Preschool children's cognitive style and play and implications for creativity

This article was downloaded by: [RMIT University]On: 08 August 2013, At: 16:33Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Creativity Research JournalPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hcrj20

Preschool children's cognitive style and play andimplications for creativityOlivia N. Saracho aa Department of Curriculum and Instruction, College of Education, University of Maryland,College Park, MD, 20742Published online: 02 Nov 2009.

To cite this article: Olivia N. Saracho (1992) Preschool children's cognitive style and play and implications for creativity,Creativity Research Journal, 5:1, 35-47, DOI: 10.1080/10400419209534421

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10400419209534421

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

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hcrj20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/10400419209534421

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10400419209534421

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Creativity Research JournalVolume 5 (1) 35-47 (1992)

Preschool Children's Cognitive Style and Play

and Implications for Creativity

Olivia N. SarachoUniversity of Maryland

ABSTRACT: Little is known about the re-lationships among cognitive style, play, andcreativity. For this reason, the field depen-dence (FD) and field independence (FJ) of300 children between the ages of three andfive years was assessed, and their playbehaviors were recorded A repeated mea-sures MANOVA indicated that FD and FIchildren played differently. Most important-ly, a significant interaction was found, indi-cating significant differences between FDand FI children for all behaviors exceptfrequency of play.

An individual's cognitive style reflects his orher pattern of processing information andmanner of interpreting and responding to theenvironment. An important dimension ofcognitive style is field-dependence/indepen-dence (FDI). Field-dependent (FD) personshave greater sensitivity to the feelings ofothers and have greater social skills thanfield independent (FI) persons (Witkin, Dyk,Faterson, Goodenough, & Karp, 1974;Witkin, Lewis, Hertzman, Machover,Meissner, & Wapner, 1972). Field indepen-dent persons are more socially detached, buthave greater analytic skills (Ohnmacht,

1968), and seem to be more capable atcognitive structuring (Renninger & Sigel,1987).

The relationship between social orienta-tion and FDI has been investigated with bothchildren and adults. Studies of adults con-firm that FD individuals are stimulated byand attentive to social stimulation. Otherstudies have investigated the relationshipbetween preschool children's social orienta-tion, play, and FDI (Coates, 1972; Coates,Lord, & Jakabovics, 1975; Steele, 1981).Steele (1981) categorized young children'splay behaviors into pretend events, talkative-ness, sense of humor, and acts of aggression.She found significant relationships betweenpretend play and cognitive style for five- andsix-year-old children. She also found thatFD children were more aggressive than FIchildren. Importantly, Coates et al. (1975)and Steele (1981) demonstrated that pre-school FD children spend more of theiravailable free time in natural settings insocial play than do their FI counterparts. FDpreschool children tend to be more socially

Correspondence and requests for reprints should be sent to Olivia N.Saracho, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, College of Education,University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742.

Creativity Research Journal 35

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

33 0

8 A

ugus

t 201

3

O. Saracho

oriented in their play; FI preschool childrenprefer solitary play activities. Studies ofpreschool children's play preferences there-fore support the notion that FD individualshave greater social skills and are sensitive tothe others' feelings.

FD individuals exhibit remarkable re-sponsiveness to environmental influence.Their easily mobilized anxieties, strong needfor external support and reassurance, anddifficulties in handling new and unusualinformation sharply restrict their capacity toengage in creative enterprises (Spotts &Mackler, 1967; Wallach & Kogan, 1965).Although FD individuals are highly sensitiveto their environment, they are also in a sensevictimized by it and lack the ability to orga-nize and proficiently integrate both theirinner experiences and environmental inci-dents (Spotts & Mackler, 1967). FI individ-uals, in contrast, show a more articulatedawareness of their own inner experiencesand environmental incidents. Although theylack the openness of FD individuals, theypossess an unusual ability to "break up"experiences and to remold and reconstitutethem in new patterns and configurations.They also evidence the land of autonomyand freedom from societal restraints whichmay be necessary for a creative encounterwith the environment (Spotts & Mackler,1967).

A number of theories of the humancreative process suggest a relationship be-tween cognitive style and creativity. Fromm(1959), Rogers (1959), Mackler and Shontz(1967), and Wertheimer (1945), for instance,suggested that creative individuals are highlysensitive to their environment. These theo-rists also suggested that creative individualshave a need and ability to toy with, reorga-nize, restructure, and integrate divergent andeven contradictory elements of experience.

