THE R O L E OF THE T E A C H E R
DURING FREE P L A Y IN PRESCHOOL
by
PATRICIA EDITH B R E E N
B . E d . , The University o f Calgary, 1964
A THESIS S U B M I T T E D IN P A R T I A L F U L F I L L M E N T OF
THE REQUIREMENTS F O R THE D E G R E E OF
M A S T E R OF ARTS
in
THE F A C U L T Y OF G R A D U A T E STUDIES
(Centre for the Study of Curriculum and Instruction)
We accept this thesis as conforming
to the required standard
THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH C O L U M B I A
A p r i l 1996
© Patricia Edith Breen, 1996
In presenting
this thesis in partial fulfilment of therequirementsfor an advanced
degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it
freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive
copying of this thesis for scholariy purposes may be granted by the head of my
'department or by his or her representatives.
It is understood that copying or
publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written
permission.
Department of
fafy,
SJMJ/JJLM)
The University of British Columbia
Vancouver, Canada
DE-6 (2/88)
ii
ABSTRACT
The purpose o f this observational study is to examine the role o f the
teacher during free play in preschool. The specific objectives are to document:
the duration and extent o f supervisory, facilitating and housekeeping duties;
various aspects o f teacher-child interactions such as reason, location, language
mode, duration o f the exchange including number and gender o f children; and to
determine i f boys and girls are equally demanding o f the teacher's time and
attention. The nature o f unsolicited attention is recorded and the teacher's
responses to given situations are noted to determine i f gender differences exist.
Successive naturalistic observations o f six different teachers were
undertaken at four separate preschool centres in Vancouver, Canada. A n attempt
was made to seek a representative sample o f both teachers and schools. Extensive
field notes documenting the teachers' duties, behaviors and interactions with the
children provide the observational data. This data, comprising some thirty hours
of observations, was analyzed and interpreted with reference to the above research
questions.
The data shows that these six teachers spent an average o f 80 percent o f
the free play period in classroom management. That is, they were predominantly
involved in housekeeping, facilitating and supervising the play environment
interspersed with momentary and fragmented interactions with children. The
remaining 20 percent o f the time, the teachers were engaged in sustained
Ill
interactions (over 2 minutes) with the children. The sustained interaction data
shows distinct variations along gender lines. While language facilitation was the
main reason for teacher/child interactions, definite gender variations were
reflected i n the reasons for interaction, the nature o f the verbal exchanges, as well
as the duration and boy/girl ratio o f the interaction episodes. When the context o f
the interactions was considered it was apparent that approximately one third o f the
teacher/child interactions were in the area o f art activities, while the teachers'
presence in other areas o f the play environment was significantly less well
represented. The study concludes that the teacher's role during free play was
predominantly one o f managing the environment. This preoccupation with making
sure that the play scene proceeds smoothly and harmoniously left little remaining
time for more educationally valuable interactions with the children.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract
ii
Table o f Contents
iv
List o f Tables
v
List o f Figures
vi
Chapter One
Introduction: The Problem
1
Chapter T w o
Review o f the Literature
7
Chapter Three
Methodology
29
Chapter Four
Analysis o f the Results
36
Housekeeping, Supervisory and
Facilitating Role
Chapter Five
Bibliography
Appendix 1
37
Teacher-Child Interactions
39
Sustained Teacher-Child Interactions
46
Interactions and Gender
51
The Teacher's Role
56
Discussion and Recommendations
58
. 72
77
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1
Sustained Teacher-Child Interactions
48
Table 2
Sustained Teacher-Child Interactions: Context
50
Table 3
Sustained Teacher-Child Interactions:
Time and Gender Distribution
52
Teacher-Child Interactions: Gender Distribution
54
Table 4
VI
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1
Teacher-Child Interactions: Reason
41
Figure 2
The Role o f the Teacher During Free Play
57
Chapter 1
The Problem
Few would dispute the critical influence the early years of
childhood have on subsequent development. It is not a question of
whether early childhood education has an impact, but rather to what
degree and in what ways early experience shapes the attitudes and
behaviors of children. As architect and facilitator of the preschool
environment, the teacher plays a critical role in shaping this early
experience (McLean, 1990, Montessori, 1974). Bernard Spodek (1985)
writes:
... teachers are central to all activity. Directly or indirectly,
they control much of the activity and are responsible for all
that occurs to children during school. They must respond
to their many needs as they become apparent during the
day. They must assure purposeful activities that produce
educational benefit for the children, (p. 1)
,
2
In spite of the magnitude of this responsibility, in both theory and
practice much ambivalence surrounds the preschool teacher's role.
Teachers grapple with priorities on a daily basis, performing a delicate
balancing act between the objectives of their broader curriculum goals and
management strategies dictated by the here and now.
Running parallel to the practitioner's dilemma is the debate among
educational and developmental theorists. They too, provide little
agreement as to how teachers can effectively extend children's play to
facilitate growth in development areas. In addition, much research seems
remote and of little practical significance to the everyday concerns of the
preschool teacher. This lack of relevance and consensus offers little
assurance for the practicing early childhood educator and the question
remains: What role should the teacher play during free play in preschool?
This question has been addressed by many educational theorists
and conclusions vary substantially according to the psychological theory
upon which their construct is based. Social learning theorists such as
Bandura (1963) and Hymes (1981) emphasize the importance of the
teacher as a model, while the adherents of the behaviorist psychological
school adopt a more instructive approach using positive reinforcement to
3
reward desirable behaviors (Dickinson, 1987). Those who adopt an
ecological approach see the teacher as the provisioner of the environment,
a "behind the scenes" presence that fine tunes and adjusts the setting to
promote desired educational goals (McLean, 1990). Maturationists such
as Gesell, Ilg and Ames (1949) recognize and honour developmental
stages of growth. For them, the teacher assumes a nurturing role
providing opportunities and encouragement to support the child's natural
unfolding development but does not become directly involved in the
children's play. In contrast, proponents of the humanist psychology
school view the teacher's role as that of a facilitator, helping children
identify and solve their own problems. This approach sees the teacher
more actively involved in the children's play using focusing questions to
clarify thinking and feelings (Spodek,1985). Another, more cognitively
oriented approach articulated by Weikart (1986), among others, advocates
that the teacher assume an interactionist role, helping children develop
skills, assume responsibility and take initiative (De Vries, 1987).
The above overview demonstrates there is little consensus among
theorists regarding the preschool teacher's role. Yet, these varied
theoretical underpinnings have influenced early childhood practice and are
4
embedded in teachers' belief systems in fragmented ways. Theoretical
viewpoints on the teacher's role in free play run the full spectrum from
non-intrusive to direct intervention and instruction, making it difficult for
teachers to perceive a clear direction for practical action. The ubiquitous
gap between theory and practice is apparent in the early childhood
community as teachers seldom look to the research community for
answers. Their decisions are generally based on their own practical
knowledge and experience or that of colleagues rather than grounded in
reliable developmental or learning theory (Monighan-Nourot, Scales &
VanHoorn, 1987; Spodek, 1985).
Traditionally, educators have recognized the importance of
children's play in affective and cognitive development and in keeping with
this philosophy most preschool programs today provide a free play
component. Increasingly, though, teachers find it difficult to defend and
articulate the value of play when parents and, to some degree society itself
express concerns about academic success. As Monighan-Nourot, Scales
and Van Hoorn (1987) write, "Many teachers are so frustrated by the
pressures to 'jump start' preschoolers that they feel they can do nothing to
justify play in their curriculum" (p. 120).
5
There is, however, a general acceptance among many theorists and
early childhood educators that play is the avenue of learning for the
preschool child. If so, then the question remains: How can teachers
effectively support children's play and accomplish developmental goals
as well? Intimately linked to this question is the necessity for teachers to
be well versed in their role and able to articulate the educational value of
play. Before the fundamental question of the teacher's role in children's
play can be properly addressed, it is necessary to have a better
understanding of what actually goes on in a typical preschool free play
environment —something obvious but largely missing from the existing
discussion on this topic.
The intent of this study is, therefore, to examine the role of the
teacher during free play in preschool to determine what exactly takes
place in the course of the regular preschool day. The specific objectives of
the study are to document:
1. the duration and extent of supervisory, facilitating and
housekeeping duties,
2. various aspects of teacher-child interactions: reason, location,
language mode, duration of exchange, number and gender of children, and
6
3. the teacher's interactions with children to determine if boys and
girls are equally demanding of the teacher's time and attention. The
nature and duration of unsolicited attention is also recorded. The teacher's
responses to given situations are noted to determine if gender differences
exist.
These objectives rest upon the notion that only by observing
teachers in actual practice can we determine how teachers function in the
complexity of the classroom culture. The reality of the preschool
environment is that there are many overlapping concerns that can only be
fully understood and appreciated with extended observation and
documentation of the teacher's interactions with children. Naturalistic
observations of the "teacher in action" provide a window through which
one can assess the teacher's role during free play as it is acted out. By
constructing a clear picture of what takes place in six different preschool
classes during free play, insights may be gained that will form the basis of
possible recommendations as to how teachers can truly enrich and extend
children's play.
