Everyone Playing in Class: a group play provision for enhancing the emotional well-being of children...

Everyone Playing in Class: a group play provisionfor enhancing the emotional well-being ofchildren in schoolbjsp_520 178..190

Alison Woolf

‘Everyone Playing in Class’ is an unstructured freeplay based provision for small classes or groups.The intervention involves training staff in attach-ment theory, presenting up-to-date research find-ings on the role of play in emotional well-being andrelationship building, as well as teaching reflectivecommunication skills. In this article Alison Woolf,who is a Member of British Association of PlayTherapists (BAPT), describes how these weeklyclass play sessions can provide experiences that arebeneficial for staff and for pupils. The essential ele-ments that create the therapeutic intervention aredescribed and explored, and set in context throughtheir relationship to SEAL. The ethical consider-ations of school staff providing therapeutic oppor-tunities are considered. Results of pre- andpost-intervention assessments are given, and theresponses of staff and pupils to the sessions aresummarised. Results show improvements for pupilsin the areas of self-esteem and of social develop-ment. Most significantly the results demonstrate anincrease in the staff’s ability to understand andrespond to the children in their class.

Key words: play, SEAL, therapeutic interventions,attachment, group work, pupil-teacher relationship.

IntroductionEveryone Playing in Class (EPIC) is a weekly half-hour freeplay session for the whole class group. The session uses thetherapeutic medium of play (Cattanach, Stagnitti & Cooper,2009), the importance of the adult–child relationship (Cha-loner, 2001), the educative tenet of returning learning to thelearner (Zull, 2002) and the social learning environment ofthe group (Slavin, 2002). The training for school staff inreflective play skills includes theory on attachment, neuro-science and play. This article sets out to introduce this groupplay intervention which provides opportunities for develop-ing the five strands of the Social and Emotional Aspects ofLearning (SEAL): Motivation, Empathy, Self-awareness,Managing Feelings and Social Skills (DfE, 2011b). Every-one Playing in Class is a weekly half-hour play session for asmall group with their classroom staff member(s) and a playtherapist. The sessions are not directed by adults but thepupils’ choices and play themes are reflected on by staff asthey observe, or, if invited, play alongside. Core elements of

the intervention are summarised as: Language, Bonding,Boundaries and Play. EPIC sessions are distinctive due tothe reflections of the adults (Language), the opportunity fordeveloping relationships (Bonding), the different limits andthe way they are given (Boundaries) and the use of Play asthe medium for expression and exploration. These elementsare identified by Chaloner (2001) in his whole-class playintervention, Play and Language to Succeed (PALS).

The article also presents an evaluative study of the pro-gramme and considers whether a weekly half-hour free playsession for a class group, run by staff trained in reflectiveresponses, can provide important opportunities for pupils’social and emotional development and opportunities forstaff to increase understanding and insight.

The article begins by introducing the role of play in buildingattachment relationships, and the relevance to school staff–pupil interactions. The provision is set in the context ofrecent literature on the use of play in schools and in thecontext of current provision of therapeutic interventionswithin education. The EPIC intervention is described andthe ethical considerations surrounding the programme areacknowledged. The possible efficacy of the programme isconsidered and illustrated with an explanation of how theintervention has been evaluated through qualitative andquantitative questions in a small-scale research study of theexperience in one school. The results of the research arepresented and the impact and the limitations of the study arediscussed in the conclusion. The study focuses on threeself-chosen class groups in a primary school for childrenwith social, emotional and behavioural difficulties. Thegroups all asked for EPIC sessions following the introduc-tion of a group play intervention with one class group theprevious year. The project was initially created as a needs-driven response for one class group, and in response to thestaff and pupil feedback on the experience, the other twoclasses requested inclusion in the programme. The qualita-tive responses to the study suggest the intervention contin-ues to be appreciated and valued by pupils and adults. Thequantitative data, while limited, also suggest the interventionis of value to all participants.

Research contextThe research was carried out in a primary school for chil-dren with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties in

EMOTIONAL WELL-BEING IN CHILDREN

© 2011 The Author. British Journal of Special Education © 2011 NASEN. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road,Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8578.2011.00520.x

England. These children all have some level of difficultywhich impairs their ability to trust their environment and todevelop positive relationships with others. Pupils have arange of experiences and difficulties; the school has a highproportion of looked after children, as well as many chil-dren who have experienced loss, exclusion, and disruptionsat home and at school (37% of the pupils involved in EPICwere in foster care, extended family care or a residentialplacement). Many of the school population have a range oflearning difficulties and difficulties with social relation-ships (25% of the EPIC group pupils moved on to special-ist provision for those on the autistic spectrum, or werereceiving medication for attention deficit/hyperactivity dis-order). Because of the pupils’ behavioural difficulties theyhave often been excluded from play experiences, over-controlled in free play times and limited in the playresources to which they are given access. This deniesaccess to the very experiences these children need (Pank-sepp, 2004).

Everyone Playing in Class was created in response to oneclass group’s needs for enhancing peer relationships, creat-ing group cohesion and providing a regular time where staffcould enjoy being with the children (Chaloner, 2001; Slavin,2002). The positive feedback from the class staff led to otherteachers asking for the same intervention to become part oftheir class weekly provision. The name Everyone Playing inClass (EPIC) was chosen as the school already had Every-one Reading in Class (ERIC) as part of the provision. Thegroup sessions built on the school provision of individualpupil–teacher play sessions (Woolf, 2008), with many staffalready trained to work with play, reflective listening skillsand consistent structures and limits.

The research was carried out during the spring and summerterms in 2008. The Department for Children, Schools andFamilies (TaMHS Project; DCSF, 2008) acknowledged thevalue of ‘play-based approaches’ and recognised the need togather evidence on the efficacy of interventions addressingthe mental health needs of pupils in schools. Ecclestone andHayes (2009), stringent opponents of therapeutic work inschools, state ‘we recognise the need for empirical study ofthe effects of therapeutic education on teachers’ and stu-dents’ attitudes to learning and education’.

The evaluation of the project was designed to measure theimpact on both staff and pupils to inform future practice bothfor educators interested in developing ways of working with‘the power of play’ (Elkind, 2007); and for play therapistsworking with school staff to support well-being and learning.

Appropriate consent and assent for material from EPIC ses-sions to be used for training and for publication are routinelyrequested. This study uses anonymous responses frompupils; but it relies mainly on teacher responses and percep-tions. The research was carried out as an evaluation of anintervention that was already ongoing. The researcher is afull member of the British Association of Play Therapistsand adheres to their ethical guidelines for working, research-ing and publishing.

Attachment in schools

‘The quality of teacher–child relationships has taken ona new significance as a growing number of studiessuggest their link with children’s short- and long-termwellbeing’.

(Fumoto, 2011, p. 19)

Attachment relationships in school are increasingly recogn-ised as a powerful aspect of educational provision (Chaloner,2001; Geddes, 2006; Delaney, 2009b; Austin, 2010; Riley,2011). Pupils spend a large proportion of their waking hoursin school and adults working throughout schools hold aposition of unique responsibility for providing a model ofappropriate adult–child relationships. Trusting, consistentand warm relationships mirror early positive attachmentrelationships. In the words of Kesner (2005), ‘Perhaps thereis no other nonfamilial adult that is more significant in achild’s life than his or her teacher’.

