Hi Friends!
This blog was requested by my one and only reader, my mom! She requested I post my latest paper I wrote for my Writing in Psychology class. I recently received my latest paper back and thankfully got an A (again!). This is a little brag post, but the professor specifically said "really well done" to me while handing it back, as well as asked for a copy! Coming from me, a writer who has never been strong, I was giddy with excitement. Besides the point, I've posted my paper below. Feel free to read it or tune out once you lose interest. I know literature reviews aren't for everyone, but please let me know what you think if you make it all the way through!
Enjoy (I'm 98.2% positive this was my final draft-oh well!)...
Abstract
This
literature review looks at the importance of play in five studies that have
varying similarities and differences. The review touches on the benefits of
childhood play and how it enhances developmental processes. It highlights the
contrasting environments play is represented in and how each benefits independently.
The review also intermingles the areas where the articles seem to be missing
information or show concerning gaps in studies done. Lastly, the review covers
why the lack of play is harmful to childhood development and the detrimental effects
lack of play can have on childhood development. Simultaneously, the paper
comments on areas needing improvement and/or further research to better justify
the information presented in the studies.
In conclusion, the paper recaptures the biggest points presented in each
article and the importance of the information presented; including, benefits of
play, environments for play, and lack of play.
Introduction
Childhood
play is often a skill overlooked in adolescence. However, play is vital to
childhood development, thus this Literature Review assesses the research done
about the importance of play in adolescence. Play is said to be an essential
component to developmental advances in early childhood according to Dmytro et
al. (date). Likewise, authors such as O’Grady and Dusing (2014) believe child
and infant play is vital for development and play can measure skill performance
in a “natural” (O’Grady, Dusing, 2014, pp.25) environment. Furthermore, Beate and
Sandseter (2009) take risky play into account by assessing play in a nature
playground compared to an ordinary preschool, and Bixler, Floyd, and Hammitt
(2002) assesses child play in “wild” (Bixler et al., 2002, pp.795) environments,
work environments, leisure environments, and school environments. Lastly,
Milteer and Ginsburg (2012) note the importance of play to the social,
emotional, cognitive and physical developmental to children in early childhood.
I will examine the importance of play, the best environment for play, the lack
of play, and important factors to consider. In sum, I am studying childhood
development to find out the importance of play in order to determine what type
of play is beneficial and why to childhood growth and development.
Background
O’Grady and Dusing define play as
experiencing the world through participation in active, self-motivated
interactions with objects as well as people (2014). Play is an arising topic
due to parent’s efforts to get their young children into school earlier and
earlier. It is a controversial topic due to children not being able to play
because of the constant desire for children to learn by conventional
standardized tests sooner in life. By taking away play children actually miss
out on important developmental learning. This literature review covers the
importance of play in childhood development. It also recognizes the issues with
children who are unable to experience play in childhood. Play is measured in different environments in
order to examine what kind of play is best. Beate and Sandseter (2009) look at
risky play in two different preschool environment in order to determine what
kind of play environment is the most beneficial for children to experience
risky play. In all, play is looked at from a number of different viewpoints in
order to cover the grounds of important play and determine what kind of play is
beneficial and why.
Benefits of Play
Plays is incredibly beneficial in early childhood
development for a number of reasons. Children are able to gain motor,
cognitive, social-emotional, communication, and adaptive skills by playing
(O’Grady & Dusing, 2014). Likewise, Milteer and Ginsburg (2012) also
believe the importance of play relates to social, emotional, cognitive, and
physical well-being in children at the beginning of early development. O’Grady
and Dusing (2014) state that early play assists in child development prior to
entering school because behavioral repetition through play caters to the
child’s learning in typical environments and routines. It also increases
creativity and allows children to interact with their children according to
Milteer and Ginsburg (2012). Milteer and Ginsburg (2012) may interpret play
differently because they state that play is cooperation with parents, which is
adjacent from what Bixler et al. (2002) state as the importance of play; Bixler
et al. (2002) talk about play as more of an activity centered away from the
household and parental units.