Chapter 2 Review of the Literature
For the purpose of this discussion the considerable and varied
literature surrounding preschool play and teacher behavior can be
organized into the following categories:
1. developmental and psychological theory
2. educational theory
3. applied research
Developmental and Psychological Theory
It is apparent that the teacher's role in play is both directly and
indirectly influenced by the psychological underpinnings of his or her
belief system. Whether consciously or unconsciously, assumptions about
the nature of childhood, development and learning are shaped by
psychological theory (DeVries & Kohlberg, 1987).
Within psychological theory there are four general streams of
thought that continue to influence early childhood education particularly
as it relates to play (DeVries & Kohlberg, 1987; McLean, 1990). The
8
first, articulated by Gesell among others, encompasses a maturational
view of development where growth is seen to be a natural unfolding in
predetermined stages. From this child-centred perspective the teacher's
role is to create an environment that nurtures and supports this
development. Individual freedom is highly valued and the child's rights
and happiness are central.
The second major psychological viewpoint to influence educational
thought is that of psychoanalytic or Freudian theory. Play is considered to
have therapeutic value, providing the child the opportunity to act out
anxieties using fantasy play experiences to cope with the frustrations of
living. Here, the focus rests on the vulnerable nature of children and their
right to play without adult interference. For the teacher, it is a hands-off
approach. Klugman & Smilansky (1990) explain that Freud cautioned,
"Teachers were to watch but not interfere lest they inhibit the full
expression of feelings" (p.73).
Erik Erikson expanded upon Freud's
theories to view play as a means to master reality. For Erikson, fantasy
play was essential to ego development, providing opportunities to practice
and experiment (Klugman & Smilansky, 1990).
The third stream of thought is represented by those who adhere to
the cultural transmission theory. This ideology has evolved from John
Locke's notion of the child as a "blank slate," the idea remained central to
Thorndike's laws of learning and later to Skinner's stimulus-response
theory. Engelmann's programmed learning based on conceptual analysis
can be seen as a contemporary manifestation of this assumption (DeVries
& Kohlberg, 1987). Identified as the behaviorist school of thought,
proponents see education as a logical series of controlled interventions.
The teacher's role is to create the learning environment to promote the
acquisition of skills deemed important to society. Positive reinforcement,
direct instruction and practice are integral components in the learning
process. In contrast to the maturational point of view, this is not a childcentred approach as the teacher's agenda takes precedence over the child's
agenda. Educational aims are determined by cultural or societal
consensus.
The fourth psychological theorist to influence educational thought
was Jean Piaget. Piagetian theory saw play as central to the child's
intellectual development. As DeVries and Kohlberg (1987) write,
" ... knowledge evolves from an internal psychological core through an
10
interaction or dialogue with the physical and social environment rather
than by direct biological maturation or direct learning of external givens
from the environment" (p. 7). This cognitive-developmental stream, as
expressed in Piaget's constructivist theory, saw knowledge not merely a
product of experience but actively constructed by the child as new
information is interpreted and incorporated in light of previous
knowledge. Through the process of "assimilation" and "accommodation"
the child modifies thought structures in response to new experience. For
Piagetians, the child is not a blank slate, nor an empty vessel but is viewed
as an active inquirer with cognitive patterns in place. This approach sees
the teacher more actively involved in the children's play both as a
facilitator and guide (Sugarman, 1987).
Closely allied to Piagetian theory is Vygotsky's theory of cognitive
and language development. He recognized the social nature of learning,
and saw great benefit for the child to have the assistance of an adult or a
more advanced peer to provide the next step in the learning sequence
(David, 1993).
Psychological theory such as that outlined above has provided the
framework for educational philosophy but in many instances the
11
connection is far from clear. Many educational programs adopt a more
eclectic approach incorporating psychological theory when it seems
desirable. There are , however, educational schools of thought that have a
clearly defined theory of play and hence their impact on the early
childhood community has been more strongly felt.
Educational Theory
Adherents to the constructivist school of educational thought have
translated their theory into early childhood curriculum and practice.
Based on the theories of Piaget and Vygotsky, among others,
constructivists see the educational potential of play. It is a child-centred
philosophy that borrows heavily from the child development tradition for
materials, equipment and activities but differs in that it places greater
emphasis on the teacher's role in children's play. Using careful
observation, the teacher tunes into the child's thinking to determine the
appropriate means to reinforce preoperational thought, a precursory stage
in the process of achieving logical thought. Without being intrusive, the
teacher assumes an active role: providing opportunities, guiding,
12
stimulating, questioning and modeling logical thought and language
(DeVries & Kohlberg, 1987).
The Bank Street early childhood program deserves mention as it
represents an educational philosophy that has been defined as
"developmental-interaction." This approach evolved in reaction to what
Bank Street deemed to be the over-emphasis on cognitive development
by both the behaviorist and cognitive-developmental perspectives.
Acknowledging a more wholistic view of development, the
developmental-interaction theory argues that cognitive and emotional
development are intertwined and inseparable. Rooted in the childcentred, child-development tradition, Bank Street evolved from John
Dewey's progressive stream of educational thought. From this movement,
it derived the notion that play was the vehicle for experiential learning and
the teacher's role was to stimulate thinking. Over time, Bank Street has
integrated elements of other theories, making its "developmentalinteraction" approach an eclectic ideology (DeVries & Kohlberg, 1987).
The teacher is expected to nurture and guide the child in social
relationships and pose questions as well as model and extend language to
provoke thinking.
13
Ecological theories of play have influenced early childhood
practice by stressing the importance of the physical attributes of the
classroom environment. Sutton-Smith (1979), among others, suggests
that choice of activities and materials can profoundly affect the behaviors
and play of children. Some materials or play centres were seen to elicit
longer attention span, more interaction and conversation than others.
Seefeldt and Barbour (1986) report studies have shown that a variety of
ecological factors influence children's play such as the number and sex of
children, play materials available and the adult's role. One example cited
is the research conducted by Parten (1971) that showed playhouse
materials elicited twice as many complex interactions as did clay, sand or
blocks (Seefeldt & Barbour, 1986).
Theories of Play
In addition to psychological and educational theory, there are
theories of play that prevail as part of our belief system. As Spodek
(1985) notes, such theories have been categorized as classical theories or
dynamic theories. The classical theories as defined by Mitchell and
Mason (1948) are concerned with the causes and consequences of play.
14
Gilmore (1965) further refined this taxonomy to include the dynamic
theories that focus on the content of play (Spodek, 1985).
Classical Theories
The first classical theory, known as the "surplus energy theory"
suggests that humans store up energy and excess energy must be
expended, hence children play to burn off surplus energy. This is a
commonly held view and is in evidence when teachers suggest that
children need to "run it off or "let off steam." The second, "relaxation
theory," views play as a means of relaxation, acknowledging the need to
relieve the stress and tension of work through recreation. Another
classical theory, the "pre-exercise theory," proposes that play is a means to
practice basic survival skills. Instinctively the child is preparing for
future adult work, hence the content of play often revolves around adult
roles. A related notion, the "recapitulation theory," suggests that
children's' play progresses through stages similar to the cultural stages in
human evolution (Seefeldt & Barbour, 1986; Spodek, 1985). Although
the classical theories are not supported by research, they linger in attitudes
toward play (Takhvar, 1988).
15
Dynamic Theories
The dynamic theories of play include both Freudian and Piagetian
theories. For Freud, play was cathartic, a child's way to cope with being
small in an adult world. For Piaget, play was vital to the developing
intellect, progressing from the practice play of the sensorimotor stage of
development, to symbolic play, and finally games with rules. Other
dynamic theories of play include the arousal-seeking theory and the theory
of competence motivation. The arousal-seeking view suggests that
humans have a biological need to seek information and play is the means
by which children can keep external and internal stimulation in balance.
When the level of stimulation drops below the optimum level the child
becomes bored and seeks further stimulation. This arousal seeking theory,
writes Takhvar (1988) draws attention to the motivating mechanisms of
play. Another dynamic theory of play is Robert White's (1959) theory of
competence motivation. He argues that children derive much satisfaction
from developing competencies without external reinforcement. The
activity of play is self rewarding (Spodek, 1985). Other dynamic theories
have focused on different aspects of play but all share the belief that play
is significant to development and has definite educational value.
16
Applied Research
In addition to the above broadly defined literature categories of
psychological and educational theory, there is a miscellaneous literature
centred on the teacher and play that is relevant but does not fit easily into
a distinct category. For the purpose of this study, it will be loosely
defined as applied research because it is more directly related to
classroom practice. The shift is from the literature of theory to the
literature of practice. A characteristic of this literature is that the focus is
upon applied practice and the philosophical underpinning, if there is one,
is implicit. This discussion will shed light on the teacher's role as it
pertains to the actual free play environment. Various aspects of the
teacher's responsibilities will be reviewed from establishing and
maintaining a play environment to facilitating and guiding play. Play
intervention strategies are addressed as is the importance of language and
questioning techniques.