The absence of empirical research oncognitive style and the creative process issurprising given that Witkin et al. (1972)specifically discussed these relationships.They noted that Wertheimer's (1945) con-ceptual model provided possible linkagesbetween cognitive functioning and creativeexpression. According to Wertheimer, theability to "breakup" and reorganize configu-rations in problem solving tasks is evidenceof creativity, for "problems that call for ahigh degree of creativity...also require thatthe 'parts' be separated from the contexts inwhich they are embedded and brought intonew relationships" (1945, p. 477).

The research on divergent thinking(French, 1951; Frick, Guilford, Christensen,& Merrifield, 1959; Wallach & Kogan,1965) suggests a further link between cogni-tive style and creativity. FI individuals tendto be more creative than FD individuals(Kagan, Moss, & Sigel, 1963; Wallach &Kogan, 1965). Wallach and Kogan (1965)predicted that creative children will morefrequently indulge in relational respondingthan noncreative children. Kagan et al.(1963) hypothesized that the relational re-sponse represents a low-level global ap-proach to tasks. Kagan et al. also affirmedthat their classification scheme reflects theanalytic versus global constructs that weretied to FDI by Witkin et al. (1972, 1974).

Wallach and Kogan (1965) demonstratedthat creativity contains elements of categori-zation and conceptualizing styles, both di-mensions of cognitive style. Spotts andMackler (1967) found that college men whodemonstrated FI performance on the Em-bedded Figures Test obtained significantlyhigher creativity scores on measures ofcreative thinking than college males whodemonstrated FD perceptual performance.However, most researchers who have investi-

36 Creativity Research Journal

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

33 0

8 A

ugus

t 201

3

Preschool Children's Cognitive Style

gated creativity have dismissed cognitivestyle.

The research on creativity and play isrelevant here, especially the work specifical-ly on fantasy or pretense play. In fantasyplay, children enter a world which differsfrom reality. Of most relevance to cognitivestyle, in pretend play children assume rolesand develop creativity and social per-spective-taking (Enger, 1989; Matthews,Beebe, & Bopp, 1980; Rubin, 1980). Theycreate alternative worlds and engage insubjunctive representation of reality (Bre-therton, 1986). Further, children's make-believe is associated with their concentrationon and enjoyment of play situations. Dan-sky (1980) found that dramatic play stimu-lates children's creative thinking and predictslater creativity, and Lieberman (1965)showed that young playful children whowere more physically, cognitively, andsocially spontaneous, and more humorousand joyful were also more creative. Singer(1973) found that three- and four-year-oldchildren's creativity develops best when theyplay different types of imaginative games.Pepler and Ross (1981) reported that differ-ences in play behaviors were related toconvergent and divergent problem solving.

These earlier studies have their limita-tions, in part because play is difficult todefine, explain, understand, and observe inits diverse forms (Spodek & Saracho, 1987).It was difficult to determine whether thetreatments in the previous problem solvingand creativity research involved play, explo-ration, or a combination of both. Most ofthe play training was highly structured andinvolved adult modeling or prompting;spontaneous play was usually absent.

The present study builds on theoreticaland empirical work showing a relationshipbetween pretend play and creativity (e.g.,

Matthews et al., 1980). It assumes that thefunctioning of FI individuals and FD indi-viduals reflect differentiated creative perfor-mance (Spotts & Mackler, 1967). Saracho(1985, 1986) suggested that behavioral at-tributes of cognitive style are related tochildren's play behaviors, and that children'smodes of playing reflect their differentcognitive styles. This investigation was con-ducted because few empirical studies havebeen conducted to examine the relationshipbetween these two significant areas. It in-vestigated the relationship between three- tofive-year-old children's cognitive style andtheir social play.

Method

Children

The sample consisted of 300 3-, 4-, and5-year-old children from Head Start pro-grams, child care centers, private nurseryschools, and university early childhoodprograms. Children were selected fromclassrooms where teachers volunteered toparticipate. Permission was also solicitedfrom children's parents; only subjects withparental permission were selected. Becauseage and sex differences were found in previ-ous studies of cognitive style (Bush & Cow-ard, 1974; Hyde, Geiringer, & Yen, 1975;McGillian & Barclay, 1974), 50 females and50 males from each age group and each sexwere selected.