Active Play
Milteer and Ginsburg (2012) state
that active play is an essential component of play because it allows for
physical health and building healthy bodies that will prevent obesity. Play
also promotes healthy brain development and allows children to adapt to their
school environment, which enables them to engage and problem solve (Milteer
& Ginsburg, 2012). Likewise, recess time may enable children to retain and
store new information. Children may also be able to express themselves more
through play and communicate effectively with adults (Milteer & Ginsburg,
2012). Children learn how to share, negotiate, resolve problems, and learn
leadership while playing with others.
Every aspect of play mentioned by
Milteer and Ginsburg (2012) seem convincing, however there is a lack of
evidence in their research. Their work is written without sources, which make
you question the background of the information provided. Likewise, thus far,
they have not provided significant means for their own measurement of childhood
play and the benefits that they observed. It’s difficult to assume they are
credible without sufficient means of evidence or sources.
Outdoor Play
In
contrast, according to Bixler et al. (2002) the importance of play is related
to the outdoor experiences children get from “wild” (Bixler et al., 2002) play
because children gain educational knowledge of the outdoors due to the hands on
experiences. By playing outdoors children are able to gain a sense of autonomy from
parents and gain exploration skills (Bixler et al., 2002). As the child grows
older they may be permitted a home range they are able to explore without adult
supervision, which may increase positive attitudes and appreciation of land
explored due to the freedom form parents (Bixler et al., 2002). The benefits of
natural environments has been shown when a school yard was replaced with
natural areas (Bixler et al, 2002). Children are able to learn about
biodiversity, plants, animals, changing seasons, and insects. It is also said
that some wild environments are preferred over others; land that is smooth,
ground cover and visually appealing is preferred (Bixler et al., 2002). Bixler
et al. (2002) tested two groups of public school children located in Texas and
south-eastern United States. Bixler et al. dismiss the concept of different
environments based on location, which seems to be important to the different
environments children are given to explore. For instance, a child who grows up
in Southern California won’t have changing seasons, whereas a child who grows
up in New York will experience different climates as well as different
biodiversity. It’s unclear whether this difference effects the child’s
development with outdoor play or not.
Environments for
Play
Bixler
et al. (2002) conducted a study that had two sets of middle and high school
students use scales with photographs and questions asking environmental
preferences of play. The participants were asked to rate each question on a
five point scale the frequency of how often they played in outdoor environments
before the age of ten (Bixler et al., 2002).There seems to be a bit of a
stretch to be asking middle and high school students, 4 to 8 years older than
when they were ten, to recall how often they played outdoors at a young age.
The same consisted of 53% female, 49.5% white, 48.5% black, and 2% other
(Bixler et al., 2002). This sample also leaves out a big portion of other
ethnicities. You can’t assume outdoor play will have the same effects on Hispanic
children or any other ethnicity not represented. The students were then put
into clusters of Wildland Adventurers (WA), Urban Adventurers (UA), and Yard
Adventurers (YA) based on how they answered their preferences for the first
questionnaire.
Bixler
et al. (2002) hypothesis was that children who experienced wildland, outdoor
play would become environmentalists or find occupations in outdoor
environments. However, their results neither proved nor disapproved their
theory. Bixler et al. (2002) stated that environmental play does influence
wildland interest, but environmental activism in later life couldn’t be measured.
In
contrast to Bixler et al. (2002), Beate and Sandseter (2009) observed all of
their study in an outdoor, nature preschool in relation to risky play. Beate
and Sandseter (2009) observed children’s risky behavior for seven days in there
outdoor Norweidan preschools as well as risky behavior in an “ordinary” (Beate
&Sandseter, 2009) preschool. They looked for risky behavior in play with greet
heights, greet speed, dangerous tools, dangerous elements, rough and tumble
play, and place children can get lost. They concluded that both the nature and
ordinary play areas allowed for risky play, however, the outdoor area provided
the children with dangerous elements (Beate & Sandseter, 2009). In
conclusion, they state that the nature environment is a better area for risky
play which allows the students to feel more exhilarated and engage in thrilling
play (Beate & Sandseter, 2009). One must take into consideration that Beate
and Sandseter (2009) only looked at two playgrounds, and not all playgrounds
are the same. It may be important to look at more playgrounds, both in nature
and not, in order to get a better sample of risky play in the nature compared
to an ordinary playground. Likewise, they did not observe a large population of
students, and observation was done via interpretation. It may be helpful to get
interpretations from more people in order to get consensuses with more than one
person.