Establishing a Play Environment
The first role the teacher performs is that of setting the stage for
play. Determining the allocation of space is an important aspect of the
play environment. Teachers must consider traffic patterns and how to
delineate play areas so that social interaction will be encouraged. These
elements have a direct effect on the flow of movement and
communication in the classroom (Van Hoorn et al., 1993). Space must
also reflect the need for small intimate play areas as well as areas for
solitary play. Klugman and Smilansky (1990) note that tables and chairs
often occupy much space, impeding the free flow of activities. In addition,
the predominance of tables and chairs conveys the impression that
structured "school type" activities hold a higher priority.' Knowing how to
use space to maximize play is an important aspect of creating a play
environment.
Temporal factors further influence play. Christie and Wardle
(1992) found in their study of free play that low-level play occurred when
there was insufficient time. Their study found a minimum of thirty
minutes was necessaryforchildren to organize and initiate complex play
scenarios. Mature group dramatic play or intricate block building and
construction never developed in short play periods. Limited play time
meant children engaged in functional or parallel-dramatic play and more
unoccupied and transitory behavior was witnessed.
18
Selecting and planning curriculum is another important
responsibility for the teacher. Being well versed in child development the
teacher can plan activities and select materials for play that are
developmentally appropriate (Bredecamp, 1987). The quantity,
assortment and range of materials have a direct bearing on play.
Insufficient materials have a limiting effect on play as does the choice of
props in given situations. For example, younger children aged two and
three prefer realistic props for dramatic play whereas more mature
dramatic players aged four and five prefer less specific materials that can
be used in a variety of play scripts (Van Hoorn et al., 1993). Providing
additional play accessories at the appropriate time can indirectly influence
the nature, direction and extent of the play episode. Teachers should
exercise caution when introducing props or modeling their use as research
demonstrates this may inhibit divergent thinking and stifle creative
problem solving on the part of the child (Monighan-Nourot & Van Hoorn,
1991).
Facilitating and Guiding Play
Setting the stage for play is one aspect of the teacher's role. Yet,
many teachers would agree that their role would be more aptly described
19
as facilitator. A facilitator not only sets the stage for play but also
assumes an indirect role in supporting the play by maintaining the
environment, helping children resolve problems themselves, providing
assistance when asked and giving encouragement and guidance.
Facilitating play entails careful observation to assess and respond to both
social and ecological Cues.
Teachers assume a more direct role when they interact with
children in their play. "The key role of the teacher here is in modifying the
natural spontaneous play of children so that it has educational value while
maintaining its qualities as play" (Spodek, 1985, p. 184). A continuum of
strategies is possible from the unobtrusive methods of "scaffolding" to the
more direct method of "play tutoring" (Van Hoorn et al., 1993). The
teacher's presence may be a sufficient scaffold to focus the play while
environmental cues provide the framework, hence the scaffold for certain
play themes. How and when to intervene are important elements of
scaffolding as is the timing of its removal.
In guided play, the teacher's role is more involved and direct. One
method of guiding play is what Griffin (1982) calls the "artist apprentice"
role. In this role, the teacher may help remove clutter so play can proceed
20
constructively or in another capacity she may protect the play space of one
group by redirecting others to another area. Sometimes it is necessary for
the teacher to intervene as negotiator/peacemaker to help children resolve
conflicts. Other aspects of keeping the peace may entail helping a child
enter the play by suggesting a new role or by offering new ideas to expand
the play. At other times, it is necessary for the teacher to be a parallel
player by modeling an activity or use of an item while on other occasions
play can be guided from the sidelines as a peripheral participant. A more
direct role for the teacher occurs when the teacher becomes a full
participant modeling both appropriate language and behavior. The extent
of the continuum is represented by that of play tutoring. In this capacity,
the teacher sets the agenda by modeling and directing the play. This
method of intervention, based on the research of Smilansky, is most
commonly used for children whose play lacks complexity (Van Hoorn et
al., 1993). Spidell's (1989) research suggests that adult participation
increases the cognitive complexity of play, although she cautions that the
timing of the intervention is critical to its success or failure.
In guiding play for educational purposes, much attention has been
focused on the teacher's use of language. As Cross (1989) states, most
21
early childhood programs place a high priority on language and emergent
literacy on the grounds that they are important for social and cognitive
development as well as later scholastic progress.
Many prominent researchers have stressed the role of adults in
promoting language and thinking in preschool children and
argued that the opportunity for direct interactions with adults is
one of the most important contributions a preschool program
can make to children's later development and success at school.
(Cross, 1987, p. 134)
Teachers do most of the talking in preschool, employing more
nonconversational exchanges than conversational interactions . Exchanges
involving genuine dialogue between teacher and child were less frequent
(Clark, 1988; Cross, 1989). Clark's (1988) extensive report of preschool
centres in Great Britain found there was little evidence of sustained and
uninterrupted conversations between adults and children. Moreover,
teachers used an excessive number of quiz type questions rather than
genuine inquiries that make cognitive and linguistic demands of the child.
Following up on the study by Wood and Wood (1983) that found teachers
asked more closed questions than open questions, Allerton (1994)
22
examined open and closed questioning styles with nursery school children
and found that closed questions, with an implied answer are easier to
answer but are unlikely to stimulate further dialogue. On the other hand,
open questions, particularly verbal-reflectives, encouraged more
conversation and divergent thinking on the part of the child (Allerton,
1994). Closed questions having an appropriate answer leave the
interaction in the hands of the adult while open questions are in the hands
of the child. Allerton concludes that open questions give the teacher
insight into the child's perspective, allowing the adult to respond in ways
that support and extend cognitive development.
Not only does the teacher's language affect cognitive functions it
has a profound impact on the gender socialization process. Research
indicates boys have a greater salience (Greenberg,1985); they also receive
more instruction on how to do for oneself, more open-ended questions,
more of the teacher's positive and active attention (Sadker, Sadker &
Donald, 1989). Furthermore, boys receive more attention for assertive,
negative behavior while girls receive positive reinforcement for
compliant, cooperative behavior (Klugman & Smilansky, 1990). The
research of Hendrick and Stange (1991) suggested that boys interrupted
the teacher more frequently than girls and teachers interrupted girls more
often than boys. The excessive use of male-specific pronouns in teacher
language tends to further raise male salience and marginalize female
experience (Gelb, 1989; Sheldon, 1990). As Seefeldt and Barbour (1986)
remind:
Teachers are powerful reinforcers of stereotypes. They have
been found to interact with girls in ways that differ from their
interactions with boys, which leads to the perpetuation of
gender role stereotyping and negates development of a positive
self-image for both sexes, (p.396)
Another significant role of the teacher during free play is that of
observer/supervisor. Careful observation is necessary to determine if the
physical arrangement of the room serves the needs of the players and
whether the chosen activities are sufficiently stimulating or are frustrating
for the children. Observing play provides valuable insights, enabling the
teacher to tailor the program to better support growth in all developmental
areas. One major aspect of this role is overseeing the environment to
assure that it is safe and free of hazards. For the teachers profiled in
24
McLean's (1990) study, maintaining a safe, conflict free environment was
a paramount concern. Without exception, educational goals were
compromised by the immediate demands of the here and now. Spodek
(1987) also found that classroom management was the main focus of
preschool teachers, significantly outstripping concerns for learning and
development.
The above demands of the here and now are in part the result of
the complexity of the preschool setting. In every classroom there is an
intricate network of situational factors. McLean's (1990) study confirms
Doyle's (1977) earlier work that found the preschool environment
multidimensional and unpredictable with many different concurrent
demands on the teacher's time. In Spodek's (1987) study of the thought
processes underlying preschool teacher' classroom decisions, he found
that few theories used by the teachers were grounded in reliable
knowledge of child development or learning theory. Instead their
decisions were "rooted in a form of personal practical knowledge"
(Spodek, 1987, p. 206).
Attitudes toward play profoundly affect the role the teacher
assumes and this is why we must return to the question of the teacher's
25
supporting belief systems. In the final analysis, it is the teacher's views
regarding the educational value of play that determines the degree of
involvement. As DeVries and Kohlberg (1987) write:
...if teachers aim to promote development in children, it seems
essential that they be clearly aware of the assumptions about
stages of development and how these influence teaching. If a
teacher assumes that stages are hereditary and predetermined,
and little influenced by adults, he or she is likely to teach
differently from a teacher who assumes that the child's
experience is crucial in getting from one stage to the next in a
solid and healthy way. (p. 13)
The first thing apparent from the foregoing discussion is that there
is a diverse literature scattered across the general subject of the teacher
and preschool play. The second factor immediately clear is the lack of
consensus among psychological and educational theorists as to the most
effective role for the teacher during free play in preschool. Also
noticeable and running parallel and largely unconnected to this academic
discussion, is a significant body of literature regarding classroom practice.
26
This applied literature is disparate and its foundation typically rests upon
pragmatic observations rather than psychological or educational theory.
