Child Development Essay PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Child Development Essay PDF

Description

Diva Wong Given the significance of play for children's development, critically consider aspects of pretend play and how they impact on the development of children's cognitive skill.

1939 words

Play is defined as having no obvious goal other than enjoyment (Weisberg, 2015) and it takes on many different forms and varies between cultures. Through multiple studies conducted (Bartolini, 1996; Hoffmann & Russ, 2012; Russ, 2003; Vickerius and Sandberg, 2006), we can be certain that play in general is significant for children’s development. Subsequently, pretend play is defined as play that involves the pretending of an object and/or world in a pretend game that is not representative of reality (Weisberg, 2015). Aspects of pretend play include object substitution and imaginary companions (Weisberg, 2015). This essay will highlight the significance of play as an overarching theme and critically explore how pretend play, as a derivative of play, produces object substitution and imaginary companions which impacts the development of cognitive skills (theory of mind, language, creativity, executive function). Pretend play is symbolic in nature, consequentially, an aspect of said symbolism is demonstrated through object substitution. Object substitution involves using an object to represent another object which may not have its typical properties, for example using a banana as a phone (Weisberg, 2015). In order for children to understand object substitution, they must understand that object can both be what it is supposed to represent and what is can represent even with multiple identities which is one part of the theory of mind. Children should be able to hold both the pretend and the real identity of the object in mind and represent an object as being two things at the same time (Lillard, 1993). For example, a child pretending to eat a rectangular magnet as it is imagined to be a bar of chocolate but doesn’t

Diva Wong actually eat the magnet bar. The child would understand the real identity of the magnet whilst treating the object as a chocolate bar, implementing two identities into one object. Additionally, in order for children to understand object substitution in pretend play with others, they must understand another’s mental representation ability, which is another part of the theory of mind. Therefore, pretend play is seen to be meta-representational as it involves understanding and representing someone else’s representation (Weisberg, 2015). For example, if the mother of the child is holding a banana into her ear and talking to it, the child must understand that according to the mother, the banana is a telephone. This example shows that the child should be able to a meta-representation and respond appropriately to the situation based on this, for example, talk back on another banana. Through object substitution children are able to develop these two parts of the theory of mind however, outside of a pretend situation, it is seen that children are unable to do so (Flavell, 1988). Therefore, object substitution is able to train theory of mind in instances such as allowing children to represent objects with multiple identities in both reality and pretence which in turn allows them to understand pretend play takes place in a pretend universe that maps onto reality. Moreover, playing with others through object substitution pretend play allows children to understand another’s representation of an object and understand the theory of mind. Other than the theory of mind, language is also developed. Doswell, Lewis, Sylva and Boucher (1994) found that children who engage in more object substitutional play has a better receptive and expressive vocabulary and grammar. With better language skills , children seems to be able to better conceptualising object substitution in play (Casby & Della Corte, 1987). Astington and Jenkins (1995) identified two aspects of pretend play (making joint proposals and provide explicit role assignments to self and others) that helped with the success of theory of mind task. While helping the succession of theory of mind task, these

Diva Wong also trains the children into avoiding ambiguity and implementing conciseness in speech creating a more mature narrative. Besides language, creativity is enhanced through object substitution in pretend play. Hutt and Bhavani (1972) found that the children who used object substitution in their pretend play at three to five years old displayed higher originality four years later. However as found in Mottweiler and Taylor (2012), it is not the correlation between creativity and object substitution that leads to creativity being developed in pretend play but the role play component in pretend play that accounts for the connection between creativity and pretend play. Sachet and Mottweiler (2013) suggests that perhaps role play in pretend play enables children to imagine unique characters and scenarios which facilitates creativity. In addition to creativity, pretend play is often thought to have an impact on executive function. Carlson, Davis-Unger and White (2012) and Carlson and Moses (2001) found that a composite score of pretend play in children correlated with scores of a group of executive function tasks. Albertson and Shore (2009) discovered a correlation between children ability to identify the pretend and real identity of objects that were substituted in pretend play and executive control tasks. The idea of object substitution where one object can represent another lets children learn that characteristics can be disconnected from its physical stimuli which helps children understand, consider and choose between different courses of action even without the occurrence of a physical stimuli (Vygotsky, 1978). Vygotsky (1978) also pointed out that object substitution in pretend play allows children to separate and control the mental representation of pretence from the real world which could help them in controlling impulsive responses. Overall, we can see that through the characteristics of object substitution in pretend play, object substitution influences the development of theory of mind for children as they are able to understand the ability for an object to possess multiple identities and another’s mental

