Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 2, 55-66 (1987)

Facilitating Play Skills: Efficacy of a Staff Development Program

lean W. Gowen

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Staff members of a day care center took part in a year-long training pro- gram designed to help them facilitate a child’s ability to learn through play. This paper briefly describes the training objectives and methods used in the first two workshops of this program. An evaluation of the effectiveness of those methods is presented, based on pre-training and post-training obser- vation of interactions between caregivers and children in the day care center. Results indicate that the training was very effective in increasing caregiver verbal involvement with children during play, but was less effective in re- ducing the number of verbal directives delivered by caregivers in interacting with the children. A negative relationship was found between caregiver’s level of education and amount of verbally directive behavior after training, but not before training.

Play is a major medium for development during the preschool years. Studies of cognitive levels of play have found that participation in higher cognitive levels of play (e.g., construction play and symbolic play) is positively associ- ated with measures of cognitive and social competence (Freyberg, 1973; Golomb & Cornelius, 1977; Johnson, 1976; Rubin, 1976; Rubin & Maioni, 1975). Children vary in development of play skills; on the average, low socioeconomic status (SES) children exhibit a smaller amount of high-level play than do middle SES children (Rubin, Maioni, & Hornung, 1976; Smilan- sky, 1968; Smith, 1977).

There is evidence, though, that appropriate adult intervention can stimu- late development of higher level play behavior. Carew (1980) found that a child’s disposition to create intellectual experiences in independent play at 30 to 33 months was significantly related to the mother’s structuring of in-

The author gratefully acknowledges the assistance of Gael McCarthy, Kathy Davalos,

Kathleen DeBoy, and Vickic Hayes. The author is also grateful to Beverly Mulvihill and Gael McCarthy, who were codirectors of the workshops, and to the day care center staff for their participation in this study.

Corrcspondencc and requests for reprints should be addressed to Jean W. Gowen, Frank Porter Graham Child Dcvclopmcnl Center, University of North Carolina, 301 NCNB Plaza

322A, Chapel Hill. NC 27514.

55

56 Gowen

tellectual experiences into her play with the child at 12 and 27 months. Saltz and Johnson (1974) found that training in symbolic play led to a significant increase in frequency of occurrence of symbolic play during free play in a group setting.

In this study, caregivers in a day care center for low SES children were given training designed to promote facilitative involvement with children during play. The results reported here are from the first two workshops of a year-long series on learning through play.

The training was based on the assumption that play is by definition a self- directed activity. A nondidactic approach is therefore most appropriate for facilitating development of a child’s play skills. Emphasis was on following the child’s lead and guiding development of the child’s play behavior through interaction with the child’s self-selected activities.

A need for this training was evidenced by results from preworkshop observations of the center’s children and caregivers. Observation showed that the children were experiencing deficits in the development of play skills (Bryant, 1985). The preworkshop data also indicated that interaction of caregivers with children during playtime was minimal, and when it did oc- cur, it was often directive. Therefore, the goals for the first two workshops were to get the caregivers more involved and less directive with the children during playtime.

The first step for increasing caregiver involvement with the children was to have the caregivers talk with the children while they played. Although caregivers were trained to tailor their comments to enhance child learning, the goal for the first workshop was simply that each caregiver would talk to the children during at least 50% of the playtime. The trainers felt that if caregivers could take this first step of involvement, the nature of the verbal interaction could be refined in subsequent workshops.

The first refinement was to ask the caregivers to decrease the amount of directive behavior during playtime. In the first workshop, caregivers were asked to limit verbal directives, and a rationale for doing so was presented. The second workshop offered more intensive training on how to be less directive by clarifying the distinction between directive and nondirective language, and by presenting nondirective techniques for dealing with prob- lem behaviors. The goal for the second workshop was to keep verbal direc- tives to less than 25% of the total number of utterances.

The major purpose of this study was to evaluate the success of the two workshops in reaching these goals. A secondary purpose was to examine the relationship between the caregivers’ level of education and their success in reducing directive behavior.

Results from studies of authoritarianism suggest that the level of educa- tion is related to authoritarian attitudes (Hyman & Sheatsley, 1954), which in turn are related to authoritarian behaviors (Eager & Smith, 1952). In this study, being overly directive with children during play was considered to be

Facilitating Play Skills 57

an authoritarian behavior. Therefore, it was hypothesized that the amount of directive behavior during playtime would be negatively related to the level of education prior to the training offered in the second workshop.