Perhaps this is explained by the reality that many researchers have little
recent experience in the classroom and most early childhood teachers have
very limited exposure to developmental and learning theory. The
translation of theory into practice is an old and vexing problem that
persists. As Klugman and Smilansky (1990) observe:
... for early childhood education in particular the gap between
practice, beliefs, and theories has been increasing. At the same
time that the research literature on the value of play appears to
be expanding geometrically, the presence of play in early
childhood classrooms has been dwindling impetuously, (p. 237)
In addition to the gulf between theory and practice, there seems to
be little articulation in the literature relating to child development and
early childhood education. Unless there is some synthesis in the
academic literature as well as some attempt to present this research in
terms that are meaningful to practitioners in the field, early childhood
education fails to benefit. In short, it appears that the research makes very
little difference to what goes on in most preschool classrooms.
A close examination of the literature also reveals that there are few
studies that specifically pertain to preschool education, and even fewer
which focus on the preschool environment as it functions on a day to day
basis. There exists an even greater paucity of relevant research drawn
from Canadian experience. While the extensive interpretive studies of
Clark (1988) and McLean (1990) of preschool teachers provide insights
into the realities of everyday life in preschool centres, their findings must
be qualified as they emerge from a view through a British or Australian
lens. An observational study examining the role of teachers during free
play in Canadian preschool settings remains to be done, and it is this
specific gap that this study proposes to address.
Beyond going a small way to fill the void in Canadian academic
literature, the study may help provide a clearer view of how preschool
teachers support and facilitate play in a naturalistic setting. These
observations will hopefully furnish insights into teacher behavior and
responsibilities, permitting possible recommendations as to how early
childhood educators can enrich the play experience of preschool children.
28
A greater appreeiation of the teacher's role may also help determine how
to more effectively link both theory and practice so that daily classroom
decisions are grounded in complementary psychological and learning
theory.
29
Chapter 3
Methodology
The general focus of this study is the role of the teacher during free
play in preschool. To address the specific questions relating to the
teacher's interactive patterns, supervisory and facilitating duties a
qualitative observational study in the ethnographic tradition was
undertaken. An emergent research design evolving over the duration of
the data collection was employed so that minor adjustments could be
made in response to unforeseen situational factors.
A naturalistic observational method was chosen as the most
appropriate and accurate means to determine the teacher's role as it exists
in the complexity of the day to day preschool environment. This approach
provides a richness to the data collection not so generally available to any
other single research method (McLean, 1990; Regan, 1985).
To minimize intrusion into the normal free play routine, careful
attention was paid to the role of the observer in the classroom. Both from
the perspective of the teacher and the children, specific strategies were
30
employed to reduce observer impact. To increase overall participation
and help the teachers feel more comfortable with the research project each
was initially contacted in person or by phone and briefed on the purpose
and framework of the study as well as given a written profile of the
observer and an outline of the purpose, objectives and methodology of the
proposed study. The intent of these measures was to clarify and
familiarize the participants with both the research proposal and the
researcher so that both parties would share similar expectations and that
observer credibility could be established. It was also felt that these
preliminary strategies would help develop rapport and trust with the
participating teachers. A relaxed teacher can be expected to perform in a
normal fashion and thereby exhibit more typical classroom behavior.
Before the observation schedule commenced, a preliminary visit to
the classroom was made to acquaint the children with the observer in
order to lessen the effect the observer's presence would have on the
regular free play routine. The duration of the observation schedule rests on
the belief that continued attendance in the classroom on consecutive days
would likely mean that both the teacher and the children would become
31
accustomed to the observer, producing a clearer and more dependable
vision of the free play scene.
Naturalistic observations of six teachers at four different preschool
centres in the city of Vancouver, British Columbia provide the data for
this study. Participation was strictly voluntary and each teacher was
assured anonymity. Teachers selected were the supervising teacher in
each setting, since they are the individuals who have the full responsibility
for the children and the preschool program in their respective schools.
1
Participants were also selected to include a range of teaching experience
and settings. This offered the opportunity to consider experience as a
factor in the character of teacher interactions.
The sites were chosen in an attempt to achieve a representative
sample of preschool settings in the city of Vancouver. One of the
preschools was part of a community centre in a culturally diverse
neighborhood. Here, two teachers with over ten years of experience were
in charge of the centre and the class observed was a four-year-old group
with a significant English as a Second Language component. For most of
the children this was their second year with the teacher observed. The
' In British Columbia, supervisor is the term used for the teacher in charge of the preschool.
32
second preschool centre observed was a private preschool located in a
middle class residential district. This centre was operated by a parent
board and was staffed by a supervisor with over fifteen years of
experience and an assistant who was a recent college graduate. The class
observed was a four-year-old group, many of whom were in their second
year at the preschool. The third centre, located in a mixed residential and
commercial area, was a parent participation preschool where parents
assisted the teacher who was in her seventh year of teaching. This too,
was a four-year-old group with most of the children in their second year at
the preschool. The fourth setting was a university research centre for
preschool children with each class staffed by a supervisor and an assistant.
The three different teachers observed in this setting were in charge of
mixed three and four-year-old groupings, with one teacher having more
than ten years experience and the other two having less than five years
experience.
Each. of the six teachers was observed on five separate occasions
during the free play portion of the program. In general, the observations
were scheduled on consecutive days to provide continuity in the
assessment of the teacher's role in the normal pattern of free play. Four
33
of the teachers were observed in April and May and the remaining two
teachers were observed in the following November.
Approximately thirty hours of observations provided the data for
this study. A preliminary trial run confirmed that the checklist format
devised to increase reliability was too cumbersome and inefficient to be
practical and it was therefore abandoned in favour of taking extensive
field notes that would provide more descriptive detail, clarification and
depth to the observational data. To minimize intrusion and to encourage
broader participation and a more natural environment no recording
devices were used. A low profile in the room was maintained although it
was necessary to move occasionally so that interactions could be closely
observed and dialogue noted. During each free play session notes were
taken describing the teacher's actions and interactions. A careful log
noted time intervals and the nature and sequence of the teacher's role in
the course of the free play activities. Whenever possible, verbal
exchanges with both children and adults were recorded. To provide
additional context to teacher/child interactions the following aspects of the
exchange were documented: reason, location, duration, language mode,
number of children present including the boy/girl ratio.
34
While the free play session was still fresh in the observer's
memory, the field notes were transcribed each day and the opportunity
taken to provide further elaboration and refinements to the observational
data. In total, this observational data generated over seventy-five pages of
descriptive detail regarding the teacher's role during free play in
preschool.
The observational data were analyzed by inductive means to
determine emerging patterns and themes. The field notes were examined,
sorted, and organized in various ways within the context of the thesis
objectives. Common threads were noted as well as irregularities that did
not seem to fit. The assembled data were tabulated and the results
interpreted. In an effort to achieve some triangulation of the results in this
study, another early childhood educator was selected to examine the field
notes using the identical criteria. This reviewer's assessment and
conclusions show agreement with the author in the order of ninety
percent.
It is appropriate to conclude this statement regarding methodology
with a brief outline of the observer's professional background. The
35
purpose is to offer additional context that may further help the reader
assess the quality of the observations and the discussion which follows. In
addition to over thirteen years of teaching experience in various preschool
settings, the researcher has had formal training in observational
techniques as well as considerable practice observing in preschool
settings. My experience as an early childhood practicum supervisor
combined with the opportunity to conduct a pilot study examining the
interactive patterns and play choices of preschool children has helped to
refine observational strategies. This observational experience also permits
an understanding of the foreshadowed problems inherent in qualitative
research.
36
Chapter 4
Analysis of the Results
This chapter focuses upon the presentation of the observational
data. Organized around the three previously stated questions concerning
the role of the teacher during free play in preschool, the assembled results
document:
1. the duration and extent of supervisory, facilitating and
housekeeping duties,
2. various aspects of teacher-child interactions: reason, location,
language mode, duration of exchange, number and gender of children,
and;
3. the teacher's interaction with children to determine if boys and
girls are equally demanding of the teacher's time and attention. The
nature and duration of unsolicited attention is also recorded. As well, the
teacher's responses to given situations are noted to determine if gender
differences exist.
37
Following the discussion under each of these headings, the
commentary addresses the larger topic of the teacher's role during the free
play component of the preschool program.
Housekeeping, Supervisory and Facilitating Role
Structuring and maintaining the play environment occupied a
significant amount of the teachers' time and attention. As the teachers had
many overlapping concerns, it was often difficult to establish a clear
demarcation between housekeeping duties and interactions with the
children. Yet, by highlighting housekeeping, facilitating and supervisory
duties and tabulating intervals of elapsed time it was apparent that the
teachers spent on the average approximately 51.3 percent of their time
involved in classroom management. The amount of time teachers devoted
to the above named duties in this particular sample ranged from 38
percent to 64 percent. Within a five minute interval the following
scenario is typical:
...teacher gets out clay at table. Tells nearby boys who spill
magnet items to pick them up. Goes to shelves to get more
magnets for them. Stops to admire a bracelet a girl has come to
show. Instructs boy with painting to put his name on it and
hang it on the drying rack. Sits at the art table (one side
painting with water colours, the other side clay) and marks
38
attendance record. As children try the clay they talk about
using their muscles. Gives girl suggestion on how to flatten the
clay. Acknowledges girl at adjacentplaydough table when she
reports that she is making a pizza. The teacher replies that it
reminds her of the pizza song and she proceeds to sing "I am a
pizza..." while finishing the attendance register.