Diva Wong representation as well as developing language through the characteristic of role play in object substitution pretend play. Through understanding, alternating and separating between multiple representations of an object, children are able to broaden their creativity and develop their executive functions. Another aspect of pretend play is imaginary companions in which the companion only occurs in the children’s mind (Weisberg, 2015). As this lacks the physical item to allow the pretend identity to have real world basis, children’s imagination is challenged in a specific way that develops their theory of mind, language, creativity and executive function. Taylor and Carlson (1997) explored theory of mind with imaginary companions loosely and found that there is a strong correlation between theory of mind and fantasy pretend play in children. However, even though Taylor and Carlson (1997) acknowledges the ambiguity in their study, they still postulated that extensive fantasy play such as with imaginary companions could help children develop an understanding of the theory of mind. Extending on Taylor and Carlson (1997) study’s hypothesis, Giménez-Dasí, Pons and Bender (2016) then discovered that children with imaginary companions had a better theory of mind understanding than children without imaginary companions. The reason could be that having an imaginary companion allowed children to practice comprehension of another person and predict mental and emotional states in other people resulting with better theory of mind. Other than imaginary companions impacting on the theory of mind, language is also highly developed. Bouldin, Bavin and Pratt (2002), Caldeira (1979), Roby and Kidd (2008), found that children with imaginary companions used more mature language and had better communication skills than children without imaginary companions. Singer and Singer (2009) and Trionfi and Reese (2009) both found that children with imaginary companions created a more imaginary, richer narrative and had more extensive language use. Roby and Kidd (2008) suggests that language intertwines with theory of mind where with the increase ability

Diva Wong to take into perspective others representations, children are able to understand the unique information given and reflect back an intelligible verbal message. As mentioned above, Astington and Jenkins (1995) identified two aspects of pretend play (making joint proposals, provide role assignments) that helped with the success of theory of mind task, however Roby and Kidd (2008) extended this theory to imaginary companions and explained that children still conduct these two aspects of pretend play but with their imaginary companions. Children with imaginary companions has to actively construct the fantasy through assigning roles to both imaginary companion and self while constructing a dialogue for all participant. This in turn trains both the theory of mind and language as children navigate through their play with imaginary companions. Withstanding the above, children’s enhanced ability to understand others emotions and use elaborate language from creating an imaginary companion nurtures the growth of creativity. Additionally, Somers and Yawkey (1984) concluded through Parloff and Datta (1965) and Inlow (1966) that as imaginary companions are imagined as if they were real, it sets the foundation for developing capabilities that are central to creativity. Hoff (2005) supports this idea as she finds that children with imaginary companions were more creative than children without imaginary companions. Somers and Yawkey (1984) believed that made up imaginary companions contribute to a creative growth through developing originality and enhancing imagination which is essential to creativity. Through a combination of theory of mind, language and the characteristics of imaginary companions in pretend play, creativity is able to be nurtured and developed. Furthermore, executive function is also causally developed through imaginary companions in pretend play (Mischel & Baker, 1975). Singer and Herman (1954) and Singer (1961) found that children with high fantasy play had increase control over their motor responses which was supported by longitudinal studies (Elias & Berk, 2002; Taylor et al.,

Diva Wong 2004). Carlson and Davis (2005) also found that children who has imaginary companions have an enhanced measurement on inhibitory control. An intervention study by Thibodeau, Gilpin, Brown and Meyer (2016) brought more support that imaginative pretend play helped with the improvement and development of executive function. Thibodeau et al. (2016) believed that children’s imaginative play involves a greater executive function demand that allows children to be immersed into the world they created. From multiple studies, we can see that imaginative play, especially imaginary companions is seen to improve and train executive function. Even though there is an overwhelming amount of studies that support pretend plays influence on cognitive skills, a meta-analysis by Lillard, Lerner, Hopkins, Dore, Smith and Palmquist (2013) have shown that the support may not be as robust and consistent as it is shown to be. Lillard et al. (2013) found that studies surrounding theory of mind and creativity show inconsistent correlational results and nonreplicated results which are problematic for a causal link. For language, they find that a causal link can be made however there is insufficient studies to find a conclusion. For executive function, studies are found to be inconclusive with replication failures. Lillard et al. (2013) conclude that due to multiple study’s weak methodology and statistical approaches, we cannot easily support the significance of plays impact on cognitive skills. Further studies is suggested to take into account and create a robust methodology in experiments and longitudinal studies before we can clearly admit that pretend play does help development. Overall, play is seen to impact on the development children’s theory of mind, language, creativity and executive function. However, more up to date research with stronger results must be conducted in order to conclusively say that play does help enhance the development of children’s cognitive skill. Through exploring the impact of the two aspects of pretend play on cognitive skills, we can see that the characteristics of object substitution and

Diva Wong imaginative play has helped children to hold both identity of an object, understand others mental representation and emotions, develop more mature language, enhance creativity and originality and finally train executive functioning. From exploring these cognitive skills through pretend play, we can see the significance of play on a development of a child.