O’Grady
and Dusing (2014) talk about the environment with a slightly different lens.
They focus on the environment in which a child is able to play. For example,
they say that a controlled environment is the typical environment for a student
to be assessed. However, they state that children who are assessed in this way
are typically not engaged in authentic behaviors, thus the child may not
perform to their highest ability (O’Grady & Dusing, 2014). Assessments that
are play-based are assessments designed to measure one or more of the five
developmental domains while the child is engaged in self-motivated child-driven
play (O’Grady & Dusing, 2014). By
assessing children in a play-based environment, children are more likely to
preform typical behaviors, therefore it is easier to detect their actual
strengths and weaknesses. A play-based environment is defined as a naturalistic
environment (O’Grady & Dusing, 2014). However, this definition, provided by
O’Grady and Dusing (2014), is slightly brief and up for interpretation,
therefore it is difficult to grasp the complete understanding of a play-based
environment.
Lack of Play
Bixler
et al. (2002) touch lightly on the lack of freedom of play on the home range.
Some parents restrict their children from being allowed to explore further than
the home range. Bixler et al. (2002) reference Moore and Young (1978) that
parents who are overly controlling like this impact their children negatively
by making them develop limited wayfinding competencies. Restrictiveness includes
being led somewhere by a parent, older sibling, school bus driver, or another
adult because they are being accompanied everywhere and do not have the freedom
to be independent (Bixler et al., 2002). This information, however, may be
outdated due to Moore and Young research referenced by Bixler et al., which was
conducted in 1978.
Bixler et al. (2002) mention the
lack of freedom in play due to parents or authority figures, whereas Milteer
and Ginsburg (2012) talk on the lack of play due to poverty situations. Lack of
play due to poverty is much more concerning because poverty has always been an
identifiable issue in society. Bixler et al. (2002) lack of play due to lack of
freedom is a fading issue due to new technologies which allow adults to still stay
in contact with children even when they wonder. Milteer and Ginsburg (2012) point
out that children in poverty are deprived of a safe and creative playtime as
well as access to extracurricular activities. They also point out that parents
are unable to bond through play with their children (Milteer & Ginsburg,
2012). Lack of play affects children negatively just as increased play affects
children positively.
Conclusion
In
conclusion, all authors provided their own ideas about the importance of play,
while also including elements of why lack of play causes negative effects or
the pros and cons of different environments for play. It is important to assess
the gaps in each study presented, and touch on the importance of future
research in these problematic areas. For instance, Bixler et al. (2002) showed
to have a few gaps in research as well as a distinct time gap in the research
used in the article. Likewise, O’Grady and Dusing (2014) were a bit brief on
some important definitions, which made it difficult to fully picture the idea
of a naturalistic environment. Furthermore, Beate and Sandseter (2009)
presented a fairly tiny sample size along with only two adjacent locations of
observations. Their study was also done in Norwegian preschools, so their
environment may be completely different compared to an American observation and
so on.
To
get a better grasp on the ideas of childhood development related to play, more
studies should be conducted in order to fill in the gaps these studies
demonstrated. First, it is important to provide a larger sample size in any
study in order to provide the best and most accurate results. Secondly, a study
looking at environmental differences in the importance of play should be
conducted in locations where the environment differs from region to region. By
incorporating differentiating regions, one is looking at the different
biodiversity’s in each location and its effect—if it has one-- on childhood
play in the environment. In sum, childhood play has proved to have some effects
on childhood development in relation different factors, however, there is room
for more research.
