Teachers' attitudes and policies regarding play in elementary schools

Psychology in the Schools Volume 33, January t996

TEACHERS’ ATTITUDES AND POLICIES REGARDING PLAY IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

JOAN NEWMAN PAMELA J. BRODY

State University of New York, Albany

Questar III Castleton, New York

HEATHER M. BEAUCHAMP State University of New York, Albany

Research and theory concerning the value of play for children’s development as well as current factors reducing the amount of play time that children experience are discussed. To ascertain play opportunities occurring in the schools, teachers’ attitudes toward play, and provision of play for children in grades 1-6 were surveyed. The amount of recess time provided ranged from 0 to 65 min., with a mean of almost 19 min. Findings indicated that teachers from rural areas provided more play time than teachers from suburban areas, who in turn provided more play time than teachers in urban areas. Further, the amount of play time provided was influenced by the teachers’ attitudes. That is, teachers who indicated generally positive attitudes toward play tended to allot more time for play in school. However, teachers from upper grade levels, who were more likely to perceive greater pressure to provide highly structured academic instructional programs, tended to de-emphasize the role and value of play and in turn allotted less time for play in school. The results of the present investigation demonstrate that children who are given less recess time are also likely to have teachers who report less positive attitudes toward play. It is recommended that school psychologists be aware of the adverse impact that restricted play opportunities may have on children’s development.

The role of play in children’s development, and the related need for schools to schedule time during school hours for children to play, has received considerable debate. On the one hand, some experts advise that school curricula should consist of highly structured academic tasks, and they de-emphasize the importance of children’s play in schools (Bereiter & Engelman, 1966). By contrast, others suggest that play is essential to children’s healthy development and that play time should not be sacrificed for adult- structured activities or an academic curriculum (Elkind, 1981). It is important that school psychologists be informed about these issues, because they are in an excellent profes- sional position to influence both school policies and parental practices regarding the amount and type of play allowed or provided for children.

Theorists have suggested that play provides the context for children to exercise their emerging skills in physical, cognitive, and social domains. In addition, some psychologists consider that play has an important causative role in fostering these skills. For example, Piaget (1962) suggested that children’s patterns of play evolve as their cognitive-developmental level changes. Thus, very young children tend to engage in practice play that consists of repeated physical movements, whereas older preoperational children tend to engage in symbolic and pretend play that is more advanced cognitively. According to Piaget, play not only reflects the child’s cognitive-developmental level but also con- tributes to the development of cognitive functioning by allowing children to utilize and refine their maturing cognitive skills.

Vygotsky (1966) also wrote of the great developmental benefits that play provides to children. He asserted that children create play episodes within their “zones of proximal

Requests for reprints should be sent to Joan Newman, 1400 Washington Avenue, State University of New York at Albany, Albany, NY 12222.

61

62 Newman, Brody, and Beauchamp

development,” in which they may practice and extend their cognitive skills, particularly by transferring their play operations from the actual to the imaginative world. Through such representational activity in their play, children can perform and practice at levels that are more advanced developmentally than they might exhibit in real-world behavior.

Similarly, Bretherton (1989) studied the pretend-play and role-taking ability of preschool children. In this study, three developments were necessary prerequisites for children to engage in make-believe play with other children: the ability to create roles, take on multiple roles, and purposefully interweave reality and make believe. As a result, the author suggested that make-believe play allowed children the opportunity to fully employ social and cognitive functions that were not as well exercised in non-pretend activities.

The relationship between play experiences and cognitive development was also in- vestigated in a study by Dunn and Herwig (1992). These researchers found that preschool children who scored poorly on cognitive measures also scored poorly on observational measures of social play behavior during free play time. Although it did not demonstrate cause, the pattern of findings suggested to the authors that social play may be an important influence on children’s cognitive development, by encouraging them to engage with peers in challenging social interactions that create cognitive disequilibrium.

Linguistic skill may also be related to children’s play activities. Wall, Pickert, and Gibson (1989) examined videotapes of the verbal fantasy play of 5-year-olds. The videotapes showed that as the incidence of pretend play increased, the proportion of verbal interactions also increased, demonstrating that pretend play provides opportunities for children to develop linguistic skills.