Starr (1970) found that training which emphasized nonauthoritarian atti- tudes about child behavior effectively reduced authoritarian attitudes in col- lege students. She found that the greatest changes occurred with students who had demonstrated the highest initial scores. In this study, it was there- fore predicted that caregivers with less education would show a greater de- crease in the amount of directive behavior than would the better educated caregivers.

METHOD

Subjects The sujects were 7 teachers and 7 teacher aides who served as the day care center’s teaching staff. They were all women. The mean level of education was 14.5 years (teachers, M= 15.6; aides, M= 13.4). The 50 children enrolled at the center ranged in age from 7 months to 62 months and were grouped by age into 7 classrooms.

Procedures Training was delivered in a series of staff development sessions that in- cluded: (a) a 3-day workshop, “Introduction to Learning Through Play”; (b) a half-day workshop held two months later, “Communication Skills”; and (c) a l-hour staff development meeting after each workshop. In addi- tion, each trainee met twice with an evaluator to review results of the class- room observations of their behavior. Two of the trainers were available in the day care center for informal consultations as needed.

Training in the first workshop was designed to develop an appreciation of the caregiver’s role as a facilitator for learning through play, and to in- crease the caregivers’ involvement with the children during play. Caregivers were trained to comment to the children during play in ways that would re- inforce the child’s exploration and age-appropriate play.

The second workshop focused on increasing the use of nondirective lan- guage and decreasing the use of directive language with the children during both playtime and mealtime. In light of Starr’s findings (1970) that change in authoritarian attitudes was related to the amount of factual information presented in classes, we presented specific information in the second work- shop about egalitarian approaches to child development and nondirective teaching methods. In addition, caregivers practiced identifying nondirective and directive language during the workshop and the follow-up meeting.

To appeal to the diverse learning styles of the trainees, a variety of modes were used in both workshops to present the training materials. These included guided group discussions, role-playing, modeling of desired behaviors by

58 Cowen

the trainers, videotapes and written vignettes presenting child-alone play and child-caregiver play, and written and vocal exercises in identifying and designing appropriate caregiver behaviors. (A more complete description of these two workshops is presented in Gowen, Mulvihill, & McCarthy, 1986.)

MEASURES

Three types of assessment were made to evaluate the effectiveness of the training: (a) classroom observations; (b) written assessment of the care- givers’ understanding of the concepts presented in the workshops; and (c) an anonymous questionnaire completed by the caregivers at the end of each workshop to assess their opinions regarding the effectiveness of the work- shops.

Classroom Observations Caregivers were observed on three occasions during playtime following the first workshop and its follow-up session; twice during playtime and twice during mealtime following the second workshop and the second follow-up session. During each observation session, the caregivers in a given class- room were alternately observed for 1 minute each, until each caregiver had been observed for a total of 5 minutes.

The caregivers’ uses of four categories of verbal behavior and two cate- gories of nonverbal behavior were coded for each lo-second interval. The categories of verbal behavior were: (a) information sharing (utterances to the child about what the child was doing); (b) information eliciting (utter- ances to the child that were designed to elicit information from the child about what the child was doing); (c) verbal directive (utterances that told the child to do or to stop doing something); and (d) verbal other (utterances to the child that did not fit into any of the other verbal categories). The non- verbal behaviors that were coded were: (a) nonverbal directive (nonverbal caregiver behavior that attempted to redirect or inhibit the child’s attention or activity); and (b) nonverbal other (all other nonverbal caregiver behaviors directed towards the child if the child appeared to be aware of the behavior). Interobserver reliability was estimated by randomly selecting 23 observations to be coded by 2 independent observers. The Pearson Product Moment cor- relations ranged from r= .66 to r= .99, with a M value of r= .81.

Written Assessment of Concepts The caregivers’ understanding of the concepts presented in each workshop was assessed with brief written tests. The test for each workshop was admin- istered twice-once at the beginning of the workshop and once at the end. The test for the first workshop asked the caregivers to (a) present reasons for child-initiated activities and for caregiver-initiated activities to foster learning, (b) to specify learning objectives that could be met during block

Facilitating Play Skills 59

play, (c) to list three comments the caregiver could make to foster learning of those objectives during block play and (d) to describe how their class- room could be arranged to facilitate learning through play. The pretests and posttests for the second workshop presented ten utterances that a caregiver might make to a child. The trainees were asked to indicate for each whether it was an example of directive or of nondirective language.