Measures

Two measures were used: the Play RatingScale (PRS; Saracho, 1984) and the Pre-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

33 0

8 A

ugus

t 201

3

O. Saracho

school Embedded Figures Test (PEFT). ThePRS observations were considered betterindicators of children's play than children'sverbal comments. The PRS is a 16-itemrating scale used to record young children'splay in four different play activities (physi-cal, block, manipulative, and dramatic). Inphysical play, children use then- body toperform large actions, including running,jumping, or riding a tricycle. In block play,children play with small unit blocks, largehollow blocks, and block accessories whichadd a dramatic content to their construction.Their block structures range from simpleconstruction to elaborate structures. Inmanipulate play, children maneuver relative-ly small pieces of equipment such as puz-zles, rods, or peg sets. In dramatic play,children assume and act out roles relating toreal life situations.

Several play behaviors are observed,recorded, and scored for each of the fourcategories:

Frequency of play: How often childrenplay hi a specific area.

Creativity in communicating ideas:Using play to encode and communicatemeanings through linguistic andnonlinguistic media.

Social play had six levels: solitary (thechild played alone); onlooker (the childspent tune mostly watching other chil-dren); parallel (the child played indepen-dently alongside other children); associa-tive (the child played in a group activity);cooperative (the child played in an orga-nized group activity, which had elementsof division of labor to achieve a finalgoal); and leader or follower (childrenwere leaders if they initiated activities

and followers if they depended on othersto initiate activities).

Dramatic play occurred when childrenacted out a role representing then: lifeexperiences. Behaviors in this form ofplay include: (a) the frequency withwhich children engage in imitative expe-riences; (b) the degree to which childrenuse make-believe to improvise, such asusing a box for a car, a frisbee for asteering wheel, or a stick for a gear; (c)the children's level of social participa-tion; and (d) the children's leadershipabilities in initiating play activities andsuggesting play ideas.

The PEFT (Coates, 1972), a downwardextension of the Embedded Figures Test(Witkin, 1950) measures FDI with three- tofive-year-old children. It is individuallyadministered, and consists of a series of 24pictures. A high score indicates that theindividual is FI, and a low score indicatesthat the individual is FD. Reliability esti-mates using the Spearman-Brown formularanged from .74 to .91 and test-retest coeffi-cients ranged from .69 to .74 (Coates, 1972).

Procedure

Two psychology students individually ad-ministered the PEFT. Three-year-old chil-dren who scored five or higher were consid-ered FI and those who scored below fivewere considered FD. Four and five-year-oldchildren scoring higher than 10 were FI andthose scoring lower than 10 were FD. Thisscoring system is consistent with the oneCoates (1972) suggested hi the manual.

Three graduate students in early child-hood education observed and recorded the


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

33 0

8 A

ugus

t 201

3


children's play behaviors during free play oractivity times each day for three months.Children were free to exhibit a variety ofplay behaviors during these times. Anecdot-al records were used to gather informationabout the play situation. Observers recordedbrief accounts of the play situation. Descrip-tions of incidents, behaviors, or events illus-trated the different play situations. Thefollowing guidelines were followed in re-cording anecdotes:

1. Background information was recordedsuch as the date, time, child's name,and setting.

2. Descriptions of specific events as wellas children's reactions, actions, andcomments were recorded.

3. Unanticipated behaviors were record-ed.

4. Patterns in young children's behaviorwere noted.

These observations of the children's playwere transferred to the PRS. Because playhas been difficult to define, the followingcriteria were used to identify a play episode:

1. Play is personally motivated by thesatisfaction embedded in the activityand not governed either by basicneeds and drives, or by social de-mands.

2. Players are concerned with activitiesmore than with goals. Goals areself-imposed and the behavior of theplayers is spontaneous.

3. Play occurs with familiar objects, or

following the exploration of unfamil-iar objects. Children supply theirown meanings to play activities andcontrol the activity themselves.

4. Play activities can be nonliteral.

5. Play is free from rules imposed fromthe outside. The rules that do existcan be modified by the players.

6. Play requires the active engagementof the players (Spodek & Saracho,1987).

After three months, the children's modesof play were identified from the anecdotalrecords and transferred to the PRS. Theobservers examined the anecdotal record andidentified the different forms of play and thebehaviors the children displayed in eachform of play. Three early childhood gradu-ate students assessed the inter-rater reliabilityfor the scale. Ratings were correlated acrosstwo pairs of raters. The first observer'sratings were used to estimate the internalconsistency of the PRS1.

Results

Reliability of the PEFT was estimated usingsplit half and test-retest procedures. Odd-even reliabilities corrected by Spearman-Brown formula ranged from .90 to .94 forall age groups, with test-retest coefficientsbetween .90 and .93. Inter-rater reliability for

1A copy of the PRS with specific instructions is available upon request.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

33 0

8 A

ugus

t 201

3

O. Saracho

the three observers using the PRS included.92 for ratings between first and secondobservers, .96 for ratings between first andthird observers, and .94 for the averageinter-rater reliability. The split-half reliabili-ty method on all the items on the PRS cor-rected by the Spearman-Brown formulayielded an estimate of .93.

