Topic Editor: Peter K. Smith, PhD, Goldsmiths, University of London, United Kingdom. Members of the research Team of the Forensic Architecture project. Play: Playfighting and war toys. Jennifer L. Hart, MEd, Michelle T. Tannock, Ph. DIntroduction. Adults often perceive young children. Movies (e. g., Star Wars), books (e. Harry Potter), national figures (e. In spite of that, educational programs often either discourage or ban this controversial form of play resulting in contrasting societal messaging for young children related to the appropriateness of play fighting and war toys. For example, fencing, an international sport, where those who excel are awarded medals, features three types of bladed weapons maneuvered in actions representative of fighting. Further, police officers use stun guns, firearms, and tear gas, yet are often recognized as instrumental for any society seeking to protect citizens. A closer look at the characteristics of children. Play fighting with symbolic weapons or war toys is a form of socio- dramatic play predominantly observed amongst boys ages three to six years. Bachelor of Fine Arts in Fashion Design. The art and business of fashion give form and function to clothing, a basic human need, imbuing it with meaning in the ever.Play fighting is defined as verbally and physically cooperative play behaviour involving at least two children, where all participants enjoyably and voluntarily engage in reciprocal role- playing that includes aggressive make- believe themes, actions, and words; yet lacks intent to harm either emotionally or physically. Play fighting encompasses superhero play,2 . However, the elimination of play fighting and war toys by parents and educators may have a significant impact on young children. Research suggests that the optimal education and development of young children, particularly boys, is not being met when playful aggressive tendencies are forbidden.
Further, educational programs that restrict play types may foster play deficits, which inadvertently will leave children unprepared for future experiences. While educators are often uncomfortable with play fighting and with war toys, it can be argued that the omission of these forms of play in early childhood programs limits opportunities for development of social, emotional, physical, cognitive and communicative abilities in young children. Research Context Play fighting generates central social learning experiences which support children as they practice controlled and motivated competitive and cooperative behaviour among peers. Understandably, this form of play is controversial. Carlsson- Paige suggest that war play is detrimental to child development due to its imitative nature rather than the creation of novel play experiences. Nevertheless, research supports dramatic and sociodramtic play as important to child development. Professional organizations have influenced early childhood practice when considering exposure to fighting and war toys. For example, developmentally appropriate practice, the initiative by the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), supports and encourages the presence of certain forms of uniforms and images in the classroom, yet bans weapons and actions symbolic of, or believed to glorify, violence. Educator training and development often does not delineate playful aggression from serious aggression perpetuated by the aspiration to decrease violence in all forms. For example, Watson and Peng. Fry. 16 noted that play fighting and serious fighting can be categorized into separate types of behaviour in young children. Hellendoorn and Harinck. Educators may discourage or ban play fighting and war toys because they perceive the play fighting as detrimental to child development rather than beneficial. Participants may sustain injuries, but such injuries are due to the nature of play, and not the purpose. This is an important distinction when identifying serious aggression, where the manifestation of behaviour holds the purpose of explicitly intending to injure or destroy and such behaviour is directed towards another with the intent to harm. However, children who exhibit significantly higher rates of antisocial behaviour and negative emotion display more violent actions during pretend play and engage in more frequent antisocial behaviour outside the context of their play. Additional support is needed for young children who lack age- appropriate prosocial skills and emotional regulation. Key Research Questions Smilansky. The acceptance or suppression of socio- dramatic play is determined by the knowledge and perceptions of early childhood educators. For greater understanding researchers should consider to what extent play fighting and war toys are accepted in the home and educational settings along with the contextual components that influence acceptance or suppression. Recent Research Results Parents and educators often misinterpret or are uncomfortable with play fighting due to its resemblance to serious aggression and difficulty recognizing subtle differences between the two. Playful aggression is a common component in socio- dramatic play . Research is needed to develop a cohesive terminology that clearly identifies various types of aggressive socio- dramatic play, targets the developmental benefits of each type, and distinguishes various toys and actions characteristic of aggressively representative play. Research findings to date have supported the inclusion of aggressive socio- dramatic play in early childhood education, yet minimal practical guidance for educators is offered to aid in the development of strategies and clear tactics for supervising play fighting and war toy play. Conclusion. Research demonstrates distinct differences between serious aggressive behaviour and playful aggressive behaviour, with intent to harm being the major factor of serious aggression. Research further demonstrates playful aggressive behaviour as a neglected, yet important element of socio- dramatic play, especially for young boys. Children who engage in play fighting are simply pretending to be aggressive as they develop a fighting theme that commonly involves symbolic weapons or war toys. They frequently exchange roles, collaboratively develop storylines, and repeat sequences in an effort to perfect their physical movements and the social dynamics of their play. Participants enjoyably and voluntarily engage in reciprocal role- playing that includes aggressive make- believe themes, actions, words and weapons; yet lacks intent to harm either emotionally or physically. However, educators must be cognizant of supervision, a key component for supporting play fighting. As with learning to cut with scissors, writing with a sharp pencil, and climbing on playground equipment, young children need the establishment of clear guidelines and reinforcement or redirection from educators to ensure their safety is assured within developmentally appropriate play. Implications for Parents, Services and Policy Without a full understanding of the distinct difference between serious and symbolic aggression educators may react with conflicting messages to young children regarding the appropriateness of engaging in socio- dramatic play involving play fighting and war toys. This confusion often results in educators who are pressured to disregard the benefits of aggressive socio- dramatic play by banning play fighting. Inconsistent rules and guidelines relating to the role of play fighting and war toys in early childhood education contribute to the struggle to recognize benefits and support children. Educators who hold a foundation of understanding will be better able to communicate the importance of not only allowing playful aggression but also supporting it with the inclusion of war toys in early childhood programs. References. Pellis SM, Pellis VC. Rough- and- tumble play and the development of the social brain. Current Directions in Psychological Science. Early Childhood Education Journal. Early Childhood Research & Practice. Logue ME, Harvey H. Journal of Research in Childhood Education. Superhero toys and boys. Journal of Research in Childhood Education. Monsters, magic and mr psycho: A biocultural approach to rough and tumble play in the early years of primary school. Early Years: An International Journal of Research and Development. Rough- and- tumble play: Developmental and educational significance. Educational Psychologist. Rough and tumble play: An investigation of the perceptions of educators and young children. Early Childhood Education Journal. Rough play: One of the most challenging behaviours. Di. Pietro JA. Rough and tumble play: A function of gender. Developmental Psychology. Play as adaptive potentiation. Carlsson- Paige N. Young children and war play. Educational Leadership. Violence in children. The relation between toy gun play and childrens. Early Education and Development. Fry DP. Differences between playfighting and serious fighting among Zapotec children. Ethology and Sociobiology. War toy play and aggression in Dutch kindergarten children. Social learning theory of aggression. The Journal of Communication. Emotion regulation and aggression. Aggression and Violent Behaviour. Sociodramatic play: Its relevance to behaviour and achievement in school. In: Klugman E, Smilansky S, ed. Columbia University: Teachers College Press; 1. Humphreys AP, Smith PK. Rough- and- tumble play friendship and dominance in school children: Evidence for continuity and change with age. Elementary- school children. Early Childhood Quarterly.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
December 2016
Categories |