Evaluation Questionnaire At the end of each workshop, caregivers were asked to complete an anony- mous questionnaire evaluating the workshop activities. These questionnaires listed the major activities of the workshop and asked trainees to rank order them in terms of usefulness. The questionnaires also asked for comments regarding what the trainees perceived to be the strengths and weaknesses of the workshops.

Pre workshop Observations

Before this training program was initiated, a series of observations had been made at this same day care center (Bryant, 1985). While these observations were not intended to evaluate the caregivers’ play-teaching skills, they did measure verbal interaction between caregivers and children during playtime.

In the preworkshop observations, each child in the center (except the in- fants) was observed during playtime on 4 separate occasions for 30 lo-second intervals. Caregivers’ verbalizations to the children were coded for caregiver dyads in each classroom (i.e., the teacher and teacher aide). Each verbaliza- tion was coded as being a directive, a reinforcement, or an elaboration. The definition of a directive was essentially the same as that used in this study. The preworkshop measure of caregivers’ total verbal behavior was also suf- ficiently similar to the measure used in this study to permit comparison of results from the two studies.

RESULTS

Results of postworkshop observations of the caregivers interacting with the children indicate that, for the group as a whole, the sessions were effective in stimulating verbal interaction with the children during playtimes and mealtimes, and maintaining a fairly low proportion of caregiver directives (verbalizations accounted for by directive language). Sizable individual dif- ferences were found, however, in caregiver performance. (Means and stan- dard deviations for postworkshop I observations are presented in Table 1 and for postworkshop II observations in Table 2.)

Group Means As a group, the caregivers achieved the goal of verbal involvement with the children during more than 50% of the lo-second intervals during Playtime.

60 Gowen

Table 1. Mean Percentages of IO-Second Intervals in Which Verbal and Nonverbal Caregiver Behavior Occurred by Session: Postworkshop I Observations of Playtime

Observation Session

Session 1 (n= 13) Session 2 (n = 1 I) Session 3 01 = IO)

Behavior Category M SD ilf .(‘I) M .)‘I.,

Total Verbal 85.9 9.1 86.4 11.7 89.7 9.6

Verbal elicit 19.5 19.9 12.1 14.2 IS.0 17.6 Verbal share 66.4 15.8 70.9 13.8 67.7 Il.9 Verbal directive 19.7 14.2 19.7 14.7 24.7 15.6 Verbal other 5.1 4.4 14.5 10.0 18.0 I I.2

Total Nonverbal 96.7 5.8 97.0 5.5 96.1 6.3 Nonverbal directive 6.2 6.9 6.0 5.5 7.7 5.5 Nonverbal other 95.9 8.3 97.0 5.5 96.7 6.3

Total Interaction 98.2 2.6 98.5 3.1 98.0 6.3

No/e: More than one type of verbal or nonverbal behavior could occur within the same IO-second interval.

Table 2. Mean Percentages of lo-Second Intervals in Which Verbal and Nonverbal Caregiver Behavior Occurred by Context (Playtime or Mealtime) and by Session: Postworkshop II Observations

Context and Observation Session

Behavior Category

Total Verbal Verbal elicit Verbal share Verbal directive

Verbal other

Total Nonverbal Nonverbal directive Nonverbal other

Total Interaction

Playtime

Session 1 Session 2

(n = 14) (n = 13) ~ -

M SD M SD

88.8 11.0 84.0 11.1 22.9 21.0 18.8 18.7 68.8 15.7 67.8 10.7 23.4 13.6 22.4 10.7

12.4 14.8 8.8 9.5

96.5 3.6 97.7 4.6 5.7 4.9 4.3 6.7

96.5 3.6 97.4 5.4

96.9 3.9 98.7 3.3

Mealtime

Session 1 Session 2 (n = 14) (n=13)

M SD M SD

68.6 24.6 77.8 23.7 23.1 18.4 26.2 19.2 51.9 21.4 61.3 21.0

13.5 9.4 17.8 1 I .4 2.9 4.0 2.2 2.6

89.1 11.4 97.8 3.9 6.4 9.0 3.6 7.5

87.9 12.2 97.7 4.9

90.5 11.0 98.0 3.9

Nore: More than one type of verbal or nonverbal behavior could occur within the same lo-second interval.