The general statistical design was a fourfactor 2 x 2 x 3 x 4 MANOVA with repeat-ed measures on the last factor. The firstfactor was the children's cognitive style (FDor FI); the second factor was sex (male orfemale); the third factor was age (three, four,or five); the repeated measures factor wasthe category of play behaviors; and thedependent variables were the types of play.

Tables 1 and 2 present means and stan-dard deviations according to age and sex,and Table 3 summarizes the intercorrelationmatrices for FD and FI children. Becausethe interest of the study was on cognitivestyle, only the results related to cognitivestyle are discussed.

The three-way analysis of variance indi-cated that main effects were highly signifi-cant for cognitive style, F (1, 288) = 22.44,p < .001. Multivariate effects indicated thatFD and FI individuals played differently,that is, FI (M = 13.65) children engagedmore in play than FD (M = 5.52) children.In addition, two significant interactions werefound: (a) age and sex, F (2, 228) = 4.44, p< .05 and (b) sex and cognitive style F (1,288) = 9.60, p < .01. Table 3 indicates thatthe intercorrelations of the different playbehaviors range from low to moderate.

The repeated measures MANOVA for thechildren's play behaviors was found to besignificant. Significant interactions werefound for (a) age and play behaviors, F (6,

576) = 36.95, p < .001, (b) sex and playbehaviors, F (3, 288) = 47.70, p < .001, (c)cognitive style and play behaviors, F (3,288) = 5.39, p < .001, and (d) age, sex, andplay behaviors, F (6, 576) = 6.80, p < .001.Because the interest in this study was on thechildren's cognitive style, emphasis wasplaced on the interaction of the children'scognitive style and play behaviors. Theinteraction of cognitive style and play behav-iors indicated mat there were substantialdifferences for some types or categories ofplay but not for others. Contrasts showedsignificant differences between FD and FIchildren for all play behaviors except fre-quency of play (see Table 4).

Discussion

The research reported here was designed totest the relationship between young chil-dren's cognitive style and play. Multivariateprocedures were used to examine how cogni-tive style, sex, and age were related tochildren's play behaviors. The outcomesindicated a significant relationship betweenthe children's cognitive style and their playbehaviors. The significant differences be-tween the FD and FI groups and their playbehaviors support the conclusion that chil-dren's cognitive style is related to playbehaviors. Significant interaction effectswere found for (a) age and behavior, (b) sexand behavior, (c) sex and cognitive style,and (d) age and sex and behavior. Thediscussion below focuses on the significanceof the relationship of cognitive style andplay to creativity.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

33 0

8 A

ugus

t 201

3


Table 1.Means and Standard Deviations for Physical and Block Play Behaviors

Three-Year-Olds Four-Year-Olds Five-Year-OldsMales Females Males Females Males FemalesF D F I F D F I F D F I F D F I F D F I F D F I