Donald Winnicott (1974) first advocated the link betweenplay and attachment relationships. He saw the child’s worldas the playful space between child and parent. The mother–baby peek-a-boo game, the casting to and fro of sounds,movement and facial expressions, were seen by Winnicott asthe natural use of play in developing attachment. Accordingto Chaloner (2001), ‘Play is perhaps the most developmen-tally appropriate and powerful medium for young children tobuild adult–child attachment relationships’. Jennings (2011)continues to make this essential link, insisting that play canbe used to help ‘children, teenagers and young adults’ with‘attachment needs’ and in interventions intending to ‘repairdamaged attachments’. One important role of play is inbuilding relationships; indeed research suggests that ‘foryoung children play is mainly about connecting with others’(Rogers, 2011). School staff–pupil play sessions, whetherindividual or group, are one way to support and enhanceattachment relationships in school.

Play in schoolsPlaying changes the brain (Pellis & Pellis, 2009). Researchinto the effects of rough and tumble play show that duringsuch activity, BDNF, a protein essential for the growth andmaintenance of brain cells, is increased (Gordon, Burke,Akil, Watson & Panksepp, 2003; DeBenedet & Cohen,2010). Panksepp (2004) describes how rough and tumbleplay rewires neural networks; concurring with the findingsof Pellis and Pellis (2009), suggesting that experiences ofplay fighting in rats can be shown to lead to organisationalchanges in the brain. Research in primates and rats can nowbe supplemented with research in humans using recentadvances in brain imaging. Play not only creates connectionsbetween neurons – joining the dots and making sense ofknowledge – it makes new connections between differentparts of the brain (Brown, 2009), making links betweenthought and emotion and rational and creative left and rightbrain centres.

Play is the work of childhood and the primary essentialcomponent of EPIC. For primary-aged children, ‘play is

© 2011 The Author. British Journal of Special Education © 2011 NASEN British Journal of Special Education · Volume 38 · Number 4 · 2011 179

their self-actualization, a holistic exploration of who andwhat they are and know and of who and what they mightbecome’ (Broadhead, 2004). Play in the early years contin-ues to be acknowledged as an important tool for learningand for physical well-being (Broadhead, 2004; Moyles,2005; COSLA, 2008; Rose, 2008). Recent literature recog-nises the value of play for emotional and social well-being,and the need for free play and play for its own sake ratherthan as a vehicle for curriculum learning (Sayeed & Guerin,2000; Broadhead, 2004; Cattanach et al., 2009). The role ofplay for supporting emotional growth, and the likelihoodthat a lack of free play leads to mental health difficulties, hasalso been recognised (Slade, 1995; Mears, 2005; NUT,2007). The value of play experiences for Key Stage 2 chil-dren, the class groups examined in this study, appears to beless readily available. Elkind (2007) describes how betweenthe ages of eight and 12 (Key Stage 2 children in England),‘play becomes more prominent than it was during the pre-ceding period’. Yet this is an age range where the research ismore scarce; the lack of writing about eight- to 12-year-olds’access to and use of play means that this is an area that needsaddressing.

A review of the Welsh Assembly Government FoundationPhase Pilots (Estyn, 2007) stated that teachers delivering thephase to three- to seven-year-olds are struggling on how tobalance free play and adult interventions. Estyn (2007) rec-ommend that guidance be given to teachers to address thecriticism that some were allowing children to ‘play aim-lessly’. Making value judgements about children’s playneeds the adult to have in-depth knowledge and understand-ing of both child development and of the forms and func-tions of play (Chazan, 2002; Cattanach et al., 2009).‘Aimless’ play may say as much about the ‘feelings, needsand beliefs’ (Chaloner, 2005) of the child as play whichappears to be engaging, purposeful and challenging.Observing play for the communication it conveys may helpadults to respond to the needs of the individual.

Literature on empowering teachers to respond therapeuti-cally to children’s verbal or play communications exists(Mallon, 1987; Blackard, 1997; White, Draper & Flynt,2003; Chaloner, 2005; Peabody, 2006; Woolf, 2008). Thisliterature informs that play offers ‘catharsis’ (Moyles, 2005);and allows for reflection, re-framing, integration and trans-formation (Chazan, 2002). Play for emotional well-beingneeds a benign environment in which to flourish and bloom.Adult responses to the playing child can stifle expressionand development, just as they can encourage them (Woolf,2001; Mears, 2005). Play provision attached to expectations,direction, purpose and design ceases to be free play. In thewords of Twain (1992), ‘Work consists of whatever a body isobliged to do, and . . . play consists of whatever a body is notobliged to do’. Play’s limitless potential of ‘what if . . . ’,and its ‘seemingly chaotic and anarchic qualities’, are ‘pre-cisely what makes it of such benefit to children’s develop-ment and well-being’ (Rogers, 2011).

‘Unstructured play’ is a vital component for developingempathy in children (Szalavitz & Perry, 2011); getting to

know peers by just being together in play increases empathyin children (Szalavitz & Perry, 2011; Edmiston, 2011).Frank (1982) describes play as a medium for learning whatcannot be taught; an opportunity where ‘empathy’, one ofthe SEAL strands addressed through EPIC, is ‘caught nottaught’ (Gordon, 2009). The play experiences in EPIC arelikely to increase self-regulation, a difficulty experienced bymany pupils, including the significant number of pupils withAD/HD. ‘Practicing other- and self-regulation in play pre-pares the foundation for more advanced deliberate behav-iours’ (Bodrova & Leong, 2011). This benefit of playaddresses the SEAL strand of ‘managing feelings’. Self-chosen play encourages ‘motivation’; ‘the child at playappears to be purposefully engaged in a job that “needsdoing” ’ (Brooker, 2011). The attuned awareness of the adultto the playing child and the adult reflections on their playincrease the child’s ‘self-awareness’.

The provision of play times with appropriate play materialsunlocks a world of magical potential. The rationale behindthe approach of EPIC maintains:

• the centrality of play for child development,emotional well-being and self-expression (Cattanach,1992; Mears, 2005; Cattanach et al., 2009);

• the ability of the child to ‘heal’ herself if given theopportunity to do so (Erikson, 1995; West, 1996;Chazan, 2002);

• the importance of attachment relationships for healthand for learning (Karen, 1998; Gerhardt, 2004;Geddes, 2006; Perry, 2009).

Therapeutic interventions in school

‘There is a great deal of overlap between theprofessions of teaching and counselling. Both often endup doing similar work: helping people develop into thebest people they can become’.

(Riley, 2011, p. 104)

The provision of therapeutic interventions in schools isgrowing (Adams, 2000; DCSF, 2008; WAG, 2008; Eccle-stone & Hayes, 2009) but adequate training in the necessaryskills to implement programmes and appropriate supportand safe-guarding for staff providing new interventions arenot keeping up. Some educators feel that recent require-ments for schools increasingly to address social and emo-tional needs has led to the use of inappropriate therapy ortherapeutic interventions being provided by staff not quali-fied, experienced or confident in delivering such work(Finney, 2006; Estyn, 2007). Ecclestone and Hayes (2009)believe that ‘therapeutic education leads schools to take anextended and intrusive role in children’s socialisation’. Theyargue that political agendas may introduce areas of personaldevelopment into the education curriculum that they believeshould lie with others outside of schools. The increasingemphasis on emotional well-being and good mental healthin schools (DCSF, 2008; DfE, 2011a) mean this is a discus-sion that needs to take place and will engender strong feel-ings on both sides of the argument. Expectations of teachers

180 British Journal of Special Education · Volume 38 · Number 4 · 2011 © 2011 The Author. British Journal of Special Education © 2011 NASEN

are that they will be involved in noticing, supporting andmaking decisions about pupils in their care who experiencechallenging life events. Professional standards Q12b andC25 state that teachers must:

‘Know how to identify and support children and youngpeople whose progress, development or well-being isaffected by changes or difficulties in their personalcircumstances, and when to refer them to colleagues forspecialist support’.