Furthermore, mean level of performance for total interaction (i.e., nonver- bal plus verbal interaction) was very high following both workshops. These results reveal an improvement over preworkshop group performance. Ex- trapolation from the preworkshop observations had revealed that, on the

Facilitating Play Skills 61

average, caregivers talked to the children during less than 50% of the obser- vation intervals. (Nonverbal involvement was not assessed in the prework- shop observations.)

Comparison of the preworkshop and postworkshop means for propor- tion of directive verbalizations also indicated improvement. Means and standard deviations are presented in Table 3 for postworkshop I and in Table 4 for postworkshop II.

On the average, the proportion of directive verbalizations during post- workshop playtimes and mealtimes was close to the goal of 25% of total

Table 3. Mean Percentages of lo-Second Intervals in Which Verbalization Occurred by Type of Verbalization and Observation Session: Postworkshop 1 Observations of Playtime

ObservaGon Session

Verbal Caleeorv

Session 1 (n = 13)

M SD Ranee

Session 2 (n = 11) Session 3 (n = 10)

M SD Ranee M SD Ram-e

Verbal elicit 21.2 20.3 o-57 13.3 15.5 O-44 16.3 19.0 o-52

Verbal share 77.6 17.9 50-100 81.8 9.1 72-100 76.1 13.9 64-96 Verbal directive 22.9 17.4 4-56 16.3 15.4 O-50 27.4 16.5 4-61 Verbal other 6.1 5.0 O-14 17.2 11.7 o-39 19.9 12.0 3-39

Note: More than one type of verbal behavior could occur within the same lo-second in- terval.

Table 4. Mean Percentages of lo-Second Intervals in Which Verbalization Occurred by Type of Verbalization, Context, and Observation Session: Postworkshop II Observations

Context and Observalion Session

Ploytime Mealtime

Session 1 Session 2 Session 1 Session 2 (n = 14) (n = 13) (n = 14) (n = 13)

Verbnl Category M SD M SD M SD M SD

Verbal elicit 25.8 24.3

(O-71) Verbal share 77.1 12.8

(50-97) Verbal directive 26.4 15.5

(O-56) Verbal other 12.1 13.3

(O-53)

21.0 19.0

(O-53) 80.6 9.7

(67-96) 27.4 15.1

(9-56) 10.1 10.4

(O-30)

30.2 20.8 (O-59)

76.1 16.4

(46- 100) 21.7 21.5

(O-80) 4.4 5.0

(O- 15)

30.2 21.5 (O-67)

80.3 15.8

(50-100) 21.9 15.6

(O-50) 2.8 2.9

(O-7)

No/es: The minimum and maximum percentages are given in parenthesis. More than one type of verbal behavior could occur within the same IO-second interval.

62 Cowen

verbalizations. In the preworkshop observations, 57% of the verbalizations of teacher-aide dyads during playtime were coded as directives. (It should be noted that comparisons of the preworkshop and postworkshop data can only be suggestive since they were collected with somewhat different proce- dures. The preworkshop observations were coded for teacher-aide dyads in each classroom rather than for individual caregivers.)

Individual Differences The range of scores for the postworkshop observations reveals considerable individual differences. Percentages of lo-second intervals in which the care- giver talked to the children ranged from 57% to 100% for postworkshop I observations and from 43% to 90% for postworkshop II observations. The range of scores for percentage of directive verbalizations was especially great for each observation session: 0 to 61% for postworkshop I and 0 to 54% for postworkshop II. The range in the preworkshop observations was 28% to 78% for the teacher-aide dyads.

When observed following the workshops, the caregivers knew exactly what behaviors were expected of them, so these observations probably docu- mented optimal rather than typical performance. Most caregivers were ex- pected to meet the objective of talking to the children at least 50% of the time. In 81 of the 88 total observation sessions, this objective was met. Ob- servations in the infant nursery during feeding time accounted for 4 of the 7 observation sessions in which this objective was not met. This is understand- able since it is not always appropriate to talk to an infant in this situation (e.g., when the child has just finished a bottle and is falling asleep.)