A close examination of the observational data reveals that the
teachers seldom remained in one place for more than two minutes. The
interaction data also supports this finding by illustrating that sustained
interactions involving dialogue with children for at least two minutes
occupied approximately 20 percent of the teachers' time. It therefore
follows that more than 80 percent of the teachers' time was involved with
structuring and maintaining the play environment, supervising the setting,
facilitating activities by providing assistance and guidance or focusing
attention to sustain the play.
Supervising the setting was a top priority for all of the teachers and
was clearly manifest as they regularly glanced around the room.
Conversations or stories were often interrupted to survey the total scene or
to respond to play scenarios happening elsewhere. Safety was also a top
concern as children were frequently reminded of hazards, told to be
39
careful and to walk not run. All six teachers were quick to react to
potentially dangerous situations.
Teacher-Child Interactions
Figure 1 summarizes the data of all teacher/child interactions. The
numbers at the top of each column represent the frequency in each
category. It must be understood that these numbers refer to interaction
incidents and not the number of individual children involved. The total
population of children upon which the table is based is: 107 children
(55 boys and 52 girls).
As Figure 1 illustrates, the reasons for interacting with children
have distinct variations along gender lines. At the same time, the data
suggests that the primary reason for the teachers to interact with all
children was to facilitate language. This focus on language development
was evident in both short and sustained interactions. Questioning
techniques and simple statements were the predominant method employed
by the teachers to encourage verbal expression on the part of the children.
It should also be noted that, although not the explicit reason for the
interaction, language facilitation was an integral part of most exchanges
between the teacher and child. To illustrate this focus on language, the
following interaction episodes are presented:
... the teacher stops to chat with a boy who is drawing flowers. A
bouquet of roses brought to school by one of the children are
situated in the centre of the table. The teacher invites another
boy to join them. To focus attention, she comments and asks
questions about the flowers: "Are the buds open or closed?
What colour are they? How many buds do you see? " In the
course of the discussions she introduces vocabulary such as
buds, stems, leaves, petals, thorns as they closely examine the
roses.
...a boy calls "Look what we have made,
. " The teacher
goes to see the bridges six boys have built with blocks and
boards: "What is going across the bridge? ... What is the
bridge going across? " When a boy replies salt water the
teacher asks: "What animals live in salt water? ... Wow, it must
be a huge bridge to cross the sea. " Twenty minutes later the
teacher returns to validate the block builders efforts in bridge
building.
41
O)
c
re
o.
O r-
O) m D) _ S,
£ | •£ c re 1
O
re
Q.
Q
.•
2 > Q
CL
Q)
CO
re '-5
D) "
.55 T3 CD -Q =5 >. o .£
=
re
>
.J-£O) 2 {/)D t-i-re
. S S> x 2
QJ *
**-S— « Q L
I CL
^: <
cd d
ci
ui CD Q.
=
O) =
'>
O CL '>
. . ' S C ' 5 O O Q . O 0 )
5
°
o 3
The second most important reason for the teachers to interact with
both boys (rank 3) and girls (rank 2) was to provide encouragement and
support. A common strategy for the teachers was to sit near a child or
small group of children asking questions and making suggestions to focus
and extend the activity or play episode. An example of a teacher using
this strategy is as follows:
The teacher moves to monitor three boys playing in a big
refrigerator box. "Scott, Scott, the box will break. " as boy
rocks the box. "Oh, it's B.C. Transit. Is it a Bus?" The
teacher crawls into the box when the box starts rocking again.
She remarks, " Maybe you need some tickets for the bus.
Who's going to be the ticket taker? " The teacher goes to the
shelves and returns with paper punches, and paper for the boys.
She remarks that she will look for a small box for the tickets
and soon returns with an ice cream pail and cuts a hole in the
lid and leaves it with the bus driver.
While facilitating play was the second reason for teachers to
interact with boys, it was apparently not deemed so important or necessary
for girls (rank 5). Facilitating play as defined in this study meant that the
teacher was in close proximity asking questions, offering suggestions and
creating new roles for children who hoped to gain entrance to the play
scenario. A major aspect of such facilitation was the addition of new play
materials or the restructuring of the play space. In many instances the
43
teacher played a mediating role to guide or redirect potential conflict and
in general keep the peace among the players. An illustration from the
observational data is as follows:
The teacher talks to two boys about including a third boy in
their play. " Maybe, Sam would like to join you. Perhaps, he'd
like to put on a shirt and be a policeman like you. " The teacher
focuses the play by asking if the boys need walkie talkies. She
then cuts paper towel rolls in sections for each boy telling them
that they will have to put on the buttons with the felt pens. The
teacher directs all three boys to the table with felt pens and they
begin making walkie talkies.
Providing assistance was the next most common reason for
interaction with both girls (rank 3) and boys (rank 4). Throughout the
thirty separate observations the six teachers were repeatedly involved with
helping children put on paint smocks, dress-up clothes, tying shoes,
providing or locating requested materials, helping children put away
finished art projects, getting drinks of water, assisting children with
toileting, hand washing and nose blowing.
Validating effort and achievement ranked closely behind as a
reason for interaction. All the teachers acknowledged the children's
accomplishments and successes and positive reinforcement was given for
perseverance and task completion. As one teacher remarked to children
44
making paper towel roll telescopes: " I like the way you are helping one
another. An extra pair of hands is always a help."
In the area of extending thinking and problem solving the data
reveals a considerable difference in teacher response for boys and girls.
The observations show that these teachers were much more likely to
involve boys in solving problems and that boys were more frequently
asked questions that stimulate further thinking and discussion. Examples
of such questions were: "How can you make it wider?" responding to
boys building with blocks. "Do you know what you are doing when you
add water?" the teacher asks a boy painting with water colours. "What do
you think we could use?" "When you are finished crying, we'll think of
something to do?" All such open-ended questions elicit a further response
on the part of the child, promoting thinking skills such as speculation,
observation and investigation. By contrast, closed questions such as:
"What's on your pizza?" or "Do the bubbles feel soft?" or "Who will look
after the baby?" only require a single word response and are less likely to
evoke further dialogue or divergent thinking. Closed questions were
commonly posed to all children but were particularly evident in
conversations with girls.
45
Guiding appropriate play behavior was another reason for
interaction that revealed a significant difference between girls and boys.
By over a two to one ratio the teachers were more involved in guiding
appropriate behavior and mediating conflicts with boys (39 instances)
than they were with girls (16 instances). Two examples from the data are:
"Kevin, if you bring something to school you must be willing to share it. I
think Shawn will be very careful with it. If you don't want to share, you
must put it in your cubbie." On another occasion, the teacher asked three
girls playing in the pretend centre to keep the little pieces on the table and
to use the fruit instead. "Remember the other day when we had to pick up
all the little pieces? Don't make yourself too much work. ... as long as
you're willing to tidy it up. You think about how much work you want to
do, Sarah."
It was also apparent the teachers were concerned with the need to
help children assume responsibility and take initiative. The observational
data suggest that this expectation fell equally upon both boys and girls.
Most children were generally encouraged to do for themselves, take care
of their belongings and to make their own play choices.
46
The final category of interaction to emerge in this study involved
teacher instruction. It was common for all the teachers to instruct children
in how to do a particular art activity or to suggest strategies for doing
puzzles or to provide letters so a child could write his or her name. A good
example of this was a teacher stopping at the pretend office to instruct a
girl in the use of the typewriter and to help her find the letters to type the
names of her family. Another time, a teacher asked a girl who came to
show the wooden beads she had strung: "Is it heavy or light? How many
red beads did you use? What colour do you have most of? Teachers
regularly quizzed children about colours, numbers, letters and shapes as
well as capitalized on opportunities to expand factual knowledge and
vocabulary. As Figure 1 demonstrates, teacher instruction was a more
common occurrence for boys than it was for girls.
Sustained Teacher-Child Interactions
To acquire a clearer picture of the interactive patterns, uncluttered
by housekeeping and classroom management duties, sustained teacherchild interactions were examined in depth. Sustained interactions were
defined as those verbal exchanges involving the teacher and child or
47
children in dialogue for at least two minutes. It should be restated at this
point that these exchanges represent only a small portion of the free play
period averaging approximately 20 percent of the teachers' time.
An outline format was devised to provide a framework for
assessing each of the sixty-one interaction episodes and the results are
summarized in Table 1. The data summarized in Table 1 lists the reasons
for the sustained teacher/child interactions and notes the corresponding
number of recorded incidents for each of the categories. The table also
shows the number of participants in the sustained interaction data in
relation to the total population of children in the study.
As with the short interactions, the main reason for the majority of
exchanges was to promote language development and extend thinking.
Close behind was the teachers' general interest in sustaining and
enhancing play episodes. In extending play the teachers were most often
involved in restructuring the environment by providing new props,
materials or new challenges (45% of the time). The second strategy
employed by the teachers was that of being an outside observer providing
vocabulary, questions and feedback to guide the play (40% of the time).