(TDA, 2007)

While we need to be cautious of ‘therapeutic education’,some writers acknowledge the benefits of being the primaryagent for delivering programmes, following appropriatetraining and with ongoing professional support (Peabody,2006; Williford & Shelton, 2008; Woolf, 2008). Theapproach of empowering teachers, using interventions‘exported from controlled clinical settings into communitysettings’ (Williford & Shelton, 2008), is the subject of recentand current investigation (White, Draper & Flynt, 2003;Joseph, Webster-Stratton & Reid, 2006; Peabody, 2006;Woolf, 2008). While ‘mental health needs of children mustbe shared by the entire community’ (Peabody, 2006), furthertraining and understanding is required if these provisions areto be effective (Finney, 2006).

The Welsh Assembly National Strategy for School-basedCounselling Services in Wales (Welsh Assembly Govern-ment, 2008, p. 8) states:

‘Counselling skills are used by many people whowork with children and young people in a specificrole such as teachers, school nurses, youth workersand social workers. These skills include listeningin a non-judgemental way, being empathic andhelping people to feel valued and understood. Therole and responsibilities of the individualprofessional will determine the boundaries of theirworking practice’.

During EPIC sessions the adults in class use these ‘active’listening skills and reflective responses as they follow thechild, to facilitate the process of the child, to build awarenessand understanding in the child, and to let children know theyare attended to and understood.

‘The majority of children respond well to consistency,clear rules, boundaries and fairness’ (Delaney, 2009a), andconsistent, positive relationships with adults in schools arelikely to create an environment where children will learn(Elkind, 2007). The attachment relationship is pivotal increating secure bases in classrooms where children feelsafe to explore and to grow (Geddes, 2006; Elkind, 2007).A knowledge of, and willingness to work with, attachmenttheory, helps school staff make sense of the world of eachchild. This demands an acknowledgement of the part eachadult plays in each relationship; just as SEAL requiresthat children develop self-awareness, so increased self-awareness in staff enhances relationships in school. As

Riley (2011) puts it, ‘A fundamental premise . . . is that theteacher–student relationship is dyadic, not unidirectional,in attachment terms’. Increasing acknowledgement of theimpact of adult responses to pupils across the school day(Delaney, 2009b) and the growing understanding of theimportance of reflective teaching (Austin, 2010) informthe training for and the ongoing supervision of EPICsessions.

There are necessary and important concerns about thera-peutic work in schools. The quality of the staff chargedwith providing such provision needs careful consideration,as their knowledge, experience, skill and personal attributeswill impact on outcomes. If we believe all children wouldbenefit from being safe enough to play and to learn, thenwe will recognise that some pupils need additional under-standing from the staff in our schools if we are to respondto their needs adequately. Recent and constantly developingknowledge about brain development and learning mayindicate that educators and therapists are both in the samebusiness: ‘the art of changing the brain’ (Zull, 2002). ‘Edu-cation and therapy might be seen not so much about knowl-edge but rather about awakening . . . by imparting andacquiring through the relational’ (Lowenthal, 2006, cited inEcclestone & Hayes, 2009). Chaloner (2001) explains howcommunication skills that mirror the responses of a coun-sellor are actually processing the world for the child.Webster-Stratton (2010) calls this language ‘coaching’;vocabulary in use both in the world of education and of‘self-help’ or psycho-educational programmes. Ecclestoneand Hayes (2009) fear that addressing the attachment or‘nurture’ needs of pupils ‘shifts attention to the emotionaldeficits of the individual’. However, reflective adults inEPIC sessions pay attention to strengths and autonomy ofpupils who work things out for themselves, persevere,create solutions and develop new skills. The developing andcreating, rather than the being taught, empowers rather thanfocuses on weakness.

Providing free play in schools may not be controversial, andbeing with a playing child, processing for her the work she isdoing and creating an environment where safe explorationoccurs may not sound contentious. However ‘teaching theunteachable’ (Delaney, 2009a) and providing EveryonePlaying in Class (Woolf, 2009) require teachers to learn newskills, develop increased self-awareness and engage withreflective practice. Reflection, whether within a therapeuticrelationship or within time allowed for the learning cycle tobe completed (Zull, 2002), changes who we are.

In the project school for children with social, emotional andbehavioural difficulties many classes are all male; with onlyone female in the group examined in this study. EPIC isintended to address the need outlined by Francis and Skelton(2006, cited in Ecclestone & Hayes, 2009) for boys to bereconnected to ‘a sense of belonging and identity which willprovide both hope and self-reliance’. However, Ecclestoneand Hayes (2009) feel therapeutic interventions in schoolactually promote vulnerability and are the cause of ‘chil-dren’s preoccupation with themselves’. The group setting of


EPIC provides opportunities for reflecting on the self inrelationship to others, rather than a total immersion in theneeds, beliefs and feelings of the self in a vacuum. Thenon-directive nature of EPIC sessions allows students toengage at the level they feel safe and avoids the ‘potentiallycoercive dimension’ (Furedi, 2004) of turn taking or directedactivities.

Much anecdotal evidence, as well as recent literature(Geddes, 2006; Bomber, 2007; Elkind, 2007; Delaney,2009a; Perry, 2009), concurs with Chaloner’s (2006) con-clusion that ‘establishing an attachment with a teacher was aprimary healing component’. If his assertion that ‘researchclearly suggests that having a secure attachment with ateacher can partially compensate for an insecure one with aparent’ (Chaloner, 2001) is true, then we are working with anestablished phenomenon. While safeguarding children, andindeed, adults, is of primary importance, the therapeuticnature of pupil–teacher relationships is a force to beworked with.

‘Ongoing, on-site consultation based on not only the child’sneeds but also the capabilities of the teacher and his/hergoals for the classroom’ not only improves teacher–childrelationships but also ‘may increase teacher efficacy’ (Wil-liford & Shelton, 2008). Providing additional support forschool staff through consultation, based on the clinicalmodel of supervision (described in detail in Austin, 2010),alongside appropriate training (such as Webster-Stratton,1999; White et al., 2003; Woolf, 2010), may be a responsi-bility the profession would be negligent to overlook.

Everyone Playing in Class – a description of an interventionEPIC builds on two evidence-based interventions:

1. Filial Therapy (Guerney, 1997; VanFleet, 2000;Bratton, Ray, Rhine & Jones, 2005) is an attachmentbased ‘psycho-educational’ programme, where play,empathic listening skills, structures and boundariesare used by parents in individual weekly therapeuticplay sessions with their child. Filial Therapy has beenadapted for school-based programmes; models such asKinder Training (White et al., 2003), ‘Say What YouSee’ (Blackard, 1997) and Better Playtimes (Woolf,2008) use trained teaching staff to work withindividual pupils.

2. Positive Attachments and Learning to Succeed (PALS)(Chaloner, 2001, 2005, 2006) is a school-based,whole-class play model using Bonding, Boundariesand Language to support child development andwell-being.

EPIC is a free play intervention combining the strengths ofthese two programmes. School staff are trained in therapeu-tic play skills and in the theory behind sessions and how toimplement the intervention (White et al., 2003; Chaloner,2001; Woolf, 2008). Play therapists delivering the trainingare taught how to train adults to play with the child orchildren in their care.

Sessions draw on:

• the therapeutic medium of play;• the therapeutic experience of a consistent relationship;• the therapeutic environment of consistent structures,

limits and consequences;

• the psycho-educational value of play;• the psycho-educational benefit of the adult processing

of experience;• the psycho-educational experience of the child being

in charge of her own learning;

• the psycho-social medium of group work;• the psycho-social learning through the adult

processing of interactions and relationships;• the psycho-social experience of problem solving in

relationships without adult direction.

