Abstract
Renewed emphasis in Western political and economic debate on improving outcomes and reducing play opportunities are resulting in a “cognitivisation” of early childhood education, which is at odds with parallel attention to outcomes for creativity and imagination. Defining this “cognitivisation” as a narrowing of acceptable performance descriptions for young children, we report on an investigation of the play activities of 24 children (age range was 4.0–5.2 years; mean age of 4.5 years) over a 4-week period, in order to determine what opportunities were afforded for conceptual development. Against this narrowing of perspectives about cognitive outcomes, we theorise play in order to show the dynamic relations between cognition and imagination. Our research shows collective instances of shared and sustained imaginary situations which actively work against traditional conceptions of play as natural and individual. We found two significant pedagogical practices that were instrumental for realizing a new conception of play that positioned the teacher as central rather than invisible: the use of an interested observer of children’s play and the active construction of collective imaginary situations by the teacher. We argue that a more active role for the educator in children’s play provides theoretical depth to broaden rather than narrow pedagogical strategies for meeting outcomes in both cognition and imagination.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
We provide a more detailed account of the different understandings of temporality relevant to this issue in Fleer and Peers (under review).
Correspondingly, much of the Western early childhood education literature and research on play is conceptualized from a maturational theory of child development (Ebbeck and Waniganayake 2010). Notable exceptions to this can be found within the post-structuralist literature such as, Francis (1998) and Ailwood (2010) and we find some within the cross-cultural and sociocultural literature (e.g., Goncu and Gaskins 2007; Goncu et al. 2007; Goncu et al. 2000). Similarly, there is a small but growing group of play researchers who frame their work from a cultural-historical perspective such as Bert van Oers (2010), Bodrova and Leong (1998), and Lindqvist (1995).
Historically, many well known Russian scholars, such as Elkonin (2005), Leontyev (1944/2009), and Vygotsky (1966) have provided a very different perspective on play, positioning their work within the cultural evolution of play (Elkonin 2005) and the cultural value of play (Vygotsky 1966). Contemporary cultural-historical theorists from the Baltic regions, such as Bredikyte (2010) and Hakkarainen (2008), and from Russia, like Kravtsova (2010), have also undertaken play research. These authors have predominantly written about the psychological developmental dimensions that are afforded through play. Smirnov (1997) has stated that “it is impossible to discuss the problem of play independently of the framework of an individual’s personal growth and the genesis of his [sic] cultural qualities” (p. 28). Clearly, how play is discussed and defined in research matters.
“I think that in finding criteria for distinguishing a child’s play activity from is other general forms of activity it must be accepted that in play a child creates an imaginary situation. This is possible on the basis of the separation of the fields of vision and meaning which appears in the preschool period” (Vygotsky 1966, p.8).
The imaginary situation can also be seen in primary school when children play, for example, a game of basketball. The game with rules is an imaginary situation, even though the children score goals and can win or lose a game. When children are conscious of themselves as a player, as well as a subject within the play, then it becomes possible for a child to control the directions of the play. Having these two subjectivities in play, allows for the development of play, but also for the development of intentional responsiveness in the child.
An imaginary situation is central to a cultural-historical reading of play. The dialectical relations between the field of vision and the field of imagination give two perspectives on every situation. With more experience of play, actions and meanings in the imaginary situation become consciously organized by children—as perspectives that they hold. Kravtsova (2010) states that “in play a child is at the same time inside it (crying like a patient) and outside it (rejoicing as a player)” (p. 1). It is the child’s capacity to take two perspectives simultaneously, that defines play activity as being different from other types of activities. Kravtsova (2010) argues that when a player is in an imaginary situation in play, children must be able to “see or to create this space” and “a player must be at the same time inside and outside of the play” (p.1). The relations between the visual field and meaning field become important in cultural-historical play research.
Hakkarainen (2008) has argued that “from the perspective of the psychological mechanism of creativity there is an essential divide between personal and collaborative explanations of creativity” in the Western literature (p. 10, emphasis added).
We note that this distinction could be traced as much to Piaget and his predecessors as to Benjamin Bloom and the taxonomy of educational objectives.
References
Ailwood, J. (2010). Playing with some tensions. Poststructuralism, Foucault and early childhood education. In L. Brooker & S. Edwards (Eds.), Engaging play (pp. 210–222). Berkshire: Open University Press.
Annings, A. (1994). Play and the legislated curriculum. In J. Moyles (Ed.), The excellence of play (pp. 67–75). London: Open University Press.
Bodrova, E., & Leong, D. J. (1998). Development of dramatic play in young children and its effects on self-regulation: The Vygotskian approach. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 19(2), 115–124.
Bozhovich, L. I. (2009). The social situation of child development. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 47(1), 59–86.
Bredikyte, M. (2010). Psychological tools and the development of play. Cultural-Historical Psychology, 4, 11–18.
Bretherton, I. (Ed.). (1983). Symbolic play: The development of social understanding. Orlando: Academic Press.
Bruce, T. (1997). Adults and children developing play together. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 5(1), 89–99.
Catherwood, D. (1999). New views on the young brain: offerings from developmental psychology to early childhood education. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 1(1), 23–35.
Connery, M. C., John-Steiner, V. P., & Marjanovic-Shane, A. (2010). Vygotsky and creativity: A cultural-historical approach to play, meaning making, and the arts. New York: Peter Lang.
Ebbeck, M., & Waniganayake, M. (2010). Play in early childhood education: Learning in diverse contexts. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Egan, K. (2005). An imaginative approach to teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Einarsdottir, J. & Wagner, J.T. (2006). (Eds.). Nordic childhoods and early education: Philosophy, research, policy, and practice in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.
Elkonin, D. B. (2005). The psychology of play. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 43(1), 11–21.