More direct experimental evidence of the enhancing role of play upon children’s development is provided by play-training studies. These studies have been undertaken in the search for clear evidence that any positive effects that are attributed to play experiences are not confounded by nonequivalence of the comparison groups or by cor- relation with general developmental maturity. Saltz and Brodie (1 982) reviewed several studies of the effects of pretend-play-training activities upon cognitive and linguistic processes. Such play training was reported to encourage the children to think in more original ways and score more highly on tests of intelligence and receptive vocabulary (Saltz, Dixon, & Johnson, 1977). In another play-training study (Dansky, 1980), training in pretend and sociodramatic play led to increased creativity.

Some psychologists claim that children gain social as well as cognitive skills through play experiences with other children. Piaget (1962) suggested that as children develop, they become increasingly able to engage in socially cooperative activities. According to Youniss (1980), through such peer play interactions the child has the opportunity to increase in social understanding and develop the concept of reciprocity. This is important, because reciprocal experiences foster effective communication as well as understanding of others.

Similarly, play is also believed to be related to moral and prosocial development. According to moral developmentalists (Kohlberg, 1971), children gain exposure to different opinions by interacting with peers and are better able to make moral decisions that are less egocentric in orientation. Through play, the child is allowed opportunities for social interactions. Further, free play provides children with the opportunity for natural experiences in role play that are believed to enhance social perspective taking abilities and altruistic behavior (Mussen & Eisenberg-Berg, 1977).

Teachers’ Attitudes and Policies Regarding Play 63

Researchers have tested empirically the claims made by theorists for the positive effects of play upon children’s social and moral development. Sylva (1993) reviewed several studies investigating the effects of different preschool programs and structures upon children’s development. She described a study by Schweinhart, Weikhart, and Larner (1986) where disadvantaged preschoolers who were randomly assigned to programs emphasizing play rather than formal skills training were found to be more respon- sible and less delinquent as adolescents. From her review of the research studies, Sylva concluded that preschoolers’ play experiences caused improvements in self-concept, motivation, level of aspiration, and social responsibility. Studies using a play-training research design have shown that training in pretend play facilitated children’s ability to conserve social roles (Fink, 1976), and led to improvements in perspective taking (Saltz et al., 1977; Smith & Syddall, 1978) and in cooperative problem solving (Spivack & Shure, 1974).

Stress reduction may be another benefit of play. Elkind (1981) wrote that an over- emphasis upon formal education sacrifices outlets for personal expression by diminish- ing play time. Through play, children are allowed time to use their imagination and express themselves creatively. Elkind believes that play may have a therapeutic effect, because play functions as a respite from stress engendered by adult expectations and pressures.

Play activities also bring physical benefits by encouraging children to engage in physical activity with playmates. This may reduce the prevalence of childhood obesity, which has been found to be increasing (Parker & Bar-Or, 1991). There are many threats to play (discussed below) that may result in less active and hence less physically fit children.

In summary, the convergence of theoretical and empirical evidence supports our belief that play has an important role in children’s development. Some of the evidence presented above suggests that opportunities for certain types of play may in fact have a causal role in influencing particular aspects of children’s development. At the very least, there seems no doubt that play is an important context in which children practice emergent skills, increase their physical activity level, and free themselves from inap- propriate adult structure.

Given the benefits of play, we are concerned that there are several threats to the play time of this generation’s children. These threats result from societal, technological, and attitudinal changes that are occurring in both educational and home settings. In particular, modern pressures for achievement create powerful justifications for teachers and parents to replace children’s play time with organized, “educationally enriched,” adult-structured training programs. Elkind (1 98 1) characterized modern children as “hurried” through an adult agenda to accelerate growth in narrowly defined ways. Con- sequently, parents feeling this pressure are likely to substitute structured lessons for free- play activities.

Similarly, teachers may be under pressure to improve students’ academic performance. For example, Hills (1987) asserted that parental pressure for early high academic achievement may force educators to accelerate instruction. Responding to these demands, more of the school day may be made instructionally relevant. Further, educational policies may be created in which shorter lunch periods, recess, and free-play activities are allotted. Thus, children may have less unstructured peer interaction time, including less play time at school. Indeed, young children enrolled in more structured schools have been found to exhibit less diverse and lower levels of play performance than young children who were enrolled in less structured schools (Huston-Stein, Freidrich-Cofer, & Susman, 1977).


In an attempt to foster academic enrichment, more homework may be expected, structured academic instruction may be commenced with younger children, and more adult direction during the school day may occur. For example, Johnson, Christie, and Yawkey (1987) stated that kindergarten teachers reported a preference for a more structured curriculum, resulting in part from perceived societal demands for greater academic preparation. Similarly, Bereiter and Engleman (1966) asserted that formal instruction in nursery school was especially necessary for children from disadvantaged settings. Thus, they de-emphasized the role of play in the curriculum, suggesting a highly adult-structured school readiness agenda for young children.