In a school for children with a Statement of Special Educa-tional Needs, the class will be small – typically around eightchildren, one teacher and one or more teaching and learningassistants (TLA). The class and the two staff members arejoined for the weekly half-hour session by the therapist. Fiveplay ‘stations’ are created and the variety of play media ischosen with consideration of the stages of play development(Jennings, 1999); sensory play, small world play and roleplay. The sessions have a consistent structure, with the time,place and adults being constant. The start and end of ses-sions are clearly signalled by the class teacher, with thegroup being in charge of the play in the time in between.

The boundaries of the play session are contained within asfew limits as are necessary for safeguarding the child(ren),adult(s) and property. The limits in EPIC can be summed upas: ‘as few limits as possible but as many as necessary’(PTUK, 2011).

When a child breaks a limit, or moves toward breaking alimit, they are made aware of the limit. If that limit is brokenor challenged again, the warning of a consequence is given.The only consequence is that a child will have to leave theplay station where the limit is broken, and not be able toreturn there for the rest of that play session. A third chal-lenge to the limit results in the consequence.

Some children move between play stations, while othersspend the whole 30 minutes in one place. The choice of playand the pairings and groupings are up to the children withinthe limits of numbers set by the staff. Whether a child usesone area for five sessions or samples all five areas in onesession is up to each child, dependent on availability. Obser-vation of the internal motivation of the child, and hearingevaluation interviews with pupils suggest that the childknows what he or she needs to do, or knows what he or sheis not yet able to address or explore.

In the play stations children struggle, negotiate, dominate orgive way and staff give language to the playing out, facili-tating awareness and mental processing. The creation of abenign environment may encourage children to try out new


ways of responding or rehearse different possibilities. Thenon-directive nature of play sessions means children learnabout themselves and their world, while not being taught.

The sessions are for the whole group, adults and childrenalike; providing ‘bonding’ (Chaloner, 2001) experiences andtime for child-led learning about relationships and aboutothers and their effect on them, the SEAL strands of manag-ing feelings and developing social skills. Trained school staffuse the counselling skills of active listening and reflectivecommunication to support the development of the SEALstrands of self-awareness and of empathy. Each child issupported but not directed, and external direction is absent, soany engagement is driven by internal motivation. Due to theabsence of direction, task focus or adult expectation foroutcomes, responsibility lies with the child for managing thetime, their relationship to others and finding appropriatestrategies for managing feelings and interactions. The chil-dren were not ‘taught’ how to engage in the play sessions;they learned ways of engaging that worked for them. Byallowing the children to explore play and relationships in theirown unique way the adults saw the levels of social andemotional skills of each child. This observation opportunityfed into some teachers’ planning for other teaching time, orclass discussion time during the school week.

Sessions provide reflection time and reflective adult supportto complete the learning cycle of concrete experience,reflective observation, abstract hypothesising and activetesting (Zull, 2002). Geldard and Geldard (1997) describehow facilitators of groups ‘interrupt’ activity to allow time toprocess material, and process issues after the session by‘asking questions’ in order to ‘achieve goals’. In FilialTherapy (VanFleet, 2000) the processing is ongoing as theadults verbalise and reflect on the play as it develops. This isthe method used by the adults during EPIC sessions.

‘When teachers model this process by giving languagethey literally loan their brain’s language andcause–effect thinking centers to the child. This buildsconnections between the child’s feeling and thinkingcenters in the brain critical to impulse control’.

(Chaloner, 2005, p. 2)

Chaloner defines themes observed in play as:

‘the feelings, needs, and beliefs children have aboutthemselves and their world; and drivers as the feelings,needs, and beliefs that children have which determinetheir patterns of behaviours, relationships, expectationsand difficulties’.

(Chaloner, 2001, pp. 373–4)

During play sessions adults name the ‘drivers’ of children’sactions and reactions, and the themes of their narratives anddramas.

Paying attention to the playing children in the group, withoutthe pressure of teaching, extending, guiding or assessing,allows for understanding and empathy to develop in the

adult and awareness to develop in the child (Adams,2000; Woolf, 2010). The acceptance of the adult is uncon-ditional and explicit, allowing the child to feel valued andunderstood.

The group dynamic is another element of EPIC that is partof its core essence. EPIC sessions are inclusive and treatedas part of the class school day. A group approach has manybenefits, allowing the child to:

‘Discover peers have problems too; Feel a sense ofbelonging; Experience peer reactions and feedback in asafe environment; Learn vicariously; Help and behelped’.

(Berg & Landreth, 1998, p. 258)

The whole-class approach helps to reduce the ‘risk of stig-matization’ while providing ‘a common problem-solvingvocabulary for the entire class’ (Joseph et al., 2006).

Individual work with a child, while offering the space todevelop an enhanced attachment relationship between adultand child, and giving time to explore feelings and experi-ences through play, offers no direct opportunity for experi-encing, acknowledging and reflecting on peer relationships.This can often be one of the issues that a child experiencingdifficulties in school struggles with. Each class is already agroup – a recreation of the family – and it is the relationshipswithin that group, the roles, the scripts, the responses and thestruggles that most affect the members of that group.Working with the already established class offers the mostpotential for change that may benefit the group as a whole,as well as each individual child. The ‘limitation’ that chil-dren may find difficulty ‘generalising learning outside thegroup’ (Geldard & Geldard, 2001) does not apply to a classwho are the social setting in which group members need tolearn to function and develop.

The benefits of work in class may be that:

‘Groups can promote change; a group can parallel thewider environment; a group provides a sense ofbelonging; common needs can be addressed in a group;groups are cost effective ’

(Geldard & Geldard, 2001, p. 4)

Learning about group process and the positions of membersin a group (Dwivedi, 1993; Slavin, 2002; Toseland, Jones &Gellis, 2004) helps adults to respond more appropriately toindividuals, sub-groups and the group as a whole.

In group sessions children play out their own narratives,practice social skills, rehearse for risk-taking, experiencesuccess and autonomy and negotiate with peers to meet theirneeds (Dwivedi, 1993; Slavin, 2002). The time for child-ledplay also helps staff to observe children’s struggles andstrengths, be they social, emotional or in managing withinthe environment and processing experience. Teaching staffhave the permission to just ‘be with’ their pupils, and thesupport to help to make sense of what they see. Helping staff


and children to understand the drives and motivations under-lying behaviours can help to increase warmth and trust in theclassroom and lead to changes in behaviours and responsesfrom both sides (Dreikurs, Grunwald & Pepper, 1971).

The researchThree classes in a primary school in England for childrenwith social, emotional and behavioural difficulties heldweekly EPIC sessions over a period of 20 weeks betweenJanuary and July in 2008. Although class numbers vary(from four to seven children), adult numbers are consistentacross the groups, with three in each: the class teacher, LTAand play therapist. The ratio of staff to pupils thereforevaries with each group; from 1:1.3 to 1:2.3. Within the classgroups involved in the intervention each child has a State-ment of Special Educational Needs in the area of social,emotional and behavioural difficulties:

• Group A: a class of seven Year 6 children aged ten to11, six boys and one girl;

• Group B: a class of four Year 4 children aged eight tonine, all boys;

• Group C: a class of five Year 3 and 4 children agedseven to eight, all boys.

The class teachers and support staff had completed appro-priate training (Woolf, 2008), and co-facilitated sessionswith the school’s play therapist.

Quantitative evaluationThe evaluation was of eight selected strands, a shorterversion of an evaluation used previously to evaluate indi-vidual play sessions (Woolf, 2008). The class teachers wereasked to score the eight strands for each child between 1,meaning a little, and 10, meaning a lot. This scale providedsome quantitative data, often hard to collect through subjec-tive questions. The eight strands were scored both before andafter the 20 sessions, and teacher perceptions of changes inthe behaviours and attitudes of pupils were assessed.