3.90 4.19 3.59 3.700.88 0.59 1.05 0.81

3.23 3.59 3.15 3.421.21 0.91 1.11 1.17

3.87 4.09 3.62 3.791.11 0.73 1.21 1.11

3.27 3.75 3.12 3.361.08 0.92 1.06 0.90

Physical Play

FrequencyMSD

Communication of IdeasMSD

SocializationMSD

LeadershipMSD

3.870.94

2.741.17

3.271.26

3.121.12

3.671.11

3.380.92

3.761.00

3.240.94

3.481.14

2.901.02

3.421.24

3.011.20

3.640.86

3.200.87

3.920.95

3.561.00

4.090.89

3.011.20

3.561.11

2.981.09

4.190.91

3.750.78

4.440.73

3.630.96

3.761.06

3.211.18

3.651.24

3.131.04

3.411.12

3.071.00

3.930.92

2.890.85

Block Play

FrequencyMSD


SocializationMSD

LeadershipMSD

3.630.97

2.731.20

3.221.24

3.061.15

3.760.89

3.520.93

3.621.12

3.710.78

2.680.84

2.540.96

3.221.24

2.971.12

2.560.71

2.680.80

3.281.31

3.320.95

3.760.90

3.091.25

3.581.17

2.921.14

3.940.85

3.690.87

4.250.86

3.690.87

2.831.00

2.941.07

3.491.23

2.991.03

2.700.78

2.820.96

3.481.25

2.700.87

3.520.96

3.421.10

3.861.12

3.320.96

3.660.70

3.631.04

4.060.80

3.720.77

2.990.97

3.001.03

3.621.17

3.091.00

2.911.01

3.061.14

3.701.08

3.120.96


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

33 0

8 A

ugus

t 201

3

O. Saracho

Table 2.Means and Standard Deviations for Manipulative

Manipulative Play

FrequencyMSD


SocializationMSD

LeadershipMSD

Dramatic Play

Frequency of playMSD


SocializationMSD

LeadershipMSD

Three-Year-OldsMales FemalesFI FD FI FD

3.440.95

2.641.09

3.021.24

2.971.15

3.380.93

2.621.10

3.151.24

3.021.18

3.380.81

3.380.92

3.571.03

3.480.68

3.290.90

3.330.86

3.861.24

3.430.87

3.380.97

2.991.04

3.371.15

3.371.03

3.521.02

3.061.08

3.651.17

3.201.09

3.360.86

3.080.95

3.241.17

3.640.91

3.880.83

3.560.96

3.920.91

3.600.87

and Dramatic Play Behaviors

Four-Year-OldsMales FemaFI FD FI

3.36 3.69.1.00 0.87

2.88 3.811.15 0.91

3.22 4.061.17 0.77

2.81 3.691.04 0.79

3.51 3.690.98 1.08

3.03 3.881.13 1.20

3.60 4.191.19 0.98

2.96 3.691.10 0.95

3.490.94

3.281.12

3.661.16

3.231.05

3.651.04

3.361.19

3.941.11

3.281.04

lesFD

3.440.64

3.410.84

3.741.16

3.330.73

3.300.99

3.071.14

3.701.27

2.931.04

Five-Year-OldsMales FemalesFI FD FI FD

3.41 3.75 3.44 3.610.86 0.84 0.86 0.79

3.28 3.63 3.22 3.391.05 0.94 1.09 1.06

3.59 3.91 3.67 4.031.20 0.78 1.17 0.73

3.37 3.69 3.34 3.550.89 0.69 0.95 0.83

3.32 3.75 3.48 3.701.01 0.88 0.89 0.85

3.22 3.59 3.33 3.551.12 1.01 1.02 1.06

3.72 4.13 3.89 4.241.16 0.94 1.15 0.97

3.10 3.66 3.25 3.420.97 0.75 1.01 0.90


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

33 0

8 A

ugus

t 201

3

ng Table 3. Intercorrelation Matrix for Play Behaviors ofFD and FI Children

£• 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16«^ , :iP I YD 39*** 34*** 37*** 40*** 21*** 23*** 20*** 19*** 10*** 15*** 10*** 29*** 17*** 15*** 18***n FI 65*** 55*** 53*** 33*** 29*** 35*** 21* 17** 22* 27*** 15** 24* 29*** 34*** 37***n 2 FD 4g*** 51*** n*** 52*** 36*** 38*** 10*** 47*** 34*** 35*** 13*** 47*** 33*** 28***gy pi 52*** 60*** 31*** 49*** 31*** 27*** 20* 42*** 30*** 25* 24* 52*** 27*** 46***c_4 3 YD 39*** 13*** 33*** 46*** 26*** 10*** 29*** 43*** 28*** 19*** 31*** 42*** 26***C H 40*** 30*** 36*** 57*** 24* 13 32*** 49*** 15** 22* 36*** 47*** 36***D 4 FD 13* 33*** 27*** 44*** 16*** 29*** 22*** 37*** 19*** 31*** 23*** 34***£— FI 24* 27*** 24* 39*** 16** 22* 21* 44*** 36*** 45*** 28*** 52***

5 FD 39*** 28*** 29*** 19*** 02 08*** 01 18*** 05** 05** 11***FI 73*** 50*** 55*** 23* 27*** 22* 16** 03 18** 20* 19*

g YD 48*** 50*** 13*** 47*** 29*** 30*** 13*** 46*** 31*** 27***FI 53*** 58*** 19* 43*** 31*** 24* 08 37*** 19** 25*