In addition to educational policies and attitudes of “enrichment,” otb.er threats to play may be unsafe urban neighborhoods, and widely dispersed suburban and rural neighborhoods dependent upon car transportation that make it difficult for children to access friends readily. Along with environmental barriers, families in which both parents work may result in more children attending after-school programs, which provide largely adult-directed activities. Finally, television (Bronfenbrenner, 1980) and computer games encourage children to spend more free time in relatively passive, noninteractive pastimes.

Despite current threats toward the provision of play, and theory and evidence sup- porting the importance of play, there is little research available specifically examining play in school settings. Therefore, the present investigation was conducted to ascertain the amount of time allotted for play in and out of the classroom as well as teachers’ attitudes toward the importance of play for elementary school children.

METHOD Sample

Questionnaires and return envelopes were mailed to all public regular elementary school teachers of grades 1 to 6 in all 12 districts in one county in upstate New York. Follow-up phone calls were made to schools from which questionnaires were not returned. As a result, 286 teachers from 31 schools participated (a return rate of approximately 53%). Seventy-eight of the teachers surveyed taught in urban settings, 179 taught in suburban schools, and 29 taught in rural areas. The classes taught by the respondent teachers ranged from 9 to 44 students, while the average class size was approximately 23 students. The teachers’ questionnaires were assigned codes according to the school to which the questionnaire was sent, but the particular identity of the teachers was not established.

Questionnaire The questionnaire contained items concerning attitudes toward play, the amount

of play time provided in school, and the type of play activities allowed. There were 16 attitudinal items, to which respondents indicated degrees of agreement using a 5-point Likert-type scale format. Some of the items were written so that agreement indicated an appreciation of the value of play, whereas other items were written such that disagreement indicated a positive attitude toward play. Additional items asked teachers to describe the grade level at which they taught, as well as their own provision for play in and out of the classroom. Finally, teachers were asked the extent to which children were free to choose their own play activities in and out of the classroom.

To establish the reliability of this instrument, 20 graduate students in education and 13 elementary school teachers were asked to complete the 16 attitudinal items of the


questionnaire on two occasions, separated by 2 weeks. Items were randomly ordered for the second administration of the questionnaire. Agreement, disagreement, and neutrality ratings for each item on the two different administrations were correlated. The overall average was M = 0.45, establishing the test-retest reliability of the instrument.

RESULTS Amount of Recess

The amount of recess, in addition to lunch time, provided by all teachers in the sample ranged from 0 to 65 min, with a mean overall time of 18.65 min. However, the amount of recess provided by teachers depended on the district, particular school, locale, grade range in the school, and size of the school. For example, the amount of recess time provided by teachers was significantly related to the locale at which the teachers worked, F(2,280) = 53.28, p<O.001. Specifically, teachers in rural areas provided more play time (M= 34.48 min) than teachers from suburban areas (M= 19.31), who in turn provided more play time than teachers in urban areas (M= 1 1.28). In fact, a few teachers from rural areas added comments on their questionnaires to emphasize that they deliberately ensured that their students received peer play experiences at school, because geographical isolation reduced these opportunities in the students’ home neighborhoods.

The grade range in the school also had an influence upon the amount of recess provided. A series of comparisons showed that schools whose grades ranged from kindergarten to fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth grades provided significantly less play time than schools comprised of grades only up to fourth grade, F(6, 257)=5.25, p< 0.001. Similarly, school size influenced the amount of play time teachers provided, F(3,279) = 8.45, p< 0.001. Children coming from the largest schools with over 30 classes received the least amount of play time per day (9.41 min). Children in schools with 10 or fewer classes received 14.43 min, whereas the intermediate-sized schools received the most play, with an average of 20.5 min.

Surprisingly, whether respondent kindergarten teachers taught a full-day or a half- day session did not influence the amount of recess time provided. Full-time teachers allotted almost exactly the same amount of recess time (M= 22.5 min) as half-day teachers (M= 21.24 min), despite the school session being a half day longer.

Further analysis showed that the amount of play time provided by teachers was related to the attitudes that those teachers revealed toward the importance and role of play. Those who agreed and strongly agreed with the following statements provided the most play time: freely chosen play activities are valuable, F(4,278) = 2.68, p < 0.03; playground learning is just as important as classroom learning, F(4,278) = 2.73, p<0.03; academic pressure is being placed on children too early, F(4, 276) = 2.35, p<O.OS; and despite the possibility of injury, teachers should allow students to play outdoors F(4, 278) = 4.32, p<0.002.