Another goal was to keep directing and commanding language to a level of less than 25% of total verbalization. Individual caregivers were less suc- cessful in meeting this goal. Even after the intensive training of the second workshop, only 8 of 14 caregivers achieved this objective during all 4 of the postworkshop observations. Pearson Product Moment correlations indicate that this was a fairly stable behavior within context following the second workshop (for the 2 playtime observation sessions r= .69; for the 2 meal- time observations r= .78).

Relationship of Education Level to Use of Directive Language The relationships among observed performance in the classroom, scores on the pretests and posttests assessing ability to distinguish directive and non- directive language, and years of formal education were examined with Pear- son Product Moment correlations. The results are presented in Table 5.

The results are just the opposite of those hypothesized. The relationship between years of formal education and use of verbal directives during play was not significant before the second workshop (i.e., postworkshop I), but was significant following that workshop (i.e., postworkshop II). The strong relationship between years of education and both pretest scores and posttest

Facilitating Play Skills 63

Table 5. Correlations Among Number of Years of Formal Education, Use of Verbal Directives during Playtime and Mealtime, and Identification of Verbal Directives on a Pretest and a Posttest

Post- POSl- Post- Years of workshop I workshop II workshop II

Education Playlime Playtime Mealtime Prelesl Posltest

Years of education -

Postworkshop I Playtime - .17 -

Postworkshop II Playtime - .55* .44 -

Postworkshop II Mealtime - .20 .52 .62* -

Pretest .a7** -.I2 - .58* -.30 - Posttest .90** - .19 - .65* - .31 .98** -

+/I<.05 l * p<.OOl

scores indicate that even without training, caregivers with higher levels of education were more successful in distinguishing instances of directive and nondirective speech than were caregivers with less education. Before the in- tensive training offered in the second workshop, however, this ability to identify directive speech did not translate into success in limiting the use of such speech, even though caregivers were asked to do so in the first work- shop. The observed use of directives in the classroom following workshop I was not significantly related to performance on the written tests or to the level of formal education. However, after the intensive training offered in the second workshop, the use of verbal directives during playtime was sig- nificantly related to scores on the written tests and to level of education.

These results suggest that the combination of the cognitive understanding of the distinction between directive and nondirective language plus the in- tensive training offered in workshop II was most strongly related to a reduc- tion of verbal directives during playtime. Furthermore, the caregiver’s level of formal education was predictive of performance on both the pretests and posttests of ability to distinguish directive and nondirective language. How- ever, the level of education was not predictive of use of directive language with children until after the intensive training on this objective during the second workshop.

Results of Written Assessments of Concepts Caregivers’ understanding of concepts presented in the workshops was assessed with short written tests at the beginning and end of each workshop. For the first workshop, the mean level of performance was significantly

64 Cowen

better on the posttest (M= 56.8) than on the pretest (M= 29.9; t = 6.19). The means for individual items were higher on the posttest than on the pretest for all items, except one that had not been addressed in the workshop be- cause of time constraints. As the posttests results compared with the pretest results indicate, the caregivers showed an improved understanding of the unique role of child-initiated activities in preschool educational programs. The caregivers also showed an improved understanding of ways in which learning objectives can be approached with appropriate caregiver comments during play. This may have motivated the caregivers to use commenting in their interactions with the children during play.

Mean performance on the posttest (M= 8.5) was also significantly greater than on the pretest (M= 7.0) following the second workshop (I = 4.17). As indicated above, improved ability to distinguish directive from nondirective language did not result in improved performance in the classroom for the less well educated caregivers.

Results of Participant Evaluations of the Workshop At the end of each workshop, participants were asked to complete an anony- mous questionnaire evaluating the workshop components. Results of these evaluations indicate that most of the caregivers preferred workshop com- ponents that involved creativity and action. The average rankings of such activities as role-playing and responding to written and videotaped examples of child behavior were higher than those for discussions of rationale and techniques. The one exception-the demonstration by workshop leaders of directive, bossy behavior-received the highest mean ranking in the first workshop, even though the trainees were merely spectators in this event. The high ranking may have been due more to the comic relief provided by this mini drama than to its perceived educational value! As in other areas of the evaluation, though, there were sizable individual differences in the rank ordering of the activities for each workshop. Some respondents gave the highest ranking to the more academic type discussions; others the lowest.