7 YD 37*** 13*** 32*** 41*** 27*** 16*** 35*** 43*** 26***FI 36*** 12 28*** 55*** 09 28*** 36*** 54*** 28***

8 FD 05** 28*** 23*** 40*** 14** 33*** 27*** 35***FI 23* 31*** 12 43*** 15** 27*** 17** 40***

9 YD 39*** 20*** 30*** 25*** 12*** 10*** 15***FI 61*** 28*** 46*** 26* 25* 28*** 31***

10 F D 40*** 49*** 13*** 47*** 29*** 30***pi 47*** 51*** 27*** 46*** 36*** 32***

11 FD 34*** 22*** 36*** 46*** 27***FI 14** 34*** 37*** 56*** 24*

12 FD 07*** 33*** 29*** 37*** JJFI 33*** 38*** 22* 50*** »

13 FD 43*** 36*** 41*** %FI 68*** 60*** 60*** —

14 FD 51*** 51*** gFI 60*** 62*** £

15 FD 37*** gFI 51*** »*

?Note. Decimal points have been omitted. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001. Variable numbers are as follows: 1. Frequency of physical play, 2 Communication g.of ideas in physical play, 3 Socialization in physical play, 4 Leadership in physical play, 5 Frequency of block play, 6 Communication of ideas in block play, 7 Social- 5*ization in block play, 8 Leadership in block play, 9 Frequency of manipulative play, 10 Communication of ideas in manipulative play, 11 Socialization in manipulative w

*j play, 12 Leadership in manipulative play, 13 Frequency of play in dramatic play, 14 Communication of ideas in dramatic play, 15 Socialization in dramatic play, 16 "2,Leadership in dramatic play.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

33 0

8 A

ugus

t 201

3

O. Saracho

Table 4.Comparisons of Play Behaviors ofFD and FI Children

Frequency of PlayCommunication of IdeasSocializationLeadership

Cognitive

FD

M

13.9012.1314.1312.46

146)SD

2.693353.663.18

Style

(AT-M

14.1413.5115.4513.75

FI- 154)

SD

2.323.083.292.74

t (298)

1.215.28***4.36***5.58***

Total 52.63 10.27 56.84 9.55 4.95*

***p < 001.

Cognitive Style and Play

The expected social interest of FD childrenwas partially supported in the present study.Both FI boys and girls engaged more hi playactivities than FD children. Although FDand FI children displayed all the behaviorsunder investigation, FI children, especiallyfour-year-old boys, had higher scores inmost of the play behaviors (see Tables 1 and2).

Given that Ruble and Nakamura (1972)and Nakamura and Fink (1980) found FDchildren to be highly socially oriented, theFD children in the present investigation wereexpected to engage more hi social play thanthe FI children. Results indicated that FIchildren had higher scores than FD childrenhi play behaviors and frequency of play.The ability to lead hi play and to create andcommunicate ideas is a characteristic of FIindividuals, who tend to be independent, relyon then- own standards and values, and solvedifficult problems using strong analytic skills

(Saracho & Spodek, 1981). Social levels ofparticipation (e.g., solitary play, onlooker,parallel play, associative play, and coopera-tive play) can be attributed to FD and FIchildren. Recall that a low score on the PRSis characteristic of FI children, and a highscore on the PRS is characteristic of FDchildren (Saracho, 1985). The presentstudy's PRS results show that FI childrenengaged hi associative play, a social playbehavior. The play behaviors observed inthe FI children suggest that these childrenwere exhibiting cognitive flexibility (Saracho& Spodek, 1986), employing strategies fromboth FD and FI characteristics appropriate tothe situation or setting.

Social orientation as manifest in play, aform of social behavior, may be indirectlyrelated to the FDI of preschool children.Another related dimension of cognitive stylemay exist. Creativity, for example, mayhave contributed to the children's play be-haviors and the FDI relationship.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

33 0

8 A

ugus

t 201

3


Creativity

Certain aspects of play are closely related todimensions of creativity, including the use ofmaterials, role taking, and a child's initiationof activities. Given that play is creative, anevaluation of play can be used as an indirectmeasure of creative ability. The use ofmaterials, role-taking, and child-initiation ofactivities are some examples. If the relation-ship between play and creativity is accepted,there is further evidence that FI childrendisplay more play behaviors than FD chil-dren. This is consistent with the literatureon creativity. Harrington (1987), Matthewset al. (1980), and Saracho (1986), for exam-ple, identified creativity as a component ofchildren's play. Of particular relevance isthat children's ability to engage in pretenseor fantasy play is related to a wide range ofcognitive and social skills (Rubin, 1980).

The FI children's ability to communicateideas by using their body, building imitativeobjects, using their work, and using then-make-believe ability suggests that creativitymay either be an untested characteristic ofcognitive style or another dimension ofsocial play. According to Wallach andKogan (1965), the creative process involvesthe development of unique associationswhich incorporate a playful and permissiveattitude. This definition proposes that playand creativity may have the same underlyingstructure.