Type of Recess Further analysis concerned the nature of recess provided by teachers. Teachers were

asked to indicate how often children were provided with outdoor and indoor play opportunities. Teachers were also asked to indicate whether children were allowed to select their own activities in or out of doors and whether those activities were chosen by teachers.

Although 4% of the teachers surveyed indicated that they never sent their children outdoors, many (41%) reported that they often did so. Sixty-nine percent of the teachers


said that their children were free to choose their own outdoor recess activities. The amount of outdoor play allowed was related to many characteristics of the schools examined. In the first place, school district and locale of the school were related to the frequency with which children were sent outdoors to play, with rural children being allowed outdoors more frequently, and urban children less frequently, than suburban children, ~ ' ( 6 , N = 285) = 55.42, p<O.001. Furthermore, children from schools with fewer classes were more often sent outside to play, whereas children from large schools seldom were sent out to play, ~ ' ( 9 , N = 285) = 30.27, p-c 0.001. The amount of free choice children were given was related to their district and grade level, ~ ~ ( 3 3 , N = 280)= 54.82, p<O.Ol, and ~ ' ( 1 5 , N = 278) = 24.47, ~ ~ 0 . 0 5 7 , respectively. However, the pattern of this relationship was inconsistent; that is, children from both the highest grades (fifth and sixth) and lowest grades (kindergarten and first) surveyed were more likely to have free choice in outdoor play. Further, teachers indicated that the amount of recess provided for children was related to the freedom that they were allowed in selecting their own outdoor recess activities, ~ ' ( 1 2 , N = 280) = 46.56, p-c 0.001. Thus, children who were given the most recess time were also given the most freedom to select their own outdoor recess activities.

It should be noted that 6% of the teachers surveyed reported that they never allowed free play time within their classrooms, but 48% did so several times per week. Finally, in most classes (55%) , classroom play time activities were chosen by the children from those designated by the teacher. The amount of indoor free-play time that teachers allowed their students depended upon their grade level, ( 1 5 , N = 283) = 81.4, p < 0.001, with children from lower grades having such play time several times per week and children from upper grade levels having indoor free play less frequently. Moreover, children in the lower grades were also given greater choice during their indoor free-play activities, ~ ' ( 1 5 , N = 282) = 30.49, p<O.Ol. In addition, the amount of recess provided was related to the frequency of being allowed free-play activities, ~ ' ( 1 2 , N = 286) = 22.49, ~ ~ 0 . 0 3 ; that is, children who were given the most recess time were also more likely to be provided with free-play time within the classroom. Conversely, children who were given the least recess time were not allowed more frequent indoor free-play time.

Teachers' A ttitudes The variation in teachers' attitudes to each of the 16 items addressing the role and

value of play was also examined. These attitudes varied according to the teachers' district, school, and school locale. Concerning school locale, in general teachers from rural districts indicated more positive values toward the importance of play for children than did teachers from urban districts, whereas teachers from suburban districts took an intermediate position. This effect of school locale was evident in the pattern of responses to items indicating that play serves to reduce stress, F(2,281) = 4.00, p < 0.02, that academic stress occurs too early, F(2,281) = 4.44, p-c 0.01, and that there should be time taken out from academic work for play, F(2, 280)=3.63, ~ ~ 0 . 0 3 . Rural teachers also agreed more that peer interaction is important for personality development, F(2, 282) = 5.19, p<O.Ol. In addition, rural teachers were also more likely to agree that children should be allowed to play despite the risk of aggression or injury, F(2, 283)=3.49, p<0.03, and F(2, 283)= 17.48, p<0.03, respectively. Unlike urban teachers, rural teachers did not perceive reduced flexibility to provide free play, F(2, 282)= 14.97, p<O.001.

Grade level taught also influenced attitudes. Teachers of higher grade levels (fifth and sixth grades) did not feel that it was as important for children to have free choice


of play time activities as did teachers from lower grades, F(5, 277)= 9.14, p<O.OOl. Teachers from lower grades were more likely to agree with the value of playground learning than were teachers in higher grades, F(5, 277) = 2.82, ~ ~ 0 . 0 2 . In addition, teachers of lower grades were less likely to agree that children have ample time for play outside of school than were teachers of upper grades, F(5, 277) = 4.36, p<O.OOl. Also, teachers from lower grades were more likely than fourth- and fifth-grade teachers to agree that children can afford to take time out from academic activities for play, F(5,274) = 4.18, p<O.OOl. Finally, fourth- and fifth-grade teachers perceived less flexibility to provide free-play activities than did their colleagues of the lower grade levels, F(5,276) = 2.89, p < 0.01. In summary, teachers from upper grade levels were more likely to perceive greater pressure to provide highly structured academic programs while de- emphasizing the role and value of play in the curriculum.