To a much lesser degree the teachers became an active participant
48
modeling play behavior (15% of the time). An example of a teacher
modeling play behavior is revealed in the following episode:
...the teacher goes over to a boy playing with cars on a playmat She
sits down with him and enters the play. "Oh, oh, looks like a traffic jam.
Maybe I'll take a short cut. " As the boy watches she drives the car
making a motor sound. "I think I'll go shopping. "
Table 1
Sustained Teacher-Child Interactions
Reason
Interaction
Participants **
1. facilitating language:
(extending thinking)
41 *
Boys: 121
2. extending play:
40
Girls:
3. mediating conflicts:
24
4: guiding appropriate play
Behavior:
21
5. providing assistance:
20
6. helping to take initiative,
assume responsibility:
7. creating opportunities for
socializing:
8. creating opportunities for
expanding motor skills:
9
6
5
* number of recorded incidents
** total population: 107 children: 55 boys , 52 girls
60
49
Table 1 also illustrates that many of the sustained interactions
between teachers and children revolve around guiding appropriate
behavior and issues of conflict mediation. Throughout the observations
there were 21 incidents when the teachers either instructed or guided
children in appropriate classroom behavior. In addition, there were 24
incidents in the sustained interaction episodes that were devoted to
conflict management. In most of these cases the teacher modeled verbal
strategies to aid the children in resolving their dispute. Removal of the
child or physical restraint was required on only two occasions.
As in the overall interaction record, many of the sustained
interactions focused on providing support and encouragement. That is, a
teacher would often sit at the art or playdough table and engage the
children in conversation. It was apparent that the teacher's presence
helped to maintain interest in the activity as well as attract other
participants. This same strategy was often employed to increase
perseverance and the level of success with puzzles and small
manipulatives.
Closely related to the above type of support, the teachers were
often involved in providing direct assistance to children. While rendering
assistance the teacher usually took advantage of the opportunity to visit
with the child.
To a far lesser degree interactions were concerned with helping
children assume responsibility and take initiative. There were also six
interaction episodes that focused on creating opportunities to further
socialization among the children. In five of the episodes there was an
effort on the part of the teacher to expand the child's motor skills.
As illustrated in Table 2, the data indicate that 34 percent of all
sustained interactions were in the area of art activities. The remaining
interactions were more evenly dispersed among other areas of the play
environment.
Table 2
Sustained Teacher-Child Interactions
Context
Location of the Interactions
Art activities:
Pretend Centre:
Building toys/vehicles:
Story Corner/puppets/music:
Science/cooking:
Sand/water:
Puzzles/small manipulatives:
Computer:
Outside/neutral area:
21
9
7
6
6
5
4
1
2
Although not part of the original thesis question, it became
apparent during the course of these observations that the language mode
used in the teacher-child interactions was another important consideration
worthy of inclusion in the data collection. Therefore a decision was made
to record dialogue in the field notes when possible and in all the sustained
interactions the language mode was documented. The most common
language mode used was simple questions and statements. In the
sustained interaction record simple questions and statements were used 52
percent of the time, instructional talk claimed 35 percent of the time,
while complex statements or dialogue were only recorded in 13 percent of
the interaction episodes. There were few negative comments recorded as
the teachers were careful to word their responses in a positive manner.
Interactions and Gender
The observational data show that in teacher-child interactions there
are distinct gender variations. In the overall interaction record the
teachers interacted with boys approximately 55 percent of the time, while
girls occupied approximately 45 percent of the teachers' interaction time.
When the sustained interaction data is separately considered, the gender
ratio is weighted in favour of boys by a two to one margin (121 boys, 60
girls). Again, it must be noted that the total population of children from
the six observed classes was 55 boys and 52 girls.
Sustained Teacher-Child Interactions:
Table 3
Time and Gender Distribution
Teacher
Total No.of
Interactions
Boys
Total No.
Time
Girls
Total
No.
Time
Mixed
Total No.
Time
29min.
17
5min.
15min.
7
(4B3G)
26min.
13
22min.
14
(7B7G)
19min.
12
24min.
12
(7B5G)
D
14min.
3
E
7min.
10
19
38min.
21
13min.
7
61
133min.
76
32min.
14
B
10
Total
14min.
3
4
18min. 15
(8B7G)
39min.
25
(13B12G)
53min. 32
(15B17G)
171min. 109
children
As Table 3 clearly illustrates, girls do not receive an equal amount
of the teachers' sustained attention. In fact, three of the six teachers
observed did not record any interactions with girls over two minutes while
all the teachers logged considerably more time with boys and involved
many more individual boys in conversation. It should also be noted that
the gender distribution in mixed groups was evenly balanced. The larger
number of total participants in the mixed groups of children can be
explained by the emphasis on informal story reading by one teacher, as
well as two group cooking projects that included several children over an
extended period of time.
The context or location of the above sustained interactions also
deserves notice. The play area and the number of participating children
are summarized in Table 4.
54
Table 4
Teacher-Child Interactions
Gender Distribution
Context
Girls
Boys
8
20
24
34
Building/Vehicles
2
20
Sand/Water
2
12
Puzzles/Small
Manipulatives
3
6
Science/cooking
2
8
11
12
-
6
52
118
Pretend Centre
Art Activities
Story/Puppets
Computer
Total
The data also indicate that the teachers spent more occasions
supervising boys in play. The accumulated results are: boys groups (26
occasions), mixed groups (19 occasions), girls groups (4 occasions).
Another aspect of the teachers' interactions with children involves
physical contact or touching. This contact generally took the form of
carrying or holding a child, cuddling, or stroking a child's back. Of the 29
incidents recorded, 24 involved girls while boys were given similar
treatment on only 5 occasions. The field notes record that girls were
carried, held on the teacher's knee, cuddled and rocked and held by the
hand whereas boys on the five recorded occasions were patted or stroked
on the back, one injured boy was hugged, another boy feeling ill was held
on the teacher's knee.
Unsolicited attention was documented to determine if boys and'
girls demand an equal amount of the teacher's time and attention. A tally
of the number of interruptions or demands on the part of both boys and
girls shows that boys accounted for 45 interruptions while girls interrupted
the teacher 26 times. Seeking the teacher's approval was a strategy to gain
attention employed by girls more frequently than boys (girls 20, boys 12).
It was common for girls to bring finished art work to show the teacher or
to model their dress-up costume.
There was insufficient comparable data to reveal if teachers treated
boys differently from girls under similar circumstances. There were small
hints of differential treatment but further more focused study would have
to be undertaken before informed comment could be offered.
56
The Teacher's Role
As Figure 2 illustrates, the role most commonly assumed by the
teachers during free play was that of classroom manager. This role
included housekeeping duties, general supervision, structuring and
maintaining the play environment. The data show that these
responsibilities consumed an average of approximately 80 percent or most
of the teachers' time interspersed with momentary interactions with
children.
Within the remaining 20 percent of the teachers' available time, the
sustained interaction records indicate that the teacher's role most often
could be described as a play facilitator. The role of the teacher as
instructor followed closely behind as the teachers were frequently seen
providing factual information and guiding children in how to do a
particular task. A supervisory role achieved almost equal importance as
the teachers became overseers of the play. On many occasions, this
supervisory role worked in conjunction with both the facilitating and the
instructing roles. The teachers in this sample were seldom engaged in an
observing-evaluating role.
57
CD
C
'co
> 8?
a> to
CL
«
58
Chapter 5
Discussion and Recommendations
The final chapter is organized into two parts. The first section
discusses and interprets the data with reference to the three original
research questions. The last section presents the limitations of this study
and offers recommendations for further research.
The observational data clearly illustrate that managing the free play
environment was the central preoccupation of all the teachers in this
study. The multifaceted and spontaneous nature of the free play setting
makes it impossible to establish an accurate time for housekeeping and
facilitating duties. Nevertheless, this issue must be recognized as a
critical dimension of the teacher's role. Two different methods in the
data analysis were used to approach this central issue. On the one hand,
the overall time devoted to housekeeping and facilitating duties was
estimated on the basis of elapsed time intervals in the observational field
notes. From this perspective teachers were involved in class management
an average of approximately 51 percent of the total free play period. Yet,
within this sample of six teachers there was considerable variation ,
59
ranging from 3 8 to 64 percent, in the time allotted to such duties. It must
be stated that these times are approximate as the teachers were often
engaged in overlapping duties, such as washing a table and interacting
with a child at the same time. In spite of the difficulty of establishing
hard data in the complexity of the free play environment, intensive
naturalistic observations provide some definite overall impressions.
Without a doubt, the observations revealed that managing the here and
now was a top priority and perhaps the first necessity for all of the six
teachers.
