction (4th ed.). Upper SaddleRiver, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Sheldon, K. (1996). Can I play too? Adapting commonclassroom activities for young children with limitedmotor abilities. Early Childhood Education Journal,115-120.

Tobias, E. (1994). The play behaviors of special needschildren in integrated and non-integrated child-caresettings. In H. Goelman, & E. V. Jacobs (Eds.)Children's play in child care settings. Albany, NY: StateUniversity of New York Press.

Wing, L. (1995). Play is not the work of the child:Young children's perceptions of work and play. EarlyChildhood Research Quarterly, 10(2), 223-247.

Youngblade, L., & Dunn, J. (1995). Individual differencesin young children's pretend play with mother andsiblings: Links to relationships and understanding ofother people's feelings and beliefs. Child Development,66, 1472-1492.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:33

21

Oct

ober

201

4