DISCUSSION Although this study did not investigate the effects of play experiences, it did derive

from the premise, which was based on a substantial body of literature reviewed, that play is an important undertaking for children. Play encourages maximum childhood development and provides the context for the practice of emergent skills. As discussed earlier, theorists and researchers have linked play to important aspects of cognitivc, social, moral, and physical development, as well as to reduction of personal stress. Nevertheless, societal and family life-style changes, especially those associated with urban environments, may be changing the amount of time that children spend in free play with their peers.

As the results of the present study reveal, some children have little time for free play in the school setting. Our survey results confirm the concern that school attitudes and policies may therefore jeopardize developmental opportunities for students. By reducing time for interaction with peers in child-selected activities, teachers are therefore reducing the time children spend in social exchanges that encourage them to consider others’ viewpoints and to learn new but developmentally appropriate approaches and beliefs. Such peer-interaction settings also allow children to gain feedback about their own ideas and social strategies, and modify them according to this feedback. Social interaction and feedback of this nature have been found to lead to gains in social cog- nition (Chandler, 1973), moral reasoning (Turiel, 1966), and decreases in delinquency (Chandler, 1973). Peer interaction has also been theoretically linked with moral growth (Kohlberg, 1976; Piaget, 1965) and cognitive growth (Piaget & Inhelder, 1969). Through their play experiences, children are also stimulated to be physically active, imaginative and mentally flexible (Sutton-Smith, 1967), and free from the stresses imposed by adult expectations and schedules (Elkind, 1981). These are all important developmental out- comes that should be fostered by school psychologists. We feel that our findings point to the need for school psychologists to advocate for children’s play as part of their primary prevention role.

Our results showed great differences in teachers’ attitudes toward and provision of play. Although most teachers who replied reported positive attitudes concerning the role of play and benefits of peer interactions, some teachers actually provided very little recess and offered few free-play interactions. Indeed some teachers reported that their students had no recess and seldom or never received free-play time during school hours. School psychologists should be sensitive to the conflicts experienced by those teachers who value play yet for a variety of reasons do not provide it for their students. Such teachers could particularly benefit from consultation and support from their school psychologist.


Several factors were found to contribute to teachers’ attitudes toward play and provision of play time. The locale of the school was an important factor associated with teachers’ attitudes. That is, teachers from rural areas generally reported more positive attitudes toward play and indicated that their children had more recess time, including more free-play time, in the classroom and outdoors. Urban teachers, by contrast, reported less favorable attitudes toward play and provided less recess and free-play time. Further, the grade level taught by teachers influenced both the teachers’ attitudes and their provision of play. More specifically, teachers of the lower grades valued play more, provided more indoor play, and gave children greater choice in selecting their play activities than did teachers of upper grade levels. Perceived academic pressure, particularly in the upper grades included in this study, was associated with decreased play provision. School psychologists could provide a valuable service by consulting with administrators and organizing inservice workshops for teachers about the need to decrease pressures on children and promote developmentally appropriate activities such as play and peer interaction. Similarly, school psychologists could increase parents’ awareness of this issue by speaking to parent groups and contributing to PTA newsletters. Parents may not be aware of the limited recess and play policies implemented at their children’s school.

The results of the present investigation showed that those children who were given more recess time were also likely to have teachers who indicated particularly positive attitudes regarding play. Therefore, because of a combination of factors measured in this study, children experience very different play environments. Some children, particularly those in urban environments, were receiving very little play time in the various school settings. This is particularly unfortunate, because urban neighborhoods may be unsafe play settings. In contrast to rural teachers, urban teachers do not compensate for reduced home play. As a result, urban children may be deprived of the many developmental benefits (cognitive, social, emotional, moral, and physical) that developmentalists have attributed to children’s play. Thus there appears to be a particular need to provide safe free-play experiences for urban children. Many districts (in a variety of locales) are establishing after-school programs for students. Involvement in the plan- ning and programming in such centers, and ensuring that they do not just prolong the adult-directed, structured school day, is another important role for school psychologists.