The second method of data analysis, and a more precise way to
determine the amount of time devoted to class management, is to subtract
the sustained interaction times from the total time frame. Since the
sustained interaction times have been accurately established as an average
of 20 percent, it is immediately apparent that the remaining 80 percent of
the teachers' time must be given over to class management and short
verbal exchanges with the children. Here, too, one observes considerable
variation among the teachers of this sample. While one of the teachers
spent a third of her time in sustained interactions with the children,
another teacher interacted with the children only 13 percent of the free
60
play period. Aside from the two teachers who had substantially higher
sustained interaction records, the remaining four teachers registered
results of 20 percent or lower. That is, most of the teachers devoted over
80 percent of the time to housekeeping, supervising and facilitating the
free play setting. Yet, it must be noted that for two of the teachers these
management duties consumed significantly less time, a difference great
enough to speculate that there were contributing factors over and above
their diverse settings. Such discrepancy in results suggests that there must
be distinct differences in teacher attitudes toward the necessity of
maintaining and managing the play environment and the value placed on
teacher-child interactions. It also brings into question the overall belief
system or the pedagogical underpinnings that guide the teachers'
behavior. My own, and admittedly speculative view, is that the
differences have less to do with pedagogical divergence than with the near
or total absence of a firm pedagogical foundation. In such an environment
the always pragmatic needs of management ride easily to unchallenged
dominance.
The second research question documented various aspects of
teacher-child interactions including reason, location, language mode,
61
duration of the exchange, number and gender of children. The most
apparent aspect of teacher-child interactions was the fleeting and
intermittent nature of the majority of verbal exchanges. The data show
that the main reason for interactions was to advance verbal expression but
the predominant strategy employed by the teachers to engage children in
conversation was to address the children using simple statements or
questions with obvious answers. This verbal strategy seldom encouraged
further conversation on the part of the child and typically the teacher
quickly moved on to someone else or some other task. The sustained
interaction documentation demonstrates this same pattern where teachers
basically relied on simple statements and closed questions with genuine
dialogue an infrequent occurrence. Instructional talk was a common
feature of the long interactions, but here again the teacher was in control
of the exchange with only limited verbal participation on the part of the
child. Of the six teachers observed only two of the teachers occasionally
asked challenging, thought provoking questions of the children. Their
open questioning style laid the foundation for further dialogue enabling
the teacher to gain insights into the child's thinking and understanding.
In these examples of genuine dialogue there was evidence of equal
62
participation where both the teacher and the child or children took turns
speaking and listening. These results replicate the previous research of
both Allerton ( 1993) and Clark (1988) regarding dialogue in nursery
school settings. Their studies, too , found that teachers generally rely on a
closed questioning style with a preponderance of questions with
predictable answers. If, indeed, language facilitation is a top priority for
preschool children , then it becomes essential that teachers be informed
so that they understand the implications of their questioning techniques
and general verbal style. While it is apparent that teachers have clearly
assimilated the message that verbal requests should be made in a positive
manner, it is clear teachers seem to be less aware of more constructive
techniques to facilitate language expression and divergent thinking.
The observational data also reveal that more than a third of all
sustained teacher-child interactions occurred in the vicinity of art
activities. Moreover, this area attracted the greatest number of children.
This higher level of participation can be explained, first, by the strong
attraction of a teacher's presence and second, the fact that the teachers
regularly made a point of collecting children, especially boys, to
participate in these activities. Often the teacher would stay close by,
63
asking questions to focus attention and to sustain interest. It is interesting
to note that on no occasion did teachers require children to build with
blocks, become involved in dramatic play or investigate science
materials. If it is conceded that the teacher's presence is a strong drawing
card, then perhaps there should be more consideration given to providing
equal support to all the free play activities so that a wider range of
developmental goals can be met. Furthermore, most art activities demand
considerable facilitation and therefore consume a substantial amount of
the teacher's time and attention. It could be argued that this ever
changing smorgasbord of art activities in the preschool environment
comes at the expense of other areas of the curriculum. Perhaps serious
consideration should be given to adapting the play environment to permit
teachers more time to interact with children. Indeed, two of the teachers
observed did organize their time to make room for more time with the
children and in no observable way was their free play environment any
less well organized or maintained.
The next predominant feature of the interaction record was the
uneven distribution of attention by gender. Boys not only received more
of the teachers' attention but they were the recipients of most of the
64
behavior management. The observational data show that of the 61
sustained interactions 18 were the direct result of conflict resolution or
behavior management. The demographics of these 18 interaction
episodes were as follows: boys' groups-12, girls' groups-2, mixed
groups-4. The overall observational record notes that 39 boys received
guidance in appropriate play behavior while only 16 girls required such
guidance. The fact that teachers spent more time supervising and
facilitating boys' activities than they spent supervising girls' activities
further indicates that boys have a much greater salience in the preschool
classroom.
The data also reveal that teacher instructional priorities for girls
and boys are not the same. Boys more often than girls were asked
challenging questions and were much more frequently engaged in solving
problems. Furthermore, this gender gap was apparent in the amount of
instruction offered to boys and girls.
This discrepancy should give
educators much to ponder. Indeed, do girls require less instruction and
fewer challenges? Or is this differential treatment the result of teachers
paying more attention to maintaining classroom harmony than to the
developmental needs of all the children?
65
This brings the discussion back to the role of the teacher during
free play as it exists in the complexity of the preschool environment. This
research demonstrates that for these six teachers housekeeping and class
management were foremost among their free play roles. A complex
network of situational factors meant teachers were constantly reacting to
many competing demands, leaving little time for extended interaction with
children. The unpredictability of the free play situation necessitated
constant supervision on the part of the teachers. In all of the classrooms,
one of the teachers supervised the group as a whole and if either of the
teachers was otherwise occupied the other member of the teaching team
was always asked to take over the supervision. Without a doubt,
housekeeping, facilitating and supervising were the dominant roles
assumed by the teachers in this study.
The pattern and character of their activities reveal that for these
teachers an interactive role was much less important or less achievable. In
most instances interactions were merely reactions to the here and now.
The overwhelming impression left from the lingering memory of the
teacher observations and from the collected data is that of movement, of
teachers in constant ever vigilant activity. In a period of 30 hours the six
66
teachers in this study managed only 61 sustained interactions of two
minutes or over. In other words, teachers on average found only two
occasions per hour to pause long enough to have an extended dialogue
with a child. This means that in a typical class of eighteen children there
2
were few opportunities for sustained interaction with each and every
child. Furthermore, it would be fair to speculate that the verbally
proficient children have more than their share of the teachers' attention
and that those children who especially need language facilitation are
often overlooked. The implications bear consideration.
The question of the teachers' interactive role raises the much
debated issue of whether teachers should intervene in the free play
activities of children. Yet, surely it must be argued that teachers cannot
afford not to adopt an interactionist role. Teacher intervention can inject
intellectual challenge, stimulate curiosity and dialogue into play situations
that otherwise may remain contented but repetitive with little verbal
exchange (McLean, 1990). Admittedly, the teacher's approach depends
greatly on the pedagogical and psychological underpinnings of each
teacher's belief system. Like Spodek, Katz, among others, it is also my
In fact, the calculated average of two sustained interactions per hour session is generous since
the total number of interactions is weighted or tipped by the much higher score of one teacher.
2
67
experience that many early childhood educators have difficulty
articulating their philosophy of play, perhaps suggesting that this has not
been clearly thought through. In practice teachers seem to rely more on an
eclectic accumulation of beliefs derived from practical experience. The
danger in this eclectic approach is that chosen practices may not be
complementary and may, in fact, work against achieving overall
developmental goals. Ideally, teachers should have a clear understanding
of their role during free play and know how they can effectively extend
the educational value of the play experience. With the proliferation of
programs that promise early academic instruction to preschool children,
early childhood educators need to be sure of their role and to be confident
that they can not only articulate the pedagogical value of play but
effectively support and enhance the free play experience in preschool.
Limitations and Recommendations
The results of this study are limited by the fact that the observed
teachers can not be presented as a representative sample of early
childhood educators in the city of Vancouver. An attempt to achieve
broad representation was compromised as the two inexperienced teachers
68
had previously worked with competent and experienced supervisors and
therefore could not be classified as beginning teachers. Nonetheless the
results of this study show that the level of teacher experience was not a
significant contributing factor.
It also became apparent that only
confident teachers were prepared to agree to such intensive scrutiny. To
achieve as natural an environment as possible the representative quality of
the study had to compromised.
The study was further limited by the decision not to use video or
sound recording devices. Such technical assistance would have provided
corroborating evidence, adding credibility to the observational data. An
alternative, less intrusive means to strengthen the data would have been to
engage a parallel researcher so that observational field notes could be
compared and substantiated. These additional methods to corroborate the
data would have substantially increased the validity of this work.
The broad focus of this study is one of its strengths and advantages
but, as is the case with such an approach, this is also one of its
weaknesses. The diverse and overlapping nature of the data renders
precision difficult and makes it possible in some instances, only to offer
broad conclusions and recommendations. The intent of this research was
69
to provide an overview of teacher behavior and interactive patterns within
the natural flow of free play activities. The findings point to several
possible directions for further research. First, a natural follow up to this
study would be to interview the participating teachers to determine if their
views on the teacher's role during free play correspond with the reality
of the observational data. Interviews would also provide insight into the
overall belief system that informs and guides teacher behavior.
Second, given the startling deficiency in the frequency of sustained
interactions in the free play setting, study should be undertaken to
determine if this deficiency is, as I predict, consistent across the various
components that comprise the preschool experience.