Teacher’s perceptions of the value of the sessions’ coreelements (language, bonding, boundaries, play) were lookedat pre- and post-intervention to monitor change. The teach-ers ordered elements in order of importance from 1, mostimportant, to 4, least important. After 20 sessions thesescores were re-assessed and the scores for individual chil-dren in each class were collated together to give the classoverall pre- and post-intervention scores.

Qualitative evaluationResponses to a written questionnaire (Table 1) gave a viewof the three teachers’ experience of EPIC. Children wereinterviewed individually using a set of questions (Table 2) inorder to gauge their sense of the experience of EPIC.

Quantitative results (Table 3)Looking at the class scores a movement of 1 point along thegraded scale in each area is taken as an indication of devel-opment that could be expected over 20 weeks of a schoolyear (assuming no development without an EPIC

intervention is unrealistic), both in pupil maturity and in theteacher’s knowledge of the pupil. Only scores above 1 pointare included in the summary of results as potentiallyrelevant.

Group AThe mean results for the class demonstrate that the teacherperception of change in the children (questions 1–5) showsthat improvements were made in the areas of self-esteem andof the ability to play sociably (questions 3 and 5). Theteacher recognises the biggest change to be in her under-standing of individual children (questions 6 and 7). Theother four questions (1, 2, 4 and 8) show no notable change.

The teacher’s feelings about the importance of the fourelements in play sessions after the 20 sessions showed achange in order for all four areas addressed by the interven-tion (Table 4). Bonding and play both increased in impor-tance, while boundaries and language both decreased. Therelationships and the medium were seen as more importantthan had been anticipated, while the use of limits and lan-guage were less important.

Group BThe teacher perception of change for class group B includedan improvement in the ability to express feelings, the devel-opment of self-esteem, and the ability to play without closeadult supervision (questions 1, 3 and 4). Pupils’ ability to

Table 1: Teacher evaluation – qualitative

1. How have you found the experience of using EPIC sessionsin class?

2. What are the best things about the approach?3. What are the difficulties with the approach?4. How has life in your class changed over the course of this

intervention?5. Which areas of a child’s life do you feel are most helped

through EPIC?6. Which things in EPIC have most helped you?7. What about EPIC has most helped the class as a whole?8. Have you changed the way you think or feel about your

class and each of the children?

Table 2: Pupil interview questions

1. Do you enjoy your class EPIC play times?2. How are the sessions different to other times you play with

children here at school?3. Can you think why you choose to play with the things that

you do?4. Can you think how EPIC play in class might help you and

how you feel?5. Can you think how EPIC play in class might help you and

how you behave?6. What would you say to children in another class who are

soon going to start play sessions?


manage conflicts and to play sociably with peers showed alarger increase, as did the teacher’s understanding of herpupils (questions 6 and 7). This teacher also felt morehopeful about the future potential of the individuals in thegroup (question 8). This class group was the initial group theintervention was created to support. It was also the smallestgroup with the ratio of adult to child in sessions beinggreatest.

The value of play for children was recognised as far moreimportant post-intervention than had been credited beforethe sessions in the ordering of elements for the programme.Bonding, the relationship between pupil and adult, wasacknowledged by the teacher as the most important elementboth before and after the sessions. Language and boundariesboth decreased in importance.

Group CThe scores for this group (questions 1–5) show that theteacher perceived improvements for each area, with thebiggest change being in the area of managing conflict (ques-tion 2). A notable increase is shown in the teacher’s under-standing of her pupils (questions 6 and 7). The hope forfuture progress for the group (question 8) shows no notableincrease.

For this teacher bonding increased in importance, while theneed for limits and boundaries decreased. Play was leastimportant both pre- and post-intervention, while languagestarted and remained secondary to bonding and boundaries.

Across the three groups, the teacher of the largest group, A,recorded notable improvements in fewer areas than theteachers of the two smaller groups. The adult–child ratiocould be a factor in this, or possibly the impending transitionfor these Year 6 children, about to leave the school and moveon to the next stage of their education, influenced the result.The teacher of this oldest group was alone in not recordingimprovements in the group’s ability to manage conflict. Inthis area numbers of staff to children in the room could beinfluential, possibly with the presence of more staff makingconflict less likely to arise. Both smaller, younger groupsimproved in the ability to express feelings; this was not seenin the Year 6 class. Age may have been the factor here, withYear 3 and 4 children being more likely to be showingmarked developments in language acquisition and use aswell as in developing their awareness of feelings and con-gruent actions than their older, more mature counterparts.

Qualitative resultsThe three class teachers’ responses to questions abouttheir experience of EPICTeachers reported that they found the experience of EPIC‘enlightening’ and ‘beneficial’ (question 1). ‘Quality time

Table 3: EPIC evaluation: Teacher perception ofchange

Pre-intervention italics – Post-intervention underlinedPlease circle a number between 1-10 to answer each

question.1 is very little – 10 is to a greater degree.

1. How able do you feel the child is to express feelingsverbally, and non-verbally?

Overall 1 2 3 3.5 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Class A 3 4Class B 4.5 8Class C 3.5 6

2. How able do you feel the child is to work through conflictsand communicate their struggles?

Overall 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Class A 3 4Class B 4 8Class C 2 6

3. What level would you feel describes the child’sself-confidence and self-esteem?

Overall 1 2 3 3.5 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Class A 3 5Class B 5 8.5Class C 3 6

4. How able do you feel to trust the child to engage in play inclass without needing constant supervision?

Overall 1 2 3 4 5 6 6.5 7 8 9 10Class A 4 5Class B 5 8.5Class C 4 6

5. How able is the child to co-operate, share, and play sociablywith another child?

Overall 1 2 3 4 5 6 6.5 7 8 9 10Class A 3 5Class B 4 9Class C 4 6

6. How able do you feel to understand what motivates thebehaviours of the child?

Overall 1 2 3 3.5 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Class A 3 6Class B 5 9Class C 3 7

7. What level would you feel describes your depth ofunderstanding of the particular child

Overall 1 2 3 3.5 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Class A 3 6Class B 5 9Class C 3 7

8. How hopeful do you feel about the child making andmaintaining improvement this year?

Overall 1 2 3 4 5 5.5 6 7 8 9 10Class A 5 6Class B 7 9Class C 5 6

Table 4: EPIC evaluation: teacher priority ofimportance for core elements

Rate the following elements in order of importance, 1, 2, 3, 4,for meeting the needs of the child:

Class overall A B C

Language 3 – 4 3 – 4 3 – 4 3 – 3Bonding 1 – 1 2 – 1 1 – 1 2 – 1Boundaries 2 – 2 1 – 2 2 – 3 1 – 2Play 4 – 3 4 – 3 4 – 2 4 – 4

Note: Pre-intervention italics. Post-intervention underlined.


with the children’, without ‘stress or anxiety about adultreactions’, and ‘how important it is to the children’ were thebest things about the approach (question 2). Teachers acrossthe classes felt learning new ways of being had been difficult(question 3) and ‘not directing’, ‘not rescuing’ and not‘making things better’ were identified as struggles by theadults. They felt classes had become ‘calmer’ and ‘moresettled’. According to the teachers, ‘Stresses in children’srelationships seem to disappear’, ‘children relate to childrenthey don’t usually mix with’ and having ‘a safe place to workthrough issues’ are among the roles EPIC plays in changesin class (question 4). The areas of the children’s lives it mayhelp (question 5) were identified as ‘all areas’, ‘emotionalissues and problems at home’ and the ‘ability to communi-cate’. Reflecting on sessions was identified by all the adultsas the most helpful thing for staff (question 6), while themost helpful thing for the class group (question 7) was‘getting along better’, ‘having responsibility during thetime’ and ‘having an opportunity to play freely’. Teachers allagreed the intervention had changed the way they felt abouttheir classes – ‘I don’t see how it wouldn’t change you’,noted one.