Evaldsson, A.-C., & Corsaro, W. A. (1998). Play and games in the peer cultures of preschool and preadolescent children: An interpretive approach. Childhood, 5(4), 377–402.
Fleer, M. (2010). Early learning and development: Cultural-historical concepts in play. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fleer, M. (2011a). “Conceptual Play”: Foregrounding imagination and cognition during concept formation in early years education. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 12(3), 224–240.
Fleer, M. (2011b). Kindergartens in cognitive times: Imagination as a dialectical relation between play and learning. International Journal of Early Childhood, 43(3), 245–259.
Fleer, M. (2011c). Shared sustained imaginary conversations: Teachers and children consciously engaging in concepts during play. In S. Sheridan & P. Williams (Eds.), Livslångt lärande (pp. 134–148). Stockholm: Liber.
Fleer, M. & Peers, C. (2012). Reconceptualising play as a dialectical relation between the individual and the collective. Unpublished paper, Monash University.
Francis, B. (1998). Power plays: Primary school children’s constructions of gender, power, and adult work. Staffordshire: Trentham Books.
Giffin, H. (1983). The coordination of meaning in the creation of shared make-believe reality. In I. Bretherton (Ed.), Symbolic play: The development of social understanding (pp. 73–100). Orlando: Academic Press.
Goncu, A., & Gaskins, S. (Eds.). (2007). Play and development: Evolutionary, sociocultural, and functional perspectives. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Goncu, A., Jain, J., & Tuermer, U. (2007). Children’s play as cultural interpretation. In A. Goncu & S. Gaskins (Eds.), Play and development: Evolutionary, sociocultural, and functional perspectives (pp. 155–178). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Goncu, A., Mistry, J., & Mosier, C. (2000). Cultural variations in the play of toddlers. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 24(3), 321–329.
Grieshaber, S., & McArdle, F. (2010). The trouble with play. Berkshire: Open University Press.
Hakkarainen, P. (2008). Editor’s introduction: Scientific approach to the psychology of creativity? Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 46(3), 3–15.
Hakkarainen, P. (2010). Cultural-historical methodology of the study of human development in transitions. Cultural-Historical Psychology, 4, 75–82.
Hedegaard, M., & Fleer, M. (Eds.). (2008). Studying children: A cultural-historical approach. Berkshire: Open University Press.
Kravtsova, E.E. (2010). Play in non-classical psychology of L.S. Vygotsky. Opening Lecture for the 3rd International Vygotsky Summer School, Moscow, 2010.
Leontyev, A.N. (1944/2009). The psychological principles of preschool play. In The selected works of A.N. Leontyev: The development of mind (pp. 331–353). Retrieved August 26, 2012, from http://www2.cddc.vt.edu/marxists///admin/books/activity-theory/leontyev/development-mind.pdf.
Lindqvist, G. (1995). The aesthetics of play: A didactic study of play and culture in preschools. Stockholm: Gotab.
Miller, P., & Garvey, C. (1983). Mother-baby role play: Its origins in social support. In I. Bretherton (Ed.), Symbolic play: The development of social understanding (pp. 101–130). Orlando: Academic Press.
Moore, R., & Young, M. (2001). Knowledge and the curriculum in the sociology of education: Towards a reconceptualization. British Journal of the Sociology of Education, 22(4), 445–461.
Nilsson, M. E. (2010). Creative pedagogy of play: The Work of Gunilla Lindqvist. Mind Culture, and Activity, 17(1), 14–22.
OECD. (2006). Starting strong II: Early childhood education and care. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Parten, M. (1933). Social play among preschool children. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 28, 136–147.
Peers, C. (2011). The Australian early development index: Reshaping family-child relationships in early childhood education. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 12(2), 134–147.
Piaget, J. (1945). Play, dreams, and imitation in childhood. New York: W.W. Norton.
Popkewitz, T. (1997). The production of reason and power: Curriculum history and intellectual traditions. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 29(2), 131–164.
Pramling Samuelsson, I., & Carlsson, M. A. (2008). The playing learning child: Towards a pedagogy of early childhood. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 52(6), 623–641.
Siraj-Blatchford, I. (2007). Creativity, communication, and collaboration: The identification of pedagogic progression in sustained shared thinking. Asia Pacific Journal of Research in Early Childhood Education, 1(2), 3–23.
Siraj-Blatchford, I. (2009). Quality teaching in the early years. In A. Anning, J. Cullen, & M. Fleer (Eds.), Early childhood education: Society and culture (pp. 147–157). London: Sage.
Smilansky, S. (1968). The effects of sociodramatic play on disadvantaged pre-school children. New York: Wiley.
Smirnov, S. A. (1997). Play as a cultural form of human education. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 35(3), 17–29.
van Oers, B. (2010). Children’s enculturation through play. In L. Brooker & S. Edwards (Eds.), Engaging play (pp. 195–209). Berkshire: Open University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1966). Play and its role in the mental development of the child. Voprosy psikhologii, 12(6), 62–76.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). The history of the development of higher mental functions (M. Hall, Trans). In R. W. Rieber (Ed.), L.S. Vygotsky, The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky (vol. 4). New York: Plenum Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (2004). Imagination and creativity in childhood. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 42(1), 7–97.
Wood, E., & Attfield, J. (1996). Play, learning, and the early childhood curriculum. London: Chapman.
Acknowledgments
Data cited in this paper draws from an Australian Research Council Discovery Grant won by the first author. The principle research assistant was Avis Ridgway who gathered the data at the commencement of her PhD studies.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fleer, M., Peers, C. Beyond cognitivisation: creating collectively constructed imaginary situations for supporting learning and development. Aust. Educ. Res. 39, 413–430 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-012-0073-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-012-0073-9