War, Weapon & Superhero Play

An Exploratory Case Study

Leah Russell BA(Hons) ECE

AbstractIn this micro-ethnographic, study sixteen pre-

school children, from a community crèche were observed during naturalistic play to identify any play preferences which could be categorised as

war, weapon and superhero play.

9 Boys and 7 girls aged between 3 & 4 years

Children’s names have been changed to protect confidentiality

Literature Review

Why do children choose this type of play?

Popular Culture e.g: media images, video gamesLevin (2012)

Physical Environment Carlsson-Paige & Levin (1999)

To work through/make sense of imagery or experiences

Levin (2003)

Child’s home environment (Brownlee, 2008)

What do children learn from war, weapon and superhero play?

Construction of imaginary weapons as achievable task (Rich, 2003)

Sense of agency and confidence through construction (Holland, 2000)

Engagement of children’s imagination through imagery and use of schema (Brownlee, 2008)

Exploration of physical boundaries and abilities (Tannock, 2008)

Experiencing empathy (Carlsson-Paige, 2007)

The Cost of Banning war, weapon and superhero play in ECE

“Othering” of boys (Holland, 2000)

Negative implications for children whose parents use weapons in everyday life (Holland, 2000) (Brownlee, 2008)

Devaluing of children’s interests and natural inquisitiveness (Rich, 2003)

Further implications to child’s self-esteem and disposition for learning

Key Terms

War, weapon and superhero playTerm used for games or play with the violent themes of play fighting, combat, use of weapons, rough and tumble.

Children may pretend to be comic book or cartoon characters or other individuals they have seen in the media or in real life like police officers, soldiers and security guards (Carlsson-Paige, 2007).

Symbolic play Refers to a child’s use of a symbol, object or action in the place of or to represent another object or action.

The symbol or object can be physically constructed or constructed in the child’s imagination in order to facilitate the child’s play (Hayes, 2005)

Rough and Tumble Play (RTP)

Describes the physical or vigorous aspects of play, specifically running, jumping, wrestling, rolling, bouncing, chasing, tumbling, climbing and play fighting (Pellegrini, 1991)

The “Play face”This is the term used to describe a child’s face and body language while they are playing or enjoying themselves.

Characteristics are smiling, laughing and open body language with a cheerful or happy demeanour (Tannock, 2008)

MethodologyMethod of Observation was video recording focused on 4 corners of the room, 20 mins per over 4 days.

Total time: 80 mins

Interactions deemed to be of the desired play type described in the terminology slides were transcribed in detail

Subsequently these transcriptions were viewed and reviewed in order to identify common themes.

Findings

Findings

After analysis 8 key play interactions were identified under the key themes

(n=4) B=Boy G=Girl

Observation Children Present Behaviour

1.1 B1, B8 & B9 RP game “Jailer & Baddie”

1.2 G14 RTP “Diving on beanbag”

2.1 B7, B8 & B9 RP “Snake attacks Pontypandy”

2.2 B3 & B4 RTP & RP “Train adventures”

2.3 G12, G13 & G15 RTP “Dancing & Jumping”

3.1 B1, B2, B7 & B8 RP “Baddie attack on the beanbag”

3.2 B9 RTP “Running and diving”

4.1 B3, B4, B5 & B6 RTP “Building and knocking towers”

Distinct “good vs. bad” characterised role-play

The theme of “heroism”

Patterns in Play Themes

Observation 3.1The boys have been playing with figures and a batman castle.

Eoin’s has heard some “ baddies”.

Eoin: “There’s a baddie”

Jack: “Boooooo”

Eoin: “Someone tripped me”

His figure tumbles to the floor.

Jack: “I’ll get ye”

B2 follows B1 to where his figure is.

Eoin: “The baddie is up here”

Jack: “Someone’s burying me”

Eoin: “I’m gonna go in there”

Jack: “You see me in the window”

Eoin: “Aghhh”

Jack: “And you say oh no I better get him”

Eoin: “I better find him”

Jack: “And you find me at the bottom sinked”

Rough and Tumble Play (RTP)Max and Eoin.

Observation 1.1

Max is laughing and taunting Eoin. Eoin chases Max, catches him and wrestles him to the floor to put on imaginary handcuffs, then Eoinwrestles Max onto the beanbag “Jail”

Later in the same observation Max was again wrestling with Eoin to get him into “jail”.

Anna and Jack are noted during observation 1.2 and 3.2 displaying similar characteristics of RTP while playing alone and diving onto the beanbag in the soft area of the room.

Observation 1.2

Jack is running around the room and diving onto the beanbag which is placed in the corner.

“Play face” is evident. He is playing alone and does not speak as he does this.

Observation 3.2

Anna is running around the room and diving onto the beanbag positioned in the corner of the room.

She is playing alone and does not speak to anyone as she does this.