Pupil responses to questions about their experienceof EPICFourteen of the pupils from the three groups were inter-viewed; two children were absent. Some responses werecommon to several interviewees. ‘Don’t know’ was a fre-quent response. Thirteen children replied ‘Yes’ or ‘Yeah’ toquestion 1, about enjoying the sessions, with one replying‘They’re ok’. The same pupil gave a unique answer to ques-tion 2, that the difference in EPIC sessions was ‘funnytalking’. Nine children identified the difference as being inthe resources provided, two did not know and two felt thatthe fact everyone plays including the adults made itdifferent. One child noted that in EPIC sessions ‘no onedisturbs us’.

Asking children why they choose the play areas and thenarratives that they engage in feels like a difficult conceptfor primary age children to grapple with. In response toquestion 3 children replied that they went to areas to joinfriends (two pupils), because they liked that resource inparticular (four pupils), because there was a space there (onepupil) and ‘because you can do almost anything – exceptsmash them’ (one pupil). Four children did not know whatmotivated their choices, one chose an area because ‘you canbe someone different’ and another was able to explain that itwas because he was led by ‘something what tells me to goover there’. Perceptions of how EPIC might help with feel-ings (question 4) included ‘feel better’, ‘cheers me up’ (fivepupils), ‘calms me down’ (two pupils), ‘don’t know’ (threepupils) and ‘makes no difference’ (three pupils). One childexplained that ‘it is a time to tell the teachers how you feel –a time when you can just speak and let them know how wefeel’. This child’s answer to question 5 followed on his trainof thought: ‘You can have fun after you’ve told the teacherswhat your problems are’. One pupil felt that ‘after specialplay I always have a good afternoon’. Another child felt thatit helped but gave no specifics of how, while one felt it ‘helps

me be good’. Another effect was in children being ‘calmer’and ‘more relaxed’ (two pupils). Four pupils responded therewas ‘no difference’ in their feelings after sessions and threechildren did not know what the effects were.

Thirteen children recommended the approach to otherclasses (question 6), feeling other children would ‘enjoy it’and ‘have fun’.

Limitations of the studyThe researcher in this study was also present in all sessions,trained the staff and created the evaluation tool, as well ascollecting the teacher qualitative evaluations and collatingthe data. This combination of roles within the projectmay have compromised the data, possibly inhibiting staffresponses and also through her access to more informationthan the evaluated material alone. All three teachers havechosen to provide EPIC in their classes in the subsequentthree years, possibly suggesting that any positive feedbackwas about their experience, and not solely about a need ordesire to please the researcher. Being the interviewer of allparticipating children as well will almost certainly haveimpacted on their responses. Knowing the interviewer willmean each child will have a relationship with her, and a wayof relating to her, be it positive or negative. Being inter-viewed by an unknown person would also impact onresponses, especially for children who distrust or are wary ofstrangers. The evaluation scale may have been improved byusing a 3-point scale with high, medium and low scores foreach strand. Questions 7 and 8 make the assumption thatEPIC had a positive impact for the group; working with staffweekly over the study impacted on the objectivity of theresearcher. Hearing positive feedback from the start of theintervention led to missed opportunities in creating a clearevaluation that should have included opportunities forexpressing neutral or negative impact as well.

The small size of the study, the lack of any standardisedevaluation tool and the compromise of the researcher/participant role are all considerations in the validity of thedata. However, the study may provide a starting point forfurther study into play interventions for emotional well-being in schools.

Development of the interventionEPIC has developed in this pilot school, staff now choosingto access the intervention in five of the seven classes inschool. The youngest class have not accessed EPIC, theirdevelopmental level being such that individual play experi-ences are needed as a building block prior to engaging ingroup play experiences. The nature of play is such that it canbe a non-verbal way of communicating and processing expe-riences, so engagement in the provision is not dependent ona level of language development. However, play develop-ment is hierarchical (Dockar-Drysdale, 1968; Jennings,2011), solitary play preceding playing alongside, moving onto collaborative peer play, and, while EPIC is about stretchand about challenge, it is also about providing an opportu-nity appropriate to the children’s needs. For the youngestchildren some paired play sessions have been provided as a


more developmentally appropriate provision. One staffgroup found EPIC so valuable for a particular group oneyear that the teacher and LTA held a second session eachweek without the therapist. However, ongoing consultationwith a therapist is important for the staff and the children intheir care and anyone providing EPIC would need ongoingsupervision of the intervention (see Delaney, 2009a; Austin,2010; Riley, 2011). Having the therapist always alongsidehas meant that staff can ask if they feel they need ‘top up’training or more discussion on issues that arise. Morton(2000) believes that ‘teachers can observe and think aboutchildren’s ways of communicating . . . more easily whenthey are with children without being solely in charge’. Otherplay therapists have trained in providing EPIC and it is nowbeing used in a residential EBD school and in mainstreamfor identified groups, withdrawn from their larger class forthe sessions.

ConclusionThe overall findings of the research are that the interventionwas found by all teachers to have:

• increased pupils’ self-esteem;• increased pupils’ ability to engage in social play;• increased teachers’ understanding of their pupils;• demonstrated the importance of ‘bonding’ for pupils’

development and well-being.

All three staff recorded increases in the self-esteem of thechildren over the implementation of the intervention. Pos-sible reasons for this benefit could be that children feltcompetent, effective in their play, valued, listened to andaccepted, and trusted to make choices and be responsible forhow they used the time and resources. Monitoring the inter-vention with a targeted self-esteem assessment tool (forexample, Coopersmith Self Esteem Inventory; Coopersmith,2002) might elicit further clarification and substantiation ofthis finding.

The increase in pupils’ ability to cooperate, share and playsociably demonstrates that children learn skills withoutbeing taught them if adults create a benign environment andprovide play opportunities. In EPIC sessions, by offeringopportunities for free play in a safe, structured and predict-able setting, adults ‘create conditions that lead to change’(Zull, 2002), while playing in a group develops socialproblem solving skills and a sense of kinship and belonging(Chaloner, 2001; Elkind, 2007). Working with an existinggroup, rather than creating a group, means that increasedcohesion, compromise and cooperation carry on throughoutthe school day. This is evidenced in the children’s answersabout the intervention.

All three teachers felt they had substantially increased theirunderstanding of the pupils in their class groups. Peabody(2006) sees the use of paraprofessionals in providing play-based interventions as preventative, and as likely to diminishneed at the ‘treatment end of the continuum’. The findingssuggest that the intervention may be a useful programme forstaff to introduce as a means of fostering understanding.

Music (2009) questioned taking his therapy work from clini-cal settings into schools but has become:

‘convinced that therapeutic skills can be harnessed toprovide exceptionally useful interventions that make ahuge difference not only to the lives of individualpupils but also to teachers, support staff, parents andfamilies, and indeed the institution as a whole.’

(Music, 2009, p. 13)

Future research into this outcome of sessions would be tofind out how increased understanding is then used in plan-ning and providing the curriculum, and in responding to theneeds of individual children.

The importance of the pupil–teacher relationship was agreedacross classes, all three teachers indicating they saw bondingas the most important element after their experience of ses-sions. This finding agrees with Geddes’ (2006) and Elkind’s(2007) views about the vital role of the pupil–teacherrelationship:

‘Teachers are all important at this stage (ages 6–12)and can encourage or discourage a child’s attitude tolearning. Affection for a teacher at this stage facilitateslearning, just as dislike for a teacher can inhibit it’.