CONCLUSION

Teaching caregivers to comment on a child’s ongoing play activity proved to be a simple and successful strategy for increasing caregivers’ involvement in children’s play. The workshop techniques of role-playing and of completing exercises using written, videotaped, and dramatized examples of child and caregiver behaviors appeared to be effective ways to increase caregiver in- teraction with children during play. All of the caregivers met the objective of commenting to the children during at least 50% of the free play time in all three observation sessions following the first workshop, and in at least one of the two observation sessions following the second workshop.

Facilitating Play Skills 65

The results of this staff development effort were not encouraging regard- ing effects of the training on the caregivers’ use of verbal directives with children during play. After the second workshop, which focused on the goal of reducing the use of directive language, about half of the caregivers had not reached the criterion of keeping verbal directives to a level of less than 25’70 of total verbalizations during both play observation sessions. Four of the caregivers reached this goal during only one of the two play observation sessions, and two of the caregivers did not reach this goal during either of the two sessions.

On the basis of previous findings of relationships between educational level and authoritarian attitudes (Hyman & Sheatsley, 1954), and between authoritarian attitudes and authoritarian behavior (Eager&Smith, 1952), it had been hypothesized that there would be a negative relationship between level of education and use of directive language before training. This hy- pothesis was not supported. However, level of education was predictive of success in meeting the objective of reducing the use of verbal directives following training.

The caregivers with higher levels of education, compared with those having lower levels of education, had a better intellectual grasp of the con- cept of directive language even before training, as evidenced by their higher scores on the pretest distinguishing directive and nondirective language. This understanding may have reflected a less authoritarian attitude, which allowed these caregivers to more effectively utilize the training they received.

REFERENCES

Bryant. D.M. (1985). [Preschoolers’ behavior in daycare]. Unpublished raw data, Frank Porter of Graham Child Development Center, University of North Carolina-Chapel

Hill, SC. Carew, J.V. (1980). Experience and the development of intelligence in young children at home

and in day care. Monographs of Ihe Socielyfor Research in Child Developmenr. 45(6-7, Serial No. 187).

Eager, J., & Smith, M.B. (1952). A note on the validity of Sanford’s authoritarian-egalitarian scale. Journal of AOnomal and Social fs.vcho/ogJ~. 47, 265-267.

Freyberg, .I. (1973). Increasing the imaginative play of urban disadvantaged kindergarten chil- dren through systematic training. In J.L. Singer (Ed.), The child’s world of make- believe (pp. 129-154). New York: Academic.

Golomb. C.. & Cornelius, C.B. (1977). Symbolic play and its cognitive significance. Develop- mental Psychology. 13, 246-252.

Gowen, J.W., Mulvihill. B.A., & McCarthy, G.D. (1986). A staff developrnenf program IO .faci/irare p/q skills. Unpublished paper, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, SC.

Hyman, H.H., & Sheatsley, P.B. (1954). The authoritarian personality: A methodological

critique. In R. Christie & M. Jahoda (Eds.), Sludies in the scope and tnerhod of flte aalhorilarian personali[v. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

66 Cowen

Johnson, J.E. (1976). Relations of divergent thinking and intelligence test scores with social and nonsocial make-believe play of preschool children. Child Development, 47, 1200- 1203.

Rubin, K.H. (1976). Relation between social participation and role-taking skills in preschool children. Psychological Reports, 39, 823-826.

Rubin, K.H., & Maioni, T.L. (1975). Play preference and its relationship to egocentrism, popularity, and classification skills in preschool children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 21, 151-170.

Rubin, K.H., Maioni, T.L., & Hornung, M. (1976). Free play behaviors in middle- and lower- class preschoolers: Parten and Piaget revisited. Child Developnrenf, 47, 414-419.

Saltz, E., & Johnson, J. (1974). Training for thematic-fantasy play in culturally disadvantaged children: Preliminary results. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 623-630.

Starr, S. (1970). How to reduce authoritarianism among teachers: The human development approach. Journal of Educational Research, 63, 367-372.

Smilansky, S. (1968). The dfece of sociodramatic play on disadvantaged preschool children. New York: Wiley.

Smith, P.K. (1977). Social and fantasy play in young children. In B. Tizard & D. Harvey (Eds.), Biology of play. London: Spastics International Medical Publications.