Fantasy play is critical to maintaininghuman uniqueness and vitality, becausethrough play children apply their power tomake symbols (Enger, 1989). Several stud-ies support this proposition. Singer (1973),for instance, found that 3- and 4-year-oldchildren can play a variety of imaginativegames. Children's make-believe is alsoassociated with their ability to concentrate

over long periods of time and to enjoy then-play environments. Dansky and Silverman(1973), for instance, found that children whoplayed with materials over time providedmore novel responses to the objects. Theyconcluded that play assists children to devel-op their creative thinking.

Play materials may motivate children tocreate fantasy themes. In fact, children'sfantasy play is usually based on incidents intheir daily lives and on day-to-day problems.The componential theory of the creativeprocess indicates that actual creative perfor-mance requires that an individual identifyand define worthwhile tasks (problem solv-ing) and generate potentially useful ideasand solutions (divergent thinking) (Runco,1990; Runco & Okuda, 1988). Childrenmay play "house" or other games that arerepresentative of their real-life situations.They may also play roles that are remotefrom their real-life situations, such as moviestars, Olympic athletes, cops and robbers,cowboys, or cartoon characters. Their ima-ginativeness helps them to associate make-believe play situations with creative oppor-tunities. This may explain why creativity isassociated with children's ability to day-dream or fantasize, and why creative individ-uals are sensitive to their environment

Conclusions

In separating the different play behaviorswithin certain situations or contexts, thesubstantive problem is whether or not theanalysis of play can contribute to a model ofcognitive style and creative development.Such an analysis could indicate the way thatchildren simultaneously practice what they


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

33 0

8 A

ugus

t 201

3

O. Saracho

know, and how social and motivationalfactors influence play and creativity.

Identifying discrete play variables whichare strongly related to cognitive style canhelp to identify optimal environments for theyoung children's play and intellectual devel-opment (Saracho, 1986). The findings fromthe present study suggest that multiple formsand functions of cognitive style in children'splay should be recognized and further inves-tigated.

REFERENCES

Bretherton, I. (1986). Representing the social world insymbolic play: Reality and fantasy. In A. W.Gottfried & C. C. Brown (Eds.), Play interactions:The contributions of play materials and parentalinvolvement to children's development (pp. 119-148).Lexington, MA: Heath.

Bush, D. F., & Coward, R. T. (1974). Sex differencesin the solution of achromatic and chromatic embeddedfigures. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 39, 1121-1122.

Coates, S. (1972). Preschool Embedded Figures TestPalo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Coates, S., Lord, M., & Jakabovics, E. (1975). Helddependence-independence, social-nonsocial play, andsex differences. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 40,195-202.

Dansky, J. L. (1980). Make-believe: A mediator of therelationship between play and associative fluency.Child Development, 51, 576-579.

Dansky, J. L., & Silverman, I. W. (1973). Effects ofplay on associative fluency in preschool-aged children.Development Psychology, 9, 38-43.

Enger, K. L. (1989). Symbolic expression in the livesof children. Educational Forum, 53, 246-248.

French, J. W. (1951). The description of aptitude andachievement tests in terms of rotated factors. Psycho-metric Monograph No. 5. Chicago, IL: University ofChicago Press.

Frick, J. W., Guilford, J. P., Christensen, P. R., &Merrifield, P. R. (1959). A factor-analytic study offlexibility in thinking. Educational PsychologicalMeasurement, 19, 469-496.

Fromm, E. (1959). The creative attitude. In H. H.

Anderson (Ed.), Creativity and its cultivation (pp.69-82). New York: Harper & Row.

Harrington, R. G. (1987). Creativity in child's play:Verbal exploration as a facilitator of creative play.Techniques, 3, 312-319.

Hyde, J. S., Geiringer, E. R., & Yen, W. M. (1975).On the empirical relationship between spatial abilityand sex differences in other aspects of cognitive style.Multivariate Behavioral Research, 10, 289-309.

Kagan, J., Moss, H. W., & SigeL L E. (1963). Psycho-logical significance of styles of conceptualization. InJ. C. Wright & J. Kagan (Eds.), Basic cognitiveprocess in children. Monographs of the Society forResearch in Child Development, 28 (2, Serial No. 86),pp. 73-112.

Iieberman, J. N. (1965). Playfulness and divergentthinking: An investigation of their relationship at thekindergarten level. Journal of Genetic Psychology,107, 219-224.