Diva Wong References Albertson, K., & Shore, C. (2009). Holding in mind conflicting information: Pretending, working memory, and executive control. Journal of Cognition and Development, 9(4), 390-410. Astington, J. W., & Jenkins, J. M. (1995). Theory of mind development and social understanding. Cognition & Emotion, 9(2-3), 151-165. Bartolini, V. (1996) On-the-job training: children’s play and work, in: A. L. Phillips (Ed.) Playing for keeps (Readleaf Press). Bouldin, P., Bavin, E. L., & Pratt, C. (2002). An investigation of the verbal abilities of children with imaginary companions. First Language, 22(3), 249-264. Caldeira, J. (1979). Imaginary Playmates: Some Relationships to Pre-Schoolers' Spontaneous Play, Language and Television-Viewing. Carlson, S. M., & Davis, A. C. (2005, June). Individual differences in executive function and pretense. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Jean Piaget Society, Vancouver, Canada. Carlson, S. M., & Moses, L. J. (2001). Individual differences in inhibitory control and children's theory of mind. Child development, 72(4), 1032-1053. Carlson, S. M., Davis-Unger, A. C., & White, R. E. (2012). Representation and role- play: The relation between individual differences in executive function and pretense. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. Casby, M. W., & Della Corte, M. (1987). Symbolic play performance and early language development. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 16(1), 31-42.

Diva Wong Doswell, G., Lewis, V., Sylva, K., & Boucher, J. (1994). Validational data on the Warwick symbolic play test. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 29(3), 289-298. Elias, C. L., & Berk, L. E. (2002). Self-regulation in young children: Is there a role for sociodramatic play?. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17(2), 216-238. Flavell, J. H. (1988). The development of children's knowledge about the mind: From cognitive connections to mental representations. Developing theories of mind, 244267. Giménez-Dasí, M., Pons, F., & Bender, P. K. (2016). Imaginary companions, theory of mind and emotion understanding in young children. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 24(2), 186-197. Hoff, E. V. (2005). Imaginary companions, creativity, and self-image in middle childhood. Creativity Research Journal, 17(2-3), 167-180. Hoffmann, J., & Russ, S. (2012). Pretend play, creativity, and emotion regulation in children. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6(2), 175. Hutt, C., & Bhavnani, R. (1972). Predictions from play. Nature, 237(5351), 171-172. Inlow, G. M. (1966). The emergent in curriculum. Wiley. Lillard, A. S. (1993). Pretend play skills and the child's theory of mind. Child development, 64(2), 348-371. Lillard, A. S., Lerner, M. D., Hopkins, E. J., Dore, R. A., Smith, E. D., & Palmquist, C. M. (2013). The impact of pretend play on children's development: A review of the evidence. Psychological bulletin, 139(1), 1. Mischel, W., & Baker, N. (1975). Cognitive appraisals and transformations in delay behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(2), 254.

Diva Wong Mottweiler, C. M., & Taylor, M. (2014). Elaborated role play and creativity in preschool age children. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8(3), 277. Parloff, M. B., & Datta, L. E. (1965). Personality characteristics of the potentially creative scientist. Science and psychoanalysis, 8(9), 1-1. Roby, A. C., & Kidd, E. (2008). The referential communication skills of children with imaginary companions. Developmental Science, 11(4), 531-540. Russ, S. W. (2003). Play and creativity: Developmental issues. Scandinavian journal of educational research, 47(3), 291-303. Sachet, A. B., & Mottweiler, C. M. (2013). The distinction between role-play and object substitution in pretend play. In The Oxford handbook of the development of imagination. Singer, D. G., & Singer, J. L. (2009). The house of make-believe: Children's play and the developing imagination. Harvard University Press. Singer, J. L. (1961). Imagination and waiting ability in young children. Journal of personality. Singer, J. L., & Herman, J. (1954). Motor and fantasy correlates of Rorschach human movement responses. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 18(5), 325. Somers, J. U., & Yawkey, T. D. (1984). Imaginary play companions: Contributions of creative and intellectual abilities of young children. The Journal of Creative Behavior. Taylor, M., & Carlson, S. M. (1997). The relation between individual differences in fantasy and theory of mind. Child development, 68(3), 436-455. Taylor, M., Carlson, S. M., Maring, B. L., Gerow, L., & Charley, C. M. (2004). The characteristics and correlates of fantasy in school-age children: imaginary companions, impersonation, and social understanding. Developmental Psychology, 40(6), 1173.

Diva Wong Thibodeau, R. B., Gilpin, A. T., Brown, M. M., & Meyer, B. A. (2016). The effects of fantastical pretend-play on the development of executive functions: An intervention study. Journal of experimental child psychology, 145, 120-138. Trionfi, G., & Reese, E. (2009). A good story: Children with imaginary companions create richer narratives. Child Development, 80(4), 1301-1313. Vickerius, M., & Sandberg, A. (2006). The significance of play and the environment around play. Early Child Development and Care, 176(2), 207-217. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Weisberg, D. S. (2015). Pretend play. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 6(3), 249-261....