(Elkind, 2007, p. 8)

The qualitative questionnaires for staff suggest that reflec-tion on sessions was the most useful part of the programme.Research suggests that reflection time for school staffthrough clinical/consultancy supervision provides thisbenefit without the use of therapeutic play sessions (Shohet,Thorp & Blount, 2005; Austin, 2010; Riley, 2011).

The experience of pupils, that sessions have immediate posi-tive benefits for emotional well-being, suggests that sessionsmay remove some barriers to learning. Further study ofsimilar groups could tease out what are the essential ele-ments of the play sessions for developing emotional well-being. Control groups having play time without specialisttrained support from adults may show that the play itself iskey, rather than the staff skills.

Ecclestone and Hayes (2009) feel it is essential thoseinvolved in education are aware of the potential for harm in‘therapeutic education’, identifying it as ‘a powerful instru-ment of social engineering and control’. It seems that pro-ponents and advocates alike agree that therapeutic work inschools can have dramatic effects. The Ecclestone andHayes (2009, p. 153) view that:

‘knowledge can be taught . . . to people who may bedistraught, upset, happy or content. It does not matter.Knowledge, as it were, conquers all’

is in direct contrast to research indicating that the brain’schemical profile – changed by experiences that leave usfeeling distraught or upset – blocks our ability to learn(Politano & Paquin, 2000; Sunderland, 2009). This


contradiction has been recognised in reflections on thework of Ecclestone and Hayes (Amsler, 2011). The con-clusion to Amsler’s examination of the dangers and ben-efits of focusing on emotional well-being in currentpractices in education seems to describe the opportunityEPIC affords for reflection and the playful consideration:‘what if . . .’:

‘The fundamental task is therefore not to teach peopleto feel about themselves or others in a particular,much less in a determined way and it is not necessar-ily connected to immediate feelings of “well-being”.Rather, the aim is to enable people to understand whythey have certain feelings, desires and needs; why,

perhaps, they do not have or are not “supposed” tohave others; and to critically imagine conditions inwhich radical alternatives may be possible’.

(Amsler, 2011, p. 58)

Further study will help to advance the current argumentabout increasing responsibility for schools to support anddevelop positive mental health. It is an important area forinvestigation, and evidence will help school staff and edu-cation providers to understand the dangers and benefits ofrecent developments. If indeed we are working with a ‘pow-erful instrument’, we have a duty to handle it with under-standing and with care.

ReferencesAdams, S. (2000) ‘Combining teacher and therapist roles:

making the space and taming the dragon’,in N. Barwick (ed.) Clinical Counselling in Schools.London: Routledge.

Amsler, S. (2011) ‘From “therapeutic” to politicaleducation: the centrality of affective sensibility incritical pedagogy’, Critical Studies in Education, 52(1), 47–63.

Austin, D. (2010) ‘Consultancy supervision in schools’,Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties Journal, 15 (2),125–139.

Berg, R. & Landreth, G. (1998) Group Counseling:concepts and procedures (3rd edition). Indiana:Accelerated Development.

Blackard, S. (1997) ‘Say What you See’ Workshops forParents and Teachers [online at http://www.languageoflistening.com].

Bodrova, E. & Leong, D. (2011) ‘Revisiting Vygotskianperspectives on play and pedagogy’, in S. Rogers (ed.)Rethinking Play and Pedagogy in Early ChildhoodEducation: concepts, contexts and cultures. Oxon:Routledge.

Bomber, L. (2007) Inside I’m Hurting. London: WorthPublishing.

Bratton, S., Ray, D., Rhine, T. & Jones, L. (2005) ‘Theefficacy of play therapy with children: a meta-analyticreview of treatment outcomes’, ProfessionalPsychology: Research and Practice,36, 376–390.

Broadhead, P. (2004) Early Years Play and Learning.London: Routledge.

Brooker, L. (2011) ‘Taking play seriously’, in S. Rogers(ed.) Rethinking Play and Pedagogy in Early ChildhoodEducation: concepts, contexts and cultures. Oxon:Routledge.

Brown, S. (2009) Play: how it shapes the brain, opensthe imagination and invigorates the soul. New York:Avery.

Cattanach, A. (1992) Play Therapy with Abused Children.London: Jessica Kingsley.

Cattanach, A., Stagnitti, K. & Cooper, R. (2009) Play asTherapy: assessment and therapeutic interventions.London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Chaloner, W. B. (2001) ‘Counselors coaching teachers touse play therapy in classrooms: the Play and Languageto Succeed (PALS) early, school-based intervention forbehaviorally at-risk children’, in A. A. Drewes, L. J.Carey and C. E. Schaefer (eds) School-based PlayTherapy. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Chaloner, W. B. (2005) Play Therapy in US Elementaryand Preschools: traditional and new applications forcounselor and teacher use [online at http://www.pals4schools.com/downloads/play_therapy_us_9-21-05.pdf].

Chaloner, W. B. (2006) One Therapist’s JourneyIntegrating Child-Centered with Attachment-BasedApproaches to Play Therapy with At-Risk Children[online at http://www.pals4schools.com/downloads/therapist_journey_1-19-06.pdf].

Chazan, S. (2002) Profiles of Play. London: JessicaKingsley Publishers Ltd.

Coopersmith, S. (2002) Coopersmith Self-EsteemInventories. Menlo Park, CA: Mind Garden Inc.

COSLA (Convention of Scottish Local Authorities) (2008)The Early Years Framework I & II. Edinburgh: TheScottish Government.

DeBenedet, A. & Cohen, L. (2010) The Art ofRoughhousing. Philadelphia: Quirk Books.

Delaney, M. (2009a) Teaching the Unteachable. London:Worth Publishing.

Delaney, M. (2009b) ‘How teachers can use a knowledgeof attachment theory to work with difficult-to-reachteenagers’, in A. Perry (ed.) Teenagers and Attachment.London: Worth Publishing.

DCSF (Department for Children, Schools and Families)(2008) The Targeted Mental Health in SchoolsProgramme [online at http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi?pn_id=20080016].

DfE (Department for Education) (2011a) Healthy SchoolsToolkit [online at http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/pupilsupport/pastoralcare/a0075278/healthy-schools].


DfE (Department for Education) (2011b) Primary Socialand Emotional Aspects of Learning: Small Group WorkEvaluation [online at https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/standard/publicationDetail/Page1/DCSF-RB064].

Dockar-Drysdale, B. (1968) Therapy in Child Care.London: Longman.

Dreikurs, R., Grunwald, B. & Pepper, F. (1971)Maintaining Sanity in the Classroom: illustratedteaching techniques. New York:Harper & Row.

Dwivedi, K. N. (ed.) (1993) Group Work with Childrenand Adolescents: a handbook. London: JessicaKingsley Press.

Ecclestone, K. & Hayes, D. (2009) The Dangerous Rise ofTherapeutic Education. Abingdon: Routledge.

Edmiston, B. (2011) ‘ “We are hunters and gatherers ofvalues”. Dramatic play, early childhood pedagogy, andthe formation of ethical identities’, in S. Rogers (ed.)Rethinking Play and Pedagogy in Early ChildhoodEducation: concepts, contexts and cultures. Oxon:Routledge.

Elkind, D. (2007) The Power of Play. Philadelphia: DaCapo Press.

Erikson, E. (1995) Childhood and Society. London:Vintage.

Estyn (Her Majesty’s Inspectorate for Education andTraining in Wales) (2007) The Foundation Stage Pilots.Cardiff: Estyn.