Rough and Tumble Play (RTP)

In observation 1.2 Anna was observed in an individual episode of RTP, her behaviour was described as “running” and “diving”.

Identical behaviour was portrayed by Jack in observation 3.2 which was taken a number of days later.

The presence of the “giant beanbag” has influenced these children’s urge to lunge onto the soft surface without the fear of injury.

Environmental influences on play

The “Play face”Worth noting was the observed effect Ben’s change of expression had on the other children during the interaction in observation 4.1.

Ben’s facial cues change from the “play face” to that of a more serious or cross face.

As a result the other children become uncertain of the tone of the game, one child in particular B5 does not engage in the play which follows until he is sure that it is acceptable to do so.

Observation 4.1Ben places the block on his tower which is now 9 blocks high.

The tower collapses and all four children scream and laugh as the tower falls.

The “play face” is evident in all children until B6’s facial expression changes to a cross face.

Ben shouts: “I don’t like that”

He begins to build his tower again while the other children look on expressionless.

The tower collapses again and they laugh a little, appearing somewhat unsure about how the game will play out.

Max doesn’t laugh or smile at all he, watches the other children for their cue on how to react.

Spatial Awareness

The participants were at all times aware of their location in relation to the other children in the room.

Children manoeuvred themselves during RTP in order to prevent inflicting injury or harm to the other children in their immediate vicinity.

The empathy and self-regulation witnessed in these situations were highlighted as a skill which children can acquire through RTP in Tannock’s (2008) study.

Boys’ and Girls’ PreferencesBoys have more of a tendency towards participating in war, weapon and superhero play then girls.

During the observations it was found that boys took part in 80% of the key interactions while girls took part in only 20% of these interactions

Conclusion

Adults have preconceived ideas about what this type of play can mean

We have a more complex understanding of the significance or effects of violence

Children who don’t think in terms of consequences, are simply concerned with immediate gratification.

Most children are playing these games for the enjoyment of them and to make sense of their experiences rather than as a result of a violent streak in their personality or because they want to harm another person.

ConclusionBanning can alleviate the “problem” in the immediate context of the setting however, it denies children the opportunities to work through the ideas

By simply ignoring children’s curiosity practitioners could be doing more harm than good.

Beyond banningEducators must observe children in order to be more aware what areas of play the children are pursuing and body language they display during play i.e. “play face”.

If there is an element of violent behaviour in the play, educators need to engage children in discussions to assess their understanding of the violence.

Children should be encouraged to pursue these games in a constructive manner, using their imaginations and creativity, making images or stories around the subject matter.

Children should be free to fashion their own guns using open ended materials rather that toy guns which will only ever be a toy gun.

Beyond banning

Policies should be written regarding this type of play.

The environment could be changed to facilitate this play for children in a safe way.

Use of a large outdoor play area with climbing frames and a large grass pit would be an ideal way to facilitate children rough and tumble play as they could be encouraged to run or climb safely

ReferencesCarlsson-Paige, N. (2007). War play: Balancing children's needs and adults' concerns. (R. New, & M. Cochran, Eds.) Retrieved from Nancy Carlsson-Paige Ed.D.: www.nancycarlssonpaige.org/articles1.htmlCarlsson-Paige, N., & Levin, D. E. (1999, 10 May). The war-toy connection. Christian Science Monitor, 99(217), 9.Cheetham, M., & Haseloff, W. (1996). Rustling around some of the riddles of play. Early Years, 16(2), 9-12.Hayes, N. (2005). Early childhood (3rd Edition ed.). Dublin: Gill and Macmillan.Gurian, M. (2011). Boys and girls learn differently! San Francisco: Jossey-Base.Holland, P. (2000). Take the toys from the boys? An examination of the gensis of policy and the appropriateness of adult perspectives in the area of war, weapon and superhero play. Children's Social and Economics Education, 4(2).Pellegrini, A. D. (n.d.). A longitudinal study of popular and rejected children's rough and tumble play. Early Education and Development, 2(3), 205-213.Pellegrini, A. D., Symons, F. J., & Hoch, J. (2004). Observing children in their natural worlds. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Reed, T., & Brown, M. (2000). The expression of care in the rough and tumble play of boys. Journal of Research in Childhood Education International, 15(1).Rich, D. (2003). Bang, bang! Gun play and why children need it. Early Education(Summer). Retrieved from http://www.richlearningopportunities.co.uk/pdf/bang%20bang%20gun%20play%20and%20why%20children%20need%20it.pdfRoberts-Holmes, G. (2011). Doing your early years research project. London: Sage.Tannock, M. (2008). Understanding the value of children's rough-and-tumble play. The Early Childhood Educator.Tannock, M. (2011). Observing children's rough-and-tumble play. Australasian journal of Early Education, 36(2), 13-20.