Continued advocacy and research is particularly important, because societal changes may further restrict the amount of physical activity and free-play time available to children. Among the changing factors are increasingly unsafe neighborhoods, increased time spent playing computer games and viewing television, geographically dispersed suburban neighborhoods, reliance on vehicle transportation, and pressure to attend adult- directed “enrichment programs.” School psychologists should remain aware of these trends, monitor the play policies in their own schools, and do whatever they can to pro- tect children’s play time.

REFERENCES

BEREITER, C., 8t ENGLEMAN, S. (1966). NJ: Prentice Hall.

BRETHERTON, I. (1989).

BRONFENBRENNER, U. (1980). CHANDLER, M. J . (1973). Egocentrism and antisocial behavior: The assessment and training of social perspective-

Teaching disadvantaged children in thepreschool. Englewood Cliffs,

Pretense: The form and function of make-believe play. Developmental Review, 9, 383-401.

Ecology of childhood. School Psychology Review, 9 , 294-297.

taking skills. Developmental Psychology, 9, 326-332.


DANSKY, J . L. (1980). Make believe: A mediator of the relationship between free play and associative fluency.

DUNN, L., & HERWIG, J. E. (1992). Play behaviors and convergent and divergent thinking skills of young

ELKIND, D. (1981). FINK, R. S. (1976). HILLS, T. W. (1987).

HUSTON-STEIN, A., FREIDRICH-COFER, L., & SUSMAN, E. (1977).

Child Development, 51, 576-579.

children attending full-day preschool. Child Study Journal, 22, 23-38. The hurried child. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Role of imaginative play in cognitive development. Psychological Reports, 39,895-906. Children in the fast lane: Implications for early childhood policy and practice. Special

issue: Hothousing of young children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 2, 265-273. The relationship of classroom structure

to social development, imaginative play, and self-regulation of economically disadvantaged children. Child Development, 48, 908-916.

JOHNSON, J . E., CHRISTIE, J. F., L YAWKEY, T. D. (1987). Play and early childhood development. Glen- view, IL: Scott Foreman.

KOHLBERG, L. (1971). “From is to ought”: How to commit the naturalistic fallacy and get away with it in the study of moral development. In W. Mischel (Ed.), Cognitive development and epistemology. New York: Academic Press.

KOHLBERG, L. (1976). Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive-developmental approach. In T. Lickona (Ed.), Man, morality and society. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

MUSSEN, P., & EISENBERG-BERG, N. (1977). Roots of caring, sharing, and helping. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

PARKER, D. F., 81 BAR-OR, 0. (1991). Juvenile obesity: The importance of exercise-and getting children to do it. The Physician and Sportsmedicine, 19(6), 113-117.

PIAGET, J . (1962). Play, dreams, and imitation in childhood. New York: Norton. PIAGET, J . (1965). The moral judgment of the child. New York: Free Press. PIAGET, J . , SALTZ, E., ~t BRODIE, J. (1982). Pretend-play training in childhood: A review and critique. Contr. Hum.

SALTZ, E., DIXON, D., & JOHNSON, J. (1977). Training disadvantaged preschoolers on various fantasy ac-

SCHWEINHART, L. J., WEIKART, D. P., B LARNER, M. B. (1986). Consequences of three preschool curriculum

SMITH, P. K., ~t SYDDALL, S. (1978). Play and non play tutoring in preschool children: Is it play or tutoring

SPIVACK, G., BL SHURE, M. B. (1974). Social adjustment of young children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. SUTTON-SMITH, B. (1967). The role of play in cognitive development. Young Children, 22, 361-370. SYLVA, K. (1993). Work or play in the nursery? International Play Journal, I , 5-15. TURIEL, E. (1966). An experimental test of the sequentiality of developmental stages in the child‘s moral

VYGOTSKY, L. S. (1966). Play and its role in the mental development of the child. Soviet Psychology, 5,6-18. WALL, S . M., PICKERT, S. M., & GIBSON, W. B. (1989). Fantasy play in 5- and 6-year-old children. The

YOUNISS, J . (1980). Parents and peers in social development. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

INHELDER, B. (1969). The psychology of the child. New York: Basic Books.

Dev. 6, 97-113.

tivities: Effects on cognitive functioning and impulse control. Child Development, 48, 367-380.

models through age 15. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 1(1), 15-45.

which matters? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 48, 315-325.

judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 61 1-618.

Journal of Psychology, 123, 245-256.

Documents

Teachers' attitudes and policies regarding play in elementary schools