Mackler, B., & Shontz, F. C. (1967). Characteristics ofresponses to tests of creativity. Journal of ClinicalPsychology, 23, 73-80.

Matthews, W. S., Beebe, S., & Bopp, M. (1980).Spatial perspective-taking and pretend play. Perceptu-al and Motor Skills, 5, 49-50.

McGillian, R. P., & Barclay, A. G. (1974). Sexdifferences and spatial ability factors in Witkin'sdifferentiation construct. Journal of Clinical Psychol-ogy, 30, 528-532.

Nakamura, C. Y., & Finck, D. N. (1980). Relativeeffectiveness of socially oriented task oriented chil-dren and predictability of their behaviors. Mono-graphs of the Society for Research in Child Develop-ment, 45 (3-4, Serial No. 185).

Ohnmacht, F. W. (1968). Factorial invariance of theteacher characteristics schedule and measures of twocognitive styles. Journal of Psychology, 69, 193-199.

Pepler, D. J., & Ross, H. S. (1981). The effects of playon convergent and divergent problem solving. ChildDevelopment, 52, 1202-1210.

Renninger, K. A., & Sigel, I. E. (1987). The develop-ment of cognitive organization in young children: Anexploratory study. Early Child Development andCare, 29, 133-161.

Rogers, C. R. (1959). Towards a theory of creativity. InH. H. Anderson (Ed.), Creativity and its cultivation(pp. 39-52). New York: Harper & Row.

Rubin, K. H. (1980). Fantasy play: Its role in thedevelopment of social skills and social cognition.New Directions for Child Development, 9, 69-84.

Ruble, D. N. & Nakamura, C. Y. (1972). Task orienta-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

33 0

8 A

ugus

t 201

3


tions versus social orientation in young children andtheir attention to relevant social cues. Child Develop-ment, 43, 471-480.

Runco, M. A. (1990). Implicit theories and ideationalcreativity. In M. A. Runco & R. S. Albert (Eds.),Theories of creativity (pp. 234-252). Newbury Park,CA: Sage.

Runco, M. A., & Okuda, S. M. (1988). Problemdiscovery, divergent thinking, and the creative pro-cess. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 17, 211-220.

Saracho, O. N. (1984). Construction and validation ofthe play rating scale. Early Child Care and Education,17, 199-230.

Saracho, O. N. (1985). Young children's play behaviorsand cognitive style. Early Child Development andCare, 22, 1-18.

Saracho, O. N. (1986). Play and young children'slearning. In B. Spodek (Ed.), Today's kindergarten:Exploring the knowledge base, expanding the curricu-lum (pp. 91-109). New York: Teachers CollegePress.

Saracho, O. N., & Spodek, B. (1981). The teachers'cognitive styles and their educational implications.Educational Forum, 45, 153-159.

Saracho, O. N., & Spodek, B. (1986). Cognitive styleand children's learning: Individual variations incognitive processes. In L. G. Katz (Ed.), Currenttopics in early childhood education (Vol. VI, pp.177-194). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Singer, J. L. (1973). The child's world of make-believe.New York: Academic.

Spodek, B., & Saracho, O. N. (1987). The challenge ofeducational play. In D. Bergen (Ed.) Play as alearning medium for learning and development: Ahandbook of theory and practice (pp. 9-22).Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Spotts, J. V., & Mackler, B. (1967). Relationships offield-dependent and field-independent cognitive stylesto creative test performance. Perceptual and MotorSkills, 24, 239-268.

Steele, C, (1981). Play variables as related to cognitiveconstructs in three- to six-year-olds. Journal ofResearch and Development in Education, 14, 58-72.

Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of think-ing in young children: A study of the creativity-intelligence distinction. New York: Holt, Rinehart &Winston.

Wertheimer, M. (1945). Productive thinking. NewYork: Harper & Row.

Witkin, H. A. (1950). Perception of the upright whenthe direction of the force action on the body is

changed. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40,93-106.

Witkin, H. A., Dyk, R. B., Faterson, H. R,Goodenough, D. R., & Karp, S. A. (1974). Psycho-logical differentiation. Potomac, MD: Erlbaum.(Originally published 1962).

Witkin, H. A., Lewis, H. B., Hertzman, M., Machover,K., Meissner, P. B., & Wapner, S. (1972). Personali-ty through perception: An experimental and clinicalstudy. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

33 0

8 A

ugus

t 201

3

Documents

Preschool children's cognitive style and play and implications for creativity