A third area that deserves further examination is a closer look at
teacher-child interactions to determine the nature of dialogue. With the
aid of recording devices a researcher could more closely analyze
questioning techniques and responses as well as the verbal styles of both
the teacher and child. This in-depth look at dialogue might be able to
provide teachers with better ways to encourage and enhance verbal
expression.
This overview of the teacher's role during free play in preschool
suggests that it might be worthwhile to devise a comparative study to
determine whether there is a seasonal variation in the teacher's role over
the course of the preschool year. The observational data in this study
show that the two teachers in the fall devoted approximately 77 percent of
their time to class management duties, whereas the four teachers observed
later in the school year were involved in housekeeping, facilitating and
supervisory duties approximately 82 percent of the free play time. While
this study shows no significant difference in the amount of time devoted
to classroom management, it would be useful to examine this issue
further.
A fifth recommendation for further research is a more tightly
focused study of differential treatment in preschool and the attendant
gender implications. In order to acquire comparable data a more
structured play experience would have to be planned so that teacher
behavior in identical situations could be compared. The apparent
difficulty would be the contrived nature of the exercise and the distinct
probability that teachers would not respond naturally if they were
conscious of the purpose of the study.
71
It would also be particularly useful to examine the structure of the
preschool environment with a mind to reducing the overall burden of
housekeeping responsibilities. Environmental and other adjustments must
be found to free teachers for more educationally valuable interactions with
children. Only then will preschool supervisors properly claim the title:
Early Childhood Educator.
72
Bibliography
Allerton, M . (1993 ). A m I asking the right questions? International Journal
of Early Childhood. 25(1), 42-48.
Ayers, W . (1989). The good preschool teacher. N e w York: Teachers College
Press.
Blease, D . (1983). Observer effects on teachers and pupils in classroom
research. Educational Review, 35(3), 213-217.
Bredekamp, S.(Ed.). (1987). Developmentally appropriate practice i n early
childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8.
Washington, D . C . : N A E Y C .
Bruce, T. (1993). The role o f play in children's lives. Childhood Education,
69(4), 237-238.
Cass, J.E.. (1975). The role o f the teacher i n the nursery school. Oxford:
Pergamon Press.
Christie, J.F., Wardle,F. (1992). H o w much time is needed for play? Y o u n g
Children, March, 28-32.
Clark, M . M . (1988). Children under five: Educational research and evidence.
London: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers.
Clark, M . M . (1983). Early education: Issues and evidence. Educational Review,
35(2), 113-119.
G i f t , P., Cleave,S., Griffin, M . (1980). The aims, role and deployment o f staff
in the nursery. Windsor, Berks.: N F E R Publishing.
Cowe, E . G . (1982). Free play: Organization and management in the pre-school
and Kindergarten. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C . Thomas Publisher.
Cross, T . G . (1989). Teacher talk in preschool settings. Early Childhood
Development and Care, 52, 133-146.
73
Crosser, S. (1992). Managing the early childhood classroom. Young Children
January, 23-28.
David, T. (Ed.), (1993). Educational provision for our youngest children:
European perspectives. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
DeVries, R., Kohlberg, L . (1987). Constructivist early education: Overview
and comparisons with other programs. Washington, D . C . : N A E Y C .
Dickinson, P. (1989). Educators o f young children: Similar or different?
Canadian Journal o f Research in Early Childhood Education. 3(1), 3-14.
Dunn, S., Morgan, V . (1987). Nursery and infant play patterns: Sex-related
differences. British Educational Research Journal. 13(3), 271-281.
Fagot, B . , Hagan,R. (1985 ). Coding o f interactions: Is reliability really a
problem? Canadian Journal o f Research in Early Childhood Education.
1(2), 161-167.
Feeney, S., Chun, R. (1985). Effective teachers o f young children. Young
Children. November, 47-52.
Ford, S . A . (1993). The facilitator's role in children's play. Young Children.
September, 66-69.
Gelb, S . A . (1989). Language and the problem o f male salience i n early
childhood classroom environments. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly. 4. 205-215.
Glascott, K . (1994). A problem o f theory for early childhood professionals.
Childhood Education. 70(3), 131-132.
Greenberg, S. (1985). Educational equity in early education environments
In S. K l e i n (Ed.), Handbook for achieving sex equity through
education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Goldhaber, J. (1994). If we call it science, then can we let the children
play? Childhood Education. 71(1), 24-27.
74
Hendrick, J., Stange, T. (1991). D o actions speak louder than words? A n
effect o f the functional use o f language on dominant sex role
behavior i n boys and girls. Early Childhood Research Quarterly.
6, 565-576.
Katz, L . G . (1984). The professional early childhood teacher. Young Children.
39(5), 3-10.
Klugman, E . , Smilansky, S. (1990). Children's play and learning. N e w Y o r k :
Teachers College Press.
Ledingham, J., Chappus, F. (1985). Behavioral mappings o f children's social
interactions: The impact o f the play environment. Canadian Journal o f
Research in Early Childhood Education. 1(2), 137-148.
Lloyd, I. (1983). The aims o f early childhood education. Educational Review.
35(2), 121-126.
M c L e a n , S . V . (1991). The human encounter: Teachers and children living
together in preschools. London: The Falmer Press.
Monighan-Nourot, P., V a n Hoorn, J. (1991). Symbolic play i n preschool and
primary Settings. Young Children. September, 40-50.
Monighan-Nourot, P., Scales, B . , V a n Hoorn, J. (1987). Looking at children's
play: A bridge between theory and practice. N e w Y o r k : Teachers
College Press.
Moyles, J.R. (1989). Just playing? The role and status o f play i n early
Childhood Education. M i l t o n Keynes, U . K . : Open University Press.
N A E Y C . (1988). A n executive summary o f colloquium proceedings. Early
childhood teacher education: Traditions and trends. Young Children.
November, 53-57.
Oken-Wright, P. (1992). From tug o f war to "Let's make a deal": The
teacher's role. Young Children. 48(1), 15-20.
Read, K . H . (1992). The nursery school: A human relations laboratory.
Young Children. March, 4-5.
Regan, E . (1985). Naturalistic observations o f classrooms and children: Its
function in a study o f teacher beliefs and perceptions. Canadian
Journal o f Research in Early Childhood Education. 1(2), 177-182.
Rogers, D . , Waller, C , Perrin, M . (1987). Learning more about what makes a
good teacher good through collaborative research in the classroom.
Young Children. 42(4), 34-39.
Sadker, M . , Sadker, D . , Donald, M . (1989). Subtle sexism at school.
Contemporary Education. 60(4), 204-212.
Saracho, O. (1988). A study o f the roles o f early childhood teachers.
Early C h i l d Development and Care. 38, 43-56.
Schweinhardt, L . , Weikart, D . , Larner, M . (1986). Consequences o f three
preschool curriculum models through age 15. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly. 1, 15-45.
Seefeldt, C , Barbour, N . (1986). Early childhood education. Columbus, Ohio:
Charles E . Merrill Publishing Company.
Sheldon, A . (1990). "Kings are royaler than queens": Language and
socialization. Young Children January, 4-11.
Spidell, R . A . (1989). Play in the classroom: a descriptive study o f preschool
teachers' beliefs. Early C h i l d Development and Care. 41, 153-172.
Spodek, B . (1985). Teaching in the early years. N e w Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Spodek, B . (1987). Thought processes underlying preschool teachers'
classroom decisions. Early C h i l d Development and Care. 29, 197-208.
Sugarman, S. (1987). Piaget's construction o f the child's reality. N e w York:
Cambridge University Press.
Suransky, V . (1983). The preschooling o f childhood. Educational Leadership.
March, 27-29.
Sutton-Smith, B . (Ed.).(1979). Play and learning. N e w York: Gardner Press.
76
Takanishi, R. (1981). Early childhood education and research: The changing
relationship. Theory into Practice. X X ( 2 ) , 86-92.
Takhvar, M.(1988). Play and theories o f play: A review o f the literature.
Early C h i l d Development and Care. 39,221-244.
Tamburrini, J. (1986). Play and the role o f the teacher. In S. Burroughs &
R.Evans (Eds.), Play, language and socialization: Perspectives on
adult roles. London: Gordon and Breach, Science Publishers.
Tegano, D . , Sawyers, J., Moran, J. (1989). Problem-finding and solving in play:
The teacher's role. Childhood Education. 66, 92-97.
Tudge, J., Caruso, D..(1988). Cooperative problem solving i n the classroom:
Enhancing young children's cognitive development. Y o u n g Children.
November, 46-52.
V a n Hoorn, J., Monighan-Nourot, P., Scales, B . , A l w a r d , K . (1993). Play at the
center o f the curriculum. N e w York: M e r r i l l , an imprint o f Macmillan
Publishing Company.
Wassermann, S. (1992). Serious play in the classroom. Childhood Education.
68(3),133-139.
Wolfgang, C , Sanders, T. (1986). Teacher's role: A construct for supporting
the play o f young children. In S. Burroughs & R. Evans (Eds.), Play,
language and socialization: Perspectives on adult roles.
London: Gordon and Breach, Science Publishers.