Finney, D. (2006) ‘Stretching the boundaries: schools astherapeutic agents in mental health. is it a realisticproposition?’ Pastoral Care in Education, 24 (3),22–27.

Frank, L. (1982) ‘Play in personality development’, in G.Landreth (ed.) Play Therapy: dynamics of the processof counseling with children. Springfield, IL: Charles C.Thomas.

Fumoto, H. (2011) ‘Teacher–child relationships and earlychildhood practice’, Early Years, 31 (1), 19–30.

Furedi, F. (2004) Therapy Culture: Creating Vulnerabilityin an Uncertain Age. London: Routledge.

Geddes, H. (2006) Attachment in the Classroom. London:Worth Publishing Ltd.

Geldard, K. & Geldard, D. (1997) Counselling Children.London: Sage.

Geldard, K. & Geldard, D. (2001) Working with Childrenin Groups. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Gerhardt, S. (2004) Why Love Matters. Hove: BrunnerRoutledge.

Gordon, M. (2009) Roots of Empathy: changing the worldchild by child. New York: The Experiment.

Gordon, N. S., Burke, S., Akil, H., Watson, S. J. &Panksepp, J. (2003) ‘Socially-induced brain“fertilization”: play promotes brain derivedneurotrophic factor transcription in the amygdala anddorsolateral frontal cortex in juvenile rats’,Neuroscience Letters, 341 (1), 17–20.

Guerney, L. (1997) ‘Filial therapy’, in K. O’Connor andL. Braverman (eds.) Play Therapy: theory and practice.New York: Wiley.

Jennings, S. (1999) Introduction to DevelopmentalPlaytherapy. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Jennings, S. (2011) Healthy Attachments andNeuro-Dramatic-Play. London: Jessica KingsleyPublishers.

Joseph, G. E., Webster-Stratton, C. & Reid, J. (2006)Young Exceptional Children [online at http://www.incredibleyears.com/Library/items/fostering-social-emotional-curriculum_06.pdf].

Karen, R. (1998) Becoming Attached. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Kesner, J. (2005) ‘Gifted children’s relationships withteachers’, International Education Journal, 6 (2),218–223.

Mallon, B. (1987) An Introduction to Counselling Skillsfor Special Educational Needs. Manchester:Manchester University Press.

Mears, R. (2005) The Metaphor of Play: origin andbreakdown of personal being. London: Routledge.

Morton, G. (2000) ‘Working with stories in groups’,in N. Barwick (ed.) Clinical Counselling in Schools.London: Routledge.

Moyles, J. (ed.) (2005) The Excellence of Play.Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Music, G. (2009) ‘Containing not blaming. Counsellingfor Children and Young People (CCYP)’, June, 13–17.

NUT (National Union of Teachers) (2007) Time To Play:NUT play policy. London: Ruskin Press.

Panksepp, J. (2004) Affective Neuroscience: thefoundations of human and animal emotions. New York:OUP.

Peabody, M. A. (2006) ‘Play Therapy for Prevention – APound of Cure’, Social Work Today, 6 (4), 20.

Pellis, S. & Pellis, V. (2009) The Playful Brain: venturingto the limits of neuroscience. Oxford: Oneworld.

Perry, A. (ed.) (2009) Teenagers and Attachment. London:Worth Publishing.

Politano, C. & Paquin, J. (2000) Brain-Based Learningwith Class. Winnipeg: Peguis Pub Ltd.

PTUK (Play Therapy UK) (2011) ‘An introduction to playtherapy’ [online at http://www.playtherapy.org.uk/Resources/Articles/ArticleMBIntro1.htm#First%20Principles].

Riley, P. (2011) Attachment Theory and theTeacher–Student Relationship: a practical guide forteachers, teacher educators and school leaders.Abingdon: Routledge.

Rogers, S. (2011) ‘Play and pedagogy: a conflict ofinterests?’ in S. Rogers (ed.) Rethinking Play andPedagogy in Early Childhood Education: concepts,contexts and cultures. Oxon: Routledge.

Rose, J. (2008) The Independent Review of the PrimaryCurriculum: interim report. London: DCSF.

Sayeed, Z. & Guerin, E. (2000) Early Years Play. London:David Fulton Publishers.

Shohet, R., Thorp, S. & Blount, J. (2005) SupportingTeachers, Transforming Schools. Maidenhead: OpenUniversity Press.

Slade, P. (1995) Child Play. Its importance for humandevelopment. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.


Slavin, R. (2002) ‘Operative group dynamics in schoolsettings; structuring to enhance educational, social andemotional progress’, Group, 26 (4), 297–308.

Sunderland, M (2009) ‘Play, therapy and the developingbrain; learning from neuroscience’. BAPT Conferencekeynote, Birmingham, 27 June.

Szalavitz, M. & Perry, B. (2011) Born for Love. NewYork: Harper.

TDA (Training and Development Agency for Schools)(2007) Professional Standards for Teachers [online athttp://www.tda.gov.uk/teacher/developing-career/professional-standards-guidance/introduction.aspx].

Toseland, R., Jones, L. & Gellis, Z. (2004) ‘Groupdynamics’, in C. Garvin, L. Gutierrez and M. Galinski(eds) Handbook of Social Work with Groups. New York:Guilford Publications.

Twain, M. (1992) Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn.Ware: Wordsworth Editions Ltd.

VanFleet, R. (2000) A Parent’s Handbook of FilialTherapy. Boiling Springs: Play Therapy Press.

Webster-Stratton, C. (1999) How to Promote Children’sSocial and Emotional Competence. London: SagePublications.

Webster-Stratton, C. (2010) Teachers as Coaches [onlineat http://www.incredibleyears.com/Resources/iy_teachers-as-coaches.pdf].

Welsh Assembly Government (2008) School-BasedCounselling Services in Wales. Cardiff: WAG.

West, J. (1996) Child Centred Play Therapy. London:Arnold.

White, J., Draper, K. & Flynt, M. (2003) ‘Kinder training:a school counselor and teacher consultation modelintegrating filial therapy and Adlerian theory’, in R.VanFleet (ed.) Casebook of Filial Therapy. BoilingSprings: Play Therapy Press.

Williford, A. & Shelton, T. (2008) ‘Using mental healthconsultation to decrease disruptive behaviours inpreschoolers: adapting an empirically-supportedintervention’, Journal of Child Psychology andPsychiatry, 49 (2), 191–200.

Winnicott, D. (1974) Playing and Reality. Middlesex:Pelican Books.

Woolf, A. (2001) ‘Adding a new dimension to play in theearly years’, Early Years Educator, 3 (8), 12–15.

Woolf, A. (2008) ‘Better Playtimes training: theory andpractice in an EBD primary school’, Emotional andBehavioural Difficulties, 13 (1), 49–62.

Woolf, A. (2009) ‘Providing therapeutic play for the wholeschool: an undertaking of “EPIC” proportions’, BritishJournal of Play Therapy, 5, 4–22.

Woolf, A. (2010) ‘Better Playtimes: a school-basedtherapeutic play intervention for staff and children’, inA. A. Drewes and C. Schaefer (eds) School-Based PlayTherapy (2nd edition). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Zull, J. (2002) The Art of Changing the Brain: enrichingthe practice of teaching by exploring the biology oflearning. Sterling: Stylus Publishing.

Address for correspondence:Alison WoolfPeartree HouseFrodsham RoadAlvanleyFrodsham WA6 9BYEmail: [email protected]

Article submitted: August 2010Accepted for publication: September 2011


Everyone Playing in Class: a group play provision for enhancing the emotional well-being of children...

Documents

Transcript of Everyone Playing in Class: a group play provision for enhancing the emotional well-being of children...